Bachmann Message Board

Discussion Boards => Large => Topic started by: Ken on August 29, 2007, 06:16:45 PM



Title: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Ken on August 29, 2007, 06:16:45 PM

  Just glad I don't model Colorado, or I might have to get one<G>.

  It sure look's nice though.

   Ken
    GWN


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: bobgrosh on August 29, 2007, 07:27:43 PM
OK! Where's the pictures,
Specifics, prices. what sound card, part number for undecorated with DCC and sound???


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Curmudgeon on August 29, 2007, 07:29:47 PM
http://www.mylargescale.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=48295


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Matthew (OV) on August 29, 2007, 08:43:11 PM
HURRAH!!!  Nicely done, well played, break out the champagne and cigars!

Oh, and SIGN ME UP.  I want one. (Ok, I want four.... but I'll settle for one!)

Absolutely fantastic!

Matthew (OV)


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Charlie Mutschler on August 29, 2007, 10:26:10 PM
Outstanding!!! I will be eagerly placing my order.  More railroad equals less lawn.  I love that concept.  At long last, something to pull my post 1920 Colorado NG freight cars.  A string of the new Bachmann tank cars behind her should look quite at home on the Farmington branch, or the oil trains on the RGS before the Ames slide cut the Farmington - Montrose oil traffic.  Or a few of the tanks with the usual box and gon mix on Cumbres, the Silverton branch, etc.  YES indeed!  Beautiful.  I hope you guys sell a train load. 

Charlie Mutschler


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Jon D. Miller on August 29, 2007, 10:29:03 PM
Guess that which can not be talked about can now be talked about. ;)

Great news that Bachmann published in its e-mail newsletter.

(http://www.largescaleonline.com/eimages/lsolpics/Team_Member_Pics/jlsrails/Buildings/Steam_Locomotive/Bachmann_K-27.jpg)

Now with seven variations to pick from it will be tough to select the first one.  I see a number of the K's on the CD&StL roster.  Will have to decide tonight so my dealer can place a preorder in the morning.

If Bachmann makes the announced December delivery date this will be one extra special Christmas.

JD



Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Kevin Strong on August 30, 2007, 01:20:40 AM
Ho-hum....

Now if it were an EBT mikado...  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Seriously, great to see it's finally materializing. Can't wait to see it in the flesh. It's a great time to be in 1:20.3!

Later,

K


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: zubi on August 30, 2007, 01:48:32 AM
WOW. Ubelievable. I suppose this will define the new large scale decade to come. I only hope that Bachmann will get the plastic right this time, it would be a big heap of dust if it crumbles after a year;-))) Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Steve Stockham on August 30, 2007, 08:42:21 AM
Ummm.......(oh boy!) uh......guys? I hate to nit-pick right off the bat (especially since I have been waiting so long!) but that tapered stack is wrong! I checked through Dennis O'Berry's book, "The Mudhens" which has copious amounts of pictures of all of the K-27's and only found one picture with a tapered stack and that was of #463 when she was still a Vauclain compound engine in 1908! Every other picture shows a straight stack! How could Bachmann make such a glaring error??!! I sincerely hope that someone at Bachmann caught this early enough so that when the production models come out this will have been corrected! (If not, Accucraft makes a stack that would work in it's place.)


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: gbbari on August 30, 2007, 10:26:46 AM
Does it use basically the same drive as the 2-8-0 Constellation?


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Colorado on August 30, 2007, 10:30:00 AM
My assumption would be that it will come with a variety of stacks.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Steve Stockham on August 30, 2007, 11:27:39 AM
I don't know....other than the RGS, the D&RGW is the only railroad to use a K-27 so variations would be from one era to another and between individual locomotives. I do note that Bachmann got it right on the road numbers for the engines with cylinders that are inside canted! This should help with clearance issues running in our gardens.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: altterrain on August 30, 2007, 12:09:58 PM
Ummm.......(oh boy!) uh......guys? I hate to nit-pick right off the bat (especially since I have been waiting so long!) but that tapered stack is wrong! I checked through Dennis O'Berry's book, "The Mudhens" which has copious amounts of pictures of all of the K-27's and only found one picture with a tapered stack and that was of #463 when she was still a Vauclain compound engine in 1908! Every other picture shows a straight stack! How could Bachmann make such a glaring error??!! I sincerely hope that someone at Bachmann caught this early enough so that when the production models come out this will have been corrected! (If not, Accucraft makes a stack that would work in it's place.)

Steve's countin' rivets already!   :P

 :D

-Brian


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: japasha on August 30, 2007, 12:11:48 PM
The D&RGW sold two mudhens to the Mexican National Railways in 1940 or so. They were eventually converted to standard gauge.

Similar power went all over the world, Columbia, Central America and so on. Don't forget the Sumpter Valley and Uintah which had similar  locomotives.

I already have brass K-27, K-28, K-36 and K-37 locomtives. This will be a welcome addition to the fleet. Now we can do some pipe gondolas and other trains.

Great stuff, Lee and staff!!


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: bob kaplan on August 30, 2007, 12:36:31 PM
Do i dare ask minimum radius?...  Looks great!!...


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Bud Steinhoff on August 30, 2007, 03:25:16 PM
Great, I have been waiting, bring it on.
I will make my railway fit it.
Finally a K that I can afford,
Bud


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Curmudgeon on August 30, 2007, 06:42:13 PM
Okay, right from the convention floor.

This was a mock-up done in China for the show, of production and non-production parts.
Production units will have the correct stack, correct water hatch (apparently this one sits too high), and the doghouse will have an interior.

This was punched out to have something to show of what they have been up to all these many months.

The Bach-Boy will be back on-line Sunday night and answer questions.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: R. J. Raleigh on August 30, 2007, 07:24:46 PM
ok, what about materials? long ago it was mentioned that the k-27 will be diecast...is that still the case? a diecast boiler would be very nice.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: zubi on August 31, 2007, 12:16:38 AM

Similar power went all over the world, Columbia, Central America and so on. Don't forget the Sumpter Valley and Uintah which had similar  locomotives.


Japasha, Is that true? I do not think that Uintah or SV had outside frame Mikado locomotives. Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: bobgrosh on August 31, 2007, 08:52:48 AM
I have a couple questions about the DCC interface.
It has been rumored that the coal load can be removed and there is a DCC connector. If true, then it looks like a DCC decoder can be installed without lifting, handling, or rolling the loco to it's side.
(1) Is that true?
(2) Are there separate wires from the loco to the tender for EACH of the following;
  • smoke
  • marker lights
  • firebox flicker phase A
  • firebox flicker phase B
  • Headlight
  • cab light ?
(3)Can all wiring to individual functions be accomplished inside the tender to provide individual control of the above?
(4)Are there wires in the tender for a chuff cam?
(5)Are there any circuits, regulators, capacitors on the motor or other items inside the loco that must be removed when installing a decoder.

I initially thought that without a decoder version, like the three truck Shay, the Kay would be something I could not convert due to it's size, weight and fantastic detailing. If the rumors about the DCC being installed in the tender are true, then I definitely want this big rodded loco to go with my Shays. Otherwise, I'll have to wait for a DCC version.



Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: the Bach-man on August 31, 2007, 05:10:09 PM
Dear All,
I will have many pictures to post upon my return. (I'm waiting for the show to open, so I have a quiet monent to post, incidentally.) The stack will be correct, it's the CAB hatch that sits too high, the doghouse will have a single seat passenger car bench, the minimum diameter is EIGHT feet (Corrected on 1 August), the interface in the  tender will accept DCC, RCS, Airwire, or presumably anything but live steam, and there will be multiple versions of cabs, tenders, cylinders, etc. I think that covers it all to date...
It's a great show!
Have fun! (I sure am!)
the Bach-man


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Steve Stockham on August 31, 2007, 06:49:16 PM
Ahhh!!!! Now THAT is what I call "something to anticipate"!!! ;D


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Matthew (OV) on August 31, 2007, 09:15:37 PM
Er...  Bach-Man ... maybe you need to slow that high speed internet down a bit... or bring the dragon:

"The minimum diameter is four feet"

Maybe you meant the minimum TURNTABLE diameter?  ;D

That's a lot like what Jack Sparrow would call an Arrrh-One.

Fortunately, the RADIUS of all the curves on the new Slate Creek were made in (dare we say it) Anticipation of this particular arrival, and all exceed four feet by as much as could be managed!

I'm liking those multiple tender shells .... if there's a big cab to go with that square RGS one, I may just have to have two!  Overtime, here we come.

Matthew (OV)


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: CCSII on August 31, 2007, 10:41:48 PM
Materials? Plastic, die cast, pastry dough?


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: rdamurphy on September 01, 2007, 06:07:13 AM
Quote
, Is that true? I do not think that Uintah or SV had outside frame Mikado locomotives. Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi

Zubi, it most certainly is true!  It was Uintah #40, and it was used on one end of the line, it wouldn't make it through the curves on Baxter Pass.  (Obviously wasn't built for a 4foot diameter curve!  :D)  I'm pretty sure it was scrapped when the line went out of business, and I'm not sure how it compares in size with a K-27, but I'll look up the specs and see.

