I have been looking for this locomotive for the longest time. This has been #1 on my must-buy list for almost 20 years.
It was only made in brass back in the 1960s, and I have never even seen a picture of the model before.
One came up for sale on eBay, and I felt a thrill run through my body.
Then... I looked at the model. Complete Bummer. Everything is way out of proportion, and it does not look like the prototype at all. Most of the spotting features are there. You cannot see the pilots in the picture, they are OK, but the little cow catchers are missing. The hoods, walkways, handrails, and cab ends are all wrong.
I am not going to buy it, and I cannot tell you how badly I wanted this.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Yeah, that looks like a really I'll proportioned toy. Dan
SeeYou190I have been looking for this locomotive for the longest time. This has been #1 on my must-buy list for almost 20 years. It was only made in brass back in the 1960s, and I have never even seen a picture of the model before. One came up for sale on eBay, and I felt a thrill run through my body. Then... I looked at the model. Complete Bummer.
Hi Kevin,
I totally agree. The eBay locomotive doesn't look anything like the prototype.
I'm wondering if this is a case of mis-identification. Is the seller actually offering the locomotive that you want or have they got the designation wrong? As you say, the differences are significant. Just to name a few, the model's hoods are sloped whereas the prototypes appear to be horizontal. The model is also missing the cooling slots along the sides of the cowling. You have pointed out other discrepancies as well. I think that you are well advised to pass on this one unless you want to add a different loco to your fleet.
Cheers!!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I don't think the seller is trying to misrepresent anything. The builder and importer must be representing a different locomotive, or at least a variation of this model. The cab and exhaust are definitely not the same as the Burlington photo you provided:
https://brasstrains.com/Classic/Product/Detail/081002/HO-Brass-Model-Oriental-0390-Midwest-Locomotive-Works-CB-Q-Burlington-65-Ton-Center-Cab-Diesel-Switcher-Unpainted
I've seen some of the models produced by Soho or Tenshodo and they have very little resemblance to any real railroad equipment.
The model does look like the 65 ton locomotive produced by the Midwest Locomotive Works (scroll to the bottom)
http://americanindustrialmining.com/mid-west-locomotive-works
Maybe you are looking for the Whitcomb 9120 (nee 112)? CB&Q Whitcomb # 101 (later 9101) was the first 12* ton Whitcomb on the railroad.
CB&Q Whitcomb 9120 by Chuck Zeiler CB&Q Frt, on Flickr
http://www.burlingtonroute.org/Qrailroad/roster/diesels.php
* That sure looks like a heavier locomotive than a 12 tonner
Sorry this didn't work out for you.
Regards, Ed
SeeYou190 I have been looking for this locomotive for the longest time. This has been #1 on my must-buy list for almost 20 years. It was only made in brass back in the 1960s, and I have never even seen a picture of the model before. One came up for sale on eBay, and I felt a thrill run through my body. Then... I looked at the model. Complete Bummer. Everything is way out of proportion, and it does not look like the prototype at all. Most of the spotting features are there. You cannot see the pilots in the picture, they are OK, but the little cow catchers are missing. The hoods, walkways, handrails, and cab ends are all wrong. I am not going to buy it, and I cannot tell you how badly I wanted this.
I am the furthest thing from a rivet counter that you will ever find. But, I gotta say, to my untrained eye, that looks close enough to the prototype to me.
If it has been #1 on your list for 20 years, I say go for it. As I recall, you were toying with paying $4,500 for a piece of crap steam engine a few years back. And you can't take a $275 flyer on this one? Kevin, you're slipping. You have been house confined too long. Buy it.
Rich
Alton Junction
The model is of a different prototype. Can't offer much in the way of proof since I don't know anything about the prototype, but there is absolutely no way the brass builder was so 'off' on the finished model.
I wouldn't buy it if it doesn't meet you expectations.
Chuck - Modeling in HO scale and anything narrow gauge
SeeYou190I am not going to buy it, and I cannot tell you how badly I wanted this. -Kevin
So, I'am getting confused with everyone's post,
In Kevins pictures, the top picture is what he's looking for?
And the second picture is what he was looking to buy?
It's pretty obvious to me that these are two different locomotives, and I agree with Chuck.
Mike.
My You Tube
The most obvious difference appears to be the height of the cab windows, so if you borrow a technique from hot rodders and do a "chop and channel job" on the cab roof (cut the windows and roof off at the sill, remove a short section of the pillars and re-attach it to the body) you might get a "close enough" model.
Jim
Thank you to everyone that replied.
