Is there not any excitement about the announcement of the HO Porter 0-6-0T?
Royce
I'm tempted to buy one just to do small yard jobs around the club layout. My 0-6-0 saddle tank was a good engine (randomly died so probably need a new decoder), along with the GE 70 ton. Big things come in little packages. ;D
Quote from: Royce Wilson on July 24, 2013, 10:10:07 AM
Is there not any excitement about the announcement of the HO Porter 0-6-0T?
Royce
As much of a fan of small and/or geared steam as I am......unfortunately.....no.
Sid
Quote from: WoundedBear on July 24, 2013, 12:35:20 PM
Quote from: Royce Wilson on July 24, 2013, 10:10:07 AM
Is there not any excitement about the announcement of the HO Porter 0-6-0T?
Royce
As much of a fan of small and/or geared steam as I am......unfortunately.....no.
Sid
same with me. I would have perfered a 2-4-4 forney like the ones in On30.
Bachmann really would creat a stir if they made that forney in HOn30 to run on N scale track and follow up with freight cars like the On30 line.
Royce
id like a standard scale one. B&O used em for for the Staten Island service they had.
At the NMRA show in Atlanta there was a guy that has made an announcement of some pre civil war HO engines.
Royce
Quote from: BaltoOhioRRfan on July 24, 2013, 03:14:12 PM
I would have perfered a 2-4-4 forney like the ones in On30.
That would be kinda cool, especially if it were flexible enough to operate on tight radii.
Seems to me I once saw an eBay offering for something similar in wheel arrangement. I seem to remember it was kitbashed out of an old Rivarossi/AHM 2-4-0.
Quote from: Royce Wilson on July 25, 2013, 01:38:40 PM
At the NMRA show in Atlanta there was a guy that has made an announcement of some pre civil war HO engines.
Royce
Those could be interesting. I wonder how "pre" they're going to be? The mid- to late-1850s saw some nice looking locomotives.
Quote from: Johnson Bar Jeff on July 26, 2013, 12:02:27 PM
I wonder how "pre" they're going to be? The mid- to late-1850s saw some nice looking locomotives.
J-J
Absolutely. That was the peak of the ornate railroad engine era. Locomotives started to be toned down during the Civil War and that trend continued until most of them had mere utilitarian design. Besides, you can pack more railroading in when you use small locos and 20' or 28' freight cars and passenger equipment the size of or only a bit larger than the 40' freight cars which dominated railroad consists for most of the 20
th Century.
-- D
Quote from: Johnson Bar Jeff on July 26, 2013, 11:59:50 AM
Quote from: BaltoOhioRRfan on July 24, 2013, 03:14:12 PM
I would have perfered a 2-4-4 forney like the ones in On30.
That would be kinda cool, especially if it were flexible enough to operate on tight radii.
Seems to me I once saw an eBay offering for something similar in wheel arrangement. I seem to remember it was kitbashed out of an old Rivarossi/AHM 2-4-0.
I know that the brass HO versions of the Forney sell for a premium whenever they appear for sale.
I wonder if Bachmann's going to let Blackstone do any HOn3 Forney engines, the HOn3 Blackstone engines and their rolling stock set the bar for detail,
Quote from: Doneldon on July 26, 2013, 05:34:15 PM
Quote from: Johnson Bar Jeff on July 26, 2013, 12:02:27 PM
I wonder how "pre" they're going to be? The mid- to late-1850s saw some nice looking locomotives.
J-J
Absolutely. That was the peak of the ornate railroad engine era. Locomotives started to be toned down during the Civil War and that trend continued until most of them had mere utilitarian design. Besides, you can pack more railroading in when you use small locos and 20' or 28' freight cars and passenger equipment the size of or only a bit larger than the 40' freight cars which dominated railroad consists for most of the 20th Century.
-- D
D,
Absolutely! That's why most of my rolling stock would qualify as "old-timer."
J.B.J.
Quote from: Pacific Northern on July 26, 2013, 07:06:22 PM
I wonder if Bachmann's going to let Blackstone do any HOn3 Forney engines, the HOn3 Blackstone engines and their rolling stock set the bar for detail,
PacNo-
Are you implying that Bachmann owns Blackstone? That's news to me, which is not, by the way, any kind of criticism or contradiction. It's just that I didn't know.
I'm surprised that the Blackstone logo doesn't appear on this site with the others in the Bachmann train family. Blackstone is certainly a well-respected, if a little pricey, name. I would think they'd want to build that up.
I most certainly agree that Blackstone's products are well built and detailed.
-- D
Bachmann does not own Blackstone models. Blackstone is a division of SoundTraxx.
YM-
Thanx for setting me straight.
-- D
Quote from: Johnson Bar Jeff on July 26, 2013, 12:02:27 PMThose could be interesting. I wonder how "pre" they're going to be? The mid- to late-1850s saw some nice looking locomotives.
Handsome and interesting, indeed; but, man, they were some little bitty things. Although to me it seems one would have to cast the boilers out of depleted uranium to have enough mass to get decent HO scale tractive effort, even with 4 car trains.
on30-
Those early locos didn't pull long trains in the real world so we shouldn't expect them to do much better on our HO pikes. Actually, they do all right. It does help to add as much weight as possible, though.
-- D
Many of you don't realize, standard gauged forney's and that ilk were primarily commuter engines, which most of the time only pulled 2-3 short coaches
the CNR/CNJ 4-6-4t
or the B&A 2-6-6t/4-6-6t's were really handsome locomotives and are sought after brass items, I still haven't been able to nab one, but it's on my to-get list
Rye-
Actually, that's about all they were used for. They lacked the power for pulling commercially viable freight trains and their range was limited by the small quantities of fuel and water they could carry. But they were great as commuter locos.
