Walthers GP20's and GP60's arrived.

[Brakie]

Not helping is the photo of the NS model with the stark white sill stripe blending in with the white background being compared to an all-black proto unit. The photo is deceptive, the model is correct.
---------------------------
Check the SP GP60s..

Sorry,I will go with the prototype since it was correctly done by EMD.

[bbussey]

Bryan,I need not comprehend anything since years of observation of the prototype in photos and first hand I notice such things..Besides it sticks out like a sore thumb on a banjo picker.I haven't spent a life time around trains and not learn a thing or three.

You and other may think I'm wrong but,study pictures of GP60s and you'll see my concern.

I don't just think you are wrong.  It's crystal clear you are wrong based on your own evidence.  And it doesn't take much studying of the pictures you referenced to reach that conclusion.

Other than the white sill stripe being too fat on the model as Lou said, and the missing underbody framework necessitated by needing the N scale model to function on the non-prototypical sharp radii of N scale track, the Walthers model appears to be accurate to the prototype.  And it is spot-on regarding ride height, that much is very clear.

If you are concerned about the airspace between the trucks and underbody, buy some Plastruct I-beam and add the framing yourself.  As long as you don't plan on running the unit on 9¾" radii trackage, you shouldn't have to worry about wheel flanges hitting the framing.

[Brakie]

Ok..

Let's try this approach shall we?

The model.

http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/920-75404

Note the front trucks.

The prototype.

 http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=280470&nseq=314

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=360659&nseq=86

I fail to see a gap like the model has..

If it was the normal gap like you find on most  N Scale locomotives I would have said nothing But,this gap stands out like a sore thumb on a banjo picker..

Looking closely the rear trucks on the model seems to be ok.

Both prototype front truck pictures speak volumes that can not be disputed when compared to the model's front truck in the Walther's photo.

[bbussey]

You say something all the time.  This isn't the first engine where you've complained about the airspace between the trucks and the frame.

What your UP photo shows is an underframe that extends down to the level of the first step.  If you look at the model photo, you will see that the top of the truck gearbox is at the level of the first step AND the electrical contact tabs extend above the level of the first step.  The wheel flanges also extend slightly above the top of the gearbox.

What your UP photo does NOT show is a difference in ride height between the Walthers model and the prototype.  The reason it does not show a difference is because there isn't one.

As stated earlier by numerous people, and repeatedly, it is within your purview to add I-beam below the frame to the level of the first step to hide the gap and match the prototype exactly, but you will impede the motion of the trucks either by hitting the gearbox or the wheel flanges on any trackage that is not straight or level.

And yet again, I will state that I fail to see what part of that you can't comprehend.

Do you also lower all your MTL cars to the proper height and body-mount the couplers so that they look more prototypical when viewed at eye level?  Or is this just a motive power pet peeve?

[kalbert]

Ha ha ha ha....  this is fantastic!  I love how folks nitpick on a stock photo when a product is announced. Sure makes us all a lot smarter, way better than other less informed peoples.

As has been stated, which you seem to have skipped over repeatedly, what you are seeing on the proto that is leading you to believe it is lower than the model (or that the model is higher than the proto) is the frame rail. The model does not have this. You can add one if it's that big of deal. It's not hard, but it may impede the ability for the trucks to swivel all the way in tight corners, which would be the reason they were omitted in the first place.

If you want to nitpick here goes.

For starters, you're going to need to find a proto photo taken from the same angle as the model and with a stark white background, or take a photo of the model at the same angle as the proto with a bunch of proto stuff in the background. Try and put the model in the exact location and time of day as the photo. Travel back in time if you have to.

I won't be buying one because I have been railroading long enough to be informed enough about the prototype to be an expert in railroad knowledge. With these credentials, I  clearly see the man behind the curtain on this model. Look at those brass contact strips and nubs sticking out from the trucks. DCC ready? How about Diesel fuel ready? I would expect, judging from the photo, that the fuel tank will not hold fuel. My assumption is that the cap doesn't even come off. I expect the weight to not be accurate, nor there to be a scale functioning control stand. I bet this thing doesn't even have operating air, springs in the trucks, or accurate roller bearings. The horn probably doesn't even work. Come on Walthers! This is not good enough for me to consider even as a starting point to a detailing project or actual model building.

I'll never understand why Walthers continues to ignore N scale with new offerings. Why can't they just build an accurate looking and operating locomotive, pre assembled in the USA by EMD employees, with actual paint from the same batch as the prototype, and sell it for $65 with a full tank of fuel. If I worked for Walthers thing would be different. That's for sure.

