Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Big HO steam locos that can handle 18 inch curves

5578 views
34 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November, 2008
  • 303 posts
Big HO steam locos that can handle 18 inch curves
Posted by De Luxe on Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:29 PM

Hello everybody,

I´m a lover of big american steam locomotives, but I´m from Germany, and there we don´t have those large curves like in the USA. I mean we have them, but the majority of people in Germany use curves that are below 22 inch, mostly 18 inch and all the way down to 14 inch. As you might know Germany´s #1 manufacturer Märklin and many others produce steam locomotives that all can handle even the 14 inch curves. Ok, european engines are smaller than american one´s, but for example Märklin managed to produce a Big Boy which handles 14 inch curves like a 0-4-0. Absolutley no problem for the giant. It´s sad for me to see that most big american non articulated steam locos (I´m talking about 4-8-2, 2-10-2, 2-10-4, 4-8-4 and 4-10-2 types) are produced only for the minimum radius of 22 inch. On my layout I entirely have "only" 18 inch, so I cannot buy them although I like them so much. The problem is that I don´t have the space and simply don´t want to change my curves into 22 inch, just because of 2 or 3 american steam locos (I have other european engines too). I´m a very big fan of SP, T&P and UP steam, but I simply cannot find any (non-brass of course) big steam loco that can handle 18 inch curves. My favorite engine is the SP GS-4 in black, and I simply had to purchase one. I wrote to MTH asking them if the engine would be able to handle 18 inch curves, and they said yes, it would. And it really does! BUT: the GS-4 can goes through a 18 inch curve ONLY at low speeds and ONLY without a train in tow. Now I understand why MTH said that the recommended minimum radius is 22 inch. The absolute minimum for the GS-4 is 18 inch, but it´s not recommended because the GS-4 only handles it at low speeds and no train in tow. I´m so disappointed now because of the fact that I cannot run the engine properly and have to sell it. So I´m looking for another big SP steam loco to purchase, but all I see at the moment is the Athearn MT-4, that also is not able to handle any curves that are tighter than 22 inch. It´s so silly to me that I cannot run the engines that I like, just because of some 4 inches that are soo much in this case.

Can anyone of you tell me if there is any big SP (T&P, UP) steam available on the market that is able to go through 18 inch curves?

Or is there maybe a chance to do some modification to the MTH GS-4 so that it can handle 18 inch also at high speeds and with a train?

Regards

Daniel

 

 </

  • Member since
    July, 2004
  • From: northern nj
  • 2,477 posts
Posted by lvanhen on Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:21 PM

Athearn also makes  a 4-6-6-4 Challenger that will do 18" curves.  They have other new releases that will probably do them also - but will also probably look as silly as my Challenger!!Smile

Lou V H Photo by John
  • Member since
    March, 2007
  • From: Forest Grove, OR
  • 1,258 posts
Posted by challenger3980 on Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:24 PM

Hi Daniel,

  The Life-Like Heritage series Steam(Now owned by Walthers) built some USRA 2-8-8-2's which were nearly identical to the Norfolk & Western Y-3 class. During World War 2, the N&W was one of the few RR's that had surplus locomotives, and the Union Pacific bought 5, the Santa Fe bought 8 and the Pennsy got 6 of the Beasts. LL, did them in all three of these road names, I have 2 of them, and along with my Lionel Challengers and Trix (by Marklin) Big Boys(2 of those also) they are the smoothest running locomotives that I have ever run, silky smooth. They are supposed to handle 18" curves and #4 turnouts.

  The Bachmann Spectrum 2-6-6-2 should also fit your needs, but you would need to apply a bit of "Modeler's License" to these, as I don't beleive that any of your chosen prototypes ever had these, but in the WWII era, Locomotives ended up in all kinds of strange places, far from Home, like the N&W Y-3's on the UP and Santa Fe. Some Duluth, Misabee & Iron Range 2-8-8-4's would also migrate to the Denver & Rio Grande Western during the winter months, when the Great Lakes were frozen over(the DM&IR hauled Iron ore to the ore docks on the lakes).