Ed's picture pretty well shows that the brass model is of a different prototype. My information was wrong.
Apparently there may never have been a model made of the prototype that I am looking for since this one is obviously a different, but similar, prototype. This is the only brass model made of a CB&Q center cab that shows up on brass lists I have found.
The one I was seeking is a one-of-a-kind locomotive built in the 1930s.
Thank you for all the input, and a big thank you to Ed for the prototype photo that cleared up the situation.
gmpullmanMaybe you are looking for the Whitcomb 9120 (nee 112)? CB&Q Whitcomb # 101 (later 9101) was the first 12* ton Whitcomb on the railroad.
The model I am looking for was powered by two Cummins model VL-12 500 hp naturally aspirated engines. I have not found a lot of information about the prototype. It was marketed as a Cummins locomotive, and had the Cummins name cast into the radiator shrouds.
From the Cummins 100th anniversary history project from 2019, the locomotive was identified as a Cummins Model 1000.
richhotrain As I recall, you were toying with paying $4,500 for a piece of crap steam engine a few years back.
That was an old hand made folk art model of a mikado about 4 feet long that weighed several hundred pounds. The seller was asking $4,500.00, but in the end I offered him less than $500.00, which he refused.
A year later I saw the same locomotive, still in the same shop. It had obviously hit the floor at least once, most of the details were broken, and it the finish was scratched up. That is a shame, I had the perfect place to display it.
trwrouteThe model is of a different prototype.
Yes. My information was wrong, and it is a pretty good looking model of the prototype photo Ed provided.
The prototype loco in your first picture is on the CB&Q roster as:
Cummins 90t. Ex WV 101. and aquired in the FW&D take over.
I can't find any other pictures of it.
So, is there no way that you would consider that loco on eBay?
It is such shame to think that for the past 20 years, it has been #1 on your wish list, and you are still no closer to getting it.
The old saying that the best is the enemy of the good finds its model train equivalent here. Most of us without so intense an interest in the prototype as Kevin might be tempted to say, the trucks looks right, the general outline looks similar - go for it. On that basis we buy Whitcombs when our prototype was Plymouth or vice versa. Close enough. But if you really know more about what you seek then each variance -- and the height difference of the two hoods as they reach the cab windows is immediately obvious here -- is a reason not to buy.
It's one of the interesting oddities of our hobby that if you'd always been looking for a certain structure as a kit or ready built, and one was found which was this "sort of/squint hard" close to the original in general outline you might well say oh well I'm unlikely to do any better. It seems we have different standards for structures than for rolling stock, perhaps because we already accept so many compromises for structures anyway but for rolling stock we COULD if we are lucky hit the bull's eye.
I do have vague recollections of a kitbash in one or another of the major magazines that looked a bit like the CB&Q original -- again "looks like" to the unfussy eye -- involving two Athearn Hustler shells if memory serves.
Dave Nelson
Yea, and the road number and herald in the prototype photo posted by Kevin are backwards. No wonder they only made one of them.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
tstageYea, and the road number and herald in the prototype photo posted by Kevin are backwards. No wonder they only made one of them.
I flipped the image so it was in the same profile as the model.
Kevin - You like to tinker, to this end, would it not be a good project to buy this model and 'fix'er up' until she resembles more the model your wanting? Your just gonna spend the money on a model anyways, right? And it would make for a nice thread to post as a 'this is how i did it'.
I say you should grab the torch, goggles, and the big hammer, put on your overhauls and go for it.
Douglas
I've built and bashed a few locomotives, nothing in brass, and I think the model Whitcomb 12t is way too far off for a model of the Cummins 90t
There would be so many things to change and add.
The cab would need to be completely rebuilt.
I've done a couple of searches today, and I still haven't found any more pictures or information on the Cummins 90t. that Kevin posted.
Well then, let me restate my original reply about being an I'll proportioned toy. It would be that if it was trying to imitate the Cummins loco. I mean, look at the William's attempt at the GE 44 tonner!
Southgate 2let me restate my original reply about being an I'll proportioned toy.
Do you mean ill-proportioned? Or do you "proportion" it yourself?
I meant ill. When replying on my phone spell check sneaks these things by me.
SeeYou190The model I am looking for was powered by two Cummins model VL-12 500 hp naturally aspirated engines. I have not found a lot of information about the prototype.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gmpullman/50990310113/in/album-72157689157947401/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gmpullman/50991118187/in/album-72157689157947401/
Sounds like Cummins subcontracted the construction to GE and supplied the engines.
