Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 07, 2019, 10:18:30 PM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Please read the Forum Code of Conduct   >>Click Here <<
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 68
1  Discussion Boards / HO / Re: Jonathan's Layout #3 on: November 11, 2019, 11:45:09 AM
WOW!!  That thing is a monster!!  Real delicate looking, too--don't send an EM1 or Big Six over it!  Their Cooper ratings are way too high!

Where is it going to go on the layout?
2  Discussion Boards / General Discussion / Re: Berkshire HO driver diameter on: October 31, 2019, 02:18:50 AM
Can you post a picture of that 0-8-8-0 camelback?  It sounds interesting.

It so happens a couple of pix show up with the link above on the Erie engines.
3  Discussion Boards / General Discussion / Re: Berkshire HO driver diameter on: October 31, 2019, 01:46:46 AM
The NKP Berkshire had 69 inch drivers; an HO model's drivers would scale out to 38 inches in O scale. The 80 inch drivers used under an HO K4 (or Bachmann's large drivered 4-8-4s, such as the Daylight) scale to 44 inches in O.  

Actual diameters, if to scale (ours are usually a tad smaller to account for oversized flanges) are 0.79 inches for the 69s and 0.92 inches for the 80s.

For comparison, I believe the HO 2-8-0 has 63 inch drivers.  Those would scale to 34 inches in O, with an actual diameter of 0.72 inches.

Just for additional comparison, the Erie L-1 had 51 inch drivers (actual size 0.59 inches in HO, scaling to 28 inches in O). That's a size normally associated with switchers, such as the Bachmann USRA 0-6-0!  That says much about the service and operating speeds of the prototype.

For a freelanced model such as this one would be, proportions that "look right" would be a better consideration than an actual driver diameter scaling out.  In other words, for this project you might want a slightly larger diameter than a scale translation from 51 inches.

Hope this helps out.
4  Discussion Boards / HO / Re: Jonathan's Layout #3 on: September 30, 2019, 12:50:15 AM
I'm looking forward to watching it grow.

Same here!!
5  Discussion Boards / HO / Re: Sound Value S-2: Tinkering on: July 01, 2019, 12:37:34 PM
Talk about a rarity!!  Apparently three Alcos got Chessie paint!  Who would have imagined it?

This one looks like it might be former B&O:

6  Discussion Boards / HO / Re: Sound Value S-2: Tinkering on: June 19, 2019, 02:53:39 AM
Hello, either I missed this thread the first time somehow, or I forgot about it, but I want to congratulate you on some nice work!

I'm particularly intrigued by the extra hand rails added at the cab end.  Unless the B&O copied the C&O, that may well be a former Chessie unit transferred to the B&O around the early 1960s. 

I'll have to check my C&O diesel book to be sure!!

Good work again!!
7  Discussion Boards / HO / Acela Express on: June 11, 2019, 12:38:56 AM
I notice the Acela set is back!  Of course, the original set only came with three cars--and the new one does, too.

By any chance will extra cars be available to fill out the train length to what it should be?
8  Discussion Boards / HO / Re: Craftsman Boxcar Kit on: May 18, 2019, 03:53:17 AM
Glad to see you back again, too!

Good luck on the new road when the time comes.
9  Discussion Boards / HO / Re: B&O "Running Mate" to go withthe EM-1? on: January 30, 2019, 09:14:37 PM
Sand Patch had all good choices for other B&O prototypes, though most would require all new tooling, including mechanisms (except for the T-3, which could use an existing 4-8-2 mechanism).

There are a couple of other choices that are already in the line--the USRA light 4-6-2 and light 2-8-2, which, depending on the model chosen, are already spot on for a P-5 and a Q-3.

Two others I would suggest that could take advantage of existing mechanisms would be the Q-4 2-8-2 (USRA 2-8-2 mechanism with long frame Baker valve gear, Vanderbilt tender, and appropriate detailing), and the P-7 4-6-2 (PRR K4s mechanism, already correct including the lacy Walschaerts valve gear, with a new superstructure, possibly a USRA tender).
10  Discussion Boards / N / Re: New Steam Locomotive Requests (2-10-4 Texas/Selkirk Type and 2-8-4 Berk variant) on: December 05, 2018, 01:05:10 AM

The Streamlined Cincinnatian or any of the other other B&O Class P-7 locomotives would be nice new shells for the Pennsy K-4 mechanism, because the driver wheel size is identical and their spacing is nearly identical.  Also, the B&O used high headlights for all the P-7s before the P-7d and e versions, like the K-4 model.

The USRA Pacifics (B&O class P-5) had smaller drivers (74" instead of 80") and closer spacing (6'-6" instead of 6'-9" on the K-4 or 7'-0" on the P-7), so they might need a modified mechanism to look right.  But, 5" in N scale is only 1/32", and the flanges are over-scale anyway, so, with smaller drivers, the same mechanism might pass for not just the USRA Pacifics that so many roads had, but also the very plentiful B&O P-1s and most of the other Pacifics that B&O ran.  Probably a lot of other roads had locos that could also use the K-4 mechanism if appropriate shells could be produced, and maybe some smaller drivers provided.

The P-7 in almost any version would be extremely easy, and accurate.  All you would need would be the superstructure, perhaps a tender shell (a USRA variant would pass), a maybe a cylinder block and a trailing truck (both optional, and easy if one or the other is also used for something else).  The rest is identical with the K4 visually, including the lacy Walschaerts valve gear and its hanger.

I'm an HO man, and I'm surprised nobody who makes a PRR K4 has figured this out. 
11  Discussion Boards / HO / Re: The Last Project on My Layout on: November 11, 2018, 01:53:55 AM
Beautiful road!!  Sorry to see it go?

Can you say what has happened, and what future plans may be?
12  Discussion Boards / HO / Re: Help. Repairing 2006 steam on: October 23, 2018, 09:15:46 AM
TinoStrat, can you tell us what locomotive you do have, or send a photograph of it?  As Jonathan noted, different locomotives may have different methods of attaching parts.  A look at what you have can tell us a lot. 

There are a lot of people here who are willing to help you!!

(Hope the translator program works well.)

TinoStrat, ¿puedes decirnos qué locomotora tienes o enviar una fotografía? Como Jonathan señaló, diferentes locomotoras pueden tener diferentes métodos para unir partes. Un vistazo a lo que tienes nos puede decir mucho.

¡Hay mucha gente aquí que está dispuesta a ayudarte!
13  Discussion Boards / HO / Re: SP GS4 "Daylight"(old) Manual? on: October 05, 2018, 03:00:41 AM
I also wouldn't rule out the current manual.

One of the reasons I say this is that the mechanisms for all of Bachmann's 80-inch drivered 4-8-4s--Daylights, Niagaras, Santa Fe--are identical.  The only changes are rods and cylinder blocks and valve gear.  It's clearly an example of taking advantage of a characteristic of modern steam engines with trailing trucks, and that's using the driver diameter to set axle spacing.  It seems the railroad industry did this--most, if not all steam locomotives with a trailing truck used driver spacing about three inches larger than driver diameter.  That makes sense in that the resulting distance between axles and wheels works out to shorten the wheelbase to a recommended dimension, which would help the locomotive in going around curves or poking around in a yard. 

This means all the frames are identical, and it's possible what you want to find will still fit.
14  Discussion Boards / HO / Re: SP GS4 "Daylight"(old) Manual? on: October 05, 2018, 02:47:49 AM
Couldn't post a saved image (file was to large).  Let's see if this works (it did for me):

Hope these help out.

15  Discussion Boards / HO / Re: EMD E7 shell removal on: September 27, 2018, 10:21:05 PM
Jonathan may well the be the resident detailer of Bachmann locomotives here, especially for his beloved Baltimore & Ohio!!  His work in detailing the Bachmann E7 can be seen in the link below.,33489.msg247828.html#msg247828
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 68
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!