New HO Athearn SW1500

I meant to point out in the previous post that both pictures of the 354 and 358 in Tulsa were taken on the same date (10-2-77) and as consecutive pictures. This confirms that both foot board equipped and non foot board equipped units were operating at the same time in Tulsa. It would be interesting to find out what the reason for this difference was.

Terry

 

Terry,

The removal of the footboards was mandated by the AAR safety board. They wanted to eliminate workers riding on the footboards safer to be on the steps. There was a deadline date but there were a cross-over period where both were seen.

Part of that removal was to eliminate the hold on bar (grab) seen slightly above the coupler lift bar, a cut-out in each corner of the end plates and the coupler lift bar had a "loop" placed on it so it could be operated by a trainman from the step. I don't know the dates exactly but the mid to late seventies period was the start of the mandate and had to be in affect by the latter parts of the seventies. That's why I mentioned before all these things go hand in hand.

Nick

 

Nick and Tom, all of that explanation makes sense because it would have been potentially dangerous to ride on the foot board. Riding on the bottom step would have been much safer. I was and still am for improving the safety for the workers because railroading is a dangerous job. When I bought my first life insurance policy, I was charged more because of my profession. I unfortunately knew men who were seriously injured and a few who were killed on the job. Sometimes a little thing like not riding in a position (like a foot board) can make all the difference in the potential danger. That being said, I don't mean to imply that all safety edicts always resulted in a safer environment. In my latter years there were some inane safety rules that began to come out of the safety department that actually made the job harder and less safe. But that is for another thread.

Terry

 

Thanks Tom on correcting me that it was the FRA.

Nick

 

To All:

In regards to the footboard, I have a photo (attached) from Richard's collection that I believe to be one possibly taken a the plant when built clearly showing a footboard. For those you that have a copy of the book Frisco in Color, Vol. 1 go to page 35 and look at the picture on the bottom showing locomotive #325. This locomotive shows the hose tray/coupler lift bar configuration that Athearn has proposed using. Looking carefully at the hose tray one can see 4 slots (2 on each side) where I believe a footboard was once inserted. This photo is dated May 20. 1979 well into the mandate referenced in previous posts. Looking at the other photos on the adjoining pages one can easily see footboards and a loop-less lift bar. Having said this, could one then determine that going forward and not suggesting Athearn change this would date this locomotive to around 1978 or 1979 or later and does this even matter. One could also say that requesting they add footboards and change the lift bar would date it to 1978/1979 or earlier. Also, one could even say that if I hadn't brought this up very few would have either known the difference or cared. Or maybe one could say that it's all in the details!

 

Bob,

I would push Athearn to do footboard/normal coupler lift bar/long grab iron above version, going with the beacon period as well. This obviously covers 1968 to 1979 periods, but it more like 1977 max in my research. Are you sure this is a 1979 photo, sure looks like a delivery photo. If one wants to remove the footboards and add the looped lift bar handles, this was done not so cleanly, so any touch up paint would be prototypical as well.

Nick[

QUOTE=FriscoFriend;56999]To All:

In regards to the footboard, I have a photo (attached) from Richard's collection that I believe to be one possibly taken a the plant when built clearly showing a footboard. For those you that have a copy of the book Frisco in Color, Vol. 1 go to page 35 and look at the picture on the bottom showing locomotive #325. This locomotive shows the hose tray/coupler lift bar configuration that Athearn has proposed using. Looking carefully at the hose tray one can see 4 slots (2 on each side) where I believe a footboard was once inserted. This photo is dated May 20. 1979 well into the mandate referenced in previous posts. Looking at the other photos on the adjoining pages one can easily see footboards and a loop-less lift bar. Having said this, could one then determine that going forward and not suggesting Athearn change this would date this locomotive to around 1978 or 1979 or later and does this even matter. One could also say that requesting they add footboards and change the lift bar would date it to 1978/1979 or earlier. Also, one could even say that if I hadn't brought this up very few would have either known the difference or cared. Or maybe one could say that it's all in the details![/QUOTE]

