First batch of Intermountain 3281 Covered Hoppers are on the water

[Englewood]

I suspect that there are hobby shops out there that will list an item before they actually get it in order to get sales. I've ordered from a particular shop before when they were the first to list something and it was weeks before it actually shipped. And by then most other online shops had it listed as in stock.

[mu26aeh]

Midwest has them in stock.  The listing on HogTrainz is for the 2nd run, they split the initial announcement of 20 roadnames into 2 groups, 9 and 11.

[basementcalling]

Anyone put them next to an older ACF 2 Bay centerflow to see how different they appear in a consist yet? Photos appreciated.

[GaryHinshaw]

I just got my package an hour ago and had a very quick look at this.  I'll post some photos this weekend, but my initial impressions are pretty positive, both in absolute terms and in comparison to the ACF 2-bays. 

It looks like Midwest sold out of their first shipment, but they just listed a 2nd shipment with some additional roads from the first run: e.g., CSX and NS and others.  I still don't see them listed anywhere else at the moment...  ???

[basementcalling]

I just got my package an hour ago and had a very quick look at this.  I'll post some photos this weekend, but my initial impressions are pretty positive, both in absolute terms and in comparison to the ACF 2-bays. 

It looks like Midwest sold out of their first shipment, but they just listed a 2nd shipment with some additional roads from the first run: e.g., CSX and NS and others.  I still don't see them listed anywhere else at the moment...  ???

Fifer Hobby also has an in stock listing on their website now.

[GaryHinshaw]

I spent a bit of time this weekend looking over ways to upgrade the new 3281s and this is what I settled on so far (stock on the left, new on the right):



The changes include:
* Swapping out the weird 0.4mm soft plastic bolster washer for a 0.25 mm metal one.  This gives a slightly lower ride height and a bit better ride stability (though it wasn't too bad to start with).
* Switch to narrow-tread FVM wheels.
* Switch to N-Possible couplers with a scale box.  The coupler height is similar what Andrew posted above with his 5161 hopper.  Perfectly fine.
* Straighten out the sloppy end cage assembly and replace the stirrups with 3d printed ones (happily the same parts I used on my 5161s work here).
* Paint the roofwalk side supports to match the body colour.

Here are a few more shots:



^^ Note how the end cage on the stock model is angled out towards the bottom.  Most of my samples are like that.  The stock stirrups are awfully thick too.



Finally a comparison to the other two cement hoppers that will round out my fleet: an Atlas 3230:



and an IM 2-bay ACF:



Overall I'd give these models a B+.  It's been 9 years since these were announced: I'm very happy to finally have them in my hands.

[Mark5]

Gary - thanks for sharing your improvements.

So weird about how the stirrups don't line up with the ladder - I wonder what Intermountain's rationale was for that. 

Mark

[turbowhiz]

How did you fix the end cages Gary? Looks to be a bit of a pain! I have a solitary example I picked up at the LHS this weekend. All of the stock I looked at had poor end cage assembly too. More specifically, it seems to be very much an “A end” problem. Flash on the bottom of the ladder cage being the root case as best as I can tell.

Your steps look fantastic. I’m going to get some printed up for my cars too. The steps on the 3281’s are noticeably worse (thicker, poorer molding quality never less wonky placement) than the 5161 steps!

You might want to consider re-drilling and pushing the scalebox coupler out ~1-1.5 mm to get them proto spaced. If you use the stock hole as it looks like you’ve done, you’re actually a bit too close coupling. The beauty of my couplers is that yes, you really can get even these subtle details spot on.

Even with the thick height adding washers, the stock coupler height is still super low (exactly same as the truck mount 5161 I posted earlier in this thread).

I originally figured the roofwalk end treatment is a cost cutting measure; But it’s actually somewhat prototypical. I’m finding these etched roof walks with gigantic holes really poor relative to other’s we’ve seen though; They’re not up to the BLMA/Atlas standard at all.  Doing them right is possible!

Proto photo reference of the roofwalk end and coupler placement:

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I hate to say it, but these are really rough out of the box. Wow.

They look like a major step backwards compared to some of the other cars you're showing next to them too.

The fact that you have to replace huge assemblies to make them right is nuts.

I hate to say it, but it's such typical Intermountain.

They try to swing for the fences with stuff but keep falling so short.

They have a few winners, and often have really good "bones" but execution ends up so damn sloppy to make all of their stuff "projects".

Such a bummer.

[lock4244]

I hate to say it, but these are really rough out of the box. Wow.

They look like a major step backwards compared to some of the other cars you're showing next to them too.

The fact that you have to replace huge assemblies to make them right is nuts.

I hate to say it, but it's such typical Intermountain.

They try to swing for the fences with stuff but keep falling so short.

They have a few winners, and often have really good "bones" but execution ends up so damn sloppy to make all of their stuff "projects".

Such a bummer.

