Build your version of a steam locomotive

[CNJ831]

doctorwayne

srrcoalburner

   Hi, Folks.

             Longtime reader, first time poster. Wouldn't it be cool if model manufacturers could make a steam loco of any particular wheel arrangement and have the boiler and tender set up so that you could add and arange appliances, smokebox doors,pilots,etc. specific to your road?

            Everyone builds either a popular one-off {SP Daylight, NW class J} or a VERY generic,and sometimes, not very accurate model. You have to live with what they sell. Kitbash: I've done some with some fair results and some not so good. Brass: I have had some in the past. But who can REALLY afford it.I want a Central of Georgia "Big Apple" 4-8-4. Oriental made a limited run of 100 or so, saw one last year on E-bay...It went for almost two grand! That much money for a 25 year old locomotive with an open-frame motor and straight dc!

            Our hobby has progressed by leaps and bounds in the last 10 years, Especially in the steam department.I feel like this might be the next step.

                          Let me know what you think.

What I think is that this is a call for a r-t-r version of scratchbuilding or kitbashing.  Others have pointed out technical or economical reasons why they feel this isn't viable, but what it really comes down to is that you want a "lite" version of what many old timers did as a matter of course.  Anybody who wanted a particular locomotive badly enough used to build it, either starting with an available model and modifying it as required or, if no suitable model were available, built it from scratch.  You can still do the same today, but few have the interest to embark on such a project, especially with the array of r-t-r steam locos available. (And many of the latter would make good "starting points", too.)

Part of the allure of creating a unique locomotive is of course in the "creating", but, for many, the "uniqueness" is an equally appealing incentive.  That doesn't usually come from with what one starts, but rather from what one puts into it.

Wayne 

I tend to think the situation is rather different, Doc. It's not so much a lack of interest in modifying existing RTR models, or the fact that there currently exists a fairly broad selection of RTR types of locomotives available to wouldbe hobbyists. It's simply the matter of even the old hands in the hobby being afraid to tackle major (or even minor) re-builds of a $250-$450 RTR steam locomotive.

In the past many of the available steamers were relatively cheap. Spare replacement shells or boiler castings were just a phone call and a few dollars way at the manufacturers and they were always (often for decades) available if you happened to make a gross mistake. Many of us were willing to cut and chop with abandon to get what we wanted and I can say that, along with many of my longtime friends, that every locomotive on our layouts are kitbashed to one degree, or another. However, neither I, nor pretty much any of the hobbyists I know, would be willing to do such modifications today because of the cost and the lack of availability of replacement parts situation that prevails today.

Let's face it; with IHC gone the manufacturers are never going to go back to offering any affordable, bare bones/scratchbuild starting point models in any form so long as there is even a minor faction within the hobby willing to pay hundreds of dollars for the latest RTR, and often buying examples of same in multiples.

CNJ831

[doctorwayne]

CNJ831

I tend to think the situation is rather different, Doc. It's not so much a lack of interest in modifying existing RTR models, or the fact that there currently exists a fairly broad selection of RTR types of locomotives available to wouldbe hobbyists. It's simply the matter of even the old hands in the hobby being afraid to tackle major (or even minor) re-builds of a $250-$450 RTR steam locomotive.

In the past many of the available steamers were relatively cheap. Spare replacement shells or boiler castings were just a phone call and a few dollars way at the manufacturers and they were always (often for decades) available if you happened to make a gross mistake. Many of us were willing to cut and chop with abandon to get what we wanted and I can say that, along with many of my longtime friends, that every locomotive on our layouts are kitbashed to one degree, or another. However, neither I, nor pretty much any of the hobbyists I know, would be willing to do such modifications today because of the cost and the lack of availability of replacement parts situation that prevails today.

 

I agree that more people would be unwilling to tackle such projects because of the original cost of most locomotives nowadays, but I think a lot of that has also to do with the mentality of those who "want it my way and I want it now".  In other words, more people are satisfied with what the manufacturers are currently offer in r-t-r, and are less inclined to create the model which they really want by hacking up something that's "good enough".  Part of this faction is, of course, new modellers with no background in kitbashing or scratchbuilding, and part is comprised of older modellers who do have the background but no longer, perhaps, the will, or ability, to do so.  So the locomotive-buyer demographics have change (as they always have), but I think that there'll always be that hardcore group which would prefer to "roll their own".

I already have pretty-well all of the locos I'll need for my current layout, although several of them have yet to be re-built.  If I "just had to have" a particular locomotive as fodder for a make-over or kitbash, I wouldn't hesitate to purchase it, though, and chop it up as required:  there's little that can't be repaired or rebuilt.    I'm sure that my skills will eventually deteriorate, though, and I won't be able to exercise this passion.  Fortunately, I have several friends who occasionally let me loose on their expensive locos, so I can enjoy the best of both worlds while still learning new skills.

