# AML 1/29th NYC 4-6-4 Dreyfus Hudson



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

The latest news posted on the Accucraft site has this little gem - under development:

"NYC 4-6-4 Dreyfuss Hudson #5445, 1:29 Scale, AML, Live Steam & Electric"

I think I know what my next live steamer is going to be . .


----------



## GaugeOneLines (Feb 23, 2008)

How sad that it's in the 'toy' scale of 1/29 running on 1:32 track. Lewis Polk has much to answer for. Sad also that what was meant to be a 1:32 Jerry Hyde inspired production has been hijacked and will enter the world as a *******.

DM-K
Ottawa


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

How awesome that its going to be in the more popular scale of 1/29! 
(Since its going to be 1/29, I might buy one..but I definitely wouldn't if it was in 1/32.. 
since I do not, and probably never will, have any 1/32 trains.) 
woo! great choice accucraft!









Scot


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

It is sad to see the Live Steam manufactures go down this road. I understand why Aristo would do it, but not Accucraft. I guess the the 1:29 K-4's must have sold out quickly?


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Outside of the small bubble of live steam, there is nearly _zero_ 1:32 modeling going on in the US. It's all 1:29. Lament all you want, but Lewis hit a good combination of size and prototype that no 1:32 manufacturer had ever been able to accomplish. (Look at MTH, and the speculation surrounding their future.) 

In this economy where we wonder about the financial stability of _any_ hobby manufacturer, why wouldn't we expect them to pitch their products to the widest possible audience, which--in this case--is 1:29. If it keeps the boat afloat so they can also bring out new products in 1:32 and 1:20.3, I'm all for it. The Dreyfus Hudson is among the most iconic locos that rode the rails, and is wildly popular among modelers. No doubt in my mind if I were pitching it what scale I'd produce it to. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Phippsburg Eric (Jan 10, 2008)

I am currently trying to stay with Maine two footers but that looks really neat! 

I am not that much of a stickler for model scale to proper gauge proportions. Even 1:20.3 scale two foot gauge stuff looks fine in to me in most viewing angles, but I do like the BIG and CHUNKY look of 7/8th scale and find that as much of a draw as it being properly scaled! One of the best things about gauge one equipment is that it is BIG with out being unmanageable. Only the most discriminating modeler would notice the difference between "properly scaled" and "toy scaled", but the fun of our hobby is different for each of us.


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Kevin, Aster made 580 K4's in 1:32 (per Southern Steam Trains roster) How many were made in 1:29 ?? Talk about a TINY nich market... That said, I'm not a player in either scale on that engine. However 1:32 was around long before 1:29 and the "new" scale has only divided an already small group of people (and therir money) into 2 camps.


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 14 Feb 2013 05:56 PM 
Outside of the small bubble of live steam, there is nearly _zero_ 1:32 modeling going on in the US. It's all 1:29. Lament all you want, but Lewis hit a good combination of size and prototype that no 1:32 manufacturer had ever been able to accomplish. (Look at MTH, and the speculation surrounding their future.) 

In this economy where we wonder about the financial stability of _any_ hobby manufacturer, why wouldn't we expect them to pitch their products to the widest possible audience, which--in this case--is 1:29. If it keeps the boat afloat so they can also bring out new products in 1:32 and 1:20.3, I'm all for it. The Dreyfus Hudson is among the most iconic locos that rode the rails, and is wildly popular among modelers. No doubt in my mind if I were pitching it what scale I'd produce it to. 

Later, 

K Yes, if one looks strictly at the US market but world wide the "proper scale" of 1:32 keeps gauge one viable with hardly any 1:29 as the keystone to G gauge: "keeping the boat afloat." With that said I do look forward to seeing the Dreyfus Hudson if it does come about.


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Kevin 

Since you do NOT participate in the world of 1:32, I question the validity of your assertion. 

Since you admit that you are a "it's close enough" modeler, although an extremely good one, you should refrain from criticizing those who are willing to pursue scale fidelity at a higher level. 

We all know Fred Devine (AML incarnate ..and no one else at Accucraft) was a long time employee of AristoCraft. Hence his predisposition towards 1:29 and a willingness to appropriate items from the 1:32 project list of his employer. 

TOO BAD..


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Charles on 14 Feb 2013 07:08 PM 
Posted By East Broad Top on 14 Feb 2013 05:56 PM 
Outside of the small bubble of live steam, there is nearly _zero_ 1:32 modeling going on in the US. It's all 1:29. Lament all you want, but Lewis hit a good combination of size and prototype that no 1:32 manufacturer had ever been able to accomplish. (Look at MTH, and the speculation surrounding their future.) 

In this economy where we wonder about the financial stability of _any_ hobby manufacturer, why wouldn't we expect them to pitch their products to the widest possible audience, which--in this case--is 1:29. If it keeps the boat afloat so they can also bring out new products in 1:32 and 1:20.3, I'm all for it. The Dreyfus Hudson is among the most iconic locos that rode the rails, and is wildly popular among modelers. No doubt in my mind if I were pitching it what scale I'd produce it to. 

Later, 

K Yes, if one looks strictly at the US market but world wide the "proper scale" of 1:32 keeps gauge one viable with hardly any 1:29 as the keystone to G gauge: "keeping the boat afloat." With that said I do look forward to seeing the Dreyfus Hudson if it does come about. 
True..and if this was going to be a new model of a European (or Asian) prototype, then no doubt it would be produced in 1/32 scale..
but considering the New York Central Hudson is an iconic US-prototype, and the majority of the buyers will likely be in the USA..well, there you go..

And this is far from the first Accucraft offering in 1/29 scale, they have been doing it for awhile, and have several models already:
Accucraft 1/29 live steam 
(and 1/29 scale rolling stock)

Its interesting that they did the PRR K4 in 1/29, then the PRR T1 in 1/32..
perhaps they were still not quite sure which way would be "best"? continuing to test the waters in both camps?
Now with the Hudson in 1/29, perhaps that says which one did better? (maybe..hard to say for sure..but it seems likely..)

Scot


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Why doesn't someone ask AML / Fred Devine how many 1:29 K4's were made rather than arguing based on 1:32 being around before 1:29.... Lionel standard gauge was around before lots of other scales, but so what. All that is important is what it is now. 1:29 has far more products (currently) than any other scale on 45mm track, AS FAR AS I CAN DETERMINE. Real numbers and data would be good here. greg Posted By JEFF RUNGE on 14 Feb 2013 07:05 PM 
Kevin, Aster made 580 K4's in 1:32 (per Southern Steam Trains roster) How many were made in 1:29 ?? Talk about a TINY nich market... That said, I'm not a player in either scale on that engine. However 1:32 was around long before 1:29 and the "new" scale has only divided an already small group of people (and therir money) into 2 camps.


----------



## ChaoticRambo (Nov 20, 2010)

I find it incredibly hard to believe that anyone could tell any difference in a perfectly modeled 1:29 locomotive pulling 1:29 rolling stock versus a 1:32 locomotive putting 1:32 rolling stock when they were not directly next to each other.

Coming from the ride-on livesteam crowd, I have come to accept and acknowledged that sometimes things cant always be to perfect scale to make them work correctly.

I personally have no preference between 1:29 and 1:32 for the same reason many of the buildings I purchase for my railroad are 1:24 for ease of purchasing even though my locomotives are 1:20.3 and my rolling stock are 1:22-1:24.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Interesting that also "under development" it lists smooth side passenger cars in 1:32.

I have to admit I find accucraft's product line a little confusing. You'd think if you were making a 1/29 Hudson, you'd make 1/29 passenger cars. But maybe they figured 1:32 passenger cars will work well enough with 1:29 and 1:32 locos. I've always thought aristo cheated their heavyweights down towards 1:32.

I'm one of those people who wishes 1:32 had been the norm, rather than1:29, but I can see the logic of the 1:29 choice.


----------



## rwjenkins (Jan 2, 2008)

No this isn't the first 1:29 live steamer from AML, but it is the first truly iconic one that wasn't already produced by Aster in 1:32. This is one that I think a lot of people have probably been waiting for in live steam for a long time, which makes the decision to go 1:29 a bitter pill to swallow for those people, especially if it was originally supposed to be a 1:32 project. For the most part, 1:29 folks don't really care about scale fidelity and would probably be just as happy with a 1:32 version. It doesn't really work the other way around.


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

whatever the scale, it's sure to be a really neat engine. 'G' scale people are their own worst enemy. Look at the title of this group of Forums. What is 'G' scale?? There have been plenty of attempts to fix this situation, but the sparkies on here just get outraged when ever you talk about 'standards'. They make fun of the NMRA calling it the enema ray and crapola like that. I was in HO scale for many decades. Manufacturer's adhere to the NMRA standards. It's even printed on the boxes. Every thing mates with everthing else. This scale is just a hodge podge of junk. Nothing works with anything else. You have to force it. All those 580 k4's have to pull out of scale passenger cars from Aristo. It's just laughable. At least Accucraft has cememted 1:20 scale. No one is pushing 1:24 or any of that other junk. Anyway, it should be a pretty engine. Start buying up your Aristo NYC cars today. lol.


----------



## steam5 (Jun 22, 2008)

Posted By ChaoticRambo on 14 Feb 2013 08:09 PM
Coming from the ride-on livesteam crowd, I have come to accept and acknowledged that sometimes things cant always be to perfect scale to make them work correctly.





That is irrelevant and isn’t to do with a model being 1:29 or 1:32, or HO scale for the matter. No matter what one builts there is compromises, eg in smaller scales drivers are slightly smaller some times to allow for the oversized flanges. Or cylinders further apart to allow leading trucks more room to negotiate tight curves

Running 1:29 with 1:32 is not a compromise it’s a choice, and if one is happy, thats okay with me, running trains is better than not running trains because of a scale miss match


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

OTOH.... 

Accucraft has In Progress in 1:32 Live steam/electric. These are beyond the "make drawings and cost estimates phase". 

1] UP Big Boy 4-8-8-4 
2a] C&O H-8 2-6-6-6 in two versions 
2b] VGN AG 2-6-6-6 
4] SP M-6 Mogul 2-6-0 
5] SP P? Pacific 4-6-2 
6] N&W J 4-8-4 #611 
7a] PRR M1a 
7b] PRR M1b 

Also very far along in 1:32, a Bethlehem steel car company 70T three bay hopper, first to be released in the C&O version complete with correct heap shields. Follow on cars for other railroads like the WM will have flat ends.


----------



## steamupdad (Aug 19, 2008)

A simple solution would be to just start producing 50mm gauge track for these 1/29 scale locos to ride on. That way you still have your 1/29 group satisfied but us 1/32 scale guys have it back to true scale. Win/ win in my books....hehe


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

YEAH... just like the ride on guys. 

1:8 scale [1.5in/ft] migrated from the UK where it was 7 1/4in gauge track === instead of The EXACTLY CORRECT 7 1/16 in for 56.5 inch gauge] 
Somehow...somewhere, a person or persons changed it it the mid-west and west to 7 1/2 inch gauge, still wrong... 
Solution... many products are now built to a scale of 1.6 inch/ft or 1:7.5 so that the equipment matches the track gauge [ within a few thousandths of an inch. 

Yeah... lets split the guys who sometimes run on each others tracks by getting another gauge.... Remember 1.5 inch gauge is correct for 1:24 scale 3 foot narrow gauge... and it never happened. 

ABSOLUTELY... lets start the Proto29 movement with 49.5mm track gauge. Ask Gary Raymond and Uncle Russ how far they got with Proto32 and 1n3 or 3/8n3. 

Regards


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

The ONE thing we all have in common is the GAUGE ONE TRTACK.. and we have those that think it's a good idea to come out with yet another division in the hobby by making 50mm track... GREAT now the old syle 1:29 products can't play with the new 50mm 1:29 products... I can only hope they try ! ...this is what happens when you create your own scale " Well Olley, "this is FINE mess you've gotten us into"


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Why can't you 1:32 and 1:29 guys have your tiff without drawing beautiful 1:24 into it. We didn't ask for your foolish comparisons... 

Just saying 

That Dryfus sure was Steam Punk wasn't he? 

Happy Rails 
John


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By rwjenkins on 14 Feb 2013 08:16 PM 
For the most part, 1:29 folks don't really care about scale fidelity and would probably be just as happy with a 1:32 version. It doesn't really work the other way around. 



For the most part, that isnt true..
1/29 people wouldnt be happy with a 1/32 version if they are running everything in 1/29 scale! 
so that logic just doesnt hold up...
1/29 people want things in 1/29 (and not 1/32) because they have 1/29 scale trains.
1/32 people want things in 1/32 (and not 1/29) because they have 1/32 scale trains.
"scale fidelity" doesnt really factor into the equation..

it simply isnt true that 1/29 people "would be happy" with a 1/32 model..
any more than 1/32 people would be happy with 1/29..
the lack of happiness level is identical on both sides..for identical reasons.

and actually, 1/29 people really do care about scale fidelity..
we want accurate and well detailed models just as much as 1/32 scale modelers do..
the fact that the gauge is off slightly doesn't really impact the scale fidelity of the rest of the model.

and before someone says "how can you care about scale fidelity if the gauge is wrong?" first show me your 1/32 scale trains
that are *not* running on hugely oversized and way out of scale code 332 track! 
and show us your exact 1/32 scale figures, vehicles and structures..
every scale has its "out of scale" aspects..thats just the nature of the hobby.

Scot


----------



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi John and others: 

" At least Accucraft has cememted 1:20 scale. No one is pushing 1:24 or any of that other junk. Anyway, it should be a pretty engine. Start buying up your Aristo NYC cars today. lol. 

John Frank 
Katy, Texas 
Home of the Texas Western Narrow Gauge RR " 

Actually 1/24 scale was the perfect choice for narrow gauge modelling. The BIG MISTAKE by DELTON was to have not produced their own properly gauged track as they were selling to the high end brass market anyhow. There was all sorts of doll house interior detail parts to build a great train station or coach in high detail. 
The 1/24 scale permits the massive K-27 beast to be modelled at a reasonable size. 

1/24 scale is a lost opportunity for Bachmann trains as well. 

As stated above, 1/32 scale models still run with oversized flanges and on laughably oversized rail as these oversized flanges and over sized rail are required for outdoor layouts. 

USA Trains presently has the 1:29 ALUMINUM bodied heavy weights for this 1:29 Hudson. 

1:32 scale has gone the way of 1:24 scale. Just supported exclusively by Aster and HLW . 

A 1:29 scale Hudson is way more exciting , size wise, than a 1:32 scale Hudson. 

I really do not understand why Americans love this streamlined Hudson loco? The non-streamlined 5344 Hudson is a thing of beauty. 

In any event, this 1:29 streamlined Hudson will be a success as for some reason Americans love it and USA Trains has the perfect coaches for it. 

" 'G' scale people are their own worst enemy. Look at the title of this group of Forums. What is 'G' scale?? There have been plenty of attempts to fix this situation, but the sparkies on here just get outraged when ever you talk about 'standards'. They make fun of the NMRA calling it the enema ray and crapola like that. I was in HO scale for many decades. Manufacturer's adhere to the NMRA standards. It's even printed on the boxes. Every thing mates with everthing else. This scale is just a hodge podge of junk. Nothing works with anything else. You have to force it. All those 580 k4's have to pull out of scale passenger cars from Aristo. It's just laughable. " 

John is of course absolutely correct. Nothing works with anything else. All of the large scale mfgs. should have agreed on a common scale for narrow gauge and standard gauge. 1:24 was perfect for both. But frankly the mfgs. blew it and their sales of largescale trains have suffered massively as a result. Large scale is the most confusing scale to get into. 