Hey, Bach Man?  How about a 1:20.3 2-6-6-2T Uintah Rwy articulated?

Robert


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Matthew (OV) on September 01, 2007, 07:42:43 AM
Materials? Plastic, die cast, pastry dough?

A K-27 made of pastry dough .... would that be a Mud Pie?

Can anyone who was there comment further on the extra parts and bits seen in some of the photos.... particularly with respect to the presence (or not) of different cabs and cylinder covers, other parts, etc? 

Matthew (OV)


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: zubi on September 01, 2007, 11:40:39 AM
Quote
, Is that true? I do not think that Uintah or SV had outside frame Mikado locomotives. Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi

Zubi, it most certainly is true!  It was Uintah #40, and it was used on one end of the line, it wouldn't make it through the curves on Baxter Pass.  (Obviously wasn't built for a 4foot diameter curve!  :D)  I'm pretty sure it was scrapped when the line went out of business, and I'm not sure how it compares in size with a K-27, but I'll look up the specs and see.

Hey, Bach Man?  How about a 1:20.3 2-6-6-2T Uintah Rwy articulated?

Robert


Robert, Thanks for the note. I do not have the Uintah books here in Tokyo so I am only referring to my memory. Well, the #40 does not look like outside frame in this photo (http://"http://home.bresnan.net/~bpratt15/images/DPS/Loco40PullingFreight.jpg"); But the #30 in this sale flyer (http://"http://home.bresnan.net/~bpratt15/images/UintahSale.jpg") looks certainly more like it. Still, I think there are considerable differences between this and the D&RGW K27s but I have no precise data to compare. The 2-6-6-2 articulates are most fabulos locomotives, but I think that the right company to release them in foreseable time is Accucraft. And hopefully these will be live steam 2-6-6-2's!! Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Perry Ottoman on September 01, 2007, 03:21:01 PM
Yep, fix that stack and the way too short front steps up to the running boards.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: scottychaos on September 01, 2007, 04:27:46 PM
Er...  Bach-Man ... maybe you need to slow that high speed internet down a bit... or bring the dragon:

"The minimum diameter is four feet"

Maybe you meant the minimum TURNTABLE diameter?  ;D



We should try to start a movement to always have model railroad curves described in terms of diameter only, not radius!
yes, I know radius has a longer tradition..in HO scale curves are almost always described in radius: 18" radius and etc.
but diameter makes so much more sense!
because its distance across the ENTIRE circle!
no extra math necesary:

"18 inch radius?? lets see, 18 times 2 is 36, 36 inches equals 3 feet.. so the curve is 3-feet across then?? well then why not just SAY "3 foot diameter"?!  whats all this mucking around with 18 inches?!" ;)

and in the case of the K27, if diameter was always used, as in "8-foot diameter",
the Bach-man wouldnt have made a mistake and said "The minimum diameter is four feet"..when he clearly meant 4-foot radius, 8-foot diameter..

Join the cause! down with radius!!  ;D

Scot


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Matthew (OV) on September 01, 2007, 04:39:17 PM
Scot,

You cannot have your Pi and eat it too.

Matthew (OV)


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: ollie on September 01, 2007, 07:07:21 PM
Well, I am just happy to see this! I guess by far the greatest news on Fscale. Yes I will budget one..... Can't belive it, incredible. 8) 8) 8)
Naturally I'd love to see photos....


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: the Bach-man on September 01, 2007, 11:10:55 PM
Dear All,
I've corrected my hasty post to eight foot diameter track. Another mistake appears on the flyer prepared for the show- it says Die Cast, but it should say Die Cast PARTS.
I'll continue to post info as cleared, and I have several photos to post asap.
Have fun!
the Bach-man


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Rods UP 9000 on September 02, 2007, 12:17:48 AM
 THANK YOU for the K-27.
After looking at the HO scale Blackstone K-27(this is why the long delay of the 20.3 version), BACHMAN did a outstanding job of researching the K-27. With that done, I know each different offerings will be correct. ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS LOOK AT THE BLACKSTONE MODELS of it. Now all I need to figure which 3 do I want to accompany my other K'S (Berlyn K-36, K-37 and Accucraft K-28)
 Rodney


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Hunt on September 02, 2007, 02:57:08 AM
Bach-man,
1) Will all wiring in the K-27 use a consistent color scheme to identify a wire’s function?
2) Will there be documentation and supporting diagram(s) to identify the function of each wire?


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: the Bach-man on September 02, 2007, 11:27:48 AM
Dear Hunt,
We are working on the interface now, so I hope so. Those who saw it in Portland were very enthusiastic.
Have fun!
the Bach-man


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Curmudgeon on September 02, 2007, 11:51:37 AM
So, let me get this right.
http://www.mylargescale.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=48304
Seems Stanley has been working and developing with H.Lee and Lewis P, and has this wonderful socket (which the vast majority could care less about in large scale at this point), we have Mikey, who doesn't do LS, concerned about color codes, and of course, the ever important documentation, and the official word is "We are working on the interface now,"...........
I had strong opinions about dcc and dcc users, most of whom it seems wanted to jump right to the "executive position" without having a clue as to how to actually DO something (to wit: "WAH! How do I install DCC?"), the misguided guidance ("Open frame Pittman motors cannot be used with DCC as one side is grounded". What a load of manure) and they want to do it without removing anything from the track or turning it over.
I now have stronger opinions.

Holy Crap.

As poorly as some are about lubrication and inspection, I would make absolutely certain there were a dozen screws underneath to remove to access anything so the "wonderful consumer" would have to inspect and hopefully lubricate moving parts when he had it upside down.

I see the same community that wants single wire feed is now basically demanding 24-wire-harnesses between loco and tender (complete isolation at the tender......isolation of flicker "A", flicker "B", cab light, head light, markers, smoke, chuff, motors, and gawd only knows what else).

Right now, with the limited photgraphic evidence available, it appears I may have to find another box for electronics.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Noah Effingway on September 02, 2007, 03:05:06 PM
Aw, cheer up, esteemed Curmudgeon.

First of all, even the 1:1 guys had to turn theirs upside down to work on them or lubricate them:

(http://home.att.net/~pipix/dplpix6/00014964.jpg)

So, doing the same for the model should be a mere trifle.

My bet is, if there's some joint project with Aristocraft headed up by Mr. Ames, that the kind of Glastnost involved in THAT kind of accord will take a whole LONG time.

That should leave plenty of room in the tender for the proclaimed "Easily Converted for Battery Operation" and "Room Available for Sound Installation" on the ones we'll see anytime soon.

Noah E.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: JerryB on September 02, 2007, 04:11:55 PM
It's interesting that one of the persons who has made the most public noise about not turning the new K-27 upside down for DCC installations has previously reported lots of gear failures on his equipment (not Bachmann). We can probably surmise that those failures were at least partly due to a lack of lubrication, as properly lubricating a locomotive also requires 'upside down'. Makes me wonder how long the new K-27 is gong to run without proper lubrication, regardless of the DCC installation.

This whole push to DCC is being done by a few folks who would rather work on computers, programming, codes and electronics rather than running a model railroad. Dealers and manufacturers of DCC components are strongly involved in this push. I fully respect that this computer control stuff is a small segment of the model RRing hobby, but just that, a small segment of a very large hobby.

As an example of some of the problems DCC brings, the so-called "hybrid' drive currently being pushed forward is the result of at least one proponent / supplier of DCC finding that the amount of track and wheel cleaning required to keep power and signal going to the target locomotive was even more than straight DC power required. Hybrid drive may be somewhat effective in solving part of this problem, but it really adds another level of complexity to an already unnecessary and overly complex solution to a simple problem. And largely done just so DCC supporters can sell more of their products.

Too bad that newcomers are being forced to participate in the push to fully DCC powered layouts. More so when outdoor running is considered. How many folks will want to get started in the model RRing hobby, read all the hype about DCC, try some of it (or even be forced to try it due to equipment availability), find out how much tech work is involved just to get a train around a circle, then give up the hobby.

I believe the folks pushing this as a universal solution do the hobby a great disservice, and manufacturers who are trying to make this a required standard / purchase also hurt all of us in the hobby.

Happy RRing,

Jerry


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: yrfavdob on September 02, 2007, 10:08:35 PM
Actually the stacks are not straight but taper in towards the top - many manufacturers got that wrong over the years. Briefly looked the 453 model over at Portland and domes do not seem quite right (too narrow perhaps - or it might be my eyes)but a very impressive model.   Dennis O'Berry                                         
Ummm.......(oh boy!) uh......guys? I hate to nit-pick right off the bat (especially since I have been waiting so long!) but that tapered stack is wrong! I checked through Dennis O'Berry's book, "The Mudhens" which has copious amounts of pictures of all of the K-27's and only found one picture with a tapered stack and that was of #463 when she was still a Vauclain compound engine in 1908! Every other picture shows a straight stack! How could Bachmann make such a glaring error??!! I sincerely hope that someone at Bachmann caught this early enough so that when the production models come out this will have been corrected! (If not, Accucraft makes a stack that would work in it's place.)


