I have just completed (well, minus a few minor things, like front coupler installation and marker jewels), and here’s what I thought about it:
Construction
I built the model with the superdetail kit, an extra that most model railroaders are likely to want: the model does not include much cast detail, so the engine will have very little, if any, external boiler piping if you don’t get the superdetail kit. The kit was easy to assemble with a small set of tools: modeler’s screwdrivers, file, sandpaper of various grades, pin vise, and a set of drill bits - the standard #60-#80 drill bit set is very useful. For the superdetail kit, you will need the common 80, 90 and 56 drill and tap sets, since the injector assembly is attached to the base of the cab with screws, and the holes have to be bored and tapped. ACC worked well for attaching the detail castings and wire for the piping, and I used Loc-Tite (blue variety) to hold the screws for the valve gear in place. I generally followed the instructions, deviating principally in 1) building the tender first, which is key, since it turns out you need it to road test the engine and 2) painting and weathering components as I assembled them. I was very glad I did this, particularly with the valve gear, since the tolerances are very close, and it allowed me to get everything fitted without having to disassemble the model to paint it. The castings were very good and generally had little flash, although I had to ream out many of the predrilled holes. I did have to file down the heads of the bolts on the second driver, since they caused the rods to bind, but apart from that, the model ran perfectly from the start; I lubricated it with LaBelle oil on the bearings and grease on the worm gear. I wanted to customize the model, and purchased several additional Cal-Scale castings from Bowser to do so; they were very affordable, and Bowser replaced a few missing castings from the superdetail kit in two days, at no
It took eight volts to start it? All of my Bowsers, from the 0-4-0 to the 4-6-6-4, start at less than four. Does the mechanism roll extremely freely without the motor?
It’s a HEAVY pup - and it uses the DC-71 motor. I worked out the binding before I put the motor in. That being said, you may be right - I finished it and got it on the test track around midnight, so I was a bit tired, so I may have erred on the voltage (I was paying more attention to the amperage readings, watching for shorts).
I haven’t made any pix - I modified it a bit. Mounted the headlight directly on the top of the smokebox and put a round numberplate on the smokebox front; also got a Cal-Scale bell to mount further back. The effect is distinctly non-USRA-ish, but that’s what I was looking for - the small number plate makes the boiler look really big, and the flat smokebox front seems to shorten it.
I would strongly recommend it, if you’re looking for a fun project. Only criticism is that it’s definitely meant for broad curves, and that includes #6 switches. I’m thinking about adding pickup shoes, per Twhite’s suggestion elsewhere, to make it a little smoother in the yard.
How is the Challenger on curves? I model 1913, but I do like me some Challengers, particularly the NP engines, and the Bowser model looks like it could be modified toward a Z-6 or Z-7 without too much trouble.
The Challenger can easily take an 18" radius, but the 1" overhang makes it look rather silly doing it. It looks better on 22", but I wouldn’t recommend anything under 28" for it to look at all realistic.
Yours is the second review I’ve read in as many days on a Bowser kit. They’re an old and established company, and I’m really glad to know that their quality is still as good as it ever was.
It sounds from your decription that you’ve turned yours into a ‘kind-of’ CB&Q pre-USRA from 1913. Sure like to see a photo of it–I always thought that they were one of the handsomest 2-10-2’s ever built.
Do the blank center drivers seem to affect its pulling quality on curves? I’ve never had a steamer with blank center drivers, and have always wondered about that question. You mentioned that you might put pickup shoes on it–since the center drivers are blank, you might consider mounting the loco shoe between the first and second drivers, that way it should always be in contact with the rail.
That’s about what I figured; looks like there’s less of a potential shorting problem with the injectors. I mounted them a bit further forward than the one in the Bowser website, so that may have contributed to the problem.
They are nice models, and your review of the NYC 4-6-2 is very interesting - looks like it wouldn’t be hard to backdate it at all.
Thanks, Tom - I actually went through a couple of books looking for a good prototype - I always liked those C&S 2-10-2s, but I didn’t get quite that effect: the C&S smokebox doors were a bit smaller, making the smokebox front seem flatter and broader than the USRA front (once you remove the headlight). It looks kinda like the front end of Sierra Mike #36, but a bit bigger. I’ll try to see if I can get the time to get an image up this weekend - I still have a bit of work to do on the pilot deck installing the coupler and some detail parts. I really like the look of a high-mounted headlight and a round number plate.
I haven’t really tested its pulling on curves yet - but given the resistance of the two flanged drivers, I think it would be pretty sorely tried on really sharp curves. I’m a bit surprised, to tell the truth - I need to measure it, but I suspect the rigid wheelbase is a bit longer on this model than it is on most brass
You could do a LOT worse than use Sierra #36 as an inspiration for the boiler front–that’s one heckuva handsome little Mike. I’ve seen it in action down at Jamestown at the RR museum a couple of times–even ridden behind it. Has a nice, mellow exhaust. Pulls like a little mule.
