Late 70's / Early 80's MOW Trucks

[ai5629]

I am thinking about building some MOW trucks for my Conrail era based in June 1984.  I plan on using the Showcase Miniatures #48 and #49 MOW trucks with some modifications to better match the trucks I want to represent.  The cabs are too new for my era, so I was going to swap out the cabs with older ones.  My plan was to use SM's 60's IH cab in place of that which SM supplies with the kits.  Now I am not so sure.  Conrail utilized medium duty cabs with most of its MOW trucks from Chevrolet and Ford in the late 70's.  The SM IH cab fits that billing, but it appears too dated IMO.  What other choices are out there?  C in C makes multiple medium duty Chevrolet C60 and C65 cabs, but they appear undersized.  C in C makes a Ford L8000, but that is a heavy duty cab, and may be over kill.  The same goes for Atlas' Ford LNT.  I only have one set each of Matt Snell's CR MOW decals (one for blue trucks and one for yellow trucks), so I don't want to regret my cab choices since I won't be able to redo them.  Any suggestions and thoughts are appreciated.  Thank you.

Jeff

[Rasputen]

I have a resin 1968 Ford F850 cab and wheels available.  I think that the mid 1970s ones were similar.

These are $3.00 each.  PM me if interested.

[wazzou]

These are superb models too.  Thanks again Brian.

[jimmo]

I don't know about Conrail history but for the mid '80s it's possible for there to still be aging International Loadstars still in use being phased out by the new S-series International medium-duty trucks. Unfortunately there are no such year model of International available in N-scale. The only one that I'm aware of was just the nose of the NZT (DKS) school bus model. You might find one or two out there still but I have my doubts. If that nose was mated to one of Showcase's newer Internationals, it is the same cab. But that could be dicey if they didn't match exactly.

I am working on an S-series International truck slated for release sometime later in the year. What you could do is build the old Loadstars for now and wait for the new S-series trucks that I'm making. I would willing to sell you just the cabs, if that's all you needed.

[randgust]

I'll just put my name into this thread as being equally interested in 70's hirail and maintenance trucks and would want to be contacted if new products or ideas emerge.   Love the stuff that's out there but it's too modern.   I'd like to find one big enough to find one to make operational; have the wheels and drive system, can't find a truck that's worth the work to do it on.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

This is something I should know about.

But don't...

Although, I'd highly recommend browsing through the CRHS image gallery:
http://thecrhs.org/ConrailEquipment/MOW/Vehicles

It looks like Conrail was a big user of GMC stuff.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Conrail purchased GMC exclusively after formation. All Ford trucks were legacy (Reading, and EL being large Ford owners). I think I read somewhere that this was the result of large engine fleet sales and the vehicles were given a deep discount.

The C60/65 are actually about the right size. They were fairly small cabs. I also use SM Chevy Topkick cabs which are close enough for me.

This is something I should know about.

But don't...

Although, I'd highly recommend browsing through the CRHS image gallery:
http://thecrhs.org/ConrailEquipment/MOW/Vehicles

It looks like Conrail was a big user of GMC stuff.

[wazzou]

The C60/65 utilized the standard Silverado or Sierra P/U cabs of the day, mated to hoods and fenders.

[cfritschle]

As Bryan and Daniel stated, there is nothing wrong with the C in C cabs.  The cab is based on the 1973 Chevy/GMC pickup cab, and GM used that cab for their medium duty trucks through 1989, although some appear to have been sold as 1990 models.

And, we could certainly use the International S series that James will be producing! 

Kitbashing trucks is rewarding and fun.

Carter

[ai5629]

There is a lot of great information that has been shared here.  Thank you all for that.  Based on what everyone is saying, I should reconsider the C in C Chevrolet C65 trucks, especially for the yellow Conrail ones.  I hope they can still be had from C in C!  I was playing around with the SM #48 and #49 trucks this morning, and the 60's IH cab is not a drop fit on either the #48 or #49 chassis.  Looks like I will have to go the route of adding the SM boxes/beds to the 60's IH chassis or the C in C C65 chassis.  This should be an interesting project with a lot of real modeling involved.  I hope my enthusiasm for this project sticks.  Thank you.

Jeff

[jimmo]

I hate to disagree with my much-respected, fellow truck-affectionado modeling brothers but according to my specs, the C in C Chevy C60 and C65 cabs are about 6" too narrow. The models themselves are well-proportioned but slightly smaller than 1/160. I've checked GM trucks from around the same era and found that they are 6'-6" wide. This carries through the medium-duty lines as well since they used the same pickup cabs as Carter stated.

The C-series Chevy and GMC overall fender-to-fender width should be 89-1/2" which is just under 7-1/2'. The C in C C-series are only about 7' (as far as I can ascertain).

I still think that these are great little models and have kept all of mine--I just wouldn't put them too close to the big trucks.

If anyone is still interested in buying C in C models, they are still in business: http://www.pfc-cinc.com/n_scale_trucks.html

[cfritschle]

I hate to disagree with my much-respected, fellow truck-affectionado modeling brothers but according to my specs, the C in C Chevy C60 and C65 cabs are about 6" too narrow. The models themselves are well-proportioned but slightly smaller than 1/160. I've checked GM trucks from around the same era and found that they are 6'-6" wide. This carries through the medium-duty lines as well since they used the same pickup cabs as Carter stated.

The C-series Chevy and GMC overall fender-to-fender width should be 89-1/2" which is just under 7-1/2'. The C in C C-series are only about 7' (as far as I can ascertain).

I still think that these are great little models and have kept all of mine--I just wouldn't put them too close to the big trucks.

