Larry,
The following roads:
ATSF - possably as many as 50 steam heat equiped F7A units
Northern Pacific - 45 steam heat equiped F7A units
Great Northern - 6 steam heat equiped F7A units
Rock Island - 3 steam heat equiped F7A units
There may have been others.
And, OK, the Athearn model is an F7, but if we count F3's and F5's, the number of STANDARD LENGTH F unit cab models with steam heat, the number grows considerably, look them up, lots of roads had them.
Sheldon
Dave
Just be glad you don't have to press "2" for English.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ_ALEdDUB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hqFS1GZL4s
http://s73.photobucket.com/user/steemtrayn/media/MovingcoalontheDCM.mp4.html?sort=3&o=27
ATLANTIC CENTRALIn fact, I would bet there were more F7's with steam generators than there were FP7's. Sheldon
I would like to agree but,the only F7s I know of was either straight freight cab units or FP7s. I can't find any reference to a straight F7 with steam generator..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIE ATLANTIC CENTRAL Larry, respectfully I must disagree. An FP7 is longer than an F7, has an extra roof panel, an extra space in front of the fuel tank for large water tanks, and the prototype photo above does apear to be an FP7. I fully agree..The Athearn FP7 was to short but,it came equipped with steam generator details on the roof. EMD built 378 FP7s. http://www.athearn.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=ATH76110
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Larry, respectfully I must disagree. An FP7 is longer than an F7, has an extra roof panel, an extra space in front of the fuel tank for large water tanks, and the prototype photo above does apear to be an FP7.
I fully agree..The Athearn FP7 was to short but,it came equipped with steam generator details on the roof. EMD built 378 FP7s.
http://www.athearn.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=ATH76110
Larry, there were LOTS of F7's with steam generators. Why is that so hard to understand?
In fact, I would bet there were more F units with steam generators than there were FP7's.
This is one of those threads that come along on occasion that, initially, gets overlooked by some of us until enough replies have been offered that curiosity trumps the vagueness of the subject title.
RMax1 The model railroad industry has raised the prices and claim look at the great details you are getting for the money and I will agree with them. Today's models are absolutely beautiful in details. The Problem is when you purchase something and it is so prototypically inaccurate but advertised as being are you getting what is advertised. An example would be the LifeLike/Walthers Proto 2000 E8/9's. They are beautiful but not accurate. Not even close. So all the prototype modelers are not getting accuracy and the casual modelers are paying more for trains. Modeling is the point of being a modeler but looking for the middle ground. I hope this is not it.
The model railroad industry has raised the prices and claim look at the great details you are getting for the money and I will agree with them. Today's models are absolutely beautiful in details.
The Problem is when you purchase something and it is so prototypically inaccurate but advertised as being are you getting what is advertised. An example would be the LifeLike/Walthers Proto 2000 E8/9's. They are beautiful but not accurate. Not even close.
So all the prototype modelers are not getting accuracy and the casual modelers are paying more for trains. Modeling is the point of being a modeler but looking for the middle ground. I hope this is not it.
RMax1 Sheldon NO ONE IS COMPLAINING ABOUT PRICES!!! Yet I agree with those that prices are high. What I am saying is that if you advertise "Exquiste Prototype specific Detailing " Make sure the thing actually existed.
Sheldon NO ONE IS COMPLAINING ABOUT PRICES!!! Yet I agree with those that prices are high. What I am saying is that if you advertise "Exquiste Prototype specific Detailing " Make sure the thing actually existed.
RMax1 The whole point of my post is I am stuck like a lot of others going what is close enough and are the model that are being offered and charged for something more than just someone in China sticking plastic detail parts on a normal shell.
The whole point of my post is I am stuck like a lot of others going what is close enough and are the model that are being offered and charged for something more than just someone in China sticking plastic detail parts on a normal shell.
"Stuck in the middle", what exactly is this referring to? Ahh, what is close enough to the actual prototype and are modelers paying more than for what they are being offered.
