|
Post by rteusink on Nov 10, 2023 5:33:12 GMT -8
The new freight house is based on a prototype in Lenoir, NC www.dncr.nc.gov/nr/cw0378/downloadWalthers did a passenger station in a similar style. I think it was Santa Fe. Perhaps the new freight house is also Santa Fe. There are many places on that railroad that don't see much snow. Ed
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Nov 10, 2023 6:55:43 GMT -8
The new freight house is based on a prototype in Lenoir, NC Thanks! Lots! Interesting that there was trackage on both sides of the building, with the tracks on the "truck" side being a ways away from the building (as shown in the photo from 1950). I especially like railroad buildings done in the Modern style. Like this one. Almost got the Santa Fe station, but it looked crudely done in photos. I'll be thinkin' on this one. Ed
|
|
|
Post by milgentrains on Nov 10, 2023 7:05:49 GMT -8
I'm really liking the new freight station kit.
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Nov 10, 2023 7:13:01 GMT -8
Someone did a nice weathering job on the sample model!
Ed
|
|
|
Post by locochris on Nov 10, 2023 16:31:22 GMT -8
All Foobies. A high end shielded auto rack will be along soon. Do you know who will be making this? I thought you might have meant Prairie Shadows but their latest announcements are for fully enclosed variants.
|
|
|
Post by cemr5396 on Nov 10, 2023 18:03:57 GMT -8
All Foobies. A high end shielded auto rack will be along soon. Do you know who will be making this? I thought you might have meant Prairie Shadows but their latest announcements are for fully enclosed variants. they could easily do partially enclosed cars later, it's pretty much as simple as just not including the roof or doors.
|
|
|
Post by champagnetrail on Nov 12, 2023 12:23:10 GMT -8
the auto racks? none of them. Every last one is a foob. Thanks. What about the gons? Supposedly, according to information I dug up on the MFCL, the Walthers 53' Thrall Gondola is correct only for the SP, RF&P, and AD&N. Of course, Walthers has never produced this model for RFP or ADN. So...all foobies.
And yes, all the auto racks are foobies. The Southern Railway comes closest, though, as the Southern had some asymmetric Paragon tri-level racks I believe.
-pat
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Nov 12, 2023 14:23:52 GMT -8
...the Walthers 53' Thrall Gondola is correct only for the SP, RF&P, and AD&N. That's the OTHER 53' Thrall gon: ![](https://www.walthers.com/media/catalog/product/cache/944635636b347bd2be13fbc42a882726/5/3/53_thrall_smooth-side_gondola_ready_to_run_910-6150_big.jpg) This is the gon they're doing this time: ![](https://www.walthers.com/media/catalog/product/cache/944635636b347bd2be13fbc42a882726/5/3/53_thrall_gondola_ready_to_run_920-105515_big.jpg) Ed
|
|
|
Post by packer on Nov 13, 2023 6:50:43 GMT -8
...the Walthers 53' Thrall Gondola is correct only for the SP, RF&P, and AD&N. That's the OTHER 53' Thrall gon: ![](https://www.walthers.com/media/catalog/product/cache/944635636b347bd2be13fbc42a882726/5/3/53_thrall_smooth-side_gondola_ready_to_run_910-6150_big.jpg) This is the gon they're doing this time: ![](https://www.walthers.com/media/catalog/product/cache/944635636b347bd2be13fbc42a882726/5/3/53_thrall_gondola_ready_to_run_920-105515_big.jpg) Ed Is the MILW one a foobie? I picked up one cheap at a show. Maybe a strip/repaint candidate?
|
|
|
Post by champagnetrail on Nov 21, 2023 17:13:36 GMT -8
...the Walthers 53' Thrall Gondola is correct only for the SP, RF&P, and AD&N. That's the OTHER 53' Thrall gon: ![](https://www.walthers.com/media/catalog/product/cache/944635636b347bd2be13fbc42a882726/5/3/53_thrall_smooth-side_gondola_ready_to_run_910-6150_big.jpg) This is the gon they're doing this time: ![](https://www.walthers.com/media/catalog/product/cache/944635636b347bd2be13fbc42a882726/5/3/53_thrall_gondola_ready_to_run_920-105515_big.jpg) Ed Well, I'll be a blue-nosed gopher...I thought they were one and the same but upon closer inspection, I see the differences in rib spacing.
