# Biles-Coleman logging articulated?



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

Anyone know anything about Bachmann's just announced 2-6-6-2T Spectrum engine?


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

No more than what is on Bachmann's page and this artist rendition from a google search: 

http://loggingmallets.railfan.net/list/prop/d-bilescoleman.gif


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

That drawing suggests 38" drivers while this link: 

http://loggingmallets.railfan.net/list/prop/bilescoleman.htm 

indicates 42" drivers, anyone know which it is?


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Not sure. Will be large in Fn3 regardless!


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

Looks like she will be just under 24" long, that's not too bad (and no tender to hook up!) About 6 3/4" tall as well.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Wow, Bachmann has finally made something I might actually want! /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/w00t.gif though I doubt it will be R1 capable /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/plain.gif


----------



## Dennis Paulson (Jan 2, 2008)

HE HE HE ,that means TWO motor drives to get to work , without the typical Bachmann drive problems ! 
BBT may want to consider more product to create for a fix . 
But the arty will look good .


----------



## Tom Lapointe (Jan 2, 2008)

*YYEEESSS!!!*/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/w00t.gif *DEFINETLY* looking forward to this one!!! Tom


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Available NOV. Not long to wait...


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

That drawing suggests 38" drivers while this link: 

http://loggingmallets.railfan.net/list/prop/bilescoleman.htm 

indicates 42" drivers, anyone know which it is?


The driver spacing on the Baldwin spec sheet is 42", which I would guess is where that number might come from. Accounting for the flanges, the drivers would be 39" at the largest to still allow for sand lines, brakes, etc. between the wheels. I can't see anything on the spec sheet that outright says what the driver diameter is, but I'd be inclined to believe the 38" dimension. 

Later, 

K


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

Can this bash be far behind? 












With apologies to Jon Davis whose copyrighted drawing I butchered for this.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Looks like an LGB Uintah bash.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Well at least it would run on my layout


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

CCSII, The drivers are 38" with a driver space of 42". Meaning that you have 42" between the center of #1 driver and the center of #2 driver.


----------



## Kevin Miller (Jan 5, 2008)

Maybe this will help a little.


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Photo of Bachmann locomotive just went up. Appears to be an engineering sample or something.... 










http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/gallery/albums/album29/aaa.jpg


----------



## Rayman4449 (Jan 2, 2008)

Wow, that looks great.  Bachmann has been really turning out some nice stuff recently. 


Raymond


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2008)

Posted By SlateCreek on 07/17/2008 12:38 AM 
Photo of Bachmann locomotive just went up. Appears to be an engineering sample or something.... 








http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/gallery/albums/album29/aaa.jpg

lets see...If I start saving now...2nd run should be out by time I can afford..so much for the "little engines syndrome"...hmmmmmnnnnmmmnnnn!


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Can anyone tell me what the vaguely triangular box between the sand and steam domes is? The drawings don't have it, but several other locomotives of this type built around 1929 (when this would have been built) have them too. I can't find a photo that gives me a really good view .... 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## Rich Schiffman (Jan 2, 2008)

Matthew, 

The triangle shaped box is probably a manifold for a single water fill hatch to each side tank. Check the semi saddle tank or side tank mallets for this, ie: Rayonier No. 8.


----------



## Robert Fasnacht (Jan 2, 2008)

Will somebody "drop the other shoe" and state the scale, please!


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Hm, didn't realize there were some who hadn't seen. From the Bachmann site: 

And, based on the Baldwin drawings for the never-built Biles-Coleman 
logging articulated: 
Spectrum 1:20.3 Baldwin 2-6-6-2 Articulated Saddle Tank 
DCC Ready due NOV MSRP $1250 
Item No 82894 Little River Logging Co 
Item No 82895 Yellow Pine Lumber Co 
Item No 82796 Oregon Lumber Co 
Item No 82797 West Virginia Paper & Pulp 
Item No 82898 Painted, Unlettered Black 
Item No 82899 Painted, Unlettered (red trim, white stripes) 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## K27_463 (Jan 2, 2008)

This loco is on display in Anaheim this weekend. Pretty big piece. 
jonathan


----------



## pimanjc (Jan 2, 2008)

What railroads would have run this engine? 
JimC.


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Well, I'm no expert, but from what I've found out so far, Baldwin was trying to sell these to a lot of narrow gauge lines after the Uintah pair turned out to be a success.... 

So, any "mainline" narrow gauge would have been fair game, but particularly the hilly curvy ones.... so.... 

The RGS comes to mind as a good candidate, as does the Silverton Northern, just based on route! 
Maybe the Klondike Mines Ry? 
The ET&WNC might have been a good candidate, except that I'm not sure how it would have done with the tunnels, and it was a LONG way between fuel stops for so small a tender. 

These weren't so much for hauling stuff out of the woods as they were for hauling heavy trains from the mill to the interchange, if I'm reading it right.... so the ideal railroad would have a long haul over some difficult track geometry, with a heavy train. 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

Don't you mean a short haul? 

