Finally New Walthers HO Amfleets are on the way!!

mlrr wrote:
Green_Elite_Cab,

I think you overlooked my statement in my earlier post:

I've mentioned conductalube on EVERY POST regarding the subject of the Walthers Amfleet rollability. No one seems to read that on ANY of the forums that I've posted. The few folks that emailed me directly and took my advice have followed up having been satisfied by the results. Atlas makes a tube of it as well as other companies. The needle applicator allows you to apply it in the appropriate spots. They roll just fine after that. Now that you've acknowledged that you've read that part of my post, I expect you to retract future statements about how nothing works to improve Amfleet rollability.

I never said it couldn't be done. I said I couldn't convince anyone else that it could be done!

It's disappoints me that folks who ask for a more accurate Amfleet will also bash the new product before it is released. What incentive does that give manufacturers to honor the request of Amtrak modelers in the future? Give the stuff a chance.

I think its more like people are airing their fears so that manufacturers don't make silly mistakes.

Clearly, when people were making the tooling for the old Amfleets over at American GK, none of them had even tried to get the roof vents right, among other flaws. While we expect a lot from walthers, they aren't perfect (who is?). Nothing would be more frustrating than to buy a $70 with "little" things wrong with it everywhere.

Yes its not out yet, but it would be to late to call out anything if you wait until release.

True but you're talking about product development 30+ years ago. Customer expectations and manufacturing techniques have drastically changed since then.

Back during the days of GK, "stand-ins" were acceptable. Today; less so. Almost every manufacturer appears to be stepping up their efforts to be as precise as possible with a few exceptions that lend themselves to navigating track geometry constraints (but even that is being tossed at times in favor of realism, some could argue the DDX from Athearn fits that mold).

If you read the ad for the re-tooled amfleets, it virtually addresses every point that has been raised on this thread from the rollability, to profile, etc. EVERYTHING that is wrong with the current model and more has been addressed and acknowledged in the Ad.

As a sidenote, I'm sure Walthers is aware that the San Diegan had a converted Metroliner Cab. Does anyone suspect that there's a greater than 50% chance that Walthers will have a converted cab in their offerings at some point. My guess is that (although no converted cabs are EXACTLY alike) they'll find the most "common" version and apply the various phases to it. The drawback is that I don't recall seeing them in phase II as they are proposing for the Sand Diegan. Perhaps they're expecting the modeled train to run with locomotives at either end?

Wow, i'm gone for 2 weeks and this thread exploded! LOL

For those of you that may not know, preliminary drawings are up on the Walthers page showing the Metroliner cars and Amfleet wheels/brake detail.

I just can't wait till they release these models in IVb

-Tom

B44NYC wrote:I figured my cost to get ONE of the original Walthers Horizon or Amfleet car to look/run correctly (replacement wheelsets, rubber diaphragms, Kadee couplers, weights, wires & red LEDs for end of car lighting) and I paid MORE than what Walthers is asking for one brand new retooled car!

That gets me thinking... will these new cars have marker lights? Will they be included with the lighting kit, or just not included at all?

mlrr wrote:As a sidenote, I'm sure Walthers is aware that the San Diegan had a converted Metroliner Cab. Does anyone suspect that there's a greater than 50% chance that Walthers will have a converted cab in their offerings at some point.

I'm really hoping for an Ex-Metroliner cab car! RTR in phase IVb would look great. I know theat it would definitely require them to do a lot of work off of the Metroliner tooling but I hope that Walthers decides to go for it, especially since this model has never been done before. If they do it they would look amazing with working headlights, ditchlights, and strobes!

Amtrak207 wrote:For those of you that may not know, preliminary drawings are up on the Walthers page showing the Metroliner cars and Amfleet wheels/brake detail.

I just can't wait till they release these models in IVb

Those drawing look great, especially the whole body ones of the Metroliner. I hope they put up drawings like that for the Amfleet soon!
I can't wait for IVb either! I think if Atlas was ever going to do a rerun of the AEM-7 now would be the time.

Thanks for the update Amtrak 207!

Can someone say AMPED!!!!!

Looks like someone over at Walthers has been following this thread . Lets keep the conversation productive as to not loose their attention folks! That's part of the method to my madness in this thread; after a while constant complaints or critiques, however valid and relevant eventually fall on deaf ears. Keep your mind open and the parties that be will do the same .

