ESM X72 Boxcar: True to the Prototype But a Disappointment

Jenna Oct 18, 2019

  1. Jenna

    Jenna TrainBoard Member

    90
    149
    5

    Author:
    gdm

    [​IMG]

    Eastern Seaboard Models (ESM) released this model in September of 2019. It was first announced in early 2018. The prototype is a U.S. Equipment Corp X72 Boxcar. The prototypes were produced in the early 1970s and the major lessees of these cars were Penn Central, Western Pacific and Conrail. The cars were released as singles for $43.45. I purchased our sample car for $33 from a large online store. The cars are made in China and clearly labeled as such.

    The Prototype
    The X72 is a general purpose boxcar that can be found in nearly every service, making it a very common boxcar. The X72 design features smooth, welded sides and a large 6-panel Superior door. This 10 foot door allows forklifts to easily operate in and out of the car. Some cars are equipped with DF Belt Loaders for assisting in the loading and unloading of special equipment, while other cars are equipped with Dual Air Paks for shock control of goods and pallets. These specially equipped cars are in assigned service to specific industries for specific loading.

    [​IMG]
    Penn Central X72

    Between 1972 and 1973, Penn Central began purchasing the first of the 50' X72 boxcars from US Railroad Manufacturing (Evans) Blue Island, IL, plant. These cars would eventually find their way to Conrail in 1976, retaining their PC numbering series while getting CR reporting marks. However, many X72s can still be spotted in their original PC green paint scheme and PC reporting marks, though fairly rusted and faded.

    The Box

    [​IMG]
    This box is oversized and frustrating to open.

    These cars come in 5 5/8" acrylic telescope boxes. The car rests inside a clear plastic double nest and includes a nice wrap-around insert. The box was a bear to open at first. Telescope boxes depend on friction to stay shut and this box simply had too much friction. Once I initially opened the box (with some effort), it seemed to loosen up and become easier to open. The box size is simply too large for a 50 foot car. Most other manufacturers of 50 foot boxcars use 4 1/2" boxes. When you have an extensive collection of rail cars, it is really much more preferable if the manufacturers standardize on a box size. Atlas, Micro-Trains and Athearn all put their smaller cars in 4 1/2" boxes. ESM should follow suit. Also, next time please use some kind of jewel box. The end-fastening MTL style or the side-clip style made for Atlas are both preferable to telescope boxes. If you are going to run these cars, you need to get them in and out of boxes easily, and if you are going to store your cars in Axian boxes, please make sure the acrylic boxes are a uniform size for ease of storage.

    Couplers and Trucks
    These cars carry body-mounted couplers. This is always nice to see, but we are coming to expect this with newer third generation releases. (Please see my blog, The Evolution of N-Scale Rolling Stock Models). The couplers themselves are (Holy Cow!) actual, legitimate Micro-Trains body-mount couplers. The wheels are blackened metal low-profile wheels. I am sure all the Code-55 dudes out there will appreciate them. Personally, I prefer a little more flange; the MTL Standard design is an excellent one. Small wheel profile definitely looks more realistic, but I am an N-Trak guy, and I know track work ain't always perfect. Small profile flanges are subject to increased risk of derailment. However, most folks will like these wheels as they have about as little flange as you can get away with. As far as we understand, the wheels are an ESM-specific design, made in China along with the bodies.

    [​IMG]
    Truck and coupler detail - notice the molded in ladders

    I placed my sample car on my T-Trak layout to give it a roll. I call this the 'pinky test,' as I simply give the car a nudge with my pinky. The car failed miserably. It simply didn't roll very far at all. I am not sure if the issue is with the trucks or with the wheels. Since both are made by ESM, the failure is theirs either way. I simply cannot recommend you run these cars in any number. You will quickly overwhelm the pulling power of any locomotive. What is more, the added stress of pulling a resistant car will strain any coupler and be a sure fire recipe for derailments. Perhaps you can pull off the trucks and replace them with a decent set of MTL trucks with a good set of wheels to fix this. I didn't bother.

    The Model
    This is a mid quality 3rd generation piece of rolling stock. The print and paintwork are perfect. The molding is satisfactory. It reminds me of 1980s vintage Roundhouse toolings. ESM has taken advantage of some modern injection-molding techniques as the stirrups seem smaller than an 80s vintage car. Unfortunately, the molding around the door has not taken advantage of these improvements. It is clear even from several feet away that the doors are molded in. A good 2019 model should have enough detail in the molding that the doors should appear as if they could open. A person should be tempted to try to open the door with their fingernails. One look at this car will dispel any illusion that the door could open or is a detail part. They don't and it isn't.

    [​IMG]
    Good quality underframe

    There are two nice detail parts with this car, but you need to know what to look for. The underframe has some really nice elements and detail parts. The other feature is the metal etched end platform. It is small, but well executed. These details stand out as an excellent example of what kind of detail can be produced without creating any sense of fragility. After all, the highly detailed cars we have seen in the last two years that clearly are fragile and not well suited to handling, it is nice to see ESM was able to get some detail here while still maintaining a clear sense that the cars can be handled without risk of breakage.

