Finally New Walthers HO Amfleets are on the way!!

mlrr wrote: Allow me to spell it out for 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.

my 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.

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:

mlrr wrote:

green_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).

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/r ... ?11,675207

Answer found.

Fantastic, I was curious about that.

ajp31 wrote:

green_elite_cab wrote:

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.

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.

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.

ajp31 wrote:
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.

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!

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

green_elite_cab wrote:

ajp31 wrote:

green_elite_cab wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Here's more: http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 46&t=98245

Ummm...is there, uh, any chance, er...ahhh, maybe, that...uhhh, Walthers is maybe possibly thinking about tooling, ummmm, say, an SDP40, or uh, maybe a Pooch?

It's kinda odd that they list the Amfleets under name trains but only admitted to tooling up for rolling stock. That don't jive.

The SDP40 actually has a chance of being well-received in the market. As cool as I thought the Pooches were, nobody even cared enough to preserve one--or even complain that they were all scrapped...so it doesn't seem as likely a candidate as the bid EMD's.

Green elite cab

You are completely missing the point about the mp36. Have you eve looked at the link I posted?! TLT is doing all of the correct variants and IS making changes on paper with oversight from the builder. How are you not comprehending this?

I'm not using any hypotheticals. Each of the variations requires separate tooling which costs more money. That's the reason for the hefty price tag! Changes on paper are cheap but separate tooling is not. That's he point I keep making (as well as others and you're not getting it. That probably explains your position on this subject.

As for the f40. Theyre not indicated as retired like the amfleets were which raises the possibility of their return. That number may be discontinued but likely not the overall product. The same was indicated for the amtrak station and this is the second or third time they've brought it back since they've indicated such. This doesn't preclude the production of a proto version and they very well could have plans. Just banking on other new opportunities before they revisit the f40 but it's still a possibility. I think the amfleets were an exception for two reasons. They were a staple for Walthers which had LOTS of room for improvement and it is a proven product with less uncertainty than whatever else (new) they may have up their sleeve. Future releases may depend on the success of these. If they don't well the chance of newer models may diminish.

SlowFreight,

I've suspected that. It's a good speculation. We'll have to see but it would make sense.

(I typed this all from my iPhone I'm the passenger seat of a car so pleas bare with an typos or grammar in my post. Add fatigue to that as well)

The P30ph was an attempt to "recreate" what was done with the U-34ch for use on the NEC,NHV-BOS.
The pooch's along with the SDP40F turned out heavier than expected,then the derailments wth the SDP's started to
pile up. That soured Amtrak on using 6 axle power for passenger service.
The "poochs" were not well liked by the Host RR's,GE was then the #2 builder of freight power and were "glitch prone"
at times.

mlrr wrote:Green elite cab

You are completely missing the point about the mp36. Have you eve looked at the link I posted?! TLT is doing all of the correct variants and IS making changes on paper with oversight from the builder. How are you not comprehending this?

Its not that i'm not comprehending this. Everything you have said makes perfect sense, except for the fact that it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

I was trying to make an analogy with the MP36/40 thing, but it apparently didn't catch.

I'm not using any hypotheticals. Each of the variations requires separate tooling which costs more money. That's the reason for the hefty price tag! Changes on paper are cheap but separate tooling is not. That's he point I keep making (as well as others and you're not getting it. That probably explains your position on this subject.

Your "point" is just fine, and it makes perfect sense. The problem is, you haven't seemed to pick up on my point which is "If they did the research in the first place, their would not be anyone calling into question their tooling"

I feel like this is a really, REALLY simple and common sense idea, and I wish i could have thought of this single sentence earlier.

You keep going into huge posts about why the prices are justified by the expense of the tooling and other parts of the development process, and thats fine. logically, additional tooling would drive up costs. However, making the tooling comes after actually researching and understanding a model.

Just to re-cap, this is my original statement-

I still don't see why they couldn't put the right size vents on the car. It doesn't take rocket science,and I suspect it has more to do with people not giving a damn beyond "good enough". I suppose I've never made a "master" mold or template for a production model like that, but I still don't see how they messed that up.

To be fair, I did not specifically say American GK's original development of the Amfleet model, which may have leas to the confusion, but thats what I meant, and in my next post I pointed that out.

I can see how it may have appeared that I meant walthers should have rebuilt the tooling to be accurate as soon as it noticed something wrong, but I was looking more so at the very beginning of the model development process.


Do you see where I'm coming from now? Its not that I didn't comprehend what you were saying, I think its more that we're on different pages.

SlowFreight wrote:Ummm...is there, uh, any chance, er...ahhh, maybe, that...uhhh, Walthers is maybe possibly thinking about tooling, ummmm, say, an SDP40, or uh, maybe a Pooch?

It's kinda odd that they list the Amfleets under name trains but only admitted to tooling up for rolling stock. That don't jive.

