" "Yankee Shop Hudson"
Moderators: gwrdriver, Harold_V
-
Bill Shields
- Posts: 10585
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:57 am
- Location: 39.367, -75.765
- Contact:
Hudson
I would be either a Langworthy or a Little Engines or maybe a Hoffman from Canada - unless it was a free lance.
It was a very popular 3/4" engine.
Mine is a Langworthy - and the design is exquisite. I redesigned the boiler (no need for a combustion chamber or siphons on a small scale loco)
It runs great, pulls well and is quite a show stopper (when I take it out to run).
I wish John all the best in the world. We need to get more sensible and bring the smaller scales back - perhaps a slowed-down economy can do something to push that along.
It was a very popular 3/4" engine.
Mine is a Langworthy - and the design is exquisite. I redesigned the boiler (no need for a combustion chamber or siphons on a small scale loco)
It runs great, pulls well and is quite a show stopper (when I take it out to run).
I wish John all the best in the world. We need to get more sensible and bring the smaller scales back - perhaps a slowed-down economy can do something to push that along.
Re: Hudson
Bill....technically there is no "need" for little steam locomotives. Having a combustion chamber and Nicholson Thermic Siphons may only add a "cool" factor, but when re-creating a steam locomotive of the past, why not do it right and make it as accurate as possible. And by the way....I have seen Coventry B&0 P-7s both with an without the combustion chamber, both burning the same coal, and the one with the combustion chamber had a noticeable absence of black smoke at the stack.Bill Shields wrote:Mine is a Langworthy - and the design is exquisite. I redesigned the boiler (no need for a combustion chamber or siphons on a small scale loco)
Keith
-
Bill Shields
- Posts: 10585
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:57 am
- Location: 39.367, -75.765
- Contact:
siphons
the problem with siphons in smaller locos is that they tend to scale up and cause more problems than they are worth.
As for combustion chambers - well there may be examples where some work, but considering the small area for combustion to begin with, I am not totally convinced that the space allocated to them can really make a difference one way or another.
As for combustion chambers - well there may be examples where some work, but considering the small area for combustion to begin with, I am not totally convinced that the space allocated to them can really make a difference one way or another.
Bill,
All I can say is my Langworthy Hudson was built by Harry Hansen almost sixty years ago and it has thermic siphons and a combustion chamber and the siphons are not clogged by scale and the engine steams like a witch. I also have a 3/4" Maisie by LBSC and it too has siphons although it doesn't have the combustion chamber. Never had any problem with scale in it either. Both have copper boilers, which are eminently practical in 3/4" scale.
Keith
All I can say is my Langworthy Hudson was built by Harry Hansen almost sixty years ago and it has thermic siphons and a combustion chamber and the siphons are not clogged by scale and the engine steams like a witch. I also have a 3/4" Maisie by LBSC and it too has siphons although it doesn't have the combustion chamber. Never had any problem with scale in it either. Both have copper boilers, which are eminently practical in 3/4" scale.
Keith
If I had the money and time, I would support every 3.5" design you want to bring back. Love to see them ALL come back. I think the smaller scales will become more popular due to money and machine tools of the average home shop. I wish I had the funds to support your K4 since I have the frame and drivers already.