[Mik]

Posted By SailorDon on 15 Dec 2009 10:25 AM
... I noticed he had feed water pumps on the left side of the boiler. My AristoCraft C-16 does not.

Air pumps, my friend, air pumps. When the c-16s were built many trains still used manual brakes... Guys with clubs climbed on top if the cars and applied them by turning those big handwheels... car by car, and released them the same way = hard, dangerous work, especially in the rain or snow.

I'd have to look up the Westinghouse patents to see when they were invented, but, like everything else that costs $$, it took an act of government to get them required.You have the woodburning early (as built) version, so you don't have air pumps, or a generator - or engine brakes for that matter. If you'd have a late rebuild version like mine, there were two pumps on the left, - (yes, mine are piped correctly!). And just to screw things up even further, if you look at old pictures, some of the Rio Grande Cs sported a single pump on the right for a few years instead of the left as well.


If you're want to bash yours, I scrounged (begged, borrowed and stole) these while re-doing mine:
Miks 2-8-0 detail pix

 

[SailorDon]

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!

I need to do more research on these things.

I will leave it as is (except for replacing the missing cab handrail).

 

[SailorDon]

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.

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.

 

[Mik]

You just have to decide what year your layout is set in, then add or delete details as needed. I think the single pump in front of the engineer looks different enuff to be worth modeling.
Here's a list of c-16 road numbers with names and build and scrapped dates, plus links to DPL photos that you might find useful: roster

I couldn't find a #71

 

[SailorDon]

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.

 

[Spule 4]

While not a US outline LS modeller, I have always liked this loco. The current ones are nice looking with the lowered boiler, especially the green one.

As for the caboose, it does put one off. My father scratchbuilt one in H0n3 in the 1960s following published plans. They look great sitting low on their trucks.

 

[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.

 

[SailorDon]

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.

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.

 

[therbert]

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. What was interesting is that there was no distinction in the class name to tell whether it was a standard gauge or narrow gauge loco. A C-25 is a standard gauge engine. You just had to know.

 

[SailorDon]

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.

 

[San Juan]

The D&RG(W) C-25 was narrow gauge. One of a kind #375. Former Crystal River loco.

 

[SailorDon]

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".

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.

 

[Totalwrecker]

Don,
Prior to the C (consolidation)-# class were the lighter 56 Class and 60 class. Don't expect the numbers to match as it's Apples and Oranges...

I'm happy to know that my Pacific Slope is a 56 class 2-8-0, screw what Aristo says.... they play somewhat loose with the facts anyway. Delton probably didn't have the Internet access we have today and made a somewhat common mistake...it's a 2-8-0 thus it's a Consolidated thus C and the smallest were 16's so...

In the chart you posted it clearly states 56 Class, which were before the newer C-#'s

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...

Thanks to David Fletcher for the history lesson.

John

 

[San Juan]

Posted By SailorDon on 17 Dec 2009 10:00 AM

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.


Wow! Now that is definitely better looking. The railing paint (black) is more accurate for the circular logo era as well. Although the end beams probably should match the body paint (red). If these were not 1:24 scale, I would have used the Delton version for my caboose fleet for sure.

 

[Steve Stockham]

The only surviving standard gauge D&RGW locomotive #683 is located at the Colorado Railroad Museum in Golden. If you look at the information plaque you will see that it is designated as a "C-28" so Tom's original point is valid. #683 is a 2-8-0 but unless you are familiar with the D&RGW designations for it's fleet you can't determine from this whether it's narrow gauge or not especially when ng Mikados had considerably more tractive effort! Consider, C-16, C-17, C-18, C-19, C-21, C-25, C-28, C-41, K-27, K-28, K-36 and K-37. Two of these are standard gauge but which? Logic says the C-41 and the K-37 as they are the largest or at least the one's that have the greatest tractive effort but this would be incorrect!
The original designations of "Class 56" and "Class 60" referred to the locomotive's weight on the drivers! You begin to realize the size difference between a Consolidation and the new Mikados when you see that the K-27's original designation was "Class 125!" Changing the designations to tractive effort or how much will it pull? made more practical sense. There are differences even in the same class as the D&RGW purchased new engines from multiple builders! Baldwin always got the lion's share of orders but they weren't an exclusive supplier by any means!

 

[SailorDon]

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.

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

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!

 

[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.

 

[SailorDon]

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".

Or maybe it's just AristoCraft.

 

[Mik]

I never ran mine beyond testing that it worked... Kim put it under the tree and, compared to my LGBs at least, it has a rather noticeable growl... before I tore into the gearbox, I thought I'd ask if this is normal for a late 90's Aristo version

 

[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.