Print Page | Close Window

Intermodal flatcars from Atlas - Request now!

Printed from: Atlas Model Railroad Co.
Topic URL: http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=31664
Printed on: 2017 December 17

Topic:


Topic author: Atlanticflier
Subject: Intermodal flatcars from Atlas - Request now!
Posted on: 2006 September 20 1:47:09 PM
Message:

ATLAS,

This is a PROD/REQUEST for Atlas to produce TOFC/COFC flatcars set-up to carry 'Twin 45' trailers and 'Triple 28' trailers.

N scale modelers need them to cary all the Atlas 45' Pines trailers that we have been sold, (and we hope- forthcomming 48' trailers).

Website: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=66300

Please weight them properly.
Triple 28 version....


If you would like to see these in N scale, let's let Atlas' Product & development people know

The M-T 89' flat is fine for 40' and shorter trailers.
The Alan Curtis kits are great, just not R-T-R.

Intermodal Fans - Sound off !

AF

Replies:


Reply author: keystonecrossings
Replied on: 2006 September 20 2:12:34 PM
Message:

What about deLuxe Innovations? They are ready to run, quite nice, and why would Atlas want to commit resources to compete with an existing success story?


Reply author: tom mann
Replied on: 2006 September 20 2:14:37 PM
Message:

Will Paul allow polling this time?
[] yes
[] no


Reply author: cfritschle
Replied on: 2006 September 20 2:37:44 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by keystonecrossings

What about deLuxe Innovations? They are ready to run, quite nice, and why would Atlas want to commit resources to compete with an existing success story?



Jerry,

deLuxe Innovations does not make an 89 ft. flatcar.

The Twin 45/Triple 28 version of the 89 ft. flatcar has been in use on the railroads for more than 20 years, but the only way an N scale intermodal modeler can get one is to kit-bash, build a kit or build from scratch.

I think it is time for a RTR one.

Carter


Reply author: Atlanticflier
Replied on: 2006 September 20 2:38:32 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by keystonecrossings

What about deLuxe Innovations? They are ready to run, quite nice, and why would Atlas want to commit resources to compete with an existing success story?



D.I. - does not produce 89' Intermodal TOFC flatcar models. They produce models that carry containers, and are have announced spine type articulated cars, but not the 89' flats that carry two 45' trailers and/or three-28' trailers (as well as containers).


The TOFC flatcars would be great asset, IMHO, to the Atlas line-up. They would provide a much needed R-T-R model(s) and provide ATLAS another INTERMODAL model to offer, something their line-up could use (IMHO).
AF


Reply author: William Cowie
Replied on: 2006 September 20 3:38:09 PM
Message:

Yes, Atlas, c'mon, this way modelers won't desperately be scrounging for special runs!


Reply author: Paul Graf
Replied on: 2006 September 20 3:54:26 PM
Message:

I have a couple of boxes of Front Runners I can sell you if you need intermodal cars badly enough...


Reply author: TrainCat2
Replied on: 2006 September 20 4:04:20 PM
Message:

Paul,
Is that your always very polite, diplomatic, sensitive yet sprinkled with a wry sense of humour way of saying ..... No ???

No dis, just wanting a clarification.


Reply author: ljudice
Replied on: 2006 September 20 4:10:31 PM
Message:

Personally, I am more enthusiastic about the Deluxe Spine Cars...

The majority of trailer carrying cars on today's trains are no longer the 89' flats.
For some reason - to me at least, 89' flats are the least realistic looking cars
on our curves. I have 24" radius minimum and they still never look right. For some
reason the 89' autoracks don't look nearly as bad.

Lou


Reply author: up1950s
Replied on: 2006 September 20 5:45:31 PM
Message:

75 footers would sell well and fill that transitional intermodal black hole .


Reply author: Ed Kapuscinski
Replied on: 2006 September 20 5:48:43 PM
Message:

There are FAR more 89' Flats out there than front runners...


Reply author: Iain
Replied on: 2006 September 20 5:57:51 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by cfritschle

quote:
Originally posted by keystonecrossings

What about deLuxe Innovations? They are ready to run, quite nice, and why would Atlas want to commit resources to compete with an existing success story?



Jerry,

deLuxe Innovations does not make an 89 ft. flatcar.

