Received my 3rd Rail January Update, and on the GGD Order form under the Named Trains section, there is the option to order the Northern Pacific North Coast Limited and the Great Northern Empire Builder in both 2 rail and 3 rail.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Well, here is to hoping for the '48 North Coast Limited in Pine Tree paint, and the '51 Empire Builder.
Neither train had domes, but I know that the '51 cars migrated up to the '55 Builder that had the one full dome and conventional domes, but had corrugation on the sides.
Haven't done in-depth research on the '48 NCL, but I suspect the case was the same there, except the domes and regular cars got the Lowey inspired paint scheme, IIRC, that was '54 or '55. Conventional domes only on the NCL, no full dome.
Regards,
GNNPNUT
Neither train had domes, but I know that the '51 cars migrated up to the '55 Builder that had the one full dome and conventional domes, but had corrugation on the sides.
Haven't done in-depth research on the '48 NCL, but I suspect the case was the same there, except the domes and regular cars got the Lowey inspired paint scheme, IIRC, that was '54 or '55. Conventional domes only on the NCL, no full dome.
Regards,
GNNPNUT
Jerry,
I'm afraid if it is not in the Lowey scheme, it won't be the sellout or the hit Scott is looking for. Domes sell, and especially on the later NCL. I suspect he'll need this scheme to get the necessary reservations for the 3 railers also. The Lowey scheme seems to sell like gold in O. Let's face it, the Lowey is one of the most attractive schemes ever put on a train, in the top 5, and if Scott is going to do it I suspect he'll have to go with the most popular option. Perhaps after the initial run, he'll get to the butter knife.
I have to admit those full domes would be pretty nice too on the GN. But lets face it, the only 48 train anyone needs is coming out already. I suggest you reserve a 48 Century, and that way you can have the best of all worlds like me, and begin to model in first class.
I'm afraid if it is not in the Lowey scheme, it won't be the sellout or the hit Scott is looking for. Domes sell, and especially on the later NCL. I suspect he'll need this scheme to get the necessary reservations for the 3 railers also. The Lowey scheme seems to sell like gold in O. Let's face it, the Lowey is one of the most attractive schemes ever put on a train, in the top 5, and if Scott is going to do it I suspect he'll have to go with the most popular option. Perhaps after the initial run, he'll get to the butter knife.
I have to admit those full domes would be pretty nice too on the GN. But lets face it, the only 48 train anyone needs is coming out already. I suggest you reserve a 48 Century, and that way you can have the best of all worlds like me, and begin to model in first class.
quote:Originally posted by gnnpnut:
Neither train had domes, but I know that the '51 cars migrated up to the '55 Builder that had the one full dome and conventional domes, but had corrugation on the sides.
Regards,
GNNPNUT
Well, the GN and NP domes weren't corrugated sided, but the did have smooth panels installed in instead. The roofs were corrugated, though.
Rusty
Gentlepeople,
The announcement is for the Budd trains:
"Northern Pacific – North Coast Limited , Great Northern – Empire Builder Budd Trains".
Wouldn't this mean the dome cars, etc?
ChipR
The announcement is for the Budd trains:
"Northern Pacific – North Coast Limited , Great Northern – Empire Builder Budd Trains".
Wouldn't this mean the dome cars, etc?
ChipR
quote:Originally posted by ChipR:
Gentlepeople,
The announcement is for the Budd trains:
"Northern Pacific – North Coast Limited , Great Northern – Empire Builder Budd Trains".
Wouldn't this mean the dome cars, etc?
ChipR
NICE Scott! Sa-WEEET!
Yes Chip it would include Budd domes..
Budd produced all the domes for these late versions of both trains. The 48' EB and NCL were Pullman train sets with the NCL having a slight variety of gear.
The Mid-Century EB included Budd "Big Domes" and Budd "short standard domes". The NCL had the only "Sleeper Domes" built.. All these cars used the same Budd manufacturing methodology with a 4 ribbed stainless "smoothish" panel shot welded in lieu of the full ribbed panel used on the fluted cars. This better matched the "smooth sided" Cor-Ten Pullman Standard cars that were grandfathered into both NCL/EB consists.
I really like that Loewy paint scheme inspired from the Columbia River Valley...
