[David Fletcher]

The Pacific Slope was technically not a C-16, but the slightly smaller Class 56 2-8-0 (Baldwin 10-24-E class), a class which dated 1877-1880. Pacific Slope was one of the later ones. The C-16s originally called Class 60, dated from 1880-1882 (some early prototypes prior). The Class 60s were the Baldwin 10-24 1/2-E. Outwardly the 56s and 60s looks pretty much identical, however the 56s had slightly smaller cylinders, and a boiler 2" narrower in diameter. Since the Aristo C-16 is slightly underscale, I've always tended to see them as Class 56 - appart from the fact that the Class 56s had all the cool names, while the 60s C-16s only had numbers.

Regardless, all of these 2-8-0s and the 2-6-0s and 4-4-0s prior to these 2-8-0s were all fitted with air brakes from the get-go. Initially they were fitted with the Westinghouse straight air system in the 1870s, later to the Automatic Air system in the early 1880s. The Aristo 1880 versions are all made with the original Westinghouse air compressor on the engineer's side, which is correct. The Aristo modern versions are all made with the twin larger compressors on the firerman's side, which is correct for the 1920s versions, or there abouts till the end. All of them have the air brakes.

The original 1880s C-16s, while fitted with air brakes, only actually had braking on the tender and train...no brakes on the loco drive wheels.

I like the two D&RG paint Jobs for Aristo's new versions of the C-16s, Pacific Slope and Music Pass...but maybe I'm biased!

Just by way of comparision - the DSP&P locos, also in Colorado, also owned the 10-24-Es, which were basically the same as the D&RG class 56 2-8-0s - they owned 10 of them from 1880. Initially these engines had Eames Vacuum brakes ( a completely different braking system, extensively used on suburban lines) - this was changed to the Westinghouse Automatic system in late 1883 during the Union Pacific ownership of the road.

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. Primarily the Caboose in the Delton era used their smaller truck, used on the shorty coaches, C-16 tender and both caboose types (the 2nd being the drover's caboose). The smaller truck was really a C-16 tender truck, but passed well for the small caboose trucks too. Aristo however never obtained the tools for the Delton small truck, and as such have always used the much larger Delton freight truck on the tender and caboose. (Hartland own the small truck tool, and use it on their rail bus) Additionally, if you happen to obtain an early run Delton caboose, you'll see there is no molded on plastic washer on the Bolster..this was added to the tooling sometime during the Calidonia Express days, raised the height by about 3mm. I think this was done to try and get the low slung caboose up to the height of the freight cars and LGB stuff. With the larger freight trucks fitted today at Aristo, the caboose sits even higher. What I would recommend is taking the trucks off, grinding off that molded on circular washer at the truck mount, down to the original bolster and screw the trucks back on. It will look fine then.

David.

 

[David Fletcher]

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.
As such you'll find the D&RGW folios from the 20s onward with the engine specs listed and the tractive effort crossed out and updated several times. The last I believe has the tractive effort of the C-16 listed as 16,540 pounds. Hence the C-16 designation. Sure the 1880 version had it been classified to the tractive effort designation in the 1880s would have been a C-14. 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.

Model cos use the 'C-16' term for these 2-8-0s, even non D&RG versions, simply because its something people understand.
The true Baldwin class designation was 10-24.5-E for the C-16 (60)..and the 56s were the smaller 10-24-E class.
This equates to 10 wheels, E= 8 coupled (therefore a 2-8-0), and '24' meant 15" diameter cyliners by a Baldwin formula...C-16 is just easier!

The Delton model itself was for its time about the most accurate US outline model available, excluding brass, but was compromised to meet 2' radius requirements. It was based on the famous 1880 Burnham shops drawing of the class 60 #42 'Anglo Saxon' (this is a magnificent drawing dating to 1880 when the loco was delivered new). In order to meet the 2' radius curves, Delton took some length out of the chassis, but to not shorten the loco too much, they moved the lead driver away from the cylinders, and placed the first and last drivers about 1/4" closer to the middle driver than should be. The body work is good, at only about 1/4" short. The tender is also shortenned a little as well.
The modernised version of the Delton C-16 is only really a characture, since far more was done to the Class 60 over the years than Delton/Aristo did with the modern versions..you can see the upgrades I'm speaking of in my kit bashes of these C-16s. This includes making the rounded domes taller and fatter, raising the running boards, all new tenders, changes to the saddle and cylinder setup and may other changes.

David.

 

[David Fletcher]

Hi Mik,
The first run of Aristo C-16s in 1990 were quite noisy. They used quite a hard white plastic on the axle gears, they pulled very well, but were noisy. It was only the 'modern' versions which were like that (the modern versions came out first). The 2nd run were the old time version, and for that run onward they used a softer 'black' plastic on the gears and the noise was far less. My 'Pacific Slope' from 1999 (repainted Aristo D&RGW version) has been run so much it is absolutely quiet, but it was pretty good from the get go. Aristo dumped the unused white geared drive units on the market in 1999 as 'replacement' gearboxes to older Delton units - except it was a major kit bash to get an Aristo block into the old Delton version! Never mind, the Aristo drive blocks, even with the noise, were very strong pullers and at $50 they were a great buy for kit bashing. I used a lot of them (they have quieted down over the years with running). We used this block also for the first MLS Masterclass, building the 8-16-D moguls. For the money, the $50 block, complete with side rods was a top buy.

Don, I dont have any issue with the Class 56/C-16 issue. people know this design of loco as a C-16. Even at full size the 60s and 56s were so close in size that it was hard to tell them apart. Literally the difference we're talking is 1" narrower cylinder and 2" narrower boiler...thats it. The chassis lengths were the same, same axle spacing same wheel size, same cab and tenders. I chose to go with the Class 56 options for my repaints and colour schemes, as they offered better options for the 1880 version, including having cool names. Also since the Delton model is slightly messed with in terms of scale, the model can really be either one.

One thing, with the exception of the real Class 60/C-16 prototype #42 'Anglo Saxon' of 1880 (which was painted dark green when new), all of the 60/C16s were painted gloss black when new in 1881 and 1882 (with gold, creame and red lining), while most of the Class 56s were painted the dark green. Thats why the 'Music Pass' version from Aristo is green with the gold and red lining - to represent Baldwin's style 103 used on these engines (from #33 onward). There were just more opportunities in colours and names for the 1880 versions when we chose class 56 2-8-0s to represent..they did look exactly like C-16s, just a couple of inches here n there is all. I have no issue with these 2-8-0s being called C-16s overal.

Love to try some more schemes too...we could do a neat dark brown version too, some of the first class 56s were so painted.

David.