I was trying to find an MTH Bi-polar or Little Joe for a friend a while back. They're pretty scarce, pretty expensive and I certainly wouldn't want to be hacking one up to make a kit-bash fantasy locomotive. But that's me.
I don't know your budget for this project but for economy's sake maybe look for a couple of Bachmann GG1s (2-C+C-2) and you could probably splice those cast truck frames into Ds or Es or even Fs if you desire. The CUT P1a uses a very similar frame and I believe the New Haven had some juice-jacks using them as well.
Conversely, you could start with a Broadway Limited Baldwin DR-12-8-1500/2 (Centipede; 2-D+D-2). These were selling pretty reasonably, especially the Seaboard ones. Those may give you a good starting point for a drive-line.
I have a pair and on my 32" curves they look pretty "Bent" trying to negotiate a curve that tight. Something to keep in mind.
Again, I'm suggesting either one of these because of their availability and somewhat reasonable cost. I've seen both in closeout sales at Trainworld, MB Klein and Walthers.
Good Luck, Ed
I started a project like that several years ago. Never finished it. Perhaps one of these days.
I'm using an Alco PA "B" unit and units trucks on a reworked PA frame to bring the trucks closer together.
If you wanted to use the side frames from a GG-1 and make them "D" trucks consider splicing the side frames for the configurstion you want to make a master and then cast them in resin. Could be a whole new learning experince in making your own parts.
Bernd
New York, Vermont & Northern Rwy. - Route of the Black Diamonds
protolancer(at)kingstonemodelworks(dot)com
NWP SWPOr would someone out there with 3d printing and design skills like to take on this project?
Actually, you might find designing such a truck to be an interesting experience.
You can use free software, such as this: https://www.sketchup.com/products/sketchup-pro/new-in-2018
You don't need the pro version, the free download does all you need.
Once you get the hang of the program, go here: https://www.shapeways.com/
and look at the requirements for the different materials they offer.
You might want to start with a manufactured truck to simplify the engineering problems of creating a drivetrain. That will give you the critical dimensions needed to design your sideframes.
Have fun!
Eric
North West Short Line might have some parts you need.
I like the look of the CUT T3 or MILW Bipolar sideframes so I'll see if I can order a set from MTH and use that for the new ones... For the driveline I'm going to take two motors both with dual flywheels and connect two Athearn B trucks to each motor and the two center trucks will be attached to each other to make a D truck and the appropriate sideframes go on that...
And far as CAD goes 1 my computer is old and in the shop and the guy says that I have to be very careful because I had an all out malware infestation even with one of the prominent anti virus softwares running... 2 I am terrible at using computers for drawing and such so if someone more inclined could you give me some pointers? Thanks...
Steve
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough!
Here's the sideframes I'm looking for:
Here's the locomotive I want the body to look like...
Here's a few possible body shells I can modify...
I'll post a rudimentary drawing in a bit...
In the 1980's I built a N scale model using an Arnold GG1 and a scratch built plastic body.
I did another loco with full length body made from two 70's Atlas F7 bodied back to back to resemble a GN W1 loco.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
Found this on E-bay it a use one but if anyone is looking for a Bi-Polar here is the link
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/MTH-PREMIER-20-5511-1-MILWAUKEE-ROAD-MR-E-2-BIPOLAR-ELECTRIC-w-PS-2-0/372170696029?_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20160908105057%26meid%3Dd7bee5b87df54847a5ca195d790b03e2%26pid%3D100675%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D8%26sd%3D272956446325&_trksid=p2481888.c100675.m4236&_trkparms=pageci%253Ac6d9841c-e790-11e7-b70b-74dbd180dbe9%257Cparentrq%253A81667c2d1600aa47a5178d5fffe963bd%257Ciid%253A1
MheetuFound this on E-bay it a use one but if anyone is looking for a Bi-Polar here is the link
Judging by the belly-up photo it looks like this is a three-rail Lionel type?
BayGrab5 by Edmund, on Flickr
However, It seems like $350 is pretty reasonable for a brass one?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/BRASS-C-M-St-P-P-MILWAUKEE-ROAD-BI-POLAR-CLASS-EP-2-GEARLESS-ELECTRIC/253312907794?hash=item3afaa03a12:g:n4gAAOSwm2xZl6BN
Regards, Ed
For the front of the body I might use something like these:
gmpullman oops didn't see that Mheetu Found this on E-bay it a use one but if anyone is looking for a Bi-Polar here is the link Judging by the belly-up photo it looks like this is a three-rail Lionel type? BayGrab5 by Edmund, on Flickr However, It seems like $350 is pretty reasonable for a brass one? https://www.ebay.com/itm/BRASS-C-M-St-P-P-MILWAUKEE-ROAD-BI-POLAR-CLASS-EP-2-GEARLESS-ELECTRIC/253312907794?hash=item3afaa03a12:g:n4gAAOSwm2xZl6BN Regards, Ed
oops didn't see that
Mheetu Found this on E-bay it a use one but if anyone is looking for a Bi-Polar here is the link
NWP SWP Here's the sideframes I'm looking for: Here's the locomotive I want the body to look like... Here's a few possible body shells I can modify... I'll post a rudimentary drawing in a bit...
Have you thought about using something that not North American to get the look of the NYC locomotive
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/New-Ho-Gauge-52035-Ef56-Form-The-Primary-Type-Grape-No-2-Sg-Outlet-Chimney-Type/361832692214?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIM.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D20170831090034%26meid%3D83eb3f3526e14eae8c2dd0ffad8f4815%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D1%26sd%3D252643108546&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/New-Ho-Gauge-52031-Ef53-Form-Late-Grape-No-2-Tokyo-Engine-Depot-Type/252643108546?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIM.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D20170831090034%26meid%3D69598a04528f44589e9956f49db4185a%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D1%26sd%3D361832692214&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851
MheetuHave you thought about using something that not North American to get the look of the NYC locomotive
I've always liked the look of the Swiss Railways Crocodile!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile_(locomotive)
The big Pennsy FF1 was pretty neat, too. I liked anything with that big jack-shaft driving the wheels:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Railroad_class_FF1
New Haven had some pretty neat box-cabs, too.
Ed
The Japanese locomotive is a close match... But the price tag isn't...
Here's a New Haven that looks close too...
How hard would it be to bash the front end from styrene? I have two options first is have an almost exact replica of the NYC P-3 cab, second is a cab similar to the New Haven but without the little "brim"...
