# This Bigboy is not for sale



## main131 (Jan 3, 2008)

UNION PACIFIC BIGBOY 'REELS IN' ASTER MIKADO

http://youtu.be/cyAyDXozLaM


----------



## Bj702 (Feb 26, 2011)

WOW! super sweet


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Great video. What a beautiful engine and track.


----------



## Tom Burns (May 11, 2008)

Looks like the fireman fell asleep and left the fuel valve wide open. Obviously no problem generating more than enough steam. Did the water pump keep up with all the steam being exhausted?

Great track and loco.

Tom Burns


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Unless that passenger train was billed as a leisurely excursion or maybe a dinner train, I bet the passengers were none too happy about a coal drag leaving them in the dust!


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm glad I'm not the only person observing the bullet train type of speeds... 

Maybe no R/C? Just actually running wide open? 

Greg


----------



## Therios (Sep 28, 2008)

Um... THat is the ill fated UP Bullet train. Colt 55 to be exact.


----------



## artgibson (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 06 Sep 2011 03:28 PM 
I'm glad I'm not the only person observing the bullet train type of speeds... 

Maybe no R/C? Just actually running wide open? 

Greg 
Greg
She probaby was not running wide open but you know the speed at some times for the Challenger and Big Boy with full load was upwaird 70MPH. I do not know what scale speed main131 was doing but there was alot of wasted steam escaping. Maybe a tad too much butane into firebax. I know mine would not be wide open at the speed his was running. Aster live stem Big Boy is a powerful machine.


----------



## main131 (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Tom Burns on 06 Sep 2011 03:04 PM 
Looks like the fireman fell asleep and left the fuel valve wide open. Obviously no problem generating more than enough steam. Did the water pump keep up with all the steam being exhausted?

Great track and loco.

Tom Burns
Fair comment about the fuel valve but the water was l right up the glass. We worry when the second valve blows...!


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

* Your running a Aster Big Boy, who cares if you are wasting butane and water.........................I know that I wouldn't.*


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Looked it up, I was surprised to see the top speed of the prototype approached 80 mph... though I was told they rarely ran over 25 mph... but reading more, the idea was to get over the mountains without helpers (to keep better schedules) then maintain 60 mph with a heavy freight. 

I would say that the speed in the movies was approaching 100 smph though... I have a digital speedometer, and it's amazing how easy it is to go way over prototype speeds. 

But what the heck, the kids love bullet trains... 

Greg


----------



## nadnerbster (Nov 19, 2009)

I'd like to throw my two cents in for everyone's consideration regarding the train's speed: 

Speed is all a matter of perspective. Okay, it's not moving at scale speed compared to it's nominal 1:32 size. 

However - the steam issuing from the safety valve isn't either. Water and steam, as we know, don't scale. Nor does gravity and mass, at least not if you're filming on this planet (if you were filming on a planet with 1:32nd of the mass of this one you could then have scale gravity, or if you filmed on one with 32 times our gravity you could have scale mass! Assuming my calculations are right, which they're most likely not). 

If I was filming one of these beasties, and wanted it to look as realistic as possible, I would get a high-speed camera and run the train absolutely as fast as it will go, much like in this clip. 

Then I'd play the film back at a slower speed. That way, the train not only looks like it's going at a realistic speed, but the steam also behaves more on the film like the 1:1 scale stuff. 

There's more: Bumps and undulations which make a train look toylike normally (due to gravity/mass not scaling) would also be slowed down and would look far more realistic, giving the train "weight". And if you could slow the sound down, it would also sound deeper and more realistic. 

I have actually done this - my old phone had a high-speed function. I filmed an engine at a steamup (a tram engine with a flywheel and gears) so I could see the mechanism work, which simply looked like a blur to the naked eye. Unfortunately the phone isn't the best method of doing this, the resolution is abysmal, but the concept worked - if I had a decent hi-speed camera - like what mythbusters use - I'd absolutely film some trains going at light speed! 

Older movies frequently do this too - before CGI really took off, they relied heavily on models and such. Think the White House in Independence Day - an impressively realistic explosion. Think the bridge explosion in True Lies, which had the multiple challenge of small scale models against water and explosives which don't scale. 