The Twin 45/Triple 28 version of the 89 ft. flatcar has been in use on the railroads for more than 20 years, but the only way an N scale intermodal modeler can get one is to kit-bash, build a kit or build from scratch.

I think it is time for a RTR one.

Carter


What's wrong with kits? It is, after all, modelling.


Reply author: William Cowie
Replied on: 2006 September 20 6:27:20 PM
Message:

Iain, wake up, this is N scale!
Altogether now, chant: WE WANT RTR! WE WANT RTR!


Reply author: lock4244
Replied on: 2006 September 20 6:45:53 PM
Message:

The Atlas front runner is a very nice car, but it is only good for a single purpose... to carry a single trailer (or container on a chassis). This car has limited appeal and only Trailer Train bougth them.

A 89' flatcar can:

carry trailers in several configurations and lengths, as well as containers on chassis.

carry containers on it's deck if equipped with the right hardware

be used as part of a tripple 57' if drawbar connected to another 89' flat.

carry automobile frames.

carry light military trucks, rigs, sprinters vans... basically any large truck that can't fit in an autorack.

damaged freight cars.

Some 89' flats were sold to RR's as well as Trailer Train, such as FEC in the photo's. These were the backbone of the TOFC fleet for years and are still plentiful. I would love to see 89' flats available more consistently that MT releases, Especially those cars equipped to carry automobile frames, trilers, and deck mounted containers.


Reply author: William Cowie
Replied on: 2006 September 20 6:50:24 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by Paul Graf

I have a couple of boxes of Front Runners I can sell you if you need intermodal cars badly enough...



Great! All we need to do now is melt them down and we're halfway there!


Reply author: tehachapifan
Replied on: 2006 September 20 6:55:59 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by William Cowie

quote:
Originally posted by Paul Graf

I have a couple of boxes of Front Runners I can sell you if you need intermodal cars badly enough...



Great! All we need to do now is melt them down and we're halfway there!



Now, that's funny!

Russ


Reply author: umtrr-author
Replied on: 2006 September 20 6:58:44 PM
Message:

If there is such a need, why not write a business proposal and seek venture capital? No need to wait for an existing manufacturer. You can have all the numbers you want, and make as many as you think the market can handle.

And sit back and watch the nits being picked...


Reply author: cfritschle
Replied on: 2006 September 20 7:27:21 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by Iain

quote:
Originally posted by cfritschle

quote:
Originally posted by keystonecrossings

What about deLuxe Innovations? They are ready to run, quite nice, and why would Atlas want to commit resources to compete with an existing success story?



Jerry,

deLuxe Innovations does not make an 89 ft. flatcar.

The Twin 45/Triple 28 version of the 89 ft. flatcar has been in use on the railroads for more than 20 years, but the only way an N scale intermodal modeler can get one is to kit-bash, build a kit or build from scratch.

I think it is time for a RTR one.

Carter


What's wrong with kits? It is, after all, modelling.



I have been kitbashing TOFC and COFC flats since 1968. I used to cut the racks off the Arnold Rapido autoracks to get reasonable 85 ft. flatcars for TOFC and COFC service. I also would take five Minitrix 85 foot flatcars and cut and splice them to make four 89 ft. flatcars. I have relocated the hitches on the MT 89 ft. flatcars to allow Twin 45/Triple 28 loading. I have assembled the Alan Curtis kits into the Twin 45/Triple 28 configuration. From all this I have a couple of respectable TOFC and COFC trains, but I would still like to have some more cars to go with the ones I already have.

But now I have so many other projects to work on that with the limited amount of time I have for the hobby, I won't be able to get them all done in my lifetime. It would be really nice to have these available in RTR form for us oldtimers.

Carter

(Note to Paul: I have all of the numbers Atlas released for the Front Runners plus a couple of duplicates. What killed those sales was the retirement of the prototypes shortly after Atlas released them.)


Reply author: Atlanticflier
Replied on: 2006 September 20 8:55:32 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by Paul Graf

I have a couple of boxes of Front Runners I can sell you if you need intermodal cars badly enough...



