|
Post by alcoc430 on Mar 16, 2015 5:45:33 GMT -8
That's awesome work And thanks for the tool tip - wrapping the sandpaper about the chisel blade and using the handle to hold it on. I never thought of that.
|
|
|
Post by mountaineer on Mar 16, 2015 9:38:35 GMT -8
The craftsmen of EMD had several engineering marks that they had to hit in order for the bulldog cabs produced at other locations to fit onto the frame. I have seen photos of bulldog cabs lined up at Plant 2 in Chicago where they were made. The F unit tribute in Classic Trains show how the cabs and frame came together. They were remarkably consistent. And, yes, the Highliner F puts about all others in second place. That is not even debatable. As a former working member at IRM, I know you could have taken the windshield glass out of the E5A and put it in the E9A or the F7A or FP7A. Those windshield openings were as close to exact as possible. There are modelers like John(onequiknova) who are not satisfied with "close enough or good enough". They get a tremendous mount of satisfaction out of the hobby of model railroading in accurately reproducing the prototype in HO scale. If this means rebuilding noses to achieve complete accuracy this is what they will do. In plain simple words, these modelers really sweat the details.
|
|
|
Post by mountaineer on Mar 16, 2015 9:58:05 GMT -8
Sorry , but "sweat the details?" (meaning small stuff?) I thought I already, kinda sorta provided evidence "thems winnders as de-livered," ain't quite as you say just the details!
As they come from BLI, to my eye(s) they are genuinely offensive. The BLI windshield's top and bottom aren't even parallel, as well as the already mentioned inadequate sweep etc. To me that's like some portrait artist does a painting of your Mom, but changes the shape and color of her eyes! As an aside, why not Google the Key 0 Scale brass E6's. Looks like they scanned the BLI E6 nose (probably because the Model Railroad Rumor Mill claimed said nose was "perfect") and blew it up in brass to 0 Scale size, including those messed up windshield profiles and all.
Hey Rahna-Outbakred-Maiala-Trudy, YOU as a hands-on guy that knows those genuine Art-Deco window profiles were truly standardized between E's & F's and as the other fellow points out were flawlessly done on the Highliners' F nose, what then is the problem with applying the Highliners window area to any E or F?
I really think this is all a matter of the simple fear that so many of us have of messing up some expensive model.
I clearly remember in RMC in the '60's a fellow named Bill Schopp used to chop up brass steam locomotives to make what he wanted out of them all to my horror at the time as a kid. But slowly and over time, I began to experiment myself and now have built a British prototype brass locomotive from an etched kit and have modified and fully corrected many other American prototype brass steam locomotives, much to my own absolute delight! This stuff is truly satisfying when the finished model is clearly visibly superior to the "as-delivered" model.
Trust me, once you get over the fear of chopping up what in effect is an overpriced Chinese made, plastic E6, and you have developed sufficient confidence in how well you wield a razor saw (I really like those super-thin Atlas Snap track saws) well, then as us old-timers said in the '70's; then go for it!
|
|
|
Post by Great-Northern-Willmar Div on Mar 16, 2015 16:06:51 GMT -8
Sorry , but "sweat the details?" (meaning small stuff?) I thought I already, kinda sorta provided evidence "thems winnders as de-livered," ain't quite as you say just the details!To the vast majority they don't see a problem. To someone that has a keen eye and wants their models to be accurate, those windshields are like the ones found on the Proto 2000 E8/9. The tooling is wrong and a select few that have the back bone to tackle the grafting will do it to get an accurate model. Some would say that going to those lengths is sweating the details. Hey Rahna-Outbakred-Maiala-Trudy, YOU as a hands-on guy that knows those genuine Art-Deco window profiles were truly standardized between E's & F's and as the other fellow points out were flawlessly done on the Highliners' F nose, what then is the problem with applying the Highliners window area to any E or F? I'm confused..........I never said there is anything wrong with grafting in the Highliners window part.
|
|
|
Post by slowfreight on Mar 16, 2015 16:48:39 GMT -8
Rahna and Mountaineer, it appears to us as tho yer in violent agreement! And FWIW, I'm totally on your side. Some of us have more fun never being satisfied with "good enough" from people that didn't spend the extra time getting their $250k tooling correct.
