One of the difficulties of modeling the Nevada mining railroads is that information is much harder to come by than for many railroads. For example the Las Vegas and Tonopah had three 2-8-0's for which until very recently there were no photographs. I have since discovered that they were built to Harriman common standards and they became UP engines when the LV&T went belly up in 1918. I also found a couple of very small photographs that appear to show the engines from a distance that show that they had piston valves not slide valves and Vanderbilt tenders. I have several of these engines lying around in boxes from my B&O/WM layout 10 years ago. Hmmmmm! I love kit-bashing!
I seem to remember articles about altering these engines to specific prototypes but a search has not shown me any examples involving the Common standard 2-8-0. Has anyone done such a conversion? Can anyone point me to articles about converting them to UP or SP standards that I could use as a starting point? Does anything go bad with the drive trains of these engines when they have been in the box for 10 years that I should know about? Thanks.
NevinDoes anything go bad with the drive trains of these engines when they have been in the box for 10 years that I should know about?
Sometimes the grease or oil can dry up. Just check and see, then make sure you use the proper lubricants recommended in the instructions. Make sure they are plastic compatible.
I think plastics, in general, deteriorate naturally over time. Some are much more stable than others. It seems that the nylon or other plastic gearing has problems with splitting on some shafts, particularly if they were pressed into place for only a friction fit meant to withstand the rigours of causing a heavy locomotive to move down the tracks. So, it could be (probably not on that loco...) a potential problem. This applies also to plastic insulation on all those tiny wires inside our locomotives. Over time, it breaks up. I don't think it should be too bad in your case unless....UNLESS...the locomotive has been subjected to fairly high temperatures or a lot of ozone. If kept closed and wrapped inside its box, probably nothing to worry about there.
Corrosion of highly oxidizable metals, say bared copper, might also be problematic inside a locomotive over time. If they have a coating of some kind, not so much.
Other than that, as pointed out by Lone Wolf and Santa Fe, the most likely concern will the the condition of the lubrication inside the gear tower and around the lower gears surrounding the axles. It couldn't hurt at this stage to clean it and apply a bit to the various gears. Otherwise, on a locomotive stored for more than five or six years, you'll find that it takes a lot more juice to get it to move at any one speed.
selector Other than that, as pointed out by Lone Wolf and Santa Fe, the most likely concern will the the condition of the lubrication inside the gear tower and around the lower gears surrounding the axles. It couldn't hurt at this stage to clean it and apply a bit to the various gears. Otherwise, on a locomotive stored for more than five or six years, you'll find that it takes a lot more juice to get it to move at any one speed.
I too have a couple of Bachmann 2-8-0s that haven't been run for a few years, but I can't figure out how one would lube the gear tower(?)...
Gary
Nevin...I seem to remember articles about altering these engines to specific prototypes but a search has not shown me any examples involving the Common standard 2-8-0. Has anyone done such a conversion? Can anyone point me to articles about converting them to UP or SP standards that I could use as a starting point?...
While it may be possible to convert the Bachmann Consolidation to a Harriman Standard, you might find the MDC Consolidation to be a better starting point, as it was intended to represent a Harriman-style locomotive (as was their 10 Wheeler).
You'd still get some kitbashing enjoyment out of detailing them to better match your specific prototypes. I'm a big fan of Bachmann's Consolidations (have eight of them), but the MDC locos, assembled properly, were good runners and good pullers, too. Cal-Scale (Bowser) and Precision Scale have loads of detail parts, and you can easily replace the open frame motors in the older MDC locos with can motors.Here's an older photo of my MDC Consolidation, pretty-much stock except for the Cal-Scale bell and modified tender...
...and a 10 Wheeler...
Both of those locos have gone to other owners, but newer versions are, I think, available, and I'd guess used ones to be available, too, either on-line or at train shows.
garya I too have a couple of Bachmann 2-8-0s that haven't been run for a few years, but I can't figure out how one would lube the gear tower(?)...
That's 'cause there is no gear tower as-such. The motor shaft is equipped with a toothed pulley, which drives a cogged belt, in-turn driving another toothed pulley on the same shaft as the worm. The worm gear is immediately below that, mounted on the axle of the main (third) driver.
Wayne
Well, so much for my experience with Bachmann Consolidations!
So, with Dr. Wayne's experience and advice, I can foresee two possible issues, a dried-out and crumbly belt and some older and stiff grease around the worm gear. I mean it's something worth investigating if you'd like to assure yourself that the locomotive is fit to spend some time serving you on your track system. It may turn out that those two possibilities are of no concern, even after years.
Using the MDC 2-8-0. That is a very interesting idea. I have one of those stored away someplace. I wonder whether the MDC shell would fit on the the Bachmann Chassis? I've done stranger things.
Not really expert on the UP here - was the drawing in the September 1958 MR page 36 (with some good photos) the common standard UP 2-8-0?
