Open Question to Manufacturers

[dougnelson]

SPF's bible:

[Spikre]

 
   You'all do mean the Sleek Erie K-4 Dual Purpose Pacifics,,,,,rite 
     Spikre
       
     

[Rich_S]

SPF's bible:

OK, I'll bite, what's in the first 72 pages???

But maybe they should read this book first.     

In all honesty, some more prototypically accurate cabooses would be a good thing.

Cody, I agree but the chance of getting a mass produced 100% accurate caboose is slim, unless you happen to be a fan of the same railroad as the manufacture. In other words, when Irv Athearn was alive, most of his HO scale models were of Santa Fe prototypes, Irv liked the Santa Fe. Mr. Kato's favorite railroad also happens to be Santa Fe. I've also found the other end of the spectrum to be true, the owner of a hobby company was not a railfan or modeler, nor was he a draftsman, he was simply a business man. He created what he thought people would purchase.

So yes, it's a double edged sword and I think manufactures recognize this, but another issue the manufactures have to deal with is, model railroaders are only a small portion of the total population.  How many people model the PRR out of the total population of model railroaders? If every one purchases model "x" will it pay for the production cost and leave enough money to pay the other bills associated with a business.  That is why for years, brass was the medium to look to for 100% scale models, but the down side to brass is you're going to pay for that 100% scale model and they have a very small production run.

That is why I've started using the 5 foot rule. Sure the P&LE never had side sill hand rails on their MP15DC's, but since Atlas went to the trouble of creating a shell that had the distinctive P&LE extended sandbox, I overlooked the side sill handrails and purchased the three units they offered. Are they 100% accurate, no, and if I had better eyesight I'd do the modification myself to make them more accurate. Why did I purchase them, because they are better than having no P&LE MP15DC's.     

[sirenwerks]

That is why I've started using the 5 foot rule. Sure the P&LE never had side sill hand rails on their MP15DC's, but since Atlas went to the trouble of creating a shell that had the distinctive P&LE extended sandbox, I overlooked the side sill handrails and purchased the three units they offered. Are they 100% accurate, no, and if I had better eyesight I'd do the modification myself to make them more accurate. Why did I purchase them, because they are better than having no P&LE MP15DC's.     

Which is easier, adding the extended sandbox to a pre-painted model or changing the handrails?

[Missaberoad]

Since my earlier comment was a joke and I want to distance myself from all the bitching... 

I have no real complaints about the SPF's being vocal about what they want and how they want it, in fact I wish my favorite roads had such vocal communities of fans...

And at the end of the day having PRR specific cars helps us all out, since there was so many in interchange. 

[Rich_S]

Which is easier, adding the extended sandbox to a pre-painted model or changing the handrails?

In N scale, neither is easier. No one makes the extended Sandboxes in "N" scale. For me, it would probably be easier to remove the side sill handrails and touch up the side sill with a little black paint, than it would for me to try and construct correct extended sandboxes. You would need to remove all of the stanchions except for the first one, then form your own hand rails using the appropriate brass wire. Back when I was in HO scale, Cary made the extended sand boxes along with the SW1500 shell that fit the Athearn SW7 model, so it wasn't that difficult to create a prototype model and that included creating all handrails from scratch. Of course someone (can't remember the name of the manufacture) made the appropriate end stanchions for the SW1500. My problem 25 years later is my work light is just not bright enough any more to do small work and I don't have room for O scale 

Now I'm hoping Micro-Trains will produce a hood mounted handrail on one of their SW1500 releases. Of course for the P&LE it still will not be 100% prototypical, because it's doubtful they'd also include the extended sandboxes. 

Here is the only photo I have of my HO scale P&LE SW1500 featuring the Cary body. It's a pretty bad photo and unfortunately you cannot make out the extended sandboxes on the front of the locomotive.


One of these days I'll have to dig this locomotive out of storage and take some better photos of it and my other P&LE equipment.

But back to the original conversation, if it wasn't for the Cary shell, which was not 100% accurate, I would not have had a P&LE SW1500. You have to remember, I built this locomotive back when Athearn was only selling their SW7 and Baldwin switchers. They had just released their GP38-2 with a scale width hood, everything else up to that point had an over sized hood to accommodate their JET DC motor. How times have changed 

[peteski]

I guess I never looked closely enough at the N5C to notice.





