Tim O'Connor wrote:
"Bill, why should you be any different? I'm looking forward to
seeing that tank car with TEXACO and MOBILGAS lettering. And if
you do the 1932 box car, please don't forget the RUTLAND fans!"

...or the PRR and NYC versions in 12 numbers!


Ben Hom

Ron Merrick wrote:
"In all the recent posts, I have not seen a discussion of the 70 ton
triple hopper. <<snip>> Question is, has anyone done a serious
study on this one?"

Mike Brock posted a reivew when these models first came out. I
don't have the time to exhume it from the Yahoo archives right now,
but in summary the major faults are the coupler system and the
solid floor surface under the hoppers at each end, which should be
open with bracing. Both of these are not difficult to fix.


Ben Hom

On Dec 15, 2004, at 8:44 AM, ron.merrick@... wrote:

In all the recent posts, I have not seen a discussion of the 70 ton
triple
hopper.  I bought one because I clearly remember them as being the
"only"
(which I think isn't completely true) triple hopper of its era to be
both
outside post and offset so of course there's no practical way to make one
from a Stewart or any other existing injection molded model.

I did a cursory comparison of it to the coverage in the Metcalfe
book, and
without doing detailed measurements it does eyeball pretty well.  It
definitely has the Alpha Centauri couplers, which are a worse eyesore
on a
hopper car than on any type of house car, but frankly I plopped it on
the
layout and vowed to fix it later.

Question is, has anyone done a serious study on this one?

Ron:

Mike Brock has written an article on this car and how to fix the
deficiencies that will appear in the first volume of a journal entitled
"Prototype Railroad Modeling". Look for this volume early next year -
http://www.speedwitch.com/Journal.htm

Regards,
Ted Culotta

Speedwitch Media
100 14th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94402
info@...
www.speedwitch.com
(650) 787-1912

Ben-
Yes, those are the cars.... the webpage reached with a much shorter link!
Charlie

In all the recent posts, I have not seen a discussion of the 70 ton triple
hopper. I bought one because I clearly remember them as being the "only"
(which I think isn't completely true) triple hopper of its era to be both
outside post and offset so of course there's no practical way to make one
from a Stewart or any other existing injection molded model.

I did a cursory comparison of it to the coverage in the Metcalfe book, and
without doing detailed measurements it does eyeball pretty well. It
definitely has the Alpha Centauri couplers, which are a worse eyesore on a
hopper car than on any type of house car, but frankly I plopped it on the
layout and vowed to fix it later.

Question is, has anyone done a serious study on this one?

Ron Merrick

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain proprietary,
business-confidential and/or privileged material.
If you are not the intended recipient of this message you
are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission,
dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any action taken
in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect
the views of the company.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We could, of course, do just one variation and put all the other schemes on
it, but I suspect those pesky internet guys would rake us over the coals if
we did... :>)
Bill Schneider

Bill, why should you be any different? I'm looking forward to
seeing that tank car with TEXACO and MOBILGAS lettering. And if
you do the 1932 box car, please don't forget the RUTLAND fans!

Tim

We should be careful what we wish for... in plastic. For
example, Sunshine produced some beautiful PFE wood reefers
including the R-30/40-9. Later, Red Caboose chose to do it
in plastic. Yippee, right? Except that the plastic model
is nowhere as well detailed as the resin... and this is
understandable from a tooling cost point of view. So why
are people still agitating for plastic models that you
KNOW are going to be defective? If Sunshine's models are
incorrect, I hope Martin (and Frank) can be convinced to
make corrections. They've done that before. Ed, I hope
that Trix paid you for your time and trouble. Otherwise,
what a waste! By giving good data to a bad vendor, we've
guaranteed that a promising vendor (perhaps resin) will be
discouraged from ever trying to sell really good models of
that tank car. Remember, TRIX IS FOR KIDS.

Tim O'Connor

Charlie Vlk wrote:
"These are the cars that H&D Hobby Distributors had Herpa tool in
China. They are 40' NSC Canadian prototype cars. The Baggage Cars
are box express cars on the same tooling."

