The End of Brass?

Not counting the gas/electric, that is one out of six.. all of which are represented in brass.

While I agree with your general premise that LOTS of steam locos were similar, I think you also overstate your case.

VERY few steam locos were nearly identical. Even brand new ones of the same class, in the same order, right from the builder. You can find difference in piping layout, etc., dependent on the individual pipefitter that ran the lines. This was NOT highly standardized, as long as the result worked. Ni-picking, yes, but some care about such things. A little of the same exists today in the latest Diesels (and autos), There's still some hand fitting and minor modifications from one unit to the next. A lot less than in steam days, though, as Diesel manufacturing is more of a 'production' process than steam ever was.

Next turn the locos loose on their owner's railroad and each soon gets modified most every time it's shopped. Pipes get moved, applicances changed or moved, cab styles get modified, tender swapped, etc. Many steam and some Diesel locos got wholesale rebuilds and a whole new 'company' look ... as happened to many (most?) of the USRA designs. Sometimes it's even more extensive, as when 2-6+-6-2's and 2-6+8-0's turn into 2-8-2's. or a 2-8+8+8-4 becomes two locos, a 2-8+8-0 and a

2-8-2. Or a standard gauge 2-8-0 even turns into a narrow gauge 2-8-2. And many more. Again, this is less so today, as much Diesel servicing is now handled by manufacturer's representatives, and locos stay more 'stock' than they used to. But even the maufacturer's make continual changes, some quite visible.

Perhaps there was less 'individualism' on some foreign (the the USA) railroads, but I doubt it was non existent; and in this thread we're talking mainly USA practice anyway.

So very few steam models can accurately represent more than ONE specific prototype loco, and that only on some specific date.

How close is 'good enough' depends on they buyer/builder/ operator's personal preference. Obviously MANY find 'generic' loco models, even USRA designs, sadly lacking in specific details. Sure, it's often easy to modify the models to far better represent a specific prototype, but FEW are willing or able to do so. Fewer willing than able. People are lazy, or just don't have the time. Few inherently don't have, or couldn't learn, the skills needed. MANY just don't have the inclination to do so (a larger 'camp' all the time it seems, with the trend to more RTR models). But they still want an accurate model.

THAT'S where brass comes in ... for those that can afford it. And for the 'collectors', and the 'speculators', who want or deal in brass as more of an art object than a model. Many current brass steam does represent ONE particular locomotive ... with 'runs' often on the order of 25 items. Perhaps the builder/importer offers several different variations at the same time ... so the fundamental model is made in a run of perhaps a hundred, with three to five specific variations offered.

Also true that much EARLY brass was, and is, inferior to the newer plastic models. Some was downright crude (even at the time it came out). Some ran like coffee grinders .. a few didn't run at all. And many of these were every bit as 'generic' as the current plastic models. A few brass locos had NO specific prototypes, just like most plastic and diecast models of the period. But most brass models have some prototype. Rivarossi was the first to offer a series of 'plastic' locos that represented some specific prototypes. Today we have fine running, reasonably accurate, and beautifully detailed plastic steam and Diesel models. However, especially for the steam models, these can only very roughly represent a fraction of any big road's roster of prototype locos.

For those who can and choose to do even minor modifications, the possibilities expand enormously. Even then, however, you can only come even close to a small fraction of the steam power that was used on USA roads. Extensive modification that few have the skills to perform is needed to do better.

The variety of brass steam models already released exceeds those of (good) plastic steam by more than a factor of 100. This may narrow, but won't go away anytime soon, and current brass is getting better, and FAR more specific than it used to be (and far more expensive as well).

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

Mark Newt>

What about the Great Northern?

Actually, a LOT of railroads had a few, or even a whole class, of Belpaire boilered locos. Many foreign roads (the the USA) also had them. In the USA, of the big roads, only PRR and GN had huge fleets of them. And, even both of those roads had LOTS of locos with conventional "radial stayed' fireboxes. It is often conceded that the Belpaire firebox is slightly better, but more expensive to build and maintain. Both PRR and GN had more extensive shops than most roads, and could better provide the higher maintenance needed. Both roads also built substantial numbers of their own locos. That MAY explain their use of so many of these types.

