|
|
Post by dreadnought on May 15, 2017 13:33:49 GMT -8
Hello! Recently, I have been developing a business based around producing replacement diesel shells in HO scale. These shells would be used to allow the modeling of a different prototype on an existing chassis. I have been in contact with a manufacturer and am now gauging market interest for my first product: a Baldwin DR4-4-1500 'Babyface' cab unit.  This diesel has only been offered in brass and a very short-lived Anthracite Railroad Historical Society resin kit, which is practically unavailable today. The DR4-4-1500 'Babyface' was used extensively by the Central of New Jersey railroad, as well as a handful of units to Missouri Pacific and New York Central. This shell would fit over a Bachmann RF-16 chassis, but could be modified to fit other chassis. Initially, only an A-unit would be offered, but a B-unit would be offered later if there is sufficient interest. More particulars are explained in the form below. If you have interest in this kit, please fill out the form below. Feedback from this form will be hugely important to the future of the kit. Form: goo.gl/forms/Ehbyco7yuq1G89ez2Thank you for your time, Dreadnought |
|
|
|
Post by dharris on May 16, 2017 16:09:11 GMT -8
Are you the same guy who made the resin castings models?
|
|
|
|
Post by bnsf971 on May 16, 2017 16:48:00 GMT -8
Are you the same guy who made the resin castings models? I asked the same question on another forum. It was the first thing I thought of when I read his post. |
|
|
|
Post by theengineshed on May 16, 2017 19:34:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bnsf971 on May 17, 2017 2:32:04 GMT -8
Are you the same guy who made the resin castings models? I asked the same question on another forum. It was the first thing I thought of when I read his post. He responded on the other forum, and stated he was not Big Dog Copies. |
|
|
|
Post by dreadnought on May 17, 2017 4:47:08 GMT -8
dharris,
Indeed, I am not Big Dawg 'originals', nor am I affiliated with any other entity besides my own.
theengineshed,
Thank you for the feedback. I will have to do some additional research into the most suitable chassis. The reason I chose the Bachmann RF-16 is that it is still relatively available compared to the Proto 2000 series, which has been out of production for a relatively long time. Further, I am not sure that the FA unit and the DR4-4-1500 use the same trucks.
Regards,
Dreadnought
|
|
|
|
Post by dharris on May 17, 2017 5:40:12 GMT -8
To answer your survey question, I have no interest in these.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by lvrr325 on May 17, 2017 21:55:32 GMT -8
Protos are easily had for $20-$40 at almost any train show and are on eBay all day. When the Rapido hits, even more are going to be dumped. I have several now in various states of disrepair. I even have one I cobbed up with an Athearn drive from units I bought in pieces 15, 20 years ago.
The Bachmann trucks are terrible, they look like nothing I've ever seen, they vaguely suggest an AAR truck but look like they belong on a Tyco Shark.
You may want to check with the AHRS, people have been bitching at them enough over Big Dawg they will likely do another run of their shells. Chances are that will fulfill most of the market on them, unless you can sell them RTR, the guys who will build one will already have what they need.
I would have bought the Big Dawg copies at their price no question, if they weren't ripoffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Ferro Kid on May 17, 2017 22:58:38 GMT -8
[SNIP] You may want to check with the AHRS, people have been bitching at them enough over Big Dawg they will likely do another run of their shells. Chances are that will fulfill most of the market on them, unless you can sell them RTR, the guys who will build one will already have what they need. [SNIP] Good point where the CNJ units are concerned, which were the best known and documented of the Babyface units. However, the MoPac and NYC prototype bodies were about three feet longer, so those would be something new for those modellers. |
|
|
|
Post by dreadnought on May 18, 2017 4:55:58 GMT -8
lvrr325,
Thank you for the reply. Someone on another forum claimed that the ARHS would be doing another production run of these models. I am not sure how true that is, nor when that will occur. As for the availability of Proto 2000 FA units, perhaps you are right in that they are relatively available. Again, the chassis is not set in stone. One problem I can immediately note is that the FA unit had about 10' less space between its truck centers than the DR-4-4-1500 did. Meanwhile, the RF-16 and DR-4-4-1500 have almost identical dimensions in that regard. Someone did mention that the Bachmann RF-16 is too short compared to the prototype, but we shall have to see. I do plan to sell some locomotives ready to run, as well.
