|
|
Post by stefano1 on Jun 11, 2012 7:17:03 GMT -8
The thread "Walthers Blunder on the Proto F7B" prompted me to start this one. It' s all about molded-on or separate added-on details which are completly wrong or misplaced. Missing details may be worth a special mention, but strictly speaking are not considered blunders (at least by me) Fixing those blunders involves some effort on the part of the modeler who bothers, although many cases may be considered hopeless So here we go, the first that come to mind are : #1 Athearn BB & RTR generic 40' + 50' box cars & reefers underframe : brake cylinder should be on same side of brake wheel, air reservoir + triple valve on the opposite side #2 Athearn BB & RTR generic 50' outside braced mechanical reefers mechanical refrigeration unit should be (at least on PFE reefers) near A end #3 Athearn BB & RTR ACF 85' All Purpose Intermodal Flat front hitch and brake lever should be side by side on B end #4 Genesis 100T trucks with truck mounted brake cylinders brake cylinders should be on opposite sides #5 Atlas ACF 17360gls + 23500gls + Kaolin tank cars brake cylinder should be on same side of brake wheel, near A end, piston should point to the B end #6 Atlas GATX 20700gls tank cars twin air lines near B end should duck under the car to the opposite side and run along the same side of brake wheel #7 Genesis GP9 discussions forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=66091forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=67097#8 Walthers Proto F7B discussion atlasrescueforum.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=hoforum&action=display&thread=224Blunder Experts, now it' s Your turn !! |
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Jun 11, 2012 7:45:26 GMT -8
#1 Athearn BB & RTR generic 40' + 50' box cars & reefers underframe : brake cylinder should be on same side of brake wheel, air reservoir + triple valve on the opposite side -------------------------- Don't expect that to be fixed since that's a 50 plus year old blunder that for most part is ignored.We might as well include those 50 plus year old fat body locomotives-including the Walthers Trainline GP9M. ------------------------- #7 Genesis GP9 ----------------------- The serious errors has been fix-beating a dead horse. --------------------- As far as underbody detail just like the prototype I run my cars with the wheels on the rail so,those types of blunders are hardly noticeable.  Grant it for the MSRP the underbody detail should be correct as long as such detail doesn't interfere with the operation of the car.. |
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jun 11, 2012 8:40:31 GMT -8
stefano,
Blunders or fantasy models have abounded for years and years as most of us found out at some point. That is why I did some basic "vetting" and created a modeling list for my fav RR.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Jun 11, 2012 9:01:49 GMT -8
I'm currently working on trailer flats and just found out that BOTH Atlas and Walthers container tracks are a problem.
The Atlas car is modeled as if the shoes are all stored. So you can't load containers on them--especially a problem with the TTCX cars. It CAN be fixed by filing out the stored shoes. The cars are metal, so I'm not looking forward to it; though, girded with patience, I will succeed.
The Walthers car is a bit more of a problem. There's a bunch of big square holes where you're supposed to put container shoes. That's OK when you're using a shoe, but at the locations you're not, the hole has to be remodeled to look like the track. You CAN'T properly glue in those little fillers they supply. They would ONLY be used where the shoes are folded down for storage, and that doesn't happen in very many locations. Next, there's some spots where they've modeled the shoes stored (see Atlas comments). If you want to have the shoes up for use, get the files out. Also, they left out some storage holes, so these need to either be filed open or have fillers applied over the track. The absolute good news is that we're (I'm) dealing with plastic, so it's a good bit easier than if it were metal.
