4-8-0 "survey" model suggestion

Sun Aug 2 11:48:28 EDT 2015

One item I would recommend for consideration when planning a 4-8-0 model: make the outside admission steam pipes to the cylinders as separate pieces that can be either adder or deleted by the purchaser.  Between that and the different smoke box front details, you can then pretty much model any particular engine you might like.

I would buy several if such features were offered.

Brent Greer 

To: nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org
Subject: RE: 4-8-0 "survey" results
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 22:15:22 +0000
From: nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org

Dave:

I have found “Mastodon” references to the 4-8-0 wheel arrangement back to 1896 (Locomotive Engineering, p604; StL&A Rwy, Brooks).   See also
The Railway and Engineering Review, 31 Dec 1897, p748.  Other pages in that book cite “Mastodon” locomotives delivered to the Mexican Central Rwy and Great Northern Rwy, referencing and providing line drawings of a 4-8-0 for the GN.  Railway Locomotives
 and Cars V77, June 1903 p225 applies “Mastodon” to the 4-8-0 wheel arrangement.

Furthermore, there are strong secondary references to the fact that Central Pacific RR called its 4-8-0 #229 (Cooke Works, 1882) “Mastodon”, preceding El Gobernador
 by over a year.  For what it’s worth, the Wikipedia article on El Gobernador (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Gobernador) cites application of “Mastodon” to the 4-10-0 wheel arrangement as erroneous.

The first concrete “Mastodon” reference I have found to a 4-10-0 is in
Locomotive Cyclopedia of American Practice, 1906, p56.  It did not specifically reference El Gobernador.

I have not found an authentic CPRR document naming #229 “Mastodon”; I have only secondary references in evidence so far.  So there is room for doubt.  But it
 seems plausible to me that CPRR (originator of both the 4-8-0 and 4-10-0 wheel arrangements, as best I can determine) used “Mastodon” in reference to the 4-8-0 starting in 1882.  CPRR
may also have applied that term to the 4-10-0 arrangement, in which case one might conclude that “Mastodon” is the legitimate name for “The Class of All Locomotives Having Four Leading Wheels, No Trailing Wheels, and 7 Or More Driving Wheels.”  But my
 reading of the 1896-1903 references cited above is that “Mastodon” was accepted as unambiguous in common usage for the 4-8-0 wheel arrangement through 1903, and possibly up to 1906. 

Clearly starting no later than 1906, “Mastodon” became associated with the 4-10-0 wheel arrangement in the current railroad trade literature, regardless of
 CPRR’s intent and any prior common usage.

My earliest Locomotive Cyclopedia is 1925, and my latest is 1952.  All that I have apply “Mastodon” to the 4-10-0 wheel arrangement, as you state.  But though
 I agree that the LCs are outstanding references, they were assembled by editors (not researchers) from advertisements, drawings, and data from the locomotive and appliance builders of the time, plus interviews with spokespeople from those companies and the
 railroads.  I regard them as indicative and priceless reflections of common practice of their times, but I most certainly do not regard them as impeccably researched or constituting an exquisite “standard”.  Nonetheless, it would interesting me greatly if
 Members with LCs from 1882 to 1906 would report on “Mastodon” usage from them.

I cannot agree that there was an error of research ~15 years ago leading to misappropriation of “Mastodon” for either the 4-8-0 or 4-10-0 wheel arrangement. 
 And concrete secondary evidence, referring to CPRR’s own use of the term, as well as common usage in the 20 years following the introduction of the 4-8-0 wheel arrangement, strongly support the conclusion that there is no error in applying “Mastodon” to it. 
 If there was an error, it was evidently made sometime closer to 110 years ago, and its nature was to apply the term to the 4-10-0 wheel arrangement.

So I assert without apology that N&W’s Mollies were Mastodons.  That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

-Eric Bott

From: NW-Modeling-List [mailto:nw-modeling-list-bounces at nwhs.org]
On Behalf Of NW Modeling List via NW-Modeling-List

Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 5:21 AM

To: NW Modeling List

Cc: NW Modeling List

Subject: Re: 4-8-0 "survey" results

Eric,

I didn't mean to imply you were wrong.  I just don't like to see people misled by someone else's error.  I thought the appropriation
 of the name Mastodon for 4-8-0's, which occurred about 15 or more years ago, caused needless confusion, and was probably the result of sloppy research on someone's part back then.

Locomotive Cyclopedias have included the Whyte classification and  name for wheel arrangements for years.  That's the source I go to
 for the generic name for a given wheel arrangement.  LC's are a generally accepted standard, so why not use it?  On the other hand, a railroad can call a wheel arrangement by any name they want.

