Date   
Daiyoung

Lee Gustafson
 

Typical of Daiyoung models, not great mechanical stuff, thinner brass some weak or cold solder joints.

Lee Gustafson

 

On May 27, 2019, at 7:53 AM, Dale Buxton <dbtuathaddana@...> wrote:

   Daiyoung  made the NJ brass D&RGW M-67. Nice looking model but not a great runner. Quite thin brass used in the boiler.

Dale

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 1:36 PM Lee Gustafson via Groups.Io <bagustaf=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Does anyone remember the builder Daiyoung ( sp? ) 


-----Original Message-----
From: Dusty <dustburm@q.com>
To: HOn3 <HOn3@groups.io>
Sent: Sun, May 26, 2019 11:13 am
Subject: Re: [HOn3] K-36 and K-37

Given enough time and money anything is possible. Right?

Was Dung Heep an early builder for PFM? Just kidding.

For the time they were amazing models that fueled Hon3 modelers' visions.

Dusty Burman 

Re: Jacks Cabin / Villa Grove water tank

Mark Lewis
 

Ed:

Here is the direct link to the RS Laser HO Jack's Cabin Water Tank..... http://www.rslaserkits.com/SCM-204-Jack%E2%80%99s-Cabin-Water-Tank_p_4125.html   

Mark Lewis

Re: C-25 width

John Stutz
 

Regarding the five C-25 equivalent engines: These were not exact copies of CR #103, and that engine was twice severely modified by the D&RG, first with a an extended cab and later with a near standard cab moved back to enclose the backhead.   The last is the familiar version that we see modeled.  BLW practice with OF 2-8-0s was to place the cab forward, with the backhead extending about 18" behind the cab wall, and this was done on all six as built.  There were also differences in the auxiliaries, particularly air tank locations.  I believe that erection drawings of the two Shannon Arizona engines, and the Q&TL version, are available from the DeGolyer Library Special Collections at Southern Methodist University.

Regarding OF engine counterweights:  BLW practice prior to about 1902 was to use simple cranks with conventional counterweights on the drivers.  The K-27s were built during a transition period, with counterweights on both the driver centers and the cranks.  After about 1904, the full counterweight was put on the cranks.  The dated decision is recorded in a BLW Drawing Office "Bible" specifying design standards, and currently in the Stanford University Library's Special Collections.  As the K-28s demonstrate, ALCo continued to put side rod counterweights on the driver centers, and only provided crank counterweights for the main rods. 

Total North American production of outside framed 2-8-0s ran to about 300 engines, almost all exported.  One large scale user was the 30" gauge FC Antofagasta and Bolivia, which once had 25 each from BLW and ALCo, plus plate framed versions from British builders.

John Stutz

On 5/25/2019 1:17 AM, roundbell via Groups.Io wrote:
There is still a C-25 in existence. After Baldwin built the Crystal River engines They used the plans for Crystal River RR Co. #103 ( 10-30Eplan 7  Jan 1903 to build 5 more 3' engines. The last one was built in Dec. 1912 for the Quincy Mining Co. as # 6 and is on display at the Quincy Mine Hoist Museum ( a National Park Service operation ) at Quincy, Michigan on the Upper Peninsula. You can visit and measure it and they sell a book that has scale plans of all their engines and many other pieces of their equipment. All engines built to the same Baldwin plan are basically identical, in this case all the locos had the same dimensions but in this case #103 had wheel counterweights cast as part of the wheel centers where the later 5 had the counterweights outside the frames as part of the crankpin throws. It would be easy to double check all dimensions.  Wayne Weiss


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Conder <vulturenest1@...>
To: HOn3 <HOn3@groups.io>
Sent: Mon, May 20, 2019 6:06 pm
Subject: Re: [HOn3] K-36 and K-37

I know the 2-8-0's are pretty wide, but what about the C-21's and the C-25?  Were they also wider?

Sure wish they would have survived, not may outside-frame 20=-8-0's are around anymore.  Is the WPY loco that Stathi is rebuilding a 2-8-0?

