Nice work, Kevin.  Looks great, and quite plausible.  The pilot deck tool box is a very nice defining touch.  The weathering job is very nice.  Evidence of hard use, but not so dirty as to be a sign of a lack of maintenance. 

Charlie M.
-30-

I think the AMS disconnects are based on a Seattle Car & Foundry / Pacific Car & Foundry design, the "Hercules" disconnected truck.  These trucks were actually offered as both 'high' and 'low' versions, the low version being equipped with couplers lower than the high version, which were at the standard steam railroad coupler height.  Many logging railroads did not interchange equipment with common carriers, so they could use the lower coupler equipped trucks, and did.  There are some nice photos of coupling arrangements for these and standard height coupler cars on logging railroads in the Pacific Northwest in Labbe & Goe's "Railroads in the Woods," and in the collections of numerous archives and museums - look especially at photos taken by Clark or Darius Kinsey, who did a lot of work in the woods. 
Charlie
-30-

"So, I think it pretty safe to say this is a model of a relatively small NG loco, and unlike the preceding K-27, not an NG derivative of a SG locomotive, which in turn resulted in a "large" model." - Peter O. 

Actually, the K-27 was designed as a narrow gauge locomotive.  It was a much larger narrow gauge locomotive than most of the elderly power in use on the D&RG narrow gauge in 1903, but it was NOT a rebuild of a standard gauge locomotive.  The D&RGW did rebuild a group of ten standard gauge 2-8-0s into narrow gauge 2-8-2 - Class K-37.  The standard gauge locomotives used for this were much larger than the K-27 class, and the K-37's are much larger than any of the other three groups of 2-8-2's on the D&RGW narrow gauge. 

There has been some talk over the years that the mudhens were designed to be easily converted to standard gauge, but I suspect this is really idle speculation among the modeling community.  However, it should be noted that the National Railways of Mexico did in fact convert a few narrow gauge outside frame locomotives to standard gauge, including both of the K-27s they bought, and some of the 2-8-0s bought new. 

The 2-6-6-2T is a model of a proposed 36 inch gauge prototype which would have been tiny, much smaller than Uintah 50 and 51.  So by comparison, it should look close to the 1:22 equipment, and, if compared to the other Fn3 equipment, it will look small, because it would have been. 

Happy modeling and modifying all. 
Charlie Mutschler
-30-

The White Pass & Yukon was leased by the US and operated by the US Army during the portion of World War II after the USA became involved.  Because the railroad was under staffed and under equipped for the task of handling all the freight the Army was trying to send north, the lease seemed like a logical plan.  Seven of the D&RGW K-28's were requisitioned, along with Rotary Plow ON, plus the three surviving Silverton Northern locomotives 3, 4, and 34, and C&S 69 and 70.  Two ET&WNC 4-6-0s, No. 10 and 14 were purchased as well.  The Army had a group of narrow gauge 2-8-2s built new to a standard military design (meter and 42 inch gauge versions were also produced) for use on the White Pass as well. 

At this time the White Pass burned coal; the change to oil firing came about after the war.  C&S 70 was not an oil burner on the WP&Y.  At the time it was burning oil and assigned to the Clear Creek lines, it was using the tender from CB&Q 537, which was leased to the C&S.  The CB&Q had some three foot gauge track in the Black Hills of South Dakota, serving mines around Lead, SD (The correct pronunciation is 'LEED,' not, as one might think from the spelling, 'led.')  The CB&Q abandoned this trackage before the C&S abandoned its narrow gauge lines, so 537, an outside frame 2-8-0. was leased tot he C&S.  The CB&Q's locomotives in the Black Hills all burned oil, and 537 came with an oil tender.  As an experiment, 70 was converted to burn oil using 537's tender, and 537 reverted to coal firing with a different tender.  When the C&S returned sold 69 and 70 to the Army, they went north as coal burners. 

The Army used the WP&Y hard, and a lot of the second hand equipment was pretty badly worn out by the end of the lease.  The ex ET&WNC 4-6-0s had been badly damaged in the Whitehorse, YT engine house fire, and were never rebuilt.  The K-28s (USA 250 - 256) were tired, and over 20 years old, and not wanted by the WP&Y.  The two ex C&S locomotives and former SN 3 and 4 were also worn out and in poor shape.  All of them were shipped south and scrapped.  Ex SN 34 was retained by the WP&Y and retired after a few years. 