While it's not nice to have the brake cylinders facing the wrong way, at least they're kinda underneath. These tracks are right out there in your face.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Jun 11, 2012 9:24:12 GMT -8
stefano, Blunders or fantasy models have abounded for years and years as most of us found out at some point. That is why I did some basic "vetting" and created a modeling list for my fav RR. Here's the rub..The majority of the specific era modelers I know steps out of line for a car they can't resist even though it may be a foobie or some eye catcher.. |
|
|
|
Post by dti406 on Jun 11, 2012 9:36:24 GMT -8
stefano, Blunders or fantasy models have abounded for years and years as most of us found out at some point. That is why I did some basic "vetting" and created a modeling list for my fav RR. Here's the rub..The majority of the specific era modelers I know steps out of line for a car they can't resist even though it may be a foobie or some eye catcher.. That is not quite true, I passed on the Athearn DT&I Mint Green 2893 CF PS Covered Hopper as it should have been a 3510 CF Car. The size diffence is notible between the two cars. The other major Athearn blunder is doing modern cars like the ribbed side and smooth 50' RBL with out the overhanging roof and using the dreadnaught end that predated WWII.  Rick J |
|
|
|
Post by el3637 on Jun 11, 2012 10:17:01 GMT -8
Ok here's one:
Every GP30 model done since EMD rolled theirs out of LaGrange has The Fan Mistake, as does every published drawing. The ONLY exceptions I have encountered are Overland GP30s (all are correct that I've seen), and all Proto 2000 GP30s. Diesel Era published some corrected drawings but IMO they are still a bit off.
Known models with The Fan Mistake:
HO scale plastic: Athearn, Lionel/Bachmann/Spectrum (also sold as Bev-Bel and Front Range)
HO scale brass: Balboa, NJ International, Alco Models, Oriental Limited, Challenger Imports, Hallmark?
N scale: Arnold, Atlas/Kato
S scale brass: Greenbrier
Large Scale: USA Trains
The mistake was discovered in the mid 1990s, and fully documented in 1998 - hence the first correct plastic model in HO scale was the P2K in 1999.
The source of the mistake is a piece of EMD sales literature that diagrams the loco more or less to scale, but contains the fan spacing error - apparently some artistic license that was of no consequence for the drawing's original purpose. The fact that many manufacturers and draftsmen copied the roof details from that drawing rather than either taking measurements or obtaining EMD erection drawings, as well as copied each other and propagated the mistake for 35+ years, is pretty fascinating to me.
The newest model released with the error is the USA Trains large scale. I'm sure it won't be the last. I even tried to warn them, got the Rivet Counter Wooden Stake for my trouble, so screw 'em.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jun 11, 2012 11:13:27 GMT -8
While admirable to enumerate all of the foobies and blunders, this could grow lots of arms legs and hairs due to the sheer numbers of blunders and foobies outt there. Probably there are few correct models vs the incorrect/blunders.
It would be easier to list the correct models than the blunders!
Many probably do, although I am not rich enough to buy every eye catching foobie out there. Since money is limited, I try to avoid knowingly buying bogus models. As an example, I was thinking about buying some ExactRail 50' Gunderson 5200 box cars, and then I read on the MCL list that most of the road names offered are bogus, mainly because the roofs are wrong for most of the road names. That will save me some money. It may be that "from the side" they do match the prototype? But the roof makes them incorrect apparently. I read that the SP version are correct for the early SP purchases. Possibly early BN.
|
|
|
|
Post by el3637 on Jun 11, 2012 11:46:41 GMT -8
There was much criticism of the Fox Valley Soo box car on the mfcl and bbfcl. I bought exactly one car... it's ok as a general mix car, the problems aren't that bad. But if it had been a higher end model (not a "Trainman" level) and had been correct, I would have bought several more.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jun 11, 2012 12:15:06 GMT -8
If I can find a Fox Valley Soo in the white/red earlier herald for around $20 or so, I'll jump, but since the last train show I went, I haven't seen any for less than 25 or 30. AFAIK, it's the closest thing to that car in HO, flaws or no.
