You just can't tell from a picture on the Internet

[marknewton]

Which is why I phrased my question in the way that I did. I thought perhaps the OP was unfamiliar with the various boiler designs used on US engines in the 19 century.

Cheers,

Mark.

[edkowal]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeffers_mz

...Deciding to model the nearly same time and place as Spacemouse, I quickly arrived at the same "slim pickingsin period locos" conclusion as he did, and prioceeded along a slightly different path...

...On the other hand, the Spectrum 4-6-0 has the same boiler diameter as all my other 2-8-0's (in the front anyway, it unprototypically swells towards the back) is only two feet longer than the 2-8-0's, has a "legal" wheel arrangement for the road and the period, and the worst offenders appearance-wise, the stack, pilot, and headlamp are all easily replaced...

Before pronouncing a model to be unprototypical, it would help to be aware that there are many, many variations on the theme. Scientists, design engineers, and crackpots have produced any number of peculiar looking engines which were built and steamed up in the hundred and a half years or so of steam locomotive use. For instance, see http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/centen/centen.htm double decker, rotary steam engine monorail
http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/Listowel.html steam monorail
http://www.victorianweb.org/technology/railways/l7.html seven foot gauge 2-2-2
http://www.thecog.com/cog_scene.php?img=the_original_cog_engine 0-2-2 cog engine

There are many others.

-Ed

[SpaceMouse]

Jeff,

MDC makes an 2-8-0 RTR DCC ready. If it is anything like my 2-6-0's, well they run pretty well.

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeffers_mz

On the other hand, the Spectrum 4-6-0 has the same boiler diameter as all my other 2-8-0's (in the front anyway, it unprototypically swells towards the back)

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The Spectrum 4-6-0 has a wagon top boiler. Or do you mean it's unprototypical for your railroad?

Cheers,

Mark.

[jeffers_mz]

Deciding to model the nearly same time and place as Spacemouse, I quickly arrived at the same "slim pickingsin period locos" conclusion as he did, and prioceeded along a slightly different path.

The MDC 2-6-0 and 2-8-0 kits I have will take a while to complete, and will probably need to be re-geared and possibly re-powered before they see service on my road. The Model Power 2-8-0's I have are tender driven, and since it offers low weight, valve gear resistance, and since the tender's pushing it, has problems staying on the track. Some of that may have been alleviated during the last major track tweak, but I won't know until I get the remainder of 25 years oxidation off all the brass cunductive parts.

On the other hand, the Spectrum 4-6-0 has the same boiler diameter as all my other 2-8-0's (in the front anyway, it unprototypically swells towards the back) is only two feet longer than the 2-8-0's, has a "legal" wheel arrangement for the road and the period, and the worst offenders appearance-wise, the stack, pilot, and headlamp are all easily replaced.

The MDC kits all have 4 stacks each, the headlamps are in the pipe from Durango Press, and the pilotsare probably available from precision Scale, if I can just get to the local rep's place while they're open, to pick up a catalog.

But the real deciding factor for me was how the Spectrum runs. It's light, true, it can only pull three MDC Overton shorties up a 5% grade, but that's all the prototype ever managed so that's all I need it to pull. The 4-6-0 runs as close to silent as any loco in the fleet, diesel and steam, which includes P2k, Genesis, Spectrum, Atlas, and Kato equipment. The only sound you hear is the valve gear, a click here and there, sort of an oiled glass whisper from the slides, (that sound to me like they really....really...LIKE to run) and that's it.

Two more on order, and if the MDCs and Model Powers aren't up to snuff, or can't be brought up to suff, the Spectrum 4-6-0s will be the core of the fleet for operations purposes.

FYI, the following is a roster from the Rio Grande Southern I dug up online. During the period in question, the RGS wasn't built quite yet, but the roster clearly indicates what Baldwin was making and selling in 1885, and the Denver and Rio Grande did buy the RGS later on after the 1893 silver crash. If that's not a cozy enough relationship, Otto Mears, who owned the RGS before the D&RG bought it, built the RGS with profits from the Silverton Railroad, and he obtained his locomotives for that road, with the exception of one 2 truck Shay, buying or leasing them from...the D&RG.





