Lowell Smith 12-4 sleeper "Western"

[thomasjmdavis]

Thanks Nato.

The old ALM core kits came with a strip of styrene that I assumed was for the purpose, but unless I had a photo, I didn't know when to use it (hard to tell in a lot of side views, usually taken from 5-6 feet off the ground).

[thomasjmdavis]

EDIT:  After reading Otto's post below, I am revising my post. Strikes and additions in red.

I received my Wabash "Blue Horizon" today.

I think I am now a convert.  Beautiful finish and lettering.  My wife took a look and said "the lettering is impeccable" (actual quote). 

In the ads for these cars, Lowell noted that in order to produce them, the cars (ACF prototypes) would have some Pullman Standard details in common with the 10-6 already in the product line. BUT none of the advertising I saw mentioned that only one side of the car would be a 12-4, and the other side would be a foobie window pattern taken from a 10-6. It does appear that the car uses the same underbody detail and roof rivet pattern as the 10-6, but this doesn't bother me (a) because he said so up front, (b) many of my models don't have any rivet detail on them at all, (c) for all I know, the 12-4 and the 10-6 underbodies could be similar/same, and (4) given that those parts are black, the minor differences don't jump out at me.

He did include the ACF beltrail, which to my eye is the major distinguishing feature between *most* ACF and Pullman Standard smooth side cars.

Overall, I am very, very pleased with this car, and I need to take my own paint jobs up a notch for the cars that will run with this one.

I am certainly going to keep an eye on future releases for cars (like this one) that fill in the gaps for trains I model. I won't be buying any future releases of new tooling from Railsmith until I have seen a delivered model, or read a reliable review of a car with clear photos.

[Cajonpassfan]

Well, I just got my two UP "Western" sleepers today. The finishes, detailing and even the packaging are impeccable, truly great looking models. I assume they will roll well also, and they do have MT truck mounted couplers.

But  I now understand the meaning of "classic". The right side is spot on, the left side is a 10-6 with an appropriate belt rail added under the windows, as is the rest of the car...ends, underbody, roof, etc.

There's curving skirting at the ends where there shouldn't be any...perhaps a somewhat easy fix, as is the lack of cable enclosure running the length of the roof, a UP signature item, another easy fix. The isle side window arrangement is not so easy, with the 5/3 grouping, it really screems 10-6 at me; if only the middle window were closer to the other five to make it a 6 per side to match the other side for a proper 12. Oh well. If I only had a layout with only the correct window side arrangement showing along the isle
I'll probably make some mods to the roof, skirts, and underbody, but that ONE offending window is a tough nut to crack; I'll probably just live with it, happily I might add (a first world problem).
I'll post some pics below.
Otto K.

[thomasjmdavis]

Wow....you are absolutely right Otto.  I am going to have to edit my earlier post.  I did not look closely enough at the aisle side of the car.  He only tooled half the car. Never occurred to me that Lowell would do such a thing.  Fine, I guess, if you only run trains in one direction.  It just went from a model of the car I wanted to a well painted stand in based on a prototype that never existed.  If I had known, I would have just ordered another set of sides and built my own.

I'll have to revise my earlier post.  No more orders from me until I see both sides of a delivered car or a review here on Railwire.

I've gone from enthusiastic to pissed off.

The least he could have done was to use the side with 6 room windows, so we'd arguably have a 12-4 (albeit with the wrong aisle windows), instead of the "11-4" that we now have.  Oh, and TOLD US he was only doing one side of the car.

EDIT: oops, I see why he didn't use the other side of the 10-6, because then there would be 11 total windows on the side, since that side would have 6 bedrooms and 5 roomettes.  Still, why go to the trouble to produce a car that is correct (ish- noting the skirts)

[Sokramiketes]

Well, we speculated earlier in the thread about whether the one side was going to be reused.  It's not great. 

1) The P-S 10-6 in Lowell's line has the belt rail tooled.  It is not a new addition for this car, so yes, Lowell only tooled one new side.  I believe ACF construction would have had a rail above the windows as well. 
2) Going to be tough to fix the other side.  Do we move one window over, or replace the whole band to get the spacing correct?  Perhaps carving out of another 12-4 side, to get those windows the same across the car.  Oi.  That's going to be expensive. 