Paul, I too, have a couple of boxes (of 12) and they make for some nice variety, but don't 'fill the bill' like some 89 footers would . Comon', Get Atlas into the Intermodal segment of N scale.
In case you haven't looked lately at all the possibilities - check this link out:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/rsList.aspx?cid=3
for some ideas.....
AF


Reply author: trmwf
Replied on: 2006 September 20 9:17:34 PM
Message:

You can carry auto frames on a 89 footer and you can load your trailers/ containers etc but don't think they use the same car for both. The 89 foot auto frame cars are specially equipped for that service. Besides, the auto frame carriers are in assigned service while intermodal cars are free runners.


Reply author: Robbman
Replied on: 2006 September 20 9:58:17 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by Paul Graf

I have a couple of boxes of Front Runners I can sell you if you need intermodal cars badly enough...



Maybe somebody will model the scrap yard all the prototypes were sent to


Reply author: nkalanaga
Replied on: 2006 September 20 11:22:54 PM
Message:

I would vote for some of the 89 ft channel-side flats. MT makes the flat-deck version, and it isn't hard to move the hitches. I've done it, and all it takes is drilling a few holes. But nobody has yet made the channel-side cars in N scale. Make them in Twin-45 versions if that's waht will sell, as I can always backdate them.


Reply author: ljudice
Replied on: 2006 September 20 11:40:42 PM
Message:

The people to lobby to on this is NOT MT - but Red Caboose. They have
an arguably better platform than MT anyway...

Lou


Reply author: Bob Horn
Replied on: 2006 September 20 11:48:50 PM
Message:

Also a great place for S&R's great trailers to ride.


Reply author: lock4244
Replied on: 2006 September 20 11:55:02 PM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by trmwf

You can carry auto frames on a 89 footer and you can load your trailers/ containers etc but don't think they use the same car for both. The 89 foot auto frame cars are specially equipped for that service. Besides, the auto frame carriers are in assigned service while intermodal cars are free runners.


Yeah... but the flatcar is the same. That's the point, one car, many uses...


Reply author: Atlanticflier
Replied on: 2006 September 21 12:12:30 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by ljudice

The people to lobby to on this is NOT MT - but Red Caboose. They have
an arguably better platform than MT anyway...

Lou




Lou - We are lobbying ATLAS here........However, if someone from RC reads and takes notice.........

I would think that Atlas needs to 'get in on' some Intermodal sales action and the TOFC/COFC varieties of flats would be a great gap to fill. They already have 45' trailers to market with them and adding the Pines 48 footer would be a resonable move, IMHO. Add to that some of the other add on equipment, such as Frame holders, P/U bed holders, etc and many possibilities exist.
AF


Reply author: jmlaboda
Replied on: 2006 September 21 01:51:25 AM
Message:

"Iain, wake up, this is N scale!"

That's just it... it is N-scale and regretably too many modelers still will only "model" in it if they are comfortable... but remember, no pain no gain!!!


Reply author: petest50
Replied on: 2006 September 21 02:27:07 AM
Message:

How about Alan Curtis Models? They have a wide selection of inter modalmodels. They could be assembled and sold RTR.

The company is are For Sale.

Pete


Reply author: leikec
Replied on: 2006 September 21 08:44:39 AM
Message:

I am woefully undereducated on the whole TOFC thing....

For someone modeling the mid-70's, what in N scale is appropriate for the era? What was the maximum trailer length in 1976?

Jeff C


Reply author: ljudice
Replied on: 2006 September 21 08:58:17 AM
Message:

Pete - you have a great point - I hope Intermountain is looking at them, as they have a good reputation for taking kits and having them sold as decorated RTR models.

Lou


Reply author: Robbman
Replied on: 2006 September 21 09:24:39 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by leikec

I am woefully undereducated on the whole TOFC thing....

For someone modeling the mid-70's, what in N scale is appropriate for the era? What was the maximum trailer length in 1976?

Jeff C



IIRC, 40'... 45 footers didn't come into use until 1980 o so...


Reply author: Denver Road Doug
Replied on: 2006 September 21 09:40:56 AM
Message:

Guys,

I'm surprised nobody mentioned this, but Atlas has experience with these cars already...



They just need to put them in their shrinking machine. (along with the Dash 8-40C's...hah, slid that one in!)

Actually, I don't think I want to lobby Atlas for these. There's already a model of them, although I do think the channel side would be a good choice. I would rather Atlas stay with their strength right now...TANK CARS! Well, and just about anything else they do.