If anyone is still interested in buying C in C models, they are still in business: http://www.pfc-cinc.com/n_scale_trucks.html

James,

You got me thinking maybe I had miss-measured the C in C Chevy models years ago before I had my digital calipers.  So, I decided to try it again to see what my digital calipers would show.  I came up with a width across the fenders of 0.546 inches.  If I multiple that number by 160, I get 87.36 inches. 

So yes, the model is about 2 scale inches too narrow.  (That's a difference of 0.013375 actual inches, or 2.2 percent)  However, we still have a lot of C60 and C65 Chevy trucks in the farmlands of Idaho, and they do indeed look smaller when parked near the newer trucks, like the Chevy Kodiak or International DuraStar. 

But, everyone's perception of what looks all right or acceptable will not be the same, and what may look fine to one person, might look too small or even too big to another.

Carter

 

[jimmo]

James,

You got me thinking maybe I had miss-measured the C in C Chevy models years ago before I had my digital calipers.  So, I decided to try it again to see what my digital calipers would show.  I came up with a width across the fenders of 0.546 inches.  If I multiple that number by 160, I get 87.36 inches. 

So yes, the model is about 2 scale inches too narrow.  (That's a difference of 0.013375 actual inches, or 2.2 percent)  However, we still have a lot of C60 and C65 Chevy trucks in the farmlands of Idaho, and they do indeed look smaller when parked near the newer trucks, like the Chevy Kodiak or International DuraStar. 

But, everyone's perception of what looks all right or acceptable will not be the same, and what may look fine to one person, might look too small or even too big to another.

Carter

 

Can't argue with digital calipers. Do me a favor and measure the cab width. Holding the cabs of the C-60 and my '76 Chevy Blazer side-by-side, I get the impression that the C-60 is a slightly smaller scale--either that or my Blazer is slightly larger scale.

Speaking of scale inches (and how they don't seem that significant), I am in the process of resizing a truck nose/cab that is larger than N-scale (1/128) by using a technique that takes several small steps of shrinking. The measurement that I use for checking progress is across the bottom of the casting fender to fender. The prototype should be right around 8 scale feet wide. Right now I have three iterations of it side-by-side with only a few scale inches difference between them, yet the overall sizes are quite noticeable. Using an N-scale ruler the original cast width is 10 feet, 4 inches (plus or minus a hair). My second casting has shrunk all the way down to 10 feet. Not much (it seems) but the overall appearance is noticeable. My third casting has shrunk down to 9 feet, 3 (or so) inches.

This little unintentional exercise in scale has verified (at least to me) that a slight difference in proportional dimensions can make a noticeable difference overall. I still maintain that these models are excellent enough to invest in and I'm glad they are still selling them.

I agree with your comment on perception. A few years ago when I started making vehicles (when vehicle sizes were all over the place), I came up with a term for just that. I called it the RVA or Range of Visual Acceptance. Everyone has their own modeling RVA. That's why some think Galoob Micro-Machines make fine N-scale vehicles and some don't.

[sirenwerks]

I have a resin 1968 Ford F850 cab and wheels available.  I think that the mid 1970s ones were similar.

These are $3.00 each.  PM me if interested.

Back to Rasputen's model, which I am greatly interested in since Athearn refuses to budge on N scaling its HO model (which I imagine is where this model came from)...  What readily available frame does this mate to and has anyone completed any in paint to see?

[cfritschle]

Can't argue with digital calipers. Do me a favor and measure the cab width. Holding the cabs of the C-60 and my '76 Chevy Blazer side-by-side, I get the impression that the C-60 is a slightly smaller scale--either that or my Blazer is slightly larger scale.

Speaking of scale inches (and how they don't seem that significant), I am in the process of resizing a truck nose/cab that is larger than N-scale (1/128) by using a technique that takes several small steps of shrinking. The measurement that I use for checking progress is across the bottom of the casting fender to fender. The prototype should be right around 8 scale feet wide. Right now I have three iterations of it side-by-side with only a few scale inches difference between them, yet the overall sizes are quite noticeable. Using an N-scale ruler the original cast width is 10 feet, 4 inches (plus or minus a hair). My second casting has shrunk all the way down to 10 feet. Not much (it seems) but the overall appearance is noticeable. My third casting has shrunk down to 9 feet, 3 (or so) inches.

This little unintentional exercise in scale has verified (at least to me) that a slight difference in proportional dimensions can make a noticeable difference overall. I still maintain that these models are excellent enough to invest in and I'm glad they are still selling them.

I agree with your comment on perception. A few years ago when I started making vehicles (when vehicle sizes were all over the place), I came up with a term for just that. I called it the RVA or Range of Visual Acceptance. Everyone has their own modeling RVA. That's why some think Galoob Micro-Machines make fine N-scale vehicles and some don't.

James,

The cab measures 0.475 inches wide at the doors.  That is an even 76 scale inches.  I was not able to find any width dimensions for the prototype 1973 Chevy, pickup or truck.

What I have noticed for my "RVA" is that a slightly larger model (no greater that 1:157 scale) generally looks acceptable when placed near a 1:160 scale model.  And, a slightly smaller model (no smaller than 1:163 scale) generally looks acceptable when placed near a 1:160 scale model.  But, if the 1:157 model gets too close to the 1:163 scale model, it becomes obvious something is not right.  This is roughly 2.5 percent over size or 2.5 percent under size, but a 5 percent difference when placed next to each other.   

When I set up my display at the N scale conventions, I include some 1:148 and 1:150 scale vehicle models so people can compare them to the 1:160 scale models.  Two people can be looking at the models at the same time, and one will say they look great together, and the other will say they look terrible together.   

I should note that even the mass produced N scale vehicles within a single manufacturer's line have varied more between models than that what is in my "RVA".

Carter