Hey Mr. Bachmann,
would it be possible to produce engines just like the "Rito Alto" and/or the "Cochetope"?? These are my favorites in 20.3 and they would it be in 0n30 also.
Best wishes from good old Germany
steamrusty
Seconded. These two locos would open up a whole era for modelling.
We have only been begging for 10 years for this stuff! , I have always said that all the 1:20.3 stuff would do well in On30.
Royce
I 2nd this motion x2! The 8-18c and D are some of the most classic locomotives in US history and would sell very well, on the market. I highly recommend that these engines are made.
Rock On!
Dusten
The Utah & Norther had a 4-6-0 number 285( named the Logan)in 1885 that only weighed 19 tons!.The photo of it looks as if you took a Bachmann HO 4-6-0 and changed the valve gear to Stevenson and added a huge cab and an enourmous steam dome,it was finished off with the Union Pacific Condon smoke stack and folks complained about the Bachmann IF 4-4-0 being too small.
This photo was taken in front of the Garrison,Montana depot in 1885.
Royce
Found a photo of that loco. Let's see if the link will work. Maybe there is a prototype for everything. Gives me some ideas for that Mantua 4-6-0 chassis that I found on Ebay.
(http://spellerweb.net/rhindex/USRH/UNRRfranklin.jpg)
manager
I don't have a scanner, but if you can find a copy of the book Union Pacific Equipment just after the renumbering in 1885, June 1,1885, by James L.Ehrenberg and published in 1989. The front cover has a photo of a 4-6-0, the Logan, number 285. The steam dome looks to be a larger diameter than the smoke box and the cab is much taller than the other 4-6-0. The Union Pacific smoke stack(congdon) that is associated with the Denver South Park & Pacific seems huge! In the book, Colorado Rail annual 15, an Army officer traveling from Utah to Montana wrote about his travels noting that the engine seemed so tiny and did good to haul three cars.
This seems to be a perfect conversion for a HO to On30 project.
Royce
Here is a link to a great photo of what would make for a great small prototype for Bachmman but big enough for common carrier use as a left over from the lines early days.
Here is the link.
http://ngdiscussion.net/phorum/read.php?1,224329 (http://ngdiscussion.net/phorum/read.php?1,224329)
We need this
(http://www.gscaleonline.co.uk/WebRoot/Store2/Shops/es116894_shop/4F9F/D081/7918/E570/0E5E/0A0F/1118/ED4F/81392.5.jpg)
this
(http://www.gscaleonline.co.uk/WebRoot/Store2/Shops/es116894_shop/4A60/8117/7F9A/B17E/ADDE/0A0F/1116/0C39/BachmannSpectrumMogulSouthPacificCoast81493_4.JPG)
and this
(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSpflmAdIaBLyr0FbWjPErK1H0nDadtNlKSxTLQQi6083A2HzFTJg)
End of story, and my own opinion
Rock On!
~Dusten
Dusten, most of us just gave up begging for that beautiful 4-4-0.What we got insted was something that looked like a duck and a 4-4-0 that would have made a neat looking small engine if it was a 2-6-0.I have located a OO scale British 4-4-0 that I am thinking of doing a conversion on.
Royce
I dosen't have to be the 4-4-0 for me; the 8-18d 2-6-0 is perfect. It can be converted to to the 4-4-0 no problem ;)
Rock On!
~Dusten
Dusten,the Bachmann Cooke 2-6-0 backdates very well.I have built several Baldwin 1880 versions. The D&RG had several of these that were sold to eastern roads.
Royce
With all due respect Royce; the reason I say the 8-18d 2-6-0 would be better; is because it's two engines or maybe three engines in one. You can make it into a 4-4-0,4-6-0 or keep it as the 2-6-0. I am aware of the fact the 2-6-0 currently is based off the a Cooke engine; but it's not what most are looking for; well what I'm looking for anyway. I've taken mine, and tried backdating with no good results; but as I added a steel cab from the 2-8-0 and a congdon stack to it; eureka! Twas a beautiful swamp logger.
Anyway, this is the reason I bouch for the 8-18d 2-6-0. It can be made into several other engines without much modification, and would be a very nice addition to the bachamann line. I model the 1880s-1915 and it would be perfect for my route, I'd buy four or five, two to keep original two to turn into 4-4-0s, and one to make a 4-6-0. If the engine was made, everbody would win.
Rock On!
~Dusten
Dusten,I meant no harm,the 2-6-0 is all we got in On30 if you want a practial 1880's era railroad or logger.Try using a PSC C-16 cab instead of the steel cab and if you remove those flat Cooke domes and fill the holes with Squadron putty and sand it round then you can use those beautiful PSC fluted Baldwin domes and finish it off with the long PSC original C-16 pilot.Yes we want the 4-4-0 just as much as you do as this was the most commom engine used in America.
Royce
Also meant to add that you can shorten the smoke box and add either a PSC diamond stack or the Radely & Hunter wood burning stack.
Royce
I ment no harm or rudeness with my last reply; so I do apologize if it came off that way.
All I am trying to say; it would be lovely to have another locomotive for the 19th century that all roads might of had. If we can have two 4-4-0s, two articulated's; we can have 2 2-6-0s and one can be the 8-18d because it can be made into so many different engines with out much modifications, and will be a top seller.
Rock On!
~Dusten
I would think the engine would NOT be a top seller as this engine was a limited era use. Many other engines would probably be of more interest but nothing is for sure.
Making a profit is still number one for all manufactures and they can't afford is take many risks.
Still looking for the elusive Heisler which has a lot of interest.
