Topics

New Accurail Offset twin hopper


devansprr
 

I see Accurail has announced a new Offset twin hopper on their web site. I have searched the archives here and found no mention. Is this brand new and not yet discussed? It will be interesting to see which design it will be - I am not offset hopper knowledgeable (what can I say, I am an admitted SPF... my name is Dave...). Hopefully it will be a pre-war, or WWII design. I know I need some foreign road offsets, and I see B&O had at least 3000 of them during WWII (Thanks to Ben Hom for his B&O modeling hopper article), and that C&O had a bunch too. To date, only the Atlas twin offset has been available in styrene(??), and being hoppers, a fleet is required, so resin is too time consuming. The Kadee twin offset seems to be a post-war car?

While Athearn may have abandoned the kit business, and red caboose tooling is for sale, kudos to Accurail for cranking out new tooling!

Thoughts?

Dave Evans


sctry
 

My understanding is that the new twin hopper will be a"standard" offset style utilizing the same detail sprues as the Accurail 3-bay 70t hopper.

John Greedy

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "devansprr" <devans1@...> wrote:

I see Accurail has announced a new Offset twin hopper on their web site. I have searched the archives here and found no mention. Is this brand new and not yet discussed? It will be interesting to see which design it will be - I am not offset hopper knowledgeable (what can I say, I am an admitted SPF... my name is Dave...). Hopefully it will be a pre-war, or WWII design. I know I need some foreign road offsets, and I see B&O had at least 3000 of them during WWII (Thanks to Ben Hom for his B&O modeling hopper article), and that C&O had a bunch too. To date, only the Atlas twin offset has been available in styrene(??), and being hoppers, a fleet is required, so resin is too time consuming. The Kadee twin offset seems to be a post-war car?

While Athearn may have abandoned the kit business, and red caboose tooling is for sale, kudos to Accurail for cranking out new tooling!

Thoughts?

Dave Evans


Tim O'Connor
 

Looks like an AAR standard twin... again... for the fourth time in HO...
whahoo yippee ky-ay.

At 11/17/2009 08:56 PM Tuesday, you wrote:
I see Accurail has announced a new Offset twin hopper on their web site. I have searched the archives here and found no mention. Is this brand new and not yet discussed? It will be interesting to see which design it will be - I am not offset hopper knowledgeable (what can I say, I am an admitted SPF... my name is Dave...). Hopefully it will be a pre-war, or WWII design. I know I need some foreign road offsets, and I see B&O had at least 3000 of them during WWII (Thanks to Ben Hom for his B&O modeling hopper article), and that C&O had a bunch too. To date, only the Atlas twin offset has been available in styrene(??), and being hoppers, a fleet is required, so resin is too time consuming. The Kadee twin offset seems to be a post-war car?

While Athearn may have abandoned the kit business, and red caboose tooling is for sale, kudos to Accurail for cranking out new tooling!

Thoughts?

Dave Evans


devansprr
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:


Looks like an AAR standard twin... again... for the fourth time in HO...
whahoo yippee ky-ay.

Tim,

I am aware of 3 offset twins - Atlas, Kadee, Athearn, and ?

What are the significant differences between the pre-war offset twins?

Looking through the RPI site, they characterize the accurail design as a "long-taper" car, and the Alton 61099 photo is one possible match. The B&O N-35 is another possible match, as might be the L&NE, L&N, Southern and other offsets. The Reading HTt class looks to be a good match.

The Atlas offset seems to be of the same "long-taper" type, so perhaps the Accurail will be just like the Atlas?

Seems like the "short taper" offset twin still eludes us?

Looking through the RPI site, it looks like the vast majority of offset twins were 33-34 feet, but some early cars were 30'. The accurail site does not state the length.

Outside of the taper, and the number of ribs, it seems like the various prototype cars had few spotting differences outside of safety appliances? (and the obvious peak vs flat ends) Can someone educate me?

Dave Evans


water.kresse@...
 

Not being a modeler . . .



I believe there were basically three types of "patented/licensed" ARA/AAR transitional end side-panels being used:

1) 1928 Enterprise and Wine designs

2) 1931 Kiesel design



Which model-style is defined as a long taper vs. short taper?



Long-taper = top panel break goes all the way to the corner post (1931 AAR Kiesel)?



Short-taper = top panel break goes to edge of the "ladder-flat" (1928 ARA licensed by Wine)?



The Enterprise design has more panel breaks.



Al Kresse

----- Original Message -----
From: "devansprr" <devans1@erols.com>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:14:59 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [STMFC] Re: New Accurail Offset twin hopper



--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:


Looks like an AAR standard twin... again... for the fourth time in HO...
whahoo yippee ky-ay.

Tim,

I am aware of 3 offset twins - Atlas, Kadee, Athearn, and ?

What are the significant differences between the pre-war offset twins?

Looking through the RPI site, they characterize the accurail design as a "long-taper" car, and the Alton 61099 photo is one possible match. The B&O N-35 is another possible match, as might be the L&NE, L&N, Southern and other offsets. The Reading HTt class looks to be a good match.

The Atlas offset seems to be of the same "long-taper" type, so perhaps the Accurail will be just like the Atlas?

Seems like the "short taper" offset twin still eludes us?

Looking through the RPI site, it looks like the vast majority of offset twins were 33-34 feet, but some early cars were 30'. The accurail site does not state the length.

Outside of the taper, and the number of ribs, it seems like the various prototype cars had few spotting differences outside of safety appliances? (and the obvious peak vs flat ends) Can someone educate me?

Dave Evans


Bill Welch
 

Although I would have appreciated something with separately applied grabs, this could be useful if they do the versions with heap shields also.

