I had a email discussion with John Nehrich about some of the different names mainly attached to CGW cars and parts. His reasoning was you needed to call it something a persons mind's eye could visualize.

Example: The CGW ARA proposed design box cars had Pullman proprietary doors????? Verses: The CGW X 29s had reverse Creco doors...You can see it!!!

So, the CGW cars with Pullman proprietary ends, either 4/4 or 4/5 are called PS-0s whether they are welded or riveted cars.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just the messenger.
Clark Propst

Clark Propst wrote:

I had a email discussion with John Nehrich about some of the different names mainly attached to CGW cars and parts. His reasoning was you needed to call it something a persons mind's eye could visualize.
Example: The CGW ARA proposed design box cars had Pullman proprietary doors . . .
So, the CGW cars with Pullman proprietary ends, either 4/4 or 4/5 are called PS-0s . . .

This information shows that John's viewpoint on history is much like his approach to architectural history, freight car design history, etc. It is difficult not to be reminded of the Red Queen on nomenclature. One can only say, YMMV.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

Ted writes:

"Should I show you the ARA proceedings where substitution of "standard" (my
term, not the industry's) components (ends, roofs, doors, et al) with those
from car builders' were referred to as Carbuilders'? Car
Builders' Cycs are catalogs, not ARA or AAR proceedings. If you want the
real terms go to the source. You can call it whatever you want. I just don't
appreciate the historical record that we are all creating
being muddled with terms like Reverse Creco, PS-0, etc. How about if we all
agree to use quotation marks so that someone who is learning all of this
twenty years from now sees that there is some distinction being
applied to those terms that are descriptive, but not "official."

Regards,
Ted Culotta"


I agree with the point that Ted makes; however the one term we can't seem to
get around in this hobby is the term "Hat Brace" when we refer to what the
steel industry calls a Round Edged Flange Channel (REFC). Call the local steel
supplier and ask him for a twelve foot piece of, "hat brace metal, you know
the kind they use on those outside braced box cars..."

Greg Martin

Clark, I am not sure John ever said a car with the early PS ends is
a PS-0... When he first coined the term, he was referring to a very
specific all-welded, radial-roofed PS design bought by a number of
railroads. This was brought out as a kit by the RPI club. It has only
become apparent since then that the end was applied to a number
of other car designs (but I don't know of any other application of
the radial PS roof).

Tony's rather gratuitous comment notwithstanding, I still call them
"PS-0" ends and I'll bet Tony an Anchor Steam beer that he knows
EXACTLY what I mean when I use that term. Last time I checked,
that was John's intent -- to communicate an idea -- not to invoke
the blessings of the Historically Approved Terminology Committee.

And I'm grateful as well to whoever coined "Dartnot end". Sure, it's
a "Carbuilder End". Now there's a useful and unambiguous phrase!

Tim O'Connor

On Nov 9, 2005, at 5:11 PM, Clark Propst wrote:

I had a email discussion with John Nehrich about some of the different names mainly attached to CGW cars and parts. His reasoning was you needed to call it something a persons mind's eye could visualize.

Example: The CGW ARA proposed design box cars had Pullman proprietary doors????? Verses: The CGW X 29s had reverse Creco doors...You can see it!!!

This would be fine if Creco actually made the doors, but since they didn't it is more ambiguous than Pullman proprietary, IMHO.

As far as terminology goes, I am in favor of someone scratching their heads wondering what a Carbuilder's end is and looking it up, rather than perpetuating incorrect information. Did your mother tell you to just go on using a word incorrectly or go look it up in the dictionary. Same thing!

Regards,
Ted Culotta

Speedwitch Media
645 Tanner Marsh Road, Guilford, CT 06437
info@...
www.speedwitch.com
(650) 787-1912

Ted,

Show me a dictionary that has a definition for Carbuilder's End.
In fact, show me that all Car Builder's Cyclopedias contain not
only the definition, but that ALL of them have exactly the same
definition. Then I will do as you ask and look it up next time.
Until then, it's a Dartnot to me.

