Skip to main content

I am surprised that Whitney Company 2-4-4-2 “Skookum” has not been done in three rail O-gauge yet, by Lionel or MTH.

Apart from being a a bit famous and the first articulated logging locomotive, and one of the oldest articulated Baldwin Locomotive Works articulated steam engines still in existence, I can't think of much more.

As for making a cost efficient given the risk of it not selling model, I see that the wheels from the Pennsy A5 steamer could be used, only two inches larger at 50 inches than 48 inches on the prototypes, making it only 4% too big on the model. Given the weight of O-guage engines and how Skookum could pull less than the 0-4-0 A5 in real life, not counting grades, assuming the tractive effort numbers I found are accurate, only powering the rear drivers would be necessary if a pair of traction tires were used. Since it is also a compound a standard four chuff sound would be needed and a sensor in the from set of drivers for realistic sound, simplifying the drive train considerably. As for the rest I don't know what they could barrow parts from in the tooling, but it would be a start, or a good place for a person to make a custom model from.

 

What are other thoughts on Whitney Company 2-4-4-2 “Skookum” ?

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Add this to the list of "gee, I wonder why they haven't made one of these" model RR pieces, particularly locos.

Now, actually, I've never heard of the engine, nor have I ever heard the word "Skookum" (had to look it up), to my recollection, so I didn't "wonder why" in this case, but a basic (but easily upgradeable, for guys like me) small "027", if you will, articulated is something that I've brought up before. I'm sure others have, too. Always seemed like a niche that Williams (not WbB) could have filled.

I do think that a small but generically plausible 0-6-6-0/2-6-6-2/etc would be a bigger seller, as there were more of these than 0-4-4-0/2-4-4-2 types, but I'll grab a "Skookum" if it shows up. I'd bash it into something else, I imagine, as Pacific NW logging is not my thing. But - lots of logging in my part of the country back in the day, and lots of little funky steamers, so I imagine that it could be good bashing-fodder.

You should have posted a photo:

Attachments

Images (1)
  • mceclip0

The list of locomotives that have not been made in O gauge is very, very long, and a lot of them are a heck of a lot more famous than this Skookum.

Want an example? Sierra no. 3, featured in endless films and TV shows for decades, including (most famously) “Petticoat Junction” in the 1960s.

As I said in another post just this week, sometimes you have to objectively look past your own hobby interests if you’re wondering why something hasn’t been made.

I sincerely doubt the Skookum would result in the sale of thousands of units to justify a manufacturer to tool up for it. Brass manufacturers require smaller runs of roughly 300. I question whether this locomotive can even generate that level on interest considering the likely $1,500-plus price tag. 

Last edited by Jim R.

Summary:  it's not an NYC Hudson, Santa Fe F3, or Pennsy GG-1, so it won't sell.

I am not bashing anyone here:  it's just the reality of the marketplace.  For some reason that eludes me, folks who own10 Hudsons will buy an 11th if one comes out with some obscure feature not offered before or yet another F3 if some manufacturer paints it purple because Bob Sherman's catalog drawing made it look that way in a misprinted run of 1950 catalogs, but nifty engines like this get no traction.

First yes is was the 2-4-4-2 for Tennessee, it could not make the curves, so it was sent back and shipped to Washington. It is rare in it is the first articulated logging locomotive ever built, it is important in that case alone, hardly heard of, yes, given it has some pretty strong competition on the west cost from Mc Cloud River Railroad number 25, SP 4449, and SP&S 700 all passenger locomotives, and currently they are all in the same state. Being in pieces for more than 60 years did not help, hard to gain a name if it is not running, and a rare wheel arrangement to start with.

Many engines are never heard of for good reason. Ever heard of a LNWR DX good class 0-6-0, the most numerically produced UK locomotive in history? (943 were built) Never, hardly a photo survives today.

I never had heard of a Pennsylvania Railroad A5 or H10, before looking into O-guage, yet they seem to be big hits, the basic train set from MTH tend to have an Hx Pennsy 2-8-0 of some type as the base, and the A5 seems to have bee a hit since K-line started making it for them and later Lionel and MTH. The B&O 0-4-0 saddle tank docksider was made by the hundreds or more in HO for decades, yet were rare in the real world, Lionel for years made a 0-6-0 variant. Many other engines have been produced I have never heard of till they are released, yet they seem to sell rather well.

