Railway Preservation News :: View topic - They Don't Build Them Like They Used To

Try pulling this off with a P.O.S Prius:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyZHnXK9rKQ&NR

Really cool video! but I think you could do this with about any new car built today as well. After all, the locomotive is not pushing 50 loaded coal cars up Horeshoe Curve.
Most people tend to say how much better old cars were built, but I disagree.
Cars today will usually go 200,000 miles without drivetrain work. Tires will usually make the 75,000 mile mark. Collapsible steering colums, crush zones, saftey glass, restraints ,etc. help you live through a 35mph impact.
Most old cars needed new tires in 10,000 miles major engine work around 35,000 miles. got poor gas mileage, comsumed many quarts of oil between oil changes. Depending on how far back you go, had 6 volt electrical, vacuum wipers, no air conditioning so very poor defrost, so good luck at night driving on a two lane hyway in a downpoor.
Did the old cars have idividual style? Yes. Did they build things out of substance? Yes
Would I like to own a classic car? Yes. Would I like to drive one everyday, 365 days a year? No.

Dan

We've yet to see the capacity to replicate a defunct prime mover or Westinghouse traction motor.

Being the proud owner of a 54 Kaiser barn find, it is an amazing piece of machinery but at the same time, I would hate to drive it on a regular basis. Its got a LONG time to go before it can be driven anyway, but thats besides the point. Ill take my 2012 Kia Optima any day of the week over it. Its just a different experience.

“They don’t make ‘em like that anymore…” Yeah, let’s be thankful for that! Cars back in the day had among their many features:
• Solid glass pane windshields
• No seatbelts
• “Airbag”? What’s that?
• Channel/girder frames of steel, but thin sheet metal sides
• Poor door locks or no locks at all, doors could easily come open with no effort
• “Suicide” doors which hinged at the rear of the door opening. If you had to jump out of a moving car you couldn’t stop (which happened often enough), you were considered to be committing suicide as the doors would strike you on the way out
• Suspension consisting only of leaf springs and often no shocks
• Brake lines made from metals that could easily rupture and often no emergency brakes
• Solid rubber tires
• Chain drives that would break and come up through the floorboards

Today's car's not only require advanced diagnostic equipment-but must be perfectly adjusted to work-there's no "almost".

"Most people tend to say how much better old cars were built, but I disagree."

There's more nuance to this than yes/no. I agree with you but:

On the other hand, older cars were more simple, more robust, and therefore, easily repaired. One professional automobile mechanic/ repair business owner (also active in train service) illustrated this point by comparing the nature of a carburetor equipped vehicle with a modern fuel injected one. With the former, he could get it "almost" or "good enough", by adjusting the fuel-air mixture with a screwdriver by ear. Today's car's not only require advanced diagnostic equipment-but must be perfectly adjusted to work-there's no "almost"

I defy you to change the air filter on my Subaru.

Given that there are political forces that want to diminish individual mobility and reduce geographic dispersion, that's a happy accident of being "green". Already, fewer younger people are obtaining driver's licenses and this fact is of concern to industries that depend on a motoring public.

Author:	boilerwash [ Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:06 pm ]
Post subject:	They Don't Build Them Like They Used To
Try pulling this off with a P.O.S Prius: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyZHnXK9rKQ&NR

Author:	Les Beckman [ Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: They Don't Build Them Like They Used To
boilerwash wrote: Try pulling this off with a P.O.S Prius: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyZHnXK9rKQ&NR Great old movies! The Pere Marquette SF-class are my favorite 2-10-2's. They were relatively small for this type, being basically 2-10-0's with a tiny trailing truck, seemingly almost added as an afterthought. The 15 engines in the class were built by Alco's Dunkirk Works in 1918. Despite the year of their construction, they were not USRA designs. Numbered 1100 through 1115, they were the "big engines" on the Pere Marquette until the arrival of two used 2-10-2's in 1930 and then the first of the Van Sweringen Berkshires in 1937. All 15 of the SF-class survived through the C&O takeover of the PM and all were assigned C&O lettering and numbers (2975-2989), although numbers 1103 and 1110 (one of the two PM 2-10-2's in the film) were never relettered or renumbered. The C&O reclassified the locomotives as Class B-4. Starting in the 1940's, a number of the SF-class were assigned to New Buffalo, Michigan where they regularly handled trains on the branch down to LaCrosse, Indiana. This was an important run for the PM as the branch crossed most of the east-west carriers and much interchange traffic occured on the branch. Part of this line still exists (between Union Mills and LaCrosse) and is currently operated by a short line railroad, the Chesapeake & Indiana. At LaCrosse, Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum passenger trains use the wye where once these SF-class 2-10-2's were in regular service. Too bad that one of the class was not preserved. Les

