 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / June 2004ATSF 2-10-10-2
Does anyone out there have a picture of an ATSF 2-10-10-2 ? Larry at Papas Trains Larry, Do you mean an actual print or reference to pictures in books. In Steel Rails Through California there is a good shot on page 71, at San Berdo! On 5/24/04 6:25 PM, in article 10b5167j7l0554@corp.supernews.com, "Jon Miller" <atsf@inow.com> wrote: > Larry, > Do you mean an actual print or reference to pictures in books. In Steel > Rails Through California there is a good shot on page 71, at San Berdo! How about: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/atsf3000.jpg  SignatureBrian Ehni > How about: > > http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/atsf3000.jpg Interesting photo, some cladding is removed to display the Jacobs-Schuppert stayless firebox. If you can get hold of a copy, the May 1989 Model Railroader has a seven page article on these locos, including a nicely rendered drawing in 1/64th scale. Mark, How was a stayless firebox constructed? I've never heard of such a thing. Regards, Bob. > > How about: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > page article on these locos, including a nicely rendered drawing in > 1/64th scale. > How was a stayless firebox constructed? I've never heard of such a thing. Bob, I should have chosen my words more carefully in my initial post, and written that the Jacobs-Shupert firebox is <mostly> stayless. The firebox and wrapper were constructed using dished or channel-section plates rivetted together along their edges. The backplate and throatplate were conventionally stayed. The scanned drawing at: http://images.fotopic.net/?id=4704621&outx=760&oq=0&original=1&noresize=1&nostamp=1 shows the method of construction. The photo at: http://images.fotopic.net/?id=4704618&outx=760&oq=0&original=1&noresize=1&nostamp=1 shows a loco boiler fitted with a Jacobs-Schupert firebox under test. The McClellan and Emerson semi-watertube boilers used by the New Haven and the B&O respectively were also largely stayless, as were similar designs used by a number of railways. Did all fireboxes, boilers undergo this test? >shows a loco boiler fitted with a Jacobs-Schupert firebox under test. > >The McClellan and Emerson semi-watertube boilers used by the New Haven >and the B&O respectively were also largely stayless, as were similar >designs used by a number of railways. > Did all fireboxes, boilers undergo this test? Not this specific test, no. The photo was taken during a comparative test between a conventional radial-stay firebox boiler and the Jacobs-Schupert type. Both were deliberately fired until the water level dropped well below the level of the crown sheet. The radial-stay boiler exploded when the crown sheet collapsed, whereas the Jacobs-Schupert boiler simply ran out of sufficient water to maintain steam. The normal testing procedure for locomotive boilers - in Australia at any rate - is to conduct a hydrostatic test, where the boiler is completely filled with warm water, and then pressurised using a test pump. Any faults will reveal themselves as leaks or fountains(!), but if there <is> a catastrophic failure the worst that will happen is that the boiler inspector and his offsider will get wet. Only after a successful hydro has been completed is the boiler tested under steam. Sweet thanks for the info :) >> Did all fireboxes, boilers undergo this test? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Only after a successful hydro has been completed is the boiler tested >under steam. > On 5/24/04 6:25 PM, in article 10b5167j7l0554@corp.supernews.com, "Jon > Miller" <atsf@inow.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/atsf3000.jpg Wow..are you sure that's not just the result of someone playing around in Photoshop. What a beast..I know nothing of these engines, but was it even able to go around a curve with a radius less than ..say..the entire state of Wyoming? Dave > Wow..are you sure that's not just the result of someone playing > around in Photoshop. What a beast..I know nothing of these engines, > but was it even able to go around a curve with a radius less than > ..say..the entire state of Wyoming? They're real enough. And they could negotiate reasonably tight curves - the boiler is flexible/jointed! April 1 again? I dont see how a metal pressure vessel could be flexable without losing strength. and for that matter could flex that much. >the boiler is flexible/jointed! > April 1 again? > > I dont see how a metal pressure vessel could be flexable without > losing strength. and for that matter could flex that much. No, not April 1. The front section of the boiler contained a feedwater heater, a high-pressure superheater, and a low-pressure steam reheater. It was not an integral, steam-producing part of the original rear boiler. Bear in mind that these locos were