Mike Conder

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:59 AM Earl Knoob <earlk489@...> wrote:
Most outside framed 3 foot gauge locomotives are actually wider than similar sized standard gauge ones -  by about a foot.  K27's are wider than a K36-37.


From: HOn3@groups.io <HOn3@groups.io> on behalf of Ray <rayhon3@...>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 11:39 AM
To: HOn3@groups.io
Subject: Re: [HOn3] K-36 and K-37
 
I guess I am stating the obvious, but you must use a standard gauge NMRA clearance gauge for K-37s.
Ray

Re: Jacks Cabin / Villa Grove water tank

Ed Tibbetts
 

Got some replies on the Sn3group. 12’ x 12’.  😊👍🚂

Re: Jacks Cabin / Villa Grove water tank

Earl Knoob
 

Another full scale reproduction exists at La Veta, CO on the San Luis & Rio Grande.  We wanted to build a water tank there for the steam program the SLRG had.  I still had/have an un-built Simpson Products Jacks Cabin Tank.  I copied the plans out of the kit for the contractor to build the tank.  The frostbox height was increased so the spout would be standard gauge height.  Sadly, the SLRG steam operation was shuttered before the tank was put into service.


From: HOn3@groups.io <HOn3@groups.io> on behalf of Ed Tibbetts via Groups.Io <tippytib@...>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 11:04 AM
To: HOn3@groups.io
Subject: Re: [HOn3] Jacks Cabin / Villa Grove water tank
 
Got some replies on the Sn3group. 12’ x 12’.  😊👍🚂

Re: Jacks Cabin / Villa Grove water tank

Margie & Larry Galkowski
 

Another from CRRM
Larry G

Re: Jacks Cabin / Villa Grove water tank

Brian Kopp
 

Great CRM photo. That side of the coaches was off limits to regular tourists like me last month.....

Brian Kopp
904-206-3453
brian@...


On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:32 AM Margie & Larry Galkowski <margielarrygalkowski@...> wrote:
Another from CRRM
Larry G

Re: K-36 and K-37

Jim Spencer
 

Mick, I happen to own both a 1994 PSC K-28 and a couple of the Westside K-28s.  While I agree that the detail on the PSC is much greater (brake shoes, for instance), I think the Westside is little more proportionately correct.  I located a folio sheet on the K-28s (from John Norwood's "Rio Grande Narrow Gauge"). 
The overall boiler diameter is supposed to be 64 3/4".  Measuring both models with a caliper is quite difficult in terms of missing the handrails, etc.  But the Westside appears to be about 69" and the PSC about 67" - both too large - though the PSC wins on that account. 
The more important dimension is the overall height of the boiler.  Extrapolating the folio sheet shows 9.2' off the top of the rails.  Again, both models much are too tall.  The Westside wins on that account by being around 9.9' where the PSC is right at about 10'.
I don't have a Division Point K-28, but my understanding when this model came out was that it was the first K-28 model to get the overall height and boiler diameter correct. (Maybe someone else who has one can confirm that).
Another important thing that hasn't been brought up is the cab corners.  All the newer models mentioned above have the correct rounded corners.  The older PFMs don't and appear to be fabricated out of separate flat pieces and soldered at 90º.

Re: K-36 and K-37

Jim Spencer
 

Though this is an HOn3 site, since it was brought up, here is what I know about these NJ Brass M-67/78 models: 

They have two serious discrepancies:  1) the cylinders are too short, and 2) the tender is too tall and too short. 

On the tender, I wonder whether the builder went out and accidentally measured an M-75 tender that is taller and shorter.  Some were still on the railroad during the late 1970s and used for various MOW purposes.  When Berlyn came out with their versions, they actually offered correct tenders separately in order to correct the NJ Brass problem. .....but then the Berlyns had their own serious problems with an incorrect pilot, grossly oversized main rods, and overly large number boards - all correctable.  Interestingly the M-67/78 4-8-2s were among the most numerous standard gauge D&RGW locomotives, yet they have never been done correctly. 

