Bowser Kit 3-1041 40' XM

Discussion in 'Boxcars' started by gna, Nov 11, 2017.

  1. gna

    gna Member Supporter

    I managed to buy two of the same kit a year apart. :unsure: I had some time the other day and put together a set of Accurail reefers and the Bowser kit:

    IMG_0221.JPG IMG_0219.JPG IMG_0220.JPG

    What car is the Bowser kit supposed to represent? Is it a total foobie?
    Joe Lovett and Ozarktraveler like this.
  2. meteor910

    meteor910 2009 Engineer of the Year Staff Member Supporter

    Gary -
    Odds are it is, as you suggest, a "foobie". Bowser is very accurate on PRR cars and other roads and private owners that used PRR designs, but I think they strayed a bit when they got away from "The standard RR of the world" stuff.
    SLSF 51261, in my equipment diagram book, is a member of the SLSF 51000-51399 series of 52ft-6in drop-end gondolas (like the very popular P2K gon). The diagram does say, however, that the SLSF 61000-61399 gons (built 1949) were renumbered to 51000-51399, so I guess it is possible there was an earlier 51261 boxcar that also was renumbered to some other series. The built date on the boxcar looks like 1937 so it could be some pre-WW2 era car. Hard to tell the builder.
    ps - I had one too!
  3. gna

    gna Member Supporter

    Thanks Ken--My book said the number was a gon, too. The 1937 date made me think Bowser was spoofing an AAR car, but it's not even close to an AAR car. It has an unusual roof. I wonder if it's a Pennsy prototype, like an X-31a? Well, now I have two. The Bowser kits are not at all difficult, but they are sharply molded and fit together well, plus I got another set of doors for the scrapbox. Too bad it's not more accurate, but fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice....

    I am trying to make my models more accurate, but it's hard to keep track of it all, plus sometimes, ya gotta compromise...
  4. Coonskin

    Coonskin Member


    To me, accuracy is a moving target that is also determined by one's foreseeable time that can be allocated to accomplishing one's modeling goal. Let me explain:

    * IF one's goal is to make very accurate models of prototypes, and that's the main reward in modeling, then go for it.

    * IF one wants to also have an operating layout, then one's time will need to be allocated among the many things that must be accomplished if one wants to realize the goal of an operating layout. This may preclude investing large amounts of available time scratch building/heavy kit-bashing accurate rolling stock, and such.

    * IF one wants to have not only an operating layout, but one that is reasonably complete scenically, then yet more dividing of one's time will be needed.

    I long ago gave up on investing the time it would take for all my models being "accurate". I'm now concerned with the "overall scheme of things" and would like to have at least one more nice operating layout before my time is done. Therefore, my "accuracy" target moved, and I'm accepting compromises in regards to car types vs prototype, and what have you.

    The above strictly FWIW!
  5. gna

    gna Member Supporter

    Seems reasonable to me. While I'd love brass locomotives and passenger cars, resin freightcars, and scratchbuilt cabooses, it isn't going to happen. For me, it's a sliding scale, (or moving target), depending on my time, skills, money, knowledge, and interest. I enjoy building and kitbashing, but all of the above factors limit what I can devote to any project. I'm willing to use stand-ins. So replacing underframes on Accurail cars is fine, or removing high fans on Proto 1000 F3s and replacing with low fans is a go, I'm a little hesitant to razor saw apart Rivarossi Passenger cars to get the windows to line up, or move domes on steam locomotive boilers. And it's hard enough to keep track of the Frisco, not to mention all the other railroads we can have rolling stock for. And don't get me started on structures...

    Some of my friends have the line in different spots. One has tons of Athearn cars, and I don't think he pays any attention to dates, styles, paint schemes--he just likes to watch them run. Another friend refused some hopper cars someone offered because "the date was wrong." Nothing wrong with either approach--at the heart of it, we're just playing with trains.
  6. gjslsffan

    gjslsffan Staff Member Staff Member

    Very well said Gary and Andre, very well indeed. That sliding scale for me, has slid-en off the scales a long time ago, I just want to enjoy the trains running now. Maybe make a move to DCC one day who knows.
    Ozarktraveler and modeltruckshop like this.
  7. Coonskin

    Coonskin Member

    Well, Tom (and Gary)...

    The bottom line is, we're not gettin' any younger. (As you both likely well know!) Our energy levels aren't what they used to be, either. Those things that we enjoy doing, we'd best get to doin' it and trim back on the things that aren't as much fun as they used to be. I also think that sliding scale thing works on the H Factor equation principle, too. That is, when the H factor exceeds the F factor, we tend to start to avoiding being involved with the activity/event/whatever. I'll explain:

    H = Hassle Factor
    F = Fun Factor

    As long as the F factor exceeds the H factor by a significant value, generally we will continue to pursue said hobby/endeavor. When the H factor starts equaling the F factor... we start to get into trouble with said hobby/endeavor. When the H factor exceeds the F factor... that hobby/endeavor has essentially died on us (for we fall into inactivity or procrastination, etc)... but we often won't admit it.

    I'm having to look at my own sets of H Factor equations for some of my many interests. One that has bit the dust is my 1/32 slot car interest. I'm now looking at my control line model airplanes and beginning to candidly look at where I'm at with it. Dual sport motorcycling is still secure for the foreseeable future, but eventually my age will cause me to have to dismount from a bike for the last time. Aging sucks!
  8. Well put Andre.
  9. WindsorSpring

    WindsorSpring Member

    There is a subtle relation between "Hassle" and "Fun," of course. Something that is too easy loses appeal just as quickly as something too challenging. Pride in achievement becomes part of the fun and, to some extent, the degree of achievement is proportional to the challenge. I suppose a rule of thumb could be that "Fun goes out when Challenge increases to the point of Hassle." ...and now back to the Bowser Box Car :)
  10. Coonskin

    Coonskin Member

    The way I utilize the H Factor equation, it takes that into consideration. :D
    WindsorSpring likes this.

Share This Page