Charlie Mutschler. 
-30-

The fuel bunker on the Bachmann Fn3 2-6-6-2T is small, but not unprototypical.  As Kevin notes, most logging railroads didn't require their locomotives to go such long distances between fueling as to be a problem.  With a small water supply in side or saddle tanks, the small fuel supply wasn't the only limiting factor for these little locos.  Uintah 50 and 51 were much larger than this little gem, but were also 2-6-6-2T's, and were built as coal burners.  Uintah's 50 and 51 carried 4.5 tons of coal, the little 0-6-2T passenger locomotives (Uintah 20 and 21) carried 1.5 tons of coal - probably comparable to the bunker on the Bachmann Fn3 2-6-6-2T. 

Happy modeling - regardless of your choice of fuel. 
Charlie Mutschler
-30-

Are you asking about O scale track designed for dual gauge operation? 

Typical dual gauge track has three rails, one used by both standard an narrow gauge equipment, one gauged for the narrow gauge, and one gauged at 56.5 inches for standard gauge.  That was found in many locations in north America where standard and narrow gauge lines used the same yard, and in some sections of lines used in common by both gauges. 

There are commercial H-O dual gauge track products, including flex track and switches.  I am not aware of any commercial O scale dual gauge track products.  There are several reasons for this.  This is going to be rather long, but I hope it will be helpful. 

MOST O scale modelers use 1.25 inch gauge track for standard gauge.  Most (virtually all) commercial O scale models are built to this gauge.  This is actually a scale five-foot gauge (60 inches) in O scale, not four feet-eight and one half inches (56.5 inches), the actual standard gauge.  The commonly used flange and wheel tread specs for O scale standard gauge models on 1.25 inch gauge track are much larger than actual O scale dimensions scaled from the prototype.  Very few O scale modelers actually model to correct standard gauge in 1/4 inch scale, but there are some people who do this.  They use the correct track gauge and flange and wheel tread dimensions scaled from the prototype.  Obviously, correctly scaled O standard gauge equipment will not run on the 1.25 inch gauge track, and the 5 foot gauge O scale models won't run on the correctly scaled track. 

On3 (O scale models of three foot (36 inch) gauge narrow gauge) runs on .75 inch (three quarter inch) gauge track, and uses flange and wheel tread standards which are much closer to dimensions scaled from the prototype.  Bachmann's On30 models use H-O standard gauge track, which scales out to approximately 31 inches in O scale - close enough to call it On30, and utilize existing H-O scale track with models of O scale narrow gauge equipment.  H-O scale standard gauge wheel flange and tread dimensions are smaller than those of O scale 1.25 inch gauge equipment, and are close enough to the standards used in On3 track to allow some of us to convert Bachmann equipment to On3 fairly simply.  (I converted the On30 Climax to On3 in about 30 minutes). 

What all this brings us to is the basic problem:  Dual gauge track in O scale for O scale narrow gauge (36, 30, or 24 inch) and 1.25 inch gauge for O scale standard gauge presents operational problems.  The flangeways which have to be negotiated by the standard gauge equipment have to be much wider and deeper than those required for the narrow gauge equipment.  Which will result in gaps which can become problems for the narrow gauge - wheels falling into them instead of riding over flange ways at frogs and elsewhere.  Guard rails would have to be too far back from the running rail to work for narrow gauge equipment in order to allow 1.25 inch standard gauge equipment to track through them. 

People who model in O scale narrow gauge tend to accept this problem as a given.  It is simplest to not model dual gauge operations.  If one really wants dual gauge track, it is almost better to go to actual scale O 56.5 inch gauge - and that is NOT easy.  Very little is manufactured for this very specialized part of the hobby.  It has been called by a variety of names - fine scale O scale, 1/4" AAR, 1/4 inch fine scale, Proto-48 and P-48.  All essentially indicating the effort to model in 1/4 inch to the foot (North American O) scale using scaled down Association of American Railroads wheel tread, flange, and track gauge dimensions for the model wheels and track work.  It is beautiful when done - but it is not easy, and most fo the people who do this seem to enjoy doing machine work with small lathes and milling machines to rebuild commercial locomotives to have scale running gear.  And then there's the whole matter of scale wheel sets for the cars.  Not to mention hand laying the track to run them on. 

The people I know who work in O scale narrow gauge model On3 or On2, and do not have any dual gauge track work.  Several have O scale 1.25 inch gauge representing standard gauge, with the large locomotives and cars on one track, narrow gauge on another in a transfer yard.  This was actually very common - especially with 2 foot gauge interchange to standard gauge.  The one P-48 modeler I know is doing strictly standard gauge. 

