Con-Cor 2-10-2

[Bob Bufkin]

Just received an e-mail from one of my pusher- er, model suppliers and he stated that Con-Cor is releasing more of their 2-10-2's.  SCL and B&LE for starters.  From what I've read these are dogs - i.e. too long, can't pull many cars, etc.  Hopefully they have fixed some of the problems.  I don't really need any but some of you might have a need and I guess they could be used for conversions to other locos.
Bob

[Chris333]

Now that mine is running, I'm thinking of selling it.  :-\

[Walkercolt]

Can't really say they're dogs, but I feel they could have been done better for the money(I say that about lots of Con-Cor products, don't I?).Slightly OT, I was going to post pictures of a Kato GS-4 with a Key GS-4 for comparison...but we sold the last Kato GS-4. Between you, me and the frog, the Kato GS-4 looks better than the Key in many ways, compared to prototype photos.

[victor miranda]

The 2-10-2 suffers from what I call concor-itis.
it can be made into a very good loco,
just like most Kato heritage steamers that CC sells.
It needs an update to the improvements that are on the Kato mike.

Those two improvement are the driver bearings and the tender pickups.

ConCor-itis is a loco that is pricey and needs just a little improving to be a great loco.
the improvements add to the price....

Put a b-mann usra long tender behind it and most operating problems go away.

[absnut]

Fortunately (for me, anyway), I'm not inclined to tear a new loco apart to see what I can find wrong with it.  I bought a 2-10-2 several months ago for a good price ($150) on the bay, put it on the tracks, and it ran great and has continued to do so.  I made a few minor modifications to it and none seemed to have any adverse effects.  So, unless some unforeseen problem manifests itself (and it should have by now, I think), I will leave it alone (except for routine maintenance) and consider myself lucky and happy with it. ;D



Dick

[victor miranda]

Hi absnut,

You have a good point.  in general the 2-10-2 is a good loco.

the price you paid is on the low side, and if they all ran  as well as yours
AND cost the same as yours I would state them a good value.

I have only seen problem locos. 5 now. they  have all had the same group of isses
except one that had an extra problem.

all I can say is; test run before you buy.


 

[Walkercolt]

Victor, for $150+/-, I'd say the CC 2-10-2 is a good value, and most of it's "issues" aren't that hard to fix. For MSRP, after test running them, we sent all but one back. We had a customer who wanted one "no matter", so we "cherry-picked" the best one for him. They honestly don't compare, for the price, to the Athearn Challenger and Big Boys, and the Athearn's are DCC equipted and have sound(whoopie), and "street price" a bit cheaper than the Con-Cor. A lot lower price would have made the Con-Cor a better value, and worth "fiddling with". :

[Mark5]

It's locomotive itself (without tender) about 3 1/2 feet too long (compared to scale) but if ya need a USRA 2-10-2 then this is your beast.

Luckily for me N&W never rostered a 2-10-2.

[victor miranda]

Hi Walkercolt,

I think we are saying much the same thing.

I hasten to point out that any 150+ dollar loco should not need fixing.
'cept after many long hours of service....
Being easy to fix should not be a selling point for a new loco.

Hi N&W,

I think it was Chris S who said the CC 2-10-2 is 3/8 inches too long.
that is 5 feet in N-scale....

N-scale track and flanges force any steamer model to stretch out some no matter what.
I'd guess at least 4 inches per driver bare minium for any steamer... 
That is 20 inches and close to 2 feet for 10 coupled loco. This is the least stretch to get good proportions.
I would agree that 2 1/2  feet of extra length is a little hard to hide as model builder's license.

CC made a Big loco.

[up1950s]

I thought the overall loco and tender came out to 14 feet too long , depending on what tender .

A lot of what kills its looks is the void behind the trailing truck . Fill that area with pipes , and appliances ( not the washer and dryer kind ) , and that would help the looks IMO .

I get 60 feet from the rear of the cab wall to where a prototype pilot coupler would protrude to on the CC model .

Here are the prototype drawings showing that same distance as 55'4" , so thats 4'8" on the loco alone .

It should be 15'9" high and I am getting about 16'6" on the model at the steam dome without the driver flange , so its 9" too high as well , and it looks it .

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:USRA_Heavy_Santa_Fe_diagram.jpg

[Chris333]

Yeah the front of this is lined up at the cylinders:


I bought this from Walther's at like $290. The thing just looked strange since I opened the box, but I didn't know why. I didn't check it much because it didn't run and sat in a box for a year or more till Max hooked me up with all new drivers. Now I'm all, "Yippie! I can finally detail and paint it" That is when I figured out why it looked so horrible, they stretched it.

I would much rather have drivers a hair undersized and all moved forward a bit behind the cylinders way before I would want it too long.

Right now if I wanted a USRA 2-10-2 I would start with a Kato Mike.

Seriously if anyone wants my 2-10-2, it is for sale. It has a Bachmann 2-6-6-2 tender with Kato wheels and the motor is wired to the frame so electrically it is better than stock. And now it runs good.

Don't think I will ever buy a ConCor again.  :-\

[Mark5]

N-scale track and flanges force any steamer model to stretch out some no matter what.
I'd guess at least 4 inches per driver bare minium for any steamer... 
That is 20 inches and close to 2 feet for 10 coupled loco.

Victor,

On most N scale steamers the approach has been to reduce the driver size somewhat.

Mark 

[up1950s]

The driving wheel base on the prototype is 22'4"
The driving wheel base on the model is  25'

Thats a difference of 2'6" . The flanges on the CC model are nice and small .

[victor miranda]

hi N&W,

oh yea I agree the tread is reduced also, but it is not really enough.

proto flanges are 1 inch tall.
the fine scale flange proposed by NMRA is .18 inch tall
that is 3 inches--  6 inches overall diameter, don't forget.

now we get into the art of model building.
the model steamer has to account for an extra  6 inches per driver
or take into consideration the proportions of driver size to the rest of the locomotive.
5 axles times 6 inches is 30 inches ....  a lot of stretching, well... I think so anyway.
Everyone groan and say; ok lets take 2 inches off the driver tread
and then we are only 4 inches too big at the flange
most steamers have room for an extra 2 inches between drivers.... except 10 coupled.

ooof I ramble.  the 4 inches per axle is a compromise already between
the need for n-scale flanges and driver tread along with the other proportions of the model.

so I am stating that the most accurate 2-10-2 is going to be stretched about
2 scale feet no matter what...
if you want it to stay on n-scale track anyway...

so If CC had done an overall 2 foot stretch,  I'd be happy, very happy.
5 feet of stretch is too much.
CC wanted an impressive looking loco. n-scale accuracy was not high on the  priority list.

v

[Walkercolt]

The engine didn't look quite "right" to me, was premium priced and had some problems, so I didn't buy one. Besides, Santa Fe didn't have USRA 2-10-2's, they had their own quite distintive ones, another good reason to pass, and the Con-Cor couldn't even be a "stand-in".