Isambard What's the secret to opening up that link to a reasonable size image? The best I can do is find a BC Archives page containing a very small gif of the locos (I think) amongst other gif. Otherwise it invites one to enter search terms or photo title to find the photo - not successful for me. :(
What's the secret to opening up that link to a reasonable size image? The best I can do is find a BC Archives page containing a very small gif of the locos (I think) amongst other gif. Otherwise it invites one to enter search terms or photo title to find the photo - not successful for me. :(
I just go to "view" up on the tool bar and zoom in, that makes it go as large as is practical for me. Also on the B.C. Archives page, it lets you make adjustments on the size of the photo and the amount of information that comes up with each photo. As one that has spent a lot of hours looking at all the Railroad photo's on the site, I can tell you that the B.C. Archives and City of Vancouver Archives are tax $ I don't mind spending.
It is also very interesting reading the history behind the photographers behind all the Railroad photo's.
My kids use the Archives for school projects and both the info and photo's available are quite different than what comes up on Google. It is one thing to read about the building of the C.P.R. on Wiki, but quite another reading the letters and reports from the actual people that wrote them and who gave eye witness accounts. For this reason their projects stand out against the others, usually resulting in very good grades.
A photo from the City of Vancouver Archives. If you ever visit the Archives, this photo greets you in the entrance as a huge wall mural. You go WOW! as you go down the stairs.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
Isambard
Grizzly Northern history, Tales from the Grizzly and news on line at isambard5935.blogspot.com
One of my favorite pictures, a pair of Selkirks and a 10 wheeler siting in the yard
http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/cgi-bin/www2i/.visual/img_med/dir_153/f_06426.gif
It's a very odd place to put a smoke deflector, way down around the coupler like that. But, oh well.....
Your right Tatans!
Note that the second sand dome, part of the loco as built, has been removed, typically, being found unnecessary. The smoke deflector was steam activated from the cab, but seldom used and frequently dismantled.
Isambard A number of photos of T1a Selkirks suggest that their smoke boxes were usually either black or very dark grey, very close to the boiler jacket colour, like 5905 here:
A number of photos of T1a Selkirks suggest that their smoke boxes were usually either black or very dark grey, very close to the boiler jacket colour, like 5905 here:
I just knew this forum would break the record for the amount of replies to a Canadian locomotive, and by the way what a great photo of a great locomotive, love the plow. and this will not be the last reply eh?
De Lux
Since its the front axle of the trailing truck that derails, as I see it, there are two possibilities that causes this.
One, the truck is slightly warped. It doesn't take much of a warp to cause it to derail. Or Two, the attachment to the loco frame is needing adjustment. To determine if the truck is warped, place the engine on a piece of glass, like an 8x10 picture frame glass. Take a thin piece of paper, and try to slide it under the front wheel's flange, sliding it in from the side, first on one side then the other. If it slides under one flange, but not the other, the truck is warped. If it slides under both wheels, then its the attachment to the frame.
The warp can be corrected by a slight very easy, light twisting of the truck. If the attachment is the problem, a slightly longer shoulder screw maybe needed to lower the front end of the truck, or an adjustment to the front of the truck where the screw goes through the hole in the truck is needed. Look at it from the side, does the part the screw goes through appear to be bent down slightly? If so the piece needs to be "leveled" up. This can be accomplished often with just a squeeze across the front of the piece with a pair of non-marring, (smooth jaw) pliers. Most of these pieces are just a flat piece of shaped brass with an appropriate hole for the screw. When this piece is bent down it raises the front axle, and if bent upward it will raise the rear axle.
I've done brass repairs for over 30 years, and just about every time I've run across this type of problem on other brass engines with 4 wheel trailing trucks, one of these two situations seemed to be the cause.
Carey
Keep it between the Rails
Alabama Central Homepage
Nara member #128
NMRA &SER Life member
The painting of the smokebox aluminium or grey varied between locomotives.