Have you done ANY kitbashing projects before - i.e. small or large? Or, will this be your first attempt at it?
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
The Milwaukee Bipolars lasted until about 1962. And were then scrapped.
I wonder what would have happened if someone had bought one at scrap prices and decided to dieselize it. Not as a road engine, but as a heavy switcher--maybe a transfer engine or a hump loco.
I see by a drawing that there were single axle lead trucks. Not necessary on a switcher. So then the arrangement would be B-D-D-B. Hmmmmm.....
If I needed another project (and I DO, you know), this one would be a fun free-lance.
One thing: I'd try very hard to make the body NOT look like I had bought an off-the-shelf shell and fiddled with it. I would want it to look "homemade" (which it would have been). There'd be a lot more scratchbuilding than kitbashing.
Well I was racking my brain trying to figure out how to make the cab, then it hit me, I could cut some roof off an Alco PA and make that the front of the cab! Ed that sounds like an interesting kitbash project...
Is it REALLY going to be B-D-B + B-D-B, or will it be 2-D-2 + 2-D-2, or 2-D-B + B-D-2, or some other possibility?16 powered axles seems pretty ambitious.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
Yes there will be that many powered axles... I'm going to get two Trainmasters and cut off the hood and cab, put the two motors inside each and put two B trucks on each motor and the two middle B trucks will be attached together to make a D truck... then the boxcab body goes on top of that...
Now here's another choice for the body, do I make the body extend to the ends of the locomotive like a Milwaukee Road boxcab? Or do I give it a little porch like an NYC R motor? Or a big porch like a P motor? Decisions, decisions, decisions...
One answer is build it with the big porch out front but the back extends to the end of the locomotive and build another either A unit identical the the first or build a B unit that has no porches and the body stretches the length of the unit... farther down the road build either two Bs or an A and B to make an A-B-B-A set!
I recommend MUCH more detail 'inagineering' before actually finding donor engines and cutting metal/plastic.
First order of business: you're more or less assuming reuse of bipolar Batchelder drive -- if not, what changes to the older chassis will you need to make for new traction motors or shafting? Not much later (by WWI for sure) there were electrics with similar light built-up frames and twin motor quill drives, far more 'useful' for traction but more difficult to package internal-combustion motors and fuel into...
Then we have the prime mover choice itself, either large medium-speed or relatively smaller multiple engines. A modernized version of the Essl Baldwin is very likely your best bet, and you should read up on that locomotive's history and detail design for options, particularly carbody (the 'modules' included sectional radiators and carbody sections). A repower in the 1950s with Maybach Diesel-hydraulic transmissions, or the Bowes drive from the Kaiser 2000hp passenger unit, might be an interesting historical option (suffering from some of the common-mode issues the Krauss-Maffei Amerika-Loks would have in the '60s). Note that the chief problem with the Essl design, excessive cost to manufacture, would not apply to you ... so you have plausible denial for such a large repower, and you can quote the relative advantages for the Centipede design in Kiefer's 1947 motive power report.
You will be reinventing the problem rhat killed the PRR V1 turbine if you do not provide serious fuel bunkerage - enough for several divisions' range. As on Baldwins all this has to reside above belt level, must not slosh, and any leaks or spills have to be kept scrupulously away from getting into the wiring, including ground returns and reference, or affecting other hoses and plumbing. This represents variable weight, a higher and variable CG, and at least possible issues with slosh at speed (remember the SDP40F water fiasco?)
Now for more fun: even with equalization you want to make some optimization of weight distribution over the powered axles. The porch on a P-motor presupposes two-axle idle lead truck and minimal equipment needing to be packaged in the carbody. I would be tempted to see if a body structure articulated with each truck could be used, as you then have no complex pivots or weight transfer slides over the 'existing' chassis, which may take all the buff/draft forces entirely through the truck arrangement instead of a carbody frame. (In a model this greatly simplifies how your motors or shafting would run, and how to keep adequate flexibility for traction high and nonprototypical overhang on curves low).
While you will not have to do tedioud cross-section weight analysis for balance (as Baldwin would in locomotive design) you will still want a ballpark estimate of weight on each driver pair, and shuffle the mechanical design, perhaps to give an approximation of tapered loading. This in turn will have strong impact on your carbody and subframe arrangement.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention adaptive reuse of other locomotive components from around the general historical time of this repower. The UP second coal turbine used a whole war-weary PA for auxiliary power; EMD F nosed were appended to the one Z-motor PRR didn't re-use; one of the expensive Alco Shark repowers hung around into the '90s ... there would have been a wide range of unfruitful first-generation power 'around' to contribute cheap carbody and other parts. (Personally I'd recommend adapting RF-16s for full carbody, transverse-engine mounting; do you really have the height for OP engine over your legacy chassis?)
If you do the verisimilitude correctly this could be a fun article for MR, or perhaps a 'what-if' for the Classic Trains people...
Geez Stephen, you sure like to fantasize! How many fictional locomotives does your railroad need? :)
Were these units going to be used between Seattle and Chicago? Or Portland to Los Angeles? What was the CEO's decision behind these units, do you pull really long freight trains on your layout?
How many units do you plan on making? I'd love to see your kitbashiing skills, but keep in mind if you want like 15 to 20 of these massive locomotives, it will get very expensive very quickly.
Do you know how to cut open a locomotive and convert it into something else?
Will the units have a cab on both ends or just one end?
And what colors would the units be painted?
I look forward to hearing from you.
My scheme would be that two Bipolars caught fire ruining the body luckily the traction motors and frame survived, the MILW decided to scrap the units as rebuild costs would be far to great... luckily the NWP-SWP "Super Power" division caught these before the scrapper did, having purchased running gear it was time to build a locomotive, they took two Alco PBs fitted them on a common frame then removed the idler axle from the pilots on the Bipolar frame, then they added another pair of B trucks un between the Ds then fabricated a beefier frame that two Bs and a D truck were mounted to creating half the frame, then the PBs were remotored with a power plant out of two RSD-15s which were ordered from Alco, they then were given a simple cab and were then mounted on the half frames.... How's that for an explanation?
Now if I build an A-B-B-A set the B units can be the "tenders" not having cabs and their bodies running the length of the unit...
The units will be in heavy freight service, right now depending on if I go with the A-B-B-A set the A units will have a single cab, If I decide to do stand alone units I'll make it double ended, I'm planning on 2 to 4 units, they will be painted in a livery similar to the ERIE green livery, they will be in system wide service specifically on the 2-4% grades on the several passes on the line...