Even MTH did not use common sense for a product line of plastic models. Aristo Craft was the plastic model leader and so USA TRAINS adopted 1:29 scale to sell to an existing plastic model market place. MTH for some bizarre reason thought that they were going to " change the gravitational laws of the universe " and have folks switich over to 1:32 scale. This makes as much sense as if Ford started producing right hand drive cars for the US market place. DUH! 

I say again that the MTH Hudson is a thing of beauty and very realistic with the puffing laboured chuff. I wish that MTH would licence their puffing laboured chuff smoke units to Bachmann trains. 


Norman


----------



## Dan Pantages (Jan 2, 2008)

"G" gauge = Goofy gauge


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Since you do NOT participate in the world of 1:32, I question the validity of your assertion. 
What's there to question? The sales numbers speak for themselves. Aristo and USA have enjoyed sales that Marklin, MTH, MDC, Great Trains, and others who tried 1:32 in the US could only _dream_ of. You don't need to model those scales to recognize the trends. If a company with the quality and reputation of Marklin couldn't make a dent in the US market with 1:32 American prototype stuff, the stuff just isn't striking a chord with the marketplace. MTH is making a valiant effort, but you needn't look far to read rumors and speculation about _their_ future. And to date, they've been quite elusive in terms of giving any concrete sign that things aren't as they're rumored. 

Since you admit that you are a "it's close enough" modeler, although an extremely good one, you should refrain from criticizing those who are willing to pursue scale fidelity at a higher level. 
We've had this discussion before; I'm not sure how you continue to characterize me as a "close enough" modeler. I model 1:20.3 for the same reason you insist on 1:32. I know very well the emphasis that 1:32 modelers put on the proper scale/gauge relationship, since I insist on the same thing for my own models. It would be hypocritical for me to criticize another modeler for insisting upon the same level of accuracy I insist upon for my own models. I model 1:20.3 because the prototype I model is a 3' gauge railroad, I specifically want that aesthetic in my modeling, and I'm not adverse to building the models myself to achieve that aesthetic. At the same time, I put the same level of accuracy into the 1:24 models I build for my dad's railroad. The difference there is that on his railroad, the track gauge isn't pegged at 36". It's narrow gauge, but the specifics of that gauge are arbitrary. On his railroad, a cohesive sense of scale and theme is the overarching factor that ties everything together. The track gauge doesn't enter that equation. 

While I wouldn't criticize someone for insisting upon 1:32 on 45mm track, you are partly correct in that I _do_ view 1:29 as being every bit as "accurate" as 1:32 _when viewed in the same light as the discrepancies that exist in O and OO scales._ While the Proto:48 people certainly take exception to the notion that 32mm track is "accurate" for 1:48, the vast majority of O scale modelers are fine with it. If I were to model a standard gauge railroad outdoors, I'd choose 1:29 for the simple reason that the models I want to run are produced in that scale, and are not in 1:32. So I can either be completely uncompromising in terms of scale/gauge and have to build the trains I want to run, or I can accept a reasonable amount of compromise (comparable to that inherent in other scales) and run what's available. 

Do I think life would be easier without having to choose between 1:29 and 1:32? Absolutely. I think life would have been easier if I had been blessed with the ability to throw a football, too. That's not how life unfolded, so we live with the consequences. 1:29 in the US is "mainstream." There's absolutely zippo any of us can do to change that. You can cry about it or you can embrace it. I think it's clear which path Accucraft has chosen. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Apparently no one is able to comprehend the humor in my last post... this 1:32 vs 1:29 thing has gotten like American (USA) politics, it is all about ideology and not about working together. 

And for Norman.... most 1:32 people use code 250 OR SMALLER rail on our track. People like Jeff Runge are just too "frugal" to give up their investment from the old days. 

I will go away now and run steam and electric locomotives in Scranton and leave this topic for others.


----------



## Hugh Napier (Oct 10, 2012)

As a UKer I have to admit to being somewhat amused by all this discussion.... we have tolerated OO gauge on 16.5mm track for decades and thousands of modellers seem to accept the even greater margin of error than exists in the 1:29 versus 1:32 debate. "Live and let live" I say, the Dreyfuss Hudson is a cracking prototype to choose, especially fitted with the Scullin disc wheels - is it true that the NYC fitted blue "pimp lights" to highlight these? I can't think of many locos similarly equipped, no, hang on, I know of one!

Hugh


----------



## steamtom1 (Jan 2, 2008)

*What do you mean Kevin is an "it's close enough" modeler?*

*If I'm not mistaken, the scale of his Allison Wondersteam locomotive is dead nuts on...*


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

My viewing perspective. Take a late model corvette remove the factory 10"+ wide tires and put on a set of "compact temporary" spare tires on. That is what 1:29 looks like too me. That and I don't see a lot of cars that are taller & WIDER when the steam locomotive pulling them...


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Well it's called wake up folks. 1/32 has had there way for a while now it's 1/29 time to have a few things and keep everyone happy.







Later RJD


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

For me, I'd be happy running 1/32 if that was what all the G manufacturers made. 

Then again I'd be happy with 1/29, 1/24 or 1/20.3 

I have mainly 1/29th because this scale provides the most locomotives I like. 

But I have a MDC Hustler that is most likely 1/32, a 2-4-0 LGB Steamer that is closer to 1/24th and the 2-6-0 LGB Mogul that is probably 1/24th. 

I have 51 MDC 1/32 scale 2 bay hoppers that I have no problem running behind any of my locos. 

Other than some people not having room for the 1/20.3 scale, I think 99% of the people on this forum would still be running large scale trains if there was only one scale made by all the manufacturers. 

But this is just my 2 cents


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Apparently no one is able to comprehend the humor in my last post... 
Jim, 
I'm the one supposed to have the dry english humor... ;-) And your first post was a bit curmudgeonly - are you taking over Dave's role? 

I only started this thread yesterday PM and it's already 4 pages long when I got up this morning. Apparently lots of folk are interested in a Dreyfus Hudson. 

I can definitely understand the chagrin of the 1/32nd folk who would prefer a properly-scaled engine. But a 1/29th version is better than none imho. And the scale/gauge discrepancy is a lot less than the UK's OO gauge that I used for many years. I would have liked a 1/32nd, but I'll take a 1.29th version if that's all that is offered. 

I saw the AML Pennsy K-4 running at Scranton last year, and it looked magnificent. Live steam is all about 'the look' - we don't put many lineside accessories on our steam tracks, let alone ballast. Some of the most attractive model railroads in the garden are standard gauge 1/29th, with full scenery, etc.


----------



## seadawg (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Hugh Napier on 15 Feb 2013 05:11 AM 
As a UKer I have to admit to being somewhat amused by all this discussion.... we have tolerated OO gauge on 16.5mm track for decades and thousands of modellers seem to accept the even greater margin of error than exists in the 1:29 versus 1:32 debate. "Live and let live" I say, the Dreyfuss Hudson is a cracking prototype to choose, especially fitted with the Scullin disc wheels - is it true that the NYC fitted blue "pimp lights" to highlight these? I can't think of many locos similarly equipped, no, hang on, I know of one!

Hugh 


I WANT PIMP LIGHTS! (What are they? They sound cool!)


----------



## seadawg (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 15 Feb 2013 09:38 AM 
Apparently no one is able to comprehend the humor in my last post... 
Jim, 
I'm the one supposed to have the dry english humor... ;-) And your first post was a bit curmudgeonly - are you taking over Dave's role? 

I only started this thread yesterday PM and it's already 4 pages long when I got up this morning. Apparently lots of folk are interested in a Dreyfus Hudson. 

I can definitely understand the chagrin of the 1/32nd folk who would prefer a properly-scaled engine. But a 1/29th version is better than none imho. And the scale/gauge discrepancy is a lot less than the UK's OO gauge that I used for many years. I would have liked a 1/32nd, but I'll take a 1.29th version if that's all that is offered. 

I saw the AML Pennsy K-4 running at Scranton last year, and it looked magnificent. Live steam is all about 'the look' - we don't put many lineside accessories on our steam tracks, let alone ballast. Some of the most attractive model railroads in the garden are standard gauge 1/29th, with full scenery, etc. 

Pete, it may not be the interest in the Dreyfus that has caused this thread to take off like a viral Youtube video, maybe the "which is better" type question (Which is better Chevy or Ford, Accucraft or Aster, etc, etc).

For me it really boils down to rolling stock; my inventory and what's available. I have a BUNCH of 1/29 left over from my sparkie days when trying seeing how many cars my SD-45 could pull. Now I have a BUNCH of 1/22.5(ish) LGB stuff that I got started on by pulling them with my Frank S and they work well with the REGNER engines I have. I now also have a BUNCH of 1:20.3 rolling stock to go with my Accucraft Live steam engines. (Let's not start on Freight vs Passenger). I also have two 'standard' gauge live steam engines, one is 10mm and the other is 1/32 and the 1/32 is an Aster K4 that only ever (mostly) ran passenger cars. Which maufacturer makes 1/32 Pennsy passenger cars??? (The 10mm to the foot is a whole different thread!)

It all comes down to economics. I aksed Lewis Polk a few years back to re-run some Seaboard Air Line cars he made many years ago that were some kind of dealer special (Phosphate cars) and he would not, because there was no demand (outside of me and probably two other guys.) He would also not do a paint job for an FA / FB for Seaboard Air Line, no market demand. (There must be no real market south of the Mason-Dixon line.)

Now I've got a couple of Aristo Plastikado chassis that I'm planinng on cobbling into somethig different, and I ahve a bunch of rolling stock already (unles I want it to be N&W!)

How 'correct' do I want to be?














(I'm running out of storage area in my garage.)

/end ramble


----------



## Reg Stocking (Sep 29, 2010)

Henry Dreyfuss' first streamlining job for the New York Central was the Mercury sets of reworked commuter cars and two Pacifics which got shrouded. Lights were placed under the skirts and turned on at night to show off all the beautiful machinery at work. NYC quit using them after a couple of nasty accidents caused by motorists on parallel roads becoming enchanted when pacing the locomotives and not watching ahead. The Hudsons may have had them, but, if so, their use would have been carefully restricted.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Hmm, with the narrow aisles at Diamondhead, that might become problematic... 

Later, 

K


----------



## steveciambrone (Jan 2, 2008)

For me 1/32 is just too small, I like the 1/29 for it size and presence on the track. My AML K4 looks perfect in front of my Aristo Pennsy coaches. Didn't you guys complain about the same thing when the K4 was intoduced? 

Placing one on order shortly. 

Steve


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dr Rivet on 14 Feb 2013 08:32 PM 
OTOH.... 

Accucraft has In Progress in 1:32 Live steam/electric. These are beyond the "make drawings and cost estimates phase". 

1] UP Big Boy 4-8-8-4 
2a] C&O H-8 2-6-6-6 in two versions 
2b] VGN AG 2-6-6-6 
4] SP M-6 Mogul 2-6-0 
5] SP P? Pacific 4-6-2 
6] N&W J 4-8-4 #611 
7a] PRR M1a 
7b] PRR M1b 

Also very far along in 1:32, a Bethlehem steel car company 70T three bay hopper, first to be released in the C&O version complete with correct heap shields. Follow on cars for other railroads like the WM will have flat ends. 




I want the SP Pwhatever Pacific. When is it coming out? Will they also make some 1/32 Harriman style cars to go with it.


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By norman on 14 Feb 2013 10:33 PM 

As stated above, 1/32 scale models still run with oversized flanges and on laughably oversized rail as these oversized flanges and over sized rail are required for outdoor layouts. 


Norman 



Actually Norman, nothing could be farther from the truth. I use code 250 and 215 outdoors and it works just fine. Our 'toy' train type modelers on here seem to think that nothing will run outdoors unless it has huge flanges and enormous code track. Just not true. Perhaps they should do some work on their humpty dumpty track before making these types of judgements.


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Simple solution: build in both 1/29 and 1/32.


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Charles, you talking about building the engine in 1:32 and having another "shell" for the 1:29 version? might work on the streamline versions.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Simple solution: build in both 1/29 and 1/32. 
Personally, I don't care which scale, but the idea is intriguing. One might be able to build a mechanism that fit under two different body shells.


----------



## aopagary (Jun 30, 2008)

Posted By steveciambrone on 15 Feb 2013 05:36 PM 
For me 1/32 is just too small, I like the 1/29 for it size and presence on the track. My AML K4 looks perfect in front of my Aristo Pennsy coaches. Didn't you guys complain about the same thing when the K4 was intoduced? 
...
Steve i've got to say that this pretty much sums up the frustrations of 1:32 scale modelers...

_"For me 1/32 is just too small, ..."_

how can you argue with someone like this?

you either get the math or you don't.

either the definition of a scale model means something to you, or it doesn't.

the concessions that must be made to working scale models deal with the physics, not the aesthetics.


----------



## s-4 (Jan 2, 2008)

The other popular Hudson, the USA Trains' electric model is also in 1:29. Plus there are other NYC contemporaries in the same scale including the coaches of both usa and aristo, plus their first gen diesels. 

I'd build the 1:29 for sure....but also take reservations for a limited 1:32 run. Why not have both? 

Why not build a 1:20.3 Heisler instead? (No complaints


----------



## chooch (Jan 2, 2008)

2nd on the Heisler.


----------



## steveciambrone (Jan 2, 2008)

I get the math, it is quite simple, I do not understand the frustration why 1/32 modelers get upset with a 1/29 model being introduced, so it is not your scale, why let it bother you? I do not care or comment when another model is introduce that is not a scale I model. 
I also model Welsh narrow gauge on 45mm track, that is breaking the rules also. 

Steve


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yes, I model 1:29 because of the wow factor, but mostly the availability of reasonably priced locos. 

I also get the distinct feeling that 1:32 people feel we 1:29 people are siphoning off valuable production they could have. 

I think that is not true. Accucraft ADDED 1:29 models fairly recently.... and why? Because clearly they can make more money... and why is that? 

Be sure that EVERY manufacturer is working hard to spend their money to get the most return. 

Greg


----------



## aopagary (Jun 30, 2008)

Posted By steveciambrone on 16 Feb 2013 08:20 PM 
I get the math, it is quite simple, I do not understand the frustration why 1/32 modelers get upset with a 1/29 model being introduced, so it is not your scale, why let it bother you? I do not care or comment when another model is introduce that is not a scale I model. 
I also model Welsh narrow gauge on 45mm track, that is breaking the rules also. 

Steve saying something like this, you obviously don't get the math or understand what a scale model is. you cannot have a scale model that is partly 1:29 scale and partly 1:32 scale. that is what is being foisted upon us by 1:29 "scale" manufacturers. it doesn't make sense to mix scales in a single model and that is the problem 1:32 scale modelers have with the 1:29 toys being produced.

modeling British narrow gauge is a rather daunting task. a look at the history of narrow gauge there reveals quite a number of narrow gauges as large as 49" and as small as 23.5". if i were to concentrate on a single road, say the Ffestiniog at 23.5" gauge, i would probably scale it at 1:13.25 for 45mm track, though for parts availability, 7/8" scale (1:13.7) would probably be close enough. but if i wanted to model more than one road, it would be better to choose a single scale with varying track gauges which would tend to show a more exact relationship between the different roads and gauges used.

i have no problem with US 1:20.3 scale representing 3' gauge or 7/8" scale representing 2' gauge with 45mm track.
i'm more than willing to concede track (rail) weight in favor of the models themselves being accurate.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Seems like a rather draconian definition of scale model. 

So the people in live steam that have 7-1/4" or 7-1/2" gauge, one of them "cannot have a scale model"? (By that definition part of the model is not the same scale as another part?) 

Or are they ok and not as "off" as 1:29 everywhere on the model except the wheel gauge? 

