My concern with Athearn heavyweights is that whenever someone asks about them, someone else always says "Athearn cars are all "shorties" and you shouldn't use them because they're not prototypical". The point I like to make is the RPO/Baggage combine, Baggage and Coach cars are in fact not "shorties" but are models of cars that were 70' or shorter in real life. For many model railroads, a passenger train of say the Athearn RPO/Baggage combine and a couple of their coaches would be all they'd need, and they could get it at a reasonable cost.
Some famous guy said, "There are Lies, Damned lies, and Statistics."
Although you can certainly compute an "average" car length, or an "average" railroad, no such thing actually exists. An average is a statistical concept that does not necessarily apply to any single case.
Of the major passenger carrying RR's (NH and PRR), it stands to reason that they would specify 80' coaches due to their large seating capacity. Much of the rest of the RR world muddled along with shorter coaches and relied on freight for revenue.
Even the PRR had a large fleet of all-steel, shorter coaches than the P70 (the P54), used in commuter and branch service. If you consider the LIRR, which was owned by the PRR, you will find even more P54's and their derivatives (steam hauled, not electric).
Even so, the only justification for Athearn or other shortened cars is the compromise necessary to fit model railroads into spaces they don't really fit. End of story. Rather than compromise, my preference is to run 80' cars on broad curves, and forgo the dubious pleasures of a congested-looking railroad that is better suited for backwoods logging or mining than main line passenger operation. When I had a railroad with 13" minimum radius, I used a 36', scale length passenger car (Tyco "civil war" combine). I was only 12 at the time, but that remains my philosophy today, at 60. If it doesn't fit, I choose not to run it, rather than monkeying with scale proportions. My opinion, and mine alone.
Paul3At any rate, even if the majority of heavyweight coaches were under 80' and therefore the Athearn coach is close to being "normal", that still doesn't help the Athearn heavyweight "Pullman", Observation, and Diner. They are still "toy-like" compared to actual prototype. Same goes for the Athearn streamline Vista Dome, Diner, and Observation.
And no one has disputed that these particular cars are completely freelanced and have no prototype, EXCEPT, for the heavy weight observation which is darn close to Canadian Pacific #27 and several other business cars that where only 70' long +/-.
The Santa Fe had a large fleet of heavyweights that included the following types: coach, RPO/passenger combine, baggage/passenger combine, snack bar car,chair smoker,parlor club, and lounge car. All of which were about 75' buffer to buffer. They are all clearly listed on the ATSF historic society web site, and are well documented in an old pubication by Walthers titled "Passengr Car Plans" which documents prototypes, lengths, floor plans and window arrangements of all the passenger cars they produced in thier old metal and wood kit line. Ask at your club, some old timer is bound to have a copy. Its listing of other heavyweight coaches and combines also support the fact that few were as long a Pullman sleepers.
Paul, I have a number of passenger car reference books and a large MR/RMC collection with dozen upon dozen of steel heavy weight coach drawings most all of which are shorter than Pullman sleepers/diners/obervations/lounges. Some are only slightly shorter, still measuring slightly over 80' buffer to buffer. But many, from roads big a small and from all major car builders are only 78', 76', 75', 72', etc, etc.
And even the P70 you mentioned, is just barely 80'. Set a Bachmann P70 next to any accurate Pullman sleeper model. The P70 is about 5' shorter, buffer to buffer. OK, not as short as an Athearn coach, but not the same length as the Pullman.
This has been my big point all long which everyone ignores - THERE IS NO ONE SET CORRECT PROTOTYPE LENGTH FOR PASSENGER CARS. They where all different. Even Pullman sleepers varied a foot or two with several floor plans built on one under frame and several others on a slightly different one. This is in fact why Branchline has only come out with the specific cars they have, because they are the prototypes on the same underframe.
But then we could get into all the stuff that is incorrect on them. Like how they all have same brake system yet Pullmans had several different brake systems and each road had its preference. And some cars started out with one system and where changed to the other later, and so on.
But I know, shorter cars look toy like, even if they are correct.
Sheldon
The Athearn coach is based on a Santa Fe coach, which was 70' long. Santa Fe had quite a few passenger cars too.
