# Anyone interested in Master Class 2009 ??



## chuckger (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Guy's
Back on 2/13 Fletch posted on Andy's bogie 2 log that if there was interest in building models, he would be willing to run another class. I posted this to see if there is enough interest to run another Master Class. If your interested in building please post, as to a model one would need to be selected for the class. 
So gentleman what do you think?? Anyone interested??

Chuck


----------



## ron736 (Jan 2, 2008)

I would really like to see another Master Class, MLS hasn't been the same without Fletch.

I would like to see something in a 2-8-0, perhaps a C-16.

Ron Knepp


----------



## astrayelmgod (Jan 2, 2008)

Well, what happened last time is that we got bogged down in what we would like to see, and of course hardly anybody wanted to the same thing, and that was the end of it. Most people wanted something that was already available, or very close to something already available. But frankly, it's hard to see the attraction to build something that already exists.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

The selection process has always been part of the problem, we could never as a group find something that everyone wanted to do and feel into favoring our various niches. It remained best that whatever Fletch decided to model was what was chosen since he had to do all the planning, preparation and test models for it 

Besides was the _last _Masterclass for the 0-6-0 Porter ever finished? I'm only aware of the first chapters being posted.


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm interested in doing a class, but only if people want to build models. I never did Chapter 2 of the Porter class due to a total lack of interest attracted in Chapter 1. I have most of the PDFs for chapter 2, but probably wont bother writing it when so few did CH1. Not a critism, just I feel, as evident in the model making forum, we're just not seen the quantity of model making we once saw on this site. Times have changed I guess, new folks get other things out of MLS these days and so on. 

For personal preferences, I can and would love to do a class on: 

DSP&P Brooks 2-6-0, incl as-built DSP&P and CCRR versions, UP version, WP&Y and C&S. I have done a lot on these engines, and plan to provide most of it to Accucraft, however given ecconmic times, we wont see these in development for years yet, if ever. 

D&RG, EBT, RGS class 48 0-6-0ST loco (Baldwin 6-22-D, drawing 1)- again, done loads of rearch on these and given drawings to Accucraft, but it may be a long time before anything concrete comes of it. Doing this as a class with Hartland drive and laser cut styrene, double plated frames would be easy. The asbuilt versions were colourful, while later versions are black and simply lettered...useful to 1900 or so and logging. 

D&RG/EBT 8-16-D 2-6-0s, Shou-wa-no etc - the early NG Baldwin moguls (and possibly the 2-4-0 Montezuma etc). I have the errection drawings for this type of engine from Baldwin, not quite Shou-wa-no as that was like a prep production prototype, but small mods were done to what became a standard design. The original drawing also shows 3 dome and 2 dome versions. 

They're my preference anyway. 

As for the C-16, I still have a desire for that, but for the same reason as I chose NOT to do the Jackson & Sharp coach for my coach class, and chose Carters instead, I would stear clear of the C-16....unless we did some early versions. If ecconomics weren't what they are today, I'd place bets on a plastic 1:20.3 version post 1900 inside of 2 years. Exact same thing happenned with the J&S coach, so I was darn glad I didn't do that coach in my class - it was otherwise the obvious choice. 

Fletch.


----------



## jlcop (Jan 2, 2008)

"I'm interested in doing a class, but only if people want to build models. I never did Chapter 2 of the Porter class due to a total lack of interest attracted in Chapter 1. I have most of the PDFs for chapter 2, but probably wont bother writing it when so few did CH1."

The reason I never started the Porter Chapter 1 was I wanted to build it as the "Blue Mountain" version, which would have be in Chapter 2 if I understood the process correctly or am I confused?
John


----------



## dltrains (Jan 2, 2008)

Fletch, 

Having enjoyed pics of your model building and the masterclass articles you've done I look forward to another masterclass build. If I could make a personal request though it would be for a master class on unavailable fittings if you can't decide on a loco to build. 

Just as I belive the manufacturers would help the hobby more with a few generic locos and cars, with an assortment of detail parts to help create the stable the individual wants, without having to remove this and replace that. Maybe you could see your way clear to show some of us lessor modelers how to create the details we need to create the stable we want. 

Or a class on how to make a loco frame and drive train or properly alter an existing one to get the locos we want. 

I agree we don't see the quality of modeling that used to exist here and the mags. people want ready to go right out of the box and just what they want. Maybe because they haven't learned how to make what they want. I can't always afford to do the full build but if I could make more of whats needed I might be able to actively join in instead of sitting back and saying that's great wish I had one. 

Dave 

PS I would certainly appreciate the rest of the info on the porter also.


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

I still prefer whole locos for class as a means to explain techniques in context and have a firm outcome - a working model. Classes on details out of context sure would be useful to folks, but lacks the comraderie and helpful model building discussion that goes on in classes like these...plus the inspiration to build is the finished model in the mind's eye. Most appreciate the comments and ideas. 

Note also, incase there is misunderstanding, I noted we dont see the 'Quantity' of model building we once saw, I didn't comment on the quality - its not that the models we're seeing are no good, just that not too many people are building anymore! 

Most of the techniques for chassis building and details are covered in several classes from me, Peter Bunce, Allan Cash and Doug Bronson on the MLS articles section..these are as good today for concepts and methods as the date we wrote them. 

I will see about assembling the PDFs for the small Porter into a workable set of drawings. They're spread out in a CAD file, which was originally used for the Brown Porter I built over 5 years ago. 

many thanks, 
Fletch.


----------



## astrayelmgod (Jan 2, 2008)

There are lots of great tips buried in the various articles that are already posted. I ended up pulling Fletch's articles apart into their component pieces (using Adobe Acrobat; I don't think the Reader can do it), and labeling each one for its remaining contents. It's a LOT of work, but much easier to refer to on the fly, as it were. Most of my resulting articles are 2-4 pages long, and only discuss one step, or even part of a step.


----------



## bearswood (Jan 2, 2008)

I would also like to see a "DSP&P Brooks 2-6-0, incl as-built DSP&P and CCRR versions, UP version, WP&Y and C&S." I just found a Bachman Indy through Stan Cedarleaf but if there is not going to be a 2nd chapter I will leave it as is for now. I do have an enlarged drawing reproduced from Model Railroader magazine of the a Brooks 2-6-0 to 1:22.5. Whether one is in built for a MLS class or not, I will build the Brooks WP&Y version or C&S. 

Fletch, my Mason Bogie has been shelved until I finish the making the bed in our master bedroom. 

George from northern Indiana


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

To clarify the Porter Class, 
Chapter 1 which is available at MLS has the complete construction of one class of Porter 2-6-0 and 0-6-0. 

Chapter 2 is for an entirely different, less popular Porter 0-6-0. You dont need chapter 2 to build the Porter. 
After a poll was taken as to which engine to build in Chapter 1, I went with the more popular of the two. Almost none were built from the class, so chapter 2 for the 2nd loco wasn't really that important. 

Please review chapter 1 and decide if that loco interests you. 

Thanks chaps, 
David.


----------



## jonathanj (Jan 24, 2008)

I'd be interested in the D&RG, EBT, RGS class 48 0-6-0ST loco (Baldwin 6-22-D, drawing 1)- long admired Fletch's 1/24 version on the cut'n'shut delton mech. BUT, it'd need to be 1/20.3 for me to want to build one, otherwise everything else would tower over it.

Alternatives..

A standard baldwin catalogue sidetank - 0-6-0T or 0-6-2T? A while back someone (sorry, forget who), built a nice 0-6-0T using a Bachmann Indy.

Or a double ender, perhaps export catalogue like the (UK) L&B 'Lyn', or the Victorian Rlys NA, now that the Bachmann 2-4-2T is discontinued?


Or Uintah #20 & #21? They never worked anywhere else,and I don't think there were duplicated, but they're cute enough. Just did the sums though, and they need 42.5mm/1.673" wheels - dunno what fits mech-wise, unless you butcher an LGB mogul block to change the wheelbase? (And even the wheels on that are but big, might be easier to live with the Hartland 1.75" ones)

This has come out as a list of tanks, but I'm not anti bigger engines (though I guess there's not chance of a South African Rlys GMAM 4-8-2+2-8-4, which is what I really want) - with the 0-6-0/2-6-0 and K27 done in both 1/20.3 (Bachmann), and 1/22.5 (Hemmeter/Fletch), there isn't much that's too obvious - The K36/K37, but those are big engines with no obvious donors (at least not to me), or maybe an EBT mike - don't know how close the Aristo mike block would be for that?


A while back I did the maths on the Uintah's pair of 2-8-2's #30 (older, outside frame) and #40 (inside frame) and worked out you could get close to the both in 1:20.3 using connie and the aristo mike as donors respectively - both catalogue designs, and #30 was secondhand but I don't know if there were any close duplicates.


Actually, I've just had a thought while typing this (and I'm now on target to mention every Uintah rod drive engine except the various 2-8-0's that are probably C-16 related anyway).. How about the Uintah mallets, #50/#51? I know LGB did/do them in various forms, but those models aren't exactly to scale, and 1:20.3 it'd be some machine (and home built styrene would be a lot cheaper than buying brass). Drivers are close enough to HLW's 2inch not to worry, the middle one doesn't need to be flangeless, and there's enough room between the front and rear mechs to allow both to articulate meyer-fashion - I know the real things got round the equivalent of something like 11ft diameter in F-scale, but the overhangs were horrendous, and most garden lines probably don't have 6-8inches clear of the outside of the track.


That's it I think - a Uintah mallet please Fletch, and maybe one of the 0-6-2T's to keep it company if you can find the wheels, 'Dignity and Impudence'-like.


Jonathan


----------



## NavyTech (Aug 2, 2008)

OK here is an opinion from a new guy who is interested in modeling. I personally got alot out of the master class while kit bashing a couple of engines. I would love to see more. The only real beef I ever had was some of the builds seem to have used a laser cutter to make the parts with is not cost effective for some of use poor buggers. I would love to see a build from someone who hand made all the parts from scrap pieces of various material rather than all plastic. I am considering scratch building with all wood and no plastic. 

I am not downing the builds on master class at all they are wonderful and educational. I just have a different point of view. I have made an engine for less than $100 bucks but was a rebuild not from scratch and will attempt to make another for less than $50 some day.


----------



## alcashj94 (Jan 2, 2008)

Some interesting points coming out here! 

We are seeing the normal bids for our personal favorites but interestingly there seems to be a feel that the Baldwin 0-6-0 ST could be popular. 

I think there is no way that a large loco would be succesful as a class due to the ammount of build time required and the ability of 'new' modellers to stick at it to the end. We found in previous classes that chassis are the main stumbling point for a lot of people as they cannot believe they could build one themself. Fletch has proven the plasticard with Hartland system works and this could be the way forward for a small loco - easy for beginners to follow and achieve a result. 

I see the comments about laser cutting but you can still cut by hand if you are prepared to put the effort and time in, laser cutting is only a shortcut and also suits those who are looking for a kit as opposed to a scratchbuild. 

All the previous Masterclass articles have covered how to make boiler fittings, pipework, domes, stacks etc. so a pleasant evening or two browsing those will provide all the info needed. 

I find the interactivity with a group build is a real boost to maintaining enthusiasm during a build and the more experienced in the group can help and lead the newer builders through the points where they would have got stuck on their own. 
If we do have a new class lets keep it simple with a small loco that can be achived by everyone - I'm ready to go! 

Allan.


----------



## peter bunce (Dec 29, 2007)

Hi,

Minds think alike – most uncanny! I will be building a saddle tank, with a chassis from the LGB American styled 2 4 0 tender loco, the 'loco only' was available here in the UK for a reasonable price – so one is in stock!

There have been some drawings in the magazine ‘Narrow Gauge & Shortline Gazette’ of such locos, there are said to be errors in them but my loco will be a freelance version of either a 2 4 2ST, or with a larger bunker, a 2 4 4ST; photos can be seen in the book ‘Locos that Baldwin built’, or for some earlier versions in the PDF’s of the Baldwin Loco Works catalogs – these were found by Steve C, and have been saved needless to say! Be careful with some of the proportions the narrow gauge versions look quite different! Saddle tank or side tank versions are very similar. 