|
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Jun 11, 2012 15:31:51 GMT -8
There was much criticism of the Fox Valley Soo box car on the mfcl and bbfcl. I bought exactly one car... it's ok as a general mix car, the problems aren't that bad. But if it had been a higher end model (not a "Trainman" level) and had been correct, I would have bought several more. Andy And that is about how much this matters. I might buy several of a car that's got the details desired, but I still may buy one of something with an eye-catching paint scheme if it catches my fancy -- even if it has other flaws. We all have different comfort levels for detail and prototype fidelity. Besides, how are you gonna force the "offenders' to wear a scarlet letter "F" (for foobie)?  I know what's prototype and I know what I like -- sometimes those concepts are congruent, sometimes not. It's all well and good to enumerate things that are wrong for reference. However, I've told security here to throw anyone playing prototype police out on their ear if they visit my layout. Rule #1 is what rulz here and I enjoy running totally fictitious stuff based on extrapolation from prototype practice. Get over it.  |
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jun 11, 2012 16:19:14 GMT -8
And that is about how much this matters. I might buy several of a car that's got the details desired, but I still may buy one of something with an eye-catching paint scheme if it catches my fancy -- even if it has other flaws. We all have different comfort levels for detail and prototype fidelity. As for the Fox Valley Soo box car, years ago I bought real foobie, the non-terminating end plug door box car from MDC painted for White with Red door Soo. When Fox Valley announced a box car which for all intents purposes is a visual match to the real thing, then I was interested. I don't see this as just a "flashy paint scheme" but a paint job matching a oft seen box car. I found out later these were not dimensionally fully accurate, but they are a heck of a lot closer than anything else I've seen. Does that make me "part of the problem" or a bad guy for "compromising" and giving "tacit approval" to Fox Valley for producing a inaccurate model. But with that out, how soon do you think it's going to be before another manufacturer offers that car in a more accurate version? In the current environment, not very soon. |
|
|
|
Post by el3637 on Jun 11, 2012 17:35:18 GMT -8
But with that out, how soon do you think it's going to be before another manufacturer offers that car in a more accurate version? In the current environment, not very soon. I don't know about that. Exactrail had their B&O M53 wagontop on the market before the paint was dry on Fox's first run. That makes the 5th non-brass M53 out there.... F&C, Sunshine, and Wright Track all did them in resin. The Soo car may not be as visually unique, but logically it has a wider market for most of us post-steam modelers. But logic rarely enters into it. For the manufacturers OR the consumers. If it was logical, SpockTrains Inc. would have been the #1 manufacturer for 50 years. Instead of Bachmann. Andy |
|
|
|
Post by onequiknova on Jun 11, 2012 17:44:30 GMT -8
How about the first run of Proto GP38-2's? They ended up recalling them they were so bad, didn't they?
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jun 11, 2012 18:09:52 GMT -8
I don't know about that. Exactrail had their B&O M53 wagontop on the market before the paint was dry on Fox's first run. That makes the 5th non-brass M53 out there.... F&C, Sunshine, and Wright Track all did them in resin. I wouldn't say you could argue that many cars will be rerun just because there is an example out there. That just proves you can never say never, but there is also the thing of "likely hood". In generaly it is unlikely that if a model is out there, someone isn't likely to tool up another better version, but it isn't impossible as you pointed out. I just wouldn't bet on it if I were a betting man - that is without "insider trader" knowledge! ;-) In Soo's case, it has a reasonably wide appeal because you have to admit, the white/red paint scheme IS very noticable and examples of that box car really got around. Certainly as a bridge route D&RGW modeler, I can justify at least one of about anything that is prototypical for my era simply because the D&RGW carried a wife variety of traffic from east to west and visa versa. I remember the Proto 2000 GP38-2 debacle, mainly with the rear twin fans being the wrong diameter and too close together. Of course there was such a hew and cry that they were somewhat forced to retool and correct that. Now Genesis is coming out with their GP38-2 which I don't even need to look at since D&RGW never owned any nor did any really cross the rockies as pool power or if so it was a rare as hens teeth even. So if you give an example out of your back side, it won't be enough to compell me to buy any! SP was almost all 6 axle in pool power and a few 4 axle were GP40 or -2 or GE 4 axles. (but to me GE=yuk so I don't have many. |
|
|
|
Post by spookyac47 on Jun 11, 2012 19:07:38 GMT -8