Even if it ain't perfect out of the box, I want to get it closer before I'm satisfied.
Mountaineer, it'd be hijacking this thread, but I'd love to see a thread with your kitbashed brass steam.
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Mar 16, 2015 17:47:41 GMT -8
My job for the last 23 years has been to produce highly accurate, detailed plans (of what doesn't really matter). Unless one has done that day after day after day, one doesn't really appreciate how easy it is to miss something, like perhaps the shape of a cab front window on an E6. It's easy to sit here at a computer keyboard and bemoan the manufacturer that "couldn't get their $250k tooling correct"...perhaps to even assume they are incompetent.
Do I wish they had tooled the E6 absolutely perfectly? Of course I do.
Do I have an appreciation for how unobtainable perfection really is--whether in the drawing or in the die work--yes.
Does that make me a "good enougher"? No, I would never subscribe to that school of thought, and I don't really like being called that (by those who have).
I totally agree an incorrect window, if it bothers the owner of the model, is well worth fixing. Yet at the same time there are other compromises that nobody really notices or cares very much about. Perfection--certainly in HO--is not possible. We have to pick the "hill to die on". The best models are really the "best compromise" that most captures the "look" of the prototype.
Respectfully submitted-
John
|
|
|
Post by buffalobill on Mar 17, 2015 6:14:54 GMT -8
Mountaineer, my comment was solely focused on the fact that John, by cutting new front window openings, using the Highliner windows as a guide, had achieved the vast majority of the gain by correcting the original wrongly shaped window openings. I actually never have seen a Broadway E-6 in person, but many years ago owned a Proto E-6, and I will agree that the nose and front windows area were terrible on that unit. I do have a pair of BLI E-8's, and the front windows area on the BLI was an improvement over the Proto unit's. Not sure if I will bother with the Highliner nose graft when I get around to doing them. A Highliner quality E-8/9 shell would be very nice, but I am not sure we will see one anytime soon. Bill
|
|
|
Post by mountaineer on Mar 17, 2015 8:15:30 GMT -8
Rahna and Mountaineer, it appears to us as tho yer in violent agreement! And FWIW, I'm totally on your side. Some of us have more fun never being satisfied with "good enough" from people that didn't spend the extra time getting their $250k tooling correct. Even if it ain't perfect out of the box, I want to get it closer before I'm satisfied. Mountaineer, it'd be hijacking this thread, but I'd love to see a thread with your kitbashed brass steam. LOL, Rahna, I never said you said there was anything wrong with the Highliners windshields or nose, etc! But your comment: "to the vast majority, they don't see a problem (with the BLI E6 windshields...") Neither you nor myself have data to make a claim such as this. If you think it actually needs to be said, then perhaps it's time to do a scientific survey, if you'd truly like to make such a claim. (Incidentally, this is my field of study in Graduate Education, so I know from which I speak here.) That said, what I would expect to find in such a study is that the windshield accuracy very much does matter. I say this, as the Highliners shells and identical Athearn Genesis F's have been extremely good sellers in the very highly competitive F Unit market place. Early E's are far less prevalent on layouts loaded with multiple sets of F Units. Imagine exactly how "well" a given plastic F Unit would (not) sell if it had the P2K/BLI E6 windshield rendering in this highly competitive F Unit arena. Have I made my point? It's the very same windshields on the prototype F's and E's, after all. And as P2K came first with their needle nosed E6, which it very much appears BLI lifted and somewhat improved upon in plan view (that's top down for you who aren't familiar with a 3 view drawing) but unfortunately retained the poor windshield rendition, even when they had the Highliners shells available to them for, uh, er, um...." study."So, what