[Brakie]

First I'm not blind and I see what I see..The pictures speaks enough evidence as far as I'm concerned.

Enough said on this matter.

I do think  N Scale can be improved and as a consumer I will continue to voice my thoughts and opinion on a new model.Manufacturers do listen.

Remember its never personal.I have no ax to grind nor am I in the business to protect or trash a competitors model.

Besides I don't think what I say or think will hurt sales one iota.

[sizemore]

First I'm not blind and I see what I see..The pictures speaks enough evidence as far as I'm concerned.

Why didnt you complain about the fuel tank? The apex at the top is way lower on the model than on the prototype...

The S.

[Brakie]

Why didnt you complain about the fuel tank? The apex at the top is way lower on the model than on the prototype...

The S.

I did noticed the fuel tank but,if I start complaining about fuel tanks I would need to complain about 90% of my  N Scale locomotives and 80% of my HO locomotives.

Again the only reason I mention the gap is it sticks out like a sore thumb in the Walthers on line catalog photo.

[tehachapifan]

Well, I love my 1st run LL GP60's and can live with the lack of a frame rail (and incorrect trucks....well, I might fix the trucks). I believe they actually sit lower than most my other locos do. Also, the relief detail and paint quality on the first LL run is just awesome....might be the best so far.

What I do wonder about is what appears to be a more sloped nose on these versus all my other EMD locos from other manufacturers. Not sure if it really is more sloped and, if it is, which is more correct. Certainly not a deal-breaker by any stretch, just a point-of-interest.

Russ

[Brakie]

Russ:Well, I love my 1st run LL GP60's and can live with the lack of a frame rail (and incorrect trucks....
-------------------------
After looking at a far better photo then Walthers posted I  placed a order for the 7138-with nag head.

That engine looks sweet even with the detail discrepancies..

As a observation Walthers needs to use better photos.

[bbussey]

Now THAT'S funny -- it's the model photographers fault!  When viewed from another angle, the model is now perfect as is! 

[DKS]

First I'm not blind and I see what I see..The pictures speaks enough evidence as far as I'm concerned.

Enough said on this matter.

I do think  N Scale can be improved and as a consumer I will continue to voice my thoughts and opinion on a new model.Manufacturers do listen.

Remember its never personal.I have no ax to grind nor am I in the business to protect or trash a competitors model.

Besides I don't think what I say or think will hurt sales one iota.

Larry, you could have been born on a GP60, and it would not change one thing: human perception is not flawless. There are multiple issues at work here, not the least of which is that our perception of a real locomotive is vastly different from that of a model, if only by virtue of one being 1/160th of the other, with all of the associated differences in angle of view, parallax distortion, and a myriad of others.

So far, all anyone has done is show pictures of the model and pictures of various prototypes. One thing no one has done is actually measure the differences. It's really quite a simple process, and it doesn't even require a ruler: superimpose two images, match key object dimensions, and then compare them.

Like this.



Wow. The model ride height is indeed incorrect. However... it's not too high. It's actually too low.

Then why does the model look like it rides too high? For one thing, the trucks aren't proportioned quite right; they're a bit squashed vertically. The wheels appear to be too small, likely to compensate for oversize flanges. And the model sill is at least twice as thick as the proto sill, which gives it too much prominence and likely throws off our ability to judge the distance to the trucks.

But the biggest reason the model looks too tall is that there is no frame under the sill, as several people have pointed out multiple times. The light blasting through that wide open space makes it look much bigger than it is; filling it in with something dark should have the effect of closing up the gap visually. One way to find out is to actually do it. We'll need to rely on one of the other posters, as it's not a model I'll ever buy.

[Brakie]

First thanks for the photo even though its a tad behind.

I seen a better side view then the photo Walthers posted and found the trucks did not sit as high as the Walthers photo showed.

As I mention I odered the 7138.

Matter closed.

And Gary a photo speaks volumes-good or bad and IMHO a photo  can make or break a sale and at no time did I say the model was perfect..I did say it was a nice looking model..

[Ike the BN Freak]

How good of a canidate are these to make a GP50?

I asked this recently on the Atlas forum.

For a phase II unit, its close, you'd have to modify the nose, as I don't believe any of them had the recessed brake wheel.

Also the dynamic brake section would need to be modified, as the GP50s used the more traditional style dynamics vs the angled of the GP60.