The wheel spacing is the same as stock... Same frames, just moved back
under the cab. Same rods, just configured differently. I definately
agree with the wheel size, though I have seen some narrow-gauge locos with
tiny drivers that make the Ruby's look semi-normal in this
configuration. However, the main reason I don't care for most of the
American's that are currently available is the driver size/spacing. I
like the look of the mainline locos much better than that of the
wide-spaced narrow-gauge locos.
The frames would have to be chopped in the middle and new mountings for
the through links (valve gear rockers) would be needed. While I admit it
would be more mifty to add drivers for a Mogul that would require more
drivers which are not supplied when one buys a Ruby. ;] It is much
easier to find small wheels for the leading truck than compatable drivers
without buying a second Ruby.
These are just my thoughts though and like I said, I have a thing for
americans.
Trot, the fox who doesn't always make sense...
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, VR Bass wrote:
> There's just one problem: note the wheel spacing. That one will require a
> new frame and rods, in addition to the other obvious stuff. Also, to my taste,
> an American has to have much larger wheels that the Ruby's. Americans
> were passenger engines, with big drivers. Even the smallest of these little
> critters (I think that would be the Mt. Gretna 4-4-0) had 32" or 33" drivers and
> most had 45" or larger (I'm thinking of the UdeY's famous 3'-gauge 4-4-0s),
> while Ruby's are only 28".
>
> But the frames are the biggest problem. I think it would be easier (and more
> satisfying IMO) to add a third driver under the cab, to make a 0-6-0 or a
> Mogul than to completely recut the frames and rebuild it from the ground up.
> This is not to say that I wouldn't love to see what someone could surprise us
> all with.
>
> regards,
> -vance-
/\_/\ TrotFox \ Always remember,
( o o ) AKA Landon Solomon \ "There is a
>\./< [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ third alternative."
