Andy Reichert Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Any one spot what's fundamentally wrong with this picture, prototypically speaking? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold mabel Posted August 4, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 4, 2014 Nope.....but I havent seen a real one! Give us a clue........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Reminds me of John Fogerty's "Centerfield" - "Put me in coach, I'm ready to play.........." (CCWR fan!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqY7e4bP9PQ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Bogie seems to be lacking brakes and suspension, and the bolster seems to be fixed to the body instead of the bogie. Saves having to have a working yaw damper. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted August 4, 2014 Author Share Posted August 4, 2014 OK. Here's the real thing. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Gilbert Posted August 4, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 4, 2014 Well....it is ready to run.......I'll get me coat... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 .....there ain't no brakes! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyDuty Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Andy, is the brake rigging in the box? The photos I've seen of the new Walthers Amtubes shows rigging. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted August 4, 2014 Author Share Posted August 4, 2014 I only noticed the different window position after I posted and there were variations, so I'm not so bothered there. The biggy for me is the major different height of the body over the wheels. Just look at where the axles are relative to the floor and end step! I don't have proto drawings for these, but since the overall body shape looks right, I'm assuming the overall height has been screwed up, by just jacking up the body over the wheels higher for some sort of model clearance problem. That makes it more of a cartoon image of a model railroad car. The implications could be far reaching, as the coupler height used here appears to be the usual standard for models. So does that mean all the box cars we have are also too high over their trucks? Was model floor height set to allow for pizza cutter wheel flanges way back, and hence so was coupler height, and we are now stuck with it? Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium skipepsi Posted August 4, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 4, 2014 If you stood the coach on some track what happens? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted August 4, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 4, 2014 OK. Here's the real thing. Andy Crikey - when was that built? It's got old fashioned brake blocks instead of discs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted August 4, 2014 Author Share Posted August 4, 2014 Standing on track makes no difference. Some Proto info on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amfleet and http://www.trainweb.com/accommod/amfleet.html They agree on the height 12ft - 8 in., but there are differing values for width. 10 6 and up. It look as though the overall model height on track may be correct, which makes one wonder what they did to the body? Unfortunately, it seems they also messed with the BART cars that use the same (model) trucks. More on that later. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 The little people inside get back into their seats. I'll get me coat.. I shall be on one of these in a month's time, New York to Toronto. Have to travel light as there's no baggage car and severe restrictions on how big your bag is (effectively preventing suitcases). So I have to get a month's clothing into a holdall - not very clever for tourists and who does that journey as a day trip? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
highpeak Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 On this page is a decent picture of the truck, scroll down a bit: http://railworksamerica.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=2045&start=30 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium skipepsi Posted August 4, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 4, 2014 On this page is a decent picture of the truck, scroll down a bit: http://railworksamerica.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=2045&start=30 Showing inboard ventilated discs so are the blocks a parking brake? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted August 4, 2014 Author Share Posted August 4, 2014 Here's where it gets worse: The above is a part assembled BART (SF subway) car, that uses the same model trucks. This body again appears to be proportionally OK, but is sitting on it's trucks approx 0.2" higher at the roof than the scaled down prototype. Anyone notice the other major change they did to this one? Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I shall be on one of these in a month's time, New York to Toronto. Have to travel light as there's no baggage car and severe restrictions on how big your bag is (effectively preventing suitcases). So I have to get a month's clothing into a holdall - not very clever for tourists and who does that journey as a day trip? Nobody does it as a day trip since it takes 14hrs (and you can drive it in 10!). I've occasionally considered taking that to get to points south of NYC, but the timing and the connections don't work sensibly I.e. you can't get south of Philly in the same day since it misses connecting with the last Washington Corridor train - a few years ago the schedule said you could, but they are more realistic about its arrival time in NYC now. If you are lucky(?) you'll get a P32 all the way, but normally the motive power is switched to be a P42 once out of NYC. Normal consist is 5 Am-Cans, 4 coaches and a club/café. You really don't want to be lugging any heavy/large bags through the mess that is Toronto Union Station in its current state (long term reconstruction). Adrian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Any one spot what's fundamentally wrong with this picture, prototypically speaking? Gangway hanging off, no running number, missing handrail, funny looking bar hanging off the coupler? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted August 5, 2014 Author Share Posted August 5, 2014 Gangway hanging off, no running number, missing handrail, funny looking bar hanging off the coupler? Since we're going for the details and missing the big picture. . . . . . . . . . That's not a coupler, that's an RTR substitute for a coupler. . . . . Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 I missed an Acela coming back from Boston and instead came on the Amtrak version of this and actually found it very comfortable. As Mick says I’m sure they have inboard disc brakes........ That model sucks. Not really but yer pays yer money etc. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted August 5, 2014 Author Share Posted August 5, 2014 I missed an Acela coming back from Boston and instead came on the Amtrak version of this and actually found it very comfortable. As Mick says I’m sure they have inboard disc brakes........ That model sucks. Not really but yer pays yer money etc. Best, Pete. Just needs work. . . and its earlier competition was Bachmann. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Just needs work. . . and its earlier competition was Bachmann. Andy Oh, right. Design Senile then. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Since we're going for the details and missing the big picture. . . To my eye, the uppermost distracting thing in the model photo is that you can see daylight behind the poorly fitted gangway, the bogies are indeed poor, but toned down would not stand out half so much (prototype running gear is rarely finished in shiny silver, wheel treads excepted!) I'm not totally convinced the gap between wheels and body is quite as bad as you say, as you've shot the model photo looking up from underneath (you can see the car floor) whilst the prototype one looks down (eyeline is above the bogie) - that's always going to make the gap look a different size. But anyhow, what I suspect most folk will want to know is - given you are comparing state of the art 1980s Walthers tooling, long famed for it's precision and accuracy <\sarcasm> - is the recent brand new retooled version any better? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold roundhouse Posted August 5, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 5, 2014 I believe the new tooling is much better but not managed to get my hands on any of the phase III liveried ones. The Metroliner sets on display in Gaugemaster look much better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted August 5, 2014 Author Share Posted August 5, 2014 To my eye, the uppermost distracting thing in the model photo is that you can see daylight behind the poorly fitted gangway, the bogies are indeed poor, but toned down would not stand out half so much (prototype running gear is rarely finished in shiny silver, wheel treads excepted!) I'm not totally convinced the gap between wheels and body is quite as bad as you say, as you've shot the model photo looking up from underneath (you can see the car floor) whilst the prototype one looks down (eyeline is above the bogie) - that's always going to make the gap look a different size. But anyhow, what I suspect most folk will want to know is - given you are comparing state of the art 1980s Walthers tooling, long famed for it's precision and accuracy <\sarcasm> - is the recent brand new retooled version any better? This was from a 2000+ batch. At that time they had retooled and introduced the Amfteet Mk 2's as well. They added the diaphragms/gangways as a separate black plastic moulding to both types. Those are mounted "sprung" into the end so that the cars can run with joined gangways. Unfortunately that photo was taken with it in a "popped" out position. I screwed down the trucks tightly to make sure they were not tilted out of their running place, so the gap is definitely as bad as it looks. I have a 70's Bachmann Metro liner, which I just compared and it seems to have almost the same overall height and extra body - wheel height gap. But, because it's a "liner" it has masses of deep under body equipment boxes . Now I realize those would probably foul the track on the vertical curves of the common train set and many layout "inclines", if the wheels were in the right place. And ditto for the same depth, although far fewer boxes, on the Amfleets. When the cars are 85 ft long, that middle depth matters a lot more. So at least I've found a possible "motive", rather than wondering if it was a too obviously silly mistake. And I would think in that case, all HO and N scale versions of all the long, deep, Amtrak passenger cars may well share the same motive/issue. I wouldn't spend that ridiculous amount of cash on the new plastic Metroliner, so I haven't got one to check, but I'm thinking that is not likely to be any different, especially if it has to match the current Amfleets. I may still have some pictures from the Model Railroad News launch article to check later. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.