Regards,
Dreadnought
|
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on May 18, 2017 5:01:24 GMT -8
I have 10 Proto FA/B sitting over my right shoulder on the shelf. FA-2 is a bit longer than the FA-1. Probably either would work well for a 'looks like' model if not a rivet counter. They do all require regearing but have that down to a 45 minute task.
|
|
|
|
Post by SD90 on May 18, 2017 14:07:55 GMT -8
Not for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on May 18, 2017 14:23:08 GMT -8
 Baldwin used a 9'10" version of the GSC Type B Road truck. Alco used a 9'4" version of the GSC and ADK Type B Road truck. the only plastic/Cast metal 9'10" GSC truck was made by Mantua in metal,then converted to Plastic for Tyco locos. Spikre 
|
|
|
|
Post by dreadnought on May 18, 2017 16:45:30 GMT -8
omaharoad,
Thank you for the reply. The form is to try and help me figure which prototype I should have produced first. Unfortunately, interest in the Missouri Pacific model is by far the lowest out of the three prototypes. It seems likely the CNJ model would be produced first, followed by the NYC model if interest is sufficient.
Unfortunately, my contacts at this time only enable me to produce a body, not a chassis, so I am unable to help on the trucks issue. We are lucky that a practically dimensionally-symmetrical chassis exists and is relatively available on the market; the RF-16. Unfortunately, as I have noted before, the Proto 2000 model of an FA unit should have about 10' too little space between its truck centers to replicate the DR-4-4-1500 correctly. As I understand it, the ARHS model required you to do somewhat major modifications to the chassis of the FA unit to allow it to fit. Hopefully, this kit would not require you to do so. Hopefully, the Bachmann chassis will allow some modification of the fuel tank to be done, to allow a replacement casting to be put on top of it to correctly replicate the DR-4-4-1500's fuel tank.
Finally, I can assure you that I am not trying to give your computer a virus or offend your sensibilities in any manner through a Google Forms document posted on a model train forum. As stated before, I am not 'Big Dawg Copies'.
Regards,
Dreadnought
|
|
|
|
Post by dreadnought on May 18, 2017 17:51:46 GMT -8
Thanks for the reply. There's no way the FA/B (by Proto or otherwise) has a 10 foot shorter truck center-center than the CNJ Babyface DR4-4-15. I don't know the dimensions (too lazy to find 'em right now), but that's longer than the truck axle-axle spacing, aka a lot. As far as I know the FA/B and the BLW cabs had "approximately" the same truck centers, mid-30s-feet-ish. The Anthricite Ry Historical Society's CNJ shell went on a P2K frame and it looks about right. No frame length modifications were necessary. Here's the instructions: homauchchunk.co.uk/ARHS%20Babyface%20Instructions.pdfPlease post the BLW & Alco proto dimensions when you can, truck center-center and OL length for each of the versions so whe'll know and won't have to speculate. Good luck. These units have a great deal of funk factor. omaharoad, Thanks for the reply. I believe the source I was originally using for the DR-4-4-1500's distance between trucks is actually incorrect. Further research indicates that they actually do have similar dimensions. The distance between the DR-4-4-1500's truck centers was 28', while the distance between the FA-1's truck centers was 27'. The overall length is 51' for the FA-1 and 54' for the DR-4-4-1500. I believe the source I was originally using accidentally placed a value for another dimension in the space for distance between truck centers. This means that the FA unit is not as bad of a choice, dimensionally, as a basis for this shell as I originally supposed. In any event, I still feel that the superior availability (and age) of the Bachmann RF-16 unit means that it is a better choice to base this kit on. It may be possible to modify the kit to fit onto the Proto 2000 FA chassis, though, as I said before, I think it would be better if this kit did not require frame modifications as the ARHS kit does. I am hoping to offer this locomotive in a ready-to-run format as well (with the conversion performed by myself) which means that a steady supply of chassis at a set price is quite important. In any event, these shells are meant, as you said, to look 'about right'. If it turns out to be more convenient to mount this shell onto a Proto 2000 chassis than onto a Bachmann one, then that modification will be made. I simply believe that it would be simpler to fit this shell onto the chassis of an almost identical locomotive. Regards, Dreadnought |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on May 18, 2017 17:55:40 GMT -8
The NWSL Stanton drive is available in a 10' wheelbase. It also appears that you can adjust the wheelbase, maybe to get an actual 9' - 10".