So to make a long story short - I think you may be better off trying to build your own O 1.25 standard and On30 dual gauge track than waiting for a commercial supplier to come forward with such a product. 

Thanks for reading.
Charlie Mutschler
-30-

Woody,

I hope you didn't take my comments on RGS 74 as a criticism of you.  Nothing of the sort.  As I said, the question of the engine's steaming qualities has been one that has been the subject of a lot of sand house gossip among the model and enthusiast community. 

We spent several years in Boulder, where the locomotive was retired for display.  Forrest Crossen, who had written a history of the Colorado & Northwestern / Denver Boulder & Western (the first owner) was sure that the C&N crews liked the trio of Brooks 2-8-0s.  He had interviewed several of the now very elderly men who worked for the line, and concluded that they liked these engines.  Books about the RGS frequently told a different tale - and reported that the 74 was unpopular with crews because it steamed poorly.  When the discussion came up on the NGDF, several guys with a lot of research on the C&S, including interviews with C&S enginemen, and the three ex C&N locomotives were not regarded as problem children.  Note that the C&S engine crews DID have complaints about the tracking qualities of the leased D&RGW C-19's, so it is probable that these me did recall good and bad points about different locomotives. 

I can well imagine the fireman for the excursion cursing his luck - stuck with the smaller 74 and her long, bowling alley of a fire-box, instead of a nice big mudhen with that big wide, relatively shallow firebox.  No, I doubt any of the participants are still alive, but it seems very plausible.  Especially with the reports that the club's tour director knew enough to suspect the problem might not be the locomotive as much as the fireman, especially since the problem with poor steaming reportedly stopped after that testy exchange of words. 

Anyway, it's been fun talking it over.

Charlie
-30-

The C&S / RGS 74 has been relatively popular with modelers and enthusiasts, but the discussion of the steaming qualities may be a bit more complicated.  A while back, on the Narrow Gauge Discussion Forum, there was quite a series of exchanges about this issue.  The three Brooks built 2-8-0s were apparently popular with the crew of the original owner, the Colorado & Northwestern.  These three were acquired by the C&S, becoming C&S 74, 75, 76, and there does not seem to have been much complaint, except for problems with keeping the valves properly lubricated on 74, the only one of the three with slide valves.  The C&S re-did the valve gear from Stephenson to Walschaert on 74, and seems to have been satisfied with the results.. 

The complaints about bad steaming seem to have come from the late 1940s and early 1950s when the 74 was owned by the RGS.  By this time, most RGS trains operated behind leased D&RGW K-27s or the RGS's own mudhens, though Nos. 20, 40, 42, and of course 74 remained on the roster.  All of these are small, with a narrow firebox fitting between the frames.  The 74 has a longer firebox than the others.  Compared to the fairly short, wide fireboxes on the K-27's, the long, narrow firebox on 74 was probably harder to fire for men who had become used to the K-27's.  In any case, the Rocky Mountain Railroad Club chartered a train for th Memorial Day week end in 1949, and requested No. 74.  The engine crew, who liked the mikes, were unhappy with the 74 and her firebox half again as long as the mudhens - and stopped to build up steam a few miles out of Ridgway.  And again a few miles on.  Annoyed that the climb to Dallas Divide was  not going smoothly, a club official angrily told the fireman that if he couldn't keep steam up, there was a passenger on the train who could keep the engine hot who would be happy to come and do it for him.  The rest of the trip the 74 steamed adequately, and the club was happy.  But the rumor mill has pegged the 74 as a 'poor steamer' ever since. 

I suspect it would be much harder to fire a big, narrow firebox 2-8-0 like No. 74 than the smaller 2-8-0s such as RGS 40 and 42, or 4-6-0 No. 20.  Certainly the large, wide fireboxes on the mikes were much easier to fire.  But was the 74 really a bad steamer?  I suppose we are unlikely to find out, but the record seems to show that the C&S crews were not as unhappy with the big Brooks 2-8-0s as the RGS firemen - who had doubtless become quite familiar with the quirks of the mudhens, and found 74 something of a challenge. 

Charlie Mutschler
-30-

A follow up to Kevin's post.  He made the main point - the Bachmann model is of a PISTON valve equipped K-27.  Only four (450, 451, 457, 460) were never rebuilt with piston valves, and carried their simple slide valve cylinders to the end of their service lives.  Of these, it appears that only No. 460 saw regular service after 1929.  All of the photos I have seen of 450, 451, and 457 after 1929 are stored out of service, often with some parts missing.  The four slide ("D") valve K-27s were all scrapped in 1939. 