CNJ831

Let's face it; with IHC gone the manufacturers are never going to go back to offering any affordable, bare bones/scratchbuild starting point models in any form so long as there is even a minor faction within the hobby willing to pay hundreds of dollars for the latest RTR, and often buying examples of same in multiples.

CNJ831

 

This observation is right on the money, and there's no reason to expect, were the OP's request to be fulfilled by a manufacturer, that the components would be affordable.  In fact, if a wide array of components were to be offered, the cost to build a single locomotive would make hacking-up a $500 model look like a bargain.   Let's face it, there isn't a big enough market to support such a venture.

Wayne

[R. T. POTEET]

Interesting topic!

Back when Custer was a cadet and I was assembling Cary/Mantua and Bowser die-cast kits it used to take me a couple of weeks to grind/file away all the cast-on detail from the boiler shell and prepare it for superdetailing. If I understand it correctly what you are proposing is for a manufacturer to produce a bare-bones boiler shell bereft of all details to which you could attach selected parts to, as a for-instance, add things like feedwater heaters, water pumps, compressors, etc to align your loco to a particular locomotive in a particular time frame . . . . . . . . . . engine #2344 as outshopped on 23 July 1946. Shop forces frequently exercised a certain measure of creativity in assembling appurtances and a photo would be necessary to insure accuracy.

Although I was modeling to a freelanced design all of my locomotives were going to have Elesco feedwater heaters with headlights center mounted on the smokebox door as well as other custom details.  There have always been modelers who have opted to modify their from-the-factory kit to meet their particular specifications. It is, of course, going to be somewhat easier to do this with plastic than with metal.

There was a time when BRASS boiler kits were prominent in the hobby and a soldering iron and screwdriver were absolutely essential in their assembly. You are proposing a return to those days . . . . . . . . . . and I subscribe to it.

There is, however, one thing which must be kept in mind: the purchase of individual superdetailing parts can turn into a rather expensive proposition. Although I had already switched over to N-Scale when good ol' Uncle Irv (finally) got around to introducing an SD40-2 model back in the 1980s I could not resist the temptation of acquiring two undecorated shells--I believe they were about $12.95 each--with the intent of superdetailing them. They would have been display models only. With this in mind I grabbed my hot smokin' Walthers catalog and drew up a list of those parts I wanted to add to the existing shell; it didn't take long before that $25.90 investment blew up to over a hundred smackers. I still have the shells and a couple of Proto Power units to go with them but the superdetailing has gone undone. Maybe one of these days.

[rrebell]

FED did a spartan series in brass, you can pick them up for cheap on e-bay, I think I paid less than $100 each for mine.

[WPAllen]

"the purchase of individual superdetailing parts can turn into a rather expensive proposition."

...and that is one of the problems.  Plus someone stocking every type of detailing part as has been noted. From a practical business standpoint I don't see a way to do it. You would have a lot of inventory that will move at a snails pace.

[blownout cylinder]

WPAllen

"the purchase of individual superdetailing parts can turn into a rather expensive proposition."

...and that is one of the problems.  Plus someone stocking every type of detailing part as has been noted. From a practical business standpoint I don't see a way to do it. You would have a lot of inventory that will move at a snails pace.

AWWW--come on now---surely to goodness there is a little bit of space in a LHS to at least stock some of those kitbashers pieces-----it does not cost that much money to stock them-

Hmmm--last time I checked we wanted detail parts to decorate our streetscapes and detail parts for our factories and such----I find this to be very odd that steam locomotive detail parts have become such a huge issue in terms of keeping an inventory that we are now saying that holding parts like those is probitive in $$$$ terms----sheesh

Will the next step be that it'll cost too much $$$$ to inventory scratchbuilding supplies?

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

blownout cylinder

WPAllen

"the purchase of individual superdetailing parts can turn into a rather expensive proposition."

...and that is one of the problems.  Plus someone stocking every type of detailing part as has been noted. From a practical business standpoint I don't see a way to do it. You would have a lot of inventory that will move at a snails pace.

AWWW--come on now---surely to goodness there is a little bit of space in a LHS to at least stock some of those kitbashers pieces-----it does not cost that much money to stock them-

Hmmm--last time I checked we wanted detail parts to decorate our streetscapes and detail parts for our factories and such----I find this to be very odd that steam locomotive detail parts have become such a huge issue in terms of keeping an inventory that we are now saying that holding parts like those is probitive in $$$$ terms----sheesh

Will the next step be that it'll cost too much $$$$ to inventory scratchbuilding supplies?

When I ran a train department in a hobby shop, I kept a full stock of Cal Scale and several other lines of detail parts - it took little space and little money and made customers very happy.

I still buy/use lots of that sort of stuff. Fact is when I buy it now I buy extras, I have my own little hobby shop stock.

