Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Vincent Massi posted:

Folks I like researching the web, and I have collected some fascinating photos of real locomotives and rolling stock. I'd like to show my most interesting ones and of course, everyone is welcome to post their own interesting photos.34f71217ea219d18b55d698dc3b933ee

Given a choice between the above engine and these, YES:

Whole GG1GG1

Or half GG1halfgg1-1024

There's a saying...Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone!!!

Attachments

Images (2)
  • GG1
  • halfgg1-1024

Here she is at Arnhem in 1936. The entire area would be cratered during the failed Allied drive through the Netherlands in the fall of 1944.

Having spent time in Europe chasing and riding trains (in the Netherlands and other countries across the pond), I have a soft spot for European equipment., especially German and Dutch stuff

No, I wouldn't buy a model of that as I don't model standard gauge and my layout concept would never explain its presence.

But that said, if I did model wartime Europe, yeah, I might want one pf these streamlined 4-6-0s!

This armored monster was built by the Soviet Communists during the Russian Revolution. It could be pulled by a locomotive, could pull a few cars itself and of course was self-propelled. Its "dayArmored_Train_IRL of glory" occurred when it crashed through the White Russian lines and captured two of their locomotives.

Later it was captured by the Czech Legion, which had gotten trapped in Russia. They used it in eastern Russia to help the White Russians. Somehow Chinese warlords captured it and the Chinese Communists captured it from them. They returned it to the Russian Communists, but Poland captured it in a border war. When WW2 started, the Germans captured it and scrapped it.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Armored_Train_IRL
Hot Water posted:
TM Terry posted:
dkdkrd posted:
 

 If this is a GG1,

Wouldn't this, then, be a G1??

Maybe more correctly, a G1/2 (G one half).

Since the "G" classification in PRR terminology stood for a 4-6-0 wheel arrangement, that photo of half of a GG1, would then indeed be a "G1". One "G" being half of a "GG1".

 

Not so fast there, Hot Water. We agree that “GG” stands for 4-6-0 back to back. But knowing that the “1” stands for the first design, CLEARLY the sawed in half GG1 is “half” of the first design. Therefore, appropriately called a G1/2. 

Vincent Massi posted:

In my never-ending quest for knowledge, I did some more research on this crane car. Another fan of the car built a G scale model, based only on the photograph! He admits that it is partly guesswork, but it shows why the cranes could swing sideways while the counterweight stayed stationary.THEGALLINE-PRR490797-7s_zps5de9510e

Attachments

Images (1)
  • THEGALLINE-PRR490797-7s_zps5de9510e
TM Terry posted:

Not so fast there, Hot Water. We agree that “GG” stands for 4-6-0 back to back. But knowing that the “1” stands for the first design, CLEARLY the sawed in half GG1 is “half” of the first design. Therefore, appropriately called a G1/2. 

I beg to differ! the One does stand for first design of that wheel arrangement, hence the GG1, first and only class of back-to-back 4-6-0s. But cut it in half, and you have just a 4-6-0 again. But PRR had five classes of 4-6-0, culminating in the G5s. Therefore, this beast, born in a later day, must be a G6.

nickaix posted:
TM Terry posted:

Not so fast there, Hot Water. We agree that “GG” stands for 4-6-0 back to back. But knowing that the “1” stands for the first design, CLEARLY the sawed in half GG1 is “half” of the first design. Therefore, appropriately called a G1/2. 

I beg to differ! the One does stand for first design of that wheel arrangement, hence the GG1, first and only class of back-to-back 4-6-0s. But cut it in half, and you have just a 4-6-0 again. But PRR had five classes of 4-6-0, culminating in the G5s. Therefore, this beast, born in a later day, must be a G6.

Yet mathematically: (GG1)/2, as in cut in half, equals G1/2

Sorry, but my math is sorely wrong. I have embarrassed myself. 

Last edited by TM Terry
TM Terry posted:
nickaix posted:
TM Terry posted:

Not so fast there, Hot Water. We agree that “GG” stands for 4-6-0 back to back. But knowing that the “1” stands for the first design, CLEARLY the sawed in half GG1 is “half” of the first design. Therefore, appropriately called a G1/2. 

