Rapido Announces the GARX 37' Meat Reefer in N scale

[CBQ Fan]

Rapido is pleased to announce the General American 37’ meat refrigerator car in N scale.

As with all Rapido products these are available by pre order; we will not be carrying inventory so when they are gone; they are gone. Reservations are due by March 17th with a fall delivery planned. We are bringing samples to Springfield so drop in and see us there.

Rapido's new meat reefer - "cool" !

Due in the fall of what year??  2015, 16, 17, 18 or just fall sometime in the future?   

[wcfn100]

Does anyone have RPC #14 that would list maybe which of these paint schemes are prototypical this exact car?

36' wood cars with tabbed sills and ladders don''t seem to be all that common (at least not so far).  Haven't found any Swift cars that match yet. 


Jason

[wcfn100]

  MT wood reefers still have the best overall look of the model's surface.  It looks much more realistic.

Be glad they tooled that car way back when.  If MTL did that car today, it may be a different story.



Jason

[peteski]

Be glad they tooled that car way back when.  If MTL did that car today, it may be a different story.

Jason

Really?  To me the latest MT body styles still have the same level of delicate details.  At least the ones I've seen.

To prove my point, here is a comparison between Rapido and MT wood reefers (I know that the MT car is the wrong body style for that paint scheme).  Both cars are photographed from a similar angle and are similar size in the photos. The side engraving, ladders and hinges are all much finer on the MT car.  That to me is painfully clear. Even the stirrups are much more to scale on the MT car.

Is it so much more difficult or expensive to engrave shallower and narrower lines on the car sides? 
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[wcfn100]

Really?  To me the latest MT body styles still have the same level of delicate details.  At least the ones I've seen.

For me the stand out is that they don't do weld seams anymore.  It started (I think) with the SP caboose where they went to an alternate 'raised panel' to simulate a row of sheets welded together.  This is also evident on the heavyweight passenger car roofs which look like a set of speed bumps.  Also on the passenger cars it's been noted before how after the RPO, the roof tooling took a dive.

What was the last car they did besides the passenger cars?

Jason

[peteski]

For me the stand out is that they don't do weld seams anymore.  It started (I think) with the SP caboose where they went to an alternate 'raised panel' to simulate a row of sheets welded together.  This is also evident on the heavyweight passenger car roofs which look like a set of speed bumps.  Also on the passenger cars it's been noted before how after the RPO, the roof tooling took a dive.

What was the last car they did besides the passenger cars?

Jason

Was it the spine car?

While I have to concede that the heavyweight roofs are not up to their old standard, they are acceptable to me.  However looking at the car sides the rivets and panels are still done very well.

[wcfn100]

However looking at the car sides the rivets and panels are still done very well.

I'll give MTL credit for still doing riveted cars.  There's a bit of a trend away from them e.g BLMA Flat, TWX Gons, WoT Flats, and suppose this reefer would fall into that as well. 

If you get a chance, look at the SP caboose and tell me what you think of that.

Jason

[tom mann]

So why is stuff like this a tooling challenge?

[peteski]

So why is stuff like this a tooling challenge?

It is probably not a technical challenge as much as it might be due to what the model designer wants to do.  Plus rivets probably take more time while producing the tooling. But why would making shallower and narrower gaps between boards be more challenging than making them oversize - I can't figure it out.  Most of the tooling is not designed on the computer and the molds are produced using EDM (Electic-Discharge Machining).  Producing small or shallow details on flat surfaces should not be very challenging. But I'm not a toolmaker. 

Jason - I have no access to any of the MT SP cabooses.  But I recall a thread on the A-board comparing it to another similar model (Athearn?) which IIRC was more true to scale.  The latest MT model I was judging their quality by was the heavyweight cars. But you might be right about the overall quality of their offerings not being as good as the older models. I'm talking about the surface details (ignoring the well known issues - like the ride height).   Come to think of it Kato is still able to produce superbly-detailed models.  Their 1988 Orient Express set is absolutely stunning! The FEF also seems like it will be a winner.

[wcfn100]

But you might be right about the overall quality of their offerings not being as good as the older models.