That would make sense, Ed. The NYC GE 70-ton switcher (Class DES-1) pictured below had dual Cummins 6-cyl diesel engines:
And one of these ex-NYC switchers still lives on at the Youngstown Steel Hertiage Museum as auxillary VDC power for the museum:
Sounds good, too.
Wish one were available in HO in brass. Would snap that up in a heartbeat...
gmpullmanSounds like Cummins subcontracted the construction to GE and supplied the engines.
Your links nail it Ed!
I agree with Douglas. Time for a kitbash!! If you don't want to work with brass, how about 3D printing?
hon30critterTime for a kitbash!!
This guy did a pretty good job in S scale. Not exactly the same one (radiator for one thing) but a good start.
I'd love to get my paws on one of these big, six-axle Baldwin (or even the Lima) jobs.
Pennsylvania Railroad Baldwin RT-264 8956 by Craig Garver, on Flickr
I don't think it applies here, but there's something to keep in mind about many of these early diesels. They were works in progress. Many returned to the builder for modifications. In some case, the rebuilding was significant enough that the end product was altered a great deal. So a model of one greatly depends on it being a certain year's version.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
tstage Southgate 2 let me restate my original reply about being an I'll proportioned toy. Do you mean ill-proportioned? Or do you "proportion" it yourself?
Southgate 2 let me restate my original reply about being an I'll proportioned toy.
I'm still trying to figure out if it is indeed the 90-ton Cummins that he was waiting so long for a model of. I'm also trying to figure out if the 90-ton Cummins was made in brass at some point, and that model is what he's been specifically waiting for.
Clessie Cummins indicated in his autobiography that he had a longstanding interest in railroad power (cf. his story about a PRR executive highly interested in motor trains who died in 1927 -- had that not occurred we might have seen radically accelerated development of internal-combustion power. There is a picture of a Zephyr power room, without technical comment, that led me to believe Cummins had multiple-engine motor-train power along the general modular lines of Baldwin's Essl locomotive (it turns out they were gensets for the considerable hotel and operating electrical load of the longer trainsets). Two V12s would be big Cummins power for the mid-Thirties, and it might be interesting to see how this unit was reported and perhaps marketed in the trade press.
On the other hand, I suspect that what 'may have happened' is that GE, which had much more experience and field support for locomotives, took over providing the "locomotives" with Cummins then being one of the available engine-package suppliers.
OvermodI'm still trying to figure out if it is indeed the 90-ton Cummins that he was waiting so long for a model of. I'm also trying to figure out if the 90-ton Cummins was made in brass at some point, and that model is what he's been specifically waiting for.
Yes, it is the Cummins model I want.
I was told a long time ago the Overland MLW model was correct, but it is not. I had bad information.
The Cummins model has never been made in brass as far as I now know.
1,000 HP in the 30s from a diesel locomotive was very powerful. 500 HP from a 60 liter diesel engine seems insanely low by todays standards. We were getting 500 HP from 11 liter engines in the 2000s. 60 liter engines were exceeding 3,000 HP in stand-by and E.P. applications.
Ah, the old days. NOx and Particulate matter in infinite amounts, but no power, reliabilility, durability, or economy.
I assume you meant The Diesel Oddysey Of Clessie Cummins, which is not an autobiography or a very accurate book. I am not aware of an autobiography by Clessie Cummins. A better book for facts is The Engine That Could published by the Harvard Business School.
SeeYou1901,000 HP in the 30s from a diesel locomotive was very powerful. 500 HP from a 60 liter diesel engine seems insanely low by todays standards.
I would like to get my hands on one of those ~1928 marine engines, the kind used in the automobile testing, and see just how that engine behaved. In a proper Packard 745 chassis, of course...
I assume you meant The Diesel Odyssey Of Clessie Cummins, which is not an autobiography or a very accurate book.
While on the subject of C.Lyle, I was familiar with a book about combustion engines published while I was in the engineering program in college. I now see there was a 'revised edition' in 2000 -- anybody know what was 'revised' and how much better that version is?
A better book for facts is The Engine That Could published by the Harvard Business School.
(Incidentally it was ridiculously hard to get Google to get the bone out of its algorithm's teeth to keep showing The Little Engine That Could to a known railfan. But hey! did any of you know there was a sequel, where the Thanksgiving Day Parade gets saved? I sure didn't!)
OvermodEd, that's an RT-624. (When you've fixed it I'll remove this note...)
I can not fix it. The photo is linked to from a fellow named Craig Garver. He may have simply transposed the designation in his photo ID.
It was meant to be a representative photo, not an in-depth disquisition.
Thank you for pointing out the inaccuracies, though.