Dave Stephenson

From: NW Modeling List <nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org>

To: NW Modeling List <nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org>

Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 11:11 AM

Subject: RE: 4-8-0 "survey" results

Hm, my bad.

It does, though, seem like a waste of a class name to reserve it for a single US locomotive, plus maybe some Russian attempt at mechanical
 humor.  I’ll note that the applicable definition of “class”, which is at the root of “Whyte classification system” is:  “(1) a set or category of things [my emphasis added] having the same property or attribute in common and differentiated from
 others by kind, type, or quality”.  So unless and until the one-time existence of a 2nd 4-10-0 is confirmed by reliable authority, it would be frivolous to assert 4-10-0 as a “class”, deserving of a dedicated “class name”.  Waste of a dedicated
 class name on the [and I use this word deliberately to indicate the singular] 4-10-0 is rendered more egregious by the fact that
its creator gave it a [ridiculously pompous] proper name of its own, which remains to this day perfectly useful as a unique identifier of
this locomotive and its “class”. 

I concede the accuracy of your accusation of appropriation of “Mastodon” from the 4-10-0 “class” to the 4-8-0 class.  I may even be
 unenlightened, albeit comfortable to be in the “sub-class” of “’progressive’ users of language” (said class also including the OED and nearly all other authoritative dictionaries) that sanctions usage of words, including neologisms and appropriations, that
 convey common understanding.

But we do live in a world in which steam locomotive class names are protean, manifold, and even *gasp* appropriated.  Will you
 with equal asperity decry my use of  “Mikado” vs “MacArthur”?  “Hudson” vs “Baltic”, “Northern” vs “Dixie” vs “Greenbriar” vs “Wyoming” vs “Niagra”, “Mountain” vs “Mohawk” vs “Pocono” vs “New Haven”, “Allegheny” vs “Blue Ridge”?  Has the N&WHS abjured enlightenment
 by wanton reference to a 2-8-8-8-4 as a “Triplex”, when the Erie clearly pre-empted that class name for all time for its 2-8-8-8-2? 

Are there codified universal rules of usage for steam locomotive class names of which you are aware?  What
arbiter elegantiarum of steam locomotive class names may I entrust to fend me from error?

If that is you, would “Jubilee” offend less?  Would it convey more specificity in the present context, quelling the rampant confusion
 caused in the N&WHS Modeling List 4-8-0 thread by my use of “Mastodon”?  At peril of impunctiliousness, must we hasten to scrutinize all past issues of The Arrow and other Society publications for misuse of “Mastodon”, and issue an Errata Compendium to the
 Membership?  

Please enlighten.

-Eric Bott

From: NW-Modeling-List [mailto:nw-modeling-list-bounces at nwhs.org]
On Behalf Of NW Modeling List via NW-Modeling-List

Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 8:17 PM

To: NW Modeling List

Cc: NW Modeling List

Subject: Re: 4-8-0 "survey" results

FWIW, 4-8-0's were called twelve-wheelers for years until someone came along and confused the name of the 4-10-0 wheel arrangement,
 properly called Mastadons, with the 4-8-0. It was repeated endlessly until it seemed to become fact.  Not quite.  If you look up any Whyte classification table from  about 1900 on, a 4-8-0 is called a twelve wheeler and a Mastadon is a 4-10-0.  Like many "progressive"
 changes in English, they don't necessarily reflect enlightenment.

Yielding the soapbox to others....

Dave Stephenson

From: NW Modeling List <nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org>

To: NW Modeling List <nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org>

Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 1:28 PM

Subject: RE: 4-8-0 "survey" results

Frank et al:

In keeping current with this thread, I’ve been making some inferences (which could be wrong) and intend the following as constructive
 suggestion to a problem I think is arising.

One inference that seems warranted is that Frank is personally interested in a model that represents the 4-8-0 in the Strasburg collection.

Another inference from the responses made in the List that this specific interest isn’t as paramount in other modeler’s minds.  The
 sense I’m getting in particular is that the interest in specific tenders is very fractionated (with at least 4, possibly 5 legitimate contenders), and that the interest in specific sub-classes of the Mastodons is also very fractionated (with interest divided
 between three classes and three subclasses, let alone consideration of era-correlated minor appliances).

