Date
1 - 20 of 31
Atlas 40' USRA rebuild
|
any particular prototype?
http://www.pbase.com/tom_murray/image/114848321 i'm guessing this is the CMO/RI car... Tim O'Connor |
|
|
|
Brian Carlson <brian@...>
Tim: From Ben Hom on the PRR Modeling list today and this list back in 2003.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
The question asked if the cars could model the PRR X26C. Dave, I recommend you go back to the pubs and reconsider. The Atlas O and N scale USRA rebuilt boxcar models are hermaphrodites that don't model ANY prototype, much less the PRR Class X26C rebuilt USRA SS boxcars. The following is from my post on STMFC in 2003 (Message 23214) about the O scale model (and the S Helper Service S scale model that it was copied from) when it was first introduced: First, some quick notes on rebuilt boxcars: Even though Youngstown marketed kits to the railroads during the 1930s to rebuild single- and double-sheathed boxcars, each individual railroad approached rebuilding cars in a different manner, with some roads simply replacing the sides while retaining the original roof and ends; others replacing the sides and roof while retaining the ends, and one (KCS) doing a USRA DS rebuild in 1949 by fitting a modern boxcar body, ends and all on top of the old underframe. Almost all rebuilds increased the height of the car, and railroads took different approaches to making the ends taller, with some adding a blank panel and others splicing in sections of Murphy ends. The cars were also widened - a reliable spotting feature shared by almost all rebuilt SS or DS boxcars is an indented side sill with trapezoidal or triangular brackets supporting the new steel sides. The wider cars required end modifications as well - most railroads simply used an angle to join the ends to the side creating an indent there, but some roads [such as the PRR] used sheet metal to widen the ends creating a more familiar square corner. The original trucks were almost always reused; the underframe was always reused, though at least two roads rebuilt these cars a second time in the late '50s- early 60s with new underframes (some WAB cars with gon underframes, PRR X26C ->X26F). The net result is that rebuilt boxcars were unique to each railroad. For a more detailed account of USRA DS rebuilds, see "Steel Side USRA Rebuilds," Parts 1 and 2 by Martin Lofton in the September and October 1989 Railroad Model Craftsman. The Models: Both models has some serious problems with the sides. The model has eight-panel steel sides, which is correct for many of the rebuilds except those who used ten-panel sides (ATSF, PRR). However, the sides have two problems. First, the side sills are incorrect for the vast majority of SS or DS rebuilds - there is no noticeable inset, and the brackets are actually closer to those used on Pennsy Class X29 rebuilds. Most SS or DS rebuilds used triangular or trapezoidal brackets. Without this inset, the car is too narrow and fails to capture the look of a wider new carbody fitted to a narrow older underframe. In fact, these models retain the "sunken cheek" look of a SS boxcar (the effect is worse on the S Helper Service car). Both model share the same details: Roof: Original USRA steel sheathed roof. Ends: Unmodified 5/5/5 Murphy ends. Sides: Eight-panel sides. No distinct inset side sill. T-section support brackets. Underframe: USRA SS car (some S Helper Service roadnames have the fishbelly underframe) This model is closest to the ACL 46000-46949, C&WC 8000-8299, and SL- SF 127000-130499 USRA DS rebuilds; however, the side sills are wrong and the model lacks the heavy fishbelly underframe of the DS rebuilds. (Both model's roofs are correct for these rebuilds, as they reused the original roof; however, all other road's rebuilds replaced the roof with all-steel types.) These models are incorrect for all of the other paint schemes offered, differing mainly in roof, ends, underframe, and in the case of the PRR and ATSF cars, car sides. The bottom line: - Neither model out of the box is an exact match for any prototype. - Neither model really captures the "wider body on an narrow underframe look." I've uploaded a side-by-side comparison of the closest prototypes and both models in the STMFC files section. Since I posted this e-mail, Larry Kline modified an Atlas O scale model with new side sills to more closely match the ACL/C&WC and SL-SF "basic" rebuilds; however, if you're looking for an injection-molded styrene RTR Class X26C boxcar, this ain't going to answer the mail. Brian J. Carlson, P.E. Cheektowaga NY -----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Tim O'Connor Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 8:00 PM To: STMFC@... Subject: [STMFC] Atlas 40' USRA rebuild any particular prototype? http://www.pbase.com/tom_murray/image/114848321 i'm guessing this is the CMO/RI car... Tim O'Connor |
|
|
|
I looked more carefully at a sidelong photo of a CMO car. The
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
side sill is deeply inset, and the brackets are actually triangular castings of some kind. They are open not solid - you can see light showing through them in the photo. I don't think Sunshine did those exactly right either... :-\ Tim O'Connor Tim: From Ben Hom on the PRR Modeling list today and this list back in 2003. |
