I finally got to see some of these in person that a friend of mine picked up. His did not have any of the sloppy assembly problems that some of the photos show. However I must say those monster rivets around the cab windows really stand out. They run very nice.
I recieved my tunnel motor, and am very happy with it also. None of the glue problems, and the detailing IM has added is very nice. Having dealt with IM before, I am sure any bad shells would be replaced. This is a very nice model and I hope the bad ones don't discourage alot of modelers. SLSF Freak Mike, the holes you see in the front are suppost to be there. It is another added detailing that IM added to the model. Dave N.....nice work!
I know, OC.. I meant that as a compliment to the detail of the shells. Here are the shots I was referring to w/enhancements: Pretty cool, in my book. I also like the wiper details. Glad to be hearing more "positive" reports starting to surface! Regards, Mike
Hello Mike, The more I look at this model, the more I like it! The wipers are a great touch. With just minimal touching up, this is going to be one of my favorite models. (And thats from a Santa Fe modeler!) LOL The grills on the back are done better then a brass one I have. Can't wait for the L windows!
Just got to check out a pair of these myself. Yes the horn was molded off center and the rear light is pretty messed up. These are going to be replaced anyways. Everything else was great! Now if I could wrestle my wallet to the floor and make it cough up some cash.....
Phew! Sounds like the opinion pendulum is starting to swing back the other way (or at least back to center)! I was troubled about these early negative reports for many reasons, but probably mostly by the fact the I truly believe IM had all the best intentions to produce a top-notch model. Russ
It's good to see that others are posting their opinions of their models. Usually there are differences of opinion regarding everything about a model. Certainly the photos by Hemi & Geep35 were evidence of a problem.. the question remains just how pervasive is the problem. Those that are going to super-detail or replace some of the existing detail and then weather the locomotive may not be so critical of the imperfections and thus will have a muted opinion. Those that are looking for perfection straight out of the box will be vocal against.. At least N scalers have a Tunnel Motor and it is at least a starting point for many. The rest will be dissatisfied even though they have a model that years ago would have been thought only could be produced by a brass manufacturer at 3 or 4 times this price. Still, I think IMRC will have to cut down on the imperfections in future releases of this model. I think it will affect reservations to e-tailers because there is no way to tell how good or how bad the imperfections will be on the model you receive in mail-order.. It will not affect those that go to their LHS and choose the best of the batch that the shop may have in stock.
Your comments are so true I was actually considering buying a model online but now I'm not so sure. I guess I will wait until the rio Grande models are released and see what comments are about those models before I decided to buy online. I will also have a look at my LHS at the model before i make a decision.
For $119.00 MSRP, I would expect more than a "starting point" to build a nice model... Come on... From the photos I have seen, good and bad, this is not up to Atlas/Kato quality. Letting IM off is only going to LOWER the bar for everyone else. I seem to remember a year or so ago about 300 messages complaining that Kato's Exec SD70MAC's had a microscopic paint flaw (one I never could even find). And those locomotives, which ran flawlessly cost less than the tunnel motors. I think you guys are going soft!!! LOL Lou
After looking at the pics some more, something didn't seem right. Then it hit me - it looks like some of the body details on the IM Cotton Belt SD40T-2 pictured on the previous pages don't match any particular version (or phase) of SD40T-2 at all. It seems to be missing the front anticlimber, which all SP/SSW T-2s had, as well as the rear headlight package, which all SP/SSW T-2s had too (with the exception of SP 8300-8306, and 8350-8356). The radiator access doors are incorrect for this particular unit (should have "knuckle-buster" latched doors), and the distinctive square "4-hole" jacking pads that many SP/SSW units had, including SSW 8325, are missing too. Ditto for the L-shaped engineer's window. Now, some may not be into these details (which is just fine - everyone is entitled to enjoy the hobby as they like ), but from having such a strong interest in modeling SP motive power, these type of things just seem to jump out at me, and some of my fellow hard-core Espee modelers might be interested in these details too. A company as committed to the attention to detail as IM can certainly nail these distinctive Espee features. Maybe these can be brought to IM's attention, so everyone can benefit by having the most accurate model possible. After all, there's more to accurately modeling Espee diesels besides adding dirt and grime.
I noticed these things also! I was under the impression that IM would at least get the baisic shell details correct! (ie. anticlimbers, L-windows, ect.) The nose length looks wrong too. (116 in. instead of 123 in.) Didn't really want to pick these apart, but the end product isn't really what they advertised!
ljudice.... I'm lol about the "going soft" comment. While I've moderated my stance somewhat to consider others feeling towards the model... I've hardly given IMRC a "Thumbs-up" on the Tunnel Motor. There no doubt it's a let-down for me because "I" just am NOT inclined to doing detail work on what is considered an RTR model...I just want to be able to take it out of the box and put it on the rails and admire it... If I got one like Hemi did... I'd flip-out! On a bad day, I could assemble that as a kit... of course it would take me over a day to build it. Actually, THAT is probably the reason why these look so bad. The workers assembling these models were probably ORDERED to get these assembled in less than 30 minutes each and it shows lack of pride in assembly. Now... as far as the missing details and wrong doors or light packages etc.. etc... Well, we've become accustomed to accepting some missing details on Kato, Atlas and other manufacturers... so, even though IMRC had alluded to making these "nearly perfect" to the actual road engines... I doubted they could pull it off. I'm far more concerned with the assembly fit and finish of the model. That is what is most visible to me as a NON-RIVIT counter.
My Cotton Belt version should arrive from Wig Wag in the next few days, so I'll have to pull my finger out and post some pics
Lou, I found it interesting that you referenced the Kato 70MAC's. I've been observing this TM fiasco, but haven't participated, since the first scheduled release of two TM's I ordered is the DRGW which probably won't be here for another six months. But, like the IM Tunnel Motors, the Exec MAC's had "batches" that were much worse than others. A couple of mine were actually acceptable paint jobs, but 4 of them looked a dam site worse than Hemi's photos of the TM. (just the paint though, no problem with mangled details or crazed window plastic.) I have seen around 50 of the Exec MAC's and only about 1/8 of them were the bad apples. Anyway, shows how much Kato really is "untouchable" when so many that hadn't seen the Kato issue came to their defense, while photos of only two locomotives have started an IM witch hunt. I think bad apples are part of the process and I think IM will handle it regardless. I thought Kato would as well, but I'm still "negotiating" with them at this point.
Good point, Doug.... I think I may have just been lucky with the SD70MAC's I had! Or maybe it's my eyesight!!!!! Lou
OK, the UP units are in but I cannot tell what configuration the nose lights are in (photos too small and of flank only). Anyone seen one yet? Russ
SP 8399 & SCOTT I think if IM hadn't messed up by forgetting the anticlimber on the SLSF/SP engines they might have pulled it off. I post for your comparison the following picture of Athearn's effort in HO. 2slim [ 26. January 2004, 03:38: Message edited by: 2slim ]
