Glad it's helpful. I have been away from home and computer for 3 days doing historical research in the archives of a 1920s Mexican American group. My next "chunk" will begin to look at the 1927 AAR stand boxcars. I have shot pictures of a real trainload of models... Arnold Rapido from the late 1960s, Concor, Intermountain, Deluxe Innovations, I think 1 or 2 more. And a big list of prototypes. Will continue in a day or two...
1937 AAR Standard 40’ box car models 1937 AAR Standard 40’ box car models At least three manufacturers made N-scale models of 1937 AAR Standard 40’ boxcars, with varying degrees of modelbuilding quality, and variations in prototype features. The basic characteristics of the 1937 AAR Standard boxcar include a 40’6” interior length, 10 foot interior height, 10-panel steel sides panels connected by a single row of rivets, those little trapezoidal tabs on the bottom of the side sill where the sides attach to the cross-bearers and truck bolsters, and the AAR (flat) underframe. Beyond those basic characteristics, variations appear in doors, roof style and end style. Later on, we will look at how some of variations in the models help to model variations in the prototypes, to the extent we can find the information. Going back to the early days of N scale, Arnold Rapido had what was mostly a 1937 AAR. This was not their first American boxcar. They had one with very similar appearance but with a straight side sill (no tabs) and a plain tin underbody (no detail). I thought I had one but I can’t find it. This model (1969?) was an improvement, despite its “plasticky” look. It has the ARA/AAR type side sill, riveted seams. The tin underbody was replaced with a plastic underbody that resembles the USRA-style fishbelly center sill. It doesn’t show in this picture. The fishbelly center sill and the AAR-style side-sill (tabs) are pretty much exclusive of each other. Arnold Rapido couplers for N scale were an improvement over what was on Lone Star Treble-O, but fortunately, there has been a lot of improvement since then. Prototype variation features- rectangle-panel steel roof improved dreadnaught ends 7 1/2 foot door Steel-rectangular-grid style roofwalks And note the short half ladder on the right side of the end. I have never seen end ladders like this on cars built pre-1960 or so. These are the same as the end ladders used on Concor house cars, but since Arnold Rapido came first, I am going to guess that Concor copied Arnold Rapido. Either that or they both modeled what they saw on 1960-era freight car ENDS, while modeling the rest of the cars more historically. I have two of these. I am keeping one as an artifact of early N scale. I might consider trying to make one usable as a “runner” with MTL or other knuckle couplers. The old Arnold Rapido trucks were so much trouble to convert, I would probably use an old underframe from something else. Concor car, introduced early 1970s, I think. Except for the underframe, the omission of the snap-fit hole in the end of the car, and the paint job, this came with many of the same features found on the Arnold Rapido boxcar, including the half-ladder on the right side of the end, and the Rapido couplers. I swapped out Kadee trucks and couplers (before Kadee and MicroTrains split), cut and filed away the half-ladder on the end, and replaced the lengthwise-mounted air reservoir with a transverse (crossways) air reservoir per Santa Fe practice. So this is not a stock Concor model. With the exception of the underframe, the Concor car has the same prototype variations as the Arnold Rapido boxcar: rectangle-panel steel roof improved dreadnaught ends 7 1/2 foot door Steel-rectangular-grid style roofwalks Intermountain. My apologies to Intermountain for my job of assembling their kit. Lots of wonderful fine separate parts like brake gear and grab irons. Credit Intermountain for the fine detail and blame me for the broken and misapplied parts. It is hard to distinguish the rivet detail of the riveted seams, but it is hard on the prototype from a photo. The visible rivets on the Arnold Rapido and Concor models are actually oversize. rectangle-panel steel roof improved dreadnaught ends 6 foot door 3-plank-wide wood roofwalks This is what is in the unbuild kit. The separate parts allow the possibility of modeling variations without having to cut up a mostly-one-piece body casting. To be continued...
One more N scale 1937 AAR Standard 40’ boxcar According Spookshow, Bachmann is offering a 1937 AAR 40’ steel boxcar in N scale. Here's a link to his photo. http://www.visi.com/~spookshow/freight/bachaar40box.html I have never seen one of these models in person, so I cannot measaure the dimensions. The ends in the Spookshow photo look more like PS-1 ends than any Dreadnaught. Roof looks like rectangular panel.
