# Is Accucraft's Emma suitable for beginners?



## Underdog (Jan 31, 2014)

Hi everyone. This is my first question posted however I have been lurking in the background.

I’m considering my first live steamer and wanted to tap into some of the knowledge here.
When “Steam in the Garden” wrote up recommendations in their “Starting in Steam” column in March/April of 2013 is there a reason they would not have included Accucraft’s Emma on the list of engines for beginners? 
Also, the article cautioned against buying used but I find myself tempted by a used Accucraft Mogul in the same price range. Should I resist this temptation? The March/April issue did not provide any advice on used models that should be avoided. 

The article referenced the following engines for beginners but did not mention the Emma (or a used the Mogul): 
Accucraft Dora $450
Accucraft Ruby $500-$750
Aster Hobby 
Basic Project Engine $250-$325
Bellflower Cricket $850
Mamod Mark II $550
Regnier Konrad or Willi $700
Regnier Max $350-$500
Roundhouse Billy $1150
Roundhouse Sammie $750

Thanks for creating such a welcome place for steam enthusiasts.


*Background boring stuff:*
I live in New England; my plan was to lay out a small operating track where I could do some switching a fiddling with the engine. My preliminary plan included a raised layout into a garden, travel 20 feet to a loop doubles back (I had thought about running through a hole into the garage but several threads here caution against that). There is a very slight elevation change but nothing significant. My interests are not in watching the train go round and round, or building scale scenery. I’m interested in operating/switching (manually) and eventually radio control for the engine. I was at a train show recently and 7/8th has appeal to me (I need reading glasses)but there's not a lot to pick from at that scale. That got me looking at the Accucraft Emma. I ordered a copy of a recent issue of “Steam in the Garden” with a “starting in steam” article that was very helpful. I’ve been ordering and reading other articles in that series. 


At the risk of spreading bad information this is what the web told me about a *7 year old Accucraft Mogul:* 

a)Engine has pistons hard stainless piston valves working in a brass bore that can wear quickly without a good film of oil to glide on.

b)The suspension is rock-solid, which when combined with the long wheelbase and fine flanges can lead to derailments.

c)Lack of a sight glass is annoying. 

d)Lighting through the stack or between the cylinders is tricky but can be mastered, and is advisable as the firebox door clip is very weak and it's best to leave it shut.

e)The exhaust is very sensitive to being "clogged" by oil and condensate. Especially if you have a stack with a screen in it (diamond stack or spark arrestor). When the loco is just starting out the oil and condensate from the cool cylinders blocks the exhaust, so the only place for it to go is back down the boiler, blowing your fire out in the process. Reducing oil consumption may be at the expense of engine mechanical longevity. A Summerland Chuffer could be installed to blow all the oil (and water) down on the track instead of all over the engine but that does not change the fact that it uses a lot of oil. An adjustable lubricator could be installed but additional modification would be needed.


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

I think the Emma would have been omitted because it only entered the market during the timeframe you reference. It's a fine first steamer.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

I also think the Emma would be a perfectly fine beginner locomotive, its really no more difficult to operate 
than any of the other Accucraft engines.. 

Only potential drawback to the Emma..She is BIG!  
7/8n2 scale (1/13.7 scale) 2-foot gauge on 45mm track. 
That scale has a limited supply of rolling stock..its still very much a "scratch builders scale".. 
So just be aware there isn't a lot of rolling stock that will "fit" her right now..unless you make your own.. 
Some rolling stock kits are slowly coming out in 7/8n2, but they still isn't a lot of variety.. 

Of course if you like and *want* to model 2-foot gauge equipment specifically, and enjoy scratch building your own rolling stock, then Emma is the way to go! 
(and the rolling stock will also be BIG!  

If you aren't particularly into 2-foot gauge equipment, then something else might be better.. 
Nearly everything in the hobby except 1/32 scale standard gauge equipment runs fine behind most of the other locomotives on that list. 

Scot


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

Well you also have to consider that the list of beginner locos are aimed at a certain price point. While personally I don't think a beginner loco has to be a cheap and basic loco it can be anything out there as long as you realize the price point. 

IF you are thinking of 7/8ths that you do have a couple choices of locos and lots of choices of various kits from the US or UK for different prototypes.. The group you saw at Springfield are more of the Maine style of the scale and you can get an Emma or one of the Fairymeads that are due out in a few weeks. While they are two completely different locomotives in build and detail both run very well. You must of seen Erics Forney that he build from the Emma. The Emma is currently out of stock and is planned to bring another production in later this year. 

Here is a video I asked Scott McDonald to do for me on the Fairymead that I helped to bring to the market. There are just a few left before they are sold out. There is the Green as shown and a Black version with no lining. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rCKmQCAfLY 


For some of the kits that Steve King and I offer see my listing here http://www.thetraindepartment.com/7-8ths-kits-and-accessories/rolling-stock-kits-7-8ths-1-13-7/ 

More kits are on the way including a smaller bogie coach then some Maine prototype cars. 


For American style that's about it. If you have more of a UK appeal then there is a couple RTR locos plus some body kits available for using the Roundhouse chassis/boiler kits to build a small 7/8 model. They are from Mikes Models in the UK and are wonderful etched and laster kits but require a massive amount of soldering. About 8-10 hours for putting the cab together. No punching all rivets are etched as are fold lines for forming. Most use a heavy iron for soldering of a small torch.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

A "used" or second-hand Accucraft locomotive in the $1000-$1500 range, like the mogul or Forney, would also make a fine starter locomotive. The more expensive locos are less finicky than the smaller, cheaper locos, and more satisfying to learn on. But you do run the risk that it will be worn out. Best to buy one from a local guy who can help you learn all about running it - and who is there to be blamed when you find something wrong!