An entry in the magazine index on this website suggests that an article by Robert Schleicher in the August 1998 Railmodel Journal might be of interest as it explores the various prototypes that resemble the Bachmann Spectrum 2-8-0.
Also furthering Doctor Wayne's suggestion of the old MDC kit, Jeff Kraker had a thorough article on making the kit run better in the May 2002 issue of MR.
Dave Nelson
dknelson Not really expert on the UP here - was the drawing in the September 1958 MR page 36 (with some good photos) the common standard UP 2-8-0? An entry in the magazine index on this website suggests that an article by Robert Schleicher in the August 1998 Railmodel Journal might be of interest as it explores the various prototypes that resemble the Bachmann Spectrum 2-8-0. Also furthering Doctor Wayne's suggestion of the old MDC kit, Jeff Kraker had a thorough article on making the kit run better in the May 2002 issue of MR. Dave Nelson
There was also an article in the April 1978 Model Railroader on using the kit for an SP C-3. Lots of good info on superdetailing.
As a follow on to that RMJ article, I found this review on using the Bachmann Spectrum 2-8-0 for UP:
http://utahrails.net/articles/bachman-2-8-0-review.php
There seems to be some discrepancy on the size of the drivers on the Bachmann--I thought they were 62" or 63", but this review states they were 60"... I think the MDC kit drivers are 62".
The Bachmann 2-8-0 seems to be based on the IC's iteration of the Harriman 2-8-0. The IC replaced the rounded Harriman sandbox with their own squared-off design, and they substituted larger drivers for the original Harriman 57" drivers. The Bachmann engine has the larger drivers and a nonstandard sandbox that seems to resemble the Russian Decapod sandbox more than anything. If I were an IC modeler, I would probably replace that sandbox and use the engine with no further mods. To get a Harriman engine from the Bachmann, the drivers should be replaced with 57" drivers, and the sandbox ought to be replaced with the original rounded one. The valve gear on the Bachmann is Baker, which should be replaced with Walschaerts', or perhaps removed altogether to represent inside connected Stephenson valve gear. Canted valve chests like those on the old Varney/Bowser Casey Jones or Old Lady would probably be helpful on the Stephenson version.
The MDC boiler has a reasonable general Harriman appearance, but there is too much taper. That being said, the MDC engnes can be made to operate very well and reliably. It really depends on how accurate you want to be, and what compromises will still provide an engine that is is good enough to satisfy you.
For a Harriman Vanderbilt tender, the MDC may be your best bet, although the Bachmann might do.
To get it really right, you might just as well look for a PFM UP "6200" 2-8-0 in brass. They are generally fine operating engines, and can be had at reasonable cost.
Tom
garya...There seems to be some discrepancy on the size of the drivers on the Bachmann--I thought they were 62" or 63", but this review states they were 60"... I think the MDC kit drivers are 62".
I just now measured the drivers on one of my Bachmann Spectrum 2-8-0s and they're about as close as you could get to 62". While I sold my MDC Consolidation long before the Bachmann loco was released, I seem to recall them as have somewhat smaller drivers, although that impression might be attributable to the fact that they were geared fairly low, and had a realistically low top speed.
doctorwayne garya ...There seems to be some discrepancy on the size of the drivers on the Bachmann--I thought they were 62" or 63", but this review states they were 60"... I think the MDC kit drivers are 62". I just now measured the drivers on one of my Bachmann Spectrum 2-8-0s and they're about as close as you could get to 62". While I sold my MDC Consolidation long before the Bachmann loco was released, I seem to recall them as have somewhat smaller drivers, although that impression might be attributable to the fact that they were geared fairly low, and had a realistically low top speed. Wayne
garya ...There seems to be some discrepancy on the size of the drivers on the Bachmann--I thought they were 62" or 63", but this review states they were 60"... I think the MDC kit drivers are 62".
I just measured several 2-8-0 drivers, and this is what I found:
Bachmann Spectrum 2-8-0: 62"
Bowser H-9: 62"
Bowser Old Lady: 62" (no surprise; I think they're the same parts as the H-9 and the Casey Jones)
MDC Roundhouse Harriman: 65"
MDC Old Time 2-8-0: 52"
I don't have an MDC Roundhouse Harriman 4-6-0 to check, but I wonder if the 2-8-0 and 4-6-0 have the same size drivers--I think the boilers are the same; maybe they split the difference for the drivers to save money?
Prototype and model practice are not the same.
Very early 2-8-0's tended to have drivers 52" diameter or smaller. By about 1900, it became more common for 2-8 -0's to have drivers in the 55-57" range. This is exemplified by the Harriman 2-8-0's, PRR H6 (B&O E-24), Southern Ks, C&O G-7 and G-9, and many contemporaries. Then around 1908, PRR and others began to buy 2-8-0's with drivers in the 62-63" range. This gave us the B&O E-27, WM H-9, Reading I-10, and others. Mikados generally followed suit. Of course there were a few smaller engines that carried small drivers despite being built later.
