3rd Rail GP9

@kanawha posted:

The C&O Historical Society published the book Chesapeake and Ohio Diesel Locomotives some decades ago. This is the best source for C&O diesel numbering, paint schemes, details, etc. All the GP-7's the C&O ordered in the paint scheme that's on your GP-7 were numbered between 5700 and 5797. Also none had dynamic brakes. The number appears to be an error. The presence of dynamic brakes appear to be a problem with too many variations amongst too many road names for the builder to agree to.

Here's a C & O GP7 numbered 5882 in that paint scheme - minus the "C & O for progress" emblem - with dynamic breaks.
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/383324/

Here's one with the scheme, emblem, and dynamic brakes #5828
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/330360/
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/336973/

Other than that, the only inaccuracy on the model IMHO is the low cab number.

Im curious on how many ordered the GP7 demonstrator.

"Scott does his best and is in a whole different realm of accuracy and customer service than anybody else in O scale. 50 some odd variations with countless era and road specific details! Cut the guy some slack."

This argument is of course ludicrous   'Hey boss I finished up today but I did so much 25 percent of it may be wrong.'  Give that man a..... cigar.  This forum sub section was originally created so those that enjoyed the prototype could have fun discussions concerning the accuracy of individual models as they relate to details, paint, road numbers and a host of many other aspects that create an accurate model. If this is discouraged here where does one suppose these talks take place ?  Any attempt to stifle valid criticisms of related models by any manufacturer I suspect would be unwelcome here  as this is the very purpose of this forum.  Ironically, to difuse any other arguement, Scott does in fact appreciate and wants criticism and reviews of his models.  He knows this is how he gets better and what to correct and look out for in future runs.  If everyone remained silent and bowed to the creator 3rd Rail would be putting out the same efforts as they did 10 years ago.  However, what you do make a good case for is that 3rd Rail do smaller and more accurate runs.  An interesting and vaild point.

- Crank

@Eccentric Crank posted:

Scott does in fact appreciate and wants criticism and reviews of his models.  He knows this is how he gets better and what to correct and look out for in future runs.  

As much as it painful to read and experience dissatisfaction due to, this statement is spot on.  Valid criticism is required even though Scott and all of us who help him take errors very personally.

We are going back and checking research, looking at painting diagrams, and documenting errors.  Some are factory errors and some are not but Scott always tells me regardless an error is an error.

I know that is not much solace for someone who is disappointed, but that is why 3rd Rail does have a very fair return policy.     

@Eccentric Crank posted:

"Scott does his best and is in a whole different realm of accuracy and customer service than anybody else in O scale. 50 some odd variations with countless era and road specific details! Cut the guy some slack."

This argument is of course ludicrous   'Hey boss I finished up today but I did so much 25 percent of it may be wrong.'  Give that man a..... cigar.  This forum sub section was originally created so those that enjoyed the prototype could have fun discussions concerning the accuracy of individual models as they relate to details, paint, road numbers and a host of many other aspects that create an accurate model. If this is discouraged here where does one suppose these talks take place ?  Any attempt to stifle valid criticisms of related models by any manufacturer I suspect would be unwelcome here  as this is the very purpose of this forum.  Ironically, to difuse any other arguement, Scott does in fact appreciate and wants criticism and reviews of his models.  He knows this is how he gets better and what to correct and look out for in future runs.  If everyone remained silent and bowed to the creator 3rd Rail would be putting out the same efforts as they did 10 years ago.  However, what you do make a good case for is that 3rd Rail do smaller and more accurate runs.  An interesting and vaild point.

- Crank

Never have been against valid criticism or discussing the accuracy of things on the 3RS forum. Obviously that’s how these get better. I’ll say it again though. The criticism is best sent directly to Scott where it won’t take on a life of its own and misrepresent the overall quality of the larger production run.

