Has there been any discussion in Bachmann Sprectrum making a Heisler? There are no more Rivarossi Heislers left. They stoped making them. I really want one, and wish I could find more Rivarossi ones......but I can't because there is none left in the local Train stores around where I live.
Try Trainworld.com I think they are on sale for $80.
I saw that there, but there are a lot of risks with ordering an HO engine. Things can break during shipping, and stuff like that.
Has Bachmann thought about making a Heisler?
It is HIGHLY unlike that Bachmann would pursuing making an HO scale model of a Heisler because the Rivarossi tooling still exists, and they will most like re-introduce the model in the future.
Ordering from Trainworld is safe - I have been doing business with them for more than 25 years.
Thank you very much Nigel. Is calling the only way to order from that website?
Order from the website - www.trainworld.com.
Nevermind. I emailed them, and they don't have any that come DCC ready.
So unfortunatly, Trainworld doesn't have any of the good ones.
The Rivarossi Heisler's,
Are they worth the price?
Any one have any problems?
Cant get an On-30,
So maybe get an H. O.
Quote from: Trains Again on February 14, 2007, 06:07:56 PM
Nevermind. I emailed them, and they don't have any that come DCC ready.
So unfortunatly, Trainworld doesn't have any of the good ones.
I am looking at one of the Heisler by Rivarossi units and it is DCC ready (add the decoder), if the units are not DCC ready they must be very old stock - I would check again.
Quote from: drhone on February 14, 2007, 08:49:39 PM
Quote from: Trains Again on February 14, 2007, 06:07:56 PM
Nevermind. I emailed them, and they don't have any that come DCC ready.
So unfortunatly, Trainworld doesn't have any of the good ones.
I am looking at one of the Heisler by Rivarossi units and it is DCC ready (add the decoder), if the units are not DCC ready they must be very old stock - I would check again.
I emailed Trainworld, and thats what they told me. They don't have any DCC ready Heislers.
Does any other company besides Rivarossi make them for HO?
HO Heislers are available in brass -& pricey. I know Pacific Fast Mail - PFM - imported several in the past. Check that web auction site near you.
I have a 2 and a 3 truck Riverossi unit - nice for the money. :D
Didn't have any at PFM. The only place that has HO Heislers (besides Brass) is Ebay. Does anybody know which company bought out Rivarossi?
Too bad Bachmann hasn't considered making one :-( Unless another company makes one, I guess there won't be any HO Heislers for a while.
Bummer... :(
Hornby International, who bought the Lima group including Rivarossi, are slowly re-introducing items form the former Lima companies. Only a few Rivarossi american items have so far been introduced, they seem to have beeen concentrating more on the european items. I expect that they will re-introduce the Heisler at some stage, but it has not been announced for 2007.
The point is, if I expect the Heisler to be re-made at some point, Bachmann and other makers probably are also expecting Rivarossi to re-introduce it. Thus Bachmann (or others) may well be reluctant to introduce a Heisler. Would there be room for two ready to run non brass models?
Hamish
Quote from: Hamish K on February 16, 2007, 07:32:26 AM
Would there be room for two ready to run non brass models?
Hamish
Of course!! Take a look at how many companies have produced something like a Mikado, or a Mountain. I could name tons of companies that have made the same type of engine in non-brass. There would be
PLENTY of room.
Bachmann has made a Climax and a Shay. So whats the big deal with not making a Heisler? Bachmann has made a G scale Heisler.....So why not an HO? Do you see my point? Unless it has to do with some sort of money issue, it doesn't make any sense at all to me.
The one thing missing in this discussion is that the Rivarossi Heisler is substantially larger than any "real" Heisler found in the real world. The model is based on the old AHM tooling. Rivarossi made many upgrades to the model, and it is a nice looking and nice running locomotive. That does not, however, change the unprototypically large size.
Reguardless of the "someone has already done it" factor...it would be nice to see somebody do a proper Heisler.
Just my comments.
