|
|
Post by Donnell Wells on Nov 10, 2019 17:20:48 GMT -8
Why is it so hard to discuss the thread topic? Everything non-B36-7 will be deleted.
Donnell
|
|
|
|
Post by Chad on Nov 10, 2019 17:30:13 GMT -8
Why is it so hard to discuss the thread topic? Everything non-B36-7 will be deleted. Donnell Now you know why Atlas shut down their board. Too hard to corral the kids. |
|
|
|
Post by drsvelte on Nov 10, 2019 17:40:31 GMT -8
Might it be possible for someone to post a photograph of the prototype SBD/CSX stepwells?
|
|
|
|
Post by sgoti on Nov 10, 2019 17:44:50 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by drolsen on Nov 10, 2019 18:29:07 GMT -8
Here's CSX 5900 that I shot back in 2008, near the end of its service life. The difference is the part where the side handrail attaches to the stepwell, which is a straight vertical face without the outward angle at the bottom that the Rapido model has, and the outer face of the stepwell / side sill, below the yellow strip, angles inward at the bottom. The version the Rapido model represents continues straight down to the bottom without the inward angle. I believe that a result of this difference is that the bottom step is also shallower on these units. drolsen.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1294265I have to say, I'm pretty disappointed that they didn't capture this difference in the prototypes with all the other variations that they did. This is one of those things that I could probably fix on the model, and patch over since it's all black paint in that area (and replace the bottom step), but it will probably mean I won't buy as many of these because of the extra work involved in fixing them. On a side note, CSX's former SBD C30-7s had this same feature on their stepwells. The Atlas and Broadway limited models did not - they replicated the same style that the Rapido B36-7 is coming with. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Nov 10, 2019 18:56:31 GMT -8
Atlas and stepwells:
When I asked Atlas why they didn't do the first new BN engines, GP38's BN 2072-2077, they said it was because they were delivered with special stepwells. Which is true.
Woulda been nice if they'd done them anyway. Being as how they apparently found wrong stepwells acceptable on other models.
There were still four of them running about 7 years ago, I think. They look to be gone, now.
Ed
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 6:39:18 GMT -8
Atlas and stepwells: When I asked Atlas why they didn't do the first new BN engines, GP38's BN 2072-2077, they said it was because they were delivered with special stepwells. Which is true. Woulda been nice if they'd done them anyway. Being as how they apparently found wrong stepwells acceptable on other models. There were still four of them running about 7 years ago, I think. They look to be gone, now. Ed Looks like there are just 2 now. Supposedly this is the BN 2077 now: www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=5055947BNSF 2075: www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=5172020 |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Nov 11, 2019 7:53:53 GMT -8
Thanks!
Hi, guys.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by jonklein611 on Nov 13, 2019 9:53:46 GMT -8
New youtube video posted:
|
|
|
|
Post by alcoc430 on Nov 13, 2019 10:06:14 GMT -8
I don't like the box because it has a Santa Fe unit on it but I'm buying a CR one  |
|
|
|
Post by middledivision on Nov 13, 2019 10:52:41 GMT -8
I have a Conrail on order and I hope the shell comes off easily for decoder installation and maintenance. The shell removal on the RS-18 is a nightmare.
|
|
|
|
Post by NS4122 on Nov 13, 2019 11:06:20 GMT -8
I have a Conrail on order and I hope the shell comes off easily for decoder installation and maintenance. The shell removal on the RS-18 is a nightmare. I am also concerned about what is going to be involved in replacing the truck side frames when the replacements arrive (unless the extra snubbers can be removed without causing damage). |
|
|
|
Post by csxt8400 on Nov 13, 2019 11:27:12 GMT -8
Also miffed about the choice of locomotive on the box!