This photo shows the relative smooth sided Budd design.
incorrectly painted in silver but the ribbing used instead of the fluting is plainly visible.
CZ dome with standard fluting.
Budd's design required some kind of ribbing to add to the cars body strength. The roof was still ribbed and the side paneling was changed slightly to accommodate the styling on the rest of the train. The Diners on the NCL were also the same design.
quote:Originally posted by Pete Kruimer:
Jerry,
I'm afraid if it is not in the Lowey scheme, it won't be the sellout or the hit Scott is looking for. Domes sell, and especially on the later NCL. I suspect he'll need this scheme to get the necessary reservations for the 3 railers also. The Lowey scheme seems to sell like gold in O. Let's face it, the Lowey is one of the most attractive schemes ever put on a train, in the top 5, and if Scott is going to do it I suspect he'll have to go with the most popular option. Perhaps after the initial run, he'll get to the butter knife.
I have to admit those full domes would be pretty nice too on the GN. But lets face it, the only 48 train anyone needs is coming out already. I suggest you reserve a 48 Century, and that way you can have the best of all worlds like me, and begin to model in first class.
I totally agree that the Lowey scheme would be a sellout / hit. However, since things are in the talking stages, and since the cars are I believe relatively common for everything but domes between the '48 and '54 / 55 NCL, why not do both paint schemes on the non-dome cars? I'm in for pine tree, but not for Lowey paint, as it is too new for my era. I've got to draw the line someplace, or I'll be overspending in this scale, something I have no intention of doing.
The Lowey scheme may be in the top 5 paint schemes, but the Pine Tree scheme is in the top 4.
As far as modeling "first class", I'm already there, not modeling "bankrupt class" in the case of the railroad 20 years after the '48 ESE.
Regards,
Jerry
quote:Originally posted by gnnpnut:quote:Originally posted by Pete Kruimer:
Jerry,
I'm afraid if it is not in the Lowey scheme, it won't be the sellout or the hit Scott is looking for. Domes sell, and especially on the later NCL. I suspect he'll need this scheme to get the necessary reservations for the 3 railers also. The Lowey scheme seems to sell like gold in O. Let's face it, the Lowey is one of the most attractive schemes ever put on a train, in the top 5, and if Scott is going to do it I suspect he'll have to go with the most popular option. Perhaps after the initial run, he'll get to the butter knife.
I have to admit those full domes would be pretty nice too on the GN. But lets face it, the only 48 train anyone needs is coming out already. I suggest you reserve a 48 Century, and that way you can have the best of all worlds like me, and begin to model in first class.
I totally agree that the Lowey scheme would be a sellout / hit. However, since things are in the talking stages, and since the cars are I believe relatively common for everything but domes between the '48 and '54 / 55 NCL, why not do both paint schemes on the non-dome cars? I'm in for pine tree, but not for Lowey paint, as it is too new for my era. I've got to draw the line someplace, or I'll be overspending in this scale, something I have no intention of doing.
As far as modeling "first class", I'm already there, not modeling "bankrupt class" in the case of the railroad 20 years after the '48 ESE.
Regards,
Jerry
Jerry, I agree.. kill two birds with one stone idea.. The Pine Tree is really interesting and a favorite with a lot of NP gurus!
Mid Century 1955 EB
Loewy NCL in the mid 1960's still using the 1940's PS observation cars.
quote:Originally posted by ChipR:
Gentlepeople,
The announcement is for the Budd trains:
"Northern Pacific – North Coast Limited , Great Northern – Empire Builder Budd Trains".
Wouldn't this mean the dome cars, etc?
ChipR
Doesn't have to mean domes included. Neither the '47 nor '51 Empire Builder had domes, nor did the '48 NCL.
If Scott chooses to do the '51 / 55 builder, then the cars are all common with one exception:
If I understand the manufacturing implications, the dome cars would have to come from a different builder than the smooth side cars. That being the case, start by bringing out the '51 Builder, and then offer the '55 cars (the domes), as an add-on set.
