I recently bought an HO scale, blue L&N box car on eBay. It was used and came with no box and has no identification as to what brand it is. I think it may be an Athearn kit. It contains gray spring-loaded trucks and mathcing wheels. It is a 40’ steel box car, but it seems to be as short in height as an old wooden box car or reefer, but it isn’t as tall as any of the other modern steel boxcars in my collection.
My question is, why is it so short in height?
I’m assuming that it is a replica of an older box car, perhaps one of the first steel box cars built just before the average 40’ box cars representing the 40s or 50s era that we see in train shops. Well, that was my theory at first, then I noticed the date on the side (representing, of course, the year the actual box car was manufactored and not the scale model itself). I’m baffled.
I think it is an Athearn kit, because I have seen one similar, with the gray spring-loaded trucks and all. If anyone knows the answer to that, please let me know.
I’m wondering if you might have got hold of one of the older Train-Miniature boxcars instead of an Athearn. I believe these kits date from about 20 or so years ago, possibly even older, and even their ‘modern’ steel boxcars were somewhat shorter in height than the Athearn variety–and yes, they were models of earlier steel boxcars. I have quite a few TM cars–both steel, wood and composite-- on my own freight roster, both box and refrigerator cars, and mixing them with other brands results in breaking up the ‘sameness’ of train height. They’re nice cars, though I ended up replacing the ‘sprung’ trucks for better tracking.
It is a Train-Miniature. Thanks, Mark. Now, does that mean that this box car is off scale from the average HO scale cars? And if that’s the case, wouldn’t it cease to be HO scale? I hope it’s not the case, because I really like it and it’s kind of hard to find L&N box cars (at least for me). I’m hoping that you are saying there were box cars that were this small in contrast to the average 40 footers.
No, those are correct HO Scale, they weren’t all the size of the Athearn cars, as a matter of fact you’ll probably find most any size if you get to looking very much.
Proto has a fairly new line of freight cars, (boxcars and stock cars), that are the same size as the old T-M cars, the real stock cars were made by the “Mather” company but as I said before I’m not for certain who the builder of the boxcars were although I do know that Pennsy had a bunch of them classed as X-29 and they are that same size.
As a “for instance” MoPac had a bunch of blue and gray boxcars they used for LCL, merchandise service. They looked just like the Athearn box cars but were only 36 feet long so there are all sizes and shapes of boxcars and such out there. Sometimes it’s almost as if you can think of it somebody made it.
Those old T-M cars are nice cars and I have quite a few of them and while the new Proto cars are much more detailed the T-M cars are much cheaper. Forget the crazy prices you see on Ebay most of the time, they are all over the place for well under $10 per car while the newer Protos are usually in excess of $20 per car RTR. The T-M’s are a snap to build as well, the Proto kits are a real “bear”.
The Train Miniature car is essentially a PRR X-29 or a USRA steel boxcar which date from the late teens and early 20’s. The boxcar height is correct for cars of those era. By the mid 30’s the interior height had risen to 10 ft and by the late 1930’s it was up to 10 ft 6 in (Athearn BB cars).
The car in your link is a TM car, but the e-bay car with the two Maine Central boxcars is not: it may be Lionel, but the TM cars didn’t have door claws at the top of the doors, only at the bottom.
Train Miniature made some decent cars not available elsewhere, unless you go to the craftsman-type resin kits. As dehusman notes, it’s similar to the Pennsy X-29 or the USRA steel boxcar. The latter, with a few variations, was widely used by the NYC and its affiliates.
Here’s a couple of slightly re-worked Train Miniature Pennsy X-29s:
Your models are as nice as your photography, which is apparently on the same level as your knowledge about your subject.
My hat is “off” to you sir!!!
I am truely “impressed”, not envious, impressed. So when do we get that photo spread in one of the 2, and only, model RR magazines?
I have a seen a couple of others on here that should have a photo spread as well, why doesn’t MR pick up on what they have in their own backyard, we can only guess and my guess would be they’re too busy playing “favorites” with the group in their “clique”.
My apologies for hijacking the compliment about your layout and modelling skills to “vent” a bit but when I look at the photos of your layout and a few others and then look at this issue and the back issues I just keep coming to the same conclusion.
Wow, Doctor Wayne, if those pics are from your layout, I must say I am envious.
My only regret is that my rolling stock may be too old for the layout I’m building. I’m doing a 1970s era layout, but most of my cars are '40s / '50s era and none of them are weathered (yet). And something tells me that a car from the '50s would have been out of use by the '70s, but if not, at least very rusty and weathered. I probably need more 50 Ft. box cars, personally I don’t care very much for them. I prefer the style of the 40 Ft. cars. So my dad tells me I should make a ‘50s era layout like his, because he too shares my affinity for 40’ box cars and the like. However, I know more about the 1970s, having grown up in that era and I like the automobiles and so forth from that era as well. All of my autos are from the '70s back.
It’s hard for me to distinguish most trains by the era they are from. Yeah, I’m still pretty ignorant to that part of it. I wish that the model railroading companies would give that information on the label of their models so a guy like me could know for sure.
First off, remember it’s “your” layout to do with as “you” see fit and also there were still quite a few of the older cars still running around in the 70’s but were pretty much all gone by that time as well.
Had you considered modeling the 1960s with a cutoff date of say 1972? That way it would be easier to fit in the cars you like with the newer aspects of the era that you also apparently like. I menetion that date as it is when a lot of the railroads started doing serious mergers and so a lot of them went away after that.
If for instance, you model the first day of the “new” BN you could run 2 different color schemes of the GN, the NP, CB&Q, and SP&S plus a small amount of BN all on the same train. The 60s was a time of a lot of cange i the railroad industry so you would have a lot of variety plus still being able to run a lot of the older equipment.
I think that you’re correct about that boxcar being too old for a '70s-style layout, although something similar may have been in use as a “company service” car - perhaps in a wreck train or other MoW capacity. Most such equipment got a simplified paint scheme and a re-numbering to indicate its use.
Not being conversant on the L&N, I can’t comment on the appropriateness of that good-looking caboose (many manufacturers paint and letter models for railroads that never owned similar cars - this helps pay for the tooling required to produce the model). You’ll have to do some research if you want to know if it’s prototypical and if so, if it was still in-use in your chosen era. The Louisville & Nashville Historical Society is a good place to start.
That said, there’s no reason why you can’t use both of those cars on your layout if you wish. It isyour railroad, after all. [swg] While I’m modelling the “late-'30s” I have several '50s-era cars (models of favourite prototypes) and run them as I please. For instance, the car below (a heavily modified TM car) was built for the NYC in 1918 or so. 500 of them came to the TH&B (my hometown railroad, a line owned jointly by NYC and CPR) in 1941 and were re-built and pressed into service (Canada had been in WWII since 1939). The lettering scheme shown is not the one applied at that time, either, so the car would be better suited to a late-'40s or '50s era railroad.