I am saying is as the Highliners/Athearn Genesis F Units windshield treatment was correctly rendered, and successfully placed into mass production, finished detailed and painted to a very high standard, then anything produced afterwards (1999) that is less accurate, is something that one should ask; how and why that could have happened, especially on $350 $450 retail priced plastic models?! In other words those individuals responsible for the slant nose E's by P2K and BLI never bothered (yes, I said bothered!) during their "primary research" for these E Units, to question, or even just look to see whether or not those prototype windshield areas had been standardized by the General Motor's. That Corporate name makes this question self explanatory right there. It's GM, therefore, hence, ergo; standardized, yes, it was all about profits after all, okay? I am irked that both of these E's were so cavalierly done, with rather low model making standards, yet the asking price is astronomical considering the relatively small $50K or so it takes in China to tool-up for these things and not the $400-$500 it took in the U.S. to do far superior work in the non-too distant past. HOW you ask can/should I say something as rash as the above? Well, the P2k Walthers F was a directly scanned copy, a very real knock-off of the Highliners shell, as also were the former BLI F's (now MTH) the P2K later E7's and yes, several others. So the E's in question make it all too plain,when left up to those who really do not care about they're doing, it falls to the day-in-day-out designers, those without any real interest in the final product, there will occur compounded errors, isn't that correct John (SF 2099)? Theft of intellectual property such as the aforementioned, isn't exactly new and as this is a business after all so reducing costs as in theft of design is one way to hold costs down, even if it means perpetuating what are glaring errors, as it does appear that you guys are unwittingly supportive thereof.
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Mar 17, 2015 9:20:43 GMT -8
How is it that you know that the Walthers nose is a "copy" of somebody else's? I've owned the Walthers F's, and I've owned Genesis F's, and it has always been my impression the Walthers nose actually has slightly different contours? So how are they "the same" Please enlighten me. As far as designers not having "any real interest in the final product"--I don't get to design trains, and really wish I had that privilege (in fact, I'd actually be doing it for Bowser to help them out, but I literally cannot afford to buy their specialized cadd package for what would be only a part-time job on my part, that I have even if only briefly talked to Lee about)--but that seems to me to be a distortion that is unfair to designers, and to those of us who are licensed professional engineers, who sign and seal drawings and then can be held legally responsible for, and sued for, our mistakes. Also there is a long line of model importers who did not get the E/F unit noses correct, even in brass, so it would not be a surprise to me that there are continuing issues with the nose. Of the existing units that can be measured, many of them have had nose repair at one time or another--how could any of us possibly know at this late date which nose is a GM/EMC/EMD factory original versus a later repaired nose? John
|
|
|
Post by Great-Northern-Willmar Div on Mar 17, 2015 10:14:49 GMT -8
But your comment: "to the vast majority, they don't see a problem (with the BLI E6 windshields...") I say the vast majority only because BLI sells out each run time after time. In fact there is another bunch which should be available soon, if BLI's delivery timetable holds. So I assume there are sufficient reservations from the dealers and their customers. Sometimes when dealing with these models its either compromise with the version with the less glaring faults and use that as a starting block or not buy. Until BLI or anyone else no longer sells out their runs or fails to receive the necessary reservations, thereby cancelling the project, they will continue to pump out flawed product for the masses to consume.
