Athearn - 200+ More New Kits Coming!
Jens Wulf
AlModel RR <almo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000114194021...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
> Check out the Walthers "New Products Announced in January 2000" website. I
> counted over 200 new Athearn freight cars, passenger cars and locomotives just
> announced today.
>
> http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200001/Freight
> http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200001/Locomotive
new AC4400 and SW1500 etc. paint schemes, and? (okay, admitted, I like to see BNSF heritage II
models
> http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200002/Passenger
the last URL one should probably be:
http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200001/Passenger
heavyweights? where are the once ago a time promised modern double decks used by GO and other
commuter agencies?
Jens
AlModel RR
counted over 200 new Athearn freight cars, passenger cars and locomotives just
announced today.
http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200001/Freight
http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200001/Locomotive
http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200002/Passenger
Mountain Goat
wrote:
>
>AlModel RR <almo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000114194021...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
>> Check out the Walthers "New Products Announced in January 2000" website. I
>> counted over 200 new Athearn freight cars, passenger cars and locomotives just
>> announced today.
>>
>> http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200001/Freight
>> http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200001/Locomotive
>
>new AC4400 and SW1500 etc. paint schemes, and? (okay, admitted, I like to see BNSF heritage II
>models
>
>> http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200002/Passenger
>
>the last URL one should probably be:
>http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200001/Passenger
>
>heavyweights? where are the once ago a time promised modern double decks used by GO and other
>commuter agencies?
>
Anyway these look like new road names for the same too short (70 ft)
heavyweights Athearn has sold for 30 years.
Curt Mc
> Check out the Walthers "New Products Announced in January 2000" website. I
> counted over 200 new Athearn freight cars, passenger cars and locomotives just
> announced today.
> http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200001/Freight
Ho Hum... More modern paint schemes on 1950s cars (gons), 1960s (4740cf
PS2) covered hopper cars, and 1970s (ACF Railbox) boxcars (funny that
those ALL look like schemes Bev-Bel did - 15+ YEARS AGO!!! - when they
were still commonly seen), and some new paint schemes for their TERRIBLE
never-had-a-prototype 45' trailers (why couldn't somebody do those BN
schemes on a decent model trailer like Atlas or even Walthers?). Plus a
second series of roadnames for the 5344cf boxcars which nobody has seen
the first series of yet (gee, wasn't the first series supposed to be
here in September!).
Besides, the new Atlas 60' double-door boxcars announced on that page
are great enough to make me totally forget the Athearn cars. Chessie
60' auto boxcars (and UP and Southern also!) in multiple numbers FULLY
READY TO RUN - WOW!!!
> http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200001/Locomotive
Ho hum AGAIN! More unprototypical modern paint schemes on the SW7 cows
and calfs (manure?) - a Chessie SW7 calf? How unprototypical will they
go to get rid of the old stock bodies? - a few news schemes on the
SW1500s and a few new BNSF and KCS paint schemes... ALL on existing
units... But I ask:
Will the new BNSF AC4400s have the proper cab windows (EMD style
4-pane)?
Will the new KCS AC4400s have the proper "steerable" trucks?
Will the new BNSF GP50s have the headlights in the low nose?
> (okay, admitted, I like to see BNSF heritage II models.
no matter how incorrect they are?
> http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200002/Passenger
should be: http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200001/Passenger
Triple Ho hum!.... Just what we need - more shorty (70')
heavyweights... What happened to the Bi-level commuter cars announced
for 1998 (then 1999) delivery?
The BIGGEST news that can be read from the Athearn announcement is that
they apparently do not plan any new cars or locomotives (other than the
already announced but as of yet not seen SD40-2 "snoot") for 2000...
- Curt Mc
Demetre Argiro
< . . . . . . . . . . .
> heavyweights...
You know, you are right. There is not a single really excellent shorty
heavyweight car to be had in HO scale. The MDC Harriman cars are OK if you
want to do a lot of extra work. I mean a LOT. Trucks, underbody, windows,
roof. . . . . . Athearn's venerable repertoire, although acceptable, is
plainly based on a one railroad prototype. Likewise Athearn's offerings
require re-trucking, a re-engineering of the coupler mounting and a
considerable degree of body hacking in order to be made into good looking
models. By good looking I mean so that they are not instantly recognizable as
Athearn Santa Fe out-of-the-box cars. Mind you, this is not a complaint, but
it would be oh-so-nice if shorty (72 - 75') heavyweight and streamlined
passenger cars were available as more basic, generic kits. An Eastern Car
works style core kit with a variety of sides to choose from would be
outstanding. All the modelers in my clique who operate on home layouts run
shorty passenger cars. There are reasons for this, one being that an eight car
passenger train that is as long as the average feight train looks ridiculous
and unbelievable. Shorties look better on the radii typical of the average
home layout and longer trains are possible without being really longer. So,
yes I agree with you. We do need more shorties.
CT
> better wrote an article (RMC??)
RMC. The famous fellow lives about 1 hour north of you where busses run
under wires.
Christian
Brockport
Andy Harman
<argi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>shorty passenger cars. There are reasons for this, one being that an eight car
>passenger train that is as long as the average feight train looks ridiculous
>and unbelievable. Shorties look better on the radii typical of the average
>home layout and longer trains are possible without being really longer. So,
>yes I agree with you. We do need more shorties.
Surely you jest. I accept the market for shorty cars exists, but the
people who buy shorties generally aren't prototype modelers and I
don't see why they wouldn't be happy with the many shorties that are
out there. I wouldn't advocate the expenditure of a plug nickel to
tool any new prototypes or more detailed versions of any car that is
not scale length. A few years ago someone who should have known
better wrote an article (RMC??) on making a shorty version of a
Walthers autorack. Not only a waste of a perfectly good model, but a
waste of paper. Or... the short version:
Scale length long cars look stupid on sharp curves. Shorty cars look
stupid all the time.
Andy
----------------------------------------------------
Please reply to aharman at hhcustom dot com
Visit the RPM Web Page at http://www.rpmrail.org
Or my personal site at http://www.hhcustom.com/nspmg
----------------------------------------------------
Demetre Argiro
> . . . . . . Surely you jest. . . . . .