conversions of existing 2-10-2s with the additional bits built by Baldwin. The pre-WW1 ATSF Mallets all had jointed and/or flexible boilers of varying types. I will refer to a few books and check that these 2-10-10-2s did in fact have such boilers, and not merely what were described as "separable" boilers. Nope, it was actually tried, and on the AT&SF on at least two locomotives of differing types, but NOT on the 2-10+10-2's. See my earlier post. It worked, sort of, but had many, mostly fundamental, problems; and was a bad idea in practice. High pressure flexible joints of that size, subjected to the vibration, constant motion, corrosion, and dirt of a railroad locomotive just could not be kept tight. Once the folly of the basic idea was apparent, the detail problems were not worth the effort to correct. Besides, the far simpler conventional Mallet worked far better. It too had troublesome flexible steam connections, but they were MUCH smaller and easier to deal with. Dan Mitchell ========== > April 1 again? > > I dont see how a metal pressure vessel could be flexable without > losing strength. and for that matter could flex that much. > > >the boiler is flexible/jointed! > > Wow..are you sure that's not just the result of someone playing > > around in Photoshop. What a beast..I know nothing of these engines, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They're real enough. And they could negotiate reasonably tight curves - > the boiler is flexible/jointed! Scrub round that! - the 2-10-10-2s had Baldwin Separable boilers. There IS a joint between the two parts of the boiler, but it is nominally rigid. Hi Mark: I'm not any expert on the AT&SF, but I am somewhat familiar with these locos, and I do NOT believe they had flexible boilers. The boiler IS in two sections, with a central intermediate smoke box. The joint is quite visible. Each 'boiler' section has more-or-less conventional flues. The rear section serves as a normal boiler, while the front serves as a sort of huge feedwater heater. This was a hair-brained scheme tried by several railroads, but usually on smaller, locomotives The first GN 2-6+8-0 was of this type. It was a bad idea in practice, and such locos were normally broken up into two smaller locos once their problems became apparent. This is true of the AT&SF locos. The AT&Sf DID have two 'flexible' boilered articulateds, both smaller. IIRC, these were intended for passenger service, and were rather high-driverd locos for Mallets. One had a ball and socket type joint in the middle of the boiler, and the other had a bellows arrangement. Both were failures. The ball and socket leaked, and the bellows packed full of cinders and wouldn't flex. But the 2-10+10-2's had rigid boilers, like most Mallets. Dan Mitchell ========== > > Wow..are you sure that's not just the result of someone playing > > around in Photoshop. What a beast..I know nothing of these engines, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They're real enough. And they could negotiate reasonably tight curves - > the boiler is flexible/jointed! > Hi Mark: > I'm not any expert on the AT&SF, but I am somewhat familiar with these > locos, and I do NOT believe they had flexible boilers. No, they didn't. I was bit quick off the mark in replying, I should have checked my battered copy of Worley's "Iron Horses Of The Santa Fe Trail" first. :-( > The boiler IS in two sections, with a central intermediate smoke box. > The joint is quite visible. Each 'boiler' section has more-or-less > conventional flues. The rear section serves as a normal boiler, while [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > were failures. The ball and socket leaked, and the bellows packed full > of cinders and wouldn't flex. Extraordinary! I can well imagine how the roundhouse and backshop crews would have reacted to them. Worley lists 11 ATSF locos with flexible boilers - surely two would have been more than enough! Cheers, Mark. I was aware of the two TYPES, but if there were 11 of them, there were probably a few of each type. Bad ideas, all. They would likely make NEAT models, though. I'm not aware that either type has been made in HO brass. The 2-10+10-2's were made by Westside a number of years back ... WILD model. I've seen several of these. They look like a broomstick on wheels, LONG and skinny. It needs a 36" or larger radius curve. I have model of one of the VGN's AE 2-10+10-2's, and it's a lot 'fatter', but not quite so long. Unlike the AT&SF engines, these were quite successful for the limited purpose they were bought for. Dan Mitchell ========== > > Hi Mark: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Mark. >I have model of one of the VGN's AE 2-10+10-2's, and it's a lot >'fatter', but not quite so long. Unlike the AT&SF engines, these were >quite successful for the limited purpose they were bought for. I think that they