I beg to differ! the One does stand for first design of that wheel arrangement, hence the GG1, first and only class of back-to-back 4-6-0s. But cut it in half, and you have just a 4-6-0 again. But PRR had five classes of 4-6-0, culminating in the G5s. Therefore, this beast, born in a later day, must be a G6.

Yet mathematically: (GG1)/2, as in cut in half, equals G1/2

Sorry, but my math is sorely wrong. I have embarrassed myself. 

Except it's no longer a locomotive as such, it's an over-glorified snow blower...

Rusty

One of SP's shops built a cab-forward 0-6-0 yard goat. It was a saddle-tanker and was THE coolest switcher I had seen. It was similar to these two, but was actually cab-forward and had a fully-shrouded boiler with the water and fuel tanks. I believe it was built in the San Francisco shops. That would be a cool little locomotive to have in the roster.

Last edited by AGHRMatt
 

The US Navy built five of these magnificent railcar guns during WW1. Built with brand new surplus navy cannon, their specialty was hitting German targets over twenty miles away as they followed an advancing US Army. In addition to factories, they would strike rail yards to keep extra enemy troops and supplies from reaching the front.

Designed to fire 300 times before wearing out, these cannon needed 1/2 hour per shot, but their all-Navy crews averaged over 150 shots per cannon. So effective that they were used until the end of the war, one of them fired one of the last shots of WW1.Obusier-de-520-modele-1916_1US_14_inch_railway_gun_firing_Thierville_1918plunket

Attachments

Images (3)
  • Obusier-de-520-modele-1916_1
  • US_14_inch_railway_gun_firing_Thierville_1918
  • plunket
Vincent Massi posted:

Definitely! (I like cranes and crane cars). The London and North Eastern Railway was founded in 1923. In 1948, it was divided among three other railways.j92

Vincent, that's deffo not what happened. The LNER was one of the "Big Four" formed in 1923, and all 4 were nationalised in 1948 to form British Railways.

Cheers, Mark

Man, we have a lot of smart railroaders here! The "coast to coast" tenders didn't literally go from the Atlantic to the Pacific, but they doubled the distance a train could travel without refueling. The Pennsylvania Railroad often used them to move trains quickly over the Appalachian Mountains of the eastern US.

This specific coast to coast tender T1_color_photo is the tender for the Pennsylvania Railroad's controversial T1 steam locomotive.

The PRR built 52 of these monsters, none or which lasted more than 10 years. Designed to easily run at 100mph, they were often run faster, causing excessive wear. Their excessive maintenance costs doomed them.

Defenders point out that if the PRR had used them properly, they would have remained as some of the greatest locomotives ever built. However, even if held down to 100 mph, engineers had a hard time controlling the excess power, which produced wheel slippage.

The tenders were sometimes used for other large steam locomotives.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • T1_color_photo

I wouldn't buy a model of Japan's D51, but it is an impressive machine. The last one was built in 1945, and some were still in service in the sixties. One is still in service for special trips.

D51namekuziSL_20081207
The Russians captured two and kept one in service until 1979.

With over 1,000 built, it is Japan's most mass-produced steam locomotive, and over 100 of them are preserved at various museums and railroad displays.

Attachments

Images (2)
  • D51namekuzi
  • SL_20081207
Kent Loudon posted:

>>Not so fast there, Hot Water. We agree that “GG” stands for 4-6-0 back to back. But knowing that the “1” stands for the first design, CLEARLY the sawed in half GG1 is “half” of the first design. Therefore, appropriately called a G1/2.<<

Wouldn't be more appropriate to call it a 1/2GG ?... or a GG0.5 ?

 

I'd call it broken........

Guitarmike posted:
Kent Loudon posted:

>>Not so fast there, Hot Water. We agree that “GG” stands for 4-6-0 back to back. But knowing that the “1” stands for the first design, CLEARLY the sawed in half GG1 is “half” of the first design. Therefore, appropriately called a G1/2.<<

Wouldn't be more appropriate to call it a 1/2GG ?... or a GG0.5 ?

 

I'd call it broken........

I'd call it cute.
In fact, there are a lot of engines out there that are "cute"
Image result for 2-2-2 pioneer

Pioneer was a cute one, a pleasure to see with my own eyes.
Image result for 4-2-4 C.P. Huntington

C.P. Huntington is also cute, and is almost a "big brother" to pioneer, at least in my eyes.
Also a pleasure to see with my own eyes.