Rio Grande Southern Roster
Last Update: 01/14/2002
Road # Class Gauge Builder,#,Yr Wheel Arr. Ent. Svc Left. Svc Disposition
1 C16 N Baldwin,5672,1881 2-8-0 1890 1903 Retired 1903, dismantled 1904
1 56 N Baldwin,5200,1880 2-8-0 1906 1913 Dismantled
2 C16 N Baldwin,5945,1882 2-8-0 1890 1916 Scrapped 1916
3 C16 N Baldwin,5670,1881 2-8-0 1891 1925 Retired in the 1920s (1925 is arbitrary), dismantled 1942
4 C16 N Baldwin,5693,1881 2-8-0 1890 1904 Wrecked 1901, Dismantled 6/1903
5 C16 N Baldwin,5689,1881 2-8-0 1891 1903 Dismantled 1904
6 C16 N Baldwin,5771,1881 2-8-0 1891 1938 Either dismantled 1929 or to D&RGW 9/24/1938
7 C16 N Baldwin,5772,1881 2-8-0 1891 1903 Dismantled 1904
8 C16 N Baldwin,5801,1881 2-8-0 1891 1903 Dismantled 1904
9 C16 N Baldwin,5800,1881 2-8-0 1891 1903 Dismantled 1904
10 C16 N Baldwin,5895,1881 2-8-0 1891 1925 Retired in the 1920s (1925 is arbitrary), dismantled 1942
11 40 N Baldwin,4336,1878 2-6-0 1891 1899 To George M. Dilley & Son
12 C16 N Baldwin,5896,1881 2-8-0 1891 1925 Dismantled either 1916 or 1942
13 C16 N Baldwin,5917,1881 2-8-0 1891 1916 Dismantled 1916
14 48 N Baldwin,5737,1881 0-6-0T 1891 1893 Sold to Yellow Pine Lumber Company, Mobile, Alabama, 11/1899
15 C16 N Baldwin,5919,1881 2-8-0 1891 1925 Retired in the 1920s (1925 is arbitrary), dismantled 1942
16 C16 N Baldwin,5923,1881 2-8-0 1891 1925 Retired in the 1920s (1925 is arbitrary), dismantled 1942
17 C16 N Baldwin,5924,1881 2-8-0 1891 1925 Retired in the 1920s (1925 is arbitrary), dismantled 1942
18 C16 N Baldwin,5957,1882 2-8-0 1891 1916 Dismantled 1916
19 C16 N Baldwin,5956,1882 2-8-0 1891 1916 Dismantled 1916
20 C16 N Baldwin,5967,1882 2-8-0 1891 1916 Dismantled 1916
20 N Schenectady,5007,1899 4-6-0 1916 1952 To Rocky Mountain Railroad Club, 1952
21 C16 N Baldwin,5968,1882 2-8-0 1891 1916 Dismantled 1916
22 45.5 N Baldwin,5954,1882 4-6-0 1892 1916 Dismantled 1916
22 N Schenectady,5421,1900 4-6-0 1916 1942 Out of service 1942, dismantled 1946
23 45.5 N Baldwin,5960,1882 4-6-0 1892 1916 Dismantled 1916
24 45.5 N Baldwin,5977,1882 4-6-0 1892 1900 To S. S. & W. M. Rice, Hyatt, Texas, 9/1900
25 47 N N. Y. Locomotive Works (Rome),90,1884 4-6-0 1891 1916 Dismantled 1916
25 N Schenectady,5008,1899 4-6-0 1916 1940 Dismantled 1940
27 56 N Baldwin,5136,1880 2-8-0 1891 1899 Sold to Carolina & Northwestern 230, 9/27/1899
28 56 N Baldwin,5137,1880 2-8-0 1891 1900 To Detroit Copper Mining Co. #10, Morenci Southern #1 1900
29 56 N Baldwin,5138,1880 2-8-0 1891 1900 To Morenci Southern 1900 (Detroit Copper Mining Co.)
30 56 N Baldwin,5164,1880 2-8-0 1891 1899 To RGW
31 56 N Baldwin,5184,1880 2-8-0 1891 1900 To Morenci Southern 11, 1900 (Detroit Copper Mining Co.)
32 56 N Baldwin,5185,1880 2-8-0 1891 1899 Sold to SG&N
33 56 N Baldwin,5225,1880 2-8-0 1891 1899 To SG&N (1900) via G. M. Dilley & Son (9/1899)
34 56 N Baldwin,5226,1880 2-8-0 1891 1892 Sold to Silverton Railway
34 37-2 N Lima,269,1890 Shay 0-4-4-0T 1892 1899 Sold Siskiwit & Iron River Ry., 7/7/1899
35 56 N Baldwin,5200,1880 2-8-0 1891 1901 Sold to Boston Coal & Fuel
36 42 N Baldwin,5119,1880 4-4-0 1891 1893 Sold to Arkansas Lumber Co., Lester, Arkansas
40 70 N Baldwin,5756,1881 2-8-0 1916 1943 Dismantled 1943
41 70 N Baldwin,5731,1881 2-8-0 1916 1951 To Knott's Berry Farm #41, 11/1951
42 C17 N Baldwin,8626,1887 2-8-0 1916 1953 To Narrow Gauge Motel, Alamosa 1953
74 B4F N Brooks,2951,1898 2-8-0 1948 1952 Sold to City of Boulder, Colorado, 1952 (display)
455 K27 N Baldwin,21845,1903 2-8-2 1939 1953 Wrecked 11/1943, rebuilt 1947, scrapped 1953
461 K27 N Baldwin,21729,1903 2-8-2 1950 1953 Dismantled 1953




| Home | Society Info | On-Line Data | Reference | Features | Projects | Links | Updates |


Report problems to Webmaster
© 2001, Rio Grande Modeling & Historical Society. All rights reserved. World rights reserved.

//-->

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

I guess brass is out of the question? You can get some pretty decent used brass models of Moguls and Atlantics, but they're generally several hundred apiece.

Actually, the MDC moguls have turned out to be quite good. I cannot forsee sound in them though because of size. An N decoder barely fit in the tender.

