mlrr wrote: Allow me to spell it out for youmy fault. the 9600 series was what I implied by "basic metroliner cab". Thats what I get for posting while dead tired! I was agreeing with you.
9-6-x-x series. None of those incarnations of the cars showed up in phase II to my knowledge. I can't spell it out any clearer for you than that.
mlrr wrote:As for the F40, Walthers still has its trainline F40 in its current production line (number 242). Pondered the possibility of a Proto release for the F40 but I think phase II being close to the E8 era, Walthers is leaning toward this phase first with its Amfleets. The timing almost lines up perfectly. HEP version or not, that won't stop modelers and I doubt Walthers is going to do an HEP version. With the exclusion of the Amfleet II, all the recent Amtrak stuff is from the same general Amtrak era.To be fair, there are only three VERY maked down versions of the F40PH available at walthers, which will be discontinued when sold out. I think if Walthers was going to go through the trouble to make the Amfleets, they are going to make the locomotive models that were bought specifically pull the new cars. With the Kato model gone, I think the market is ripe for a new high-detail F40PH.
I won't argue with the Timing either, but I thought that the Phase I E8 had more to do with the Amtrak 40th Anniversary. they are fantastic looking models, and I wish i could add one to my fleet (though i'm not sure I could justify an Amtrak E8 in New Jersey. I'm not sure there are any regular diesel powered Amtrak runs here, either in the past or present).
I would think though that since the E8 tooling allows for customization of the rear compartment, that Head End power would work. On the other hand, the only E8s that would be carrying the detail would be a handful of Amtrak engines, and the "second" Conrail 4020 and 4021, which were bought second hand from Amtrak for the OCS train (the original Conrail 4020 and 4021 were Erie units i think, and were scrapped), so HEP may not be a justifiable detail. Besides, That rear panel can probably be easily modified at home by a relatively capable modeler to match HEP details.
I kinda also figured, that there are now Amtrak Phase I locomotives out there anyway, apart from a few Athearn F45 stand ins, and some F7s by Athearn and Intermoutain (or was it Stewart?). Since Walthers has for years produced Phase I cars, it makes sense to try and make a nice model to pull them.
SlowFreight wrote:Fantastic, I was curious about that.mlrr wrote:http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/r ... ?11,675207green_elite_cab wrote:
I've only seen the San Diegan in push-pull mode and I'm not aware of any location in San Diego where a train can be turned (although I do not rule out that possibility).
ajp31 wrote:Now thats cool! I didn't even know one of those existed. Learn a new thing everyday! I am kinda mad it was on Hebners (that was the first place I looked), must have went right past them.green_elite_cab wrote:According to "Amtrak By The Numbers" there were 8 Metroliner cars (2 coaches and 6 clubs) that were rebuilt with blanked ends in 1991 for Michigan service, becoming nos. 44550-44557. There's a photo of one in Phase III on page 92 of the book. I know I saw at least one in a Lake Shore Limited consist in Phase IVb paint circa 2002. I also looked online and found this.SlowFreight wrote: Even later, more were pulled from the dead lines and turned into straight trailers, with everything stripped off and the end windows blanked when the diaphragm was added. IIRC, the cab ends were painted grey to make them discreet.I have not been able to find any photos of these units. All examples I can find retain their cab-end windows.
ajp31 wrote:That is exactly what I'm talking about. It would be analgous to making a METRA MP40 and a GO Transit MP36-3S. They may look fantastic, but its still wrong. they wasted time and energy for nothing, and the issue could have been detected and fixed with a simple google search long before any tooling was ever made. Changes on paper are cheap!
