I notice there are a lot of steam loco enthusiasts on this forum, and whenever I come across a steam-related thread I just bleep right over it. Why?
First, I am too young to remember the steam era. The last steam locomotives were taken out of service the year I was born. Without any real steam locomotives to inspire me, I have no incentive to model them.
Second, after having seen a couple real steam locomotives operating at museums I found it much more exciting to see the real thing than to look at a model running on a layout. The steam, the smoke, the sparks, the flames, the smell, and the chugging of a real steam loco can't be replicated in miniature, especially not with electrically powered model railroad equipment.
Third, real steam locos are built to the railways' specifications. I would not be satisfied with commercial plastic models of USRA Mikados or Pacifics. I'd probably throw everything away except the drive train and wheels and end up scratchbuilding the boiler, cab, and tender and adding prototype specific details. That's a lot of work. But with diesels, there were standard production models purchased by many railways, and less effort is required to model a specific prototype.
So if you don't care, why are you telling us all this?
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
To each his own.
I am younger than the last RR operated steam train ran in the "final days of steam".
I have always thought of diesels as "boxes on wheels".
But I am amazed at the beasts. They live and breathe fire and smoke. They chuff and all the running gear fascinates me. I LOVE going on vacations to see operating 1:1 steamers anywhere I can and with MOH {My Other HAlf} into trains as well there is never a fight over THAT.
In the interest of NOT getting bored with my layout, I have of late gotten into diesel models. But they don't hold the fascination that steamers do for me.
Just my opinion.
-G .
Just my thoughts, ideas, opinions and experiences. Others may vary.
HO and N Scale.
After long and careful thought, they have convinced me. I have come to the conclusion that they are right. The aliens did it.
I personally think you're missing out on a good experience. Running a steam loco is great IMO. Lots of moving parts and sounds good too. As the old saying goes, "Don't knock it until you try it"
Springfield PA
It beats the heck outta watching powered boxcars.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
Aloco, do you feel like you stepped on a land mine?
dehusman So if you don't care, why are you telling us all this?
I agree.
What's the point of this thread?
Personally, I love it all.
Enjoy
Paul
Early warning. Time to lock it before the steam boys (Powered Boxcar haters) blow a gasket
This doesn't have to turn into a flame-hurl thread.
I'm in my 40s and was born during the diesel "horsepower wars" of the 60s between Alco, EMD, and GE.
Yet as a kid, I constantly saw steamers on tv. Every toy train set I saw (and the sets I got from my father and godfather) had steam locomotives in them. It wasn't until 1973 that I got my first diesel in an HO Tyco set. Of course, that F9 was a factory piece of junk.
So a good number of us under 60 that like steam were not necessarily exposed to them up close and personal. Yet, we appreciate the designs, complexities, and artistic appeal of these giant "boilers on wheels".
I was very fortunate to have seen the Chessie 614 in action during 1981 when I was a member of the NRHS. What a beauty of a locomotive she was (and still is). During our NRHS "Operation Lifesaver" excursion, she pulled our 21 car long train at 55mph with ease; especially considering that we had heavy weight coaches in our train as well. I remember the engineer's name being Steve Wickersham. A friendly and safety conscious gentleman.
