Check it against my model. My model's pilot is too high.
Hobo Jungle
Re: Hobo Jungle
Tramp, I'm looking at this pilot in the photo of a Baldwin T1 and it appears to me to be a lot closer to the tracks then my model.
Check it against my model. My model's pilot is too high.
Check it against my model. My model's pilot is too high.
Running that red block Charlie.
Re: Hobo Jungle
There, I fixed it!
----Wayne----
Back when I was growing up, if you didn't start someth'n, there wouldn't be noth'n.
--Merle Haggard
Back when I was growing up, if you didn't start someth'n, there wouldn't be noth'n.
--Merle Haggard
Re: Hobo Jungle
Gorgeous loco Wayne, I hadn't seen one of them before but I'm curious about the fix? I mean, surely to close the gap you'd have to lower the entire body just moving the pilot wouldnt do it would it? Or by 'fix' do you mean some photographic jiggery pokery?
I suppose it would be sacrilege but one of those in a bright livery color with some judicious white striping would look even better!
Oh...I just realized it was a joke!
I suppose it would be sacrilege but one of those in a bright livery color with some judicious white striping would look even better!
Oh...I just realized it was a joke!
Last edited by mickeydee on Wed Oct 14, 2015 8:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
Rufus T. Firefly
- Posts: 42109
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 7:52 am
- Location: To be Determined
Re: Hobo Jungle
J. S. Bach wrote:sarge wrote: ...snip... It's a very personal thing; I can't stand Monet for example, ...snip...
Right on, mate!! I have two very thick Monet coffee-table format picture books that make excellent record flatteners. About the only thing that they are good for.
As far as Picasso; ah, never mind.
2 fans of the dogs playing poker on velvet school of art.............
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hopes that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
-
Rufus T. Firefly
- Posts: 42109
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 7:52 am
- Location: To be Determined
Re: Hobo Jungle
2railjon wrote:
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hopes that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
Re: Hobo Jungle
Tramp:
This is actually the second time I wrote this; the first I didn't submit because it started sounding like an egotistical (can't imagine why) apologae.
Since you put me on the spot, you aren't allowed to take the following as anything beyond what it is intended to be. Sure there are things that I pick out on your loco; I modelled New England for at least forty of the fifty years I've been in O Scale, and B&M (especially steam) ran a very close second to B&A, and the Berks (both B&A and B&M) are personal favourites both as models and in prototype research, with a few articles published in historical society journals and quite a bit of work in Robert W. Jones' books on B&A and B&M. That's the egotistical sounding bit, but intended to make the point my eye on your loco will be unfairly merciless, which is why I kept my mouth shut (uncharacteristically) when you went out in front of the 2-rail forumites with it.
So, your loco specifically actually balances better for me than the PRR T, and I don't know why. Perhaps it's because I know being a three-rail model the work to upgrade the model was much more involved with a much higher rise from benchmark. Maybe its because the big eye poker on the PRR T is out on the end; first thing in my face. Yours has the obvious wheel flange, lacks of flange, and tread tucked beneath. You can't do anything more than what's done; painting the shiny bits works wonders to tone that down. I'd suggest (you asked!) lowering the tender on the trucks a little and adding the piping runs; we all tend to concentrate on the loco at the expense of the tender. Lastly, a big error on Sunset's part are the rods; one of the signature engineering developments on the early Lima Berks is tandem rods.
That said, two more points. The PRR loco suffers in my eye for (oddly enough) treads and flanges as well. Scott has stuck with the old NMRA standard wheel rather than move to the secondary standard 0.145 wheels, and it shows to me in the photos; again for me its a case of my eye holding the form to that same level as Lee's finish has raised the bar.
His technique, eye, and result are fantastic, but for me the eye is drawn to such a beacon of excellence and invited to critique away. Perhaps it's too much for me personally, and still begs the question I was posing before, "Can one aspect of a model be too good, and compromise the other aspects of that model?", or is it just my own historian/engineer's eye that does not see "art".
Lastly, you must forgive my friends of the paired rail and not feel they snubbed you; it wasn't their intent. You must remember that they zero'd in on the wheels because that is the very basis of their choice of two-rail in the first place. It's not arrogance; wheel form and rail form are of primary importance to two-rail guys since that is the very basis of the venue choice.
This is actually the second time I wrote this; the first I didn't submit because it started sounding like an egotistical (can't imagine why) apologae.