I would have to say my favorite "error" IS (they are still producing them) the Athearn Blue Box (and now RTR line) F7A and F7B decorated for the Pennsylvania Railroad. Yes, I know the bodies are dated and I probably bought my first one around 1970 or so. First, the bodies are modeled as a passenger version F-7, steam generator details on rear hatch and water fill doors on side of body. However, the biggest error is that they previously came in a very green shade of Brunswick Green (DGLE - Dark Green Locomotive Enamel) with five stripes. Never happened . . . They previously, and still do, come in Tuscan Red with five stripes . . .  never happened. The only PRR F units to come in Tuscan with five stripes were four FP-7A and two F7-B with steam generators, for a brief time. |
|
|
|
Post by drolsen on Jun 11, 2012 20:19:22 GMT -8
I wouldn't say you could argue that many cars will be rerun just because there is an example out there. That just proves you can never say never, but there is also the thing of "likely hood". In generaly it is unlikely that if a model is out there, someone isn't likely to tool up another better version, but it isn't impossible as you pointed out. I just wouldn't bet on it if I were a betting man - that is without "insider trader" knowledge! ;-) There's been a rash of examples out there in the last couple years, with most of the duplicates coming from ExactRail, although usually because they were models that ExactRail (Chris Clune) had already tooled, but not released, a while back before other companies had produced theirs: Atlas and ExactRail Thrall 2743 gondola, BLMA and ExactRail TrinCool reefer, Walthers and ExactRail Evans 4780 covered hopper, Athearn and ExactRail PS 5344 box car - in each case, both versions are viable models, although each has their own pluses. I agree though - I still wouldn't bet on something like that, but I think it shows that with enough persuasion, a manufacturer can decide that there's still enough of a market for a duplicate model if it's an interesting prototype. I think that in the case of the Soo Fond du Lac box car, it's enough of a "signature" car for Soo modelers that a better detailed model of the car would still sell well. I consider it to be on par with the Southern (NS) P-S 5277 waffleside box car that ExactRail produced - anyone that models that particular railroad wants a bunch of them, and anyone modeling any other railroad in the same era can use them too because they were/are so common around the country. But for me personally, if the model has significant flaws, I'll pass on it, because I don't have to have it, and I'll spend my money on lots of other great models that are out there. I bought one of the Fox Valley cars and couldn't stomach the thick roof or strange-looking ends, so I cancelled the other 5 I had planned to buy. If I was a Soo modeler, I'd be torn about it, but I'm not, so I can live without it (and build my Modeler's Choice Fond du Lac kits) until something better comes along. Dave |
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Jun 11, 2012 22:27:43 GMT -8
SNIP There's been a rash of examples out there in the last couple years, with most of the duplicates coming from ExactRail, although usually because they were models that ExactRail (Chris Clune) had already tooled, but not released, a while back before other companies had produced theirs: Atlas and ExactRail Thrall 2743 gondola, BLMA and ExactRail TrinCool reefer, Walthers and ExactRail Evans 4780 covered hopper, Athearn and ExactRail PS 5344 box car - in each case, both versions are viable models, although each has their own pluses. I agree though - I still wouldn't bet on something like that, but I think it shows that with enough persuasion, a manufacturer can decide that there's still enough of a market for a duplicate model if it's an interesting prototype. SNIP Dave This was something I noted when ER pulled that M53 out of their bag. At the time, people generally indicated it was just coincidence. But I'm starting to see a pattern here and it bothers me for the same reason I noted then. The hobby doesn't need multiple versions of cars someone else is already making (and is a relatively fresh model, not vs the BlueBox for instance). It makes no sense business-wise. Just how BIG is the market for M53s?  Or for that matter almost any other car except those of the most common types. There's a limited amount of capital to put out new models. It makes no sense to the consumer for someone else to take another whack at a model, unless there are gross errors in the original or it's a generation or more old in model industry terms. People can argue about ER's sales model, their price, what the discounts should be, their straying from the path of "exact," etc and it doesn't bother me. But to make a practice of releasing their own versions of what someone else recently has on offer seems to be a subtle attempt at undermining potential competition more than it represents the competition of a market. I also suspect it's not a very sustainable business model for ER, whether it's intentional, just sorta happens, or is a series of unhappy coincidences. |
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Jun 12, 2012 2:14:40 GMT -8
I also suspect it's not a very sustainable business model for ER, whether it's intentional, just sorta happens, or is a series of unhappy coincidences
----------------------------------------------
I suspect its a case of just happen more then intentional copying seeing they could be sued for copyright infringement and no company wants that expensive hassle.