Author:	J3a-614 [ Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: They Don't Build Them Like They Used To
While looking at this and linked videos, I came across this; looks like Pere Marquette had a number of interesting things going on then. Too bad some of our ancestors were kind of crazy-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SejvymvIUs Sometimes I think I live in the wrong time, and other times I think I'm lucky to be where and when I am. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYtZRTSb ... =endscreen

Author:	DanHetzel [ Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: They Don't Build Them Like They Used To
Really cool video! but I think you could do this with about any new car built today as well. After all, the locomotive is not pushing 50 loaded coal cars up Horeshoe Curve. Most people tend to say how much better old cars were built, but I disagree. Cars today will usually go 200,000 miles without drivetrain work. Tires will usually make the 75,000 mile mark. Collapsible steering colums, crush zones, saftey glass, restraints ,etc. help you live through a 35mph impact. Most old cars needed new tires in 10,000 miles major engine work around 35,000 miles. got poor gas mileage, comsumed many quarts of oil between oil changes. Depending on how far back you go, had 6 volt electrical, vacuum wipers, no air conditioning so very poor defrost, so good luck at night driving on a two lane hyway in a downpoor. Did the old cars have idividual style? Yes. Did they build things out of substance? Yes Would I like to own a classic car? Yes. Would I like to drive one everyday, 365 days a year? No. Dan

Author:	superheater [ Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:29 am ]
Post subject:	Re: They Don't Build Them Like They Used To
"Most people tend to say how much better old cars were built, but I disagree." There's more nuance to this than yes/no. I agree with you but: On the other hand, older cars were more simple, more robust, and therefore, easily repaired. One professional automobile mechanic/ repair business owner (also active in train service) illustrated this point by comparing the nature of a carburetor equipped vehicle with a modern fuel injected one. With the former, he could get it "almost" or "good enough", by adjusting the fuel-air mixture with a screwdriver by ear. Today's car's not only require advanced diagnostic equipment-but must be perfectly adjusted to work-there's no "almost". The owner, especially a mechanical oriented one, could perform a variety of tasks. I defy you to change the air filter on my Subaru. It's also indisputable that cars were more structurally imposing in the past, rather than now. It was nothing to have a 4000 pound, mostly steel and chromium chassis with a 400 cubic inch displacement engine (that's 6.6 liters for those were born after 1980 or so) car. There's no doubt that in the event of a collision, one of those cars wouldn't crumble like modern cars, but you have to be a bit of a knowledge about physics to know that when the energy of a crash isn't absorbed in deforming metal, the car survives at the passenger's expense, rather than the other way around. It's almost shocking how much physical damage occurs to a modern car in even a small collision as structural components deform to absorb crash energy. It is true they "don't build them like they used to build them", but that's a good thing if YOU want to survive a crash. Modern cars are increasingly powered by engines that produce more power per unit of engine displacement and use ever more exotic alloys and complex counter balancing mechanisms to produce high relative power outputs with few cylinders and less displacement. Most cars have a minimum of four speeds with an automatic and five speeds with a stick. Continuously variable transmissions are becoming more and more common. ABS is a miracle in bad conditions for the vast majority of the motoring public that cannot overcome the urge to use more brake, not less when the sliding starts. If life as we know it were to remain the same, I would suggest that in the fifty years in the future, there'd be more pre-78 cars on road than those from 1996 to 2013 , (1978 to the mid 90's was a wasteland, think of how awful GM's "X' cars and Chrysler's "K" cars were-it's easy to think there will be almost no representatives of that era, simply because of the absent quality, durability and desirability of those vehicles. Of course nothing compared with the garbage that was the mid 90's era Malibu.) Of course the bigger threat will be regulation and technology. Legislators (who(m) I suspect know better, but don't care) seem to believe the physics can be overcome by edict, but the costs associated with producing a 54mpg car will increasingly require more exotic (carbon fiber) materials that make cars increasingly expensive to manufacture and become more out of reach of more of the population. Given that there are political forces that want to diminish individual mobility and reduce geographic dispersion, that's a happy accident of being "green". Already, fewer younger people are obtaining driver's licenses and this fact is of concern to industries that depend on a motoring public. Even if cars survive, "driving" may not, especially if Google gets it's way. At some point, the computers may have enough processing power to receive and process enough sensory input and execute ever-more sophisticated algorithms that exceed the average driver's ability to operate effectively and safely. (Think GPS taking the wheel-then ask anybody under age 25 to plan a trip with a map). At that point, the government realizes it can track your car, limit the speed, obliterate the issues of distracted driving, minimize the accidents and sharply reduce the costs of motor vehicle code enforcement. Insurers might first give discounts for self-directed vehicles, but then will insist on installation and use, using the threat of withheld federal highway funds (must the same way the .08 ABC became "impaired" nationwide), pretty soon, drivers are passengers, who have no idea how to drive a car without the electronic chauffeur. We are now seeing the triumph of simplicity in railroad preservation. A full-size steam locomotive was produced from scratch in the U.K., and we have another 19th century based design soon to come Kloke. Strasburg makes injectors and other steam components. We've yet to see the capacity to replicate a defunct prime mover or Westinghouse traction motor. I wonder if there will be any operating diesels in 50 years that use authentic components (567/645/710 244/251 prime movers, traction motors, traditional air brakes and electromechanical controls) or if any operating F's will operating only with computer-controlled, multiple prime mover, electronically controlled brakes and other yet unimagined technological leaps and appliances required by regulation or insurance.

Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/

They Don't Build Them Like They Used To https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34561	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Jtgshu [ Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:35 am ]
Post subject:	Re: They Don't Build Them Like They Used To
DanHetzel wrote: Really cool video! but I think you could do this with about any new car built today as well. After all, the locomotive is not pushing 50 loaded coal cars up Horeshoe Curve. Most people tend to say how much better old cars were built, but I disagree. Cars today will usually go 200,000 miles without drivetrain work. Tires will usually make the 75,000 mile mark. Collapsible steering colums, crush zones, saftey glass, restraints ,etc. help you live through a 35mph impact. Most old cars needed new tires in 10,000 miles major engine work around 35,000 miles. got poor gas mileage, comsumed many quarts of oil between oil changes. Depending on how far back you go, had 6 volt electrical, vacuum wipers, no air conditioning so very poor defrost, so good luck at night driving on a two lane hyway in a downpoor. Did the old cars have idividual style? Yes. Did they build things out of substance? Yes Would I like to own a classic car? Yes. Would I like to drive one everyday, 365 days a year? No. Dan Being the proud owner of a 54 Kaiser barn find, it is an amazing piece of machinery but at the same time, I would hate to drive it on a regular basis. Its got a LONG time to go before it can be driven anyway, but thats besides the point. Ill take my 2012 Kia Optima any day of the week over it. Its just a different experience. Not unlike running a nearly 50 year old Geep in passenger service and then hopping into say, a start of the art ALP45DP. They both have their quirks and benefits and drawbacks, but the ease of use and familiarity of the Geep wins out, for now at least. But even if it ends up I prefer running the new toy over the battle scarred Geep, the Geep will still have its benefits that I will like and appreciate and miss. However, the new loco is so much better all around, especially if im looking broadside at a trailer of a tractor/trailer stuck on a grade Xing....id want the '45....just like Id want the '12 Kia over the '54 Kaiser if I was to get in an automobile accident......