So, it's all about price? The OP says it is not about price, in fact three separate protests to that effect.
Supposedly it is about being charged for something that you are not getting. But, as far as I can tell, the OP has not answered Sheldon's question about how the WalthersProto E8/9 does not measure up to the prototype. I have compared side by side photos of the Walthers/Proto model to the actual prototype, and I fail to see any shortfalls in the detail.
It seems to me that you get what you pay for. You can see photos of the model on the Walthers web site. That should confirm or deny that the model reflects the prototype.
Rich
Alton Junction
ATLANTIC CENTRALLarry, respectfully I must disagree. An FP7 is longer than an F7, has an extra roof panel, an extra space in front of the fuel tank for large water tanks, and the prototype photo above does apear to be an FP7.
RMax1 Thank you Larry! I am not totally crazy! I actually thought that the BB F7 was closer to an FP7. Athearn was probably the worst at inaccurate things and even today in their standard lines they do the same thing. There are several different models out there claiming to be F7's but then again MR had an article years ago that showed several different variants of F7's. Back to the top. I'm stuck in the middle! LOL
Thank you Larry! I am not totally crazy! I actually thought that the BB F7 was closer to an FP7. Athearn was probably the worst at inaccurate things and even today in their standard lines they do the same thing. There are several different models out there claiming to be F7's but then again MR had an article years ago that showed several different variants of F7's. Back to the top. I'm stuck in the middle! LOL
How can you say that an Athearn F7 is closer to an FP7 than an F7? Again an FP7 is longer, has different side and roof panels, etc, .....
As explained above, the Athearn model is simply an F7 with a steam generator, of which there were many in real life.
And in 1950 whatever, when it was tooled, the Athearn/Globe F7 was the closest, best detailed F unit in all of HO trains, bar none.
Most of the Original Blue Box Athearn kit line is freelanced to some degree, yes. If that bothers you don't buy them. But many are very close and have very good overall proportions matching lots of prototypes very closely.
I have hundreds, no plans to get rid of them, and if you came to my layout, I bet you would not know what us exactly correct and what is not.
RMax1 I actually thought that the BB F7 was closer to an FP7......
I actually thought that the BB F7 was closer to an FP7......
Nope...it's an F7. Like several have stated above, it is 4 feet too short. Not too hard to make it an FP7, though, by splicing a couple of shells together and lengthening the frame. I did one in the early 90's and I also kitbashed one a couple of years ago in N scale using Kato F7A parts.
There was a good article in a late 70's RMC doing the bash.
Chuck - Modeling in HO scale and anything narrow gauge
The model is a generic Athearn BB F7 that I sprayed with Testors Italian gloss red just because. Then I got looking at it and took a black morks alot to the roof. After that I sprayed it with dulcoat. The MKT unit is an FP7 if I remember photographed here in Dallas. The color temperature of the lighting is really bad on the Athearn picture. It looks really close colorwise to the MKT FP7 in daylight. I have been playing with it for quite a while just to see what I can do with it. As for close? Probably as close to a model MKT FP7 that will be around for a while. Added note. My local hobby shop had it sitting around on a table. The chassie is actually a B unit with no lights and the Undec shell. I bought it just to mess with. I have DCC now in it and need to finish it off.
The giveaway is the space between the first porthole and the first set of louvers. On the F7, the porthole is midway between the door and the louvers, but on the FP7, the louvers are four feet further back. This can be clearly seen on pics taken at an angle, like the pic of the prototype.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Again I repeat, if you are building a "whole" model railroad, "impression" is as important as "accuracy", especially when accuracy can not always be documented. Various forms of this discussion have come up a lot recently, guys who will not buy anytihng not accurate, etc. To which I ask my third question, how do you deal with the "missing elements" needed to make a scene complete? Personally, I have a lot of very accurate models, and a lot of not so accurate models, but only a handful of people know the difference, and the overall effect is what counts to me. Sheldon
Again I repeat, if you are building a "whole" model railroad, "impression" is as important as "accuracy", especially when accuracy can not always be documented.