I don't want my statement to be pinned to overall quality per se.  I feel like the cost of tooling is coming into play and MTL in particular is looking at different ideas to keep costs down.  And sometimes the results don't live up to what they need to.  I also feel like the recent rise in welded cars could be partially due to cheaper tooling (and faster manufacturing as well).  But maybe the next 20 new cars released will all be riveted and this is all a coincidence. 

Jason

[bbussey]

First off, I disagree on the relief on the model. It's fine as is. All n scale cars have exaggerated relief, otherwise you wouldn't see it.

Second, why is the roof hatch detail on the MTL reefer acceptable when it is far more bulky than the Atlas and Rapido models?  If you're not taking the entire model under consideration, you're being hypocritical. Roof hatch and latch detail are better on every n scale reefer model that has been tooled since the Kadee reefer was first released. Atlas. MDC. InterMountain. And now Rapido. All of them.

Third, the Rapido reefer is based on a specific prototype. What prototype is the MTL 36' reefer based on?

Fourth, the relief and detail on the MTL passenger car bodies are comparable to that of the RivaRossi models of 40 years ago, and the roof detail is below the level of the RivaRossi models, so no groundbreaking has occurred in those product lines. They fill a niche that has long been empty, which is their greatest appeal. The detail and relief on the WOT heavyweight equipment is far superior.

And fifth, if you think a particular scheme isn't prototypical for the model, then don't buy it. But before writing a scheme off as foob, I'd check the photos of the specific road numbers that were used. Specifically, Swift had a ton of 36' wood reefers built to various specs.

Why don't we wait until the Rapido product hits the stands, or at the least, until the pilot models surface in Springfield this January as promised before trashing it?  And, given that the manufacturer has been showing production progress photos regularly of their n scale product lines the last few months, the snide comments about exaggerated release dates are uncalled for as well.

[wcfn100]

And fifth, if you think a particular scheme isn't prototypical for the model, then don't buy it. But before writing a scheme off as foob, I'd check the photos of the specific road numbers that were used. Specifically, Swift had a ton of 36' wood reefers built to various specs.

That's what I'm hoping the RPC will spell out, which cars or car nos. were built to this design.  Reefers can be tough because they get lumped into big blocks of numbers.  The Wilson car for instance (according to the Reefer Color Guide - whatever that's worth), is in a number series 8101-9600, and I can say for sure that car 9350 isn't this design, but were all the cars the exact same?  I can't say for sure.  For the Swift car, there an example of car no. 2778 which had the ladder, but still doesn't have the tabbed sill.  Not a big deal, but not prototypical - and that's okay. 

I'm not calling anything a foob.  I'm done advocating for better models if it's not something I'm that interested in because it's clearly been a waste of my time in the past.  I'm just asking which cars would be prototypical with the tabbed sill and ladders so I can see if I can fit one into my roster.

As for the relief, I think the sides will end up looking okay but the roof could look a bit course (as is) from normal viewing angles.

Jason

[peteski]

First off, I disagree on the relief on the model. It's fine as is. All n scale cars have exaggerated relief, otherwise you wouldn't see it.

I agree, but why make it grossly exaggerated?  If my photo comparison doesn't clearly show the difference to you then I don't know how else to demonstrate it to you. Why make the the gap between the boards scale 2" wide and 2" deep when it could just as easily be 1" wide and 0.5" deep?  These aren't any specific values - just an example.  Either of those gaps would be visible on the model - one would just look more realistic than the other.

Second, why is the roof hatch detail on the MTL reefer acceptable when it is far more bulky than the Atlas and Rapido models?  If you're not taking the entire model under consideration, you're being hypocritical. Roof hatch and latch detail are better on every n scale reefer model that has been tooled since the Kadee reefer was first released. Atlas. MDC. InterMountain. And now Rapido. All of them.

I guess we all have different trigger points of something that makes a model less realistic. Mine is obviously different than yours.  I can accept the oversize roof hatch detail much easier than the large and deep gaps between the boards.  Besides, it is much easier to to replace the hatch with a more in-scale item than fix the sides of the car.

Third, the Rapido reefer is based on a specific prototype. What prototype is the MTL 36' reefer based on?

I don't know and to be honest it doesn't biother me. The car just looks "right" to me.  More like a scale model than a toy.