Regards,
GNNPNUT
quote:Originally posted by Erik C Lindgren:quote:Originally posted by gnnpnut:quote:Originally posted by Pete Kruimer:
Jerry,
I'm afraid if it is not in the Lowey scheme, it won't be the sellout or the hit Scott is looking for. Domes sell, and especially on the later NCL. I suspect he'll need this scheme to get the necessary reservations for the 3 railers also. The Lowey scheme seems to sell like gold in O. Let's face it, the Lowey is one of the most attractive schemes ever put on a train, in the top 5, and if Scott is going to do it I suspect he'll have to go with the most popular option. Perhaps after the initial run, he'll get to the butter knife.
I have to admit those full domes would be pretty nice too on the GN. But lets face it, the only 48 train anyone needs is coming out already. I suggest you reserve a 48 Century, and that way you can have the best of all worlds like me, and begin to model in first class.
I totally agree that the Lowey scheme would be a sellout / hit. However, since things are in the talking stages, and since the cars are I believe relatively common for everything but domes between the '48 and '54 / 55 NCL, why not do both paint schemes on the non-dome cars? I'm in for pine tree, but not for Lowey paint, as it is too new for my era. I've got to draw the line someplace, or I'll be overspending in this scale, something I have no intention of doing.
As far as modeling "first class", I'm already there, not modeling "bankrupt class" in the case of the railroad 20 years after the '48 ESE.
Regards,
Jerry
Jerry, I agree.. kill two birds with one stone idea.. The Pine Tree is really interesting and a favorite with a lot of NP gurus!
I've got this train in HO (I think it is Challenger), and it is one sweet looking train. The only difference is I opted for A-B-A F7s as opposed to A-B-B F3s.
Regards,
Jerry
Jerry,
You know, and I know we'd both be much better off modeling the PC. All we would need is a can of black paint and a whole lotta love. And then we could put Erik in charge of all the necessary derailments.
You know, and I know we'd both be much better off modeling the PC. All we would need is a can of black paint and a whole lotta love. And then we could put Erik in charge of all the necessary derailments.
I am a sucker for passenger trains, but I only do up to 18". Time for GGD to expand its base to include the rest of us.
Larry S
Larry S
quote:Time for GGD to expand its base to include the rest of us.
Larry S
Man, I sure hope not! None of us who model scale passenger equipment want Scott Mann to dilute his standards for scale fidelity at an extremely affordable price.
quote:I am a sucker for passenger trains, but I only do up to 18". Time for GGD to expand its base to include the rest of us.
Larry S
Larry,
Not going to happen. There are too many other options (Atlas, MTH, Lionel, etc) for GGD to consider this. GGD has found a good niche with full length streamlined and heavyweight passenger cars. The upcoming GGD express reefers are roughly 54 feet long which is scale length for this car.
Lar,
It must be opposite day, but I think the hobby has served up tons of 18" cars forever, in every road name one can imagine, and many not imagined. We scale nut jobs have been waiting for scale passenger cars for ages. After much campaigning on the old 3R forum over the years Scott has answered the call with GGD, in spite of the many naysayers that insisted there was no market for scale passenger equipment. It is a pretty safe bet that 3rd Rail/GGD will never offer non scale anything. But for obvious reasons you won't get much support here. Not that we don't like ya, but here scale is the whale.
It must be opposite day, but I think the hobby has served up tons of 18" cars forever, in every road name one can imagine, and many not imagined. We scale nut jobs have been waiting for scale passenger cars for ages. After much campaigning on the old 3R forum over the years Scott has answered the call with GGD, in spite of the many naysayers that insisted there was no market for scale passenger equipment. It is a pretty safe bet that 3rd Rail/GGD will never offer non scale anything. But for obvious reasons you won't get much support here. Not that we don't like ya, but here scale is the whale.
quote:Originally posted by Pete Kruimer:
Lar,
It must be opposite day, but I think the hobby has served up tons of 18" cars forever, in every road name one can imagine, and many not imagined. We scale nut jobs have been waiting for scale passenger cars for ages. After much campaigning on the old 3R forum over the years Scott has answered the call with GGD, in spite of the many naysayers that insisted there was no market for scale passenger equipment. It is a pretty safe bet that 3rd Rail/GGD will never offer non scale anything. But for obvious reasons you won't get much support here. Not that we don't like ya, but here scale is the whale.