It absolutely baffles me that to this day no manufacturer has produced a plastic model of this amazing locomotive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAQwPc4JmS4&playnext=1&list=PL40F1AE7FFB84796F
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
AntonioFP45 This doesn't have to turn into a flame-hurl thread. I'm in my 40s and was born during the diesel "horsepower wars" of the 60s between Alco, EMD, and GE. Yet as a kid, I constantly saw steamers on tv. Every toy train set I saw (and the sets I got from my father and godfather) had steam locomotives in them. It wasn't until 1973 that I got my first diesel in an HO Tyco set. Of course, that F9 was a factory piece of junk. So a good number of us under 60 that like steam were not necessarily exposed to them up close and personal. Yet, we appreciate the designs, complexities, and artistic appeal of these giant "boilers on wheels". I was very fortunate to have seen the Chessie 614 in action during 1981 when I was a member of the NRHS. What a beauty of a locomotive she was (and still is). During our NRHS "Operation Lifesaver" excursion, she pulled our 21 car long train at 55mph with ease; especially considering that we had heavy weight coaches in our train as well. I remember the engineer's name being Steve Wickersham. A friendly and safety conscious gentleman. It absolutely baffles me that to this day no manufacturer has produced a plastic model of this amazing locomotive. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAQwPc4JmS4&playnext=1&list=PL40F1AE7FFB84796F
-Morgan
I was born in 1960 so by the time I was to get out and actually see some trains the steamers were gone so all I saw were diesels. I modeled steamers for several years during the 80's and still own a few but rarely run them. Most of the reason for that is that I've lost most of the feeling in my hands and it's very easy to damage the running gear on something like my Mehano 2-10-2. The Bachmann Niagara doesn't scare me so much as it's construction is a bit more robust. While today's diesel models have a lot of fragile detail on them I try to stay away from the ones that have really fragile parts like handrails and such. Lately Athearn has gotten to the point that their handrails break if you breathe on them hard and needless to say, they don't last long around me. I prefer something with larger more hardy handrails. I have a couple of Stewart units that have railings that are just downright huge but harder to break. The Bachmann units I've gotten in the past couple of years have railings somewhat larger than the seemingly hair-thin railings on the better detailed units and they don't break as easily. In fact I haven't broken any of them with the exception of two GP30's that came with thin railings.
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
My father was just the opposite.
My father was an engineer with CPR during the 1950's. He was working out of Field BC assigned to steam engines.
As the railroad replaced the steam engines with diesels there became a surplus of engineers and firemen. With the diesels running in units like an A-B-B consist the railroad did not need three full crews as they did with steam.
Many of the old timers with lots more seniority than my father were unable to make the transition to diesel, many were able to use their seniority to stay with the steam engines. My father loved the steam engines and did not take to diesel engines.
He stayed with CPR for a couple of years then quit and worked as an engineer with one of the big forest companies who had a number of steam engines and geared steam locomotives as well. That way he stayed with steam for quite a few more years.
Young man, you are missing out on a lot of fun.
I rode in the cab of a Shay Locomotive in Cass, West Virginia and let me tell ya that thing is a living breathing beast. It is alive.
You otta reconsider, steam engines are very interesting and eye catching to run.
Wayne
Modeling HO Freelance Logging Railroad.
Blasphemy!
mmmmm...the weekend is coming up....time for a weekend hoohaw.....
I have a few steamers here...namely a couple of Bachmann 2-8-0's and a couple of MTH one's....all belong to the Williston Hysterical ...I mean, Historical Society and Ice Cream Emporium
I don't think there is a need to get into these hair-splitting things..
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Model what you want to model. That is the reason this hobby is so great. You can bash steam models all you want. People have died to give you that right. No one ever said that you have to have this or that or you can't be a model railroader.
If you were to ask me why I model steam I would answer your question with another question. Why can my one steam locomotive do the work of 5 or 6 of your weisels? Steam locomotives did not fail. It just got too expensive to run and maintain them. If fuel costs $4 a gallon in 1960 I bet today's railroads would have been a lot different.
So tell us why you don't like the electrics.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
With todays models STEAM is a good choice.
Russell
Well, as a guy that runs 98% steam--and a lot of BIG steam at that, my view is that as long as you're active in the hobby, I don't care WHAT you're running, as long as it's giving you enjoyment.
You don't put down my big, hunking Articulateds, and I won't put down your big, growling diesels and we'll BOTH carry on and be happy, LOL!
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Hi!
I am 67, and remember all too well the steamers of the C&NW and the IC. And, I have been around and ridden on numerous preserved ones. My layout is populated with late steam and first generation diesels - ATSF and IC. I thought about just having diesels on the latest layout, but the majesty of those locos and their facilities (coal and water towers, etc.) would be missing. And then there is the "wooooo, woooo" !
To the OP, with all due respect:
- To each their own!
- Why would I care if you like or dislike steam on your layout?
- Was dropping this post your way of starting off the weekend with a bang?
