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:

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.
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:

• 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:

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.


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:

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:

A friend and I came up with this list:

• 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/


golden1014
 

Hi Steve,

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:

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.


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.
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:

Hi Steve,

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:

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.


golden1014
 

Hi Tony,

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:

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.
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:

Hi Steve,

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:

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.


David Sieber
 

Eric, et al,
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."


Tim O'Connor
 

John, I haven't seen the Atlas cars, but if the Sunshine doors are
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.

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


golden1014
 

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:


John, I haven't seen the Atlas cars, but if the Sunshine doors are
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.

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


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.



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:


John, I haven't seen the Atlas cars, but if the Sunshine doors are
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.

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



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


Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

John;

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:


John, I haven't seen the Atlas cars, but if the Sunshine doors are
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.

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


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?)

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:

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:


John, I haven't seen the Atlas cars, but if the Sunshine doors are
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.

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


Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

I suspect some masters are done with the rivet shaving technique, and some
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:


John, I haven't seen the Atlas cars, but if the Sunshine doors are
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.

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


Bryan Busséy
 

Atlas offered the MEC original scheme in the first release of the N
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:

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?)

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@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>, "John"
<golden1014@...> wrote:

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:


John, I haven't seen the Atlas cars, but if the Sunshine doors are
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.

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


Don Burn
 

Was that Brown and White the original scheme? When did the red and green
scheme occur?

Don Burn

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Bryan
Busséy
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 11:17 AM
To: STMFC@...
Cc: Steve Lucas
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Atlas 1932 boxcar...

Atlas offered the MEC original scheme in the first release of the N 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:

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?)

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@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>, "John"
<golden1014@...> wrote:

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:


John, I haven't seen the Atlas cars, but if the Sunshine doors are
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.

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





------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links




__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature
database 5265 (20100709) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5265 (20100709) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com


Brian Carlson
 

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.
 
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,

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-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Brian
Carlson
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 11:35 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Atlas 1932 boxcar...

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.

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






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links




__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature
database 5265 (20100709) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com





__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature
database 5265 (20100709) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5265 (20100709) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com


Tim O'Connor
 

John

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,

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 Golden
Bloomington, IN