For example one of the enlarged NGSL drawings of a 2 4 2 ST is about 16” long with ‘cowcatchers ‘ at each end. This has a late cab (like the L&B ‘Lyn’ for which David has done a very nice color drawing that has appeared in the Australian magazine ‘Narrow Gauge Downunder’ – issue 29 - April 2008). That article has both the 2 4 2 and 2 6 2 side tank versions shown in Baldwin Export colors.

Of course Australia has the Baldwin’s on their Puffing Billy Railway.


----------



## Rich Schiffman (Jan 2, 2008)

David, et al;

It does my heart good to see communications on this Forum. Too many months went by with no news. My next project will be to build the Porter Bell loco from the parts I have gathered. I will see what is decided and follow with interest. Go to it lads, good to have ya'll back.


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

Didnt Bachmann just release a Unitah Mallet in 20.3?? 

Im still working on my Porters , hope to complete them soon now that I have my profile cutters for the domes done by EDM by a friend. Of course beibng they are steam powered they have been taking much longer then I anticipated. I also had a bunch of layoffs over the last year and I have been a whole lot busier then in the past years.


----------



## astrayelmgod (Jan 2, 2008)

"Didnt Bachmann just release a Unitah Mallet in 20.3??" 

Yes, and no. Yes, a 1:20.3 logging Mallet, but it's not a Uintah. It's a model of a loco that was proposed, but never built.


----------



## dltrains (Jan 2, 2008)

Fletch,

My Appologies for the mis statement. 

Dvae


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

What a though to build something that was never produced. I still hope to see a Unitah Mallet from Accucraft in steam. Or I guess I can try building one myself.


----------



## linuxhost (Jan 5, 2008)

What amazes me if that some of you guys (and gals) are able to hand cut some of the parts for the classes. You have talent that I dearly wish I had.

I'm willing to laser cut any project that you can agree upon, but remember I, along with any other laser cuter, have a lot of money tied up in both machinery and material. 

Although I'll cut it at cost, there is no way that I can laser cut it cheaper then you can hand cut it. 

But the laser cuttings will save you a lot of time. 


Doug Bronson


----------



## wildbill001 (Feb 28, 2008)

As a new modeler and avid reader of this board and this forum I'd like to suggest maybe a different approach to the next Master Class.

Maybe a series of mini-Master Classes on various techniques that could be applied to any loco or rolling stock?

For example:


Layout of parts - how do you layout those small and large parts so that the 5 or 6 you need will end up the same size.
Cutting parts - Ok. now we know how to lay them out but then what? How do I cut small brass, plastic, alum, etc. parts that are too small to hold in my fat fingers?


How can I make drive wheels or can I? If I can't, where can I go to get some?

How to make valve linkages as well as side-rods, etc.?


How to make a drive-train. If I'm making my loco from scratch, I'm gonna need to build some sort of drive-train from a 9v/12v/18v motor and some gears. I'd be really interested in learning what gears to choose and why. How do I get a motor that spins at 5k rpm to drive my loco ?


Drawing plans from a photo, especially if you don't have any measurements of what's in the photo.
etc., etc., etc.


The idea behind these mini-Master Classes would be to "teach me to fish" rather than "feeding me fish". Yes, some or all of these topics are probably covered somewhere in the Web. But I've seen the work that folks here produce and I'd like to learn from them firsthand.

Bill


----------



## jnic (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm still working on my Porter as well. Hope to post some progress soon. Just chiming in to express my gratitude to Fletch and hope that the Master Classes continue.


----------



## peter bunce (Dec 29, 2007)

Hi

Bill,

David Fletcher virtually single handedly does all the work, usually after the drawings have been produced he builds one for himself and takes photo during the build: and as you say most of the topics (as below ) have been answered in the previous classes; however I will attempt to answer them for you - I have indented my answers to make it a bit easier to see them. David does all that is needed for free, as he classes it as part of the hobby, and quite frankly, if the cost was worked out (& its not I am sure) it would be huge, and not affordable! L know that the results from it are superb, and as it is done by the locomotive builders our time is also cheap (nothing) as mistakes by us generally give you some extra knowledge anyway! So to the lions den I go - here you are. 

As a new modeler and avid reader of this board and this forum I'd like to suggest maybe a different approach to the next Master Class.

Maybe a series of mini-Master Classes on various techniques that could be applied to any loco or rolling stock?

Answer - mini classes would have to be with a theme or a loco to work on; in its entirety it would therefore be a complete class

For example:


Layout of parts - how do you layout those small and large parts so that the 5 or 6 you need will end up the same size.

Answer The drawings are done on a computer program - that will ensure accuracy, and as David F is an Architect he knows and uses the programs daily in his work.


Cutting parts - OK. now we know how to lay them out but then what? How do I cut small brass, plastic, alum, etc. parts that are too small to hold in my fat fingers?

Answer Most are plastic or if tiny with the possibility of them being cut wrong they are bought where possible; Hartland have a large spare parts system and David F seems to have an encyclopedic knowledge of them; for a given loco and IF they have the parts David will in the instructions give a list and cost of those parts which Hartland will know about as the scheme will have been OK's with them 


How can I make drive wheels or can I? If I can't, where can I go to get some?

Answer With difficulty and needing machine tools and the expertise to operate them - but as above Hartland for instance may have some; otherwise other MLS members had some cast - as did Rich Schiffman for the Mason Bogie's which had special wheels when new.


How to make valve linkages as well as side-rods, etc.?

Answer Side rods and main rods can be made - off drawings, from styrene plastic and work well.


How to make a drive-train. If I'm making my loco from scratch, I'm gonna need to build some sort of drive-train from a 9v/12v/18v motor and some gears. I'd be really interested in learning what gears to choose and why. How do I get a motor that spins at 5k rpm to drive my loco ?

Answer Hartland do a motor and gearbox unit that has the driven axle in place - that is 12v ( think), lower voltages can be found but I do not know of they will be strong enough to stand up to garden railway use. They are available here in the UK from various suppliers though


Drawing plans from a photo, especially if you don't have any measurements of what's in the photo.
etc., etc., etc.

Answer A lot of parts were to standard dimensions - David F has as massive amount of knowledge BUT I know that he will mention any thoughts re unknown dimensions if necessary. Photos will also be listed of the loco in question, and MLS members will add that know as well!


The idea behind these mini-Master Classes would be to "teach me to fish" rather than "feeding me fish". Yes, some or all of these topics are probably covered somewhere in the Web. But I've seen the work that folks here produce and I'd like to learn from them firsthand.

Answer I have built from the classes: Heck I joined MLS to build the most complicated loco of all - The Mason Bogie's - and did it! Along the way others have been done and will continue to be done, but my knowledge pool in Large scale is built on previous experience of small scale, as are a lot of others, the rest is from MLS members assisting when questions are asked - I am in the UK so there can be a lot at times! Do not be shy of asking questions however small - there will be an answer supplied, and in very quick time generally. 

Most of us are building Large scale RR systems doing for our pleasure and as a hobby, but MLS has a number of small industries started from within it that supply parts to assist us, and they do. David Fletcher does CAD/laser cutting files for instance. and such as Doug Bronson (Bronson-Tate) then will make them and offer them at cost price (Doug Bronson does it for a hobby he has another job that is not connected): Doug also has full kits that have been (there are hopefully more to come as well) put together of vehicles and buildings that are unlikely to be made by the big commercial makers. There are others as well those are just examples that I have used 

I hope that this has answered your concerns, MLS is a worldwide collection of interested people who model Large Scale, and in may case they are invaluable, especially in the I think unique Master Classes - the difficulty is for David Fletcher to find the time (and its a lot!) to put together the information/plans/ photos/PDF's etc once a loco is decided on from the huge range that we model - the difficulty is in deciding on that, and also bearing in m ind that the major manufacturers will not decide to market it themselves!

If not MLS members will fill in the gaps that I have left, and I have no doubt there are some , through my own lack of knowledge, I keep learning for here and I fully expect to do so for a while yet.

Your idea of Mini classes needs a whole set really to gain the maximum knowledege, because some classes would have/need (and possibly those not yet done ) information from other mini classes: so a complete set in preferable . They are not put up in one fell swoop - (so you get close to a set of intergrated mini classes?), but as they are done, and others help to get them into order when required, and hopefully Shad will make some parts into PDF's where needed. The PDF's always have a scale, and are configured to fit US letter size paper; the scale is for a check that you printed them to the correct size. I have to change my pronter to accomodate this as I live in the UK.

As I say at the start of this there is a great deal of work in them! Mini classes would possibly make this an even longer proposition as each would possibly need a different introduction; my opinion is a full class is better. 

When saved the make an encycleopedia of scratch building, you will need the space to keep several files full of information!


----------



## david bunn (Jan 4, 2008)

Bill

Two publications that will give you all the info you need,except probably wheel construction,are' Model locomotive construction in 4mm scale' by Guy Williams and ' Model locomotive construction' by Martin Evans. The first gives many constructional ideas on frames, detailing etc and the second which is designed for Gauge 1 some more heavy duty ideas. Don't be put off by the 4mm scale bit as the principals will suffice for most scales.
As an aside I find that brass strip filed to the correct outline plus brass washers soldered on is the best for side rods, if a fluted rod is required then thin brass rod can be soldered to the edges and then scraped and filed to give the required result.
Both books were published in the UK and should still be available.
Personally I find that the solving of constructional problems without a workshop of machine tools to be one of the most satisfying parts of this hobby.
Regards
Bunny


----------



## Matt Vogt (Jan 2, 2008)

I would definitely like to start a Masterclass. I found large scale right after the most of them were ended, it would seem. I model early narrow gauge, so anything that was used on a NG rail - preferably something not huge - that I can scale 1:20.3 drawings to would be great! I am completely a rookie, but like a challenge!


Matt


----------



## peter bunce (Dec 29, 2007)

Hi Matt, 
They are still available - goto the Archives section, then to Master class, and then tick all topics - there are 47 pages there for you to go through. Some of the early ones are also in the articles section as well. The topics are locked as they are from the old site, but that does not mean that they cannot be used, and questions can be asked in the present site, with a link through to the old site for the Archives section.


----------



## Matt Vogt (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey Peter,
I appreciate the thought. I wasn't clear on the old Masterclasses. I have looked through them time and time again, planned, bought applicable plywood and castings for the Duckbill coaches, etc. The only thing I have ever scratch built is a logging caboose and I am in the middle of building a railtruck, just to get some experience. I plan to, in time, build many of the projects...but I am always up for more!









Take care,
Matt


----------



## DSP&P fan (Apr 9, 2008)

Considering that Brooks moguls were one of the two most popular locomotives during the golden era of ng railroads, I find it baffling that they haven't already been offered commercially. They're the ultimate in generic power! And besides, both the South Park & CC had them!

I'd probably foam at the mouth over the first D&RG engines. I would have to join the class. Part of my excitement would be to team one of them up with 4-wheel freight and passenger cars for use on 2'R curves. 

The 0-6-0t is a fine idea as well.


I'd strongly consider about joining for an 0-6-0t or a Brooks 2-6-0, but I would definitely join in for either an 1871 D&RG Class 25 or Class 35. 

I've bid on a number of B-man Indy's for building a porter, but they kept getting away from me...instead, I've acquired a B-man 4-6-0 chassis for a CC Cooke instead.


----------



## DanS (Jan 7, 2008)

yes on a new master class this is the one forum I check hoping for something to happen although progress is slow on building the cph and 
the mason a new class my be what I need to get moving and finsh up. for me the brooks is my choice


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks for the ideas and interest chaps, 
I've spent much of this week in another state for work, but home again for a day and then upcountry again for the next 4, but keep the ideas flowing if you like. 

