Jonathan -
Since I model the late 1940s and early 1950s, how difficult would it be to
kitbash an NPP R1 2-6-2 to an R2 2-6-2 surviving into this time period?
- John Manion
Denver, CO
railbass@a...
> 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 generation) very quickly superceded by galloping technology.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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
|