There’s no mechanical reason why a fine-running 1800s 4-4-0 couldn’t be made - I have a little British GWR 0-4-2 tank loco in N made by Dapol - it’s about 2-3in long and runs like a clock, will haul three coaches on level track which was roughly the limit for the real thing - no traction tyres, pickup on all wheels, it doesn’t stall even at low speed. If Dapol can do this for £40 or so (about $80 - the models are made in the UK rather than China) there’s no reason why a good HO 4-4-0 couldn’t be produced at a sensible price, with loco drive and all-wheel pickup. The motor as fitted to this little tank loco would be fine in a HO model with the right gearing and is absolutely tiny, an N scale decoder could probably be fitted into the loco body too - I’ve seen the little tank locos like mine fitted with one so a HO loco should be no trouble.
I was thinking about why the motor might be in the tender on some of these oldies (but goodies), and wanted to confirm my thinking.
I lookked around for pics of the afore-mentioned GWR 0-4-2 tank loco, and compared to the ten-wheeler pictured elsewhere in this thread. It looked like on the tank loco, the boiler was nice and close to the drivers, while on the ten-wheeler, there was a very noticeable gap between drivers and boiler. This seems (IIRC) to be a trait of 19th-century American locos.
I would assume, therefore, that it is considerably more difficult to fit a motor in the boiler and still have the drivetrain more-or-less hidden. More modern locos, like my Riva FEF-3, seem to take advantage of the larger fireboxes that seem to have evolved as more horsepower was required.
Reasonable, or is there something else I’m missing?
Brian Pickering
I think that is good example. I don’t know how many people would be inspired to model a regional or short line like the “Aurora Branch Line” or “Central Military Tract Railroad” (both to become the CB&Q), the “Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway”, or (my favorites) the “Louisville & Wadley”, “Wadley Southern”, or “Belfast and Moosehead Lake” Railroads even if a model of their locomotives were produced? The “big” railroads were just starting to materialize from 1870 to 1900.
Generally the older the locomotive (excluding the USRA era of WWI) the more customized it was to the orders of specific railroads.
Brian, I think you might have something there - certainly a lot of German steamers have a big gap between boiler and frames and most of the models are tender drive. The real “14xx” tank locos were pretty solid little locos without much airspace. Here’s a link to a photo for anyone else wanting to see what I’m on about: http://www.ehattons.com/Stock.asp?SID=11331
Having said that, the firebox of a HO 4-4-0 would probably be big enough to accommodate one of these micro-motors (mounted vertically) though? You could have the electronics in the boiler and internal gearing as well as the rods between the wheels, as Minitrix do. This allows fine rods as they aren’t being put under load.
So a 2-4-0 with a California Western roadname might be out of the question?
I think an undecorated with a decal sheet with 100 or so roadnames might be a compromise.
The popular eras have always seemed to range from the 1920’s to the 1950’s. The modern era also has a following. While it’s easier for the manufacturers since there was more standardization, I think poor sales of pre-1900 models that are/have been made keeps it a niche market. I suspect that for a lot of us the pre automobile era is too alien to us, we don’t really identify with it. The 50’s are and will remain popular since it was the end of steam. Also, railroading really came of age in the 20’s and 30’s - that was the era of big time railroading.
Enjoy
Paul
Texas Zepher,
Please look at the topic “One more fallen flag?” as I think you will be interested in it’s topic.
In my experience, interest in old-time is limited. But Chip, there are sufficient choices out there if you look. The Rivarossi 4-4-0s up until recently ran quite smoothly and pulled decently (with traction tires). The Bachmann 4-4-0s can be re-powered and will run well. The MDC 2-6-0 and 2-8-0 are decent models too. The Rivarossi are easy to find on E-Bay, MDC less so but they come around. The bigger problem actually is cars. The Bachmann 4-6-0s are a bit modern but can be backdated with a bit of work.
Another issue is that you will have to double-head most of these models if you have any kind of grade.
The Bachman I have will out pull on a grade every other engine I have including my Heisler. To me the issue is not remotering, but putting in DCC. The IHC is fairly easy, I don’t know about the Rivarossi. I’m thinking of picking one up off eBay.
I have two MDC 2-6-0 RTR DCC ready old-time Moguls. they are my favorite engines. They are very smooth but they don’t pull well. I’m limiting my basement layout to 2% with only the mining and loggin branches going steeper.
I have about 30 various cars mostly MDC kits but some IHC and Mantua. I like the MDC best.
Chip wot about this? It’s on knewsom’s train to trade web site.
http://www.trainstotrade.com/item_detail.asp?Item_ID=56
Ken.
I really think the issue is ‘era perspective’. Right now, it seems the 50’s are a popular era to model - wow, 50 years ago. I also have a lot of old issues of MR from the 40’s and 50’s, as well as a few books from that time - and a lot of people back then modeled the turn of the century! There was TONS of 1880-1900 era equipment available, like the Labelle, Binkley, and Central Valley rolling stock kits. A few decent locos, as well - Varney’s “Belle of the 80’s” for one. Again about a 50 year gap from the actual time and the era being modeled - about the limit for people to have some serious connection to the time period they are modelling.
–Randy