Could anyone provide any contact info for this group? There's no reason for some of this stuff to be cut up if they're willing to give it away or sell it for cheap. I'm not interested in Facebook so I don't have a way to contact them through that method.

Apparently they have not told membership about this issue. Members are finding out via social media that "their" equipment needs a home..

D6311B (9/18/53) is "Exterior painting arrangement SP 'Cascade' cars"
CED4232M is "Painting, striping and lettering for SP-owned lightweight cars used on the 'Overland' train"

The paint codes are in a separate file at Tom's website... searching only the number will show you what it means...

http://www.pullmanproject.com/Paint_Text.htm

Jerry,
Thank you for the link.
Somehow I missed that table on the visit after Tom put it up and every visit after that.

Pretty lucky WRM actually found someone who wanted their SP wrecker.

I wonder if the Truckee RR Museum was also lucky enough to find takers for their unwanted crane, loco, car and wrecker?

Is there any news on the disposal of their equipment?

These is nothing on the Truckee Donner RR Museum web page about them having to move. After following several links I found their Facebook page where it mentions they are working with another local museum to save something. It looks like there will be room for the wrecker and rotary snow plow. The GE switcher has been sold to the Virginia & Truckee RR and the small crane has been sold to an unnamed museum at Oroville, CA.

The information on the drawing numbers and codes is partial - it is correct for the Operating Dept. / Company (depending on era). In other words, CE refers to not the car manufacturing engineers - but the operating company engineers.

Likewise, the drawings at the Newberry are from the Operating Company - NOT the Manufacturing company. HUGE difference, that is the main reason for so much erroneous information floating "out there" - when you're blind and you feel up an elephant's leg, it takes a lot of looking to actually know you're in deep **** instead of the mouth.

The Specifications, Drawing List and *original manufacture* drawings are at the Pullman Library - including paint information. That in the Newberry is post manufacturing. Neither being wrong, both being a snapshot ONLY. You CAN NOT make relevant analysis on Pullman by looking only at the Newberry or only at the Pullman Library.

Doing so is fraught with pitfalls. The term "Composite" is one example - at the Newberry, this is taken to mean "of multiple constructive materials (usually wood & steel)". At the Pullman Library, that word is VERY different, as it defines a car that has multiple uses (esp., but not limited to library/buffet/baggage cars). When you read certain books and papers regarding Pullman's terms or "codes" (sic) you are usually reading/hearing the OPERATING arm's information ONLY - *NOT* the Manufacturing or Manufacturing/Operating company.

The Newberry has scanned their Pullman drawings. What you can see on-line is the low res versions (copies are high-res). They have about 10,000 drawings. We have over 20,000 scanned, and over 2 million in total. They do not have railroad "experts" to provide caption or metadata, and some of their drawing information (and the resultant analysis) is far off base as a result. It is a tremendous resource, but one *MUST* know its limitations. If not, you are liable to get the incorrect version of events out there. I look at it as if it were post Augie at the DPL.

The issue must be addressed as far as IRM is concerned with a new web page - which has been in the works for years. And at that, input must be more consistent and correct than it has been. The gestation period for an elephant is less time consuming. But there are viable reasons for that...

I think rswebber has made an error. His message seems to have nothing to do with the Truckee museum.

Um...it was a direct reply to several previous messages AND a direct reply to the equipment at said museum. Sorry to try to be informative and complete in answers. I know being informed is no longer "cool" but I thought, perhaps, it might be in a preservation forum - sarcasm or no.

Sorry! I was not trying to be snide or sarcastic but thaught you had posted to the wrong topic (I have done this). When I went back to last July on page 1 I found what you were reffering to.