Also just to add the NYC T motors had a similar porch as the Ps but had all axles powered...
Have you calculated the cost of what you are envisioning? Sounds to me like it's going to be way more expensive for the chassis, shells, and parts than settling for an actual prototype bipolar diesel.
Athearn shells for PBs can be had for under 10 the Trainmasters can be had for about 15, and the Athearn trucks can be found for about 30 so all in all the per unit cost shouldn't be more than 200 right?
What about tools (saw blades, x-acto knives, files, etc) and supplies (styrene sheeting)? Will you be able to use the existing motor couplings to kluge the drive train together? Or, will they all be separate? Will it be DC or DCC? If the latter, how many decoders will it require? And don't forget S&H for any online ordered parts...
Ah, but you have to look at the equalization and pivot arrangements on the T-motors to see why the carbody was arranged that way...
Two 2400hp 251s in a locomotive that size? Wasn't adequate for the UP steam turbine and would not be later. There's a reason all the electric-locomotive developments to speak of after about 1951 were diesel-truck based, even on roads that had very recently built giant locomotives with D truck underframes...
You do not want 'bad' in your locomotive to be something other than a cultural reference. Since this is diesel hp-limited I encourage you to shoot the moon on nominal generator-output hp, far more than a couple of piddly RSDs with all their advantages would otherwise give you.
Who's designing the control gear for this locomotive? The MU arrangements? The dual-power capability? We need to have more fun and less kludging here!
Overmod, sounds like you would be a great help with this project... So what sort of Prime Mover would you suggest? The control gear thing has me confused a bit... it will be MU capable, and I might add pantographs on it for extra power... please keep giving suggestions and advice... thanks!
Here's a rough draft of what formats I have to choose from, the first is like the NYC electrics, the second is is my A-B-B-A idea, and the third is full length body...
Suppose theoretically, that four Alco 251s could fit side by side and end to end each with two generators on each engine, could that work?
Do you know what the minimum radii will be for this behemoth? Are you going to be able to run it anywhere - e.g. on your club layout? Or, will this just be a shelf queen?
That's when some clever engineering on my part comes in...
First the two Trainmaster boxes that run half the length of the unit act as span bolsters and house two motors each which power two Athearn B trucks each two of the B trucks one from each motor share common D truck sideframes the D trucks (or two B trucks) can both swivel and slide side to side, then the B leading and trailing trucks also swivel and pivot... then each B-D-B set is joined by another span bolster to which the body is attached to... then the decoders speakers weights and anything else needed for a model... I hope to be able to "possibly" (and I use the term very loosely) shoe horn it through 22" radius curves??? But that's minimum radius not planned radius... I am going to the club tomorrow and I will ask the minimum radius used there...
I think R22" will be VERY ambitious. (My MTH 20th Century Limited cars are rated at R24".) For sure it won't look pretty doing it. I do think it would be a good idea to find out what the minimum radii is at your club layout.
Tstage, I agree R22 is stressing the bounds of reality a bit but I never said that it be the typical curviture used I would just like to have that "buffer" between operating radius and minimum before the locomotive jumps the rails, especially in yards...
I now have about 70 bucks saved from Christmas and should have more come my birthday in a month and then of course my seeking meaningful employment upon reaching the age of 17...
Funding is slowly getting better and this project should really pick up steam soon!
Well I went to the club and asked Casey the minimum radius of the layout he said that it is 29" radius at its tightest spot and the rest of the layout is about 30" or greater... Now this left me perplexed because that would give a diameter of 58" and my T-1 derails every time I run through there and it's rated for 22" minimum??? Could he have meant 14.5" radius? But that doesn't make sense because most motive power is 6 axle power, so maybe it is indeed 29" radius...
No, I'm sure he meant R29". Not much of anything other than the shortest of switchers would even make it through a curve <R15" in HO. 6-axle locomotives need at least R24".
"...my T-1 derails every time I run through there". Do you mean that your T1 derails only at a particular spot on the club layout? Or, does it happen all over it?
It does derail elsewhere on the layout especially when running at speed... but the area is a derailment prone area and is soon to be the target of a realignment project...
What "area" are you referring to? A yard entrance? And when you say your T1 derails: Do you mean the drivers derail...or only the front trucks?
The T1 is long and rigid. I think the manufacture's "recommended minimum radius" of 22" is wishful thinking on their part. However, I suspect that there are a combination of issues going on between the layout and your T1.
From my experience with the mth ho bi polar it will do 18inch radius. This is due to fact that the front pilot truck got swivel from the power truck. The power trucks also is allow to swing are little. The body on the mth model is also three pieces with the cabs attach to each end allow to swing left or right depending on the turn.
The section of track that is troublesome is where the mainline makes a U turn at the end of a peninsula across onto a shelf...
Also I found someone to 3d print the side frames but I need a scale drawing with measurements of the trucks, if anyone has or knows where to find them I'd appreciate it, thanks...
Not sure if this would help
Mheetu, the top one looks great let me send it to the 3d printer to see if it's good enough for him...
If you can, try to get someone who knows about eletronics to help you rewire the decoders and motors so your boxcab locomotive runs smoothly.
I wouldn't do that yourself, have someone help you just to be safe.
Rod from the club said he would help me install a decoder... how would I get the sound to be like there are four Alco 251Bs with dual generators each inside the unit coming in and out of sync? The unit will have four motors so would two decoders with two speakers each one on each side of the locomotive that way the speaker facing the back of the layout will sound different from the front thereby creating that cycling effect work?
One generator or two generators per prime mover wouldn't really change the sound. Really be unlikely any railroad would put two generators on one prime move anyway, 4 diesels each with a generator would be monster power - 6000 or more HP.
Loksound decoders have an adjustment to the prime mover to adjust the exact response. The idea is so that if you ahev 4 locos in consist they all won't throttle up the engine sounds in lock step. But nothing says you couldn't cram 4 decoders and 4 speakers in there and set them up this way, so that all 4 prime movers wouldn't be in perfect sync.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
This locomotive uses 16 bipolar motors and is going to operate on 2 to 4 percent grades so power demands are through the roof! Four decoders could be pricey! But anythings an option...
A kitbashed HO Scale locomotive with 4 decoders?! Wow that's a lot of wiring and electronics involved!
16 bipolar motors?! Geez stephen you're really hitting me with stuff today!