So - okay, this train is running too fast for it's 1:32 scale, but it's running at a speed which proportionally matches the steam and the rock of the suspension better! That's my excuse . . .  But really, who needs one? When we spend multiple digits of our hard earned on something, we should feel entitled to use it and run it exactly how we see fit! 

Thanks for the video main131  And I'm hoping people take this post as the lighthearted response it's meant to be!


----------



## afinegan (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By nadnerbster on 08 Sep 2011 08:12 AM 
I'd like to throw my two cents in for everyone's consideration regarding the train's speed: 

Speed is all a matter of perspective. Okay, it's not moving at scale speed compared to it's nominal 1:32 size. 

However - the steam issuing from the safety valve isn't either. Water and steam, as we know, don't scale. Nor does gravity and mass, at least not if you're filming on this planet (if you were filming on a planet with 1:32nd of the mass of this one you could then have scale gravity, or if you filmed on one with 32 times our gravity you could have scale mass! Assuming my calculations are right, which they're most likely not). 

If I was filming one of these beasties, and wanted it to look as realistic as possible, I would get a high-speed camera and run the train absolutely as fast as it will go, much like in this clip. 

Then I'd play the film back at a slower speed. That way, the train not only looks like it's going at a realistic speed, but the steam also behaves more on the film like the 1:1 scale stuff. 

There's more: Bumps and undulations which make a train look toylike normally (due to gravity/mass not scaling) would also be slowed down and would look far more realistic, giving the train "weight". And if you could slow the sound down, it would also sound deeper and more realistic. 

I have actually done this - my old phone had a high-speed function. I filmed an engine at a steamup (a tram engine with a flywheel and gears) so I could see the mechanism work, which simply looked like a blur to the naked eye. Unfortunately the phone isn't the best method of doing this, the resolution is abysmal, but the concept worked - if I had a decent hi-speed camera - like what mythbusters use - I'd absolutely film some trains going at light speed! 

Older movies frequently do this too - before CGI really took off, they relied heavily on models and such. Think the White House in Independence Day - an impressively realistic explosion. Think the bridge explosion in True Lies, which had the multiple challenge of small scale models against water and explosives which don't scale. 

So - okay, this train is running too fast for it's 1:32 scale, but it's running at a speed which proportionally matches the steam and the rock of the suspension better! That's my excuse . . .  But really, who needs one? When we spend multiple digits of our hard earned on something, we should feel entitled to use it and run it exactly how we see fit! 

Thanks for the video main131  And I'm hoping people take this post as the lighthearted response it's meant to be! 

I did this 2 weeks ago to an engine at Tradewinds Park, I filmed on my DSLR at 60fps, and slowed it down later


Or even crazier, get a phantom Flex Camera (Offtopic but the CUTTING edge of slow motion camera's)


----------



## Dan Pantages (Jan 2, 2008)

Andrew, the video you took at Tradewinds Park is great. I must try that, when ever I take gauge 1 videos they look so toy like and I can see why using the examples of the post above you'res.


----------



## artgibson (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By afinegan on 08 Sep 2011 09:04 AM 
Posted By nadnerbster on 08 Sep 2011 08:12 AM 
I'd like to throw my two cents in for everyone's consideration regarding the train's speed: 

Speed is all a matter of perspective. Okay, it's not moving at scale speed compared to it's nominal 1:32 size. 

However - the steam issuing from the safety valve isn't either. Water and steam, as we know, don't scale. Nor does gravity and mass, at least not if you're filming on this planet (if you were filming on a planet with 1:32nd of the mass of this one you could then have scale gravity, or if you filmed on one with 32 times our gravity you could have scale mass! Assuming my calculations are right, which they're most likely not). 

If I was filming one of these beasties, and wanted it to look as realistic as possible, I would get a high-speed camera and run the train absolutely as fast as it will go, much like in this clip. 

Then I'd play the film back at a slower speed. That way, the train not only looks like it's going at a realistic speed, but the steam also behaves more on the film like the 1:1 scale stuff. 

There's more: Bumps and undulations which make a train look toylike normally (due to gravity/mass not scaling) would also be slowed down and would look far more realistic, giving the train "weight". And if you could slow the sound down, it would also sound deeper and more realistic. 

