New Walthers USRA 55 ton hopper


Tim O'Connor
 

Under the heading of "Why oh why?"

http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/932-971

Doesn't appear to be any better looking, and probably not
even as good as, the Accurail model:

http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/112-2497



Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...>
Sterling, Massachusetts
Skype user name timboconnor


Scott Pitzer
 

Not that it really matters, but the "Gold Line" packages I've seen proclaim "Separate Grab Irons" or words to that effect, and this "Gold Line" model doesn't even have that feature.
Scott Pitzer
===========================

http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/932-971

Doesn't appear to be any better looking, and probably not
even as good as, the Accurail model


centga@...
 

Under the heading of "Why oh why?"

Why oh why can't someone do a "Kadee Quality" model instead of these copies? Todd Horton


Ted Culotta <tculotta@...>
 

On Jan 26, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

Under the heading of "Why oh why?"

http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/932-971

Doesn't appear to be any better looking, and probably not
even as good as, the Accurail model:

http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/112-2497
Apparently "Empire Builder" is no longer just a train. I can't want to see what other manufacturers they try to deep six. Predatory for no good reason. In the not too distant future, we'll all be buying from WalMart, er, Horizon, and Costco, I mean Walthers. Well, at least the trucks appear to be something slightly different, even though they are wrong for USRA hoppers.

Regards,
Ted Culotta

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


steamgene@...
 

Since the Accurail models for the C&O had the straight road
name, it would be nice if Walthers had gone with the donut -
especially with the original steam donut. I wonder if the car
numbers are correct but different.

Gene Moser
OTOH, "...can't want to..."?
From: Ted Culotta <tculotta@...>
Date: 2005/01/26 Wed PM 06:32:17 EST
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] New Walthers USRA 55 ton hopper


On Jan 26, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

Under the heading of "Why oh why?"

http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/932-971

Doesn't appear to be any better looking, and probably not
even as good as, the Accurail model:

http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/112-2497
Apparently "Empire Builder" is no longer just a train. I can't want
to
see what other manufacturers they try to deep six. Predatory for
no
good reason. In the not too distant future, we'll all be buying from
WalMart, er, Horizon, and Costco, I mean Walthers. Well, at least
the
trucks appear to be something slightly different, even though
they are
wrong for USRA hoppers.

Regards,
Ted Culotta

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





Yahoo! Groups Links








Richard Hendrickson
 

Ted Culotta writes:

Apparently "Empire Builder" is no longer just a train. I can't wait to
see what other manufacturers they try to deep six. Predatory for no
good reason. In the not too distant future, we'll all be buying from
WalMart, er, Horizon, and Costco, I mean Walthers. Well, at least the
trucks appear to be something slightly different, even though they are
wrong for USRA hoppers.
None of this is new, of course. Years ago, when MDC was known to be
developing their 50' single sheathed auto car models, Walthers rushed their
own 50' single sheathed auto cars into production. The MDC cars, based on
WP prototype information, were more accurate and better detailed than
anything they had produced previously, while the Walthers models were
generic cars that sort of resembled some MILW cars but in fact weren't
accurate for any single prototype and were poorly executed (e.g., their
3-3-3 Dreadnaught ends can only be described as a disaster). When asked at
that year's Rosemont trade show why they had introduced an inferior model
knowing that MDC was about to hatch a near-equivalent of better quality,
one of Walthers' sales guys arrogantly declared, "we'll show 'em who's
number one." Obviously, things haven't changed. What Walthers products
lack in accuracy and quality will be made up for in marketing muscle, and
the hobby as a whole - at least, the serious scale modeling side of the
hobby - will suffer in consequence. Those of us who don't like it can vote
with our feet. I have long made it a policy not to buy Walthers products
if there's an acceptable alternative and not to be buy other manufacturers'
products from Walthers or their dealers if I can avoid it.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Benjamin Hom <b.hom@...>
 

Ted Culotta wrote:
"Well, at least the trucks appear to be something slightly different, even
though they are wrong for USRA hoppers."

I wish that were the case. Sadly, they're the same old ex-Train-Miniature
"Bettendorf" trucks that have been on the market for almost 35 years now.


Ben Hom


Garth Groff <ggg9y@...>
 

Tim,

The Accurail has Wine Door Locks, which I don't see on the Walthers car. Maybe they're on the far side? The Accurail car lists at $9.98, while the Walthers car is over $13 :-$ , but I suppose it is fully assembled (in China, of course). I don't see that we're being well served here. I would rather stick with Accurail, which at least is an American product.

