A look at the Athearn F89F TTEX "Long Runner"

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Part I

I have not seen many photos of the new Athearn Long Runner, so I'm here to fix that.

The model is based on the first "Triple 57" Long Runner models that Trailer Train put into service in the 1980's. These cars featured two channel side F89F flats that were permanently connected via draw-bar. With a very long 57' trailer straddling the ends of the connected car, bump-outs were added to keep the wheels on deck when navigating a curve. At the time, regulatory rules changed to allow 48' trailers nationwide and allowed states to expand on that length in their jurisdictions for highway uset. A few western states allowed 57' trailers before the industry and federal regulations settled on  53' as the maximum inter-state trailer size. Very few 57' trailers were actually made.

Faced with the fact that TT had a product that was not going to see widespread use, they tamed down the concept and rebuilt several hundred more 89' flats into "Tripple 53" Long Runner models. The reduction in size meant that they no longer needed the iconic bump-outs. Athearn has produced the original version of this car which was in use until the early 2010's. The last photo I was able to find of these was dated in 2012.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Package includes the two flats in jewel cases within a cardboard box.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
The cars come highly detailed. Bodies are cast zinc. Paint is opaque and even.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Deck tops are white as per prototype, though those wore out quickly. You can see here that the bump outs are cast into the car and not add on - good. For reference, here are a few photos of the prototype and its bump-outs:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2554813
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2554814
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1827361
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4147084

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Let's take s closer look at that draw bar.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Oh come on Athearn, you can do better than this. The draw-bar is screw in which means you need a screw driver if you ever want to put it back in the jewel case. IM and MTL both designed draw bars that can disconnect without disassembly. The Atlas Thrall auto carrier has the same issue. That model is nearly 20 years old now. Do better.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Part II

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

This flat is a chonker! How these actually cleared station platforms, I'll never know. Looking at photos of the prototype, Athearn did a good job with the angles and measurements of the bump-out.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Under body detailing is very good. Right up there with the BLMA flat.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
The stirrups could be thinner though. These will not convert to MTL couplers though Accumate is an option. Those McHenry couplers look awful on such an open car.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Deck printing is great.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
As are the hitch assembly. These have large holes for the extended position to mate with trailers from Trainworx, Atlas, MTL and others.

The collapsed hitches have smaller kingpin holes.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Part III

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
48 and 53 trailers bridge the draw bar without issue. Just remember to retract the landing gear above top of sidewall!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
The Deluxe Innovations trailers have a smaller kingpin and should not be used over the draw-bar. They tend to fall off on curves.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Those trucks look amazing! This is new tooling. That ride height though... It looks about 6" too high. Here is a photo of the prototype for comparison:
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/ttx/ttex161159akg.jpg

There does seem to be enough room to lower these cars a bit. At least the body does not scrape the wheels like the Atlas ACF cars.

Oh, you can't add trailers into the jewel case even though they look like they would fit. Not quite enough room.

You can find these for $40 if you shop around. At that price, they are a bargain.

[tehachapifan]

Good review!

I have one of these cars too and agree the ride height looks a bit too high. Figure I'll try to address that at some point, although any significant change will affect the coupler heights as well. Otherwise, these are really nice-looking cars that roll super-smooth!

[nkalanaga]

So these actually are new body castings, not just a new paint scheme.  Interesting, and a significant investment.

As for the drawbar design, I can see two possible reasons:
1:  It's easier than redesigning the draft gear box.  Saving a little money here might have made spending on the new body more palatable.
2:  Being a 1970s modeler, I'm not familiar with the prototype, but the spacing seems a little wide.  With this design, it would be easy for a modeler to make a shorter drawbar, from brass or plastic, if they have wide enough curves.

[MetroRedLine]

What's the minimum radius on these? I've heard conflicting info.

[tehachapifan]

What's the minimum radius on these? I've heard conflicting info.

