Broadway Limited Santa Fe 3751

[thomasjmdavis]

This is the same model that Bachmann based their Northern on, right?

I believe the Bachmann was based on the 2900 series (1941).  The BLI is modeled on the rebuilt 3751 series, which were originally built in the late 1920s, then rebuilt just before WW2. 
EDIT- I might be wrong, the Bachmann might be a 3776 class of 1941. The 2900s were 1944. I gotta stop using my fading memory, and buy more books.


Bachmann has confused things by numbering theirs for any ATSF 4-8-4, regardless of class or build date. 

[kiwi_al]

If anyone is confused about the Bachmann Northern versus BLI 3751 have a look at the picture. I've placed a Bachmann 4-8-4 Northern shell on top of a Kato FEF 3. Please note the tender number in the Bachmann clear plastic case (2910).

[nscaler711]

@kiwi_al what all did you have to do to get the bachmann shell on the FEF?

[kiwi_al]

Just take the UP FEF 3 shell off, takes more work than putting the Bachmann shell on. The Bachmann shell is just slipped on - I still need to attach the front pilot and secure the shell to the mechanism. I also need to attach the Bachmann tender and alter it for all wheel pickup.

[superchief]

BLI listed this as the 3751 class loco, this included 3751 thru 3764 built from 1927 thru 1929 as coal burners, all were converted to burn oil and received new boilers and oil tenders (20,000 gallon water/ short) drivers were increased from 73" to 80". The 3765 class included 3765 thru 3775, these were also coal converted to oil. only 3751 and 3759 still exist and of the 3765 class only 3768 is still around. these are not 2900 class locos, several differences in the rods and tenders are the most noticeable differences.
                                                                       Gordon Bliss-Santa Fe-All the Way

[Cajonpassfan]

I too am thrilled to see this announcement...and although I normally do not preorder, I think I'm in for two or three, depending on the numbers available or even an undec; it's easy enough to "dec" steam and decals are (were?) available from Microscale. There were fourteen engines in this class but due to numerous complete of partial rebuildings, there were many iterations. It looks like BLI chose engine numbers the most similar to 3751 (single sand dome, Worthington heaters ahead of the stack) but there were less obvious differences as well...stack extensions, compressor shields, siderods, etc. I'll attach a summary put together by a friend, John Thompson, for those interested (probably TMI for most, but us ATSF steam nuts may appreciate the info). I'll be curious how BLI plans to handle the  stack variations...or just ignore them? Also attaching a Stan Kistler photo of the 3758 with its stack up, in San Clemente in 1951.
Otto

[Cajonpassfan]

I'm officially stoked for this one. The Big Boy is a great runner this will probably be better. I'm extremely tempted to get two and possibly convert one to 2926... but We may get both now that 2926 is running.
....

I do hope you're right about someone doing the 2900 (or 3776) class Santa Fe 4-8-4 now that the New Mexico 2926 is operational (with nowhere to run yet). Bachmann retooled its 1970's pos so many times, and it is still subpar imho. They should just do it right this time, they do know how...
I am skeptical about rebuilding the BLI 3751 into a 2900....those had bigger, heavier boilers, bigger sand domes, lots of other differences...let's hope someone does it from scratch😎
Attaching pics of the 2926 then and now. Yours truly on the right...
Otto

[squirrelhunter]

Cajonpassfan, I believe that BLI said that they skipped the stack extension because it interfered with the smoke unit somehow.

[Peter Amling]

Would any of these units have been seen in service in Chicago (or just Illinois) during their careers? I'm trying to justify a purchase.

[thomasjmdavis]

Would any of these units have been seen in service in Chicago (or just Illinois) during their careers? I'm trying to justify a purchase.

Other than appearances by 4-8-4s for testing, and at the world's fair, I think the answer is "no".  In the SFRHMS book on the Illinois Division, there is a description of a trial run, made with mechanics and some bridge engineers on board, and that in order to make it through some of the smaller bridges, parts of the loco or the bridge would be temporarily removed so it could squeak past.  IIRC, loading on some bridges may also have been a concern.  So, at least as standard practice, Hudsons and Pacifics were used east of KC.

[thomasjmdavis]

I mulled over whether to pass this along.... but I had some concerns because the drivers in the graphics looked small to me (I once stood next to the 2903 (formerly at the Museum of Science and Industry, now at the Illinois Railway Museum).  The drivers, at 80", were HUGE. So I wrote to BLI, and they were kind enough to respond-

Our model is based on a 1940’s-1950’s appearance.  Which I believe is accurate for how 3751 looks today also.  But the drivers on the N scale version actually scale to 73.5”.   This is for function reasons related to the flanges and interference. 

I expected there to be some 'downsizing' of the drivers- there always is in N scale, but had hoped for something on the order of my 30 year old Con-cor "Rail Baron" Hudson, where the drivers scale out to 77" (assuming my caliper and calculator are working correctly- and assuming the drivers are factory equipment- I did buy the loco used).

For me, this might work out, regardless, since one of the projects on the back burner is a GTW U3c- which had 73" drivers.

[Mark5]

I expected there to be some 'downsizing' of the drivers- there always is in N scale, but had hoped for something on the order of my 30 year old Con-cor "Rail Baron" Hudson, where the drivers scale out to 77" (assuming my caliper and calculator are working correctly- and assuming the drivers are factory equipment- I did buy the loco used).

You likely can't get away from smaller than scale drivers on a steam loco, unless you put really tiny flanges on it - for this reason most are a bit undersize.

Concor's trick in some of these cases was to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the wheelbase, which sometimes became painfully obvious (think the Concor USRA 2-10-2).

[draskouasshat]

I mulled over whether to pass this along.... but I had some concerns because the drivers in the graphics looked small to me (I once stood next to the 2903 (formerly at the Museum of Science and Industry, now at the Illinois Railway Museum).  The drivers, at 80", were HUGE. So I wrote to BLI, and they were kind enough to respond-

I expected there to be some 'downsizing' of the drivers- there always is in N scale, but had hoped for something on the order of my 30 year old Con-cor "Rail Baron" Hudson, where the drivers scale out to 77" (assuming my caliper and calculator are working correctly- and assuming the drivers are factory equipment- I did buy the loco used).

For me, this might work out, regardless, since one of the projects on the back burner is a GTW U3c- which had 73" drivers.

this is absofuckinglutely un-acceptable! 73.5 to make it work? sure seems to me that theyre trying to reuse the t-1 mech instead of starting fresh and using close to 80" drivers. the kato fef/gs4 drivers come out to 78.xxx inch and they look right. the santa fe northerns werent some tiny 4-8-4 like the t-1 and other "small" norhterns.

Drasko

[peteski]

For long rigid frame locos European manufacturers like Fleischmann and Minitrix simply leave full depth flanges on the first and last drivers, and the drivers in between have very small flanges.  That allows more accurate spacing and driver diameter.  The inner driver flanges are almost prototypical size. That looks better than if they were just made flangeless (where the 1:1 locos weren't flangeless either).  I wish other companies would look at other models and learn (and copy) those types of design tricks.

[Sokramiketes]

this is absofuckinglutely un-acceptable! 73.5 to make it work? sure seems to me that theyre trying to reuse the t-1 mech instead of starting fresh and using close to 80" drivers. the kato fef/gs4 drivers come out to 78.xxx inch and they look right. the santa fe northerns werent some tiny 4-8-4 like the t-1 and other "small" norhterns.

Drasko

Yeah, that news is really dissapointing.