Atlas or Branchline HO reefers suitable for Swift?


oliver
 

I'm sure this was covered a long time ago, but is the Atlas reefer
suitable for any of the Swift Co. wood reefers?

Also, any ideas on modelling their 15000 series steel reefers?

Thanks in advance
Stefan Lerché
Duncan BC Canada


sctry <jgreedy@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "stefanelaine" <stefanelaine@y...>
wrote:

I'm sure this was covered a long time ago, but is the Atlas reefer
suitable for any of the Swift Co. wood reefers?

Also, any ideas on modelling their 15000 series steel reefers?

Thanks in advance
Stefan Lerché
Duncan BC Canada

--- In Reefer-madness@yahoogroups.com, <jgreedy@b...> wrote:

The Atlas web site indicates that the car is based upon a Cudahy
design, I have discovered a photo of a Cudahy car in the "Cudahy -
Sunlight" scheme with 2-hinges per door; however, equipped with a
power hand brake. The photo is published on page 47 of Burlington
Bulletin #28.

I also have 3 photos in my collection of Swift reefers that do match!
All 3 Swift cars are in the yellow-orange scheme with "Swift
Refrigerator Line" on the left and "Refrigerator" on the right. Two
of the photos are dated in the 1940's and are in number series 99xx
and 37xx. The third car is in a Swift holding yard awaiting clean out
surrounded by a sea of RED Swift wood and new steel reefers dated
1954.

The Swift red scheme first appeared on a General American 1948 built
40 ft steel reefer in series 149xx. I believe that as the wood bodied
cars came due for repair and or paint only the vertical surfaces -
sides, doors and ends were painted the bright red with white trim on
the facia while the roofs if not in need of heavy repair were left in
the original weathered box car red. I recently purchased a print of
Swift SRLX #6505 in fresh RED paint that closely matches the Atlas
car: 4 big hinges, staff brake wheel, similar end sill but equipped
with AB brake. Photo is from Bruce Meyer and dated 6-56 at
Bloomington, IL.

The Atlas model is quite plausable in the red scheme; however, one
should consider adjusting the roof color and adding the black patch
in the lower left for repack data that Atlas overlooked.

John Greedy


Richard Hendrickson
 

Stefan Lerché asks:

I'm sure this was covered a long time ago, but is the Atlas reefer
suitable for any of the Swift Co. wood reefers?
Personally, Stefan, I don't think the Atlas reefers are suitable models of
any prototype. They have two major problems (plus some minor ones). The
first major problem is the doors. Whoever thought working reefer doors in
HO scale was a good idea should be banished to outer Mongolia. They're
crude, ugly, and have the wrong number of hinges to model most meat
reefers. The other major problem is the underframe, which bears no
resemblance to any prototype underframe I've ever seen. Of course, these
shortcomings may be fixable, but probably not without the kind of major
surgery that requires an exact color match for the factory paint on these
RTR models. If you're going to have to repaint and reletter the models
anyway, you'd probably be better off using one of the MDC 36' steel
underframe reefers, carving off the molded-on grab irons, and going from
there to get the details right. Swift operated a variety of 36' wood
reefers, and a lot of photos are available, especially in the 1950s
red/white paint and lettering.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Richard Hendrickson
 

The Atlas model is quite plausable in the red scheme; however, one
should consider adjusting the roof color and adding the black patch
in the lower left for repack data that Atlas overlooked.

John Greedy
Plausible? Uh, John, I'm reluctant to disagree with you, but I find the
Atlas model implausible as a replica of ANY 36' wood reefer. Even the
infamous "three foot rule" won't work here (you know, the notion that a
model is acceptable if it looks okay from three feet away). In the case of
the Atlas reefer, you'd have to invoke a six foot rule to make it
"plausible," in my opinion. It oughta be against the law for manufacturers
like Atlas to make a profit on such junk. YMMV, of course.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

John Greedy said:
The Atlas model is quite plausable in the red scheme; however, one
should consider adjusting the roof color and adding the black patch
in the lower left for repack data that Atlas overlooked.
Richard Hendrickson replied:
Plausible? Uh, John, I'm reluctant to disagree with you, but I find the
Atlas model implausible as a replica of ANY 36' wood reefer. Even the
infamous "three foot rule" won't work here . . .
Are we confusing "plausible" with "stand-in"? I have a friend who noted that "stand-in" to some people means anything whatever, e.g. you need a caboose on your NP layout so you use the Athearn cupola cab--after all, it has a cupola . . . but it sure ain't "plausible." Maybe we should ask John to define . . . <g>.