Author:	JimBoylan [ Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:15 am ]
Post subject:	Re: They Don't Build Them Like They Used To
superheater wrote: We've yet to see the capacity to replicate a defunct prime mover or Westinghouse traction motor. Jimmy McHugh of McHugh Railroad Maintenance Equipment, in the Strick Trailer Plant on Lincoln Hwy., Fairless Hills, Pa. claims that his company has replicated traction motors for locomotive cranes, but maybe they were imitation General Electric. He thought that replicating a trolley car traction motor would be cheaper, but he didn't say cheapish.

Author:	Rick Rowlands [ Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:26 am ]
Post subject:	Re: They Don't Build Them Like They Used To
Electric motors, while fairly complex, are not that difficult to construct. Just about every steel mill had the ability to rewind motors of all sizes. Once the principles are understood and the appropriate wire purchased, its just a matter of spending the time in winding the coils, installing them and dipping and baking the finished armature or stator. Making frames and laminations may be another story, but casting technology is the same as it always was and water cutting/laser cutting makes creating laminations easier than it used to be. Actually, I know of at least three steel mill motor rewind shops that could probably be purchased, lock stock and barrel if anyone wants to get into the motor rebuild business.

Author:	p51 [ Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: They Don't Build Them Like They Used To
“They don’t make ‘em like that anymore…” Yeah, let’s be thankful for that! Cars back in the day had among their many features: • Solid glass pane windshields • No seatbelts • “Airbag”? What’s that? • Channel/girder frames of steel, but thin sheet metal sides • Poor door locks or no locks at all, doors could easily come open with no effort • “Suicide” doors which hinged at the rear of the door opening. If you had to jump out of a moving car you couldn’t stop (which happened often enough), you were considered to be committing suicide as the doors would strike you on the way out • Suspension consisting only of leaf springs and often no shocks • Brake lines made from metals that could easily rupture and often no emergency brakes • Solid rubber tires • Chain drives that would break and come up through the floorboards Jtgshu wrote: Being the proud owner of a 54 Kaiser barn find, it is an amazing piece of machinery but at the same time, I would hate to drive it on a regular basis. Its got a LONG time to go before it can be driven anyway, but thats besides the point. Ill take my 2012 Kia Optima any day of the week over it. Its just a different experience. I have a 1944 Willys MB military Jeep in my garage. I live in the Pacific NW, where a vehicle like this is almost worthless for any level of comfort several months out of the year. It's great in the summertime but owning something like this is like owning an airplane in that you don't just hop into it. You have to do a full walkaround every time you fire it up and ever time you step on the starter switch, there's always that moment of, "Is she going to run today?" in the back of my mind, due to the maintenance-intensive nature of such a vehicle. I, too, would drive my KIA any day of the week for relaiable transportation.

Author:	Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: They Don't Build Them Like They Used To
p51 wrote: “They don’t make ‘em like that anymore…” Yeah, let’s be thankful for that! Cars back in the day had among their many features: • Solid glass pane windshields • No seatbelts • “Airbag”? What’s that? • Channel/girder frames of steel, but thin sheet metal sides • Poor door locks or no locks at all, doors could easily come open with no effort • “Suicide” doors which hinged at the rear of the door opening. If you had to jump out of a moving car you couldn’t stop (which happened often enough), you were considered to be committing suicide as the doors would strike you on the way out • Suspension consisting only of leaf springs and often no shocks • Brake lines made from metals that could easily rupture and often no emergency brakes • Solid rubber tires • Chain drives that would break and come up through the floorboards Missing from the above list: About 100 times the aggregate pollution per mile. An awful lot of the electronics and engineering found in modern automobiles is in pursuit of reduced emissions.

Author:	DanHetzel [ Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: They Don't Build Them Like They Used To
Quote: Today's car's not only require advanced diagnostic equipment-but must be perfectly adjusted to work-there's no "almost". I would have to disagree. Being a professional mechanic for 23 years. Todays cars have computers that learn or adapt to the running situation. Once it exceedes the perameter, then it will have drivabilty issues or be unable to run. There are inputs that the computer looks at to determind fuel trim. It looks at mass air flow, coolant temp, ambiant temp and the oxygen sensor. From this it can find optimum fuel air ratio to run, thus commanding the pulse width of injector time as well as advancing/retarding ingition timing. Non computer carburator cars, it was all mechanical with springs and vacuum. Pump the accelerater to set the choke, turn the key and hope it runs,give it a bit then take off. Dan

