G Scale Model Train Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

AristoCraft Classic C-16 Locomotive

Jump to Latest
31K views 45 replies 15 participants last post by  Ted Yarbrough  
S
#1 ·
Yesterday, I received my AristoCraft Classic C-16 D&RG locomotive that I ordered from St. Aubins Station on-line. It wasn't the best price, but it was the "best price in stock" that I could find.

I didn't take but a minute or two to see the obvious missing handrail on the left side of the locomotive cab. AristoCraft conveniently has a clear plastic viewing window in the box lid so you can see most of the locomotive and tender without even opening the box.

Image


The two white dots at the back of the cab are where the handrail used to be. I unpacked the locomotive in hopes that the broken off handrail would be in the box and I could glue it on. No such luck. No handrail in the box.
Image
I would say this is not shipping damage. The handrail was broken off before the locomotive was even packed in the box. A testament to AristoCraft quality control.

I called St. Aubins. The customer service guy was very apologetic even though it wasn't their fault. He said he would call AristoCraft and have them mail a replacement handrail direct to me. I'll wait and see how that works out.

In general, the locomotive is an OK runner. It doesn't have the pulling power of a LBG 2-6-0 Mogul, and it is more susceptible to dirty track. I will use it as track powered for a while, but my plan is to convert to battery power with a TE Revolution radio control. ( That conversion will probably cost more than the locomotive.) There is a speaker mounted in the tender, but they leave it to the customer to select and install your own sound card. The smoke generator works. I don't think you would want to use it with battery power. It is controlled by an on-off switch under the tender. There are 3 other toggle switches under the tender for motor, track/battery, and lights. The headlight works, and I was surprised to find that the marker lights also light up. It's hard to get a photo showing the lit marker lights, but here is my attempt.

Image


The link between the locomotive and the tender is a tow bar that fastens to the front truck of the tender. A screw and washer is used to hold the tow bar in place. This requires that the locomotive and tender be handled as a single unit, unless you are prepared to turn it upside down and do the screwdriver routine.

The caboose is part of the deal. I think that AristoCraft includes the caboose when you buy their Classic C-16 locomotive. I really didn't need another caboose, and the road name doesn't match, so I would have preferred to have the $91.49 (Wholesale Trains price) deducted from the price and just get the locomotive. Of course, it doesn't work that way. You buy the locomotive, you pay the price, and you get the "free" caboose.

Even though it was "free", I'm going to complain about the caboose.


Image


It is evident that the AristoCraft wood sided caboose is too high above the tracks when compared the the better proportioned USAT wood sided caboose. Does anybody have a "fix" for this?

Even the 28 year old caboose that came with my Lionel Gold Rush Special train set looks better proportioned than the AristoCraft. And it has the matching road name of D&RG. (no Western).

Image


The silver painted step and platform handrails, etc., look really tacky. That couldn't possibly be the way they looked in the early 1900's. Or maybe I'm wrong about that.
The interior and marker lights work from track power.

For anyone that has the urge to part with $350 plus shipping, it's not a bad deal, but it would be an even better deal if they sold the locomotive for $260 without the caboose.
 
Discussion starter · #3 ·
Posted By Stan Cedarleaf on 11 Dec 2009 07:49 AM
The single capacitor should work just fine as well.
Is the "single capacitor" something I should do with the Revolution control, or is it something to improve performace with track power?
 
Discussion starter · #6 ·
Posted By Totalwrecker on 11 Dec 2009 08:11 AM
those marker lights should be all white Class lights, .....
John
I suspected the marker lights shouldn't be colored, but in keeping with the season, I will keep the Red/Green color scheme until after Christmas.
Image
 
Discussion starter · #9 ·
Posted By Stan Cedarleaf on 11 Dec 2009 08:50 AM
Don, the single capacitor will allow for smoother running if the track gets a bit dirty.
If I make the transition to battery power with Revolution control, the capacitor modification is a non-issue?

I might still keep track power for caboose lights and passenger car lights, but not to drive the locomotive.
 
Discussion starter · #10 ·
Posted By Pete Thornton on 11 Dec 2009 09:10 AM

The Aristocraft caboose is built to a scale of 1/24th (and I think the box says "LS24" which means the same thing.) The USAT stuff is 1/29th, so the Aristo will be taller/wider/etc.

Scale is not the issue here. It is how the caboose is proportioned.

For example, this real caboose at the National Railroad Museum (URL linked to Wikipedia).

Image


Compare to Aristocraft wood sided caboose.

Image


The frame and body of the model caboose are "jacked up" like a monster truck. I exaggerate, but there is too big of a gap between the tops of the wheels and the body of the caboose.
 
Discussion starter · #14 ·
Posted By San Juan on 11 Dec 2009 05:08 PM
The silver is pretty tacky. Not everything should be like that, especially the end beam.