4-4-0's are another story. Currently the best out ther are the IHC's and the way they built their tenders only z decoders fit. You also have to modify the pick-up to get consistant running through turnouts.

I'm looking forward to the Althearn 4-4-0 sound locos. I might even cough up the money. I know about the Bachmans as well, but they are more for a later period than my 1885 layout.

[Pruitt]

I guess brass is out of the question? You can get some pretty decent used brass models of Moguls and Atlantics, but they're generally several hundred apiece.

[Anonymous]

If that sound decoder for $27 is a MRC don't waste your time. If you want sound for your steamers get a good quality one.

Bob DeWoody

[Anonymous]

Good grief

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overdurff

Too interesting a discussion to have it evaporate into the either of cyberspace, having run its year on the pages of the forum.

Will ... helping to preserve the "Mouse" legacy

It's a shame that it's so easy to dredge up these year-old threads. There is darn near no useful information here.

It is amazing to me that people feel it necessary to fawn on forum "celebrities" instead of adding something useful to the discussion themselves.

And yes, I know, I didn't add anything either except being peeved.

Look, if nobody's posted to a thread in a year, it's a pretty good indication we've all moved on.

[SpaceMouse]

You know. since I started not posting from work, more and more of these old posts surface.

It leads me to think either.

You miss my posts, and old posts are better than new posts.

or

You just want to show what a moron the Mouse really was/is.

[Anonymous]

Too interesting a discussion to have it evaporate into the either of cyberspace, having run its year on the pages of the forum.

Will ... helping to preserve the "Mouse" legacy

[Anonymous]

Actually, MMR = Master Model Railroader.

http://www.nmra.org/achievement/

[:D]

-dave

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

What is MMR, SpaceMouse?

A TYPO!!


You know as often as I do that one we should have a name that acronym contest.

Mildly Mentally Retarted
Morally Misguided Railfan
Mad Max Rules

[Jetrock]

What is MMR, SpaceMouse?

[SpaceMouse]

You are right, the 4-4-0 I got was the later model. And the reason I got it was a) I didn't know any better and b) It already had a decoder installed and I got it for a great price.

My MMR life would be much easier if I just pushed things to 1920, but...not yet.

I ordered them about a month ago and they just arrived.

[Anonymous]

IHC has 2 4-4-0's available, did you get the steam era or the Old time? You need the Old time for the 1880's and it will be the proper size for you. 1920's 4-4-0's tended to be abit bigger than the old time 2-6-0 you got from MDC, not sure why you just didn't get MDC 4-4-0, which would have been the same size as your 2-6-0, except it would have the proper diameter driver's.

[dehusman]

If the 4-4-0 you bought is bigger than the 2-6-0 then what you bought was a 1920's era 4-4-0, not an 1880's engine. You have a of what would be typical of one of the last 4-4-0's built. The 4-4-0's you are looking for are considerably smaller. Virtually every of one has a decorative triangular ironwork hanging down from the running boards between the drivers. That's the 1880's (or earlier) .

The Bachmann 4-6-0 could be used for a late 1800's engine. Technically you should remove the valve gear and genertor and then replace the headlight. The IHC camelback was be a late 1800's engine.

Dave H.

[SpaceMouse]

Did I mention that I like sound?

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TEFFY

I have a 2-6-0 and can't justify the cost to add sound. A $75.00 loco with a $100.00 sound system. But to each his own.

Bob

They were $127 on Internet Trains. But that is not the issue. I would love to find a higher quality engines in the 1800's eras, but they only seem to be availible from companies like IHC and MDC. Bachman makes them low-end, but not Spectrum. I guess I just picked the wrong era t model.

[Anonymous]

I have a 2-6-0 and can't justify the cost to add sound. A $75.00 loco with a $100.00 sound system. But to each his own.

Bob

[SpaceMouse]

The MDC 2-6-0 comes with a DCC socket in the tender. It doesn't have a lot of room though, and I was wondering about sound. I imagine that there are speakers for N scale. Do they put out enough sound to be practical for HO (or specifically this unit.)?

[SpaceMouse]

Sorry, I keep changing the numbers in my head. I wrote down 2-6-0 the first two times I typed it in then somewhere in the middle switched to 2-8-0.

It's a 2-6-0 Mogul.

[Jetrock]

The difference is in the wheels. Four large driver wheels (on the 4-4-0) means more speed with less traction--better for pulling a few lightweight passenger cars at high speed. Eight smaller drivers on the Consolidation means more contact with the track itself and more torque, thus more comparative pulling power but less top-end speed.

If you post photos of your new beasties perhaps we can tell you more--the size of an engine cannot be gauged by wheel arrangement alone, after all.

[SpaceMouse]

As you all are painfully aware by now, I am planning on modeling 1890's lumber operation in the Northern CA.

So I ordered an IHC 4-4-0 and and MDC 2-6-0. The plan was to use the 4-4-0 to haul 2-5 passenger cars and the 2-6-0 to haul freight. But what surprized me is that the 4-4-0 is significanly bigger than the 2-6-0.

I cannot imagine the 2-6-0 out pulling the 4-4-0, but that is what I understood from what I read.