New David K Smith Post on TTAMT

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I am very proud to announce that I've enlisted David's help in writing for TTAMT. Today we've gone live with his first article called "Better Models for the Masses?" that discusses some of the pitfalls of bringing accurate models to market that try to make money, and appease the modeling masses (collectors, runners and modelers).

So, take a look, and make sure to spam us with your comments:

http://ttamt.blogspot.com/

[Robbman]

Message deleted

[Mark5]

hmm, is this a vague reference to the GP30?

[DKS]

Speaking of using the internet to do research... had Mr. Smith put some quality time doing so, he would have learned the reason for those off the mark numberboards... thus saving a paragraph and a half of assumption.

I was well aware of the history behind this (if you'd look at the posts in Railwire, you'd see my contributions to the discussion). In an earlier draft, I did not make such a specific reference, but instead a generalization in order to avoid just such an argument. However, in a fit of poor judgment, I elected to make the information more specific so that it did not sound like a broad-brushed condemnation. I may revise it back to be more vague.

[Mark5]

not sure if the GP30 is the one in question ...

if so Atlas was just revising existing tooling AFAIK, and to fix that I guess they'd also have to fix the number board inserts, etc. Then I guess they'd then feel compelled to fix the tooling on the other phase shell as well, and so on ...

it all goes back to the Kato days, when it was originally tooled. So the GP30 and GP35 number boards are off, in the same way the Kato released SD40, SD45, and SD40-2 (I think) are also off.

it's a real pain when you have scale number board decals from ShellScale, and they don't fit! >

or is there some other soon to be released model we're talking about?

[DKS]

or is there some other soon to be released model we're talking about?

No, that's the one. And I can see how this sticking point could spiral out of proportion, so I'll revise the article so as not to raise anyone's fur.

[Mark5]

FWIW, I don't think Kato fixed the boards on the "new" SD40 either.

[asciibaron]

comments from me forthcoming - in training at the moment...

-steve

[Sokramiketes]

FWIW, I don't think Kato fixed the boards on the "new" SD40 either.

No, they really haven't... and I don't think Atlas has nailed it either.  Unfortunantly, the problem is on the cab face.  David eludes to it being easy to make these numberboards the proper dimensions, but that isn't the case.  With a clear plastic number board insert, there is the need to pocket the numberboard area on the front of the cab. 

Notice here on the prototype that the front numberboards are almost (within an inch) aligned with the bottom of the numberboard bump out on the front of the cab.


Notice here how the thickness of the plastic shell in this area is driving how low the numberboard can be molded:


Here is the latest Kato SD40-2.  The numberboards are closer to proper dimensions, but are not located properly along the bottom edge.


The thickness of the shell drove the dimensions on the early Atlas/Kato shells.  The bottom of the numberboard was brought up to clear the thickness of the shell, while the top was left at it's prototype location, causing a squished numberboard.  The shell thickness was not a problem in the rear, but rather than have different numberboard dimensions on the rear of the shell, they used the same dimensions so that uniformity prevailed.

The newer Atlas/Kato units come closer to using the proper dimensions with a combination of thinner shell thickness and raised top of the numberboard.  You can see on the Kato unit that the numberboard is still high on the bump out, but is proportionally more pleasing.

Thus, this is a good example of art in tooling, and not necessarily a good example of "doing it right doesn't cost more".

[Mark5]

heh, I was referring to the front, ie the long hood ... 

[Sokramiketes]

Prototype SD40-2 shot to compare to Kato:

[Sokramiketes]

heh, I was referring to the front, ie the long hood ... 

You bass-ackwards N&W folks always try to cause trouble...   :-*

I was commenting on David's analysis of the numberboard size at that point.

[Mark5]

uh huh.

[tom mann]

Maybe it's me, but I would give up lighted numberboards for correctly proportioned ones anyday.

[Mark5]

Maybe it's me, but I would give up lighted numberboards for correctly proportioned ones anyday.

I don't see myself doing night scenes so I tend to agree.