|
Post by arandall70 on Nov 18, 2019 6:09:52 GMT -8
You're right, that is certainly what they are doing. 12bridge, I first mentioned this with the ST SD40T-2s as I thought it really made them look funny. Of course they defended by saying that is the way the numberboards are produced, ignoring the final appearance.
I think this is a case where doing it the way they do on the prototype is not the best course because what they are trying to replicate doesn't scale down well. Is the same reason we don't have opening hood doors with lots of hinges on our models. It may be neat, but to work correctly the hinges would be way out of proportion.
|
|
|
Post by csx3305 on Nov 18, 2019 6:29:10 GMT -8
So what exactly are we seeing with the different number boards? Painted glass through the 70s, and then in the 80s they went to white lexan or plexi or whatever, with stick-on plastic numerals?
|
|
|
Post by arandall70 on Nov 18, 2019 7:22:41 GMT -8
There may be other variations than I list, feel free to add. My observations indicate that there are three common types of number boards going back to the early diesel days. You have the early number inserts that are behind a piece of glass. This photo of a GP9 being dismantled shows the three layers of the glass/clear plastic, number inserts, and lights behind. Somewhere along the line this became cumbersome or maintenance intensive for some and new methods were devised. It seems that factory-supplied number boards from EMD and GE were printed on the back of plexiglass/plastic for a long time. This seems to work well and protects the number from the elements. Some roads, such as SCL, had the raised numbers on the surface of the number board going back to the late 1960s. Below is a good example showing the later types. The block numbers are the raised ones. As I previously mentioned, I think the manufacturers trying to print the number on the back of clear plastic is pointless because the thickness of the numberboard doesn't scale down. To get it to fit back in the opening, the nubmers have to be compressed vertically and cannot get as close to the edge of the frame as the prototype. I think this is most apparent if you compare the earlier photo I shared of the CSX B36-7 to the Rapido TTI version, as those are supposed to represent the same type of numbers.
|
|
|
Post by jonklein611 on Nov 18, 2019 7:32:05 GMT -8
So, not to throw more fuel on the fire, but folks were asking for receipts on what csx3305 and others were claiming. If you go here: rapidotrains.com/ho-ge-b36-7 and scroll down a bit, you'll find the following: Now, knowing the full history based on this thread and others, a financial decision was made to eliminate some of the prototype unique tooling to produce a profitable product. This is 100% understandable, as the company has to make money to stay in business. The issue stems from not communicating those design decisions prior to the preorder closing. Rapido is normally very good and typically up front about the model numbers that are "close enough" within the production run. It's a shame this communication was missed as they normally flush themselves out at the pre-production model showoff photos / videos (which only showed Conrail and ATSF versions). That being said, mistakes happen, emails get missed, or thoughts don't get followed up on. Losing a project manager partway through a project can certainly have an impact and things may have gotten lost in the shuffle. Additionally, it is helpful to directly contact manufactures during the design phase to ask questions / provide input. I've done this on previous Rapido projects to understand if a certain version would be done in the future, or if a specific detail was to be included or not. Rapido has always responded back with an answer. Food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on Nov 18, 2019 8:03:25 GMT -8
Well, it only says CSX-specific pilots, not stepwells and/or fillet between steps and frame. So, buyer beware!
|
|
|
Post by pboilermaker on Nov 18, 2019 8:29:22 GMT -8
Well, it only says CSX-specific pilots, not stepwells and/or fillet between steps and frame. So, buyer beware! "100% accurate" must have been a catchy exaggeration to maximize pre-orders.
|
|
|
Post by csx3305 on Nov 18, 2019 8:39:08 GMT -8
Well, it only says CSX-specific pilots, not stepwells and/or fillet between steps and frame. So, buyer beware! You obviously missed where I covered this in the other thread, the ground step on the SBD/CSX units being set back toward centerline forced a change in the shape of the pilot sheet. Thus it’s a perfectly reasonable implication.