Since there were so many Consolidations with drivers in the 57" range, I have often wondered why so few 2-8-0 models have been offered with those drivers. I have suspected that 57" drivers simply aren't available, but the Bachmann M&PA 4-6-0 uses them, so I don't think that can be the problem. Maybe it's about time for BLI (or somebody) to consider a correct SR 2-8-0, owing to the popularity of SR 630 and 722. Or a correct Harriman.
At this point, the only way to get a 2-8-0 with 57" drivers is to find a brass one.
Nevin Using the MDC 2-8-0. That is a very interesting idea. I have one of those stored away someplace. I wonder whether the MDC shell would fit on the the Bachmann Chassis? I've done stranger things.
Not without a lot of work. I looked into doing this a while back. You will have to mill out a lot of the MDC shell to get it to fit on the Bachmann chassis.
The Bachmann 2-8-0 seems to be based on the IC's iteration of the Harriman 2-8-0. The IC replaced the rounded Harriman sandbox with their own squared-off design, and they substituted larger drivers for the original Harriman 57" drivers. The Bachmann engine has the larger drivers and a nonstandard sandbox that seems to resemble the Russian Decapod sandbox more than anything. If I were an IC modeler, I would probably replace that sandbox and use the engine with no further mods.
Tom,
The IC Baldwin 2-8-0s came with 63 inch drivers and were built from 1909 through 1911. They also came with Vanderbuilt tenders. In 1943 several were rebuilt in the Paducah shops. Only one, 907 IIRC received the Paducah sand dome. The rest had a low profile sand dome installed. The air compressors were moved to the pilot. They also received a pressed steel pilot that was made from old boxcar ends. They received new tenders.
Several other of these 2-8-0s were rebuilt into 0-8-0s at the same time and renumbered into the 3400 series. At least one of these, 3405 received a Paducah sand dome. They retained their Vanderbuilt tenders and the compressors remained mounted on the fireman's side.
The cab on the Bachmann 2-8-0 is wrong and would also need to be changed to make an exact model of either the 900 series 2-8-0s (one of which ran until the end of steam on the IC) or the 0-8-0s. I believe one or two of them had a cab like the Bachmann and Hallmark models but most had windows that were almost the full length of the cab.
The brass Hallmark 2-8-0 is a model of the one with the Paducah sand dome. The other sand dome that comes with it isn't correct for the other 900 series engines.
Jeff White
Alma, IL - IC modeler
Jeff, I'm not an IC modeler. If I were, I think I would start a modification project with the sandbox, which is the most noticeable feature that distinguisghes the outline of these locos. The pilot, air pump relocation, and other mods, including the cab and tender, would be dictated by the prototype engine I chose. Research for such a project would be helped by the fact that two similar prototype engines exist, although I'm not enough of an IC authority to know whether they are a good match for a 900: Number 764 is at the Museum of Transport near St. Louis, and number 790 is at Steamtown in Scranton, PA. Any decisions about the sandbox contours or other details should probably be determined by info garnered from these engines, from photos, or from official drawings, if available.
Unfortunately neither surviving IC 2-8-0 is a match for a 900. However the MDC Harriman 2-8-0 is a good starting point for both of those engines as the boiler contours are right. I live 65 miles from St Louis and I've seen 764 numerous times and the last time I was there I was given access to it (it wasn't currently on display) to photograph. It was donated to the museum in the year I model, but I plan on building one to run on my layout anyway. That's how I know the MDC boiler won't just drop onto the Bachmann chassis.
I wouldn't consider myself an expert, but I've been researching IC steam for about 10 years. I've got a ton of books, photos, locomotive diagram books and slides. There is a lot of information out there, especially photos since the IC ran steam up to 1960.
You're right about the sandbox being the most distinctive feature. I had some 3d printed from the original IC blueprints that I purchased from the ICHS a few years back on a disk. So the hardest part about kitbashing IC steam is done.
My current project is building IC 3405 which is the 0-8-0 that was built from the 900 series 2-8-0s in 1943. I am using the Bachmann Spectrum 2-8-0 as the starting point. It gets a cab off of a Bachmann 4-6-0, a second compressor mounted on the fireman's side, a switcher pilot and an MDC Vanderbuilt tender. The headlight gets moved to the top of the smokebox and one of the 3d printed sand domes makes it a pretty easy kitbash.
Those little Spectrum 2-8-0s are great engines and besides the 900s and 3400s one can also use them as the starting point for the 2-8-2s of which the IC had nearly 600. That's a bit more involved as it requires you to lengthen the boiler and chassis.
Alma, IL