I found a details west car in a road that appeals to me but the seller does not provide a very good picture. Are they very good quality? Do their boxcars have any known issues? At my age, I don't need or want the expensive but very well done rail cars. Athearn BB, Roundhouse, Atlas Trainman, Accurail are more my speed... :-) The price is more in line with the above train lines than with the modern, elite brands.
I was very impressed by those cars when they were first released, with separately applied ladders and fairly nicely-done underbodies, too. I had quite a few of them, all bought as kits, but sold them all when I backdated my layout. They were definitely a cut above Athearn, MDC, et al, but not at all difficult to build.
Wayne
I've never owned one, or assembled their kit. The only thing I know is from other forums, through the years, is that the DW cars are "close" to prototype, but really don't match any particular prototype.
I would think like any freight car, you could probably make into a prototype if that's what you want, or it's probably in the "good enough" catagory.
But then again, a lot of Athearn BB kits were just "close".
I'd say if the price is right, and it's something you could use, go for it!
I use DW for lots of diesel detail parts, but I've never bought any kits.
Mike.
My You Tube
Thanks Wayne and Mike! I have since found a local source for undecorated 50' Details West plug door box cars for less than $10 each. Wahoo, score! :-) Gives me a nice car to learn the finishing process (painting, decal, and weathering) and have a nice a model at the end (well hopefully)! Course, I'll start out working on some old athearn 40' boxcars which don't fit my modeling time frame.
delete duplicate
I agree with DR Wayne. The Details West models were high end grade when they were new, and are still in the midrange of contemporary models. Much better quality than Athearn BB and old Roundhouse models.
George In Midcoast Maine, 'bout halfway up the Rockland branch
G PaineMuch better quality than Athearn BB and old Roundhouse models.
Which btw are now RTR with the same detail issues and some BB and Roundhouse cas are a foot to wide. The Roundhouse FMC boxcars has been upgrade with metal grabs,stirrups,crossover plate and of course metal wheels.
With that said the new releass sell out at a rapid pace.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
IDRick I found a details west car in a road that appeals to me but the seller does not provide a very good picture. Are they very good quality? Do their boxcars have any known issues? At my age, I don't need or want the expensive but very well done rail cars. Athearn BB, Roundhouse, Atlas Trainman, Accurail are more my speed... :-) The price is more in line with the above train lines than with the modern, elite brands.
If you are ok with Athearn BB, MDC and Accurail, then you will be fine with Details West box cars. They are at least a good if not a bit better.
By todays standards the molding and detail is dated. I sold off my foobie Details West box cars but still have a few since there is not correct box car to replace them with.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
riogrande5761If you are ok with Athearn BB, MDC and Accurail, then you will be fine with Details West box cars. They are at least a good if not a bit better.
Jim,One should put things in their prospective places. The D-W car was the state of the art on its time frame.
I'm still not sure where today's so called "standard" comes into play because the hobby interest is to wide to narrow it down to one simple "standard" and any "standard" will vary from modeler to modeler..
Some may retch at even thinking about switching cars with a Athearn BB SW7,GP7 or SD9 but,yet that does not bother me simply because I still enjoy running those old engines even though I have better.
A example of "standard".. Is what ever one allows as his/her personal standard.
BRAKIE riogrande5761 If you are ok with Athearn BB, MDC and Accurail, then you will be fine with Details West box cars. They are at least a good if not a bit better. Jim,One should put things in their prospective places. The D-W car was the state of the art on its time frame.
riogrande5761 If you are ok with Athearn BB, MDC and Accurail, then you will be fine with Details West box cars. They are at least a good if not a bit better.
Yep, that was already covered above. I didn't want to be redundant.
Since the days of Athearn, MDC, Details West etc. there has been a lot of high fidelity and high detail models so it's natural recognize the spectrum that is there today. Where does it come into play? It's a human tendency to compare products on the market. Thats about as good an explanation as any.
And to be fair, the OP was asking about quality so that did beg the question - quality is relative to products available, be it model trains or all manner of other products.
Certainly, and I did noted that if the OP is satisfied with Athearn and MDC models, he should be happy with Details West. Have a few myself. No harm no foul.
