Looks vs Performance


Y3a

Stuck in the 1930's
So as manufacturers design locomotives (I'm talking steam locos mostly) would you rather have a loco with a little less detail that pulled a bunch and the mechanism lasted for about 10 years, or one that smoked, had sound installed and couldn't pull 50 cars up a 2 percent grade?

A heavy duty mech model could have the rest of those details added if you wanted.

Most of the high detailed models have little or no place for added weight.

ALL the current plastic articulateds have rear engines which swivel, so minus points for accuracy.

The old 'overhang'* arguement is BS!
Take a KEY brass N&W "A" which articulates correctly, the front of the boiler overhangs a little less than the cab overhang on the BLI "A".
Same for the C&O H8's. The cab should always be aligned with the front of the tender.

I have 7 of the Oriental Ltd "Powerhouse Series" N&W Y3's which are brass mechanics and cast metal boilers and they articulate correctly.

Question: Why can't plastic manufacturers articulate the models correctly?*

I know the original 'reason' was that many unrealistic modelers had just a 4x8 with 18-22" curves and just HAD to have a Bigboy/Y6/Challenger/EM1 etc.
 
I agree with you 100 percent. Performance is what I am looking for in a steam locomotive. Although I can't justify a large articulated locomotive on my layout, I do have a couple. One is a Riverossi Challenger which I detailed and painted for the Northern Pacific. Unfortunately, the rear engine does pivot, or did pivot. I took care of that. I agree, a big minus. I also have an old brass (Key I believe) Z-5 Yellowstone (2-8-8-4, all custom painted for the NP) which does have the fixed real engine. My minimum radius is 32 inches, and the locomotive can run through any trackage on my layout, including a #6 double crossover. I agree with you with the point of the manufacturers having both engines swivel to be able to run on tighter radius turns. If these locomotives couldn't, they would have a lot of lost sales.

Detail parts can be added, so I will always choose performance. I am not as much interested in a locomotive pulling a monster train as I am for the locomotives to operate smoothly and great low speed performance.
 
One answer....cost. It is cheaper to build and sell, in quantities that provide an incentive to produce the model in the first place, and thence to re-issue it as BLI does regularly, that appeals to more people who can actually afford one than it does the brass models that have more fidelity to the prototype. Let's not forget that for every brass collector who runs them as they CAN be run, there are 16 or more plastic runners who have curves on Plywood Pacifics below the 24" range. Brass engines are heavier by nature, but not hugely so...or that's my experience. They all take wider curves, usually a minimum of 30" radius. If you can make an honest-to-goodness $60 profit on each plastic 2-10-4 after discounts to the dealers, and you sell all of them from each 1000 locomotive run, that's $60K in profits. REEAAAAALLLLY helps to set up another model run or do the tooling investment for a new offering. The brass production models, though, typically run about 200-500 models, and their profits are about $200 per engine...IF everything goes well.

I wish HO model manufacturers would find a way to place tungsten frames into their locomotives. I know they'd be costly, probably adding at least $40 or more to the cost of a locomotive. You'd also have to beef up the suspensions if they are there, but also the drive mechanisms. But, those suckers would pull the tires off a Dodge truck! I think a BLI Pennsy J1 2-10-4 would go from about 1.5 lbs to nearer to 2 pounds, and the cost would rise by at least $100.

I don't really need or want to operate prototypically long trains. I am content with the details and with smoothness of most drives I own, albeit some are just noticeably jumpy. They all smooth out above a scale 30 mph. My question is, how long will they actually last? I know some fellas who have worn out locomotives inside of a year or more. I have 24 at present, not a one with over four hours of total running. They are all different, with only two duplicated...a Niagara and a J Class...both BLIs. So, I tend to run them sparingly, rotating them after only an hour or so. I hope to never wear them out, but...steamers have to wear out their rods in time.
 