I suspect 90% or more of Pullman, diners, and observation heavyweight cars were 80' long. For coaches, it would be more like 50% from what I've read / seen. So yes the majority of "all passenger" cars as you define it would be 80', but that doesn't change the fact that a huge number of coaches were 70' long.
wjstix,Please note I said "all-steel, all-passenger" cars. That excludes baggage cars, RPO's, combines, mail storage, messenger, cabooses, and express cars. Obviously, these types of cars were almost all shorter than 80' with few exceptions, and are not part of any statement I've made about the subject.
Some of the dining cars mentioned earlier were articulated, and the body length of each section was given, not the overall length of the articulated car which was way above 80' in length.
The other dining cars and observation cars mentioned were by markpierce, right? He originally posted only the interior length of the car, which excluded the vestibules, buffer plates, etc. These were later corrected to show length over buffers, and shows that these cars (diners and obs) were actually over 80' long.
As for the rest, I put the roster numbers up for the No. 3 passenger-hauling railroad in the nation, the New Haven RR. They didn't own any all-steel, all-passenger cars under 80' long.
I dug around the PRR sites, and found that the vast P70 fleet of the Pennsy were all 80' 3 3/4" long over buffers. The PRR was probably the No. 1 or 2 passenger hauling RR in the nation...and were certainly one of the largest RRs in the heavyweight era. The P70 fleet can hardly be called "few".
At any rate, even if the majority of heavyweight coaches were under 80' and therefore the Athearn coach is close to being "normal", that still doesn't help the Athearn heavyweight "Pullman", Observation, and Diner. They are still "toy-like" compared to actual prototype. Same goes for the Athearn streamline Vista Dome, Diner, and Observation.
Paul A. Cutler III*******************Weather Or No Go New Haven*******************
Paul3 ...... Back to the point at hand, I still think that the vast majority of all-steel all-passenger cars were over 80' long. Of course there were exceptions, but they remain just that...exceptions. Paul A. Cutler III*******************Weather Or No Go New Haven*******************
Sorry, I have to disagree. For streamlined post-war cars, yes. But not heavyweights.
Coaches would be the most common passenger car, and most heavyweight coaches were around 70' in length. Baggage cars, combines and RPO's were virtually all 70' or less, with 60' RPO cars being very common. As noted in earlier posts, even some dining cars and observation cars were around 70' long. (Heck, CB&Q had some 40' heavyweight cars !!)
I grant you many / most diners, parlor and observation cars would be 80' long, as would Pullmans (assuming we're including non-RR owned cars) but even adding them to the few 80' coaches, it wouldn't be enough to make cars shorter than 80' "exceptions" by any means...not when you consider how many 70' or shorter coaches, RPO's, baggage cars, etc. there were.
It just occurred to me that those trucks may be from one of those Tenshodo "shorty" passenger cars - the friend who gave me the trucks had quite a few of those cars and wasn't averse to "tinkering" with them.
Wayne
Mine say MICRO MOTIVE too, on the inner face of the drop-equalizer. I never noticed that, until I read it here. Thanks to Dr. W for pointing that out. I have them under a Rivarossi smooth-side baggage car, as they look post-WWII. No groove on the axle, though; free rolling, concentric wheels, soft springs, and free equalization for a great ride.
doctorwayneYour comments prompted me to have a closer look at those trucks, and I discovered the manufacturer's name, cast in relief, on the lower inside face of the drop equalisers. They were made by Micro-Motive, although a google search turned up nothing on the company. Each axle has a groove machined around its circumference, perhaps for a wire-type axle wiper. The entire truck, wheels and axles are metal, with one wheel on each axle insulated with a coating of varnish.Wayne
Your comments prompted me to have a closer look at those trucks, and I discovered the manufacturer's name, cast in relief, on the lower inside face of the drop equalisers. They were made by Micro-Motive, although a google search turned up nothing on the company. Each axle has a groove machined around its circumference, perhaps for a wire-type axle wiper. The entire truck, wheels and axles are metal, with one wheel on each axle insulated with a coating of varnish.
They definitely caught my attention, and now I'm wondering what prototype they were patterned after. The guys on the Yahoo Vintage HO group would probably know their origin.
Wayne, check your PM's.
Nelson
Ex-Southern 385 Being Hoisted
SteamFreakI'm also intrigued by the 4 wheel trucks you used on the modified Athearn baggage car -- where did they come from?
I'm also intrigued by the 4 wheel trucks you used on the modified Athearn baggage car -- where did they come from?
Robt. LivingstonI think those trucks have roller bearings! Id like to know what they are, too, as I seem to have a pair, acquired used. They roll and equalize well. Origin unknown.
