I guess Walthers should consider re-releasing the BL2

[Mark5]

Check this out - open pilots and all!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&item=170235475573

Add pilots and a better chassis and bingo!

I was watching this auction thinking I'd go maybe to $20.

Mark

[Ryan87]

hmmm I have one of those...

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Mmmm: http://cgi.ebay.com/Reading-RDG-Custom-Paint-Kato-U-30C-3602_W0QQitemZ170235565512QQihZ007QQcategoryZ19124QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[2-8-8-0]

hehe, i was watching the WM ones as well, i was gonna try and snipe 'em at the end...but they are outta my reach now.

Tim

[sizemore]

LL released a 2nd run of the BL-2 with split frame and full pilots. Good luck finding them. Usually what you find is the 1st runs, which weren't bad either, like you see there, you'd have to find MT PILOT conversion for them. I wouldn't mind seeing a new run of them.

And yeah those U30C's are pretty tasty.

[wm3798]

I've got one of each, the original run plastic frame beastie


And the newer split framey one...


Both are DCC equipped, and you'll have to pull them from my cold, dead hands.

I think between the two of them I paid about $75

Lee

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Walthers is sitting on so much good tooling its not even funny.

GP18 low nose: MIA since 96, never had a split frame version

F40PH: OK the shell wasn't Quite as good as the Kato, but it makes a really good pI/II unit. Add flush windows and retool the fans, put it on a split frame mechinism and you got a winner.

SD7: not seen in years and the shell is every bit as good ad the Atlas version if not better. Add the second pilot step version and add the split handrails on the pilots... its definatly a great engine.

BL2: could use DCC and finer handrails, but otherwise ace.

E6/7/8: The 7 and 8 need nose jobs. The E6 is about right.

GP60: Man, how fast did these sell out? I love mine!

lets not forget the very nice ATSF and NE cabs and the Evans X72 boxcar.

[brokemoto]

As most of you are aware, Western Maryland had two of these things.  LL released the plastic frame versions of these in with one number in Fireball and the other number in Speed.  If I recall correctly, they did the same with the metal frame, but reversed the numbers. 

On the plastic frames, I ended up buying two duplicate sets and taking erasers to one of each so that I had both numbers in Fireball and Speed.  My modelling era demands Fireball on these, but I numbered a second Speed so that I would have a pair for N-TRAK

When the metal frame appeared, I tried a test fit of plastic frame shell to metal frame chassis, but it would not go and I could not really see how to make it work.  For that reason, I bought duplicates of the Fireball on the metal frame and took the eraser to one and subsituted the other number, as my era demands Fireball on these.  So, in fashion similar to  WM 3798, I have both numbers in both versions that are appropriate to my era, plus the extra pair of plastic frames that are out of my era.  Mine do not have DCC, but I must agree that anyone who wants my Fireball pairs will have to pry them from my cold, dead hands.

Both versions of these were good.  The plastic frames had flexing wires soldered to pivotting trucks, which produced the usual headache associated with that.  Both versions will pull every piece of rolling stock that you own up a fifty per-cent grade on a nine and three quarter curve. 

As mentioned, MT has a pilot kit specifically for the plastic frame version of this locomotive.  It appears that the person who originally purchased this only put the conversion on the pilot.  I did not try to find the other one that the seller had on offer.  I wonder if the original purchaser ran these in a pair, and tried to save money by purchasing only one conversion kit and coupling the two at their respective posteriors.  The UniMate would provide a more reliable coupling and since they were butted together, the gaping hole in the pilot would be less conspicuous.

The final price for the one in the link was almost double the original list.  Some of the prices that some of these things fetch on FeePay amaze me, even from personal experience.  I have sold items for over one-hundred dollars, almost two hundred, in some cases, that I listed for an opening bid of twenty or twenty five dollars.  I typed in all majuscules that the items were defective and described the defects.  I added a reminder that the bidder was bidding on a non-operable or poorly operating piece.  I still received positive feedback.

The plastic frames are still out there, if you look, but the metal frames are hard to find.  Someone overgreased the metal frames at the factory in China, resulting in many showing poor electrical contact and stalling, even on straight and level.  The solution is complete disassembly and cleaning, then reassembly and light lubrication. 

MUing two of these would conflict with usual prototype practice, as the frame on these was not the strongest.  Frequent MU-ing of these together often caused stress cracks in the frame.  While the railroads did MU these together at times, they tried to avoid making a habit of it.  The general rule was to MU these with a GP or F-unit and have the BL-2 in the lead, thus reducing the stress on the weak frame.

