Well, here's another issue that I cannot un-see:
The Walthers Proto PA-1 does a better job to my eyes of modeling the frame around the outside of the cab windows but underneath the trim strip that comes up and over the front of the cab.
It's clearly visible in the photo shown of the SP units above, and that detail looks ok.
Rapido did a 3D scan of the restored "NKP" former ATSF unit. That unit appears based on photos I've seen to NOT match the other PA's from years ago. Rapido's model seems to match the restored unit. The "before" photos reveal the PA's to have been pretty badly mangled prior to restoration.
So a prospective buyer has a choice:
Have the window frames (or perhaps better explained as the flat area around the outside of the openings) looking more like the prototypes looked years ago, but put up with the too-far-inset windshield.
OR
Have better looking front windows but with what appears to be window exterior metal work that only matches the restored NKP unit.
I personally would order the Walthers Proto units. Others might choose differently.
I will credit the Rapido PA for getting me more interested in modeling or attempting to model passenger trains, and as a result of some of the issues with the Rapido PA, I have decided that I really prefer the E and F units more than Alco PA's.
I am getting one of the Rapido Amtrak special edition E-8's (when my local store's order from the distributor gets big enough for free shipping) and I have two of the Rapido/Heartland special edition late PRR E-8's pre-ordered. All three of these units will not have the incorrectly modeled by Rapido portholes, so I will avoid that issue (which people on other forums are indeed making a big deal out of--because Rapido was notified and chose not to fix it).
John
I know I have complained about the apparent "thickness" of the windshield windows of the Rapido PA. It was explained this was necessary to make the windows flush with the frame. I have to admit that Rapido's solution is far superior to that offered by the Walthers PAs ("newly-tooled") for the COSF where the window glass is now a scale foot too far into the window opening. A picture is worth a thousand words - see below. I should add, the MSRP for the Rapido and the Walthers units is comparable.
On this club layout with generous curves, they certainly look impressive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVmQNK2wnAc
These are stock models, just with window shades added in the cab and a bit of weathering. Looking at my own PA/PB set, there is a gap of less than 1 mm between the diaphragms of the A and B unit on straight track. In the video (3 ft rule), this is barely noticable. The only thing I still do not like are the windshield windows (go to 3:38 in the video). They look like inch-thick windows in high-security trucks. But that is a truly minor complaint. Well done, Rapido.
Well, it has been a few weeks for me, and I've gotten some break-in time on my one NKP unit, and it is a bit of a growler. It seems like the wheelsets in the trucks just make a lot of noise while rotating. It hasn't really gotten quieter. I don't think it is a gear issue because the noises are not constant but intermittent, and if it was a gear issue it would be all the time. I have lubricated the axle bearings and that did not seem to help at all.
Since this purchase I have received a Walthers Proto CB&Q E-9A, a Walthers Proto ATSF F-7A, and a BLI PRR E-8A (Paragon 3, 2018 production). All three units run quieter than the Rapido PA-1 unit that I have, and they did so pretty much right out of the box without my needing to do anything to them.
Well, I finally got my units. I got both an AB set and a single A. I took them to be certified to run on the museum layout (Colorado Model Railroad Musuem) last Saturday (10/1) and took them on a maiden run. The detail on the units is really good. Indeed they have road specific items. Mine are painted Santa Fe with the details as they appear to been in the early 1960s.
The drive is smooth, silky, and quiet. Despite that, the front truck on each unit is loose and wobbles on the track. One A unit is so bad that the whole locomotive duck walks down the track. I've contacted the vendor to get a replacement or a refund.
The finish is good except each A unit has a tiny "mark" in the paint on the nose. I assume it is where some machine picks up the unit during the assembly process. One of the units also has some variances on the yellow nose decal where it looks like it did not properly integrate into the base paint. Fortunately this is the same unit that wobbles, so a replacement will kill both issues with one transaction.
The units have ESU sound, so operating them will take some getting used to, or I'll have to reprogram them to move functions to match what most other vendors use.
