Available Now! Arrowhead Models' Committee Design Hopper!!

[nstophat]

Blaine;

My Southern and Undec kit arrived safe and sound. Road number on the Southern matches what I ordered. How long does it take a factory worker to build one of these??? Need some sort of over/under to shoot for.

Regards,
Russ

[nstophat]

Uh, Blaine, is there an instruction sheet for assembling the (Southern) undecs?

Russ

[tom]

Received my PRR car in the mail today. First the detailing as expected is excellent. The car is so much more refined that the old Stewart/Bowser car. Paint and graphics are also well done except the weight capacity typos which I will be able to fix. All the small, well done details make it look like the real H39 and not a representation of the H39. So far so good.

First thing I noticed though is the car seems to ride a little high. This looks wrong when compared to a Kadee boxcar and when compared to a Kadee coupler height gauge. I estimate that the coupler rides about 1/32" to high. Not much but enough that my calibrated eyeballs noticed it right away. Should be easy to fix if you want to by filing down the boss on top of the truck.

The wheels are the "wide" tread style. Yuck. On such a car that has such finely crafted and open ends these are noticiable and am disappointed in that. The trucks themselves do not match the photos that I have of H39s but then I do not have any photos of the PS built cars which the model represents. Compared to a Tahoe 70-ton truck it looks too short. Is it?

Finally the included coal load looks too small to me. The size of it looks more like a gravel load (more dense than coal) and photos of these cars carrying coal shows the coal pile heaped higher than the included load.

Finally the car is a little light. Easy to fix on a loaded car but harder on an empty car.

I am still impressed by the car but I think all will be able to be fixed rather easily....except perhaps for the weight issue.

The box was nice.

[markfj]

Aug 20, 2018 15:49:41 GMT -8 tom said:

First thing I noticed though is the car seems to ride a little high. This looks wrong when compared to a Kadee boxcar and when compared to a Kadee coupler height gauge. I estimate that the coupler rides about 1/32" to high. Not much but enough that my calibrated eyeballs noticed it right away. Should be easy to fix if you want to by filing down the boss on top of the truck.

The wheels are the "wide" tread style. Yuck. On such a car that has such finely crafted and open ends these are noticiable and am disappointed in that. The trucks themselves do not match the photos that I have of H39s but then I do not have any of the PS built cars which the model represents. Compared to a Tahoe 70-ton truck it looks too short. Is it?

I noticed those wheels and ride height too, but didn’t want to say anything since I don’t have the model in hand and a drawing to compare it to. Perhaps the wide tread wheels depict a new car that hasn’t had any tread removed from servicing yet. Again, I don’t know. But the ride height does look a bit high.


Good comments Tom.


Mark

[Deleted]

Tom, have you weighed the car yet? If so, what is the weight on it? I have not received my cars yet. I was the second one to place an order and the last to receive my order.   On the other hand. I ordered 15 cars and it is easier to quickly pack and ship one, two or three cars than fifteen or more.  

The group that I run with has a table of what they think the weight should be for a cars given length. According to it, this car should weigh in at 5 oz. The Tangent PS-3 by itself with the provided coal load weighs in at 4.5 oz. I add a 1/4 oz at each end under the coal load. The car tracks really well at 5 oz.

1/32" (0.03125") is not just a little. That is a LOT. That is a pretty hefty coupler offset. I will be interested to see this when I get my order. It is concerning.

I do not know of any manufacturer that provides you with code 88 wheels. Maybe there are, but I have yet to find any. You typically have to upgrade and buy the code 88 wheel sets. If that is a mark against Arrowhead Models, then Tangent is guilty as well as Exactrail and pretty much everyone else on the planet manufacturing model trains. I do not believe that is something that should be highlighted as a negative about the model. If anything, it is equal across the board as to what kind of wheel sets are offered on a RTR car. Personally I am OK with the 110 wheel sets since I run on a club like environment where track work can be a bit challenging at times.

Brian

[fcixdarrell]

Aug 21, 2018 4:40:47 GMT -8 @bgb said:

I do not know of any manufacturer that provides you with code 88 wheels. Maybe there are, but I have yet to find any. You typically have to upgrade and buy the code 88 wheel sets. If that is a mark against Arrowhead Models, then Tangent is guilty as well as Exactrail and pretty much everyone else on the planet manufacturing model trains. I do not believe that is something that should be highlighted as a negative about the model. If anything, it is equal across the board as to what kind of wheel sets are offered on a RTR car. Personally I am OK with the 110 wheel sets since I run on a club like environment where track work can be a bit challenging at times.

