I have a PFM brass Maryland & Pennsylvania Baldwin 2-8-0 #26 and I was looking at it over Christmas dreaming of DCC and sound, when it occurred to me that it would be an ideal addition to the Spectrum range. Reasons are:
The old Bachmann 2-8-0 was the first Spectrum model, but you have judged it no longer meets the Spectrum standard, so you have demoted it. In any case, it is a large engine for a small layout because of its long tender, and it would look wrong with a smaller tender.
The Ma & Pa bought four small 2-8-0s from Baldwin between 1902–1912, two of which (#23 + #26) lasted until 1947. They make small models, 8 inches over engine and tender, they have an incredible amount of detail, much antiquated, and went through the phases of wood and steel cabs, and so have all the atmosphere of your other Spectrum antique steam like the 4-4-0s, 4-6-0s and Decapod. To see the prototypes, visit http://www.maparailroadhist.org/locos.htm and look at #23, #24, #25 and #26. You might also look at Baldwin 0-6-0s #29 and #30 as future Spectrum candidates.
It would fit your Ma & Pa theme, and many other period railways and shortlines . There is a Roundhouse small antique 2-8-0, but it is way below Spectrum standards. However, its continued production by Athearn shows its popularity.
Please give it a thought when deciding on your next Spectrum steam loco.
Merry Christmas!
Bill.
I would love to have a spectrum quality smaller 2-8-0 that is a generic pre-WWI Baldwin. The railroad that model, the Tonopah & Tidewater bought a number of them around 1907. Sounds like a great idea to me. - Nevin
It would look great in comparison to the low boiler 4-6-0 which has the smaller drivers and smaller tender.
A natural
As a C&O modeler I'm really into the big engines, but I must concur, this was a very common locomotive that ran on quite a number of roads, and of course that included the Ma & Pa. It would be a great fit with the current Ma & Pa power, along with the new Baldwin 4-4-0 currently offered.
I must agree that these engines could be made into many roadnames. Some local favorites of mine would be Northern Pacific Railroad F1 class and D&IR C Class 2-8-0's.
Concur. A painted, undecorated, 2-8-0 would be great. Many were used by small branch lines, such as the Bellefonte Central RR, which is part of my HO layout. I've been looking for an undecorated DCC/Sound version of this loco for some time. I would purchase a Bachmann Spectrum version of this loco in a heart beat, as my entire roster is currently Bachmann.
Happy holidays to all,
Rod in PA
Quote from: Rod in PA on December 28, 2012, 10:02:27 AM
Concur. A painted, undecorated, 2-8-0 would be great. Many were used by small branch lines, such as the Bellefonte Central RR, which is part of my HO layout. I've been looking for an undecorated DCC/Sound version of this loco for some time. I would purchase a Bachmann Spectrum version of this loco in a heart beat, as my entire roster is currently Bachmann.
Happy holidays to all,
Rod in PA
Exactly, make some that are factory lettered and some that are unlettered but in black or Russian Iron with Gold detail so people can make the unlettered ones into whatever roadname they want as well as number. I would also buy one as my entire fleet of 9 engines is all Bachmann and Bachmann Branchline.
Sounds like a good idea to me, too. :)
Quote from: Searsport on December 27, 2012, 05:48:00 AM
The old Bachmann 2-8-0 was the first Spectrum model, but you have judged it no longer meets the Spectrum standard, so you have demoted it. In any case, it is a large engine for a small layout because of its long tender, and it would look wrong with a smaller tender.
Small tenders? Like these two: -
(http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l99/rogertra/Great_Eastern/GER359d-2-8-0No.jpg)
(http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l99/rogertra/Great_Eastern/GER355f-2-8-0No.jpg)
Quote from: rogertra on December 28, 2012, 07:42:23 PM
Quote from: Searsport on December 27, 2012, 05:48:00 AM
The old Bachmann 2-8-0 was the first Spectrum model, but you have judged it no longer meets the Spectrum standard, so you have demoted it. In any case, it is a large engine for a small layout because of its long tender, and it would look wrong with a smaller tender.
