3rd Rail June Update - China

ATSF Prairie...definitely.

Class?  My preference...1800.  MUCH more interesting construction...trailing truck, domes, at least two different tender styles (4wh and 6wh), etc.. 

I know that the 1050 class was larger in total numbers, made infamous by 'Death Valley Scotty', and survives 'in rigor mortis' more prevalent as donated 'Park Princess's' along the route.  Examples of the 1800 class are in Slayton, TX and Lamar, CO, however.

At this point, however, I imagine the legion of Chico's Chums would be satisfied with EITHER of those classes of 2-6-2 becoming available to the O3R market.

Patience.

KD

I'm also with Johnnnyspeed I will also take a Erie K5 Heavy Pacific

Just my opinion, but I would rather have an NYC K-5 Pacific first, then an NYC H10b 2-8-2 second, prior to an Erie Pacific.

Too bad. I asked first  Besides, USH made your H10b and Sunset made the K-5b in the mid 70s. That's about a decade newer and more pieces made than the Erie K-5 so it's our turn

That's the great thing about the new builder. Now Scott can do models that may not have such broad appeal. There has only been one Erie K-5 ever in O scale to my knowledge and that was made I believe by MG. I think there were only 15 or so and some if not all were kits. The cool thing is no two K-5s were really alike after a while. They moved the headlights FW heaters and had other slight differences. Very attractive locomotives IMHO.

-From Steamlocomotive.com

Agreed, but then what are you going to do for Erie Stilwell Coaches???? 

And the Southern Railway guys have longed for a MS-4 Class Heavy Mikado.

Weren't the Stilwell coaches imported a while back? I think I saw one on eBay last month.

GGD

How bout some unusual steam, like the Seaboard Q3 Mike:

The Vanderbilt tender would be classy by itself, and just look at those beautiful pumps on that mug.

Seaboard had over 100 of these engines equipped with Franklin boosters.

I know I'll never see it, but if someone doesn't put in a plug for Seaboard every now and then I know it'll never get done.

Haven't been on the forum for a while, but am glad to see the interest in Burlington Steam! I pestered Scott about this in York in April. I specifically would like to see a Mikado, either an 0-1 or 0-4. And how about one of the C&S 2-8-0's for branch line use. These were double headed many times, so I too think multiple purchases would be in the works. Would be nice if they were made so kadee couplers could be easily added to the pilots to facilitate this.

Actually there were a good deal more than 15 made by MG, like the later USH models there was some screwdriver assembly of piece parts[ash pans etc]. I owned one and changed out the scullen drivers for a set of spoked drivers and added some detail. They still come on the market from time to time [Bill Davis, American Models and Jack at Allegeny Scale Models are good sources for older brass, if they don't have it the chances are good they will come across one at some point] I don't think you would pay much more than what a Sunset model would be if it were produced.

I have been told that I am in the minority here, but I really wish Scott would offer Smoke, Sound, and DCC in the 2 rail models. I can't for the life of me figure out why 2 Rail modelers seem to hate DCC/Sound/Smoke. At least that's what I have been told was the reason that the 2 Rail models are DC only. It really stinks having to open up a brand new engine and installing a smoke unit and wiring electronics and fitting speakers. Especially when the same model comes in 3 Rail for the same price with all the goodies ready to go. I don't understand this concept of how liking scale fidelity or liking modern features (DCC/Sound/Smoke) are mutually exclusive concepts. Am I the only one that wants both?

I guess what I don't understand is; why are you asking these questions on this 3-Rail SCALE Forum, instead of the 2-Rail Forum? It would seem to me that THOSE guys should be answering your concerns.

This 2 railer would love to have preinstalled DCC and sound.  I don't have any idea either why it isn't installed.  Smoke I could do without, so as long as there was a switch to turn it off, I'd be good with it installed too.  Most DCC decoders will operate fine on straight DC so I doubt the traditionalists would be affected.

As far as the Seaboard Q3 Mikado, isn't it based off a light USRA design?  Might make an interesting series to use the same mechanism for different Mikados circa 1950.  Maybe a 1950 era Great Northern O3?

As far as the Seaboard Q3 Mikado, isn't it based off a light USRA design?  Might make an interesting series to use the same mechanism for different Mikados circa 1950.  Maybe a 1950 era Great Northern O3?

I believe that's the case from what I've read.  Seaboard had a variety of Vanderbilt tenders and used them on a number of their engines besides the Mikes.  I recently built a Vanderbilt tender in hopes of finding a USRA Mike I could hack on to move parts around to make a Q3, but so far I've been unsuccessful finding one (a Williams brass Mike would probably be the one to get).

