7mm Poor man's Alamosa.

Lancastrian

Western Thunderer
Completely off topic, it was a two week landscape photography holiday to Colorado and four of us then went on to New England for another two weeks. Fall foliage was late that year unfortunately. Good times all the same.

Ian
 

Scale7JB

Western Thunderer
Been a while.

My dirty lockdown secret has been buying a few of the AMS On30/On3 cars and coaches where they have become available on ebay. They’re impossible to get hold of new in the UK.

I had a second coach come through today, bit of an impulse purchase from the states. Question is, did the two colours of coaches ever get used together, or are they completely different time periods/railways?

508BC7D6-CFC7-453A-AAC4-5726D634C5F8.jpeg D0749F22-9520-432A-97BE-450A52B19E36.jpeg AC694B49-4A5B-4541-98C4-44173A582AC5.jpeg 3C37EC86-1892-4FD9-BA6C-0AA012BB38D1.jpeg

JB.
 

Tim Humphreys ex Mudhen

Western Thunderer
JB,

Without digging out the books I believe the red was an early colour and green followed it with the change being around 1920 . I'll dig out the details tomorrow. The RGS which was part of the Narrow Gauge Circle may have been different.

all the best
Tim
 

Tim Humphreys ex Mudhen

Western Thunderer
JB,

I've dug out my copy of ' Rio Grande Narrow Gauge Varnish' and here goes.

Coaches #304 and #306 represent coaches built in 1881 by Jackson and Sharp for the DRGW and as modified by 1938. Major changes were the roof, windows and ride height. Additionally #306 had a 'bay window' added, for the use of the conductor I believe.
Liveries were Passenger Car Red until 1918 when the basic colour was changed to Pullman Green. In 1950 #306 was painted in Rio Grande Gold, (yellow) with two black stripes. The reason given for the change to green was to save $1.25 per car in materials (!) and give a longer life.

I think the models look pretty good and apart from a few nerds such as me who would ever know if they ran together or not. :)

all the best
Tim

drgw304.jpg

drgw306.jpg
 

mickoo

Western Thunderer
They do look nice....resistance is futile.....fell down my D&RGW rabbit hole again last night :rolleyes:

No idea which era you're planning to model Jon, but for me, rule #1 seems to be the obvious answer.
 

Scale7JB

Western Thunderer
Thanks so much for the reply. Information doesn’t get better than that.

I’ll keep hold of the red one for now, but if I can find another green one, I may move the red one on. Not sure I could bring myself to run them together if they were painted green 30-40 years earlier.

JB.
 

Eastsidepilot

Western Thunderer
Maybe the colour change as Tim relates from the book is that red paint did suffer with fading quite quickly especially in extreme climates and the change to green may have proved, in those days, longer lasting.

Col.
 

Yorkshire Dave

Western Thunderer
I think the models look pretty good and apart from a few nerds such as me who would ever know if they ran together or not. :)

I think it would have been highly likely both liveries would have be seen together for short time while each car was going through the work and/or paintshop.
 

Tim Humphreys ex Mudhen

Western Thunderer
Dave,

I think you are correct although the model represents the coach after being significantly modified in 1938 by which time I believe green would have been the common colour.

Tim
 

Yorkshire Dave

Western Thunderer
I think you are correct although the model represents the coach after being significantly modified in 1938 by which time I believe green would have been the common colour.

I concur, especially if the cars had been modified they would have certainly been repainted.
 

Scale7JB

Western Thunderer
So here's a quandary...

Just had the loco out to have a proper look at it whilst i had the studio set up, i.e. a largish flat surface to put stuff on which is rare around these parts.

IMG_6277.jpg IMG_6278.jpg IMG_6285.jpg

Ive been looking for the best place to buy some couplers as the MMI models don't come with rear couplings (so far as I know).

Now even though the plan was initially to model in On30 (this is rapidly changing to On3) I was always going to use/fit/convert to On3 full size buckeye's, as the On30 (HO size) offerings are to me at least, quite offensive.

Time to have a look at what I've been given with regard the fitment of the couplings to the tender....

Oh S*** !!!

Loco with a San Juan Car Co Frameless tanker.
IMG_6281.jpg
Loco with an AMS ON3 Jackson Coach.
IMG_6282.jpg
Loco with a errrr loco..
IMG_6283.jpg

Loco with an ON30 AMS Box Car.
IMG_6287.jpg

Loco with a Bachmann Tender.IMG_6288.jpg

Bad research on my part it seems, but it looks like the MMI On30 locos don't 'just' have a narrower back to back for 16.5mm gauge, they're designed for On30 coupler height as well.:headbang::headbang::headbang::shit:

Or.... Are they all the same, but need an Underset Shank? Answers and commiserations on a postcard please.

JB.
 

Overseer

Western Thunderer
So here's a quandary...

Just had the loco out to have a proper look at it whilst i had the studio set up, i.e. a largish flat surface to put stuff on which is rare around these parts.

View attachment 151122 View attachment 151123 View attachment 151127

Ive been looking for the best place to buy some couplers as the MMI models don't come with rear couplings (so far as I know).

Now even though the plan was initially to model in On30 (this is rapidly changing to On3) I was always going to use/fit/convert to On3 full size buckeye's, as the On30 (HO size) offerings are to me at least, quite offensive.

Time to have a look at what I've been given with regard the fitment of the couplings to the tender....

Oh S*** !!!

Loco with a San Juan Car Co Frameless tanker.
View attachment 151124
Loco with an AMS ON3 Jackson Coach.
View attachment 151125
Loco with a errrr loco..
View attachment 151126

Loco with an ON30 AMS Box Car.
View attachment 151128

Loco with a Bachmann Tender.View attachment 151129

Bad research on my part it seems, but it looks like the MMI On30 locos don't 'just' have a narrower back to back for 16.5mm gauge, they're designed for On30 coupler height as well.:headbang::headbang::headbang::shit:

Or.... Are they all the same, but need an Underset Shank? Answers and commiserations on a postcard please.

JB.
Use the San Juan Tender/Loco Sharon Coupler mounted prototypically in a cast iron bracket bolted to the drag beam - you will probably need to make a bracket to suit the nice flat surface they have provided to mount it on. If you want magnetic uncoupling I would modify one of the San Juan Evolution couplers by cutting the shank shorter and drilling a new hole, then mount in a fabricated bracket with some side springs if you want to.

Offset HO couplers will just look wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJC

Scale7JB

Western Thunderer
Use the San Juan Tender/Loco Sharon Coupler mounted prototypically in a cast iron bracket bolted to the drag beam - you will probably need to make a bracket to suit the nice flat surface they have provided to mount it on. If you want magnetic uncoupling I would modify one of the San Juan Evolution couplers by cutting the shank shorter and drilling a new hole, then mount in a fabricated bracket with some side springs if you want to.

Offset HO couplers will just look wrong.

Thanks!

I was thinking about the Kadee Type E offset shank coupler.

JB.
 

PhilH

Western Thunderer
So here's a quandary...
Bad research on my part it seems, but it looks like the MMI On30 locos don't 'just' have a narrower back to back for 16.5mm gauge, they're designed for On30 coupler height as well.:headbang::headbang::headbang::shit:
Or.... Are they all the same, but need an Underset Shank? Answers and commiserations on a postcard please.
JB.

The coupler mounting is different on the On3 K27s. I don't have a photo of the back end of any of mine to hand but this is one of an On3 tender pinched off the web

K27 Tender.jpg



 

Scale7JB

Western Thunderer
Thanks Phil, as Overseer mentioned above I think its possible to make up a coupling pocket from a bit of brass sheet.

JB.
 
Top