I know Atlas is very tight lip when it comes to discussing planned models.I suspect other companies is just as tight lipped about their future planned models-a prime example is ER announced N Scale PS 5277 waffle side boxcar. Even when I was bugging them for that car not once did they hint they may consider producing one.
|
|
|
|
Post by fmilhaupt on Jun 12, 2012 2:45:44 GMT -8
The flat-sided drivers on the first-run Proto Heritage Berkshires: Completely missing any hint of there being a tire on the edge.
At least they mostly corrected that on subsequent runs (and you could buy replacement drivers from Oregon Rail Service).
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cutler III on Jun 12, 2012 7:04:02 GMT -8
The True Line Trains 5-axle CPA24-5's had some interesting problems...like too tall exhaust stacks located in the wrong place, the lack of a grill over the radiators, and the "Oops!" 3-fan shell on what was supposed to be a 4-fan version (and they actually shot a fixed shell and supplied them to people...but many are still around). And I won't even mention the error-laden paint schemes on them. Another favorite oopsie was the BLI E7A in B&M paint. B&M E7A's were maroon and dulux gold paint...but BLI used metallic gold. They, too, issued a corrected shell. The P1K DL-109 is a complete fabrication with several different body styles mashed into one model. We've also got the various AmTubes by Bachmann and Walthers to smack around.  How about the total fabrication of a depressed center flat by ER? |
|
|
|
Post by el3637 on Jun 12, 2012 7:09:01 GMT -8
I know Atlas is very tight lip when it comes to discussing planned models.I suspect other companies is just as tight lipped about their future planned models-a prime example is ER announced N Scale PS 5277 waffle side boxcar. Even when I was bugging them for that car not once did they hint they may consider producing one. EXR has also announced a PRR X-58 box car in N scale, and I think I can almost smell the crisp new packaging on the HO version. With Rail Yard's outstanding X-58 (perhaps the best and cleanest building resin kit ever) now off the market and fetching 3-figure prices on ebay, a styrene X-58 would be a hit. PRR in several variants, PC, LV, Conrail patches, several Conrail variants, and wherever they've gone now. Re. duplication... I believe it is often intentional, or perhaps just a stubborn refusal of either party to drop something they already have invested in once they discover they've got competition. Fox pretty much came out of nowhere with their M53, EXR probably had the tooling already on the shelf. EXR will at some point exhaust their supply of Clune tooling/programs. But probably not this year or next year. No, I don't think Chris programmed those 289 cars listed in the ad and I wouldn't be surprised if less than half of the next 10 releases are even on the list. An interesting story about duplication: Intermountain tooled their own F unit but before they announced that, rumors were flying that they were going to buy the Highliners tooling. When they were unable to come to terms, and Paul made the deal with Athearn instead, IM went ahead with their own... and beat them to the market by 2 years. Andy |
|
|
|
Post by el3637 on Jun 12, 2012 7:12:06 GMT -8
How about the total fabrication of a depressed center flat by ER? I asked Blaine point blank at his Naperville/Lisle clinic, if EXR had gotten that out of their system. I'm pretty sure the answer was yes, but the answer was not as clear as the question. Blaine picked on me to seed the discussion, but I held that question until the end because I didn't want it to dominate the whole clinic. I didn't really care *why* they did it, but just wanted to know if they had concluded as most of us have, that it was really a bad idea. I think so. Andy |
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jun 12, 2012 7:36:17 GMT -8
I remember reading about the ER depressed center flat in Atlas, that it had no prototype. IIRC, the feedback from ER was that it was made to have the general look of various flat cars without copying any exactly. I don't know if depressed center flats are like some other freight cars, where there are often only one or maybe two prototypes matching a particular car.