Author:	J3a-614 [ Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: They Don't Build Them Like They Used To
A graphic example of how energy absorption technology (and other things) have changed in the auto world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJrXViFfMGk

Author:	robertmacdowell [ Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: They Don't Build Them Like They Used To
superheater wrote: "Most people tend to say how much better old cars were built, but I disagree." There's more nuance to this than yes/no. I agree with you but: On the other hand, older cars were more simple, more robust, and therefore, easily repaired. One professional automobile mechanic/ repair business owner (also active in train service) illustrated this point by comparing the nature of a carburetor equipped vehicle with a modern fuel injected one. With the former, he could get it "almost" or "good enough", by adjusting the fuel-air mixture with a screwdriver by ear. Today's car's not only require advanced diagnostic equipment-but must be perfectly adjusted to work-there's no "almost" Sounds like sour grapes from a guy who doesn't like to learn. There's nothing to adjust on a post-carburetor car. You swap parts until it works, and then it works fully. If you use a scan tool, which I have never needed, the computer will give very specific information like "intermittent misfire, cylinder 5" or "high impedance, injector 3 coil" etc. If you can't see how information like that will greatly reduce your troubleshooting time, sell your wrench set. The carb must compensate for temperature, baro, humidity, altitude, oxygen content of air, octane, energy content of fuel (winter/summer mix, ethanol content, junk, etc.), startup, choke, injector/jet wear, transients, etc. No carburetor has ever succeeded because there are too many parameters to resolve mechanically. They couldn't ever work without being a Rube Goldberg machine. Seriously, look at a Rochester 4MV, the "Super Power" of carbs, which did achieve many of the advances attributed to fuel injection, but at prohibitive cost and with too much stuff to have to adjust. The problem isn't data inputs, the problem is mixmastering the inputs into a correct fuel rate. Computers do that for breakfast. They can accommodate a lot more sensors too, crankshaft position, dieseling, etc. And the famous oxygen sensors, which introduce feedback: the computer can dynamically adjust to actual conditions, and then store that. Which is WHY there's nothing to adjust. Having swung both ways, I'll be happy to never see another carb. Quote: I defy you to change the air filter on my Subaru. If you owned an F-15 fighter jet, and somebody said "you have to pull the engine to service anything on them", you'd say "Yeah, but when the engine is back in, it's an F-15!" If that's the nature of your love affair with your Subaru, then stop complaining :) If not, try buying cars from companies whose engineers actually own, drive and maintain them themselves. I recommend GM, Ford and Chrysler. Quote: Given that there are political forces that want to diminish individual mobility and reduce geographic dispersion, that's a happy accident of being "green". Already, fewer younger people are obtaining driver's licenses and this fact is of concern to industries that depend on a motoring public. Once, there were industries that depended on the chewing of tobacco. Somehow we all hypnotized ourselves into believing this industry was important. "Oh God, what will we do if the spittoon manufacturers falter? They're too big to fail!" A lot of kids see driving as a sucker bet. Having been there, I see why. * Every consumer agency (AAA, Consumer Reports etc.) that has studied this has determined that total cost of vehicle ownership is $8000/year and up. (that number seemed "over the moon" to me, until I actually tallied ALL my vehicle costs... gulp!) That's $667/month+ and doesn't even include rims, stereo, or whatever else kids put on their cars these days. They can get a transit pass for 1/10 that cost, and have another $600/month+ of disposable income tax-free. * That's the difference between living in their parents' basement or living in the city in a housemate share. Which means they can party and take girls home. * It's a lot easier to party when you are immune to DUI. * Sure, that requires living in the city, but cities are far more livable than ever. Urban crime rates are now lower than suburban/rural, even despite inter-gang wars pulling down the average. Then they get to enjoy the sophisticated amenities of city life: Good food, real art museums, quality theater, and cultural diversity to beat the band. Want to play Go-Moku, do Browncoat reenactments, unite with GLBT sysadmins, there's a community. * Being as they're probably in the city anyway, for college. Time on transit is time available for studying. Time driving is lost. * They also look at the risk of future fuel prices and say "Why gamble". * Apartments don't blow engines and stick you with a $3000 repair bill. This is one thing that keeps the working poor behind the 8-ball... costs of car ownership. It's even worse when car financing schemes keep "hooking you in" by folding the unpaid balance on your last car into your next car's financing. There's no way to dig your way out of that hole. Kids these days are financially savvy enough to be wary of that. * The main reason to live in the 'burbs and put up with a hell commute is the glowing pride of home ownership. Recent years' events certainly took the shine off THAT apple. * Kids also don't like being ambushed or taxed. The government zones most communities so transit is impractical and driving is mandatory to have any kind of a meaningful life. Nobody likes "mandates", that $8000/year is just another tax (and uses already-taxed money). As for geographical dispersion, during the housing bubble, yes, there were some "New Urbanism" government-manipulated developments... but comparatively few of them. Mostly, things happened that the meddlers did not intend, and did oppose. First, there was crazy overbuilding in the far exurban areas. Second, there was market-driven gentrification of old cities and streetcar suburbs. Then the bubble burst. The exurbs fell apart, lots of abandoned or underwater homes. The gentrification is only accelerating, and the New Urbanism deals have done OK too. So apparently the MARKET voted for infill development rather than dispersion. Sorry. What does this have to do with trains? Well, infill means the rail systems put there 100 years ago are viable again. That increases popular interest in railways as a means to move people. And that increases interest in what we do, and gives us relevance.

