|
|
Post by atsfan on Apr 14, 2015 7:31:54 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. Everyone just copies it nowadays. But they will sit unsold unless IM ups their game. |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Apr 14, 2015 7:39:53 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 Well IM has a very shaky history of producing engines. So skepticism is warranted. I don't know of one IM engine that has not had problems. In this case I am hopefully but until I see them in person and Al does or does not DeWalt one, I am not ordering any. |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Apr 14, 2015 7:42:04 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. I don't buy IM GEVOs. Since they all come with a decoders that drives up the voltage to start and makes them not compatible with DC only engines. A very stupid decision by IM I think. |
|
|
|
Post by MONSTERRAILROAD on Apr 14, 2015 7:45:36 GMT -8
Aww c'mon fellas relax, Consider the other "Great Deal" from IM - Autorack with see thru metal doors, now only $96.95 each.  |
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Apr 14, 2015 7:53:50 GMT -8
John,
I agree with your conclusion, a DC engine runs better with a decoder in place, it does not have to be a DCC system, I think that is where the commonality is important. I want to have the same manufacturer module where possible.
With this option, I have to buy their offered decoder and the change it for my preferred module. IM is not the only one using this strategy. In my eyes it is a strong strike against the model and the other characteristics have not been considered.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Apr 14, 2015 8:03:51 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 I took a peek and I know the N Scalers will howl about that locomotive just I would have if I was still in N..That SD40-2 would have been barely acceptable 30-40 years ago but,today? nope,no way.. |
|
|
|
Post by cf7 on Apr 14, 2015 11:34:35 GMT -8
Does anyone know how the N scale version stacks up? The N scale version is one of the biggest pieces of crap that I've ever put on the rails. Keep in mind, this was, what, 10 years ago or so. Hopefully things have improved! The one (I only had one!) sat up like a monster truck, the body had terrible fitting parts and was basically glued together. Not to mention glued on finger prints. The handrails were absolutely terrible. I had to order 2 replacement trucks for it because both were busted...they did use Atlas trucks on the N scale version. A lot of owners made dummies out of them. Now, some really loved them. I never saw one that was worth anything. I don't have much hope for the HO version. |
|
|
|
Post by stevef45 on Apr 14, 2015 17:18:32 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 jesus, you can go offroading with that thing. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Apr 14, 2015 17:22:58 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. It was not priced like an economy model however. |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Apr 14, 2015 17:29:15 GMT -8
That N scale model sure looks non nice.
Yikes !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2015 7:45:19 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2015 12:42:48 GMT -8
Athearn should bring their GP10 out now...just 'cause...  ? |
|
|
|
Post by TBird1958 on Apr 15, 2015 14:10:14 GMT -8
It was rather nice of Athearn to announce another run of Rio Grande T2's about two weeks prior to IMR, I'm certain I'll be happy with my 4 new ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by bdhicks on Apr 15, 2015 19:20:38 GMT -8
Why is Intermountain making an SD40T-2 when they could be spending that tooling effort working on a Genesis-quality SD40-2 ... oh wait, never mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Jul 11, 2015 12:15:36 GMT -8
Did anyone actually reserve any?
I asked at a decent store a few weeks ago and he said nobody ever mentioned them, let alone reserved any. He said he would get a few in maybe if they were available.