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Perry Ottoman on September 03, 2007, 02:52:48 AM
I believe thats just an optical illusion caused by the perspective of converging verticles. Take a look at this, looks parallel to me. 

(http://smegworld.org.uk/spaf/k27/stack.jpg)

I've got loads of pics and they all look like this.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: r.cprmier on September 03, 2007, 07:42:19 AM
Really a great looking model!!  Kudos to those little cuties in that Chinese factory.  Sure beats hell out of making defective dog food.  I will be buying two anyway.  Two questions do come to mind, though:

1: Will I still be able to keep my HO layout?

2: Will the Prototype Police come and arrest me if they catch me operating it on my free-lance railroad?

Again; great job, Bachman.

RIch


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: bobgrosh on September 03, 2007, 09:54:32 AM
So, let me get this right.
http://www.mylargescale.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=48304
Seems Stanley has been working and developing with H.Lee and Lewis P, and has this wonderful socket (which the vast majority could care less about in large scale at this point), we have Mikey, who doesn't do LS, concerned about color codes, and of course, the ever important documentation, and the official word is "We are working on the interface now,"...........
I had strong opinions about dcc and dcc users, most of whom it seems wanted to jump right to the "executive position" without having a clue as to how to actually DO something (to wit: "WAH! How do I install DCC?"), the misguided guidance ("Open frame Pittman motors cannot be used with DCC as one side is grounded". What a load of manure) and they want to do it without removing anything from the track or turning it over.
I now have stronger opinions.

Holy Crap.

As poorly as some are about lubrication and inspection, I would make absolutely certain there were a dozen screws underneath to remove to access anything so the "wonderful consumer" would have to inspect and hopefully lubricate moving parts when he had it upside down.

I see the same community that wants single wire feed is now basically demanding 24-wire-harnesses between loco and tender (complete isolation at the tender......isolation of flicker "A", flicker "B", cab light, head light, markers, smoke, chuff, motors, and gawd only knows what else).

Right now, with the limited photgraphic evidence available, it appears I may have to find another box for electronics.

These are some very good points Dave. I really have to agree with you.

As a DCC user, I could care less about some stupid plug, socket or connector. Most likely, it will end up being something that a big DCC dealer can buy, mark up 2,000% and sell.  Just what we need, something keyed and hard to find or only available from Tyco industries in case lots of 1,000.
I would probably cut it off. strip the wires and put them into the small screw terminals on a generic decoder.


The only good thing about a NMRA plug, is that I can identify which of those 20 or so black and white wires goes to what by it's position on the plug. I won't have to tear the loco COMPLETELY apart or waste time with an ohm meter tracking down every wire.

Done right, a plug will allow you to disconnect all the insane electronics some manufacturers cram into their locos and toss them. That would be a boom for battery/RC, DCS, DCC or any other type of control system.

As far as I'm concerned, each manufacturer could come up with their own "standard". If they want to use some weird proprietary plug, fine, as long as they sell a mating plug with a pigtail and identify what each wire goes to. I think most anyone could then get the right wires into the right screw terminals on a decoder.


Quote
I see the same community that wants single wire feed is now basically demanding 24-wire-harnesses between loco and tender (complete isolation at the tender......isolation of flicker "A", flicker "B", cab light, head light, markers, smoke, chuff, motors, and gawd only knows what else).

I'm not sure what sort of idiot WANTS a 24 wire harness to the tender. I sure don't. I don't even want two wires. When I install DCC in my locos with tenders, I use a separate decoder in the tender just for the backup light. I even forgo a cam and use auto chuff if the speaker ends up in the tender. I'd much prefer the loco has good pickup and not even have to add track wires to the tender for extra pickups. I do want access to every light. If the firebox has two lights, I want them separate. Most decoders do have at least two different lights for the firebox.

Please don't tell me to wire to one regulator that feeds 16 different little circuit board scattered all over the loco.

When I saw the pictures and discovered there is all those wires (on TWO plugs) I thought, GAWD, what a nightmare.

A few weeks of running outside on my layout and the Florida humidity would have me cussing those connectors all the time, at least until I punt the loco into my neighbors yard for his pit bulls to play with.

However, in my case I know I can't rewire a highly detailed Bachmann Spectrum loco without breaking off dozens of little parts. BUT THAT'S JUST ME!!! I've done dozens of smaller locos. Ones I can hold in one hand. I've even done a few larger ones using 2" foam rubber pads, but those were "toy" trains made to be handled.


 The only way I will ever be able to run Bachman Spectrum locos is indoors. The only way I'll be able to get one with DCC is if it comes with it, or very easy to install. I've wanted to run the geared locos since I first saw them. My very first "G" loco was a Bachmann Bighauler set just to try out the size. My first big loco purchase was a first run Shay.

Here is my experience with those:
I converted the Bighauler. Had to get inside the motor block, rewire, etc. Took the whole thing apart. Used 2 inch foam pad on work surface. Never broke a single part. Converted it THREE TIMES, once to battery/RC Then to DCC and again to DCC with sound. NO PARTS BROKEN DURING ANY CONVERSION.

I got the first run Shay. I drove 300 miles to pick it up to avoid shipping damage. I selected one from the center of a pallet. Outer brown carton in perfect condition. There were 6 broken parts in the sealed bag containing the loco. The dealer broke two more taking the loco out of the bag to check it on the test track. I figured I could glue them back on and got the Shay anyway.

Once home, I tried laying it on my two inch foam on the left side. I broke off all but one of the hooks for the water hose, and a step. I decided to set it on a display track and glue the parts back on. It was moved to a display case where it sat for years.

Once, my son and I managed to move it to the garden railroad without breaking anything. We ran it about 30 feet using DC, pulling a dozen cars. I did not order metal replacement trucks. It has not been run since.

Last December, I bought a three truck shay. When my indoor layout is ready, I'll have my two grown sons come over and help me unpack it, lubricate it, and set it on the rails. I ordered it with DCC and sound. I will never be take it off the rails.

Maybe I'm a klutz. I WILL admit that. I do NOT like to admit that I have limitations, but, just so you know, the only locos I can pick up and handle or carry are the smaller 0-4-0's etc. I've done nearly 50 DCC conversions and never broke any parts on items that weigh 5 or 10 pounds. My biggest problem was getting out tight screws on diesel fuel tanks.

All my larger locos that I regularly run (Mikado, Moguls, FA FB came with DCC. My granddaughter helped me get them unboxed, Kadee'd and, together, we set them on the rails in the back yard. They have never been off the rails since.

 I have converted a few larger locos. A pacific and some F units. They take me a long time. Those locos have no where near the detail of the Shay and I had no problem with broken parts. However, working on big heavy locos is not something I find easy.



It's interesting that one of the persons who has made the most public noise about not turning the new K-27 upside down for DCC installations has previously reported lots of gear failures on his equipment (not Bachmann). We can probably surmise that those failures were at least partly due to a lack of lubrication, as properly lubricating a locomotive also requires 'upside down'. Makes me wonder how long the new K-27 is gong to run without proper lubrication, regardless of the DCC installation.
... snip
Jerry
Sorry Jerry but you would be wrong to surmise that the failures were ... due to a lack of lubrication.

Those locos were properly lubricated in the factory. According to the manufacturer they should not need gear lubrication until the gear, brushes, or motor are replaced. Nearly all my gear failures were confined to more than a dozen (belt drive) Field Railway locos.

Two of them (new) failed on the dealers test track during the normal test run many dealers are required to do for that brand of loco. ( I never even touched them.) The dealers (two different ones) sent them for repair.

Six of them failed within the first 5 minutes of operation when I got them home. Run very slow, started gently, not pulling any cars. One of them only traveled two inches before the gears gave out.

Two of them (both part of Disney sets) never failed.

There were 5 failures of the repaired ones on the dealers test tracks when they came back from repair.

I never even got them home and they had to go back a second time.

One went back three times. I called the manufacturer (not Bachmann) and he accuded me of abusing them. Can you imagine? I not only never actually touched the one that failed three times, I never even got to hold the box it came in.

In all, I've had 26 gear failures on these particular locos.

It was not due to lubrication.

I wondered why these locos kept striping the gears. Only the tips of the gears were broke off. I took a lot of measurements, even made cad drawings and discovered that only the outer half of the plastic teeth are making contact with the worm on the motor shaft. I confirmed that this was not right with Barry in a post on MLS. Then I took one loco to a machine shop that makes R/C race cars. All I had them do was drill a larger hole for the rear axle that was closer to the motor and install a bushing. This moved the axle closer to the motor.  I then installed new, OEM plastic gears. The modified loco, weighted down with a 20 pound bag of buckshot, pulled 3 heavyweight passenger cars (three axle trucks) for 7 hours non stop.
In all my excitement to try out the new axle position, I realized after the test that I had forgotten to lubricate the new gear.

The loco still runs today. At nearly $200.00 each to have the rear axle repositioned, I decided to abandon the small field locos except for the three I now have that work.