Small tenders? Like these two: -
(http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l99/rogertra/Great_Eastern/GER359d-2-8-0No.jpg)
(http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l99/rogertra/Great_Eastern/GER355f-2-8-0No.jpg)
Another 2-8-0 with a short tender like that was the DMIR K Class 2-8-0's built by Baldwin Locomotive Works in 1905 with more being built in 1909 for the Duluth & Iron Range as #'s 90-98 (later DM&IR 190-198), 200-208 (later DM&IR 1200-1208) and 209-224 (later 1209-1224). Here is a picture of a K Class 2-8-0.
http://www.missabe.com/gallery2/d/400-2/consol1211
http://www.missabe.com/gallery2/d/452-2/consol1223
http://www.missabe.com/gallery2/d/462-2/consol1221
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/mnsteam/dir1218b.jpg
The 2-8-0 that always warmed my heart was Varney's "Old Lady", which was re-produced by Bowser until recently. Gordon Varney really nailed this beauty on the head. Her slim lines and somewhat diminutive stature, her pre-WWll looks would really brighten up the yard, small though "go anywheres locomotive in nature, and would really look good on stud of local freights! Having re-thought my layout out this far now, my accent is in smallish engines such as the 2-6-0 which just came out. I have also done two SY conversions to an American-ized look, and, as a smaller mike-almost the size of a K-36 series D&RGW mike, they really look great! Having said all of that, maybe a smaller 2-8-0 would smack of enough appeal to a wide range of modellers, and be a good enough seller to justify the headlong production leap by Bachmann...
Rich C.
I'm not absolutely positive, but I think the Varney-Bowser "Old Lady" was a bit of a mongrel, with the boiler based on the "Casy Jones" 4-6-0 (which was based on a Southern Pacific locomotive, as was a similar 4-6-0 that was offered by Model Die Casting-Roundhouse). Both could be modified to represent certain Southern Pacific classes, but neither would be typical of most SP 2-8-0s, and in both cases the drivers as offered were too tall (the SP prototypes ran on 57" drivers rather than the 63" ones on the model). This wouldn't be too much of a problem at Bachmann, however, as our favorite company here has several articulated engines that use this driver size, so there wouldn't be too much tooling expense for that component.
An alternative medium size 2-8-0 (about 100 tons or or) would be a stock Alco design that was apparently based on Chesapeake & Ohio's G-7 and G-9 classes. This machine was sold to a number of shortlines, and the Nickel Plate had some as well that had been inherited from predecessor roads. Some were also sold to shortlines from the C&O and the NKP; two wound up on the Bellefonte Central in Pennsylvania, where they lasted into the late 1940s (they weren't replaced by diesels, but by second-hand Pennsy H-9 2-8-0s!), and a little railroad in West Virginia, the Winifred, had one of each! At least one example of one of these machines is preserved in operational or near operational order; Ohio Central No. 13 was originally Kellys Creek & Northwestern No. 6, then became No. 13 on the famous Buffalo Creek & Gauley, where it ran in regular freight service until 1965!
I don't have the diagrams for comparison, but an interesting characteristic of this Alco design is a rather unusual axle spacing, with (from front to rear) a sort of intermediate axle spacing between driving axles 1 and 2 (which on the original engines provided space for the links and rocker for Stephenson valve gear), a very minimal axle spacing between driving axles 2 and 3, and a rather long axle spacing between axles 3 and 4, to accommodate the firebox, which dropped down between the two axles and then extended level over No. 4. Equally interesting is that this same axle spacing and the same grate design was also used on the Pennsylvania Railroad's H-6 class, which was also on the Baltimore & Ohio as class E-24 (B&O being under Pennsy control at the time). And all these locomotive shared 57" drivers.