|
|
|
benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
Tim O'Connor wrote:
"any particular prototype?" http://www.pbase.com/tom_murray/image/114848321 No. This is the same abortion as the earlier S Helper Service, Atlas O, and Atlas N scale models now in HO that doesn't model anything. See my post #23214 from 2003 for detailed discussion about this model. "i'm guessing this is the CMO/RI car..." You're guessing wrong. Wrong roof, wrong ends, wrong height. Ben Hom |
|
|
|
Stokes John
OK, I have been reading the threads relating to the lack of fidelity to prototype when various manufacturers issue new or revised production runs. If it is true (and I have some questions about this), that it would not cost much more, if anything, to do it right, why do the manufacturers persist in their illogical behavior? I think it is correct that the average model railroader wound not know the difference, and would purchase the better made model if it were price. Is there such a disconnect between modelers who could and do supply the correct information and the manufacturers, what can be done to close the gap? If it would take the same effort and capital to produce an accurate model, what is the problem?
A glance at the other model building fields would show that in car, ship and airplane modeling, for the most part, the models produced are much more accurate than the railroad models. Why can't we have the same standard of excellence and care in this field? Just wondering. John Stokes Bellevue, WA To: STMFC@... From: b.hom@... Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:13:05 +0000 Subject: [STMFC] Re: Atlas 40' USRA rebuild Tim O'Connor wrote: "any particular prototype?" http://www.pbase.com/tom_murray/image/114848321 No. This is the same abortion as the earlier S Helper Service, Atlas O, and Atlas N scale models now in HO that doesn't model anything. See my post #23214 from 2003 for detailed discussion about this model. "i'm guessing this is the CMO/RI car..." You're guessing wrong. Wrong roof, wrong ends, wrong height. Ben Hom |
|
|
|
Jon Miller <atsf@...>
A glance at the other model building fields would show that in car, ship and airplane modeling, for the most part, the models produced are much more accurate than the railroad models. Why can't we have the same standard of excellence and care in this field?<Because if those models were wrong the manufactures would sell zero or close to it. For some reason yet to be explained model railroaders are different. Maybe it's because most started with tinplate and just never got out of the mold! Jon Miller AT&SF For me time has stopped in 1941 Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user NMRA Life member #2623 Member SFRH&MS |
|
|
|
Tom Madden <tgmadden@...>
Those highly accurate car, ship and airplane models (and military models in general) are static for the most part. A P-47 in a well detailed diorama invites close-up inspection, and a modeler doesn't need dozens of them. Railroad rolling stock models are typically players on a larger stage, often moving, and individual cars don't dominate that stage. You can satisfy 80 - 90% of your potential market with less accurate (less expensive) models.A glance at the other model building fields would show that in car, shipBecause if those models were wrong the manufactures would sell zero or As for why mfgrs don't make accurate models in the first place, there are many reasons. In Atlas' case, I'd guess they rescaled an existing design that was "good enough" to save design costs. Tom Madden |
|
|
|
Richard Hendrickson
On Jul 11, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Jon Miller wrote:
A glance at the other model building fields would show that incar, shipand airplane modeling, for the most part, the models produced aremuch moreaccurate than the railroad models. Why can't we have the samestandard ofexcellence and care in this field?<Because if those models were wrong the manufactures would sell zero or That's always been my explanation, Jon. Instead of building and operating historically accurate replicas of the prototype, a lot of "model railroaders" seem to be reliving their childhood fascination with toy trains. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it's not at all the same hobby. Richard Hendrickson |
|
|
|
Charles Hladik
My guess would be that prototype boats and airplanes are manufactured
without a lot of visible differences, quite unlike 2 boxcars built, one for ABCRR and the other for XYZRR. Chuck Hladik In a message dated 7/11/2009 11:47:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, atsf@... writes: A glance at the other model building fields would show that in car, shipmore accurate than the railroad models. Why can't we have the same standard ofBecause if those models were wrong the manufactures would sell zero or close to it. For some reason yet to be explained model railroaders are different. Maybe it's because most started with tinplate and just never got out of the mold! Jon Miller AT&SF For me time has stopped in 1941 Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user NMRA Life member #2623 Member SFRH&MS **************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377098x1201454399/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668 072&hmpgID=62&bcd=JulyExcfooterNO62) |
