The End of Brass?
Bruce Favinger
diecast and plastic locomotives I wonder what the future holds for brass
models. Apparently it is possible to produce products in diecast and plastic
of locomotives that have a some what limited audience and still earn a
profit. I noticed Sunset is offering a 2-6-0 in what its calling the first
of its new line of economy brass models. At about $400 it doesn't sound very
economy to me but maybe it does to others. I'll wait for Bachmann, P2K or
someone else to offer something similar at 50% to 75% less or just pass. So
what do you guys think? Will the new brass market keep shrinking or be
completely replaced by limited run or lower production plastic and diecast?
Bruce.
Howard Zane
have a vested interest in the future of brass. First of all let me try to
define brass models........I see them as limited run works of art which are
hand built and will operate on a model railroad. Brass over the decacdes has
evolved from affordable and almost all that was available in the RTR sector
to today's super detailed, and beautifully finished (and expensive, but
proportionate) collector pieces. Most current "state of the art" brass
models rarely travel beyond the glass showcase. What damn fool is going to
run a $1500 model on his pike.........then it ain't mint anymore! Plus the
second worst sound in the world is a brass model falling 800 scale feet and
hitting concrete. (Plastic does not sound to great either).
Brass models really have become a hobby within a hobby. The general world of
just about collecting everything has never caught on to brass models. Why??
It is never marketed to the general public...and what a shame!! Most
everyone alive to some extent likes trains. Folks could collect name trains,
wheel arrangements, railroads, cabeese, MOW equipment, Importers and
builders, and on and on.
Recently a gentleman came up to me at the last Timonium show and wanted to
sell me his Franklin Mint SRR PS4 that he paid $300 for. As I was telling
him why I would not buy it, he noticed a nicely painted PFM/United PS4 on my
table for the same price. Did you ever see those dumb novelty eye glasses
with the eyeballs on springs............well his eyeballs seemed to do the
same with out the springs. All the poor guy wanted was a model of his
favorite loco and knew nothing of the PFM counterpart. I think he is now
learning more about brass and enjoying it. He did buy the PFM PS4. Point
here...........The Franklin Mint models were mainly marketed to the general
public.
For model railroad operations, I agree that the new generation of plastic
steam locos are just great, but they are production models vs. handbuilt
works of art.
Over the years I've been able to group brass buyers into five groups.....the
operator, the operator collector, the collector, the collector investor, and
the investor. The latter group houses tomorrow's dealers, but I can not
condone brass as a good investment..........maybe so with much study and
experience, but I tell customers to buy because they appreciate owning a
fine piece of art or .....yes, a toy to be enjoyed. If one is lucky.....down
the road when tastes change, they may recoup their cost.
Other problems that have caused a slowdown in brass activity, besides
economic fears and 9-11, is the plain truth that the folks who once
collected and appreciated fine brass models are mostly now In Florida
fishing from a bridge or just not above the ground anymore. We are between
generations. The good news is that most of the new generation plastic steam
locos are being bought by newbies and folks in their 20's to
50's...........most never having seen steam except on tourist roads or in
museums. Are they doing period modeling?....Will they want to increase their
steam rosters, and will they spend more on upgrades?
I do not know the answer, but I am far from jumping ship. Basically it would
take the plastic manufacturers decades to offer what is available today in
brass.............new or used.
Bruce.....you used the term "limited run or lower production plastic and
diecast". "Limited run production pieces" is very close to being an
oxymoron. Thousands must be sold just to recoup the mold costs.
For my customers................not to worry, I'm still very much in
business and love every minute of it!!
HZ
--
Howard Zane
5236 Thunderhill Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410-730-1036
"Bruce Favinger" <bwf...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:tsY_a.1106$9i1...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
Dale Kramer
certain HO model in anything but :P. I'll be danged if I'll pay new brass
prices, but we've shelled out more than we like on some older brass models
of things that just aren't available in plastic or diecast. We've both come
to the realization that most of the strange, unusual and interesting things
we like are either brass, G or 0 :P
"Howard Zane" <hza...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7qSdnfeFIfT...@comcast.com...
Howard Zane
for the many who have purchased brass or who are planning to.
The discussion of brass vs. plastic is quite simple to
understand..........it boils down to personal preference and what you are
willing to spend. Some of you old timers may remember Max Gray. He imported
HO and O scale models in the lated 50's and early 60's. and along with Bill
Ryan was most definitely a pioneer in this field. They were state of the art
for the time and due to excellent engineering, design, and inherent quality,
still hold their own in today's market. At a national MR convention during
the 60's, Gray commented on this very subject...................
"It may not be untimely to call attention here to the fact that any article
made entirely by hand and of good quality retains it's value long after a
mass produced article is forgotten. The hand made article due to the
limitations of such process will not decline in value as will products
manufactured in endless quantitiy."
Some redundancy in the above statement, but I think the point still gets
across.
The cost proportions of plastic vs. brass still are the same as in the mid
60's when Rivarossi introduced their wonderful and reolutionary N&W Y-6b.
These could be had then for about $35 whereas the brass counterpart by PFM
was in the just over $110 range. (suggested retail was $149.95 in 1961, but
due to four years on the market, could be had in the lower range.........few
colletors then driving prices up!) Today a similar N&W class A by BLI can be
had in the lower $400 range and the brass counterpart by Key and PFM in the
$1200 range (PSC's, a bit higher).........notice any proportionate
difference? Nope!
Note.......I run mostly brass on my Piermont Division. With tweeking and
logical maintenance, they seem to run for ever. I recently sold one of my WM
H9s after about an estimated 75 hours of operation. I got $475 (paid $220
for it in '81) for it as it had much life left and was properly maintained.
Five years ago I purchased a Bachmann 2-8-0 for $65, repainted it and added
detail and ran it for a bit..............maybe 20 hours total over the five
year period. If I were to sell it today..........I'd probably ask $35....but
that would be a guess. It does not run as well when new............not to
impugn Bachmann or plastic models in general, as it was and is still a
great value. Point........it should be obvious! You have a choice...if you
buy a good cheeseburger, it is that. If you buy a filet mignon is is
also..just that, but the cheesebuger will never become the steak. Be it
plastic or brass........play with the damn thing, or collect it, or
whatever and have fun. That is what the hobby is about.
Another small note of interest. ...............Those of you had seen both of
the Allen Keller videos on my layout, may have noticed some of the brass
locos stuttering a bit. This only happens when being videoed or operating
during an open house. When no one is visiting, they run just great. Go
figure!! My money is on little HO gremlins or trolls. They also munch on my
trees.
HZ
--
Howard Zane
5236 Thunderhill Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410-730-1036
"Dale Kramer" <DKR...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:FP%_a.17448$mB5.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
PEACHCREEK
BUT........................
It will not be the operators, it will be the collectors that will purchase new
items. And as such, the market will be smaller and the prices higher.
The operator had for years, been attracted to the middle-of-the -road
production brass models. The kind of stuff PFM imported by the thousands and
the kind of stuff made in Korea in the 70s and 80s. Not anymore.
Real life example: In the past, before quality low cost plastic and die-cast,
a new model raillroader would come into the shop and want a good 2-8-0. We
would show him the Bowser kits, the model power stuff and in most cases he
would either be intimidated by the kit or want something a little better than
the Model Power (did you know that Rivarossi made these?) loco. So I'd take
him over to the brass case and show him a used PFM SF 2-8-0. Sure enough, he'd
buy the brass. But today the same type of beginner comes in and buys a Bachmann
Spectrum 2--8-0. This is a true story.
Now, as a brass dealer, this isn't great news, but as a seller of Bachmann
Spectrum locos it doesn't get much better.
There are a whole list of brass models that have plummeted in value. PFM
Russian Decapods, PFM N&W Class A, Sunset and Akane USRA 4-8-2s, Akane and
Oriental Ltd USRA 0--8-0s, PFM PRR K-4s, Westside NYC J-1e, and just about
every brass E unit, F Unit and GP unit.
Will brass survive? Certainly. Will every importer? I wouldn't bet on that.
John Glaab
Peach Creek Shops
Jon Miller
difference between fine brass model and that Franklin Mint "thing"! While
Franklin was retailing it for $300 I bet they never paided more than $50/100
for the engines. This is probably the main reason you don't see (our
brass???) in that market.
Jon Miller
items. And as such, the market will be smaller and the prices higher.<
lost it's popularity there just weren't the right engines available at the
right price to sell/buy. Bachmann correctly analyzed that the market was
there (with the 2-8-0) and the rest is history.
OLDFARHT
>logical maintenance, they seem to run for ever.
Amen! The primary switchers on my branch line are a pair of Gem Rdg
Camelbacks, an 0-4-0 and an 0-6-0. Both poor runners when new, but Sagami
motors and extra pick-up wipers turned them into real gems (pun). They have
been running several times a week for hours each session since the early 1980s,
and still perform perfectly.
>This only happens when being videoed or operating
>during an open house. When no one is visiting, they run just great. Go
>figure!! My money is on little HO gremlins or trolls. They also munch on my
>trees.
This perversity of inanimate objects has been known since the 1940s (without
the video camera, of course.)
Walt
Howard Zane
It was your "Third Edition Brown Book" when used as a compendium was
invaluable to the brass market. For the collector this kind of publication
is a must. For pricing, we all know that was difficult at best, but you gave
it one hell of shot. I personally will always be grateful for your
incredible efforts. Now for pricing, one must check the shows and the many
lists put out by on-line dealers.......and yup, sometimes eBay!
'Ever go to a general antiques/collectible meet or major flea market such as
the many found in Adamstown, PA?
Just about everything ever produced can be found and
collected...........including old condoms in the original tin from the
thirties. Why? Simple.............there are countless publications available
for these items....you see these on many book racks..........although I
seriously doubt one will find "Scumbag collecting........fun for the whole
family"
Brass today has very little written currently on the subject, although there
is a wonderful illustrated compendium on Sante Fe brass called "The
illustrated Guide to Sante Fe HO Brass Steam Locomotives" by Stephen
Redding. This is an incredibly fine book and could be a barometer for things
to come. I hope others follow by literate experts on other roads.
Sure, John, the newbie or modeler on a tight budget will buy a plastic steam
locomotive, but Bachmann will have to contract a serious mess of additional
Chinamen...... making Charles Crocker of the Central Pacific seem like a
piker....just to build a small fraction of what is available in older brass
models and damn near the same price. A modeler who can not find the plastic
loco to fit his or her period will most definitely look into older or less
expensive brass. The rest goes to the collector.
John, do keep those Bachmann locos out of your show window as the sun could
easily melt them..........and the world of brass will welcome you back with
open arms. Your knowledge of brass is incredible and still will get you the
25 cent cup of coffee! Here, I'll toss in a plate of apple pie to go with
the coffee.
HZ
--
Howard Zane
5236 Thunderhill Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410-730-1036
"PEACHCREEK" <peach...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030815111008...@mb-m25.aol.com...
MrRathburne
Prices are increasing on mass market items very fast and production
quantities are getting smaller.
