# Aristo 2-8-0



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Its been more than a month now since Lewis Polks statement that they were not going to rush the 2-8-0 to market but do it in the course of business, even thogh it is ready to go. Anyone have any newer info on it? I'm hoping his statement was more to quiet posts asking when it will be here than actually shevling it for awhile until the economy gets better. I have one reserved with a deposit but I will cancel and move on to something else if this is just going to drag on. I remember the years and years that the SD9 was dangled out there. AML has a nice little 0-6-0 that I might try.


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey Paul,

Get the Accucraft 2-8-0 and be done with it. Great engine. Hijack over.

That AML 0-6-0 looks pretty nice Good price too!


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

*I would get your money back, i wouldnt hold your breath for delivery of this loco. To be honest i dont think like a lot of other things they have planned that any of it will ever get made !!!!! *


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

According to Lewis till the economy returns they are on hold indefinitely as well as most of the other locos that where announced. Even the new Kuppler is on hold and not due till 2010. Same with both Live steamers. Later RJD


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Paul,

Based on the E8 and GP-40, we see test shots online and pieces molded about a year before we see the final product. My guess is December of this year, but I don't have any confirmation of that, just a guess. I do hope they keep the New Haven flavor alive. The test shots and the test mold pieces have been photographed by a lot of people, so that would indicate that aristo has paid for the molds and it would be silly to NOT produce the locomotive to attempt to recoup their investment. Since the test shots are made, I think the next thing that will show up will be samples of each roadname. Seems like it is about 2-3 months after that when product starts hitting the marketplace. 

I am excited about this locomotive. It will be fun to squeeze it between my mikado and mallet for an unlikely triple header...

Mark


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I asked repeatedly over there for a ETA on the live steam 0-4-0. Got no response whatsoever. 

It's discourteous, and makes me want to spend my money elsewhere. AML is bringing out an 0-4-0, supposedly in the Fall, and they are not requiring you to pay in advance.


That AML 0-6-0 is a really sweet model, at least in live steam. At the ECLST there was one converted to a 2-6-0. Looked great.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

I guess you do not believe what you read as posted above. Guess your drinking there cool aid. From the indications talking with the man you are not going to see any new items besides the new Revolution. So you can sit back and wait or spend your bucks on items now available such as the new 0-6-0 by AML LS, nice loco saw it run at the Dolton show two weeks ago. I will be looking to buy other products for now. Later RJD


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I know anything I say will be listed by the "faithful" as Aristo bashing, oh well. 

RJ talked directly to Lewis. 

Lewis is not even going to make the "Kuppler" until conditions get better and not this year. 

So if he can't make the Kuppler, and it's "ready to go" which has been indicated as meaning (by Aristo) "the molds are made", then how can you believe anything much more expensive to fund production is going to happen? 

Either someone is not being forthright (The molds for the consolidation, the kuppler, the tooling for the steamers, the PCC car, etc. are NOT done), or they are done... oh, but if they ARE done, and the molds are the final step and the majority of the cost to develop (again per Aristo), then why not make something? The Kader production lines cannot be operating at full capacity. Think about it.

So, I cannot come to any conclusion other than these products just will not be made this year, either due to the inability or unwillingness of Aristo to fund a production run (understandable) or the molds really are not completed (more understandable, cannot spend the money to make them now). 

Bottom line, either way, no new products except the TE this year from all indications by Aristo themselves. That's probably why there is yet another advertisement about the wonders of the new TE on the Aristo site today, taking another pot shot at DCC while claiming the TE is revolutationary for large scale. (understandable and predictable). 

Regards, Greg


----------



## GN_Rocky (Jan 6, 2008)

* I wouldn't want to say anything on Aristo's forum, nor do I boycott them. 
But I don't do much buying from them or from any other LS Manufacturer right now. Reason: Not much is being made that I am intrested in /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sad.gif I keep to the few US roads I model and nothing outside that other than tankcars and Grain cars(seriously lacking in this department). I now do most of my LS buying on Evil bay mostly because I am presently modeling France/Germany in the 40's in conjunction with my military modeling and this is due to a space issue. I do however have one of each of the Aristo CB&Q 40 foot DD boxcars on the way as well as the 3rd and 4th roadnumber of the GN 40 foot DD coming as well. It is sad that the 2-8-0 is delayed, I had BOTH GN roadnumbers ordered as to fill my collection. I guess I understand Lewis's point of halting production, yet if models are not made, like folks said, they will buy elsewhere. I guess I will have to sit back and wait like everyone else is. But I will not buy current stock if it is outside the "Hill Lines" family of roadnames nor will I buy anything newer than a 1970s model prototype. The SD-9 broken promise hurts as well as angers me. The one who makes it will have my order. Perhaps I need to invest time and funs buying GP-9s as well as a pair of SD-45 trucks and build one myself before someone makes them  
Sad but true, the F'd up economy has hurt our sector as well /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sad.gif 

Rocky*


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Like anybody else, Lewis can only do things he can convince the people with money that he can make a profit doing. Right now, people with money are scared of their own shadows. Accountants cause recessions.


----------



## Esppe Pete (Jan 21, 2008)

Shade tree economists,

The problem Aristo is having, as well as alot of companies doing business in China, is the financial perfect storm. First off, Bankrupcy. the Chinesse have been burned by train company filings and LGB was the last straw. When you see chinnese marketed products of old LGB models you know they got burned. Result, the MFG now want Cash up front to produce a model. So you favorite Large scale train companies goes to the bank for an operating loan to fund a product run. The bank answer is a resounding NO.

So very few new products form most of the train companys, no new product for the train shops to sell, less train stores. Recession.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I certainly understand Aristo's economic problems. What annoys me is the insistence that they won't make anything unless they get money in advance from the customers. I can see that argument, it's like a deposit. But in return for paying part in advance we should get something--some concrete assurance about when the thing will be made and how much money will be needed before it's entered into production, and more details about what the thing will look like and how it will work. Aristo wants me to "pre order", meaning pay all or part now, and then wait an indeterminate amount of time for a product I'm being asked to buy on blind faith. Plus there's kind of a scolding tone to the posts, like customers are being bad for not paying for things in advance of their actual existance. I'll pass on that, and really, that attitude has kind of soured me on the company. 



AML is taking preorders for its 0-4-0. They are not giving any concrete assurances about when the thing will actually apear, but they are not asking for money in advance either, and they aren't making somewhat scolding posts or being coy about it. 


If aristo brings good products out, I'll buy them. But I'm not going to play "dance of the seven veils." If they release the 0-4-0 and it's good, maybe I'll buy one. If they don't, I'll live.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

You guys with your Kool Aid. Cracks me up. RJ, I was replying as you posted, so I didn't see your reply until after I hit post. I still think that Kuppler thing is a huge waste of time and resources.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The Kuppler is indeed interesting. Since the Kadee patent has run out, maybe Lewis thought he could capitalize on this, but the Kuppler has none of the redeeming characteristics of the Kadee. 

The Aristo coupler has an advantage that no other coupler has, it has a small "shelf" to keep couplers from overriding each other. It works ok, not perfectly, but it's a huge deal to people with abrupt vertical curves. 

So, I never figured anything reasonable out... read Lewis' posts and the only clue is about it becoming a "Standard"... so maybe it's a "I gave this to the industry and made it a standard" personal goal. 