Some history of Varney:
http://www.tcawestern.org/varney.htm
Bowser's page for the now-discontinued Old Lady:
http://www.modelrailroader.net/holoco_ol.php
C&O G-9, courtesy of C&O Historical Society:
http://cohs.org/repository/Archives/cohs/web/cohs-13323.jpg
Photos of a brass G-9 model (for illustration only):
http://www.daveayers.com/StuffSales/images/Overland_CnO_G-9_1.jpg
http://www.daveayers.com/StuffSales/images/Overland_CnO_G-9_2.jpg
http://www.daveayers.com/StuffSales/images/Overland_CnO_G-9_3.jpg
http://www.daveayers.com/StuffSales/images/Overland_CnO_G-9_4.jpg
Early version of the G-7, with inboard piston valves and Stephenson valve gear, C&OHS:
http://cohs.org/repository/Archives/cohs/web/cohs-24046.jpg
Rebuilt G-7, with the smaller "sport model" cab:
http://www.cohs.org/repository/Archives/cohs/web/cohs-23890.jpg
Here is Buffalo Creek & Gauley 13. Her cab is close to that of the G-7s and G-9s as built, and in this case, also has a second air compressor, which I think may have been an addition by BC&G:
http://www.ebpm.com/rr/bigpix/fan_rrsteam081.html
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/281251/
http://www.buffalocreekandgauley.com/_13_Coal_Train_Below_Widen_DM-Corrected.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=280936
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/365482/
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=277922&showexif=1
http://www.antiquesnavigator.com/d-435427/buffalo-creek--gauley-rr-2-8-0-13-slide.html
No. 13 as she looked in 1996 on the Ohio Central Railroad at Sugar Creek, Oh.:
http://forums.railpictures.net/showthread.php?t=2550
BC&G 13's current home:
http://www.ageofsteamroundhouse.com/index.html
Can't ignore Brooks Stover's site on the BC&G and parent company Elk River Coal & Lumber; have your speakers turned on for the home page below:
http://www.buffalocreekandgauley.com/index.html
http://www.wonderfulwv.com/archives/sub.cfm?month=oct09&fea=1
What about that Pennsy H-6/B&O E-24?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRR_H6
http://www.mikesrails.com/2011/09/railroad-museum-rolling-stock-22.html
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-U1qaFXVXZ9w/Tk_Rtp-B3tI/AAAAAAAADZ0/f4c2ZAjEu4Y/s1600/PRR_2846_H6sb_DSCN1061.jpg
Earlier version with Stephenson valve gear and slide valves, lettered for subsidiary Northern Central:
http://www.billspennsyphotos.com/photos/Request-Gallery/NCR%20H6%20No.%203013%200-8-0%201024x.jpg
That tender looks familiar, although not typical for this class:
http://www.billspennsyphotos.com/photos/PRR-Locomotives/PRR%20H6sb%20No.%201%201937%20Altoona.jpg
How Pennsy moved bigger trains, at least when wages were lower:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YFvyy0BI_AM/T5Kw6MkwxQI/AAAAAAAAMHo/jK3tMVM9h7c/s1600/PRR+60+car+coal+train+steam+1910s.jpg
B&O E-24 photos, courtesy of Northeast Railfan:
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bo2200s.jpg
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bo2343s.jpg
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bo2381s.jpg
Like the Pennsy's original H-6 class, the E-24s originally had Stephenson valve gear and slide valves:
http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15330coll22/id/48295
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bo2389s.jpg
Like the E-27 2-8-0s, some were later rebuilt to 0-8-0s, in class L-1; like the rebuilt E-27s in class L-2, they got long-frame Baker valve gear:
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bo1027s.jpg
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bo1008s.jpg
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bo1028s.jpg
Following a renumbering in the 1950s, to clear higher numbers for new diesels:
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bo805s.jpg
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bo1521sa.jpg
Have fun with these photos!
Hello All: I, too, would like to add to the Ma & Pa roster from Bachmann. I had hoped that in time Bachmann would offer the 2-8-0 later versions with and without the feed water heater. The brass engines that are on eBay are crude by todays standards and the motors hang out of the back of the cab. The two 0-6-0 w/ slopeback tender would be a welcome addition as well. Thanks in advance, Jim
J3a;
I am probably going to sir up a hornet's nest, bit it doesn't really matter if it were a mongrel or petigreed; it has an asthetic appeal, they (usually) ran well for its day, and does meet muster as to being a small-ish 2-8-0. my thought is that I can usually take a model and re-create from it what appeals to me, I'll give it a go. I kind of like Linn Westcott's words about John Allen: "His heart was his own". I kind of like to take that line of thinking. Most guys that clambor about with the "it isn't my prototype", or "it isn't perfect" business might want to try looking at it from that point of view. If you don't want to, that is also OK; but I think life is meant to enjoy a bit now and then.