Nope. I don't jest. I like full length cars but I don't like operating them on
a home sized railroad. I'm not a hard-core proto-perfect type in this area.
Sometimes there are trade-offs that have to be made to suit an illusion. For
me, 75' passenger cars are a viable option. Bear in mind too that I do not
model auto racks, hi-cubes, verti-pacs and any of a host of longer freight
cars either. The longest freight car on any railroad in my operating group is
a 55' mill gon.
>
> Scale length long cars look stupid on sharp curves. Shorty cars look
> stupid all the time.
To each his own. To me the 85' cars look out of place all the time. They're
just too big and don't work with the selective compression that we all have to
use in structures and scenery. It looks bad when the train is bigger than the depot.
Now, if I had the room and the means to construct a railroad without
compression, i.e.- with more prototypicaly sized structures, curves, siding
lengths, train lengths and scenery then I would jump over to your side of the
fence at once. Until then 75' passenger cars are it.
A Bridgeman-Sutton
Andy Harman <aha...@yeahright.net> wrote in message
news:38812ec0....@news2.one.net...
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 14:39:42 -0500, Demetre Argiro
> <argi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >shorty passenger cars. There are reasons for this, one being that an
eight car
> >passenger train that is as long as the average feight train looks
ridiculous
> >and unbelievable. Shorties look better on the radii typical of the
average
> >home layout and longer trains are possible without being really longer.
So,
> >yes I agree with you. We do need more shorties.
I missed Demetre's original post for some reason, but I'm alittle bit
unclear about the reasoning here.
We run shortened consists of fulll lenght cars in freight trains, so why is
the same not practical in passenger service? If you are trying to replicate
a specific named train there may be a problem in maintaining proto-accuracy
in the consist due to the length of the train, but the use of shorties
won't really improve the visual effect.
Much will depend on the period modelled, and the space available. If you
have the space to run a protypical consist for the "Crescent" or the "City
of New Orleans" then you probably have more space than many modellers do.
OTOH if you haven't the space for a full blooded mainline the consists of
trains onnsecondary lines were commonly much smaller - RPO, headend traffic
and a couple of passenger cars might bring you up to 6 or 7 total at most
and possibly as few as 3 (RPO/express + combine + coach or RPO/express + 2
coaches). This should be manageable on most layouts.
Typically trains of this nature up until the fifties at least would be made
up of older heavyweight stock which tended to be shorter anyway. As the
sixties arrived the streamline stock began to find its way onto trains of
this nature as trains carried fewer and fewer passengers and once proud
streamliners turned into express trains with a couple of caches
attached.Consists for these would be largely head end traffic with one or
two coaches at at the tail. Again the use of scale length coaches should be
possible with the shorter consist.
AH
>I wouldn't advocate the expenditure of a plug nickel to
> tool any new prototypes or more detailed versions of any car that is
> not scale length.
Here I'm in complete agreement - there are shorter cars which can be used on
many layouts. H/w cars often came in at about 60' for baggage express and
RPOs and say 66' or 69' for coaches. Diners at 70' + are manageable, but may
not be too common on the sort of trains I've described. Now the Riv h/w
coaches come out at 66' and the much maligned Athearn h/w coach at 65'.
These are credible scale lengths for this type of car and the RPO and
baggage express cars are also of comfortable length. So shorties here aren't
really an issue.
Streamliners are more of a problem, but why compromise any new models for
those who want scale length when representational shorties are available
already? If you have a problem with train length cut down the consist by a
couple of cars. Two coaches and a heap of headend traffic behind an F-unit
can lose a couple of BEs without overly compromising the effect.
This doesn't get around the problem of long cars on tight curves admittedly,
but laying transition curves helps in two ways; first it reduces the coupler
offset and associated lurches - problems caused by the sudden change from
tangent to sharp curve and it also reduces the visual impact of the coaches
appearing to pull away from ech other on the outside of the curve.
> Scale length long cars look stupid on sharp curves. Shorty cars look
> stupid all the time.
YEP - and it's easier to reduce the impact of the sharp curve during track
laying than it is to lengthen a car body.
Aidrian
(Spamtrap in reply address)
steve...@my-deja.com
Yadda yadda yadda
<Signed> Everybody Else
My two dubloons worth. If one skilfully navigates to Branchline Trains
(www.branchline-trains.com??) you will find one manufacurer who is
tooling for scale length heavyweights, from numerous roads, detailed
with a/c ducting, etc. That should end that particular arguement. Let
Athearn keep their shorties for those who, whatever their reason,
prefer them.
Now, let's get to the real nub of things. We seriously need scale
length streamliners, corrugated or smoothside, who gives a continental.
Both preferably. No-one makes a decent representation of any of these
cars in plastic - I include IHC, Rivarossi, ConCor etc in this bracket.
Let's kidnap the entire P2K workforce until they meet our demands!!
Steve
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
nos...@nospam.com
> AlModel RR <almo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> Check out the Walthers "New Products Announced in January 2000" website. I
>> counted over 200 new Athearn freight cars, passenger cars and locomotives just
>> announced today.
>> http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200001/Freight
> Ho Hum... More modern paint schemes on 1950s cars (gons), 1960s (4740cf
> PS2) covered hopper cars, and 1970s (ACF Railbox) boxcars (funny that
> those ALL look like schemes Bev-Bel did - 15+ YEARS AGO!!! - when they
And your point is? I always welcome new schemes and new variations on cars
that aren't currently out now. Easier than hunting down decals (if they
exist) and painting them myself.
> Besides, the new Atlas 60' double-door boxcars announced on that page
> are great enough to make me totally forget the Athearn cars. Chessie
> 60' auto boxcars (and UP and Southern also!) in multiple numbers FULLY
> READY TO RUN - WOW!!!