As for the new Walthers 53' Thrall Gons...I can tell you that at least the Illinois Terminal, ROCK, and Soo Line cars are foobies, because all three have 13 side posts whereas the model has 14 posts. That leaves us with the D&RGW and the Milwaukee ones. According to the ORER, the D&RGW ones have 2244 cu ft and the Milwaukee ones have 2311 cu ft, but the Milwaukee cars are listed as being GBR in the 1/76 edition, meaning they have removable covers. The Walthers model has no cover. The two have different Inside Length and Inside Height, so they can't both be correct. Of note, the Milwaukee car is listed as 49' 11" Inside Length, so I'm inclined to think the Milwaukee car is the foobie.
-pat
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Nov 21, 2023 17:58:28 GMT -8
This seems to be Jim Eager's list of likely matches for the "fancier" gon:
"The following roads got new Thrall 14-panel gons. Most were 2494s but a few were 2244s.
ATW, CAGY, C&S/BN, CWP, D&RGW, ERES, GBW, ITC, OCTR, ROCK (to CNW, GTW), SOO, SP, UMP"
The difference in cubic capacities will yield a height difference of 6".
Ed
|
|
|
Post by champagnetrail on Nov 21, 2023 19:53:10 GMT -8
This seems to be Jim Eager's list of likely matches for the "fancier" gon: "The following roads got new Thrall 14-panel gons. Most were 2494s but a few were 2244s. ATW, CAGY, C&S/BN, CWP, D&RGW, ERES, GBW, ITC, OCTR, ROCK (to CNW, GTW), SOO, SP, UMP" The difference in cubic capacities will yield a height difference of 6". Ed I've always been a bit confused about how to classify freight cars like this with exterior posts. Panels or posts? I always count the posts not the panels. If we count panels, then isn't the fancier new Walthers model a Thrall 15-panel gon? That list you gave is for cars with 14 panels and 13 posts, one fewer than the Walthers model.
-pat
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Nov 21, 2023 20:38:29 GMT -8
Well, I guess there was a "failure to communicate" there, somewhere. Probably within a few inches of where I'm seated.
I went back and found this, also from Jim Eager:
"If Walthers is doing the car that they imply they are doing (nominal 2244-2494 cuft, 15-panel, heavy cross-section side stakes, 100t) it will be good for: D&RGW, DT&I, FEC, MILW (covered), MKT, RI (some covered, to CNW, CR, CSS, DLRX, LSBC), SOO (to WC), and WP (covered).
Of the initial roadnames, CR (missed them first time), SOO, WC, and MILW would be OK. The GBW 15-panel cars were 70-tonners with lighter cross section side posts. UP's Thralls were definitely non-standard cars, but UP did get CNW (EX-RI), D&RGW, MKT and WP cars."
This is much better for me, as I bought a bunch of the MKT cars.
Thanks for catching that, Pat!
Ed
|
|
|
Post by onequiknova on Nov 21, 2023 21:31:10 GMT -8
Well, I guess there was a "failure to communicate" there, somewhere. Probably within a few inches of where I'm seated. I went back and found this, also from Jim Eager: "If Walthers is doing the car that they imply they are doing (nominal 2244-2494 cuft, 15-panel, heavy cross-section side stakes, 100t) it will be good for: D&RGW, DT&I, FEC, MILW (covered), MKT, RI (some covered, to CNW, CR, CSS, DLRX, LSBC), SOO (to WC), and WP (covered). Of the initial roadnames, CR (missed them first time), SOO, WC, and MILW would be OK. The GBW 15-panel cars were 70-tonners with lighter cross section side posts. UP's Thralls were definitely non-standard cars, but UP did get CNW (EX-RI), D&RGW, MKT and WP cars." This is much better for me, as I bought a bunch of the MKT cars. Thanks for catching that, Pat! Ed I mentioned it once in this thread, but since I've seen both ROCK and RI mentioned as being correct for this model, I'll mention it again. Yes RI did own the version of Thrall gon Walthers is currently offering, but they were oxide red with white speed lettering, not Rock blue. They also had a thicker top cord than the Walthers model. The gons delivered in ROCK blue were of the "other" variety with the uneven panels.
