Modeling idea: freight car core kits

[daniel_leavitt2000]

I had this idea back when constructing the FGE 5145/5237 and recently it popped up again while working on the RDG/CR BR55 RBL.

The kit could come with a floor but no under frame. Height extensions could snap on the top to bring it to plate C and F heights.

The modeler could select many parts made in plastic, resin, etched brass or prototyped from Shapeways.

Options would include:
Under frame (standard, cushioned, specific type, coupler pocket style).
Car aside detail.
Car end detail.
Car roof detail.
Car door detail.

This would allow the modeler to quickly build high quality models of less popular prototypes. Offering car "flats" would eliminate 90% of the issues we run into with FXD.

Ideas?

[Maletrain]

I'll "second" that notion.  Especially printing the parts as flats.

[bbussey]

Isn't it easy enough just to utilize floors/underframes from existing models?

[daniel_leavitt2000]

The problem with that is that each under frame is a different size. Your cushioned under frame is slightly longer than, say an MDC under frame. Or the width between a FVM under frame and the Atlas FGE is different.

While these could be cut up and adjusted, this adds inconsistency that a core kit would remove. The great thing about American Limited core kits was that you had a straight and true core to build off of. I am finding that this would be a benefit with kit bashing box cars as well.

A basic box that you can glue sides, ends and a roof on would be much, MUCH easier than chopping parts up, trying to get them true. Gluing long thin sides together and trying to make all the parts into a perfect box.

Actually, your under frame was the basis of the idea. I was looking at all the bodies you have planned to utilize this and thought to myself, "if someone made a basic box to plop on top of this, one could have dozens of different box car kits that wouldn't be available otherwise".

This is essentially what I had to do with the  FGE cars:


If I had to do this project over again, I would have made the core and under frame as one casting and the roof, sides and ends as a separate casting. This would have eliminated some issues with the mold that I had. But resin ien't perfect and not "true" enough. Which is why I think a plastic core kit would be a good idea.

[thomasjmdavis]

The problem with that is that each under frame is a different size. Your cushioned under frame is slightly longer than, say an MDC under frame. Or the width between a FVM under frame and the Atlas FGE is different.

There is something here I am not getting.  Given that there are a multitude of car sizes, and underframe sizes, how does a "standardized" core work? 

You mention the ALM cores, which were (hopefully, ARE, or will be again) convenient for building passenger cars. However, if you wanted accurately scaled cars (ie- had your sides made up to actual scale length for the particular prototype) rather than sized to the length of the core kit (there was a lot more variation in streamlined cars than some people think), you often had to chop them up- to shorten them- or occasionally stretching them a bit. While easier than chopping a complete car, it still leaves one with the work of squaring everything up and getting a precise fit for the sides, and dealing with seams in the roof. 

At any rate, the part of this that is not apparent to me, with variations in length comes a lot of cutting and splicing- how do you anticipate the core working for a variety of underframe (and/or body) lengths?

[ksmiley]

I would have thought modifying 3D drawings would be today's method to get unique/one-off cars. This seems a backward step to when kits were 5-6 'flats' cast in resin.

[Maletrain]

The problem with 3D printing whole cars comes from the striations left on the surfaces that are not parallel to the print layers. So, printing 6 flats can make for better finished prints and more easily finished model surfaces. 

Maybe some day it will be as simple as putting a 3D CAD drawing into a computer that controls a 3D printer and getting a fully assembled model.  But, not today.

[Lemosteam]

The idea is sound but at issue i the complexity more so than the quality IMHO.  No one person has the technical knowledge to know ALL variations for ALL railroads within the type of car (think options).  The customer ordering the original car drives this complexity, i.e. brake cylinder here, this type of door there, truck type, and on and on.

No modeler is happy until they see an exact replica of the model THEY want and no designer could ever realize a profit from all of the time spent developing the full content, AND then having to offer EACH one without the customer throwing away parts that don't fit their prototype.

The closest I have come to anything of the sort is the Pullman underbody kit, and even then I have to offer no less than six variations of it (only two are complete to date), and that is just the component arrangements underneath. Each variation or option is a direct multiplication of the last, provided all options are possible with each other i.e. window placements, floor plans and roof styles, etc.,  and a designer might be looking at 200-300 build able combinations that must be designed.

