Model Railroading > E unit skirting. A prototype for everything?

Over on Western Railroads, there is a blog about the WSOR inspection train with an E unit for power. I hadn't noticed before, but the skirting on the E unit, re-applied by WSOR, is identical to the arrangement on the Walther's Proto E8/E9 units. Both applications are incorrect as to original EMD standards, which placed the skirting back from the side and even with the fuel tank. The WSOR and Walther's units have the skirting flush with the side, with a noticable set-back between the skirting and fuel tank. I wonder if WSOR used a Proto E8 model as a reference.

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,3723286



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/15 09:48 by ATSF3751.

That sure might 'splain it. WSOR is just a short drive from Walthers HQ.

Here's a photo that shows the as-built skirting on a set of C&O E8's: http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/6/8/9/3689.1315362513.jpg
The skirting is behind the access step and even with the tanks. On WSOR's unit, the skirting is even with the outside of the access step and in front of the tanks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/15 10:30 by CPR_4000.

4thDistrict Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not sure what you are referring to. The skirts on
> E8s were pretty much flush with the sides of the
> body.


Nope. They are inset from the side, and even with the edges of the tanks. Look again at the WSOR unit and how the skirting is even with the steps, then look at the Erie unit in the photo which shows the skirting behind the steps.
>
>
> ATSF3751 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Over on Western Railroads, there is a blog
> about
> > the WSOR inspection train with an E unit for
> > power. I hadn't noticed before, but the
> skirting
> > on the E unit, re-applied by WSOR, is identical
> to
> > the arrangement on the Walther's Proto E8/E9
> > units. Both applications are incorrect as to
> > original EMD standards, which placed the
> skirting
> > back from the side and even with the fuel
> tank.
> > The WSOR and Walther's units have the skirting
> > flush with the side, with a noticable set-back
> > between the skirting and fuel tank. I wonder if
> > WSOR used a Proto E8 model as a reference.
> >
> >
> http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,3
>
> > 723286



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/15 11:18 by ATSF3751.

 1 rivet...2 rivet....3 rivet...

-------------------------------------------------------
>  1 rivet...2 rivet....3 rivet...

And the rivet counting WILL continue.. (and our models from good manufacturers will continue to improve because of it.)

Cheers,
Harry
 

It would be nice if someone would offer 3 D printed replacement fuel tanks for the Walthers E 8s.It would be a great way to make those E 8s look a whole lot better.

sp8192 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>  1 rivet...2 rivet....3 rivet...

Take that locomotive off the layout...it's missing a louver on the battery box...we have standards!!!

For those of you confused by my original comment. It was more about a form of "reverse" engineering....which seemed like model to prototype in this case. For those of you who were never around these locomotives when the railroads operated them...I was...then this seemingly small detail probably goes unoticed. I don't offer a critizism of WSOL, rather a look at something unusual. That said, the modification to the unit is incorrect if it was their intention to replicate the original look in that particular area. It's their loco and their money, they can paint it purple and blue with a smiley face on the front for all I care. What counts is how they feel about the modification. I am delighted the unit operates and is obviously well cared for.

I am not a rivet counter as such, but I do try to follow the prototype as close as possible. The fuel tank error by Walther's is quite glaring to many of us and has prompted some of us to fix the error, myself included. If such a error is acceptable to you, then it's good...run the wheels off 'em. That said,  If I pay $180+ for a locomotive, then I have a reasonable expectation it will follow the prototype, or if it is "mostly" ok, then I will buy it if I feel modifications can be done to "put it right". (Unfortunately, both the Walther's E8's and Broadway Limited E8/E9's have errors in the skirting, so buying the other brand was not an option. Everything else about the Walther'd E8 is fine for me)

 If we didn't offer comments about models and the noticeable errors they sometimes have, then why not just stick with a circle of track and a wind-up Marx set and be happy with what falls out of the box? Even the most mundane of model products produced today are vast improvements over what was on hobby shop shelves in the 1960's. The consumer spoke and producers listened.

This is a hobby that attracts a wide range of talent. Some of us go to the extreme, some of us are fine with ready to run. It's a big boat with room for everyone. "Nuff said.

tracktime Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >  1 rivet...2 rivet....3 rivet...
>
> And the rivet counting WILL continue.. (and our
> models from good manufacturers will continue to
> improve because of it.)
>
> Cheers,
> Harry


Uh...like the totally too thin-but-prototypically correct diameter handrails on Athearn lokes, eh?! (snicker snicker snicker)
While I approve of some attention to detail, it can also be taken to ridiculous extremes that turn into PIAs!

