Topics

New Walthers freight cars


Tony Thompson
 

Aaack! Where did this crap come from?
Tony Thompson 


On Jul 14, 2019, at 9:05 PM, Tony Thompson <tony@...> wrote:

The MR “newsletter” had a photo.
Tony Thompson 


On Jul 14, 2019, at 8:07 PM, Douglas Harding <doug.harding@...> wrote:

Thanks Eric. I was wondering. I saw Kalmbach had the car listed among new items, but no photo.

 

Doug  Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Eric Hansmann
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2019 9:04 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Poultry car models

 

I looked for these at the National Train Show but Bachmann did not have them displayed.

 

Eric Hansmann
Murfreesboro, TN

 

On July 12, 2019 at 8:53 PM Douglas Harding <doug.harding@...> wrote:

Knowing my interest in Poultry cars, a friend spotted this and sent it to me with a note to check out page 4!

 

https://resources.bachmanntrains.com/2019nmraslc/html5/index.html
      

 

First thing I noticed, they have standard steel boxcar doors! How could Bachmann screw that up? And at $49? Seriously?

Attached is a photo of LPTC #666 Mudd. Compare to the Bachmann illustration.

Speedy was a combo car, Bachmann blew this one.

Stentz was a Palace Poultry Car PPKX 5131. Can’t even get the numbers right.

 

Who ever is advising Bachmann on these cars would appear to have no knowledge of actual poultry cars.

 

It appears Bachmann took their standard 40’ boxcar, and replaced the sides with a fake poultry car side. It looks like the screen wire and chickens are silk screen on plastic, very similar to the Lionel poultry car. Details are wrong or non-existent. They need two ladders per side, not one. And the Palace Poultry cars had four ladders per side. The names and numbers are not properly matched, ie they don’t have my list. Looks like the car sits to high on the trucks. A prototype poultry car has four panels on each side of the door, the model has five. And I have not seen a single poultry car with a letter board, like the Palace car in Bachmann’s catalog.

 

My hopes of a poultry car are quickly diminished.

 

Doug  Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org


 


 


tyesac@aol.com <tyesac@...>
 

I think the operative phrase was one Richard Hendrickson used often: "Train set Bozos" will buy them.   No doubt someday there will be a YouTube video with someone having an entire unit train of poultry cars and I hat to think what would be pulling it.

Tom Casey


-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Thompson <tony@...>
To: main <main@realstmfc.groups.io>
Sent: Sun, Jul 14, 2019 11:08 pm
Subject: [RealSTMFC] New Walthers freight cars

Aaack! Where did this crap come from?
Tony Thompson 


On Jul 14, 2019, at 9:05 PM, Tony Thompson <tony@...> wrote:

The MR “newsletter” had a photo.
Tony Thompson 


On Jul 14, 2019, at 8:07 PM, Douglas Harding <doug.harding@...> wrote:

Thanks Eric. I was wondering. I saw Kalmbach had the car listed among new items, but no photo.
 
Doug  Harding
 
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Eric Hansmann
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2019 9:04 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Poultry car models
 
I looked for these at the National Train Show but Bachmann did not have them displayed.
 
Eric Hansmann
Murfreesboro, TN
 
On July 12, 2019 at 8:53 PM Douglas Harding <doug.harding@...> wrote:
Knowing my interest in Poultry cars, a friend spotted this and sent it to me with a note to check out page 4!
 
https://resources.bachmanntrains.com/2019nmraslc/html5/index.html
      
 
First thing I noticed, they have standard steel boxcar doors! How could Bachmann screw that up? And at $49? Seriously?
Attached is a photo of LPTC #666 Mudd. Compare to the Bachmann illustration.
Speedy was a combo car, Bachmann blew this one.
Stentz was a Palace Poultry Car PPKX 5131. Can’t even get the numbers right.
 
Who ever is advising Bachmann on these cars would appear to have no knowledge of actual poultry cars.
 