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

OLDFARHT wrote:

The exact shape of the Belapire firebox, especially as regards the jackets covering it, varied widely. Even on the PRR and the GN. Some locos, or whole classes, had flat topped fireboxes, some had tapered, some had sharp corners, or more rounded. In general, VERY general, the GN's fireboxes were more flat topped than those of the PRR, but many exceptions can be found for both.

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

"Christ>

Dan:

Please use the American notation for American steam, Robert LaMessina notwithstanding. The European notation may be more descriptive but it is historcally incorrect for describing American locos.

John Glaab

John:

Sorry, but I use what I prefer. YMMV. The notation I use conveys substantially more information, and significant information for those that can interpret it, and I prefer it, as I've stated many times here. I will continue to use it

Those who don't care for the notation I use can either easily translate the "+" signs' as "-" signs, and arrive at the more common (and more ambiguous) notation, or ignore the posts altogether. Their choice.

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

PEACHCREEK wrote:

Dan:

You have every right to be historically incorrect. The rest of use will just smile :>)

John:

I see it as a technical issue ... as for history, I really don't care how long others have been technically incorrect! :>)

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

PEACHCREEK wrote:

Right on.

2-6+6-2 is, IM(Not humble)O, a better system of notation.

-- Cheers Roger T.

of the Great Eastern Railway

The "+" is normally used to indicate a pair of locomotives permanently coupled together. eg a pair of 2-6-0 steam locomotives coupled cab to cab or an early Electric where the transformer might be in one half and the control equipment in the second. The German E91 (later Class 191) is an example. (normally refered to as a 1'C+C 1' in German notation)

Regards, Greg.P.

Once more, for those who care or are just curious.

Actually the "+" implies an articulated joint in the FRAME of the loco, and arranged such that it takes the pulling forces of the locomotive. It also usually implies that the two connected parts of the loco are equalized (or compensated) together, sharing loco weight. It is far more descriptive of how a locomotive is configured than just using the common "-" sign to divide the wheels into groups.

For example, the VGN Triplex loco is sometimes (poorly) listed as a

2-8-8-8-4. This could be interpreted to be a 2-8-8-0 with a 0-8-4 engine under the tender. I suspect this is what many consider these locos to be ... and that interpretation is totally wrong.

Actually, the VGN loco is a 2-8+8+8-4. This makes clear that the apparent "tender" is really a PART of the main locomotive. they share a common articulated frame. Actually, the loco has NO tender ... it's a huge articulated tank loco. I suppose more properly it should be called a 2-8+8+8-4T. In this notation, the (incorrect) assumption listed above would be a 2-8+8-8-4. You can even add parentheses to make such groupings more obvious, like: (2-8+8-0)-(0-8-4). NOT!, BIG difference.

And consider the Southern Ry. "Tractors'. IIRC (I'm NOT any kind of expert on the Southern) they were something like 2-8-2-4-6-0 (two different variants, IIRC). In the simpler system you can't tell WHAT they are, or how the frame or driving wheels are divided up. If you use the convention I prefer, the description stays the SAME, but now you KNOW that there are NO articulated joints. The loco is not a proper articulated, but just two coupled engines. If you choose to add parentheses such a loco becomes: (2-8-2)-(4-6-0). Now it's obvious that you have two separate conventional engines permanently coupled but not articulated.

With common locos it's not too confusing to use the simpler notation, but there were some outlandish complicated steam and electric locos made, with very strange non-obvious articulation, and the simpler notation will give you a VERY incorrect interpretation of how they were assembled or driven.

I prefer the more complicated and informative notation, and that's what I'll normally use. Everyone else use whatever YOU prefer. Mostly, we'll still understand each other.

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

Gregory Procter wrote:

Dan is right - and he's not using European notation. The + simply shows the point of articulation. Even in America.

In European notation a Pacific would be a 2C1. Americans use a subset of this for diesels, eg C-C although a European might say...

C-C if each 6-wheeled truck has the drive connected eg by side rods or a hydraulic drive

Co-Co if each axle on a 6-wheel truck is independantly driven eg by separate electric motors

A1A-A1A if the outer axles of 6-wheel truck are powered and the central one is not, like on the EMD E-units.