"Bruce Favinger" <bwf...@swbell.net> wrote in message news:<tsY_a.1106$9i1...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Funnily enough Bachmann do that for the British O-gauge market. The
end result has been quite successful. Although they did make some
mistakes in the early days because they didn't understand the market,
like the wrong wheel standards. They took a pasting over this and were
going to pull out but one of the leading O-gauge hobby stores is
overseeing them to make them do it right. The result is eg accurate
and detailed 2-car diesel multiple units that could be used on any
layout from circa 1960 to the present day, for (pounds)400 or
(dollars) 640. The recently announced model is a prairie tank engine
which lasted from pre WW1 until almost the end of steam and is still
the mainstay of several preservation railways. Unpainted but a bargain
at (pounds) 400. They will all have been sold by the time they arrive
in the UK.
These will _definitely_ be used on layouts. The average Brit can't
afford to buy display art.
Tim Gill
plastic market offers less road-specific equipment and more to the general
side (USRA, etc.). This obviously gives them a much bigger target market.
Brass, though, offers a finer selection of road-specific locos, esp. in the
steam arena. In an era where lots of railroads built or modifed their own
equipment, sometimes that general plastic 2-8-0 or 4-8-4 might not fit your
road at all.
I can see why one would buy brass steam, for that reason, but I think that
the brass diesel/electric market is getting tougher and tougher competition
from the plastic manufacturers. Especially in N-Scale, with Atlas dipping
into the earlier first generation hood units...I can't see buying a pair of
ATSF F7's in brass when you can find a reasonably excellent representation
in plastic and detail it yourself! I guess that's why most have said that
it's a collector's market...
my two cents
-TG
"Bruce Favinger" <bwf...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:tsY_a.1106$9i1...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
PEACHCREEK
Thanks for the complimentso nthe Brown Book. I agree the prices are all wrong.
When I did the book I soon realized that all I did was set a new baseline.
The 3rd Edition is now 8 years old and the prices don't mean a thing. But the
prices have NOT escallated as thay had in the past. Some stuff is almost
unsaleable. ex. old Kumata diesels, old Westside passenger cars, PFM Russian
Decapods & PRR K-4s. The prices of these brass models have been seriously
impacted by the plastic/die-cast models. How about Big-Boys? I believe you
stated that the Marklin Big-Boy was the best model you had ever seen of that
loco. How will the Marklin Big Boy effect the prices of the old Tenshodo flat
boiler bottom brass models that used to sell for big bucks?
Whats the old Chinese curse? "May you live in interesting times."
And it just keeps getting more interesting.
John Glaab
Peach creek Shops
Gregory Procter
Bruce Favinger wrote:
There's always going to be models that the mainstream plastic manufacturers will
not produce so there's always going to be gaps that small concerns/cottage
industries can fill. Pewter and brass models can only ever be limited
production.
The nice thing for those of us in the business is that mainstream manufacturers
are heading or are now marketting at "prices the market will stand" rather than
"cost plus" so the difference between plastic and brass is now much less than it
once was.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Howard Zane
The items you had mentioned never sold well as they were from immense runs
and of rather common prototypes. Last year (FY 2002)was the best year I have
ever had in brass sales and aquisitions and appraisals www.brasstrains.com.
This year is not as good, but there is still model train season coming up
and our fall Timonium show www.gsmts.com .Not to worry about slow movers.
In the words of my famous uncle.....Testicles Van Zane, "A dead water
buffalo will sell if priced correctly."
Just recently I received a request for the PFM ATSF 2-8-0. I did not have
one, nor did I currently know of any for sale. Corrcect me if I'm
wrong............with over 8000 of these out there somewhere, it is hardly
on the endangered species list!. Go Figure!
Common brass diesels with plastic counterparts never flew off of the
shelves...........Uncommon prototypes like some of OMI's
models......different story. These go to collectors and there are quite a
few.....although nowhwere near as many as steam collectors.
HZ
--
Howard Zane
5236 Thunderhill Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410-730-1036
"PEACHCREEK" <peach...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030815145530...@mb-m15.aol.com...
Ernie Fisch
2000
>
> This perversity of inanimate objects has been known since the 1940s (without
> the video camera, of course.)
Actually it is a fundamental law of the universe. On occasion one may
achieve moral superiority over an inanimate object but it is a strain.
--
ernie fisch
Bob May
that plastic locos are a high production enviroment wihle a brass engine is
a much more lower production enviroment. There may be a lot of people that
will accept an approximate of a particular loco but when you get a Bachmann
GS-4 in NYC livery, there is a basic problem. The only GS engines were
built for the Southern Pacific as well as the only cab forward locos (aqside
from a small one for a northwestern Calif. shortline) were for that railroad
and there is no explaining that can be done to allow the claim for one
running on any other railroad.
Yes, some of the little engines by the various makers can theroeticall be
run on other roads with the proper modifications but the basic fact is that
most of the locos (even the supposedly standard USRA designs) built in the
US were built for only one road or even just one division of a road and they
didn't go far from there during their lifetime. What is worse is that
successive versions of that wheel arrangement often had radically different
details and thus, a single plastic loco can't handle the differences without
major surgery, not something that everybody is able to handle.
Some railroads you can build an almost complete roster for while other roads
are not in such a good condition for representation. At the least tho, the
brass maker can easily modify his brass parts to the next version of the
prototype a lot easier than the plastic maker can. N&W didn't just have Y6b
locos but a whole bunch of other locos of the same type but bought earlier
and thus have different appearances in some details.
Lastly, molded on piping just looks like crap. I don't care how you want to
consider it but you can't make a molded on pipe look right and it would be
better for the makers to not even bother with things like the sand pipes and
so forth, allowing the user to apply that detail if they desire to do so.
--
Bob May
Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less.
Works evevery time it is tried!
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>I don't own any brass, but I think the market will always exist. To me, the
>plastic market offers less road-specific equipment and more to the general
>side (USRA, etc.). This obviously gives them a much bigger target market.
>
>Brass, though, offers a finer selection of road-specific locos, esp. in the
>steam arena. In an era where lots of railroads built or modifed their own
>equipment, sometimes that general plastic 2-8-0 or 4-8-4 might not fit your
>road at all.
I agree. My HO is a combination of the V&T, and of stuff from the
1800s. None of which is really available in plastic. The Bachman early
4-4-0s are too big, are too general (no pun intended)and have some
rather obvious things missing like the piston rod (the connecting rod
moves in the slidebar but there is no rod from the cylinder. The IHC
early 4-4-0s have the same problem: they are oversize, generic models
painted as what they aren't.
The MDC stuff is, to put it bluntly, awful. The mogul is oversize and
doesn't look like any engine I've seen. The "Overton" cars are pure
fiction - they're based on a coach and combine that the Sierra
Railroad used on the tightly curved Angel's Camp branch. But two more
that never existed, and painted for every railroad under the sun?
Their longer cars are not much better. They don't look like anything
that ever ran on the V&T - and the Julie Bulette club car is the worst
offender.
The best of a sorry bunch are the Con-Cor early cars painted for the
V&T cars which actually do look like V&T numbers 1-4. The best
locomotive is the Rivarossi/IHC J.W. Bowker, but that is also
overscale.
>I can see why one would buy brass steam, for that reason, but I think that
>the brass diesel/electric market is getting tougher and tougher competition
>from the plastic manufacturers. Especially in N-Scale, with Atlas dipping
>into the earlier first generation hood units...I can't see buying a pair of
>ATSF F7's in brass when you can find a reasonably excellent representation
>in plastic and detail it yourself! I guess that's why most have said that
>it's a collector's market...
IMO it's overpriced. But it's the only way to get the specialist
stuff.
MY O-Scale interest is British - and Bachmann of all people have
imported brass from China. Most of which is pretty good, unpainted ang
reasonably priced.
Unfortunately none of it is any use to me as it is the wrong period.
Achmed Ptooey
When you think "brass" -- just substitute the phrase "hand crafted,
meticulously detailed, prototype replicas" and you will understand
that such models will never disappear.
Nearly all of the current crop of low price steam locomotives have
some kind of problem if you are trying to model a specific railroad's
locomotives. Even the wonderful Genesis diesels lack the level of
detail found on the latest brass diesels... but of course, they do
cost less.
Excellent mass produced models like Genesis are going to hurt the
resale value of any brass model that represents the same prototype.
No doubt about it! But just pick up John Glaab's "Brown Book" and
you'll see the incredible variety of prototype locomotives -- not
to mention cabooses, work cars, freight and passenger cars. There's
no way the "mass market" will ever be large enough to justify so
many different models.
Many brass models have been almost totally unaffected by plastic.
Name almost any W&R import, for example. The models most affected
are those 20 or more years old which weren't that great in the
first place. Clearly modern diesels have lost value -- but try to
find an Overland SP tunnel motor for less than $500! (They were
being produced for $250 about ten years ago.)
Ptooey
Andy Harman
wrote:
>Over the past few years with the availability of very nice plastic and now
>diecast and plastic locomotives I wonder what the future holds for brass
>models.
I don't know if the steam market is in any danger yet. If I could
afford to spend $2500 for, say, a Challenger Imports loco, I'd rather
have one of them than five Broadway Limited pencil sharpeners.
Andy
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.duckcreek.org - Pre-Interstate Urban Archaeology
-----------------------------------------------------------
KYager1126
say ' i would never buy a mercedes, i would rather have a volkswagen'. the
truth be known he couldn't afford a mercedes. my experience at some shows leads
me to believe the same is true when some think brass is not for long. back in
the 80's when kato became popular it was the Doom of brass diesels, guess
what? the brass diesle are now better and more expensive than ever but they
still sell. Just like cars there will always be upper and lower levels of
price, in trains it happens to be brass vs plastic, in cars its mercedes vs
volkswagen. just for info; i own 2 vw,s and 1 mercedes, lots of brass and
also plastic. so theres room for all. Karl of Karls Kabuse.
Mark Newton
> Nah, I don't think that brass engines will ever be gone for the one
> reason that plastic locos are a high production enviroment wihle a
> brass engine is a much more lower production enviroment. There may
> be a lot of people that will accept an approximate of a particular
> loco but when you get a Bachmann GS-4 in NYC livery, there is a basic
> problem. The only GS engines were built for the Southern Pacific as
> well as
The Western Pacific, and the Central of Georgia! <G!>
Cheers,
Mark.
Mark Newton
> The 3rd Edition is now 8 years old and the prices don't mean a thing.
> But the prices have NOT escallated as thay had in the past. Some
> stuff is almost unsaleable. ex. old Kumata diesels, old Westside
> passenger cars, PFM Russian Decapods & PRR K-4s. The prices of these
> brass models have been seriously impacted by the plastic/die-cast
> models.
With the best will in the world, this would only be of concern to
dealers, or speculators. As a modeller, I couldn't care less.
Another aspect of older brass which this thread doesn't seem to mention
is that in many cases, the older brass steam loco models <aren't> all
that well detailed, and their performance is often poor as well. I
recently had the opportunity to directly compare my P2K USRA 0-8-0 with
an older brass version of the same loco - I don't know who it was built
by, unfortunately. Of the two, the P2K was the superior model in every
respect.
While I have no doubt that the manufacture of brass will continue, for
many modellers there now exists a viable alternative in RTR plastic models.
Cheers,
Mark.
Daniel A. Mitchell
dramatically. Will the price continue to go up? ... probably. However
also probably not as much as in the past few years ... the big 'hit' is
likely past. The quantities built are now so small the locos are
essentially hand built anyway, with almost NO economies of volume. If
you build 500 of something they may be cheaper than if you build 50, but
if you build 50, they will be little different than if you built only
one. If you build enough of something, you can invest in more elaborate
tooling that makes parts fabrication faster and cheaper, but below some
limit, it's almost all hand work.