-Tom

4thDistrict Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . yet you say nothing about the
> thickness of those very skirts on the model.

The apparent "thickness of those very skirts" is entirely due to the fact that the skirts are not set in far enough from the sides as on all prototype E8's and 9's except this one WSOR unit which was apparently used as the basis for the Walthers model's skirts.
 

4thDistrict Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ATSF3751 Wrote:
>
> > I am not a rivet counter as such, but I do try
> to
> > follow the prototype as close as possible. The
> > fuel tank error by Walther's is quite glaring
> to
> > many of us and has prompted some of us to fix
> the
> > error, myself included. If such a error is
> > acceptable to you, then it's good...run the
> wheels
> > off 'em. That said,  If I pay $180+ for a
> > locomotive, then I have
> > a reasonable expectation it will follow the
> > prototype, or if it is "mostly" ok, then I
> will
> > buy it if I feel modifications can be done to
> "put
> > it right". (Unfortunately, both the Walther's
> > E8's and Broadway Limited E8/E9's have errors
> in
> > the skirting, so buying the other brand was
> not
> > an option. Everything else about the Walther'd
> E8
> > is fine for me)
> >
> >  If we didn't offer comments about models and
> the
> > noticeable errors they sometimes have, then why
> > not just stick with a circle of track and a
> > wind-up Marx set and be happy with what falls
> out
> > of the box? Even the most mundane of model
> > products produced today are vast improvements
> over
> > what was on hobby shop shelves in the 1960's.
> The
> > consumer spoke and producers listened.
> >
> > This is a hobby that attracts a wide range of
> > talent. Some of us go to the extreme, some of
> us
> > are fine with ready to run. It's a big boat
> with
> > room for everyone. "Nuff said.
>
> No, not "Nuff said". You moan and grown about an
> almost indiscernible crease separating the skirt
> and the bottom of the body as if it's the worst
> mistake ever made, yet you say nothing about the
> thickness of those very skirts on the model. You
> also say nothing about other issues like the 6
> scale inch thickness of the body around the
> windows (a pet peeve of mine), which virtually
> every manufacturer builds into their models. It's
> all about making the item strong enough for normal
> handling by anyone, not just people wearing white
> gloves who treat them like priceless,
> irreplaceable historic artifacts. Reducing anyting
> to a fraction of it's original size will always
> take a certain level of compromize. Add to that
> requirements like making the shell removable for
> servicing, and strong enough for ham fisted toy
> train types, and some things will have to be
> compromized. 
>
> Or, if such miniscule issues are a problem for
> you, find another hobby.

I'm not sure what it was that you found so offensive in my comment that required such a snarky response.  If I think that the Walther's skirting on the E unit is non-prototypical, then so what. There are others who agree with me and would disagree with comment that it is a "miniscule issue". As for your other comments,  I chose this particluar issue because of the fact the WSOL E unit skirting seemed to be imitating a model that was done incorrectly, which I felt was unusual. Go back and read the original post. It didn't decend to the level that required a lecture on the manufacturing process.

Besides, it could be that you are confusing me with someone who actually cares about your rambling, condescending remarks. Please don't be under any illusions.

As for finding another hobby, I'm just fine with this one, thanks. I didn't realize the keys to the model railroad kingdom had been placed in your care.
 

4thDistrict Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CPR_4000 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 4thDistrict Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > . . . yet you say nothing about the
> > > thickness of those very skirts on the model.
> >
> > The apparent "thickness of those very skirts"
> is
> > entirely due to the fact that the skirts are
> not
> > set in far enough from the sides as on all
> > prototype E8's and 9's except this one WSOR
> unit
> > which was apparently used as the basis for the
> > Walthers model's skirts.
> >  
> Sorry, wrong answer. I just measured the
> "incorrectly placed" skirts on my Walther's E8s,
> and they measure out at about 3-1/2 scale inches
> thick. The propotype were probably less than 1/2"
> thick. Yet you don't seem to be offended by that
> very obvious incorrect excution of the "original
> EMD standard".

The thickness of the skirting is not as noticeable when placed flush with the tanks. It is a visual thing for me and others as well. Obviously the thickness was not an issue to me since I didn't comment on it.  "Offended" is not a word that I ever used. The skirting is "incorrectly placed" was my comment. If you feel the significant gap between the fuel tank and skirting is ok, then I would say don't bother to make any corrections and enjoy the model as is.