Reply author: randgust
Replied on: 2006 September 21 10:04:42 AM
Message:

Paul, I can sympathize.... but....

One of the better indicators of demand is TASWDMH pricing. Your shay was hitting $250 off the first run until the second run was announced, a good indicator.

MT flatcars - not oddballs, just basic TTX-yellow-paint flatcars - are hitting similar premiums and getting darn hard to find. MT isn't doing them, and when they are, that is a premium-priced product for something about as generic as unit coal train hoppers.

The AC models are really nice, but do take a lot of work to finish on the painting and decaling.

Honestly, the only time in my life I've ever seen a Front Runner was at the National Transportation Museum in St. Louis!

Just because MT did a tank car 'once' didn't stop Atlas from really taking the market by storm, understanding the cars, and making a much better product than anybody ever before. I think a similar market takeover is waiting in intermodal equipment.

I too have hacked up every imagineable car to make intermodal equipment, and tried everything probably at least once. The MT cars are a great design (particularly the coupler mount/bar) and it's somewhat inexplicable why they stopped, except I heard they needed the same dies to do the autoracks.


Reply author: Atlanticflier
Replied on: 2006 September 21 10:51:08 AM
Message:

[quote]Originally posted by Denver Road Doug

Guys,

"I'm surprised nobody mentioned this, but Atlas has experience with these cars already...
They just need to put them in their shrinking machine. "

YES - they also have 40 & 45 foot containers in that "O"verly large scale...... so Atlas already has a starting point......

AF


Reply author: Robbman
Replied on: 2006 September 21 11:14:51 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by Denver Road Doug

Guys,

I'm surprised nobody mentioned this, but Atlas has experience with these cars already...







I was going to say something, but a quick perusal of the Atlas O new products didn't show them... so I thought I was crazy...


Reply author: bsoplinger
Replied on: 2006 September 21 11:36:35 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by leikec

I am woefully undereducated on the whole TOFC thing....

For someone modeling the mid-70's, what in N scale is appropriate for the era? What was the maximum trailer length in 1976?



If you look hard enough you can find pictures of steam with modified local road flat cars (and gons and hoppers and all sorts of beasts) carrying trailers wwhich basically were just chained onto the flat, TOFC has been around longer than many think.

There were 75' flats carrying 2 30'-35' trailers (which were getting rather rare by then as the trailer length had moved on to 39, 40 then 45' by the end of the 70's, ie you'd see them more in 70-71 then you would in 77-78). There were a few 50'ish flats carrying single 30'-40' (then 45') trailers. There were red scheme TTX 89' trailers carrying double 40' trailers. The trailers were 39' on PRR/Reading/Lehigh Valley in the mid 60's and moved on to 40' trailers when the length was increased early 70's (or was it late 60's). The 75' flat made a comeback for a short while early 80's (or late 70's) whenever the 45' trailer was approved since the hitch arrangement on the TTX long flat wouldn't allow more than 1 of these longer trailers. They then moved to the back to back loading of 45' trailers to manage to squeeze 2 trailers on 1 flat (can't remember the name of that, elephant loading?).


Reply author: randgust
Replied on: 2006 September 21 1:31:50 PM
Message:

Paul, I just looked. There are five cars out there now, last hour of bidding, each with over nine bids on (one has 18 bids, only one with one trailer on it), getting $19-$26 each - USED condition. That's what I mean. That's the demand. And none, repeat NONE, showing in any stores. Just the facts.


Reply author: William Cowie
Replied on: 2006 September 21 1:45:12 PM
Message:

Randy's right. There is a demand and there are a few people out there willing to pay big bucks to get them.

But... without getting into hot water again, the question is still unanswered how big is the demand at that price? The other boards have threads gauging demand and, while it's early, the initial impression seems to be many people will buy many TOFC's, but only a few will buy in the $25 price range. (Economists would call that a highly elastic demand curve.)

So, should Atlas decide to look into this idea (no dead horse icon from Paul yet ) a key point to make is the price point. It will have to be below $20 retail, with a street price in the mid-teens to succeed. IMHO Micro-Trains doesn't reissue these regularly, because they simply are not hot sellers. Given their price point, we're all beginning to see why. The guys buying these tend to want them in numbers, and with any unit train kind of car, price is crucial.