Brian

North American Railcar Corp (PWRS) puts code 88 wheels on all their cars. If a customer complains, they send them a set of code 110 wheels for replacements. It happens occasionally, but very rarely (that anyone complains).

[NS4122]

Aug 20, 2018 15:49:41 GMT -8 tom said:

Received my PRR car in the mail today. First the detailing as expected is excellent. The car is so much more refined that the old Stewart/Bowser car. Paint and graphics are also well done except the weight capacity typos which I will be able to fix. All the small, well done details make it look like the real H39 and not a representation of the H39. So far so good.

First thing I noticed though is the car seems to ride a little high. This looks wrong when compared to a Kadee boxcar and when compared to a Kadee coupler height gauge. I estimate that the coupler rides about 1/32" to high. Not much but enough that my calibrated eyeballs noticed it right away. Should be easy to fix if you want to by filing down the boss on top of the truck.

The wheels are the "wide" tread style. Yuck. On such a car that has such finely crafted and open ends these are noticiable and am disappointed in that. The trucks themselves do not match the photos that I have of H39s but then I do not have any photos of the PS built cars which the model represents. Compared to a Tahoe 70-ton truck it looks too short. Is it?

Finally the included coal load looks too small to me. The size of it looks more like a gravel load (more dense than coal) and photos of these cars carrying coal shows the coal pile heaped higher than the included load.

Finally the car is a little light. Easy to fix on a loaded car but harder on an empty car.

I am still impressed by the car but I think all will be able to be fixed rather easily....except perhaps for the weight issue.

The box was nice.

The trucks on the PS built H39's cannot be compared to the PRR built H39's as PRR used refurbished Andrews style trucks from H21's on those cars and were classed as H39A. That being said, the trucks on the PRR model picture on their website don't appear to be what I have seen in the photos I have seen of PS built H39's. The trucks in the prototype photos appear to be what Arrowhead has on the RioGrande and Southern cars.
BTW, the best photo I can find is a 9"x3" builders photo of PRR 667200 in Wayner's "Cars of the Pennsylvania RR" long out of print.

[markfj]

Aug 21, 2018 7:54:46 GMT -8 NS4122 said:

Aug 20, 2018 15:49:41 GMT -8 tom said:

Received my PRR car in the mail today. First the detailing as expected is excellent. The car is so much more refined that the old Stewart/Bowser car. Paint and graphics are also well done except the weight capacity typos which I will be able to fix. All the small, well done details make it look like the real H39 and not a representation of the H39. So far so good.

First thing I noticed though is the car seems to ride a little high. This looks wrong when compared to a Kadee boxcar and when compared to a Kadee coupler height gauge. I estimate that the coupler rides about 1/32" to high. Not much but enough that my calibrated eyeballs noticed it right away. Should be easy to fix if you want to by filing down the boss on top of the truck.

The wheels are the "wide" tread style. Yuck. On such a car that has such finely crafted and open ends these are noticiable and am disappointed in that. The trucks themselves do not match the photos that I have of H39s but then I do not have any photos of the PS built cars which the model represents. Compared to a Tahoe 70-ton truck it looks too short. Is it?

Finally the included coal load looks too small to me. The size of it looks more like a gravel load (more dense than coal) and photos of these cars carrying coal shows the coal pile heaped higher than the included load.

Finally the car is a little light. Easy to fix on a loaded car but harder on an empty car.

I am still impressed by the car but I think all will be able to be fixed rather easily....except perhaps for the weight issue.

The box was nice.

The trucks on the PS built H39's cannot be compared to the PRR built H39's as PRR used refurbished Andrews style trucks from H21's on those cars and were classed as H39A. That being said, the trucks on the PRR model picture on their website don't appear to be what I have seen in the photos I have seen of PS built H39's. The trucks in the prototype photos appear to be what Arrowhead has on the RioGrande and Southern cars.
BTW, the best photo I can find is a 9"x3" builders photo of PRR 667200 in Wayner's "Cars of the Pennsylvania RR" long out of print.

Here is a copy of the photo you referenced. I checked on prr.railfan.net and see there are photos in PRR Color Guide Vol 1 & 2. I have both volumes and will check the photos.




Thanks, Mark

[Deleted]

Those trucks look close to the Kadee 70 ton barber solid bearing trucks...but the journal covers are different.

[tom]

OK I finally found a photo of a PS build PRR H39 and as I suspected the Arrowhead model has the incorrect trucks.

www.rr-fallenflags.org/prr/prr66440kga.jpg

The model has I guess 50-ton trucks that do not look like the slightly longer 70-ton trucks on the PRR car. Luckily Tahoe Model Works makes the correct trucks and the model looks much better with them but geez I am OK replacing the trucks on a Stewart H39 but not on a car that costs much more.

