Rating HO freight car companies
Fredric W. Dabney
: All this talk about Tichy cars got me, a newcomer to model railroading,
: wondering. How do you guys who have been around this hobby for awhile rate the
: general quality of HO freight cars each company makes? For engines I have the
: impression that Atlas, Kato, and Stewart are a trio that rank at the top,
: followed by Athearn, Proto 2000, and Spectrum next, followed by everyone else,
: although I have a Walthers F-M H10-44 that is outstanding. Can you give me
: some guidance about the accuracy and appearance of the average freight car made
: by each company? I'm especially interested in the companies I most often see
: in hobby stores--Walthers, Accurail, Athearn, Atlas, Con-Cor, and
: Roundhouse--although comments about others would be appreciated.
: Thanks.
/DUCK!!!!/
jcj
>guidance about the accuracy and appearance of the average freight car
From my experiences in HO, I agree with your assessments.
--
Jeff
j...@tellabs.com
Dave Nelson
|> How do you guys who have been around this hobby for awhile rate the
|> general quality of HO freight cars each company makes?
Well, I'll pin a bullseye on and try and answer as objectively as I can.
I'm not gonna try and poke anybody in the eye; just trying to answer
the question here.
First, IMO, quality is almost always a function of time and money on the
part of the consumer. It becomes a very subjective measure. I'll
assume your question is about accuracy, not quality.
Second, the most complete source of info I know of is from the club
at RPI, in Troy New York. Costs $50. See ad in Model Railroader.
Tells you in considerable detail what ~pre 1955 railroad had freight cars
for almost every HO scale car kit that's been produced. There are *alot*
of car kits that do not match any known prototype car, which is where
the contentious debate begins. Add'l info is often published in
Mailline Modeller, Rail Model Journal, Model Railroading, and historical
society magazines. Useful info has rarely been published in Model
Railroader, tho that appears to be changing of late.
Third, as best I can tell, accuracy covers several topics: Dimentions
such as height and length; cross section thickness (grabs, ladders,
roofwalks). Lettering - road name & car number accuracy, ledgibility.
Prototype car construction fidelity: roof, door, car ends, trucks, etc.
IMO (limited to pre 1955 freight cars):
The most accurate HO kits I have are from Westerfield and Sunshine. The
issue of quality, as I've framed it above, is extremely subjective.
I'll guess the vast majority of modellers do not see the time and
expense of these kits as worth it. I have a few and I do enjoy
them; While I can't imagine trying to do a whole layout at this
level, I have a great appreciation for the craftsmanship of whomever
made the masters as well as how educational they are.
Next, the Intermountain kits hold down the #2 spot, well above any other
styrene kits I'm familiar with. Noticibly thinner cross sections
on grabs, etc. Very sharp lettering. Road name & car numbers are
historically correct, but on occassion they'll stretch it just past
completely accurate (e.g., some of their PFE cars use historically
accurate car numbers but for non R-40-23 class cars - it's real close,
just not 100%).
In the third tier, I'd put Tichy, followed very closely by Bowsers PRR
cars, Eastern Car Works gons and hoppers,and Stewart hoppers. Builders
plans often used; most details present. Car numbers typically correct.
In fourth place, AccuRail, the latest MDC and Walthers cars. Fairly
accurate construction; decent lettering ledgibility. Don't expect either
the road names or car numbers to be historically accurate; some are.
Fifth, Athearn, MDC, older Walthers (i.e., TM). No expectation of
accuracy - occasionally they are, but it isn't the norm. Great
value if accuracy is not an objective.
Last place: Life Like, Bachman, etc. One or two are body-accurate but
thick cross sections, painting and lettering mean a lot of work to get
them looking okay.
Now, where did I leave my asbestos suit?
Dave Nelson
___________________________________________________________
Hewlett Packard email: da...@pa.itc.hp.com
ICBD fax: (415) 852-8312
1501 Page Mill Rd. phone: (415) 857-2902
Palo Alto CA. 94304
___________________________________________________________
Tim O'Connor
>
> All this talk about Tichy cars got me, a newcomer to model railroading,
> general quality of HO freight cars each company makes? [ ...snip...]
> I'm especially interested in the companies I most often see in hobby stores--
( Rolls up cyber-sleeves ... )
First: remember some of these producers have been around for 30+ years.
As a result, some models represent the hobby as it was back in the early
days of plastic models, while some models now represent the state of the
art, as it is in the 1990's.
Second: philosophy, or target market. This is very important if you're
going to compare vendors. To say Tichy is "better" than Athearn is not
meaningful unless your modeling goals are taken into account, first. If
you are a "prototype" or "finescale" modeler, Tichy is better. If you are
a novice, or like ease of assembly, and low price, then Athearn is better.