The model only has four motors but the prototype would've had 16 bipolar motors... Thats why I was addressing the number of engine sounds...
NWP SWPThis locomotive uses 16 bipolar motors
Why would a diesel engine use ineffecient bi-polar motors rather than regular traction motors?
CC
Generators (or mostly alternators), were pretty much always (read that 100%) driven by the flywheel end of the engine. VERY FEW engines are equipped for power drives on the non-flywheel end.
.
I have only ever seen Shrimp Boats and a few Dredges set up for power output drives on both ends of the crankshaft, and even then, the front power drive is only rated at 30% of maximum engine output. The flywheel end is always rated for 100% of engine output.
There is ZERO advantage to driving alternators off of both the front and rear of the engine. Any engineer would just install a larger alternator and split the power to two different loads.
Anyway, none of this matters at all, because you will not be modeling all the neat stuff under the hood. That is where the motors and decoders will be.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
The reason I'm going to use bipolar motors is because the running gear is off scrapped MILW Bipolar Electric units... remember MILW only scrapped the Bipolars because the milwaukee shops did not rebuild the units properly...
Theoretically couldn't flywheels be affixed to both ends of an engine? Doesn't matter but just an academic curiosity...
Now I need some popular opinion vote...
1 Do I build a boxcab single unit like the NYC T motors? Easiest.
2 Do I build an A unit that has a porch at the front and the body stretches to the rear end of the unit? A little harder.
3 Do I build a unit that has a full length body without porches? Harder but doable.
If I do the second or third do I:
1 Build a tender for the fuel? Easiest.
2 Build a slug that acts as a tender? A little harder.
3 Build a B unit? Hardest.
I think I should do 1 or maybe 2 but with option 3. I'm not quite sure so some other opinions would be helpful. Thanks!
Now if they had overhead available, why would they bother to put diesels in it?
There's no way you could just slap extra trucks on and call it good, this would mess with the equalization and the tracking. More is not always better - the more wheels, the less weight per wheel and this end up hurting tractive effort, even if those wheels are powered. Like Overmod said, look at the later electric locos like the E33 and E44. Diesels without the diesel engine in them, and pantographs on top. The Baldwin Centipedes weren't hugely successful and the super power diesels that came after that the UP used ended up with a more standard diesel truck, only larger. Not oodles of wheels.
Three explanations...
1 the MILW scrapped them, the NWP-SWP bought the running gear and they needed diesels to power the monster.
2 because of the extra weight from the engines they made half the trucks on one frame and the others on another and because of the weight they wanted each half to have a leading and trailing truck...
3 the NWP-SWP wanted 1 to 1 replacements for steamers but could run from one end of the system to the other with a few fueling stops...
PS the greatest thing about proto freelancing is you can do as you please because at the end of the day rules 1 and 2 are key, 1 it's my railroad I make the rules, 2 if confused reconsult rule 1...
Besides model railroading is supposed to be fun!
I'm not complaining about being given opinions, I just would like opinions and idea that help me achieve my goal not carpet bomb it till I give up on it... Don't complain that I'm an armchair modeler but you then shoot down every idea I have. Not Cool...
I'd like to apologize for going off like I did. I just get tired of the beating my ideas take every time I post here... I post here to get advice on how to go about things, I could build my monster locomotive and be perfectly happy with not explaining everything but I'd like to have a "prototype" explanation for the thing, but instead I get, "why are you bothering to attempt this there's not a prototype for that!" And that's a great way to get people to leave the forum and possibly the hobby...
I still value your opinions just deliver them in a way that helps me attain my goal, thank you!
The reality is, if you want a prototype explanation for an otherwise fantasy locomotive, then it has to be designed along prototype design principles. You are completely free to make up whatever you want to make up - no one's telling you you can't build whatever fantasy loco you want. There's a web site out there that has a lot of wild designs on it, some I think were built in model form. But you keep adding that you want it to be explainable - that means you need some sort of valid design reason to make certain decisions.
It comes down to - do you just want to go ahead and build a gee-whiz fantasy loco that surely would look impressive, or do you really want to explore the what-if of a prototype buying the frame and running gear of a large electric loco and making it diesel powered? Either path is correct, it's your railroad. All that the rest of us are saying is that if you want option B, then there have to be some contraints and some of the things you've said you wanted to do don't fall within the prototypical constraints you yourself are applying to the project. If you just want to go off and make whatever it is you envision, then it will be like the stained glass display guy - it will certainly be interesting and there's really no room for anyone to criticize.
NWP SWPI just would like opinions and idea that help me achieve my goal not carpet bomb it till I give up on it... Don't complain that I'm an armchair modeler but you then shoot down every idea I have. Not Cool...
So, are you saying that you don't want anyone to point out any potential pitfalls to your ideas so that you don't end up wasting needless money (that you've stated you don't have enough of yet) because you've hit a major design flaw wall? And it's our fault that you are still an armchair modeler because we don't acquiesce to your every idea with "positive" feedback?
Seems you don't really respect the opinions and experiences of your fellow modelers here on the forum as much as you claim you do, Steven. If someone raises a question then it's seen as negativity and naysaying. Maybe your coming to the forum with too much of a consumer mindset rather than one that enjoys dialoguing and learning?
I don't mind people giving me information just be kind about it, tstage your bubble burst picture offended me that's all I'm saying.
I deleted the photo, Steven. Sorry for the offense.
Tom
Thank you Tom. I apologize for offending you guys...
I was not offended. I offer my advice and suggestions, people can take or leave them. I've been participating in online forums since before there was an internet - it's no skin off my back. I offer my suggestions based on my own experience and knowledge, depending on what it is it may be something I have first hand experience in, or things I've learned through consumption of vast amounts of written material. If I were easily offended I would have been gone long ago.
NWP SWPbubble burst picture
Bubble burst? Oh, I wondered what that was.
NWP SWPoffended me
I am reluctant to comment. Unfortunately that has not stopped me before. People these days seem to be very easily "offended". I think that many of us need to develop a little thicker skin, especially high school seniors.
NWP SWPremember MILW only scrapped the Bipolars because the milwaukee shops did not rebuild the units properly
Doesn't matter. Bi-polar motors are inneficent and only remained in use because the electricity was relatively cheap. For a long-haul diesel as you are proposing, engineers in the real world would have used efficient traction motors.
Build whatever you want ... which is what everyone is telling you. And I am telling you that too.