   I was tempted by the Bachmann 2-6-6-2 myself, I model the UP, which as far as I can tell, never had any 2-6-6-2's, but I was tempted to letter one for the UP any way, strange things did happen in that era, and most people, other than a serious UP Fan, likely wouldn't know that they never had those any way. The Spectrum is a Good looking, and from what I hear, a Good running model. Then I got bit by the sound virus, and there were enough other options, that I never did buy a Spectrum 2-6-6-2.

Doug

May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails

  • Member since
    March, 2009
  • 802 posts
Posted by rjake4454 on Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:27 PM

I just bought a BLI class J 4-8-4, it handles 18 curves fine, but it looks a little awkward, no real problems though.

Other than that, I am not sure. I know the 2-10-4's barely run on 22, but that might just be due to bad track work on my part.

  • Member since
    June, 2006
  • From: Sweden
  • 1,808 posts
Posted by Lillen on Saturday, March 28, 2009 4:38 PM

challenger3980

  The Bachmann Spectrum 2-6-6-2 should also fit your needs, but you would need to apply a bit of "Modeler's License" to these, as I don't beleive that any of your chosen prototypes ever had these, but in the WWII era, Locomotives ended up in all kinds of strange places, far from Home, like the N&W Y-3's on the UP and Santa Fe. Some Duluth, Misabee & Iron Range 2-8-8-4's would also migrate to the Denver & Rio Grande Western during the winter months, when the Great Lakes were frozen over(the DM&IR hauled Iron ore to the ore docks on the lakes).

   I was tempted by the Bachmann 2-6-6-2 myself, I model the UP, which as far as I can tell, never had any 2-6-6-2's, but I was tempted to letter one for the UP any way, strange things did happen in that era, and most people, other than a serious UP Fan, likely wouldn't know that they never had those any way. The Spectrum is a Good looking, and from what I hear, a Good running model. Then I got bit by the sound virus, and there were enough other options, that I never did buy a Spectrum 2-6-6-2.

Doug

 

I got one of the Spectrum 2-6-6-2, it's a very nice engine. Micro mark had them on sale way back and it was dirt cheap fro such a nice engine. I can totally recomend it.

 

Magnus

Unless otherwise mentioned it's HO and about the 50's. Magnus
  • Member since
    April, 2005
  • 2,199 posts
Posted by don7 on Saturday, March 28, 2009 5:17 PM

challenger3980

Hi Daniel,

  The Life-Like Heritage series Steam(Now owned by Walthers) built some USRA 2-8-8-2's which were nearly identical to the Norfolk & Western Y-3 class. During World War 2, the N&W was one of the few RR's that had surplus locomotives, and the Union Pacific bought 5, the Santa Fe bought 8 and the Pennsy got 6 of the Beasts. LL, did them in all three of these road names, I have 2 of them, and along with my Lionel Challengers and Trix (by Marklin) Big Boys(2 of those also) they are the smoothest running locomotives that I have ever run, silky smooth. They are supposed to handle 18" curves and #4 turnouts.

  The Bachmann Spectrum 2-6-6-2 should also fit your needs, but you would need to apply a bit of "Modeler's License" to these, as I don't beleive that any of your chosen prototypes ever had these, but in the WWII era, Locomotives ended up in all kinds of strange places, far from Home, like the N&W Y-3's on the UP and Santa Fe. Some Duluth, Misabee & Iron Range 2-8-8-4's would also migrate to the Denver & Rio Grande Western during the winter months, when the Great Lakes were frozen over(the DM&IR hauled Iron ore to the ore docks on the lakes).

   I was tempted by the Bachmann 2-6-6-2 myself, I model the UP, which as far as I can tell, never had any 2-6-6-2's, but I was tempted to letter one for the UP any way, strange things did happen in that era, and most people, other than a serious UP Fan, likely wouldn't know that they never had those any way. The Spectrum is a Good looking, and from what I hear, a Good running model. Then I got bit by the sound virus, and there were enough other options, that I never did buy a Spectrum 2-6-6-2.

Doug

by chance, there is a review on the Model Railroader site of the Bachmann 2-6-6-2 locomotive.

