ModelRailroadForums.com is a free Model Railroad Discussion Forum and photo gallery. We cover all scales and sizes of model railroads. Online since 2002, it's one of the oldest and largest model railroad forums on the web. Whether you're a master model railroader or just getting started, you'll find something of interest here.
Yes the diesel's there on both counts I think, at least it's not too obvious in that train. It's when they put it right behind the steam loco it looks wrong.
Already been done. the Clinchfield had an F7B that they painted like a passenger car and used it behind a 4-6-0. By the time you add the engine, the trucks the fuel tank, etc, you have added so much weight you have to completely rebuild the frame of the baggage car. It would be easier to put a cowl on an engine and make it look like a baggage car (with half the roof covered in cooling fans, DB fans and exhaust stacks).
Sounds like a job for an F45.
So, on your layout, the transition to diesels is occurring similar to how it happened in real life. Maintenance and price are the determining factors.
Yes, if the drive is through the rods as seems the case with most, unless in the tender, those poor tiny plain bearings would take a beating.
Captain of Industry
President of Lancaster Central RR
President of Lancaster & Western Maryland Railway
If they made something I could use, I might, try them again. However, they make nothing that the N.P. used, that I know of.
The Milwaukee Roads S-3, a Northern 4-8-4 is now available, selling at $600.00 apiece and maybe discounted to as low as $400.00 at some point, is still pretty expensive for my tastes! I have 22 inch radius curves and wonder whether a Northern could negotiate them easily. I would love to have an N.P. Northern. In fact, I modified the BLI Hudson I had, to look like the N.P.'s 2626, minus a set of drivers and feel I made it look pretty good. The purists out there would probably Poo-Poo my Foe Northern; but, it worked for me and I'm my biggest critic!
Still this is interesting news! I will be paying attention and maybe putting aside money once I start seeing that the news is going to be reality.
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)
Yes the diesel's there on both counts I think, at least it's not too obvious in that train. It's when they put it right behind the steam loco it looks wrong.
Maybe one day someone will have the bright idea to convert a baggage car into a loco, they do have them as power cars for the coaches.
Already been done. the Clinchfield had an F7B that they painted like a passenger car and used it behind a 4-6-0. By the time you add the engine, the trucks the fuel tank, etc, you have added so much weight you have to completely rebuild the frame of the baggage car. It would be easier to put a cowl on an engine and make it look like a baggage car (with half the roof covered in cooling fans, DB fans and exhaust stacks).
Sounds like a job for an F45.
Iron Horseman
Well-Known Member
I would say in my own roster that steam locomotives are outnumbered by diesels probably at least 20 to 1. Not by conscious decision. A lot easier to pick up a $20 diesel here and there than it is to come up with $150 for a steamer. Retail isn't much better I get diesels with sound on clearance for $130 range all the time, while a steamer best price I've found in a few years was $269..... So the diesels accumulate because they are easier.
N
NP2626
Guest
So, on your layout, the transition to diesels is occurring similar to how it happened in real life. Maintenance and price are the determining factors.
On my layout the Oil electric is outnumbered by 4:1. The thing that brought me back to HO scale is the quality of the sound decoders. I love switching with a sound equipped steamer. I still want to build a 'homebuilt' switcher locomotive. Previously my current era nscale layout had 20:1 diesel vs steam. Cost was not a consideration at that time. The one steam locomotive was for excursion trains.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Iron Horseman
Well-Known Member
Yup, I was kind of thinking the same thing as I wrote that. I have never "worn out" a model of a diesel, but I have worn out a couple steamers.
Yes, if the drive is through the rods as seems the case with most, unless in the tender, those poor tiny plain bearings would take a beating.
I have numerous times in nscale. I have about 10 dead locomotives sitting under the layout. If you operate often enough you can. May have had something to do with longer trains too.
Captain of Industry
President of Lancaster Central RR
President of Lancaster & Western Maryland Railway
N
NP2626
Guest
I have worn out diesels, The motor will "Give up the Ghost" with a diesel, generally not the drive train.
Per Toot: "Yes, if the drive is through the rods as seems the case with most, unless in the tender, those poor tiny plain bearings would take a beating".
