More 60' passenger cars and other stuff coming from Atlas..

[nscalbitz]

1. Some people don't care about complete prototype accuracy (like we are).
2. Those people buy products with their money (and lots of them).
3. That money allows companies to keep their lights on and their people paid so that they CAN make cars with prototypical accuracy.
4. A smart company will do its best to prevent past inaccurate cars from damaging a potential future market for accurate cars.

Why all the hate?

No mate, no hate or malice at all.
Just a notation of the facts. I failed to mention for the next release, Denver & Rio Grande Western in 1950 4 stripe Aspen Gold and Silver scheme. I've spent one and half decades researching Rio Grande and modelling notes, but I guess professionals can't spend that much time on it, when time is money. 

1. Some people don't care about complete prototype accuracy (like we are).
As do I. Don't care about fidelity on any other roads rolling stock as much.

2. Those people buy products with their money (and lots of them).
Yep. And those of us on restricted income can't. SO missing out is a continual blast.

3. That money allows companies to keep their lights on and their people paid so that they CAN make cars with prototypical accuracy.
No argument there.

4. A smart company will do its best to prevent past inaccurate cars from damaging a potential future market for accurate cars.
No argument there either.

Atlas has only previewed 3 of the 4 car types in this scheme (missing the Combine). Ironically perhaps, any of us would take a genuine 'pale' Pullman Green set in all four types, as a stand in of course, including the Baggage-Combine.
 The Lackawanna green appears a suitable representation of a 'faded' colour scheme in the hot Western sun, from extant pics of later equipment up to the sixties.
I note the '5 car' set announced offers two coaches (in lieu of a Combine), and the retail list has 4 numbers 1002-1005.
Ah whell___

cheers

[thomasjmdavis]

Atlas is trying to address 3 different markets here (and I think in this order)-

1. People who want matching train sets in popular roadnames and paint schemes.

2. People with tight curves on their layout who will accept cars that are short for operations sake.

3. Modelers of the C&NW and roads with similar equipment, *the word "similar" being in the eye of the beholder

"Foobies" "stand ins" and "close enoughs" account for the vast majority of N scale passenger equipment ever sold in RTR, decorated form. To date, after 50+ years in N scale, there are a total of 3 accurate ATSF coaches ever produced (out of a total of at least 14 distinct models lettered for ATSF coaches or chair cars, not counting multiple paint schemes on the same model which would get to at least 16, or multiple companies selling the same product, which would get to around 25) - the 2 Kato High Level (steps down and standard) from the El Cap set, and the 1953 Budd produced by Con Cor and Bachmann (the 1953 car has been painted and lettered for a myriad of other railroads by both companies). Some are close, most not in the ballpark. Not one single ATSF heavyweight chair car or coach- ever.  It is a fact of life. And ATSF is one of the best selling roadnames- even on completely inaccurate cars.

Now, as to what logic leads a company to produce a model of a C&NW commuter coach and paint it in 10 paint schemes when you could have produced a model of an ATSF 3050 series chair car painted in 10 paint schemes with the same effort?  Ok, that I cannot explain.

Apologies to ATSF experts- I occasionally use "coach" when I mean "chair car"

[Maletrain]

I think Atlas is primarily addressing the second class of customers in your list - people who want to run short passenger cars on tight curves.  Or, people who want to run multiple passenger car trains on small layouts without the trains looking too long for their surroundings.

Considering how fast the "undecorated" versions sold-out, even though their molded-on roofs make them harder to kit-bash, I suspect that fidelity to the CNW prototype is a trivial attribute for most of the market.

So, why didn't they do a similarly short ATSF car, instead?  Probably because they were working from the old Bachmann "shorty" concept that had already been linked to the CNW commuter cars, rather than doing an original search for other potential prototypes.  But I really have no idea how Atlas personnel think.  Perhaps they read your post and said "Oh S#&@T!, we missed an opportunity, there."

Personally, I am more perplexed by their observation car in this short series.  Not only is it not based on a CNW prototype and was shortened from the prototype car chosen, it does not even have a window pattern that matches the other cars.  If they needed to do a foobie to get matching length, why not go ahead and do a completely matching foobie?

[Cajonpassfan]

...
Apologies to ATSF experts- I occasionally use "coach" when I mean "chair car"

Lol Tom, I wouldn't worry about that, that distinction is lost on many. But Atlas calls them "coach cars"
Otto K.

[thomasjmdavis]

Lol Tom, I wouldn't worry about that, that distinction is lost on many. But Atlas calls them "coach cars"
Otto K.

