Broadway Limited Santa Fe 3751

[Sokramiketes]

I just pulled out a T-1, and now I'm not going to be able to un-see the T-1 undersized mechanism in the BLI pre-production photo of 3751. 

Damn.

[thomasjmdavis]

I just pulled out a T-1, and now I'm not going to be able to un-see the T-1 undersized mechanism in the BLI pre-production photo of 3751. 

Damn.

Oy....I know I started this, but I don't think it is THAT bad.  The Reading T-1 had drivers that were 70" (and close together, having been rebuilt from Consolidations).  So, I assume the drivers on the BLI T-1 has drivers that are undersized from 70", and that drivers that scale 73.5" would never fit on the Reading T-1 drive (and in real life, would not fit the Reading T-1).  So, I assume the 3751 class will have a bigger mechanism, and that the axle spacing will be correct, even if the drivers themselves are too small.  They were candid with me about the driver size, and I think if they had just dropped a new boiler on top of the T-1 mechanism, they probably would have said so.

Yes, several suppositions on my part, but if I'm guessing correctly, the 3751 will have the right (or close) axle spacing, but more "clearance" and possibly bigger flanges than a comparable Kato (or recent Bachmann) steamer.

[carlso]

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

True ? Who knows, for sure, but I suspect that BLI would sacrifice 1:1 originality for a darned toy like contraption that takes the model back to the very early days of model trains that makes very unrealistic smoke .... Heck, you can stick a burning cigarette into the stack and get the same result for a lot less money.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

this is absofuckinglutely un-acceptable! 73.5 to make it work?

I don't know man. Isn't this kinda what we've been hoping for for ages? Manufacturers willing to make some compromises to make models that otherwise wouldn't be possible, possible.

I know it's a bit tough to swallow at this price point, but the other alternative is the Kato model where you'll see one new model (that has a decent chance of duplicating something that already has been made) every ten years.

[nscaler711]

So let's say it is 73.5 inches tall, what if we ignore the fact that it should be measured via the tire, and measure the flange with it? A scale flange in N scale would likely measure out to .15mm, but we know a scale flange would never work in our scale let alone some of the larger scales.
Would it be closer to the actual diameter then? It's not like it would be completely noticable while it's running anyway, and the flanges are always visible above the railhead.
It's not going to stop me from buying one however. This is progress for Santa Fe modelers. Everyone likes to think we have the most models available for modelling but that's not true at all. Most models we have gotten have been extremely generic and loosely based. There are some exceptions to that rule, but it applies to most other railroads as well.

[thomasjmdavis]

So let's say it is 73.5 inches tall, what if we ignore the fact that it should be measured via the tire, and measure the flange with it? A scale flange in N scale would likely measure out to .15mm, but we know a scale flange would never work in our scale let alone some of the larger scales.
Would it be closer to the actual diameter then? It's not like it would be completely noticable while it's running anyway, and the flanges are always visible above the railhead.
It's not going to stop me from buying one however. This is progress for Santa Fe modelers. Everyone likes to think we have the most models available for modelling but that's not true at all. Most models we have gotten have been extremely generic and loosely based. There are some exceptions to that rule, but it applies to most other railroads as well.

I think what those of us disappointed about a 73.5" tread diameter are saying is that we expected a compromise, but the 2-3" compromise made by Kato (or Con-cor) on their models of similar engines, not the 6+" compromise made by Bachmann on their 4-8-4.  We know the technology exists - our calipers tell us so when we measure existing locos.

These have an MSRP of $350, $450 with a decoder.  Is it unreasonable to assume they would meet the level of dimensional accuracy of a Kato FEF?

Now...will I buy one anyway?  Yes- assuming I don't stumble upon a more accurate brass model for less money. But...will it bother me every time I run it?  Yep.  Just like Con-cor passenger cars that are a few feet too short, or all those MTL PS-1s I have that are lettered for AAR 1937 cars, bother me.  It bothers me anytime a model could have been better than it is, just by adopting current manufacturing standards.

