2R Identification of 17/64 Scale K4

Hello ....really need a photo of the bottom of your engine  to ID ...

good chance a Scale Craft ...   there is a posting with lots of photos of the SC k4's ....  3 variations are known

MiLoco  also made a 17/64ths  K4 ...cast aluminum boiler

I have a custom K4 in 17/64ths built by Icken which is beyond incredible...with outside 3rd rail pick ups

please see link

https://youtu.be/YP249WUrsTo

cheers Carey

Whatever it is, it's very cool... 👍

Mark in Oregon

Carey,

I figured if anyone knew you would.  Your video is excellent.  I will dig it out and get a photo of the bottom.  I also need to remove the paint.  It is not a cast boiler.  I believe it is sheet brass.

Looks scratchbuilt from here.  Scalecraft has very definite identifying features.

Don't use Williams models as for sure 1/4" scale.  Their N&W "J" seems full size, but I have my doubts about a lot of other Williams products.  The B6sb is probably 17/64; it towers over an Overland light Mikado.

@bob2 posted:

Looks scratchbuilt from here.  Scalecraft has very definite identifying features.

Don't use Williams models as for sure 1/4" scale.  Their N&W "J" seems full size, but I have my doubts about a lot of other Williams products.  The B6sb is probably 17/64; it towers over an Overland light Mikado.

Bob, you've made this disparaging statement about the Williams B6sb time and time again.  After the last one, I measured mine vs. the PRR equipment diagrams and also against a Gem B6sb O-scale model.  All measurements came out very close.  For example, the height to the top of the cab was 14' 5.875" for the prototype, 14' 6" for the Williams and 14' 4" for the Gem.

Maybe that Overland light Mikado is undersized or maybe it was a small prototype.  The B6sb was a fairly large 0-6-0 and the Williams model is absolutely, positively NOT 17/64.

If you want to pick on an oversized model, the K-Line/Lionel B6sb is way too "fat" with a smokebox and boiler a scale 7" to 8" too large in diameter.

When I compare my Williams K4 to my Sunset ones they proportion out fairly close.  The biggest concession on both is that the smokebox is a little long to accommodate 3R wheelsets as is the front porch.  My Sunsets, while 2R, also make this concession to a lesser extent.  If anything my experience with the Williams brass is that it is at 1/4" scale if not a little under as in the case of the UP Challenger.  The PS4 Pacific, the light Mikado, the N&W J, the Niagara, and the T1 all are very close to scale.  They are just a little sparse in the details.

I'll have to go digging for this one and get some more photos.  I also need to strip the paint anyway and that is a fairly easy weekend project.   

I wasn't disparaging the Williams B6.  I own three of them, and just put the longer cab on one.  A fine model!  And I model in 17/64, so I am quite happy to believe that the Williams B6 is 17/64.  It certainly dwarfs my SP S-10.  I did trade a Gem B6 even for the Williams version - much sturdier construction.  I will try for some photos . . .

Agree with the Challenger and Big Boy - fine models, but undersize.  Some say the Alco PA was scale size, but I have not been able to stand one up against MTH (exactly the same size as Key).  I think the N&W Class A was full size, but it has a really narrow firebox.  If a damaged one ever falls into my lap it will get 2-railed and a new firebox.  The 773 Hudson may also be 1/4" scale.

@bob2 posted:

Agree with the Challenger and Big Boy - fine models, but undersize.  Some say the Alco PA was scale size, but I have not been able to stand one up against MTH (exactly the same size as Key).  I think the N&W Class A was full size, but it has a really narrow firebox.  If a damaged one ever falls into my lap it will get 2-railed and a new firebox.  The 773 Hudson may also be 1/4" scale.

The PAs are a hair short.  I placed my Williams ones side by side with my Sunset ones and the Williams are about an inch short on length.  I have a 1964 773 and when I place it next to my brass Williams one they are very close in detail and proportion.  Obviously the tender from the 773 is not scale.

@GG1 4877 posted:

The PAs are a hair short.  I placed my Williams ones side by side with my Sunset ones and the Williams are about an inch short on length.  I have a 1964 773 and when I place it next to my brass Williams one they are very close in detail and proportion.  Obviously the tender from the 773 is not scale.

Might just want to actually measure things against prototype dimensions as opposed to making comparatives.

@mwb posted:

Might just want to actually measure things against prototype dimensions as opposed to making comparatives.