Yes, these do look nice (I'll take a couple Chessie cars, but I'll have to
be prepared to finance a small loan for the Atlas cars)
>> http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200001/Locomotive
> Ho hum AGAIN! More unprototypical modern paint schemes on the SW7 cows
> and calfs (manure?) - a Chessie SW7 calf? How unprototypical will they
> go to get rid of the old stock bodies? - a few news schemes on the
Ever hear of a TR-4? While I can't verify that the 2 cow/calf sets that C&O
had (transferred to B&O in the 70's) got Chessie paint, the earlier version
(TR-3, which looks like a later NW-2) had at least one cow/calf set painted
Chessie. (when I say I can't verify, I mean I don't have any pics in my
collection to verify. They lasted long enough to have gotten Chessie paint)
> SW1500s and a few new BNSF and KCS paint schemes... ALL on existing
> units... But I ask:
> Will the new BNSF AC4400s have the proper cab windows (EMD style
> 4-pane)?
Probably not
> Will the new KCS AC4400s have the proper "steerable" trucks?
Probably not
> Will the new BNSF GP50s have the headlights in the low nose?
Probably not
Do you expect them to do redo the molds of every single engine to model
specific prototypes? None of the Seaboard engines have nose headlights either,
the Canadian roads don't have winterization hatches, or for that matter any of
the "canadian-style" details.
>> (okay, admitted, I like to see BNSF heritage II models.
> no matter how incorrect they are?
Guess you can't please some people, no matter what.
Jason Shron
----------
In article <85scht$bde$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, steve...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Now, let's get to the real nub of things. We seriously need scale
> length streamliners, corrugated or smoothside, who gives a continental.
> Both preferably. No-one makes a decent representation of any of these
> cars in plastic - I include IHC, Rivarossi, ConCor etc in this bracket.
> Let's kidnap the entire P2K workforce until they meet our demands!!
>
I have not read the previous messages in this thread, but I whole-heartedly
agree with that last paragraph. The selection of prototypical lightweight
varnish out there is abysmal in any scale. I want to see more variations of
"skirtless" smoothside and corrugated side cars, and I want to see a variety
of underbodies. The underbody is a good fifth of the car, yet there is
almost no selection of the various arrangements.
Regards,
Jason
Jason Shron
----------
In article <85s4k1$fau$1...@nclient15-gui.server.virgin.net>, "A
Bridgeman-Sutton" <a....@PARTMAPSvirgin.net> wrote:
>
> AH
>>I wouldn't advocate the expenditure of a plug nickel to
>> tool any new prototypes or more detailed versions of any car that is
>> not scale length.
>
> Here I'm in complete agreement - there are shorter cars which can be used on
> many layouts. H/w cars often came in at about 60' for baggage express and
> RPOs and say 66' or 69' for coaches. Diners at 70' + are manageable, but may
> not be too common on the sort of trains I've described. Now the Riv h/w
> coaches come out at 66' and the much maligned Athearn h/w coach at 65'.
> These are credible scale lengths for this type of car and the RPO and
> baggage express cars are also of comfortable length. So shorties here aren't
> really an issue.
>
> Streamliners are more of a problem, but why compromise any new models for
> those who want scale length when representational shorties are available
> already? If you have a problem with train length cut down the consist by a
> couple of cars. Two coaches and a heap of headend traffic behind an F-unit
> can lose a couple of BEs without overly compromising the effect.
>
> This doesn't get around the problem of long cars on tight curves admittedly,
> but laying transition curves helps in two ways; first it reduces the coupler
> offset and associated lurches - problems caused by the sudden change from
> tangent to sharp curve and it also reduces the visual impact of the coaches
> appearing to pull away from ech other on the outside of the curve.
>
I agree totally. Somewhere else in the NG I bemoan the lack of selection
for prototypical streamline cars. For example, CN/VIA ran about 52 "E"
sleepers, a four bedroom, four section, eight roomette model built in 1954
by Pullman. Con-Cor offers a close pass for this car, but it is 13' shorter
than the prototype, and looks absurd in a consist with Rivarossi coaches, or
in the yard beside an 85' LRC coach.
For example, most VIA trains today are in the 3-5 car range with one unit on
the head end. That's not beyond most serious modellers' space requirements,
and as long as you keep your minimum radius to about 24" you should be fine
with full length cars (though I never go below 30" if I can help it, as I
almost exclusively model contemporary passenger trains). I hardly know
anyone--modelling mainline action--who has progressed beyond the 4x8 sheet
of plywood and uses curves tighter than 24".
So... you can't model a 15 car Rapido or a 12 car Superliner consist, but
you can still capture the feel of mainline passenger action. "Shorty" cars
placed beside proto-length freight cars just make passenger action look
silly.
Regards,
Jason
Rusty
remember in 1994 when a local retailer "informed" me that Athearn was on
its way out, fast forward to 2000. Despite what some say, I really like
Athearn products as they are easy to assemble, relatively cheap, sturdy
and basically easy to work on or upgrade.
I see they added new Rock schemes on the SW7, however I am hoping they
add the Rock scheme to the GP38s and the GP9s or any other Rock Island
scheme.
Andy Harman
wrote:
>RMC. The famous fellow lives about 1 hour north of you where busses run
>under wires.
That's what I thought :-) I didn't want to mention his name without
being sure though... Oh well, when you're freelancing maybe you can
claim that Ford built a plant back in them thar hills with some sharp
curves and tunnels that necessitated a 70' autorack. Or it's for
direct delivery to Billy-Bob's GMC on the top of the mountain in
Whackybacky, KY. Yeah, that's it.
Andy Harman
<argi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>To each his own. To me the 85' cars look out of place all the time. They're
>just too big and don't work with the selective compression that we all have to
>use in structures and scenery. It looks bad when the train is bigger than the depot.
In anything but a major city terminal, the train IS bigger than the
depot. The problem with compressing passenger cars - or anything -
is, what do you cut off? Do you leave something off or just make
everything smaller? You can get away with making a 56-seat coach into
a 48-seat coach because the proportions are the same. But what do you
get when you whack a 10-6 sleeper? an 8-4? No such (lightweight)
animal. I guess having worked with 1:1 passenger cars and knowing
whats inside them behind those windows makes me more uncompromising...
but even before that I had no real desire for shortys other than as
fillers.