-- D
Quote from: Doneldon on July 30, 2013, 12:51:48 AM
Rye-
Actually, that's about all they were used for. They lacked the power for pulling commercially viable freight trains and their range was limited by the small quantities of fuel and water they could carry. But they were great as commuter locos.
-- D
Perhaps folks with primarily switching layouts might enjoy having morning and evening commuter runs passing through to add to their mix.
Couldn't they also be used for heavy switching on a terminal railroad or a switching layout? Heck, if worse comes to worse, a steam engine for excursions on a short line.wasn't there a 4-6-6 back in the 70's & 80's that was hauling passengers? I used to have a video that featured it, but not anymore.
Quote from: jettrainfan on July 30, 2013, 12:00:27 PM
Couldn't they also be used for heavy switching on a terminal railroad or a switching layout? Heck, if worse comes to worse, a steam engine for excursions on a short line.wasn't there a 4-6-6 back in the 70's & 80's that was hauling passengers? I used to have a video that featured it, but not anymore.
Heavy switching was primarily done by 0-8-0's and 0-10-0's
Notice that the commuter tank engines were built with a shorter drive wheelbase, heavy switching would have been out of the question, you would need buckets upon buckets of extra sand to handle the wheel slip.
Tank locomotives in many yards were used mostly for engine servicing or small switching duties. Most effective designs had 6 to 8 driving wheels but wouldn't go very far without a coaling/oil/water fueling station in the direct vicinity of it's operation.
The D&RGW had actually converted one of it's consolidations into such a locomotive.
(http://www.drgw.net/gallery/d/55199-2/drgw_01_saltlakecity_ut_unknown_000.jpg)
(http://www.drgw.net/gallery/d/55198-2/drgw_01_saltlakecity_ut_1938_000.jpg)
"D&RGW #01 was an oddball. It started life as D&RG 905, a Class 185 standard gauge 2-8-0 made by Baldwin. With the great renumbering by the D&RGW in 1924, it became Class C-41 #955. In 1937, it was the only unit of its class converted to a 2-8-0T tank engine for switching duties around the Salt Lake, UT shops. After this remarkable transformation, it became the #01."
As quoted from DRGW.net
Some of the tourist railroads, the one in the Black Hills being an example, run tank engines over their short mainlines.
How did the English run so many tank locomotives in the age of steam if they only had a short range? As a regular reader of Railway Modelling magazine, I marvel at the size of some of these 'tank' locomotives (ie. Class 4575, Class 3MT, Class L1 to name a few). I guess the distances traveled weren't all that great in the UK.
I just did a quick scan of E. Hatton's latest ad and it looks like the 'tank type' was confined to smaller locomotives. Larger units all seem to be equipped with tenders (Class 5, Class A1, Class 6P etc.)...'guess I answered my own question.
Ray
[The guy who has a 'thing' for Pugs and Terriers.]
Hm, number for announced new issue Bachmann PRR GP7 is #8809.
Unfortunatelly, PRR #8809 was not Geep 7 - it was Fairbanks Morse H16-44!
I do not understand - whole Pennsy diesel roster list is easily found via Google, It would be better for Bachmann to letter locos with real prototype numbers.
http://broadway.pennsyrr.com/Rail/Prr/Rosters/diesel.html
Passenger helper GP7's were 8798 to 8806, and regular Geeps 7 were 8500 to 8512, and 8545 to 8587.
Quote from: CNE Runner on August 01, 2013, 09:51:15 AM
How did the English run so many tank locomotives in the age of steam if they only had a short range? As a regular reader of Railway Modelling magazine, I marvel at the size of some of these 'tank' locomotives (ie. Class 4575, Class 3MT, Class L1 to name a few). I guess the distances traveled weren't all that great in the UK.
I just did a quick scan of E. Hatton's latest ad and it looks like the 'tank type' was confined to smaller locomotives. Larger units all seem to be equipped with tenders (Class 5, Class A1, Class 6P etc.)...'guess I answered my own question.
Ray
[The guy who has a 'thing' for Pugs and Terriers.]
BR class 4, 2-6-4Ts with a bunker capacity of 3.50 long tons (3.56 U.S. tons), in the mid 1950s, would run Brighton to Fratton in Portsmouth, a distance of around 48 miles with an 8 to 10 coach train and at speeds up to 70 MPH, the line limit at that time.
Water would be taken at Barnham, 27 miles from Brighton, and at Chichester 40, miles from Brighton and possibly at Havant, 43 miles from Brighton. These were the only three stops this train made on this route in both direction.
At Fratton, an engine change was made and the train reversed to continue on westward. This was during a short period, possibly for less than a year, when due to a loco shortage the normal pacifics on the express trains (Express in the UK = Fast, limited stop passenger trains) were out of service for rebuilding.
A point to consider--will the current 0-6-0T saddletanker continue in production, or is it being replaced with this Porter? If it is being replaced, is it a business decision (in other words, market saturation), or is it technical (die wear)?
Anyway, especially since the current 0-6-0 got a better motor, let us recall that it is probably become a favorite for those of us who like small engines. Hope the new one will run well, too.
Quote from: Thommo on August 01, 2013, 03:37:24 PM
Hm, number for announced new issue Bachmann PRR GP7 is #8809.
Unfortunatelly, PRR #8809 was not Geep 7 - it was Fairbanks Morse H16-44!
I do not understand - whole Pennsy diesel roster list is easily found via Google, It would be better for Bachmann to letter locos with real prototype numbers.
http://broadway.pennsyrr.com/Rail/Prr/Rosters/diesel.html
Passenger helper GP7's were 8798 to 8806, and regular Geeps 7 were 8500 to 8512, and 8545 to 8587.
maybe they'll do 8506, or a dynamic brake version in the mid 8500s like 8574.