Are the sand domes on Bachmann's 2-8-4 Berkshires removable? I'd like to use these locomotives for a freelanced railroad, and swapping out the large sand domes seems like an effective way to make them not look so much like Nickel Plate locomotives.
Judging from the exploded diagrams, I would say yes.
http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/dwg/dwgs/HO%202-8-4%20BERKSHIRE%20with%20DCC%20SOUND.BOILER.pdf (http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/dwg/dwgs/HO%202-8-4%20BERKSHIRE%20with%20DCC%20SOUND.BOILER.pdf)
Sid
Ah, stupid me....didn't even think to look there :D haha
Sounds like an interesting project!
One possible approach to consider would be to reverse the sand and steam dome locations. The Nickel Plate used an unusual arrangement, with the steam dome well forward of where it would normally be. This was to take steam from a place where the boiler would be a bit quieter, lessening the amount of water drawn up through the dome and on into the superheater.
This was fine for a relatively level road like the NKP, but on the more up and down Chesapeake & Ohio, it was found that this arrangement, also used on the T-1 2-10-4s and on the first J-3 4-8-4s, could lead to a flood of water going down the dry pipe as the engine crested a hill and the water in the boiler surged forward. This was particularly noticed on the Greenbriars, which operated over the very hilly division between Hinton, W.Va. and Charlottesville, Va., which featured two important crests with vertical curves so sharp that new engineers, coming up on them at track speed, could think their locomotives were about to become airborne! Later 4-8-4s and the Kanawhas (2-8-4s) got the more traditional arrangement of the steam dome near the center and the sand box forward.
A number of other railroads used this design, among them Chesapeake & Ohio, Wheeling & Lake Erie, Pere Marquete, Virginian Railway, and Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac. Most of these roads ordered a number of cosmetic changes (C&O liked the headlight low for better visibility in the fogs of the Ohio and Kanawha valleys, most of the other roads had different pilots), and some went in for other mechanical options (all roller bearings on C&O & W&LE, larger tender and cab on C&O, combined steam and sand dome on VGN, Box Pok drivers on W&LE, bigger tenders on C&O and VGN--and two different tender designs at that).
Finally, Southern Railway had one of these engines. . .in excursion service. This was the former C&O 2716, modified to look like what Southern might have ordered if it couldn't get FT diesels.
I would have preferred she stayed Chessie, naturally--but you have to admit, this version looked good.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2657681
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2766034
Some pix:
C&O:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4278184
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3350460
W&LE (NKP dome locations, but different sand box, Box Pok drivers, footboard pilot):
http://railrelicstoday.com/trainpics/steam/wle6413.jpg
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/berkshire/weinstein/wle6414.jpg
Pere Marquette (Note, engines with both dome locations were ordered by this road):
http://www.railarchive.net/randomsteam/pm1222.htm
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/306397/
RF&P--traditional dome location but different dome shape, pressed or cast pilot, Automatic Train Control box on pilot beam:
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/rfp/rfp-s571ach.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/rfp/rfp-s573ach.jpg
Virginian Railway--large combined steam and sand dome, much larger tender, C&O low headlight and pilot, but lacking the booster engine used by C&O, making for a large open space behind the trailing truck:
http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?//december98/12-06-98/ns1283.jpg
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/berkshire/vgn507.jpg
We'll close out with the machine that started this discussion--the Nickel Plate version, in this case the operational 765:
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/578807/
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/565700/
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/556558/
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/547014/
The boiler details like the steam dome and sand boxes are glued to the shell. I tried to pop one out and cracked the shell. I wanted to save that piece, but ended up just cutting it near flush and patched the hole. The filed and re-detailed that area.
It would be nice to get an unassembled shell. But, I've never seen them offered before.
Thanks for the info, and really enjoyed the pics.
While on the discussion of 2-8-4s, I've wondered something....why might a railroad order a 2-8-4 for fast freights in preference to a 4-8-4? So many lines seemed to prefer the Northern type for high speed freight power, but I cannot think of a anyone that was better at steam powered fast freights than the Nickel Plate and their famous 2-8-4s. Evidently they saw no advantage, as they owned not a single Northern, and kept ordering Berkshires instead. An interesting thought to me.
All other factors being equal, a 2-8-4 should produce greater tractive effort than a 4-8-4, because it has more weight on drivers.
Les
Here's a good reason for that king size sand dome to be removable. To make a model of this exceptionally good looking engine:
https://www.google.com/search?sclient=tablet-gws&site=&source=hp&q=missouri+pacific+2-8-4&oq=missouri+pacific+2-8-4&gs_l=tablet-gws.3..0i22i30k1.3375.16570.0.17608.24.16.1.7.7.0.446.3256.0j7j4j2j1.14.0....0...1c.1.64.tablet-gws..2.22.3299...0j0j0i131k1.RS_D410TLlo#imgrc=JXEQp40lj282nM%3A
MoPac must not have been happy with them, all 20 of them were home rebuilt into 4-8-4s during WW ll. 5 more of them on the I-GN down in Texas stayed 2-8-4s to the end though. They were not liked by the crews, there was a long article in Classic Trains by a retired MoP engineer about how rough they rode.
