Re: (erielack) Harold W's Erie RR operations

[Hhaines_@_aol.com]

Dear Joe,

I meant no insult to Harold's layout, his modeling, or Harold.  I first met 
Harold at the 1987 ELHS fall meeting, even before I knew he had a model of 
the Erie--and he is truly a gentleman and great guy.  I am sorry if I offeded 
anyone, but gee, how does a blind guy in Montana get to be the first to 
mention a new article on a great Erie railroad model on this list?  I did not 
want others to miss it. (In other words, get off the computer and go look at 
a copy of the magazine.)

I was trying to be brief in my previous email, and it looks like I messed up 
and lost the real meaning. 

I did not intend to compare the model railroads or insult anyone. Based on 
what I have at home, I would be intimidated by both.  

What I was trying to describe is how a light bulb went off in me when I saw 
that the trains that ran on Erie in 1950 had differences and similarities in 
operations through time that ended up in the Erie Lackawanna era.  Some of 
these differences are how each modeler took his own interpretation of a 
railroad timetable as it changed through time.  Other differences were the 
location modeled. Or in other words, the Erie Railroad operations of the 
early 1950s as they compared to or contributed to the merged Erie Lackawanna 
operations of 1960-1976. (Somehow, I feel, this is not helping my cause.) 

I was not comparing the modeling, but the fact that some of the questions I 
had about EL operations are now more clear based on the description in 
Harold's article in comparison to the description of your operations.   

Does this help you understand where I am coming from, Joe?

Howard Haines
ELHS #1447

------------------------------