I recall that the very dedicated "prototype modelers" expressed disappointment with the Details West cars when they were new because they did not seem to be an exact model of any one prototype - it was closest to Penn Central X-73. When I say disappointed, I mean that Details West was a firm prototype modelers looked to and still look to for aftermarket parts to make less accurate models of a prototype into very accurate cars, or at least better stand-ins. The separate ladders were a plus, saving a lot of time and energy from having to chisel off molded on ladders an grabs which is usually the first thing prototype modelers get used to having to do. As you have learned the separate ladders (and brake system parts) were the main difference between a DW kit and MDC/Roundhouse type kits. You had to add your own weight.
So the irony perhaps is that Details West's existing target market of prototype modeler customers were not 100% satisfied because they expected more from the DW brand, and those who didn't care that much about ribs and rivets and roof panels already had choices that made them happy enough.
There were other prototype cars which were very similar to the DW model but I seem to recall DW cars didn't always have the right sort of underframe for those cars.
Railmodel Journal had a few articles on what could be done to make the Details West cars more accurate models and they are reprinted in their book Freight Car Models - Box Cars Book 1.
(I don't know if they ever got around to more books, but that one is worth tracking down as they go into specifics about the Details West cars from a prototype modeler perspective, but also from a practical "all I want is a nice looking 50' boxcar" perspective.)
Dave Nelson
dknelson I recall that the very dedicated "prototype modelers" expressed disappointment with the Details West cars when they were new because they did not seem to be an exact model of any one prototype - it was closest to Penn Central X-73. When I say disappointed, I mean that Details West was a firm prototype modelers looked to and still look to for aftermarket parts to make less accurate models of a prototype into very accurate cars, or at least better stand-ins. The separate ladders were a plus, saving a lot of time and energy from having to chisel off molded on ladders an grabs which is usually the first thing prototype modelers get used to having to do. As you have learned the separate ladders (and brake system parts) were the main difference between a DW kit and MDC/Roundhouse type kits. You had to add your own weight. So the irony perhaps is that Details West's existing target market of prototype modeler customers were not 100% satisfied because they expected more from the DW brand, and those who didn't care that much about ribs and rivets and roof panels already had choices that made them happy enough. There were other prototype cars which were very similar to the DW model but I seem to recall DW cars didn't always have the right sort of underframe for those cars. Railmodel Journal had a few articles on what could be done to make the Details West cars more accurate models and they are reprinted in their book Freight Car Models - Box Cars Book 1. (I don't know if they ever got around to more books, but that one is worth tracking down as they go into specifics about the Details West cars from a prototype modeler perspective, but also from a practical "all I want is a nice looking 50' boxcar" perspective.) Dave Nelson
It depends on which DW box car kit too. The single plug door FGE type appears to be fairly close to the FGE prototype, which Walthers also has offered in their red box kit and later RTR version. They appear to be close feature wise, but don't know how they stack up to the scale rule. I used to have 5 or 6 of the above FGE types DW box cars but sold all of them in liu of the Walthers version.
There are 3 other DW box cars that I am aware of.
- The combination door box, I am not sure which prototype they follow. The D&RGW version is fantasy but very roughly similar to a car that RR yad.
- The double plud door appears to be modeled after the Evans 50' box car, also offered by Atlas and Scale Trains. I have two of those DW cars, one SP and one WP, as stand-in's for cars that sorta kinda look like them.
- Lastly there is single plug door DW car - another FGE type I think. Idon't own any of them
Yes they are high quality. They go together well and are robust when put together properly and run smoothly. High quality.
- Douglas
Thanks for the information and discussion guys! I have ordered four details west boxcars that will arrive this weekend. One is painted for "boise cascade" and the others are undecorated. Looking forward to working on them and adding to my roster!
For me, it was not a problem that these boxcars were not prototypical, and it was fun to solve the flaws that the underframe coupler pockets had. Interestingly, those cushion-underframes are sold separately, and those fit into Athearn's BB 50-foot boxcars. If you encounter difficulties during assembly, please take a look at my blog post a few years ago. A solution may be found. However, it is written in Japanese, so please translate it.
BN7150For me, it was not a problem that these boxcars were not prototypical, and it was fun to solve the flaws that the underframe coupler pockets had. Interestingly, those cushion-underframes are sold separately,
What flaws did you find? I built several 20 years ago and didn't have any problems installing KD#5 in them.
If it's not a problem the DW are not prototypical, then why bother adding the cushion underframe to box cars?
riogrande5761If it's not a problem the DW are not prototypical, then why bother adding the cushion underframe to box cars?
