Santa Fe Warbonnet F7's

Man,  these are beautiful!  Thanks for posting. Glad to see that they are so striking!

VERY NICE

Hudson5432 posted:

....the grabs are a different color on 347C vs 44, and unit 44 has lift rings....

Do the prototypes differ in that regard for the real 347C and 44?

I have no idea.  I photographed the 344C several years ago at the CA RR Museum, so will have to dig out those slides and check.  I can't imagine that MTH would have taken the trouble to add or change something to the units that the unit did not have?  A friend has the Santa Fe "F" unit book, I forget who the author is, but will check when I have a chance.  These units cost a little more due to the glossy paint and nickel sides, but they really make the ATSF Warbonnet paint scheme stand out.  I believe that EMD used lacquer on their "F" units, so the MTH finish is probably close to the actual appearance.

phrankenstign posted:

Hudson5432 posted:

....the grabs are a different color on 347C vs 44, and unit 44 has lift rings....

Do the prototypes differ in that regard for the real 347C and 44?

They are right on the mark detail and paint wise. I just heard the red paint was slightly different between the two engines...

Tom

These are indeed beautiful!! MTH really does a great job, especially on their 2-rail motive power. Just outstanding!!

AWESOME, they are Beautiful. Thanks for posting the picture, and as a side note, your layout is really nice. Please post more pictures. Happy New Year, and happy railroading.

I love the bright Red!! Now, that is Santa Fe!!!! Thanks for sharing

Really pretty!  Such attention to detail and the freshly shopped finish gets MTH some major accolades from me.  WTG!

Bruce

They are very nice looking!  The MTH F7 has come a long way with this model.  A few inaccuracies but it's not my place to ruin someone else's joy and I'm in no position to comment after my particular F7 fiasco .....  

Especially nice to see on two rails.   

👍👍

 👍👍👍👍👍👍

GG1 4877 posted:

They are very nice looking!  The MTH F7 has come a long way with this model.  A few inaccuracies but it's not my place to ruin someone else's joy and I'm in no position to comment after my particular F7 fiasco .....  

Especially nice to see on two rails.   

WHY NOT? There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism. maybe if we get enough, they'll get it right the next time. There are enough photos (preferably builders photos) that we should know what these things look like, and this one has three small problems I can see right away.

P&D (now Atlas) came closest to getting it right.

Simon

Simon Winter posted:

GG1 4877 posted:

They are very nice looking!  The MTH F7 has come a long way with this model.  A few inaccuracies but it's not my place to ruin someone else's joy and I'm in no position to comment after my particular F7 fiasco .....  

Especially nice to see on two rails.   

WHY NOT? There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism. maybe if we get enough, they'll get it right the next time. There are enough photos (preferably builders photos) that we should know what these things look like, and this one has three small problems I can see right away.

P&D (now Atlas) came closest to getting it right.

Simon

Builders photo's are great for units fresh out of the EMD box, but Santa Fe F's in particular tended to go through quite a few minor changes as they cycled through the shops during their service lives.  I suspect very few (if any) looked exactly like their builder's photos when they were stricken from the roster.

Rusty

Are all three units powered? 

Now that is a really nice looking train!

The "A" units are each powered, and the "B" unit is a dummy.  I don't know at what stage of their existence they were modeled.  I heard that these units originally had a single headlight, and that a Mars light was added later.  Both "A" units have Mars lights.  Grab irons on the nose up to the windshield were also added later.

I looked again at the red colors of the two "A" units and any difference, if it exists, is not obvious.

The first batch of 16 class F3's were delivered without Mars lights, as were the 37 class F7's.  Within 18 months of operation they were retrofitted with Mars lights.  The 300 and 325 class F7's came with Mars lights.  I don't recall exactly when, but the grab irons for access to the cab windshield was mandated somewhere in the 1950's.

None were delivered with 5 chime horns that I can tell.

One can really go off into the weeds as far as what was on a Santa Fe F7.  It all depends on when a photo of a particular unit was taken.

Rusty

Rusty Traque posted:

One can really go off into the weeds as far as what was on a Santa Fe F7.  It all depends on when a photo of a particular unit was taken.

Rusty

If a manufacturer plans to advertise a product as being an accurate model of a prototype, then it's fine as long as they have a photograph of at least ONE train car/locomotive with the same features and paint scheme.  Whether most had specific options added or not is irrelevant as long as the model had the same options as is shown in the picture.

