Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CBQ\]\s+Need\s+some\s+help\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CBQ\]\s+Need\s+some\s+help\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [CBQ] Need some help (score: 1): Author: "mark" <tavwot@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 21:55:01 -0600; This may be off topic but need some help.I'm working on a C&S standard gauge layout and trying to figure rail size for a 1920's-1940's era layout.The main power 2-8-2's,4-6-2's,and 2-8-0's.Some have; /archives/BRHSLIST/2012-03/msg00138.html (10,279 bytes)
2. Re: [CBQ] Need some help (score: 1): Author: jameskoretsky@comcast.net; Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:54:33 +0000 (UTC); Mark, What you propose would be very close if not spot on for your needs. Code 100 was only ever used by the PRR and isn't even very common today. Code 83 Would have started coming in in the late 60'; /archives/BRHSLIST/2012-03/msg00140.html (11,034 bytes)
3. Re: [CBQ] Need some help (score: 1): Author: Cy Svobodny <ctsvobodny@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 20:03:40 -0800 (PST); Code 83 would look better. Ztlas markets a good variety of this track and so does Walthers. From: mark <tavwot@yahoo.com> To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 9, 2012 9:19 PM Subject: [CBQ] Ne; /archives/BRHSLIST/2012-03/msg00141.html (12,817 bytes)
4. Re: [CBQ] Need some help (score: 1): Author: richtownsend@netscape.net; Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 10:43:35 -0500 (EST); Mark, What area of the C&S are you modeling? (I'm working on a small shelf layout, maybe more of a diorama, at Longmont) I have some track charts showing rail weights, north of Denver, that might be; /archives/BRHSLIST/2012-03/msg00146.html (12,831 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]