[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: (erielack) Overland PA's
I don't know much about models and such-I've always been more interested in
prototypes-but I had to comment about SGL's "ugly" remark about the rail
machine. PA's, E's, and Raymond Loewy notwithstanding, isn't rail equipment
supposed to be functional? It ain't a beauty contest!! Neat as it may have
been, I wonder how much demand there is for MOW equipment models anyway.
I've heard all kinds of oohs and ahs over locomotives, freight cars,
passenger cars, etc, but never over such as a tamper or a tie inserting
machine!!
TAB
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Schuyler G Larrabee" <sgl2_@_ix.netcom.com>
To: "Chris Thurner" <chris.thurner_@_adelphia.com>; "Mailgroup (E-mail)"
<erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: (erielack) Overland PA's
> Chris Thurner noted:
>
> > I see OMI has . . . snip . . . cancelled both their 75' Clejan flat and
> the Erie rail machine
> > (to bad, quite a unique model and would make an interesting focal point
to
> a
> > MOW consist for a layout in the right era).
>
> The Clejan was cancelled due to a lack of photos of the Erie prototypes
> clear enough to be able to do a lettered model. I am assuming that noone
> reading this can help, or they would have by now, of course.
>
> An interesting point, which I wonder about: OMI advertised this as a
> >>75'<< car, but the diagram for these is dimensioned 80'-2" over
strikers.
> It appears that the only (US) Clejans built at 75' were two samples built
> for the NH. All others were built at 80'. I am wondering if the OMI
model
> is actually 75', or 80'?
>
> SGL
>
> Oh, right, the Erie rail machine: probably cancelled due to low order
> volume. Neat, yes, but also IMHO, U G L Y.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------