Larry:
The Lowey NP train has been done in 18"
NP five car set
Sleeper and Diner
Full Length Dome
So has Great Northern
RPO baggage
Sleeper and Diner
Full Length Dome
GN five car set
If you are looking for 18" cars, your needs were already met in 2007 and 2010 respectively. You should be able to locate these cars either by advertising on the buy-sell board, or on E-bay. You can also try the MTH Product Locator.
Regards,
GNNPNUT
Some of you guys are missing the point.
I would think it's time to think of scale cars, not passenger cars by length.
If someone ever produced the 1951 Super Chief and the baggage car was 20" and the RPO was 20" instead or roughly 18" and 15" respectively, we would be loosing ground.
It is not worth it for GGD to produce shortened cars, but if the cars were short to begin with, then that is the way they should be produced.
I'm sure that when Atlas O does the CZ baggage car it will be based on the 72' prototype baggage car which measures 18" in O scale.
I would think it's time to think of scale cars, not passenger cars by length.
If someone ever produced the 1951 Super Chief and the baggage car was 20" and the RPO was 20" instead or roughly 18" and 15" respectively, we would be loosing ground.
It is not worth it for GGD to produce shortened cars, but if the cars were short to begin with, then that is the way they should be produced.
I'm sure that when Atlas O does the CZ baggage car it will be based on the 72' prototype baggage car which measures 18" in O scale.
H-Man,
I wrote this "We scale nut jobs have been waiting for scale passenger cars for ages. After much campaigning on the old 3R forum over the years Scott has answered the call with GGD, in spite of the many naysayers that insisted there was no market for scale passenger equipment. It is a pretty safe bet that 3rd Rail/GGD will never offer non scale anything. But for obvious reasons you won't get much support here. Not that we don't like ya, but here scale is the whale."
No mention of length here.
Jack wrote this:
"Man, I sure hope not! None of us who model scale passenger equipment want Scott Mann to dilute his standards for scale fidelity at an extremely affordable price"
Rheil wrote this:
"The upcoming GGD express reefers are roughly 54 feet long which is scale length for this car."
It appears none of us are missing the point, and as scale guys are obviously aware different prototype passenger cars. None of us asked for or mentioned the infamous "21 inch" passenger car refrain. The only guy that missed the point was poor Larry, who I'm sure by now has realized most of us are nuts anyway.
Now the thread should turn back to a discussion on how we can get an accurate 3RS representation of the prototype and discuss the train. However, I have done my bit and will leave this to all the other modelers of the lesser roads.
I wrote this "We scale nut jobs have been waiting for scale passenger cars for ages. After much campaigning on the old 3R forum over the years Scott has answered the call with GGD, in spite of the many naysayers that insisted there was no market for scale passenger equipment. It is a pretty safe bet that 3rd Rail/GGD will never offer non scale anything. But for obvious reasons you won't get much support here. Not that we don't like ya, but here scale is the whale."
No mention of length here.
Jack wrote this:
"Man, I sure hope not! None of us who model scale passenger equipment want Scott Mann to dilute his standards for scale fidelity at an extremely affordable price"
Rheil wrote this:
"The upcoming GGD express reefers are roughly 54 feet long which is scale length for this car."
It appears none of us are missing the point, and as scale guys are obviously aware different prototype passenger cars. None of us asked for or mentioned the infamous "21 inch" passenger car refrain. The only guy that missed the point was poor Larry, who I'm sure by now has realized most of us are nuts anyway.
Now the thread should turn back to a discussion on how we can get an accurate 3RS representation of the prototype and discuss the train. However, I have done my bit and will leave this to all the other modelers of the lesser roads.
quote:Originally posted by Pete Kruimer:
H-Man,
I wrote this "We scale nut jobs have been waiting for scale passenger cars for ages. After much campaigning on the old 3R forum over the years Scott has answered the call with GGD, in spite of the many naysayers that insisted there was no market for scale passenger equipment. It is a pretty safe bet that 3rd Rail/GGD will never offer non scale anything. But for obvious reasons you won't get much support here. Not that we don't like ya, but here scale is the whale."
No mention of length here.
