|
|
Post by jlwii2000 on Feb 15, 2016 7:04:49 GMT -8
Check out my latest review of the Bowser GMD SD40-2 with DCC, LokSound and working classification lights! |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Feb 15, 2016 11:20:55 GMT -8
Nice video James.
Athearn please watch this and improve your lights.
And boy oh boy would this look nice in Blue and Yellow. :-)
I have this same engine and Bowser just hit this one into the parking lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by nebrzephyr on Feb 15, 2016 12:09:22 GMT -8
Did I see correctly, no windshield wipers on the center windows?
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by markfj on Feb 15, 2016 13:53:42 GMT -8
More important than the wipers, the instruct sheet show a photo of the motor - mabuchi clone. Is this the motor that is used on the model or did Bowser just recycle and old photo for the instructs? I thought this model and the C636 would be the starting points for Bowser's upgraded motor. Recently bought a first run C636 and it has the Mabuchi clone motor. Not trying to stir the pot, but just curious if Bowser is using the new motor or not. (hey, that ryhmed!  ) Thanks, Mark |
|
|
|
Post by tdspeedracer on Feb 15, 2016 16:31:00 GMT -8
Anyone else notice the class lights lighting up the inertial filter hatch?
Trevor
|
|
|
|
Post by espeenut on Feb 15, 2016 16:52:39 GMT -8
...yes. I did notice the light tubes shining through the plastic, this is a very common problem with models painted red but easily solved by an application of silver paint to the inside of the hood around the problem area. As for the center wipers - they're probably in the plastic baggie that James held up in the video and have to be separately applied...
...the motor is the newer one, so I'd say that the photograph is just a generic shot used for indicating decoder wiring...
But!!! Those incredibly small issues aside, this model is flat out AMAZING!!! This is right up there with what Rapido and Scale Trains are doing, some of the finest model locomotives ever produced...!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Feb 15, 2016 17:49:01 GMT -8
The video reference the pulling power of the motor.
All indications are this engine has the new improved motor.
|
|
|
|
Post by areibel on Feb 15, 2016 19:18:20 GMT -8
For those out there that are more familiar with the Canadian/GMD built SD40-2's, what are the differences that set it aside from a US built model? I've read a little about some features like the steps being different, but are there differences in the car body as well?
Al
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Feb 15, 2016 20:50:37 GMT -8
Beautiful model, but I hate the dynamic blister.
|
|
|
|
Post by canrailfan on Feb 15, 2016 21:19:45 GMT -8
Just a reminder, don't judge a motor by the way it looks. It's what you can't see that makes the difference, things like magnet strength and how the armature is wound. Two different motor types in the same case can have very different torque ratings, maximum RPMs and current draws.
David
|
|
|
|
Post by bdhicks on Feb 16, 2016 0:54:57 GMT -8
I am not sure of all the differences between the EMD and GMD SD40-2s, and I don't know that all differences show up on all units. The steps are one of the more obvious ones, there's also the taller cab numberboards, without the bulge underneath, the battery box step on the right-hand side, the rectangular sand filler hatches, the MU walkway side grab, the single rear headlight, and the piping on the long hood roof by the radiator fans.
|
|
mpi
Junior Member
Posts: 64 
|
Post by mpi on Feb 16, 2016 4:26:19 GMT -8
The main difference btw the US and CDN version are the steps, handrail bends at the steps (CDN version has a vertical railing), Nose length on the CDN units, are 81" for the early version (like the US), and the more common, 102" that was never made for the US market. As Mr Hicks pointed out,the sand fill hatches are different also. The Number Board box is different, The boards for the numbers are the same size, but, the bottom is straight vs the US version has the dip for a headlight. The CDN version also has the 3 class lights per side for CP Rail and BCR, or a Single for some early versions. The rear also has a single rear headlight vs the dual US....
I believe the only US Carrier that got the CDN built units were a batch of BN units, but they have the 86" nose and standard US features.
Also some CP units were built with vents on the carbody doors underneath the radiator grills.