Over all I like them. I will use them to pull my heavy weight California Limited, and a very long San Francisco Chief, but I am questioning if the great detail is worth the price. I do not know if I would purchase them again. Could get a lot of other stuff for the same $.
Waiting on the main at Quartz Mountain.
A panned shot approaching Sprague.
If you are not happy with the Rapido PA/PB and/or prefer brass, Jack Vansworth of Division Point announced in his latest newsletter that the Alco PA/PB project is "back on the table". Estimated retail price (gulp) $2,700 A/B (and that is for DC).
I'm definately in agreement with the "canopy glue" option. I rarely use anything else - it can't be beat for its combination of strength and forgiviness.
mvlandswCA could be used to fill the gap around the number boards.
I've been using several types of PVA "canopy cement" for many tasks that I formerly would have used CA or "super-glue".
There are times when CA is the right choice but I've had much more success with the PVA. One of my favorites is the Faller Expert Laser cement.
The one in the middle here:
Glue_bottle by Edmund, on Flickr
It is thin enough that it will flow into the gap yet if any gets on the paint surface a slightly dampened lint free cloth will wipe it away. It can be removed after it sets using a toothpick or other semi-rigid scraper. I've had some bad cases of CA fogging the surrounding area and in a prominant spot like these number boards I wouldn't want to risk that.
Being a long-time NYC modeler I have lots of various grays on hand. Touch-up souldn't be a problem.
Thanks for the suggestion. Presently I have the shell removed so I might just have a go at it
Regards, Ed
CA could be used to fill the gap around the number boards. Apply small drops with a very fine wire. I've done that to fill the gap around the dome on a resin tank car kit.
Matching touch up paint can be had by rubbing a paint brush with some MEK or lacquer thinner on a hidden painted area of the shell.
Yes, the glaring gap around the ill-fitting nose numberboard...well, I saw it right away, and that combined with other issues, some discussed in the last several pages, and others perhaps not, is specifically why I have not been able to bring myself to buy more PA-1's. Some things just cannot be unseen.
gmpullmanIdeally I could find an HO scale caulking gun.
Maybe a survey is in order... How much would you pay for an HO scale caulking gun? I have wished for one so many times.
DoughlessI certainly did not want to suggest anything negative about anybody else's choices.
Having 22" radius curves was a tough choice. To fit everything else into the available space... and have a 3 track U-turn at one end of the layout, the inner track had to drop to 22" on the curve.
Figuring out what I needed to have, and the compromises to achieve that, was a hard process.
If my budget was extravagent, I could have done anything, but I am trying so hard not to ever have a real job again.
DoughlessI suppose if you want to have a 2-10-0 too, its not something that you just buy casually and expect it to work correctly.
That is very true.
Furtunately I finally found one of those "Unicorn Rare" IHC 2-10-2 locomotives in undecorated. It will run through a 22" radius S curve as smooth as can be.
-Photograph by Kevin Parson
Every locomotive I buy is a dice-roll.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
SeeYou190I guess that is true. Since I have conceded to 22" radius hidden curves I should just stick to what works. I had to removed detail from a few things for them to work on layout #5. -Kevin
I certainly did not want to suggest anything negative about anybody else's choices. I was recounting the days that I would spend knocking my head against a wall trying to fix something, then realizing that what I was trying to do was something that inherently was challenging in the first place.
Seems like a person has to plan to have a PA more than other types of locos. I suppose if you want to have a 2-10-0 too, its not something that you just buy casually and expect it to work correctly. I would never have thought any diesel locomotive would have to be thought about like that too.
- Douglas
Overmod Ed, could Archer 'weld decals' provide the required fillet for the visible areas of the numberboards?
Ed, could Archer 'weld decals' provide the required fillet for the visible areas of the numberboards?
If there were some kind of backing in the gap that might work. Ideally I could find an HO scale caulking gun and a perfectly-matched color to "caulk" the gap. Squadron Green or equivalent would be too messy and I'm afraid a total repaint would be in order after attempting something like that.