were the most powerful steam locomotives ever operated in the Americas. Captain Handbrake Depends on what you mean by 'powerful'! Power is the RATE of doing WORK. The AE's could surely do work, but they were too slow to produce a lot of power. The VGN AE's had the greatest tractive effort of any steam loco except the four Triplexes (1 VGN, 3 Erie). In POWER, however, meaning horsepower, they were nowhere close to several of the later locomotives like the Challengers, Big Boys, or Alleghenies, or the rigid-framed PRR Q2. Power is mainly determined by the firebox, and the AE's (and more so, the Triplexes) had relatively small fireboxes. This was typical of most locomotives of their day. Still, the AE was a big improvement over the earlier Triplex in this regard. Let's not restart the 'biggest' steam loco fracas again ... at least for a while. Dan Mitchell ========== Captain, Handbrake@Atlantic, Coast, Line.com wrote: > >I have model of one of the VGN's AE 2-10+10-2's, and it's a lot > >'fatter', but not quite so long. Unlike the AT&SF engines, these were [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > Captain Handbrake >Depends on what you mean by 'powerful'! Power is the RATE of doing WORK. >The AE's could surely do work, but they were too slow to produce a lot >of power. > >The VGN AE's had the greatest tractive effort of any steam loco except >the four Triplexes (1 VGN, 3 Erie). Yeahbbut the triplexes were not successful. They could not produce steam sufficient to maintain steady service. What I meant was in the tractive effort, or train pulling area. True, the Virginian did not run fast, but they used a single AE to pull trains of weights that required five or six SD-45s to pull, albeit the SD-45s DID run at a higher speed. Even so a single SD-45 could not possibly do the job even with 65/12 gearing, which would put it at about 30 MPH top speed. It would still require at least two of them to haul a 15,000 ton train over identical terrain at a fast walk. Which is about the speed the AEs operated from what I hear<G> At ten MPH average speed that's only a day and a half from Deepwater to Lambert's Point. Coal doesn't spoil. Captain Handbrake It's certainly true that a single SD45 is not anywhere near the equal of a VGN AE in tractive effort. It probably has similar horsepower, however. The problem is USING the power at the slow speeds needed for a coal train, especially in the W.W.I time frame. The last of the big steamers, Alleghenies, and the PRR Q2 were getting VERY close to 8000 hp. That's two and a half SD45's in 'power' terms. Such steamers were also VERY heavy, and that translated to a lot of tractive effort, though the VGN AE and several other locos could best them at pure 'TE'. The VGN AE, with it's small firebox, did NOT produce 'power' in that league. I don't have the actual figures, but it was likely in the 3000-4000 hp. range, somewhat comparable to a single SD45. That was LOT of power in it's day, but no longer. The nature of a steam loco, however, is that it's power increases more-or-less linearly with speed (until the boiler reaches it's limit). Power wise, they're pretty poor at speeds below their designed 'cruising' speed. Designers compensated for this with appropriate choice of driver diameter (to select the necessary 'cruising' speed). Engines needing high speed had big drivers ... but VERY poor performance at low speeds. Engines needing a lot of low speed power got small drivers (like the AE) ... with no substantial ability to move at higher speeds. Thus steam locos were highly specialized, and not very versatile ... one of their biggest problems. A Diesel can produce what power it has over a much wider speed range, allowing it to be far more 'flexible' in usage. Dan Mitchell ========== Captain, Handbrake@Atlantic, Coast, Line.com wrote: > >Depends on what you mean by 'powerful'! Power is the RATE of doing WORK. > >The AE's could surely do work, but they were too slow to produce a lot [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > Captain Handbrake Thanks for a very informative post. SignatureJim McLaughlin Please don't just hit the reply key. Remove the obvious from the address to reply. *************************************************************************** >Which is about the speed the AEs operated from what I hear<G> >At ten MPH average speed that's only a day and a half from Deepwater to Lambert's >Point. Coal doesn't spoil. Sewell's Point. Lambert's Point was the N&W terminal. David Thompson, and the AEs only ran to Norfolk on a few test trains in the early 1920s... "Shiva, you have always been my best general. Can you stop them?" "No. But I will try." Exosquad- 'Fall of the NeoSapien Empire, Part 5: Abandon Hope' > I was aware of the two TYPES, but if there were 11 of them, there were > probably a few of each type. Bad ideas, all. They would likely make