Third: complexity. I think we can say there are now 5 "tiers" of modeling
skills targeted by the various makers.
Level 1: Kit is virtually pre-assembled, or is R-T-R (Ready To Run)
Vendors: Atlas, Accurail
Level 2: Kit requires some assembly, but basically "Shake The Box"
Vendors: Athearn, Roundhouse, Accurail, Concor, Tichy (GS flatcar)
Level 3: Kit requires some joining of parts, may have many parts
Vendors: Walthers ( Look, ma, no competition! )
Level 4: Kit is well engineered, but has many pieces, may require
drilling and filing, painting, etc
Vendors: Tichy, Intermountain, Eel River, Walthers (old kits)
Level 5: Kits represent specific prototype cars, usually made from
polyester resin castings, or wood, require a lot of skill
Vendors: Westerfield, Sunshine, Quality Craft, many others
I did not list all vendors, and some vendors make more than one type of
kit. But you get the idea. So try to be more specific about what your
goals are as a modeler, and then ask again!
Bo Rinaldi
writes:
>
>The most accurate HO kits I have are from Westerfield and Sunshine.
Even though I model the teen's and twenties, I place Westerfield at the
top of the heap, even over Sunshine. I have built models from each
company. Both company's products result in great models that really
stand out on a layout. But, the reasons (IMO) I give Westerfield (I
have built 47 of them so far) the edge are:
1. Westerfield has a very extensive CHOICE of types of accurate
prototype equipment (i.e.-stock, box, gon, reefer) for a large number
of "Class I" prototype railroads and their subsidiaries.
2. Westerfield has the construction and letterings variances in their
parts and excellent decals for the ENTIRE LIFE of the car, not just a
frozen time frame(such as a Sunshine Model which only represents a
rebuilt version of a prototype, that I wish they had included an "as
built" version also).
3. Westerfield includes incredible INFORMATION/RESEARCH SHEETS,
including prototype photos, as to the history of the building of the
car and its roster/numbering history for the life of the car. Look at
any photos of yards in the 40's through the late 50's and you will see
'in-service for interchange' cars from the teen's, 20's, and 30's.
4. Excellent detailed instructions with PHOTOS of built models for
references.
5. Excellent personal service from Al Westerfield himself. I wrote him
a letter that I couldn't make out some of the lettering diagrams in the
directions for one of his SP stock cars, and he sent a detailed diagram
and a better copy of a photo of a prototype car in my time frame within
days.
Other than that, having a $4.50 Athern car built and flawlessly running
in only 5 minutes from opening the box, has great merits also.
Raymond Montemayor
wondering. How do you guys who have been around this hobby for awhile rate the
by each company? I'm especially interested in the companies I most often see
in hobby stores--Walthers, Accurail, Athearn, Atlas, Con-Cor, and
Thanks.
--Ray M
Fredric W. Dabney
... a lot of stuff with which I can't disagree, but...
The question was "what's best?" and I respond: for what? What do you
want to do? Perhaps the question can be asked- do you want to open boxes
and put it on the track, or do you want to build models. Another
question important here is "/when/ do you want to model?" Are you mostly
interested in contemporary railroading (i.e. stuff you might expect to
see running today) or are you interested in other eras?
The answer to this set of questions will determine a lot of the answers to
what's best. As Dave pointed out, there is a definite layering of quality
in the market, but the best of what he cites has no presence in the
present era. Westerfield, Sunshine et al don't make modern equipment,
neither does Tichy nor a lot of the other makers of first tier quality
rolling stock kits. There is also the fact that there are few really
super quality products in the "open the box" category. The top level
named by Dave assume a /lot/ of participation by the modeler. Even though
I have no interest in the era they represent, I've built a few of their
kits just for the fun of it. But the hobby includes many who have no
interest in that aspect. Their choices are quite limited. Atlas has two
nice cars- a modern tank car, an older hopper car, and a caboose. The
tank car and the hopper would not have spent much time on the track at the
same time, although the caboose would overlap their active years. Kato
has a pair of locomotives that roughly equal the Atlas caboose in their
applicability to time. HOwever, from where I model, their product
requires as much time, money and effort to make presentable as any Athearn
model.
But if intermodal service excites you, if long trains of 100 ton grain or
coal cars are what you like, you'll have to build kits, and the kits you
can buy, while pretty good, aren't up to the standard set by Tichy,
Westerfield, etc.
Figure out what you want to do, then ask again with a narrower focus, and
remember- if you are happy with something, and don't care for another,
then opinions to the contrary of the rest of us aren't really too
important. It's a hobby, not a calling.
Fred D.