But what do I know....

Sheldon

[IRONROOSTER]

 Cal Scale's price list steam parts is about 950 items long.  Average price seems to be about $4.  I don't know the dealer minimum, but assuming 5 of each at 40% off MSRP  this would appear to cost the dealer about $11,000. 

Of course this doesn't cover the all variations and doesn't include the basic parts like boilers, drivers, rods, frames, cabs, etc., which of course are also more expensive.  Unlike scenery details where a 55 gallon drum can be used by everybody, locomotive details seem to come in a near endless number of variations.  Because unlike days gone by, everyone has to have the exact variation their locomotive was sporting on the date in time they picked for their railroad.  Even if all the parts were made it would seem like a dealer would have to carry inventory in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

The next problem is sales.  How much is really going to sell?  Consider that there won't be step by step directions for each of the possibilities, even a parts list for a particular locomotive at a particular time won't be available for most possibilities.  Can't pre drill the needed holes or the number of boilers variations required really gets astronomical.  So the builder will have to research the parts needed and do any drilling, tapping, soldering, etc. required and figure out to assemble the whole thing. 

Oh and half the purchasers want a discount.

No wonder the way to make a small fortune in the model railroad business is to start with a large fortune.

Enjoy

Paul

[blownout cylinder]

OK-- assuming the cost of each item at $4 and all that are we going to suggest then that CalScale and all these little mfgs should just give up? Dont bother with this because its not going to make $$$$? Sheeesh.

The LHS's I go to have little drawers in a few cabinets stuffed to the gunwhales with these detail parts---and they have customers buying them. Even down to the grab rings and hoses----oh ---the poor LHS is so overloaded with excess "Stuff" that it is a wonder that they even stock them---

Oh well----in the words of a certain situationist---and yet---IT LIVES!!!

[WPAllen]

"are we going to suggest then that CalScale and all these little mfgs should just give up?"

 I'm not. Far from it. My only thoughts are the myriad of parts that would be needed. CalScale and others don't even begin to cover what would be needed. For example who makes clamshell smokestacks? How many varitations of those are there that were used?

 

 

[andrechapelon]

The next problem is sales.  How much is really going to sell?  Consider that there won't be step by step directions for each of the possibilities, even a parts list for a particular locomotive at a particular time won't be available for most possibilities.  Can't pre drill the needed holes or the number of boilers variations required really gets astronomical.  So the builder will have to research the parts needed and do any drilling, tapping, soldering, etc. required and figure out to assemble the whole thing. 

Why does anyone need a parts list or step-by step directions?. A few good photos is really all you need. A scale drawing or two certainly doesn't hurt, but if you're detailing a locomotive, good photos are all you really need for figuring out where parts go and their relationship to each other.

As for the difficulty of what you describe, you might want to check out the exploded drawing sheet for the Spectrum Russian Decapod. There were 5 variations (Erie/Susquehanna, WM, ACL, Frisco and NC&StL). I see 2 different tenders and 2 different tender trucks, 3 cab variations, and 4 different walkway variations. I won't even try to count up the variations in the smaller parts (stacks, domes, feedwater piping, smokebox fronts, etc).

Shoot, making the C&O J-2 rebuid version of the USRA Heavy must have been a piece of cake for Bachmann in comparison to the Russian Dec. They've even got quite a few variations on the USRA light 2-10-2. It can be done even at the factory level.

As for the the question posed by the OP, the same chassis/boiler combination can be used to make a CofG K as is used for an SP GS-1. The GS-1, modernized with multiple bearing crossheads, Boxpok drivers, and a larger rectangular tender, was used as the mechanical pattern for the GS-2 (and later GS-6). The primary differences between an SP GS-1 and a CofG K are drivers, crossheads and guides, FWH and tender. Come to think of it, the primary differencs between a GS-2 and a GS-6 are that the GS-6 used the same cab and tender as the GS-4 and there was no provision for side skirting. The GS-6 did carrty a 10 PSI higher boler pressure than the GS-2, but that's not something visible.

What with the plethora of USRA engines that are are have been available on the market, I'm surprised that some manufacturer hasn't figured out that they could make some relatively minor changes (the addition of FWH's, disc/boxpok main drivers, a different tender or two - including oil bunkers, Delta trailing truck with or without booster and associated piping) to get some additional sales for relatively cheap.  Underneath this: http://psc1.virtualfocus.com/Erie%204-6-2%20K5.html beats the heart of a stock USRA heavy 4-6-2.

Andre

[andrechapelon]

WPAllen

"are we going to suggest then that CalScale and all these little mfgs should just give up?"

 I'm not. Far from it. My only thoughts are the myriad of parts that would be needed. CalScale and others don't even begin to cover what would be needed. For example who makes clamshell smokestacks? How many varitations of those are there that were used?

