Skip to main content

That's why I put my apples and oranges comment.  The husky stacks are an unforunate offering of a very short time period (early 90's) that didn't pan out.  The industry decided soon after to stick with 40fters for international and 53ft'ers for domestic.  48ft wells and containers today are a relic of the past.
 
As for Lionels most recent hustky stack runs, when did you last see a 48ft Maersk container or a Union Pacific well car on the rails?   $225 bucks is a lot of money for a 2-pack of fantasy cars.
 
Originally Posted by hibar:
 

 

Bear in mind MTH is using many year old tooling to rerun these cars, containers are OK cars scale size or close to it I believe thats there best feature JMO. Die cast has gotten very expensive from China look at last list price for Lionel husky stacks and I don't think they have been rerun at all in recent years, apart from accurate markings and scale well size I don't see the Atlas cars being much better than Lionels, in my opinion this was a very well detailed overall scale size car at the time.

 

Last edited by Martin H
Originally Posted by Martin H:
It may be cheaper and easier, but they are not at all prototypical or relevant today.  The MAXI-IV are relevant, prototypical, common and NOW
 
...

And that's why you can buy whatever you'd like.  My point was more toward the practicality of folks setting up and tearing down modular layouts along with all the packing/unpacking of rolling stock that accompanies that.  That's all.

 

These new cars will no doubt be splendid, as were Atlas-O's original Gunderson offerings.  But they're not the easiest to assemble/disassemble on most layouts.  Best for layouts that have huge yard capacity or hidden staging tracks to avoid the wear-and-tear on handling them.

 

David

Last edited by Rocky Mountaineer
You could go even quicker by tossing a bunch of mpc box cars in a potato sack and dumping those onto the layout when you get to the show.  That would save a lot of time and money.
 
As you alluded to, there are many different ways to enjoy the hobby!
 
Originally Posted by Rocky Mountaineer:
 

And that's why you can buy whatever you'd like.  My point was more toward the practicality of folks setting up and tearing down modular layouts along with all the packing/unpacking of rolling stock that accompanies that.  That's all.

 

Is there a full moon tonight? 

 

David

 

Originally Posted by Rob Pisani:
Originally Posted by rdunniii:

If Rob or Paul are still watching this thread, will these car have 125 ton trucks with scale 38" wheels at the articulated joints?

 

Yes, and you can see the difference between the 33" wheels (outer 70-ton truck) and 38" wheels in this photo.

Rob,

Thank you for the photo & for continuing to watch this site.

 

My question is if Atlas has considered providing a simple renumbering system for it's roster of trains.especially freight? I've encountered many times,being able to find the type car I'm looking for,but having it be in 3 rail with the same car # I have in 2 rail. Being able to change a digit or 2 would be a BIG help. Plus,I bought 3 blocks of 4 car #s in each block,of Atlas' upcoming 5161 cvd grain hoppers. It sure would be nice to be able to buy some numbers to change these car numbers into other numbers other than the 4 provided by Atlas.

Atlas only did 2 different car #s for their CSX 4750's,of which I now have 9 cars,thinking about waiting for a new run of them,or buying a few more of the old stock. The detail on those CSX cars wasn't nearly as good as on the LN/Family Lines 4750 that was done at about the same time. The LN/FLS hopper was 100% on in every way-FANTASTIC detail in accordance with the prototype it was modeled after. Every 4750 I've seen has CAUTION:NO SIDE LADDERS,on the ends of the cars,plus detail on the inside slope sheet ends of the cars.

 

How about some GP40-2's&or38-2s to pull our freights with? These,I know are used only,atleast in modern times,as the motive power in local freights or on work trains more than anything else.

 

In your opinion,how likely would you say Atlas is willing to do the 4750s represented here,from the 80s & beyond.

 

Thanks a million,

Al Hummel

1ST DIGITAL RAIL&OTHER PICTURES 206

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1ST DIGITAL RAIL&OTHER PICTURES 206
Originally Posted by Rocky Mountaineer:
Originally Posted by Martin H:
...
As a comparison in cost, it's amazing that MTH can deliver a 1:48 single-well husky stack with two 48ft containers for $65.  (Kinda apples and oranges, but still...)
 
...

For folks running trains on modular layouts a shows, the MTH and Lionel individual husky stack cars are the way to go.  Much quicker set-up and tear-down.  No need to assemble/disassemble the articulated sets.  And casual observers will enjoy long intermodal trains without knowing/caring that you did it all at a HUGE savings. 