Rich C.
I used to read another forum, which is no longer, That had a lot of nitpickers. That locomotive is junk, the cab is one scale inch too long. I look at things in a different way. If it looks good, runs good, go for it.
RAM and Rich C.
Even though I freelance, I'm one of the prototype types. :)
On my GER, it's got to meet certain criteria.
1) It's got to be suitable for 1958.
2) It's got to be suitable for southern Quebec.
However, I do have two exceptions. There were no light axle loading 2-10-0s on either the CNR or CPRs rosters in southern Quebec but I needed a few light axle loading engines. These were for use on a branch line that in the GER story was built with light weight rail and bridges. At the time, the 4-6-0s and 2-6-0s weren't available at the time so I used the Russian 2-10-0s. In my defense, the 2-10-0s have been modified to make them look less Russian. The use of light axle loading 2-10-0s is plausible.
The other is the use of RS-1s. No railway in Canada used RS-1s except for second hand ones after the period I model. My excuse is the American subsidiary purchased the RS-1s when the line across Northern Maine was dieselised as a diesel experiment. The GER purchased FA-1 and FB-1s for road power and RS-1s for yard and way freight work. Again, plausible. This is why the RS-1s don't have m.u. capability.
That's what I do and that's what I like to do with my model railway. Because of my self imposed "rules", you'll not see 2-8-4s nor articulated steam, because they were not common in Canada. By having these self imposed rules, I also control my spending and do not impulse buy as following rules 1 and 2 limit my purchases. :)
Having said all that, if you disagree and want to run 4-4-0s pulling autoracks and techno-toasters pulling a train of reefers all labelled for individual states then more power to you. If that turns your crank, who am I to say you are wrong?
There is no right or wrong way.
The light Baldwin 2-8-0 such as the Ma and Pa engine was almost a stock item. As with most steam locos, the customer RR's could order them up with their own choice of appliances, cab styles, etc. The B&O had some very similar locos that they acquired with the Coal and Coke RR. I also like the idea of the E-24/H-6 loco that both B&O and PRR had. The Varney Old Lady/Casey Jones model came from the period when some manufacturers chose to do sort of "generic" models. The Varney models shared most all the same parts - boiler/cab, drivers, cylinder blocks, tenders. Only the frames were different. It resembles an SP prototype, but also resembles a Southern 2-8-0, one of which was once in tourist service on the Morris County Central RR in New Jersey. I once took the mech from a 4-6-0, cut off the frame ahead of the center driver, added a frame extension and a four-wheel pilot truck and mated a Kemtron Wabash Mogul superstructure to it to make and interesting sort-of modern 4-4-0.
Another sutiable loco would be the 2-8-0 that is running on the Valley RR in Essex, CT.
Hey Ram; you were saying about...nitpickers? On the other site?
Rich C.
Per my previous post, go here for a sample of a light 2-8-0 on the B&O that came from the M&K RR: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bo413s.jpg
Quote from: ebtnut on December 31, 2012, 04:28:36 PM
Per my previous post, go here for a sample of a light 2-8-0 on the B&O that came from the M&K RR: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/bo413s.jpg
Good choice but what we are all forgetting is that Bachmann is not run by a bunch of railfans, it's run by a bunch of suits who probably don't even live in North America. They will look at their range and say to themselves, "We already have a 2-8-0 and it's a good one, why do we need another?"
Hey Roger-
When last I checked, Philadelphia is in North America, as is New York, where I live- and I don't wear a suit!
Many of us are railfans, but we all consider many factors before investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in new projects.
I read every post every night, and share all these suggestions with the group.
Happy New Year!
the Bach-man
Mr. B.
With all due respect, as far as I know, Bachmann is owned by "Kader Industrial Company Limited" which was founded in Hong Kong in 1948 by Ting Hsiung Chao with a large interest owned by the Ting family. It was listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in 1985 and presently trades under the name of "Kader Holdings Company Limited".
The company today is one of the world's largest manufacturers of toy and hobby railways, for which we are grateful.
While the management team in Philadelphia will have major input into selection of North American models the same as the team running Bachmann UK does for their market, when push come to shove, Bachmann is owned by Kader Industrial Company Limited, a company based in China. These are the people who are probably not railfans and wear suits. :)
Happy New Year everyone.