Some years ago, the Trains editor, change the notation system from the American system th othe European system eg. - to +.

Much ink was spilled with people ranting about the change. No doubt that the European system is nore descriptive, albiet "foreign" to American railroaders .

As soon as David Morgan retired , Trains changed back to the American system. Why? My guess is that the new management didn't want to offend the readers who knew the American system from their first experience with steam.

Is the European system more informative? Yep. Fact is I don't need the extra info. I've been around long enough to know where an articulated bends.

John Glaab

The Mallet-type isn't the only articulated.

I don't quite follow your reasoning on the VGN Triplex (also applies to the Erie version), or Mallets in general. Articulated joints (on steam, and often electric and large Diesel power) usually carry and transfer weight as well as pulling forces. Thus they're a part of the loco's suspension. Often they're a form of only semi rotating U-joint, and look rather like a ball and socket. Simpler versions are just a 'tongue and groove' arrangement with an internal drawpin. In both versions, vertical travel is VERY limited, if allowed at all. Thus any vertical motion of one frame section transfers that motion, and the resulting loading, to the adjoining frame section.

The front portion of the triplex loco is a more-or-less conventional Mallet steam loco, so it most certainly does warrant a "+" sign between the first two sets of drivers. On the Triplex there's also an articulated joint between the 'loco' and 'tender' portions ... NOT merely a drawbar (which carries no suspension loads) as on most locos. The loco had a three piece articulated frame. That's why it had NO tender. Thus it's a 2-8+8+8-4 as stated.

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

Gregory Procter wrote:

The difference in appearance is for the most part accounted for by the design and construction methods favoured by the Pennsy, which differ somewhat from those used by other roads - no surprise there. :-)

Christopher is, I imagine, more familar with the typical UK/European style Bepaire firebox where the outer wrapper and side sheets are made in one piece, and the wrapper and firebox crown sheet both are almost flat - they do have a small degree of set, but this is not readily apparent to the casual observer. The radius at the corners is relatively small.

The Pennsy and the railroad trade journals of the time alike described the PRR designs as a modified Belpaire type. In this case the wrapper and sidesheets were typically separate, with the seam below the radius of the wrapper plate, which is larger by comparison with other Belpaire designs. Both wrapper and crown sheet have a large radius set, as opposed to being nearly flat. The layout of the crown stays is slightly radial, as opposed to the parallel layout of a more typical Belpaire firebox. The combustion chamber was relatively lengthy, and projected well forward of the firebox sidesheets.

I am not familiar with the details of GN Belpaire boilers, but I will hazard a guess and say that they were probably more like the typical UK/European design, judging fromn the limited photgraphic references I have to hand.

As an aside, I wish rail book authors and publishers would include more photographs of steam locomotives being built, or maintained, than they currently do. I find these far more interesting than endless posed 3/4 views, or runbys.

All the best,

Mark.

Did you mean to write this? I ask because a Wooten firebox is a very specific design intended to burn culm - anthracite waste - and is quite unlike anything Bulleid or Stanier used. I reckon they would be seriously out of gauge on the Southern!

Perhaps you are referring to the difference between a narrow, between-the-frames, firebox, and a wide firebox on an engine with a trailing axle, as per your three examples?

An interesting description, because in a sense the PRR Belpaire fireboxes were a hybrid of radial stay and Belpaire firebox design.

Cheers,

Mark.

Thinking was all I was doing - didn't bother to check any books when I wrote the above. :-)

Regards, Greg.P.

In general terms on Mallet locos, the weight is transfered to the front movable frame by a bearing pad around the centre of the engine. (the engine being the front moving frame) The articulation point is at the rear of that frame immediately in front of the rear pair of cylinders. Using that hinge/ball joint to transfer (boiler) weight to the front frame would load the rearmost of the front engine's axles unevenly with track undulations. The same would apply to the "loco/tender" connection on the triplex.

I was wrong on the "+" in US Whyte terminology. In my favour, I'm used to British and New Zealand Whyte terminology plus German and French so I tryed to apply logic. (Duhh)

I accept your point, but question why there would be any weight transfer between the "loco" and "tender" sections. (out of interest rather than arguement)

Regards, Greg.P.