I have never seen a drive train for a model steamer that did not use the side rods to link the drivers together. They could all be geared together and the side rods only used for detail; however, this would seem unnecessary and more complicated. I have seen 4-4-0s with the motor in the tender; but, it had a drive shaft from the motor to a gear box on one of the driver sets under the boiler. So, in this instance this really is no different.
This system of driving the drivers seems to be standard and works O.K. for the most part. However, I had a Broadway Limited NYC Hudson where the drive rods would cris-cross on occasions and lock the drive system up, right now! I never understood how this happened; none the less, it made the loco worthless and was enough cause for Broadway to exchange it for a new one where I assume they had worked this problem out. I immediately sold this loco on Ebay, as I no longer trusted BLI. I hope those of you with BLI equipment have had good luck with them!
These steamer problems, along with other problems I have had, makes me think the current producers of steam products are thinking more about how detailed their locomotives are and less about the sound mechanical aspects the locomotives. These thoughts are the basis for starting this thread. I have old MDC/Roundhouse locomotives which are going strong and I don't know how you could make them any simpler.
Per Toot: "Yes, if the drive is through the rods as seems the case with most, unless in the tender, those poor tiny plain bearings would take a beating".
I have never seen a drive train for a model steamer that did not use the side rods to link the drivers together. They could all be geared together and the side rods only used for detail; however, this would seem unnecessary and more complicated. I have seen 4-4-0s with the motor in the tender; but, it had a drive shaft from the motor to a gear box on one of the driver sets under the boiler. So, in this instance this really is no different.
This system of driving the drivers seems to be standard and works O.K. for the most part. However, I had a Broadway Limited NYC Hudson where the drive rods would cris-cross on occasions and lock the drive system up, right now! I never understood how this happened; none the less, it made the loco worthless and was enough cause for Broadway to exchange it for a new one where I assume they had worked this problem out. I immediately sold this loco on Ebay, as I no longer trusted BLI. I hope those of you with BLI equipment have had good luck with them!
These steamer problems, along with other problems I have had, makes me think the current producers of steam products are thinking more about how detailed their locomotives are and less about the sound mechanical aspects the locomotives. These thoughts are the basis for starting this thread. I have old MDC/Roundhouse locomotives which are going strong and I don't know how you could make them any simpler.
Last edited by a moderator:
As we have a number of nationalities of members and countries represented in my club, the mostly British profile locos, often drive through the tender where one is fitted, pretty useless as there is little weight with next to nil pulling ability. As you say, where the motor is in the loco, it's the rods that transfer the drive. I did have an Anjin (think it was) diesel that had shaft drive passing through the trucks with worm screw and worm wheel for each of the tri axles, all sprung, quite intricate. Wouldn't surprise me to see something similar on a steamer and not as involved as having to have universals like you would with a diesel. Might I suppose cause problems with the rods not matching up with the rotations of the worm gears.
new guy
Active Member
NP2626, I own a BLI 2-8-2 and it performs most excellently slow and superfast! It is my third fastest behind the Mighty DD40 and a Bachman F unit I got in a set. It is heavy enough to pull 15-20 up the steepest grades I have and the detail is SICK on these things! Don't let one bad apple ruin it, try em if you like the style!
N
NP2626
Guest
If they made something I could use, I might, try them again. However, they make nothing that the N.P. used, that I know of.
Last edited by a moderator:
Iron Horseman
Well-Known Member
N
NP2626
Guest
The Milwaukee Roads S-3, a Northern 4-8-4 is now available, selling at $600.00 apiece and maybe discounted to as low as $400.00 at some point, is still pretty expensive for my tastes! I have 22 inch radius curves and wonder whether a Northern could negotiate them easily. I would love to have an N.P. Northern. In fact, I modified the BLI Hudson I had, to look like the N.P.'s 2626, minus a set of drivers and feel I made it look pretty good. The purists out there would probably Poo-Poo my Foe Northern; but, it worked for me and I'm my biggest critic!
Still this is interesting news! I will be paying attention and maybe putting aside money once I start seeing that the news is going to be reality.
I can see some track easement realignments coming on.
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)