I have a couple pf very basic concepts that need to be hehind any choice: 
1- easy to get parts of the imporant parts, such as wheels and drives, and not to blow the budget...no more custom stuff, or reliant on a single person to build stuff for us all, with no backup. 
2- Smaller locos and the way to go, not Garretts, or Artics, or big Ks, they just dont prove popular due to the scale of the build and length of time. 

The most popular classes by far on MLS were the CP Huntington class, and the Carter Bros - both were fairly straight forward and offered laser cut help, or the option to scratch build the lot for less $$, thats the way to go on MLS classes, offer both ways, and not over complex jobs. 

Who would have thought something as silly as a 4-2-4T would be popular in a model building class? Yet something like 35 were made, and I keep seeing more all the time. 

Finally, maybe something like I did in the first class, which sectioned the model building into basic construciton, and then detail on top...something I rolled together in the later classes. If I go back to the original concept of simple construciton plus detail on top for the more brave, this can allow people to ignore cab interiors etc if they want to avoid that. People often get hung up at that point, and the model is never finished...what if it can be made to look finished, but not get bogged down in those kinds of thing. I will still offer all the detailed info for the cab interior etc as normal too. 

Bottom line, these thigns work best if its kept simple, and doesn't get bogged down in complex parts, complex builds, or reliant on special hard to get and expensive parts. 

In all this, we need to recognise the importance of the help guys like Doug Bronson can offer, and I must also make mention of the extraordinary work Rick Raively did for us on the CPH and Carter Bros, he's since gone away from trains for a while, but I sure miss him. 

Here's the class 48 0-6-0ST if folks want an idea of the style: 

www.drgw.net/photos/DRG105/drg_105

I'll be off the air again for another 4 days, and then will check in again and see whats what. 



Thanks chaps, I'm sure we can do something this year. Happy to take ideas on prototypes, not too obscure, not freelance, not too large, not articulated or geared due to complexity (Allan already did a great job of the articles on the 2-4-4-2 and 2-6-6-2). Something with a background and history we can enjoy as well. 

Finally, if it served, I'd be happy to explain the process of turning prototype into drawing form as part of the chapters, and go through obtaining original builders details, specification data and photos from which to generate a scale drawing. 

Fletch. 

From Peter Bunce - for some reason the image will not come up from David's web address - I found it at the following web address which works for me 

http://www.drgw.net/gallery/DRG105

that will give a small image - click on it, and you have an 800 pixels wide version!


----------



## david bunn (Jan 4, 2008)

Coincidentally I was looking through my copy of The RGS Story Vol X11 this evening and there are some good pics of the DRG 0 6 0 saddle tank in it plus scale drawings of front side and rear elevations, worth a look if you can access a copy.
Regards
Bunny


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

I'd sure be interested in something like this: 










A for myself I have to keep in mind anything I do needs to be small enough to work on my layout. I had to so completely redo my CPH project to the point where its a completely different engine from where it started just to make it work on my R1 curves, so anyhting to big or too wide radius demanding I'll have to sit it out, but then I need another locomotive like a hole iin the head


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Found this image of the RGS 0-6-0T in Sn3:











I'd have to say I'd be interested in this one too. I even have an Indy...


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi David, 
Yes the RGS story has that drawing of the RGS Class 48 drawn in 1971. having researched this engine, original specs and details from the Baldwin archives, the drawing in the book is sadly too short and the boiler too fat. The critical dims for the 6 wheel chassis is 9' 6", while the RGS story drawing there scales to only 9', and the boiler hould be 42" unlagged (around 43" diameter at the smokebox), the drawing in the RGS story pretty much assumes a shortenned class 56 boiler at 48" unlagged. At smaller scales, its not much of an issue, but with the original data, its possible to put together a better job of the drawings than scaling from photos alone, and much better for the kind of accuracy possible in largescale. 

I have drawn a complete set of Class 48 drawings for different eras and styles including the different cab styles...this is what I'd use for the class, brand new drawings based on the real stuff from the DeGolyer archives. 

Vic..nah not that O&K loco, just too complex for the class with full valve gear and twin chassis, inside and outside frame (outside frame to rear set for grate area). I could do it, but previous classes pretty much rule out this type of thing being finished by many. 
I do think the class 48 is a good choice to get the class started again, not too large, can be built using available parts and has a nice story. These were not a small loco for their time, as I note, 9' 6" chassis, with 36" wheels. The model would be 1:20.3, so that has the mass of a Cooke Mogul in many ways. Thats a larger chassis than the Indy! Its much closer to the LGB Mogul chassis, but a tad longer. At 20.3, the class 48 chassis is 142.6mm long from first to last axle centre.

David.


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By david bunn on 02/25/2009 9:29 AM
if a fluted rod is required then thin brass rod can be soldered to the edges and then scraped and filed to give the required result.



Or you can use 00-0 and 1 gauge british bullhead track
I bought some from cliff barker, Peco also does an 0 gauge one that is perhaps better suited


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Class 48 is fine with me but... 

If you thought the Indy chassis were hard to find...Spare Mogul chassis are going to have their own caviets, even "very used", these things are still commanding some loony tune prices. If the Indy chassis is too small then are you thinking maybe a custom out of styrene? We did that on the CPH and it worked well.

I converted a Bachmann chassis to 0-6-0 by moving the pistons back, its pretty easy to do but its still pretty good sized heft wise, I also cant say how close or far it would be to either the 1/20 Proto or the Mogul chassis. 










My 1/22.5 tanker for size comparison, the drive chassis might be pretty close for a 1/20.3 Class 48?


----------



## up9018 (Jan 4, 2008)

Dave, 

I like the idea of the RGS 0-6-0T in 1:20.3....it would be really neat if you could figure out how to mod an annie drive to make that work. More than the 0-6-0T, I would like to have a 2-8-2T much like this: http://www.trainnet.org/Libraries/Lib014/MRA09S.JPG but it is entirely up to what everyone else (and you) want. I would also like to see you do an easier (and quicker) project such as special rolling stock (drover's caboose, log loader, etc.) Either way, keep up the good work. 

Chris


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

activating link:

http://www.trainnet.org/Libraries/Lib014/MRA09S.JPG


----------



## timlee49 (Jan 12, 2008)

G'day David, 

I should love to make a saddle tank loco in 20.3 : 1 . 

As you know I hand cut every thing, so a simple design would be appreciated. At the moment I have completed the first Carter combine, 2/3 of the Mason Bogie option 4B (just waiting on a gearbox and me to cast the wheels to complete the project), I have just rebuilt the 2-4-0 CPH variant's chassis in brass, as my first attempt in all styrene wore out in two years of seldom running. 

I think that what I am saying is please keep your designs simple for the hand cutters and use parts that can also be made by the builder instead of purchasing. Given your background and the way that you came to your abilities in scratch building I know that you have these concepts in mind while designing, I just ask for a little more consideration. 

While I might not last to the end of this masterclass ( see previous posts) I am keen to keep building for as long as I can. 

Thank you David for all your help and for the concept of these Master Classes, WELL DONE! 

Thanks 
Tim


----------



## jonathanj (Jan 24, 2008)

I like the look of the that 2-8-2T Vic posted a link to.

( http://www.trainnet.org/Libraries/Lib014/MRA09S.JPG )
Could that be made to work on something like an aristo mike block, with scratchbuilt/laser/etched gear? Think that would be a really useful skills combination to cover, particularly if the gear can be made strong enough in plastic - it'd would open up a lot of possibilities for people using those basic blocks (the mike and the pacific) plus scratch gear in both narrow and standard gauge outline.


I've assumed up to now that any future masterclass 'needs' to be steam, narrow gauge and US outline, but is that right? (And if it wasn't what would Fletch's interest stretch to?)


Rgds,

J.


----------



## astrayelmgod (Jan 2, 2008)

"aristo mike block" 

I dunno; ~$400 for something that we are going to dismantle is asking a lot for this crowd. You should have seen the whining when the Mason laser cut chassis price went up due to the dollar-Euro exchange rate. And that was half the price of the Mike or Pacific.


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

Standard gauge is certainly not out of the question, although my preferences are still pre 1900 for design, with options lasting into the 20th century, these guys have the story in my opinion. I'd love to do V&T engines for example, 2-6-0s, 2-4-0 (Bowker) or the famous 4-4-0s in 1:32 or 29 - need to see wheel availability. 

The class 48 would have a CPH style plate frame with more layers, plus bronz (or ball) bearing inserts for the bearings - these wont wearout. The CPH with only one axle doesn't have the pounding that a multi wheel frame has, thus on an 0-6-0 I would insist on metal bearings, but the frame instelf can still be a rigid styrene job. The wheels as noted are 36". The Bachmann 4-6-0's wheels are closer to 41", and is a little shorter chassis than the Class 48. If folks want to use the B 4-6-0 drive on something 20.3, there is still all that stuff we did on the Cooke Moguls a few years back, which use the 4-6-0 drive on scratch built upper. The PDFs for the drive and basic dims are still on this site. 

Tim, I've always designed these classes with the basic builder in mind, and without the 'Need' to only buy laser cut stuff. The laser cutting has only ever been offered as a simpler option and has provided much help to those less secure with a cutting knife. Only about 50% of the CPHs took up this option. The coach however was different because they are such a major pain to cut (as you have seen), I couldn't draw the walls on this in any other way to make this easier anyway...there are many many windows, they need to be cut..no amount of staring at the sheet plastic will see those windows cut....more consideration? I cant give more, I did the best I could and thankfully with Rick and Doug we did get a lot of these cut and built. 

That is a really nice 2-8-2 alright, I like it. have to look at a simpler hand made chassis over the $300+ Aristo job...pity, because Aristo always said they'd offer the chassis as a separate purchase with wheels and rods, but that never happenned...besides it probably wouldn't be much cheaper than getting the whole finished loco I suspect. Oh well. 

Thanks for the ideas chaps, 
keep those thoughts alive. 
David.


----------



## timlee49 (Jan 12, 2008)

Hi David, 

Please accept my appologies, I seem to have expressed myself poorly. I meant to say that you always have looked after us hand cutters admirably and attempted to express my hopes that you would continue to do so. 

Yes that 2-8-2 does look like a nice fit. 

Thanks again for all your dedicated work. 

Tim


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By jonathanj on 02/28/2009 10:45 AM
I like the look of the that 2-8-2T Vic posted a link to.

( http://www.trainnet.org/Libraries/Lib014/MRA09S.JPG )
Could that be made to work on something like an aristo mike block, with scratchbuilt/laser/etched gear? Think that would be a really useful skills combination to cover, particularly if the gear can be made strong enough in plastic - it'd would open up a lot of possibilities for people using those basic blocks (the mike and the pacific) plus scratch gear in both narrow and standard gauge outline.


I've assumed up to now that any future masterclass 'needs' to be steam, narrow gauge and US outline, but is that right? (And if it wasn't what would Fletch's interest stretch to?)


Rgds,

J.




If the masterclass went for something like that I suspec I could use a lot of the input for this Baldwin
Baldwin for the Norwegian state railways


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

No problem Tim, I'm with you now on what you meant. 

Hagan - nice...but what about something like 'Holand', Baldwin 10-16 1/4-D drawing 2, 11/16/1897. 
Two shades of Olive Green, style 297 - now thats a neat and fancy loco, 750mm gauge, rigid wheel base 6', drivers 32", 34" boiler with planished iron jacket...and loads more goodies...now thats a neat Norwegian Baldwin! 

David.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I got an aristo mike block a couple months ago for well under $100 bucks. They aren't $400

I still haven't decided what to do with it, and have been leaning towards something with a Wooten firebox--but that 2-8-2 is very cool!


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

That would be something as well David, I did buy the Bachmann 'Lyn' for that reason, I was contemplating 32mm gauge, that would be very close to 1/24, also very similar to those NZ locos, except I would guess the Norwegian Baldwin had a very small boiler for it's cylinders, not uncomon for it to have to stop to 'catch it's breath' so to speak 

But I am mostly into standard gauge, so the Høland would be a one of, but could be great fun


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

This one


----------



## jonathanj (Jan 24, 2008)

>"aristo mike block" 
>
>I dunno; ~$400 for something that we are going to dismantle is asking a lot for this crowd. You should have seen the whining when the Mason laser cut chassis price went up due to the >dollar-Euro exchange rate. And that was half the price of the Mike or Pacific.

