The recent desire for a 4-8-0 got me thinking. How about one of these? A warbaby J with slab rods and no stream lining. This is one awesome piece of steel
(http://spec.lib.vt.edu/imagebase/norfolksouthern/full/ns747.jpeg)
Or one of these, a stream lined K
(http://spec.lib.vt.edu/imagebase/norfolksouthern/full/ns760.jpeg)
Hmm. That's a pretty nifty looking engine there PD. What manufacturer made those? Baldwin? Just curious.
Off topic, but, is it any suprise to anyone that almost every school in metro detroit has a snow day? The snow's crazy right now. 4 inches atleast, and supposed to get more overnight. But, I don't like the storm because its delaying my P42 order from Modeltrainstuff.com. Theres always a downside.
The 4-8-4 J's were built in Roanoke, Va at the N&W shops. I'm not sure about the 4-8-2 K's.
Heavy USRA 4-8-2s built by Alco's Brooks works in 1919 (K-2, 116-125) and Baldwin (K-2a, 126-137) in 1923. from:
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/mountain/?page=nw (http://www.steamlocomotive.com/mountain/?page=nw)
and rebuilt in 1946 with streamlining added.
The N&W had so much trouble with the J1's availability compared to the standard J's due to it's heavy rod, that the War Production Board allowed them to be rebuilt during WWII to J standards with light weight Timken side rods - and even allowed the streamlining.
A very nice model of the streamlined K2/K2a locomotive can be made from the original Bachmann J shell (also used on the Plus model), on a USRA Mountain chassis (Light or Heavy). A while back there were some photos here of an example, not sure if they still are.
I would so buy a warbaby Class J that locomotive looks soo beastly matter of fact put me down for like 3 ;D
Wow! they do exist!!!
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1181966
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locoPicture.aspx?id=102699
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1181158
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1181987
Those are just a few! i thought your picture was photoshoped! (I've seen a few...)
Tough question... why not both :)
Seriously though it would be a tough call to choose just one though I guess I'd have to go with the warbaby J because the picture you posted was taken 40 years to the day before my birthday
Actually the photos came from here
http://imagebase.lib.vt.edu/browse.php?folio_ID=/trans/nss/loco/ste (http://imagebase.lib.vt.edu/browse.php?folio_ID=/trans/nss/loco/ste)
How about the Best Friend of Charleston in HO?
Well at least with the Warbaby J they don't have to change up their tooling that much, they'd only need a new boiler casting and some minor details and boom u got it
I'm still stuck on that M class. But boy I would love a non brass streamlined K2 or K2a.
-Brad
Too bad for you guys, Bachmann will never make any in a million years, maybe BLI will do a limited run sometime.
I'm with NWsteam if yeah have to do another do something unique not another BB or Northern or pacific do something thats never been done before.
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm50/lkemling/Pennsylvaniatripphotos071.jpg)
I would buy several 4-8-0's for my layout.
These were the largest engines used by Great Northern Railroad on their many miles of trackage in Southern British Coumbia for their coal and copper ore trains.
They were only surpased by the GN 2-6-6-2's which were developed a few years later. some of the GN 4-8-0's lasted well into the 1950's
Interestingly, both engines have much of what would be needed in current Bachmann and BLI lines. The principle requirement for both engines would be a new superstructure. The Ja, based on a current J mechanism, would also require a set of slab rods; the current J tender could be used. The streamlined K-2 would require the superstructure, and possibly a new cylinder block, all based on the USRA heavy 4-8-2. A new tank, similar to that of the J but with rivets, would also be needed. Would it be possible for Bachmann to buy N&W Y-6b or A tanks from BLI? This would cut down on initial tooling costs.
Of the two, I would be inclined to pick the streamlined K-2. The unstreamlined Ja only ran in that configuration for 3 or 4 years during WWII, and got streamlining and roller rods right after the war. The K-2s were rebuilt around 1947 or so, and ran that way until the end of their operations in about 1957.
Of course, the 4-8-0 has the marketing advantage of being a "contemporary" (currently visible and running) engine; it's also one that N&W fans can use multiple examples of. The Strasburg's engine is even currently coupled to an original N&W K-2 tender, which Bachmann currently makes. The disadvantage is that it hasn't been made before, which means more tooling costs.
I'll let Bachmann's management make the choice.
Now if everybody was clamouring for a Pacific, then one of these would fill the bill. This loco is currently at Steamtown being overhauled.
(http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/bm/bm-s3713s.jpg)
I have been waiting for the re-release of the 4-6-2 by Roundhouse of the Athearn Genesis 4-6-2. I am sure I am not alone.
Athearn once made a model of just that very Boston & Maine engine; the prototypes were a bit unusual for being built by Lima in 1937 (late for a 4-6-2 in the United States), and were intended as dual service engines. I believe they also carried names in their glory days.