Last edited by Berkshire
Vincent Massi posted:

Japan used armored trains and railcars during its invasion of China. How many of these would you buy a model of?

Now, THERE are some targets for those PW cannon and missile cars!  Kinda silly to shoot at harmless exploding boxcars:  make some exploding models of these puppies, and save the world from the nefarious Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere!

I'm not making this up.

During the Japanese invasion of China, a battle took place between an armored Japanese train and an armored Chinese train. Three different versions of the battle emerged.

1) Japanese--We were proceeding peacefully through China when the Chinese launched an unprovoked attack on us, killing the train commander. We fought back courageously, driving the Chinese train into retreat.

2) Nationalist Chinese--We were guarding a railroad station when a Japanese armored train approached, ordering us to leave. We opened fire, killing their commander, but we were outnumbered and forced to retreat.

3) Communist Chinese--Our heroic People's Army ambushed a Japanese train but did not have the equipment to penetrate its armor. Running to the train station, we recruited a Nationalist armored train to join us in the People's struggle. We inflicted a glorious amount of damage to the Imperialists before we chose to withdraw.

Below is a photograph of the Chinese armored train: 367584.JPG.resize.710x399

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 367584.JPG.resize.710x399

Andrew, I would definitely buy a model of that beauty!

 

And now:

 

This became a popular thread on another forum. The guy wanted $4,5003930468588thkl_ebae7802fa_z US for it. It is a limited edition Lionel caboose honoring a toys buff convention. There never was a real caboose lettered like this.

Someone joked that he had bought some for $1 apiece and repainted them because they were so ugly. Another person pointed out that counterfeiting the original is not impossible.

So, would you buy it for $1? If you could, would you repaint it? If you could get it at a reasonable price (maybe $10?), would you buy it?

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 3930468588thkl_ebae7802fa_z
Vincent Massi posted:

Yes! This magnificent monstrosity is one of four Mercury steam locomotives operated by the New York Central Railroad. Starting in 1936, the last one was retired in the 1970's,

What???????   You mean that a New York Central 4-6-2 steam locomotive lasted into the 1970s???? Please clarify THAT statement.

 

although it was no longer used as a streamliner. the-new-york-central-mercury-T-Q1AwKi

 

I posted an explanation but it didn't "take," so here goes a second try:

"The Mercury train sets were designed by the noted industrial designer Henry Dreyfuss, and are considered a prime example of Art Deco design. "

"A fourth train, the James Whitcomb Riley between Chicago and Cincinnati, used the same design for its train sets and is considered part of the Mercury family, although it did not bear the Mercury name. The Riley debuted in 1941 and lasted into the Amtrak era, though no longer a streamliner" "

Amtrak was "Founded in 1971..."

"The Riley was retained, although it was no longer a streamliner. In 1971, Amtrak combined the Riley with the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway's George Washington."

"Amtrak took over intercity passenger rail service on May 1, 1971. Amtrak kept the George Washington, including both the Washington and Newport News sections. It was combined with the James Whitcomb Riley on July 12, 1971 to provide through service to Chicago"

All quotes are from Wikipedia.

But Hot Water, you might be right. Carefully re-reading these statements, I wonder if the author of these articles didn't accidentally blend the literal locomotive named "James Whitcomb Riley" with the passenger service of the same name. I had understood the original statement to mean that the locomotive itself was removed from streamliner service but was still used for other duties. I cannot find any information on when the locomotive itself was retired.

Meanwhile, I had to add some photos of this magnificent steam locomotive:Cleveland_Mercury_ticket_New_York_Central_1938486-187MERCSTREAMTOLD

 

Attachments

Images (3)
  • Cleveland_Mercury_ticket_New_York_Central_1938
  • 486-187
  • MERCSTREAMTOLD
Last edited by Vincent Massi

Dutch streamliner; one of six streamlined locomotives of the Dutch 3700 series:

German streamliner (i.e. not armored), 60 of these were build. Baureihe 03.10:

Bild

And a model of the Baureihe 03.10:

There were different types of German streamliners: Baureihe 01.10, 03.10, 05, 61 and more.

I do not have a model of the Dutch streamliner (no-one made a commercially available model).