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/cp/cp-s2340s.jpg
I have been told that it more or less depended upon what paint was available when the engine was being serviced and where it was being serviced. If the servicing was major there was a very good chance that the firebox would be painted a light colour, silver or grey, and if the servicing was more or less moderate or typical then the painting was considered to be less important. The main CPR shops prided themselves on turning out the locomotives as though they looked just like the new ones.
Bye the way, I decided I wanted a Selkirk in the passenger colours so I did find one, however to be accurate to the time period being modeled I did buy one of the Streamline T1b's (they kind of grow on you - although I really do prefer the T1 a's unstreamlined looks)
@ don7: Thanks for letting me know. Actually I planned to paint the whole engine black and only apply "Canadian Pacific" decals for the tender lettering and numbers for the cab (like the model on the photo), because I´m very bad at applying decals. So I wanted to minimize the use of decals. On the other hand, I would of course like it, that my engine is finished in the more beautiful passenger scheme with the Tuscan panels on the tender and along the sideboards. I will have to think about that. Your Selkirk is very well done. I already saw it before, because you posted this photo of it already before in this thread. Beautiful! Is it porotypical for the early 50s to paint the smokebox silver/light grey like you did? Did you also add marker lights on your Selkirk or are the marker lights just painted to make them stand out from the surrounding rest a bit?
@ doctorwayne: Thanks for the advice. I never thought about that! It surely will be a better solution than to cut off the booster pipes!
De Luxe ....Selector: the trailing truck always derails in the curves. I will have to cut off the lower part of the steam pipes to allow more motion for the truck. I see no other solution than this. This is how my Selkirk looks on my 20 inch curve. By the way only the front axle of the trailing truck derails. Never the rear axle.
....Selector: the trailing truck always derails in the curves. I will have to cut off the lower part of the steam pipes to allow more motion for the truck. I see no other solution than this.
This is how my Selkirk looks on my 20 inch curve. By the way only the front axle of the trailing truck derails. Never the rear axle.
The easiest way to correct the interference between the booster piping and the trailing truck is to re-shape the rear of the truck frame. This will allow the pipes to remain (they're pretty prominent and removing them would be very noticeable) and the re-shaped frame shouldn't be noticeable once the area has been painted. I prefer a cut-off disc for such work, as it allows more precision than cutting burrs.
Wayne
De lux
Looks great, the Decals for the Selkirk are CPR#2345, There are two sets in the package, one for a small steamer and one for a large steamer - the Selkirk
If you want there is another set CPR #2345 which contains the Tuscan panels for both the engine (along the sideboard) and also for the tender. This is the passenger set, the freight set does not use the Maroon/Tuscan panels
The picture of the Selkirk you T1a you posted is the freight version, no Maroon/Tuscan panels
This is my T1a, note same number as your picture of the painted Selkirk.
This is a CPR passenger livery with the Tuscan Panels
@ don7: Thank you for the the information and link! Unfortunately I didn´t found any T-1a Selkirk decals on that website. Yes, I´m really lucky with that engine. Obviously the drivers have a lot of sideplay. Otherwise I cannot expalin to myself, why the engine can handel such tight radii, while my other 2-10-4, a Kumata Texas & Pacific I-1a, derails on my 20 inch curves, although it has smaller drivers and therefore a shorter wheelbase!
@Selector: the trailing truck always derails in the curves. I will have to cut off the lower part of the steam pipes to allow more motion for the truck. I see no other solution than this.
And this is how my future 10 car Mountaineer should look like: From top to bottom:
Samhongsa CP T-1a 2-10-4, MTH SOO FA-1/FB-1, SOO Baggage, 2 CP 10-5 Sleepers, 2 SOO 12-1 Sleepers, SOO Diner, 3 SOO 10-1-2 Sleepers and a SOO Sleeper Solarium Observation with Tomar Industries lighted Mountaineer drumhead on the rear. All cars by Walthers.
What do you think of this train? I think it will be a great looking train once finished, when every car has passenger figures and interior lights added. But I think it will be a huge challenge to install the headlight and smoke unit in the 2-10-4, because the front part of the boiler is filled with a big piece of weight. Some hardcore drillwork will be necessary to do this. And I also wonder if the 2-10-4 will have enough tractive force to pull these 10 cars up a 3% grade. Traction tires would have been a good idea...