If you need a clamshell stack, you're probably modeling a specific prototype at a specific time and place. If you've graduated to that level, the question arises why do you need someone to manufacture the part for you? Wouldn't if be a lot more profitable to find pics of locos so equipped and see if you can figure out how to fabricate the piece yourself?

http://www.riverraisinmodels.com/photogal/SPproject/3734EarlyLH.jpg

http://www.riverraisinmodels.com/photogal/SPproject/3734EarlyRH.jpg

http://www.riverraisinmodels.com/photogal/SPproject/3727LH.jpg 

http://www.riverraisinmodels.com/photogal/SPproject/3727RH.jpg

http://www.riverraisinmodels.com/SPdecapods/F537271.jpg

 BTW, if you're into S scale, you can get a clamshell stack from RiverRaisin.

http://www.riverraisinmodels.com/instockp.html

Andre

[blownout cylinder]

andrechapelon

If you need a clamshell stack, you're probably modeling a specific prototype at a specific time and place. If you've graduated to that level, the question arises why do you need someone to manufacture the part for you? Wouldn't if be a lot more profitable to find pics of locos so equipped and see if you can figure out how to fabricate the piece yourself?

This whole thing of needing even curiouser and curiouser parts sounds more like a red herring to the question of inventory in a LHS. Most of the spare parts and detail parts fir in 5 drawers in a 3'8" tall cabinet that was 4' X 3' ---then you have the scratchbuilding supplies on a rack--y'know--the styrene sheets? The basswood? The brass pieces? piping and etc?----all that stuff takes up valuable space don't it? Sheeesh

Gee, maybe the idea of a RTR layout would be tempting now wouldn't it?

 Most of the modellers who dealt with those locomotives frequently just scratchbuilt those parts from whatever they had in hand. There are loads of these things showing up in some of our LHS's as well------

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

IRONROOSTER

Cal Scale's price list steam parts is about 950 items long.  Average price seems to be about $4.  I don't know the dealer minimum, but assuming 5 of each at 40% off MSRP  this would appear to cost the dealer about $11,000. 

You don't, and I didn't need 5 of each. It was easy to see what you need only one of and what you needed 6 of in stock. Most stuff you only needed one or two, cutting you cost estimate by more than half.

You sold somthing, you reordered it, three different distributors called on use on two week cycles and we ordered regularly from Walthers. This was long before Bowser owned it. And long before anyone expected a discount price on that type of item.

I can't speak for how things are now, but we sold a lot of it in the 80's. Along with lots of other small parts items.

One thing is for sure, no shop can sell stuff they don't have - and I still believe that is the main reason small shops are dieing - no inventorty.

Sheldon

[andrechapelon]

This whole thing of needing even curiouser and curiouser parts sounds more like a red herring to the question of inventory in a LHS. Most of the spare parts and detail parts fir in 5 drawers in a 3'8" tall cabinet that was 4' X 3' ---then you have the scratchbuilding supplies on a rack--y'know--the styrene sheets? The basswood? The brass pieces? piping and etc?----all that stuff takes up valuable space don't it? Sheeesh

Space ain't the issue, it's keeping track of all that crap. OTOH, it can't be all that bad. All you really need to do is write down what you sell when you sell it (or enter it into a computer) and include it in the next order to Bowser (Cary, Cal Scale) or PSC. A quick pass at the racks for K&S metals, Plastruct and Evergreen styrene is really all that's needed to determine if something needs re-ordering. Even at that, you don't need to re-order until it's worthwhile to do so. Apparently, there are a lot of people who have never worked in a retail establishment.

 In terms of floor space, I would reckon that all the neat detail parts and scratchbuilding supplies carried by The Train Shop in Santa Clara take no more than 5% of it (the detail parts are behind the counter in boxes along the wall). Books take up at least twice that. Wouldn't surprise me to find out that some titles move considerably slower than even some of the more esoteric scratchbuilding parts.

Andre

[blownout cylinder]

andrechapelon

 In terms of floor space, I would reckon that all the neat detail parts and scratchbuilding supplies carried by The Train Shop in Santa Clara take no more than 5% of it (the detail parts are behind the counter in boxes along the wall). Books take up at least twice that. Wouldn't surprise me to find out that some titles move considerably slower than even some of the more esoteric scratchbuilding parts.

That's an interesting thing too. Dang if i know why you'd keep books around at non-sale prices if'n they don't sell but there we be.