Jim,Look at the overall picture..
I have added Walthers extended coupler boxes to BB ACF 50' boxcars and Roundhouse FMC boxcars because that was once a common detail on real boxcars that stood out like a bandage thumb so,many of us added them to our boxcars along with uncoupling bars and air hoses.. And I dare say these detailed cars look pretty darn good in their time frame.
Unlike today we didn't have instent perfection from the box so,we took what we had to work with and detailed them while petitioning the manufacturers for better detailed cars and yes, locomotives like we have today.
Three hours of evening of modeling could yield three or four cars with air hoses and uncoupling bars. Of course a lot of us added these details while building the kit.
Oddly I cease this detailing as being to much work.
Yes, riogrande5761, there are three major flaws in the coupler pockets of the DW boxcars. The 1st is that the axis of rotation grows from the bottom. The KD#5 restoring leaf spring will be on top. So it is not possible to fix the leaf spring and the restoration of the coupler becomes unreliable. There is no problem with whisker couplers.
The 2nd is that the lid of the pocket is too thin. The lid must be adhered to the pocket body, but this makes it impossible to replace the coupler itself. That's why I was screwed on. Look to the left of the next picture. The lid is about to open.
3rd, the upper and lower internal dimensions of the coupler pocket are too large. So, as it is, the coupler head hangs down. Place a plastic plate about 0.016 inches thick on the bottom. Athearn, who bought the toolings from DW, is doing the same thing.
The reason I would like to attach a cushion underframe is that it is widely shown on the sides of the boxcar.
Agreed. When it comes to notions of prototypical accuracy, if you can't have 100% (and there are so many small things done wrong that can cost a model from reaching 100%, including practical things done to make a car run on our sharp curves) then you still might enjoy finding ways to get to a percentage you find acceptable or tolerable. Whether that is 50% or 95% is a personal thing.
It is not as if the Details West cars were a total fabrication with no prototype basis whatever (as some model freight cars were and are.) Indeed there are modelers for whom the Details West cars might be the most prototypically accurate cars on their roster.
To expland on my earlier posting, it was the most particular and "fussy" prototype modelers (the 100% crowd) who expressed the greatest disappointment with the D-W boxcars -- and in part because Details West was one of their "hero" suppliers, and still is, and they expected more of them. But even those guys (with perhaps a few total purists as exceptions) accepted the notion of coming close, as close as practical, and cushioned underframes are one of those features that help boost the %.
I am only getting around to it now and have set aside my freight cars, clearly marked with "cushioned underframe" or other such phrases on the paint scheme but equipped with regular coupler pockets, where even the basic Walthers after-market coupler pocket extension is a way of getting closer, even if the underframe per se is left alone (and some of those cars are not worth any greater effort or expense than the Walthers pockets).
Interesting that the magazines that really catered to those prototype modelers (Railmodel Journal, Prototype Modeler, Model Railroading, Mainline Modeler, one or two others) all were relatively short lived, and all tended to feature the same fairly small circle of authors and advertisers. (True, Narrow Gauge & Short Line Gazette is still around but while dedicated to prototype modeling it also has a different focus.) And many of those advertisers and sources for prototype modeling detail parts, outfits that did not advertise much in MR or RMC, are also gone.
There is a greater emphasis on accuracy in today's RTR high priced models so you could argue that those magazines lost the battle but won the war. Or depending on how important "modeling" is in the equation, they won the battle but lost the war: nowadays maybe the magazine would be named "Prototype Purchaser" or "Mainline Advance Reservation Required." But those are much hashed-over topics.
BN7150 A solution may be found. However, it is written in Japanese, so please translate it.
Could you remind me as to how I can do that?
Thanks
Maxman, I use Google Chrome to convert between English and Japanese. Are you also unavailable?
Relative to problems with coupler pockets, I feel that MDC/Roundhouse had the best pocket of the high volume shake the box kit makers, with the factory screw on cover.
Accurail had the friction pins, Athearn had the hard steel clips (that could shave off the nubbies holding them on if you removed the clips more than twice), and DW apparently has this above issue (which I never noticed, but I only had a few of their cars).
It seems in total, DW isn't any better or worse than the others. I like the separately applied ladders.