Since you put me on the spot, you aren't allowed to take the following as anything beyond what it is intended to be. Sure there are things that I pick out on your loco; I modelled New England for at least forty of the fifty years I've been in O Scale, and B&M (especially steam) ran a very close second to B&A, and the Berks (both B&A and B&M) are personal favourites both as models and in prototype research, with a few articles published in historical society journals and quite a bit of work in Robert W. Jones' books on B&A and B&M. That's the egotistical sounding bit, but intended to make the point my eye on your loco will be unfairly merciless, which is why I kept my mouth shut (uncharacteristically) when you went out in front of the 2-rail forumites with it.
So, your loco specifically actually balances better for me than the PRR T, and I don't know why. Perhaps it's because I know being a three-rail model the work to upgrade the model was much more involved with a much higher rise from benchmark. Maybe its because the big eye poker on the PRR T is out on the end; first thing in my face. Yours has the obvious wheel flange, lacks of flange, and tread tucked beneath. You can't do anything more than what's done; painting the shiny bits works wonders to tone that down. I'd suggest (you asked!) lowering the tender on the trucks a little and adding the piping runs; we all tend to concentrate on the loco at the expense of the tender. Lastly, a big error on Sunset's part are the rods; one of the signature engineering developments on the early Lima Berks is tandem rods.
That said, two more points. The PRR loco suffers in my eye for (oddly enough) treads and flanges as well. Scott has stuck with the old NMRA standard wheel rather than move to the secondary standard 0.145 wheels, and it shows to me in the photos; again for me its a case of my eye holding the form to that same level as Lee's finish has raised the bar.
His technique, eye, and result are fantastic, but for me the eye is drawn to such a beacon of excellence and invited to critique away. Perhaps it's too much for me personally, and still begs the question I was posing before, "Can one aspect of a model be too good, and compromise the other aspects of that model?", or is it just my own historian/engineer's eye that does not see "art".
Lastly, you must forgive my friends of the paired rail and not feel they snubbed you; it wasn't their intent. You must remember that they zero'd in on the wheels because that is the very basis of their choice of two-rail in the first place. It's not arrogance; wheel form and rail form are of primary importance to two-rail guys since that is the very basis of the venue choice.
-
Rufus T. Firefly
- Posts: 42109
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 7:52 am
- Location: To be Determined
Re: Hobo Jungle
sarge wrote:"Can one aspect of a model be too good, and compromise the other aspects of that model?", or is it just my own historian/engineer's eye that does not see "art".
Possibly so. Blind spots exist.
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hopes that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
Re: Hobo Jungle
Rufus T. Firefly wrote:J. S. Bach wrote:sarge wrote: ...snip... It's a very personal thing; I can't stand Monet for example, ...snip...
Right on, mate!! I have two very thick Monet coffee-table format picture books that make excellent record flatteners. About the only thing that they are good for.
As far as Picasso; ah, never mind.
2 fans of the dogs playing poker on velvet school of art.............
Oh, so if I don't like Monet I am a philistine!
-
Rufus T. Firefly
- Posts: 42109
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 7:52 am
- Location: To be Determined
Re: Hobo Jungle
sarge wrote:Rufus T. Firefly wrote:sarge wrote: ...snip... It's a very personal thing; I can't stand Monet for example, ...snip...
2 fans of the dogs playing poker on velvet school of art.............
Oh, so if I don't like Monet I am a philistine!
And a bad kitty, too!
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hopes that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
Re: Hobo Jungle
Sarge, thanks for all that. Have you ever located a truly clear photo of a B&M Berk in decent resolution? I found one lying on it's side that was okay, but nothing really exceptional and definitive and not in color. Lee and I discussed the Berk, and he nailed what I asked him for. I was going for a feel more than accuracy, which could not be had without an entire rebuild. Remember, this is for a carpet layout.
Please explain the tandem rods and how Sunset screwed it up.
Confession: I have rarely been a troll, but I was on the other side.
Challenge: Show me a photo of a better looking B&M Berkshire model that captures the feel of the era and engine.
This is the photo accepted by the B&M HS:
Please explain the tandem rods and how Sunset screwed it up.
Confession: I have rarely been a troll, but I was on the other side.
Challenge: Show me a photo of a better looking B&M Berkshire model that captures the feel of the era and engine.
