Building a locomotive from erection drawings

[flyguy]

Thanks for the excellent photos

[LSGOD]

All this cracks me up. The brains at the LALS many years ago told me that the Cab Forward I planned to build would not work. Cylinders were too big etc. Several years later I showed up at the LALS with a cab forward that I built in a 1 car garage with a 14 inch lathe, a horizontal mill and a welder. Not only did it run good but would pull a lot more than the 4-8-4's could. No CNC was involved in the building of the loco. The only major castings were the drivers. I have since built a WP 2-8-8-2, 2 SP 4-8-4'S A WP 2-8-2 helped my son with his SP GS 1,under construction an SP&S Z8 4-6-6-4, an SF 2900, 2 SP E27 4-4-0's etc. All built using only built up constuction and cast iron drivers. I do have a CNC mill now. I do use a lot of lost wax castings that I made molds for. All my cylinder blocks are built up.
I have to admit the crossheads for the multiple bearing type are lost wax but could be made up. The only live steam loco I built before the cab forward was a Little Engines 1" scale 0-6-0. I'm a self taught machinest and welder including TIG.

[kenrinc]

It can be done. Gather lots of photos and do research on similar locos built by the same builder. I'm in the process of planning a build now so I am in a similar situation. One thing I would suggest is to make a list of all unnecessary refinements that you will NOT have to incorporate into the design. This will simplify things like the frame which can be water or laserjet cut from plate. Things like tapered pedestals, true shoe and wedges, crown brasses and designing an actual bed frame to be cast are to ME, unnecessary refinements in a model. That is my opinion though..... I can understand "representing" something so that it looks like something else. Jim Kreider did this on his Berkshire design by using actual cast sideframes so they represented the look of the bed frames used on the Berkshires. You'll need to make that call.

Everyone has provided good information in this thread. After talking with Don Yungling and seeing his SP GS1 in person, I got new religion and decided to go the fabricated assembly route. It's just so liberating. Use castings if they are available but if their not then just "build it"!

$.02

Ken-

[GS14403]

Everyone has provided good information in this thread. After talking with Don Yungling and seeing his SP GS1 in person, I got new religion and decided to go the fabricated assembly route. It's just so liberating. Use castings if they are available but if their not then just "build it"!

$.02

Ken-

Hello Ken, thanks for the interesting feedback. Reverend Donald does have a ring to it. All kidding aside, I was lucky to have a couple of real experts to learn from and equipment not normally found in a home shop to take advantage of.

The original poster gave a specific locomotive he wanted to build. There not being a lot of NP A3 parts available, fabrication or pattern making of the major parts will be required if an accurate model is desired. One method that has become quite popular is laser cut parts, a method that should work well with trailing truck parts. CNC programming is not required yet the laser machine is CNC controlled.

At one time one of out local Junior Colleges had a Haas machining center and the instructor was a member of our club. What a resource. After Mr. Jergunson passed away the program fell by the wayside.

Like the rest of us, James will have to determine how far he wants to go in following the prototype and how much in the way of machinery he wants to either invest in or find access to.

Donald

[Miserlou57]

It can be done. Gather lots of photos and do research on similar locos built by the same builder. I'm in the process of planning a build now so I am in a similar situation. One thing I would suggest is to make a list of all unnecessary refinements that you will NOT have to incorporate into the design. This will simplify things like the frame which can be water or laserjet cut from plate. Things like tapered pedestals, true shoe and wedges, crown brasses and designing an actual bed frame to be cast are to ME, unnecessary refinements in a model. That is my opinion though..... I can understand "representing" something so that it looks like something else. Jim Kreider did this on his Berkshire design by using actual cast sideframes so they represented the look of the bed frames used on the Berkshires. You'll need to make that call.

This brings up an interesting point and sort of a philosophical question about modeling. I'd like to know how far some of you go to emulate the real deal, or to count the rivets so to speak, versus making design concessions in the name of ease, practicality, and manufacturability. Personally I enjoy the high degree of detail found on engines like the Kreider Berkshire or Tom Miller's Big Boy (the list goes on), but I'm similarly faced with making design decisions on my own projects to make it "right" (more time, more money) or get it done in a reasonable amount of time. I think making it 100% accurate is unquestionably a fool's errand, and while some details are much more obvious than others, I'm curious where you guys draw the line, if you have one.