The SDP40 actually has a chance of being well-received in the market. As cool as I thought the Pooches were, nobody even cared enough to preserve one--or even complain that they were all scrapped...so it doesn't seem as likely a candidate as the bid EMD's.

This actually crossed my mind as well, but I hesitated to mention them when I suggested an upgraded F40PH. While I would consider the SDP40F almost essential to modeling the early amtrak trains, it doesn't have quite the popular appeal of the F40PH, and suffered from being "6 Axle" even more so than the E60s did.

I would definitely like to see an SDP40F though. there have been two different resin offerings, but nothing super-awesome in quality.

I'm not so sure about the P30CH. I for some reason like them, perhaps because they are odd-balls, but I feel like the P30CH has to be Amtrak's most forgotten locomotive type. I know that American GK began a P30CH. Its in the walthers catalogs prior to Walthers buying them out. Apparently, only a handful of pre-production ones were made.

Overall, i'm thinking the SDP40F is probably the most likely. SDP40Fs can probably be found across the nation on diesel powered trains, and would definitely have been replacing the E8s more so than not.

The P30CH turned out to be to heavy for the intended New-England service and were then relegated to operationg out of Washington DC, and were apparently quietly phased out. There were never many of them, and they stayed in small regions.

The pooch found a "home" of sorts on Auto-Train and some of the "Silver Service" trains on Seaboard System tracks(pre-CSX)
Seaboard was more "forgiving" on the poochs and liked the GE's more than EMD at that time.

Backshophoss wrote:The pooch found a "home" of sorts on Auto-Train and some of the "Silver Service" trains on Seaboard System tracks(pre-CSX)
Seaboard was more "forgiving" on the poochs and liked the GE's more than EMD at that time.

I remember when I was first getting into model railroading, I had a tape from the 1990s that featured a trio of P30CHs pulling the Autotrain. At the time, i couldn't tell what sort of locomotives they were. How long did they last in Amtrak Service?

green_elite_cab wrote:
Your "point" is just fine, and it makes perfect sense. The problem is, you haven't seemed to pick up on my point which is "If they did the research in the first place, their would not be anyone calling into question their tooling"

I feel like this is a really, REALLY simple and common sense idea, and I wish i could have thought of this single sentence earlier.

You keep going into huge posts about why the prices are justified by the expense of the tooling and other parts of the development process, and thats fine. logically, additional tooling would drive up costs. However, making the tooling comes after actually researching and understanding a model.

Just to re-cap, this is my original statement-

I still don't see why they couldn't put the right size vents on the car. It doesn't take rocket science,and I suspect it has more to do with people not giving a damn beyond "good enough". I suppose I've never made a "master" mold or template for a production model like that, but I still don't see how they messed that up.

Fair enough. That basic point is an obvious one and is fundamental. I thought discussions had evolved beyond that. It goes back to the old saying "Measure twice, cut once". Mistakes have been made in the past but fortunately, the new amfleets are ahead of us.

green_elite_cab wrote:To be fair, I did not specifically say American GK's original development of the Amfleet model, which may have leas to the confusion, but thats what I meant, and in my next post I pointed that out.

I can see how it may have appeared that I meant walthers should have rebuilt the tooling to be accurate as soon as it noticed something wrong, but I was looking more so at the very beginning of the model development process.


Do you see where I'm coming from now? Its not that I didn't comprehend what you were saying, I think its more that we're on different pages.

Again, fair enough. I only interpreted your statement as suggesting that Walthers make modifications to the tool.

You pointed out GK's shortcomings in their development process and you see where they are now; correct? This is not to say the project was a direct result of their downfall but they've been out of business for decades. For all we know, they had rushed to be the first to release the models and it backfired. Additionally I think they may have copied the brass model which has the same flaws.

You are correct but as I've said before, this is an example of past mistakes by a company that has been long out of business. For the most part, most manufacturers have been pretty good lately about making sure they catch gaping errors, leaving only the "rivet counter" issues for the said folks to fuss over on forums, lol.

***BTW, I only have problems with "Rivet Counters" who do not have the skills to do the job themselves but will bash manufacturers for it.***

The P30ch(pooch)were pulled out of service late'91/early'92,at the height of the F-40ph "takeover" on all services.
No idea where/when scrapped.

GE got back into good graces with Amtrak with the "Gennie" design and what was a "stop-gap" model,
P-32bwh,based on the Dash-8-40-b.
Atlas made a very good model of P-32bwh,then did a sound decoder equiped version,
in"Pepsi Can"(ph III varient),ph IV,and Amtrak Calirornia paint.

I'm surprised they lasted into the '90s. I thought they were done a little earlier than that as the F40s seemed like they were in their prime in the mid-80s and were more so on their way out (although still ubiquitous throughout the system) with the AMD-103 making it's way into the picture in 1993. It took about a decade but the takeover of the AMD-103 was accelerated by the P42s rollout in ?1996? I just know that in 1994, everything I rode on with the exception of the Chief and Desert Wind, was hauled by F40s. Three years later, I was hard pressed to find one in the system and it was impossible to find one on any of my trains, lol. I know they were still being used on the route to Springfield and Boston (pre-electrification).