It appears Bachmann took their standard 40’ boxcar, and replaced the sides with a fake poultry car side. It looks like the screen wire and chickens are silk screen on plastic, very similar to the Lionel poultry car. Details are wrong or non-existent. They need two ladders per side, not one. And the Palace Poultry cars had four ladders per side. The names and numbers are not properly matched, ie they don’t have my list. Looks like the car sits to high on the trucks. A prototype poultry car has four panels on each side of the door, the model has five. And I have not seen a single poultry car with a letter board, like the Palace car in Bachmann’s catalog.
 
My hopes of a poultry car are quickly diminished.
 
Doug  Harding

 

 


C J Wyatt
 

No doubts about the engine to pull it. It has to be CSX. 

Jack Wyatt

On Monday, July 15, 2019, 12:52:47 AM EDT, tyesac@... via Groups.Io <tyesac@...> wrote:


I think the operative phrase was one Richard Hendrickson used often: "Train set Bozos" will buy them.   No doubt someday there will be a YouTube video with someone having an entire unit train of poultry cars and I hat to think what would be pulling it.

Tom Casey


Bill Welch
 

An industry insider told me Walthers is hearing all sort of grief for this release. Too bad when they purchased the Life-Like Proto 2000 line they did not hire the brain power behind the line. No matter, companies like Tangent, Rapido, and resin people understand how to create faithful replicas of the real thing.

Bill Welch


Benjamin Hom
 

Bill Welch wrote:
"An industry insider told me Walthers is hearing all sort of grief for this release. Too bad when they purchased the Life-Like Proto 2000 line they did not hire the brain power behind the line. No matter, companies like Tangent, Rapido, and resin people understand how to create faithful replicas of the real thing."

Come to think of it, their recent newly-tooled mass-market transition-era releases have been...clunky.  The pre- and postwar AAR boxcars seem off in appearance; the latest SS, DS, and "rebuilt" offerings are a dumpster fire, and all of them are a poor value at high MSRPs of $28 or higher.  I know, I know...the great unwashed don't care...but tacit approval of garbage isn't progress.


Ben Hom


Tony Thompson
 

Ben Hom wrote:

Come to think of it, their recent newly-tooled mass-market transition-era releases have been...clunky.  The pre- and postwar AAR boxcars seem off in appearance; the latest SS, DS, and "rebuilt" offerings are a dumpster fire, and all of them are a poor value at high MSRPs of $28 or higher.  I know, I know...the great unwashed don't care...but tacit approval of garbage isn't progress.

     "Dumpster fire" is about right. Do ANY of the four models actually have prototypes? Why would you choose, for example, the roof they have put on three of the bodies?

Tony Thompson




Marty McGuirk
 

Recall if you can, or care to, the MR evaluation of the Trix R-40-14 and A-40-19 and you'll have unlocked the key to this riddle of "Why would you choose ...."


Marty



On July 15, 2019 at 11:52 AM Tony Thompson <tony@...> wrote:

Ben Hom wrote:

Come to think of it, their recent newly-tooled mass-market transition-era releases have been...clunky.  The pre- and postwar AAR boxcars seem off in appearance; the latest SS, DS, and "rebuilt" offerings are a dumpster fire, and all of them are a poor value at high MSRPs of $28 or higher.  I know, I know...the great unwashed don't care...but tacit approval of garbage isn't progress.

     "Dumpster fire" is about right. Do ANY of the four models actually have prototypes? Why would you choose, for example, the roof they have put on three of the bodies?

Tony Thompson




 


 


Benjamin Hom
 

Tony Thompson asked:
"'Dumpster fire' is about right. Do ANY of the four models actually have prototypes? Why would you choose, for example, the roof they have put on three of the bodies?"

Going back to the end of April when these were first discussed:

40' double sheathed USRA boxcar
Analysis: An OK model of the USRA DS boxcar, but already available from Accurail for $10 less, and if you can't assemble the Accurail kit, you deserve to have your money taken.

40' "USRA" single sheathed boxcar
Analysis: Only thing it has in common with the USRA Specification 1001-B: 50-ton Single-Sheathed Box Car is general dimensions, 5/5/5 Murphy ends, and the fact it's a standard gauge single-sheathed boxcar. It resembles the 1923 ARA standard SS boxcar (XM-1) design, except (a) I can't think of any cars Pratt truss built to the XM-1 design with 5/5/5 Murphy ends and (b) any variants built to 9 ft IH vice the default 8 ft 7 in IH.  If I do my homework, I might be able to turn up a 9 ft IH prototype as a kitbash subject, but for $28 MSRP, I shouldn't have to. 

