Challenger3980,
Note that I gave the OP a "respectful suggestion".......nothing more than that. I would NEVER offer anything stronger than a suggestion on this forum, for I know full well that my likes and dislikes are just that - mine. And as I signed off, my comments were "just my opinion" - which of course we all have.
I've been playing with trains since the mid-'50s and know quite well the "challenge" of choices and compromises - for I have been there many times, and still hit my share with the new layout under construction.
I too love large steam! On my last layout, while the BLI 2-10-2 & 2-10-4 & 4-8-4 would run and looked terrific on tangent tracks, they and the Walthers scale passenger cars just didn't look right on the smallest radius curves (24 inch). And it wasn't long before I found myself running the smaller locos and detailed Athearn shorties. Soooo, that's my experience on the subject - which I assumed to be a possible alternative solution to the OP plight.
As I am also a car nut, I have no problem in driving a modified Mustang GT at the max speed limits (70 in Texas), even though it can go a whole lot faster than that.
Hey, ENJOY !!!!!
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
The SP found Moguls to be very useful and many lasted until the end of steam. M-21 engines didn't last as long as some, being scrapped from 1949 to 1954. Per D/S, the M-8 engines pioneered oil fuel, Vauclain compounding, and Vanderbilt boilers, but were disliked by both operating and maintenance personnel. Conversion to simple steam addressed some of the issues, but are still described as an "unloved class." The M-21 engines were almost too big (the SP liked to use M engines on branchlines where low weight on wheels was necessary) with more than thirty tons on each pair of drivers. Even after having been reborn, they still seemed to be unloved, moving from the Texas Lines, to the SPdeM, then to the Pacific Lines, and finally returning to Texas.
Mark
Which makes me wonder why the M-21's were built at all. They were too heavy for branch-line use and no more useful on the mainline than the ubiquitous C-8/9/10 2-8-0's which did have a significantly lighter axle load and were quite happy on branch lines.
Some of the Pacific Lines M-8's lasted into the 50's. IIRC, #1771 was on display in Placerville and was moved to the CSRM a number of years ago and #1774 is on display in Arizona.
Andre
PASMITHIf 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
The Sierra Railroad's 2-6-6-2 had 51-inch drivers, so wouldn't be a good basis for modeling an MM-2 which had much larger drivers. Its conversion to a cabforward, however, would make for an interesting if fictitious locomotive.
andrechapelon 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
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
Per Diebert/Strapac.."Eight-wheel switchers were uncommon and arrived on the SP roster relatively late. Seven 0-8-0's ... were inherited from the El Paso & Southwestern in 1924. In 1930 ... Sacramento shops began erecting eight "new" 0-8-0's using reclaimed 4-4-2 boilers and new cast-steel engine bed frames and cylinders. A dozen similar machines were produced at Houston simultaneiously, using boilers salvaged from retired 2-6-6-2 engines..." Class SE-1 and SE-2 engines came for the EP&SW, class SE-4 came from the Sacramento shops, and class SE-3 from Houston.
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? Mark
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
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.
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?
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.
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 -- 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.
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
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
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
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)
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 one. Doug
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 one.
Doug, don't deny yourself AM-2 happiness..
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 one.
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
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?
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.
R. T. POTEET Become and NScaler and you won't have to ask questions like this!
Become and NScaler and you won't have to ask questions like this!
Just becareful not to sneeze in the layout room
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
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 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.
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 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.
De LuxeCan 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?RegardsDaniel
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
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
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
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.............
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.