Building a locomotive from erection drawings

[Pontiacguy1]

Most of those type of 'experts' never do actually build anything! Most of the criticism I've gotten from people about my equipment has come from people who had never built any equipment and/or didn't have anything of their own. My answer to them was generally: "when you build yours then you can make all of that stuff correctly".

A lot of that comes from the small scale mentality where someone is looking for HO or O scale brass-quality details, and can't understand why your 'much larger' models don't have that level of detail.

[NP317]

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?

Jerome:
That linkage is a non-operating model of the throttle-controlled superheater damper. On full-sized locomotives, the damper remains closed by the counter weight (down) until the throttle is opened. Steam moves a vertical piston that opens the damper (counter weight up), allowing direct heat from the fire to flow past the super heater elements. Otherwise, those "dry" superheaters might get burned from the intense heat, with no steam flow inside.

The assembly I built actually moves (by hand), but not by throttle steam, and there is no damper set up inside the smokebox.
It's just for fun.
~RN

[Doug_Edwards]

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.

I think the answer to that question is what you wish to end up with and the journey you wish to experience to get there. I personally like models that are faithful to the prototype to the degree that I can look at the model and see how the prototype was built.

I am modeling to try to be as faithful to the prototype as I can with the info I can find. One reason is to leave a historical example of locos that no longer exist, using info and data passed down to me from people no longer alive. I also enjoy the research of the project to make faithful model. Tracking the product development to understand the item itself is fascinating, and gives a glimpse into the company that made the locomotive. I also just enjoy seeing how close I can model parts to the locomotive, regardless if they will be seen or not, just for my own pleasure and challenge.

Not everyone has these priorities, and you will need to figure out the happy medium for yourself based on your end goals, skill level, time, and desire.

I liked the late Gordon Sherwood's 2-6-0, even though it was free lance and not a particular model of any one engine, he incorporated the appropriate detail into the locomotive that was common for that era, even to the point of putting scale wood between the tender tank and frame. The engine looked good and ran well. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

I'm with Greg on scale rivets. I think they look better also.

Regards,

Doug

[kenrinc]

NP317,

Don't do yourself a disservice! I believe I've seen your loco in person at TM and those pictures don't do it justice! Your details may not be exact but they were accepted practice for the time frame and that's really all that matters. Well, to me anyway....

Using terminology from another hobby (RC aircraft) I've always looked at "Stand off Scale" as just a caricature of the real thing. Maybe it looks like a silhouette of the model at some specific angle but at 10ft you still know it's just a caricature. A better term would be "Semi Scale". I'm in between a True and Semi scale when it comes to design and construction. If I can simplify something behind the scenes I'll do it but someone is going to have to go out of their way to see or notice it. $.02

Ken-

Ken-

[NP317]

Ken:
Thank you for the compliment, deserved or otherwise.
I build to please myself. It's nice when our work pleases others, too.
I also build R/C airplanes, thus my stand-off scale reference.

~Russ

Citabria2.6-11 small.jpg (41.08 KiB) Viewed 2488 times