Various forms of this discussion have come up a lot recently, guys who will not buy anytihng not accurate, etc.
To which I ask my third question, how do you deal with the "missing elements" needed to make a scene complete?
Personally, I have a lot of very accurate models, and a lot of not so accurate models, but only a handful of people know the difference, and the overall effect is what counts to me.
- Douglas
BRAKIE Dave,The Athearn BB F7A is really a FP7 even though they marketed it as a F7 just like the BB GP9 is actually a GP7 but,once again Athearn marketed it as a GP9. When Athearn released their "SW1500" back in the mid 60s it was a SW7 and not a SW1500 but,again it was marketed as a SW1500.
Dave,The Athearn BB F7A is really a FP7 even though they marketed it as a F7 just like the BB GP9 is actually a GP7 but,once again Athearn marketed it as a GP9. When Athearn released their "SW1500" back in the mid 60s it was a SW7 and not a SW1500 but,again it was marketed as a SW1500.
Larry, respectfully I must disagree. An FP7 is longer than an F7, has an extra roof panel, an extra space in front of the fuel tank for large water tanks, and the prototype photo above does apear to be an FP7.
But the Athearn model is an F7 with a passenger steam heat boiler, of which there were many, maybe as as much as 25% to 30% of total F unit production.
A great many roads bought F units (FT's thru F9's) with steam generators. Many also bought the longer (FP7 and FP9) when introduced in June of 1949.
After passenger service declined, some roads removed the steam generators from their F units.
Some put steam generators only in the B units and used the A unit space for additional water tanks - ATSF comes to mind. Not being a ATSF expert, I recall they may have had some ABBA sets both ways, A's with steam generators and A's simply set up to run with the generator equiped B's. Someone can correct me on that.
The B&O bought most (maybe all) of its original F3's with steam generators.
Again this is the same length an appearance loco as a freight only F unit, except for water fill hatches and steam generator vent on the rear roof panel.
Here is a better picture of the longer FP7
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=JhlNLJFo&id=95345C07835B640EDD06F43FEDF8B084EE34DAE6&thid=OIP.JhlNLJFoj4iJ6qdYKB0RrwEsDG&q=emd+fp7&simid=608013078185774093&selectedIndex=0
The FP7 is 55' long, and F7 (with or without a steam generator) is only 50' long.
This is of particular interest to me, my ATLANTIC CENTRAL has a number of both, F7's (with and without steam generators), and FP7's. We still run lots of passenger trains.......
My FP7's and a great number of my F units are Intermoutain - Do I obsess about bulldog nose contours? No. I also have a few seriously rebuilt detailed Blue Box F units - including an FP7 kitbashed from two Athearn shells from and old article in RMC I believe, as well as Genesis units and a set of Protos in C&O. As well as three sets of Proto E8's. They all meet my modeling standards just fine......
ATLANTIC CENTRAL, C&O, B&O and WESTERN MARYLAND are all represented by F units on my railroad......ALANTIC CENTRAL, B&O and C&O all have E unit sets......
RMax1 Larry I think you have hit the nail on the head. Whatever you want to put on the rails at any given time, if it makes you happy it's all good. Some parts of this hobby people need to take with a grain of salt. There are somethings you just can't get there from here. I too love my BB stuff. So what if it's not even close to the real things. Those up front I know they are not. Most are just generally what they are. The highly detailed ones bug me and those that just do not exist. I still buy and run what I like and trying to be strictprototype is frustrating. BTW here is what is pulling my new gondola: the real thing
Larry I think you have hit the nail on the head. Whatever you want to put on the rails at any given time, if it makes you happy it's all good. Some parts of this hobby people need to take with a grain of salt. There are somethings you just can't get there from here. I too love my BB stuff. So what if it's not even close to the real things. Those up front I know they are not. Most are just generally what they are. The highly detailed ones bug me and those that just do not exist. I still buy and run what I like and trying to be strictprototype is frustrating. BTW here is what is pulling my new gondola:
the real thing
The model in the pic is an F7. The prototype pic looks like an FP7.
mlehmanTony said some very important general things that needed to be said about prototype modeling. First, it's what pleases you that's most important.