 

I figure 2-4-4-2 given it has been made in a brass for 2 wheel o-gauge, and as a Korean export in HO in the 1980's, should not be to hard to move over to three rail given the history of part recycling by Lionel and MTH. Its small size compared to Big Boy, or a Y6B should make it much easier to produce in a a rugged rails, detail reduced version, I was not thinking of going high end, just make a low end version or do a poll and see if there was any interest.

I have been kinda shocked "Old Maude" of the B&O has not been made given it was the first articulated engine built in North America, and a bit more widely known.

Who knows maybe this forum topic might make more aware of both "Old Maude" and "Skookum".

Many like me do not have the space for the huge eight foot wide curves, or even the five and a half foot curves of the high end steamers, three feet is pushing it. It would be nice if a smaller articulate was available, 2-6-6-2 or 2-4-4-2, the advantage being the 2-4-4-2 can share several parts with the scale 0-4-0's, if the front drivers are left unpowered, and not look as silly with the boiler overhang, being in the realm of unbelief even for a toy.

bob2 posted:

I think Sunset did these.  They are so small you would be better off going to HO.

Uh, no.

3rdR Samson 2-6-6-2. Lionel USRA 2-6-6-2 behind.

I ran across this loco at a good price 1 - 2 years ago. When I add ERR (it's on the Short List), I will probably bash/adapt a plastic aux water tender for the electronics/antenna - and a more discreet mount for that O-gauge coupler. I'll put a drawbar and tether between the current tender and the aux, which will visually handle the O-gauge coupler (e-coupler) better.

DSCN1501

It's like On30 without having to go to On30; both prototypes are 2-6-6-2's, standard track gauge.

(Now, imagine a RK or Lionmaster/Chief or WbB 0-6-6-0/2-6-6-2 (both or either) a bit bigger and heftier, able to take 031 (027?) curves, generic detailing, engineered like a shorter version of the RK 2-8-8-2, released every year/catalog with a few detailing changes (separate pieces, maybe plastic, like cabs and domes and headlights and tenders), at a not-obscene price...they could dip into the "collect 'em all!" mentality. MTH and Lionel each have a possible "donor" chassis - just the core - from their RK and Lionmaster 4-6-6-4 Challengers.)

DSCN1503

Attachments

Images (2)
  • DSCN1501
  • DSCN1503

   I've run across it reaserching logging. Not even N.West logging; it crept into quite a few articles despite that.

   This covers a lot of niches, not all loggers ran narrow, its small, low slung, articulated, decent history, Baldwin build; they could do far worse. 

As soon as you add more drivers you're eliminating the smaller layouts. This may be why some deeper wallets aren't buying into the monsters as well.

  Electronics fit into ho. A decent speaker in the tender should outperform ho sounds easily; they sound pretty good, just not very loud. Especially true if is only driven as the O.P. has suggested. Ho smokes now too and steam effects aren't in every loco either. (it really only takes a motor, fan(think snail shell/turbo) and a tube.  A.F. put smoke in and moved it to the stack via tube over 50 years ago as well. With an electric motor and todays quick coupling tube connections it could be in the tender as well.

   I don't buy the "too small" bit anymore; not with cameras having 3 or more motors small as my pinky fingernail; wristwatches doing what they can do; etc etc   

Bland names?

At least they have one Most numbers arent exactly exciting 

Southern as a alternate puts a big road name in play (and please tell me one ran on the Dummy or Jerkwater Lines... then tell me those wouldn't sell a few hundred on novelty alone  

Nicknames on Wyte Notations: Old Timer isn't exactly flattering either, but it wouldn't stop me from using or wanting one anyhow. Neither would Maud. (you could hide a great sound "Easter Egg" for Old Maude too )

Adriatic posted:

   I've run across it reaserching logging. Not even N.West logging; it crept into quite a few articles despite that.

   This covers a lot of niches, not all loggers ran narrow, its small, low slung, articulated, decent history, Baldwin build; they could do far worse. 