Author:	RCD [ Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: They Don't Build Them Like They Used To
There was an add somewhat recently where a locomotive was put up against a truck frame and the locomotive spun it's wheels pushing up against it.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	J3a-614 [ Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:04 am ]
Post subject:	Re: They Don't Build Them Like They Used To
Robert MacDowell had a long post, so much I don't dare quote any of it, but I have to say I agree with about all of it, and have observed about all of it. Others have noted what he says about younger people and cars, and they and others are questioning whether it's a good idea to keep pouring money into roads. My disagreements are that Mr. MacDowell didn't quite have everything that's happened to cars and kids. The first thing I'll bring up is that those fuel injection systems we use these days have enormously contributed to both fuel economy and extended engine life. Fuel management is so improved in modern cars that engines last for 300,000 miles or more because you're not running so much fuel into the engine that it's running down the cylinder walls and diluting the lubricating oil. That was a problem with carburetors that never was properly solved when running rich for cold engines. In addition to that, you have much reduced emissions and much better fuel economy, not to mention enormous power outputs (you can get a Chevy engine with over 500 hp today, and its as well domesticated as anything ever built). In addition to that, no-load idle (neutral) fuel consumption is very low; I found that out when I had a bad starter motor recently, and had to keep the engine running for hours at a time until I could get it fixed. Doing that with an older car would mean going through half a tank of gas in say, six hours or so, but the gauge hardly moved on the day I had to do just that to guarantee getting home from an assignment that was 100 miles away. The second thing I'd bring up is that driving isn't the fun it used to be. Part of it is too many other drivers, some of whom are either senile or overly aggressive, not to mention the distracted and the drunk or otherwise impaired. Then there is all the development that got built. I used to be out with orchards in almost seconds from where I live until less than 20 years ago. Now I go past fields of McMansions where there used to be trees and horses--not to mention the cheap-looking strip malls. Some of those houses and commercial structures were not as well built as they should have been; I've seen houses that needed new roofs in less than 10 years, seen others that had cracks developing from settling in less than two years, and from contractors and insurance agents (the latter going through houses under construction on their inspections) have heard horror stories about lack of insulation, poorly assembled steps that had to be dismantled and reassembled, hardwood floors that ran at angles to walls, and kitchens with cabinets that fall apart in five years. Who wants to look at things like that? Put it another way--how many people would enjoy Sunday drives today, even if they could afford the gasoline? How enjoyable is "cruising" today, again even if the money is available for the gas? A ride on an EBT or even a trolley is such a pleasant experience; now if only I could take another train to get to it, and transfer off at Mount Union like you used to do! Better still would be steam operations in a place closer that should be a natural for it, like Harpers Ferry, W.Va.! Hey--are you fellows at the National Park Service and at CSX reading this?