Bachmann Online Forum

Discussion Boards => Large => Topic started by: vic on July 15, 2008, 07:44:49 PM

Title: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: vic on July 15, 2008, 07:44:49 PM
Will it be R1 capable?  ???

I ask because the real Uintah Baldwins, also 2-6-6-2T's, could take a 66 degree curve, thats pretty close to an R1 curve, of course they did it  while grinding up a 7% grade at the same time at Morro Castle.  :o

If so, I'll start saving my pennies, if not....  :-\
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: Kevin Strong on July 15, 2008, 09:49:06 PM
A 60-degree curve is around 5' radius in 1:20.3--still quite wider than R1. For comparison, a 2' radius (R1) curve equates to a 141-degree curve!  :o

Later,

K
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: vic on July 15, 2008, 09:58:05 PM
Stop being a buzz kill Kev  :o

I'm trying to give the Bachmann a guilt trip so he doesnt forget us guys with tight layouts that would still like one or two bigger engines ;D

I'm just getting tired of everything new coming out requiring an 8' diameter curve, even the smaller stuff like Mainline Models USRA 0-6-0, and even USAs stupid little 0-6-0T needs a 6 foot curve  >:(
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: altterrain on July 15, 2008, 11:12:13 PM
Five foot radius? I can handle that. Why don't you buy one Vic and keep it here. Then you can come visit and run it whenever you want.  ;D

-Brian

HEY WEBMASTER! FIX THE FORUM BUGS!!!!
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: Superheater on July 16, 2008, 05:45:56 AM
Quote from: Kevin Strong on July 15, 2008, 09:49:06 PM
A 60-degree curve is around 5' radius in 1:20.3--still quite wider than R1. For comparison, a 2' radius (R1) curve equates to a 141-degree curve!  :o

Later,

K

Math aside, a Uintah mallet on Morro Castle Curve looks like this:

http://home.bresnan.net/~bpratt15/images/UintahMallet75.jpg (http://home.bresnan.net/~bpratt15/images/UintahMallet75.jpg)
(http://home.bresnan.net/~bpratt15/images/UintahMallet75.jpg)

John Fitch
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: Steve Stockham on July 16, 2008, 08:46:07 AM
Guys,
  The simple reality is that R1 curves were never designed for 1:20.3 (Fn3) scaled engines and rolling stock! LGB went to some incredible lengths to get their stuff to go around R1 curves but LGB was nominally 1:22.5 and wasn't into "scale models" but toy train carricatures.
  It simply isn't fair to ask Bachmann to compromise with their attention to scale fidelity by having them modify their engines and rolling stock to handle R1 curves! Fn3 is considerably LARGER than G! Don't be fooled because smaller Fn3 prototypes will run with G scale cars. These newest Spectrum engines have been modeled after LARGE prototypes! 8ft diameter curves as a minimum are about the best we can expect in all fairness.
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: chuckger on July 16, 2008, 11:00:21 AM
Mr Bachman,
  I think you have a winner with your new engine. Do you have any pictures of the new caboose, #0404 ??

  Thanks, chuckger
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: vic on July 16, 2008, 02:49:21 PM
Quote from: Steve Stockham on July 16, 2008, 08:46:07 AM
Guys,
  The simple reality is that R1 curves were never designed for 1:20.3 (Fn3) scaled engines and rolling stock! LGB went to some incredible lengths to get their stuff to go around R1 curves but LGB was nominally 1:22.5 and wasn't into "scale models" but toy train carricatures.
  It simply isn't fair to ask Bachmann to compromise with their attention to scale fidelity by having them modify their engines and rolling stock to handle R1 curves! Fn3 is considerably LARGER than G! Don't be fooled because smaller Fn3 prototypes will run with G scale cars. These newest Spectrum engines have been modeled after LARGE prototypes! 8ft diameter curves as a minimum are about the best we can expect in all fairness.
Steve, its a little called engineering  ;)

I didnt ask for a R1 capable K, or a 3 truck Shay or even that the Connie be R1 capable because given the size and rigid frame I knew that was an extreme impracticality...all I'm asking for is that if the basis of this engine, the Uintah Mallet in reality was designed to take what in 1/20 scale would be a 5' diameter curve, its logical to expect that so would this engine if it were actually built. Now to jump from 5' to 4' in model train construction doesnt take that much extra engineering when the product is in development, and it opens the engine up to an even larger market, LGB knew this when they introduced the 1/22 mallet and that engine really helped them expand here in the US. :o