Roger and Dave (Mr. Bach-mann);
This is the kind of thread that would send me screaming into the begonias. There turns out to be less that satisfactory feedback. Who cares who owns what? We (consumers) make money, we buy a product that makes each of our lives uniquely interesting. This started out with the simple question would Bachmann consider producing a smaller version of a 2-8-0 that already in catalogue, and we have heard everything from 1-inch longer cabs, to marketing psychology with everything in between.
Very little [came] out it the thread that would do an uninitiated person or someone who would genuinely wonder any good or be of help. I untimately feel just as dumb for dropping my two-cents worth into the puddle. How about let's all start being a bit more constructive in our feedback-myself included? I'd say this would be a peach of a day to start.
Rich C.
Rich C.
The people going on about a new 2-8-0 need to be brought back to reality and bringing threads back to reality is more constructive then just agreeing with the subject, in this case, a smaller 2-8-0.
And the reality is, Bachmann already do make a 2-8-0, the best 2-8-0 on the market and the model that is 100% responsible for the resurgence of well detailed, excellent running steam that we have today. Not only are Bachmann responsible for this resurgence in North America but they are also responsible for the same thing in the UK where r.t.r standards in both steam and diesel models were lagging behind even North America.
Therefore, the reality is that Bachmann already have the best 2-8-0 on the North American market, why should they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in tooling for another? Yes, in the UK market they produce several duplicate wheel arrangement models but the UK market and hobby are different from North America. In the UK, modellers will not tolerate any model, from freight car to top of the line passenger engine from one company painted in the colours of another. It just doesn't happen. Therefore, you will have say 4-6-2s from the LNER, LMS and SR and, in fact, several classes of 4-6-2 from each railway because that's how the UK market works.
In North America, we take a GP9 and paint it in the colours of multiple different roads even though the details for each road are incorrect. We do the same for freight cars as well. Something that would not be tolerated in the UK but we do it here.
Yes, I'd love another 2-8-0, and in fact a 2-8-2 and 4-6-2, all to Spectrum standards and that are not USRA designs and were somewhat generic but am I holding my breath? No. Because I'm realistic.
Bachmann, please prove me wrong? :)
How about we all take a deep breath and recognize that, not only
are we all entitled to our own opinions, those different opinions
are among the things which make model railroading, and even life
in general, worthwhile.
-- Doneldon
Quote from: ebtnut on December 31, 2012, 03:18:08 PM
Another sutiable loco would be the 2-8-0 that is running on the Valley RR in Essex, CT.
Or how about the 2-8-0 on the New Hope & Ivyland?
Quote from: rogertra on January 01, 2013, 02:36:36 PM
Therefore, the reality is that Bachmann already have the best 2-8-0 on the North American market, why should they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in tooling for another?
As long as the current engine continues to sell well, there is probably no reason for it. Perhaps the day will come when sales will drop off. Then it might be time to phase out the current model--at least for a few years--and introduce a new one.
Create a market for an engine that people don't even know they currently need. ;D
Quote from: Johnson Bar Jeff on January 01, 2013, 06:07:44 PM
Quote from: rogertra on January 01, 2013, 02:36:36 PM
Therefore, the reality is that Bachmann already have the best 2-8-0 on the North American market, why should they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in tooling for another?
As long as the current engine continues to sell well, there is probably no reason for it. Perhaps the day will come when sales will drop off. Then it might be time to phase out the current model--at least for a few years--and introduce a new one.
Create a market for an engine that people don't even know they currently need. ;D
Before the introduction of the 2-8-0, the GER was set firmly in 1978 and was an all diesel freight road.
Then Bachmann introduced the Spectrum 2-8-0. I saw one demonstrated at the LHS and promptly purchase two and put down payments on two more. Finally, an excellent running, well detailed, r.t.s, plastic steam locomotive that rivaled expensive, poor running brass imports.
From then on, the GER was committed to 1958 and being a steam and diesel railroad set firmly in 1958 and I've never looked back. Anything, from locomotives, through freight cars, to road vehicles and even signage on buildings if it wasn't around in 1958, was either sold, repainted, re-decaled, or re-lettered.