NYC_PA-4203-number by Edmund, on Flickr
I'm sure with the passage of time I'll grow to ignore it. In the meantime, Photoshop works
NYC_PA-4203-number-edit by Edmund, on Flickr
Here's a look at a former Santa Fe PA and how the numberboard feathers into the contour of the nose:
Profile in Elegance: D&H PA-1 #16 at Hagerstown Yards, February 5, 1972 by Steve Baldwin, on Flickr
Kevin--
No worries. Thank you.
I do think this discussion got more interesting here as of late.
Doughless Doing less (aka keeping it simple) increases the quality of time spent, IMO.
Doing less (aka keeping it simple) increases the quality of time spent, IMO.
And while I may be doing more than some, I am doing a LOT less than many would try to do in a space of my size.
A freight yard with 8 tracks 22' long is no more complex than one 12' long, but it is only half as complex as insisting on having 12' long yards at both ends of the mainline.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Doughless All of this talk about a high fidelity model not being able to negotiate a typical model railroad curve takes me to the thought of a marriage destined for failure from the beginning. I had a 50 foot boxcar with complex underbody rigging that prevented it from negotiating a 24 inch radius curve. While I blamed the manufacturer, in the end, what business do I have trying to marry the ideas of high fidelity models with low fidelity curves? As someone mentioned, how many people who buy these models have actually run them yet? Plan to?,Yes. Have done it?, Hmmm. Maybe we simply need to realize that more prototypically accurate models require more prototypically accurate curves. In one way or another I think I have been saying this for years....... And then listening to all those who think I'm an arrogant snob rubbing their face the fact that I have 1000 sq ft (the old layout space) or 1500 sq ft (the new layout space) for my layout. Which of course is not the case at all. I have friends and acquaintances in this hobby with much larger layouts then mine, and much smaller layouts than mine. But the hard cold facts of physics suggest that the greatest satisfaction in this hobby comes from building a layout that actually works, no matter its size or complexity. The great Paul Mallery lobbied for 48" curves as the recommended minimum for modeling Class I railroads - the modular guys took his advice. Even my 36" minimum pales a little against that standard. And it is for that reason that even I restrict the length of rigid wheelbase steam locos I run, and I avoid 85' streamlined passenger cars, and I minimize the use of 80' heavyweights in favor of mostly shorter heavyweight cars (some selectively compressed, some not). This allows me to reliably close couple cars and locos with working diaphragms. My 36" minimum radius in areas were all locos and passneger cars might travel translates into many curves being in the 38" to 42" range and larger as an effect of the double track mainline and concentric curves for yard leads, branch routes and sidings. Even I had to compromise from and original attempt to stay at 48" radius. I kept the new layout as simple as possible to meet the stated goals, with 30" curves I could have packed in twice as much "complexity" and features. Sheldon
Doughless All of this talk about a high fidelity model not being able to negotiate a typical model railroad curve takes me to the thought of a marriage destined for failure from the beginning. I had a 50 foot boxcar with complex underbody rigging that prevented it from negotiating a 24 inch radius curve. While I blamed the manufacturer, in the end, what business do I have trying to marry the ideas of high fidelity models with low fidelity curves? As someone mentioned, how many people who buy these models have actually run them yet? Plan to?,Yes. Have done it?, Hmmm. Maybe we simply need to realize that more prototypically accurate models require more prototypically accurate curves.
All of this talk about a high fidelity model not being able to negotiate a typical model railroad curve takes me to the thought of a marriage destined for failure from the beginning.
I had a 50 foot boxcar with complex underbody rigging that prevented it from negotiating a 24 inch radius curve. While I blamed the manufacturer, in the end, what business do I have trying to marry the ideas of high fidelity models with low fidelity curves?
As someone mentioned, how many people who buy these models have actually run them yet? Plan to?,Yes. Have done it?, Hmmm.
Maybe we simply need to realize that more prototypically accurate models require more prototypically accurate curves.
In one way or another I think I have been saying this for years.......
And then listening to all those who think I'm an arrogant snob rubbing their face the fact that I have 1000 sq ft (the old layout space) or 1500 sq ft (the new layout space) for my layout.
