Time for a new Atlas 40' Plug door in N

[bbussey]

Maybe, but it's still just a small fraction of designs used during the same period.  Even the most modest rosters needs more variety.

Even the Atlas PS-1 as great as it is, isn't going to be accurate for many of the paint schemes they will offer,  I'm curious if they'll even do some of the 10' car schemes at some point.

Perhaps, in the most strict rivet-counter sense of the term.  But the overwhelming majority of the PS-1 road/schemes are viable on the Atlas variations and accurate within reason.  It's never possible to cover 100% of the prototype, and what's left over on the PS-1 prototypes doesn't warrant either the tooling a new model by another manufacturer or the additional tooling of new side mold slides by Atlas for the existing tooling.  I doubt, with all of the schemes possible on the current model variations, that any of the 9' (not 10') schemes will be replicated — particularly when L&C is the only road that didn't own additional 40' PS-1 cars with doors less than 9' wide.

And you can't say that there isn't a variety of steel 40' boxcar prototypes available in N.  Yes, more always are welcome.  But there are plenty available currently to construct a diverse roster.

[cjm413]

Not practical.  Only KCS, CGW and MDT had 40' PS-1 boxcars with plug doors.  Only CNW, GBW, L&C, L&N, MILW, MKT and Southern had 9' sliding doors. Not enough to tool new sides when there are at least 16 roads each (not counting scheme variations) of the 6', 7' and 8' doors.  Don't look for the double sliding doors either.

As a RTR model, I agree it's not practical.

For anyone that's willing to remove the plug door, build the appropriate 9' sliding door, upgrade the details, etc., it appears to be a relatively straightforward conversion.

CJM

[bbussey]

That's the best thing about the Branchline cars - you could use the separate roofs and ends to build pretty much anything...at least in HO...

Plastic bodies can be cut apart.  You can build pretty much anything in N as well.

[cjm413]

Plastic bodies can be cut apart.  You can build pretty much anything in N as well.

Some of Branchline's ends and roofs couldn't be scavenged from any existing HO plastic models, two examples that come to mind are the Despatch ends and 50' roofs.

To any extent the same ends and roofs offered by Branchline (and now Atlas) already exist in N scale, they need to be dimensionally accurate to have any value as kitbash fodder.

[Spikre]

 
  the Dartnaught,or Carbuilders End wasn't overly common in HO
  before Branchline did thiers.
   but there are still a few ends Not done in Plastic,the ACF 40s ends,
  the "Lionel" end favored by B&O,GATC and Pressed Steel in the late
  40s and early 50s,the Birfacated Hi Capacity Dreadnaught End, the
  4/4 Improved Dreadnaught End as used in the 60s by ATSF and RI.
   sure there are a few other experimental ends,and the Canadian
  Ends similar to the Despatch ends,or earlier Canadian ends.
      Spikre
       

[wcfn100]

I doubt, with all of the schemes possible on the current model variations, that any of the 9' (not 10') schemes will be replicated — particularly when L&C is the only road that didn't own additional 40' PS-1 cars with doors less than 9' wide.

Not 10' width, but 10' inside height cars.  Didn't NH have some of those? 

Jason

[bbussey]

Some of Branchline's ends and roofs couldn't be scavenged from any existing HO plastic models, two examples that come to mind are the Despatch ends and 50' roofs.

To any extent the same ends and roofs offered by Branchline (and now Atlas) already exist in N scale, they need to be dimensionally accurate to have any value as kitbash fodder.

You can scavenge anything if you have the proper tools, Branchline cars included.  The dimensional accuracy of all said parts goes without saying.

[bbussey]

Not 10' width, but 10' inside height cars.  Didn't NH have some of those? 

Atlas has said they will not tool the 6" variants, which is understandable.  New Haven had both.  I can live with the 10'6"-only variants, of which were the more plentiful PS-1 prototype height.

[cjm413]

  the Dartnaught,or Carbuilders End wasn't overly common in HO
  before Branchline did thiers.
   but there are still a few ends Not done in Plastic,the ACF 40s ends,
  the "Lionel" end favored by B&O,GATC and Pressed Steel in the late
  40s and early 50s,the Birfacated Hi Capacity Dreadnaught End, the
  4/4 Improved Dreadnaught End as used in the 60s by ATSF and RI.
   sure there are a few other experimental ends,and the Canadian
  Ends similar to the Despatch ends,or earlier Canadian ends.
      Spikre
       

Cannon has the bifurcated ends in HO

[wcfn100]

Atlas has said they will not tool the 6" variants, which is understandable.  New Haven had both.  I can live with the 10'6"-only variants, of which were the more plentiful PS-1 prototype height.