As your issues with the used loco are universal, let me address them one by one. 
At the risk of spreading bad information this is what the web told me about a 7 year old Accucraft Mogul: 
a)Engine has pistons hard stainless piston valves working in a brass bore that can wear quickly without a good film of oil to glide on. I think "wear quickly" is an unlikely scenario. All steam engines must be operated with the lubricator full of 'steam oil', which is special stuff that you will need to buy (Jason at The Train Dept is a source.) If operated correctly, they won't wear out - the steam oil protects the moving parts internally.
If you look at the threads here about rebuilding old engines, I don't recall one where the vale pistons were worn out, though it is possible. 

b)The suspension is rock-solid, which when combined with the long wheelbase and fine flanges can lead to derailments. Maybe. The flanges are finer than LGB or Bachmann (thank heaven.) My pal in FL just bought a Mogul new and has no problems operating it on his layout. I don't recall seeing them derail more than any other model!
c)Lack of a sight glass is annoying. Maybe. Sight glasses on our small locos aren't very reliable. You soon learn how long the loco will run on a full boiler.
d)Lighting through the stack or between the cylinders is tricky but can be mastered, and is advisable as the firebox door clip is very weak and it's best to leave it shut. Interesting observation. Yes, the smokebox door clip is weak, and it sits in the flame from the burner making it weaker. But the door will stay closed if you close it, and it is much easer to light the loco through the door, and to see what the fire is doing.
e)The exhaust is very sensitive to being "clogged" by oil and condensate. Especially if you have a stack with a screen in it (diamond stack or spark arrestor). When the loco is just starting out the oil and condensate from the cool cylinders blocks the exhaust, so the only place for it to go is back down the boiler, blowing your fire out in the process. Reducing oil consumption may be at the expense of engine mechanical longevity. A Summerland Chuffer could be installed to blow all the oil (and water) down on the track instead of all over the engine but that does not change the fact that it uses a lot of oil. An adjustable lubricator could be installed but additional modification would be needed. The longevity issue is a bit exaggerated - if there isn't enough steam oil passing through the pipes. Accucraft over-compensates by feeding too much, as they do on most of their engines.
The oil and water being blown out when you start up can cause the fire to go out - it blocks the airflow. Leave the door open until it is hot and ready to run.
Most of us find a Summerlands Chuffer to be a complete solution to the problem - if you still need a solution.

I don't think these mentioned problems are as dire as they sound. Hundreds of new live steamers have managed to get their engines rolling without any catastrophic failures!


----------



## llynrice (Jan 2, 2008)

I bought an Emma from Jason Kovac at ECLSTS last year and it ran really well right out of the box. Before the weekend was over, I also bought replacement throttle and gas regulator valves from Jason and the loco ran even better. It's very sturdy and reliable and it's easy to modify with added details. If you like its looks, you can't go far wrong.


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

I would recommend going with a Roundhouse "classic" series engine like Billy or Katie. They are very well made. They look and operate much more like a real steam locomotive. Ruby is too basic, you might get tired of it and start looking for something else almost right away. Roundhouse comes RTR or kit form. 

A used Accucraft like Pete said is a great choice. I would add a 2 cylinder Shay to that list too. 

On your concerns: I don't know about the Mogul, but most Accucraft engines have O-ring seals on pistons. They are pretty much trouble free. Just be sure the lubricator is full before each run (use real steam oil for this). Suspension is tight on a lot of engines because the is none. Ruby bearings for example are hard pressed in the frame. It's a rock. It hits a bump and its going to hop. Most likely, just fix the bump in the track and the engine will run fine. Mid and higher priced engines come with equalizing or springs. I don't use the sight glass anymore. In fact when the glass broke on my 3 cyl Shay, I just capped it. After a while you learn how long the engine runs on a boiler full of water. You bring it in or pump it up when you know it needs it. Lighting can be tricky. I found that after filling the fuel tank full, open the valve for about 3 seconds and let some of the fuel out helps. Exhaust blowing out the fire can happen. It comes from the cylinders being cold at the start. Steam turns back into water inside the cylinders, it comes out the exhaust and goes down the flue. It seems some engines are worse then others. The 3 cyl Shay slobbers a lot, but once the cylinders warm up it runs fine. Some times a little less water in the boiler helps. That makes more space for steam to accumulate and things stay a little dryer. 

It's all a matter of practicing with your engine. They are kind of like little kids. Lovely, huggy, adorable. They drool, leak, eat, make cute noises, need a new nappy. When they act up, just give them a time out. 

Welcome to our hobby.


----------



## snowshoe (Jan 2, 2008)

You got great advice already. Ill just add my 2 cents. You mentioned you were into the 7/8th. I would probably go with the Emma or like Jay mentioned the Fairymead. What ever route you take you cant go wrong with any of them. A lot depends on what appeals to you at the price range your looking at. For me I always gravitate towards the smaller geared engines. The price is right for me but I also like the charm of the smaller steamers.


----------



## H. Hanno (Jan 2, 2014)

One consideration about 1:13 scale (7/8th) is the size of the layout. You seem to be considering a small one, like mine. Locomotives at that scale are huge, and so are buildings and figures; try to imagine such a large engine working on 20 ft of track! On my layout any large building or rolling stock dwarfs the layout into insignificance, and I am using 1/29, which is a much smaller scale.


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

I'd offer a different perspective on size. 7/8th scale is usually small logging, mining, or industrial railways. The equipment is shorter, as is the overall train. Structures which look appropriate tend to be smaller. 

Standard gauge, the 1:32 and 1:29, tend to be models of larger prototypes, running long trains of large rolling stock. They call for larger radius curves, and visually appropriate structures would be larger.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By BigRedOne on 03 Feb 2014 05:08 PM 
I'd offer a different perspective on size. 7/8th scale is usually small logging, mining, or industrial railways. The equipment is shorter, as is the overall train. Structures which look appropriate tend to be smaller. 



