So what time period are you modeling? Everybody was kinda guessing as to what cars your looking for.
But, by now you should have a good idea whats availiable.
Mike.
My You Tube
Triple BThat does it! I'm officially making the jump from N Scale to HO Scale!
.
I made that jump over 20 years ago.
It was the right decision for me, I hope it if the right one for you also.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL It is always interesting to see the bias in each reply. Those who are little more "fussy" about accuracy or fine detail (not always the same thing), can't imagine the less than $20 freight car, since nothing that fills their requirements is in that price range. Others who are less fussy about that can no doubt find some good running stuff for $25 or less. As mentioned above, high/fine detail and prototype accuracy are not automaticly the same, and one does not require the other. Then there is that word "quality". Quality of what? Running quality? Every piece of Athearn RTR has that, even if they don't all pass other quality tests for fine detail or prototype accuracy. Then there is that question of era modeled, and how that plays into price, detail and accuracy. I have nearly 1000 freight cars, many are just $2 Athearn Blue Box kits from the 1970's, but many are highly detailed craftsman kits, or highly detailed recent RTR pieces. I model the mid 50's, and I would submit we are all "experts" on what we model, to whatever level it is important to us. But few of us have extensive knowledge of every type of car in every era. Prove to me it is not reasonablely accurate. Just because you can't find a picture on the interweb, that does not prove it did not exist. I buy new RTR cars and often change the trucks and couplers. 40 year old, $2 Athearn Blue Box, or recent $40 RTR, I refit most with Kadee sprung trucks, Intermoutain wheel sets, Kadee brand couplers. That adds $10 to every car........ It is the RTR age, and the op has been given good advice on brands here, should he return...... Sheldon
It is always interesting to see the bias in each reply.
Those who are little more "fussy" about accuracy or fine detail (not always the same thing), can't imagine the less than $20 freight car, since nothing that fills their requirements is in that price range.
Others who are less fussy about that can no doubt find some good running stuff for $25 or less.
As mentioned above, high/fine detail and prototype accuracy are not automaticly the same, and one does not require the other.
Then there is that word "quality". Quality of what? Running quality? Every piece of Athearn RTR has that, even if they don't all pass other quality tests for fine detail or prototype accuracy.
Then there is that question of era modeled, and how that plays into price, detail and accuracy.
I have nearly 1000 freight cars, many are just $2 Athearn Blue Box kits from the 1970's, but many are highly detailed craftsman kits, or highly detailed recent RTR pieces.
I model the mid 50's, and I would submit we are all "experts" on what we model, to whatever level it is important to us.
But few of us have extensive knowledge of every type of car in every era. Prove to me it is not reasonablely accurate. Just because you can't find a picture on the interweb, that does not prove it did not exist.
I buy new RTR cars and often change the trucks and couplers. 40 year old, $2 Athearn Blue Box, or recent $40 RTR, I refit most with Kadee sprung trucks, Intermoutain wheel sets, Kadee brand couplers.
That adds $10 to every car........
It is the RTR age, and the op has been given good advice on brands here, should he return......
Sheldon
rrebell ATLANTIC CENTRAL It is always interesting to see the bias in each reply. Those who are little more "fussy" about accuracy or fine detail (not always the same thing), can't imagine the less than $20 freight car, since nothing that fills their requirements is in that price range. Others who are less fussy about that can no doubt find some good running stuff for $25 or less. As mentioned above, high/fine detail and prototype accuracy are not automaticly the same, and one does not require the other. Then there is that word "quality". Quality of what? Running quality? Every piece of Athearn RTR has that, even if they don't all pass other quality tests for fine detail or prototype accuracy. Then there is that question of era modeled, and how that plays into price, detail and accuracy. I have nearly 1000 freight cars, many are just $2 Athearn Blue Box kits from the 1970's, but many are highly detailed craftsman kits, or highly detailed recent RTR pieces. I model the mid 50's, and I would submit we are all "experts" on what we model, to whatever level it is important to us. But few of us have extensive knowledge of every type of car in every era. Prove to me it is not reasonablely accurate. Just because you can't find a picture on the interweb, that does not prove it did not exist. I buy new RTR cars and often change the trucks and couplers. 40 year old, $2 Athearn Blue Box, or recent $40 RTR, I refit most with Kadee sprung trucks, Intermoutain wheel sets, Kadee brand couplers. That adds $10 to every car........ It is the RTR age, and the op has been given good advice on brands here, should he return...... Sheldon You know me, I like fine detail and most of my stuff is under $20. One exception is three dome tanks from Tangent, almost paid retail for those (hurt me deeply but I have not found detailed ones except in brass in over 20 years.