Now if this engine ends up R1 capable, it could help Bachmann  do overseas what the Mallet did for LGB here, open up to new markets. Afterall there are a lot, A LOT, of layouts that still use the R1 curvature not just here but especially around the world. Not everyone has 1/2 an acre to devote to a garden railroad, hence the name; GARDEN railroad, not Giant Open Field railroad ;)

Now that said, what am I expecting the answer to be? Lets just say I'm not holding my breath... :'(


Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: CCSII on July 16, 2008, 02:58:36 PM
Here you go Vic:
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a1/banjocharley/bc.jpg)

Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: Superheater on July 16, 2008, 04:04:16 PM
Quote from: vic on July 16, 2008, 02:49:21 PM

Steve, its a little called engineering  ;)

I didnt ask for a R1 capable K, or a 3 truck Shay or even that the Connie be R1 capable because given the size and rigid frame I knew that was an extreme impracticality...all I'm asking for is that if the basis of this engine, the Uintah Mallet in reality was designed to take what in 1/20 scale would be a 5' diameter curve, its logical to expect that so would this engine if it were actually built. Now to jump from 5' to 4' in model train construction doesnt take that much extra engineering when the product is in development, and it opens the engine up to an even larger market, LGB knew this when they introduced the 1/22 mallet and that engine really helped them expand here in the US. :o

Now if this engine ends up R1 capable, it could help Bachmann  do overseas what the Mallet did for LGB here, open up to new markets. Afterall there are a lot, A LOT, of layouts that still use the R1 curvature not just here but especially around the world. Not everyone has 1/2 an acre to devote to a garden railroad, hence the name; GARDEN railroad, not Giant Open Field railroad ;)

Now that said, what am I expecting the answer to be? Lets just say I'm not holding my breath... :'(

Before you dig yourself in any deeper check your math. 

Hold your breath, stomp your feet, have a full blown tempertantrum if you like.  The difference between an R1 curve (two foot radius) and the five foot RADIUS curve of the Morro Castle is more than "a little engineering."  The five foot diameter curve that LGB produced to run parallel curves with the R1 is only half as large as what you need.

A two foot radius curve (R1) makes for an approximate 40 foot circle in scale.  That means you could set up a 1:1 (not model!) railroad that made a figure 8 on a hockey rink with room to spare! (85 x 200) There's no mallet alive that would ever manage that kind of curvature without being hinged in the middle, or perhaps chopped into three pieces and chained together. 

R1 curvature, in 1:20.3 is best suited to mine carts, field railway stuff, and amusements.  And perhaps the new diesel you insist on calling "Davey" if you grease the flanges a bit. 

To expect an articulated 2-6-6-2 to navigate that kind of curvature is preposterous.  Please sit down and be quiet before you get the project killed, Ok?

John Fitch
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: CCSII on July 16, 2008, 04:10:29 PM
A 2' radius curve would be 4' in diameter which in 1:1 would be 80' in diameter.

It would break the basketball court.
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: Superheater on July 16, 2008, 04:32:31 PM
Quote from: CCSII on July 16, 2008, 04:10:29 PM
A 2' radius curve would be 4' in diameter which in 1:1 would be 80' in diameter.

It would break the basketball court.

Thank you.  Fixed.  Point remains.

John
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: JerryB on July 16, 2008, 06:14:56 PM
2' radius at 1:20 scale equals 40' radius at 1:1 scale. According to Kevin, the prototype B.C. locomotive could operate down to a 60 degree curve, which is equal to ~5' radius in 1:20 scale.

Everything compromised to run on one minimum radius curve can seriously compromise a model and doesn't look too successful from a business model standpoint.

Vic: I'll offer you a virtually new Uintah #50 in trade for the new Biles Colman 2-6-6-2 in 1:20.3.

My personal hope is that the announced B.C. locomotive will be able to operate over a 4' radius, but I'm prepared to widen my balloon track if necessary. I've been wanting to change it to code 250 rail anyway.

Happy RRing,

Jerry


Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: vic on July 16, 2008, 07:06:21 PM
OOPS!  :o I must be getting old, cant read worth a dam anymore

Guess I missed that whole "Radius vs Diameter" notation...dam, it'd sure be nice to have one of these on my layout but Kevins was right the first time, Sorry Kev, sorry guys.

5' RADIUS means 10 foot diameter, so even if they make it 8 foot diameter thats still tighter than proto.. So I guess theres less than zero chance this will be anywhere remotely R1 capable...POOH!