Sorry, but I work in the world of bang/dot/crunch technology,
where words are tortured and mangled and have so many
context-specific meanings that I need a translator to have a
conversation with someone from another company. PS-0 is a
piece of cake compared to that.

Tim O.

I am not sure John ever said a car with the early PS ends is

a PS-0... When he first coined the term, he was referring to a very
specific all-welded, radial-roofed PS design bought by a number of
railroads.
Tim O'Connor

Tim, I'm not sure either, that may have come from Gene's CGW book.
But, as we say at work, you knew what I meant.
Clark Propst

--- In STMFC@..., timboconnor@c... wrote:

Clark, I am not sure John ever said a car with the early PS ends is
a PS-0... When he first coined the term, he was referring to a very
specific all-welded, radial-roofed PS design bought by a number of
railroads. This was brought out as a kit by the RPI club. It has only
become apparent since then that the end was applied to a number
of other car designs (but I don't know of any other application of
the radial PS roof).

Tony's rather gratuitous comment notwithstanding, I still call them
"PS-0" ends and I'll bet Tony an Anchor Steam beer that he knows
EXACTLY what I mean when I use that term. Last time I checked,
that was John's intent -- to communicate an idea -- not to invoke
the blessings of the Historically Approved Terminology Committee.

And I'm grateful as well to whoever coined "Dartnot end". Sure, it's
a "Carbuilder End". Now there's a useful and unambiguous phrase!

Tim O'Connor

Tim, I just can't figure out what's so wrong with using historically correct terms. It's
certainly more desireable than being historically incorrect. Using a correct term, if one
exists, is more desireable than using a phony baloney one that's "cute" or "clever" or made
so obvious even an idiot can figure it out. Of course, the guy that invented it likes it best
(gosh I'm so smart) and tries to promote it whenever he can.

PS-0 while clever, is incorrect (no basis in fact) and illogical, here's why:

- a PS-4 is a Pullman-Standard flat car
- a PS-3 is a Pullman-Standard open hopper car
- a PS-2 is a Pullman-Standard covered hopper car, and
- a PS-1 is a Pullman-Standard box car.

So methinks a PS-0 must be something other than one of the above, certainly not another
box car. A Pullman-Standard refrigerator car?

The problem with all of this modeler's made up stuff is, years from now, myth will be
confused with or substituted for fact. The original intent or genesis will be long forgotten.
History will be corrupted irreversibly. Someone will do a search for "PS-0 box cars" and
find nothing or find some made-up myth. I found it on the internet, it must be true!!!!
Most subscribers to this list get real concerned about duplicating accurate colors,
dimensions, series numbers, weathering, trucks, doors, couplers, wheels, running boards,
hand brakes, etc. So, why not use accurate or correct terms when they exist? - (underline
when they exist) - Why make them up? Let's be consistent with what this list is all about.

While researching passenger car trucks, I came across a phony baloney Pullman truck
nomenclature that a modeler made up. It was being substituted in several publications for
the real Pullman nomenclature and had acquired a life of its own. It's now taken as gospel
in some quarters. And there was no real need for it. If we're going to stay above the
ready-to-run crowd (aka bozos), why not use the correct terms when they exist?

Richard Hendrickson insists we not call a running board a "roof walk." Ben Hom insists we
not call a PRR X29 an X-29. Tony Thompson has killed numerous historical myths
concerning refrigerator cars. It's all consistent. (They are welcome to carry the baton
further).

Having said all of that, I now can't wait to build a "Tan Dot" model of a PRR X-23 (sic)
outside-braced (sic) box car with a wood roof walk (sic), round polling pockets (sic), a
triple valve (sic), wire hand grabs (sic), Andrews trucks with friction bearings (sic), and cast
iron wheels with cooling ribs (sic). Once finished, I think I'll paint it some color. I think box
car red (sic) "sounds" correct. After that, I think I'll build an accurate model of a Boeing
fighting flying gadget (sic) pushed along (sic) by those flame shooter outer thingees (sic).
Ugh! I can't continue this any longer, it's making me sick! See yah!

