Steam can still be seen a couple of times a year in Field. CP 2816 H1b 4-6-4 travels thru Field from Calgary on excursions to Golden, Revelstoke, or Vancouver. There's an excellent IMAX movie of this trip now showing in eastern Canada and it will be shown out west next Spring and Summer.
Don
As much as I love the 2800's, 3100's, and others, nothing can hold a candle to the 5900's...
[View:http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/themes/trc/utility/
[View:http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/themes/trc/utility/:550:0][View:http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/themes/trc/utility/:550:0]:550:0]
Van Hobbies H1b, K1a, T1c, D10g, F1a, F2a, G5a. Division Point: H24-66 Hammerhead, Alco covered wagons A-B-B-A, C-Liner A-B-B-A, EMD FP7A A-B-B.
H1b modified to replicate modern day 2816. All with Tsunamis.
Isambard Not the answer to when was the last steam in Field; however the T1a 2-10-4's were scrapped in 1956 and the T1b's and T1c's were assigned for use between Calgary and Swift Current. The T1b's were disposed of in 1957 and the T1c's in 1959, all scrapped except 5935 to the Canadian Railway Museum and 5931 to Calgary (renumbered as 5934).
Not the answer to when was the last steam in Field; however the T1a 2-10-4's were scrapped in 1956 and the T1b's and T1c's were assigned for use between Calgary and Swift Current.
The T1b's were disposed of in 1957 and the T1c's in 1959, all scrapped except 5935 to the Canadian Railway Museum and 5931 to Calgary (renumbered as 5934).
--between Calgary and Swift Current- - - AND at least ONCE to Moose Jaw, although I don't have a photo of it on the wye.
I don't know how true it is, but my grandfather used to say how the 5900's hated the open prairie, and were not a fun ride at 55 mph.
CP guy in TX I don't know how true it is, but my grandfather used to say how the 5900's hated the open prairie, and were not a fun ride at 55 mph.
Probably quite true. They were designed for use in the mountain passes, where speeds were generally rather lower due to grades and curvature. When diesels took over the Calgary-Revelstoke territory about 1952 the T-1-c group in particular were only three years old, too new for the accountants to permit scrapping. So instead they were reassigned to work east, and maybe north, from Calgary instead of west. The ride may have been rough, but the pounding at higher speeds had significant adverse effects on both the running gear and the track. No wonder they were all retired some years before the end of steam while much older but more versatile classes kept running off the miles.
John
If they were retired early, 5931 must have been almost like new when she was put out to pasture.
Did they save any of the T1a's?
None of the T1a's were saved. Two T1c's were saved, 5935 which is in a museum in Quebec and 5931 which is on display in Calgary at the historic Heritage Park.
@ don7 & CP Guy in TX:
As you both have a Samhongsa/Van Hobbies/PFM 2-10-4 Selkirk, I am asking you: is there ANY CHANCE to make this engine run through 20 inch radius curves??? What modifications would be needed to make her "20"-able"?? I currently have the chance to buy this beautiful Samhongsa/Van Hobbies/PFM T-1a (model dates from 1975) for a very good price:
I would so love to have that Selkirk run on my layout. But the engine MUST be able to take 20 inch curves without problems because I don´t have any space or possibilities for larger curves. Otherwise I cannot use it.
Since MTH is planning to release a beautiful Soo Line Alco FA-1/FB-1 next year, I thought about the idea of putting together a nice 10 car Mountaineer passenger train featuring Soo Line and Canadian Pacific cars by Walthers, which would be pulled by the Soo Line FA-1/FB-1 and Canadian Pacific T-1a! That would be such a great looking train!
Daniel
Possibly. But it will be a lot of work. First, remove the rods and valve gear, keeping a record of what goes where....and for crying out loud, don't lose anything!!! Take photos as you go.
