|
Post by simulatortrain on Dec 14, 2022 7:03:52 GMT -8
I should add, if anyone has a photo of these trucks with all the text readable, I'd like to start adding that. I'm looking at using this truck as a jumping-off point for some upgrades I've been wanting to make to the truck line, that being one of them.
|
|
|
Post by atsf_4 on Dec 14, 2022 16:13:44 GMT -8
Ed--
The reefer book is on sale for only $20 at the SFRHMS, so I ordered one, but it may take a while to get here.
Looking at various online sources, it appears Santa Fe switched to the darker orange color "during the late 1950's" but I have not been able to find out if that was before or after the Rr-60/61 reefer classes were constructed.
Clearly, for the earlier mid-1950's reefers, it appears the yellowish orange look (ATSF reefer fans say it is closest to Maine Central Harvest Yellow) is correct.
For those of us who are 1960 and later fans, well repaints would be the darker orange.
|
|
|
Post by grabirons on Dec 18, 2022 12:00:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Dec 18, 2022 14:49:08 GMT -8
That photo shows the later darker Santa Fe orange vs. the earlier color which is similar to MEC Harvest Yellow.
Still looking for details on when the color change happened....
|
|
|
Post by mvlandsw on Dec 23, 2022 17:49:08 GMT -8
After all the comments about these cars I was tempted to not pickup my preorder, but they arrived today. The trucks don't look as bad in person as they do when blown up 8 or 10 times, and although not state of the art, are acceptable for my purposes. The one car that I tested rolled fairly well.
The color is probably accurate for the original ATSF color. No one mentioned the color of the roof. I expected it to be silver but it is a light brown on the model. Is that correct?
All prototype and model plug doors that I have seen are flush with the car side when closed. The Rapido plug door is added on top of the car body surface instead of being molded with the side or recessed into it. Since the door is a different color than the car body this isn't very noticeable, but the door is actually positioned like is in the process of being opened. Since the door and door tracks are separate pieces on the model perhaps Rapido is planning on offering a model with a different size or style door. I will have to cut a hole in the car body to recess the door properly.
The levers in the brake system are mounted incorrectly. Even though there are wire hangers for the levers, the levers are glued into a notch in the center sill, positioning them flush with the center sill instead of hanging below it. The prototype could not work that way.
The cast ladder rungs are oversize. Kadee and Tangent and maybe others can mold scale or near scale rungs and grabirons - why not Rapido? The retainer pipe on the end of the car is about three times the diameter that it should be and the retainer valve itself is little more than a blob.
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Dec 23, 2022 18:32:03 GMT -8
This prompted me to unbox one of my new ones. I think the car is, overall, quite presentable. I won't disagree about the various, uh, flaws mentioned just above. But the car looks pretty good.
I put it on a track next to an Intermountain ATSF ice reefer. The yellow or orange or whatever it is is a good bit weaker on the Intermountain, and a bit darker. This might work to my benefit, as all these cars will inhabit 1959, and the mechanicals should be a bit fresher looking. I suppose. I just got out my Athearn 50' ice car, and its sides are kind of midway between the other two in color--maybe a little closer to the Rapido.
For now, I'm going to assume different levels of weathering and fading on these cars. Happily, none of the three colors is glaringly wrong.
Ed
|
|
|
Post by Donnell Wells on Dec 23, 2022 21:46:37 GMT -8
I'm just sitting here chuckling about the angst over the trucks. I remember a few years ago when Blaine Hadfield (Arrowhead Models) put the ridiculous looking 50T trucks on the 70T PRR H39 hopper. When pointed out that they were incorrect on this forum, the Blaine Hadfield "defense attorneys" pointed out that trucks really didn't matter, it was the highly detailed model that counted. So back then it was a free pass for totally wrong trucks and now it's crucifixion for Rapido's correct trucks that don't meet the "exacting" standards of the ARF. Let's not be lazy in language, and stop attributing some peoples dissatisfaction with Rapido and other manufacturers to the overall forum. The same people with objections, I am certain, voice these same opinions in other places besides ARF. Frankly, I'm getting my fill of the ill-placed indictments as if the forum itself (which is a fictitious inanimate entity) is making these, or any other statements. Lastly, these "exacting standards" to which you refer, again, are those of modelers with objections to various aspects of manufacturer offerings. This forum HAS NO OFFICIAL POSITION on any issue outside of the forum rules. Donnell
|
|
|
Post by NS4122 on Dec 24, 2022 8:47:38 GMT -8
Well, I'm not going to argue, I'm just stating a fact. The majority of comments on this forum gave Arrowhead a free pass and crucified Rapido for the same thing. I'm just sitting here chuckling about the angst over the trucks. I remember a few years ago when Blaine Hadfield (Arrowhead Models) put the ridiculous looking 50T trucks on the 70T PRR H39 hopper. When pointed out that they were incorrect on this forum, the Blaine Hadfield "defense attorneys" pointed out that trucks really didn't matter, it was the highly detailed model that counted. So back then it was a free pass for totally wrong trucks and now it's crucifixion for Rapido's correct trucks that don't meet the "exacting" standards of the ARF. Let's not be lazy in language, and stop attributing some peoples dissatisfaction with Rapido and other manufacturers to the overall forum. The same people with objections, I am certain, voice these same opinions in other places besides ARF. Frankly, I'm getting my fill of the ill-placed indictments as if the forum itself (which is a fictitious inanimate entity) is making these, or any other statements. Lastly, these "exacting standards" to which you refer, again, are those of modelers with objections to various aspects of manufacturer offerings. This forum HAS NO OFFICIAL POSITION on any issue outside of the forum rules. Donnell
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Dec 24, 2022 9:25:04 GMT -8
I think that might be that there is a perception that Rapido regularly and repeatedly screws up, will not admit it, and will not correct it. And gets their feelings hurt way too easily.