That's correct..its "usually" small logging, mining, or industrial railways...but not always! 
There are really two different and distinct types of 7/8n2 scale modeling, and the two seldom mix..most people do one, or the other, but not both:

*1*) 7/8th scale modeling of small logging, mining, or industrial railways. The equipment is shorter, as is the overall train. Structures which look appropriate tend to be smaller. 
The "Emma" locomotive fits this "side" of 7/8n2 modeling..













*2)* Maine 2-foot modeling. The locomotives are still very small (when compared to Standard Gauge locomotives) but modeling Maine 2-footers in
7/8n2 scale results in the BIGGEST models that exist in the "Large scale" realm..the largest models that run on 45mm track. The models can be massive..

Here is a Standard Gauge diesel and a "Maine 2-footer" at the same scale..(Ignore the 1/29 on those drawings! 



















And here is the Diesel in 1/29 scale..(Imagine it as an Aristocraft SD45) compared to the Maine 2-foot loco in 7/8n2 scale..
both models running on 45mm track. 



















and that a *small* Maine 2-foot loco! there were others quite a bit larger! 
and the freight and passenger cars can be truly amazing in size..look at the size of the passenger car! 










(im dabbling in 7/8n2 "Maine" modeling..I have one flatcar built, and I have a boxcar kit I havent put together yet..no locomotives yet..)

The "Emma" *could* be adapted to Maine modeling, but she is really too small for it, her drivers are too small, and her prototype doesn't really "fit" the Maine 2-footers..
Emma is much more suited to the "industrial" side of 7/8n2 modeling..

Overall, the "Industrial" side seems more common..Its quite popular in England, and its catching on in the USA..
I believe the Emma was created for this niche..(the industrial side, not the Maine side..)
Maine modeling is less common in 7/8n2 than the industrial modeling, it seems.
On2 and On30 scales are the most "developed" scales for Maine 2-foot modeling..

Scot


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

And as for an outdoor railroad.. 
I dont think you could make a successful 7/8n2 Maine-style garden railroad with anything less than 24 foot diameter curves..huge models, huge curves! 
For the 7/8n2 "industrial" style railroad, you could probably get away with 8-foot diameter.. 

Scot


----------



## Underdog (Jan 31, 2014)

Kavacjr, I did enjoy watching Dave Newton's Western Wiscasset & Northern Railway running at the show in West Springfield sponsored by the Amherst Railway Society. I don't recall the exact setup. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt3EGShsKew

The link I have to Steven King does not seem to work: Steven King link does not work 

Scot; 
I can appreciate what you are saying. The "Emma" reminds me of an engine I saw up in Booth Bay Maine: Booth Bay Engine
I don't know the train in Booth Bay was a logging operation or something more industrial. I will try to educate myself on the different small trains that operated in Maine. The family spends much of the summer in Southern Maine not far from Portland. 

Regarding Emma, does the engine need to be pushed to move forward or change directions once everything is all warmed up and running? And is Emma a "gear driven" locomotive?


----------



## Gary Woolard (Jan 2, 2008)

I agree with most everything I've read here. But I'll add a few points -- with the understanding that I do not own an Emma.

> I bought a used first generation Accu Mogul at the Summer Steamup last year, and it's become one of my easiest and most reliable runners.

> As I mentioned in my article on the Summer Steamup in the Nov/Dec issue of SitG (shameless plug







) there were a LOT of Emma's running. They seemed to be easy to run, and they handled the curves on even the smallest tracks. However, this was pulling very short 'industrial' style cars; it might be a different story if they were pulling Maine equipment. (Although as somebody else has noted, an Emma wouldn't BE pulling Maine equipment)

> The Emma's were getting very good run times -- often in the 40-some minute range. I was jealous!

> You mention that you'll be starting with manual control, before doing R/C. The Emma has a HUGE cab relative to 1/20 engines or smaller. You can easily fit your hand in there and twiddle with the controls. This may seem minor, but you'll appreciate not burning fingers as much, especially if you're doing switching ops.

> As others have said, if you do 7/8ths, you're in a relatively new scale. For lot of rolling stock, and any or all buildings right now, you'll be scratch-building. And if you're switching, you're going between industries, which means at least some buildings, right?


----------



## Ray Cadd (Dec 30, 2008)

Hi Underdog- 
The Emma does not need to be pushed in the desired direction to start it in (other than maybe to clear condensate in the cylinders if sitting). It is mechanically reversed through the valve gear. And no, it is not gear driven. Number of options out there now for kitbashing or scratchbuilding rolling stock. It's a swell engine, especially for the price. Get one if you want to go 7/8...


----------



## scottemcdonald (Jan 11, 2008)

When “Steam in the Garden” wrote up recommendations in their “Starting in Steam” column in March/April of 2013 is there a reason they would not have included Accucraft’s Emma on the list of engines for beginners? 

As the author of the article I can give you some insight into my approach on the article as to why I didn't mention "Emma". BigRedOne hit the nail on the head. That article was written in the Fall of 2012 along with the other articles that made up the first three installments of that series. I was able to get first hand experience on Emma at the 2013 Diamondhead, but by that time my article was already at the printers. Hopefully the review on Emma gave you an indication to it being a good model for beginner's if 7/8's is your cup of tea. 

Scott


----------



## Phippsburg Eric (Jan 10, 2008)

I have an Emma that I heavily modified. she runs great and is easy to operate. being bigger has advantages as said before with getting your fingers in to operate the controls, also for installing additions like radio control and additional details. As is I didn't care for the styling, but that is easy, fun and safe to change. Basic changes and additions can be made without altering the mechanical portion of the engine. Several Emmas have been modified into very different engines.