Hard agree.

Intermountain fell out of favor with me some time ago, their 5277cf and rebuilt AAR 40' boxcars are about all I'll spring for anymore. A run of their 4650cf covered hoppers was the last straw (think these were the first 4650's with factory body mounted couplers and metal wheels), finding the fit and finish to be quite poor and the Sclair cars of this particular run were a noticeably incorrect pumpkin pie filling orange (remarkable since several earlier runs were correct).

The SD40-2W was also quite a letdown, the incorrectly proportioned cab not the least of the issues with these... shells glued together, no tread on walkways, bent ends and misaligned couplers, some shells were humpbacked, wheels not great, and the mechanism is terrible imo.

It's a shame because they have so much potential, but seem adept at grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Scottl]

Based on the images, this is lower-tier quality for N scale.  Too bad, very useful and common prototype, I would have wanted to a sand train if they were good. When other companies are churning out top-quality product at a comparable cost, it is hard to turn a blind eye to this.

I think I'll try my hand at a 3D printed version.  Beyond getting the sidewall curve correct, it looks pretty straightforward.

[CR4100]

The March, 2023 issue of Model Railroader has drawings of the 5161 covered hoppers. It's probably a good starting point since I can't imagine that the profile of the 3281s is much different.

[Scottl]

The March, 2023 issue of Model Railroader has drawings of the 5161 covered hoppers. It's probably a good starting point since I can't imagine that the profile of the 3281s is much different.

Thanks, I'll get a copy of that. 

I found basic plans for a Greenbrier 3250 sand/cement car.  After looking at some CN sand train photos, these are pretty common so I think I will try that.  It looks very similar to the Trinity car but will be distinct.  Should be an interesting challenge, the curves are not as complex as I would have guessed.

[GaryHinshaw]

So weird about how the stirrups don't line up with the ladder - I wonder what Intermountain's rationale was for that. 

Rationale??   

I hate to say it, but these are really rough out of the box. Wow.
They look like a major step backwards compared to some of the other cars you're showing next to them too.

In all honesty, I was expecting worse.  The Atlas 3230 hopper pictured above was a bigger mess than the 3281, in terms of the time it took to bring one up to snuff.  (Lots of flash and wonky assembly.)   But I agree that these are rough too.  That said, after going through one example, I think I can fix these guys up in less than an hour per car (which is pretty fast for me).  In the end I have a car that is at least as good as the IM ACF car, and a prototype that is hugely important for my layout.  I'm fine with that for now.

They have a few winners, and often have really good "bones" but execution ends up so damn sloppy to make all of their stuff "projects".

I agree.  I attribute a lot of this to lazy design that places a premium on the talent of the factory to get it right.  For example, the end cages could easily be designed to have alignment tabs that forced the parts to fit properly.  The flash-laden injection molding is another story though: those stirrups are really atrocious. 

How did you fix the end cages Gary?

I basically popped the glue joints at the base of the cage and did a bit of pruning.  As far as I can tell, the parts were not designed to fit properly.     I'll post a photo when I can to illustrate what I trimmed.

You might want to consider re-drilling and pushing the scalebox coupler out ~1-1.5 mm to get them proto spaced. If you use the stock hole as it looks like you’ve done, you’re actually a bit too close coupling. The beauty of my couplers is that yes, you really can get even these subtle details spot on.

Agreed!  However, my short term goal is to get as many cars converted to N-Ps as I can before I re-start operations.    This was basically a drop-in-place conversion that I can improve on later.  I will probably swap in medium length shanks in the short run to get a better car spacing.

One concern I have about moving the box forward (apart from the extra work) is that a properly placed hole would likely span the joint between the end cage and the centre sill, so I'd be inclined to reinforce the area with a layer of styrene above the joint.  I need to study it though.

I originally figured the roofwalk end treatment is a cost cutting measure; But it’s actually somewhat prototypical. I’m finding these etched roof walks with gigantic holes really poor relative to other’s we’ve seen though; They’re not up to the BLMA/Atlas standard at all.  Doing them right is possible!

These roof walks are definitely not as nice as the 5161s, or the Atlas 5660 PD hoppers.  But they are straighter than the Atlas 3230 hoppers...

[GaryHinshaw]

Here is an illustration of the end cage issue.  The first shot shows where the stirrups are interfering with the end cage, preventing it from mating with the bottom sill:



The solution is to remove/replace the offending stirrups and cement the end cage to the bottom sill as shown in the top car below (with one replacement stirrup in place):



Oddly the B side bottom sill projects beyond the stirrups a bit more than the A side, so this is less of an issue on that side.

Note that there is relatively little room to add another coupler pocket hole further forward of the stock one.  For now I will use the stock hole and the medium length shank to get a good car spacing.

I'm going to bump my grade down to a B- after a bit more experience with these.  But I'm still really happy to have them, after 9 years of waiting.