    For $43, this car should have detail parts for the ladders, grab irons and stirrups. These details really stand out when they are done well and a $43 boxcar should stand out.

    Summary
    This car was a disappointment. It may be true to the prototype, but the vast majority of buyers don't know and don't care. What they do care about is whether or not the car will run well. The small wheel flanges and the silly amount of truck friction make this car a non-starter for runners. For folks who love detail, this car has very little. A nice under frame and metal end platform are simply not enough to justify this price.

    Now we get that this car is a niche car for folks who model certain railroads in a very specific time period. Thus ESMs run is likely small, making their cost per unit quite high. However, ESM claims they were able to re-use elements of their earlier X65 model, which should have reduced the production cost of this tooling. But these considerations do not change the simple fact that you aren't getting a lot for your money with these cars.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2019
    BNSF FAN likes this.
  2. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    63,540
    10,599
    652
    After reading your assessment and carefully studying the photos provided, I have to agree the price is high.
     
  3. Hardcoaler

    Hardcoaler TrainBoard Member

    6,788
    20,175
    104
    It's interesting that the Trovestar review of Eastern Seaboard Models' Class X65 Boxcar also noted that the Atlas/BLMA trucks lacked "a wee bit of the effortless glide" we've come to expect in N Scale, although the situation was less troubling with the X65 samples.

    As an eastern modeler, I appreciate that Eastern Seaboard Models has chosen unique prototypes. I do dearly love my LV X65s. (y)
     
  4. bbussey

    bbussey TrainBoard Member

    146
    6
    18
    Sorry that you're displeased with our jewel box, which is the same box we've used for the last 20 years. And due to the extended draft gear and proper body length, the model will not fit in a standard MTL-sized jewel box. As with larger Atlas and MTL models, the X72 is packaged accordingly to protect the model during storage and shipping.

    Regarding the lack of free rolling, it sounds as if either a) a wheelset is not fully in the journal box or b) the coupler box screw is not fully in and thus rubbing on the outer axle. All of the samples we've tested roll effortlessly.
     
    Hardcoaler likes this.
  5. Point353

    Point353 TrainBoard Member

    2,276
    2,112
    54
    May we see any N scale trains that "Jenna" has manufactured to determine if they exhibit fewer faults and/or represent a better value?
     
  6. glakedylan

    glakedylan TrainBoard Member

    402
    4
    13
    do not agree with the appraisal. N scale is not N for nitpicking. the details and quality of the work are worth every cent. congrats to B Bussey for another very fine model.

    sincerely
    G
     
  7. daniel_leavitt2000

    daniel_leavitt2000 TrainBoard Member

    1,356
    20
    30
    Not for nothing Jenna, but the real cars don't have door gaps either:
    http://conrailphotos.thecrhs.org/files/images/CR 266844 - Class X72.thumbnail.jpg

    http://conrailphotos.thecrhs.org/files/images/CR 266873 - Class X72.thumbnail.jpg

    While there are not plug door cars, some were equipped with clean ladding, which used ductape to cover the door seams. Large gaps would not work.

    The box is one of two standard sized "medium" jewel cases made in China. Atlas (and before Walthers) uses the same. In fact Walthers used the box on their NE caboose. Which is half the lengh.

    Only a few modern manufacturers still use the small jewel box - Athearn MTL and some Atlas models. Most Atlas, Exactrail, IM, FVM, Bowser, Tangent, Wheel of Time, Trainworx, LBF, Hubert's among other use a similar sized box. MTL, BLMA Athearn and others have a LARGER medium box. Small boxes just won't fit the full sized cushioned underframe.

    Want to complain about box sizes? Take a look at BLI engines.

    If the wheels don't turn freely, try bending the side frames out a bit. This is a common issue with Trainworx, Exactrail, BLMA and Bowser cars that feature a similar sunken bolster. My guess is that the manufacturer removes the part from the mold before totally curing and the cooling plastic bows inward a bit. Its a 2 second fix.

    Also, if you want larger flanges (REALLY?!?) you can just swap in MTL wheels. They have the same axle length.
     
  8. jpwisc

    jpwisc TrainBoard Member

    1,769
    448
    33
    Wow, griping about the box was funny, but asking more a more realistic door (when showing us poor quality pics that appear to match the prototype) and then asking for less prototypical wheels, that’s just embarrassing. I think Jenna should find a different reviewer for her next product push.
     
  9. HemiAdda2d

    HemiAdda2d Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    20,030
    15,186
    253
    All gripes regarding the box and price aside, if the reviewer has a complaint on the car, that should be addressed to the manufacturer first. I will add the lack of fragile, freestanding details like ladders, and stirrups make the model more durable for handling and running. I understand some of us collect and accumulate equipment and never run it, but some of us run our trains, and sometimes, that ol' 0-5-0 "big hook" is required to rerail or transport the equipment elsewhere. The more we handle these models, the more we are likely to break them.
     

Share This Page