Scale Trains Kit Classics are exactly what the manufacturer claims. Easy to assemble: The Evans box car requires only a Phillips #0 screw driver to assemble. No glue is required and the difficulty level is comparible to Athearn Blue Box or a Roundhouse kit. There are 4 screws and a snap in underframe.
I purchased the Boston and Maine and the Conrail kits. A total of 10 min was required to assemble both kits including finding the correct screwdriver. I could not confirm prototype fidelity (photos of the specific road numbers on these cars were not available), however both cars reporting marks appear to be for that type of car. Both have plug doors, the photos I have found of cars with numbers close to the model CR 170382 (prototype photos CR 170647 and 170892) do not have plug doors. Not all cars may have been equipped with plug doors, therefore Im not concerned about it.
All details are molded on, however they are not nearly as thick as the old Athearn BB or Roundhouse kits. The couplers do not have trip pins (this is a good thing as far as Im concerned).
Add some airhoses, a little weathering, and you have a decent stand in for the origninals. For the price (currently on sale for $13.99 regular price $17.99) you get an excellent value. I paid $16.19 plus tax at my LHS. Shipping from manufacturer would have cost $9.99 so I think I came out ahead there
According to the April 1986 ORER, Conrail cars in the 170373 - 170387 range were AAR car type B307. These would have been unequipped boxcars between 49 and 59 feet inside length with double sliding doors.
So as a Conrail modeler, I would have wished that they had used a more appropriate car number, or had at least given a prototype photo reference.
I believe in their ads they say that additional details are available, but the last I looked at their website I didn’t see any such offering. Did your kit make any reference to any available additional details?
I saw the same thing on their website; however, nothing was discussed in the kit packaging. I imagine details will be in store for us in the coming year. As far as the plug door is concerned, you can probably cut it out or sand it flat and attach the proper doors (don’t know how that would look, but it would not be cost prohibitive to give it a shot). As far as plug door vs other type of sliding door, the plug door may have been the “as built” condition and the car was modified later with different doors. Someone with a late 1970’s ORER would have to tell us that.
I haven’t seen Scale Trains referencing additional details for the Kit Classics cars. They HAVE been advertising the extra details to upgrade basic versions of the more expensive products, like the tank cars that are sold with varying levels of detail at different price points. If you buy the least expensive tank car, you can purchase detail parts to selectively match it to the higher end releases of the same model (e.g. the etched metal shields).
The prototype Conrail cars look basically nothing like an Evans 5100, so there’s not much point in changing the doors or other details of the Scale Trains car. Literally no aspect of the prototype matches the kit other than the fact it’s a box car, so if you want an accurate model there’s no sense in us
Very true. As always, it you are interested in models which match the prototype cars, or are close, do your homework first. I have Jim Eagers Rio Grande Color Guide to Freight and Passenger Equipement and there are no Evan’s 50’ box cars like those produced by Scale Trains that I could find so it appears the Rio Grande version is fantasy too.
Let’s not drub Scale Trains too much for lack of exactness with this line. It’s for the budget conscious or those wanting to get some rolling stock on the layout with an attractive paint scheme.
That’s because there’s a very simple fact in the business of making model trains. If mfg’s limited themselves to only building prototypically exact items, many cars that sell well would simply not be available. Runs for those that are would be smaller. And the hobby would be proportionately less accessible to newcomers because those factors would mean the hobby is more expensive.
In the past, when there were few items available that let you scratch that prototypical itch, beating this now-dead horse made sense. With plenty to choose from in terms of exacting accuracy in many cases, aren’t we grandstanding just a little when we step in and bemoan the lack of protypical fidelity with this line of kits? It starts sounding more like the old “my pop can whoop your pop” argument on the playground. Given the number of prototype modelers has greatly increased, most people buying these kits don’t care if your pop is in the Model RR Heck’s Angels or not. If you bought one thinking it was a model of a specific car, then YOU didn’t do your homework, not Scale Trains. Their website cites “fond memories of…shake-the-box kits.” And those of us who do care about prototype fidelity and most other know what that means. It may not be exact, but it will be satisfying. Can’t we just leave it like that instead of complaining that it’s not what you expect for $40 these days?
If you truly do believe no model RR mfg should ever offer a model that is not based on an exact prototype, them just say so and people can then credit or discount your opinion based on that. If you’re just saying YOU wouldn’t buy one because of that, then just say that, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. But to say it’s not a very worthy offering and subtly i
All I would ask is that Scale Trains be honest* about which schemes are realistic and which ones aren’t – and what the differences are between the model and those prototypes. That seems only fair.
Then the modeler could make an informed decision. Just want the “fun” of shake-the-box and don’t care that much about prototype fidelity? Great, buy anything that strikes one’s fancy.
Want to be somewhat selective and make one’s own decisions about prototype fidelity? Scale Trains should provide the background to allow that, too, since they already know.
That would make them an innovative model train supplier, IMHO.
After all, there are thousands of Blue Box kits still moldering away in the resale market for those who just want to “rekindle memories.”
