Modeling Chicago Transit

**Update**

I finally figured out what is making the IMW higher than they are supposed to be.

Drum roll please.............................

THE PROBLEM IS IN THE CORRUGATED SIDES!

If you compare photos of the prototype to the models, you'll note that where the corrugated sections are (there are two on each side) they are a bit "thicker" than they're supposed to be.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_vogel ... /lightbox/ (right click and "open in new window")



Note in the photo of my model how there is significant overhang of the corrugated panels with respect to the "METRA" placard. This is the cause of the 1/4 height difference between the profile of a Walthers Superliner and the IMW Gallery car asside from the chassis which had to be bent (not hard, just needs to be heated in the oven and straightened, then the ends sanded down to remove the extra resin). At least I know I can rest easy knowing what the problem is.

mlrr wrote:It's good to at least have a base to work from. Unfortunately, when the base itself is flawed, it's just money wasted .

I don't consider the hundreds of dollars I've paid IMW to be a waste. The models are a lot closer to prototype than anyone else has produced. The only "waste" is my fault for not spending more time on completing my work on them.


Photos taken last September ... I need to finish these up!

justalurker66 wrote:

mlrr wrote:It's good to at least have a base to work from. Unfortunately, when the base itself is flawed, it's just money wasted .

I don't consider the hundreds of dollars I've paid IMW to be a waste. The models are a lot closer to prototype than anyone else has produced. The only "waste" is my fault for not spending more time on completing my work on them.


Photos taken last September ... I need to finish these up!

Nice job "justalurker66"!

Do you happen to have the diesel versions of the Gallery cars as well? I'm curious if your Nippon-Shyro Highliners line up with other scale double-decker equipment (a good test would be a Walthers PS Bi-level Coach or Cab car). Looking at the photo of the model itself it looks like it might have the same issue as my Gallery Cars. I would expect it to only because the tooling is virtually in the same family. The good thing for YOU is that these cars prototypically don't run with other car types or equipment on a regular basis, so the height issue may not affect you the same with your highliners as the car height issue (if present in the highliners) is not as apparent.

In contrast, my Gallery cars run with F40s. The prototypes' roofs should be nearly flush with each other with the gallery cars being slightly taller. My models have the Gallery Cars topping out about 1/4" taller than the F40 (and that's not scale inches, lol). Without the modifcations (that I spent weeks and extra money on making), the cars would tower up to 1/2" above the F40. Also keep in mind that assuming I (or anyone else with these cars) wanted to mix these with a Three Brothers Mfg kit that I was able to pick up, it would likely tower over those too. They tower significantly over the fore-mentioned Walthers PS Bi-Level Commuter Coaches (which I also own and would have liked to mix in the newer cars with) and they should be about the same height. They're clearly not with or without the modifications.

BTW, I know I paid for window sets included in the kits that had residue (which couldn't be removed) on 1 or 2 of them when they were shipped and when I wrote in requesting replacements, I never got a response. I don't see how that doesn't contribute to money wasted. I also don't see how much more time I could have spent on the model without severely compromising the shells. For crying out loud, I spent the extra time metalizing the things (which also contributes to the cost of the finished model). Essentially the cars would have to be cut in half and re-assembled with glue, putty, etc. Even with all that elbow grease I'm EXTREMELY skeptical of a clean finish.

I'm glad you're happy with your models! It's much easier to model single-level or even bi-level MU equipment that operate exclusively with each other and may be slightly off in their profiles than other equipment that can be mixed in with various types of locomotives and other passenger cars.

I'm not trying to mix them with other cars or engines, so any height difference is not going to be noticed. I imagine that other than window and door placement they are the same size as the models of the diesel pulled cars. I was happy to have the windows and sign boards in the right place (the NICTD sign is not in the same place as the METRA signs) and, of course the trap doors in the right place for NICTD.

I have not done the windows yet but when I inspected the parts I realized that two windows were missing from the set (the window set seemed to be designed for the METRA version without the separate trap doors). My email was replied to immediately and windows for those locations arrived quickly. For metal I used aluminum paint and clear coated it applying the decals. It could probably have been done better but it will work for my purposes and looks reasonably "prototype".