|
|
|
jerryglow2
And for many of the "operators" cars are merely chess pieces in the game.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Jerry Glow --- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
To expand on what Tom wrote below, in the other model areas "the build is the thing" - constucting the kit and making it as accurate as possible is all you have. There is no aspect of operation or the vehicle being a small part of a larger model called a layout.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Interestingly, there are also battles between "nit-pickers" and "close enough" modelers in the other fields. The CE guys accuse me of "taking all the fun out of the hobby" by pointing out kit errors and being "elitist" for publicly stating that some things just don't meet my personal standards. The most recent example: I posted that real wood is not usually a good medium for 1/35 scale models because the color is off and the grain is too big - invariably making it look like small pieces of 1/1 wood rather than 1/35 wood. Another feller posted that he had bought a wood pillbox/bunker kit but was going to need to spend a lot of time tapering the logs, adding bark, cutting knots and checks, and so forth. This brought out a couple of people with pictures of their wooden models and a statement that more or less said: "Oh, so you're calling my models garbage, are you?" The other feller ended up deleting his post to avoid further attacks . . . I've noticed that the CEs seem to have some of collective persecution complex in that they imagine we are making fun of their stuff, mocking their skills, and so forth. I don't have time for that. One well-respected modeler/vendor recently posted that, "I find it odd that so many that don't care, cared enough to comment and take their poke at Kurt." You can probably find many examples of "train setters" spending more time complaining about "rivet counters" than it would take to research and choose an accurate version of a kit, but that's humanity for you. KL ----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Madden Those highly accurate car, ship and airplane models (and military models in general) are static for the most part. A P-47 in a well detailed diorama invites close-up inspection, and a modeler doesn't need dozens of them. Railroad rolling stock models are typically players on a larger stage, often moving, and individual cars don't dominate that stage. You can satisfy 80 - 90% of your potential market with less accurate (less expensive) models.A glance at the other model building fields would show that in car, shipBecause if those models were wrong the manufactures would sell zero or As for why mfgrs don't make accurate models in the first place, there are many reasons. In Atlas' case, I'd guess they rescaled an existing design that was "good enough" to save design costs. |
|
|
|
Marty McGuirk
There are plenty of military modelers who don't find the tank, airplane, and (especially) ship models that are offered to be completely accurate so there is an active set of cottage industries offering after-market detailing kits designed to modify the plastic kits to make them truly accurate.A glance at the other model building fields would show that in car, shipmore The question is not so much "Is the Atlas "rebuilt USRA boxcar" correct for the CMO - obviously it isn't based on Ben's response - but instead "Is the model accurate for any particular prototype?" I for one think it makes more sense to pick one rebuilt car and model it accurately and paint it in paint schemes for cars "close" to that prototype. What really doesn't make sense is to "make up" a rebuilt boxcar model that isn't close to any actual car. Marty |
|
|
|
Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
Quite the contrary. Great fury has ensued when a company has tried to pass off one ship as another in same class with just new markings, ignoring the fact that one had different radar antennas and maybe different numbers of anti-aircraft guns . . . and this is in 1/350 or even 1/700 scale.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
With tanks it has gotten down to identifying the particular details between vehicles of the same model but at different plants and/or different months. (In fact, I published a book exactly to that end.) There is even a science to putting the proper mold seams and foundry symbols on cast parts. KL ----- Original Message -----
From: RUTLANDRS@... My guess would be that prototype boats and airplanes are manufactured without a lot of visible differences, quite unlike 2 boxcars built, one for ABCRR and the other for XYZRR. Chuck Hladik |
|
|
|
Don Burn
It is ironic that at least in N-scale the Atlas model could be a standin (note I am not saying accurate model only a usable one from a distance) for the ACL or the Frisco rebuilds of course Atlas choose not provide either paint scheme.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Don Burn ----- Original Message -----