NEAT > models, though. I'm not aware that either type has been made in HO > brass. The 2-10+10-2's were made by Westside a number of years back ... > WILD model. I've seen several of these. They look like a broomstick on > wheels, LONG and skinny. It needs a 36" or larger radius curve. It's quite impressive to watch all of those drivers churning 'round and 'round. I set up some flex track on a sheet of plywood to determine the minimum radius to use on my layout in order to accommodate this engine. I came up with 89 cm (about 35") with a parallel track separation of 5 cm to avoid sideswiping. I'm having fits trying to plan a layout to accommodate those broad curves in my narrow layout room though. SignatureRick Jones Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me The Lake Erie & Oregon Railroad http://www.geocities.com/seventysixinchesoffun/ The Pill stops inflation. >> I was aware of the two TYPES, but if there were 11 of them, there were >> probably a few of each type. Bad ideas, all. They would likely make NEAT [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >separation of 5 cm to avoid sideswiping. I'm having fits trying to plan >a layout to accommodate those broad curves in my narrow layout room though. Those "broad" curves are approximately equivalent to 23 degree curves, sharp for an industrial switcher and near the limit of a GP9 not coupled. Such a curve would be found in a tightly restricted industrial switching area, never on a mainline of a major railroad. A 79" radius curve would be approximately equivalent to a 10 degree curve on the prototype, which is typically considered sharp and usually restricted to speeds in the 30 MPH region. Such are the limits of our modeling. In actual practice, 35" radius curves work pretty good on a model railroad. Captain Handbrake I can believe that easily enough! My VGN AE runs quite happily on similar curves, with a bit less overhang. The club layout I normally run it on is double tracked, with 38" and 40" (inside and outside) curves. The loco will run fine on the inner track, but sideswipes trains (especially any long cars) on the outer track, so it, and other (properly) articulated steam, can only be operated on the outer track (they swing 'out'). Long cars are similarly confined to the inner track (they swing 'in'). We built the club modules with 2" track centers, as per the published module 'standards' we worked to back in the 1980's, and in retrospect it was a BAD decision. Most of our home layouts had curves far tighter than 30", so the 38" & 40" curves seemed really generous to us at the time. NOT SO! I'd now recommend at least 2.5" track centers even at THAT radius. Otherwise, the track is excellent, it's nearly all hand-laid and looks and runs GREAT, so we have no plans at this time to tear it up and relay it. We just have to be a little careful of what we run where ... real railroads have to do the same. Dan Mitchell ========== > > I was aware of the two TYPES, but if there were 11 of them, there were > > probably a few of each type. Bad ideas, all. They would likely make NEAT [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > The Pill stops inflation. > We built the club modules with 2" track centers, as per the published > module 'standards' we worked to back in the 1980's, and in > retrospect it was a BAD decision. Most of our home layouts had curves > far tighter than 30", so the 38" & 40" curves seemed really generous > to us at the time. NOT SO! I'd now recommend at least 2.5" track > centers even at THAT radius. Dan, it's interesting to read that you have used 2" track centres. As I have never modelled double track, and only have loops/sidings on relatively straight track - 84" radius or better - I have laid my track centres at the typical US prototype distance of 13 (scale) feet, or approximately 1 3/4". Some industrial sidings were laid at 12 scale foot centres. Anybody else done similar? QUIT If 1 3/4" track centers are scale, than the 2" we use is generous for straight track or prototype curves. Even the 40" radius curves we use on the club modular layout are VERY 'tight' for a protoype curve. So, the 2" track separation (center to center) is quite inadequate. That is what was published for the HO module standards at the time (NMRA proposal, an outgrowth of N-Track standards, before the standards were adopted). A number of other HO modular groups in our area also built to these standards, and have similar problems. We SHOULD have done some testing before we laid the track. We ASSUMED (wrong) that the published standards would be sufficient. None of us had any prior experience with curves as large as 40", as most of our member's home layouts use 18" to 24" radius curves. The 40" seemed REALLY generous at the time. Hindsightis better than foresight! :-( Still, it's NOT a 'disaster', or we'd correct the problem. It's just