|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Aug 19, 2022 12:41:20 GMT -8
And a lot easier to "sneak" changes into a model to make your life in production easier without someone checking your work. Which is a swell way to get fired from your job. If that's your pleasure. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by sourwyfan on Aug 19, 2022 14:34:46 GMT -8
It appears that the center two portholes on all(??) E9As have a thinner "metal*" gasket, which exposes more glass than the older thick rubber gasket windows used on the E8As. The glass MAY even be bigger, can't tell, doubtful. The outer two portholes on E9As and some E8As are openable and use a thicker gasket like used on E8s. Opening portholes appear to be optional on E8As.
Going from E8A to E9A, the upper headlight gasket also changed from thick rubber to thin metal. This was always what externally distinguished E8s from E9s. This probably holds true for B units too. * "metal" gasket per olde Diesel Spotter's Guide. Could actually be thinner rubber?
After looking at more pictures of E9's I am begining to think the larger center portholes was on all of them. I knew about the headlight gasket being a spotting feature of the E9, but this is a new one to me. I first noticed the larger portholes when building my Rock Island 657 and 658, (E8s BTW, probably retrofitted), and noticed many of the ex UP Es had larger center portholes, which lead me to believe it was just a gasket change the UP did later in life. Evidently not. The lack of a metal ring around the headlight glass was first introduced on all E-9's but was a commonly retrofitted modification on other models. So over the years this can be used less and less as a spotting feature. Also many of the E units I've seen especially later in their service life had the original EMD applied metal rings for holding the porthole glass replaced and just had the glass installed in the side sheet with a single rubber gasket.(Similar to headlight glass on E-9's) So this can make the portholes vary in size but not none were as small as those on the openning portholes Rapido's model. BR,Rahl |
|
|
|
Post by sourwyfan on Aug 19, 2022 14:37:54 GMT -8
Did they use the right style of stainless grille on the side of the locomotive? Thinking back to when DA offered two styles - an early style and a late (F9/E9) style - the model in the photo looks like the latter. Yes, the real 6905 had Farr grilles, so the model is correct in that regard. 6901 has what I believe are called fabricated grilles. John, You are correct about 6905's grills. And the ones on 6901 were called "Horizontal" grills. BR, Rahl |
|
|
|
Post by sourwyfan on Aug 19, 2022 14:39:11 GMT -8
Do we really not have the technology to put a clear number board insert in these and put the numbers behind them? Presuming they could cast the insert thin enough it would look much better. Would have to make it out of the same thin plastic they make the case the locomotive is held in, inside the foam insert, with a backer piece that has the numerals. That's the first thing that jumps out at me on these. I see the portholes are different sizes, too. Sand filler looks larger than it should be. Were I in need of one I could probably live with some of those things. Probably 75% of buyers won't care though. AGREED! I think those sand fillers are horrendous!  |
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Aug 19, 2022 14:53:00 GMT -8
It seems incorrect to try to compare large public civil and/or architectural engineering projects, where the final project is the unique goal, to producing thousands of model locos, which is really more of a mechanical engineering task. On models, every little detail matters, whereas big construction projects utilize standard drawings often developed over many years by clients, and there are significantly more QA/QC checks on a big dollar construction project than on a comparatively little model loco design project. If I was drafting on behalf of a manufacturer, which my father actually DID do, there is or would be a LOT more interaction with the project team members. And a lot easier to "sneak" changes into a model to make your life in production easier without someone checking your work.
Project Manager OK's the final model. (Where the buck stops).
This "sneaking" in changes doesn't even make since any changes are going to be found out in the Review Process, aka the Project Manager looking at the final model. Paint and some road or unit-specific details will not be checked because there are so many variations. But stuff like grab diameter, the porthole, sand filler are common across at least the majorty of units. They are fundamental to the model.
Rapido let the flaws through, they were responsible for overseeing the project.
