Leafing through MR last week, I came across Iain Rice’s U18B article. Nicely written, good photographs, nice modeling. As I read on and examined the photos, I noticed that the starting point was Athearn’s U-Boat shell. This is one of the Athearn “widebodies” - the hood is over a scale foot too wide.
I would understand if the article’s thrust was working with available materials, since certain equipment and supplies can be harder to obtain in the UK. What bothers me more is an apparent failure to acknowledge the model’s inherent discrepancy. I would have expected a footnote mentioning the discrepancy at least.
Did I miss something, was it an honest omission, or does MR’s staff no longer consider such details relevant to the core audience? It was relevant to me, and such an omission was more than a little disappointing.
Particularly when “billed” as a P87 locomotive. Yeah, P87 is a wheel/rail specification, but one also expects closer modeling tolerances.
This model has gotten a lot of news group comment. The Atlas bodies for the scale conversion are readily available in England at about the same price as USA.
I am curious about how fast and loose MR will play with accurate modeling in the upcoming P87 series.
This is an old but never the less, a great convertion. I’m not a nitpicker so when I have chance to get a U18B, even if it’s an athearn thats a foot too wide, I jump at the chance. Big deal. I don’t know of anyone that can eyeball a scale foot in HO.[}:)][}:)][}:)]
Yes, you do. I can, and while I do agree that it’s not the end of the world, I think it was worthy of note, especially when a correct shell is now available.
He started with the Athearn U30C, whose hood is a scale foot too wide. Meanwhile, Atlas makes a U30C that is the correct width. You might even make the Atlas C30-7 shell work, since you’re cutting up the shell anyway.
Leafing through MR last week, I came across Iain Rice’s U18B article. Nicely written, good photographs, nice modeling. As I read on and examined the photos, I noticed that the starting point was Athearn’s U-Boat shell. This is one of the Athearn “widebodies” - the hood is over a scale foot too wide.
I would understand if the article’s thrust was working with available materials, since certain equipment and supplies can be harder to obtain in the UK. What bothers me more is an apparent failure to acknowledge the model’s inherent discrepancy. I would have expected a footnote mentioning the discrepancy at least.
Did I miss something, was it an honest omission, or does MR’s staff no longer consider such details relevant to the core audience? It was relevant to me, and such an omission was more than a little disappointing.
Particularly when “billed” as a P87 locomotive. Yeah, P87 is a wheel/rail specification, but one also expects closer modeling tolerances.
This model has gotten a lot of news group comment. The Atlas bodies for the scale conversion are readily available in England at about the same price as USA.
I am curious about how fast and loose MR will play with accurate modeling in the upcoming P87 series.
This is an old but never the less, a great convertion. I’m not a nitpicker so when I have chance to get a U18B, even if it’s an athearn thats a foot too wide, I jump at the chance. Big deal. I don’t know of anyone that can eyeball a scale foot in HO.[}:)][}:)][}:)]
Yes, you do. I can, and while I do agree that it’s not the end of the world, I think it was worthy of note, especially when a correct shell is now available.
He started with the Athearn U30C, whose hood is a scale foot too wide. Meanwhile, Atlas makes a U30C that is the correct width. You might even make the Atlas C30-7 shell work, since you’re cutting up the shell anyway.