“Icon” is defined in the dictionary as “a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol or as worthy of veneration”. Although some engines may have been chosen for their uniquely Canadian qualities - like a streamlined 2-10-4 - or because they were very famous, some were chosen because they were representative of common Canadian engines…the engines a Canadian modeller would need to build a CP or CN layout: work-a-day Ten-wheelers, Consolidations, and Pacifics.
Now that you say thismyou are most right. Only time will tell and e must be patiant, as Rapido does need demand to go thru with each. Being 26 I can wait, and if some are not produced I could look into brass if some of the classes interest me, but then again having revamped versions made by Rapido is better as it saved work installing DCC and sound, along with improved tooling.
I do feel for the older modellers as they are worried about not living long to see them all released. Only time will tell, so lets enjoy the ride as best we can.
I would like to see a woodburning CP 4-4-0 but I know it will not be built. A woodburning 4-4-0 represents the genesis of the CPR for me and would be cherished.
I did a FB poll on how many would buy a Rapido CPR 4-4-0 and the numbers were better than I had thought they would be for such a small FB group.
I wood.
I just bought a little Bachmann 4-4-0 and it comes with wood tender load as an option, but not the flared spark arrestor tack it should come with.
I believe the initial 4-4-0 CPR locomotives were not Canadian though. CPR bought a fair bit of American built iron back at the start of everything.
Although I did not intend to be understood as making an all encompassing generalization I did intend to point out that as Diesel designs even though built in Canada were not Canadian and therefore by definition cannot be considered “Icons of Canadian Diesel”. I decline to pick up the implied gauntlet about Sir John A and his National Policy…
Since I have not looked into Steam Locomotives of the CNR I do not know in what way Canadian built CNR locomotives might be Icons of Canadian Steam but I am content to let Rapido figure that one out.
Speaking of which Rapido does build very nice Canadian versions of several diesels, EMD’s F7 springs to mind, and there has been a MLW model of a different but Canada unique diesel released by them just recently. Just not iconic in the way a Royal Hudson, Selkirk or Jubliee is.
I don’t know how you came up with this assessment. The majority of Texas Type 2-10-4 engines south of the border dwarfed the Selkirks in both mass and power. For example, the 5001 series on the ATSF produced the highest recorded piston thrust of any two-cylinder locomotive at 219K lbs. They outweighed the Selkirk by 100k lbs. Tractive effort was about 20K lbs higher on the American versions, including notably the T-1 and its successor on the Pennsy, the J1.
A quick look at the 4-6-4 type shows that the Canadian version was ‘average’, with the C&O and ATSF versions substantially larger and more powerful.
Several roads in the USA had larger 2-8-2 locomotives than the CPR’s, notably the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western. CPR’s versions were generally above average, though, in terms of size and power.
The CPR’s 4-6-2 G Class was, across the board, somewhat smaller than most of the American production, as a glance through the listings at steamlocomotive.com will show.
It really serves no practical purpose, during discussions, to generalize.
Consolidations were more likely to be converted to 0-8-0s than to Mikados, as the latter would require a new frame. Many CNR (and possibly CPR) Consolidations were pretty close to equals of the Mikes, as far as tractive effort was concerned.
Mike, I have amended my earlier post on Canadian locomotive builders, as I had neglected to mention that those Canadian-built locos were for the predecessors of the CNR, and then later, for the CNR itself.
Rapido did include some CNR locomotives in their Icon list, one of them being the CNR’s H-6 10 Wheeler. However, decent brass models of the H-6 seem to be everywhere, so there was not much support for that one, which was slated to be done at the same time as the CPR D-10s (or in-lieu-of the D-10, had it not received adequate demand).
Here’s one of mine in-service…
…and another getting some modifications to represent a specific locomotive…
I’ll be using the original chassis for the tender, but will build a different body to better-match the particular prototype that I wish to represent.
Wayne
I was generalizing from a general perspective, an impression.
You refer me to specific exceptions, which is what validates a general
Which it was. Had CPR wanted a larger design they would – and certainly could – have built it.
Relatively tiny. (Of course it was larger than the MEC’s fearsome class Ds!) Sometimes small is choice, of course; ask Nancy Kerrigan. The real contender, though, is That Other System’s Hudsons (justly, two of the five examples have been preserved) which I believe holds the record for fastest locomotive in Canada, which is notably faster than certain larger United States 4-6-4s with 84" drivers were capable of reaching.
Now that you mention it, I’ve never really thought of them as being all that different in proportions from United States steam of comparable size, particularly the Mikado that was the subject of so much consternation a year or two ago. While many of the details are different, notably the cabs, that’s the sort of thing that resin casting has filled in the automotive and aircraft modeling communities for many years, and would surely do so here.
You’ve probably just scratched the surface… Can you describe the cam followers on a locomotive with Renaud poppet gear? Or what the salmon rods on Cossart do? Much to learn on your road to enlightenment…
I assume you’ve read the Shields article on Evolution of Locomotive Valve Gears – if not, find it. Then, if you have not located and downloaded your copy of Charlie Dockstader’s valve-gear wireframe simulator, do so – if you have t
I advisedly said “sorted out”. My first impression of Walschaerts, crazy little Belgian, is that he made a bargain with the devil…
I have remarked previously on the difference between knowledge and understanding.
My favourite example comes from my principal love: sailing ships or boats.
For perhaps 10,000 years we knew how to sail but did not understand it at all.
