I was looking through the latest MicroMark catalog which came with my latest order and was somewhat surprised to see them offering Mantua 2-6-6-2 locos. I had been under the mistaken impression that Mantua had gone out of business quite a while ago. I've never bought anything from Mantua so I have no way of judging their quality. I have vague memory that at one time they were associated with Tyco which wouldn't get them any points with me. Is anyone here familiar with their recent products and have an opinion about their quality. They are offering two versions of the 2-6-6-2, one with a side tank and the other with a standard tender. Both versions are offered with or without sound but the ad says nothing about DCC so I am assuming these are standard DC locos.
I believe that the sound locos come with DCC:
http://www.micromark.com/mantua-classics-ho-scale-2-6-6-2t-articulated-logging-tank-locomotive-with-sound-undecorated,11827.html
jecorbett I was looking through the latest MicroMark catalog which came with my latest order and was somewhat surprised to see them offering Mantua 2-6-6-2 locos. I had been under the mistaken impression that Mantua had gone out of business quite a while ago. I've never bought anything from Mantua so I have no way of judging their quality. I have vague memory that at one time they were associated with Tyco which wouldn't get them any points with me. Is anyone here familiar with their recent products and have an opinion about their quality. They are offering two versions of the 2-6-6-2, one with a side tank and the other with a standard tender. Both versions are offered with or without sound but the ad says nothing about DCC so I am assuming these are standard DC locos.
When Mantua closed up, Model Power bought the name and the tooling, sent it overseas, never got the full line into production.
They did make some upgrades to the items they did get into production - DCC ready, better/modern motors, etc.
When Model Power gave up, MRC bought all of Model Power's assets, So MRC now owns the name and the tooling. It is likely that any product currently offered is basically the same as it was under Model Power.
They run fine, but detail is still strickly 1958 "basic". All of the Mantua line is/was generally freelanced. Sure, they follow the general arrangement of known prototypes, but detail level is highly generic.
Example - the well known Mantua Pacific follows the proportions and major details of the B&O P7 class at the end of its life - fully modernized - but the cab is generic, not even close.
The Mantua Mikado is nearly dead on for the DT&I 800 class, a rare and little known prototype. But again the cab is not even close.
Back in the day, many of us used them as kit bash starting points, but generally speaking there are better choices today.
Sheldon
I have 2 0-6-0 goats, one from Mantua in the 90's, and another from Model Power with DCC. I like them both, never had any problems with either, and would not hesitate to buy another one. They're both very reliable and good starting points if you require super-detail.
Sheldon:
You are correct that the cab is incorrect on the Mantua B&O P-7c/P-7e Pacific. Fortunately, Rivarossi produced a B&O 2-10-2 many years ago with the correct cab. Then they followed that with USRA heavy Pacifics and Mikados. Instead of tooling a new correct USRA cab, they used that same B&O cab on those engines. So if you can find a junker Rivarossi 2-10-2, 2-8-2, or 4-6-2, you'll have the right cab for the Mantua engine. The tender is a whole different problem, but the Bachmann EM-1 tender could be modified to be a slightly short version of the tenders used on a few of those Pacifics.
Gotta be resourceful.
Tom
ACY Sheldon: You are correct that the cab is incorrect on the Mantua B&O P-7c/P-7e Pacific. Fortunately, Rivarossi produced a B&O 2-10-2 many years ago with the correct cab. Then they followed that with USRA heavy Pacifics and Mikados. Instead of tooling a new correct USRA cab, they used that same B&O cab on those engines. So if you can find a junker Rivarossi 2-10-2, 2-8-2, or 4-6-2, you'll have the right cab for the Mantua engine. The tender is a whole different problem, but the Bachmann EM-1 tender could be modified to be a slightly short version of the tenders used on a few of those Pacifics. Gotta be resourceful. Tom
Whenever the talk gets around to incorrect details on mass produced locos and rolling stock, I'm glad I'm a freelancer. I don't have to sweat such details. Everything is wrong on my layout.