Back to the topic:

The 3D images are VERY promising. These images are pretty much drafted up from the programs they (like other manufacturers) use to design the actual models they make (these days anyway). These images are fairly accurate representations of what one can expect of the final product (I've done similar tasks in College myself and have seen it from start to finish).

The cross-section also shows accurate contours for the Metroliner. Seeing as how the Amfleet is a direct descendant I can say with 100% confidence that Walthers will simply apply the same exact cross-section to the Amfleets. I'm so excited!

The wheelset images should also put some fears to rest as well. It looks like they adapted the Athearn concept for power pickup using the ?copper?/?brass? disks which also support the truck itself. I'm assuming the main frame of the truck is actually two metal pieces for + and - feeds. If this is true, then these cars will have 8-wheel pickup reducing the possibility of flickering.

My only concern is with the two pylons that protrude from the top of the frame. It looks like a necessity if being used as part of the power feed to the lighting system. I'm curious as to how much that will limit play when negotiating rough track (which most of us tend to have, lol). I'm hoping there's room for adjustment there (if necessary).

**Truck Design Suggestion**
(if not already taken into consideration )

What would be neat is if those pylons were actually spring action, conductive components and not stiff rods with no give.

The latter may open itself up to tracking issues. The Atlas track cleaner (which I recently purchased) actually uses that concept transferring electricity from the truck to the conductive plate under the car body and in turn the motor. It works very well and has little to no effect on the cars ability to stay on the rails.

So far so good Walthers! Keep up the good work!

mlrr wrote:True but you're talking about product development 30+ years ago. Customer expectations and manufacturing techniques have drastically changed since then.

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.

As a sidenote, I'm sure Walthers is aware that the San Diegan had a converted Metroliner Cab. Does anyone suspect that there's a greater than 50% chance that Walthers will have a converted cab in their offerings at some point. My guess is that (although no converted cabs are EXACTLY alike) they'll find the most "common" version and apply the various phases to it. The drawback is that I don't recall seeing them in phase II as they are proposing for the Sand Diegan. Perhaps they're expecting the modeled train to run with locomotives at either end?

I suspect you typed in error, but I don't think there are any Phase II metroliner cabs, except for one or two sitting around a yard someplace unused. I'm pretty sure that the Metroliner conversions didn't take place until the late 80s, by which time the Phase III paint was dominant. Also, I thought Walthers was offering Phase III Amfleet IIs?

I sure hope they offer a Metroliner cab soon. I keep seeing people plan to chop these things up for cab cars, and its gonna be a massacre of a limited run, expensive model.

The big problem is that some Metroliner cars were rebuilt like Amfleet IIs, and others retained their own configuration by the doors. We'll probably get stuck with one version or the other.

Knowing people in the industry and knowing that a projuct like this ( single car) the tooling can cost WELL over the cost of a SUV here is a realistic solution that I am proposing to those of you that are saying the pricing is not realistic..I say to you be realistic, you say you can't afford something, then don't buy it, and when it comes out and you find that it does meet your requirements or exceed your expectations, Hold your ground, if you said your not going to buy it, don't buy it... do the rest of us a favor and leave more candy bars for the rest of us. Also be realistic and don't go around saying I wish the manufacturers would make this or that. If you are not going to buy it, don't ask for it, that's just being, for lack of a better term, hypocritical..

I understand that these costs are undesirable. I don't like them anymore then anyone else does. Walthers did me a favor by offereing the AmI's in Phase II, since I don't model Phase II, I can only get the AmII's In Phase II.. Am I getting as many as I would like? No, but I am buying them...

But to expect a company not to have a decent return on their investment is also not realistic. (and yes I see it from the hobbiest's perspective as well - why should I buy stuff at these high prices).

this hobby is at a crossroads, one where it is becoming impossible to attrach young hobbiests to participate.. How the industry addresses that is going to prove to make or break the hobby, but at the same time as prices have increased almost exponentially, the hobbiest has changed as well with more becoming railroad modelers rather then MODEL RAILROADERS.. they want to take it out of the box and put it on the layout.. Done. And that change has added to the costs of production..

I'll stop rambling and get off my stepbox and on to the platform now and head for the lockerroom...

green_elite_cab wrote:

mlrr wrote:True but you're talking about product development 30+ years ago. Customer expectations and manufacturing techniques have drastically changed since then.

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.

Have you looked at the older cars?! There's no possible way Walthers could have modified the tool they had to put on smaller air vents. Think about it! You're asking to put something SMALLER over a feature that is much LARGER. If it was the revers, there would be the possibility of covering up the smaller feature (provided the placement was correct). For the original tool it is a NO-GO because the corrugated body makes your suggestion unfeasible.