You know me, I like fine detail and most of my stuff is under $20. One exception is three dome tanks from Tangent, almost paid retail for those (hurt me deeply but I have not found detailed ones except in brass in over 20 years.
For some people the "hunt" is a second hobby all its own.........
I have 145 locomotives - all purchased in the last 25 years, most purchased new in the box. Dollar cost average price, only about $100 each.
BUT, not sound or DCC, and no Union Pacific Big Boys.......
I will jump on a deal when I see it, but I hate the hunt, and I don't generally buy stuff "already been played with".
I will buy "new old stock" kind of stuff.........
I like good detail, I don't require it for every piece of rolling stock.
Modeling the era I model, scratch building would be required to get accurate models of a lot of stuff that I am willing to accept "close enough", or to kit bash into "close enough".......
But I'm a "big picture" modeler, long trains, lots of them, broad curves, deep scenery.
A train of 30 of these looks great as it rolls by, even with the "inaccuracies":
ATLANTIC CENTRALFor some people the "hunt" is a second hobby all its own.......
Oh, I am certainly a hunter.
I love stopping and shopping at all the hobby shops, train shows, and antique malls.
The hunt is the part of the hobby my wife shares with me.
SeeYou190 ATLANTIC CENTRAL For some people the "hunt" is a second hobby all its own....... . Oh, I am certainly a hunter. . I love stopping and shopping at all the hobby shops, train shows, and antique malls. . The hunt is the part of the hobby my wife shares with me. . -Kevin .
ATLANTIC CENTRAL For some people the "hunt" is a second hobby all its own.......
I am too. And my wife loves going to Antique malls. But not train shows as much. But my middle son is into 3 rail O gauge and we go to train shows together. That's fun even when I don't find something.
I also have to admit that I'm a collector as well. I buy HO and O as they appeal to me even though I'm in S now.
Paul
I’ll be modeling the early to mid ‘70’s in Central Illinois. Santa Fe had the only outside-of-Chicago yard about a block from my home in the bustling city of Pekin, pop. 33,000.
Santa Fe, NYC, Conrail, CNW, Rock Island, N&W, and a few others switched through my hometown town via a short line called the Peoria & Pekin Union Ry. Quite a bit of traffic considering such a small town. That’s why a switching layout appeals to me at this time.
I love the Pekin/East Peoria area for railfanning. Don't forget the C&IM and the Illinois Terminal. There was a fair amount of street running in Pekin which adds to the interest of a switching layout.
There are many excellent brands of RTR freight cars out there, including some very high end ones. Other posters have listed the names. Wheels of Time and (don't throw tomatos at me please) Mike's Train House are other names to add to the list.
I myself like kits but I also understand that every kit I tackle represents time that could/should be spent on layout building and improvement. I also now see that the very best job I can do assembling a kit still comes short of the RTR that is out there. I have enough assembled kits that I do not need any more of the warm and fuzzy feeling that "I built this" can engender. I also know the cold and scratchy feeling of being able to say "I botched this."
One caution is that some of the beautiful RTR freight cars out there are FRAGILE. I have had to learn some new disciplines in operating because old assumptions about how you uncouple cars with a swizzle stick and such can do damage to these delicate models. The ExactRail centerbeam flatcar is perhaps the most scary example. I'm afraid to touch the thing. Even ExactRail warns you not to do it the way you think makes the most sense.
The wealth of separately applied tiny details such as scale or near-scale grabirons, tack boards, and the list goes on, also means that some popular means of weathering involving brushes and powders can also come at the cost of wiping off some details. (Having said that, this is also the case with assembled kits of the Intermountain/Red Caboose/IMWX/Tichy/P2K variety, which is why I have taken to doing most of the weathering BEFORE I begin assembly).
One thing I note at swap meets is that I see more and more guys who obviously like to build and paint and letter and weather and detail and add open loads, and perhaps their own layouts are stuffed to the gills with rolling stock, so they have turned to selling at swap meets. This is not used stuff necessarily - in many cases they have actual "inventory" -- it is just that their own layout can no longer support their love of building. So they build to sell.
Dave Nelson
dknelsonOne caution is that some of the beautiful RTR freight cars out there are FRAGILE.
Especially Kadee's and Tangent's tank cars.
I don't think there is hardly a place where you can touch these beauties without breaking something.
Theses types of cars can very hardy, I dropped a couple Intermountain once on concreate, no major damage.
I got a new BLMA Beer car, broke some of the brake piping just getting it out the many layers of packaging.
Then, the third time around the lay out, a couple cut lever and assembly dropped down enough to derail the car, along with 2 others.