As soon as you add more drivers you're eliminating the smaller layouts. This may be why some deeper wallets aren't buying into the monsters as well.

  Electronics fit into ho. A decent speaker in the tender should outperform ho sounds easily; they sound pretty good, just not very loud. Especially true if is only driven as the O.P. has suggested. Ho smokes now too and steam effects aren't in every loco either. (it really only takes a motor, fan(think snail shell/turbo) and a tube.  A.F. put smoke in and moved it to the stack via tube over 50 years ago as well. With an electric motor and todays quick coupling tube connections it could be in the tender as well.

   I don't buy the "too small" bit anymore; not with cameras having 3 or more motors small as my pinky fingernail; wristwatches doing what they can do; etc etc   

Bland names?

At least they have one Most numbers arent exactly exciting 

Southern as a alternate puts a big road name in play (and please tell me one ran on the Dummy or Jerkwater Lines... then tell me those wouldn't sell a few hundred on novelty alone &nbsp

Nicknames on Wyte Notations: Old Timer isn't exactly flattering either, but it wouldn't stop me from using or wanting one anyhow. Neither would Maud. (you could hide a great sound "Easter Egg" for Old Maude too )

The second 2-4-4-2 built is the one in green on the book cover, they were similar with the second one being smaller. The nice thing about engines like this, you can put almost any road name you want on it and it will probably work out. Look at all A5s in, Southern Pacific, great northern, Union Pacific, Rio Grande, and more, and few of them ran 0-4-0 of that size, or close.

 

Ets 0-4-4-0. Available now

Ets sequoia 2-4-4-0, available in April

These are tinplate based locomotives,  made from ETS's modular parts. The Sequoia is loosely based on an American logging prototype.

You could argue that a Garratt locomotive would have been better for logging.

ETS also makes a 2-6-0+0-6-2 in a couple different paint schemes that are available with a two week lead time.

Before his passing Porta drove the manufacture of two small Garratt locomotives that are working steep and twisty rails in Argentina.  These would be fun models as well.

Last edited by jhz563

I had the Gem HO 2-4-4-2. They called it a Baldwin Mallet or Little River. The Gem version was poorly made and I had to rebuild the whole thing just to get it move. The better one was made by Akane. No reason it couldn’t be done in O scale standard gauge. As pointed out above it already been done in 2 rail and On30. Not sure why anyone would say it wouldn’t sell. Look at the 0-6-0ts flying off the shelves. Not exactly a stunner.

Pete

I would like to see this 2-4-4-2 loco made also.  Light, chuff, smoke, bell, and whistle would be all it needs.

Also, the 0-4-4 Forney is another great small standard gauge loco that could be made in 3 rail.  There are a lot of modelers that would buy a small loco for switching, industry, mining, logging, etc.  We can't all use giant engines.
Dennis

Forney

DSCF4047 Forney

Attachments

Images (1)
  • DSCF4047    Forney

I;ve said it before and I'll say it again if you want a manufacturer to build a locomotive do some of the preliminary work and research for them.  Send pictures, drawings and anything to clearly show them specifically what you want.  For years I deluged Lionel with pictures of Ten Wheelers, mostly C&NW R1 ten wheelers.  When I finally met Mr. Maddox, then president of Lionel, he said when I introduced myself,  "Ottosen?  You must be the one who sent us all the material about Ten Wheelers, aren't you?  Well you just wait for our next catalog; you will have a pleasant surprise,".  And I DID have a very pleasant surprise because that was the introduction of their Ten Wheeler!!!

'

@palallin posted:

Summary:  it's not an NYC Hudson, Santa Fe F3, or Pennsy GG-1, so it won't sell.

I am not bashing anyone here:  it's just the reality of the marketplace.  For some reason that eludes me, folks who own10 Hudsons will buy an 11th if one comes out with some obscure feature not offered before or yet another F3 if some manufacturer paints it purple because Bob Sherman's catalog drawing made it look that way in a misprinted run of 1950 catalogs, but nifty engines like this get no traction.

You hit the Ole Proverbial Nail Right on the Head Sir.......110% Agreement...

Add Reply

Post
OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
330-757-3020

www.ogaugerr.com
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×