Date
1 - 20 of 34
Atlas 1932 boxcar...
|
Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
A quick question---which versions of this car are actually correct for which roads? I get the impression that this model is accurate for very few roads.
Thanks in advance, Steve Lucas.
|
|
|
|
Todd Horton
The Central of Georgia cars did not have poling pockets as the model does. The
tack boards also appear to be slightly larger on the model than the prototype. Todd Horton ________________________________ From: Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...> To: STMFC@... Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 6:44:16 PM Subject: [STMFC] Atlas 1932 boxcar... A quick question---which versions of this car are actually correct for which roads? I get the impression that this model is accurate for very few roads. Thanks in advance, Steve Lucas. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
|
|
soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
--- In STMFC@..., "Steve Lucas" <stevelucas3@...> wrote:
As far as I can tell, all the AAR roofs suffer from the same deficiency; the raised panel runs all the way to the edge, so that knocks all those out of the box for me. Dennis
|
|
|
|
jerryglow2
A friend and I came up with this list:
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
• Body Style 1 Features: "Long tab" body, Murphy Panel roof, 4/4 Dreadnaught ends (this is the "standard" design) MP, MEC, CofG, CLINCHFIELD, WM (Duryea underframes), BAR, D&H, I-GN, MI (???) • Body Style 2 Features: "Long tab" body, 11 panel flat riveted roof, flat, riveted ends - SAL, L&A, NC&StL, • Body Style 3 Features: "Short tab" body, Hutchins radial, 4/4 Dreadnaught ends - C&O, CP, NKP • Body Style 4 Features: "Short tab" body, Viking corrugated roof, Buckeye ends - ERIE • Body Style 5 Features: "Long tab" body, 11 panel flat riveted roof, 4/4 Dreadnaught ends - SOO • Body Style 6 Features: "Long tab" body, Viking corrugated roof, 4/4 Dreadnaught ends - NS • Body Style 7 Features: "Long tab" body, Murphy panel roof, Flat riveted ends We couldn't find any of these; maybe they just threw this together. Notes: Missing: CGW Flat panel roof, odd three panel doors from Pullman. Of course there will still be minor detail compromises but remember, this is the car the naysayers said would never be done in injection plastic. BTW, I have decals for the Erie in both small and large diamond as these flew off the shelves before I knew of them. Jerry Glow http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/decals/
--- In STMFC@..., "Steve Lucas" <stevelucas3@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Eric Hansmann
I've been checking the Atlas production against details in Ted Culotta's book on these box cars as well as the PDF on the Steam Freight Cars site. Check the link marked as "1932 ARA Box Car List, as built, compiled by Ed Hawkins (Adobe Acrobat .pdf file)" on this page:
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
http://www.steamfreightcars.com/prototype/frtcars/protofrtcarsmain.html It is noted that the BAR and SOO cars had a slightly different interior width as compared to the standard. The BAR cars also sported 4/5 dreadnaught ends. A batch of CP 1932 cars seems to be the only other produced with these ends. As for the Atlas models, from what I have observed they have stuck with the square corner posts on all versions. I was most surprised to see the ERIE cars as they were the only ones with a combination of Buckeye ends and Viking roof. The underframes lack depth of detail and some brake component placement may not relect specific prototype practices. I had not realized the lack of the Murphy roof panel taper as Dennis has noted. Atlas seems to have followed proper prototype series numbering and lettering for each roadname that has been released. For instance, their upcoming WM cars are in the number series that matches the WM batch that has square corner posts. The other two WM batches of these cars had rounded corner posts. All WM cars had Duryea underframes, but I do not expect these underframes to be part of the upcoming releases. For the most part, many of us here would find some aspect to improve on these cars. But coming straight from a box, these are decent models and offer an opportunity for a modeler to add a nuance to their freight car fleet. Eric Eric Hansmann Chagrin Falls, Ohio Modeling the railroads of Newburgh, Ohio, circa 1926 http://designbuildop.hansmanns.org/
--- In STMFC@..., jerryglow@... wrote:
|
|
|
|
golden1014
Hi Steve,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
The Seaboard car, body style 2, is pretty well done. I think the factory paint is excellent. I have an Atlas car and three Sunshine cars and the Atlas model is better in many categories. I plan on buying a NS model when they come out. Like all models, however, the Atlas car has some problems. I think the biggest problem with the Atlas car is the door--I think it's awful. John Golden Bloomington, IN
--- In STMFC@..., "Steve Lucas" <stevelucas3@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Tony Higgins
