AAR Standard twin offset side hopper with oval ends?


Tim O'Connor
 

Tony

I have a couple of 46-foot GS gondolas. W&R imported them. :-)

Tim O'

No apology necessary, Garth, whatever the source of the slip. I
too wish there was a 46-foot GS gon out there, but am making do with
40-foot ones for D&RGW in the interim.

Tony Thompson


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Garth Groff wrote:
Indeed, I did intend to say "gondola". And I reread this post twice for accuracy. I hope you all will forgive me, as I suffer from a mild dyslexia . . .
No apology necessary, Garth, whatever the source of the slip. I too wish there was a 46-foot GS gon out there, but am making do with 40-foot ones for D&RGW in the interim.

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@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
 

Tony and friends,

Indeed, I did intend to say "gondola". And I reread this post twice for accuracy. I hope you all will forgive me, as I suffer from a mild dyslexia (and I've been a professional editor!; how I survived, I don't know).

Kind regards,


Garth Groff

On 1/24/2011 1:35 PM, Anthony Thompson wrote:
Garth Groff wrote:
For the same reason were are not likely to see my two favorites, the
early 1950s-era GATC 46' GS hoppers used by the D&RGW (lots!) and WP
(not so many) . . .
Surely you mean GS gondolas, Garth??

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@...
Publishers of books on railroad history



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Garth Groff wrote:
For the same reason were are not likely to see my two favorites, the early 1950s-era GATC 46' GS hoppers used by the D&RGW (lots!) and WP (not so many) . . .
Surely you mean GS gondolas, Garth??

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@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
 

Richard and friends,

Richard is absolutely about the UTLX X-3 tank. We are never likely to see this car from a reputable manufacturer in anything but resin because of the limited number of accurate models that could be sold. For the same reason were are not likely to see my two favorites, the early 1950s-era GATC 46' GS hoppers used by the D&RGW (lots!) and WP (not so many), or the AC&F 10K high walkway tank cars (more because of the complexity and early era here, since they had lots of paint schemes). I have lobbied several manufacturers and supplied data for these cars over the years, even in resin, and had no success.

Of course, what Richard didn't say is that some manufacturers who don't care that much about paint and lettering accuracy might give us an accurate car with many inaccurate paint schemes, the otherwise excellent Red Caboose welded tank car being an example. If someone like Intermountain were to do this with any of our rare favorites, we'd all gnash our teeth, moan a bit, and gladly break out the paint stripper. The problem is that we are more likely to get such cars from manufacturers who are as sloppy about modeling accuracy as their paint schemes, such as the truly dreadful Trix 6K tank car. (Sigh!)

Kind regards,


Garth Groff

On 1/24/2011 12:50 PM, Richard Hendrickson wrote (in part):


As for hopper cars being mostly drab, in contrast to reefers, of
course that's a factor. One car that steam-era modelers seriously
need, as its prototype existed by the many thousands and went
everywhere in North America, is the Union Tank Line X-3 tank car.
I've talked about this with just about every major manufacturer of
styrene models at one time or another, and they all say the same
thing. No matter how many prototype cars there were, the fact that
they were almost all painted dull black with only reporting marks,
numbers, and data means there is no chance they would sell well
enough to amortize the tooling. All the talk on the STMFC list about
AAR Alternate Standard hopper cars (whatever that term is understood
to mean) amounts to preaching to the converted. The great mass of
modelers neither know nor care about the differences between those
cars and other hoppers already on the market. Fortunately, we have
several members on the list who are manufacturers or who regularly
serve as consultants to manufacturers and they periodically yank us
back to reality. (Thanks, Dennis, Bill, Tom, Elden, et. al.)

I'll say again what I often say when I hear these claims that model
such-and-such would sell in vast numbers. If you believe that, put
up your own money to develop and tool the model and you'll find a
manufacturer who will do it for you. Then it's your $$$ at risk, not
theirs. But don't be surprised if you lose your shirt big time.

Richard Hendrickson


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Jan 24, 2011, at 6:52 AM, A. Premo wrote:

Is this a regional issue?
and, in another post,

I personally believe, and may be wrong, that there are more hoppers,
albeit less colorful, than reefers in eastern trains during the steam
and transition eras. Maybe the color is also a factor.

Armand, it IS a regional issue. The further west you went during the
steam era, the fewer hopper cars you saw. I have six or seven models
of them, and - since I model the Los Angeles area ca. 1947 - that's
about four or five more than I should have (I can, of course, rotate
them on and off my diorama so that there are only one or two at a
time). I understand why eastern modelers get all worked up about
this, but I usually put e-mail messages on the subject in the trash
without reading them because personally, as Rhett Bulter famously
exclaimed to Scarlett O'hara, I don't give a damn.

As for hopper cars being mostly drab, in contrast to reefers, of
course that's a factor. One car that steam-era modelers seriously
need, as its prototype existed by the many thousands and went
everywhere in North America, is the Union Tank Line X-3 tank car.
I've talked about this with just about every major manufacturer of
styrene models at one time or another, and they all say the same
thing. No matter how many prototype cars there were, the fact that
they were almost all painted dull black with only reporting marks,
numbers, and data means there is no chance they would sell well
enough to amortize the tooling. All the talk on the STMFC list about
AAR Alternate Standard hopper cars (whatever that term is understood
to mean) amounts to preaching to the converted. The great mass of
modelers neither know nor care about the differences between those
cars and other hoppers already on the market. Fortunately, we have
several members on the list who are manufacturers or who regularly
serve as consultants to manufacturers and they periodically yank us
back to reality. (Thanks, Dennis, Bill, Tom, Elden, et. al.)

I'll say again what I often say when I hear these claims that model
such-and-such would sell in vast numbers. If you believe that, put
up your own money to develop and tool the model and you'll find a
manufacturer who will do it for you. Then it's your $$$ at risk, not
theirs. But don't be surprised if you lose your shirt big time.

Richard Hendrickson