Bill Welch

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "sctry" <JGreedy@...> wrote:

My understanding is that the new twin hopper will be a"standard" offset style utilizing the same detail sprues as the Accurail 3-bay 70t hopper.

John Greedy

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "devansprr" <devans1@> wrote:

I see Accurail has announced a new Offset twin hopper on their web site. I have searched the archives here and found no mention. Is this brand new and not yet discussed? It will be interesting to see which design it will be - I am not offset hopper knowledgeable (what can I say, I am an admitted SPF... my name is Dave...). Hopefully it will be a pre-war, or WWII design. I know I need some foreign road offsets, and I see B&O had at least 3000 of them during WWII (Thanks to Ben Hom for his B&O modeling hopper article), and that C&O had a bunch too. To date, only the Atlas twin offset has been available in styrene(??), and being hoppers, a fleet is required, so resin is too time consuming. The Kadee twin offset seems to be a post-war car?

While Athearn may have abandoned the kit business, and red caboose tooling is for sale, kudos to Accurail for cranking out new tooling!

Thoughts?

Dave Evans


rwitt_2000
 

Al Kresse wrote:



Not being a modeler . . .



I believe there were basically three types of "patented/licensed"
ARA/AAR transitional end side-panels being used:

1) 1928 Enterprise and Wine designs

2) 1931 Kiesel design



Which model-style is defined as a long taper vs. short taper?



Long-taper = top panel break goes all the way to the corner post (1931
AAR Kiesel)?



Short-taper = top panel break goes to edge of the "ladder-flat" (1928
ARA licensed by Wine)?



The Enterprise design has more panel breaks.




The descriptive terms of "tapered" and "step" have been used to
described how the off-set side returns to the end panel. Most examples I
have seen would be "short " with a "stepped" or "taper" return to the
end panel. The "stepped" end panel is the one I associate with
Enterprise and the earlier ARA designs also use on the quad and triple
hoppers of that period. For the B&O it was the class W-2, which were
built with "Hat" braces for the off-set side rather than the angles used
on the later AAR designs.

The articles in the RP Cyc clearly describe all the differences in the
ARA/AAR twin off-set side hoppers. As Ed Hawkins has pointed out many
time on this list, the type of end braces and their locations determine
if a model is appropriate for a given railroad. From many photos, he
also has documented which way the angles face on the sides.

Of the current offerings, the Atlas model has press steel ends and model
the earlier version of the AAR standard twin hopper built beginning in
the mid-1930s. The Athearn and Kadee model have widely spaced angle end
braces, which appeared later. The B&O and ACL and some other railroads
had angled ends, but spaced closer together. Of course the B&O hoppers
had Duryea underframes just to add another variation.

From the "technical drawing" of the new off-set side hopper from
Accurail, it appears to follow the AAR standard with an IL of 33'-0". We
don't know what end bracing they have used on the model. May be Dennis
will provide more details about this new model. Also in the tradition
of Accurail hopefully they will substitute different "sides" and produce
the AAR "alternate" off-set twin hopper as a future release.

Regards,

Bob Witt


devansprr
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, water.kresse@... wrote:

Not being a modeler . . .

I believe there were basically three types of "patented/licensed" ARA/AAR transitional end side-panels being used:

1) 1928 Enterprise and Wine designs

2) 1931 Kiesel design

Which model-style is defined as a long taper vs. short taper?

Long-taper = top panel break goes all the way to the corner post (1931 AAR Kiesel)?

Short-taper = top panel break goes to edge of the "ladder-flat" (1928 ARA licensed by Wine)?

The Enterprise design has more panel breaks.

Al Kresse
Based on Al's description, it sound like the Atlas, Kadee, and Athearn offset twins are the long-taper design, while the drawing on Accurail's site would suggest the "short-taper" design.

The RPI site does include some self-confessed confusion on how to describe the taper. The RPI on-line photographs show all three of Al's configurations. It could be that Accurail may be providing the short-taper model not available previously, but only an exam of the model will provide confirmation. The drawing provided would rule out the Enterprise design that Al describes above.

Does this make sense?

Dave Evans


Ed Hawkins
 

On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:14 PM, devansprr wrote:

Outside of the taper, and the number of ribs, it seems like the
various prototype cars had few spotting differences outside of safety
appliances? (and the obvious peak vs flat ends) Can someone educate
me?
Dave,
When looking at the various 50-ton AAR hopper cars that were built, one
of the key features I look at to distinguish one version from another
is the shape of the side sills. The earliest version (used from 1934 to
1949) had side sills that angled upward from the bolsters to the
corners and were straight between the bolsters. A later version (used
from 1940-1960) had side sills that were level with the track from the
bolsters to the corners and had a shallow fish-belly between the
bolsters. Note there's a 10-year overlap from 1940-1949 where new cars
could have either version. By the way, the same side sill variations
were present on 70-ton AAR offset-side hoppers.

The Atlas model has side sills representing the early version while the
Athearn and Kadee models have side sills representing the later
version. The image of the model on the Accurail web site shows a side
sill of the early version.

Then, of course, there are the differences in how the side sheets
nearest the ends were formed as well as a variety of different end
arrangements. The combinations of all of these variations are
practically endless, not to mention other more subtle differences and
specialty items.

Some ends with flat tops used angles extending from the top of the end
to the end sills, others used channels extending from the bottom of the
end sheets to the end sills, and some used closely spaced Z-sections.
Further variations include ends having extensions (i.e., peaked
ends/heap shields) of various shapes. All of these combinations add to
the complexity and cost of tooling.

