TheRailwire
General Discussion => Product Discussion => Topic started by: daniel_leavitt2000 on March 23, 2015, 02:32:54 PM
-
I picked up two new container options from DM Toys this week. Rocky Rail products a 40' high cube container in a blister pack similar to Deluxe twin packs. A two pack costs €10. I also picked up an Arnold 4 pack of 40' standard sized containers for €11. Both sets are new tooling and feature magnets and very sharp painting. Due to the crash of the euro, prices are roughly the same in dollars, which means the Rocky Real containers are $5 each and the Arnolds are an incredible $2.50 each.
Stock up while you can.
-
Tempting, but I wish the two packs were not mixed schemes. Evergreen and Maersk work for my era, but not the COSCO. Would love some MSC cans, but the COSCO is not appropriate.
-
Is there some reason a link couldn't be posted? :RUEffinKiddingMe: For the rest, who--like me--might have no idea who DM Toys or Rocky Rail is.
http://www.en.dm-toys.de/liste/tags_en/container_en.html
-
Tempting, but I wish the two packs were not mixed schemes. Evergreen and Maersk work for my era, but not the COSCO. Would love some MSC cans, but the COSCO is not appropriate.
Any interest in the 3 Evergreens? I bought all four sets and don't need the Evergreens. (or the Cosco's) My cost-basis is $17.23 (prorating per item cost and prorated per item shipping cost and adjusted for exchange rate)...I'll do them shipped via USPS Priority for $20. EDIT: For the others, I'll do the 2 Cosco's for $13 shipped.
If you need the MSC's, I would just buy the sets and eBay the Cosco's. Even at $10-12ea (for both) you're not paying much more than street for a single DI container these days.
-
Did evergreens never go south on bnsf? I remember them being everywhere on the north transcon circa 2000...
-
Doug, PM sent
-
Did evergreens never go south on bnsf? I remember them being everywhere on the north transcon circa 2000...
They were a statistical anomaly on California to Alliance trains. Maybe they did on pure Transcon trains dunno. I think UP had the contract to bring them to DFW via the t&p.
-
Doug, PM sent
I didn't get a PM?
-
Well, I hemmed and hawed and then bit. Hard.
It's a shame about those Coscos as I already have Deluxe and Kato versions of the same type of container.
The MSC are likely to replace the Deluxe ones I have that are really not the right color.
These better all fit my cars!
-
The MSC are likely to replace the Deluxe ones I have that are really not the right color.
Deluxe did do an earlier run of MSC boxes that were pretty much the right color. The last run...not even in the same universe. But when that first run shows on eBay, it seems people are in tune to it and they always go for big bucks.
These better all fit my cars!
No kidding. The website touts 1:160 so I guess we'll see.
-
Deluxe did do an earlier run of MSC boxes that were pretty much the right color. The last run...not even in the same universe. But when that first run shows on eBay, it seems people are in tune to it and they always go for big bucks.
Yeah, that earlier run was dual logo panel standard size. Which is actually a prototype that I'm not sure ever existed on US rails, although I generally forgive logo panels if the paint scheme is otherwise right. And while the color was closer it was still off IMO. Not yellow enough as opposed to too yellow for the high cubes.
The color for the Rocky Rail cans looks spot on in the photo. We'll have to see when they get how the match looks.
-
I find containers vary in color quite a bit. Not thinking about the MSC in particular, but when I paint my own I often add a drop or two to the mix to change the tone a bit to get a more natural mix of tones in the train. I think Gary's https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=16573.0 (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=16573.0) methods also go a long ways towards correcting these minor issues.
-
I find containers vary in color quite a bit. ...
Yes this is true, and brings me much peace of mind. :D Of course it's always better if the manufacturer made the color a bit lighter than the prototype. If/when I get around to weathering some containers I plan to do more detailing on the lighter ones to make them look naturally older next to the darker ones.
-
I think Gary's https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=16573.0 (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=16573.0) methods also go a long ways towards correcting these minor issues.
Best I was ever able to do with a Deluxe MSC Hi-cube can is this (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=16573.msg146201#msg146201). But they really are supposed to be stadium mustard brown, like this (http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3960628), not lemon yellow...
The Rocky Rail model does look quite good! It even appears to have painted lock rods and customs seals on the doors. :lol: It would be great if someone could confirm that they match the dimensions of the Deluxe cans when they have a chance.
-
They do, they are true 1/160. I should get some photos together this weekend.
-
So I got my shipment from Deutschland, and I wish I could jump for joy, but it's a mixed bag. Here's a rundown.
The good:
-Rocky Rail got the MSC color right!
-The Rocky rail containers are the perfect height.
-The Arnold containers are the perfect width.
-The Rocky rail were cheap, and the Arnold containers were really cheap.
The bad:
-The Arnold containers are too short. They are 8' tall in scale instead of 8'-6".
-The roof on the Arnold container doesn't look right, it looks like an old sheet post container. Maybe there's a modern prototype like this but I've not noticed it. Also the picture on the DM toys website sure as heck showed logo-panel containers but that is not what I got in the package. Which is kinda okay with me, since I model both eras, but if you care about this be warned.
The really bad:
-The Rocky rail containers are too wide. :facepalm: They scale to about 100", or almost as wide as a domestic container. They will not fit DI Twinstacks, Kato Maxi-I, or Interail/Deluxe Thrall cars. :RUEffinKiddingMe:
The pretty:
- The Rocky Rail containers. They just look real good, especially with the door hardware highlighted with printing. It's enough to partly overcome the width disaster.
The Bottom line: If I use the Arnold containers in bottom position in stack cars, I can solve both the height problem with hidden shims and the roof problem with a container on top. So those were still a good buy. The Rocky Rail containers can still be used in stack trains, in top position or in Maxi-IVs or III's or Husky-stacks. (Come to think of it, if I can get that N-scale kits rebuilt Maxi-III done, that would be the best.) But I may very well end up selling the schemes that Kato also makes, and just keep the MSC.
-
Got mine a few days ago. Pretty much similar assessment. Best MSC color we've got so far....I'd say a smidge too mustard and a tad dark, but very close. Actually probably looks like they did new before fading maybe. Anyway, they'll work and like others I wish I could get a few more without dealing with the culls.
I had to laugh at the Arnold containers, they look REALLY ODD. But like Jagged Ben I figured I would make them work. I like how the different height containers look in stack trains, so an exaggeration of this would probably be a good effect. Good idea to shim them a bit from the bottom. Hard to get upset about them as cheap as they are....still better than the majority of hideous containers that mfg's have rolled out to us. I really don't know why it's so hard for manufacturers to give us good container models...I'm not gonna throw down that my 10 year old could do better but....ahem.....
It's ok cuz @James Costello probably has my JB Hunt boxes rendering as we speak. Right mate? 8) :trollface:
-
Sigh.
-
I received my Rocky Rail and Arnold containers (thanks @Denver Road Doug). I agree the Arnold is pretty much off- far too short and the roof is weird. The Evergreen paint is a strange tone too. It will become a yard storage shed or something- looks ridiculous on a train.
However, the Rocky Rail are pretty good, perhaps one of the best I have in my collection for a few reasons IMHO. I have Cosco and Evergreen 40' versions and the dimensions are pretty good. They fit into Walthers, DI (new Maxi's) and Kato wells, height is good, the width is a hair wider than DI and Kato, but the kicker for me is the detailed finishing. The doors look excellent, with painted hardware and black seals, and the lettering on the sides are similarly detailed. Nothing on the market looks that good in my mind and it is a lot of work to add these details with decals.
I'll be stripping my DI Cosco and Evergreen now and refinishing in something I need- the Rocky Rails are a superior looking product.
Neither has magnets, but I'll take them apart and figure that out. The paper strip with magnets trick works well.
-
My Rocky Rail do seem to have some magnets. Maybe they just magnetized the screws that hold them together. But the strength is too weak, in my opinion, for stacking them in a moving train.
I haven't taken them apart yet.
-
I see many of you are having the same frustrations as me. There are 20x9x8 boxes, so the Arnold 20 footers are correct. I can't find and reference to 40x8x8, but Wiking has the same size container. Maybe this was an early size? If so, that could justify the Arnold boxes.
The Rocky Rail boxes just infuriate me. So close to being perfect and they go and make them 4" too wide. Ugh...
I also got samples of Fleischmann boxes. They are too short (19' and 38' long), have strange posts on the top for stacking and just lack a good look to them.
Up next are Minitrix containers which should arrive at my house in the next day or so.
So far, I would rate the companies:
Deluxe B+ great tooling, paint could be better.
Rolland A great tooling, great paint and magnets!
Kato A great tooling, great paint, magnets.
HobbyTrain A very nice tooling, excellent paint.
Arnold C+ this could have been the best containers of they didn't punt on the box height.
Walthers B tooling isn't bad, but Jesus... 25 years and no new paint schemes.
Rocky Rail C+ the paint is nothing short of spectacular but dat a$$.