I suppose I'm happier because I expected what I got ... and I couldn't find any one else willing to even come close to supplying the parts needed to have models anywhere close to the railroad I follow. I bought two cars of each design and have not touched the second car ... so any mistakes I make on the first (pictured above) can hopefully be avoided on the second. Hopefully all four will turn out to be display worthy but I didn't get my bifocals until after getting the models to the state pictured. Being able to see better will probably help.

My email was replied to immediately and windows for those locations arrived quickly.

That's cool. Unfortunately mine weren't. I've sent over five emails and none have been responded to .

Good luck with the rest of your models. I purchased other MU equipment from IMW in the past so the height issue was never an issue then because I never had to mix them with other cars and thus was never noticeable to me.

It's interesting that you made the same initial observations I made. I too was "thrown" by the placement of the doors and windows that's why I never suspected the shell itself (at least until after I did everything I could with the trucks and chassis, lol). They all seemed to be in the right place with respect to each other but the end vestibule on the cab was sort of the "informant" in that something about it looked a little bit stretched.

I'd give it about another 10 years before Walthers or even Kato produce the stainless steel predecessors to the Nipon Shyro Gallery cars. I still hope to get use out of the cars I have (despite their height issues).

mlrr wrote:

My email was replied to immediately and windows for those locations arrived quickly.

That's cool. Unfortunately mine weren't. I've sent over five emails and none have been responded to .

Maybe you're a spammer. You know that the Island Model Works contact you seek is a member here at RAILROAD.NET? He even responded in this thread?

http://railroad.net/forums/memberlist.p ... ile&u=6138

Otto Vondrak wrote:
Maybe you're a spammer. You know that the Island Model Works contact you seek is a member here at RAILROAD.NET? He even responded in this thread?

http://railroad.net/forums/memberlist.p ... ile&u=6138

Thanks for that thought Otto!

Unfortunately I doubt I would be a spammer unless my email was deliberately blocked. I've done business with IMW 4 times in the past and invested over $800 in the company and it's kits (assuming 4, 4-car sets at an average of $50/car).

I did notice that photos of my finished IMW kits were removed from the IMW website not long after I expressed skepticism in one or two of the products offered. Not a "Don't buy this" or "Don't buy that" but a simple expression along the lines of "I'm really not that motivated personally in purchasing..." a particular model.

As it relates to this topic: month had passed since my last email sent without a response regarding inquiries about future models and their measurements as I was hoping to mix in the "60's style Gallery Cars" with the gallery cars I had already purchased and noticed the excessive height as a result of the shell.

I'm pretty sure the IMW contact knows how to contact me. I was contacted after I made a post in the Atlas HO forum regarding the possibility of MTH doing an HO ALP46 since they were releasing one in O scale but that's another story.

Response sent to individual.

mlrr wrote:It's interesting that you made the same initial observations I made. I too was "thrown" by the placement of the doors and windows ...

I was not "thrown" by the placement of the doors and windows, so your "too" is out of place.

I was pleased by the placement of the signboard being ACCURATE to prototype. It is one of those little things I noticed when comparing the METRA version with the NICTD version ... a little thing that could easily have been overlooked by a lesser company wanting to throw something together to make a quick buck. With the size of the market interested in a model of this particular car I'm pleased anyone took the time to make the NICTD versions. Most model companies have passed on NICTD cars - or promised them for years without delivery.

Please don't misconstrue anything I have said about these models as less than satisfied with their design and construction.

justalurker66 wrote: I was not "thrown" by the placement of the doors and windows, so your "too" is out of place.

I don't think so. I think you just misinterpreted it so I'll re-iterate in case I didn't articulate it well enough the first time .

I was merely pointing out that the reason why I could not figure out what was causing the unusally high profile of the shell (let alone why it was not caught until after I placed it on the track) was the fact that the windows and door placement were correct with respect to each other (i.e. ends matching up with ends). So we actually agree on that part thus the "too". Before the cars were completed I had the SAME initial impression (hence the "thrown") as you did until I hooked up the F40 to one of the cars on a flat, level surface (per the prototype) and noticed how much of a height differential there was with the cars.