This is a really dangerous situation for a model producer to misunderstand—and could lead a well-intentioned producer to financial
 ruin.  In particular, the dozen or so participants (many amazingly erudite) in this thread DO NOT constitute a statistically significant sample of even the hard-core N&W HO steam locomotive model market.  Even assuming that Frank had 20 additional respondents
 answer his original question off the List, those responses would have had to be nearly identical in order for Frank to have any statistically meaningful basis for championing a specific Mastodon model configuration to a prospective model producer.  And if
 Frank DID get 20 or more additional responses that are highly consistent in their interest for a Strasburg version, I think all of us in the Modeling List would be very interested in seeing the raw data—not just a synopsis of it.

I absolutely do not want to kill this initiative.  But it doesn’t serve N&W modelers interests at all to have a model producer take
 a financial loss on a N&W project.  We all need the producers to achieve their financial objectives for a N&W model
every single time, regardless of prototype or of model scale or construction.  That means
we need to temper our enthusiasm and impulsive responses enough to accurately describe the commitments we can make
and keep regarding our purchasing intents.  

We haven’t done that so far in this forum, regarding a Mastodon project.  And given the fairly modest number of active participants
 in this forum compared to the N&WHS Membership at large, it doesn’t feel like a fair census of the likely prospective market has been made.  But I think that it would be possible to do so, and I think that the effort should be made to do so.

Here’s my concrete suggestion for an approach to doing this:

1)  Have really knowledgeable people active on this List assemble a list of the significant configuration of Mastodons (including class,
 subclass, tender, etc) used on the N&W.  State the era of effectivity of each configuration, the number of Mastodons so-configured, and add notes regarding the locations used.  [It would be cool if this could be done as a live wiki, rather than as individual
 posts!]  Once the arguing tamps down, we’ll all have a pretty cool understanding of how the N&W applied these beasts, and at least my (hopefully others’ as well) modeling efforts stand to benefit commensurately.  [If done as a wiki, and made available through
 the Society web site, the benefit of the knowledge gathered would be available to all Society members.  And how cool would it be to have a well-refereed wiki on EVERY piece of N&W and VGN equipment available from the Society web site.]

2)  Have really knowledgeable people active on this List assemble a list of all 4-8-0 and tender models produced in every scale since
 the Dawn of Time.  State the scale, state the model construction, comment on the fidelity, assess the availability and typical market price for each.  Once the arguing tamps down, we’ll all have a pretty cool understanding of whether our specific interests
 can be satisfied by past models, and at what price.  [Another wiki opportunity?]  Heck, one or two of us might end up happy!  (Hey, it’s possible.)

3)  Create a “Prospectus for Model” that includes the above information, and a simple matrix of Mastodon Configuration vs Model Features
 and Price Range (e.g., $350 - $400 DCC-Ready, Plastic; $400 - $450 DC/DCC, Hybrid; $450 - $500 DC/DCC-Sound, Hybrid; $500 - $550, DC/DCC-Sound, Hybrid, High Detail; -- whatever feature/price points
the propsective model producer is interested in nominating) with blank spaces for for each configuration vs feature/price element in the matrix for us modelers to make serious expression(s) of intent in.  But here’s the additional key piece of information
 we need from the propsective producer:  The minimum market commit quantity s/he requires to commit to production for each configuration vs feature/price.

4)  Publish this Prospectus to the Modeling List.  Let the soul-searching and flaming begin.  Let each interested party work as hard
 as s/he wants to convince the other prospective buyers to commit to her or his favorite configuration vs feature/price model.  I’m betting that after a week or so, it will become apparent that there are two or three configuration vs feature/price model candidates
 that build significant support among the Model List participants that would actually commit to buying a Mastodon model.

5)  I’ll also take bets that there won’t be more that a dozen genuine commitments for any one configuration vs feature/price models
 as a result of scrumming this on the Modeling List.  (We are a rare, contentious breed.)  But what we WILL have are two or three configuration vs feature/price candidate models that are
historically justified, are historically significant, have a known place in the history of models produced to date, and have some passionate core support.

6)  Cull the Prospectus down to those two or three
significant configuration vs feature/price candidates, and publish that smaller Prospectus in The Arrow, inviting the full membership to fill out an electronic survey regarding their purchasing expectations if any of those candidates was brought to market. 
 Include the objective prototype and use facts of each configuration, and the past model history (if any) of each.  Also allow one champion of each configuration vs feature/price model candidate to write a short “Impassioned Support” advocacy for it, and add
 these to the Arrow article.  Impress on everybody our self-interest in being rigorously honest in the survey responses, but make it easy to respond to via “Likelihood to Buy” response on a scale of 1-5, while also enabling capture of ad hoc comments.

7)  Give the prospective producer access to the full responses (including ad hoc comments) from the survey of (6).  Let her/him make
 an informed decision regarding whether to produce any of the configurations, based on the objective evidence from the survey.

