SeeYou190 ATLANTIC CENTRAL This picture, taken before the paint shop, is a LIMA 2-8-4 converted in to a modern Heavy Mikado, similar to the DT&I 800 class but with larger drivers. I like what you did with these locomotives. I saved a picture of one of them to my "ideas" folder a while back. Since I have so many steam locomotives already, I do not think I will ever build one like it. I only have three more non-articulated steam models on my to-buy list, and I am in no real hurry to acquire those. I really want a Class A 2-6-6-4 as my next new locomotive purchase, but both used BLI models I have found so far have had serious running issues. I doubt anyone else will be making one, but if Bachmann did, I would jump in for one immediately. -Kevin
ATLANTIC CENTRAL This picture, taken before the paint shop, is a LIMA 2-8-4 converted in to a modern Heavy Mikado, similar to the DT&I 800 class but with larger drivers.
I like what you did with these locomotives. I saved a picture of one of them to my "ideas" folder a while back.
Since I have so many steam locomotives already, I do not think I will ever build one like it.
I only have three more non-articulated steam models on my to-buy list, and I am in no real hurry to acquire those.
I really want a Class A 2-6-6-4 as my next new locomotive purchase, but both used BLI models I have found so far have had serious running issues. I doubt anyone else will be making one, but if Bachmann did, I would jump in for one immediately.
-Kevin
I have two of the BLI Class A 2-6-6-4 locos, mine both have been great. They are very good pullers, on a friends layout we pulled 110 cars up 2% grades, no trouble at all. I am in the process of changing the tenders so they blend in with the fleet better. The N&W tender is pretty distictive.
I am replacing the tenders with left over tenders from the Mikado project.
Two of the locos I used for the Mikado project were the C&O Kanawha versions which have much bigger tenders than the NKP and PM versions. Those two Mikes received long Vanderbilt tenders.
So I built five Mikados with monior variations creating three sub classes.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRALThis picture, taken before the paint shop, is a LIMA 2-8-4 converted in to a modern Heavy Mikado, similar to the DT&I 800 class but with larger drivers.
Living the dream.
SeeYou190 ATLANTIC CENTRAL Kevin, it is a labeling mistake that Lifelike made on the undecorated models. Thank you, that is what I needed to know. I am relieved that everything I thought I knew about USRA locomotives was not turned upside down. -Kevin
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Kevin, it is a labeling mistake that Lifelike made on the undecorated models.
Thank you, that is what I needed to know.
I am relieved that everything I thought I knew about USRA locomotives was not turned upside down.
I used the Bachmann versions to make five of these:
This picture, taken before the paint shop, is a LIMA 2-8-4 converted in to a modern Heavy Mikado, similar to the DT&I 800 class but with larger drivers.
I added a lot of weight in addtion to the other mods. They run and pull very nice.
They are one of the most modern steam locos on the ATLANTIC CENTRAL.
ATLANTIC CENTRALKevin, it is a labeling mistake that Lifelike made on the undecorated models.
Even the famous NYC Mikado (#8000) that presaged many of the elements of true Super-Power postdates the USRA design era.
Note that the argument here doesn't involve the dates the USRA 'ran the American railroads', it involves the period that USRA ran a standardized design bureau and was able to compel production to those standards. The subsequent history of the designs on a wide variety of railroads demonstrated to me the value of good standard designs -- although there are revisionist arguments that claim the designs were often not good, and represented a boondoggle comparable to many other aspects of the period of Federal Control as viewed from a comparable political standpoint.
Note also that, even though the value of wide fireboxes over two-axle trucks had been demonstrated as early as 1911 (in Europe) the first real example I know of was the one tested on ATSF -- and they referred to the result as a 'heavy Mountain' so it was not the radical enhancement that Woodard's A-1 design constituted several years later. In fact, Woodard's designs as late as 1928 were much more geared to drag-era performance; the first real high-speed Berkshires were those for Erie, in the late '20s, and as noted the AMC Berks (and the AMC high-speed 2-10-4 that ran rings around any contemporary Lima-originated design) came later than that. Even 4-8-4s were ponderous freight designs, with only a couple of exceptions, and in fact even in the mid-Thirties a considerable part of the 'respected' locomotive design community fell on their collective faces trying to balance one correctly.
Now, if there is a "modern" design that best expresses the spirit behind the USRA designs, the AMC Berk has to be right at the head of even a short list.
With the USRA labelling issue resolved, I would like to comment on the Proto Heritage 2-8-4 Berkshire.
I have (had) three of them - - C&O, NKP, PM. Initially, I thought that I loved this model so much that I bought three of them and, for a while, wished that I had even more roadnames.
But I have come to intensely dislike the Proto Heritage 2-8-4 Berkshire. For one thing, it is too light and, therefore, a very poor puller. For another thing, the wiring harness between the engine and tender is faulty. I don't know why, but I have experienced the meltdown of the insulation around the harness wiring, leading to exposed wires and shorts.
I wouldn't recommend the Proto Heritage 2-8-4 Berkshire to anyone considering one.
Rich
Alton Junction
Definitely a blunder by someone at Proto 2000. Probably due to copy-and-pasting label text from their USRA 0-8-0 and/or 2-8-8-2 model packaging.
Dave Nelson
Kevin, it is a labeling mistake that Lifelike made on the undecorated models.
It is your standard ALCO built Van Swerigen Berkshire, as used by the NKP, PM, C&O, Virginian, and similar to those on the Erie and the W&LE. There were a number of minor differences between the various roads and production groups, but all are of the same basic design and family.
Proto, Bachmann and MTH have made various models in recent times.
It is the same loco I buikt my freelanced Mikados from, I used the Bachmann version.
Here is a little more background information to elaborate on Ed In Kentucky's above information:
https://nycshs.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/baaclasses.pdf
Good Luck, Ed In Cleveland
The United States Railroad Administration (USRA) was dissolved on March 1, 1920. The USRA standard design steam locomotives may have continued to be built into the 1920s, but the Berkshire was not an original USRA design. The first 2-8-4s went to the Boston & Albany to replace earlier USRA designed 2-8-2s starting in 1926. Your model looks like a later Van Swerigen Berkshire.
Ed in Kentucky
I keep seeing examples of this model listed on eBay. It is labeled as a USRA 2-8-4 locomotive.
I have never seen another model of a USRA 2-8-4, nor do I recall any prototype pictures of one of these. It does not even look like a USRA design to me.
These are the only twelve USRA locomotive designs I am aware of:
0-6-0 and 0-8-0
2-8-2 Light & Heavy
2-10-2 Light & Heavy
4-6-2 Light & Heavy
4-8-2 Light & Heavy
2-6-6-2
2-8-8-2
Is the USRA Berkshire a real locomotive design?