One drawback of the centipede is that to be able to get the trucks, what would you have to pay just for that? Might be better just trying to get an actual brass Little Joe first.
If Broadway makes a Centipede, are the trucks spaced at the same wheelbase (or close to a 'Joe? How about wheel diameter?
Hemi beat me to it. I think the idea would be to buy a BLI Centipede and kitbash the trucks and mechanism for the Little Joe. If it is possible of course. At this point, it is only a brain storm idea.
Wouldn't that a terrible sacrifice of a good centipede, which is about as hard to get in N scale as a Little Joe. And brass is not cheap, either, as a kitbashing source.
I think the idea is if Broadway Limited (don't they make plastic engines?) makes a Centipede, we might have a workable chassis.
Good luck finding one. I think there was only something like 160 of them produced. I had a E79 Joe and it was #18 of a production of 21 for that version. I ended up selling it to pay for my wifes wedding ring.
Been awhile since my last update. That's one of the drawbacks with testing concepts, redesigning, sending to Shapeways, waiting, repeat. I've been focusing on the trucks, getting them to mate with the Kato SD90 truck and I think I've got the right formula now. I tried two concepts, first one was to print the truck in one piece: Here I used the strong flexible plastic material because it's cheap, the detail isn't too terrible, and it is REALLY strong which suits the function of this part. Unfortunately the details produced won't be good enough for the hard core so I'm thinking of going with another option. This would involve a two piece system, where the side frames would be printed in the detailed material, then a "sled" would couple to the wheels/truck and the two pieces would be CA'd together: Printing it in one piece in FUD would just be really expensive, plus I worry about the strength of the material when you're clipping the wheel sets in with such tight tolerances. I may try it just to see how viable it is and offer it as an option if price is no object. The single piece print in the first photo above with the strong flexible plastic fit like a glove. It was nice to slide the Kato parts in and get the "click" of a good coupling. For those that have never seen that material printed in black... it's really dark, like black-hole dark, so I had to shine a light on it just so it would photograph! Next on my plate is to dial-in the pilot trucks (using IM 36" metal wheels) and work on a chassis to bring the trucks and body together. Cheers, -Mike
You are a very patient person. Working through a prolonged process such as this would drive me to having a few drinks!
Glad to see you still plugging away on this one. After E-78's 1966 wreck when it was rebuilt with a different carbody, how externally different (carbody shape-wise) was it from the other 'Joes?
I've been called "patient" by many, this is true. The main thing keeping me steady is that I'd really like to do this thing right. Hemi, the most obvious difference you'd see on the rebuilt E78 are the grills along the side of the carbody. As built, the EF4 grills had contoured/rounded ends. The rebuilt grills are completely rectangular. Also, there appear to be extra venting below the long grills, a sheet metal patch and what looks like a new battery hatch on the engineer's side. You can see a pretty clear view of these in this picture: https://www.flickr.com/photos/37908073@N04/8575769460/. It also appears that the black paint on the top side was dropped an additional 2(?) inches to align with the bottom of the new grills. As far as the cabs, they came from donor EMD F units and the biggest difference seen is in the window area. The the "A" pillars are much thicker, and the edges generally are smoother/rounded around the rebuilt unit's glass. Some will argue this, but I can only go on the photographic evidence that I see, but I don't think there is much difference in the rake of the nose itself after the rebuild. The nose contours did have to be adjusted near the new windows, which rounded out the bend you see just above the nose grab and number board. Here's a comparison pic to demonstrate these differences: Once I get everything right with the current version I'm building, I'll probably take on the rebuilt E-78 for variety. -Mike
Mike, I applaud your initiative to do it right (and your patience too). I knew the E78 was wrecked and had a rebuilt carbody with the Farr grilles, but that's where my knowledge ends. This one's gonna be a doozie of a model!
This sounds like a pretty good concept. I was getting kind of anxious as to how powered trucks could be found for these. I know the people over on the railwire who were working on a resin kit were suggesting using old Arnold GG1 chassis and turning down the wheels on them. This sounds like a much friendlier, reliable kato quality option that doesn't require such fine craftsman skills. I will have to seriously consider building up a parts inventory to eventually get a few shells going and have chassis ready for them.
There was quite a write up about the E78 wreck, in a back issue of MRHA's The Milwaukee Railroader. I was re-reading it last week. Lucky the outcome wasn't even worse.
That's exactly what I'm shooting for. I don't have the modelling skills to pull something like this off without being able to use readily available parts and minimal modifications. What I lack in modelling skills though I try to make up for with software skills. Here are the latest prints of the trucks received a couple days ago. This time printed in white so I can see things a little better: I'm going to make a couple small adjustments and then move on to the chassis. Boxcab - were there any additional details about the E78 wreck that would be helpful from a modelling perspective? -Mike
Thank you, James! Sorry all I haven't had any updates in awhile, work has been keeping me occupied through late hours and I just haven't had the extra time. Hopefully I can get back to this in about a week. The other day one my customers sent me pics of what he had done with his Little Joe. When he mentioned to me that he actually had it running on his layout I asked if he could shoot a video of it. He did a quick video grab which I'm sharing with you guys: [video=youtube;OQopus5pg6c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQopus5pg6c[/video] Essentially he's running it with a slightly modified GG1 mechanism. He said the axle spacing worked out nicely with the Joe sideframes. Being a GG1 mech, this model is running on six powered axles and he says the missing fourth axle is not noticeable. I sure can't notice it using the 3 foot rule, and I think it looks great on the rails. I'm not sure if he's decided on a final paint scheme for it - he's got other models keeping him busy so it may be awhile for this one to be finished. So far I'd say he's off to a great start. If anyone else has ordered a shell and has worked on it, I'd love to see your progress! -Mike
Wish it was moving a little slower. Hard to follow and see how it looks coming around corners, etc. What did he use for pantographs?
Those are Kato GG1 pans. The shell was designed to utilize them so they'd be a perfect drop in fit. -Mike
