Bragging rights, of course. Previous locomotives (notably, the Shay, the 4-4-0, the Consolidation, and the K-27 could, with a little modification or some judicious elbow grease, be made to go from forward to center to reverse … the Shay, once modified, would do it automatically … but most were not controllable from the cab. Now they’ve hooked up the lever as well…
Matthew (OV)
It should have blind center drivers. The prototype does. From the photo of the model, it certainly looks like they’re blind.
Hmmm, no C&S version with the Beartrap cinder catcher?
Both the Connie and the K-27’s have a Johnson Bar connected to the reverser.
Robert
Bruce Chandler said:This is nothing new. The Johnson bar on the Connie actually operates the valve gear (moves parts, doesn't affect the motion, just for looks).Craig Townsend said:That's one that I sure don't understand.Bruce Chandler said:Being a non steamer type of person I have to ask this question, Why? What good does a Johnson bar do on an electric locomotive... Live steam I understand. Sounds like just one more moving part to break and fail... Please enlighten me :)
• Johnson bar is connected to the fully adjustable inside Stephenson valve gear by a scale reach bar for reversing linkage that operates per prototype
Al Pomeroy said:
Well it was as expected in many circles a C19, because Blackstone did one and the engineering was avalible. To me this is unfortunate as it would have been nice to get a different class Consol say C18 the 315 (Gary A) is a C18 and has much different driver spacing than the C19, and Accucraft has yet to do one yet. What would that have meant would be a bigger market share, as many who shelled out for a brass one probbally will not buy another, as it will probally not play nice gear ratio wise. Speaking of gear ratio notice that they skirted the issue of telling us exactly what this ratio is? and they have kept the optical chuff sensors every one disliked on the K27. As for enginnering work how much better could you get than to buy the Durango Historical Societys book? it has all you need to make a model in it.I will probbally purchase one, but i am on the fence as to the version today. lets see what the market comes up with for presale pricing.
Notice the tender on the ‘bumble bee’ only has “D. & R.G.” on it. What happened to the “W.”?
Another 1/20.3 scale product at the expense of 1/22.5 scale. No wonder I have basically given up on the hobby the past few months. Little of interest these days. I am not going to re-engineer my railroad to accomodate larger locomotives and rolling stock. Another big dollar piece of plastic!!!
Gary,
Looked at the folio sheets on both this afternoon. basically the center blind drivers which are close together on the C19 are much further appart on the C18. My debait is whether to go for the RGS version or the unlettered one with the round domes and water jet cut a new frame and siderods to get the C18 look.
I tryed to find the folios online but had to fall back on published sorces , so i cannot post at the moment.
What are we going to name her? I Vote for “CeeCee”
There is a slight difference between the C-18 (315) AND A C-19 on the driver spacing, I’m not sure where it is. I’ll dig for some comparative data.
I helped work on the publishing on the 315 book, and I’ll dig for some data.
Dave
Gary Armitstead said:I'm still stumped on why this would be needed? Does/can anyone see the Johnson bar move in the cab when your running? Why would anyone want to move the valve gear with an electric motor? Are you going to sit the thing on a shelf and move the Johnson bar back and forth to see the valve gear move? It just doesn't make any since, but then again I'm a dismal guy so that might be part of my problem. :PBruce Chandler said:This is nothing new. The Johnson bar on the Connie actually operates the valve gear (moves parts, doesn't affect the motion, just for looks).Craig Townsend said:That's one that I sure don't understand.
Being a non steamer type of person I have to ask this question, Why? What good does a Johnson bar do on an electric locomotive... Live steam I understand. Sounds like just one more moving part to break and fail... Please enlighten me :)
Al Pomeroy said:
Gary,Looked at the folio sheets on both this afternoon. basically the center blind drivers which are close together on the C19 are much further appart on the C18. My debait is whether to go for the RGS version or the unlettered one with the round domes and water jet cut a new frame and siderods to get the C18 look.
I tryed to find the folios online but had to fall back on published sorces , so i cannot post at the moment.
I think the johnson bar moves for the same reason the doors on a caboose open but then spring shut…It’s just a neat little feature to putz with. It won’t break if you don’t use it… 
Apparently Bachmann is doing its best to seperate me from my money!