This is the photo accepted by the B&M HS:
Last edited by Tramp on Wed Oct 14, 2015 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
That a life will be spent gaining inches,
When this distance is read in miles.
When this distance is read in miles.
Re: Hobo Jungle
LOL, nice work Wayne!!!!
In any case not sure what the fix would entail. Perhaps Sarge could eyeball it and see if the whole body would need to be lowered or maybe if the pilot unscrews from the body I could space it with a few washers.
In any case not sure what the fix would entail. Perhaps Sarge could eyeball it and see if the whole body would need to be lowered or maybe if the pilot unscrews from the body I could space it with a few washers.
Running that red block Charlie.
-
Rufus T. Firefly
- Posts: 42109
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 7:52 am
- Location: To be Determined
Re: Hobo Jungle
Install a new set of spats on the mechanism, Jon.
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hopes that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
Re: Hobo Jungle
Tramp wrote:Sarge, thanks for all that. Have you ever located a truly clear photo of a B&M Berk in decent resolution?
They are out there but not as easy to find as you might suspect since the vast majority of the locos were sold off during WWII, to ATSF and SP. I don't know what B&MTHS has in their archives, but I always suggest asking the historical societies for photos and often drawings when modelling one of their locos. Farrell' Berkshires and Texas types book (PFM) should have good photos as should "Minuteman Steam". Hundman and Mainline Modeler did a drawings/prototype article on them as well. I'm at a disadvantage anymore since I sold off most of my US library to make room for the growing UK one, so these recommended places to look are by memory now.
I was going for a feel more than accuracy, which could not be had without an entire rebuild. Remember, this is for a carpet layout.
And therein lies the real rub and why I was staying away from it. You are an artist so "feel" means something. This one seems to be falling back to the 2-rail/3-rail controversy as the measuring stick again, and is a place I'm not going as a measuring stick. For me, I approach this from the perspective of a historian and an engineer so my perceptions are very finite. I won't impose my inability to perceive "feel" in modelling (which is why I can never truly appreciate three-rail scale as a medium) on you the artist who can appreciate feel, impression, &c. You put me in a difficult position...
Confession: I have rarely been a troll, but I was on the other side.
Challenge: Show me a photo of a better looking B&M Berkshire model that captures the feel of the era and engine.
...and continue to do so here. My criteria are not yours, so I shan't impose them.
As to the Confession, I'm not sure how to interpret that. If you mean what I'm writing here and the previous, you put me on the spot and as a friend I won't blow smoke up your *** once placed there.
I think I shall step off the spot whilst friendships are intact; I may be oversensitive to such things, but this suddenly feels like dangerous ground.
Re: Hobo Jungle
Sarge, I meant that I knew I might pull a few chains by posting the Berk image on the 2-rail side of the forum. Then my accusation of no imagination was for troll purposes only. Worked, too. Model trains are a hobby for me. I enter into all this stuff to relax and enjoy myself. You, on the other hand, have a more professional interest. But I very much enjoy and appreciate your posts and opinions, more so because they differ from mine yet are grounded in the same fundamentals, at least that's my guess. Your aggravation with much of the modern world is mine as well.
That said, I am interested in an answer to the running gear issue—if you're willing.
I went through the entire B&M HS web archive of photos. Found some real stunning pictures, but no decent Berkshire shots except the one of a derailed engine on its side. I need a good tender photo or drawing to add the piping. Any ideas?
Sarge, I doubt you would ever find dangerous ground with me. That's not who I am. I'm very loyal to those I like, in cyber-worlds or the real world. From what you write and show of yourself, I've always found you someone who I admire and enjoy. Cheers!
That said, I am interested in an answer to the running gear issue—if you're willing.
I went through the entire B&M HS web archive of photos. Found some real stunning pictures, but no decent Berkshire shots except the one of a derailed engine on its side. I need a good tender photo or drawing to add the piping. Any ideas?
Sarge, I doubt you would ever find dangerous ground with me. That's not who I am. I'm very loyal to those I like, in cyber-worlds or the real world. From what you write and show of yourself, I've always found you someone who I admire and enjoy. Cheers!
That a life will be spent gaining inches,
When this distance is read in miles.
When this distance is read in miles.
Re: Hobo Jungle
Fair enough. I value the friendship too much to risk, but on that basis we're on the same page I believe so here we go.