Jack wrote this:
"Man, I sure hope not! None of us who model scale passenger equipment want Scott Mann to dilute his standards for scale fidelity at an extremely affordable price"
Rheil wrote this:
"The upcoming GGD express reefers are roughly 54 feet long which is scale length for this car."
It appears none of us are missing the point, and as scale guys are obviously aware different prototype passenger cars. None of us asked for or mentioned the infamous "21 inch" passenger car refrain. The only guy that missed the point was poor Larry, who I'm sure by now has realized most of us are nuts anyway.
Now the thread should turn back to a discussion on how we can get an accurate 3RS representation of the prototype and discuss the train. However, I have done my bit and will leave this to all the other modelers of the lesser roads.
Big disappointment for your kids. They don't like that wooden axle railroad you model either.
Oh how I wish I saved the pic you posted a few years back with your boys running the Atlas F3s, grinning from ear to ear.
Regards,
GNNPNUT
The beauty of the 6 month deletion rule.
quote:Time for GGD to expand its base to include the rest of us.
Larry S
I would find such a move (to non scale cars) incredibly disappointing.
quote:Originally posted by bob3:quote:Time for GGD to expand its base to include the rest of us.
Larry S
I would find such a move (to non scale cars) incredibly disappointing.
Agree.
We have enough shorties.. There is a market for them I KNOW. But Scott has answered many of our prayers.. It is also "To Each His or Her Own"
When it comes to the length of prototype passenger cars, one must also be aware of how the railroads actually measured them.
It was the late 1930s 'streamlined,' light-weight era that introdiuced a basic 85' long platform upon which cars built by the major manufacturers of the day used (Pullman, ACF and Budd), save a few shorter baggage and RPO cars.
In the heavy-weight era and even back to the 19th century wooden era, passenger cars were measured over their body length at the end sills.
This did NOT include the end platforms (or later, vestibules). So a 70' coach from that era was actually about 80' in overall length, allowing for 5' on each end for the platform/vestibules.
Pullman's heavy-weight 'battleship' sleeping and lounge cars also used a basic platform but it could vary by a foot or so depending on the car type being built.
For example, a 10-1-2 sleeper had a body length of 74' 6", but the car's overall length was 82' 11 3/4". A 1 drawing room - 3 compartment-solarium bservation on th other hand has a body length of 77' 9 1/2" and an over all length of 83' 11 3/4" as it had a vestibule on only one end and no rear platform. The classic 12-1 Pullman was 74' 6" over the body with an overall length of 83' 5 1/4". All close in relative length but not exact.
When translating this into production models (versus limited-run brass models), the makers will standardize the length in order to use as many of the same parts and tooling as possible for each car. So the GGD heavy-weight Pullmans, diners, observations, etc. all have the same length, whereas their prototypes could vary by a foot or two overall.
However in making models of light-weight streanmlined equipment, the basic 85' long overall plaform works for just about every such car - IF built by one of the major car maufacturers. A light-weight 10 roomette - 6 double bedroom car measures 85' overall with a body length of 79'2", as also does a 5 bedroom-buffet-lounge-oservation. Some home-built cars (the SP 3/4 length dome lounge comes to mind here) come up shorter than that 85' standard platform.
All that said, we model 1/4" to the foot SCALE.
So 15"=60', 16"=64', 17"=68', 17 1/2"=70' 18"=72', 19"=76', 20"=80', 21"=84' and 21 1/4"=85'.
Ed Bommer
It was the late 1930s 'streamlined,' light-weight era that introdiuced a basic 85' long platform upon which cars built by the major manufacturers of the day used (Pullman, ACF and Budd), save a few shorter baggage and RPO cars.
In the heavy-weight era and even back to the 19th century wooden era, passenger cars were measured over their body length at the end sills.
This did NOT include the end platforms (or later, vestibules). So a 70' coach from that era was actually about 80' in overall length, allowing for 5' on each end for the platform/vestibules.
Pullman's heavy-weight 'battleship' sleeping and lounge cars also used a basic platform but it could vary by a foot or so depending on the car type being built.