I have come to a point wherein I think the problem is not just that it costs money to get these parts but it is that we did not encourage the would be modellers to take some risks and build up their own locomotives and such. I know of one LHS here that has weekly workshops on building up a 2-8-0 of the generic sort then how one can custom build it to the exact specific model--and Andre's point about using the photographs to do such is spot on---no need for all kinds of wordiness to it---

Maybe we should look into the idea of teaching model locomotive (re)building in our LHS's as well----

[andrechapelon]

I have come to a point wherein I think the problem is not just that it costs money to get these parts but it is that we did not encourage the would be modellers to take some risks and build up their own locomotives and such. I know of one LHS here that has weekly workshops on building up a 2-8-0 of the generic sort then how one can custom build it to the exact specific model--and Andre's point about using the photographs to do such is spot on---no need for all kinds of wordiness to it---

What kind of surprised me when I first became aware of it was the amount of steam loco bashing and sem-scratch building going on in N scale given tha rather slim pickings both in steam locos and detail parts  for steam locos compared to HO.

At least in HO, it's gotten to the point where there are quite a few commercial mechanisms (most notably the Spectrum 2-8-0) that can be used as a starting point. Using a commercial mechanism is probably cheaper, assuming you can find one close to what you need, than building one yourself.

You're not going to save money scratchbuilding a steam locomotive compared to buying one RTR although the cost can be spread over time when you're doing it yourself.  A set of drivers for a 2-8-0 will cost you $72 from Greenway and somewhere around $45-50 if you can still get them from Bowser. Then there's a motor and a gearbox which is probably going to drive the price above $100 before we start talking about detail parts, brass sheet, rod, wire, channel and bar, and various flavors of styrene (assuming that all or some parts of the superstructure and tender are styrene).

I'm not so sure the sticking point is the modeling aspect as it is a knowledge of steam locomotives. Despite the visual differences, there were a lot of similarities. A 72- 73" driver Pacific is pretty much guaranteed to have a 13 foot rigid wheelbase regardless of the railroad unless the engine was designed to allow larger drivers to be applied (Santa Fe's 3400 class 4-6-2's come to mind) without re-doing the frame. A Bowser Pennsy M1 frame can be used for a whole potload of 4-8-2's with drivers in the 73-73" range, not to mention some of the later NYC 4-8-2's which had frames designed to take either 69 or 72" drivers. The Bowser "USRA" heavy 4-8-2 frame would be good for locos as diverse as Santa Fe 3700 class 4-8-2's, Frisco 1500, 4300 and 4400 (the latter 2 having 70" drivers) class 4-8-2's, any of the USRA 4-8-2's, CofG's 4-8-2's, IC 2500 and 2600's, Wabash M-1's (even though they and the IC engines had 70" drivers), and so forth.

Andre

[blownout cylinder]

andrechapelon

What kind of surprised me when I first became aware of it was the amount of steam loco bashing and sem-scratch building going on in N scale given tha rather slim pickings both in steam locos and detail parts  for steam locos compared to HO.

There are a couple of fellows up here who have been doing this in N scale for a few years now and they get asked about how to do these things in HO scale a lot. I've really got to get some pix of their work on this site--it is really good stuff

andrechapelon

I'm not so sure the sticking point is the modeling aspect as it is a knowledge of steam locomotives. Despite the visual differences, there were a lot of similarities. A 72- 73" driver Pacific is pretty much guaranteed to have a 13 foot rigid wheelbase regardless of the railroad unless the engine was designed to allow larger drivers to be applied (Santa Fe's 3400 class 4-6-2's come to mind) without re-doing the frame. A Bowser Pennsy M1 frame can be used for a whole potload of 4-8-2's with drivers in the 73-73" range, not to mention some of the later NYC 4-8-2's which had frames designed to take either 69 or 72" drivers. The Bowser "USRA" heavy 4-8-2 frame would be good for locos as diverse as Santa Fe 3700 class 4-8-2's, Frisco 1500, 4300 and 4400 (the latter 2 having 70" drivers) class 4-8-2's, any of the USRA 4-8-2's, CofG's 4-8-2's, IC 2500 and 2600's, Wabash M-1's (even though they and the IC engines had 70" drivers), and so forth

This is where things get interesting. Is it possible that what is the sticking point may be the actual dearth of knowledge about steam locomotives in general? I think it may very be that. We are completely floored by the differences in appearence between them but we overlook the similarities very easily---the main parts are actually quite similar to each other, boilers only came in certain sizes--unless one was looking for fireless engines or some such---maybe we all have ADD as well-----distracted by difference and such

As well, the point about the cost may be a toss though. Some of that I can see but here we go with how some people have spent boodles of $$$$ on a RTR 2-10-0's or 2-8-8-2's that all look about the same as someone else's yet have the desire for something different in kind and then bemoan the fact that there are all these people buying the same locomotives-----I find it interesting that there are those who will spend upwards of $100,000 restoring a 1957 Chevrolet 2 door 210 post---and sell it for $40,000-----who then will kvetch about spending about $60.00 more on a scratchbuilt 2-10-2 in HO scale steamer---which has occured up here just recently----

megh---give me a boiler and some frames---I'll just build'em up----regardless of how much it costs---more fun that way anyways---

[andrechapelon]

megh---give me a boiler and some frames---I'll just build'em up----regardless of how much it costs---more fun that way anyways---

Yeah, but you're not one of those constantly kvetching about the cost of the hobby and acting as if you're the victim of some vast conspiracy to extract money from your wallet while you aren't looking.