By the way: does anyone of you know what year those CP 10-5 Sleeper arrived on the CP?
Very good news! Can you not thin the pipes on the wheels side of the tender? Can they be bent even 0.5 mm outward where the contact first takes place? If the derailments are occasional or intermittent, then it suggests to me that even a fraction of a mm displacement of the piping would more than halve the numbers of derailments.
Alternatively, you could round the outter edges of the tires on that one axle, just enough to buy you that bit of a mm of extra clearance but not enough to make the modified shape stand out.
Crandell
You are in luck. Checkout Blackcat Decals, they have a line of CPR steam decals which include the large steam decals with the maroon and gold trim blocks for the steam engines and tenders and of course the appropriate CPR decals.
http://www.canadasouthern.com/tmr/misc-decals.htm
They have all you would need for any CPR steam.
I have heard that some Selkirks come with a lot of lateral side movement on the drivers which allow the engine to handle the smaller curves.
The luck of the draw.
Guess what! Just yesterday I received my CP Selkirk and all 10 drivers go through my 20 inch curves without any problems! No modifications needed!!! I really didn´t need to worry that much about it! But of course in the beginning I didn´t expect this model to go through my radii! Only the rear truck is derailing sometimes due to touching the rear steam pipes in the curves. I will remove the pipes and the problem will be solved. But installing a DCC decoder with sound, headlight, cab light and smoke unit will definitely be a problem because this model isn´t ready for it at all. And there is also a problem about the decals, because Champ has closed the doors, and there is no other manufacturer doing CP steam locomotive declas as far as I know.
Simple statistics would warrant a difference : U.S. population= 312 million. Canadaland population=35 million. There are more people in California than in all of Canada.
Canada has 2 railroads. U.S. has _ _ _ _ _ railroads. (anyone know?)
Huh, do topics about Canadian locomotives on the forum usually get much less replies than about US locomotives? Never noticed that yet...
This must be some kind of record for the amount of forum replies to a Canadian locomotive eh?
@ Paul:
Your idea sounds interesting indeed. But for me that experiment would be a little too much. Lifting the first and last drivers up sounds quite complicated. And I also don´t want to lose tractive force, because my trains are long and heavy, so all 5 drivers are surely needed. My 2-10-4 should be able to pull 40 freight cars or 10 lighted passenger cars (featuring interiors and figures) up 3% grades. Since it doesn´t feature traction tire equipped wheels, all driving wheels will surely be needed.
I´m much more into the other possibility of giving the center drivers or better all drivers more lateral play. I just made this drawing right now. I wonder how it would be like if the frame is being narrowed by cutting the frame off along the dashed red lines. I think that this could really make the engine negotiate 20 inch curves and maybe it wouldn´t even need a flangless center driver then. But I simply don´t know HOW to do this and with which tools. I mean I never did such things before.
De Luxe That is interesting. I once had a 4-8-4 (the prototype had 80 inch drivers) that always derailed on my 20 inch curves, and whenever it derailed, it were always only the front and rear drivers that derailed, but never the 2 inner drivers, which stayed correctly on track. Because of this experience I belive that the reason is the long rigid flanged wheelbase (large drivered 4-8-4s can have longer wheelbases than small drivered 2-10-4s), and this is why I believe that making the front and rear drivers flangless is more effective than just a flangless center driver. But your reasons sound logical as well... ....
That is interesting. I once had a 4-8-4 (the prototype had 80 inch drivers) that always derailed on my 20 inch curves, and whenever it derailed, it were always only the front and rear drivers that derailed, but never the 2 inner drivers, which stayed correctly on track. Because of this experience I belive that the reason is the long rigid flanged wheelbase (large drivered 4-8-4s can have longer wheelbases than small drivered 2-10-4s), and this is why I believe that making the front and rear drivers flangless is more effective than just a flangless center driver. But your reasons sound logical as well...