That color photo of the Q3 appears to be in a scrap line, most likely taken here in Portsmouth Va (my hometown) yards.

they had to put the pumps somewhere, but on the front:  UGLY!  But the rest of the engine has a look to itself, as if was made for Europe!

I ordered the B&O P7 From Sean Marchev but the store closed up after his dad passing. I reordered it last week from your web site directly. I see it is a go, that is great news for me, Bob Heil and other B&O fans. This will complete my 3rd rail sweep. Q4, S1,T3 and now the P7 which ran behind my aunts house in southwest Philly on its way to DC. of course if you do any other B&O steamers I will be very interested in them.

John P

Well that just shows how little you know about weight distribution and possible boiler shell stresses, when VERY HEAVY air pumps are mounted directly to the sides of the boiler. Plus, smokebox cover mounted air pumps are pretty darned easy to access for daily maintenance. Pretty looks had NOTHING to do with it!

Dominic, HW's right.  The reason, from what I've read, was to reduce stress on the boiler sides.

No "uglier" than that feedwater heater that's hung on top of the ERIE K5

Looking at the men in front of the engine, the pumps are bigger than they are

OK:

1.  I did not know about the weight issues on the boiler.

2.  When UP 844 was in Houston, I noticed how "clean" the boiler was.  I then I asked myself, "Where are the pumps?"  Then I noticed them on the front of the engine, behind the shields.  I then thought it would be a pain in the caboose to get to them.

Frisco's "after market" solution:

Nice and easy to get to.

Rusty

Actually the twin air pumps on UP 844 are EXTREMELY easy to work on. While standing on the ground, one simply ducks under the side skirting and right there in front of you is an air pump. That is another reason the more modern steam locomotive design & construction started mounting air pumps on the front pilot deck for ease of maintenance and better weight distribution, plus reduced stress on the boiler shells. 

Well for what it's worth here, I wasn't stating "opinion"! I was describing the ENGINEERING behind why a number of railroads, elected to mount the air pumps on the front of the smokebox, instead of on huge studs attached to the boiler shell.

Yes, but your engineering fact was in response to his opinion about the looks of the engine. You can't have it both ways...

FWIW I think it's ugly too. Aesthetics are a personal choice though. We aren't talking about designing a locomotive here. We are talking about 3rd Rail toy trains that we may want to own. The good news is that Scott has a builder that will allow him to do much smaller runs. Thus a lot of "ugly" engines have a shot at getting made. That's great news for a lot of people.

Well, that front end of that Seaboard engine is a perfect picture of UGLY!

Fixed it for you!

Railroads were not interested in aesthetics outside of a few designs, mostly for passenger service.  I kind of like it, as it presents a no nonsense look.  I prefer good SP power though!  But wouldn't mind a GN o3 with the front mounted pumps!

 But would that extra weight in front put stresses on the engine/lead truck?

That's what different spring rates are all about. Much better to have that weight supported by the engine truck instead of stud-mounted to the boiler shell. Besides, the engine truck (or pony truck for a single axle type), the drivers, and the trailing truck are all equalized.

Thanks soooooo much Scott. I was just holding my breath.

Trainchief

You guys that ordered the Sierra #38 are some lucky guys. It's was a great looking steamer and I'm sure Scott's model will be wonderful. Don

As noted above, locomotive esthetics are a matter of personal opinion.  As to air compressor locations, most steam locos prior to the mid-1920s advent of "superpower" designs (bigger fireboxes supported by two-axle trailing trucks) had their air pumps on the sides of the boilers.

Moving pumps to the front ends of the locos makes sense when one considers that the increase in steam pressures to 250 psi & more used on more modern locos would increase boiler stresses.  Also, in some cases, clearances might have been a factor.

Besides the Seabord Mikado which originated the discussion here, smokebox-mounted "flying pumps" were used by the Great Northern S-2 4-8-4, NP Challengers and SP Cab-Forwards, as well as various C&O Pacifics & Mountain types.  Many modern steamers had their pumps mounted on the pilot decks, such as Pennsy duplexes, NYC Hudsons, later Mohawks & Niagaras, later Lima Berkshires (C&O, NKP etc), UP Challengers & Big Boys, and many others.  Ease of maintenance and perhaps cleaner air intake, in addition to weight distribution, were the enginering reasons for this type of mounting as explained by Hot Water.