Beautiful model! I wouldn't do a thing to it, it's fine like it is!
Looks like my Lionel 771 someone ran through a hot wash and shrunk!
By the way, how's it run?
Flintlock76 Beautiful model! I wouldn't do a thing to it, it's fine like it is! Looks like my Lionel 771 someone ran through a hot wash and shrunk! By the way, how's it run?
Sure is fine looking model -- as good or better than some recent offerings.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul MilenkovicSure is fine looking model -- as good or better than some recent offerings.
While I'm not an HO guy I've heard of Howell Day/ Red Ball. They were a class act in their time.
I was given the less expensive version of that locomotive as a child. I thought it was as precious as the crown jewels and never even ran it... just open the box periodically and look.
My wife unthinkingly gave it to my son when he was a baby, and he 'did' for the side rods and tender trucks, and some of the boiler detail. It occurs to me that I should get it out of storage and restore it, finally, to run.
Overmod It occurs to me that I should get it out of storage and restore it, finally, to run.
Why not man? That's what it was made for!
I run everything I've got, if I wouldn't run it, I don't buy it.
Flintlock76By the way, how's it run?
It has what was considered a good motor at the time, a Pitman open frame job, so like almost all HO power of the Sixties, it has a high starting speed, although you can throttle it down after it jerks into motion.
What I am considering is replacing the motor with a can motor controlled by a decoder and adding a fly wheel if there is room.
BEAUSABREWhat I am considering is replacing the motor with a can motor controlled by a decoder and adding a fly wheel if there is room.
OK, you're an HO guy so you know your way around the stuff far better than I do. However, I'm not particularly crazy about modifying old classics, in my case that'd be post-war Lionels, and opinions do vary on that in the O gauge world. I believe the classics should stand on their own merits as artefacts of the time in which they were built and shouldn't be jazzed into something they're not.
But hey, it's YOUR engine! Do what you want and don't let me stop you! Just be careful, OK?
Overmod I was given the less expensive version of that locomotive as a child. I thought it was as precious as the crown jewels and never even ran it... just open the box periodically and look. My wife unthinkingly gave it to my son when he was a baby, and he 'did' for the side rods and tender trucks, and some of the boiler detail. It occurs to me that I should get it out of storage and restore it, finally, to run.
I read somewhere this was a problem on the prototype?
There's camelbacks in this, along with a few other things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Moh2l7udjio
Thanks 54'! Amazing what they got away with before OSHA arrived on the scene.
This one is mainly about cars but there's some train and streetcar scenes. It's a good thing that Model T Fords were so cheap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBnNgI1Icu4
I'll bet a lot of classic car fans cringe when they see those old Model T's and Model A's being demolished! No big deal back then, but now? Oh brother!
I'll tell you, I cringe whenever I see that 4-4-0 on the burning bridge in "The General" wind up in the river, even though I know that one way or another it was headed for the scrapper anyway.
One of the fun things about watching the first clip was seeing scenes from the "Hazards of Helen" short that was featured in the June 1967 Trains. Sad thing was that none of the scenes with the AT&SF 2-10-10-2 were in the collection.
Which episode number was it? There are a number of those on YouTube... the algorithm didn't pull up one with 2-10-10-2s right away but some of the ones there make fascinating watching.
Erik_Mag One of the fun things about watching the first clip was seeing scenes from the "Hazards of Helen" short that was featured in the June 1967 Trains. Sad thing was that none of the scenes with the AT&SF 2-10-10-2 were in the collection.
Unless I'm mistaken when those silents were shot the movie business was firmly ensconced in the Hollywood/LA area. I don't think those 2-10-10-2's ever ranged as far as the LA area.
When those were shot much of the film industry was likely still in New Jersey!
The very first 'Hazards of Helen' eppysode I pulled up was billed as "Car of Death - The Wild Engine" and is notable for featuring cars and engines clearly labeled for "S.P.L.A.S.L." That should jump out as providing the range of on-site filming used; I suspect the exact locations, and equipment types, would be easy to determine.
One fascinating thing to watch is the early trick photography used to capture the 'derailment' and explosion of the boxcar of dynamite; I still haven't quite figured out what that business with the motorcycle going off the bridge was -- but it was sure entertaining to watch!
In the event: the point about 2-10-10-2s was that Trains, in 1967, indicated they were in one of the episodes, so wherever the thing was filmed, probably to get The Most Massive Locomotives Imaginable (and to this day, those things still qualify in that category!) is to be determined, not speculated.
Now it occurs to me that I have seen pictures of what looked like celebrities atop one of those ginormous 12-wheel whaleback tenders, and could never figure out why that sort of scene would be shot. Cast or publicity pictures would definitely explain it!
I'm tempted to say ATSF would have gotten more use out of one of those locomotives as a movie star than in any sort of practical road service. A kind of cinema equivalent of how the Gobernador 4-10-0 was reported to be used, blasting out of town seemingly on an endless fast freight at 'just' the time visiting bigwigs were passing through. (The Russians to their ultimate sorrow ran this sort of scam with bombers at a May Day parade ...)
Not much Camelback-related content in all this... but who cares when we're having fun, and then Helen Holmes smiles...