Anyway, it's too bad we aren't going to get the Consolidation especially it has been SAID that the molds are done, and we've been lectured over and over how the main cost is the molds. Maybe it's not really true. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Lewis just posted an update, suggests that maybe Mark was right

Dear All,

We just received a revised Consolidation sample and will try to get a picture up to the website soon. Also, the first club car, the Navy version will be pictured shortly too. The Consolidation is still an engineering sample for the mold revisions, not a painted finished sample.

All the best,
Lewis Polk 


http://www.aristocraft.com/vbulletinforums/showthread.php?t=14187 

http://www.aristocraft.com/vbulletinforums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=136328


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

*Still no final molds made, still a long long way off if ever. guess you guys that are buying these will have to hope that they will get made.* 
*Once again seeing is beleaving, new picture would be great and not the same loco turned for a different picture angle.*


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

So if he can't make the Kuppler, and it's "ready to go" which has been indicated as meaning (by Aristo) "the molds are made", then how can you believe anything much more expensive to fund production is going to happen? 
Can you say, "shovel-ready?"


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Well, I learned something:

Quote from Joe Gary:

"Talked to Lewis at York and he said the new 2-8-0 is ready to go but he is holding off due to the economy"

This is the *first *post in this thread: *http://www.aristocraft.com/vbulletinforums/showthread.php?t=13970*
http://www.aristocraft.com/vbulletinforums/showthread.php?t=13970 

If you read the *last *post on that same thread, you will get a real calibration: 

Quote from Lewis:

Dear All,

Boy do things get lost in the translation. The product shown at the York Show is the final version from the molds. These are test shots, not hand built models and the molds are made already. What you see is what you're going to get. The question is in the marketing. These are terrible economic times for many people, so do we release the product during the downturn or wait for an upturn in the economy? 
I think someone needs to start deleting threads. Russian history books anyone?


Hoping that the "eggliner" company does succeed, just have to get everyone to buy a new TE system, that's going to be the major cash flow this year.

Well the first production TE's are slated for tomorrow, so everyone buy at least one set! I am serious! I may have to do it just for the heck of it.

Regards, Greg


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Well, I certainly have no idea of when Aristo will release the Consolidation for production, but listening to these posts, it is obvious that Nick and Greg don't totally understand the mold making and manufacturing process of getting something like that into production. Of course the molds are made, how else to you get the engineering samples? When I worked for a living, we would get what we called the "tool made samples", which Aristo calls the "engineering samples". These were made on the production molds. These samples were gone over very carefully, and changes were made. These went back to the mold maker, and he made the changes, and tried again. Sometimes you had to do this several times. Remember when the E8 came out. At the very last minute, in fact I think the production run had been made and Aristo discovered there was a warp in the sides. Back to the molder to correct the problem.

When will the Consolidation come out?? It will take far wiser men than me to predict that. But is Aristo making progress in that direction at SOME speed, yes. Could it be faster? Sure, but rest assured, Nick, the molds have been made except for the final tweaking that everyone goes through.

Ed


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Ed, you need to read those posts and quotes again. Lewis says the molds are done. He was even nasty to the people on that thread. Now it turns out the molds are not done. Again from Lewis. In a place on the Internet where anyone can read it. 

I don't need to understand the manufacturing process. I understand simple English... when you berate people and say the molds are done, and then later say they are not, what do you call this in simple English? 

I think anyone can understand that (who wants to). 

Regards, Greg


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I have to admit I often find Lewis' writing a little hard to understand. I would read "The molds are done" and "what you see is what you will get" as, well, definitive--the molds are done, the model I saw at York was the final model. It seems pretty clear to me, but what Lewis just posted looks completely different. 



It looks like a very good model an I hope they sell a bunch of them, whenever it comes out


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Here again they are test samples for review by AC. Later RJD


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By eheading on 05/14/2009 2:36 PM
Well, I certainly have no idea of when Aristo will release the Consolidation for production, but listening to these posts, it is obvious that Nick and Greg don't totally understand the mold making and manufacturing process of getting something like that into production. Of course the molds are made, how else to you get the engineering samples? When I worked for a living, we would get what we called the "tool made samples", which Aristo calls the "engineering samples". These were made on the production molds. These samples were gone over very carefully, and changes were made. These went back to the mold maker, and he made the changes, and tried again. Sometimes you had to do this several times. Remember when the E8 came out. At the very last minute, in fact I think the production run had been made and Aristo discovered there was a warp in the sides. Back to the molder to correct the problem.

When will the Consolidation come out?? It will take far wiser men than me to predict that. But is Aristo making progress in that direction at SOME speed, yes. Could it be faster? Sure, but rest assured, Nick, the molds have been made except for the final tweaking that everyone goes through.

Ed






Ed, i never said molds were not made, i said final molds were not made even thou the owner of said company said they were complete and it appears they are not. did i read something WRONG.
I beleive it will be a long time before you see this loco if you see it at all.
I really dont beleive they have the $ to produce it plus i beleive in my opionion, it already has a major flaw, it has the prime mover gear box and we all know the iissue with that once installed in any of their steamers.
Can you say DEFECT DEFECT DEFECTIVE.
I could ad pages more but i beleive enough has been said. its to bad that another of their steamers if produced will only get made once or twice and then go by the wayside like the mallet and the mikado, when they could fix the major problems that plauged most of these locos.
ITS VERY SAD INDEED. But no surprise..
This is another reason why in my opionion, their the worst manufacture of toy trains and related products in any scale in the country and possably the world..


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

C'mon guys. All I did was ask a simple question so I could maybe make some buying decisions and now you are going off the deep end.


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Sorry Paul. im out of this but i had to get my reply in.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Nick hate aristo, it's well known. 

I thought they were not going to produce it till the economy improved. Now it looks like maybe that's not the case--Lewis' latest post suggests it's in process.


I'm guessing the new prototype will be lower, with less gap between the boiler and the wheels. 


I've had no real problems with the prime mover gear box


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

There is a positive to the thread. 

We now have no doubt about the current status of the 2-8-0, so anyone hoping for it this year will not be disappointed if they were relying on earlier information. 

Too bad, I want one, but will buy one next year or later, and spend my Aristo money on something else, like the AML 0-6-0 switcher. 

Always a silver lining. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Haven't had any problems with the mallet or mikado, that I didn't make myself. But then again, that's why its not always best to be the first on the block to get something. Seems like every manufacturer has issues.

Greg, I agree. When they show up in a year or whenever, and if they make it in the New Haven flavor, I'm likely to buy one or two. Maybe there is some good about being on the young side of this hobby!!

Mike- I'll have to check out that thread.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Well I'm like the rest of you folks liked to have had one this year so now I go to plan B. I saw the AML 0-6-0 LS at the Dolton show and almost bit. Now I'm rethinking again about buying it. It's nice and 1/29. Later RJD


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Lewis posted pictures of the 2-8-0 at the Ariso forum

It does not look drastically different, but it's more finished. These links to the pictures at the aristo forum. Looks like a very nice model and a live steam version would be very tempting








































The boiler is very high but it's an extremely close match for the prototype. No new info on when it will actually be out.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yes, it (the space under the boiler) sort of looks goofy, but this is probably the most accurate model they have ever made. 

I would guess we are going to see it slated for December, but maybe all the whining may make it come out sooner. 

Let's hope so. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Paul
I 've looked a couple of times at AMS 0-6-0 and no one could tell me if there is room for more weights in the loco or if it would be easy to hook up Phonex in the tender?
good looking model.


