Author Topic: So the ConCor 2-10-2...  (Read 3626 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Chris333

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 14270
  • Respect: +3154
So the ConCor 2-10-2...
« on: May 15, 2007, 11:34:57 PM »
0
OK I bought one a while back and it was crap. No matter what I did the thing would gyrate down the track. I figured it was the traction tire, but moving the wheel with the TT to the front didn't help.  It sat in pieces for years, but I had more hope for it than my B-mann 2-6-6-2. Max over at Atlas just sent me a whole new set of drivers for it that he bought from CC. I popped them right in and she ran like a dream! Still had to re-gauge all the wheels, but still she runs now.

So ever since I've had it something just didn't look right. I thought the boiler was too high, thought the fire box flared too much at the bottom...  Now I have scale drawings and guess what?


The whole model is 5 feet too long!!! Should be 55'3" is 50'6"  :( :-X :( :'( :-\

From the pilot axle to trailing axle should be 42'2" is 46'6"

Guess I will live with it, but had I known I'd be adding a driver to a Kato mike instead and do the damn thing myself.


Can't believe crap like this is allowed to be cut into metal for hot plastic to fill.

Sokramiketes

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3978
  • Proactive advocate of truthiness
  • Respect: +252
    • Modutrak
Re: So the ConCor 2-10-2...
« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2007, 11:45:50 PM »
0
It's maddening.  And there's no real reason that they did it, atleast not that I can see.  The driver flanges arn't hitting each other yet.  The whole thing is just stretched.
Mike

www.modutrak.com
Better modeling through peer pressure...

Walkercolt

  • Guest
Re: So the ConCor 2-10-2...
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2007, 12:12:37 AM »
0
We didn't have good luck with the quality control on the Con-Cor's either. We shipped about 60% of them we got at the shop back...not a very good batting average. I thought the looks were passable.

up1950s

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 9098
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +965
Re: So the ConCor 2-10-2...
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2007, 12:27:20 AM »
0
I remember on a thread on the A board , it was 14 feet too long . I agree , it ruined it's looks . Maybe that was with the tender .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USRA_Heavy_Santa_Fe

They show it as 55 in that link above . I measure 58 ish from rear cab wall to pilot on my model . Thats only 3 feet . Could that make it look so odd ? Is the boiler diameter correct ?
« Last Edit: May 16, 2007, 12:48:24 AM by up1950s »

Chris333

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 14270
  • Respect: +3154
Re: So the ConCor 2-10-2...
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2007, 12:56:45 AM »
0
Richie that is the same drawing I used, the 55 feet is to the coupler so you have to guess about where a scale coupler would be. Also add in the handrail at the end of the cab too. I didn't measure the boiler yet.

I just noticed that my Z scale Berkshire and Z scale 2-10-2 drawings are just about the same length, but when I park my CC 2-10-2 next to my LL Berk it is way too long.

Now I have a Marklin Z 2-10-0 coming in the mail. While some areas will be fudged, overall it will end up more accurate size wise than the CC model.

up1950s

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 9098
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +965
Re: So the ConCor 2-10-2...
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2007, 01:08:17 AM »
0
Mine is undec , and I haven't gotten around to the graphiting of the smoke and fire boxes yet along with the decaling . Maybe its just that stark black plastic sheen that making my mind think its overly out sized . 

Chris333

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 14270
  • Respect: +3154
Re: So the ConCor 2-10-2...
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2007, 01:14:34 AM »
0
Here is the same drawing sized to N:

Things are fine till right after the cylinders. They could have moved the first diver forward about 1/8" tucking it a hair behind the cylinders, possibly shaved a scale inch off the divers to bunch them up. Then just moving the trailing truck and cab forward would at least make it look right:



Chris333

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 14270
  • Respect: +3154
Re: So the ConCor 2-10-2...
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2007, 01:18:24 AM »
0
Keep in mind all this new complaining comes after I had to hardwire the motor to the frame and replace the whole tender with one from a B-mann 2-6-6-2 (and replace those wheels with Kato)

1/16" to long I wouldn't care, but this is 3/8" too long.


Hey at least it's running now. :D  <---fake smile

up1950s

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 9098
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +965
Re: So the ConCor 2-10-2...
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2007, 01:41:24 AM »
0
The trailing truck axle appears to be in the right spot , but all the appliances under the cab following the trailing truck frame are not there . My guess is that would inhabit the draw bar , or the draw bar would be prying them off . That may very well be the eye sore that is throwing the visual balance off for me .

