HO Rolling Stock Review Accurail 4750 CF Rib side Hopper

CSXT 251362, a completed Accurail 4750 CF hopper kit with upgraded trucks and couplers. As far as kits go, it was a joy to build!

Recently I purchased two Accurail 4750-cf ribside hopper car kits, after wanting to get some for quite some time. Other manufacturers such as Intermountain and Tangent Scale Models had already produced highly-detailed models of similar prototypes, with wire grab irons, brake lines, etc. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with companies producing highly-detailed models, though in my opinion, the budget-minded segment (such as Atlas Trainman) has considerable room for growth; one can still buy and apply wire grab irons like modellers have done for a number of years to create a higher degree of accuracy. This I think is even more true for Canadian modellers, presently facing a 25% difference between the US and Canadian dollar. But I digress…

Back to the model: Typical to Accurail’s previous offerings, the kit came neatly packed for assembly. Initial impressions were positive, with good graphics and clean molding lines (no flashing at all). One early observation was that the roofwalks are molded onto the car, and done so pretty nicely. I consider this a plus, since they won’t bow or warp like every single one of my Intermountain cars has done. Even more so if the car is to be taken to a club, or handled manually a lot. Likewise, the end platform castings of the handrails and ladders was rather impressive – I’d say on-par with older Intermountain kits, but far less work. The instructions were very straightforward, and assembly of the first kit took me about 35 minutes; the second took less than 20, once I got the hang of the steps. Again typical of Accurail, the car assembled very easily, with minimal filing to get the parts to snap together. The only area that I found needed a bit of work was to get the coupler cover to snap onto the draft sill – nothing more than a minute few passes of the file to get things to fit together. My only real gripe about the kit is that Accurail still supplies them with the unconventional Accumate couplers and 33”plastic wheels (for 70-ton trucks). For a car that uses 36”wheels, the difference is quite noticeable given how easy the trucks are to view on the prototype. So I swapped the couplers for tried-and-true Kadee #5’s and the trucks for 100-ton trucks, in this case Athearn Genesis ASF trucks as that’s what I had lying around. The larger wheels do cause the car to sit higher, but this hasn’t resulted in any operational issues such as pull-aparts (small coupler height  difference).

To sum it up, I think the low-cost, less-detailed 4750 CF hopper by Accurail has a lot to offer – to me, the trade-off between cost and assembly time and a much higher level of detail is worth investing in more of these cars (at an almost 3:1 ratio in price compared to a Tangent car).

I hope to have another layout update, along with some more modelling and prototype pieces, on the blog in the upcoming days and weeks. 'Til next time,

Cheers,

Peter.

A side view of an assembled Accurail kit (CNW, left) compared to an older Intermountain assembled kit (right). Both cars have upgraded tucks from what was included in the kit. Note that the Accurail car rides slightly higher with correct (36") wheels applied. A few things to note: size of vibrator pads on slope sheets, thickness of ladder rungs, and thickness of cast parts such as hopper gate rails. 

Overhead view of same comparison. There's no disguising the fact that the Accurail car is a kit (cast end platform safety appliances), but I like the fact that the castings are much more durable than separately-applied wire parts. 

Continue reading →

HO Model Review Walthers Mainline 4650 CF Cylindrical Grain Hopper

Okay, time to get back to something actually model railroading-related. I hope to have more HO-themed articles in the next few weeks and less 1:1 scale posts, not that there's anything wrong with real-world railroading, but the intent for this blog was to be primarily about 1:87 scale railroading. Progress on the layout and various HO locomotive projects has been slow, but I have a lot of things "nearing completion" I hope to feature in the near future.

Walthers' recent Mainline-series release, the so-called 59' Clindrical Grain Car, produced in droves in prototype by Marine Industries.

Anyway, with the relatively-recent release of Walther's so-called 59' grain hopper, I was keenly interested to get my hands on one and see what the model would be like. No doubt this would car would have a tough act to follow in that Intermountain has cranked out models of the same prototype for years. Walthers' Mainline series is their budget-minded line of less-detailed but more affordable products (such as it is today with prices subject to fluctuations in both the US and Canadian dollars), so admittedly, expectations weren't that high to begin with. This is not intended to be a A-Z review, but rather a narrative describing things Walthers got right and things they got wrong. 