When you can't get it out of the box without breaking parts, maybe models have gotten too detailed for their own good.
I'm in Sheldon's camp, good enough from a distance is good enough for me.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
dknelson Mike's Train House are other names to add to the list.
Russell
My thinking too. Got this off Ebay, less than a third of MSRP. I normally don't go out and buy this stuff at a HS.
dknelson — (don't throw tomatos at me please) Mike's Train House are other names to add to the list.
MTH should set up a separate line similar to what Athearn does in Genesis. It is tough sometimes to separate their toy stuff from what you might call their scale models. MTH HO passenger cars are excellent and a great value, just not too much variety.
I was recently looking for a replacement for my old Roundhouse ore jennies and thought I'd see what the MTH offering looked like.
BLE_ore by Edmund, on Flickr
I was pleasantly surprised! Even the additional air hose for the dump cylinder is there. MTH box cars have excellent underbody detail and a "decent" level of carbody detail, including opening doors and Kadee scale head couplers are standard:
PS1-PS1 by Edmund, on Flickr
The above is an example of an "under $20" car. It comes with metal wheels and free-rolling trucks and Kadee scale head couplers are already installed. Again, you have to be vigilant and stay on top of what's out there.
I recently got a deal on a bunch of Trix HO cars. I pull off the underbody and replace it with the MTH floor and underframe.
Trix_MTH_PS1b by Edmund, on Flickr
The brake rigging and floor detail is superb for a "budget" car. They are a direct replacement for the Trix carbody.
Regards, Ed
SeeYou190 dknelson One caution is that some of the beautiful RTR freight cars out there are FRAGILE. Especially Kadee's and Tangent's tank cars. I don't think there is hardly a place where you can touch these beauties without breaking something. -Kevin
dknelson
Some of those r-t-r cars which are also available in kit form can be built in a manner that's sturdier than the r-t-r versions.This Tangent tank car was built from a kit, but I substituted wire for the plastic brake rigging and cut levers, and used piano wire in place of the very nicely-rendered plastic tank handrail.
A lot easier to pick up without having to remember where the fragilities are located.
Wayne
I never think of MTH for rolling stock, first thing to mind comes their locos and their version of DCS.
I'll have to at least take a look.
Tangent models already have metal grabs and stuff in RTR form.
Here is a nifty link that describes the various model railroad companies and their various lines: https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-train-station/whose-product-is-that-a-guide-to-different-brand-names-used-by-model-train-manuf/1426955927333426/
doctorwayneSome of those r-t-r cars which are also available in kit form can be built in a manner that's sturdier than the r-t-r versions.
I do the same thing. All my Life-Like Proto-2000 tank cars have wire grabs at all locations. Detail Associates made parts that dropped right in on the tanks ends and dome sides.
It is the RTR cars that are too fragile for me.
About half my tank cars are all brass models... much better.
rrebell Tangent models already have metal grabs and stuff in RTR form.
The OP's aim of building an HO switching layout influenced by the designs of Lance Mindheim suggests he will probably spend the majority of his time in closer proximity to his equipment than the guy modeling Tehachapi. The rolling stock that looks OK from three feet and further away, may not be so appealing at a foot to 18 inches.
A long train on the OP's switching layout may be 8-10 cars. If he is going to run trains 30-50 or more cars long, beyond arm's length away, the detail of the $40 dollar car is lost in distance and anonimity. The final decision of what meets the expectations of the purchaser is his or hers alone. What is OK for one may not meet the requirements of another. He who spends the money gets the privilege of making that decision.
If I'm expected to pay $50 or more for an HO car, I expect it to be as accurate a miniature of the real thing as technology can provide for that price. Good enough at arm's length is not going to get my money. I'm going for accuracy in modeling because I try to model what I have seen and, photographed. At one time I was OK with cars that merely replicated the general shape of the prototypes. As my knowledge of the prototype increased so did my disatisfaction with those "shapes". Enter the IPD boxcar era and magazines such as Mainline Modeler, Model Railroading and, Railmodel Journal that taught us there were differences between Pullman-Standard, ACF, FMC, Berwick--you name it, freight cars. There was the Society of Freight Car Historians who did so much to make those who were interested more knowledgable. Kadee was one of the pioneers that stood model railroading on its head when they introduced a $30 40 foot PS-1 boxcar when available PS-1 models were selling for two or three dollars.
Today, we have prototype-specific models of single classes of cars owned by one prototype railroad such as ATSF Bx-177s, PRR G-43s, etc. Manufacturers would not get this specific if these models did not sell so, there are people out here who know and expect accuracy in models purporting to be replicas of these cars. Most of us are choosy in our locomotives so, why not be choosy in the reason we buy locomotives? Is there anyone modeling a railroad that ran only locomotives? Never pulling any cars? No. The cars are the reason we buy locomotives and, I feel, deserve the same emphasis as to accuracy, hence "quality".