40' steel USRA rebuilt wood boxcar
Analysis: FAIL. This model has 5/5/5 Murphy ends and XLA roof, indicating an early rebuild reusing these components that did not increase the dimensions of the original car.  Unfortunately, none of these rebuilds (ACL/C&WC, SL-SF) had 10-panel sides, but exhibited 8-panel sides.  Also, the model lacks an inset side sill and brackets that are a spotting feature of almost all rebuilt boxcars.  This, along with the Atlas "Rebuilt USRA boxcar" model, is an overpriced representation of nothing.

40' Early Wood Reefer
Analysis: This looks like a generic 40 ft reefer.  Actually, I'm trying to come up with any wood-sheathed prototypes with Murphy XLA roofs.

Overall, these appear to be a 21st century repeat of Train-Miniature's approach of using common tooling across a group of similarly-dimensioned house cars, but even less thought out than the late 1960s attempt.  Maybe they went with a Pratt-truss SS boxcar to distinguish it from the Accurail SS model, but then why would they tool the same prototype as Accurail for the DS boxcar?  For that matter, why tool the same "rebuilt" boxcar as Atlas?


Ben Hom 


Tim O'Connor
 

Ben

Are any of these models recycled Trains Miniature tooling?? Like that single sheathed box car?

Tim O'Connor




On 7/15/2019 2:17 PM, Benjamin Hom wrote:
Tony Thompson asked:
"'Dumpster fire' is about right. Do ANY of the four models actually have prototypes? Why would you choose, for example, the roof they have put on three of the bodies?"

Going back to the end of April when these were first discussed:

40' double sheathed USRA boxcar
Analysis: An OK model of the USRA DS boxcar, but already available from Accurail for $10 less, and if you can't assemble the Accurail kit, you deserve to have your money taken.

40' "USRA" single sheathed boxcar
Analysis: Only thing it has in common with the USRA Specification 1001-B: 50-ton Single-Sheathed Box Car is general dimensions, 5/5/5 Murphy ends, and the fact it's a standard gauge single-sheathed boxcar. It resembles the 1923 ARA standard SS boxcar (XM-1) design, except (a) I can't think of any cars Pratt truss built to the XM-1 design with 5/5/5 Murphy ends and (b) any variants built to 9 ft IH vice the default 8 ft 7 in IH.  If I do my homework, I might be able to turn up a 9 ft IH prototype as a kitbash subject, but for $28 MSRP, I shouldn't have to. 

40' steel USRA rebuilt wood boxcar
Analysis: FAIL. This model has 5/5/5 Murphy ends and XLA roof, indicating an early rebuild reusing these components that did not increase the dimensions of the original car.  Unfortunately, none of these rebuilds (ACL/C&WC, SL-SF) had 10-panel sides, but exhibited 8-panel sides.  Also, the model lacks an inset side sill and brackets that are a spotting feature of almost all rebuilt boxcars.  This, along with the Atlas "Rebuilt USRA boxcar" model, is an overpriced representation of nothing.

40' Early Wood Reefer
Analysis: This looks like a generic 40 ft reefer.  Actually, I'm trying to come up with any wood-sheathed prototypes with Murphy XLA roofs.

Overall, these appear to be a 21st century repeat of Train-Miniature's approach of using common tooling across a group of similarly-dimensioned house cars, but even less thought out than the late 1960s attempt.  Maybe they went with a Pratt-truss SS boxcar to distinguish it from the Accurail SS model, but then why would they tool the same prototype as Accurail for the DS boxcar?  For that matter, why tool the same "rebuilt" boxcar as Atlas?


Ben Hom

--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Eric Hansmann
 

Three of the four models looked very similar to the old TM cars. 


Eric Hansmann
Murfreesboro, TN

On Jul 15, 2019, at 1:26 PM, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

Ben

Are any of these models recycled Trains Miniature tooling?? Like that single sheathed box car?

