Cunningham Loco & Machine Works

American, indeed! That's a German Reichsbahn Einheitslok, albeit a very impressionistic rendition thereof, if I ever saw one.

Here is a work-in-progress shot of a real hybrid, of which more information probably to follow later. I consider the identity of model locomotives to derive from the chassis, and thus consider it an ongoing rebuild of a Tyco 4-6-0. That said, it presently incorporates: the chassis thereof, body shell from a Wrenn R1 scrapped when her drivers were found to be irreparably damaged, cylinder saddle, crosshead guides and forward main rod sections from scrap Rivarossi “Casey Jones”, handbuilt brass frame extensions and crosshead guide yoke, and incidental scratchbuilt styrene components.

This ought to help you in considering how or if to to power a Monogram Hudson. Note that Monogram had a pretty tenuous understanding of how a steam locomotive goes together!

The Dublo/Wrenn Class 08 can look rather good when nicely finished. Here's one I repainted as an industrial locomotive for a future micro layout. I made no modifications save replacing the tension link couplers with Kadees. While she looks wonderful aesthetically, she nonetheless suffers from certain mechanical defects. First that which is in no way attributable to her basic design. A large part of the trouble with her running has been attributable to rust on her crankpins; this was obviated, first with penetrating oil and subsequently with lapping compound, but I do not believe it fully cured at the moment. This leads to the first problem with the design: the model is not engineered to facilitate comprehensive servicing. Crankpins are formed by rivets instead of shouldered screws; thus they and the rods to which they attach cannot be removed to be cleaned or else worked on without destroying the crankpins. Driving wheels cannot be dropped as they can be on models with separate keeper plates forming the lower portion of the axle-holes. Driving axles lack septate bearings, instead bearing directly on the main frames. Second, her side-rod transmission is built with sufficient slop as to cause some minor crankpin binding to be practically inevitable at times. This would not constitute a real defect if not for her third issue; her gear ratio, in proportion to the slow speed torque and starting voltage of her motor, is entirely inadequate. Depending on the position of her drivers, and whether the temporary crankpin bind has again occurred, she will start adequately slowly, but will presently stall. She has not sufficient low-speed motor torque to overcome the bind in her transmission. The only solution to this is to give the motor more power, but as her gear ratio is too low she then accelerates in a most un-shunter-like way. In light of these points, I do not understand what seems to me the inordinately high esteem placed on Hornby-Dublo's mechanical quality. I am sure that their engines ran (and run) pretty well as toys, but they certainly aren't the top of the line miniature machinery they have been claimed as. Indeed, even such humble latter-day model engines as the Hornby Railways Margate-edition Jinty and its mechanical derivatives have separate bearings, removable crankpins, and droppable drivers (though the "Ringfield" tender drive was no good as a scale model mechanism, though fine as a toy).

I certainly did. It happens that the linked video of the Railway Roundabout episode, which I didn't think would be particularly useful, included a shot showing precisely what I needed to see. I only realized this after posting the question, but oh, well.

I am presently occupied by making a 3D model of Harbone station. Sundry prototype photographs have been immensely useful in determining platform construction, but they have one single defect. It happens that none of them show the brickwork peculiar to the construction of the platform ends. I wonder whether anyone has good photographs or drawings showing this same feature on similar stations, or of the pertinent LNWR platform standard. Thanks immensely if you do!

The upper portion of the frame on that ALCo is neither cast nor welded, but was instead forged in one piece, a means often employed on these smaller engines. Further details forthcoming.

If you can't get to scaletrainsclub.com, never mind; I can repost all the images you like.

Those drawings are wrong; note that the air pump is connected to the reverse rod, and that the artist failed to ascertain that the O class was a cross-compound. Here is some better Russian (and, for what it's worth, Ukrainian, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Moldovan, Armenian, etc.) material. Attached are some proper scale drawings from the link (it's not as if we need to respect Russian copyright law by now...)