The first thing I noticed about the car was the price - retail is $29.98 US, which works out to about $40 CAD, plus tax. For a budget car, that's a bit steep, especially when the far better-detailed Intermountain version of the same car can still be found without much difficulty at train shows for $30 or less (same paint schemes, too). The car comes well-packed in a somewhat-larger-than-necessary box with a plastic two-piece shell holding the car in place. One thing that was known when the model was announced was that it would come with plastic "end cage" (roofwalk supports and grab irons) detail, and plastic roofwalk. While this does solve the common problem of etched-metal roofwalk warp, the trade-off is a noticeably-thicker profile. Admittedly, if you view the car at a 90-degree angle, it's not too bad, definitely better than the old Athearn blue-box details, but as soon as one sees the car at an angle, it's easy to see just how thick the "engineering plastic" is - pretty thick. On the B-end, the brake dear is present and reasonably-well done, but the plumbing connecting the brake components again suffers from chunky-plastic syndrome. That trait further extends to the grab irons and stirrup steps. One thing done fairly well (among others) is that the top hatches are relatively well-detailed, and apparently more reliable than the Intermountain version (I can't seem to keep those hatches in their hinges). Another thing done fairly well are the brackets supporting the roofwalk along the length of the car. The car comes equipped with Walthers free-running 100-ton trucks and Kadee-like metal couplers. Early tests indicate that the Walthers version of the car doesn't suffer from the common problem the Intermountain cars faced wherein the the inboard wheelsets on each truck contact the brake piping detail underneath the car, sometimes leading to derailments. 

A side view of the car reveals a noticeable gap between the side sill and the hopper sheets, most prominent at the middle of the car.

A couple flaws, at least on this particular sample, serve to detract from the car's overall appearance. The first and more obvious, there is a noticeable gap in the seam between the car's side sill and the hopper sheets. It appears that Walthers chose to cast these as separate pieces, and the fit-up between the two leaves a bit to be desired (and would likely be difficult to correct). The second issue is with the graphics; while generally well-executed, a few spots had fuzzy or even blurry contrast between the two colours, most notable between the yellow and brown, but also between brown and black at the BL-corner of the car. A further, more subtle detail, is that the prototype car has 9 weld seams between the hopper sheets, while the model has 12; again, this is not a rivet-counter's car, but is something that could have been accounted for at the factory prior to production. 

Note the fuzzy colour separation, particularly at lower right between yellow/black, yellow/brown, and at the stirrup step, between black and brown.

At anything but a straight-on view, it's hard to overlook how thick the engineering-plastic components are, particularly the brake piping and handrails between end ladders. Also note that the crossover running board is void of any texture.

A top-down view of the roofwalks illustrates the size and coarse nature of the roowalk grid pattern.

In short:

Pro's:

• It closely matches prototype dimensions (well, it is a scale model...)
• Tracks well
• Some elements are well-executed such as top hatches and roofwalk supports
• Lettering is generally sharp

Cons:

• Sloppy fit-up results in gap between side sill and hopper sheets
• No way to hide how thick the plastic components are, such as roofwalk, end cage details
• Sloppy paint application in several places
• Wrong number of hopper sheet weld seams
• For what it is, relatively high price

This isn't meant to be a knock against Walthers - in truth, they have done some incredibly well-executed models such as the 52' bulkhead flatcar. In this case though, I'm not sure what they were aiming for, offering a middle-of-the-road model that has already been done in much better quality, for nearly the same price (there is a price difference between a new Intermountain version and the Walthers', but not what I'd expect given the detail differences). Aside from being a rerun, the execution of the model leaves a fair bit to be desired in several areas, so it appears that Walthers was intent on offering "something" to the budget-minded modelling crowd, but may have only been interested so long as profit margins allowed. While the poor fit-up and paint may be exclusive to this single sample (doubt it), the fact is that other areas such as the roofwalk are hard to overlook. As food-for-thought, Scale Trains recently, with their Operator line, offered an entirely new model (never before made in HO) with better execution and at a substantially lower price; thus it is possible to do a budget car well. 

Verdict: I'm sticking to my Intermountain version. 

Hope this review helps some potential buyers,

'Til next time,

Cheers,

Peter.

Continue reading →