Rusty Traque posted:

Simon Winter posted:

GG1 4877 posted:

They are very nice looking!  The MTH F7 has come a long way with this model.  A few inaccuracies but it's not my place to ruin someone else's joy and I'm in no position to comment after my particular F7 fiasco .....  

Especially nice to see on two rails.   

WHY NOT? There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism. maybe if we get enough, they'll get it right the next time. There are enough photos (preferably builders photos) that we should know what these things look like, and this one has three small problems I can see right away.

P&D (now Atlas) came closest to getting it right.

Simon

Builders photo's are great for units fresh out of the EMD box, but Santa Fe F's in particular tended to go through quite a few minor changes as they cycled through the shops during their service lives.  I suspect very few (if any) looked exactly like their builder's photos when they were stricken from the roster.

Rusty

Isn't that what they are trying to represent here? A builder's photo is always nice to know what you started with. Both our statements are OPINION, and I'll stick with mine.

Simon

phrankenstign posted:

Rusty Traque posted:

One can really go off into the weeds as far as what was on a Santa Fe F7.  It all depends on when a photo of a particular unit was taken.

Rusty

If a manufacturer plans to advertise a product as being an accurate model of a prototype, then it's fine as long as they have a photograph of at least ONE train car/locomotive with the same features and paint scheme.  Whether most had specific options added or not is irrelevant as long as the model had the same options as is shown in the picture.

Well, let's put it this way: I just looked at the catalog page for the MTH Santa Fe F7's.  Nowhere does it indicate road and number specific details.  All the catalog states is: "The F7 features the same level of superb detailing that characterizes all Premier F-units, with added-on details that include legible builder’s plates, grab irons, multiple-unit hoses, rooftop lift rings, see-through side grilles and rooftop fan housings, steam generator exhaust stack (for passenger versions), windshield wipers, and our super-detailed Blomberg trucks with separately-applied spring hangers, brake cylinders, and air pipes"

The models live up to that expectation and the fact that MTH did some detail variation between the two A units is frosting on the cake.  Are they 100% accurate for their specific road numbers?  No...  But it appears they weren't meant to be by the catalog description.

Exactly at what point did we come to expect road and number specific detailing from the likes of MTH or Lionel?

Sometimes, we just have to sit back and say " Dang, that's nice."

Rusty

The fact MTH chose to make such variations between each of the two models would make it silly for them to make each one unlike the prototype in some way.  What would be the reason to get very accurate with those differences, and then add a detail totally unlike the prototype?  For example: If #44 prototype didn't have lift rings, why would they specifically add them to the model?  If MTH's intent was to include the lift rings, it would be simple to find a cab number that DID have the lift rings.  (I'm not saying #44 prototype didn't have lift rings---that was just used as an example.)  I'm inclined to believe MTH included the lift rings on their #44, because the prototype #44 had them.  It's such a prominent detail to add, that it seems non-sensical to put it on a model with a specific cab number that the prototype cab number didn't have.

(I'm not referring to any compromises made to allow the model to negotiate tighter curves or to be compatible with any other O gauge-specific situation.)

phrankenstign posted:

The fact MTH chose to make such variations between each of the two models would make it silly for them to make each one unlike the prototype in some way.  What would be the reason to get very accurate with those differences, and then add a detail totally unlike the prototype?  For example: If #44 prototype didn't have lift rings, why would they specifically add them to the model?  If MTH's intent was to include the lift rings, it would be simple to find a cab number that DID have the lift rings.  (I'm not saying #44 prototype didn't have lift rings---that was just used as an example.)  I'm inclined to believe MTH included the lift rings on their #44, because the prototype #44 had them.  It's such a prominent detail to add, that it seems non-sensical to put it on a model with a specific cab number that the prototype cab number didn't have.

(I'm not referring to any compromises made to allow the model to negotiate tighter curves or to be compatible with any other O gauge-specific situation.)

There are pictures of the 44 with nose lift rings...  And if one digs hard enough into books and magazines, also photo's without nose lift rings.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, it depends on when the photo was taken.