Fourth, the relief and detail on the MTL passenger car bodies are comparable to that of the RivaRossi models of 40 years ago, and the roof detail is below the level of the RivaRossi models, so no groundbreaking has occurred in those product lines. They fill a niche that has long been empty, which is their greatest appeal. The detail and relief on the WOT heavyweight equipment is far superior.

Funny that you say that. I just compared the Ricarossi and MT heavyweight cars about a week ago and the Rivarossi rivets look giant when compared to the MT ones. The spacing of the Rivarossi rivets is also way to sparse.  I won't be able to take a photo over the weekend, but maybe next week I can show a photo of both, to show the huge difference between Rivarossi and MT.  I myself did not realize how much finer the MT rivets are until I was looking at both cars next to each other.

Am I really becoming a real rivet-counter!?   

And fifth, if you think a particular scheme isn't prototypical for the model, then don't buy it. But before writing a scheme off as foob, I'd check the photos of the specific road numbers that were used. Specifically, Swift had a ton of 36' wood reefers built to various specs.

Again, this is something that I'm sometimes willing to accept.  I have even bought some real fantasy-schemes from MT.  Yes, I have sinned!  I guess we have different priorities.

Why don't we wait until the Rapido product hits the stands, or at the least, until the pilot models surface in Springfield this January as promised before trashing it?  And, given that the manufacturer has been showing production progress photos regularly of their n scale product lines the last few months, the snide comments about exaggerated release dates are uncalled for as well.

You do have a point.  But since the info and photo was posted, I simply stated my opinion about what I saw.  Isn't that why manufacturers post photos of the pilot models?  So that modelers can comment on them? Maybe my comment will make a difference in the final product.  My comment was strong because I felt strongly about what I saw. The deep and wide gap between the boards really jumped out to me - it was the first thing I saw on that photo. But I don't think I was trashing anything. I simply said that I wouldn't buy what I saw.

[bbussey]

That's what I'm hoping the RPC will spell out, which cars or car nos. were built to this design.  Reefers can be tough because they get lumped into big blocks of numbers.  The Wilson car for instance (according to the Reefer Color Guide - whatever that's worth), is in a number series 8101-9600, and I can say for sure that car 9350 isn't this design, but were all the cars the exact same?  I can't say for sure.  For the Swift car, there an example of car no. 2778 which had the ladder, but still doesn't have the tabbed sill.  Not a big deal, but not prototypical - and that's okay.

I'm not calling anything a foob.  I'm done advocating for better models if it's not something I'm that interested in because it's clearly been a waste of my time in the past.  I'm just asking which cars would be prototypical with the tabbed sill and ladders so I can see if I can fit one into my roster.

You checked all twelve of the numbers on the Wilson cars to confirm that none of them are accurate to the model?

And, if the only modification needed to the Swift model to make it 100% accurate is to remove the tabs on the sill, you can't use a jeweler's file and take 10 minutes to do that?  But you're willing to spend more time weathering the car?  Are we really at the point in the hobby now, where even the "modelers" are unwilling to make enhancements they could do in their sleep?  What is the point of this forum then?

As for the relief, I think the sides will end up looking okay but the roof could look a bit course (as is) from normal viewing angles.

The "normal" viewing angle for most N-scale modelers is a birds-eye view. The roofs and roofwalks of most MTL models are not anywhere near the current standards. So nitpicking about the slats relief and not saying squat about MTL's foot-thick roofwalks is not an objective position.

[CBQ Fan]

Why don't we wait until the Rapido product hits the stands, or at the least, until the pilot models surface in Springfield this January as promised before trashing it?  And, given that the manufacturer has been showing production progress photos regularly of their n scale product lines the last few months, the snide comments about exaggerated release dates are uncalled for as well.

I just get skeptical when I see a bunch of announcements that aren't supported by regular product arrivals.  When I see regular nscale products say a couple of times a quarter I will be much more likely to get excited when there is a new announcement.  Their products have always impressed me when they have been actually been available to purchase.  While my layout may not be up to the standards of some here it is real and I can't run virtual rolling stock!  When you over promise and under deliver you own the public discontent.