It's my understanding that Accurail is using the same end configuration
for their 50-ton model as they used on their 70-ton model. It
represents (poorly in my opinion) an end arrangement having Z-section
vertical supports that are closely spaced near the middle. The
Z-sections on the model aren't Z-sections, and instead are rectangular
cross sections, because otherwise the body could not be ejected from
the mold. Unfortunately, combining this end with the side arrangement
creates a very rare prototype 50-ton AAR hopper car.

There are other end arrangements that would be a better choice for more
road names. It comes down to the tooling cost involved with making
other variants. Since Accurail already had the end tooled from their
70-ton model, they chose economy by reusing the end despite the
relative rarity of the car that will be offered. Depending on sales
once the models are released, perhaps Accurail might be open to
offering other end variations that were more commonly found on
prototype 50-ton AAR Standard hopper cars.

My intent is NOT to hurt Accurail sales, but rather to help educate
consumers in making an informed decision on what they buy. To that end
I will be happy to assist any manufacturer interested in producing
accurate models of AAR hopper cars.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Dennis Storzek
 

Well, glad someone finally noticed we are releasing a twin hopper.

The prototype is basically the AAR standard car as illustrated in the 1940 Car Builder's Cyclopedia, although we actually used several P-S drawings from the Pullman Library of the Illinois Railway Museum for data. This car has a 33'-0" IL. One difference is the Z bar end posts as opposed to the pressed channel sections only below the slope sheet. The car does have the angled end sections on the side sills, as Ed Hawkins mentioned, same as our 70 ton triple hopper. In fact, the entire end of the car as far in as the bolsters is the same as the 70 ton car, because as Ed surmised, we are re-using the cavity inserts from the 70 ton car tooling. We are also using the same detail parts: brake equipment, rugged sill steps, slope sheet braces, and hopper doors that are used in that kit.

All this short / long taper stuff is getting confusing, because most offset cars have a taper from the bolster to the corner post, no matter how they look from the side. Ed worked out what I think is a better terminology in his article in RP Cyc No.1; AAR Standard, Alternate Standard, and non-standard offset twin hoppers. What we are doing follows the AAR standard design. The end panels taper from the bolster to the corner post, but the line where this taper meets the inward slope of the top of the side sheet terminates about 18" from the corner; because of this the top chord of the sides have a bend at that point, giving the car somewhat of a bowl shape in plan view. The Alt. Standard cars have a completely straight top chord, and therefore the line where the two angles meet runs all the way to the corner, and this line is not parallel to the slope sheet. These cars also use hat section stakes, so the rivet pattern differes from the AAR Standard car. I was willing to tool the new inserts to model the hat section stakes, until I realized that this always goes along with the "long" taper line on the end panel; since the budget was based on using the existing tooling parts, I abandoned that idea and did the standard car. What Ed calls "non-standard" cars typically have a double bend offset in the last panel, and again have a straight top chord, I think. I don't actually have any fabrication drawings for a car of this type, so haven't actually studied the geometry.

This is one problem with thinking that one can just change the end panels of the side to produce the different versions. When one actually looks at the situation in 3-D, one finds that the shape of that end panel also affects the shape of both the inside of the car and the area under the slope sheet, and necessitates re-doing a lot more of the tool than is at first evident. This is not a case where modular design is going to be effective. Maybe someone will tool one of these minor variations someday, but the lure of thirty-some roadnames on nearly identical cars is hard to resist. We'll leave those versions for companies that like to do $42 cars. Our kits will be one third that price.

The tooling is complete and we had test shots and a built up kit at the show in Milwaukee. At Accurail test shots are done to check cavity finish and venting issues, not to see if the geometry was correct so we can build it right the second time. The tool is presently back together and waiting it's turn after the parts for the new autorack with side panels to finish molding, and they should start showing up in the shops before Christmas.

Now to tool a coal load, since the load we do to fit Athearn cars is too wide.

Dennis Storzek
Accurail, Inc.


Schuyler Larrabee
 

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/dlw82243adb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie24000bdb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie25500adb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie26729adb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie27708adb.jpg

OK, so my bias shows in these selections. But this is the shape of the side sills that Ed is
talking about here. I am looking forward to this kit, though Ed's comments about the reuse of the
50-ton end is disappointing. If Accurail is going to do a new model, I'd like to see the ENTIRE
model done new.

Modelers of at least most if not all the roads listed on Accurail's page have been waiting for these
models for a long time. And since I had some trouble figuring out what people were talking about
(OK, I'm dense at times . . .), this is their page:

http://www.accurail.com/accurail/7700.htm

SGL

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ed Hawkins
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:29 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: New Accurail Offset twin hopper




On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:14 PM, devansprr wrote:

Outside of the taper, and the number of ribs, it seems like the
various prototype cars had few spotting differences outside of safety
appliances? (and the obvious peak vs flat ends) Can someone educate
me?
Dave,
When looking at the various 50-ton AAR hopper cars that were built, one
of the key features I look at to distinguish one version from another
is the shape of the side sills. The earliest version (used from 1934 to
1949) had side sills that angled upward from the bolsters to the
corners and were straight between the bolsters. A later version (used
from 1940-1960) had side sills that were level with the track from the
bolsters to the corners and had a shallow fish-belly between the
bolsters. Note there's a 10-year overlap from 1940-1949 where new cars
could have either version. By the way, the same side sill variations
were present on 70-ton AAR offset-side hoppers.

The Atlas model has side sills representing the early version while the
Athearn and Kadee models have side sills representing the later
version. The image of the model on the Accurail web site shows a side
sill of the early version.

Then, of course, there are the differences in how the side sheets
nearest the ends were formed as well as a variety of different end
arrangements. The combinations of all of these variations are
practically endless, not to mention other more subtle differences and
specialty items.