A portion of that review

"Bachmann's HO USRA 2-6-6-2 is a compact powerhouse.

This chunky USRA 2-6-6-2 is a powerful model that's capable of operating on 18"-radius curves. It's the first HO articulated locomotive in the Bachmann Spectrum line.

The model represents a prototype locomotive developed by the
United States Railroad Administration (USRA) during the First World War. The USRA was a governmental body which controlled American railroads and created a series of standardized steam locomotives. This 2-6-6-2 was the USRA's light Mallet articulated design.

Only 30 were built (in 1919): 20 were assigned to the Chesapeake & Ohio and 10 went to the Wheeling & Lake Erie. The USRA's allocation of the 2-6-6-2 light articulateds wasn't popular. The C&O already owned 200 2-6-6-2s of its own designs, so what it really wanted was heavier mainline locomotives.

A similar situation existed on the W&LE where its much smaller fleet of 2-6-6-2s also hauled coal. In the end, both railroads accepted what they could get. Some of these USRA locomotives wound up operating into the 1950s. "

 

I also have a couple of these engines and can find no fault with them. Detail is good and they pull well.

 

I was also lucky enough to have obtained them when they had been discounted to clear. Would buy more if I came across them at a reasonable price, am not interested in the sound versions that are currently available..

 

  • Member since
    December, 2004
  • From: Bedford, MA, USA
  • 15,271 posts
Posted by MisterBeasley on Saturday, March 28, 2009 5:20 PM

My BLI 4-6-4 Hudson handles 18-inch curves.  It's not as big as some of the others, but for my layout, it does a great job and doesn't look out of place.  I'm really happier running smaller steam engines like Hudsons or perhaps a Pacific on the thight curves of my layout.  Yeah, there's something grand about really big steam, but it doesn't belong on my layout any more than long passenger cars, which wouldn't run on those curves, either.

It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse. 

  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • From: upstate NY
  • 7,900 posts
Posted by galaxy on Saturday, March 28, 2009 5:59 PM

You know as an aside, Steamtown has a 4-8-8-4 Big Boy on static display. While it is big, It really is not all that impressive live in person. I think the pictures of the real ones and the models are more impressive than the real thing! Big Steam may look impressive in pics and in models, but ain't all that in life.

I will stick with the smaller steam for my small layout. A 4-8-4 would be the biggest I think I would try if it ran on my 18" curves. I'd love to find a great K4 in my price range in DCC. And a good Pacific.

-G .

Just my thoughts, ideas, opinions and experiences. Others may vary.

 HO and N Scale.

After long and careful thought, they have convinced me. I have come to the conclusion that they are right. The aliens did it.

  • Member since
    November, 2008
  • 303 posts
Posted by De Luxe on Saturday, March 28, 2009 6:15 PM

 Thanks for the information!

I already have an articulated engine (Big Boy), and it´s ok for me, I´m not interested in any other articulated at the moment. My focus is more on big normal non articulated engines. But I know that articulated engines because of their articulation handle tighter curves easier than rigid frame locos.

Another problem is, that besides the 18 inch ability I also have some exact things I want to have in my steam loco: included should be a smoke generator (big steam without smoke is a no go for me), a DCC decoder OR DCC ready, and most important a 5 pole flywheel equipped motor and traction tires maybe. I love my engines to pull long trains, for example it should be able to pull a 13 car Walthers heavyweight passenger train up a 4% grade without any problems. So my choice is very restricted.

By the way: what about the pulling power of the Bachmann 2-10-2´s or 4-8-2´s? Are they able to pull such trains like in my description? Do they also have the ability to smoke?

Daniel

 PS: Interesting info about the DM&IR Yellowstones! I never knew that D&RGW leased them in winter. I thought that D&RGW was completely satisfied with their L-131/132 2-8-8-2´s, I think they were even more powerful than the DM&IR Yellowstones...

  • Member since
    February, 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 9,025 posts
Posted by wjstix on Saturday, March 28, 2009 6:26 PM

Smoke at this point isn't a big deal with US modelers. MTH engines smoke, and now a few BLI ones, but otherwise engines rarely come with smoke generators in HO. You probably could add them.