"The leader in customer experience"

[Deleted]

I’m not so sure about that pic. That car has clearly been re-stenciled. It’s in the Conrail era...so it’s not a builders photo. Surely you can come up with something better?

And, which trucks are you claiming that Tahoe makes are correct?

[NS4122]

Aug 21, 2018 17:00:30 GMT -8 joppasub said:

I’m not so sure about that pic. That car has clearly been re-stenciled. It’s in the Conrail era...so it’s not a builders photo. Surely you can come up with something better?

And, which trucks are you claiming that Tahoe makes are correct?

You seem to be the Arrowhead defense attorney. You just can't admit that The PRR version of this car has errors that should not be found on a 50 dollar model. The photo in the post three previous is a builders photo and shows the trucks and they are not what appear to be on the model. The bogus trucks are appropriate for the bogus data though.

[tom]

Aug 21, 2018 17:00:30 GMT -8 joppasub said:

I’m not so sure about that pic. That car has clearly been re-stenciled. It’s in the Conrail era...so it’s not a builders photo. Surely you can come up with something better?

And, which trucks are you claiming that Tahoe makes are correct?

The PRR car was restenciled but not renumbered. PRR H39s that start with 666 were built by Pullman Standard. Here is another photo of a PS built H39 but the trucks do not show up as well as the previous one:

www.rr-fallenflags.org/prr/prr666146kga.jpg

And finally here is a link to the Tahoe 70-ton truck that match the trucks in the photos:

resincarworks.com/tahoe/tmw_110_info.pdf

The trucks that come with the Arrowhead PRR H39s are the same shorter 50-ton trucks that came in the Exact Rail Milwaukee Road ribside boxcar.

[crrcoal]

According to John Teichmoellers book "Pennsylvania Railroad Steel Open Hopper Cars" chapter 11, the H39 was equipped standard with either PRR class 2E-F22F ASF ride control trucks or 2E-F24C Barber S-2C ride control trucks. The H39A was equipped with 2E-F2F trucks rebuilt from 2E-F2 Crown cast steel trucks by addition of ASF ride control packages. Hope this helps.

Excellent book by the way!!! Highly recommend you guys get a copy if you can.

[Deleted]

Sweet, a 1984 photo of an untouched PRR H39. That is definitely one that I will be modeling. Everything is patched on it. New trucks are in store for this car. Looks like I will be giving the Tahoe trucks a try.

Ooo, and another one. Two I can convert into really nice looking models. That coal load on #666146 looks like dirt.

Brian

[Deleted]

Aug 21, 2018 17:43:12 GMT -8 NS4122 said:

Aug 21, 2018 17:00:30 GMT -8 joppasub said:

I’m not so sure about that pic. That car has clearly been re-stenciled. It’s in the Conrail era...so it’s not a builders photo. Surely you can come up with something better?

And, which trucks are you claiming that Tahoe makes are correct?

You seem to be the Arrowhead defense attorney. You just can't admit that The PRR version of this car has errors that should not be found on a 50 dollar model. The photo in the post three previous is a builders photo and shows the trucks and they are not what appear to be on the model. The bogus trucks are appropriate for the bogus data though.

No; I'm a friend to Blaine Hadfield.  I'm also a guy that deals in facts...not innuendo; assertions; or downright ridiculous claims that have no substance.  I also have very limited knowledge of the PRR, and successor roads.  Mr. Hagg, however,  DOES have that knowledge...so I was taken aback by his cryptic approach here.  I simply want to know which trucks are best for replacement and for what era.  

As for your snarky attitude and tone; well, it's quite clear where you stand.  There's no need to converse any longer.

[Deleted]

Aug 21, 2018 17:49:49 GMT -8 crrcoal said:

According to John Teichmoellers book "Pennsylvania Railroad Steel Open Hopper Cars" chapter 11, the H39 was equipped standard with either PRR class 2E-F22F ASF ride control trucks or 2E-F24C Barber S-2C ride control trucks. The H39A was equipped with 2E-F2F trucks rebuilt from 2E-F2 Crown cast steel trucks by addition of ASF ride control packages. Hope this helps.

Excellent book by the way!!! Highly recommend you guys get a copy if you can.

Ordered it tonight.

[wp8thsub]

I refuse to take offense at manufacturers equipping high end cars with code 110 wheelsets. In the visual context of an operating session they don't bother me at all, and I'm not going to accept relegation to the lower echelon of modeling just because such things don't irritate me.

