Current EMD E6 photo review

Good work, informative work @Charlie !  I just pulled out my new MTH B&O smooth sided sleeper again to verify it's missing steps at the door opening.  In doing so, I read the accompanying instructions and noted "...and die cast trucks are traditionally sized for operation on most O-42 Gauge track."  In regards to the initial endeavor, a quick comparison to an archival photo with open door reveals it is indeed missing those steps.  It's interesting to note that there is a filled cut out where the steps should descend, as if they intended to put steps in, but decided against it at the last minute.  A figure is also bouncing around in my diner car as well...a diner without doors what-so-ever.

Anthony

Here are some screen captures from an old print I had given to me.  Not sure if it helps....

Charlie, excellent work!  I was reading the other thread and it left me confused.  This is very clear.  Thank you.

@VADarthDad posted:

Here are some screen captures from an old print I had given to me.  Not sure if it helps....

Great information and thanks VADarthDad! I wish I had this before I posted. Much appreciated.

Charlie

Charlie,

From what I can decipher, it looks like couple face to coupler face is 71'-1.25"   or 853.25"   = 71.104 feet x.25 = 17.77 scale feet (for O scale)

I love your comparison and detailed pics on the number graph   thanks for doing this

Well Charlie, you really seem to be obsessed with this subject, but there is no need to defame others: "recent inaccurate information by another forum member", seriously?  You might want to delete that.

The point is that it seems that you proved the point that the MTH E6 is longer than the others, which was the topic of the other thread, and the closest to prototype length.

Also, if you check prototype photos, it appears that the 3rd Rail C&NW E6 paint scheme is not accurate when compared to the MTH C&NW E6.  And the Lionel IC E6 brown is too light.  The MTH IC E6 brown is closer to the prototype color.

@Jtrain posted:

Well Charlie, you really seem to be obsessed with this subject, but there is no need to defame others: "recent inaccurate information by another forum member", seriously?  You might want to delete that.

Only obsessed with providing facts which you still seem to not get (or see). There is nothing factually incorrect about the information I posted.

The point is that it seems that you proved the point that the MTH E6 is longer than the others, which was the topic of the other thread, and the closest to prototype length.

Well, I can't argue with your logic if fact based information is not your thing than keep thinking what ever you want. Just trying to help.

Also, if you check prototype photos, it appears that the 3rd Rail C&NW E6 paint scheme is not accurate when compared to the MTH C&NW E6.  And the Lionel IC E6 brown is too light.  The MTH IC E6 brown is closer to the prototype color.

As stated, I was not interested in discussing the deco since that will take away from the original discussion, but if you want to discuss the C&NW units, then I will say, there are errors with both the 3rd unit and the MTH unit, but on the whole, there are way more errors or better omissions on the MTH model, too many to list. As for the IC, again there are deco errors, but as for the color, the orange is good, but the chocolate brown could be a bit darker. There has not been a correct IC E unit done yet in 3 rail, but this one is pretty close.

Charlie

@EscapeRocks posted:

Charlie,

From what I can decipher, it looks like couple face to coupler face is 71'-1.25"   or 853.25"   = 71.104 feet x.25 = 17.77 scale feet (for O scale)

I love your comparison and detailed pics on the number graph   thanks for doing this

Hey Dave;

Thanks for the feedback, if correct that would put the Sunset 3rd the closest to scale and the MTH and Lionel a bit longer than scale, not much, but a little.

Charlie

Well, Charlie, you do seem to jump to a lot of conclusions without facts, and are quick to be hyper critical.  I am not sure why.  But attacking others on the forum is not necessary.  And it detracts from the discussion.

I happen to have a few Overland brass E6 models, a few MTH E6 models, several Lionel E6 models, and a few 3rd Rail E6 models.  Measuring the A units as carefully as possible, here is what I get for length with fixed pilots and scale couplers installed on all:

MTH 17.78"

Overland 17.76"

Lionel 17.50"

3rd Rail 17.48"

Nice write up Charlie.  But none of this answers when Scott is going to do a second run of the E6!

Still kicking myself for cancelling my order.  Maybe, wish upon a star, he'll offer a special E3 run......

@WITZ 41 posted:

Nice write up Charlie.  But none of this answers when Scott is going to do a second run of the E6!

Still kicking myself for cancelling my order.  Maybe, wish upon a star, he'll offer a special E3 run......

That would be a great idea.  The 3rd Rail models are really nice.  And they offer B units, where appropriate.  That is the biggest defect with the Lionel models, no B units, particularly since many/most roads had them.

@WITZ 41 posted:

But none of this answers when Scott is going to do a second run of the E6!

