Large Scale Central

C-19 or C-18 or C-16 What it really means

General Discussion
#1

With the announcement of the new Bachmann C-19, type 2-8-0, there has been a bit of discussion about the C-19’s size, and drive wheel size, placement, spacing and etc. and comparing the C-19 to the C-18 D&RG 315 thats near and dear to a lot of folks hearts.

Now,… I’m not by any stretch of imagination a rivet counter or an expert on the D&RG C classes.

I’ve got the impression from a couple of the boards that some people think that a C-19 is an engine type, when in reality is is only a classification used by the D&RG to identify the tractive effort of an engine.

In other words, Not all C-19s have the same driver size and or wheel spacing. The same goes for C-18’s, C-16’s and so on. Nor do all the C-19’s have the connecting rod to the second set of drivers, some had it to the third. The same rules apply to C-18s and C-16s. The D&RG (&W) Inherited numerous engines from other RRs and those RRs ordered engines to their specs for their requirements. When the D&RG changed the class systems to better describe the tractive effort of an engine, A well worn out 2-8-0 may have been assigned a class that was different then what would have been assigned as new, such as when new the boiler was rated at 175 psi., now 25 years latter its rated for only 150 psi. and therefore its tractive effort would put it in a lower class. Same engine, different class.

I can only quote for certain about the D&RG #315, as I worked With George Niederauer on the 315 book. I have access to the files and etc. Those that have the book, will be able to see the data also. D&RG #315 started life as Florence & Cripple Creek #3. The total wheel spacing was shortened from “standard” specs because of the 32deg curves on the F&CC as discussed about in the builders spec sheet as having worn the flanges to sharp on a standard 2-8-0 in a very short time running on the 32deg curves. Those engines built to D&RG standards were built to a different wheel spacing, thou still C-18s, 19s, 16s etc.

We really don’t even want to get into Boiler shape and placement, and cab type and size and placement within a “C” class.

So if you want a model of 315, you want a F&CC #3 not necessary a D&RG C-18, If you want a C-19 make sure of it’s heritage, before you start counting the rivets.

To me… The new C-19 will make a very good #315 for my RR.

This is not necessary the final word on what makes up a “C” standard engine. I would really like to know what the prototype was for the new C-19, and it’s heritage?

Even a builders standard catalog engine may be different from the next one built.

What say you?

#2

Here’s a good place to start:

http://www.drgw.org/data/steam/roster/drgw03.htm

Also, keep in mind that the D&RGW was a railroad, not a historical society. They weren’t really all that concerned with whether or not the parts “matched” or what modifications might be made. Tender switches were common, not to mention pilots, snow plows, tool boxes, auxilary equipment such as suction pumps, coal sideboards, air tank plumbing, etc.

However, all of the C-19 series, 340 - 349 were identical, and all of them were purchased by the D&RG in 1881.

The C-17 series, along with the C-19 series were originally Class 70 on the D&RG.

I’m hoping that Bachmann follows up with the C-16, both Grant and Baldwins.

Yeah. And the K-28’s, which are roughly the same size as the K-27’s…

Robert

#3

Absolutely agree. The Baldwin drawings didn’t specify much at all about a locomotive, just the basic parameters like boiler size, driver diameter and spacing, cylinder size… The rest was customized to the railroad’s needs. The kind of cab, tender, domes, pretty much everything else was built to order. Often a railroad would have one loco built, then go back with the next one and have the builder make minor tweaks to improve performance. When “they” say no two steam locos are alike, they’re being quite literal.

EBT #7 (the one I’m building) was built to the same drawings as the D&RG’s “class 70” locos, but that’s pretty much where the similarities ended. Compare photos, and you’d not believe they were the “same” locomotive. And in reality, they’re not the same, they’re just proportionally identical because that’s what the drawings specified. So it’s very likely that there’d be nearly just as much variation in other locos built to the same drawings, even if they ran on the same railroad. I think that’s what makes the C-19 such a fantastic choice for a locomotive. Lots of railroads used them, and with varying degrees of cosmetic work, you can customize the loco to suit your favorite individual prototype with a fair amount of accuracy.

Later,

K

#4

Oh, BTW, the RGS #40 was not one of the original 10 locomotives, it was acquired in 1884 D&RG #411, and I believe, was built to the same folio as the earlier locomotives. Interesting note, the D&RG converted her to standard gauge, and she was reconverted to narrow gauge before being sold to the RGS. #411 was never part of the D&RGW.

Robert

#5

Kevin, the F&CC locomotives which became the C-18 class had the different wheel spacing to deal with the curves on the F&CC. If you’ve ever driven the Phantom Canyon Road, across the steel trestle built by the railroad, it’s amazing they put trains through there. I drove it recently, and it amazed me the engineering involved, and the curves involved.

And just to mention it, Kevin, but EBT was built in the same year as the D&RG C-19 class, to the same plans, but somewhere down the road, the EBT decided the main rods should be connected to the third set of drivers instead of the second. And this required a lot of changes in the running gear…

Robert

#6

Don’t think they changed much in the way of the valve gear. Best we can tell, the eccentrics remained on the #2 axle (no room on the #3–the firebox is very close to the 3rd axle). So long as the eccentrics remained in position with the pins on the drivers, it didn’t really matter if it was the #2 or #3 driver to which things were attached. Unorthodox, maybe, but you can’t argue with success. If I recall, the change was made c. 1897. I’d have to dig through my notes to be “certain.” I believe it was done at the EBT’s shops.

