Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

MR review of Trix caboose?

2775 views
15 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: US
  • 3,150 posts
MR review of Trix caboose?
Posted by CNJ831 on Saturday, January 15, 2005 10:45 AM
I'm rather surprised that I've yet to see anyone comment on Terry Thompson's review of the new Trix HO NYC 19000-series caboose that appearred in the February MR. Judging from what Terry has to say, the model is riddled with significant and obvious errors relative to the prototype. He notes that it has totally wrong trucks, the body corners aren't rounded, the smokejack is absurdly too tall (far exceeding the NYC's clearance standards), door sills are missing, side windows too shallow, grab irons are set much too far from the body and some are incorrectly aligned (horizontal rather than vertical).

This model lists for $39.95 and it sound like it needs at least a further $10-$15 in parts, plus a significant amount of disassembly and alteration, before it becomes really acceptible in my book. Still, the review ends with,"I think most NYC fans will be happy that this car is on the market..." Now I appreciate that MR has to remember where its bread is buttered when it comes to advetising and the manufacturers. But if I were to pay $40+ for an HO caboose these days I'd certainly expect it to be a lot closer to the prototype than this model apparently is. Years ago MR would more likely have panned such a model or at least given it a failing grade.

What do others think about the acceptibility of this and other current high-priced but inaccurate models being offered? Would you honestly accept this many errors on a $40 RTR car?

CNJ831
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 30,002 posts
Posted by rrinker on Saturday, January 15, 2005 12:45 PM
Ordinarily I'd say that that is a no brainer. However, the NYC modeller has two choices: the $40 Trix car plus another $10-15 in additional detail work, or $200+ for a brass model that probably still needs paint. Plus unless you are crazy, you won;t pay $40 for that car, street price will be less than $35. So for $45-50 and a few evenings of work, you can have the equivalent of a bras model that's 4x the price.

Although, I also feel that there is NO EXCUSE for the toylike appearance of that caboose, at that price, especially the smoke jack. That is probably the most glaring element, it just looks completely wrong. Of course, if you looked at the videos of the sound equipped locos, the Trix Big Boy to me is also absolutely HORRIBLE compared to the BLI models.

It's hard to compare what MR did in reviews 20 years ago. 20 years ago, a NTC caboose would have been some generic caboose lettered NYC. But probably a Santa Fe prototype. At least now there are some manufacturers who make an attempt at getting something close. And we're far more disciminating abotu it today, too - witness the fellow who always shows up at the local train shows with a truckload of new IHC cars. He's practically giving them away and still has trouble finding takers - because unlike the previous Rivarossi cars which were patterned after SOME prototype car but lettered for every railroad, these new cars are based on NOTHING.

--Randy

Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, January 15, 2005 1:04 PM
The big question is why didn't Trix get the model right? Did they not have enough reference materials? Lazyness? Haste? I read the review and noted the cupola was a low NYC design because of their close clearances - and Trix places a smoke jack that is twice as high! Really sloppy work.

Some of the details could be fixed, but how would a modeler fix the non rounded corners? What about paying more for a correct pair of trucks? I don't model NYC, but if I did I sure would pass on this one! Now if it was $10.00, that might be a different story!

Bob Boudreau
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 3,139 posts
Posted by chutton01 on Saturday, January 15, 2005 1:57 PM
The most amusing thing about this - there's a Workshop article in the same issue (Feb 2005 - page 28) describing how to fix the most glaring errors on it!
Specifically: lowering the smoke stack, converting to body mounted couplers, replacing the trucks, replacing the roofwalk and modifying the grabs (the last two are problematic, as they require matching the factory paint to cover up patches and holes - paint matching is a skill which I lack). I'm sure it was planned, but as everyone has pretty much said, there's absolutely no reason that Workshop article should be necessary in the first place.
BTW, Sorry Fundy, no word in that article on how to fix the corners...
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, January 15, 2005 2:13 PM
after reading your own reviews,seeing what you think, what are the model (ho) train manufactuers produce locomotives/rolling stock that are realistic?
Moderator
  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: Northeast OH
  • 17,255 posts
Posted by tstage on Saturday, January 15, 2005 2:57 PM
I saw that article and thought the same thing: "$45 for a caboose?...And I need to do all these following things to it in order to make it 'right'?"