BN7150 Maxman, I use Google Chrome to convert between English and Japanese. Are you also unavailable?
I have Firefox. I don't know if that has translation capability. I was primarily interested in the coupler box modification with the screw in from the top.
Doughless Relative to problems with coupler pockets, I feel that MDC/Roundhouse had the best pocket of the high volume shake the box kit makers, with the factory screw on cover. Accurail had the friction pins, Athearn had the hard steel clips (that could shave off the nubbies holding them on if you removed the clips more than twice), and DW apparently has this above issue (which I never noticed, but I only had a few of their cars). It seems in total, DW isn't any better or worse than the others. I like the separately applied ladders.
Douglas, Have you experienced the droopy couplers on DW boxcars as described by BN7150? I agree, the MDC coupler boxes are great. Thanks!
maxman BN7150 Maxman, I use Google Chrome to convert between English and Japanese. Are you also unavailable? I have Firefox. I don't know if that has translation capability. I was primarily interested in the coupler box modification with the screw in from the top.
BN7150
I use both chrome and firefox. When you are on the page to be translated, right-click your mouse. In chrome, one of the options is to translate to English. Unfortunately, it does not bring up the translation option in Firefox and I could not find any way to translate in Firefox.
BN7150Yes, riogrande5761, there are three major flaws in the coupler pockets of the DW boxcars. The 1st is that the axis of rotation grows from the bottom. The KD#5 restoring leaf spring will be on top. So it is not possible to fix the leaf spring and the restoration of the coupler becomes unreliable. There is no problem with whisker couplers.
I wouldn't consider that a major flaw. I simply installed the bronze spring upside down and everything worked fine.
Yes, I know the up-side-down spring prevents the Kadee "delay" feature from working but I don't use that, and my understanding is that few do.
Never noticed that on the examples I had. I installed the coupler and put everything together and am good. I wouldn't call it a major flaw either.
The coupler hanging down or being too low is a major flaw with many of the kit models I've dealt with including Athearn and MDC.
I've used the typical methods of dealing with it, such as shimming the coupler. Also, with the bronze spring on the bottom, that acts a bit like a shim too. Adding a Kadee fiber washer to between the truck and the bolster.
Maxman, I recommend "ultra low head screws." They are sold at Japanese hardware stores, but one is expensive at $0.20, also should be available in your country. The small screws in the next picture are all M2 x 4 mm, the bottom one is that. The thickness of the head is 0.3 mm (0.012 inch). In order to sink the screw head, you have to counterbore a bit.
riogrande5761The coupler hanging down or being too low is a major flaw with many of the kit models I've dealt with including Athearn and MDC.
Jim,That has always been a pain but,light years better then the old wooden kits of the 50s.
Modelers should recall building a BB car kit took time and lots of tweaking to get the coupler at its correct height the frame was the usual suspect because some was slightly warp enough to cause the droop.Of course the coupler clip had to click into place if the catch on the side of the coupler box wasn't deformed or in some cases to small to hold the fool clip!!! A 2-56 was the answer for troublesome boxes.
I never had much of a issue while building a Roundhouse kit exception being the kits with the metal frame and some filing was needed to remove the flash and some times redrilling the coupler or truck screw hole.
Today all we need to do with some brands of cars is simply remove the junk coupler and install the KD coupler of choice.
BN7150I recommend "ultra low head screws
Okay, thanks, I'll search for those.
Looking at the pictures in you blog, I can see that you drilled through the coupler box cover, which is a tongue on the end of the floor. And then tapped the pin on the underframe piece for the screw.
Unless I am missing something this doesn't eliminate the issue of the flat spring being mounted upside down. Also in order to get at the coupler one would need to separate the underframe from the floor. Is that correct?
Note that I'm not being critical. I'm just trying to understand the assembly. Did you consider cutting the tongue away from the floor so that you could end up with a removeable cover, or is there some consideration that I'm missing?
ありがとうございました
Maxman, thank you for reading my blog post.
The coupler is assumed to use a whisker type. The flat spring type does not work well.
The reason for not separating the coupler lid from the underfloor is because there is a gap of about 0.5 mm (0.020 inch) between the lid and the rotating shaft. Therefore, since the screw tends to loosen, leave an incomplete thread by tapping. Furthermore, in order to hold the lid in a stable manner, it remains integral with the underfloor. Look at the following cross section.