The GT&W engines with the grievances were not anywhere near 25% of anything so I’m not sure where you were going with that analogy. It was one road name that had a couple of discrepancies from prototype photos that people just couldn’t seem to get enough of. That being said if you were to have come to this thread to see photos of the geeps from this production run, you woulda thought Scott had cranked out a container full of black roofed GT&W geeps. The reposting photos of number boards, roof colors, and the GT logo after we had all seen it a few times by then was not advancing the conversation at all.

@GG1 4877 posted:

As much as it painful to read and experience dissatisfaction due to, this statement is spot on.  Valid criticism is required even though Scott and all of us who help him take errors very personally.

We are going back and checking research, looking at painting diagrams, and documenting errors.  Some are factory errors and some are not but Scott always tells me regardless an error is an error.

I know that is not much solace for someone who is disappointed, but that is why 3rd Rail does have a very fair return policy.     

Thank Jonathan and Scott, for being so responsive to this situation.

I sympathize with both sides, Scott runs a complex and challenging operation. I can’t pretend I understand all that goes into such enterprise. I really appreciate this attention to customer satisfaction.

On the consumer side, these are are boutique items in a boutique hobby with very high expectations. The wait time and cost of these models is significant to most of us with limited resources.

I had a similar situation last year with another manufacturer. I totally understand the disappointment and frustration on the consumer side. It was a CP SD-40, delivered in neon red with a defective drive.

Unlike Scott and 3rd Rail, I had very poor support from the vendors. No response from the manufacturer and the retailer did not want give me store credit for the return.

I appreciate the no hassle return policy. I really hope there is a 2nd run which corrects the short comings of this run.

@GG1 4877 posted:

As much as it painful to read and experience dissatisfaction due to, this statement is spot on.  Valid criticism is required even though Scott and all of us who help him take errors very personally.

We are going back and checking research, looking at painting diagrams, and documenting errors.  Some are factory errors and some are not but Scott always tells me regardless an error is an error.

I know that is not much solace for someone who is disappointed, but that is why 3rd Rail does have a very fair return policy.     

Kudos for taking this point of view.  My efforts here (and on another thread) to "defend" 3rd Rail are simply pointing out that the initial impressions of what are "wrong" with a model are not always fact.  Some folks have pointed out models that have say three errors, but then in reality, there did exist a prototype where that existed, but some other minor detail was different.  So does the model have one or three errors? In another thread someone stated that all N&W Tuscan red GP9s were the latter configuration with 2 48" roof fans.  A quick search on the rail photo sites proves that to be patently false.  Yes the number was wrong - but fixing that doesn't require making any parts, just some paint and time.  Sure it would be great if were all correct from day one - but we live in a world where I have four different types of DGLE across three PRR prototype models from the same manufacture respond with "no comment".

Personally I'd much prefer having models like these that accurate dimensionally, and have a wrong cab number - than have ones that are better characterized as caricatures of the real thing.  I applaud your efforts Jonathan, both in the the attempt and your willingness to learn from mistakes.

Well my GP7 and GP9's have arrived. So far I have only pulled out the GP7.

I will upload better pics later. I received the #8551 which is correct for a PRR "torpedo tube" GP7. Most of the details are stunning! But I guess we cant have it all as Sunset went "cookie cutter" on the fuel and air tank undercarrige. The PRR GP7 had the air tanks on the roof and a 3 strap equipment box where the EMD "standard" air tanks went- hence the reason for the "torpedo Tubes". It appears the fuel tank/air tanks ate die cast so i will have to see if I can grind off or grind back the air tanks and install a psc 2 strap equipment box. Other than that, the paint, roof details, cab interior, wipers look awesome!

@prrhorseshoecurve posted:

It appears the fuel tank/air tanks are die cast so i will have to see if I can grind off or grind back the air tanks and install a psc 2 strap equipment box.

Everything is brass no die-cast here.

@rplst8 posted:

Here's a C & O GP7 numbered 5882 in that paint scheme - minus the "C & O for progress" emblem - with dynamic breaks.
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/383324/

Here's one with the scheme, emblem, and dynamic brakes #5828
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/330360/
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/336973/

Other than that, the only inaccuracy on the model IMHO is the low cab number.

