An open letter to Model Railroader about the BL niagara

Well, I mentioned I was only judging by aesthetics this time. Even the enemies of this design would have to admit it did well considering all the innovations put in, and the class had a decent service life. Aesthetically speaking...ugh. As for the difference in terms, well, if I stop calling the Merchant Navy class streamlined then I will have to drop the Canadian Pacific's locomotives too.

Not too many, but the C&NW 400 was scheduled at 6:15 for about that distance. And it does feel unfair to criticize such an excellent class of engines, but as I said I am only going on aesthetics for this list...

Just like some of the NYC's pre-Dreyfus designs which have been, mercifully, almost forgotten.

Cordially yours, Gerard P.

snipped-for-privacy@bigfoot.com wrote: Other than the USRA mikes the Central had which made up a

NYCfan:

You know, you could build a fairly credible H-5 if you bashed Bowser's K-11 Pacific superstructure with their USRA Mikado mechanism. Should pull like a...locomotive...too. Some details are different, of course, but the hard work would be done.

Cordially yours, Gerard P.

Actually, the MILW Hiawathas and the CB&Q Zephyrs (diesels) had similar schedules from Chicago to the Twin Cities.

Probably not the stack at all, but a streamlined fairing surrounding it instead.

Except for the 'revised' Central Valley truck review. Killed that product stone dead.

"Wow, Eric, it's just terrible that BLI and other manufacturers ignore those of you who model Central in October 1938. What gall! I mean, the good will they are foregoing, and huge profits they are missing! There must be, lessee, two of you? Three, maybe?

No they're ignoring everyone who models the Central between 1912 and

1957. That's fourty five years, nearly a half century, in the case of the H-5. Duh dumbass.

"And oh, you sure gave it to those misguided souls who aren't model railroaders, but dare to act as if they were - I mean, how can anyone who doesn't model a specific railroad in a specific month and year have the affrontery to class him or herself with the likes of you?

The elephant ears and stack fairing were later additions in the short life of the seven Wabash P-1 class Hudsons (converted from Mikado boilers, built in the Decatur shops) - here's an as built shot:

It may hold a record for a one-off speed dash, but North America holds the world's record for the fastest regularly scheduled steam-powered trains. North American locomotives that probably could have exceeded 126 mph include the Chicago & North Western's Hudson 4-6-4s, the New York Central's Niagara 4-8-4, the Pennsylvania Railroad's T1 and the S1 prototype (which is rumoured to have exceeded

140 mph*), the Santa Fe's 2900 class Northerns 4-8-4s, and the Milwaukee Road's A class 4-4-2 Atlantics and F7 4-6-4 Baltics. The Milwaukee Road had the fastest scheduled steam-powered passenger trains in the world. Both it and the Chicago & North Western had timetables requiring running in excess of 100 mph; it is known that both railroads' locomotives frequently exceeded 120 mph.

C&NW 400's, Burlington's Zephyrs, and Milwaukee Road's Hiawathas come to mind in a flash. Not only did they do it in under 8 hours, but they did it while making stops It is 392.7 miles from London to Edinburgh,

8 hours 15 minutes averages 47.6 MPH with no stops It is 422.4 miles from Chicago to Minneapolis. 7 hours averages 60.34 MPH allowing for seven stops. North America wins again. The big Milwaukee Road Baltics did this run day in and day out for years with 500 ton trains. Seven hours by timetable and with seven scheduled stops. How fast could they have run the trip with an auxiliary water car and no stops? Who knows, four and a half hours perhaps? The big Milwaukee class 4-4-2s regularly made the run in 6-1/2 hours albeit with slightly fewer cars. The Baltics, pulling a much longer and heavier train usually took about ten minutes longer; from between 6-1/2 hours to 6 hours 40 minutes.

• Pennsylvania's S1 may indeed have exceeded 140 MPH, but it was not a reciprocating type steam locomotive as were all the others. Froggy,

And Nickel Plate Berkshires regularly trundled _freight_ (long strings of reefers, mostly, and none of those wimpy little 4 wheeled "good wagons") at better than 50 mph from Chicago to Buffalo, all steam up through 1957; I saw (and heard - wow!) a double header swing up the curving grade along the Maumee onto the high line just north of downtown Ft Wayne in 1958.

Nothing like it! (Although I would have liked to see an Allegheny in action.)

"And what they did was on some of the most visble (read "famous") trains of the era, right?"

Actaually they were bounced off them by diesels fairly quickly.

"Not even in brass? Then I guess you better start learning some scratch building skills, then haven't you? A friend of a friend makes brass steam in bulk for all his friends (he recently built a dozen LNE camelbacks), so it's not like it can't be done (and no, this guy is not retired). It's either that or you have to change your era, location, or road, or accept that you can't have it all."

I don't want it all. I want the basics. Duh!

"Gosh and golly, wow! Who da thunk? On a simular note, just imagine, those DL109's that Proto 1000 made in NH are completely irrelevant to any NH fan that doesn't model 1941 (delivery) to 1959 (scrapped)!"

They were a major part of the NH roster just like they H-5s were a major part the NYCs. That's my point, a manufacturer should be making major locomotive before they make minor ones. And Proto was saavy enough to make them.

"Or those EF-4's that Bachmann made (E33's). Did you know that they are completely irrelevant to any NH fan who models not only before

1963, but any who doesn't model from New Haven to Bay Ridge yard (the extent of the wire)? "

Perhaps they're relevent to Virginian modelers?

"Did you also know that it's darn near impossible to accurately model the Boston to Providence section of the NH's main line from 1956-1968 without FL9's? And yet there still aren't any available...except in brass or resin. Those bastards!"

