Well, lets see. SD40T-2, 66' long, 45' 5" wheelbase. SD45T-2, 66' long, 45' 5" wheelbase. SD50, 67' long, 45' 7 1/2" wheelbase SD60, 67' long, 45' 7 1/2 " wheelbase. Source: EMD Locomotive Lengths
I don't think you have to worry about the overall length of the loco, as the shells can take care of that difference, the wheelbase is the issue if they are just using the chassis. If they work out at being 2.5" out....in N scale. That's pretty close in my book!
I couldn't agree more!! When I railfan, the last thing I look at is the distance of the trucks. I'll be happy to trade 1 or 2 scale feet for a body shell that is accurate. Ed
It is posoble they will have the correct bolser length with the trucks correcting the problem. ie: most Kato 6-axle locomotives have off center gear towers. I think we will have to wait and what comes out, but I doubt that they will use atlas parts as the MSRP is not going to be over $90. If they used Atlas parts they would have have to pay Atlas for them and that would raise they cost. Plus I think it would look bad to have Atlas stamped on the split frame of an IM loco with out it being a joint venture like older Kato/Atlas. [ 24. August 2002, 15:42: Message edited by: Nick ]
2.5" in N scale is 0.015625" in real life. A human hair is 0.00393701 in diameter, so the difference between the two is just under four hair-widths. This is intollerable (he said dripping with sarcasm)! Would you have us boycott the locomotive over the width of a few short and curlies? Or was this just a troll post?
That extra inch per axle may help the long locos get around the tight curves. I don't think it would be the first time the wheel base has been shortened a tiny, imperceptible bit for that purpose.
A 2 1/2" difference in N scale is nothing. Were I running big 6-axle EMDs on my railroad I'd be more than happy to have tunnel motors, even if they ARE 2 1/2" different that the SD50/SD60s. Let's not split hairs here (no reference to a previous post) and get too dang nitpicky for our own good. I remember the wide-body Athearns (before the narrow motors came out), and yes, they now look ridiculous to me. But I still have some older Athearns, and will keep them. Personally, I think there are better things to worry about- this sounds like the last whiny post about Atlas' alleged "too-thick" handrails by a long-gone member. If you don't want to but the IM tunnel motors, no sweat- just means that there are more for the rest of us!
well guys i for one cannot tolerate unprototypical model trains that is why i never buy them anymore. noone makes them prototypical, not even bachmann!!!!!!!! i guess i should sell all of my mopac 80 macs too!!!!
we have come a long way in nscale--sounds like some of you are ready to go backwards--and will settle for whatever crap the manufacturers give us---if you spend good money --you should get a decent product--thats all im saying---for the people that want to go backwards---i guess i will see you at the train shows and sell you high dollar junk that nobody in their right mind would buy---ive got a deal for you on the last run of bachmann sd40-2
caseyboy Give us (and I-M) a break ......... we do NOT live in a perfect world. Why should I-M pay thousands of dollars to build an entire new frame and pass those tooling costs on to us when the existing SD-50 wheelbase is just 0.015625" too long? Does everything on your roster get checked out with a micrometer or electron microscope before it passes muster? And all your N diesels run on "real" diesel fuel? Really? REALLY?? [ biting my tongue ] eNjoy
Whoa! Hold on there, Caseyboy As aready mentioned above, 2.5 inches in N scale is absolutely negligible. It would be practically impossible to say for sure that the SD50/60 series chassis aren't off by that much already, and that using them for the tunnel motors would not be dead-on accurate! I applaud I.M. for taking this approach and making tunnel motors happen for us! And judging by there recent rolling stock releases, I doubt very much that we are in for "crap" . Russ
As stated before, the truck spacing problem could be solved reteviley easily by making new truck assemblies with offset gear towers. This would of course require new tooling and up the final cost that we pay, (and lenght of time we wait to get our engines). I think this is a really innovative approach that Intermountain is taking to offer us a very popular locomotive. I wonder what chassis will be used for the SD45-2? KATO SD40-2 or all new tooling? Brian
The other possibility is that could be using Atlas SD60 components dropped into a new chassis block, that way they wouln't be stuck with the length/size/shape of the Atlas metal weight, i'm not sure the existing SD60 shaped weight would fit under a snoot tunnel motor anyhow, and that would sort out the shorter SD45-2. It would also let them do cut-outs for the tunnel bits. Ref the length issue, I work in HO, and there are lots of models which are way more than 2.5 scale inches out and look absolutely fine, one example I think is the Athearn SD40-2 (old version) which IIRC reading somewhere is more than 1' too long, (or nearly five times more "wrong" than you are talking about), but it doesn't *look* wrong, and that's in a larger scale!
Oh yeah! With all the discussion on the tunnel motors, I forgot about the SD45-2! As a Santa Fe man, I really look forward to these
The SD45-2 is the same length as the SD40-2. The portch on the SD40-2 was the extra space not used by the smaller motor. I would imagine new tooling because I don't think they could get it from Kato. At least from Atlas they have a chance.
Actually, the Athearn SD40-2 (old and new) scales out about right in the length department. However, it's a bit short in the truck center department, since Athearn shortened the truck centers slightly (and for the life of me I can't remember by how much, at least this early in the morning ) to help it take sharper curves. This is easily fixed by dropping the shell and drive components on a Rail Power Products SD45-2 chassis, which is correct.