You two are talking circles around each other, but if you'll pardon my saying, I'm not sure you're talking about the same thing. Yes: better-detailed, road-specific, newly-tooled models are going to cost more to produce and cost more for us to purchase. But what Chris is saying (I think) is that it remains confounding how often manufacturers will go to the trouble of tooling those variations and then mess up the production by using the wrong variation for a specific road. I remember Athearn did it with their CSX AC4400s in the first Ready-to-Roll release. At these prices, that's the thing that's kind of infuriating. So the MP36 example is apples-to-oranges right now because we haven't seen the finished product yet. I'm not saying they will, but if TLT messes up and puts the wrong details on one of the models when they announced and made the right details for a different model, THAT'S what is ridiculous. There's no excuse not to get it right the first time in this day and age.
Either way, the bottom line, again, is at these prices, they should be able to get it right.Exactly, thanks for putting it into better words than I!
mlrr wrote:That's what Walthers did. To match their existing offerings, they purposely matched the same contours BUT they fixed things like the vents. The development of the Amfleet II may have been the first time where Walthers may have considered re-tooling the Amfleet I but decided to go in the direction they did instead. Either way, the Amfleet II is a completely new tool. You can DUPLICATE elements from another model but development of a tool is a one-shot deal in most cases. You can't just go back and modify it like you would a kitbahsed model. Keep in mind to that these tools take alot of abuse so you need a solid master. Certain modifications deny this luxury.You seem to think that I'm implying that "If they have U28B Version A, that they should be able to make U28B Version X and Y with no problem", which is not what i'm saying. that would be difficult and costly once the model is in production.
I never asked why they couldn't change it (or why it would be impractical to do so). I had originally asked why American GK got it all wrong in the first place, and it turns out they jumped the gun with their research. The over-arching theme though, was why are model produced that have so many flaws in them when there was opportunity to do them right without additional cost.
These kinds of problems could have been solved on the drawing board before tooling was ever produced. In some cases, the tooling isn't wrong, but the paint scheme is. Once again, if they did the research, they could have just started out with the right paint scheme to begin with. These aren't small mistakes, they are BIG GLARING ERRORs, that simply shouldn't be there.
mlrr wrote: No one is comparing the MP36 to other models. It's not apples to oranges. It's an example of the cost of doing variations that pass on to the consumer. Check the link below. True Line has uploaded photos of the variations. I shared this in the MP36 thread earlier this year.[/quote]
It is absolutely apples to oranges. Using your words, Let me spell it out.
If hypothetically, TLT produces a METRA MP40 and a GO Transit MP36, would that upset you? it should, because those roadnames should be swapped. For reasons unknown, they decide they're making a METRA MP40, and they're going to charge you a ton of money.
Oh sure,they put the work in, and they have to charge what they can to get their money back, but the point is, if you're going to go through all the effort, why not just make an GO Transit MP40PH-3 and a METRA MP36PH-3S right in the first place?
Again, the old Walthers Amfleet was an example of jumping the gun, so American GK isn't as guilty, they did go right to the source. They made a gamble on using a pre-production plan and lost. Rail Power Products did the same thing with its C32-8.
However, companies like P2K, and now Walthers, probably have always had more reseach people than American GK ever did, and produce many of their models from SCRATCH. When they produced the U28B model I mentioned earlier, they messed up. They made all the tooling for the correct body shell for Conrail, and were using it on what is the "Same" locomotive (U28B #2822 had retained its New York Central number through Penn Central all the way into retirement by Conrail). They used the correct body shell tooling for the New York Central and Penn Central models (though the Penn Central has PRR style numbers on it, while the prototype doesn, since it was a form NYC engine... another failure), and yet they made the Conrail #2822 with the WRONG tooling.
All of these U28Bs were offered at the same time. It is the same as if TLT mismatched their paint schemes onto the different versions of the MPXpress engines.
This is what I am ultimately frustrated with. There really isn't an excuse for something, If i can google search "Conrail U28B" and get several photos of #2822.
The tooling is irrelevant. All of the issues I have called out are the kinds of things that the manufacturer should have researched and been aware of before they ever made the tooling. Flawed tooling is the symptom, not the sickness
Elite Juice Jack Modeler.