Which of course is not the case at all. I have friends and acquaintances in this hobby with much larger layouts then mine, and much smaller layouts than mine.
But the hard cold facts of physics suggest that the greatest satisfaction in this hobby comes from building a layout that actually works, no matter its size or complexity.
The great Paul Mallery lobbied for 48" curves as the recommended minimum for modeling Class I railroads - the modular guys took his advice.
Even my 36" minimum pales a little against that standard. And it is for that reason that even I restrict the length of rigid wheelbase steam locos I run, and I avoid 85' streamlined passenger cars, and I minimize the use of 80' heavyweights in favor of mostly shorter heavyweight cars (some selectively compressed, some not).
This allows me to reliably close couple cars and locos with working diaphragms.
My 36" minimum radius in areas were all locos and passneger cars might travel translates into many curves being in the 38" to 42" range and larger as an effect of the double track mainline and concentric curves for yard leads, branch routes and sidings.
Even I had to compromise from and original attempt to stay at 48" radius.
I kept the new layout as simple as possible to meet the stated goals, with 30" curves I could have packed in twice as much "complexity" and features.
Yes you have. You came to mind as I was typing it.
As I have mentioned in the recent past. I am done with spending time fiddling with stuff that doesn't work. Repositioning brake cylinders is no big deal, but trying to get a long fixed wheel based high-fidelity model to negotiate a curve that is far sharper than the prototype seems similar to someone choosing to sail against strong prevailing headwinds. Do you really want to work that hard? Its a hobby.
You compromised some fidelity in your passenger ops by using/making cars that are shorter. Still, you have to have broader than common curves also to make things work "correctly" (according to your standards).
I like modern railroading in a switching type of atmosphere. IMO, modern times tend to have longer cuts of similar cars. Because of the longer cuts but inherently sharp curves on our layouts, I make it work by trying to limit the predominate cars on my layout to 40 foot Corn Syrup/Molasses tank cars and two bay cement hoppers. These short cars still look better when I use #8 frogged turnouts.
I have generous space for that now. But I have learned that when/if we move to a place that has smaller layout space, I will keep the same principals by doing less. Things will have to look correct and working correctly without spending my hobby/retirement time fiddling with stuff that is inherently challenging to pull off.
PRR8259Well, perhaps we strayed after answering the question a couple pages back. However, discussion of how to fix trackwork to get the PA-1's (and other related passenger stuff) to operate well also has some merit. Sorry didn't bother to create another topic.
Nothing was directed at you, sorry if it sounded that way.
I started a new thread from a comment in this one, and it did not go well at all.
OvermodEd, could Archer 'weld decals' provide the required fillet for the visible areas of the numberboards?
I doubt that will work. No decal setting solution, even Daco Strong, works to soften the 3D effect of Archer decals. These work great on flat surfaces, but do not fill gaps.
DoughlessMaybe we simply need to realize that more prototypically accurate models require more prototypically accurate curves.
I guess that is true. Since I have conceded to 22" radius hidden curves I should just stick to what works.
I had to removed detail from a few things for them to work on layout #5.
One approach I've seen described is to hog out the vertical bearing slots for the middle axle in these passenger trucks with one-piece sideframes, allowing the wheel to 'float' vertically and laterally without being able to twist relative to the gauge. This could then have a contact spring defining the 'downforce' on that axle, which would double as an effective non-powered-axle electrical pickup.
This might well be a solution applicable to a leading or trailing axle in a truck -- remove the drive-gear train to make that axle an 'idler' and position the contact downforce springs so they work 'around' the axle gear if you leave the disconnected wheel set intact. Something for at least consideration is whether stability for one of these trucks with lead or trailing axle removed or floating would be improved if the physical pivot point were moved inside the new 'effective wheelbase'.
PRR8259New Rapido PA-1 owners, are you happy with your new acquisitions?
So far — still am
Had to have two more in two-tone grey.
PA_NYC-broadside by Edmund, on Flickr
PA_NYC-Pacemaker by Edmund, on Flickr
IF there is a critical point to these, for me, it would be the fitting of the small numberboard to the contour of the nose. I would have much prefered to see a nice radius fillet around the numberboard/class light housing. Minus a quarter of a star. They did a great job with the fit of the large 45° housing.
