|
|
Post by Donnell Wells on Sept 13, 2014 12:56:24 GMT -8
Don't forget about these: 
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2014 13:41:08 GMT -8
When you look at the photo of the prototype and its stanchions and handrails that Donnell posted and then look at the Hornby models rendition of the stanchion and handrail, the model sucks toilet water. The handrails, stanchions and the way they are mounted to the shell is darn close to the old Rivarossi.
I had high hopes for the KBM U25C, but alas that project is at best a giant question mark. This Hornby model is leaving a lot to be desired for the price being paid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2014 14:21:43 GMT -8
No part of this.....  Is part of this......No way.  Agree. Completely new. Not digging the handrails. This model will result in my focus moving further t'ward the northwest. Still waiting to hear what's wrong with the trucks. |
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Sept 13, 2014 15:03:33 GMT -8
The NP pic looks like a later phase unit with different stanchions. Look at the pic of the L&N at the top of the page, they are closer in appearance, not perfect at all, but closer.
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Sept 13, 2014 15:06:50 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by TBird1958 on Sept 13, 2014 15:31:23 GMT -8
That's an interesting shot, that unit looks a bit more like what Rivarossi did, even the trucks look slightly different.........
|
|
|
|
Post by The Ferro Kid on Sept 13, 2014 16:26:16 GMT -8
Hornby's rendition of the Dark Green Locomotive Enamel (DGLE) is spot-on, based on what I saw on Pennsy's "Buffalo Line" in the East Aurora, NY area in the 60s.
|
|
|
|
Post by jbilbrey on Sept 13, 2014 17:23:45 GMT -8
 well Rivo did get that extra length on the rear boxes above the walkway, PRR had that,think L&N did also ? any other roads have that ? <snip> Correct, only the PRR and L&N U25C's [except for the ex-Oro Dam units] had the extra length on the rear walkway boxes - note the three vs. two stanchions on the boxes. James Bilbrey LaVergne, TN |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Sept 13, 2014 17:29:01 GMT -8
The flat handrails make no sense
The real ones are round so why would the model have flat?
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Sept 13, 2014 18:37:58 GMT -8
Again, this was Rivarossi's attempt at making a mass produced solution to the Delrin handrail issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Sept 13, 2014 18:42:31 GMT -8
Also, they have tooled two versions of the walkways, one with the extra length rear box, and one with the standard.
|
|
|
|
Post by keystonefarm on Sept 13, 2014 18:53:41 GMT -8
The only objectional part is the flat handrails. If these hit the market in October 2014 I think I will get 2. Big unknown is if the KBM version will ever see the market. That one I did see at Timonium and was impressed with what I saw and how it ran. I know the Hornby version will have Lok Sound so it should sound great. When I talked with Scott at Timonium they had not at that time decided on whose sound decoder to use. The original GE handrail stanchions wrapped around the handrails inside out so an industrious modeler could duplicate the handrail portion with some phos bronze wire and solder it to the existing stanchions on the outside edge. Me I will just go with what it comes with and enjoy the engines. ----- Ken
|
|
|
|
Post by Donnell Wells on Sept 13, 2014 19:50:41 GMT -8
The NP pic looks like a later phase unit with different stanchions. Look at the pic of the L&N at the top of the page, they are closer in appearance, not perfect at all, but closer.
The NP picture is actually an early phase U28C. This picture was posted in response to Spikre's comment about them being a later phase. All my RR books are in storage, but from memory I believe that the CB&Q and NP U28Cs were identical to the U25Cs.
