Intermountain SD40-2W this month

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I wonder when manufacturers will learn that photos like those SELL MODELS.

[wazzou]

I only have two comments...

1) Wire handrail upgrade
2) What the hell is up with those wheels?

[Ian MacMillan]

I only have two comments...

1) Wire handrail upgrade
2) What the hell is up with those wheels?

Same comments I have.

But looks like I will be getting a pair.

[wcfn100]

Ahh, so the stanchion is a difference between prototype models.


Question about the model pics though (if you can avert your eyes from the white paint), are those ditch lights facing forward?

Jason

[Kev1340]

Thanks for the photos Jan, these certainly pretty good despite a few minor niggles that have been pointed out, and can easily be improved.

The important question though - do they pull better than the tunnel motors? Can they pull a reasonable train up a grade? To use an English phrase, my tunnel motors "couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding" :

Cheers,

Kev

[oakcreekco]

Looks like the same Atlas 6 axle trucks that the TM's used.

Hopefully for you guys that buy them, the frame has been improved over the TM, and QC is better.

Good luck to you "runners"

[wazzou]

The railings, particularly on the corners, remind me of that junk you dip your pliers handles into.
And the wheel faces look like tinplate or worse...

[lock4244]

Ahh, so the stanchion is a difference between prototype models.


Question about the model pics though (if you can avert your eyes from the white paint), are those ditch lights facing forward?

Jason

The point of ditch lights originally was to look into the ditches for rock slides, well, it was to increase the viewable area illuminated by the headlights. They were originally mounted angled towards the side, or as in the link below, crosseyed. See hot the cndr's side set are shining towards the camera while the hoggers side point away?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=191374

Now it seems that they are only really to increase visibility of the train for people that have trouble seeing a 16' tall monster coming at them  :

Big thanks for posting those shots! Is the high coupler due to the shell being not exactly attached to the chassis?

[lock4244]

The railings, particularly on the corners, remind me of that junk you dip your pliers handles into.
And the wheel faces look like tinplate or worse...

Straight off the Atlas SD50/60 models... a poor truck design that for some reason Atlas seems indifferent to replacing with something that doesn't suck.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

They look pretty good to me. I know Robb mentioned some issues, but they certainly have "the look."

I wonder if the rear coupler is due to a loose fitting shell or if there is really a problem there.

[Packer]

I wonder if the rear coupler is due to a loose fitting shell or if there is really a problem there.

Looks like the rear steps and pilot are bent outwards toward the bottom. Is the sill a seperate piece from the hood and is the coupler mounted to the frame and not the shell? (don't know a whole lot about N-scale loco construction, I'm an HO person)

[jsoflo]

The rear coupler was something I had not noticed until the set-up for that shot, I fiddled with the shell thinking it was not snug (something that always seems to happen when I handle my SD60's) but it is flush and snug and could not be pushed down any farther. Looking at it more carefully it appears that the spacers on that particular coupler need to be adjusted to the other side of the coupler as there is a roomy gap on the bottom of the coupler pocket. The photos obviously also show the thick white paint on the handrails in all honesty I had not noticed that until the close-up pictures, when looking at the loco in "real-space" they do not really pop like that (of course now I can't help but notice!) as the eye takes in the entire loco and simply notes that the end handrails have correct white rails.

I am about to finish a Kato project and then will be getting started on this model with weathering etc. It looks to me like it needs the standard SD60 treatments of the C55 rail along the bottom of the shell and maybe some airline adjustments on the trucks as well as traction motors. The good news for me is that aside from weathering that should about finish this off, the only detail parts needed will be sunshades and that is easy.

As for running- I am 100% DCC and this came from Chuck so I have not tried it out yet, as I will be figuring out a DCC conversion. I have 2 tunnel motors. One (the more recent) was very straightforward DCC conversion and has always run very well. The other was a major pain, with truck swaps necessary and finally got frustrated to the point that I had a professiona install done and now it runs great, so we will just have to see.

The road specific details (such as the CN rear light for example) are maybe a sign for hope- whether you like IM or not (and I admit to not being a fan of their locos in the past which kept me away from NS SD45-2's and CN SD45-2T's) they seem to be the best bet at this point for running SD40-2's in a variety of schemes (especially if these do well). a standard cab version would seem to need the same cab as from the tunnel motors and SD45-2's and they have regular and snoot nosed SD40-2T's so it would seem to be a rather easy switch from wide to standard cab. I am sure this will be the (and has been) a source of great debate but it sure would be weird if a CN only prototype were all that was intended for that tooling when the variety would be as easy as just noted.

Anyway, not trying to drum up controversy, glad the pictures helped out and I'll add some more when I get some weathering and extras on to it-- and love the Peter Griffin.... ;D
my best,
Jan

[lock4244]

Proto shots to go with the model shots:

CN 5271 in CNNA
http://www.cnrphotos.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=15264&g2_imageViewsIndex=1

CN 5272 in CNNA
http://www.cnrphotos.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=10386&g2_imageViewsIndex=1

As promised, here are shots of the NA scheme, only change was that I dullcoted the model first:

[Ian MacMillan]

Straight off the Atlas SD50/60 models... a poor truck design that for some reason Atlas seems indifferent to replacing with something that doesn't suck.

I must be one of those 10 people in the world who have never had a problem with these trucks. I hear so many complaints about them, yet I had 9 SD60Ms and a bunch of 60's with nary a problem.

[lock4244]

The mysterious floating center axle. I don't know if the mech on the TM / -2W is the same as the SD50/60, but my TM's slow down noticeably on curves.