|
|
Post by cemr5396 on Aug 25, 2023 6:43:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Aug 25, 2023 6:58:52 GMT -8
I could go for a couple, and if the ATSF 4-door is more accurate than the one offered by ScaleTrains, I may switch to one from here. IIRC, the operator ATSF Thrall from ScaleTrains is the wrong number series for the version offered, but correct me if I'm wrong.
With all the unsold Tangent Greenvilles, I wonder how much demand is left for these monster boxcars, but between Walthers, Tangent, and the recent Thralls, we can have a good mix for auto parts trains.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colin 't Hart on Aug 25, 2023 7:00:19 GMT -8
Hmm. I'd rather hoped Tangent would do these in addition to the Greenvilles. For me the jury is still out on ClassOneModelWorks.
Edit: I completely forgot that ScaleTrains is doing them too...
|
|
|
|
Post by locochris on Aug 25, 2023 7:33:38 GMT -8
This is kind of surprising since ScaleTrains is doing them too.
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Aug 25, 2023 7:36:54 GMT -8
This is kind of surprising since ScaleTrains is doing them too. Might be some overlap but the ScaleTrains Rivet Counter versions are limited to maybe a 2 year time period so of limited interest. The Operator versions are offer a more broad time frame appeal but may appeal less to those who want factory detail. *shrug* |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Trainiac on Aug 25, 2023 8:25:21 GMT -8
Could be interesting to see a comparison video of the two models once they are released. I like the Class One Conrail Quality scheme; you can never have too many of those cars.
Between Tangent and Scaletrains, I think I'd rather have a Tangent Greenville than a Scaletrains Thrall. It will be interesting to see where COMW fits in. I think they will be closer to Scaletrains than Tangent. The depressed center cars have QC issues, and the well car had issues with plastic parts not being the right color. Scaletrains also has issues with certain unpainted molded parts, especially yellow ones. The molding technology is mostly the same between all three brands, but paint and assembly quality is where they will differ.
|
|
|
|
Post by five83 on Aug 25, 2023 10:09:52 GMT -8
Thank you Class One. Hate to say it, but Scaletrains dropped the ball when they announced their model that were only limited to a couple years. Not really sure what they were thinking with that one. Really hurts your desirability aka sales when you do that IMO.
I have yet to buy anything from Class One, but that will change with this announcement. My only gripe is I wish they were producing an 8 door version for Conrail. I just saw a video from RMC on Facebook where Otto did a quick interview with Stephen Priest and it definitely looks like a higher quality car than Scaletrains. And the fact that Class One (same could be said about Moloco and Tangent) goes above and beyond with their research is worthy of my money.
For those that are wondering why Class One introduced the same car that Scaletrains did a couple months ago, keep in mind that manufacturers plan these out years in advance. It's bound to happen eventually where 2 or more manufacturers introduce the same product.
|
|
|
|
Post by unittrain on Aug 25, 2023 12:34:38 GMT -8
Just ordered 6 of these thanks Classone.
|
|
|
|
Post by locochris on Aug 25, 2023 12:53:23 GMT -8
I'm sure these and the ScaleTrains versions will both sell well, because people like "big" stuff. For me they just take up too much space and I already bought a lot of the Greenvilles from Tangent.
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Aug 25, 2023 12:57:56 GMT -8
I bought a bunch of the Tangent Greenville's too but not sure how many more 86 footer I can fit on my layout. I have Walthers P-S 86' auto parts cars too so the Thrall's will provide a nice prototypical mix.
|
|
|
|
Post by csxt8400 on Aug 25, 2023 13:23:00 GMT -8
If the artwork is good on these cars I'll definitely get a GTW and CR. That CNW would be neat too.
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Aug 25, 2023 13:30:02 GMT -8
The GTW appears to be an early scheme with no stencils or ACI.
|
|
|
|
Post by packer on Aug 25, 2023 13:49:32 GMT -8
I want the MILW one, but I might wait till they're here
|
|
|
|
Post by bnsftall on Aug 25, 2023 15:20:52 GMT -8
ScaleTrains hasn't dropped the ball. They've tooled multiple versions of this car and will do all in Rivet Counter, accurate to the specific prototypes.