----------



## K27_463 (Jan 2, 2008)

Phoenix installation in the electric AML 0-60 will be conventional and straightforward. More weight in the boiler is certainly possible but not likely to be needed. 

jonathan/EMW


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

The way i read it the PCC car first by end of year. 2-8-0 more like first of next year. Later RJD


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 05/19/2009 3:28 PM
Yes, it (the space under the boiler) sort of looks goofy, but this is probably the most accurate model they have ever made. 

I would guess we are going to see it slated for December, but maybe all the whining may make it come out sooner. 

Let's hope so. 

Regards, Greg


This is so cool... I type it in here... and it comes out on the Aristo forum... Lewis will now make the Consolidation sooner, he says "Full steam ahead" today, just after the PCC car.

*http://www.aristocraft.com/vbulletinforums/showthread.php?t=14187&page=3* 
I hope he is not disappointed in the PCC car sales and it affects his determination to make the Consolidation... I want one... the PCC car is going to flop in my opinion.. (If Lewis thinks the Mikado and the Mallet were flops, then the PCC will be a belly flop, again my opinion).

Of course someone posted a picture of a Mikado prototype instead of a Consolidation, but we have to feel compassion for him.

Regards, Greg


----------



## lathroum (Jan 2, 2008)

I like the Mikado and the Mallet... but the reality of it all is my 6.5' diameter turns will not fit either of them...

They are just too big... 

and I think that size may have contributed to the poor sales... the casual train guy doesn't want anything that huge...

The biggest Steamer I have is the Pacific.... I can't wait for the consolidation... it will be a perfect fit....

It is the next big purchase for my layout for sure...

Philip


----------



## W3NZL (Jan 2, 2008)

Phil, 
U may be able to run the Aristo consolidation OK, its a model of an E-27 B&O unit which was a light consolidation, so it 
should be a pretty small engine... Think its supposed to have some blind drivers which will help on Ur tight curves also, 
unfortunately however, even though it should be a relatively small engine, looks like it'll have a pretty big price tag by 
the time it gets here... 
Paul R...


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

I expect, since they found themselves unable to jump into production, that they did a little more tweaking and detailing. Got a couple hundred grand?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

They could not find the money for production, so they spent more money "tweaking and detailing" ?? 

Lessee... no money, so they spent some more? Tom, what logic is that?

I don't think so Tom, the product was not "Ready to go" when claimed. They got caught in a lie and we have lots of excuses. All the statements are in this thread and (still) on the Aristo forum.

(you are going to tell me to leave it alone, but every time you come back with something that is misleading I will come back with facts and quotes). 


Anyway, maybe all the hubbub has prompted them to go ahead sooner, who knows what "full steam ahead" means, but I'll bet you 5 bucks it does not happen before the end of the year. 

The PCC is slated for December, that's the only clear statement recently. It's pretty unusual to bring out 2 locos at the same time, in fact has it ever happened with USAT, Bachmann or Aristo?

Regards, Gerg


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

I hope this 2-8-0 does well. I think there has been a hole in the hobby between the starter set and the bohemouth locomotives for too long now. Small to medium sized standard gauge steam is what I think most people today have the most familiarity. Think about your favorite tourist line. What kind of a steam locomotive are they running? Odds are good, it is a small to medium sized locomotive. More often than not, it is a 2-8-0. I know the first steam locomotive I rode behind was the Valley Railroad's 2-8-0 #97. Last fall was the first time I rode behind steam at more than 25 mph and behind a bona fide passenger locomotive (Reading and Northern's 425). 

Judging by what I see for most displays, the 8' diameter thing is a killer for the more causal large scaler. Relatively speaking this is roughly the size of a LGB 2-6-0 (ok, mayble a little longer), the Bachmann 4-6-0 both of which were huge sellers. In retrospect, this should have been the direction 10 years ago, not the mikado (diverting`or even the mallet (even though I think mine is the bee's knees). I know we tried to figure it out with polls a while back, but I am just not convinced that the online crowd is at all representative of the large scale hobby as a whole. Love them or hate them, LGB's biggest selling feature was the ability of even their largest locos to go around their starter set curves. 

Based on my own experiences with these motor blocks, I am very excited to get one of thse little locos. I know some folks have had issues with wheels etc.. but hey, that's part of the fun for me (keeping up with the regular maintenance). I fully expect the 2-8-0 to haul 12-15 car freights without a problem, just like the mikado.


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

I want one too


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

HMMMMMMMMMMMM New 8 pin socket in the tender? does this mean the QSI will no longer fit ???


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

No, he will use his standard socket in the tender, his new TE has to work, so there is no danger there. 

The 8 pin socket is to get all the wires back to the tender for the Aristo socket. 

I actually prefer how he did it before for the steamers, all the high current wires are nice and short with the socket in the boiler. 

Now the track pickup wires have to to all the way from the loco, out the loco back to the 8 pin socket and up into the tender to the Aristo socket, and then the power goes from there back out the tender, through the 8 pin connector and to the motors (with another socket for sure to allow the motor brick to be separated from the boiler. 

Not that it will be bad, but more wires and more connectors are just more places to have things go wrong. That's why I prefer the existing setup. I think maybe Aristo believes it has no choice with the smaller boiler. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Chucks_Trains (Jan 2, 2008)

Why does that boiler ride so high?? Are they using that belt drive and had to raise the boiler so the motor would fit in the firebox??


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey Greg. 
That sounds more like he has been listening to the "super socket" man.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I hope not Tony, it's not a big deal, but I'm always looking to improve things, this change adds a new 8 pin plug and socket.. maybe fine, maybe trouble. Socket in boiler better I think. 

Chuck, I have seen a number of prototype pictures that show that huge gap... looks weird, but seems to be prototype. No belt drive AFAIK, should be same drive train as the ill-fated (according to Lewis) Mikado. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Chucks_Trains on 05/24/2009 6:18 PM
Why does that boiler ride so high?? 



because the boiler rode so high on the prototype! 


the model is simply accurately reflecting the prototype..
thats why the boiler rides high..


a 2-8-0 has the firebox between, or above, the drivers.. 

the gauge is fixed..so if you want to make the firebox larger, you cant go wider, you can only go up..
(or go up _a lot_, to clear the drivers alltogether..then go wider!)

a bigger firebox for a 2-8-0 can only mean a_ higher_ firebox..higher firebox means higher boiler, and higher everything else..

the later, most "modern" Consolidiations often had very high boilers..it was just a necessity of the design...

the next evolutionary step forward was the 2-8-2 mikado..which allowed a larger firebox to be placed _behind_ the drivers,
where it was no longer constrained, but which then required the trailing truck for support..

(and also lowering the boiler once again in the process..)

























Scot


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 05/19/2009 8:04 PM

I hope he is not disappointed in the PCC car sales and it affects his determination to make the Consolidation... I want one... the PCC car is going to flop in my opinion.. (If Lewis thinks the Mikado and the Mallet were flops, then the PCC will be a belly flop, again my opinion).

Of course someone posted a picture of a Mikado prototype instead of a Consolidation, but we have to feel compassion for him.

Regards, Greg







Interesting, I would have thought the opposite, PCCs were built and sold in large numbers in the US and in much larger numbers by many builders in Europe, vs. the B&O steamer. Granted, there are a lot of "Domer Foamers" in the model railway world too, I know, I am a bit of one (just scan the bookshelves).

The Mike photo is a hoot, along with the comments about the drivers, and no one correcting the issue....


