|
|
Post by delta767332er on Mar 7, 2022 15:57:39 GMT -8
Wouldn’t a correct deck height and fan housings being too short mean the carbody (from the deck to roof) is too tall? In other words, ST made the fans shorter to keep the overall height of the model correct (as stated above) Or am I misunderstanding something? This thread is getting confusing.  Thanks, Mark I'll let es80ac explain how everything is correct about the model, since he's never heard otherwise. I don't know what I'm talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by fishbelly on Mar 7, 2022 19:23:45 GMT -8
The CNW SD40-2 I measured at the Illinois Railway museum was 62.5" from the railhead to the base of the tread plate and then add 1/2" for the tread plate. So 63" to the top of the tread plate. The underside of the frame measured 46.5" to the top of the rail head.
Keep in mind old springs, amount of fuel, worn wheels and all that stuff that can change the height a little. I would guess that 62.5" (0.718") to 63.5" (0.729") would be a decent target.
Just a bit of information for those interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by es80ac on Mar 7, 2022 20:06:24 GMT -8
If you would just have stated your position on your issues with the SD40-2 without the sarcasm it would just have well been received, but I guess that made you sound more authoritative or smarter on the issue then that's the way it is. Or some folks just have an axe to grinde with a manufacturer that they can't accept any comments that deem to shine a positive light. In any case, the SD40-2 deck issue amongst the manufacturers was discussed at length on this board and other places. One of the things Scaletrains set out to do with the SD40-2 is to address the perceived difficiencies with the Intermoutain, Athearn and other versions on the market. With that being said, you are the first one I have heard stating ST SD40-2's deck is too high, and with ample lack of concrete numbers to back up your assertion at that. Also what I originally stated was ST seem to have made the first MAJOR dimension error with the SDL39. Your petpeev about the window dimension and relationshi with the short hood (again without numbers or photos to back them up) do not even fall in that category. "If you're happy with your SD40-2, you can keep your SD40-2." My purpose in posting was to dispel the notion that the high-water SDL39 and its sloppy engineering design is some new atrocity that hasn't happened before, in response to a specific statement that the SD40-2 ride height is correct in contrast, with "ample lack of concrete numbers to back up your assertion at that." I would consider an error that makes a student of the subject immediately notice that the model doesn't look like the prototype a "major" error, regardless of the quantitative analysis of the error. Of course, one's modeling standards and/or their knowledge of the prototype would make that judgement subjective, certainly. Actual measured errors between prototypes and the model are not subjective, however. One's ignorance of those errors doesn't make them.....less concrete. If your observation of the SXT SD40-2's ride height, fan height, short hood height, and cab window dimensions warrant me needing to provide you data that they are not accurate to believe that they're not, than I'd say you don't need to worry about it. I do concede overall that a poorly-assembled first-run SD40-2 looks slightly less silly out of the box than a first-run SDL39. In the context of this thread that is not filled with people complaining about the SD40-2, there's nothing to be gained by me spending the time to share countless hours of research, including field measurements, to point out the flaws in the first round of SD40-2 tooling. I consider myself a friend to Paul Ellis, so I am always trying to tread lightly on the subject publicly, while also holding ScaleTrains accountable as a discerning consumer at the same time. Enjoy your models, as it appears you're doing. Ok, now you have done it. You made me go down into the basement at night and took pictures. 3612 is Scaletrains, the other UP is Intermountain, the CP is Bowser. i.imgur.com/iAjc7Wp.jpgi.imgur.com/toMGSRi.jpgi.imgur.com/b1c87uU.jpgi.imgur.com/utLo9xG.jpgi.imgur.com/E6GHzdj.jpgi.imgur.com/ixLBYXV.jpgST and Intermountain is ever slightly higher in the deck than Bowers, but in my opinion within the tolerance of the prototype (with the fuel, ballast and sand) difference. If one look at the space between truck and frame, ST and Bowser seem to have more day light than Intermountain. So all in all, ST's SD40-2 is certainly not completely off of the mark in terms of the height or major dimensional accuracy, given if one have any confidence in Bowser and Intermountain's dimensional accuracies. SDL39 is certainly a different story. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Mar 7, 2022 20:24:16 GMT -8
As mentioned earlier, typical deck height for EMD diesels is 64.5". I just measured a ScaleTrains SD40-2, and the deck height is 67". Two and a half inches too high.