I do have cars with code 88 wheelsets, including a number of the original Genesis offerings, as well as some Atlas cars that came with them. I experience no problems with derailments whatsoever, but I still do not care for the narrower wheels. Most of my turnouts are commercial products, over which the code 88 wheels sometimes will cause the car to wiggle a bit through the frog, while code 110 wheels won't. In terms of overall appearance, a train with nothing but code 110 wheelsets will glide down a yard ladder with none of the distracting movement that code 88 wheelsets might have. All of that figures into the visual appeal of the model.

I have no desire to rebuild over 100 turnouts to make code 88 wheelsets look more amazing going through them. Until commercial turnouts come with frogs using finer tolerances, I suspect the market will continue to push back on narrower wheels as standard equipment. I think Blaine and others are making the right choice to continue to offer code 110 as standard, and let the relative few who want narrower wheels make the switch themselves. That may not make every critic happy, but it's probably the best decision to move product.


DSC02142 by wp8thsub, on Flickr

As I watch a train do its thing, or look at a yard or industry spur full of cars, I find myself paying attention to a lot of things other than tread width.

[Deleted]

I really admire your layout and appreciate your point of view.

[ambluco]

For the PRR version modelers out there:

The PC Yahoo group has been discussing the model and going through fixing the problems - new trucks (70 instead of 50t). This fixed the height issue. They all lean. CAPY decal fix. And apparently there is no inside detail (no rivets).

[markfj]

The general consensus on the PRR modeler group seems to be that these are very nice models, but the truck issue needs to be address. Some have also commented that they'll wait for the next run to buy a "corrected" car (i.e. 70 ton trucks, correct stenciling). Regarding wheel tread width, one member also suggested that Arrowhead models could offer cars with either .110 or .088 sized wheels. While that is a good idea, I don’t see it happening any time soon.


My suggestion for addressing the truck issue is that Blaine creates a replacement policy like Bowser did when it was identified that their Alco C636 models rode too high on the trucks and had undersized fuel tanks. Bowser tooled new trucks and fuel tanks and then offered the parts as a replacement kit to those that purchased the model. This was a smart move on Bowser’s part and it is an example I think Arrowhead should consider following.


“They all lean.” Haven’t heard that one yet. Is that a result of using the Tahoe 70 ton replacement trucks?


Thanks, Mark

[NS4122]

Aug 26, 2018 1:11:13 GMT -8 ambluco said:

For the PRR version modelers out there:

The PC Yahoo group has been discussing the model and going through fixing the problems - new trucks (70 instead of 50t). This fixed the height issue. They all lean. CAPY decal fix. And apparently there is no inside detail (no rivets).

I guess the Arrowhead defense attorneys would regard this as "innuendo, assertions or downright ridiculous claims that have no substance".

[snootie3257]

All this for $50. What a deal! The box must be flawless though. Haven’t heard any complaints.😉 In all seriousness I know all will come out fine! Can’t wait to see what’s next.
Steve

[Deleted]

Aug 26, 2018 7:55:14 GMT -8 NS4122 said:

Aug 26, 2018 1:11:13 GMT -8 ambluco said:

For the PRR version modelers out there:

The PC Yahoo group has been discussing the model and going through fixing the problems - new trucks (70 instead of 50t). This fixed the height issue. They all lean. CAPY decal fix. And apparently there is no inside detail (no rivets).

I guess the Arrowhead defense attorneys would regard this as "innuendo, assertions or downright ridiculous claims that have no substance".

Absolutely.  It seems as if there is something else at work.  Maybe not...but it is peculiar.  Maybe I'm too passive, but the idea of having a car of this magnitude to me is a great thing...I think the PRR  complaining modelers should all embrace the Stewart Hobbies cars.

I have a number of the cars in hand; and I can say without a doubt the cars are the pinnacle of what can be achieved with micro tooling in HO scale.  The thing that really bothers me is this PRR group makes no mention of the correct rendering of the keystone hopper door details or the other 98% of the car that is absolutely stunning.  As I have stated over and over...the CAPY data is not an issue with me; especially when it can be simply washed away with Solvaset and a few small rectangles of paper towels.  The appropriate small numerals can then be affixed to the car sides and VOILA.  

It almost seems like a group of modelers aren't happy with someone trying to cater to their road...with 48 road numbers...and instantly reject the model...or are wanting to find ways to reject it.  This used to be the case with we Missouri Pacific modelers...until we got wise and realized that negativity got us nowhere.

