Sandman,
What is your idea of Pulling Power, Extra weight?

Success is selling out everything you import. Congradulations Scott. Ed

Ed,

I have drawings of our Auxiliary Tender. I would like to ask you to review them. You have a sharp eye for mistakes, lets put it to good use. I have your address in S. CA, if it hasn't changed, I will mail you out a copy.

Also, as of today, we sold out of the 2R UP FEFs.

Success for me is measured by how much people enjoy the models that I produce. It is nice to sell them out, but it is bitter sweet as we always get those call of people looking for them.

Cheers.

Scott not sure how much help I can be on the tenders. I am familar with them in origional service but don't know much about excursion service but send them and I will see what I can do. Ed

Anyone try to update the pilot wheel contour? I think the builder may have put the late tool on with the wrong profile direction.

Image from this site

Just my opinion but that gloss finish really looks good on the real 844. I am still split on which fef I have I like better my gloss weaver black fef or the 3rd rail one. I did do some detail upgrades on the weaver like sa feedwater pump correctly installed on the enginem, and had the cylinders chromed so I have actual cylinder caps in chrome. It definately gets your eye more than the 3rd rail and it is numbered 8444 so it is alittle different. has a qsi 3000 in it now but will get a err system once (I find out how to get the chuff trigger and the plastic screws to insulate the tender shell for the antenna.

Rheil posted earlier in this discussion that Sunset Models are built to 5' guage I am thinking he means 17/64 the true size for the O scale track currently in use, This size has not been seen since the Scalecraft days am I missing something here?
Hibar

quote:

Originally posted by hibar:
Rheil posted earlier in this discussion that Sunset Models are built to 5' guage I am thinking he means 17/64 the true size for the O scale track currently in use, This size has not been seen since the Scalecraft days am I missing something here?
Hibar

The Models are built to 1/48th scale with the gauge slightly wide at 5'.

SW

What is the purpose of slightly wider guage on Sunset models. Does this present a problem on tightly spiked track?
Thanks, Hibar

Slightly wider is misleading. All O Scale and all O Tinplate uses 1 1/4" gauge, which is too wide by a bunch. It is the worst thing that ever happened to O gauge, and appears to be beyond fixing.

The visual effects of using a wide gauge, wheels that are too wide, clearances that are excessive, and other horrible things are our legacy - the olden times modelers could not handle the computations for 17/64 scale, and were too set in their ways to reduce the gauge to 1 3/16 (or Q gauge).

I model mostly in 17/64, which means my models fit O Scale track more or less perfectly. I also have several complete trains of 1 1/16" gauge, which, with wheels that are too wide, brings the outer portion of the truck sideframes to exactly the right spot with respect to the car sides.

A tangled web, indeed. Too bad, really - but we are simply inaccurate.

Bob2,

I have to ask: What is made to 1-1/16" gauge? Some kind of tinplate? Running equipment built to that gauge on O gauge track strikes me as wither impossible or at best, impractical, especially if turnouts and/or x-ings are involved. That's nine scale inches too narrow from O gauge!

You have my admiration for building to 17/64" scale (1:45.2 ratio) as that is the correct proportion for O gauge track to model 56.5" "standard gauge" in the prototype. Modeling in the correct scale eliminates the need to widen cylinders & adjust rods & crankpins accordingly.

If the people who so loved 1/4" scale in the 20's & 30's would have adopted 1-3/16" gauge (4'-9") I think most modelers would have been delighted with the accuracy between scale & gauge. Prototype RRs do widen the gauge on tight curves, & iirc the Strasburg was listed in the OFFICIAL GUIDE as being 4-9" gauge. I think most people would find it easier to live with a gauge nominally a half-inch too wide than with our 3.5" (scale) discrepancy (personal opinion).

Wide tires are something else again. They are used on small prototype industrial/logging locos designed to operate on poor trackwork with very sharp curves. They were also used in special circumstances such as the 5' gauge Russian Decapods transferred to US standard gauge RRs during WW1.

Conventional tire treads are not much over 3" wide (excluding flange thickness). But if a model loco is built to exact prototype dimensions, it will require an exact prototype minimum curve. In the case of most steam road locos, the minimum curve scales to a 6' radius (some need even wider curves) and locos operate on such curves at very slow speeds, not over 5 mph.

Most modelers who run their trains I think generally do so at speeds somewhat above 5 scale mph. Many layouts have curves less than 6' radius. Therefore, I think tires somewhat wider than prototype are reasonable for general operation on many O gauge miniature railroads.

