I can see the finer details of the Genesis, and that the windows seem to curve a bit differently than the BB. Other than that, I think they look no different.
Edit: Upon closer inspection, it looks like the top headlight of the BB sticks out a bit too far, but it may be the thicker lens material than the actual housing lacking accuracy. I cant see a difference in contours or such.
Well they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Perhaps if viewed in person and not in photos at different angles you would see but perhaps not.
John
Quite true. The Atlas FP7 had cast-on railings (unlike the Athearn) and the steam generator hatch was far too wide. I am currently looking forward to my BN/NP FP7 from Athearn.
Ed
Funny thing that old heads could name every part on a steam engine,knew the various classes and sub classes of steam engines on their favorite road and some even knew a Alco RS-3 from a EMD GP7 and knew a 6 axle diesel from a 4 axle but,diesels was still new and replacing their beloved steam and therefore hated by the majority of the modelers.
Yeah, just like beauty, not everything matters to me. I don’t think its a matter of not being able to notice it, I think its a matter of not caring enough about it to take the time to notice it.
For example, for the EX NYC future Conrail GP20R in my avatar, I prefer the LL Proto GP20 over the Mantua GP20 because the details are finer and crisper. My model of that loco has to not have dynamic brakes, and I added the proper exhaust stacks and paper air filter box. But the shapes of the hoods and the cab look the same to me. If I took the time to study it, I might notice.
I’m never interested in modeling a locomotive on its “as built date”, so things like proper shade of paint color doesn’t matter either. Besides, it might misdefine the era of may layout. Since only ONE type of loco on the layout could ever have an as built paint shade, its a lost cause for me anyway. If I modeled the B&O on the day it received its GP35s, my then years old GP9s and RS-1s shouldn’t have their new as built paint colors, IMO.
But that would be for my layout and what I care about. Another may not care about every loco and rail car on their layout having the exact same shade of paint.
I never thought that F7 could win a beauty contest.My all time favorite two BB engines remains the GP7 and SW7 hands down contest over.
Railroads loves playing the detail switch game examples would be:
For better grade crossing protection let’s change the horn on the ES12 class from single to Nathan three chimes mounted on the cab roof above its current location and let’s blank out the lower window on the fireman’s side…This can be done during normal shopping.
Now we see a hodge pode of detail-SW1200 888 has a blank out window and Nathan three chime horns but,its sister 889 still hasn’t been changed and due to another order like-dead line the following engines pending sale ES12,881,889 and 893.These engines may never had the changes made and yet some may become upset because models of (say) 881 lacks the mention changes.
And the granddaddy-when was the changes made and on what numbers?
Just like ditch lights-in the mid 80s and and into the 90s CR,CSX and NS units lacked these lights because the change started in the mid 90s.
The Athearn BB F7 was at one time the bulk of my diesel fleet. The detailing was never great but I’m not one who is big on fine detail anyway. It didn’t much bother me that it wasn’t perfectly to scale either. It looked like an F7 to me. My gripe about Athearn BB, both locos and rolling stock, was their pitiful coupler pockets. You couldn’t just drop a standard KD#5 in the F7 although I tried it. Most of my freight cars at one time were BB kits. I hated that metal clip over the plastic pocket. Still do. Accurail has since filled the void left my Athearn leaving the kit market. Quality is just as good and a much better coupler system.
It seems we are oversimplifYing on paint. Engines got repainted periodically so it is possible to see fresh looking older engines next to brand new ones. This was especially true on roads like Santa Fe which took great pride in all motive power.
There are/where several very simple fixes for the Blue Box F7 coupler pocket.
First, simply use Kadee #37 couplers and drill/tap the existing dimple in the coupler mount on the frame.
Or, get the close coupling diaphragm converion kit from American Limited which has diaphragms and improved coupler pockets that work perfectly.
As for the metal clip covers on freight cars, if you simply bend them more “square” before you install them, they generally work fine. I have about 350 Athearn freight cars…never had any real problems.
Sheldon
I usually body-mounted couplers on Athearn hood-type diesels. A simple platform, built-up from sheet styrene allows use of any type of Kadee coupler, in its own draught gear box, to be screwed in place. Simply use a hacksaw to cut off the metal coupler-mounting extensions from the Athearn frame. This method of coupler mounting will also allow you to close-in the gap in the pilot beneath the coupler:
I agree: the clip-on metal covers work perfectly well once they’re properly bent.
Wayne
As I’ve pointed out in the past “realistic” can mean more than fidelity to prototype. Having had a great-uncle who worked for the Minneapolis & St.Louis, I was interested when Athearn Genesis came out with some F units decorated for the M-St.L. However, the price for an A-A or A-B set was something like $220. I ended up buying an A-A set of “blue box” F7’s, which Athearn decorated the same as the Genesis ones, for a more “realistic” (for my budget) cost of about $65. I picked up a Genesis F unit powered chassis at a RR flea market for $45 and I’m quite happy with them.