Again, not narrow gauge.

Re: Jacks Cabin / Villa Grove water tank

Margie & Larry Galkowski
 

Brian
That was shot back on 3/2013 Train was not running. Had run of the lot. Seen it all.
Larry G

Re: K-36 and K-37

Earl Knoob
 

Remember, when looking at a folio and comparing it to a model,  the boiler diameter in the folio is the diameter of the pressure vessel.  To that is added the boiler lagging (insulation) and the jacket.  That easily adds 3-4+" to the diameter of the boiler.


From: HOn3@groups.io <HOn3@groups.io> on behalf of Jim Spencer <trainmanjs@...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 11:24 AM
To: HOn3@groups.io
Subject: Re: [HOn3] K-36 and K-37
 
Mick, I happen to own both a 1994 PSC K-28 and a couple of the Westside K-28s.  While I agree that the detail on the PSC is much greater (brake shoes, for instance), I think the Westside is little more proportionately correct.  I located a folio sheet on the K-28s (from John Norwood's "Rio Grande Narrow Gauge"). 
The overall boiler diameter is supposed to be 64 3/4".  Measuring both models with a caliper is quite difficult in terms of missing the handrails, etc.  But the Westside appears to be about 69" and the PSC about 67" - both too large - though the PSC wins on that account. 
The more important dimension is the overall height of the boiler.  Extrapolating the folio sheet shows 9.2' off the top of the rails.  Again, both models much are too tall.  The Westside wins on that account by being around 9.9' where the PSC is right at about 10'.
I don't have a Division Point K-28, but my understanding when this model came out was that it was the first K-28 model to get the overall height and boiler diameter correct. (Maybe someone else who has one can confirm that).
Another important thing that hasn't been brought up is the cab corners.  All the newer models mentioned above have the correct rounded corners.  The older PFMs don't and appear to be fabricated out of separate flat pieces and soldered at 90º.

Re: K-36 and K-37

Jim Spencer
 

I’ll go back and check. But my recollection of the folio sheet is it showed the boiler plus the lagging.

K-28, was K-36 and K-37

John Stutz
 

Jim & Earl

Regarding folio and similar measurements:  The D&RGW locomotive diagrams issued in the 1950's, and formerly available from the Maxwell Collection, do indeed show boiler barrel "OD"s. This is a contrast with the industry's standard, which is to give the inside diameter of the front sheet.  So Earl's additional 3-4+  for lagging should be added to a model boiler.   And misinterpretation of such dimensions is doubtless why some models come up so short on visual boiler diameter.

For the K-28s we have much more much more specific information, from a seven page ALCo publicity piece in the Railway Review of January 24, 1925, V 76, No 4, pp 179-185.   This was also formerly available from the Maxwell Collection, but I believe it is now online, possibly as the 'Railway & Engineering Review".   The table of dimensions and quite detailed drawing both give the following:

      Diam, smoke box                      65 3/4"

      Diam, first course, outside      63 1/2"

      Dim, second course, outside  66 1/16"

However such sources rarely if ever give any details about the lagging, so I cannot improve on Earl's dimensions.

This ALCo publicity piece is an unusually detailed exposition of a locomotive's design goals, the means by which they were achieved,  and the operating results.  It is essentially a demonstration of the advantages to be expected from modern 'super powered' steam, although the ALCo publicist never even hints of that phrase.  The K-28 was a  thoroughly modernized K-27, incorporating all applicable elements of the intervening 20 years'  improvements in steam locomotive design.  In the K-28, the D&RGW obtained an engine that could take a K-27's load wherever a K-27 could go, while making remarkable savings in fuel, water and time over the road.  Regarding NG operations in 1924, the ALCo publicist reports that "For the first six months of this year ton miles per locomotive mile have increased 13 per cent; freight train speed has increased 22 per cent and gross tone miles per train hour have increased 35 percent."   Much of the improvements was doubtless due to the increased number of heavy NG freight engines, from 15 to 25, but it was clearly the K-28s' performance in freight service that justified upgrading the principal NG lines with rail and bridges heavy enough to allow introduction of the K-36 and K-37 classes.

