USRA SS boxcars


Benjamin Hom
 

Benjamin Scanlon wrote:
"my main interest is the georgia and west point route; while they
had 'true' USRA cars, they had all been rebuilt with steel sheathing
and modern doors by the time period i'm interested in."

Not entirely true. Georgia did receive USRA SS boxcars (GA 19000-
19299), but A&WP did NOT. Do you have a source that's giving you this
bum gouge?

Don't take this personally, but I'm getting the impression that you're
mixing up a lot of prototype information which is causing your
confusion.


Ben Hom


Frank Valoczy <destron@...>
 

benjaminfrank_hom wrote:


Not entirely true. Georgia did receive USRA SS boxcars (GA 19000-
19299), but A&WP did NOT. Do you have a source that's giving you this
bum gouge?
Also: GA 19500-19799? I've seen some photos of those, and those look to me
to definitely by USRA SS cars (5/5/5 ends and all). This would suggest to
me that 19300-19449 would also have been USRA cars? Never seen any photos
of those, though...

As for A&WP, maybe he's confusing their War Emergency boxcars with USRA
cars? I haven't ever heard of any A&WP USRA cars either, so.

Don't take this personally, but I'm getting the impression that you're
mixing up a lot of prototype information which is causing your
confusion.
Some of the confusion is probably my fault; on the TT forum I've talked a
lot about various freight cars (esp. boxcars). For simplicity I've grouped
things together: to someone new to really looking at this sort of thing, a
B-50-14 looks a lot like a USRA SS boxcar, so those were put together -
pointing out the differences (since I think, with some work, a presentable
B-50-14 can be modelled from a USRA SS model; or, in TT, better put, the
other way around - RailTT's model is the CN version of the USRA SS "clone"
with the fishbelly centre sill). I tried to be as explicit as possible in
pointing all the differences out, but I did have to distil things somewhat
for the sake of brevity and legibility, and that may well lead to some
confusion despite my best attempts at being clear.

That said, if I may be allowed a word in defence of myself regarding the
subject at hand, I never did make any suggestion that the A&WP ever had
any USRA SS boxcars, or clones thereof...

Frank Valoczy
New Westminster, BC


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Frank Valoczy wrote:
Also: GA 19500-19799? I've seen some photos of those, and those look to me to definitely by USRA SS cars (5/5/5 ends and all). This would suggest to me that 19300-19449 would also have been USRA cars? Never seen any photos of those, though...
The GA 19300-19449 are not USRA cars, as they are 8 ft. 6 in. high inside. USRA cars were 9 feet high inside. The GA 19500-19799 cars have dimensions matching the USRA cars but are all steel by the 1950s. Are these not probably the Georgia all-steel rebuilds of their USRA cars?

Some of the confusion is probably my fault; on the TT forum I've talked a lot about various freight cars (esp. boxcars). For simplicity I've grouped things together: to someone new to really looking at this sort of thing, a B-50-14 looks a lot like a USRA SS boxcar, so those were put together - pointing out the differences (since I think, with some work, a presentable B-50-14 can be modelled from a USRA SS model; or, in TT, better put, the other way around - RailTT's model is the CN version of the USRA SS "clone" with the fishbelly centre sill).
But the USRA SS box cars did not have fishbelly center sills. Those sills were on the USRA double-sheathed cars.

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Frank Valoczy <destron@...>
 

Anthony Thompson wrote:
The GA 19300-19449 are not USRA cars, as they are 8 ft. 6 in. high
inside. USRA cars were 9 feet high inside. The GA 19500-19799 cars
have dimensions matching the USRA cars but are all steel by the
1950s. Are these not probably the Georgia all-steel rebuilds of their
USRA cars?
Yes - looking again at the photos, they all appear to be steel-sheathed.