Amtrak didn't own too many of the "pooches" did they?

I'm curious to see how well walthers tints the windows on these cars. Despite the less accurate dimensions of the original tooling, what attracted me to the Walthers cars over the original Bachmann cars was the tinted windows and how they looked on the Amfleet.

mlrr wrote:I'm surprised they lasted into the '90s.

Amtrak didn't own too many of the "pooches" did they?

Amtrak owned 25 of them if I remember right. They were bought around the same time as the SDP40Fs, and were described in the book "Amtrak Annual" as Amtrak's attempt to sample other power rather than just relying on the SDP40F (although as we all know, neither locomotive worked out). The P30CH was supposed to be the first locomotive on Amtrak specifically made with HEP, followed by the E60CH.

I'm guessing that much like the E60, Amtrak squeezed its money's worth out of them. I strongly suspect that the P30CH wasn't a very popular photographic subject, or they may have only used them when there was a shortage of other, better power resulting in low visibility by photographers. While P30CHs show up in a lot of my "older" amtrak books frequently, more recent published books and docuement may only have one P30CH, if any, in photos, and the model is hardly mentioned.

While going further afield and off topic, the P30's did have one redeming quality, the ability to parallel multiple HEP generator sets, thus you were not limited to the HEP output of one locomotive.

Also, the P30's tended to be assigned to routes where the host road had experience with General Electric locomotives ( ie Southern Pacific, Seaboard Coast Line, Illinois Central)

Off the Vestibule steps and stepbox and back onto the platform I go

I have little to say about the new Amfleets, as I'm not an Amtrak modeller, apart from saying that I'm glad to see Walthers doing it over and doing it right. Should be a very nice model, and if I were an Amtrak modeller, I'd be saving my pennies right now. As it is, I've got more than enough funds tied up in Rapido's next run of VIA Rail LRC coaches (which are essentially Canada's Amfleets, if you like).

I will add in one thought with regard to the bit of F40 discussion that got started. I'll say right now that I think we desperately need a proper, accurate, well detailed F40PH model. What offerings have we had?

-Walthers -> Trainline model, okay in some details but horribly wrong in others (wrong truck placement, for one) and the overall level of detail is not even remotely close to what is expected of today's models...even the basic RTR ones. Plus, they've only been offering one road number at a time. On the up-side, they actually offered one in VIA Rail paint (even if it took them a few times to get it right).
-Bachmann -> Wrong in so many ways I don't even know where to start. The major discrepancy, that being the omission of a lot of height between the trucks and the body (all that missing frame...why?) make it look, well...stupid.
-Lifelike -> Again, plenty of errors and overall train-set quality.
-Kato -> The best one yet for level of detail, but still with errors. The nose is just...wrong.

So while the market is full of some sort of F40, what is really missing is a single, well detailed, and accurate F40PH. Is the problem that there are too many cheap, mediocre stand-ins that most people are willing to deal with?


Then I have a slight personal complaint re: F40s. I model VIA Rail (Canada's Amtrak equivalent, for any of you not familiar). VIA has run a fleet of F40s since the '80s, with 53 units still in service today. They have been the staple of Canadian passenger trains for the last several decades. The entire fleet has just been rebuilt, and is expected to last another 20 years. Now the thing is, VIA's F40s are not the same as Amtrak's. They are F40PH-2D (the "D" indicates that they have desktop controls), and they have a plethora of differences from the Amtrak and other variants. So to model a VIA version, you need to do a LOT of modifications. If you want to do the new rebuilds, you have to do all that PLUS add new details like the third headlight and HEP extension on the rear end (if you haven't seen these rebuilds, have a look...here's one with a non-rebuilt unit behind it: http://www.canadianrailwayobservations. ... ville1.jpg)

I would love to see an accurate, RTR VIA F40PH-2D. Will we see it? I don't know. I hope so. (I've got my fingers crossed that Rapido will try it in a few years, in which case they could potentially add in a really nice Amtrak version as part of the run). But here's my other question: Usually, manufacturers are quick to paint up models in all paint schemes they served in, even if it's a stand in. So why have so few VIA F40s been produced, even on inaccurate models? Bachmann did some, but only for a short time years ago. Walthers has had there's, but again, not entirely accurate in its paint and only one road number offered. Lifelike did some VIA units, but...that was Lifelike. Kato didn't do VIA paint on theirs.

Surprisingly though, Kato chose to paint their N scale P42 in VIA colours, even though VIA has only 21 P42s (as compared to their 54 F40s, which have worn quite a number of interesting and unique paint schemes in addition to the basic ones). Then in HO, Athearn's P42 has only been done in VIA colours for special custom runs.

Oh well. Sorry for the slightly off-topic rant there...I just figured perhaps that I would point out how we VIA Rail modellers have it even harder than you Amtrak guys!