|
|
Post by drolsen on Apr 13, 2015 9:24:50 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by TBird1958 on Apr 13, 2015 9:50:26 GMT -8
They won't be getting any of my Tunnel Motor dollars.
They're way late to the party.
However flawed the Athearn one may be it's still way better than that Intermountain unit could ever hope to be.
The ride height alone would make it a nonstarter for me.
|
|
unit
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by unit on Apr 13, 2015 9:54:44 GMT -8
They won't be getting any of my Tunnel Motor dollars. They're way late to the party. However flawed the Athearn one may be it's still way better than that Intermountain unit could ever hope to be. The ride height alone would make it a nonstarter for me. At this point, how do you know the Intermountain tunnel motors will have ride height issues? All we have to go on are the initial computer generated drawings in the announcement. I do hope they put decent motors in these units though. |
|
|
|
Post by TBird1958 on Apr 13, 2015 10:19:42 GMT -8
They won't be getting any of my Tunnel Motor dollars. They're way late to the party. However flawed the Athearn one may be it's still way better than that Intermountain unit could ever hope to be. The ride height alone would make it a nonstarter for me. At this point, how do you know the Intermountain tunnel motors will have ride height issues? All we have to go on are the initial computer generated drawings in the announcement. I do hope they put decent motors in these units though.
Not to sound snarky, but not one of their locomotives is even close on ride height so it's highly unlikely they'll get this one right. When you add in a missing traction motor from each truck, lousy frame casting and as you say, a possibly suspect motor - It's a big No, thank you. If their SD40-2 shell is an indicator, well, it just gets worse.
Tunnel Motors are a focal point for my roster, as I said Athearn's model may flawed but I'll take it sight unseen any day over the IM unit. To that end I already own 6 and have another 4 due early next year, my Tunnel Motor ship sailed, IM missed the boat.
|
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Apr 13, 2015 10:26:06 GMT -8
It will be interesting to see how these are. From the cries from this forum alone about a good SD40-2, I am not surprised that there haven't been more action. IM is a very good manufacturer. They have not done engines well to this point. Five years from now, they may be the standard that everyone shoots for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Great-Northern-Willmar Div on Apr 13, 2015 10:58:49 GMT -8
Intermountain's SD40-2 left much to be desired. The parts didn't fit well like the dust bin sitting on top of the long hood like a cherry on a sundae. The radiator grilles stuck out like Dumbo's ears. The trucks tooling was shallow and the massive void where the traction motor occupies that space in the prototype caught the eye. Then you have the mighty peanut motor.
I had an Intermountain SD40-2W with sound which I spent good money to purchase and regretted it from the moment I pulled out of its box. Some of the parts on it didn't fit well and others were just not 21st Century top shelf model tooling. Its pulling power was non-existent on a flat as a pancake layout. Severely disappointed and sold it for a considerable loss.
When it comes to Intermountain, I will look first before I commit hard earned money.
|
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Apr 13, 2015 11:39:40 GMT -8
These will need eyes on and Al's DeWalt test before purchase.
They won't be seen until next year anyway so we have time.
|
|
|
|
Post by peoriaman on Apr 13, 2015 11:45:00 GMT -8
Intermountain's SD40-2 left much to be desired. The parts didn't fit well like the dust bin sitting on top of the long hood like a cherry on a sundae. The radiator grilles stuck out like Dumbo's ears. The trucks tooling was shallow and the massive void where the traction motor occupies that space in the prototype caught the eye. Then you have the mighty peanut motor. And lots of wrong font issues on the painted versions. |
|
|
|
Post by wisconsincentral on Apr 13, 2015 12:50:28 GMT -8
I am going to advance order two of the engines from EngineHouse Services. The SD40T-2 is my favorite engine type. I cannot wait. I have 3 from Athearn.