Modifications to a tool that may seem simple to you are much more complex than you may think. I urge you and others to educate yourselves by asking manufactures (especially train shows) these kind of generic questions. You'll learn allot!

I've been show some of the "simplest" mods that required all-new tooling simply because of the nature of the required modifications. I can't remember which was which but I think in certain instances, when doing variants of a model, if one variant has an opening an another doesn't, you have to do the variant with the opening first because you can't cut into a curved surface but you can fill in that curved surface. The drawback is you can't re-run the other version unless you created a new tool so it's a one shot deal.

Green_elite_Cab wrote:

As a sidenote, I'm sure Walthers is aware that the San Diegan had a converted Metroliner Cab. Does anyone suspect that there's a greater than 50% chance that Walthers will have a converted cab in their offerings at some point. My guess is that (although no converted cabs are EXACTLY alike) they'll find the most "common" version and apply the various phases to it. The drawback is that I don't recall seeing them in phase II as they are proposing for the Sand Diegan. Perhaps they're expecting the modeled train to run with locomotives at either end?

I suspect you typed in error, but I don't think there are any Phase II metroliner cabs, except for one or two sitting around a yard someplace unused. I'm pretty sure that the Metroliner conversions didn't take place until the late 80s, by which time the Phase III paint was dominant. Also, I thought Walthers was offering Phase III Amfleet IIs?

I'm not in error. you just misread my post . I said:

mlrr wrote:My guess is that (although no converted cabs are EXACTLY alike) they'll find the most "common" version and apply the various phases to it. The drawback is that I don't recall seeing them in phase II as they are proposing for the Sand Diegan. Perhaps they're expecting the modeled train to run with locomotives at either end?

Green_elite_Cab wrote:
I sure hope they offer a Metroliner cab soon. I keep seeing people plan to chop these things up for cab cars, and its gonna be a massacre of a limited run, expensive model.

The big problem is that some Metroliner cars were rebuilt like Amfleet IIs, and others retained their own configuration by the doors. We'll probably get stuck with one version or the other.

That's what I was getting at. I've noticed that as well. My guess is they'll adapt the Metroliner tooling (the more common variant) for use on the cab cars if they were to go down that path. Having done this project myself, I suspect that either Walthers would/could modify the tool for the Metroliners to produce the cab OR create a new tool based on the specs from the original Metroliner (I could be overlooking something that would necessitate a new tool). Either way, the version that does not resemble the Amfleet II door at the end would be the more economically logical way to go IMO. If they came with working ditch, head, marker and strobe lights I'd suspect they'd be close to $100. Without, they could potentially be around the same price as the Amfleet I and IIs. All in all I'd expect these to be in between the Amfleets and Metroliners.

Metroliner Cab Car 9709 in Phase II in 1993
Metroliner Cab Car 9641

Thanks for sharing.

I think we were both talking about the versions as shown in the second link.

The first link was Amtrak's attempt to get the most out of the Metroliners before giving up on them completely by adding the roof unit. They saw their last bit of regular service on the harrisburg line in the mid '80s. I can't explain the first photo other than the possibility that before they modified more of their cab cars, they simply used one of the existing modified metroliners (the ones with the roof units) for cab control cars before going with what is being used today (again, represented by your second photo).

mlrr wrote:

green_elite_cab wrote:

mlrr wrote:True but you're talking about product development 30+ years ago. Customer expectations and manufacturing techniques have drastically changed since then.

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.

Have you looked at the older cars?! There's no possible way Walthers could have modified the tool they had to put on smaller air vents. Think about it! You're asking to put something SMALLER over a feature that is much LARGER. If it was the revers, there would be the possibility of covering up the smaller feature (provided the placement was correct). For the original tool it is a NO-GO because the corrugated body makes your suggestion unfeasible.

Modifications to a tool that may seem simple to you are much more complex than you may think. I urge you and others to educate yourselves by asking manufactures (especially train shows) these kind of generic questions. You'll learn allot!

I've been show some of the "simplest" mods that required all-new tooling simply because of the nature of the required modifications. I can't remember which was which but I think in certain instances, when doing variants of a model, if one variant has an opening an another doesn't, you have to do the variant with the opening first because you can't cut into a curved surface but you can fill in that curved surface. The drawback is you can't re-run the other version unless you created a new tool so it's a one shot deal.