Deep sigh..I've been saying that for years on this and other forums.
About prototype knowledge..Yeah right..When I went to work on the PRR in '66 I found out I knew next to nothing about railroading. Another important lesson was finding out that the shops at Russell, Kentucky was not above using a regular can of spray paint that didn't exactly match the true railroad colors for touch up work. In short a spray can of dark blue would be used. Then who can forget that Chessie GP9 with a blue replacement hood door that caused that GP9 to proclaim it was a "hessie System" locomotive? Yet if any modeler model that engine it would be "wrong" in the eyes of "experts" even though the engine is correctly lettered after the hood door was replaced.
All things railroad is guaranteed to take a big bite out of your back side.
Sheldon wrote:
"Again I repeat, if you are building a "whole" model railroad, "impression" is as important as "accuracy", especially when accuracy can not always be documented.
Various forms of this discussion have come up a lot recently, guys who will not buy anytihng not accurate, etc."
Interesting exactly what what is for the prototype modeler...I was going to start a thread in reaction to Tony Koester's May 2017 column. Tony said some very important general things that needed to be said about prototype modeling. First, it's what pleases you that's most important. Second, one should maintain standards to that level it takes to do that when building a layout. Third, what exactly these yardsticks are varies greatly between modelers.
But then I was left feeling a lot like this by how the column ended sorta vaguely. Maybe it was a build-up to a follow-up tyhis month, which I haven't read yet? In any case, I'd bet a lot of people were left thinking similarly to this:
Only you can decide what yardstick brings you enough satisfaction from your modeling to motivate you to pursue it. That yardstick can only be developed in light of your knowledge and passion about the subject. You don't have to buy anything -- given the internet makes a wealth of info available to cover at least the basic for just about any line -- to get to this point.
For whatever reason, some folks see the whole issue of proototype knowledge to be a form of competitive hazing. Throwdown and see who's the best? Sounds boring and confrontational to me. I tend to prefer a more cooperative approach where knowledge is shared and expanded on, trying to help as many as possible know more, rather than trying to pick the one person who can stare us all down on a line. No one person knows it all and even if they did, if they got hit by a bus, everyone else would have to do without it. That's why I choose to emphasize the cooperative nature of info sharing, It's what works best for the benefit of all.
I will venture that the rule I use, which sounds similar to some of what Shedlon describes, is that the closer it is to or on the track, the more important it might be in terms of accuracy or insisting on it not be compromised. So a loco is pretty darn big in terms of priority, but a gon, maybe not so important. Something next to the tracks can be important, a signal, or disregarded, if you just aren't that into signals. Once you far away from the tracks, then you have to make a strong argument for it to have much of a priority for your modeling.
Does this mean that every piece of rolling stock has to be dead accurate? As Sheldon (and Tony) suggested, prototype modelling isn't just adding up increasingly accurate models, but creating a believeability in what you depict.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
peahrensThe market (we modelers) determines (and will determine) the price / detail / prototypical correctness balance.
.
The market has left me behind.
I want DC (don't even care about DCC ready) locomotives, all undecorated, with all details left off. The Life-Like Proto 2000 series were my dream! My SD-7 came with no details installed, and EVERY prototype option in the box. Why can't that happen again?
I know the money is in sound equipped modern locomotives with DCC decoders factory installed.
At least I can afford brass now. I will be fine. Tangent has put out a couple of undecorated kits I can use, and they are magnificent. Maybe Walthers will add something decent to the Proto 2000 freight car line (no they won't). Maybe some Intermountain undecorated kits will not be marked "out of stock" on their website.
Yes, the market will decide, and it has already decided I won't get what I want.