But if you make unrealistic engineering choices in your concept, the result will be unrealistic. If that doesn't matter to you, then all good. Seems silly to take it personally when people are just giving you facts.
Have you ever built any railroad models from kits? Kitbashed or scratchbuilt anything? This is a pretty heavy subject for a first ever modeling project.
So could I use the sideframes from the Bipolar but with better traction motors?
NWP SWPSo could I use the sideframes from the Bipolar but with better traction motors?
Probably not in real life. Do whatever you want for your model.
A word of friendly, constructive advice for the OP........
Actually, that is what you have already been given on your various threads. The folks here are thrilled to see a young person interested in the hobby and obviously have gone out of their way to encourage you - or to point out pitfalls in your many plans. I urge you to pay attention to them and value it accordingly.
The thing about doing a project - whatever it is - is to start out in "beginner" stages and work your way to bigger and more difficult projects as your skills and experience and wallet dictate.
Those of us that have been around for awhile have seen others come into the Forum with skyhigh aspirations, and they solicit advice and opinions on their proposed works. But then, after the verbiage wears thin, they run off........
Lets hope that won't be the case with you, for the hobby can really use some young, fresh, and ambitious blood...........
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Again, reality, which is not necessary for your model.
There weren't many one of a kind locomotives in the diesel era. If you look at something like the UP Gas Turbines, they used trucks similar or identical to the the ones used on diesels running at the same time. Instead of a D truck, they used B+B with a span bolster in the early units (3 axle trucks in the last units).
Using something that exists in HO already be easier than trying to get custom sideframes made.
Ok try this one on for size... the NWP-SWP System had an electrified zone that was becoming underrated for traffic demands therefore the system rebuilt Bipolars with diesel prime movers to assist the caternary power supply and to allow the units to operate outside the electrified zone...
Now would FM opposed piston prime movers be better than the Alcos?
A plausable concept. And one used around New York City even today. So you have almost 100 years of designs to study. FM powerplants. Were definitely higher horsepower than anything of thier time. Except they were a bear to work on. Now if yours over comes those maintanace issues. Study the FM design and maintanace issue to see if what exterior changes would be made to over come them. They also had high fuel efficiency. Think of the fuel savings verse power out put they could do today
As for alco. There most reliable design is the 251 series. That is 50's. Into 60's. Though. Alcos had a simpler easy to work on design. Although failure of some component was always a rule. They kept on running. On the road temp fixes usually could be done to get the train in.
There are some basics to help figure out which will work I do appologize for repeating anything you already know
Wolfie
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel
A realist sees a frieght train
An engineer sees three idiots standing on the tracks stairing blankly in space
Was your design going to be an electric with a diesel motor?
You mentioned pantographs.
Yes it will be an electric that has diesel prime movers for extra power and operations beyond the electrified zone...
Something to consider is that while the FM prime movers are shorter than many, they are a lot taller - look at how tall a Trainmaster is. So while you may get 2 of them in the length of those big electrics, for 4800HP, they are far taller than would fit under the rounded end hoods, or even under an Alco PB hood.
Maybe they had a couple of wrecked Trainmasters so parts of their shells were used to form the body to enclose the FM prime movers.
And neither the FMs or Alcos could be set up side by side in the unit right?
1) Build whatever you want
2) What is the last model you have built? Have you ever built an Accurail or Blue Box kit (these are the very basic starting points)? This is a big undertaking and without the experience and tools that come from building simpler projects, there's no point in talking about this.
3) From an engineering reality standpoint, this still does not make sense. Don't read any further if you don't care. See #1 above.
While there have been some combination electric/diesel engines like the FL-9, there are big differences in them from what you are proposing. First, they are either/or (electric power or diesel, not both simultaneously). Second, they use traction motors, not inefficient bi-polars. Third, they used voltages that are the same or nearly the same. The FL-9 traction motors run on 600 volts from the diesel generators and 660 volts from the third rail. Bi-polars ran on 11,000 volts from the overhead. A DC generator for 11,000 volts that could generate enough amps would be huge and heavy. In real life, separate diesel helpers were used with electric locomotives when needed.
4) Good luck ... I’ll check back in if you actually get started. Addressing #2 would be a good reality check for you and the poeple trying to help you.
In what alternate reality did any Milwaukee electric run on 11 kV AC?
The Bipolars (and for that matter all of MILWs electrics) did NOT run on 11,000 volts they ran on 3,000 volts DC. The MILW received 100,000 volts AC at the convertor substations from power plants which was ran through transformers down to run the motor generators which basically were big AC motors turning DC generators which put out the 3000 volt DC power which ran the locomotives... this became troublesome in later years because of greater power demands that the substations could not support...
Also I have built many a Accurail kit...
My mistake. MILW was 3000V DC. I was thinking of the Pennsy 11KV DC. I should have looked it up. I didn't say AC.
Still, the mis-match in voltages between 3000V and about 600V is an engineering issue that means the OPs project does not seem practical.
Edit ... but that doesn't matter to him, apparently, so I shouldn't care either.
NWP SWP Also I have built many a Accurail kit...
And what other kitbashing/scratchbuilding?
Any of the larger prime movers are too big to place in a standard clearance carbody side by side. Baldwin DID do something like that with their experimental diesel, designed to hold 8 prime movers, but they were small, 750HP each, and they were arranged side by side but facing opposite ways (the generator is wider than the crankcase), to get them as close together as possible - the engine and generator on one side was arranged witht he generator facing forward, the one next to it was offset to the rear and arranged with the generator facing the rear. Clearance between the prime movers was not a concern since the design was much like the modern day Genset locos - each "power unit" consisting of the diesel and attacheched generator, was designed to be quickly removed via a roof hatch and the idea was to have a few spares so the loco could be placed back into service immediately while the faulty unit was repaired outside of the carbody.
It was only ever fitted with 4 of the 8 engines, then was scrapped and the running gear re-used for Centipede demonstrator 6000 (hmm, now that sounds familiar..). It was a 2+D-D+2 wheel arrangement.
NWP SWPAlso I have built many a Accurail kit...
So you've assembled a lot more kits than those two you put together a few months ago?
The word of the day is bona fides. If you don't have some you can't run in the tall grass with the big dogs. And l'll add two more words for anyone interested in writing articles: syntax and diction.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
And in the words of Teddy Roosevelt "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you'll go far!
Does anyone have a good explanation for the "prototype" of my creation? Seems I have run out of ideas...
I have put together about 5 or 6 Accurail kits varying in types...
