Yes, they probably mad new tooling - although dependign ont he exact shape of the feature being replciated, it can be possible to modify the old tooling to change said feature, instead of creating all new tooling. But of course you can't go back. No idea of this is what Walthers did or not, it's been a long time since I worked in a machine shop, and I never worked with injection molding tooling, so no idea, even if I looked at it.
But, this is pretty much exactly what I said, all the previous releases were the originals, with the windows, no plating. Maybe some of the lettering or paint schemes were wrong and should have had some windows plated over, but 100% accuracy is another story. Those later ones represent those units later in life, once the windows were plated over. Again there's always the issue of, are the numbers and the paint scheme correct for a unit that, at some point, had the windows plated over? Manufacturers have been getting a lot better at getting such details correct these days.
There's really no great mystery. One of the rules is that if a piece of equipment is on the locomotive or car, it must be maintained to applicable standards - which is why steam generators were often removed from diesels once passenger service ceased. If the boiler equipment was on the loco, then it had to be inspected and maintained per FRA rules, even if it wasn;t being used. So for a unit now used exclusively for freight service, it was an unecessary expense. Even before special glass was mandated, there most likely were rules related to maintaining the windows on the carbody locos. Fewer windows = less maintenance time. ANd once the safety glass was mandated - far less expensive to weld a piece of sheet metal over the window than to buy and install the proper glass.
The model makers are just offering as accurate a model as they can, balanced against cost of tooling - it's why specific steam locos are still less common in plastic, you can't just make a single model and slap a dozen road names on it, each one was different, usually. Diesels, many of the differences were internal, and things that did differ by railroad, like the type of horn, or the type of radio antenna, are easily swapped detail parts, allowing one set of tooling to be used to make accurate models for many railroads.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Randy, those are valid observations, but what I find interesting is to see a roster of E7 locomotives, for example, from the same manufacturer under the same road name, some with window openings and some with window openings plated over.
I will give you this example, a C&NW E7A diesel locomotive first produced by Life Like and later carried on by Walthers Proto following its acquisition of Life Like.
Life Like produced two C&NW E7A locomotives, both with 5 rectangular windows on each side of the locomotive. Following the acquistion of Life Like, Walthers Proto reissued those same two locomotives with the same two road numbers and included the 5 rectangular windows on each side of the locomotive. Walthers probably used the Life Like molds for this purpose.
A few years later, Walthers Proto produced four new C&NW E7A locomotives with four different road numbers. These four locomotives once again included 5 rectangular windows on each side of the locomotive.
Subsequently, Walthers Proto produced two more series of E7A diesel locomotives a few years apart. Each series consisted of three locomotives, all with different road numbers, and none of these six locomotives had the windows. Instead, the window openings were there, but plated over and painted to match the yellow portion of the locomotive.
My conclusion is that either a new mold was used or, more likely, these locomotives had window openings plated over to reflect the FRA requirement mentioned earlier in this thread.
Any other opinions about this change?
Rich
Alton Junction
richhotrain gmpullman One of the reasons for elimination of the portholes in later years (mid-1970s) was the FRA requirement to have extremely break resistant "ballistic" glazing on locomotives. Rather than make the modification, it was cheaper to simply plate them over, same with windows on cabooses. Just came across this older thread, and I find it to be an interesting discussion. Walthers Proto, and its predecessor Life-Like, produced a somewhat lengthy roster of EMD E7 units. Some had a series of square windows, while others had the window openings plated over, apparently to comply with the FRA requirement. I just find it interesting to see a roster of E7 locomotives with the same roadname by the same manufacturer, some with windows and some with window openings plated over. Rich
gmpullman One of the reasons for elimination of the portholes in later years (mid-1970s) was the FRA requirement to have extremely break resistant "ballistic" glazing on locomotives. Rather than make the modification, it was cheaper to simply plate them over, same with windows on cabooses.