I think those trucks have roller bearings! Id like to know what they are, too, as I seem to have a pair, acquired used. They roll and equalize well. Origin unknown.
Well, back to the original question of how accurate the Athearn cars are:
All I can say is that until either Athearn itself, or BLI or MTH gets off of their duffs and starts releasing their 'authentic' "Daylight" trainsets, my lovely brass Southern Pacific Balboa GS-4,needs SOMETHING to pull behind it. And from a distance, the Athearn 72' streamlined "Daylight" coaches don't look THAT bad at all. You don't want to get your Nikkon too close, of course, if you're in a photographic mood, but viewed from the typical "helicopter" distance that most of us operate our model RR's, they give a pretty good overall 'general impression' of the train.
At least until the Real Thing arrives--if ever.
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
doctorwayne ...... Back to the point at hand, I still think that the vast majority of all-steel all-passenger cars were over 80' long. Of course there were exceptions, but they remain just that...exceptions. Not sure if this qualifier was included in the earlier discussion, but the highlighted words would certainly influence the totals.
...... Back to the point at hand, I still think that the vast majority of all-steel all-passenger cars were over 80' long. Of course there were exceptions, but they remain just that...exceptions.
Not sure if this qualifier was included in the earlier discussion, but the highlighted words would certainly influence the totals.
We hear you! Just don't try to convince me that an express boxcar is not a passenger car or that passenger trains only contain all-passenger-carrying cars.
Mark
PS -- Just measured my Branchline Pullman model of "Lake Augusta" equipped with the American Limited diaphrams, not compressed. Overall length is 83 feet, 6 inches, precisely the maximum length of SP cars listed in my earlier post. How's them apples?
Paul3...... Back to the point at hand, I still think that the vast majority of all-steel all-passenger cars were over 80' long. Of course there were exceptions, but they remain just that...exceptions. Paul A. Cutler III*******************Weather Or No Go New Haven*******************
Paul3 markpierce,Please don't use these dimensions. As you said, this is interior length. All other dimensions given in this thread are for buffer-to-buffer. If you can, please try to find the actual car length for all these cars. If you can't, then it really doesn't help as it's quite misleading. I know you said that at the beginning, but you know how people don't read everything in a post these days..
markpierce,Please don't use these dimensions. As you said, this is interior length. All other dimensions given in this thread are for buffer-to-buffer. If you can, please try to find the actual car length for all these cars. If you can't, then it really doesn't help as it's quite misleading. I know you said that at the beginning, but you know how people don't read everything in a post these days..
OK, Paul, I'll do some of the math. The following is a comparison of the nominal length (which excludes vestibules, if any) and the length-over-platform-coupled distance.
60' steel baggage car, class 60-B-3: 60-'1.5" vs 63'
70' steel baggage car, class 70-B-7: 70'-0.12" vs 72'-11.12"
60' steel baggage and postal car, class 60-BP-30-1: 60-'1.5" vs 62'-11.6"
70' steel baggage and postal car, class 70-BP-15-3: 70'-012" vs 72'-11.12"
60' steel coach, class 60-C-1: 59'-10" vs 67'-8.75"
72' steel coach, class 72-C-5: 71'-8.6" vs 80'-5.5"
77' steel diner, class 77-D-1: 76'-11.5" vs 80'-5"
75' steel observation car, class 75-0-1: 75' vs 83'-6"
80' steel lounge car, class 80-L-2: 80' vs 83'-6"
As you see, the above precise detail fully supports the overall conclusion in my earlier post.
The overall numbers of passenger cars in the entire US fleet would have to be accounted for, and then a subtotal total figured for 80' footers, which would be compared with the subtotal of cars under 80'. Otherwise, it's all just speculation.
Given that most commuter coaches were built in large numbers, and were less than 80', I'm betting on a majority under 80'. Would we include express refrigerator cars? Milk cars? Cabooses assigned to passenger service? Any and all cars which were routinely assigned to passenger trains?
Fortunately, I have a copy of the 1943 Official Railway Equipment Register of 1943, Unfortunately, some passenger cars are listed as "70' and over", which kind of leaves us in the dark. And also unfortunately, several important roads do not list their passenger equipment in the ORER (such as the LV). Some do, some don't. No Pullmans, either.
Sheldon,That's why I asked. Athearn cars are well known to have extra car spacing.
