Are "Varney" Lomotives any good?

[doctorwayne]

My Varney catalogue shows an exploded view of the Casey Jones 10-Wheeler, and it appears that the pilot casting's mounting point fits between two extensions on the front of the frame casting.
There's a flange on the bottom edge of that portion of the pilot casting, which appears as if it's meant to snug-up to the frame extensions when the long screw is inserted into the hole in the pilot casting and the hole through the cylinder/steamchest casting.  That same screw is then to be inserted into the bottom of the smokebox, and tightened to hold the boiler casting to the steam chest, and that assembly to the loco's frame, and the pilot to the frame at the proper height.

Looks pretty-much foolproof.  Is the frame and/or the pilot perhaps bent?  If so, you may be able to straighten it, but work cautiously, as the zinc castings can be quite brittle.

Another thing to check is that any previous owner didn't add a spacer of some sort into the assembly, causing the pilot to sit too low. 
I'll try scanning the diagram and if it reproduces well enough, will add it here - it is, however, rather small.

It's been some time since I've used my scanner, but I finally figured out the procedure...

Perhaps it will help you to locate and rectify the problem.

Wayne

[garya]

PRR Charles

Gary, facing a problem with my Varney that I bought on eBay. I believe that it is a Casey Jones. The locomotive runs well when lifted in the front. The cow catcher will rest on both rails when placed on the tracks! Obviously, it shorts out. I’ve put several Pennline models together and a mantua kit. I am missing something on this one! Any suggestions of where to start looking for the problem? Radical approach would be to cut half of the step base off...... not going to do! Thanks for any thought. 

Charles 

 

Hmmm... is the pilot attached to the frame correctly?  Perhaps the top part needs to be filed a bit?  Or is there a spring for the pony truck?

[PRR Charles]

Gary, facing a problem with my Varney that I bought on eBay. I believe that it is a Casey Jones. The locomotive runs well when lifted in the front. The cow catcher will rest on both rails when placed on the tracks! Obviously, it shorts out. I’ve put several Pennline models together and a mantua kit. I am missing something on this one! Any suggestions of where to start looking for the problem? Radical approach would be to cut half of the step base off...... not going to do! Thanks for any thought. 

Charles 

[garya]

I built both the Bowser "Old Lady," and "Casey Jones."  The boiler and pilot castings seem to be identical, and still say "Varney," on them. I gather Bowser reworked the mechanism to use standard frames and DC-71 motors, as well as a Bowser tender.

Old Lady:

I used "super magnets" to rebuild the motor:

Casey Jones:

I used an MDC/Roundhouse Vanderbilt tender behind this one, too.

I didn't care for the cast on headlight, so I ground that off and filled in the hole with JB Weld.  I need to mount a bracket and a Pyle Headlight, plus install ladders, etc, before I paint them.

They were fun to build, and they run well and pull great.  They weren't too hard to convert to DCC, either.

[doctorwayne]

Thanks for your kind words, Larry. 

As a kid, I always wanted a Varney steam locomotive, either the Ten Wheeler or the "Old Lady" 2-8-0.
While I never did get either, I had (and still have) a very nice-running John English Pacific - it's in for a mechanical re-build (can motor, NWSL gearbox, and new drivers from Greenway, along with a cosmetic makeover, too.

It wasn't until I was building the 620 and 622 that I remembered how much I hadn't cared for the filled-in area under the Varney cabs.  It never looked quite right to me.

Wayne

[Tinplate Toddler]

rrebell

Texas Railroader

Varney invented the HO scale in 1930's----I have owned a Great Northern F3 since 1956---runs OK---not to today's standards at all. More of a collectors locomotive. Freight cars are just fine with the correct weight in them. I have a very large collection of Varney equipment and have built them from kits also.

 

 

 

 

Varney did not invent HO.

 

Quite right! The first one to market  "table-top" sized trains was Bing of Nuremberg/Germany in 1922, followed by Trix of Nuremberg in 1935 and Märklin of Göppingen/Germany, who were much closer to today´s HO scale than Bing. Märklin introduced their line of HO trains a little later in the same year.

[rrebell]

Texas Railroader

Varney invented the HO scale in 1930's----I have owned a Great Northern F3 since 1956---runs OK---not to today's standards at all. More of a collectors locomotive. Freight cars are just fine with the correct weight in them. I have a very large collection of Varney equipment and have built them from kits also.

 

Varney did not invent HO.

[BRAKIE]

Wayne,I would have never guess in a thousand years the 620 and 622 started life as a Varney 4-6-0. Both are beautiful looking ladies. Great job on the rebuild and detailing.

[doctorwayne]

Well, for all those folks out there dissatisfied with the performance of their old Varney "Casey Jones" Ten Wheelers, here's a solution...

