#21 v #22

[brucet]

Hi everyone. I've been lurking for sometime now but decided to join in the conversation.

I want to build a 'close' replica of either #21 or #22. On30. Using the Bachmann 2-6-0 as a starting point. I'm not a rivet counter.
I'm leaning towards the #22 with the beartrap. Question though is which loco is closest to build specs? I see pipe work etc is all different. Is one closer to how it was built or have they both been so modified over the years it doesn't really matter?
Photos. I've seen all the ones on this forum. But they are nearly all of one side. So any clues on where I can find more photos.

Regards
Bruce

[Jim Courtney]

Bruce,

I don't know where to start.

C&S 21 and 22 were sister locomotives in a 2 engine class.  Both were light "cold water" Brooks 2-6-0s when built for the DSP&P in 1882.

In the 1890s, both engines were rebuilt by successor DL&G, with new boilers in 12/1892 and 7/1894 respectively. The goal was to rebuild them as close as possible to the Cooke 2-6-0s of that era, in appearance and performance. Ironically, all but 3 of the Cooke 2-6-0s were themselves rebuilt between 1900 and 1902, giving the Cookes an new driver spacing, a larger tapered boiler and much greater tractive effort.








The 21 was scrapped in 1923, the 22 scrapped in 1927.  Both locomotives were similar in plumbing, but differed in terms of cab windows and tenders.

The unrebuilt Cooke 2-6-0s (11, 12 and 13) were all similar to the 21 and 22, and could be built based on the Bachman 2-6-0.  These later 3 engines didn't have the injectors mounted on the boilers, in front of the cab, with intake pipe coming off the steam dome, so they might be an easier modification.








The Precision O/On3 parts catalog has quite a few castings (stubby wooden pilot, arc and box headlights, correct tender truck side frames, etc) that could be used in the modifications, no matter which direction you choose to go.

As to other photos, I don't know how to help.  I've tried to post as many period photos on the Discussion Forum as possible (saves me rifling through my books, looking for them).

Use the search box on the Discussion Forum and type in 21 and 22.  You will find several threads with all the photos, and comments posted here.

Good luck with your project.

[brucet]

Thanks Jim.

I'm looking at photos of #21 without the beartrap. Then I notice #22 has a bend in the railing around the bear trap. Other piping is also different. I'm just trying to narrow down a few details before I scare the credit card with parts orders.
Same with cab shades, etc etc etc. I guess it's not critical but I would like to hit a date to target.

This is my first attempt at an engine bash. So I want it to be something that doesn't scare the horses too much!!!!!

Regards
Bruce

[Jim Courtney]

Check out this thread for a similar discussion of 21 vs 22:  http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/C-amp-S-22-td1598.html#a1649


Chris posted some wonderful detail closeups of the two engines, c1918-1923. And Mal Ferrell posted large photos of his rebuilt Bachmann engines, both 21 and 22.

[Keith Hayes]

Also, Mal did a nice feature in one of the Narrow Gauge Annual's on his modifications to the Bachmann model.

I have always been partial to 21 for no good reason whatsoever. When PFM imported these eons ago, it seemed to me at the time that the model more closely resembled 21 than 22. I always found it odd these locos were scrapped rather early, yet according to the numbering should have had a greater tractive effort than the Cooke's, but the latter were more powerful.

[brucet]

Thanks guys. This will be a slowly slowly job. So there's no hurry. I don't really 'want' or 'need' another loco. Just never bashed a particular loco before. So after a bit of research the #21 & #22 tugged at my heart strings. I may regret it but nothing ventured nothing gained.

regards
Bruce

[Robert Stears]

C&S #21 and #22 have always been my favorites. Attached is a photograph of my first locomotive project – C&S #22 in Hon3.

 

It all started when I rode my bike to Downtown Hobbies in Denver one Saturday morning in 1973. I purchased a HOn3 New Berlin & Winfield tender drive brass locomotive with money saved from mowing lawns. I think the model was $45.00.

 

I then went around the block to Caboose Hobbies (The old downtown location) and picked up the headlight and smoke stack brass castings. The cab is styrene. It ran pretty well and was my only Hon3 motive power for many years.

 

I took the model to the 1973 Rocky Mountain NMRA meeting and got a ribbon for best (and only) teen entry. I was 15.