The extra cost for Walthers, Branchline, et al, is due to their detail, paint, accuracy, and the many variations available. And while they may not couple as close as we'd like them to, at least they have working diaphrams which is more than I can say for Athearn, Con-Cor, Rivarossi, etc.
I agree that long cars look silly on curves less than 48", but that's only when they are on curves. Meanwhile, shorty cars look silly all the time, whether they are on the straight, on a curve, in a display case or in the box. They look less silly on curves than their 85' cousins, but unless one has a round railroad...
Too bad about the B&O named passenger trains. That must be fun to try and model (I saw the MR article). We NH fans have almost the same problem with our stainless steel fleet. The NH was the only RR to buy turtle-roofed stainless steel cars. We've been fortunate that they have come out from E&B Valley/ECW in a plastic flat kit (coaches and combines only), and in brass (Soho in the 1970's for around $125 ea. these days, recently by Railway Classics at $550 ea.).
Back to the point at hand, I still think that the vast majority of all-steel all-passenger cars were over 80' long. Of course there were exceptions, but they remain just that...exceptions.
Paul3When you're measuring Athearn "buffer to buffer" are you measuring to them as they are from the factory, or have you "close coupled" them to be more realistic? Let me put it this way...I wouldn't want to try to go between cars on an Athearn train if I was an HO scale figurine.
Paul, I install American Limited diaphragms on all my passenger cars and close couple them to with only about 3-4 scale inches more space than the prototype. My diaphragms touch ALL the time and work fine through all kinds of trackwork. On Athearn or ConCor streamliners I completely remove the molded on "door frame/diaphragm" and mount the American Limited diaphragm in the correct prototype relationship to the end wall. I then body mount long shank Kadee couplers set suitably far back to get the desired close coupling/diaphragm operation. The Heavyweights are done in a similar manner removing the unprototypical "doorframe" before adding the diaphragms. I obviously do not use the "spacers" provided by American Limited for the stock car spacing.
So, the numbers I gave you are after I shorten the car by a foot or more, buffer to buffer, and set them up for nearly scale close coupling!
One of my big dislikes about the Walthers cars, and some of the other expensive RTR cars out there, is the diaphragm/coupler relationship. The diaphragms don't touch, lack detail, and are too stiff to use as supplied with closer coupling. Which is hard to ajust with their coupler mounting system.
Branchline is no better, but I only buy thier kits and change them as I build them, installing my coupler mounting and American Limited diaphragms.
I have done the same with Bachmann cars with good result.
All that great detail, and they are still coupled like a train set toy. And for that I'm supposed to pay $40, $50 and then tear them apart to fix them. I'll admit, I have a problem with that idea.
My railroad has 36" radius and larger curves, but that is still a lot sharper than any mainline high speed curve for a passenger train. You think short cars look silly, I think 85' cars squeeking around 30" radius looks silly. Opinions vary. Paul Mallery suggested in his trackwork handbook that 48" radius should be the minium for modeling Class I railroading in HO. On that radius 85' cars look believable.
The B&O name trains had unique rebuilt heavyweight cars that looked like lightweight/streamlined cars, only a few trains/versions have even been offered in brass, let alone plastic. No other railroad did this, they are truly one and two and three of a kind cars. The Walthers cars represent the rest of the B&O fleet, NOT used on name trains except as fill ins. Like the NH, the B&O was a big passenger line in the day with trains both north/south and east/west leaving/entering Baltimore, Cleveland, DC, Philly, Cincinnati, Chicago, Pittsburg, Jersey City and long list of other cities and towns every hour. That took a lot of equipment. Only a very small portion of it has ever been accurately modeled by ANY manufacturer.
The B&O did not have ANY lightweight stainless cars until 1965 - when the C&O took over. AND, the only lightweight smooth side cars they bought in the thirties, they did not like and sent to the ALTON, which they controlled at the time.
Sheldon,When I think of passenger trains, WM is not a RR that comes to mind. I think they are more the exception than the rule for passenger cars and service (no offense to the WM...it just wasn't something they did much of). How many passenger cars did the WM roster at one time? The NH had over 200 stainless steel P-S cars, over 200 "American Flyer" cars, and 100 stainless M.U. cars. That's over 500 cars ordered new after 1933. I'm going out on a limb here and saying that WM probably didn't roster 500 passenger cars at the same time.
