Here is one of my cab-forward mechanisms. Lobaugh- like - I do them all the same way.
Originally Posted by Jay C:
It's a Lobaugh. That's why I posted it. I've seen worse go for a lot more.
Jay
Yup, and starting off very reasonable. Probably "does not run" comes from being tested with a Lionel transformer, 
So how do you experts know for sure that it is a "Lobaugh" ?? And Yes, if it IS, then you better have a rectifier with your ZW or the engine won't run !!
Some 50 years ago I bought a nice Lobaugh Berkshire from a guy at our church for $ 250.00 !! Ran great! Later on, a member talked me into trading it for something else. He kept the engine--I got nothing! Never did get the engine back! Should have hit him in the head!
KRK
There are about sixteen dead giveaways that make it a Lobaugh. The definitive clues are in the underside shots. There were very few of these things produced, and the variations from one to the next are huge.
This one has no rivets on the lower firebox sheets and the driver pedestals for the geared axles open up - probably no other Lobaugh Cab Forward has those features. Lots of early Challengers have geared pedestals opening upwards. I usually re-do that feature.
Hang in there Bob, I doubt anyone living is more of an authority on Lobaugh than yourself! Fun to see the replies on this subject. Did Lobaugh ever make any that were ready to run?
Bob2, I 100% agree. Having one currently in my shop...this is a Lobaugh Cab Forward.
I am working on getting my pictures together this week so I can post some photos.
Joe Foehrkolb
Originally Posted by Harmon:
Hang in there Bob, I doubt anyone living is more of an authority on Lobaugh than yourself! Fun to see the replies on this subject. Did Lobaugh ever make any that were ready to run?
+1
I've read this thread since it started and look forward to each reply. Immediately thought of bob2 when I first saw the topic.
Woody Mathews probably knows more, among other folks. I am having a small mental block right now, but Rod up in Menlo Park also knows way more. My buddy George Wilson's name appears on many drawings, but he is no longer with us.
I do know how to build these things - at least the locomotives and cabeese - and would post more photos if this had remained in the 3-rail scale area. 2-railers have mostly seen all of my work, both on line, and in the magazines.
However, here is a link to my Photobucket account where i keep the photos I post. Go there if you would like to see my Lobaugh collection. I am happy to answer questions here.
If you have trouble finding the cab forwards, I can post another link. I am assuming that once in to my account you can look at all my photos.
Bob, You say there are others who know a lot about Lobaugh, but if it is not shared, doesn't do us much good. Thanks.
I have done posts with all my photos on MTJ. They usually die quickly. I just keep posting until it is very clear that I am talking to myself. Like self-flaggelation.
On the other hand, I enjoy collecting what very few others are interested in. Kind of an esoteric hobby within a sparsely populated branch of model railroading.
Bob2 and others.
I made a discovery this morning about the Lobaugh Cab Forward that was handed to me. Someone added a lost wax cast pedestal under the boiler casting to mate with another casting that has a "hook" on it to slide in a notch in the boiler pedestal and keep the boiler from dropping when the model is picked up. I thought the lost wax castings look a bit modern for the Lobaugh kit. Studying the Lobaugh drawings that were given to me, there is no such part on the model drawings. Once the front gearbox was installed, the rear of the pedestal casting interfered with the rear gearbox and would prevent the rear frame from moving side to side. Additionally the casting that held the "Hook" hung over the drivers and would cause a short against the insulated driver flange below it. The castings have been removed and the model now runs smoothly. The dummy driver springs on the rear mechanism were hitting the bottom of the boiler shell and causing more interference. They too have been removed. (They were not on the model when it was handed to me)
The front mechanism seems to derail when entering a 72" radius curve. Looking at the photos of the Lobaugh Cab Forward currently on ebay, I do not see the pedestal and boiler support castings or the dummy springs over the rear drivers. I also see that the middle driver pairs (2nd and 3rd) on both mechanisms have blind drivers.