And now the models are going on the market.
|
|
|
|
Post by sourwyfan on Aug 19, 2022 14:53:26 GMT -8
I surely thought a speed recorder on every axle on the Southern unit was a factory mistake. Turns out it's correct. I can't say I've seen that on an E unit before. They probably aren't speed recorders, it's most likely a wheelslip control system. I guess it's still technically measuring the speed, but not for a cab readout. If the wheels are spinning at different speeds, or one traction motor is faster than the others, the control system knows it's slipping. Here's a similar setup on a Burlington U30C: archive.trainpix.com/BN/GE/U30C/890.HTMYes, those were part of a wheel slip system Southern built for these passenger units in the early 70's. Guess they got sick of shelled and flat wheels due to the "Slipperiness" of these units and range of topography that the train traversed during the route from Washington to NOL. It was applied to all axles because it wasn't just monitoring acceleration slip but braking slide as well. And I can't tell with complete certainty from the Rapido pic but I believe those wheel slip pickups are the wrong model/make. Below is the actual prototype...  BR, Rahl |
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Aug 19, 2022 15:10:06 GMT -8
It seems incorrect to try to compare large public civil and/or architectural engineering projects, where the final project is the unique goal, to producing thousands of model locos, which is really more of a mechanical engineering task. On models, every little detail matters, whereas big construction projects utilize standard drawings often developed over many years by clients, and there are significantly more QA/QC checks on a big dollar construction project than on a comparatively little model loco design project. If I was drafting on behalf of a manufacturer, which my father actually DID do, there is or would be a LOT more interaction with the project team members.
Most of the projects are not large (define?) and a third of them require no engineering. Some are as small as a residential patio cover, some don't even involve any physical work, just legal & admin changes. Some work is boilerplate but most is job-specific.
I worked for an architectural model company in the 80s. Pre-internet so there client were meetings and site vists for review during the model construction process. Projects averaged about $5000 and everything was custom.
I was a project manager for Caltrans Rail Program.
Everywhere, the basic QC process is the same in that there existed a single Project Manager who was responsible and had authority to yea/nay the finished product before final payment. None of this applies if the product has been paid for before delivery. There you may be screwed.
In my current business I have a contract but I finish & share my work before submitting an invoice. Because people I deal with have an incentive to 1) get the project done, 2) move on, 3) value business relationships, and 3) look forward to possible repeat business, I've always been paid. Trust is important.
I thought Rapido had their own factory? If so, it's a bigger fail since it didn't even involve external contractors / vendors but only internal problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by markfj on Aug 19, 2022 15:28:53 GMT -8
Good side view of UP E8 942.  Thanks, Mark J. Reading, PA |
|
|
|
Post by sourwyfan on Aug 19, 2022 15:43:21 GMT -8
I have no insider knowledge of Rapido's operations... someone else on here recently floated the idea that they have a "decentralized" approach to project management, with different projects being run by different teams/people, which could help explain the seemingly broad range of quality/execution across their projects. For instance, the recent EP5 was a knockout IMHO. It is simply one of the best-executed plastic models I've ever seen/owned. Somebody had some true passion for that project. Contrast that with the issues raised here on the E8, which would appear to be a "close enough/good enough" effort. There are plenty of other recent contrasting examples from them (SW1200RS vs SW1200, for instance). Anyway I could go on (we all could!) with the Rapido speculation but the point is, the pace at which they execute projects and release product would seem to indicate they've got multiple project teams with different skills, levels of interest, etc. working on, perhaps, too many projects at the same time. It's not one team with one methodology or process. I've seen this before with my background in manufacturing. It's also indicative of, frankly, an operation that went from mom-and-pop to industry-heavyweight in a relatively short period of time. Again, I have some personal experience with this. The "secret sauce" is there but no one knows how to bottle it! The only E8 I have on order is AMTK 4316... so I guess I don't need to worry about the porthole windows! E-units were not common on anything I model. I would agree with this assessment. It appears that Rapido's quality of output is directly linked to the project management team attached to the project. They've had some knockout products that were nearly flawless, and others that missed the mark and others with mixed results due to prototype specific details. I will also say if there's something in development (from any manufacturer) that you're passionate about and have knowledge on, go ahead and provide the input. You may have caught something that's been overlooked and those are much easier to implement and fix in the design phase. The other challenge is the number of variations vs. pre-production samples provided. I think for the E8 they showed one, maybe two versions? I'd suggest increasing the number of samples shows at pre production stage, or at least sharing the output of the CAD files for each "flavor". This would allow better review / comments to be received. I agree with the above statements as each Rapido product line has a project manager assigned to it at the start and from my perspective the success or miss in each production is determined by the PM's passion to learn all specifics they can about that model and to be willing to learn/grow as he develops it, it simply can't just be a task he already knows. Nobody knows everything ever and modeling to prototype is very hard and thankless, period! It seems that the models that have "missed the mark" are because the PM either doesn't have the passion or is hard headed and doesn't value the input of the modelers that speak up, afterall they are the ones that will be buying that product. In the later case, they may already have their own circle of peers that they go to even if these folks may not be the definitive subject matter experts on the subject. Where I see the biggest problem is that all this input and yes criticism needs to be after initial design and before tooling is created which seems to be a persistent problem with a lot of model makers, not just Rapido. Also they need to be more forthcoming with preproduction information and suggestions. The original and wrong drawings for the Southern units are still what is on the website, I know for a fact that there have been multiple updates but none have been publicly shared. BR, Rahl |