That said, I must also confess to being surprised that both MT and Red Caboose seem to be doing well with their autoracks, which are more expensive and which have a cheaper competitor. Go figure...


Reply author: randgust
Replied on: 2006 September 21 2:09:13 PM
Message:

For a while MT did a really nice 'kit' that you could make multiple cars from with multiple different numbers, fit in the same standard crystal box. I bought most of mine then - about 10 cars. I thought it was a GREAT idea, but I suspect they discovered there was more money to be made on individual cars with one or none trailers on.

I've got a mix of Trix, MT, Alan Curtis, and Con-Cor (Rapido) with the Con-Cor's being retired when I can find suitable replacements, and I won't pay $26 per car myself. My Super C has 18 platforms and I've got about another 10 in various services/trains. Way more intermodal flats than tank cars (nudge) but I'm ATSF.

That's an issue with me. If I find new, good, cars, I replace the old, bad ones. One of the issues on the MT flats is the paint/deck color. TTX yellow on the deck looks toylike and I weather the heck out of it, well, actually, the whole car. The Atlas one has a nice gray deck on the O car, that's the kind of fundamental change Atlas could bring to the table. And theres stuff on the MT car that is nice but possibly unnecessary, like the moving end ramps and the separate brake chain line, that I'd rather trade for better paint and more car numbers.

I thought I'd NEVER get this train built when I started the layout in 1982, given the only thing available was the Trix car, and that was a container flat. I bashed three of them into piggybacks, didn't work well, the MT cars were the salvation of the idea.



Now it's like watching a bank account rolling by!



Reply author: Atlanticflier
Replied on: 2006 September 22 09:20:23 AM
Message:

Here is an interesting and informative recap article with info on the 89' flatcars. Taken from the TRAINS website:

http://www.trains.com/trn/print.aspx?c=a&id=219

AF


Reply author: Atlanticflier
Replied on: 2006 October 11 09:07:14 AM
Message:

October 2006 -

ATLAS has pre-viewed the HO Scale 89 foot flat - how far behind will the N scale verion(s) be ?


Reply author: lock4244
Replied on: 2006 October 11 09:30:31 AM
Message:

Don't hold you breath. If Atlas won't do the C40-8 and C40-8W because of the Bachmann Spectrum unit, they likely won't do the 89' flat because of the MT car. I guess they feel the N scale market isn't big enough for two models, yet...

The 89' flat would sell well in N. Variety of paint schemes and variations over several eras. An an Atlas model would actually be available! Sounds like a winner to me


Reply author: ljudice
Replied on: 2006 October 11 09:56:42 AM
Message:

Hey instead of badgering Atlas about stuff they don't want to make - what about badgering
Deluxe about the stuff they have ANNOUNCED they are making?

They do fantastic stuff - but I would be hard pressed to think of anything new, even new
container paint schemes in many, many months.


Reply author: victor miranda
Replied on: 2006 October 11 10:40:15 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by Paul Graf

I have a couple of boxes of Front Runners I can sell you if you need intermodal cars badly enough...



what is the discount?

v


Reply author: Denver Road Doug
Replied on: 2006 October 11 10:56:23 AM
Message:

quote:
Originally posted by ljudice

Hey instead of badgering Atlas about stuff they don't want to make - what about badgering
Deluxe about the stuff they have ANNOUNCED they are making?

They do fantastic stuff - but I would be hard pressed to think of anything new, even new
container paint schemes in many, many months.



DI hasn't announced 89-footers have they? Now as far as their spine cars, I'm right there with ya!

There was a post on one of the Yahoo groups saying that DI has been understaffed lately due to family health issues so just be patient, I'm sure we'll see some things soon.


Reply author: ljudice
Replied on: 2006 October 11 11:06:34 AM
Message:

What I'm most interested in are the spine cars too!

Even with 24" radius curves, the spine cars (I have a few AC cars) look fantastic, while
the 89' cars - at least the MT cars look, well less than fantastic. For some reason
the 89' red caboose autoracks don't look as bad though, but I don't know why.

Lou


Reply author: atsf_arizona
Replied on: 2006 October 11 11:14:17 AM
Message:

Yes! yes! yes! 89' flatcars = yes!