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on Nov 18, 2019 8:48:50 GMT -8
Well, it only says CSX-specific pilots, not stepwells and/or fillet between steps and frame. So, buyer beware! You obviously missed where I covered this in the other thread, the ground step on the SBD/CSX units being set back toward centerline forced a change in the shape of the pilot sheet. Thus it’s a perfectly reasonable implication. You're right; I was mostly glossing over that since I've not seen the finished models (nor really looked at the pics). Fortunately I didn't have any pre-ordered.
|
|
|
Post by csx3305 on Nov 18, 2019 9:43:36 GMT -8
If you go here: rapidotrains.com/ho-ge-b36-7 and scroll down a bit, you'll find the following: 3D scanned from an ex-CSX B36-7 for 100% accurate shape and dimensionsTo me, this one sentence is the smoking gun in this whole mess. I recall at announcement time that Gareth was talking about climbing all over one of Minnesota Commercial’s units. I guess they scanned that unit’s stepwells, and cut/pasted them onto the body scans from 5815.
|
|
|
Post by csxt8400 on Nov 18, 2019 11:38:54 GMT -8
I have a BNSF SD45-2 numberboard that has a two piece design, with clear junk plastic over the printed and colored board. The black background was much thinner and flimsier than a normal numberboard, but with the clear piece to go over it probably maintained the width needed to properly fill the gasket. That style of board is usually identified because of the moisture that develops between the two pieces, causing discoloration. Here is an engine with that style. www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3620948On topic, I do agree that I'd like to see that clear plastic piece thrown out of this process. Athearn uses it too.
|
|
|
Post by nstophat on Nov 18, 2019 13:55:25 GMT -8
There may be other variations than I list, feel free to add. My observations indicate that there are three common types of number boards going back to the early diesel days. You have the early number inserts that are behind a piece of glass. This photo of a GP9 being dismantled shows the three layers of the glass/clear plastic, number inserts, and lights behind. Somewhere along the line this became cumbersome or maintenance intensive for some and new methods were devised. It seems that factory-supplied number boards from EMD and GE were printed on the back of plexiglass/plastic for a long time. This seems to work well and protects the number from the elements. Some roads, such as SCL, had the raised numbers on the surface of the number board going back to the late 1960s. Below is a good example showing the later types. The block numbers are the raised ones. As I previously mentioned, I think the manufacturers trying to print the number on the back of clear plastic is pointless because the thickness of the numberboard doesn't scale down. To get it to fit back in the opening, the nubmers have to be compressed vertically and cannot get as close to the edge of the frame as the prototype. I think this is most apparent if you compare the earlier photo I shared of the CSX B36-7 to the Rapido TTI version, as those are supposed to represent the same type of numbers. Anthony: I have a pair of number boards off of an N&W SD35, and they are fabricated in the same fashion as your 7210, with a raised black plastic number mounted on white plexiglass. Russ
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on Nov 18, 2019 14:28:29 GMT -8
There may be other variations than I list, feel free to add. My observations indicate that there are three common types of number boards going back to the early diesel days. You have the early number inserts that are behind a piece of glass. This photo of a GP9 being dismantled shows the three layers of the glass/clear plastic, number inserts, and lights behind. Somewhere along the line this became cumbersome or maintenance intensive for some and new methods were devised. It seems that factory-supplied number boards from EMD and GE were printed on the back of plexiglass/plastic for a long time. This seems to work well and protects the number from the elements. Some roads, such as SCL, had the raised numbers on the surface of the number board going back to the late 1960s. Below is a good example showing the later types. The block numbers are the raised ones. As I previously mentioned, I think the manufacturers trying to print the number on the back of clear plastic is pointless because the thickness of the numberboard doesn't scale down. To get it to fit back in the opening, the nubmers have to be compressed vertically and cannot get as close to the edge of the frame as the prototype. I think this is most apparent if you compare the earlier photo I shared of the CSX B36-7 to the Rapido TTI version, as those are supposed to represent the same type of numbers. Anthony: I have a pair of number boards off of an N&W SD35, and they are fabricated in the same fashion as your 7210, with a raised black plastic number mounted on white plexiglass. Russ A very common design.
6948.... Is that a Conrail?
1136 looks like an Alco.
|
|
|
Post by arandall70 on Nov 18, 2019 16:02:55 GMT -8
I should clarify that those are not my numberboards, I just found the photos online. It seemed like the best one to demonstrate the raised number and printed on back types. Several of them demonstrate the technique that CSXT8400 described.