I meant just the block -you can get that and the pacific one loose, with just connecting rods and no other gear - part #29362 for the mike and #29262 for the pacific. They're up over $100 now, best was about $70 each, but a lot cheaper than the whole loco - siderods only means you need to make the rest of the gear.


Links for the parts on the WST site - no connection or particular recommendation just were the quickest for me to find.


http://www.wholesaletrains.com/Detail.asp?ID=200411844 (mike)
http://www.wholesaletrains.com/Detail.asp?ID=200411845 (pacific)

Capt Edward Murphy obvious been here before me though, the mike is out of stock, but you can get the pacific - guess they might be mpre expensive when the come back in.



I can't find any pics on the web, but I've got one of each type in the stash, so I'll try and post photo's of what you get for your hundred bucks later.


Jonathan


----------



## Jeff Livingston (Jan 2, 2008)

Fortunatly I believe there will always be an interest in any "Master Class". The difficulty as I see it is in our expactations. I participated in the first Master Class and completed the locomotive although I don't model that era or style. My expactations were to improve my modeling skills and they were well met by David's clear instructions and most importantly historical background. Everything made more sense to me once I undestood what the heck all that stuff was used for or why it was necessary. With the improved skills and knowledge gained from the first Master Class I moved on to modify a number of locomotives to Oahu Railway and Land Company and military prototypes used here on Oahu. If your expatations are to be lead through building your own favorite prototype locomotive chances are you'll be disappointed. If you want to improve your skills, build the first Master Class locomotive. Since we all wonder why Bachmann often picks obscure prototypes and clamor for a "generac" locomotive, I'm of the opinion that a Master Class could fill that need. A "generac" Baldwin, ALCO, Porter etc. Of course I'd be thrilled if David came up with a simple inexpensive way to make outside framed locomotives from something other than a Bachmann consolidation. So far it's whipping my tail but I haven't given up. 

Jeff Livingsotn 
Kaneohe, Hawaii


----------



## astrayelmgod (Jan 2, 2008)

Jonathan -- 

It sounded like you meant just the block, but I couldn't find that listed as a separate order number on the Aristo web site. So, I assumed I had to be mistaken, and we would have to start by buying a whole one and discarding everything but the chassis. Thanks for the correction. 

Still, I think a locomotive that size is pretty ambitious for the marginally interested scratch builder. I certainly include myself in that category. I have spent two years on my MB, and it's a fraction of the size of anything running on a 2-8-2 chassis.


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By Jeff Livingston on 03/01/2009 10:59 AM
Of course I'd be thrilled if David came up with a simple inexpensive way to make outside framed locomotives from something other than a Bachmann consolidation. So far it's whipping my tail but I haven't given up. 

Jeff Livingsotn 
Kaneohe, Hawaii

Slaters plastikard has an excellent selection of drivers and they do two different outside cranks for just this purpose.
I have bought some items from them and they are truly excellent, and the price is quite reasonable for what you get.

Slaters larger scales selection click on 'accessories' to find A good photo of one such set in use (for 16mm scale)


----------



## jonathanj (Jan 24, 2008)

Astrayelmgod -

No worries about the correction - what I'd written could obviously be misinterpreted, so it was needed. And even the correction has a mistake or two - part number for the pacific block should be ART2936*3*... And with both chassis, you get *coupling* (side) rods ready fitted, but *no connecting* rods.

>Still, I think a locomotive that size is pretty ambitious for the marginally interested scratch builder. I certainly include >myself in that category. I have spent two years on my MB, and it's a fraction of the size of anything running on a 2-8-2 >chassis.

Not sure I agree with your other comment though (just a personal view) - I don't think bigger locos necessarily mean a great deal more time, or detail to add - you can spend a couple of months broadbrushing a mallet into shape good enough to run in the garden or half a lifetime building an museum quality 0-4-0T (or if you're Fletch, put together a museum quality mallet in a weekend, probably with one arm behind your back.) - OK, extra wheels add some complexity, but every loco has more or less one cab, smokebox, pilot, sets of tank gear, boiler mountings etc. And if the connecting rods and rest of the gear can be done in plastic, or at least simply scratchbuilt, teaching people that skill opens up a huge range of later prototypes using these or other blocks. And anyway I like big locos, and I'm pretty taken with that one.


To be fair, I think I'm not alone amongst the MLS crown in having a "big loco problem" - there's no known cure, but if the masterclass uses this or a similar chassis, the class is going to be limited to those with curves to suit (4ft rad and up from memory for both the aristo blocks), which might be a factor.


Jonathan


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

One of the biggest issues as can be seen from reading the last page is that you cannot please all the people all the time. 

Everyone has there own pet project and we always get divided into what should be done, as for me , I'd still like a Darjeeling Class B 0-4-0 but I'm a small minority for that. 

I'm all for the RGS Class 48, though a narrow gauge 2-4-0 Bowker would also have a certain appeal, but the tanker I could really use on my layout. But its not up to me to decide, its really Daves choice, I like the 2-8-2 too, but on a Aristo brick and 4'+ radius, I'm out, too bad we cannot find C-16 blocks as easily as they once were to find...but then they would be too small diameter wouldnt they.


----------



## astrayelmgod (Jan 2, 2008)

"(or if you're Fletch, put together a museum quality mallet in a weekend, probably with one arm behind your back.)" 

I always assumed he built them on the airplane going to/returning from his overseas projects. How else would he have the time? 

I too have a "big loco problem". I would love to have one or several Ks, but the tight curves would make it look ridiculous, and the tight clearances on my layout make it impossible.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Well we could always go a little goofy…

















This would work on my R1’s

















Even have a plan


----------



## jonathanj (Jan 24, 2008)

Can trump that...

http://www.ngrail.co.uk/5_far_t.htm
http://www.georgekidner.co.uk/fw170108/72.jpg
http://www.georgekidner.co.uk/fw170108/74.jpg
http://www.georgekidner.co.uk/fw170108/73.jpg

http://forum.gn15.info/viewtopic.php?t=3258&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=c472ab76b1efd0ae8fa19331512fbffa

That said, I don't actually want one..


J. 

Links made active by Peter Bunce, moderator


----------



## Robert (Jan 2, 2008)

Jonathan 

Loved the Far Twittering & Oysterperch Railway. Really fun.


----------



## DSP&P fan (Apr 9, 2008)

Shall we talk a bit about the drivers needed for these various ideas...available plans, photos, & data?

The Class 48s certainly have plenty of published info out there, and have been offered in HOn3, Sn3, and On3. They were fine locomotives. I'd be torn between a D&RG, RGS, or EBT version (from what little is known of the EBT version!).


The Class 25 2-4-0s had 40" drivers. John Maxwell has offered plans. One of them went on to a 30yr career on the Colorado Eastern after leaving the D&RG. At the same time that they were being built by Baldwin for passenger service with LGB style passenger cars, Baldwin was also working on the Class 35 2-6-0s (36" drivers). The Class 35s were intended for freight service with the road's 4-wheel freight cars. All of these locomotives were too small once the Grand decided to leave the plains and become a mountian railroad. Still, these were the first common carrier 3' gauge locomotives ever.


http://www.drgw.org/data/steam/history/drg1.htm

From the Ted Kierscey Collection which he so generously shares with us:
http://www.narrowgauge.org/images/tkcok/m00157.jpg
from: http://www.narrowgauge.org/ncmap/excursion7_laveta_pass.html

I would be inclined to rob an B-man 4-6-0 of its #1 and #3 drivers (and gearing and motor) to build one. Perhaps see about modifying the wheels, but considering them close enough. I'd build a new frame out of either styrene or metal reinforced styrene.

36", 37", or 38" drivers are golden for narrow gauge modeling...so many locomotives had them.


I'd love to see something from the Oahu Railway, but so many of their locomotives were large and not very common throughout the states...even if their 0-6-0s were some of the handsomest locomotives ever. I doubt many people would want to build one (I'm planning to build one in On3 with B-man OF 4-4-0 drivers).


Michael


----------



## chuckger (Jan 2, 2008)

Ok, lots of ideas so far here is mine, this could be made with a plastic frame and all the drive parts from Hartland. This would provide anyone that wants to build one a chassies in short order, and eliminate the seven year delay we had in the Masom class. The photos below are of a Brooks 2-6-0 
In the first post he made on this thread David more or less indicated he was interested in building a brooks or the class48 tank engine, can we get an idea of who would be interested in building either the Brooks or the the tank engine.

My vote would go for the brooks.

Chuck


----------



## chuckger (Jan 2, 2008)

here is the additional picture


----------



## chuckger (Jan 2, 2008)

Ok, lots of ideas so far here is mine, this could be made with a plastic frame and all the drive parts from Hartland. This would provide anyone that wants to build one a chassies in short order, and eliminate the seven year delay we had in the Masom class. The photos below are of a Brooks 2-6-0 
In the first post he made on this thread David more or less indicated he was interested in building a brooks or the class48 tank engine, can we get an idea of who would be interested in building either the Brooks or the the tank engine.

My vote would go for the brooks.

Chuck


----------



## peter bunce (Dec 29, 2007)

Hi Chuck, 

The second photo appears to have failed to load for some reason. 

I would like either loco but I think it comes down to the saddle tank, as I will be buillding one as I said earlier in this topic, though it will be a freelance version.. 

The Mogul is quite a large building job, with the loco & tender to build, whereas the saddle tank will be a shorter build time and cheaper to build as well. 

The Brooks Mogul drawing, the new CCRR book, if it is correct (and the scale under it isn't!) is almost 30" long : the saddle tank is about 14" long, both in 1/20th scale.. 

There is a much better drawing of narrow gauge Brooks Moguls in the Hilton book, 'Narrow Gauge Railroads' page 148 by the way. It looks like it is the DSP version, as the cab is very like them. 

David has a two much larger drawings of Moguls as well, from which the center driver is flangless. I know as he kindly sent copies to me which are very interesting - Thanks again David. 

It is a good looking, and large loco, and if some promised kits make it (with the recession) there is a train almost ready for it, though that will be more assembly work.

The 'long' CCRR baggage car is already available as a kit from Bronson Tate, and it includes decals.

Both locos interest me, though I think for a class that the little sadle tank is possibly a better choice.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Class 48 tanker for me as well, I have to avoid long tender jobs on my short indoor layout, if we dont to the Class 48, I'll likely try ity on my own anyway.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

I'm new and quite awed by this idea. Even so as my nature I'll make it more complicated! 
I'd like to do a standard gauge loco, the pre 1900's are great to me so the V&T 2-6-0 gets my vote. 

My complications? Well 1:24 and I've always wanted to build a loco in SS ... Sterling Silver. I can cast some parts after I've machined them in wax or plastic, but mostly it would be silver fabricated and hand tools... hard soldering with a torch. 

As a newbie my first question is there a set schedule for completing the loco, as in a time frame? Or can the tortise mosey at his speed? I'd only want to buy the motor and gears. 

What maching is required? I have a small Unimat lathe/mill that I slowed down for wax, but beyond simple shapes would be a big leap. (Severly testing my dearth of skills). 

I don't expect the class to address my needs and realise that I will be the one adapting... 

John


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

John

You can get an idea of how the MasterClasses are fleshed by looking at previous ones, just click the link below and take your pick.

*MLS MasterClass Series*


----------



## astrayelmgod (Jan 2, 2008)

"As a newbie my first question is there a set schedule for completing the loco, as in a time frame? Or can the tortise mosey at his speed? I'd only want to buy the motor and gears. " 

Well, I am still working on Master Class 2002, the Mason Bogie. I'm not quite as slow as that sounds, I didn't start until 2007. 