John Stutz

Re: K-28, was K-36 and K-37

Earl Knoob
 

Another fun little item is the boiler diameter shown is the first course, which is generally the smallest diameter of the entire boiler.  Even straight top boilers get bigger as the go to the rear.  The smokebox is usually bigger than the first course as it telescopes over the first course.  The second course telescopes over the first, and on down the boiler.  So, even a straight top boiler is larger in the rear that at the front.  Each course is larger by twice the thickness of the barrel steel, which is at least 1/2" or 5/8" thick.  Some (like 463) are 3/4".  So, the fully lagged and jacketed boiler could be 4 or 5 inches larger at the firebox end of the boiler than is shown in a folio drawing.


From: HOn3@groups.io <HOn3@groups.io> on behalf of John Stutz <john.stutz@...>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 12:04 PM
To: HOn3@groups.io
Subject: [HOn3] K-28, was K-36 and K-37
 
Jim & Earl

Regarding folio and similar measurements:  The D&RGW locomotive diagrams
issued in the 1950's, and formerly available from the Maxwell
Collection, do indeed show boiler barrel "OD"s. This is a contrast with
the industry's standard, which is to give the inside diameter of the
front sheet.  So Earl's additional 3-4+  for lagging should be added to
a model boiler.   And misinterpretation of such dimensions is doubtless
why some models come up so short on visual boiler diameter.

For the K-28s we have much more much more specific information, from a
seven page ALCo publicity piece in the Railway Review of January 24,
1925, V 76, No 4, pp 179-185.   This was also formerly available from
the Maxwell Collection, but I believe it is now online, possibly as the
'Railway & Engineering Review".   The table of dimensions and quite
detailed drawing both give the following:

       Diam, smoke box                      65 3/4"

       Diam, first course, outside      63 1/2"

       Dim, second course, outside  66 1/16"

However such sources rarely if ever give any details about the lagging,
so I cannot improve on Earl's dimensions.

This ALCo publicity piece is an unusually detailed exposition of a
locomotive's design goals, the means by which they were achieved,  and
the operating results.  It is essentially a demonstration of the
advantages to be expected from modern 'super powered' steam, although
the ALCo publicist never even hints of that phrase.  The K-28 was a 
thoroughly modernized K-27, incorporating all applicable elements of the
intervening 20 years'  improvements in steam locomotive design.  In the
K-28, the D&RGW obtained an engine that could take a K-27's load
wherever a K-27 could go, while making remarkable savings in fuel, water
and time over the road.  Regarding NG operations in 1924, the ALCo
publicist reports that "For the first six months of this year ton miles
per locomotive mile have increased 13 per cent; freight train speed has
increased 22 per cent and gross tone miles per train hour have increased
35 percent."   Much of the improvements was doubtless due to the
increased number of heavy NG freight engines, from 15 to 25, but it was
clearly the K-28s' performance in freight service that justified
upgrading the principal NG lines with rail and bridges heavy enough to
allow introduction of the K-36 and K-37 classes.

John Stutz




Tie Spacing

David Hunt
 

I looked through the group archive but didn't see a discussion of this topic.

 

I'm getting ready to start hand laying the track for the HOn3 portion of my layout.  When looking at pictures of the D&RGW between Antonito and Durango in the late 40's and early 50's it looks like the ties aren't spaced much farther apart than the width of a 5"x7" tie.  Many ties seem to be placed even closer than 7" apart.  This is quite a bit closer together than the ties on the Micro Engineering flex track that I used on my last layout.

 

This surprised me a bit.  What are the experts here in this group using for the spacing between their ties?

 

Thanks.

 

Dave Hunt


Virus-free. www.avast.com

Re: Tie Spacing

Bill Lugg
 

Not sure of the right answer from a prototype prospective, but if I
might offer a general suggestion...