[Sokramiketes]

I think what those of us disappointed about a 73.5" tread diameter are saying is that we expected a compromise, but the 2-3" compromise made by Kato (or Con-cor) on their models of similar engines, not the 6+" compromise made by Bachmann on their 4-8-4.  We know the technology exists - our calipers tell us so when we measure existing locos.

These have an MSRP of $350, $450 with a decoder.  Is it unreasonable to assume they would meet the level of dimensional accuracy of a Kato FEF?

Now...will I buy one anyway?  Yes- assuming I don't stumble upon a more accurate brass model for less money. But...will it bother me every time I run it?  Yep.  Just like Con-cor passenger cars that are a few feet too short, or all those MTL PS-1s I have that are lettered for AAR 1937 cars, bother me.  It bothers me anytime a model could have been better than it is, just by adopting current manufacturing standards.

Well said.

[sizemore]

You'd kinda think the with the smaller drivers the cow-catcher wouldn't sit a scale 2 feet off the rails like on the T1. Hopefully 3571 and its sisters wont look like the Soul Train coming down the tracks.

The S. 

[squirrelhunter]

Con cor got around this by messing with the overall length of the models like the 2-10-2 or other aspects of the wheelbase  (I think the wheelbase of the pilot truck on the old GN S-1 4-8--4 is a foot too long or too short).

Given the overscale flanges used in N, I think if you can get the driver centers to be within 3 inches of actual diameter, it will look "right". But if you do more than that, the drivers will look a little off, like the Bachmann 4-8-2's.

Also, the T-1 has 70" drivers, so they couldn't re use that mechanism as is.
 

[draskouasshat]

I don't know man. Isn't this kinda what we've been hoping for for ages? Manufacturers willing to make some compromises to make models that otherwise wouldn't be possible, possible.

I know it's a bit tough to swallow at this price point, but the other alternative is the Kato model where you'll see one new model (that has a decent chance of duplicating something that already has been made) every ten years.

im going to disagree. compromise is fine but to give us a northern with drivers the size of your k-4 pacifics doesnt look right at all. if kato can do a 4-8-4 mech with close to scale drivers, so can BLI. If youre trying to be the top cat in the sand box when it comes to steam, you should probably do better on driver scaling. after all, thats the ONE thing on a steam locomotive that really stands out and draws the eyes of the modeler. as someone that builds a ton of accurate steam models, i have to make a ton of compromises but the drivers are where i draw the line. i can adjust proportions in the boilers to make everything look right. i cant however hide drivers that are too small.

Drasko

[Mark5]

I quickly did this little comparison for those that are curious:



Mark

[muktown128]

I'm not a Santa Fe guy, but I would have rather seen BLI skip the smoke feature and do the stacks extension.  I'd also like to see the larger drivers and make the flanges on the inner drivers smaller if necessary.  I think matching the overall dimensions of key features should be an important design consideration and not where they should compromise or cut corners unless the technology does not allow for it.  I also hope the drivers are see though.  The solid drivers on the Mikados and Pacifics were a big turn off for me.

[nstars]

im going to disagree. compromise is fine but to give us a northern with drivers the size of your k-4 pacifics doesnt look right at all. if kato can do a 4-8-4 mech with close to scale drivers, so can BLI. If youre trying to be the top cat in the sand box when it comes to steam, you should probably do better on driver scaling. after all, thats the ONE thing on a steam locomotive that really stands out and draws the eyes of the modeler. as someone that builds a ton of accurate steam models, i have to make a ton of compromises but the drivers are where i draw the line. i can adjust proportions in the boilers to make everything look right. i cant however hide drivers that are too small.