I remember reading the MRG and RMJ articles where they would take a model, such as the Walthers Centerbeam, or E&C 52' gondola, or Walther 52' gondola and do search to try to identify the prototype(s) that match those models. In fact I think one of the worst offenders was the Walthers 2-bay rib side cement hopper. IIRC, the article could not idenify any real hoppers that were an exact match, so maybe that was Walthers version of the ER depressed center flat.
I am with Andy, I think doing any HO model that does not match at least one or more prototypes is a bad idea. For me, if I am aware of it, it results in no purchases for me. I own no ER depressed center flat cars and I own no Walthers 2-bay cement rib side hoppers.
Getting back to the articles, the Walthers 52 (kit) mill gondola was found to only match exactly a class of 99 Southern Pacific gondolas. Thats all, only one class from one RR. I bought one of the D&RGW orange gondolas recognizing it was a stand-in, but a pretty close stand-in. The only discrepancy with one class of D&RGW gon's was that the center ribs were not evenly spaced on the model but they were on the real thing. Definitely a "good enough" for me. Walthers has since done two runs of RTR 52' gondola's which are also not exact matches to D&RGW gons, and actually are further off the prototype than the old kit gon. So far, it's been a "no sale" for me. The details on those are the step down in the lower sill is wrong, and the top chord is too thick. They would work for some folks, but again as stand-in's. If I can find any for cheap, I might get some.
Back to articles, the article on the E&C Shops 52' mill gon (from memory) also identified very few real matches - I think the only gons which match the corregated model closely are a class of MP, later bought by UP, so you technically have two prototypes which owned that gon. I can't recall the article identifying any matches to the ribbed non corregated model.
To summarize, from the articles, the only real match to Walthers 52' mill (kit) gon was the SP class of 99. The only real match to the E&C/LBF 52' corregated gon was MP/UP, and none matched the other ribbed gon. The only gons I own from Walthers and E&C are based on what I gleened from those articles (2 Walthers SP 52' gons, 1 Walthers 52' D&RGW and 1 E&C MP gon.
I can't say I have vetted all of my models to that degree, but it has helped me avoid many bogus "blunder" models.