|
|
|
Post by mountaineer on Mar 17, 2015 10:44:04 GMT -8
But your comment: "to the vast majority, they don't see a problem (with the BLI E6 windshields...") I say the vast majority only because BLI sells out each run time after time. In fact there is another bunch which should be available soon, if BLI's delivery timetable holds. So I assume there are sufficient reservations from the dealers and their customers. Sometimes when dealing with these models its either compromise with the version with the less glaring faults and use that as a starting block or not buy. Until BLI or anyone else no longer sells out their runs or fails to receive the necessary reservations, thereby cancelling the project, they will continue to pump out flawed product for the masses to consume. Read more: atlasrescueforum.proboards.com/thread/2288/trying-fix-bli-e6-nose?page=3#ixzz3UkimRkip Rhana, Again this is about simple statistics; here, sales numbers. BLI "Selling out" as you've suggested, is not a valid measure of "success" as these are done in a run of at most a few hundred units per paint scheme and no more. It would be a statistically valid measure, provided you knew the precise size of the run and that run was in the tens of thousands, which I can assure you it is not. The pre-war, slant nosed E's do not garner the size of following as do the F's. And personally, I do prefer them to F's by the way. But I also do know the Athearn F's sales are considerably over a hundred thousand pieces at this point in time. So, if you do not know the actual sales numbers, your comment is truly not a valid one. I am sorry and do apologize if this is upsetting, but please try to understand what I am saying here. THIS is my objection: BLI knocked-off the Highliners shell, there is no question about it, I plainly see that as do many other modelers. Compare them to a finished Athearn Genesis F side by side and see for yourself. Therefore, BLI actually had the correct windshield computer geometry on hand when they did their E6. And therefore, I stand by what I have already said, those responsible did not so much as bother to check between the prototype F's and the E's windshield contours, my very point in my last email. PLEASE, all of you who find what I am saying objectionable, do stop rationalizing why a decidedly inferior model is acceptable and understand they could have and should have (especially at their price point!) gotten it right! Finally, my ultimate point with all of this is you are being provided with inferior models at extreme prices and unless someone points that out, all you will get and have to live with are in effect, little more 1950's level Athearn models. I say that as many of you are essentially challenging any effort to correct what genuinely is a very noticeable error. After all, wouldn't you like to see an updated and improved E6 from someone in plastic? I called Walthers and do have a BLI E6 on the way. It's their very last undecorated, single headlight model and it is now "Disc!" so wow, this one too is "sold out!" I will post my windshield results with some good photos.
|
|
|
Post by mountaineer on Mar 17, 2015 10:46:17 GMT -8
How is it that you know that the Walthers nose is a "copy" of somebody else's? I've owned the Walthers F's, and I've owned Genesis F's, and it has always been my impression the Walthers nose actually has slightly different contours? So how are they "the same" Please enlighten me. As far as designers not having "any real interest in the final product"--I don't get to design trains, and really wish I had that privilege (in fact, I'd actually be doing it for Bowser to help them out, but I literally cannot afford to buy their specialized cadd package for what would be only a part-time job on my part, that I have even if only briefly talked to Lee about)--but that seems to me to be a distortion that is unfair to designers, and to those of us who are licensed professional engineers, who sign and seal drawings and then can be held legally responsible for, and sued for, our mistakes. Also there is a long line of model importers who did not get the E/F unit noses correct, even in brass, so it would not be a surprise to me that there are continuing issues with the nose. Of the existing units that can be measured, many of them have had nose repair at one time or another--how could any of us possibly know at this late date which nose is a GM/EMC/EMD factory original versus a later repaired nose? John The simple answer John, is I have access to privileged information. As for knowing whether or not an E or F nose is original and intact, all one needs to do is get inside of said noses and look for damage. I have seen many of both. A significant number of survivors have no damage at all. As to that long list of brass import E & F models having nose "issues", as an engineer you should know that multiple-tool drawing of sheet brass to achieve contour specifications, has far less reliable and repeatable results than does precision injection molding of plastics. The very approach of drawn brass limits the results of contour accuracy when compared with what can be perfectly rendered with injection molding of plastics. Generally speaking, with advanced plastic "alloys" and glass filled materials such as Nylon and Polycarbonate, these approaches to a very great extent, have made those earlier stamping manufacturing methods of functional (as opposed to decorative as are models) structural sheet metal items essentially obsolete. Look under the hood of you car to see what I am referring to.
