PRR K4 1361

Inkaneer Mar 24, 2012

  1. Mike C

    Mike C TrainBoard Member

    1,833
    468
    42
    I'd like more steamers too, But if you're into freelance, you can make a real nice USRA type roster......Mike

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    4,325
    1,424
    77
    Yes you could. However, if you are a confirmed SPF as most PRR modelers are then the USRA designs are meaningless. The PRR received some USRA 2-8-2's. They were classified as L2's in the PRR scheme of things. The PRR didn't like them as they were not as powerful as the homegrown L1's. So they sent them as far west as they could and then sold them off. PRR didn't like articulateds either although they did experiment with them. They also did not care for 4-8-4's.
     
  3. randgust

    randgust TrainBoard Member

    3,493
    502
    56
    The irony of course, is that ATSF also took some non-ATSF power and pretty much felt the same way; a handful of PRR L-1 2-8-2's, (and some N&W 2-8-8-2's as well for Raton and Cajon) and none lasted much beyond the war. I know the first time I saw a regular-looking PRR L-1 with ATSF on the cab and a tender number I thought that Con-Cor had invaded 12"=1'.
    " The three from the PRR came in 1945 and were ex PRR numbers 4031 built by Baldwin in 1917, number 4185 built by the PRR in 1917 and number 7342 built by Baldwin in 1917."

    BUT, PRR seemed relatively content with ATSF 2-10-4's as leased power for an iron-ore season....
     
  4. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    4,325
    1,424
    77
    Those ATSF 2-10-4's were a stop gap measure. The PRR steam fleet had worked their guts out during WWII and Pennsy could not get diesels fast enough. So they were desperate for power. The ATSF engines worked hauling coal between Columbus and Sandusky, Ohio. Pretty flat country. They worked for one summer then back they went when the diesels came. They didn't even get a classification on the PRR but were lumped in with the J1's that the PRR built from a C&O design [T1] and Pennsy built 125 of them which was more than 3 times the number that the C&O had. Since the PRR engines like the C&O engines were built with radial stay fireboxes and not the traditional belpaire fireboxes this locomtive could be one that N scale manufacturers might consider doing. About eight other roads had them also. ATSF engines had 74" drivers while the C&O had 69" drivers. I don't know if the others roads had the 69" drivers.
     
  5. Cajonpassfan

    Cajonpassfan TrainBoard Supporter

    1,105
    33
    25
    Well, we are all forced to make choices and compromises. I would have preferred to model Cajon Pass in 1947, with lots of steam, but early diesels very much in evidence. The lack of era appropriate Santa Fe and Union Pacific steam made me shift my time period to early 1951, with full range of first generation diesels, which are commercially available, supplemented by a handful of steam locomotives that still worked over Cajon Pass in helper and road engine assignments. It turned out to be a good compromise for me. First, heavy mainline mountainous railroading takes its toll on N scale steam locomotives and so the diesels take the brunt of the abuse, just like in the real world. They are much easier to fix or replace than steam. Second, the more "modern" era actually grew on me, providing a greater variety,
    while still satisfying my steam urges (in a more limited but practical way). I still have to kit bash some "Signature" locos, like 3800 class 2-10-2's, but don't need a dozen of them. Third, if more steam becomes miraculously available, I can backdate some op sessions if I feel like it. But mostly, I didn't compromise on scale and the ability to model scenes I couldn't do in HO in the space available ( about 650 sq. ft.).
    Inkaneer, 30x50 feet to work with is incredibly generous and more than most of us can dream of, and I am sure you could do a great Pennsy layout in the space, with all the appropriate Pennsy steam your wallet can afford. But, 30x50 is not as much space as one would think, not for that grand mainline HO layout, it's equivalent to about 16' x 27' in N
    scale...very nice but not huge, about the size of a two car garage. That assumes no stairwells, heaters, boilers, plumbing and other appurtenances usually found in basements... I can just imagine what I could do with 30'x50 in N SCALE, what a truly GREAT layout plan I could have with HO sized curves, long trains, and all the things that scream "the Standard Railroad", without cramming things in and without all the other compromises most of us have to make to make things fit.
    Just my thoughts, your mileage may vary....:)
    All the best with making your decisions, you're the one who has to be happy with them.
    Regards, Otto K.
    Happily modeling Cajon Pass in N scale, circa 1950
     
  6. robert3985

    robert3985 TrainBoard Member

    841
    57
    14
    I gotta totally disagree with you here. I don't have ANY trouble modeling specific engines, cars, equipment, structures, scenery, track furniture...you name it...in N scale...even people for some scenes.

    I like to look very closely at my models...and so does my camera. No "arms-length" frickin' "three-foot-rule" for me! Musta been an HO scale person thought that one up! Try putting your cars on the track from three feet away!

    I suppose if I was modeling the Pennsy I would have more trouble, but even modeling the U.P...if I want something bad enough, I make a master, take a mold off of it and make more. Or, I make a master, take it to my local jeweler/rock shop and have him cast it up for me in brass...then I make a rubber mold...inject my waxes and take them back to him for what I want.