For example, a 10-1-2 sleeper had a body length of 74' 6", but the car's overall length was 82' 11 3/4". A 1 drawing room - 3 compartment-solarium bservation on th other hand has a body length of 77' 9 1/2" and an over all length of 83' 11 3/4" as it had a vestibule on only one end and no rear platform. The classic 12-1 Pullman was 74' 6" over the body with an overall length of 83' 5 1/4". All close in relative length but not exact.
When translating this into production models (versus limited-run brass models), the makers will standardize the length in order to use as many of the same parts and tooling as possible for each car. So the GGD heavy-weight Pullmans, diners, observations, etc. all have the same length, whereas their prototypes could vary by a foot or two overall.
However in making models of light-weight streanmlined equipment, the basic 85' long overall plaform works for just about every such car - IF built by one of the major car maufacturers. A light-weight 10 roomette - 6 double bedroom car measures 85' overall with a body length of 79'2", as also does a 5 bedroom-buffet-lounge-oservation. Some home-built cars (the SP 3/4 length dome lounge comes to mind here) come up shorter than that 85' standard platform.
All that said, we model 1/4" to the foot SCALE.
So 15"=60', 16"=64', 17"=68', 17 1/2"=70' 18"=72', 19"=76', 20"=80', 21"=84' and 21 1/4"=85'.
Ed Bommer
HO Challenger Imports "North Coast Limited" 10 car core set.
Samhongsa 1996
Samhongsa 1996
Select cars from Challenger Imports Empire Builder set. Samhongsa 1998 (I need to re-shoot these, old photos I took for archiving 8 years ago... 
)
Original 1948 EB PS Coulee Series observation/room car
The small window Coulee Series 1948 Observation cars were reassigned to Western Star service after arrival of Mountain series tall window observation cars.
Photo taken 1967.
I will find the Pine Tree NCL set.. I need to did through the hard drives.
) Original 1948 EB PS Coulee Series observation/room car
The small window Coulee Series 1948 Observation cars were reassigned to Western Star service after arrival of Mountain series tall window observation cars.
Photo taken 1967.
I will find the Pine Tree NCL set.. I need to did through the hard drives.
Select close-ups of the NCL late scheme Loewy cars.
NP Budd Short Dome
NP Budd diner, 4 ribbed side panels.
Budd car with PS car for comparison of construction in these trains.
These models were imported in an era of constant innovation, every project that arrived from Korea was better than the last.. These models were the last project Samhongsa did without interiors.
NP Budd Short Dome
NP Budd diner, 4 ribbed side panels.
Budd car with PS car for comparison of construction in these trains.
These models were imported in an era of constant innovation, every project that arrived from Korea was better than the last.. These models were the last project Samhongsa did without interiors.
quote:Originally posted by Ed Bommer:
When it comes to the length of prototype passenger cars, one must also be aware of how the railroads actually measured them.
It was the late 1930s 'streamlined,' light-weight era that introdiuced a basic 85' long platform upon which cars built by the major manufacturers of the day used (Pullman, ACF and Budd), save a few shorter baggage and RPO cars.
In the heavy-weight era and even back to the 19th century wooden era, passenger cars were measured over their body length at the end sills.
This did NOT include the end platforms (or later, vestibules). So a 70' coach from that era was actually about 80' in overall length, allowing for 5' on each end for the platform/vestibules.
Pullman's heavy-weight 'battleship' sleeping and lounge cars also used a basic platform but it could vary by a foot or so depending on the car type being built.
For example, a 10-1-2 sleeper had a body length of 74' 6", but the car's overall length was 82' 11 3/4". A 1 drawing room - 3 compartment-solarium bservation on th other hand has a body length of 77' 9 1/2" and an over all length of 83' 11 3/4" as it had a vestibule on only one end and no rear platform. The classic 12-1 Pullman was 74' 6" over the body with an overall length of 83' 5 1/4". All close in relative length but not exact.
When translating this into production models (versus limited-run brass models), the makers will standardize the length in order to use as many of the same parts and tooling as possible for each car. So the GGD heavy-weight Pullmans, diners, observations, etc. all have the same length, whereas their prototypes could vary by a foot or two overall.
