Thinking of getting a 2-8-4 berkshire

[Saberhawk30]

Hello all...new to the forum.  Everyone...how well do the berks run on 18inch curves?  I have a rivarossi berk the runs just fine. I'm new to dcc and love it and would like to add  one....I just wish I came with a mars light.

Thanks Erick

[Len]

Bachmann recommends 22" radius curves for it's Berks. The Rivarossi Berk has a narrower chassis, allowing more play for the driver axles to slide back and forth. This is to allow it to operate on the tigher curves generally found on European layouts, even though the overhang looks rediculous.

Len

[ModelRailwayFan38]

I don't own one, but Sam'sTrains on YouTube has one, and in his video it works on 18 inch radius (technically second radius which is the same thing).

[trainman203]

If I remember right, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, the Mars light on the Nickel Plate Berks was red. Which means that it was only turned on when running in reverse as a pushing helper to protect a train at the rear, not being operated when at the head of a train pulling it.  Or when running light (no additional cars, just the engine by itself) in reverse by itself.  And I'm not certain if that red light oscillated like a true mars light. Someone more familiar with this, please log in.

The twin-sealed-beam light fixture above the headlight on the lesser known and at one time more famous CB&Q 4-8-4's was a forward running clear oscillating warning light, as was the upper light on the Southern Pacific GS class 4-8-4's.

Mars lights weren't that common on steam engines and appear to be a very late steam affectation brought on by diesels, many of which had built-in Mars lights and ran with their headlights on in the daytime, which was almost never done in steam times.

[trainman203]

Also, I have to say, this is personal opinion only, but to me,  any steam engine bigger than Bachmann's decapod looks ridiculous on 18 inch radius curves.  My opinion is that if you have such a small space to need those astringent curves, it's better to model a smaller railroad prototype than try to get long fast mainline hotshot freights like the Nickel Plate Berks pulled at near 70 mph in their day.

 I didn't come about this opinion instantly. It gradually emerged over time, but was coalesced in an early 60s magazine article called "choose a branchline." It really made the case for small steam engines whose cab and pilot did not hang over the outside rail on curves, and for much more realistic operation of shorter slower trains instead of trying to cram the super chief onto a 4x8.  Within just a couple of months, my two big steamers got stored and I ran my railroad with a mogul and a 10 wheeler, and modified the scenery such that all the tracks were weedgrown.

Of course, if you like fast mainline trains, none of this matters. And the point is to always have fun, and not be concerned about details if you don't want to be.

[Len]

The other thing to watch running big steam on tight curves is trackside clearance. The cab overhang of a big loco on tight curves can smack into scenery items a smaller loco would clear with no problems.

Len

[trainman203]

Yes.  Everyone forgets about tunnels when acquiring big steam.  And truss bridges.

[Tenwheeler01]

I own one and it does run on may layout (HO-35 Berkshire Valley Route). This layout has 18" radius covers on the mainline and the branch into the yard.  I did not have any over hang problems with this loco motive. The loco itself is about the same as the Bacmann 4-8-2 Light not counting the tenders. And it also runs just fine on the 18" radius covers. It is shorter then the IHC 4-6-4 I have.   Just make sure the draw bar has enough play in it.
 
I have a much larger issue with passenger car steps smacking obstacles then my locos.  To run my IHC and walthers passenger cars I had to remove the diagonal braces in most of the Atlas bridges. But the Berkshire did not have any issue running even before I removed the braces.  Also the forthcoming BLI Berks are rated for 18" radius covers.

I am thinking about converting my Bachmann 2-8-4 to a Frisco 4200 class.

 

[trainman203]

I know you are on Frisco.org, I'm there too.

Did you see this?  A long discussion of Frisco 2-8-4's by the guys who know.

http://www.frisco.org/shipit/index.php?threads/the-4200-giant-2-8-2s.4412/


It's just me, but I think that the nickel plate Berk is just too different from the engine in a photo in the Frisco discussion to be able to make a believable Frisco engine.

But.  Read down into the thread.  Where they tell you that, in the photo, the trailing truck wheel bottom is higher than the bottom of the tender wheel, an apparent photo shopping oversight, and that the four wheel trailing truck appears to be a photo shop fake job.

I have to side with the guys who say who is the photo is fake, and that the 4200's were really heavy mikados.

I think that Frisco steam engines are some of the best looking ones ever existed. They are overlooked because of the Frisco basically ran up the southern end of the rural core of the American heartland, and was not noticed as easily as the big east coast Railroads.

[Tenwheeler01]

Yep, I did.  I think it was an April fools joke.  None of my reference books say anything about Frisco having any Berks.

I was looking at which way would be easier Berk to 4200 series 2-8-2  or USRA Heavy 2-8-2 to 4200 series 2-8-2.  The photos I have of the 4200s and setting the models next to each other. It may be easier to rework the Bachmann berk.  Or someone could just produce a model of it hint hint.

And I do agree Frisco has some great looking steamers.

For Heavy mikes the 4200s would make a great looking model. 6 wheel tender trucks, a doghouse and the long boiler jacket, they were all coal burners and where in used up to 1951.   I would also love to a model of the 4-6-0 with Vanderbilt tender Frisco used and a model of the Brooks built Pacifics 1000 -1009 these are also great looking locomotive.  And it would be nice to have affordable models of the three Streamlined Pacifics and Frisco Hudsons. I have only seen these in brass (We do not count the IHC 1060) And not to forget Frisco did have 2-8-8-2s that would also make great models. They look nothing like the any of currently produced 2-8-8-2s.

This is wish list.  If I ever want any of these I will have to learn how to build my own brass locomotives.

   

[trainman203]

I'm old enough to remember when the scratchbuilding of brass model steam locomotives was not that unusual.  In 1961, when I was first seriously model railroading, there was a 4 part article in Railroad Model Craftsman called "An Espee Consolidation Anyone Can Build."  Even though I was only 13 at the time, I remember thinking even then,  yeah, right, anyone who has a machine shop.

[trainman203]

Awhile back I thought about trying to convert a Bachmann nickel plate berk into an International-Great Northern 1121 class engine, a most sightly engine if there ever was one.  There were five of them down on the I-GN in Texas that survived to the end of steam. The Missouri Pacific itself ordered 20 identical ones that became the 1901 class, but all of these were  converted with radical surgery into the 2100 class 4-8-8's in early WW2. 

Just about all of the old steam crewmen from the steam days are gone now, but maybe 10 years ago or so I read an article by an old MP head who had run the I-GN berks in Texas.  He declared that all the enginemen hated them for being the roughest riders in the world.

Sorry about the ramble. I love these firsthand steam era cab stories. And there will not be any more.

At any rate, even though a 2-8-4 will never look right on my layout, I had to have an 1121.  But after studying comparing the Bachmann model to the prototype, it became pretty clear that the nickel plate type is just too far removed from the I-GN/MP engine to be a candidate for conversion.  The nickel plate engines were a second generation 2-8-4 with taller drivers for more speed on the manifest freights that the nickel plate was famous for.  The I-GN/MP engines had more in common with the earlier original Lima's like the famous original A-1 demonstrator that blew the lid off of American freight train thinking and made it more competitive with trucks.  Creating an accurate I-GN/MP engine from a Bachmann model would require shorter drivers and massive boiler top surgery.

There was a brass model of these engines years ago, and converting it to DCC would be a lot less work than fooling with the Bachmann engine which even after all that work would still not be very prototypical.