I recently worked on a real-life example of this on a commercial product.  We had to calculate the number of parts that could be custom manufactured to support all the options that affected this part from the available options on the product.  We were asked by management to create 3D models of each one to support the validation process.  Anyway they stopped us at 6 million and that was before we got to the last three ON/OFF options doubling the that amount with each option and then asked us for a better solution (which we did).  Could one pare the options down?  Sure but only at the risk of losing sales to those few finicky customers.

This is the reason why even the largest manufacturers simply paint a foobie instead of making another mold, but what I am trying to say is even with the manufacturing flexibility of 3D printing, etc, the different variations still must be DESIGNED.

[wcfn100]

The problem with 3D printing whole cars comes from the striations left on the surfaces that are not parallel to the print layers. So, printing 6 flats can make for better finished prints and more easily finished model surfaces. 

Printing flat still leaves layers.  Flats and Gondolas can probably pass visually, but box cars might be a ways out.



Jason

[cjm413]

Sounds like the opposite of a N scale version of the Modelers Choice or Cannon kits that were designed to use stock underframes, ends, roofs, etc from Accurail, Branchline, Moloco, etc.

https://shop.cannonandco.net/category.sc?categoryId=21

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Sounds like the opposite of a N scale version of the Modelers Choice or Cannon kits that were designed to use stock underframes, ends, roofs, etc from Accurail, Branchline, Moloco, etc.

https://shop.cannonandco.net/category.sc?categoryId=21

Whoa, those are cool!

[bbussey]

The problem with that is that each under frame is a different size. Your cushioned under frame is slightly longer than, say an MDC under frame. Or the width between a FVM under frame and the Atlas FGE is different.

While these could be cut up and adjusted, this adds inconsistency that a core kit would remove. The great thing about American Limited core kits was that you had a straight and true core to build off of. I am finding that this would be a benefit with kit bashing box cars as well.

A basic box that you can glue sides, ends and a roof on would be much, MUCH easier than chopping parts up, trying to get them true. Gluing long thin sides together and trying to make all the parts into a perfect box.

Actually, your under frame was the basis of the idea. I was looking at all the bodies you have planned to utilize this and thought to myself, "if someone made a basic box to plop on top of this, one could have dozens of different box car kits that wouldn't be available otherwise".

I don't know.  Didn't you build an inner box shell for your FGE cars and then assembled the thinner outer parts to that?  I think that it's not that big a step further to kitbash by cutting up parts of existing cars.  I get that it would be easier if you started with the inner box body and a floor/underframe.  But there aren't commercially-available sides, ends and roofs currently, so they would have to be salvaged from existing models anyway.

I've never had a problem cutting up existing models to get parts, which is one reason I love seeing new models come to market.  With the right tools, you can `bash any car if all the needed detail features are included on existing models.

[cjm413]

I don't know.  Didn't you build an inner box shell for your FGE cars and then assembled the thinner outer parts to that?  I think that it's not that big a step further to kitbash by cutting up parts of existing cars.  I get that it would be easier if you started with the inner box body and a floor/underframe.  But there aren't commercially-available sides, ends and roofs currently, so they would have to be salvaged from existing models anyway.

I've never had a problem cutting up existing models to get parts, which is one reason I love seeing new models come to market.  With the right tools, you can `bash any car if all the needed detail features are included on existing models.

X58 would be a great "core kit" providing overhanging diagonal panel roof, R3/4 ends, and Hydra-Cushion u/f for various PCF-built cars....you can't spell "SPF" without "SP"

http://www.9esmc.com/ProdLine2220.html

https://shop.cannonandco.net/product.sc?productId=163

https://shop.cannonandco.net/product.sc?productId=202

[bbussey]

Well, the HC floor/underframe already is available separately as new X-series models are released, and soon the trucks will be too!

http://www.esmc.com/9900/Item9903.html

http://www.esmc.com/9200/Item9210.html

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Bryan, I have been thinking - now that you need to produce your own trucks, any chance we might see a roller-bearing conversion truck like this:
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/cr/cr768000atw.jpg