BTW: don't expect a reply since I'm not going to argue this any further. I'm done.

Proud to be a member and sponsor of the "Historically Approved Terminology Committee"
(HATC) as you call it. RP CYC will continue to use and advocate correct terms whenever
they are applicable. I prefer to educate rather than obfuscate.

Pat Wider

On Nov 9, 2005, at 7:45 PM, timboconnor@... wrote:

Ted,

Show me a dictionary that has a definition for Carbuilder's End.
In fact, show me that all Car Builder's Cyclopedias contain not
only the definition, but that ALL of them have exactly the same
definition. Then I will do as you ask and look it up next time.
Until then, it's a Dartnot to me.

Should I show you the ARA proceedings where substitution of "standard" (my term, not the industry's) components (ends, roofs, doors, et al) with those from car builders' were referred to as Carbuilders'? Car Builders' Cycs are catalogs, not ARA or AAR proceedings. If you want the real terms go to the source. You can call it whatever you want. I just don't appreciate the historical record that we are all creating being muddled with terms like Reverse Creco, PS-0, etc. How about if we all agree to use quotation marks so that someone who is learning all of this twenty years from now sees that there is some distinction being applied to those terms that are descriptive, but not "official."

Regards,
Ted Culotta

Speedwitch Media
645 Tanner Marsh Road, Guilford, CT 06437
info@...
www.speedwitch.com
(650) 787-1912

Did your mother tell you to
just go on using a word incorrectly or go look it up in the

dictionary.

>
Regards,
Ted Culotta

Ted, I usually got a bar of soap in my mouth for saying words I didn't
know the meaning of. I see should get soap under my finger nails for
typeing that post.
Clark Propst
Hey, I forgot to ask you. Did you get the jpeg of the CMO car with the
yellow roof?

Ted, this horse has been badly beaten, but part of the "record" is
also debates like this one... And if it makes you feel any better I
do appreciate why knowing if Creco made a door or not is important
if you're looking for historical documents. And yet it is totally
irrelevant to me and I like that term "Reverse Creco" because it is
an apt description of its appearance, just like "Reverse Murphy". Is
that what the rail industry called that end?

And I know it's picky, but we're not "creating" a historical record.
That already exists. We're just picking through the record and writing
about it.

Tim "calling a spade a night" O.

Should I show you the ARA proceedings where substitution of "standard"
(my term, not the industry's) components (ends, roofs, doors, et al)
with those from car builders' were referred to as Carbuilders'?

Ted, they used that term the same way we use "Proprietary". Of WHAT
possible use to a modeler is the term? None whatever -- unless you also
know the builder, and the year, and even then the builder may have made
more than one style during that year. Dartnot describes a particular style
of end, and that is why I use it. So does PS-0 for that matter.

Just to be clear, I would not use the modeler terms in a BOOK, because
usually there is enough context in the book (like pictures) so that it's
almost irrelevant what you call the thing, unless you're writing a book
about terminology. The whole point of photos in books is that you don't
have to describe the car in words, except to point out technical details.

Hell, who reads the books anyway? I just like to look at the pictures.

Tim "Wider by a mile" O'Connor

Greg Martin wrote:

I agree with the point that Ted makes; however the one term we can't seem to
get around in this hobby is the term "Hat Brace" when we refer to what the
steel industry calls a Round Edged Flange Channel (REFC). Call the local steel
supplier and ask him for a twelve foot piece of, "hat brace metal, you know
the kind they use on those outside braced box cars..."