However in making models of light-weight streanmlined equipment, the basic 85' long overall plaform works for just about every such car - IF built by one of the major car maufacturers. A light-weight 10 roomette - 6 double bedroom car measures 85' overall with a body length of 79'2", as also does a 5 bedroom-buffet-lounge-oservation. Some home-built cars (the SP 3/4 length dome lounge comes to mind here) come up shorter than that 85' standard platform.
All that said, we model 1/4" to the foot SCALE.
So 15"=60', 16"=64', 17"=68', 17 1/2"=70' 18"=72', 19"=76', 20"=80', 21"=84' and 21 1/4"=85'.
Ed Bommer
Wonderful essay Ed, (Well thought out and said...)
What is the deal with O scale ANYWAY?
We have On30, On3, O5W, P-48, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Why can't O Scale get on track.. no pun intended.. 
HA! Seriously what your writing about is simple; the models should be blueprint accurate. No more of this.. "All scale passenger cars are 21 inches"..thing... I know and you know that the line forms to the left for the variety of cars, Harriman, Pullman, Budd, and on and on... All of the cars were slightly different, RPO, Baggage, Horse Cars, they all vary from 60 some odd feet to 87 feet.
It is frustrating to see O scale suffer from scaling to match a box or a tighter curve. I know as a manufacturer we need to market to everyone but when will it be like HO? At some point HO manufacturers stopped making pseudo scale models.. and now makes the likes of Exact-Rail and Athearn Genesis.
Devils advocate dictates Toy Trains will always have a place but Scott is trying to make us the scale enthusiasts happy. The other guys can continue to buy the products already available that are as we think sort of scale.
I am still dreaming in Exact-Rail in O!
Erik wrote:
And THAT is the wisest statement I've seen yet and what is precisely wrong with O-scale.
Instead, make all future items per prototypical specs for dimensional size and placement (length, width, height, correct doors, windows, etc). Add as much detail as we can comfortably afford and let the buyer worry about what track he/she will need to operate it. Sharp curves shouldn't even be a consideration anymore when designing a product. If it won't fit on my layout, I'll learn to live without or make adjustments (heck, I can even put it on a shelf so it'll look purty).
quote:It is frustrating to see O scale suffer from scaling to match a box or a tighter curve.
And THAT is the wisest statement I've seen yet and what is precisely wrong with O-scale.
Instead, make all future items per prototypical specs for dimensional size and placement (length, width, height, correct doors, windows, etc). Add as much detail as we can comfortably afford and let the buyer worry about what track he/she will need to operate it. Sharp curves shouldn't even be a consideration anymore when designing a product. If it won't fit on my layout, I'll learn to live without or make adjustments (heck, I can even put it on a shelf so it'll look purty).
Even the Concor NCL was pretty good, and that was in N scale must be over 25 years ago. Of course they slapped on every paint scheme imaginable on those cars anyway. Not as active or proficient as I used to be, (and am semi forum retired due to fixed pilot NO GAP scale coupler campaign exhaustion for anyone that remembers the old days here) but I have been talking about getting more accurate O scale equipment on this forum for over 10 years, with the help of a few departed buddies. We have made some fantastic progress.
for anyone that remembers the old days here) but I have been talking about getting more accurate O scale equipment on this forum for over 10 years, with the help of a few departed buddies. We have made some fantastic progress.quote:It is frustrating to see O scale suffer from scaling to match....a tighter curve.
Interesting. As that is what HO does to allow nearly all their stuff to operate on tight curves.
quote:Add as much detail as we can comfortably afford and let the buyer worry about what track he/she will need to operate it. Sharp curves shouldn't even be a consideration anymore when designing a product. If it won't fit on my layout, I'll learn to live without or make adjustments
Bob, you will NEVER get Lionel, MTH, and Williams to market their "toy train" products with THAT stategy! Lets just be gratefull for what we 3RS modelers get from Sunset/3rd Rail/Golden Gate Depot and Atlas O, when it comes to passenger equipment.
quote:you will NEVER get Lionel, MTH, and Williams to market their "toy train" products with THAT strategy!
HW, I hear ya. I think that's part of what prompted me to pre-order the 3rd Rail E7, even if I have to buy a Lionel Command Base to use all the functions.