(" so the ideal railroad would have a long haul over some difficult track geometry, with a heavy train.")


----------



## pfdx (Jan 2, 2008)

I cannot remember where I saw the drawing, maybe in one of the Unitah books but Baldwin did propose a tendered version of the Unitah articulateds for the Rio Grande for use on Cumbres. I belive the date coincided with the study on standard guaging the line. The White Pass would have been a good canidate for a tendered version as was the EBT, however both railroads would have benifited from a simple articulated rather than a compound mallet. 

I will add that by choosing a "catalog" engine Bachman has stiffed some of the rivit counters and given the freelancers a baton to run with. 

I'm waiting for a tendered version with one of the K27 tanks. 

Paul


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

I don't think I'm gonna wait ... assuming the tanks come off. (May leave them if they don't and just remove the bunker, change the cab, and add a tender .... though I think it's going to need an ash pan as well, since I'll be going coal. I think a 2-8-0 tender will work nicely if I can land one. 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## dana (Jan 7, 2008)

heres some more including proposals 
http://narrowmind.railfan.net/2662_SV_tanks-tender.JPG 
http://narrowmind.railfan.net/2662T_WTC110.JPG 
http://narrowmind.railfan.net/2662T_Braden.JPG 
RGS proposal http://narrowmind.railfan.net/2882_RGS.JPG 
D&RGW http://narrowmind.railfan.net/2882_DRGW.JPG 
D&rgw2http://narrowmind.railfan.net/2882_113_DRGW.JPG


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

It seems that Baldwin shopped this design to anyone who would listen. There's anecdotal evidence that they talked to the EBT about it (I'm trying to remember if I saw a spec card for it--I know there's one for a 2-10-2 they proposed). The piece purporting the story of the 2-6-6-2 on the EBT suggested that Baldwin went to the Tweetsie and others as well. Problem was that in the late 20s/early 30s, not too many narrow gauge lines were terribly interested in new motive power. Most were hanging on by mere threads, and the ones that were surviving had their stables pretty much rounded out. Roads like the D&RGW, which could definitely have benefitted from heavy power such as this, couldn't use it in this configuration. They'd need tenders. Chama to Antonito (heck, Chama to Cumbres) would empty that bunker in a hurry. Granted it would be no problem for Baldwin to supply it with a tender. 

Matt, the version at the NMRA show has coal in the bunker. The firebox on this loco is above the drivers, so the ash pan would be between the frames where it's hidden by the drivers. You wouldn't see the ash pan, though the rear two drivers would probably have a healthy coating of ash dust over them. If I were to add a tender to it, I'd lop off the trailing truck, making it a 2-6-6-0. On this loco, the trailing truck is really more of a pilot truck for running in reverse. It really doesn't support much weight, really just helps hold the cab and coal/oil bunker. I'd be tempted to move the cab forward a bit, too, but in looking at photos, removing the door and the bunker may be sufficient. I'd have to see it in three dimensions with a tender behind it. The 2-8-0 tender jumped to my mind as potential fodder, but the more I think about it, I think the K-27 tender may work better. The loco may dwarf the 2-8-0 tender. By the same token, I think the K's tender may be a bit too big, and tip the aesthetic balance towards the rear. We'll know more in the coming months. 

Later, 

K


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Personally, I think a slant back tender would look really good back there.... but that may be more than will be findable in acceptable size and shape for that locomotive. 

Good news about the coal. One less thing to worry about. Did you get any kind of impression as to whether the tanks would be removeable (ie is there a boiler under there, actually?) 

What kind of crazy people are we to look at a NIB locomotive with the idea of taking a saw to it before applying power? 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## david bunn (Jan 4, 2008)

As Kevin has mentioned it certainly seems that Baldwin tried to sell this design to anyone remotely interested in super power on the NG. 
I have just read an article about the C and S investigating a tender version of this design, the tenders were to be similar to those on the DRGW K36 and maybe even a bit larger, quoted price was around $6500 a piece. Due to the loot required to upgrade bridges to take the weight the project was scrapped. 
The Rio Grande do Sol did order similar locos although with smaller tenders. 
The bashing saw is being sharpened already as there seems to be plenty of scope to modify this fine looking loco without too much trouble. 
Regards 
Bunny


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Ok, another question .... 

Drawing on the example of the Sumpter Valley 250/251 ... the tender added to the locomotive seems to be something of a mismatch in that the deck height is different, and the cab now has doors, and a "deck exit" via the tender deck and the open back of the cab. Now... the Sumpter Valley converted the locomotive to oil fired, so they didn't have to worry about access except via a hose ... 