|
|
|
Post by sourwyfan on Aug 19, 2022 15:48:05 GMT -8
So John, I consider you "Mr. E-Unit" with the amazing work you've done in the past building them, what say you about the Rapido effort, yay or nay? dAVE Let's just say I won't be getting rid of my pile of undec BLI E8s and Highliner kits for the noses. I may pick up a couple of UP E8B's to turn into Rock Island B units. We'll see what they look like in person. I'm not going to say to much, but I shared A LOT of data with Rapido's project manager on the Southern E-8's, yet I'm very disappointed! BR, Rahl |
|
|
|
Post by sourwyfan on Aug 19, 2022 16:01:35 GMT -8
Wow! You guys are rough.  So, I did a little investigating ... Bill Snyder of Rapido Trains made an interesting video of their early sample for the E8, found on youtube here: There are some interesting shots included that explain how some of these things happened. Included are some 3D renderings. After watching their extensive videos on the Chinese operation (and one of ScaleTrains, too), it seems apparent that the 3D CAD models are created by the Chinese engineers and most likely used as the first series of checks with their customers (Rapido, in this case) to verify the design. We're not privy to any of this but having done 3D CAD since the mid-80s and having my own product fabricating experience with major mfrs (not with model trains, though), it's no doubt similar. The tone of the video in Bill's narration even makes this a better guess, because his narration is most concerned with identifying all of the differing features of the various railroad locos and how they've included all of those differences. This implies that the basic point-cloud-to-3D-CAD-model was already set and approved. Here's a shot of the various grab irons -  and here is the sample in that video -  You can see that in the EL sample above, there's a grab iron to the right of the headlight, but not one to the left. Hence, the grab irons in the 3D rendering are different colors on either side of the headlight. I thought perhaps the different colors might also indicate different materials, but not so. It could be that length is an issue, because both the door handrails and the curved grabs on the roof are plastic. That doesn't explain why the grab iron on the EL sample above the headlight appears to be plastic, though. Bottom line, we'd have to know Rapido's design philosophy to figure out why and where they change from metal to plastic with grab irons. The portholes are a CAD mistake and it's apparent to me that everyone missed it. It's possible the original Chinese CAD operator might've discerned the mistake, but there would've had to have been a lot greater knowledge about the loco on his/her part. Here's a couple of their renderings shown in the YouTube video:   What the CAD operator most likely did, was generate the hinged ring at front and back (correct), but then simply copied the combined cell, block, section (whatever their CAD system calls it), glass-with-ring and all, into the hinged ring. Thus, two superimposed rings. In looking at the renderings, though, it's extremely easy to just view these portholes as an opening with a border between two dissimilar colors, not an actual frame shape. Even looking at it now, the hinged ring with the red-bordered circle looks perfectly natural as simply the difference between colors. It's also interesting to note the interference issue with the Farr grille and the porthole at lower right. That's exactly what 3D renderings are intended to catch. In this case, that tab is probably trimmed during manual assembly at the factory, when the grill is attached (my guess). Anyway, to compound this visual error with the portholes, it's tragic that the early sample Rapido received was a version with blanked-out portholes:  Finally, about the cab window, re: square or rectangular. Finding actual engineering drawings of the E8 or E9 online has been impossible for me. There are drawings, but even then, who knows who made them and whether they're valid? I pulled out my Kalmbach Our GM Scrapbook (1976 printing - I've had it since then.) and found this in the back:  A closer look reveals that the cab windows behind the mullion indeed appear slightly rectangular:  These drawings are of the E9, of course, but should be valid for what we're discussing. It should also be noted that even though Kalmbach claims that these drawings are from EMD's actual specification books, it doesn't mean that these were the drawings that dimensioned the windows and were the source of their fabrication. In fact, what's really interesting is the front porthole: No hinged frame!!! What baffles me is that they gloatted so much on how they 3D scanned an actual E unit for this model, It should be damn close if not spot on in regards to the general loco specs and dimensions! Remember E-8's and E-9's were externally similar except for lack of a ring around the headlight glass on E-9's. BR, Rahl |
|
|
|
Post by onequiknova on Aug 19, 2022 16:12:50 GMT -8
Just a couple notes. The side cab windows between the F2's and E8's were different, so those drawings shouldn't be used regardless. For starters that drawing is showing a raised framework around the windows, which was used on the early E's and FT's, but I believe that went away with the F2. The cab window height was changed with the F9's, and the E8/9 used the same taller window. The length probably didn't change, but I can't say for sure.