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

With the smaller back yard layouts more common in the UK plus the popularity of railcars and trolley type cars the PCC should be well received over here.

There is also a Consolidation dimension here as well as many of these locos were shipped this way during WW2. 


Maybe Europe isn't as large a market for American outline products as the States nevetheless it is still a part of it particularly for Aristo-Craft who have their importer here; whereas other model manufacturers items usually have to be imported direct. Whilst many large scalers import the majority do not.



http://www.lner.info/locos/O/s160.shtml


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

This set-up sounds much like what's in their 1:24 2-8-0. Perhaps they're using the same board--it'd make sense to me. If memory serves, you've got 2 leads coming back from track pick-up (in addition to tender pick-ups), two wires going forward to the motor, then two wires for smoke, two for lights. 

From a practical standpoint, it makes sense to have all the electronics in the tender. It's easier to access, and it leaves the boiler open for as much weight as you'd like to cram in there. All of my battery R/C installs are done solely in the tender, with anywhere from 4 to 8 wires running forward to the locomotive depending on the situation. I believe Accucraft and Rich Yoder both run all their wires back to the tender to make all the control connections there (as does B'mann in their K, but holding that up as an example of how to do business seems to be an invitation for flaming arrows  ). 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

From a track power standpoint and going to some kind of remote control, keeping the high current wires shorter and not going through a plug makes more sense electrically and reliability wise. Please reference examples of excessive voltage drop in Bachmann units so wired, and reference the many examples by TOC and Bob Grosh. 

From a battery power standpoint, it's a moot point on access, some Aristo steamers only need 4 screws to open the boiler and get to the Aristo socket, like the mallet. The weight issue I will agree with although most Aristo steamers come with adequate weight, and this certainly was not a heavy hauler like the Mikado. 

One benefit of the board in the boiler is if the manufacturer makes a huge board that takes all the space there, maybe there is more room in the tender for batteries? Six of one and a half dozen of the other. 

So on a track power standpoint, I definitely prefer less wire length, less voltage drop, and the only wires that need to go to the tender are not motor leads, and can be lighter gauge, leave it for the speaker. So leaving it in the boiler is simpler and more reliable. (Another big plus is you can test run the loco without the tender). 

In battery power, I think it's a push, but in this loco, with a large tender, the seems to be room for everything in the tender. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Seems that AC followed the C-16 and put things in the tender. Probably due to lack of space in the boiler. Pros and cons to both ways. Later RJD


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

From a track power standpoint and going to some kind of remote control, keeping the high current wires shorter and not going through a plug makes more sense electrically and reliability wise. Please reference examples of excessive voltage drop in Bachmann units so wired, and reference the many examples by TOC and Bob Grosh. 

Greg, either way, you've got potentially high-current track power going through a plug--either from the pick-ups on the drivers back to the tender, or from the tender pick-ups forward to the locomotive (unless you're advocating abandoing one set of track pick-ups), so that's a wash. As for the leads going from the control to the motor, most often you run through a plug there, too, so you're not eliminating the potential for loss at the plug. Since you've already got one pair of "high current" wires running twixt the two, there's no point in saying there shouldn't be two. 

As for the wire itself and voltage loss across it, 24 gauge wire has a theoretical resistance of 25 ohms over 1000 feet (with a current capacity of 3.5 amps). I'm not going to doubt TOC's or Bob's experiences, since I don't know the circumstances of their observations. From my experience, it's not an issue. I use 20 to 24-gauge wire in all my installations, and have never noticed any difference from one end to the other--sometimes going through multiple plugs to get to where it's going. (i.e, measuring the voltage leaving a trail car compared to at the motor in the locomotive.) If someone's measured significant voltage drop across wires that are 24" long (which is darned long for a locomotive), then they're using crappy or grossly undersized wire, or something else is causing the loss. All those things can be countered via better engineering without mandating the location of the control board one place or another. 

I do agree that being able to run the loco sans tender is a trouble-shooting benefit. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Ltotis (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 05/19/2009 8:04 PM
Posted By Greg Elmassian on 05/19/2009 3:28 PM
Yes, it (the space under the boiler) sort of looks goofy, but this is probably the most accurate model they have ever made. 

I would guess we are going to see it slated for December, but maybe all the whining may make it come out sooner. 

Let's hope so. 

Regards, Greg


This is so cool... I type it in here... and it comes out on the Aristo forum... Lewis will now make the Consolidation sooner, he says "Full steam ahead" today, just after the PCC car.

*http://www.aristocraft.com/vbulletinforums/showthread.php?t=14187&page=3* 
I hope he is not disappointed in the PCC car sales and it affects his determination to make the Consolidation... I want one... the PCC car is going to flop in my opinion.. (If Lewis thinks the Mikado and the Mallet were flops, then the PCC will be a belly flop, again my opinion).

Of course someone posted a picture of a Mikado prototype instead of a Consolidation, but we have to feel compassion for him.

Regards, Greg





Greg,
I disagree with you on the PCC. A lot of the people in this hobby are old enough to have rode them. If the BOSTON MBTA units are made I will buy more than one. I am also looking to take two and make one double ender as these ran on the Mattapan/Ashmont run when I was a kid. That is one of the most picturesque trolley rides you can take that is not a museum/tourist run. It will be interesting to see if Trolley fans from other scales buy them.
Regards,
LAO


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Yep Im one of those old enough to have rode them but sure does not mean I'll buy one and I won't. Very impracticable on a modern operating type RR. Better have a large trolley line. I'll pop for the 2-8-0. Later RJD


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 05/25/2009 12:47 PM
From a track power standpoint and going to some kind of remote control, keeping the high current wires shorter and not going through a plug makes more sense electrically and reliability wise. Please reference examples of excessive voltage drop in Bachmann units so wired, and reference the many examples by TOC and Bob Grosh. 

Greg, either way, you've got potentially high-current track power going through a plug--either from the pick-ups on the drivers back to the tender, or from the tender pick-ups forward to the locomotive (unless you're advocating abandoing one set of track pick-ups), so that's a wash. As for the leads going from the control to the motor, most often you run through a plug there, too, so you're not eliminating the potential for loss at the plug. Since you've already got one pair of "high current" wires running twixt the two, there's no point in saying there shouldn't be two. 

As for the wire itself and voltage loss across it, 24 gauge wire has a theoretical resistance of 25 ohms over 1000 feet (with a current capacity of 3.5 amps). I'm not going to doubt TOC's or Bob's experiences, since I don't know the circumstances of their observations. From my experience, it's not an issue. I use 20 to 24-gauge wire in all my installations, and have never noticed any difference from one end to the other--sometimes going through multiple plugs to get to where it's going. (i.e, measuring the voltage leaving a trail car compared to at the motor in the locomotive.) If someone's measured significant voltage drop across wires that are 24" long (which is darned long for a locomotive), then they're using crappy or grossly undersized wire, or something else is causing the loss. All those things can be countered via better engineering without mandating the location of the control board one place or another. 

I do agree that being able to run the loco sans tender is a trouble-shooting benefit. 

Later, 

K

Kevin... sigh...

I don't think you should brush off TOC's and Bob's experience wiring locos and their in depth analysis so lightly. Anyway, if you tear apart a Bachmann K, you will find that the power from one wheel to the motor and back can take many feet... yes... and if you use Ohms law, you will see that that voltage drop from even an ohm of wire resistance is significant at heavy motor currents and as compared to the motor resistance. (work this out, the motor resistance is low, so the voltage drop of small wires AND lots of connectors IS significant). 