If you're going to add a coal tender to a locomotive like this, I'm assuming the tender has to match the locomotive floor if it's hand fired, right? 

also, 

Any ideas how one might go about keeping the side door / enclosed cab style, and still add a coal tender without the mismatch described above? The cab construction seems easy enough... but it's looking like I'd need a flat front tender matching exactly with the flat back of the cab, which doesn't leave much room for curves, unless there's going to be some kind of gangway for the fireman to run back and forth on ... and even watching this in Tweetsie #12's unramped tender makes me think it's a good way to wear out a fireman! 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

And one final thing... (I'd edit the above, but I'm tired of the spacing going away every time...) 

The Bachmann model shows two flat spots on top of the saddle tanks. (You can see them better in the photo gallery on the B'mann board in the photo of the Super Socket.) What is this space for? I can't figure out a part in the middle that would need to be slid outward, and it seems a strange place to want to stand, with no good way to get there. 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The flat spot is a foot hold to get to the sand dome. I agree, there seems to be no good way to get there besides a ladder, but as sand would be added only at certain places, a ladder wouldn't be too difficult to lean against the wall. There may be steps on the rear of tank between it and the cab that aren't visible in the photos. As for the tender, the deck is often lower than the cab floor by a few inches, so you've got some play in that regard. 

As for keeping the side door assembly intact, I'd imagine that on a prototype, the rear bunker would be integral to the door (likely the doors open towards the rear) so removing the bunker would inherently remove the side doors as well. 

Later, 

K


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

OK this from the Bmann website regarding turning radius: 

Dear All, 
It appears that the new loco will run on R2 radius, and *with a minor modification it will go around R1*. I want to see a production model before I detail the discussed modification, however. 
Have fun! 
the Bach-man 

/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/laugh.gif


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

I'd bet you your morning coffee it involves removing the flexible blast pipe on the front engine assembly, allowing a wider swing. 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

Or filing down the flanges so that all but the back left and right drivers are blind.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By CCSII on 07/21/2008 4:33 PM
Or filing down the flanges so that all but the back left and right drivers are blind.



/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/blink.gif 

Anything that required the use of a milling machine to do properly I dont think counts as a "minor" modification  

I think more likely some filing and snipping of some plastic off in a few conspicuous places /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/w00t.gif


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

Just joking.


----------



## Martin Goller (Feb 12, 2008)

Here is a SG version of this concept: 
http://www.1880train.com/locomotive110.html 

And here is a SG version with a water tender instead of a saddle tank: 
http://www.trainmuseum.org/Loco11.asp 

Lots of opportunities... 

Martin


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

It might fit around a 2' radius curve, but you'll need clearances to 3' just to accommodate the overhang!  I'm not sure I'm going to stand trackside to take photos when that loco comes rounding such a tight bend. "Objects in viewfinder may be closer than they appear." 

Later, 

K


----------



## R.W. Marty (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi all, 
If you want to look at some "standard gauge" logging Mallets check out this web site. 


http://loggingmallets.railfan.net/list/list.htm 

Later 
Rick Marty


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Hmm, a 2-6-6-2 articulated, and a four wheel diesel with side rods - why not do the Uintah Mallets and the D&RGW 50? 

I guess my predjudices are just showing... 

Robert


----------



## Robbie Hanson (Jan 4, 2008)

Considering that the week before this showed up, I'd been planning a Uintah bash out of two "Industrial Moguls"...now I have to answer the question: Build or live with a saddle tank? 

Good question indeed...


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

...why not do the Uintah Mallets and the D&RGW 50? 

For starters, the Uintah mallets would be HUGE! Across the tanks, the locos are 10' 7" wide. That's 2" wider than a K-37 at its widest (the cylinders) and 10" wider than the K-37 measured across the running boards. The Uintah Mallet is 46' long (28" in 1:20.3). Recall that the most common complaint about the 45-ton diesel was it's overall size. A 1:20.3 Uintah mallet would dwarf that by a healthy margin. The Biles-Coleman proposed prototype is shorter (around 24" from judging from photographs of Bachmann's model), and a good bit narrower, too. I'd bet that somewhere in the 9' wide ballpark would be close. That's a much more reasonable sized locomotive for the garden, and people wouldn't have to worry too much about clearances being too close. 

As for the diesel, they had the CAD work done for the On30 version, and it's been quite a good seller in that market. How I see it, it's a no-brainer decision to simply upsize it. It's a nice looking generic switcher, and according to the 1-twenty point me blog, evidently does have a specific prototype. It's size is such that it works well with both the 1:20 equipment as well as the smaller 1:22/1:24 equipment. Would a proper model of #50 sell better? Who knows? I wouldn't buy #50, but I might be tempted by this little guy. I'm sure there are others with opposite tendencies. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Good guess on appliance placement. 
Nice "domed" smokebox front on the sketch. 
Can't find spoked pony wheels on the sketch. 
Do those valves in the sketch indicate "D" valves? 
Oil-fired, too. 
Stack is interesting on the sketch. 

I see a question on the Bachmann forum about clearances under the lift-off. 
Hopefully there will be an answer.


----------