Those CAD drawings show some major (to me) differences. First the numberboard gaskets are much finer than the model, like they should have been, and the windshield glass is mounted flush, and not overly recessed like on the model. Both of which are very distracting to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Aug 19, 2022 16:21:01 GMT -8
That picture of former UP 942 is very interesting because it shows what appears to me to be a dramatic difference in porthole sizes. Below are pictures of other E8's:      Can you guess which of those might be former UP? Check the porthole diameters! Ed |
|
|
|
Post by onequiknova on Aug 19, 2022 16:24:46 GMT -8
That picture of former UP 942 is very interesting because it shows what appears to me to be a dramatic difference in porthole sizes. Below are pictures of other E8's: Can you guess which of those might be former UP? Check the porthole diameters! Ed This was discussed somewhat earlier in this thread. It appears the larger center portholes are a feature on most (all?) E9's. I've also seen evidence of UP modifying some of their E8's as well. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Aug 19, 2022 16:26:42 GMT -8
It's my impression that the size difference is much greater for the UP units.
Unfortunately, just about everyone who ever took pictures of E's thought that a 3/4 front was the way to go, so it's tough to find really good side pictures, such as the one of UP 942.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Aug 19, 2022 16:27:42 GMT -8
I would agree with this assessment. It appears that Rapido's quality of output is directly linked to the project management team attached to the project. They've had some knockout products that were nearly flawless, and others that missed the mark and others with mixed results due to prototype specific details. I will also say if there's something in development (from any manufacturer) that you're passionate about and have knowledge on, go ahead and provide the input. You may have caught something that's been overlooked and those are much easier to implement and fix in the design phase. The other challenge is the number of variations vs. pre-production samples provided. I think for the E8 they showed one, maybe two versions? I'd suggest increasing the number of samples shows at pre production stage, or at least sharing the output of the CAD files for each "flavor". This would allow better review / comments to be received. ...It seems that the models that have "missed the mark" are because the PM either doesn't have the passion or is hard headed and doesn't value the input of the modelers that speak up, afterall they are the ones that will be buying that product.... BR, Rahl
I agree. That's where having more people review the model, as early on as possible is necessary. This goes for any project.
More people including other staff, outside consultants or "experts" like historical societies (trust but verify), and modelers & potential buyers. You have to have a balance because the project has to move forward and changes have a cost, time and or money.
Everyone misses stuff, that's why more than one person needs to review and make comments, but a single person is always responsible for literally "signing off" on the work or changes. It's just business.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Aug 19, 2022 16:32:52 GMT -8
Just a couple notes. The side cab windows between the F2's and E8's were different, so those drawings shouldn't be used regardless. For starters that drawing is showing a raised framework around the windows, which was used on the early E's and FT's, but I believe that went away with the F2. The cab window height was changed with the F9's, and the E8/9 used the same taller window. The length probably didn't change, but I can't say for sure. Those CAD drawings show some major (to me) differences. First the numberboard gaskets are much finer than the model, like they should have been, and the windshield glass is mounted flush, and not overly recessed like on the model. Both of which are very distracting to me.
