Con Cor 89' flats

[Puddington]

I haven't seen these before - are they a new tooling or have these been out. An 89' flat is always a welcome addition. Anyone know anything about these ?

http://www.intermountain-railway.com/flyer352.htm

[Mark5]

1980s tooling IIRC

[FrankCampagna]

It is old stuff. Looks like new couplers. Not bad for the time, but then there wasn't much else back then. Interesting Con-cor is upping production lately. I thought Conway was retiring.

Frank

[Puddington]

1980s tooling IIRC

Makes sense - thanks.........didn't want to get too excited.....

[bbussey]

Older diecast tooling with plastic non-descript hitches if I remember correctly.  Would require some work to get them to visually be compatible with the MTL tofc flats, let alone the upcoming BLMA tofc flats.

[Nato]

  Yes, older tooling, their all metal construction was the main thing they had going for them. When the MT flat came out with the nice detailing these were pretty much history,the even older Arnold Rapido and Trix flats were all plastic and way too light. Con cor cars came(come) with either two containers or hitches and two trailers including UP streamliner colored ones usning a way too modern smooth side trailer body. Nate Goodman (Nato).

[Rossford Yard]

With their weight, they were great runners.

[ljudice]

I remember stripping them, about half the (rather substantial) weight was the paint they had been dipped into (several times).

[bigford]

It is old stuff. Interesting Con-cor is upping production lately. I thought Conway was retiring.

Frank

he needs more money to retire nowadays

[rochsub]

Not only old tooling, but the models do not follow any know prototype as far as I know.  They have these huge and long rectangular sides boards where the road numbers go.  Never made sense to me at the time why they did that.  Not recomended.

Daryl

[wcfn100]

Aren't TTGX and ETTX both autorack reporting marks?


Jason

[Denver Road Doug]

Not only old tooling, but the models do not follow any know prototype as far as I know.  They have these huge and long rectangular sides boards where the road numbers go.  Never made sense to me at the time why they did that.  Not recomended.

Daryl

I'm not sure if there is a TTX car that approximates this car, but I did see an ex-GN car on a bridge crew train that looked like it.  I don't know how close but I just remember thinking, "oh, looks like the CC flat".

[bman]

Aren't TTGX and ETTX both autorack reporting marks?


Jason

Yes.  According to a listing of TTX reporting marks I have TTGX is for a 89'4" Bi-level autorack car and ETTX is for a 89'4" Tri-level autorack car.  Looks like even using the old tooling for the trailers. I had a few of these flats and the trix 85' ones along with a fleet of the trailers back in the day.  Oddly enough, I recently found the trailers in a box I hadn't unpacked after 2 or 3 moves.  I am pretty sure I bartered away the flats long ago.

[jsoflo]

I don't know what the price point on the CC flats are going to be, but compared with the MT 89' flats and the N scale Kits series of 89' flats they are truly toy like, and the MT and NSK flats can be had for much the same price in most of my experience. The rub rails on the CC 89' flats are massive, the containers and trailers are no where near the detail of other manufacturers trailers and containers, are usually the wrong design container for the shipper its painted for, and the hitches are awful compared with even the simple MT hitches or better NSK and best MLE hitches. The only decent thing about the CC's is their weight, but the MT's track well despite being plastic and the NSK's are nice heavy metal.

here is an NSK flush deck with MLE hitches and DI containers and chassis:

 
here is a MT flat, weathered, with stock MT hitches and a DI container and chassis:



Both far superior to the CC flat
my best,
Jan

[Roger Holmes]

Jan--Great work on the intermodal stuff but your scenery is even more intruiging!