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Mar 17, 2015 12:33:55 GMT -8
All I know is IC had to rebuild their E6 noses after collisions, such that it has been stated in print they were not the same contours (numberboards were modified too), and theirs are long gone now.
And plastic injection molded material still has some shrinkage which may or may not distort the most accurately designed nose contour--even if it was digitally scanned (which was likely not the case when these HO molds were done). Also, just because we can digitally scan stuff now does not always make it "right". You get discrepancies that have to be "adjusted" but that's not my field of expertise. Even with GPS, the contour intervals are only "accurate" to 1/2 the contour interval. On a bridge job, 6" of elevation is a major mistake.
Not trying to be argumentative, just keeping it real.
Oh--and I'd defy anyone to get "accurate" measurements off PRR GG-1 #4800 "Old Rivets". The sides of the prototype are so dented and washboarded you'd have no idea what parts were at the original contour--lol.
|
|
|
Post by mountaineer on Mar 17, 2015 13:19:01 GMT -8
Wow John,
You certainly do seem to enjoy being argumentative and in my opinion are not being quite as you said, "real." These E units models most certainly were scanned and CAD designed, that is how these things are done for that price quoted in China. They have been done in this manner for many years now.
As for shrink and distortion, the shrinkage of polystyrene plastic is approximately .005" inch per inch, while it's .006" per inch for ABS, generally speaking. Shrinkage MUST be taken into account when designing any plastic tooling, but with a constant wall-thickness (relatively simple in CAD) it does NOT cause distortion. Distortion is usually due to too fast of a cycle time on the mold press.
As for your comment: "Also, just because we can digitally scan stuff now does not always make it 'right'." OH YES on that and AMEN too!
A scan of a hand-made model has to be converted from those scanned "surfaces" (they vary as to program) to what is often preferred by toolmakers as an IGES format to create a consistent wall thickness for CNC machining as a female cavity. And that is to very much simplify the process to this point! This in a great many cases has to be laboriously traced by sectioning where the computer simply "refuses" to "wrap" a surface. When this "refusal" occurs and after everyone involved has finally calmed down, the best solution is applying NURBS (Non-Uniform Rationalized Baseline Splines) to generate this surface.
These at times are created by sectioning the surfaces or in worse case scenarios, by "bending" those NURBS in the desired way to create a usable surface with the use of points in 2D to get as close to the scanned surface as possible. It's a very frustrating trial error game and has to be applied until an acceptable surface appearance is achieved. This is absolutely one very real reason some models are better than others, especially on the compound curves of Art-Deco 1930's diesel noses. It's a direct function of the amount of time spent in pursuing an acceptable appearing surface!
Now, as to GG1 "old rivets," well, I was there at Strasburg last July (my 5th or is it 6th time) and took a shot of my son in front of the PRR's (and sole surviving) EMD E7. However, he will NOT allow me to post it (lol!)
These days, that GG1 would be a relatively simple task, that is if one uses a field-type 3D scanner. One week ago today, I had the original "Lost in Space" ship, the Gemini 12, a four foot diameter fiberglass flying saucer fully scanned in 3D , so guys, TRUST ME.... I know what I'm talking about!
|
|
|
Post by slowfreight on Mar 17, 2015 16:15:42 GMT -8
Of the existing units that can be measured, many of them have had nose repair at one time or another--how could any of us possibly know at this late date which nose is a GM/EMC/EMD factory original versus a later repaired nose? John I think this is an after-factory repair www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=387968
|
|
|
Post by mountaineer on Mar 20, 2015 14:14:24 GMT -8
I noticed the lack of sweep you mentioned after I did the windshields. The BLI also suffers from the thin cheeks you mentioned. I think BLI just coppied the poorly done Proto nose. Whenever I get around to building this E6, I planned to do just what you did by splicing on the front of a Highliner cab and building up the cheeks somehow. On that other site with your excellent E7 thread, you show so many of the etched parts your created and also needed for CRI&P 630's carbody. Would you also consider doing up batten strips so everything is the Brits say: Spot-On?