I am building an undec Atlas car for SAL using John's article in SBCL Modeler as reference. I agree that the doors are funky, but like John, I could not find an acceptable substitute. I did replace the oversize tack board with a spare Sunshine one.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
One issue I handled differently was the coupler mounting: John recommends grinding off the whole coupler box but I think this is unwarranted since the inside dimensions are close enough to a Kadee coupler box except for the undersize diameter of the pivot boss. This creates imprecision in the coupler centering, so I drilled it off and replaced it with the top of a Kadee coupler box mounted upside down. One thing John did not mention and I'd like to know is how he got the nice black roof and BCR body since they are cast together. John, did you paint the black first and mask it for the BCR or vice-versa? Tony Higgins
--- In STMFC@..., "John" <golden1014@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
golden1014
Hi Tony,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Thanks for the message. I like your approach to the coupler box problem. I would probably build up more of the Atlas cars if it weren't for that and the doors, and--of course--finding the time to do the job. I painted my car with Scalecoat BC Red (#1) and masked off the black later. I'm not the world's most patient masker, so I just get it close and touch up any overspray later. I normally use regular masking tape, but I just me some of that Tamiya masking tape and I'm eager to try it out. John John Golden Bloomington, IN
--- In STMFC@..., "thiggins_rochester" <earthman92853@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
David Sieber
Eric, et al,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Regarding brake component placement as an easy aspect to improve upon, Atlas modeled the latest and most common layout of the major brake components, which F&C/Yankee Clipper termed "type 3" - brake cylinder roughly centered between the crossbearers, with the AB triple valve and reservoir one space over, between the crossbearer and next crosstie toward the A end of the car. This general arrangement was found on BAR, CG, CRR, D&H, MEC, MP(MI,I-GN), NS, NC&stL, SAL, SOO, and UP cars. The exact placement of the three major components and the locations of the live and dead levers varied somewhat between prototype cars (possibly by car manufacturer?), thus also may vary from the Atlas models though the main parts are generally in the right places for these roads. However, a number of 1932 standard cars had the "type 2" brake layout - brake cylinder, AB valve, and reservoir all between the crossbearer, those all appearing right under the door in a side view. This was the arrangement on CGW, C&O 7000-series, CP, ERIE and NKP cars. Again, exact placement of major components and brake levers may have varied slightly, though there wasn't much space for variation between the crossbearers. The five ARA test cars, later sold to the C&O (3 cars), NYC and PRR, are shown as having the "type 1" brake layout with the AB valve and reservoir between the crossbearers (under the door from the side) and the brake cylinder one space over, between the crossbearer and next crosstie toward the B end of the car. However, a photo of an ARA test car shows the original welded brake reservoir beyond the crosstie, to the left of the door, with all brake components located on the same (left) side of the car, so "type 1" may be the layout after the early welded reservoir was replaced with the later version. The above is based on the extensive Yankee Clipper(F&C) instructions; regretably, I couldn't verify it with Ted Culotta's excellent book on the 1932 boxcars since I still haven't found it among the many still-unpacked moving boxes in my garage ... BTW, while I agree that Atlas's door has its problems, I commend them for also tooling doors with Union-Duplex door fixtures as found on many of Mopac Lines cars. Also, Atlas tooled what Sunshine terms "narrow" lateral wood roofwalks, with the metal support straps completely under the laterals. However, many '32 cars had the "wide" laterals with the metal straps showing at the sides of the wood laterals and wide corner grab attached to those metal straps, as seen on IMWX, Red Caboose and InterMountain '37 standard boxcars. Hope this helps, Dave Sieber, Reno NV
--- In STMFC@..., "Eric" <eric@...> wrote:
"The underframes lack depth of detail and some brake component placement may not relect specific prototype practices ... For the most part, many of us here would find some aspect to improve on these cars."
|
|
|
|
John, I haven't seen the Atlas cars, but if the Sunshine doors are
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
accurate, why not just make copy castings of them for use on the Atlas model? Or is there a technical reason this doesn't work (like a dimensional issue)? Tim O'Connor
Thanks for the message. I like your approach to the coupler box problem. I would probably build up more of the Atlas cars if it weren't for that and the doors, and--of course--finding the time to do the job.