Then, either remove the middle axle or leave it in place and invert and power the locomotive so that it runs upside down. What you must do in either case is to creat flangeless drivers by grinding them down. In fact, you may have to do that to any two of the middle axles, but start with one axle.
Are you sure you want to do this?
Crandell
No, of course I´m not. Otherwise I wouldn´t have asked.
But in my eyes it would be better to make the 2 outer drivers flangless, wouldn´t it? I mean it´s the length that makes the engine rigid in curves. So with the 2 outher drivers being flangless that would shorten the wheelbase of flanged drivers down from 5 to 3. Wouldn´t that be more effective than to grind down the flanges of just the center driver?
By the way I don´t even have the tooling for grinding the flanges down. And making somebody else do that job for me is unpayable.
Don7:
There is a Tenshodo CP Royal Hudson 4-6-4 #2860 offered on eBay right now. It is currently at $410.00 and there are still 4 days left on the offer. According to the listing it was made in 1980 and it is #75 of the series. It looks to be in great condition. I drool but I cannot afford
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
De Luxe But in my eyes it would be better to make the 2 outer drivers flangless, wouldn´t it?...
But in my eyes it would be better to make the 2 outer drivers flangless, wouldn´t it?...
No. The prototype examples I have seen, and those models of them that I know, all have the center driver 'blind'. I know a small 2-8-2 nearby that has only the two outer axles with flanges due to the tight curves and turnouts its fellow diesel switchers around it use. The reason is that you want the flanges guiding the locomotive where they will have the most leverage, and where they will augment the pilot truck's centering spring. That position is always furthest from the fulcrum or the pivoting point, or the center of mass.
That is interesting. I once had a 4-8-4 (the prototype had 80 inch drivers) that always derailed on my 20 inch curves, and whenever it derailed, it were always only the front and rear drivers that derailed, but never the 2 inner drivers, which stayed correctly on track. Because of this experience I belive that the reason is the long rigid flanged wheelbase (large drivered 4-8-4s can have longer wheelbases than small drivered 2-10-4s), and this is why I believe that making the front and rear drivers flangless is more effective than just a flangless center driver. But your reasons sound logical as well...
I was also interested in a Texas & Pacific 2-10-4 by Sunset Models, which is currently being offered on ebay. Those Sunset 2-10-4s come with a flangless center driver, that can replace the flanged center driver if necessary for operation. Now after doing a little research I found out, that when you operate this T&P 2-10-4 with the flanged center driver, the minimum radius is 30 inch. But when you operate it with the flangless center driver, the minimum radius goes down to 24 inch. Well, that is still not enough for me, but now I think about what the minimum radius of the PFM Selkirk is in its original state with the flanged drivers, and what the minimum radius COULD BE, IF the center driver is being made flangless. Since both prototypes (T&P I-1a & CP T-1a) had 63 inch drivers, I guess it will also be the same thing with the models: if the T&P I-1a can do a minimum of 24 inches with a flangless center driver, I can expect the CP T-1a to do pretty much the same so. And this is what I am afraid of, because no one can give me the guarantee that the T-1a would be able to make it through 20 inch curves with just the center driver being flangless. If it only takes a 24 inch minimum with the flangless center driver, my problem is still not solved and I still cannot use it.
It will be a gamble, to be sure. If you were to stand before me and look inquiringly at me for a reaction, I would tell you that I would not contemplate doing this...not for the curves you have. If it were 24", probably, but not for less.
About the only 10-coupled you will get to run on your curves nicely, including at track speeds in scale, would be the Bachmann Spectrum Decapod. It had a short wheelbase, and could operate on 18" radius curves.
I can totally understand your thoughts. I am also not really in the mood of trying this experiment to be honest. Too risky.
UPDATE
As I mentioned the Selkirk will not run on parts of my layout due to the radius requirements. I was running the Selkirk in a point to point pattern, however, the Selkirks inabillity to run the full layout has made me make a decision that I will retire the Selkirk to the yard area and leave in on a track near the roundhouse where it will not longer access the layout.