One of the reasons for elimination of the portholes in later years (mid-1970s) was the FRA requirement to have extremely break resistant "ballistic" glazing on locomotives. Rather than make the modification, it was cheaper to simply plate them over, same with windows on cabooses.
Just came across this older thread, and I find it to be an interesting discussion.
Walthers Proto, and its predecessor Life-Like, produced a somewhat lengthy roster of EMD E7 units. Some had a series of square windows, while others had the window openings plated over, apparently to comply with the FRA requirement.
I just find it interesting to see a roster of E7 locomotives with the same roadname by the same manufacturer, some with windows and some with window openings plated over.
Many of the difference are one of two things:
A: Don't care - lesser manufacturers don't worry about prototype specific details and just make them all the same and slap all the road names on the same mold.
B: Modeling the same loco but at different points in its life. One manufacturer might be building the loco as delivered, antoerh might be doign the same loco but years later after some appliances were changed, the paint scheme changed, and other things were updated. or maybe the loco from one manufacturer represents that model loocmotive as aquired by that railroad, and the release by another manufacturer (with a different road number) represents the same type that was originally aquired by a different railroad which has now merged witht he first railroad, or where the first railroad bought additional of that type from another railroad who didn't need/want them any more. Unless there was a rule requiring a specific change, it's unlikely the aquiring road would do more than paint and letter the 'new' purchases, and if they are truly the same type, probably just use the next available number in sequence.
tstageFTs had four concentrated in the middle area. The F2s had three that were evenly spaced. The F3s/F7s/F9s had only 2 near the ladders; the middle porthole apparently replaced by square openings covered with metal screening.
Since we're picking nits in this thread, I'd point out that the early-phase F3s used the same body as the F2, so had three evenly spaced windows. By the later stages of F3 production, they had changed to having two windows like the F7 would have.
Rich, just sent you a PM.
Mike.
My You Tube
No Stix every single one of those FT Booster units I cited was built with the 5th porthole. You should have said that 37.5 percent of FT Booster units were built with the 5th porthole and that the 5th porthole was added to additional units when they were undrawbarred during rebuilding. There are a number of EMD as-built drawings that show the 5th porthole as original equipment. I got mine from Preston Cook! Don't cite books, cite primary source documents.
wjstix SSW9389 wjstix By the way, only a relative few FT B-units had the fifth porthole on one side for hostler controls. FTs were designed to run in A-B or A-A sets with a drawbar between them. The original design didn't even include doors between the A and B units. Only railroads like ATSF that later got FT B-units with the EMD's makeshift coupler replacing the drawbar would have need of hostler controls. This isn't a true statement. EMD's FT booster units with the 5th porthole could be found on the ATSF 165 units, Southern 22 units, D&RGW 6 units, MP 6 units and SSW 4. units. By my count there were 203 FT boosters with the 5th porthole for hostler use. Cotton Belt rebuilt their six drawbar FT booster units with a 5th porthole in 1955-56 at their Pine Bluff Shops. The calculation is 203 5th porthole booster units out of 541 FT boosters built or 37.5%. Perhaps I should have said "very few FT B units were delivered with the hostler's fifth porthole"...?? I suspect many of those you note were added later. But as Winston Churchill said, "In the course of my life, I have often had to eat my words, and I must confess that I have always found it a wholesome diet."
SSW9389 wjstix By the way, only a relative few FT B-units had the fifth porthole on one side for hostler controls. FTs were designed to run in A-B or A-A sets with a drawbar between them. The original design didn't even include doors between the A and B units. Only railroads like ATSF that later got FT B-units with the EMD's makeshift coupler replacing the drawbar would have need of hostler controls. This isn't a true statement. EMD's FT booster units with the 5th porthole could be found on the ATSF 165 units, Southern 22 units, D&RGW 6 units, MP 6 units and SSW 4. units. By my count there were 203 FT boosters with the 5th porthole for hostler use. Cotton Belt rebuilt their six drawbar FT booster units with a 5th porthole in 1955-56 at their Pine Bluff Shops. The calculation is 203 5th porthole booster units out of 541 FT boosters built or 37.5%.
wjstix By the way, only a relative few FT B-units had the fifth porthole on one side for hostler controls. FTs were designed to run in A-B or A-A sets with a drawbar between them. The original design didn't even include doors between the A and B units. Only railroads like ATSF that later got FT B-units with the EMD's makeshift coupler replacing the drawbar would have need of hostler controls.
