Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Pete "Cosmo" Barrington

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36
If its bald-faced hornets, kill and destroy nests ASAP.  These hornets are known to attack honey bee colonies as raiders and will destroy a hive in less than a day.  They are no friend of the farmers/orchards.

You've got your hornets mixed up.
The ones you are thinking of are the ones now typically known as "Murder Hornets," an invasive species not-native to these parts.
There have been a few sightings of this type and the damage you describe in the Pacific Northwest, and while it's not "impossible" for them to appear in New England, they as yet have not.
The hornets in the above pictures are the perfectly normal and native to this area variety.
I'm not a FAN of them, but they're not a reason for panic.

That being said, I'm not opposed to all-out chemical warfare on them,... but I'm biased.  ;)

Two Footers outside of the US / Re: AMTP in Pithiviers, France
« on: June 27, 2020, 08:19:09 PM »
My guess is that it is grain crops that are most at risk from trackside fires in the Pithiviers area.

Well, ... that, and Napoleonic generals... ;)

Asked if they have been to this location before: "No, it is not first time... we were to that area two weeks ago...what caused ? We don't know for sure, maybe heavy farmer machine..."
... or a 10' Lithuanian? :P

It has a nice even curve, not a hard kink, so theoretically at least it's possible.
I would suggest levers and maybe some heat, although I dunno what heat might do to the tempering of the rail head.

Volunteers / Re: COVID-19 (aka "coronavirus") and the WW&F...
« on: May 29, 2020, 10:05:23 PM »
A T-shirt -- yes, please! With a pocket, if you please.


Museum Discussion / Re: Museum Supporter is also in need
« on: May 01, 2020, 09:19:07 PM »

Volunteers / Re: April 2020 Work Reports
« on: April 27, 2020, 10:38:48 PM »
With all this more modern equipment around, perhaps we should adopt a more modern (ok, ok, quit groaning until I finish please!) style logo ala the EDAville logo combining text with, say, a locomotive silhouette or some such.
Just a thought.... (and here's your shoe back!) ;)

Thanks for the pictures Mike & Ed.
The RANGELEY photo is particularly interesting as it shows a more common style of coat/hat hooks and no sign of rings of any kind above the windows or under the luggage racks.
So I am thinking, knowing the RANGELEY was built at a later time, during the "Franklin County Consolidation" when the lines came under MEC control, the rings are something more common to the mid-late 1800's that had passed from style by 1900 or so.
I believe an umbrella or cane-style walking stick would have been more common then, as more of a fashion statement as anything, and would hang easily from the rings shown. Also, a straight-stick style walking stick could be passed through one ring to rest atop the next ring either direction.
I'm trying to imagine what else would be common to the average traveler of the time the cars were built.
AHH!! I can think of one other item, and that would be a coat hanger! In the navy we had long garment bags for our uniforms with a space at the top for a hanger to protrude. In a sleeper accommodation there would be more room for such a bag, or just an extra suit-jacket to hang, perhaps in a small closet, but on a 2'er day-coach, what you see is what you get! ;)
now, granted, hanging tour suit on one of those rings would obviously block your view out the window, but chances are your jacket would be considered more valuable than your view.
From the looks of the hooks provided for RANGELEY passengers, one could easily hang a hat, a suit, and an overcoat from the same hook and have a better view out the window. Time=experience=improvements. ;)
Now, this is all speculation on my part, but there are now multiple identified common objects that could hang from such rings that have nothing to do with curtains or bells. So there ya' go. :)

Thanks Keith,
no, Mike, like Keith said, I don't think the rings have anything to do with the shades at all.
As to how they're controlled/operated, I don't think they were all that heavy. They look like single-layer of fabric with a stiffener/bar at the bottom. The bar could have been fitted with "catches" on the window frame, or simply slid smoothly up and down with the shade. I have no idea if the shade had a spring loaded "roll-up" device like more modern shades or not.
Someone would have to examine the car itself, assuming the original woodwork still exists on one or more window frames.

Back to the rings, has anyone looked for similar accoutrements in the RANGELEY?

The rings aren't for curtains or curtain rods.
There are pull-down shades built into the window frames. It manes no sense for other provisions to have been made for additional curtains.
I can't believe I didn't notice the shades myself before now.

This IS a neat little mystery!
So, we have the original photo on (thread) page 1, and the second from a similar car on this page, both of which appear in the NG Forum thread along with the drawing of an as-delivered contemporary coach, albeit of std ga design, showing items in common:
1) the rings in question,
2) kerosene lamps (intact or otherwise)
3) conductor's bell/pull chord (or rings to facilitate) centerline near the ceiling
4) coat/hat hooks separate from the rings in question.

Going back to anecdotal here, gloves are indeed a ubiquitous item of the times, and still are today, but they can be easily folded and placed inside a coat pocket or purse.
UMBRELLAS, also ubiquitous, are not! They would want to be retracted and hung where they can drip-dry away from shirts, trousers, etc.
So I'm leaning more toward umbrella hangers at this point.
That could change again with further evidence.

Whimsical Weirdness and Foolery / Re: Deep Thoughts...
« on: April 12, 2020, 08:39:18 PM »
Put THAT in your caboose and-
...nevermind!  :-\ ;)

I took another look at the photo, and THERE ARE OIL LAMPS, minus their globes, still extant in the photo!!
One is on the right hand side of the photo, and there appear to be TWO centered near the ceiling upper-center of the photo!!
Since these appear to be original to the car same as the loops in question, it's easy to say the loops were NOT intended for oil lamps.
Not to say that nobody ever hung a lantern from one, but that's not why they're there.

Oh, and I did see the "dixie-cups,"... nice catch.  ;)

Museum Discussion / Re: Sheepscot pictures for the away crowd.
« on: April 10, 2020, 11:28:13 PM »
That's a signal equipment box salvaged by the RR. IIRC, it's old MEC, from someplace local.
Someone else here can provide furthers, I'm sure.  ;)

Call me skeptical, but there's no anecdotal evidence for the rings being for gloves. If it were the case, then cars of that era would have been equipped that way everywhere. Gloves were common, yes, as common as hats and coats (which we know there are hooks for, in the picture and many other places still today.)
Anecdotal evidence says "gloves were an item, yes, but were carefully folded and placed in coat pockets, which were hung on hooks.
Now, as to the loops themselves:
They all face the same way at same height/position which suggests something traversing them, either a chord, or a rod/dowel.
I can't see these being for oil lamps. The geometry just doesn't work out for me. I COULD be wrong, but I just don't see it as likely.
The loops are also fairly big, rather too big for a rod/dowel for hanging anything. Again, I COULD be wrong about that, that's just my impression.
As we know anecdotally that pull-chords were common enough and in similar situ to the loops in evidence, that's where I put my money.
Being a good skeptic, I welcome any correction and or further evidence, anecdotal or otherwise.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36