|
|
|
|
Post by drolsen on Jun 12, 2012 8:26:14 GMT -8
This was something I noted when ER pulled that M53 out of their bag. At the time, people generally indicated it was just coincidence. But I'm starting to see a pattern here and it bothers me for the same reason I noted then. The hobby doesn't need multiple versions of cars someone else is already making (and is a relatively fresh model, not vs the BlueBox for instance). It makes no sense business-wise. Just how BIG is the market for M53s? I know this has been beaten to death on other forums, but ExactRail came to the market with something like 50 models already tooled and ready to go, and they've been releasing them systematically over the last couple years. I'm not sure about the M53, but some of their models apparently were tooled as long as 10 years ago while Chris Clune was still offering his designs to other manufacturers as an independent tooling maker. Based on that plan, it was inevitable that other manufacturers would duplicate some of those models before ExactRail ever brought them to market, but ExactRail probably still sees them as worth selling (especially since their models still seem to be riding the wave of popularity from their entrance into the market). It will be interesting to see what new models they produce once they've exhausted the original list. I know Atlas is very tight lip when it comes to discussing planned models. For what it's worth, I've heard from a number of sources that certain manufacturers do actually discuss potential products with each other to avoid duplicating efforts, but other manufacturers don't talk at all, so sometimes they end up with competing products. Dave |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Jun 12, 2012 8:39:39 GMT -8
...the only real match to Walthers 52' mill (kit) gon was the SP class of 99. Plus, far more wonderfully in my world, RF&P 3101-3150. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by drolsen on Jun 12, 2012 9:20:08 GMT -8
In fact I think one of the worst offenders was the Walthers 2-bay rib side cement hopper. IIRC, the article could not idenify any real hoppers that were an exact match, so maybe that was Walthers version of the ER depressed center flat. I've never really understood where the confusion comes about the Walthers "cement hopper," assuming I'm thinking about the same one. I think it's sometimes confused with earlier Greenville prototypes, but it pretty clearly matches this Trinity 2980: CSXT 242119: drolsen.rrpicturearchives.net/rsPicture.aspx?id=115877This fits with the contemporary freight car models that Walthers was producing in the '90s. The body style, the large jacking pads, and the shape of the roof of the Walthers model clearly match the Trinity prototype. I will say that I think there might be a discrepancy in the height of the Walthers body, but all the details match otherwise. Dave |
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jun 12, 2012 10:06:27 GMT -8
I'm not sure Dave, back when I read the article, I relied heavily on the "experts" who wrote for the magazines, and back around 1994, or so when the Walthers 2-bay ribbed cement hopper was originally out, the author said he could not find an exact match - only that it was close to a number of prototypes. It may have been Trinity was pretty close? I think they were looking for a "dead nuts" match at the time of the article.
|
|
|
|
Post by el3637 on Jun 12, 2012 10:34:30 GMT -8
To summarize, from the articles, the only real match to Walthers 52' mill (kit) gon was the SP class of 99. The only real match to the E&C/LBF 52' corregated gon was MP/UP, and none matched the other ribbed gon. The only gons I own from Walthers and E&C are based on what I gleened from those articles (2 Walthers SP 52' gons, 1 Walthers 52' D&RGW and 1 E&C MP gon. Of all the freight cars out there, gons and flats I probably knew the least about. With an influx of boomer-era models, I have managed to put together a decent string of gondolas. The Tangent ACF and Bethlehem cars, a P2K or 2, RYM's Fruehauf, and one Exactrail - big Mopac. The Tangent probably being the most useful in terms of sheer numbers. I had a heck of a time finding more than half a handful of the RYM Fruehaufs in PC livery. During their brief (5 year) pre-Conrail existence seems like nobody with a camera paid much attention to them. I also have a non-era-appropriate fascination with GS drop bottom gondolas, from the SP's numerous classes to Caswells to even D&RGW narrow gauge gondys. Part of my fascination stems from the freight car fleet my dad built around the time I was born, from the metal kits of the 50s. The coolest car by far in terms of detail was an Ulrich GS drop bottom (in M&STL John Deere green no less) with operating doors.  I've re-created the entire train (he may have never run all the cars at once on his little 4x6 though) from ebay - only missing the caboose, a hard-to-find metal MDC in PRR. www.gp30.com/vintage/dadstrain/dadstrainI'm sure there's a lot of fault to find in these 50+ year old models, but probably at least half of them are decent representations of at least one prototype. Decent for the materials available at the time anyway. Andy |
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jun 12, 2012 11:22:13 GMT -8
Agree'd. I need to beef up my gondola fleet more. I haven't done any "vetting" to see which ExactRail gons are good matches and which are fantasy, so I don't have any ER yet.
For me I'd classify gon's, tank cars and flats in my least knowledgable category. I have learned most about the intermodal TOFC flats because those interest me.
I still don't have any GS Gons, bad I know because the D&RGW had many and they pulled coal and limestone in them, among other things. But I can't just go out and buy them since they seem to be in limited runs from Red Caboose and someother company.
|
|