Regards

Fred

Attachments

Images (1)
  • mceclip0
Last edited by sncf231e

I do not know what a Winnebago is, but this is a much modelled SNCF CC 40100 locomotive that was used for the luxury TEE trains in Europe. Models are available in a number of scales by a number of manufacturers. I took this picture when I travelled behind it from Paris to Amsterdam in the seventies:

Regards

Fred

Attachments

Images (1)
  • mceclip0
Vincent Massi posted:
 

They made two of these Aeolus stainless steel locomotives before World War 2. The first was an upgrade to an already existing locomotive, while the other was built from the ground up.pictures_35385_cbq4000Aeolus-2

Well, they really weren't "stainless steel locomotives", simply CB&Q 4-6-4 Hudsons, with stainless steel shrouds over the boiler & tender, just like the NYC, and many other railroads that had streamlined "shrouded" steam locomotives.

A large caravan brand.  It has become as iconic as Kleenex tissues or Q-tip cotton swaps here in the US.  This one is kinds small, but has the right nose.(might not be an actual "Winni" either.

download [2) 

A "Winni-llac"?  I couldn't ever resist this as a daily driver .... so yea, really...😋  First thing, I'd paint the white turquoise  😱   ...😎

th

You literally beat me too the Æolus by a day.   

While Automobiles and bright metal thoughts are flowing.....

th-4

Attachments

Images (3)
  • download (2)
  • th
  • th-4

The DT&I electrics were made in-house with Westinghouse components when Ford owned that, and maybe a few purpose built things that never left the properties. They didn't produce anything that went up for sale to other railroads; that is correct. I never really looked into early DT&I roster, but I doubt they built anything; they barely maintained their track.

 Take a look at the whole of the River Rouge Complex on an old Detroit map sometime. It is the prototype for some others that dwarf it today.

Nothing too visually unusual, but these carried their sub-station electricals on board. About 5000hp start, 3500hp at speed.

Yep.

th-6

Is there anything "Sassy Grass Green" out there so I can say no? 🤣

Attachments

Images (1)
  • th-6
Rusty Traque posted:
Scotie posted:

A switcher built by Ford in 1937 where the grills are similar to the '37 Ford front end.

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/ford1001.jpg

Except it was built by GE.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Diese...32ton_ge_center_cab/

Rusty

Right you are, Rusty. GE redesigned these beauties, with ideas they got from Ford's own 1938 Crown Victoria.

Ford Motor Company owned and operated locomotives, but they never built any.

Hot Water posted:
Vincent Massi posted:
 

They made two of these Aeolus stainless steel locomotives before World War 2. The first was an upgrade to an already existing locomotive, while the other was built from the ground up.pictures_35385_cbq4000Aeolus-2

Well, they really weren't "stainless steel locomotives", simply CB&Q 4-6-4 Hudsons, with stainless steel shrouds over the boiler & tender, just like the NYC, and many other railroads that had streamlined "shrouded" steam locomotives.

Lots of kids had models of these:  Flyer made cast versions prewar.

Farmer_Bill posted:

Wikipedia (not always the best source) says “Introduced in 1937, the Crusader service declined during the 1960s. The southern part of the route was cut in 1981, followed by the northern part in 1982.”

Since the train only operated from the CNJ Jersey City Terminal to Philadelphia, I wonder what they mean by the "southern Part" vs. the "northern part". Also, the Reading Railroad became part of CONRAIL on April 1, 1976, thus ceased to exist.      

 

Better question, How long did the Crusader streamliners head the Crusader route vs diesel? It seems that is being overlooked at the least, and who ran how much of the train by title , where and when, is another thread for after the day the streamliner ended is accounted for I'd think...that is the subject once settled is most on topic imo.
Adriatic posted:
Better question, How long did the Crusader streamliners head the Crusader route vs diesel?
 
Being raised in Cranford, New Jersey, I do remember seeing the steam powered Reading Crusader pass thru on the main line, through the yard area just set of the main passenger station. Since the Crusader did not stop in Cranford, it was going really, REALLY fast, when I, and my dad, first saw it in 1944 and/or 1945. In the early 1950s, long after my dad had passed away, I remember seeing the Crusader with nice looking diesels powering the train. I learned later that those nice looking diesels were EMD FP7s in an A-A MU'ed consist.
 