Santa Fe prototypes for N scale AAR Standard boxcars GOOD to see trainboard back! Santa Fe had 6 classes of 40’ single-door boxcars based on the 10-panel ARA1932, AAR1937 or AAR1942 Standards: the BX-26; BX-27; BX-34; BX-37; BX-43 and BX-44. All of these cars had doors 6 feet wide. The Arnold Rapido and Concor AAR Standard boxcars have 7 foot 6 inch wide doors, 25% too wide and easily visible as such. The doors are cast on and it would be hard to change them neatly—and if we did, the panels would not be even. Therefore the Arnold Rapido and Concor cars do not represent the prototype as well as cars that come with 6 foot wide doors, namely the Intermountain 1937AAR boxcar. I have six of the Concor cars in Santa Fe with various name train slogans like “Chief,” “Super Chief,” “Scout.” I am going to keep them in service. I am not so sure about the Arnold Rapido car in garish plasticky red. It would require repainting and a tricky coupler conversion. If I ever “fix” it for service, I will probably try to find an AAR Standard boxcar prototype other than Santa Fe, one which had the 7 ½ foot door. Just my druthers. Yours may well differ. Another thing in common among all these Santa Fe boxcar classes: BX-26; BX-27; BX-34; BX-37; BX-43 and BX-44. They all had wooden roofwalks. The Intermountain model of the 1937 AAR Standard boxcar comes with a wooden roofwalk. The Deluxe Innovations 1941 Standard boxcar has a gorgeous see-through etched metal roofwalk. Gorgeous but does not fit the prototype. So the Intermountain model is the closest on this count. A third thing in common among all these Santa Fe boxcar classes is a steel roof with raised rectangular panels. The Arnold Rapido, Concor and Intermountain models all fit this roof style. The Deluxe Innovations 1941 Standard boxcar has a diagonal panel roof which does not match. The main defining characteristic between the 1932, 1937 and 1942 ARA/AAR Standards is interior height, important because of clearance considerations. It is difficult to recognize one height of car from another when the car is sitting all by itself, but a slight difference in height from one car to the next can make a train more interesting. The standard heights: 1932: 9’ 4”; 1937: 10’; 1942: 10’ 6.” The Intermountain 1937 AAR model appears to match the 10’ interior height dimension, and the Santa Fe class that fit that dimension was the BX-27. Intermountain has models lettered and numbered for the ATSF class BX-27. Santa Fe’s class BX-27 had Duryea underframe rather than the AAR standard underframe, had Dreadnaught ends with a 4/5 rib pattern, and had Youngstown doors with 19 corrugations. The Intermlountain 1937AAR boxcar has Youngstown doors with 19 corrugations and 4/5 Dreadnaught ends. However, it has the AAR Standard underframe. Santa Fe specified the Duryea frame as an early kind of “sock control.” It had a straight center sill a little bigger than the AAR Standard, but not the deep fishbelly of the USRA underframe. Crossbearers that attached at the “tabs” along the side sills sloped downward toward the center of the car. Sorry I can’t find online photos of the BX-27 prototype, but here are some links to show what the Duryea underframe was. Duryea underframe, from 1940 Car Builders’ Cyclopedia http://steamerafreightcars.com/prototype/frtcars/duryeacbc.html Santa Fe BX-37 showing Duryea underframe. See especially 3rd photo... http://steamerafreightcars.com/prototype/frtcars/atsfbx27duryea.html My feeling is you have to look hard under the car to see the difference. Unless I am entering a contest, I am satisfied with the Intermountain 1937 Standard boxcar as the best model for the Santa Fe class BX-27. Santa Fe had 2000 of them in series 136500-138499. Here are biblio references to some published photos in print. #137099 Santa Fe Boxcars 1869-1953 p.113 #137310, 1966 Santa Fe Freight in Color Vol.1 (Boxcars) p.13 #137446 indistinct photo Southwestern Prototype Modeler SepOct75 p.4 #137960, ATSF Color Guide to Frt & Psgr Eqpt p.45 #138082 bldrs photo Warbonnet 1Q 2000 p.27 #138082 