Con-Cor 2-10-2 excess length: opinion please (added bearing fix)

[SkipGear]

Max,
 I know you have the mechs already but that sure looks like a prime canidate for the Bachmann 2-10-2. The drivers might be a touch small but other proportions look good.

PS. Sorry Richie, that one always throws me. 4 wheel pilots were for passenger loco, 4 wheel trailing trucks were for superpower freights. Then again that thing breaks all the rules anyhow.

[up1950s]

A fellow Trainboard member found the thread on the Con-Cor 2-10-2 and eMailed me the link

http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=11904

10 pages of wonderfulness Max

Thanks again to that Trainboard member for helping out .

There was another thread where Mike , now Sokramiketes , made a comment .

[squirrelhunter]

The Bachmann light 2-10-2 is probably a better starting point for a GN 2-10-2. The GN 2-10-2's were originally 4-8-2's with low 63" drivers. I don't think the rebuilding involved much reworking of the boiler, so they fit 5 drivers where 4 and one of the lead truck axles had been.

[peteski]

Who made this for ConCor?  I have two of the Bachmann 2-10-2's which are dual mode. 
I did not see the ConCor one in any LHS.

DID KATO MAKE THIS ONE FOR CONCOR?  I know the ConCor U-50's came from Kato. Super locomotives.

These were made by some generic Chinese company for Con-Cor.  Not Kato. I don't think Kato has made any models for either Con-Cor or Atlas since they established their Kato-USA division in the late 80s (when they produced the GP38-2).

[Mark5]

Kato continued to produce models for Atlas into the early 1990s (SD9, GP30, GP35).

I think the last loco Kato made for Concor was the first run of the GN S2 steamer in the late 80s.

[mmagliaro]

The GN 2-10-2's were not rebuilt 4-8-2's.  They were built new, around the same time as the 4-8-2, and had larger boilers.

Looking over the Con-Cor  2-10-2, two things jump out at me.

The tail (behind the rear driver) seems to stick out too far behind that rear driver, and
the whole boiler itself, especially the section by the firebox and the firebox area itself, is just hugely wide over the drivers.

So upon considering that, and looking at your thoughtful opinions and photos (THANK YOU!), I figured the 2-10-2 was
a no-go.  But then

Looking at the GN prototype engine, it's apparent that the Con-Cor/Kato S-2 body would be an almost dead ringer for it, including the tender, domes, cab, pilot, smokebox and smokebox front (which is complicated with air compressors on it and all).  This should come as
no surprise, since the S-2 is a GN engine.

Here's an S-2:
http://www.gngoat.org/baldwin3b.jpg

Laying the model S-2 down wheel-to-wheel against the Con-Cor, the Con-Cor mechanism fits darn near perfect.   The front drivers and cylinders
land just right, with the cylinders under the stack, and the pilot wheels land perfectly.

Drawings and photos look to me like the S-2's overall boiler size and shape are very close.   I think the S-2 body on the 2-10-2 mechanism
would do the trick.  I would use the S-2 tender (thus eliminating one of the 2-10-2 weak points right there!)

As luck would have it, I have an  S-2 body and tender.

[Lemosteam]

Annnnnd here we go!

[squirrelhunter]

Max, you are right about the Q-1 2-10-2's. Its the Q-2's that were the rebuilds. I should have looked at Lemosteam's pohot of what he wanted to model before pulling the reference books off the shelf.

[mmagliaro]

Max, you are right about the Q-1 2-10-2's. Its the Q-2's that were the rebuilds. I should have looked at Lemosteam's pohot of what he wanted to model before pulling the reference books off the shelf.

Wow... this is funny.  I was looking at the Q-1, and didn't look at the Q-2, so I had no idea that there were a set of rebuilds!  Well,
I learned something today, thank you!

Yes, looking at the drawings in my GN book, the Q2 boiler diameters were about 10" smaller all the way along, compared to the Q-1,
so it was a smaller engine.    The measurements are pretty close between the Q-1 and S-2 (not exact, and not the exact same profile),
but close enough for me.

John... heh heh... NO, this is not the next project.  This was just something I thought about.  I happened to pick up an S-2 at a really good price
as a close-out at my local shop, and noticed these old 2-10-2's in the drawer, so I started thinking.

There is a next project (when I'm done with my current scenery push), but it's not the 2-10-2.

[strummer]

There is a next project (when I'm done with my current scenery push), but it's not the 2-10-2.

So, do pray tell Max; what might that be?....

Mark in Oregon

[mmagliaro]

So, do pray tell Max; what might that be?....

Mark in Oregon

I really don't want to say until I actually start on it, otherwise, it's just hot air.
I have been collecting pieces and drawings.  When I actually take tools to the brass or styrene,
I'll let you know.   

[mmagliaro]

Since the issue of the bearing/axle problem came up, and I had the engine out to test again, I thought I'd post some pics.

I had fixed mine years ago by removing the front two drivers, removing the wheels from the axles, and spinning down the metal hubs.  It works, but it's a hard fix.

So here's some photos of the issue, and a fix by adding some thrust washers to limit the play.  It won't make curves quite as sharp anymore, but I only have 18" +, so I don't know how tight it can go.
It did make mine run better (smoother through curves) than it did before, even though mine was no longer derailing because of my first fix.

Also note the plastic "ring" aroung the axle that Con-Cor put in there, which is offset toward the top end of the axles in the photos.  Yes, it is asymmetric.  That ring prevents the axle from sliding too far in one direction, but NOT in the other!
So yes, my washers only go on one side, and are only needed on one side.


CLICK ON PICS TO ZOOM.

[Lemosteam]

Hi Max, I'm wondering why you biased all the washers to one side?

[mmagliaro]

Hi Max, I'm wondering why you biased all the washers to one side?

See the note at the top, John.  The axle side play is actually biased to one side in the stock engine!
Notice that plastic "ring" around the plastic axle center, and how it is set off to one side, not centered
on the axle.  When the axle tries to shift one way, that plastic ring hits the inside of the bearing and limits
the play in that direction.  But when it slides the other way, the ring does nothing because it is offset,
so the axle doesn't stop until the back of the driver hits against the frame.   By inserting the washers
on one side like I did, I actually have made the side-to-side play uniform.   Crazy.

 I still like the mechanism now that I have it fixed up.
The driver spacing, I think, will be fine as long as it is mated with a proper boiler shell.