Go back a couple pages and you'll see a side view and an explanation. Here's a bottom view of the B&A Berk that might make it clearer:
The main-rod captures the last segment of the side-rod and shares piston thrust between the third and fourth pin. Inboard of that assembly are the remains of the side-rod going forward to the second and first pin in the normal manner.
My experience with Sunset's B&M Berk was working with the late John Peterson (his two-rail version) and a similar exercise to what you and Lee undertook with trailer, pans, rods, and details. His had conventional main-rods ending on the third pin, with inboard side-rods as separate assemblies connecting all four. If memory serves Sunset sort-of faked the rods by spacing the siderod out on the last segment but with the mainrod still outboard rather than split and capturing the segment.
Here is where I point to my photo above and note Sunset got the huge counterweight on the last driver, something I always intended to make up and somehow never got around to doing, which is the visual jar to me of my own Berkshire creation. I certainly am not the paragon of perfection myself!
Anyway, I’m assuming the three-rail version is the same. We made up sets of tandems for John stretched from the main-rods used on Lobaugh's Berk (which are proper tandem rods, nicely made) and extra parts I got from Sunset to re-configure the siderods. The ones seen here on my B&A Berk are stretched Lobaugh mains capturing scratchbuilt segments to #4. This really might be too neurotic for your needs but I "needed" to do them right since I had written an engineering history piece on the Lima Berks for NYCSHS and the development of this rod configuration by Woodard et al figures prominently in that review.
As far as the tender, let me see what I can find for reference. I know Jon has my old Hundman Cyc's (and my PFM Berkshire book so a look at photos too, perchance?); maybe we can impose on him to check and see if the B&M Berk drawings from Mainline Modeler are in them. Meanwhile let me look at a few sources for photos here and we can see how best to get rid of the "air" between trucks and tender. I believe there was a frame under that tank (not a "water-bottom" tank) so even a piece of Plastruct up the centre might be the ticket to fill the space if the tank itself is indeed the correct height off the trucks. Again on John's, we milled the truck mounts down a bit to lower the tender onto the trucks to give that "nestled down" look.
https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/ ... rt=mozilla
This view might give a good guestimate about height from top of the truck to the bottom of the tank.
Go back a couple pages and you'll see a side view and an explanation. Here's a bottom view of the B&A Berk that might make it clearer:
The main-rod captures the last segment of the side-rod and shares piston thrust between the third and fourth pin. Inboard of that assembly are the remains of the side-rod going forward to the second and first pin in the normal manner.
My experience with Sunset's B&M Berk was working with the late John Peterson (his two-rail version) and a similar exercise to what you and Lee undertook with trailer, pans, rods, and details. His had conventional main-rods ending on the third pin, with inboard side-rods as separate assemblies connecting all four. If memory serves Sunset sort-of faked the rods by spacing the siderod out on the last segment but with the mainrod still outboard rather than split and capturing the segment.
Here is where I point to my photo above and note Sunset got the huge counterweight on the last driver, something I always intended to make up and somehow never got around to doing, which is the visual jar to me of my own Berkshire creation. I certainly am not the paragon of perfection myself!
Anyway, I’m assuming the three-rail version is the same. We made up sets of tandems for John stretched from the main-rods used on Lobaugh's Berk (which are proper tandem rods, nicely made) and extra parts I got from Sunset to re-configure the siderods. The ones seen here on my B&A Berk are stretched Lobaugh mains capturing scratchbuilt segments to #4. This really might be too neurotic for your needs but I "needed" to do them right since I had written an engineering history piece on the Lima Berks for NYCSHS and the development of this rod configuration by Woodard et al figures prominently in that review.
As far as the tender, let me see what I can find for reference. I know Jon has my old Hundman Cyc's (and my PFM Berkshire book so a look at photos too, perchance?); maybe we can impose on him to check and see if the B&M Berk drawings from Mainline Modeler are in them. Meanwhile let me look at a few sources for photos here and we can see how best to get rid of the "air" between trucks and tender. I believe there was a frame under that tank (not a "water-bottom" tank) so even a piece of Plastruct up the centre might be the ticket to fill the space if the tank itself is indeed the correct height off the trucks. Again on John's, we milled the truck mounts down a bit to lower the tender onto the trucks to give that "nestled down" look.
https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/ ... rt=mozilla
This view might give a good guestimate about height from top of the truck to the bottom of the tank.
Return to “The Club Car Lounge”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 140 guests