Mine is modified to fit with Maine Two Foot gauge stuff and as said is quite small in that roll but works. here is my modified Emma and a stock Emma. Yes bigger bridges and larger radius are required for Maine two footer stuff but you can get by with less that 24 foot diameter.


----------



## Underdog (Jan 31, 2014)

Scot; I really had to study your post for a while. This scale explanation is helping to put things in perspective, however I'm not following everything:
a) In the first category above ( 7/8th scale modeling of small logging, mining, or industrial railways) is there differentiation made between the locomotives used on small logging, mining, or industrial railways? Or are they grouped together for the most part? They are still 2-foot track?
So the Bar Harbor (Baldwin?) locomotive shown below should fit under this category as an industrial use? To my untrained eye it resembles Emma. 










b) In the second category (Maine 2-foot modeling) would the Fairymead be large enough to be considered a good fit for this bigger type of locomotive? Would this go with the railway that is so popular with tourists (like me) in Portland (ME) today, and representative of Maine's five narrow gauge railroads? 
Sandy River and Rangeley Lakes (1879-1935)
Bridgton and Saco River (1881-1941)
Monson (1883-1943)
Kennebec Central (1890-1929)
Wiscasset, Waterville and Farmington (1894-1933)

Or is FairyMead also too small in size to fit this second " Maine 2-foot" modeling category?


----------



## Underdog (Jan 31, 2014)

By xo18thfa 
Roundhouse "classic" series engine like Billy or Katie......."they look and operate much more like a real steam locomotive." 
Thanks for the welcome. Can the statement above be expanded upon? How might operation differ among the locomotives?


----------



## Phippsburg Eric (Jan 10, 2008)

The engines you show are both Maine Residents. The first is the SD Warren Paper company engine which Currently resides at the Boothbay Railway Village. I built a facimile of her using a Ruby chassis. it came out pretty well and was a pretty good likeness if just a bit smaller. The Emma would also work well for this but be a bit larger engine. You can make your own saddle tank to replace the boxy one and you will have a good looking engine!

the second engine is on of the larger "modern" Baldwin Forneys from the Bridgeton and Saco Railway that ended up in Portland on the waterfront. These are bigger engines than The Emma by a good bit.









My modified Ruby SD Warren engine with mini me.









My Modified Emma is modeled to represent as closely as possible WW&F #10 which is a former Plantation engine re-gauged from 30" to 24" now serving as the workhorse of the WW&F Railway Museum In Alna Maine.








WW&F #10 is small--tiny really and a bit smaller than the average of the Maine Two footers.

Both the Ruby and Emma make good starter engines and good candidates for Kit bashing. The Emma is a more powerful engine and will give better operation than the Ruby. The Ruby can be a little difficult to get smooth operation but It is a Fine Place to start...Get the Kit to learn a bit about how these things work. The Emma will give Good performance right out of the box. If you are interested in Modifying your new engine, choose one that has proportions suitable for your project.

I also have a Fairymead on order ... due any day now







. It would go well with Maine Narrow gauge equipment. Again it is on the small side like WW&F #10. It too will run beautifully and give great satisfaction (I ran the pilot model at a show) It will look the part with Maine equipment right out of the box. it could be modified to me more Maine like if you wanted to go there. I will probably add a proper pilot and couplers at the least.


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

Just as an FYI Steves site has been transferred to mine. 

Everything currently available is listed here. http://www.thetraindepartment.com/7-8ths-kits-and-accessories/


----------



## Underdog (Jan 31, 2014)

Posted By Kovacjr FYI Steves site has been transferred to .... here. http://www.thetraindepartment.com/7-8ths-kits-and-accessories/ Thanks for setting me straight. The Mikes Models in the UK site had some nice things. 
mike's


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Underdog, 
this locomotive: 










is not a true "Maine 2-footer" in the sense that it never operated with any of the historic Maine 2-foot railroads.. 
it is *currently* in Maine! and its 2-foot gauge..but its a much later import to Maine.. 
In the same respect, the German 2-foot locomotives that are also at Boothbay today are also not "true Maine 2-footers" 
because they also never operated with any of the historic maine 2-foot railroads..they are also later imports to Maine. 

There was no Maine 2-foot railroad that operated in or near Boothbay.. 

There is a Big Boy locomotive currently sitting in Scranton PA..But that does not mean the UP Big Boy is a historic, prototypically accurate locomotive for Pennsylvania!  
If someone was modeling the DL&W in the 1940's they wouldnt have a Big Boy on the roster.. 
same concept.. 

So in that respect, the locomotive in the photo above really has absolutely nothing to do with the "Maine 2-footers" when we 
talk about the historic Maine 2-foot railroads..It simply isnt "one of them".. 

is there differentiation made between the locomotives used on small logging, mining, or industrial railways? Or are they grouped together for the most part? They are still 2-foot track? 

They are mostly grouped together..there isnt any real differentiation made..and yes, they are still 2-foot track. 

As Eric's excellent modeling shows, some of these smaller locomotive can certainty be adapted to be very "Maine-like"!  
they can be made to "look the part"..even if they are still a bit on the small side.. 
as with anything else in model railroading, there are no rules!  you can do whatever you like.. 

So the Bar Harbor (Baldwin?) locomotive shown below should fit under this category as an industrial use? 

Yes, in my opinion it would.. 

To my untrained eye it resembles Emma. 

As it does to me too..and I would place the Emma, *and* the Boothbar harbor engine, both more in the "Industrial" catagory than I would in the "Maine" catagory.. 
both the Emma, and the Boothbay engine are not really "Maine 2-footer like"..they dont fit the mold. 

