Look and see where the book was published if in a foreign country don’t buy it if it’s about american trains, because they can have major flops in them(like calling the 3985 the 1218 or a SD40-2T a SD40-2
I have over 1300 railroad books and from what I’ve seen in them there are mistakes made in books written and printed here in the USA. One of the larger publishers frequently has mistakes such as wrong information, captions on the wrong photos and other things that detract from the book and railroad history.
Some of the problem with mistakes in books stems from railfans who “think” they know what they’re talking about but actually aren’t up to speed on things. You need to research things before writing about them as factual. Now the problem is that these books are getting into the hands of people that will use them as resource material.
Roger
Add to that list many parts of Trains.com. There are numerous inaccuracies in the Railroad Reference section. Every single issue of Classic Trains I have seen also is full of historic inaccuracies. Come on, does Classic Trains actually have any editors, or do they just keep reprinting this stuff without even researching the historical, scientific, and engineering accuracy of the facts? Oh well, it seems like most railfans have no interest in real railroading anyway. Kalmbach is just serving it’s market; a market that loves to live in a fairytale world of what they think a railroad should be, not what it actually is (or was).
Beginners should also be wary of purchasing any book on railroading from a major box bookstore (BN, Borders, etc…). While these books are colorful and full of large prints, they are very inaccurate, vague, and misleading.
For newbie railfans and modelers I’ve often recommended the colorful books from Don Ball as creditable books containing good source information.
Don Ball Jr.'s book “decade of the Trains the 1940’s” is a great reference book, as well as having great pictures, full of great facts and figures about 30’s and 40’s railroading…just as anything by Lucas-Beebe is factual
I did notice that Beebe kept refering to Union Pacific challengers as Mallets in the book “The Age of Steam”. Now we all know that a challenger is a simple articulated and not a Mallet. Right?? [;)]
Beebe, while providing us with many enjoyable books with great & rare photos, was a journalist and more of an artist than a true railroad historian. I’m truly grateful that he and Charles Clegg did record so many steamers and old equipment for us to drool over all these many years. Don Ball, Don Wood, Ian Wilson and many others were not only great photographers but also keenly interested in providing a written historical account of their photos rather than just as entertainment value. Just remember to take everything you read with a grain of salt. Roger |
|---|
How does the book EMD Locomotives by Brian Solomon rate?
I started out with Don Ball books as well, and echo the above sentiments. Ball’s only fault was that his writing was a bit over the top in certain spots. Beebe’s books are nice, especially for the time they were published in. Now there was an interesting character–a columnist/gastronome/wine critic who also happened to spend a little time photographing steam locomotives. Can you imagine the modern food/wine critic at the New York Times spending his leisure time snapping pictures somewhere on the NS mainline?
I didn’t think so…
werent some of the earliest UP 4-6-6-4’s Mallet’s known as the “bull moose”'s…[?]
I hadn’t heard that name for a 4-6-6-4.
I have found the material put out by the Solomons, both father and son to be superbly accurate, well researched and well written.
I believe the UP’s “Bull Moose” was a 2-8-8-0.
Roger
Thanks, I just finished Solomon’s book GE Locomotives and found it very interesting. Photos are great also.
Beebe,and other rail writers of that era generally called all articulated locomotives “Mallets”.Even DPM did on occasion,along with his + sign.Still,Beebes books are wonderful,and no rail library should be without some of them.
There’s nothing more annoying than that damnable + sign. I never noticed DPM use it, but if he did it’s probably because he was of English descent. They’re the ones who initiated that nonsense in describing the wheel arrangements of beyer-garrats (spelling?).
I have to disagree with Lost World. I think the + sign, indicating a hinged or entirely separate engine as in the the Beyer-Garrats, clearly sets them apart from the rigid multiple engined locomotives like the Pennsylvania’s T1 and T2. Even the large electrics and diesels can benefit from the the plus sign when the trucks have non-motored axles.
An accurate description of the physical properties of a locomotive should be the logical objective.
Art
Yep, a group of UP 2-8-8-0’s had the name Bull Moose and looked the part.
PRR had three classes of duplex locos - S1 (6-4-4-6), T1/T1a (4-4-4-4), and Q2 (4-4-6-4). No T2’s.
Your point is well taken. I’ll agree to disagree!