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff

Kind regards,

Tim O'Connor wrote:

Under the heading of "Why oh why?"

http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/932-971

Doesn't appear to be any better looking, and probably not
even as good as, the Accurail model:

http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/112-2497



Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...>
Sterling, Massachusetts
Skype user name timboconnor


Montford Switzer <ZOE@...>
 

I normally prefer to stay our of discussions of this nature, but I must
say that I'm in agreement with Richard 100% thanks to a bad marketing
deal that I was on the receiving end of about 4 years ago. My articles
only use Walthers products when there is no other choice. And Walthers
is making it easier all the time to avoid them as the quality parts,
building supply and tool sections of the catalog continue to constrict.
It used to be my "Bible" for modeling building projects.

Mont Switzer

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Hendrickson [mailto:rhendrickson@...]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 7:01 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] New Walthers USRA 55 ton hopper


Ted Culotta writes:

Apparently "Empire Builder" is no longer just a train. I can't wait to
see what other manufacturers they try to deep six. Predatory for no
good reason. In the not too distant future, we'll all be buying from
WalMart, er, Horizon, and Costco, I mean Walthers. Well, at least the
trucks appear to be something slightly different, even though they are
wrong for USRA hoppers.
None of this is new, of course. Years ago, when MDC was known to be
developing their 50' single sheathed auto car models, Walthers rushed
their
own 50' single sheathed auto cars into production. The MDC cars, based
on
WP prototype information, were more accurate and better detailed than
anything they had produced previously, while the Walthers models were
generic cars that sort of resembled some MILW cars but in fact weren't
accurate for any single prototype and were poorly executed (e.g., their
3-3-3 Dreadnaught ends can only be described as a disaster). When asked
at
that year's Rosemont trade show why they had introduced an inferior
model
knowing that MDC was about to hatch a near-equivalent of better quality,
one of Walthers' sales guys arrogantly declared, "we'll show 'em who's
number one." Obviously, things haven't changed. What Walthers products
lack in accuracy and quality will be made up for in marketing muscle,
and
the hobby as a whole - at least, the serious scale modeling side of the
hobby - will suffer in consequence. Those of us who don't like it can
vote
with our feet. I have long made it a policy not to buy Walthers
products
if there's an acceptable alternative and not to be buy other
manufacturers'
products from Walthers or their dealers if I can avoid it.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520






Yahoo! Groups Links


Jay Bingham <j.bingham@...>
 

Garth Groff wrote:

The Accurail car lists at $9.98, while
the Walthers car is over $13 :-$ , but I suppose it is fully
assembled
(in China, of course). I don't see that we're being well served
here. I
would rather stick with Accurail, which at least is an American
product.


With the growth of historically national coporations into multi
national corporations and their presence in China, the auto makers,
retailers such as Walmart and Home Depot, food service coporations
such as McDonalds, the distinction between buying American blurs.
Arguably the wage paid to the plant employe assembling the Walther's
product allows that Chinese worker to go to McDonalds for supper and
to go to Walmart to supply his or her home thus adding to the bottom
line of such coporations.

Jay Bingham
Pacific Palasades, CA


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Jay Bingham wrote:
With the growth of historically national coporations into multi
national corporations and their presence in China, the auto makers,
retailers such as Walmart and Home Depot, food service coporations
such as McDonalds, the distinction between buying American blurs.
When a Ford automobile has fewer American-made parts than some Toyota models, the distinction is indeed blurred. There is nothing wrong with loyalty to American companies and workers, but such loyalty ought to be an informed loyalty. Companies do vary in their practices in this area.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2942 Linden Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Paul Lyons
 

In a message dated 1/27/2005 6:38:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, jrs060@...
writes:
But I also know that Ted Richardson, an
IC modeler friend of mine told you that this Walthers car was
prototype for an IC car! "Please" stop mislead people if
you know differently. Let's not let the hot air take control
here. Sorry.
Jerry, Can you share with us what IC series prototype car it is suppose to
represent and then we will all have an answer to a very long mystery.
Paul Lyons
Laguna Niguel, CA


Jerry <jrs060@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@o...>
wrote:
"Years ago, when MDC was known to be
developing their 50' single sheathed auto car models, Walthers
rushed their
own 50' single sheathed auto cars into production. The MDC cars,
based on
WP prototype information, were more accurate and better detailed
than
anything they had produced previously, while the Walthers models
were
generic cars that sort of resembled some MILW cars but in fact
weren't
accurate for any single prototype and were poorly executed (e.g.,
their
3-3-3 Dreadnaught ends can only be described as a disaster)."