Woah! I just discovered the Fairymeade is 7/8n2 scale!! 
I never knew that..for some reason I assumed it was 1/20.3 scale! 
wow..well thats very interesting then! 
again, she is on the "small size" for a Maine 2-footer..but a better match for "Maine style" than the Emma IMO! 
Fairymeade has the looks of the very earliest, and smallest, of the Maine 2-foot locomotives, like B&B "Ariel" and "Puck" 
(later Sandy River 1 and 2) 










hmm..now I need dimensions on the Fairymeade!  
stay tuned.. 

Scot


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

They are very small in real terms. Here's Fairymead's prototype


----------



## Underdog (Jan 31, 2014)

Wow, I had no idea Fairymeade was so small. Accucraft lists the following specs but does not say if there are , slide valves, piston valves or poppet valves, or if it is geared or not geared, or size of the drivers, or capacity of the boiler. 

Fairymead SPECIFICATIONS listed on the web site:
Scale 7/8 ths
Gauge 45 mm
Mini. radius 48 in.
Dimensions 13.6 x 5.6 x 7.5 in.
Construction Brass & stainless steel
Power Live steam, butane fired
Boiler Copper, single flue 
Features:
Cylinder drain cocks
Safety valve 
Hand operated water pump
Lubricator 
Water level gauge

EMMA Specifications:
Scale 7/8 ths
Mini. Radius 48 in. 
Length 12.9 in
Width 5.4 in
Height 7 in.
Two cylinders
Single flue
D-valve
Safety valve
Forward/Reverse control
Lubricator
Water level gauge


----------



## Phippsburg Eric (Jan 10, 2008)

The Fairymead is a neat engine, much the size of the Emma...a bit longer with it's rear tank. I think it is very similar size to the B&B "Puck" if you add a bit for the full cab and 4 wheel rear truck. Fairymead has D-valves for the best performance plus a manual feed water pump in the rear tank for extended runs. It has good detail too. I got (ordered) the green one because I like the Victorian elegance. It will go well with fancy coaches. If you can swing the Finances get a Fairymead if you like the looks, you will not be disappointed!


The SD Warren paper company was located in Westbrook, Just outside of Portland Maine so the engine is technically a Maine two footer, though it was an industrial operation, not a common carrier. the Cumberland mill operation actually had more trackage than two of the proper Maine Two footers (Monson and Kennebec Central). Thew mill is still (barely) in operation though without the rails.

By the way, if you are in or near Midcoast Maine, look me up or give me a PM


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Wow, that Fairymeade is small! 
still smaller than the smallest of the Maine 2-footers..interesting. 

I wish someone would come out with affordable drivers for Maine steam locos, and passenger and freight trucks, in 7/8n2.. 
Some do exist, but the cost is the main thing keeping me out of the scale..(one set of passenger car trucks for $200?? seriously? not in this lifetime..*sigh*..) 

Scot


----------



## Underdog (Jan 31, 2014)

Posted By Kovacjr on 03 Feb 2014 08:13 AM 
...You must of seen Erics Forney that he build from the Emma.....
Yes, I did see Eric Schade's Forney at the West Springfield show in January of 2014 (shown here): 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z2_...e=youtu.be 
Eric, you really hooked me (along with Jacks Hinkley Locomotive and cars) my daughter had to drag me away. Just amazing, and lots of fun. I did not know this was a modified Emma. Hard to imagine the transformation.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

still smaller than the smallest of the Maine 2-footers 

Yes, but you have to get your head around the fact that Maine 2-footers were pretty small in the first place. 











And you have to realize how big a standard gauge loco would be in 7/8ths scale. A standard gauge 4-6-2 like the PRR K4 would be 6 ft 6" long !!!!

7/8ths scale isn't much different from 1" scale, which is a ride-on scale using 5" gauge track.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 05 Feb 2014 07:42 AM 
still smaller than the smallest of the Maine 2-footers 

Yes, but . . http://on30guy.gerenm.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Bridgton-Junction.jpg 
Yes, but..that B&H 2-foot locomotive is about twice the size of the Fairymeade! 
That probably B&H #7, one of the "large" Baldwin forneys.

yes, the Maine two footers were "small" when compared to Standard gauge locomotives..
but we arent comparing to SG trains in this thread.. we are comparing only 2-footers to other 2-footers..

In that respect, the 2-foot gauge locomotive in the photo above is "Large"..and the Fairymeade is "too small" in comparison
to the "large" 2-foot locomotives..its even too small when compared to the smallest of the Maine 2-footers! 

Scot


----------



## Phippsburg Eric (Jan 10, 2008)

Those $200 passenger trucks by Steve king are Really cool but pricy, he has a simplified version half price available from Jason at The Train Department...or you can make your own as I have done. If you have back issues of Garden Railways, Look at Plan set #38A from April !999. both passenger and freight trucks are shown in 7/8th scale. 

Emma and Fairymead are not wildly out of proportion to the larger and more modern Maine narrow gauge engines, the biggest is perhaps half and inch or so taller, and just a tad wider, they did get significantly longer but the models would look fine next to each other in my opinion. It may be a while before Accucraft comes out with SR&RL 23 or 24 in 7/8th scale so only then will you know what a really large model they would be. A few folks have scratch built electric versions of some of the "big" Maine engines. Dave Newton's electric engine is a model of one of the larger forney engines and doesn't dwarf my engine by any means. i do not ave a good side by side photo, this will have to serve:


----------



## llynrice (Jan 2, 2008)

Below, is a picture of my Emma pulling a Monson Railway combine which I built from one of Howard Garner's Cascade Laser kits.