    3D printing has opened up a whole new world which I am just beginning to explore and soon I'll have several models of engines, rolling stock and details that I have wanted for a long time...which have NEVER been available in N-scale and may never be available...unless I make 'em available.

    Nobody gets everything they want, no matter what scale you're in or what road you model. I've known that for a long time and I've had to take matters into my own hands to get some of the models I want (meaning kitbashing, scratch-building, buying brass, learning manufacturing processes and leaning on manufacturers).

    Yes, N scale is ideal for building an overall scene, but with a little extra effort, it's also ideal for modeling specific prototypes and I know a lot of great N scale modelers who do just that. Is HO "better"? Not if you consider making the scenery and trackage also "specific" to a prototype. HO really sucks compared to N scale in that department.

    As Otto has so succinctly pointed out in his post on this thread, you just can't get the same scenic effect in HO as you do in N scale. My Echo in 1951 would be 48' long and 8' deep in HO...a simple impossibility as far as depth is concerned. Your reach (if you're human) is roughly the same no matter what scale you model. Kinda difficult to model something you can't reach. N scale allows a much more ideal scenery to track ratio than ANY other scale.

    If you want to see how good N scale can look, I suggest you raise your roadbed to floor height to between 50" and 54". I know it sounds almost too simple, but it make a HUGE difference in the way you view your models, your track, your structures and your scenery.

    If you really expect to have what you want in any scale, then stop whining, get off your butts and do what you need to do to either have it manufactured or make it yourself.

    Of course, this is strictly my own humble opinion....

    Cheers!
    Bob Gilmore
     
  7. FloridaBoy

    FloridaBoy TrainBoard Member

    802
    1
    22
    I got my "training" in this scale over the years thanks to friends who were in my eyes excellent model railroaders who shared their expertise with me. One commonality they all shared is not to complain about what wasn't available, but what they could make of what WAS available. About 15 years ago, I watched a friend slice up a Rivarossi Mallet, which even at that time was quite expensive, to convert it from a 2-8-8-2 to a 2-6-6-2 and modify the cab to suit his personal railroad characterisitcs. As an old timer in N scale by now by many standards, I never complain about what should be made, because I learned if you wait long enough, even Victor gets his Atlantic.

    For example, my last finished project is taking a scrap Model Power Pacific and mating it to an American to come up with an Atlantic, and without much work involved. Piece of cake, but there are tense moments when making some alterations and cuts beyond the point of no return that get a little trying on the soul.

    Ink, for example when you mention your K4, assuming it is a Minitrix unit, try mating it with a Kato JNR Pacific and with a little humpha you get a high performer with just a smidgeon of error on the valve gear.

    On the down side, although I have a large and diversified fleet of locos and rolling stock, I have also accumulated a large supply of cannibalized parts, shells, gears, motors and other stuff from donors, total unreparables, obsoletes, etc, from which to supply new projects.

    All it takes is a little imagination, experimentation and patience.

    Ken "FloridaBoy" Willaman
     
  8. arbomambo

    arbomambo TrainBoard Member

    1,473
    713
    32
    I couldn't agree more....
    Part of MY fascination with trains, in general, is watching them pass over/through distinctive, spectacular, and 'signature' scenery...Cajon, Raton, Tehachapi, Horseshoe curve, even Louisiana Cypress wetlands...
    Considering available space, N scale has become 'my' scale of choice; only in N scale am I able to 'suggestively model' these kind of distinctive, signature scenes, with almost prototypical train length...
    I'm currently indulging my 'love' of 1957 ATSF passenger trains with an enlarged door layout representing an area of New Mexico...I'm also considering my interest in the UP in the same era by building a similarly sized layout representing Sherman Hill and Dale junction...likewise, an SP version somewhere along The Sunset Route...
    I can envision being able to tie these three individual layouts together, with staging, to a point where these three railroads terminated in the real world...LAUPT..
    But, as Otto stated so well...we all have to make compromises...I can only represent so much with available RTR locos and rolling stock...if I wanted to represent anything else, I'd have to scratch or kitbash it, as I'm currently doing with ATSF's Fast Mail.
    If i can't even do that, I have to do without, am I'm 'ok' with that...I'll model what I can model and enjoy it...and if or when the day arrives that someone releases a proper ATSF 4-8-4, I'll happily find a way to rationalize having it on my New Mexico layout (just so happens that the summer of 1957 was the 'swan song' of ATSF steam helper service out of the Rio Grande valley at Belen, up to Mountainair, through Abo Canyon...!...I'm sure I could rationalize one of them 'helping' westbounds out of Belen!)
    Likewise, I REALLY want to model a 1957-era Sunset Limited as they appeared leaving New Orleans to travel West...well, the PA or E unit power is available, but the rest of the train certainly isn't...so kitbashing brass sides on core cars seems the only alternative at the moment...
    What ever makes you happy...if you're not satisified with N, i certainly suggest modelling HO...as stated above you are the one that has to be happy with it...!
    sincerely,
    Bruce
     

Share This Page