Later,

K

#7

Not the valve gear, the running gear. The counterweights would have to be changed, and I believe the axle bearings are different on a drive axle. Also, the main rod would have to be replaced, obviously. It does explain why she was never give Walshaerts gear. Of course, neither were any of the D&RGW Consolidations - that I know of…

The real question is why it was done. It wouldn’t increase power, so the offset must have been decreased maintenance or decreased road failures. I’ve red that it was to make her ride better, but realistically, the maintenance department wouldn’t have cared much about that. Probably had something to do with wristpin wear or possibly piston slide/valve wear from being bounced up and down.

Robert

#8

Interesting video, HOn3 K-27 and C-19 running together.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6rNsCl90s0

Kind of hard to believe they’re the same scale…

#9

The mechanical mods needed (new bearings, increased weight in the coutnerweights, etc.) are fairly “simple” to do–at least simple for a competent locomotive shop crew. Locomotive drivers were actually swapped out fairly regularly. Colorado & Southern #9 had drivers from at least three different C&S 2-6-0s on her when she was restored. The EBT’s mikes have similar variations in drivers indicating changes at one point or another. I’d think the shop crews would be keenly interested in keeping the loco crews happy for a number of reasons, not the least of which is if the loco runs smoothly, they’re far less likely to see it again soon. That, and the smoother the loco runs, the easier it is for the crew to tell if something else has gone askew. I haven’t any idea how “successful” these mods would have been towards smoothing out the ride. I’ve read that’s why they were likely done, but I’ve never read as to the level of success. While I’ve enjoyed a cab ride in #346, it was around the museum loop–hardly fast enough to begin to feel anything.

Later,

K

#10

I wish I had seen this post earlier. Sorry to drag it back out …but I just have to correct some inaccuracies.

David is basically correct but should have used 10-26-E instead of C-19.

As David originally stated C-19 is NOT a model type. The D&RG did not order c-19s. In 1881 they ordered 12 (Not 10) Baldwin narrow gauge 2-8-0s. They were of the 10-26-E type or drawing. That is Baldwin code for that type. 315 is also a 10-26-E model but being built in 1895 several changes had been made to the design. IE wheel spacing, main rod placement and valve gear placement.
The 10-26-E designates the number of wheels, cylinder size, and wheel arrangement. 10 for 10 wheels, 26 was Baldwins code for 16x20 cylinders, and E meant is was a 2-8-0.(As a comparison SP narrow gauge 4-6-0 #18 was a 10-26-D, same number of wheels and same size cylinders but different wheel arrangement.)

The C-19s were originally the 400-411 class 70, D&RG classed them by weight. They were close to 70,000lbs. Later after 1924 when it became the D&RGW they changed there way of classification to wheel arrangement nickname and tractive effort this was done on the whole railroad. C-19 C for consolidation and 19 because they had nearly 19,000lbs of tractive effort. The railroad also changed the numbers they were now 340-349. At this time there were only 10 still on the D&RG because two had been sold to the RGS in 1916. ALL of the 340-349 class were re-classed as C-19s worn or not.

EBT #7 was from the 10-26-E drawing and was mechanically the same as the D&RG 10-26-Es. But was style wise very different.

The prototype for the Bachmann C-19 is the D&RGW c-19s. 340-349 group And RGS 40-41. Bachmann used the same engineering drawings that Blackstone used for there Hon3 C-19s. 340 and 41 at Knott’s and 346 in Golden are from that group.

RGS 40 WAS built in the original 1881 order of 12. She was the 411, later standard gauged and numbered 802. When she was returned to narrow gauge she did not get her old number back she became the second 402. In 1916 she was sold(actually traded) to the RGS and became RGS 40 in 1918.

When built in 1881 they had a laird crosshead same as 315. At least one was temporary converted to have a long main rod like 315.They may not have converted all of them because of cost and less than favorable results. Later all of them had the crossheads changed to a alligator type crosshead. The short main rod creates a high angle(Much higher than 315) for the rod at the 12 and 6 oclock position, this puts alot of force on the crosshead and guides. I suspect they broke many of the original Laird crossheads, hence the one time change to a longer main rod on one of them. The change to the alligator crosshead would be because its stronger.

Now another drawback to the short main rod and the high angle is a tendency to rock the loco. Working at Knott’s and having operated 340 and 41, I can tell you when you load the engine down and make them work hard they will rock. 346 should do the same. This was a complaint the operating crews had on the D&RG about the C-19s and C-16s. The C-17s and C-18s road better and were more liked because they did not rock. Watch 315 she will bounce from side to side between the rails but will not rock.

I have a fondness for C-19 because I have spent the last 5 years operating two of them. During that time I have learned a great deal about the class. Im no expert but I do consider myself pretty knowledgeable about them. They are an amazing machine in real life and as a model. The Bachmann model is a wonderful representation of my favorite NG loco.