dt
|
|
|
|
Post by five83 on Aug 25, 2023 15:58:24 GMT -8
ScaleTrains hasn't dropped the ball. They've tooled multiple versions of this car and will do all in Rivet Counter, accurate to the specific prototypes. dt When it comes to their initial run, yes they did. Why would you produce a car that only had at most 2 years before it was retrofitted without roof walks? Severely limits the number of customers wanting that particular car. Or you could do what Class One did which allows them far more of the Thrall 86’ market. I understand, eventually ScaleTrains will offer these cars in other phases, but as of right now the advantage goes to Class One. Time will tell which manufacturer will produce the better car. Btw when I am speaking of ScaleTrains, I am referring to their Rivet Counter series as that’s most comparable to Class One. |
|
|
|
Post by drolsen on Aug 25, 2023 20:39:30 GMT -8
When it comes to their initial run, yes they did. Why would you produce a car that only had at most 2 years before it was retrofitted without roof walks? Severely limits the number of customers wanting that particular car. That assumes that all customers care, or even know about, the limited timeframe that the prototypes were in service with running boards. Looking at it another way, ScaleTrains announced what they thought was the first and only high quality model of the Thrall 86’ double door boxcars. They knew the models would be of interest to customers because they’re Thralls (different from the Tangent Greenvilles and Walthers Pullman-Standard cars). Based on that, they probably knew people would buy cars from this first run, even if they didn’t quite fit their modeling interests. I’m sure first runs of new models always sell better than if the same schemes are produced in later runs. They wanted to do these as-delivered schemes with running boards, knowing that some modelers have been asking for them. So they decided the best way to maximize the sales of these potentially less popular schemes was to do them in the first run. I.e. they may have assessed that if they were going to offer these early schemes at all, they had to do them in the first run. I’ve already seen people comment that they plan to buy some of these and remove the running boards to run them in later eras. ScaleTrains knows that other more popular paint schemes will sell just fine in subsequent runs. They probably already have them in the queue. Dave |
|
|
|
Post by tony on Aug 25, 2023 20:48:22 GMT -8
Rapido's announcement for high cubic capacity box cars coming next week ? Why they so slow?
|
|
|
|
Post by fr8kar on Aug 25, 2023 21:28:39 GMT -8
Remember when ScaleTrains and Tangent announced Airslide hoppers? ScaleTrains delayed their version of the car Tangent made so both could share in sales. Later on ScaleTrains released their 4180 after Tangent's first run.
Perhaps that's what has happened here. Steven Priest was part of the ScaleTrains team for a short time so it's very possible there was some communication between the ScaleTrains and Class One development teams. ScaleTrains ceding the first release of a car duplicated by another manufacturer is not unprecedented.
|
|
|
|
Post by bncascadegreen on Aug 26, 2023 0:03:15 GMT -8
Preordered a BN even though I’m.not sure if they ran on the Hi Line at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colin 't Hart on Aug 26, 2023 0:30:34 GMT -8
If the artwork is good on these cars I'll definitely get a GTW and CR. That CNW would be neat too. The artwork shown is terrible. |
|
|
|
Post by Colin 't Hart on Aug 26, 2023 0:33:08 GMT -8
ScaleTrains hasn't dropped the ball. They've tooled multiple versions of this car and will do all in Rivet Counter, accurate to the specific prototypes. dt I'm waiting for those. I'll take ScaleTrains' track record over Class One's. |
|
|
|
Post by Colin 't Hart on Aug 26, 2023 0:40:46 GMT -8
Time will tell which manufacturer will produce the better car. The ClassOne samples with chunky ladders and steps, and terrible artwork, and the poor QA on the depressed center flat car doesn't bode well. They need to seriously up their game. |
|
|
|
Post by sknorcal on Aug 26, 2023 11:47:52 GMT -8
Time will tell which manufacturer will produce the better car. The ClassOne samples with chunky ladders and steps, and terrible artwork, and the poor QA on the depressed center flat car doesn't bode well. They need to seriously up their game. The ladders on the ClassOne samples only look slightly chunkier than the STX Rivet Counter samples. I agree, the ClassOne artwork IS terrible. However, the Improved Dreadnaught ends on the ClassOne models look far better than the ScaleTrains rendition. The ends alone might make me lean towards the ClassOne offering over ScaleTrains--I am sick of chunky, misshapen blobs passing for non-terminated Dreadnaught Ribs. Hopefully ClassOne improves their artwork before they go to production... |
