Re: #21 v #22
Posted by
Todd A Ferguson on
URL: http://c-sng-discussion-forum.254.s1.nabble.com/21-v-22-tp7249p9873.html
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&node=9872&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&node=9871&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.