Oddball GG-1
- Thread starter jtudor
- Start date
dmeephd
Modelleisenbahner1955
The GG-1 was only used by the Pennsylvania Railroad, Penn Central, Conrail, Amtrak, and New Jersey Transit. It looks like someone free-lanced it. The GG11 was designed to run on the standard Pennsylvania Railroad catenary power of 11,000 V AC, 25 Hz. The Great Northern ran the same voltage and frequency, but only along the route between Wenatchee, Washington to Skykomish, Washington, including the Cascade Tunnel. There were never any GG-1 locomotives present.
dmeephd
Modelleisenbahner1955
That explains it: IHC was never known for accuracy, they produced a lot of items that never existed except in their marketing offices.
dmeephd
Modelleisenbahner1955
I was under the impression that Rivarossi made all if not most of the offerings from AHM and their antecedent, IHC. So the NEM wheelsets are probably correct for that manufacturer, although certainly not to NMRA standards.
That's because for most of these guys it's about moving product, not prototype fidelity. There is a large part of the market, probably the majority, that doesn't care if it's accurate or not. Did you know that a large percentage of customers still use the old horn hook couplers? There is still a pair in each and every Walthers car box, and they would not do that if it wasn't necessary. Those of us who want it right or not at all are still a minority group, though we get most of the press coverage
The good thing is, the people who will buy that GN GG-1 help pay they bills so we can have our prototypically correct models.
dmeephd
Modelleisenbahner1955
Prototypically Correct?
Although I understand your point, it is important not to get too caught up in one's definition of prototypical correctness. Frankly, from an engineering point of view, there is not a single model train of any scale that is prototypically correct. None have the correctly scaled down mass; none have the correctly scaled down powerplant; none have the correctly electrical or hydraulic or pneumatic controls; none have the correctly scaled down horsepower; very few have the correctly drive system (as far as propulsion method to the driving wheels); none have correctly scaled down functional coupling mechanisms; and none have a correctly scaled down complete prototype interior. The list could go on and on.
In any engineering venture, there are compromises to be made due to cost, technology, and manufactureability. Scaling down a full-size mechanism to a much smaller size entails even more compromises. Even the NMRA wheelset is not scaled correctly; it meets a standard of a model organization whose primary goal was interoperability - that is all. Is the NMRA wheelset closer to prototype? Yes, without question, but that decision was not made without compromise.
The models made in Europe are made to NEM standards, which are no more or no less correct than NMRA standards. The NEM standards simply accept some other trade off in the interest of operability. With regard to the wheelset flange size, the compromise was made for what the NEM saw as better performance in less derailments. That was their call; we are in no position to challenge that when the NMRA standards made as many compromises in other areas; and none of the scale models in extant are prototypical as pointed out above.
The goal of a hobby is enjoyment. Our standards organizations serve to ensure that customers and participants of this hobby can have some assurance that the products they purchase will give adequate enjoyment. To say that you and a minority enjoy a "prototypically correct model" and others do not, is frankly quite laughable, given the basic errors and deviations - borne out of the necessity of engineering compromise - that I pointed out.
I have found that most nit-pickers have no idea that they are missing most of the "nits" that the model has while they are trying to pick on the obvious ones. One should concentrate on those features of the prototype that the model can and should emulate; the appearance, livery, and correctness to scale of overall dimensions.
That's because for most of these guys it's about moving product, not prototype fidelity. There is a large part of the market, probably the majority, that doesn't care if it's accurate or not. Did you know that a large percentage of customers still use the old horn hook couplers? There is still a pair in each and every Walthers car box, and they would not do that if it wasn't necessary. Those of us who want it right or not at all are still a minority group, though we get most of the press coverage
Although I understand your point, it is important not to get too caught up in one's definition of prototypical correctness. Frankly, from an engineering point of view, there is not a single model train of any scale that is prototypically correct. None have the correctly scaled down mass; none have the correctly scaled down powerplant; none have the correctly electrical or hydraulic or pneumatic controls; none have the correctly scaled down horsepower; very few have the correctly drive system (as far as propulsion method to the driving wheels); none have correctly scaled down functional coupling mechanisms; and none have a correctly scaled down complete prototype interior. The list could go on and on.