Most people with IM engines are in a wait and see mode after their track record of problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jul 12, 2015 5:44:53 GMT -8
There is a new discussion on the IMR SD40T-2's over at Train Orders: www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?3,3790289 I do not plan on reserving any - I am well invested in the Athearn SD40T-2's already to the tune of 16 D&RGW and 5 SP as well as 5 SP/SSW SD45T-2's; In fact I plan on adding a couple more Athearn SD40T-2's when the next run comes early next year. I will follow the IMR tunnel motor saga with interest and read the reviews which others write and see what gives. Based on past offerings from IMR, they seem to have fallen a bit short of the mark based on comments and reviews I'll watch from the side lines. I am certainly pleased with Athearn's tunnel motors once they put the proper plows on - it would require a solid Genesis level model in detail and running qualities to get my attention; the Athearn tunnel motors already are approaching Genesis level detail already IMO - a few more enhancements and a better chassis and they would be Genesis. Athearn has already established a fairly high benchmark to beat so we will just have to wait and see! Really what I'd rather have seen instead of another tunnel motor is a Genesis level SD45 with all the SP/D&RGW prototype details being that the Athearn SD45 has the RPP long hood heritage - although they did a decent job on the revised RPP SD45. Re-inventing the tunnel motor that was already pretty well tooled by Chris Clune is a real head scratcher for sure and IMO unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Post by TBird1958 on Jul 12, 2015 11:15:40 GMT -8
There is a new discussion on the IMR SD40T-2's over at Train Orders: www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?3,3790289 I do not plan on reserving any - I am well invested in the Athearn SD40T-2's already to the tune of 16 D&RGW and 5 SP as well as 5 SP/SSW SD45T-2's; In fact I plan on adding a couple more Athearn SD40T-2's when the next run comes early next year. I will follow the IMR tunnel motor saga with interest and read the reviews which others write and see what gives. Based on past offerings from IMR, they seem to have fallen a bit short of the mark based on comments and reviews I'll watch from the side lines. I am certainly pleased with Athearn's tunnel motors once they put the proper plows on - it would require a solid Genesis level model in detail and running qualities to get my attention; the Athearn tunnel motors already are approaching Genesis level detail already IMO - a few more enhancements and a better chassis and they would be Genesis. Athearn has already established a fairly high benchmark to beat so we will just have to wait and see! Really what I'd rather have seen instead of another tunnel motor is a Genesis level SD45 with all the SP/D&RGW prototype details being that the Athearn SD45 has the RPP long hood heritage - although they did a decent job on the revised RPP SD45. Re-inventing the tunnel motor that was already pretty well tooled by Chris Clune is a real head scratcher for sure and IMO unnecessary.
Jim,
If they have anything to show at Portland,OR. in August I'll shoot some pics. I'd agree with your thoughts Jim, the Athearn model is quite good and would be pretty difficult to improve on (I seriously doubt IMR could produce anything even close to the Athearn one). If you want to, pick up the plows you need to retro fit your older units and slip them in with the Dorm/Combine and I'll shoot them for you, TCP's Rio Grande yellow/orange is a great match for the Athearn stock color.
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jul 12, 2015 12:04:15 GMT -8
I think I only have two D&RGW tunnel motors with the old style plows and a few SP like that so yeah, will need to retro fit a few. Don't have replacements to send atm without contacting Athearn and getting them shipped to me first. Sump pump failed a few weeks ago in the basement and everything is boxed and displaced atm. Still intend to mail the combine but will have to find which box it's in!
|
|
|
|
Post by TBird1958 on Jul 12, 2015 12:14:31 GMT -8
I think I only have two D&RGW tunnel motors with the old style plows and a few SP like that so yeah, will need to retro fit a few. Don't have replacements to send atm without contacting Athearn and getting them shipped to me first. Sump pump failed a few weeks ago in the basement and everything is boxed and displaced atm. Still intend to mail the combine but will have to find which box it's in!
I haven't studied them (the plows) too closely yet as I haven't started my T2's as a project just yet, wouldn't something from Details West work?
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Jul 12, 2015 15:24:16 GMT -8
Yeah but the Athearn plows are much nicer than the old standby DW plows.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jul 12, 2015 15:30:56 GMT -8
The Details West part 155 matches the D&RGW plow - I have a few of them although I actually like the Athearn plastic plow better. The one with the open doors looks great which came with all RTR tunnel motors after the first run. It's only the first run with the close doors I didn't care for but it wasn't terrible. The awful plow was the one which came with the earlier run D&RGW SD50's and the earlier run SP/SSW tunnel motors - but Athearn eventually started using a plow which looks quite good on the SD45T-2 announced around 2009/2010 for example.
|
|
