http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7JtD6fftTE
Your post is in the wrong category and might be misleading to some. SP never had any of these units in real life, so it's not appropriate as "Prototype information for the modeler".
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I wouldn't say it was misleading as the title calls it what it is. I looked due to curiosity since I know SP never had the units. The model mfgers do this to many by selling something they call a model, when there never was/is a prototype. This has caused me to do a lot more kitbashing and/or scratchbuilding, ie start with a photo first.
Still pretty neat sound from an N scale loco.
Richard
In some respects we model railroaders mis-use the word "prototype."
It may be that this SP gas turbine is a literal prototype,
Dave Nelson
dknelsonIt may be that this SP gas turbine is a literal prototype,
I do not believe that is correct. I have seen no record of any Gas Turbines owned by the Southern Pacific, and therefore none painted in Black Widow. If you have photographic or other evidence to the contrary, that would be interesting to see.
The manufacturer likely just did this to sell more models to those who don't know better or don't care -- it happens all the time. What people want to buy and run is their own choice, of course. Only the UP owned these locos in real life, Con-Cor slapped a bunch of unrealistic schemes on them to sell more (even CSX, for Pete's sake!).
But when someone (probably unknowingly) posts one of these fantasy schemes in a sub-forum titled "Prototype information for the modeler", I think it's worth stating the facts.
cuyama dknelsonIt may be that this SP gas turbine is a literal prototype, I do not believe that is correct. I have seen no record of any Gas Turbines owned by the Southern Pacific, and therefore none painted in Black Widow. If you have photographic or other evidence to the contrary, that would be interesting to see. The manufacturer likely just did this to sell more models to those who don't know better or don't care -- it happens all the time. What people want to buy and run is their own choice, of course. Only the UP owned these locos in real life, Con-Cor slapped a bunch of unrealistic schemes on them to sell more (even CSX, for Pete's sake!). But when someone (probably unknowingly) posts one of these fantasy schemes in a sub-forum titled "Prototype information for the modeler", I think it's worth stating the facts.
You ignored the first part of my post and thus utterly failed to grasp my point. The definition of prototype is not "the full size thing versus a scale model." It means the first of something which is later copied, regardless of size or scale by the way. We model railroaders misuse the word and always have -- that was my point. If there has never been a Southern Pacific gas turbine, and there hasn't, then this model is the prototype.
The notion of prototype versus model, and prototype modeling in general, is largely premised on this same mis-definition. The only saving grace is that since all of us misuse the word, and misuse it the same way, we are able to communicate.
To clarify this, I have referred to John Armstrong's 'Cementipede' (4-truck articulated covered cement hopper) as a prototype. If some carbuilder ever picks up on building one in 4' 8.5" gauge, that will be a 48:1 scale model of the O gauge prototype.
For that matter, a prototype (the first of its kind) may be the same size as the follow-on production items. There may or may not be differences. The prototype TBF built by Grumman was assembled with clips so GM's UAW employees could see how it was assembled. The GM production models, TBMs all, went on to become the baddest birds aboard Allied WWII aircraft carriers. Of course, the clips were replaced by rivets in the GM products.
My own articulated coal hoppers are prototype (SeKi 500) and follow-ons (SeKi 501 and subsequent.) I'm not holding my breath waiting for JR-Freight to copy my design in 80:1 scale.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
When SP embarked upon its quest for fewer units with greater horespower the turbine was given serious consideration by SP engineering and mechanical forces, had they been built, they would have been identical to the UP 8500hp big blows with the exception of the fuel tenders which SP intended to source from retired cab forwards. They would also been equipped with light packages and specific SP appliances such as snowplows. The concellation of the turbine project proved the be the salvation to several Alco PA's as SP intended to salvage their trucks and traction motors for use on the turbines.
Dave