Athearn N Announcements 2/22/2019

[Mark5]

F59PHI http://www.athearn.com/newsletter/022219/10_N_F59PHI_022219.pdf

40' Offset 3 Bay Hopper: http://www.athearn.com/newsletter/022219/11_N_40ft_3-Bay_Offset_Hopper_022219.pdf

30' 3 Window Wood Caboose: http://www.athearn.com/newsletter/022219/12_N_3-Window_Caboose_022219.pdf

[thomasjmdavis]

F59PHI http://www.athearn.com/newsletter/022219/10_N_F59PHI_022219.pdf

40' Offset 3 Bay Hopper: http://www.athearn.com/newsletter/022219/11_N_40ft_3-Bay_Offset_Hopper_022219.pdf

30' 3 Window Wood Caboose: http://www.athearn.com/newsletter/022219/12_N_3-Window_Caboose_022219.pdf

While I assume this is essentially an updated MDC hopper, here is what they tell you about...

PROTOTYPE AND BACKGROUND INFO:
    The development of the hopper car went along with the development of
automated handling of such commodities, with automated loading and
unloading facilities.
    Open hopper cars are used for commodities such as coal, which can
suffer exposure with less detrimental effect. Hopper cars have been
used by railways worldwide whenever automated cargo handling has
been desired.
    This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article “Hopper Car”

Does the thing have an identifiable prototype.  I knew it is a "hopper car" and what a hopper car carries.  Is it just me, or are there other folks who are MUCH more likely to actually buy models from manufacturers who tell us what the prototype for the model is, and which railroads actually owned them?  Why waste ink on "prototype and background information" that includes no prototype or background information?  Are there folks lining up at hobby shops to buy hopper cars who don't know that hopper cars carried coal?

[Mark5]

I assume its the same MDC hopper, which they added body mount couplers to a year or more ago.

The Athearn copy writers seem to be lazy with the descriptions ...

Mark

[Dave V]

It would be cool if Athearn re-ran the old MDC HOn3 inside- and outside-framed 2-8-0s with upgraded motors like they did with the standard gauge ones, but rumor has it the tooling for the frames has been lost to the ether.  They're too big for a C-17 or C-19 but the outside framed one is nearly a dead-ringer for a C-25...just add a cross-compound pump in place of the twin single-phase.

[CRL]

While I assume this is essentially an updated MDC hopper, here is what they tell you about...Does the thing have an identifiable prototype.  I knew it is a "hopper car" and what a hopper car carries.  Is it just me, or are there other folks who are MUCH more likely to actually buy models from manufacturers who tell us what the prototype for the model is, and which railroads actually owned them?  Why waste ink on "prototype and background information" that includes no prototype or background information?  Are there folks lining up at hobby shops to buy hopper cars who don't know that hopper cars carried coal?

Basically, 99% of the people walking into a hobby shop to buy a hopper car don’t give a rat’s a$$ what the specific prototype is or what railroads owned which cars. They buy the hopper car because it’s pretty or because they want something that’s not a boxcar.

[robert3985]

Basically, 99% of the people walking into a hobby shop to buy a hopper car don’t give a rat’s a$$ what the specific prototype is or what railroads owned which cars. They buy the hopper car because it’s pretty or because they want something that’s not a boxcar.

And...what research did you do to come to this conclusion????  I agree that there's a certain percentage of buyers who don't care about prototype information, but 99%???

Secondly, what percentage of purchasers are not "walking into a hobby shop" but are buying multiple cars of a particular type of car online to run on their layouts (or on club modules) who have researched the road and era they're modeling and buy the ones that fit the bill but have the best price?  They don't buy one hopper, they buy MANY hoppers.  Take me for instance.  I bought all of what my local LHS had of Atlas U.P. Hart ballast hoppers (7) when they first came out, and unfortunately I didn't continue the binge until U.P. Hart ballast hoppers were not being made any longer.  Right now, if I could get 23 more all at once from an online dealer (my LHS has retired) I'd do it in a New York minute.

That little fact means that I buy 30 times more cars than the "people walking into a hobby shop to buy a hopper car (and) don't give a rat's (weenie) what the specific prototype is or what railroads owned which cars."...and I'm pretty sure there are several more prototype modelers out there like me who do the same thing, who have the room to run longer trains on their layouts, or on their modules.

My buying habits mean that I don't consider buying a car, engine, vehicle, building...ANYTHING that wouldn't have run on the U.P. on or before December 31, 1956...or if its paint job was put on it after that date.  Although I am unique in many ways, I am sure that other N-scale modelers exist who buy the same way that I do.  What I'm NOT sure of is the percentage.

So, although I agree that some modelers do exactly as you say in your post, what I question is the "99%" you state.  You could be right, but...my gut says that the percentage is less.  Additionally, it's total sales that count...not the amount of customers walking into their LHS.  Without printing prototype info for their models in their ads, Athearn is disregarding those buyers, like me, who are likely to make multiple purchases of a car because it's what the prototype had that we're modeling, not simply "...because it's pretty..."

Well...the clothes have stopped drying, so I can quit typing now and go fold 'em.  THANKS for the diversion!!   

Just sayin'...

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[unittrain]

The ones that don't give a hoot about accuracy probably spend very little on their hobby purchases hence I think most  of the money comes from the more serious modelers.

[Cajonpassfan]

I assume its the same MDC hopper, which they added body mount couplers to a year or more ago.

