I thought they'd be good project units that would be good runners/pullers and eventually I'd paint them in NWP SWP paint, as far as a layout I have come to the conclusion that a layout is not a reasonable idea right now and in the near future, I am wanting to build a fleet of motive power that is reletively cheap. If I can spend 30-40 bucks on a GP40 put two motors in, a decoder, speaker, and some weight, and only have spend $200 I'd be happy. Plus itd be a nice hands on project to prepare me for the kit bashed monster engines I hope to someday build.
I wasn't planning on buying anything for another few weeks anyways.
Steve
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough!
NWP SWP I wasn't planning on buying anything for another few weeks anyways.
Well, there ya go--there aren't any of the Alco Models available right now anyway--maybe in a few weeks????
Ed
NWP SWPI thought they'd be good project units that would be good runners/pullers and eventually I'd paint them in NWP SWP paint, as far as a layout I have come to the conclusion that a layout is not a reasonable idea right now and in the near future, I am wanting to build a fleet of motive power that is reletively cheap. If I can spend 30-40 bucks on a GP40 put two motors in, a decoder, speaker, and some weight, and only have spend $200 I'd be happy. Plus itd be a nice hands on project to prepare me for the kit bashed monster engines I hope to someday build.
Not really a good starter project.
1) Start small.
2) Go online.
3) Find several photos of one locomotive you wish to model (just a GP40 or GP38, nothing fancy here, not looking to shape the world).
4) Identify from photos the required detail parts (may require a trip to a well stocked hobby shop and lots of questions/searching on internet/Walthers catalog)
ex: (ditch lights or rotary beacon, brake lines, MU hoses and cables, bell(s), proper horn(s), pilot (footboard, snowplow), see through steps, see-through dynamic brake fans, see through winterization hatch if applicable, antennae, grab irons, the list goes on)
5) Find HO scale athearn RTR version of said model.
6) Compare RTR unit to photos
7)Purchase said unit.
8) Test run it.
9) Upgrade drive train as required, install DCC.
10) Test run it
11) Purchase required detail parts
12) Paint/install detail parts.
13) Repaint model as required
14) Weather model
15) Next project
Ok, I decided I'd like to do a SD40T-2 SNOOT, Athearn has an RTR version, some of the details I'll add will be snowplow, rotary beacon, MILW style Spark Arrestors, perhaps some Horst air filters, an Ashcan headlights, maybe change the squared off end of the long hood to the regular EMD hood end.
Paint them up in NWP SWP colors, yeah now we're getting somwhere!
NWP SWPPaint them up in NWP SWP colors, yeah now we're getting somwhere!
.
I can't wait to see pictures of your progress.
Please share in Weekend Photo Fun!
-Kevin
Living the dream.
maxmanHow do they look when viewed from the side? Building the layout higher is always an option.
Here are a pair of Proto Geeps:
And here are a GP9 and an GP9M:
The GP9M to the right is a Walters Trainline model. It also has a wide shell, just like the old Athearn. The GP9M series prototype was a re-build of original GP9 locomotives.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
riogrande5761Are you enjoying yourself there?
Russell
MisterBeasleyThe GP9M to the right is a Walters Trainline model. It also has a wide shell, just like the old Athearn. The GP9M series prototype was a re-build of original GP9 locomotives.
MisterBeasley,I repowered a Walthers GP9M with a Athearn GP7 drive so I could mu the GP9M with my GP7s.Worked quite well.
As I mention several times before I still enjoy switching cars with my favorite BB GP7 or (GASP!) or one of my two BB GP35. I still like my BB SW7s..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
MisterBeasley maxman How do they look when viewed from the side? Building the layout higher is always an option. Here are a pair of Proto Geeps: And here are a GP9 and an GP9M: The GP9M to the right is a Walters Trainline model. It also has a wide shell, just like the old Athearn. The GP9M series prototype was a re-build of original GP9 locomotives.
maxman
How do they look when viewed from the side? Building the layout higher is always an option.
maxmanWell, those aren't exactly side views; more like 3/4. But that's not relevent. The "complaint" was that the older Athearns had wider hoods. What I was sort of asking was how obvious this descrepancy was when the locos were viewed directly from the side.