The old fardt in Oregon
The Baldwin engine that Dusten is requesting was a catalog engine and servered on almost every narrow gauge railroad in this nation and when they ordered larger equipment they were sold off to small logging firms.Simple fact if you were in the logging bussiness at the turn of century until the 1920's it would have been cheaper to purchase used engines rather than new ones. ::)
Royce
The Eureka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Locomotive was built in 1875 and worked on the Eureka & Palisades until 1896 when it was sold to a lumber company. It was still working in 1938 when the company folded.
Working life 63 years.
Sonoma, more or less the same design, was built in 1876 for the North Pacific Coast, and sold to the Nevada Central 3 years later. It was still in servive in 1938 when that line went under.
Working life 62 years.
Jupiter, same design again, was built in 1876 for the Santa Cruz RR but was sold in 1881 when the line standard gauged and went to Guatamala where it was still working in 1960 http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/locomove/locojh.htm
Working life 84 years!
All three locos are still with us.
This might be useful: http://www.pacificng.com/ref/blw/818C/8-18C.htm it purports to be a Master list of Baldwin 3' gauge gauge 4-4-0 locomotives and includes scrap/disposal dates. many had working lives of 40 years or more which is not bad for engines only of limited era use.
In fact, in terms of usefulness, a Baldin 8-18c has far more to offer than any D&RG K series.
Of course, many of these locos would have changed their appearance over the years with new stacks, domes, cabs and so on but that's what modelling is all about.
If Bachmann is basing the model on the sales of the NWSL 4-4-0& 2-6-0 and the Iron horse model 4-4-0 then that is a mistake. the Nwsl model were horroble engines to run and if I am not mistaken they had a tender drive. This would be a perfect size for On30/On3 and if you are concerned about minimun radius take a look at the 4-6-0 and the 2-8-0, nither one of them will take a minimum radius.
Royce
I have one of the NWSL "Spartan" Moguls. It is a decent runner, though the two-wheel pick-up (loco-only) is less than ideal. And they do have the motor in the loco. The HO versions were tender drive - I have one of the 4-4-0's, too. Biggest hassle I had with the On3 loco is that the drivers were all flanged and it didn't even like my 40" curves. A visit of the center driver to the Unimat solved that problem.
EBT nut,You and I go back a long way.I remember when the NWSL 2-6-0,4-4-0 and the US hobbies 13 ton shay launched alot of railroads..AHHH those were the good ole days! WE super detailed our stuff and DC was king and PFM had the only sound on the market and it was just prototypical noise.
Royce
Royce: Yeah, a good ways back. My first HO loco was a Hi-F Athearn F-7. My first HOn3 loco was a Ken Kidder "Mudhen" 0-4-0T, which sold for $9.95!
I guess what Dusten means with the 8-18d beeing a more suitable prototype for conversion into 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 is in the arrangement of the drivers, more specifically in the distance between the drivers.
In the ubiqous 4-4-0 of the 1870's - 1900's, the distance between the two drivers is very large. In the 8-18d, this large distance is retained, as it is actually a 8-18 with an extra driver.
If you take a typical mogol like the Brooks one from Bachmann, or any "donor" HO mogul, youu cannot simply remove the first driver in order to make a 4-4-0. In doing so, the (remaining two) drivers are very closetogether - much too close for a 4-4-0. It just doesn't look good.
If you skip the front driver from a 8-18d, you end up with a 4-4-0 that has the drivers in the "correct" distance.
Furthermore, I'm very much surprised about the arguments why Bachmann wouldn't make an 8-18: too old, too limited, etc. If this applies, then why did they ever produce one in G scale??? In G scale the long distance between the drivers and the problems with tight curves should apply to G scale even more. It would be really interesting to hear from Bachmann, how the selection process was.
Richard
One of the common "criticisms" about the 1:20.3 4-4-0/2-6-0 is that, while beautiful, it's representative of a c. 1870s loco as it appeared in the 1870s, not as it would have appeared in the 20s/30s which is a far more common modeling era. Many of these locos were still in service at that point, but had changed in appearance in response to safety rules and other technological updates. Having said that, many in large scale buy the 4-4-0s with their exquisite paint jobs specifically for those paint jobs. That, and the cosmetic changes "needed" to update the locos to a 1920s appearance are fairly simple to do with off-the-shelf detail parts. Based on that, I'd expect that an On30 version of either of these two 1:20.3 locos might do very well. Tell you what--I'll gladly trade. I want your Cooke 2-6-0 in 1:20.3 (and the 2-cylinder Shay is also much-requested.)
Later,
K
Thank you Rich.
That is exactly what I was saying.
Rock On!
~Dusten
Bachmann could produce this engine with several cabs and a removable extended smoke box, much like the IF 4-4-0 and this way everyone would be happy.1873-1920's. :D
Royce
Check this old time 4-4-0 out!
http://www.shorpy.com/node/6880?size=original
Royce ;D
Quote from: Royce Wilson on September 11, 2012, 04:55:50 PM
Check this old time 4-4-0 out!
Beautiful. I recommend viewing that image full size. You can nearly read the builder's plate.
Well, maybe a slight exageration, but you
can read the builder's plate on the smokebox door.
And for those after 'eastern' prototypes, does it get more 'eastern' than Florida?
edit: more on the Jupiter & Lake Worth. Seems like a fascinating little RR: http://www.taplines.net/jalw/jalwry.htm
Interesting to look at the size difference between the loco and the passenger car.
Love the "Celiestial Line" loco. What a great photo.
I agree with the idea; an older loco can easily fit in a more recent time period. The opposite isn't true. And since modelers work in a variety of time periods, older locos mean more sales, potentially. Assuming the radius question is dealt with. And I do have one suggestion to deal with that: Mason Bogie.
Here is what Bill Iwan did with his On30 4-4-0. Beautiful work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHUxGWE5yzg
manager