Will brass disappear? ... I doubt it. There are a few able and willing
to pay for the best, or an almost exact model of a specific prototype,
almost regardless of price. And many steam and electric fans are 'stuck'
... there are NO mass market models of the particular locos we like, and
it's highly doubtful there will ever be. The market for these items is
just too small to justify the tooling costs to make a plastic model of
these locos.
Yes, the new plastic locos are far, FAR better than the models of just a
few years back. Some compare favorably to the better brass, and are
actually BETTER than the "run of the mill" older brass. But their
numbers are few, less than a dozen. Even with the new models announced,
or speculated, they comprise far less than 1% of the steam loco types in
the USA alone. There was a bewildering variety of steam locos. That's
where brass comes in. Since they are essentially hand built, they can
make a 'production' run of perhaps 25 items. You can sell THAT many of
almost anything. Hence, they can specialize on very obscure prototypes
... as are most specific steam locos, and still sell them.
One has to sell thousands of plastic models to even begin to get back
your tooling costs. There's just not that much market for all but a
handful of 'popular road' steam locos.
For those with less money and some skill, there's also kitbashing to
'come close' to less common locos. 'Modularized' (separate cabs, domes,
boilers, etc.) plastic locos can make this task easier. There's LOTS of
room for improvement in kit design here.
And, of course, there's always scratchbuilding ... which is pretty much
what 'brass' is nowadays ... you just pay someone else to build your
loco for you.
Dan Mitchell
==========
Mark Newton
> Yes, some of the little engines by the various makers can
> theroeticall be run on other roads with the proper modifications but
> the basic fact is that most of the locos (even the supposedly
> standard USRA designs) built in the US were built for only one road
> or even just one division of a road and they didn't go far from there
> during their lifetime.
A very arguable premise, Bob. Of all the original USRA designs, the only
ones exclusive to one road were the heavy 4-6-2s/Erie K5s, if memory
serves. Take into account copies and designs that were closely derived
or developed from the USRA originals, and you have a large number of
very similar designs with a great amount of standardisation. Then,
consider Harriman standard designs, stock designs from the commercial
builders, second-hand locomotive sales, and the enforced standardisation
imposed by the WPB during WWII, and the picture starts to look
different.
I personally think that you overstate the case for diversity
among steam designs - I reckon there is sufficient commonality in basic
loco design/configuration to form the basis for a range of models suited
to many different prototypes.
> What is worse is that successive versions of that wheel arrangement
> often had radically different details and thus, a single plastic loco
> can't handle the differences without major surgery, not something
> that everybody is able to handle.
A good case could be made here for a basic rtr locomotive that is
<intended> for road specific detailing by the modeller, without needing
major surgery, if in fact that is required. It seems reasonable to me to
suggest that if the market can support as many different producers of
aftermarket detail parts for diesels as it currently does, there is
probably room for similar producers of steam detail parts. Particularly
given the number of quality plastic rtr steam models now available. But
then again, it would depend on whether you were pitching your product
towards model builders, or model consumers.
> Lastly, molded on piping just looks like crap. I don't care how you
> want to consider it but you can't make a molded on pipe look right
> and it would be better for the makers to not even bother with things
> like the sand pipes and so forth, allowing the user to apply that
> detail if they desire to do so.
I completely agree. Moulded pipework is a waste of effort, no matter how
well executed it is. I would much rather have the boiler moulding
supplied entirely free of detail, so as to simplify the job of adding
the detail specific to the prototype I am modelling. Even if I was
freelancing, more realistic looking "generic" detail would be easier to
achieve this way.
Of course, I am the first to admit that I have no way of being certain
whether the market would be receptive to models of this sort, but it's
an idea that appeals to me.
Mark Newton
> Brass vs Plastic'' reminds me of my days in the car business. A
> person would say ' i would never buy a mercedes, i would rather have
> a volkswagen'.
Not everyone wants to own a Mercedes - although they are popular as
taxis in Europe. And how many VWs can you buy for the price of one Mercedes?
Cheers,
Mark.
Werner-G.Pflaum
If you talk about comparable size, you don't even get 2 VWs for one Mercedes
over here in their homeland. And who needs 1 1/2 VWs >:-)
I think this is a bit different in the Plastic vs. Brass modelling. The
brass models I saw recently were up to 10 times as expensive as comparable
plastic models. Not that they didn't look a lot better ...
Regards,
George Werner Pflaum
fro...@thepond.com
I have a friend who thinks Mercedes are the world's best cars. This in spite of
empirical evidence to the contrary. He told me one time that his Mercedes would
outlast three of my Fords. I told him, "Perhaps, but it costs five times more." The
Ford that I currently drive is now starting its thirty-eighth year of service. It
could use a paint job, but doesn't really need it all that badly. I may put new seats
in it in a couple of years, they are showing some wear.
I don't think John's Mercedes is going to make 111 years. It's in pretty bad shape
already. Stored, undriveable; and my Ford, it had an eight year head start on John's
Benz.
Oh well ! So much for the myth of "German Engineering."
..................F>
KISS, GA
Ernie Fisch
<markn...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: 2000
>
> Another aspect of older brass which this thread doesn't seem to mention
> is that in many cases, the older brass steam loco models <aren't> all
> that well detailed, and their performance is often poor as well. I
> recently had the opportunity to directly compare my P2K USRA 0-8-0 with
> an older brass version of the same loco - I don't know who it was built
> by, unfortunately. Of the two, the P2K was the superior model in every
> respect.
Typically the modern plastic steam is better detailed than old brass
but... sometimes the plastic is a bit off or sometimes it is cast on.
It is easy to change fittings on a brass loco to upgrade it.
As far as running is concerned my older brass runs better than new
plastic (or brass). Lacking in detail to some extent but excellent
mechanisms. You may have to change the motor. Japanese open frame
motors were noisy. I have seen some beautiful new brass that ran
horribly. Some have so much detail stuff that they can only run on
tangent track. Something hits as soon as the engine tries to take a
curve.
One problem with brass, especially older stuff, is that in HO it is
frequently oversize. I have a brass AC-6 (Cab-forward) that dwarfs a
Rivarossi AC-12. The engines should be the same size. The Rivarossi
is right (okay the drivers are too small). The brass engine looks
much better. I have two brass P-10s (Espee pacifics) where the
tenders are clearly too high.
I like my older brass. It runs well and looks good when painted. It
is more rugged than plastic. Most of it cost less than today's
plastic. I will stick with it. I won't buy new brass because it is
priced out of sight and probably doesn't run as well.
--
ernie fisch
Ernie Fisch
<markn...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: 2000
>
> The Western Pacific, and the Central of Georgia! <G!>
Only GS-6s. These differ from the rest of the GSs
--
ernie fisch
E Litella
> I have a friend who thinks Mercedes are the world's best cars. This in spite of
> empirical evidence to the contrary.
Sorta like the yupster fools who think Range Rovers are the best SUVs (well,
in a way: they're off the road [read: in the shop] more), when their
reliability ratings and cost to repair are abominable. Maybe not as dumb as
the idiots who think they need a Hummer, but . . .
Mark Newton
> I have a friend who thinks Mercedes are the world's best cars. This
> in spite of empirical evidence to the contrary. He told me one time
> that his Mercedes would outlast three of my Fords. I told him,
> "Perhaps, but it costs five times more." The Ford that I currently
> drive is now starting its thirty-eighth year of service. It could use
> a paint job, but doesn't really need it all that badly. I may put new
> seats in it in a couple of years, they are showing some wear. I don't
> think John's Mercedes is going to make 111 years. It's in pretty bad
> shape already. Stored, undriveable; and my Ford, it had an eight year
> head start on John's Benz.
>
> Oh well ! So much for the myth of "German Engineering."
Indeed! I think sometimes the cachet of brass is based on a similar myth.
Cheers,
Mark.
Mark Newton
>>> Brass vs Plastic'' reminds me of my days in the car business. A
>>> person would say ' i would never buy a mercedes, i would rather
>>> have a volkswagen'.
>>
>> Not everyone wants to own a Mercedes - although they are popular as
>> taxis in Europe. And how many VWs can you buy for the price of one
>> Mercedes?
>
> If you talk about comparable size, you don't even get 2 VWs for one
> Mercedes over here in their homeland. And who needs 1 1/2 VWs >:-)
Ah, well, the car analogy was rather lost on me, anyway. I've never
owned a car or held a driver's licence in my entire life. :-)
> I think this is a bit different in the Plastic vs. Brass modelling.
> The brass models I saw recently were up to 10 times as expensive as
> comparable plastic models. Not that they didn't look a lot better ...
But were they 10 times better looking? Did they run 10 times better?
Cheers,
Mark.
Mark Newton
>
>>The Western Pacific, and the Central of Georgia! <G!>
>
> Only GS-6s. These differ from the rest of the GSs
Based on the GS-2s, weren't they? But I take your point, Ernie. But
then, I reiterate my original point, which was that even something as
distinctively "Espee" as the GS design could be found on other roads.
Magnificent engines, by the way. My Dad and I were lucky enough to visit
4449 at Portland, we were hugely impressed by her.
Cheers,
Mark.
Aredeer
>> Over the past few years with the availability of very nice plastic and now
>> diecast and plastic locomotives I wonder what the future holds for
Just try to model a wonderful little RR like tha Ma and Pa in cast or plastic.
fro...@thepond.com
I have a friend who bought a Range Rover in '98.
Hates it. Says it is the biggest, most expensive piece of junk he's ever owned. He is
also a fellow Jeep owner. His is an '85 CJ-7 with 380,000 miles on it.
Do you know that Jeeps get stuck more than any other car in North America?
I know this. I have "several" of them.
.................F>
Mudflats, GA
fro...@thepond.com
>
>Indeed! I think sometimes the cachet of brass is based on a similar myth.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mark.
>
Not being a collector, my interest in brass is restricted to that which is not
attainable by any other means. I have a brass HO scale alco DL-109. It is very nice
looking. It doesn't run well. I have a number of plastic DL-109s now. I am working
on them to make them look like GM&O prototypes. when I am finished I will have less
money invested in the six than I have in the one brass model and they will look just
as good. The time is insignificant because it is my hobby time that is spent doing
the work, which is what I enjoy and do for pleasure. I don't measure my pleasure in
units of currency.
............F>
Bob May
did go elsewhere but the GS-8 was a unique beastie that didn't look anything
like the rest of the locos and was probably as unrecognizable as a SP loco
as the GS-1 was for the lack of streamlining.
You're not going to be seeing GS-4's on any other road is my point, nor do
you tend to see any other road's engines on the SP for the most part. A NYC
Hudson could run anywhere in the US or Canada because of its size but they
only ran on the Big Four roads and especially not on the Pennsy unless the
NYC tracks through an area were out. Likewise, the Pennsy unique Belpair
firebox was used almost exclusively on that railroad so any engine built to
Pennsy standards is pretty much going to be a Pennsy engine and no where
esle.
Probably the most widely used engines were the Harriman Standard engines and
even then, the various roads that used them applied their appliances
differently on each road, including even the sand domes. Build a Harriman
Standard Consolidation and you have to provide several domes as well as
piping kits, bell and headlight setups to cover all of the variations.
Basically too many variations between classes of locos to be able to make
every one of them in plastic. Even brass has had a trouble over the many
years that brass has been imported to get all of the classes of different
locos.