My layout is packed for a move, so those are the only pictures I've got. I usually run the Protos as one consist and the wide-bodies as another. The old Athearn GP9 is now a sound dummy. I looked up Milwaukee's GP9M fleet and numbered the GP9 to be the same physical locomotive that was re-built to be my GP9M.
maxman The "complaint" was that the older Athearns had wider hoods. What I was sort of asking was how obvious this descrepancy was when the locos were viewed directly from the side.
About as obvious as Athearn and Roundhouse cars that is a foot to wide when compared to a scale width car.
You never hear about that complaint.
BRAKIEAbout as obvious as Athearn and Roundhouse cars that is a foot to wide when compared to a scale width car. You never hear about that complaint.
In the frieght car modelering groups I follow, it's mentioned often.
Rob Spangler
The Athearn GPs and SDs etc. weren't overwide because Athearn didn't know better; they were extra wide to clear the motors Athearn was using at the time (and note the old Athearn B&M 4-6-2 and 0-4-2T were also made oversized for the same reasons: the motors). I guess you could say Athearn didn't care enough to seek out motors that would have enabled the width to be scale. You can't love Athearn for keeping prices low and then bash them for making that kind of decision I guess, but it is a pity that some otherwise fairly decent tool and die work from the late 50s to late 60s is now so disdained over the width issue.
So to our OP: retro-fitting a scale width shell if you can find it (or a laboriously narrowed Athearn shell, and yes there were guys -- some called them Bondo boys -- who did that) onto an existing Athearn chassis won't work unless the chassis has been remotored (at some point Athearn changed motors on its own).
Not many folks noticed or objected to the over-wide Athearn bodies back when they were new and the best available option. The brass diesels of that era weren't beauty queens in terms of detail either, as old PFM ads on MR's back covers will show, so Athearn often won by default.
Me, I can live with the old Athearn width so long as old Athearn is coupled to old Athearn. After all I can live with a great many things, including convincing myself that my 40" minimum radius is a "wide" curve! That's the real joke.
But yes, once a scale width engine is added to the consist, the older Athearns look odd and wrong and funny no matter how nicely they have been detailed.
Dave Nelson
My plan was to remotor the units so a scale she'll conversion would work, correct?
NWP SWP My plan was to remotor the units so a scale she'll conversion would work, correct?
Will the Athearn frame, which was designed for a wide body, accept a scale width shell?
You might have to do more than just remotor.
7j43k NWP SWP My plan was to remotor the units so a scale she'll conversion would work, correct? Will the Athearn frame, which was designed for a wide body, accept a scale width shell? You might have to do more than just remotor.
I've messed around with fitting Athearn frames from the old wide body locos into scale width shells, back when we had no other options. The frame wraps around into the inside of the hood, so you'll have to do considerable machining (or filing/grinding depending on what kind of tools you have access to) to remove excess metal.
NWP SWP Ok, I decided I'd like to do a SD40T-2 SNOOT, Athearn has an RTR version, some of the details I'll add will be snowplow, rotary beacon, MILW style Spark Arrestors, perhaps some Horst air filters, an Ashcan headlights, maybe change the squared off end of the long hood to the regular EMD hood end. Paint them up in NWP SWP colors, yeah now we're getting somwhere! After following this thread for a while, I know you are free-lancing this SD40T-2 but what is the rationale behind it? Southern Pacific/Cotton Belt were the only rairoads to roster "snoots", in their 8300/8350 series. They all had snowplows but maybe the NWP/SWP has its own favorite "flavor". They all had Pyle Gyralights, both the white oscillating headlight and the red UDE light and SP/SSW did commit the act of vandalism by replacing them with stratolite 4way beacons. As far as I can tell, MILW style spark arrestors were only applied to NON-turbocharged units. As a matter of fact, the turbocharger is an excellent spark arrestor in itself so if this unit is getting MILW spark arrestors, does that mean the turbo 645 has been replaced with a Roots blown model thus dropping the horsepower from 3000 to 2000? Same for the Horst filters. Never seen any on units with a turbocharger. Now, there are de-turbo'ed GP-35s, GP-40s and SD-24s that possibly had them but the Horst filter seems to have gone way of the Gyralite, the MILW spark arrestor, the MILW, SP, SSW, and the 2-8-0. Add "ashcan"lights to the above list. They seem to be another SP/SSW idiosynchrancy that last appeared in the late 1950s. Finally we come to the end of the hood. The reason the tunnel motor hood was squared off was because the radiator compartment had pushed the rear walkway out beyond the rear pilot sheet. To convert the end of the hood to a vee shape would require further extending the walkway which, is acually more of a rear anti-climber already. That is why tunnel motors don't have rear drop steps. They are already at full extension. Of course if the unit has been derated to 2000 H.P. all of the cooling capacity of the original radiator configuration may not be needed and the rad compartment can be shortened, allowing for the "chisel" end. Or the whole radiator area rebuilt to the conventional SD type. Was this locomotive a wreck purchased from a scrapper? I just can't envision all of this work when the real SP 8302 was wrecked and scrapped around 4 years after delivery. Regardless of the story behind your unit, enjoy the build and please put up photos, in progress and complete.