I didn't know that about all the window changes. Will add to my file. Thanks!
|
|
ictom
Full Member
Posts: 102
|
Post by ictom on Aug 19, 2022 17:07:45 GMT -8
I don't think anyone was stating that the posted drawings were an accurate record of what was used to actually fabricate the locomotives. In the parlance I'm used to, they're simply what one might find in an O&M manual - illustrative only.
Even if we found an actual engineering drawing that was "supposedly" used for the fabrication of the E8, it doesn't mean it's valid. I haven't worked in the railroad industry, but I have worked many years for an aircraft manufacturer. Back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, it was especially convenient to make changes on the production floor that never got reflected in the original design drawings. It was funny because during the 80s and 90s, some MBA types all got the hot idea that sub-contracting aircraft assemblies was the way to go to save money. The problem was, when they gave the subs the drawings, the assemblies we got back didn't fit on the plane. Changes had been made somewhere on the production floor years ago and never got reflected in the drawings. Yes, our own tooling was exactly correct, but we couldn't ship that to the subs.
Also, in construction there's something called "As-Built" drawings. If you're ever lucky enough to get them, they're still not definitive in a lot of cases. It's just the nature of the beast. No one is going to stop a project to get a drawing changed, once it's gone into construction (with very, very, few exceptions). That's certainly not going to happen on a manufacturing production floor, either.
With the advent of CAD, a lot of this got easier, because changes are so easy once the drawing is in the system. (I would argue that original creation of the drawing is probably harder with CAD.) However, the E8 was way before any CAD systems.
|
|
ictom
Full Member
Posts: 102
|
Post by ictom on Aug 19, 2022 17:22:11 GMT -8
Are there any manufacturers that do their own CAD work? Is it cheaper to have the factory do it? Or will they not accept outside work? Seems like the best way to control that part of the process is to have someone with knowledge of the subject designing it. Most companies have the factory side do the CAD work. Remember these design files are directly linked to the mold files and there are design constraints due to the nature of mold making. The factory team is the one that has that experience. It would be on the Project Manager, with the prototype knowledge, to provide input for the design. Yes, this is exactly correct. Even if you submit fully compliant CAD drawings yourself, the mfr has its own standards and systems and will in almost all cases, re-draw what you've submitted to fit into their system standards. |
|
|
|
Post by markfj on Aug 19, 2022 17:27:27 GMT -8
It's my impression that the size difference is much greater for the UP units. Unfortunately, just about everyone who ever took pictures of E's thought that a 3/4 front was the way to go, so it's tough to find really good side pictures, such as the one of UP 942. Ed Agree, I've been searching and found tons of 3/4 front views, but good side pictures are rare. I just found this one of PRR E8A 5895 taken at Pittsburgh on 6-12-53.  Thanks, Mark |
|
|
|
Post by wmcbride on Aug 19, 2022 18:35:58 GMT -8
I had high hopes for these units but not one I "needed." Ditto Ugh to the plastic mega grabs.
Now, for something completely different:
Looking at the drawings SOURWYFAN posted underscores a long-standing question for me: How did anyone sitting in those cab seats have any satisfactory forward visibility?
In cab photos seem to underscore the limited vision forward.
Bill McBride
|
|
|
|
Post by lars on Aug 19, 2022 19:30:38 GMT -8
This was discussed somewhat earlier in this thread. It appears the larger center portholes are a feature on most (all?) E9's. I've also seen evidence of UP modifying some of their E8's as well. It seems very clear that UP modified the portholes, as pics from before the 70’s 60’s show all being the same size, such as this one www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=784883 (someone else, feel free to upload, iPad won’t do it for me). It’s looking more and more like Rapido didn’t make a mistake in rendering what they scanned. It’s just that the locomotive they 3-D scanned had some modifications that make the portholes inaccurate for most early UP phases an any other non-UP heritage locomotive. Not to beat a dead horse, but it would be like them scanning a CSX B36 and then having the wrong step wells for everybody else. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Aug 19, 2022 20:19:04 GMT -8
If you compare the photos, the forward porthole on the Rapido model is actually a pretty poor reproduction of the one illustrated above on UP 942. The porthole on the left is supposed to be based on a scan of the porthole on the right. It does not appear to be an accurate reproduction of any porthole on any E unit. Of especial interest is that the Rapido porthole has two concentric rings, with the center one projecting outwards farther than the other. The prototype that was scanned has only one ring.  Ed |
|
|
|
Post by atsf_4 on Aug 19, 2022 21:06:24 GMT -8
Yeah, they like to brag so much about how they have 3D scanned the prototypes. Seems they didn't pay enough attention to the scans.