Bob May
The only thing that I could consider for one of those is the 280SL but those
are still slow cars for the model type.
Bob May
anywhere from extremely poor to very good. Brands like PFM and Westside
tended to be a lot better for operation than something like NJBrass or GEM
which often came in with poor motors that sometimes wouldn't run right out
of the box. Engines like those tended to get some loving care in the
running dept. and have gone on to become excellent performers.
James D Thompson
The Bachmann 4-6-0 is a Ma&Pa engine.
David Thompson
"The humans founded America, mastered the nuclear forces, and destroyed
the original Mars about thirty thousand years ago."
"So George Washington was there when they split the atom?"
"Could have been."
-from "Triumph of the Terrans", copyright 24L1042
Mark Newton
>> Indeed! I think sometimes the cachet of brass is based on a similar
>> myth.
> Not being a collector, my interest in brass is restricted to that
> which is not attainable by any other means. I have a brass HO scale
> alco DL-109. It is very nice looking. It doesn't run well. I have
> a number of plastic DL-109s now. I am working on them to make them
> look like GM&O prototypes. when I am finished I will have less money
> invested in the six than I have in the one brass model and they will
> look just as good. The time is insignificant because it is my hobby
> time that is spent doing the work, which is what I enjoy and do for
> pleasure. I don't measure my pleasure in units of currency.
'Kenoath! I could not have put it any more succinctly, Froggy!
Cheers,
Mark.
Mark Newton
> Depending upon the maker of the brass engine, the performance can be
> anywhere from extremely poor to very good. Brands like PFM and
> Westside tended to be a lot better for operation than something like
> NJBrass or GEM which often came in with poor motors that sometimes
> wouldn't run right out of the box. Engines like those tended to get
> some loving care in the running dept. and have gone on to become
> excellent performers.
Indeed, Bob, this has been my experience, having done a number of
rebuilds or repowerings of brass steam locos for friends and associates.
And I reckon this is why I have a slightly jaundiced view of the whole
brass "mystique". For the sort of money that these folks have paid for
their models, they certainly shouldn't then have to spend even more
money to replace the mechanism with something that actually works.
If we stick with the Mercedes analogy for bit longer, how many customers
would they have if the only way you could drive them was to replace all
of the mechanicals with aftermarket parts from Holden? <G!>
Cheers,
Mark.
Mark Newton
> The GS-6 did have some engines go to the WP during WW2 and some GS-8
> locos did go elsewhere but the GS-8 was a unique beastie that didn't
> look anything like the rest of the locos and was probably as
> unrecognizable as a SP loco as the GS-1 was for the lack of
> streamlining. You're not going to be seeing GS-4's on any other road
> is my point, nor do you tend to see any other road's engines on the
> SP for the most part. A NYC Hudson could run anywhere in the US or
> Canada because of its size but they only ran on the Big Four roads
> and especially not on the Pennsy unless the NYC tracks through an
> area were out. Likewise, the Pennsy unique Belpair firebox was used
> almost exclusively on that railroad so any engine built to Pennsy
> standards is pretty much going to be a Pennsy engine and no where
> esle.
Well, yeah - I take your point here, Bob. The nitpicker in me just
couldn't resist making those previous posts. :-)
(The nitpicker in me will strenously resist the tempatation to mention
the TH&B Hudsons, or the various Pennsy engines sold to the Interstate
RR, the L&HR, or the DT&I. I won't say nuffink! VBG!)
> Probably the most widely used engines were the Harriman Standard
> engines and even then, the various roads that used them applied their
> appliances differently on each road, including even the sand domes.
> Build a Harriman Standard Consolidation and you have to provide
> several domes as well as piping kits, bell and headlight setups to
> cover all of the variations. Basically too many variations between
> classes of locos to be able to make every one of them in plastic.
> Even brass has had a trouble over the many years that brass has been
> imported to get all of the classes of different locos.
Maybe, maybe not. It's interesting to look at the mass produced
injection moulded kits for things like aircraft and armour, where some
clever design and tooling allows for numerous variants to be catered for
from the one basic kit.
I like your example of the Harriman Standard designs, as they would be
ideal candidates for exactly that sort of treatment. I cannot imagine
any "technical" reasons that would prevent tooling a model steam
locomotive that way - cost and consumer appeal may well be the big
problems, though.
But consider, say, a basic Harriman 2-8-2 in plastic. The mechanism and
major runnning gear components could all be common, as would be the
basic smokebox/boiler/firebox moulding. After that, individual mouldings
for the features and details could be specific to the road being
modelled. One basic model could then cater for the Union Pacific,
Southern Pacific, Illinois Central, Chicago & Alton and Central of
Georgia, and the other shortlines that bought these engines secondhand.
Whaddya reckon?
All the best,
Mark.
OLDFARHT
>firebox was used almost exclusively on that railroad so any engine built to
>Pennsy standards is pretty much going to be a Pennsy engine and no where
>esle.
Or maybe LIRR, PRSL, NY&LB, and that's just the roads I'm familiar with from
the East coast.
Walt
Christopher A. Lee
>Wasn't aware NY&LB owned any locomotives..as it is/was a ROW RR only
>leasing trackage rights to CNJ, PRR etc. But Great Northern had some
>Belpaire fireboxes too, 0-8-0, 2-8-0, 4-8-4, 2-8-8-2, 2-10-2, & 2-6-8-0.
They didn't look like the Pennsylvania Belpaire. The GN Belpaire flat
top actually looked like part of the firebox. The Pennsylvania's
looked like box added on as an appendage.
>Ray H.
Wolf Kirchmeir
=>> Likewise, the Pennsy unique Belpair
=>>firebox was used almost exclusively on that railroad so any engine built to
=>>Pennsy standards is pretty much going to be a Pennsy engine and no where
=>>esle.
=>
=>Or maybe LIRR, PRSL, NY&LB, and that's just the roads I'm familiar with from
=>the East coast.
=>
=>Walt
And the Great Wetsren Railway of England; it was a GWR trademark. When CMEs
(Chief Mechanical Engineers) from that RR went to other lines, they took
their preference for Belpaire firebox with them, so it also turned up on the
LMS, for example.
--
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River, Ontario, Canada
=========================================================
Never try to teach a pig to dance. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
=========================================================
<just one w and plain ca for correct address>
Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:25:11 -0400 (EDT), "Wolf Kirchmeir"
<wwol...@sympatico.can> wrote:
>On 17 Aug 2003 15:52:19 GMT, OLDFARHT wrote:
>
>=>> Likewise, the Pennsy unique Belpair
>=>>firebox was used almost exclusively on that railroad so any engine built to
>=>>Pennsy standards is pretty much going to be a Pennsy engine and no where
>=>>esle.
>=>
>=>Or maybe LIRR, PRSL, NY&LB, and that's just the roads I'm familiar with from
>=>the East coast.
>=>
>=>Walt
>
>And the Great Wetsren Railway of England; it was a GWR trademark. When CMEs
>(Chief Mechanical Engineers) from that RR went to other lines, they took
>their preference for Belpaire firebox with them, so it also turned up on the
>LMS, for example.
Again, that was a particular style of Belpaire. It appeared on the LMS
locomotives and their developments on BR, via Stanier, and on the
South Eastern and Chatham then the Southern via Holcroft, who went to
work for Maunsell.
Other Belpaires like the Midland Railway's and the Great Central's
were more like square boxes with rounded corners. Churchward's Great
Western Belpaire was pretty distinctive, as was the Pennsylvania's.
The GN Belpaire looked rather like the Belpaire used by Bulleid, or
the one on the Stanier Pacifics, both of which were Wootten type
fireboxes. Churchward built one like this, but on his solitary
pacific.
The standard GWR/LMS/BR/SECR Belpaire had flowing curves to narrow it
to fit between the frames but to flare out to the boiler's diameter,
and also fairly generous curves tobetween the side and top. The
Pennsylvania Belpaire looked like a box added onto a round firebox.
OLDFARHT
>leasing trackage rights to CNJ, PRR etc.
Right you are. But the last PRR steam loco that I ever saw in regular service
was a K-4 (maybe K-5) that passed in front of me at a grade crossing in Asbury
Park, NJ on 9/7/54. I was enroute to 4 years in the USAF, and when I came home
steam was history.
Walt
Ernie Fisch
<markn...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: 2000
>
> Based on the GS-2s, weren't they? But I take your point, Ernie. But
> then, I reiterate my original point, which was that even something as
> distinctively "Espee" as the GS design could be found on other roads.
Yes, but with a vestibule cab on the GS-6. The engines were
distinctive looking but when you take off the smokebox front and
skyline casing they were conventional northerns.
>
> Magnificent engines, by the way. My Dad and I were lucky enough to visit
> 4449 at Portland, we were hugely impressed by her.
And I was lucky enough to ride the steam powered Daylights many times.
--
ernie fisch
Bob May
fair number of tender castings as well as different cabs for a start.
I'll note that there were no Mikes on the Harriman roads from that era.
Bob May
I also forgot the many GN locos that had a wider version of the Belpair as
they were burning low grade coal out west and thus needed a much bigger
firebox.
Jim Bernier
The GN did use Belpaire boilers, but not due to low grade coal. The NP was
the railroad that had lots of on-line 'Lignite' coal and had very large
fireboxes in their locomotives. The called the stuff 'flamable dirt'......
Jim Bernier
JCunington
>the railroad that had lots of on-line 'Lignite' coal and had very large
>fireboxes in their locomotives. The called the stuff 'flamable dirt'......
>
Better than bituminous.
I finally made the connection a while back. Lignite, like lignum in wood -
woody coal.
Bituminous - think "bitumen" - pitch or tar.
Anthracite - think...anthrax? Uhhh....I need some help with that one.
Jay
E Litella
> Anthracite - think...anthrax? Uhhh....I need some help with that one.
Try anthracene. Think big-time carcinogen. See CFR-49.
Aredeer
>plastic.
>
> The Bachmann 4-6-0 is a Ma&Pa engine.
>
>David Thompson
>
Not counting the gas/electric, that is one out of six.. all of which are
represented in brass.
Daniel A. Mitchell
similar, I think you also overstate your case.
VERY few steam locos were nearly identical. Even brand new ones of the
same class, in the same order, right from the builder. You can find
difference in piping layout, etc., dependent on the individual
pipefitter that ran the lines. This was NOT highly standardized, as long
as the result worked. Ni-picking, yes, but some care about such things.
A little of the same exists today in the latest Diesels (and autos),
There's still some hand fitting and minor modifications from one unit
to the next. A lot less than in steam days, though, as Diesel
manufacturing is more of a 'production' process than steam ever was.
Next turn the locos loose on their owner's railroad and each soon gets
modified most every time it's shopped. Pipes get moved, applicances
changed or moved, cab styles get modified, tender swapped, etc. Many
steam and some Diesel locos got wholesale rebuilds and a whole new
'company' look ... as happened to many (most?) of the USRA designs.
Sometimes it's even more extensive, as when 2-6+-6-2's and 2-6+8-0's
turn into 2-8-2's. or a 2-8+8+8-4 becomes two locos, a 2-8+8-0 and a
2-8-2. Or a standard gauge 2-8-0 even turns into a narrow gauge 2-8-2.