No, I didn't mean by Walthers. I meant that when American GK sat down and started drafting the Amfleet, why did they make the vents larger? The only thing I can think of, is maybe they had some crappy "concept" plans or something ( I have a few "diagrams" of Metroliners and Silverliners that DEFINITELY do not reflect the prototype). I know for their E60CF, they were using plans from GE for a locomotive that never materialized.

There are a lot of innaccuracies on RTR models that I just don't understand. I'm not talking tiny things like "oh, that break-shoe date is in the wrong place". I'm talking whole paint jobs that never existed, or models that are just wrong. For example, I have a Conrail U28B by P2k. The model has a nose headlight. Conrail U28Bs never had nose headlights. The NYC and Penn Central units are correct without nose headlights (these very same units became the Conrail units) yet the Conrail U28B is wrong. Did P2K even try to find a photo? Did they mistake a U36B for a U28B somehow? I had someone from walthers INSIST that the nose headlights were correct.

What I'm driving at, is who is doing the research, and why are their MAJOR discrepancies, especially from a brand like Proto 2000?

MLRR wrote:
I'm not in error. you just misread my post . I said:

My guess is that (although no converted cabs are EXACTLY alike) they'll find the most "common" version and apply the various phases to it. The drawback is that I don't recall seeing them in phase II as they are proposing for the Sand Diegan. Perhaps they're expecting the modeled train to run with locomotives at either end?

Nope, I don't think I did. While the photographic evidence shows there was at least one Phase II metroliner cab, It was the exception and not the rule, and only exists in that form because it was sitting in storage an no one updated it.

What I was driving at, is that Phase II painted Amfleets almost certainly imply the mid to late 1970s. The Metroliners were not even retired until the mid 80s, and they sat in storage a few years longer before being transformed into cab cars.

Walthers itself claims these cars are the 1976 version-

Walthers wrote:The San Diegan - Los Angeles to San Diego (1976) - Phase II Scheme
(5) Amfleet I 84-Seat Coaches, (1) Amfleet I Amcafe

Introduced by the Santa Fe in 1938, the San Diegan was always a popular train between Los Angeles and San Diego, skirting the Pacific Ocean on the busy "surf line." Amtrak took over operation and the name in May 1971, running the famous train until 2000.

Besides, this makes sense. The San Diegan was the first Western train to get the new Amfleet treatment, and making it special since as I understood it, most of the new Amfleets were getting put to use in the Northeast.

Whats more, my books indicate through consists and photos that the train was run with a single F40PH, rather than any fancy locomotive arrangement.

AMTK1007 wrote:Knowing people in the industry and knowing that a projuct like this ( single car) the tooling can cost WELL over the cost of a SUV here is a realistic solution that I am proposing to those of you that are saying the pricing is not realistic..I say to you be realistic, you say you can't afford something, then don't buy it, and when it comes out and you find that it does meet your requirements or exceed your expectations, Hold your ground, if you said your not going to buy it, don't buy it... do the rest of us a favor and leave more candy bars for the rest of us.

I am definitely aware that tooling is very costly. I read once in a Rapido ad that it can be around $100,000 for one car! If you are talking about me, I never said I couldn't afford these cars, It's just that $75 seems like a whole lot for one passenger car. That's probably because of how fast the prices have risen in the last few years. Yes, I do understand that this is a whole new model. Even though I am not happy with the price, just like you, I am definitely going to buy some of these cars later in phase IVb.

AMTK1007 wrote:Also be realistic and don't go around saying I wish the manufacturers would make this or that. If you are not going to buy it, don't ask for it, that's just being, for lack of a better term, hypocritical..

If you were talking about me I want to apologize for coming across as hypocritical. Just to clear it up though, again I didn't say that I wouldn't buy any Amfleets but I did say that they were pricey.

AMTK1007 wrote:Am I getting as many as I would like? No, but I am buying them...

I think you summed it up really well here. A lot of modelers are going to buy these cars, but they are either going to have to expand their overall model railroading budget or cut out other projects on the layout.

And don't feel like your rambling I appreciate what you have to say.

mlrr wrote:If they came with working ditch, head, marker and strobe lights I'd suspect they'd be close to $100. Without, they could potentially be around the same price as the Amfleet I and IIs. All in all I'd expect these to be in between the Amfleets and Metroliners.