The market is probably right. How many kits of a 40 foot AAR boxcar with double doors will I every buy? 2 or 3? That is not enough to even cover the cost of printing the boxes. I understand.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
I re-read the thread and read the original post a 3rd time. I interpret the OP's main concern as not cost, given that recent models have more detail, but prototypical accuracy. And he notes that he hopes this is not the middle and we're not stuck in this ("the middle") future.
My reactions have probably been covered but here I go anyway as tonight's NBA game is of little interest.
1. On the issue of whether things stay this way in regard to prototypical-ity (prototypical-ness?) it strikes me the answer is obvious. The market (we modelers) determines (and will determine) the price / detail / prototypical correctness balance. The suppliers will adjust to demand for what is supplied, with some give and take variability over time. I model the UP generally. The recent Big Blow from Scale Trains looks like a value given the detail and I presume it's reasonably correct. But I haven't bitten that bullet yet. I have LL Proto P2K / P1K E6s, PAs and Erie Builts. I converted all but one to DCC and they were a real value as far as I am concerned. It they were more accurate and had cost twice as much I would have fewer. I'm happy. If they are incorrect I could (probably won't) do some research and superdetail them some. But I can't change the nose shape. I don't even know if it's off and, for me, no big deal. I'm happy to buy NOS LL Protos and save some $$ over a newer offering that may be more detailed or correct.
2. My second main reaction is "different strokes for different folks". But this follows from Item #1. The ultimate answer is "it is what it is". The state of things might drift slowly to more correctness but that would add to the manufacturing cost somewhat. That's why Henry Ford said (IIRC) they can have their model T in any color, as long as it's black).
3. Another thought (3 in one day is a stretch). I probably prefer, on balance, the detail to per-loco (or RR) correctness on the margin. I like the diesels with lifting lugs (so I can repair them) etc. Perhaps my ignorance on port windows, etc will change over time but I'm stuck in my own "middle".
I'm ok with the balance available. I like what I can get for the $ today versus the Varney diesel I got in junior high or the Athearn BB rubber band drive diesel. And I don't want to pay much more than I'm paying. I wish someone would make a UP DC 4-4-2 or non-USRA pacific, but I may have to live with that. I think the ultimate answer for the OP (and ther rest of us) is to decide with our wallets (demand) and meanwhile live with what we got or dive into superdetailing, kitbashing, etc.
Just my perspective.
P.S. - the poor Jazz! (And please help our Spurs).
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
RMax1 Good points and almost exactly what I am talking about. What point and who determines if it is close enough. In the end I think the consumer. I like to buy ready to go prototype stuff sometimes and other times depending on the model would rather do things myself. The whole point of my post is I am stuck like a lot of others going what is close enough and are the model that are being offered and charged for something more than just someone in China sticking plastic detail parts on a normal shell. For lack of a better term the hobby is a rats nest of research and information sources from all over the place. I gather new stuff being discovered all the time and in somewhat limited order. Some of it is interesting, some frustrating. You can get as detailed as you like or even go the toy train route. What started all this was I bought a Thrall gondola that should have fit my time period just right. looked at the data on the car and looked on the net to find it to decorate it. The car was no where to be found on any resource I looked at. Someone on the forum found that the series of cars it was in was sold and renumbered by the BN 6 months after the time the car was modeled for. The hobby has so much to it it is easy to go crazy. Thanks everyone for the input.
Good points and almost exactly what I am talking about. What point and who determines if it is close enough. In the end I think the consumer. I like to buy ready to go prototype stuff sometimes and other times depending on the model would rather do things myself. The whole point of my post is I am stuck like a lot of others going what is close enough and are the model that are being offered and charged for something more than just someone in China sticking plastic detail parts on a normal shell. For lack of a better term the hobby is a rats nest of research and information sources from all over the place. I gather new stuff being discovered all the time and in somewhat limited order. Some of it is interesting, some frustrating. You can get as detailed as you like or even go the toy train route. What started all this was I bought a Thrall gondola that should have fit my time period just right. looked at the data on the car and looked on the net to find it to decorate it. The car was no where to be found on any resource I looked at. Someone on the forum found that the series of cars it was in was sold and renumbered by the BN 6 months after the time the car was modeled for. The hobby has so much to it it is easy to go crazy.