PA_NYC-old-cab-pass by Edmund, on Flickr
All the talk about PAs prompted me to round a few up for a family portrait:
PA_Roundhouse-lineup-3 by Edmund, on Flickr
PA_Roundhouse-lineup-2 by Edmund, on Flickr
PA_Roundhouse-lineup by Edmund, on Flickr
None of these engines give me any tracking troubles even on superelevated curves. Just lucky, I guess. I did have a couple of the hi-current draw Protos but since weeded them out.
I just sent an order in for some Scale Sound Systems speakers. Rapido likes to use the I-phone type and I'm not convinced they're all that great. I've had excellent results with SSS speakers.
An idea that I have never tried but it seems like it might make 3 axle trucks more reliable is to remove the wheels from the center axles. The axle would have to remain in place for the gearing.
I don't think the absence of the wheels behind the sideframes would be very noticable under most viewing situations. A dummy half wheel without a flange could be glued to the back of the sideframe to ride slightly above the rail to fill the space.
Removing the lead or trailing wheels might work also. I have seen the lead axle of a 3 axle truck derail but the engine continued on for 20 feet until a switch was encountered.
Well, perhaps we strayed after answering the question a couple pages back.
However, discussion of how to fix trackwork to get the PA-1's (and other related passenger stuff) to operate well also has some merit. Sorry didn't bother to create another topic.
Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good:
My father aged rather quickly at the end. He left lots of tools here because he was always doing stuff on our house. The tools still remain reminding me of him...which is certainly thought provoking as trains run in the basement.
High track joint--gave one rail a few gentle kisses with Dad's hammer (er, persuader). Fixed one curve.
Used Atlas track nails to actually lower the inside of a couple pieces of curved and superelevated Kato unitrack, effectively increasing the superelevation as well as the rate of change of superelevation. Fixed another curve.
Used just one set of Kadee coupler instructions as a shim piece under Unitrack to raise one side of rail that looked low at a reverse curve. Glued in place with canopy glue (it was handy) so that cat cannot remove the shim (he's tried before). Fixed third curve.
Still can only run one direction through the one curve, but can now attain serious toy train speed levels with the Rapido PA-1 in plain dc pulling the token BLI PRR P-70 coach all the way around the layout.
Better lucky than good.
maxmanSeems we strayed from the original question.
Yeah, like five pages ago.
Seems we strayed from the original question.
SeeYou190 My Athearn PAs can snake through a 22" radius S curve, forward and reverse, with no problems at all. -Kevin
My Athearn PAs can snake through a 22" radius S curve, forward and reverse, with no problems at all.
A simple result of a very simple design, one piece side frames, minimal detail on the trucks, lots of side play, and truck mounted couplers.
For its time, and the nature of the hobby at that time, it was a great model. A model that would be impossible to sell in numbers today.
Having also worked retail in this hobby, and having been involved in it for over 50 years now, there as definitely been a shift in that percentage. In the 70's I would have said, 25% collectors/accumulators. 25% very serious scale modelers, 50% casual modelers with small to medium sized layouts.
Today, I think the collector/accumulators are easily 40% with the other two groups evenly dividing the rest of the market.
And I think region effects these numbers, because of a complex number of factors.
In the northeast and upper Midwest, houses have basements. Nearly free large layout spaces. These areas also have generally high incomes and education levels and dense populations. You are going to find more serious modelers with medium to large layouts.
You have to have more resources to have a big layout in Florida or Southern California, simply based on housing types and costs.
One other thought, it is a chicken and egg effect. As the RTR models improved, it was more attractive to those with means but little time or skills, to be interested in this hobby. That meant good sales for Proto2000, Spectrum, BLI, MTH, Rapido. Which meant more and better models, etc.
Personally, I have my whole layout plan and concept in my head and on paper. However slow, and with a few redirects caused by life, every step I take,every purchase I make, is another small piece of that puzzle.
It is starting to come together now, more layout progress updates soon.