As I wrote before, the Spectrum 2-8-0 changed the industry for the better.
I am not sure that the current Spectrum 2-8-0 should be that much of a deterent to the making of a smaller slide valve 2-8-0. The current 2-8-0 is a fantastic model and I have owned 6-8 in the past, but it is a larger more model era model with piston valves.
Bachmann has already made smaller models based on the Maryland & Pennsylvania RR 4-6-0 and 4-4-0 that are great and I don't think the current 2-8-0 had any effect on those. Spectrum models based on the smaller M&P 2-8-0 and 0-6-0 would be fantastic for those of us who model pre-WW1 eras. Something the size of the MDC 2-8-0 but with Spectrum detailing would be wonderful and I'd buy a number of them. - Nevin
Check out the product review section of the latest Model Railroader for an old/new option for a light 2-8-0.
Recently,v Athearn (Horizon Models) brought back MDC's 2-8-0 from the mists of time, and it is available. This is yet another 2-8-0, and yet another reaason for bachmann not to invest in tooling to replicate a simile. In business,things tend run a little more logically than that. Thank God.
Rich C
If there is a market for a Spectrum 2-8-0, the fact that other manufacturers also have 2-8-0s on the market shouldn't necessarily be a deterrent. Look at how many PRR K4 Pacifics from different manufacturers have been available at the same time.
I would say a small 2-8-2 or/& a small 2-10-2.
RAM;
I cannot speak for a 2-10-2; I have "done" two of the Bachmann SantA Fes and to me , they look good. I showed pictures of them to the "bach-mann" at the show in Springfield several years back and he nodded his head in approval (or so I think...), but I digress...
As I have mentioned several times before, I had bought two SY mikes, eyed them lecherously, and then pounced on them mightily to create not only an Americanized version, but the two "Green Card Mikes (ahhhhhh so!). If I, in my not-too-dexterous ability can produce from the womb of my depraved cranium to the workbench, this wonderous coal-consuming midget, than anyone can. If I may dare a thought; I think mine are better looking than the one at Connecticut Valley railroad-arched windows and all...
Rich C.
Quote from: ebtnut on December 31, 2012, 03:18:08 PM
Another sutiable loco would be the 2-8-0 that is running on the Valley RR in Essex, CT.
Sign me up for those!!! I would love a few of those. Not too small by not as big as the post-spectrum Connie
Hey Rye;
Did you ever use those parts off the SY? The two locomotives in Essex I like are #40, and that little 2-8-0. When I was in the club, they wouldn't believe me when I told them it had 48" or smaller-drivers. I got some great shots of all three steamers a while back, as well as the little 0-6-0T.
Rich C.
Quote from: electrical whiz kid on January 06, 2013, 10:44:40 AM
Hey Rye;
Did you ever use those parts off the SY? The two locomotives in Essex I like are #40, and that little 2-8-0. When I was in the club, they wouldn't believe me when I told them it had 48" or smaller-drivers. I got some great shots of all three steamers a while back, as well as the little 0-6-0T.
Rich C.
Yes Rich I did, I ended up making a freelance Chinese Modernized Mogul from it, which reminds me, I should buy the cowcatcher and other SY parts considering they're now available through the parts store haha
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g65/ryeguyisme/IMAG1045.jpg)
Yes the Engines at Essex have tiny driver's, if you ever compare the engines to a AAR Boxcar and then compare other engines to the same thing, the difference is astounding
Think it reasonable request to model the Ma&Pa type 2-8-0, it would rock like all the other "Spectrum" models do. Interesting thread with a lot of pro/con reasoning. Saw no sarcasim, only slightly different perspectives. All which have merrit.
I agree the old Roundhouse 2-8-0 is actually a good substitute as they have a lot of potential and actually run decent. Would rather see a small non USRA 2-8-2, preferably something along the lines of the #70 that is now again running in WA state. A non proto-typical mike like the SY with USA modifications would be a cheap way to capitalize on tooling and engineering already done as well. Coming from an older school background, I think the modeler can take something like the old Roundhouse Ma&Pa type 2-8-0 and quite easily make a real nice custom locomotive, same for the SY in it's original form. It is great when someone like Bachman makes exactly what you want, especially in the smaller tonnage locomotive, but in the meantime with a little effort we as modelers can come up with some real nice custom examples.