Are these the cars in question?
http://www.trainscanada.ca/new.htm


Ben Hom

These are the cars that H&D Hobby Distributors had Herpa tool in China.
They are 40' NSC Canadian prototype cars. The Baggage Cars are box express
cars on the same tooling.
Do a web search for H&D Hobby Distributors or try the following link:
Charlie Vlk

http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2fweb.ask.com%2fweb%3fq%3dH%2526D%2bHobby%2bDistributors%26o%3d0%26page%3d1&q=H%26D+Hobby+Distributors&u=http%3a
%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fr%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d09216BBCDCF4E5414%26sid%3d1
7437E503DF160C14%26qid%3dAAC4531B037DEE4BBC34B875485EA864%26io%3d4%26sv%3dza
5cb0dc3%26o%3d0%26ask%3dH%2526D%2bHobby%2bDistributors%26uip%3d180db7bb%26en
%3dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3dRailServe.com%2bLinks%253a%2bModel%2bRailroad%2bMan
ufacturers%2b%2526%2bDistributors%26ac%3d22%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26ep%3d1%26te_
par%3d102%26te_id%3d%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.railserve.com%2fModels%2fManufac
turers%2f&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.railserve.com%2fModels%2fManufacturers%2f&
qte=0&o=0&abs=H%26D+Hobby+Distributing+Ltd+-+Manufacturer+of+Canadian+model+
railroad+supplies+and+souvenirs+distributed+to+Canadian+hobby+shops%2c+plus+
custom...&tit=RailServe.com+Links%3a+Model+Railroad+Manufacturers+%26+Distri
butors&bin=5d8e612ee2c41014a9a7d2547acb1c60%26s%3d3502496342&cat=wp&purl=htt
p%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fi%2fb.html%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d09216BBCDCF4E5
414%26sid%3d17437E503DF160C14%26qid%3dAAC4531B037DEE4BBC34B875485EA864%26io%
3d%26sv%3dza5cb0dc3%26o%3d0%26ask%3dH%2526D%2bHobby%2bDistributors%26uip%3d1
80db7bb%26en%3dbm%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3d%26ac%3d24%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26u%3dhttp
%3a%2f%2fmyjeeves.ask.com%2faction%2fsnip&Complete=1

Bill McCoy writes:

"I'm new to the page so this probably covers territory already
covered, but what about the other Trix cars. Feed back from MR and
the RPM group is that the UP 40' DD boxcar is fair to middling with
the wrong class and number."

As Ted Culotta notes, putting an A-50-16 in A-50-19 clothing is appalling...something that rather frequently happened during the dark ages of the hobby. It would be akin to producing a model of a UP Challenger and lettering it as a Big Boy. Hmmm...UP, itself, did that [ see pg 81 of Kratville's Challenger book. Of course, it could be a Big Boy numbered as a Challenger...3966 ] so maybe it's in the "water". However, I'm not going to be quite as critical of the car as some because the fixes are relatively simple...and we are "modelers" [ aren't we? ]. The differences between the lettering on the 19 and 16 seem trivial to me. The number is incorrect but one only needs to change the 475350 to 474350...on my car [ assuming it's not 1955 yet where you live. The A-50-16 class was renumbered into 175000-175499 in 1955 ]. Simply but carefully scrape off the leftmost "5" and replace with a decal "4". If problems occur...weathering to the rescue. The Ld Limit is slightly different...change or weather. The New date is wrong. Simply replace with a reweigh place and date. And, of course, change the "9" to a "6" in A-50-19.

"The MR assessment of the reefer is the
hatch size. Since these cars are pretty pricey to just be a core for
complete redetailing unless they fill a void not represented by any
other models. I see they also have a stock car and 40' SD boxcar.
Any thought on those?"