an annoyance, and some minor planning is needed to avoid sideswipes. We've learned to live with it. On the plus side, the close track centers LOOK good! Dan Mitchell ========== > > We built the club modules with 2" track centers, as per the published > > module 'standards' we worked to back in the 1980's, and in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > QUIT On Wed, 26 May 2004 16:39:35 UTC, Mark Newton <mark_newtonNOSPAM@optusnet.com.au> wrote: 2000 > Dan, it's interesting to read that you have used 2" track centres. As I > have never modelled double track, and only have loops/sidings on > relatively straight track - 84" radius or better - I have laid my track > centres at the typical US prototype distance of 13 (scale) feet, or > approximately 1 3/4". Some industrial sidings were laid at 12 scale foot > centres. Anybody else done similar? Mark, The 2" figure is commonly used in the U.S. except on tight curves. It is about the smallest separation that allows normal fingers to reach down to rerail a car. Signatureernie fisch > The 2" figure is commonly used in the U.S. except on tight curves. It > is about the smallest separation that allows normal fingers to reach > down to rerail a car. That makes sense - although I suppose the ideal situation would be to not have derailments in the first place :-) > On Wed, 26 May 2004 16:39:35 UTC, Mark Newton > <mark_newtonNOSPAM@optusnet.com.au> wrote: 2000 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > is about the smallest separation that allows normal fingers to reach > down to rerail a car. The prototype doesn't use huge fingers to rerail rolling stock! I use scale track spacing in sidings as I already horribly foreshorten trackwork and widening spacings makes turnout formations look even less prototypical. Regards, Greg.P. >I use scale track spacing in sidings as I already horribly foreshorten >trackwork and widening spacings makes turnout formations look even less >prototypical. > >Regards, >Greg P. I also think the 2" rule is somewhat wide. I am using the 2-1/16" in my yard, but on the mainline I'm looking at the prototypical distance, whatever that is. I'll be checking on that at northshoreline.com message board. The line was engineered to steam road standards of the time, so it's probably on the order of 12-13 feet. Jay The Canada Goose is living proof that birds have cross-bred with cattle and rats. > >I use scale track spacing in sidings as I already horribly foreshorten > >trackwork and widening spacings makes turnout formations look even less [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The Canada Goose is living proof that birds have cross-bred with cattle and > rats. It depends on your prototype and minimum radius. 2 1/2" is needed for large US locomotives on sharp curves. My web page has a graph for HO track centres, NSW prototype. This would be OK for most European prototypes. I used the a NSWR formula, included the extra for super elevation and a small amount for model clearance between track and wheels. SignatureTerry Flynn For HO scale track standards go to http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates > We built the club modules with 2" track centers, as per the published > module 'standards' we worked to back in the 1980's, and in > retrospect it was a BAD decision. Most of our home layouts had curves > far tighter than 30", so the 38" & 40" curves seemed really generous > to us at the time. NOT SO! I'd now recommend at least 2.5" track > centers even at THAT radius. Dan, it's interesting to read that you have used 2" track centres. As I have never modelled double track, and only have loops/sidings on relatively straight track - 84" radius or better - I have laid my track centres at the typical US prototype distance of 13 (scale) feet, or approximately 1 3/4". Some industrial sidings were laid at 12 scale foot centres. Anybody else done similar? > We built the club modules with 2" track centers, as per the published > module 'standards' we worked to back in the 1980's, and in > retrospect it was a BAD decision. Most of our home layouts had curves > far tighter than 30", so the 38" & 40" curves seemed really generous > to us at the time. NOT SO! I'd now recommend at least 2.5" track > centers even at THAT radius. Dan, it's interesting to read that you have used 2" track centres. As I have never modelled double track, and only have loops/sidings on relatively straight track - 84" radius or better - I have laid my track centres at the typical US prototype distance of 13 (scale) feet, or approximately 1 3/4". Some industrial sidings were laid at 12 scale foot centres. Anybody else done similar? > We built the club modules with 2" track centers, as per the published > module 'standards' we worked to back in the 1980's, and in > retrospect it was a BAD decision. Most of our home layouts had curves > far tighter than 30", so the 38" & 40" curves seemed really generous > to us at the time. NOT SO! I'd now recommend at least 2.5" track > centers even at THAT radius. Dan, it's interesting to read that you have used 2" track centres. As I have never modelled double track, and only have loops/sidings on relatively straight track - 84" radius or better - I have laid my track centres at the typical US prototype distance of 13 (scale) feet, or approximately 1 3/4". Some industrial sidings were laid at 12 scale foot centres. Anybody else done similar? > I can believe that easily enough! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > operated on the outer track (they swing 'out'). Long cars are similarly > confined to the inner track (they swing 'in'). I know that this sounds silly, but don't they ever turn the other way? Otherwise, they would simply be going round a big loop. dlm That's correct. The modular display layout in question IS just a big oval loop, 12 ft. X 20 ft., with double track main and a somewhat less perfectly oval winding inner branch line with about a 20" radius curve. So, overhangs are alwasy in the SAME direction. Dan Mitchell ========== > > I can believe that easily enough! > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > dlm > It's quite impressive to watch all of those drivers churning 'round > and 'round. I set up some flex track on a sheet of plywood to determine > the minimum radius to use on my layout in order to accommodate this > engine. I came up with 89 cm (about 35") with a parallel track > separation of 5 cm to avoid sideswiping. I'm having fits trying to plan > a layout to accommodate those broad curves in my narrow layout room though. Oops! My goof. My minimum radii for double track mainline track curves will be 89 cm for the inside curve and 95 cm for the outside track - 6 cm of separation. I figure I can close it up to 5 cm separation (about 2") on tangent tracks. SignatureRick Jones Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me The Lake Erie & Oregon Railroad http://www.geocities.com/seventysixinchesoffun/ If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple car payments. As others have noted, the ATSF 2-10-10-2s were not very successful and were rebuilt into 2-10-2s. But for the record, recall that the Virginian also had 10 class AE 2-10-10-2s (built as such by ALCo in 1918) that were even larger than the ATSF monsters (engine wt. 684,000 lb vs. 616,000 lb), and were much more successful - most lasted 30 years in service before being cut up and one was still around until 1958! But they were slow. There's a story in the Reid VGN book that a man cold walk faster than a train pulled by an AE on some sections of the line, and that supposedly, a head-end brakeman could jump off the loco, have a "date" with a waiting girl friend, hop onto the caboose as it passed, and climb forward over the coal loads back to the loco. Gary Q > Wow..are you sure that's not just the result of someone playing around > in Photoshop. What a beast..I know nothing of these engines, but was > it even able to go around a curve with a radius less than ..say..the > entire state of Wyoming? > Dave > As others have noted, the ATSF 2-10-10-2s were not very successful > and were rebuilt into 2-10-2s. But for the record, recall that the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lasted 30 years in service before being cut up and one was still > around until 1958! The important difference being the VGN engines could steam well enough to keep the HP cylinders fed. Did they have an intercepting valve - could they be started in simple? That'd run 'em out of puff very quickly! > But they were slow. There's a story in the Reid VGN book that a man > cold walk faster than a train pulled by an AE on some sections of the > line, and that supposedly, a head-end brakeman could jump off the > loco, have a "date" with a waiting girl friend, hop onto the caboose > as it passed, and climb forward over the coal loads back to the loco. LOL! Although, that might say more about the speed of the brakie than the speed of the loco... >>On 5/24/04 6:25 PM, in article 10b5167j7l0554@corp.supernews.com, "Jon >>Miller" <atsf@inow.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > it even able to go around a curve with a radius less than ..say..the > entire state of Wyoming? They existed. I have a brass model of one that was imported by Westside Model Co. in the latter '70s. It was the test engine to determine how small of a mainline minimum radius and separation on curves I could use for the layout I'm planning. SignatureRick Jones Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me The Lake Erie & Oregon Railroad http://www.geocities.com/seventysixinchesoffun/ Health nuts are going to feel stupid some day, lying in hospitals dying of nothing. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.