"You know, it's really a jungle out there" (atrib Tarzan)
Dave Nelson
[snip] kudos to Westerfield deleted for brevity.
I agree with all you've said, except for:
|> 5. Excellent personal service from Al Westerfield himself. I wrote him
|> a letter that I couldn't make out some of the lettering diagrams in the
|> directions for one of his SP stock cars, and he sent a detailed diagram
|> and a better copy of a photo of a prototype car in my time frame within
|> days.
I wrote asking he replace a defective part. I never got a reply.
Maybe the letter wasn't delivered, I dunno. I got 2 partially built
$25 kits tho.
8-(
Tim O'Connor
> Next, the Intermountain kits hold down the #2 spot, well above any other
> styrene kits I'm familiar with. Noticibly thinner cross sections
> on grabs, etc. Very sharp lettering. Road name & car numbers are
> historically correct, but on occassion they'll stretch it just past
> completely accurate
> In the third tier, I'd put Tichy, followed very closely by Bowsers PRR
> cars, Eastern Car Works gons and hoppers,and Stewart hoppers. Builders
> plans often used; most details present. Car numbers typically correct.
I know it's only an opinion, Dave, but I would definitely swap Tichy and
Intermountain in the Accuracy category. Moreover, Bowser and the others
are at a decidedly lower level of accuracy.
Tichy models represent nearly perfect fidelity to a specific prototype car.
The USRA hopper, boxcar, the rebuilt boxcars, the PFE R-40-4 -- there is not
a flaw, omission or error on any of them.
Intermountain cars on the other hand, while I -love- them, usually have at
least one if not more errors. Their best effort to date is the R-40-23, and
the errors on that car are minimal. However, where did you get the idea
that Intermountain paint schemes are accurate? With the exception of the
first PFE reefer kit, and the Northern Pacific reefer, none of the paint
schemes offered for the model are prototypical, and some are wildly wrong.
(e.g. the meat reefers, the R-40-10, the ART reefer, the WFEX reefer).
IMWX, Intermountain's "affiliate", tried to offer the 1937 boxcar ONLY in
prototypical schemes (although some turned out to be incorrect such as the
Southern boxcars), but it was a financial failure -- the market WANTS cars
painted in favorite schemes, and doesn't care about accuracy. And don't
get me started on the PS-1's.
And read the latest Railroad Model Craftsman's review of the Bowser round
roof boxcars. While the die work is fine, the ladders are actually -too-
fine (and cast in, to boot). But the worst error is that the inset roof
and flush roof cars were NOT the same height! The whole purpose of the flush
roof was to raise the interior height by 5 inches. W&R imported a correct
X31b double door with flush roof, and indeed it is slightly taller than
my Bowser. The Bowser is accurate only for modeling the X31/X31a cars with
inset roof. That means that many of the paint schemes offered are way off.
Seaboard cars, for example, had completely different ends than the PRR cars.
And the NP cars were all ex-X31b's.
I would give the ECW gondolas very high marks, much higher than the ACF
hoppers which have rather gross features such as square "hat section" ribs.
All Stewart hoppers, while having accurate exteriors, continue the industry
habit of omitting the slope-sheet braces and brake levers, have very poor
hatch details such as Wine Door locks (Bowser gets high marks for theirs)
and of course the grabirons and stirrups are fat and ugly.
Otherwise, I agreed with the rest of your message! :^)
Tim O'Connor
> Even though I model the teen's and twenties, I place Westerfield at the
> top of the heap, even over Sunshine.
[ .. snip .. ]
> 2. Westerfield has the construction and letterings variances in their
> parts and excellent decals for the ENTIRE LIFE of the car, not just a
> frozen time frame(such as a Sunshine Model which only represents a
> rebuilt version of a prototype, that I wish they had included an "as
> built" version also).
Bo,
Just a minor nit, but this is true only in cases where the prototype car
was largely unchanged over time. In fact, Westerfield does have as his goal
to produce models of cars -through time- but this may require new models
to represent rebuilt cars.
Examples: the Great Northern 50 foot single sheathed boxcars, and the UP
automobile boxcars.
And note: Westerfield has been manufacturing Sunshine kits now for about
two years. This has resulted in some new "life cycle" products: Westerfield
has produced the PFE R-30-12 and R-30-13 reefers from the 1920's to the
1930's, while Sunshine is producing the -rebuilt- reefers from the same
original classes.
> 3. Westerfield includes incredible INFORMATION/RESEARCH SHEETS,
I agree with you here. His research and instructions are superb.
> 5. Excellent personal service from Al Westerfield himself.
I second this motion also. He has taken the time to reply to several of
my letters with thoughtful replies. And he helped me out with questions
I had about a kitbash model I was doing.