Thanks everyone for the input.
RMax1, Yes it is a big, diverse, complex hobby.
May I suggest that you take a minute to think about what YOUR personal goals are in this hobby.
Right them down, set YOUR OWN standards, leave out what does not interest you.
It will be more fun, not frustrating, and you will find plenty of people still appreciate what you do.....and some will not, so what?
IIRC, one of the main features of Railroad Model Craftsman was the articles on detailing a generic store-purchased (fillintheblank) into a prototype-on-specified date model of (fillintheblank as of date on railroad.) Of course, this only covered a dozen or so pieces of rolling stock a year. Given the E-unit discussion above, a couple of dozen dedicated researchers and an equal number of skilled modelers could fill a volume the size of the Manhattan phone book with similar project articles on that locomotive type alone - and still leave huge gaps in the coverage.
My own work is influenced by the fact that I consider rolling stock, including locomotives, as simple counters in a game called, "Let's operate a railroad." I insist on accurate car and locomotive numbers - but those car numbers are probably painted on little tin boxes with wheels, 1960-era 1:80 'scale' tinplate toys. Granted, that 2-8-0, 96386, is actually a Spectrum model (I may kitbash it some day, if I live long enough) and the tender has too many wheels under it. As long as it leaves Tomikawa on schedule with that local freight it's doing what I want it to do.
I'm much more particular with the wild kitbashes and scratchbuilds that run up kilometers on the Tomikawa Tani Tetsudo. The TTT is home for the 'what ifs' and imaginings of a frustrated equipment designer, having no presence in mundane reality. I am the sole authority, and I want my creations to be RIGHT. Even then, I don't obsess about microdetails not readily visible at a meter's remove. My target is an impression, not perfection.
(And they still have to operate on schedule!)
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - but not detail-obsessively)
So here is some of my "unprototypical" modeling:
Athearn 50' piggyback cars kit bashed to make them "closer" to correct, with no concern for all the stuff still "wrong".
As someone who knows way too much about early piggyback, I can tell you everything that is incorrect about these cars, but I don't care.
As 40 or 50 of them roll by they give that classic impression of every prototype early piggy train photo I have ever seen - mission accomplished!
What was done? Trailers converted to single axle, landing gear relocated to correct location, spare tires added to vans, deck rub rails modified for better appearance, bridge plates and bridge plate retainer chain stakes added, fifth wheel jacks added (not totally correct, but close enough)
What's not correct? Side brake wheel flats seldon if ever used in piggy service, flat cars too short, vans undersize, some roadname/paint schemes not correct, chains/binders left off, and a bunch more more minor stuff.
I also have "other" piggyback cars, Walthers 75' cars, Walthers 53' GSC cars (old kits and new RTR), the new Bachmann cars (also modified) all intermixed with the Athearn cars.
Vans are old Walthers 32', Classic Model Works 32' vans, Athearn 25' vans, and others with various detail upgrades.
Close enough is good enough - I run two piggy trains of 35-45 cars each, I have over 100 piggyback cars.
A few are from more advanced kits - 40' cars from resin kits, old Ulrich 40' cars, etc. (there were actually lots of 40'/45' piggyback flats for single 33'/35' vans in the early days)
mlehman I won't respond to everything raised here, but I think that the whole idea of being a prototype modeler has gravitated for many people from being someone who takes the time and effort to educate themselves to be knowledgable about certain prototypes into someone who buys (or thinks they can buy) prototypically "correct" models. I'd argue that the idea of consuming the protitype, rather than knowing about the prototype, is just a someone looking for a shortcut to real knowledge and understanding. That rarely happens in any area of knowledge and it sure doesn't happen with railroads. If you're in the position to critique a model you've become dissatisfied with, you're probablyt in position to do the sort of due diligence a prototype modeler does. You do your research prior to purchase if it means that much to you. Otherwise, you should be thrilled with the detail of today's models and the way they make it easier than ever to acvhieve a even more detailed model based on your knowledge. And if you actually lack that knowledge, then you're rteally in no position to critique what the MFG did beyond adding "me, too" the reviews by knowledgable prototype modelers, who sometimes expect too much from advertising copy.