VERY HAPPY TO SEE NEW OFFERINGS!!!
Very Nice! I think i see money flying from my wallet soon!
OK in everyday terms, The driver placement spacing difference between a C-18 and a C-19.
On a C-18 (315) the drivers # 2, 3 and 4 are spaced nearly equally, with a larger space between #1 set and #2 set.
On a C-19, The space between #1 and #2 is larger then the C-18, and the space between drivers #2 and #3 is very close, and a wider spacing between #3 and #4 then the 2-3 spacing, but not as large as the #1-2 spacing.
Setting side by side you would notice the difference in spacing, Most people would never note what’s wrong with a C-19 315!
Note to you K fans… a real C-19 is a whole lot smaller engine then any of the K’s. I’ll try to dig up a photo of 315 next to a D&S K…
The Bee #345 was dressed up that way for that movie…and then smashed her up in the collision scene!
This is a great offering, and unlike the K, will fit more layouts being a much smaller loco. The K can run on my layout, but looks really too large. I run 1:20.3 C-16s and C&S 2-8-0 etc, which are fine. The C-19 is perfect.
David.
If it is anything like the upgraded Climax it will be superbly built and run like a Swiss watch.
Fingers are crossed Bachmann don’t screw it up with any silly mistakes.
Moving the Johnson bar move the valve gear to the correct orientation - even sparkie operators like to see the valve gear set properly.
My AccuCraft K27 is the same. It doesn’make the slightest difference to the operation, but it sure as heck beats the loco in forward and valve gear in reverse look that so bedevils AccuCraft’s live steamers…
However, the UK price is going to be petrifying.
tac, ig & The Mount Gleep RR Boys
The C19 will be of great use to anyone hanging in with 1:22.5 rolling stock…it will not look too large and will be a great edition for anyone looking for a new loco that could be used beside the good old Annies, and Connies.
The great value in sticking with the old 1:22.5 rolling stock. is that it is less expensive, and very durable, on a large operating layout. Yes the 1:20.3 equipment is beautiful, but the parts keep falling off it, and storage is a great problem, when considering over a hundred cars.
When deep into operation, the beautiful details are less noted, than durable and well maintained rolling stock, that stays on the track and looks good from 3 feet.
It’ll be interesting to see one side-by-side with a 4-6-0. I think it’s going to dwarf the 4-6-0. I know the cab on the C-19 I’m scratchbuilding is a fair chunk larger than the 4-6-0 cab, being taller and wider by nearly 3/4" or more. I don’t have a built-up 4-6-0 to compare, but when I put the cab and boiler next to my C-19, it towers over it. My model is a good bit larger than my 4-4-0 and 2-6-0, which (in my opinion) are at the upper size limit in terms of 1:20.3 stuff that still “looks good” with the 1:22 and 1:24 equipment.
Having said that, I have put a string of Delton hoppers behind my C-19, and it looks plausible, so who’s really to say? Much of my rolling stock represents equipment built c. 1875, which when measured in 1:20.3 scales out very closely to a lot of the 1:22/1:24 equipment. Flat cars, gondolas, hoppers; I think they’ll look okay. Box cars and passenger cars may look a bit off. But aesthetics is subjective, and some of my early box cars are built from out-of-the-box 1:22 models, and scale accurately for 1:20. So it’s reasonable that the loco might indeed tower over the equipment as it does. The C-19s were early 1880s technology, and the rolling stock at that time period was still very small.
Later,
K
C-19 345 was never painted in the bumblebee scheme. C-18 #319 was painted in the bumblebee scheme, number #268, and used as a stand in for the real C-16 Bumblebee and was recked for the movie.
The C-19 series, all ten of them, were built by Baldwin in 1881, the C-18’s are all ex-F&CC locomotives purchased when that railroad went under, and were built in 1895, 1896, and 1897.
For those that didn’t know, C-19 #346 is alive and well at the Colorado Railroad Museum, and by alive and well, I mean still steamed up once a month and used to pull trains! Pretty good for an old girl who’s over 130 years old!
BTW, Caboose Hobbies price is $874.44.
Robert
Kevin (or anyone else…) … any photos of non-Colorado applications?
Matthew (OV)