ONLINE
STORE
"ASK THE BACH MAN"
FORUM
PARTS, SERVICE,
& INFORMATION
CATALOGS AND
BROCHURES

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 26, 2019, 02:16:08 AM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Check out the photo gallery link above or >click here< to see photos of recently announced products!
+  Bachmann Message Board
|-+  Discussion Boards
| |-+  HO
| | |-+  Heisler
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: Heisler  (Read 12888 times)
JDLX

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2007, 02:52:14 AM »

The one thing missing in this discussion is that the Rivarossi Heisler is substantially larger than any "real" Heisler found in the real world.  The model is based on the old AHM tooling.  Rivarossi made many upgrades to the model, and it is a nice looking and nice running locomotive.  That does not, however, change the unprototypically large size.

Reguardless of the "someone has already done it" factor...it would be nice to see somebody do a proper Heisler.

Just my comments.

Jeff Moore
Elko, NV
Logged
Trains Again

View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2007, 05:09:24 PM »

The one thing missing in this discussion is that the Rivarossi Heisler is substantially larger than any "real" Heisler found in the real world.  The model is based on the old AHM tooling.  Rivarossi made many upgrades to the model, and it is a nice looking and nice running locomotive.  That does not, however, change the unprototypically large size.

Reguardless of the "someone has already done it" factor...it would be nice to see somebody do a proper Heisler.

Just my comments.

Jeff Moore
Elko, NV

Thats interesting. I'm kinda surprised.
Logged
Heinz

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2007, 03:06:00 AM »

The one thing missing in this discussion is that the Rivarossi Heisler is substantially larger than any "real" Heisler found in the real world.  The model is based on the old AHM tooling.  Rivarossi made many upgrades to the model, and it is a nice looking and nice running locomotive.  That does not, however, change the unprototypically large size.

Reguardless of the "someone has already done it" factor...it would be nice to see somebody do a proper Heisler.

Just my comments.

Jeff Moore
Elko, NV

Are you really, really sure? The Heislers came in a lot of sizes just as the Climaxes and Shays.  I have a Rivarossi 2 trk Heisler and it doesn´t feel oversize. It looks very alike the big 2 trk Heisler that PFM/United made. Perhaps there are someone on this forum that give us some facts?

But. It would be nice with a smaller and earlier one from around the 1900:s

regards

Heinz
Logged
paustinsmith

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: February 18, 2007, 10:08:01 AM »

I have always thought about trying to down size my Rivarossi Heisler but could not come up with a practical way. I would love to see Bachmann make a model in the 37 to 50 ton range.

Peter Smith, Memphis
Logged
Trains Again

View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 19, 2007, 05:49:47 AM »

I have always thought about trying to down size my Rivarossi Heisler but could not come up with a practical way. I would love to see Bachmann make a model in the 37 to 50 ton range.

Peter Smith, Memphis

I agree. That would be nice Smiley I agree with Heinz too about having one from the 1900's.
Logged
paustinsmith

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: February 19, 2007, 12:29:54 PM »

To be more specific, how about shop number 1004, 45 tons, built in 1896? (As shown in the photo on page 106 "The Heisler Locomotive 1891-1941", Published by Benjamin F. G. Kline, Jr.


Peter Smith, Memphis
Logged
Heinz

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: February 19, 2007, 01:43:05 PM »

To be more specific, how about shop number 1004, 45 tons, built in 1896? (As shown in the photo on page 106 "The Heisler Locomotive 1891-1941", Published by Benjamin F. G. Kline, Jr.


Peter Smith, Memphis


Is it this one? Willamette valley lumber Co no 6. Not the best of pictures. That one would be nice. The smaller earlier ones looks very compact. I also found this cute 20 tonner buildt 1896 on www.gearedsteam.com.


regards

Heinz
Logged
paustinsmith

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: February 19, 2007, 05:36:46 PM »

Yes, number 6 is the Heisler I was referring to. Thanks for the photo! This was their first 45 ton and was built in 1896. In trying to put together it's genealogy from a number of conflicting sources including some personal correspondence as best I can determine, issue 39 of "Timber Times" has it correct:

 " This engine was quite a wanderer during her life; she first worked for Port Blakely Mill Co. at Kamilche, Washington; then moved south to work for the McCloud River Lumber Co. at McCloud California as their No. 3 (I believe this may have been as early as 1897); a short move to Weed Lumber Co. of Weed California ( I believe this move occurred in May 1903); next east for a short stint (1913 to 1914) at the Nevada County Narrow Gauge RR ( They must have Re-gauged it since I know that it was Std. gauge as built and while it was working at McCloud River & Weed); and at last, back up north her final owner, the Willamette lbr. Co. of Dallas Oregon."