As well, the point about the cost may be a toss though. Some of that I can see but here we go with how some people have spent boodles of $$$$ on a RTR 2-10-0's or 2-8-8-2's that all look about the same as someone else's yet have the desire for something different in kind and then bemoan the fact that there are all these people buying the same locomotives-----

Well, if people weren't buying them, they wouldn't be made. Still you wonder what all the fuss is about. If you want somehting different, you're going to have to work for it. A Wabash O-1 4-8-4     http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?//july99/07-11-99/wab2914.jpg   has the same size drivers as an N&W J. I don't know how good the Spectrum J is, but assuming it's not bad, the chassis could be the starting point for an O-1. It would be work and it wouldn't be cheap. But the choice is fully scratchbuit, use an available chassis as a starting point, buy brass or do without. I doubt that an O-1 will ever appear in plastic. The same chassis could also probably be used as the starting point for an M-1 4-8-2.

Somewhere I saw an N&W K-2 4-8-2 (streamlined) that someone had cobbled together with the Spectrum 4-8-2 chassis and a cut down boiler casting from the pre-Spectrum J. It looked pretty good. With some work, you could probably make a K-1  http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?//march99/03-21-99/ns750.jpg  using the Spectrum heavy 4-8-2 as a starting point.. That tender looks a lot like the tender off a Mantua Mike or Pacific. Alternatively, the tender off a Van Sweringen (NKP, C&O, PM) Berkshire could be used.

There's so much raw material out there.

Andre

[doctorwayne]

You're right, Andre, the raw material is available, and probably moreso than ever.  However, those willing to do the work are fewer and farther between than in the past.  As I noted earlier, the wide selection of r-t-r has not only thinned the builders' ranks, but it's also created a generation of modellers who, for the most part, are unable to do the modification work to get the model which they really want.  Some, of course, are satisfied with what's currently being offered (or maybe not satisfied, but waiting for some particular loco in a r-t-r version), but I daresay there's a faction that would be willing to try some modifications if only they knew where to begin.

Wayne

[twhite]

Kinda/sorta reminds me of how much mileage Akane got out of their 2-8-8-4 basic mechanism in the early 1960's.  They were a Japanese brass manufacturer, and with the same basic driver mechanism, they were able to put out not only a B&O EM-1 but a Missabe M-3-4, and if you flipped the mechanism back to front and re-wired the motor---VOILA!  An SP cab-forward. 

I'm talking basic mechanism and driver spacing, of course, not the boilers or running-gear details (though the locos all came with the same Baldwin disc drivers), but in their own inimitable way, Akane was doing the same thing with big, hulking articulateds that some of the other American manufacturers (Bowser, Varney, Mantua) was doing with their variations on basic mechanisms.  The difference was in the details. 

Of course, Bowser, Varney and Mantua were meant to be constructed and detailed at the modeler's whim.  Akane was Brass and at that time, kind of Expensive, so whatever you got from them you kept as is, LOL!    Until Bill Schopp started his--GASP!--series of articles in RMC about how to kitbash brass locos into prototypes that would probably never see the light of day from ANY manufacturer, Brass was Sacrosanct.   Even changing out the headlight casting on a brass loco was looked upon as a Cardinal Sin akin to belching in the Vatican, LOL! 

Never stopped me.  I didn't like the Worthington FWH castings on my 3 Akane Missabe M-3's, so I changed them out to Elescos.  Replaced the boiler-front pumps with more detailed ones from Cal-Scale.  Changed out the headlights.  Added a few other details here and there.  Oh, the HORROR of it, I was told.    If you sell them, you'll NEVER realize your investment.  Why should I sell them?  I'm RUNNING them, for cryin' out loud. 

Yah, I tinker.  Okay, not to the extent of someone like Dr. Wayne who turns ordinary RTR locos into works of art with his incredible kit-bashing skills, or Sheldon, whose RTR locos look as if they BELONG on the same railroad, but I tinker.  And brass or plastic, if it needs 'tinkering' to get an approximation of what I want the loco to be, I'll keep on 'tinkering.' 

It's not hard, folks.  You don't have to dive into the DEEP end of the pool all at once, you can start out shallow in the Kiddie end, so to speak.   Say a new headlight.  How about changing out that Delta trailing truck to an earlier USRA?   The castings are out there.  How about swapping out a tender?  Railroads were ALWAYS swapping tenders.  Don't like that boiler-tube pilot?  Change it out to a footboard.   Add a feed-water heater and the accessory piping.   Fit an all-weather cab and a 4-wheel trailing truck to that USRA 4-8-2 of yours, there's room under the firebox.  And yes, there are castings for all-weather cabs available.  You don't want to burn coal but would rather burn oil?  File off the coal casting, use some styrene and wire and you've got an oil tender.  Santa Fe and Great Northern did that all the time as they maneuvered locomotives between coal-burning midwest and oil-burning west. 