If you would really like a locomotive that is prototypically correct in every aspect, from solid frame, fully sprung wheels, internal piping etc. etc. you could pay someone to build it for ya, or maybe build it yourself. Of course the cost, money and time wise would be pretty high. The minimum radius on my layout is 45" and I'm not sure that a J9000 with solid frame could run properly on it. Most of use are constrained to a finite amount of space to build our empires which limits the size of our turns. I only have a little over 2000 square feet.
 
The manufacturer CHOSE to use the incorrect method to articulate their models from the get go. Isn't it pathetic that the modern plastic articulateds work like the almost 60 yr old Rivorossi Y6b? The front and rear engines all go on the same rails and the correct way (Powerhouse/Bowser) methods all work and look right, while the Rivorossi/BLI/MTH/Lifelike method looks wrong on any curves. The front engines should swing way out on tight curves, NOT the cab.
 
The BLI Y6b is all metal and can pull and swiveling rear engine. I own both brass articulated and the plastics. And the Bowser Big Boy/Challengers. But on sharper curves the double hinge does not swing as far for the boiler. I own a brass Y6b with proper articulation. At this point, I don't care. The double articulation is about getting around sharper curves for those with restricted space and sharper curves. Operate on wider curves you won't have the issue, and you really won't notice it that much. For weight you may be able to get some sticky weights and wiggle weight somewhere, but when one engine won't do, time to doublehead. I understand the arguement pro-con, but the model runs on sharper curves than the prototype, the modelmakers had to compromise for the models. Even the Brass. I'm happy with my BLI class A, its my first DCC engine. It was never offerred before in plastic and I was almost thinking hacking Y6B's to make one.
 
I have 2 of the BLI Y6b's and they don't pull as well as the older Powerhouse Y3's.

Being that I primarily model the N&W in the 1930's I use more 2-8-0's and 4-8-0's and a 2-6-6-2 along with a bunch of 2-8-8-2 Y3's.

I know the A is a 1936 product of Roanoke shops, but I model more of a branch, the A's wouldn't have gone there.

Technically, the boiler position above the engine units isn't as important as the ability of the engine units to perform correctly. As I said before, the cab overhang on the BLI A is more than the Key or Precision Scale boiler front overhang on a 22" curve. The swivel of the rear engine just makes it wrong, and a correctly articulated model can still get around the curves.

I guess I'm more disappointed that they went with the back end swivel than acquire a correctly articulated brass model and make some measurements and comparisons. The front engine swivel on the BLI Y6b's also causes problems when going around super-elevated curves.
 
Hmmm...my Y6b from PCM days is as sure-footed as a mountain goat. It NEVER derails, and all of my curves are super-elevated. Mind you, my curves never dip below 28" radius. There is one guy on Model Railroader forums, cudaken, who had bad shorting problems with his Y6b, and he used his for an hour or more many days a week the first year he had it. He actually wore down the pivot post atop the front engine to the extent that shorting started. BLI couldn't/wouldn 't fix it well enough for his satisfaction, so he tore it down and repaired or rebuilt the post himself. Maybe that design is a hazard waiting for all of us who have those locomotives. My Y6b has maybe 3 hours total running time.
 
...The brass production models, though, typically run about 200-500 models, and their profits are about $200 per engine...IF everything goes well.

Crandell, brass production hasn't seen numbers like this in many years. Nowadays one reason new brass engines are so expensive IS the fact that a "big" run is still less than 50 engines, with most runs being 20-30. I don't know if it is due to costs of production or if the capacity is that low now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So as manufacturers design locomotives (I'm talking steam locos mostly) would you rather have a loco with a little less detail that pulled a bunch and the mechanism lasted for about 10 years, or one that smoked, had sound installed and couldn't pull 50 cars up a 2 percent grade?


I had to give this some thought awhile back. I went for the solid option and so my J class is an old Gem/Olympia brass loco (and it is old, 1967 run, so older than me).