In this instance the term "quality" can be defined as fidelity to prototype. Coupler height, wheel gauge are aspects of ANY piece of rolling stock that we own that should be verifed acceptable regardless of source and price. Each modeler should have the ability to make corrections if necessary. Mass produced items such as couplers and wheelsets can be the victims of human error, just like anything else we build. Ask me about the axle I have with a scale 33 inch wheel on one side and a 36 inch on the other.
Bottom line--spend your money on what works for you and let everybody else do the same for themselves.
NHTX The OP's aim of building an HO switching layout influenced by the designs of Lance Mindheim suggests he will probably spend the majority of his time in closer proximity to his equipment than the guy modeling Tehachapi. The rolling stock that looks OK from three feet and further away, may not be so appealing at a foot to 18 inches. A long train on the OP's switching layout may be 8-10 cars. If he is going to run trains 30-50 or more cars long, beyond arm's length away, the detail of the $40 dollar car is lost in distance and anonimity. The final decision of what meets the expectations of the purchaser is his or hers alone. What is OK for one may not meet the requirements of another. He who spends the money gets the privilege of making that decision. If I'm expected to pay $50 or more for an HO car, I expect it to be as accurate a miniature of the real thing as technology can provide for that price. Good enough at arm's length is not going to get my money. I'm going for accuracy in modeling because I try to model what I have seen and, photographed. At one time I was OK with cars that merely replicated the general shape of the prototypes. As my knowledge of the prototype increased so did my disatisfaction with those "shapes". Enter the IPD boxcar era and magazines such as Mainline Modeler, Model Railroading and, Railmodel Journal that taught us there were differences between Pullman-Standard, ACF, FMC, Berwick--you name it, freight cars. There was the Society of Freight Car Historians who did so much to make those who were interested more knowledgable. Kadee was one of the pioneers that stood model railroading on its head when they introduced a $30 40 foot PS-1 boxcar when available PS-1 models were selling for two or three dollars. Today, we have prototype-specific models of single classes of cars owned by one prototype railroad such as ATSF Bx-177s, PRR G-43s, etc. Manufacturers would not get this specific if these models did not sell so, there are people out here who know and expect accuracy in models purporting to be replicas of these cars. Most of us are choosy in our locomotives so, why not be choosy in the reason we buy locomotives? Is there anyone modeling a railroad that ran only locomotives? Never pulling any cars? No. The cars are the reason we buy locomotives and, I feel, deserve the same emphasis as to accuracy, hence "quality". In this instance the term "quality" can be defined as fidelity to prototype. Coupler height, wheel gauge are aspects of ANY piece of rolling stock that we own that should be verifed acceptable regardless of source and price. Each modeler should have the ability to make corrections if necessary. Mass produced items such as couplers and wheelsets can be the victims of human error, just like anything else we build. Ask me about the axle I have with a scale 33 inch wheel on one side and a 36 inch on the other. Bottom line--spend your money on what works for you and let everybody else do the same for themselves.
I agree, I like accurate models and everyone should spend their money based on what works for them.
A few additional thoughts based on your comments.
Era has a big effect on this question of how close is close enough. Starting in the late 1960's railroad equipment started changing dramaticly, and the visual differeces from car maker to car maker quickly became more obvious.
If I modeled the 70's, or newer, I might be more fussy........
But I model 1954, a great many "differences" were much more subtle.
I have an operational scheme that requires over 1000 freight cars, and I have been at this since 1968.
Many of the prototypes from my era are poorly represented in that class of product that is highly accurate.........and highly priced.
I do own a lot of that class of product that is available, B&O wagon tops, PRR x-29's, Kadee PS-1's, etc.
But I'm not replacing decades of purchases, and I'm not doing without specific car types because no high detail model exists, and I'm not scratch building them......
The OP did say he was modeling in the Lance Mindheim mold.
Pesonally despite being fairly up close and personal with my shelf layout, I an willing to sacrifice some details for a bit more durability. This is because I have to manually load cars unto my staging track and I have (sometimes) sufferred from “bull in china shop syndrome‘.
Just something to think about if eyesight and/or dexterity is an issue.
Joe Staten Island West
Point taken.
Thanks for the link to modern what the train companys names are today, got to say it is starting to get real confusing. Remember when Branchline trains started to get into RTR, people were confused because they had always done kits before. I took advantage of that by buying 6 cars when the sales dropped of their RTR line due to this confusion, bought at just a little premium over the kits.