Micro Trains April Releases

[JMaurer1]

Thanks for the SP Overnights! 

[wcfn100]

Note the IL of 26-6 on the Swift car, the tell that it should be a 36' car.

Maybe they should have fudged the dimension like Atlas and Intermountain did. 

Jason

[mmagliaro]

By which you mean the steel underframe 36 footer?
I do wish M/T would give us more "modern" 36' meat reefers (by which I mean post-billboard era, simple paint schemes).
Otto

I don't normally even pay attention to new releases, but "Swift" cars are interesting so when you mentioned this, I went digging around.
Not only should it be  36' car, but isn't that silver paint scheme with the red rectangle around the "Swift" name mighty rare?
They are a number of paint schemes, but I'm finding it darn hard to even find one prototype photo like this one.  The red oval, yes, but
the red rectangle, no.

[Kisatchie]

...isn't that silver paint scheme with the red rectangle around the "Swift" name mighty rare?
They are a number of paint schemes, but I'm finding it darn hard to even find one prototype photo like this one.  The red oval, yes, but
the red rectangle, no.

I googled it, and found a number of images of model railroad Swift cars with the red rectangle:

https://www.google.com/search?q=swift+refrigerator+car&num=20&client=firefox-a&hs=gwk&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=HkM8U8L3HO-_sQSNvoH4Bg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg&biw=1067&bih=823&dpr=1


Hmm... I bet they all
copied off one another...

[Sokramiketes]

Maybe they should have fudged the dimension like Atlas and Intermountain did. 

Jason

But those manufacturers don't have a 36' car...  I think the complaint is that the scheme could have been properly put on a closer model, but MTL picked the wrong body shell.

[bbussey]

I don't normally even pay attention to new releases, but "Swift" cars are interesting so when you mentioned this, I went digging around.
Not only should it be  36' car, but isn't that silver paint scheme with the red rectangle around the "Swift" name mighty rare?
They are a number of paint schemes, but I'm finding it darn hard to even find one prototype photo like this one.  The red oval, yes, but
the red rectangle, no.

Max, it's the interim scheme in between the (most) popular red scheme and the silver scheme with the red oval.  You're correct in that it was a short-lived scheme.

[bbussey]

But those manufacturers don't have a 36' car...  I think the complaint is that the scheme could have been properly put on a closer model, but MTL picked the wrong body shell.

MTL should avoid all foob Swift schemes on 40' models until they release the all-red most popular scheme by far on the correct 36' wood car with steel underframe.  They did release the all-red scheme on one of their 40' wood cars prior to the introduction of the 36' reefer models, and ironically it is the only MTL Swift scheme in 40 years that has warranted a reprint.  And they have "corrected" past Swift schemes originally released on incorrect models, as 47.00.070 was revisited as 58.00.590, so issuing a proper all-red 58500-series model would not be unprecedented.

CORRECTION:  The first 36' truss rod Swift reefer in the early 20th century scheme, 58.00.010, also has been reprinted.

[mmagliaro]

Thank you, Bryan.

Kisatchie,
I wasn't counting photos of other models.  Heck, lots of manufacturers put ridiculous paint schemes on their cars,
so I do not set much store by those unless I see proof from a prototype photo.  It seems that the silver car with the red rectangle is popular in the model train biz, but was actually only used for 1 or 2 years at the end of the 1950s.
Was there some screaming demand for this from the "1958-1962 modeling SIG" ?   

[bbussey]

Incidently, a few years back MTL did release the 1960s silver with red-oval scheme on the same steel model, #59.00.150.  So I guess they decided to go with another oddball with limited appeal rather than producing the model that would bring the biggest bang for the buck.

[Ike the BN Freak]

Anyone know what the "Not included in the standing orders" for the two 45ft trailers means?

[Kisatchie]

Anyone know what the "Not included in the standing orders" for the two 45ft trailers means?

I think dealers can have standing orders for, say, 10 of each car made every month. Since the trailers won't be available until mid-month, they can't be part of the standing order. The dealers will need to submit a new order for the trailers. I think.


Hmm... I have a standing
order with Kiz for a 1000
termites a day...

[lock4244]

Those CP 89' flats are foobs. Appears that they are using the 81' COFC car numbers, which is ironic because CP has similar cars (similar to their 81' cars that is, not the MTL car) that are 89' long. Regardless, CP's cars are skeleton cars like the Atlas trash flats, so nothing like the MTL 89' flat.

Sadly, SOO LINE had a fleet of 89' flats in COFC service that are dead ringers (or almost exact) for the MTL car. I know MTL will see a ton of them, but I, and likely a number of others, would live some 89' SOO COFC flats. Sigh... 

[bbussey]

Mike, you can always remove the CP reporting marks and add SOO reporting marks.

Didn't Atlas announce the CP skeleton scheme on the garbage flats?

[Mark5]

Who actually owned those 100T hoppers - I thought it was C&O,  CR  and NW??  Or am I wrong.

Pretty sure the design is based on the 1963 (through 1972) N&W H11a (through H11e) series.

PRR used the design on on their class H43.

Mark

[lock4244]

Mike, you can always remove the CP reporting marks and add SOO reporting marks.

Didn't Atlas announce the CP skeleton scheme on the garbage flats?

For the RTR crowd, a three pack of SOO's would have been nice. My assumption is that the SOO cars will be on Atlas's radar. Just sayin', as you did earlier, why foob when a proto is available?

Next announcement will be the second run of the trash flats in CP Rail and CN. Both are foobs, the CP proto being 81' or 89' cars and the CN being 89', but as far as foobs go, they are at least in the same ballpark. And yes, I've got a ton of them...