I believe from my sources that it was scrapped in 1930.

Why am I so interested in this locomotive? Because I Model the Weed Lumber Company RR and it's successor the California &  Northeastern klamath Falls branch of the SP about 1910.

Peter Smith, Memphis
Logged
Hamish K

View Profile
« Reply #23 on: February 19, 2007, 06:37:18 PM »

From the geared steam locomotive site
http://www.gearedsteam.com/heisler/heisler.htm
It seems that the largest 2 truck Heisler was about 65 tons and the largest 3 truck 90 tons (or a bit more). I don't know how this compares with the Rivarossi models.

Whether there is room fot two ready to run Heislaers is a matter for judgement - in particular Bachmann's or other makers. Bachmann has often seemed  reluctant to duplicate other makers steam locos. Geared locomotives are more niche products then say Mikados so this could cause them to hesitate. On the other hand a rather different model to Rivarossi's might sell, especially if re-introduction of the Rivarossi model is some time away - as seems likely. I don't know whether there is room for two Heislers or not - but I can see why Bachmann might hesitate.

Hamish.
Logged
paustinsmith

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: February 19, 2007, 08:31:46 PM »

A small Heisler would certainly be unique and quite different from the much larger Rivarossi. I think the answer for Bachmann would depend on how their small Climax is selling. I would speculate that anyone who has purchased their small 50 ton Climax would compliment it with a small Heisler. I know I would. Their 50 ton Heisler is my favorite locomotive and I do own a Rivarossi.

Peter Smith, Memphis 
Logged
Trains Again

View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 19, 2007, 09:28:10 PM »

A small Heisler would certainly be unique and quite different from the much larger Rivarossi. I think the answer for Bachmann would depend on how their small Climax is selling. I would speculate that anyone who has purchased their small 50 ton Climax would compliment it with a small Heisler. I know I would. Their 50 ton Heisler is my favorite locomotive and I do own a Rivarossi.

Peter Smith, Memphis 

I agree. That would be nice to have.

The 20 ton Heisler was cute Heinz. I liked it! Smiley
« Last Edit: February 19, 2007, 09:30:12 PM by Trains Again » Logged
Trains Again

View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 20, 2007, 07:49:40 PM »

What does The Bachmann have to say about all this? I would like to know if he can pass on our request.
Logged
the Bach-man
Administrator


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: February 20, 2007, 10:50:43 PM »

Dear Trains,
I pass on all the requests. Beyond that, feel free to discuss...
Have fun!
the Bach-man
Logged
Trains Again

View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2007, 02:38:30 AM »

Dear Trains,
I pass on all the requests. Beyond that, feel free to discuss...
Have fun!
the Bach-man

Ok. Thank you Smiley
Logged
Heinz

View Profile
« Reply #29 on: February 22, 2007, 05:14:16 AM »

Yes, number 6 is the Heisler I was referring to. Thanks for the photo! This was their first 45 ton and was built in 1896. In trying to put together it's genealogy from a number of conflicting sources including some personal correspondence as best I can determine, issue 39 of "Timber Times" has it correct:

 " This engine was quite a wanderer during her life; she first worked for Port Blakely Mill Co. at Kamilche, Washington; then moved south to work for the McCloud River Lumber Co. at McCloud California as their No. 3 (I believe this may have been as early as 1897); a short move to Weed Lumber Co. of Weed California ( I believe this move occurred in May 1903); next east for a short stint (1913 to 1914) at the Nevada County Narrow Gauge RR ( They must have Re-gauged it since I know that it was Std. gauge as built and while it was working at McCloud River & Weed); and at last, back up north her final owner, the Willamette lbr. Co. of Dallas Oregon."

I believe from my sources that it was scrapped in 1930.

Why am I so interested in this locomotive? Because I Model the Weed Lumber Company RR and it's successor the California &  Northeastern klamath Falls branch of the SP about 1910.

Peter Smith, Memphis

Sounds interesting, must be a challenge to model a real prototype?
But it must be a boon to have pictures and information to model after. When planning a freelanced model railroad as I do I can feel that it is hard to draw the line concerning the year I´m modeling and which models I want running on the layout.  I have set the year to 1909 to justify(to myself anyway) a 2-4-4-2. At the same time I want colourful 4-4-0:s from the 1870:s running also.  I´ll have to make up quite a history to get away with it Cheesy.  Well to justify the 4-4-0:s paintjobs anyway.

Its nice to see something different when someone is modeling the early 20:th century. I´m pretty fed up with Denver & Rio Grande Western narrow gauge which seems to be the norm today.


regards

Heinz
   
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!