The model I have has all drivers flanged. Perhaps that is why it is derailing. There seems to be adequate lateral motion in the driver axles but the mechanism gets tight on the rail when entering the curve.
I don't believe Lobaugh had this locomotive totally thought out and the few that are out there were perhaps still in the development stage when they were sold. The way the rear frame casting was made there was no way to install the gearbox with the shaft horizontal to allow it to mate with the shaft coming from the front mechanism as is shown on the Lobaugh drawing. I milled quite a bit of material from the frame to get the rear gearbox installed properly.
Thoughts or comments are welcome. I think Bob2 indicated that his two Lobaugh cab forwards only have the front mechanism operational. I can see why!
Joe Foehrkolb
No - one of them has stock gearing on both engines; the other is set up for NWSL, but not currently powered at all.
You already know this, but setting up an articulated can be a painful and time-consuming task. All flanges on the Lobaugh should allow any radius the Berkshire can handle, since these are really Berkshire frames. I run mine on 70", and I believe I ran it on 64" at one time.
The castings are PSC, and while I don't put them on the Lobaugh, I do use them on my larger 17/64 scratchbuilts. Send them to me, and I'll put them to good use.
Ifigured this thread was dead, but am happy to use it as e-mail between the two of us - let me get you a photo . . .
Don't know if you can see the castings in there. This one was a bear to set up - my superelevation gave it fits. I have no idea why. Careful spring- loading of lead and trail trucks cured it - one spring is anchored at the very top of the frame, exerting a downward force via fulcrum.
On the driveshaft - try this:
Speedometer cable and K&S tubing. You need strong liquid flux to tin the cable. You can use the end that is swaged square as a slip-joint, or you can saturate one end with solder, file square, and slip a smaller square K&S tube on. Once soldered, another hunk of cable gets a larger square tube, which slips over the smaller soldered end at assembly.
The flex and slip- coupling is then soldered to the drive shafts with round K&S tube, to be concentric ( important - no noise.).
The big deal advantages - less Dremeling or ball-end milling of valuable frame and cylinder bronze, easier uncoupling, and the slip- nature of the joint allows for better tracking. Best of all, cheaper than Toyota hose, which is used at the motor end.
Bob2,
The drive shaft is not a problem. The model turns over smoothly but derails on one spot on my railroad. Otherwise it goes around my 72"radius curves OK. This has been an experience for me. The PSC castings interfered with the articulation of the rear mechanism where they were mounted. They have been removed. This was not obvious until the rear gearbox was mounted in the mechanism. Previous owner(s) were never able to fit the rear gearbox top and I found it inside the boiler wrapped in a plastic bag along with 4 dummy spring hangers. The model is going back to its owner.
Joe Foehrkolb
Malleys and the SP . Anyone who likes them might enjoy reading "Life and times of a locomotive engineer" by Charles F. Steffes . He hired out on the SP before WW2 and ran thru the opening of the Palmdale cutoff so had lots of interesting SP stories to tell. ....DaveB
I am nuts about them. This was my very first scratchbuilt locomotive, and one of the few that ran smoothly the first time I put power to it:
Oh, bump. I am sure this will get me in trouble:
Lobaugh Cab Forward, motor, but does not run - $2600. Wow!
Has anyone posted a picture of what is supposed to be the correct tender for the cab forward.
bob2 posted:We are pretty sure the 1941 GS-3 never got off the drawing boards, but I built my own just in case.
So what we have is a genuine imitation.
Simon
moderneraSG posted:They were in business from the early 1930s. They sold parts and car kits in O scale and 7/16" scale (for 2-1/8" Standard Gauge track).
Hope this helps with some of the history.
ARNO
I've seen the Lobaugh O scale mentioned frequently over the years, but had no idea they did 7/16" scale. Any pics available of that line? I remember articles on E.L. Moore's erstwhile 3/8" scale layout. (Or was that 7/16" too?)
They did some castings for larger scale - I do not think they did cars or locomotives. As to the correct Lobaugh tender - I have one. I have not seen any other examples, although I have a spare cast underframe for which I made sides and top. The Cab Forward is one of the most rare Lobaugh models - you can probably guess why: the drawings are dated Dec 1941.
