Athearn DD40
Jack Phelps
I was recently given an Athearn UP (of course) DD40. Even though it
doesn't come close to my modeling era, I thought it would be fun to
monkey around with. Imagine my dismay when I got home, took it out of
the box and looked at it closely for the first time. The cab is
completely wrong! The fairing in the mid-section under the radiator fans
is properly raised, but steps down BEFORE it gets to the db sections.
And the number on it is 70.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't all the DD40s have a full width
cab? Didn't all of these locos have a raised section on the back that
extended from ahead of the front db to behind the back db? And didn't UP
start the numbering with 6900 and go up from there? What was Athearn
THINKING?
Can anything be done to make this model close to prototype, or is it
hopeless?
Feedback please.
Jack
haggissiggahsiggahhaggis
Roland Williams
so all the roadnames and numbers are incorrect. This is Athearn what if
loco that has been talked about for 20 years, now aren't you glad it was
FREE?
ROLAND
Numbutt
> I was recently given an Athearn UP (of course) DD40. > Now correct me if
I'm wrong, but didn't all the DD40s have a full width
> THINKING?
>
> Can anything be done to make this model close to prototype, or is it
> hopeless?
>
> Feedback please.
>
I have read , many years back, that Athearn was developing the model for
what GM/UP had planned to build. Athearn was trying to be first on the
market and make a big splash. The prototype for the Athearn DD-40 was
cancelled but Athearn had the investment in die work, which is a MAJOR
investment.
I had one (still might have it stashed somewhere.) It is great "what if"
either by itself or as the basis of a kit bashing.
Fritz Milhaupt
>
> Good buddies (including the haggis bunch):
>
> I was recently given an Athearn UP (of course) DD40. Even though it
> doesn't come close to my modeling era, I thought it would be fun to
> monkey around with. Imagine my dismay when I got home, took it out of
> the box and looked at it closely for the first time. The cab is
> completely wrong! The fairing in the mid-section under the radiator fans
> is properly raised, but steps down BEFORE it gets to the db sections.
> And the number on it is 70.
>
> extended from ahead of the front db to behind the back db? And didn't UP
> THINKING?
>
> Can anything be done to make this model close to prototype, or is it
> hopeless?
>
> Feedback please.
IMHO, the easiest way to make the Athearn DD40 look like something that
actually existed is to rearrange the fans on the roof, and go for the
"DD35A look."
UP DD35As #70-84 looked quite like the Athearn DD40, except that the
instead of six 48" fans over the radiators, they had four 48" fans, and
two 36" fans. The 36" fans were the first and last fans in the row.
On the engineer's side, there was a set of FP45-looking steps hanging
below the frame, about even with the end of the air intake grill behind
the cab.
If you model them as-delivered, the handrail from the front of the
engineer's side of the cab runs continuously to the front handrail- the
front engineer's side steps were only half-there. It's hard to describe,
really, and easier to just suggest that you model them after the UP
installed real steps there, which looks like it was shortly after
delivery in 1965.
Aside from the specific carbody door arrangement (which I cabn't comment
on at the moment), these features are the only really obvious
differences I can see between Athearn's DD40 and the UP's DD35A. At
least going by my memory of the DD40 shell.
As always, it's best to work from photos.
-fm
Webmaster of the Pere Marquette Historical Society Web site at
http://www.rust.net/~milhaupt/pmhs/
The return address in this message bounces. If you want to contact me
via e-mail, see my address on my web sites.
Demetre Argiro
> . . . . . . .Can anything be done to make this model close to prototype, or is it
> hopeless?
>
Several answers to your question:
1. No. It's hopeless because no prototype for the model ever existed. You
cannot "fix" a model to resemble something that never was. UP had DDA40X's
which is the model you are thinking about. Even I, with all my "unusual"
locomotives would not want to make that metamorphosis.
2. Yes. If you want to do some cosmetic surgery you can produce a fairly
passable DD35 by replacing the roof fans with a DD35 arrangement. Find some
pix of DD35s and make the most obvious modifications other than completely
rebuilding the doors and such. Only the most AR nitpickers are going to catch
the door differences anyway. Reduced to 1/87 a lot of details disappear. You
can make a useful, believable DD35. You cannot make a contest quality DD35
unless you are nutz.
3. Yes. You can clean it up, add a few details here and there and imagine that
one prototype was actually made as a test bed and this is it. Such things
have happened, although not with this particular locomotive.
4. The DD40 is from a bygone era at Athearn. Things are no longer done the way
they were then. While the model is certainly a serviceable example of the
technology of its time, it is not up to the standards that have evolved over
the interviening 35 years. Take it as it is and enjoy. It has some interest
value as a collectable and if displayed well can initiate some interesting conversations.
Fritz Milhaupt
>
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 14:33:09 -0500, Demetre Argiro
> <argi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Alco RSD-17. One unit. CP 7007; CN 3899; CP 8921 Scrapped
>
> Has the 8921 been scrapped? Last I heard it was still sitting in
> Quebec somewhere. I photographed it in 1981 after the nose had been
> chopped, I think... not sure because I've seen so many photos of it
> over the years.