Rusty

phrankenstign posted:

The fact MTH chose to make such variations between each of the two models would make it silly for them to make each one unlike the prototype in some way.  What would be the reason to get very accurate with those differences, and then add a detail totally unlike the prototype?  For example: If #44 prototype didn't have lift rings, why would they specifically add them to the model?  If MTH's intent was to include the lift rings, it would be simple to find a cab number that DID have the lift rings.  (I'm not saying #44 prototype didn't have lift rings---that was just used as an example.)  I'm inclined to believe MTH included the lift rings on their #44, because the prototype #44 had them.  It's such a prominent detail to add, that it seems non-sensical to put it on a model with a specific cab number that the prototype cab number didn't have.

(I'm not referring to any compromises made to allow the model to negotiate tighter curves or to be compatible with any other O gauge-specific situation.)

It might be time to point out that MTH probably used the Santa Fe painted "F Unit", currently on display at the California State Railroad Museum, as an example for technical details. As has been pointed out by many, MANY people; you can NOT always go by how ANY piece of railroad equipment appears in ANY museum, as being totally accurate for the give era being represented.  If you want it totally correct, then you MUST refer to actual photographs of the item, from the exact time frame, you are attempting to model. Some of the worst abominations are pieces that are "on display" in parks & towns all over the country!

Um - They have pills for that.

bob2 posted:

Um - They have pills for that.

Pills for WHAT?????

Since Jack mentioned it, that was the first item I noticed.  347C is the unit in the CA State Museum.  It was renumbered from 306C (originally 39C as delivered) to 347C in July of 1973 and painted into the Yellow Bonnet scheme.  It was designated for preservation and was repainted back into the Warbonnet scheme in 1988.  It never saw commercial service on the ATSF in this road number and paint scheme. 

In terms of details, even as 306C and during it's time in Yellow Bonnet paint it did not have the lift rings. 

In that sense, the unit is accurate as the one at the museum and has seen some minimal service occasionally.  I guess it's up to the individual to determine if it's an error or simply a late representation of the Warbonnet paint scheme.  ATSF apparently borrowed 347C and F3b (renumbered to 347B) for promotional purposes prior to the reintroduction of the Warbonnet on the ATSF in the late 80's.

Knowing that doesn't diminish the attractiveness of the unit.

Hot Water posted:

phrankenstign posted:

The fact MTH chose to make such variations between each of the two models would make it silly for them to make each one unlike the prototype in some way.  What would be the reason to get very accurate with those differences, and then add a detail totally unlike the prototype?  For example: If #44 prototype didn't have lift rings, why would they specifically add them to the model?  If MTH's intent was to include the lift rings, it would be simple to find a cab number that DID have the lift rings.  (I'm not saying #44 prototype didn't have lift rings---that was just used as an example.)  I'm inclined to believe MTH included the lift rings on their #44, because the prototype #44 had them.  It's such a prominent detail to add, that it seems non-sensical to put it on a model with a specific cab number that the prototype cab number didn't have.

(I'm not referring to any compromises made to allow the model to negotiate tighter curves or to be compatible with any other O gauge-specific situation.)

It might be time to point out that MTH probably used the Santa Fe painted "F Unit", currently on display at the California State Railroad Museum, as an example for technical details. As has been pointed out by many, MANY people; you can NOT always go by how ANY piece of railroad equipment appears in ANY museum, as being totally accurate for the give era being represented.  If you want it totally correct, then you MUST refer to actual photographs of the item, from the exact time frame, you are attempting to model. Some of the worst abominations are pieces that are "on display" in parks & towns all over the country!

Whether you call them abominations or not, I think it's okay if a model is a miniature example of an "on display" prototype.  Like I mentioned earlier, if there is at least ONE picture from any time frame of a prototype with a certain paint scheme and options/accoutrements, then a manufacturer could rightfully claim their model to be accurate.

BTW  Hot Water, perhaps I'm misinterpreting your tone, but it appears to me you're getting angry.  If I'm wrong, I apologize.  If I'm right, then please calm down.  This is just a discussion.  There's no need to get emotional about it.

They're beautiful. Thanks for sharing.

phrankenstign posted:

Hot Water posted:

phrankenstign posted:

The fact MTH chose to make such variations between each of the two models would make it silly for them to make each one unlike the prototype in some way.  What would be the reason to get very accurate with those differences, and then add a detail totally unlike the prototype?  For example: If #44 prototype didn't have lift rings, why would they specifically add them to the model?  If MTH's intent was to include the lift rings, it would be simple to find a cab number that DID have the lift rings.  (I'm not saying #44 prototype didn't have lift rings---that was just used as an example.)  I'm inclined to believe MTH included the lift rings on their #44, because the prototype #44 had them.  It's such a prominent detail to add, that it seems non-sensical to put it on a model with a specific cab number that the prototype cab number didn't have.

