GHB, GHQ, and Minitrix PRR L1 kitbash comparo

[Lemosteam]

Sorry for yet another thread on the GHB L1...

First off, this post assumes that the GHB L1s is dimensionally correct with respect to boiler size, etc., so let me set that premise.

Based on this I still contend that the GHQ boiler shell is way too big to be an L1 class and Max's I1sa conversion is much better suited for that kit.  Call it rivet counting, but this is the main reason I never painted my GHQ model.

The next shots show a comparison of my GHQ L1, GHB L1, and my yet unfinished Minitrix conversion. The cabs are aligned at the front edge and if the GHB model is dimensionally accurate, the GHQ boiler is waaay to long and wide.  I seem to have fared pretty well with my kitbash in comparison to the GHB model. My tender couples closer than the GHB accounting for its overall length.

[chicken45]

Whoa!

[Chris333]

So who is casting those sand domes for Bachmann K4 replacements 

[chicken45]

Yeah, seriously. @superturbine ! We need some sand domes for our K4s!

[mmagliaro]

John,
I don't know if I'm convinced that either the GHQ or GHB engines are correct.

I've been looking at the GHQ L1 and this GHB engine vs a lot of prototype photos.
Here's what I see.  And bear in mind, I'm doing the best I can by looking at all the GHB photos
online I can find, because I don't have one.

I'm going to label "GHB" in red lettering because it's easy to confuse GHB with GHQ.

The sand dome on the GHQ has more rounded corners and it looks more correct to me.

The front edge of the Belpaire firebox on the GHB engine ends a little forward of the #4
axle center, whereas on the prototype photos, it ends a little behind the #4 axle, meaning
I think the GHB firebox comes too far forward. The GHQ firebox ends behind the axle, where it should.

The prototype firebox also has an unmistakable flare out
down by the walkway (it widens as it goes down, and I don't see that on the GHB, but
it is there on the GHQ.

There is a characteristic "Pennsy bulge" in the L1 boiler around the steam dome over drivers 3-4, and that's
something else I don't see in the GHB engine, but do see in the GHQ.

-----------
I got measurements of the GHQ casting vs an L1s drawing.

L1s is 40'-5-1/4" from the center of the cab window to the front edge of the smokebox.
The GHQ measures 40'-9-1/2", so it's about 4" too long, or .025" in N Scale.  That's a pretty small discrepancy
over an overall length of about 3"

The L1's "fat" part by the steam dome is 7'-5".
GHQ is  9'-7"   YIKES!

The slimmer boiler area down by the stack should be 6'6-1/2"
GHQ is 8'3"    YIKES again!

-----------------------------------

So overall, John, I think the length is okay, and the GHQ got a lot of the proportional and shape things
right.  But yes, it is way way too fat.

How about you put a caliper on that GHB engine and see how the diameters and lengths really measure out?
I'm curious.

[strummer]

Good info, Max.

Even though the ruler does not lie, I have to say I rather like the "fat" look of the GHQ model; it may be incorrect, but it looks "burly", as a freight engine should...

Mark in Oregon

[robert3985]

Max,

Plus, as far as comparing these with your eye, the GHQ conversion needs to be painted to give the eyeball comparo justice.  The much darker surface will look to your eyeball much smaller.

Obviously none of the conversions/kits are totally correct, as is usually the case for whatever reason in N-scale, but I'm betting that after you paint the GHQ version, you're gonna like it a lot more!

Just sayin'

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Cajonpassfan]

Hey guys, been following this with interest.

How about we do something radical and look at the *actual* loco dimensions?
According to measurements I've taken from the old Westcott steam cyclopedia plans,  the L1 smokebox diameter scales off to 82", and the fattest part of the boiler, just aft of the steam dome, just a tiny tad over 8', or 96"-ish.(There is a bit of an inconsistency in the plans in that the Belpaire narrows substantially as it joins the cab, so this is my best guess). Oh, and the length of the boiler, cab front to back of smokebox, is just about 32'.

(By comparison, the K4 boiler scales 4" longer, the smokebox diameter is identical at 82", but the fattest part of the boiler scales slightly less, at 94". The other difference appears to be that the L1 boiler is concentric, while the K4 boiler centerline is raised slightly above the smokebox centerline, presumably to make room for the big 80" drivers).

On the prototype, boilers this size substantially overhang drivers and rods; on our models, the drivers are much fatter and side rods and by necessity, cylinders, hang much wider. YMMV, but I subscribe to the theory that scale sized boilers tend to accentuate the oversized fat running gear and therefore don't mind compensating for it by *slightly* oversized boilers...it's the overall impression that matters to me the most.