The "Empress of Agincourt" is still very much around- I saw 8921 at the
Elgin County Railway Museum in St. Thomas, Ontario, last summer. There
are a couple photos of her on the Elgin County Railway Museum's web
site, at: http://www.ecrm.mg.net/
-fm
Off to spend too much money at the Ann Arbor (MI) Model Railroad Club's
show and sale today.
Demetre Argiro
> Alco RSD-17. One unit. CP 7007; CN 3899; CP 8921 Scrapped
...........error...error....error....
8921 got a nose-job and currently resides in the Elgin County Railway Museum
in St. Thomas, Ontario. There are photos of it on the Elgin County Railway
Museum's web site at: http://www.ecrm.mg.net
Demetre regrets the error.
Mark Mathu
>Athearn could save themselves some hassle, and us this regular argument,
>by just changing the label on the box to "DD35A" and being done with
>it.
Or even if they just added two or three sentences to the "exploded parts"
instruction sheet explaining the prototype, years it was built (or not built, in
this case I guess), it would be nice to have.
- - -
Mark
Fred Dabney
Athearn
> had the model out before production was to have started. It was then
> dropped from the EMD lineup. The wide cab DDA40x was introduced in
1969
> with 47 units built. These are also referred to as the Centenial
units.
>
I was swapping e-mail with one of the fellows at Athearn, and he
tells me they have a FAQ on this model at their website.
I suggested that they include a little sticker in the next
newsletter that everyone can put on any boxes that say "DD40"
to correct it to "DD35A".
Somehow, he didn't seem impressed...
Fred D.
Gordon Smith
DHENK wrote:
>
> >
> >Now correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't all the DD40s have a full width
> >cab? Didn't all of these locos have a raised section on the back that
> >extended from ahead of the front db to behind the back db? And didn't UP
> >start the numbering with 6900 and go up from there? What was Athearn
> >THINKING?
> >
>
> The Athearn DD40 is actually a good stand in for the DD35A.Needs basically to
> ahve the two top fans changed to a smaller one. The #70 falls into the
> numbering scheme for the DD35A units which were #70-83. The DDA40 was a totally
> different looking engine with the full width cab.
>
> Regards,
> Dave Henk
> Jacksonville, FL
The DD-40 was introduced by EMD in 1966. No units were built. Athearn
had the model out before production was to have started. It was then
dropped from the EMD lineup. The wide cab DDA40x was introduced in 1969
with 47 units built. These are also referred to as the Centenial units.
Gordon
--
To reply take the 33 out of the address
James D Thompson
> The prototype GP30, the "GP22" as it were could also be considered
> something of a one-off, although it was altered to look more like a
> conventional GP30 at some point I think.
EMD rebuilt it with a conventional GP30 cab brow at the end of 1961
when it got its "GP30" demo paint. Otherwise, it was still an oddball.
David Thompson, I've got a list of all its non-GP30 details around here
somewhere...
--
Reasons Why "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is a Really Stupid Show #74-
You know how the villain on most shows is a bit tougher and smarter
than the one before him? Well, "Buffy" has it backwards. She beat up
all the tough baddies in the first year or so, and has been whaling on
increasingly weaker and dumber monsters ever since. At this point,
she's working her way through the R-team. I fully expect her to be
beating up on Gargamel by the end of the next season.
James D Thompson
> EMC B/N 532 boxcab. One unit. B&O 50; Alton 50; Alton 1200; GM&O 1200.
Not quite a one-off. EMC also had a demonstrator pair built by GE at
the same time (EMC 511 and 512); they tested on Burlington for a few
years before being recycled into NW4s for MP in 1938.
David Thompson, see the November/December 1999 Diesel Era for info...
Dave Grund
because the wheels always slipped.
Heh heh heh!!!!! >: )
Grundman
Fred Dabney wrote:
> > The DD-40 was introduced by EMD in 1966. No units were built.
> Athearn
> > had the model out before production was to have started. It was then
> > dropped from the EMD lineup. The wide cab DDA40x was introduced in
> 1969
> > with 47 units built. These are also referred to as the Centenial
> units.
> >
>
Jack Phelps
Keep it up.
Peter
>>
> I suggested that they include a little sticker in the next
> newsletter that everyone can put on any boxes that say "DD40"
> to correct it to "DD35A".
>
> Somehow, he didn't seem impressed...
>>
Wouldn't be a correct DD35A, either (check the cooling system).
But it would be a correct DD40, if one was ever built, of which none were.
Chuckles
Maybe EMD didn't build any, but I have noted that several makers
of ladies wear offer that size. Also DD-42, DD-44, etc.
Perhaps the Dolly Parton Railroad had some units in that size range.
Chuck P. 8^)
Peter
Incorrect terminology. Should be 40DD.
David Harrison
another GP35. The set was painted red and white and barnstormed the
nation. Only UP and SP bought the DD35B's . UP MUed them with
everything that would run and even went back and bought the demo set.