That may be an incorrect perception.
Whereas Arrowhead hasn't actually been around long enough to even be able to do that.
Ed
|
|
|
Post by csxt8400 on Dec 24, 2022 12:29:44 GMT -8
Arrowhead was let off the hook for the trucks somewhat, but then ripped apart for the CAPY data and even the box. So, I guess being 2/3 still counts for something.
We all have things that are more important to our eyes, some see trucks incorrect and it glares. Others, it's paint shade or stuff like crooked brake rigging or wavy hopper walkways. My thing for awhile has been stenciling and "font" application, it is a huge deal to me. Someone else couldn't give a rip if Athearn uses generic condensed font on their Omya tank cars, and it seems many people are happy with them despite that.
This really all stems from the same concept of "fool me once", and yes, Rapido is going to keep getting hammered because now, unfortunately, we expect them to make gaffes. Where is the constant improvement, hiding behind behemoth plastic grab irons? On their recent 3800 release, i've noted two changes for the worse. One, they are using new wheels with a glaringly obvious face ridge. And two, the pad printing wasn't executed the same as prior, because the THB and CP script are far less opaque and thus turn out far weaker in appearance when displayed side by side.
|
|
|
Post by cemr5396 on Dec 24, 2022 12:42:43 GMT -8
This really all stems from the same concept of "fool me once", and yes, Rapido is going to keep getting hammered because now, unfortunately, we expect them to make gaffes. Where is the constant improvement, hiding behind behemoth plastic grab irons? On their recent 3800 release, i've noted two changes for the worse. One, they are using new wheels with a glaringly obvious face ridge. And two, the pad printing wasn't executed the same as prior, because the THB and CP script are far less opaque and thus turn out far weaker in appearance when displayed side by side. I'll give you two more things that were wrong this time that weren't earlier: 1.) very underweight 2.) incorrect numbers on CP cars (or on mine at least...), they used numbers from the first batch of 3800 hoppers which had a slightly different side sill. Where the sill ends behind the ladders at each corner is different on the first batch of CP cars compared to the rest of them. The early cars were 382000 to 499 or 500, the whole rest of CP's fleet were the later ones IIRC. The model is correct for those later cars, not the early ones. It's a pretty minor difference but it's annoying that all they had to do was not pick from the first 500 cars and they did it anyway. They correctly used numbers from the second group for my earlier run cars.
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on Dec 24, 2022 13:56:46 GMT -8
Arrowhead was let off the hook for the trucks somewhat, but then ripped apart for the CAPY data and even the box. So, I guess being 2/3 still counts for something. Yes, exactly. Arrowhead's much-hyped Mother of All Boxes became the stand-in for all the things they got wrong on their hoppers, to the point that it had become an internet meme that was larger than life and haunted Arrowhead for years afterward. It has been brought up elsewhere, on other forums and on facebook ( "never mind the model, how is THE BOX?". The crux of the criticism is that while they were hyping their awesome box, QC on the models themselves was being left wanting. If people think that means Arrowhead was getting a "free pass", well, that just means they weren't paying attention.
|
|
|
Post by fr8kar on Dec 24, 2022 15:41:07 GMT -8
Those Arrowhead hoppers weren't in my area of interest so I didn't pay much attention to the controversy until it became so pervasive. I do remember the CAPY data discussion and of course "the box" but I can't remember the 50-ton trucks. Can anyone take me back in time to see those trucks? I must not be very adept at searching to find them.