|
|
|
|
golden1014
Hi Tim,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I considered doing just that--copy-casting the Sunshine doors and using them on the Atlas model. However, I found that fixing a Sunshine door on the Atlas car would be taking a step backwards because the Sunshine details looked sloppy compared to the Atlas model. I was amazed. I don't recall there being a dimensional issue with the doors. It's heresy to complain about a Sunshine model among the faithful, but quite frankly the details on the Atlas model are very clear and sharp, even if not totally accurate, and they make some the details on the Sunshine car look "blobby". I found the same problem recently when finishing an ACL 1937 box car. Mont sent me some doors copied from a Sunshine kit to finish an ACL O-25, but they looked terrible against the Red Caboose carbody. I simply cut off the Union Duplex rollers and fixed them to the RC doors to get the door I wanted. I think Mont ended up doing the same thing. Incidentally I have not noted this detail disparity with Westerfield or Speedwitch products. John John Golden Bloomington, IN
--- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
James F. Brewer <jfbrewer@...>
I thought the Sunshine 1932 cars were created for Martin by F&C early on; is this correct? If so, this might possibly account for some of the issues.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Jim Brewer Glenwood MD
----- Original Message -----
From: "John" <golden1014@...> To: STMFC@... Sent: Friday, July 9, 2010 9:45:20 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [STMFC] Re: Atlas 1932 boxcar... Hi Tim, I considered doing just that--copy-casting the Sunshine doors and using them on the Atlas model. However, I found that fixing a Sunshine door on the Atlas car would be taking a step backwards because the Sunshine details looked sloppy compared to the Atlas model. I was amazed. I don't recall there being a dimensional issue with the doors. It's heresy to complain about a Sunshine model among the faithful, but quite frankly the details on the Atlas model are very clear and sharp, even if not totally accurate, and they make some the details on the Sunshine car look "blobby". I found the same problem recently when finishing an ACL 1937 box car. Mont sent me some doors copied from a Sunshine kit to finish an ACL O-25, but they looked terrible against the Red Caboose carbody. I simply cut off the Union Duplex rollers and fixed them to the RC doors to get the door I wanted. I think Mont ended up doing the same thing. Incidentally I have not noted this detail disparity with Westerfield or Speedwitch products. John John Golden Bloomington, IN --- In STMFC@... , Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
|
|
Gatwood, Elden J SAD
John;
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I am glad you opened this one up. I have noticed some disparities between some of my Sunshine kits that I can't figure out, and had done a comparison of my Sunshine and Branchline-based X29Bs, and noted that some of the detailing on the former was oversized (riveting esp) and a bit sloppy. Similar to the comparison of Sunshine and RC X29's. Don't get me wrong, I love the cars, but up really close, they look very different. I also have a Sunshine and F&C X26C not built, and they also look very different. Elden Gatwood
-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of John Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 9:45 AM To: STMFC@... Subject: [STMFC] Re: Atlas 1932 boxcar... Hi Tim, I considered doing just that--copy-casting the Sunshine doors and using them on the Atlas model. However, I found that fixing a Sunshine door on the Atlas car would be taking a step backwards because the Sunshine details looked sloppy compared to the Atlas model. I was amazed. I don't recall there being a dimensional issue with the doors. It's heresy to complain about a Sunshine model among the faithful, but quite frankly the details on the Atlas model are very clear and sharp, even if not totally accurate, and they make some the details on the Sunshine car look "blobby". I found the same problem recently when finishing an ACL 1937 box car. Mont sent me some doors copied from a Sunshine kit to finish an ACL O-25, but they looked terrible against the Red Caboose carbody. I simply cut off the Union Duplex rollers and fixed them to the RC doors to get the door I wanted. I think Mont ended up doing the same thing. Incidentally I have not noted this detail disparity with Westerfield or Speedwitch products. John John Golden Bloomington, IN --- In STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote: would probably build up more of the Atlas cars if it weren't for that and the doors, and--of course--finding the time to do the job. later. I'm not the world's most patient masker, so I just get it close and touch up any overspray later. I normally use regular masking tape, but I just me some of that Tamiya masking tape and I'm eager to try it out.
|
|
|
|
Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
I bought a couple of these cars yesterday, a Central of Georgia and a Type 1 undec, which should become an MEC or BAR car. (Can anyone recommend decals for either of these roads for theis Atlas car?)