From: "cvsne" <mjmcguirk@...> To: <STMFC@...> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 11:41 AM Subject: [STMFC] Re: Atlas 40' USRA rebuild There are plenty of military modelers who don't find the tank, airplane, and (especially) ship models that are offered to be completely accurate so there is an active set of cottage industries offering after-market detailing kits designed to modify the plastic kits to make them truly accurate.A glance at the other model building fields would show that in car, shipmore The question is not so much "Is the Atlas "rebuilt USRA boxcar" correct for the CMO - obviously it isn't based on Ben's response - but instead "Is the model accurate for any particular prototype?" I for one think it makes more sense to pick one rebuilt car and model it accurately and paint it in paint schemes for cars "close" to that prototype. What really doesn't make sense is to "make up" a rebuilt boxcar model that isn't close to any actual car. Marty __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4237 (20090712) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4237 (20090712) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com |
|
|
|
golden1014
Tim,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Going from the photo only, it's looking real good for an ACL 46000-series rebuilt USRA DS box car. Door, ends, and number of panels are OK. The height and width will probably be "OK" (considering the source). The big question will be the roof--I can't dtermine what kind of roof the pilot model has, but if it is accurate for ACL then it should be Murphy. C&WC had a few of these rebuilds as well. I can send you a photo off-line if you're interested. FYI, Sunshine did this ACL car last year. John Golden Bloomington, IN --- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
This discussion is another enlightening manifestation of the broad views that are so attractive to so many in this hobby. There are indeed an infinite number of "Model Railroad" hobbies.
No two such modelers can in any way be placed in any box, or at any given point in a very broad spectrum. On one end of the spectrum, we have die hard model railroad operators for whom trains and cars may be merely hypothetical objects , i.e. wood blocks with wheels would be perfectly OK. On the opposite end we have the die hard modeler for whom only meticulous modeling accuracy is super-paramount, i.e. the person whose models are to be akin to Tom Madden's stuffed and mounted P-47. Almost all of us display habits and predilections at both ends of this model railroading hobby spectrum that vary from time to time; but in real time as individuals, we choose our own peace and tranquility in the staking out of our own realities in and endless variety of positions somewhere in between. These are not moral issues (:-)). Denny Sacramento |
|
|
|
seaboard_1966
The acl cars were riveted. The new car from Atlas appears to be a welded side car. It is hard to tell from the photos so I may be wrong. Regardless though, the acl cars were riveted construction.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Denis Blake North Hamlet Shops, OH ----- Original Message -----
From: "John Golden" <golden1014@...> To: <STMFC@...> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 12:37 PM Subject: [STMFC] Re: Atlas 40' USRA rebuild Tim, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.12/2233 - Release Date: 07/12/09 08:20:00 |
|
|
|
Paul Krueger <kruegerp@...>
The sides appear to be riveted in this photo.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/5634/atlashoscaleunitedstate.jpg Paul Seattle, WA --- In STMFC@..., "Denis F. Blake" <dblake7@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
devansprr
Gentlemen,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I am posting a photo of the Atlas test shot taken Friday. Looks like the tooling has been upgraded, and it seems to address several of the criticisms leveled below: - Riveted sides, 8 panel - Sides do appear to stand proud of both the side sill and ends (notice the shadow of the bottom edge of the side on the side sill - it is not flush. - Appears to be "original" roof width, with a Z structure to extend out to the new sides. The PMcK&Y O scale model's roof actually over-hanged the sides. The HO model is very different. - Trapezoidal side supports - the T-plate is gone. Looks like the criticisms were considered and tooling revised. Perhaps someone from this august group will compliment Atlas. Reading this thread is not very impressive, especially since no one had seen the model. Lighten up guys. Dave Evans --- In STMFC@..., "Brian Carlson" <brian@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
seaboard_1966
Yes they do. In another shot I had seen of the car the sides appeared to be of welded construction. Paul, thanks for the shot and clearing this up.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I guess I don't have to rebuild any more Accurail cars. Denis Blake North Hamlet Shops, OH ----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Krueger" <kruegerp@...> To: <STMFC@...> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 10:44 PM Subject: [STMFC] Re: Atlas 40' USRA rebuild The sides appear to be riveted in this photo. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.12/2233 - Release Date: 07/12/09 08:20:00 |
|
|