Thanks Will. I hope Scott will do another run of a few of the road names I could not get at the time.

Still kicking myself for cancelling my order.  Maybe, wish upon a star, he'll offer a special E3 run......

Agree, Jonathan did a great job of providing the art work for the C&NW scheme and picked up on a few details that have been overlooked by others in the past. Is it perfect, no, but much more accurate than anything else out there. The MTH model has a few deco errors and omissions as shown in the images, that I do hope 3rd Rail does them again and the E3 would be a nice addition especially for a guy who will have a proper train to pull... like yourself.

Charlie

I don't own an E6 so I really don't have an ax to grind on this topic.

Given the drawings above, which I guess should not be posted, but in this case very helpful. The drawings make the whole argument easy.

Ignoring the couplers, so the bottom 71 feet 1 and 1/4 inches is not being paid attention to. Just going by the body length.

For the body length we have 19 and 1/4 inches for the pilot, then 13 feet 0 inches to the truck center, 43 feet 0 inches between truck centers,  then 12 feet 0 inches to the rear edge of the carbody. I am not including the 18 inches for the vestibule. Call the 19 inches 1 and 13/16 feet.

So that gives 1 13/16+13+43+12 = 69 and 13/16 feet long  (69.8125 feet) or about 17.453 inches in 1/4 inch scale from the tip of the pilot to the rear edge of the body.

Looking at the graph paper above gives the following conclusion:

They are all too long for scale.

Just going by the plans and dimensions in the pictures given above.

Did I leave out the 1/4 from the 19 and 1/4 inches from the pilot. Yes, I did. It doesn't matter. 1/4 inch is 0.02083 feet. Add it in above, it still doesn't matter.

@WBC posted:

I don't own an E6 so I really don't have an ax to grind on this topic.

Given the drawings above, which I guess should not be posted, but in this case very helpful. The drawings make the whole argument easy.

Ignoring the couplers, so the bottom 71 feet 1 and 1/4 inches is not being paid attention to. Just going by the body length.

For the body length we have 19 and 1/4 inches for the pilot, then 13 feet 0 inches to the truck center, 43 feet 0 inches between truck centers,  then 12 feet 0 inches to the rear edge of the carbody. I am not including the 18 inches for the vestibule. Call the 19 inches 1 and 13/16 feet.

So that gives 1 13/16+13+43+12 = 69 and 13/16 feet long  (69.8125 feet) or about 17.453 inches in 1/4 inch scale from the tip of the pilot to the rear edge of the body.

Looking at the graph paper above gives the following conclusion:

They are all too long for scale.

Just going by the plans and dimensions in the pictures given above.

The measurements I posted were coupler face measurements with scale couplers.  So, it looks like the MTH and Overland are very close to the correct coupler face length.  The Lionel and 3rd Rail are a little short.  Not much, just about 1-2 scale feet.

I do not have a Key brass E6 model to measure, but those are probably the most accurate, like the Overland.  Although they are both 2-rail models.

@Jtrain posted:

The measurements I posted were coupler face measurements with scale couplers.  So, it looks like the MTH and Overland are very close to the correct length.  The Lionel and 3rd Rail are a little short.  Not much, just about 1-2 scale feet.

I went by the carbody length, ignoring the couplers and going by the plans above and the graph paper above. The carbody of each of the models is too long going by the plans posted. The carbody length should be 17.45 inches. MTH is closer to 18 inches in the graph paper picture above. Last I checked, 18 inches is longer than 17.45. 3rd rail and Lionel's are 17 and 3/4 inches. Last I checked, 17 3/4 inches is longer than 17.45 inches.  All of them are too long going by the drawings given.

@WBC posted:

I went by the carbody length, ignoring the couplers and going by the plans above and the graph paper above. The carbody of each of the models is too long going by the plans posted. The carbody length should be 17.45 inches. MTH is closer to 18 inches in the graph paper picture above. Last I checked, 18 inches is longer than 17.45. 3rd rail and Lionel's are 17 and 3/4 inches. Last I checked, 17 3/4 inches is longer than 17.45 inches.  All of them are too long going by the drawings given.

But you can't use that overhead photo on graph paper.  You need to measure the models.  The models are all closer to the camera than the graph paper and they all appear longer in the photo than they actually are.  It is an optical illusion.  But the differences are not great.

