mgwsy
Road Foreman
Posts: 86
|
Post by mgwsy on Jul 15, 2013 12:56:42 GMT -5
I am assuming that the locos use the same tanks that the regular F40PH uses but instead of 2 they just have 3 of them. Best thing to do would be to find a side shot and measure the parts on the pic.
|
|
|
|
Post by cudak888 on Jul 15, 2013 18:44:03 GMT -5
I am assuming that the locos use the same tanks that the regular F40PH uses but instead of 2 they just have 3 of them. Best thing to do would be to find a side shot and measure the parts on the pic. Same tanks as a standard F40PH - in fact, Tri-Rail's ex-AMTK (56' 2") units now carry three air tanks following their CAT rebuilds. The Walthers tanks are too small to use as a guide, but the Kato tanks look about right. Have to order the Kato tank regardless for the battery box, so I might as well order a pair of those and see what I can do with them. I can measure it off the real thing too, that's not a problem. -Kurt |
|
mgwsy
Road Foreman
Posts: 86
|
Post by mgwsy on Jul 15, 2013 21:00:03 GMT -5
Measuring off the real thing will be the best bet to get an accurate size. I am following this build closely as I want to build a couple of these units for TriRail too. I wish someone made good decals for the older scheme as all I can find is the newer scheme.
|
|
|
|
Post by cudak888 on Jul 15, 2013 22:14:16 GMT -5
Measuring off the real thing will be the best bet to get an accurate size. I am following this build closely as I want to build a couple of these units for TriRail too. I wish someone made good decals for the older scheme as all I can find is the newer scheme. I've printed a set before, though I'm not quite sure I did them correctly. I may have printed 72dpi artwork (instead of 300dpi) without setting the quality of paper before printing, both of which would have had notably adverse effects to the overall realism. At any rate, that was ages ago. 300dpi artwork printed as photo quality should do the job. A couple of them? Heck, I'd like to have 6 - one of each in the three schemes - but I'm too lazy to build 5 more, let alone 2. Almost tempting to cast a few to copy in resin, but not worth the effort or the learning curve of doing so. Not keen on working with a shell that won't accept anything other than CA as an adhesive either. Come to think of it, I would use resin I wished to push out a few Athearn Bombardier Bi-levels with the earlier 5-window configuration. -Kurt |
|
|
|
Post by cudak888 on Jul 16, 2013 23:44:24 GMT -5
Took care of the chassis-to-body mounting today. Not much meat to work with, but it suffices:   I don't know if the Plastruct wasn't as receptive to Bondene as the Evergreen styrene, but it took a bit to get the mounting tabs secure. I resorted to slathering 5-minute epoxy over them to make sure I wouldn't have future issues. Photo shows them prior to the epoxy. The curved sections on top were added to prevent the rectangular sections from breaking upwards from stress:  The final result. Had to sacrifice the framerail detail for it, but I can always build it with styrene a bit farther inboard. Not sure what I'm going to do about the front coupler pocket. What's the consensus on mounting? FRONT:  REAR:  I'm not going to stick with the Kadee #5, but it suffices for testing.  All mounting shown. I took off the guides on the sides of the shell after adding the end mounts.  -Kurt |
|
|
|
Post by 57603oh on Jul 16, 2013 23:50:53 GMT -5
This is looking to be a really good build, I'm enjoying watching this!
|
|
|
|
Post by tamaman on Jul 17, 2013 9:57:49 GMT -5
Wow, nice work.
|
|
|
|
Post by cudak888 on Jul 17, 2013 19:00:20 GMT -5
The Athearn (#90722, from the Genesis GP15) 2600 gallon fuel tank arrived today. The four-piece design (three in this case - front end of the tank removed) is not only a perfect fit against the Atlas frame, it is also snug. Had to drill out holes for the motor mount access:   Since the rear truck sits a bit farther forward than the prototype, the tank is a tighter fit than I'd care for. Nevertheless, I should be able to squeeze the Kato battery boxes into place. The boxes have to be cut down in length to match the Tri-Rail F40PH-2C prototypes to begin with, so it's a moot issue. I love the way the tank hangs off the chassis - very low over the railhead, just like the prototype. No modifications necessary.  -Kurt |
|
|
|
Post by stevef45 on Jul 17, 2013 19:54:00 GMT -5
Looking real good!!! I wish I had a 4 axle frame to use on my NJT GP40PH-2B build like you had on yours. I have to use a SD40 frame and then get it milled to have 4 axle trucks work with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by cudak888 on Jul 17, 2013 19:56:43 GMT -5
Looking real good!!! I wish I had a 4 axle frame to use on my NJT GP40PH-2B build like you had on yours. I have to use a SD40 frame and then get it milled to have 4 axle trucks work with it. Try JB Welding the bolsters back in place. Might work. They're the wrong length, but keep in mind that Proto 2000 E6A/E6B (probably shared with the E8, but I have no E8 to verify) chassis - though too long - will accept 2-axle Athearn trucks with no modifications. The carbody-width weights and fuel tank are removable as well, making it a very workable chassis to cut, provided it is put back together with some sort of reinforcement. -Kurt |
|
|
|
Post by stevef45 on Jul 17, 2013 20:29:34 GMT -5
i've got everything i need to build it. Walkways are spliced, front pilot is starting to come together slowly, cab, subbase and nose all built. Long hood roof and rear end just waiting for me to building a new long hood. mgswy on here will be getting the frame to work his magic eventually.
