Consolidations -- Doorstop and Otherwise

[rrjjf]

The Pearce 2-8-0 with proper sand and steam domes can be made to look like a B&O E-27 loco. CLW offered those domes at one time but they are hard to find now. The B&O locos had a larger space between the 3rd and 4th drivers. The Pearce has evenly spaced drivers. I have seen scratch built models of the E-27 that have evenly spaced drivers. CLW H-10 rods can then be used. Spacing is the same on the CLW-H-10 and Pearce 2-8-0. I scratch built an E-27ca fromoriginal Ken Henry parts and used the CLW rods.

Joe

[aww]

Otherwise

Not a Consolidation, but the Pearce USRA 0 8 0.

It might take a 48" radius, I don't remember ever trying.

Now for myself only, there is more to it than will it go around the bend. Tender to loco clearance must be compromised and I can't go for the unrealistic look of tight curves.

Allan

[R.K. Maroon]

Bob, would you tell us a bit about that MoPac model? I have the decals for MoPac steam in my inventory and have thought something like this would be great for the club layout.

So Bob said the Hines/Pearce 2-8-0 was an 0-8-0 boiler on a 2-8-2 chassis. I have one of all three so we can compare. First the chassis:



Darn near perfect match. The 2-8-2 is original Hines. Note the blind drivers (which is too bad, as I really like this model). The 2-8-0, with all flanged drivers, is Pearce Tool. Driver diameter is 60.5" for the Mike and 61" for the Consol (measured at root of flange -- correct me if they should be measured elsewhere).

Now the boilers. 2-8-0 on the top, 0-8-0 on the bottom:



Of course, the cab position, domes, and other details are different, but the boilers are indeed the same as best I can tell. I need to take a photo of the 2-8-2 and 2-8-0 together. Even though they have the same chassis, the Mike is a good cab length longer than the Consol. I got fooled by this -- Given the difference in length, I never would have expected the chassis to be the same.

Jim

[bob turner]

Did Henry offer the Mikado? If so, it would need a boiler extension and a different firebox, not easy to do with Henry's stamped boiler. The Hines boiler was, I believe, a turning or a casting.

[bob turner]

Anyway, what a nice thread. Here is mine - the rear tender truck has since been moved aft per Mitch's suggestion. Motor is in tender.

[rogruth]

Nice stuff as usual.

I do learn more all the time.
Don't always remember it though.

[R.K. Maroon]

Roger, I am forgetting faster than I am learning, but at least that way I won't run out of disk space.

Did Henry offer the Mikado? If so, it would need a boiler extension and a different firebox, not easy to do with Henry's stamped boiler. The Hines boiler was, I believe, a turning or a casting.

Here is a clip from the 1956-57 Boxcar Ken catalog. I was going to clip just the section on the Pearce Mikado, but found the Lobaugh section of interest too. I assume that would be the famed "Lost Wax Mike"?



As to the Pearce Mikado, I don't have any evidence that it ever saw the light of day. I will check the boiler on my Hines Mikado. Bob, I think it is is the same construction as that brass Hines Pacific boiler I sent you a couple of years ago. Not a turning or casting as I recall, just formed brass in the usual way. But again, I would want to check mine to be sure.

Jim

[bob turner]

Henry did have the parts - see my 786 in the Mikado thread - all castings from Henry. I do not believe he ever delivered an SP kit - he told me there was aproblem with the side rods. He was a perfectionist, and all the tools had to be ready.

For example, he had dies for those boilers and cabs. Ka-wham, and the entire formed piece was ready.

[R.K. Maroon]

Here, for grins, is a photo of a Hines Pacific boiler:



I will double check, but I believe all the Hines/Pearce locomotives I have boilers of similar construction.

Jim

[jwmathews]

This has been a fun thread, with several nice photos. Some of the posts came thru on my computer screen as very wide, so I have to move the horizontal bar at the bottom of the screen back & forth to read all the words & see all the details in some photos. Other posts in the same thread do not require this process. Is the problem due to some setting on my computer that I don't understand/know how to corrrect? Or is it something else?