@Charlie - I wanted to mention, in regards to the MTH shallow fuel tanks, they do that in order to support the high rail wheel to scale wheel conversion.  I think the gap it creates between the bottom of the fuel tank and the tracks is disconcerting.  The gap between the top of the trucks and the chassis has also been a pet peeze of mine and I ultimately have to replace the front coupler shroud entirely when affixing it to the chassis.  A

Honest question:

Looking at the drawing dimensions, with which I came up with the same as posted by others;   Where does the 70' 4" come from that several Google searches and Wiki show for the E6a?  Granted the 69.8 is only 1/2".   Just curious if 70' 4" is based on a real, live measurement of an actual loco, or if I (we) are not seeing something on the engineering drawings.

That's why in my comparison I did, I did the coupler face to coupler face as I kept getting the 69.8 from the drawings, and couldn't find the missing 1/2"

Interesting topic, and I have learned some new things, being new to determining scale size fidelity

"This borders on rivet counting so if that bothers you please read no further."

I'll tell you what bothers me - people complaining about "rivet-counting". These are expensive models and not blue toys with faces. This thread is interesting. Thanks for doing it.

Mr JL Cowen - yes, him - was very proud of the fact that his new scale Hudson of 1937 had a tender that was accurate down to the number of visible rivets. That was questioned, I have read/heard, and they were counted. Turned out that the rivets were off by a handful, but, no matter. Literal rivet-counting was practiced by the founder of Lionel, it seems.

Count on!

First of all.  Thanks for posting the thread Charlie. It is always interesting to see these posted side by side.

I'm biased but a few fun facts.

On length:  The prototype drawing posted shows a 71' 1-1/4" dimension from the pulling space of the couplers.  It you look closely at the drawing the front pulling face of the front coupler is within only a few inches to the face of the pilot.  The rear pulling face of the coupler is aligned with the face of the diaphragm.  I went back to the factory dimensioned drawings and the length on the 3rd Rail model is 450.94mm for this dimension.  This translates to 17.754" or 71' 0-1/64" at 1:1.  It is just a hair over 1" undersized at 1:1 scale.  I don't trust the dimension shown on Wikapedia over a factory drawing.

The 3rd Rail version also accurately depicts the variation where the forward window is closer to the cab than on the standard off the shelf E6.  ATSF shared this variation with CNW .  One cannot replicate the Warbonnet correctly without the window in the correct location. Thanks to a slide tool, 3rd Rail could do both window variations.  Lionel and MTH show the standard window locations that most E6s had which is not to say it is not correct in general.  It is just not correct for CNW and ATSF.  That is not a criticism of anything other than the downside of mass production.  3rd Rails numbers weren't close to what a Lionel or MTH have run for this locomotive.  You can thank Tom (number 90) for pointing that out before that project went to design.

Finally on the pilots.  The E6s had a pretty consistent pilot during it's brief tenure in the EMD catalog.  As I recall the only difference was a protruding door for roads that did not want a drop coupler on the nose.

As to E3's.  I'd like to see that locomotive produced even though not many were built.  The main difference is on the roof exhausts.  The E3 borrowed elements from the E1 and E2 that lasted into the Phase I E5. Phase II E5s shared the roof exhaust design of the E6.

I'd be interested in hearing the feedback on the graphics.  I do make mistakes from time to time and this is how I learn.  The paint scheme was based upon the as-delivered factory scheme, but it is often hard to gauge text height etc. correctly for many roads as the records aren't always easy to find.

I love my ASTF E6 A-B set.  One of the nicest non-brass locomotives I own.  I kept the closed pilot on mine as it just looks proper that way.  In very non-protypical fashion it sometimes gets the call to pull the El-Cap / Super Chief at my club layout even if most E-Units were relegated to the flatter routes down into Texas by then.

@A. Wells posted:

@Charlie - I wanted to mention, in regards to the MTH shallow fuel tanks, they do that in order to support the high rail wheel to scale wheel conversion.  I think the gap it creates between the bottom of the fuel tank and the tracks is disconcerting.  The gap between the top of the trucks and the chassis has also been a pet peeve of mine and I ultimately have to replace the front coupler shroud entirely when affixing it to the chassis

Hey A.Wells, agree with your comments about the fuel tank and that is why I mentioned that it seems like should be an easy fix. Also, remember, this was the oldest tooling of the group so I expect some short comings.

Regarding the truck to body gap, yes, this is particular bad in this case. At first I thought the pilot was bent but after checking it is fine. The gap is what it is. It should be noted, all manufactures have had gap issues from time to time and is another reason to evaluate each model on its own merit. Meaning its really hard to say "all MTH" or "all Lionel" have big gaps.

Overall, each model has pros and cons and this does not include the differences in decoration or performance.

