RMJ articles


Clark Propst <cepropst@...>
 

I recently picked up the two RMJs with the Ed Hawkins articles on the Athearn and Walthers 3 bay covered hoppers. In neither article were the cars owned by the M&StL or CGW listed. What's up with that?
Thanks,
Clark Propst


rockroll50401 <cepropst@...>
 

Clark,
You haven't been paying attention to the title or the content of the
articles that are about 2893 cu. ft. PS-2s. > Regards,
Ed Hawkins
Ed,
I bought the magazines in a Twin Cities hobby shop the night before
we left for Florida and haven't read them yet.
Thanks for clarifying the differences for dummy me.
Thanks for the quick response,
Clark Propst


rockroll50401 <cepropst@...>
 

Clark,
You haven't been paying attention to the title or the content of the
articles that are about 2893 cu. ft. PS-2s. > Regards,
Ed Hawkins
Ed,
I bought the magazines in a Twin Cities hobby shop the night before
we left for Florida and haven't read them yet.
Thanks for clarifying the differences for dummy me.
Thanks for the quick response,
Clark Propst


Ed Hawkins
 

On Friday, January 13, 2006, at 04:57 PM, Clark Propst wrote:

I recently picked up the two RMJs with the Ed Hawkins articles on the
Athearn and Walthers 3 bay covered hoppers. In neither article were
the cars owned by the M&StL or CGW listed. What's up with that?
Thanks,
Clark Propst
Clark,
You haven't been paying attention to the title or the content of the
articles that are about 2893 cu. ft. PS-2s. But I can understand some
inattentiveness as I realize you're still coming down from la-la land
after being in Florida last week. <g>

The reason the M&StL and CGW PS-2s aren't discussed is because they
were larger capacity at 3219 cu. ft. If a manufacturer will commit to
produce an accurate 3219 cu. ft. PS-2 model, I'll be happy to prepare
an article covering them. The 3219 PS-2s included about 15 owners of
cars built during the latter half of 1958 to 1960.

I'm a little in the dark about what was actually published in the
latest issue since the USPS totally destroyed the copy mailed to me and
all I received was a cover! As the article should state in the text,
the 3219 cars were about 4 inches taller and 6" wider, and therefore
the new Walthers model is not accurate for 3219 cu. ft. cars. I
personally consider those dimensions outside the tolerance of being
"close enough." That small detail probably won't impede Walthers from
producing some bogus schemes that should be applied to a different
model.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


mopacfirst
 

Furthermore, the second article has some photos of cars that belong in
the first article (perhaps weren't available then, or balancing the
page count?) Anyway, if you're interested in the Athearn version
you'll need both articles.

Ron Merrick


--- In STMFC@..., "rockroll50401" <cepropst@n...> wrote:

Clark,
You haven't been paying attention to the title or the content of
the
articles that are about 2893 cu. ft. PS-2s. > Regards,
Ed Hawkins
Ed,
I bought the magazines in a Twin Cities hobby shop the night before
we left for Florida and haven't read them yet.
Thanks for clarifying the differences for dummy me.
Thanks for the quick response,
Clark Propst