I think it's all degrees of "gray" .... and in the eye of the beholder... (and more importantly in the pocketbook of the buying public - which needs no proof, 1:29 is a financial reality) 

Greg


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg, the big ride on stuff is a different case. The 7-1/4 guys model in 7.5 scale MOST of the time and the 7-1/2 people have shifted to 1.6 scale to keep the model closer tho the track gauge. The problem for those folks is they can NOT play on a common track. This limits the pool of potential buyers when it's time to sell. And keeps them from visiting other tracks. We in gauge one are able to have a few scale sizes ( 1:20.3, 1:32 etc) and some also very popular semi-scale (my term for 1:24, 1:29 ) But we all play on the same gauge one track so you can bring your trains to my track and I could run mine on yours. Just wish none of our trains were made in China.


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

Are there really any truely scale models in model railrays? Especially in aspects which afford turning radius. Most of the electric steam locomotives are particularly bad, with molded bumps representing plumbing that then never connects to anything! Even the live steamers often have missing details and limited functions - partial valve gear, having to be pushed back and forth to start, no feedwater ...) 

Not everyone can, or wants, to get started with $10 k + "toys," and there needs to be options at a variety of price points. The simple need to accomodate radically non-scale radius capability to have viable markets, as well as limit detailing for economics and play durability, mean the highest volume products will probably always have the largest deviations. The prototype train in Greg's photo certainly doesn't have a scale 12 feet between vestibules, like the same cars in the model shop! 

aopagary, 

Model in comfort at 1:13.7 ... even the real thing had a tolerance for track gauge, and I'm sure some of the men building the line were known for having a pint or two before going to work!  

*** 

I like detailed models, and would go 1:32 if I modeled standard guage, since the product diversity seems greatest,especially of European prototypes. I like the detail and operational features of the big Aster models ... but how the heck am I going to see, let alone assemble, hundreds of 1.4 mm screws? 

For a first steamer, I'm leaning toward the Roundhouse Fowler. A price I can manage, a good size, works on the track radius I have space for, and at least at first will look okay with LGB cars in 1:22.5. Heck, real railcars came in many different sizes anyway!


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

...


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

I think this is a fascinating discussion!  
(although one we have had hundreds of times before..and will continue to have hundreds of times in the future..but still) 

Im intrigued by the theory that "1/32 trains are scale models, because the gauge is correct, and 1/29 trains are *not* scale models, 
because the gauge is wrong"..I can prove that that theory is a logical fallacy, and not true: 
(not true as an absolute fact..it can be "true" as a personal opinion however, as a belief.)

Lets say I take a very nicely detailed 1/29 scale USA Trains boxcar and sit it on 45mm track. 
by the rules of the theory above, it is "not a scale model" 

Now I take the dimensions of a prototype boxcar, and I carefully cut a chunk of stryofoam to those dimensions 
in 1/32 scale..I screw some trucks to the bottom, and sit it on the rails next to the 1/29 scale boxcar.. 

Using the rules of the theory, I *must* conclude that the chunk of styrofoam is a "scale model" 
while the USA car is not...why must I conclude that? because according to the theory, gauge is the 
*only* thing that makes one a scale model! and the other not..therefore the chunk of stryrofoam 
mustbe a 1/32 "scale model".. 

obviously thats ridiculous.. 
Which is why we cant *only* use gauge as the criteria for declaring "scale model" or not.. 

Also, it is not accurate to say that 1/29 scale trains are "two scales in one model".. 
because if we assume that, what are the two scales then? 
1/29 and...what? 1/32? 1/22.5? 1/20.3? 7/8n2? 
all those scales run on 45mm track.. 

Obviously 1/29 scale models are not "two scales in one model".. 
they are only one scale, that happens to have one aspect of the model out of scale, 
in this case, the gauge...the gauge isn't "a different scale"..its just the wrong size for the scale. 

So, if we conclude that 1/29 scale trains cant be "scale models" because part of them is out of scale, 
then we also are forced to conclude that scale models don't exist, and they never have. 
because using that rule, 1/32 scale trains cant be scale models either, because they have things on them 
that aren't perfectly to scale as well.. (an obvious example is 1/32 scale flanges..they are *way* out of scale!)

IMO, its perfectly reasonable to call 1/29 scale trains "Scale models" that have something on them that is incorrect.. 
1/32 scale trains can be called scale models too, even if the flanges are *way* out of scale.. 
the "Scale model or not" declaration isnt about gauge..its about how accurate the model is, or isnt.. 
and that will always be a gray area, very subjective, and totally dependent on personal opinion. 
it cant be nailed down to an absolute clear fact. 

There are plenty of "toy-like" 1/32 scale locomotives running on the "correct" gauge.. 
they have "swinging pilots"..crude details, missing details..I wouldn't call them "accurate scale models." 
even though the gauge is correct for 1/32 scale..
the gauge alone does not make them "scale models"..its much more than that. 

conversely, there are also very detailed and accurate 1/29 scale trains, that are very accurate in most respects except gauge. 
I would absolutely call them "scale models"..because no "Scale model" can ever be absolutely perfectly to scale in every detail. 
If we are going to assume that scale models actually exist, we have to admit they all have flaws.. 
no one can declare the rule that "gauge makes it a scale model, or not"..
you can have that opinion if you like! but opinion does not make it a fact..

Scot


----------



## steveciambrone (Jan 2, 2008)

That was well explained Scot, all models have compromises that are none scale, live steam is actually the biggest offender. 
It is kind of funny on numerous occasions when running my AML K4 I have been asked "is that the Aster or Accucraft K4?". 
It is kind of ridiculous, we are only playing with toy trains. 

I have a thick skin and have come to a conclusion when someone has a weak or irrational argument they usually resort to personal attacks on a persons skills or character. 
Thanks 
Steve


----------



## zephyra (Jan 2, 2008)

Saw the prototype running yesterday as a 'secret' steamup. It looks good but BIG! I was running an Aster Stirling alongside it and the Stirling would have fitted inside the tender of the Hudson. Also heard a rumor that they will produce a 1:32 version which is the one I will be waiting for not becasue I have any religion about what is 'proper' scale but simply because it will fit better with the rest of my collection. I'd love to have the T1 and the Dreyfuss Hudson running on the same track in the same scale. Add a NW 611 and I thin I would have achieved steam train Nirvana  

Robert


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Jeff, I clearly understand how the ride on stuff has ways to handle it. 

But the point is that do we stop calling them scale models because of it? 

re-read apogary's definition of scale models just above my post, this is what I was referring to. 

Greg 

p.s. I would gladly pay 10% more for my trains to be built anywhere else.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

220 feet = 1 G24 mile. My vast pike is 143 from one leg of a switch around the bend back thru and down the line until it reaches the end of the 2nd leg of the other reverse loop switch. 
In between I represent one mine, a town, a tourist trap and and engine house before the run to the big city. Along the way it passes the return loop Junction and arrives at the Depot. My mind's eye at the rate I'm building... 
Way back when, I had seen sweeping 48"r on my HO club pike ('67 Long Beach, Ca) and later I had gentle 30"r min. in On3. Oh boy outdoors! For the life of me, I can't figure out why the put the house near the middle of my lot. Do you know how much railroad space is wasted by that dang house? And sheds, porches and driveways? Now I have minimum 10'D curves .... 5'r =60" hmmm twice my On3 tight curves, but twice the bulk too. Now even tho' I can fudge on the property line, I'm still hemmed in.... So we make compromises. 
I see the super detailed fine scale stuff and think; 'That sure is pretty' and go back to running my trains. Funny thing is my trains aren't insecure about their size. They know they are doing their job when they see my smiles, miles of smiles. Gary I give you a Royal Raspberry for trying to dampen my smiles. 
It pays to have a good mind'seye, in a controlled environment I can find the broken parts, outside it's a crap shoot. Outside I see the details that used to be there before clumsy hands and hungry critters modified the details.... 
For Me G24 is good and my results make me happy, but I'm just .... representing in a Total Wrecker's sort of way. 

Happy Rails 

John


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

John,

Great post, my friend!







I DO believe that your post has finally hit the nail on the head. You and I probably come from the same "model railroading era". When I was about 12 (1955), my late Dad and I built a 9X12 foot HO layout in our garage. You know when we started this, we thought (in our minds) that we had room "miles and miles" of track! We even used 24 inch radius curves (noted as conventional curves in those days) and thought how cool would our freight trains look. Of course this was after we had used 15 inch radii around the Christmas or the 4X8 plywood layout I had in my bedroom! 

Then a couple of years later, "reality" set in. I would do MY math and discovered my layout was ONLY about 700 feet wide X 1050 feet long. THAT wouldn't even make a dent in the old Taylor Yards on San Fernando Rd. in L.A. and Glendale!!! Then "somebody" in an old MR, decided to use a new term for scale miles (SMILES, just like you pointed out in your post!!). Now I could breath easy because it was how to compress scenes and track into your own miniature world, WHICH by the way, IS exactly what we are doing when we are playing with these rather pricey toy trains. It's your imagination gone wild!!









I remember when I first met Paul Burch (Sierra Cascade & Pacific RR here on MLS), in HS in the late fifties and he took me over to his house to see his layout! Guess what?! Handlaid rail on wood ties and small, individual spikes and beautiful scenery started! My heart sunk into my stomach. His layout was maybe a third the size of mine. But the WOW factor of the detail made such an impression on me. You guys have seen photos of his layout in Gig Harbor and he STILL builds the same way as he did so many, many years ago!









I went back to my layout looking at it in a different perspective. I made improvements.

Some of us are making a big deal about whether these steamers should be 1/32 or 1/29. They are "scale models" YES. BUT they are NOT precise. Look at the size of the pressure gauge in the cab! or the throttle mechanism! 

But hey John, thanks for the reminder of the SMILES thing!!


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By Gary Armitstead on 17 Feb 2013 02:02 PM 

Some of us are making a big deal about whether these steamers should be 1/32 or 1/29. They are "scale models" YES. BUT they are NOT precise. Look at the size of the pressure gauge in the cab! or the throttle mechanism! 


Yes, I agree that the pressure gauges are large, and while probably could be made to scale size and still work, they would not do us much good as we wouldn't be able to read them.
However, the rest CAN be made to look to scale in 1/32, and still function.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By David Leech on 17 Feb 2013 03:20 PM 
Posted By Gary Armitstead on 17 Feb 2013 02:02 PM 

Some of us are making a big deal about whether these steamers should be 1/32 or 1/29. They are "scale models" YES. BUT they are NOT precise. Look at the size of the pressure gauge in the cab! or the throttle mechanism! 


Yes, I agree that the pressure gauges are large, and while probably could be made to scale size and still work, they would not do us much good as we wouldn't be able to read them.
However, the rest CAN be made to look to scale in 1/32, and still function.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada









I agree with you on the gauges and SOME of the valves. Even on my 1/8th scale ten-wheeler and our mogul ride-on steamers, the valves ARE TO SCALE and are operational. Also we run these things on 7 1/2" gauge track, NOT 7 1/16" as it should be. Again a compromise. Another compromise (on my engines in particular), our boiler wall thickness is 5/16". The prototype boiler was around 1" thick! I would hate to try 125psi on a boiler less than 1/8 inch thick! Another compromise. I just don't see the argument about 1/32 or 1/29 justified by track gauge. Then again, Just My Opinion.


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

David, 

That's great! Did you build those controls yourself? It looks like you're running on real coal?


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By BigRedOne on 17 Feb 2013 03:43 PM 
David, 

That's great! Did you build those controls yourself? It looks like you're running on real coal? 
Oh, how I wish I could make something like this!
I believe that this is one of three Dee's, built by the Swiss Dee Team and I took the photo in 2007 at the G1MRA Jubilee event.
I assume that it is gas fired, but it could be alcohol.
The scale coal and utensils are strictly for show.
It just shows how scale our models 'could' be, if we take the time to do it.
Manufacturers are probably NOT going to, but scratch builders will.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Our layout is in 1:29 and when I do kit bashing its usually aimed at 1:29. But I'd prefer 1:32 and if there were more offerings in 1:32 I'd be there the reason has less to do with scale fidelity per se and more to do with the general look, especially the way trains look on curves. Over the years I've downsized most of our stuff, turning Pacifics into Atlantics and mikados into consols. On the same radius curve, a1:32 locomotive looks more plausible than a 1:29--less overhang. At the same time, the oversize rail gets even more apparent. As discussed, there are always compromises


----------



## zephyra (Jan 2, 2008)

I saw the prototype on saturday at a 'secret' steam up locally. It looks good but BIG compared to a 1:32 Big Boy that was also on the track. I was running an Aster Stirling and Aster Jumbo and they looked tiny!. I also heard a rumor that Accucraft will also produce a 1:32 version of the Dreyfuss Hudson - if so that is the one I will be waiting for not out of any religous belief about the benefits of one scale over another but simply becasue I like my collection to all be the same scale in so far as it is possible. I do run 1:29 coal hoppers because I haven't been able to find any in 1:32 and I think there was sufficient variation inthe real thing for them to look reasonably authentic behind a Berkshire or Allegheny. 

A 1:32 Dreyfuss running with the T1 and (please!) a NW 611 would be my idea of steam nirvana  

Robert


----------



## aopagary (Jun 30, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 17 Feb 2013 10:09 AM 
...

Also, it is not accurate to say that 1/29 scale trains are "two scales in one model".. 
because if we assume that, what are the two scales then? 
1/29 and...what? 1/32? 1/22.5? 1/20.3? 7/8n2? 
all those scales run on 45mm track.. 

Obviously 1/29 scale models are not "two scales in one model".. 
they are only one scale, that happens to have one aspect of the model out of scale, 
in this case, the gauge...the gauge isn't "a different scale"..its just the wrong size for the scale. 

So, if we conclude that 1/29 scale trains cant be "scale models" because part of them is out of scale, 
then we also are forced to conclude that scale models don't exist, and they never have. 
because using that rule, 1/32 scale trains cant be scale models either, because they have things on them 
that aren't perfectly to scale as well.. (an obvious example is 1/32 scale flanges..they are *way* out of scale!)

when i said two scales in one model, i thought it was obvious. any standard US gauge train that runs on 45mm track is using a 1:32 scale wheel gauge. that is, treating the 45mm track gauge as if it were prototype 56.5".

i'm sorry you didn't take the time to read my entire short posting. i did say that when concessions are made, especially to working live steam locomotives, they are done to address the physics of scaling. mass doesn't scale the same as linear dimension and things like oversized wheel flanges are a part of life with all working models in any scale. 1:29 scale exists only because of the aesthetics of wanting larger than scale models. it has nothing to do with operational capability.

as far as other scales being incorrect. aside from OO gauge (1:76 scale on 1:87 gauge track), 1:29 scale models on 45mm gauge track have nearly twice the error (9% vs 5%) that can be found in O or for that matter even in 1:8 scale on 7.5" gauge. add to that, those 5% errors are overgauge errors. that is the wheels are actually 5% wider than then should be. the error in 1:29 scale is 9% UNDERgauge. that is, the wheel gauge is 9% narrower than scale. this difference makes those models look as if they were standard gauge pieces running on narrow gauge track.


----------



## steveciambrone (Jan 2, 2008)

Can anyone post a picture or video of the engine at the undisclosed secret steam up? 

Thanks 
Steve


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Wow, what an interesting debate! 

I used to be one of those who insisted that 1/32 was the ONLY standard gauge G1 scale, and everything else was just plain wrong. Two things changed my opinion. 

First, I realized that the extra width we build into our wheels, and all the parts outside the wheels (sideframes, side rods, etc.) pretty much makes up for the difference. The flanges may be in the wrong place, but the outside of the side frames, the cylinder center lines, the valve gear, they're actually a lot closer to being correct than in most "scale" models in other scales. Since the cylinder spacing makes a huge impact on a steam loco's appearance, and too-wide side trams on trucks interfere with steps and other details, I decided that 1/29 might have some technical merit and in some ways actually allow a MORE accurate scale model. 