As for photos - the new OGR upgrade disabled my ability to post - you will need to look elsewhere for photos of my models. Sure - I know there is a new "attach" button, and folks have been very kind in trying to lead me through step by step. Doesn't work. Don't care any more.
I will try to post some pictures of the cab forward tender I have. I will enlist my guru to help.
Go here, if you would like to see my Cab Forwards and Back Up Malleys. You will find exactly one genuine Lobaugh tender.
The boxey southern pacific lines tender looks exactly like mine, although the pictured tender looks like it might have a back up light. Mine has a small push button type switch on top, and a single ladder loop on the end, but there are solder remain of a second loop. The under casting is a ladder type casting with a rib front to back. I will see if I can put a picture of it on the site.
bob2 posted:Not totally sure, but I believe locomotived before 1937 were produced by others. The Mikado, an SP Mountain, and the 17/64 SP switcher appeared in 1937. Woody Mathews can help with pre- 1937 history.
So did they make you move this out of the 3-rail section? Too bad, because we were just about to introduce those folks to some obscure O Scale history, some of it 3-rail.
You probably already know this but I am a serious Lobaugh collector. I have every single model they produced except the Rock Island Mikado, the Suburban Tank, and possibly a ten-wheeler I know nothing about. We are pretty sure the 1941 GS-3 never got off the drawing boards, but I built my own just in case.
I'm enjoying your posts - please keep posting...
Mtn - sure - but you can actually see my photos and some back-story "elsewhere."
I'm enjoying the history lesson and challenges involved in bringing those ancient beasts back to life. My favorite off the beaten path engines are 2 pair of Deses diecast F units that were made in Mexico briefly in the 50s - it takes some head scratching and mechanical aptitude to keep them running, and this thread is right up my alley.
@bob2 posted:On the Cab Forward - I have two, and have seen maybe four others. I have the only original Lobaugh tender I have ever seen, plus an extra underframe. Jan Lorenzen and I felt that there might be a dozen or so Lobaugh Cab Forwards in existence. The drawings are dated December 7, 1941, and you can bet all production stopped the day afer that.
Since I have so much time on my hands, I've been going back through the 2 rail category, and I hope it's okay to resurrect this old thread.
I was cleaning out my beautiful old Proctor toaster a while back and noticed the stamped build date: December 7, 1941...😳
Mark in Oregon
Okay with me. Since we originally did this, uploading photos has become lots easier, with better results. I note that what few photos we have here now have "Photobucket" plastered scross them. Happy to re-do them or add more.
I also note that TCA-Western has lifted many of my photos from OGR and used them without attribution, often with incorrect data and notes. We are working to correct that - it is at least unethical to use another's work without attribution, and likely a copyright infringement.
While I dislike copying photos over and over again in the same thread, if a modeler wishes to use my photos elsewhere, I will happily give my permission, provided the caption says something like "model and photo by Bob Turner."
Here is a sort-of Lobaugh - all parts are genuine Lobaugh, but the model is an AC-6, something Lobaugh never marketed. All you need are spoked drivers and the tender off of a prewar Mountain:
I don't think you can see it, but I have re-done the tail beam and pilot beam in heavy brass to more closely follow SP erection drawings (which I have in my "Church" books). The tender shown is not Lobaugh, but rather an Adams casting set with my wrapper soldered on - I do have genuine 100% Lobaugh tenders, and this one should get one of those. As I keep saying, "someday."
Attachments
Images (1)
So Strummer, I had some time on my hands too. After reading through this thread I thought I'd add a postscript to one of the discussions back in 2015. Rule292 asked about the suburban engine. Below is the blueprint for the superstructure and a copy of the CNJ plans from MR way back when - the Lobaugh engine (the blueprint date is 1959) does look to be generic.
Lobaugh Superstructure
MR CNJ Plans
Lobaugh Frame
The rear truck matches the look of the CNJ drawing but the superstructure plans are different from the CNJ - as for the NYC - I don't know.
