Great article about detailing hoppers in the October MR by Bob Karig. Personally I would use the Tichy USRA hopper for the USRA version. The Tichy doesn't require any removal of details which is really great and is easy to assemble.
Just a thought
Harold
hminky wrote: Great article about detailing hoppers in the October MR by Bob Karig. Personally I would use the Tichy USRA hopper for the USRA version. The Tichy doesn't require any removal of details which is really great and is easy to assemble.
Well, if someone's worried enough about accuracy to replace grabs and ladders, I 'd think they'd also be worried about the unequal pannel spacing of the Tichy kits.
KL
Kurt_Laughlin wrote: hminky wrote: Great article about detailing hoppers in the October MR by Bob Karig. Personally I would use the Tichy USRA hopper for the USRA version. The Tichy doesn't require any removal of details which is really great and is easy to assemble.Well, if someone's worried enough about accuracy to replace grabs and ladders, I 'd think they'd also be worried about the unequal pannel spacing of the Tichy kits.KL
Geez, your right. Guess I was so thrilled with not having to scrape details off a 5 minute car that I didn't see the error. I can live with the uneven panels to not have to remove details. If you want a truely accurate car I guess you have to scrap details.
"The finished car is practically a perfect match for USRA hopper drawings in the April 1969 MODEL RAILROADER."
Andy Sperandeo, reviewing the Tichy Hopper in the April 1990 MR.
I guess you can't believe what you read. Sorry for speaking up. Should have checked myself.
Another county heard from:
"USRA Twin Hopper - The Tichy car has a problem - Apparently in order to keep the trucks from rubbing on the underframe (prototype clearances are closer than model ones), the center two panels were slightly stretched. Unfortunately, since all the panels should be the same size, this is noticeable. (If the entire car had been increased a tad, it would be unnoticeable - it is the side-by-side comparison that makes this objectionable - at least to me.)"
- John Nehrich, RPI Model RR Club Site
And another:
"Also, it appears that about 8" was added to the distance between the trucks. This is so the oversize flanges on our model wheels clear the slope sheets on tight curves. The spacing of the side stakes is similarly extended so that the bolsters and side stakes still line up."
Jeffery English, Review of Tichy USRA twin hopper, RMC, August 1989
This pic shows that the panel 3 spacing (marked by arrows) is narrower than the panel 4 & 5 spacing.
To each his own, I guess.
Thanks for the info. I agree that it is a noticeable difference and will probably modify the Accurail hoppers in the future. The even panels are a distinguishable feature and once on the layout it is very obvious if placed next to an Accurail car. Too bad magazines don't give honest reviews. The Tichy car is definitely not a good representation of a USRA hopper.
Since I am starting "Building the Interstate on a four by eight" project accurate hopper cars are important. Looks like I am back to removing details from the Accurail cars.
Glad you pointed this out Kurt before I built the remaining five cars in the six pack.
hminky wrote: Too bad magazines don't give honest reviews. The Tichy car is definitely not a good representation of a USRA hopper.
Too bad magazines don't give honest reviews. The Tichy car is definitely not a good representation of a USRA hopper.
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say Andy's review was "dishonest". Some things just take a more practiced eye to catch. (As an aside, I've been researching US Sherman and Stuart tanks in depth for almost 10 years. I have about six or eight linear feet of documentation, manuals, Ordnance reports and so forth, as well as a couple of thousand detail photos of the 100 or so tanks I've visited in person. Nevertheless, about once every six weeks somebody posts something on a website that I've never noticed before.)
The Tichy car is probably a "good" representation, it's only failing to my knowledge is the length/panel spacing. The thing is, there is a kit out there that better represents the length and spacing but at the expense of detailing. That's the sort of tradeoff we make all the time.
None of the reviews mentioned a major dimenisonal difference from the prototype. It is not being honest when the reviewer says it matches the plans perfectly.
I probably will use the Tichy car because it is such a great kit and knowing how much problem it is to "undetail" cars the rib variation can be lived with, no one will ever notice. I prefer adding details intead of scraping them off an redoing them.
hminky wrote: None of the reviews mentioned a major dimenisonal difference from the prototype. It is not being honest when the reviewer says it matches the plans perfectly.
The RMC review did, as quoted above. Also, the MR review did not say it matched perfectly - there was a qualifier in there that indicated some amount of difference. With a length error of 2% (368 inches rather than the 360 it should be), this might be within Andy's definintion of "practically". . .