Jonathan
An old timer (fireman/engineer), told me that the
R-2's with their frame configuration, were very hard
on track with light rails. The trailer truck was rigid
and didn't swivel.
John
--- jonathanharris@e... wrote:
> Terry --
>
> Thing to keep in mind about the R1 is that it was an
> early ... you might
> even say a transitional or experimental ... engine.
> Historically important
> and apparently quite successful, but (like much
> motive power of its
> generation) very quickly superceded by galloping
> technology. The R2s - R5s
> were developed fast on the R1's heels and had
> rendered it obsolete by about
> World War I. All four R1s survived into the late
> 1920s, with two of them
> (1702-3) being converted to 0-6-0s as class G-7. The
> unconverted pair were
> out of service in 1929-30. The two switchers lasted
> a little longer, at
> least on paper, 'til '31 and '33 respectively
> (however, Corbin and Kerka
> show 1702 dead in the Eola weeds in August 1928 --
> generally not a good
> sign if you are a Burlington steam engine).
>
> The point is, the window for operating these first
> prairies closes rather
> early. (Of course as a wise man said recently,
> "it's your railroad.") I
> would be very interested in knowing the WHAT and
> WHERE of the R-1s'
> assignments, especially later in their career. They
> were built as "fast
> freight" engines. To run where? There are so many
> possibilities. Since they
> were state-of-the-art, I presume they were
> originally "Lines East" engines
> (also suggested by their original "CB&Q"
> designation). But what about when
> they were demoted? Where did they go? and in what
> service?
>
> Note that Nickel Plate's R1 is of the engine as
> built, c.1900. Since the
> earliest standard gauge I personally model (so far)
> is early-mid 1920s, I
> have very little turn-of-the-century rolling stock
> to run with it. So I am
> going to add at least a generator (directly behind
> the stack), to make mine
> more plausible for post-WWI operation.
>
> It seems odd that the K2s -- 8 years older and with
> 1,200 lbs. less
> tractive effort than the R1s -- remained active so
> much longer (1/3 of the
> class were on the roster post-WWII, several still
> steaming into the
> 1950s!). You'd think the R1s would have fit the same
> branchline niche as
> those ten-wheelers. My only guess at an explanation
> is that the R1s were a
> small, and therefore non-standard class. The K2s
> probably were just easier
> to maintain and service, since there were so many of
> them to cannibalize.
>
> Jonathan
>
> --------------------
>
> Schultz Terry-QA2088 wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone have experience with a brass HO scale
> 2-6-2 R1 by Nickel Plate.
> Up until now, I didn't know that anyone had ever
> made a R1. According to the
> BRHS roster, the Q had 4 of these, numbered
> 1700-1703. Is this model very
> prototypical of the CB&Q? Does it run well? In the
> past there has been some
> discussion about Nickel Plate's 4-6-0 K2 but I have
> not noticed anything on a
> 2-6-2.
> >
> > Terry
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
|