ModelRail USTC 0-6-0 Tank Loco Project USA

[PhilJ W]

I'm sure I've seen an AUSSIE steam passenger locomotive in green and yellow - so your memory might be thinking along the same lines !!?!.

Did any USTC tanks make it to Australia?

[MikeParkin65]

Can anyone comment on what haulage capacity is like - I'm wondering whether one could fill a role on my 'up north' themed layout as a highly unlikely station pilot!

[Wickham Green]

Can anyone comment on what haulage capacity is like - I'm wondering whether one could fill a role on my 'up north' themed layout as a highly unlikely station pilot!

Didn't one of the Southern ones actually make a tentative forray north of the Thames at one time !!?!

[JSpencer]

Can anyone comment on what haulage capacity is like - I'm wondering whether one could fill a role on my 'up north' themed layout as a highly unlikely station pilot!

 

That is indeed a dubious idea. They are not really suited for the place nor the duty in question. You would be better off sticking with rule number 1 if anyone asks. "it is my layout and I run what I like".

[Wickham Green]

That said american steam locos only seemed to have 3 colours... Silver, Black and white for the letters :-)

I wonder what inspired the lads in Yorkshire to paint 72 brown ?

[stewartingram]

American loco/american style livery I suspect. One I really like, mine is on order.

 

Stewart

[Butler Henderson]

I wonder what inspired the lads in Yorkshire to paint 72 brown ?

Left over paint from doing the 57xx ?

[PMP]

Can anyone comment on what haulage capacity is like - I'm wondering whether one could fill a role on my 'up north' themed layout as a highly unlikely station pilot!

' healthy'' I've got the pre-prod worth valley No72, and at least 30 standard 10ft wheelbase wagons is no problem

[dibber25]

Can anyone comment on what haulage capacity is like - I'm wondering whether one could fill a role on my 'up north' themed layout as a highly unlikely station pilot!

I had one of the EPs hauling 13 coaches round my 3ft radius curves. (CJL)

[Wickham Green]

Can anyone comment on what haulage capacity is like - I'm wondering whether one could fill a role on my 'up north' themed layout as a highly unlikely station pilot!

Didn't one of the Southern ones actually make a tentative forray north of the Thames at one time !!?!

 

YEP ! ........... and no : it was TWO that escaped - briefly. Bradley states "In Early September 1955 Nos. 30061/6 were loaned to the London Midland Region, the former .... at Kentish Town .... whjile No. 30066 travelled to Bank Hall, Liverpool. .... both were back at Southampton by the end of October 1955." ............. a brief time-slot, maybe, but Bank Hall's most definitely 'up north' ( in most peoples' books anyway ) !

 

As for haulage ? : should be prodigious if the chassis's made of depleted uranium for weight !

[G-BOAF]

Didn't one of the Southern ones actually make a tentative forray north of the Thames at one time !!?!

 

YEP ! ........... and no : it was TWO that escaped - briefly. Bradley states "In Early September 1955 Nos. 30061/6 were loaned to the London Midland Region, the former .... at Kentish Town .... whjile No. 30066 travelled to Bank Hall, Liverpool. .... both were back at Southampton by the end of October 1955." ............. a brief time-slot, maybe, but Bank Hall's most definitely 'up north' ( in most peoples' books anyway ) !

 

As for haulage ? : should be prodigious if the chassis's made of depleted uranium for weight !

originally, the 'spec' was a tungsten chassis (and indeed it was when I placed my order). I presume since the move from Dapol to Bachmann, the chassis is now their normal pot metal (mazak)?

 

Presumably the tanks are well stuffed with something!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

originally, the 'spec' was a tungsten chassis (and indeed it was when I placed my order). I presume since the move from Dapol to Bachmann, the chassis is now their normal pot metal (mazak)?

 

Presumably the tanks are well stuffed with something!

 I never understood why tungsten was specified for such a model, the cuboid 'bricks' afforded by the side tanks and bunker more than sufficient for ballasting with mazak. The similarly sized 57xx and Jinty from Bachmann possess ample traction ballasted in this way. They will take away sixty four wheel wagons or an equivalent weight in coaches: similar to the load Chris Leigh describes in post 461 above.