Then after we learned to fly, also without understanding how it worked, we discovered how sails work. They’re “just” vertically oriented wings.
Human beings are very clever at figuring out how to make things, useful and otherwise, without any understanding of why what we do works.
Mind you, I really prefer to understand rather than just know. You can find out an awful lot these days but understanding what you know is another matter.
Speaking of speed records under steam, in Canada, the CPR claims that record at 181 km/hr although back then it was only 112.5 mph.
A CPR Jubilee class 4-4-4 testing brakes…2.227 km later it came to a halt…under full braking power. 80" drivers, hauling a new lightweight passenger consist.
What was that about towbar draw and the coefficient of friction again! Woops, wrong thread.
Quote
“Consolidations were more likely to be converted to 0-8-0s than to Mikados, as the latter would require a new frame. Many CNR (and possibly CPR) Consolidations were pretty close to equals of the Mikes, as far as tractive effort was concerned.”
Quote
Of interest, my little book about the Kettle Valley Railway lists all the motive power thought to have run on those lines. My renewed or perhaps sustained interest in model railroads was due to my learning the history of that railway.
Many of the Consolidations used on the KVR were converted into Mikados rather than being scrapped. You are correct that the modification required extending the frame and supporting that with a trailing truck. I believe the idea was to increase the size of the firebox and boiler rather than increase cylinder size. Tractive effort was not the objective, rather sustained tractive effort would be. The grades and curves would challenge the capabilities of the boiler. Stamina rather than strength.
I speculate that in general Canadian locomotive designers building for our challenging Western divisions would focus on sustained power rather than maximum power. Tractive effort would be increased by adding pushers at appropriate sections, which is what they did.
Hence, Santa Fe pushers with small drivers and big boilers. For example. The extreme challenges of the Big Hill and the Rogers Pass drove the differences between Canadian and American designs for steam anyway. That’s my current hypothesis as I read more about all this.
And another thread is swirling into the sanitary system.
I thought we were going to discuss what made certain Canadian locmotives iconic.
Oh well.
[*-)] [|)]
-Kevin
Hi Kevin. I am glad you say this as this is what I was expecting what would happen, and hoped would happen. I hoped that some forum membes would list each of the twelve classes and tell me why each was iconic and chosen by Rapido.
I am glad for the responses even though they where not what I was hoping for. The amount of technical info is overwhelming.
Ah well.
Too bad that the software doesn’t permit an OP to block certain members. That would solve the problem of overwhelming technical info. [:#]
Rich
Hi Rich, I dont want to block certain members or their replies. I am grateful for the info, but I only so much about steam locomotives, and the info gets a bt overwelming at times. Prehaps I should have included a note to only make topic related replies.
At one time it did! If you remember Juniatha, she would occasionally make use of that both to remove posts she thought were extraneous in, or to keep certain culprits out of, ‘her’ threads. This in the good old days when Kalmbach TOS gave an OP the ability to restrict thread drift and actually enforced the policy against it.
Probably a better solution was the ‘foes’ function that the Forums had up until just a few years ago. As I recall the documentation saying, this would quietly suppress posts from anyone a particular used designated a ‘foe’, a bit like a user filter on an e-mail system. Judicious use of this would neatly solve a number of issues people have; I have been tempted for decades to put a little routine in with the parsing for browser display compatibility that scans for certain keywords and suppressed or flags any post that contains them; if Kalmbach IT were motivated in designing the vaporware New Strictly-from-Commercial User Experience they could easily set this up as a kind of ‘negative keywords list’ for flagging posts of interest.
Well, the first half of that happened back at the beginning of the thread, but in a link. If you follow it and do a little judicious cutting and pasting you can get a list of the engines and post it here for further directed comment.
I’m only honorarily Canadian and don’t have any interest in most of the list, so I can’t, and haven’t, provided itemized comments for the great majority. I’d be reasonably sure that Jason Shron could, whether or not he’s psyched himself out of building the whole series as indicated, but it can’t hurt to ask him.
Lastspikemike, the Jubilee that set the speed record was a Fa2 which was built before the Fa1. The Fa2 is the model that is listed on Rapido’s Icons of Steam list but I believe it is last on the list. While the 2 are both Jubilees they had different drivers, different pilot and a few other things that can be seen in any photos of the two. By the way a Fa2 was used on the Calgary-Edmonton train for a number of years. I think it was #3001. Several Jubilees(Fa1) ran out of the Brandon, MB division as they accelerated quickly and so were good on local trains on the prairies. I have several photos in the books by Lawrence Stuckey. He was a rail photographer who also was a fireman/engineer on the CP out of Brandon. He quit when diesels took over from steam and ran a photography business. Try to find his book Prairie Cinders. He has great comments on many of the CP steam classes. The book was published in 1993. He also published a couple of photo books ‘Steam in Manitoba’.
CN Charlie
I think you are confusing your steam and diesel classes -the big Jubilees are F2a.
These do not greatly differ in mechanical details from the Milwaukee A class, which Alfred Bruce (head of the company that built them) said would easily go 128mph. If a PRR T1 can have balance faster than that on 80" drivers, so could a Jubilee with better rod geometry … and greater and more effective (on a proportional basis) radiant-section design.
The little Jubilees are like Hudsons downsized to handle little, rather than light, consists, and do just fine producing about ⅔ the drawbar pull of a corresponding enlargement to 4-6-4. Piston valves, not-too-sophisticated ports and passages, and relatively low drivers should preclude T1-style slipping even on indifferent trackage, I suspect.