There were a lot of near duplicate locomotives - likely far more than
most people consider. If you think about it logically, the barrel
and running gear are more or less standard products - with obvious
exceptions. Why would a locomotive manufacture continually reinvent
the wheel (pun somewhat intended). The problem most people have with
sizing up two locomotives is the cab, smokebox cover, headlight,
pilot and domes. If you can allow yourself to look past that, you'll
see a lot of "twins". I think Bob LeMassena once had a couple of
articles in Trains about it.
Now, the problem of course, is that the Burlington did things a bit
differently. They typically rebuilt a lot of power, and they had
"odd" differences, such as Belpaire fireboxes. However, if you just
look at the specs for a given locomotive, the drivers, boiler
dimensions, and such, you'll find something out there that works.
Another good way to interest a manufacturer is to say "we ran a poll
and had x number of people interested in such-and-such. If we got
deposits of $50 to reflect buyer confidence and seriousness, what
would it take to have it built?" . Hopefully, that X is going to be
in sufficient quantities to make an impression. But, if you look at
the way some locomotives have done, I wouldn't blame a manufacturer
for being a bit cautious. But, at least it would show some real
interest. But how much would people be willing for a Pacific, or
Mike? Or a ten-wheeler? The amount of work and time is the same
for a Pacific as it would be for a Northern - but, they can sell the
Northern for more.
At 05:24 PM 2/1/2006, you wrote:
>Bob many be right about finding steam locos that are common or
>similar to other railroads. Unfortunately, not many (except USRA
>design) were common to multiple RR's. Most RR companies designed
>what they thought was the best application for their RR. Baldwin,
>Alco, Lima, etc, would take basic specifics and then heavily modify
>them for a particular RR.
>
>However, having said that, Bob is correct in stating that some
>engines share a lot of common similarity between different RR's.
>
>I have sent emails to several importers (BLW, Bachman, just to name
>2) requesting that they look into manufacturing a Burlington class T-
>1, 2-6-6-2 noting that this engine design is the same as used on the
>Great Northern, Northern Pacific and I think the SP&S. Hopefully,
>someone will do this little articulated.
>
>Ray Bedard
>San Jose CA
>
>--- In CBQ@yahoogroups.com, Bob Webber <no17@...> wrote:
> >
> > One way to generate manufacturer interest is to find "virtual
>copies"
> > of what you want - in other words, find a locomotive that is
>nearly a
> > duplicate.
> >
> > For instance, for the 2-10-4, the B&LE 2-10-4's are very close.
> > For other examples, the D&RGW & MP 2-8-2's, the D&RGW, WP & MP
> > 2-8-0's, the D&RGW & WP 4-6-0's , the D&RGW, UP & CRR 4-6-6-4's,
>the
> > D&RGW & N&W 2-8-8-2's, the N&W & D&RGW 2-6-6-2's, D&RGW & Milw
> > 4-8-4's, D&RGW & DL&W 4-8-4's, etc.
> >
> > You'll note that the Challenger has been produced a few
> > times. Trains and NKP brought out the 4-6-0's and 2-8-0's. Of
> > course, that means you also have to find drawings - but if the
>road
> > has an active HS, they can usually point you to a source - and it
>is
> > in their interest as well.
> >
> > Bob Webber
> >
Bob Webber
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|