NWP SWP Does anyone have a good explanation for the "prototype" of my creation? Seems I have run out of ideas...
Alton Junction
Why pray tell do you suggest I quit???
I merely have asked those who tell me that my previous explanations don't make sense so I am asking them what they think the explanation should be...
Mainly because it is well outside your realm of experience, and it would be a challenge even for a pro.
And to what end even if you succeeded in building such a monstrosity?
Sell it on eBay?
I would use it???
Do you have a layout?
Not yet.
NWP SWP I have put together about 5 or 6 Accurail kits varying in types...
So "many" is probably a slight overstatement?
Maybe you can make one of these out of glass.
Well I'm going to have to start somewhere and learn how to kitbash so if I buy some old model cheap and create something even if it's not what I originally planned it's the journey not the destination...
maxman Maybe you can make one of these out of glass.
???
Lad, with your best interest at heart, I suggest STRONGLY you build about 50 more Accurail kits, and then tackle some Red Caboose and Intermountain kits (which you may have to get off Ebay) before you even THINK of starting something this major.Old Athearn blue box diesels are dirt cheap at train shows and Ebay. So dig into the MR archives for the article on turning the H-2466 TrainMaster by Athearn into an H-1666 "Baby Trainmaster" as used by the Milwaukee and C&NW.Then dig out the old article on building one of the Katy's re-engined Baldwins. That project is about half scratchbuilt and uses an Athearn "GP9" hood.Once you have done those things, THEN you might have a chance of pulling this project off. The Wright Brothers didn't start by trying to build an F-16.
Perhaps start with something a bit simpler as a kitbash project. There are numerous articles over the years in MR and other magazine about combining multiple Athearn car kits, or modifying existing cars, or maybe kitbash a version of a loco not readily available by taking parts from multiple body shells - get some experience at all this.
I'm NOT saying give up, but I think I'd be hard pressed to pull off that monster loco and I've been doing this for over 40 years. The mechnical part I think I would get - I will also point out that the gearboxes, universals, and drive shafts needed to rig up a custome drive line like that loco would need are not exactly 'cheap'. Available - yes, you cna build pretty much anything with the parts NWSL sells.
I had many kits, both railroad and other, under my belt and still had problems with the first Proto 2000 tank car kit I tried. I put it aside and built a few MORE other kits, then went back to it and now it was fairly easy - I ended up doing a half dozen of them, and I think I have 4 more in my stack of unbuilts - and I'll add this - the first kit I pick up when i get back to kit building will NOT be one of those tank cars, I'll put together a few easier ones first to get going again.
I'm doing a kitbash project - the very first covered hoppers used by the Reading were home made in their shops, by adding a roof to USRA open hoppers, adn changing the hopper gates to discharge grates. Accurail makes the right hoppers, the gates are represented by various plastic shapes, and the roof with hatches, latching bars, roofwalks, and other bits are something I am putting together from scratch using Mirco Mark overhang roof stock, plastic bits, brass wire, and roof walk stock. I cheated, i bought pre-bent Tichy corner grabs so I don't have to bend those. My inspiration is an article in a 90's MR, but I'm going about the roof part in a completely different way. I also have a book written about Reading's covered hoppers with some nice pictures to use for reference material.
I've never really done anything like this before, and I figure this is just about the right difficulty level for a first such project. I encourage you to start with omething easier and build up skills, then again try your hand at the monster loco. By then you will also have (hopefully) gained more knowledge about how real railroad work and some insight into why locos are designed the way they are - particularly with the trucks and running gear, as well as financially - that you can make a completely plausible explanation a more or less experimental home built loco using cast off frames and running gear from other damaged locos.
A good example - the Reading was often quite frugal. They had lots of 2-8-0's but needed something faster to pull more long haul freight (long is relative here, with the Reading). So they embarked on a project that converted 2-8-0's into 4-8-4's, the T1 class. Now, this is not really a good candidate to kitbash since there are now several quite good T1 models available. But perhaps your railroad did something like this. As impractical as it was, one thing I always wanted to build was from a 60's book called the Complete Book of Model Railroading by Sutton. In there, it shows how to take a basic B&O Dockside 0-4-0T steam loco and make it into a 4-4-0T+tender cab forward. No, I am not joking. Parts to replicate it would be hard to get today, Kemtron used to have a full front end for a cab forward. However, a wrecked plastic cab forward could supply the body shell parts needed. Impractical as it was, I thought it looked neat, but I never did it as I moved away from freelancing and more into modeling a specific railroad.
There are VERY prototypical kitbashes you could do - for example, many railroads, Reading included, remotored many Baldwin switchers with EMD prime movers. The end result was a loco with a Baldwin cab and frame, with an EMD hood on it. I don;t think any of these have been offered in plastic, but you CAN get EMD switchers and Baldwin switchers and hack away. With the leftover parts maybe you could build one the other way - a Baldwin switcher that got badly wrecked on the cab end, so the railroad transplanted an EMD cab on it. It's possible, htought he plausibility goes down a bit since the whole point of repowering was to get away from the less reliable Baldwin prime movers (plus an unsure parts source as Baldwin exited the loco business) - see, there are factors like this to consider as well, when it comes to creating a plausible kitbash. Physically possible is one thing, but a railroad exists to make money, and even one doing fairly well wouldn't be too prone to just throwing stuff together and hope it runs well. There has to be a reason for such a loco to exist. A load that needs to be pulled, at a certain speed in order to make connections and increase sales. A maintanence headache and cost reduced. Something to justify sticking various parts together.
“Why pray tell do you suggest I quit???”
mobilman44A word of friendly, constructive advice for the OP........ Actually, that is what you have already been given on your various threads. The folks here are thrilled to see a young person interested in the hobby and obviously have gone out of their way to encourage you - or to point out pitfalls in your many plans. I urge you to pay attention to them and value it accordingly. The thing about doing a project - whatever it is - is to start out in "beginner" stages and work your way to bigger and more difficult projects as your skills and experience and wallet dictate. Those of us that have been around for awhile have seen others come into the Forum with skyhigh aspirations, and they solicit advice and opinions on their proposed works. But then, after the verbiage wears thin, they run off........ Lets hope that won't be the case with you, for the hobby can really use some young, fresh, and ambitious blood...........
Steven, I suggest that you not only reread Mobilman44 again but take some time and seriously contemplate his excellent words of observation and wisdom.
