CS/RGS 74

[Royce Wilson]

Woody, I look back at what we had then and wonder why most of us stayed in the hobby!  I am kinda spoiled with these Bachmann engines. ain't got a bad runner yet!

Royce Wilson

[Tomcat]

Right you are Royce,

all my Bachmann Engines were good runners yet and I wished my MMI Locos would run like these: there was always some sort of fiddling arround before I could say, theyre running halfway reliable. Tend to derail that easy...

Never have experienced anything like that with an Bachmann Loco!
I´ll stick to Bachmann Products, thats for sure - they gived me a complete new start into the Hobby when On30 came out - I did switch from HO to O 2-Rail and On30 then...

Thanks Bachmann people - pls keep busy since we all expect great things from you folks!

Tom

[Woody Elmore]

Royce - that RGS/C&S #74 engine was one of the first runs from Korean builders from about 25 years ago. I recently sold my Overland C&S #9 of a much later vintage - that engine was really nice. No bad solder joints, ran slowly and had all kinds of extra parts so that you could detail it for a specific era.

By the ways, modelers interested in #74 should be aware of the fact that it and sister engines #75 and #76 were disliked by their crews and were very unpopular; they were poor steamers and hard to operate.

Speaking of poorly assembled engines, Westside met its demise in the late seventies when it went to Korean builders (and the owner got divorced.)

[Royce Wilson]

Thanks for the story Woody, by the way my ex-wife smashed my Sunset 74 against the stone fireplace so that engine caused more than one divorce. maybe its jinx!


                                                                 Royce Wilson

[Charlie Mutschler]

The C&S / RGS 74 has been relatively popular with modelers and enthusiasts, but the discussion of the steaming qualities may be a bit more complicated.  A while back, on the Narrow Gauge Discussion Forum, there was quite a series of exchanges about this issue.  The three Brooks built 2-8-0s were apparently popular with the crew of the original owner, the Colorado & Northwestern.  These three were acquired by the C&S, becoming C&S 74, 75, 76, and there does not seem to have been much complaint, except for problems with keeping the valves properly lubricated on 74, the only one of the three with slide valves.  The C&S re-did the valve gear from Stephenson to Walschaert on 74, and seems to have been satisfied with the results.. 

The complaints about bad steaming seem to have come from the late 1940s and early 1950s when the 74 was owned by the RGS.  By this time, most RGS trains operated behind leased D&RGW K-27s or the RGS's own mudhens, though Nos. 20, 40, 42, and of course 74 remained on the roster.  All of these are small, with a narrow firebox fitting between the frames.  The 74 has a longer firebox than the others.  Compared to the fairly short, wide fireboxes on the K-27's, the long, narrow firebox on 74 was probably harder to fire for men who had become used to the K-27's.  In any case, the Rocky Mountain Railroad Club chartered a train for th Memorial Day week end in 1949, and requested No. 74.  The engine crew, who liked the mikes, were unhappy with the 74 and her firebox half again as long as the mudhens - and stopped to build up steam a few miles out of Ridgway.  And again a few miles on.  Annoyed that the climb to Dallas Divide was  not going smoothly, a club official angrily told the fireman that if he couldn't keep steam up, there was a passenger on the train who could keep the engine hot who would be happy to come and do it for him.  The rest of the trip the 74 steamed adequately, and the club was happy.  But the rumor mill has pegged the 74 as a 'poor steamer' ever since. 

I suspect it would be much harder to fire a big, narrow firebox 2-8-0 like No. 74 than the smaller 2-8-0s such as RGS 40 and 42, or 4-6-0 No. 20.  Certainly the large, wide fireboxes on the mikes were much easier to fire.  But was the 74 really a bad steamer?  I suppose we are unlikely to find out, but the record seems to show that the C&S crews were not as unhappy with the big Brooks 2-8-0s as the RGS firemen - who had doubtless become quite familiar with the quirks of the mudhens, and found 74 something of a challenge. 

Charlie Mutschler
-30-

[Frisco]

The C&S / RGS 74 has been relatively popular with modelers and enthusiasts, but the discussion of the steaming qualities may be a bit more complicated.  A while back, on the Narrow Gauge Discussion Forum, there was quite a series of exchanges about this issue.  The three Brooks built 2-8-0s were apparently popular with the crew of the original owner, the Colorado & Northwestern.  These three were acquired by the C&S, becoming C&S 74, 75, 76, and there does not seem to have been much complaint, except for problems with keeping the valves properly lubricated on 74, the only one of the three with slide valves.  The C&S re-did the valve gear from Stephenson to Walschaert on 74, and seems to have been satisfied with the results.. 

The complaints about bad steaming seem to have come from the late 1940s and early 1950s when the 74 was owned by the RGS.  By this time, most RGS trains operated behind leased D&RGW K-27s or the RGS's own mudhens, though Nos. 20, 40, 42, and of course 74 remained on the roster.  All of these are small, with a narrow firebox fitting between the frames.  The 74 has a longer firebox than the others.  Compared to the fairly short, wide fireboxes on the K-27's, the long, narrow firebox on 74 was probably harder to fire for men who had become used to the K-27's.  In any case, the Rocky Mountain Railroad Club chartered a train for th Memorial Day week end in 1949, and requested No. 74.  The engine crew, who liked the mikes, were unhappy with the 74 and her firebox half again as long as the mudhens - and stopped to build up steam a few miles out of Ridgway.  And again a few miles on.  Annoyed that the climb to Dallas Divide was  not going smoothly, a club official angrily told the fireman that if he couldn't keep steam up, there was a passenger on the train who could keep the engine hot who would be happy to come and do it for him.  The rest of the trip the 74 steamed adequately, and the club was happy.  But the rumor mill has pegged the 74 as a 'poor steamer' ever since. 