Some ends with flat tops used angles extending from the top of the end
to the end sills, others used channels extending from the bottom of the
end sheets to the end sills, and some used closely spaced Z-sections.
Further variations include ends having extensions (i.e., peaked
ends/heap shields) of various shapes. All of these combinations add to
the complexity and cost of tooling.

It's my understanding that Accurail is using the same end configuration
for their 50-ton model as they used on their 70-ton model. It
represents (poorly in my opinion) an end arrangement having Z-section
vertical supports that are closely spaced near the middle. The
Z-sections on the model aren't Z-sections, and instead are rectangular
cross sections, because otherwise the body could not be ejected from
the mold. Unfortunately, combining this end with the side arrangement
creates a very rare prototype 50-ton AAR hopper car.

There are other end arrangements that would be a better choice for more
road names. It comes down to the tooling cost involved with making
other variants. Since Accurail already had the end tooled from their
70-ton model, they chose economy by reusing the end despite the
relative rarity of the car that will be offered. Depending on sales
once the models are released, perhaps Accurail might be open to
offering other end variations that were more commonly found on
prototype 50-ton AAR Standard hopper cars.

My intent is NOT to hurt Accurail sales, but rather to help educate
consumers in making an informed decision on what they buy. To that end
I will be happy to assist any manufacturer interested in producing
accurate models of AAR hopper cars.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins










E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.508)
Database version: 6.13730
http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
<http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/>






E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.508)
Database version: 6.13730
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/


Tim O'Connor
 

Schuyler those are all photos of alternate standard design
hoppers. None of the 4 plastic models (including Accurail's)
represents your Erie cars.

I don't think anyone has been waiting for a new AAR standard
twin..

Tim O'Connor

At 11/18/2009 09:32 PM Wednesday, you wrote:
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/dlw82243adb.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie24000bdb.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie25500adb.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie26729adb.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie27708adb.jpg

Modelers of at least most if not all the roads listed on Accurail's page have been waiting for these
models for a long time. And since I had some trouble figuring out what people were talking about
(OK, I'm dense at times . . .), this is their page:

http://www.accurail.com/accurail/7700.htm

SGL


Schuyler Larrabee
 

I see the error, after focusing on the side sill.

Thanks, Tim, for pointing that out. But I can tell you that there are people waiting for an
Alternate Standard with the sloping side sills.

SGL

Schuyler those are all photos of alternate standard design
hoppers. None of the 4 plastic models (including Accurail's)
represents your Erie cars.

I don't think anyone has been waiting for a new AAR standard
twin..

Tim O'Connor

At 11/18/2009 09:32 PM Wednesday, you wrote:
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/dlw82243adb.jpg
<http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/dlw82243adb.jpg>
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie24000bdb.jpg
<http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie24000bdb.jpg>
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie25500adb.jpg
<http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie25500adb.jpg>
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie26729adb.jpg
<http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie26729adb.jpg>
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie27708adb.jpg
<http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie27708adb.jpg>

Modelers of at least most if not all the roads listed on Accurail's page have been waiting for
these
models for a long time. And since I had some trouble figuring out what people were talking about
(OK, I'm dense at times . . .), this is their page:

http://www.accurail.com/accurail/7700.htm <http://www.accurail.com/accurail/7700.htm>

SGL







E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.508)
Database version: 6.13730
http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
<http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/>






E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.508)
Database version: 6.13730
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/


Andrew Miller <aslmmiller@...>
 

Schuyler,

The most noticable difference (to me) between the Erie cars and the Accurail is the double row of rivits with a reenforcing plate on the end and center ribs on the Erie cars. The Accurail cars show only a single rivit line. Admittedly ony an artists rendition of the car. But I beleive this is one of the differences between the AAR std and the AAR alternate design.

regards,

Andy Miller

----- Original Message -----
From: Schuyler Larrabee
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:32 PM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: New Accurail Offset twin hopper



http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/dlw82243adb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie24000bdb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie25500adb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie26729adb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie27708adb.jpg

OK, so my bias shows in these selections. But this is the shape of the side sills that Ed is
talking about here. I am looking forward to this kit, though Ed's comments about the reuse of the
50-ton end is disappointing. If Accurail is going to do a new model, I'd like to see the ENTIRE
model done new.

Modelers of at least most if not all the roads listed on Accurail's page have been waiting for these
models for a long time. And since I had some trouble figuring out what people were talking about
(OK, I'm dense at times . . .), this is their page:

http://www.accurail.com/accurail/7700.htm

SGL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ed Hawkins
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:29 PM
> To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: New Accurail Offset twin hopper
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:14 PM, devansprr wrote:
>
> > Outside of the taper, and the number of ribs, it seems like the
> > various prototype cars had few spotting differences outside of safety
> > appliances? (and the obvious peak vs flat ends) Can someone educate
> > me?
> >
>
> Dave,
> When looking at the various 50-ton AAR hopper cars that were built, one
> of the key features I look at to distinguish one version from another
> is the shape of the side sills. The earliest version (used from 1934 to
> 1949) had side sills that angled upward from the bolsters to the
> corners and were straight between the bolsters. A later version (used
> from 1940-1960) had side sills that were level with the track from the
> bolsters to the corners and had a shallow fish-belly between the
> bolsters. Note there's a 10-year overlap from 1940-1949 where new cars
> could have either version. By the way, the same side sill variations
> were present on 70-ton AAR offset-side hoppers.
>
> The Atlas model has side sills representing the early version while the
> Athearn and Kadee models have side sills representing the later
> version. The image of the model on the Accurail web site shows a side
> sill of the early version.
>
> Then, of course, there are the differences in how the side sheets
> nearest the ends were formed as well as a variety of different end
> arrangements. The combinations of all of these variations are
> practically endless, not to mention other more subtle differences and
> specialty items.
>
> Some ends with flat tops used angles extending from the top of the end
> to the end sills, others used channels extending from the bottom of the
> end sheets to the end sills, and some used closely spaced Z-sections.
> Further variations include ends having extensions (i.e., peaked
> ends/heap shields) of various shapes. All of these combinations add to
> the complexity and cost of tooling.
>
> It's my understanding that Accurail is using the same end configuration
> for their 50-ton model as they used on their 70-ton model. It
> represents (poorly in my opinion) an end arrangement having Z-section
> vertical supports that are closely spaced near the middle. The
> Z-sections on the model aren't Z-sections, and instead are rectangular
> cross sections, because otherwise the body could not be ejected from
> the mold. Unfortunately, combining this end with the side arrangement
> creates a very rare prototype 50-ton AAR hopper car.
>
> There are other end arrangements that would be a better choice for more
> road names. It comes down to the tooling cost involved with making
> other variants. Since Accurail already had the end tooled from their
> 70-ton model, they chose economy by reusing the end despite the
> relative rarity of the car that will be offered. Depending on sales
> once the models are released, perhaps Accurail might be open to
> offering other end variations that were more commonly found on
> prototype 50-ton AAR Standard hopper cars.
>
> My intent is NOT to hurt Accurail sales, but rather to help educate
> consumers in making an informed decision on what they buy. To that end
> I will be happy to assist any manufacturer interested in producing
> accurate models of AAR hopper cars.
> Regards,
> Ed Hawkins
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.508)
> Database version: 6.13730
> http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
<http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/>

E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.508)
Database version: 6.13730
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Andy Miller wrote:
The most noticable difference (to me) between the Erie cars and the Accurail is the double row of rivits with a reenforcing plate on the end and center ribs on the Erie cars. The Accurail cars show only a single rivit line. Admittedly ony an artists rendition of the car. But I beleive this is one of the differences between the AAR std and the AAR alternate design.
So is this a job for Archer rivets? <g>

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest 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


Tim O'Connor
 

Andy

The quickest spotting feature is the 'gusset' ribs along the
top chord. The AAR standard cars use a simple L shaped angle,
while the alt standard cars use a hat section rib. And as you
point out, the reinforced vertical rivet seams are the other
major spotting feature.

Sunshine actually made a mini-kit for the alt std car. You are
supposed to file the sides of the Atlas (or Athearn?) car smooth
(no detail of any kind including gussets) and then you apply a
thin resin overlay on the side. I haven't tried it yet so I do
not know how successful it will be.

Tim O'Connor

Schuyler,

The most noticable difference (to me) between the Erie cars and the Accurail is the double row of rivits with a reenforcing plate on the end and center ribs on the Erie cars. The Accurail cars show only a single rivit line. Admittedly ony an artists rendition of the car. But I beleive this is one of the differences between the AAR std and the AAR alternate design.

regards,

Andy Miller

----- Original Message -----
From: Schuyler Larrabee
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:32 PM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: New Accurail Offset twin hopper



http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/dlw82243adb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie24000bdb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie25500adb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie26729adb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie27708adb.jpg

OK, so my bias shows in these selections. But this is the shape of the side sills that Ed is
talking about here. I am looking forward to this kit, though Ed's comments about the reuse of the
50-ton end is disappointing. If Accurail is going to do a new model, I'd like to see the ENTIRE
model done new.

Modelers of at least most if not all the roads listed on Accurail's page have been waiting for these
models for a long time. And since I had some trouble figuring out what people were talking about
(OK, I'm dense at times . . .), this is their page:

http://www.accurail.com/accurail/7700.htm

SGL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ed Hawkins
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:29 PM
> To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: New Accurail Offset twin hopper
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:14 PM, devansprr wrote:
>
> > Outside of the taper, and the number of ribs, it seems like the
> > various prototype cars had few spotting differences outside of safety
> > appliances? (and the obvious peak vs flat ends) Can someone educate
> > me?
> >
>
> Dave,
> When looking at the various 50-ton AAR hopper cars that were built, one
> of the key features I look at to distinguish one version from another
> is the shape of the side sills. The earliest version (used from 1934 to
> 1949) had side sills that angled upward from the bolsters to the
> corners and were straight between the bolsters. A later version (used
> from 1940-1960) had side sills that were level with the track from the
> bolsters to the corners and had a shallow fish-belly between the
> bolsters. Note there's a 10-year overlap from 1940-1949 where new cars
> could have either version. By the way, the same side sill variations
> were present on 70-ton AAR offset-side hoppers.
>
> The Atlas model has side sills representing the early version while the
> Athearn and Kadee models have side sills representing the later
> version. The image of the model on the Accurail web site shows a side
> sill of the early version.
>
> Then, of course, there are the differences in how the side sheets
> nearest the ends were formed as well as a variety of different end
> arrangements. The combinations of all of these variations are
> practically endless, not to mention other more subtle differences and
> specialty items.
>
> Some ends with flat tops used angles extending from the top of the end
> to the end sills, others used channels extending from the bottom of the
> end sheets to the end sills, and some used closely spaced Z-sections.
> Further variations include ends having extensions (i.e., peaked
> ends/heap shields) of various shapes. All of these combinations add to
> the complexity and cost of tooling.
>
> It's my understanding that Accurail is using the same end configuration
> for their 50-ton model as they used on their 70-ton model. It
> represents (poorly in my opinion) an end arrangement having Z-section
> vertical supports that are closely spaced near the middle. The
> Z-sections on the model aren't Z-sections, and instead are rectangular
> cross sections, because otherwise the body could not be ejected from
> the mold. Unfortunately, combining this end with the side arrangement
> creates a very rare prototype 50-ton AAR hopper car.
>
> There are other end arrangements that would be a better choice for more
> road names. It comes down to the tooling cost involved with making
> other variants. Since Accurail already had the end tooled from their
> 70-ton model, they chose economy by reusing the end despite the
> relative rarity of the car that will be offered. Depending on sales
> once the models are released, perhaps Accurail might be open to
> offering other end variations that were more commonly found on
> prototype 50-ton AAR Standard hopper cars.
>
> My intent is NOT to hurt Accurail sales, but rather to help educate
> consumers in making an informed decision on what they buy. To that end
> I will be happy to assist any manufacturer interested in producing
> accurate models of AAR hopper cars.
> Regards,
> Ed Hawkins