Second, I took a long, hard look at some photos of 1/29 models on 45mm vs 49.5mm track. Yeah, I saw a difference, but without the side by side comparison, it's not really that noticeable to me. As an engineer, I see these things every day, and I know how they should look, and I realized that it just doesn't bother me enough to make a fuss over. 

Would I like to see 1/32 be more prominent? Sure! To me, the smaller size is a benefit, allowing more railroad in a given space. It's the same reason people switch from O to HO to N. But if the majority of SG modelers want 1/29 instead, I'll just shrug and deal with it. My way of dealing with it is to accept it and go on to work on the things that really do bother me. It isn't worth starting a fight over four and a half millimeters.


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Ken
"in some ways actually allow a MORE accurate scale model." 
Please explain how a model that is not in "proper scale" be more accurate? Is there something added to the 1:29 model not on a similar 1:32 model due to size? I have compared live steam 1:29 vs 1:32 Accucraft K4's founding no difference as to the builds (both have wheels, tenders,boilers, cabs,piping, appliances, decals, classifications lights, number/builder plates, rivets, etc). If anyone happens to place the 1:29 next to the 1:32 does not see the huge impact of size difference then say it is not noticeable needs to look again. The true reason for success of 1:29 is it is "BIG" (but then again BIG could be Fn3 model) and the available railroad items (cars, buildings) that surround a locomotive.


----------



## benshell (Oct 1, 2008)

I'm very excited about the news of the upcoming AML Dreyfuss Hudson! Any new 1:29th scale steam locomotive is great news. Whether or not I buy one remains to be decided--it's a great looking steam locomotive, but it's a not a west coast prototype and that's what I collect. I'd be more excited for an SP locomotive. There has never been a single prototypical SP steam locomotive made in 1:29th scale, which I consider to be a serious oversight on the part of all the 1:29th scale manufacturers. I've considered a few 1:32 scale locomotives, but I think they look too small to go with most of my 1:29th scale freight cars. If anything, a 1:29th scale locomotive would go better with 1:32 cars rather than the other way around. Watch videos of freight trains in the 40's and you'll see the relative sizes of freight cars varied a lot! (Of course there's less room for error with a streamlined passenger train!) If I were starting over, I'd go with 1:32 scale because of the availability of the locomotives I want. Still, I prefer the oversized look of 1:29th scale. I know it's "wrong" but I don't care. I also prefer the wider availability of low[er] priced equipment in 1:29th scale.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Just a related aside - my buddy Jesse is building one of these in 1-1/2" scale for a customer. He just got the chassis running on air yesterday.


----------



## steamtom1 (Jan 2, 2008)

*Kevin,*

*If I'm not mistaken, this magnificent three in/four out crossover is from your Dad's layout. *


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By Charles on 20 Feb 2013 11:51 AM 
Ken
"in some ways actually allow a MORE accurate scale model." 
Please explain how a model that is not in "proper scale" be more accurate? Is there something added to the 1:29 model not on a similar 1:32 model due to size?
With the possible exception of a few Proto:XX (P:87, P:4, P:48, etc) models, every model I have ever seen had wheels which were too wide compared to the prototype. Many also have truck sideframes which are too thick as well. Many steam locos have side rods which are too thick and too widely spaced, in order to make room for out of scale hardware. The overall result is a truck or mechanism which is too wide. To deal with the problem, I've seen cylinders mounted too far apart (in order to line up with the too widely spaced side rods), or piston rods which are not in the center of the cylinders (my preferred compromise). I have seen diesel truck sideframes with material removed in order to prevent fouling on the step wells.

So, that's the problem with a "scale" model (in any scale) - unless you adhere strictly to exact scale dimensions for the moving parts (in other words, go for the Proto:XX thing) you are going to have to compromise somewhere. My point about 1/29 is that you can see it as compromising the other direction. Instead of widening everything associated with the running gear on every piece of rolling stock, they kept that dimension accurate and shifted the flanges (and therefore rails) inward slightly to compensate for the wider wheels and parts.

We're talking about a total difference of 4.5mm. That means that each flange is 2.25mm inboard of its prototypical location (assuming that every other aspect of the model is built exactly to 1/29 scale, for the sake of argument). But, a typical G1 wheel is about 6.8 mm wide, whereas the correct scale dimension should be about 4.8mm. We've made up all but .25mm of the discrepancy in the wheels alone! I strongly suspect that you'll find a 1/29 model has trucks and other associated running gear which is closer to the scale dimension than most "scale" models. And if they are still a little narrow (I don't really know, not having meausred one) it might be an advantage in having to deal with too-tight curves on which we all run.

Please understand, I'm not trying to say that 1/29 is better or more accurate than 1/32. What I'm saying is that they both have compromises in some rather major dimensions, and I can't really see how one is better than the other. Having tried to squeeze a too-wide steam mechanism into a scale width model, I can appreciate the advantage that 1/29 has in making the overall mechanism the right width.


----------



## Old Iron (Jan 2, 2008)

Fun fact: a 1:29 model is three times HO (1:87). Send a HO model to China and tell them to multiply by 3. Save on product design & development costs. I would call 1/29 a result of tight development budgets.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By Old Iron on 20 Feb 2013 03:06 PM 
Fun fact: a 1:29 model is three times HO (1:87). Send a HO model to China and tell them to multiply by 3. Save on product design & development costs. I would call 1/29 a result of tight development budgets.

Is there any evidence to show that any manufacturer has actually done this? I hear it repeated rather often, and I have seen modelers use HO drawings for 1/29 models. But has any manufacturer simply scaled up any HO scale model and produced it in 1/29?


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By DKRickman on 20 Feb 2013 03:30 PM 
Posted By Old Iron on 20 Feb 2013 03:06 PM 
Fun fact: a 1:29 model is three times HO (1:87). Send a HO model to China and tell them to multiply by 3. Save on product design & development costs. I would call 1/29 a result of tight development budgets.

Is there any evidence to show that any manufacturer has actually done this? I hear it repeated rather often, and I have seen modelers use HO drawings for 1/29 models. But has any manufacturer simply scaled up any HO scale model and produced it in 1/29? 
No, it never happened..its a myth, and its very easy to prove its a myth.
because HO scale models are never perfect either..
if you scaled up an HO scale model to make a 1/29 model, you would see the HO errors multiplied 3 times..
but no one has ever seen that..ever.

also, because HO scale models are quite small, the details are often much cruder than 1/29 scale models..
yet if we believed that some 1/29 models were simply derived from HO scale models, we would expect to see the crude HO scale
details also "scaled up" larger..but no one has ever that either..ever.

In fact, 1/29 models are often much _better_ detailed than HO scale models!
why? because its a myth..
No 1/29 models have been "scaled up" HO scale models..
they are all designed from scratch..
just looking at 1/29 scale models makes that instantly obvious..

"I would call 1/29 a result of tight development budgets."

absolutely completely 100% wrong..
1/29 has nothing to do with tight budgets, and its completely unrelated to any existing HO scale models.

O scale is older than HO scale..
HO scale is half of O-scale..
Should we therefore conclude that HO models are "Scaled down" O-scale models?
of course not..
Concluding the same for 1/29 and HO scale is equally ridiculous..

Scot


----------



## Old Iron (Jan 2, 2008)

That math works perfectly. Wow, wouldn’t it be crazy if 1/29 was a wacky coincidence.


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By Old Iron on 20 Feb 2013 03:06 PM 
Fun fact: a 1:29 model is three times HO (1:87). Send a HO model to China and tell them to multiply by 3. Save on product design & development costs. I would call 1/29 a result of tight development budgets.

16.5mm gauge x 3 = 49.5mm.
So, we are back to Proto29!!!!
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

16.5mm gauge x 3 = 49.5mm.So, we are back to Proto29!!!! 
Nice one, David!


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 21 Feb 2013 10:39 AM 
16.5mm gauge x 3 = 49.5mm.So, we are back to Proto29!!!! 
Nice one, David! 
That's what I'm doing...







P:29 American standard gauge!


----------



## steveciambrone (Jan 2, 2008)

Accucraft now has a page with a picture of the model prototype. 

http://www.accucraft.com/modelc/G751-01-4-6-4.htm#page=page-1 

Looks very good, the pre-order price on Ebay looks good also. 

Steve


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Not sure i want a locomotive made of "bras" ;-)


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Tom, correct on both counts--the Allison Wondersteam and the trackwork. 

Germain to this discussion, the double-slip switches were inspired by my grandfather's handlaid O-scale double-slip switches. He built them in the 1930s, to what today would be called "Proto:48." We had them in our basement for the longest time, but I think they were lost in a flood a few years ago. I still have the trains, at least. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Accucraft eStore http://www.accucraftestore.com/index.php?categoryID=446 
Pre-Order price $3,695 

http://www.accucraftestore.com/index.php?productID=1518


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Based on how popular many think 1:29 is, I would expect to see no less the 1000 units ordered (based on Aster selling 400 Mikados at about the same price point) Anything less will just enforce the belief that 1:29 is an inexpensive toy size.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By JEFF RUNGE on 24 Feb 2013 01:17 PM 
Based on how popular many think 1:29 is, I would expect to see no less the 1000 units ordered (based on Aster selling 400 Mikados at about the same price point) Anything less will just enforce the belief that 1:29 is an inexpensive toy size. 
Jeff,
So you are suggesting that the 1/29th community strive to order 1000 units in order NOT to be labelled an 'inexpensive toy size' ?


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

OK, Guys. Not knowing anything about USATrains . . . what coaches do I have to buy to match this luvverly beast? If I only buy 6, which would they be? Does USAT have a complete consist if I can afford 10 or 15 coaches?


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Anything less will just enforce the belief that 1:29 is an inexpensive toy size. 



It goes on and on and..............doesn't it?


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Well I see 1:29 as a parasite on the 1:32 market (standaed gauge models on gauge one track) And I fear it will hurt the live steam hobby... Remember, Standard Gauge, S, Gauge 2 and 3?? Too many scales in a small market.


----------



## steveciambrone (Jan 2, 2008)

This is just getting ridiculous, A parasite is smaller than the host, 1/29 scale is far more popular in the USA than 1/32 for indoor and garden railways. You have to include the sparkies also. 

This was a thread about a new AML release, it turned into a Anti-Twenty Niner gripe thread. 

Steve


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I agree Steve... now if this was a 1:32 thread on a new product, and the 1:29 people came in to complain, ****, even the moderators would come out to stomp the infidels! 

There's no way AML came into existence unless Accucraft thought it could make more and sell more... and the continued 1:29 products PROVE that it's making money. They aren't stupid, they are not "swapping" 1:29 for 1:32, they are after INCREMENTAL sales growth, to get more overall, not sacrifice one for the other... 

Greg


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

On the up side, with no cars to buy in 1:32 my money stays in my pocket.


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By JEFF RUNGE on 24 Feb 2013 09:36 PM 
On the up side, with no cars to buy in 1:32 my money stays in my pocket. 

But Jeff there are cars in 1:29


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Jason, even behind the Berkshire the 1:29 cars don't "look" right. Too wide and tall. Behind a Mikado they look really big. At the steam-ups I attend I am happy to say there are lots of 1:32 trains available to pull be behind my 1:32 engines If 1:29 was the only thing available I would happily pull them, I just won't buy any.


----------



## livesteam53 (Jan 4, 2008)

Here is a peak


----------



## Hugh Napier (Oct 10, 2012)

Gorgeous! So glad they picked one with Scullin wheels. I never liked the 'corrugated' look applied to some of the class and the Scullins win every time over Boxpoks! 

Hugh


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Maybe we could put blue "pimp lite" LEDs under the valance to light the motion? 

Thanks for the pics Mark! I love those Scullin drivers too.


----------



## John Allman (Jan 2, 2008)

I take it the original did not have a blind center driver. I wonder if that would be something Accucraft would consider changing.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

My guess is that it allows us with sharper curves to buy and operate the loco. I don't think it would work well on 8' diameter curves with all flanged drivers. 

10' would even be tight if my AML 1:29 K4 is any example. 

They need to make compromises to sell the most product. So, I for one want the blind center driver thank you very much. 

Greg


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 27 Feb 2013 04:34 PM 
My guess is that it allows us with sharper curves to buy and operate the loco. I don't think it would work well on 8' diameter curves with all flanged drivers. 

10' would even be tight if my AML 1:29 K4 is any example. 

They need to make compromises to sell the most product. So, I for one want the blind center driver thank you very much. 

Greg 
Greg,
A locomotive like this is really not suitable for 4 foot radius - (8 foot diameter) curves.
Most 6 coupled locos should be fine with all flanged drivers on 8 foot radius (16 foot diameter).
It's just a matter of the manufacturer allowing sufficient side play, and allowance for the front bogie to miss hitting the cylinders amongst other things.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Greg, et al 

For those with finely calibrated eyeballs [like Mr. Runge], the BIG advantage is being able to put the drivers closer to their correct spacing. The extra space required for the over sized flanges would require altering the length of the frame. This is NOT A NEW PROBLEM. It has ruined the appearance of a lot of brass models in H0 and even 0 scale. 

Unfortunately, to meet this specification ==> Mini. radius 48 in. [8 ft diameter] the blind driver [NOT touching the rails] is essential. I think it detracts from the model. Oh well, since I am not buying one... I don't have a dog in this fight [unlike Jeff, who isn't buying one either].


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

David, you are entitled to your opinion. 

But in 1:29 most manufacturers strive to accommodate 8 foot diameter curves... If you looked into what is done in 1:29 on 3 axle diesels you would see this right away. Aristo has done some very creative things to accomplish this in their steamers. 

Since I DO own two AML 1:29 locos of a similar style (which will negotiate 8' diameter), I DO know what they did... I also am in very close contact with various people in Accucraft, as a matter of fact some nice 2 hour conversations with Bing... so I'm not unaware of their intentions. 

So, not really sure of how you determine/define "not suitable", but it CAN be done and HAS been done, and Accucraft also of course wants to sell as many as possible. 

I know this is a live steam forum, so maybe many of you think much larger curves and 1:32 fidelity, but when this loco comes out in "sparky" they would be in serious trouble if 16 foot diameter was the minimum. 

Greg 

p.s. I just checked their site after I finished the above, the minimum radius is STATED as 4 foot... so the argument is moot... it DOES handle 8 foot diameter curves. So it IS suitable...


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Hi Greg, 
I guess when I said not suitable, I was really meaning 'look funny, or strange'. 
I am quiet aware that these models are made to go around very tight circles, but to my eye they look much more realistic going around much larger curves. 
That's all. 
Cheers, 
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By livesteam53 on 26 Feb 2013 10:04 PM 
Here is a peak



















Mark - 4th small photo (top row, rhs) is interesting. The data sheet talks about a "drain valve" and I'm sure I've see a reference to a 'boiler drain'. Would that be the boiler drain valve, over the center driver?

And finally - from the order form [which I am filling in next]

*ETA: Live Steam - Fall 2013, Electric - Winter 2013
*


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Would that be the boiler drain valve, over the center driver?That looks like a cylinder cock to me. In the large overall shot you can see it also - bottom of the cylinders between the pilot wheels.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

I agree Steve... now if this was a 1:32 thread on a new product, and the 1:29 people came in to complain, ****, even the moderators would come out to stomp the infidels!Not unless it turned personal, which this thread hasn't.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

David, I understand and appreciate your definition. 

They indeed look very bad going around anything near 10' diameter, completely agree. 

But us SG guys are basically ALWAYS on too tight of a curve ha! 

So we usually just have to live with it. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Pete 

I will confirm that the pic you refer to is a cylinder cock. They are on several of my Accucraft engines, both 1:20.3 and 1:32. 

I have never seen a "boiler drain" on a model, unless by that you mean a "blow down". IIRC, I don't think they are that common. I am awaiting correction.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

It is clearly the cylinder cocks. You can see the hex bolt head on the end of the cylinder. 

