You can see the very in depth review here:
It’s an exquisite model that makes you want to forget all about brass. I’m practically allergic to anything UP and I want one – but just not in my budget. However, the value/price proposition is definitely there. Well worth it considering the thought, details, and features built in to each one.
The auto-sensing flange squeal and frog-crossing sounds are rather amazing.
Grabbed my River Counter with sound this morning about 11:30 or so.
Took pics at the hobby shop[:D]
Got home to program it, make a crude spooling turbine video show it to the kids and then pack it up to go to the club and run it.
Any idea how strange it looks running backwards in full song on break in?
Good review. I can`t wait to get mine. I like the looks of the SD-40 also and plan on ordering one of those in Chessie System also. I like Scale Trains as they seem to care about the quality of their models and seem to have fair prices.
I have read/seen a lot of reviews over the past 30-40 years and I would not call this “very in-depth”. Very in-depth would include measurements and comparisons to the prototype as well as some detailed background on the prototype. That kind of very in-depth look at models is of interest to many people who want to know how close a model is to the prototyp or what is the degree of fidelity etc. - these are review elements that I don’t see in these reviews. That is very important to some modelers, especially when you are dropping large sums of money.
That said - on a positive note, James give an excellent close-up look at the model and lets you see it run through some paces and how it sounds. All of these things are very useful for hobbyists to get a good look. James does an upbeat and professional style look with his reviews.
Jim,
Times change and I’m not certain that letting someone else decide what’s notable and accurate is as central to reviews now as it used to be given the access to information and discussion with other modelers now available on the internet and elsewhere. That said, the approach James takes is to show you and let you decide. If you’re not comfortable deciding after 30 minutes of closeup video, then the consumer may need to be the one to do a little more due diligence to satisfy themselves given the quantity and quality of info the manufacturer provides here. Scale Trains has certainly done its job on that, setting a pretty high bar for the competition to measure up to.
It used to be that all you would see before something new hit the market was often an artist’s representation. Now the consumer has already seen the R&D process, the factory, and an extensive suite of documentation of the test shots all provided by Scale Trains. One could second guess some of that if one wants – the info is there. But where exactly does a reviewer start measuring and comparing when so much is already there for the consumer to see?
Take for example this detail list on UP #26: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0642/8107/files/SXT70002.pdf?5737995682470988358
It’s linked from this extensively illustrated general look at the features of this model:
Looked at the price tag. Dang proud of that UP arent they !
Mike, some things don’t change such as objective factual information that I’ve traditionally gone to reviews for. If someone has the basic specs of the prototype, such as height off the rails, truck center spacings, length and other metrics and compares them to a model, thats not “subjective” or someone deciding for me, it’s someone presenting factual information and helping me decide if a model has a high degree of fidelity to the prototype. I watched the video presented by ST, so I have a fairly high degree of confidence that they have built their model with a high degree of fidelity - but what is the old saying? The proof is in the pudding. Or as Reagan said back in the 1980’s, “trust, but verify”.
So what I’m talking about is review content that I’ve traditionally gleened from reviews I’ve read over the many years on many of the better train magazines.
Jame’s reviews do en excellent job of showing you the model close up and letting you see it’s features and hear it’s sounds and see it operate; all very useful and important things - especially these days when many do not have a brick and mortar shop to visit and see for themselves, ev
Aren’t James’ reviews pretty darn popular online?
And he clearly states that he is not an expert on every model or every railroad. I appreciate the transparency. James does not represent himself as anything he is not.
I do not see a problem with his reviews at all.
Better, if one is not a technical expert on a given model, to not say too much than to post bad information online that then can unnecessarily make a manufacturer look bad (and lose sales). There’s already too much bad information out there online. Why contribute to it? (And yes, I do believe there have been instances when online comments that were later proven factually incorrect did significantly, and negatively, affect the sales of an item).
I think James does a great service and a great job on his reviews, and he has at least earned the respect of many manufacturers for his review style of not getting too nitpicky. A few of the manufacturers have been ticked off at him even after what he did say, so I can respect that he’s trying to walk a reasonable line.
For me, James is sticking to the facts: this works, this is crooked, damaged, etc. and this looks like a paint or assembly/fit finish problem. Then it’s up to the buyer to decide if the model is “good enough” after 30 minutes of video.
Otherwise, no matter how much one comments on the fine details, somebody is going to say it wasn’t good enough or detailed enough.
John Mock
John, I think you and others may have misconstrued my comments as dissing James reviews. Nothing could be further from the truth. What James does, he does very well and very professionally, especially considering he has only been in the hobby for a few years. Kudo’s to James for his very well done close-up looks at models!
The only “issue” I had was with the OP calling the review “very in-depth”. That, I disagree with and have said why. For someone in the hobby having read reviews since the mid-1970’s, very in-depth means what I said above. If you don’t agree, thats ok, I’m just stating my perspective on the review process one relative to another.
Maybe it’s a matter of semantics too. You know, the old, “words mean things” issue. It might be more representative of what James does to call his video features “A Close-UP Look” rather than a “Review”? Just a thought.
RioGrande-
I’m sorry for misunderstanding you. This does seem to mirror similar conversations taking place on other forums that I now avoid. Others have taken issue with the quality of James’ reviews. Those others on other forums need to get a life.
That is also why I left other forums.
My apologies.
John Mock
No worries. The hobby is full of grumpy old men the way I see it so sometimes we bump into them or occasionally become them ourselves! =P
I have a lot of respect for James energy and enthusiasm in the hobby and expect if he stays in it over the long haul, he will become a full blown train nut and probably his reviews will start to include some of the content we have come to see in the traditional magazine reviews. But even for the present, they are very good to watch and get a close-up look at models that we otherwise might not be able to see with the LHS something thats not accessible to many of us these days. In that respect, times are a changing, and thats a service which helps fill that gap. Thanks to James for that.