The coupler height is largely attributed to the trucks on the car, IMO.  The car does NOT lean...at least mine do not.  I didn't receive one car of my order that had any defects whatsoever.  I did replace a set of trucks with Tahoe Model Works ASF Ride Control trucks...and the minuscule .012" of difference went away on coupler height.   Which, btw wasn't an issue with every car type I own, as ALL manufacturers have issues with matching up to NMRA coupler height...EVEN TANGENT, Yes...I said the T-word.

I am in the process of weathering a couple of cars and getting them ready for photos WITH Kadee cars and various other HO scale cars coupled to them...so people can see the cars and not have to settle for innuendo and snarky comments from guys like CSXT. 

[NS4122]

Aug 26, 2018 8:28:29 GMT -8 joppasub said:

Aug 26, 2018 7:55:14 GMT -8 NS4122 said:

I guess the Arrowhead defense attorneys would regard this as "innuendo, assertions or downright ridiculous claims that have no substance".

Absolutely.  It seems as if there is something else at work.  Maybe not...but it is peculiar.  Maybe I'm too passive, but the idea of having a car of this magnitude to me is a great thing...I think the PRR  complaining modelers should all embrace the Stewart Hobbies cars.

I have a number of the cars in hand; and I can say without a doubt the cars are the pinnacle of what can be achieved with micro tooling in HO scale.  The thing that really bothers me is this PRR group makes no mention of the correct rendering of the keystone hopper door details or the other 98% of the car that is absolutely stunning.  As I have stated over and over...the CAPY data is not an issue with me; especially when it can be simply washed away with Solvaset and a few small rectangles of paper towels.  The appropriate small numerals can then be affixed to the car sides and VOILA.  

It almost seems like a group of modelers aren't happy with someone trying to cater to their road...with 48 road numbers...and instantly reject the model...or are wanting to find ways to reject it.  This used to be the case with we Missouri Pacific modelers...until we got wise and realized that negativity got us nowhere.

The coupler height is largely attributed to the trucks on the car, IMO.  The car does NOT lean...at least mine do not.  I didn't receive one car of my order that had any defects whatsoever.  I did replace a set of trucks with Tahoe Model Works ASF Ride Control trucks...and the minuscule .012" of difference went away on coupler height.   Which, btw wasn't an issue with every car type I own, as ALL manufacturers have issues with matching up to NMRA coupler height...EVEN TANGENT, Yes...I said the T-word.

I am in the process of weathering a couple of cars and getting them ready for photos WITH Kadee cars and various other HO scale cars coupled to them...so people can see the cars and not have to settle for innuendo and snarky comments from guys like CSXT. 

As a member of the PRR T&HS and other PRR groups, I am very aware of how fussy PRR modelers can be. To expect them to accept something that is not correct without complaint is unrealistic. Just because it is acceptable to you doesn't mean they should. That being said, my "snarky" comments were due to the fact that you are heavily biased in favor of Blaine Hadfield and are not objective. The the data and truck errors were substantiated by photographic proof in previous threads, yet you ignored them completely and dismissed them as ""innuendo, assertions or downright ridiculous claims that have no substance". How is that objective? You can accept the car as it is, and that's fine, but to deny obvious and substantiated errors and denigrate the people who point them out surely underscores your jadedness.

[Deleted]

I find these cars to be FANFREAKINTASTIC! I went over the 15 I bought this weekend and have not found ANY boogers on them. 

Here is my take on this conversation. These are my views only and I am not forcing anyone to agree with me. I am a part of this community and conversation and enjoy the debate.

1. The assembly, paint and lettering are perfect. No glue blobs. No crooked parts. The paint is fine over the details and does not blot them out. I found 8 sprue nubs. Two on each stirrup. Easily removed with a sharp #11 blade. The text is crisp. I can read every bit of text printed on the model.

2. Yes, the trucks are wrong. They should not be, but they are and I will replace them. The couplers are about 0.010" to 0.015" higher than the Kadee coupler height gauge. But when I put the Tangent 70 ton ASF Ridde Control trucks under them. the coupler is dead on perfect with the Kadee coupler height gauge. I was hoping to use the left over Tangent trucks from my PS-3 hoppers, but it appears I may not be able to get the added detail parts for the trucks. Dave is checking for me. If I cannot get the parts, I will use the Tahoe trucks resincarworks.com/tahoe/tmw_110_info.pdf. 

Now does the truck issue make me wish I did not buy the cars. Absolutely NOT! My interest in the model or any model for that matter goes way beyond the correct trucks.