I cannot imagine trying to salvage the reefer.
The stock cars are pretty nice. The only issue that I'm aware of is the couplers and the high price. The couplers are compatible with Kadee but have a swing capability to allow the car to operate on 4" radius curves. It wouldn't be too difficult to fix that problem....not as difficult as the hopper cars...which I've done. I don't know how to solve the price problem. I have 3 sitting at Buford waiting on sheep but the cattle guys won't let sheep through their...but that's another story for another group.
The 40 ft single door car has been discussed here before. The car represents a B-50-24 with ACR [ a partial line of rivets in the middle of the panels ]. Regretfully, the car has errors in the roof design and has a metal running board. This running board is OK for the first 100 cars...187000-187099. Wood running boards were applied to the others. Richard Hendrickson replaced the roof on his and can speak about that effort and the roof issues best.

Mike Brock









Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT







------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@...

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Bill McCoy asked:
"Since these cars are pretty pricey to just be a core for complete
redetailing unless they fill a void not represented by any other
models. I see they also have a stock car and 40' SD boxcar. Any
thought on those?"

Mike Brock covered the Class B-50-24/27 boxcar back in post #10467,
posted August 6, 2002:

Here's a report on the Marklin UP B-50-24/27 box car.

First, the overall appearance and fidelity to detail appears to be
on a par with BLT/P2K/RC/IM cars.

The one really significant plus for these cars is the row of rivets
in the middle of the side panels [ ACR ]...unique, apparently, to UP
for 4/5 ended box cars. This has not been available to the modeler
as far as I know unless a resin car has them.

The cars are ready to run...well...not quite. They are equipped with
a coupler that looks like it was designed by someone from Alpha
Centauri. And, the wheels look like they were borrowed from a farm
machine used to cut deep furrows in cleechy dirt. Trix is aware of
these shortcomings and indicated to me that cars with Kadee couplers
and RP-25, code 110 wheels would be available in the future. This
date is, however, not known to me. So, the issue is...can the
Marklin cars be made to fit in with polite frt car society. The
answer is...yes...with a little work.

Surprisingly, the bottom of these cars is made of metal. And, the
coupler is attached under the bolster and therefore swings quite a
bit to the side. Noooo problem...remove the screws holding the
trucks...ooops. Forgot the truck. Not bad, actually, but IM metal
wheels won't fit so they came off.

OK, back to the coupler. Now remove two screws on the bolster near
the side, lift it and remove the coupler, a spring attached beneath
the center sill, and the entire coupler housing. Go to the nearest
window, lower it and throw the damned coupler housing, coupler etc.
back to Alpha Centauri or Roswell or wherever. Done? Good.
Now...notice that these cars only carry large somethings because a
good part of the floor is missing near the ends. Huh?
Yep. Likely this helps keep the car aired out but it is surprising.
Noooo problem. Get a screw from an Accumate coupler and find a drill
slightly smaller...and I do mean slightly [ sorry, I don't know what
mine is ]...and, placing the Accumate coupler box properly in place,
drill a hole in the metal bottom. Insert screw and...voila...it
works. And it is the proper height.

Looking at another Alpha Centauri coupler housing...I can remove the
"coupler" so I have to believe that Trix will simply put a Kadee-like
coupler in it. So...I wouldn't count on the Trix model to have a
body mount where it should be. I will give Marklin credit, BTW, for
devising a coupler capability that will likely allow these cars to
operate on a 4" radius curve.

Overall...the cars are quite nice...perhaps a bit light. The coupler
issue is easily solved. I should comment that, since the bolster is
metal, the truck mounting screw is a machine screw. The car comes
with a washer attached screw head which, naturally, would not fit
the truck I used. I managed to find one screw that fits from my
screw farm. However, a visit to a bigger scew farm will solve that.
An easier solution would be to find acceptable wheels to fit the
Marklin trucks...if they are proper. The running board simulates an
Apex metal RB...I assume. The first 100 B-50-24s had these RBs. I'm
gonna guess that the 27 had them as well but the UP spec doesn't
appear to indicate. I haven't taken the time to analyze every aspect
of these cars. The doors appear to match the photos, the car has W
corners, the ends look OK, it does not have coupler levers and is
missing hoses and the brake gear near the coupler.