Now with the round herald version you have, things get a bit tricky. I know a lot more about the paint and lettering for the D&RGW during the 1940s and up.


The D&RG locomotive was my primary interest. The D&RG merged with Rio Grande Western in 1920 to become D&RGW per the Wikipedia article on D&RGW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver...n_Railroad
The round herald version caboose does not date back to the original D&RG locomotive, so it is mis-matched by AristoCraft. But they have a disclaimer that says the "free" caboose will match the road name of the locomoitive as close as possible.
It would have been much nicer of them to sell the locomotive without the caboose and give you a $90 discount.
Makes me wonder what AristoCraft's motivation is. They must have too many cabooses in inventory and nobody will buy them because of the "jacked up" profile.

Technically, I didn't buy this caboose, and I really didn't want it. But I got it. I may try to "un-jack" the trucks and paint the end beams black. To explain the road name difference, it will be a new caboose with an old locomotive.
 
Discussion starter · #18 ·
Posted By Mik on 15 Dec 2009 08:26 AM
The caboose is probably that way to get it to go around sharper curves.


After 15 or so years, they also finally re-lowered the superstructure to where God, Baldwin, Grant and Delton intended, and got rid of the weird angularity in the connecting rod.... I had to move the rod to the third driver to hide that with mine.

I'm not sure what the reason is for the "jacked-up" caboose. I don't think it has to do with the sharper curves, but I will check when I get home this evening.
The wires for the interior lighting are held in place on the underside of the trucks by a black rubber sealant type compound. This would make it difficult to remove the trucks which is probably required to modify to a more realistic height of frame and body above the rail.

AristoCraft made a change from the model locomotive in your photo. The current C-16 design has the piston rod at the same height as the drive wheel axles (which is probably where the real ones are). The model in your photo shows the piston rod significantly higher than the drive wheel axles. You did a nice fix by locating the connecting rod to the 3rd driver back from the front. Looks good.
Image
 
Discussion starter · #20 ·
After looking at Mik's reply and the detail photo of his connecting rod fix, I noticed he had feed water pumps on the left side of the boiler. My AristoCraft C-16 does not.

I searched the web for photos of the AristoCraft C-16 and find that some have feed water pumps, but most do not. I guess it is another AristoCraft cost cutting measure. Who needs feed water pumps anyway when they run on electricity.
Image


I just hope they don't remove the cab. Somebody might notice.
Image
 
Discussion starter · #22 ·
According to Wikipedia, 1893 is when the federal law required air brakes for trains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_air_brake

Since this locomotive was built in 1880, it probably had no air brakes. The feed water was probably done with an injector system, so the AristoCraft model of the D&RG Pacific Slope 2-8-0 has the correct plumbing.

My bad!
Image
I need to do more research on these things.

I will leave it as is (except for replacing the missing cab handrail).
 
Discussion starter · #23 ·
Posted By Totalwrecker on 15 Dec 2009 10:01 AM
I have a feeling the Caboose is jacked up to clear the larger flanges and for running on layouts with steep transition curves up and down... You might be right about the tight radius curved track clearance. I took a couple of photos of the AristoCraft Classic woodsided caboose on LGB 4 foot diameter curve track. It's really not conclusive, but if lowered, the wheel flanges might hit the step down from the platform.

Image


Image


I don't run trains on the 4 foot diameter track. Lowering the caboose is a fix I plan to make one of these days.
 
Discussion starter · #25 ·
Posted By Mik on 16 Dec 2009 07:12 PM I couldn't find a #71




The lilnk to the list that Mik is refering to is
http://www.drgw.net/info/index.php?n=Main.C-16
I couldn't find #71 in that list. You have to look further to find D&RG "Pacific Slope" #71. It did exist.

One reference to the D & RG #71 is found in David Fletcher's website
http://4largescale.com/fletch/d1f.htm

According to
http://www.drgw.net/info/index.php?n=Main.DRGMisc
D&RG #71 "Pacific Slope" operated from 1880 to 1886 under that road name and number after which it became RGW #71. You can read the rest of its history in the link.
 
Discussion starter · #28 ·
I haven't found any reference that positively identifies what a C-16 steam locomotive is. Most references credit D & RG with the C-16 designation. It is not a manufacturer's designation.

The last reference that I posted above has 2 listings for a D & RG #71. It is even more confusing when you take into account there were two different D & RGW's.

These are the DRGW.net entries for D&RG #71. No information is given as to whether they considered them C-16's.

Image


I'll just refer to it as the D&RG C-16 "Pacific Slope". Most model railroad people will know what I'm talking about. I didn't even know Baldwin made the 2-8-0 as a Class 56 and a Class 60. They all look the same to me.
 