Most all US engines above train-set grade are going to have good can motors in them...Spectrum, Proto, BLI, PCM etc.  

If you want a Mallet, you might look at the Model Power "Mantua Classic" 2-6-6-2 with tender. It's smaller than the Bachmann USRA Mallet, and will look fine around tight curves.  

In my experience all the Bachmann Spectrum engines are great runners and pullers. My 2-6-6-2 has pulled a 36 car ore train on level track. The USRA Heavy 4-8-2 has an metal boiler so should be a great puller; I picked one up recently and it runs great but haven't used it on any trains yet (it's an undec and I'm working on painting and lettering it, plus adding some details.)

As I recall, the Duluth Missabe and Iron Range engines that went to the D&RGW may have been more something the government set up during the war, hating to see those big new engines sitting idle, rather than the Rio Grande being unsatisfied with their engines. That being said, it's been reported that at least one DRGW official said the Missabe engines were the best engines ever to run on the Rio Grande. 

Stix
  • Member since
    August, 2004
  • 2,562 posts
Posted by dinwitty on Saturday, March 28, 2009 11:02 PM

Try Bachmanns 2-10-2. If you don't mind Rivarrossi, hit ebay, all their engines were designed to take 18".

I repaired a friends RR big Boy and it went thru 15" tenderless.

RR had a Cab Forward 4-8-8-2, so if if your looking for western big power, thats what you have to do. I think Bachmann made the FEF 4-8-4 but I think it was pancake motor, but do look for it.

UP might not have run much 2-6-6-2's but D&RGW did. Western power meant BIG power.

As far as 4-12-2's go, forget it. Thats a big non-articulated engine that even the prototype had issues on curves. The why's for articulation. 

  • Member since
    October, 2004
  • 452 posts
Posted by Berk-fan284 on Sunday, March 29, 2009 4:47 AM

If I may add to Dinwitty's post on Rivarossi. If you decide to hunt up a Cab Forward I would stick to the newer production locomotives with the small flanged (RP-25)flanged drivers as they were equipped with flywheel equipped can motors.These newer ones are much better performers (smoother and quieter,stronger pullers),more electrical pickups for less running problems. Rivarossi made an FEF 4-8-4 that will also run on 18"curves, you'll want the later version locomotive with the flywheel equipped can motor (mounted in the boiler) and the small flanged drivers,improved power pickups. Off hand I can't recall how well the 2-10-2's do on 18' curves.

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • From: Southeast Texas
  • 4,141 posts
Posted by mobilman44 on Sunday, March 29, 2009 7:51 AM

Hi!

Big steam locos sure have an attraction, but wrapping them around small radius curves takes a lot away from them.  It sounds like you are stuck with the small radius curves, so broadening them to at least 26" is probably out of the question. 

Therefore, may I respectfully suggest that you stick with small steam (0-6-0, 2-8-0, 2,6-0) for the layout, and thus get all you can visually out of them?  Believe me, I understand your plight, for I have been there, done that.  In my case (on my previous layout), I ended up using all Athearn (detailed) shorty passenger cars, while my collection of full size Walthers sat on the shelf.  Yes, they would run on the layout, but they looked awkward and out of place.  The Athearn looked much more realistic when running.  

Hey, just my opinion.............

Mobilman44 

ENJOY  !

 

Mobilman44

 

Living in southeast Texas, modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central 

  • Member since
    March, 2007
  • From: Forest Grove, OR
  • 1,258 posts
Posted by challenger3980 on Sunday, March 29, 2009 12:55 PM

mobilman44

Hi!

Big steam locos sure have an attraction, but wrapping them around small radius curves takes a lot away from them.  It sounds like you are stuck with the small radius curves, so broadening them to at least 26" is probably out of the question. 

Therefore, may I respectfully suggest that you stick with small steam (0-6-0, 2-8-0, 2,6-0) for the layout, and thus get all you can visually out of them?  Believe me, I understand your plight, for I have been there, done that.  In my case (on my previous layout), I ended up using all Athearn (detailed) shorty passenger cars, while my collection of full size Walthers sat on the shelf.  Yes, they would run on the layout, but they looked awkward and out of place.  The Athearn looked much more realistic when running.  

