|
Post by Paul Cutler III on Dec 8, 2020 10:25:57 GMT -8
Ed, I'm 100% certain that Irv Athearn was too cheap to make an all new mask for the NH F7A. He was kind of legendary about that. Why would he continue to make the same numbers on the same locos/cars for decades on end if he wasn't so cheap? As for the idea that they couldn't do it right, just look at that Revell model because they did (well, except for that extra serif on the white NH logo and the black numberboards). It would have nice if old Irv had even put a 2000-series number on his F7A; it would have at least matched the real FL9 numbers. Instead he numbered them 0272. Why? Who knows. The "John Quincy Adams" that he based the first scheme on was a 3100-series number, and the 0200's were all electric switchers. So weird... And this is one of the reasons why I get ticked when people want to go back to the "old days" of model railroading; you know, before limited runs, pre-orders, and the like.
|
|
|
Post by stevewagner on Dec 8, 2020 11:11:19 GMT -8
Irv Athearn did listen to some input from customers. The first Blue Box kit for a 40' steel boxcar (AAR 1937 design, of which the D&H had none at all -- but I didn't know that as an undergraduate at Oberlin 1964-1968) was painted a shiny dark brown. I bought one but wrote him that even the light brown his firm used for ATSF boxcars and many others would be closer to what the D&H actually used. The next one Athearn produced was that color. Then AHM re-released its 40' PS-1 painted for the D&H (which it had introduced with great hoopla ca. 1960 or 1961, painted black, which the D&H never used on a boxcar with a condensed Roman roadname on one line that the D&H never used, which turned out to be squeezed, along with the car number and data, from a real 50' car, in a rather shiny oxide red; I wrote him that that looked good. He matched it on the next run. I still have at least one of those incorrect models for sentimental reasons.
After Irv died one of the first things the new owners did was to improve the lettering on many models very substantially.
Irv was originally from New England. I strongly suspect that's one reason why his firm produced RDC's, first in metal, then with styrene bodies. It may also account for Athearn's Pacific matching a class of Boston & Maine locos and not a type used by more railroads. But he relocated to Southern California, which likely accounts for the firm's longime emphasis on Santa Fe, Southern Pacific and Union Pacific models.
|
|
|
Post by csxt8400 on Dec 8, 2020 13:31:33 GMT -8
csxt8400, Where have you been, man? The NH's popularity is interesting since it's been gone for 50+ years. Sure, the McGinnis flashy paint schemes help (there's a reason why a NH orange boxcar was on the Athearn BB box lid for so many decades after all), but I think there's something in our favor: the NH connected the largest city in the world with three state capitals through some of the most densely populated & wealthy areas of the country where most homes have basements. But the most critical thing may be that nothing came along to replace the NH. It's not like we were bought out by the Union Pacific which then became even more popular; the NH was merged into the PC which was worse than the NH. Then the mainline got split up between the states of N.Y., Conn. and Mass. with Amtrak getting the rest. The remainder went to CR and then CSX, and they barely hold a candle to what the NH used to do with freight (no offense). It's hard to model the modern day when there's nothing left to model. Shortlines and regionals took over what freight was left on the ex-NH lines that CR/CSX didn't keep, and what was a unified system from 1893 to 1968 fractured into Metro-North, ConnDOT, MBTA, Amtrak, Providence & Worcester, Naugatuck RR, Housatonic RR, Bay Colony RR, Connecticut Southern, Mass Coastal RR, Cape Cod Central, and several little roads. If you lived in Southern New England and wanted to model trains in your local area, would you pick the modern day electrified NEC with Acelas, ACS-64's and a couple local freights lurking about? Or would you rather model the 1950's when every passenger train was different and mainline freight trains were common? Ed & Jon, Muahahahahaha! Our plan for (model) world domination is nearly complete! Come to the NH dark side; we have Jets! Well, soon we'll have Jets... Oh, I totally understand the desire to model it. I am a history buff and model just a few years before my major exposure started for railroading in 1:1, though I have books and often peruse 1950's-1970's era stuff when I'm not "focused". My peak interest is in a time that I didn't get to really see myself with any regularity, nor in the same state even. I am more so pleasantly surprised that there are so many folks who still feel the way you do, and for the reasons you stated. Ultra modern stuff does nothing at all for me, so yes, I'd never be interested in modeling Acela's or any of your current options in that locale. I am ironically a big PC fan and am a POST subscriber, if that makes you laugh a little. Carry on NH!
|
|