Discussion starter · #30 ·
Posted By therbert on 17 Dec 2009 08:31 AM
I was just reading about D&RG(W) engine classifications in aone of my reference books the other night. Their classification system was very simple and straightforward: the letter designation told you what the wheel arrangement was -- "C" was a 2-8-0, and the number was the pounds of tractive effort to the nearest thousands of pounds. So, a C-16 is a 2-8-0 producing around 16000# of tractive effort.
If you dig into the http://www.drgw.org/data/steam/roster/drg.htm website, it lists 2-8-0 in the 56 Class and the 60 Class. The tractive efforts are listed as 12,450 lbs and 13,800 lbs respecitively.
It seems as though Tom's reference book doesn't agree with the number designation after the "C-", since neither Class 56 or 60 produces 16,000 lb of tractive effort according to the website.

Right or wrong, it's all C-16 to me.
Image
 
Discussion starter · #32 ·
Posted By David Fletcher on 17 Dec 2009 04:03 AM
Getting back to the caboose - if you check the article "The Phil Jensen Story" in MLS under articles, you'll see photos of the original Delton version - they did not sit as high as the Aristo version. .... With the larger freight trucks fitted today at Aristo, the caboose sits even higher.
David.
Here is a hot link to the photo in "The Phil Jensen Story".
Image

The photo credit is D. Fletcher.

I'm no expert, but this is the way I would like my D&RGW caboose to look. I'll try to do some mods after the rush of the Holiday season subsides.
 
Discussion starter · #36 ·
Posted By Totalwrecker on 17 Dec 2009 10:14 AM
I don't know why you want to validate Aristocraft's nomenclature when it's wrong, other than to let other modelers know it's the Aristocraft unit... I'm sure I wasn't around in 1880 to verify the origins of the C-16 designation as assigned by D&RG. Most references agree that a Baldwin Class 60 2-8-0 fits that designation.

The -16 is said to designate the tractive effort (in thousands of pounds) by some sources. But I cannot find any reference that gives the tractive effort of a Baldwin Class 60 2-8-0 as anything but 13,800 lbs. Does that mean a C-16 is really a C-14? I don't think so! Or that the Class 60 2-8-0 C-16 has a tractive effort of 16,000 lbs? I don't think so.

What does the "16" really mean?

We need somebody with a time machine to go back to 1880 and check this out.
Image

Unfortunately, my time machine and Lear Jet are both in the shop indefinitely for repairs.
Image


In the meantime, I'll just call my D&RG "Pacific Slope" #71 a C-16.

Interesting to note that Accucraft calls their D&RG #42 a C-16. But that doesn't prove anything because D&RG had two #42's. One was a Class 60 and the other was a Class 56.

Since D&RG wasn't too fussy about their C-16 designation, neither will I.

It's all C-16 to me!
Image
 
Discussion starter · #38 ·
Posted By David Fletcher on 17 Dec 2009 11:27 PM
The whole C designation didn't come in till the 20s, by which time the lil 2-8-0s had seen significant upgrades and modernisation. ........ The class 56s never made it to the reclassification (all sold or scrapped), so we dont know what the modern version of that 2-8-0 would have delivered.
Seems like the "Pacific Slope" #71 Baldwin 2-8-0 Class 56 locomotive was long gone from the D&RG when they started the "C-" designations.

But unless you take a micrometer to measure the current AristoCraft version of the Delton model, it still looks like a C-16. I suppose that is the model railroader's version of "poetic license".
Image
Or maybe it's just AristoCraft.
 
Discussion starter · #41 ·
Posted By Mik on 18 Dec 2009 09:41 AM
compared to my LGBs at least, it has a rather noticeable growl...
No "growl" on my 2009 AristoCraft 80202, 2-8-0 (almost C-16). It does make a low level noise like a belt drive. Almost sounds like the belt on my 2009 Harley Davidson Street Bob. I wonder if AristoCraft uses the same belt.
Image


Just kidding of course!
 
Discussion starter · #42 ·
AristoCraft is following the trend that Lionel did when it was making G gage trains.
Lionel used Lionel nameplates.
Aristocraft uses Aristocraft nameplates.

Image


In addition to the afore mentioned dimensional issues with the "free" caboose, one of the marker lights didn't last very long. I estimate about 10 minutes of run time.

Image


I first noticed the burned out light this morning as I was setting up for our neighborhood Santa Clause parade this weekend. Last Christmas when I set up a circle on the front lawn, it was such a hit with the neighbors that I feel pressured into doing it this Christmas (and the next, and the next, etc.)

Image


Later today, I plan to post more photos of the "2009 Christmas Oval" at Sailor Don's place on the MLS Photography Forum.
 
G Scale Model Train Forum
posts
460K
members
32K
Since
2007
A forum community dedicated to G scale model train owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, displays, models, styles, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Live Steam General G Scale Discussions Beginner's Forum Model Making Track, Trestles, Bridges and Roadbed