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Dec 24, 2022 15:58:07 GMT -8
Those Arrowhead hoppers weren't in my area of interest so I didn't pay much attention to the controversy until it became so pervasive. I do remember the CAPY data discussion and of course "the box" but I can't remember the 50-ton trucks. Can anyone take me back in time to see those trucks? I must not be very adept at searching to find them. From what I recall, the way to get the correct trucks for the PRR hopper, was to replace with the Tahoe Model Works trucks.
|
|
|
Post by csxt8400 on Dec 24, 2022 19:50:39 GMT -8
I noticed the weight too, I swear the box even got lighter! I might know a guy who could sell you some decals to fix these
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Dec 27, 2022 15:35:06 GMT -8
The color change from light orange to dark orange probably occured between 1961-62 per John B Moore Jr's Santa Fe Mechanical Reefer book.
Scroll down for a June 1963 color photo of two SFRD refers in the later "Refrigerator Enamel Orange":
Note the SD24 colors and natural colors look fine, maybe even a bit washed-out.
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Dec 27, 2022 16:23:03 GMT -8
The color change from light orange to dark orange probably occured between 1961-62 per John B Moore Jr's Santa Fe Mechanical Reefer book.
Scroll down for a June 1963 color photo of two SFRD refers in the later "Refrigerator Enamel Orange":
Note the SD24 colors and natural colors look fine, maybe even a bit washed-out.
Looking through the Moore book, it appears to me that the orange in the June 1963 photo is WAY overdone--I don't believe it. But it does look like ATSF went from a yellow color to an orangish color. Just a lot more subtly. Ed
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Dec 27, 2022 17:45:52 GMT -8
The color change from light orange to dark orange probably occured between 1961-62 per John B Moore Jr's Santa Fe Mechanical Reefer book.
Scroll down for a June 1963 color photo of two SFRD refers in the later "Refrigerator Enamel Orange":
Note the SD24 colors and natural colors look fine, maybe even a bit washed-out.
Looking through the Moore book, it appears to me that the orange in the June 1963 photo is WAY overdone--I don't believe it. But it does look like ATSF went from a yellow color to an orangish color. Just a lot more subtly. Ed Odd that other colors are little affected. The red must be turned up.
I remember seeing clean "late" ATSF and PFE orange reefers next to each other- ATSF was darker & redder, but not like the intense color in the photo. I can't remember seeing the older yellow-orange, which would be lighter than PFE/Daylight orange.
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Dec 27, 2022 18:00:11 GMT -8
Odd that other colors are little affected. The red must be turned up. It looks hand tinted. Maybe it is. My interests were a bit farther to the north at the time I could have done that. So NOW I get interested in Santa Fe in SoCal in 1959, and I gotta LEARN stuff. The pain, the pain....... "Don't worry dear. A glass of nice fresh California orange juice will clear that right up. I added a little something." Ed
|
|
|
Post by mvlandsw on Dec 28, 2022 22:52:17 GMT -8
I removed the door track/operating rod assembly, pried the door free, cut the door opening thru the car side, installed a backing plate across the opening, added an .018" shim behind the door, and now the door is flush with the car side.
In the process I noticed that the car body is translucent. If there is any backlighting the body glows. A couple coats of craft paint on the interior fixed that.
The air brake control valve is mounted upside down due to the mounting lug being molded on the bottom of the valve instead of the top. It looks like they used a part from a hopper car.
The picture of the bright orange ice reefer shown above has a brown roof, so maybe that is correct for the mechanical reefer, but it does not have a silver running board.
What is the pipe like thingy attached to the short ladder at the refrigeration end of the car, the BR corner?
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Dec 30, 2022 20:42:02 GMT -8
I removed the door track/operating rod assembly, pried the door free, cut the door opening thru the car side, installed a backing plate across the opening, added an .018" shim behind the door, and now the door is flush with the car side. If you added a .018" shim behind the door (a fairly unusual thickness), doesn't that then add onto the original excess thickness of .018", and cause the door to project .036"? From your description, it appears you made the problem worse. Ed
|
|
|
Post by ssw on Dec 30, 2022 20:49:31 GMT -8
I removed the door track/operating rod assembly, pried the door free, cut the door opening thru the car side, installed a backing plate across the opening, added an .018" shim behind the door, and now the door is flush with the car side. If you added a .018" shim behind the door (a fairly unusual thickness), doesn't that then add onto the original excess thickness of .018", and cause the door to project .036"? From your description, it appears you made the problem worse. Ed I read that as requiring the .018 shim to cause the door to be flush when resting on the backing plate - as if the door is .018 thinner than the side.