Another point I guess I need to make more clearly. not ALL the current for the loco is picked up from the tender, but ALL the current to the motor goes through the motor leads. Put the motor leads and half of the pickups in the tender, longer wires, more voltage drop, more chances for poor connections, more locations for melted wires to occur when there are problems.

In general, keeping all high current wires as short as possible and minimizing the number of connections is better. This is all I am saying. The loco is probably ok the way it comes, but what I am giving you is reasons and facts why I prefer to follow the laws of physics and good electrical design experience, which I have, and so does TOC and so does Bob Grosh.


If you want to dismiss these facts, using Ohms law and the basic laws of physics and good electrical design, then please use the facts of wire length, Ohms law calculating voltage drop considering the resistance of a motor, not 1,000 feet of wire... if you had 25 ohms of resistance in wiring, your loco would NOT MOVE!

Regards, Greg


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 05/24/2009 9:09 PM
Posted By Chucks_Trains on 05/24/2009 6:18 PM
Why does that boiler ride so high?? 



because the boiler rode so high on the prototype! " align="absmiddle" border="0" />


the model is simply accurately reflecting the prototype..
thats why the boiler rides high..


a 2-8-0 has the firebox between, or above, the drivers.. 

the gauge is fixed..so if you want to make the firebox larger, you cant go wider, you can only go up..
(or go up _a lot_, to clear the drivers alltogether..then go wider!)

a bigger firebox for a 2-8-0 can only mean a_ higher_ firebox..higher firebox means higher boiler, and higher everything else..

the later, most "modern" Consolidiations often had very high boilers..it was just a necessity of the design...

the next evolutionary step forward was the 2-8-2 mikado..which allowed a larger firebox to be placed _behind_ the drivers,
where it was no longer constrained, but which then required the trailing truck for support..

(and also lowering the boiler once again in the process..)

























Scot



That explanation really helps. Thanks. --Ron


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

...Kevin... sigh... 
I don't think you should brush off TOC's and Bob's experience wiring locos and their in depth analysis so lightly...

Greg, where did I say I was discounting their experience? Let me quote... "I'm not going to doubt TOC's or Bob's experiences, since I don't know the circumstances of their observations. From my experience, it's not an issue." In other words, I don't know what locomotives they've had bad experiences with, nor the root cause of those difficulties, but I hold their expertise in high enough regard to accept their observations as accurate. In _my_ experience, I've never noticed any kind of voltage loss in the locomotives I've worked on that could be attributable to voltage being carried through wire _of the proper size_--regardless of length or the number of connections, _assuming the connections are sound._ 

... (work this out, the motor resistance is low, so the voltage drop of small wires AND lots of connectors IS significant)...

My argument is not based on "small wires" and "lots of connectors." I'm assuming wiring that is up to the required task (i.e, can handle the load without issue) and a minimal number of connectors that can also handle the load. Regardless of where the controller is located, there will be a connection between at least one (if not both) of the track pick-up leads, and most likely a connection between the controller and the motor. There's no physical way of getting around that, and still be able to disconnect the loco from the tender. You have to engineer your solution to match the requirements. I'm not a newbie at electronics. I've been wiring locomotives for 25+ years. My father holds a Ph.D in EE, and is an excellent tutor. My installations follow his examples. Rule #1: Use ample-sized wire and good, solid connections, and they won't cause you any problems. Rule #2 - If there's a problem, look for violations of rule #1. 

...In general, keeping all high current wires as short as possible and minimizing the number of connections is better. This is all I am saying. The loco is probably ok the way it comes...

I agree with you. All I'm arguing is that longer wires and connectors are still very much in the realm of good electrical design, which you seem to discount. If longer wires are a concern, step up a size where loss is further mitigated. The size difference between 24 and 20 gauge wire in an installation is minimal, while the resistance of the 20 gauge wire is significantly less. Exact placement of the components within the system has no impact on performance, given proper engineering. 

...not ALL the current for the loco is picked up from the tender, but ALL the current to the motor goes through the motor leads. Put the motor leads and half of the pickups in the tender, longer wires, more voltage drop, more chances for poor connections, more locations for melted wires to occur when there are problems...

The issue is the leads going to the motor, since either the leads from the loco or the tender pick-ups would have to take the "long" trip to the control board. It's entirely conceivable that placing a control board in the tender could actually involve a shorter lengths of wire than placing it in a boiler, where production considerations would mandate extra length to facilitate assembly. If the control board is in the boiler, there has to be enough slack in the wire for the person assembling the locomotive comfortably make the connection with the two parts separated. If the control board is in the tender, the motor leads need not leave the frame at all, and can connect directly to a plug on the back of the locomotive frame, which could be a very short distance depending on the locomotive. 

Now, we know from experience that "ideal" or "good" electrical practices aren't always what we're blessed with straight from the factory. Bachmann's Davenport is about as close to the ideal situation as you can get--direct, short connections from the track pick-ups to the controller, and from the controller to the motor (around 6" each). Yet they used something on the order of 28-gauge wire to run from the track to the controller--definitely undersized for the necessary task. (They used heavier wire to go from the controller to the motor. Go figure...) But discussing known design flaws in existing stock is not what we're doing here. We're simply discussing the benefits and drawbacks of component placement with the assumption that wiring between the components is up to snuff. I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that both TOC and Bob remove any wiring that is not up to the task when they do their installs. I know I do. 

but what I am giving you is reasons and facts why I prefer to follow the laws of physics and good electrical design experience which I have, and so does TOC and so does Bob Grosh...

Now, one could interpret that as you implying I don't know what I'm talking about. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean it to sound like that. I trust you wouldn't start off accusing me of "brushing off" someone else's experience, then base your arguments by brushing off my own experience. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Sigh... 

You are completely right, I am an idiot. I don't know anything about electronics, physics, electrical voltage drop, and should be shot for listening to Dave or Bob.


Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Quite the contrary. I'm not disavowing your grasp voltage drop or anything of that nature. I'm saying it can easily be mitigated by proper engineering. You'd no sooner use 30-gauge wire to connect your track to your motor than you'd use a common household extension cord to run 220 VAC to your air conditioner. Yes, it will work, but you'll be plagued with problems as a result. Use the right stuff off the bat, and you'll be fine. 

My ultimate point is that in realistic terms of _perceptible_ differences, (i.e, if the locomotives were side by side and running on a railroad, the operator could tell one from the other) there's none between a locomotive that has 18" of wire and a hard connection between the track and the motor and one that has 36" of the same wire and one connection or two connectors, assuming all are engineered properly for the task. There may be on a theoretical level, it might even be measurable on an oscilloscope. But in terms of wheels on rail performance--which is all I care about--it's a wash. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Robbie Hanson (Jan 4, 2008)

That thing reminds me of the Lake Superior and Ishpeming 2-8-0s; two are currently at the Rio Grande Scenic Railroad in Alamosa, CO.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

My boss (now retired) always had a saying... 

"There are elegant ways of doing things, and there are adequate ways of doing things." 

Both will work. Choose your poison.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

BTW, in case anyone's confused over voltage drop and other issues relative to wire gauges, here's a web site, complete with a calculator that will let you see how much voltage drop you will get for a given voltage and length of wire. 

http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm 

For instance, 20 gauge wire, at 24 volts and 2' one-way (4' total), your voltage: 

1 amp current draw, your voltage is 23.958 volts. 3 amp current draw, 23.875 volts. 