And many more. Again, this is less so today, as much Diesel servicing is
now handled by manufacturer's representatives, and locos stay more
'stock' than they used to. But even the maufacturer's make continual
changes, some quite visible.
Perhaps there was less 'individualism' on some foreign (the the USA)
railroads, but I doubt it was non existent; and in this thread we're
talking mainly USA practice anyway.
So very few steam models can accurately represent more than ONE specific
prototype loco, and that only on some specific date.
How close is 'good enough' depends on they buyer/builder/ operator's
personal preference. Obviously MANY find 'generic' loco models, even
USRA designs, sadly lacking in specific details. Sure, it's often easy
to modify the models to far better represent a specific prototype, but
FEW are willing or able to do so. Fewer willing than able. People are
lazy, or just don't have the time. Few inherently don't have, or
couldn't learn, the skills needed. MANY just don't have the inclination
to do so (a larger 'camp' all the time it seems, with the trend to more
RTR models). But they still want an accurate model.
THAT'S where brass comes in ... for those that can afford it. And for
the 'collectors', and the 'speculators', who want or deal in brass as
more of an art object than a model. Many current brass steam does
represent ONE particular locomotive ... with 'runs' often on the order
of 25 items. Perhaps the builder/importer offers several different
variations at the same time ... so the fundamental model is made in a
run of perhaps a hundred, with three to five specific variations offered.
Also true that much EARLY brass was, and is, inferior to the newer
plastic models. Some was downright crude (even at the time it came out).
Some ran like coffee grinders .. a few didn't run at all. And many of
these were every bit as 'generic' as the current plastic models. A few
brass locos had NO specific prototypes, just like most plastic and
diecast models of the period. But most brass models have some prototype.
Rivarossi was the first to offer a series of 'plastic' locos that
represented some specific prototypes. Today we have fine running,
reasonably accurate, and beautifully detailed plastic steam and Diesel
models. However, especially for the steam models, these can only very
roughly represent a fraction of any big road's roster of prototype locos.
For those who can and choose to do even minor modifications, the
possibilities expand enormously. Even then, however, you can only come
even close to a small fraction of the steam power that was used on USA
roads. Extensive modification that few have the skills to perform is
needed to do better.
The variety of brass steam models already released exceeds those of
(good) plastic steam by more than a factor of 100. This may narrow, but
won't go away anytime soon, and current brass is getting better, and FAR
more specific than it used to be (and far more expensive as well).
Dan Mitchell
==========
Mark Newton wrote:
>
> Bob May wrote:
>
> > Yes, some of the little engines by the various makers can
> > theroeticall be run on other roads with the proper modifications but
> > the basic fact is that most of the locos (even the supposedly
> > standard USRA designs) built in the US were built for only one road
> > or even just one division of a road and they didn't go far from there
> > during their lifetime.
>
> A very arguable premise, Bob. Of all the original USRA designs, the only
> ones exclusive to one road were the heavy 4-6-2s/Erie K5s, if memory
> serves. Take into account copies and designs that were closely derived
> or developed from the USRA originals, and you have a large number of
> very similar designs with a great amount of standardisation. Then,
> consider Harriman standard designs, stock designs from the commercial
> builders, second-hand locomotive sales, and the enforced standardisation
> imposed by the WPB during WWII, and the picture starts to look
> different.
>
> I personally think that you overstate the case for diversity
> among steam designs - I reckon there is sufficient commonality in basic
> loco design/configuration to form the basis for a range of models suited
> to many different prototypes.
>
> > What is worse is that successive versions of that wheel arrangement
> > often had radically different details and thus, a single plastic loco
> > can't handle the differences without major surgery, not something
> > that everybody is able to handle.
>
> A good case could be made here for a basic rtr locomotive that is
> <intended> for road specific detailing by the modeller, without needing
> major surgery, if in fact that is required. It seems reasonable to me to
> suggest that if the market can support as many different producers of
> aftermarket detail parts for diesels as it currently does, there is
> probably room for similar producers of steam detail parts. Particularly
> given the number of quality plastic rtr steam models now available. But
> then again, it would depend on whether you were pitching your product
> towards model builders, or model consumers.
>
> > Lastly, molded on piping just looks like crap. I don't care how you
> > want to consider it but you can't make a molded on pipe look right
> > and it would be better for the makers to not even bother with things
> > like the sand pipes and so forth, allowing the user to apply that
> > detail if they desire to do so.
>
> I completely agree. Moulded pipework is a waste of effort, no matter how
> well executed it is. I would much rather have the boiler moulding
> supplied entirely free of detail, so as to simplify the job of adding
> the detail specific to the prototype I am modelling. Even if I was
> freelancing, more realistic looking "generic" detail would be easier to
> achieve this way.
>
> Of course, I am the first to admit that I have no way of being certain
> whether the market would be receptive to models of this sort, but it's
> an idea that appeals to me.
Daniel A. Mitchell
Hardly ANY product line has a linear quality vs. cost curve. The upper
end of the curve rises dramatically. At ever point on the curve there's
usually better available, at much higher price, or cheaper with some
loss of features or performance. Each of us must decide the point at
which we are satisfied with the quality at a price we can afford. And,
most will come to slightly, or even NOT slightly, different answers.
Dan Mitchell
==========
Mark Newton wrote:
<snip>
PEACHCREEK
Please use the American notation for American steam, Robert LaMessina
notwithstanding. The European notation may be more descriptive but it is
historcally incorrect for describing American locos.
John Glaab
Daniel A. Mitchell
Actually, a LOT of railroads had a few, or even a whole class, of
Belpaire boilered locos. Many foreign roads (the the USA) also had them.
In the USA, of the big roads, only PRR and GN had huge fleets of them.
And, even both of those roads had LOTS of locos with conventional
"radial stayed' fireboxes. It is often conceded that the Belpaire
firebox is slightly better, but more expensive to build and maintain.
Both PRR and GN had more extensive shops than most roads, and could
better provide the higher maintenance needed. Both roads also built
substantial numbers of their own locos. That MAY explain their use of so
many of these types.
Dan Mitchell
==========
Daniel A. Mitchell
jackets covering it, varied widely. Even on the PRR and the GN. Some
locos, or whole classes, had flat topped fireboxes, some had tapered,
some had sharp corners, or more rounded. In general, VERY general, the
GN's fireboxes were more flat topped than those of the PRR, but many
exceptions can be found for both.
Dan Mitchell
==========
Mark Newton
> Immaterial!
No, just facetious! :-)
Daniel A. Mitchell
Sorry, but I use what I prefer. YMMV. The notation I use conveys
substantially more information, and significant information for those
that can interpret it, and I prefer it, as I've stated many times here.
I will continue to use it
Those who don't care for the notation I use can either easily translate
the "+" signs' as "-" signs, and arrive at the more common (and more
ambiguous) notation, or ignore the posts altogether. Their choice.
Dan Mitchell
==========
PEACHCREEK
You have every right to be historically incorrect. The rest of use will just
smile :>)
Daniel A. Mitchell
Dan Mitchell
==========
Mark Newton wrote:
>
> Daniel A. Mitchell wrote:
>
> > Immaterial!
>
> No, just facetious! :-)
><snip>
Daniel A. Mitchell
I see it as a technical issue ... as for history, I really don't care
how long others have been technically incorrect! :>)
Dan Mitchell
==========
Roger T.
"Daniel A. Mitchell" <danm...@umflint.edu> wrote in message
news:3F438C08...@umflint.edu...
> Sorry, but I use what I prefer. YMMV. The notation I use conveys
> substantially more information, and significant information for those
> that can interpret it, and I prefer it, as I've stated many times here.
> I will continue to use it
>
> Those who don't care for the notation I use can either easily translate
> the "+" signs' as "-" signs, and arrive at the more common (and more
> ambiguous) notation, or ignore the posts altogether. Their choice.
Right on.
2-6+6-2 is, IM(Not humble)O, a better system of notation.
--
Cheers
Roger T.
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Home of the Great Eastern Railway
Gregory Procter
"Roger T." wrote:
> "Daniel A. Mitchell" <danm...@umflint.edu> wrote in message
> news:3F438C08...@umflint.edu...
>
> > Sorry, but I use what I prefer. YMMV. The notation I use conveys
> > substantially more information, and significant information for those
> > that can interpret it, and I prefer it, as I've stated many times here.
> > I will continue to use it
> >
> > Those who don't care for the notation I use can either easily translate
> > the "+" signs' as "-" signs, and arrive at the more common (and more
> > ambiguous) notation, or ignore the posts altogether. Their choice.
>
> Right on.
>
> 2-6+6-2 is, IM(Not humble)O, a better system of notation.
The "+" is normally used to indicate a pair of locomotives permanently
coupled together. eg a pair of 2-6-0 steam locomotives coupled cab to cab or
an early Electric where the transformer might be in one half and the control
equipment in the second. The German E91 (later Class 191) is an example.
(normally refered to as a 1'C+C 1' in German notation)
Regards,
Greg.P.
Daniel A. Mitchell
Actually the "+" implies an articulated joint in the FRAME of the loco,
and arranged such that it takes the pulling forces of the locomotive. It
also usually implies that the two connected parts of the loco are
equalized (or compensated) together, sharing loco weight. It is far more
descriptive of how a locomotive is configured than just using the common
"-" sign to divide the wheels into groups.
For example, the VGN Triplex loco is sometimes (poorly) listed as a
2-8-8-8-4. This could be interpreted to be a 2-8-8-0 with a 0-8-4
engine under the tender. I suspect this is what many consider these
locos to be ... and that interpretation is totally wrong.
Actually, the VGN loco is a 2-8+8+8-4. This makes clear that the
apparent "tender" is really a PART of the main locomotive. they share a
common articulated frame. Actually, the loco has NO tender ... it's a
huge articulated tank loco. I suppose more properly it should be called
a 2-8+8+8-4T. In this notation, the (incorrect) assumption listed above
would be a 2-8+8-8-4. You can even add parentheses to make such
groupings more obvious, like: (2-8+8-0)-(0-8-4). NOT!, BIG difference.
And consider the Southern Ry. "Tractors'. IIRC (I'm NOT any kind of
expert on the Southern) they were something like 2-8-2-4-6-0 (two
different variants, IIRC). In the simpler system you can't tell WHAT
they are, or how the frame or driving wheels are divided up. If you use
the convention I prefer, the description stays the SAME, but now you
KNOW that there are NO articulated joints. The loco is not a proper
articulated, but just two coupled engines. If you choose to add
parentheses such a loco becomes: (2-8-2)-(4-6-0). Now it's obvious that
you have two separate conventional engines permanently coupled but not articulated.
With common locos it's not too confusing to use the simpler notation,
but there were some outlandish complicated steam and electric locos
made, with very strange non-obvious articulation, and the simpler
notation will give you a VERY incorrect interpretation of how they were
assembled or driven.
I prefer the more complicated and informative notation, and that's what
I'll normally use. Everyone else use whatever YOU prefer. Mostly, we'll
still understand each other.
Dan Mitchell
==========
Christopher A. Lee
<danm...@umflint.edu> wrote:
>John:
>
>Sorry, but I use what I prefer. YMMV. The notation I use conveys
>substantially more information, and significant information for those
>that can interpret it, and I prefer it, as I've stated many times here.
>I will continue to use it
>
>Those who don't care for the notation I use can either easily translate
>the "+" signs' as "-" signs, and arrive at the more common (and more
>ambiguous) notation, or ignore the posts altogether. Their choice.