rdgbuff56
 

I believe it might have been Stafford Swain who had an article how to modify the side sill on similar Canadian triple hoppers. A little work, a lot cheaper with an already produced car. In other words, rehash.

Francis A. Pehowic, Jr. in Sunbury, Pa.


________________________________
From: Schuyler Larrabee <schuyler.larrabee@verizon.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, November 18, 2009 9:32:50 PM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: New Accurail Offset twin hopper


http://www.rr- fallenflags. org/el/frt/ dlw82243adb. jpg

http://www.rr- fallenflags. org/el/frt/ erie24000bdb. jpg

http://www.rr- fallenflags. org/el/frt/ erie25500adb. jpg

http://www.rr- fallenflags. org/el/frt/ erie26729adb. jpg

http://www.rr- fallenflags. org/el/frt/ erie27708adb. jpg

OK, so my bias shows in these selections. But this is the shape of the side sills that Ed is
talking about here. I am looking forward to this kit, though Ed's comments about the reuse of the
50-ton end is disappointing. If Accurail is going to do a new model, I'd like to see the ENTIRE
model done new.

Modelers of at least most if not all the roads listed on Accurail's page have been waiting for these
models for a long time. And since I had some trouble figuring out what people were talking about
(OK, I'm dense at times . . .), this is their page:

http://www.accurail.com/accurail/7700.htm

SGL

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups. com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Ed Hawkins
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:29 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: New Accurail Offset twin hopper




On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:14 PM, devansprr wrote:

Outside of the taper, and the number of ribs, it seems like the
various prototype cars had few spotting differences outside of safety
appliances? (and the obvious peak vs flat ends) Can someone educate
me?
Dave,
When looking at the various 50-ton AAR hopper cars that were built, one
of the key features I look at to distinguish one version from another
is the shape of the side sills. The earliest version (used from 1934 to
1949) had side sills that angled upward from the bolsters to the
corners and were straight between the bolsters. A later version (used
from 1940-1960) had side sills that were level with the track from the
bolsters to the corners and had a shallow fish-belly between the
bolsters. Note there's a 10-year overlap from 1940-1949 where new cars
could have either version. By the way, the same side sill variations
were present on 70-ton AAR offset-side hoppers.

The Atlas model has side sills representing the early version while the
Athearn and Kadee models have side sills representing the later
version. The image of the model on the Accurail web site shows a side
sill of the early version.

Then, of course, there are the differences in how the side sheets
nearest the ends were formed as well as a variety of different end
arrangements. The combinations of all of these variations are
practically endless, not to mention other more subtle differences and
specialty items.

Some ends with flat tops used angles extending from the top of the end
to the end sills, others used channels extending from the bottom of the
end sheets to the end sills, and some used closely spaced Z-sections.
Further variations include ends having extensions (i..e., peaked
ends/heap shields) of various shapes. All of these combinations add to
the complexity and cost of tooling.

It's my understanding that Accurail is using the same end configuration
for their 50-ton model as they used on their 70-ton model. It
represents (poorly in my opinion) an end arrangement having Z-section
vertical supports that are closely spaced near the middle. The
Z-sections on the model aren't Z-sections, and instead are rectangular
cross sections, because otherwise the body could not be ejected from
the mold. Unfortunately, combining this end with the side arrangement
creates a very rare prototype 50-ton AAR hopper car.

There are other end arrangements that would be a better choice for more
road names. It comes down to the tooling cost involved with making
other variants. Since Accurail already had the end tooled from their
70-ton model, they chose economy by reusing the end despite the
relative rarity of the car that will be offered. Depending on sales
once the models are released, perhaps Accurail might be open to
offering other end variations that were more commonly found on
prototype 50-ton AAR Standard hopper cars.

My intent is NOT to hurt Accurail sales, but rather to help educate
consumers in making an informed decision on what they buy. To that end
I will be happy to assist any manufacturer interested in producing
accurate models of AAR hopper cars.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins

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








E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.508)
Database version: 6.13730
http://www.pctools. com/spyware- doctor-antivirus /
<http://www.pctools. com/en/spyware- doctor-antivirus />

E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.508)
Database version: 6.13730
http://www.pctools. com/en/spyware- doctor-antivirus /


Reply to sender | Reply to group Messages in this topic (12)
Recent Activity: * New Members 1 * New Photos 5 * New Files 5
Visit Your Group Start a New Topic
MARKETPLACE
Mom Power: Discover the community of moms doing more for their families, for the world and for each other

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.