Actually, Greg, they were often called "U posts" and "U braces" in the 1920s literature, which to me is not as descriptive as "hat section." They knew, of course that the "U-section" had a flange on each side. There is nothing wrong with calling it a "U post" for historical connection, and explaining that the actual cross section was a U with flanges, "hat" for short.
By the way, Greg, your local steel supplier doesn't know what a "standard AAR Z section center sill" is either.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

We speak of Camel doors even though Camel never manufactured any
doors. Camel supplied a pile of parts and a design. That being
said, I have a pair of drawings for Creco doors for a double-door,
auto box car.

Gene Green
Out n the West Texas Town of El Paso

--- In STMFC@..., Ted Culotta <tculotta@s...> wrote:

On Nov 9, 2005, at 5:11 PM, Clark Propst wrote:

I had a email discussion with John Nehrich about some of the

different

names mainly attached to CGW cars and parts. His reasoning was

you

needed to call it something a persons mind's eye could visualize.

Example: The CGW ARA proposed design box cars had Pullman

proprietary

doors????? Verses: The CGW X 29s had reverse Creco doors...You

can see

it!!!

This would be fine if Creco actually made the doors, but since they
didn't it is more ambiguous than Pullman proprietary, IMHO.

As far as terminology goes, I am in favor of someone scratching

their

heads wondering what a Carbuilder's end is and looking it up,

rather

than perpetuating incorrect information. Did your mother tell you

to

just go on using a word incorrectly or go look it up in the

dictionary.

Same thing!

Regards,
Ted Culotta

Speedwitch Media
645 Tanner Marsh Road, Guilford, CT 06437
info@s...
www.speedwitch.com
(650) 787-1912

Well,
Having been one of the guilty parties who committed the
heinous crime of calling it a PS-0 end, I'd like to get a word or
two in here.
I've seen all the banter defending or attacking the term "PS-
0" end, however, I've yet to see anyone provide the "proper" name by
stating explicitly WHAT TERM DID PULLMAN STANDARD CAR COMPANY USE TO
DESCRIBE THIS TYPE OF STAMPING? Unless someone can provide that
information, any term which provided a common understanding is
valid, whether it is provided by a contemporary second party (ie.
the AAR at the time that the cars were built), or by some other
modern day researcher who is grasping for a means of getting his
meaning across to his readers. A tiptoe through the pages of Roget's
will show that there are many ways to skin that cat, all of them
valid.
As far as model airplane builders coining new names for their
prototypes, they don't really have to do that now, do they. The
manufacturers have taken car of that themselves. For what is a rose
by any other name than a DC-9, an MD-80, or a MacBoeing 717?

;>

Best regards,
Phil Buchwald



--- In STMFC@..., "Clark Propst" <cepropst@n...> wrote:

I had a email discussion with John Nehrich about some of the

different names mainly attached to CGW cars and parts. His reasoning
was you needed to call it something a persons mind's eye could
visualize.

Example: The CGW ARA proposed design box cars had Pullman

proprietary doors????? Verses: The CGW X 29s had reverse Creco
doors...You can see it!!!

So, the CGW cars with Pullman proprietary ends, either 4/4 or 4/5

are called PS-0s whether they are welded or riveted cars.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just the messenger.
Clark Propst

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks Ed! That's exactly what I was looking for! If that's what the
car builder called 'em, then that is what they are.

To me, personally, a good descriptive term would be Pullman
corrugated ends, to which you can add the qualifiers 4/5 or 5/5,
square or round corner. This seems to narrow things down enough.
(Sounds like a good subject for a poll!)

Since "Pullman" was used in the original documents, it is certainly
appropriate. The "corrugated" description isolates these from the
flat riveted or the later PS-1 style Pullman ends. You could
add "carbuilder", except that this term by itself is somewhat
ambiguous since it was used to describe other designs as well.

I am curious about the "AAR corrugated type" descriptor used for the
L&A and KCS cars of 1941. Did this refer to the fact that the AAR
allowed the carbuilders to substitute components as long as the
basic structure and envelope were met?

I remember that in John Nehrich's original MM article, he made a
comment along the lines that since he couldn't find a written
description for the car, and since it came along before the PS-1, he
coined his own term of PS-0. By his own words, he put his own
disclaimer in the article.