> Other than that, having a $4.50 Athern car built and flawlessly running
> in only 5 minutes from opening the box, has great merits also.
Barf. But that's only my opinion. :^)
Dave Nelson
|> Dave Nelson (da...@pa.itc.hp.com) wrote:
|> ... a lot of stuff with which I can't disagree, but...
|>
|> The question was "what's best?" and I respond: for what?
No Fred, the question was "how do you rate the general quality"; the
only opinion I have on "what's best" is this: Whatever each consumer
buys for themself is most likely to be whats best for them. In this
I believe we agree.
|> As Dave pointed out, there is a definite layering of quality
|> in the market, [snip]
I tried to point out that quality is in the eye of the beholder. I
tried to answer WRT accuracy, which should be less subjective,
not quality, which is often extremely subjective.
|> but the best of what he cites has no presence in the
|> present era.
Cause I dunno beans about the modern fleet; 8-) I don't look a the
cars kits, I don't read the articles or books. I have no basis for
any opinion there.
Anybody wanna pick up the challenge at rate the modern fleet kit
accuracy? Go for it!
Dave Nelson
Hi Tom,
|> I know it's only an opinion, Dave, but I would definitely swap Tichy and
|> Intermountain in the Accuracy category. Moreover, Bowser and the others
|> are at a decidedly lower level of accuracy.
No problem - I can be convinced. Your examples are no doubt correct.
What's hard with what I was trying to do is to answer the question at
the manufacturers product line level instead of by each and every kit.
For instance, I really don't care for MDC, but the 50' single sheathed
boxcar with door panel for heralds is a *perfect* match for Western
Pacific. Their AAR boxcar doesn't match anything.
So, let me try again, from most accurate to least, across the whole product
line:
vendor wild-ass guess
Westerfield ......... 99 %
Sunshine ............ 95
Tichy ............... 90
Bowser .............. 70
Stewart ............. 65
Intermountain ....... 50
Athearn ............. 20
MDC ................. 15
AHM etc ............. 5
Feel free to sub your own numbers - this isn't meant to be definitive.
David_Gibbons
SNIP
> So, let me try again, from most accurate to least, across the whole product
> line:
>
> vendor wild-ass guess
> Westerfield ......... 99 %
> Sunshine ............ 95
> Tichy ............... 90
> Bowser .............. 70
> Stewart ............. 65
> Intermountain ....... 50
> Athearn ............. 20
> MDC ................. 15
> AHM etc ............. 5
>
>
> Feel free to sub your own numbers - this isn't meant to be definitive.
I wanted to note that the individual modeller also gets to
choose how much accuracy he/she is willing to pay for..
I'm a cheapskate, and lazy to boot - An Athearn car can be made
to run well and look nice for relatively little time and money.
It helps that I am the sort to stand back a but to see the whole
train 8-)
Dave Gibbons, Sonoma County model RR Society.
Tim O'Connor
> I'm a cheapskate, and lazy to boot - An Athearn car can be made
> to run well and look nice for relatively little time and money.
> It helps that I am the sort to stand back a but to see the whole
> train 8-)
Yeah, I hear ya. Only I can spot an (unmodified) Athearn model from
a Tichy from about 40 feet away. How far away ya gonna get? %^}
Funny thing is, most modelers wouldn't tolerate an EMD SD40-2 with
Alco RSD trucks. Yet the same modelers accept a USRA single sheathed
boxcar with a fishbelly underframe (Accurail) without so much as a
whimper. In other words I don't view it as a lazy vs. unlazy issue.
I see it as the American model railroaders interest in the front of
the train, to the exclusion of what is behind. To me this explains
the oft heard refrain 'Hey it looks ok from three feet away'.
Not to me, it don't.
Dave Nelson
|> I wanted to note that the individual modeller also gets to
|> choose how much accuracy he/she is willing to pay for..
Very definitely! Thats why I tried to keep the topic to accuracy
and steer away from subjective opinion of value, attractiveness,
easy of assembly, and so - those characteritics which each consumer
makes their own call.
Oleh Dub (R)
trains" vs. those who model specific pieces of equipment? Every hobby has this
scenario because by their very nature hobbies are discretionary in their
allocation of time and resources. I gues what I'm trying to say is that both
groups need to not only leave room for the other,but to make room for newcomers
to keep the hobby growing. Athern,Accurail,etc. are just as necessary to the
hobby,if for no other reason than to allow people to enjoy railroading who don't
have huge chunks of money to spend,as are the Tichy & Intermountains for those
who are more inclined to model specific types of equipment and are in a position
to spend the extra dollars involved. My 2 cents...
