toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Three of the four models looked very similar to the old TM cars.
On Jul 15, 2019, at 1:26 PM, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...
Are any of these models recycled Trains
Miniature tooling?? Like that single
sheathed box car?
On 7/15/2019 2:17 PM, Benjamin Hom wrote:
Tony Thompson asked:
"'Dumpster fire' is about right. Do ANY of the four models
actually have prototypes? Why would you choose, for example,
the roof they have put on three of the bodies?"
Going back to the end of April when these were first
40' double sheathed USRA boxcar
Analysis: An OK model of the USRA DS boxcar, but already
available from Accurail for $10 less, and if you can't
assemble the Accurail kit, you deserve to have your money
40' "USRA" single sheathed boxcar
Analysis: Only thing it has in common with the USRA
Specification 1001-B: 50-ton Single-Sheathed Box Car is
general dimensions, 5/5/5 Murphy ends, and the fact it's a
standard gauge single-sheathed boxcar. It resembles the 1923
ARA standard SS boxcar (XM-1) design, except (a) I can't think
of any cars Pratt truss built to the XM-1 design with 5/5/5
Murphy ends and (b) any variants built to 9 ft IH vice the
default 8 ft 7 in IH. If I do my homework, I might be able to
turn up a 9 ft IH prototype as a kitbash subject, but for $28
MSRP, I shouldn't have to.
40' steel USRA rebuilt wood boxcar
Analysis: FAIL. This model has 5/5/5 Murphy ends and XLA
roof, indicating an early rebuild reusing these components
that did not increase the dimensions of the original car.
Unfortunately, none of these rebuilds (ACL/C&WC, SL-SF)
had 10-panel sides, but exhibited 8-panel sides. Also, the
model lacks an inset side sill and brackets that are a
spotting feature of almost all rebuilt boxcars. This, along
with the Atlas "Rebuilt USRA boxcar" model, is an overpriced
representation of nothing.
40' Early Wood Reefer
looks like a generic 40 ft reefer. Actually, I'm trying
to come up with any wood-sheathed prototypes with Murphy
appear to be a 21st century repeat of Train-Miniature's
approach of using common tooling across a group of
similarly-dimensioned house cars, but even less thought
out than the late 1960s attempt. Maybe they went with a
Pratt-truss SS boxcar to distinguish it from the Accurail
SS model, but then why would they tool the same prototype
as Accurail for the DS boxcar? For that matter, why tool
the same "rebuilt" boxcar as Atlas?
-- Tim O'ConnorSterling, Massachusetts