I need to do some work bringing it up to date but I am glad I took the hard road rather than the easy plastic road. I should point out thought that these old Gem models are not really top shelf brass. None the less, they were well build by skilled craftsmen using quality materials. Thus they are worth the effort to modernise and super detail.


The Gem J has a boiler full of metal and it is well balanced (I tried the pen test and it balances between centre drivers) so no problem with adhesive weight. I have a nice Swiss 11 pole coreless motor to install, so there should be plenty of power too. I wonder what sort of tractive effort I can get out of it after remotoring:D . Also extra pick ups will be added and eventually sound. I have decided not the bother with smoke as it means reducing weight, added complexity and the effect really isn't good enough in HO to justify the effort and compromises in my opinion.


One day I want to get a nice old beat up PFM 1962 run A class to rebuild so the J has company.


Apart from power and durability, brass also has the advantage of being screwed and soldered together. So mantinence or rebuilding is easier. I am guessing most of us on this thread like to repair our locos ourselves, so that would be part of the attraction for us.


Now, having sung the praises of brass, I'm going to put the cat amonsgt the pigeons and make the claim that old steam loco kits are even better. They have heavy metal boilers, often whitemetal or diecast. Thus they then to have more weight than brass (my Gem J seems to be an except due to that boiler full of metal). So older models had really nice mechs. It seems the more modern sprung suspension wastes energy whereas the really old (like 1950's) Bowser locos with their simple rigid suspensions, transfered all the energy to the wheels. My J does have sprung suspension but the older springs like my loco has are so stiff that it may as well be rigid.
 
One of the things that I do to "tweak" a brass engine is to replace the springs in the suspension with KD truck springs. These are very stiff and often then makes the suspension non-existent.

As to the old kits like the Bowser ones, one thing that I have done in the past to make these better runners than they are already is to articulate the siderods. The way I've done this has been to either order and extra set of rods, and cut up the sets to have an articulated connection between them. I've also, where I couldn't get a set at that time, still cut them apart and substitute a small brass washer on the cut end, soldered to the rod with silver based solder. I've done this with Bowsers, MDC, (Roundhouse), American Loco Co. and others.

One advantage to having articulated rods is that it allows you to not have to file slots or alter in any way the connections between the rods and the drivers.
 
I think that you misunderstood. I like a more rigid frame than what the standard engine springs give. I always add weight to my brass locos, and some springs are so soft that the extra weight crushes them and they become useless. If they don't collapse, the suspension gets so soft than the loco appears to be bouncing down the track. The loco will track just as good as with the standard springs in place, and the weight transfer stays the same on all drivers at all times and that's what I like.
 
Question: Why can't plastic manufacturers articulate the models correctly?*

I know the original 'reason' was that many unrealistic modelers had just a 4x8 with 18-22" curves and just HAD to have a Bigboy/Y6/Challenger/EM1 etc.
Yup that is still it. Just go back and check out all the griping and complaining on the threads of the various forums the last time a manufacturer introduced a UP Big Boy that wouldn't go around an 18" curve. I don't remember which manufacturer it was, but I couldn't believe the comments. Seems like it was just as I joined the forum so that would have been ummm umm 2005?

Every time it happens, I can't believe the ignorance of simple physics that the various griping people seem to enjoy ignoring.

And of course it isn't that they can't. It is just that they don't such that they can sell to a larger market. Simple business sense. If they did that in plastic, the cost would go up accordingly for the more limited market. I know I wouldn't want to pay $1400 for a die cast & plastic locomotive when I could get a brass one for $2000. The market price point just isn't there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm one of those as a kid holding an AHM catalogue and all their stuff. Dream and no money. I had snap track and an AHM dockside, a friend of my fathers gave me a bunch of stuff. Never got the AHM BB, but own the Bowser Big Boy, I knew the difference. I repaired a friends RR Big Boy and tenderless ran 15 inch radius. I got the RR Berkshire numbered it 765 before it was popular. The AHM catalogue bragged they all ran 18 inch radius.
 



Back
Top