Coupler height is 1" too high.
The deck is thus a bit less than 1/32" too high. I view that as significant. A long ways from a disaster, also.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by 12bridge on Mar 7, 2022 20:50:03 GMT -8
1"? There is a 3" swing they are allowed to have in the field..
|
|
|
|
Post by delta767332er on Mar 7, 2022 21:00:24 GMT -8
Cue the comments of how we’re discussing .03”/ 1.32nds and how ridiculous that is. To which my response would be to go jack up every piece of rolling stock they have with .03” washers and see how “small” that measurement is. Or sand .03” off a Cannon fan. Or……
I don’t have my field and model measurements handy currently, but can concur that my research (with the assistance of some other members of this forum) also found the SXT deck height to be 2-3” higher than several field measurements. With the fan height short a like amount, but closer to 2” IIRC.
To be clear, I never said it was a disaster. I merely said that someone saying it was correct was incorrect and that its effect on the appearance of the model is relevant. I do think it matters, and when it and the fans are replaced, it makes an impactful difference in the appearance of the model. As does completely disassembling and rebuilding it while fixing/repairing/improving the frustrating design and engineering of the model in the process.
As an additional note, I could not care less how the SXT bolster design/deck height compares to an IM or Bowser model. I didn’t realize that was the pertinent “frame” of reference being discussed. I assumed it was the real SD40-2s I’ve spent my hobby life photographing, admiring, and fanning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2022 21:46:55 GMT -8
Well, short of me having actual blueprints which I do not (and not drawings from some magazine that may have errors) I'm not going to wade into the height off the rail issue(s).
I've been reading this thread and the comments regarding dcc. I can say that after having purchased many full blown dcc/sound models in the past year, I am just underwhelmed, and specifically with some of the Loksound decision making. I'm also underwhelmed at the idiocy of some manufacturers like BLI using a non-turbo sound file on an engine that should have the turbo. I also now understand that there were multiple versions of some EMD engines that can sound very different. I have been buying the full dcc units more for the lighting and beacon functions than for the sound.
Actually, based upon some recent less than ideal experiences, and from reading some of the comments here, I may ditch the dcc/sound units and go back to mostly plain dc units. A couple months ago I was down to just one plain dc unit of my son's, which doesn't get run much at all. Lately I've bought several plain dc units again.
Regarding speed matching locos in dcc, I understand how to do it, but changing CV 2,3,4,5,6 does not get all engines to play nicely together. I would personally rather go old school and match multiple units of the same product run in plain dc, when I need mu'd sets. For one it's a heck of a lot cheaper. Also, more than one manufacturer employing Loksound 5.0 uses a very strange speed curve where Vmid is 88 and Vmax is 255. Those engines are extremely difficult to try to match to anything that has a Tsunami decoder in it. I have found that to be very frustrating and gave up. I did not have the patience to program individual speed steps to fix it. It's just easier for me to find engines that will play nicely together on my layout in plain dc.
Not saying others should switch back to plain dc, only that I might. YMMV.
