John Sheridan
Member
Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:07 pm

February 5th, 2018, 9:56 am #91

nhhe52 wrote:
John Sheridan wrote:
nhhe52 wrote: BA7E5173-6880-4DC4-948D-2E88F2B0FF18.jpegThe pantograph structures appear Very thick in the Rapido 3D rendering.  I hope Rapido can slim them down, more to scale.  The operable BLI and MTH pans are much thinner than these appear to be.  I know the OMI pans are fragile but they look great.

Sure do wish the 3rd rail shoes were more obvious and even better if they could be manually flipped up and down.  When I mention that to Bill he joked, sure, why not set DCC Function 29 to raise and lower them.   Some micro electric motors would do the job.😀

Ed
As for the 3rd rail shoes - they are very small & you are well aware that if we did motorized them you would be paying much more for the model to include such a minor function. The attach point to the truck is .055 & the shoe thickness is .007.

Anyways setting CV 29 will cause the top to open so the Girrafe can raise its head out of the opening.
John:

I was kidding about the DCC operable third rail shoes.  However being able to manually flip them up and down would cost not much more if anything, or having them supplied so the owner could install them in the desired position.

Thank you for the info  and clarification on the pantograph structure thickness.

Ed
You think so Ed ?  

We would need to make the shoes much thicker & install a pin for them to pivot on. Also, we would need to figure out a way to lock them in-place in the UP position so they don't accidently flip down & start clearing your scenery or snap off during operation. This would have forced them to be grossly out of scale because of the pin & shoe need to be actually assembled by a human being up to 24,000 of these as all 4 trucks carried 2 shoes per truck. (8 shoes per model x 3000 units = 24,000 shoes & 12,000 pins to inserted & secured). 

Do you expect the factory to do all this work for free ? I think not.  

No. As for your statement: "would cost not much more if anything" is completely bogus as you have zero idea of what it would cost.   However, Jason & Bill do. 

It was discussed early on in design & we decided it was not worth the extra cost to make them operable. It is a very minor detail & we had zero complaints when we did the exact same thing to the FL9s.
Quote
Like
Share

stokernick
Member
Joined: August 10th, 2017, 8:09 pm

February 5th, 2018, 10:26 am #92

As an NScale modeler, and purchaser of Rapido FL-9s, any chance of seeing an N Scale Rapido EP-5?  I can  understand the cost and need to meet a minimum threshold, but I figured that it couldn’t hurt to ask. Are there other N Scale modelers who would purchase an N Scale EP-5 if the wizards at Rapido made them?
Quote
Like
Share

nhhe52
Member
Joined: March 26th, 2004, 12:19 am

February 5th, 2018, 11:05 am #93

John Sheridan wrote:
nhhe52 wrote:
John Sheridan wrote:
As for the 3rd rail shoes - they are very small & you are well aware that if we did motorized them you would be paying much more for the model to include such a minor function. The attach point to the truck is .055 & the shoe thickness is .007.

Anyways setting CV 29 will cause the top to open so the Girrafe can raise its head out of the opening.
John:

I was kidding about the DCC operable third rail shoes.  However being able to manually flip them up and down would cost not much more if anything, or having them supplied so the owner could install them in the desired position.

Thank you for the info  and clarification on the pantograph structure thickness.

Ed
You think so Ed ?  

We would need to make the shoes much thicker & install a pin for them to pivot on. Also, we would need to figure out a way to lock them in-place in the UP position so they don't accidently flip down & start clearing your scenery or snap off during operation. This would have forced them to be grossly out of scale because of the pin & shoe need to be actually assembled by a human being up to 24,000 of these as all 4 trucks carried 2 shoes per truck. (8 shoes per model x 3000 units = 24,000 shoes & 12,000 pins to inserted & secured). 

Do you expect the factory to do all this work for free ? I think not.  

No. As for your statement: "would cost not much more if anything" is completely bogus as you have zero idea of what it would cost.   However, Jason & Bill do. 

It was discussed early on in design & we decided it was not worth the extra cost to make them operable. It is a very minor detail & we had zero complaints when we did the exact same thing to the FL9s.
Okay, John, I stand corrected on the flip shoe idea cost.

I would be nice to have the option, to be installed by the owner either up or down, rather than molded in the up position.

Ed
Quote
Like
Share

John Sheridan
Member
Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:07 pm

February 5th, 2018, 11:27 am #94

nhhe52 wrote:
John Sheridan wrote:
nhhe52 wrote:

John:

I was kidding about the DCC operable third rail shoes.  However being able to manually flip them up and down would cost not much more if anything, or having them supplied so the owner could install them in the desired position.

Thank you for the info  and clarification on the pantograph structure thickness.

Ed
You think so Ed ?  

We would need to make the shoes much thicker & install a pin for them to pivot on. Also, we would need to figure out a way to lock them in-place in the UP position so they don't accidently flip down & start clearing your scenery or snap off during operation. This would have forced them to be grossly out of scale because of the pin & shoe need to be actually assembled by a human being up to 24,000 of these as all 4 trucks carried 2 shoes per truck. (8 shoes per model x 3000 units = 24,000 shoes & 12,000 pins to inserted & secured). 

Do you expect the factory to do all this work for free ? I think not.  