By the way, only a relative few FT B-units had the fifth porthole on one side for hostler controls. FTs were designed to run in A-B or A-A sets with a drawbar between them. The original design didn't even include doors between the A and B units. Only railroads like ATSF that later got FT B-units with the EMD's makeshift coupler replacing the drawbar would have need of hostler controls.
This isn't a true statement. EMD's FT booster units with the 5th porthole could be found on the ATSF 165 units, Southern 22 units, D&RGW 6 units, MP 6 units and SSW 4. units. By my count there were 203 FT boosters with the 5th porthole for hostler use. Cotton Belt rebuilt their six drawbar FT booster units with a 5th porthole in 1955-56 at their Pine Bluff Shops. The calculation is 203 5th porthole booster units out of 541 FT boosters built or 37.5%.
ATSFGuy And UFO's had them as well.
And UFO's had them as well.
As with the Buicks they copied, they were designed for venting hot air.
Thus they were not really portholes.
Ed
I thought portholes were for ships?
They predate even ships, at least ships that travel the ocean.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
azrailAnd before that ...Buicks (although they call them ventiports)
"before"????
Ventiports: 1949
portholes on EMD FT's: 1939
portholes on KcKeen gas-electrics: 1905
tstage Thanks, Stix. I noted yesterday that only one of the 4 portholes of an FT had hinges: First porthole on a A-unit; last porthole on a B-unit. All the remaining windows were fixed. On a F2 the middle porthole was the only one hinged. Tom
Thanks, Stix. I noted yesterday that only one of the 4 portholes of an FT had hinges: First porthole on a A-unit; last porthole on a B-unit. All the remaining windows were fixed. On a F2 the middle porthole was the only one hinged.
Tom
Round portholes were used on trains and ships.
I even saw some on beach houses in Newport CA.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
McKeen motorcars - self-propelled steel railcars of the 1910's-20's - had portholes instead of regular windows. It could be when EMC started making diesels in the 1930's they were influenced by that. Or it could just be stylistic, I think round portholes were considered "modern looking" in the design styling of the period.
I believe later F units had the hostler controls (if included) near one of the existing portholes near one end of the unit - perhaps a reason later EMD units had three spread-out portholes rather than four close together like the FT?
I would have guessed that it was both a commonality of parts as well as not having to create new tooling when port holes were proven to work under extreme conditions.
__________________________________________________________________
Mike Kieran
Port Able Railway
I just do what the majority of the voices in my head vote on.
The polarizing "porthole" windows I recall were on the COPPER KING, of UP's City of Los Angeles.
ACYI would be curious to know how many of these porthole windows were fixed in place, and how many could be opened.
Tom,
I seem to recall one of Pennsy's "Blue Ribbon Fleet" cars, possibly the diner-lounges for the Trailblazer, had several round windows that used polarized glass. A twist of a knob and the light passing through could be varied as any photographer with a polarizing filter has experienced.
I agree with your observation that Loewy was enamored with those curves. It even shows up on the "Fleet Of Modernism" painting style. Loewy signed his first retainer with PRR on 4/4/1935.