Some of the confusion is probably my fault; on the TT forum I've talked
a lot about various freight cars (esp. boxcars). For simplicity I've
grouped things together: to someone new to really looking at this sort
of thing, a B-50-14 looks a lot like a USRA SS boxcar, so those were put
together - pointing out the differences (since I think, with some work,
a presentable B-50-14 can be modelled from a USRA SS model; or, in TT,
better put, the other way around - RailTT's model is the CN version of
the USRA SS "clone" with the fishbelly centre sill).
But the USRA SS box cars did not have fishbelly center sills. Those
sills were on the USRA double-sheathed cars.
Thank you, Tony - you illustrated my point about confusion perfectly!

I know that the "actual" USRA SS cars did not have fishbelly centre sills.
But there were copies/clones/choose-your-word - cars that largely look
like USRA SS cars - that *did* have such sills, cars like the B-50-14 and
CN 500500-503499.

I also did not say anywhere above that the USRA SS cars had fishbelly
centre sills! But they nevertheless do look pretty similar to the B-50-14
or the CN series mentioned above.

What I was trying to say was, that using the model available from RailTT
(which is by rights a model of CN 500500-503499 series cars), a
presentable model of a USRA SS car could be made - swap out the
fishbelly-silled underframe, change the ends, and you've got a reasonable
model that is considerably closer to accurate than just slapping decals on
the model as-is and calling it a model of an X26.

Part of the issue may be that those of us on this list have a different
definition of "different" than the average person, including the average
model railway hobbyist, and the deeper we get into analysing the more
minute details, the easier it is to lose sight of the fact that to an
untrained (or even an in-training) eye, a 1937 car is pretty hard to
distinguish from a 1944 car.

All this brings me back to the earlier statement: a B-50-14 is by no means
the same as a USRA SS car, but they sure do look a lot alike.

6 years ago, I didn't know the difference between a USRA SS car and a PS-1
(and I'm not exaggerating) - everyone starts pretty much at zero, and this
is easy to forget when one's been involved with something for many years.

Frank Valoczy
Vancouver, BC


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Frank Valoczy wrote:
I also did not say anywhere above that the USRA SS cars had fishbelly centre sills! But they nevertheless do look pretty similar to the B-50-14 or the CN series mentioned above.
Well, Frank, here's what you DID say: "RailTT's model is the CN version of the USRA SS "clone" with the fishbelly centre sill". I'm sorry, "clone" does not mean "sort of the same general appearance." I understand your point, that you are identifying GENERAL similarities, but in that context, the word "clone" (your word) is entirely inappropriate. Otherwise you foster FURTHER confusion among those reading the list.

Part of the issue may be that those of us on this list have a different definition of "different" than the average person, including the average model railway hobbyist, and the deeper we get into analysing the more minute details, the easier it is to lose sight of the fact that to an untrained (or even an in-training) eye, a 1937 car is pretty hard to distinguish from a 1944 car.
Quite true, but adding to the confusion by NOT distinguishing among similar but DIFFERENT cars does not help the problem. You're right that this list tends to the sophisticated side of freight car information. But I believe the way to move those "untrained eyes" forward is to give them the RIGHT information and explain why, not to gloss over differences and, in effect, say that various 40-foot single-sheathed cars are "pretty similar" or "kinda all the same."

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Benjamin Scanlon
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Valoczy" wrote:

benjaminfrank_hom wrote:


Not entirely true. Georgia did receive USRA SS boxcars (GA 19000-
19299), but A&WP did NOT. Do you have a source that's giving you this
bum gouge?
much of my data is from frank's postings on the TTnut list, but the confusion re non existent west point route USRA boxcars is down to me generalising. i meant georgia RR cars.

i am interested in the war emergency cars too, but no confusion there, i've realised they are different. my source of info on those is the sunshine data sheets for their kits. i would like to know more, particularly about the georgia/WPR war emergency cars which i understand were part of a run of 10' IH cars done for south eastern RRs, rather than the 10'6" of most others.

on TTnut i think there has been a bit of confusing ACF 8'6" IH howe truss cars in particular, with fowler clones.

i do not think the gold coast fowler clone boxcar is any kind of substitute for these cars, really. inside height is about 6" lower and the roof pitch is too shallow, which combine to create quite a different look.

frank has identified a couple of other cars from MONON and MILW as fowler clones, and they look more like the gold coast car.

