NOW THAT KATO COMING WITH U.P. 844 WHEN THE SANTA FE 3751 GOING TO COME OUT MAYBE TAKE THE DRIVE PUT SANTA FE SHELL AND TENDER?
If Kato were so inclined to do modern excursion engines with their new driveline, what other 4-8-4s could they do? In no order: 1) Milw 261 2) ATSF 3751 3) ?
SP&S #700, I'm not sure why Kato couldn't do it because they could make NP and GN 4-8-4's while they're at it. Or modelers could bash them out of #700's.
A bit of a stretch, but: C&O 614: http://www.co614.com/main/ and N&W 611: http://fireup611.org/ All survivors: http://www.steamlocomotive.com/lists/searchdb.php?whyte=4-8-4&country=USA
I was recently told that the current 844 tender top has much more "furniture" on it than original 800-series tenders. Can you hear the pre-release whining beginning? LOL Even if they just release 844 as current and perhaps an undec, this should prove to be a winner. The two-tone scheme would be a big bonus. The coreless motor is the real interesting part to me. It probably would be available eventually as a replacement part.
The original 844 was coal fired I think and the current 844 burns waste oil . At the very least a coal bunker tender needs to be an add on.
Most folks seem to be assuming that the Kato release will be configured to match today's excursion version. I have seen no evidence of this and am hoping that, as is more typical of Kato, it is close to or the same as the original "as built" configuration.
But NorsemanJack, all the images released by Kato in their teasers show 844 in modern times, and pulling the excursion train - that is the evidence everyone except you is using. If they were only going to release the original configuration, it would seem like they would use only that image. And I think that would be shortsighted as many know 844 in its current configuration. I believe, as some others have pointed out, that kato would release multiple versions of 844 including 8444 and the original configuration with coal tender to best meet the needs with minimal tooling changes. If you have some other data, please share. John
They sure can put out a large number of unique locomotives with only a few changes to the shells. Paint schemes are easier yet to change. They may not all come out at the same time but I would guess that over the next few years they could cover them all.
Otto has a good point. Driver size isn't everything. Boiler size might be factor with using a larger prototype mech with a smaller prototype shell. Another stumbling point is the type of drivers on the UP model versus your chosen prototype. CNW: http://www.railarchive.net/centprog/cnw3024.htm UP: A quick look on http://www.steamlocomotive.com/northern/ will get the details for your chosen road. A couple examples: A GN S2 class has 80" drivers but weighed about 50K less. NP A2-A5 class (including SP&S E-1 class /SP&S 700) are about the same weight or heavier, but have 77" drivers. RF&P had 77" drivers but 20K lighter. NYC S1b class had 79" drivers and slightly less weight. LV T3 class had 77" drivers and 40K less weight. DL&W Q1 class had 77" drivers but 60K less weight.
Just to be exact, all 800's were converted to oil in 1946, at the same time UP ordered all 800's to be painted in two-toned gray. None were ever re-fitted to burn coal, and it would seem logical that a coal load would be a valid decision, but, there is one big problem with the coal loads. All ten FEF-3's had Worthington SA Feedwater Heaters added to their smokeboxes after they were converted to oil. The firebox had to be lengthened 18" to accommodate it. The modern 844 still has a Worthington SA Feedwater Heater up on top in front of the stack, so....this means that a coal-fired FEF-3 that has a Worthington SA Feedwater Heater is anachronistic...incorrect. For Kato to be correct as far as a coal-fired FEF-3 is concerned, the smokebox would have to be a scale 18" shorter, minus the SA "furniture" in front of the stack and minus the SA pump on the left side of the engine...meaning probably that an additional complete boiler/backhead/smokebox casting would have to be made. Also, add-on ash pans would be mandatory. I seriously doubt they're going to do all that. My information about the feedwater heater modifications states that not all FEF-2's and FEF-1's received this modification, but gives no info as to which FEF's did or did not get converted. However, two valid and logical marketing decisions would be to offer the engine with a transition era oil bunker top (or as an add-on part) and an FEF-2 bolt-on-drop-coupler pilot which would be correct for the 2's. Most of the 15 FEF-2's were equipped with Worthington SA Feedwater Heaters sometime after they'd been converted to oil in 1946, and at the same time their original single stack was replaced with a double stack (a few had experimental triple stacks), and the smokebox door was replaced with an FEF-3 door, eventually making the FEF-2's visually identical to the FEF-3's except for their bolt-on drop-coupler pilot... Here's a photo of an FEF-2 bolt-on-drop-coupler pilot on the FEF-2 833 at Ogden Union Station: Compare the above photo to this photo of FEF-3 844's cast-swing-coupler pilot also at Ogden Union Station: Also, the modern 844 has several differences as compared to the transition-era FEF-3's, the main differences being the modern safety appliances and spill dams on the top of the present-day 844 as compared to the simple lid and vent on the transition era engines. Other visible differences on the modern engine are two steam generators up on top on the fireman's side near the cab, a firecracker antenna near the rear of the cab roof and the rear of the tender has MU connections, water bottle connections, a clear hose water level "gauge" running from top to bottom and several other differences. Here's a photo of the modern 844 all shiny and straight, with nickel plated features on the boiler, dual generators, and firecracker antenna: Here's a photo of the rear of the tender on the modern 844 coupled up to a water bottle: Compare this photo of the rear of the tender on the transition era FEF-2 833 to the above photo: I need to get permission to climb up on the 833 to document the top of the tender and the oil bunker appliances. When I do, I'll post photos. Cheerio! Bob Gilmore
Reading the posts here, I feel Kato are making a big mistake doing this loco, no matter what/how/why they do, it will be wrong. Besides, the original 8444 would have used a Pittman Open Frame motor, not a Coreless one.
IF Kato releases it in its 'current' guise...it doesn't appear that it will be too much of a stretch for me to backdate to my 1957-era...I'm definitely in for one!!!! ~Bruce