"What maching is required? I have a small Unimat lathe/mill that I slowed down for wax, but beyond simple shapes would be a big leap. (Severly testing my dearth of skills). " 

I don't even have that much. You don't NEED any fancy tools. Although a drill press, band saw, and belt sander would reduce the time required by several orders of magnitude. That assumes you're making it out of plastic, brass and other materials you can buy at a hobby shop. For sterling silver, you're on your own. But you already knew that. 

Your skills will be a lot less dearthier after you've finished one.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By astrayelmgod on 03/08/2009 12:13 AM
"As a newbie my first question is there a set schedule for completing the loco, as in a time frame? Or can the tortise mosey at his speed? I'd only want to buy the motor and gears. " 

Well, I am still working on Master Class 2002, the Mason Bogie. I'm not quite as slow as that sounds, I didn't start until 2007. 

"What maching is required? I have a small Unimat lathe/mill that I slowed down for wax, but beyond simple shapes would be a big leap. (Severly testing my dearth of skills). " 

I don't even have that much. You don't NEED any fancy tools. Although a drill press, band saw, and belt sander would reduce the time required by several orders of magnitude. That assumes you're making it out of plastic, brass and other materials you can buy at a hobby shop. For sterling silver, you're on your own. But you already knew that. 

Your skills will be a lot less dearthier after you've finished one. 





I built my CP Huntington using only hand tools, Xacto blades and microsaw blade, Xacto razor saw and miterbox, files etc., and only used my Dremel tool for a few cuts. this has been the case for all my major and minor bashed since then.


----------



## astrayelmgod (Jan 2, 2008)

You had a miter box? How posh! Don't know how I forgot about the Dremel tool; it's a real time saver. Also, the drill press needs to be able to handle very small drills, mine is fairly new, and does, but some older ones don't. A pin vise is sometimes handy, too. It isn't what it sounds like; it's actually a tool for drilling very small holes. It is entirely manual and very time consuming. 

Oh, here's another indespensible tool: a slab of marble, or some other very flat, very smooth stone. No, your work bench is not flat enough. Doesn't have to be large, 12 inches square might be OK; 18 inches square would be better. It's to be certain that pieces are flat, and also that square corners are truly square. 

I also use digital calipers; they are better than regular calipers for the Master Class projects because Fletch does everything in millimeters, whereas my drills are everything except mm.


----------



## DSP&P fan (Apr 9, 2008)

A digital caliper is really a phenomenal tool. It helps you sort out the opened plastic pieces sitting around and is indispensable for thinks like windows from scratch and stuff.

For transferring paper templates to styrene, I mount a needle in my more comfortable pin vise, tape the template to the styrene, and get poking. I do all of my work over a self healing mat. Of course, if you get a laser cut helper kit, you won't need these as much.


----------



## astrayelmgod (Jan 2, 2008)

That would work. I used "Aleene's 2 in 1 glue". I got it at Michael's. It's "two in one" because it is either temporary or permanent, depending on how long you let it air dry before sticking the pieces together. Print Fletch's drawing, cut the pieces out roughly, glue them onto the plastic, cut, sand and file to size, peel off the paper. Repeat 10 bazillion times, you're done. The glue does leave a residue, which is easiest to take off with a Pink Pearl eraser.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By astrayelmgod on 03/08/2009 12:21 PM
You had a miter box? How posh! Don't know how I forgot about the Dremel tool; it's a real time saver. Also, the drill press needs to be able to handle very small drills, mine is fairly new, and does, but some older ones don't. A pin vise is sometimes handy, too. It isn't what it sounds like; it's actually a tool for drilling very small holes. It is entirely manual and very time consuming. 

Oh, here's another indespensible tool: a slab of marble, or some other very flat, very smooth stone. No, your work bench is not flat enough. Doesn't have to be large, 12 inches square might be OK; 18 inches square would be better. It's to be certain that pieces are flat, and also that square corners are truly square. 

I also use digital calipers; they are better than regular calipers for the Master Class projects because Fletch does everything in millimeters, whereas my drills are everything except mm.


Marble slab? Drill press? My fingers are my calipers..OMG I think you'd have a coronary if you saw the way I build









All I've ever had is a steady hand and one of those drill bit chucks that fit into the end of a power screwdriver, or just a simple powerdrill, which is the closets thing to a drillpress I've ever had, and thats using them tiny tiny drill bits for those teeny rivet brad nails I push into styrene









Marble slab? talk about posh...all I have is a non-marring cutting board on my carved and gouged workbench, my idea of level is done by eye,









I guess its a miracle any of my stuff actually runs when you think about it


----------



## Matt Vogt (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By vsmith on 03/09/2009 3:54 PM
"...All I've ever had is a steady hand ..."

You have _*hands *_?!?!









You lucky dog!


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Matt Vogt on 03/09/2009 4:55 PM
Posted By vsmith on 03/09/2009 3:54 PM
"...All I've ever had is a steady hand ..."

You have _*hands *_?!?!









You lucky dog!











Well, they call them "hands", more like two big pork chops with sleeves attached










So...are we doing the Class 48 or what


----------



## Matt Vogt (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By vsmith on 03/09/2009 5:17 PM 
So...are we doing the Class 48 or what










That would be great! When do we start? 

Seriously, though, do you have any idea of when you would start the class, David? ( I mean if it is decided to do it on the class 48, which you already have info on)


Thanks,
Matt


----------



## VTRRLoco18 (Jan 6, 2008)

After reading these blogs, I agree with David Fletcher in that I'd like to see a standard gauge V&T loco along with a V&T J.G. Brill car. The Brill cars are very unusual with their roof line and radius corners, among other things.
I am a big V&T fan. Comments?


----------



## astrayelmgod (Jan 2, 2008)

"standard gauge"? What the heck is that? 

vsmith --

You're not the first to make fun of my marble slab; but I'm such a poor builder that I need all the help I can get. It's saved me on several occasions.


----------



## tiespike (Jan 6, 2008)

a marble slab! I use a piece of toughened glass for a flat surface. 
works well for me, most of my drilling is done with a 3V recharable screwdriver with a small chuck fitted, 
becauseI have found the Dremel is too fast for drilling styrene. 
Dave


----------



## Matt Vogt (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By astrayelmgod on 03/09/2009 7:00 PM
"standard gauge"? What the heck is that? 


Standard Gauge in 1:20.3? Now *that* does sound exciting!







Wow! Imagine the size of that thing! ...although I'm having a hard enough time laying enough 45mm track to start my layout, I can't imagine laying dual gauge...


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By VTRRLoco18 on 03/09/2009 6:52 PM

Comments? 











That model sits way too high, a bit like this one, poor research " align="absmiddle" border="0" />


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey Chaps,
Well I've not seen too much to sway me in another direction with some landslide vote for something. I kinda think a smallish engine, tank loco or such is the thing to do to get started again, also keep to basic assembly methods, I know some will cringe and probably want to go nuts in doing it 'properly' with everything sleaved in titanium...and consequently never finish, but lets keep this simple, like the original class, just basic tools, simple drawings, readily available parts that dont require you to buy a loco and smash it up, and options for commercial made parts to make it easier to those who wish to go that way...but not essential other than wheels and motor. I like Pete's idea of the 2-4-2ST as well, and this could be done simply with a Hartland 4-4-0 drive block (just the $99 block, not the whole 4-4-0 loco), Pacific Coast RR owned a similar 2-4-2T, there were a number of them built for various lines...class lists from Baldwin reveal the extent.


Or, we can stick to the Class 48 0-6-0ST...which were amoung the largest saddle tank locos for narrow gauge ever built at the time..these things were large!, and for a while on the D&RG were the line's heaviest locos (heavier than their road locos!). I still really would like to see this get over the line sometime in live steam, as a lil brother to the C-16, but that may be some off yet with the way things are going out there.
Here's a glipse of the drawings to date on the Class 48 - yeah I know, there are some wayward lines, not all the pipes are there yet, nor drain cocks, and I've never figured out how the last batch of 0-6-0ST to the D&RG in 1880 had air pumps fitted..photos of 105 and 106, as seen from opposite sides reveal nothing, yet we can see the air hoses, and the Baldwin specifications are very detailed as to the type of air pump and fittings...but doesn't state where it was located. Maybe its in a compartment under the saddle jacket on the engineer's side, dono. In my model of the 1990s, I had the thing mounted inside the cab, but thats definitely OUT! I think we'll do the class without air brakes, as the specs for the 1877 and early 1880 locos had no air pump provided. The loco itself, whether with air pump or not, did not have its own brakes, and skilled control of the Johnson bar was the way to go. 

I have some more detail to add to the black post 1880/1890 versions, additions to the headlight letter boards, and there are also a couple more lettering options for the black versions. The rest shown here are 'as built' schemes referencing the original Baldwin book of styles, using the original specifications for the 1875 EBT version in gloss black, the 1877 D&RG version in Lake (brown), the early 1880 version in Olive Green (real dark green) and the late 1880 version in gloss black with the same style applied as the dark green version. While Accucraft have been really good at applying the wheel decoration (style 4 and style 2 wheels in this case), I doubt we'll go that far in the class...its a case of applying each spoke separately! I said we'd keep it simple! 

While no as-built photos of either the EBT or D&RG versions have ever surfaced, the specification sheets are highly detailed and reveal much about the loco's fittings and colourscheme with a high level of detail at time of design, and sign-off at delivery. I cant promise accuracy in how I've applied those styles, as the shop painters also adapted a generic style system to a specific loco in front of them, with different forms and shapes! But I used what appears to be typical in the application based on other locos we do have photos of. What I'm saying is, the colour schemes and linework colours etc are accurate, the exact setout I cant be sure of. I've asked Jim Wilke to take look over the drawings to see more accuracy can be provided.
Anyway here they are a glipse of the Class 48s over their lives....the Super Tankers

http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/davidfletcher/6-22-D-Class48.jpg

http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/davidfletcher/6-22-D-EBT-DRG-1875-1.jpg

http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/davidfletcher/6-22-D-Class48-D&RG-green.jpg

http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/davidfletcher/6-22-D-Class48-D&RG.jpg

Isn't that EBT style 11 saddle tank decoration something, exactly from the style sheet specified for this engine!

Enjoy
David.


----------



## Old Iron (Jan 2, 2008)

David, 

Good looking drawings. I would be interested in building a class 48 EBT. 

Geoff Ringlé


----------



## jnic (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm in ...


----------



## b_csgrr (Jan 2, 2008)

Fletch: I'm in, even though I would like a heavier engine (C16). Chuck


----------



## jonathanj (Jan 24, 2008)

I'm up for the 48, assuming there's a 1:20.3 option. Jonathan


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

The 48 is a nice looking loco, but not one I'd be able to justify in Silver, whereas the Silver State's V & T loco's would have that tie-in... yep can't satisfy all the peeps all de time. 

MM's aren't they the little candies with 'm's' on 'em? Just as I've gotten .001"'s down.... 

Note; some electric calipers allow you to switch from mm to inch w/ push button.. set it in mm and click for inches... look for sales at automotive supply houses... mine were around $15.00 4 yrs ago. 

Marble? Does that come with candlelabras? lol ...I use a piece of tempered glass from an old refrigerator... had it since the 70's, gots some scratches but is still true. 

Dremels are ok... What how can I say that? Two things; 1. hand fatigue from fighting the torque and bulky size 2. poor speed control, oops 3. chucks, give me a Jacobs any day. Check out any Jewelry supply house and get a Foredom flex shaft with variable speed foot control. Any pin vise with an 1/8th in. shank can be chucked in the hand piece and the very slow speed allows for drilling in carving wax (plastic), I use beeswax when micro drilling metals. To hold small parts make a ring holder; two pieces of wood hinged together in the middle and a wedge to silp in one end and make grip at the other. The farther you push the tighter the hold. Jewelers have leather pads at the ends, for a non mar hold. Use a thumb and forefinger to visualise and the leather is your finger prints. I used to make hinges by drilling silver or gold wire, 16 ga.(.051") with a 20 ga. drill (.032") by hand, from both ends with a smooth bore in the middle. The Foredom, a ring clamp and my eye. can be done in brass and plastic too. I can't speak for ther knock off brands, might be as good, just don't have any experience with them. 