There's lots of stuff still out there to get the locomotive you want out of that RTR you just picked up at the LHS that kinda/sorta looks like what you want, but isn't really QUITE right. 

Hell, I'm 70 and I'm still kit-bashing and tinkering.  It's fun.

Tom

 

[blownout cylinder]

twhite

Kinda/sorta reminds me of how much mileage Akane got out of their 2-8-8-4 basic mechanism in the early 1960's.  They were a Japanese brass manufacturer, and with the same basic driver mechanism, they were able to put out not only a B&O EM-1 but a Missabe M-3-4, and if you flipped the mechanism back to front and re-wired the motor---VOILA!  An SP cab-forward. 

Makes me wonder how many other companies did the same thing with their chassis. This is great info to mess with ----

twhite

It's not hard, folks.  You don't have to dive into the DEEP end of the pool all at once, you can start out shallow in the Kiddie end, so to speak.   Say a new headlight.  How about changing out that Delta trailing truck to an earlier USRA?   The castings are out there.  How about swapping out a tender?  Railroads were ALWAYS swapping tenders.  Don't like that boiler-tube pilot?  Change it out to a footboard.   Add a feed-water heater and the accessory piping.   Fit an all-weather cab and a 4-wheel trailing truck to that USRA 4-8-2 of yours, there's room under the firebox.  And yes, there are castings for all-weather cabs available.  You don't want to burn coal but would rather burn oil?  File off the coal casting, use some styrene and wire and you've got an oil tender.  Santa Fe and Great Northern did that all the time as they maneuvered locomotives between coal-burning midwest and oil-burning west. 

That's just the thing of it. I'm not the world's most co-ordinated guy when it comes to putting engines together but I'm doing it. I did the oil tender thing as well as the 4 wheel truck thing. Not that difficult to do---

[2-6-6-2]

Havent been to this forum in a while..."nice" changes theyve made to how it works...

Yeah, people find it way way easier to buy expensive RTR stuff, and no one wants to chop up their expensive toys (i just convinced myself that it wont kill me to try it. Dosent mean I wasnt nervous about it!) but the manufacturers could sure do a lot more for us, especially in N, than they do.

Some recent loco releases that made sense; Bachmann's H-4. C&O had hundreds of 2-6-6-2s, and 175 of this class alone. OK, makes sense to me.

Bachmann's 4-8-2. Ok, here is where it stops making sense. A loco based on a C&O prototype (hey, fine with me, I model C&O!) that the real railroad owned a whopping NINE examples of. Thats how many 4-8-2s, of all classes, C&O had. Nine. OK, ill concede, its a good pseudogeneric USRA loco, but still has a lot of C&O specific bits.

And now for the ten coupled steam in N...o, thats right, there isnt any, ConCors dreadful USRA heavy 2-10-2 from a few years ago being the sole horrid exception.

I dont know what the deal is, to be honest. If they would offer, say a K4 and L1 in N, the company doing so would sell skillions of them. But, no one does. Maybe people are obsessed with RTR, and maybe people are scared to cut up their models, and both are quite true.

Dosent help that a lot of us, however, dont have anything at all to even cut up, and what we do, many times, is very, very strange.

[doctorwayne]

twhite

... I'm still kit-bashing and tinkering.  It's fun.

Tom

 

And some pretty-nice "tinkering", too. 

Wayne

[UP 4-12-2]

blownout cylinder

UP 4-12-2

Narrow-vision?  Inventory costs money--money nobody has or is willing to borrow anymore

Sheeesh! Yes Inventory costs money! So does missing opportunities!!

I do wonder sometimes about how this hobby ever got started in the first place when all one hears about is how expensive holding inventory is----where are you holding this inventory? In a 50,000 sq. ft. warehouse with 3 phase wiring?!

Yes, Barry, you actually do need a warehouse--maybe not quite 50000 sf, but nevertheless, a decent sized one--just to have room to work, pick orders, hold some for payment, ship them, etc.

Even in the "good old days" every time a run of Atlas, Stewart or Kato engines came in, the distributor had to borrow $30000 to $40000 just to pay for them (they weren't all presold).  Now, given the choice between handling all those engines or low turnover, low-profit parts--well, much more of the sales were engines.

As some have already pointed out quite well--there are so many different part numbers; the manufacturers don't have time or mechanical expertise to explain all possible prototypical installations of every given steam loco detail part in their instructions, etc.