>Now, if I had the room and the means to construct a railroad without
>compression, i.e.- with more prototypicaly sized structures, curves, siding
>lengths, train lengths and scenery then I would jump over to your side of the
>fence at once. Until then 75' passenger cars are it.
There are quite a few valid prototypes for 75' and shorter cars, but
they aren't Pullmans - mostly coaches and head end cars and a few
diners. What I'm saying is, there are plenty of shorty cars already
on the market --- the last thing I would want to do is encourage a
manufacturer to invest new tooling in a shorty. Athearn's complete
line of heavyweight and lightweight cars are all shorty (and 70'
rather than 60' which was the common chop at the time) except for the
baggage & rpo's which are correct length. Model Power makes some of
the better looking compressed fluted cars, including a Santa Fe
baggage that is to scale. You can even get the old aluminum extruded
stubbys... I guess what I'm saying is, if you don't care about the
length, you shouldn't care about the prototype -- so the ones that are
out there should fill the bill.
Not that I'm too concerned that Branchline or Intermountain or even
Athearn or Bachmann is considering a new run of shortys. But dumber
things *have* happened.
john a dalton
>Let's kidnap the entire P2K workforce until they meet our demands!!
>
>Steve
...we already have them down here tending goats...guess what their
next offering will be... :))
...big john... :))
A Proud Goater
Andy Harman
>Now, let's get to the real nub of things. We seriously need scale
>length streamliners, corrugated or smoothside, who gives a continental.
>Both preferably. No-one makes a decent representation of any of these
>cars in plastic - I include IHC, Rivarossi, ConCor etc in this bracket.
>Let's kidnap the entire P2K workforce until they meet our demands!!
Ok..... W H I C H C A R S ???
The reason we don't have any quality models of lightweight-era cars is
because there aren't any "standards" to speak of. The earliest
pre-war smoothside Pullmans were built to several standard designs -
the 4-4-2, 6-6-4, 10-4, 13dbr and 18R or 17-1. Postwar, a few more
standard smoothsides - several different 10-6 plans, 22R, 12dbr. With
fluted cars, there's not even that much.
We've had this discussion on the passenger car list. There ain't no
"common" lightweight car design, and certainly no "generic" consist
that could be manufactured and be appropriate for more than one
railroad. Period. More research will not yield these nonexistant
things. If we are to have quality lightweight passenger car models,
some manufacturer is going to have to bite the bullet and do a whole
train to a popular prototype - PRR, NYC, ATSF, SR... and let everyone
else bitch and adapt -- or make specific models of specific cars that
were shared and let everyone bitch and adapt to come up with the rest
of the train -- or make a "genericized" version of something that
looks "kinda-sorta" in 29 different paint schemes. Oh no wait, we
already have all that in the Rivarossi Budd cars....
I'm not saying it should be done, or it shouldn't be done, or its a
good thing or a bad thing. That's just the way it is - there is no
"generic passenger train" that will satisfy prototype modelers that is
also good for more than one prototype. It's no wonder than
manufacturers like Walthers stick to the Amtrak post-Heritage era.
john a dalton
>On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:29:12 -0500, "CT" <ctuc...@rochester.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>RMC. The famous fellow lives about 1 hour north of you where busses run
>>under wires.
>
>That's what I thought :-) I didn't want to mention his name without
>being sure though... Oh well, when you're freelancing maybe you can
>claim that Ford built a plant back in them thar hills with some sharp
>curves and tunnels that necessitated a 70' autorack. Or it's for
>direct delivery to Billy-Bob's GMC on the top of the mountain in
>Whackybacky, KY. Yeah, that's it.
>
>Andy
...that's Whackyterbacky...i been there...he has the Czech Tetra
franchise, too... :))
...big john... :))
A Problem Member
Jason Shron
----------
In article <38822386....@news2.one.net>, aha...@yeahright.net (Andy
Harman) wrote:
>
> We've had this discussion on the passenger car list. There ain't no
> "common" lightweight car design, and certainly no "generic" consist
> that could be manufactured and be appropriate for more than one
> railroad. Period. More research will not yield these nonexistant
> things. If we are to have quality lightweight passenger car models,
> some manufacturer is going to have to bite the bullet and do a whole
> train to a popular prototype - PRR, NYC, ATSF, SR... and let everyone
> else bitch and adapt -- or make specific models of specific cars that
> were shared and let everyone bitch and adapt to come up with the rest
> of the train -- or make a "genericized" version of something that
> looks "kinda-sorta" in 29 different paint schemes. Oh no wait, we
> already have all that in the Rivarossi Budd cars....
>
> I'm not saying it should be done, or it shouldn't be done, or its a
> good thing or a bad thing. That's just the way it is - there is no
> "generic passenger train" that will satisfy prototype modelers that is
> also good for more than one prototype. It's no wonder than
> manufacturers like Walthers stick to the Amtrak post-Heritage era.
>
>
What I'd like to know is why no-one has come up with a convenient "modular"
system. Car sides from various manufacturers are a good idea, but all the
car roofs, ends and floors are the same (not to mention the trucks...
kits/rtr models almost always have inside swinghanger rather than outside
swinghanger). The assembly job is also usually quite messy and best suited
to a more experienced modeller.
Why not produce a real modular system, already painted or undec, that
provides three or four "core" kits of floors and ends already assembled, to
which you can snap in the sides of your choice and the roof of your choice.
The skirts will be part of the side, so if your side does not have skirts
you can choose the floor with the properly contoured steps. You could then
purchase the rtr trucks of your choice. Each core kit can have a different
underbody arrangement. The only thing left to the modeller would be to snap
on the sides/roof of choice, install the trucks (with or without couplers),
couplers (if the "without" variety of trucks are used) and get operating.
Regards,
Jason
C. Zeni
Yahbut he lost the Skoda franchise to the guy who drives the local honey
wagon...
--
Craig Zeni - REPLY TO -->> clzeni at mindspring dot com
http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/index.html
Slightly bewildered Haggis member since I don't know when...