Santa Fe Boxcars 1869-1953 p.113 #138082 no slogan Rail Model Journal Freight Car Models Vol.II Boxcars Book 1 p.60 Other Santa Fe 10-panel AAR Standard 40’ boxcars: Class BX-26, internal height 9’7” three inches higher than the 1932 ARA Standard in use when it was built. Duryea underframe. A millimeter or two taller than one of Atlas’s 1932ARA boxcars and a millimeter or to shorter than any of the 1937AAR models. Class BX-34, internal height 10’ 4”.... four inches above the standard. A millimeter taller than the Intermountain model. Duryea underframe. Class BX-37, internal height 10’ 4”. Height issue the same as the BX-34. Dreadnaught ends with 4/4 rib pattern. However, they had AAR Standard underframes, not Duryea. So the Intermountain model has the correct underframe for this car, but is a tiny bit short, and if someone looks at the ends from 6 inches away, he may find the 4/5 rib pattern rather than the prototype 5/5 rib pattern. I guess this is a tie for the prototype of the Intermountain model. Santa Fe had a whopping 5010 cars in this class, series 141301-144310; 145500-147499. And there are prototype pictures on the web. BX-37 #142331 http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/atsf/atsf142331ajs.jpg BX-37 #143797 http://www.boxcars.us/Boxcars_A_M/AT-AZ/pages/image016.html BX-37 #146259 http://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=37403 BX-37 #146816 http://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=40550 Santa Fe had two more classes of AAR Standard boxcars, the BX-43 and BX-44. These matched the height of the 1942 AAR Standard at 10’6” interior height. However, the model that matches the dimensions, Deluxe Inmnovations’ 1942 AAR Standard has a diagonal panel roof while Santa Fe’s cars had rectangular panel roofs.
Ken, I've taken all of the information presented (so far) and put it into (multiple) Word Docs so it can be posted on the web. I can send it to you for review and posting or I can post it at the Sacramento Valley NTrak website, whichever you would prefer (or I can not post any of it if you would rather). This information needs to be 'out there' for everyone to be able to use. Once again, thanks for all of your hard work and information. Let me know what you would like for me to do.
oThanks for your comment. Good to know somebody is out there reading. I am trying to sort through information. I mostly file information by prototype roadname (ie Southern Pacific file), NOT by car type (I don't have a big file of ALL PS-1 40' boxcars, for instance.) Several magazines. especially Model Railroading, Rail Model Journal and Mainline Modeler have done some stuff BY car types, and I am mining this. They were generally NOT comparing them to N scale models. Anyway, I am currently gathering published stuff on 1937AAR Standard boxcars by roadname. Many articles did NOT mention door widths. We have 1937AAR models with 6 fioot doors and others with 7 1/2 foot doors, and that is one of the most visually obvious spotting features. So I am collecting a bunch of references to prototype photos, alphabetize them by prototype name, then look up the page number for each roadname in an Official Railway Equipment Register, then sort the references by page numbers numerically to minimize the nnumber of pages I need to turn in the fragile old Register. THEN look up with doors widths roadname by roadname. Finally compare all the known proto features by the model features. I am usually dependent on published description of roof types because photos usually don't show the roof (though one of mnost visible features on our models!) and the ORERs don't tell us anything about roof types. I am trying to post SOMETHING every two or three days so this thread doesn't disappear. (and I don't have to admit "shameless --" whatever the expression is when a post is no content is posted just to keep a thread up...) And also I need to write my history thesis. So I am just trying tokeep it going until we "finish." nHowever you can format it for some kind of permanent site would be great.)