Rapido has publicly stated, at least in their videos, some of which I've watched, that they actually have three factories, and yes, I agree with the assessment that they grew quickly into a relative heavyweight company, perhaps leading to some of the issues we are seeing.
I am not condoning bad drafting or design, far from it.
I only have a little bit of insight into how other, smaller manufacturers do things. Although there is a "project manager" if you want to call it that, a new diesel actually gets scrutinized by a whole team of people. Members of that team have different responsibilities, but at least one guy is tasked with making sure everything fits together correctly, as it involves making adjustments to the plastic molding process even after the tooling is created in order to get things right. I had an opportunity to talk to that one guy recently (not employed at Rapido) and got a bit more information than I can possibly remember. He was talking about plastic temperature, time in the molds, and stuff completely way over my head. This other manufacturer does believe in getting factory painted sample models. They absolutely do not roll their own samples with a custom painter here in the states. They would tell you that doing so is absolutely crazy. You need factory finished pilot models that can be reviewed and scrutinized before the final changes are made to details and paint schemes. They even show the sample models to anybody who happens to be there just in case they might catch something. After all this stuff is not top secret, right? At various times I've gotten to look at sample models myself (and frankly didn't know enough about the prototype to be able to offer any comments other than regarding paint color). Everybody has an opinion about paint colors.
Sadly it seems too many Rapido projects are rushed into production without any kind of review and comment period on factory finished sample models, much less even just finished shells. Some things could be caught and prevented, but it's too late when custom painted samples are shown and models are already on the water.
Rapido needs to improve.
|
|
|
|
Post by schroed2 on Aug 19, 2022 22:23:34 GMT -8
If you compare the photos, the forward porthole on the Rapido model is actually a pretty poor reproduction of the one illustrated above on UP 942. The porthole on the left is supposed to be based on a scan of the porthole on the right. It does not appear to be an accurate reproduction of any porthole on any E unit. Of especial interest is that the Rapido porthole has two concentric rings, with the center one projecting outwards farther than the other. The prototype that was scanned has only one ring. Ed it looks like it would be possible to remove the inner, protruding ring and achieve a better look (more like the prototype). At least the cab window seems to match the prototype more then feared in this thread.... the lists of things to do on my one remaining pre-ordered E8A in CBQ w stainless sides gets longer and longer, but nothing really unusual or too difficult (but really annoying and unnecessary) I stopped pre-ordering Rapido locomotives, for now keeping my optimism regarding their freight cars |
|
|
|
Post by schroed2 on Aug 19, 2022 22:29:14 GMT -8
Below are pictures of other E8's: Ed hmm, so far my plan was to model bn9952, but bn9949 looks interesting too |
|
|
|
Post by lvrr325 on Aug 19, 2022 23:03:14 GMT -8
Are the porthole rings applied separately I guess is the question.
Clearly the Rapido model is trying to represent the opening ones applied to some units, but somehow adds a ring to it instead of just having a thicker ring.
With regard to the manager making final approval, note Rapido delayed these because China on their own altered the trucks to allow them to turn sharper radius curves.
|
|
|
|
Post by lvrr325 on Aug 19, 2022 23:04:08 GMT -8
Below are pictures of other E8's: Ed hmm, so far my plan was to model bn9952, but bn9949 looks interesting too You'll only have to go half as Farr to get it done? |
|
|
|
Post by atsf_4 on Aug 19, 2022 23:10:58 GMT -8
I'd like to get a good PA-1, but right now am not sure that Walthers' version isn't still going to be better than Rapido's.
Looking at these E units, and understanding there are some issues with BLI's versions of earlier E unit models, I'd still buy BLI's.
|
|
|
|
Post by schroed2 on Aug 19, 2022 23:35:03 GMT -8
You'll only have to go half as Farr to get it done? doesnt look like Farr grilles to me, but I get the idea... also, my archive includes some pix of this unit from 1974 (retrieved from ebay...so NO posting here, sorry) with the SP style ice breakers on Amtrak trains... |
|