#DownwithATSF
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 11:41:49 GMT -8
Also miffed about the choice of locomotive on the box! #DownwithATSF No. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Doom on Nov 13, 2019 12:47:15 GMT -8
Also miffed about the choice of locomotive on the box! #DownwithATSF It's Rapido, they should have put an ATSF unit repainted in the BC Rail "blue dip" scheme on the box.  |
|
|
|
Post by csxt8400 on Nov 13, 2019 13:31:07 GMT -8
Also miffed about the choice of locomotive on the box! #DownwithATSF It's Rapido, they should have put an ATSF unit repainted in the BC Rail "blue dip" scheme on the box. See, now that is something I could have understood. |
|
|
|
Post by csx3305 on Nov 13, 2019 14:34:46 GMT -8
Maybe the box is just like the stepwells, they’re catering to the ATSF crowd with a unit that was barely a footnote on that road’s roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on Nov 13, 2019 16:10:06 GMT -8
I’ve read, reread, and read again this whole thread and looked hard at the posted photographs and I don’t have the slightest idea what the issue is. I would like to see, side by side, shots of the model some seem, modestly disappointed in, and one of the real McCoys with maybe an arrow(s) to the “right” and heinously wrong part of the model. I’ll wear a padded hat so I don’t bruise when I head slap myself at the I hope painlessly obvious discrepancy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Doom on Nov 13, 2019 16:19:33 GMT -8
I’ve read, reread, and read again this whole thread and looked hard at the posted photographs and I don’t have the slightest idea what the issue is. I would like to see, side by side, shots of the model some seem, modestly disappointed in, and one of the real McCoys with maybe an arrow(s) to the “right” and heinously wrong part of the model. I’ll wear a padded hat so I don’t bruise when I head slap myself at the I hope painlessly obvious discrepancy. The main bone to pick by some is Rapido tooled up the CSXT B36-7's with the bottom stepwell jutting out slightly, like the ATSF SOU Conrail etc had (see the bottom step here: www.trainpix.com/atsf/GE/B36-7/7485.HTM) Instead of tooling the bottom step inset a little bit, and the stepwell sill tapered inward, like the CSX units should have: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_B36-7#/media/File:CSXT_5842_GE_B36-7.jpg . It is of the opinion by some that this was a decision to save costs in tooling up another different sill variation, and it is of the opinion by others this is false advertising as Rapido had mentioned "CSX-specific pilots" as a feature, which leads some to believe the correct steps would be done too. The other major issues were the factory mistakenly applying extra truck snubbers/struts on some roadnames in error (which they will address by having replacement sideframes made and available, as per Rapido), and some thinking Rapido used the wrong truck bolster spacing for some versions (Rapido has confirmed the truck spacing will be correct for all roadnames in this run). |
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on Nov 13, 2019 16:34:22 GMT -8
Thanks Judge....sure glad I model my own road name. Everything we get is in perfect ‘as delivered’ condition.
My head didn’t bruise....it’s been an interesting week here on the internet.
|
|
|
|
Post by csx3305 on Nov 13, 2019 17:06:30 GMT -8
I’ll ask again, what was the “CSX specific pilots” supposed to denote, if not the stepwell shape? It certainly doesnt refer to MU receptacle location, since they botched that too...
Still awaiting an answer from Rapido on this particular matter, btw.
|
|
|
|
Post by delta767332er on Nov 13, 2019 17:08:52 GMT -8
The main bone to pick by some is Rapido tooled up the CSXT B36-7's with the bottom stepwell jutting out slightly, like the ATSF SOU Conrail etc had (see the bottom step here: www.trainpix.com/atsf/GE/B36-7/7485.HTM) Instead of tooling the bottom step inset a little bit, and the stepwell sill tapered inward, like the CSX units should have: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_B36-7#/media/File:CSXT_5842_GE_B36-7.jpg . It is of the opinion by some that this was a decision to save costs in tooling up another different sill variation, and it is of the opinion by others this is false advertising as Rapido had mentioned "CSX-specific pilots" as a feature, which leads some to believe the correct steps would be done too. Wrong. The former isn't opinion. It was clearly stated in no uncertain terms by the former product developer that only one stepwell variation was "allowed" to be tooled. Several times in this thread, people have called something opinion or guesses just because THEY aren't aware of the facts. |
|
|
|
Post by csx3305 on Nov 13, 2019 17:10:45 GMT -8
Either that, or they are trying their best to muddy the waters for Rapido’s benefit.
|
|
|
|
Post by drsvelte on Nov 13, 2019 17:11:20 GMT -8
One might also draw the contrary inference that when Rapido referred to the pilots, they were primarily focusing on the plow, not the stepwell configuration. Here is their verbatim advertising verbiage with respect to the pilot:
"CSX specific pilot with large plow"
"SBD specific pilot with large plow"
"SOU/NS specific pilot with large plow both ends"
"SP specific pilot with small plow"
"CR specific pilot with small plow"
"ATSF specific pilot with small plow"
In addition, published photos of the pre-production models/samples show the non-SBD/CSX stepwell treatment only. None with the SBD configuration.
