Referencing "Spectrum 2-8-8-4 #80404" Thread

[K487]

What do you think of the following idea/proposal (i.e. would it sell well and/or would you buy one)?

What if Bachmann approached the production of another articulated loco thus:

Find a prototype articulated, probably with two sets of 3-axle drivers (helps keep its length shorter), with one- or two-axle pilot and trailing trucks, all based on the loco's relatively short length AND the rear corner tip of its cab is the same distance from its nearest set of drivers as the front outside tip of the pilot is to its set of drivers.  Then produce this engine with the pivot/swivel of each set of drivers such that the swing-outs of the pilot edges and cab edges are not only equal to each other, but equal to the mid-ordinate (swing-in) of the engine (or real close).  In other words the loco is built to minimize clearance issues on smaller layouts AND to operate on say 20"? or less (18"?) curves.  It would also have a metal (not plastic) shell (for with that extra weight and 12 drive wheels it should pull REAL well.)

And the loco could be issued with the actual road name(s) of its prototype but also with other road names (I know - HERESY) so that all-in-all it would sell well.  And it could be offered in various options regarding DCC and sound.

If the locos are priced reasonably I personally like the idea.  And, buying an engine who's road name doesn't conform to mine doesn't bother me.  Why?  I can make up all kinds of "reasons" a UP loco is on say the Western Maryland.  For instance, depending upon the era: run through agreement; testing the type of loco on the WM track curves and grades so they (the WM) can determine if they want to buy some; railfan trip; etc.  But with me and some/many? of us, I don't need a "reason" except, "I like watching it run, the price was right, so I don't care if it is "unprototypical."  And most of my guests who visit and watch the trains don't know and don't care about mixed or "wrong" power consists.  Also I wonder what percent of model railroaders are "locked-in" on a road name.

Does anyone agree with this?  Or is this something of a "model railroad regression disease"?  (You know, it reminds us of many, many times in the past 50 years someone made some generic loco, slapped every railroad name they could think of on it for wider sales, and then threw it at the market.) 

On the plus side, Bachmann is getting more well know for making fine steam locos, and a loco like the articlated promoted above could easily turn out to enhance their reputation and sales (thus encouraging them to make more toys for us!).  [Note:  Besides wanting a loco like I described above there IS a method behind my madness here. ]

I look forward to your input (and maybe the Bachmann will too.)

K487

[GN.2-6-8-0]

Kinda like this then

[beampaul7]

How about one of the arties that rye guy showed on page 1 of the "other large aritculated's?" thread.  I'm refering specifically to picture #6, D&RG #3360 exD&SL 200 series little malleys(sp).  With both engines swiveling it should be capable of some very tight curves.  It was based on a B&O 0-6-6-0, one named Old Maude, so should be popular with eastern rail modelers as well.   paul

[K487]

GN.2-6-8-0

Yes, something like that, even though the distance from the last driver on the second driver set to the end of the cab seems a little too long (and may be a little long on the front side also).  By the way that is a beautiful loco.

beampaul7

Yes.  As a matter of fact that D&RGW #3660 in the original thread was the loco that sort of gave me the idea.  It's "compact" in my estimation but still has 12 drive wheels.  Good observations too about tight curves and based on a B&O 0-6-6-0.  I'm thinking that for looks I'm leaning toward at least one axle for the pilot and one under the cab, but I'm not welded to this.

I guess in total I'm looking for an acceptable - very functional (takes sharp curves, and is a great puller) and nice looking (nice balance - not "stubby" but not too long beyond the drive wheel sets either) hybrid or semi-hybrid (or take a prototype that fits and put the prototype and various road names on it.)

K487

[ryeguyisme]

Denver & Salt Lake and  D&RGW  2-6-6-0's

[K487]

ruyguyisme:

YUP!  I believe that's what I'm thinking of.  Thanks much for posting the pics.  That is one neat-looking, TOUGH-looking and relatively short steam loco. And someone (you?) did a fine job of weathering the model.