See up thread for how to block out and move windows, as demonstrated on the SP 10-6 which needs the same work. 

Is this the only 12-4 we're going to get?  Yup.  Onward we go. 

[nickelplate759]

I got mine (Wabash Blue Horizon) yesterday.   Since it's going in my St. Louis-Detroit Ltd. consist along with a bunch of repainted Micro-Trains heavyweights, it's now the closest-to-prototype car (about 50% I suppose) in the consist, and I'm happy

[nkalanaga]

I have mine, and, while I would have preferred a more accurate model, it will serve its purpose.  Modeling 1974 Montana, the only passenger train on my standard gauge is an occasional detoured Amtrak.  I saw UP Pacific, Placid, and Sun series cars in Pasco in the Empire Builder, so wanted a set.

None of the three are perfect.  ConCor made the Pacific 10-6 cars, but used an unusual CB&Q prototype, with the same (mirrored) window pattern on both sides.

The Placid cars are AMB laser-cut plastic sides - the only one I ever bought.  They turned out fine, but I don't really like the design, as painting the interior was very difficult.  The windows are part of the sides, and the inside wasn't masked for painting.

Now I have a Sun car from Railsmith, although I had to reletter it.  His model is an early scheme, accurate as far as I know, with "PULLMAN" on the letterboard.  By 1974, that had been changed to "UNION PACIFIC", so I also took the opportunity to rename the car, to match one I saw in Pasco.  It's at least as accurate as the others, and better looking than the AMB kit.

And, yes, the windows are solidly glued in!

[OldEastRR]

[Sokramiketes]

There are no Kato parts.

And there is no reason to question his N scale chops.

[nkalanaga]

No, his cars started with the ex-Walthers cars, not Kato.  And he does note which cars are prototype, and which are stand-ins.

Plus, in many cases, skirting changes over the life of the car, so what's correct for one purchaser may not be for another.

[OldEastRR]

Can somebody post a drawing of the floor plan of the UP "western" series? And does the underbody on the LS model match the prototype?

[CBQ Fan]

Yikes. LS uses a…...

I'll go back to bitching about how……

Instead of “bitching” and making a post that is simply false and slanderous that I had edit it out of my response you could find a hobby that makes you happy!  This hobby sure does not appear to bring you any joy!

[bigdawgks]

I'll go back to bitching about how Rapido does every NH streamline fluted passenger cars except the Observation IN HO, but only only
 a measly coach in N. Now I wonder if THESE guys know people always buy multiples of passenger cars -- even more if they're easily modified into OTHER like cars of that type.  Again I ask, how much of an N scaler is Rapido's owner?

I do agree with your argument about the NH passenger cars, but the "owner" of Rapido is not an N scaler. Jason clearly is an HO modeller, as is their NH guy.

Also I agree that gluing anything together on a RTR model is bad practice and manufacturers should be made aware that it really impedes the portion of hobbyists that like to actually work on their models.

[peteski]

Also I agree that gluing anything together on a RTR model is bad practice and manufacturers should be made aware that it really impedes the portion of hobbyists that like to actually work on their models.

Unfortunately it seems that the percentage of their N scale market that fits your description is insignificant enough not to be considered.

But I really suspect that if it makes things easier at the factory to glue some parts together during assembly, they will do it (even if those parts could be assembled without glue).

[bigdawgks]

I concede that there may be cases where parts need gluing during assembly, but surely they don't need to use a permanent bond. If they can't get it to stay on with a minute layer of glue or no glue at all, then it's got to be an intentional design feature to minimize cost. I'd be less upset about such cost saving measures if they offered unassembled versions, but it seems more and more manufacturers are catering less to those who want to customize their models; the least they could do is not take shortcuts in assembly that make it less viable for those people to start with a RTR model. I believe that to be a fair compromise to no longer producing undecorated or kit models anymore.