Rather a nice example of what one can do with an outdoor photo diorama. It's a pity the weathering on the pannier's been fouled up, and that the smoke effect's rather unconvincing. I'll pass our artist on that obvious HO scale American freight car, for that's good weathering, and he obviously starting out with what models he could find cheap. Probably just got into railway modeling from Warhammer, and I can't fault him for that. (Courtesy Wikimedia Commons)

Steam locomotive models with solenoids in the cylinders instead of a great lump of motor drivetrain protruding into what should be "daylight".

Has anyone good detail photographs (or, less likely, drawings) of the modifications (from the original Stanier design) to the War Department 8F's?

Nice ballasting and scenicking on that diorama; you can't hardly spot the edge beyond the fence. But did they have to spoil it with that pristine grounded van?

Trick: If you don't want to screw up the finish, (over)paint with acrylic; if and when the error occurs, it can be removed with ordinary domestic ammonia cleaner, which melts neither plastic nor lacquer.

The history of the Deutsche Reichsbahn standard 2-10-0s begins during the First World War. during which the sundry railways of the German Empire, then under the administration of its constituent states and hence fairly disparate in their motive power, faced wartime conditions which had exacerbated the supply and maintenance problems inherent to the operation of unstandardized equipment to the point of intolerability. The national railway administration therefore chose the Prussian Class G12 to serve as their common standard design of heavy freight locomotive. It is of note that this was a three cylinder machine, and that this influenced subsequent design. After the war, and the merger and nationalization of the state railways, the nascent Reichsbahn pursued standardization further; proscribing the construction of several standard classes (literally translated construction series, or baurehie). (It is, however, interesting to note that the German standard locomotive policy anticipated the British; prior to the development of these standard classes, the DR continued to build certain pre-nationalization classes under its own auspices). The first of these standard classes relevant to this expostulation were the BR 43 and BR 44. In accordance with contemporary disputes as to the relative merits of 2-cylinder locomotives vs. 3 and 4-cylinder locomotives, the otherwise-identical BR 43 and BR 44 were built with 2 and 3 cylinders, respectively. The BR 43 was slightly more economical (at low speeds), but the BR 44 had better performance; the BR 44 was therefore built in greater numbers. The Reichsbahn, thus possessed of a very satisfactory heavy freight engine, continued to build and operate it as their pre-eminent standard class thereof—until 1939, when the war and consequently increased traffic rendered necessary the procurement of more motive power, and for lines too light to take the BR 43's axle loading. A smaller engine, the BR 50, was therefore developed, and owing to their greater versatility built in greater numbers. As the war continued and material shortages developed, the BR 44 and BR 50 were therefore simplified, first into "transitional war locomotive" versions thereof, and finally into further simplified separate classes, the Kriegsloks: the BR 42 and Br 52. The BR 42 was too heavy for the lighter railways of most of the territories occupied by the Third Reich, so that the BR 52 was built in greater numbers, eventually becoming the single most numerous class of German 2-10-0. As to the fates of the engines dispersed to other countries after the war; that is rather involved, and would constitute a digression. Suffice to say that the Deutsche Bundesbahn considered the BR 52s too oversimplified and roughly built for their service, and dismantled them for common parts to rebuild their BR 50s, while the East German Deutsche Reichsbahn rebuilt theirs into better engines, having fewer class 50s available. The DB 050, 051, 052, and 053 were just subclasses of the class 50 as determined by the 1968 DB renumbering, distinguished by such minor variations as oil firing and brakeman's cab. This was to obviate the use of the similar cab fitted to some covered wagons, which was, of course, not present on all rolling stock.

It's a baby J50!

Yes, but they're disconcertingly quiet otherwise. Doesn't look like it's too easy to keep the turbine steam tight, either.

RE: Tit-Willow. It looks as if your model is of the first locomotive in Japan after the circa 1884 rebuilding. PRIOR TO: AFTER: All information from auto-translated Japanese Wikipedia. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/国鉄150形蒸気機関車

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/745314/ When the little hooligans ignore the "do not touch" signs.

Nice to see the Lovett Eames on here. Here is the original version, and the ca. 1962 model thereof.

Here is the hypothetical EMD type 4, or one-half of the two unit set anyhow.

From my understanding, the nose was and is intended to protect the engine crew in case of accident.

Yes, F-M is the abbreviation for Fairbanks Morse.