__,_.._,___




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


Rob & Bev Manley
 

Tim,
I used an Atlas car and it is very sucessful.
Sincerely,
Rob Manley

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim O'Connor
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:50 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: New Accurail Offset twin hopper



Andy

The quickest spotting feature is the 'gusset' ribs along the
top chord. The AAR standard cars use a simple L shaped angle,
while the alt standard cars use a hat section rib. And as you
point out, the reinforced vertical rivet seams are the other
major spotting feature.

Sunshine actually made a mini-kit for the alt std car. You are
supposed to file the sides of the Atlas (or Athearn?) car smooth
(no detail of any kind including gussets) and then you apply a
thin resin overlay on the side. I haven't tried it yet so I do
not know how successful it will be.

Tim O'Connor

>Schuyler,
>
>The most noticable difference (to me) between the Erie cars and the Accurail is the double row of rivits with a reenforcing plate on the end and center ribs on the Erie cars. The Accurail cars show only a single rivit line. Admittedly ony an artists rendition of the car. But I beleive this is one of the differences between the AAR std and the AAR alternate design.
>
>regards,
>
>Andy Miller
>
>----- Original Message -----
> From: Schuyler Larrabee
> To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:32 PM
> Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: New Accurail Offset twin hopper
>
>
>
> http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/dlw82243adb.jpg
>
> http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie24000bdb.jpg
>
> http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie25500adb.jpg
>
> http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie26729adb.jpg
>
> http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie27708adb.jpg
>
> OK, so my bias shows in these selections. But this is the shape of the side sills that Ed is
> talking about here. I am looking forward to this kit, though Ed's comments about the reuse of the
> 50-ton end is disappointing. If Accurail is going to do a new model, I'd like to see the ENTIRE
> model done new.
>
> Modelers of at least most if not all the roads listed on Accurail's page have been waiting for these
> models for a long time. And since I had some trouble figuring out what people were talking about
> (OK, I'm dense at times . . .), this is their page:
>
> http://www.accurail.com/accurail/7700.htm
>
> SGL
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ed Hawkins
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:29 PM
> > To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: New Accurail Offset twin hopper
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:14 PM, devansprr wrote:
> >
> > > Outside of the taper, and the number of ribs, it seems like the
> > > various prototype cars had few spotting differences outside of safety
> > > appliances? (and the obvious peak vs flat ends) Can someone educate
> > > me?
> > >
> >
> > Dave,
> > When looking at the various 50-ton AAR hopper cars that were built, one
> > of the key features I look at to distinguish one version from another
> > is the shape of the side sills. The earliest version (used from 1934 to
> > 1949) had side sills that angled upward from the bolsters to the
> > corners and were straight between the bolsters. A later version (used
> > from 1940-1960) had side sills that were level with the track from the
> > bolsters to the corners and had a shallow fish-belly between the
> > bolsters. Note there's a 10-year overlap from 1940-1949 where new cars
> > could have either version. By the way, the same side sill variations
> > were present on 70-ton AAR offset-side hoppers.
> >
> > The Atlas model has side sills representing the early version while the
> > Athearn and Kadee models have side sills representing the later
> > version. The image of the model on the Accurail web site shows a side
> > sill of the early version.
> >
> > Then, of course, there are the differences in how the side sheets
> > nearest the ends were formed as well as a variety of different end
> > arrangements. The combinations of all of these variations are
> > practically endless, not to mention other more subtle differences and
> > specialty items.
> >
> > Some ends with flat tops used angles extending from the top of the end
> > to the end sills, others used channels extending from the bottom of the
> > end sheets to the end sills, and some used closely spaced Z-sections.
> > Further variations include ends having extensions (i.e., peaked
> > ends/heap shields) of various shapes. All of these combinations add to
> > the complexity and cost of tooling.
> >
> > It's my understanding that Accurail is using the same end configuration
> > for their 50-ton model as they used on their 70-ton model. It
> > represents (poorly in my opinion) an end arrangement having Z-section
> > vertical supports that are closely spaced near the middle. The
> > Z-sections on the model aren't Z-sections, and instead are rectangular
> > cross sections, because otherwise the body could not be ejected from
> > the mold. Unfortunately, combining this end with the side arrangement
> > creates a very rare prototype 50-ton AAR hopper car.
> >
> > There are other end arrangements that would be a better choice for more
> > road names. It comes down to the tooling cost involved with making
> > other variants. Since Accurail already had the end tooled from their
> > 70-ton model, they chose economy by reusing the end despite the
> > relative rarity of the car that will be offered. Depending on sales
> > once the models are released, perhaps Accurail might be open to
> > offering other end variations that were more commonly found on
> > prototype 50-ton AAR Standard hopper cars.
> >
> > My intent is NOT to hurt Accurail sales, but rather to help educate
> > consumers in making an informed decision on what they buy. To that end
> > I will be happy to assist any manufacturer interested in producing
> > accurate models of AAR hopper cars.
> > Regards,
> > Ed Hawkins


Bill Darnaby
 

I have done several of the Sunshine alt-std conversions and it works very well. The overlay casting is quite thin and lays done nicely after filing and scraping the original side detail off. Although it is intended for the Atlas car I have also used it for the Athearn car to get different end configurations. It's only drawback is that once you go through the trouble of the new sides, you feel compelled to replace the cast on grabs, install the slope sheet braces (included) and brake lever (also included). That is where the real work is.

Bill Darnaby

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim O'Connor" <timboconnor@comcast.net>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:50 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: New Accurail Offset twin hopper


Sunshine actually made a mini-kit for the alt std car. You are
supposed to file the sides of the Atlas (or Athearn?) car smooth
(no detail of any kind including gussets) and then you apply a
thin resin overlay on the side. I haven't tried it yet so I do
not know how successful it will be.

