December Micro Trains...

[wcfn100]

B&O most certainly did own PS-1's.

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bo470930.jpg

They also had ones with 6' doors as well.

Well that really depends if a car like that with only a 10' inside height would be considered part of the standard PS-1 design which was 10' 6".

Jason

[SkipGear]

But look at the build date on the car in the picture - New 12/57 (as close as I can read). The time saver scheme is from 1957 through 1962 and that is on an M-67 boxcar, not the M-55 in question. B&O may have had PS-1's but I don't believe they were an early adopter.

The paint scheme on the car offered is the post war "13 Great States" scheme which was used from 1944 through 1955. The maufactures always seem to put the Billboard schemes on B&O equipment which had a much narrower time frame and is post transition era so the steam heads out there have no use for them. If more of the earlier schemes were done, there would be more sales because the cars lasted into the 60's and later with the 13 states schemes on them. It's much easier to justify a 13 states car on a 60's layout than trying to explain billboard paint on an 40's throught transition era layout.

Regardless of all this, I am buying a few. I just wish these would have been in a runner pack. The only other 95% correct RTR B&O boxcar out there is a Red Caboose ARA/X-29 that was offered many years ago, first 12 numbers by Red Caboose, then 12 more by the B&O Historical Society. Everything else has errors of body and or paint, or both. If I let that bother me, I wouldn't have very many home road cars. Of course no B&O layout is complete without some of the Fine N Scale wagontop kits also.

[chessie system fan]

Here's a better example.

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/bo/bo468792alb.jpg

Not the right scheme, but closer to the MT car.

[bbussey]

Well there was no '44 PS-1 since it didn't go into production until '47.  And the early buyers have a good starting point with the MTL car, but it still need to be modified.  It looks like sometime between March and April of '48 the design was changed to what the MT car represents.

edit:  The list I have does show LV as the first road by build date. Followed by the CGW and then the B&M.

Jason, I mistyped - I meant the `47 PS-1, which of course were the first.

[wcfn100]

Here's a better example.

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/bo/bo468792alb.jpg

Not the right scheme, but closer to the MT car.

That is closer. The ORER lists it as an inch short for whatever reason.

I should have thought of it first, but there were PS-1s that made it other places by sale or lease.  Plus I would assume that the PS parts could be bought and built in the home shops.  Or the list could just be incomplete.


Jason

[bbussey]

B&O most certainly did own PS-1's.
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bo470930.jpg
They also had ones with 6' doors as well.

But look at the build date on the car in the picture - New 12/57 (as close as I can read). The time saver scheme is from 1957 through 1962 and that is on an M-67 boxcar, not the M-55 in question. B&O may have had PS-1's but I don't believe they were an early adopter...

Here's a better example.
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/bo/bo468792alb.jpg
Not the right scheme, but closer to the MT car.

Whether or not the B&O was an early buyer of the PS-1 is not relevant.  The point is - B&O did purchase the PS-1 at some point, whether it was assigned to the M-67 class or not.  That should be the model that MTL is producing, since it exists and is the closest B&O prototype to the MTL-20000, and not a prototype or paint scheme that is better suited for the DI model.  The Class M-67A in the second photo certainly appears to be an extremely close match to the MTL model.  An argument certainly could be made that, regardless of how well it sells, MTL would sell more of the B&O car had it been based on the proper prototype.

[SkipGear]

Bryan,
 The point is, MTL is making a car we can buy. Deluxe is not at this time. As a mater of fact, the ones that Deluxe have scheduled are too new. They are coming without roofwalks. An absolute correct car is not available for the class of car that the MT car represents. At some point you have to give in and just decide how close is close enough. MTL has released the car in both Billboard, Timesaver and Sentinal Service schemes previous to this, which are probably a better match on a PS-1. The paint scheme is the most visible reference to date the car, more so than 6" in height, or the wrong ladders, ends, ribs or whatever. As mentioned before, another billboard scheme that may be correct on a PS-1, excludes a large percentage of the people who model steam and transition era B&O and is not needed at this time. Brian DeVries who worked with MTL with this car and has worked with them on many other projects, models the mid 50's and has no need to more Billboard cars and is another reason for the compromise. I'm very thankful for his efforts as are many other modelers.

If anybody would like to create a B&O M-55 boxcar model, I would gladly buy it but until then, this is as close as we are going to get within reason. I don't see the car coming around in RTR any time soon considering it is a B&O specific prototype like most of the equipment on the B&O. The car is not unique enough to warrant a kitbash/scratchbuilt, especially in the numbers they would be needed. I will continue to concentrate my efforts on locos, cabooses an more unique pieces of rolling stock. A close enough M-55 slapped on a 6" too tall PS-1 with the right scheme and color is one less average run of the mill boxcar I have to worry about. In a running train, it will not be noticed.

[sirenwerks]

I'm kinda confused with this B&O apples and oranges talk. Why would it be better for DI to do a B&O model when they don't manufacture a PS1 model to slap that paint job on? Why not use your argumentative energy in a constructive way and lobby a manufacturer to make a proper PS1 car in N, rather than the right color on an almost close-enough car. I mean, whether MT or DI do it now, the car's gonna be wrong no matter what. InterMountain makes HO PS1s in 40' and 50' varieties and needs your urging to do so in N, and in a correct B&O paint scheme. Why not email them (intermountain@intermountain-railway.com) and urge them to make the correct car?

[bbussey]

I'm kinda confused with this B&O apples and oranges talk. Why would it be better for DI to do a B&O model when they don't manufacture a PS1 model to slap that paint job on? Why not use your argumentative energy in a constructive way and lobby a manufacturer to make a proper PS1 car in N, rather than the right color on an almost close-enough car. I mean, whether MT or DI do it now, the car's gonna be wrong no matter what. InterMountain makes HO PS1s in 40' and 50' varieties and needs your urging to do so in N, and in a correct B&O paint scheme. Why not email them (intermountain@intermountain-railway.com) and urge them to make the correct car?