Now SIDEFRAMES. I dunno. Not my problem.
Ed
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 18:57:07 GMT -8
Thanks for the reply. There's no way the FA/B (by Proto or otherwise) has a 10 foot shorter truck center-center than the CNJ Babyface DR4-4-15. I don't know the dimensions (too lazy to find 'em right now), but that's longer than the truck axle-axle spacing, aka a lot. As far as I know the FA/B and the BLW cabs had "approximately" the same truck centers, mid-30s-feet-ish. The Anthricite Ry Historical Society's CNJ shell went on a P2K frame and it looks about right. No frame length modifications were necessary. Here's the instructions: homauchchunk.co.uk/ARHS%20Babyface%20Instructions.pdfPlease post the BLW & Alco proto dimensions when you can, truck center-center and OL length for each of the versions so whe'll know and won't have to speculate. Good luck. These units have a great deal of funk factor. omaharoad, Thanks for the reply. I believe the source I was originally using for the DR-4-4-1500's distance between trucks is actually incorrect. Further research indicates that they actually do have similar dimensions. The distance between the DR-4-4-1500's truck centers was 28', while the distance between the FA-1's truck centers was 27'. The overall length is 51' for the FA-1 and 54' for the DR-4-4-1500. I believe the source I was originally using accidentally placed a value for another dimension in the space for distance between truck centers. This means that the FA unit is not as bad of a choice, dimensionally, as a basis for this shell as I originally supposed. In any event, I still feel that the superior availability (and age) of the Bachmann RF-16 unit means that it is a better choice to base this kit on. It may be possible to modify the kit to fit onto the Proto 2000 FA chassis, though, as I said before, I think it would be better if this kit did not require frame modifications as the ARHS kit does. I am hoping to offer this locomotive in a ready-to-run format as well (with the conversion performed by myself) which means that a steady supply of chassis at a set price is quite important. In any event, these shells are meant, as you said, to look 'about right'. If it turns out to be more convenient to mount this shell onto a Proto 2000 chassis than onto a Bachmann one, then that modification will be made. I simply believe that it would be simpler to fit this shell onto the chassis of an almost identical locomotive. Regards, Dreadnought I think the only mods to the P2K frame are minor- filing to fit the curves. No cutting necessary. |
|
jd
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by jd on May 19, 2017 8:08:13 GMT -8
I may be wrong about this, but I think the ARHS shells used the Proto 2000 FA2 frame, not the FA1. I seem to remember that the truck center is different between the FA1 and the FA2.