 

I don’t know where the model ended up. I wish I could find it. Although I currently am blessed with a fleet of highly detailed smoothly running brass On3 C&S engines, an unpainted On3 New Berlin & Winfield 2-8-0 came up for sale recently on eBay and I was really tempted….

 

Bob

 

From: brucet [via C&Sng Discussion Forum] [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 10:16 PM
To: Robert Stears <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: #21 v #22

 

Thanks guys. This will be a slowly slowly job. So there's no hurry. I don't really 'want' or 'need' another loco. Just never bashed a particular loco before. So after a bit of research the #21 & #22 tugged at my heart strings. I may regret it but nothing ventured nothing gained.

regards
Bruce

---

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/21-v-22-tp7249p7271.html

To start a new topic under C&Sng Discussion Forum, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from C&Sng Discussion Forum, click here.
NAML

[Todd A Ferguson]

Robert,

Nice work! $45 was a ton of money for us teens back in those days! I remember cutting a neighbor lady's lawn that was almost an acre for $5 or $6. And I used my mower and gas!

Best,
Todd Ferguson
Harrisburg, NC

[brucet]

Dome rings. Why were they removed and what was their purpose?

regards

[South Park]

  The purpose was decorative, and along with Congdon stacks, walnut cabs, and
big box headlights made for really good looking locomotives !  

[brucet]

Thanks. So removing them won't cause an 'explosion' on my layout!!! I'm one of the few who don't like em. Sorry.

regards

[South Park]

  The way the C&S NG lines kept some of the less streamlined
characteristics of earlier locomotive design - oversized overhanging
headlights, the high bulk of the Ridgway spark catcher, etc. kept
their most of their locomotives exceptionally good looking to the
end, even if they lost some of the gingerbread like the ringed domes.

  Personally, a long, black tube of a locomotive is about as good
looking as a sausage on wheels.  I like the gee-gaw of the high
Victorian age.  It was a show of pride and accomplishment, be
that stained glass windows in one's home, or fancy hand painted
numbers and lettering on the motive power.  I would rank the 2-8-0's
in mid-80's trim about the finest looking, most perfectly proportioned
locomotives to ever ply the rails anywhere.

[Robert McFarland]

I'm kinda partial to Nesmith stacks myself.

[South Park]

  Nesmiths are good for sneaking elephants onto the property
when all the boxcars are full !  

[brucet]

Now fancy that. Santa left a shiny new Bachmann 2-6-0 under the tree for me. I wonder how he knew! I guess he now expects me to buy all the parts!!!

Merry Christmas to all.

[Ken Ford]

Keith Hayes wrote

Also, Mal did a nice feature in one of the Narrow Gauge Annual's on his modifications to the Bachmann model.

I have always been partial to 21 for no good reason whatsoever. When PFM imported these eons ago, it seemed to me at the time that the model more closely resembled 21 than 22. I always found it odd these locos were scrapped rather early, yet according to the numbering should have had a greater tractive effort than the Cooke's, but the latter were more powerful.

Does anyone know which issue this article was in?  I didn’t see anything obvious looking at the on-line contents.

[Todd A Ferguson]

I believe there was an article in the Gazette about 21 and 22 and the PFM vs Bachmann models.  Mallory Hope Farrell perhaps…I don’t know the issue of hand but you might search the Model Railroader index and see what pops up.

On Oct 29, 2017, at 1:51 PM, Ken Ford [via C&Sng Discussion Forum] <[hidden email]> wrote:

Keith Hayes wrote

Also, Mal did a nice feature in one of the Narrow Gauge Annual's on his modifications to the Bachmann model.

I have always been partial to 21 for no good reason whatsoever. When PFM imported these eons ago, it seemed to me at the time that the model more closely resembled 21 than 22. I always found it odd these locos were scrapped rather early, yet according to the numbering should have had a greater tractive effort than the Cooke's, but the latter were more powerful.

Does anyone know which issue this article was in?  I didn’t see anything obvious looking at the on-line contents.

---

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/21-v-22-tp7249p9868.html

To unsubscribe from #21 v #22, click here.
NAML

[Todd A Ferguson]

Ken, the article I am thinking about is in the July 2014 Gazette.