Change the variable to 24 gauge wire, your values are 23.894 and 23.683 respectively. 

Later, 

K


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

I see that our friends at Aristo are at it again with superstructures sitting high, and the piston centreline well above wheel centre. Dah, more cutting to lower the superstructure/cylinders down to chassis centreline...otherwise a nice looking model of a much needed loco type and size. 


David.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

From some of the other angles, it seemed that the centerline of the drivers was pretty darn close to the piston centerline... the above picture does not help much though. 

Kevin: reducing all of my points to a dicussion of theoretical power drop on a wire, and not taking into consideration the soldered connections, contact resistance, and other things basically trivializes what I stated. I give up. I don't want to play anymore. 

Greg


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

aaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. 
Now you monon modelers make me come in this thread.... 

The molds are done. 
But not finished. 

They are non-hardened until they do test shots and make necessary changes, then they are hardened for long-term use, and changes are much more difficult. 

Wiring. 

Dag-nabbit. 

You ever see the stuff for the pickups on a K? 
With the power spread out over all the points, it works okay when new. 
Crud, weak springs, failed rollers, suddenly the power goes through less wires than before. 
Now you've got melt. 

GOOD wire, 24, 26 will handle more than I want to give it. 
The issue is plugs, sockets, extra possibilities for poor or cold solder joints. 
I'd have to go look again, but I think it's at least 4 separate plugs to get loco power to the Ames Super Socket, same number back to the motor. 
I won't get into the boards these plugs are mounted on. 

I eliminate all plugs that I possibly can, because generally that is where you will have your corrosion and failure issues. 
I rip out as much of the Chinese wiring as I can and use something much better (and it ain't cheap). 

One of the reasons I and others rip out the Ames Super Socket, less connections, plugs, and Chinese circuit boards. 

Outdoor running, in the rain, simplify where possible.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

So I do not have to be shot? 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Well, maybe not shot!!!


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

No, you shouldn't be shot, and that's what I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to convey to you. We're in agreement on voltage drop and the drawbacks of numerous connections. Where we differ (I think) is in our approaches for working around them. You avoid the problem by using shorter wire and hard connections instead. I counter their effects by using larger wire and making sure what connections I have are good and strong. Two different solutions to the same problem, yielding the same net result. Neither is right or wrong, and both follow basic electronic principles. Like TOC (and I presume Bob and yourself), I toss most of the stock electronics that come with our locos, so I can rewire things to my satisfaction. I think we all agree that what has heretofore come stock within the locos isn't exactly up to any of our ideals. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Dawn. 
Blindfold.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

No last stogie? Boy that's harsh. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Besides, around these parts, we stone people to death instead.  Slower and more painful.


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 05/27/2009 7:22 AM
Besides, around these parts, we stone people to death instead. " align="absmiddle" border="0" /> Slower and more painful.

You guys are a TOUGH bunch.


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Robbie Hanson on 05/26/2009 2:39 PM
That thing reminds me of the Lake Superior and Ishpeming 2-8-0s; two are currently at the Rio Grande Scenic Railroad in Alamosa, CO. 


















The model appears much nicer than the original photos. Also, the height of the boiler relative to the drive wheels is very similar to the ones used by the Copper River & Northwestern Railway. 


Finally, I see that someone finally downsized the above photos to fit the 640 pixel width. Using Firefox browser that can readily be accomplished just by clicking on the photo and then grabbing one of the corners that appears and moving that corner block inward until "640" wide or less appears on the edit screen: VERY easy to do.


----------



## wchasr (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 05/24/2009 9:09 PM
Posted By Chucks_Trains on 05/24/2009 6:18 PM
Why does that boiler ride so high?? 



because the boiler rode so high on the prototype! " src="http://www.mylargescale.com/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/wink.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" />


the model is simply accurately reflecting the prototype..
thats why the boiler rides high..


a 2-8-0 has the firebox between, or above, the drivers.. 

the gauge is fixed..so if you want to make the firebox larger, you cant go wider, you can only go up..
(or go up _a lot_, to clear the drivers alltogether..then go wider!)

a bigger firebox for a 2-8-0 can only mean a_ higher_ firebox..higher firebox means higher boiler, and higher everything else..

the later, most "modern" Consolidiations often had very high boilers..it was just a necessity of the design...

the next evolutionary step forward was the 2-8-2 mikado..which allowed a larger firebox to be placed _behind_ the drivers,
where it was no longer constrained, but which then required the trailing truck for support..

(and also lowering the boiler once again in the process..)

























Scot




Darn you Scot! There you go posting a photo of a local prototype and now I've got to add this to my wish list of loco's.

Chas


----------



## Robbie Hanson (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By blackburn49 on 05/27/2009 9:44 AM



Finally, I see that someone finally downsized the above photos to fit the 640 pixel width. Using Firefox browser that can readily be accomplished just by clicking on the photo and then grabbing one of the corners that appears and moving that corner block inward until "640" wide or less appears on the edit screen: VERY easy to do.




I did not resize it in Firefox because it would still load the full image size. By resizing in Photoshop, the image becomes a smaller size in kb and therefore is much quicker to load.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Just as a point of information, regardless of which browser you use, and regardless of the particular method utilized to resize an image while in the MLS HTML Editor (i.e. selecting the image in the normal mode and using the respective re-sizing handles, or using the "Width:" & "Height:" fields on the 'Insert Image' dialog). The only thing you are doing is using the 'width' & 'height' attributes of the HTML image tag...










...To specify the displayed dimensions of the image. This doesn't do anything to actually change the dimensions of the image, or the size of the image file. The only way to accomplish these changes is to use a graphics editing program.


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

I use the "save for web" function on my Photoshop Elements 5 (or 7 on the main computer) editor and then select either medium or low resolution, depending on the amount of detail I require. Thus, all my large images (usually 1680 pixels wide) as well as the ones I upload as 640 pixels wide (I upload one of each) tend to load very fast.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

No argument with that Ron, and your postings do quite well.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Is this the Aristo 2-8-0 topic







?Later RJD


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

[No message]


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Right on Nick. For a guy that is not to savvy with computer junk you come up with they darnedest things. Now all we got to do is give you spell check and grammar







Later RJD


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

*Spell check, what is that? he he he ....







*


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

That's some wizard from a former eastern bloc country. 
Spell Czech.


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

so whats the topic now???


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

*Martys turn to change topic, what will it be for u sir? WELLLLLLLLLLL WERE WAITING...... HELLO.... ANYONE HOME, HE HE HE*


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Yep Just waiting for the word on what the topic is.







Later RJD


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

*How about this!!!!*


----------



## Dennis Paulson (Jan 2, 2008)

Oh do go on Nick , and show us more of that great looking train location along with some info on it .


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

More to come soon....


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Hmmm, 

1) New snowplow? 
2) Nick wants to elevate his railroad? 
3) Nick's found a new way of transporting his trains to the track? 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Ballast tool


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Nicholas Savatgy on 05/27/2009 1:48 PM











Primitive weapon...


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Is that DWIGHT engaging in FLAMES? 
Green flames, but flames nonetheless.


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Nicholas Savatgy on 05/27/2009 7:15 PM
*How about this!!!!*








Looks to me like the layout wrecking machine is poised to strike !