C. Zeni
>
> steve...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Let's kidnap the entire P2K workforce until they meet our demands!!
> >
>
> ...we already have them down here tending goats...guess what their
> next offering will be... :))
The P2k Doppler-hopper?
Craig "doody!" Zeni
Guanoville, Nawth Cacalacky
Frank A. Rosenbaum
it possible to have the lower side panel (which seem fairly standard) in a
kit, with different window arrangements available, then have the upper
letter board and roof as separate pieces? In short, a modular carside. If
the lower panel had, say some kind of half lap joint that could support the
window panel, and the window panel had a half lap joint to support the
letterboard, could a fairly strong carside be built?
Then we get to the door arrangements . . . Oh brother! Seriously, the door
ends could be done the same way, maybe.
--
From Frank Rosenbaum
New Email:faros...@earthlink.net
Could you repeat that from the word "the"?
Andy Harman <aha...@yeahright.net> wrote in message
news:38822386....@news2.one.net...
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:11:44 GMT, steve...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Now, let's get to the real nub of things. We seriously need scale
> >length streamliners, corrugated or smoothside, who gives a continental.
> >Both preferably. No-one makes a decent representation of any of these
> >cars in plastic - I include IHC, Rivarossi, ConCor etc in this bracket.
> >Let's kidnap the entire P2K workforce until they meet our demands!!
>
> Ok..... W H I C H C A R S ???
>
> The reason we don't have any quality models of lightweight-era cars is
> because there aren't any "standards" to speak of. The earliest
> pre-war smoothside Pullmans were built to several standard designs -
> the 4-4-2, 6-6-4, 10-4, 13dbr and 18R or 17-1. Postwar, a few more
> standard smoothsides - several different 10-6 plans, 22R, 12dbr. With
> fluted cars, there's not even that much.
>
> We've had this discussion on the passenger car list. There ain't no
> "common" lightweight car design, and certainly no "generic" consist
> that could be manufactured and be appropriate for more than one
> railroad. Period. More research will not yield these nonexistant
> things. If we are to have quality lightweight passenger car models,
> some manufacturer is going to have to bite the bullet and do a whole
> train to a popular prototype - PRR, NYC, ATSF, SR... and let everyone
> else bitch and adapt -- or make specific models of specific cars that
> were shared and let everyone bitch and adapt to come up with the rest
> of the train -- or make a "genericized" version of something that
> looks "kinda-sorta" in 29 different paint schemes. Oh no wait, we
> already have all that in the Rivarossi Budd cars....
>
> I'm not saying it should be done, or it shouldn't be done, or its a
> good thing or a bad thing. That's just the way it is - there is no
> "generic passenger train" that will satisfy prototype modelers that is
> also good for more than one prototype. It's no wonder than
> manufacturers like Walthers stick to the Amtrak post-Heritage era.
>
Steve Hoskins
"C. Zeni" <Spiney...@hedge.hog> wrote:
>john a dalton wrote:
>>
>> aha...@yeahright.net (Andy Harman) wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:29:12 -0500, "CT" <ctuc...@rochester.rr.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>RMC. The famous fellow lives about 1 hour north of you where busses run
>> >>under wires.
>> >
>> >That's what I thought :-) I didn't want to mention his name without
>> >being sure though... Oh well, when you're freelancing maybe you can
>> >claim that Ford built a plant back in them thar hills with some sharp
>> >curves and tunnels that necessitated a 70' autorack. Or it's for
>> >direct delivery to Billy-Bob's GMC on the top of the mountain in
>> >Whackybacky, KY. Yeah, that's it.
>> >
>> >Andy
>>
>> ...that's Whackyterbacky...i been there...he has the Czech Tetra
>> franchise, too... :))
>
>Yahbut he lost the Skoda franchise to the guy who drives the local honey
>wagon...
Uh oh. Skoda? That is beginning to become a bad word in
San Francisco......
....youda thought they might have listened to them folks
at Miami Valley RTA.....
Tom Luton
> I agree totally. Somewhere else in the NG I bemoan the lack of selection
> for prototypical streamline cars. For example, CN/VIA ran about 52 "E"
> sleepers, a four bedroom, four section, eight roomette model built in 1954
> by Pullman. Con-Cor offers a close pass for this car, but it is 13'
shorter
> than the prototype, and looks absurd in a consist with Rivarossi coaches,
or
> in the yard beside an 85' LRC coach.
Canadian Railway Modeler had an article about modeling an E sleeper last
year. I think it involved using an Eastern Car Works Sleeper?
TOM
>
> john a dalton wrote:
> >
> > aha...@yeahright.net (Andy Harman) wrote:
> >
> > >On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:29:12 -0500, "CT" <ctuc...@rochester.rr.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>RMC. The famous fellow lives about 1 hour north of you where busses run
> > >>under wires.
> > >
> > >That's what I thought :-) I didn't want to mention his name without
> > >being sure though... Oh well, when you're freelancing maybe you can
> > >claim that Ford built a plant back in them thar hills with some sharp
> > >curves and tunnels that necessitated a 70' autorack. Or it's for
> > >direct delivery to Billy-Bob's GMC on the top of the mountain in
> > >Whackybacky, KY. Yeah, that's it.
> > >
> > >Andy
> >
> > ...that's Whackyterbacky...i been there...he has the Czech Tetra
> > franchise, too... :))
>
> Yahbut he lost the Skoda franchise to the guy who drives the local honey
> wagon...
> Craig Zeni
Ain't that the guy with the Yugo tow truck??? :>))
<><><> TOM <><><>
Proud Member Of The Haggis
Demetre Argiro
>
>.....is it possible to have the lower side panel. . . with different window
> arrangements available, then have the upper letter board and roof as
Yes it is, and it has been done. Limited Editions produced an extensive line
of SP cars years ago. They went together just exactly the way you described.
They were borderline "craftsman kits" and were not successful for reasons that
are not known to me. They were rather expensive and could be quite fragile,
but I thought they looked rather nice when finished. I bought a whole bunch
of them and built most of them up as very early daylights with triple bolster
trucks. I still have them, but I don't run them. They are some of my very few "collectables".
john a dalton
>john a dalton wrote:
>>
>> steve...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >Let's kidnap the entire P2K workforce until they meet our demands!!