Byron
Of course, this won’t happen because of the worry about losing sales.
I think Scale Trains IS being honest here, while not trying to sabotage their own marketing. Compare the text for that line against their several upscale lines. Gotta be something different about it…
Did you ever expect a BlueBox to be an accurate model? If so, then maybe you are concerned that someone’s gonna find out Santa Claus is really your dad and mom and be that disappointed. I can see that point, maybe, but we’re all grownups here, mostly.
I’m really not drubbing anyone for pointing this out, either. Nor any of the comments in and of themselves over this. Rather, it’s the overall sum of this that always seems to turn into a public shaming that anyone would dare not hang a big blackbox warning on such a model.
Bless all the prototype modelers, everyone of them, myself included (because I am much of the time.) It a big segment of the hobby now and the reason we see a lot of good stuff. But the “anything runs” folks are important, too. Some of them will always be happy with these cars and that’s equally a good thing with those who will buy it and then find they want to upgrade.
There’s few enough ways to get folks into our hobby these days. Several pages of commentary on how those car just isn’t up to snuff is not going to help sales of a pretty nice little car. And it misses what I think is a legit complaint, that it’s basically the same car as has been done before. Why not something different? But we’ll never get to see Scale Trains take that into consideration and do that if the prototype-only folks fill -er up with how “bad” the car is because it not an exacting model according to their standards.
Yeah, they might be worried about losing sales, because that will impact their ability to offer the prototype-specific items that make up most of their initial offerings. But it won’t be because the car is “bad” it will be because of the shaming propsective buyers associa
I don’t think so myself. The Scale Trains Evans 5100 is a reasonably accurate model of a common prototype, but lacking free-standing details to keep it to a low price point. If you’re a customer for a cheaper line of cars, what’s to say you wouldn’t like correct paint schemes? Somebody being on a budget doesn’t mean he doesn’t care about accuracy; maybe he just can’t afford high end cars.
I don’t see anyone here bashing other modelers for choosing to purchase cars with fantasy schemes, or suggesting Scale Trains is selling a poor product. I did opine that I don’t think it would be worth the trouble to attempt modifying the Scale Trains Evans 5100 into a Conrail car that scarcely resembles it, suggesting the buyer just enjoy it for what it is. Ditto for the OP’s BM car.
[quote user=“cuyama”]
All I would ask is that Scale Trains be honest* about which schemes are realistic and which ones aren’t – and what the differences are between the model and those prototypes. That seems only fair. Then the modeler could make an informed decision. …Want to be somewhat selective and make one’s own decisions about prototype fidelity? Scale Trains should provide the background to allow that, too, since they al
Sounds like they are competing with Accurail. I can throw one of those together in 10 minutes with upgraded wheels and KD 148 couplers. 15 minutes if you count weathering. Since Athearn ditched Blue Box kits, Accurail pretty much had this end of the market to themselvels. Competition is good but I already have more freight cars than I need. That didn’t stop me from buying a couple more at the Greenberg train show in Columbus, OH over the weekend. One vendor had Red Caboose freight cars on sail for $24.95 and he had two road names I rarely see at my LHS, the Jersey Central and Lehigh and New England. I got one of each.
I just received my 3-WC cars this afternoon. They look good to me, they were inexpensive and I knew from being in Milwaukee at Trainfest what I was getting. For filling out a train along with the old Athearn BB this is the ticket for me. Sorry, but I do not want to spend $40 for a box car, accurate or not. If the colors are good and the RR actually carried the car at one time, I’m in.
The WC cars are a good example of a decently accurate budget car.
Here’s the Scale Trains model.
And here’s the prototype. Much of the smaller lettering and things like door markings were omitted, but they can be added with decals (maybe the prototype photos used by Scale Trains were of a repainted car with limited markings?). It’s at least a vey close representation otherwise.
And this is exactly the market these are targeted to. Complaining about the accuracy of paint schemes, door styles, etc. is a moot point - these cars aren’t for you. That’s why there ARE the $40 boxcars - so you can have the accuracy and fidelity.
I remember YEARS ago when blue box and roundhouse were the main players and people constantly begged for more detail and more accurata schemes. Well, many manufacturers listened and gave you what you wanted - leaving those who didn’t want to pay a premium for a premium car without much left. These cars fill that void again … leave well enough alone …
I went back through the posts and I don’t remember anyone complaining about the car or bashing ScaleTrains. There was merely some information posted about the accuracy of the Conrail car. Being a Conrail modeler, I’d like anything lettered Conrail to have some fidelity to prototype. I don’t consider myself elitist or a rivet counter because of this. It’s just my preference. I’m sure I have other cars from other railroads that are technically incorrect, but those don’t concern me and I’m happy to have them.
Concerning whether or not ScaleTrains should have been required to state that the cars may not be prototypical for a specific railroad, that is a marketing decision. And they may, in fact, have a photo showing the car as they have painted it. However, all are welcome to view the “meet our crew” video they link to on their home page. They talk about a “magnifying glass test” and “notice the fidelity to full scale”. One would believe that having car styles and numbers match would be a requirement.