Jeff Moore
Elko, NV
Quote from: JDLX on February 17, 2007, 01:52:14 AM
The one thing missing in this discussion is that the Rivarossi Heisler is substantially larger than any "real" Heisler found in the real world. The model is based on the old AHM tooling. Rivarossi made many upgrades to the model, and it is a nice looking and nice running locomotive. That does not, however, change the unprototypically large size.
Reguardless of the "someone has already done it" factor...it would be nice to see somebody do a proper Heisler.
Just my comments.
Jeff Moore
Elko, NV
Thats interesting. I'm kinda surprised.
Quote from: JDLX on February 17, 2007, 01:52:14 AM
The one thing missing in this discussion is that the Rivarossi Heisler is substantially larger than any "real" Heisler found in the real world. The model is based on the old AHM tooling. Rivarossi made many upgrades to the model, and it is a nice looking and nice running locomotive. That does not, however, change the unprototypically large size.
Reguardless of the "someone has already done it" factor...it would be nice to see somebody do a proper Heisler.
Just my comments.
Jeff Moore
Elko, NV
Are you really, really sure? The Heislers came in a lot of sizes just as the Climaxes and Shays. I have a Rivarossi 2 trk Heisler and it doesn´t feel oversize. It looks very alike the big 2 trk Heisler that PFM/United made. Perhaps there are someone on this forum that give us some facts?
But. It would be nice with a smaller and earlier one from around the 1900:s
regards
Heinz
I have always thought about trying to down size my Rivarossi Heisler but could not come up with a practical way. I would love to see Bachmann make a model in the 37 to 50 ton range.
Peter Smith, Memphis
Quote from: paustinsmith on February 18, 2007, 09:08:01 AM
I have always thought about trying to down size my Rivarossi Heisler but could not come up with a practical way. I would love to see Bachmann make a model in the 37 to 50 ton range.
Peter Smith, Memphis
I agree. That would be nice :) I agree with Heinz too about having one from the 1900's.
To be more specific, how about shop number 1004, 45 tons, built in 1896? (As shown in the photo on page 106 "The Heisler Locomotive 1891-1941", Published by Benjamin F. G. Kline, Jr.
Peter Smith, Memphis
Quote from: paustinsmith on February 19, 2007, 11:29:54 AM
To be more specific, how about shop number 1004, 45 tons, built in 1896? (As shown in the photo on page 106 "The Heisler Locomotive 1891-1941", Published by Benjamin F. G. Kline, Jr.
Peter Smith, Memphis
(http://www.steaminthewoods.com/WillametteValleyLCo6_2THeisler_BlackRockOR_1927_75700_copy.jpg)
Is it this one? Willamette valley lumber Co no 6. Not the best of pictures. That one would be nice. The smaller earlier ones looks very compact. I also found this cute 20 tonner buildt 1896 on www.gearedsteam.com.
(http://www.gearedsteam.com/heisler/images/haines_chemical_co.jpg)
regards
Heinz
Yes, number 6 is the Heisler I was referring to. Thanks for the photo! This was their first 45 ton and was built in 1896. In trying to put together it's genealogy from a number of conflicting sources including some personal correspondence as best I can determine, issue 39 of "Timber Times" has it correct:
" This engine was quite a wanderer during her life; she first worked for Port Blakely Mill Co. at Kamilche, Washington; then moved south to work for the McCloud River Lumber Co. at McCloud California as their No. 3 (I believe this may have been as early as 1897); a short move to Weed Lumber Co. of Weed California ( I believe this move occurred in May 1903); next east for a short stint (1913 to 1914) at the Nevada County Narrow Gauge RR ( They must have Re-gauged it since I know that it was Std. gauge as built and while it was working at McCloud River & Weed); and at last, back up north her final owner, the Willamette lbr. Co. of Dallas Oregon."
I believe from my sources that it was scrapped in 1930.
Why am I so interested in this locomotive? Because I Model the Weed Lumber Company RR and it's successor the California & Northeastern klamath Falls branch of the SP about 1910.