So please help me understand what I'm supposed to be offended by...  I did switch the location of the smoke jack relative to the cupola windows.

While I have no idea whether the model's cupola is not tall enough or not, there is one thing which jumps out at me and which probably doesn't make things any better:  There is a very visible separation gap between the cupola and the roof.  On the 1:1 caboose the cupola is smoothly blended with the roof.

If this was done on the model, it would greatly improve the overall look of the mode,  especially on the sides. If the sides were blended with the roof, the roof line which wraps down on the sides would make the cupola appear taller.

[nscaler711]

I don't even model the PRR, but dang it I Want a K4!! 
I also would like to see a S2 Turbine in N but that'll never happen... 
The ATSF modeler in me wants a proper Santa Fe Northern... 3750 class and a 2900 series... But who am I?

[bbussey]

While I have no idea whether the model's cupola is not tall enough or not, there is one thing which jumps out at me and which probably doesn't make things any better:  There is a very visible separation gap between the cupola and the roof.  On the 1:1 caboose the cupola is smoothly blended with the roof.

If this was done on the model, it would greatly improve the overall look of the mode,  especially on the sides. If the sides were blended with the roof, the roof line which wraps down on the sides would make the cupola appear taller.

I thought the body height floor-to-ceiling was the problem. But now that you pointed out the roof not curving down enough over the sides, that certainly appears to be the issue. That one (I assume) production compromise drastically changes the entire look of the model, because the "extra ceiling height" is definitely between the porthole windows and the roofline and "takes away" from the cupola height.

[SkipGear]

Continuing thread drift. ........

The cupola is too long, the port holes are too big, and the blend already mentioned throws the look of both off. The cupola may be too low but that might just the the other proportions being off causing it too look that way.

That is my take just looking at the photos. I don't own one and don't have a dog in this fight. FVM produced the Wagontops I needed after spending much time building a half dozen JNJ resin kits so I have my caboose needs filled for the most part.

[Dave V]

Funny how selective we each are about what bothers us.  This just doesn't bother me at all, and yet I'll get pretty spun up about other things.

[Puddington]

Read the thread and then ask yourself a more important question...." why the hell would any manufacturer make any N scale model....."? 

[peteski]

Read the thread and then ask yourself a more important question...." why the hell would any manufacturer make any N scale model....."? 

Why?  To make profit of course!
This would be really easy and painless if the models were accurately modeled! 
Before you jump all over me, my statement was strictly in-jest.

[Spikre]

 
   Brass being 100% Accurate ??
   boy do I still have some lumps to sell You !!
   apparently You havnt really seen,measured,
   or played with too many Brass Models over
   the years.
     try the Lambert Erie C100 caboose, the Custom
   Brass USRA Hopper, the Hallmark EMD SD9 for
   starters.then try to figure out how many steamers
   had wrong PRR or SP cab Roofs over the years.
   or PRR T-1s with articulated drives.
       Spikre
         
   

[Rich_S]

   Brass being 100% Accurate ??
   boy do I still have some lumps to sell You !!
   apparently You havnt really seen,measured,
   or played with too many Brass Models over
   the years.
     try the Lambert Erie C100 caboose, the Custom
   Brass USRA Hopper, the Hallmark EMD SD9 for
   starters.then try to figure out how many steamers
   had wrong PRR or SP cab Roofs over the years.
   or PRR T-1s with articulated drives.
       Spikre
         
   

To be honest, I don't own any brass. For me it was always over priced, but I can tell you some of the brass diesels I saw at the hobby shop in the mid 70's were more to scale than what Athearn was selling. Please note, I'm not picking on Athearn, if it wasn't for Blue Box Athearn, I wouldn't be in the hobby right now. Their kits were inexpensive and easy to modify. My first scale width hood diesel locomotives were from Atlas / Roco. The fuel tanks were basically a blob and for some unknown reason the steps leading to the cab did not exist, but the shells doors, louvers, grills and fan grids had very nice detail.

But now that the thread has been moved to the Product discussion forum, I'll ask my original question again.

Just wondering, why a streamlined cupola caboose has never been produced in "N" scale? Several railroads used the streamlined cupola design, among them the Wabash, Ann Arbor, DT&I and Norfolk & Western.