|
|
|
Post by cemr5396 on Aug 26, 2023 13:19:32 GMT -8
When it comes to their initial run, yes they did. Why would you produce a car that only had at most 2 years before it was retrofitted without roof walks? Severely limits the number of customers wanting that particular car. That assumes that all customers care, or even know about, the limited timeframe that the prototypes were in service with running boards. Given recent events in the hobby, (say in the last year or so) it is becoming pretty clear that the majority don't care. For a while I felt that the gap was closing significantly, (the plethora of hyper-accurate models seemed to be indicitive of that) and the balance would have been pretty close between 'care' and 'don't care', but the pendulum is swinging the other day again. I'm reaching the point where I'm going to stop accepting the 'they weren't common enough/there weren't enough of them/too many versions' excuse from the model manufacturers regarding long awaited models. It's pretty clear you can sell pretty much anything in the hobby these days. You could paint a GEVO pink and stick a unicorn horn above the windshields and they would still sell. The shall we say...... "out there".. announcements from the NTS this weekend should be proof of that. |
|
|
|
Post by champagnetrail on Aug 27, 2023 19:17:31 GMT -8
I'm glad to see Class One doing a highly detailed version of a Thrall "type 4" car. I had wished that Scale Trains had chosen this version for their "rivet counter" model, but maybe some day Scale Trains will do another version of their "type 1" car without the running board and with the lowered brake appliances. Complaint...stop calling these "4-Door" cars! No other boxcars are identified by the total number of doors they have! This is a legacy of Athearn! They should be called "Double Plug Door" cars or "Quad Plug Door" cars. Tangent gets this. Scale Trains get this.
Getting back to the Class One announcement...EL (and D&H) modelers should definitely be interested in the ATSF and the N&W cars, and possibly the MILW and GTW cars.
The Class One artwork might have some discrepancies with some of the stenciling for car assignments. The ATSF cars were part of the number series 36525 - 36556. Several of these cars are found in the EL wheel report collection, including ATSF #36537, and a number of them appear to be assigned to the Ford radiator plant in Green Island NY on the D&H. The Class One artwork shows a return stencil to somewhere in Michigan for this car, which by 1975 when it might have had a 2-panel COTS stencil, it was going back to Green Island NY on the D&H. The wheel reports have numerous examples of these ATSF cars going back and forth through the EL/D&H interchange at Jeff Jct (near Starrucca Viaduct) that was used for high/wide cars that wouldn't fit through the D&H tunnel through Belden Hill northeast of Binghamton. Loaded cars went west (south?) on the D&H to the EL and then on to Ford Assembly plants at Mahwah NJ, Wayne MI (via the C&O at Marion OH), Chicago (via the BRC), and St Paul MN (via the MILW at Chicago).
The N&W cars were common on EL rails taking parts to Ford Mahwah Assembly. This car is the 68th most common car in the database. Evidently these cars were assigned to many different parts factories, as the wheel report collection has empties from Mahwah Assembly going back to Bedford OH, Sandusky OH, Warren MI, Utica MI, Saline MI, Woodhaven MI, Detroit, and Green Island NY. The database has none going to Buffalo Stamping, which is where Class One has the return address.
The Milwaukee cars were a small group of 12 cars, but a few showed up in the wheel reports going between Detroit and Mahwah Assembly via the PC connection in Buffalo.
Class One has chosen the "Good Track Road" lettering for the GTW cars. Does anyone know when that first appeared? That might post-date them beyond the EL era. The Class One artwork has no COTS stencil and no ACI tag and a return address to the PC at Detroit. The cars that appear in the EL wheel reports appear to be assigned to either Chicago Stamping or Buffalo Stamping.
The PC cars are part of a large group 295170-295439 (270 cars), but none show up going to/from Mahwah assembly. This leads me to believe they were not in Ford service by 1975.
The RI cars appear to have been transferred to UP ownership by 1976.
-pat
|
|
|
|
Post by idgara on Aug 27, 2023 20:43:31 GMT -8
I lived along the EL mainline in Deposit,N.Y. in the seventies, I recall seeing GT cars on freights going through there and Mlw cars also.