Yes I know the tools I suggest are a bit pricier, but I'v gotten many more years and a more precision tool by spending a little extra at the beginning. 

John


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By jonathanj on 03/10/2009 7:52 AM
I'm up for the 48, assuming there's a 1:20.3 option. Jonathan


Jonathan - The loco is in 20.3


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

Id like to see this one too, Of course Live steam is more what I'd like but I guess a sparkie could be ok. I still need to put RC in the CPH I built.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Is there a 1/22.5 option? 1/20.3 might be a tad big for me, but if it scales close to the Big Hauler 060T I just finished, then I'll be good to go.


----------



## Matt Vogt (Jan 2, 2008)

Put me in, coach! 

Is there a handicapped class for beginners?


----------



## DSP&P fan (Apr 9, 2008)

Dependent upon the cost of the motors/gears/drivers, I would most likely join in on an 0-6-0t. I would be equally interested in an as-built guesstimate for the D&RG (24' boxcars & aging 4-wheel freight cars!) or the EBT variety (24' wood hoppers!).


----------



## DanS (Jan 7, 2008)

I'm in for the DR&G


----------



## Jeff Livingston (Jan 2, 2008)

My humble suggestion. Ferries & Cliff House No.6 later Lord & Bessler No. 6 used in the construction projects at Honolulu Harbor. Sister engine became OR&L No. 5.
Baldwin constructio number 8973 of 1887. 41" drivers, 10 x 16 cylinders. I can dream can't I?










Jeff Livingsotn
Kaneohe, Hawaii


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Man, you're going to twist my arm to build one of these things one way or the other, aren't you? I'd be in. 

Later, 

K


----------



## DSP&P fan (Apr 9, 2008)

Posted By Jeff Livingston on 03/10/2009 9:18 PM
My humble suggestion. Ferries & Cliff House No.6 later Lord & Bessler No. 6 used in the construction projects at Honolulu Harbor. Sister engine became OR&L No. 5.
Baldwin constructio number 8973 of 1887. 41" drivers, 10 x 16 cylinders. I can dream can't I?


Jeff Livingsotn
Kaneohe, Hawaii



Jeff,
That looks an awful lot like the former steam dummy...is it close?


Michael


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

Late to the party


 


This little guy just looks so earnest. I would love to model him.


----------



## chuckger (Jan 2, 2008)

David,
I'll go for one

Chuck


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

CCSSII 
Might not be to hard to use the Class 48 as a base model for that more modern tanker, or use the already very close looking Piko tanker as a base model and just add the missing details.


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

I was hoping to start with raw materials at less than $300 (Piko Starter kit)


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

The Piko motor block is 45€


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

Ah ha!


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By CCSII on 03/11/2009 1:18 PM
I was hoping to start with raw materials at less than $300 (Piko Starter kit)


Check around, some places might sell you the loco seperatly outright.


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By CCSII on 03/11/2009 1:37 PM
Ah ha!

Link
Sorry, it was 48,50€


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

Well that scotches it. 45 I could afford but 48.50 is too much (Thanks for the link!)


----------



## tiespike (Jan 6, 2008)

I will be interested. the drawings look good. 
Dave


----------



## Matt Vogt (Jan 2, 2008)

Soooo, has anyone figured out where to put the batteries?


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Trailing boxcar?


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

has anyone figured out where to put the batteries


I got a set into the side tanks of a Bachmann 'Lyn' 2-4-2T. Should be room in that big saddle tank. 










Those are AA size cells split from a Radio Shack r/c car pack - don't do that: buy separate cells with tabs, as you can will ruin the cells trying to solder directly to the ends.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm way ahead of you guys - already got the curved cabside inlays done for the EBT version.

http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/davidfletcher/6-22-D-EBT-DRG-1875-1.jpg 

(Thanks for the tips, Jack / BigDude65 - who suggested bending thin styrene. I actually made a former from wood to match the shape and held the styrene to the former while it set.)


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm getting impatient too, Pete

Might try warping Dave's plans to fit my Indy: 










Hey, it looks good on the screen ... 

Found this image, Brass in HOn3 but gives a good side view, 










I'm ready, I've got my rubber scale ready and can use either my Indy or a forlorned Big Hauler I've got in storage. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/shocked.gif


----------



## astrayelmgod (Jan 2, 2008)

Looks like this will be the first Master Class where Fletch's was the LAST one done...


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

Well there aint anything new you'll learn from this class thats not already done or covered in earlier classes. The drawings are published, why not go ahead and build! 

You know that I like the interesting stuff that you do Vic - If there is one thing but, why not make yourself a personal challenge to build this engine to absolute scale, push your skill level to meet that exacting level and enjoy the rewards that come with that level of craftsmanship..raise that bar for yourself and use a ruler thats not rubber (use a ruler to start with and see how it goes!)..dont want to change you, just challenge you on one model. You dont need my class to build a sorta 0-6-0 saddle tanker out of any old 6 wheel chassis lying around, you've done that 100 times, 'sorta lika locos'...but what if you built it to true scale, including wheel size, spacing etc, make that committment and challenge, just to push that skill level...it can be really rewarding...you still dont need my class for that, just try using scale drawings and stay in full control to the end to meet that finish...its a real challenge I guarantee...folks who did the Mason know what I mean. 

David.


----------



## astrayelmgod (Jan 2, 2008)

"folks who did the Mason know what I mean." 

Those of us for whom "the Mason" is still in the present tense also know.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Oh I'm still in Dave, I was just curious to see how the concept would look using the Indy









The main caviet I have is that whatever I build HAS to be R1 compliant, building a "scale" model might prove troublesome as the prototype has no blind drivers and was never intended to bend its way around anything near an R1 curve, and as such a "scale" model might in the end prove inoperable on my layout as the CPH did. So I have to have an R1 option in the back of my mind once the class starts. I'm actually reluctant to use the Indy as I still have a Banta Modelworks cab kit for it that I fought tooth and nail to get back in the day. I just need to add some weight to the little beasty to make it run well on my grades. but my Big Hauler is a 4th generation, doesnt need the tender power pickups like Indy, is easily convertable to an 0-6-0...hmmm 

The more I look at the brass model the more I think the Big Hauler chassis might work as that option, almost the same size, almost the same driver size, and R1 compliant. The finish model wouldnt be exact persay, but close enough for goverment work, it would be about the same size as my recent sidetanker Bug Mauler rebash and most important, very usable on my layout, just thinking out loud mostly









Bring it on Dave, bring it on


----------



## DanS (Jan 7, 2008)

David and All 

David has been running a series of Baldwin paint styles in Narrow Gauge Downunder using export locomotives from Baldwin. As I look at them, the basic frame is about the same from one locomotive to the next other than the cab end supports and the front deck. So with a good set of pictures and the basic frame drawing you can put together a good looking locomotive either a U.S. model or export version with a tender or a tank. So I say the D&RG 2-22-D is the starting point for me but in the long run it my end up as a 10-20-D (16) export locomotive so lets start cutting and see what happens.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Good points Dan, the basic model chassis could be used as a standardized base platform for several different future projects after this one.


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey Vic, 
Look again...blind centre driver. The class 48s dont have all flanged wheels..you're in luck! No getting out that rubber ruler yet...Hehehehe! 

Yes in the Baldwin catalogues, the 9' 6" frame is not uncommong, and certainly the whole firebox end of this engine is common to a stack of locos from this time! Such as our Australian X class 2-6-0 and 'Pioneer' another almost identical loco. 

Thanks chaps, 
David.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Yikes! your correct, better get the eye prescription checked before we start the class


----------



## chuckger (Jan 2, 2008)

Dan S,

Could you tell me what issue of Down Under had David's "Penn Style #9" describtion in it? Was it April, July or Oct?? I would like to pick up a back issue if possiable.

Thanks, Chuck


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Chuck, 
The Baldwin style articles were in the April and July issue of Narrow Gauge Down Under, with the Style 9 stuff and drawing in the July Issue. However I would recommend getting both articles, as Pt1 has all the background on how the system worked. Also in both issues is a really cool series on Class A Climax locos - original research, lots of never seen before photos. 

I can send you PDFs of the loco drawings from those articles. 
In Pt1 was a drawing of our Puffing Billy engine 2-6-2T and the 2-4-2T 'Lyn' which now appears on the Lyn Recontruction project web site, and can be down loaded there as well. This is the project to rebuild Lyn as a full working replica for Devon. My drawing is the asbuilt style, their reconstruction will be the far more popular Southern version. 

David.


----------



## chuckger (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Dave,

Thanks very much for the reply, I'll try to pick up both issues.

Chuck


----------



## bearswood (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey Dave,

I wonder, did you do the research on the Climax A? If you did, do you have picture of of the interior? Could you send me a copy? I am trying to build the Climax A and I am not sure where everything goes. Yes, I am still working on my Mason Bogie and I will build this loco also.

George from northern Indiana


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

http://www.amazon.com/Climax-Locomo...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237604994&sr=8-3 

You need to get this book, its THE best source of information on Class A Climax's plans drawings tons of photos, built 2 Class A's now thanks to it 

check Ebay and/or libraries. Sorry it wasnt this price when I bought it, it was only $70 back then and I thought that was a lot


----------



## bearswood (Jan 2, 2008)

vsmith,

I know about this book but I will not pay $200 for a book. I have the supplement and a Climax- An Unusual Steam Locomotive by Thomas Taber III but neither have any interior shots that are helpful. What I really need are some good pictures of the interior and I can finish the bloody thing.

George from northern Indiana


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

George contact me thru PM, I'll see if I can find any pics that can help


----------



## jlcop (Jan 2, 2008)

George; 
Don't give up. I was in the same position about 6 months ago. I think I have checked out my local libary's copy three times at least while building my Class A. Then one day I was looking in a display case at the local train store and I spotted a copy which they sold me at $70.00 retail. This was when they were going for $200-300 on e-bay. Keep your eyes open, you never know. 
John


----------



## peter bunce (Dec 29, 2007)

Hi 


The March & April 1996 of the magazine ' Narrow Gauge & Short Line Gazette' has two plans for A class Climax loco's. A line to Bob Brown may assist if he can make copies for you?


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm not the author of the Climax series in NGDU, thats done by Mark Fry. The latest issue of NGDU came out today, and has Pt5 of the Climax series and including many more photos and drawings. 
It has also my Pt2 of the Mason article, with coloured drawings of San Juan and photos of my #42 model. Pt3 will feature a large collection of the models built for the class here! ...and with Winn's model, we may have a 4th part too!! 

David.


----------



## bearswood (Jan 2, 2008)

Where the heck can you find Narrow Gauge Down Under back issues, other than the publisher? I have called a few dealers but no luck so far. I am searching for the April and July issues that carries David Fletcher articles. I purchased the March/April 1996 Narrow Gauge Gazette recommend by Peter but the pictures do not have what I need.

George from northern Indiana


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

Yes I'm affraid the older issues can only be purchased direct from NGDU. Sadly, the issue that has the first part of the Baldwin paint styles and drawings I did is totally sold out - that surprises the heck out of me, becuase back issues never sell out! The Magazine has gained much popularity in the last couple of years, and is being distributed wider than ever before, with double the print run and so on..but still that issue has sold out. 