I don't think they have to be as wide as the long-standing .172" NMRA recommendation. Northwest Short Line developed a compromise .145" wheel width that looks much better on rolling stock-sized wheels & diesels, but I don't know how well it would work on steam loco drivers operating on curves of 3-5' radius. NWSL also makes wheels .115" wide (originally intended for trolley models, I believe) which is much closer to prototype. Does anyone here know how well these would work on long-wheelbase model cars, diesels and steam loco drivers on model curves less than 6' radius?

Yes, me. I took a set of .115 wheels and narrowed the gauge to my 1 1/16" loop, and put them on a caboose. Everything was fine until the temperature changed; then it was derailment city.

I like the looks of the .172 wheel, probably for the same sort of reasons that our Hi Rail friends like the looks of big flanges and center rails. But operationally, I could not live with less than about .155. That, it turns out, is Sunset's chosen width, and I think the choice was wise.

My 1 1/16" gauge railroad was done before I knew about Cronkhite and Q gauge. I chose that gauge to make sure the outer face of the truck side frames (and indeed eccentric cranks and crossheads) was in proportion to the 1/4" scale car bodies. It was a good idea, and it looks great. Too much work.

The above discussion on scale leads me to mention the historical significant of Mike Pitogo's photo above. That great photo of Mike’s locomotive was taken on the New York Society of Model Engineers layout in Carlstadt, NJ. The photo location is in one of the oldest areas of the layout. As you can tell by the photo, the locomotive is sitting on hand laid track. The track was laid over 50 years ago. Looks quite good for track work that is 50 years old, doesn’t it?

Now what is even more amazing is that the rail that locomotive is sitting on is almost 80 years old. It is NYSME Standard, believed to be the first scale rail based on prototype rail ever made. In the late 1920s the New York Society's members wanted to build a scale layout. Problem no scale rail. Solution, design your own and have it made. The rail was scaled down from Pennsylvania RR heavy main line rail and made from steel wire cold drawn through a custom made die. One ton was made. Half was kept by the Society and half sold off to other clubs to defray the cost. To this day you will come accross it at "O" Scale Swap Meets.

Andy Brusgard
www.ModelEngineers.org

A large portion of the layout in service at the DSMR is original steel rail laid in 1935. I wonder if our rail came from your project in the 1920's?

Friday night we had a public open house, a 78 year tradition in Denver of every last Friday of the month in the months of September through May. Friday night I had a boo boo with a small derailment with the FEF in a part of the layout where the track was laid in 1935 hidden in a reverse loop, and next to it a siding was abandoned sometime in the 1950's. It's really insane to see a scale model of a steam locomotive that was built in 1945 running on a miniature railroad that was built a decade earlier than the prototype.

I am a pup, at 33 years old this month, I am but a fraction of the age of the fellas that built the original 1934-35 layout. Its seriously generations old.

Thanks for sharing that information about the rail, like your signature says, "information is useless unless shared". THANKS!

Erik


Operations Director
Denver Society of Model Railroaders
Established 1933
Same location since 1935

http://denveroscaleclub.org


Approx. same location 70 years apart.

quote:

Originally posted by bob2:
Yes, me. I took a set of .115 wheels and narrowed the gauge to my 1 1/16" loop, and put them on a caboose. Everything was fine until the temperature changed; then it was derailment city.

I like the looks of the .172 wheel, probably for the same sort of reasons that our Hi Rail friends like the looks of big flanges and center rails. But operationally, I could not live with less than about .155. That, it turns out, is Sunset's chosen width, and I think the choice was wise.

My 1 1/16" gauge railroad was done before I knew about Cronkhite and Q gauge. I chose that gauge to make sure the outer face of the truck side frames (and indeed eccentric cranks and crossheads) was in proportion to the 1/4" scale car bodies. It was a good idea, and it looks great. Too much work.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Erik C Lindgren,

Andy/Erik,

Thanks for sharing more of the history of both clubs. I was not really into model railroading until I met the fine folks at NYSME and the steel rail. Since then I was hooked and never looked back to three.

I can imagine that in the 30's model RR in O scale/guage was a big thing as there most likely little that one could play with that ran by itself like our remote control today. Yep, big.

Extra gem for Snow Leopard users only.

Erik--

You wrote: "It's really insane to see a scale model of a steam locomotive that was built in 1945 running on a miniature railroad that was built a decade earlier than the prototype."

I respectfully disagree. The UP mainline was originally built during the late 1860s. Naturally, over the years, there were line relocations and replacement of old, lightweight rails with newer, heavier rails. But when the 844 was delivered (I think in 1944, not '45) I bet it ran on some rails that had been laid during the 1930s if not before.

Accordingly, I don't think there's anything wrong at all with a "new" model loco running on "old" track.

Btw, I had the pleasure of seeing the Denver club layout during a visit in Y2k, though not in operation. I think it's a fine layout and definitely worth visiting by any O Scalers who have the time.