Prototypes (almost) for the Concor N scale 1937 AAR Standard boxcar. For a boxcar that sold for $1.75 in 1973, Concor’s “40’ Standard Steel Boxcar” generally fits the “3-foot rule” for prototype accuracy. For N scale, I will make that the 2-foot rule. It has cast-on ladders, grabs, etc, big rivets, but it has most of the characteristics of the 1937 AAR Standard boxcar: 10 foot interior height, 10-panel side with riveted seams, AAR type “tabs” along the side sills, raised-panel roofs, “intermin” Improved Dreadnaught ends... I upgraded this Santa Fe model slightly with custom paint and decals, knuckle couplers, transverse air reservoir to match Santa Fe prototype, and I filed off the half-ladder on the right side of the end, generally not found on pre-1960 boxcars. I think it looks okay. One thing that is noticeable under the two-foot-rule IF you study the prototype. The door is too wide. The Concor model has a scale 7’6” wide door, and all of Santa Fe’s similar AAR standard boxcars have 6 foot doors. Yes, this is a big enough difference to notice by eye—25% too wide. Well, weren’t there 1937 AAR Standard boxcars with 7’6” doors? I have tracked down published references to some 30 prototype 1937 AAR Standard boxcars with technical information and prototype photos. I then looked up door widths of all the known car numbers in the April 1954 Official Railway Equipment Register. I found only three car series with doors wider than 6 feet. The ones I found had 7 foot wide door openings, not exdactly the same as the 7’6” of the Concor model but close enough to look right unless you hold them up 6 inches in front of your face with a scale rule. So here are the “almost” prototypes fofr the Concor car... Western Maryland #28751, photo in Model Railroading April 1989 p.47. Link to online photo: http://lariverrailroads.com/freight_car/wm28271.jpg The prototype had a Duryea underframe rather than the standard AAR underframe but this might not be noticeable from the side of the car. 10’IH, 7’ door, 4/4 Improved Dreadnaught ends. Now the bad news. Concor offered this style car in some 75 roadnames and paint schemes, but Western Maryland was not one of them. Another “close” prototype: Central RR of New Jersey, CNJ #22578. Photo in Model Railroading April 1989 p.49 Link to online photo: http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/cnj/cnj22487akg.jpg This is a different number series, but except for being equipped with steam lines for passenger train running, it is the same as the 22001-22480 and 22501-23250 series used in freight service. 10’ IH, 7’ door. Once more, Concor did not offer their car painted for this roadname. THIRD “close” prototype B&O #467000 Photo in Popular Picture and Plan Book of Railroad Cars and Locomotives(Simmons-Boardman, 1951) p.178 B&O #467439 Photo in Model Railroading April 1989 p.48 10’ IH, 3-4 Interim Improved Dreadnaught ends, 7’ doors, Duryea underframe. Concor’s model is very similar to the prototype B&O car shown in this link: http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/bo/bo467071amm.jpg Concor made the car in a “Sentinel” service paintscheme: 1003G Baltimore & Ohio Sentinel Different from the scheme of the linked photo, but it may well be correct. Concor offered the car in a B&O “plain vanilla” scheme (actualy plain-boxcar-red) Like the scheme in this linked photo: http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/bo/bo467673amm.jpg Although this is in the same number series as the other linked photo, there are obvious differences: the 7-panel Superior-style door, the straight side sill. Possibly a rebuilt car? Arnold Rapido had an N scale 40' Standard Boxcar that was even older than the Concor model. It had a shell and body style almost identical to the Concor car, except for its underframe which had a fishbelly centersill similar to the USRA centersill. So the above prototype would fit the Arnold Rapido car as well, ecept for the underframe.
This is some of the best information on freight cars I have ever found in a single source. THANK YOU so much for posting all your research information. I know it was not easy to assemble from all the different sources. my thanks again.
I see some minor corrections to make in the B&O information, (and in what I was about to post!), but it's (yawwwwwwn...) late. I will triple check it and try tomorrow. Sorry guys...