Got rid of all my Mantua. The proto 2000 steam runs so much better and looks better too and on e-bay cost the same many times.
jecorbett ACY Sheldon: You are correct that the cab is incorrect on the Mantua B&O P-7c/P-7e Pacific. Fortunately, Rivarossi produced a B&O 2-10-2 many years ago with the correct cab. Then they followed that with USRA heavy Pacifics and Mikados. Instead of tooling a new correct USRA cab, they used that same B&O cab on those engines. So if you can find a junker Rivarossi 2-10-2, 2-8-2, or 4-6-2, you'll have the right cab for the Mantua engine. The tender is a whole different problem, but the Bachmann EM-1 tender could be modified to be a slightly short version of the tenders used on a few of those Pacifics. Gotta be resourceful. Tom Whenever the talk gets around to incorrect details on mass produced locos and rolling stock, I'm glad I'm a freelancer. I don't have to sweat such details. Everything is wrong on my layout.
I'm a freelancer too and I like the idea that I can create my own locomotive standards and details - but I do like them to be plausible for my location and era.
I also model the B&O, C&O and WM, but I don't go crazy about everything being eaxct - close enough is good enough.
I'm more interested in the overall "feel" of the layout, rather than the correctness of every last piece of equipment. I do like stuff to be reasonably close, but, fore example, I actually prefer the selective compression of shorter passenger cars. I have a large fleet of Athearn and Concor 72' cars, close coupled with working, always touching diaphragms, and added details. The close coupling, diaphragms, and other details add more realism than scale length or correct window arrangements in my view.
Mantua locos - I am not bothered by the "generic" aspect, but they lacka few basic details I consider necessary - like brake shoes on steam locos. Yes, they can be added, but none of the current offerings fit my roster needs.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL jecorbett ACY Sheldon: You are correct that the cab is incorrect on the Mantua B&O P-7c/P-7e Pacific. Fortunately, Rivarossi produced a B&O 2-10-2 many years ago with the correct cab. Then they followed that with USRA heavy Pacifics and Mikados. Instead of tooling a new correct USRA cab, they used that same B&O cab on those engines. So if you can find a junker Rivarossi 2-10-2, 2-8-2, or 4-6-2, you'll have the right cab for the Mantua engine. The tender is a whole different problem, but the Bachmann EM-1 tender could be modified to be a slightly short version of the tenders used on a few of those Pacifics. Gotta be resourceful. Tom Whenever the talk gets around to incorrect details on mass produced locos and rolling stock, I'm glad I'm a freelancer. I don't have to sweat such details. Everything is wrong on my layout. I'm a freelancer too and I like the idea that I can create my own locomotive standards and details - but I do like them to be plausible for my location and era. I also model the B&O, C&O and WM, but I don't go crazy about everything being eaxct - close enough is good enough. I'm more interested in the overall "feel" of the layout, rather than the correctness of every last piece of equipment. I do like stuff to be reasonably close, but, fore example, I actually prefer the selective compression of shorter passenger cars. I have a large fleet of Athearn and Concor 72' cars, close coupled with working, always touching diaphragms, and added details. The close coupling, diaphragms, and other details add more realism than scale length or correct window arrangements in my view. Mantua locos - I am not bothered by the "generic" aspect, but they lacka few basic details I consider necessary - like brake shoes on steam locos. Yes, they can be added, but none of the current offerings fit my roster needs. Sheldon
My only concern is that a loco looks like a loco. It doesn't need to look like any particular loco. I find that detail that is missing is far less distracting than detail that is either poorly done or is just obviously wrong. I believe in blissful ignorance. If I don't know something is wrong, than it is right. Sometimes too much knowledge is a bad thing. Where as prototype modeler's are trying to recreate something that actually was, as a freelancer I am trying to create something that looks like it could have been.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I'm more interested in the overall "feel" of the layout, rather than the correctness of every last piece of equipment. I do like stuff to be reasonably close, but, fore example, I actually prefer the selective compression of shorter passenger cars. I have a large fleet of Athearn and Concor 72' cars, close coupled with working, always touching diaphragms, and added details. The close coupling, diaphragms, and other details add more realism than scale length or correct window arrangements in my view. Sheldon
This is an old Mantua Pacific, reworked as a Boston & Maine P4.
