Hi, Well I had a pretty good Bachmann Prairie that came in the Logging set. Well it just gave up the ghost and I need to replace it. I am not much of a steam person so I need a little help in replacing this unit. It will sit as yard fodder. Requirements: Unit needs to be old steam Replacement unit needs to be DCC, and by that I mean easy DCC. This leaves out the Atlas Shay. Unit needs to be a really good runner Unit does not need to pull more than about 6-8 cars, mostly log cars I have heard many great things about the Bachmann 2-8-0 Consolidation, but I was wondering if that would be appropriate. Are there any more suggestions? Thanks!
A 2-8-0 would be pretty big for a logging locomotive. You could modernize, and get a Bachmann 44 tonner. It would be appropriate for a logging road, and meet your other requirements. Already decoder equipped. Price isn't bad, either. Frank
The 44 tonners were built in 1940 to 1956. Definitely a steam-transition era locomotive. Shortlines loved them. Frank
dcc atlas shay If it is only doing the decoder install in the shay that rules it out for you, here's an ad for atlas shay decoder installation including decoder and lighting for $96. They also have shays on sale right now. http://www.tophobbytrains.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=4068
OK, I prefer to stay with steam though. After this latest episode, I may have to look at them, but I have also heard the couplers on the 44 tonner are a pain to change to MT. I need MT because I actually switch out loaded and unloaded lumber cars. Maybe I need to look at an RS-1/2/3/4/5 or something.
The 44-tonner couple can be changed to a McHenrys, which I know are not MTLs but they work well with the magnetic coupling and uncoupling with all my MTLs. I hear you on wanting to keep it steam and keep the DCC easy. This one is kind of tricky in N scale. For logging locos currently operational I have a class A Climax (built from one of randgust's kits, and definitely more work then than a decoder installation) and a 44-tonner. The 2-8-0 you mentioned is pretty big for the woods, thought plenty of western logging roads used smaller 2-8-0s and 2-8-2s (often 2-8-2Ts). If you are decide to look at diesels, a Kato NW2 would be right up in that era, too. The first ones were made just before WWII. Probably the best N scale RTR steam out there for the woods right now is the Shay from Atlas, but I hear you on the decoder installation.
I have not heard any mention of how well they work, but the newest 44 tonners have actually started coming with operational couplers instead of the dummy knuckles on the first ones.
Would a Model Power 2-6-0 or 4-4-0 work? I don't know if they would be appropriate for a logging operation or not, but they are easy to install a decoder in and while I don't have a 2-6-0 or 4-4-0 I do have a 4-6-2 and it is an excellent runner. You would have to change the coupler out because they come with rapido's.
If they're light enough locomotives, there probably were 4-4-0s and 2-6-0s similar to Model Power's models operating in the woods. I would need to see a size comparison and I don't have either of those models. The limiting factors on most logging roads for loco size were the weight of the loco and the turning radius. Logging roads could have tight curves, and the rail was usually lighter weight rail on a road-bed made only for the purpose of removing timber and not intended to stay much beyond that timeframe. A lot of smaller rod locos went to the woods. Geared locomotives were quite popular as well, but we only have one RTR geared loco (the Shay) and a Class A Climax kit (from randgust) in N scale. Everything else is a kit-bash. Delamaize here has made some very nice custom Climax locomotives, but each one is much more work than a Shay. Articulated locomotives in the woods appeared as train lengths became longer but track didn't improve much. An articulated locomotive spreads its weight out over a much longer frame than say an equally powerful non-articulated locomotive would, and so it is more suitable for light trackage. In some cases, as with Sumpter Valley's acquisition of Uintah's articulated locomotives, further changes had to be made. In Sumpter Valley's case, they ended up removing the tanks, as they presented too much additional weight on the locomotive wheels for the quality of trackage, and adding a tender to replace that capacity and distribute it.