When I look at some of the locomotives that have been availabe for years that are still produced and have a lot of potential with just a small amount of "kit bashing" or customizing, the Roundhouse 2-8-0 and of all things the Mantua Logging 2-6-6-2 comes to mind. They run very nice as is and with minor customizing one can have a great non brass locomotive. For those that remember what it was like back in the 60s and 70s as to what was available, you can sure appreciate the quality stuff available now, meaning you don't have to buy brass if you don't want too. While I too would like to see some more small steam come out like the wonderful 4-6-0s and Russian 2-10-0 there is still a lot that can be done till the next one comes out. The RTR out of the box quality that Bachman has come out with has us spoiled rotten, not all bad of course. Cheers, John.
i have one of those roundhouse 2-8-0s and it is not only a decent runner, but a decent puller as well. this brings up one minor complaint i have with bachmann locomotives overall. the upgrade in running quality is light years ahead of the bachmann locos i knew as a kid, but they are all too light. would it be possible to design some added weight into the next batch of new locomotives so we don;t have to figure out where to add it ourselves? with diesels this isn't much of an issue, you simply add another just like the real railroads do. with steam this generally isn't realistic as each added engine needed its own crew and the real railroads tried to avoid doubleheading as much as possible.
Quote from: jward on January 21, 2013, 11:26:51 AM
one minor complaint i have with bachmann locomotives overall. they are all too light. would it be possible to design some added weight into the next batch of new locomotives so we don;t have to figure out where to add it ourselves?
Jeff-
Not as easy or inexpensive as one might think. Just recall the last Bachmann steam engine you modified with extra weight. Were the added pieces nice, regular shapes like boxes, or were they very irregular, custom shapes because you used shot or old nuts and bolts to fill a void somewhere, like in the stack, smokebox, cab roof, domes, thin strips inside the boiler and so on? Each such piece would cost a good deal of money to manufacture because few would fit in more than one loco unless Bachmann were to use the same stacks, domes,
etc., on all of their products. Then we'd be complaining that they've stunk up the joint with non-prototypical details just to save a few cents. And, adding those pieces would increase costs for labor and parts inventory. This will surely add to the price, a change few of us would welcome.
My guess is that many modelers run their Bachmann steam with shorter consists than what the biggie railroads ran. This is fine on the average home layout which is most often a 4x8 and only rarely a sprawling layout which fills a basement in order to accommodate long trains. The minority of model rails who have a huge layout or who take equipment to a club layout can still reweight their locomotives and detail or weather them. But the folks with smaller pikes and those who are happy with out-of-the-box appearance would be discouraged by higher prices. Let me be clear that I am NOT criticizing folks who don't modify or redecorate their equipment; that is an absolutely appropriate way to be a model railroader. I'm just pointing out that many modelers don't feel the need to rework their locos and they wouldn't appreciate the costs added for those of us who do enjoy that part of the hobby. Since, by my observation, the out-of-the-box folks outnumber the rest of us, it is appropriate for Bachmann and other manufacturers to pitch their products that way. The rest of us can still go full bore into our modeling but we don't have to if we don't want to. And, last, I have to say that I have not been pleased with the few models I have with factory weathering so even a feature designed to appeal to people like me didn't make me a happy soul.
-- D
don,
to be honest, i am a diesel man. it's my fiance who loves steam, and what steam i have was bought with her in mind. as such i haven't tinkered much with weighting them. i know that the roundhouse 2-8-0 proves it can be done. i also know that one will pull about 10 cars on a 4% grade. the bachmann 2-6-0 i have, thought a larger engine, barely pulls half that.
Jeff-
A Mogul is a much lighter-duty loco than a Connie. They would probably pull more than half of what a Connie would in real life but definately less. Hills can distort pulling ability because a loco's balance is exaggerated on a grade, particulrly with non-equalized steamers like Bachmann's. I'll bet the Mogul can pull at least 75% of what a Connie will on level track.
Listen to your fiance. She's right that steam is where it's at.