WC Fan
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by MONSTERRAILROAD on Apr 13, 2015 14:11:12 GMT -8
These will need eyes on and Al's DeWalt test before purchase. They won't be seen until next year anyway so we have time. Well one thing is for sure. If they do not meet a good standard of a model at the end of the review it will meet a Dewalt demise. I will be always be fair and even compare it to the Athearn one. I actually really like the SD40T-2 engines and have one in UP paint that is weathered to a filth on my layout. I would consider getting a KCS or Gennessee & Wyoming version to review and if it is good, well it stays, If NOT, well Dewaltized!  |
|
|
|
Post by fiend540 on Apr 13, 2015 15:30:07 GMT -8
I wonder if this will take as long to deliver as their gp10 rebuilds have
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Apr 13, 2015 15:34:37 GMT -8
I've got plenty O tunnel motors as it is which I am very happy with. And I prefer not to mix brands if I can.
|
|
|
|
Post by jbilbrey on Apr 13, 2015 15:39:56 GMT -8
I was hoping that their big announcement would've been production photos of their GP10's or GP16's.
I really hope that they have listened to some of the criticisms over their SD40-2 series and the SD40T-2 series does not share components (like the motor and trucks) and tooling features (the large groove behind the cab, the dustbin, the featureless fans, etc.) with the SD40-2's. As things stand, I am not going to pre-order one but will wait until I see some pre-production photos where I can compare them to the Athearn SD45T-2
I certainly understand the sediments of Tbird1958 (and other modeler railroaders like him). Just because Locomotive X should look the same whether the model is produced by Company Y or Z, that isn't always the case. With nearly a dozen on hand or on order, it is difficult for anyone to make the switch unless the next model locomotive has significant differences/improvements to make the switch justified. In this case, Intermountain must make a significantly better product than they have in the past.
James Bilbrey
LaVergne, TN
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Doom on Apr 13, 2015 15:42:27 GMT -8
 I wouldn't get my hopes up, if their past releases are any indication it's going to be a solid C+ grade SD40T-2. |
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Apr 13, 2015 15:44:07 GMT -8
Really I'm a bit baffled that Intermountain are choosing to do tunnel motors in HO since Athearn's are quite nice and have already pretty much blanketed the market with them for the past 8 years. I don't get it, why not offer something thats never been done? IMO the Athearn tunnel motors are nearly Genesis level models, just not a Genesis drive train. It looks like there will be a sound only version for HO.  |
|
|
|
Post by Great-Northern-Willmar Div on Apr 13, 2015 16:40:58 GMT -8
I wonder if this will take as long to deliver as their gp10 rebuilds have Don't forget the Tampa GP16 which was announced shortly after the Paducah GP10. |
|
|
|
Post by TBird1958 on Apr 13, 2015 16:58:34 GMT -8
If the guy that cut Bowser's SD40-2 cuts them they may have something, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Like Jim, I don't like mixing different brand of locomotives too much, by the time they get these out I'll have been enjoying my Athearn ones for a long time |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Apr 13, 2015 17:33:18 GMT -8
Really I'm a bit baffled that Intermountain are choosing to do tunnel motors in HO since Athearn's are quite nice and have already pretty much blanketed the market with them for the past 8 years. I don't get it, why not offer something thats never been done? IMO the Athearn tunnel motors are nearly Genesis level models, just not a Genesis drive train. It looks like there will be a sound only version for HO. Is it the same frame as the 40-2? If yes probably an easy tooling job. |
|
|
|
Post by TBird1958 on Apr 13, 2015 17:48:09 GMT -8
It's not the same underframe as an SD40-2.
|
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Apr 13, 2015 18:32:53 GMT -8
The ad claims new tooling in HO, but a rerelease in N scale. Does anyone know how the N scale version stacks up?
I find it an interesting stragedy to have the first line in HO all DCC, sound or not. You can ask for a DC plug, In N they are offering three versions. It is interesting that HO DC or a Rail Pro or any other variation will have to pay for DCC to have this model. This is a strange move for a company that seems to be lacking in engine model success.
|
|
|
|
Post by middledivision on Apr 13, 2015 18:43:06 GMT -8
I'm surprised no one brought up the Genesis level pricing...
