Photos of Walthers new CRQ GP38-2 up

[u18b]

I went to RR Picture archives and looked at every Conrail GP38-2 there.

Not many made it into Quality paint.

Most I have shown here.

So I feel like I'm missing something key.
I don't see how Walthers blew it.

[peteski]

And this comparison.

If the model was supposed to be a replica of 8226 then I can even play "find the differences".  The logo is placed probably couple of scale feet to far forward and the 3/4 circle on the model' loco seems to extend beyond 270 degrees of arc.  The entire logo seems to be a bit small too.  Then there are coupe of warning labels missing.

Not very large differences but to SCF (Slobbering Conrail Fan) it is a cause for concern and the requisite bitching.

After all, I talked you into redoing the decals on your Milwaukee Electic because the decal you had didn't quite fit the model.   

[daniel_leavitt2000]

There were multiple sizes of the Q logo. I would need a straight side shot of the proto to determine if the model is off.

Eds issued are mostly with the can opener - the blue spot inside is too big, and the white 3/4 circle it a little off.

Honestly I really don't see the big deal, but I also liked the Bachmann C40-8W so obviously I'm an infidel.

[lock4244]

I like the Wally GP38-2... it's a really nice running unit. I agree with the complaints about the finishing work/logo issues as it's like, com'on, shots of the proto are right there on the interweb. In 1987 maybe an excuse for not having the resources to get proper reference shots of a particular unit, but not in 2015.

That said, it's a whole lot better than the Atlas C630 wearing Canadian schemes and sporting tri-mount trucks... have Wally throw some AAR type B trucks on that and then complain, ye CR Queens... yar.

[tom mann]

The can opener looks very much "off" to me.  I would guess it was more work to make it wrong since you would have to draw it from scratch.

[jimmo]

Those fans still look like dog butthole though.

Now there's a visual I can't unsee.

[peteski]

I would need a straight side shot of the proto to determine if the model is off.

No need for straight shot. Use the door outlines as a reference and the logo's size and position discrepancies are readily apparent, even in the 3/4 view.  But as I said, the 1:1 photo and model are different locos, so all the bets are off.

[Dave V]

Meh, if I were modeling the Q-era I wouldn't kick that out of bed...

[daniel_leavitt2000]

No need for straight shot. Use the door outlines as a reference and the logo's size and position discrepancies are readily apparent, even in the 3/4 view.  But as I said, the 1:1 photo and model are different locos, so all the bets are off.

My point was that each of the shots had different stencils for the Q logo and move send to match. Even the Q logos at the Juniata shots differed depending on the model - full sized logo reprints are actually shorter and have different geometry than the Mac 80s built in Juniata.

I always wanted to determine what shops used only the leading Q, trailing Q out a combination. There never seemed a rhyme or reason.

[GonzoCRFan]

I went to RR Picture archives and looked at every Conrail GP38-2 there.

Not many made it into Quality paint.

Most I have shown here.

So I feel like I'm missing something key.
I don't see how Walthers blew it.

Pete and Dan beat me to it. The issue isn't with logo placement, because you are correct, there were a ton of variations on the prototype. The issue is that the logo itself is inherently wrong, and it will still be wrong no matter where they decide to pad-print it on the model.