>> >
>> >Steve
>>
>> ...we already have them down here tending goats...guess what their
>> next offering will be... :))
>
>The P2k Doppler-hopper?
>
>Craig "doody!" Zeni
>Guanoville, Nawth Cacalacky
..."Howdy, Doody"... :))
...i couldn't resist that one... :))
...big "Peanut Gallery" john... :))
BoGus
something like that.
Rusty Keeney
seats per car...
Brian Ward
|Surely you jest. I accept the market for shorty cars exists, but the
Okay. So he asked for shorty heavyweight cars, but the SPF faction knows
that what he _really_ wants is a scale-length P54 model..
BondoBill1
>system. Car sides from various manufacturers are a good idea, but all the
Because it will not be bought by the majority of modelers. My old smoothside
kits, which were seperate castings had limited sales due to the simple fact
they required assembly. The only way for a mfg to make money is mass producing,
ready to run kits, that modelers want to put on thier layouts within an hour of
buying it.
Our old kits could be put together in about 90 min, or a modeler could spend a
whole week super detailing them to obtain a car that from a distnace rivaled a
brass import.
(yes, I know the trucks sucked)
We did our research, ands found that their we very few cars that were usable by
more than 3 railroads, other than a 4-4-2 and 6-6-4, every other car was
railroad specific. Old Pullman Heavyweights are worse, they built their cars as
"lot" and no two lots were the same for any railorad. A NYC car might look
similar to to SF car, but once you start looking at them, their ore vast
differences. I sold my Krtville book, but if anyone out there has one, see if
you can find a HW car that was used by more than two roads.
Owner of the Hawk from Hell and his all girl pit crew
http://bondobilly.com/aindex.html
or the STORE
http://bondobilly.com/store.html
BondoBill1
>of SP cars years ago. They went together just exactly the way you described.
>They were borderline "craftsman kits" and were not successful for reasons
>that
Their problem was in the construction, most modelers had problems getting the
assembled parts to stay assembled. It had to do with the coefficent of
expansion and contraction. The plastic insert that sat between the two extrude
aluminum parts would not expand or contract the same as the aluminum sides and
the parts would break apart. There was another company that was attempting to
produce cars like ours along with Limited Editions as I remember they were
going to make their cars as one piece bodies, and share a common roof and end,
I think they failed because of a problem with their company producing the
tools.
Producing passenger cars is almost a loose-loose situationsince you cannot
please the core of the hobby.
Chuck Card
cros...@mindspring.com says...
> His railroad's gonna have financial problems, cutting off 10 revenue
> seats per car...
>
No, he is improving his seats sold percentace.
Today the remaining passenger system (also subsidized) call it load
factor.
--
Chuck Card in sunny Arizona
Unlimited Sunsets
Fritz Milhaupt
>
> >Yes it is, and it has been done. Limited Editions produced an extensive line
> >of SP cars years ago. They went together just exactly the way you described.
> >They were borderline "craftsman kits" and were not successful for reasons
> >that
>
> Their problem was in the construction, most modelers had problems getting the
> assembled parts to stay assembled. It had to do with the coefficent of
> expansion and contraction. The plastic insert that sat between the two extrude
> aluminum parts would not expand or contract the same as the aluminum sides and
> the parts would break apart.
That's as I remember it- nearly every LE car I'd seen assembled suffered
from window band pop-out within the first two michigan heating-colling
seasons.
I still wonder, though, how something like that, done entirely in
styrene would work out. One of the things that aways made me hesitate
with the Limited Editions cars was the aluminum extrusion. I have always
been more comfortable working in styrene.
You've a point on the assembly factor, though. One of my local dealers
had a customer who was absolutely foaming at the mouth over finding
smoothside passenger cars in CN green/gold paint. When he saw that the
one the dealer had was an E&B flat kit, he lost all interest, despite my
protestations that the kit wasn't that hard to assemble.
Actually, I've enjoyed cutting/reassembling the flat-sided streamliners.
Though, naturally, once I finished the Pere Marquette coach that was
going to be the first of a small fleet, NKP Car Co. announced their
etched side kits for those cars... Dabney's Corollary to Murphy's Law
strikes again!
Here's an idea I'd like to throw out to anyone who hasn't considered it-
using window strips cut out from E&B/Eastern Car Works smooth-side cars
to replace the window strips on Con-Cor corrugated passenger cars.
-fm
Perpetrator of the Haggis Decal Project at
http://www.rust.net/~milhaupt/haggiscar/ and
webmaster of the Pere Marquette Historical Society Web site at
http://www.rust.net/~milhaupt/pmhs/
If you feel compelled to contact me via e-mail, shoo away the "llama."
in the address shown in the header.
Jon Miller
As most kits are made with one piece molds, do these molds come apart?
Could the windows part of the mold be different inserts? I know many modern
molds are many pieces, but do they come apart?
Example the door in the front of the Highliner F unit is a different
insert for mars light or none. Could passenger car sides be made this way?
Fred Dabney
on
> many layouts. H/w cars often came in at about 60' for baggage express and
> RPOs and say 66' or 69' for coaches. Diners at 70' + are manageable, but
may
> not be too common on the sort of trains I've described. Now the Riv h/w
> coaches come out at 66' and the much maligned Athearn h/w coach at 65'.
> These are credible scale lengths for this type of car and the RPO and
> baggage express cars are also of comfortable length. So shorties here
aren't
> really an issue.
The problem with most shortie passenger cars is they look bad. Most
look like box cars with windows.
True there are plenty of prototypes of short passenger cars but there
aren't very many models of them on the market.
Sixty foot streamliners however are just ugly. Athearn has what are
probably the best proportioned short cars- they are slightly under
scale, then they removed several windows, and what makes it work
is that they also made the windows smaller and reduced the spacing
between the remaining windows some so overall, it's a more balanced
looking car. Alas, however, this means that you can't splice them
to get a prototype car- either your car will have too many windows
or too few as you close in on the correct length. Their RDC took
this same approach, btw.