The picture links you posted are indeed GP7's. However, I think you missed what I tried to point out. The particular GP-7 paint scheme 3RD Rail produced is from the first order of C&O GP-7's. These were characterized by the solid yellow frame and the yellow meatball /donut heralds. this scheme was only done on 5700-5797. They were ordered for the C&O Northern Division (ex-Pere Marquette lines) so they didn't need and weren't ordered with dynamic brakes.

The engines in the picture links are from the second order of GP-7's some of which had dynamic brakes. These engines had a blue frame and the "for Progress" heralds. This paint scheme was used on GP-7's 5800-5900 as well as GP-9's 5901-6048.

There were two more original order GP-9 schemes . The third scheme dropped the stripes on the hoods and went to a solid yellow frame. The fourth scheme looked like the third scheme except the lettering font was changed from Railroad Roman to Futura, the road number moved to the long hood, and the for Progress herald placed under the cab. window.

Unfortunately the GP-9 3RD Rail modeled is numbered 6089. This puts it in the third paint scheme (6049 - 6208) - yellow frame, no hood stripes. The order was for units 6009-6208 and the C&O changed from the second to third scheme partway through the order.

What it all comes down to is without a really good reference book or pictures of the exact prototype that's being modeled its pretty easy to get something wrong. I feel for what Scott had to go through with all the different variations between railroads and paint schemes and then having to deal with the builder about it. Plenty of opportunities for something to go wrong - Ugh!

Ken

Wait....this isn't from the same group of consumers who also buy "Thomas", "Polar Express" and "Spongebob" stuff, is it? Nah, couldn't be. Heck, you guys are pickier than the N and HO crowd... 😁😁😁

Also, isn't it interesting that both this and the S scale group are currently reviewing first generation diesels. I guess it's true that "the classics never die".

Mark in Oregon

@Strummer posted:

Wait....this isn't from the same group of consumers who also buy "Thomas", "Polar Express" and "Spongebob" stuff, is it? Nah, couldn't be. Heck, you guys are pickier than the N and HO crowd... 😁😁😁

Mark in Oregon

I doubt that many in the 3 Rail SCALE section of the forum are running those items you mention.

Steve

Steve, I wouldnt be so sure of the SCALE Polar Express.

My two CNJ units are due to arrive on Monday.  Questions for folks who have received any of these GP7/9's (or prior Sunset/3rd Rail diesels) in 3-rail configuration...

Have any of you added Kadee or Protocraft couplers?  If so, is it a fairly straight-forward installation?  These are my first purchases from 3rd Rail, so I'm not familiar with the pilot design/configuration.

I have some experience adding fixed pilots, Kadees and full-length handrails to a few 3-rail locomotives...I'm just trying to figure out how much work I'm in for with these.

Truth be told, I was seriously considering ordering the 2-rail version...but I chickened out at the last minute!!  It would have been my first "straight" 2-rail locomotive purchase.  I've dipped my toes in the 2-rail waters recently with a few MTH 2-Rail scale (3/2) Premier locomotives, but I haven't taken the full-blown 2-rail plunge yet!

@prrhorseshoecurve posted:

Steve, I wouldnt be so sure of the SCALE Polar Express.

@L & N posted:

I doubt that many in the 3 Rail SCALE section of the forum are running those items you mention.

Steve

I'm sure you're right... but I just couldn't resist! 🙂

In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy my Red Caboose Geeps...and hope you all find some satisfaction with these new offerings. How is the performance, by the way?

Mark in Oregon

@CNJ #1601 posted:

My two CNJ units are due to arrive on Monday.  Question for folks who have received these (or prior Sunset/3rd Rail diesels) in 3-rail configuration...

Have any of you added Kadee or Protocraft couplers?  If so, is it a fairly straight-forward installation?  These are my first purchases from 3rd Rail, so I'm not familiar with the pilot configuration.