In any engineering venture, there are compromises to be made due to cost, technology, and manufactureability. Scaling down a full-size mechanism to a much smaller size entails even more compromises. Even the NMRA wheelset is not scaled correctly; it meets a standard of a model organization whose primary goal was interoperability - that is all. Is the NMRA wheelset closer to prototype? Yes, without question, but that decision was not made without compromise.
The models made in Europe are made to NEM standards, which are no more or no less correct than NMRA standards. The NEM standards simply accept some other trade off in the interest of operability. With regard to the wheelset flange size, the compromise was made for what the NEM saw as better performance in less derailments. That was their call; we are in no position to challenge that when the NMRA standards made as many compromises in other areas; and none of the scale models in extant are prototypical as pointed out above.
The goal of a hobby is enjoyment. Our standards organizations serve to ensure that customers and participants of this hobby can have some assurance that the products they purchase will give adequate enjoyment. To say that you and a minority enjoy a "prototypically correct model" and others do not, is frankly quite laughable, given the basic errors and deviations - borne out of the necessity of engineering compromise - that I pointed out.
I have found that most nit-pickers have no idea that they are missing most of the "nits" that the model has while they are trying to pick on the obvious ones. One should concentrate on those features of the prototype that the model can and should emulate; the appearance, livery, and correctness to scale of overall dimensions.
All true, and not really where I was headed. I was thinking more simply, such as correct car and loco types lettered for the roads that actually had them, since the original comment was regarding a Pennsy prototype lettered for the Great Northern. The pizza cutter wheels are a subject unto themselves, and pretty much gone from the US market except at swap meets and older hobby shops with dusty boxes There are still plenty of manufacturers that will letter any model for any road correct or not, and that's ok by me. The folks who buy those models keep manufacturing costs down.
There are still plenty of manufacturers that will letter any model for any road correct or not, and that's ok by me. The folks who buy those models keep manufacturing costs down.
dmeephd
Modelleisenbahner1955
All true, and not really where I was headed. I was thinking more simply, such as correct car and loco types lettered for the roads that actually had them, since the original comment was regarding a Pennsy prototype lettered for the Great Northern. The pizza cutter wheels are a subject unto themselves, and pretty much gone from the US market except at swap meets and older hobby shops with dusty boxes
I agreed with your point regarding proper car and loco lettering when I mentioned 'livery' in my last paragraph. (I can still recall that chrome plated GP by Tyco for the Rock Island line!) I believe that you will also find that many of the Rivarossi/AHM/IHC models predate the NMRA standard, so they followed the NEM standard as the only available standard. In addition, as they were manufactured in Italy, and therefore could be sold in the European market, they choose to deliver them in one format, namely NEM, rather than increase manufacturing costs by offering both. In lieu of the lack of a NMRA standard, there was little choice.
As to your position that these models lettered incorrectly for any road keep manufacturing costs down, I would like to see your data. As someone with 30 years of manufacturing engineering and QA experience, I am always eager to learn more.
My experience tells me that manufacturers are keeping costs down by sending domestic jobs (American and European) offshore to China where the average worker makes less in a month than a domestic worker makes in a day.
Absolutely. Now, as someone with 25 plus years of sales & marketing experience, I agree with you that where you make it is important, but how many you sell is just as important. You know, good old ROI. Getting more out of your investment by making more of your model and lettering them for any road that's popular (and they do sell!) increases overall sales, therefore profit, and lowers unit costs.
Data? Well there is none published that I know of
but would Phil Walthers and his executive management team convince you? How about the folks at Athearn? I had a nice discussion with John Engstrom, and also with Michael Stephens, their president (at least he was when we spoke). The folks from both companies have told me that all of those incorrectly lettered and unprototypical models like the shorty passenger cars go a long way towards paying for things like the Proto 2000 and Genesis lines. I don't think they'll share their numbers with us, but I'll be happy to take their word for it. You can go over to the passenger car list, or the steam era freight cars list on Yahoo and see similar discussions by others on this same topic. it comes up almost as much as "Which DCC system is the best?"
Regards,
Last edited by a moderator:
