Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 11, 2020, 08:03:27 AM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Please read the Forum Code of Conduct   >>Click Here <<
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Discussion Boards / HO / Re: B&O Power (Suggestions) on: April 17, 2010, 02:41:57 PM
B&O Power is the standard reference for B&O steam, but be careful, the book does have some misinformation in it (like my personal favorite, that the EL-5 were usra locomotives. THEY WERE NOT.)

"Q. The definitive history of the B&O Railroad Companys Q-class mikado locomotives" is hard to find, but is insanely detailed and technical. Want specs on class Q-odd? Want to see a diagram of every tender every used on any B&O mike? Its in there.

These 2, plus a good set of steam diagrams (such as those offered by TLC) is all you need. West End is also an excellent book, and has loads of information on the terrain B&Os biggest operated in.

Which brings me to models. Brass for you HO guys isnt a bad bargain; Samhongsa made a large number of steam for "Westside Model Company" most of which is available at very reasonable prices. They even did an EM-1, and the one I owned was the best running model loco I have ever seen; it also, due to its weight and running characteristics, would pull like...well, like a 2-8-8-4 should.

Why the lack of steam for B&O from plastic manufacturers, idk. The P1, Q4, and S1 at least were not only "generic" enough to be stand ins (or indeed, modeled from) USRA or other-road "heavy" versions of their type, and the 2-8-8-0 was immensely successful. It was better at what it did than the Big Boy, Allegheny, AC-12...only DM&IRs M3/4 and N&Ws Ys compare. (Here come the Big Boy fans, I can tell...because they ran those things over 3% grades and 12 degree curves for 40 years, amirite??)

An EM-1 model could, with detail changes, perhaps stand in for DM&IR and NP locos, but the EM1 was smaller than either of them (not only did B&O have insane grades, but also insane curves and tunnel restrictions.) A 2-8-8-0 model would be fairly road specific; UP also had some 2-8-8-0s, but they were quite a bit different.

Now, the good. The Q-3 was simply a USRA light mike, the P-5, a USRA pacific. The Spectrum 2-8-0 is a fair match for the E-27 2-8-0, and from it one could make a good L-2 0-8-0 (B&O made em that way, after all!). The C&O mountain from spectrum isnt a terrible representation of a T-3. But as far as "big" B&O steam, say Q-4 and up, its pretty grim. At least in N we have the Kato mikado, a pretty good "generic" heavy mikado.

B&O was the third largest railroad in the US, and seems from the amount of printed and web-based material to be in the top 5 in popularity. Why model makers ignore the possibilities ill never know.

Kind of why i have switched to C&O. Even in N, pretty good array of stuff is available. B&O always will be my favorite road, but until a good 2-8-8-0 and 2-8-2 come along, C&O it is for me.
2  Discussion Boards / N / Re: New N scale coupler pics on: April 17, 2010, 02:04:54 PM
Please start putting these on the front of your locos, and knock it off with the dummys. Engines like the H-4 pushed and pulled, in either direction, and could be found going either way with cars both ahead and behind. Ill pay the extra buck for a real coupler up front. (not to mention doubleheading and pusher service!)

3  Discussion Boards / N / Re: Anyone know if they ever plan to do the 2-8-4 or 2-10-2 in N? on: April 16, 2010, 11:18:28 PM
My guess on the next "major" steam for us eastern modelers is either a K-4 (the demand is HUGE, someone IS going to produce this), an H-6 (bachmann has the mechanism, may as well do the whole trifecta...especially since they have the right tender, too. And maybe on the third run theyll add a TT) or an eastern simple mallet of some type (2-8-8-4 or 2-6-6-6, both would appeal to peoples love of huge steam; Id be thrilled with either, tho id bet on the 2-6-6-6. One model would be "correct" for 2 roads). After the troubles with IM and the AC-12, I hope it isnt them

A 10 coupled something should be higher on the list than it apparently is, and since im greedy, i still want a GOOD C&O 2-8-4. That sand dome on the LL one just sticks out way too much, sadly.

4  Discussion Boards / N / Re: Anyone know if they ever plan to do the 2-8-4 or 2-10-2 in N? on: April 10, 2010, 11:51:35 AM
Yes, the LifeLike one is right for the ex PM locos, and I think the NKP ones as well. But, the HO Bachmann one is right for C&O. A renumbered LL isnt the end of the world; its a good looking engine. But that sand dome (and a few other smaller details) on the LL one is just too obvious a difference for me to be real happy with it. The PM ones didnt come on the C&O roster until very late on the clock for C&O steam (much later than my period, actually) but, one of them is much better than no Kanawha at all.

It isnt a huge deal to me (or probably Bachmann) as one does exist in N, i.e., the Lifelike one. The Lifelike seems to not have sold as hot as they wished (remember Walther's blowout of them) and I have my doubts if LL will do another run of them. Bachmann's 2-8-4 in N would bring to four the number of accurate locos in N for C&O; the H4, H5, K4 (the C&O K4, sorry PRR guys) and the J2.

And the 2-10-2 in N would still be great.
5  Discussion Boards / N / Anyone know if they ever plan to do the 2-8-4 or 2-10-2 in N? on: April 09, 2010, 04:10:44 PM
Just what the title says. Bachmann managed to get their sand dome in the right place for C&O's 2-8-4s (unlike another manufacturer *cough* LifeLike *cough*) and it would be a nice addition to your C&O N scale line *wink nudge nudge wink* and a nice N 2-10-2 would just be useful on sooo many levels.

DO eeeeeeet!
6  Discussion Boards / N / Re: 2-6-6-2 with DCC on: April 09, 2010, 04:08:15 PM
The B&O modeler article was in HO, but shouldnt be much harder in N at all. The short vandy that comes with the H-4 could come in quite handy for your other B&O projects as well, it would look quite good behind a Kato mike!
7  Discussion Boards / General Discussion / Re: Spectrum 2-10-2 on: April 03, 2010, 12:29:33 PM
A good rule of thumb, if a manufacturer says "yes, it will run on 18" curves" that means 22" is probably a much better bet. That 18" curve is probably a test model, on perfect track, both perfectly in gauge, with no turnouts, no cars coupled to the loco, and perhaps at one speed only (sloooow).

Real railroads didnt run huge engines on sharp curves. The B&O would rarely allow its huge fleet of excellent S1 2-10-2s to operate on the Cumberland West Sub (and then ONLY as pushers in sloooow speed service, and even this was extremely rare) as the long wheelbase did  not mesh well with the sharp curves. If you want to run huge engines on sharp curves, run 6 coupled mallets, or 8 coupled if you dare (even some of these, such as long wheelbase 4-8-2s or 4-8-4s with big drivers is asking for problems) but 10 drivers is just begging for disaster when it derails and heads for the floor. I had a couple of brass Samhongsa S-1s and they would not run on anything less than 30". Much pickier than these ones I'm sure, but still a good example of the curves 10 coupled engines prefer, and they had (like the real thing) a flangeless middle driver, to allow it a bit more breathing room.

Always go a couple inches larger than the manufacturer lists as "minimum" and youll have  a much much easier time of it. Doubly so with anything with 8 or more drivers in a rigid wheelbase.
8  Discussion Boards / N / Re: The new H-4 tender on: March 30, 2010, 12:00:28 AM
I swapped one of my H-4s VC-12s for a VC-16 skip, and I dont think ill be hooking it back up. I seem to be farming tenders, theyre reproducing when I am not around... Huh?
9  Discussion Boards / N / Re: An N scale K4 in the works on: March 22, 2010, 08:48:39 PM
The huge void in the current selection of steam is puzzling.

A K4 and a generic heavy pacific (think B&Os P1 family) would both be welcome, and as the only models of either are long discontinued (and fairly poor) in the K4s case, and the Model Power so-so pacific, they would sell like beer at a nascar race. For the love of god, no streamlined blue pacifics please...

There are only two 2-8-2s, model power's and katos, and with kato's "we will produce it when are good and ready to make 10 or so" attitude, the void here is screaming to be filled; once again, a Pennsy L1 and a more ambiguous model (everyone and their brother had a fleet of mikes) Im sure the bean counters at Bachmann can figure the rest out.

A 10 coupled something, either a big 2-10-2 (B&O S1) and/or a PRR 2-10-0. Between the two, they represent several hundred engines on two of the biggest roads in the country.

If I got to choose, i would want the pacific first, 10 coupled loco second, mike third, but these three would sure put Bachmann even farther ahead in the steam department.

The C&O 2-6-6-2s, the 2-8-0, and the C&O 4-8-2 are a great leap into serious steam. Keep going guys, round the lineup out! EDIT. AND KEEP THEM IN PRODUCTION.

PS. Add a 0-8-0 someday so i dont have to ever give walthers a dime kthx.
10  Discussion Boards / N / Re: 2-6-6-2 with DCC on: March 22, 2010, 08:04:17 PM
My 2 dont have traction tires, and dont seem to need them, they both pull pretty nicely.
11  Discussion Boards / N / DCC equipped H4 and tender swaps on: March 22, 2010, 03:51:34 PM
I just purchased 2 of the new DCC equipped 2-6-6-2s and theyre impressive locos, a nice stable of C&O steam has come down the pike the last couple years. I see also that the 4-8-2 has been released as a DCC equipped loco...

My question, will the new VC-16 with the new DCC equipped 4-8-2 be compatible with my H-4s? C&O swapped a few of the short tenders (VC-12, the one the new H4 comes with) for the larger VC-16, a swap I would like to make on one or two of mine. Will the DCC equipped VC-16 tender be available seperately, like the other tenders have been so far? I would like to get one (at least) is this possible?

Kudos to you guys for giving us seperately available tenders and a few great the way, you have both the VC-12 and VC-16 marked as 16000 gallon capacity, just an FYI.
Pages: [1]
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!