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


steamgene@...
 

What is plausable? I have a BLI heavy Mike painted for the
Milwaukee Road, as delivered. I have an Athearn "Milwaukee
Road" caboose, paint scheme correct, number correct, model
totally wrong. Not sure where I can find a CMSt.P&P proper
caboose to put behind my locomotive. So I either run the Athearn
or don't run the loco. Second option leaves my stream era
northwestern railroad cars unused.
Gene Moser
From: Anthony Thompson <thompson@signaturepress.com>
Date: 2005/02/04 Fri PM 09:51:11 EST
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Atlas or Branchline HO reefers
suitable for Swift?


John Greedy said:
The Atlas model is quite plausable in the red scheme;
however, one
should consider adjusting the roof color and adding the black
patch
in the lower left for repack data that Atlas overlooked.
Richard Hendrickson replied:
Plausible? Uh, John, I'm reluctant to disagree with you, but I
find
the
Atlas model implausible as a replica of ANY 36' wood reefer.
Even the
infamous "three foot rule" won't work here . . .
Are we confusing "plausible" with "stand-in"? I have a friend
who
noted that "stand-in" to some people means anything whatever,
e.g. you
need a caboose on your NP layout so you use the Athearn
cupola
cab--after all, it has a cupola . . . but it sure ain't "plausible."
Maybe we should ask John to define . . . <g>.

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history





Yahoo! Groups Links








Tim O'Connor
 

Personally, Stefan, I don't think the Atlas reefers are suitable models of
any prototype .... The other major problem is the underframe, which bears no
resemblance to any prototype underframe I've ever seen ... you'd probably be
better off using one of the MDC 36' steel underframe reefers, carving off the
molded-on grab irons, and going from there to get the details right.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520

And if you're going to kitbash the MDC kit, note that John Greene (Bethlehem
Car Works) makes a really nice, injected molded, fishbelly underframe kit that
was made specifically for the MDC body. I picked one up at Springfield. Also
I think he or someone told me that soon there will be a replacement roof for
the same MDC carbody! With those two items it should be possible to create a
number of variants with a only a moderate amount of effort.

A great place for information about kitbashing using the MDC cars is John
Nehrich's RPI web site.

Tim O.


Tim O'Connor
 

The Atlas model is quite plausable ...
Richard Hendrickson replied:
Plausible? Uh, John, I'm reluctant to disagree with you, but...
Tony Thompson wrote
Are we confusing "plausible" with "stand-in"?

Is it a question of whether one can plause the model, or not? If
a caboose has a cupola, then it can be said to plause, or at the
least, is somewhat plausing. One's man's plause is another man's
... Well, I'm not really sure actually. It may be unplausant even
to think about it. And now I must plause for refreshment.

Tim O.


oliver
 

Richard, Tim et al.
Thanks for clearing that up. I seem to have missed these cars when
they came out and perhaps that wasn't such a bad thing;-)I was wanting
to do up some cars given that it looks like Clover House is closing up
shop.

I take it the MDC car (should still be lots around) is the best
starting point. What about the steel side cars of the 15xxx series?

BTW I came across a nice article in the February 1993 Railmodel
Journal by Martin Lofton about the Swift cars, but he only cites the
Life Like model as a starting point, so I became curious! I guess I
will stick with Sunshine.
Thanks again
Stefan Lerché
Duncan BC Canada




--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@o...>
wrote:
Stefan Lerché asks:

I'm sure this was covered a long time ago, but is the Atlas reefer
suitable for any of the Swift Co. wood reefers?
Personally, Stefan, I don't think the Atlas reefers are suitable
models of
any prototype. They have two major problems (plus some minor ones).
The
first major problem is the doors. Whoever thought working reefer
doors in
HO scale was a good idea should be banished to outer Mongolia. They're
crude, ugly, and have the wrong number of hinges to model most meat
reefers. The other major problem is the underframe, which bears no
resemblance to any prototype underframe I've ever seen. Of course,
these
shortcomings may be fixable, but probably not without the kind of major
surgery that requires an exact color match for the factory paint on
these
RTR models. If you're going to have to repaint and reletter the models
anyway, you'd probably be better off using one of the MDC 36' steel
underframe reefers, carving off the molded-on grab irons, and going from
there to get the details right. Swift operated a variety of 36' wood
reefers, and a lot of photos are available, especially in the 1950s
red/white paint and lettering.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520