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Is that DWIGHT engaging in FLAMES? 
Green flames, but flames nonetheless.
Nah, no flames. Just a demonstration of the superiority of a good hand phaser.  Also known as Standoff Weaponry.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

I got me one of them. 
Model of 1911.


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 05/27/2009 10:29 PM
Posted By Nicholas Savatgy on 05/27/2009 1:48 PM











Primitive weapon... 














HE HE HE Thats funny Dwight, hope you dont mind but im gonna add that to my collection...


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Feel free Nick. I swiped it from someone else. 

A few more for ya...

































and one for TOC...


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Ah I see it's a new packman game.







. Cool. Later RJD


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 05/27/2009 8:44 PM
Ballast tool




*Ballast in the bucket, makes it easier on the back







We are trying differtent methods out for road bed.......isnt it great when you look at a g scale F-3 loco and its so far a way it looks like ho. and thats only half the length........*


----------



## Dennis Paulson (Jan 2, 2008)

Looks like it would be a great place to run the high speed bullet trains at a scale full speed , neat looking .


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

*Or maybe a 100 car stack train?







or a 3 car passenger train







*


----------



## Chucks_Trains (Jan 2, 2008)

Nick, That's coming along nice..









Back to that 2-8-0...

To me it still just looks like to much gap between the frame & boiler...


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I've seen prototype pictures that match the model. I see your pictures above. I like the look of what you posted better. If you have followed Aristo over the years, they seem to pick obscure prototypes. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

*Chuck, I decided to remove my post and lets just say i like yours better....







*


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg,

For at least 10 years. many of us have been asking for more 'standard' prototypes. For some reason, the B&O seems to get the focus of their steam program. Although, really, it is only one 4-6-2 from B&O, one 0-4-0 from PRR, and the USRA 2-8-8-2 mallet (with variant B&O vandy tender). For many many years, those of us that like steam locomotives and cheap prices would prefer more general designs. The problem with 2-8-0s is that there is no general design. Every railroad had their own designs. The three chucks_trains selected to show us above are not similar. One has a belpaire firebox, one has a Wotten firebox, and the last is a Harriman class loco. None have the same size drivers and all are road specific. Any of these choices would not be accepted by the communty at large. 

There's nothing like being a critic and I am as guilty as the rest. However, there is something to be said for those that move forward with product that none of us need in spite of current economic situations.

Mark


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I agree Mark, it seems that the prototypes are chosen without input from the customers. (and don't get me started on how us West coast guys have been left out). 

Well, I know how to address the gearbox and driver issues, and someone will undoubtedly change the firebox and lower the boiler. I think that will look good. 

I'm getting my AML 0-6-0 first though, in a couple of weeks apparently. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Well, it's now 2 years later and the Consolidations were being unpacked today at Aristo. 

Funny, reading this thread from 2 years ago, I wonder if all the posters have the same opinion? 

Mark, you were one of the last posters, any change in your opinion: "However, there is something to be said for those that move forward with product that none of us need in spite of current economic situations." 

I think we are all "starving" for a new steamer in 1:29. 

Greg


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Seen this engine up close at the BTS its an impressive model for sure. But as I said, too late for me.


----------



## bottino (Feb 7, 2008)

Mike Moran has posted real pictures of the 2-8-0 on the Aristo forum. They may be the first photos of the loco that we will be getting, and not a half done show model. I think it is pretty cool.

Paul


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

It's very nicely executed and close to a dead ringer for a B&O E-27, as has been mentioned:










The B & O had a LOT of E-27s and there's a page full of pictures here:

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/bo_steam2.html



When they first announced this I thought "perfect!" The 2-8-0 was an extremely common configuration, and it scales well for smaller RRs. But then I got so fed up with the endless delays that I went and made a couple 2-8-0s out of Mikado drives and Lionel E6s. I hope this does really well for Aristo.


----------



## Pterosaur (May 6, 2008)

Well I cannot see the pics on the Aristo sight...Guess I'll have to break down and join their forum!


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

It'd been so long I don't even remember starting the thread. Anyway,I will be playing with two of them as soon as RLD gets them to me. Might sell the tenders as I will be using two modified vanderbilts.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Hi Paul,

My Connies arrived today so yours should arrive pretty soon.

I started a topic on them and then I found that you have had this topic going for some time.

http://www.mylargescale.com/Communi...fault.aspx

I hope you will continue with your topic and include your evaluation of the loco as I am sure that you will give a fair appraisal of it. My plans do not include much beyond putting a Revolution and sound system in them and running them occasionally.

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Tom Leaton (Apr 26, 2008)

Beautiful model. For you guys who worry about a "gap" in a 1920's engine, check this out:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScGy5WqBm7A&feature=related 


cheers, 


TUL


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

I think these will make very nice 0-8-0 switcher and a very nice 2-10-0 Russian


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

QUOTE: " Well, it's now 2 years later and the Consolidations were being unpacked today at Aristo. 

Funny, reading this thread from 2 years ago, I wonder if all the posters have the same opinion? 

Mark, you were one of the last posters, any change in your opinion: "However, there is something to be said for those that move forward with product that none of us need in spite of current economic situations." 

I think we are all "starving" for a new steamer in 1:29. 

Greg
"

Hi Greg,

I was looking back through the last 2 weeks worth of posts and didn't see that you'd asked me about my opinion from 2 years ago. 

Has my opinion changed? Well, no, not really. I don't _need_ a new model steam engine. None of us _needs_ any of this. These are all in the category of _want. _And politically, for my personal situation, it would be disastrous if one of these showed up on my doorstep and a corresponding ammount of capital was missing from the bank. I'm still holding out hope that New Haven will be made, and the stars will align and I'll be able to purchase said beastie. On the other hand, this locomotive is remarkably similar in proportions to Strasburg's #90. I would have to modify the tender a bit and an extra set of drive wheels and a boiler course. Dallee even makes a recording of the whistle, since Strasburg is only about 10 miles from Leola. #90 is Luke's 'rock star'. So, one way or the other, in the coming years, we will get our hands on one of these babies and maybe get one for bashing, who knows. 

I still think that there's something to be said for Aristocraft for moving forward with the project and bringing this product to market. Furthermore, they even revisited their design for the wheel attachment and made some changes. That cost real money and they could have cut the corner and stuck with their existing design. Instead, they chose to improve that and it wasn't even really one of the advertised features. How well they succeeded in that endeavor will be seen in the coming months. But, they did listen to their end users, and they appear to be making their steam engines more robust. To be fair, I am also excited to see that Bachmann has also listened to their users and improved their drive trains for their newest 2-4-2T and the 4-6-0 Annie with metal gears. Maybe that's the next step for aristo, too. Time will tell. 

Back to the locomotive in question, from the pictures and videos I've seen, this looks like an excellent locomotive. It should entice more people over from HO and O gauge. The detail of the modeling and the ease of installing control in the tender makes this an excellent 'first' locomotive choice for new guys. I know you've been critical of the move of the control point to the tender, but I disagree with that opinion. To me, having controls in the tender makes it easier to work on these locomotives and also to swap tenders (provided the pins all go to the same points in the locomotives!!!!!) I handled the B&O paint sample at the train show in March, and have to say that if I had to purchase one of the current in stock, I would get the B&O. 

And the more I look at the boiler thing, the more I realize it is a perfect opportunity for the weights to be added. 1/16" or 1/8" plate material could be cut to look like the boiler saddles and fit in place. 

In speaking with two friends who both got 2-8-0s last week, they confirmed that these are fun locomotives to operate. 