I won't respond to everything raised here, but I think that the whole idea of being a prototype modeler has gravitated for many people from being someone who takes the time and effort to educate themselves to be knowledgable about certain prototypes into someone who buys (or thinks they can buy) prototypically "correct" models. I'd argue that the idea of consuming the protitype, rather than knowing about the prototype, is just a someone looking for a shortcut to real knowledge and understanding. That rarely happens in any area of knowledge and it sure doesn't happen with railroads.
If you're in the position to critique a model you've become dissatisfied with, you're probablyt in position to do the sort of due diligence a prototype modeler does. You do your research prior to purchase if it means that much to you. Otherwise, you should be thrilled with the detail of today's models and the way they make it easier than ever to acvhieve a even more detailed model based on your knowledge.
And if you actually lack that knowledge, then you're rteally in no position to critique what the MFG did beyond adding "me, too" the reviews by knowledgable prototype modelers, who sometimes expect too much from advertising copy.
Well said Mike.
The big question is, even if you have the knowledge and skill, how close is close enough?
And the second big question is what do you about all the stuff that you can find no good research on?
Also, I like to build stuff, but I don't want to get so caught up in one project that it is the only thing I complete........
Is anyone complaining about price???? Ah NO.
trwrouteI even like the BB F7A nose more than the P2K E unit.
I have seen a few F unit models where the nose just did not look right. These were either really old models or toys. I remember reading an F unit product review in Model Railroader where the reviewer said the nose was just not right, but did not give any measurements.
There are so many curves on the nose of an F unit that the only real way to measure it would be by sectioning it by about 1/2" at a time. I doubt any line drawings with measurements could ever provide enough information to measure the curved surfaces.
I'll bet someone could make a good 3D renering of one now, but what would the point of that be?
I spent a good amount of time around the F unit that belongs to the Seminole Gulf Railway. That is the only prototype reference I have. I have never been next to a prototype E unit, but I understand that the E8 and E9 are the only ones that share the nose of an F unit. Is that true?
-Kevin.
trwroute ATLANTIC CENTRAL I kit bash lots of stuff, I don't obsess over the nose contours of F and E units down to a few inches, or exact deminsions of windshield mullions. That's the kind of stuff I'm refering to. You will never convince me that much of that can be noticed by eye once you get into models as good as Proto, Intermountain, etc. Sheldon Now, I will agree that some might take it a lot farther than I would, but you gotta admit, the nose of a P2K E unit just ain't right. I even like the BB F7A nose more than the P2K E unit. Guess you have to draw the line somewhere.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I kit bash lots of stuff, I don't obsess over the nose contours of F and E units down to a few inches, or exact deminsions of windshield mullions. That's the kind of stuff I'm refering to. You will never convince me that much of that can be noticed by eye once you get into models as good as Proto, Intermountain, etc. Sheldon
That's the kind of stuff I'm refering to. You will never convince me that much of that can be noticed by eye once you get into models as good as Proto, Intermountain, etc.
Actually, I have never considered the question. I don't have an original GM drawing to compare to, and they all look close enough for me.
A long time ago I got into that sort of modeling for a short time - quickly decided I was having no fun.
I'm more of a big picture kind of modeler, I kitbash to get things that don't exist at all, or to make obvious short comings better, not striving for museum perfection.
Later when I get back to my desk, I will post a photo or two.
As my dad used to say, "Some people would complain if you hanged them with a new rope."Also, if you take an American Flyer 1956 GP7 and adjust its price to today's dollars, it would be just under $230.Anybody who complains prices are "too high" is loaded chock full of male bovine digestive residue.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
"Reservoir Dogs" ruined that song for me.