No. As for your statement: "would cost not much more if anything" is completely bogus as you have zero idea of what it would cost.   However, Jason & Bill do. 

It was discussed early on in design & we decided it was not worth the extra cost to make them operable. It is a very minor detail & we had zero complaints when we did the exact same thing to the FL9s.
Okay, John, I stand corrected on the flip shoe idea cost.

I would be nice to have the option, to be installed by the owner either up or down, rather than molded in the up position.

Ed
They are not molded on anything. The shoes themselves are Photo-etched & are to be glued to the truck. 

If you want to make them operable, there is nothing stopping you from breaking them off, drilling a hole for the pin & re-attaching them. Let us all know how it works for ya. 😀.
Quote
Like
Share

John Sheridan
Member
Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:07 pm

February 5th, 2018, 11:29 am #95

stokernick wrote: As an NScale modeler, and purchaser of Rapido FL-9s, any chance of seeing an N Scale Rapido EP-5?  I can  understand the cost and need to meet a minimum threshold, but I figured that it couldn’t hurt to ask. Are there other N Scale modelers who would purchase an N Scale EP-5 if the wizards at Rapido made them?
It depends on the sales of the HO scale unit & there is an actual demand for them in N scale.  I never thought you would see the 8600s in N scale but there they are so anything is possible.
Quote
Like
Share

nhhe52
Member
Joined: March 26th, 2004, 12:19 am

February 5th, 2018, 11:52 am #96

John Sheridan wrote:
nhhe52 wrote:
John Sheridan wrote:
You think so Ed ?  

We would need to make the shoes much thicker & install a pin for them to pivot on. Also, we would need to figure out a way to lock them in-place in the UP position so they don't accidently flip down & start clearing your scenery or snap off during operation. This would have forced them to be grossly out of scale because of the pin & shoe need to be actually assembled by a human being up to 24,000 of these as all 4 trucks carried 2 shoes per truck. (8 shoes per model x 3000 units = 24,000 shoes & 12,000 pins to inserted & secured). 

Do you expect the factory to do all this work for free ? I think not.  

No. As for your statement: "would cost not much more if anything" is completely bogus as you have zero idea of what it would cost.   However, Jason & Bill do. 

It was discussed early on in design & we decided it was not worth the extra cost to make them operable. It is a very minor detail & we had zero complaints when we did the exact same thing to the FL9s.
Okay, John, I stand corrected on the flip shoe idea cost.

I would be nice to have the option, to be installed by the owner either up or down, rather than molded in the up position.

Ed
They are not molded on anything. The shoes themselves are Photo-etched & are to be glued to the truck. 

If you want to make them operable, there is nothing stopping you from breaking them off, drilling a hole for the pin & re-attaching them. Let us all know how it works for ya. 😀.
Got it, right after I install all the stirrups on my 8600 cars.  I still haven't install the pans on my FL-9's. :)
Quote
Like
Share

rivermanvt
Member
Joined: June 15th, 2014, 10:26 am

February 7th, 2018, 9:05 am #97

nhhe52 wrote: The EP-5 would have looked great in any paint in my opinion, except perhaps that yellow nosed PC scheme.  The Hunter Green, silver-striped Brooks Brothers scheme would have looked great as well.  Below are the McGinnis Loser and Standard schemes mentioned above.EP5 variation 001 crop.jpg
Thanks very much for the view of an EP-5 in the "Standard" scheme. Guess I didn't do to badly as the rendering is almost an exact match
for my Alco Models EP-5 painted that way. Rick A. may diapprove, but I doubt loudly, if I bring and display it at the next reunion. Now to see 
if Jason can be talked into doing EP-4's and EF-3's. Come to think of it I'd love to see "Easy-Peasy" catenary like his lineside telegraph
pole system, especially if a way cold e found to offer the triangular style.

My best to all, Don Valentine
Quote
Like
Share

RApplegate
Member
Joined: June 18th, 2003, 4:25 am

February 7th, 2018, 11:01 pm #98

John Sheridan wrote:
stokernick wrote: As an NScale modeler, and purchaser of Rapido FL-9s, any chance of seeing an N Scale Rapido EP-5?  I can  understand the cost and need to meet a minimum threshold, but I figured that it couldn’t hurt to ask. Are there other N Scale modelers who would purchase an N Scale EP-5 if the wizards at Rapido made them?
It depends on the sales of the HO scale unit & there is an actual demand for them in N scale.  I never thought you would see the 8600s in N scale but there they are so anything is possible.
I have always been interested in EP-5s in N-scale.  Some years ago I obtained a custom built N-Scale EP-5, that was very well done other than it was built on a chassis that is too long!  Not immediately obvious unless positioned next to a proper scale HO EP-5.  So it would be nice to have (at least) a couple of proper length N-Scale EP-5s!
Quote
Like
Share

NHJJ4
Member
NHJJ4
Member
Joined: August 18th, 2003, 5:18 am

February 11th, 2018, 12:26 pm #99

 Give me a brake ! Operational 3rd Rail Shoes  Bet ya even want that little pan on the roof to work as well. Ah  But I have a GREAT IDEA !!  Add a smoke unit to it and say it is a Steam Generator ??
 No Sorry that is 2 ( BLI ) But How bout going round 15" Radius turns??
 Jim Evans
Quote
Like
Share