Charlie

@EscapeRocks posted:

Honest question:

Looking at the drawing dimensions, with which I came up with the same as posted by others;   Where does the 70' 4" come from that several Google searches and Wiki show for the E6a?  Granted the 69.8 is only 1/2".   Just curious if 70' 4" is based on a real, live measurement of an actual loco, or if I (we) are not seeing something on the engineering drawings.

Yes, it is very easy to get find different measurements in different "official" resources. Though most are just inches different. The key is to find out how or what is being measured. Coupler face to coupler face or over coupler or body. Jonathans number posted below show another measurement that I have not seen.

That's why in my comparison I did, I did the coupler face to coupler face as I kept getting the 69.8 from the drawings, and couldn't find the missing 1/2"

Interesting topic, and I have learned some new things, being new to determining scale size fidelity

Agreeded, after gathering some friends engines and doing the side by side imaging, it is easy to see the differences separate from decoration. In the end, each modeler will have to make their decision as to what best fits their needs. This was only one component in the equation.

Charlie

@D500 posted:

"This borders on rivet counting so if that bothers you please read no further."

I'll tell you what bothers me - people complaining about "rivet-counting". These are expensive models and not blue toys with faces. This thread is interesting. Thanks for doing it.

D500, agreed and maybe I should have not posted that, but my intention was a preemptive notice as to what was really being compared. Even then, one guy simply cannot help himself posting inaccurate information or even taking the thread off topic. This was not meant to be a comparison on decoration, or operation etc. Just a simple apples to apples comparison on the merits of each manufactures rendition of the E6 body.

If this help someone make a better informed decision than exercise was a success.

Charlie

@GG1 4877 posted:

First of all.  Thanks for posting the thread Charlie. It is always interesting to see these posted side by side.

I'm biased but a few fun facts.

Jonathan, I and whole bunch of other people are glad you are so biased. I suspect if people knew how much work you put into these projects they might not be so quick to judge or even bring up the price for these models. I know your attention to detail is second to none.

On length:  The prototype drawing posted shows a 71' 1-1/4" dimension from the pulling space of the couplers.  It you look closely at the drawing the front pulling face of the front coupler is within only a few inches to the face of the pilot.  The rear pulling face of the coupler is aligned with the face of the diaphragm.  I went back to the factory dimensioned drawings and the length on the 3rd Rail model is 450.94mm for this dimension.  This translates to 17.754" or 71' 0-1/64" at 1:1.  It is just a hair over 1" undersized at 1:1 scale.  I don't trust the dimension shown on Wikipedia over a factory drawing.

I concur and support your numbers as that is what I came up with in the original thread on this topic. The Lionel and MTH are slightly oversized. Also, we have only been discussing length, not the oversized height on the MTH and Lionel. One dimension I did not measure, was width, so I can't comment on that. Based on the images, I don't think there is a significant difference on this dimension.

The 3rd Rail version also accurately depicts the variation where the forward window is closer to the cab than on the standard off the shelf E6.  ATSF shared this variation with CNW .

I notice that only after seeing the images on the monitor. Never caught that detail before.

Finally on the pilots.  The E6s had a pretty consistent pilot during it's brief tenure in the EMD catalog.  As I recall the only difference was a protruding door for roads that did not want a drop coupler on the nose.

Thanks for the feedback on this detail. It was pretty clear that the 3rd Rail pilot was a different shape from the Lionel and MTH.

I'd be interested in hearing the feedback on the graphics.  I do make mistakes from time to time and this is how I learn.  The paint scheme was based upon the as-delivered factory scheme, but it is often hard to gauge text height etc. correctly for many roads as the records aren't always easy to find.

Full disclosure for the forum, Jonathan and I exchanged e-mails and some of the details could not be added/changed without some additional cost.

Speaking only on the C&NW decoration, 3rd Rail is probably the most accurate version to date. The most obvious devotion is the nose herald. The prototype had the herald slightly higher, almost sounding the door light. The placement of the MTH herald is more correct, but the graphic on the 3rd is more accurate.

As for the rest of the graphic elements that 3rd Rail got correct was the roof decoration, the thin black line around the green, and most visible, the green trucks, pilot and side skirting.

The paint you used for the E6 was spot on. The yellow and green are perfect as is. Hopefully Scott will make a set of cars for this engine that and will remember this paint formula for that project... one can dream.

Thanks for all the overtime you put into these projects Jonathan!

Charlie

The 3rd Rail C&NW E6 looks like an as-delivered/early 1940's paint scheme, but with green trucks? All photos I have seen show black trucks. The fuel tank looks black in photos too, but that is difficult to tell in black & white photos.

The MTH C&NW E6 paint scheme is accurate (mostly) for the 1950's. The only noticeable flaw is the lack of a black pinstripe around the green.