-
I'm pretty surprised by the reaction to Rocky Rails. I based my impression of the width on a direct comparison with Kato, DI, Walthers and Port of Hollywood examples and it is a pretty small difference you are quoting (4" is a scale 0.635 mm, to be exact). The finishing leaves the others behind in my experience. You need to spend a lot of time with decals to get that kind of detail. It is so good, I'm going to retire my DI Evergreen and Cosco and repaint in something else.
DI are nice, but basically not available.
Kato are great, but come in 6 or 10 packs with the cars in limited designs
Walthers detailing, especially the doors is pretty flat. Production issues....
Arnold- finishing on mine is sparse, height is crazy. Shimming won't hide the squashed lettering on the side.
Hobby Train ? Never heard of them, need to look.
-
I'm pretty surprised by the reaction to Rocky Rails. I based my impression of the width on a direct comparison with Kato, DI, Walthers and Port of Hollywood examples and it is a pretty small difference you are quoting (4" is a scale 0.635 mm, to be exact).
Do the Rocky Rail containers fit in a Kato Maxi-I well? A DI Twin Stack well?
-
They fit in Kato Maxi IV and DI Maxi-IV, as well as the Walthers Thrall. It is very snug in the Kato Maxi-I, so much so I would not want to put it in. I don't own any Twin Stacks to try.
For me, positioning containers to reflect these issues is not a big deal. The Rocky containers look a lot better to me and are worth any minor issues.
-
Do the Rocky Rail containers fit in a Kato Maxi-I well? A DI Twin Stack well?
No. (Nor Interail/Deluxe Thrall Lopacs.)
They'll fit 48' and 53' wells that are made tolerably to scale because prototype 48' and 53' containers are 102" wide. Same goes for cars that were rebuilt from 48' to 40', such as the N scale kits rebuilt Maxi-III. I'm not aware of any such well-car models available that are made too narrow in this respect. So it's just the original 40' prototypes mentioned above that are a problem.
FWIW, Con-Cor's 40' containers have always had the same problem as well.
-
[The Rocky Rail containers are] very snug in the Kato Maxi-I, so much so I would not want to put it in.
Yeah, I would say you are distorting the Kato cars shape and threatening to break them if you try. I tried and simply said "no, that's not going to go in." The Maxi-I is made to scale and the Rocky Rail is not.
-
You need to spend a lot of time with decals to get that kind of detail.
FWIW @Scottl I can get a good result on my end hardware without decals - just with silver and black markers/sharpies/paint pens and a matter of minutes.
I'm sure a modeller of your immense talents can as well.
-
Photos please. Photo needed.
-
I drink too much coffee for that :lol:. @GaryHinshaw convinced me that the decals are worth the effort, but I won't say I like doing it. This is TRW, we are allowed to complain if we have to finish our models :trollface:
-
... This is TRW, we are allowed to complain if we have to finish our models :trollface:
I thought it was the other way around. :trollface:
-
RockyRails is like the Deluxe of Europe and makes several 1/160 container cars and of course the very nice containers.
- ljj
-
Both Rocky Rail and HobbyTrain are producing Euro specific intermodal cars and the containers are just accessories for these cars.
I will be getting photos together soon, but want to make a dedicated thread for that. I am waiting to get some more products in before I start this. I don't want to update the same post 100 times and have you guys miss items because they were updated after you read the thread.
On the subject of the Arnold 40' boxes. Both Interail and MTL 40' containers are the same height (8 feet) as the Arnold ones. So it does look like this was a standard at some point. Whether Arnold chose prototype schemes for these models, I do not know. But until proven wrong, I'm going to go with Ed's rule.
-
On the subject of the Arnold 40' boxes. Both Interail and MTL 40' containers are the same height (8 feet) as the Arnold ones. So it does look like this was a standard at some point. Whether Arnold chose prototype schemes for these models, I do not know. But until proven wrong, I'm going to go with Ed's rule.
Evidently you're right about an 8' high standard, as I found some allusions to this on Wikipedia and some other info online. However, the Arnold containers are in a style and modern schemes that makes no sense for that height.
-
Take a look at the first photo in this link.
http://containerhomes.net/nuevo_sitio_containerhomes/Productos_y_Precios.html
The containers pictured are square, meaning they are indeed 40x8x8. They are also relatively modern and the Mearsk scheme is a good match for the Arnold can.
Here is an older Mearsk exterior post:
http://s3.racingjunk.com/ui/2/46/37403462-498-40x8x8-Aluminum-Storage-Container.jpg
Looking at cubic foot capacity, a 40x8x8 can should be somewhere in the 2000-2100 range. The 40x8x8.5 appears to be around 2300 and the "hi-cube" is about 2600.