|
|
|
|
Post by drolsen on Aug 28, 2023 3:28:43 GMT -8
I'm glad to see Class One doing a highly detailed version of a Thrall "type 4" car. I had wished that Scale Trains had chosen this version for their "rivet counter" model, but maybe some day Scale Trains will do another version of their "type 1" car without the running board and with the lowered brake appliances. ScaleTrains has apparently tooled, or at least designed, all the possible body variations of these Thrall cars, so I’m guessing we’ll see that converted low brake gear version eventually. Of course, the obvious question is how long it will be between subsequent runs of these cars. I wouldn’t be surprised to see another run close on the heels of this one, given that the first release cars represent prototypes with a very brief lifespan in their as-delivered configuration. The GTW scheme represents cars from GTW series 306075-306179 built 11-68 to 12-68 by Thrall Car, Job 438G. They were delivered with silver (aluminum?) doors and the plain GT logo (no “Good Track Road” lettering). Looking through photos on Fallen Flags, it appears that the Good Track Road slogan appears in the mid-1970s. I found a 60’ boxcar wearing the slogan in 1975, but two others cars still without it in 1976 and 1977. Unfortunately, the current GTW artwork is a bit of a mess. The odd offset car number, shifted to the right under the GTW reporting marks, seems to be a one-off or very rare lettering variation. All cars (including the car number on their sample) had the numbers left justified / even with the reporting marks. Another modeler found only one example of a car on Fallen Flags with the offset numbers. The biggest issue is that the Good Track Road track and slogan are way too close to the bottom of the large GT logo. Looks very strange, and I’m not sure how that happened. There are other problems too with the size and placement of a lot do the lettering, plus the large yellow label to the left of the doors, which doesn’t appear on any of the car numbers I’ve looked at from that series. It appears that they may have picked a unique car to base their artwork off of. I hope they’re able to clean it up, as I’m a big fan of the GTW scheme on 86’ boxcars and can definitely use them for my era and locale. I’ll be holding out for ScaleTrains to offer this scheme in the meantime. Dave |
|
|
|
Post by snootie3257 on Aug 28, 2023 4:11:15 GMT -8
Don’t forget the fact that the Class One car will cost $5 more than the Scale Trains and that to get free shipping you only need to purchase 2 from Scale Trains as opposed to 3 Class One cars. This can be a deciding factor to some.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by snootie3257 on Aug 28, 2023 7:00:42 GMT -8
ScaleTrains hasn't dropped the ball. They've tooled multiple versions of this car and will do all in Rivet Counter, accurate to the specific prototypes. dt When it comes to their initial run, yes they did. Why would you produce a car that only had at most 2 years before it was retrofitted without roof walks? Severely limits the number of customers wanting that particular car. Or you could do what Class One did which allows them far more of the Thrall 86’ market. I understand, eventually ScaleTrains will offer these cars in other phases, but as of right now the advantage goes to Class One. Time will tell which manufacturer will produce the better car. Btw when I am speaking of ScaleTrains, I am referring to their Rivet Counter series as that’s most comparable to Class One. Did you ever consider maybe they did this so they wouldn’t be competing against each other? Both probably plan on doing all the variations. Steve |
|
|
|
Post by tangentsm on Aug 28, 2023 7:10:19 GMT -8
Remember when ScaleTrains and Tangent announced Airslide hoppers? ScaleTrains delayed their version of the car Tangent made so both could share in sales. Later on ScaleTrains released their 4180 after Tangent's first run. Perhaps that's what has happened here. Steven Priest was part of the ScaleTrains team for a short time so it's very possible there was some communication between the ScaleTrains and Class One development teams. ScaleTrains ceding the first release of a car duplicated by another manufacturer is not unprecedented. Regarding the post about the GATC 4180 covered hoppers, I would like to correct the record. The post is correct in stating “Later on ScaleTrains released their 4180 after Tangent's first run.” But it is incorrect to state ScaleTrains “delayed their version of the car Tangent made so both could share in sales.” So the record is clear: On November 14, 2015, Tangent announced and released our GATC 4180 airslides at Trainfest 2015 – in typical Tangent style where we announce and release the same day. On November 14, 2015, also at Trainfest, Scaletrains showed some CAD for a GATC 4180 on a TV screen, but did not announce anything. On May 4, 2016, at the Western Prototype Modelers meet in Bellflower CA, Scaletrains pre-announced the GATC 4180 covered hopper in the Operator line (only) and the GATC 4566 in the Rivet Counter line. On May 5, 2016, Scaletrains posted “In addition, we’ll announce an officially licensed Rivet Counter 4180 Cubic Foot Airslide Covered Hopper with four different variations later this year." Scaletrains delivered their GATC 4180/4566 models later. I am not looking for any drama here, but Scaletrains did not delay their release and wasn’t trying to help Tangent “share in sales.” Instead, Tangent simply released (i.e. finished) the GATC 4180 first. Please note that I consider Shane, Paul and team to be friends - and also competitors. We even buy each other’s models! Thank you for listening, David Lehlbach Founder and President Tangent Scale Models |
|