I've spent nearly 20 hours on the phone with people at the locos service department concerning this problem. Naturally, they officially deny any problem. Unofficially one engineer admitted that a series of the motor blocks used in some of those models have a reputation for stripping gears.

By the way. I have absolutely NO problem picking one of those locos up, turning it over, lubricating it. tearing it apart or putting it together. I can probably do it with my eyes closed. I can hold it in one had without breaking it.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: bobgrosh on September 03, 2007, 10:09:44 AM
...snip
This whole push to DCC is being done by a few folks who would rather work on computers, programming, codes and electronics rather than running a model railroad. Dealers and manufacturers of DCC components are strongly involved in this push. I fully respect that this computer control stuff is a small segment of the model RRing hobby, but just that, a small segment of a very large hobby.
... snip

Maybe the the whole push to battery RC is being done by a few folks who would rather charge batteries, hack up battery cars and wire in electronics rather than running a model railroad. Dealers and manufacturers of battery RC components are strongly involved in this push. I fully respect that this battery/RC control stuff is a small segment of the model RRing hobby, but just that, a small segment of a very large hobby.

Maybe Battery users don't like cleaning track to run on DC
Maybe DCC users don't like cleaning track to run on DC... or charging batteries.



...snip
As an example of some of the problems DCC brings, the so-called "hybrid' drive currently being pushed forward is the result of at least one proponent / supplier of DCC finding that the amount of track and wheel cleaning required to keep power and signal going to the target locomotive was even more than straight DC power required. Hybrid drive may be somewhat effective in solving part of this problem, but it really adds another level of complexity to an already unnecessary and overly complex solution to a simple problem.

...snip
First of all, for those who have not run a DCC layout in the garden, DCC eliminates most (but not all) track cleaning. Many DCC users report cleaning track once or twice a year.

Ask any DCC user  who has been running for months on DCC to temporarily connect DC to their rails. It will take them hours to get the trains to run on their dirty track.

Some DCC users who run only locos with track sliders, NEVER clean their rails.

Hybrid drive:

Several years ago, George tried capacitors, Big clunky ones. Following his methods, I tried small rechargeable batteries and circuitry to switch to battery on dirty track. Did the duct tape on the rails for other garden railroaders 8 years ago. Worked like magic. Used it for two years in 5 locos. Then abandoned it.

Useless technology.

You are 100% right, it  adds another level of complexity to an already unnecessary and overly complex solution.

1 It is not necessary, (unless you have a pervert with a duct tape fetish in your neighborhood)
2 It really only is of any use in small locos with a short wheelbase. Of course, small locos have the least room for such things.
3 It helps with larger light weight locos that have poor pickups or no sliders. But, filling the space needed for batteries, relays and wiring with lead weight will often be more effective.
4 If you look at the Hybrid schematic, you see that the battery supplies power through a normally open contact. Set the loco on track with tape over one rail. There is no power reaching the decoder from the rails (tape) and no power reaching the decoder from the battery. (normally open contact stops that.) So, ask yourself two questions, Where is the decoder getting the power to read signals through the paper? Where does the decoder get it's power to energize the relay so it can switch to battery? The loco ain't gonna move.

Years ago, I and several others improved the the battery backup concept (It was not called Hybrid back then.) beyond what is currently being pushed.  One improvement was to wire the battery through the normally closed relay contact, energize the relay from the track power.  In effect, it just DISCONNECTS the battery when not needed and connects it to a trickle charging circuit. After lots on trials, many experiments, hundreds of hours running, the whole concept was dumped. Reasons sited above and several others besides.

...snip
 And largely done just so DCC supporters can sell more of their products.
...snip
Sorry, but I do not see many DCC manufacturers jumping on that bandwagon.
Let's try to understand why it IS being pushed.
There are two methods of getting the DCC data into the micro processor, resistive, and capacitive.
Resistive looks at voltage polarity (pos - neg) to read data. Noise can be filtered out just by smoothing it with a filter capacitor. . Capacitive looks at changes. Every piece of sand produces a change. Capacitive pickup can read through tape, resistive can't. Capacitive pickup is so prone to noise that some model railroad clubs have banned the use of those decoders on their club railroads. Most decoder manufacturers use resistive signal pickup.

It is my opinion that battery back on DCC is only being pushed as a band aid for problems with capacitive pickup.
I don't know anyone who tried battery backup years ago that still endorses the idea, including me. Newer, better decoders and better track contact, eliminates the need for it.

...snip
Too bad that newcomers are being forced to participate in the push to fully DCC powered layouts. More so when outdoor running is considered. How many folks will want to get started in the model RRing hobby, read all the hype about DCC, try some of it (or even be forced to try it due to equipment availability), find out how much tech work is involved just to get a train around a circle, then give up the hobby.

I believe the folks pushing this as a universal solution do the hobby a great disservice, and manufacturers who are trying to make this a required standard / purchase also hurt all of us in the hobby.

Happy RRing,

Jerry
I know of absolutely no one who is being forced to buy DCC. The Shay is available in many models without DCC, including two undecorated ones. The DCC version is only available in three modes, including two undecorated ones. LGB made quite a few DCC locos. All of them ran on DC. Look at the difference in price between the shays, You can't buy a decent sound card for that.

If I understand the K27 info so far, nobody will be forced to use DCC in it. Supposedly, it should make installing ANY system much easier. (Read cheaper if you have someone else do it for you.) I'm all for that.

I am not for letting the NMRA dictate a design. They have not been very good at that lately. It could be that some decoder manufactures have way to much influence and are pushing pet designs. Maybe there is two much politicks. I have talked to the owners of a couple DCC companies who complain that any new designs of theirs gets stuck in endless review while suddenly other manufactures come up with competing (and sometimes non working) solutions and those are pushed through. That is what is hurting the hobby.

I am NOT for a standard plug. No standard plug will work for every loco. Small scales, yes, but there are way to many possibilities in large scale to be covered by one design. IE: will it force us to only use 2 wire DC motors instead of the next generation 3 wire brushless motors?

Here is what I AM for:
I'm for making it easy to convert analog DC locos to any other technology, (other than steam or clockwork)

I'm all for manufacturers developing their own standards and offering a plug to fit their locos with an optional pigtail featuring NMRA color codes.

I'm all for making it easy to remove all their basic DC electronics and swapping it with any other DCC or battery/RC control system.

I'm all for them selling their own DCC or battery RC system as a separate item, pre-wired to their own standard for direct plug and play.

I'm all for them working with other DCC and battery/RC suppliers in advance of any new additions to their standard. It should be noted that Digitrax offers the exact same decoder in dozens of different shapes and with different connectors for installation in dozens of different locos and brands of locos. Only a couple of those locos have the NMRA plug.

I'm all for them working with people in the industry who are DCC and/or battery/RC installers to improve the way their products perform and upgrade with different solutions. (Confidentiality agreements of course.) To me that is a much better solution that submitting it to the NMRA where all you competitors can copy it, nix it or delay it till they have your new improvement.

I am for complying with minimum NMRA standards og track, motor and running lights where posible.

Frankly, even though I am a DCC user, I would much rather trust TOC to design the wiring in a loco than anyone from the bureaucracy the NMRA has become in the last few years. TOC understands what it takes to make a loco work. The NMRA understands how to recruit members and form committees.

Last. I would have preferred a plug in solution behind the firebox door for the motor and loco lights. A second in the tender for the sound and backup lights. As long as I don't have the wrestle with a 50 pound locos and run the risk of scratching it, or braking off some beautiful little detail, I'm fine.

Added plugs between the tender for track power or battery are fine too, better if I can leave them off. To put two huge plugs between the loco and tender is just plain stupid (in my opinion). However, if that is the only way the loco gets made, then I'll live with it. If it turns out to be a big pain, then next time I'll know to look somewhere else for motive power.

B0B


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Curmudgeon on September 03, 2007, 11:42:23 AM

[/quote]
I know of absolutely no one who is being forced to buy DCC. The Shay is available in many models without DCC, including two undecorated ones. The DCC version is only available in three modes, including two undecorated ones.
B0B

[/quote]

Bob, Bob, Bob.
Try to buy a Westside 3-truck Shay without Quasinami.

Unless someone did you a favor and gutted it, that's the only was, and for a $100 or so fee.

This wonderful plug.

Outdoors.
Moisture, corrosion, all of that.

When asked some time ago, I recommended a simply screw terminal strip, with a jumper wire on one side.
No mating plugs, no corroded contacts, simple insert wires and tighten screws (even from above).

But, somebody somewhere decided to go with something else.
I have never asked for or advocated any plug and socket arrangement to satisfy one particular manufacturer, supplier, or sub-advisor.
I figured a screw terminal strip is about as generic as you can get.

Oh, and the ex-LGB late Moguls, with sound, and MTS ONLY.......you had no freaking choice, and you put any PW power into it, you get smoke.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: James Thomas on September 03, 2007, 01:06:34 PM
If model railroading is fun, why are there so many angry model railroaders?

I have large scale indoors.  When I got Bachmann's 2-8-0 I had major clearance problems -- but managed to eleviate them.  I think someone said that the 2-8-0 is very wide for its size.  Question:  If the 2-8-0 fits, is there a good chance the K-27 will fit?  Likely the cab roof may swing out farther around curves (8 foot diameter)?