IMHO, the New Haven was more typical for most larger passenger railroads like the NYC, PRR, GN, UP, etc. I won't argue about wood cars, because wood cars were, as a general rule, shorter...mainly because they were from the 1800's (many 20th Century wood cars were over 80' long). However, Athearn, Con-Cor, IHC, et al, doesn't make wood cars, so we really can only talk about all-steel construction. Therefore, IMHO, the majority of all-steel passenger cars, no matter the era, exceed 80' in length.
Yes, all dimensions I listed are said to be "over buffers uncoupled".
When you're measuring Athearn "buffer to buffer" are you measuring to them as they are from the factory, or have you "close coupled" them to be more realistic? Let me put it this way...I wouldn't want to try to go between cars on an Athearn train if I was an HO scale figurine.
Do we need "place holder" cars? Sure. I use them myself. However, I don't use Athearn cars (other than the heavyweight baggs...they are quite close) or any other "shorty" car. I can go to a train show and find used Con-Cor P-S cars that are 85' long for $10 ea. If I was modeling a Budd railroad, I could find used Rivarossi 85' cars for about the same. My RR has 30" radius curves, so the need for shorty place holder cars doesn't exist for me.
BTW, what's wrong with the Walthers heavyweight B&O's? I'm sure they aren't perfect, but I know a friend of mine at our RR club has been running a set of them around for years.
markpierce,Please don't use these dimensions. As you said, this is interior length. All other dimensions given in this thread are for buffer-to-buffer. If you can, please try to find the actual car length for all these cars. If you can't, then it really doesn't help as it's quite misleading. I know you said that at the beginning, but you know how people don't read everything in a post these days...
And how long are these contemporary passenger cars?
Aahh...the advantages of narrow gauge railroading.
Lengths of passenger cars. Doesn't that depend on the era and railroad? Regardless, let's check out Southern Pacific's passenger car roster as of 1933. Now, I'm not about to count the number of cars in each class, but the number of classes of each type can give us a clue. And keep this in mind: the lengths here do no include the vestibules. Baggage cars, postal cars, and diners didn't have vestibules, but the remainder, coaches, combines, etc. had one or two vestibules, so the buffer-to-buffer lengths for them were five to eight feet more than the nominal length given. So, let's go.
baggage, 60' wood, three classes
baggage/postal, 60' wood, one class
chair car, 60' wood, two classes
coach, 60' wood, one class
diner, 72' wood, three classes
observation, 72' wood, two classes
postal, 60' wood, one class
baggage, 60'steel, 10 classes
baggage-turbo generator, 60' steel, three classes
baggage, 70' steel, 12 classes
baggage-auto, 70' steel, three classes
baggage/postal, 60' steel, six classes
baggage/postal, 70' steel, 10 classes
club car, 75' steel, four classes
postal, 60' steel, five classes
postal storage, 60' steel, one class
postal, 40' steel, one class
coach, 60' steel, 12 classes
coach, 72' steel, 7 classes
coach, 72.5'--3 compartment, two classes
coach, 73'steel, two classes
interubrban coach, 72' steel, three classes
chair car, 60' steel, five classes
chair car, 72' steel, three classes
diner, 77' steel, eight classes
diner, 80' steel, one class
observation, 72.5' steel, one class
observation, 77' steel, one class
observation, 75' steel one class
lounge, 80' steel, two classes
coach-baggage, 60' steel, one class
coach-baggage-72', two classes
To summarize/generalize: baggage and mail cars varied between 60 and 70 feet, and passenger carrying cars were typically 68 to 80 feet long, buffer to buffer. (Pullman sleepers, not included here because in 1933 Pullman owned them, were typically about 80 feet long, including vestibules.) So, for the SP, passenger cars on the line were usually either about 60, 70 and 80 feet long. Many cars were less than the maximum of 80 feet long. So....the "typical" passenger car of the period was about 70 feet long, on average (not including the 40 and 50-foot express box cars and express reefers that could be a part of the train).
I wonder. Do people confuse "full-length" with "maximum length" or do they mean "prototypical length"?
The above doesn't include any lightweight/streamline trains as there weren't applicable to SP in 1933, and frankly, I have no interest in them, being a "heavyweight kind of guy."
Paul, I agree, to model the NH you need 80' cars and length aside, Athearn doesn't really get close to NH prototypes.
But we don't all model the NH. In addition to my freelanced ATLANTIC CENTRAL, I model the the Western Maryland. Their whole passenger fleet was heavyweight coaches, combines, baggage, and RPO/baggage cars, none of which where over 77' buffer to buffer. So Athearn cars are pretty close. They did have two 80' business cars, but I'll let an Athearn stand in for one of them as well. They never ran a sleeper or a diner.