-- Doneldon
Quote from: Doneldon on January 21, 2013, 11:57:48 PM
Jeff-
A Mogul is a much lighter-duty loco than a Connie. They would probably pull more than half of what a Connie would in real life but definately less. Hills can distort pulling ability because a loco's balance is exaggerated on a grade, particulrly with non-equalized steamers like Bachmann's. I'll bet the Mogul can pull at least 75% of what a Connie will on level track.
Listen to your fiance. She's right that steam is where it's at.
-- Doneldon
On level track, my 2-6-0s can each pull at least 16 cars plus van with no problem and probably more but as my Arrival-Departure track only takes 16 cars plus van, I've not tried more. I'm use one of the 2-6-0s as a yard switcher, so no need to pull more than 16 cars per lift. The other 2-6-0 takes one of the way freights.
I know C.N. had Baldwin 2-8-0's so count me in for at least a couple.
Limey.
don,
my fiance has never seen a live alco at work.....lol
Quote from: jward on January 21, 2013, 08:58:32 PM
don,
to be honest, i am a diesel man. it's my fiance who loves steam, and what steam i have was bought with her in mind. as such i haven't tinkered much with weighting them. i know that the roundhouse 2-8-0 proves it can be done. i also know that one will pull about 10 cars on a 4% grade. the bachmann 2-6-0 i have, thought a larger engine, barely pulls half that.
If you had noticed the Roundhouse 2-8-0 has traction tires on the last set of drivers, the Bachmann Spectrum engines do not.
No wonder the Roundhouse engine pulls more.
Quote from: Pacific Northern on January 22, 2013, 10:40:00 PM
Quote from: jward on January 21, 2013, 08:58:32 PM
don,
to be honest, i am a diesel man. it's my fiance who loves steam, and what steam i have was bought with her in mind. as such i haven't tinkered much with weighting them. i know that the roundhouse 2-8-0 proves it can be done. i also know that one will pull about 10 cars on a 4% grade. the bachmann 2-6-0 i have, thought a larger engine, barely pulls half that.
If you had noticed the Roundhouse 2-8-0 has traction tires on the last set of drivers, the Bachmann Spectrum engines do not.
No wonder the Roundhouse engine pulls more.
First. Even a real 2-6-0 would have lots of trouble pulling 5 to 6 cars up a 4% grade, which is really, really, really steep grade.
My carefully weighted and balanced Spectrum 2-8-0s pull 18 to 20 cars plus van on more realistic grades, why would I want nasty traction tires and why would I want to pull more than 20 cars?
My unmodified Bachmann Alco 2-6-0s handle 16 car cuts when switching the yard, and without nasty traction tires, why would I want it to handle more?
You may notice I am against traction tires.
Quote from: rogertra on January 24, 2013, 09:57:19 PM
First. Even a real 2-6-0 would have lots of trouble pulling 5 to 6 cars up a 4% grade, which is really, really, really steep grade.
Four percent is the grade on the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic (formerly D&RGW) eastbound out of Chama, New Mexico, to the summit of Cumbres Pass. Even the Mikados used on the C&TS can pull only about eight passenger cars up that grade. More cars than that, they have to double-head.
An IHC mogul can luckily maybe pull 2 cars up a 4%, One of my brass M-75 4-8-2's Can pull 30+ cars up a 4% and I haven't even maxed that out yet. The locomotive weight over the drivers, makes a considerable difference. The M-75 weighs in at about 21-24 ounces
that was my point. the roundhouse 2-8-0, though much smaller than the alco 2-6-0, is also much heavier. to be honest i never noticed the traction tire until it was pointed out. the roundhouse 2-8-0 pulls like an atlas diesel, which are also singnficantly heavier than their bachmann counterparts. added weight is both desirable and doable.
Weight over the drivers and a carefully balance locomotive is, in my opinion, much better than traction tire.
When you add weight to a locomotive you always ensure that under full load and when it stalls it can always spin its driving wheels so you do not burn out the motor.
That is one of the reasons that I don't like traction tires. When the engine stalls with a full trailing load, the wheels cannot spin so you have the possibility of the motor burning out. This is especially probably if the loco stalls in a tunnel.
The next issue I have with traction tires is they wear out and how do you get replacements in several years from now?
And the final issue with traction ties is as they wear, the introduce an unrealistic wobble to the engine as it moves along the track.
Yep. No traction tires for me.