Here's more info on U25/28Cs:
U25C
U28C
Donnell |
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Sept 13, 2014 20:03:30 GMT -8
Yeah, the early U25C's were identical to late U25C's. And, It looks like the flat handrails more closely resemble the earlier units.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Sept 13, 2014 20:17:30 GMT -8
Why not find a good profile shot of the prototype and compare the pics.That would definitely show whats right and whats wrong with the model. Was toying with this comparison this morning- same phase. Handrails in front of the cab don't have enough 3D, they do look better than the previous version, but I expect they won't cut it for a certain percentage of potential buyers. My shot of the 1503 doesn't show the rectangular dynamic brake grids that well, but I don't see these on the Rivarossi model, the grids were quite prominent from certain angles. I can't help but draw comparisons to the Bowser C-430, it really looks the part. I suspect if I'm going to be satisfied to the same degree with this model, it is going to take some work. Aftermarket etched stanchions might sell well. Since these are going to be available in October, what you see is what you are going to get, this is probably a production model. Rivarossi should be commended for releasing such high res photos. That really helps manage expectations. Those pics would compare better if the model was sitting on a piece of track. Maybe someone can photoshop it in. This would give a better sense of railhead to truck and fueltank spacing. The drop equalizers on the model look too rounded. The prototypes had defined squared off points. A chunkier look, if you will. They always stood out from other six-axle units. Bigger feet, was the way I thought of it. Not unlike proto2000 emd trucks being too wide, the prototype really filled out. The PRR E44 was the same way. Maybe weathering will bring them out visually. Brian Banna has a piece on drlling out plastic stanchions, so that is one way to build up a flat stanchion/round handrail solution. The other of course would be soldering real brass wire to cut apart Hornby stanchions. Doable with resistance soldering. Better using a fixture, I'd imagine. If extra stanchions are cheap enough. If it goes into production, suspect someone offering fabricated brass handrails assembled would sell all day long at $20. Ideally korea, but probably China. Hornby should have done this from the get go, to warrant the typical $200/$300 (sound) price point. Otherwise many will wait for deep discounts. |
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Sept 13, 2014 20:41:15 GMT -8
 Pix of Penn Central E44 and U25C illustrate the "bigness" of the trucks better than my words:  Contrast with the similar, but less "frame-filling" Alco Trimounts  |
|
|
|
Post by bnsf971 on Sept 14, 2014 4:49:54 GMT -8
Not wanting to quote posts with photos (you're welcome), the KBM model was supposed to have a TCS sound decoder. I don't know how far along that part of the project was when it fell off the cliff into the black hole.
As for the Rivaraunchy U25C, I for one will certainly wait for deep discounts, if for no other reason than those horrible handrails. I really don't want to hear the "you paid $300 for THAT?!!!" comments. So, if and when I get one or two, it will be inexpensive enough to cover my replacement or alteration of the handrails, or to put up with the comments ("Well, I only paid $150 for it, with sound!").
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Sept 14, 2014 6:48:48 GMT -8
 Found a picture of the LS& I U25C with a pair of Alcos that nicely shows the "presence" of the big GE trucks:It's a sorely needed model, so don't want to beat up on Hornby too much, but competition has really raised the bar on models over the past decade. A well-executed model and drive train also opens up the prospect of filling the E44 vacuum. Someone will do Pennsy electrics beyond the GG1, and they will sell a ton of them. Hope it's not Mr. sue everyone  Bachmann is another possibility for the U25C / E44 field, as the (E33) trucks are already tooled. Getting past those handrails is gonna be tough. Maybe Tichy or someone could tool up some wire-compatible plastic stanchions? Wonder if the mfg read any forums? |
|
|
|
Post by The Ferro Kid on Sept 14, 2014 8:56:12 GMT -8
Anybody know why GE went with a different truck for its later 6-axle units?
|
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Sept 14, 2014 9:05:49 GMT -8
 Donnell the NP U28Cs were PHS-1,they were very similar to the U25Cs,but had some small differences. the picture does show the regular GE stantions, not the turned around U25C style. NP did have U33Cs that were in the "PUG" style bodies,as were all U33Cs. after the BN Merger all sorts of GN and NP U-Boats joined the ex-Qs on the "Suger Beet" line in western Nebraska. Spikre 
|
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Sept 14, 2014 9:12:21 GMT -8
 Ferro Kid, will guess with less parts the GSC and ADK cast trucks were cheaper. or they claimed higher TE and less slipping with more weight on the wheels. the PRR/PC E44/50s could slip sometimes,but generally they just moved a train out of Waverly very quickly. then again,maybe it was just to have trucks that copied the EMD Flexi-Coil Cs ? Spikre 
|
|
|
|
Post by jbilbrey on Sept 14, 2014 20:27:37 GMT -8
The Tri-mount truck was also reported to be rough riding, difficult to maintain, and difficult on the trackwork [due to the unequal axle spacing of the trucks]. For example, the Clinchfield Railroad prohibited the use of C628's, C630's, and U25C's on run-through power. I suspect [but don't have anything to prove it] that GE went with the GSC/ADK cast trucks to address some of the problems with the Tri-mounts. Even Alco recognized the problems with the Tri-mount and developed their Hi-Ad truck In both cases, the new bolster designs would have prevented the direct replacements of Tri-mount's with either GSC/ADK or Hi-Ad trucks without modifications [as Conrail must have done when they converted their MT-6 slugs over to Flexicoil trucks].