Good point  .  But then someone must have messed up, because as foobie ATSF COACHES, they should be numbered in the 3300 series or 3345 series, not as chair cars in the 3000 series.

But we know that out there somewhere, there is someone willing to overlook the coaches being too short, having the wrong windows, being numbered as chair cars and lacking space underneath for all the steam ejector AC gear.  But he is never going to buy any of these because they forgot the "Santa Fe sill" and so are completely unacceptable.

[nscalbitz]

I think Atlas is primarily addressing the second class of customers in your list - people who want to run short passenger cars on tight curves. 
....  If they needed to do a foobie to get matching length, why not go ahead and do a completely matching foobie?

Because, as I said earlier per "70's era thinking" they're producing 60' cars. That's it. Since the economics referred to earlier take effect, the same size chassis/ roof et al fits the criteria. To heck with 'prototype' even if 'modelled off xx designs'.
d

[nscalbitz]

.... as foobie ATSF COACHES, they should be numbered in the 3300 series or 3345 series, not as chair cars in the 3000 series.

But we know that out there somewhere, there is someone willing to overlook the coaches being too short, having the wrong windows, being numbered as chair cars and lacking space underneath for all the steam ejector AC gear.  But he is never going to buy any of these because they forgot the "Santa Fe sill" and so are completely unacceptable.

Much as I noted- using car numbers in series similar to D&RGW but nothing like the prototype (1002-1007 actually two different designs above #2005)- creating a second Baggage car in #631 that MTL released, still a stand-in. RPO that has six workers windows, not 3 per side etc.

The same cars in green, with the Combine, would however, despite being too long, make passable stand-ins  (only IMHO of course) for the Narrow Gauge equipment, as well as a few standard cars*[2].

The MTLs don't have the curved arched windows at side-ends or doors that weren't 'upgraded' on prototype when passenger windows were, however we have to overlook that too.
Fidelity has it's price I guess,
d
*Edit- I've subsequently checked official D&RG[W] plans and indeed several 1889 built Coach&Baggage cars (word Combine wasn't used it appears so search is useless) lasted till the end of the '50s in rebuilt form that did have approx 6-8  'chair' windows.
And were in the 57' length over couplers so close enough. Of course these cars also started with truss rods, something that could be modelled easily if wanted.

[w neal]

Baggage cars are the ones that capture my attention. GTW & NYC.

Saw some O scale versions in Monon. Is it wrong to want them in N?

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Listen to customers at a LHS and its more like "do you have a caboose in blue" than "this Gevo is missing a dynamic brake vent"

Yep!!!

"Do you have a Coca-cola caboose to run with my new Pepsi GEVo? I'm doing a soda train."

[thomasjmdavis]

Baggage cars are the ones that capture my attention. GTW & NYC.

Saw some O scale versions in Monon. Is it wrong to want them in N?

They did list one baggage car on the roster- 406- which was the last survivor of cars built in 1893 - until 1950. And I don't know the length for sure, but photo of a car in the same series looks 60' or thereabouts.
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/monon411.jpg

Monon had several wood coaches that were rebuilt with steel underframes - the early Bethlehem ones that had queen posts, so the cars still looked like wood truss rod cars- that lasted until 1950- and they may have done the same with the baggage. So, while this appears to be a wood frame car, it may have been given a similar steel underframe.

Closest RTR cars for other Monon baggage cars are the WOT 70' arch roof cars (they did the car in black and gold a few years ago, unfortunately, not in gray and red AFAIK). Another possibility if you are up for a kitbash is to do one of the several baggage cars that they rebuilt from heavyweight Pullman sleepers- might be a use for an old Rivarossi car.  Mont Switzer had an article on this in an issue of Mainline Modeler a couple decades ago (using the HO version of the 12-1).


Post war Monon roster is available here: http://mononrr.com/mpages/pages/fpr.html  The "head end cars" built 1944 are converted troop sleepers, "head end" 1952 are boxcars, and the baggage built 1942 are actually virtually heavyweight cars, and resemble the WoT car, as opposed to the baggage mail cars built 1944, which are rebuilt hospital cars (the old Rivarossi model from the late 60s, less the vestibule door, that did not exist on the prototype).

The roster is also a bit confusing (to me, anyway), because the same car may be listed under every number it had, so the notes at the bottom are important in keeping track (for instance, baggage cars 106-109 are renumberings of cars in the 430 series shown just below on the same page).