Another question:  The ability to interface with other electronics is interesting, but will we still be able to do simple things like have two power leads go into a Phoenix or Sierra sound system, and have an exhaust cam on an axle with wire leads into the tender?

Looking forward to seeing the K-27 in the stores.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Curmudgeon on September 03, 2007, 01:32:17 PM
I don't know about angry.
I have experience with 1:20 K-27's, and know what they will and will not do on my rr.
If you had issues with the 2-8-0 and clearances, well, hang onto your hat.
Every step up in size in locomotives increases minimum diameters, and adjacent track clearances, tunnel clearances, bridge clearances, Armstrong Gallows Turntable Upright clearances.

I recall the first K-27's, to get the cab handrails to clear the rocks on my new grade cutting, I had to lay a hydraulic bottle jack on its side and jack the rocks apart slightly, and that was 6-1/2' RADIUS curves.

As far as electronics, from what I've seen, read and been told, you will be able to do all you want to.

Oh, and I did ask......the cab doors are right.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: bobgrosh on September 03, 2007, 04:13:23 PM
Try to buy a Westside 3-truck Shay without Quasinami.

So, Who forced someone to buy a Westside Shay?

I can't buy a Grubbs Lumber Company Shay.
Or Oak Grove and Georgetown.
Or Deal Cutis Lumber Company.
OrYellow Pine Lumber Co
Or J.R.Wallace Lumber Co.
Or Vinegar Bend Lumber Co.
Or Allison and Smith Lumber Company.
Or Allied Logging and Lumber Yards.
Or Sipsey Valley (all of their locos were Shays)
Or Sample Lumber Company.
Or King Lumber Company.
Or Cherokee Lumber Company.
Or Jackson Mill.
Or any of the other SEVENTY FIVE railroads that existed in just the state of Alabama that ran Shays.

I bought a Westside Shay, (DCC), and a Pardee Curtin Shay (DC)
That does not mean that the Bach man came to my house, and with a gun to my head, FORCED me to buy either Shay. How childish.
Bay Creek Lumber Co in Alabama ran Heislers.

"I really wanted a Bay Creek Lumber Co Heisler, But Lewis came a FORCED me to buy a chrome plated Santa Fe E9."  (in your dreams)

At least a DC user CAN buy a Westside Shay. And they CAN run it on DC. And they get a sound system of about a hundred. Not a bad deal.

If they want to run it on Pulse, sorry, flip of a switch will solve that.
If they want to run in on 110AC, (And I know some who have tried) well, sorry there too.

I wonder why so many seem to have suddenly decided they really want to switch to Westside Lumber. Do they, or is it "If I can't have one my way, nobody should have one."

Childish.


It's starting to get daylight here. I'm going outside to play with my trains.

B0B


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Bud Steinhoff on September 03, 2007, 05:29:34 PM
Just seen the pictures in the photo gallery.
WOW, that is one beautiful loco.
I do not care how the wiring is, I will convert it to my on-board, sound and smoke just like I have done with the rest of my Bachman equipment.
Congratulation and thanks to Bachman for making this brute available to us at a reasonable price.
Bud


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Curmudgeon on September 03, 2007, 07:45:39 PM
Try to buy a Westside 3-truck Shay without Quasinami.

So, Who forced someone to buy a Westside Shay?

I can't buy a Grubbs Lumber Company Shay.
Or Oak Grove and Georgetown.
Or Deal Cutis Lumber Company.
OrYellow Pine Lumber Co
Or J.R.Wallace Lumber Co.
Or Vinegar Bend Lumber Co.
Or Allison and Smith Lumber Company.
Or Allied Logging and Lumber Yards.
Or Sipsey Valley (all of their locos were Shays)
Or Sample Lumber Company.
Or King Lumber Company.
Or Cherokee Lumber Company.
Or Jackson Mill.
Or any of the other SEVENTY FIVE railroads that existed in just the state of Alabama that ran Shays.

I bought a Westside Shay, (DCC), and a Pardee Curtin Shay (DC)
That does not mean that the Bach man came to my house, and with a gun to my head, FORCED me to buy either Shay. How childish.
Bay Creek Lumber Co in Alabama ran Heislers.

"I really wanted a Bay Creek Lumber Co Heisler, But Lewis came a FORCED me to buy a chrome plated Santa Fe E9."  (in your dreams)

At least a DC user CAN buy a Westside Shay. And they CAN run it on DC. And they get a sound system of about a hundred. Not a bad deal.

If they want to run it on Pulse, sorry, flip of a switch will solve that.
If they want to run in on 110AC, (And I know some who have tried) well, sorry there too.

I wonder why so many seem to have suddenly decided they really want to switch to Westside Lumber. Do they, or is it "If I can't have one my way, nobody should have one."

Childish.


It's starting to get daylight here. I'm going outside to play with my trains.

B0B

Several of us were waiting for that.
Thanks for not disappointing anyone.
It was just a surpise it took so long.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything at all.
Like Dell with VISTA, like a new TV with a V-chip, or a new car with on-board computers.

If you want a Westside 3-truck Shay from Bachmann, it comes with a Quasinami for about $100 more.
So, don't buy it.
I know some who did not.
I do not want any product, no matter what it is, I have to remove stuff and throw it away.
Like bloatware.

Let me elaborate a bit.
Let's say I have a 2-truck Westside Shay (which I do), factory lettered.
Let's say it runs on track power.
Let's say I like the paint scheme.
Now, a 3-truck Westside Shay is released, hey, fits right in with my 2-truck.
So, I get the three truck, and find the cost out the door is significantly higher than the other units.
I am not happy, but am assured it will work fine with my 2-truck.
So, I put the three-truck on the track.
I start running it.
Seems a bit sluggish.
I put my 2-truck on several feet behind the three-truck, turn the power on.
The two-truck rams the three truck before the three-truck even starts to move.
Then I find out to adjust starting speeds I need to purchase dcc components.
Now, I am beginning to think about the extra money I spent.
So, I rip the Quasinami that I paid extra for out.
Now it runs fine.
I cannot buy a Westside 3-truck Shay without Quasinami.
So, to obtain one........

BTW, I do have a three-truck Westside Shay.
As far as I know, the Quasinami is land-fill.

Gain a cell, dude.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: bobgrosh on September 04, 2007, 12:14:13 AM
Seems like You had three very simple choices:
  • Remove the motor leads from the Quasinami motor outputs and reconnect them to the rail inputs. You got a sound card for about 100 bucks.
  • Buy an un-lettered Shay and a Westside decal. What do you think people do for the 90% of railroads Bachmann does not produce?
  • Call Bachmann repair and tell them the next Quasinami they need can come out of a Westside, and you will buy the lobotomized loco.
  • Don't buy it. You did after all say; "I do not want any product, no matter what it is, I have to remove stuff and throw it away." So, Don't!!! Nobody is forcing you

It surprises me you buy any Bachmann products at all. Why would you buy anything with a smoke generator? They just eat up battery power. Do you rip them out, send them to a landfill? How many couplers have you sent to the landfill? How many Skates? In fact, how many springs, screws, wheels, contact brushes, rubber tires and other bits of BLOATWARE are you forced to pay for that you don't want. TOC, If I were you I'd NEVER buy another loco. ;)



Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Kevin Strong on September 04, 2007, 12:21:07 AM
Nice photos. All drivers flanged, and still 4' radius? Lots of lateral play, I'll assume. That'll be a welcome addition on quite a few railroads, I'm sure.

BTW, the EBT mikes had blind center drivers, so that part of the engineering will be easier for you.  :)

Later,

K


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: zubi on September 04, 2007, 12:55:07 AM
K, thanks for pointing out! What is the most amazing thing is the full compensation. Best, Zubi PS If Bachmann ever consideres another one K-28 or K36 are so much nicer than those inside frame EBT's


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Curmudgeon on September 04, 2007, 12:55:48 AM
Bob, reality check here, okay?
ALL Bachmann locos have smoke units.
Bachmann service claims they don't get any three-truck units returned.
They will not sell returned units.

You ever check pricing to see what the Quasinami-equipped vs the non-equipped prices are?

As far as removing it, piece of cake, and why would I want a sound card that I cannot control, nor does it have chuff inputs?

I don't think you even know what we're talking about.

Sure, I re-letter locos.
But, since I had a WSLCo 2-truck, with the red beams, hey, a three-trucker already done would be nice.......but......

I just can't figure out what you want.
You want to be able to control all sorts of things, but don't want wires between loco and tender that break.
You don't want to remove the loco from the track to convert it, yet you go through 12 or 15 ex-LGB engines a year.
I suppose you really need decoders in loco and tender, all addressable, no wires, or maybe a wireless link between loco and tender.

You ever get a Quasinami equipped Shay?
You use that stuff?
I thought you used one brand only?

If I want sound, I buy what I want and put it in.
I would be upset if they came equipped with RCS.
Why?
Because I do not believe control systems or sound should be a choice left solely to the manufacturer.