Clarification on B&O Prototypes I wrote previously that Concor offered their 40’ Standard boxcar “in a B&O ‘plain vanilla’ scheme (actually plain-boxcar-red).” I wrote wrong. Concor listed two B&O standard steel boxcars in their 1970s-1980s product line, catalogued as 001-1001S Baltimore and Ohio 001-1003G Baltimore and Ohio Sentinel I was fooled by the lack of any qualifying suffix on the listing for 001-1001S. I assumed it was a “plain” (not special service) car. The tiny illustration in Concor catalogs, printed about one-third N scale size, looked fairly plain except for some large lettering on the right side. I couldn’t make it out, assumed it was some generic slogan. While researching (also known as “googling”), I came across photos of HO and O scale models of the same scheme, large enough that I could read the lettering as “Time Saver Service.” I read that this was the appearance of the B&O Timesaver as they originally ran in 1947 with a boxcar red paint. I cannot find a prototype photo. That’s what Concor #001-1001S resembles- except that the prototype had 7’ doors, Concor’s scale out to 7’6”. The cars were repainted about 1950 into a different scheme that also indicated Timesaver service. Series 467000-467999. B&O 467071 “Timesaver” LCL Zanesville OH - 05/21/54 - {Mark Morgan Collection} 7’ door http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/bo/bo467071amm.jpg Published photo: Rail Model Journal Freight Car Models Vol.II Boxcars Book 1 p.78 These cars had 7 foot doors, reasonably close to the 7’6” of the door on the Concor model. Note that Timesaver was a Less-Car-Load service—freight station to freight station. Microscale’s website currently catalogs an HO scale decal, #87-1224 that includes lettering for BOTH styles of Timesaver boxcar, but does not list N scale. Concor made another B&O Standard boxcar, #001-1003G Baltimore & Ohio in the Sentinel Service scheme. Concor’s catalog picture looks identical to this prototype photo: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bo466016.jpg These cars also had 7’ doors, not too far from Concor’s 7’6” doors. Sentinel Service was a fast freight service from “siding to siding.” What was special was that teletype communication, fairly new at the time, was used to expedite the shipment. Discussion of Sentinel service at http://www.kbbraden.com/Sentinel/ It is nice that Concor made these interesting cars, which would be a great addition to a transition era B&O layout. HOWEVER, note that these were SPECIAL SERVICE cars which would not normally be interchanged offline. If your layout represents Texas or Florida or Arizona of anywhere off B&O, these cars would be out of place! Unfortunately, Concor did not seem to offer one of these boxcars in a Baltimore & Ohio ordinary service boxcar which would be found in interchange. Baltimore & Ohio DID have some boxcars with 8 foot doors which could be modeled with the 7’6” door Concor model... if you could find decals. B&O series #468000-468599 Published photo: Rail Model Journal Freight Car Models Vol.II Boxcars Book 1 p.78 w 8’ door B&O #468050 02/75 - {Karl Geffchen Photo} http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/bo/bo468050akg.jpg For me, this means this series of B&O boxcar would be a suitable use of a surplus Concor Standard boxcar. I have a Santa Fe car with a 1960s Big Graphic paintscheme too modern for my 1957 layout. I am keeping my old Concor cars that have Santa Fe name train slogans, even though I know the doors are somewhat overly wide. But since I know the Concor car is not quite right for Santa Fe, I don’t consider it worth the effort to repaint an old Concor car into a Santa Fe car. However, if I can find a B&O decal, this prototype would be a good use for the car I need to redo... Just my druthers. Next- the ongoing search for a prototype 40’ AAR Standard boxcar with a 7’6” door.
It think there's a point that needs to be made here. When a box car says 6' door, that refers to the opening of the door. The doors themselves are a few inches over that measurement. Unfortunately, the exact door measurement isn't often given on a lot of car drawings and will be different for different types of box cars. I would guess that the 7'-6" door is actually just a 7' door just as Micro-trains 6' door actually measures 6'-6" (while there 8' door measures closer to 7'-8" ???) Jason
Which door? Good point, Jason wcfn100. Concor door actually measures 7'6" N scale, which may well be appropriate for an ORER listing of a 7' door opening. Difference between Concor and Intermountain 1937 AAR Standard 40' boxcars. Concor at top-- Intermountain at bottom.
The Searxch for Prototypes I thought of titling this “The Search for More Prototypes...” after the pattern of “The Search for Bridey Murphy,” “The Search for Spock,” “The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence,” “The Search for Bigfoot,” etc. I found 62 prototype railroad and private car owner names for N scale 40’ AAR Standard boxcars manufactured by Concor. Concor also released a few “fantasy” collector cars, in schemes for cigar and tobacco names, and others. I was especially looking for prototype cars with a door width consistent or close to Concor’s the 7’6” wide door. Most 1937 AAR Standard single-door boxcars had 6’ doors. I figure 7’6” is 25% wider than 6’, enough of a difference to see if you know about it. If the prototype had a 7’ or 8’ door and the same type as the Concor model, I figure that would look right unless you put a scale rule up to it. Just my own personal druthers. I found some 80 or 90 photographs and descriptions of prototype 1937 AAR Standard 40’ boxcars, primarily in Rail Model Journal Freight Car Models Vol.II Boxcars Book 1 (1991), Rail Model Journal , Model Railroading