[End quoted post]

The biggest visual shortcoming of this model is the roof, which is a
poorly tooled version of a rectangular panel roof, so badly done
that a reviewer for a major model railroad magazine mistook it for a
PS-1 roof. (Speaking of which, this model also has the dubious
distincion of being featured in the most bullshit review of all time
in the same major model railroad magazine, where the reviewer
pointed out the flaws in the model, then concluded that it was "an
excellent model".) You will need to replace the roof to produce an
accurate model - see Richard Hendrickson's article in Vol 17 No 1 of
The Streamliner. It's still available from the UP(TM) Historical
Society:
http://www.uphs.org/strmavail.htm

The stock car model is a UP(TM) Class S-40-12. It models the same
prototype as the Athearn stock car (which has an incorrect, mirror-
image roof). I have not had a chance to examine the Trix model to
see if they corrected or repated that mistake.

The bottom line on the Trix freight car models is that they
represent fairly unique prototypes that would be difficult to
kitbash from other kits, whether due to the ACR as on the boxcars,
or just don't look like anything else as for the hoppers. (The NYC
caboose is a middle-level kitbash from an MDC kit.) Unfortunately,
you must expect to put in some work to correct their flaws. It's up
to you to decide whether or not this is acceptable for their asking
price.


Ben Hom

Bill McCoy asked:
"...but what about the other Trix cars? Feed back from MR and
the RPM group is that the UP 40' DD boxcar is fair to middling with
the wrong class and number. The MR assessment of the reefer is the
hatch size."

From the STMFC archives (message 25380), posted by Ian Clasper on
November 3, 2003:

A quick comparison of the three cars I have (reefer,box,autobox)
shows that they are all on the same chassis, which we know should
all be different. So here is the first screw up.

R-40-14

As already mentioned, the Hatches are TT in scale, well done
Marklin, they look Scheisse.

My copy of "Pacific Fruit Express" is in storage so I cannot do a
detailed review. I can refer to the photo on Ted's website of a R-40-
20 (the R-40-14 and R-40-20 are almost identical)

http://www.steamfreightcars.com/gallery/reefer/pfe_r4020main.html

The photo shows that the side and end detail do resemble these
classes of car. The tack board is in a different position, however
this may be a difference in the two classes and is easily changed.

The side details follow the R-40-20 photo quite closley.
The rivet pattern does match, as does the door detail however I
cannot say anything about the side tab detail (lost in the contrast
of the photo) or the roof (not visible). The side ladders are
correctly spaced, however the end ladders are one run too short. The
ladders are also a little on the heavy side.

The ends are 4/4 Dreadnaught ends with 'W' corners, however I cannot
judge how good they are.

The brake gear housing is the same URECO housing as on the B-50-24
which RH applauded in the July RMC. The roofwalk is the usual APEX,
however it looks to be about 6in too short, making the overhang look
a little odd.

The roof represents a Murphy rectangular panel roof and compares
well with the roof from the PFE models R-40-18 kit. The overhang of
the roof is nicely represented.

As this car is a Marklin model rather than Trix, the wheels and
couplings are TOY TRAIN JUNK. The Trix model does have RP25 wheels
however the coupling will be a kadee compatable conversion into the
original european pocket, so a draught gear box needs to be added
(Kadee #78 etc).

Tony Thompson's comment about the paint scheme was "the color is
right" in other words, everything else about the paint scheme was
wrong ! The car is painted in a mix of several different paint
schemes !

I have a three pack to play with, so I will rebuilding these cars
into good models of the R-40-14 / 20 .

My advise for those with there money still in there pocket, is wait
for these cars to appear on discount or at a swap meet, the cars are
not worth 30 bucks as there is too much needs to be done to bring
them up to standard.

A-50-16 (marked as A-50-19)

As this car has been covered before, all I can add is that the model
compares well with the photos in the Metcalfe book, the roof has a
correct Murphy Rectangular Panel roof (unlike the B-50-24) and the
paint scheme is wrong. The roofwalk again appears to be 6in too
short. The chassis is the same as the boxcar and reefer, with all
ther faults.

Of the three house cars, the Autobox needs the least amount of
rework, however that is relative !!!