It was a fun project. The dimensions of the Mantua model (length, height, width) match the P4 to within a few scale inches. I rebuilt the factory plastic pilot with a brass casting, and brass pilot deck air pumps. I decided that the racy slope front cab and oval stack of the P4 were just too hard to do, so I skipped those parts. The stock Mantua open frame motor and no-gear-box drive gave decent low speed performance, and after putting in a can motor, the low speed crawl became exceptionally good. I left the 6 wheel trucks under the tender, even though the P4 tenders had four wheel trucks. The paint is dark gray auto primer from a rattle can. This particular model must have come out of the Mantua factory 30 years or more ago, so it doesn't really say much about current production, restarted under new management recently But it's a good omen, the old Mantua's were good designs, well manufactured. We can hope current production lives up to the good reputation of the old stuff.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
RR_Mel ATLANTIC CENTRAL I'm more interested in the overall "feel" of the layout, rather than the correctness of every last piece of equipment. I do like stuff to be reasonably close, but, fore example, I actually prefer the selective compression of shorter passenger cars. I have a large fleet of Athearn and Concor 72' cars, close coupled with working, always touching diaphragms, and added details. The close coupling, diaphragms, and other details add more realism than scale length or correct window arrangements in my view. Sheldon Sheldon, I’m curious about your diaphragms. I also went to 72’ streamline cars for the same reason you gave. I was wanting to use Diaphragms but all I hear are the negatives no positives. So as not to hijack this post could you send me an IM with your diaphragm details. Thanks Mel Modeling the early to mid 1950s SP in HO scale since 1951 My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
Mel,
PM sent.
jecorbett ATLANTIC CENTRAL jecorbett ACY Sheldon: You are correct that the cab is incorrect on the Mantua B&O P-7c/P-7e Pacific. Fortunately, Rivarossi produced a B&O 2-10-2 many years ago with the correct cab. Then they followed that with USRA heavy Pacifics and Mikados. Instead of tooling a new correct USRA cab, they used that same B&O cab on those engines. So if you can find a junker Rivarossi 2-10-2, 2-8-2, or 4-6-2, you'll have the right cab for the Mantua engine. The tender is a whole different problem, but the Bachmann EM-1 tender could be modified to be a slightly short version of the tenders used on a few of those Pacifics. Gotta be resourceful. Tom Whenever the talk gets around to incorrect details on mass produced locos and rolling stock, I'm glad I'm a freelancer. I don't have to sweat such details. Everything is wrong on my layout. I'm a freelancer too and I like the idea that I can create my own locomotive standards and details - but I do like them to be plausible for my location and era. I also model the B&O, C&O and WM, but I don't go crazy about everything being eaxct - close enough is good enough. I'm more interested in the overall "feel" of the layout, rather than the correctness of every last piece of equipment. I do like stuff to be reasonably close, but, fore example, I actually prefer the selective compression of shorter passenger cars. I have a large fleet of Athearn and Concor 72' cars, close coupled with working, always touching diaphragms, and added details. The close coupling, diaphragms, and other details add more realism than scale length or correct window arrangements in my view. Mantua locos - I am not bothered by the "generic" aspect, but they lacka few basic details I consider necessary - like brake shoes on steam locos. Yes, they can be added, but none of the current offerings fit my roster needs. Sheldon My only concern is that a loco looks like a loco. It doesn't need to look like any particular loco. I find that detail that is missing is far less distracting than detail that is either poorly done or is just obviously wrong. I believe in blissful ignorance. If I don't know something is wrong, than it is right. Sometimes too much knowledge is a bad thing. Where as prototype modeler's are trying to recreate something that actually was, as a freelancer I am trying to create something that looks like it could have been.
I agree, but I do lke to create a "family" look. Most railoads used common parts and standards on their steam locos in particular - B&O prefered high headlights and mid mount bells for example. They put lots of dual air pumps on pilots.
The C&O used lots of boiler front mounted dual air pumps, low headlights and front bells.
You can spot most west coast steam in minute - centipede tenders for example - used extensively out west, seldom used in the east.
So I have done simple stuff to give my ATLANTIC CENTRAL fleet a family look, not to make it looks exactly like some prototype on September 3, 1954, but to give it more of that "could have been" look.