I got mine yesterday, took some pics at the hobby shop after we opened it up to check it out.
It it flawless? No, but I would give it a 8.5 or 9 for overall fit and finish out fo 10.
I’ve posted a few videos and some pictures on our clubs Facebook page if anyone is interested in viewing them. I will tell you that I niether a photographer or videographer, but they are ok to look at for the most part if you want some other photos or videos to decide.
https://www.facebook.com/lakeshorerra/
You can go to the albums or the videos to see them.
I’ve ran mine 30 min each way yesterday and another 30+ min run today with another 15 loaded with 45 coal cars or so.
Might see what she can really do Friday night.
Jim,
Things are changing and I suspect that you’re expecting new forms of media to replicate the old forms of communication: detailed looks at lengthy lists of facts weren’t all that common in reviews, but yeah, that used to be at least a nod toward that as “the way it was done.” Imagine the long list of measurements you could do here, then think about actually doing it. If you were getting paid and the editor said that’s what they want, OK. And it’s the kind of info best looked up and considered by itself unless a significant anomaly was found. At least I’m thinking it would be a boring video to see someone pore over a list of facts side by side to see how things match up. In print that used to work, but now not so much, people just don’t have the attention span, but in a video you’d just change the channel I suspect.
Then there’s the internet, with fire hose volumes of info available if you want to know more about anything. Lots of facts out there.But anything a reviewer will put up is a tiny subset of the facts available. Each fact might be indisputable and objective, but the choice of which 30 facts to document in a review is inherently subjective, when so much has to be chosen from to be left out. Would a reviewer even care about the same set of 30 facts as the individual consumer? Only if by chance.
And then the reviewer opens themselves up to criticism about their choices and answers in the age of the internet. Who wants to go there, as we so often see people feel just as passionate about punishing the messenger as they are about obliterrating the message, even if it’s only “Wow, this is a really nice model!”
Reviews in the past were also a rather one-way flow of info where someone - an “expert” reviewer - told you it either m
Post corrected:
Getting back to the actual model itself, I noticed one glaring ommission. The grills on the sides of the A unit are nicely done and quite easy to see through. Therein lies the problem. There is nothing inside to see. You can see right through the body and out the other side. Given that the B unit does have internal detail that can be seen when the doors are open, I think the A unit should have it too.
Apparently my criticism was misguided. The grills are for air intake so logically there wouldn’t be a bunch of stuff blocking the airflow.
One exceedingly minor error in the review was that James suggested that the opening cab doors in the A unit might be an industry first. That’s not quite correct. Life Like P2K Es and Fs had operating doors. Doubt that that will be a deal breaker for anybody though.[(-D]
Dave
Dave,
I’m no turbine expert, but that space that seems MT may be accurate. Take a look at this nice side view (and it does zoom in for a better view):
The angle from the ground is not very revealing, but what appears to block vision through seems to mainly be structural.
OK Mike, I might be wrong. Maybe there isn’t much inside between the grills. It doesn’t make sense to me that there is nothing there but I’m in the same club as you are, I’m no expert either. You would think that at least there might be some fan housings, but maybe they just relied on forward movement to create enough air flow to cool the diesel auxilliary motor.
Regards,
Dave
Dave,
Went back to reference stuff I was looking at this afternoon to confirm, but this empty space is the intake for the radiator cooling. has to be lots of air flow, rather like on a Tunnel Motor (which has a very similar “emptiness”).
I happened to notice that Scale Trains has posted the product manual since I looked at their site this afternoon. LOTS of documentation for the model, but also the prototype: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0642/8107/files/SXT80001-Turbine_Set_Manual.pdf?1032320948084841533
A nice drawing to mouse over for detail: https://www.scaletrains.com/collections/museum-quality-gtel-8500-hp-big-blow-turbine/products/museum-quality-ho-scale-union-pacific-gtel-8500-horsepower-big-blow-turbine-4
I guess it was foolish of me to think that the model was missing something given their attention to detail. My bad.
Dave
I’m sure it’s missing something. There are no 100% models and may never be. But I think it’s probably better to evaluate the model by the impression it creates as a whole. Sure, if there are major discrepancies, let’s hear about it, but the proof is in the pudding. There’s some minor grumbling about this or that detail from the crowd that treat prototype fidelity like some sort of obsessive “where’s Waldo?”
If I really wanted a decent model of a turbine, there’s nothing that would keep me from going for this. And if my budget precludes that, I sure wouldn’t try to make the argument that because of 3 minor issues it’s not worth anywhere near what they’re asking and just maybe they oughta let me have it for $29.95. Seriously, the griping I’ve seen is about that level, “The Princess and the Pea” recast as a RR fable.
Either it strikes you as a handsome and worthy model (most people) or you’re more interested in the chase than the kill (the stubborn few who not so surprisingly seem to insist on finding fault with everything that hits the streets) it seems to me. I consider every comment, but then I also consider the source track record of grim unhappiness with how the hobby let’s them down so often. Then I look at the minute issue they describe and shake my head. Because if they’re model railroaders they COULD take something exquisite and improve on it if it really bothered them, right? That used to be a major part of the hobby, but not so much anymore. People actually expect to buy perfection on the cheap and save having to learn and develop the skills it takes to produce what they demand as a bargain. That probably makes their head hurt to contemplate, a lot like algebra turns my brain to mush. But nobody would take me seriously if I insisted that algebra should be reformed and edited to make it easy for me.
But I can see little room for improvement here, even after looking at the few complaints I’ve see