The Athearn copy writers seem to be lazy with the descriptions ...

Mark

Yes, and I'd much rather be looking at an actual model photo then these goofy graphics; lazy all around.
Do they introduce HO models the same way?
Otto K.

[thomasjmdavis]

Basically, 99% of the people walking into a hobby shop to buy a hopper car don’t give a rat’s a$$ what the specific prototype is or what railroads owned which cars. They buy the hopper car because it’s pretty or because they want something that’s not a boxcar.

Well, I have been buying Athearn products since my HO days 50 years ago.  Spoken to their reps at train shows.  I really don't think they believe that 99% of their customers are just looking for a pretty hopper car that isn't a boxcar. That's what the milk cars and beer slogan reefers are for.

[kiwi_bnsf]

I don't mind Athearn doing F59PHI locos in foobie paint schemes like Santa Fe, SP, Rido Grande etc.

However, what really grinds my gears is that they ignore prototype paint schemes for this loco — they have not still not done the two earlier Amtrak California schemes (both of which they have done in H0)…

[sirenwerks]

Basically, 99% of the people walking into a hobby shop to buy a hopper car don’t give a rat’s a$$ what the specific prototype is or what railroads owned which cars. They buy the hopper car because it’s pretty or because they want something that’s not a boxcar.

But this one case where most of us on TRW fall into the 1%; we do care.

Yes, and I'd much rather be looking at an actual model photo then these goofy graphics; lazy all around.

Actually, I like those goofy graphics. As someone interested in a specific time period, I pay attention to the dates on the cars. Athearn's PDFs allow you to zoom way in on the print to easily read those tiny dates; where photos largely depend on the quality of the site they're posted on.  I like photos too, but the PDFs are very helpful in quickly discerning a purchase, especially since I am always forgetting my magnifying glass when I go into the LHS.

[CRL]

And...what research did you do to come to this conclusion????  I agree that there's a certain percentage of buyers who don't care about prototype information, but 99%???

Secondly, what percentage of purchasers are not "walking into a hobby shop" but are buying multiple cars of a particular type of car online to run on their layouts (or on club modules) who have researched the road and era they're modeling and buy the ones that fit the bill but have the best price?  They don't buy one hopper, they buy MANY hoppers.  Take me for instance.  I bought all of what my local LHS had of Atlas U.P. Hart ballast hoppers (7) when they first came out, and unfortunately I didn't continue the binge until U.P. Hart ballast hoppers were not being made any longer.  Right now, if I could get 23 more all at once from an online dealer (my LHS has retired) I'd do it in a New York minute.

That little fact means that I buy 30 times more cars than the "people walking into a hobby shop to buy a hopper car (and) don't give a rat's (weenie) what the specific prototype is or what railroads owned which cars."...and I'm pretty sure there are several more prototype modelers out there like me who do the same thing, who have the room to run longer trains on their layouts, or on their modules.

My buying habits mean that I don't consider buying a car, engine, vehicle, building...ANYTHING that wouldn't have run on the U.P. on or before December 31, 1956...or if its paint job was put on it after that date.  Although I am unique in many ways, I am sure that other N-scale modelers exist who buy the same way that I do.  What I'm NOT sure of is the percentage.

So, although I agree that some modelers do exactly as you say in your post, what I question is the "99%" you state.  You could be right, but...my gut says that the percentage is less.  Additionally, it's total sales that count...not the amount of customers walking into their LHS.  Without printing prototype info for their models in their ads, Athearn is disregarding those buyers, like me, who are likely to make multiple purchases of a car because it's what the prototype had that we're modeling, not simply "...because it's pretty..."

Well...the clothes have stopped drying, so I can quit typing now and go fold 'em.  THANKS for the diversion!!   

Just sayin'...

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

I used the same research approach as the politicians make when trying to sell their point... I pulled it out of my butt! Or maybe I asked my wife... I don’t remember. 

Anyway, most serious modelers don’t buy the majority of their rolling stock from their LHS. They do internet/mail order for most locos and rolling stock due to pricing and availability issues.

Also, 95% of scientists believe a rat’s a$$ is different from a rat’s weenie. The other 5% feel it depends on how the rat identifies itself. 

[robert3985]

I used the same research approach as the politicians make when trying to sell their point... I pulled it out of my butt! Or maybe I asked my wife... I don’t remember. 

Anyway, most serious modelers don’t buy the majority of their rolling stock from their LHS. They do internet/mail order for most locos and rolling stock due to pricing and availability issues.

Also, 95% of scientists believe a rat’s a$$ is different from a rat’s weenie. The other 5% feel it depends on how the rat identifies itself. 

Except "weenie" can be spelled without automatically triggering censorship, whereas "a$$"...let me try it again "a$$"...nope...gets dollar signs! 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Rio Grandeous]

Would be nice if Athearn would rerun some more vehicles, they didn't get much mileage from the Mack's.  Seems like there were a very short production of them?  Can't remember, did they say the molds were damaged for the Mack's or low profit or something??

Chuck

[nkalanaga]

"Except "weenie" can be spelled without automatically triggering censorship, whereas "a$$"...let me try it again "a$$"...nope...gets dollar signs! "

I'm not going to try it, for fear it won't work on my post, but does this site actually have an auto-censor?  As it would be a form of spell-check/auto-correct, it wouldn't be impossible, but I haven't seen one in use.  I can think of a lot of sites that could use one, though, so it would be interesting if it existed.