# Two tanks, a long term project



## Bob Baxter (Jan 3, 2008)

In 2009 I was asked to build a locomotive for a fellow from Arizona. He provided me with a photo and asked what I could do. This is the photo. It was, I'd guess, a tendered main line loco that had been relegated to yard duty. They added two tanks on the boiler, water and oil, and created a truly ugly loco. Just what I like.








I decided that my favorite bash victim, the Bachmann "Indy" 2-6-0 would be just right for this project. I also decided that I'd build two of these things and keep one for my collection. I assumed from the picture that the back of the cab was open and started a search for pictures of locos that were altered as yard mules that had access from the back.









Frames for the tanks were fabricated.










After building two cabs that would be appropriate he sent a picture of our loco that showed that it had an opening on the engineers side and the cab back was partially enclosed. It was start over time for a new cab. The front and back walls were used and new sides were made of styrene.









Cutting to the chase, everything came together and this was the result. Somewhere along the way, interest in finishing the second loco waned and the parts went into a shoe box.









It was delivered and everybody was happy. Two years later there was a lapse in model building here and I decided to finish the second loco. As the prototype was a large standard gauge engine I found that the cab height was so low that I couldn't fit any of my little engineers in it. So, when this version went together the cab grew 3/4 inch at the bottom and that turned the whole loco into a narrow gauger.

















Ugly enough for ya? It'll fit right in with the other uglies that line up on the display shelf of the Door Hollow Shortline.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

You are amazing. Only thing that coulda made it uglier woulda been a cab forward version. What amazes me is how simple this modification looks....and I know it isn't.


----------



## alecescolme (Dec 20, 2010)

Brilliant job on them both, very nice! 

Thanks for posting 

Alec.


----------



## Bunker (Feb 7, 2009)

It's amazing how closely you modeled the photo. I like 'em both, but the Sandy Lee Mining engine looks 'uglier'.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Only thing that coulda made it uglier woulda been a cab forward version.Was that a shot? That was a shot wasn't it?
















Great work Bob - as always!!


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 06 Aug 2011 05:48 AM 
Only thing that coulda made it uglier woulda been a cab forward version.Was that a shot? That was a shot wasn't it?
















Great work Bob - as always!!










Don't worry Dwight

Your cab forward is still the uglyist.

Oh, did I really say that?


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

Oh, yes, Bob, great work.


----------



## jebouck (Jan 2, 2008)

An absolutely gourgous ugly loco, Bob!
One question: Where is the fuel stored?


----------



## Stan Cedarleaf (Jan 2, 2008)

Good grief, Bob... They are[/b] ugly.... Beautifully so... 

Just fabulous...


----------



## Bob Baxter (Jan 3, 2008)

jebouk, 

The oil is in the tank closest to the cab. The water would be in the front tank.


----------



## GeorgeMMR (Jan 19, 2008)

Aw shucks! Reading the title of this string I was expecting two main battle tanks! Made me wonder for a moment just where "Door Hollow" was heading! Seriously, nice work, and I don't think they are ugly at all. 
George


----------



## harvey (Dec 30, 2008)

Well Bob, these turned out very nice indeed.
Looking at your original photograph taken in 1924, one has to wonder what do we build today that will last 53 years? Models like yours perhaps!
The results are outstanding, thanks for posting the photographs.
Cheers.


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Ugly? Mr. Brades will scoff!


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 06 Aug 2011 05:48 AM 
Only thing that coulda made it uglier woulda been a cab forward version.Was that a shot? That was a shot wasn't it?
















Great work Bob - as always!!









Sometimes...it's NOT YOU I'm kidding


----------



## Dave Meashey (Jan 2, 2008)

"Only thing that coulda made it uglier woulda been a cab forward version." 

Uh, I'll probably get smacked verbally for this, BUT since it IS a saddle-tanker, every time the Johnson bar is in reverse it becomes a cab forward.







I know from experience. There were no turning facilities on the Wanamaker, Kempton & Southern RR. Whenever I ran 65 to Wanamakers, I was running in reverse, and 65 became an ad hoc cab forward. Also had to run right-handed, so I guess that makes me an ambidextrous hogger.









Yours, 
David Meashey


----------



## Dan Pantages (Jan 2, 2008)

Very beautiful job! Is it alcohol or butane fired? Yes, I know it's electric.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

And a 10 year old thread


----------



## Nick Jr (Jan 2, 2008)

Time doesn't diminish some things, others just sour.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The question on it's own makes no sense, even the post says he knows it is electric.

reviving a dead thread for those people who read new posts makes no sense.

Calling me sour makes you diminished as a person.

I make a *single *comment about it being a 10 year old thread, and you have to make a personal comment?


----------



## Nick Jr (Jan 2, 2008)

This is the first time I and probably others saw this article. I find others creations very interesting, and some give me ideas for future projects. I think that is a sharp locomotive and Bob did a great job. I made a general statement, you chose to take it personally. If I may add, we each make our own decisions as to what makes sense.


----------



## Scott (Jan 29, 2008)

There is a prototype for everything and these days now a model. Down under is well known for 1:1 kitbashing of locos into something not pretty but otherwise functional. Maybe a camelback version is next?? lol


----------



## Nick Jr (Jan 2, 2008)

Scott, Yes the Camelback is an unusual locomotive, and has a beauty of it's own. I like so much it is one of the few HO loco's I still have. The operating crew may have a different opinion.
I don't know who is responsible for reviving those old postings, but I want to thank them for keeping it interesting.


----------



## placitassteam (Jan 2, 2008)

What amazed me is that there are still photos. I have threads much younger than that and all the photos are gone.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The lost photos were by alphabetical order of the last name.... so they were in the process of deleting them when we all called foul! (i'm talking the mass deleteion of the ones stored here)

Greg


----------



## Scott (Jan 29, 2008)

So not on, erasing all of those pics.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Scott said:


> So not on, erasing all of those pics.


That's why there are no longer many old hands here. They moved on. And you should note that this website never acknowledged they had done anything, nor did they apologize or try to fix it.


----------



## Scott (Jan 29, 2008)

Since Shad left it is very different now.


----------