The largest fleet of these was on the C&O which purchased them for use on crummily (is there such a word) tracked PM branch lines in Michigan.  C&O had a choice of those or RS-1s, and chose the EMDs, as it preferred them to ALCo.  The RS-1s would have been a better choice.  They did not have the frame problems of the BL-2.  I suspect that C&O was sour on ALCo from its experience with the 244 prime mover.  The RS-1 had a 539 prime mover, which was reliable. 

B&M bought its  four for passenger service on crummily tracked branch lines in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.  B&M's four had no MU lines.  They wound up working commutes on the Salem/Beverly/Ipswich/Cape Ann line.  The track on that line was allright as far north as Beverly, but once it got to the point where the line to Ipswich  split, the track was crummy both to Ipswich and Cape Ann.  Some of the rails in daily use in Gloucester and Ipswich still had nineteenth century maufacutring dates on them as late as the early 1980s.

Rock Island had many of these, but I do not know for what it used them.

Both of WM's still exist and were operable in recent memory, but I do not know if either still operate.  The horns on these things sound like sick cows. 

[Bob Bufkin]

I remember these in service back in the day.  Got to thinking, that, yet, they were always in the lead.  Here's a photo of one.



Bad lighting but better than nothing

[up1950s]

I could like them if the were shaped differently . :

[wcfn100]

Rock Island had many of these, but I do not know for what it used them.

If you can call 5 'many' then yes.  For the most part, the RI ended up putting steam generators in them and using them for commuter service.

I was actually looking today to see what involved in adding the SG parts.  There's a stack on the roof between the wind shield for sure and some other misc. parts that may or may not be related that other roads don't show.


Jason

[brokemoto]

Only five?  I had thought more.  CRI&P was supposedly the railroad that would 'only operate them at night'.  They did get a rather nice paint scheme from CRI&P.

Time to pull out the books.  Even Diseasel Spotter's Guide notes that CRI&P installed the s/g after delivery.  Did they use EMD stacks or fabricate their own?  Many roads that added s/g to power fabricated their own stacks (although usually they did purchase boilers from somewhere).

The usual configuration for the stacks on this one was in the center post of the windshield.  It appears that one stack accomodated the vent and escape functions.

The same book notes that only B&M's had no MU lines.  Even the BL-1, which went to C&EI, received MU lines, but it does not say if C&EI added them or EMD.  The BL-1 did have an s/g, but I do not know it C&EI's other two BL-2s had them.

The owners were:

BAR-eight
B&M-four
C&O-fourteen (first six ordered by PM before C&O takeover)
C&EI-three
CRI&P-five
FEC-six
MOPAC-eight
CIL-nine
WM-two

The two WMs still exist and maybe one CRI&P.  I do not know if any others exist.  I do not know how many, if any, are operable.

WM ended up using these as yard goats and with slugs.  The mechanical parts were allright, it was just the weak frame.  EMD designed these as heavy passenger terminal switchers or to operate on crummily tracked branch lines.  I suspect that the weak frame was to trim weight, as most crummily tracked branch lines did not have a volume of traffic that carried trains long enough to require more than one locomotive, as a rule.  Thus, I suspect that EMD never considered that the railroads would purchase them to run in MU on main line trains.  For that, EMD would have encouraged them to purchase GP-7s.

Even diseasels had some specialty uses designed into them.  EMD's E-7s had a nasty habit of overheating when climbing hills.   When the railroads came shopping for passenger power, EMD would ask them where they wanted to use the power.  If the Motive Power Department wanted to  use them in hilly terrain, EMD would encourage them to purchase passenger F-3s, which did not have the overheating problem.  I suspect that EMD did not have a solution to the problem during the three or so years that the E-7 was out there but the F-3 was not.

[Chris333]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_BL2

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locoList.aspx?mid=300

[wm3798]

I'd prefer to have a split frame under 82... the old drive is powerful, but still pretty spotty even after I fiddle with CV's to get the most I can out of it.

Maybe I'll get lucky and they'll tool the new one with the dual sealed beams!  I'm still trying to figure out how to do that without it turning into a clusterpluck...

Lee

[brokemoto]

I did forget about the change to the dual beam light on WM's.  My era requires Fireball and single beam.

So LL did, as I thought, reverse the numbers when it issued the metal frames.  If you find the duplicate Speed, just get out the eraser and the MicroScale sheet.  It was not that difficult on the Fireball, I suspect that it would not be so on the Speed.  The size ain't quite the same, but the model manufacturers and the decal manufacturers will never agree on character size.  Still, it is close enough to get away with it, at least on the Fireball.  I did also do the Speed for N-TRAK, but I have to find them to see if I got away with it, or not.  I suspect that I did.

.........and Lee, if you want to try to get a split frame under your plastic frame #81, contact me off-list....................