I have been limiting my purchases to Atlas and Weaver rolling stock, I think I've bought only 2 pieces (a Weaver 2-Bay Covered Hopper and a 2-Bay Composite Hopper) in the last year. If I never buy another I'll still have enough to entertain me.
If GGD ever makes some Seaboard passenger cars I'm sure to get a set, but no more shorties or fantasy paint schemes for me. After seeing the Atlas passenger cars I hope there will be more from them as well.
I was looking at some of my old HO rolling stock the other day, man I wish someone would invent an "enlarging ray" to get them up in scale. I have some nice Seaboard cars (heck, I even have some HO PRR cars that look sweet!).
quote:Originally posted by Pete Kruimer:quote:It is frustrating to see O scale suffer from scaling to match....a tighter curve.
Interesting. As that is what HO does to allow nearly all their stuff to operate on tight curves.
Maybe Pete... However, (comma)...
It has been one heck of a long time since HO modelers ONLY choice was a box scaled-tight radius compatible model.Maybe 20 some odd years ago IHC did shorty cars loosely based on ACF Union Pacific gear. Other than Marklin's Budd cars... Anyway going all the way back to Rivarossi AHM.. what 45 plus years HO modelers have had pretty decent scale models to choose from in RTR plastic.
Sure, this is why HO is the number one scale..... hmmmm
quote:After seeing the Atlas passenger cars I hope there will be more from them as well.
The good news here is that when Atlas made the mold for the CZ, they made it so that the wheel skirting could be easily changed to the more common cut out opening as seen on this Budd car, so they are thinking ahead to more offerings.
Erik posted:
quote:Budd car with PS car for comparison of construction in these trains.
Erik, does that mean the North Coast Limited should correctly have Budd and PS equipment in the consist, or was it all Budd at one point?
quote:Originally posted by marker:quote:After seeing the Atlas passenger cars I hope there will be more from them as well.
The good news here is that when Atlas made the mold for the CZ, they made it so that the wheel skirting could be easily changed to the more common cut out opening as seen on this Budd car, so they are thinking ahead to more offerings.
Erik posted:quote:Budd car with PS car for comparison of construction in these trains.
Erik, does that mean the North Coast Limited should correctly have Budd and PS equipment in the consist, or was it all Budd at one point?
The post 1955 NCL had Budd equipment added to modernize the train with standard dome sleepers and dining equipment. Many of the previous Pine Tree era train was shopped and brought into the new consist making a mix of gear from PS and Budd. The NP, GN and Q were all friends through this era and I suspect this explains the EB's similar history.
The Q hauled both trains into Chicago. Later both the EB and the NCL merged permanently east of the Twin Cities a typical event in the off season from the mid 50's.
I hope there will be a separate 1/4 or full dome in EB to buy. I can't run 21" stuff, but a dome would make a nice mantle piece!
quote:Originally posted by gnnpnut:quote:Originally posted by Pete Kruimer:
Lar,
It must be opposite day, but I think the hobby has served up tons of 18" cars forever, in every road name one can imagine, and many not imagined. We scale nut jobs have been waiting for scale passenger cars for ages. After much campaigning on the old 3R forum over the years Scott has answered the call with GGD, in spite of the many naysayers that insisted there was no market for scale passenger equipment. It is a pretty safe bet that 3rd Rail/GGD will never offer non scale anything. But for obvious reasons you won't get much support here. Not that we don't like ya, but here scale is the whale.
Larry:
The Lowey NP train has been done in 18"
Sleeper and Diner
Regards,
GNNPNUT
Without a kitchen so many of our passengers starved enroute we had to cancel the new North Coast Limited train and sell the equipment. GGD set would have had a kitchen:-)
Speaking of food, would it eat into their "Scale car" sales to also offer 18" cars for those that want them? Or would it increase production and lower the fixed costs of common parts resulting in lower prices increasing sales?
quote:Speaking of food, would it eat into their "Scale car" sales to also offer 18" cars for those that want them? Or would it increase production and lower the fixed costs of common parts resulting in lower prices increasing sales?
Why would he (Scott Mann) want to bother? Lionel and MTH already offer these kinds of "short" passenger cars anyway!
Also, referring to your comment about no "kitchen car", above,,,,,what do you think a "diner" is, in that "sleeper and diner" set, shown above?