With regard to the Hines/Pearce 2-8-0, it is a "freelance" model. When Jim first wrote me about it, I did find a close prototype, comparing the advertisement left side photo with a prototype picture in the 1925 LOCO CYCLOPEDIA: Lehigh & New England 300-series. There were about five locos in that class, built by ALCo in 1922.

Few Consolidations were built in the USA after the early 1920s, with the possible exception of WW2 locos designed for British/European RR service. US roads already had many 2-8-0s, with several older slide-valve locos having been rebuilt with piston valves & superheaters. With a few exceptions such as the Western Maryland, most big roads had gone to Mikados & ten-coupled power. Then LIMA developed the "Super Power" concept in the mid-twenties with big boilers & big fireboxes supported by four-wheel trailing trucks. That was the trend from the late '20s thru the 1940s to the end of steam.

When trying to see if one can find a prototype for a given model, it helps to know at least one major specification: driver diameter. Then if one has a favorite RR, in many cases books have been published that include specs & photos of steam power for many roads.

With the type of construction used by Hines/Pearce, as well as Lobaugh & some Scale-Craft models, it is possible to install different shapes of domes to better simulate a given prototype. Proportions matter when trying to approach a certain protptype appearance.

For example, the St.Louis-Southwestern also had 2-8-0s with 61" drivers, but their boilers appear smaller in diameter than the L&NE locos and their sand domes were round, not oval like the "stock" Hines/Pearce model. Also their sand & steam domes appear taller, perhaps due to the smaller boiler diameter.

Some cast boilers (such as the original Varney/GMC/All-Nation B&O 4-6-0) allow use of different types of stacks & domes, but it is much more difficult to modify a model with such parts included in its boiler casting. But such tinkering is part of the fun of the hobby for the craftsmen who have the skills.

[sarge]

Adding to Woody's comments, there is a bit of mythology about US designed steam. Puncturing the myth becomes good for us.

American steam was not only railroad specific designs (unless you are talking of PRR -Grin!) like everyone loves to repeat. At the time, the builder's had a basic design in catalogue which they used as a basis, and the savings of going with the catalogue loco was attractive to both the smaller roads and to roads like NYC who relied on a builder (or in their case two later on) rather than erecting their own. The road would then specify the appliances they preferred and kept in stock such as pumps, heaters, injection, even heater choices. Thus, the idea of a base design that one noodled to suit didn't start with the USRA designs; it was well known and accepted long before.

No-one turned down an order for a completely road-specific design, of course, but (getting to the Pierce) Alco had a catalogue 2-8-0 and 4-6-0 before WWI. The 2-8-0 was a 61-63" wheeled modern design and the Pierce (whether by happy happenstance or by design) resembles that basic design quite well. Joe mentions a B&O design, Bob has shown a couple, and I've done or seen some B&M K's and NYC/B&A G-5s using this kit. These only scratch the surface of various prototype choices that can be built much like the real ones were, a common basic design with road-specific hardware and appliances.

I don't know if that was the intent with the model, but it worked out that way. The 0-8-0 proportions aren't quite right, especially compared to the stellar KTM USRA 0-8-0s, so I have sometimes idly wondered whether the USRA was adapted from the Consol rather than the other way around. No matter, for the Consol is the more useful, whether by luck or by design.

[rogruth]

Woody,

The very large photos are not the fault of your computer, IMO.
I'm no computer expert but I think it is done by the person who
puts the photos on MTJ.
The large format photos work great for seeing details but not
for seeing an overall picture.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I've got a little early engine......

[rogruth]

Nice.

[rrjjf]

That little Consol looks like a Great Western product. I reworked one of them for a fellow in the Waynesburg PA Model Railroad Club a few years ago and fitted a small Sagami motor in the boiler/cab eliminating the original tender drive. Bill Davis sold me one of these in kit form at the Chicago meet about two years ago. It is on the shelf of future projects. Bill also sold me a Great Western American kit that I passed along to Marty. The Great Western kits are basic steam locos that are well made and with some detailing and care they can be made into nice little locos like the one in the above photo. They are somewhat hard to find though.

Joe