 

(Not that I am agin the use of tungsten: in 'difficult' subjects with limited internal volume and/or awkwardly balanced configurations - early locos generally, singles, 0-4-4T, especially come to mind - it could be used to great effect in a well thought out design.)

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

 I never understood why tungsten was specified for such a model, the cuboid 'bricks' afforded by the side tanks and bunker more than sufficient for ballasting with mazak. The similarly sized 57xx and Jinty from Bachmann possess ample traction ballasted in this way. They will take away sixty four wheel wagons or an equivalent weight in coaches: similar to the load Chris Leigh describes in post 461 above.

 

(Not that I am agin the use of tungsten: in 'difficult' subjects with limited internal volume and/or awkwardly balanced configurations - early locos generally, singles, 0-4-4T, especially come to mind - it could be used to great effect in a well thought out design.)

 

Remember that all new models these days have to balance out traction weight with space available for DCC decoders and in some cases speakers for sound. I had to use one side tank on my kit built USA for the Loksound 3.5 micro that I installed. The speaker was one of the small 16mm speakers that fitted ( just ) in the smokebox facing rearwards.

[TheQ]

Just arrived in the post, one USTC tank loco, in USTC colours, in perfect condition, I'll test it tonight on the club 00 track, before trying work out how to modify it to EM gauge.

[TheQ]

A quick test Run last night, very heavy for its size, one of the quietist models I've ever run and very smooth, even on DC it would crawl along very slowly straight out of the box. It's obviously geared down, which is what you want for a little tank loco. It's top speed respectable without being ridiculous.

I couldn't do any load tests as we had our post club Open day meeting, so ran out of time.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Remember that all new models these days have to balance out traction weight with space available for DCC decoders and in some cases speakers for sound...

 True, but I reckon the 'enlightened' approach is for the manufacturer to make the installed ballast easily removeable. Then the modeller wanting internal space removes the mazak or whatever has been used, and substitutes lead which offers a substantial increase in density. I have consistently been able to increase weight in loco models where required, despite requiring a void for a decoder.

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

. It's top speed respectable without being ridiculous.

 

 

I do recall reading somewhere that these locos had three major problems. 1) they were out of gauge for running through platforms 2) they were very uncomfortable over about 25 mph 3) they had no ash pan so were prone to setting light to sleepers if left too long stationary and fully fired

[DLPG]

I've wanted a USA tank for a while. How about an S160 next?

I would love an S160. LNER region would be great. Seen a couple of pics of them running in within the region

[Butler Henderson]

I do recall reading somewhere that these locos had three major problems. 1) they were out of gauge for running through platforms 2) they were very uncomfortable over about 25 mph 3) they had no ash pan so were prone to setting light to sleepers if left too long stationary and fully fired

Could the out of gauge through platforms have been at a specific location, given preserved examples do not seem to have problems.

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

Could the out of gauge through platforms have been at a specific location, given preserved examples do not seem to have problems.

 

'Out of gauge' is more a component of clearances than a definite guaranteed platform strike. In other words the guy or team responsible for such measurements has to be sure that the specific locomotive being measured is capable of taking the platform at speed and possibly swaying and leaving a sufficient margin for that to be possible. This can vary with track movement and wear on the sleeper bed so is an ongoing issue. I do believe that the Dock Tank pushed the boundaries beyond the limit of what was considered safe.

 

I would imagine that these Dock Tanks were very carefully watched when on any movement such as a transfer from Eastleigh to Ashford although I would imagine that, at the time, there was a fair amount of use of 'through' tracks.

 

Preserved railways are not  so carefully controlled as main lines were/are working on the basis that the speed limit takes care of most issues with clearance and the rest is basically 'if you bash it, you repair it'.

 

What I don't know is just how much 'out of gauge' these Dock Tanks actually were/are but afaik they were never used for other than shunting in Soton Docks or on other non BR sites, none of which had platforms to worry about. I do believe that at least one preserved railway has decided against having a Dock Tank due to this and other issues.