6948 does look like a CR unit, as I would imagine the 5069 and 1960 are.
|
|
|
Post by sd80mac on Nov 18, 2019 16:08:27 GMT -8
5069 is likely a BN C30-7, as I own a few from that class that are identical. 2806 is likely a CR B23-7.
|
|
|
Post by csx3305 on Nov 18, 2019 17:10:40 GMT -8
My guess is that 7210 is off of a CSX U30C.
|
|
|
Post by cemr5396 on Nov 18, 2019 17:45:49 GMT -8
6948 looks like the style I've seen on NS EMDs
|
|
|
Post by delta767332er on Nov 19, 2019 17:10:01 GMT -8
Got my B36-7s today. Haven't walked off a short pier with them yet. For those wondering, some of the snubbers do pry-pop right off, leaving little glue residue, but most are glued enough that the replacement parts will indeed be required. Based on the odds with two units so far, I'd expect I'll safely be able to produce four successful truck sideframes out of 20 attempts. Even my GD undec has them glued on.
Additionally, I do believe the class lights are in the correct location, or very close to the correct location. In my opinion, it is the too-large corner radii that are making the class lights look like they are closer to the corners of the short hood than they should be. If the radii were correct, the placement of the class lights on the "flat" portion of those would appear to be correct, as I believe they are.
Fixing the stepwells for those so inclined isn't going to be QUITE as easy as I had hoped, because the angle of the inner recess that needs filed off is actually tooled with the angle on the backside also, not solid, so you can't just file it off. Additionally the angle that needs file "in" to the outer post can't just be filed away, because the stepwell plastic is thin enough that there isn't enough material to create the angle. So it's actually going to take some modeling with styrene to reconstruct things.
Brian Bennett
|
|
|
Post by csx3305 on Nov 19, 2019 17:28:24 GMT -8
Thanks for the input, was hoping you’d update us on them. Aren’t the steps etched metal? I couldn’t perform the usual surgery that I did on the Atlas units if so. Probably best to pry the steps out, then delete the toe kick, put the step back in and fab a new toe kick out of styrene strip.
I still say it’s friggin’ ridiculous to have to do this on a 230 dollar unit.
|
|
|
Post by pboilermaker on Nov 19, 2019 18:12:25 GMT -8
Fixing the stepwells for those so inclined isn't going to be QUITE as easy as I had hoped, because the angle of the inner recess that needs filed off is actually tooled with the angle on the backside also, not solid, so you can't just file it off. Additionally the angle that needs file "in" to the outer post can't just be filed away, because the stepwell plastic is thin enough that there isn't enough material to create the angle. So it's actually going to take some modeling with styrene to reconstruct things. Brian Bennett Not what I wanted to hear. Removal of the offending material is one thing, reconstruction is another. I anticipated popping off the bottom PE step and shortening it, but not rebuilding the fiddly lower frame area of each stepwell. How's the paint application?
|
|
|
Post by delta767332er on Nov 19, 2019 19:07:48 GMT -8
Thanks for the input, was hoping you’d update us on them. Aren’t the steps etched metal? I couldn’t perform the usual surgery that I did on the Atlas units if so. Probably best to pry the steps out, then delete the toe kick, put the step back in and fab a new toe kick out of styrene strip. I still say it’s friggin’ ridiculous to have to do this on a 230 dollar unit. Yes, the steps are etched (very nice without paint filling the holes like SXT, though missing the half-holes visible from front due to no front lip like Cannon or RF), toe kick is plastic to support stepwell structure. So yes, you'd have to removed step and toe kick bridge to do all the work and then rebuild/replace a new toe kick cross member. If you cemented styrene blocking behind both steps of the stepwell such that you got some melted bonding, you could probably then do the filing necessary (remove the angle/add the angle) and paint would blend everything in, then add step and kick plate back in. Brian Bennett
|
|
|
Post by delta767332er on Nov 19, 2019 19:12:30 GMT -8
Fixing the stepwells for those so inclined isn't going to be QUITE as easy as I had hoped, because the angle of the inner recess that needs filed off is actually tooled with the angle on the backside also, not solid, so you can't just file it off. Additionally the angle that needs file "in" to the outer post can't just be filed away, because the stepwell plastic is thin enough that there isn't enough material to create the angle. So it's actually going to take some modeling with styrene to reconstruct things. Brian Bennett Not what I wanted to hear. Removal of the offending material is one thing, reconstruction is another. I anticipated popping off the bottom PE step and shortening it, but not rebuilding the fiddly lower frame area of each stepwell. How's the paint application? I wouldn't call it reconstruction. Hopefully you can just weld some styrene backing back behind to build everything up, file the angle away/create the angle, and then put the step back in with a new kickplate. Lower step supports and new kickplate is the only thing you'd have to do completely "from scratch." Please don't read this as "stop complaining, you can fix it" as that comment touches my anger buttons, but since Rapido has forced our hand, the conversation really is now about HOW to fix it for those that care. The ship is gone and the horse is dead. BB
|
|
|
Post by middledivision on Nov 19, 2019 19:59:55 GMT -8
Glad I don't need any CSX units! If the shell on my Conrail unit does not come off as one piece, I'm selling it!
