Awesome... F***ing Awesome

[CRL]

This is why I personally refuse to allow myself to be sucked into the %u201Cexact prototype%u201D world. My OCD tendencies would drive me crazy if I tried to do this type of modeling on a regular basis. Case in point- in looking for the error you described. I spotted what I feel is a much more noticeable difference between the prototype brackets and the modeled brackets. In fact, I spotted this difference before I finally found the difference that driving you nuts. In fact, it is  the only thing that drew my eye finally to the error you were describing.

Anyone else notice yet?

How about now?

Hint: Flat, edge, flat, edge%u2026

[DKS]

Anyone else notice yet?

Yup. And you're right, its more distracting than the original error.

[Lemosteam]

This is why I personally refuse to allow myself to be sucked into the %u201Cexact prototype%u201D world. My OCD tendencies would drive me crazy if I tried to do this type of modeling on a regular basis. Case in point- in looking for the error you described. I spotted what I feel is a much more noticeable difference between the prototype brackets and the modeled brackets. In fact, I spotted this difference before I finally found the difference that driving you nuts. In fact, it is  the only thing that drew my eye finally to the error you were describing.

Anyone else notice yet?

How about now?

Hint: Flat, edge, flat, edge%u2026

If you are referring to the stump on the casting for the brackets, Daniel did not want to risk shaving those off and making the etched design too delicate, i.e., he was looking for maximum support under the platforms.  And the thin support sections you are referring to would have been much too delicate.  As it is, there are two layers for the walkways, just to keep them from bending between the cast supports.  Reasonable compromise to avoid a potentially destructive shaving step, IMHO.  Also it would have been near impossible to drill all of the pin holes needed to put the support risers in accurately so as to prevent them from being at an angle from the side- especially on a curved surface, even the slightest misalignment would have been obnoxious.

[learmoia]

If you are referring to the stump on the casting for the brackets, Daniel did not want to risk shaving those off and making the etched design too delicate, i.e., he was looking for maximum support under the platforms.  And the thin support sections you are referring to would have been much too delicate.  As it is, there are two layers for the walkways, just to keep them from bending between the cast supports.  Reasonable compromise to avoid a potentially destructive shaving step, IMHO.  Also it would have been near impossible to drill all of the pin holes needed to put the support risers in accurately so as to prevent them from being at an angle from the side- especially on a curved surface, even the slightest misalignment would have been obnoxious.

I noticed the wide-narrow-wide too but figured he kept the brackets wide enough to hide the Walthers supports, so I let that one slide.

Still not sure if what I noticed is what I'm looking for, or if Daniel is referring to something else.

So the current 'glaring error' count is at either 2 or 3

Rib spacing and Rib Width
Or Rib Spacing, Rib Width + The issue in the OP

[CRL]

That’s kind of my point… Where do you stop in a small scale like N-scale when it comes to reproducing small details and where do you draw the line on reasonable compromise? I guess the real frustration on the OP’s part was the fact that he could have corrected the location of the narrow support location if he had checked the reference photo instead of the model. But unless he can confirm by reviewing more reference photos that the narrow spacing is always located in the same place, then don’t sweat the difference because there may be cars out there that are reversed. It is probably more likely this wasn’t a specific design choice, but a shop level decision that depended on which piece the crane operator picked up & positioned first.

Hell, just fix one car matching the road number of the reference photo & go on with your life. It’s beautiful work, dude.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Daniel, I am sorry that happened.

I found the walkway to be the most confusing part of the car.  Why the carmaker would intentionally design the walkway panels to be unique, (I think there were four lengths overall) and not all evenly spaced supports and panes is beyond me.

Keep looking at photos, I am not sure that the condition is 100 percent that way.  I thought I recall seeing some images showing the opposite, but I was going cross-eyed at that point.

I must say the despite the error, that car looks damn good and it looks like you found a good way to assemble that kit using the softer nickel silver parts.

How did you end up doing the extraction pipes?  Were you able to use the kit stanchions?