dknelson Not many folks noticed or objected to the over-wide Athearn bodies back when they were new...
Not many folks noticed or objected to the over-wide Athearn bodies back when they were new...
I notice at age 14 and I'd hazard there were a lot who did as well.
Me, I can live with the old Athearn width so long as old Athearn is coupled to old Athearn. After all I can live with a great many things, including convincing myself that my 40" minimum radius is a "wide" curve! That's the real joke. Dave Nelson
Different strokes re: the wide body Athearns.
John Armstrong actually listed 30" curves in ho as wide. Obviously in the modeling world "wide" isn't the same as 1:1 scale and times have changed since John Armstrong wrote his book, but for most of the people on this forum without the luxury of an aircraft hanger, yeah, 40" is probably considered wide.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
riogrande5761 dknelson Not many folks noticed or objected to the over-wide Athearn bodies back when they were new... I notice at age 14 and I'd hazard there were a lot who did as well. Me, I can live with the old Athearn width so long as old Athearn is coupled to old Athearn. After all I can live with a great many things, including convincing myself that my 40" minimum radius is a "wide" curve! That's the real joke. Dave Nelson Different strokes re: the wide body Athearns. John Armstrong actually listed 30" curves in ho as wide. Obviously in the modeling world "wide" isn't the same as 1:1 scale and times have changed since John Armstrong wrote his book, but for most of the people on this forum without the luxury of an aircraft hanger, yeah, 40" is probably considered wide.
As Don Nelson stated, when you run two or more identical BB Wide bidy GP7s, SD9s or F7s together, the extra width is not noticable. When you mix in a Proto or a Genesis, or even a TYCO GP20, you can see the difference. The wide GP35, OTOH, never looked right. For that matter, neither did the SD 45 wide body.
Thirty inch curves are wide, when you consider what most folks have available for home layouts, 40" would be nice, but are overkill or at least a luxury. After all, we are talking about model railroads here. There are limits of scale.
Thirty years ago, Atlas and Stewart were relatively new "advanced" models, while Athearn was affordable, and better than Life Like or Bachmann, so we weren't so concerned. Now...it's a little different, but we have choices.
Boris
riogrande5761I notice at age 14 and I'd hazard there were a lot who did as well.
What was one to do for diesels? Buy brass coffee grinding diesels? Tyco? Mantua? Maybe Revelle or Varney? Buy Atlas which was produce by Athearn?
You could build a fleet of Hobbytown RS3 and RSD4/5s.
A lot of us knew it but,that was the better choice of diesels until Atlas/Roco,then Atlas/Kato and then later Life Like and release scale width hoods.
At the time I speak of (when I wrote that relatively few were bothered by the Athearn wide body of their "GP9") the Mantua/Tyco GP20 was in the future; I think it came out in 1962. The standard of comparison would have been, I suppose, the Lawrence all metal GP7 of the early to mid 1950s and the Hobbytown Alcos.
Well, there WAS the Gilbert DL-600. I don't think it was a wide-body. It didn't need to be, because the motor was a DC-70. And lit number boards, too!
BRAKIE Atlas/Roco
csxns BRAKIE Atlas/Roco The best of their time.
The best of their time.
Perhaps in running quality.
The AHM U25C had much better die work. And much worse guts.
I have a Hallmark brass GP-7 that is ancient, I do not know the exact age. It is a very poor runner.
The hood is just as wide any Athearn model.
Everybody likes to say "Athearn Wide Body", but obviously other manufacturer's, even early brass. had wide bodies also. Was this a necassary concesion in the early days of HO, and Athearn just kept it longer than anyone else?
wojosa31As Don Nelson stated, when you run two or more identical BB Wide bidy GP7s, SD9s or F7s together, the extra width is not noticable.