 

David

 

From experience, they're just as much, if not more of a pain in the rear end than the 5 car sets. With advanced planning and a table saw, you can make a carrier for the 5 car sets and not disassemble them. Then I have 5 cars in one shot, as opposed to taking out 5 husky stack cars.

Either one suffers from the same problem though.... the containers tend to not make the trip in the same place they started. Whereas I could take a boxcar, plop it on the track and go, running intermodal (whether it be stacks or piggybacks) takes multiple parts, the cars and the containers/trailers. IMO, THAT is the real barrier to modular running. I started taking gundersons on a board or a long box, with a wrap of velcro around the containers to keep them in the car, but its still far more of a hassle than bringing "standard" freight cars. I sometimes bring intermodal cars, but usually only when I know there'll be a place to leave them parked for the weekend without re-packing them after they're done running.

Last edited by Boilermaker1
Rob,  This is awesome!  Absolutely can see the difference!
 
BTW, will these trucks be available separately?
 
Originally Posted by Rob Pisani:
Originally Posted by rdunniii:

If Rob or Paul are still watching this thread, will these car have 125 ton trucks with scale 38" wheels at the articulated joints?

 

Yes, and you can see the difference between the 33" wheels (outer 70-ton truck) and 38" wheels in this photo.

 

By the picture Rob posted on the intermediate trucks, looks like these cars will be a lot easier to join then the twin-stacks.
 
Originally Posted by Boilermaker1:
Originally Posted by Rocky Mountaineer:
Originally Posted by Martin H:
...
As a comparison in cost, it's amazing that MTH can deliver a 1:48 single-well husky stack with two 48ft containers for $65.  (Kinda apples and oranges, but still...)
 
...

For folks running trains on modular layouts a shows, the MTH and Lionel individual husky stack cars are the way to go.  Much quicker set-up and tear-down.  No need to assemble/disassemble the articulated sets.  And casual observers will enjoy long intermodal trains without knowing/caring that you did it all at a HUGE savings. 

 

David

 

From experience, they're just as much, if not more of a pain in the rear end than the 5 car sets. With advanced planning and a table saw, you can make a carrier for the 5 car sets and not disassemble them. Then I have 5 cars in one shot, as opposed to taking out 5 husky stack cars.

Either one suffers from the same problem though.... the containers tend to not make the trip in the same place they started. Whereas I could take a boxcar, plop it on the track and go, running intermodal (whether it be stacks or piggybacks) takes multiple parts, the cars and the containers/trailers. IMO, THAT is the real barrier to modular running. I started taking gundersons on a board or a long box, with a wrap of velcro around the containers to keep them in the car, but its still far more of a hassle than bringing "standard" freight cars. I sometimes bring intermodal cars, but usually only when I know there'll be a place to leave them parked for the weekend without re-packing them after they're done running.

 

Originally Posted by Mike DeBerg:
By the picture Rob posted on the intermediate trucks, looks like these cars will be a lot easier to join then the twin-stacks.
 Can anyone tell me a beginner in O Scale when Atlas might rerun the twin stacks? Al Hummel
Originally Posted by Boilermaker1:
Originally Posted by Rocky Mountaineer:
Originally Posted by Martin H:
...
As a comparison in cost, it's amazing that MTH can deliver a 1:48 single-well husky stack with two 48ft containers for $65.  (Kinda apples and oranges, but still...)
 
...

For folks running trains on modular layouts a shows, the MTH and Lionel individual husky stack cars are the way to go.  Much quicker set-up and tear-down.  No need to assemble/disassemble the articulated sets.  And casual observers will enjoy long intermodal trains without knowing/caring that you did it all at a HUGE savings. 

 

David

 

From experience, they're just as much, if not more of a pain in the rear end than the 5 car sets. With advanced planning and a table saw, you can make a carrier for the 5 car sets and not disassemble them. Then I have 5 cars in one shot, as opposed to taking out 5 husky stack cars.

Either one suffers from the same problem though.... the containers tend to not make the trip in the same place they started. Whereas I could take a boxcar, plop it on the track and go, running intermodal (whether it be stacks or piggybacks) takes multiple parts, the cars and the containers/trailers. IMO, THAT is the real barrier to modular running. I started taking gundersons on a board or a long box, with a wrap of velcro around the containers to keep them in the car, but its still far more of a hassle than bringing "standard" freight cars. I sometimes bring intermodal cars, but usually only when I know there'll be a place to leave them parked for the weekend without re-packing them after they're done running.