3. Does the car lean. Of the 15 I purchased none of them lean. So I have no idea where the leaning thing came from.

4. Let me address the CAPY data. I can understand the PRR guys being upset about it. If you are buying the cars AS DELIVERED for PRR. Then this was an oversight. I would be willing to bet though Blaine is not happy about it and that he does not take the attitude of "F" it either. I would be willing to bet a days dollar that Blaine is not your run of the mill "who cares what the customer thinks" kind of manufacturer. I am sure he is even more pissed off about it than some of you are.  So here is my take on the CAPY data. I do not give a RATS ASS about it. Now that is a personal statement. Not one that I think everyone should take. That is a statement made because during the era I model. I have to change this data.  Cars get reweighed and the data changes. I am pretty sure the cars got weighed during the PRR era as well. So I figure the ONLY folks that have a dog in this fight are the ones modeling the as delivered cars. So please excuse me Tom Haag if I call you out on this one. But I have no idea why you are up in arms about the CAPY data since you model the PC era and you would have to change this data anyway. I am not picking on you Tom. You are the only person I know that is complaining about the data and models a different era for these cars. And please Tom. This is a conversation and not an accusation. 

Just speculating here. I would pretty much bet that if Arrowhead had put the correct as delivered data on the car. Someone would be up in arms because then it would not be correct for late era reweighed cars. Then if Arrowhead put the correct reweighed data on the car then someone in the PRR camp would be up in arms because it was not as delivered. 

On my front and for the folks that follow my modeling adventures. I give the car a huge thumbs up. If you are a budget modeler. Then the car is probably not for you. If you crave fidelity in your models then it is a spot on car. I run loads. so the lack of rivet detail on the inside of the car is not an issue for me. I know it can be for others. BUT talking about inside details. How many hopper cars come without mold release pin marks? The Tangent PS-3 cars are beautiful on the outside. The weight fits well on the inside, but the weight slope sheet does not settle in tight around the hopper sides and ends. Not very prototypical having gaps around the slope sheet. I do not take points off for that. It is just the nature of manufacturing. 

I like the car. I am going to buy more of them when the next run comes out. My hope is that Blaine will source correct trucks for them. Heck maybe even suggest he source Tahoe trucks for them. I will go out on a limb and say he will probably proof everything much closer before he releases anything again. 

Bring your models on Arrowhead. This modeler beleives you hit a home run with the first offering.

Here is my first car project using the Arrowhead H39 PRR hopper. Thanks to Tom Haag for posting the photo from the Fallen Flags Site. www.rr-fallenflags.org/prr/prr66440kga.jpg

The lettering was removed with Solvaset. Cut a small piece of paper towel and put it over the offending text. let is soak for about 5 or 10 minutes. I used a cotton bud soaked in solvaset to scrub it off. To rub off some of the PENNSYLVANIA lettering, I used a combination of a #11 blade and a very fine sanding stick. I put a drop of Solvaset on the letter and then carefully scrapped at it until it started to chip away. On some I just used the sand paper with Solvaset and on others I used both the knife and sandpaper. After each letter was done, I washed the panel thoroughly because with the sandpaper you turn the ink into liquid ink and it will stay on the side of your car if you let it dry. I finally then shot a coat of Alclad Aqua Gloss over the sid eof the car to protect the lettering as well as bring the black back due to any smudging that I may have done.


I would like to say. Get to the bench, use your imagination and build a killer looking car. The Arrowhead H39 is a promising canvas to start with. If you want to just piss and moan. That is OK too as long as you have skin in the game. If you are not planning on buying any of these models. Then you are just a hater for the sake of being a hater.

Brian

[choochooboy]

@csx: "I guess the Arrowhead defense attorneys would regard this as "innuendo, assertions or downright ridiculous claims that have no substance".

I'm not sure that we have ever met (and I don't know who you are by your handle), but have I offended you? There is an odd vitriol to your comments that belies my experience. It as though you are seething to land a punch. Your posts read this way, to me at least, almost consistently.

Specifically regarding your comments, I don't refer to my detractors in the way you describe and I don't make excuses for my missteps. I don't know that I ever have. This isn't even close to my voice. For example, when it came to light that the CAPY data is 100000 as opposed to 140000, I wrote this:

"As careful as I tried to be in the development of this model, I have to own the error in the CAPY data as a true oversight. Unfortunately, this may turn some people away from the model, and insofar as that is the case, I will own that too. I can tell you that no one is more bothered by it then myself. I am pleased to say that this is the only error that has come to light in the production, which has been very complex."

I am not sure how this looks to you as someone who is trying to dismiss claims as "ridiculous" and of "no substance". But, if I have offended in some way, please accept my apologies. It certainly wasn't intended.