You’re probably right about the longer frame on the Bowser. I’ve got 4 brass 2-10-2’s, two Rio
Grande F-81’s and 2 C&S 900’s, and with all drivers flanged, I can’t even GET them to look at anything less than a 30" radius, especially with the tighter brass ‘tolerances’. I know that most model steamers have to extend the frame a little longer than the prototype because of the slightly ‘over-scale’ flanges, so you’ve probably got yourself a loco that’s at least a couple of scale feet longer than the prototype.
But again, it sounds as if you’ve got yourself a sweet loco.
Really? I’ve got a Westside ATSF 900 class 2-10-2 that will take 18" curves on sidings without complaining (it has 57" drivers, which is probably the reason), and my PFM F-81 will make it uncomfortably around 24" curves - some flange squealing, so I usually don’t run it - waiting to get the extension with broader curves into action before I do that. I was a little surprised that the Bowser was so unforgiving. I know the F-81 was a bigger engine, but I think it must have had a shorter rigid wheelbase or something.
But that apart, it is a good engine.
Incidentally, as one Grande brass aficionado to another - I was looking at Peach Creek Shops’ website yesterday - they were selling NJ Custom Brass L-76 2-6-6-2s (they have them listed both as N&W Z-1 and D&RGW L-76) for about $300 - great runners, even if they do shed parts sometimes, and that’s one of the best prices I’ve seen.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about the Bowser 2-10-2. I am modeling a freelanced layout thats jointly owned by the GN and the CB&Q, (Kind of like the SP&S with the NP and GN joint ownership) and was thinking about detailing the bowser 2-10-2 as a CB&Q version for my line.
As for the 4-6-6-4s, The NP 2-6 class is what the UP3900 class was largely based on, so there are many similarities. But the centepede tender is going to be a trick. About all that the NP versions have in common with the UP versions is the wheel arrangement. But its not an impossible job to over come.
Bowser sells the Challenger without a tender, and they make a semi-Vanderbilt tender that’s probably convertible to resemble the NP’s tenders. I don’t really like the look of centipede tenders, anyway. It’s hard to tell from Bowser’s website which engine they used for the prototype - some of the stats are from the later UP Challengers, which are dimensionally closer to the NP engines, and some (like the TE) are from the earlier Challengers, which were an attempt to improve the 4-12-2s out of all recognition.
I think what I’ll probably wind up doing is using the diagrams in Schrenk and Frey’s book on later NP steam power to build a hybrid - UP body, NP look. I’m freelancing, after all.
Incidentally, the project you’re suggesting (re: the CB&Q 2-10-2) sounds entirely feasible. You might want to download the Cal-Scale parts catalogues from Bowser’s website. I’m only familiar with the C&S USRA 2-10-2s, but if I remember correctly, they used Elesco feedwater heaters - Bowser probably has the castings you would need to customize it. The Cal-Scale castings aren’t the top of the line, but they’re pretty good quality - I have old copies of MR from the seventies with PFM ads that boast that they use Cal-Scale castings on their imported stuff. The Bowser castings certainly compare favorably to the ones on my old Fujiyama stuff. If you’re a competent modeler, you can get a pretty high-quality model out of that kit.
I’ll have to take a look at that website. I’ve got a couple of M-75 4-8-2’s from Custom Brass, and they’re sprung with guitar wire! Talk about a major surprise, and they HAVE shed a part from time to time, but nothing major. Had to replace their underpowered cans with NWSL’s,but they’re good little locos.
Funny you should mention the ‘little ATSF’ 2-10-2’s, I saw one on consignment in my LHS today, a Westside–what a WILD-looking tender it has!–, and I almost bit. Cute little devil and the price was right. I’m going to think about it. The Westsides I have are wonderful locos.
I understand that the PFM F-81 is more forgiving about tighter radii–mine’s a PSC, and though it WILL squeal around a 26" radius, it doesn’t look too happy about it,LOL! But those two Sunset C&S’s just absolutely refuse! 30" minimum or forget about it. Luckily, my minimum radius is 34&quo
The WSM models are actually of the 3010 class, which were basically 900s that were built out of 2-10-10-2s that the ATSF cut in half. The big tender was a whaleback they originally bought for use on the articulateds. Its good looking, but it sort of dwarfs the little engine.
OK - let’s see if I can do this:
That’s the front view - obviously, won’t get the front end finished until that coupler arrives - then I’m going to put ladders and the detail parts on the pilot deck. From the rear:
BTW, thanks for the clarification on the 3010’s. I was trying to figure out how such a little 2-10-2 ended up with such a HUGE Whaleback tender, then you reminded me that Santa Fe did have some 2-10-10-2’s back during it’s evidently ill-fated love affair with Mallet compounds back in the early 20th century. I’m still thinking about it–it’s really a cute little devil, and it would look nice next to my Santa Fe PFM 1850 2-8-0 (another really charming little loco).
But oboy, that tender is one for the books, LOL!
PS: What you did to the front of the Bowser is really nice and striking. Just thinking out loud–a Doghouse might look really cool on the tender.
