New announcement

[on30gn15]

Those could be interesting. I wonder how "pre" they're going to be? The mid- to late-1850s saw some nice looking locomotives.

Handsome and interesting, indeed; but, man, they were some little bitty things. Although to me it seems one would have to cast the boilers out of depleted uranium to have enough mass to get decent HO scale tractive effort, even with 4 car trains.

[Doneldon]

on30-

Those early locos didn't pull long trains in the real world so we shouldn't expect them to do much better on our HO pikes. Actually, they do all right. It does help to add as much weight as possible, though.

                                                                                                                                   -- D

[ryeguyisme]

Many of you don't realize, standard gauged forney's and that ilk were primarily commuter engines, which most of the time only pulled 2-3 short coaches

the CNR/CNJ 4-6-4t

or the B&A 2-6-6t/4-6-6t's were really handsome locomotives and are sought after brass items, I still haven't been able to nab one, but it's on my to-get list

[Doneldon]

Rye-

Actually, that's about all they were used for. They lacked the power for pulling commercially viable freight trains and their range was limited by the small quantities of fuel and water they could carry. But they were great as commuter locos.

                                                                                                                                                                            -- D

[Johnson Bar Jeff]

Rye-

Actually, that's about all they were used for. They lacked the power for pulling commercially viable freight trains and their range was limited by the small quantities of fuel and water they could carry. But they were great as commuter locos.

                                                                                                                                                                            -- D

Perhaps folks with primarily switching layouts might enjoy having morning and evening commuter runs passing through to add to their mix.

[jettrainfan]

Couldn't they also be used for heavy switching on a terminal railroad or a switching layout? Heck, if worse comes to worse, a steam engine for excursions on a short line.wasn't there a 4-6-6 back in the 70's & 80's that was hauling passengers? I used to have a video that featured it, but not anymore.

[ryeguyisme]

Couldn't they also be used for heavy switching on a terminal railroad or a switching layout? Heck, if worse comes to worse, a steam engine for excursions on a short line.wasn't there a 4-6-6 back in the 70's & 80's that was hauling passengers? I used to have a video that featured it, but not anymore.

Heavy switching was primarily done by 0-8-0's and 0-10-0's

Notice that the commuter tank engines were built with a shorter drive wheelbase, heavy switching would have been out of the question, you would need buckets upon buckets of extra sand to handle the wheel slip.

Tank locomotives in many yards were used mostly for engine servicing or small switching duties. Most effective designs had 6 to 8 driving wheels but wouldn't go very far without a coaling/oil/water fueling station in the direct vicinity of it's operation.

The D&RGW had  actually converted one of it's consolidations into such a locomotive.


"D&RGW #01 was an oddball. It started life as D&RG 905, a Class 185 standard gauge 2-8-0 made by Baldwin. With the great renumbering by the D&RGW in 1924, it became Class C-41 #955. In 1937, it was the only unit of its class converted to a 2-8-0T tank engine for switching duties around the Salt Lake, UT shops. After this remarkable transformation, it became the #01."
As quoted from DRGW.net

[Doneldon]

Some of the tourist railroads, the one in the Black Hills being an example, run tank engines over their short mainlines.

                                                                         

[CNE Runner]

How did the English run so many tank locomotives in the age of steam if they only had a short range? As a regular reader of Railway Modelling magazine, I marvel at the size of some of these 'tank' locomotives (ie. Class 4575, Class 3MT, Class L1 to name a few). I guess the distances traveled weren't all that great in the UK.

I just did a quick scan of E. Hatton's latest ad and it looks like the 'tank type' was confined to smaller locomotives. Larger units all seem to be equipped with tenders (Class 5, Class A1, Class 6P etc.)...'guess I answered my own question.

Ray
[The guy who has a 'thing' for Pugs and Terriers.]

[Thommo]

Hm, number for announced new issue Bachmann PRR GP7 is #8809.

Unfortunatelly, PRR #8809 was not Geep 7 - it was Fairbanks Morse H16-44!

I do not understand - whole Pennsy diesel roster list is easily found via Google, It would be better for Bachmann to letter locos with real prototype numbers.

http://broadway.pennsyrr.com/Rail/Prr/Rosters/diesel.html

Passenger helper GP7's were 8798 to 8806, and regular Geeps 7 were 8500 to 8512, and 8545 to 8587.

[rogertra]

How did the English run so many tank locomotives in the age of steam if they only had a short range? As a regular reader of Railway Modelling magazine, I marvel at the size of some of these 'tank' locomotives (ie. Class 4575, Class 3MT, Class L1 to name a few). I guess the distances traveled weren't all that great in the UK.

I just did a quick scan of E. Hatton's latest ad and it looks like the 'tank type' was confined to smaller locomotives. Larger units all seem to be equipped with tenders (Class 5, Class A1, Class 6P etc.)...'guess I answered my own question.

Ray
[The guy who has a 'thing' for Pugs and Terriers.]

BR class 4, 2-6-4Ts with a bunker capacity of 3.50 long tons (3.56 U.S. tons), in the mid 1950s, would run Brighton to Fratton in Portsmouth, a distance of around 48 miles with an 8 to 10 coach train and at speeds up to 70 MPH, the line limit at that time. 

Water would be taken at Barnham, 27 miles from Brighton,  and at Chichester 40, miles from Brighton and possibly at Havant, 43 miles from Brighton.  These were the only three stops this train made on this route in both direction. 

At Fratton, an engine change was made and the train reversed to continue on westward.  This was during a short period, possibly for less than a year, when due to a loco shortage the normal pacifics on the express trains (Express in the UK = Fast, limited stop passenger trains) were out of service for rebuilding.

[J3a-614]

A point to consider--will the current 0-6-0T saddletanker continue in production, or is it being replaced with this Porter?  If it is being replaced, is it a business decision (in other words, market saturation), or is it technical (die wear)? 

Anyway, especially since the current 0-6-0 got a better motor, let us recall that it is probably become a favorite for those of us who like small engines.  Hope the new one will run well, too.

[jward]

Hm, number for announced new issue Bachmann PRR GP7 is #8809.

Unfortunatelly, PRR #8809 was not Geep 7 - it was Fairbanks Morse H16-44!

I do not understand - whole Pennsy diesel roster list is easily found via Google, It would be better for Bachmann to letter locos with real prototype numbers.

http://broadway.pennsyrr.com/Rail/Prr/Rosters/diesel.html

Passenger helper GP7's were 8798 to 8806, and regular Geeps 7 were 8500 to 8512, and 8545 to 8587.

maybe they'll do 8506, or a dynamic brake version in the mid 8500s like 8574.