That Missouri Pacific 2-8-4 is actually pretty close to the look I was going for. I plan to have oil tenders on mine, like the one on Santa Fe 3751.
I suspect the Missouri Pacific and International-Great Northern engines rode poorly because of fairly large cylinders with relatively small drivers. Those engines, in common with earlier 2-8-4s such as the prototype Lima A-1 demonstrator, ran on 63-inch drivers, the same size used under the Bachmann 2-8-0. The later engines, such as all those Van Sweringen locomotives (NKP, C&O, VGN, etc.) ran on 69 or 70 inch drivers.
That extra six inches in driver size allowed better counterbalancing and reduced overall machinery speeds at a given operating speed, which would improve riding qualities. In the case of the C&O T-1 2-10-4, lengthening the stroke to 34 inches (also used on the 2-8-4s that were designed from it) would counteract the effect of the tendency of the taller drivers to reduce tractive effort by providing better leverage.
Taller drivers--and a four wheel lead truck for better stability at speed--would have greatly improved riding qualities and reduced rail stress for those MP 2-8-4s--and it did.
C&O 2-10-4--the seed from which came the NKP 2-8-4 and all the variations--and which didn't look at all like the engines that just preceded it. And note where the steam and sand domes are:
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/texas/co3000-laws.jpg
http://www.american-rails.com/images/CO30092104.jpg
The T-1, as many here know, was copied by the Pennsy in WW II. However, PRR insisted on placing its own look on the engines, partially out of standardization (cast steel pilot with a drop coupler, semi-streamlined cab, also used on other engines), and partially for conditions on their road (I'm thinking that's the reason for the PRR tenders on this locomotive and others, long enough for the needed capacity but low enough to fit under water cranes that had been installed 20 or more years earlier for engines with small, lower tenders).
http://prrsteam.pennsyrr.com/images/j1_6454.jpg
http://www.prrho.com/images/J1-Texas_PRR6154.jpg
Yet these engines, as different as they looked, shared machinery dimensions to the inch.
The C&O T1 is one of the finest looking 2-10-4s in my opinion. A shame none were saved.
Quote from: Dakota7820 on October 05, 2016, 11:35:42 AM
The C&O T1 is one of the finest looking 2-10-4s in my opinion. A shame none were saved.
I just did some checking--and what appears to be a close cousin survives!
This is AT&SF No. 5000, the Madame Queen, a one-off engine from Baldwin built in 1930 (same year as C&O's Limas) that was intended as a prototype for series production, but the Depression intervened. . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_5000
Driver size, cylinder stroke (bore is one inch larger), and grate area all are the same or close to that of the C&O engine.
She's a good looker, too, though rather different in appearance from the somewhat cleaner Lima design:
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/texas/atsf5000-yesteryear.jpg
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/texas/atsf5000-wessel.jpg
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/740/p/256779/2877263.aspx
There is a group that would like to get her to run again.
How many of us would want to see that?
I would. . .
J3a, that was a great dissertation on evolved vs original superpower steam locomotive design. I'd never really closely compared MoPac vs NKP Limas, but yes, the MP one is distinctly more "first generation", if we can call it that, superpower design, more akin to earlier drag freight USRA engine design, especially with the lower drivers. You can tell by looking at it that it wasn't intended to move freight at 60 and 70 mph like the NKP engines.
So maybe the Bachmann Lima isn't so suited to making a dead on MP engine. However, MP completely rebuilt its USRA light Mountains with taller drivers (and a lot more) in the late 30's. It could be a what-if MP tall drivered 2-8-4 rebuild.
The Nickel Plate version being sort of a new generation locomotive sort of fits the story for my railroad. I wanted the 2-8-4s to be the last steam locomotives built for the railroad. In my version of history, my system ordered new FT diesels in 1940-41 and was about to order a bunch more, but was limited by the WWII restrictions (just like the Santa Fe's situation). The 2-8-4s were built to help combat the motive power shortage after carefully studying the Nickel Plate's use of the design.
Quote from: Trainman203 on October 05, 2016, 07:44:09 PM
J3a, that was a great dissertation on evolved vs original superpower steam locomotive design. I'd never really closely compared MoPac vs NKP Limas, but yes, the MP one is distinctly more "first generation", if we can call it that, superpower design, more akin to earlier drag freight USRA engine design, especially with the lower drivers. You can tell by looking at it that it wasn't intended to move freight at 60 and 70 mph like the NKP engines.
So maybe the Bachmann Lima isn't so suited to making a dead on MP engine. However, MP completely rebuilt its USRA light Mountains with taller drivers (and a lot more) in the late 30's. It could be a what-if MP tall drivered 2-8-4 rebuild.