 

 

I agree, I would like to see other Masterline modern intermodal stack cars, the Gunderson Maxi-I 40' 5-car set, and 53' Thrall 3-car sets.
 
Does anyone know if Maxi-I, Maxi-II, Maxi-III denotes the length of the car?
I think the Maxi-III is 48'.
 
Spine cars would be an awesome addition too.
 
 
Originally Posted by d tuuri:
I hate to say it, but now I am already thinking about what intermodal car Atlas should do next!   I am going to need some more variety to go with all these Maxi IVs and a few gundersons.  ��

If these sell well I would imagine they might consider another modern well car or even a spine car.

Don

 

Last edited by MikesRR
Originally Posted by d tuuri:
Those big trinity spine cars would be perfect!   For me any car that can handle 40 fters thru 53 fters so you can mix and match would be great!

Thanks

Don

Don,

 If you don't live in Bremen,IN,did you ever consider moving close?

I got roughly 50'x25' for a basement we could fill with O Scale trains!!

We both like CSX-what more can we ask?! Lol.

Now Atlas needs to get some road switchers out here or at least rerun the CSX GP15s as was stated as a possibility in a conversation with Atlas.

Al Hummel

I don't get it.  Why would you want 57ft platforms?  Why not get 53ft platforms? 
 
While both are prototypical, it seems like the 53ft'ers would be more practical/efficient on an o-scale layout.
 
Originally Posted by Mike DeBerg:
Don,
 
Right on!
 
Originally Posted by d tuuri:
Those big trinity spine cars would be perfect!   For me any car that can handle 40 fters thru 53 fters so you can mix and match would be great!

Thanks

Don

 

 

Martin,
 
Either would be awesome, both would be incredible. 
 
My preference would be the 57' spine cars to better handle 2 28' pup trailers on one platform if necessary.
 
Originally Posted by Martin H:
I don't get it.  Why would you want 57ft platforms?  Why not get 53ft platforms? 
 
While both are prototypical, it seems like the 53ft'ers would be more practical/efficient on an o-scale layout.
 
Last edited by Mike DeBerg
I think that's a fair answer.  I would rather load them up with 53ft trailers, but I'm not the only prospective buyer here
 
Originally Posted by Mike DeBerg:
Martin,
 
Either would be awesome, both would be incredible. 
 
My preference would be the 57' spine cars to better handle 2 28' pup trailers on one platform if necessary.
 
 
Looking great Martin!  I assume those are the MTH cars?   I've see the Kline version as well.  Both seem a little wide, but you really don't notice it in the photo you attached. 
 
Truth be told, I would be happy with some master line Trinity RAF33C or RAF53C sets, but would prefer the RAF30A sets with the 57' platform.    Definitely need more 53' trailers, but also opens the door for the pup trailers, yard tractors as well!
 
Originally Posted by Martin H:

Here's my 5x53 spine car set (2-rail).  I am using 53ft Bowser roadrailers since we don't have actual highway trailers in 1:48.

spine 53ft

 

I still like the Atlas Gunderson sets, I have 4 or 5 of the 5 car sets (40ft and 45 ft containers). I bought was able to pick up more containers this week from Norm's O Scale. They are the ones first released by Atlas so the price was right. They are heavy but when I want to rune them all I double or triple head them with either MTH or Lionel Engines. No real problems and they look good. Not sure I i will purchase the new sets simply because the ones I have work on the layout (My club layout's). I like them but it means more containers will need to be purchased and at $25.00 per container - need 10 plus the A+B+C+D+E unit your looking at another $$400.00 or more. Hard to justify when I have the early versions. 

 

With that sais, I will probably purchase the complete 5 care set.

You wouldn't want to put 48 ft containers in these if you could.  These only serve the international-type containers.  48ft containers are always for domestic.  You would have to unload the top of the train all at once.  Then unload the bottom all at once at some other location.
 
Originally Posted by Alan Hummel:
 

Great job! Fantastic benchwork! Thanks for the photos.

Do the ywin stacksonly hold 48' containers or will they take 53's?

Al Hummel

 

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×