I have never seen a "boiler drain" on a model, unless by that you mean a "blow down". 
Jim, 
I haven't seen one (yet) but given that the latest Accucraft locos are weighing north of 30 lbs, it is getting increasingly difficult to empty the boiler without crushing some details. [Which is an opening for someone to complain about too much detail on Accucraft live steamers!] We could also discuss the need to empty the boiler, but as my locos get left for 6+ months without being used, I prefer to drain them.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

There was a good discussion on boiler drains, prototype and in models a while ago, was also a lot of information from people's experiences draining and not draining... 

Hey, we haven't had a good steam oil debate in a while! (Don't forget deionized vs. distilled vs. Japanese rain water).









Greg


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

That center flangless driver not touching the rail looks wierd.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By jfrank on 01 Mar 2013 08:00 AM 
That center flangless driver not touching the rail looks wierd. 

Don't tell me - you really wanted an exact scale 1/32nd model with all drivers flanged and a 3 meter min radius.









All things come to those who wait. . .


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

Its really no different then any of the other DRG locos, you can just modify the lower journal retainer to allow it do drop to the railhead. Was done on many K27s and I did it on my K28. Also did the Mogul to but it doesn't run on 10' dia anymore. So ill throw in a shim to lift it off the railhead.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think the issue is the center driver dropping below the railhead on a curve and then when the curve starts to straighten out, now the driver needs to "climb" back up to the railhead, can cause real problems. 

Since the AML 1:29 stuff has one driver gear driven, and the rest driven from the connecting rods, you cannot have the huge lateral motion like on an Aristo... that is how they keep all flanged drivers. 

(The Aristo has all drivers gear driven and the connecting rods are hinged and just "along for the ride" so they can accommodate the lateral motion) 

Something has to give somewhere to let these large locos traverse such tight curves. 

Greg


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 01 Mar 2013 08:15 AM 
Posted By jfrank on 01 Mar 2013 08:00 AM 
That center flangless driver not touching the rail looks wierd. 

Don't tell me - you really wanted an exact scale 1/32nd model with all drivers flanged and a 3 meter min radius.









All things come to those who wait. . .



Yep, I guess. That one looks just too much like a Lionel toy train. I really don't think a flanged center driver would need 3 meter min radius. I have pacifics that run on much tighter curves, more like 6' radius, with all the drivers flanged. They are trying to make an engine for the LGB people.


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

My same thought John. My Pacifics go around fine. Heck my 844 I made from a Pacific, with the extra driver goes fine also.


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Jerry Barnes on 01 Mar 2013 10:48 AM 
My same thought John. My Pacifics go around fine. Heck my 844 I made from a Pacific, with the extra driver goes fine also. 
One aspect could be the difference between the flanges in regards to Aristocraft and Accucraft that are being used in 1:29


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Charles, have you ever examined an Aristo gear box? They have almost ONE INCH of lateral motion EACH. That is definitely the major factor. 

I'm assuming Jerry is talking an Aristo pacific. 

Greg


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 01 Mar 2013 11:32 AM 
Charles, have you ever examined an Aristo gear box? They have almost ONE INCH of lateral motion EACH. That is definitely the major factor. 

I'm assuming Jerry is talking an Aristo pacific. 

Greg 
Greg

Not since I sold by 1:29 collection many, many years ago!


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yep, so you might have only seen the "original" drive trains, which do not have this feature... kind of clever, but requires the siderods to be decoration, not really "doing their job". 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 01 Mar 2013 10:11 AM 
I think the issue is the center driver dropping below the railhead on a curve and then when the curve starts to straighten out, now the driver needs to "climb" back up to the railhead, can cause real problems. 

Since the AML 1:29 stuff has one driver gear driven, and the rest driven from the connecting rods, you cannot have the huge lateral motion like on an Aristo... that is how they keep all flanged drivers. 

(The Aristo has all drivers gear driven and the connecting rods are hinged and just "along for the ride" so they can accommodate the lateral motion) 

Something has to give somewhere to let these large locos traverse such tight curves. 

Greg 

I have to ask how this thread turned onto a Aristo ELECTRIC thread? Can any further posts remain as live steam talk and related to the Accucraft version? No reason that anywhere in the Live Steam forum Aristocraft and their electric practices need to be discussed that's why there is a electric forum. I just tired of all this......


----------



## NYC Buff (Sep 21, 2008)

Mr. Elmassian,

In your comments earlier in this topic, you mentioned steam oil, distilled water, deionized water and Japanese Rain Water. Unfortunately, you forgot about the great Russian technological breakthrough in water science in the late 60s. I am sure that Russian live steam modelers would be thrilled if American and European live steamers would start using that remarkable scientific discovery - polywater - with its remarkable physical properties as an alternative to your noted options. This discovery has been kept under wraps for far too long. Now is a perfect time for its emergence. 

Do you agree?

Respectfully,

NYC Buff


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Look at the photo on their web site now, and the center driver is in firm contact with the rails. My guess is that it's sprung the same as the K-4, EBT #12, and the mogul--all locos with blind center drivers, and fairly similar wheelbases, and all suitable for 4' radius curves. My guess is that there was something slightly askew in the photo shown above that was keeping the axle off the rails. 

In terms of the driver being blind in the first place, I never noticed it on the K-4, so I suspect it will blend in as well on this model. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 01 Mar 2013 01:22 PM 
Look at the photo on their web site now, and the center driver is in firm contact with the rails. My guess is that it's sprung the same as the K-4, EBT #12, and the mogul--all locos with blind center drivers, and fairly similar wheelbases, and all suitable for 4' radius curves. My guess is that there was something slightly askew in the photo shown above that was keeping the axle off the rails. 

In terms of the driver being blind in the first place, I never noticed it on the K-4, so I suspect it will blend in as well on this model. 

Later, 

K Kevin
Most people probably do not know that the "real" PRR K4's were originally fitted with a center blind driver so you are correct but the blind drivers were omitted early on.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Jason, this is not a thread about Aristo electric, the part of the discussion was about minimum curvature track for the upcoming model.

Someone brought up that their Aristo pacific could traverse tight curves, so I helped explain why the Aristo was very different from the AML design.

Also, if you are interested in the "purity" of the thread, the title says "1:29" not 1:32...









And usually the electric version of the AML locos hits before the steam version... so what appears in the electric model may help further "predict" some of the characteristics of the ls version.

Hopefully this helps your "tiredness"...









Greg


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

And usually the electric version of the AML locos hits before the steam version 

Not this time! 

Live Steam - Fall 2013, Electric - Winter 2013


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I investigated further, and that someone went to the accucraft offices with a weapon demanding a change in schedule... looks like he was successful... now they are demanding a change in scale? 

Just kidding! 

Greg


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 01 Mar 2013 03:03 PM 
And usually the electric version of the AML locos hits before the steam version 

Not this time! 

Live Steam - Fall 2013, Electric - Winter 2013 
----------
Yes, that is what the ad I received the other day said. If those dates are correct the electric will precede the the live steam. My guess is that there is a typo and they meant winter 2014, not 2013. 


Chuck


----------



## K27_463 (Jan 2, 2008)

In this case, the live steam model has been under secret development for a long while. Originally there was no intent to build an electric. The live steam schedule dates are correct, as a functional pilot model already exists. This is key, once a working pilot model can be held in your hand, production is near and ready. The addition of an electric production run was a very recent decision and project direction change, based on inquiry in the market. This works because the coaches already exist, from USA Trains. 
Get your order in early 

jonathan/EMW 
www.rctrains.com


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By K27_463 on 01 Mar 2013 08:34 PM 
This works because the coaches already exist, from USA Trains. 

jonathan/EMW 
www.rctrains.com 
Well ..... they are New York Central, but not really correct to go behind the Dreyfuss Hudson.
But, I guess if you are happy with 1/29, then they are okay!!!
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Wouldn't the Aristo heavyweights be more appropriate? 

Talked to AML on another issue today, and did learn just what Jonathan stated, interesting situation and some more possibilities, but will stay fixed on the LS aspect. 

I will be purchasing one in sparky when it appears. 

Greg


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 01 Mar 2013 10:53 PM 
Wouldn't the Aristo heavyweights be more appropriate? 

Greg, 
The Dreyfuss Hudsons were designed to pull the new 20th Century Limited cars, which were lightweight streamlined cars with full width diaphragms.
They were light grey to match the loco, with a dark grey band through the windows, with blue striping between the two greys, and two silver stripes through the windows.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

All the best,David Leech 
David, 
I wish you'd stop tantalizing us with those photos of coaches. We can't get 'all the best' as you don't take orders !!! 

Ad I did ask a while ago what was a sensible set of USAT coaches for the loco to pull. I guess a baggage, diner, observation, pullman and a couple of day coaches ? Times two for a proper consist? [Only $250 each, so there goes another $2,000 - 4,000.] 

I wonder if Alan (G.A.L.) can cut me some lightweight Twentieth Century coaches in styrene. I still have the MR plans pinned to my wall.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 01 Mar 2013 10:53 PM 
Wouldn't the Aristo heavyweights be more appropriate? 


Not for this locomotive..

the NYC Streamlined Hudson wouldn't have pulled heavyweights.
The USA cars would be a much better "visual" match than the Aristo Heavyweights..
although I dont know the exact prototype of the USA cars..

Even if the USA cars arent an exact match down to exact window patterns and such,
they will certainty "look the part" very nicely..definitely the best (and only RTR) choice for this locomotive.

although the stock USA Trains NYC paintscheme doesnt exactly match this locomotive..
the USA cars in the NYC scheme carry a later 1940's and 1950's paintscheme, to match the Alco PA diesels..
So, if you want to be really accurate, repainting of the cars will be necessary!
although even unrepainted, they will still look very nice behind the Hudson..
New York Central System 20TH CENTURY LIMITED. 1938 edition. 

Scot


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

1938 20th Century Limited paintscheme (to match the Hudson) 









USA Trains paintscheme, 1948 (and later) 20th Century Limited paintscheme, to match passenger diesels: 









Scot


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The windows were purple? The window shades were olive drab? 

Wild colors! 

So the Aristo HW's are too old, and the USAT streamliners are too new.... what to do? I guess I'd repaint them.... 

Greg


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

The USA streamliners arent too new in style, just in paintscheme.. 
repainting would make for a gorgeous train! it would be quite an undertaking, 
but im sure someone will go for it!  

Scot


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

I guess I'd repaint them.... 
Isn't there a problem getting the windows out? Or is that the Aristo heavyweights ? 

Funnily enough, I have a couple of Aristo NYC Heavyweights up on a shelf over my desk, behind the Pacific and Atlantic.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Now what does a all ATSF guy want with a NYC loco? I don't recall ATSF having anything close to this type loco. Later RJD


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

But it is beautiful.... 

The ATSF "Blue Goose" would be great


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 02 Mar 2013 08:49 AM 
The USA streamliners arent too new in style, just in paintscheme.. 
repainting would make for a gorgeous train! it would be quite an undertaking, 
but im sure someone will go for it!  

Scot 
Scot,
Now of course we don't know what the actual production models will look like, but based on the photos, they have missed out the blue lines on the tender, and have them as silver (white?).
It is possible that at sometime they were this way, I don't know. 
But, while someone is repainting their cars, if they choose the 20th Century paint job with the blue stripes, then they 'should' paint (re-line) the tender to match.
You are correct, it would look good.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

they have missed out the blue lines on the tender, and have them as silver (white?).It is possible that at sometime they were this way, I don't know. 
This gets very interesting. I've been googling around lookng at the online images, and yes, the early version (1938?) had the blue stripes and the later (diesel) era have the blue cars with white stripes. Here's a good one of the train with the (blue) stripes: 










[I did find this page - chock-a-block with interesting stuff on the train: menues, movies, posters, etc. 
newyorksocialdiary dot com/node/225401 ]

However, our concern is the white/silver striped versions. I didn't find a photo, but I did notice, on the youtube videos of the "On The Twentieth Century" stage musical, that the coaches have the white/silver stripes. And, from Architectural Digest, here's our prototype with the white/silver stripes:











I also found a wartime poster on eBay showing all the work on the 20th Century coaches between trips, and it had the white/silver stripes.

And I looked for a photo of my old Williams brass O-scale Dreyfuss Hudson from years ago and it had the wite stripes too.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 02 Mar 2013 08:13 AM 
1938 20th Century Limited paintscheme (to match the Hudson) 









USA Trains paintscheme, 1948 (and later) 20th Century Limited paintscheme, to match passenger diesels: 









Scot 
It also occurred to me that someone should point out to Charles Ro that the loco is coming, and a re-run of their NYC coaches in the early (wartime?) grey with white stripes would make excellent marketing sense. They might figure it out when the dealers start clamoring for more NYC stock about this time next year . . .


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

This presumes Vendor U would want to help vendor A. Unfortunately this synergistic behavior is not very common in large scale. 

It does not even matter that Vendor A's new product will actually encourage sales of Vendor U's products.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Nice idea Pete.... when you approached Charlie, the first thing he would ask is how many would he sell? So one set for maybe every third Dreyfuss sold? 

The numbers are too small... USAT deals in much larger volumes... you can find out how Kader/Sanda Kan volumes work by reading all the "woes of production" published by Lewis Polk, in about every other Aristo Insider. 

Better to get a group of guys together and contract a custom painter to do a batch. That might work. 

Greg


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Pete, 
It could be that only a few of the ten Dreyfuss Hudsons received the 20th Century lining, those that were to regularly pull the train. 
The others could have received the 'regular' lining! 
Therefor, they could perhaps pull whatever type of car you like. 
It's your loco anyway!!!! 
We need a New York Central expert please. 
All the best, 
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## NYC Buff (Sep 21, 2008)

Gentlemen:

The exact details of the paint scheme for the 1938 Twentieth Century Limited Livery are provided in a very good book about said famous NYC Passenger Train. The name of the book is "The Twentieth Century Limited 1938 - 1967." The authors is Richard J. Cook, Sr. The publisher is TLC Publishing, Inc. The ISBN is 1-883069-02-6.

You will find the specifics for the original release (1938) and subsequent revisions of the paint scheme 1939, 1940, 1942 and 1946 on page 45 of the book. The colors were light gray, dark gray, blue, aluminum gray, aluminum and black. The shade of blue (Navy, Royal, Robin's Egg, Baby, Sky) is not specified. The striping varied in width from 3.75 inches to 0.125 inches.

I doubt given the smallest stripe dimension that the color scheme could be faithfully reproduced in 1:32 or 1:29 scales. Also the number of variants would provide considerable grist for the debate mill regarding correctness or fidelity to prototype.

I hope that this information is helpful to all interested parties.

Respectfully,

NYC Buff


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Not to even mention that the 1938 cars rode on PULLMAN 43-R TRIPLE BOLSTER trucks that are the ones shown in Scot's drawing, as opposed to the more modern 41-N trucks. These appear to be what USA Trains modeled. 

Accucraft used the correct 43-R trucks on their 1:32 scale brass SP Daylight cars.


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Thank you Mr. NYC Buff. 
But, so were all ten of the Dreyfuss Hudson given this same scheme originally? 
Also, according to my information, the only 1/8" stripes, are the black edges to the main stripes. 
The main stripes were 2" Aluminum, 2 1/2" Blue, and 3 3/4" Aluminum. 
Also the shade of blue is "OPEX", a lighter shade than 70-53 Nickel Plate blue. 
How much lighter????? 
All the best, 
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By Dr Rivet on 03 Mar 2013 09:10 AM 
Not to even mention that the 1938 cars rode on PULLMAN 43-R TRIPLE BOLSTER trucks that are the ones shown in Scot's drawing, as opposed to the more modern 41-N trucks. These appear to be what USA Trains modeled. 

