Author Topic: Planned centercab transfer unit bash  (Read 21252 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

u18b

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3709
  • Respect: +1955
    • My website
Re: Planned centercab transfer unit bash
« Reply #75 on: April 03, 2014, 05:37:39 PM »
0
TransferMaster.    hahahaha.

I love the name.

And I almost want to make that double BL2.
Ron Bearden
CSX N scale Archivist
http://u18b.com

"All get what they want-- not all like what they get."  Aslan the Lion in the Chronicles of Narnia by C.S.Lewis.

PGE-N°2

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 208
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: 0
Re: Planned centercab transfer unit bash
« Reply #76 on: April 03, 2014, 08:13:02 PM »
0
Here is that BL-2 shell bash if joined at the door center .



Got to do one of these with EMD SD-9 trucks . This reminds me of a Whitcome on steroids . Nice logical design .

If you were looking for another idea, there is always this: Not exactly a center-cab, but definitely bi-directional.

Director of Operations of the Kettle River Railway

See photos of the original owner's layout here:
https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/about-face/sets/72157603977732928/

It sounded like a good idea at the time... too bad the caboose wasn't in on the plan.

peteski

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 32958
  • Gender: Male
  • Honorary Resident Curmudgeon
  • Respect: +5343
    • Coming (not so) soon...
Re: Planned centercab transfer unit bash
« Reply #77 on: April 04, 2014, 01:05:15 AM »
0
If you were looking for another idea, there is always this: Not exactly a center-cab, but definitely bi-directional.



Hmmm... this looks like pretty much every European loco (diesel or electric).   Or Japanese for that matter.  Funny how the dual-cab concept never got popular in US.
. . . 42 . . .

delamaize

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2401
  • Gender: Male
  • Prairie Line Native
  • Respect: +547
Re: Planned centercab transfer unit bash
« Reply #78 on: April 04, 2014, 01:14:03 AM »
0
I got my shells joined into one, still stripping the paint off them. did anyone else have a majority of the paint just flake off the shells?

I'm waiting on parts from atlas, I went ahead and just ordered everything I needed to make a sd60 mech, with the trainmaster trucks. I also ordered a set of trainmaster sills, I'm also going to hack them up for the pilots.

I'm planning on "backdating" mine a little, and cover the fuel tank, and a few other things.....

Camrea battery is dead, will take pictures tomorrow...
Mike

Northern Pacific, Tacoma Division, 4th subdivision "The Prarie Line" (still in planning stages)

SD35

  • Posts: 11
  • Respect: 0
Re: Planned centercab transfer unit bash
« Reply #79 on: April 04, 2014, 02:11:00 AM »
0
Hi,

a nice NOAB,........... ?   
 I wait for your pictures tomorrow..............Rainer
« Last Edit: April 04, 2014, 02:14:18 AM by SD35 »

garethashenden

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1929
  • Respect: +1339
Re: Planned centercab transfer unit bash
« Reply #80 on: April 04, 2014, 03:24:47 AM »
0
If you were looking for another idea, there is always this: Not exactly a center-cab, but definitely bi-directional.



There are locomotives in Australia that are almost exactly that.

PGE-N°2

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 208
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: 0
Re: Planned centercab transfer unit bash
« Reply #81 on: April 04, 2014, 12:09:00 PM »
0
Just curious if there is any problem trying to match the Trainmaster trucks to the SD60 chassis. Do the gears line up alright?

I would love to be able to build one of these locos, too, since it is so straightforward.

There are locomotives in Australia that are almost exactly that.
 

I knew there similar locos in Australia, but they were based on an E-unit chassis, while the Milwaukee unit is a nice compact little F7. Not quite sure exactly what to call it, but I think I've settled on labeling it an F7D for dual cabs.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2014, 12:12:00 PM by PGE-N°2 »
Director of Operations of the Kettle River Railway

See photos of the original owner's layout here:
https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/about-face/sets/72157603977732928/

It sounded like a good idea at the time... too bad the caboose wasn't in on the plan.

C855B

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 10872
  • Respect: +2421
Re: Planned centercab transfer unit bash
« Reply #82 on: April 04, 2014, 12:17:23 PM »
0
... I think I've settled on labeling it an F7D for dual cabs.

F7F, to make it a palindrome just like the bi-cab loco. :trollface:
...mike

http://www.gibboncozadandwestern.com

Note: Images linked in my postings are on an HTTP server, not HTTPS. Enable "mixed content" in your browser to view.