- I would urge you to remember that when you need help from the good folks on this forum, some might recall this posting and ignore your plight - just as I should have ignored this posting.
ENJOY !!!!
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
I find, at least in N Scale, the diesels do tend to be less finicky and more forgiving of rough track work than their steam counterparts. I started out with a small fleet of diesels and a handful of freight cars. As such when I built layout, there were a lot of spots where I simply said "good enough" and called it done. Well, as time went by, I found I simply couldn't resist I acquired a few steamers. This actually forced me to redo a few sections of track so they'd run properly. Now not only do my steamers run flawlessly, the diesels seem to run better too!
Modeling the Pennsylvania Railroad in N Scale.
www.prr-nscale.blogspot.com
I don't recall an NMRA standard requiring `Real' model railroaders to run steam.
If you are modeling any present-day North American railroad, whether Class I or one-industry micropike, you WILL be running diesels only - unless the route's electrified or pulled along by a cable
As it happens, I like steam. I also like catenary electrics, and EMUs, and DMUs, and center-cab diesel-hydraulics. The only things I don't like are art-deco furniture vans and emergency gensets on wheels. Any resemblance of virtually all North American diesels to one or the other of those categories is, I'm sure, purely coincidental.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - and the locomotives I saw there)
Each type has its own zen. When I started my layout I swore that no diesel would ever come upon it. After awhile I realized that diesel switchers were less troublesome in the yards than their steam counterparts. I got into diesel road units because I could pick them up cheaply and detail them to suit my Pennsy prototype. The old Blue Box Atherns were fun to kitbash,paint and detail and the sight of a three unit set of F-7s picking its way through my turnouts was surprisingly pleasing. So now I run a steam-diesel transition operation and have the best of both worlds. My motto: Keep and open mind and be receptive to new ways to have fun in the hobby!
locoi1sa It just got too expensive to run and maintain them. If fuel costs $4 a gallon in 1960 I bet today's railroads would have been a lot different.
It just got too expensive to run and maintain them. If fuel costs $4 a gallon in 1960 I bet today's railroads would have been a lot different.
Fuel was never the decisive shot. It was the massive reduction in manpower, maintenance, and infrastructure. I'd wager the price of diesel was almost immaterial by comparison.
Never did care for those Rube Goldberg things with all the stuff moving around on the side.
Everything has been said.
Age doesn't matter with trains. Over the years, steam became the symbol of trains in general for the large audience.
Anyway, I was born in 1983, never saw a steam locomotive in action in real, but when I was a kid, my favorite book was from the 1950's. It was full of pictures showing railroad people shot beside drivers higher than them. What an impressive sense of power!
Anyway, most of us like most of the era, diesel, steam, name it. But when modeling, you've got to make choices. And often, you model what you saw in real life and that left an indelible mark in your mind.
Matt
Proudly modelling the Quebec Railway Light & Power Co since 1997.
http://www.hedley-junction.blogspot.com
http://www.harlem-station.blogspot.com
NittanyLion locoi1sa: It just got too expensive to run and maintain them. If fuel costs $4 a gallon in 1960 I bet today's railroads would have been a lot different. Fuel was never the decisive shot. It was the massive reduction in manpower, maintenance, and infrastructure. I'd wager the price of diesel was almost immaterial by comparison. Never did care for those Rube Goldberg things with all the stuff moving around on the side.
locoi1sa: It just got too expensive to run and maintain them. If fuel costs $4 a gallon in 1960 I bet today's railroads would have been a lot different.
When the railroads switched to diesel engines there was a significant reduction in jobs. An A-B-B diesel consist replaced three steam engine crews each made up of an engineer, fireman, and oiler. As far as diesel engine maintenance went there too were major reductions in the roundhouses and diesel shops.
An A-B-B diesel consist replaced three steam engine crews each made up of an engineer, fireman, and oiler. As far as diesel engine maintenance went there too were major reductions in the roundhouses and diesel shops.