|
|
|
Post by pboilermaker on Nov 19, 2019 20:42:45 GMT -8
Not what I wanted to hear. Removal of the offending material is one thing, reconstruction is another. I anticipated popping off the bottom PE step and shortening it, but not rebuilding the fiddly lower frame area of each stepwell. How's the paint application? I wouldn't call it reconstruction. Hopefully you can just weld some styrene backing back behind to build everything up, file the angle away/create the angle, and then put the step back in with a new kickplate. Lower step supports and new kickplate is the only thing you'd have to do completely "from scratch." Please don't read this as "stop complaining, you can fix it" as that comment touches my anger buttons, but since Rapido has forced our hand, the conversation really is now about HOW to fix it for those that care. The ship is gone and the horse is dead. BB Agreed. There are two deadlined ex-CSX B36-7s about 1.5 hours from me. At last check three months ago, they were intact. I might need to head out and try to get some measurements for the necessary modifications (especially the kick plates and the height of the sill bevel toward the bottom step). Anyone need any other measurements or photos of these areas if I am able to get out there?
|
|
|
Post by drolsen on Nov 19, 2019 21:28:34 GMT -8
I’d love to see good detail shots and measurements of the CSX stepwells. It should be pretty easy to estimate, but I’ll take actual measurements any day. Thanks!
Dave
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Nov 19, 2019 23:49:28 GMT -8
How are the motors?
|
|
|
Post by nstophat on Nov 20, 2019 3:40:32 GMT -8
Agreed. There are two deadlined ex-CSX B36-7s about 1.5 hours from me. At last check three months ago, they were intact. I might need to head out and try to get some measurements for the necessary modifications (especially the kick plates and the height of the sill bevel toward the bottom step). Anyone need any other measurements or photos of these areas if I am able to get out there? Yes please! Russ
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on Nov 20, 2019 4:30:27 GMT -8
Anyone need any other measurements or photos of these areas if I am able to get out there? Do they still have class lights? How about a center-to-center measurement, and a measurement of how high they are above the walkway?
|
|
|
Post by delta767332er on Nov 20, 2019 8:43:30 GMT -8
Anyone need any other measurements or photos of these areas if I am able to get out there? Do they still have class lights? How about a center-to-center measurement, and a measurement of how high they are above the walkway? Yes, and radii of the top and side corners of the nose!
|
|
|
Post by lvrr325 on Nov 20, 2019 16:29:45 GMT -8
Anthony: I have a pair of number boards off of an N&W SD35, and they are fabricated in the same fashion as your 7210, with a raised black plastic number mounted on white plexiglass. Russ A very common design.
6948.... Is that a Conrail?
1136 looks like an Alco.
6948 is late Conrail, from an SD38. They used that style not only on their engines but on ones they painted or rebuilt as well. The three digit 200-series one is probably Guilford. I have one from a CSX SD45 that is also white plexi with that style black numbers. I want to say that's a factory EMD style, that some roads adopted as standard, as evidenced by the likely Alco 1136. I also have one from... a B23-7 that ended up on Finger Lakes, that they used some number stickers as a mask, painted the thing black then peeled the stickers off. I want to say it was Reading & Northern's actual work but I don't remember now.
|
|
|
Post by pboilermaker on Nov 20, 2019 18:27:16 GMT -8
Anyone need any other measurements or photos of these areas if I am able to get out there? Do they still have class lights? How about a center-to-center measurement, and a measurement of how high they are above the walkway? They are still in YN2 paint and have the class lights blanked with circular plates. I can try to measure center to center of the plates as well as height above walkway.
|
|