The deminsions you listed are obviously buffer to buffer or pulling face to pulling face. That is the length of record for the railroads since crews needed to know how long the train would be. So in the interest of fair comparison Athearn cars are 75' buffer to buffer, not much of a compromise for a Western Maryland coach. the typical train from Oakland (MD) to Baltimore was a Pacific, RPO, combine and a coach. If they needed a 4th car it was a really busy day.
Some modelers are content to only fill their roster with correct equipment leaving whatever "holes". Some modelers have operational schemes that demand that some sort of car play its part. Some are focused on each piece of equipment, some are focused on the "whole railroad" or at least the part of it they are trying to model. Some are focused on operation, some on scenic effect. Each of these different goals will lead to different compromises for different people. That combines with the wide range of prototype roads and equipment and different eras to make the choices/anwers endless. I can understand excluding certian products that don't meet or fit your goals, but assuming they have no merrit to the hobby is likely incorrect.
I think you are right, or close, on the weight idea. Either from a sales point of view OR maybe the railroad told Budd they wanted the whole train under a specific weight. Being fairly fixed consists, that may have been a motive power/ruling grade/speed/fuel consumption issue.
The problem with passenger cars is the prototypes are endless and most where built in small quantities. So the likelyhood everybodies favorite prototype will get built, in plastic/brass/kit or RTR, is slim. And personally, I'm not buying any $400 passenger cars, no mater how acurate they are. Do you wait around forever or do you model railroad TODAY?
I have some 80' cars, Branchline Pullmans for my B&O trains, Bachmann Spectrum cars in B&O, they look nice and represent their prototypes well. And if someone makes the Capitol Limited in plastic, sign me up. But I'm not holding my breath. Meanwhile the trains run and 12 to 14 car trains don't over power the slighly selectively compressed passenger terminal with their length.
Sheldon,Oh, I got the humor. I've said that line often enough myself. I was having a little fun with you (note the big grinning smilie).
You said that if you took a survey of all North American passenger cars that ever rolled on rails that more than half would be less than 80'. No kiddin', considering that also covers the entire wood car era going back to these: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3583/3379637289_0a1fdcd9fb.jpg But if you want to talk about steel car modeling (approx. 1913 and later), which I think most of us model...I think it may be more towards the 80'+ length majority than you think.
I dug though my NH documents, and this is what I've found for all-steel cars:
1930's Osgood-Bradley (American Flyer) Cars: 84' 6 1/4" 1940's New Haven Pullman-Standard Stainless Steel Cars (non-sleepers): 85' 3" 1940's New Haven Pullman-Standard Stainless Steel Cars (sleepers): 85' 6"1940's New Haven Pullman-Standard Stainless MU Cars: 86' 9" 1950's Budd RDC-1, -2, -3's: 85' 1950's Budd RDC RDC-4: 73' 10"1910's Heavyweight Sleepers: 82' 5 1/4"1920's Heavyweight Sleepers: 83' 5 1/4"1930's Heavyweight Diners: 84' 6"1910's Heavyweight Parlors: 82' 4 1/2"1920's Heavyweight Parlors: 83' 5 3/4"1930's Heavyweight Parlors: 84' 4 1/2"1910's Heavyweight Coaches: 80' 3 3/4"1930's Heavyweight Coaches: 84' 5 1/2"1910's Heavyweight Combine: 77' 2 5/8"
1910's Heavyweight MU Cars: 72' 4 1/2"1920's Heavyweight MU Cars: 80' 1 1/4"
Please note that the NH had no loco-hauled, all-steel, all-passenger, non-articulated cars under 80' long. And it's not like the NH was some podunk passenger outfit. The NH may have been only 30th in size among US RR's, but was 3rd in passengers carried.
So if one wants to model the NH using Athearn passenger-hauling cars, you better believe that their shorty equipment is indeed "toy-like".
As for why Budd made them short, my guess is to keep them as light as possible for sales. Stainless cars were much more expensive, but could be much made lighter (85 tons for a heavyweight, 60 tons for a lightweight). A big sales item was the lightweight cars being much cheaper to run as they would consume less coal/diesel to move around. One can recover the cost of the more expensive stainless construction faster if they made them as light as possible. Chopping a dozen feet off the length probably made them a lot more attractive to depression-era RR's.