Tim O'Connor


David Sieber
 

Gentlemen,

I find that the most obvious spotting feature of the AAR Alternate Standard twin offset hopper is the distinctly uneven spacing of the hat-section vertical stakes and associated single rivet lines between major double-riveted reinforcements at the ends and the center of the side. That is the car that those who model the C&O, Erie, NP, et al, have been waiting for these many years. Instead, Athearn, Train Miniature (don't forget them), Atlas, Kadee, and now Accurail keep producing yet another Standard hopper with evenly spaced L-stakes and single-riveted reinforcements - albeit with varied ends, sidesills, top chords, and sidestake angle and reinforcement orientations.

The Sunshine Mini-Kit for Alternate Standard sides yields a good-looking car from the Atlas hopper it's designed to modify. However, it involves a bit too much work per car for readily modeling the C&O or other major coal hopper fleet, albeit not too bad for a Pacific Northwest modeler who wants a few NP coal hoppers. Admittedly, it's a lot less work than trying to section an Athearn quad hopper to model a very nonstandard GN 73200-73699 twin offset side hopper, the GN's largest hopper purchase in 1931 from Standard Car Co. Accurail thankfully did give us the GN's Canton Car Co. twin hoppers.

Regards,
Dave Sieber
Reno NV

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

Andy

The quickest spotting feature is the 'gusset' ribs along the
top chord. The AAR standard cars use a simple L shaped angle,
while the alt standard cars use a hat section rib. And as you
point out, the reinforced vertical rivet seams are the other
major spotting feature.

Sunshine actually made a mini-kit for the alt std car. You are
supposed to file the sides of the Atlas (or Athearn?) car smooth
(no detail of any kind including gussets) and then you apply a
thin resin overlay on the side. I haven't tried it yet so I do
not know how successful it will be.

Tim O'Connor



Schuyler,

The most noticable difference (to me) between the Erie cars and the Accurail is the double row of rivits with a reenforcing plate on the end and center ribs on the Erie cars. The Accurail cars show only a single rivit line. Admittedly ony an artists rendition of the car. But I beleive this is one of the differences between the AAR std and the AAR alternate design.

regards,

Andy Miller

----- Original Message -----
From: Schuyler Larrabee
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:32 PM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: New Accurail Offset twin hopper



http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/dlw82243adb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie24000bdb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie25500adb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie26729adb.jpg

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/frt/erie27708adb.jpg

OK, so my bias shows in these selections. But this is the shape of the side sills that Ed is
talking about here. I am looking forward to this kit, though Ed's comments about the reuse of the
50-ton end is disappointing. If Accurail is going to do a new model, I'd like to see the ENTIRE
model done new.

Modelers of at least most if not all the roads listed on Accurail's page have been waiting for these
models for a long time. And since I had some trouble figuring out what people were talking about
(OK, I'm dense at times . . .), this is their page:

http://www.accurail.com/accurail/7700.htm

SGL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ed Hawkins
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:29 PM
> To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: New Accurail Offset twin hopper
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:14 PM, devansprr wrote:
>
> > Outside of the taper, and the number of ribs, it seems like the
> > various prototype cars had few spotting differences outside of safety
> > appliances? (and the obvious peak vs flat ends) Can someone educate
> > me?
> >
>
> Dave,
> When looking at the various 50-ton AAR hopper cars that were built, one
> of the key features I look at to distinguish one version from another
> is the shape of the side sills. The earliest version (used from 1934 to
> 1949) had side sills that angled upward from the bolsters to the
> corners and were straight between the bolsters. A later version (used
> from 1940-1960) had side sills that were level with the track from the
> bolsters to the corners and had a shallow fish-belly between the
> bolsters. Note there's a 10-year overlap from 1940-1949 where new cars
> could have either version. By the way, the same side sill variations
> were present on 70-ton AAR offset-side hoppers.
>
> The Atlas model has side sills representing the early version while the
> Athearn and Kadee models have side sills representing the later
> version. The image of the model on the Accurail web site shows a side
> sill of the early version.
>
> Then, of course, there are the differences in how the side sheets
> nearest the ends were formed as well as a variety of different end
> arrangements. The combinations of all of these variations are
> practically endless, not to mention other more subtle differences and
> specialty items.
>
> Some ends with flat tops used angles extending from the top of the end
> to the end sills, others used channels extending from the bottom of the
> end sheets to the end sills, and some used closely spaced Z-sections.
> Further variations include ends having extensions (i.e., peaked
> ends/heap shields) of various shapes. All of these combinations add to
> the complexity and cost of tooling.
>
> It's my understanding that Accurail is using the same end configuration
> for their 50-ton model as they used on their 70-ton model. It
> represents (poorly in my opinion) an end arrangement having Z-section
> vertical supports that are closely spaced near the middle. The
> Z-sections on the model aren't Z-sections, and instead are rectangular
> cross sections, because otherwise the body could not be ejected from
> the mold. Unfortunately, combining this end with the side arrangement
> creates a very rare prototype 50-ton AAR hopper car.
>
> There are other end arrangements that would be a better choice for more
> road names. It comes down to the tooling cost involved with making
> other variants. Since Accurail already had the end tooled from their
> 70-ton model, they chose economy by reusing the end despite the
> relative rarity of the car that will be offered. Depending on sales
> once the models are released, perhaps Accurail might be open to
> offering other end variations that were more commonly found on
> prototype 50-ton AAR Standard hopper cars.
>
> My intent is NOT to hurt Accurail sales, but rather to help educate
> consumers in making an informed decision on what they buy. To that end
> I will be happy to assist any manufacturer interested in producing
> accurate models of AAR hopper cars.
> Regards,
> Ed Hawkins