Not really, the only place an ABB or ABBA diesel was superior to, say, a Santa Fe 5011 class 2-10-4, an SP 4-8-8-2, a UP Challenger or Big Boy was when you needed lots of low speed tractive effort. (i.e. in the mountains). Even then, the N&W tested Y6b's against four unit F7 sets in the kind of lugging service that diesels were really good at and the F7's lost. Nickel Plate also tried F's and bought 2-8-4's. The GP9's and RS-11's that replaced the Berkshires had exactly the same number of engine crew as the 2-8-4s, two. Of course, it took 3 or 4 units to replace a Berk, but we'll overlook that.
I remember reading an article (by Lloyd Stagner, I believe), that stated a 5011 class 2-10-4 could actually outperform a four unit F7 set in non mountainous territory. Granted, it didn't have the starting tractive effort of a four unit F7, but it could maintain a flatter TE curve at speed.
BTW, it took DM&IR 4 SD9's to replace an M-3 or M-4.Yellowstone.
Maybe if other railroads had approached steam locomotives the way N&W did, steam would have lasted quite a bit longer. As it was, Roanoke was building steam locomotives as late as 1953. That probably would have lasted even longer if it weren't for the fact that the railroads who never really learned how to get the best out of steam had jumped ship and the makers of steam locomotive accessories were either going out of business or going into other lines of work.
Andre
One reason steam locomotives stayed around as long as they did was because of something called World War 2.
People keep adding perspective, including our friend Jeff, just above. And it is all good.
Personally, this young gentleman's message rings true to me. While I appreciate diesels and what they do, and will enthusiastically remark on them when stuck at a crossing as they roar past, my heart is with steam because I know it...or was exposed to it the earliest when I was more impressionable. His message is that he just doesn't know steam, and he finds it about as appealing as many of us find an Edsel appealing. So, he is right....to him. And those who go 'meh' to Edsels are right to do that for themselves.
Buuuuttt...I think he's just pulling our legs a bit....he has been around long enough to know what will press our buttons, those of us who are Stalwarts in Steam. But we would not be doing him a great service by dismissing his statement...he means what he says. I believe him. And I get it.
Crandell
andrechapelon An A-B-B diesel consist replaced three steam engine crews each made up of an engineer, fireman, and oiler. As far as diesel engine maintenance went there too were major reductions in the roundhouses and diesel shops. Not really, the only place an ABB or ABBA diesel was superior to, say, a Santa Fe 5011 class 2-10-4, an SP 4-8-8-2, a UP Challenger or Big Boy was when you needed lots of low speed tractive effort. (i.e. in the mountains). Even then, the N&W tested Y6b's against four unit F7 sets in the kind of lugging service that diesels were really good at and the F7's lost. Nickel Plate also tried F's and bought 2-8-4's. The GP9's and RS-11's that replaced the Berkshires had exactly the same number of engine crew as the 2-8-4s, two. Of course, it took 3 or 4 units to replace a Berk, but we'll overlook that. I remember reading an article (by Lloyd Stagner, I believe), that stated a 5011 class 2-10-4 could actually outperform a four unit F7 set in non mountainous territory. Granted, it didn't have the starting tractive effort of a four unit F7, but it could maintain a flatter TE curve at speed. BTW, it took DM&IR 4 SD9's to replace an M-3 or M-4.Yellowstone. Maybe if other railroads had approached steam locomotives the way N&W did, steam would have lasted quite a bit longer. As it was, Roanoke was building steam locomotives as late as 1953. That probably would have lasted even longer if it weren't for the fact that the railroads who never really learned how to get the best out of steam had jumped ship and the makers of steam locomotive accessories were either going out of business or going into other lines of work. Andre
While it may have taken NKP 3 or 4 units to replace a Berkshire. The diesels offered a bit more flexibility as all that power wasn't tied up in one unit. The full power of the Berkshire might not always be required and having several smaller units instead of one big one allowed railroads to better match power to the load. Also if the Berk broke down, the train would be stranded and the line blocked until a rescue engine came. Whereas with a 3-4 unit consist of diesels, if one unit goes down, the other may have just enough strength to limp off the main line.
Too much power tied up in one unit was also contributing factor in the failure of the SD90MAC and AC6000CW.