Accucraft used the correct 43-R trucks on their 1:32 scale brass SP Daylight cars. 
Except for the Baggage-Mail car, and the two Dining cars that rode on six wheeled trucks.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

David 

1] The 1938 Daylight did not have an RPO of any kind. The first car was a baggage-chair car. 

2] I did not mention the three unit articulated diner with its three axle trucks since there was no equivalent car on the NYC. 

The Daylight only ever had ONE diner in the consist. There was a tavern-lounge, but that is a different car and had the same trucks. 

I am sure we both have a copy of "Train 98-99" so I suggest we not bore the (mostly) uninterested parties with arcane details of early Pullman passenger car truck designs. 

You know that my point was that the two designs are visually quite distinct.


----------



## NYC Buff (Sep 21, 2008)

Mr. Leech, 

The engines were painted in the original scheme and then modified on the dates noted in the book to the best of my knowledge. All locomotives would have been painted in the prevailing scheme as the Century was often run in multiple sections in both directions. Presumably the 10 engines for Century service 5445 - 5454 were divided equally between Harmon, New York and Chicago, Illinois. There was a provision for engines to be shop for required monthly and annual service and unfortunately I do not have any specifics on the logistics of these efforts. Suffice it to say that the NYC took this into consideration when they set aside 10 engines foe special shrouding and paint scheme for Twentieth Century Limited Service. I would think that with each change in decorative scheme that there were overlaps in schemes with a period that two schemes might be seen in service. 

Thank you for the comment about OPEX Blue. That shade probably can be found in historical railroad paint documents given the name of the paint manufacturer. I suspect that there is a paint chip somewhere in that shade of blue. 

Respectfully, 

NYC Buff


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By Dr Rivet on 03 Mar 2013 10:13 AM 
David 

1] The 1938 Daylight did not have an RPO of any kind. The first car was a baggage-chair car. 

2] I did not mention the three unit articulated diner with its three axle trucks since there was no equivalent car on the NYC. 

The Daylight only ever had ONE diner in the consist. There was a tavern-lounge, but that is a different car and had the same trucks. 

I am sure we both have a copy of "Train 98-99" so I suggest we not bore the (mostly) uninterested parties with arcane details of early Pullman passenger car truck designs. 

You know that my point was that the two designs are visually quite distinct. 




Jim,
I think that we are talking at cross purposes here.
I was talking about the 1938 NYC 20th Century Limited and the cars with six wheel trucks.
Regards,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

The name of the book is "The Twentieth Century Limited 1938 - 1967." 
Amazon had several (19 vendors) used copies for $8+ with $3.99 shipping, so I ordered one.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

This presumes Vendor U would want to help vendor A. 
Jim, you have a very jaundiced view of the world. I'm a little more optimistic! 

I would say that, as Vendor A is going to (accidently) encourage sales of Vendor U's products anyway, then Vendor U might be interested in making some product available that doesn't need repainting. You scratch my back . . 

Anyone have a feel for how many K4s were sold? I'd guess a couple of hundred at least, and this loco could sell more. So Vendor U might sell a few train sets (e.g. approx 10 coaches each set,) if they were in blue, but might sell a hundred sets if they match the engine.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

I could totally see Accucraft and USA trains working together on a project like this! 
because it would benefit them both.. 

Accucraft probably isnt interested in making a full trainset for this locomotive. 
USA already has the cars.. 
If the two companys worked together, to make a matching trainset for the locomotive: 
1. USA sells more cars. 
2. Accucraft could potentially sell more locomotives! because there are probably some buyers who would be interested in buying the whole train, locomotive plus cars. 
but might not want to buy just the locomotive alone, if there aren't cars to match. 
(granted, buyers *that* rich are unusual! but they exist..) 

So working together would benefit both companys, and there would be no drawback for either. 
I have no idea if it has actually happened or not! but I see no reason why it couldn't.. 

Scot


----------



## benshell (Oct 1, 2008)

One of the things I've learned from this thread is that apparently the USA Trains NYC passenger cars are also incorrect for the USA Trains NYC Hudson! So that means USA Trains doesn't sell a prototypical steam passenger trainset. (I'm being loose with the term prototypical--I'd be happy just have the correct type of locomotive and the correct paint scheme!) I count myself as a potential buyer who would only be interested in buying a whole passenger train, locomotive plus cars. I probably won't be buying the Dreyfuss Hudson anyway since I don't collect NYC, and this locomotive and the USA Trains passenger (if the paint schemes even match, and are available) will too expensive for an impulse purchase. But I've been very interested in this thread because I do want a steam passenger train in 1:29th scale, and there aren't many to choose from. Certainly the manufacturers working together would lead to more sales by both. Otherwise, I'll just save my money until someone does make what I want.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Well, the level of "incorrect-ness" is a grey area in this case.. 

Yes, it will be true the USA Trains passenger cars are not 100% exactly correct for this New York Central Hudson. 
but they are quite close in overall style..they are the correct "type" of passenger cars, even if they arent correct down to every last window and door. 
(which they wont be) 
So the style of the cars will "look the part" very nicely, but no, they wont be absolutely correct. 
And so far, the paint scheme doesn't match. 

But they are definitely the best cars available for this locomotive. 
If they could be painted in the correct paint scheme, they would be "as accurate" as virtually every other model passenger train ever made. 
which is to say, "mostly accurate"  
Scot


----------



## NYC Buff (Sep 21, 2008)

Ben, 

The 1948 version Twentieth Century Limited Passenger Cars manufactured by USA Trains are correct for use behind either J1 or J3 non-streamlined Hudsons. They would also be appropriate behind L3 or L4 Mohawks or S1 Niagaras as well as behind EMD E7 and E8 Diesels with the 1948 Century Livery. 

I hope that this allays any confusion on your part. 

Respectfully, 

NYC Buff


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

are correct for use behind either J1 or J3 non-streamlined Hudsons. 
And guess who makes a non-streamlined Hudson? USA Trains. If it were ten identical coaches and an observation then it might be worth doing a batch. I'm sure that the volumes for the various cars aren't enough to make anyone excited - 10 or 20 sets ? But "custom" painting is what happens to a basic USAT coach after it has been manufactured, so a different paint scheme (wartime grey with white strips, like our loco) still makes business sense to me. 

_Jim assures me that Vendor U is really, really not interested in helping someone else sell product ! _ 

NYCBuff - thanks for your help and info.


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

I won't buy one unless the correct cars with the correct trucks are produced also. And I want a flanged middle driver.


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Okay John, so if I say that I will fix the flanges on the middle driver, and build you a set of 10 cars, for say a total of $20,000 we have a deal? 
Or did you have a dollar amount in mind???? 
All the best, 
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By jfrank on 04 Mar 2013 09:48 AM 
I won't buy one unless the correct cars with the correct trucks are produced also. And I want a flanged middle driver. 

John,Jerry Hyde indicated there will be a 1/32nd scale model with alcohol firing - just for you. Not sure about the coches, but by then, who knows?


----------



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi Ben and others: 

When the USA Trains 5343 and 5344 NYC Hudson came out, I spoke with Lewis Polk as to having him do a run of NYC heavyweights. Lewis replied that he did not have good luck with selling the NYC heavyweights to which I replied that was because he made the ugly grey ones ! ( Slight preference expressed by myself ) 

Anyways, Lewis did agree to do at least one production run of the green NYC heavyweights for folks who bought the USA Trains Hudson. Problem of finding the correct coaches solved. 

Likewise, folks who intend to buy the steamline Accucraft Hudson should call USA Trains and ask to speak with Charles Senior. There is a minimum production paint run required at the China factory. 

Alternatively, contact Bing or Cliff at Accucraft and ask if 1:29 heavyweight cars will be produced. 

There must be a professional custom painter on line who can custom paint a large volume of USA Trains coaches in paint run. 


Norman


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 04 Mar 2013 02:39 PM 
Posted By jfrank on 04 Mar 2013 09:48 AM 
I won't buy one unless the correct cars with the correct trucks are produced also. And I want a flanged middle driver. 

John,Jerry Hyde indicated there will be a 1/32nd scale model with alcohol firing - just for you. Not sure about the coches, but by then, who knows? 


Pete

As per the Accucraft website and our own eyes:
Smooth Side Passenger Cars, 1:32 Scale (in development)

Could be a matching set with the locomotive in good order (whenever the timing is set forth). My speculation is that Accuraft was well aware of USA trains 1:29 coaches and decided that they had the market and probably would react to the Accucraft NYC Hudson with a production run of coaches to meet the demand. Given that no one offers 1:32 coaches that is where they invested the monies (as they did with the Daylight coaches).


----------



## Larry Green (Jan 2, 2008)

Anyone serious about having available production passenger stock custom painted, contact Shawmut Car Shops. He is a regular vendor at the ECLSTS in York, in two weeks, and his work looks very nice to me.


Larry


----------



## NYC Buff (Sep 21, 2008)

Gentlemen:

I seem to be missing some element of this discussion regarding the decorative scheme that appeared on the 1938 version of the Twentieth Century Limited. The entire train, engines and all cars, were initially released with the same decorative scheme and then this scheme evolved over the period 1939 through 1946 to a somewhat different decorative scheme. The original blue bands were removed and supplanted with an aluminum band. Other changes occurred at various times as cited in the book that I have previously noted in an earlier response.

The crux of the matter is which decorative scheme will be the one chosen by Accucraft/AML as most representative of the the 1938 version of the Twentieth Century Limited? There is a major issue if the release by Accucraft/AML is the original version with the blue bands above and below the window band. If it is the other versions post blue bands, then the match to the 1948 version is not quite so obviously a mismatch except for the light gray/dark gray arrangement which was inverted for the 1948 version.

The other comment is that by the end of 1946 all of the Twentieth Century Limited Streamlined Hudsons had had the streamlined shrouds removed because they created too many problems with maintenance. That being said it becomes obvious that a Streamlined Hudson never headed a 1948 version Twentieth Century Limited Passenger Train. At this point any argument about authenticity becomes moot. It is now a matter of personal taste how the AML Dreyfus Hudson could be teamed with passenger equipment. I might add that when not in Century service a Steamined Hudson might pull locals from either Harmon, New York or Chicago, Illinois or be used in intermediate distance service. In these instances the Streamlined Hudsons pulled trains with mixes of smoothside and heavyweight equipment. There is photographic evidence these arrangements in the many books on the New York Central Railroad.

Respectfully,

NYC Buff


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Mr. NYC Buff, 
So are you saying that the Opex Blue lines only were used during the first year, 1938? 
I didn't know that. 
Many thanks, 
All the best, 
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

this scheme evolved over the period 1939 through 1946 to a somewhat different decorative scheme 
the Opex Blue lines only were used during the first year, 1938? 
David, 
I think from what our NYCBuff is saying, and from what I have seen online so far, that the color scheme with white/silver/alum stripes replacing the blue arrived sometime during WWII.


----------



## Paul G. (Jan 10, 2012)

I'm following this thread because I recently learned of AML's intent to produce a streamlined J-3, and I'm reading laments over the availability of correct carsets. One choice for a 1/29 steam passenger train is Pennsy's Broadway or Liberty Limiteds. An AML prewar green K4 and USA Trains Broadway Limited carset is a possibility. As far I as have been able to determine, the Raymond Loewy designed tuscon and black Fleet of Modernism cars, which debuted in 1938 at the same time as NYC's 20th Century and Empire State Express, were pulled from Harrisburg to Chicago by unstreamlined K4s from that time through most of the war years until at least 1943. The striping is a bit different from the original cars, but not having to match an engine, it looks fine. My K4 has pulled a six car set at a scale 80-85mph or so, so I expect it would pull a ten car train pretty well. I don't know how long the Dreyfuss J-3s ran after the war or if they got naked during the war years, or if some might have soldiered on pulling mixed/mismatched consists. I know Pennsy sure did that.

Right now I'm trying hard to convince myself I don't need another passenger engine. As with most hobbies, the question is never where to start, but when to stop...


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By David Leech on 04 Mar 2013 11:21 AM 
Okay John, so if I say that I will fix the flanges on the middle driver, and build you a set of 10 cars, for say a total of $20,000 we have a deal? 
Or did you have a dollar amount in mind???? 
All the best, 
David Leech, Delta, Canada 

LOL David. Hey, why don't I just give you a blank check. If Accucraft decides to market some generic smooth side passenger cars in various paint schemes that might do the trick. It is a beautiful engine. Hard to pass by even though I am mostly narrow gauge.


----------



## GaugeOneLines (Feb 23, 2008)

Posted By Charles on 04 Mar 2013 03:03 PM 
Pete

As per the Accucraft website and our own eyes:
Smooth Side Passenger Cars, 1:32 Scale (in development)

Could be a matching set with the locomotive in good order (whenever the timing is set forth). My speculation is that Accuraft was well aware of USA trains 1:29 coaches and decided that they had the market and probably would react to the Accucraft NYC Hudson with a production run of coaches to meet the demand. Given that no one offers 1:32 coaches that is where they invested the monies (as they did with the Daylight coaches).


Charles, 
Check out my post of Feb 28 2008 on the MLS Rolling Stock Forum "Let's discuss 1:32 Rolling Stock" on page 3. We all know as I said back then that Accucraft, like the Good Lord, move in mysterious ways, sometimes at the speed of molasses in January but move they do. Things are rolling along I understand but instead of extruded aluminum I think we might see water jet cut aluminum shells, the rest being injection moulded to help keep the coaches affordable.
David M-K
Ottawa


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

DMK

I try to catch your posts but given the "Rolling Stock Forum" I missed the advance on the potential coaches. As you indicated considerable time has passed but there is hope in the near future...well something in the future.


----------



## NYC Buff (Sep 21, 2008)

Mr. Leech,

In response to your qery regarding the OPEX Blue Stripes on the 1938 version of The Twentieth century Limited, the OPEX Blue Stripes were removed within the first year of service. The introduction of The Twentieth Century Limited was in early June of 1938. The first service run was on June 15, 1938. The initial number of cars released was 50. Additional cars were added for service during 1939. The OPEX Blue Stripe was changed to an aluminum stripe that was narrower and did not have the black edge bands. The 50 initial cars were revised during the 1939 calendar year with no specific information regarding schedule. The other changes that occurred through 1946 were probably handled in a similar manner.

It remains to be seen which paint scheme will be adopted for use by AML - original, 1939, 1940, 1942 or 1946. The upper and lower light gray with window band dark gray will remain a problem with match to the 1948 version USA Trains Passenger Cars as the light and dark gray scheme was inverted for 1948.

I hope that these comments dispel any confusion.

