MTH RailKing on O27?

[pgtr]

Probably a dumb question but... It looks like the MTH railking engines like the F3 and 2-8-0s are all considered O-31. Is it certain these will not fit on O27?

thanks

[malibumartin]

MTH does not manufacture (import) 0-27 track so my guess is they do not have a way to test their engines on 0-27 track.
.
I have a MTH Cab Forward (PS-1) and a MTH Big Boy (also PS-1). Both will run on 0-27.

I have never run the engines on 0-27 switches.

Major overhang.

Martin

[otftch]

They will all run on "027" tarck and will go through the switches on the straight route.Some will hit the switch motor if you try to go throught the turn path.The railking F-3's will go through the turn path okay.Use your 027 switches for sidings where yopu usually back in slow anyway to drop off cars.
Ed

[Anonymous]

RailRing work fine on my O-27 and gargrave swiches.I dont think there would be a problem[2c]

[ChiefEagles]

Some do and some don't. Scale ones might hit certain switch stands. K-Line low profile ones work great.

[spankybird]

Check my web page and look at all the MTH engines that are running on my layout which is 027.

Click on the web icon below

[brianel027]

Early on, the MTH Railking stuff was advertised and tested to run on 027 track. Later as MTH came introduced their own track line, it was more of a sales technique to list the items as negotiating an 031 curve.

I called MTH on this once, and was told by one of the service reps in the repair department (this was before the big staff cut-backs at MTH) that items needed to be tested before they were advertised as negotiating 027 curves.

It is not the 027 curves themselves (as mentioned above) but the switchbox housing on the Lionel/MPC era designed switches that is the big problem. As a general rule, most of the older 14 inch length locomotives will clear the 027 switch box housing on the Lionel/MPC era switches. But it is not just length that is a determining factor: there is also the width of the loco or car and the clearance above the track.

I know from personal experience the K-Line GP38 although around 14 inches in length, will not clear 027 switch boxes. The K-Line streamlines will or can brush against them. The older Railking PS-2 hopper though big, does clear the Lionel switch box housing as do the Railking operating tray dump cars.

As Spanky mentioned, the newer K-Line switches have practically no housing as compared to the Lionel versions, so there isn't the same problem. On my layout, I have chopped the daylights out of the Lionel switches so there is no housing at all. The older Railking Dash 8, SD45 and FP40 all easily make 027 curves and cleared my altered switches.

Though I think the older Railking Dash 8 is poorly proportioned and looks excessively big when compared to tradionally sized rolling stock. As does the FP40. The best looking older Railking locos as far as 027 layouts are concerned are the smaller early F3 (like the Chessie one in the early Construction set) the SD45 and the last Railing version of the SD90MAC which was the nicest proportioned of all the shortened Railking diesels.

When it came to buying Railking items, I ALWAYS bought them at a train shop that would allow me to test the item on the store layout. No test, no sale. Most dealers, when they realized I was serious about buying but that size was important were willing to let me do this. And I figured that this was the kind of service I would NEVER get from a mailorder place. So once I tested the item, if it was good, I bought it. What good would it have done me to save $3 and then find that the car was too big?

[ChiefEagles]

Brian is right. The older Railking was smaller. The new Railking [since about 04] is scale size and too big. I have some newer diesels that are really long.

[waltrapp]

A friend brought over his RK Hiawatha to run on my Christmas layout and it wouldn't even handle PW 'O' 31" curves. It derailed going around a curve.

I do what Brian mentioned: I take 2 switches and some track to the hobby store and try the engine. I did this most recently at Jim's Train Shop and was glad that Jim let me test first. I went thru about 6 engines before I found one that would run on 27" curves and clear Lionel's switch housings (I have all K-Line switches now but there are RK engines that just won't handle 27" curves).

I don't think that there's a way to say without either testing or asking if anyone knows about a particular engine. Unfortunately for us O27 guys there aren't enough of us around to have a wide audience to ask a question of.

- walt

[pgtr]

Thanks everyone!

I kinda figured that since they didn't make O27 that might be part of it. Good to know about the switches however. If/when I look at a specific model beyond the Railking F3, Alco or a 2-8-0 I'll definately post.

thanks again

[alton6]

These smaller engines, the F3, SD45 and SD90MAC.....Does anyone happen to know what roadnames were offered in these units? Did they necessarily come with Protosounds? Thanks.

Carl

[LL675]

My Railking Pennsy Mountain runs fine on O27 and Lionel 1121 switches without any problems.