Save the one-piece cast metal boiler/cab...

...tidy it up a bit...

...then mount it on a somewhat modified Bachmann Ten Wheeler chassis...

...add a few details...

...then slap on some paint and lettering, and perhaps modify the Bachmann tender a bit...

They're pretty decent pullers, but run a lot nicer than their predecessors.  Mine usually run together due to the severe grades...

Wayne

[SeeYou190]

Texas Railroader

-I have owned a Great Northern F3 since 1956---runs OK---not to today's standards at all.

.

If I had a locomotive for that long  would never part with it. My oldest locomotive I have dates from 1982.

.

-Kevin

.

[hon30critter]

mbinsewi

Well boys, out of the 14 replies, 7 are still active, and 3 of those 7 are still very active.

That why I don't like it when people take it upon themselves to chide someone for bringing up an old thread.

Dave

[mbinsewi]

Well boys, out of the 14 replies, 7 are still active, and 3 of those 7 are still very active.

This happens alot.   

Mike.

[Harrison]

SPSOT fan

Mr Texas Railroader you’ve brought up a thread last posted in 14 years ago! Hardly anyone who originally posted here are still active on the forums and those that were probably don’t even remember this thread. Crazy to think this thread was first posted before my earliest memory!

Whatever, I’m sure your information could be helpful for someone who pulls this thread up in 15 years!

 

And before I was born!

[SPSOT fan]

Mr Texas Railroader you’ve brought up a thread last posted in 14 years ago! Hardly anyone who originally posted here are still active on the forums and those that were probably don’t even remember this thread. Crazy to think this thread was first posted before my earliest memory!

Whatever, I’m sure your information could be helpful for someone who pulls this thread up in 15 years!

[Texas Railroader]

Varney invented the HO scale in 1930's----I have owned a Great Northern F3 since 1956---runs OK---not to today's standards at all. More of a collectors locomotive. Freight cars are just fine with the correct weight in them. I have a very large collection of Varney equipment and have built them from kits also.

[Anonymous]

Surprisingly, at least to me, I searched Ebay for Varney and three pages came up with fairly good pictures of early Varney items for sale. Of particular interest is the pictures of the drive system on the F units.

The detail of course is what you would expect for the time era they were sold, but they were the standard of level of detail, or lack of it.

I was trying to find out when Varney first started offering HO models. Does anyone know the history of Varney?

[twhite]

I had a Varney 'Casey Jones' ten-wheeler back in the good old days, it ran like Seabiscuit and probably pulled 3 times the cars that the prototype could ever handle. But like everyone else has said, comparing Varney in the 'fifties to today's locomotives is a no-brainer. But back in the '50's, Varney was just about as good as you could get. The "Casey Jones", "Little Old Lady" 2-8-0, and last I saw, the Northern were still being produced by Bowser. Varney was also the first American manufacturer to put out a 2-8-8-4 Yellowstone (as a kit, nonetheless), and instead of using a single motor and a swiveled drive-shaft, BOTH sets of drivers had their own motor! I'd LOVE to see what that baby did as far as pulling power!
Tom

[BRAKIE]

I always like the Varney steamers better.Today these steamers is made by Bowser as are the old line of Penn-Line steamers..I would like to point out comparing yesterday locos with todays is like comparing a Model A against todays cars..

[dknelson]

The old all metal Varney F3 could pull and pull and pull. Unfortunately the trucks were made of a zinc alloy that frequently cracks and fractures with age, so my own Varney F3 has been permanently retired. I kept the shell -- rather blunt detail, but crisper than the plastic F3s that Varney later came out with.
The motor was enormous and very strong. I should probably think about how to reuse it -- maybe repower a nearly worthless AHM diesel -- rather than let it just sit in a box.
I also think the EMD Blumberg trucks that Varney made had too small a wheel base - I think they used the same wheelbase as their all metal SW type switcher.
Dave Nelson

[CNJ831]

A Train - To directly address the original questions. (1) Varney was the leader of the pack way back when it issued its early metal F-units. Varney folded in the mid 1960's. (2) these engines were good in their day (until Athearn came along with their better F's) but that day has long since passed. In appearance and detail they are extremely primative compared to today's examples. Unless the model was owned and maintained by an experience hobbyist over the past 50 years, don't expect much regarding current operating characteristics, especially if it was ever run to any degree. (3) the Varney F-units are far from serious collector's items and are commonly found on ebay (and tend not to bring much).

CNJ831

[nfmisso]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Leon Silverman

I also had a Tyco Sharknose diesel. This engine had its motor mounted inside the truck instead of on top of the truck. Only one truck was powered, but it had traction tires and a weight mounted directly above it. This engine (it was all metal) ran hot and eventually burned itself out. I was informed that the solution was to reduce the weight over the engine. Later Tyco diesels (F-units) came with both trucks motorized.