The K-28, K-36, and K-37 classes were built with piston valves and superheat.  No slide valves there. 

Charlie Mutschler
-30-

I think I've mentioned it before on this board, but one of the H-O manufacturers offers sets of decals with new numbers on the correct shade of paint for the car kits they sell.  The modeler has to cut out new numbers for sides and ends, and apply them over the existing ones on the kit.  This allows the modeler to get a string of similar cars with different road numbers with only a little extra work.  I like the system myself.  Maybe an after market vendor will come up with these decal sets for some of the popular Fn3 cars. 

Charlie Mutschler
-30-

Wheel diameters, K-27 Class: 

Pilot / Trailing trucks:  28 inches
Drivers:  40 inches
Tender truck wheels:  26 inches

Has anyone looked into a sound cam for a driving axle, like the ones used on some of another manufacturer's locomotives?  This would give the correctly synchronized four exhausts per revolution of the drivers.  Inquiring minds want to know and all that sort of stuff.

Charlie Mutschler
-30-

Personally, my preference would be for the 36inch gauge Baldwin Bulldog prototype, designed to allow conversion to On3.  Again, as these become operable, it seems possible that there will be a lot more interest in these as mass marketed things that visitors want to take home as a memento after riding behind the prototype. 

My guess about the pilot truck is that because all of the prototypes operated at very slow speeds, there was not as much need for a pilot truck as there was a need for the trailing truck to carry the weight of the firebox and fuel bunker.  Porter's 0-4-2T wasn't a 2-4-2T that had problems derailing, it was the need to put a larger fuel supply on what otherwise would be an 0-4-0T.  On the temporary track in the cane fields, I would bet the train speeds were rather slow, probably not much above a walking pace.  On the main line to the sugar mill, I suspect these little locos didn't exceed fifteen miles per hour. 

Charlie Mutschler
-30-

Royce, looking at the photos in _Rails Sagebrush and Pine_, and observing the crew of W. H. Eccles No. 3, the practice seems to have been to stack the first row back from the gangway low enough to not interfere with the cab roof, and to stack the rows behind much higher.  The fireman could pull a stick of wood off the top of the pile using his poker, which looks looks the usual fireplace poker but much longer and much heaver, so that he can adjust wood in the firebox when needed.  I don't think the current SV people have wooded No. 3 up as high as the photos in the book on any of the times i have been there. 

I would think that pulling a piece of wood down from a high stack would call for a bit of care and experience, to avoid braining the fireman or hitting the engineer with a bounced piece.  I think the wood for the SV was cut to about 30 inches long - but that's just recollection, not given as fact. 

Interesting subject, though. 
Charlie
-30-

Rails Sagebrush & Pine is a great book.  There is more there than just No. 50.  There is a Class B Climax which came originally from Hallack & Howard in New Mexico which might be close to the steel cab version of the On30 Climax for conversion.  I think that one had a Radley - Hunter stack instead of the cabbage stack on many of the Oregon Lumber and SV locos.

Happy research and happy modeling.  The SV is vastly under appreciated and the SV restoration people have done a beautiful job on the their Hesiler (W. H. Eccles No. 3) and SV ALCO mike No. 19.  well worth the visit.  But be aware that because it is an all volunteer operation, the train only run week ends. 

Charlie Mutschler
-30-

Again, I think the problems that would be encountered trying to convert the Bachmann inside frame Forney into Golden Circle / F&CC 51 would be rather significant.  Different wheel size, wheel base, engine weight.  After all, the Bachmann Forneys are generally based on two foot gauge locomotives built for the Sandy River & Rangely Lakes, which were smaller than the one built for the three foot gauge Golden Circle.  But, it's worth taking a look at it. 

While there seems to be a lot of comment about a Mason Bogie, it seems to be a complicated prototype, more so when one considers the need to get it around the curves most of us have on our model railroads - and I am presuming it would be a 22 or 24 inch radius curve, not the 15 popular with the train set crowd.  The engine is a bogie - a truck - that swivels under the boiler, while the valve gear reaches over the top of the boiler.  How much compromise is possible without looking toy-like would be an issue there, I suspect.  Still,who knows what the Bachmann design team may be working on?  They did a nice job of keeping the ET&WNC ten wheeler under wraps. 

Still, if DSP&P is one's interest, get an armload of the moguls.  They are a good starting point for some of the early DSP&P power.  Royce Wilson has done a beautiful job with his.  Yes, the C&S air tanks on the boiler went, and so did the steel cab.  But you've got a good place to begin. 

Happy modifications.
Charlie Mutschler
-30-