I have seen one post of yours where you want nothing in them, so you can add your own.
Same here.

The Quasi-nami is unusable to those with track power or trigger line r/c systems, so it goes to land-fill.
Can't put reed switches and magnets to trigger them.
Oh, and ever try to adjust the volume without accessing the adjustmenst digitally?


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Kevin Strong on September 04, 2007, 01:16:36 AM
... If Bachmann ever consideres another one K-28 or K36 are so much nicer than those inside frame EBT's

Dem's fightin' woids...  ;D But since TOC and Bob seem to be taking up enough bandwidth with that at the moment, I'll let it go... this time. 8)

Later,

K


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Perry Ottoman on September 04, 2007, 03:32:40 AM
Anybody heard any reports about the running of the loco on that day out?

Was it prototypical, i.e. did it waddle off the track much ?  ;D


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: zubi on September 04, 2007, 04:23:33 AM
Perry, with fully equalised suspension it probably run as if it were glued to the track! But I'd be happy to hear the reports too. Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: bobgrosh on September 04, 2007, 09:39:20 AM
Quote
You ever check pricing to see what the Quasinami-equipped vs the non-equipped prices are?
Yes. In fact I bought one with the Quasi,

Quote
As far as removing it, piece of cake, and why would I want a sound card that I cannot control, nor does it have chuff inputs?

Piece of cake, I sure hope so. Was it YOU who told me "two screws from rear of tank, slide forward. With the Quasi installed, all the wiring has to be right there. I should have no problem replacing the Quasinami. Unlike the old Shay.




Quote
I just can't figure out what you want.
I suppose you really need decoders in loco and tender, all addressable, no wires, or maybe a wireless link between loco and tender.

Right, If I'm going to buy a loco that LOOKS great, I want it to OPERATE great too. Some might worry about the taper of the stack, or shape of a dome. What about the Sound of the chuff, the sound of the reverser, the operation of the lights. Why destroy the whole image with perfect details and have the wrong sounds or some flashing LED for the firebox.


See? You DID figure out what I want.
Backup light in a tender. Why would you ever put a wire from the loco to the tender for a backup light. Power it from the tender wheels. Want it directional? Put the diode in the tender, not the loco. Using DCC, put a single function decoder in the tender. Why have a perfectly accurate,  highly detailed loco then some big ugly cable and connectors between the loco and tender.
I don't want toggle switches, charging jacks, or big white computer power plugs hanging out the front and back either. If the wires between tenders and locos are not necessary, then why have them?

I have six locos with tenders that have no wires. Backup lights work as per prototype, and can be turned off for daytime running from my wireless remote. Looks like the prototype, works like the prototype, no fiddly little plugs to work loose. Even the chuff is synchronized, still no wire. Sure, wire the tender to the loco, IF IT IS NECESSARY to make it work. but it is NOT 90% of the time.




Quote
You ever get a Quasinami equipped Shay?
You use that stuff?
YES, Got one
No Don't use it.
Why would I want a Shay that sounds like a two cylinder rodded loco?
Chuff sequence had great uneven chuff's typical of a somewhat worn cylinders. Problem is, there are only FOUR distinctly different sounding chuff's in the sequence, not SIX. Why in ___ did they think they could put a 2 cyl sound in a 3 cyl loco.
Slow it WAY down and listen to the side rod clank.
Who is the idiot who put siderods on the Shay sound card? Where are the Shay gear sounds. Where are the shay mechanicals sounds? Aren't any.

So, Yes, I bought the Shay with the Quasi, I can set it on the track and run it right out of the box. I have new decoders sitting right here waiting. I know all the needed wires are in place and identified because they are connected to the Quasi. You tell me I can do the whole swap with two screws from the rear. I will not have to lay the loco on it's side and break something. Hell, I won't even have to worry about braking off the steps or crushing some small part while removing it from the rails.

Quote
I thought you used one brand only?
Don't know where you got that from, I own more other brand locos than I do the red box. But It is only the red box locos that get run. The rest rusted up or crumbled or are to fragile to be left outside.

Quote
If I want sound, I buy what I want and put it in.
 
I want sound, I do the same. I don't go around whining about someone FORCING me at gunpoint to buy something I did not want. I am tickled to death that Bachmann made a Shay with a decoder and sound. I gladly bought it of my own free will, even though I prefer better sound. I know I won't be spending time trying to rewire trucks, drilling holes for the sound to come out etc. If it was a small light locos built with toy like details I would not worry about installing anything. For a big heavy loco it's a different story, I know I can't do it successfully. Been there.

Quote
I would be upset if they came equipped with RCS.Why?
Because I do not believe control systems or sound should be a choice left solely to the manufacturer.

So you would create the "Garden Railroad Administration, Bureau of Sound and Control Regulations."

Of COURSE manufacturers should have a choice. Free society. Market will decide. They should put in what the think will increase sales, boost profits or whatever they want. It's their company, they decide.

Buyers, should ask questions. read manuals, follow forums, then make informed choices. It is entirely up to YOU to decide what to buy.
Obviously you wanted to buy a Westside Shay.You did, despite the Quasinami. Your decision. If you REALLY don't buy anything that has BLOATWARE, then why in the heck did you buy the Westside?

Quote
I have seen one post of yours where you want nothing in them, so you can add your own.
Same here.
Yep, all the small locos, I prefer nothing in them. If I have a choice between two identical locos, one with MTS one without, I buy the one without. I know I can easily install a good decoder in any small rugged TOY like loco.

If the loco is big, heavy, highly detailed, that's different. I know from past experience I'm not physically capable of laying a shay on a foam pad for lubrication without breaking of a dozen little parts.
Then I choose one with a decoder I like, or even one with a decoder I don't like. I figure it will be easy to change without rolling it over and breaking all the parts. While big heavy locos like the Mikado, Shay, and K27 are not a problem for most people, for me it is.

If the Kay ends up in production with the configurations reported so far, It looks like I can manage the conversion despite the weight and size of the loco and the nature of highly detailed fragile parts.  All work can be accomplished from the top with very little chance of breakage.

Seems to me that the only solution some people (not you TOC) advocate is to not offer DCC or even "DCC ready" in anything.

I'd like all (sparky) locos sold DCC ready. Seems to me like anything done (if done correctly) to make a loco "DCC ready" also makes it "battery ready" or "TE ready" or "DCS ready".

What happens when companies make DCC compatible locos?
First, they can't connect the motors directly to the wheels inside the trucks. Isn't that the first thing you want to eliminate for battery installs too?

Where would the battery RC installers be today if not for DCC standards? Still soldering motor tabs from truck side-frames. Drilling holes in trucks and adding more wires. Slipping insulators between the motor and frame.

I prefer locos designed for quick easy installation of a variety of power options. Their base model usually includes the most popular option, DC in LS or DCC in small scales.  Eventually that will change when some other system becomes the dominate method of running trains.

Quote
The Quasi-nami is unusable to those with track power or trigger line r/c systems, so it goes to land-fill.
Can't put reed switches and magnets to trigger them.
Oh, and ever try to adjust the volume without accessing the adjustmenst digitally?
Nope, never expected to have features not advertised. Never saw a ad that said "manual volume knob". Course pots are cheep. If you really want one, wire it in. Why do you worry about features you were not promised on cards you didn't want in the first place. Who is it that keeps FORCING you to by the stuff you don't want?


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: zubi on September 04, 2007, 09:46:11 AM
GEEE, Bob and Curmee, you both need a dedicated forum, I cannot find my stuff in between... Anyway, enjoy yourselves, it is a party day with a K like Bachmann showed! Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: zubi on September 04, 2007, 10:34:50 AM
Nice photos. All drivers flanged, and still 4' radius? Lots of lateral play, I'll assume. [...]

Later,

K

K, probably not. Not a lateral play. What you can see in the photos are large diameter tubes and springs which likely indicate that an articulation similar to that of Klein-Linder type is used on the locomotive. This solution has been used by LGB/Aster on their K-28. Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi
PS Probably the most well known application of the Klein-Linder articulation principle was the Brigadelok, here is the explanation: http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/klienlindner/klienlindner.htm


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: zubi on September 04, 2007, 10:51:37 AM
Correct spelling is Klein-Lindner of course, Sorry, Zubi


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Kevin Strong on September 04, 2007, 11:58:05 AM
I was thinking along those lines myself. Photo 21 shows the counterweights to be in line, but the wheels slightly askew. The thick axles tell me there's some kind of axle-within-an-axle arrangement that allows them to slide laterally within the frame. (There's no linkage between the axles as illustrated in the web site you linked to.) Pretty cool way of doing things, and avoiding a common compromise that others have made. (And--again--would be unnecessary on the beautiful, graceful, clean inside-frame EBT mikados! 8) )

Later,

K


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Charlie Mutschler on September 04, 2007, 03:24:43 PM
Kevin,
Interesting point about the EBT mikes.  I'd never taken the time to look closely at photos, but, by golly, you are correct.  I noted that one way the other manufacturer's On30 K-27 gets around the sharper curves than their On3 version is the use of blind center drivers on the On30version.  Just like most of the older brass H-On3 mikes. 