|
|
|
Post by SCL618 on Dec 30, 2022 22:04:43 GMT -8
I am certain I just voided my warranty on this one which will become a repaint of SFRP 2106. The factory lettering differed enough to warrant a serious repainting project. The jury is still out on the colors I have in my arsenal. More details can be located at Rapido RR-56
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Dec 31, 2022 6:30:41 GMT -8
If you added a .018" shim behind the door (a fairly unusual thickness), doesn't that then add onto the original excess thickness of .018", and cause the door to project .036"? From your description, it appears you made the problem worse. Ed I read that as requiring the .018 shim to cause the door to be flush when resting on the backing plate - as if the door is .018 thinner than the side. Yes, but that is not the case. The door is proud, and needs to move inward. Ed
|
|
|
Post by cemr5396 on Dec 31, 2022 7:36:52 GMT -8
I read that as requiring the .018 shim to cause the door to be flush when resting on the backing plate - as if the door is .018 thinner than the side. Yes, but that is not the case. The door is proud, and needs to move inward. Ed Yes but if you have a look at 'SCL's post above, it appears that the car side is flat or very nearly flat and the door is simply mounted on top - thus it sticks out when it should not. I believe what the other fellow was describing was cutting out the opening, putting a backing plate in, and then requiring another thin piece behind the door so that the door sat flush with the car body. As in, the door by itself was too thin to mount in the opening - then you would have the opposite problem, the door would be receeded into the car body.
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Dec 31, 2022 9:02:46 GMT -8
Yes, but that is not the case. The door is proud, and needs to move inward. Ed Yes but if you have a look at 'SCL's post above, it appears that the car side is flat or very nearly flat and the door is simply mounted on top - thus it sticks out when it should not. I believe what the other fellow was describing was cutting out the opening, putting a backing plate in, and then requiring another thin piece behind the door so that the door sat flush with the car body. As in, the door by itself was too thin to mount in the opening - then you would have the opposite problem, the door would be receeded into the car body.
There's been very little criticism of the model on the ATSF or Citrus Modeling io groups. The single comment on the door that I saw said the model could represent a car with the door cracked open for ventilation. Never before modeled, so it's a feature not a bug.
Are you buying it?
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Dec 31, 2022 9:28:47 GMT -8
Yes, but that is not the case. The door is proud, and needs to move inward. Ed Yes but if you have a look at 'SCL's post above, it appears that the car side is flat or very nearly flat and the door is simply mounted on top - thus it sticks out when it should not. I believe what the other fellow was describing was cutting out the opening, putting a backing plate in, and then requiring another thin piece behind the door so that the door sat flush with the car body. As in, the door by itself was too thin to mount in the opening - then you would have the opposite problem, the door would be receeded into the car body. OK. So you cut out the bottom of the well, as shown in the excellent photo of a stripped shell (as posted above by SCL618). Then attach a flat piece behind the opening. This creates a DEEPER well, and a shim is required to bring the door back out to flush. Got it! So all you have to do is pry the door and the lower door track off of the side of the car. Or wait for Rapido to make the existing well deeper, so that the door fits properly. Ed
|
|
|
Post by schroed2 on Dec 31, 2022 9:30:05 GMT -8
Yes but if you have a look at 'SCL's post above, it appears that the car side is flat or very nearly flat and the door is simply mounted on top - thus it sticks out when it should not. I believe what the other fellow was describing was cutting out the opening, putting a backing plate in, and then requiring another thin piece behind the door so that the door sat flush with the car body. As in, the door by itself was too thin to mount in the opening - then you would have the opposite problem, the door would be receeded into the car body. There's been very little criticism of the model on the ATSF or Citrus Modeling io groups. The single comment on the door that I saw said the model could represent a car with the door cracked open for ventilation. Never before modeled, so it's a feature not a bug.
Are you buying it?
no...because that would defeat the purpose of a plug door, IMHO
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Dec 31, 2022 9:37:06 GMT -8
There's been very little criticism of the model on the ATSF or Citrus Modeling io groups. The single comment on the door that I saw said the model could represent a car with the door cracked open for ventilation. Never before modeled, so it's a feature not a bug.
Are you buying it?
The Citrus Modeling group is owned by the guy who researched the project. I will note that he hasn't said a word anywhere (that I know of) that responds to any of the criticisms. Like I think I said, the flaws aren't big enough to get me to dump the cars. Even up close, they look pretty good. To me. It's just that it's ridiculous to have the words "Rapido" and "flawed" be synonyms. Ed
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Dec 31, 2022 10:57:55 GMT -8
I've GOT it!!
Rapido should make the doors THINNER, by .018". That's just a matter of thickening the back of the door mold.
By doing this, they can then supply replacement doors to all of up who bought the first run!
Then, we don't have to futz with the body at all. AND. If we damage the old door getting it out, it doesn't matter--just pop the new little guy into the well.
Rapido most likely already has this solution on the road to implementation--it's so obvious.
You guys who follow their Facebook page please let us know when that happens. I think they're still avoiding us over here.
Ed
|
|