Tim O'Connor
> The Accurail OB boxcar _is_ an accurate model, but certainly not for the
> USRA SS car. The USRA car had hat-section braces, while the Accurail car
> has Z-section ones. See Richard Hendrickson's excellent article in the
> February 1993 RAIL MODEL JOURNAL
Yeh, I stand here, head down in shame.. I knew that, but I underestimated
this newsgroup. Guess I'll have to tread more carefully.. :^}
> Al Westerfield does not "make Sunshine's kits", but he does do the casting
> for Sunshine. And for Canadian Car Parts. Minor point.)
Now THAT is nitpicking! I could learn a few things from you! :^)
But a question: Do you know how to reach the Canadian Car Parts Guild? I
have written to them twice, with no reply. I really want to get some of
those Canadian NSC boxcar ends and other stuff, but no luck.
> From the "As The Hobby Turns" file
Very interesting. I had heard a lot of this, but not all of it. Does that
mean Freddie was behind Skylim? And what happened to all the rest of those
wonderful Front Range dies (i.e. details and underframes excepted).
From my own files: I think Sunshine kit -castings- were originally made
by Funaro? Funaro does castings for Yankee Clipper, and some other small
northeastern vendors. Anyway I -hoid- from Bill Dumaine of Y.C. that his
1932 boxcars and Sunshine's 1932 boxcars came out about the same time and
there was some question about Sunshine rushing their kits into production
based on confidential information that was leaked by the editor of Mainline
Modeler (not Hundman, the other guy) to Sunshine and tempers flared and
well, Sunshine (Martin Lofton) switched to Westerfield. (And I'm glad he
did!)
Hey, maybe I got my facts mixed up but that's never stopped me before!
One last iota: When I last spoke to Des Plaines, they said they planned to
reissue the Storzcek kits ... someday. They did, however, commit to dies
to make Delrin stirrups for the Rutland kit (my metal ones broke, which
is how I got into the conversation with them). And Des Plaines has also
down the 8 Rung ladders for the Intermountain 1937 boxcars!! They modeled
them after CN ladders but they can be used for other railroads too.
Regards
Tom Madden
Tim O'Connor (toco...@bbn.com) wrote:
: Funny thing is, most modelers wouldn't tolerate an EMD SD40-2 with
: Alco RSD trucks. Yet the same modelers accept a USRA single sheathed
: boxcar with a fishbelly underframe (Accurail) without so much as a
: whimper.
The Accurail OB boxcar _is_ an accurate model, but certainly not for the
USRA SS car. The USRA car had hat-section braces, while the Accurail car
has Z-section ones. See Richard Hendrickson's excellent article in the
February 1993 RAIL MODEL JOURNAL for the complete skinny on the Accurail
car, but in it's basic form, it's a Canadian National car from 1916-17.
Now, all the end & door variations Accurail offers for that kit are
another matter!
Some history. Back when Al Westerfield's kits came with brittle, filled
polyester castings, Dennis Storzek brought to market a very limited line
of cast urethane car kits. The SOO Line caboose is perhaps the best
remembered, but Dennis also offered a NYC 1.5 door boxcar, a Canadian
grain boxcar, and the 1916 CN car with wood roof. Last I heard, Des
Plaines Hobbies had the rights to these kits, but I don't think they're
available. Anyway, the properties of the cast urethane, especially
compared to polyester, were remarkable - like styrene, but generally
untouched by common hobby solvents. Whether the Storzek kits had anything
to do with it or not, Westerfield switched to vacuum-cast urethane, and
the rest is MRR history. (Strictly speaking, to address a point brought up
elsewhere in this thread, Al Westerfield does not "make Sunshine's kits",
but he does do the casting for Sunshine. And for Canadian Car Parts. Minor
point.)
Some time after the disappearance of the Storzek kits, Dennis reappeared
as a principal in a new company, Accurail. He brought the CN car with him.
From the "As The Hobby Turns" file I give you the following: Accurail's
first offering was a rework of the original McKean (not SkyLim) Models GN
40' double-door boxcar kit. While Bill McKean marketed the kit with
separate ladders, grabs, etc, Accurail recut the body dies to incorporate
those parts with the body. Don't know if that was Accurail's original
intent, but when the McKean line was picked up and reintroduced by the
former owner of Front Range Products (are you still with me??), the die
for the GN detail parts, but not for the body, wound up at FRP/McKean.
Accurail wound up with the body die, and decided to do what they did
rather than cut a new detail parts die. The Accurail version was/is a
success, and they have continued with the "incorporated" detail parts in
subsequent kits.
Tom "class dismissed" Madden
--
===============================================================
| Tom Madden |"People get lives, wander off for a bit,|
| Boulder, CO |and when they come back the newer faces |
| tma...@netcom.com |don't recognize them." Barbara Hamel |
===============================================================
Tom Madden
: have written to them twice, with no reply. I really want to get some of
: those Canadian NSC boxcar ends and other stuff, but no luck.