Fred D.
Don Dellmann
I had a couple (still have in fact) Limited editions kits that never got
completed because of the problems mentioned. They tried to solve some of
the problems by going to an etched metal window strip, but they were still
VERY difficult to get everything lined up properly.
For streamliners, the nicest kits I've done were the sides from "Brass Car
Sides". I don't know if they're still around, but they had photo etched
brass sides you could overlay on Rivarossi/AHM and ConCor cars, or use
them with their "Body Kit" of even scratch your own floor, roof and ends.
They did do a couple rib sides too, but I never tried those.
In styrene, the E&B Valley/Eastern Car Works kits were very nice too (except
for the trucks), I just wish they'd done more heavyweights, and a decent
diner and full baggage in the streamliners.
Don
don.de...@prodigy.net
http://www.geocities.com/don_dellmann
Fritz Milhaupt <milh...@rust.llma.net> wrote in message
news:388325...@rust.llma.net...
Fritz Milhaupt
>
> I had a couple (still have in fact) Limited editions kits that never got
> completed because of the problems mentioned. They tried to solve some of
> the problems by going to an etched metal window strip, but they were still
> VERY difficult to get everything lined up properly.
They also played around with cast urethane, though I don't know that it
ever got beyond a couple of test shots they made for the C&O Historical
Society's ill-fated HO passenger car project.
> For streamliners, the nicest kits I've done were the sides from "Brass Car
> Sides". I don't know if they're still around, but they had photo etched
> brass sides you could overlay on Rivarossi/AHM and ConCor cars, or use
> them with their "Body Kit" of even scratch your own floor, roof and ends.
> They did do a couple rib sides too, but I never tried those.
[snip]
Yup, they're still around. And still the only game in town for a lot of
streamlined cars.
Rusty Keeney
wrote:
Well, darn - he's gettin' a jump on AMTRAK!
Andy Harman
<argi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>They were borderline "craftsman kits" and were not successful for reasons that
>are not known to me.
Well here's one: the roof and floor extrusions usually were cut to the
fine tolerance of within 1/4" (actual, not scale) of each other,
length wise. They fixed this later, but I have a whole pile of 6-8 of
them that are nothing but crap.
Andy Harman
wrote:
>Why not produce a real modular system, already painted or undec, that
>provides three or four "core" kits of floors and ends already assembled, to
>which you can snap in the sides of your choice and the roof of your choice.
This is more or less what currently exists in the marketplace, but
it's from a hodge-podge of manufacturers producing both competing and
complimentary products. You've got the Eastern Car works cores - the
Pullman lightweight core which is almost straight, the head end core
which isn't (has a blank underframe and plain/ventless roof), the Budd
core which is weak up against Rivarossi's, and the observation core
which will work with cars the same length as an NYC "Island" car and
with the same boat-end shape (or any one that can be fudged close).
Then you've got the Rivarossi core which is slightly longer, but needs
a lot of hacking to change the sides, has generic underbody detail,
and crappy looking ends. Brass Car Sides makes a wood core which has
the advantage of being able to be sized to the correct length, but all
the pitfalls of working with wood, at least on the roof. And you
could use some of the Budd sides out there on the Rivarossi Budd core
with some cutting. All of these cores have their pros and cons, there
is no one "killer core kit" in HO scale. The ECW core is the one that
the most sides will fit, and it's the worst just because they can't
eject the roof straight, and no, the bend-and-glue bit doesn't really
work, it just eventually transfers the roof's warp to the sides. We
need a straight roof, period.
Then in sides - you've got Brass Car Sizes (etched brass) making a
substantial line of smoothside cars and a few overlays like the Budd
dome overlays which are fluted or partially fluted. Concord Junction,
probably the most poorly marketed product line in the entire hobby,
also offers (or offered) an extensive line of mostly Pullman fluted
sides. NKP Car offers a lot of fluted car sides - Pullman, ACF, and
Budd, primarily NKP, C&O, L&N, and SR prototypes... and Athabasca has
some very nice Budd sides which are awaiting a viable Budd core to
make them really saleable. Add to that the plastic sides from Union
Station Products - thin, laminated styrene with thick clear styrene
for backing/support (this is the method I used to scratchbuild many of
my smoothside cars), with plastic fluting overlays (machine cut?)...
and of course the very nice laser cut acrylic (clear) sides from
AMB/Laserkit.
This is a LOT of passenger car stuff... the lack of a straight core
kit is a problem, the lack of a cohesive line from one manufacturer is
a problem, and the general slackness of the passenger car market is a
big problem. Passenger cars are not well understood, not often
modeled accurately, often dismissed by prototype modelers just because
of the limited appeal... and for freelancers the passenger train is
often just fluff for operations. Serious passenger car and passenger
operation students are few and far between, because it's just not well
supported. If not for spending two years working on 1:1 passenger
cars, I would probably still be in la-la land as far as knowing
anything about the prototype.
Will a line of truly state-of-the-art passenger car models revitalize
interest? I say yes, cautiously... a lot of wannabees will become
do-ers, and it will stimulate articles, flow of information, new books
being printed and old ones re-issued (like the Delta Pubs lightweight
index books... absolutely indispensible for any lightweight modeler or
historian). I don't think great passenger car models will do a whole
lot for the unconverted however... the great hobby mainstream will
still want RTR cars, not care about prototype just how well it stays
on the track, and that it doesn't cost 'em more than 20 bucks a hit.
These cars we're talking about will run you $30-$50 each just for the
basic side/core kit, and you can double that with interior components,
decent trucks, and underbody details... not to mention a build time of
quite a bit longer than the typical box-shaker.