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I think that I'll put up with what seems shallow door detail on the GofG car, but will look in my parts box for doors for the undec. Thanks for all advice, everyone! Steve Lucas.
--- In STMFC@..., "John" <golden1014@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Gatwood, Elden J SAD
I suspect some masters are done with the rivet shaving technique, and some
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
are done with a NWSL riveter. I was talking to Steve Funaro about his new X26C, and his wife commented to me that he was using his Riveter on the sides and did something wrong which resulted in him swearing at length and throwing out the side and starting over. The rivets on that model are all very uniform and evenly spaced. I think there is a visible difference between the two techniques close up. Elden Gatwood
-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of James F. Brewer Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 9:57 AM To: STMFC@... Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Atlas 1932 boxcar... I thought the Sunshine 1932 cars were created for Martin by F&C early on; is this correct? If so, this might possibly account for some of the issues. Jim Brewer Glenwood MD ----- Original Message ----- From: "John" <golden1014@... <mailto:golden1014%40yahoo.com> > To: STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> Sent: Friday, July 9, 2010 9:45:20 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [STMFC] Re: Atlas 1932 boxcar... Hi Tim, I considered doing just that--copy-casting the Sunshine doors and using them on the Atlas model. However, I found that fixing a Sunshine door on the Atlas car would be taking a step backwards because the Sunshine details looked sloppy compared to the Atlas model. I was amazed. I don't recall there being a dimensional issue with the doors. It's heresy to complain about a Sunshine model among the faithful, but quite frankly the details on the Atlas model are very clear and sharp, even if not totally accurate, and they make some the details on the Sunshine car look "blobby". I found the same problem recently when finishing an ACL 1937 box car. Mont sent me some doors copied from a Sunshine kit to finish an ACL O-25, but they looked terrible against the Red Caboose carbody. I simply cut off the Union Duplex rollers and fixed them to the RC doors to get the door I wanted. I think Mont ended up doing the same thing. Incidentally I have not noted this detail disparity with Westerfield or Speedwitch products. John John Golden Bloomington, IN --- In STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote: would probably build up more of the Atlas cars if it weren't for that and the doors, and--of course--finding the time to do the job. later. I'm not the world's most patient masker, so I just get it close and touch up any overspray later. I normally use regular masking tape, but I just me some of that Tamiya masking tape and I'm eager to try it out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
|
|
Bryan Busséy
Atlas offered the MEC original scheme in the first release of the N
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
scale model in 2008, didn't they do the same in the HO series? bb
On 7/9/2010 10:05 AM, Steve Lucas wrote:
|
|
|
|
Don Burn
Was that Brown and White the original scheme? When did the red and green
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
scheme occur? Don Burn
-----Original Message-----Bryan Busséyamazed. signaturebut quite frankly the details on the Atlas model are very clear and database 5265 (20100709) __________ __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5265 (20100709) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com
|
|
|
|
Don the scheme was the orginial brown one. The green and YELLOW started in the mid 50's notes are at home will post a more accurate date later unless someone beats me to it.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Brian Carlson.
--- On Fri, 7/9/10, Don Burn <burn@...> wrote:
From: Don Burn <burn@...> Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Atlas 1932 boxcar... To: STMFC@... Date: Friday, July 9, 2010, 11:23 AM Was that Brown and White the original scheme? When did the red and green scheme occur? Don Burn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
|
|
Don Burn
Brian,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I thought there were 1932 cars on the MEC that were assigned to paper traffic and had a red with green doors and end scheme. Don Burn
-----Original Message-----Brian Carlsonthe mid 50's notes are at home will post a more accurate date later unlesssomeone beats me to it.signature database 5265 (20100709) __________signature database 5265 (20100709) __________ __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5265 (20100709) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com
|
|
|
|
John
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Did you ever get any of Joe Pennington's resin parts? He made some absolutely beautiful doors for the 1937 AAR box car. I think he made them specifically for the SLSF cars but I'm pretty sure they'll work on other prototypes as well -- they may even represent Union Duplex details, although I'm not sure. Tim O'Connor
Hi Tim,
|
|
|