If I were at Athearn, I would also consider making models of C&O F-18s and F-19s and Southern Ps-4s on this USRA light 4-6-2 mechanism. The reason for this is that all of these engines shared a 73-inch or so driver size, and in the case of the PS-4, the same overall wheelbase. All carried Baker valve gear (although the Southern engines would be converted to Walscharts by the late 1930s), and most of the Southern engines used tenders similar to Bachmann's (and Athearn's) USRA tenders. The C&O engines carried a number of different tenders over the years, but the F-19s are best remembered for pulling a long Vanderbilt tank in the 1930s, which happens to be the same one Bachmann makes to go with the C&O J-2. If these engines were to come out, I wonder if Athearn would be interested in buying tenders to avoid some tooling costs; it seems to be something that could make sense. It would be prototypical, too; Lima built a number of replacement tenders over the years for different roads, and built the tenders for the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie's last 2-8-4s. (Alco built the engines, but had to contract out the tenders to Lima; the tender shop was being used to build Diesels.)
http://www.srha.net/public/photos/photo_detail.asp?ID=30051
http://www.srha.net/public/photos/photo_detail.asp?ID=51513
Check out the smoke duct on this one, for running in the tunnels of the "Rat Hole Division:"
http://www.srha.net/public/photos/photo_detail.asp?ID=25669
C&O F-19s, ca. 1930:
http://www.columbusrailroads.com/photogallery-4/COHS-3796-1200.jpg
http://www.columbusrailroads.com/photogallery-4/COHS-5187-1200.jpg
Have fun.
yes they carried names. 3713 was Constitution. The 4100's were named as well. They were submitted by school kids in a 193(4)0's contest. The athearn model was from the 60's. What a piece of junk.
Quote from: pdlethbridge on February 14, 2010, 01:48:04 AM
yes they carried names. 3713 was Constitution. The 4100's were named as well. They were submitted by school kids in a 193(4)0's contest. The athearn model was from the 60's. What a piece of junk.
haha, rubber-band drive
I have always thought that the PRR H-3 class 2-8-0 as built by Baldwin would make a good selling model. Ma & Pa 23-26 and a series of small 2-8-0's on the Southern and WM look all alike. I am sure other roads had these 1890's built locomotives. There is a proto-type in the collection at Strasburg PA.
Speaking of the Constitution:
http://rypn.sunserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28923
http://ogaugerr.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/46660482/m/149109043
One could make the case for a variety of 2-8-0s; my choice would be a combination of a PRR H-6-sb and a C&O G-7/9. Both of these engines had 57" drivers and a driver axle spacing that had a slightly longer distance between the first and second axles (originally to accommodate the rocker shaft from Stephenson valve gear), a minimal spacing between the second and third axles, and a longer spacing between the third and fourth for the firebox. Both engine series were in the 100-ton range, and the C&O engine seems to have become the basis of a stock Alco locomotive used by a number of roads, among them a West Virginia shortline called the Kellys Creek & Northwestern. This engine, their No. 6, would be sold to another road, the Buffalo Creek & Gauley, where it became that road's No. 13. That engine is still with us, and ran in tourist service until just a few years ago on the Ohio Central.
This is a neat site on the BC&G:
http://www.buffalocreekandgauley.com/
The left-side view below illustrates the driver axle spacing mentioned above:
http://www.buffalocreekandgauley.com/LOCOMOTIVES/No13/Loco13.html
A C&O G7, from the image gallery of the C&OHS; this engine illustrates a rebuilt version with a short, "sports model" cab:
http://www.cohs.org/repository/Archives/cohs/web/cohs-23890.jpg
A G9, still with its original cab:
http://www.cohs.org/repository/Archives/cohs/web/cohs-23910.jpg
Not shown are some 2-8-0s that got the tender Bachmann is bringing out with the H-4 2-6-6-2.
For comparison, a PRR H6:
http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images/5/5d/PRR_H6b_2837.jpg
http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images/1/1a/PRR_H6b_7758.jpg
Quote from: Bill Miller on February 18, 2010, 12:35:42 PM
I have always thought that the PRR H-3 class 2-8-0 as built by Baldwin would make a good selling model. Ma & Pa 23-26 and a series of small 2-8-0's on the Southern and WM look all alike. I am sure other roads had these 1890's built locomotives. There is a proto-type in the collection at Strasburg PA.
too much PRR on the market -_-
How about an 0-8-0.
Should have remembered this.
B&O, early in the 20th century, was controlled by the Pennsylvania system. Among other things, two engine series were built for B&O to contemporary PRR design standards, the E-24 2-8-0s (based on the H-6), and an Atlantic series based on Pennsy's E-3. As noted above, the running gear seems similar between the Pennsy engines and the C&O's--and now we have similar engines on the B&O (and at least one such series from the Nickel Plate).
B&O's Pennsy copies had the Belpaire firebox, of course. . .
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bo2200s.jpg
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bo2257s.jpg
The B&O, always revenue challenged, made 0-8-0 switchers by amputating the lead truck on a number of 2-8-0s, including a good number of E-24s.
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bo1504s.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/bo/bo-s1517.jpg
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bo1026s.jpg
The point behind these comments isn't just to get someone to make me an Alco G7 or G9, but to pick prototypes that can at least use a lot of common parts, spread out over serveral prototypes to help amortize tooling costs. I seem to recall that the cost of tooling for a new locomotive is on the order of $250,000.00 or more; it makes sense to pick engines with as wide purchase base if possible. This can be done by picking engines used in some form by several railroads (stock Shays, USRA engines, the 2-8-0s under discussion, most diesels), or by picking a prototype that is extremely popular, perhaps by running in excursion service or by reputation (Big Boys, PRR K4s, Daylight 4-8-4s).
The usra's are a good choice as a light 2-8-2 would use a heavy 4-6-2 boiler