-JD
|
|
|
|
Post by SOMECALLMETIM on May 19, 2017 8:10:13 GMT -8
Is this going to be cast resin?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2017 9:26:08 GMT -8
I may be wrong about this, but I think the ARHS shells used the Proto 2000 FA2 frame, not the FA1. I seem to remember that the truck center is different between the FA1 and the FA2. -JD Correct, FA-2. It's here in the instruction sheet: homauchchunk.co.uk/ARHS%20Babyface%20Instructions.pdfThe prototype FA-1 is 27' 2' between truck centers. The prototype FA-2 is 29' 2' between truck centers. What are the P2K dimensions? |
|
|
|
Post by dharris on May 19, 2017 9:29:11 GMT -8
As a suggestion, if you are going to do this as a business you should tell people who you are and are located.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2017 9:40:14 GMT -8
As a suggestion, if you are going to do this as a business you should tell people who you are and are located. At this point (exploratory), there's no need for that. But if things move forward, yes on the "who". At least a business name. No one needs to know where he's located unless he feels like disclosing that, like most do. There's reasons for not disclosing a location. |
|
|
|
Post by dti406 on May 19, 2017 11:02:09 GMT -8
As a suggestion, if you are going to do this as a business you should tell people who you are and are located. Why would you care, you said in a previous post you weren't interested, just trying to stir things up? Rick Jesionowski |
|
|
|
Post by dharris on May 19, 2017 18:23:28 GMT -8
As a suggestion, if you are going to do this as a business you should tell people who you are and are located. Why would you care, you said in a previous post you weren't interested, just trying to stir things up? Rick Jesionowski Oh good lord. The guy says he wants to sell models and I suggest he let people know who is if he wants to sell items. If that enrages people that is their issue. |
|
|
|
Post by dreadnought on May 19, 2017 19:30:35 GMT -8
Will your models be resin or styrene? Will they be original tooling? Meaning not a casting, 3D scan, pantograph copy, etc. of an existing model. Existing models being the Anthracite RR Hist Society resin shells, brass, possible others. omaharoad, Thank you for your continued interest. The models would be resin, and all-original tooling. As I stated before, I am not going to copy the ARHS's model and sell it as my own, as some have been accused of doing. Regards, Dreadnought |
|
|
|
Post by craigz on May 20, 2017 6:00:25 GMT -8
Will your models be resin or styrene? Will they be original tooling? Meaning not a casting, 3D scan, pantograph copy, etc. of an existing model. Existing models being the Anthracite RR Hist Society resin shells, brass, possible others. omaharoad, Thank you for your continued interest. The models would be resin, and all-original tooling. As I stated before, I am not going to copy the ARHS's model and sell it as my own, as some have been accused of doing. Regards, Dreadnought The ARHS shells fit very neatly on the P2K FA-2 drive and 'look' right; I have an A-B-A set under construction right now. I believe the FA-2 drive is within a foot of being right for the bolster centers...for the CNJ units. I don't know if the NYC and MoPac units used the same - being Baldwin it wouldn't be out of character to have a different wheelbase. IF you get the nose right and work out some sort of modular design, you can add the Seaboard 2700s and NYC 3200s DR-6-4-1500s to the list (A-1-A Commonwealth trucks become an issue for those, not to mention the heavy reworking the SAL did to its units' noses and the new trucks put under the NYC "Gravel Gerties" to cure the rough riding). If you're completely out of your mind and nuttier than squirrel poo, add the two GM&O DR6-4-2000s #280 and #281...but that would take some serious drugs  The Centipedes had a different nose - they had a taper to them visible from overhead. And cheers to you for respecting the intellectual property of the ARHS...   |
|
|
|
Post by dreadnought on May 20, 2017 7:35:56 GMT -8
craigz,
Thank you for the reply. I have indeed looked into the DR-6-4-1500 as a product to be produced should this be successful. Unfortunately, I do not believe a modular design would work for this type of product, at least in the way you are supposing. The DR-6-4-1500 is a full five feet longer than the DR-4-4-1500, meaning a different frame would have to be used to accommodate it. I am only speculating, but that model appears to be at least somewhat dimensionally close to an Erie built or a PA unit. This means completely different tooling would have to be used to accommodate that frame. Furthermore, detail differences between the two are too major to allow for a modular system. You will note that the SAL unit and the NYC unit have different louver configurations. I do not believe that those different configurations could be accommodated on a common frame. Nevertheless, should interest in that model be significant, then I would certainly look into it should this model be successful. I have already had a message on another forum alluding to that same model.