Thanks and do PLEASE keep up the top quality work!
|
|
|
Post by rockisland652 on Mar 20, 2015 16:59:46 GMT -8
Of the existing units that can be measured, many of them have had nose repair at one time or another--how could any of us possibly know at this late date which nose is a GM/EMC/EMD factory original versus a later repaired nose? John I think this is an after-factory repair www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=387968Yes. That and #49 on the RI. Model the rule, it looks more realistic than the exception.
|
|
|
Post by slowfreight on Mar 20, 2015 17:08:01 GMT -8
Model the rule, it looks more realistic than the exception. I have to agree. Maybe one or two pieces on the layout can be the bizarre, but beyond that and the illusion is broken.
|
|
|
Post by mountaineer on Mar 21, 2015 16:46:37 GMT -8
Yes, to model the bizarre is not a good idea as to convincingly model anything is most difficult!
That Proto 2000 heavily modified and virtually fully corrected E6 nose is coming along quite well. I hope to post a few new photos later today so you guys can see that a myriad of details really do not matter all that much when the overall shape and contour are not all that well rendered.
|
|
|
Post by rockisland652 on Mar 25, 2015 15:19:53 GMT -8
You can make an Overland E6 with HEP look good. It just needs to face the other way...
|
|
|
Post by rockisland652 on Mar 26, 2015 6:36:43 GMT -8
I wasn't kidding. Brass was not always better. Even the great Mr. Tyson could not save this old Overland E6. He did a great job of finishing it, though. You can only polish a turd so much...
|
|
|
Post by Great-Northern-Willmar Div on Mar 26, 2015 6:43:44 GMT -8
I wasn't kidding. Brass was not always better. Even the great Mr. Tyson could not save this old Overland E6. He did a great job of finishing it, though. You can only polish a turd so much... Nice Rock Island E-unit collection but where's "Christine"?
|
|
|
Post by rockisland652 on Mar 26, 2015 6:56:30 GMT -8
I wasn't kidding. Brass was not always better. Even the great Mr. Tyson could not save this old Overland E6. He did a great job of finishing it, though. You can only polish a turd so much... Nice Rock Island E-unit collection but where's "Christine"? Retired, 1967. Layout date: 1974. She was gone by then. Yes, I know that 630's nose was gold by then.
|
|
|
Post by Great-Northern-Willmar Div on Mar 26, 2015 7:16:33 GMT -8
Nice Rock Island E-unit collection but where's "Christine"? Retired, 1967. Layout date: 1974. She was gone by then. Yes, I know that 630's nose was gold by then. Wasn't the "warbonnet" also Material Service red too and no longer maroon?
|
|
|
Post by Great-Northern-Willmar Div on Mar 26, 2015 7:18:05 GMT -8
Back on topic.
Since Rock Island 630 is still on the face of this earth, it shouldn't be a stretch for a model manufacturer to actually get the nose correct.