as for the railTT 'USRA' car, it sounds like it's going to take some work to look like anything american.

if there were a primer on US boxcars and differences between them, i'd be interested. i do rely rather a lot on what i find on the internet, and can't find much in the way of plans or diagrams at all.

regards, ben


Frank Valoczy <destron@...>
 

Anthony Thompson wrote:

Well, Frank, here's what you DID say: "RailTT's model is the CN
version of the USRA SS "clone" with the fishbelly centre sill". I'm
sorry, "clone" does not mean "sort of the same general appearance." I
understand your point, that you are identifying GENERAL similarities,
but in that context, the word "clone" (your word) is entirely
inappropriate. Otherwise you foster FURTHER confusion among those
reading the list.
That's a fair point. I *did* say that... because that's what I understood
the word to mean, in my previous encounters with it.

What, then, *is* an appropriate, but nevertheless "catch-all", word/phrase?


Part of the issue may be that those of us on this list have a different
definition of "different" than the average person, including the average
model railway hobbyist, and the deeper we get into analysing the more
minute details, the easier it is to lose sight of the fact that to an
untrained (or even an in-training) eye, a 1937 car is pretty hard to
distinguish from a 1944 car.
Quite true, but adding to the confusion by NOT distinguishing
among similar but DIFFERENT cars does not help the problem. You're
right that this list tends to the sophisticated side of freight
car information. But I believe the way to move those "untrained
eyes" forward is to give them the RIGHT information and explain
why, not to gloss over differences and, in effect, say that
various 40-foot single-sheathed cars are "pretty similar" or
"kinda all the same."
This is also a very fair point.

However - to try to defend myself a little bit - I'd like to put it into a
bit of context.

The point of the big descriptive list I made was, "this is the model we
have available - let's see what we can do with it", and from there I went
on to describe what the model is accurate for as-is, and then what can be
done with it with modifications, pointing out the modifications that would
be needed to make an XY&Z RR 1000-1999 series car.

The way I presented this info, I tried to do it TT-specific, and assuming
no detailed knowledge of the subject (beyond the basic "immediately
obvious" things, e.g. Howe truss vs Pratt truss being 'obviously
different'), and I tried to keep it informative without being overly
verbose or going too far into technical language that'd make it difficult
to read for an outsider. Kinda like how if you're writing about, say,
English grammar, if you're writing for a general audience, you have to
write differently than if you're writing a paper for a peer-reviewed
journal.

In a summary form, my premise was "this is a group of cars that is broadly
similar in appearance; here is how they differ from each other".

I agree with you that the details are important - all the details. But I
also think it's better to make introductions using broad, general terms.
If I meet someone just getting into the hobby, just starting to learn
about the basic differences between various boxcars (and I don't think I'm
too far wrong in saying that for the bulk of hobbyists, the differences
between a '37 car and a '44 car or between a USRA SS car and a B-50-14
aren't nearly as important (or as noticeable) as the difference between a
'37 car and a B-50-14), I've found that you often even have to point out
the most glaring difference between a USRA SS car and a War Emergency
boxcar (namely the truss arrangement).

So, in my experience, I find it more effective to use generalisations
first, whether the subject is freight cars or grammar; better first for
the learner to become comfortable with regular verbs (including mistakes
they will make trying to apply regular forms to irregular verbs), before
starting into irregular verbs and how they behave, than to give them a
daunting pile of information that may actually make it more difficult to
sort through. That's what I tried to do - but of course, that's not to say
I necessarily succeeded.

Talking about this makes me curious now, as to how the rest of you handle
this question. How do you start explaining things to someone who is
interested in modelling accurately, but essentially completely unversed in
the various details of freight cars?

Frank Valoczy
New Westminster, BC


Benjamin Hom
 

Frank Valoczy wrote:
"What I was trying to say was, that using the model available from
RailTT (which is by rights a model of CN 500500-503499 series cars), a
presentable model of a USRA SS car could be made - swap out the
fishbelly-silled underframe, change the ends, and you've got a
reasonable model that is considerably closer to accurate than just
slapping decals on the model as-is and calling it a model of an X26."