Try Des Planes Hobbies. AFAIK, they have the best selection in the US.
[my chronology of the McKean/Accurail GN boxcar body dies deleted]
: Very interesting. I had heard a lot of this, but not all of it. Does that
: mean Freddie was behind Skylim? And what happened to all the rest of those
: wonderful Front Range dies (i.e. details and underframes excepted).
Front Range failed and the tooling was taken over by creditors, _then_
Fred Becker re-emerged with the McKean line. I may be wrong, but I believe
Skylim was a group of Indiana investors unassociated with Becker. Don't
weep too much over the FRP tooling - it was aluminum: easier, cheaper and
faster to machine, but wears out much faster than steel.
: From my own files: I think Sunshine kit -castings- were originally made
: by Funaro? Funaro does castings for Yankee Clipper, and some other small
: northeastern vendors. Anyway I -hoid- from Bill Dumaine of Y.C. that his
: 1932 boxcars and Sunshine's 1932 boxcars came out about the same time and
: there was some question about Sunshine rushing their kits into production
: based on confidential information that was leaked by the editor of Mainline
: Modeler (not Hundman, the other guy) to Sunshine and tempers flared and
: well, Sunshine (Martin Lofton) switched to Westerfield. (And I'm glad he
: did!)
Steve Funaro and Sharon Camerlengo, operating out of a post office box in
Honesdale, PA. Their yellow urethane castings (Alumilite, if I'm not
mistaken) were in the old Sunshine kits, Yankee Clipper, and the RPI
club's line of kits, as well as in F&C's own kits. Alumilite is a tricky
material to work with - short pot life, high exotherm - and the earlier
F&C castings were very poor quality. Many voids in the castings (air
bubbles in the resin), resin spheres on the castings (air bubbles in the
mold), warped castings (castings removed from the mold too soon),
mis-shaped castings (excessive weighting of the mold). Their work is much
better now, but if I were marketing a resin kit these days, I'd choose
some other color than tan. Can't comment on the MLM-YC-F&C-Sunshine
brouhaha, but nothing would surprise me.
Tom
Tim O'Connor
> Tim O'Connor (toco...@bbn.com) wrote:
> : Do you know how to reach the Canadian Car Parts Guild?
>
> Try Des Planes Hobbies. AFAIK, they have the best selection in the US.
Thank you, I'll try them! (I just sent them an order for 8-rung ladders.)
> Don't weep too much over the FRP tooling - it was aluminum: easier,
> cheaper and faster to machine, but wears out much faster than steel.
I don't really understand your point here.. from appearances I'd say most
manufacturers (other than Athearn) seem to be going to aluminum. Certainly
Intermountain uses it (at least, accordion to the C&BT Shops guy). Surely
the FR dies are not without some value?
> Steve Funaro and Sharon Camerlengo ... Their yellow urethane castings
> (Alumilite, if I'm not mistaken) were in the old Sunshine kits, Yankee
> Clipper, and the RPI club's line of kits, as well as in F&C's own kits.
Also, I think, the "Shore Line" kits put out by the Rivershore (?) hobby
shop in New York state, and perhaps also Steam Shack kits.
> Many voids in the castings (air bubbles in the resin), resin spheres on
> the castings (air bubbles in the mold), warped castings
I know, I know. :^{ I have only one F&C kit, a Pfaulder steel milk car.
The body has very fine detail but has many tiny pinholes, ugh. Also F&C's
idea of instructions ...
Step 1: remove parts from box
Step 1a: aquire all the parts we didn't include, from somewhere else
Step 2: attach all parts to carbody
Step 3: paint and decal model
> I'd choose some other [casting material] color than tan.
Interesting you should say that.. My latest order of Sunshine kits had
a couple of cars down in brownish-tan resin, instead of gray. These are
older kits that were previously cast by F&C.. The castings have changed
for the better so it looks like they may be vacuum-casting as they redo
the older kits.
Dave Nelson
|> Are we possibly seeing a"split" in the hobbby?....those who "just run toy
|> trains" vs. those who model specific pieces of equipment?
IMO, it happened about 8 years ago when Westerfield proved there was
a market for very specific and accurate plastic freight cars. Not
a big market, but the notion that *nobody* would pay from than a few
bucks for a car was tossed out. Since then the "standard" was been
steadily rising with a lot of new vendors trying the market: CB&T is
new, Stewart is new, IWMX is new, Bowser is new. And the established
vendors are moving that way too, perhaps more slowly, but the trend
is there.
