Railworks America

Yes. RSC is doing something useful now.

The Lima Locomotive Works Consolidation 2-8-0 Steam Locomotive from the United States, a fabulously high detailed classic steam engine coming to Train Simulator 2013 soon, produced by new developer "Smokebox".

Wow, now that's one nice looking locomotive!

I'm really also liking the way that, despite all the whiners, RSC is taking on more and more third party developers. There is a lot of new stuff coming our way (maybe by Christmas? I have a few $$ saved!)

I'm glad you like it

Not to be picky, but the steam chest is too wide at the boiler.

The steam chest is usually narrower than the cylinders.

Found this proto picture:



Nice work though

Just sayin'
Harold

hminky wrote:Not to be picky, but the steam chest is too wide at the boiler.

The steam chest is usually narrower than the cylinders.

Found this proto picture:



Nice work though

Just sayin'
Harold

there are hundreds of variations of all steam locomotives, his is accurate to a certan prototype, remember that home roads would do modifications to there locomotives such as giving them a larger firebox.

thecanadianrail wrote:there are hundreds of variations of all steam locomotives, his is accurate to a certan prototype, remember that home roads would do modifications to there locomotives such as giving them a larger firebox.

The steam chest is always narrower than the cylinders:



You can't true the cylinder faces if it is wider.

Harold

I think I'm going to move this to the WIP if we are going to get into a technical discussion on this.
Buzz

b737lvr wrote:

buzz456 wrote:I think I'm going to move this to the WIP if we are going to get into a technical discussion on this.
Buzz

What why? That seems a bit unnecessary

Apply as a moderator or be quiet please. Don't be silly.

Hi Harold,

Normally you would be right, but as has been said, there are many variations. This particular model has been made using original Lima 1/8th scale engineering drawings, and taking the resolution of 3DC to its limits, I've modelled almost everything to within 1/64th of an inch of their true measurements ... including the steam chests.

There were only five of these locos built (the ones built by Lima with 46" driving wheels) for the Alabama Tennessee and Northern:

http://www.msrailroads.com/AT&N.htm

Have a look at the photos of nos. 203 and 204. By the way, even between those five examples, there were minor detail differences. Engine number 202 (I found another picture somewhere else) had its headlight mounted at the top of the smokebox, while the others had it in the middle, and it also had the bend in its right side branch pipe slightly nearer to the cab).

Here's another, really superb, photo of no. 204:

http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15330coll22/id/50718/rec/14

and another of 202 (its tender is also a little bit different):

http://frisco.demopolis.ws/atn_202_1.htm


One other piece of information: this loco has quite small cylinders, only 20" x 24", which might account for the design with the overhanging steam chests. It also has square steam chests (where the slide valves are), unlike the more common design of a cylindrical steam chest right on top of the main cylinders.

regards,

Mike

Sorry, Mike, if the locomotive were freeware I wouldn't be critical. A payware locomotive has to be right.

You said you used dimensions but your scaling is wrong. The domes are way off.



I will stand by my saying the steam chest at the boiler is too wide.

Harold
EDIT:

mrennie wrote:One other piece of information: this loco has quite small cylinders, only 20" x 24", which might account for the design with the overhanging steam chests. It also has square steam chests (where the slide valves are), unlike the more common design of a cylindrical steam chest right on top of the main cylinders.

The stroke of 24 is about standard and the "square" or more correctly slide valve steam chests were the norm until about 1910.

Harold,

It's because this is payware that I take offence that you suggest that my scaling is wrong or that the model is wrong. I take enormous care to get things right, whether it be freeware or payware, but when it comes to accepting money for a model, I do consider it necessary to go the extra mile. I would scan the engineering drawings and send them to you. except that I paid for them and I'm not allowed to make copies. I would send you the model itself, so you could check the dimensions in 3DC and compare them with the drawings, except that the model is my IPR and I'm not about to share it.

I repeat, the model is exact, as far as the parts that are included in the drawings. There are some things that I had to model by eye, based on photos, such as the pipework. The domes are modelled from the drawings and are almost exact. What makes you think they are "way off"? Anyway, I'll check them again just in case.

Did you look carefully at the steam chests? Can you see that I have recreated them faithfully in the model?

Incidentally, you have to be careful when looking at screenshots because the dimensions set for the screen can distort the image, as can the viewing angle. Some time ago, someone asked why the driving wheels were the same size as the pilot wheels. Obviously they aren't, but when viewed from the front, the perspective distortion (the pilot wheels nearer to the viewing point than the driving wheels), it can *appear* as if they are the same size.

Perhaps I should post some elevation views taken from 3DC.

Please, if you do find fault with the model and can back it up with comparison screenshots or similar, I'd appreciate it, because if you were right, I would correct the problem. On the other hand, please refrain from making unfounded accusations.

regards,

Mike

P.S. Indeed, the square chests where the norm in the earlier period, but these locos were built in the early 1920s, by which time the designs were already evolving, and most examples of Consolidations that people are familiar with are from later, which is why most people consider the square ones to be "unusual".

Sorry, Mike, the domes ain't right.

Harold

hminky wrote:Sorry, Mike, the domes ain't right.

Harold

I suspect that what you're seeing is the effect of the distortion I spoke about. I'll get the drawings out and check again.

Harold,

I apologise profusely ... you're right about the domes. I think I must have been looking at the inside dimensions to get the widths. They are indeed too narrow! I'm really glad you insisted on that. I'll correct it this evening.

No hard feelings I hope.

Regards

Mike

mrennie wrote:Harold,

I apologise profusely ... you're right about the domes. I think I must have been looking at the inside dimensions to get the widths. They are indeed too narrow! I'm really glad you insisted on that. I'll correct it this evening.

No hard feelings I hope.

Regards

Mike

Never hard feelings, glad I could help. No apologizes necessary.

Harold