Richard, this is incorrect and you know it. Now I know you
had a hand in the MDC WP model because you told me so, and as
such are bias to it. But I also know that Ted Richardson, an
IC modeler friend of mine told you that this Walthers car was
prototype for an IC car! "Please" stop mislead people if
you know differently. Let's not let the hot air take control
here. Sorry.

Regards,

Jerry Stewart
Chicago, Ill.


Richard Hendrickson
 

Jerry Stewart sounds off:

--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@o...>
wrote:
"Years ago, when MDC was known to be
developing their 50' single sheathed auto car models, Walthers
rushed their
own 50' single sheathed auto cars into production. The MDC cars,
based on
WP prototype information, were more accurate and better detailed
than
anything they had produced previously, while the Walthers models
were
generic cars that sort of resembled some MILW cars but in fact
weren't
accurate for any single prototype and were poorly executed (e.g.,
their
3-3-3 Dreadnaught ends can only be described as a disaster)."

Richard, this is incorrect and you know it. Now I know you
had a hand in the MDC WP model because you told me so, and as
such are bias to it. But I also know that Ted Richardson, an
IC modeler friend of mine told you that this Walthers car was
prototype for an IC car! "Please" stop mislead people if
you know differently. Let's not let the hot air take control
here. Sorry.
Calm down, Jerry. Your cheap shot about "hot air" reminds me of the old
saying about people who live in glass houses. What Ted claimed was that
the Walthers model could be reworked into a reasonable facsimile of an IC
car (and proved it by doing so). But whether Walthers had the IC or MILW
prototype cars in mind (or any other specific prototypes, for that matter)
isn't entirely clear, since the model as it comes out of the box doesn't
accurately represent either one. In any event, I'll stand by my statement
that the Walthers models "weren't accurate for any single prototype and
were poorly executed," since there's abundant evidence to support both
assertions.

As for "bias," there's also ample evidence to support my statement that
the MDC models were, though not without their shortcomings, certainly "more
accurate and better detailed than anything they had produced previously."
For that we can thank Page Porter, who during his relatively brief
employment at MDC tried to move them away from their toy-train orientation
towards greater prototype fidelity. My role in the development of the 50'
SS box cars consisted of no more than providing some photos and prototype
data, so I had (and still have) no stake one way or another in how they
fared in the marketplace. But I do think it was unfortunate that Walthers,
in what was apparently a calculated move, grabbed a significant market
share from another mfr. by rushing an inferior model into production.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Paul Lyons
 

Thanks Chet, Most informative and something I will put on my photographic
pursuit list.
Paul Lyons
Laguna Niguel, CA


Chet French <cfrench@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., cobrapsl@a... wrote:
In a message dated 1/27/2005 6:38:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jrs060@m...
writes:
But I also know that Ted Richardson, an
IC modeler friend of mine told you that this Walthers car was
prototype for an IC car! "Please" stop mislead people if
you know differently. Let's not let the hot air take control
here. Sorry.
Jerry, Can you share with us what IC series prototype car it is
suppose to
represent and then we will all have an answer to a very long
mystery.


Paul,

The IC cars were originally numbered in the 210000-210999 series.
The April 1940 ORER shows 960 cars still in the group. By this time
they were being renumbered in the 65000-65959 series. A January 1946
IC equipment book shows 954 cars. They do not appear in the July
1950 ORER. The IC was adding many new and converted hopper cars to
their fleet from 1945 through 1950 and beyond, and I imagine the
older cars were scrapped rather quickly.

Chet French
Dixon, IL


Jerry <jrs060@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Chet French" <cfrench@g...> wrote:

"The IC cars were originally numbered in the 210000-210999 series.
The April 1940 ORER shows 960 cars still in the group. By this
time
they were being renumbered in the 65000-65959 series. A January
1946
IC equipment book shows 954 cars. They do not appear in the July
1950 ORER. The IC was adding many new and converted hopper cars to
their fleet from 1945 through 1950 and beyond, and I imagine the
older cars were scrapped rather quickly."

Chet, it sure is coincidental to see your post on this as I
was talking with Ted Richardson on the phone this morning
about this very topic, the general renumbering of IC freight
equipment. We came to about the same conclusion, it was done
sometime during WWII, probable started in 1942. In a typical
IC efficient manner, they had somehow managed to accomplish
before 1946 in the middle of war, amazing!

Regards,
Jerry Stewart
Chicago, Ill.


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Jerry Stewart wrote:
Chet, it sure is coincidental to see your post on this as I
was talking with Ted Richardson on the phone this morning
about this very topic, the general renumbering of IC freight
equipment.
Is there any comprehensive document or summary about this renumbering? For the non-IC person, it is a thoroughly confusing and complicated matter.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2942 Linden Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history