The DR-6-4-2000 is 80' long, but it is another model which I have looked into. I believe that one would only look reasonable on a Dl-109 chassis since the E-unit is too short. The Dl-109, depending on which specific model Walthers used for their reproduction, is also about 5' too short, but it is closer than the E-units. The DR-6-4-2000 was a rare beast indeed, though, and I am not sure there is sufficient interest in it, though I do certainly hope so since it is one of my favorite Baldwin diesels. On the other hand, I believe, based on feedback from this form, the CNJ's double-ended DR-6-4-2000 would be a good subject for a future model. Again, this all depends on the success of this model.
Regards,
Dreadnought
|
|
|
|
Post by craigz on May 20, 2017 12:11:12 GMT -8
craigz, Thank you for the reply. I have indeed looked into the DR-6-4-1500 as a product to be produced should this be successful. Unfortunately, I do not believe a modular design would work for this type of product, at least in the way you are supposing. The DR-6-4-1500 is a full five feet longer than the DR-4-4-1500, meaning a different frame would have to be used to accommodate it. I am only speculating, but that model appears to be at least somewhat dimensionally close to an Erie built or a PA unit. This means completely different tooling would have to be used to accommodate that frame. Furthermore, detail differences between the two are too major to allow for a modular system. You will note that the SAL unit and the NYC unit have different louver configurations. I do not believe that those different configurations could be accommodated on a common frame. Nevertheless, should interest in that model be significant, then I would certainly look into it should this model be successful. I have already had a message on another forum alluding to that same model. The DR-6-4-2000 is 80' long, but it is another model which I have looked into. I believe that one would only look reasonable on a Dl-109 chassis since the E-unit is too short. The Dl-109, depending on which specific model Walthers used for their reproduction, is also about 5' too short, but it is closer than the E-units. The DR-6-4-2000 was a rare beast indeed, though, and I am not sure there is sufficient interest in it, though I do certainly hope so since it is one of my favorite Baldwin diesels. On the other hand, I believe, based on feedback from this form, the CNJ's double-ended DR-6-4-2000 would be a good subject for a future model. Again, this all depends on the success of this model. Regards, Dreadnought I was certain a new frame would be needed for the DR6-4-1500; I was thinking in terms of the shell's being modular. In any case, I'd fully expect the NYC and SAL units to be different because, well, Baldwin. The Seaboard's mechanics reported that pretty much every Centipede was unique in wiring and/or piping layout. As for the GM&O units, they're so esoteric that they've never been done in brass although the appearance of the GM&O's Ingalls in brass gave hope to my GM&O friends ...and if 280/281 ever appear in HO model form it's time to get right with God as that would have to be the third sign of the apocalypse...the plastic Centipede being the first one, the Ingalls being the second... |
|
|
|
Post by dreadnought on May 20, 2017 12:24:36 GMT -8
craigz,
After looking into the DR-6-4-2000 some more, it turns out that it might be a little bit more feasible to produce than I first thought. I'd like to be able to produce that model, but it might be even more difficult than this one since only the GM&O and NdeM had the DR-6-4-2000. The CNW had an odd DR-6-2-1000 model with only one prime mover and a baggage compartment, and the CNJ had their double-ended units. Luckily, this unit ran around in demonstrator colors for a while before NdeM bought the demonstrators, meaning it might be possible to entice those who model bigger roads or freelancers into trying this odd unit on their layouts. I know I would certainly buy one, but, if I have the ability to produce that model, I will probably have to make another form like this one to gauge market interest.
First generation diesels are pretty difficult to sell in-scale. The majority of first generation diesels on the market today are either 'mutts' - mixes of the options used by a few different roads to make a generic, 'one-size-fits-all' diesel that is still recognizable as the correct unit but not 100% correct - or simply based off a single road but re-lettered for other roads. Only the most high-end models are detailed individually for each road, such as Rapido's new FPA units. Hopefully, resin shells like this one will be able to fill in the gap left by the larger companies in prototypical modeling.
Thank you again for the interest,
Dreadnought
|
|