I have now spent an hour looking at capacity data on photos of containers in Flickr (man that is a lot of prepositions). Found nothing so far...
-
On the subject of the Arnold 40' boxes. Both Interail and MTL 40' containers are the same height (8 feet) as the Arnold ones. So it does look like this was a standard at some point. Whether Arnold chose prototype schemes for these models, I do not know. But until proven wrong, I'm going to go with Ed's rule.
What are the container type codes on the Arnold models Dan?
-
FWIW, the Hobbytrain and Minitrix Tank containers fit perfectly in US well cars....
-
I got to make a comment about the Rocky-containers.
They're supposed to be that wide since they depict a wider kind of container that are made to load two rows of the most common pallet used in europe (EUR-pallet) which measures 120×80 cm.Sorry but dont know what that will compare to in feet and inches!?
If you search for pallet wide containers you find them but I dont know if they are common and which companies whom have them in their fleet.
This is facts that I got from a person who wrote a book about container-traffic in modell and he has been in contact with the Rocky-rail company about this and they say it is a modell of a pallet wide container.
With kind regards Björn
P.s I hope you can read my english,I'm from Sweden so it might be a lot of errors.
-
Bjorn,
Thanks for this information, it helps to understand these different offerings of container.
Regards
-
No problem ;)
If there are more questions about european items,please ask.
I think that I can help in some cases.
I'am intrested in modern intermodular traffic but with the european touch since I live here.
As you for sure know there are both differences and similarities and its always intresting to hear what items show up at the american market since it can be useful for us on the "other side" :)
And the other way around of course....
With kind regards, Björn
-
I thought they might be euro spec, but the paint they make them in is standard ISO schemes. So they would not be correct if they were indeed euro spec. One thing I did notice is that the corner castings are not sunken in like euro spec containers. Also, I thought that euro containers used shallow side stiffeners like in Plate Walk trailers. The Rocky Rail models show a more conventional corrugated construction.
-
It's a jungle out there ;)
There are different types of these pallet wide containers and other european solutions.Some of them have the sunken in corners some dont if my amateur research is right.
When it comes to the paintschemes im not sure what you mean but you can find for example CAI and Seaco marked palletwide containers with the same color and logos as their standard ISO containers.
Though when it comes to Rocky-rails choices I haven't found for example MSC,Maersk,Cosco variants so they may very well be not prototypical nor have I found 40' HCPW containers from CAI and Seaco.45' containers do exist from the two last mentioned
When it comes to european prototypes you got other solutions thats combining road and rail specs.
I dont see these as real (ISO)"containers".
In swedish they're called "växelflak" in germany they say wechselpritschen and the english term I think are swap-body.
Some of the modern ones look a lot like containers but most of them are not possible to stack for example.
The ones that look like containers often has the sunken in corners.
They are more like the upper part of a trailer with a variety of different sidings and I think many of them have the shallow stiffeners you mention but when it comes to "real" containers I think the most common is the deeper corrugated one.
I might have missed a lot in my description since the variety is really vast. :)
With kind regards Björn.
-
Any comments on the ConCor 45' containers showing up at modeltrainstuff.com?
Some of the schemes are wrong for that box, like the BBC one for sure....
-
The 45' containers are wrong all the way around... Too wide. Their 48 and 53 foot boxes scale out ok, but those rivets drive me nuts. Also I don't like those top facing pins. Why would they do that?
-
That's new tooling from Con-Cor. (Dan, did you take a look? They're corrugated.)
Interesting. I guess they call them 'Euro' because the are too wide. Which they probably decided to do in order to make them compatible with their other containers, but not to scale for actual ISO containers as seen in the US?
They will probably fit in most 48 and 53 wells. Kinda convenient for Con-Cor that there are no 45' N scale well cars out there. They won't exactly 'look right' with other manufacturer's 40' containers (exception?: Rocky Rail), but a lot of people might not realize that.
I'm somewhat tempted by the Yang Ming scheme.
-
The new Con-Cor containers are described as "45' Corrugated "Euro 45" Containers".
They sure appear to be the pallet wide containers that Bjorn described a few posts up. (sorry, but I don't know how to make the umlaut.)
Carter
-
(sorry, but I don't know how to make the umlaut.)
Cöpy and paste. :P :D
-
Cöpy and paste. :P :D
I did copy and paste, but the umlaut still disappeared. :?
Maybe I should have tried it more than once?
Carter