...unless maybe some cutting here and trimming there...Hmmmm :o
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: vic on July 16, 2008, 07:11:19 PM
Quote from: CCSII on July 16, 2008, 02:58:36 PM
Here you go Vic:
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a1/banjocharley/bc.jpg)



Thanks  :D

(http://home.bresnan.net/~bpratt15/images/DPS/Loco21AtAtchee.jpg)
How about one of these instead?

Oh Mr B
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: Steve Stockham on July 17, 2008, 08:12:26 AM
Hmmm.... looks like a cross between one of those old Spectrum 2-4-2T Coal crek #3 , the Spectrum 1:20.3 Porter and an Indie! (Not a bad idea....)
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: Hamish K on July 17, 2008, 08:51:49 AM
Vic

What is that locomotive ?

Hamish
Quote from: vic on July 16, 2008, 07:11:19 PM
[]

Thanks  :D

(http://home.bresnan.net/~bpratt15/images/DPS/Loco21AtAtchee.jpg)
How about one of these instead?

Oh Mr B
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: Charlie Mutschler on July 17, 2008, 09:10:13 AM
Uintah Railway 21, stored at Atchee, Colorado. Nos. 20 and 21 were 0-6-2T locomotives built by Baldwin for the Uintah.  They were passenger power for this road.  Passenger trains on the Uintah were a single combination coach / baggage car, with the US mail handled in locked pouches in the baggage end of the car.  The little tanks could negotiate the 66 degree curves on Baxter pass, and could just pull the single car up the 7% grade.  Both were retired after the Baldwin 2-6-6-2s 50 and 51 took over from Shays on Baxter Pass, and the curves were widened to a mere 60 degrees.  At that point the freight train became a mixed, with the combination car on the back, so the passenger power was no longer needed.   

On the few occasions when longer passenger trains operated (one was a troop movement) the trains were handled by Shays on Baxter Pass. 

Charlie Mutschler
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: Jon D. Miller on July 17, 2008, 09:20:14 AM
As Charlie states it's a URY Baldwin.

For those that have access, both #20 and #21 are pictured on pages 50 and 51 of Henry E. Bender, Jr's book Uintah Railway The Gilsonite Route.  There are additional photos of these little engines at work throughout the book.

A Bachmann model of these little 0-6-2T locomotives would be a good addition to many narrow gauge rosters.

JD

Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: vic on July 17, 2008, 11:10:31 AM
If I remember right, Bender's book also has line drawings of this, al all, Unitahs locomotives...and yes, between the Lyn and the Indy I think Bmann could make a nice model of this one.
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: Tom Lapointe on July 17, 2008, 08:44:11 PM
"Guess I missed that whole "Radius vs Diameter" notation...dam, it'd sure be nice to have one of these on my layout but Kevins was right the first time, Sorry Kev, sorry guys.

5' RADIUS means 10 foot diameter, so even if they make it 8 foot diameter thats still tighter than proto.. So I guess theres less than zero chance this will be anywhere remotely R1 capable...POOH!"


Vic, one way you could get around the R1 issue is to do a switching layout, using wide radius switches. :) A Mallet might seem a bit extreme :o as a switcher, but you could always say you're switching carloads of iron or lead ore (or maybe even depleted uranium!  :D ) that requires a loco with LOTS of tractive effort!   ;) ;D               

Looking forward to getting one of these myself! 8)   (Mr. B., will it be out in time for Christmas ??? ). ;)                                           Tom
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: Hamish K on July 18, 2008, 03:32:47 AM
Thanks to Charles and the others who replied to my question on Unitah 21. Much appreciated.

Hamish
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: andyb on July 18, 2008, 06:40:52 PM
I love the 2-6-2 saddle tank prairie! I wonder if anyone would actually chop a mallet up tho....  :o

While we're suggesting possible variations, how about something slightly bigger....

(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andy.buckley/images/garratmallet.png)

(just a bit of fun of course - R1? maybe not... ;) )

andyb
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: Charlie Mutschler on July 18, 2008, 09:04:09 PM
Hamish, you are most welcome.  Anyone interested in the Uintah will find a good bit of material has been published.  Henry E. Bender's _Uintah Railway:  The Gilsonite Route_ is the basic must-have history of the URY.  This book has been re-printed, and I haven't looked at the reprint to see if more material has been added.  However, the original volume has mechanical specs for the locos, including copies of Baldwin erecting cards for some, including the 0-6-2T's.  Scale drawings of Shay No.1, 2-6-6-2T No. 51, flat, box and stock cars as well as combine No. 50 in its rebuilt form.  This is as the car now exists at the Colorado Railroad Museum, awaiting restoration. 