|
|
|
Post by NS4122 on Mar 28, 2015 8:00:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by mountaineer on Mar 30, 2015 9:08:35 GMT -8
Back on topic. Since Rock Island 630 is still on the face of this earth, it shouldn't be a stretch for a model manufacturer to actually get the nose correct. A S--T--R--E--T--C--H of a really good "F" Is what it takes to do a correct model of a Slant Nosed "E"!!! One thing everyone has got to realize, this "Industry" is just that, an industry. If a P.O.S. sells well enough, why should an importer of these things from China invest more than need be for their bottom line? In other words guys, to get a model right as is so often incorrectly written as being: It's no more difficult to get right than to not get right.... couldn't be further from the truth! It takes a full sized boat-load of money to do a model truly accurately as opposed to "good enough." That or some nut-case devoting a major portion of his life to doing it right, simply for the historical record, or more likely, in a very real effort to elevate "model trains" to a true fine-art form. Either way, the cost is extreme. Here is that P2K after too many hours of JB Weld, then a dozen and a half, extremely minute applications of Tamiya orange cap (solvent-based, aluminum-filled and really good) putty: STOP STARING AT THE HEADLIGHT.... and notice instead those genuine, Art-Deco nose contours. So many look at the dumb "bling" and can't see the real thing for what it truly is. The above shot definitely gives me the same feeling I got as a kid from Lucius Beebe's photo-journalism book: "Trains in Transition" published in 1941, very much a pre-war Art-Deco look. Below is what SO MANY OF YOU said was "good enough," shown side by side with a reasonably accurate version of a slant nosed "E" unit:
Now, getting from the one on the left (which truly is a knock-off of the Walther's P2K) to the visually nice one on the right as a production item, IF done at the manufacturing level would cost approximately the same as what it took to tool-up from scratch, the one on the left, to those very standards you're are seeing here. In a top down view, the BLI E6 is too flat at the windshields as mentioned in my initial e mail. Also, you may notice the plan-form of the nose's base contours are too pointed when compared with the corrected and more blunt version precisely made to that of the original's base planform from the actual EMD drawings. In a reasonably good comparison (come-on guys, I'm using a cell-phone for these snap shots!) here are the modified P2K after a great many hours of hard work on as seen on the left, then AT&SF #15 (the real thing) tightly cropped from a 1942 4"x5" Kodachrome (and therefore the equivalent of an extreme telephoto shot,) along side a very stock and "good enough" BLI E6 (ahem): I was actually considering including a shot of a prototype Baldwin Shark nose to point out the BLI's windshield similarity, but, nah. If you compare the highlights on the nose contours of the highly modified model on left with that found on the prototype, they do so quite favorably. Lastly, a nice look at that looooong nose on Good Ole' CRI&P #630 which had I had enough money, I'd have bought some 15 years ago!: And once again, notice the highlights found on the noses of both the prototype and the model above. Also, the slightly raked back single headlight variants had a smaller bezel ring than found on the absolutely vertical housing of the dual headlight versions. Just some more absurd levels of minutiae or details, sigh.
So to conclude, I am simply saying is this: Getting a model genuinely right, to the point where it clearly evokes the very real feel of the original, the prototype, requires extreme measures, extreme hours, extreme dedication and to mass produce such an item; extreme funding. If the majority of you are happy with what can only be described as a caricature, that which in reality is no more than a toy, why would any manufacturer, (it's a business after all!) go to the very real lengths required? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by bar on Mar 30, 2015 12:18:40 GMT -8
Admirable progress. I recall the consumer-driven improvements in the model car hobby a couple of decades ago. The rise of diecast and prototype modelers forced the kit manufacturers to pay attention to the details, and it showed. I remember at least one new kit being abruptly reissued when reviewers pointed out egregious errors in body contours. While cars are a builders hobby, I always believed railroad modelers should demand as much, but that demand has been damped by manufacturers' RTR business plan. Thanks for showing us what's what.
|
|
|
Post by slowfreight on Mar 30, 2015 14:06:52 GMT -8
That's just fun. Thanks for sharing the comparison shots.
After that much work, it's probably worth having a resin cast of the nose and cab, since I know of at least 2 more people on this forum that would want one.
You could actually just do to the back of the cab doors, since the balance of the body shells will get lots of customizing by anyone adept enough to work with a resin nose.
|
|
|
Post by onequiknova on Mar 30, 2015 14:20:02 GMT -8
You nailed it. Hopefully I'll be able to do the same when I do my E6. Did you reshape the nose by eye, or did you make some kind of contour gauge to help keep thing symmetrical?
In case you haven't noticed, the Proto radiators are too narrow. BLI got the size correct for comparison.
|
|