[Oldddudders]

American S100s had cowcatchers and buckeyes.

Not Buffers

 

http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/11424

 

That said american steam locos only seemed to have 3 colours... Silver, Black and white for the letters :-)

For most freight locos that was true, but green boiler jackets were by no means unknown on prestige passenger power. And other colours were used by roads keen to boost their image. Southern Pacific's GS locos come to mind, in Daylight colours.

 

I do recall reading somewhere that these locos had three major problems. 1) they were out of gauge for running through platforms 2) they were very uncomfortable over about 25 mph 3) they had no ash pan so were prone to setting light to sleepers if left too long stationary and fully fired

I suspect 1 & 2 were related. If the locos waddled or hunted at relatively low speeds they might indeed have problems with platform copers, yet restricting them to, say, 20mph through platforms would make them tiresome to use on trip etc workings. The 27 mph of their diesel successors certainly limited their appeal on the main line.

[autocoach]

The Pennsylvania RR had maroon and gold and I'm sure I've seen an American steam passenger locomotive in green and yellow.

US USTC did/does not have a "cow catcher".  This is in operation at the California State Railroad Museum in Sacramento California. The step board arrangement at the front is often called a "switching pilot" and is basically a place for the switchmen (shunters to you) to stand on while the locomotive moves back and forth during switching (shunting) operations.  This is 1940's and 50's technology before the US equivalent of health and safety (OSHA) along with very high insurance premiums stopped the practice. 

Edited August 14, 2016 by autocoach

[dibber25]

A pair of 'USAs' worked a railtour over the Fawley branch and may have done other tours. There was also one as shed pilot at Guildford for a time. I'm sure I've seen pictures of them in the platform road at the Ocean Terminal, too. Seems strange that they would be built to UK loading gauge yet be out of gauge through platforms. The model certainly passes through my stations without touching the platforms! (CJL)

[TheQ]

The was no such thing as a UK loading gauge, practically every line was built to their own loading gauge long before grouping. Some of the constituents of the Southern Railways, were notorious for their small loading gauges, I suspect that maybe where they had the problem. I believe the USTC S100 and S160 were built to a composite gauge to allow use in most areas but not all.

Certainly I doubt there was ever a problem on the GWR ( which I model).

[The Stationmaster]

A pair of 'USAs' worked a railtour over the Fawley branch and may have done other tours. There was also one as shed pilot at Guildford for a time. I'm sure I've seen pictures of them in the platform road at the Ocean Terminal, too. Seems strange that they would be built to UK loading gauge yet be out of gauge through platforms. The model certainly passes through my stations without touching the platforms! (CJL)

 

I don't think they were out-of-gauge at platform height.   An original drawing shows them with a maximum width - measured across the side tanks - of 9 feet which is in fact the same as the maximum width permitted at platform coping level and below in the 1950 issue of the Requirements so on that basis they were very definitely not out of gauge unless the SR had made modifications (the most likely culprit being footsteps).  

 

There were obviously some older station platforms which did not conform with the 1950 figure but normally - in my experience - that was because they were too low and not because they were foul of the standard loading gauge in width terms although it is possible that the 'footsteps' on the USAs could have been foul of some platforms.   As far as moving them about was concerned consumed if they were hauled dead they would in any case have been treated as an Exceptional Load subject to various movement conditions and speed would have been restricted for lubrication reasons.  If there had been any gauge problems then they would have been treated as an Out-Of-Gauge Load but, probably, only in the most minor category with restrictions at any places where particular problems had been identified. 

 

With their extremely short coupled wheelbase, and outside cylinders, it would have been inevitable that they would tend to 'waddle' at any sort of speed although hanging a train behind them would help to steady that sort of motion (the WR 15XX were prone to that - with their longer wheelbase).  But then they were designed for shunting so it is hardly realistic to expect them to make really suitable engines for traintrip working in the manner of 0-6-Ts with a longer wheelbase.

Edited August 15, 2016 by The Stationmaster