For me cost of motive power is an issue and will be a bigger issue in the future even though I don't keep a big roster but instead get rid of anything I'm not 110% satisfied with.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by lvrr325 on Mar 8, 2022 2:42:47 GMT -8
When you buy an ESU decoder, it comes as a blank slate - there is nothing on it. If you put it in a locomotive, nothing happens. How that fits into any of the exsisting DCC standards, I'll never know. It probably doesn't, but since nobody has given them any pushback on it, they dont care..... I digress. So you need to download the program files onto it, in order to get it to work. In this case there would be a specific program file just for these ScaleTrains models. It might be available from ESU like many others are, but there is a chance that only Scale Trains has it in which case you would need to go to them. While this is true of some ESU decoders, namely the LokSound, it is not true of the LokPilot decoders. Most LokPilot decoders work straight out of the box in my experience. Now to match a manufacturers installed decoder you might need their proprietary program. I had this with the Bowser C430's. On a Lokpilot you can load the same program as is on the LokSound minus the sound file, technically this should completely match the sound loco in all programming. However in the real world that does not happen. As to programming the LokPilot with JMRI that should be possible. You can also program a LokSound on JMRI just not the sound file. The seller I linked earlier will program any decoder you buy sometimes at no or minimal cost. I installed LokPilot decoders in a Bowser and several Atlas diesels and they worked just fine, they seemed to play well together too. But they discontinued that particular decoder when I last went to get a few more, I like to buy 3-5 at once and then sit down and do that many engines in a row. I actually have one of those programmers but I've never set it up. Long story short it was a freebie left behind that my friend got doing a cleanout. I'd probably have to see if my old laptop would run it, but that's an old piece of junk with an obsolete windows on it - I got it just to take with me to shows because if it got lost, stolen or broken I'm not out much. If I set it up to run the ESU I'm liable to forget to pack it and bring it. |
|
cp9002
Junior Member
Posts: 85 
|
Post by cp9002 on Mar 8, 2022 3:58:19 GMT -8
Matt from ESU responded to a thread on the Milwaukee Road Modelers Facebook page. Here is what he said, "Hi Everyone, Just wanted to send out a quick update. I had a long discussion with our engineers this morning. While there is in fact a typo in the manual the dip switches are not the problem with the headlights. I did confirm that ALL Scaletrains motherboards are IN FACT fully within the NMRA standards. The problem is that other decoder manufacturers are not utilizing all of the features offered by the NMRA standards for the 21MTC decoders. www.nmra.org/.../s-9.1.1.3_21mtc_decoder... Here is a link to the standards as of Dec 2020 that describe the Physical outputs and the Logical outputs that EVERY DCC manufacturer can use. So if any manufacturer states that ESU and ScaleTrains are using a non NMRA compliant motherboard that is strictly speaking, dishonest. The problem is simply that most non ESU brand decoder are not making a decoder with enough outputs, not that they can't, or that we use some special code in our logic outputs. This is a standard protocol that anyone can use. Please don't be fooled by misinformation. As mentioned our engineers are working closely with Scaletrains and the factory to find a solution to the headlight problem with non ESU decoders. As soon as we find what is causing the issue, and have a suggestion of what to do to resolve it, I will post again." |
|
|
|
Post by grabirons on Mar 8, 2022 4:16:53 GMT -8
This makes me even happier that I run DC only. Not only do I save money, I have zero stress from it during and based on this thread, off duty from operation too. The aspect of sound and lighting effects never seemed worth the extra cost as I simply do not care.
|
|
|
|
Post by markfj on Mar 8, 2022 5:28:39 GMT -8
Well, short of me having actual blueprints which I do not (and not drawings from some magazine that may have errors) I'm not going to wade into the height off the rail issue(s). Here is a magazine drawing for the SD40-2 that appeared years ago in Trains. I had a magazine drawing of the SDL-39, but can’t find it. This drawing looks good to me, but I can’t speak to its dimensional accuracy.  Thanks, Mark |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Mar 8, 2022 6:16:57 GMT -8
That drawing is reproduced in the Kalmbach diesel book, and that's the dimension I used. I also checked that height against some of the other EMD drawings in the book, and it matched.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Mar 8, 2022 6:28:09 GMT -8
1"? There is a 3" swing they are allowed to have in the field.. Is that 3" swing a total of 3" up-and-down, or 3" up AND 3" down? If it's the latter, that's a half-coupler engagement, which sounds pretty unlikely as being acceptable. But maybe........ If it's the former, then it's allowed to be 1 1/2" up. And the ScaleTrains is 1" up. That's still pushing that limit--it's only a half inch under allowed movement. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by 690 on Mar 8, 2022 8:36:17 GMT -8
Seen half-coupler engagement plenty of times on the real things, especially between cars with long drawbars missing shims, and cars with short drawbars, such as tank cars. Had it once between a pair of engines, and no one cared about that either.