Certainly, if one was so emotionally and financially invested ( two months mortgage! 😯) in this prototype detail, it would have been prudent to engage in more due diligence with Rapido.
|
|
|
|
Post by pboilermaker on Nov 13, 2019 17:15:52 GMT -8
I’ve read, reread, and read again this whole thread and looked hard at the posted photographs and I don’t have the slightest idea what the issue is. I would like to see, side by side, shots of the model some seem, modestly disappointed in, and one of the real McCoys with maybe an arrow(s) to the “right” and heinously wrong part of the model. I’ll wear a padded hat so I don’t bruise when I head slap myself at the I hope painlessly obvious discrepancy. To put it another way, imagine a hyper-accurate Chessie System GP40-2 with no mail slots in the battery doors, or an SP unit with no light package, or a really nice VIA F40PH-2D with an Amtrak plow molded into the end sheet, or a Scott Norwood game-winning field goal attempt. Heinous? Depends on your definition. Correctable? Technically, yes, with some skill. Missed it by >< that much is frustrating for a high dollar item when a unique spotting feature is left off. I still do not know what a CSX-specific pilot is supposed to be vis a vis the original announcement (which hasn't been memory-holed). The SBD MU arrangement is also incorrect, but the correct SBD MU parts are actually molded...on the SP unit. Weird. Hopefully the pictures linked by Doom make sense. Once you see it (stepwells), you can't...help but ridicule CSX modelers, I guess. -Mike |
|
|
|
Post by alcoc430 on Nov 13, 2019 17:18:04 GMT -8
I'm going to hold in what I was going to type so as to not fan the flames lol
|
|
|
|
Post by csx3305 on Nov 13, 2019 17:18:59 GMT -8
One might also draw the contrary inference that when Rapido referred to the pilots, they were primarily focusing on the plow, not the stepwell configuration. Here is their verbatim advertising verbiage with respect to the pilot: "CSX specific pilot with large plow" "SBD specific pilot with large plow" "SOU/NS specific pilot with large plow both ends" "SP specific pilot with small plow" "CR specific pilot with small plow" "ATSF specific pilot with small plow" In addition, published photos of the pre-production models/samples show the non-SBD/CSX stepwell treatment only. None with the SBD configuration. Certainly, if one was so emotionally and financially invested ( two months mortgage! 😯) in this prototype detail, it would have been prudent to engage in more due diligence with Rapido. But one might also remember that THEY 3-D SCANNED A CSX UNIT. I will say it again. THEY 3-D SCANNED A CSX UNIT. Why make a 3-D scan and then change it? Why do the people defending Rapido keep ignoring this fact? A plow and a pilot are two separate structures. Just because they are connected and adjacent does not mean they are one and the same. So maybe it’s not exactly blatantly false advertising. Just p*ss-poor terminology usage. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Doom on Nov 13, 2019 17:26:33 GMT -8
The main bone to pick by some is Rapido tooled up the CSXT B36-7's with the bottom stepwell jutting out slightly, like the ATSF SOU Conrail etc had (see the bottom step here: www.trainpix.com/atsf/GE/B36-7/7485.HTM) Instead of tooling the bottom step inset a little bit, and the stepwell sill tapered inward, like the CSX units should have: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_B36-7#/media/File:CSXT_5842_GE_B36-7.jpg . It is of the opinion by some that this was a decision to save costs in tooling up another different sill variation, and it is of the opinion by others this is false advertising as Rapido had mentioned "CSX-specific pilots" as a feature, which leads some to believe the correct steps would be done too. Wrong. The former isn't opinion. It was clearly stated in no uncertain terms by the former product developer that only one stepwell variation was "allowed" to be tooled. Several times in this thread, people have called something opinion or guesses just because THEY aren't aware of the facts. And where was this clearly stated by him? On this forum? In a reply on Rapido's page? In a newsletter? While he was still an employee or after termination? Because, there's a bit of suspicion involved with employees that no longer work for companies. If it was a "former" product developer that was terminated, there's the potential that by saying that, they may have been trying to muddy the waters to the detriment of their former employer to get back at them. Citation needed, please. But one might also remember that THEY 3-D SCANNED A CSX UNIT. I will say it again. THEY 3-D SCANNED A CSX UNIT. Why make a 3-D scan and then change it? Why do the people defending Rapido keep ignoring this fact? Easy. 3D-scan one unit, and from that scan develop the different versions and variations. That 3D scan of a TTI/CSX unit was probably used to make the CSX frame version, then altered in another file to make the Conrail version, and a Southern version etc. Then it's up to Rapido to pick and choose which ones to tool up for which variations. Evidently, for whatever reason (if we are to believe, intentionally as a cost-driven decision, which is entirely possible) the CSX version didn't get tooled up for the CSX units. Either that, or they are trying their best to muddy the waters for Rapido’s benefit. Could just be Rapido hiring Russian Bot Farms to swing the election, er, "B36 Gate"...comrade.  |
|
|
|
Post by Chad on Nov 13, 2019 17:26:51 GMT -8
Is there any manufacture that you guys don't rip apart in one way or another?
|
|
|
|
Post by pboilermaker on Nov 13, 2019 17:28:43 GMT -8
Is there any manufacture that you guys don't rip apart in one way or another? Tyco. You know what you're getting with Tyco.  |
|