Respectfully,

NYC Buff


----------



## du-bousquetaire (Feb 14, 2011)

To return to live steam and a very necessary live steam accessory on Accucraft modern standard gauge power: I think the necessity of a blowdown valve on their heavy super power is essential. Try and empty your boiler after a run on the PRR T 1 and you will see that it is a real muscular acheivment. Plus a risk to actually bend or unsolder some of the streamline shroud. If Ralf Nader was still around he would have them all return to Accucraft to have them install this indispensible accessory. Beleve me with the T1 it is not a luxury gadget! 
I always drain my engines after buying from John Van Riemsdjik two of his old engines. He didn't empty them and used tap water in his boilers. The clacks weren't shuting properly so I dismantled them to correct this, and the fitting just broke like glass in my hands. I had to open out the hole by file and then retap the hole in the boiler and reorder two clacks from Aster Japan. Dezincification comes from an electrolysis phenomenon in small loco boilers which has Ions going from the Zinc in the brass fitting to the stainless steel ball. So if you keep water (especially tap water) in your boiler you are heading for problems with any fitting below the water level. OS large scale steam locos recognized this problem due to customers complaints, and has since opted for Bronze fittings where ever they are under the water level. I have been running live steam gauge one since the mid '70 and can tell you that I empty my boilers every time, especially since we have a 5 - 6 month winter were there is very little running. I never have had that problem since. 
It is high time we ask manufacturers to fit such indispensible thing as blow down valves on their large locos. And we should even suggest to them to specify bronze bushes and fittings below the water level. 
Happy steaming to all. And yes that blind center driver in midair is a disaster, but then so is a Dreyfuss J3 on a 4' radius curve, with code 315 rail and in 1/29 scale to boot! By the way I don't think there is one USA streamline passenger car whose diagram even closely resembles the ones on the Century [I checked for the Broadway and know they (NYC and PRR) had the same cars made by Pullman standard] adding another problem to the livery one. Not to mention the trucks. 
You see, us 1/32 boys aren't in that disastrous a position after all... 
Well running season is hopefully on it's way, my best to all.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

to fit such indispensible thing as blow down valves on their large locos 
D-B, 
Can I just correct the terminology, as Accucraft has already fitted 'blow-down' valves to some locos, and they are NOT always suitable for draining the boiler. Some are mounted high on the backhead, and others low at flue level. The high ones are useful when steaming up to flush out excess water, the low ones good for removing steam pressure when the run is finished. Neither will allow you to drain the boiler. 

Those of us, like D-B, who drain their boilers because we don't get to run more than once in a blue moon, need a proper boiler drain.


----------



## iceclimber (Aug 8, 2010)

I know this matter of water has been discussed before. What about keeping steam distilled water which has been boiled in boiler after runs. My Mikado has no boiler blowdown valve and even if it did, aren't most of these high enough which would still neccesitate one to turn over the engine while the filler plug is open to thoroughly drain the boiler?


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By iceclimber on 11 Mar 2013 08:03 AM 
I know this matter of water has been discussed before. What about keeping steam distilled water which has been boiled in boiler after runs. My Mikado has no boiler blowdown valve and even if it did, aren't most of these high enough which would still neccesitate one to turn over the engine while the filler plug is open to thoroughly drain the boiler? 

Inspite of what may be posted here, there is no need to drain boilers after each run. In your lifetime and those coming after you, no damage will be done to these substantial little copper boilers. I never drain mine and always store them with a full boiler and oiler ready to just fuel up and light for the next run. Now............Regner uses brass boilers and state in their instructions to not leave water in their boilers and even suggest that distilled water be mixed with 5-10% tap water as pure distilled will react with brass boilers. I only have one of these and I still leave water in the boiler. So who knows. 
But, if your locomotive is going to be exposed to freezing temps then you should definitely drain it and blow out all the lines. Or if you are not going to run it for a long period of time I would drain it and the oiler as well as steam oil can develop a growth of green slime if left for a long period.


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By jfrank on 11 Mar 2013 08:33 AM 
Inspite of what may be posted here, there is no need to drain boilers after each run. In your lifetime and those coming after you, no damage will be done to these substantial little copper boilers.
John,
Just to clarify here, it all depends on the water that you use.
As a child growing up in London, UK, I was always fascinated to look inside my Mother's kettle and see all the growth inside.
The same would happen inside your live steam loco if you used such hard water. 
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

I emailed Cliff at Accucraft to get the official word. He confirmed the prototype will be at ECLSTS. He also noted:

_"Distilled water is a must with all Live Steam locomotives and there is no need to drain it unless the engine is going to be transported or stored where the temp goes below freezing .
_
_"You can tell the MLS guys that the photos are of the prototype model , and there will be detail additions and corrections done to the production units that is not shown on the prototype unit."_

I would also comment that we are talking about "steam distilled water", which I think is the purest you can find in the supermarket.


----------



## NYC Buff (Sep 21, 2008)

Gentlemen:

For those interested in such matters, there is an additional book about New York Central Passenger Trains that describes the decorative schemes on streamlined units. The name of the book is "Streamliner Creations." It is by RPC Publications Inc. located in Alton, Illinois. The address is PO Box 503 with zip code 62002.

Details of the 1938 version of "The Twentieth Century Limited" cars are shown from page 2 through page 9. The color schemes are shown and the cars by name bearing those schemes are displayed. Both sides of the train are shown also. Additionally, it should be noted that some of the cars on the 1938 Century had three wheel trucks.

Respectfully,

NYC Buff


----------



## Dan Pantages (Jan 2, 2008)

NYC, I think you mean three axel trucks. A three wheel truck I would like to see.


----------



## NYC Buff (Sep 21, 2008)

Mr. Pantages, 

Thank you for noting that error. Yes, a three wheel truck would be most interesting. Three axles would be a more balanced smooth ride. It is interesting that the cars chosen for three axle trucks were the RPO and Diner. I can understand the diner as no one would want their soup and drinks slopping back and forth in the containers and perhaps spilling at an inappropriate moment. I would think that the club lounge and observation would have similar wants. Most heavyweights had equalized balanced trucks to reduce sway and vibration. I am surprised that this concept was not carried over into lightweight passenger cars. 

Respectfully, 

NYC Buff


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Mr. NYCBuff, 
I would think that you will find that the number of wheels on a truck under a passenger car is all to do with the weight that is carried. 
Maybe in your books it will give you details of the car weights and the capacities, but it is probably something like: 
Sleeping car = 125,000 lbs 
RPO = 130,000 lbs + 40,000 lbs capacity baggage and mail. 
Dining Car = 140,000 (Kitchen end heavier than the dining end). 
The extra weight and potential capacity has to be kept to an even wheel/weight carried ratio. 
I also doubt whether there was any difference in ride between cars with 4 wheel, or 6 wheel trucks. 
Not having been on the 1938 20th Century, I have no idea if there was a difference, again maybe your book can give us more details. 
All the best, 
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

In terms of draining the boilers, I've always simply opened the same water filler fitting I use to put water _into_ the boiler, insert a flexible hose attached to a big honkin' syringe, and draw the water out. This way, you can recycle the water as opposed to having it drain onto the track or steam-up bay. I know, distilled water isn't exactly a budget-breaker, but why waste it if you don't have to? 

BTW, I was just at a steamup last weekend where a friend had a model airplane fuel pump (the hand crank version) that he used to fill his loco boilers. Slickest thing, and very useful for those of us with locos that have large boilers. Took no time at all to fill the boiler of my EBT mike. The pump works both directions, so after a run, you can suck the boiler dry if you want to. Yes, it's on my short list of things to get. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 11 Mar 2013 09:18 PM 

BTW, I was just at a steamup last weekend where a friend had a model airplane fuel pump (the hand crank version) that he used to fill his loco boilers. Slickest thing, and very useful for those of us with locos that have large boilers. Took no time at all to fill the boiler of my EBT mike. The pump works both directions, so after a run, you can suck the boiler dry if you want to. Yes, it's on my short list of things to get. 

Later, 

K Kevin,

When you mentioned this hand pump with a crank, I remembered that we used a kand crank pump to fill the tender of a 1.5 scale Pacific, with diesel fuel. It was the club's locomotive and we were learning how to oil fire it. Each student had to provide his own "jerry" can with 5 gallons of diesel for his lesson. We emtied the tender tank by just reversing the rotation of the crank. It actually went pretty fast.


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 11 Mar 2013 09:18 PM 
In terms of draining the boilers, I've always simply opened the same water filler fitting I use to put water _into_ the boiler, insert a flexible hose attached to a big honkin' syringe, and draw the water out. This way, you can recycle the water as opposed to having it drain onto the track or steam-up bay. I know, distilled water isn't exactly a budget-breaker, but why waste it if you don't have to? 

BTW, I was just at a steamup last weekend where a friend had a model airplane fuel pump (the hand crank version) that he used to fill his loco boilers. Slickest thing, and very useful for those of us with locos that have large boilers. Took no time at all to fill the boiler of my EBT mike. The pump works both directions, so after a run, you can suck the boiler dry if you want to. Yes, it's on my short list of things to get. 

Later, 

K Kevin
You can setup the pump for battery power if one does not want to hand crank


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

a model airplane fuel pump (the hand crank version) 
Yep, very useful. The Colonel (Noel Crawford) has been using one for years and I always meant to buy one for myself !!


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

I do as Kevin does plus I added a small piece of brass tube sure works great to suck out water. Later RJD


----------



## du-bousquetaire (Feb 14, 2011)

What I said about leaving water in the boiler, wasn't about doing any harm to the boiler itself but to the brass fittings screwed into it, beleive me I have been running live steam in 1/32 scale since the mid 1970's dezincification is a reality you don't want to encounter on a loco. The brass becomes brittle like glass and very breakable. sure the boiler which is in copper should last a lifetime, but it's the boiler fittings which will go first. And if you have ever had an engine with a clack valve that doesnt shut properly and returns water or steam into the tender or bursts the flexible hose between the engine and tender, you will want to understand why it leaks. It will be too late boys. The zinc in the brass aloy goes to the stainless steel ball because of electrolysis, without the zinc brass becomes breakable and porous. So a clack valve can leak water back. This is why fittings under the water level should be made of bronze rather than brass. I don't say that emptying the boiler is an ideal solution as some water must remain in the boiler, but it should help preventing such situation from hapenning, as the clack isn't at the bottom of the boiler usually. I also run the engine by hand a bit to empty the water from the excentric pump, and pump up the hand pump to take all the water out of the clack box (two stailess ball bearings). before storing an engine. I think the hand pump idea is the ideal solutioon as a tube can be run into the safety valve flange.


----------



## iceclimber (Aug 8, 2010)

Makes sense


----------



## Carl in Tx (Jan 15, 2008)

Gentleman, 
Here is a very nice electric pump I have used in my other hobby activities. I'm sure there are others but this unit works nicely and is well made. 
http://www.redwingrc.com/index.php?...oducts_id=68&zenid=08i4sb7euhq02cuhnod2she366 

Also a hand crank pump... 
http://www.redwingrc.com/index.php?...oducts_id=66&zenid=08i4sb7euhq02cuhnod2she366 

Cheers, 

Carl Malone


----------



## artgibson (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 11 Mar 2013 09:18 PM 
In terms of draining the boilers, I've always simply opened the same water filler fitting I use to put water _into_ the boiler, insert a flexible hose attached to a big honkin' syringe, and draw the water out. This way, you can recycle the water as opposed to having it drain onto the track or steam-up bay. I know, distilled water isn't exactly a budget-breaker, but why waste it if you don't have to? 

BTW, I was just at a steamup last weekend where a friend had a model airplane fuel pump (the hand crank version) that he used to fill his loco boilers. Slickest thing, and very useful for those of us with locos that have large boilers. Took no time at all to fill the boiler of my EBT mike. The pump works both directions, so after a run, you can suck the boiler dry if you want to. Yes, it's on my short list of things to get. 

Later, 

KI use the little crank pump for adding alcohol to tank. They are cheap, about 11.00 for hobby shops.
Charles, the pump that Carl Malone shows, how about using one os them in the new tenders coming from Aster to pump water from the reserve tender to the tender on the Challenger or Big Boy.
They are supposed to be fitted for water reseve if I am not mistaken.


----------



## Phippsburg Eric (Jan 10, 2008)

I saw the 1: 29 prototype run by Brittany at ECLSTS and was quite impressed! It is a great looking engine with good presence on the rails! 









By the way, here is a great photo of another related hudson on the New Haven Railroad...also very cool 

http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/2/4/3/6243.1271238882.jpg


----------



## Phippsburg Eric (Jan 10, 2008)

here is a video of Brittany running the new engine:


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

Looks/sounds good.


----------



## Hugh Napier (Oct 10, 2012)

I have to admit those Scullin disc wheels are hypnotic to watch!

Hugh


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

WoooHoooooo.....


----------



## JosephLG (Apr 23, 2013)

I'm admiring the Accucraft Dreyfus Hudson, but comparing the photo of the model to photos of the full size prototype, I am surprised to see several noticeable inaccuracies: 1) the cowling below the nose is too curved compared to the prototype, 2) the vent on each side of the top of the nose fin does not look like the prototype, 3) the trim at the base of the running board access ladders is not proportioned like the prototype, and 4) the headlight assembly appears slightly undersized relative to the prototype. Giiven that the front of this locomotive is the most iconic element, I would expect the model to be more accurate, especially given the price.


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

As this is the prototype model, there are many changes being made to the production that are cosmetic.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

BTW - there are several more videos of the prototype running at Cabin Fever in the "Cabin Fever 2013" thread.


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Joseph, 
Welcome to MLS. 
To my eyes, maybe due to the fact that it is 1/29, it looks too 'podgy'! 
Almost like some of it is even larger than it should be. 
All the best, 
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## JosephLG (Apr 23, 2013)

Thank you, David. 
I found a photo of the NYC Dreyfus and superimposed it on the similar view of the AML prototype model. The front cowling is definitely higher and flatter shaped than on the model; the running board stair access frame is different at the base where it merges with the front cowling; and the model is missing the correct vent configuration at the top. I put a lot of time into marking up the photos to show exactly the discrepancies and emailed them to Accucraft, but did not get a reply.


----------



## JosephLG (Apr 23, 2013)

Before I plunk down that kind of money, I want to be sure it will look like the real thing. Other models I've seen of the NYC Dreyfuss at various scales and much lower costs captured the locomotive front proportions better than the AML pre-sale prototype photo.


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By JosephLG on 11 May 2013 10:47 PM 
Before I plunk down that kind of money, I want to be sure it will look like the real thing. Other models I've seen of the NYC Dreyfuss at various scales and much lower costs captured the locomotive front proportions better than the AML pre-sale prototype photo.

Well Joseph,
I would wait and hope that the ATLS - ACCUCRAFT LIVE STEAM LIMITED version in 1/32 will come available.
Then you know that it will look correct, because it will be! 
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

?? 

Saying the 1:29 won't have the fidelity to the prototype that the 1:32 will? 

Did this info come from Accucraft? 

Greg


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

The latest "News" on Accucraft.com shows the Hudson drifting from a 2014 delivery (wasn't it first promised for Fall 2013?) to "Under Development" with no date assigned. 

Looks like we won't see it until 2015.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Feedback is that they don't have enough orders, not even half enough at this point. The 1/29th live steam model may get dumped in favor of a 1/32nd version. I wonder if that would fare any better in terms of market ?


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Let's face it, for the live steamer these days there is just too much choice, and only just so much money that can be spent on ones hobby. 
Back in the days BA (Before Accucraft) every Aster, new and used would be snapped up at a good price. 
Now I see all kinds of offerings on Ebay, and on sales tables at meets, that do not seem to be able to find a new owner. 
There really is a point at which the market will become saturated. 
All the best, 
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Given that the coaches are coming out in 1:32 much better chance of the locomotive getting the pre-order set forth (depending on their minimum). As David has indicated the prices are not strong with many, many offering (now with WuHu in the game with the best prices for the quality) any offering needs to stand out for the customer's buck. Maybe Accucraft will do a set (locomotive and cars) to attract buyers.


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By Charles on 09 Feb 2014 12:41 PM 
Given that the coaches are coming out in 1:32 much better chance of the locomotive getting the pre-order set forth (depending on their minimum). As David has indicated the prices are not strong with many, many offering (now with WuHu in the game with the best prices for the quality) any offering needs to stand out for the customer's buck. Maybe Accucraft will do a set (locomotive and cars) to attract buyers. 
Charles,
See this where I think that people overestimate what the 'normal' buyer wants, or can afford.
I am not talking about those who will buy the next Aster regardless of what it is or cost, but what I would suggest are normal live steam enthusiasts in Gauge 1.
You are asking them to find $3,000, $4,000 even $5,000 of their hard earned and saved money, and now they have to add say another $2,000 for a set of six cars that come with the loco?
I agree that it would be nice to expect the cars to be available with the locomotive, but I would suggest that often it will be a couple of years post the purchase of the locomotive that the train will be contemplated.
At least, that is what I think.
Regards,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## steamtom1 (Jan 2, 2008)

I don't know abouy you guys, but I always run trains, not locomotives. Whatever trains are available, always determines what locomotives I buy. As witnessed here...















and here...