I’m all for diving into a project headfirst, yes, I do some research, but for me, it’s a case of “if he can do it so can I”, basically “lets suck it and see”!!!
However, if I get it wrong or over estimate my abilities, I, at least, have the luxury of putting the “stalled” project to one side, and getting on with another.
I fear that as a young chap with your limited budget, that when you hit the wall, you will find that you’ve over capitalised on a not that wisely thought out project, and then lose interest in the hobby, which would be sad thing.
How about “cutting your teeth” on something like either purchasing an Athearn Blue Box GP9, replace the cast on grab irons, lift rings etc, or a Cary Alco S4 shell and an Athearn SW7 chassis, and then detail either/ or to the Southern Pacific prototype, finally lettering it for your railroad.
Either project should provide you with hours of entertainment (?) and practise to further expand your skills.
Cheers, the Bear.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Right now there are Athearn Trainmaster dummy engines on Ebay for $10 or less. The kitbash article is in the December 1986 issue of Model Railroader.Go nuts.
I am writing this to the op not as a discouragement but as a advice on the project,. As I have notice earlier you mentioned cost could be an issue. I highly suggest you reevaluated the cost of this project. Ho scale electric locomotives are not cheap as they are rare (even more then certain steam (exclude the GG1)). The fact that you might need to chopped up a Bi polar ( which finding a ho non brass one is rare) that ho is kind of a waste if I may say. Also the skill required to create a custom chassis to mount all the motor and drive train is going take considerable time and money ( these things are never plug and play) ( try modifing a late 90's rivarossi 4 6 2 that not dcc ready you see what I mean and that comes with can motor aready). Now if you really want a good challenge and still do some customize work on a locomotive I suggest you start with the old Bowser steam locomotive kits (most come with super details set) or the Old roundhouse steam locomotive kit. These will give a good basic skill on how to proceed in custom locomotive work. And for a challenge in building railway cars look for branchline trains blueprint series heavyweight cars.
This seems to be an effort of dreams and wishes, which is fine...
But to the OP, you're doing yourself a disservice because you're essentially taking the advice and replies of the many and ignoring the wisdom offered.
"Many" is not 5 or 6, unless you're talking about ownership of a Rolls Royce or Lamborghini.
You need to crawl before you walk, and walk before you run. This project for you is akin to going from the womb to flying mach 3.
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
How do you plan to rewire everything? Will it be DC or DCC?
And what kind of paint scheme will be used for these locomotives?
Have you started yet?
So will the locomotive design be like this;
1.
" width="100" height="200" />
Or this;
2.
Or maybe this:
3.
Please pick one the designs above so we know what your locomotive will look like. I want to help in any way I can.
Ok the body will resemble the second locomotive, I'm not sure though whether to build it with porches on both ends like the second or put a porch on the front but have the body go to the back like the first and maybe build a second unit or tender...
Something I want to clarify is there will be two "decks" that are essentially boxes that have half the trucks attached to each...
Base on what you have given in information this is what i think your locomotive would look like
Mheetu, I don't see anything other than a image that says "free screenshot capture"
That's getting close just it's going to have a B-D-B+B-D-B wheel arrangement...
So you need trucks like these then?
Maybe I should be saying B-D-B-B-D-B thats a 2 axle, 4 axle, 2 axle, 2 axle, 4 axle, 2 axle...
I think the plus means articulated doesn't it, if so no that's not what I'm going for... thanks for the cooperation...
More like this?
I hate to say it, but a loco that long would HAVE to have some articulation. A rigid wheelbase that long would NEVER negotiate curves. The pair of B trucks in the middle only make sense if articulated. Even a single truck between the two big ones is odd so as it is, two of them without articulation would serve no purpose - might as well make is B-D-D-D-B in that case. In PRR style, if it were a 4-D-2+2-D-4 would make it an MM class. Like the GG-1 was 4-C+C-4 and the DD-1 was 4-B+B-4.
Part of the problem is that there is no convention, as Wiener attempted to do for articulated steam locomotives, for various methods of chassis articulation in electrics.
A GG1 (which of course is 2-C+C-2 since it follows the German system used for electrics, and counts axles instead of wheels) gets its "+" by analogy with Wiener because all the buff and draft goes through the underframes. But by the same analogy it is difficult not to accord, say, a steam Challenger the same courtesy (which in expanded Whyte notation would then be 4-6+6-4, something that raised howls when le Massena and Trains tried it a few decades ago in a manner that always reminded me vaguely of Roosevelt's 'simplified spelling' push. [The nominal difference being that the boiler on a Mallet/simple articulated is rigidly mounted to the engine nearer the firebox, with the other hinged to it essentially as a compound Bissel, whereas the G and similar electrics 'float' the carbody with a pin at one end and centering slide at the other]. I remain mystified where that intercalated center "B" truck comes from; the poor thing would have to take a significant portion of TE either way, would have flange wear out the wazoo from being relatively unstable (laterally and in yaw, to start) in buff conditions, and contributes no useful added flexibility for carbody attachment that, say, a span bolster over the two D trucks would provide.
I have had remarkably little success finding a 'postable' online reference that actually shows the articulation and equalization scheme for the EP-2s, and my memory isn't adequate to do so definitively. The best drawing I could find (the one on Wikipedia being apparently taken from a book and not very clear) was linked by Mr. Rinker in a post here from 2010:
but this does not show the actual articulation between the B and D trucks in a way I can read, and similarly does not show the equalization differences at the two ends. Someone please interpret the drawing if it shows the detail.
If I recall the setup correctly, the underframe is continuous and would therefore best be notated 1-B+D+D+B-1; the end units correspond to 2-4-0s (and the outer ends of the two 'hood' parts of the carbody attach to them) which then guide the outer ends of the two D trucks through multiaxis ('ball-and-socket') joints. We are I think all agreed that the inner ends of the two D trucks have a similar joint.
One reason these composite underframes can be so light in construction (compared to later locomotives with cast underframes) is that the joints provide cross-level articulation as well as hinging. This requires less work from the articulation to provide stable running (as for example on any modern simple articulated since the N&W A by design and any Alco Challenger by convention by removing any vertical compliance from the hinge) and of course the gearless motors did not require very stable alignment of multiple points in the chassis.