[Harold_V]

I'm curious where you guys draw the line, if you have one.

That's an interesting question---one I'm anxious to see answered as well.
It is my opinion that each individual will build to a given level of faithfulness, dictated by one's ability---either due to skill restrictions or financial restrictions. Their objective in building is of concern, too. Some folks are not concerned with detail, and are far more interested in "playing trains" (not meant as an insult) than they are in faithfully reproducing a prototype in miniature. "Rivet counters" will demand a faithful reproduction, while others may not even understand the difference. Each dances to the drummer they hear. There is no right or wrong.

Harold

[Greg_Lewis]

This brings up an interesting point and sort of a philosophical question about modeling. I'd like to know how far some of you go to emulate the real deal, or to count the rivets so to speak, versus making design concessions in the name of ease, practicality, and manufacturability. Personally I enjoy the high degree of detail found on engines like the Kreider Berkshire or Tom Miller's Big Boy (the list goes on), but I'm similarly faced with making design decisions on my own projects to make it "right" (more time, more money) or get it done in a reasonable amount of time. I think making it 100% accurate is unquestionably a fool's errand, and while some details are much more obvious than others, I'm curious where you guys draw the line, if you have one.

To me it needs to look right. Some things, when scaled down, just don't look right. Also, some things need to be changed for practical reasons while aiming to keep the right look. A good example of this is the length of the tender on the prototype I'm following. The real one looks too short, and if built that way would not be as stable nor would be able to carry a second person behind the engineer (to supervise a newbie). Lengthening the tender solved all these issues. OTOH, many builders use rivets with head sizes that look too big. I put scale rivets in that tender, spaced according to the prototype, and I like the look — much more delicate and realistic. And, like a movie set, the stuff that doesn't show is just made to be functional.

[Pontiacguy1]

It has to run and steam well. That is priority number one for me. If it doesn't steam and draft well, pull well (relative to it's size/weight), or it breaks down a lot, then it doesn't matter to me what it looks like. It can be the best detailed locomotive in the world but if it's always going to be on the steaming bays and not out running, then in essence you've made a highly detailed and very large static display model, in my opinion. I always err on the side of good performance and ease of maintenance. THEN after that, It has too look right to me. You can add enough details to make a locomotive look good, but I also want any of that stuff to be easily removable if you ever have to do so to perform maintenance.

To each their own, though. If you want to make everything on your locomotive to scale and it all has to be absolutely perfect, well there's room in the hobby for folks like that, and some tremendous models have resulted. Similarly, if you want a locomotive that is a lot more simple and robust, and you want to run all day and half the night, then there's nothing wrong with that either. I always liked seeing a locomotive come back into the bays covered in oil and soot after having been running for the past 10 hours. There are more ways than one to enjoy this hobby. The only thing that makes me angry is when some folks think, and then verbalize, that the way they do whatever is the 'right' way to do it and that you're not doing it right if you don't do it like them.

[NP317]

I like Pontiacguy1's methods:
Built to run well and provide easy maintenance, with added details for "correct" looks.
Call it "stand-off scale."
From 6 feet away, it looks detailed and accurate, and good. A rivet counter might get their scale out and determine that some detail is not exactly prototype. Eh. Doesn't matter to me.
~RN

[LocoJerome]

NP317,

What is the black linkage system on the lower left side of the smokebox in your picture? Does it control some sort of damper system in the smoke box on the prototypes? I've seen it on some erecting drawings but never knew its purpose. This is the first time I've noticed it on a model Is it functional or just detail trimming?

[Bill Shields]

I build to my own prototype, the heck with everything else. #1 it must run, #2 must be maintainable over the long haul...

Went through that hassle years ago when some 'expert' criticized the number / placement of rivets in the tender and lack of fluting on the back side of the main rods of my Hudson.

[Builder01]

Hi Bill,

Those types of "experts" should mind their own business.