Tim O'Connor




On 7/15/2019 2:17 PM, Benjamin Hom wrote:

Tony Thompson asked:
"'Dumpster fire' is about right. Do ANY of the four models actually have prototypes? Why would you choose, for example, the roof they have put on three of the bodies?"

Going back to the end of April when these were first discussed:

40' double sheathed USRA boxcar
Analysis: An OK model of the USRA DS boxcar, but already available from Accurail for $10 less, and if you can't assemble the Accurail kit, you deserve to have your money taken.

40' "USRA" single sheathed boxcar
Analysis: Only thing it has in common with the USRA Specification 1001-B: 50-ton Single-Sheathed Box Car is general dimensions, 5/5/5 Murphy ends, and the fact it's a standard gauge single-sheathed boxcar. It resembles the 1923 ARA standard SS boxcar (XM-1) design, except (a) I can't think of any cars Pratt truss built to the XM-1 design with 5/5/5 Murphy ends and (b) any variants built to 9 ft IH vice the default 8 ft 7 in IH.  If I do my homework, I might be able to turn up a 9 ft IH prototype as a kitbash subject, but for $28 MSRP, I shouldn't have to. 

40' steel USRA rebuilt wood boxcar
Analysis: FAIL. This model has 5/5/5 Murphy ends and XLA roof, indicating an early rebuild reusing these components that did not increase the dimensions of the original car.  Unfortunately, none of these rebuilds (ACL/C&WC, SL-SF) had 10-panel sides, but exhibited 8-panel sides.  Also, the model lacks an inset side sill and brackets that are a spotting feature of almost all rebuilt boxcars.  This, along with the Atlas "Rebuilt USRA boxcar" model, is an overpriced representation of nothing.

40' Early Wood Reefer
Analysis: This looks like a generic 40 ft reefer.  Actually, I'm trying to come up with any wood-sheathed prototypes with Murphy XLA roofs.

Overall, these appear to be a 21st century repeat of Train-Miniature's approach of using common tooling across a group of similarly-dimensioned house cars, but even less thought out than the late 1960s attempt.  Maybe they went with a Pratt-truss SS boxcar to distinguish it from the Accurail SS model, but then why would they tool the same prototype as Accurail for the DS boxcar?  For that matter, why tool the same "rebuilt" boxcar as Atlas?


Ben Hom

--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Benjamin Hom
 

Tim O'Connor asked:
"Are any of these models recycled Trains Miniature tooling? Like that single sheathed box car?"

Sadly, it's all new tooling.


Ben Hom


Dave Parker
 

Ben Hom wrote:

"Actually, I'm trying to come up with any wood-sheathed prototypes with Murphy XLA roofs".

Hmmm.  PFE reefers from the 1920s?  Actually, the fishbelly center-sill makes it a better match to the post-war (WWI) MDT cars.  Not saying I would use this model for that purpose, but there is a prototype that is close (sorta).  More so than the box-cars at least.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA


Benjamin Hom
 

Eric Hansmann wrote:
"Three of the four models looked very similar to the old TM cars."

Superficially similar, but definitely not the same:
- The T-M cars were designed around the basic dimensions of PRR Class X29, with 8 ft 7 in IH cars.
- Three roofs were offered: the X29 lap-seam roof, and two steel sheathed roof with lower profile seam caps
- Ends offered were a 3/3/3 Dreadnaught end, a single-sheathed end, and the X29 flat end.
- The common underframe featured a shallow fishbelly.
- The door options on the boxcars were the X29 3-panel door, a wooden door, and a strange corrugated door.  All featured large "claws" and had overscale door guides.

As I posted before, the current models being discussed are definitely new tooling, which means someone sadly greenlit this investment.


Ben Hom


Tony Thompson
 

Ben Hom wrote:

Superficially similar, but definitely not the same:
- The T-M cars were designed around the basic dimensions of PRR Class X29, with 8 ft 7 in IH cars.
- Three roofs were offered: the X29 lap-seam roof, and two steel sheathed roof with lower profile seam caps
- Ends offered were a 3/3/3 Dreadnaught end, a single-sheathed end, and the X29 flat end.
- The common underframe featured a shallow fishbelly.
- The door options on the boxcars were the X29 3-panel door, a wooden door, and a strange corrugated door.  All featured large "claws" and had overscale door guides.