Drasko

My brother pointed me to one fundamental difference between the UP 4-8-4 and the Santa Fe 4-8-4, the minumum axle spacing is 7´4” for the UP 4-8-4 and only 6’ 11’  for the Santa Fe 4-8-4, both have 80” drivers. This means that the UP 4-8-4 has 8” between wheel tires (1.27 mm) and the Santa Fe 4-8-4 only 3” (= 0.48 mm). If you consider only flanges, you need an absolute minimum of 1.2 mm between wheel tires, but that is already tight and if you also want brake rigging a spacing of 1.5 mm or more is required. Please remember that for brake rigging you can’t copy the real situation. On the real locomotive the brake rigging is placed between drivers and side rod and overlaps the drivers. With scale 77” drivers the space between wheel tires on the Kato 4-8-4 will be 1.75 mm. If BLI uses scale axle spacing the space between wheel tires will be 1.5 mm.

Doing concessions is unavoidable. If you want brake rigging there are two options, reduce the drivers to the scale 73.5” (BLI) or with 77” stretch the chassis with 1.1 mm. This case is a case of give and take. FYI the brass Santa Fe 4-8-4 all had stretched chassis with a minimum axle spacing of at more than 88”. In other words, Hallmark put a ‘FEF chassis’ under a Santa Fe engine. 

Marc

[thomasjmdavis]

Please remember that for brake rigging you can’t copy the real situation. On the real locomotive the brake rigging is placed between drivers and side rod and overlaps the drivers. With scale 77” drivers the space between wheel tires on the Kato 4-8-4 will be 1.75 mm. If BLI uses scale axle spacing the space between wheel tires will be 1.5 mm.

Doing concessions is unavoidable. If you want brake rigging there are two options, reduce the drivers to the scale 73.5” (BLI) or with 77” stretch the chassis with 1.1 mm. This case is a case of give and take. FYI the brass Santa Fe 4-8-4 all had stretched chassis with a minimum axle spacing of at more than 88”. In other words, Hallmark put a ‘FEF chassis’ under a Santa Fe engine. 

Marc

Either you need to correct your spacing numbers- which you give as 1.75mm and 1.5mm, or your argument is flawed.  If the difference is 0.25mm, then all one would need to do is to subtract 0.25mm from each wheel to get the same wheel spacing. 0.25 mm is approximately 1.5 scale inches, not 3.5 scale inches (the amount of reduction from a Con-cor driver - which, on the Hudson, scales at 77" representing a 79" wheel).
And, I am completely lost on why, if brake rigging can be represented if the spacing is 1.75mm but is completely impossible if the spacing is 1.5 mm.

In any case, if the loco was "stretched" 10 scale inches (1/16 of an inch, or 1.5mm) over its 61'+ scale length- by expanding the 2 tighter axle centers, that would be almost imperceptible, whereas reducing the diameter of the drivers by 6.5 scale inches is quite obvious.

[nstars]

Either you need to correct your spacing numbers- which you give as 1.75mm and 1.5mm, or your argument is flawed.  If the difference is 0.25mm, then all one would need to do is to subtract 0.25mm from each wheel to get the same wheel spacing. 0.25 mm is approximately 1.5 scale inches, not 3.5 scale inches (the amount of reduction from a Con-cor driver - which, on the Hudson, scales at 77" representing a 79" wheel).

I don’t say brake rigging can’t be done at 1.5 mm, there are examples where it has been done. And the 1.5 mm is already with the 73.5” drivers (and a wheel spacing conform prototype).

The main point I wanted to make is that in contrast to UP 4-8-4 the drivers on the Santa Fe 4-8-4 are spaced considerable closer. To model the Santa Fe 4-8-4 in N scale requires bigger concessions than with the Up loco. As I also mentioned, these concessions could either be reducing the drivers to scale 73.5” or stretch the engine with 1.1 mm. BLI choose the 1st option. Is that the right choice? I agree that the smaller drivers can be quite visible, but let’s face it, we don’t know if BLI also has to stretch the engine despite the smaller drivers. The only thing we now for sure are the dimensions of the prototype (which are tight) and the scale 73.5” drivers.

Marc