Peter Smith, Memphis
From the geared steam locomotive site
http://www.gearedsteam.com/heisler/heisler.htm (http://www.gearedsteam.com/heisler/heisler.htm)
It seems that the largest 2 truck Heisler was about 65 tons and the largest 3 truck 90 tons (or a bit more). I don't know how this compares with the Rivarossi models.
Whether there is room fot two ready to run Heislaers is a matter for judgement - in particular Bachmann's or other makers. Bachmann has often seemed reluctant to duplicate other makers steam locos. Geared locomotives are more niche products then say Mikados so this could cause them to hesitate. On the other hand a rather different model to Rivarossi's might sell, especially if re-introduction of the Rivarossi model is some time away - as seems likely. I don't know whether there is room for two Heislers or not - but I can see why Bachmann might hesitate.
Hamish.
A small Heisler would certainly be unique and quite different from the much larger Rivarossi. I think the answer for Bachmann would depend on how their small Climax is selling. I would speculate that anyone who has purchased their small 50 ton Climax would compliment it with a small Heisler. I know I would. Their 50 ton Heisler is my favorite locomotive and I do own a Rivarossi.
Peter Smith, Memphis
Quote from: paustinsmith on February 19, 2007, 07:31:46 PM
A small Heisler would certainly be unique and quite different from the much larger Rivarossi. I think the answer for Bachmann would depend on how their small Climax is selling. I would speculate that anyone who has purchased their small 50 ton Climax would compliment it with a small Heisler. I know I would. Their 50 ton Heisler is my favorite locomotive and I do own a Rivarossi.
Peter Smith, Memphis
I agree. That would be nice to have.
The 20 ton Heisler was cute Heinz. I liked it! :)
What does The Bachmann have to say about all this? I would like to know if he can pass on our request.
Dear Trains,
I pass on all the requests. Beyond that, feel free to discuss...
Have fun!
the Bach-man
Quote from: the Bach-man on February 20, 2007, 09:50:43 PM
Dear Trains,
I pass on all the requests. Beyond that, feel free to discuss...
Have fun!
the Bach-man
Ok. Thank you :)
Quote from: paustinsmith on February 19, 2007, 04:36:46 PM
Yes, number 6 is the Heisler I was referring to. Thanks for the photo! This was their first 45 ton and was built in 1896. In trying to put together it's genealogy from a number of conflicting sources including some personal correspondence as best I can determine, issue 39 of "Timber Times" has it correct:
" This engine was quite a wanderer during her life; she first worked for Port Blakely Mill Co. at Kamilche, Washington; then moved south to work for the McCloud River Lumber Co. at McCloud California as their No. 3 (I believe this may have been as early as 1897); a short move to Weed Lumber Co. of Weed California ( I believe this move occurred in May 1903); next east for a short stint (1913 to 1914) at the Nevada County Narrow Gauge RR ( They must have Re-gauged it since I know that it was Std. gauge as built and while it was working at McCloud River & Weed); and at last, back up north her final owner, the Willamette lbr. Co. of Dallas Oregon."
I believe from my sources that it was scrapped in 1930.
Why am I so interested in this locomotive? Because I Model the Weed Lumber Company RR and it's successor the California & Northeastern klamath Falls branch of the SP about 1910.
Peter Smith, Memphis
Sounds interesting, must be a challenge to model a real prototype?
But it must be a boon to have pictures and information to model after. When planning a freelanced model railroad as I do I can feel that it is hard to draw the line concerning the year I´m modeling and which models I want running on the layout. I have set the year to 1909 to justify(to myself anyway) a 2-4-4-2. At the same time I want colourful 4-4-0:s from the 1870:s running also. I´ll have to make up quite a history to get away with it :D. Well to justify the 4-4-0:s paintjobs anyway.
Its nice to see something different when someone is modeling the early 20:th century. I´m pretty fed up with Denver & Rio Grande Western narrow gauge which seems to be the norm today.
regards
Heinz
I model the Weed Lumber Company and the California & Northeastern/Southern Pacific branch from Weed California to Klamath Falls Oregon between 1909 and 1911. The Weed Lumber Co. started this branch as a logging RR about 1903 and reached a point just south of Grass Lake CA. at which time they sold their RR to the C & NE. (A short lived subsidiary of the SP until it was fully merged into the SP about 1910).