An additional thought:  The specific interest in tender configurations brought to light in this thread so far lead me to believe that
 a producer might have a significantly larger market for certain tender types than for complete Mastodon models.  Having a separate market for a good model of a scarcely modeled tender might enable a producer to generate a bit more revenue, and benefit many
 of us at the same time.  So choice of tender in nominating candidate Mastodon configurations could be important for several reasons.

I volunteer to generate the Prospectuses and write the Arrow article (except for the Impassioned Support stuff) for this.  But the
 necessary ingredients for success here will be engagement by the really knowledgeable “Mastodonians” on the Modeling List, and solid engagement by the prospective producer, so that the Prospectuses reflect prototype and model production realities.

Doing this right should catch the interest of other producers, and could encourage a bias among producers toward N&W and legacy RR
 projects.  

It might even be fun!

-Eric Bott

From: NW-Modeling-List [mailto:nw-modeling-list-bounces at nwhs.org]
On Behalf Of NW Modeling List via NW-Modeling-List

Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 9:49 AM

To: NW Modeling List

Cc: NW Modeling List

Subject: Re: 4-8-0 "survey" results

I'd really love to see this project come to life but I think doing at least some other tenders would be the best way to sell them. The unfortunate thing
 is the 433 and 475 both have the USRA tenders and that's what will probably be used as a reference. I think doing the 12A (396) and 9A (as built) tenders would be a much better idea and more welcome to most modelers. The 9A by NWSL is very common on the feebay
 market in brass but the 12A (Sunset & PSC) is pretty scarce. Maybe do the 12A and the USRA tenders?

Just my 2¢,

Roger Huber

Deer Creek Locomotive Works

From: NW Modeling List <nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org>

To: NW Modeling List <nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org>

Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 6:39 AM

Subject: Re: 4-8-0 "survey" results

The tender on 475 was not used on very many M’s.  They used larger tenders.  This would allow for many more numbers/runs.  The extra
 axles will provide better electrical pick-up too. 

-- 

Mark Lindsey

Stuck in the 1930’s

From:
NW-Modeling-List <nw-modeling-list-bounces at nwhs.org> on behalf of NW Modeling List <nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org>

Reply-To: NW Modeling List <nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org>

Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 12:06 PM

To: NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>, NW Modeling List <nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org>

Subject: 4-8-0 "survey" results

I thought I should share the results.  We got a significant number of suggestions (mostly tactful, some not)that we clarify which M we were talking
 to the manufacturer/importer about.  Our discussions hadn't reached that level, as we were simply exploring the possibility of a "low price" N&W 4-8-0.  The results of the survey made it clear that our best bet is the M, specifically the way it looks (tender,
 fittings, etc.)at Strasburg today.  It is clear to most of our members that some mass-market appeal will, we think, substantially increase the viability of this project.

I got some comments about getting my M, M-1, and M-2 straighter in my mind.  I don't have it where I want it, but I'm a lot closer than I was two weeks
 ago (thank you, again, and as always, Col. Jeffries and Harold Davenport).

We got a good number of "You should do the M in a version with variations, especially tenders"; we're going to pass that on, but the cost-effectiveness
 of that will be determiend by the manufacturer/importer.  

We got a good number of "Instead of an M you guys should do []".  We're listening to all of that, but some are probably less likely than others.  I'd
 like an LC-2, but I'm not holding my breath.

And, we got a surprising number of "at that price I'd be interested in one or two".  I'm quite pleased we did this. 

We forwarded the results and constructive suggestions to the manufacturer/importer.  We've been asked to keep "his" name quiet for the time being. 
 It's not Broadway, but we're looking at that type of model with that level of quality and in that price ballpark.  We will keep you posted as to what happens next.

For those of you who replied with expressions interest and constructive suggestions/comments/cirticism, thank you.

Frank Bongiovanni, NWHS Modeling Committee

________________________________________

NW-Modeling-List at nwhs.org

To change your subscription go to

http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-modeling-list

Browse the NW-Modeling-List archives at

http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-modeling-list/

________________________________________

NW-Modeling-List at nwhs.org

To change your subscription go to

http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-modeling-list

Browse the NW-Modeling-List archives at

http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-modeling-list/

________________________________________

NW-Modeling-List at nwhs.org

To change your subscription go to

http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-modeling-list

Browse the NW-Modeling-List archives at

http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-modeling-list/

________________________________________
NW-Modeling-List at nwhs.org
To change your subscription go to
http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-modeling-list
Browse the NW-Modeling-List archives at
http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-modeling-list/ 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/nw-modeling-list/attachments/20150802/7fab7a59/attachment-0001.html>