Dave/Jan:
I saw Al's list when it came out - great job! I'm suggesting we take
things one step further, kind of a mini-modelers article to discuss
slight variations, etc. to existing kits, mistakes made in early runs,
closeness to prototype listing the actual differences. This will allow
modelers to choose whether the degree of accuracy is close enough
(e.g. new Athearn 65 mill gon has too many panels but is good
look/feel) or too far off (e.g. new Walthers double door PS-2 Auto Box
is not Q prototype at all and has non-existent Q number). As a side
point, if we can advertise this on some of the other lists as well, it
could be a good draw to the BRHS website. I for one would like to see
something like this done on all the RR historical websites.
Jan - I like your column ideas and was thinking of the many of the
same. I think a reference column is also appropriate as it could
reference some excellent articles on reproducing the Q cars, like Jim
Sandrin's Zephyr article on the baby hi-cubes, or the article on
relettering the P2K Mineral Red gondolas to put the reporting marks on
the correct panels (ah, the little details...). And yes, I do think we
should include the non-prototype cars as well. It is too easy to
assume they are missing just because someone overlooked them and not
because they are not prototypical.
Tom Mack
Cincinnati, OH
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
For $25, 15 Afghan women can learn to read. Your gift can make a difference.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rQ8GtB/SdGMAA/cosFAA/8ZCslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
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/
|