True - but on the Sunset PAs I reviewed the drawings against the prototype dimensions prior to them going to tooling so I have know I have a good comparison there.

There is a problem using prototype dimensions too.  I note that steam drawings leave out the lagging quite often, resulting in skinny model boilers.

The PA is a special case - the real PA has a tapered nose, but the Alco drawings show a blunt nose, much like the CLW etched PA kit has.

For an absolutely correct PA, look at Key or (gasp) Lionel!

Get Roger Lewis to tell you about our "nose" discussion at an ancient OSW.

Do you mean tapered like this Bob?  One of my three Sunsets.

Yes.  Like that.  Good windshield, too.  MTH did good, Key and Lionel did darn near perfect, and yours looks to be in the latter category.

As you know, my favorites are the 17/64 sand cast PAs - nowhere near as good, but they have "charm" - and a reasonably good nose.

@GG1 4877 posted:

True - but on the Sunset PAs I reviewed the drawings against the prototype dimensions prior to them going to tooling so I have know I have a good comparison there.

I know you do - it's the rest of the crowd that needs to learn that lesson.

@bob2 posted:

There is a problem using prototype dimensions too.  I note that steam drawings leave out the lagging quite often, resulting in skinny model boilers.

Not using them and guessing tends to be a worse choice.  Drawing and photos combined; can't rely on just the one.

I agree.  That's how we saved the PA nose - prototype photos.

Plus, where were you when I was building the Baldwin 60000 ?  I really, really needed drawings.

Jonathan,   It appears that the 2R in the post title is working as I had hoped, that is, keeping the thread 2R oriented, but NOT restricting participants regardless of their modeling preference. That is evidenced by posts  from Bob Bartizek, who models the PRR in 3R.  Bob has likely forgotten more about the PRR than I know! He is very knowledgeable.

As for photos, I've long been an advocate of prototype photos (especially builders photos) to aid in getting things correct. They may not give you correct dimensions, but I can certainly use them to tell whether or not a model "looks" like the real thing!

Regards,

Simon

@Simon Winter posted:

As for photos, I've long been an advocate of prototype photos (especially builders photos) to aid in getting things correct. They may not give you correct dimensions, but I can certainly use them to tell whether or not a model "looks" like the real thing!

One potential problem with using photos is perspective.  Depending on the lens used to take the picture, and the distance from the subject, proportions can be skewed.  

Another challenge is lens distortion, and whether or not the photographer was careful to keep the camera level and parallel.  

That said, if the photo is all you got, then using it will likely look correct to the modeler since that’s how they perceive it.

@rplst8 posted:

One potential problem with using photos is perspective.  Depending on the lens used to take the picture, and the distance from the subject, proportions can be skewed.  

Another challenge is lens distortion, and whether or not the photographer was careful to keep the camera level and parallel.  

That said, if the photo is all you got, then using it will likely look correct to the modeler since that’s how they perceive it.

Not PHOTO, but PHOTOS, all you can get your hands on, and drawings, and the real thing if it still exists.

Simon

@Simon Winter posted:

...As for photos, I've long been an advocate of prototype photos (especially builders photos) to aid in getting things correct. They may not give you correct dimensions, but I can certainly use them to tell whether or not a model "looks" like the real thing!

Regards,

Simon

I completely agree here; especially the bit about the "builders photos"...FWIW.

Mark in Oregon

I have found that builders photos can sometimes be misleading.  I prefer to find several photos of a locomotive or car in service from about the same time period.  So often the railroad would modify the locomotive soon after it came to them from the builder in both the steam and diesel eras. 

Agree with Simon - use every resource you can get your hands on.  MM was an excellent source, and when Hundman made a mistake he would correct it.  Use care with Cyclopediae and old MRR drawings.

I might have mentioned - my big Baldwin 3 cylinder was done strictly from photos - I never uncovered any drawings of any type.  The only mistake I am currently aware of is the boiler taper - I used a conical section with axis parallel to the straight section.  Subsequent photo study shows the taper on top - axis tilted.  Quite common with Baldwin boilers.

@GG1 4877 posted:

I have found that builders photos can sometimes be misleading.  I prefer to find several photos of a locomotive or car in service from about the same time period.  So often the railroad would modify the locomotive soon after it came to them from the builder in both the steam and diesel eras.

It can definitely be problematic if you are shooting for something that has been modified by the railroad along the way. I've always favored the as built look, because the railroads very seldom made modifications that enhanced the look that came from the factory. Most important thing is to do it however you like it.

Simon