Regarding swing-outs, it looks like the cab roof extention ends about 1.75" from the rear drivers, and the pilot looks about the same distance or a little greater  from the front drivers.  But on the front it doesn't make much difference because the smoke box front is set back.

I also noticed the tender booster "tell" - the connecting rods on the leading  tender truck.  A neat device to put on a road engine.

If the two driver sets' pivots were located properly, and if needed the cab roof extenstions were tapered in some on their overhangs, and the loco had a metal shell with the total loco weight (24 to 28 ounces*) divided equally over each driver set, I think this would be a real puller and great all-around steam loco - particularly for small radius layouts. (Be neat if Bachmann made these to run as smoothly as the EM-1 and actually advertised that they would run on 18" radius curves.)

* I came up with these target weights because I've got a pair of Bachmann SD40-2s weighing 23 ounces each (they each come at 19 ounces; I added 4) and just one of the locos will walk off with a 70-car train with 22" radius curves (pulling or shoving) with no wheel slip.  And the 2-6-6-0 has the  same number of drive wheels as the SD40-2.

Wouldn't these be appealing eye candy if they were double-headed?!  They sure would to me.  And not to get too carried away, these could easily turn out to be something like the old Oreo cookies' commercial said - I bet you can't eat just one.

K487

[ryeguyisme]

THAT unfortunately is not mine although I would LOVE to own that particular model, PFM made a whole bunch of them from the 60's to late 70's

they usually go for $300-$900, at shops online and ebay. Most I'd pay is $400 but I do plan to own a couple(doubleheading you guessed it)

the tender truck with the side-rods is called a franklin booster, which normally added 11,000 pounds of tractive effort to an engine(full coal load I'm guessing) They were not found on this particular engine per say(i add them to any of my engines, I have 5 of them, this one was most likely added by the original owner) They're mostly used for slow freight and switching duty

This locomotive in brass can take a 22 inch radius, I wouldn't know if it did any tighter but the more mature I've gotten in this hobby the wider my radius has become.

The driving wheel base is slightly longer than that of the mantua 2-6-6-2 which can do 18 inch radius no sweat. So this engine made in diecast could easily be made for 18 without need for the rear drivers to pivot.

[K487]

ryeguyisme:

Thanks for all the info.

A thought about the rear drivers not needing pivoting.  If so the swing-out on the boiler front might be a bit much (especially on 18" radius curves) and therefore cause a number of modelers to "pull an EM-1" - that is they need to move or cut back various parts of their scenery for clearance purposes on the outsides of certain curves.

In my thinking, hopefully adding a pivot on the rear set of drivers wouldn't add appreciably to the price.  In a "perfect world" if both sets were pivoted then almost no one would need to modify any of their scenery for clearances.

About the franklin booster, good info.  I personally would like to have it included as I envision these 2-6-6-0s as locos made for drag freights (long, slow trains) so they would at least theoretically fit.  If Bachmann produced an engine like this they may make some with and some without the boosters, or have the rod parts included in the box for hopefully easy application by the buyer.

The rotating simple tender rods are to me visual mini-echos of the two sets of rotating main rods ("monkey action") in front of them and therefore add some level of semi-artistic attraction.  And of course moving parts attract the eye.

I guess we will see if the Bachmann company picks up on this.  If The Bach-man calls you for consultation, let us know. 

K487

[ryeguyisme]

heres a few videos of mine with engines with the booster on the front tender truck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u36ySftq04U

Halfway through this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_pfyolIGxg

and my personal layout, i took from a cell phone(quality is off):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy8-J6u2Vsc

rivarossi made them for their newer version of the Indiana Harbor Belt 0-8-0
Tenshodo made them in brass in the 60's which I have 2 of, so did custom brass and Samhongsa
The only current manufacturer that makes them is Precision Scale Co. but only as kits

The whole assembly is one tender truck with 2 axles


The rule of thumb is to make your railroads clear the maximum sized locomotive/car you plan on running. My HO christmas layout I had the C&O 2-6-6-2 and 18 inch curves and it wouldn't be able to back through tunnels on a curve so the best idea is unless the curve is like 30 inch radius I wouldn't put a tunnel where a curve is