Kato N scale steam

[brokemoto]

There are 7 very common steam loco driver sizes.  If there were chassis available with
51, 56, 63, 68, 72, 76 and 80"  wheels, that would cover almost everything, and if I were making an engine that had drivers that were 1 or 2 inches off from one of these, I'd be fine with that.  Or, they can just make 1 or 2 very popular sizes and be done with it.

You do understand that all of the N&W nuts are going to have aching posteriors over your omitting the seventy inch driver, correct?

(I know, i read it, you posted "common")

[GhengisKong]

Good evening folks,

I'm voting for the Pacific.  More specifically if Kato is listening a Rock Island Pacific like the one at the Wheels O Time museum in Peoria, Illinois.  887 preserved as 886 would make an excellent choice.   

(Attachment Link)

Less than 2.5 hours drive from Chicagoland.

Thank you for letting me add my 2 cents,
Bobster

YES! YES! This! I could use multiples as well. Kato, I know some of you guys lurk here and are Rock Island fans, so you guys know you want to have something Rock Island made.

[mmagliaro]

You do understand that all of the N&W nuts are going to have aching posteriors over your omitting the seventy inch driver, correct?

(I know, i read it, you posted "common")

Ha ha!.  Yes, all sorts of people will want to build engines with drivers that don't fall into those categories.  The PRR Q1 had 77", and there are engines with 69" and so on.  But all those would only be off from my suggested set by an inch or two at most.  I think 2" in N Scale (.013") is definitely down at the level where nobody would ever see it.  Anyway, like I said, even if they only offered two options (say, 58" and 72" to cover a lot of freight and passenger engines), it would be great.  And they would sell..... A HUNDRED of them!  (At best.  Which is why they will never do it.)

[brokemoto]

Ha ha!.  Yes, all sorts of people will want to build engines with drivers that don't fall into those categories. 

I do not disagree with you on the driver sizes and few, if any who might take notice.  Yes, you do have these Scale Rule Richards out here, but they are few and far between, any more.  Yes, I might notice if the drivers are seventy-two or seventy inches, but I might not, either.  I might be too preoccupied with enjoying a  nice model that someone built or offered.  I might note variations, but I understand that it is necessary and would congratulate the guy on his nicely done bash or scratch.

If GHQ were to sell a pewter Q-4 that fit the Kato 2-8-2 chassis, I would buy several, even though the Q-4 had sixty four inch drivers and both USRA 2-8-2s had sixty three (the B&O, for whatever its reasons, preferred sixty four to sixty three).  In fact, now that I think about it, I wonder if you could cut up a B-mann EM-1 and use the driver sets/mechanisms to create
two Q-4s, as the EM-1s had the same sixty four inch drivers.  The C-C Vanderbilt will work for a tender, but you would have to make it all wheels live...............It would not be without precedent.  Virginian's triplex never made a successful trip, so the railroad sent it back to Baldwin, which made a
2-8-8-0 and a 2-8-0 out of it.  Both locomotives had successful service lives after that.  I seem to recall that ATSF also sent back some of its double boilered articulateds and had them rebuilt into 2-8-2s or something like that.


That CRI&P Pacific looks like it could be bashed from a USRA light.  If you were to take off the USRA domes and replace them with Baldwin rounded domes (I do not know if Baldwin built the prototype), you would get something that looked much like it.  That tender does not look too much different from a USRA standard.  Somebody used to sell the rounded Baldwin domes.  I might even have a couple of them in one of my detail bags.  You can cover over the part of the boiler with cut up calculator tape rolls and some Squadron Green.

[Mark5]

Actually 69" was a very common driver size. Think USRA Mountains and clones, as well as Van Sweringen (Lima) 2-8-4 Berkshires.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Yes.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whyte_notation

You missed it...   

[mmagliaro]

Remember, even "good" flanges are .022".   That's 3.5" right there.   The FVM wheelsets have .015" flanges, but I would not want flanges that fine on a locomotive.  The pushing forces are just too high for me to trust flanges that small around curves and through turnouts.   I think my 0-6-0 hand-made wheels have about .020" flanges and even that is pushing it, I think 

So visually, a  68" driver, with, say, a 3" flange, has a 74" diameter across the flanges.  Visually, it's going to "look like" somewhere between the two, depending on your eyes and how you perceive round things when you look at them.

Anyway, it's pretty pointless.  If anyone were to make such a thing, it would have to be an esoteric small-shop place that could kick out frames and drivers upon request using a CNC driven lathe and mill.  It's never going to be Kato.