In some sense, the posture of commentary of the thread generally seems analogous to the anecdote below:

There was a math professor at a university who issued a final exam as a part of a her standard curriculum. The exam was strenuous, and year after year, the average grade for students who take this exam falls between 50% and 60%. Then, after decades of giving this exam, a student scores a 98%. It is the highest score that the university has ever seen for this course, and the professor is elated to see someone who holds such promise for this discipline of study.

When the student goes home, his father meets him at threshold of the door. With a feeling of entitlement and rage, he beats the sh*t out of his son. He drags his son into front yard, and to anyone within earshot, he points and ridicules. Perseverating only on the small percentage of what was missed (as if it was the only thing that matters), and he hits him with another stripe.

For what it is worth, I don't mind open consideration of my missteps. Nor do I try to mediate the forums, even when I believe that there is misinformation. However, when the context is the first paragraph, I do mind when that the evaluation looks like the second paragraph. Objectivity has a sense of scale.

For example:

I have been criticized at length about a hyphen between an H and a 39. I produce a builder's photo of the precise car with a hyphen between the H and the 39, and I haven't seen the same individuals (who advance their efforts as a quest for objectivity) even attempt to correct the records in the various forums where they previously evangelized the mistakes.

I am now being criticized for rivets in the interior of the car. The car has full rivet detail in the interior (please see the detail photos on our website). The slope sheets (which is what I think people are complaining about) and interior bays have welded sheet seams (like on our model). Please see the photo published in my Rio Grande Prospector article. There are two exceptions: there is an interior row of rivets along the center sill, and in the corner of the hopper bays near the gate doors. These were left off because of manufacturing considerations. They would shear off with the movement of the mold in release.

For the record, I am sure that I can point to missing rivets on any car that has ever been created in the history of the model train industry anywhere. Again, it feels as though I am being uniquely criticized.

And this is my point.

I am not saying that missteps don't deserve comments. I am saying that, when comments purport objectivity, then those comments should happen with a sense of context and scale. It means that when people begin to criticize, they do at least enough homework to consult a builder's photo. And, when I miss the mark on some particular, it doesn't mean I fail the test--and it certainly doesn't mean that I am alone. The Arrowhead hopper has a feature set without parallel in the industry. I believe that objective arguments can be made for how it is the finest open hopper ever created in terms of design integrity, part fidelity, part count, and a volume of brass, wire and plastic parts to create an accurate model--but would you know it from this thread?

I don't think that a person would.

My best,

Blaine Hadfield
Arrowhead Models

[Deleted]

Aug 26, 2018 9:53:01 GMT -8 NS4122 said:

Aug 26, 2018 8:28:29 GMT -8 joppasub said:

Absolutely.  It seems as if there is something else at work.  Maybe not...but it is peculiar.  Maybe I'm too passive, but the idea of having a car of this magnitude to me is a great thing...I think the PRR  complaining modelers should all embrace the Stewart Hobbies cars.

I have a number of the cars in hand; and I can say without a doubt the cars are the pinnacle of what can be achieved with micro tooling in HO scale.  The thing that really bothers me is this PRR group makes no mention of the correct rendering of the keystone hopper door details or the other 98% of the car that is absolutely stunning.  As I have stated over and over...the CAPY data is not an issue with me; especially when it can be simply washed away with Solvaset and a few small rectangles of paper towels.  The appropriate small numerals can then be affixed to the car sides and VOILA.  

It almost seems like a group of modelers aren't happy with someone trying to cater to their road...with 48 road numbers...and instantly reject the model...or are wanting to find ways to reject it.  This used to be the case with we Missouri Pacific modelers...until we got wise and realized that negativity got us nowhere.

The coupler height is largely attributed to the trucks on the car, IMO.  The car does NOT lean...at least mine do not.  I didn't receive one car of my order that had any defects whatsoever.  I did replace a set of trucks with Tahoe Model Works ASF Ride Control trucks...and the minuscule .012" of difference went away on coupler height.   Which, btw wasn't an issue with every car type I own, as ALL manufacturers have issues with matching up to NMRA coupler height...EVEN TANGENT, Yes...I said the T-word.

I am in the process of weathering a couple of cars and getting them ready for photos WITH Kadee cars and various other HO scale cars coupled to them...so people can see the cars and not have to settle for innuendo and snarky comments from guys like CSXT. 