The loco is diminutive; but, certainly not too small when matched with typical Maine narrow gauge rolling stock.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Phippsburg Eric on 05 Feb 2014 07:56 AM 
Those $200 passenger trucks by Steve king are Really cool but pricy, he has a simplified version half price available from Jason at The Train Department...


Actually, the $200 set *is* the "simplified version at half price"! The original version, no longer on the site, was close to $400 for a set..

Scot


----------



## Underdog (Jan 31, 2014)

What kind of "work" did Ariel, Puck and similar locomotives of this size do? The picture of Ariel depicts a locomotive that seems "fancy" for pulling boxcars and lumber and other freight. Did Ariel and these others (like Puck) primarily pull passenger cars? Are there images of Fairymeade overlay-ed on Ariel, for comparison's sake?


----------



## Phippsburg Eric (Jan 10, 2008)

Arial and Puck were built for the Bedford and Bellerica Railway which was a common carrier with coaches and freight equipment the box cars were fairly fancy by modern standards...think of an express car on main line railways. the engines had fancy pin striping and lettering. When the B&B folded ( just months after starting ) all the equipment was shipped up to Maine and became the basis of the Sandy River Railway. Both engines were modified to run smokebox first and given enlarged cabs. they then performed common carrier service ranging from hauling logs and lumber to passenger runs. In the 1880's even work a day engines were kept looking pretty fancy.


I do not have scale drawings of the Fairymead and Puck side by side but they look to be quite similar sized. They will certainly be close enough to serve similar roles on different lines. In reality Fairymead served originally as a sugar plantation engine hauling sugar cane from the fields, it now serves on a tourist line. 

It is your railway and you can do as you choose...for now you will have to make do, to some extent, with what is available...they can be modified to look like you imagine, if you want, or your imagination can do the modifying for you. Who says the B&B could not have used Fairymead instead of Puck? I think the Maine Railways only settled on Forneys because they started with Areal and Puck and were too conservative to switch.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

It is your railway and you can do as you choose
Hear, Hear ! Well said, Mr Maine 2-footer.
I think the Maine Railways only settled on Forneys because they started with Areal and Puck and were too conservative to switch.

Hmmm. About that time, the Single Fairlie/Mason Bogie was being touted as the solution for commuter lines, like the elevated in NYC. They could handle very tight corners and run in either direction (forwards or backwards.) 
The B&B was a commuter railroad, not running general carrier service into the woods of Maine. My suspicion is that the Maine 2-footers ended up with Forneys by accident, as they bought the 2-ft equipment from failed or electrified commuter lines?

Maybe that's a topic for another thread !


----------



## Phippsburg Eric (Jan 10, 2008)

The Maine two footers were spearheaded by the same guy who sold the B&B to the residents of those two Massachusetts towns. And the slightly used equipment from the B&B was the basis of the Sandy River RR so you are correct Pete! I know of only one other (Baldwin) locomotive which was built for another railway and used in Maine back in the day, the rest was purpose built for them.


----------



## Underdog (Jan 31, 2014)

In modeling railroads, does modeling the terrain create challenges. In Scott MacDonald's "Beginning in Steam" article he outlined some issues with steam and the impact of grade;" Unlike tack-powered electric, grades play an important part in the operation of live steam. Many live-steam locomotives easily handle grades and others do not. The reason for this is that your locomotive will produce steam at a constant rate on level track, but once the grade is encountered that constant output of steam may not be enough to get over the grade. One of tow things has to happen. - either the throttle gets opened up to release more steam into the cylinder to overcome the grade and/or the supply of heat to boil water has to increase to overcome the loss of steam from the boiler." (from Steam in the Garden #126). 
The article goes on to explain how on a downhill grade the cylinders will start to act like "pumps, pulling steam out of the boiler" and the locomotive may stall until the steam builds up again. 
Is this the reason that geared locomotives are better in some respects. And to go back to the original question; does this make Emma a poor candidate if the layout is intended to have some elevation differences? Many of Eric Schade's layouts seem to have a rolling terrain. Does that influence the decision on which engines to use? The coast of Maine is pretty flat but once you get inland it starts getting hillier. 

Note: I did look up Ariel (later named Dawn) to learn a little about George E. Mansfield (of Hyde Park, Massachusetts) and that Ariel was* scrapped* in 1912. That is unsettling. A related question is the fuel used to fire the boiler. Sometimes I hear coal and sometimes I hear "wood." Were these fuels interchangable or is a boiler designed to use one or the other? Maine has a lot of wood (not sure about coal).


----------



## Phippsburg Eric (Jan 10, 2008)

I think some of the maine two footers burned wood for a while but they soon reverted to coal. No reason you cannot use a model which would burn wood if you want and still be correct(ish)


My line is on the ground with built up areas, cuts and bridges, kinda like the real things I have tried to keep the main line level and the curves as generous as I can. I live in the country and have some land to play on. I have recently upgraded the sharpest curves to 16 1/2 foot diameter which is about the biggest i could fit at the main terminus of my line. it is a single track dogbone with return loops at each end. I also have a 3% "mountain division which is great fun but takes some concentration. the rod engines work to get up and race down if left to their own devises.


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

Interesting discussion.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Underdog on 06 Feb 2014 12:33 PM 
Note: I did look up Ariel (later named Dawn) to learn a little about George E. Mansfield (of Hyde Park, Massachusetts) and that Ariel was* scrapped* in 1912. That is unsettling. 

Why is that unsettling?
Ariel and Puck were built in 1877, scrapped in 1912, that's 35 years of service..That's a more than respectable service length, for any steam locomotive..

Or do you mean it's unsettling that they were scrapped at all? in that case, I agree! 

