Trying to decide on a beginner 3/4" locomotive to build.

[Greg_Lewis]

With any locomotive, give some thought as to where you will run it, unless you just want to build and running isn't an issue. Would you build track, or go to an established track? If the latter, is there one near you for a 3/4" engine? If not, consider what track gauges are available and plan around that.

[shild]

With any locomotive, give some thought as to where you will run it, unless you just want to build and running isn't an issue. Would you build track, or go to an established track? If the latter, is there one near you for a 3/4" engine? If not, consider what track gauges are available and plan around that.

Planning on Waushakum. Might also try visiting Pioneer Valley once in while. Both have 3 1/2" high line.

[Dick_Morris]

My observation with a 1-1/2" scale CP-173 American is that it tends to be slippery because a lot of the weight is on the front truck. For a smaller gauge engine, picking one that puts as much weight as possible on the drivers may be a consideration.

[shild]

My observation with a 1-1/2" scale CP-173 American is that it tends to be slippery because a lot of the weight is on the front truck. For a smaller gauge engine, picking one that puts as much weight as possible on the drivers may be a consideration.

Yeah. I could also later re-make the frame rails and turn it into a 2-6-0 couldn't I? Maybe even an 0-6-0? Or maybe just add some lead to the back.

[David Powell]

As for the hand pump, you do not need to buy expensive castings,you can use brass bar screwed or and soldered together. All that really matters is how well the ram fits and how well the valves seat, the shape and outward appearance do not matter.
Indeed , beginning your project by building a good working hand pump that way gives lots of practice using your tools and more experience. regards David Powell.

[Mike Walsh]

My observation with a 1-1/2" scale CP-173 American is that it tends to be slippery because a lot of the weight is on the front truck. For a smaller gauge engine, picking one that puts as much weight as possible on the drivers may be a consideration.

Yeah. I could also later re-make the frame rails and turn it into a 2-6-0 couldn't I? Maybe even an 0-6-0? Or maybe just add some lead to the back.

More drivers does not necessarily equate to more traction.

[Pontiacguy1]

As far as it goes, either the Raritan or the Pennsy A3 are excellent beginners locomotives. I believe that the Raritan will be a little bit easier with its slip-eccentric valve gear which is super-simple to make, but it does have that lead truck, so they come out about the same as far as construction time and difficulty I think. They both have excellent books that describe in great detail how to make each part and guide you through the construction. They both have castings available, which are of quite reasonable cost. They have both been built multiple times and are proven performers, very similar in size and weight. They were both published commercially, only they were done about 25-30 years apart or something like that.

I would choose between them like this: If you want an old-timey looking 1870's style locomotive with bright colors, lots of brass, etc... something that can really pop when you look at it, then build the Raritan. If you want a more modern looking locomotive, something from around the very late 1800s to the early 1900s, which is black and much more of a plain workhorse, something you probably could have seen switching an industry all the way up into the 1940s or 50's, then go with the A3. With either one, you'll be backing a winner! I would actually encourage you to buy BOTH books. I have them both and they are excellent.

I would probably skip Angus (4-4-2) for my first locomotive. There are a lot more parts to build with it having a lead and trailing truck. Virginia is a great locomotive, but it would be more expensive to get castings for. It is beautiful, though. If you like that style of locomotive, I think the Raritan would be very pleasing for you.

Found someone's build log for the A3 out on the web: http://www.phutcheson.net/A3SwitcherSte ... itcher.htm
Hasn't been updated in quite a long time, but there is a lot to look at there.

[James Powell]

Hand Pumps- somewhere out in dad's stuff is one I made in a day. No castings required- a piece of octagon brass (ug!, but good 4 jaw practice...) for the barrel, then 5/8" hex for the valves, 3/8" keystock for the handle, with a slotted hole for the plunger, plunger being something like 1/2" stainless with a grove turned in it for an O ring.

LBSC's Shop Shed and Road has a design for one, that's basically what I made. No need of castings at all...

I'd have been under 13 when I made it.

A3 would get my choice. 0-x-0, all the weight on the drivers, designed around no castings. I understand castings are available for some parts, which may make it easier. Kozo's writing style means that it is easy to follow along, and I think (though are not sure) that there are few errors in the drawings which helps a LOT.

The other choice I would consider is Caribou by Martin Evans- it's a whole scale bigger engine, in that it is a 0-8-0 rather than 0-4-0, but that has some quite serious advantages when it comes to running. Key differences are piston valve vs slide valve- the difference in machining up parts for 0-4-0 vs 0-8-0 are going to matter far less than the amount of time you will invest in building an engine anyway. In 3.5" it weighs in at around 120 lb, which means you can figure on pulling 1200 lb with it- a different scale of engine than a 30-40 lb engine.

Dad usually figured on 1000 hrs to make an engine, 500 hrs to make it run. That's just the basic engine, with 0 jewelry on it. Even that is probably a low in real terms- he was very fast as a machinist 20 years ago !

[Greg_Lewis]

As to pumps, PM Research has a set of very reasonably priced castings or a fully machined kit. While it's designed for small boilers it might be enough for a 3/4 scale engine.

[NP317]

Here's another reason to build the Raritan as your first locomotive:
Its suspension is simple 3-point rocker. No springs or motion transfer elements. Far fewer parts to make to get on the tracks and running.
And as mentioned by others, the slip eccentric valve gear has about half the parts of standard Stephenson Link or Walschaerts valve gear.
Your chances os successfully building this design as a "First Locomotive" are higher.
RussN

[Joe Tanski]

The update Raritan drawings /book now contains working drawings for Stephenson valve gear,flat car drawings with brakes,propane burner drawings,
And caboose drawings that holds water to keep the butane,propane from freezing.
Joe

[shild]

Here's another reason to build the Raritan as your first locomotive:
Its suspension is simple 3-point rocker. No springs or motion transfer elements. Far fewer parts to make to get on the tracks and running.
And as mentioned by others, the slip eccentric valve gear has about half the parts of standard Stephenson Link or Walschaerts valve gear.
Your chances os successfully building this design as a "First Locomotive" are higher.
RussN

Didn't know about Slip Eccentric valve gear. So let me get my facts straight. Stephenson is most difficult to build, Walschaerts is slightly easier and Slip eccentric is a lot easier to build?