I think a lot of folks make assumptions about what a "logging" railroad is. These assumptions can be based upon reality or perceptions. What an acceptable logging locomotive is would depend upon the terrain and the trackage that you intend to operate it on. And also on the logging operation that is supported. From 1928 - 1948 my prototype had four locomotives that were all 2-8-0's. Prior to 1928 they had some 2-6-0's and some Shays. My prototype operated in Southeast Arkansas where the terrain is fairly low lying and level. After 1928 the rail lines became more established and mechanical aids such as trucks and dozers meant that logs were able to be brought to the rails much more easily than they could by skidding them with horses, mules, and oxen or hauling them on wagons. The rails did not have to be brought to the logs. The lumber company also became much more scientific and systematical in their approach to forest management instead of, "Let's just log it out and make some money." They began to look at the forest as a renewable resource that could be managed versus a one shot deal. To decide what is an acceptable logging locomotive for your railroad,you need to look at: What type of logging operation you are supporting. What type of terrain it operates on. Length and weight of trains. What type of forest management approach the lumber company takes. What type of trackage your railroad operates on. Is it permanent or temporary?
Tad has a good point. I usually come at this from a Pacific Northwest perspective, where there are lots of mountains and where things were typically done in a particular way.
The new 44T loco's come with a working knuckle coupler so there is no need to replace them with MT's. So far, playing with them on my 2-6-6-2's, they seem to kiss couple easier than MT's. Haven't tried magnetic uncoupling. As far as a 2-8-0 for logging, my reference line, Buffalo Creek & Gauley also used them for a combination logging and coal line. They had some Shays that went deep in the woods but for the main line jobs, they used a few large 2-8-0's.
Assuming you like the original loco, what about using the Bachmann warranty? (Folks please discuss the merits of the Bachmann warrranty in the other thread, allowing this thread to maintain focus:tb-biggrin
Here in PA we had just about everything from rod locomotives to all types of geared locomotives into diesels. Tank engines, small 0-6-0's from Porter and Lima were also very popular. I've been tinkering around with the Atlas 2-6-0 mechanism and made a cast-metal boilered 0-6-4 concept and am still playing with the tender-powered 2-6-0. But neither are ready for prime time, and both rate a 15 on the 1-10 scale for degree of difficulty on the mechanisms. The Atlas (Micro-Ace) 2-6-0 is, with some modernization, a pretty appropriate-sized logging locomotive. In fact, it came out dead-accurate in driver size, wheelbase, etc. to the plans for the 'standard' Lima logging 2-6-0 out of their catalog. My prototype had two 2-6-0's, an old one that looked very similar to the base Micro-Ace, and a newer Lima-built with a bigger boiler and a steel cab. There were really two different functions for logging locomotives; handling the longer hauls out of the woods and also from mill to interchange, and working the logging spurs. An 8-mph Shay or Climax A made for a lousy long-haul locomotive; a 2-6-0 would be found derailed on a hastily-built logging spur. By the time that log trucks arrived, loggers that remained were mostly in the line haul log business (loading full trains from truck landings), and diesels that did logging did that function. If you are thinking diesels, think weight. The Atlas Shay is a 65-tonner, and even by Shay standards, that's a pretty big 2-truck Shay, didn't come much bigger. Even the smallest EMD diesel switcher, the SW1 and NW2, comes in over 100 tons. Standard GP7 weighs about 125. If you have logging track, which often had under 60-lb rail, and light bridges, conventional diesel switchers had a nasty habit of breaking rail and derailing. Not used much except by the big west coast operators like Weyerhauser that could upgrade rail. 44-tonners were relatively gutless wonders on grades, as were most little diesels. If you get into the 65-70 tonner range that seemed to be the preference for first-generation industrial diesels (1940-1950), but relatively few of those were ever used in logging. The MDC/Athearn 2-8-0 has at least one really good close relative in logging in Arizona - Southwest Forest Industries used a 2-8-0 of that vintage in logging service up until 1967 (line haul). The locomotive is now parked near the Flagstaff depot. Light 2-8-0's like that were also used in PA. Southwest Forest Industries in Flagstaff used Bachmann-styled 4-4-0's to start with; there's a classic shot of one of those pulling a log train with a Barnhart loader on it in "Central Arizona Railroad" by Thomas Schuppert.
David, I would use a 2-8-0 from spectrum. I just did a decoder in mine (about an hour ago) and they are easy to do. I have a PDF I can send you if you want. The 2-8-0 is a decent puller. With a decoder installed I get a top speed of 56 smph out of it.