Bryan, my position is that DI does own the tooling to make the correct model for the scheme that MTL has just released and there are other schemes that are correct for the MTL mode, albeit not in the steam eral.  But I understand Tony's position in that there is no B&O PS-1 prototype for his era and the MTL model will serve as a stand-in until (and if) a more representative model materializes.

A number of manufacturers followed the 1944 AAR standard, just as they did with the 1937 and 1932 standards.  Models of all three standards exist, with variations.  There is no real distinction between the builders to warrant additional models of those prototypes.  I've always felt it's better to exhaust the prototypical schemes on a model before venturing into the non-prototypical schemes, but obviously it's good to make the modelers happy.

[sizemore]

Anyone have a pic of this monster?

499-90-905    Lasercut Wood Kit: Two-Story Military Barracks   

I went to the website and didnt see anything there. If this is what I think it is...any of you east coasters should have about 2 to 3 minimum if you're modeling a military base of a facsimile there-of!

The S.

[DKS]

Anyone have a pic of this monster?

499-90-905    Lasercut Wood Kit: Two-Story Military Barracks   

I went to the website and didnt see anything there. If this is what I think it is...any of you east coasters should have about 2 to 3 minimum if you're modeling a military base of a facsimile there-of!

The S.

You'll find a pic here: http://blwnscale.com/mt-new.htm

[Bob Bufkin]

Those barracks look almost exactly like the one I was in at Great Lakes Naval Training Center during the mid 60's.  They were in the process of replacing them with new concrete fire-resistance barracks at the time.  Would guess they lasted at least until mid 70's, maybe early 80's.  Might just have to get a few couple.

[sirenwerks]

I'm kinda confused with this B&O apples and oranges talk. Why would it be better for DI to do a B&O model when they don't manufacture a PS1 model to slap that paint job on? Why not use your argumentative energy in a constructive way and lobby a manufacturer to make a proper PS1 car in N, rather than the right color on an almost close-enough car. I mean, whether MT or DI do it now, the car's gonna be wrong no matter what. InterMountain makes HO PS1s in 40' and 50' varieties and needs your urging to do so in N, and in a correct B&O paint scheme. Why not email them (intermountain@intermountain-railway.com) and urge them to make the correct car?

Bryan, my position is that DI does own the tooling to make the correct model for the scheme that MTL has just released and there are other schemes that are correct for the MTL mode, albeit not in the steam eral.  But I understand Tony's position in that there is no B&O PS-1 prototype for his era and the MTL model will serve as a stand-in until (and if) a more representative model materializes.

A number of manufacturers followed the 1944 AAR standard, just as they did with the 1937 and 1932 standards.  Models of all three standards exist, with variations.  There is no real distinction between the builders to warrant additional models of those prototypes.  I've always felt it's better to exhaust the prototypical schemes on a model before venturing into the non-prototypical schemes, but obviously it's good to make the modelers happy.

Never seen a DI boxcar with a PS1 end like the ones featured on both boxcar prototype photo links posted in this thread. If they aren't making it, time for someone else to step in and fill the gap. hopefully with some regularity. Like IM.

Normally I'm not a fan of manufacturers duplicating efforts but to date, the only manufacturer I am aware of that makes any box cars with the PS1 end is Athearn. And they're not exactly cramming the shelves with releases of these cars.

I model the WP, which, because of the timing of its freight car fleet purchases, had a box car mass that was more than 65% equipped with PS1 ends in the era I am modeling (late 60s, very early 70s). Since box cars were still popular then, I need many of them. I need them in 40' and 50' lengths, the latter with several door variations. And I need them available now and regularly so I can build a fleet without sending Mr. Wallet to the morgue before his time. If a manufacturer doesn't want to put out, let someone else step in. Kato's a perfect example.

Which is why my vote goes to IM, they've already done 40' and 50' PS1 variations in HO, they're pretty box car-centric so they seem to do well with them. And IM trumps DI IMO, because IM cars come in kit form with all that separate detail, which makes it even easier to make all those little variations a reality. For instance, DI wants to model a more modern car, sans roofwalk, all they do is take off the roofwalk. IM's design allows that, plus the ability to add shorter ladders and lowering the brake gear because it's not molded on and easier to fiddle with. I really can't see why more manufacturers, and more modelers who count rivets and car side panels and are so concerned with the right shade of red, don't see the virtue in IM's modular design. Look at all of the RTR sliding door 40' box car variations (combos of roof, end, roofwalk or not, doors, and panel variations) IM (12?) has done versus how many MT has done (4?). AND, IM runs of 6 or 12 car numbers at a time, rather than one. We should be encouraging and supporting such innovation with dollars.

[DKS]

I really can't see why more manufacturers, and more modelers who count rivets and car side panels and are so concerned with the right shade of red, don't see the virtue in IM's modular design.

FWIW, the reason I never opted for IMs (except to kitbash) is because their add-on details are so thick and unrealistic. I can't see why modelers who are so fussy about the specific shape of a boxcar end are happy to slap on ladders and other details that are as thick as a brick. Is the intent of what's being modeled--i.e., modeled more or less after the correct form--more important than dimensional accuracy? Or, put another way, the correct road number versus correct font size?

[sirenwerks]

One of the beauties of those thick add-ons is that they are add-ons. You can replace them with thinner profiled details WITHOUT scraping the old ones off. Believe me, it makes the job go a lot faster and limits the number of finger cuts. Too bad IM won't adopt a thinner is better etched detail set to replace their fatty plasty ones.