I'd guess the same trend is occuring w/ engines, but frankly, I've
paid much less attention to that so I just don't know.
|> Every hobby has this
|> scenario because by their very nature hobbies are discretionary in their
|> allocation of time and resources. I gues what I'm trying to say is that both
|> groups need to not only leave room for the other,but to make room for newcomers
|> to keep the hobby growing.
I agree entirely. I always steer newcomers to Athearn cars - they're
good value. And I know folks on a *real* tight budget who really
appreciate them too. They're good for the hobby in many ways.
That said, it must also be said that a lot of their product line
is a generic representation, not an accurate model. Perhaps their
new issues of modern cars are accurate; I dunno, my freight car
knowledge is pre-1955. But whether a generic representation is
good enough, or not, is always up to the individual modeller who
is making the purchase.
And when somebody asks me if there are more accurate alternatives,
I tell them as much or as little as they want to know.
Crawfojr
popping a model out of the box and run it (RTR) and really going for
detail. As a relatively new modeller, I try hard to strike a balance.
Details are best viewed as entanglements. If it's worth it to YOU (the
individual opinions will and should vary) to "fool with it" as my
grandfather said, then do so. My preference is to get what I consider to
be a reasonable model -- one that includes the major details (i.e.,
triple-valves, brake resevoirs, brake wheels obviously, tack boards, and
the like) without getting hideously accurate. To me, model trains are not
meant to collect dust. They are meant to be operated (but that's just
me). If you agree with that, and wouldn't want to spend time and money on
brass or can motors or the most accurate of journals and what have you,
then just buy what you like. The matter is complicated further when you
try to factor in the size of your layout. A 12 x 12 can accomodate lots
of great details such as industry operations, switch yards, etc. You can
buy challenging kits and build them and have the road "filled up" in a
pretty short time. If you're sitting on several hundred square feet of
space, my recommendation is not to spend all your time building the damn
things and never doing what you bought them to do. (Unless you have
membership in a club, of course). In short, do what you think you can
accomplish and enjoy (and afford) at the same time. Don't get
over-concerned with the minutae of accuracy, nor settle for something
that's obviously inaccurate (modern boxcars with running boards is my
personal pet-peeve). Who was it in here that said "It's a hobby, not a
calling." I agree with him.
Regards,
Rob
J. Robert Crawford
AOL: Crawfojr
-----------------------------------------------------------
"You've got two locomotives. Have you got two transformers? Good! Let's
have a crash!"
--Winston Churchill
Bill Daniels
The big problem with aluminium for die material is a short die life. Once the die is used for
whatever the number of shots are made the die has to be scrapped, and, if economically
feasable, redone. This gets VERY expensive. The upside of this is that for short runs (such as
for many model R.R. parts and/or kits) is the relatively (compared to steel) tooling costs.
(Remember above I said it is VERY expensive to retool. It's much more expensive to retool in
steel, but you have a basic labor cost that must be figured into the cost.) I believe
Intermountain is probably the first manufacturer to integrate computer diework and CAD-CAM
operations. This allows them to be able to produce the same car (i.e. the 1937 AAR boxcar) in O
scale, S scale, HO scale and N scale. Once the basic features of the car are in the computer,
it is a "relatively" inexpensive process to rescale the dimensions and produce a new car in
whatever scale is being considered. The die cutters still have to be set up by hand, but the
overall tooling cost is a fraction of hand tooling. This allows cost-effective retooling when
the dies wear out. I believe that even their paint masks are set up on computer, which would
explain the fact that identical painting is produced on cars of several scales. The downside of
this is the initial set-up cost. Which explains why nobody else is doing what Intermountain is
doing.
Dave Nelson
|> There are those who seem to be saying that one should choose between
|> popping a model out of the box and run it (RTR) and really going for
|> detail. As a relatively new modeller, I try hard to strike a balance.
[snip]
|> If you're sitting on several hundred square feet of
|> space, my recommendation is not to spend all your time building the damn
|> things and never doing what you bought them to do.
The club at RPI (The layout is the NEB&W) uses a classification scheme
for freight cars: a brown dot for "stand-in's" - cars you need to fill
trains whose accuracy is questionable, and green dot - other cars that
are (more) accurate. They've got some guidelines as to what criteria
qualifies a car as green dot - offhand I don't recall what they are.
As time and money allows one can methodically upgrade or replace the
brown dot cars. Even a large club doesn't attempt to go fine-scale
all at once.
The point here is that one doesn't have to go 110% into some specialty
area of interest - don't write it off because you've only got
resources for a 10% effort. You may discover you like it more than
you realized. I did - I bailed out of Nscale, sold off several hundred
MT cars, a couple dozen engines, track, buildings, the works and
switched to HO - all to gain the broader variety of freight cars available
in that scale.