(I'm not referring to any compromises made to allow the model to negotiate tighter curves or to be compatible with any other O gauge-specific situation.)

It might be time to point out that MTH probably used the Santa Fe painted "F Unit", currently on display at the California State Railroad Museum, as an example for technical details. As has been pointed out by many, MANY people; you can NOT always go by how ANY piece of railroad equipment appears in ANY museum, as being totally accurate for the give era being represented.  If you want it totally correct, then you MUST refer to actual photographs of the item, from the exact time frame, you are attempting to model. Some of the worst abominations are pieces that are "on display" in parks & towns all over the country!

Whether you call them abominations or not, I think it's okay if a model is a miniature example of an "on display" prototype.  Like I mentioned earlier, if there is at least ONE picture from any time frame of a prototype with a certain paint scheme and options/accoutrements, then a manufacturer could rightfully claim their model to be accurate.

BTW  Hot Water, perhaps I'm misinterpreting your tone, but it appears to me you're getting angry. 

Yes, I tend to get angry with those folks from museums, city park committees, and "preservationists" in general that do NOT do proper research, but simply "paint up" their display piece because "that looks nice". I have spent almost 60 years in the railroad motive power business, and find it pretty difficult to accept some of the actions of some museums, and city park displays. That said, everyone should visit the Illinois Railway Museum, as those folks REALLY know what they are doing!

If I'm wrong, I apologize.  If I'm right, then please calm down.  This is just a discussion.  There's no need to get emotional about it.

Hot Water posted:

phrankenstign posted:

Hot Water posted:

phrankenstign posted:

The fact MTH chose to make such variations between each of the two models would make it silly for them to make each one unlike the prototype in some way.  What would be the reason to get very accurate with those differences, and then add a detail totally unlike the prototype?  For example: If #44 prototype didn't have lift rings, why would they specifically add them to the model?  If MTH's intent was to include the lift rings, it would be simple to find a cab number that DID have the lift rings.  (I'm not saying #44 prototype didn't have lift rings---that was just used as an example.)  I'm inclined to believe MTH included the lift rings on their #44, because the prototype #44 had them.  It's such a prominent detail to add, that it seems non-sensical to put it on a model with a specific cab number that the prototype cab number didn't have.

(I'm not referring to any compromises made to allow the model to negotiate tighter curves or to be compatible with any other O gauge-specific situation.)

It might be time to point out that MTH probably used the Santa Fe painted "F Unit", currently on display at the California State Railroad Museum, as an example for technical details. As has been pointed out by many, MANY people; you can NOT always go by how ANY piece of railroad equipment appears in ANY museum, as being totally accurate for the give era being represented.  If you want it totally correct, then you MUST refer to actual photographs of the item, from the exact time frame, you are attempting to model. Some of the worst abominations are pieces that are "on display" in parks & towns all over the country!

Whether you call them abominations or not, I think it's okay if a model is a miniature example of an "on display" prototype.  Like I mentioned earlier, if there is at least ONE picture from any time frame of a prototype with a certain paint scheme and options/accoutrements, then a manufacturer could rightfully claim their model to be accurate.

BTW  Hot Water, perhaps I'm misinterpreting your tone, but it appears to me you're getting angry. 

Yes, I tend to get angry with those folks from museums, city park committees, and "preservationists" in general that do NOT do proper research, but simply "paint up" their display piece because "that looks nice". I have spent almost 60 years in the railroad motive power business, and find it pretty difficult to accept some of the actions of some museums, and city park displays. That said, everyone should visit the Illinois Railway Museum, as those folks REALLY know what they are doing!

If I'm wrong, I apologize.  If I'm right, then please calm down.  This is just a discussion.  There's no need to get emotional about it.

 

Off topic, but did anyone see that the B&O Museum is restoring its lone remaining EA to its as delivered appearance down to the correct details?  I find that quite exciting. 

Back on topic, from the photos I've been looking at, it appears that the ATSF F7 347C at the CA Musuem is accurate in everything but its road number.  Renumber it to it's prior 306C number and it accurate for its service days on the ATSF.