|
|
|
|
Post by cudak888 on Jul 17, 2013 23:41:00 GMT -5
i've got everything i need to build it. Walkways are spliced, front pilot is starting to come together slowly, cab, subbase and nose all built. Long hood roof and rear end just waiting for me to building a new long hood. mgswy on here will be getting the frame to work his magic eventually. That works. Getting the frame right will be easy in comparison to the effort in getting the long hood perfect - one of many reasons I've decided to keep away from kitbashing a GP49H-3. -Kurt |
|
|
|
Post by icghogger on Jul 18, 2013 7:50:52 GMT -5
Kurt, if you go the Plastruct route, and especially given your talent for scratchbuilding in styrene, it will be much easier to add the necessary details such as valves, pipes and fittings using styrene rod stock.
|
|
|
|
Post by cudak888 on Jul 18, 2013 10:15:08 GMT -5
Kurt, if you go the Plastruct route, and especially given your talent for scratchbuilding in styrene, it will be much easier to add the necessary details such as valves, pipes and fittings using styrene rod stock. It's an idea, given that Plastruct is available locally, though I'm a bit partial to brass rod for the air tanks in terms of appearance. Just the same, plastic-to-plastic would be less likely to cause problems during handling of the model. I might put some Diesels West traction motor lines along the frame, as they're quite an obvious feature on the prototype, but I'm not sure if they'll fit. The Kato tanks already have some details on them; we'll see what is necessary once the air tanks have been cut out. -Kurt |
|
|
|
Post by jbconn on Jul 18, 2013 17:08:09 GMT -5
An F40PH-2C, TRCX (Tri-Rail) spec. The parts guinea pigs:- 1 Atlas B40-8 drive (50' between truck centers)
You have inspired me to at least think about one of these for MBTA. I am confused, however. I've been looking at the Diesel Shop data sheets, www.thedieselshop.us/DataB40-8.HTML and they show B40-8W Leading Edge Front Truck to Trailing Edge Rear Truck 45'-11" (approx. 36' 11" between truck centers) Is this correct? It just doesn't seem to fit the overall look if the unit is 66 feet long. Looking at the specs for the similar MPI F40PH-2C, it does show the distance between truck centers to be 50' 5". Is there a source of better data? Had you thought of using the Walthers Trainline B40-8? The shell is probably not too good, but you wouldn't need it to be. Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by cudak888 on Jul 18, 2013 17:47:59 GMT -5
I was able to close up the roof today - it'll need a bit of filler, but not much. Also chopped the center lamp, marker lights, and raised window rubber (the MPI units have flush rubber) off the front end:   You have inspired me to at least think about one of these for MBTA. I am confused, however. I've been looking at the Diesel Shop data sheets, www.thedieselshop.us/DataB40-8.HTML and they show B40-8W Leading Edge Front Truck to Trailing Edge Rear Truck 45'-11" (approx. 36' 11" between truck centers) Is this correct? It just doesn't seem to fit the overall look if the unit is 66 feet long. Looking at the specs for the similar MPI F40PH-2C, it does show the distance between truck centers to be 50' 5". Is there a source of better data? Had you thought of using the Walthers Trainline B40-8? The shell is probably not too good, but you wouldn't need it to be. Thanks I'll bet that 45' 11" is the center-to-center distance. Either that, or the measurement is supposed to be 55' 11" from the front axle to rear trailing axle. Either way, the B40-8 chassis is short only by a few scale feet as per the model, prototype photos, and the EMD orthographic drawings I used for the Train Simulator version. I'm not sure it's a whole 5' off from the F40PH-2C's 50' 2" c-t-c distance though; probably 3'. I had two Trainline B40-8 units; sold them shortly before I started this project. They have pretty expansive frames which weigh them well, but I saw no point in using the cheaper drive that might make it more difficult than necessary to allow the shell to fit. The Atlas drive has been very forgiving in this respect. The same eBay seller that I bought my Atlas drive from has a second available for $50; might be worth it to snatch it up. -Kurt |
|
|
|
Post by cudak888 on Jul 19, 2013 13:36:26 GMT -5
Quick update - cab side windows revised to reflect the square quarter window:   -Kurt |
|
|
|
Post by cudak888 on Jul 19, 2013 18:03:21 GMT -5
Just got the decals in today and was very amused to see the Microscale instruction sheet has a link to my website for prototype reference. All these years, and it took me this long to find out...
-Kurt
|
|
|
|
Post by bbrunell on Jul 19, 2013 22:55:00 GMT -5
The product manager for Microscale is a frequent flyer here and an avid detailer himself...
|
|
|
|
Post by cudak888 on Jul 19, 2013 23:45:53 GMT -5
The product manager for Microscale is a frequent flyer here and an avid detailer himself... Not surprised. Decal research requires the most clinical eye of all, not to mention prototype knowledge. I was impressed to see that all the locomotives were referred with accuracy on the sheet; most railfans usually get Tri-Rail specifics wrong somewhere along the line. Granted, 810 is shown with the new scheme (never happened) on the paper, but proper mention is made of the change to blue roof paint and the extra striping provided specifically for representing the "slightly longer F40PH-2C and F40PHL-2." Most folks miss out on the huge 8' difference of the F40PH-2C, much less the fact that the F40PHL-2 rides on a GP40 chassis (complete with the Geep's sills) - 3' longer than an F40PH (which everyone used to assume they were built on, which they were not). Props to Microscale all the way! -Kurt |
|