This car is now appearing in several bogus schemes at your hobby
shop now !!!!

I hope this helps
Ian Clasper


Ben Hom

On Dec 15, 2004, at 6:46 AM, Bill Schneider wrote:

Ted and I talked about this car some time ago. Like the other Bill, I came
to the conclusion that to do it "right" we would have to do a ton of tooling
for the various variations and was concerned about being able to sell enough
to pay for it.

We could, of course, do just one variation and put all the other schemes on
it, but I suspect those pesky internet guys would rake us over the coals if
we did... :>)

I have spoken to another manufacturer who did want to do these. I offered all the support, but did try to convince him to go in another direction. I, too, would love to see them, but not if it bankrupts someone who is in a business where that is the norm anyway! I have not heard back from this manufacturer since that initial conversation. There are just too many variations - even in resin both Sunshine and F&C haven't done them all correctly. It's that complex.

Regards,
Ted Culotta

Speedwitch Media
100 14th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94402
info@...
www.speedwitch.com
(650) 787-1912

On Dec 15, 2004, at 4:02 AM, salemoryga wrote:

I'm new to the page so this probably covers territory already
covered, but what about the other Trix cars. Feed back from MR and
the RPM group is that the UP 40' DD boxcar is fair to middling with
the wrong class and number. The MR assessment of the reefer is the
hatch size. Since these cars are pretty pricey to just be a core for
complete redetailing unless they fill a void not represented by any
other models. I see they also have a stock car and 40' SD boxcar.
Any thought on those?

I can't speak for the reefer, but the auto car just kills me. Go to the effort of correctly tooling a prototype (the UP A-50-16) and then turn around and letter the model for the A-50-19. This is one I'll never figure out. I am sending artwork to the printer for decals for those of you who want to strip one of the Trix models and correctly letter it, or just upgrade the lettering in your Sunshine A-50-16 kit.

Regards,
Ted Culotta

Speedwitch Media
100 14th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94402
info@...
www.speedwitch.com
(650) 787-1912

Sorry about the cross posting, but I¹m not sure which list(s) this belongs
on.

Walther¹s site shows Herpa has announced new freight and passenger cars.
Delivery and price are both TBA. Does anyone here know anything about them?
--
Thanks!

Brian Ehni



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ted and I talked about this car some time ago. Like the other Bill, I came to the conclusion that to do it "right" we would have to do a ton of tooling for the various variations and was concerned about being able to sell enough to pay for it.

We could, of course, do just one variation and put all the other schemes on it, but I suspect those pesky internet guys would rake us over the coals if we did... :>)

Bill Schneider

Garth

No, I have not talked to Bill at BLT about this. He is on this list and will see this posting...Hey Bill, how about it?

I still think the lack of so called big roads is going to keep this car in the relm of resin. Now, if the PRR,AT&SF, UP and NYC had thousands of these cars they would be a lock in styrene...Sadly, this is not the case.

Denis

Guys

I have talked to Bill at Red Caboose several times about the 32 car and he is simply not interested in doing the car. There are too many variations and not enough "big" roads that had the car. The largest owners were the MoPac and the SAL....

Now, of course, being a SAL fan I would love to see this car done but it appears that resin kits will have to do.

Denis Blake

Gene,

The Rio Vista car was one of several donated by the Concord Naval Weapons Station to the WRM in the 1970s. I don't know much about its history, but here is a partial photo from my web site: http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ggg9y/paul.html .
Scroll down to the bottom the page. It is the last photo

The car has stood outside without protection for many years, and the nice restoration work was all lost. Hopefully, with the WRM's new car house nearing completion, this and other cars will be given more protection.

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff

Gene Green wrote:

Hello all,
I've received from Germany, the Trix tank cars set and, as promised,
I've posted some photos here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/files/TRIX%20tank%20cars/

It seems there will be quite some work around the couplers and truck
bolsters to make them acceptable !!!
As for the paint schemes, well I'll let more knowlegeable about their
accuracy....

Hope the photos are of any help.

Best regards
Michel Guilloux
France