So which of the three versions of EBT mike are you promoting?  12?  14 - 15?  16 - 18?  You know that these are all well loved ladies, and there are partisans for each group.  Think carefully, and enlighten us with your answer.   ;) 

Charlie Mutschler
-30-


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Steve Stockham on September 04, 2007, 03:30:02 PM
Geez guys! I mean c'mon! ::) The pictures of the K-27 haven't even been posted in the Gallery for 48 hours and we're already supposed to be clamouring for the EBT Mikado?!! I know you guys have been patiently waiting your turn in line but how about we savor the moment! If this baby is a Grand Slam Home Run then it will open up an entirely new way of looking at Large Scale (at least from Bachmann's perspective!) If this is indeed the case, then the possibilities boggle the mind! ;D
Bob and Dave,
  You each have valid points but you're not going to convince the other that they are wrong! Why keep up the argument? I have read the entire thread and I know what I agree with. Anything more is just argument for the sake of argument and won't give me anymore information than I already have. I thank you both but can we just agree to disagree?  :-[


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: bobgrosh on September 04, 2007, 05:27:38 PM
...we're already supposed to be clamouring for the EBT Mikado?!!

I was wondering the same thing. Jeez.
Quote
Bob and Dave,
  I have read the entire thread ... :-[
Wow! You actually read all that!  :o :o :o

As to the pictures. I've studied the really large ones. Click the thumb, then click the big one again and you get a REALLY big one.

The drive mechanics is amazing. Axles are rigid, wheels slide side to side AND tilt. WOW.

As you said, "it will open up an entirely new way of looking at Large Scale."

I never liked the idea of one gear driven axle and side rods transferring power. Doesn't work very well on the Hauler, Not even very smooth on the LGB mogul where two are gear driven. Side rods break when non-geared axles get unexpected loads. However. Look at the Kay, The pictures show even wear on the drivers. The suspension keeps the wheels in firm contact. The axles remain in a straight line so side rods don't have to be slotted or have all sorts of slop in them. I'm going to guess that with the right weight this thing might pull even better than the Shay.

For those of us who run track power, that suspension could provide one of the best electrical pickups out there. Looks like every wheel will be firmly planted on the rails. Does anyone know how the power is gotten off the drivers? I think I see the wipe path on the back side of the drivers. It could be LGB style brushes located directly above the axles. How would that work if the wheels are independently sprung? The more I stare at those big images of the underside, the more excited I get about this loco. Sealed gearbox! Metal details! Independent suspension! DCC ready! Heck! I might forget about an indoor pike for spectrum locos. Let's hope they use UV resistant windows.

I've always liked the way Bachmann locos looked. I've bought several. I was always disappointed with the way they ran or lasted. This Kay looks like Bachmann has finally made a loco that will work for me. Maybe I'll have to sell off a few Forneys to make room for more than one Kay.

Questions: These may have been answered but I can't find them.

Expected delivery date?
Anyone taking preorders?
Any guess on the street price?



Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: japasha on September 04, 2007, 06:09:34 PM
Looking at the photos again, I spotted springs, coil type, on each axle between the wheel and the journal. This indicates a centering device for the outer and inner shafts. It is probably not a Klein-Linder type system but more like an Alco centering devive as used on the SP 4-10-2 and the Daylights on the lead driven axle. Those provided an inch of lateral which is a hell of a lot on a prototype loco. These look to provide about 1/4 inch from center in each direction.

I suspect that no matter how the engineers did it, the K-27 will be a fine running locomotive. I won't need a Barry's Big Trains convesion for this one.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Charlie Mutschler on September 04, 2007, 08:39:15 PM
Steve Stockham sez, "Geez guys! I mean c'mon! :Smiley The pictures of the K-27 haven't even been posted in the Gallery for 48 hours and we're already supposed to be clamouring for the EBT Mikado?!!" 

Not to worry Steve, it's not me clamouring for the EBT mikado, just expressing polite interest.  As I say, I'm cheerfully anticipating - visions of mudhens dance in my head, and so on - I have to decide which road numbers to order first.  I am particularly partial to mudhens - probably has something to do with childhood along the Silverton branch.   :)  I think the new K-27 is going to be a Grande slam.  I spent a lot of time comparing the photos of the test model to the prototype last night,and I am really, really impressed.  Since I have always loved the pair of 1941 'coming and going' photos of an RGS freight on Dallas Divide with 455 on the smoky end, and caboose 0404 carrying the markers, No. 455 might be a good choice.  And, of course, I remember 464 sitting outside the Durango roundhouse, out of service, as a kid.  Decisions, decisions.  I really can't opt for all seven as a start, enjoyable as it would be.  So I have to narrow the choices down a bit.  But I AM anticipating.  Enthusiastically.

Charlie Mutschler
-30-


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Kevin Strong on September 04, 2007, 09:26:50 PM
...we're already supposed to be clamouring for the EBT Mikado?!!

Well, yeah.  ;D 'course, I've never stopped clamouring for it...

Charlie, personally I'd like to see #14 or #15, but that's only because I've got #12 coming from Accucraft. If I had ordered #14 or #15, I'd want Bachmann to do #12. While I'm not a huge fan of the large mikes (16, 17, 18), they're somewhat close to mikes that ran elsewhere and I think they'd have a broad appeal for White Pass and other fans.

Later,

K


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: leftyfretguy on September 04, 2007, 10:20:02 PM
Kevin and all my EBT brothers,
Is it time we start a poll demanding requesting what locomotive we would like ;D
I know I NEED one in live steam.  15 is my favorite but 12 is less costly (in live steam) so I have to agree with Kevin's decision. 15 and 14 from bachmann followed by 16- 18, then 12.  Then Sandy River & Rangely Lakes 24 - then back to all that Colorodo stuff ;D
Now if they finally call the right lotto numbers tonight I will foot the bill for the start up costs :P ;D
Matt


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: zubi on September 04, 2007, 11:48:12 PM
Looking at the photos again, I spotted springs, coil type, on each axle between the wheel and the journal. This indicates a centering device for the outer and inner shafts. It is probably not a Klein-Linder type system[...]
Japasha, thanks for the comment, the springs are for centering the drivers, but they do not neccesarily exclude the possibility that the drivers can change the angle. Of course I am not sure that this is possible and actually there is very little space for that between the drivers and the brakes. In any case, this solution looks very much like what has been used on the K-28 by LGB/Aster, although the are no springs there but a long wire connecting all four drivers and centering them. What is extra nice on the K27 is that all equalised axles seem to have the outer tubes which includes also the trailing truck. I do not know if we have a name for this engineering solution and this is why I referred to Klein-Lindner articulation which seems the closed to me in principle (of tubular axles) although different in detail (on all suspension axles) and perhaps greatly simplified (perhaps no angle change possible). Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: glennk28 on September 05, 2007, 12:37:42 AM
Well--I'm ordering one--along with a couple of the new tank cars..

BTW--for those with my address--change "tco" to "4fast"--the rest is the same. gj


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: r.cprmier on September 05, 2007, 05:38:21 PM
For TOC;
Dave;
What would you consider a comfortable radius for the K-27?  I don't give a rats behind about minimum allowed.  I have enough real estate both here and in Maine, top accommodate whatever I want.  Being an AMERICAN, I would like it in feet/inches if you would.

Rich


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Curmudgeon on September 05, 2007, 06:45:29 PM
Six foot.
Anything less the cab overhang looks dorky.
I have 6'8", and run my 1:22.5 K-27, looks good.
I've run other K-27's here, and know the issues of overhang.
If you can do it, make it 8' minimum radius.

Another thing, by drawbar is 8-1/2" long, or more, pivot to pivot, so the loco will not pinch against the tender.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Bruce Chandler on September 06, 2007, 10:12:10 AM
Has anyone seen these advertised anywhere?  I'm looking to see how much I need to save to meet the street price...


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: paultorrey on September 06, 2007, 04:43:34 PM
Bruce,

The MSRP is $1400.  Usually the retail selling price is anywhere from 45 - 55% of the MSRP.  I for one can't wait for this locomotive.  I'm thinking of getting two.

Thanks,

Paul Torrey


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Mark Oles on September 06, 2007, 04:57:36 PM
Bruce,

Don't forget to add sound!!!  +250.  It'd be worth it.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: r.cprmier on September 06, 2007, 05:06:19 PM
Mark;
I am buying two.  At $500, I am installing sound myself!  I do think speakers should fit into the tender...

Dave;
Thanks a lot for the feedback.  I don't know so much about in Ct; but the layout in Maine will be a lot of fun to build.  I just have to figure out ways to keep the bears away from the track.

Rich


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: JLyans on September 08, 2007, 12:43:01 AM
Quote
Re: 1/20.3 K-27  Has anyone seen these advertised anywhere?  I'm looking to see how much I need to save to meet the street price...


Ridge Road Station is advertising the K-27.