So my 2011 opinion? Purchase.


----------



## fred j (Jan 12, 2011)

Hmmmmmmm, very interesting that so far this loco can only pull a few cars. The Mikado with the same wheel arrangement could pull up to 25.

Have to wait to see when some train hobbyist get there hands on some to see what it can pull.

Fred


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

fredj

Check out Jerry's thread on the same topic. He was pulling 10 x 40' boxcars with his. Also, did you see that additional weight can be added?


----------



## fred j (Jan 12, 2011)

Posted By markoles on 20 Jul 2011 02:17 PM 
fredj

Check out Jerry's thread on the same topic. He was pulling 10 x 40' boxcars with his. Also, did you see that additional weight can be added?



Yup i saw a picture ???????????? Time will tell i guess

Fred


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

I would not look for the additional weights to be avilable till well after the first of the year. Got to make another run of the loco and from what I have heard there are 3 road names that they where going to do but have now changed there mind not to doso the next run will be a while coming







. Looks like we shall have to improvise for additional weight. Later RJD


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

Go to your local tire store and get the weights that have the peel and stick on the back. Come in several sizes.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Yep Jerry only need 2 1/2 pounds of the tire weights that Lewis says can be added. Later RJD


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

OH,,, RJ,,, take your warm milk and go to bed early... 

BTY
Hows your brothers RR doing? I think about him often.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Better than warm kool-aid! 

First locomotive ever from Aristo where the warranty can be voided by adding weight. 

Aristo has now stated how much you can add, 2.5 pounds. 

There's nothing unreasonable or stupid about protecting your $500 loco's warranty. (unless they send them to you free I guess) 

Greg


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Greg I think you missread it here is a quote from Lewis;
"Dear All,

The current weights are 3 1/2 pounds and we will authorize up to 6 pounds total weight without invalidating the warranty. 

We do not have extra weights at this time, but will order them with the next production run that we are placing now. We ordered parts, but was not aware extra weights would be needed. 

All the best,
Lewis Polk" 

Ron


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

3.5 + 2.5 = 6 right? 

I did not think there was any confusion about Lewis' post... 

I was responding to Marty's comment.... giving RJ a hard time about adding weight... 

Maybe he got his loco free... (I really have no idea), but for the poor folks like RJ and I who think $500 is a fair amount of money, spending the time to find out what is authorized by Aristo and not violating our warranty is not silly, stupid, or deserving of rebuke. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

I may be miss reading the statement then.
I took it to mean you could 6 extra pounds of wieght to the engine.

Ron


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

No, just what RJ said, 2.5 additional pounds. Sorry for any confusion. 

It may seem weird to be so concerned, but when poor pulling power was reported by Jerry McColgan, and a few others, and we know that with the same weight of a mikado, it should really be a puller, the brand new policy outlined in the manual is a bit worrisome. 

So, since I've received a little less than "love" in some cases (ha ha!), I don't want to void my warranty right off the bat! 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Apologies to Jerry McColgan, he feels that I misquoted him, and asked that he is properly quoted. And I agree, I did misquote him. 


Here is his paragraph in it's entirety:

"Then I connected ten Aristo 53' Evans boxcars to the other along with another *** caboose. The 2-8-0 pulled them but it did not like it. There was a lot of driver slipping. One by one I removed boxcars until I got down to 6 and the train went well enough but the other train was running noticeably faster (they were on the same power supply (straight DC track power). I then removed another 53' Evans boxcar and that made a world of difference.* Five Evans boxcars is going to be my max whether it is those cars or cars of similar pulling weight.* Since the Evans boxcars have been outside under the old layout for at least a year, the pulling weight may have a lot to do with that and the axles may just need some oil (I did not bother to try it). If someone else wants more pulling power I am sure they could get it by adding some weight to the loco but for my needs I don't need it."

Here is the part that make me say "poor pulling power"

"*Five Evans boxcars is going to be my max whether it is those cars or cars of similar pulling weight*"


This is a completely level, flat track.
I believe that Jerry is telling the truth.
This is the same motor block as the Mikado.
So, my Mikado with the same motor block will pull WAY MORE than 5 cars and a caboose, like twice as much.

In my estimation, this means the pulling power of the Consolidation is about half that of the Mikado, with the same motor block.

Therefore, using Jerry's observation and my Mikado experiences, it is my opinion that the Consolidation has poor pulling power.

I will make my own comparisons with my Mikado, using the same cars, so I am truly comparing apples to apples. Perhaps I will have better results than Jerry reported.


Again, to clarify, Jerry did not say the Consolidation had poor pulling power. He stated it would only pull 5 cars and a caboose on a level track.

In the future, I will try to be more careful when quoting others, and I apologize for misquoting Jerry. 


My guess is that if I "weight up" my Consolidation to match my Mikado, I will have similar pulling power. 


Regards, Greg


----------



## W3NZL (Jan 2, 2008)

Well lets see now, according to Aristo the new Connie is a model of a B&O E-27A... An E-27A has a listed wt 
of 96 tons ready to run but dry... It takes about 10 tons to make a loco that size "wet", so that makes 106 
tons ready to rock 'n roll... Its been stated that the unit weighs 8 lbs 10 ozs... Well folks, thats works out 
to about 106 tons using the old 1.3 oz per ton at 1/29 !!! So it really doesn't need any weight added, remember, 
its a "light" consolidation, it wasn't really intended to pull a huge train....
Paul R...


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Well according to the C&NW class Z these locos weigh in at 109 light and fully loaded 142 tons. So they really are not light weigh. They could actually pull quite a few cars depending on grade. It looks like it may take a little juggling to add the extra weight to make sure they will pull 10 plus cars easily. According to AC you can add an additional 2 1/2 pounds of wight which should give it the pulling power needed for most folks. I will add the additional weight to mine. Later RJD


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

http://www.mylargescale.com/Communi...fault.aspx


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

My consolidation weighs 8 pounds 5 ounces, 8.3125 pounds times the cube of 29 is 202,733 pounds, 101 tons... 

So the stock weight of the Aristo model is close to the light weight of the prototype.

Likewise, 142 tons would be 11.64 pounds, which also somewhat matches Aristo's allowing 2.5 additional pounds.

Prototype calculations aside, it should be capable of more than half another loco with an identical drivetrain. 

I expect my loco to pull a bit more than scale, like most model locos. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 21 Jul 2011 03:26 PM 

Prototype calculations aside, it should be capable of more than half another loco with an identical drivetrain.














The issue might be the weight distribution of the Consolidation vs. the other loco rather than the absolte weight.

There is another thread on mls about pulling power and the tests done in Europe (the pdf in that thread) did identify weight distribution to be a critical factor that determines pulling power.
You need the weight concentrated over the drive wheels....which is pretty obvious I would think.

Knut


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

As I pull it apart, I will check that Knut, good idea. 

Was also thinking of getting a fish scale and measuring drawbar pull... problem is to get consistent results... 

Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 21 Jul 2011 11:19 PM

Was also thinking of getting a fish scale and measuring drawbar pull... problem is to get consistent results...


I bought a digital fish scale from DX for that purpose but I haven't tried it yet to see if it is suitable for that type of measurement.
Cost was less than $10.- and it measures up to 45 kg with a resolution of 5 grams.

In the meantime I just used a pulley and some weights - that gives reasonably consistent results.

Knut


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Ran mine today 1 hr forward and 1hr in reverse around my RR. Ran fine with no issues. Later RJD


----------