Hey, just my opinion.............

Mobilman44 

   Yes, I do agree that it takes a Little Bit away from them, so I guess that means that he just shouldn't have them, and spend his hard earned money on something, that he wouldn't enjoy as much?

  Using that logic, I guess with most states having speed limits of 75 MPH, and many less than that, it would be silly for someone to buy a Mustang, Corvette, Porsche and especially those LUCKY few who can afford a Ferrari, Maseratti(spelling?) or Lambourghini(spelling?) Those vehicles are clearly capable of exceeding any posted speed limit here in the US, so it would be better to buy a KIA Rio, I guess.

  If He Likes large steam, but can only fit 18" radius curves, then that is a Compromise, he needs to decide wether he is willing to accept, or not.

   This Hobby is one of Compromises and Balances, we each decide which Compromises and Balances We are willing to accept.

Doug

May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails

  • Member since
    November, 2002
  • From: Colorado
  • 3,883 posts
Posted by fwright on Sunday, March 29, 2009 2:14 PM

De Luxe
Can anyone of you tell me if there is any big SP (T&P, UP) steam available on the market that is able to go through 18 inch curves?

Or is there maybe a chance to do some modification to the MTH GS-4 so that it can handle 18 inch also at high speeds and with a train?

Regards

Daniel

 

Daniel

Manufacturers for the US market are between a rock and a hard place on this issue in recent years.  The marketplace has demanded very accurate models of locomotives.  Failure to provide enough accurate detail, along with good running characteristics results in model assassination by rumor and whisper, and inadequate sales at an adequate price.  At the same time, everybody wants their models to work on 18" radius curves.  A shortened model or a model with smaller than prototype drivers, which has a better chance at 18" radius, will sit on the shelves while its full and accurately scaled competitor steals the sales.

Some articulated models even get faulted just for allowing both engines to pivot - a practice which is not prototypical but at the same time the allows performance on smaller radius curves.  For this reason and others, articulated models generally do better than their large fixed wheel base brethren.

A 2-10-4 has to have a lot of lateral play in the drivers to get around an 18" radius curve.  The lateral play can cause high friction and binding in the side rods and valve gear, as well as problems with maintaining proper gear mesh.  It's interesting to me that the brass imports went the opposite direction, with very "stiff" wheelbases, which resulted in requiring even greater than normal radius for the size of locomotive.

Pilot and trailing trucks become another issue.  If allowed to pivot far enough to handle small radii, they require removal of many key details that otherwise interfere.  There are also tracking considerations.  To track well, the truck needs some weight or downward pressure.  Springing to create the pressure becomes more difficult when the truck swings out from under the locomotive.  Using metal for extra weight creates issues with short circuits unless a split frame design is used.

Finally, the end overhang of a long tender makes coupling very difficult.  To keep the coupler inside the outside rail on a curve requires the curve radius to be at least 3 times the tender length.  The alternative is to go to couplers mounted on the rear tender truck (considered a negative and toy-like by the US market) or to use a coupler box pivoting scheme similar to that used on some full length passenger cars.

With U.S. prototype models, to get consistently successful operation on curve radii below 2.5 times the length of the locomotive (not including tender) requires testing and possible modifications.  The smaller the ratio of curve radius to model length, the less likely a given model will be to work out of the box.  Individual variations within production of the same model will begin to be significant.  Again, the best solution for small radius operations is a testing program, and a willingness to make modifications to get the desired modification.  The testing program determines where the model is failing (if it is failing) to make the curve.  Then that portion of the model can be re-engineered as necessary. 

For example, if the tender coupler doesn't have enough swing, substitute a longer coupler or fabricate a coupler box pivot linked to the rear tender truck.  If the trailing truck on the engine won't track, testing determines whether another part is interfering or the wheels are just lifting.  Adding weight, removing interference, and redoing the truck pivot are all possible modifications.