Also, since I'm putting together a CGW car, you gave me some
important information here: "Carbuilder Corrugated Round Corner
Steel Ends". Since I chopped up an old MDC car, the corners are
square.... have to go back and round them off a bit. Bummer. That
means I have to glue on new rivets after all the carving is done.

Best regards,
Phil Buchwald



-- In STMFC@..., Ed Hawkins <hawk0621@s...> wrote:

Phil,
I don't have any official data or nomenclature on the ends used on

the

light-weight welded box cars built by Pullman-Standard in 1938 and

1940

(see spread in the 1940 Car Builders' Cyclopedia), but I do have

the

official terminology from P-S bills of materials for ends of

similar

appearance used on various other P-S built cars as follows.

TC 7900-7999, built 1941, lot 5655: "Pullman 2 piece corrugated

C.B.

steel"

L&A 36001-36200 and KCS 25100-25299, built 1941, lot 5681:
"Pullman-Standard AAR Corrugated Type" (see photo RP CYC Vol. 4,

page

12)

B&O 386000-386149 (M-57), 295600-295649 (M-57A), 292000-292049 (M-

57B,

one end only), built 1941, lot 5673, "Pullman Two piece corrugated
C.B.S. Round Corner"

B&O 465000-465999 (M-55A/B), built 1941, lot 5693, "Pullman Two

piece

corrugated C.B.S. Round Corner"

CGW 91000-92099, built 1944, lot 5771, "Carbuilder Corrugated

Round

Corner Steel Ends"

CGW 92000-92149, built 1945, lot 5805, "Carbuilder Corrugated

Round

Corner Steel Ends"

C&EI 1-5, built 1945, lot 5808: "Carbuilder Corrugated Round

Corner

Steel Ends" (see photo RP CYC Vol. 8, page 4)

What does all of this mean? There's one thing in common with the
terminology of each group of cars: the end nomenclature in P-S

official

documentation used either the name "Pullman" or "Carbuilder

(meaning

Pullman-Standard)" and the term "Corrugated (sometimes capitalized

and

sometimes not)." I looked and looked but could not find "PS-0 end"

or

any other such description. Dare I ask why the term "Pullman

Corrugated

End" wouldn't suffice and be completely understandable for

describing

ends of this type? Due to variations in height or the arrangement

of

corrugations in the top and bottom sheets, I wouldn't be adverse

in

further describing them as "4/5" or "5/5" (top over bottom
corrugations) as applicable, just like the accepted practice for
Dreadnaught Ends or Improved Dreadnaught Ends (or using a hyphen

for

bottom over top counting as preferred by some). By the way, I'm

not

expecting Tim to buy any of this!! <g>
Regards,
Ed Hawkins

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ed, that's a terrific idea. Now, how do we know if you're talking
about the ends applied to 1930's cars, late 40's cars, or 1950's
cars? You and Ted are both trying to find a phrase that describes
the particular style of end applied to some cars in the 1930's or
early 1940's, but Pullman Corrugated End is just a generic term
that applies over a long span of years. Can't you zero in on the
specific end in question?

For example, thousands of times on this list and the FCL etc we
have talked about "bowtie roofs" and "PS doors" yet I am sure
those are not the terms Pullman itself used. You seek to replace
concise, descriptive-associative terms, with historically-correct but
generic terminology. For example, IBM made "Information Systems"
in 1959 and they also make them in 2005. That says something
about IBM but I don't think it tells us anything about the products.

PS-0 is historically incorrect, but it works. Come up with something
that works as well, and people will use it.

Tim O.




Ed Hawkins dares to ask

Also, since I'm putting together a CGW car, you gave me some
important information here: "Carbuilder Corrugated Round Corner
Steel Ends". Since I chopped up an old MDC car, the corners are
square.... have to go back and round them off a bit. Bummer. That
means I have to glue on new rivets after all the carving is done.