3 rail offerings often have all the hardware needed to convert to a Kadee coupler including the bracket, screws, and the couplers.  Other than a few small screws that are occasionally fairly tight, it is an easy change from 3 rail to Kadee couplers.  The ones I have done take about 15 minutes.  In this run though, all mine are 2 rail.  

@Strummer posted:

Also, isn't it interesting that both this and the S scale group are currently reviewing first generation diesels. I guess it's true that "the classics never die".

Mark in Oregon

That's because S Scalers don't have the variety available that the 3RS and 2RS folks have.

Rusty

@GG1 4877 posted:

3 rail offerings often have all the hardware needed to convert to a Kadee coupler including the bracket, screws, and the couplers.  Other than a few small screws that are occasionally fairly tight, it is an easy change from 3 rail to Kadee couplers.  The ones I have done take about 15 minutes.  In this run though, all mine are 2 rail.

Thanks for the reply, Jonathan.  Seeing your photos of the CNJ's with the highly-detailed pilots earlier in this thread makes me wish I convinced myself to order them in 2-rail!  I'll have some work to do to fill in all that open space in the 3-rail pilots.

CNJ, they come with the parts to cover the space up.

@Big Jim posted:

CNJ, they come with the parts to cover the space up.

Thanks for your reply, Big Jim.  I misunderstood Jonathan's explanation above.  I was picturing the Kadees would just get mounted at the top of the large opening in the 3-rail pilot.  Thanks for the clarification!

I took mine apart!....Because I can. There was nothing wrong with it.

Umm. Bruck, was that battery in the unit or did you personally add it in?

@Bruk posted:

Got my SP&S today. #150 & #152. Wish they had the all weather windows. But I can live without for now. Colors are spot on with the paints I use. These are my first 3rd Rail Diesels.

Re SP&S GP9, can anyone explain the history on the decal below the #152?

Is it just me? Or is every single one of these missing a stanchion on the step behind the conductor’s side of the cab?

@Downwinder posted:

Re SP&S GP9, can anyone explain the history on the decal below the #152?

That is the EMD builder/serial number plate (one on each side, under the cab on the underframe sidesill), generally referred to as the "football" style builder's plate.

@Boilermaker1 posted:

Is it just me? Or is every single one of these missing a stanchion on the step behind the conductor’s side of the cab?

Nope. That is so the top of the battery box, i.e. the cover plate, can be lifted for access to the batteries.

@Downwinder posted:

Re SP&S GP9, can anyone explain the history on the decal below the #152?

EMD logo?
https://railpictures.net/photo/667642/

https://images.app.goo.gl/5FqEV8xKabCQzjUX9

@Hot Water posted:

Nope. That is so the top of the battery box, i.e. the cover plate, can be lifted for access to the batteries.

The other side of the cab.
I grabbed Rich’s photo from earlier in the thread because it makes it obvious.

@rplst8 posted:

EMD logo?

No, not the "logo", but the "football" design Builder/serial number plate. One mounted on each side. Those plates have since become quite the collectors item. I have an original builder's "football" plate from the very first EMD GP30 unit that I road on its first trip, on the N&W Railway in late June of 1962. When the N&W removed this GP30s from service, a good friend of mine in the N&W Mechanical Dept. had a plate removed and sent to me, prior to the units disposal. It is mounted on a nice piece of wood over my desk.

https://railpictures.net/photo/667642/

@Hot Water posted:

"... very first EMD GP30 unit that I road on its first trip,"

This is a consistent error that I see you make.  If one is to insist that others be precise, be it in the ID of models or the dashes in numbers then one should be precise as well.  You rode your ride on the road.  < See what I mean?

Not trying to be a smart *** or cause trouble.  Just figuring I'm giving you an opportunity to improve yourself.

I received my Soo GP9 version today, and it's a beautiful model, except for one rather major thing....the color. Sorry Big John, if you think I'm coming out of the woodwork in saying this, but the color's incorrect. And yes, I'm disappointed. But hopefully this constructive criticism will be of assistance if these are run again in the future. It's certainly not meant to hurt the position that some people may want to hold Sunset in. (BTW, for those who think a prospective customer should intervene in the design phase, it's hard to imagine that a customer would think it's necessary to intervene with respect to the color when the photo used for the manufacturer's advertisement in fact shows the correct color! See below.)

