old time engines

[Dusten Barefoot]

I ment no harm or rudeness with my last reply; so I do apologize if it came off that way.

All I am trying to say; it would be lovely to have another locomotive for the 19th century that all roads might of had. If we can have two 4-4-0s, two articulated's; we can have 2 2-6-0s and one can be the 8-18d because it can be made into so many different engines with out much modifications, and will be a top seller.

Rock On!
~Dusten

[darryl1936]

 I would think the engine would NOT be a top seller as this engine was a limited era use.  Many other engines would probably be of more interest but nothing is for sure.

Making a profit is still number one for all manufactures and they can't afford is take many risks.

Still looking for the elusive Heisler which has a lot of interest.

  The old fardt in Oregon

[Royce Wilson]

The Baldwin engine that Dusten is requesting was a catalog engine and servered on almost every narrow gauge railroad in this nation and when they ordered larger equipment they were sold off to small logging firms.Simple fact if you were in the logging bussiness at the turn of century until the 1920's it would have been cheaper to purchase used engines rather than new ones.

Royce

[Skarloey Railway]

The Eureka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Locomotive was built in 1875 and worked on the Eureka & Palisades until 1896 when it was sold to a lumber company. It was still working in 1938 when the company folded.

Working life 63 years.

Sonoma, more or less the same design, was built in 1876 for the North Pacific Coast, and sold to the Nevada Central 3 years later. It was still in servive in 1938 when that line went under.
Working life 62 years.

Jupiter, same design again, was built in 1876 for the Santa Cruz RR but was sold in 1881 when the line standard gauged and went to Guatamala where it was still working in 1960 http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/locomove/locojh.htm
Working life 84 years!

All three locos are still with us.

This might be useful: http://www.pacificng.com/ref/blw/818C/8-18C.htm it purports to be a Master list of Baldwin 3' gauge gauge 4-4-0 locomotives and includes scrap/disposal dates. many had working lives of 40 years or more which is not bad for engines only of limited era use.
In fact, in terms of usefulness, a Baldin 8-18c has far more to offer than any D&RG K series.

Of course, many of these locos would have changed their appearance over the years with new stacks, domes, cabs and so on but that's what modelling is all about.

[Royce Wilson]

If Bachmann is basing the model on the sales of the NWSL 4-4-0& 2-6-0 and the Iron horse model 4-4-0 then that is a mistake. the Nwsl model were horroble engines to run and if I am not mistaken they had a tender drive. This would be a perfect size for On30/On3 and if you are concerned about minimun radius take a look at the 4-6-0 and the 2-8-0, nither one of them will take a minimum radius.

Royce

[ebtnut]

I have one of the NWSL "Spartan" Moguls.  It is a decent runner, though the two-wheel pick-up (loco-only) is less than ideal.  And they do have the motor in the loco.  The HO versions were tender drive - I have one of the 4-4-0's, too.  Biggest hassle I had with the On3 loco is that the drivers were all flanged and it didn't even like my 40" curves.  A visit of the center driver to the Unimat solved that problem. 

[Royce Wilson]

EBT nut,You and I go back a long way.I remember when the NWSL 2-6-0,4-4-0 and the US hobbies 13 ton shay launched alot of railroads..AHHH those were the good ole days! WE super detailed our stuff and DC was king and PFM had the only sound on the market and it was just prototypical noise.
Royce

[ebtnut]

Royce:  Yeah, a good ways back.  My first HO loco was a Hi-F Athearn F-7.  My first HOn3 loco was a Ken Kidder "Mudhen" 0-4-0T, which sold for $9.95! 

[rich19]

I guess what Dusten means with the 8-18d beeing a more suitable prototype for conversion into 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 is in the arrangement of the drivers, more specifically in the distance between the drivers.

In the ubiqous 4-4-0 of the 1870's - 1900's, the distance between the two drivers is very large. In the 8-18d, this large distance is retained, as it is actually a 8-18 with an extra driver.

If you take a typical mogol like the Brooks one from Bachmann, or any "donor" HO mogul, youu cannot simply remove the first driver in order to make a 4-4-0. In doing so, the (remaining two) drivers are very closetogether - much too close for a 4-4-0. It just doesn't look good.

If you skip the front driver from a 8-18d, you end up with a 4-4-0 that has the drivers in the "correct" distance.

Furthermore, I'm very much surprised about the arguments why Bachmann wouldn't make an 8-18: too old, too limited, etc. If this applies, then why did they ever produce one in G scale??? In G scale the long distance between the drivers and the problems with tight curves should apply to G scale even more. It would be really interesting to hear from Bachmann, how the selection process was.

Richard

[Kevin Strong]

One of the common "criticisms" about the 1:20.3 4-4-0/2-6-0 is that, while beautiful, it's representative of a c. 1870s loco as it appeared in the 1870s, not as it would have appeared in the 20s/30s which is a far more common modeling era. Many of these locos were still in service at that point, but had changed in appearance in response to safety rules and other technological updates. Having said that, many in large scale buy the 4-4-0s with their exquisite paint jobs specifically for those paint jobs. That, and the cosmetic changes "needed" to update the locos to a 1920s appearance are fairly simple to do with off-the-shelf detail parts. Based on that, I'd expect that an On30 version of either of these two 1:20.3 locos might do very well. Tell you what--I'll gladly trade. I want your Cooke 2-6-0 in 1:20.3 (and the 2-cylinder Shay is also much-requested.)

Later,

K

[Dusten Barefoot]

Thank you Rich.

That is exactly what I was saying.

Rock On!
~Dusten

[Royce Wilson]

Bachmann could produce this engine with several cabs and a removable extended smoke box, much like the IF 4-4-0 and this way everyone would be happy.1873-1920's.

Royce

[Royce Wilson]

Check this old time 4-4-0 out!

http://www.shorpy.com/node/6880?size=original

Royce

[Skarloey Railway]

Check this old time 4-4-0 out!

Beautiful. I recommend viewing that image full size. You can nearly read the builder's plate.
Well, maybe a slight exageration, but you can read the builder's plate on the smokebox door.

And for those after 'eastern' prototypes, does it get more 'eastern' than Florida?

edit: more on the Jupiter & Lake Worth. Seems like a fascinating little RR: http://www.taplines.net/jalw/jalwry.htm

Interesting to look at the size difference between the loco and the passenger car.

[C.S.R.R. Manager]

Love the "Celiestial Line" loco.  What a great photo.

I agree with the idea; an older loco can easily fit in a more recent time period.  The opposite isn't true.  And since modelers work in a variety of time periods, older locos mean more sales, potentially.  Assuming the radius question is dealt with.  And I do have one suggestion to deal with that:  Mason Bogie.

Here is what Bill Iwan did with his On30 4-4-0.  Beautiful work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHUxGWE5yzg

manager