Meanwhile part of the 'rest of the story' is that more modern versions of electrics used what are basically 'repurposed diesel-electric trucks' - B trucks on the late mega-electric designs, and trimount Cs on just about anything after that, including the N&W TE-1 STE. Some of these designs use span bolsters between pairs of trucks, and we need a consistent notation for those vs. fully articulated chassis, but some use the sort of funky lateral linkage you find under B-B-B locomotives without hinged carbodies ... where each outer truck has a conventional Adams-style pin, and define the motion of the inner truck to stay parallel to the carbody but slide sideways, in some cases over 11", on curves. Those have a torque strut or similar connection to the carbody and hence have no "+".
If someone has a good diagram of the exact type of pin and sliding joints used in the carbody supports on the EP-2, for both the outer and inner articulated-carbody units, it would probably help the OP assess his carbody design a bit better. It will need to be rather extensively modified if he wants to accommodate two medium-speed engines/generators, for reasons I will PM him to avoid MEGO on the forum.
I have yet to see the 'imagineering' that is used to justify using the Batchelder drive for freight service; it was much better suited to contemporary passenger service (and, in fact, still would be; a strong case could be made that the EP-2s would have essentially outlasted the need for electric passenger service itself on MILW had the last four unit rebuilds been done better, which is a significant engineering accomplishment for a design from 1919).
Ok the two B-D-B sets have span bolsters and what would be a better drive for the unit than the Batchelder?
Watch it, because the Bs need their Bissel steering axles to 'do right' with the inline articulation. And a span bolster there doesn't help anything; it's meant for two 'unhanded' Adams-style trucks that pivot around their defined centers, to get TE up to pins on the chassis without binding while spreading the imposed load.
The bipolar underframes (and most other lightweight composite GE underframes) REQUIRE the Batchelder drive in order for them to be that light, as no other system provides so little need for heavy or closely-aligned paraphernalia in the underframe structure. If you converted to nose-suspended motors, you'd need to find room adjacent to the axle for the whole armature, field, case, and support; you'd need machined bearings on the axles and on the frame pivot points; you'd probably need to revise some of the transoms and other construction in the trucks that was specific to the vertical-pole-piece fields and brushholding arrangement for the Batchelder motors. In a word, this would NOT be a wise alternative.
There is no reasonable alternative with frame-motored geared quill drives at this wheel size.
That leaves some kind of conversion with one of the flexible axle drives you can see contemporarily described in the Ransome-Ellis Encyclopedia of World Railway Locomotives -- still a lot of tinkering. Having a 'monomoteur' arrangement is going to interfere, substantially, with the prime mover and fuel arrangements 'above deck height'.
In other words, all the economies that go with adaptive reuse of the old bipolar underframe probably involve retaining the Batchelder drive, although you could at least think about modifying it to reduce some of the effects of lateral moment. Right at the moment you decide on a re-motoring, you should go straight to using something like weldments for the truck frames and chevron springs on the axles, as on the GM10B (which is one-and-a-half AEM-7s with freight gearing, with all the successes and problems you'd expect from such an idea). Of course a better solution still would be a combo of the GM6 underframe (hint: it's not difficult to model in HO) and the Conrail dual-mode-lite project from the early '80s ... but those look much like normal locomotives, albeit something for which there is a modeling lacuna at present.
Actually, if you look at the Wikipedia entry that picture comes from, it zooms in many times, and it becomes evident that the B and D trucks link at the pin the goes to the carbody. There is nothing shown in the diagram linking the D truck frame to the carbody. The two D trucks are linked in the middle, but ther is nothign supporting the middle section of the carbody. It appears the middle section is carried suspended by supports that project out from each of the end carbody units.
Hello all,
You clearly need a rectangular shell for the body, have you given some thought about what you what to use and how are you going to attach it to the wheel frame/chassis.
What wheel arrangement did you want?
Can you try to "kitbash" a shell you want to use and post a picture so we can see it?
I was thinking getting four Athearn Alco PB shells, using the roofs from two to make the fronts of the cab and use the other two as the rest of the shell.
I made a paper mock up and I'll post a picture in a bit...
Here's the mock up... it's not to scale but is a good example of what I'm going for...
Okay. How 'bout making a full mockup of the entire shell in that current scale then the exact same thing in HO. That would be a start...
Still working on that mockup?
Not at the moment now working on another project... I sent you a PM if you would like to discuss it...
Here's another possible inspiration...
NWP SWP Here's another possible inspiration...
That's two independent locomotives coupled together. CNR 9000/9001
http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/Various/early_diesels.htm
Clutch_CargoThat's two independent locomotives coupled together.
And two of the very first practical mainline diesel locomotives in North America (or, really, anywhere). Notable among many things for the use of relatively lightweight dirigible engines in an era when compression-ignition engines and their peripherals were generally too heavy for their horsepower even when giving full allowance for adhesion ballasting.
Baldwin had a relatively similar design (1500) at right around this time, and Clessie Cummins in his autobiography indicates some of the excitement in road-diesel development up to the late 1920s. An important detail, though, is how very different the successful EMC/EMD "locomotive" designs were from these, and not incidentally how the whole of electric locomotive design switched within just a few years from heavy cast underframes to trucks and span bolsters...
Any updates on this project? Seems like this is going to be a mean machine!
T e d
tedtedderson Any updates on this project? Seems like this is going to be a mean machine! T e d
Rich
richhotrain tedtedderson Any updates on this project? Seems like this is going to be a mean machine! T e d Oh boy. Rich
Oh boy.
This is like the Whack A Mole game. Every couple days a new, figment of the imagination from an idle mind, mole is shoved up through one of the arcade game holes and everyone who should know better wastes time responding.
As someone else said, there are lawns out there that need mowing.
I'm sure there are contrary opinions.
I didn't dig up this thread! Right now I'm working on an A-B-A set of P42s.
Lawn business, joint chiefs (my parents) said I can't start a business or even get a learners permit to drive till graduation. So I am stuck till late April early may.
NWP SWP I didn't dig up this thread! Right now I'm working on an A-B-A set of P42s. Lawn business, joint chiefs (my parents) said I can't start a business or even get a learners permit to drive till graduation. So I am stuck till late April early may.
Nah this was my bad. I skimmed and missed the "I'm working on a different project" response.
Lucky for me there's still a little snow and my grass is still brown!
Live off the P's dime as long as you can!
tedteddersonLive off the P's dime as long as you can!
Well, that's just wrong.
Mike.
My You Tube
mbinsewi tedtedderson Live off the P's dime as long as you can! Well, that's just wrong. Mike.
tedtedderson Live off the P's dime as long as you can!
Teen by Edmund, on Flickr