Kind of surprised no one has yet done a comparison of the two excellent Trinity ARMN reefers...I received my ERs a few days ago. The Exact Rail models are gorgeous, just like the BLMAs. But there are a few problems. ER should address the packaging on future runs. One third of my cars had the end platforms broken due to shifting within the box. The 36" wheels are nice, but did these guys try to run the cars? They scrape against the floor of the car - you can see the marks. I rummaged around in the parts box and found some very thin washers and placed them so as to raise the car a teeny tiny bit - just enough to let the wheels clear. You could also substitute 33" which would also solve the issue. The coupler shanks are huge compared to the BLMA. I doubt the prototype sticks out that far. And as nice as the coupler cut levers are, I question their long term durability - I'm missing two already. All that being said, the cars are a nice addition to the fleet and after modification run well. Here are some pictures: Two shots showing each end. The BLMA cars are in the rear. Here's a comparison of the coupled cars - again, BLMA in rear: The two different cars coupled, refrigeration unit end, BLMA on right: And the other end, again, BLMA on right:
Jim, Thanks for the short write-up. These are indeed both nice cars, but I have hesitated getting them because they may be too new for my mid-90's to mid-00's era preference. I am also intrigued by the wheel height issue - what is the wheel height on the BLMA cars?
Thanks for the mini-review! When I first(seriously) modelling N scale in the mid-90's...I modelled 'today' as an era!.... After jumping back into modelling after a 10-12 year hiatus, I'm confining myself to Southwestern railroading in 1957 (ATSF heavy)... However, these BEAUTIFUL, modern releases from these two manufacturers sure do have me 'licking my chops'!,,, Really glad to see these guys producing really beautiful models... what is the price difference between the two manufacturers' models? Bruce
Thanks Jim for the for photos and write up. Don't forget the price difference. BLMA's cost me $17.49 each while the Exactrails are $22.47.
BLMA uses their own 36" in their own truck. Exact Rail uses their own trucks and what looks like Fox Valley Wide Wheels - at least they sure look a lot alike. And Arbomambo, Daryl has answered the price question - but I'll bet the next run from BLMA will be higher...
I've had both cars for about a week, and I must say that I'm happy that when I look at them on the layout, I can't tell the difference. I can run them together without it being obvious that they're from different manufacturers. The Exactrail has finer detail, but it costs $5 more. But quite honestly, if I run across any more from either brand, I'll pick them up. The one Exactrail I have doesn't seem to have the wheel rubbing problem you mentioned, but I haven't run it much yet.
I'm mobile at the moment and can't ddo proper research... On the BLMA car the roof and side joint has a noticeable gap. On the ER it looks closer together or at least like the gap is painted. Which is more prototypical?
There are many minor differences in the two cars... Did anyone notice that the coupler cut levers go to the BOTTOM of the draft gear box rather than the top as does the prototype? How would you pull the pin from down there? Doesn't anyone really LOOK at the real thing anymore?
On freight cars, the uncoupling rod goes under the coupler... you push the pin upward with the rod. On locomotives, it is on top...
I don't know when it became a requirement (if it even is... I haven't looked at an AAR safety appliance act). The earliest car I've designed was built in 1948, and it had the rod under the coupler as built...
Yes. I am asking about a standard, if any. Forty years ago, there were still cars around that lifted from the top. So there must not have been an edict to retrofit. I can remember the hours spent working on knuckles so they'd open smoothly, some castings were a bit rough and levers to get pins staying up.
I'd be willing to bet 1933 was when these became standard on new cars (and presumably rebuilt)... that was when the Type E coupler became standard.
Wow. Face is red. The last time I was up close and personal with a freight car was a long time ago (obviously). Thanks, Robbman!
I can find shots later than '33 of new equipment with the top pin. Most notably a DM&IR gondola built in '41 by ACF. My 1943 Car Builders' still has drawings and ads for this arrangement as well. I need to check the '46 and '49-'51 editions. I also found a note that the Type E was adopted in 1933 but not effective until '34, FWIW. Jason
Where those DM&IR gons, or the other cars, ever interchanged? I'd be willing to bet that could be the explanation there... or not. I'll have to do some digging on much earlier cars than I usually deal with now... thanks!
LOL, I knew that was coming as it was my first thought too. The only thing I could do is check my '67 ORER and see if the number comes up. There was also a picture of a box car from '38 but it was a Canadian builder for a Canadian road. Jason
I looked in the '46 Car Builders and there's no question Canadian cars were still being built with the top pin into the 40's. I can still find remnants of other cars like a composite GN box car built in '42 by PS that still have this as well. So it's out there, but rare enough that these could be special situations. Jason