Roger Polley's two volume _Uintah Railway Pictorial_ is well worth having if you are a URY enthusiast.  Many images, reprints of maps, etc. that are not in Bender's book.  Polley has minimal text, many, many photos.  Bender has a good history, many fewer photos. 

Then there is a movie of the URY with the articulateds at work which was issued by Machines of Iron.  Very interesting. 

Uintah 20 and 21 had 13 x 18 inch cylinders, 34 inch drivers, 24 inch trailing truck wheels; weight slightly over 34 tons in working order, and had a tractive effort of 13,680 pounds.  The tender bunker held 1.5 short tons (3,000 pounds) of soft coal, and the side tanks 970 US gallons of water.  Sufficient to handle one car on the 7.5% grades on Baxter Pass.  Photos show two-car passenger trains with a Shay helper, or just the Shay as motive power on the pass. 

Happy modeling. 
Charlie
-30-
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: Spule 4 on July 18, 2008, 11:46:40 PM
Quote from: Jon D. Miller on July 17, 2008, 09:20:14 AM

A Bachmann model of these little 0-6-2T locomotives would be a good addition to many narrow gauge rosters.

JD



There are a slew of nice Baldwin 3' gauge prototype fodder out there, hopefully we will see more......

While I have no (personal) interest in the mallet, I am sure it will be a good seller and looks very nice.
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: the Bach-man on July 19, 2008, 01:17:39 AM
Dear All,
It appears that the new loco will run on R2 radius, and with a minor modification it will go around R1.  I want to see a production model before I detail the discussed modification, however.
Have fun!
the Bach-man
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: vic on July 21, 2008, 05:48:39 PM
Quote from: the Bach-man on July 19, 2008, 01:17:39 AM
Dear All,
It appears that the new loco will run on R2 radius, and with a minor modification it will go around R1.  I want to see a production model before I detail the discussed modification, however.
Have fun!
the Bach-man

;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: Frisco on July 23, 2008, 03:09:56 PM
Quote from: Charlie Mutschler on July 18, 2008, 09:04:09 PM
Hamish, you are most welcome.  Anyone interested in the Uintah will find a good bit of material has been published.  Henry E. Bender's _Uintah Railway:  The Gilsonite Route_ is the basic must-have history of the URY.  This book has been re-printed, and I haven't looked at the reprint to see if more material has been added.  However, the original volume has mechanical specs for the locos, including copies of Baldwin erecting cards for some, including the 0-6-2T's.  Scale drawings of Shay No.1, 2-6-6-2T No. 51, flat, box and stock cars as well as combine No. 50 in its rebuilt form.  This is as the car now exists at the Colorado Railroad Museum, awaiting restoration. 

Roger Polley's two volume _Uintah Railway Pictorial_ is well worth having if you are a URY enthusiast.  Many images, reprints of maps, etc. that are not in Bender's book.  Polley has minimal text, many, many photos.  Bender has a good history, many fewer photos. 

Then there is a movie of the URY with the articulateds at work which was issued by Machines of Iron.  Very interesting. 

Uintah 20 and 21 had 13 x 18 inch cylinders, 34 inch drivers, 24 inch trailing truck wheels; weight slightly over 34 tons in working order, and had a tractive effort of 13,680 pounds.  The tender bunker held 1.5 short tons (3,000 pounds) of soft coal, and the side tanks 970 US gallons of water.  Sufficient to handle one car on the 7.5% grades on Baxter Pass.  Photos show two-car passenger trains with a Shay helper, or just the Shay as motive power on the pass. 

Happy modeling. 
Charlie
-30-
The combine at the Colorado has as of June been restored at least for looks it is a very nice looking car.
Title: Re: Announced New Mallet Question?
Post by: Charlie Mutschler on July 26, 2008, 09:18:35 PM
Interesting comparing the pre-production sample with John Lewis' drawings and photos of other narrow gauge articulates, both simples like the meter gauge 2-6-6-2s built for Rio Grande do Sol (Brazil) and mallets.  All of these prototype three foot and meter gauge locos have the dry pipes to the rear engine down below the running boards except for the Uintah's pair.  My thinking is that this feature was only used on the Uintah locomotives because it was needed to get adequate clearance so the front engine could swing far enough to negotiate the 60 degree curves. 

This looks like an interesting model, and one which was, again, much in demand among the commenting crowd on this and other sites.  I haven't decided if I want one of those or another mudhen. 

Cheers!
Charlie Mutschler
-30-