0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
I feel that IM has received an unfair share of hate, a bit like MTL. They may have their issues, but so does Atlas (their 89' flats being a major problem) and they get a pass.
Dan I don't think that's a fair comparison considering:a) the pre-announcement hype from the manufacturer (none from Atlas on the 89'er, significant from IM)b) competition from other manufacturers for the same product (competing product from MTL, and unlikely that one will ever exist for the SD40T-2).I don't want to think about the amount of work needed to make a fleet of SD40T-2s "acceptable" to me (ie, mid 90s Espee specific) for what should have been a slam dunk. Thankfully it will take less for the DRGW units, but UDE nose lights on Speed Lettered units is just wrong...... It will take time and effort from IM to re-earn that trust from those of us that got burnt from the tunnel motor debacle....and it wasn't re-earned on the 45-2s.
I have one of the SD40T-2s, and it doesn't have any obvious problems. Runs well, looks good, assembled neatly. Of course, I model the BN in Montana, not the SP, so wouldn't know if it was properly detailed, but I don't have any complaints about it. As a run-through or pool unit it looks and works fine. I don't know if the BN used these in Montana in the mid 70s, but they were very common in Washington.
Probably not. I've basically given up on Intermountain.Atlas, MT, or FVM, please make a good AAR 1944 (10'6" IH) boxcar for those of us who don't need a lot of PS-1s.
Will they have a chance of arriving before the prototypes vanish from class I railroads?