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Nov 22, 2023 8:05:38 GMT -8
Here is a comparison of the two Walthers gon's side by side. The top one is the red box kit and the bottom the Walthers Gold RTR Thrall: ![](https://i.imgur.com/evbmqYqh.jpg) The redbox kit, as mentioned above, is correct for SP so I have the SP version. The D&RGW version is a stand-in. I did some research years ago and recall the rib spacing was one of the differences. As for the Gold RTR version, it appears to be a match for this series D&RGW 56275-56334 www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=50492
|
|
|
Post by cemr5396 on Nov 22, 2023 9:40:03 GMT -8
did the earlier Walthers gon model become a Mainline car?
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Nov 22, 2023 11:02:56 GMT -8
did the earlier Walthers gon model become a Mainline car? I think that's right. I've seen my kit version offered in the past couple years in RTR form - probably labeled as Mainline.
|
|
|
Post by cp6027 on Nov 22, 2023 11:58:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by onequiknova on Nov 22, 2023 12:35:38 GMT -8
Looking at Railcarphotos.com, SOO had both the early 14 post (current Proto model) and the later 13 post Thrall's.
|
|
|
Post by champagnetrail on Nov 22, 2023 16:55:32 GMT -8
Looking at Railcarphotos.com, SOO had both the early 14 post (current Proto model) and the later 13 post Thrall's. Yes. The problem with the new Walthers model, though, is that Walthers chose Soo Line numbers that correspond to the 13 post/14 panel gondolas, and the model is 14 post/15 panel.
And I can't see how both the D&RGW and the MILW cars can be correct, when the ORER lists the D&RGW cars with a 52'6" inside length and the MILW cars with a 49' 11" inside length. Unless the ORER is not correct, which is possible.
-pat
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Nov 22, 2023 17:43:56 GMT -8
For the car numbers that Walthers placed on the current MILW offering, I'm not finding a car series listed in the ORER.
In the 1990 one, I'm finding 92382-92413 and 93550-93554, with nothing in between.
Nor am I finding any gons with an IL of 49' - 11".
I am finding "good" numbers for the D&RGW. So I'm gonna go with the MILW being wrong.
Or am I missing something. Again.
Ed
|
|
|
Post by Colin 't Hart on Nov 23, 2023 1:36:23 GMT -8
For the car numbers that Walthers placed on the current MILW offering, I'm not finding a car series listed in the ORER. In the 1990 one, I'm finding 92382-92413 and 93550-93554, with nothing in between. Nor am I finding any gons with an IL of 49' - 11". I am finding "good" numbers for the D&RGW. So I'm gonna go with the MILW being wrong. Or am I missing something. Again. Ed They're in the October 1968 and January 1975 ORERs. It has 92425-92449 and 92450-92499. Inside length for both given as 49'6". Why are you looking in a 1990 ORER when these cars were built in 1967 and when the Milwaukee Road itself ceased to exist in 1986?