I've attached photos of my model. If anyone's interested, they can google Soo Line engines as much as they'd like to see what the actual engines looked like (as well as the Soo Line Historical and Technical Society), but links to three photos are attached below. It should be clear that the Soo color is nothing like the light brown color of the model. No spinning of lighting conditions, or age, or shortcomings of photo quality, or any other rationalization applies here. The color's just wrong. It's light brown, not even in the maroon family like the prototype color. These things do happen, to all manufacturers. It may happen less with Sunset, but it certainly does happen. It's to be expected that some things may get off a bit during such a complicated operation of producing these trains, but getting an entire engine color wrong, well, that's  a pretty gross error, far worse than just something like a misplaced stanchion or small paint error. I just wish it hadn't happened here!

Not sure if I'm going to keep it or return it. If only it were the correct color, I'd be thrilled, but I'm afraid I'll always look at it and the first thing that'll go through my mind is that it's the wrong color. Oh, well.

Note that the first photo was used in the 3rd Rail ad:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals...6b88c6629ff94350.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent....j3OWCHGT3mu8dI0RKQbk

Clean, freshly painted one from the Minnesota Transportation Museum and used on a tourist railroad:

https://fh-sites.imgix.net/sit...p;w=1200&fit=max

@Boilermaker1 posted:

Is it just me? Or is every single one of these missing a stanchion on the step behind the conductor’s side of the cab?

You’re correct,

Scott is already on the fix for it....

The GT&W engines with the grievances were not anywhere near 25% of anything so I’m not sure where you were going with that analogy.

Just from here and on the 2 rail forum there are posted prototype errors on the SP, GTs, N&Ws and I can tell you the NYCs.  Not 25 percent....yet.

That being said if you were to have come to this thread to see photos of the geeps from this production run, you woulda thought Scott had cranked out a container full of black roofed GT&W geeps.

I'm not sure where you were going with that analogy, but I have come into this thread as well as the other ones and thought either Scott or one of his team missed the boat on the GT&W, N&W and the SP.  Most if not all of us on this scale forum and side of the hobby realize that the comments here do not misrepresent the overall quality of the larger production run.  And if someone actually thought that perhaps their name was Hans Zimmer.    Not sure if anyone here will remember that oldie but goodie.  I have sympathy for anyone that waited so long and paid so much only to be disappointed.  It appears to me they need to point our those errors a number of times in different ways with a group of guys they feel comfortable with.  10 to one I know these guys have also sent very detailed emails to Scott  on those models.

If everyone emailed the manufacturer and did not post these mistakes on the forum, what would this forum be then?  Happy time with the band?  Scott can take the heat, as well as Jonathan.  Trust me?  

- Crank

Is it just me? Or is every single one of these missing a stanchion on the step behind the conductor’s side of the cab?

It appears Scott cranked out a container full of missing stanchions.  I was 75% off.  But Scott will make good, and a great thing it was posted here on the forum, as we all now can quickly rest easy.

- Crank

Hi Everyone,

I really tried not to engage in the conversation that has been taking place on this thread but...

My two cents is really simple. I believe criticism does have its place and perhaps even in this thread. For me, the thing that may not sit well with many of us about the criticism is that there is no balance. Unfortunately, there are some personalities in our wonderful forum that we expect a negative or rude comment from on just about any topic they engage. Does anyone think this promotes our hobby to the newbie? This man, Scott, is offering us a wonderful product and we all know that the O Scale market is already limited, so this is a blessing. I am not saying that we should "take what we get" but I'm a Libra so balance is important. Perhaps a word about the good things about the model would be a nice counterbalance to what could be an improvement. Especially considering that Scott has put out models that had he not, we simply would not have them. I don't believe anyone that has posted criticism has been "ugly" about it but the positives in the models perhaps may have circumvented the backlash.