Where you're probably going to run into potential issues first is with the trailer spanning platforms. If the curve is too tight the trailer's bogies might either bind with or climb the inner rub-rails and/or side-sills. I run this car on 20" min. radius curves with no issues but I wouldn't want to run it on much tighter curves, although you might be able to go a little bit tighter.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

What's the minimum radius on these? I've heard conflicting info.

I use 18" on my test track and it ran fine with a trailer over the draw-bar. They run better than the Atlas ACF cars which had issues with trucks scraping the underside of the body and couplers so short, they couldn't work. I ended up grinding out the truck areas on the Atlas car and replacing the Accumate couplers with Bachmann EZ-Mate medium shank parts as they were the only knuckle couplers that could fit. God that Atlas car is awful. I don't know how it ever made it to production.

I'll try and get a few photos of this car with the Atlas and MTL ACF cars as well as the BLMA F89J car.

[tehachapifan]

I got those Atlas 89' cars to roll WAY better by adding a (very thin) spacer/washer between the trucks and body, as the wheels were rubbing on the underside of the platform like you mentioned. I may have also swapped-out the wheelsets with something else but it's been a while and can't remember for sure. IIRC, I fabricated my own spacer washers out of thin styrene (probably .010 or .015").

[Englewood]

Were those Atlas cars originally BLMA? I seem to remember having issues with my BLMA flats.

[MetroRedLine]

I use 18" on my test track and it ran fine with a trailer over the draw-bar. They run better than the Atlas ACF cars which had issues with trucks scraping the underside of the body and couplers so short, they couldn't work. I ended up grinding out the truck areas on the Atlas car and replacing the Accumate couplers with Bachmann EZ-Mate medium shank parts as they were the only knuckle couplers that could fit. God that Atlas car is awful. I don't know how it ever made it to production.

I'll try and get a few photos of this car with the Atlas and MTL ACF cars as well as the BLMA Bethlehem car.

Interesting. I have 18" radius curves. Even though they stopped running over a decade before my era, I've always wanted these. If they really work on 18" radius, it might be worth it to get at least one set.

[John]

Paint looks a little thick ..

[w neal]

You say there is not many options for coupler conversions. In my experience, both the factory Mc Henry and the accumates have unwanted uncoupling issues. You say that MTLs will not fit. Are there any decent options then for couplers on these cars?

[bbussey]

Glad to see your Long Runner had no issues. I picked up two of the standard F89F flats and both required some attention. Both flats had the circus ramps at 45-degree angles and one of the flats had them glued on, which snapped off when I attempted to adjust the angle. I had to drill holes in the deck and bottom of the ramps to insert wire for remounting. The brake ratchet stands also were angled out and had to be straightened upright. One of the corner grab irons was poorly mounted and needed to be removed and reset. Note that the raised hitches have fine lettering, but the collapsed hitches do not. The hitches on the BLMA F89J flats are decorated similarly and it’s a minor issue, but an issue nonetheless. I changed the two rear hitches to collapsed hitches, and one of the existing raised hitches was Goo’d in place.  Fortunately the collapsed hitch press-fit in place without needing Goo or cement. The overall finish and appearance are very good, but some of the small printing letters are filled in. And Athearn’s refusal to make their coupler pockets MTL-compatible is a major pain. BLI’s hybrid MTL-clone knuckles with the Accu-Mate spring design would work, but BLI inexplicably has not made the coupler readily available. I put Accu-Mates in my flats. Swapping MTLs into your BLI models will free up the BLI couplers For conversion of Athearn diecast models. Overall, the models do look good and they match up well with the BLMA F89J flats.

[bbussey]

You say there is not many options for coupler conversions. In my experience, both the factory Mc Henry and the accumates have unwanted uncoupling issues. You say that MTLs will not fit. Are there any decent options then for couplers on these cars?

While not available separately, the BLI MTL/AccuMate hybrid couplers would work, and BLI equipment will accept MTL couplers. So swapping in MTLs into your existing BLI models would free up the hybrids for Athearn models.