But as I pointed out at the beginning of the thread, you seriously
muddied the waters by not pointing out the differences between the
pressed steel truss members of the true USRA SS boxcar and the
Z-section truss members of the other prototypes.


"Part of the issue may be that those of us on this list have a
different definition of "different" than the average person,
including the average model railway hobbyist, and the deeper we get
into analysing the more minute details, the easier it is to lose
sight of the fact that to an untrained (or even an in-training) eye,
a 1937 car is pretty hard to distinguish from a 1944 car."

"Minute" details are anything but. The differences between ends,
roofs, doors, car height, and centersills may be subtle, but they are
defintely there, and are especially noticeable in context. Rolling
stock models really don't exist in a vacuum - they exist in the
greater whole of a layout, and to really capture the look of the
steam to diesel transition era, you have to capture these
differences. Most modelers don't take a completely scientific
approach towards this, but the majority of modelers instinctively
know when something looks right for a given era (McClleland's V&O,
even thirty years ago, is a great example).


Ben Hom


Frank Valoczy <destron@...>
 

Benjamin Scanlon wrote:

as for the railTT 'USRA' car, it sounds like it's going to take some work
to look like anything american.
I'd kinda disagree there.

As the model is, apart from the ladders (which are disappointing) and the
trucks (not entirely sure why Nikolai opted to put arch bars in the kit,
but), it's pretty decently accurate for Canadian National 464000-464999
and 500500-503499 series cars, for Algoma Central 3101-3200 series cars,
and for Rutland's single car #7999 (which was an ex-CN car). Though true,
those are Canadian and not American, but that still counts as North
American railroading.

Then, there may be some minor dimensional differences, it wouldn't take
*too* much work to make a composite-ended B-50-13 or B-50-14 using the
RailTT model. And SP and family had lots of those, and pretty much anyone
modelling within the scope of this list can easily justify having one or
several of these.

True, it would take rather more work to make a good representation of a
true USRA car out of it (the simplest way would probably be to use the old
Christoph 5/5/5 ends and Gold Coast's 40' underframe), but even that is
certainly doable, and the quality of the model is quite good (I'm thinking
here specifically of the planks - the wood effect is very sharp), so I
still think it's a very useful addition to what we have available in TT
scale, and certainly isn't something to be discounted at all.

Frank Valoczy
New Westminster, BC


Frank Valoczy <destron@...>
 

benjaminfrank_hom wrote:

But as I pointed out at the beginning of the thread, you seriously
muddied the waters by not pointing out the differences between the
pressed steel truss members of the true USRA SS boxcar and the
Z-section truss members of the other prototypes.
Yes - this is something that I did overlook, and I'm ready to admit that
error.

"Minute" details are anything but. The differences between ends,
roofs, doors, car height, and centersills may be subtle, but they are
defintely there, and are especially noticeable in context.
<snip>

I agree completely - and never have I claimed otherwise! In fact I
wouldn't even call those "minute" differences, but significant ones
(though, of course, on a scale; a composite end is completely different
from a Dreadnaught end, but a W-post is only minutely different from a
square post...)

These were exactly the differences which I went out of the way to point
out in all my descriptives, be it about single-sheathed cars with
Howe-truss bracing on 6 panels, or about the 1937 AAR cars, or whatever.
Doors, ends, roofs, etc. Because these are the things you see, that are
immediately obvious even on a model. Differences such as this I never
glossed over; what I viewed as not entirely relevant was requisite
terminology, in the sense of, the name isn't important, so long as you
recognise that while a B-50-14 and a USRA SS car are *broadly similar* in
appearance, they have different ends, underframe, etc., and these
differences are essential in making a presentable model. Even if the
(minor) dimensional differences aren't reflected on a model, representing
these differences is what (IMO) will make a model be a believable
representation of a B-50-14 or an X26 or whatever.

And I think that's the first step that needs to be taken - getting
modellers new to this aspect of the hobby to consider these differences as
significant enough to recreate!