There were several threads posted when we found out about MTH and modelers hoping the company would not go away for good. However,  if you go back through the years there are many negative comments about some of their products. In some cases, downright mean!  Again, I'm not speaking of constructive criticism and in some cases even disappointment. There is a difference between those kind of comments and just being rude. Scott, is a businessman and I'm sure he can take the criticism as any good businessman should. With that being said, what if he closed up shop and left this great hobby of ours? I learned that it's not what you say but how you say it.

Scott, if you're reading this please know  I appreciate what you do for the hobby and though we all have been made aware of some flaws in the models,  I will enjoy my units for years to come.

Dave

@kanawha posted:

The picture links you posted are indeed GP7's. However, I think you missed what I tried to point out. The particular GP-7 paint scheme 3RD Rail produced is from the first order of C&O GP-7's. These were characterized by the solid yellow frame and the yellow meatball /donut heralds. this scheme was only done on 5700-5797. They were ordered for the C&O Northern Division (ex-Pere Marquette lines) so they didn't need and weren't ordered with dynamic brakes.

The engines in the picture links are from the second order of GP-7's some of which had dynamic brakes. These engines had a blue frame and the "for Progress" heralds. This paint scheme was used on GP-7's 5800-5900 as well as GP-9's 5901-6048.

There were two more original order GP-9 schemes . The third scheme dropped the stripes on the hoods and went to a solid yellow frame. The fourth scheme looked like the third scheme except the lettering font was changed from Railroad Roman to Futura, the road number moved to the long hood, and the for Progress herald placed under the cab. window.

Unfortunately the GP-9 3RD Rail modeled is numbered 6089. This puts it in the third paint scheme (6049 - 6208) - yellow frame, no hood stripes. The order was for units 6009-6208 and the C&O changed from the second to third scheme partway through the order.

What it all comes down to is without a really good reference book or pictures of the exact prototype that's being modeled its pretty easy to get something wrong. I feel for what Scott had to go through with all the different variations between railroads and paint schemes and then having to deal with the builder about it. Plenty of opportunities for something to go wrong - Ugh!

Ken

My point is that I don’t think every paint scheme ever worn by every cab number is settled science...

Here’s a low number that looks to have only had a yellow pilot and a blue frame.
https://railpictures.net/photo/654951/

Here’s another low number unit that looks to be yellow underneath but had the frame painted blue at some point.
https://railpictures.net/photo/146348/

Here’s another low numbered unit that looks to have the later GP9 scheme with the cab number on the long hood.
https://railpictures.net/photo/670272/

Here’s a second order unit that looks to have had a yellow frame, but a blue repaint.
https://railpictures.net/photo/383324/

Here’s a second order GP7 with the scheme you describe as the fourth GP9 scheme.
https://railpictures.net/photo/12183/

@Byrdie posted:

This is a consistent error that I see you make.  If one is to insist that others be precise, be it in the ID of models or the dashes in numbers then one should be precise as well.  You rode your ride on the road.  < See what I mean?

OK,,,,,,,big deal. So I misspelled "rode" and my spellcheck didn't catch it. That still doesn't excuse posters fron DELIBERATELY typing the EMD diesel models name with that stupid dash between the model and the number series.

Not trying to be a smart *** or cause trouble.  Just figuring I'm giving you an opportunity to improve yourself.

I really don't need "improvement" at my age (79), as I never could spell worth a crap anyway, and spellcheck seems to help most of the time.

Paula just said, “I think they are beautiful.”

I was simply glad to open several new engines and not have broken pieces, screws, etc in the box or crammed into the cab. What a delightful change and well worth the wait.

Thank you Scott. We are tremendously pleased and appreciate the hard work that you and your team put into this project.

Would someone please tell us which hatch we open to set the engine up AND how do we get it open and not damage the paint.

Thanks

@Bruk posted:

I took mine apart!....Because I can. There was nothing wrong with it.

Burk,

The long hood radiators come off, can you tell me if the ones near the cab come off too?