If there's a resin version then there's a model available. Duh.

consider the IHC hudson to be a model of the I-5 I'd strongly

What part of "very poor rendition" don't you understand? What do you want me to say? That's it's a rolling piece of crap disguised as a steam locomotive model with "New Haven' painted on the sides? I mean, it is a rolling piece of crap, but do I have to come out and say it?"

That you were a complete moron for mentioning it since it's clearly not a model of a NH locomotive.

It's been my experience that few people model the NYC at all (two in my entire club of 60-plus members, and one of them is really a B&M fan who dabbles in NYC). "

Then why is there a NYC modeler yahoo group in addition to the six other NYC groups?

"As far as your "experience" goes, maybe that's only for the NYC or something. Take a look in Model Railroader, and just for the New Haven

alone there's John Pryke's layout (Boston to New Haven), Rick Abramson (New Haven to New York under wire), Bill Aldritch's two layouts (Boston to Providence, then Providence to New Haven), etc. All main line layouts. And how many Tehachapi (sp?) layouts have we all seen? I'd have to say that your "experience" must be remarkably limited to come to the conclusion that "a large majority of people who model large railroads model branchlines or secondary route on which the large mainline power was not found."

The NH's NY to Boston main is short enough to be considered a branchline?

"Wow, who died and made you judge of all that's holy?"

Lots of people, I'm an American.

"These Weaver models were brass, BTW, and IMHO pretty darn accurate for the scale version (the 3-rail had way out of scale wheels). IOW, this was not some tinplate junker that Lionel cranked out. This was a legit NH I-5 model."

Looks great on the bookshelf.

"And since we're on the subject, since apparently you are the judge of just who is a model railroader and who is not, let me ask you a question. My ex-next door neighbor modeled the NH, too. He used to be a towerman on the NH, and he ran his model railroad with switch lists, yard checks, schedules, consist books, tower operators, hand signals, waybills, time tables, Form A's, Form 19's, etc. Everything was by the book, or it didn't happen. The only trick is, his entire model railroad was American Flyer S-gauge tinplate. But it was the most realistically operated layout I've ever seen. So tell me Judge Eric, is my ex-neighbor a model railroader, or just a "toy train collector wanker"?

Neither.

Eric

"It is beginning to look like Eric is trying to dig himself out of a hole Wolf. He's probably realized that he has made a major gaffe and isn't going to get any support from this board. Now he's trying to justify all he said to a non-responsive audience. "

I don't have to dig myself out of anything. Unlike the rest of you all who are busy fellating manufacturers for building crap with limited range and use, I'm speaking out about what a lot of modelers feel; that we need models of the most typical locomotives, not the aberations.

"Hey Eric . . . When you find yourself in a hole, you need to stop digging. Many of us know how you feel, but your approach and attitude leaves much to be desired."

Actually, I need to find a way to pimp out all the manufacturer fellators on RMR to gay biker gang bangs and use the money to get tooling made for H-5s. ;-)

Eric

The PRR S1 most certainly WAS a reciprocating steam engine. A Duplex to be sure, but otherwise conventional, just a really huge 6-4-4-6.

You may be thinking of the PRR S2, which was a 6-8-6 turbine.

Dan Mitchell ============

Most people quit digging when they realize the hole they're in is too deep to climb out of, you seem to be exceptional in continuing to dig deeper.

Most people would also look to see what's available that could be bashed into what they want, then go ahead and do it. With the number of detail castings that are available, there are no excuses.

But it's easier to sit and complain that what you want isn't available, and to ignore the fact that for a manufacturer to make a mistake in judging the market could well put them under.

The decision to make any particular model isn't just on a whim, it's based on what market information tells them will S-E-L-L. The same thing that drives any market, not on the whim of a handfull that want something most others would see as wierd.

There are lots of things I'd like to see good models of, but, they aren't available and won't be. Such is llife, meaning if I want them, I'm going to have to make them. In your case, you're asking for an extremely limited demand item, in what's already a limited market. It ain't gonna happen. Go buy something generic and bash it.

Rich

'Scuse me Dan, Yes, I was thinking of the S2 turbine.

Froggy,

Richard:

He doesn't have to start with a complete generic. I did a little poking around and the Bowser K-11 superstructure on their USRA Mikado frame (with the K-11's trailing truck) would be veeeeery close. I think it might have been missed among the name-calling...

Cordially yours, Gerard P.

snipped-for-privacy@bigfoot.com spake thus:

Well, there you have it, folks; another American Exceptionalist asshole. Have at 'im, Greg Proctor.

D "a Merkin myself, unfortunately" N

I'm not familiar with NYC locos, but then I also have no interest in them. I know Bowser has a lot of models that you'd scratch to find anywhere else, and so far I've been happy with what I've gotten from them. (We'll see how long this lasts, I'm waiting on a USRA Pacific kit now.)

I guess it irks me beccause it hasn't been that long since the time where you scratch built anything that wasn't a "generic", or, "Doesn't fit on any particular road.". Also because in the course of this morning, I've given myself a kick in the slats and I'm almost done assembling the Cary Pittsburg conversion for my second Tyco "General". I'm also in the process of putting a Cary light boiler on an IHC pacific chassis, got the chassis for el-zip. No particular use for it, just wanted to see how much work it would be and it ain't bad. Not bad looking either. NOthing better than a loco with a little weight, helps them to run a lot smoother.

But I ain't sitting around complaining because what I want isn't being built by the manufacturers. If they don't build it, guess I have to. I think it's called being a model builder.

Rich

Thanks, I prefer that version. Keith

The K-11 has a tapered boiler. The H-5 has a straight one.

It takes alot of work to work around that.

Eric

Gerald wrote:

"He doesn't have to start with a complete generic. I did a little poking around and the Bowser K-11 superstructure on their USRA Mikado frame (with the K-11's trailing truck) would be veeeeery close. I think it might have been missed among the name-calling...

"