I'm wondering if they will paint the 10'6" model with 10' schemes.  It's something they've done in the Master line before.

Bryan, you always come with a logical manufacturing standpoint which is always appreciated, but after 30 years in the hobby, logic just doesn't seem that high on the list for what gets done and what doesn't.

Let's put it in a simple way from my stand point.  If the 1932 cars can get the Erie end for a single road, then it's not way out there to think the PS-1 could have had more options considering the 100s of paints schemes, especially with a half a dozen differences between early and late cars.

Of course, most of my rhetoric on the subject will disappear when parts are made available.  I'm all for chopping up cars, but don't like paying $20 a car to do it when you need multiple cars to make a new model.



Jason

[bbussey]

I'm wondering if they will paint the 10'6" model with 10' schemes.  It's something they've done in the Master line before.

Bryan, you always come with a logical manufacturing standpoint which is always appreciated, but after 30 years in the hobby, logic just doesn't seem that high on the list for what gets done and what doesn't.

Let's put it in a simple way from my stand point.  If the 1932 cars can get the Erie end for a single road, then it's not way out there to think the PS-1 could have had more options considering the 100s of paints schemes, especially with a half a dozen differences between early and late cars.

Of course, most of my rhetoric on the subject will disappear when parts are made available.  I'm all for chopping up cars, but don't like paying $20 a car to do it when you need multiple cars to make a new model.

Well, I wouldn't have a problem if Atlas releases 10'6" schemes on the 10'0" model because 1) they've been releasing 10'6" schemes on the model and 2) the tooling has to be amortized so that we see new tooling down the line.  I can't recall an Atlas strategy since 1980 that I've disagreed with or even questioned.  Regarding the 1932 ARA Boxcar, it could be that they learned from the Erie experiment not to duplicate that strategy.  Logic would dictate that you shouldn't repeat a mistake.

[cjm413]

Atlas has said they will not tool the 6" variants, which is understandable.  New Haven had both.  I can live with the 10'6"-only variants, of which were the more plentiful PS-1 prototype height.

Aside from the 10' IH and 7' door opening (if my recollection is correct), how close are these to the Microtrains PS-1?

The Atlas PS-1 may have killed any motivation I had to lower the Microtrains car to a 10'6" IH, but this might be a good way to reuse them vs dumping them in favor of the Atlas cars...

[bbussey]

Aside from the 10' IH and 7' door opening (if my recollection is correct), how close are these to the Microtrains PS-1?

The Atlas PS-1 may have killed any motivation I had to lower the Microtrains car to a 10'6" IH, but this might be a good way to reuse them vs dumping them in favor of the Atlas cars...

The Atlas model is accurate to the prototype.  The Micro-Trains model is not.

[nkalanaga]

From a freight car modeler's viewpoint, the Atlas model is much better than the MT model.  If your interest is in running trains, the difference isn't that noticeable, especially when they're moving.  If you have a bunch of MT cars, and would rather run them than look at them, lowering and body mounting the couplers works fine.

If you're on a budget, and already have the MT cars, that's another factor to consider.

The inaccuracies on the MT cars don't bother me, although it would have been nice if they'd gotten them right in the beginning.  As for the excess height, 40 years ago N scale modelers expected truck mounted couplers, so that is easily explained.  The body flaws are harder to explain, but again, 40 years ago veru few people minded.  Even most HO cars then weren't accurate.

[OldEastRR]

This thread came back from the dead? Seriously, between this and another thread about sectional car parts for DIY versions of any prototype boxcars, seems like there is a market for such things. What about reject bodies etc that come off the assembly line? No manufacturer wants to make separate parts but they could sell rejects for parts harvesting, at low cost to the modeler. If they don't want the hassle (I don't need to hear again all the logistical and financial reasons why they wouldn't do this) couldn't they just off-load the rejects to some third party as sales? Then that party does the cutting up, marketing, etc.