That particular issue was a 100% ground breaking issue for the Magazine, there were two high level research articles in it, both of which were original first hand research, never before published stuff on items most dear to the Australian railroad fraternity...no wonder it was a sell out. The two articles were a seriously good article about Climax locos in Australia by Mark Fry, with terrific photos, and the 2nd article was mine on Baldwin styles, which featured drawings I did of two locos from Australia that are very popular - the Baldwin Na 2-6-2 (puffing Billy) in original colours, and a Baldwin 2-4-0 called 'Little Yarra'. Also a 3rd engine was shown 'Lyn' from the Lynton & Barnstaple of the UK for comparison purposes. I had the phone ringing for weeks after that article from people all over Auz asking about Baldwin styles - people who never bought the magazine, bought this issue. I had a couple of museums also call and ask if I could do drawings and research the styles of engines in their collections, which I duly did...all of which will be published. Also from the drawing side, I've been offered the job of producing coloured drawings of US designed locos and rolling stock from Auz railways for two books to be published in the next couple of years - all from that one article/magazine issue! Quite extraordinary. Reality is, I've been doing US locos research and background for a while, but never did much with it outside of the US. This was the first time I set about researching US locos in Auz...and we showed them something they'd never seen or heard of before, something new and relevant to them. 

Drop me an email, and I'll mail you scans from the magazine of my article, its a poor scan I'm affraid, but you can at least read it. 

Thanks mate, 
David.


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

George, 

My local hobby shop started to carry the NGDU and if you email me what issue you want I can see if they have it and pick it up for ya. I also have the issues and a good flatbed scanner I can scan for you also. 

Jay


----------



## jlcop (Jan 2, 2008)

I am in a similar situation. I missed out on getting a back issue of the issue with the first Climax article. 
Also if you can find a copy of October/November 1994 (Volume 4 Number 5) "Outdoor Railroader" it has drawings of two Class A Climaxs. 
John


----------



## Mikka (Jan 8, 2009)

I think it would be interesting if the the 09 masterclass deviated rom early baldwind and focused on an australian loco


Like tasmanias C, CC or CCS class


i talked to dave about this and the lionel 0-6-0 motor block would almost be spot on for it





if any of you on mls have a lionel block...... 


iv got some money to purchase it





HI DAVE


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey Mikka, good to see you this side of the Atlantic, send me a Private Message or Email. I have a running Lionel 060 block (sans body which I used for something else) I can sell you.


----------



## astrayelmgod (Jan 2, 2008)

"... the lionel 0-6-0 motor block would almost be spot on for it" 

But if you go back and reread Fletch's post on page 2 of this thread, you will understand why nothing based on a lionel anything will ever happen in a David Fletcher Master Class.


----------



## Mikka (Jan 8, 2009)

Sorry i looked over it and found nothing.... 

Id just say it would need to be bought via MLS, in a lionel set (still being sold with a better drive) or Ebay etc 

all you need are custom made rod which for some is quite easy


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By bearswood on 04/03/2009 10:09 AM
Where the heck can you find Narrow Gauge Down Under back issues, other than the publisher? I have called a few dealers but no luck so far. I am searching for the April and July issues that carries David Fletcher articles. I purchased the March/April 1996 Narrow Gauge Gazette recommend by Peter but the pictures do not have what I need.

George from northern Indiana 




George 

tried sending you these, killed my server - so I'm posting them here until you can download them, I will delete them from my storage once you confirm that you have them as they are very very large files

http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/vsmith/class%20a%20interior%202.JPG
http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/vsmith/class%20a%20interior.JPG

according to the book these are the two only known interior photographs of a Class A Climax


----------



## DanS (Jan 7, 2008)

getting stated an need some advice about cutting out the parts for this project I have a new toy and would like to use it on this project a computer controled cnc carveing machine now the book state you can cut out plastic but only polcarbonet, cast acrylic or solld surface materal so for the frame and domes stack what would be the best to use. the cab and other wood part can also be cut out using this tool all you need is a good 2d plan to scale. 

DanS


----------



## bearswood (Jan 2, 2008)

Vic,
Thanks that just what I needed now I can complete the Climax A, then I can finish the Mason Bogie. Saved the pictures in two different places just in case.

Thanks again .

George from northern Indiana


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Great George, I'll keep them up for a day or so longer if anyone else is interested. 

Hard to beleive that out of the 100s of Class As built these are the only known interior pics, and these were of a derelict Alaska engine a railfan photo'd. I've promised myself that if I ever hit the lotto and can have that 1:1 garden railroad in the backyard one of the engines I'd replicate would be a Class A.


----------



## ptarmigan (Jan 23, 2008)

As a newby to large scale, I was very happy to find this forum.  I'm hoping there will be more projects like the Porters.  


Also, I have a question: I'm gathering materials for a Porter and am stumped by the tubes and shapes items referred to as SHS (such as the "Evergreen 5.2mm styrene SHS").  Evergreen has nothing that size in any shape, and neither they or Plastruct knows the term "SHS".  I'd appreciate help from David or from anyone who has worked on the MC-2007 project.


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

It may well be the Auz/Euro designation, SHS = Square Hollow Section. RHS= Rectangular Hollow Section. Evergreen defintely makes 5.2mm square tube, 4.6mm and many others. You may need to look at the sleave that the tubes come in and read the mm and " lables. I'm not in the US, so dont know what's on their lables, but 5.2mm is not a metric standard, so I think its a imperial conversion. 

A note to other modellers who were interested in a Masterclass for 2009, sadly there just isn't enough interest for me to warrent a full class for three or four builders. Lets face it, people just dont seem to want to build locos front scratch anymore, and further, people building 1:20.3 scale locos that actually existed have become the minority in this hobby. the hobby has changed I guess. In the past, when 20 people would sign up, I would maybe get 3-4 people who actually would build. Therefore the low numbers this time means no-one will build. The Porter, a very popular loco had next to no takers in the end. Not worth my effort when I have a lot of historical projects underway for various organisations which will producr better and lasting outcomes. 

I'm not saying I wont do something in future, but there really isn't enough interest right now to justify it. No debate, or slap in the face for those interested, just the hard facts. 

Phil Jensen at Hartland will still take calls for CP Huntington parts, should folks be interested in trying that class out, and I know there are loads of untouched Bachmann 2-6-0s intended for the Porter class that people never bothered to cut into, so if people are interested in the Porter class, post a request for the 2-6-0 Indy here and see if someone will part with their unusued one. 
I do have templates to the Californian 0-6-0 Porter, but need time to assemble them into Letter size sheets and lable the parts, at the moment they're just drawings in cyberspace drawn 1:1 with no lables and no setouts. 

Well there it is! 

David.


----------



## Matt Vogt (Jan 2, 2008)

That is a sad state of affairs, David. I understand completely that it does not make good sense to put forth the effort needed for just a smattering of individuals...and Lord knows I have enough past Masterclasses to keep me busy for a long time. I was just looking forward to working on a project as a class, but perhaps sometime in the future...

If someone does have an Indy that they would part with, I would be very grateful. Just send me an email.


Thanks,
Matt


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Thats too bad but I too understand Dave. 

I'm not sure where the hobby is going but it has decidely changed significantly since I started. I've noticed the level of interest in kitbash and scratchbuilt project building logs that once got alot of interest 5 years ago, now barely get any replies, with the wider selection of rolling stock available today, the interst in bashing has diminished, sad to say but maybe its just simply inevitable. 

I may try to bash my own Class 49 one day, but for now as I'm still reducing my collection to something more managable, I wouldnt have been able to participate at this time anyway, but its not from a lack of interest...... 

Matt I just sold my Indy I was holding onto for possibly this project, your about 3 weeks too late in asking


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By vsmith on 05/08/2009 9:52 PM
Thats too bad but I too understand Dave. 

I'm not sure where the hobby is going but it has decidely changed significantly since I started. I've noticed the level of interest in kitbash and scratchbuilt project building logs that once got alot of interest 5 years ago, now barely get any replies, with the wider selection of rolling stock available today, the interst in bashing has diminished, sad to say but maybe its just simply inevitable. 

I may try to bash my own Class 49 one day, but for now as I'm still reducing my collection to something more managable, I wouldnt have been able to participate at this time anyway, but its not from a lack of interest...... 

Matt I just sold my Indy I was holding onto for possibly this project, your about 3 weeks too late in asking


Not sure it's a lack of interrest for self builds as such, but we are an individualistic group, we all have our own favourite loco, and David can't really make a class out of every one to suit our needs.
I have my hands full with Bachmann Big Hauler conversions, now that I finally got a few locos I dare cut into the progress is slow, but noticeable.
It's actually a standard gauge 2-6-2T that Baldwin also built (Baldwin delivered a few and a local supplier delivered some copies, I'm on the copy).

Next is either anoteh Baldwin for Norway, a couple of other locos and hopefully a BR52 from a scaled down paper kit.

So I will not join a class as such, but the background material from the previous ones helps enormously with the task, as does having enough styrene sheet to 'go wild'.


I would like to thank David for all his educational material, it's very good and makes the techniques really understandable. Only one thing... how to shape the nose of an F-unit


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

I have notice the Indy is starting to reappear regularly on E-bay, and they are not going for silly prices anymore either, well on Brit E-bay they are


----------



## Matt Vogt (Jan 2, 2008)

Sorry for the newbie (to scratch building) question, but are there a lot of differences between the Indy and a Hartland drive? The reason I ask is that I would just as soon buy a Hartland drive that I know is well made (and not Chinese made) if the wheel separation is not the issue.


Thanks,
Matt

Edit: Is 'Indy' the actual name for this engine? I assume it is a nickname, but I can't even find a pic of it anywhere while Googling.


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By Matt Vogt on 05/09/2009 7:49 AM
Sorry for the newbie (to scratch building) question, but are there a lot of differences between the Indy and a Hartland drive? The reason I ask is that I would just as soon buy a Hartland drive that I know is well made (and not Chinese made) if the wheel separation is not the issue.


Thanks,
Matt

Edit: Is 'Indy' the actual name for this engine? I assume it is a nickname, but I can't even find a pic of it anywhere while Googling.



It's known as the industrial mogul, hence the Indy nickname


----------



## Matt Vogt (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks, Hagan. Now that you mention it, I do remember reading that somewhere... I can't remember what the first thing to go after my memory was...


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

It's a double-edged sword. We've got such a selection of decent motive power available now that we no longer _have_ to scratchbuild to get something we like. While I'm bummed there wasn't a bit more interest, I'm also not remotely surprised. Heck, even my interest was on the "I'll follow along but likely not build very quickly" level--and the loco being discussed ran on the EBT! I do find that there's a natural progression to things, though. First, there's a lot of customization due to a dearth of available models. As soon as more models become available, the modeling drops off a bit because people can now buy what they want. After a while, though, people return to the workbench because they've filled their shelves with what they "need," and can now concentrate on what they "want." To an extent, that's really where you begin to see the higher-detailed models come around, because the incentive to finish the model isn't so much to have something to run but to have something special. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 05/11/2009 8:52 AM
It's a double-edged sword. We've got such a selection of decent motive power available now that we no longer _have_ to scratchbuild to get something we like. While I'm bummed there wasn't a bit more interest, I'm also not remotely surprised. Heck, even my interest was on the "I'll follow along but likely not build very quickly" level--and the loco being discussed ran on the EBT! I do find that there's a natural progression to things, though. First, there's a lot of customization due to a dearth of available models. As soon as more models become available, the modeling drops off a bit because people can now buy what they want. After a while, though, people return to the workbench because they've filled their shelves with what they "need," and can now concentrate on what they "want." To an extent, that's really where you begin to see the higher-detailed models come around, because the incentive to finish the model isn't so much to have something to run but to have something special. 

Later, 

K

Very well put, I am in that boat


----------



## chuckger (Jan 2, 2008)

David,
I 'm sorry to hear no MC 2009 but I understand why.

K
I kind of agree with what you posted but looking at what you can buy in 120. correct me if i'm wrong no one makes an affordable 2-6-0 in the style of a Coke or a Brooks. I know Bman made the early Baldwin 2-6-0 but that a different style engine. If you want a Coke or Brooks you have to build one. That's what I am going to do, build a 120.3 as built 1884 model of DSP&P # 71. I'll start a builders log shortly.

Chuck


----------



## peter bunce (Dec 29, 2007)

Hi Chuck,


Will you be building it on a Annie Chassis? That is what I used on my first G scale loco build - here is a photo of it.

It took a time, but the result is worth it; the Dec 1998 (heck is it that long ago!) MR has an article and a plan on it. The colors are wrong, it would have been black or dark green, I chose the black.