Prior to the sale, Weed owned three logging locos:
4-4-0 No.1 ( I am currently back dating the new Spectrum 4-4-0 to represent Weed No.1)
2-8-0 No.3 ( I will back date an MDC Old Timer to represent this loco)
Heisler No. 2 ( The 45 ton loco shown in the preceding photos above)
The Weed RR sale, to the C & NE included No. 1 & No. 3 and the SP as parent company, agreed to haul logs coming from Weed spurs (As far as forty miles out along the C & NE back to the Weed Sawmill at attractive rates.)
For every hour I spend modeling I spend about five hours of historical research but, I find this research as rewarding as the modeling. However, I also model a freelance narrow gauge logging RR connecting with the C & NE between Weed and Grass Lake which allows me a little more modeling freedom.
Peter Smith, Memphis
Peter-
It sounds like you have the makings of a very interesting railroad.
More on the Willamette Valley #6...your chronology fits what my research has turned up. A couple of other pieces of information on it...
- While on Port Blakely it had a name, the Maggie. If you get your hands on a copy of Pete Replinger & John Labbe's book Logging to the Salt Chuck, you will find a picture of her on the Port Blakely in that volume.
- Port Blakely was less than satisfied with the locomotive, and they turned it back to the builder shortly after getting it. This coincided with Stearns delivering one of the first three truck Heislers built to the McCloud River as their #2. The McCloud River had nothing but problems with the #2 from the day it arrived, and to help things out Stearns sent the Maggie down to McCloud to help them out while they tried to get the #2 up and running. The McCloud River had a 2-6-2 on order from Baldwin that would go a long ways towards solving their motive power problems at the time, but to tide themselves over until it arrived the company looked around for some other power, which eventually led them to purchase the Maggie. It became #3 on the McCloud roster. This transaction took place sometime during the summer of 1898.
- The McCloud used the "Maggie" primarily as a switch engine...at one point they reported to Stearns that, although it was a good locomotive, they were having to do an overhaul after every 3 or 4 miles of operation as the crossheads would not stay. Apparently the locomotive got a new set of crossheads that solved the problem.
- I have never seen a definate date of when the two McCloud Heislers left the property. All the written records tell us is that it was before 18 April 1906- the San Francisco earthquake on that day wiped out almost all McCloud River records, as both the railroad and its corporate parents maintained headquarter in the city. 1903 would make sense and fit in with other parts of the puzzle, however.
- Lastly, Nevada County Narrow Guage did have a short standard gauge operation...something to do with rock trains. That's where this locomotive was used while on that road- I don't think it was ever converted to narrow guage. I have 1914 as the year it moved from NCNG to Willamette Lumber Company. I also have 1930 as its scrap date.
I have a couple more photos of the locomotive on my website at:
http://www.trainweb.org/mccloudrails/LocoImages/Loco-0003.html
Have you run across any information about an ex-AT&SF 4-6-0 that Weed hypothetically used that came to the McCloud River around 1900? It is the one in this link:
http://www.trainweb.org/mccloudrails/LocoImages/Loco-0007.html
One last note...the McCloud River #2 was one of two 3-truck Heislers that Stearns built around 1897. Both proved to be complete failures...and partly as a result of them Stearns did not build another 3-truck Heisler until 1912.
Please keep us updated on your layout progress...and someday you need to turn your historical research into a book. The Weed operations were one of the largest and most fascinating, and yet least covered, logging shows in California. Red River and McCloud both have books written about them, and I hope to have my book about the McCloud out someday soon...but the Weed operations need to be covered.
Jeff Moore
Elko, NV
Jeff, thank you for your input. It is my belief that McCloud River 4-6-0 No. 7 was never owned by the Weed Lumber Company.
Peter Smith, Memphis