The Selkirk has been replaced by a pair of Hudson H-1-a steamers,
@ don7: well, that´s my point of view as well. I only want to run engines that can run on the entire tracks of the whole layout. I don´t wanna be restricted to certain trackage. So for me the situation is very clear: either the engine takes it all, or I will not buy it at all.
I am still glad that I bought the Selkirk, I had second thoughst and added additional track so the Selkirk can again access the layout via the turntable and make its rather limited run.
However, I certainly would not alter the drive wheels to make the engine fit your layout.can not accomodate the engine. You can always use smaller engines on your layout.
De Luxe @ don7: well, that´s my point of view as well. I only want to run engines that can run on the entire tracks of the whole layout. I don´t wanna be restricted to certain trackage. So for me the situation is very clear: either the engine takes it all, or I will not buy it at all.
But...that's prototypical ;)
Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296
Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/
De Luxe That is interesting. I once had a 4-8-4 (the prototype had 80 inch drivers) that always derailed on my 20 inch curves, and whenever it derailed, it were always only the front and rear drivers that derailed, but never the 2 inner drivers, which stayed correctly on track. Because of this experience I belive that the reason is the long rigid flanged wheelbase (large drivered 4-8-4s can have longer wheelbases than small drivered 2-10-4s), and this is why I believe that making the front and rear drivers flangless is more effective than just a flangless center driver. But your reasons sound logical as well... ....
....
Making the first and last drivers flangeless makes it easier for them to slide across the rail and fall off. The geometry of the track and wheelbase forces the ends to derail, removing the flanges just makes it easier.
OTOH if you modified the chassis/mechanism to have the first and last drivers float above the rails a tiny bit then they could be flangeless and you in effect have 2 less axles although you may need some extra lateral movement in the pilot and trailing trucks. I haven't tried this, but it would be an intersting experiment especially if you can get the engine cheap enough.
The other possibility would be to give the center drivers more lateral play so they can slide side to side more. Again I haven't tried this so I'm not sure how well it would work. Report back to us if you do.
Good luck
Paul
@ Paul:
Your idea sounds interesting indeed. But for me that experiment would be a little too much. Lifting the first and last drivers up sounds quite complicated. And I also don´t want to lose tractive force, because my trains are long and heavy, so all 5 drivers are surely needed. My 2-10-4 should be able to pull 40 freight cars or 10 lighted passenger cars (featuring interiors and figures) up 3% grades. Since it doesn´t feature traction tire equipped wheels, all driving wheels will surely be needed.
I´m much more into the other possibility of giving the center drivers or better all drivers more lateral play. I just made this drawing right now. I wonder how it would be like if the frame is being narrowed by cutting the frame off along the dashed red lines. I think that this could really make the engine negotiate 20 inch curves and maybe it wouldn´t even need a flangless center driver then. But I simply don´t know HOW to do this and with which tools. I mean I never did such things before.
This must be some kind of record for the amount of forum replies to a Canadian locomotive eh?
Huh, do topics about Canadian locomotives on the forum usually get much less replies than about US locomotives? Never noticed that yet...
Simple statistics would warrant a difference : U.S. population= 312 million. Canadaland population=35 million. There are more people in California than in all of Canada.
Canada has 2 railroads. U.S. has _ _ _ _ _ railroads. (anyone know?)
Guess what! Just yesterday I received my CP Selkirk and all 10 drivers go through my 20 inch curves without any problems! No modifications needed!!! I really didn´t need to worry that much about it! But of course in the beginning I didn´t expect this model to go through my radii! Only the rear truck is derailing sometimes due to touching the rear steam pipes in the curves. I will remove the pipes and the problem will be solved. But installing a DCC decoder with sound, headlight, cab light and smoke unit will definitely be a problem because this model isn´t ready for it at all. And there is also a problem about the decals, because Champ has closed the doors, and there is no other manufacturer doing CP steam locomotive declas as far as I know.
