Athearn January announcements

[C855B]

Madness
C50-5 International Car Company - 1974 build
C50-7 Paciic Car and Foundry - 1978 build
certainly a 'stand-in' for the real thing, just like the Con-Cor model...

( )( )  :-*

[bbussey]

Huh? The -7 is a perfectly good stand-in for a -5 , with no external differences:

Madness
C50-5 International Car Company - 1974 build
C50-7 Paciic Car and Foundry - 1978 build
certainly a 'stand-in' for the real thing, just like the Con-Cor model...

Regardless of who built what and when - if the real -5 and -7 are externally identical, then the Athearn model isn't a "stand-in" and the upcoming SSW release is prototypically accurate.

[wcfn100]

Huh? The -7 is a perfectly good stand-in for a -5 , with no external differences:

If this site has the photos sorted correctly:

http://espee.railfan.net
http://espee.railfan.net/picindex/c-50-05_photos/index.html
http://espee.railfan.net/picindex/c-50-07_photos/index.html


There are indeed external differences.  The most obvious being the sil.  I can spot four more as well (five if you want to get real picky).


Jason

[TiVoPrince]

Huh? The -7 is a perfectly good stand-in for a -5 , with no external differences:

Madness
C50-5 International Car Company - 1974 build
C50-7 Paciic Car and Foundry - 1978 build
certainly a 'stand-in' for the real thing, just like the Con-Cor model...

Regardless of who built what and when - if the real -5 and -7 are externally identical, then the Athearn model isn't a "stand-in" and the upcoming SSW release is prototypically accurate.

Balderdash
that side sill alone disqualifies the C50-7 as 'identical' or 'no external differences' from a C50-5.  Wishing it were so and making brash statements does not make a C50-7 model painted up as  C50-5 correct.  While the models are similar, the conversion to a reasonably accurate C50-5 might just make a useful magazine article...

[SirTainly]

How much do you get paid for an article? That might be a way to offset the purchase price of the cabooses.