@rdunniii posted:That's because both of those are SD40T-2s only.
Ok, but these are in the same production schedule
Still looking for an answer
Cor
@moonlicht posted:Ok, but these are in the same production schedule
Still looking for an answer
Cor
Both versions are moving forward. Numbers have been selected for the D&RGW and UP units. SP units do not have specific numbers assigned yet.
Thanks Jonathan
Cor
3rd Rail SD40-2 / SD40T-2 Road Name/ Road Numbers Matrix as of 9/23/2021 7:30 PM
Total of 15 known road names out of a maximum of 20.
Burlington Northern (BN):
CHESSIE: Road numbers 7600, 7607, 7613, 7618.
CN: UPDATED: Road numbers will be 5266, 5267, 5281, & 5289 from the GF-30p class in their mid 1980's appearance.
CONRAIL: 6441-6482 Will have Flexcoil truck side frames.
CSX: Road numbers 8243, 8247, 8250, 8253
D&RGW:
FERROMEX:
Milwaukee Road: Road numbers 184, 193, 205, 209 with their dinky 3200 gallon fuel tanks.
MOPAC: Road numbers 3217, 3229, 3255, 3264 in their mid 1980's paint scheme
N&W: (short / high hood, black NW scheme)
Santa Fe:
Southern: 4 road numbers between 3201-3216 to be determined.
SP:
UP:
W&LE: Road numbers 7002, 7010, 7013, 7016
Well the yellow/orange Chessie steam engine is showing a production sample, Kraus Maffei probably well along too, and EA, E1 just had reservations close (so ordering parts). That’s what in the “active” locomotive production chain. So with all the previous discussions about SD40-2 details, is it safe to say that the SD40-2 and Tunnels will have reservations closing Soon - Say by end of year - indicating Finally heading into production ??? If this is a reasonable scenario, we could hopefully see a delivery in Early Q3 (July). It’s been a Long Wait for this model. Here’s hoping the wait is nearing an end !!!!!!!!!
Cheers
That is a pretty reasonable estimate. Still wrapping up a little loose ends on research, but most of it is done.
@GG1 4877 posted:That is a pretty reasonable estimate. Still wrapping up a little loose ends on research, but most of it is done.
Great !!!!
Thanks Jonathan
Jonathan,
on this upcoming run of SD40-2s,
do you guys plan on using the gloss paint finish like on the GP9s or the duller finish like the SD9?
IMO the finish on the SD9s looked much better, the flatter paint is more forgiving to paint imperfections and looks more prototypical
Gloss is much preferred. Mimics the prototype as this is how they were painted.
- Crank
Hmmmm. I don’t have a SD9 to compare color finish with my GP9s. Just in general, I don’t think that gloss lasted very long in the real rail world. A softer (or a bit dull ?) finish seems a bit more “every day” to me. Perhaps someone that has a road with both SD and GP can post us a some side by side pictures for comparison.
Without that, Right now, I’d prefer a non hi-gloss - a more flat paint job.
Cheers !!!
@TrainBub posted:Hmmmm. I don’t have a SD9 to compare color finish with my GP9s. Just in general, I don’t think that gloss lasted very long in the real rail world. A softer (or a bit dull ?) finish seems a bit more “every day” to me. Perhaps someone that has a road with both SD and GP can post us a some side by side pictures for comparison.
Without that, Right now, I’d prefer a non hi-gloss - a more flat paint job.
Cheers !!!
If you interested, do Google search of 3rd rail SD9, there are great pictures out there
The paint finish looks more model-like and the duller finish hides paint imperfections
Anyways, that's just my opinion,
hopefully these will be great models gloss or flat finish
Here is what I consider a “softer” than “hi-gloss” finish. The E6 is 3rd Rail. The U-boat is MTH. I use the MTH model here as 3rd Rail has not yet done a MP model in Jenks blue. IMHO, both are excellent color and finish (gloss). 
Attachments
Images (1)
@Cogen1981 posted:Jonathan,
on this upcoming run of SD40-2s,
do you guys plan on using the gloss paint finish like on the GP9s or the duller finish like the SD9?
IMO the finish on the SD9s looked much better, the flatter paint is more forgiving to paint imperfections and looks more prototypical
That decision hasn't been made yet. Lately it seems the glossier finish has been more popular like what was done on the E6s or more satin finish on the PAs. However, that decision won't be made until 2022. Research went to the design team in Asia last month and it was very thorough. They won't have the BIM drawings and 2D projections back for a first draft review until January likely. There will be several rounds of corrections most likely based on the amount of data they got for this project.
@GG1 4877 posted:That decision hasn't been made yet. Lately it seems the glossier finish has been more popular like what was done on the E6s or more satin finish on the PAs. However, that decision won't be made until 2022. Research went to the design team in Asia last month and it was very thorough. They won't have the BIM drawings and 2D projections back for a first draft review until January likely. There will be several rounds of corrections most likely based on the amount of data they got for this project.
Thanks for your response and attention to detail
@TrainBub posted:Here is what I consider a “softer” than “hi-gloss” finish. The E6 is 3rd Rail. The U-boat is MTH. I use the MTH model here as 3rd Rail has not yet done a MP model in Jenks blue. IMHO, both are excellent color and finish (gloss).
Good post,
The higher gloss finish looks good on the F and E series car body locomotive that commonly are used for passenger service, while I think the satin finish is more appropriate on the more industrial looking Spartan cab freight locomotive
@Cogen1981 posted:Good post,
The higher gloss finish looks good on the F and E series car body locomotive that commonly are used for passenger service, while I think the satin finish is more appropriate on the more industrial looking Spartan cab freight locomotive
I like the term “satin finish” and agree “more appropriate on the …. Freight locomotive.”
Here’s an Atlas GP15 model. I think it hits the “satin finish” mark quite Nicely. Of course IMO.
Attachments
Images (1)
Wow. This thread was started just over 5 years ago !!!! 🤭😳😵💫.
We’re finally getting close to going into production. 😜😜😜.
YAY 💥 💥💥
@TrainBub posted:Wow. This thread was started just over 5 years ago !!!! 🤭😳😵💫.
We’re finally getting close to going into production. 😜😜😜.YAY 💥 💥💥
Fortunately Scott didn't act on your suggestion to cancel the project. (But maybe we'll let you live that down when the models are delivered...).
RM
@GG1 4877 posted:That decision hasn't been made yet. Lately it seems the glossier finish has been more popular like what was done on the E6s or more satin finish on the PAs. However, that decision won't be made until 2022. Research went to the design team in Asia last month and it was very thorough. They won't have the BIM drawings and 2D projections back for a first draft review until January likely. There will be several rounds of corrections most likely based on the amount of data they got for this project.
Jonathan,
Glad to hear its moving along, and thanks for all your work on it. Are you able to share with us what decisions were made in terms of as-delivered versus later appearance (or maybe it's a mixed bag depending on the road name). In particular I'm curious about the Santa Fe models. I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.
RM
@Rich Montague posted:Jonathan,
Glad to hear its moving along, and thanks for all your work on it. Are you able to share with us what decisions were made in terms of as-delivered versus later appearance (or maybe it's a mixed bag depending on the road name). In particular I'm curious about the Santa Fe models. I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.
RM
Rich,
It is a really mixed bag. For the Santa Fe models we settled on the roughly 1986 appearance. No ditch lights, no class lights, but the roof mounted beacon, the ac unit, and the 88" hood for a phase II unit. This was decided due to the need to get enough units with the same tooling for the ATSF blue bonnet and Kodachrome units into a single group.
