I just built my first Bowser HO boxcar kit. I kept reading about their quality of detailing and ease of assembly so I finally bought one (well actually I got 4) and am very impressed with their kits. I only changed the wheels to Kadee metal and also the couplers to Kadee’s. This is a great looking and rolling model and I will continue to purchase them. Just thought I would pass this on to anyone never building a Bowser product.
-Bob
That’s great, Bob. I’ve put together a few of their kits and they are very nice. However, most of their offerings are later than my era (early 40s). As far as detail and quality, I would probably rank Bowser similar to Branchline “Yardmaster” series.
Tom
I just purchased a couple of Rib Side Car kits of Milwaukee Road’s Rib Sided box cars and am impressed, they caome with Kadee’s and metal wheeled E&B trucks. I would compare them as very close to the Bowser kits I’ve built with slightly more detail. The last Bowser kit I purchase had way to glossy of a finish on it! However it’s a pretty easy fix with some Dull Cote.
The only Bowser kit I have built is the 2-bay cement hopper but it fit together well, it is well engineered. I agree with the box cars I have seen, pretty shiny so will need dulling down.
The kits I got are for the C&NW Round Top in Box car red and they are painted with a flat paint (not shiny by any means) but I did weather the first one and it is very ‘dull’ now. I have a bunch of the Proto 2000 kits but haven’t built any yet. I think they are a little more detailed than the Bowser, but I understand they are quite a bear to build, particularly the tank cars. I have at least 30 of them so I will find out sooner or later (later most likely!).
-Bob
Yea, the Proto 2000 kits are VERY nice and VERY detailed; much more than the Bowser kits. They are definitely worth the effort though.
My first two kits were an Accurail hopper and an MDC caboose. Fairly straightforward to build but still a learning process for a neophyte like me at that time. My 3rd kit, however, ended up being a Proto 2000 tanker. (Didn’t know what I was getting into.) Took me 8 hours…but I finished it. The next one took me nearly 1/2 that amount of time.
Bob, if you take your time with the Proto 2000 kits you’ll be just fine. Make sure that you have plenty of sharp #11 X-acto blades on hand for removing delicate hand rails and stirrups. That’s the part you do NOT want to be in a hurry with. Thankfully, Proto 2000 usually gives you a couple of extra ones on a sprue - just in case.
Tom
Bob, The Proto 2000 kits as well as those from Intermountain, Branchline (Blueprint series) and Red Caboose as challenging kits. The best tool to remove the delicate details is a sprue cutter, available from Micro-Mark, PBL and I’m sure there are others. They look like tweezers (another valuable tool). I wouldn’t attempt any of these kits without an Optivisor and a very bright light.
Proto 2000 came out later with a “Quick Kit” that was much easier to assemble, probably from modeler’s feedback.
Jerry,
I wouldn’t necessarily say that the “time saver” versions were “much easier” to assemble. What Proto 2000 did was eliminate some of the steps so that it didn’t take you quite as long. You still had to add railing and some of the grab irons or stirrups.
Tom
Unless the sprue cutter is flush-cutting, you’ll still need to trim any delicate railing. That’s when a fresh, sharp #11 X-acto blade and a steady hand is the better tool. With light pressure I can cut the part from the sprue and trim it at the same time.
I do agree with you wholeheartedly about the magnification visor and task light. That’s pretty much my #1 and #2 most used tools.
Tom
For those tiny parts in Proto and Brnachline kits, I’ve found a single-edge razo blade to be better than the standard #11, it’s smaller and thinner and puts less pressure on the part to be cut. I hve also had good luck with heating a #11 blade on the soldering irona nd using the warm blade to cut the sprue with almost no pressure required.
As for the Bowser kits, I just did one of the PRR camel-back box cars, picked it up at the hobby shop whiel at the train show at the beginnign of the month, that was a super easy kit, went together in less than an hour. Only slightly more complex than a Blue Box. It does need a LOT of extra weight, but I didn’t have enough pennies on me to make it right. The body snaps on to the underframe though so I can fix it up later. I stuck it in my train (had an extra set of resistor wheels) and despite the light weight it ran fine. This one has almost all detail molded on.
–Randy
Echoing the post you quoted, I too have a set of the Sprue nippers which are similar to those sold by PBL. They indeed are flush-cutting so no trimming is required on delicate railing. I’ve used the one I have on Intermountain and Proto 2000 kits and it works like a dream and if you use it right, it cuts nice and flush.
I’ve found my despruing took beats the good ol Xacto #11 every time - I can’t tell you how many delicate parts I broke with that blade, some are just too brittle so survive a blade cutting from one side only. The despruing tool I have “Pinches” from both sides so no stress or deformation at all when you cut. Not only that if you use the narrow end, you can get into the tightest of sprues and cut extremely delecate parts free and flush.
Tom, a lot of Bowser’s offerings date from the 'teens, '20s and '30s and I use them on my late '30s-era layout.
Here’s one of those “too-shiny” boxcars:
A GL-series hopper, from the 'teens:
This H-21 is probably too old for my era, but I like the variety afforded by the clamshell-style hoppers:
Most H-21s were re-built as H-21as, with the more commonly seen type of hopper doors:
…although some became H-22 coke cars, another probably too old for my time period:
These, in-turn, were re-built as regular hoppers, becoming H-22as:
Here’s a Bowser (formerly Stewart) fishbelly hopper:
,and another ex-Stewart car (heavily modified to match a local prototype), the U-channel hopper:
All of the cars shown are old eno
Thanks for that info, Wayne. In regards to Bowser offerings, I only mentioned what I’ve seen at my own LHSes, which has mostly been rolling stock from the 50s-70s.
I thought covered hoppers didn’t come out till the late 40s? Most of the ones that I’ve seen generally have a BLT date in the early 50s.
Tom
I’d guess that the abundance of '50s BLT dates reflects the popularity of that era more than anything, although that’s also when covered hoppers really began to gain popularity. They’re one of my favourite car types, so it doesn’t bother me to stretch my modelling era to include ones that definitely weren’t around until the '50s. This one, built in 1956, is my favourite style of covered hopper and was owned by my favourite (and hometown) road, so it had to have a place on the layout. The layout police are required to check their badges at the door, so I’m not too concerned by the anachronism. [swg]
Covered hoppers have been around since at least the '20s, although they weren’t in widespread use. The CPR had a number of boxcars built between 1911 and 1913 with under-floor hoppers and others with drop doors but none of which I’m aware had roof hatches.
I scratchbuilt four cars with longitudinal underfloor hoppers like those on the CP cars, although I also added Detail Associates roof hatches:
Evidently, the NYC converted a number of open hoppers to covered ones in 1929, and the Pennsy followed suit in 1931. In 1935, Pennsy started building 70 ton covered hoppers, and had over a thousand of them in service by the end of 1940. I’m sure that other roads may have had some similar cars, either 50 or 70 ton capacity. B&a
It USED to be pretty obvious which Bowser cars were correct - the ones in Bowser boxes are generally correct, the ones in English boxes are fantasy paint schemes on the same Bowser cars. There may be some liberties taken with the Bowser ones, as far as “close, but not 100% identical” as with the case of the Erie car - PRR designs were similar but almost never identical to AAR designs. If the box was English, well, then it definitely isn’t accurate.
I will add that, I am a whole lot less picky than I used to be. If the car is close, and the only difference can be spotted by going over a prototype photo with a magnifying glass, I’ll use it anyway. I’ve realized that I can never scratchbuild all the cars I need if I insist on eachone being a perfect model, even goign over all my coal hoppers to modify details is, to me, just a waste of time when they are pretty close as-is. If all my future plans included were to model the branch I am now, nothing more - I’d need a lot fewer cars and I could take the time to superdetail all of them. My preference is for a larger layout with more operation so, close enough counts.
–Randy
I have many and love them! rambo1…