There are over 1000 images on this server. Not changing anytime soon.

Baronjutter

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 509
  • Respect: +11
Re: Planned centercab transfer unit bash
« Reply #83 on: April 04, 2014, 12:22:17 PM »
0
How come dual cabs are popular if not the absolute standard everywhere except north america?

C855B

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 10872
  • Respect: +2421
Re: Planned centercab transfer unit bash
« Reply #84 on: April 04, 2014, 12:48:19 PM »
0
How come dual cabs are popular if not the absolute standard everywhere except north america?

Easy answer(s) - first, the extra cab equipment costs money, increasing the price of the loco 5-10%. Second, you'll notice non-US railroad operation is predominately short trains with single units. MU and long trains are a US thing. MU four units and you have 7 unused cabs that still need to be maintained. Third, dual cab extends primarily from British and Continental RR line development, where the ability to turn power is limited because real estate is at a premium.

If dual cab advantages were a big issue here, you'd see a lot more attention paid to the trailing units of consists facing backwards. As it is, it's whatever is convenient for the hostler at the moment. I do think some RRs tried a policy in the earlier diesel days of having a backwards-facing unit, but the extra handling time (and money) didn't equate to overall reduced costs. The initial purchase cost of a full-function cab plus the ongoing maintenance are (or were) significant enough for RRs here in the late '50s and early '60s to explore cabless locomotives, but they eventually found the lack of flexibility to result in higher terminal handling costs.
...mike

http://www.gibboncozadandwestern.com

Note: Images linked in my postings are on an HTTP server, not HTTPS. Enable "mixed content" in your browser to view.

There are over 1000 images on this server. Not changing anytime soon.

Baronjutter

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 509
  • Respect: +11
Re: Planned centercab transfer unit bash
« Reply #85 on: April 04, 2014, 05:04:30 PM »
0
That makes sense!  Thanks.  You don't really need dual cabs when you've got a 4 loco lash up with the front and back loco's pointing different ways.  Individually the locos only have 1 cab each but the MU has all the cabs it needs.

LV LOU

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 620
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: 0
Re: Planned centercab transfer unit bash
« Reply #86 on: April 04, 2014, 09:32:10 PM »
0
Easy answer(s) - first, the extra cab equipment costs money, increasing the price of the loco 5-10%. Second, you'll notice non-US railroad operation is predominately short trains with single units. MU and long trains are a US thing. MU four units and you have 7 unused cabs that still need to be maintained. Third, dual cab extends primarily from British and Continental RR line development, where the ability to turn power is limited because real estate is at a premium.

If dual cab advantages were a big issue here, you'd see a lot more attention paid to the trailing units of consists facing backwards. As it is, it's whatever is convenient for the hostler at the moment. I do think some RRs tried a policy in the earlier diesel days of having a backwards-facing unit, but the extra handling time (and money) didn't equate to overall reduced costs. The initial purchase cost of a full-function cab plus the ongoing maintenance are (or were) significant enough for RRs here in the late '50s and early '60s to explore cabless locomotives, but they eventually found the lack of flexibility to result in higher terminal handling costs.
You can just imagine how much smaller trains are in Great Britain than here in the US..I just looked it up.Great Britain? 90,504 square miles..Texas? 262,400!!

u18b

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3709
  • Respect: +1955
    • My website
Re: Planned centercab transfer unit bash
« Reply #87 on: April 04, 2014, 09:38:32 PM »
0
I wonder if two Trainmasters would fit on a Bachmann DDA40 chassis.
Ron Bearden
CSX N scale Archivist
http://u18b.com

"All get what they want-- not all like what they get."  Aslan the Lion in the Chronicles of Narnia by C.S.Lewis.

delamaize

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2401
  • Gender: Male
  • Prairie Line Native
  • Respect: +547
Re: Planned centercab transfer unit bash
« Reply #88 on: April 04, 2014, 10:54:01 PM »
0
I wonder if two Trainmasters would fit on a Bachmann DDA40 chassis.

Super transfermaster?

As promiced, Pictures. still working over the seams, and trying to chip off the paint.





Mike

Northern Pacific, Tacoma Division, 4th subdivision "The Prarie Line" (still in planning stages)

JoeD

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1871
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +1187
Re: Planned centercab transfer unit bash
« Reply #89 on: April 05, 2014, 12:13:44 AM »
0
love it...real modeling!! :D

joe
in my civvies here.  I only represent my grandmothers home made Mac and Cheese on Railwire.