The really wonderful truth about this hobby is there are more facets
to master than most individuals have resources - there is always a
new topic to learn. But don't let those practical limits stop you
from exploring - you might find something really fun. That's what makes
this such a great hobby.
Tim O'Connor
> There are those who seem to be saying that one should choose between
> popping a model out of the box and run it (RTR) and really going for
> detail.
I have seen no such statements in this thread, until yours.
Seriously, I don't understand this method of argument: misquote something or
just make up an outrageous statement (like Fred's statement that others in
the thread were comparing Irv Athearn to Darth Vader), and then refute it.
What's the point?
> As a relatively new modeler, I try hard to strike a balance. [snip]
Well, that's good I guess. The original questioner wanted us to rate the
freight car makers according to the accuracy of their models, and most of
the replies have pertained to that question. In fact, most of us pointed
out that "accuracy" is one thing, and "value" may be another, and that it
helps to define one's -own- modeling goals first.
Anyway, I'm sure if the questioner wanted to know what turns -you- on in
particular, he would have asked. No?
> My preference is to get what I consider to be a reasonable model ...
Do you know anyone who wants un-reasonable models? It just sounds like you
have found what you like, and are happy with that. But that is not what
the thread was about and doesn't answer the original question.
David Redmond
>
>(snip)
>
> > As a relatively new modeler, I try hard to strike a balance. [snip]
>
> Well, that's good I guess. The original questioner wanted us to rate the
> freight car makers according to the accuracy of their models, and most of
> the replies have pertained to that question. In fact, most of us pointed
>>>>
Actually the original poster used the term "quality" in his question. Someone else redefined
this as accuracy, which then led to several interesting and informative contributions, which, however,
may have dodged some of the concerns of the original poster..
It's difficult to define quality without knowing the purpose and standards of the user, but I
would suggest that the most helpful thing is everyone's experience regarding such factors as:
1) Accuracy -- of course most of us care to represent the real thing if we reasonably can do it.
As an aside--does the manufacturer provide prototype information so we know what
he thinks the thing is a model of?!? How about telling us what brand and color of paint
can be used for touch-up and details.
2) Defects--How often are parts missing or broken. Does everything fit? Does the finished kit
usually run well without major fiddling? Is the paint job neat with crisp, properly aligned lettering?
Is it easy to get replacement parts, undecorated shells or bodies, second sets of detail parts, etc.?
Surely some manufacturers are much better at this than others.
3) Features and benefits--Here I'll just name a few I appreciate (or curse):
Can obvious modifications be made easily--such as installing Kadees without
a major kit bash or choice of alternative parts for different versions? Are there
aftermarket parts available for mods and detailing?
Does the kit mate well with other equipment (i.e. matching roof height or (curse) something
like the Walthers intermodal fiasco where their well cars won't accept Athearn containers.).
Is a variety of authentic roadnames available and in many different numbers? Decals for numbering
are a real boon.
Is the item in stock or (curse) a limited production item?
The point is gathering as much information as contributors feel able to supply without engaging in debates
about how superior one manufacturer or one man's choice of manufacturer is to another. I do not mean to
criticize rating scales as some have offered when these have been based, as they mostly have been, on criteria
reasonably stated. Also, some of the hobby magazines have done an excellent job of bringing this information to
the fore, others read more like paid ads for the manufacturers.
********************************************************
Opinions expressed herein are my own and
do not necessarily represent those of 3M.
********************************************************
Fredric W. Dabney
: Regarding the above comment about aluminium dies:
HOw about Rail Power? He's getting an awful lot of shells out in pretty
short order. Without draggin in the "yes, but is it any good" question,
it still takes money to sink a die no matter how good. He's even
re-worked at least one die since the model was introduced- the C-30-7
shell was re-done to improve the grillwork around the radiator area.
But it seems to me he's got nearly as many- perhaps more- shells than
Athearn. Anyone know how he's doing it?
Fred D.
Mark Johnson
the prototype was built...
--
Mark Johnson http://saturn.arc.ab.ca/~johnson/
Alberta Research Council http://www.arc.ab.ca
Mark.J...@arc.ab.ca
Charles A Davis
> From: Mark.J...@arc.ab.ca (Mark Johnson)
> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 19:53:25 +0000
> I'm modelling 1957, so >I'd< like the manufacturer to let me know when
> the prototype was built...
> Mark Johnson http://saturn.arc.ab.ca/~johnson/
And of equal importance is:
When the Painted car sides are for --- I.E.
The car may be of an acceptable type --- (type built in '39)
But the paint job wasn't used till the '50s.
And your trying to model the late '40s.
Chuck