Personally, I take the other mentioned approach of adjusting the models I buy/build to stay within the 3x times model length radius curves (or close to it).  This means locomotive length of less than 45ft for my 18" radius curves.  This pretty much limits me to small 2-8-0s as my biggest locomotives.  Not what you wanted to hear.

Fred W

  • Member since
    April, 2003
  • From: Martinez, CA
  • 5,440 posts
Posted by markpierce on Sunday, March 29, 2009 2:44 PM

challenger3980

  The Bachmann Spectrum 2-6-6-2 should also fit your needs, but you would need to apply a bit of "Modeler's License" to these, as I don't beleive that any of your chosen prototypes ever had these,

The Southern Pacific had two classes (MM-1 and MM-3) of 2-6-6-2 Mallets for a total of something like 14 locomotives.  Mantua and Bachmann models don't resemble the SP prototypes, but one could change a few details to make them look more SP-like.

Mark

  • Member since
    April, 2003
  • From: Martinez, CA
  • 5,440 posts
Posted by markpierce on Sunday, March 29, 2009 2:55 PM

Fred W., I agree with everything you said above,

fwright

....A 2-10-4 has to have a lot of lateral play in the drivers to get around an 18" radius curve.  The lateral play can cause high friction and binding in the side rods and valve gear, as well as problems with maintaining proper gear mesh.  It's interesting to me that the brass imports went the opposite direction, with very "stiff" wheelbases, which resulted in requiring even greater than normal radius for the size of locomotive.....

A problem with locomotives with either a four-wheel leading or trailing truck, or both, is the large overhang they have on sharp curves.  Besides sideways clearance issues, front coupling becomes impractical and the tender has to be separated a great distance from the locomotive, depending on which end the four-wheel truck is located.

Mark

  • Member since
    March, 2007
  • From: Forest Grove, OR
  • 1,258 posts
Posted by challenger3980 on Sunday, March 29, 2009 2:57 PM

Mark,

  I am not familiar with the MM-1 and MM-3's in particular, were they cab-forward, or cab-backwards? if cab-forward that would take a lot of changes. I am more familiar with the MM-2's(MM=Mogul Mallet) and the 2's were cab-forward, compound 2-6-6-2's as built, then later had a 4 wheel pilot truck added, and simpled to make them AM-2's( AM=Articulated Moguls) 4-6-6-2's. Were the MM classes built as rear cabs, then rebuilt as cab-forwards?

Doug

May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails

  • Member since
    April, 2006
  • From: THE FAR, FAR REACHES OF THE WILD, WILD WEST!
  • 3,672 posts
Posted by R. T. POTEET on Sunday, March 29, 2009 3:15 PM

Become and NScaler and you won't have to ask questions like this!

From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet

Question: What's the difference between Political Correctness and Mindless? Answer: Thirteen Letters!

Only dead fish go with the flow! - - - - - Sarah Palin

  • Member since
    March, 2007
  • From: Forest Grove, OR
  • 1,258 posts
Posted by challenger3980 on Sunday, March 29, 2009 3:20 PM

R. T. POTEET

Become and NScaler and you won't have to ask questions like this!

Just becareful not to sneeze in the layout roomLaugh

May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails

  • Member since
    April, 2003
  • From: Martinez, CA
  • 5,440 posts
Posted by markpierce on Sunday, March 29, 2009 3:37 PM

challenger3980

 I am not familiar with the MM-1 and MM-3's in particular, were they cab-forward, or cab-backwards? if cab-forward that would take a lot of changes. I am more familiar with the MM-2's(MM=Mogul Mallet) and the 2's were cab-forward, compound 2-6-6-2's as built, then later had a 4 wheel pilot truck added, and simpled to make them AM-2's( AM=Articulated Moguls) 4-6-6-2's. Were the MM classes built as rear cabs, then rebuilt as cab-forwards?