Frank Valoczy
New Westminster, BC

PS: All that said, I think that progress is being made in TT scale... keep
in mind that a lot of TTers don't really care about such differences, or,
didn't care until it was pointed out. So it's kinda like, we're still
trying to get over the Athearn Blue Box mentality of a "steel boxcar is a
steel boxcar, a single-sheathed car is a single-sheathed car". And that
mentality is still pretty deeply in there, though it's been getting better
over the 6 years that I've now been involved with North American prototype
TT scale.


Benjamin Hom
 

Benjamin Scanlon wrote:
"if there were a primer on US boxcars and differences between them, i'd
be interested. i do rely rather a lot on what i find on the internet,
and can't find much in the way of plans or diagrams at all."

Two articles to get you started are "Boxcar Fleet of the Fifties" by
John Nehrich in the March 1986 issue of Model Railroader,
and "Modeler's Guide to Steel Boxcars" by Tony Koester in the May 2006
issue of Model Railroader. These aren't comprehensive (John's article
can use some hindsight over what we've learned over the past 25+ years,
and Tony's article is a bit too general for my taste), but as I said,
it'll give you a place to get started.


Ben Hom


al_brown03
 

GA 19300-19449 are 1924 ARA single-sheathed boxcars, with seven-panel Pratt-truss sides and straight underframes. A couple of published photos:

GA 19428: RP CYC 18 p 42
GA 19443: Hanson, "History of the Georgia Railroad", p 39

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Thompson wrote:

Frank Valoczy wrote:
Also: GA 19500-19799? I've seen some photos of those, and those look to me to definitely by USRA SS cars (5/5/5 ends and all). This would suggest to me that 19300-19449 would also have been USRA cars? Never seen any photos of those, though...
The GA 19300-19449 are not USRA cars, as they are 8 ft. 6 in. high inside. USRA cars were 9 feet high inside.


Benjamin Scanlon
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "al_brown03" wrote:

GA 19300-19449 are 1924 ARA single-sheathed boxcars, with seven-panel Pratt-truss sides and straight underframes. A couple of published photos:

GA 19428: RP CYC 18 p 42
GA 19443: Hanson, "History of the Georgia Railroad", p 39

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.
thank you al. i've been puzzling over what this car was since i got bob hanson's book a week ago.


Larry Kline
 

For a summary the USRA boxcars and clones (but no photos) there are two Excel spreadsheets in the files section of this list:
- USRA DS boxcars.xls compiled by Ben Hom
- USRA SS boxcars.xls compiled by Larry Kline

There are numerous boxcar articles from Railmodel Journal at Trainlife.com:
http://www.trainlife.com/magazines

You can find the articles using the Kalmbach magazine index at:
http://trc.trains.com/magazineindex/
A search for Railmodel Journal articles by Richard Hendrickson and Ed Hawkins is a good place to start. Using advanced search and the search strings "Hendrickson boxcar" and "Hawkins boxcar" returns 98 articles which give pretty comprehensive coverage of the boxcars relevant to this list.

Larry Kline

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "benjaminfrank_hom" wrote:



Benjamin Scanlon wrote:
"if there were a primer on US boxcars and differences between them, i'd
be interested. i do rely rather a lot on what i find on the internet,
and can't find much in the way of plans or diagrams at all."

Two articles to get you started are "Boxcar Fleet of the Fifties" by
John Nehrich in the March 1986 issue of Model Railroader,
and "Modeler's Guide to Steel Boxcars" by Tony Koester in the May 2006
issue of Model Railroader. These aren't comprehensive (John's article
can use some hindsight over what we've learned over the past 25+ years,
and Tony's article is a bit too general for my taste), but as I said,
it'll give you a place to get started.