However, watching the video to the end leads me to believe that those statements really apply to the “rivet counter” and “operator” models and not so much to the “kit classic” line.
Thumbs up! Yes, a few years back I recall Altas had posted notes for some of their products to allow hobbyists to be aware of their products which were fantasy paint schemes - I commend them for that. I’m not sure if they have continued that practice in the last year or two as I believe I have seen products announced that I didn’t see those notes but pretty sure some of the schemes may have been fantasy.
It was well pointed out that just because models are inexpensive doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have realistic/correct paint schemes and modelers be aware of it.
Most who have been in the hobby for a while are aware now that model train manufacturers include fantasy paint schemes among their products in order to make them profitable - i.e. sell enough to pay for the tooling and a reasonably good profit too.
It looks like a realistic paint scheme to me. Which brings up the point of how does anyone define who has to put a big scarlett F (for fantasy) to wear in shame on their product?
Is it a boxcar with correct doors? Ends? Is same length close enough? Handgrabs in all the right places?11
Because the fact of the matter is even the hardcore prototype crowd usually have just something that satisfies them on tap, almost never an exact model that I’m aware of. When you look at it that way, it’s really just a matter of close enough with them, too, just a different sort of it.
And I’m still trying to figure out who the big red F is supposed to help?
The prototype modeler who already knows?
The beginning modeler who doesn’t care?
Or the lazy modeler who wants to insist that everything they do is prototype, but can’t be bothered to do the research?
It probably won’t help sell models, but isn’t likely to hurt much either, because those who don’t care one way or the other still will buy what catches their eye, which is the primary market for such items. I just don’t understand the need to begrudge them what pleases them.
You make it sound like a bad thing to help MR customers know the difference between fantasy models and models which match real freight cars. It really isn’t.
For folks who enjoy fantasy modeling, obviously there are models on the market for them, such as modern GE loco’s factory painted for D&RGW [oX)] See, companies make fantasy models on purpose and they sell just fine.
Your are smart. So I have to wonder then, are you taking the Micky out of us? If you aren’t familiar with that expression, google it. It’s British and I learned it from my wife.
AFAIK, the “scarlet F” was used by Atlas and it didn’t seem to hamper sales. Yes, there are people who would like to know and not everyone has the “tools” to figure it out so easily, so it would be useful. [A]
As a potential customer, I’d like to see something like this. If I know up front that a car is intended to be an accurate model, I’ll start comparing it to prototype photos to see about weathering, interesting patch-outs, and other aspects of its appearance.
Other products that catch my eye turn out to be fantasy scheme cars or bogus in some other way (Accurail admittedly refuses to do much masking for multi-color schemes, so will sometimes use mostly accurate lettering, but paint the car one color instead of having, say, black ends and yellow sides), but by the time I figure that out I may have wasted quite a bit of time looking. The manufacturer knows already. Why not clue us in so we can make more informed decisions without wasting effort on researching a dead end?
To cite an example, ExactRail released some great GSI flat cars, including a signature UP version. Knowing from the start the product was at least intended to be accurate, I could research how close the paint color looked, and other details. It turns out I had a photo of one of the numbers on offer, and the prototype had solid bearing trucks in my era rather than the roller bearing versions on the model. That way I could make sure to get some correct trucks for that particular car.
In another case, Tangent produced a PS 4740 hopper for UP, also proclaiming it to be an accurate model. Unfortunately, the paint color was so far off I didn’t see spending the money on one so I passed. I knew before I started looking that such cars did at least exist.
Atlas announced some coil cars for a former industry that was local to me, USS Geneva works. I liked the look of the car, but it was clearly advertised as a fantasy scheme so I decided against i
You may have hit on a better wya to go about this. Maybe instead there should be a scarlet P to designate an item that is prototypically correct. It would seem to be easier to define what something is than what it isn’t.
For experienced modelers, it would save time and effort doing the basics for each tempting product that comes out.
For others, it might serve a more educational purpose and there would be some obvious benefit to paying attention to such things.
Think of it this was, with the scarlet F, it’s a lot like a teacher handing you back a paper that gives you that as a letter grade [:O] but doesn’t bother telling you what the errors of your ways were. That’s not much help.
The scarlett P would make it clear what the mfg got right. It could also allow for those tiny compromises we all know exist in just about all models, even those that people rave about the protypical correctness of. In other words, you’d know what’s right already and, if it matters, then you’d know that any discrepancies are minor in nature.
As I noted above, it’s not so much anyone’s specific comments here that bother me. They’re all legitimate concerns if that’s your cup of tea. But the net effect is to cast doubt about the legitimacy of the product. Hey, it’s a model, not the real thing, no matter how hard we squint, no matter how good the mfg’s art may be.
And consider that if the scralet F were somehow deployed. There are mfg’s whose entire product lines would be branded as some sort of ill-defin