The build is on my website.


----------



## DSP&P fan (Apr 9, 2008)

Well, it is a shame that there wasn't sufficient interest...but I certainly can understand that it would be more of a shame for David to go to the effort of preparing a class only to not see the satisfaction of successful builds.

I am working on a very similar bash to Peter's Cooke Mogul. I am making a few changes...a new frame and new rods...a single panel cab...a different boiler diameter. I was going to bring the 0-6-0t along, working on the cheap parts, until either I had enough money to buy the running gear...or until after the Cooke is completed. I'm inclined to go after an Indy and build a Porter instead of the Class 48.



As for the Cooke, I have the rods done...and the frame is close. It will eventually be a Colorado Central Cooke mogul...and it will pull a smattering of 23' and 24' Colorado Central freight cars.


Michael


----------



## chuckger (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Peter,
As to the frame I have two running chassies made out of 1 inch sq. alluminum tubing with Hartland wheels, gearbox and motor. My buddy ron736 made the frames and is helping me to learn how to use a mill and lathe, thanks again Ron. So far I have the boiler secetions made, the dome bases, and we are working on the domes. The hard part is finding time to get together to work on it.
Last fall I picked up a new 3 in 1 Harbor Freight drill mill lathe with an extra 4 jaw chuck at an auction for $160.00, it had sat in a wharehouse for the last 20 years still in the shipping crate, never used. So now I'm trying to lear how to use it, lots of fun.
DSP Fan,
Lots of luck with your build, please post some pics if you can.

Chuck


----------



## Matt Vogt (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By chuckger on 05/13/2009 12:59 PM

...Last fall I picked up a new 3 in 1 Harbor Freight drill mill lathe with an extra 4 jaw chuck at an auction for $160.00, it had sat in a wharehouse for the last 20 years still in the shipping crate, never used. So now I'm trying to lear how to use it, lots of fun...

Chuck


Hey Chuck, I'll give you $170 cash for it right now, and it's used!









Matt


----------



## DSP&P fan (Apr 9, 2008)

Posted By chuckger on 05/13/2009 12:59 PM
Hi Peter,
As to the frame I have two running chassies made out of 1 inch sq. alluminum tubing with Hartland wheels, gearbox and motor. My buddy ron736 made the frames and is helping me to learn how to use a mill and lathe, thanks again Ron. So far I have the boiler secetions made, the dome bases, and we are working on the domes. The hard part is finding time to get together to work on it.
Last fall I picked up a new 3 in 1 Harbor Freight drill mill lathe with an extra 4 jaw chuck at an auction for $160.00, it had sat in a wharehouse for the last 20 years still in the shipping crate, never used. So now I'm trying to lear how to use it, lots of fun.
DSP Fan,
Lots of luck with your build, please post some pics if you can.

Chuck


Sounds like fun! I have a number of techniques I'd like to change...once I get something like that. Great find!

A quick check on the boiler sections, did you follow the folio or the 1998 MR plans? I'd hate to see you put in that kind of effort using the folio and forget to add the boiler lagging..resulting in the boiler being 4" too small.

My build will be mostly styrene. It will neither be run frequently, nor pull heavy trains.


I found a very odd detail on the packing glands of the Cooke engines. I found it on the erection drawing for the 2-8-0s. I also noticed it on the builders photos after I knew what to look for. I've never seen anything else quite like it on any locomotives...


Here's a couple photos from my On3 2-8-0 which sort of shows it:


 
I don't have many photos of the 1:20.3 mogul...The side rods are ready...here's the frame from before I cut it out...


I'll be using David Fletcher's templates for the pilot and cylinder block. Accordingly, I'll be certain to post those photos so that he can see a bit more of the fruit of his work. 


Michael


----------



## chuckger (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Mike,

We are using the plans, the boiler sections where made from 2 inch PVC pipe conectors. Each section was measured boiler band to boiler band, so the bands will cover the joints.

Ther is a fellow on ebay selling picture cd's, --ken 10272. I bought a copy of g scale picture guide to modeling C&S and DSP&P. ON the cd is a bunch of close up shots of a Cooke 2-6-0, the photos of the engine alone are worth the $5 I paid for it. I have no conection to him but there is a lot of good picks on this for anyone interested in the DSP. 

Chuck


----------



## DSP&P fan (Apr 9, 2008)

Interesting. Are the photos digital enhancements of those in Poor, Kindig, Digerness, and such? 

Btw, what I meant about the boiler being too small is the diameter, not the length. I don't think that it was necessarily clear in my original post, and I think you answered with regard to length. Folio sheets never include the lagging, which is why they show the boiler being smaller in diameter than the corresponding plans...and this has led to many, many mistakes by very fine modelers.


Michael


----------



## Matt Vogt (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By DSP&P fan on 05/14/2009 9:28 AM
Interesting. Are the photos digital enhancements of those in Poor, Kindig, Digerness, and such? 

Btw, what I meant about the boiler being too small is the diameter, not the length. I don't think that it was necessarily clear in my original post, and I think you answered with regard to length. Folio sheets never include the lagging, which is why they show the boiler being smaller in diameter than the corresponding plans...and this has led to many, many mistakes by very fine modelers.


Michael 





Michael, would it be possible to explain in layman's terms what the lagging is, and how to get accurate measurements to include it?

Thanks,
Matt


----------



## chuckger (Jan 2, 2008)

Mike, 
The photos are of C&S #9 which is a Cooke 2-6-0 lotts of close ups there is also photos of a c&S 2-8-0 there are stations picured-- Georgetown, Dumont, Silver Plume, Como, the Como Roundhouse, Devils Gate Bridge, Why at Kenosha and several others.

The boiler dia. was measured off the plans and I think D Fletcher said that the boiler was a bit oversize on that drawing however thats what we used.

Mat, Lagging is what they wrap the boiler with ie the finished outer covering on the boiler.

Chuck


----------



## DSP&P fan (Apr 9, 2008)

Chuck,
I'll probably get a copy of that CD when it is time to build a C&S mogul.

Matt, as Chuck said, it is a couple inches of insulation around the outside of the boiler. It helps to keep the heat generated in the firebox generating steam rather than escaping. Erection drawings and folio sheets show the outer diameter of the actual boiler. If you look closely, you'll notice that the smokebox is usually slightly larger than the 1st course of the boiler. Yet, when you study a picture of the same locomotive, the 1st course of the boiler is clearly thicker than the smokebox...this is because the boiler is lagged while the smokebox is not. 

The following photos illustrate it. The first I took in, 2002? This is what you'd see on the folios and blueprints. The second is of the locomotive in 2006 on her first test run. Note that the boiler is smooth and the handrails aren't quite as far from the surface. 








The jacket (or lagging) has to come off when working on the boiler. It is also not uncommon to be removed from locomotives sitting in museums (for asbestos removal and to eliminate places for water to accumulate). For instance, this photo I took last year of OR&L #12:
 


The folio sheet for the as-built Cooke moguls show a boiler diameter of 50". The drawing in the 1998 MR show 54" which includes the lagging...so it is correct. David Fletcher is definitely an excellent resource, but I have no doubt that the plan has the correct in this case (but it does have other small errors).

A word of caution about C&S #9...it is really a different locomotive from DSP&P #71. It received a new boiler circa 1902...a new frame circa 1917...new crossheads...many new cabs...new rods...a new tender...etc. I don't even know if the drivers are all original...but they'd be about it. Still an awesome locomotive.


Michael


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

Michael, 
When blown up to 20.3, I found the MR drawing too fat in the boiler..probably OK when blown up to 1:48 or such.  I didn't use folio, but UP specs, 50" boiler at narrow coarse, smokebox diameter slightly larger (as it wraps around the first coarse), and 3-4" of lagging. For our models we used basicaly used a 50" boiler for the boiler pipe, wrapped 0.5mm embossed styrene around it for the smokebox, and then clamped around that another PVC pipe for the the rest of the boiler for the lagged part. Most of the Masterclassers are aware of what you're speaking of, as we worked up the Mason boiler from original data, lagged out to a finished dimension (which in the case of Mason and Cooke), where the 38" boiler becomes 42" finished and in this case matching in the smokebox. Pete has it right, we worked it out for 50" plus lagging and thats whats modelled. The smokebox size you see on our models is basically 0.5- 1mm thicker than the 62mm boiler pipe we used via the embossed wrapper. You can see the process in my MLS build log here: 

http://4largescale.com/fletch/d9a.htm 

The the boiler is visible part way down the first page, with one pipe around the 50" pipe, and then that outer one is outer lagged with .005" blackenned brass sheet for Planished Iron. 

As you know the forward driver is a little futher back than it should be - a limitation of the original 4-6-0 drive (I like to make my classes reasonable for people to build from, same with the Porters). But overal length is correct. The porters are underscale in the chassis setouts, again use the UP specs for this, but to do it right you'll need to totally redo the chassis. 


Hope this helps.


----------



## DSP&P fan (Apr 9, 2008)

Posted By David Fletcher on 05/14/2009 3:08 PM
Michael, 
When blown up to 20.3, I found the MR drawing too fat in the boiler..probably OK when blown up to 1:48 or such. I didn't use folio, but UP specs, 50" boiler at narrow coarse, smokebox diameter slightly larger (as it wraps around the first coarse), and 3-4" of lagging. For our models we used basicaly used a 50" boiler for the boiler pipe, wrapped 0.5mm embossed styrene around it for the smokebox, and then clamped around that another PVC pipe for the the rest of the boiler for the lagged part. Most of the Masterclassers are aware of what you're speaking of, as we worked up the Mason boiler from original data, lagged out to a finished dimension (which in the case of Mason and Cooke), where the 38" boiler becomes 42" finished and in this case matching in the smokebox. Pete has it right, we worked it out for 50" plus lagging and thats whats modelled. The smokebox size you see on our models is basically 0.5- 1mm thicker than the 62mm boiler pipe we used via the embossed wrapper. You can see the process in my MLS build log here: 

http://4largescale.com/fletch/d9a.htm 

The the boiler is visible part way down the first page, with one pipe around the 50" pipe, and then that outer one is outer lagged with .005" blackenned brass sheet for Planished Iron. 

As you know the forward driver is a little futher back than it should be - a limitation of the original 4-6-0 drive (I like to make my classes reasonable for people to build from, same with the Porters). But overal length is correct. The porters are underscale in the chassis setouts, again use the UP specs for this, but to do it right you'll need to totally redo the chassis. 


Hope this helps. 



Fletch,
The photos of yours and Peter's are why I'm building one! They are works of art. I decided that the driving spacing would probably bother me, so I've made my own frame based off of an enlargement of the plans as a template. I really wanted a Porter, but couldn't get an Indy for a reasonable price. I picked up an earlier 4-6-0 chassis for $50 with shipping....and so a Cooke it will be...for now. The porter will hopefully come in due time. I'll probably build it exactly as you did in the class.


At first it seems odd that the drawing is accurate as printed (1:48), but not when enlarged...line thickness perhaps...but more importantly, everyone has either built one with a 50"+4" boiler, or is working on building one...as I hate to learn that I've goofed up something like that. Thank you for clearing the water. 



I was first drawn to MLS as a lurker 2 years ago. I wasn't a large scale modeler, but I saw that someone else (Peter Bunce) on here was doing things in 1:20.3 the same way I was in 1:48...and building similar prototypes going well beyond trying to get the paint right...I lacked the ammo to join the porter class at that time. I now have the excuse of a 6month old whom needs large scale trains like I once had...and so I am building 1:20.3 Colorado Central stuff to utilize their abnormally small equipment (Cookes excluded)...all the better for trainset sized curves. 


I've read through the Mason Bogie, Carter Bros, and Porter classes several times. They are excellent. Your background information is very well assembled and some of the techniques are both novel and useful regardless as to the scale. Even more impressive to me is how many beautiful models get produced. It is really cool to see a bunch of people building similar models...as opposed to a bunch of people buying the same model.


Michael


----------

