OOh! Now with knuckle couplers...

[johnb]

Back to the original topic....I really can't wait to get my hands on a few of the bay window cabeese. They are not too far off of a Southern Pacific prototype
http://www.bobcatstudios.com/aboutimages/bob-wiritng/writingpdfs/SPBWCaboose.pdf

[Mark5]

Back to the original topic....I really can't wait to get my hands on a few of the bay window cabeese. They are not too far off of a Southern Pacific prototype
http://www.bobcatstudios.com/aboutimages/bob-wiritng/writingpdfs/SPBWCaboose.pdf

The Atlas/Rivarossi bay (SP prototype) is a better bet than the MP/Lima/China version me thinks.

Mark

[basementcalling]

Aside from the name, what would be the difference between any new "Trainman" locomotives vs one from the "Master" or "Classic" series?

I could think of several Atlas locomotives in either the "Master" or "Classic" series that I'd consider to be "inferior" to the Trainman GP15-1.

Cory or Paul would know for sure, but I know the mechanism is only DCC friendly; at least I haven't seen a DCC equipped GP-15-1. The tooling on some details is not as fine, and the decorating may lack a number of warning labels and such, but I agree that the GP15-1 is a nice offering. I love my two UP units. I am hoping as manufacturers learn than the entire N scale market doesn't lose it's $&it if a model doesn't have individual grab irons, wipers, lift rings, and other assorted road specific details pre applied. Leaving some modeling to the purchaser is not a bad thing, and picking up and handling an engine without worrying about a misplaced thumb isn't a bad thing either.

[johnb]

The Atlas/Rivarossi bay (SP prototype) is a better bet than the MP/Lima/China version me thinks.

Mark

true, but finding them can be a challenge, and if I  bugger up, it is easier to get a replacement

[OldEastRR]

OK.  We can make fun of these cars, but . . .

 I made my own PFE fleet by taking a bunch of these cars, stripping them, repainting, decaling with Microscale decals; replacing the trucks with MT's; body mounting the couplers, and using Gold Medal Model roofwalks and foot stirrups.   

Plus cutting down the roofwalk and adding the two ice hatches they didn't put on the roof. A better rework were the RoCo (Atlas) 40' reefers, they were shorter (height) and came with 4 hatches.

[cjm413]

Cory or Paul would know for sure, but I know the mechanism is only DCC friendly; at least I haven't seen a DCC equipped GP-15-1. The tooling on some details is not as fine, and the decorating may lack a number of warning labels and such, but I agree that the GP15-1 is a nice offering. I love my two UP units. I am hoping as manufacturers learn than the entire N scale market doesn't lose it's $&it if a model doesn't have individual grab irons, wipers, lift rings, and other assorted road specific details pre applied. Leaving some modeling to the purchaser is not a bad thing, and picking up and handling an engine without worrying about a misplaced thumb isn't a bad thing either.

If they're looking to offer more (relatively) modern locomotives in the Trainman line, the Master series Phase II GP40-2 would meet this description if they only sold them without decoders, the same level of "decoration" that you describe, etc.

Afterwards, they could fill the void with a new Master series Phase I GP40-2 by doing nothing more than making a new long hood that would be compatible with their existing GP38-2 components. (NOTE - the GP40-2 long hood will fit the current GP38-2 with a few modifications, but it only matches a handful of Chessie Phase I's that had the Phase II radiators)

[tom mann]

I could think of several Atlas locomotives in either the "Master" or "Classic" series that I'd consider to be "inferior" to the Trainman GP15-1.

Yeah, I would tend to agree with you.  I think the GP15-1 is an excellent model.  It is a smooth, quiet runner and the handrails are first class.  Not sure why there ever was a Trainman designation, because the shortcuts used to make the model simpler to construct don't distract from the appearance.

[jmarley76]

Not sure why there ever was a Trainman designation

It was included in the Trainman starter set... might be the only reason?

[peteski]

It was included in the Trainman starter set... might be the only reason?

That model did have a simplified construction as compared to the other Atlas locomotives.
http://www.spookshow.net/loco/atlasgp15.html

The thing about these which seemed like a step backwards was the electric contact area between the trucks and the chassis. No springy contacts.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

That model did have a simplified construction as compared to the other Atlas locomotives.
http://www.spookshow.net/loco/atlasgp15.html

The thing about these which seemed like a step backwards was the electric contact area between the trucks and the chassis. No springy contacts.

Yep, and I've actually encountered issues with this.

[jmarley76]

Yep, and I've actually encountered issues with this.

You confirmed what I was thinking...

[peteski]

Yep, and I've actually encountered issues with this.

And this redesign only reduced part count by 2!  Two simple strips of metal.  Unless the loco sits on perfectly flat track there is a possibility that one of its trucks only picks up power from one rail.  I was really scratching my head when I first saw this design - especially since Atlas has been making locos with springy truck contacts for a while.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

And this redesign only reduced part count by 2!  Two simple strips of metal.  Unless the loco sits on perfectly flat track there is a possibility that one of its trucks only picks up power from one rail.  I was really scratching my head when I first saw this design - especially since Atlas has been making locos with springy truck contacts for a while.

What really got me about this was:
They needed to tool new contacts instead of using the standardized trucks, thus requiring new parts.
They could have easily used the contact strips from a GP30/35, thus eliminating the need to tool new parts at all.

So if they used the old trucks and old contact strips from their GP30/35 line, they could have saved tooling. Granted this would probably require a separate fuel tank. But I just don't see where the cost savings was.