Best regards,
Phil Buchwald

Phil, would you like a close up of the end corner?
Clark Propst

Tim O'C sez:

For example, thousands of times on this list and the FCL etc we
have talked about "bowtie roofs" and "PS doors" yet I am sure
those are not the terms Pullman itself used. You seek to replace
concise, descriptive-associative terms, with historically-correct but
generic terminology.

Good point. When SP bought its "riveted PS-1" 50-ft. cars in 1957, the railroad specification called for a "Carbuilder End." That was what modelers often call a "PS-1 end." Thus, like SRECo's "Murphy roof," not every commercial designation is informative.
That said, I very much dislike the invention of completely imaginary names for someone's convenience. Far better to qualify an industry term, for example in the way Ed Hawkins described, than to just make up whatever you like. Those who pursue the latter course in writing are creating documents that are difficult or impossible to cross-check with professional and industry sources. Let's not go there.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

On Thursday, November 10, 2005, at 09:44 AM, buchwaldfam wrote:

Well,
      Having been one of the guilty parties who committed the
heinous crime of calling it a PS-0 end, I'd like to get a word or
two in here.
      I've seen all the banter defending or attacking the term "PS-
0" end, however, I've yet to see anyone provide the "proper" name by
stating explicitly WHAT TERM DID PULLMAN STANDARD CAR COMPANY USE TO
DESCRIBE THIS TYPE OF STAMPING? Unless someone can provide that
information, any term which provided a common understanding is
valid, whether it is provided by a contemporary second party (ie.
the AAR at the time that the cars were built), or by some other
modern day researcher who is grasping for a means of getting his
meaning across to his readers.

<SNIP>

Phil,
I don't have any official data or nomenclature on the ends used on the
light-weight welded box cars built by Pullman-Standard in 1938 and 1940
(see spread in the 1940 Car Builders' Cyclopedia), but I do have the
official terminology from P-S bills of materials for ends of similar
appearance used on various other P-S built cars as follows.

TC 7900-7999, built 1941, lot 5655: "Pullman 2 piece corrugated C.B.
steel"

L&A 36001-36200 and KCS 25100-25299, built 1941, lot 5681:
"Pullman-Standard AAR Corrugated Type" (see photo RP CYC Vol. 4, page
12)

B&O 386000-386149 (M-57), 295600-295649 (M-57A), 292000-292049 (M-57B,
one end only), built 1941, lot 5673, "Pullman Two piece corrugated
C.B.S. Round Corner"

B&O 465000-465999 (M-55A/B), built 1941, lot 5693, "Pullman Two piece
corrugated C.B.S. Round Corner"

CGW 91000-92099, built 1944, lot 5771, "Carbuilder Corrugated Round
Corner Steel Ends"

CGW 92000-92149, built 1945, lot 5805, "Carbuilder Corrugated Round
Corner Steel Ends"

C&EI 1-5, built 1945, lot 5808: "Carbuilder Corrugated Round Corner
Steel Ends" (see photo RP CYC Vol. 8, page 4)

What does all of this mean? There's one thing in common with the
terminology of each group of cars: the end nomenclature in P-S official
documentation used either the name "Pullman" or "Carbuilder (meaning
Pullman-Standard)" and the term "Corrugated (sometimes capitalized and
sometimes not)." I looked and looked but could not find "PS-0 end" or
any other such description. Dare I ask why the term "Pullman Corrugated
End" wouldn't suffice and be completely understandable for describing
ends of this type? Due to variations in height or the arrangement of
corrugations in the top and bottom sheets, I wouldn't be adverse in
further describing them as "4/5" or "5/5" (top over bottom
corrugations) as applicable, just like the accepted practice for
Dreadnaught Ends or Improved Dreadnaught Ends (or using a hyphen for
bottom over top counting as preferred by some). By the way, I'm not
expecting Tim to buy any of this!! <g>
Regards,
Ed Hawkins

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]