Granted on scale models it doesn't translate as well, especially with the goal of good running, but on the actual prototype it happens all the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by es80ac on Mar 8, 2022 8:55:20 GMT -8
The coupler height is not that great of concern, one can always use Kadee bottom or top shelf couplers to compensate. The deck height is the main concern. But as I hear the prototype wheel diameter can have several inches of difference due to usage and wear. So 2-3 inches in deck height difference can be expected even between the same models on the real thing. For ST sd40-2, I think that is still within the reasonable tolerance, albeit if the deck is 2 inches lower it would been better. The SDL-39 feels like the discrepancy is much more.
|
|
|
|
Post by sd80mac on Mar 8, 2022 8:58:01 GMT -8
1"? There is a 3" swing they are allowed to have in the field.. Is that 3" swing a total of 3" up-and-down, or 3" up AND 3" down? If it's the latter, that's a half-coupler engagement, which sounds pretty unlikely as being acceptable. But maybe........ If it's the former, then it's allowed to be 1 1/2" up. And the ScaleTrains is 1" up. That's still pushing that limit--it's only a half inch under allowed movement. Ed Real life tolerances are much greater than what we seem to think is necessary in HO scale. Look at any given freight train and you will see that coupler heights are often all over the place, which may shock some of the purists with their Kadee height gauges! |
|
|
|
Post by 12bridge on Mar 8, 2022 9:31:26 GMT -8
Total swing of 3". And that's just what can fly, I have seen them much, much worse. As the above poster said, look at any train, and you will see radical height changes. May not sound like a lot, but when you have a coupler on the bottom end of the spectrum- it shows! Especially on the longer cars, which makes coupling them up even more of a challenge at times because the pin wont drop.
Too many modelers don't consider scale tolerances. Just because it is "X" measurement on the plans, does not mean it is the same in the field. There are so many variables at play: Wear, wheel size, fuel/oil/sand load, draft wear, shim wear, track condition - the list goes on. I have measured pilot height on the same engine in 3 different spots and got 3 wildly different numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on Mar 8, 2022 9:47:40 GMT -8
sd80mac said, "Real life tolerances are much greater than what we seem to think is necessary in HO scale."
I'd say in most any measurable item from lettering sizes, colors and placement to accessories of all varieties. Professional shop folks aren't rivit counters, color card matchers or very particular about appearances.
|
|
|
|
Post by edgecrusher on Mar 8, 2022 10:46:51 GMT -8
The SDL-39 is far too new of a loco for my modeling needs but I can't ever resist a good blue print. So that said here's some excerpts from the EMD frame weldment print for the SDL-39. Keep in mind that the 64-1/2" measurement does not include the 1/2" of tread-plate on top the sill channel. And also that these measurements would apply to an ideal manufacturing environment. As others pointed out, the locos "service weight" would compress that somewhat. Enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmuley on Mar 8, 2022 11:57:25 GMT -8
I contacted ScaleTrains regarding the lack of lighting when using my own (Digitrax DH166MT) decoder, and this was their response:
Thank you for your purchase of our SDL39 model. I am sorry that you are having trouble. We are looking into reports of lighting irregularities and other reports and will be sharing anything we find soon. Please watch our social media feeds, YouTube channel and e-newsletter for updates as they are made available.