Many of the brass detail parts still available today were originally produced for the Japanese or Korean brass manufacturers, and then were subsequently made available to the American public by Cal-Scale and the others.  However, those parts just don't sell all that well any more.

You can argue with me all you want on these forums, but if it is really that important to you and you have the expertise, go ahead make the investment and take the leap into production.  If you do, I wish you well.

John

 

[blownout cylinder]

Well, I don't know about you but I can see the day come when there will be no market for the kitbashers or scratchbuilders to get their parts or pieces. That will be because the paranoia around the cost factor will drive many away from this.

Look, I'm just saying that there other ways of doing things that do not need the huge $$$ outlay that many of you shell shocked guys were seeing. The "rules" of economics are such that there are arguments about this type of stuff all over--they are in a state of flux. The detail parts are not so bloody expensive to make as what you were exposed to--maybe the brass pieces are/were but other materials were not so expensive.

We got our eyes set on a kit involving a 2-6-0 mogul---frame, predrilled boiler, rods, wheelsets, handrails, et al---we'll see how this goes----

[andrechapelon]

We got our eyes set on a kit involving a 2-6-0 mogul---frame, predrilled boiler, rods, wheelsets, handrails, et al---we'll see how this goes----

Would I be way off base in assuming it will follow a CN prototype  or am I engaging in some kind of profiling since you're one of them there Canadians and it would seem to follow that you would favor your fellow countrymen?

Andre

[UP 4-12-2]

I agree the detail parts are not so expensive to make in and of themselves--but the challenges are in the R&D/engineering/marketing:  deciding what should fit where, what should be a separate casting or assembly, how to hide mold lines, etc. along with what will sell and how many units you need to sell to make some money--then finally the assembly or use directions and advertising to "create" your market.

I wish you well with the kits.  At least some people will buy them.  I hope it is enough that you make some money.

Best Regards--

John

 

[Flashwave]

doctorwayne

You're right, Andre, the raw material is available, and probably moreso than ever. 

Then let's take this back to the OP's point, and moake it more availbe. More tneders that can be purchased seperately would help some people. Bachmann has that market pretty well, but if someone could sell GS or Cab tenders, then the frelancers can have at them. Athearn has the aux. tendes for the UP, but they're being sold for the price of a kidney. And, if more companies could do liek Bowser did, and sell chassis and body separately, then you have your raw materials. It doesn't have to go as far as individual driver parts, the majority would be happy enought to buy an entire chassis of one engien and the shell of another to cut down from Bachmann. They'd even get repair business, as I have a few engines I want/need drives for.

Then again, there's a reason that Bowser quit their kits and selling the parts to them. I don't knwo what it is, but its probably the reaosn no one else will start.

2-6-6-2

Bachmann's 4-8-2. Ok, here is where it stops making sense. A loco based on a C&O prototype (hey, fine with me, I model C&O!) that the real railroad owned a whopping NINE examples of. Thats how many 4-8-2s, of all classes, C&O had. Nine. OK, ill concede, its a good pseudogeneric USRA loco, but still has a lot of C&O specific bits.

Here's where it makes sense though: The 4-8-2s roamed int the coal-haulingmountains that are a favorite to model. Sure, C&O had booku other locos, but they also had booku miles of track, that is largely forgotten about. Did you know they had track in Indiana? Most people don't. But if I say C&O, they immeidately think of places like Thurmond.

Or, they think of the George Washignton. Which, Bachmann was able to seel with their Spetrumc passenger cars. And do a decent train out of. And I suspect, beign able to do that boxset, is as large a reaosn as any for producing the Heavies.

Then again, I hve no idea why I'm here. I am one of those uneducated little fools who likes causing himself pain. To date, every project I;ve tried to accomplish screws up somehow. Dr. Wayne was able to set me straight on glues, but I've run the gamut from a bachmann F40PH truck-->chassis screw strippping to paint flaking up despite a washed shell. And yet, I'm still bound and determined to break something else. (This is frustration) I'm about ready to give up on a model of the 47 Freedom train, but I still have a model steamer I want to build, a fantasy experimental loco by my Free-lance. So far on it, I've melted one ditch light shot two into oblivion trying to drill them out, I still need to drill out the lights for the main headlight casing. It's going for all bloddy ever. That said though, once it's done, I don't see me doing anymore locos, other than a GP10, that I might actually go buy the shell for and call it done.

[blownout cylinder]

andrechapelon

We got our eyes set on a kit involving a 2-6-0 mogul---frame, predrilled boiler, rods, wheelsets, handrails, et al---we'll see how this goes----

Would I be way off base in assuming it will follow a CN prototype  or am I engaging in some kind of profiling since you're one of them there Canadians and it would seem to follow that you would favor your fellow countrymen?

Andre

Actually it would be the CN prototype ---- heeheehee Can't get much simpler than this:

Then maybe ----- we can?

Actually we can consider something a little more generic----