As a member of the PRR T&HS and other PRR groups, I am very aware of how fussy PRR modelers can be. To expect them to accept something that is not correct without complaint is unrealistic. Just because it is acceptable to you doesn't mean they should. That being said, my "snarky" comments were due to the fact that you are heavily biased in favor of Blaine Hadfield and are not objective. The the data and truck errors were substantiated by photographic proof in previous threads, yet you ignored them completely and dismissed them as ""innuendo, assertions or downright ridiculous claims that have no substance". How is that objective? You can accept the car as it is, and that's fine, but to deny obvious and substantiated errors and denigrate the people who point them out surely underscores your jadedness.

Look, as a member of this forum...I can tell you that your accusations here that I am heavily biased in favor of Blaine Hadfield to which my objectivity is off, are not valid. I am merely saying as a forum participant that you guys are really looking hard at this model...and for whatever reason, are taking issue with things that are common place in the hobby to the point of absurdity, IMO.  Blaine is a good friend, and a superb manufacturer, as well as a designer of models...so he gets high marks from me on all counts not related to the car itself.  The H39 stands on its' own merits.

I am not ignoring anything on the cars. The cars are perfectly fine with me on all counts, because I am modeling the Conrail era, and can easily take the offending CAPY data off, and replace it with 154000 lbs data and re-stencil data that caters to what I am using the cars for. I'm grateful to Arrowhead, Tangent, Athearn Genesis, Bluford Shops, and others that have produced products that enhance my model railroad passion and period of specificity that I am replicating.


The critics are taking issue with two specific things and not that I am point fingers at other manufacturers here...but all of them make the same mistakes. Another high end manufacturer produced a car that had the wrong trucks on it; and the replacement trucks supplied are incorrect as well...No issue here, thanks to Tahoe, Kato, and Kadee, who make the correct trucks. So, I bought my lot of these cars, knowing that I needed to get the correct trucks anyway, once the replacements arrived and they were wrong, too. This same manufacturer has repeatedly gotten colors wrong on Missouri Pacific models...but that's no issue...I just buy undecorated models and paint my own. I'm just glad to have the model available. If they don't have an undecorated available, then I'll strip the paint of a decorated model. Again, just glad to have the model.

As has been pointed out that the rivet details do not exist, that is simply not true.  I don't know why someone would make such a claim, but that is pure disinformation.

I also understand that timeless and incessant whining on public forums like this does NO GOOD, IMO, for myself, and for model railroad businesses in general. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about economics knows that you aren't going to get rich in the model railroad hobby. The amount of time and research, plus tooling design, and associated costs are going to prohibit that. So, words matter. They matter a lot. The money lost on a project can't be invested in future projects...when you have people beating people up on the forums for no good reason other than to discourage promotion of the product, IMO.

[thebessemerkid]

All the arguing and finger pointing is counterproductive.

It's a great car.

It needs some fixes.

1) the Capy data is wrong, but minor. Brian has addressed fixing this with a careful application of solvaset. Arrowhead should consider a decal or dry transfer patch with the "4" for Pennsy modelers who want to fix it.

2) the trucks are 50T trucks where 70T are what were used on the Pennsy. On a $50 car this is a problem. Suggested solution: remove the 50T trucks at Arrowhead and substitute Tahoe (or other good fit) 70T. Even shipping the PRR cars truckless with the Tahoe trucks is a good solution. An option is to offer the buyer the choice of having the (seperately included) Tahoe 70T trucks in 110 or 088 flavor. Tahoe makes both. Will delight modelers who have to replace 110 wheels in all their high end cars. All those Reboxx wheels add up. Make sure coupler height is not adversely impacted.

Note: if Arrowhead removes the 50T trucks at the factory (or before sale) they can be reused as new product on other cars where they are correct.

3) If there is some "leaning" problem, get the people who brought it up to clarify and show examples of it. If it's a real issue, let's see it, understand it and fix it.

There are people who live to tear other stuff apart, then there are people who build & fix stuff. Be the latter.

[Deleted]

Oh, and for the uncalled for remarks about the box. I like the box. Looks long enough for a 60' car as well. Maybe Arrowhead is thinking ahead. What do I like about the box. The finger cutouts on each side that allow one hand to grasp the inner box while the other pulls the lid off.

I hate the boxes that have a clear plastic insert that you pull out. When you put the car back in the same box, more times than not the tucked in flap tab at the other end of the box keeps the car from sliding in smoothly. You have to either jam it in or open the other end of the box and fiddle with the tab. On other manufacturers boxes, the vacuum is so tight that it is real work to pull the cover off.

So for those that want to poke fun at the box announcement. I like the box. A lot of my models remain in boxes and this is a good one.

Brian