Stephen
I'll need time to digest and consider the bulk of your response.
Unfortunately, I don't have any of the articles that you refer to.
In the meantime, I wonder whether the class number XM-12 (#10380-99)
actually existed, or whether the cars were actually classed as XML-12. If
there had been an error of a single letter, we would not be looking for
classes XM-8 to XM-11, and that would assist to fill in the gap between
XML-10 and XML-14 (especially if the XM-4C's were originally intended to be
XML-11 as per the diagram I referred to). I admit that these cars are not
identical to 10350-79 that you showed as XML-12 - the difference appearing
to be the steel bulkheads in the lower-numbered cars. But there again, there
was a greater difference between the XM-4C's and the XM-4/A's.
I'm uncertain as to the requirements for the CB&Q to have classed cars as
"XML" as opposed to "XM". However, #103680-99 were equipped with the same
equipment - DF belt rails - as 19825-39 (XML-15), 19500-19839 (XML-3A?), and
23600-34 (XML-10), and all were classed as XL for ORER purposes.
One question that has not been previously asked is about the administration
of class numbers - that is, how and by whom classes were allocated. Any
offers?
Rupert
> Going back through the list, we can account for cars in various
> classes except for the following,
> XM-1, XM-2, XM-3, XM-8, XM-9, XM-10, XM-11
> XAP-3, XAP-4
> XML-2, XML-3, XML-6, XML-7, XML-9, XML-11, XML-13
>
> and the series which don't presently have a class determined:
>
> 10010-10011
> 10012-10024
> 10200-10214
> 15103-15105
> 15106-15107
> 19800-19824
>
> Waiting to hear what Ken is coming up with,
>
> Stephen
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|