Regards, Ed
The PRR employed Raymond Loewy as an industrial designer in the 1930's, and that relationship continued into the 1940's. I'm not sure of the exact timeline, but I think Loewy was designing portholes in PRR passenger cars in the 1930's. The road continued to install portholes through the 1940's, and I think Loewy was the reason. You could see portholes on PRR work cars, N5c cabin cars, baggage car doors, and even tender doghouses. Loewy designed the streamlining of the T1 Duplexes, to include small portholes which seemed to be decorative rather than functional. The PRR's freight locos of classes J1, Q1, and Q2 also had side windows that had a half-round leading edge, and I have always believed this was just one more bit of evidence that Loewy had a "thing" for portholes.
B&O put portholes in the ends of their I-5b (later I-5ba) wagon top bay window cabooses C2502-C2507 in 1936-40, but used square windows in the original I-5a C2501 and the later production model I-12's C2400-C2499 and C2800-C2824.
I am assuming the EMD designers were influenced by these Loewy designs when they designed portholes into the FT's.
I believe MoPac specified porthole windows in some of their E6's, and maybe E7's, but the memory isn't what it used to be. Maybe somebody can answer that.
After WWII, Loewy was employed by F-M to design the carbodies for their hood units. The original Loewy carbody design for the H15-44 and early H16-44 had a cab side window that was rounded on both ends, much like an elongated porthole. The H20-44 was rounded on the front, much like the PRR cabs I mentioned above.
I would be curious to know how many of these porthole windows were fixed in place, and how many could be opened.
I do remember the plane--the de Havilland Comet.
The portholes on the E's and F's were not really stressed. Consider that almost all steel cabeese had square windows in their STRESSED skin.
Don't know if this factored in or not but portholes handle stress better than square windows. There was a British airplane that crashed and they found that the square windows factored in greatly leading to the plane breaking apart. Maybe someone else remembers it as well.
7j43k JWhite The Illinois Central changed the square windows to porthole windows on two of their E6s in the 1950s. I can't imagine they did that simply for the stylish looks so there must have been some advantage to them. Jeff White Alma, IL I CAN imagine they did it for "stylish looks", especially if they thought they'd look more like the latest models. Doesn't mean they did, but they could have. So, what advantage was there in doing it? Perhaps commonality of parts? Portholes leaked railwater less? Ed
JWhite The Illinois Central changed the square windows to porthole windows on two of their E6s in the 1950s. I can't imagine they did that simply for the stylish looks so there must have been some advantage to them. Jeff White Alma, IL
The Illinois Central changed the square windows to porthole windows on two of their E6s in the 1950s. I can't imagine they did that simply for the stylish looks so there must have been some advantage to them.
Jeff White
Alma, IL
I CAN imagine they did it for "stylish looks", especially if they thought they'd look more like the latest models. Doesn't mean they did, but they could have.
So, what advantage was there in doing it? Perhaps commonality of parts? Portholes leaked railwater less?
Ed I have photos of 4001 and 4003 (both E6s, the IC originally bought 4 E6s) with porthole windows. I have never seen a photograpgh of any of the E7s they bought with portholes instead of the square windows. You're right though it' could be someone thought they looked better with portholes.
chutton01 This thread titled "Why Portholes", on a different forum, has some interesting discussion and history.The thread does point out other manufacturers (ALCO) and types of equipment had portholes (such as the famous PPR N5c caboose...er, cabin car).
This thread titled "Why Portholes", on a different forum, has some interesting discussion and history.The thread does point out other manufacturers (ALCO) and types of equipment had portholes (such as the famous PPR N5c caboose...er, cabin car).
chutton,
I actually perused the first page of that particular discussion before posting here. Yes, an interesting conversation of what models had the portholes and why they were round rather than square but didn't answer my question; hence why I posted my query here.
So, it looks like my initial speculations weren't too far off the mark.
gmpullmanAny light available in the engine room is good especially if the engine is dead and no battery power is available for engine room lights.
Ed,Candle light might be brighter then those engine room lights. My understanding those was 60 watt bulbs. The mechanics would use droplights. They would run a extention cord from a outside socket on a light pole or shed for RIP jobs.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"