Here is an HO brass one . Note the do dads ( blow down's , etc ) under the cab ,  behind the trailing truck . That looks better to me . I am glad you brought this up Chris , for I will add some stuff there to fill out the space when I finally do mine up  .

« Last Edit: May 16, 2007, 10:32:58 AM by up1950s »

Nato

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2132
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +78
Re: So the ConCor 2-10-2...
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2007, 02:53:42 AM »
0
  I must have lucked out, the three I purchased all run nicelyafter some break in running both forward & reverse at different speeds. I have tried to get the complete GN S2 4-8-4 tender fron Con Cor is still listed as a spair part item, to convert my SP & UP locos into locos with Vandy Oil Tenders, as the drawbars are the same ,but no luck in getting them. Might have to rob my extra GN loco of it's tender to convert one. Now of course the latest run of these locomotives features a version with two air pumps, which matches what UP locos had. Of course the model doesn't really resemble UP/SP prototypes, but adding Details West train/loco number boards next to the stack helps the looks abit. Yes the leingth seems just slightly long, however the photo books I have in series for the Union Pacific Locomotives shows most of them as having long extended leingth smoke boxes which look rather strange.Lastly my B&LE loco looks especially classy with it's white driver tires and running board stripes.Yes I agree there are quality control problems with these  locomotives compaired to the SP Daylight and GN S2 locomotives. I see Concor is having a blowout sale on the current run, must have made too many.Tempted to get an Undec 2 pump loco and swap out my UP shell, but I think I have enough of them and Yes Rio Grande locomotives had Coal Vandy tenders a rairety for D.& R. G. W. locos.                                                                                                                                  Nate Goodman (Nato). Salt Lake, Utah. Wasting bandwidth when I should be in bed.

squirrelhunter

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 430
  • Respect: +40
Re: So the ConCor 2-10-2...
« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2007, 11:06:26 AM »
0
Here's a question, could the boiler be used for a 2-10-2 to 4-8-2 conversion like the IC or SL-SF did?

The idea I had would be to take the running gear off an engine like B mann 4-8-2 or one of the 2-8-4 models and fitting the shell over it.

But if the boiler is too long, it would probably make such an operation pretty problematic.

inkaneer

  • Guest
Re: So the ConCor 2-10-2...
« Reply #11 on: May 16, 2007, 11:13:27 AM »
0
Here is the same drawing sized to N:

Things are fine till right after the cylinders. They could have moved the first diver forward about 1/8" tucking it a hair behind the cylinders, possibly shaved a scale inch off the divers to bunch them up. Then just moving the trailing truck and cab forward would at least make it look right:




How do we know your drawing is 1:160?   The reason I ask is that I just used a piece of paper with tick marks on it to measure different items on the two such as the seams on the cab roof and the width of the smokestack.  It appears that either your drawing and the whole locomotive are not the same scale because the corresponding measurements should be the same if both were the same scale and they are not.  Your drawing is consistantly smaller.       

Chris333

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 14270
  • Respect: +3154
Re: So the ConCor 2-10-2...
« Reply #12 on: May 16, 2007, 06:19:59 PM »
0
I took this photo:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/USRA_Heavy_Santa_Fe_diagram.jpg

And I cropped it to the arrows at each end of the 55' 3-7/8" measurement, then I took the cropped photo and resized it so it was 4.15" wide.

4.15" x 160 is 664" or 55'4". I know the super macro photos I posted distort the drawing, but the fact remains the CC model is ~3/8" too long.

Mark5

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 9419
  • Always with the negative waves Moriarty ...
  • Respect: +230
Re: So the ConCor 2-10-2...
« Reply #13 on: May 16, 2007, 06:33:02 PM »
0
Damn - guess I won't be ordering the N&W version!  :P

On a serious note, me thinks the extra length was discussed on the A-forum a while back.

3rdrail

  • Guest
Re: So the ConCor 2-10-2...
« Reply #14 on: May 16, 2007, 07:07:31 PM »
0
Damn - guess I won't be ordering the N&W version!  :P

On a serious note, me thinks the extra length was discussed on the A-forum a while back.
What class were the USRA heavy 2-10-2's on the N&W??  ;D ;D ;D :D
Same as the SP-style 4-8-4's on the PRR, I suppose.  :P