I just superdetailed the Walthers 3-window NYC caboose with the handrails that are supplied with the RTR kit. Any opinions on how their caboose compares to the original prototype? Walthers, Trix, and Roundhouse (older wooden frame version in kit) are the only NYC cabooses available that I am aware of.

Tom

https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling

Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • From: Milwaukee WI (Fox Point)
  • 11,439 posts
Posted by dknelson on Monday, January 17, 2005 8:17 AM
If you are a NYC modeler then this caboose gets you closer than any prior plastic model I am aware of. And a prior poster mentioned a brass caboose for $200+. Soon it will be $300+, if we are not there already, AND there is no guarantee that a brass version would not have all these same faults.
Years ago the manufacturer's (or importer's) problem was, how do you find the person with detailed knowledge BEFORE you put the model into production? But in this day and age, the railroad historical societies are right there ready to assist and to identify the expert who can advise on how to make a model accurate. There really is very little excuse for gross errors. In the case of the NYC caboose I am no expert but even I could see that that stack was a joke.
Go back a year or two and you will find a review of Trix's boxcar and reefer -- which also had serious accuracy problems, some of which were corrected on subsequent runs. Most of the problems identified with this model, except perhaps for those rounded corners, are of the type that could be corrected in future runs, which of course for the NYC modeler means either buy it now and do the work, or wait and hope that there is a future run and that the errors will be corrected. Of course if there is no future run and the model is unavailable, then by waiting you are more or less screwed. The classic modelers conundrum! This is also the way it is when brass comes out wrong in the first run -- you have to be something of a gambler. Do you buy now or wait?
Dave Nelson
PS Responding (via the magic of editing my posting) to Editor Terry's posting, below, isn't it likely that Trix had the model in production before the Harold Russell/MR drawings saw print? But even errors caught too late to be corrected do not forgive the stack which would have been the easiest thing on the model to correct.
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Wisconsin
  • 228 posts
Posted by MRTerry on Monday, January 17, 2005 9:08 AM
First of all, I'm sure that review couldn't have been in MR, because I read on the Internet that they never, NEVER point out ANY mistakes in a model, and I know that everything I read on the Internet is true! Oh, wait - I wrote that review myself, and I did point out the faults. Never mind.

OK, humor aside, I think I can offer a few thoughts. First, I was as surprised as everyone else to find the errors in the caboose, because we published Harold Russell's excellent drawings of that very car recently. I do think that most NYC fans will be glad that it's on the market, because even with its many faults, it is a dimensionally correct mass-produced model of one of the NYC's signature cars. A casual NYC fan can run it as is, or with only the most glaring faults corrected, and have a car that looks like an NYC car. However, I also made sure to point out its many faults, because modelers who want a correct NYC caboose will have to spend time correcting it, or buy brass.

Second, the Workshop piece came about because I made a list of the necessary corrections as I wrote the review, so that I could include that info in the review. As some of you might know, I model the NYC, so I decided to see how hard it would be to fix the biggest faults. When I showed Jim the completed model, he thought it would be a good piece for Workshop.

You could correct the corners with careful filing and repainting. I didn't do that, but it wouldn't require major surgery to round them. Check Harold's piece so you can get the contours right.

The Walthers wood caboose is not an NYC car. I showed how to remount the trucks so that the car will go around medium-radius curves in an earlier installment of Workshop. Once you do that, it resembles some cars that the Michigan Central had, but I think it's a GTW prototype.

As to whether the car is worth the money, the answer to that question depends on the person who's making the decision. A casual modeler might not spend the money. A fairly serious NYC fan might spend the money and then spend the time correcting the cars. A really, really serious NYC fan who has the money will probably still buy brass. It's nice to have the choice, though.

Thanks for reading MR,
Terry

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 17, 2005 3:23 PM
I bought the Trix Union Pacific caboose and I am very pleased with it. I had to replace the European couples, but once done it was a great addition to my layout. If I were a NYC modeler I might be a bit upset with the errors on a car in that price range.

Ed
  • Member since
    October 2002
  • From: Massachusetts
  • 664 posts
Posted by mustanggt on Monday, January 17, 2005 4:46 PM
I know the problem, they're a european manufacturure. They are based in germany and would have to probably base models on blueprints or something. i bet they're european trains are 99.9 percent proto- correct.
C280 rollin'
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 17, 2005 5:52 PM
By gosh, Brother John Birch was right all the time. And you can see the evil being exposed in this forum. Boy, we need to get some rope and string up everyone at MR for having the audacity to print a review basically panning a new release. And you just know they are on the edge of the earth, ready to plunge into the abyss. This is evidenced by the fact that they actually provided all the information necessary should anyone have an interest in making the model absolutely correct, and they put both articles in the self-same issue. Oh, the wrong doing, the sniveling before the manufacturer, it is all evident, right there, before your eyes.