Hudson, very gorgeous set. You seem to like them operationally, are you operating under DCC? And if so, which system?

I can vouch that the 3 rail versions are quite impressive as well. The yellow version, passenger I presume, in rail king are equally impressive.

Saw them first hand at Mercer Junction, beautiful indeed.

Might have to get a set since I'm probably the only person out here that's never have a santa fe set, LOL

GG1 4877 posted:

Back on topic, from the photos I've been looking at, it appears that the ATSF F7 347C at the CA Musuem is accurate in everything but its road number.  Renumber it to it's prior 306C number and it accurate for its service days on the ATSF.

Well, I guess the cause of inaccuracy would ultimately have to be taken up with BNSF.  After all, the 347C was given its red warbonnet by the Santa Fe's San Bernardino shops in 1988 for a promotional video regarding the reintroduction of the classic red warbonnet scheme on their locomotives.

So in this respect, the 347C is accurate for the last service it performed for the Santa Fe, even though inoperable and the promotional train was being pushed from behind.

If it wasn't for that video, the F's might have gone to CF7-land or the scrap heap.

Rusty

Hot Water posted:

It might be time to point out that MTH probably used the Santa Fe painted "F Unit", currently on display at the California State Railroad Museum, as an example for technical details. As has been pointed out by many, MANY people; you can NOT always go by how ANY piece of railroad equipment appears in ANY museum, as being totally accurate for the give era being represented.  If you want it totally correct, then you MUST refer to actual photographs of the item, from the exact time frame, you are attempting to model. Some of the worst abominations are pieces that are "on display" in parks & towns all over the country!

People tend to "restore" antique cars like that - what ever looks good to them. Then others with the same type of car "restore" their cars to look like the inaccurate cars they have seen and cannot be persuaded that there are  sometimes glaring inaccuracies.

Drives me nuts.

On my two rail layout, I can run conventionally since the power supplies are Bridgewerks DC packs.   When I run MTH locomotives, I use DCS fed by those two, two handle DC packs at 18 VDC, and this power is routed  through two of the four channels of each of two TIU's.  I have a four track mainline, and use two TIU's since a single four terminal TIU will not pass DC on two of its channels.  I can mix the power on each of the four tracks, since they are electrically isolated from one another.  For example, I can run DCS on one track and operate the remaining three tracks conventionally.  (The layout does have crossovers,  and they are each electrically insulated.) 

I have a number of USH, Westside, and PSC locomotives and wanted to retain the ability to operate them.  Each of the four mainline tracks and the yards and siding have blocks, using toggle switches. (I also have a two track, 3-rail layout on those same tables that can run conventional or using DCS.  That trackage is also divided into blocks.)  The layout was featured in O Gauge Railroading magazine in the August/September 2008 issue.

I am enjoying the intricacies (and frequency) of the ATSF early diesel locomotive road numbering system, since I do not understand it and it defies any logic to me!  I might be able to answer a question about NYC though.....

RoyBoy posted:

Hot Water posted:

It might be time to point out that MTH probably used the Santa Fe painted "F Unit", currently on display at the California State Railroad Museum, as an example for technical details. As has been pointed out by many, MANY people; you can NOT always go by how ANY piece of railroad equipment appears in ANY museum, as being totally accurate for the give era being represented.  If you want it totally correct, then you MUST refer to actual photographs of the item, from the exact time frame, you are attempting to model. Some of the worst abominations are pieces that are "on display" in parks & towns all over the country!

People tend to "restore" antique cars like that - what ever looks good to them. Then others with the same type of car "restore" their cars to look like the inaccurate cars they have seen and cannot be persuaded that there are  sometimes glaring inaccuracies.

Drives me nuts.

I could not agree with you more Roy, add to that some good old fashioned self righteousness and you have a real Duesy. 

Good Grief 

phrankenstign posted:

Hudson5432 posted:

....the grabs are a different color on 347C vs 44, and unit 44 has lift rings....

Do the prototypes differ in that regard for the real 347C and 44?

Once Santa Fe started upgrading, rebuilding, and breaking up the ABBA set, details and paint were all over the place. Unless you have actual photos of specific units on a specific date, there were so many variations that you couldn't keep track of. Then thrown in the fact that different things were done at different shops all over the system...… there's nothing a paint brush can't fix if you want them to match