magazine from the late 1980s. I set these roadnames found EITHER on Concor models and prototype data onto a spreadsheet, alphabetized, added a column to check off which of the roadnames offered by Concor, and another column for page numbers for prototype photos etc. Then I took the alphabetized roadname list and hunted the index of my April 1954 Official Railway Equipment Register for the page numbers of freight car dimensions etc for each railroad and put them in a spreadsheet column. Sorting my spreadsheet by page number in the ORER allowed me to go from front to back in my almost-60-year-old ORER, without flipping back and forth and having to refer over and over to the index. This time, I just looked at roadnames that Concor made AND that I had a prototype photo of, so I would know that a particular car number was indeed an AAR Standard boxcar. There were 17 of these to check. The ORER entry for that car number would tell me the interior height (often a distinguishing feature between 1932, 1937 and 1942 standard) and the door width. Prototypes with 6’ doors would be better represented with the Intermountain standard boxcar. I found NO cars with 7’6” doors like the Concor model. However I found some with 7 foot doors and some with 8’ doors. Concor #1001L Western Pacific, Feather River I found a prototype with a 7 foot door. WP #20716 Oakland CA - 1967 photo- {Richard Smith Photo} – whitelined 7’ door http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/wp/wp20716rsb.jpg Published photo- WP 20751 blt 1947 Rail Model Journal Freight Car Models Vol.II Boxcars Book 1 p.69 Western Pacific also had 1937 AAR Standard cars with SIX foot doors, and there is another model that fits those. Intermountain model #65825 lettered for WP #20453 has markings like prototype, has 6’ door, which is correct for this car number. I found one other 1937 AAR prototype in a roadname offered by Concor, with a door wider than the common 6 foot ones and closer to the width of the Concor door. Concor model offered model #1001J in Elgin, Joliet & Eastern, green with a map graphic, very similar to this photo. EJ&E #61216 EJE Photo - {RICHARD KURTZ Collection} http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/eje/eje61216ark.jpg However, the prototype’s 8 foot door is a Superior 7-panel type and the molded-on Youngstown type door on the Concor model would be difficult to cut off and replace. Concor also offered another paintscheme in the same roadname. Concor model #1003J Elgin, Joliet & Eastern “2-tone” paint appears very close to the paintscheme appears of published prototype photos in Rail Model Journal Freight Car Models Vol.II Boxcars Book 1 p.76, 78. However, the prototype again has the Superior 7-pabnel door while Concor’s is a Youngstown. This sa,e prototype car, though in a different paint scheme, is in a high-angle view on the Elgin,Joliet & Eastern Ry Archive webpage. Scroll down to 3rd picture from bottom in this archive. http://www.ejearchive.com/page_photos_bk_steam_vari.html This high angle photo shows it has a rectangular panel roof, like the Concor model.
MORE Prototypes for the Concor Standard Boxcar Concor #1001U lettered Southern #27138. Except for the paintscheme and car number, it matches Southern series 330000-330501 With dimensions found in the April 1954 ORER, sure as Southern #330494 as seen on Protocraft Decals site (O scale) http://www.protocraft.com/images/230.jpg The car number and large graphic lettering “Southern Serves the South” match a later paintscheme, and the car dimensions match series 27000-27419 in the October 1971 ORER. Concor #1003N New Haven, with script herald matches this photo of New Haven #35438 with one exception. http://www.protocraft.com/images/259d.jpg The doors are 7’ wide, close enough to Concor’s, but they are Superior 7-panel types rather than the Youngstown corrugated type on the model. And the cast-on doors look like they would be hard to remove neatly... Now here are two prototypes for the Concor Standard Boxcar, BUT they are in roadnames not offered by Concor. Pittsburgh & West Virginia #1239 (8’?) http://www.protocraft.com/images/232a.jpg P&WV #1236 http://www.protocraft.com/images/232b.jpg The prototype series #1200-1299 has 8’ wide doors, 10’4” IH. Another prototype for the model, but in a roadname not offered by the manufacturer. West India Fruit & Steamship Co. #210 http://www.protocraft.com/images/16a.jpg WIF #200-349
LOTS more proto data to digest While checking possible 1937 AAR Standard prototypes for the Concor N scale "standard boxcar," I ran across a TRAINLOAD of information on a site named ttnut.com on 1937 AAR Standard prototypes. I have copied and pasted some 38 pages into "word" to persue and search at length and that is only about a third of it so it is going to be well over 100 pages. Of course, I am not so interested in tt models as in the prototype information to compare with what I have already got. This will slow down "finishing" the survey but make it more complete. Gee whillikers, there were a lot of AAR Standard 40' boxcars!