For those of you interested in purchasing exact scale models that need no alteration, I will sell you my unbuilt, 1963 Varney models (in plastic) of what I think are supposed to be wood sided reefers. And you want exact scale? I have several sets of Mantua automatic (more or less) couplers you can purchase as well. And for the ultimate in detailed locomotives, I will sell you a box stock 1953 Mantua Mikado to pull your train. Yessir, with the junk that is being produced today, give me the good old days. And you just have to know I am doubled over with laughter.

Tom
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 30,002 posts
Posted by rrinker on Monday, January 17, 2005 8:32 PM
How about a few of those old Binkley kits with the printed paper sides? Why, those suckers are the epitome of fine detail and prototype fidelity. Those and my old Tyco train set cars... [:D]

--Randy

Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • From: Milwaukee WI (Fox Point)
  • 11,439 posts
Posted by dknelson on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 8:25 AM
Funny posting Tom, thanks for the chuckle. The good old days are now.
You might have some takers for that Mantua 2-8-2 by the way -- the castings were a lot sharper back then than they were by the late 1970s, and you presumably have the all metal cab and tender too. Both were plastic by the 60s.
SOMEWHERE in my scrap box is an old old lead casting of the NYC caboose cupola. I no longer recall the mfg -- maybe Megow? Selley? -- but I suspect it is older than I am. And those Varney reefers are still being sold, under a different name, for the trainset market, as is the old Varney short gondola and stock car. Somewhere I recollect reading that the reffer is actually fairly close to some prototypes by the way.
But just to give the older models their due, the Varney steel lithographed boxcars and reefers of the early 1950s sure had nice paint jobs, were and are fun to build, the spring loaded dummy couplers looked pretty real (and a trainload of them took out slack very realistically too), the frame was not far from scale, and the steel stamped doors were close to prototype thickness. True, the less said about the roofwalks and brake castings the better, but .....
Dave Nelson
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 10:12 AM
My take on this "problem" is if the Trix caboose had been a cheap toy model for $10.00 or so, no one would have had any problems with its discrepancies. But when they want $40.00 for a model in these modern days, it should be as accurate as possible. Most if not all of the other expensive pieces of rolling stock these days are really accurate in all aspects - scale thickness roofwalks, grab irons, uncoupling levers, etc.

It looks like Trix did a quick and dirty job of researching this model and whipped it out way too fast. One shouldn't have to do all the changes to a $40.00 "scale model" these days. Offer it for $10.00 and it would be accepted.

[2c]

Bob Boudreau
  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: SE Minnesota
  • 5 posts
Posted by motordoc427 on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 5:28 PM
I agree the price seems high for this many flaws on a model but how about 3 cheers for MR. Not only pointing out the flaws on a model but giving us good useful info on how to correct them. In the same issue no less!! For those who want a model of this prototype caboose & cant afford the alternatives, this type of info is great. I think that kind of stuff makes for a top quality mag!! Keep up the good work![:D][:D]
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: NYC
  • 20 posts
Posted by ozoneone on Sunday, January 30, 2005 3:25 PM
I'm not sure which one of Walther's NYC cabooses Terry is referring to, but when I saw Terry's article on the Trix caboose I set out to find one, mostly because of its' level of detail. After several unsucessful attempts in finding one locally, I did find a Walther's caboose for less than half the price of the Trix. Walthers makes two versions,
http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/932-7502
and
http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/932-7566
I was lucky to find the 3 window version, # 932-7502

Now, yes the railings, coppola, steps, roofwalk, etc. are incorrect (on the Walthers) according to this picture: http://www.nycrrmuseum.org/gallery.html
but I feel that it captures the NYC caboose spirit nicely, maybe a little more than the Trix. But I am no scale fanatic. BTW, the corners appear to be chamfered, not rounded, and this would be an easy fix for either version. Anyway, the extra $20 or so just may have been worth it just to have someone else drill (I count 52) #80 holes for the grab irons, paint them, and glue them in!

Thanks Terry for all your work at MR, and for contributing here.

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!