I have actually done this - my old phone had a high-speed function. I filmed an engine at a steamup (a tram engine with a flywheel and gears) so I could see the mechanism work, which simply looked like a blur to the naked eye. Unfortunately the phone isn't the best method of doing this, the resolution is abysmal, but the concept worked - if I had a decent hi-speed camera - like what mythbusters use - I'd absolutely film some trains going at light speed! 

Older movies frequently do this too - before CGI really took off, they relied heavily on models and such. Think the White House in Independence Day - an impressively realistic explosion. Think the bridge explosion in True Lies, which had the multiple challenge of small scale models against water and explosives which don't scale. 

So - okay, this train is running too fast for it's 1:32 scale, but it's running at a speed which proportionally matches the steam and the rock of the suspension better! That's my excuse . . .  But really, who needs one? When we spend multiple digits of our hard earned on something, we should feel entitled to use it and run it exactly how we see fit! 

Thanks for the video main131  And I'm hoping people take this post as the lighthearted response it's meant to be! 

I did this 2 weeks ago to an engine at Tradewinds Park, I filmed on my DSLR at 60fps, and slowed it down later


Or even crazier, get a phantom Flex Camera (Offtopic but the CUTTING edge of slow motion camera's)


Andy
I was looking at stats on the T2i and I see only 30fps, how did you get 60fps.
Art

Andy nevermind I see that you get 60 fps by using 720vga. Video looks great, always looking for something different. Especially when the Challenger come out.


----------



## afinegan (Jan 2, 2008)

The T2i (I got it as a refirb from canons refirb site, best deal ever (if you can catch them in stock, they have 5d's on there too!). Camera came with 11 pictures on the counter (essentially brand new)
(http://photography-on-the.net/forum...p?t=948785) -> that's to there buyers loyalty program to get even MORE off on the refurb cameras - this is how a lot of pros afford them.

It can do 1080p 30fps, 1080p 24fps, 720p 60fps - I need to get a wide angle lense for it! (I am looking at you Tokina 11-16mm 2.8L)720p is still HD , just not upper HD lol.
I have some videos of my AML 0-6-0 going around the track, I will slow those down and post them up in a different forum (make a "slow your videos down" thread lol). I need to learn how to color correct better though(grading)

I also have a plugin for Adobe After Effects called Twixxor, supposedly I can slow stuff down between 2%-10% of original speed and still have it look great (warping may occur depending on video type/ background movement), definitely fun stuff.

A friend of mine is letting me borrow his green screen also (hehehe) , So lots of new fun threads will be coming up when I find time to do them all between new fatherhood, tradewinds board director, work and relaxation lol


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Ahhhhhhhh!!! Slot trains.









Love em.
You have to be fit to keep up with them. Surely that is a good thing.


----------



## Phippsburg Eric (Jan 10, 2008)

Often when I am trying for realism, i will slow down the video clip of my trains running on my line. I have the option on Adobe Premire Elements to change the speed of any clip by a percentage. I find that between 50 and 75 percent work well, much slower and it looks jerky with my camera, faster makes little difference. On this clip the steam looks pretty good to my eye. this movie has clips of a my modified Ruby and the prototype mixed up. while you can tell which is which you get the flavor of the prototype when looking at the model. I think the steam effects are quite realistic...if lacking in the soot and cinders of a coal fire! 

http://www.youtube.com/user/PerryDrive#p/u/20/wPk7bGSQR_k


----------



## Dan Pantages (Jan 2, 2008)

Eric, I am very impressed with the mix of gauge 1 and 1/1 video. Some shots it was hard to tell at first there was a change. Sometimes I thought it was the model I was watching when it was 1/1 and sometimes I thought it was 1/1 I was watching and it was model. I decided it was a California production then I saw it was a Quebec production, it just shows that us Canadians can do great film work also.


----------



## Phippsburg Eric (Jan 10, 2008)

Well-- 

to tell the truth both the gauge one and one to one were filmed in the ol'USA...the real Wiscasset and Quebec made it about 40 miles from Wiscasset on the coast of Maine toward Quebec. after just a few years the little two foot gauge line gave up and renamed themselves the Wisscasset, Waterville and Farmington Railway...they didnt make it to either of those two towns either! 

I am located in Phippsburg Maine. Look for Bath on your map, I am just downriver. Winnegance (of the gauge one line) is a section of town which boarders Bath. 

--eric


----------