James Bilbrey
LaVergne, TN
|
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Sept 15, 2014 9:54:18 GMT -8
 James, if Rough Riding killed Tri-Mount style trucks [debatable],it sure didn't kill the ADK FB-3 truck. by all accounts read here they were the worst of the Cast Steel type trucks. they were redesigned/up-graded at least 3 times before 1972. they were also the reason Santa Fe banned FB-3s for service over 60 MPH. the F-M Train Master Tri-Mount was known for good riding abilities, even in over 70 MPH Passenger service on DL&W. the Baldwin Delta Tri-Mount was a double equalized version of the T-M truck and was said to ride well in freight service, but there really wernt too many put under locos to really wring them out on several more roads. have also read that using slightly undersized wheels on the #-2 axle of the Alco Tri-Mount improved their riding over rough track and thru turns. D&H and LV may have known of this as they got good use out of their C628 fleets. could also be the shorter 12'6" w-b hurt the Alco Tri-Mounts, the F-M and Baldwin trucks had 13' W-B. maybe the Extra 6" helped, or the extra end springs that Alco lacked, helped ? Spikre
|
|
|
|
Post by brokenrail on Sept 17, 2014 9:57:35 GMT -8
I do not know the differences in U25C and early U28C models but I know that Overland came out with 3 versions of the U25C/U28C phase IIIa.
If its any benefit to other modelers here's the breakdown for NP:
U25C NP 2500-2514
U25C NP 2521-2529
U28C NP 2802-2811
Missing are the NP 2515-2520 which were in the same order as the 2521-2529 but must have had some variation. (Assuming Overland got it right.)
Also missing are NP 2800-2801 which were appear to be a separate order from NP 2802-2811.
The same models came out as:
U25C CB&Q 550-561
U28C CB&Q 562-571
The CB&Q also had U28Cs 572-577 that might have a variation from the earlier U28Cs (built a month later).
You'll have to find a better source than me to find the differences.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 14:33:15 GMT -8
I do not know the differences in U25C and early U28C models but I know that Overland came out with 3 versions of the U25C/U28C phase IIIa. If its any benefit to other modelers here's the breakdown for NP: U25C NP 2500-2514 U25C NP 2521-2529 U28C NP 2802-2811 Missing are the NP 2515-2520 which were in the same order as the 2521-2529 but must have had some variation. (Assuming Overland got it right.) Also missing are NP 2800-2801 which were appear to be a separate order from NP 2802-2811. The same models came out as: U25C CB&Q 550-561 U28C CB&Q 562-571 The CB&Q also had U28Cs 572-577 that might have a variation from the earlier U28Cs (built a month later). You'll have to find a better source than me to find the differences. U25C & U28C rosters & phase distinctions can be found here: www.trainweb.org/jaydeet/u25c.htmwww.trainweb.org/jaydeet/u28c.htmRob Sarberenyi is a well-known prototype modeler. In all of his published rosters only two or three mistakes have been found. You can generally trust his work. |
|
|
|
Post by jbilbrey on Sept 22, 2014 20:41:41 GMT -8
Spikre,
I won't argue with you about the ADK FB-3 trucks being rough riding. From what I've heard, most of the 6-axle U-Boats and Dash 7's were pretty rough riding when compared to similar EMD locomotives. The new Alco trucks had its own problems. The Trains issue on Alco recounted an IC brakeman's experiences in the rough-riding C636's, stating that at certain speeds you'd think it was trying to rock itself off the tracks.
I thought the cast trucks used under the F-M Train Masters was a different design from the Tri-Mounts and more similar to those used under some of the GE Turbines and U50C's. Alco had to redesign the bolster area of the C630's when they used the F-M trucks on the second order N&W C630's.
Back to the model, it is too bad that Smokey Valley hasn't produced a handrail set for the Stewart/Bowser U25B. If they had, that could have been one possible avenue to address that shortcoming on the model. Of course, there would then be the question of finding someone with Smokey Valley parts actually in-stock. I also wonder if perhaps the reason the model appears to be sitting too high above the trucks is that Rivarossi had to leave off some the frame detail so that the model would track better. I do appreciate them adding the details such as traction motors cables, wheel slip indicators on the axles and sand lines that appear to be attached to the trucks vs. dangling down like on most recent Athearn and Atlas releases.
James Bilbrey
LaVergne, TN
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Sept 25, 2014 16:37:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Sept 25, 2014 16:39:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by theengineshed on Sept 25, 2014 17:20:50 GMT -8
Very tempting. The ACL paint and lettering is close, except for the pilot stripes. The black and white stripes are supposed to be about the same width. I'm going to reserve final judgement on those handrails until I see one in the flesh. That shot looking down on the Burlington unit is sweet.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Sept 25, 2014 20:37:11 GMT -8
On that thingy on the roof of the NP unit, aren't those pipes on the lower left actually supposed to go somewhere?
I've been forced to associate with plumbers for most of my life, and it seems that when they run pipes, they actually go somewhere. Instead of....just....stopping........
Perhaps the Hornby people can actually tie their own shoes. It's hard to tell from here.
Ed
|
|