I looked it up in my Gazette DVD collection.  Their search function sucks on that product …unfortunate.  I searched 2-6 to find it…LOL

Todd

On Oct 29, 2017, at 1:51 PM, Ken Ford [via C&Sng Discussion Forum] <[hidden email]> wrote:

Keith Hayes wrote

Also, Mal did a nice feature in one of the Narrow Gauge Annual's on his modifications to the Bachmann model.

I have always been partial to 21 for no good reason whatsoever. When PFM imported these eons ago, it seemed to me at the time that the model more closely resembled 21 than 22. I always found it odd these locos were scrapped rather early, yet according to the numbering should have had a greater tractive effort than the Cooke's, but the latter were more powerful.

Does anyone know which issue this article was in?  I didn’t see anything obvious looking at the on-line contents.

---

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/21-v-22-tp7249p9868.html

To unsubscribe from #21 v #22, click here.
NAML

[Ken Ford]

Hi, Todd -

Many thanks!  I’d like to see what he did, I have a new in box Mogul downstairs. 

Best -

Ken Ford

On Oct 29, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Todd A Ferguson [via C&Sng Discussion Forum] <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ken, the article I am thinking about is in the July 2014 Gazette.

I looked it up in my Gazette DVD collection.  Their search function sucks on that product …unfortunate.  I searched 2-6 to find it…LOL

Todd

On Oct 29, 2017, at 1:51 PM, Ken Ford [via C&Sng Discussion Forum] <[hidden email]> wrote:

Keith Hayes wrote

Also, Mal did a nice feature in one of the Narrow Gauge Annual's on his modifications to the Bachmann model.

I have always been partial to 21 for no good reason whatsoever. When PFM imported these eons ago, it seemed to me at the time that the model more closely resembled 21 than 22. I always found it odd these locos were scrapped rather early, yet according to the numbering should have had a greater tractive effort than the Cooke's, but the latter were more powerful.

Does anyone know which issue this article was in?  I didn’t see anything obvious looking at the on-line contents.

---

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/21-v-22-tp7249p9868.html

To unsubscribe from #21 v #22, click here.
NAML

---

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/21-v-22-tp7249p9871.html

To unsubscribe from #21 v #22, click here.
NAML

[Todd A Ferguson]

Ken, I have one I picked up off eBay last winter.  have not even taken it our of the box.  I thought his model ended up pretty decent for the money.  

Are you going to convert it to On3 or leave that alone?  I think Grandt makes the new loco frame sides and perhaps some other parts for the modification.

Best,

Todd

On Oct 29, 2017, at 2:37 PM, Ken Ford [via C&Sng Discussion Forum] <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, Todd -

Many thanks!  I’d like to see what he did, I have a new in box Mogul downstairs. 

Best -

Ken Ford

On Oct 29, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Todd A Ferguson [via C&Sng Discussion Forum] <<a href="x-msg://46/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&amp;node=9872&amp;i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow" link="external" class="">[hidden email]> wrote:

Ken, the article I am thinking about is in the July 2014 Gazette.

I looked it up in my Gazette DVD collection.  Their search function sucks on that product …unfortunate.  I searched 2-6 to find it…LOL

Todd

On Oct 29, 2017, at 1:51 PM, Ken Ford [via C&Sng Discussion Forum] <<a href="x-msg://46/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&amp;node=9871&amp;i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow" link="external" class="">[hidden email]> wrote:

Keith Hayes wrote

Also, Mal did a nice feature in one of the Narrow Gauge Annual's on his modifications to the Bachmann model.

I have always been partial to 21 for no good reason whatsoever. When PFM imported these eons ago, it seemed to me at the time that the model more closely resembled 21 than 22. I always found it odd these locos were scrapped rather early, yet according to the numbering should have had a greater tractive effort than the Cooke's, but the latter were more powerful.

Does anyone know which issue this article was in?  I didn’t see anything obvious looking at the on-line contents.

---

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/21-v-22-tp7249p9868.html

To unsubscribe from #21 v #22, click here.
NAML

---

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/21-v-22-tp7249p9871.html

To unsubscribe from #21 v #22, click here.
NAML

---

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/21-v-22-tp7249p9872.html

To unsubscribe from #21 v #22, click here.
NAML