Scot


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

For Scotty and anyone else interested, 
Here is a link to an easy comparison between the size of Fairymead and the size of a famous Maine Forney SR&RL #6. You can see from a loading gauge perspective, they are not that different in size, even though #6 is a lot longer. Fairymead and her two sisters were built for the cane industry here in Auz, but she was a pretty standard Badlwin plantation loco, of exact same class as Chloe and Olomana (not the exact same design, but similar within the same Baldwin class). 

http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/davidfletcher/Fairymead-SRRL6.pdf 

I'd love to one day set up the drawings and assist Jay and Accucraft with Puck/Ariel as well. I have a set of her original drawings in a book on my shelf from the 1890s. 

Getting back to Fairymead, the original was built in 1889, the 2nd engine delivered in 1905, same livery and design but with some modernised features and then the 3rd/ final engine delivered in 1925. This drawing shows the first and last of the Fairymead engines, 1889 and 1925 - same design, but different fittings, Rushton stack replaced Radley Hunter as new by the 20s. 

http://www.pacificng.com/ref/blw/style/stylediag/S216-FAIRYMEAD.png 

David.


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 05 Feb 2014 10:28 AM 
Posted By Phippsburg Eric on 05 Feb 2014 07:56 AM 
Those $200 passenger trucks by Steve king are Really cool but pricy, he has a simplified version half price available from Jason at The Train Department...


Actually, the $200 set *is* the "simplified version at half price"! The original version, no longer on the site, was close to $400 for a set..

Scot


Scot, the resin passenger truck kit (Economy passenger Truck) is the cheaper 100.0 kit. Currently having a batch of castings done to have more stock.

The premium passenger trucks are 200 set and I just sold the last set. I did not have them listed on the site as Steve had to scrounge to make the kit up. If there is a big enough demand we can requote the laser parts as the laser costs have risen since Steve originally cut out those years ago. We will be revisiting this truck when I bring out a Caboose and build a few coaches for myself. Not sure if there will be full coach kits but since I want to make one for myself I'll end up making a batch as I will have cast and laser parts used.


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Underdog on 04 Feb 2014 05:54 PM 
Wow, I had no idea Fairymeade was so small. Accucraft lists the following specs but does not say if there are , slide valves, piston valves or poppet valves, or if it is geared or not geared, or size of the drivers, or capacity of the boiler. 









Underdog, The Fairymead does indeed have slide valves, its a 9/16" bore cylinder with full Stephenson valve gear. Boiler is pretty decent about 160ml, not sure of the actual volume offhand but its about a 30min run without adding water. There is a hand pump to add water and the fuel lasts at least 45mins. So running at shows and meets where we typically have a 30min slot you don't need to worry about having to refuel or run out of water. Those are 2 important things I want in a loco and its nice to be able bring the standard of the locomotives to the next level in way of detail/paint and operational standpoint. And yes its 1:13.7. 
There are also cars available if you want a prototypical sugar train. Its a complete kit of the Bundaberg cane truck designed by Steve King specifically for this loco. Some stock is on hand of this production and will be the last stock/production before the loco arrives.

The loco itself is slated to ship to the US end of this month, the Chinese New Year delayed the factory. Expected to be here early March. Only a few locos are left and is about 90% sold. I am holding the last handful of reservations that are open. Its been a fun project and glad to see it was so successful and its time to move into the next one the SRRL #6 Forney. That is still about 2 years out for a production but it will be nice an it gives me time to get a few rolling stock kits out to run behind.


----------



## Underdog (Jan 31, 2014)

I gave this a shot, but David Fletcher's detailed drawing of Fairymead shows a 24" driver and Scott's information with the photo shows a 30" driver on Ariel. So Ariel's drivers should be 1.25% the size of Fairymead. I think I may be off. http://www.mylargescale.com/Communi...//photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src=


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Kovacjr on 07 Feb 2014 07:07 AM 
Posted By Scottychaos on 05 Feb 2014 10:28 AM 
Posted By Phippsburg Eric on 05 Feb 2014 07:56 AM 
Those $200 passenger trucks by Steve king are Really cool but pricy, he has a simplified version half price available from Jason at The Train Department...


Actually, the $200 set *is* the "simplified version at half price"! The original version, no longer on the site, was close to $400 for a set..

Scot


Scot, the resin passenger truck kit (Economy passenger Truck) is the cheaper 100.0 kit. Currently having a batch of castings done to have more stock.
The premium passenger trucks are 200 set and I just sold the last set. I did not have them listed on the site as Steve had to scrounge to make the kit up. If there is a big enough demand we can requote the laser parts as the laser costs have risen since Steve originally cut out those years ago. We will be revisiting this truck when I bring out a Caboose and build a few coaches for myself. Not sure if there will be full coach kits but since I want to make one for myself I'll end up making a batch as I will have cast and laser parts used. 

Thanks Jason..
but there is still some confusion..
Steve King's old site, and now your site, have always listed the price per *truck*..Singular.
So I have always assumed that is the price for one truck, and if you want two of them, you have to double the order, and double the price..
The "premium" trucks were listed at $200 per truck ($400 for a set of two)
And the "economy" trucks are currently listed as $100 per truck ($200 for a set of two)
But your note above seems to have a mix of singular and plural..so its still not clear what the actual prices are..
They should probably be listed, IMO, as the price for "Set of two trucks, enough for one car"..since that is the way 99% of people would be buying them..
thanks,
Scot


----------



## Underdog (Jan 31, 2014)

Unsettling that Ariel was lost forever (or at least until Accucraft gets around to her). Why did Ariel run with the boiler in the front and then at other times run in the other direction (backwards with boiler toward the back of the train) ? 

http://www.mylargescale.com/Communi...//photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src=


----------



## Dave Meashey (Jan 2, 2008)

Underdog; 

It may be that the Forneys were more stable running bunker first. That way, the truck supporting the bunker and cab could act like the lead truck of a 4-4-0 type locomotive, and guide the locomotive into track irregularities. The bunker first orientation certainly gave the engineer better visibility. Most of the photos I have seen that show Forneys running in elevated railway commuter service do show the locomotive running bunker first. 