Take a look at https://www.handlaidtrack.com/tieracks-hon3.  These
things aren't that expensive and they're great for laying out a strip of
ties that can then be glued in place.  You can select the jig with the
appropriate amount of misalignment you desire and I found the branchline
jigs have ties spaced further apart than the mainline jigs.

They will speed up the process significantly.

HTH
Bill Lugg

On 5/29/19 7:56 PM, David Hunt wrote:

I looked through the group archive but didn't see a discussion of this
topic.

I'm getting ready to start hand laying the track for the HOn3 portion
of my layout.  When looking at pictures of the D&RGW between Antonito
and Durango in the late 40's and early 50's it looks like the ties
aren't spaced much farther apart than the width of a 5"x7" tie.  Many
ties seem to be placed even closer than 7" apart.  This is quite a bit
closer together than the ties on the Micro Engineering flex track that
I used on my last layout.

This surprised me a bit.  What are the experts here in this group
using for the spacing between their ties?

Thanks.

Dave Hunt


<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free. www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>


<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Re: Tie Spacing

Dale Buxton
 

Interesting question. I've just always used a commercial tie spacing jig.

What you are seeing in the photos of the Durango Line, are the affects of decades of deferred maintenance and time saving. When several rotted ties were often located together. Rather than dig them all out and replace them, a replacement tie was put in between 2 bad ties. This cut down on time spent at the task and the amount of ties needed to make the repair. 

On a whim, I just looked at the NMRA web site and oddly I found nothing on tie spacing. That's very strange. They have recommended practices for just about everything else under the sun for model railroads. So I typed in " FRA tie spacing" and  that took me the "Railway Tie Association". There I found that they suggest 19.5 inches center to center for tie spacing. Searching deep into the FRA web pages gave me a spacing of 19 inches between tie centers. So there you go. A modern standard for tie spacing.

I agree that you should go to "Fast Tracks" web site and buy some tie templates. I just checked there and they say 22 inches between centers for mainline track and 24 inches for branch line for 3 foot gauge.

I am willing to bet the the San Juan Extension (Durango Line) was built with a tie spacing closer to 24" (or grater) to save on tie cost and construction time. Safety was the very last thing thought of in those days. Just Get-er-done and make money for the stock holders. Another one of many reasons why railroads had such appalling safety records a century and a half ago. And why there are so many laws governing safety on railroads today. 

Dale Buxton

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 7:56 PM David Hunt <david.hunt@...> wrote:

I looked through the group archive but didn't see a discussion of this topic.

 

I'm getting ready to start hand laying the track for the HOn3 portion of my layout.  When looking at pictures of the D&RGW between Antonito and Durango in the late 40's and early 50's it looks like the ties aren't spaced much farther apart than the width of a 5"x7" tie.  Many ties seem to be placed even closer than 7" apart.  This is quite a bit closer together than the ties on the Micro Engineering flex track that I used on my last layout.

 

This surprised me a bit.  What are the experts here in this group using for the spacing between their ties?

 

Thanks.

 

Dave Hunt


Virus-free. www.avast.com

Re: K-28, was K-36 and K-37

Michael Lomert <michael.lumert@...>
 

Can anyone find that Railway Review article?  Online would be great, but I’m more than willing to pay for a copy...

Re: Tie Spacing

David Keith
 


Kevin Strong made a nice entry here:  http://ngdiscussion.net/phorum/read.php?1,148340,148862#msg-148862
It references a Nov/Dec 1989 NG&SLG

Stan Ames references the same article and provides similar but different information:  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.railroad/Sy-e_FzMksk

According to Wikipedia, the tie spacing is the center to center distance between ties.

Re: Tie Spacing

kevin b
 

hello all.

back in the day, when I hand laid all my track, I spaced the ties 1 tie apart.
in other words, put down 3 ties side by side, remove the center tie.
boom!
done.
ties spaced.
to me, that always looked "right"
dunno if that's worth anything to anybody or not, but, that's how I did it.

have a happy day
Kevin.