Dan is right - and he's not using European notation. The + simply
shows the point of articulation. Even in America.
In European notation a Pacific would be a 2C1. Americans use a subset
of this for diesels, eg C-C although a European might say...
C-C if each 6-wheeled truck has the drive connected eg by side rods or
a hydraulic drive
Co-Co if each axle on a 6-wheel truck is independantly driven eg by
separate electric motors
A1A-A1A if the outer axles of 6-wheel truck are powered and the
central one is not, like on the EMD E-units.
Gregory Procter
"Daniel A. Mitchell" wrote:
> Once more, for those who care or are just curious.
>
> Actually the "+" implies an articulated joint in the FRAME of the loco,
> and arranged such that it takes the pulling forces of the locomotive. It
> also usually implies that the two connected parts of the loco are
> equalized (or compensated) together, sharing loco weight.
That last part is incorrect. The "+" shows two locomotive parts that do _not_ have any
equalization.
> It is far more
> descriptive of how a locomotive is configured than just using the common
> "-" sign to divide the wheels into groups.
>
> For example, the VGN Triplex loco is sometimes (poorly) listed as a
> 2-8-8-8-4. This could be interpreted to be a 2-8-8-0 with a 0-8-4
> engine under the tender. I suspect this is what many consider these
> locos to be ... and that interpretation is totally wrong.
>
> Actually, the VGN loco is a 2-8+8+8-4. This makes clear that the
> apparent "tender" is really a PART of the main locomotive. they share a
> common articulated frame. Actually, the loco has NO tender ... it's a
> huge articulated tank loco. I suppose more properly it should be called
> a 2-8+8+8-4T. In this notation, the (incorrect) assumption listed above
> would be a 2-8+8-8-4. You can even add parentheses to make such
> groupings more obvious, like: (2-8+8-0)-(0-8-4). NOT!, BIG difference.
This loco was a 2-8-8-0+0-8-4 in that the loco and "tender" are on separate frames with
no equalization or sharing of load between them. The moving fore-frame, on the other
hand, shares the weight of the boiler etc with the rigid boiler frame and therefore
gets a "-". If you wish to be more precise (2-8)-8-0+0-8-2 is the alternative. The
"-8-0" part does not get parenthesis because it is not articulated in prototype form.
>
>
> And consider the Southern Ry. "Tractors'. IIRC (I'm NOT any kind of
> expert on the Southern) they were something like 2-8-2-4-6-0 (two
> different variants, IIRC). In the simpler system you can't tell WHAT
> they are, or how the frame or driving wheels are divided up. If you use
> the convention I prefer, the description stays the SAME, but now you
> KNOW that there are NO articulated joints. The loco is not a proper
> articulated, but just two coupled engines. If you choose to add
> parentheses such a loco becomes: (2-8-2)-(4-6-0). Now it's obvious that
> you have two separate conventional engines permanently coupled but not articulated.
>
> With common locos it's not too confusing to use the simpler notation,
> but there were some outlandish complicated steam and electric locos
> made, with very strange non-obvious articulation, and the simpler
> notation will give you a VERY incorrect interpretation of how they were
> assembled or driven.
>
> I prefer the more complicated and informative notation, and that's what
> I'll normally use. Everyone else use whatever YOU prefer. Mostly, we'll
> still understand each other.
There's a lovely Turkish steam locomotive series, built as a 4-6-0 with wide spaced
rear driver. The axle loading was too high when the loco was downgraded from top link
usage so a carrying axle was added between the second and third drivers! 4-6-2? 4-6/2?
4-6-2-0?
Belgian 2-6-2 where the 2s are drivers and the 6 are carrying axles?
Regards,
Greg.P.
PEACHCREEK
cover all possibilities.
Some things man is not meant to know ......................:>)
PEACHCREEK
system th othe European system eg. - to +.
Much ink was spilled with people ranting about the change. No doubt that the
European system is nore descriptive, albiet "foreign" to American railroaders
.
As soon as David Morgan retired , Trains changed back to the American system.
Why? My guess is that the new management didn't want to offend the readers who
knew the American system from their first experience with steam.
Is the European system more informative? Yep. Fact is I don't need the extra
info. I've been around long enough to know where an articulated bends.
John Glaab
Christopher A. Lee
The Mallet-type isn't the only articulated.
>John Glaab
Mark Newton
>
> Belgian 2-6-2 where the 2s are drivers and the 6 are carrying axles?
Petiet's engines? I thought they were French, and ran on the Nord? Are
we thinking of the same locos?
Daniel A. Mitchell
the Erie version), or Mallets in general. Articulated joints (on
steam, and often electric and large Diesel power) usually carry and
transfer weight as well as pulling forces. Thus they're a part of the
loco's suspension. Often they're a form of only semi rotating U-joint,
and look rather like a ball and socket. Simpler versions are just a
'tongue and groove' arrangement with an internal drawpin. In both
versions, vertical travel is VERY limited, if allowed at all. Thus any
vertical motion of one frame section transfers that motion, and the
resulting loading, to the adjoining frame section.
The front portion of the triplex loco is a more-or-less conventional
Mallet steam loco, so it most certainly does warrant a "+" sign between
the first two sets of drivers. On the Triplex there's also an
articulated joint between the 'loco' and 'tender' portions ... NOT
merely a drawbar (which carries no suspension loads) as on most locos.
The loco had a three piece articulated frame. That's why it had NO
tender. Thus it's a 2-8+8+8-4 as stated.
Dan Mitchell
==========
Gregory Procter wrote:
>
> "Daniel A. Mitchell" wrote:
>
> > Once more, for those who care or are just curious.
> >
> > Actually the "+" implies an articulated joint in the FRAME of the loco,
> > and arranged such that it takes the pulling forces of the locomotive. It
> > also usually implies that the two connected parts of the loco are
> > equalized (or compensated) together, sharing loco weight.
>
> That last part is incorrect. The "+" shows two locomotive parts that do _not_ have any
> equalization.
> <snip>
>
> This loco was a 2-8-8-0+0-8-4 in that the loco and "tender" are on separate frames with
> no equalization or sharing of load between them. The moving fore-frame, on the other
> hand, shares the weight of the boiler etc with the rigid boiler frame and therefore
> gets a "-". If you wish to be more precise (2-8)-8-0+0-8-2 is the alternative. The
> "-8-0" part does not get parenthesis because it is not articulated in prototype form.
>
> ><snip>
Mark Newton
>>>> Likewise, the Pennsy unique Belpair firebox was used almost
>>>> exclusively on that railroad so any engine built to Pennsy
>>>> standards is pretty much going to be a Pennsy engine and no
>>>> where esle.
>> But Great Northern had some Belpaire fireboxes too, 0-8-0, 2-8-0,
>> 4-8-4, 2-8-8-2, 2-10-2, & 2-6-8-0.
>
> They didn't look like the Pennsylvania Belpaire. The GN Belpaire flat
> top actually looked like part of the firebox. The Pennsylvania's
> looked like box added on as an appendage.
The difference in appearance is for the most part accounted for by the
design and construction methods favoured by the Pennsy, which differ
somewhat from those used by other roads - no surprise there. :-)
Christopher is, I imagine, more familar with the typical UK/European
style Bepaire firebox where the outer wrapper and side sheets are made
in one piece, and the wrapper and firebox crown sheet both are almost
flat - they do have a small degree of set, but this is not readily
apparent to the casual observer. The radius at the corners is relatively
small.
The Pennsy and the railroad trade journals of the time alike described
the PRR designs as a modified Belpaire type. In this case the wrapper
and sidesheets were typically separate, with the seam below the radius
of the wrapper plate, which is larger by comparison with other Belpaire
designs. Both wrapper and crown sheet have a large radius set, as
opposed to being nearly flat. The layout of the crown stays is slightly
radial, as opposed to the parallel layout of a more typical Belpaire
firebox. The combustion chamber was relatively lengthy, and projected
well forward of the firebox sidesheets.
I am not familiar with the details of GN Belpaire boilers, but I will
hazard a guess and say that they were probably more like the typical
UK/European design, judging fromn the limited photgraphic references I
have to hand.
As an aside, I wish rail book authors and publishers would include more
photographs of steam locomotives being built, or maintained, than they
currently do. I find these far more interesting than endless posed 3/4
views, or runbys.
All the best,
Mark.
Mark Newton
> The GN Belpaire looked rather like the Belpaire used by Bulleid, or
> the one on the Stanier Pacifics, both of which were Wootten type
> fireboxes. Churchward built one like this, but on his solitary
> pacific.
Did you mean to write this? I ask because a Wooten firebox is a very
specific design intended to burn culm - anthracite waste - and is quite
unlike anything Bulleid or Stanier used. I reckon they would be
seriously out of gauge on the Southern!
Perhaps you are referring to the difference between a narrow,
between-the-frames, firebox, and a wide firebox on an engine with a
trailing axle, as per your three examples?
> The standard GWR/LMS/BR/SECR Belpaire had flowing curves to narrow it
> to fit between the frames but to flare out to the boiler's diameter,
> and also fairly generous curves tobetween the side and top. The
> Pennsylvania Belpaire looked like a box added onto a round firebox.
>
An interesting description, because in a sense the PRR Belpaire
fireboxes were a hybrid of radial stay and Belpaire firebox design.
Cheers,
Mark.
Daniel A. Mitchell
perhaps a working model could cover ALL possibilities! I just prefer a
more descriptive notation than most. It's still not all encompassing.
Further complication with steam loco description can involve HOW the
power is transferred to the driving wheels. Lets consider the usual ONE
more or less rigid frame (sprung and equalized of course, usually) with
all the wheels directly 'coupled' by a single set of rods. This is the
frame type one usually associates with a 'normal' steam loco.
The power is applied to this mechanism by steam cylinders connected to
the mechanism by more rods, and usually (not always, some locos had
oscillating cylinders) crossheads of some form to translate the
reciprocating motion into rotary motion.
The cylinders were usually in front of the drivers, but could be above
(as on many early locos), or behind (as on the SP cab forwards). Other
locos with (some) trailing cylinders include the PRR's Q-1 Duplex, the
B&O's "George Emerson" Duplex, or the the D&H high pressure 4-8-0 loco.
Three or more cylinder locos further complicate the description, and
this often includes rigid frame compounds too, as many had more than two
cylinders. One example would again be the D&H high pressure 4-8-0 loco.
Less exotic would be any of the UP, SP, IHB, etc. three cylinder locos.
Here we have various SETS of cylinders and rods driving the same main
mechanism, often at differing points and often on different axles all at
the same time. Some cylinders may be ahead and some behind the drivers.
Some cylinders may be between or above others. Some may be horizontal
while others are inclined. Some may share a common crosshead. Some may
drive on the outside of the wheels with crankpins, while others drive on
cranked axles between the frames. Or any combination of the above. And
imagine the goofy multiple valve gears needed to control all this action.
And, for the record, there were also locos with articulated frames and
side-rod drive coupling all the wheels of the moving frame sections. To
VISUALIZE this, imagine a conventional 'Mallet' style articulated with
only ONE set of cylinders, yet driving all the wheels of both chassis
only with rods, and allowing the usual swiveling motion of the front set
of drivers. I can't recall an actual loco of quite THAT configuration,
but it will serve for illustration. More 'monkey motion'! It would be
possible. The ones that WERE built were somewhat different than this
simple mind exercise, but you get the idea.