The ATLANTIC CENTRAL has its own motor car train built from ConCor 72' smooth side cars and an Athearn F7. But we elected not to articulate ours for maintence reasons. The motor car is powered by 1000 HP 12-567 and has a Blumberg truck in the front. The back half is the baggage compartment. It pulls 4 matching cars, two coaches, a snack/lounge and an observation all equiped with full width diaphragms.
One day I really do need to jump into this photo hosting/posting thing - Oh well.
The 1934 Pioneer Zephyr, drawings unfolded right in front of me, measures as follows:
Length of motor car to center of 1st articulated truck - 74' - 6-1/4"
Length of wheelbase for 2nd car, articulated truck to articulated truck - 58' - 8"
Length of tail car, articualted truck to end of car - 64' - 2"
Later a 4th car was added ahead of the tail car - 49' - 8-1/2"
The later ones where all different but similar in design.
wjstixHow long were the cars Budd built for the Zephyr?? I wonder if those cars were 72' long (perhaps because of "sharing" trucks?) and so the early ATSF cars were built to same length, just because that's what Budd was set up to build??
How long were the cars Budd built for the Zephyr?? I wonder if those cars were 72' long (perhaps because of "sharing" trucks?) and so the early ATSF cars were built to same length, just because that's what Budd was set up to build??
The Zephyr cars certainly look short, although I didn't measure them.
Someone who knows more than I do posted a while back that the Athearn lightweight cars seem to be an amalgam of details of a couple of different streamlined car types / manufacturers.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Now for some Athearn trivia - The orginal items in the line of Athearn streamliners, the RPO, coach, dome and observation, where first sold under the Globe name in the early 50's and the kits had all seperate parts. The floor, sides, roof, ends and vestibule inner wall (now not included) where all seperate pieces that had to be glued together. Later Athearn retooled them into their current two piece form. I suspect to make them easier to offer RTR for their original go at RTR in the 60's. The diner and the baggage car where added in the 70's.
Now for some Athearn trivia - The orginal items in the line of Athearn streamliners, the RPO, coach, dome and observation, where first sold under the Globe name in the early 50's and the kits had all seperate parts. The floor, sides, roof, ends and vestibule inner wall (now not included) where all seperate pieces that had to be glued together. Later Athearn retooled them into their current two piece form. I suspect to make them easier to offer RTR for their original go at RTR in the 60's. The diner and the baggage car where added in the 70's.
And see, I knew there would be details wrong. But for us as yet without the talents of Wayne and others, the Athearn is a closer prototypde for some cars than the too long Walthers.
I was told Chief but I agree, the Scout sounds closer. hat probably is the car, but I'm working from these: http://itm.org/equipment/coaches.htm Note: In the first picture, the combine is CB&Q Silver Salon, which is ~83ft. Also, they don;t have the window in the end
-Morgan
Paul, Flashwave and anyone still listening,
Of course there is not a prototype for everything, that was just a little humor aimed those who think they know everything.
While it is very likely that Athearn used the Santa Fe cars as the basis for their streamliners, they are all still off by quite a bit on a number of details. So IMHO, they are totally freelanced even if some guy looked a pictures/drawings of the ATSF cars while designing them.
BUT, simple fact does remain that the ATSF had a large fleet of streamlined, lightweight 73'-6" and 77'-6" chair, coach, lounge and parlor cars built by Budd in the thirties. AND, they had 70' streamlined baggage cars and 60' streamlined RPO cars. Not to mention the SP articulated cars which all had body lengths less than 80'
So once again, not all passenger cars are 80' long, not even all "modern" lightweight passenger cars. In fact, if we did an inventory of every pasenger car that ever turned a wheel in North America, I'm betting less then half where 80' long. So I guess even accurate models of that half of the North American fleet would still look "Athearny" or "toy like" to some modelers?
I don't know why the ATSF and Budd chose to build these shorter cars, but I'll bet there was a good reason. So if they where good enough for the ATSF, they are good enough for the ATLANTIC CENTRAL. The joys of protolancing!
Boy, the kit bashing would be a lot easier if I could find a case or two of those in some old hobby shop back room!
The heavyweight line always was the two piece design and started out with the RPO, round roof coach, Pullman and obervation - late 50's IIRC. The clerestory coach, baggage and diner where added to that line in the 70's as well.
I know that seems like the dark ages to some of you, but I remember it like yesterday.