Doug

Both MM-1 and MM-3 classes were built and remained with cab "rearward", and unlike all other SP compound-steam articulateds, were never simplified.  Both had 57" drivers while the cabforward MM-2 had 63" drivers as it was intended for passenger service.  SP bough the 12 MM-1 locomotives for its Texas & New Orleans line in 1910 and were scrapped in 1929 and 1930.  They had a tractive effort of 64,885 pounds.  The SP acquired MM-3 class in 1943 from the Verde Tunnel & Smelter Railway because of wartime locomotive shortages.  The two locomotives were built in 1920 and lasted until 1951 and 1954.  These locomotives had a tractive effort of 88,000 pounds.

The four-wheel lead truck was substituted for the two-wheel truck on the MM-2 class almost immediately after delivery because of stability problems.

Brass models of the MM-2 always seem to be available on the used market.  MM-3 models, however, are extremely rare (Otis McGee and I are the only owners of MM-3 models that I know of). Several years ago Division Point had planned to produce brass models of the MM-3, but it has been dropped.   I'm unaware of any MM-1 model, but the Mantua model is closer to the MM-1 than it is to the MM-3.

Mark

  • Member since
    March, 2007
  • From: Forest Grove, OR
  • 1,258 posts
Posted by challenger3980 on Sunday, March 29, 2009 3:52 PM

Mark,

  Thank You for that information, I learned something new today. 3rd Rail by Sunset has just released some O-gauge versions of the AM-2, Absolutely Beatuiful models, and on my "I'm gonna get me one of those someday" list. Now if the economy would just turn around, I find a winning lottery ticket or if Uncle Bill and Aunt Melinda (Gates) would just realise that I am their "Long Lost Nephew" I could hurry up and order oneSmile,Wink, & Grin.

Doug

May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails

  • Member since
    April, 2003
  • From: Martinez, CA
  • 5,440 posts
Posted by markpierce on Sunday, March 29, 2009 3:53 PM

Addendum -- The two MM-3 locomotives were slow-moving compounds, best suited for helper and branchline duty.  The SP used them in the Los Angeles area just for those purposes.

Mark

  • Member since
    April, 2003
  • From: Martinez, CA
  • 5,440 posts
Posted by markpierce on Sunday, March 29, 2009 3:56 PM

challenger3980

3rd Rail by Sunset has just released some O-gauge versions of the AM-2, Absolutely Beatuiful models, and on my "I'm gonna get me one of those someday" list. Now if the economy would just turn around,... I could hurry up and order oneSmile,Wink, & Grin.

Doug

Doug, don't deny yourself AM-2 happiness..

Mark

  • Member since
    April, 2003
  • From: Martinez, CA
  • 5,440 posts
Posted by markpierce on Sunday, March 29, 2009 4:09 PM

De Luxe

I´m a lover of big american steam locomotives, but I´m from Germany, and there we don´t have those large curves like in the USA.

Daniel

Daniel, perhaps the solution is to build a small shelf layout modeling a locomotive servicing area.  You wouldn't be able to run trains continuously, but you could switch your large locomotives and see them operating.  Without restrictive curves but with at least #6 turnouts, you could operate any size locomotive.

Mark (who has ridden the ICE and doodlebugs and everything between in Germany where most every train conductor speaks English)

  • Member since
    March, 2007
  • From: Forest Grove, OR
  • 1,258 posts
Posted by challenger3980 on Sunday, March 29, 2009 4:09 PM

Mark,

  I don't intend to deny myself of AM-2 Happiness, it is more a matter of When, rather than If. I had been working an average of 58 hours a week for almost 5 years with very few weeks even as low as 50 hours. Now, I am still getting 40-43 hours a week, but losing that 15 or more hours a week of overtime, has rather reduced my available discretionary budget, a bit. Also the layoffs stopped literally right under me, I would have been next. I am also getting married the first week of May, so all things considered, right now a $1500.00+ locomotive, is not the most prudent choice. I have a nice collection, and eventually the AM-2 and Scale versions of the Challenger WILL get added to it, probably not for about another year, maybe more, but in time I will find them.

Doug

May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails

  • Member since
    September, 2002
  • From: California & Maine
  • 3,443 posts
Posted by andrechapelon on Sunday, March 29, 2009 4:17 PM

markpierce

Addendum -- The two MM-3 locomotives were slow-moving compounds, best suited for helper and branchline duty.  The SP used them in the Los Angeles area just for those purposes.

