Ol'#97

[The Great Destroyer]

I'm full of questions(probably comon for a beginer)
  Does anyone know the train type of the Ol' 97? Hackshaw Hakens wrote a song about it decades ago.I would like to land one.
                                                                      Thanks,Destroyer

[nscaler711]

Im jus pondering but could it be a song tributing John Luther "Casey" Jones?
also if it is his loco was a 2-8-0 loco type. ICRR #638 or a 4-6-0 #382 "Cannonball Express"

                        i hope i dont mislead you or anyone else

[brokemoto]

NO, this one is different from 'Casey Jones'.  Just as Casey Jones' wreck on the Illinois Central actually occurred, this one happened, as well.

#97 was a Southern Railway mail train.  I forget the exact date, but  the wreck occurred in 1903 and happened somewhere around Danville, Virginia.  The locomotive in question, like Casey Jones', was a ten-wheeler (4-6-0), which was pretty much the premier passenger power of the day. 

The first pacifics had only just appeared in the United States in 1903.  While there were some 4-6-2's that someone built for the CM&StP in 1893, those were really ten-wheelers with a trailing truck. The trailing truck does not support a larger firebox, on the CM&StP locomotives, it appears that the builder put it there to guide the locomotive when it was running in reverse.

There is, or was, an N scale IC ten-wheeler out there, but it is VERY difficult to find and VERY EXPENSIVE.  I have no idea how it runs, as I have never met anyone who owns one.  That is the ONLY US prototype ten-wheeler produced in N scale. 

Graham-Farrish does sell an N scale ten-wheeler chassis, but, to avoid offending our Gracious Hosts, suffice it to say that the runnability of those chassis has been the subject of some controversy and debate on various N scale boards.  Add to that that I have no idea how close its dimensions are to any Southern Railway ten-wheeler.

N scale really does need a ten-wheeler.

You could probably bash the cars out of MDC or Athearn wood cars.

Thomas Benton Hart did a well known pencil drawing of the 'Wreck of the Old 97'.  If you go to http://www.thinker.org/fam/about/imagebase/  , then type 'Wreck of the Old 97' into the search engine, it will bring up the drawing.  You can click on the 'ZOOM' button to get a larger picture.  Be sure to spellout "Old', do not type " ol' ".    You can also type in 'Thomas Benton Hart'.  You want to search the imagebase.  If the link does not work, just google Thomas Benton Hart and find the drawing by title.  (I checked the link, it will work on my computer.  You can also google 'Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco' and get the website that you want.


Here is another link:

http://www.tarheelpress.com/Ol97.html

This has photographs, including one of the engineer, and some facts about the wreck.  That RPO looks to be steel, instead of wood. so the Athearn/MDC cars may not be appropriate.  I can not tell if the roof is round or clerestory, perhaps some experts on turn-of-the-twentieth century Southern might know.

If it is steel, you might be able to bash one from a RivaRossi steel RPO.

[The Great Destroyer]

WOW ,
That is incredible!Talk about the well of knowledge.I might have to wait on this one untill tax time.The closest thing I can find is a 4-6-0 English Graham Farnish.Could that one be kit bashed do you think? I really do appreciate the info.Thanks a million!
                                                          Respectfully,Destroyer

[brokemoto]

To learn if the Graham-Farrish is a possible donor for a bash, you would need to learn the English prototpye on which the Graham-Farrish is based.  You would then need to compare the dimensions to those of a Southern Railway Class F-14 ten-wheeler.  (US Southern Railway, mind you; there was also a Southern in Great Britain).

I do not know if Graham-Farrish sells an English ten-wheeler.  It did sell (and may still sell) a chassis, which would lead me to suspect that it either sells or sold a model of an English ten-wheeler, but I have never looked into that.

There would be two main considerations to determine its suitability as a donor:  1) driver size and 2) cylinder type.  To most N scale steam bashers, anything CLOSE in driver size is acceptable.  If there is a difference of ten, or more inches, that might not be, but a difference of three, or so, is usually acceptable.  Cylinder types are more difficult.  I do not know if the F-14 had piston valve or slide valve cylinders.  Piston valves first appeared in the 1890s, but the builders were still constructing locomotives with slide valves well into the twentieth century.  The first class F-14s appeared on the Southern in 1903 (yup, the locomotive was fairly new when Mr. Broady wrecked it).  The greater problem would be that there is often a marked difference between the cylinders on North American and European (or Asiatic, fot that matter) steam power.  On some chassis, you can modify the cylinders to appear North American, but on others it is difficult.

Concerning the shell, you may have to discard it and build your own.  I do not  know what the shell looks like or if you could modify it to look like an F-14.  In many cases, N scale steam bashers discard the shells altogether (in truth, they put it into their parts box.  In this hobby, you never throw out ANYthing).

I do not know if B-mann has improved the old Graham-Farrish mechanisms.  As I have stated, the runnability of the old ones has been the subject of some controversy and debate on other N scale boards.

[TrainFreak409]

That is such a good song. Joseph Andrew Brady, AKA Steve, is not as famous (infamous? take your pick) as Casey Jones is, but he still gets himself a song. 