83096 K-27 Steam Loco Rio Grande South #455
83096 K-27 Steam Loco Rio Grande South #455
Stock Status: Backordered
List Price: $1,400.00
Our Price: $1,120.00


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Bud Steinhoff on September 08, 2007, 11:56:29 AM
That is usually the place I purchase from but that price is a bit high.
I will wait a while.
Bud


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: rdamurphy on September 08, 2007, 08:54:22 PM
Caboose Hobbies in Denver has Pre-Order up for $733.33.

Tank Cars are Pre-Order priced at $117.97.

I live 20 minutes away from Caboose Hobbies in Denver.

I just really, really, really liked saying that!

Robert


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Steve Stockham on September 17, 2007, 07:01:48 PM
It sounds as if Caboose Hobbies has finally seen the light! Their prices used to be quite a bit higher than what we could find at some of the wholesalers but this price is just about perfect! This means that I can order my K-27 and still have enough to put a Sierra unit and RCS in it! ;D


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Matthew (OV) on September 17, 2007, 11:19:59 PM
Ridge Road has apparently seen the light too.  They're down to $799.00

http://www.ridgeroadstation.com/istar.asp?a=6&id=11783095!117

Note that it won't work without the !117 at the end.

Matthew (OV)


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Engineer1876 on September 18, 2007, 01:30:40 AM
San Val in California is taking a $29.00 depost on these and selling them for $749.95 with free shipping in the US.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: vic on September 19, 2007, 06:15:00 PM
San Val in California is taking a $29.00 depost on these and selling them for $749.95 with free shipping in the US.

I live 20 minutes away from San Val ... :o

I just really really really like saying that... :D


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: bobgrosh on September 20, 2007, 11:40:18 PM
OK, My Kay is ordered and prepaid. $664.99
Guess I'll just have to figure out the wiring when it gets here.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: tac on September 21, 2007, 07:03:02 AM
OK, My Kay is ordered and prepaid. $664.99 Guess I'll just have to figure out the wiring when it gets here.

Just been in contact with my near-local dealer here in UK- special price of £615.00 - that's $1200.00.  Even got 455 with a green boiler...makes it very tempting.

Interestingly, she also told me that there would only be 1500 of them worldwide - anybody like to comment on that? [Ahem, that's YOU, Mr Bach-man].

tac
www.ovgrs.org 


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: bobgrosh on September 21, 2007, 11:32:18 AM
Was there some other RR that used a loco close enough to the K27 that people besides a few Rio Grand fans will buy the Kay?

From the tone of most posts on this forum, I take that most would not buy any loco unless it came lettered for their favorite road.
Besides a few dozen Rio Addicts,  who will buy all those? Jeez 1,500, are you sure they didn't mean 150? ???


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Colorado on September 21, 2007, 11:41:58 AM
OK, My Kay is ordered and prepaid. $664.99 Guess I'll just have to figure out the wiring when it gets here.

Well I live in CO, but will be back in the UK for a few weeks in November.

Sounds like I should bring a few withe, pay for the trip.

Actually cheaper to order fom San Val, no sales tax.

Just been in contact with my near-local dealer here in UK- special price of £615.00 - that's $1200.00.  Even got 455 with a green boiler...makes it very tempting.

Interestingly, she also told me that there would only be 1500 of them worldwide - anybody like to comment on that? [Ahem, that's YOU, Mr Bach-man].

tac
www.ovgrs.org 



Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Jon D. Miller on September 21, 2007, 11:45:45 AM
I guess only time will tell on how well the K-27 sells.

There no doubt are those hard-core folks that won't run anything that wasn't used on the railroad they model.

On the other hand, there will probably be a lot of us that could give a fig if the K-27 was railroad specific.  The Connie was not widely used by North American railroads, but there sure are a lot of them out there running in unmodified version.

I have the green boiler version, numbered, painted, unlettered on order.  I'll letter it for the CD&StL and run the "hell" out of it.

I could care less about Colorado narrow gauge.  But that sure is a nice locomotive and most folks that see it running here in the East won't have a clue as to the railroad that used these locomotives.

Then, when and if Bachmann produces a EBT 2-8-2 several will be added to the roster----and they won't be lettered for the EBT.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Bud Steinhoff on September 21, 2007, 11:51:40 AM
Ordered mine and  will make it whatever road name I want.
Will also rewire it for my on-board, sound and smoke unit.
No problem .
Bring it on, I am just excited it will be available because this is what I have been waiting for,
Bud ;D


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: tac on September 21, 2007, 12:04:45 PM
Quote
Well I live in CO, but will be back in the UK for a few weeks in November.

Sounds like I should bring a few withe, pay for the trip.

Actually cheaper to order fom San Val, no sales tax.'


How would I benefit from buying one that YOU have brought over, if you are going to charge me the same price as I would have to pay here in yUK?  ???

tac
www.ovgrs.org   


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Kevin Strong on September 21, 2007, 08:57:40 PM
...Besides a few dozen Rio Addicts,  who will buy all those?
The same people who have bought a bazillion ten-wheelers, LGB moguls, and any number of other locos that run on rails 45mm apart. If it weren't for me having an Accucraft EBT mike on order, I'd probably get one myself. (No, I wouldn't letter it for the EBT... I have my limits. And Lee, there's no reason to dig that photo out again. Once was traumatizing enough.)

Look at the smaller scales? How many people do their own Colorado-based freelance railroads using models of K-## locos? I would quite imagine we'll see that same thing happen in this scale. Whether you model the D&RGW or not, they're very well-proportioned locos, and are very much what people envision when you talk about narrow gauge railroading. I see a good number of them being bought and lettered for freelance roads. (Just like I see a bunch of EBT mikes being bought for the same reason! ;D)

Later,

K


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Charlie Mutschler on September 22, 2007, 12:40:12 AM
Bob writes - "Was there some other RR that used a loco close enough to the K27 that people besides a few Rio Grand fans will buy the Kay?" 

The fifteen prototypes were used by three (3) railroads - six (6) if we include the three tourist railroads that use(d) 463 and 464.  The D&RGW leased several K-27s to the Rio Grande Southern,and eventually sold two of them to the RGS.  Two were also sold to the Nacionales de Mexico.  After being retired, 463 was sold to Gene Autry, and later went to the City of Antonito, which has made her available for use on the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic.  After 464 was retired, it was sold to Knotts Berry Farm, used there briefly while their smaller locomotives underwent an overhaul, and is now used on the Huckleberry RR in Flint, Michigan. 

Kevin's pretty well summed it up - the D&RGW and RGS are popular prototypes, this locomotive is appropriate for both, and there is also the large group of narrow gauge free lance modelers, many of whom like the appearance of the mudhens. 

Cheerfully and enthusiastically anticipating!

Charlie Mutschler
-30-


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: Matthew (OV) on September 22, 2007, 02:14:53 AM
Mine will likely be Slate Creek #46 (and #45 if the post wreck version turns up.)  The Slate Creek, while set in a relatively ambiguous location, has a sea pier, and is therefore about as far from Colorado as one can be, continentally speaking.  Its duties, hauling ore and tourists, will be similar.

Matthew (OV)


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: paintjockey on September 22, 2007, 09:16:04 AM
I'll buy a k-27. My railroad is an eastern based freelance.

The Lakeville Amboy & Conneaut is not a wealthy line, but it's getting there. Supply and demand has dictated they purchase a loco to run the long route to Conneaut. Old #4 a 2-8-0 has made the run for years, but the freight demand is getting so high it has to make double runs working it nearly 20 hours a day. Obviously this isn't good for the ole goat because down time for maintenance is at a premium. Luckily they have found a used K-27 in good repair. This loco should be able to pull both Conneaut trains in one shot.  They are hoping to have it in service by the first of the year.

That's how my eastern based RR is gonna have a Kay.


Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: bobgrosh on September 22, 2007, 07:12:16 PM
There no doubt are those hard-core folks that won't run anything that wasn't used on the railroad they model.

On the other hand, there will probably be a lot of us that could give a fig if the K-27 was railroad specific.

 I have the green boiler version, numbered, painted, unlettered on order.  I'll letter it for the CD&StL and run the "hell" out of it.

I could care less about Colorado narrow gauge.  But that sure is a nice locomotive and most folks that see it running here in the East won't have a clue as to the railroad that used these locomotives.

Most people have no idea just how many narrow gauge logging railroads there were.

In Alabama alone, there were over 200 logging railroads. Buying and selling used locos was so common that there were several companies that did just that. Some locos had many owners. Used locos came from all over the US, Mexico and Canada. While there were plenty of shays, Climaxes and Hesliers used in Alabama, Few 2-8-2's were used. One of which, I can find no real information on. It was thought to have come from Mexico, was heavily modified, and lost track of completely. As far as I can tell. there were no pictures. Who is to say It doesn't look a whole lot like a mud-hen.



Title: Re: 1/20.3 K-27
Post by: gbbari on September 22, 2007, 08:41:22 PM

Most people have no idea just how many narrow gauge logging railroads there were.


Bob is right.  There were hundreds of Logging RR's.  Here is a link to a historical list of logging companies & railroads across the U.S.

http://www.loggingrailroads.com/

Some of the listings include the engines used on that railroad - see Notes column at the far right side.

Enjoy!
Al