Attachments
It was freelance. Pacific frame, but smaller drivers. Cab Forward trailing truck. I think they used the 4-4-0 boiler, but not sure. The Mongrel Mogul and a rumored ten-wheeler were more of the same. Rollin was long out of there at that point.
Thank you Bob " Mister Lobaugh" 2.😁
Seriously, it's great this Forum has such knowledgeable people like yourself to help us understand earlier O scale. 👍
Mark in Oregon
@Strummer posted:I was cleaning out my beautiful old Proctor toaster a while back and noticed the stamped build date: December 7, 1941...😳
Mark in Oregon
...Which is really interesting since that was a Sunday, hardly thought of as a work day for small appliance manufacturing...or anything else back then!!
I wonder if the actual build date of the appliance might have been in the immediate following week...taking to heart FDR's address to Congress regarding that "Day of Infamy"...a Proctor/employee's way of remembering.
KD
The idea of no work on Sunday in the pre WWII period is interesting and I'm sure there were places where that was true however the 40 hour work week with Saturday and Sunday off is more of a post WWII condition than pre WWII.
I do know when my Grandfather worked for the railroad it was all day Saturday with a half-day Sunday. At some point before the war it became half-day Saturday with Sunday off but he was working for a big railroad and he had a union. Other could have easily had Sunday work hours - for example over on the first page of this thread bob2 noted "On the Cab Forward - I have two, and have seen maybe four others. I have the only original Lobaugh tender I have ever seen, plus an extra underframe. Jan Lorenzen and I felt that there might be a dozen or so Lobaugh Cab Forwards in existence. The drawings are dated December 7, 1941, and you can bet all production stopped the day afer that."
So if they were working on drawings on December 7,1941 at Lobaugh it is probably reasonable to assume work was ongoing elsewhere on that Sunday.
1959 is late ...unknown who was running Lobaugh at that time Al Ellis left by 1958
John Campbell had Lobaugh in LA in the late ? 60's +-
Cheers Carey
Carey,
I think it was Jack. Gotta keep ya honest bud! By the way, dropping off the master at the foundry in about an hour.
Jay
@Robert S. Butler posted:The idea of no work on Sunday in the pre WWII period is interesting and I'm sure there were places where that was true however the 40 hour work week with Saturday and Sunday off is more of a post WWII condition than pre WWII.
I do know when my Grandfather worked for the railroad it was all day Saturday with a half-day Sunday.
It's quite possible, that's true.
However, Henry Ford put his workers onto a 40-hour week in 1914, creating the "weekend", after understanding the human benefits of reducing the work week from a more common 48-hour stretch. Other working conditions, including job time expectations, led to the famous General Motors sit down strike of 1937.
Working conditions overall in the first third of the 20th century demanded some sort of standards, for which FDR stepped up passing the original Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938. The 40-hour work week was part of that statute. However, certain labor categories, including the railroads, had caveats and concessions due to the unique skills and nature of their industry. And, of course, that original 1938 statute has been revised and 'massaged' in the years since...even into this century.
The 3 short years between enactment of the FLSA and Dec. 7, 1941 with regard to the adoption and roll-out of a standard 40-hour work week throughout all industry/business probably were less memorable to the more demanding wartime expectations, which kept virtually all industry working 24/7 for any able-bodied individual.
It'll probably change again someday...soon.
I mentioned the TCA Western Lobaugh writeup a bunch of posts ago (maybe eight?). We have finally reached a resolution - they will remove my photos next week.
I gave them the option of retaining my photos with a credit (photo and model by Bob Turner). They have told me it is easier to remove my photos and insert photos of the same models done by others, and that they will proceed that way.
Took us almost a year to reach this accord. Those of you with Lobaugh photos and no desire for attribution might send a few photos to them. They may also need photos of Scale Craft, Walthers, Alexander, and Icken (I bet they never find another Icken O1 photo, unless it is the catalog photo).