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Nov 23, 2023 6:57:55 GMT -8
They're in the October 1968 and January 1975 ORERs. It has 92425-92449 and 92450-92499. Inside length for both given as 49'6". Why are you looking in a 1990 ORER when these cars were built in 1967 and when the Milwaukee Road itself ceased to exist in 1986? Because I didn't know they were built in 1967, and because they looked "modern" to me, and because the 1990 ORER would have likely included any that were built after my 1985 ORER entries (in the last year or so of MILW). There ARE freight cars delivered in the last year of a railroad's life. By using a following ORER, you are likely to pick the last entries up. This, for example, could be why you examine a 1971 ORER if you are interested in GN-NP-Q. Thanks to your observations, I found those series in the May 1983 ORER, but they were absent from the October 1984. A 17 year lifespan is awfully short--I wonder why that was so. Ed
|
|
|
Post by drolsen on Nov 23, 2023 7:14:35 GMT -8
Well, I'll be a blue-nosed gopher...I thought they were one and the same but upon closer inspection, I see the differences in rib spacing. Pat, the easiest spotting feature is the heavy top chord on the earlier Walthers kit vs. the standard thin top chord on the new model. The ExactRail Thrall 2244 gondola has a similar heavy top chord, but the side post spacing is a little different. exactrail.com/products/thrall-2244-15-panel-gondola-heavy-top-chord-riDave
|
|
|
Post by Colin 't Hart on Nov 23, 2023 13:58:45 GMT -8
They're in the October 1968 and January 1975 ORERs. It has 92425-92449 and 92450-92499. Inside length for both given as 49'6". Why are you looking in a 1990 ORER when these cars were built in 1967 and when the Milwaukee Road itself ceased to exist in 1986? Because I didn't know they were built in 1967, and because they looked "modern" to me, and because the 1990 ORER would have likely included any that were built after my 1985 ORER entries (in the last year or so of MILW). There ARE freight cars delivered in the last year of a railroad's life. By using a following ORER, you are likely to pick the last entries up. This, for example, could be why you examine a 1971 ORER if you are interested in GN-NP-Q. Thanks to your observations, I found those series in the May 1983 ORER, but they were absent from the October 1984. A 17 year lifespan is awfully short--I wonder why that was so. Ed Sorry, they don't look "modern" -- look at the ends. Yes, 17 years is quite short. I'm wondering if the bankrupt Milwaukee Road divested them. The timeframe for that is right.
|
|
|
Post by cemr5396 on Nov 23, 2023 15:31:20 GMT -8
Thanks to your observations, I found those series in the May 1983 ORER, but they were absent from the October 1984. A 17 year lifespan is awfully short--I wonder why that was so. Ed gons live a hard life, they are well abused and probably over loaded more often than not. I've seen some gons that looked like bananas. I'd imagine the number of gons that actually make it to the 40/50 year interchange rule and get retired is relatively low compared to the number built.
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Nov 23, 2023 17:16:24 GMT -8
Sorry, they don't look "modern" -- look at the ends. I said: "...to me." Fine that you point out that my observation is likely incorrect. I do appreciate it, as I can always learn something. But I assure you that I know a lot more about how things look TO ME, than you do. Ed
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Nov 23, 2023 17:18:43 GMT -8
Thanks to your observations, I found those series in the May 1983 ORER, but they were absent from the October 1984. A 17 year lifespan is awfully short--I wonder why that was so. Ed gons live a hard life, they are well abused and probably over loaded more often than not. I've seen some gons that looked like bananas. I'd imagine the number of gons that actually make it to the 40/50 year interchange rule and get retired is relatively low compared to the number built. OK. I'll pick a group of gons: GN bought 250 gons in the series 72500 to 72749 in 1951--250 cars. Seventeen years later is 1968. From the April 1968 ORER, there are still 217 cars left in the series. 0% for the MILW cars. 87% for the GN cars. I see a significant difference there. I'm pretty sure I can come up with other gons that lasted beyond 17 years. Ed
|
|
|
Post by lvrr325 on Nov 24, 2023 0:40:41 GMT -8
One of several recent derailments at Tower 55 was a Mopac gon. UP absorbed the MP in what, 1983?
It's still there, tipped on it's side. Appears they decide what cars to re-rail based on age.
ORER also usually tells how many are left in the group. If there were still a lot before they vanished, it's likely they were sold or returned to lessor and had the marks changed quickly. If there were just a few, then good chance they were retired for scrap.
|
|
|
Post by 690 on Nov 24, 2023 5:25:41 GMT -8
I've seen some gons that looked like bananas. I'd imagine the number of gons that actually make it to the 40/50 year interchange rule and get retired is relatively low compared to the number built. CP still has plenty of late 50s built gons running around in MOW service. Before CSX took over Pan Am, the oldest one I saw Pan Am using was a 1942 built car in used tie service. Those are probably more an exception than the rule, but there’s definitely some that make it, despite the generally hard lived they lead.
|
|