Here is why I disagree. The nose on the Athearn BB SD45, and other BB loco's was made fat to match the hood width, and the nose looked obviouslyfat to me - it was plainly visible even to a young teenager, but I had an eye for trains and saw the Southern Pacific SD45's regularly where I lived. So I couldn't not see the nose as out of scale. The hood width match it and also looked out of scale. I suppose it depends on how well you noticed features of real engines - I've had an eye for detail from a very early age so the fat nose and hoods of particular Athearn BB engines was clearly visible whether or not they were mu'd with other engines of scale hoods.
Thirty inch curves are wide, when you consider what most folks have available for home layouts, 40" would be nice, but are overkill or at least a luxury. After all, we are talking about model railroads here. There are limits of scale. Boris
Yes, for modeling purposes John Armstrong in his "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" book listed 18"R as sharp, 24"R as conventional and 30" as wide or broad curves. But remember his book was written some 40 years ago when standards were different. Some may argue with me but I read a lot of articles on layouts during the late 1970's thru the 1990's and observed the "standard" minimum radius of most moderate to large home layouts was 30"R. Based on my observations, I would update John Armstrongs nomenclature to 18"R very sharp, 24"R sharp, 30"R conventional, and broad could now be somewhere in the range of 36-40"R.
When I had space to build a layout, I've used 32"R as my minimum and my current draft for a layout is using that as well, but pushing curve radii into the 34-40"R range where ever possible.
As always, there are limits of scale and available space is key to that. I'd hazard that some novices could increase their curve radii if they could squeeze out a few more inches and avoid using the old 4x8 layout format.
riogrande5761The nose on the Athearn BB SD45, and other BB loco's was made fat to match the hood width, and the nose looked obviouslyfat to me - it was plainly visible even to a young teenager, but I had an eye for trains and saw the Southern Pacific SD45's regularly where I lived.
I grew up in Florida where I rarely saw real trains, and would never have seen an SD40 or SD45 in real life.
I thought the Athearn model of the SD45 looked great.
I can nit-pick a model of a Peterbilt 379 all day long, because I know the prototype inside and out like I know my own house. I know where every hose and line is supposed to go and what it is there for. I know the options, and all the details.
Trains I only know by the models.
riogrande5761As always, there are limits of scale and available space is key to that. I'd hazard that some novices could increase their curve radii if they could squeeze out a few more inches and avoid using the old 4x8 layout format.
Jim,The 4x8 is a standard layout size for many season modelers that doesn't have a basement,special building or spare bedroom..The finish basement is usually shared with other family members thus a 4x8 is used..A wise 4x8 layout designer will use 22" curves.
Of course the popularity growth of ISLs may end the season modelers use of 4x8s. Only time will tell.
BTW Athearn used the wide Jet 400 and 500 motor well into the 70s.
SeeYou190 I grew up in Florida where I rarely saw real trains, and would never have seen an SD40 or SD45 in real life. I thought the Athearn model of the SD45 looked great I can nit-pick a model of a Peterbilt 379 all day long, because I know the prototype inside and out like I know my own house. -Kevin
I thought the Athearn model of the SD45 looked great
I can nit-pick a model of a Peterbilt 379 all day long, because I know the prototype inside and out like I know my own house.
So you should be able to understand why many modelers might not be satisfied with the BB Athearn SD45 based on your knowledge/experience with tractor trucks, or your specific example. Of course you only need to please yourself but be sympathetic to train modelers who have a passion for trains like you do for tractor trucks.
BRAKIE Jim,The 4x8 is a standard layout size for many season modelers that doesn't have a basement,special building or spare bedroom..
Jim,The 4x8 is a standard layout size for many season modelers that doesn't have a basement,special building or spare bedroom..
Larry, I've heard that argument before but my rebuttal is still the same as in the past: Very often you can fit a slightly larger format in a space where traditionally a 4x8 is used; result - break free of the 18 and 22 inch curves.
By way of example, add on 8 inches width and you would be able to increase radius to have a two track oval with 23" inner and 25.5" outer radius's. This would allow some longer rolling stock to function more gracefully.
I would argue that in many spaces where a modeler might go with a 4x8 sheet of plywood layout, they could fit a slightly larger foot print - say 56" W x 96" L size. Of course if only a 4x8 will fit, that can't be helped; but likely in many cases slightly bigger will work.