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Mar 8, 2022 12:00:50 GMT -8
I contacted ScaleTrains regarding the lack of lighting when using my own (Digitrax DH166MT) decoder, and this was their response: Thank you for your purchase of our SDL39 model. I am sorry that you are having trouble. We are looking into reports of lighting irregularities and other reports and will be sharing anything we find soon. Please watch our social media feeds, YouTube channel and e-newsletter for updates as they are made available.I figure with the various issues after the arrival of the SDL39's that ScaleTrains would be responding and wondering when. |
|
|
|
Post by 12bridge on Mar 8, 2022 15:07:36 GMT -8
Updates from Matt Herman of ESU for those not on facebook (Milwaukee Road Modelers page): "Hi Guys, Matt from ESU.... I first wanted to mention that I've been personally following both of your layout progress for some time. I'm a fan! You are both fantastic modelers and I definitely want to help solve this problem. Contrary to popular belief this loco was NOT designed so that other decoders will not work. Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation out there. While of course there is going to be limitations to other brands because of capabilities of those brands, you are correct that the headlights should work. I'm almost 100% positive this a just a mistake in the manual on the proper orientation of the dip switches. I will check for the proper settings first thing in the morning and get back to everyone. ESU does not make the motherboard in Scaletrains locomotives. We helped design the circuit based on our customers needs. As long as the factory followed our design the headlights should work. I'm sorry for the trouble that you are having but this isn't by design. It's an error at most and I'm sure it can be fixed very easily. I encourage anyone with this problem to reach out to me personally and I will help. Matthew.herman@esu.eu I will also post a solution here as soon as I get to the office this morning and try our models, as they were delivered over the weekend! As modelers ourselves we are as excited about finally having SDL39s as you all are!" "Hi Everyone, Just wanted to send out a quick update. I had a long discussion with our engineers this morning. While there is in fact a typo in the manual the dip switches are not the problem with the headlights. I did confirm that ALL Scaletrains motherboards are IN FACT fully within the NMRA standards. The problem is that other decoder manufacturers are not utilizing all of the features offered by the NMRA standards for the 21MTC decoders. www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/s-9.1.1.3_21mtc_decoder_interface_2.pdfHere is a link to the standards as of Dec 2020 that describe the Physical outputs and the Logical outputs that EVERY DCC manufacturer can use. So if any manufacturer states that ESU and ScaleTrains are using a non NMRA compliant motherboard that is strictly speaking, dishonest. The problem is simply that most non ESU brand decoder are not making a decoder with enough outputs, not that they can't, or that we use some special code in our logic outputs. This is a standard protocol that anyone can use. Please don't be fooled by misinformation. As mentioned our engineers are working closely with Scaletrains and the factory to find a solution to the headlight problem with non ESU decoders. As soon as we find what is causing the issue, and have a suggestion of what to do to resolve it, I will post again." |
|
|
|
Post by es80ac on Mar 8, 2022 17:40:38 GMT -8
My Fepasa unit arrived today, no walkway sagging thank goodness. Does seem riding pretty tall though
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Mar 8, 2022 19:27:32 GMT -8
Friend of mine received one with the cab logo on upside down on one side.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Mar 8, 2022 20:30:05 GMT -8
Friend of mine received one with the cab logo on upside down on one side. Dave They do that on a stamp, and it's worth millions! Ed |
|
|
|
Post by severn on Mar 8, 2022 20:54:59 GMT -8
I mean like wow. Now I want one too.
|
|
|
|
Post by lars on Mar 9, 2022 3:23:51 GMT -8
Friend of mine received one with the cab logo on upside down on one side. Dave They do that on a stamp, and it's worth millions! Ed Considering that most items have a jig they’re held by when printing, that seems unlikely. Someone must have had the paint plate reversed. |
|
|
|
Post by lvrr325 on Mar 9, 2022 6:04:27 GMT -8
The jig is up! No, the jig is down!
|
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on Mar 9, 2022 6:08:11 GMT -8
They do that on a stamp, and it's worth millions! Ed Considering that most items have a jig they’re held by when printing, that seems unlikely. Someone must have had the paint plate reversed. That's quite possible. One of the magazines did an article.... It was about die-cast collectables, not trains. The lettering and logos are as unfamiliar to the girls building the models as Mandarin Chinese is to you and I, so without careful supervision it is easy to get them mixed up or wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by ssw on Mar 9, 2022 6:35:34 GMT -8
The heralds are applied separately. I had a few "Crooked shingles" that weren't crooked enough, too
|
|