That's setting the bar pretty high for details, sound, scale accuracy and motor performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by ddatrainman on Apr 13, 2015 20:50:28 GMT -8
While their SD40-2 wasn't the greatest out there, it was an excellent economy model for the price with sound imo. While the Athearn is more detailed and probably more than likely will have a Genesis motor, Pros of the IM unit would be the LoKsound and use of LEDS vs Athearns bulbs.
|
|
unit
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by unit on Apr 13, 2015 21:49:21 GMT -8
The ad claims new tooling in HO, but a rerelease in N scale. Does anyone know how the N scale version stacks up? I took a peak at the Intermountain website for the N scale SD40T-2's. To say these are unimpressive would be an understatement: www.intermountain-railway.com/n/html/69403.htmI know it is N scale and all, but it just looks so poorly put together. The handrails are all over the place, the shell looks horribly thick in its details, it is not seated on the frame properly, the fonts are way off, the details are all wrong etc etc. If the work they did on these is the basis for their HO scale version, I think I will be sticking with the Athearn tunnel motors |
|
|
|
Post by TBird1958 on Apr 13, 2015 22:04:58 GMT -8
Did they use somebodies crayon drawings to make that?
|
|
|
|
Post by bnsf971 on Apr 14, 2015 2:53:34 GMT -8
The ad claims new tooling in HO, but a rerelease in N scale. Does anyone know how the N scale version stacks up? I find it an interesting stragedy to have the first line in HO all DCC, sound or not. You can ask for a DC plug, In N they are offering three versions. It is interesting that HO DC or a Rail Pro or any other variation will have to pay for DCC to have this model. This is a strange move for a company that seems to be lacking in engine model success. Having all DCC equipped was a response to complaints the sound engines ran slow on DC. People would buy a sound engine and a non sound engine, try to operate them both on straight DC, and couldn't |
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Apr 14, 2015 3:40:49 GMT -8
Athearns SD40T-2 and SD45T-2 are quite nice. I am fairly picky as are many of the members here, but that being said, I really like my Athearn ST40T-2's and SD45T-2's - I don't have a reason to "trade up". They "look right", have a good deal of detail on them and mostly run well. It's true that what tunnel motors Athearn makes, at least for certain road names, seems to sell out so maybe there is a demand beyond what I thought and that is what IMR is reponding to? I have limited funds available and can't spare anything to experiment on a new engine with minimal incentive - and a fairly steep cost. Frankly I'd rather see a GP30 done with the correct nose light and better drive - that would be an incentive.
I mentioned mixing brands of the same model type - I notice the subtle differences between makers and it is something I don't care for. That said, I do have one exception to it - I have GP40-2's from Atlas and Athearn Genesis - and like them both. However, I will avoid putting them in the same consists because of my aformentioned preference. Incidentally, I saw an Atlas GP40-2 with sound (yes QSI) go for about $260 on fleabay recently - wow. I paid $155 for the sound versions and wouldn't want to pay anymore because of the version of sound in them isn't that great. Go figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Apr 14, 2015 4:45:18 GMT -8
Offering only DCC models does not solve the issue with sound. It does allow them to leave out the DC sound program. That usually increases the initial movement voltage to be over 6 volts. It limits the comparability of the engine with other DC models. This way when people run them on DC, which they can, they will start moving just under 2 volts, like the rest of their fleet. The question is why would I pay for that module (DCC) if I'm never going to use it.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightmare0331 on Apr 14, 2015 5:27:44 GMT -8
Interesting choice.
Kelley.
|
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Apr 14, 2015 5:43:30 GMT -8
Larry--
I don't need DCC myself, either, and don't want to pay for it, but am grudgingly learning that some engines--like my new BLI ATSF modernized 2-10-2--tend to operate better ie more smoothly in DCC "mode" on my MRC Tech 6 Sound Controller 2.0. This is probably due to the back-EMF.
It's not a DCC system--it's a DC-and-pseudo-DCC system that allows me to operate just about all DCC features and even program CV's with less button touches than some DCC systems--but again, it's not real DCC, but a stand-in.
It does allow me to enjoy the smoother running characteristics of a dual mode or even DCC-only locomotive.
As far as the announced Intermountain engine, and other comments above, why can't we wait till we actually see a model before we shred it? Why must we assume it will not be acceptable?
John
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Apr 14, 2015 5:56:34 GMT -8
As far as the announced Intermountain engine, and other comments above, why can't we wait till we actually see a model before we shred it? Why must we assume it will not be acceptable? John I agree, each model should be judged on it's own merits and that is why I have not said anything pro or con regarding the IMR tunnel motor, other than it struck me as odd they would offer a model that duplicates a model that is already been well accepted from Athearn. I assume the skeptacism expressed so far is due to the spotty track record IMR has had with regard to some of their line of HO engines. Understandably, they have to over come those perceptions. |
|