Actually, NKP's first 2-8-4s were built by Alco in 1935; believe it or not, it was even proposed that they would be streamlined! Thankfully the NKP's relatively poor financing scotched that deal; they and their many variations looked great as is!
Those 1935 Alcos were indeed a turning point in 2-8-4s. Prior to their construction, few of the designs used other than the 63-inch driver that had been the standard for fast 2-8-2s; afterwards, very few 2-8-4s were built with 63 inch drivers.
One notable and somewhat mysterious exception were the last 2-8-4s built--Pittsburgh & Lake Erie's A-2a class of 1948. Besides being the last steam engines from Alco (the plant was already converting to diesel production, and the tenders had to be contracted out to Lima), they were purchased after P&LE had already started dieselization. They took a lot of design cues from NYC's famous Niagaras of three years earlier, and were delivered in a type of olive green paint. Reportedly they did not ride well.
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/berkshire/?page=nyc
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/berkshire/NYC-9401Color-A-2-001a.jpg
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/berkshire/NYC-9401Color-A-2-002a.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/nyc-s9402.jpg
Quote from: Dakota7820 on October 05, 2016, 09:31:53 PM
The Nickel Plate version being sort of a new generation locomotive sort of fits the story for my railroad. I wanted the 2-8-4s to be the last steam locomotives built for the railroad. In my version of history, my system ordered new FT diesels in 1940-41 and was about to order a bunch more, but was limited by the WWII restrictions (just like the Santa Fe's situation). The 2-8-4s were built to help combat the motive power shortage after carefully studying the Nickel Plate's use of the design.
What you are describing was essentially the case for the RF&P 2-8-4s, though in that case the problem may have been a lack of room on Baldwin's erecting floor for that road's preferred (and beautiful) 4-8-4s!
http://www.northamericanrails.com/yahoo_site_admin1/assets/images/RF__P_4-8-4_615_-_Copy.130211442_large.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/18/b3/53/18b353cbb4ed73edc123456fb46ec790.jpg
The differences, as ordered by RF&P on its Limas (which, as I recall, were the only engines on the road from that builder) included the standard RF&P pilot, a smaller sand dome, an inside bearing lead truck, and the automatic train control equipment that was standard on RF&P road power--just the sort of thing a freelance modeler would do.
This sort of "story" was also the idea behind the cosmetic changes to C&O 2716 as a "Southern" excursion locomotive, so you're in good company!
Those RF&P 2-8-4s are very nice! Based of the Nickel Plate design, yet had their own look. Maybe these are the examples I should follow for mine. ;)
Being a Texas line, I'll still be using oil tenders.
Just for fun, something completely different. . .
How about a 2-8-4 for a shortline, or at least a secondary carrier?
Let's consider the original Norfolk Southern F-1--five very light (due to bridge restrictions) but modern 2-8-4s (Baldwin, 1940), built to replace or relieve fairly old 2-8-0s:
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/berkshire/?page=ns
Visually, at least to me, they look like a modernized USRA light 2-8-2 with an enlarged firebox and some interesting modern mechanical details, among them Baldwin disc drivers and an exhaust steam injector on the fireman's side as a form of feedwater heater:
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/nc/county/beaufort/sellersrr/3sm.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4094/4920445387_cfd26031d8_b.jpg
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/111480.aspx
Just a little more fun. . .
NKP (former W&LE) 2-8-4, in color; forgot to note that this series had footboard pilots:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2e/0c/28/2e0c28357eecca4fde11fbf5c4bbb1fd.jpg
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/berkshire/wle6412.jpg
Close cousin L&N M-1 2-8-4--interpretation of Super Power by Baldwin:
http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/fileSendAction/fcType/0/fcOid/38596413069948343/filePointer/38596413132687967/fodoid/38596413132687963/imageType/LARGE/inlineImage/true/2-8-4%20L%26N%201982.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/427374/
http://www.railarchive.net/randomsteam/ln1967-1970.htm
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e8/3b/57/e83b576739440cb81f761e3cc6d036fe.jpg
I saw a picture of one of those Norfolk Southern Berkshires a long time ago and at first thought it was a photoshop or something. A very cool locomotive. I bet it was a "Cadillac" for a smaller road. :D
As for the L&N 2-8-4s.....that's a beautiful locomotive. As good looking as the NKP's in my opinion. To my eyes, the cab looks similar to Santa Fe's Baldwin 4-8-4s. Wasn't one of these preserved?
Not many really big engines were saved. My guess is that it was too difficult to get them out to the park.
The Bachmann Baldwin modern 4-4-0 comes with details to backdate this engine. I cannot figure how to disassemble the engine to install these
backdated items without damaging it. I took out the screws on the bottom of the engine and it still does't come apart. I called factory and got no help. Can you help me?
Those old fashioned domes they furnish as extra parts aren't really corrrct for the modern 4-4-0.