I view each new run of passenger car products with cautious
optimism... things are certainly better than they were. I truly feel
we will have a Proto 2000 quality passenger car line within the next
few years, which will be RTR cars of excellent quality and running
characteristics probably in the $40-$50 range. The will however, be
specific prototype cars chosen to cover modest ground and fudged on
other ground. If the line includes head-end cars (which it must, if
you are to appeal to the "gotta have a matched set" crowd) then they
will by necessity be ethnic to a particular railroad and like all that
came before them, will be fudged otherwise. The difference will be
that these cars will be excellent models of what they are, not just
lukewarm like what we are used to from Rivarossi. You may see some
railroad specific geegaws applied... much the way Bachmann
de-Pennsified their P70 line by changing the roof vents, baggage
doors, trucks, etc... but the basic bodies will still be what they
are. In essence, we'll see what Kato did in N scale, done in HO...
their N cars all have specific prototypes and are excellent models
thereof... but they don't belong in the same train together under any
banner (probably even Amtrak would be a stretch for an all-smoothside
consist in matching paint schemes).
The alternative of course would be to do a complete train - such as
the 1938 or 1948 Century... or Broadway... or the 37 Chief or the 51
Super Chief... or the California Zephyr, or one of the joint "City"
trains. They'd be ethically correct with some cars modifiable for
other roads to some degree, and other cars would be... fudges.
If it were up to me to choose a specific train to model in the
lightweight era, I would probably choose the 1951 Super Chief or
therebouts. Some cars bashable to other roads; the enduring
popularity of the Santa Fe and warbonnet F-units even to those outside
that time frame or locale (even half a world away); the fact that a
number of the car types saw extended Amtrak service. Another good
choice would be the SP Sunset Ltd. which also had Budd cars surviving
to Amtrak.
Anyone who thinks theres any other way to do it needs to do more
homework. The modular kit concept is a noble idea, but would have a
very limited market... the "Cannon Doors" of passenger car kits... and
even so would require a lot of tooling for all the options, and would
also require Cannon/Highliners level tooling and engineering just to
have it all fit together seamlessly and not sag like a fossilized
dinosaur skeleton. I will applaud whoever comes through and does it,
but if it was my $100K being invested, I'd probably put it somewhere
else :-)
Zack
are not perfect, but they are a lot cheaper than 20 bucks per freight car
(ala P2K and Atlas), one for reasonable cost can build a good fleet of
freight and passenger cars quickly and without busting the bank much.
besides there fun to build (albiet frustrating at times).
--
Zack Willhoite
Puyallup, WA
AOL IM: Busdud21
Http://drive.to/busdude
mailto:Bus...@Worldnet.att.net
FuNkY MoNkEy 104.9 RULES!!!!
Anything I say is my own opinion and not representative of any organization
I may or may not be a member of
Andy Harman
<dom.de...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>In styrene, the E&B Valley/Eastern Car Works kits were very nice too (except
>for the trucks), I just wish they'd done more heavyweights, and a decent
>diner and full baggage in the streamliners.
The biggest problem with the trucks was that they were styrene. The
first ones were a bit flat looking, but detail-wise better than some
of the then-current alternatives (Rivarossi's cardboard Commonwealth,
that ConCor copied). The biggest problem was that styrene was too
soft to make a viable bearing surface for a steel axle, and plastic on
plastic (using Kadee wheels) did not roll well, nor for long. ECW has
expanded their truck line and sells them separately... and TSP has
also gone the styrene route with their trucks for the Santa Fe
hi-level cars (IMO some of the best ever in flat styrene). The handy,
but expensive solution is the Intermountain needle bearing wheelsets -
these have wheels that spin on the axles independently so the axle can
be wedged, even glued into the styrene sideframe. They also work very
well on those lead-sled brass trucks, which have essentially the same
problem as the styrene -- maybe not subject to rapid wear, but they
don't roll worth a !^%$ usually.
Jason Shron
----------
In article <85tkc2$emi$1...@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, "Tom Luton"
<lut...@mcmaster.ca> wrote:
Athabasca Scale Models (http://www.athabascashops.com/) released an E
sleeper last year (includes an ECW core kit). Unfortunately the core kit's
underbody looks NOTHING like the E sleeper underbody. The E sleeper
requires scratchbuilt battery boxes and various other details (highly
visible brake gear, AC details, water tank, etc.). I've already built a few
ex-CN cars, but the fleet progresses slowly due to the amount of
scratchbuilding necessary per car.
Regards,
Jason
Maycop
a good selection of prototype kits based on GN Empire Bldr., NP North Coast
Ltd,.SP Golden State, & UP City of. These were complete consists for the above
& had sides of .010 matt tin, roofs & floors of milled basswood, + the
necessary body parts. Cars were a scale 83'. Listing I have from 93' shows kits
averaging about $26 per. I'm not sure if he's still in biz. but last I knew he
was in Sparks Nev.
Don
Russell Hedges
Hey, remember the Herkimer kits from the '50s? His son has bought up
all the tooling and makes them again, under the name OK Streamliners.
They are extruded aluminum, with cast ends. Smooth side and
corrugated. The dome cars aren't very convincing, but the others are
really nice.
But wait, there's more.
He offers a custom body service. He will cut the windows to suit. And
the skirts (Or not, Cal Zephere cars with full length skirt!) The bodies
are offered in scale lengths of 60, 72,80, and 85 feet.
All this information is old, I haven't corresponded with him in three
years now. But the price back then for custome cars was $20.00 for just
a body, and $50 for the complete kit.
Again, not a plastic body, but an aluminum one.
I am not affiliated with him in any way, yadda yadda, etc. etc.
OK Engines
Box 355
Mohawk, N.Y. 13407
Russell Hedges
Alex Schneider
Russell Hedges <russ...@home.com> wrote in message
news:388573DF...@home.com...
Jonathan White
>
> Check out the Walthers "New Products Announced in January 2000" website. I
> counted over 200 new Athearn freight cars, passenger cars and locomotives just
> announced today.
>
> http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200001/Freight
> http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200001/Locomotive
> http://www.walthers.com/exec/newproducts/cr/200002/Passenger
Awww, man... my wallet is just *so* screwed. Stewart F3s in Bangor and
Aroostook and Maine Central?!?!
--
Jonathan N. White
jwhi...@sprynet.com
http://home.sprynet.com/~jwhite07/index.htm
It's hard to be nostalgic when you can't remember anything.