Fw: Re: Atlas 1932 ARA Boxcar


Steve SANDIFER
 

The tackboards, being black, stick out drawing attention to their inaccuracy. They have a pin in the back of them that hold them to the car. However, a quick paint job to make them the same color as the car and the discrepancy goes away for the average modeler. I did not try to replace them at this point, just paint them (too many other projects on my work table). I also replaced the 2-piece Atlas coupler with Kadee whisker 58s.

----- Original Message -----
From: mcindoefalls
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:39 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Atlas 1932 ARA Boxcar


--- In STMFC@..., "culturalinfidel9" <djmiller@...> wrote:
>
> I've seen only limited discussion on the new Atlas 1932 boxcars. How
> is the level of detailing? Any blatant inaccuracies?

Recently there was a brief discussion here, which mostly questioned
the two-board tackboards. But while we're on the subject, I have to
question Atlas's choice of road names. The only ones I'm even
remotely, and I mean remotely, interested in are CofG and MEC. If they
had offered WM, C&O or Seaboard in the first run, they would have sold
a car or three to me already. But, Warrior River Terminal???

Walt Lankenau


jerryglow2
 

They should be black for MP and it's sub roads who made up the largest
ownership of the cars.

Jerry Glow

--- In STMFC@..., "Steve Sandifer" <steve.sandifer@...>
wrote:

The tackboards, being black, stick out drawing attention to their
inaccuracy. They have a pin in the back of them that hold them to the
car. However, a quick paint job to make them the same color as the car
and the discrepancy goes away for the average modeler. I did not try to
replace them at this point, just paint them (too many other projects on
my work table). I also replaced the 2-piece Atlas coupler with Kadee
whisker 58s.