[thomasjmdavis]

"Anyway, it's pretty pointless.  If anyone were to make such a thing, it would have to be an esoteric small-shop place that could kick out frames and drivers upon request using a CNC driven lathe and mill.  It's never going to be Kato."

I wonder if we could talk them into a 1938 Chief?  It would include many of the ATSF passenger cars that they haven't already made in N scale, and would present the excuse for an ATSF 4-6-4 to lead it our of Chicago and a 4-8-4 to haul it over the mountains.  Then, other than still wanting a GTW 4-8-4, I would be set for retirement.

[peteski]

You missed it...   

0h, I did. It was too small for me to notice.    I get it now. Cute.

[atsf3751]

Santa Fe 2-10-2 since there was NO option for a Santa Fe Northern...    
We do need western 2-10-2s anyhow...

If the 2-10-2 is actually a Santa Fe 3800 class engine (rather than a generic Santa Fe 2-10-2) my credit card would melt.

[atsf3751]

Manufacturers are going to make models they think will sell and the iconic engines are most popular (and recognizable) with most modelers and manufacturers.

The engine models that have been done enough (in my opinion) are the F7, GG1, Big Boy, and Challenger (UP version). Most of these, the F7 being the exception, are limited prototype examples and that includes the recent GTEL Big Blow. The more common engines are not popular with manufacturers and steam is definitely in that category. Every railroad had their own version of what is best.

Look at the 2-8-2. They came in light, medium and heavy. A UP Mike did not look like a B&O Mike, even if they both started as USRA prototype. And the UP Mike sitting next to another UP Mike could look like a different engine. This is a problem for manufacturers, they have to decide which one would sell the most. And steam models are the most difficult engines to make, lots of moving parts that have to be made so they all work together.

The list that Kato provided to vote from is a good representation of common steam choices. Once Kato decides which engines to make then they have to decide which one to model. I suspect their choice will be the straight USRA version and if you want to convert it to an SP model, the ball is in your court. I would love a Santa Fe class 3700 4-8-2, but I am not going to hold my breath.

[atsf3751]

I've always believed that the eventual solution for steam in N scale is a "generic" chassis followed by 3D-printed shells with correct details for a given road.  Yes, there are differences in driver size and overall wheelbase but honestly, most of us can live with these (the difference between a 63" USRA 2-10-2 driver and the, say, 58" B&O driver is .031" (1/32)).  No, the complete purist won't be satisfied, but if you can get a shell with all the right details in the right places, really, are you going to quibble over 1/32" on the driver size?  Is anyone really going to pay any attention if the shell is a near-perfect copy of the prototype?

Anyway, I voted for the Hudson, the 2-10-2, and the 2-8-2 (hoping it is a "light" version, and not the heavy version already produced).

John C.

The purist in N Scale is going to have other issues beyond driver diameter. Driver flanges are oversize (even the finest drivers have too large flanges), and because of this the drivers are too far apart. I would opt for smaller divers because they will be closer together.

 

[Bobster]

Good evening,

Forgot to mention last night that while the Rock Island Pacific in Peoria is a coal burner some of the class were oil burners with a "loaf of bread" shaped tender.  I know we're talking Kato here but Bachmann's Rock Island 5113 was part or a class that was half oil burners and half coal burners.

For other train buffs this is a very few minutes south of Edelstein Hill, best known for the hill the Santa Fe climbed out of the Illinois River Valley.  I want to say about ten minutes but the last time I was there was in October 2015. 

Looks like the thread is taking a different turn.
Thanks again for your time,
Bobster out

[Loren Perry]

If the 2-10-2 is actually a Santa Fe 3800 class engine (rather than a generic Santa Fe 2-10-2) my credit card would melt.

I fully back the ATSF 3800-class 2-10-2 as a future project. Santa Fe had scores of them and they ran all over their system in the western half of the U.S. for decades. Drag freight, helper service, solid reefer blocks, etc. I had to build my two examples the hard way using resin shells from Jason Smith and Kato 2-8-2 Mikado chassis components and I'm very happy with the results, but I would have preferred some Kato-quality models had they been available. Kato, Bachmann and other makers have produced railroad-specific steamers for years such as Berkshires, Big Boys, N&W J-class, and Pennsy power. The 3800's were big, handsome engines with large tenders (lots of room for DCC sound) and came in coal and oil powered versions. Bachmann and Con-Cor have already done their own versions of the USRA 2-10-2 so we don't need a third. Santa Fe all the way!

[thomasjmdavis]

I would also second the 3800 series 2-10-2- a locomotive I would not need unless I backdate a few years, but would probably buy. 

And let's face it... They will likely slap ATSF all over any USRA or other version they do, so why not do the ATSF prototype, and foobie that for other roads?