Bachmann S4 question

[up1950s]

Wish Bachmann made an undec , waiting for a 1950's UP scheme and while doing so wondering how true to prototype it will be is like ( make your own analogy and share it ).

[Chris333]

It appears Microscale set 60-88 has the decals needed, even the "P&LE" sub-lettering on the cab.

Would any one know of a good paint match for the Bachmann green?

[bbussey]

Shouldn't it be in NYC colors, which suggests a full repaint is necessary?

[Chris333]

I'm pretty sure the real ones were green, they just looked almost black when weathered. This is an Atlas HO S2, but I think the paint is correct for a S4:
http://www.atlasrr.com/Images/HOLocomotives/hos2s4/0507/10000037_TQ.jpg

I would try to keep the sill and handrails un-touched. Then strip the hood and cab since I doubt just the lettering will come off. So I think it would be easiest to just paint and decal the hood/cab

And all this makes me wonder if Atlas will do the S2 in P&LE... then I could have a P&LE loco that was a few years closer to my era. S2's built in 1948-49 and S4's in 1953.

[SkipGear]

Chris,
  You are going to have to get one of these. I finally got a chance to run one tonight. Dead quiet, smooth as silk, and top speed on 12V of 30 scale mph. It's a switcher that acts like a switcher.

[Sokramiketes]

I'm pretty sure the real ones were green, they just looked almost black when weathered. This is an Atlas HO S2, but I think the paint is correct for a S4:
http://www.atlasrr.com/Images/HOLocomotives/hos2s4/0507/10000037_TQ.jpg

I would try to keep the sill and handrails un-touched. Then strip the hood and cab since I doubt just the lettering will come off. So I think it would be easiest to just paint and decal the hood/cab

And all this makes me wonder if Atlas will do the S2 in P&LE... then I could have a P&LE loco that was a few years closer to my era. S2's built in 1948-49 and S4's in 1953.

Atlas might even put tread plate on the decks...

[Puddington]

Atlas might even put tread plate on the decks...

Oh boy..... ok, not to start a war but I was recently measuring tread plate in n scale on a few models and to say that it's "grossly oversized" is a understatement.... in reality, and in scale you would be hard pressed to see most treadplate were it molded in perfect scale.... the treadplate that has been added may add to the visual appeal of models but strictly speaking the ones I measured were way, way out of scale.... so; are we advocating for an out of scale detail when we complain about missing tread plate.... and is it a game breaker ?

Just my opinion.....

[peteski]

Oh boy..... ok, not to start a war but I was recently measuring tread plate in n scale on a few models and to say that it's "grossly oversized" is a understatement.... in reality, and in scale you would be hard pressed to see most treadplate were it molded in perfect scale.... the treadplate that has been added may add to the visual appeal of models but strictly speaking the ones I measured were way, way out of scale.... so; are we advocating for an out of scale detail when we complain about missing tread plate.... and is it a game breaker ?

Just my opinion.....

Not just your opinion - I agree 100%.  I have not yet seen a correctly scaled N scale treadplate. If I did, I would need a magnifying glass to see the texture. 

[C855B]

>...recently measuring tread plate...

Ah... yes, good point. I had been thinking about that. Tread patterns have roughly 3/16" of relief. That's 0.001" in N.

OTOH, it's industry practice to have loco hood doors in relief (0.005-0.010") from the body to emphasize the detail, when in real life they are flush. Rivets have the same problem, too. It's a difficult choice - overscale detail, or detail so invisible as to be perceived as not there.

[DKS]

This all boils down to the old "how big is a brick" problem. Absolutely scale details range from difficult to impractical to downright impossible to render. Manufacturers must strike a delicate balance between what "looks right" and what's feasible given the technology as well as the budget. In some cases, a correctly-scaled detail may not look right when mixed in with others that aren't, so some details that could be correct are deliberately rendered as not in order to keep the proportions balanced. Success depends on the skill of the tooler.

What we end up with is a compromise. Many (possibly most) details on any given model will not be to scale, but is the model satisfying overall? That of course will vary according to the modeler: some may find out-of-scale tread plate to look fine, while others may think it's gross. The manufacturer naturally cannot please everyone, so they take their best shot in order to generate the best possible sales. Oversize tread plate may in fact become a bullet point in a list of features touting a superior model. The bottom line is whether or not it gets you to open your wallet.

[Dave V]

Interesting...  I guess it all boils down to what you notice and what you don't.  I know my eye is still not trained well enough to spot some of the inaccuracies you guys can.  Some things give me fits like ride height and coupler shank length.  On the other hand, I never really notice things like hood width and tread plate relief.  Sometimes overly thick handrails will get my attention, but not always.

Then again, I almost never view my models in isolation.  One of the benefits to having a "finished" model railroad is that once I place a new piece of equipment on the layout, it becomes a part of a larger scene and only those attributes that conflict with the scene will trigger my ire.

Still I believe manufacturers should try as best they can to make models accurate in their own right such as the compromises necessary for scale, material, and operation in N will allow.  A case in point: body-mounted couplers.  I honestly believe all new N scale equipment should come so equipped.  We've all but completely phased out Rapido couplers...truck-mounted knuckles should similarly be on the endangered list.

[Puddington]

This all boils down to the old "how big is a brick" problem. Absolutely scale details range from difficult to impractical to downright impossible to render. Manufacturers must strike a delicate balance between what "looks right" and what's feasible given the technology as well as the budget. In some cases, a correctly-scaled detail may not look right when mixed in with others that aren't, so some details that could be correct are deliberately rendered as not in order to keep the proportions balanced. Success depends on the skill of the tooler.

What we end up with is a compromise. Many (possibly most) details on any given model will not be to scale, but is the model satisfying overall? That of course will vary according to the modeler: some may find out-of-scale tread plate to look fine, while others may think it's gross. The manufacturer naturally cannot please everyone, so they take their best shot in order to generate the best possible sales. Oversize tread plate may in fact become a bullet point in a list of features touting a superior model. The bottom line is whether or not it gets you to open your wallet.

Exactly... so I don't judge a model by the inclusion or exclusion of tread plate because I can take either side of the argument..... "beauty is in the eye of the purchaser".... Tee hee

[sdodge]

Interesting...  I guess it all boils down to what you notice and what you don't.  I know my eye is still not trained well enough to spot some of the inaccuracies you guys can.  Some things give me fits like ride height and coupler shank length.  On the other hand, I never really notice things like hood width and tread plate relief.  Sometimes overly thick handrails will get my attention, but not always.

That's about it for me also. The thing I notice most is ride height. Most newer manufacturers get it right with the exception of one. The cars with high ride height I tend not to operate as much because it just looks wrong.