Overmod Which episode number was it?
Which episode number was it?
Leap from the water tower.
This was re-released by Blackhawk Films in 1967, hence the coverage of it in Trains.
OvermodWhen those were shot much of the film industry was likely still in New Jersey!
I don't know, I didn't see too much in those films that shouted "New Jersey" at me, even though at the turn of the 20th Century NJ wasn't anywhere near as developed as it is now.
While certainly the movie industry was born in Fort Lee (excepting Edison's experimentals) they had begun the move west by 1914, California's moderate climate and reliable sunshine was more conducive to film making.
Certainly I'd agree the Camelback wreck was filmed somewhere in the Northeast.
I always thought that the first film studios were in Astoria, Queens where I believe some sound stages are still used. Buster Keaton's films are obviously in the dusty streets of Los Angeles. This Harold Lloyd clip is interesting where he steals a streetcar- An unusual type, I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDqtgoznzQw
It's interesting that not one of the Perils of Pauline films was shot on the West Coast.
The early Hazards of Helen (with Holmes) were said to be shot in Glendale and 'Tuolomne County' -- interestingly, episode 6 is 'The Black Diamond Express'.
This one was without a doubt, filmed in New York in its last half anyway. Model T Fords, Harold Lloyd, 3rd avenue streetcars and Babe Ruth!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysUHthupf3c
Flintlock76 While certainly the movie industry was born in Fort Lee (excepting Edison's experimentals) they had begun the move west by 1914, California's moderate climate and reliable sunshine was more conducive to film making.
Obviously you hadn't taken UCB's History 171 (California History) as taught by Walton Bean. He stated that the real reason for film making taking off in California as it was easier to avoid patent infringement lawsuits in Calif as opposed to Jersey.
FWIW, that was one of the questions on a midterm in the course and I left out the patent infringement aspect in my answer.
Patent infringement? I've never heard of that. As I understand it with patents being issued by the Federal government trying to hide from a patent infringement lawsuit anywhere in the continental US wouldn't do you much good. But what do I know? Maybe it was easier to say "Go ahead, nobody's lookin'!" in California because it was true? Less prying eyes?
That's a question I definately would have asked the prof if I was in his class. That's assuming he had the answer and wasn't just regurgitating something HE heard.
Lady Firestorm, my resident movie maven, also reminded me that land was a lot cheaper out in California, VERY important if you want to build studios.
Lower land prices would certainly have been a bonus, but higher post war prices caused at least one backlot to developed - the MGM lot next to Thousand Oaks was turned into housing in the late 60's.
I'll have to dig out my textbook and look up exactly what was said about avoiding patent infringment lawsuits. Bear in mind that L.A. was still a relatively "sleepy" town when the movie industry started ramping up.
Erik_Maghigher post war prices caused at least one backlot to developed - the MGM lot next to Thousand Oaks was turned into housing in the late 60's.
I'll have to dig out my textbook and look up exactly what was said about avoiding patent infringement lawsuits.
Wasn't the fact that the studios were "on the coast" and the head offices at least a 3 day journey away have been a factor? They were kind of isolated out there and could get away with things that they couldn't had the studios still been in New York. Land prices, eternal sunshine too. Looking at some of Buster Keaton's films, Los Angeles was a pretty dusty, desolate place.
I just took a look through my History 171 textbook, with a whole chapter on the movie industry in California.
Upshot was that a movie trust was formed in the mid-aughties and they were very active in sending out lawyers and process servers to anyone not in the trust. L.A. had the advantage of being a long way from New Jersey and being a short distance from the border - when the process servers got too close, it was relatively easy to transport the gear and film to Tijuana. Another advantage of the L.A. area was a wide variety of terrain within a short distance making it possible to simulate just about anyplace.
OM: My reason for mentioning Thousand Oaks was that our family lived in for 7 years was in walking distance of the MGM back lot. Part of one episode of The Rifleman was filmed across the street from our house and my dad and brother got to meet Chuck Connors.
Erik_MagUpshot was that a movie trust was formed in the mid-aughties and they were very active in sending out lawyers and process servers to anyone not in the trust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Patents_Company
To be honest I'm much more sympathetic to Edison than I was to George Selden of ALAM doing the same sort of thing at that time...
My reason for mentioning Thousand Oaks was that our family lived in for 7 years was in walking distance of the MGM back lot. Part of one episode of The Rifleman was filmed across the street from our house and my dad and brother got to meet Chuck Connors
Cool, like something out of a Kim Stanley Robinson story...
Eureka! See Hazards of Helen #3 ("The Leap From the Water Tower") from 1915. The very first card after the title is "The Largest Locomotive In The World" and you will enjoy the rest.
Something that surprised me was how small and spindly this largest locomotive in the world looks today. And then you reflect that the Jacobs-Shupert firebox was intentionally small compared to the convection section volume...
Are there any comparison pictures of this and a Virginian engine ... showing details at the correct relative scale?
Just had a scary realization - "The Leap from the Water Tower" was filmed 52 years before it was covered in the June 1967 Trains. In a bit less than 4 months, it will have been 54 years since I first read and saw the article in Trains. Another way to look at it: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid was released 52 years ago.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.