Hope this helps, Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by eh49 on Feb 16, 2016 5:59:33 GMT -8
All 4 of mine came with the center wipers installed.
|
|
|
|
Post by notabob on Feb 16, 2016 8:03:54 GMT -8
I believe the only US Carrier that got the CDN built units were a batch of BN units, but they have the 86" nose and standard US features. There were indeed several SD40-2s that GMD built for BN (I think I recall reading it was due to backlog at EMD, but could be wrong), but as you noted - they were built per US specs, not Canadaian. Additionally, BN acquired a quantity of ex-CN SD40s (not the -2). Those retained their Canadian-specific details even after entering service for BN. Incidentally, Athearn recently released those in their RTR line based on their brand new SD40 tooling. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Doom on Feb 17, 2016 6:59:33 GMT -8
I believe the only US Carrier that got the CDN built units were a batch of BN units, but they have the 86" nose and standard US features. There were indeed several SD40-2s that GMD built for BN (I think I recall reading it was due to backlog at EMD, but could be wrong), but as you noted - they were built per US specs, not Canadaian. Additionally, BN acquired a quantity of ex-CN SD40s (not the -2). Those retained their Canadian-specific details even after entering service for BN. Incidentally, Athearn recently released those in their RTR line based on their brand new SD40 tooling. And there was a group of 5600-series SD40-2's were built for CP by EMD in La Grange (5629 to 5658), but built to Canadian specs. Only noticeable difference was the presence of ribs on the blower bulge. |
|
|
|
Post by notabob on Feb 17, 2016 7:02:38 GMT -8
There were indeed several SD40-2s that GMD built for BN (I think I recall reading it was due to backlog at EMD, but could be wrong), but as you noted - they were built per US specs, not Canadaian. Additionally, BN acquired a quantity of ex-CN SD40s (not the -2). Those retained their Canadian-specific details even after entering service for BN. Incidentally, Athearn recently released those in their RTR line based on their brand new SD40 tooling. And there was a group of 5600-series SD40-2's were built for CP by EMD in La Grange (5629 to 5658), but built to Canadian specs. Only noticeable difference was the presence of ribs on the blower bulge. Interesting. Wonder if these required Miller in the tanks instead of Molson... |
|
|
|
Post by loophog on Feb 19, 2016 22:24:53 GMT -8
I believe the only US Carrier that got the CDN built units were a batch of BN units, but they have the 86" nose and standard US features. There were indeed several SD40-2s that GMD built for BN (I think I recall reading it was due to backlog at EMD, but could be wrong), but as you noted - they were built per US specs, not Canadaian. Additionally, BN acquired a quantity of ex-CN SD40s (not the -2). Those retained their Canadian-specific details even after entering service for BN. Incidentally, Athearn recently released those in their RTR line based on their brand new SD40 tooling. The ex CN SD40's were rebuilt by Alstom and leased to BNSF in 1999 and numbered 7300-7339. Athearn has made a model of these, the BN SD40's they did were not ex CN. Athearn has announced the GMD built BN SD40-2's. |
|
|
|
Post by notabob on Feb 20, 2016 5:15:37 GMT -8
There were indeed several SD40-2s that GMD built for BN (I think I recall reading it was due to backlog at EMD, but could be wrong), but as you noted - they were built per US specs, not Canadaian. Additionally, BN acquired a quantity of ex-CN SD40s (not the -2). Those retained their Canadian-specific details even after entering service for BN. Incidentally, Athearn recently released those in their RTR line based on their brand new SD40 tooling. The ex CN SD40's were rebuilt by Alstom and leased to BNSF in 1999 and numbered 7300-7339. Athearn has made a model of these, the BN SD40's they did were not ex CN. Athearn has announced the GMD built BN SD40-2's. Couldn't remember if the ex-CN units were pre- or post-merger, so thanks for clarifying. |
|
|
|
Post by sd40dash2 on Feb 21, 2016 18:34:02 GMT -8
Hi,
Thank you for posting this interesting video review on the Bowser SD40-2. I agree with the many comments that this is an excellent model.
I just wanted to post a reply to the gentleman who wished to make an ex-hydro 5300-series patch unit out of one of the new release Bowser shells.
If you patch a unit today using this model it will be wrong in one or more major areas.
The CP Rail painted versions recently released by Bowser represent the 5718-5757 and 6025-6054 group of units. The hydro units which became 5300 series patches were originally CP 5779-86 and 5860-62. These were built in 1978 and differ from the Bowser model. For one thing, the radiator grilles on the hydro units are the newer corrugated type rather than the chicken wire found on 5718-57. The Bowser 6025-54 model has this type of grille but the rest of the unit is much too modern for a patch unit. There are likely other differences, but the grilles are the ones that stand out in my mind presently.