You are in luck. Checkout Blackcat Decals, they have a line of CPR steam decals which include the large steam decals with the maroon and gold trim blocks for the steam engines and tenders and of course the appropriate CPR decals.
http://www.canadasouthern.com/tmr/misc-decals.htm
They have all you would need for any CPR steam.
I have heard that some Selkirks come with a lot of lateral side movement on the drivers which allow the engine to handle the smaller curves.
The luck of the draw.
Very good news! Can you not thin the pipes on the wheels side of the tender? Can they be bent even 0.5 mm outward where the contact first takes place? If the derailments are occasional or intermittent, then it suggests to me that even a fraction of a mm displacement of the piping would more than halve the numbers of derailments.
Alternatively, you could round the outter edges of the tires on that one axle, just enough to buy you that bit of a mm of extra clearance but not enough to make the modified shape stand out.
@ don7: Thank you for the the information and link! Unfortunately I didn´t found any T-1a Selkirk decals on that website. Yes, I´m really lucky with that engine. Obviously the drivers have a lot of sideplay. Otherwise I cannot expalin to myself, why the engine can handel such tight radii, while my other 2-10-4, a Kumata Texas & Pacific I-1a, derails on my 20 inch curves, although it has smaller drivers and therefore a shorter wheelbase!
@Selector: the trailing truck always derails in the curves. I will have to cut off the lower part of the steam pipes to allow more motion for the truck. I see no other solution than this.
This is how my Selkirk looks on my 20 inch curve. By the way only the front axle of the trailing truck derails. Never the rear axle.
And this is how my future 10 car Mountaineer should look like: From top to bottom:
Samhongsa CP T-1a 2-10-4, MTH SOO FA-1/FB-1, SOO Baggage, 2 CP 10-5 Sleepers, 2 SOO 12-1 Sleepers, SOO Diner, 3 SOO 10-1-2 Sleepers and a SOO Sleeper Solarium Observation with Tomar Industries lighted Mountaineer drumhead on the rear. All cars by Walthers.
What do you think of this train? I think it will be a great looking train once finished, when every car has passenger figures and interior lights added. But I think it will be a huge challenge to install the headlight and smoke unit in the 2-10-4, because the front part of the boiler is filled with a big piece of weight. Some hardcore drillwork will be necessary to do this. And I also wonder if the 2-10-4 will have enough tractive force to pull these 10 cars up a 3% grade. Traction tires would have been a good idea...
By the way: does anyone of you know what year those CP 10-5 Sleeper arrived on the CP?
De lux
Looks great, the Decals for the Selkirk are CPR#2345, There are two sets in the package, one for a small steamer and one for a large steamer - the Selkirk
If you want there is another set CPR #2345 which contains the Tuscan panels for both the engine (along the sideboard) and also for the tender. This is the passenger set, the freight set does not use the Maroon/Tuscan panels
The picture of the Selkirk you T1a you posted is the freight version, no Maroon/Tuscan panels
This is my T1a, note same number as your picture of the painted Selkirk.
This is a CPR passenger livery with the Tuscan Panels
De Luxe ....Selector: the trailing truck always derails in the curves. I will have to cut off the lower part of the steam pipes to allow more motion for the truck. I see no other solution than this. This is how my Selkirk looks on my 20 inch curve. By the way only the front axle of the trailing truck derails. Never the rear axle.
....Selector: the trailing truck always derails in the curves. I will have to cut off the lower part of the steam pipes to allow more motion for the truck. I see no other solution than this.
The easiest way to correct the interference between the booster piping and the trailing truck is to re-shape the rear of the truck frame. This will allow the pipes to remain (they're pretty prominent and removing them would be very noticeable) and the re-shaped frame shouldn't be noticeable once the area has been painted. I prefer a cut-off disc for such work, as it allows more precision than cutting burrs.
Wayne