My B&O, C&O and WM stuff just needs to be close enough to capture the flavor - but if by small effort or manufacturer accuracy it is better - great!
I wanted some sort of Heavy, modern Mikado - nothing was on the market - so I made these from Bachmann 2-8-4's, following the lines of the DT&I 800 class. This is actually a Mike that could have been built - photo before painting:
Several of the biggest Mikes had 69" drivers like the Berks, and the DT&I Mikes were just scaled down NKP Berks - LIMA could have built these.
I have changed most all my two wheel trailing truck locos to Delta style, and I use Bachmann tenders behind all sorts of brands to help with the "family" look.
Sheldon being a B&O modeler you should know that the Mantua Pacific is a model of a B&O P class locomotive. I also think they run very well.
Here is a link to a photo of the Mantua painted and letters car. It would be nice if someone knew the road name and when it was released?
With pre-Model Power Mantua it kinda depends which engines you're talking about - it's almost like two different lines. The earliest (1950's) ones like the Pacific and Mikado with metal boilers were/are pretty basic in detailing (although in the 1980's they did create a new boiler shell that is pretty close to a USRA outline). Of course, you can add details, as John Allen did to his 2-8-2. The later (1980s) more detailed plastic bodied engines like the 2-6-6-2 or 4-4-2 look much more realistic.
Mantua switched from open frame to Sagami can motors in the late eighties, and the can motor equipped engines generally run quite well.
My Mantua's go back a ways, long before we were able to obtain these nice detailed plastic versions. Back then you had brass, and as Tony Koester says you just did not have good running brass. Meanwhile Mantua kept on pumping them out. I remember when they advertised in MR and what a thrill it was to see the models, especially at the hobby shops.
Then, according to my scources, Bachman and Life-Like got together and said we can build a much better product when it comes to engines, with much more detail, and better running engines that wouldn't jerk and stall every five feet. They even made a wager; well look what happened, new, better running and more detailed engines hit the market, really competing with the brass guys.
Meanwhile, Mantua knew they were going to have to make changes to get in the game, so changes took place. Now with Sagami motors that run like clock work, but the engine itself still has a generic look. For me, that is where the fun begins, Custom Engines. I take my old Mantua's go to Precision Scale and find nice brass additions, glue them on and match them up. It has become a fun project detailing my presidental line of highly colored presidential steamers, adding all of the details of brass that really spruces things up.
Like I said these are custom engines with my custom added details, IT'S MY RAILROAD AND i'M HAVING FUN, some how we loose that once in while. I have been building layouts and trains for over sixty years and yet some folks still say, "you ain't doin' it right," I just look back and say, "it is for me".
Robert Sylvester
Newberry-Columbia Line, SC
As mentioned, the old Mantua/Tyco Pacific was a model of a B&O engine. How successful it was is up to your judgement.
Ed
I know that Mantua was a branch of the TYCO brand for a period of time, until they went out of buisness in 1993. Mantua branched off and started on its own.
Mantua trains are good trains. I'm getting an 0-6-0 in the mail in a few days, and I have a number of Great Northern cars.
"Your never too old to play with trains"
Liam
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Sheldon, I’m curious about your diaphragms. I also went to 72’ streamline cars for the same reason you gave. I was wanting to use Diaphragms but all I hear are the negatives no positives. So as not to hijack this post could you send me an IM with your diaphragm details. Thanks Mel Modeling the early to mid 1950s SP in HO scale since 1951 My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps. ===== Mel, PM sent.
Sheldon, I’m curious about your diaphragms. I also went to 72’ streamline cars for the same reason you gave. I was wanting to use Diaphragms but all I hear are the negatives no positives. So as not to hijack this post could you send me an IM with your diaphragm details. Thanks Mel Modeling the early to mid 1950s SP in HO scale since 1951 My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps. =====
=====
Sheldon, can you send me the details of your diaphragms? Perhaps start a thread, I think you would have lots of interest! Thanks!