Unfortunately, I checked about 100 photos covering NACC and they are all like this. I have been focusing on this era of the car because later Trinity and Thrall cars have different end cages and weld lines.
The additional pipes are just bent .020" bronze wire. The stanchions could not be used and each car uses about 50 hand bent grabs. I think the entire parts count for each car is now about 100.

I know it's not a big detail. But I see it EVERY time I look at these models now. FWIW, it appears that Walthers biffed both the N scale and HO version. After searching, I don't see any mention of the error online. I can't be the only one who noticed this.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Dan, maybe I'm reading too much into your tone, but look at it this way.  You made a awesome model.  F***ing awesome.  Nobody else knows the car well enough to spot the error.   And if they do, you have a funny story abouy how much Walthers sucks.

Also I think I signed up for one of these upgrade kits way back.  Did I miss the boat or are they still available?

I never released the kit. The NS version is too soft for most of the grab details to be used and the whole thing would need to be redesigned for use with stainless steel and to simplify construction. In order to do this, I would need about 50 orders and was nowhere near that amount so the retail plans were shelved.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

I know how galling such minor errors can be, but honestly it took me several minutes to find the error after you described it.  The work is incredible.

You did a particularly nice job of matching the original paint color - care to share how you did it?

It's straight up Tamiya Light Gray Primer. I think Rust-Oleum light primer was once a perfect match, but that was reformulated years ago and is now too dark.

[Chris333]

So when do we all get told what the error is?   

[Missaberoad]

Not trying to criticize, this is a awesome model you both should be proud of and I want one! (Or a few)

But on the subject of design decisions why did you go with 4 grab irons vs the 3 on the walthers model and prototype image?
I'm admittedly ignorant of all the variations of this car, so that may be the answer. Just curious...

But once again let me reiterate the car did turn out ******** Awesome!

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Not trying to criticize, this is a awesome model you both should be proud of and I want one! (Or a few)

But on the subject of design decisions why did you go with 4 grab irons vs the 3 on the walthers model and prototype image?
I'm admittedly ignorant of all the variations of this car, so that may be the answer. Just curious...

But once again let me reiterate the car did turn out ******** Awesome!

Welp... that's it. These are going in the trash. I'm done. I'm just done with all of this.

I think we used a newer version of the car with 4 rungs on the sides for initial measurments:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=46381
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2940304

But the ones I'm modeling are 3 rungs:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=185796

I haven't been this frustrated with my modeling since I took a rubber mallet to a GP40-2WL project in 2003.

[learmoia]

Welp... that's it. These are going in the trash. I'm done. I'm just done with all of this.

I think we used a newer version of the car with 4 rungs on the sides for initial measurments:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=46381
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2940304

But the ones I'm modeling are 3 rungs:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=185796

I haven't been this frustrated with my modeling since I took a rubber mallet to a GP40-2WL project in 2003.

Don't be so hard on yourself, the frets look great for the newer version of the car, you could easily sell them to us or on ebay and recoup your money.. Make your adjustments and re-run them with 3 rung vs 4 rung..

It is really tough to tell what IS and ISN'T correct on these cars.. Even looking at 2 fairly clear shots of each side.
EDIT: See below for more detailed evaluation.

Meanwhile we are all in awe on how good your rebuilt car looks..

~Ian

[rodsup9000]

Welp... that's it. These are going in the trash. I'm done. I'm just done with all of this.

 Daniel, Daniel,  DON'T DO THAT!!!! Your modeling skills are leaps and bounds better than some us will ever be. I know the feeling about trying to replicate something that just when your almost done and find some mistakes that no one will ever notice except you (and maybe one or two others).  It's very hard, but I've learned to "just live with it" or start over and keep what I have done for fill in's till the new ones are done.

[jagged ben]

Yeah jeez, sell 'em on the trading post if you're that determined not to see them again.

[wazzou]

So when do we all get told what the error is?   

If I had to guess, it would be that the one instance of the shortened distance between walkway support stanchions should be at the "B" end but Walthers got it wrong and it was just repeated, but like everyone else, I'd say Frig it.