It seems that is being overlooked at the least, and who ran how much of the train by title , where and when, is another thread for after the day the streamliner ended is accounted for I'd think...that is the subject once settled is most on topic imo.

 

Adriatic posted:
Better question, How long did the Crusader streamliners head the Crusader route vs diesel? It seems that is being overlooked at the least, and who ran how much of the train by title , where and when, is another thread for after the day the streamliner ended is accounted for I'd think...that is the subject once settled is most on topic imo.

From the American Rails website:

"Locomotives No. 117 and No.118 were both kept at the Reading's facilities in Philadelphia. One engine would pull the morning Philadelphia to Jersey City round trip and the other engine would later pull the afternoon round trip.

In 1948, two EMD FP7A diesel-electric engines replaced the two streamlined steam locomotives. Both steam engines had their streamlining removed and were placed on other assignments. In 1950 the two Pacifics were retired and replaced by more EMD FP7A diesels."

Rusty

We're learning. This is the second or third time that I have blended the name of a locomotive with the name of the rail service.

I stated, correctly,  that  "...the Crusader had streamlined locomotives..." and then showed three pictures of streamlined Crusader steam engines. I meant that the Crusader train service had streamlined locomotives, but failed to explain that they eventually replaced their Steam locos with others.

The EMD-FP7A was a streamlined diesel locomotive that replaced the streamlined steam locomotives. A photo is below, but there were slightly different versions. This is a 1968 diesel-electric Crusader.RDG_900_Train_5602_the_Crusader_at_Reading_Terminal,_Philadelphia,_PA_on_November_30,_1968_[23270521534)

Attachments

Images (1)
  • RDG_900_Train_5602_the_Crusader_at_Reading_Terminal,_Philadelphia,_PA_on_November_30,_1968_(23270521534)
Hot Water posted:
Vincent Massi posted:

Too stodgy-looking for me.143599580554f8c2fc573764e47a9b66

A photoshopped fake anyway.

Hot Water, you could be right. Two sites have posted this photo as a "Pennsylvania Railroad. Streamlined 4-6-4, Hudson type (PRR Class P6), along the lines of the P5a electrics." But it does not resemble the P5s at all. Nor does it resemble the Hudsons. And I cannot find any listing of a PRR Class P6.

I'm impressed.

 
 
 
 
Vincent Massi posted:
Hot Water posted:
Vincent Massi posted:

Too stodgy-looking for me.143599580554f8c2fc573764e47a9b66

A photoshopped fake anyway.

Hot Water you are correct.

Two sites have posted this photo as a "Pennsylvania Railroad. Streamlined 4-6-4, Hudson type (PRR Class P6), along the lines of the P5a electrics." But it does not resemble the P5s at all. Nor does it resemble the Hudsons. And I cannot find any listing of a PRR Class P6.

Researching farther, a fellow on Deviant Art claims to have invented it. It seems that the PRR didn't like the 4-6-4 arrangement because it did not provide enough traction for the mountainous sections of Pennsylvania. So this fellow designed (on paper) a steam locomotive using the 4-6-4 arrangement that could succeed in those areas.

Hot Water, I'm impressed.

 
 
 
 

 

Vincent Massi posted:
Vincent Massi posted:
Hot Water posted:
Vincent Massi posted:

Too stodgy-looking for me.143599580554f8c2fc573764e47a9b66

A photoshopped fake anyway.

Hot Water you are correct.

Two sites have posted this photo as a "Pennsylvania Railroad. Streamlined 4-6-4, Hudson type (PRR Class P6), along the lines of the P5a electrics." But it does not resemble the P5s at all. Nor does it resemble the Hudsons. And I cannot find any listing of a PRR Class P6.

Researching farther, a fellow on Deviant Art claims to have invented it. It seems that the PRR didn't like the 4-6-4 arrangement because it did not provide enough traction for the mountainous sections of Pennsylvania. So this fellow designed (on paper) a steam locomotive using the 4-6-4 arrangement that could succeed in those areas.

Hot Water, I'm impressed.

 
 
 
 

 

For what it's worth, the PRR never had any 4-6-4 nor 4-8-4 wheel arrangements in their steam locomotive fleet. The electric locomotive fleet consisted of the P5 class of 4-6-4s and only one R class 4-8-4, which the PRR deemed "un-successful" also, and subsequently had the GG-1 developed/built. 

