Monday Mountain thread

[Seaboard Air Line Fan]

CORRECTION!!!

I felt the location I mentioned (McComb not McCoomb) was wrong, so I did a search and found the engine is actually in Terry MS:

http://www.steamlocomotive.info/vlocomotive.cfm?Display=761

terry ms 0-6-0a.jpg (200.51 KiB) Viewed 6908 times

Wish I would have had a "fence filter" for my camera

(photo in this post is not mine)

Someone (from MS) on another forum told me that it was in McComb and being I couldn't recall I "ASS-u-me-d" he was right.

BobD

[Wolf]

Lobaugh made them in 1939, and Stevenson Preservation Models makes them now.

Does this mean that there has been little change or improvement in O scale models since 1939?

Roger---
Since no one has stepped up to answer your question I guess I will brave the maelstrom...oh, wait! This is MTJ, the forum
where civility reigns, so I won't need an asbestos suit to weather any resulting firestorm .

There have been many changes in O scale models since 1939, many minor, several major. Whether they are improvements
or not may depend more upon your outlook toward the hobby, and whether you embrace change in general. Some people are
happiest at their forges beating out new models on their anvils, while others are happiest plunking the latest plastic marvel
fresh out of the box and upon their tracks..most modellers would fall somewhere in between those extremes (and caricatures)
And to quote Turner again: all opinion.

Bob Stevenson founded his company on the premise to make available parts and kits from "past model masters", and he
has sought parts and tooling from defunct companies to do so. Chances are that he may have that part you need to complete
your doorstop! He fills a needed niche in the hobby by doing so. But by no means does that indicate that there have been no
changes since 1939.

[rrjjf]

With regard to the Lobaugh SP Switcher, the original Lobaugh kit incorporates a heavy cast bronze frame with typical Lobaugh bearings. The Stevenson Preservation Lines kit for the same loco incorporates a frame made from lost wax castings. I have built the original Lobaugh model but have never built the Stevenson kit. I milled off the rear of the heavy Lobaugh frame on my model and added the angled frame section under the cab. It looks a lot better that way.

Joe

[CMorrill]

I have not got very far with my Stevenson Preservation SP 0-6-0, but will get back to it one day --- I hope! Couple other locos to finish off first.

Charlie

[bob turner]

Did not answer Roger, because I figured he was just pulling our chain. - but if he only knows Lionel, he might guess that nobody yet has successfully repriduced the 700- series freight cars, and in that particular instance, 1939 rules.

All one needs to do is compare the 1939 Lobaugh switcher ith the Beaver Creek version, or the Stevenson version for all that, and the answer is plain. Here is the comparison between two of those:

[bob turner]

1939 Lobaugh

[bob turner]

Stevenson. Have we improved since 1939?

One thing we definitely are going backwards on is this kind of software. That took me triple the keystrokes and time that it would have five years ago.

[Wolf]

Ttender is quite well done, but not Lobaugh. It may be a really good scratch build. Mechanism is stock Lobaugh. Tail beam and trailing truck detract from an otherwise superb model. All opinion.

And if I could figure a way to add Jay's comment/question about the tender being a Max Gray 12k gal imported for the "Lost-Wax Mike"....
I would have I think the kerfluffle about Bob's lack of speedy reply might have been better directed at me, as I believe the tender
under discussion may have been the one of which I posted pictures on 10/13, and again on 10/17 in follow-up to Bob's query. I didn't visit
MTJ last weekend, as I was occupied elsewhere. Sorry for your getting my flak, Bob. And school me, what's wrong with the tail beam
and trailing truck?

I checked the tender dimensions with the ones listed in Wright's book of SP Locomotive and Tender Diagrams, and I checked my tender's
appearance against the pictures of Jay's MG import that he posted on 10/20.

Upon careful comparison of the photos and my model, there are several differences that lead me to believe that my tender is probably not a
Max Gray. There are more rivets (the builder may have been a real rivet-masochist? ). In particular, there is a double row where the
bottom sheet meets the side sheets. There are differences in the brake rigging as mine has more detailed piping details, a different cylinder,
support brackets on the levers, and has a drop-handle style handbrake mounted on the gangway floor rather than a vertical-handwheel style
mounted on the front wall of the oil bunker. Some of these differences might be attributable to added detailing, such as the angle cocks
(but but no hoses!) on both air brake lines at the rear of the tender. Other differences definitely were included in the original build. The shape
of the frame at the front has a curved underside which is not present in the MG, and the support bulkheads under the sides of the gangway
are not vertical as in the MG, but are angled backward at the bottom. The coupler and drawbar pockets are shaped differently on my tender,
having rounded back ends while the pictures of the MG show perpendicular ends.There is also pressurized oil bunker style filler cap on the
oil bunker, whereas there is a plain cover on the MG. The missing rear headlight is probably best explained away as an oversight? But it
DOES have rerailing frogs hung on both sides of the frame (I didn't think the trackwork could get THAT bad! ). And last, but not
least, there is a steam pipe to the rear of the tender, ending under the coupler, albeit without the connection fitting. Don't know if the MG
tender posted by Jay had that feature, or whether I may have just missed it in the pictures.