Apples and oranges inherently have different requirements. As I implied before, I cannot speak for the highliner models just as you can not speak for the diesel version of the Gallery cars, which you have implicitly done in response to my post regarding my recent discovery of what was causing the height discrepancy. Clearly the diesel version of the gallery car doesn't have the flexibility like your MUs as it relates to accuracy in the profile so it is unfair to compare your apples with my oranges and say "accurate accurate accurate" and implicitly suggest that something is wrong with MY observations. You said it yourself:

justalurker66 wrote:I'm not trying to mix them with other cars or engines, so any height difference is not going to be noticed. I imagine that other than window and door placement they are the same size as the models of the diesel pulled cars.

. If your speculation is true, then logic would dictate that the height issue is present in your models as well but your quote speaks for itself. And that's fine. If I were in your position, I'd overlook something like that too because after all, who'll notice if the model is only lashed up with equipment of the same type and specs .

Let there be no misunderstanding, I do not speak for the Highliner models.

I agree, that it is great that a firm like IMW took a stab at these and produced them. You'll notice that none of my observations have a "Rivet Counter" nature to them (unless it contributes to an overall "major flaw"; you decide if that's the case here). Because IMW produces commuter and transit models that other manufacturers are afraid to get involved in, I give allot of slack when it comes to small details and not just with small firms.

Well Kyle, you DO NOT speak for me ... so any attempt to twist my words into agreement your complaints is wrong and you should be embarrassed at your attempt to do so. My statements stand for themselves. I was not "thrown" nor do I support any of your complaints. I consider your use of the word "too" as a feeble and dishonest effort to make it appear that I was supporting your complaint. I do not.

To make it perfectly clear, I do not support ANY of your ridicule of the models nor the company that made them.

Stop the Complaints. This was suppose to talk about the commuter cars that Island Model Works were making of the Metra, and South Shore Cars, but the last couple post to my view made this topic being locked.

This Topic needs a break.


UPDATE! 9/2/2010 This topic has been reopened, Please no Arguing between Each other please.

If Happens again it will be locked, and it will not be reopened, and any other new similar topics will be deleted.

Below are photos of what I was trying to explain verbally earlier. Keep in mind that I had corrected the car floor/chassis prior to these shots so the height difference isn't what it initially was:



This shows the two models on a level surface. To the left is the diesel version of the Gallery car and to the right is a Walthers Superliner. All photos were taken with the models on this same surface.



A close up of the previous shot show the height differential between an un-modified model and the Walthers Superliner which should have a similar profile. Although the height difference is obvious, I put a measuring device in the photo for additional reference.



This image shows the height differential between the F40 and the Gallery Car. The car to the left is the unmodified car.



This photo shows what the relationship should more or less look like.



This photo shows a gallery car that I did modify and attempted to lower as much as possible up against the same Superliner.



This photo shows what I as able to reclaim by modifying the trucks and chassis.

I didn't want anyone to get the impression that I was making a stink over nothing. Hopefully this adds some context to the discussion . If anyone has any additional suggestions on how to lower the cars more please let me know. Just keep in mind that I can't use smaller wheel sets or file down the center of the trucks any further as the cab car pilot is scraping the rail head in some places already.

PS: Thank you James for re-opening the topic

I was poking this thread because IMW will be making the Milwaukee cars, which gets me to this point in this comparison test, were these 2 cars meant to be coupled to each other? the passenger diaphrams seem to be in different positions. Its a different car than the superliner. The superliner is going to be taller than the engine, as well as the Gallery cars. I don't have scale model drawings to compare right here. But I own push-pull cars from Kato and Walthers. Is the Superliner used in commuter service? I recall riding them in the Santa Fe Chief all the way to California. I just want to clarify the purpose needing to re-adjust the height of the cars.

IMW is doing a fab job filling in modeling roles the big guys arent doing. If there are any technical quirps he should know about it.

He can be a pretty busy guy, and I have had some communications with him to make the IC Pullman cars, hope he finds the time sometime, but he seems positive to do them. Sent him specs etc on those cars, but I don't nag him about it.

I have some of his Chicago CTA 1-50 cars, and they look great.

From three different web sources:
New Galley cars are supposed to be 15 feet 11 inches high above the top of rail.
Superliner cars are supposed to be 16 feet 2 inches high above the top of rail.
F40 locomotives are supposed to be 15 feet 8 inches high above the top of rail.

I have no idea what else you can do to get the heights correct.