 

To Nick and All:

I may have been unclear as to which I apologize but the loco in the B&W photo that I posted of #315 was probably a Builder's Photo taken at the plant before delivery. That would date it on or about 10-11-1968 and it was the class locomotive. The photo that I referenced in the book was taken on 05-20-1979. To me these two photos represent the two BASIC configurations of the SW1500's during their lifespan on the Frisco. Athearn has chosen the latter period. Does anyone have an opinion other than Nick. To me it's not as big of a deal as the roof beacon. I will search for pilots and lift bar parts as per Nick's suggestion.

 

I agree that the roof beacon is more important than the foot board. I would rather add the foot board if I so desired than the beacon. I will buy two regardless of the out come on these two items.

Terry

 

Tom, they were doubled nose to nose on the hump end and single units on the trimmer end or industry jobs. The hump sets needed to be nose to nose for visibility purposes. The FMs which we had prior to the SW1500s were cab to cab which made visibility very difficult at best and impossible when we were dragging a cut out as the hump lead curved away from the engineer. As long as he had a fireman the fireman could look out behind, but only one job on each shift had a fireman at the hump. I was very glad to be on the leading end dragging out because we had school kids who would cross the tracks behind us at the old 41st crossing. When the tonnage increased on the trains to be humped, we started using a GP38 with a SW1500 with the GP38 the lead unit on the east end of the consist. This caused us to be backing up blind again as with the FMs. One day I was dragging a cut out with the SW1500 behind me when a school aged boy stepped out from behind me just as I got to him. I had no idea he was there. When I reported this to the officials, we reversed the consist with the GP38 on the west which put the engineer on the head end when dragging out. The only problem with this set up was that we were on the opposite side of the cut of cars from the hump conductor in the tower, but, by this time, we were using the radio for instructions anyway, so it didn't really matter. Now they are using two SD40s or more, but the engineer is still on the west end for visibility. This is more than you asked, I know, but hopefully it helps to understand the rationale behind the consist makeup.


Terry

 

Tom, it shows that you are an engineer and know the issues we have to deal with.
Ken, I don't know where they are. It would be interesting to know.

Terry

 

Would the best solution be to have the beacons separate in the box?
If I remember right from my research from back when these were being discussed, there where some variations with the beacons.
If it was the 60's or early 70's, then both beacons were normally on there. If it was the late 70's or 80, that is when there was some changes. If it was a lone unit, the big beacon was normally left on, but the small was normally cut off. If 2 were normally paired together, both would probably have their small beacon cut off, and one would have its big one removed. That is the general consensus I came to. This wasn't every case, so it's best to go find a picture of the unit you're modeling, or follow rule #1 and put what ever you want on there.
I know it may be more convenient to have them preinstalled, but it would allow more flexibility for the modeler if the beacons were separate in the box.

Ethan

 

Ok, so we have been talking about these units for a while now, but I haven't seen that anyone has actually reserved any. My usual supplier Wholesale Trains has them for $87.74 and Toy Train Heaven has them for $93.74. Keith, do you have any information on the price of the hobby shop in Nebraska that you use? WT charges higher shipping costs than TTH, so these two may be very close after the shipping cost is included. I would rather buy from the Nebraska shop (sorry, I don't remember their name) if possible. Do they require a deposit for the reservation?

Terry

 

Terry and All:

I'm not Keith but I believe that the Nebraska shop you are inquiring about is Spring Creek Model Trains in Deshler which is a small town just across the border from Belleville, KS. It is owned by Deb and Dave Zucker and they will have a large booth at the OKC Train Show in December. On pre-orders they usually offer around a 30% discount and don't require a deposit. That would make the cost about $91.00 which falls right between the two you were quoted. I will call Deb later this morning and verify everything and then post again. I think one consideration is whether or not they charge a "handling" fee or just actual shipping. That could make a $5.00-$8.00 difference in the final price.