Athearn bay windows in hand....

[SkipGear]

They came today, I will bring one home for pictures and post later.

Upon quick inspection, they look more natural than the MT caboose and they have a ton more detail. The end rails are molded and don't suffer from the flat photo etch look, underbody detail is great. The only detractor is the couplers stick out too far and there is no excuse for it. There appears to be room in the coupler box that they could have been moved back 1/32-1/16" and still be fine.

[ljudice]

That's what I kind of suspected - can't wait to pick a couple up...

[bbussey]

... The only detractor is the couplers stick out too far and there is no excuse for it. There appears to be room in the coupler box that they could have been moved back 1/32-1/16" and still be fine.

That was noticeable in the pilot models on display at various shows over the past few months.  There should be a way to modify the car to move the coupler post if not the entire pocket inward.

[SkipGear]

We didn't have any MT SP's left so I picked a pair that matched.







Sorry about the blurry endrail shot, the camera focused on the bays and I didn't catch it till I put them away and started editing.

Probably the neatest thing about the Athearn caboose is the visible seat in the bay. It would look better with somebody in it.

[Dave Schneider]

Thanks for posting the photos Tony. They are both very nice models, but I agree that the Athearn car looks better in many ways. That last photo really demonstrates the need for a better wheel set in the Athearn car. The coupler issue is odd. Its almost like they were trying to simulate cushioned draft gear or something. Does that look like an easy fix?

Best wishes, Dave

[TiVoPrince]

C50-9
had cushioned draft gear.  Look for my MT caboose on trading post or eBay soon...

[oakcreekco]

Looks like a "toss up" to me. Each car has its' strong and weak points.

Your choice and opinion.

[Dave V]

Neither are correct for Conrail but I'll still probably end up with both (I have the MTL already).

[bbussey]

I don't see how anyone can say it's a toss-up.  The 4th and 5th pic clearly show the MTL car is too tall.  The Athearn car has free-standing details, a painted frame and an interior; the MTL car does not.  The step profile appears to be more accurate on the Athearn model.  And if the prototype had a cushioned underframe, that validates the extended draft gear box on the Athearn car. 

SP territory is on the opposite coast of the railroads I model, but I will pick up one of the Athearn cars in that scheme because they did such a good job on this one and it's a signature car for the railroad.  I will use one of the TrainCat NYC bays and others I'm scratchbuilding to represent CR bays.

[GaryHinshaw]

Thanks for posting the comparison Tony.  I wouldn't say it was a toss-up either, but the paint work on the Athearn seems a bit iffy (e.g. the silver window frames and the white railings).    Also - to me, at least - this is a case where the slightly oversize free-standing corner rails are not hands down better than the MT molded-on ones (there, I said it). 

If I needed an SP caboose - I would choose Athearn, but I've learned to be happy with DPUs at the end of a train instead of a caboose now. 

[Nato]

  I just ordered several including WP "Yea!". The Athearn car does appear better in several ways,most noticeably the more correct ride height. I passed on the MT car(no windows) I have disliked this era in cabooses,especially when roads plated over the windows IE: Rio Grande ,and then the weathering oin the sides especially the plated over windows looked really skuzzy. Athern has some expierence with SP Bay Window cars, look at their long rinning HO cars. Protype SP cars in this series did featire aluminum window frames. I agree the Athearn Brake Wheel could be finer. Thankfully Union Pacific never covered the windows on their own cabooses (not one saquired through mergers).                                             Nate Goodman (Nato). Salt Lake, Utah.

[SirTainly]

C50-9
had cushioned draft gear.  Look for my MT caboose on trading post or eBay soon...

Likewise.

[David Leonard]

Just offhand, I'd say it might be easier to replace the Athearn curved grab irons with smaller brass wire than to scape off the MTL molded on grab, drill holes, match paint etc.

[ljudice]

c'mon Gary, you need a couple of these - covered in grafitti to go on the end of a short work train or a local freight pulled by a dogs breakfast set of patched and tagged SP, SSW and DRGW GP40-2's.... 

[oakcreekco]

I don't see how anyone can say it's a toss-up.  The 4th and 5th pic clearly show the MTL car is too tall.  The Athearn car has free-standing details, a painted frame and an interior; the MTL car does not.  The step profile appears to be more accurate on the Athearn model.  And if the prototype had a cushioned underframe, that validates the extended draft gear box on the Athearn car. 

SP territory is on the opposite coast of the railroads I model, but I will pick up one of the Athearn cars in that scheme because they did such a good job on this one and it's a signature car for the railroad.  I will use one of the TrainCat NYC bays and others I'm scratchbuilding to represent CR bays.

The more I look at the two, I'll stand by my original statement. Both examples in the photo can be "nit picked" in various areas.

"Issues" with both models, but it's nice to have a choice.