Weekend Photos - September 2025

[HONDO74]

Here is a youtube video that a person did showing how he did the front coupler.

How to add a Front Coupler to a Lionel Postwar Steam Engine!! (Running a Lionel Doubleheader)

Thank you, Hondo.
Do you like the way Railchief74 did this?

I am not fond of double heading, It does not look that good for the front of the engine. But it it probably the only way to get the 2nd engine to run on tight curves. I have seen several other videos where it was done the same way.

If I were to double head I would use an engine that has a front couple like an o-4-0, 0-6-0 or better yet a 0-8-0.

[healey36]

Hey Wayne, which drivers are blind on your MTH I-1s? It's tough to see in the photo, but it looks like the second, third, and fifth pairs (front to back). I wonder if that's prototypical?



It's a nice locomotive, but I'd have thought that, as you indicated, there would be issues trying to eke out an O-27 curve.

[sarge]

The PRR I1 was initially built blind on 2, 3, and 4. The class was later changed to be only blind on 3 and all were brought into compliance with that standard.

My favourite PRR steam loco, just a typical brutish mineral hauler.

[healey36]

Thanks for that, Sarge; it would be interesting to know what modifications were made to allow them to move to just a single pair of blind drivers in their final iteration. It's too bad we missed (by some seventy years) seeing a few double-headed/triple-headed sets pounding up the grade at Cresson (in place of those damn NS diesel-electrics)...it must have been something.

Reading various entries re: the Pennsy's I-class Decapods, they are often referred to as the largest class of Decs to have operated in the U. S. This refers to the sheer numbers of I-class locos built and operated. They were not, however, the largest Decapod built and operated in the U. S.; that distinction belongs to the Western Maryland's I-2 class which, I understand, dwarfed the I-1/I-1s. Just sayin'.

I have a photo around here somewhere of an I-2 running through Westminster...would have loved to have seen that as well.

[webenda]

which drivers are blind

2, 3 and 5.

[gregj410]

Wayne,
Try replacing the uncoupling track with a regular straight section and see if its stops derailing.

[healey36]

Albany NY, March 1967:



Photo courtesy of John West.

[webenda]

Wayne,
Try replacing the uncoupling track with a regular straight section and see if its stops derailing.

What are you thinking, Greg? Is something wrong with that type of uncoupling track?

Here is the setup with a regular long section of straight track.

[webenda]

Here is the test run with a regular, straight track.


Look at where the tender is just before derailment; it appears that the tender is attempting to pass the engine on the left. The drawbar swing limits won't allow that. Thus, we have a derailment.



The short circuit is caused by the front drive wheel hitting the center rail after derailing.

[gregj410]

It almost seems to bind with that moment of hesitation. I wonder if that turnout is slightly tighter than 027.

[healey36]

I'm guessing O-27 is just way too tight for the swing-action of the pilot truck and the tender draw-bar, but what do I know.

Nothing much to report here. Found some time between porch-painting stints to replace the handrail on this Lionel 804 that was in the box with the #139 set:



Didn't have a copper handrail like the original, nor could I find one at the various parts dealers I routinely use. Always a bit of a fiddly task, I had to go with a brass replacement. Gave the tank and frame a good scrub, but no repaint or touch-up. Ninety-five years of wear and tear...okay by me.

[sarge]

Wayne, I suspect the problem is an extreme example of the classic reverse-curve problem.

Try moving the switch to the other end of the straight section so the tender can go back normal before making the reverse turn.

You have one rigid wheelbase defined between the bolster pins of the tender and a second defined between the first and fourth driver set, and you are trying to pull the first with the second (by a whole bunch of flobbery bits in between) that are at a very sharp angle from the axes of travel defined by each.

This is why it is considered good practice in track design, prototype, scale model, and toy, to lay in a straight between the curves in a reverse curve or crossover equal to the length of the longest piece of stock intended to traverse the form.

[webenda]

Wayne, I suspect the problem is an extreme example of the classic reverse-curve problem.

Well, I assembled this reverse curve with a three-rail O-27 switch just to test the classic reverse-curve problem. So far this 2-10-0 is the only piece of equipment that has a problem. Actually, the locomotive, while the cause of the problem, has no problem going back and forth through the S-curve without the tender attached.

Try moving the switch to the other end of the straight section so the tender can go back normal before making the reverse turn.

I am sure moving the switch to avoid an S-curve would solve the derailment problem. The S-curve is there to test the S-curve problem.

You have one rigid wheelbase defined between the bolster pins of the tender and a second defined between the first and fourth driver set, and you are trying to pull the first with the second (by a whole bunch of flobbery bits in between) that are at a very sharp angle from the axes of travel defined by each.

Correct, the angle required by the drawbar and tender connection is the problem.

"Flobbery" is not a standard English word. Still, it could be a non-standard or colloquial form of the verb "flobber," which means to sag or wobble, or an adjective form of that verb describing something that exhibits this characteristic. The word "flobber" itself is obsolete, recorded only in the Middle English period.

The drawbar is held in position with a bolt. There is a spring under the drawbar. The spring keeps the drawbar parallel with the bottom of the engine. The drawbar has curbs that prevent its swing from exceeding 90° (±45°). No flobber with this setup.


The tender has its drawbar attachment riveted to the truck. If it could swing independently of the truck, I am sure there would be no problem going through the O-27 S-curve. The engine specifications say, minimum curve: O-31. Since the engine-tender almost makes it through an O-27 S-curve, I am pretty sure there would be no problem going through an O-31 S-curve.

This is why it is considered good practice in track design, prototype, scale model, and toy, to lay in a straight between the curves in a reverse curve or crossover equal to the length of the longest piece of stock intended to traverse the form.

I know, but what's the fun in that?

One of many possible S-curve problems, limited drawbar swing.

[sarge]

"Flobbery" is not a standard English word. Still, it could be a non-standard or colloquial form of the verb "flobber," which means to sag or wobble, or an adjective form of that verb describing something that exhibits this characteristic. The word "flobber" itself is obsolete, recorded only in the Middle English period.

Surely you're not still trying to pass Google AI Overview off as a source with any veracity at all, are you? If so, the attempt to disguise the reference by changing a word here and there changed the meaning a bit.



It's a perfectly legitimate local colloquialism and just a wonderful word!

I truly wish Google would admit their "AI overview" bit is an absolutely unreliable and inconsistent failure and stop trying to pass it off as being remotely accurate in its pronouncements. People might actually believe it.

[gregj410]

Wayne,
From this photo it looked as if maybe the lead truck was hanging up on the uncoupling track as the engine was traversing through the turnout. However your later picture has debunked my thinking.