....
Making the first and last drivers flangeless makes it easier for them to slide across the rail and fall off. The geometry of the track and wheelbase forces the ends to derail, removing the flanges just makes it easier.
OTOH if you modified the chassis/mechanism to have the first and last drivers float above the rails a tiny bit then they could be flangeless and you in effect have 2 less axles although you may need some extra lateral movement in the pilot and trailing trucks. I haven't tried this, but it would be an intersting experiment especially if you can get the engine cheap enough.
The other possibility would be to give the center drivers more lateral play so they can slide side to side more. Again I haven't tried this so I'm not sure how well it would work. Report back to us if you do.
Good luck
Paul
De Luxe @ don7: well, that´s my point of view as well. I only want to run engines that can run on the entire tracks of the whole layout. I don´t wanna be restricted to certain trackage. So for me the situation is very clear: either the engine takes it all, or I will not buy it at all.
@ don7: well, that´s my point of view as well. I only want to run engines that can run on the entire tracks of the whole layout. I don´t wanna be restricted to certain trackage. So for me the situation is very clear: either the engine takes it all, or I will not buy it at all.
But...that's prototypical ;)
Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296
Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/
I am still glad that I bought the Selkirk, I had second thoughst and added additional track so the Selkirk can again access the layout via the turntable and make its rather limited run.
However, I certainly would not alter the drive wheels to make the engine fit your layout.can not accomodate the engine. You can always use smaller engines on your layout.
UPDATE
As I mentioned the Selkirk will not run on parts of my layout due to the radius requirements. I was running the Selkirk in a point to point pattern, however, the Selkirks inabillity to run the full layout has made me make a decision that I will retire the Selkirk to the yard area and leave in on a track near the roundhouse where it will not longer access the layout.
The Selkirk has been replaced by a pair of Hudson H-1-a steamers,
I can totally understand your thoughts. I am also not really in the mood of trying this experiment to be honest. Too risky.
It will be a gamble, to be sure. If you were to stand before me and look inquiringly at me for a reaction, I would tell you that I would not contemplate doing this...not for the curves you have. If it were 24", probably, but not for less.
About the only 10-coupled you will get to run on your curves nicely, including at track speeds in scale, would be the Bachmann Spectrum Decapod. It had a short wheelbase, and could operate on 18" radius curves.
I was also interested in a Texas & Pacific 2-10-4 by Sunset Models, which is currently being offered on ebay. Those Sunset 2-10-4s come with a flangless center driver, that can replace the flanged center driver if necessary for operation. Now after doing a little research I found out, that when you operate this T&P 2-10-4 with the flanged center driver, the minimum radius is 30 inch. But when you operate it with the flangless center driver, the minimum radius goes down to 24 inch. Well, that is still not enough for me, but now I think about what the minimum radius of the PFM Selkirk is in its original state with the flanged drivers, and what the minimum radius COULD BE, IF the center driver is being made flangless. Since both prototypes (T&P I-1a & CP T-1a) had 63 inch drivers, I guess it will also be the same thing with the models: if the T&P I-1a can do a minimum of 24 inches with a flangless center driver, I can expect the CP T-1a to do pretty much the same so. And this is what I am afraid of, because no one can give me the guarantee that the T-1a would be able to make it through 20 inch curves with just the center driver being flangless. If it only takes a 24 inch minimum with the flangless center driver, my problem is still not solved and I still cannot use it.
De Luxe But in my eyes it would be better to make the 2 outer drivers flangless, wouldn´t it?...
But in my eyes it would be better to make the 2 outer drivers flangless, wouldn´t it?...
No. The prototype examples I have seen, and those models of them that I know, all have the center driver 'blind'. I know a small 2-8-2 nearby that has only the two outer axles with flanges due to the tight curves and turnouts its fellow diesel switchers around it use. The reason is that you want the flanges guiding the locomotive where they will have the most leverage, and where they will augment the pilot truck's centering spring. That position is always furthest from the fulcrum or the pivoting point, or the center of mass.