The DD35A's came next and the Centennials--DD40AX, or DDA40X way later.
And I agree with the posters who say the Athearn DD40 can't be made into
anything--so leave it alone and run it for what it is!
David Harrison
Travis Yohler
Travis Yohler **CN, SP, Conrail, Santa Fe**
"The Few, The Proud, The Haggis"
Willimo
I'm a tourguide on the USS Kidd here in BR, so every time hear about that
loco...
willimo
have kit, will assemble
Alan Arthur
ago. Just last week I cut 2 DD-40 shells into the DD-35 booster. See
Railroad Model Craftsman 11-94 for a nice story and pix of such. Mostly
lower a roof section and change 2 fans to do it. Also recently put an
Athearn DD-40 chassis into the Bachmann DD-40x body. That's a bit more
work but you can buy the body from Bachmann for less then $10.
C. Zeni
>
> How good is the fit putting a Athearn DD-40 under a Bachmann DD-40X body?
> I have been wanting to model a UP DD-40X for a while. (really want a Overland
> model but can't afford the money)
The Athearn drive is too short by a pretty fair amount...the one I did
years ago required that the Athearn frame be stretched by several scale
feet.
--
Craig Zeni - REPLY TO -->> clzeni at mindspring dot com
http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/index.html
http://www.trainweb.org/zeniphotos/zenihome.html
How much deeper would the ocean be without sponges?
Alan Arthur
too wide to fit in and requires careful grinding of both frame and body
in some places.
William V. Smith
a DD35. A very credible DD35 can be built from the Athearn frame and
two GP35 undec shells. The DD35 didn't have the long flared radiators.
As for the DD35A, you have to saw the Athearn shell length-wise and
remove about 1/8 inch to make it protypically narrow. For both the
DD35 and DD35A you have to mill the frame to accomodate the narrow
shell. On the DD35A you have to cut off the remains of the fans
and install some new ones. I think the correct ones are still
available, but I can't say for sure. Also, on the DD35A you have to
cut off the cab. You can replace it with a GP35 cab. You also must
cut off the running boards. You can reuse them if you do it carefully.
New handrails are required. I sort of fell in love with these beasts
when I was very young. I went to work with my dad (no doubt violating
lots of company rules) who was a UP employee and often watched these
beasts roll in from California. They were fantastic. I suppose
my love was not strong enough though. I never finished them.
--
Bill Smith, BYU mathematics dept. ph. 378-2061, fax 378-3703
email: smithw...@NOSPAM.math.byu.edu Remove NOSPAM for legitimate mail
Arnold 299
I have been wanting to model a UP DD-40X for a while. (really want a Overland
model but can't afford the money)
Thanks in advance,
Scott
Fritz Milhaupt
>
[snippage]
> On the DD35A you have to cut off the remains of the fans
> and install some new ones. I think the correct ones are still
> available, but I can't say for sure. Also, on the DD35A you have to
> cut off the cab. You can replace it with a GP35 cab.
Yup, you can still get the fans, but unless one of the other guys has
brought out a more modern 36" fan than they were offering when I tried
this three or four years ago, you need to get the 36" one Rail Power
Products uses on their GP35, if you want an accurate version.
On the ones I've worked on, I've always thought it was well worth my
while to replace the cab and nose with Cannon parts. The shape of the
Athearn nose never looked quite "right" to me, even with the extra width
cut out (I think the edges looked too square to catch the feel of the
real one). And on the ones where I left the shell overwidth, the new cab
and nose still were worthwhile, even if I had to fudge a bit on the back
of the cab to make it fit.
-fm
Webmaster of Rails on Wheels' shiny new web site at
http://www.railsonwheels.com/
C. Zeni
Oh yeah, that too...I'd forgotten that issue.
Jack Phelps
info and good suggestions have been noted and logged.
Among the decent suggestions I've seen is the attached.
Question: if one were to take this approach, wouldn't it make more sense
to use two Rail Power GP35 shells instead of the Athearn? This way you'd
start with the prototypical hood width, get the appropriate fans and
have the right cab as well. Since a RPP GP35 shell will fit on an
Athearn GP35 chassis, one would think it could be made to fit the DD40
chassis. Still would take some work, of course.
Any further thoughts from the group on this approach? At this stage, it
is more a curiosity for me, because even if I decide to do something
here, it is way down the list of projects. However, since my inventory
of parts includes some RPP GP35 shells and other related items, it would
be nice to know.
Jack
William V. Smith wrote:
>
> I once started on a project to convert two Athearn DD40s to a DD35A and
> a DD35. A very credible DD35 can be built from the Athearn frame and
> two GP35 undec shells. The DD35 didn't have the long flared radiators.
> As for the DD35A, you have to saw the Athearn shell length-wise and
> remove about 1/8 inch to make it protypically narrow. For both the
> DD35 and DD35A you have to mill the frame to accomodate the narrow
> shell. On the DD35A you have to cut off the remains of the fans
> and install some new ones. I think the correct ones are still
> available, but I can't say for sure. Also, on the DD35A you have to