Pls make sure they ride at the correct height.

And..... what trucks/couplers would they need to use? (now I'm getting into Product Development thoughts).....


Reply author: Denver Road Doug
Replied on: 2006 October 11 11:32:13 AM
Message:

John, the accumates are long enough that they won't have to develop a special coupler. :-)

And careful with the whole "correct ride height" thing...there's a growing "anti-proto rebel alliance" and they are fine if the car can carry trailers on top AND bottom. Higher the better!

Seriously, this would be a great release. Even with the M-T's, there are enough variations in the 89-foot flats that Atlas can surely do their model without really duplicating anything.


Reply author: trmwf
Replied on: 2006 October 11 4:09:04 PM
Message:

DRD

I don't think we are anti-proto we are just not necessarily pro-proto. If a mfg wants to make a proto car that is fine with me but at the same time, unlike you proto guys, if it is a little off color, not quite correct with an ommision or addition, rides a little high, in the wrong number series or a whole host of other things we are still happy and don't/won't make a big stink out of it or come running and crying to this forum to be the first to report to the others what a terrible model it is. We don't want tofc cars with trailers on the bottom but we certainly don't care if the car rides a little high so we can continue to use our truck mounted couplers.

You proto guys are real works in contradiction. I don't know how any of you could possibly even think of getting in the hobby let alone remaining in it. What with all the concessions that must be made that even the most stringent rivot counter has to accept if he purchases any manufactured product, I quite frankly don't see how any of you could possibly be happy with some consessions yet cry like a little baby over some little thing that isn't quite right. If being proto is so so important I would think people like you would shun the manufactured market and scratch build EVERYTHING to the correct proportions.

Mike


Reply author: David Leonard
Replied on: 2006 October 11 5:13:47 PM
Message:

Mike, I don't know how I would be categorized, but I agree that everyone has to accept compromises (scale sized flanges anyone?). I am pro-proto in the sense that if it would be just as easy for a manufacturer to produce accurate models and details as innacurate ones, I become disappointed when they don't. Why not go for accuaracy? Will non-proto people not buy something because it's too accurate? I hope not. Most manufacturers' newer releases have been better looking and more faithful to the prototype than previous tooling allowed. Let's not interfere with this tendency.

But to get details wrong (not just inappropriate for certain roads) seems shortsighted and eventually costly to the maker.


Reply author: tgromek
Replied on: 2006 October 11 5:59:59 PM
Message:

Count me in for Atlas TOFC flats, I agree there are enough prototype variations for them to co-exist with the Micro-Trains model.

More trailer variations would be acceptable, too.


Reply author: trmwf
Replied on: 2006 October 11 6:41:09 PM
Message:

David,

I'll PM you later explaining how and why I feel like I do. To do so here would just start arguments that go nowhere. I will say briefly that I have nothing against a prototype model, just against any additional costs that might be associated with it, against any changes that affect the operating reliability and practices of a model caused by the attempt to make it look more protypical, such as body mount couplers to lower the ride height, and against the guys that take a model, put it under a magnifying glass looking for mistakes then crying and badmouthing the mfg when they find them.

Mike


Reply author: Denver Road Doug
Replied on: 2006 October 11 7:11:26 PM
Message:

Sorry guys. I've sent an e-mail to Mike regarding his "issues" with me, so hopefully this campaign will be carried over to e-mail from here on out.

And now we return to our regularly scheduled intermodaling....


Reply author: traindork2
Replied on: 2006 October 11 8:07:48 PM
Message:

I've spent the last two years trying to round up what few 89' MT flats I can find. There's definately a need for these.


Reply author: Joe
Replied on: 2006 October 11 10:58:54 PM
Message:

I'd rather see a good modern 89' steel deck general purpose car. I see them daily in minnesota with pole loads, with pipe, and machinery loads. I've started to see them in plate steel loading as well.


Reply author: amato1969
Replied on: 2006 October 12 10:06:43 AM
Message:

My LHS has always been able to procure the MT 89-footers, and there's a wide variety of Microscale decals appropriate for them.

Personally, I would rather see an Atlas 75 or 85-footer. These models would fill a significant gap in my intermodal roster!

Frank


Atlas Model Railroad Co. : http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/

© 1709-2011 Atlas Models

Close Window