Dan Mitchell
==========
Daniel A. Mitchell
it's 'articulated'! :-)
Dan Mitchell
==========
Mark Newton
> And, for the record, there were also locos with articulated frames
> and side-rod drive coupling all the wheels of the moving frame
> sections. To VISUALIZE this, imagine a conventional 'Mallet' style
> articulated with only ONE set of cylinders, yet driving all the
> wheels of both chassis only with rods, and allowing the usual
> swiveling motion of the front set of drivers. I can't recall an
> actual loco of quite THAT configuration, but it will serve for
> illustration. More 'monkey motion'! It would be possible. The ones
> that WERE built were somewhat different than this simple mind
> exercise, but you get the idea.
Hagan's Patent locos, by way of an actual example?
Cheers,
Mark.
Mark Newton
> And, for the record, there were also locos with articulated frames
> and side-rod drive coupling all the wheels of the moving frame
> sections. To VISUALIZE this, imagine a conventional 'Mallet' style
> articulated with only ONE set of cylinders, yet driving all the
> wheels of both chassis only with rods, and allowing the usual
> swiveling motion of the front set of drivers. I can't recall an
> actual loco of quite THAT configuration, but it will serve for
> illustration. More 'monkey motion'! It would be possible. The ones
> that WERE built were somewhat different than this simple mind
> exercise, but you get the idea.
Oops, I meant to include this link BEFORE posting.
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/hagans/hagans.htm
Sorry, Dan
Mark.
Gregory Procter
Mark Newton wrote:
Thinking was all I was doing - didn't bother to check any books when I
wrote the above. :-)
Regards,
Greg.P.
Gregory Procter
"Daniel A. Mitchell" wrote:
> I don't quite follow your reasoning on the VGN Triplex (also applies to
> the Erie version), or Mallets in general. Articulated joints (on
> steam, and often electric and large Diesel power) usually carry and
> transfer weight as well as pulling forces.
In general terms on Mallet locos, the weight is transfered to the front movable frame by a
bearing pad around the centre of the engine. (the engine being the front moving frame) The
articulation point is at the rear of that frame immediately in front of the rear pair of
cylinders. Using that hinge/ball joint to transfer (boiler) weight to the front frame would
load the rearmost of the front engine's axles unevenly with track undulations. The same would
apply to the "loco/tender" connection on the triplex.
> Thus they're a part of the
> loco's suspension. Often they're a form of only semi rotating U-joint,
> and look rather like a ball and socket. Simpler versions are just a
> 'tongue and groove' arrangement with an internal drawpin. In both
> versions, vertical travel is VERY limited, if allowed at all. Thus any
> vertical motion of one frame section transfers that motion, and the
> resulting loading, to the adjoining frame section.
>
> The front portion of the triplex loco is a more-or-less conventional
> Mallet steam loco, so it most certainly does warrant a "+" sign between
> the first two sets of drivers.
I was wrong on the "+" in US Whyte terminology. In my favour, I'm used to British and New
Zealand Whyte terminology plus German and French so I tryed to apply logic. (Duhh)
> On the Triplex there's also an
> articulated joint between the 'loco' and 'tender' portions ... NOT
> merely a drawbar (which carries no suspension loads) as on most locos.
> The loco had a three piece articulated frame. That's why it had NO
> tender. Thus it's a 2-8+8+8-4 as stated.
I accept your point, but question why there would be any weight transfer between the "loco"
and "tender" sections. (out of interest rather than arguement)
Regards,
Greg.P.
Gregory Procter
"Daniel A. Mitchell" wrote:
> The whole point, of course, is that just because it 'bends' doesn't mean
> it's 'articulated'! :-)
My prototype (Württemberg, S.Germany) used the "Klose" system where the end drivers
were effectively on trucks and the side rods were given a system of
elongation/shortening using a diamond "lozenge" on (a) crank-pin and a system of
cranks/levers between the two sides. The locomotives all had 20-25 year life-spans so
the system appears to have worked adequately.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Daniel A. Mitchell
On a Mallet, or on the Triplexes that were just outgrowths of same, the
two engine's frames are connected by an 'articulated joint' ... as I
described it:
Often they're a form of only semi rotating U-joint, and look rather like
a ball and socket. Simpler versions are just a 'tongue and groove'
arrangement with an internal drawpin. In both versions, vertical travel
is VERY limited, if allowed at all. Thus any vertical motion of one
frame section transfers that motion, and the resulting loading, to the
adjoining frame section.
I did NOT mean to imply that the FULL weight of the boiler was applied
to the front engine (frame) via the articulated joint. As you state,
most boiler weight was carried on a sliding pad arrangement somewhere
near the load center of the front engine (by inference, a bit back from
the front of the boiler). But, as the loco's front frame moved up and
down or tipped to follow uneven trackage SOME of those forces would be
transferred to the rear engine frame since only limited motion was
allowed between the frames. Thus BOTH halves (or thirds) of the frame
shared in loading as the loco traversed uneven track. The entire frame
was part of the suspension.
Individual wheels were NOT allowed free motion, but were connected by a
system of levers and springs called 'equalization' (in the USA, or
'compensation' in other places). As one wheel moved up or down this
system shared load and motion with other nearby wheelsets AND the frame.
In principal, if even one wheel moved upward, and changed it's loading,
EVERY wheel and every frame section 'adjusted' in response, so as to
share the load and motion in proportion. The whole suspension (wheels
AND frame(s)) was one interconnected mechanism, usually including any
idler (lead and trail) axles as well as the drivers.
Much the same is true of conventional 'rigid' (misnomer) framed locos,
but there are just fewer subsystems and fewer total parts to
interconnect, so the whole thing is simpler. But, if you've ever studied
the suspension of a steam loco it's NOT at all simple. There are a MASS
of driving boxes, shoes, wedges, levers, springs, pins, bushings,
hangers and similar practically filling the frame spaces. Literally
hundreds of highly loaded moving parts on even a smaller loco like a 2-8-2.
And they all wear and have to be remachined, built up, rebushed, or
replaced every so often. LOTS of work!
Dan Mitchell
==========
Daniel A. Mitchell
swivel (align with curved track) while being driven by more-or-less
rigid siderods. Other possibilities include variations "cone and cup" drives.
For long 'rigid' (again a misnomer) wheelbase locos often the front and
rear, or perhaps the middle, axles were given what is referred to as a
"lateral Motion device". A means whereby the wheels were allowed a
certain amount of sideplay. This allowed the wheelbase more flexibility
to conform to the curved track. This did not, in itself, imply any
ANGULAR adjustment of the axles to keep them parallel to the track.
That's doable too (as the system you describe proves), but is far more complicated.
Even today with Diesels these same problems arise. On curved track the
axles in a rigid truck frame cannot all remain parallel and 'track'
properly. For short wheelbases this was not much of a problem, except at
high speeds or very high power loadings. Since both are now becoming
more important, even modern Diesel trucks have 'steering' to allow the
individual axles to pivot in the truck frames, and better follow the track.
With most Diesels at least you don't have to figure out how to couple
siderods to the moving axles.
Dan Mitchell
==========
Gregory Procter
"Daniel A. Mitchell" wrote:
> You describe one of several schemes to allow the individual axles to
> swivel (align with curved track) while being driven by more-or-less
> rigid siderods.
It's one that worked.
> Other possibilities include variations "cone and cup" drives.
>
> For long 'rigid' (again a misnomer) wheelbase locos often the front and
> rear, or perhaps the middle, axles were given what is referred to as a
> "lateral Motion device". A means whereby the wheels were allowed a
> certain amount of sideplay. This allowed the wheelbase more flexibility
> to conform to the curved track. This did not, in itself, imply any
> ANGULAR adjustment of the axles to keep them parallel to the track.
> That's doable too (as the system you describe proves), but is far more complicated.
The Golsdorf system replaced Klose's designs. (0-10-0 and 2-12-0)
>
>
> Even today with Diesels these same problems arise. On curved track the
> axles in a rigid truck frame cannot all remain parallel and 'track'
> properly. For short wheelbases this was not much of a problem, except at
> high speeds or very high power loadings. Since both are now becoming
> more important, even modern Diesel trucks have 'steering' to allow the
> individual axles to pivot in the truck frames, and better follow the track.
>
> With most Diesels at least you don't have to figure out how to couple
> siderods to the moving axles.
There are examples of uncoupled steam locomotives and coupled Diesel locomotives - it's
scarcely fair to compare designs/technologies 50-100 years apart and conclude the more
modern one to be superior.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Mark Newton
>> You describe one of several schemes to allow the individual axles
>> to swivel (align with curved track) while being driven by
>> more-or-less rigid siderods.
>
> It's one that worked.
>
I bet it drove the running shed fitters mad, though.
That, and Klein-Lindner or Lutermoller radial axles...
And I notice that the Klose system engines have inside
valve motion and "stutztenders" - more fun and games!
Cheers,
Mark.
Roger T.
"Gregory Procter" > > On the Triplex there's also an
> > articulated joint between the 'loco' and 'tender' portions ... NOT
> > merely a drawbar (which carries no suspension loads) as on most locos.
> > The loco had a three piece articulated frame. That's why it had NO
> > tender. Thus it's a 2-8+8+8-4 as stated.
>
> I accept your point, but question why there would be any weight transfer
between the "loco"
> and "tender" sections. (out of interest rather than arguement)
Because the last +8-4 engine was under the "tender".
Gregory Procter
Mark Newton wrote:
Talking standard gauge, only one small batch of locos had inside
cylinders and valve gear, the majority outside. None of them had Stutz
tenders.
Inside cylinders have the advantage of less side imbalances for a loco
intended to run at higher speeds (entirely relative of course - 65Km/hr
vs 45Km/hr) That advantage has to be balanced against higher
maintainance costs.
Most of the Klose "additional mechanisim" only moved on curves,
otherwise it just sat there. It was simpler than the extra mechanisim of
a Mallet, Meyer, Hagan etc which were the alternatives at the time.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Gregory Procter
"Roger T." wrote:
> "Gregory Procter" > > On the Triplex there's also an
>
> > > articulated joint between the 'loco' and 'tender' portions ... NOT
> > > merely a drawbar (which carries no suspension loads) as on most locos.
> > > The loco had a three piece articulated frame. That's why it had NO
> > > tender. Thus it's a 2-8+8+8-4 as stated.
> >
> > I accept your point, but question why there would be any weight transfer
> between the "loco"
> > and "tender" sections. (out of interest rather than arguement)
>
> Because the last +8-4 engine was under the "tender".
If the tender already carrys sufficient weight to act as an engine, why steal
weight from the locomotive just when undulating track is reached?
(I only passed "Model Locomotive equalization 101 - theory and practical")
Regards,
Greg.P.
Roger T.
"Gregory Procter"
> > Because the last +8-4 engine was under the "tender".
>
> If the tender already carrys sufficient weight to act as an engine, why
steal
> weight from the locomotive just when undulating track is reached?
As I understand it, all steam locos tranfer weight when they start. The
weight (Centre of gravity) moves to the rear as the loco starts forward and
"digs into" its train. This is why, for example, 4-6-0s are generally less
"slippery" that 4-6-2s as the weight transfer bares down on the rear pair of
drivers on a 4-6-0 but bares donw onto the trailing (non-driving) wheels of
the trailing truck on a 4-6-2.