I didn't know that #1102 was rebuilt after that accident though...I always thought it was scrapped immediately afterwards.

[brokemoto]

Hauling the mail has always paid the railroads well.  The mail kept many passenger trains running long after the fare receipts had ceased paying for the given train.  In many cases, the train came off the tracks only after the Post Office Department had taken away the mail contract.

From the early days and even into the 1950s, the Post Office Department paid certain railroads an even greater premium to run certain mail trains.  There were some conditions.  The train could carry passengers, but only those that got on or off at stops for mail handling.  If there was no stop for mail handling that day at that station, there was no passenger traffic to or from that station that day.  The train had to 'own the railroad', as they used to say:  ALL trains had to yield to it.  Finally, there was a HUGE financial penalty for EVERY MINUTE that the train was late into terminals or major intermediate stops.   As an example, a New-York-Chicago Premier mail train might not earn a penalty for being late into Syracuse, but it would probably earn one for being late into Buffalo (which was a major layover, change terminal on the NYCS) and it DEFINITELY earned one for being late into Chicago.

In the early twentieth century, Southern #97 was a premier mail train.  Southern paid a SERIOUS financial penalty when it was late.  Legend has it that Mr. Broady was a speed demon, which may have been why Southern assigned a boomer to the train instead of a veteran engineer.


There are those who assert that the POD took off the mail because most roads refused to buy new RPOs, but that was only a minor consideration.  The reality is that the roads became better after the Second World War which allowed the trucks to carry it more cheaply.  The air transport costs also dropped during that time.  A letter could go from New York to Seattle in less than eight clock hours after the Second World War.  The best that the railroads could do was seventy two.

The railroads are once more carrying some mail, and there is still one Washington-Boston mail train that AMTRAK operates that never did come off the tracks.  Sometimes it is on the Public timetables, sometimes it is not.  There are times when it will even carry passengers when it is not on the public timetables, but even that is not consistent.

[The Great Destroyer]

Thanks again Brokemoto,
Here is what all I've found,PECO NL21 4-6-0 JUBILEE CLASS "RENOWN", NO. 5713,GRAFAR 1801 5 4-6-0,GRAHAM FARISH "MERE HALL" 4-6-0 #1579,
Graham Farish 4-6-0 English great Western.They all look pretty close 'cept the Great Western.That one has some crazy trim covering the top of the wheels.They are all 10 wheelers but they are all in the U.K. so shipping is almost $50.00 (OUCH)You are educated more than I,what one would you recomend?If you need pics they are all on e-vil bay under N scale 4-6-0
Thanks again.Destroyer

[brokemoto]

http://southern.railfan.net/images/archive/southern/steam/460/460.html


Southern numbered its Class F-14 ten wheelers 1085-1112.  There are photographs of a few representatives of this class from #1085 through #1111.

Compare them to the English ten-wheeler on FeeBay and you will see that you have your work cut out for you.  First, the English locomotive has a BelPaire firebox.  If the Southern EVER had a steam locomotive with a BelPaire firebox, I have never seen a photograph of one. 

The primary users of the BelPaire firebox in the United States were the PRR and GN.  GN had oil burners with BelPaire fireboxes.  Some other US roads had BelPaire fireboxes on some of their power in the nineteenth century, but most went to the radial stay fireboxes by the twnetieth century except for the PRR and GN.  The GN did have many locomotives with radial stay fireboxes, though.  Other exceptions to the radila stay fireboxes were the anthracite roads (CNJ, Reading Company, LV, D&H, L&NE, to name a few).  Anthracite burners, for the most part, had Wooten fireboxes.  There were some B&O experimentals that had water tube fireboxes.  ATSF flirted with the Jacobs-Schuppert firebox for a while.

The next problem is that the English locomotive has piston-valve cylinders.  Baldwin delivered the F-14s with slide-valves.  Remember, Broady wrecked that train when the locomotive was not even one year old.  It does appear that Southern did rebuild some of the F-14s with poppet valves or inclined piston valve cylinders, but that was much later.  Rebuilds could alter markedly the appearance of a locomotive to the point that locomotives of the same class would look different.  Much depended on which shop rebuilt the locomotive.

You would also have to add the correct domes, stack and light fixture.  You would need to re-work the cab extensively.

The next problem is the tender.  You would have to cut down the coal baords and, the big thing, you would have to remove the three axles and add two two-axle trucks.

The real killer on this is the drivers.  The drivers on the English locomotive are much too large.  The altered cab would have to cover too much of the aftmost driver.  When you consider that the runnability of these things has been the subject of much debate, I would not bother using these chassis.

You might have better luck cutting down an old Rivarossi pacific chassis.  YOu do have to be careful when working with very old versions of this as the power chassis is a zirmac casting that gets so brittle with age that it could turn to powder in your hands (this has happened to me).

N scale is in sore need of a US prototype ten-wheeler.  If our hosts would produce the ten wheeler in N that they did in HO, that would be a better donor, although the drivers might still be a bit too small, it would be a better starting point for bashing an F-14.

[The Great Destroyer]

In another words good luck to me