And here...










And here...


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

David
You are asking them to find $3,000, $4,000 even $5,000 of their hard earned and saved money, and now they have to add say another $2,000 for a set of six cars that come with the loco?

No, just suggestion a discount for a train vs. locomotive and cars separately. As Tom indicates we all need something behind the locomotive. For example the numerous advertisement for CP Hudsons on ebay might move with a discounted car (not new).

As to price, seems as if prices are coming down in general to move the stock in the warehouse. 

So, I would guess that a Accucraft 1:32 NYC Hudson could sell for $3000 or locomotive + 6 cars under $5K. Want to guess the original cost of the Royal Hudson...just my observation as to the market.


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

Marklin has moved to offering a lot of sets with a locomotive and appropriate cars. I noticed myself buying a number of these, and then additional cars to expand the train. LGB seems to be moving in the same direction. At least looking at my own purchases, sets did lead me to buy more cars. I also bought a lot of Marklin's multi-car sets. 

Including two or three cars at a sufficient discount to induce potential buyers might well encourage more people to complete their train with appropriate rolling stock.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By steamtom1 on 09 Feb 2014 04:42 PM 
I don't know abouy you guys, but I always run trains, not locomotives. 




When it comes to live steam, I always run locomotives, not trains..

I have owned and operated two live steam locos for almost 10 years, and I have yet to have a train to go with either one of them..
and I might never..

and from what I have seen at steamups, most people just run "whatever" with their live steam locos..
same trains they might run behind electric large scale locomotives..
In my experience, a "matching train" to go specifically with one live steam locomotive is the exception, not the rule..
most of the time, people buy and run locomotives, not trains.

Of course, a streamlined NYC Hudson, which really needs its matching trainset, is really in a different category..
Its outside the realm of the "average" live steam locomotive..

Scot


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Scot
"Its outside the realm of the "average" live steam locomotive.."

Then one can assume that the average locomotive would be one that engaged both freight and passenger.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

and from what I have seen at steamups, most people just run "whatever" with their live steam locos 
Not around where I live. We're a very well-informed bunch, and run 'appropriate' cars with our locos. ;-)


----------



## Jim Overland (Jan 3, 2008)

I always double the price of a locomotive to get the true cost of train with consist 

jim


----------



## steamtom1 (Jan 2, 2008)

.


----------



## steamtom1 (Jan 2, 2008)

Then there are times, like this year [/b]@ Diamondhead, where I had one little train that did triple duty...[/b]


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Then one can assume that the average locomotive would be one that engaged both freight and passenger. 
Not necessarily, but one whose consist wasn't equally iconic and intrinsically connected with the loco as we have with the Hudson. (The SP Daylight is very similar.) 

For example, the DGRS has a collection of "club" rolling stock that members can use behind their locomotives, saving them the hassle of needing to tote their own around. This equipment frequently see use at our steam-ups. Someone brings an 0-6-0, we can grab a half-dozen box cars for it to pull. Someone brings a K-4, we can put some heavyweight passenger cars behind. Someone brings a K-27, we have a collection of narrow gauge equipment it can pull. Someone brings a Hudson? Okay, maybe the shiny silver D&RGW streamliners may match in terms of scale and function, but that loco needs charcoal grey coaches in tow. Anything else just looks off-kilter. 

If I were to put a number on it, I'd say it's probably 50:50 the number of live steamers I routinely steam with who bring their own cars to go behind their locos vs. those who either just run the loco or use whatever's available. I have my "travel train" which I bring to shows; 10 freight cars which would be appropriate behind any locomotive on my roster. I don't think you can get away with that with something like the Hudson. The cars are as much a part of the aesthetic of that locomotive as the locomotive itself. And it's going to add to the cost. 

Of course, the timeline for the Hudson is all of a sudden looking strangely familiar to me. I have the distinct feeling one could buy one or two streamliners per year and by the time the loco actually hits the streets, have a very nice train to pull behind it. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 09 Feb 2014 09:16 PM 
Posted By steamtom1 on 09 Feb 2014 04:42 PM 
I don't know abouy you guys, but I always run trains, not locomotives. 




When it comes to live steam, I always run locomotives, not trains..

I have owned and operated two live steam locos for almost 10 years, and I have yet to have a train to go with either one of them..
and I might never..

and from what I have seen at steamups, most people just run "whatever" with their live steam locos..
same trains they might run behind electric large scale locomotives..
In my experience, a "matching train" to go specifically with one live steam locomotive is the exception, not the rule..
most of the time, people buy and run locomotives, not trains.

Of course, a streamlined NYC Hudson, which really needs its matching trainset, is really in a different category..
Its outside the realm of the "average" live steam locomotive..

Scot

Sorry, I wasnt clear what I meant by "average"..
I meant "the average live steam locomotive" referring to the locomotive models themselves, not any specific prototype.
Most "live steam locomotives" seem happy running with any old rolling stock.
bachmann freight cars, bachmann passenger cars, or 1/29 scale freight cars..
the locomotives dont require a "custom" trainset, like the Steamlined Hudson would..
also, by "average" im thinking "below $1,000"..
So this particular locomotive, the NYC streamlined Hudson, if "outside the average"
in both it's need for a custom trainset, and the cost..

Scot


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

the timeline for the Hudson is all of a sudden looking strangely familiar to me 
Ditto. 

That Regner Climax kit is looking awefully attractive. . . But then I have #1, the Aster 8660 Mogul, to build. Sigh.


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

ALL 

I think Kevin and Peter T have identified the problem... not enough orders to get Accucraft to go into production. The EBT #12 suffered the same fate. Apparently there are not that many live steamers in 1:29; at least ones willing to commit to the purchase of the engine. Even the "electric" orders have not pushed the number high enough. I think the magic number is 50 pieces, but don't know if that is 50 LS and 50 electrics, or 50 TOTAL. Our man with the Ouija board, Peter T, may know that answer. USA Trains has some nice cars that would fit behind the loco, but new paint would be in order.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dr Rivet on 10 Feb 2014 08:56 PM 
ALL 

I think Kevin and Peter T have identified the problem... not enough orders to get Accucraft to go into production. The EBT #12 suffered the same fate. Apparently there are not that many live steamers in 1:29; at least ones willing to commit to the purchase of the engine. Even the "electric" orders have not pushed the number high enough. I think the magic number is 50 pieces, but don't know if that is 50 LS and 50 electrics, or 50 TOTAL. Our man with the Ouija board, Peter T, may know that answer. 


I don't have many answers. Jason (TheTrainDepartment) and an LSC guy both talked to Accucraft and reported the news. At this time they have very few orders for the steam version.
I got the impression from one of the reports that there might be an electric 1/29th version - which suggests there are many more 1/29th electric fans than live steam, which agrees with my limited view of that market.

The question was also raised about the market for a 1/32nd live steam version. My guess is that it is much greater. The mainline steamers aiming for the world speed record (lookin' at you, Charles,) all prefer 1/32nd. Almost any "iconic" large live steamer will find a ready market if it is 1/32nd and not overpriced ?



USA Trains has some nice cars that would fit behind the loco, but new paint would be in order. 
I stopped in at Charles Ro on my last trip to Boston and (finally) got my hands on one. Ugly wheels, but otherwise acceptable if pricey for a long train ($300 - a bit more than the Accucraft.) The NYC grey is a later livery, so they also don't exactly match the loco. On the other hand, there must have been a day when an old loco was called on to pull the new coaches! I have string of Aristo Heavyweights in a nearly correct shade of grey - again, this time the new loco had to run with an old string as it was the 3rd section and they ran out of the new coaches! 

I would think the new Accucraft coaches, painted appropriate grey, would look good behind the 1/32nd loco.


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By norman on 14 Feb 2013 10:33 PM 
Hi John and others: 

" At least Accucraft has cememted 1:20 scale. No one is pushing 1:24 or any of that other junk. Anyway, it should be a pretty engine. Start buying up your Aristo NYC cars today. lol. 

John Frank 
Katy, Texas 
Home of the Texas Western Narrow Gauge RR " 

Actually 1/24 scale was the perfect choice for narrow gauge modelling. The BIG MISTAKE by DELTON was to have not produced their own properly gauged track as they were selling to the high end brass market anyhow. There was all sorts of doll house interior detail parts to build a great train station or coach in high detail. 
The 1/24 scale permits the massive K-27 beast to be modelled at a reasonable size. 

1/24 scale is a lost opportunity for Bachmann trains as well. 

As stated above, 1/32 scale models still run with oversized flanges and on laughably oversized rail as these oversized flanges and over sized rail are required for outdoor layouts. 

USA Trains presently has the 1:29 ALUMINUM bodied heavy weights for this 1:29 Hudson. 

1:32 scale has gone the way of 1:24 scale. Just supported exclusively by Aster and HLW . 

A 1:29 scale Hudson is way more exciting , size wise, than a 1:32 scale Hudson. 

I really do not understand why Americans love this streamlined Hudson loco? The non-streamlined 5344 Hudson is a thing of beauty. 

In any event, this 1:29 streamlined Hudson will be a success as for some reason Americans love it and USA Trains has the perfect coaches for it. 

" 'G' scale people are their own worst enemy. Look at the title of this group of Forums. What is 'G' scale?? There have been plenty of attempts to fix this situation, but the sparkies on here just get outraged when ever you talk about 'standards'. They make fun of the NMRA calling it the enema ray and crapola like that. I was in HO scale for many decades. Manufacturer's adhere to the NMRA standards. It's even printed on the boxes. Every thing mates with everthing else. This scale is just a hodge podge of junk. Nothing works with anything else. You have to force it. All those 580 k4's have to pull out of scale passenger cars from Aristo. It's just laughable. " 

John is of course absolutely correct. Nothing works with anything else. All of the large scale mfgs. should have agreed on a common scale for narrow gauge and standard gauge. 1:24 was perfect for both. But frankly the mfgs. blew it and their sales of largescale trains have suffered massively as a result. Large scale is the most confusing scale to get into. 

Even MTH did not use common sense for a product line of plastic models. Aristo Craft was the plastic model leader and so USA TRAINS adopted 1:29 scale to sell to an existing plastic model market place. MTH for some bizarre reason thought that they were going to " change the gravitational laws of the universe " and have folks switich over to 1:32 scale. This makes as much sense as if Ford started producing right hand drive cars for the US market place. DUH! 

I say again that the MTH Hudson is a thing of beauty and very realistic with the puffing laboured chuff. I wish that MTH would licence their puffing laboured chuff smoke units to Bachmann trains. 


Norman 



Norman

The hobby of models of various representations (cars, planes, boats, trains) all have different scales offered to those with an interest. 

A bit of contradiction: "I say again that the MTH Hudson is a thing of beauty and very realistic " given it is 1:32 and your determination that it is not appropriate scale wise. Yet it is the most appropriate scale for gauge 1 standard locomotives.

Secondly
Please be advised you are a bit short on your list:
"1:32 scale has gone the way of 1:24 scale. Just supported exclusively by Aster and HLW ." (Did not realized HLW is 1:32) but add Aster, Accucraft, WuHu, MTH, Piko (cars), along with numerous UK manufacturers.

Finally, seems as if (based on other post) that the 1:29 Hudson is not a go due to lack of orders necessary for production (the USA coaches are incorrect in paint scheme).


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Pete

Just running them as the railroad would have. Time was money and good PR for "speed record" or fastest time from point A to B. A crack passenger train or freight did not go the speed of the narrow gauge schedule. If Accucraft releases the 1:32 streamlined Hudson and/or others it would be worthy of the engine shed (though I prefer the Dreyfus Hudson).


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

> If Accucraft releases the 1:32 streamlined Hudson


I bumped in to this old thread today, and it got me wondering. All the live steam guys objected to a 1/29th version of the Dreyfus Hudson for obvious reasons [it's not 1/32nd if you can't be bothered to read this 23 page thread.]


But why haven't they produced a 1/32nd scale version since then? Surely that would sell as well as an SP 4-6-2 ?


----------



## RP3 (Jan 5, 2008)

Pete, you asked a good question but then followed it with a questionable statement. If you think that the Dreyfus would sell as well as an SP 4-6-2, then you answered your own question. The SP has never made it into production either despite a prototype floating around in our world for three or more years?! As those of us in the good olde USA well know, there aren't many of us. Accucraft has finally realized this and has consequently cozied up with the folks in the U.K. where there are many more prospective buyers, plus I expect someone to front the development cash, PLUS commit to taking delivery of at least a fixed number upon their completion. Given that set of circumstances, it is unsurprising that Accucraft has basically abandoned our market - at least for the present. Not sure I can blame them either.

Ross Schlabach


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

> If you think that the Dreyfus would sell as well as an SP 4-6-2, then you answered your own question.


I would have thought it would sell a lot better than an SP 4-6-2. There was certainly a lot of interest - 23 pages of comments in this thread! Maybe as an Aster model - they did the Commodore Vanderbilt many years ago plus the J1.


----------



## rwjenkins (Jan 2, 2008)

Did the 1:29 Dreyfus ever see the light of day, beyond the pre-production model? I noticed one of the ads in the latest Steam in the Garden is giving a summer 2019 delivery date for the SP Pacific, not sure if that's legit or just wishful thinking, but I ordered one through the Accucraft e-store a few years back and I haven't been contacted for payment yet.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

rwjenkins said:


> Did the 1:29 Dreyfus ever see the light of day, beyond the pre-production model? I noticed one of the ads in the latest Steam in the Garden is giving a summer 2019 delivery date for the SP Pacific, not sure if that's legit or just wishful thinking, but I ordered one through the Accucraft e-store a few years back and I haven't been contacted for payment yet.


 No, the 1/29th Hudson did not see the light of day, apart from the pilot/pre-production models (I believe there were 2 - one here and one in China at the factory.)
Someone commented to me that the dismal lack of orders for the 1/29th loco was the reason Accucraft weren't going to do a 1/32nd version. That doesn't make too much sense, given the pages of comments and complaints about the 'wrong scale'. As it has never been done in 1/32nd, I would have thought it was a natural. Especially as the coaches were produced and are not marked 'sold out' on their website.


Can't help with the SP 4-6-2. I waited 3-4 years for my EBT #12.


----------



## rwjenkins (Jan 2, 2008)

Pete Thornton said:


> Can't help with the SP 4-6-2. I waited 3-4 years for my EBT #12.


Yep, I remember the wait for the EBT Mikes, although I ordered mine pretty late because I had been holding out for the #14 that was originally supposed to come after the 12. I basically assumed the SP Pacific was dead in the water after Cliff retired, as I understand it, he was the driving force behind all their SP stuff. I kept my order open just in case though, so I was surprised to see the summer 2019 delivery date in the ad.

The problem with the Dreyfus Hudson in 1:29 is that it’s way out of the price range that 1:29ers are used to paying for their toys. The Aristo plastic Mikes and the AML 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 offered a taste of live steam for under two grand, but it’s much harder to justify the cost of a large steamer when you’re competing with the likes of Aristo and LGB instead of Aster.


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

Live steam always seem to sell well in 1/32, especially in the UK.


----------



## rwjenkins (Jan 2, 2008)

Of course, if there really is a market for a 1:32 Dreyfuss Hudson, that sounds like an opportunity for the Wuhu folks...


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

rwjenkins said:


> Of course, if there really is a market for a 1:32 Dreyfuss Hudson, that sounds like an opportunity for the Wuhu folks...


I'm sure there's a market, especially as the coaches are available, but it may not be a big market!

And after the Yellow Jacket, it's not clear WuHu will want to do another big hudson.


----------