So, I'm guessing that with an articulated, and I'm way out of my technical
depth here, there has to be some provision for weight transfer between each
of the engines. Engine defined as the coupled wheels driven by a set of
pistons.
A 4-6-2 has one engine.
A 2-6+6-2 has two engines.
A 4-8+8+8-4 has three.
> (I only passed "Model Locomotive equalization 101 - theory and practical")
Not much better than me. :-)
Gregory Procter
"Roger T." wrote:
> "Gregory Procter"
>
> > > Because the last +8-4 engine was under the "tender".
> >
> > If the tender already carrys sufficient weight to act as an engine, why
> steal
> > weight from the locomotive just when undulating track is reached?
>
> As I understand it, all steam locos tranfer weight when they start. The
> weight (Centre of gravity) moves to the rear as the loco starts forward and
> "digs into" its train. This is why, for example, 4-6-0s are generally less
> "slippery" that 4-6-2s as the weight transfer bares down on the rear pair of
> drivers on a 4-6-0 but bares donw onto the trailing (non-driving) wheels of
> the trailing truck on a 4-6-2.
>
> So, I'm guessing that with an articulated, and I'm way out of my technical
> depth here, there has to be some provision for weight transfer between each
> of the engines. Engine defined as the coupled wheels driven by a set of
> pistons.
There's very little point in transfering weight from one engine to another, so
why make the mechanical provision.
Re the 4-6-2; the trailing axle generally gets included in the equalization on
undulating lines, otherwise that little axle-set starts stealing weight from the
drivers just when it's needed.
>
>
> A 4-6-2 has one engine.
>
> A 2-6+6-2 has two engines.
>
> A 4-8+8+8-4 has three.
Sure, that's a good generalization., but there are exceptions.
The German BR19.1001 2-8-2 had four engines.
The British Railways "Leader" 0-8-0 had two engines.
The NZR Kb had two engines.
The NZR H had two engines.
etc.
Roger T.
another, so
> why make the mechanical provision.
> Re the 4-6-2; the trailing axle generally gets included in the
equalization on
> undulating lines, otherwise that little axle-set starts stealing weight
from the
> drivers just when it's needed.
Actually, it's a given that 4-6-2s are more slippery that 4-6-0,
equalisation/compensation or not.
> > A 4-6-2 has one engine.
> >
> > A 2-6+6-2 has two engines.
> >
> > A 4-8+8+8-4 has three.
>
> Sure, that's a good generalization., but there are exceptions.
> The German BR19.1001 2-8-2 had four engines.
Engines should not be confused with number of cylinders. An "engine" is all
the coupled wheels driven by one set of pistons, be there, one, two, three,
four or more. I'm not sure where a Shay would fit into this description as
all the wheels were driven by gears. perhaps the Shay, and all it's driving
wheels, are one engine?
> The British Railways "Leader" 0-8-0 had two engines.
The ill fated Leader class was an 0-6-0+0-6-0T Yes, this locomotive had two
engines. Each 4 cylinder engine drove each of the six coupled pair of
drivers and baked the fireman in the process.
BTW, the much vaunted 4-8+8+8-4 was really a 4-8+8+8-4T. Yes, it was a tank
engine as it didn't tow a tender. :-)
> The NZR Kb had two engines.
No, it's one engine. They were two cylinder 4-8-4s
See http://www.trainweb.org/nzsteam/kb_class.html
> The NZR H had two engines.
They were also two cylinder "Fell" 0-4-2T locomotives. One engine, two
cylinders.
See http://www.trainweb.org/nzsteam/h_class.html
BTW, good listing of all Kiwi steam engines at: -
http://www.trainweb.org/nzsteam/classes.htm
Mark Newton
>> And I notice that the Klose system engines have inside valve motion
>> and "stutztenders" - more fun and games!
>
> Talking standard gauge, only one small batch of locos had inside
> cylinders and valve gear, the majority outside. None of them had
> Stutz tenders.
Well, there you go - I didn't even realise that there were standard
gauge locos with Klose mechanisms. I was only familiar of the Sachsen
IIIks and the JZ 189s.
> Inside cylinders have the advantage of less side imbalances for a
> loco intended to run at higher speeds (entirely relative of course -
> 65Km/hr vs 45Km/hr) That advantage has to be balanced against higher
> maintainance costs.
And the joys of digging out the smokebox lining to get at the valve chests!
> Most of the Klose "additional mechanisim" only moved on curves,
> otherwise it just sat there. It was simpler than the extra mechanisim
> of a Mallet, Meyer, Hagan etc which were the alternatives at the
> time.
Simple being a relative term in this context, eh? :-)
Cheers,
Mark
Mark Newton
> As I understand it, all steam locos tranfer weight when they start.
> The weight (Centre of gravity) moves to the rear as the loco starts
> forward and "digs into" its train. This is why, for example, 4-6-0s
> are generally less "slippery" that 4-6-2s as the weight transfer
> bares down on the rear pair of drivers on a 4-6-0 but bares donw onto
> the trailing (non-driving) wheels of the trailing truck on a 4-6-2.
>
> So, I'm guessing that with an articulated, and I'm way out of my
> technical depth here, there has to be some provision for weight
> transfer between each of the engines. Engine defined as the coupled
> wheels driven by a set of pistons.
Like Roger, I am out of my depth here, never having had any experience
with Mallet articulateds. However, going by what various publications
have to say on the subject, I'm fairly certain that the
equalisation/compensation arrangements on such engines are independent
of each other, that is to say there is no connection between the
equalising beams or rigging of each engine unit.
Cheers,
Mark .
Mark Newton
>
> Actually, it's a given that 4-6-2s are more slippery that 4-6-0,
> equalisation/compensation or not.
Yep! Been there, done that, had my fire pulled to bits!
> Engines should not be confused with number of cylinders. An "engine" is all
> the coupled wheels driven by one set of pistons, be there, one, two, three,
> four or more. I'm not sure where a Shay would fit into this description as
> all the wheels were driven by gears. perhaps the Shay, and all it's driving
> wheels, are one engine?
>
>>The British Railways "Leader" 0-8-0 had two engines.
>
> The ill fated Leader class was an 0-6-0+0-6-0T Yes, this locomotive had two
> engines. Each 4 cylinder engine drove each of the six coupled pair of
> drivers and baked the fireman in the process.
Each <three> cylinder engine, you mean. :-)
I often wonder what posessed Ollie Bulleid to persist with sleeve valves
for these engines, after the disappointing performance of 'Hartland Point'.
> BTW, the much vaunted 4-8+8+8-4 was really a 4-8+8+8-4T. Yes, it was a tank
> engine as it didn't tow a tender. :-)
>>The NZR Kb had two engines.
>
> No, it's one engine. They were two cylinder 4-8-4s
I reckon he's referring to the trailing truck booster engine :-))
>>The NZR H had two engines.
>
> They were also two cylinder "Fell" 0-4-2T locomotives. One engine, two
> cylinders.
>
> See http://www.trainweb.org/nzsteam/h_class.html
Greg's right about the Fell engines - I've had a poke around underneath
the one in the little museum at Featherstone(?), and it's definitely got
four cylinders. Two drive the coupled wheels as in a conventional
adhesion loco, and the other two drive the horizontally mounted wheels
that grasp the centre rail.
You and I are both having a real run of outs today, Roger.
All the best,
Mark.
Daniel A. Mitchell
axles perpendicular to tracks still exists, and moving to Diesels didn't
make it go away, just delayed the issue a few years. The much shorter
rigid wheelbases of most Diesel trucks made the problem relatively
unimportant in the 1950's-70's, but with increasing speeds and power
levels it has resurfaced again. At modern performance levels even short
wheelbase trucks benefit from 'steering'.
And, sure, there were 'uncoupled' steam locos, IIRC Germany had a large
steamer with a separate engine on each axle. There were also a range of
steam-electric locos, both reciprocating and turbine, that were not
'coupled' mechanically at all. Impressive, but too complicated, and, as
with most advanced steam designs, too little, too late.
And not all mechanical 'coupling' was with rods. You had things like
Shays using driveshafts that had great flexibility, short wheelbase, and
decent factors of adhesion (for steam, at the time). But, at the speed
they traveled, 'steering' was hardly an issue.
Dan Mitchell
==========
Daniel A. Mitchell
Triplex design hopes.
Like all 'tank' type locos, including Garratts, the Triplexes suffered
from both decreasing weight and weight transfer as coal and water were
consumed. AT low fuel and water levels, the rear engine would have
become very 'slippery'. By carrying some loco weight on the rear engine
this effect would have been lessened.
Further speculation ...
The Triplexes were unusual in that they were Mallet locos (compound
articulateds of mostly conventional design), but had 'all same size'
cylinders. The compounding resulted from splitting the exhaust of the
center high pressure engine and sending the (once expanded) steam to
BOTH the front and real engines. Thus the total cylinder volume of the
two low pressure sections was twice that of the high pressure section.
IIRC, the rear engine got it's steam from ONE of the high pressure
cylinders, while the front engine got it's from the other HP cylinder.
Now, if the rear engine slipped, and rapidly consumed the available low
pressure steam, then the sudden loss of back pressure on the one high
pressure center cylinder might also initiate a slip on THAT engine as
well. It would also create larger than normal asymmetrical forces in the
HP engine's frame and axles. None of these effects were good. Thus, I
suspect, it was important to keep all three engines working as a team if
decent performance was to be achieved. That implied some effort to keep
weight distribution under control. I think that was the idea, anyway. It
was NOT totally successful, but more-or-less worked. Anyway, that was
not their major problem.
Their big limitation was steam production. The boilers of the time, with
long narrow fireboxes, simply could not make enough steam to feed six
cylinders at any respectable road speed.
The three Erie Triplex locos were semi successful. The VGN loco was not.
It's not so much that the locos were very different, but their intended
use was different.
Erie used theirs as pushers or helpers on hilly areas. They didn't have
to exert full effort for long periods, and could 'recharge' steam
pressure between assignments. They lasted in service for a number of
years. VGN, on the other hand, wanted their triplex for road service,
and it could not produce enough steam to SUSTAIN a road speed of more
than 5 mph. That was too slow even for a VGN coal train in the
mountains. This loco was a failure due to not meeting it's intended
purpose. It was rejected, and later separated and modified into two
conventional locos, a 2-8+8-0 and a 2-8-2, both of which were then used
by VGN for years.
VGN solved their need for a massive 'coal pusher' loco by acquiring
their several AE class 2-10+10-2 Mallets. The AE's were almost as
effective starting a train as the Triplex, and could maintain their
effort at 15 mph (three times the Triplex's speed) ... which was fast
enough. The AE's had the greatest 'TE' of any conventional articulated
loco. These engines were used for for years, and moved mountains of coal
out of the eastern mountains.
The four Triplexes, while very impressive locos, were NOT large compared
to several later Mallet and 'simple' articulated steamers. Even VGN's
'AE's, while having fewer wheels, were considerably larger locos than
their Triplex. The Triplexes could produce MASSIVE (unmatched) tractive
effort, at very low speeds, or for very short periods of time, but were
not 'high horsepower' locos like the later Allegheneys, Challengers, and
Big Boys. The Triplexes were great lumbering steam powered 'dinosaurs'
whose time quickly passed.
They DO make GREAT models, though!
Dan Mitchell
==========