obermeyern Paul, I've found a nose down image of a Mopac PA-1 and compared it to the photo posted of the ATSF model. I circled areas I feel are not consistent with the model when compared to the prototype. Also, I agree that the thick "glass" of the window compounds the shape/size issues. Also, an unpainted model may show the detail better in the comparisons and the perceived issues are not actually issues. My observations: comparison1 by obermeyern, on Flickr The green circle highlights the window side post. On the model the side post appears thinner and cut/rounded away giving the impression the window is wider. On the prototype the top sheet or "brow" of the cab curves down the side, but the post still appears thicker on the prototype. The purple circle highlights the "angry brow" on the prototype appears not as angry as the model. The model appears to be more curved in this location. The pink circle illustrates the model's top outside corner appears to be thinner and closer to the roof sheet as compared to the prototype. It would be interesting if the model "glass" had a gasket applied or the outside edge of the "glass" painted black if the perceived errors would not be as noticeable? comparison by obermeyern, on Flickr Another topic that was discussed is the pilot - the issue I see is that the draft gear could be improved from an obvious model coupler box to something more prototypical. High level underbody detail, but same coupler box/draft gear as a 1990s model. Nate
Paul,
I've found a nose down image of a Mopac PA-1 and compared it to the photo posted of the ATSF model. I circled areas I feel are not consistent with the model when compared to the prototype. Also, I agree that the thick "glass" of the window compounds the shape/size issues. Also, an unpainted model may show the detail better in the comparisons and the perceived issues are not actually issues.
My observations:
comparison1 by obermeyern, on Flickr
The green circle highlights the window side post. On the model the side post appears thinner and cut/rounded away giving the impression the window is wider. On the prototype the top sheet or "brow" of the cab curves down the side, but the post still appears thicker on the prototype.
The purple circle highlights the "angry brow" on the prototype appears not as angry as the model. The model appears to be more curved in this location.
The pink circle illustrates the model's top outside corner appears to be thinner and closer to the roof sheet as compared to the prototype.
It would be interesting if the model "glass" had a gasket applied or the outside edge of the "glass" painted black if the perceived errors would not be as noticeable?
comparison by obermeyern, on Flickr
Another topic that was discussed is the pilot - the issue I see is that the draft gear could be improved from an obvious model coupler box to something more prototypical. High level underbody detail, but same coupler box/draft gear as a 1990s model.
Nate
I know nothing about PA's, but the differences in the two locomotives pictured, to me, comes down to the width of the posts all around the windshield. The blue ones are fatter. Now, that white paint along the top of the red one makes the brow look narrow to me....if the white paint was red that carried the same color up through the brow, like the blue paint does, the red brow would look taller.
Also, the red one seems to have a flatter and more angled curve to the windshields from about the wipers to the center post. It makes the eyes look squintier and angrier than the blue, which has more of the raised eye brow look all across the top, IMO.
And of course, the thickness of the glass on the model is just too thick, a function of production realities that we have to live with, IMO.
Edit: the angles of the pictures are slightly different. The blue pic is looking down on the loco more than the red one. If they were the same, the blue brow may in fact look a bit shorter than it does and better match the red one.
- Douglas
Texas Zephyr Paul3 What else is missing from the Rapido model's pilot compared to the real ATSF unit? Not from the pilot, but do you know when Santa Fe used the two headlamps side-side in the bottom housing not up-down in the top? I am guessing the Rapido configuration is late and the Santa Fe picture show earlier? I know the original #51 had a single lamp in both housings, and I know in 1964 there is a famous photo that has the lower light in the upper housing as red and the single light in the lower housing. Is it possible Rapido could make these "configurable" by the purchaser? But neither do I want a $1000 model product.
Paul3 What else is missing from the Rapido model's pilot compared to the real ATSF unit?
Not from the pilot, but do you know when Santa Fe used the two headlamps side-side in the bottom housing not up-down in the top? I am guessing the Rapido configuration is late and the Santa Fe picture show earlier? I know the original #51 had a single lamp in both housings, and I know in 1964 there is a famous photo that has the lower light in the upper housing as red and the single light in the lower housing.
Is it possible Rapido could make these "configurable" by the purchaser?
But neither do I want a $1000 model product.
The Rapido Santa Fe PA-1 is a later version (starting in the second half of the fifties), with the antenna, five-chime horn and grabs on the hood and above the windscreen. Looking at pics of this version in railpictures.net, all of them have the single headlight in the lower position and the double lamps on top.
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/532889/
The double lamps on top were a Mars light which would rotate during operation and sometimes stop in a non-vertical position.
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/390797/
Of the upper double lights, one was always white and the other red. I do not think that this is reproduced correctly in the Rapido model. To the best of my knowledge, the only manufacturer which models red/white double lights is Athearn Genesis. Still, even they get the function of the red light wrong and use it as rear light as in a car, while in the prototype is was used only as an emergency signal. However, this can be easily corrected by the user, especially in DCC.
I'm sure Rapido has its reasons for choosing the finish that it did, but there are still some models being made with metal finishes. Here are links to two recent models with plating:
https://www.walthers.com/alco-pa-standard-dc-delaware-hudson-18-passenger-blue-yellow-silver
https://www.walthers.com/85-budd-big-dome-bar-lounge-lighted-santa-fe-real-metal-finish-with-decals
If a Santa Fe PA is announced by Divison Point in Brass i will not hesitate to place a pre order, right now DP has announced PA's 1/2 & PB's alike in SP Daylight and "Blood Nose" paint versions. I really had my hopes up for the Rapido PA's but after readng all the negative reports on previous production model problems and continned delivery delays i will most likely take a pass and move on to ordering a Brass PA at some point. Bayway Terminal NJ
Bayway Terminal If a Santa Fe PA is announced by Divison Point in Brass i will not hesitate to place a pre order...
If a Santa Fe PA is announced by Divison Point in Brass i will not hesitate to place a pre order...
DP will make the Santa Fe version. Brasstrains accepts reservations for them (see items 14 and 15):
https://www.brasstrains.com/NewBrass/Trains/Projects/1645/Alco-PA-Passenger-Locomotives?showsold=False
If I remember correctly, DP will produce the early Santa Fe version, without hood grab irons or antenna and with just two single horns.
Rest in peace:
The end for a Santa Fe Alco PA-1 by Mike Sosalla, on Flickr
Regards, Ed
gmpullman Rest in peace: The end for a Santa Fe Alco PA-1 by Mike Sosalla, on Flickr Regards, Ed
Rich
Alton Junction
richhotrain gmpullman Rest in peace: The end for a Santa Fe Alco PA-1 by Mike Sosalla, on Flickr Regards, Ed Now, that is one good looking PA locomotive. Rich
Now, that is one good looking PA locomotive.
Looking at the photo it appears that the side of the window frame is 0.25 inches too wide.
And the distinctive curved molding is missing.
Rest in pieces