I understand and share the desire for a hydro patch unit, but I would recommend waiting until Bowser releases a much more accurate 1978 version CP SD40-2 that you can use. They've said they plan to release all of the variations and paint schemes over time, so it wouldn't surprise me if they end up doing an accurate patch unit RTR! But if you wish to do the patching yourself, IMHO at least start with the most accurate model possible, even if it means waiting a few years.
For more information about CP Rail SD40-2 spotting differences, I highly recommend the excellent Fred Clark book published by H&D (Calgary) a few years back as well as the excellent websites like Wilco's mountainrailway.com and others accessible through google etc.
Respectfully,
Manny
|
|
|
|
Post by notabob on Feb 22, 2016 11:32:51 GMT -8
Hi, I just wanted to post a reply to the gentleman who wished to make an ex-hydro 5300-series patch unit out of one of the new release Bowser shells. ... ... Hi Manny, Many thanks for the detailed info! This was very informative and is much appreciated! I was comparing the various versions of Bowsers available now against the OH units in CN paint and the 572x series seemed to be the closest. Obviously, it looks like there are at least some differences still left. I spoke with Bowser at the Springfield show a couple of weeks ago and asked if they were planning to do the CN patch units. Response was that these were very low on their release schedule for the GMD SD40-2. I have already acquired 5721 for the job, so will have to decide if I'm ok with living with a slightly-foobied patch job or wait until Bowser releases the more appropriate version, even in CP paint. Or perhaps do both...  |
|
|
|
Post by canrailfan on Feb 22, 2016 12:04:25 GMT -8
In looking at photos of the sample GMD SD40-2s Bowser displayed last year (the orange-painted ones) there were definitely versions with the corrugated radiator grills. I don't think we've seen all the versions yet that Bowser has tooled.
Maybe the question to Bowser should be asking if they plan to do any of the CP 5779-86 and 5860-62 units. These would then be a better base for building an ex-Hydro 5300-series model.
David
|
|
|
|
Post by roadkill on Feb 24, 2016 10:13:31 GMT -8
Beautiful model, but I hate the dynamic blister. Yea, something about it just seems... off. Dunno why, just... off. |
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Feb 24, 2016 18:36:56 GMT -8
The side grilles are too tall.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by notabob on Feb 25, 2016 4:21:12 GMT -8
The side grilles are too tall. Dave Buy an Ontario Northland unit. Problem solved. |
|
|
|
Post by roadkill on Feb 25, 2016 7:14:23 GMT -8
The side grilles are too tall. Dave That's what I was thinking. Noticed that on the pilot models. |
|
|
|
Post by roadkill on Feb 25, 2016 7:20:12 GMT -8
I knew somebody would manage to find something wrong with it. There has to be an excuse not to buy something they demanded... Now, let's all say how much trash it is, and how we are going to vote with our wallets, and punish Bowser for not making a perfect SD40-2. Oh for crying out loud... lemmee tell ya something... it costs not one cent more do cut a die right than it does to cut one wrong, and it's not like there aren't any SD40-2's out there to use as a reference. And for the record, I have no plans at all to buy any as I don't model any Canadian roads and no Canadian SD40-2 ever set foot (or wheel) on Penn Central in the mid-Seventies. |
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Feb 25, 2016 19:06:12 GMT -8
I knew somebody would manage to find something wrong with it. There has to be an excuse not to buy something they demanded... Now, let's all say how much trash it is, and how we are going to vote with our wallets, and punish Bowser for not making a perfect SD40-2. Oh get over yourself. I pointed out the one flaw I could see in the thing. I hardly see anyone calling to boycott Bowser. All this does is once again show the only good Dash 2 SD dynamic brake blisters ever done were the ones Chris Clune tooled for the Athearn SD45T-2 and SD45-2. If you can't bear to hear FACTS as they are presented, then go find another forum to haunt. Dave |
|
|
|
Post by bnsffan on Feb 25, 2016 20:49:15 GMT -8
I voted with my wallet; I bought three, two blue and yellow unit plus a CP rail unit.
BNSF Fan
|
|
|
|
Post by emd16645 on Feb 26, 2016 4:02:55 GMT -8
The side grilles are too tall. I'm cancelling my order right now....
|
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Feb 26, 2016 6:01:54 GMT -8
The issue sure hasn't impacted sales of these units.
|
|