There was no Pennsylvania Power & Light railroad per se. Someone decided that it was dangerous to have coal-burning locomotives in power plants, so they used "fireless locomotives" powered by compressed air or compressed super-heated water. They were safer and actually cheaper to operate if you were near a large stationary boiler to keep supplying compressed air or water to the switchyard.

The largest fireless locomotive ever built, this magnificent machine served for thirty years before being retired in 1969.

Although replaced by diesel or electric locomotives, fireless locomotives are making a small comeback. Diesel switchers are idle 90% of the time, but must keep their engines running, so sometimes a fireless locomotive is cheaper to operate.Pa484

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Pa484

In my opinion, Lionel's 1957 decision to issue a girls' train set was an intelligent risk that didn't work out.

Made with excellent quality, the set was an attempt to get more girls (more customers) into model trains. And Lionel learned from its failure: girls who like trains like realistic trains.

Unsold sets were repainted, cutting Lionel's losses. The original sets are collectors' items.

MTH_Lionel_O_girls_set_mediaf07027e196405d623f6af454f3313da3J1_001  

Attachments

Images (3)
  • MTH_Lionel_O_girls_set_media
  • f07027e196405d623f6af454f3313da3
  • J1_001

There are clubs for the real MOW putt-putt speeders. I always wanted to do that or velocipede around for a bit.

  I used to put weedwacker motors as friction drive cruising motors on my old bicycles; Solex style. About 25-30mph & about 70mpg.

...and a guy I rent a room to has 3-70mph mini-bikes (a few original "slow" ones) and a half dozen hopped up motors kicking around 3hp B&S to 6hp-Honda's with headwork, race clutch, race carbs/exhuast, etc 

  ....I'll be needing a railcart with wheelie bars too as my choice of air cooled motors would be a 1200 to 1500cc "Beetle-ee" engine from VW   

th-59

Attachments

Images (1)
  • th-59
Adriatic posted:
TheRWBYRailfan posted:

I'll just leave this here.

Why not bring it here? Ol' Casey Jr would be a very welcome extra.

Where did you find that shot? 

@p51 I figured that one was comin' 😐 

 So I added more yellows under it's jacket to get it to pop some more  😳

...🤣

Some friends of mine found it on the Casey Jr page on the Disney Fandom wiki. They're not the clearest pictures but until the movie hits DVD/Blu-Ray this is th best we got of Tim Burton's take on our childhood anthropomorphic steamer.

https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Casey_Junior

Steam_locomotiveKuThis bizarre Russian "mallet" locomotive is actually a good idea. After high-pressure steam turns the driving wheels, some of it is still not liquefied. This re-cycled steam is then used to drive a second set of drive wheels. The second set could be in front of or behind the main drive wheels. Sometimes, the second set was on the tender.

After WW2, trying to compete with diesel, some US railroads built powerful mallet locomotives.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Steam_locomotiveKu
Vincent Massi posted:

In my opinion, Lionel's 1957 decision to issue a girls' train set was an intelligent risk that didn't work out.

Made with excellent quality, the set was an attempt to get more girls (more customers) into model trains. And Lionel learned from its failure: girls who like trains like realistic trains.

Unsold sets were repainted, cutting Lionel's losses. The original sets are collectors' items.

MTH_Lionel_O_girls_set_mediaf07027e196405d623f6af454f3313da3J1_001  

Remember  well a local "bicycle shop" that also carried Lionel Trains had one of these. My father took me in to look at this for possible gift from "Santa" needless to say I pitched a fit and Santa delivered a 2046 freight set instead!!  I have wondered more than once as to who ended up with it as it was gone after Christmas that year!

Vincent Massi posted:

I might. But only if it did not include the four action figures.    The Seddonville Railroad opened in New Zealand in 1893 for the sole purpose of transporting coal to a nearby harbor. The railroad survived about 100 years.seddonville

I think those New Zealand tramways had some interesting Frankenstein lokeys running! They would make some eyecatcher models.

 

Last edited by Firewood

Add Reply

Post

OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
800-980-OGRR (6477)
www.ogaugerr.com

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×