Hello,
I am hoping to get some critiques and thoughts on Bachmanns PRR Fleet of Modernism cars. How close are they to the prototypes? Are they all meh or are some cars useful?
Cheers
I hadn’t heard the term Moderism. Bachmann classifies them as smooth side passenger cars, as opposed to the heavy weights.
Compared to a Rapido, their detail is pretty rudimentary. I can’t say how prototypical they are but the Spectrum Line just look better to me.
Hi!
Bachmann based their heavyweight cars off of PRR prototypes, but not their smooth sides (or atleast not all of them)
http://jbritton.pennsyrr.com/index.php/tpm/125-bachmann-prr-passenger-car-models
Although a bit outdated, I believe the FOM cars are just the smooth sided cars with a different paint scheme. From the reputable link above, it seems like they werent based off of PRR Prototypes.
From strictly a model stand point, they seem decently well made, however very overpriced for what you’re getting. If you want PRR passenger cars, stick with Bachmann Heavyweights, Walthers heavyweight sleepers, and their lightweight lineup.
http://jbritton.pennsyrr.com/index.php/tpm/136-walthers-prr-passenger-car-models
Here’s the same source discussing Walthers car accuracies.
Cheers!
Charles
Royalgunner,
I would look at the MTH HO PRR passenger cars. I purchased their entire set of 20th Century Limited passenger cars (10 cars, total) and they are terrific. And the LED interior lighting module is great, as it uses a supercap for flicker-free operation. In other words, NO battery needed. [Y][Y]
The fleet of modernism was a Raymond Lowey design. He also did the GG1, T1 and K4 steam engines. It was a short lived paint scheme on smooth side name trains for the most part. If you want a definitive answer join prr group@io. These people know a tremendous amount of information
“Modernism”, AKA “Art Deco” was the “in” art style of the 1930’s - everything was to be streamlined and smooth, “looking like the most mundane objects were about to accelerate to a hundred miles per hour” was how my art history professor put it. The archetpical railroad item associated with the “Moderne” esthetic would be the GG1 locomotive.
Along with this:
mercury 1936 by Edmund, on Flickr
— and certainly this:
Century_life1 by Edmund, on Flickr
Cheers, Ed
Get your dirty NYC outta here! [(-D]
Cheers!
Charles
Tou want dirty NYC?
I can give you filthy NYC! [:-^]
NYC_5445_Elkhart by Edmund, on Flickr
Fallen from grace [:(] Ed
Ah, yes, this photo was a top candidate for colorizing for me. I might do it someday, but time is currently an issue right now.
Cheers!
Charles
Bohn was a leader at promoting this style. You can Google lots of great images of “Bohn Art Deco”.
-Kevin
Ed, a suggestion:
3768 and 3678, a representative T1 (perhaps the Nance painting ‘Smoke and Mirrors’ and the photo that inspired it) and of course that quintessential icon of Streamline Moderne 6100…
Is there any other?
Now, returning to the OP’s question, the 3768 is a bit like a pre-WWI locomotive in a clown suit, like certain Milwaukee locomotives, and a great deal of the FOM ‘effect’ in appearance was likewise fancy paint and updated interiors in old cans – at least at first. Some of the ‘true’ modern lightweight equipment in that era was relatively short-lived due to a regrettable tendency to corrode.
Rightly or wrongly, I’ve generally thought of the FOM as being similar to what poorer B&O did to get a ‘modern’ appearance on the outside of most of its trains in that period. As such I’d be tempted to say that getting the fancy paint ‘right’ is more important than rivet-counting accuracy of the cars to which the paint is applied…
Who can forget Peter Falles’ Trompe-l’œil effective use of “shadowlining” to bring a sense of élégant et moderne for the post-War traveler:
Poplar Run_Pullman by Edmund, on Flickr
Pullman, and the roads adopting this economy, called these “betterment” cars. Some of the PRR “FOM” cars were built and painted as such while some existing equipment was given the two-tone Tuscan with gold leaf 1/4" stripes to “gild the lily” so-to-speak.
Now get busy with that masking tape [:-^]
Regards, Ed
The B&O may not have been as flush with cash as the PRR, but it is my understanding that their choice in “streamlining” heavyweight cars in their own shops was more driven by other factors.
One, they had pretty extensive car shops they were happy to keep busy.
And two, their early experiances with lightweight cars made them shy about ordering more new equipment. There was a general feeling that lightweight cars did not ride as well thru the curvey routes, especially the line west, and that customers prefered the solid ride of the heavyweights.
Trains were generally shorter than what PRR or NYC were running, weight vs available power was not an issue, they owned the cars, so they rebuilt them, several times in many cases.
While they did invest is some more modern equipment, they did not re
To expand on Ed’s point:
I believe PRR didnt paint many of their heavyweights in FOM colors, but that doesn’t stop me from wanting a full set of these! I think the FOM colors look stunning on heavyweights…just as much if not more so than on lightweight cars.
Here is the thing about passenger cars, in my humble opinion.
While many cars were “similar” and built from “basic” plans, with the exception of commuter coaches and head end equipment, few passenger cars were “identical”.
This creates a tough situation for the model companies.
They have done wonderful things in the last 10-15 years in bringing us accurate passenger cars, but the truth is they have just scratched the surface.
And passenger cars seldom stayed the same for more than 5-8 years before being “refurbished” in some way.
I decided years ago not to worry about accuracy to that level. In fact, most of my passenger cars are selectively compressed freelanced cars.
I found that one important detail that makes passenger TRAINS look more relistic is working touching diaphragms and close coupling.
So all my passenger cars are fitted like this:
With American Limited diaphragms and coupled as close as possible.
A few thoughts about car length.
In real life, not all passenger cars were 80-85 feet long.
In fact, even many early lightweight streamlined cars were only 75-78 feet long.
Most head end equipment, and many coaches were only 70’ long or less.
We use curves that are very sharp compared to the real thing, shorter cars look more natural, can be closer coupled, and run better, even if you have relatively large curves.
I have large curves, 36" radius and larger. And it makes my mostly 72’ passenger cars look really graceful.
85’ cars squeeking around 32" radius curves, with big gaps between the diaphragms looks toylike to me, no matter how accurate each model is…
Sheldon
Review of 5 of the Bachman FOM cars by an avowed PRR fan:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I8ettmRZD6Q
This is I think the same thing Ed posted above but that few may have actually watched so far.
Among the points he makes: the cars would benefit from diaphragms, more weight, and perhaps better couplers; the underframe detail is scanty; the trucks click weirdly on four out of five examples right out of the box and have an unusual pickup system.
I could swear that the lightweight FOM cars ran with full-width diaphragms when built. It also appears to me that the truck mounting is too high, and if the sideframes aren’t correct to prototype this might add up to retrucking with ‘something better’ and adjusting the height and ride quality.
Someone in the know can comment on how well these cars match the previous ‘real FOM’ painted heavyweights in paint color and alignment.
I’ll state what I stated before, the Bachmann cars arent accurate, nor do they have the quality of Walthers cars for the price theyre asking for imo. But the paint does capture the rough idea of an FOM train.
Walthers made TWO FOM cars, the 4-4-2 sleeper, and the 10-5 sleeper. Both have accurate prototypes IIRC.
They look stunning too.
They are rare on ebay, but sometimes you can get them for a great price:
Charles