Just a guess, 
David Meashey


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Unsettling that Ariel was lost forever (or at least until Accucraft gets around to her). 
No more unsettling than all the other steam engines that were scrapped before we were born. Other things are lost forever, like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, and the LNER P2 2-8-2. 

Why did Ariel run with the boiler in the front and then at other times run in the other direction (backwards with boiler toward the back of the train) ? 
Saves installing a turntable at every end point. Makes for faster departures if all you have to do is run around the train and re-couple. It was 2' gauge because they wanted to save money!


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Ariel and Puck were originally designed to run "tender first".. 
In this photo, the tender end is the front: 










Notice the pilot/cowcatcher, and the larger "primary" headlight, both on the left side. 

However, when they became Sandy River Railroad number 1 and 2, the SRRR switched the ends, and designated the end with the boiler as the official front. 
After that, all the rest of the Maine 2-foot forneys had the boiler-end as "front".. 
only Ariel and Puck originally had the tender-end as "front", and only during their initial brief career with the B&B. 

Another interesting tidbit about the original Aerial and Puck, they had one set of blind drivers! (no flanges) 
(the driver set closest to the cab..its visible in the photo above) They ran fine this way! which seems counterintuitive.. 
They ran this way initially on the SRRR as well, but the blind drivers were later replaced by flanged drivers. 

One of the advantages of Forneys is that they were easily "bi-directional".. 
They could happily run in either direction, and didn't need to be turned like locomotives with a traditional separate tender. 

Scot


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Another interesting tidbit about the original Aerial and Puck, they had one set of blind drivers! (no flanges) 
That fits with the 'tender/bunker first' design. In that era, the 4-4-0 reigned supreme, and it was common for the 4-wheel front truck to have a single pivot and the front drivers to be blind. The B&O RR Museum even has a 4-6-0 with the same arrangement - two sets of blind drivers behind the front pilot truck! 
In this photo, you can see the wider tires on the front two drivers. http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=440527

There's an old thread about them http://www.mylargescale.com/Community/Forums/tabid/56/aft/22314/Default.aspx


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

yes Scott the truck kits are sold as a pair. To my knowledge they always have been. I think possible that it was a typo. 

Yes the Puck would be a neat loco but I had measured it up for 7/8ths and the stack is just over 9" tall. Yes it is a large loco why I chose the Fairymead. it fits into existing 20.3 railroads well. The Ariel and Puck will require some tall clearances. I too have a original erection drawing of the Puck that I was working from to decide. maybe in the future as I have some rolling stock drawings that would run with her.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Kovacjr on 07 Feb 2014 12:13 PM 
yes Scott the truck kits are sold as a pair. To my knowledge they always have been. I think possible that it was a typo. 


Thanks! good to know..

if that is the case, the wording on the site really needs to be changed..
if the price has always meant "a pair of trucks" then for many years many people have thought the trucks are twice as expensive as they actually are..
because the wording implies "price is for one truck only"..
that has probably hurt sales dramatically..(and I know im not the only one who has thought that..I have seen it discussed on the 7/8n2 forum in years past..)

(ah! I just checked the site..I see its been updated!  excellent..)
thanks,
Scot


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 07 Feb 2014 12:34 PM 
Posted By Kovacjr on 07 Feb 2014 12:13 PM 
yes Scott the truck kits are sold as a pair. To my knowledge they always have been. I think possible that it was a typo. 


Thanks! good to know..

if that is the case, the wording on the site really needs to be changed..
if the price has always meant "a pair of trucks" then for many years many people have thought the trucks are twice as expensive as they actually are..
because the wording implies "price is for one truck only"..
that has probably hurt sales dramatically..(and I know im not the only one who has thought that..I have seen it discussed on the 7/8n2 forum in years past..)

(ah! I just checked the site..I see its been updated!  excellent..)
thanks,
Scot

Scot, Where are you checking? Steve's old site is no longer hosted. Its only on my site and I know that my listing always shown as a set or pair.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Jason, 
I was looking at your site in the past few days.. 
I see it says "pair" for the freight trucks, but it doesn't for the passenger car trucks.. 
I suppose it has probably said "pair" for the freight car trucks for awhile now, but I didn't notice that until today.. 
I only looked at the passenger trucks a few days ago, and it still doesn't say "pair" for those.. 
it still says "2162 Economy Passenger Truck" for $100. 

I dont think it ever said "pair" on Steves site, it only ever said "truck", for all the trucks, freight and passenger.. 
(perhaps he always meant "pair"..but it never actually said that on the site..) 
but thanks! im very glad this has all been cleared up..this news alone could get back into 7/8n2. 

Scot


----------



## Underdog (Jan 31, 2014)

To the uninitiated is "this" a photo of what is considered a "pair of trucks?":


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

It looks like a pair to me ... sort of like a pair of socks.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Underdog on 08 Feb 2014 03:50 PM 
To the uninitiated is "this" a photo of what is considered a "pair of trucks?":









Yes, that is a "pair of trucks"

Just one of them is:
Truck. (singular)
One truck.
Single truck.

Two of them, as in the photo above is:
Trucks (plural)
Pair of trucks.
Set of trucks .

Scot


----------



## Phippsburg Eric (Jan 10, 2008)

while designing my Emma Forney, I looked at what an Emma might look like built as Puck or Arial.










The drivers are a little small, so i added fenders (splashers as the Brits call em) it could make a convincing if not exactly accurate representation of those two fancy little engines.


----------

