Thanks for the advice Dave. I may just try what you’ve prescribed. Like
Sorry for not mentioning this guy but I am asking about the N scale versions. But thanks for all of the info so far.
Paul and Andre, thank you both.
As far as I recall, all the USRA designs were superheated. What Chuck, Andre and Paul have stated is absolutely correct, the major differences between the light and heavy versions were larger boilers and greater axle load on the heavys.
wjstix also made a very good point about the continued construction of these engines after the end of USRA control. At the time they were proposed, there were a lot of people in the industry vehemently opposed to the idea of standardised locos and cars. All sorts of woeful predictions were made about the likelihood of them failing, and yet history shows that they were, in general, very successful machines.
(As an aside, there seems to be a lot of confusion and misunderstanding amongst modellers about the USRA designs, and in particular what the designations “light” and "heavy’ mean.)
All the best,
Mark - USRA fan!
Thanks very much, Mark. I’ll have to gash that erroneous file on my “hard drive” and replace it with this new one. [:)]
-Crandell
No worries, Crandell!
Completely off topic, but I got a laugh from your use of the word “gash”. Our old maintenance manager at Eveleigh - sadly no longer with us - was ex-Navy. He used to use “gash” as you’ve done, along with an amazing array of other terms that seem to be specific to the military. It made me smile, and reminded me of a good mate.
All the best,
Mark.
Mark, I couldn’t be absolutely certain about your late friend’s use, but the term as used in the Canadian Armed Forces is derived from the French verb “gacher”, or to throw away as waste, to spoil. In order to progress in rank, one of the requirements is to become proficient in the “other” official language, so for me it was French. [#dots]
Like you, I can recall with warmth, and regret for their passing, others who had an effect on my life. I am sure that you also pass it on. [:)]
Regards to you.
-Crandell
Hey guys.
Stop the presses!. I just came up with a quick, cheap fix for my Lt. Mt. using a small piece of foam rubber that I wedged between the boiler and front guide wheels and it works great. So far it’s ran about an hour pulling twelve cars without any problems - which is a first for that particular loco…
Tracklayer
I have one of Bachmann’s HO Light USRA Mountains which I modified to represent a Mohawk on my free-lance road.
It ran okay when I got it, but was rather noisy - a .010" shim where the superstructure attaches to the frame at the rear seemed to help quiet things down. I lengthened the frame at the front end slightly, to accomodate the air pumps and shield, and installed a Commonwealth cast steel pilot, from Cal-Scale, along with a new headlight and a Worthington fwh system. The running boards were raised, and new air tanks added, made from lead-filled brass tubing. Working from a photo of a NYC Hudson, I added the shrouding over the turret piping in front of the cab, and reworked the wind deflector on the cab roof. The tender was modified to follow my road’s practice, including an open bunker for a loose coal load. With the added weight, she’s a good puller and runs well with my Athearn Mikes and remotored diesels.
Wayne
Clever! I would not have thought of that. Can you see the foam from the side or do the cylinders hide it?
I was able to keep the pilot truck on the rails by loosening the screw that retains it. But even so, I can’t get my 4-8-2 to stay on my 13.5" radius curves (not enough driver side-play)… So she stays on my 15" radius curves.
Here she is, having been completely rebuilt as a Pennsy M1 (I extended the frame as well).
But if Bachmann Spectrum’s new heavy 4-8-2 ends up being a better puller, I’m willing to rebuilt this engine with the mechanism from the heavy 4-8-2. I need her to be a big puller, and right now she’s not.
It looks like the real thing Dave! Just needs to be dirty like most Pennsy locos.