Ben Hom


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Larry the K wrote:
For a summary the USRA boxcars and clones (but no photos) there are two Excel spreadsheets in the files section of this list:
- USRA DS boxcars.xls compiled by Ben Hom
- USRA SS boxcars.xls compiled by Larry Kline
There are numerous boxcar articles from Railmodel Journal at Trainlife.com:
http://www.trainlife.com/magazines
You can find the articles using the Kalmbach magazine index at:
http://trc.trains.com/magazineindex/
A search for Railmodel Journal articles by Richard Hendrickson and Ed Hawkins is a good place to start. Using advanced search and the search strings "Hendrickson boxcar" and "Hawkins boxcar" returns 98 articles which give pretty comprehensive coverage of the boxcars relevant to this list.
And in addition, there is a superb summary article by Pat Wider in _Railway Prototype Cyclopedia_ in issue 17.

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Pieter Roos
 

Also worth mentioning are the Speedwitch Media freight car books and "The Postwar Freight Car Fleet", Larry Kline and Ted Culotta, National Model Railroad Association, Inc., Chattanooga, TN, 2006.

Both provide information on a wide variety of cars, which will be very helpful to TT group so they do not need to re-discover what various researchers have learned over the last 20+ years. The usual disclaimer, I'm not connected with Speedwitch or Ted, except for enjoying his products.

The "Postwar Freight Car Fleet" appears to be still available from NMRA, although some resellers list it as out of print.

Pieter Roos
Connecticut.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Thompson wrote:

Larry the K wrote:
For a summary the USRA boxcars and clones (but no photos) there are two Excel spreadsheets in the files section of this list:
- USRA DS boxcars.xls compiled by Ben Hom
- USRA SS boxcars.xls compiled by Larry Kline
There are numerous boxcar articles from Railmodel Journal at Trainlife.com:
http://www.trainlife.com/magazines
You can find the articles using the Kalmbach magazine index at:
http://trc.trains.com/magazineindex/
A search for Railmodel Journal articles by Richard Hendrickson and Ed Hawkins is a good place to start. Using advanced search and the search strings "Hendrickson boxcar" and "Hawkins boxcar" returns 98 articles which give pretty comprehensive coverage of the boxcars relevant to this list.
And in addition, there is a superb summary article by Pat Wider in _Railway Prototype Cyclopedia_ in issue 17.

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


Benjamin Hom
 

Pieter Roos wrote:
"The "Postwar Freight Car Fleet" appears to be still available from NMRA,
although some resellers list it as out of print."

It's shown on the NMRA homepage, but it's no longer listed in the Company Store.


Ben Hom


Benjamin Scanlon
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Pieter_Roos" wrote:

Also worth mentioning are the Speedwitch Media freight car books and "The Postwar Freight Car Fleet", Larry Kline and Ted Culotta, National Model Railroad Association, Inc., Chattanooga, TN, 2006.

Both provide information on a wide variety of cars, which will be very helpful to TT group so they do not need to re-discover what various researchers have learned over the last 20+ years.


i will look into ordering something like that, as it seem a primer would be in order, for me, anyway.

i should say i am thankful to frank valoczy for his work in posting such a huge amount of information on the TTnut forum.

in the larger scheme of things, i would not be here asking questions at all had not my interest in the topic been awakened by frank's consideration in sharing what he has.

ben


Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Valoczy" wrote:


That's a fair point. I *did* say that... because that's what I understood
the word to mean, in my previous encounters with it.

What, then, *is* an appropriate, but nevertheless "catch-all", word/phrase?
Clone means "exactly the same". Since the only USRA cars are the cars that were built FOR the United States Railroad Administration, and car of the same design built directly for the railroads after the end of USRA control are technically BOT "USRA cars." They should have been called "USRA design" cars, but someone got cute back when cloning sheep was all over the news, and the term has stuck.

This list has become terribly confusing these past several weeks, with all kinds of people talking about clones of cars that don't even follow any standard design (like the "Fowler" cars.) Everyone should take a deep breath and go back to the basics... If you don't know anything about the car design, but can see the frame, it is single sheathed (what the model press used to call "outside braced".) That makes what someone was asking about, "Milwaukee Road Fowler clones", which no one can figure out, into Milwaukee Road single sheathed cars, of which most can think of several different designs, none of which have anything to do with Mr. Fowler, and most of which were developed during a very extensive engineering project done in-house by the MILW.

Dennis