I suspect it would be much harder to fire a big, narrow firebox 2-8-0 like No. 74 than the smaller 2-8-0s such as RGS 40 and 42, or 4-6-0 No. 20.  Certainly the large, wide fireboxes on the mikes were much easier to fire.  But was the 74 really a bad steamer?  I suppose we are unlikely to find out, but the record seems to show that the C&S crews were not as unhappy with the big Brooks 2-8-0s as the RGS firemen - who had doubtless become quite familiar with the quirks of the mudhens, and found 74 something of a challenge. 

Charlie Mutschler
-30-

Thanks for the information.

[Woody Elmore]

I didn't think I was spreading rumors; I was only repeating what I have read about #74.

A Bachmann #74 would have no steaming problems and certainly would be welcomed by many modelers - after an EBT engine, of course.

Brass models have come a long way since the likes of Empire Midland or late vintage Westside models.

[Royce Wilson]

Man,Woody you are sparking all my memories! those big globs of brass called Empire Midland and folks bought them too. I bought one of the wheel & tie cars and it was awful!

                                                                   Royce Wilson

[Woody Elmore]

Empire Midland brought out an SRy mountain. I bought one and it was a dog. However I had purchased my first resistance soldering rig and was able, after numerous sessions (peppered with pejorative statements about the engine's ancestry) to get the boiler to the point where everything was attached. The bad driver springs were replaced but I couldn't do too much for a set of drivers that were noticeably out of round. The motor was a cheap copy of the Mantua/Tyco motor used in most of the Tyco engines.

I sold it to a fellow at the Timonium Train show and he wrote back (this was before email) with a couple of photos. He had replaced the drivers, gearbox and motor. I don't remember the details but that engine is probably still chugging away somewhere below the Mason-Dixon line.

Uncounted hours went into that engine and I enjoyed all of the time I spent. This is why I think that the guys who open their Bachmann engine box, plop it on the track, find it won't run and then get on here and criticize the company get me annoyed.

[Charlie Mutschler]

Woody,

I hope you didn't take my comments on RGS 74 as a criticism of you.  Nothing of the sort.  As I said, the question of the engine's steaming qualities has been one that has been the subject of a lot of sand house gossip among the model and enthusiast community. 

We spent several years in Boulder, where the locomotive was retired for display.  Forrest Crossen, who had written a history of the Colorado & Northwestern / Denver Boulder & Western (the first owner) was sure that the C&N crews liked the trio of Brooks 2-8-0s.  He had interviewed several of the now very elderly men who worked for the line, and concluded that they liked these engines.  Books about the RGS frequently told a different tale - and reported that the 74 was unpopular with crews because it steamed poorly.  When the discussion came up on the NGDF, several guys with a lot of research on the C&S, including interviews with C&S enginemen, and the three ex C&N locomotives were not regarded as problem children.  Note that the C&S engine crews DID have complaints about the tracking qualities of the leased D&RGW C-19's, so it is probable that these me did recall good and bad points about different locomotives. 

I can well imagine the fireman for the excursion cursing his luck - stuck with the smaller 74 and her long, bowling alley of a fire-box, instead of a nice big mudhen with that big wide, relatively shallow firebox.  No, I doubt any of the participants are still alive, but it seems very plausible.  Especially with the reports that the club's tour director knew enough to suspect the problem might not be the locomotive as much as the fireman, especially since the problem with poor steaming reportedly stopped after that testy exchange of words. 

Anyway, it's been fun talking it over.

Charlie
-30-

[Woody Elmore]

Charlie - I didn't think you were criticizing me. I'm sure that crews hated the engines because it was a lot more work for the fireman which then impacted the engineer.

I can imagine that all C&S engines had tracking problems given the low budget maintainance that the C&S was receiving.

[Chatzi473]

even if the C&S had problems people still like to model it but thats kinda hard with just one 2-6-0

[finderskeepers]

I know Sunset made this engine in brass On3 and it is rare to find one for sale. 

about as hard as trying to find HO Colorado Midland brass engines.


Royce Wilson
                                               

Royce, I just listed one on ebay, happy bidding fella!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=170268934596&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT&ih=007

[jcater]

My question is how close is the Bachmann model to the C & S B4A 2-8-0 (they had one, No. 30)?  If close enough it could be modeled on the existing Bachmann engine which is, at least, a Baldwin model.  BTW, the engine crews also hated the No. 22 mogul for its bad performance capabilities...

[jcater]

Oops, mispoke a bit...the C & S roster lists nine of these (30 - 39), but most were sold 1899/1900.  Indeed only two survived into the 1920s on the C & S line, the No. 30, and No 37.