But that's just me
Regards, Otto

[mmagliaro]

Otto,

In my defense... har har...
 my L1s dimensions did come from actual drawings.

The dimensional drawings here http://prr.railfan.net
cannot be used to scale off of, in order to infer other dimensions, of course, but for the the marked measurements
that are on there, I think they are accurate.

They show the boiler diameter just in front of the seam dome as 7'5"  (89")
I could believe that it fattens a little just before that to 96", as you indicate.

The length, at 40'-5-1/4" from the middle of the cab window to the
front of the smokebox, also logically agrees with your 32' from the front of the cab to the back of
the smokebox.

The GHQ is grossly larger in fatness, but I agree that there is something about proportion and N Scale going on here,
because I never found the GHQ L1 to look fat.  In fact, I think it looks really good.

[Lemosteam]

My only point of this post was to compare the three shells.  The premise being that the Brass loco manufacturers tend to try to achieve prototypical dimensions where possible.

IMHO, The reason the GHQ shell is wider is simply because it had to fit around the Kato Mike mechanism without major surgery, and the wall thickness of the pewter casting dictated its overall width.

I will take some measurements of all three when I have an opportunity and compare them to the L1s drawings.

Also I do not trust the cyclopedia drawings as much as I trust the dimensions on the PRR tracings in the link that Max provides.

[mmagliaro]

John, about the GHQ castings, I bet that's true.  Those shells are really thick, but I suspect that the pewter is so soft
that it would be hard to get a straight, repeatable casting if he made the walls thinner.  You can thin them out
from the inside just fine after they are cast, but I bet they have to be that thick during casting.

As it is, I have still gotten some that are pretty badly warped.  In fact, the shell I made my I1s from was twisted in
a spiral along its length when I got it, and it was too much to just ignore it. 
I had to put one end in a jewelers vise and just manhandle it along its length, twisting it
back into a straight line using straight edges and eyeballs to get it right again.

I like those online tracings too.  The only downside is that they only show certain dimensions, and you can't "infer" any others from what's on there because they aren't scale drawings.

If someone wants to go down to Strasburg, PA and measure the real thing with a tape measure,
that would be the way to know for sure.   But then, they would have to be willing to let you climb
all over it. 

[towl1996]

My only point of this post was to compare the three shells.  The premise being that the Brass loco manufacturers tend to try to achieve prototypical dimensions where possible.

I was wondering why you made this post, I thought I read you were going to convert the L1 into a I1sa, due to the beefier shell.
Personally, of the three, I like the GHQ as an L1, but would like to see what the GHQ would look like as a decapod. I could change my mind.

[Cajonpassfan]

Otto,

In my defense... har har...
 my L1s dimensions did come from actual drawings.

The dimensional drawings here http://prr.railfan.net

Hey Max, in my book, you don't need a defense, sir,  har, har ...
In my defense, I was just messing with you guys
Otto

[chicken45]

I was wondering why you made this post, I thought I read you were going to convert the L1 into a I1sa, due to the beefier shell.
Personally, of the three, I like the GHQ as an L1, but would like to see what the GHQ would look like as a decapod. I could change my mind.

Yeah here is Max's hippo. Just terrific!
http://www.maxcowonline.com/maxspage/showReallyBigPic.php?picfile=I1articlephotos/photo1.jpg&picwid=1227&wtitle=Maxcow%20-%20N%20Scale%20PRR%20I1s&pictext=A%20simply%20stunning%20photo%20of%20the%20I1%20model%20taken%20by%20Ed%20Kapuscinski%20on%20his%20home%20layout.

[Lemosteam]

I was wondering why you made this post, I thought I read you were going to convert the L1 into a I1sa, due to the beefier shell.
Personally, of the three, I like the GHQ as an L1, but would like to see what the GHQ would look like as a decapod. I could change my mind.

towl1996,

Call me picky, but the biggest reason I never appreciated the GHQ shell as an L1 is due to the fact that when placed next to my Minitrix K4 models (pre-Bachmann K4), I just could not get over the fact that proportionally the boilers of the Minitirix and GHQ should be very close to each other in size but are not.  Like Max, I have always felt the GHQ boiler shell was closer in scale to the I1sa, which is the subject of my other thread, where I am basically duplicating what Max did, sans Maxon coreless (see above link) for myself.

I have not compared the Bachmann K4 shell against the GHQ- maybe they are much closer in proportion.