So all-in-all, not a "Lost-Wax Mike" 120-C tender? How much variation would there have been in Max Gray products between the different
runs? Might that account for some of the differences? Or should we attribute this tender to a really good scratchbuilder?

As for the dimensions, it seems to track the 100-C dimensions more closely than the 120-C, given that some dimensions are nearly
identical for either class, or not within my ability to measure them finely enough. Major dimensions compared to the diagrams:
bolster center-to-center 22'+/- too close to call? 7" difference, closer to 120-C
rear bolster to frame 7'6" 100-C
front bolster to frame 7'6" both identical
chafing iron to pulling face of coupler 39' 100-C
oil tank length 11' too close to call? 8" difference, closer to 100-C
oil tank height 6' closer to 120-C (6'7" vs 5'1")
rail to top of oil tank 13' taller than either, closer to 120-C Attributable to Lobaugh truck height?
rail to top of water tank 12'9" +/- taller than either, closer to 120-C " " " ?
tank length (both) 33' +/- closer to 100-C
oil filler location 4'6" from front edge, 6'6" from rear edge 100-C
water filler location from oil filler (single filler on model, 3-4 on diagrams, picked 1st hole back) 13'6" closer to 100-C but exceeds both
water tank diameter 8' 100-C

I'd be tempted to call this one as a 100-C tender, as more dimensions are closer to that than to the 120-C. But I guess I would defer to
the reality police and rivet-counters on making that final determination.

And am I the only one who wishes that Arnold Menke would gather all his knowledge and all those chapters on tenders in the various
SP locomotive books, together into one book? I would find that most useful, and would even buy a copy or two!
It doesn't HAVE to be titled "The Tender Behind"

[Jay Criswell]

Wolf,

One thing to keep in mind, the MG tender brought in to go behind the Lost Wax Mike was not the regular import. It had numerous differences. Also, they didn't call it a 10 or 12, they called it a "medium" Vanderbilt tender. Basically, nondescript.

Jay

[Wolf]

Yes, I remember the flyers and ads listing the 3 sizes: small, medium, large.
"A size for every use", if memory serves.
I assume that they most closely matched the 70-C, 120-C and 160-C classes.
Not exact replicas, but "close enough" -- opinion.

[Jay Criswell]

Wolf,

Not exactly. Those are the standard KTM/MG imports. I keep trying to make the point, these were brought in specifically for the "Lost Wax Mike". The detail, castings, dimensions, etc. were different the the standard models. They also didn't come wuth trucks. One easy way to tell is the lack of phenolic insulating pad where the truck mounting screws go.

Completely different than anything else they imported. Maybe I should bring an example to OSW and you guys can check it out for yourselves.

Jay

[rogruth]

Wolf and Bob,

Thank you for your answers.
Do I understand that a standard was set for building scale 2 rail locos
in the pre WW II period that is still the standard?

Bob,
I don't pull the leg of people who build 2 R locos like the ones I see on this forum.
Also, if I am, I usually use one or more of those smiley thingies.

I enjoy this forum and have learned so much from it I would not want to wear out
my welcome. Hmmm. Maybe I already have.

[Tom Dempsey]

Well, three standards actually. Scale 4 ft 8.5 inches track gauge (Quarterinch AAR), Scale 5 ft track gauge(O Gauge), 17/64" (Q Gauge).

[J. S. Bach]

1939 Lobaugh...Stevenson.

My personal preference is for the Lobaugh for a number of reasons. A little closer coupling of the tender to the loco would be the only real change that I would think about doing.

[bob turner]

Wolf - It is all good. Jay is like me - he likes to get responses to his posts. He just has a different way of going about it.

Jay is 100% correct - Max imported a batch of tenders for Al Ellis as they tooled up for the lost wax mike. They were, to my eye, ugly. They were not supplied with any othr models.

If the Max tender is really closer to the 100-C-1, then it looks more lke the 1744 tender than anything else. I will go back and look at Jay's photos, and yours. The thing is, these early imprts were not always accurate, and once in a while a Lobaugh model is actually more accurate than a KTM.

For instance, the 120-C-3 that came with the USH SP Mountain was wildly incorrect. The same tender that came with the prewar Lobaugh Mike is quite accurate, if not nearly as well detailed.

On my iPad, Wolf's post is unglued, and difficult to read (a format problem, not Wolf's). But I offer the following simplification:

The 70-C, 90-C, and 100-C all had eight foot diameter water tanks, and rode on Andrews tender trucks. The 120-C tenders had 8'6" diameter tanks, and all had a pleasing oil tank shape, riding in a cradle much likeJay's tender. They either had trucks looking like express reefer trucks or six wheel Commonwealth, and distinctive underframe bracing.

Lobaugh, after the war, ran out of 2 1/8" dia tubing, and made a pseudo Vanderbilt tender for the Pacific that has no prototype. Ituses the 120-C bronze cast underframe. It can be modified to look like an SP 100-C, but the underframe has to go (hopefully to me).

I am actually an SP tender freak, but not nearly as knowledgable as Arnold. I am delighted that he is able to help.