Mark

Addendum to the addendum. The MM-3's #3930 and 3931 came from the Verde Tunnel and Smelter Co. and were built in 1917. SP acquired them in 1943. #3931: http://espee.railfan.net/nonindex/steam-02/3931_sp-steam-mm03-phil_agur.jpg

Incidentally, boilers off the MM-1's were used in the construction of SP's M-21 2-6-0's, the largest of their type anywhere.

Andre

My wife tells me that I'm beyond help. I think what she's actually trying to say is that assistance is futile.

 

  • Member since
    April, 2003
  • From: Martinez, CA
  • 5,440 posts
Posted by markpierce on Sunday, March 29, 2009 4:53 PM

andrechapelon

 The MM-3's #3930 and 3931 came from the Verde Tunnel and Smelter Co. and were built in 1917. 

Incidentally, boilers off the MM-1's were used in the construction of SP's M-21 2-6-0's, the largest of their type anywhere.

Andre

Hi Mike, since I know you, I'll take this opportunity to pick on you.

1.  According to Diebert/Strapac's Southern Pacific Steam Locomotive Compendium, MM-3 #s 3930 and 3931 were built in February 1920, not 1917.

2.  The same book says that the M-21 class used the frames from M-8 engines, utilized new boilers and cylinders and leftover chassis pieces.

Will you write to Joe Strapac and tell him he's wrong? Mischief

Mark

  • Member since
    September, 2002
  • From: California & Maine
  • 3,443 posts
Posted by andrechapelon on Sunday, March 29, 2009 5:26 PM

markpierce

andrechapelon

 The MM-3's #3930 and 3931 came from the Verde Tunnel and Smelter Co. and were built in 1917. 

Incidentally, boilers off the MM-1's were used in the construction of SP's M-21 2-6-0's, the largest of their type anywhere.

Andre

Hi Mike, since I know you, I'll take this opportunity to pick on you.

1.  According to Diebert/Strapac's Southern Pacific Steam Locomotive Compendium, MM-3 #s 3930 and 3931 were built in February 1920, not 1917.

2.  The same book says that the M-21 class used the frames from M-8 engines, utilized new boilers and cylinders and leftover chassis pieces.

Will you write to Joe Strapac and tell him he's wrong? Mischief

Mark

I don't know how the 1917 date got stuck in my head. Church's book on the articulateds also says 1920. As for the Moguls, I'd swear I saw a book that said the MM-1 boilers were used on the M-21's, but since I can't find it, I can't back it up. I still remember reading that the MM-1 boilers were re-used on something, however. Maybe it was 0-8-0's.

I don't have the Compendium, unfortunately, but I did check Dunscomb and he says T&NO's M-8's were scrapped in 1928/1929 while the M-21's were built in those years. The frame re-usage makes sense. OTOH, I'd like to know what they were thinking building Moguls in the age of "Superpower". I mean, you've got perfectly good motive power and you scrap most of the components only to build a larger version of the same type.

EDIT: My bad. The MM-1 boilers were used on the SE-3 0-8-0's according to Dunscomb.

Mike

 

My wife tells me that I'm beyond help. I think what she's actually trying to say is that assistance is futile.

 

  • Member since
    January, 2004
  • From: Memphis
  • 931 posts
Posted by PASMITH on Sunday, March 29, 2009 8:26 PM
If anyone is interested in bashing an MM-2, or just plain interested, they should try to get the 3 part MR series by Carl H. Builder, " Converting the Sierra into an SP cab- ahead" in the 1960 October, November and December issues. There is a lot of great information in this series. Carl used a United brass Sierra model for his bash. As a matter of fact he made two of them. I do not believe however, that the Sierra prtotype had 63 inch drivers. I would love to try bashing an MM-2 using a Mantua mechanism and I have several scale drawings of the MM-2 but again, the Mantua does not have the larger drivers. I think they are 30 inch. I think the Bowser Challenger has 69 inch drivers? Peter Smith, Memphis

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Popular on ModelRailroader.com
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
Find us on Facebook

Loading...