I don't know why but I feel more willing to pay that much for a cab car than an Amfleet. Maybe it's because you only need one per train instead of 5. Anyway I hope it gets done and I would definitely be willing to pay more for the lights and all because, well, how cool would those look?!

AMTK1007 wrote:do the rest of us a favor and leave more candy bars for the rest of us.

As for the following; sorry with all of this candy talk I couldn't resist.

There were two different approaches to the Metroliner cab car project. When time and money were sufficient, cars received a full strip-down, losing the roof hump, full pantograph assembly, traction motors, etc., and got a diaphragm and the yellow/black end striping. These went into the 9XXX series. But as demand picked up, a bunch showed up with minimal changes, keeping more of the pantograph, plus the roof hump, and no diaphragm. These stayed in their original 8XX numbers. The first cab cars that hit the San Diegan (around 1990) had an end paint job that included vertical blue and red stripes whose exact specifics escapes me. But when they hit the midwest corridor, Amtrak had switched to the yellow/black stripe pattern. 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 remember a cab ride in one of the 8XX cars going to Milwaukee and they were almost junk. The throttle assembly wasn't actually attached to the "dash board," the button for the cab alerter popped off the third time the engineer depressed it, and various other pieces were pretty worn out. But it was fun screaming along at 80 looking over his shoulder.

And yes, the Metroliner and Amfleet bodies are exactly the same. Desperate to keep development costs down when Amtrak wanted new cars, Budd mounted a Metroliner shell on a pair of Pioneer III trucks, wired the thing for HEP, and created one of the most amazing and bulletproof passenger car designs ever. I watched a train slam past me at 100+ today on its way to Penn Station, and all I could think is how amazing that performance is for a string of 33-year-old passenger cars that hardly even seem worn yet. But I digress.

This leaves us with five variants on the Metroliner tooling (with and without roof hump, and two on the Amfleet, before we even consider paint jobs. I'm sure Walthers is keeping a close eye on tooling this model up to hit some of the variations.

green_elite_cab wrote:
Whats more, my books indicate through consists and photos that the train was run with a single F40PH, rather than any fancy locomotive arrangement.

When I say "I don't recall seeing converted cab cars in phase II", that is me saying that I don't believe there were any Ex-Metrolnier Cab cars in phase II (i.e. all overhead components removed which the first picture clearly shows is still visible on the roof).

When I made the comment about a locomotive at either end, I was suggesting that Walthers assumed the modeler would do that unless that's how they ran pre-cab car. 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).

You are correct. GK did not get the finalized drawings for today's amfleet. They actually copied the SOHO brass model which was based on preliminary drawings of the Amfleets and not the finalized version.

As far as the discrepancies you point out, it costs much more money to be road specific. To keep costs down on both ends, companies made compromises by using one tool and painting it in various roads. Today it's less accepted and so we end up with more expensive models that are essentially customized to appropriately represent each railroad OR we don't get any at all.

SlowFreight wrote:There were two different approaches to the Metroliner cab car project. When time and money were sufficient, cars received a full strip-down, losing the roof hump, full pantograph assembly, traction motors, etc., and got a diaphragm and the yellow/black end striping. These went into the 9XXX series. But as demand picked up, a bunch showed up with minimal changes, keeping more of the pantograph, plus the roof hump, and no diaphragm. These stayed in their original 8XX numbers. The first cab cars that hit the San Diegan (around 1990) had an end paint job that included vertical blue and red stripes whose exact specifics escapes me. But when they hit the midwest corridor, Amtrak had switched to the yellow/black stripe pattern. 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 remember a cab ride in one of the 8XX cars going to Milwaukee and they were almost junk. The throttle assembly wasn't actually attached to the "dash board," the button for the cab alerter popped off the third time the engineer depressed it, and various other pieces were pretty worn out. But it was fun screaming along at 80 looking over his shoulder.

And yes, the Metroliner and Amfleet bodies are exactly the same. Desperate to keep development costs down when Amtrak wanted new cars, Budd mounted a Metroliner shell on a pair of Pioneer III trucks, wired the thing for HEP, and created one of the most amazing and bulletproof passenger car designs ever. I watched a train slam past me at 100+ today on its way to Penn Station, and all I could think is how amazing that performance is for a string of 33-year-old passenger cars that hardly even seem worn yet. But I digress.

This leaves us with five variants on the Metroliner tooling (with and without roof hump, and two on the Amfleet, before we even consider paint jobs. I'm sure Walthers is keeping a close eye on tooling this model up to hit some of the variations.

Well stated SlowFreight