As a kid I was blissfully unaware of the accuracies and/or inaccuracies of Mantua steamers. My father built a few of the kits which we ran a great deal, and had a lot of fun with. Dad even put the Seuthe smoke units in them, too. Those engines survived for more than 40 years, the last 25 of which they were relatively unused, stored away at home, as I had "more modern" model trains, and they still ran albeit noisily. They were beat up, well used, and old, and I did not keep them but threw them away. I figured it is better to remember them the way they are in my mind than the way they looked "now".
I never had the chance to try one of the Mantua articulateds with the can motor and enclosed gearbox. I'm quite sure they would be a neat engine for steam aficionados to have.
I have fond memories of the Mantua steam and diesel power and had a lot of fun with them all, though I moved on to other power today. They were reliable. I really enjoyed the big heavy mikado and how well they pulled. Those were good times. I remember drooling over the catalogues, too, lol.
It's nice to learn in hindsight that the mikado is "close" to a DT&I prototype. I always wondered what the basis was.
John
Midwest Northern R.R I know that Mantua was a branch of the TYCO brand for a period of time, until they went out of buisness in 1993. Mantua branched off and started on its own.
More the other way around. Mantua started in the 1920's, producing primarily railroad kits. In the 1950's, the owner, John Tyler incorporated his name into their new RTR line, Tyco. Eventually the company became "Tyco Industries", but the Mantua brand name was revived and used for their later production (1980's-1990's) before the sale to Model Power.
http://hotraincollector.com/tyco-trains-history/
BTW it isn't unusual that the Mantua line has been produced by multiple companies over the years; there are a number of model railroad products that have been produced by different companies in different eras.
IDRick ATLANTIC CENTRAL Sheldon, I’m curious about your diaphragms. I also went to 72’ streamline cars for the same reason you gave. I was wanting to use Diaphragms but all I hear are the negatives no positives. So as not to hijack this post could you send me an IM with your diaphragm details. Thanks Mel Modeling the early to mid 1950s SP in HO scale since 1951 My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps. ===== Mel, PM sent. Sheldon, can you send me the details of your diaphragms? Perhaps start a thread, I think you would have lots of interest! Thanks!
There is nothing secret about my diaphragms, I use American Limited diaphragms.
http://www.americanlimitedmodels.com/ho-passenger-car-diaphragms/
But what I do is this, I remove the molded on "diaphragm" on the car end of Athearn and ConCor cars, and I body mount long shank Kadee #39 or #149 couplers set back on the car floor to make the diaphragms just touch.
These pictures should give you some idea of the effect. The cars are close coupled and the diaphragms touch vertually all the time.
On 72' cars they will run on curves down to about 28" radius without issue. Below that I have not tested them.
Important disclaimer - I don't have any curves that sharp on my layout, I did those tests years ago on a friend's layout. I ran these cars on 36" radius and larger on my old layout. I am soon to start a new layout, also with 36" (and mostly larger) curves.
I believe Mel tried the American Limited diaphragms and did not have good results on his layout. That was three years ago.......
I would not say this locomotive is low in detain.
I have MANY of the Mantua locos, including both of the 2-6-6-2 types. And in fact, I still have an old Shifter 0-4-0 kit that has the old Manuta hook and loop couplers, and cast Zamak slope tender body. The Zamak tender truck frames disintegrated years ago, so I replaced them with newer brass arch bar truck. I once set out about 10 linked sections of the old atlas (fiber tie strips) flex track, hooked 48 cars to one of the Manutua Mikes, and it pulled them! That was in the days when the newer smooth rolling trucks and smaller flanges were just coming out. One of my Mikes has a Pacific boiler on it, and another has a Cary or Cal Scale replacement USRA boiler. Maybe not well detailed, but great runners and pullers. BW, I ALSO have an old Athearn B&M? 4-6-2 that needs some major rebuilding, but when It kept burning out the Athearn motors, I instaled a Varney that did the trick!
The mantua locomotives I like the best are the Lehigh Valley prototypes pacific and mikado camelbacks. Each was the first of their LV class and each was a camelback. Also with both no one else made camelbacks in this wheel arrangement. The Camelback Pacific went right to work replacing the Atlantic pulling the Black Diamond the lehigh Valleys best name train. I have a model of this train using a upgraded camelback pacific and a four car set of Poundhouse Pullman Palace cars.