The metal shark pre-dates the Tyco brand name, they were Mantua at that time.

The Mantua Shark was introduced in the 1950's. It was offered as a kit or rtr, dummy, single motor and dual motor versions were catalogued. I had some dual motor ones. In the early '60's, the die cast (metal) Shark (offered in A and B units) was discontinued.

The F unit came along about that time, it had a plastic shell. The first ones had a single powered truck. About the same time, the Tyco brand came along. In the late '70's / early '80's, Mantua and Tyco seperated, and about that time there was a dual motored version of the F unit offered. A bit earlier, the plastic Tyco Shark came out.

The dual motored model was replaced with "conventional" chassis with a single motor. It was a copy of the Mehano chassis, but diecast. The trucks are even interchangeable between the Mantua and Mehano. A flywheel was later added.

[Leon Silverman]

I would have to agree with Brunton. You have to compare Varney with what was available then, not now. The plastic F-units were ion the middle of the pack for their time. Athearn had the Rubber Band drive. Penn Line had a superior engine. The Penn line engine used a DC-70 Pittman motor (vs DC-60 for Varney) and utilized traction tires. The drivetrain was otherwise very similar to Varneys except the connecting shaft between the trucks was a solid plastic instead of a hollow tube. This type of shaft is still used on the Bowser (formerly Pennline) GG1. The hollow tube drive shaft was reliable (never broke on me) on the F-unit but not when used in their Aerotrain.
I also had a Tyco Sharknose diesel. This engine had its motor mounted inside the truck instead of on top of the truck. Only one truck was powered, but it had traction tires and a weight mounted directly above it. This engine (it was all metal) ran hot and eventually burned itself out. I was informed that the solution was to reduce the weight over the engine. Later Tyco diesels (F-units) came with both trucks motorized.
None of these engines had flywheels, but could be made to start slowly on pulse power which was available on the better power packs of the day B.T. (Before Transistors).
The top of the line diesels of the day were the Hobbytown of Boston Engines. These were all metal even back then and sported a DC-90 Pittman motor. This was the only HO scale application for the DC-90. It was usually found in O-gauge engines.

[Anonymous]

True to all of the above but would like to add my experiences with Varney diesels. I have seen all of the above and agree with them. If memory serves me correct Varney made a motor 30 years ahead of everyone else with the V1(steam) and V2 (diesel) motors, they had 7 pole slanted armatures, were really quite and smooth runners. They were also very powerful, a pair of F3's would pull the wall down. I ran mine for a number of years until I wore out the motors and eventually sold them as junk as I could not find anymore parts for the motors. Varney also made some very nice steam engines for their day (1940s until the early 60's). The early ones had brass frames with sprung drivers and weighted about two pounds each with brass tenders. The dulux version had the V1 motors. The economy version had an pittman open frame motor.

SyFrank

[Pruitt]

In their day, Varneys were some of the best locos available at any price in HO.

By current standards they had poor detail, mediocre running characteristics, and pulled a LOT of amps. But to put it in perspective, complaining about the quality of a Varney loco today is like complaining that the original Wright Flyer wasn't a supersonic aircraft.

[Anonymous]

The only Varney I have owned were some old plastic F units and an SW7 switcher. The F's were noisy, the motors had no flywheels and they weren't very good runners. The switcher was better, it was fairly quiet and ran well, but only had one set of wheels that were powered, so it wasn't a very good puller. They both had brass wheels too, which looked kind of funky. I think if I had any now, they would be "yard art".

[Anonymous]

Varney was a manufacturer back in the '50's. I never had any of their diecast powered diesels, but their most famous loco was their "Little Joe" It was a zamac cast model of the B&O RR #98 "Dockside". It sold for $15 as I recall. I still have mine and it still runs great. After I grew up, I changed the cylinders for the Kemtron ones that had all the nuts and bolts and drain cocks on them. I also added a kit that had all the monkey motion and better valve crossheads aqnd guides. A lot of Varney's ads that appeared in the model press were photographed by the late John Allen.

[Anonymous]

Once again, I got to go to the experts on this one. Q: Who in the world is "varney"? 2nd, how are they F Units, Do they have a good motor system? Is this a collectors item must have? Can someone please shead a little lite on these Locomotives. All I know is that they make "Emd F-Units with a metal shell and I saw a pic of the bottom of an F-Unit. Looks pretty freaky. It looked as if the front and back truck were "worm geared" together to make each other rotate. What's up with that..........................I kind of expect some people to respond to this as junk. Let me know.

Thanks, A Train