As I posted before, the current models being discussed are definitely new tooling, which means someone sadly greenlit this investment.

    This is all correct. But T.M. went further than Ben summarizes. They also made an outside wood roof, which they put on stock cars and some reefers; they made two single-sheathed ends, one plain (as on reefers) and the other braced like the 1924 ARA design; and they offered a whole smorgasbord of sides: not only the X29-ish steel, but a steel plug door; steel and wood sides with 6-foot hinged reefer doors; a wood box car; and of course a stock car side. As Ben says, all were rather low height, as required by the interchangeability of all the parts.
       And the result of having all these interchangeable parts, is that it was easy for them to offer combos that never were, and of course they did so. They lettered all these models with a kind of admirable abandon, clearly with no interest whatever in prototype. I mean, when many of the models are nutty, why hold back?
       Richard Hendrickson attempted in the early stages of the T.M. design process to encourage them to make better detailed and more accurate parts, which of course was counter to their plan of making MANY, MANY different cars with a modest range of dies, and he soon abandoned the effort in disgust. I shudder to think what he would say if he were here to see these Walthers travesties . . . but I can tell you that one thing he would NOT be is surprised.

Tony Thompson




Tony Thompson
 

      Possibly the most offensive of these cars is the claimed "USRA" single-sheathed car. The prototype had three diagonal braces on each side of the door, where the Walthers model has two, mirroring the 1924 ARA design, not the USRA. C'mon, Walthers, get a grip. It's not remotely anything like the prototype you claim.
       (Ben kind of said this too, but I think it deserves emphasis.)

Tony Thompson




John Sykes III
 

C'mon Tony, tell us what you really think.

-- John


Tony Thompson
 

You mean I didn’t?
Tony Thompson 


On Jul 15, 2019, at 4:07 PM, John Sykes III via Groups.Io <johnsykesiii@...> wrote:

C'mon Tony, tell us what you really think.

-- John


Jon Miller <atsfus@...>
 

On 7/15/2019 8:52 AM, Tony Thompson wrote:
 "Dumpster fire" is about right.

    I thought we used to call these "PULL" cars. 

-- 
Jon Miller
For me time stopped in 1941
Digitrax  Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI User
SPROG User
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS


Brian Carlson
 

Outside of the cars brought over from P2K Walthers hasn’t been relevant for steam era revenue freight cars for the 21 century. 

Brian J. Carlson 

On Jul 15, 2019, at 3:50 PM, Tony Thompson <tony@...> wrote:

      Possibly the most offensive of these cars is the claimed "USRA" single-sheathed car. The prototype had three diagonal braces on each side of the door, where the Walthers model has two, mirroring the 1924 ARA design, not the USRA. C'mon, Walthers, get a grip. It's not remotely anything like the prototype you claim.
       (Ben kind of said this too, but I think it deserves emphasis.)

Tony Thompson




Donald B. Valentine <riverman_vt@...>
 

    I can't disagree at woth what you have stated about thre Train Miniature line of cars, Tony, but can well remember the anticipation
some of us had waiting for them. Frankly, give what else was available for styrene kits in 1968 I was darned pleased to have them.
I can well remember riding over to Arnie Doucette's East Boston Hobby Shop on Bennington St. from the MIT club with fellow list
member Andy Miller and coming back with a double sheathed Rock Island boxcar, a single sheathed boxcar and a wood sheathed
reefer. Can't recall the road names for the latter two but still have all three and can put my hands on them very quickly. The only
other real choice in those days was MDC with their god awful cast clunker underframe that really turned me off. The variety that the
T-M line added to my rolling stock fleet was something I was very thankful to have and with sprung trucks even. When T-M went to
sprung trucks I was not impressed, called Frank about it and he offered to exchange sprung trucks for the solid molded ones for me.
True to his word he did so and that's all I expect from anyone, Frankly, I thought then that the T-M line of house cars was better than
the Athearn line and still feel that way. I'll wager there are at least 50 of them around here still. YMMV

Cordially, Don Valentine