Dave

[msacco]

My Railking f3 Sante Fe Warbonnets (Proto 1) run fine on 027 and the switches as well. People criticized these early railking units as being too small but if you a tight radius operator they're great.

Mike S.

[brianel027]

As a clarification, I do not actually own one single MTH Railking loco. I have run them on my layout though as friends have brought them over. After the proportions started getting better with the SD45 and SD90MAC, all the Railking locos came with electronic I did not want and wasn't goingto pay extra for just to strip out.

That said, Carl going by memory, the SD45 came in PRR, UP and Conrail. The SD90MAC came in UP, CPR, NS, and Conrail. Yeah, these all had the additional electronics whatever version MTH was up to at that point. Last year, the SD90MAC's were cataloged in a horn only version for $180 (which I personally thought was a tad high) but I was glad to see. Must be though others who would have liked to see these locos in horn only versions thought the price was high too because they were cancelled: probably not enough pre-orders.

The older smaller F3's were issued (again by memory) in a John Deere version, Santa Fe (war bonnet), New York Central and Chessie. There could have been other roads in all these locos, but these are what I recall.

And Mike S. you are so right. It annoys the daylights out of me when the magazines like CTT review these locomotives - knowing full well in advance they are smaller on pupose - and still list in the CON column that the loco is too small. GRAB A CLUE FOLKS.... these locos are smaller on purpose thank the Lord. That they are smaller and run on 027 curves is a BIG PLUS not a CON!!!! For some of us, the BIG PLUS is a determining factor in making the purchase in the first place.

I mean, when I read a review of a locomotive I know is scale sized and has all the additional electronics, I don't expect them to list the scale size, electronics and the resulting higher list prices as a CON - although in my book those features are most decidely a CON!! Dang, it's nice that there is every great once in a while, something that is made that has a reasonable list price without the electronics that is NOT SCALE.

I still hope we'll see some of the older Railking diesels issued under the Rugged Rails banner in modern roadnames without all the extra electronics at a more reasonable price - even if it means a little less die cast and a little more plastic. Heck I could even live without the horn... just the loco and the reverse board.

And to quote an another train nut, that's Dang tootin' Hoss! Not all of us have the train budget of a rock and roll musician! [8]

[lionelsoni]

My Railking P42s, P32, and GTEL all run without modification through Lionel O27 switches. The Railking Superliners needed extensive modification. The Big Boy required modification mostly to the Centipede tender.

I don't see why F3s would need to be made undersized. The Lionel ones are fully to scale and, with the vertical motor design, make it through the O27 switches.

[pgtr]

THis continues to be a very helpful thread.

Excellent point. I've only bought CTT off the newstand (am a newbie) so far. I may be misinformed since I'm still learning TONs but the words 'classic' and 'toy' kinda sorta would seem to give a 'pass' to smaller less accurate size...? Rather than consider it a CON? Just my $0.02.

As a newbie I'm in the throws of debating which type of track system to consider. Cost and SPace are definately considerations. Im in the process of locating an older lionel set (1666, 2037...) and an older Marx set (666 w/ smoke) for starters and putting together a basic layout with NEW track. THen I tentatively plan (as my interest, knowledge, etc grows) to add a second separate loop (same type of track) and look at some new stuff like a new Lionel or MTH. THus my question on MTH RK running on O27.

One thing I am confused by in this thread is the references to 'older' vs 'newer' RKs. For example the F3 in Santa Fe is currently available from MTH RK as new - is it 'larger' and not likely to fit on O27 compared to an 'earlier' F3 from MTH??? E.g. it may require I consider the date of manufacture on various RKs and look more at used or NOS engines?

thanks

[lionelsoni]

I have two main-line loops on my layout. I made a point of using nothing sharper than O34 on the outer loop. The O27 swtiches in the outer loop use the non-diverging track. This way I can handle any visiting or not-yet-modified O31 stuff on that track at least.

[brianel027]

PGTR, the first Railking F3's were more similar in size to the 027-ized version of the Lionel Alco FA. They were around 11 inches in length and height-wise right on par with the traditional 6464 box cars. Years ago, when the MTH Premiere line was introduced, there was also an F3 that was closer in scale proportion to the Lionel F3. Those early Premiere F3's were available in A-B-A combinations in a variety of road names and have become collectible... possibly the most collectible items of the MTH line up.

Several years ago Mike Wolf was interviewed in Classic Toy Trains and said all the MTH tooling and dies were made for quality and longevity. So it came as no surprise as the detail level of the trains moved forward, that MTH would take the now sub-par detail level of the older Premiere items and move them to the Railking banner, now known as Scale Railking.

As Bob Nelson pointed out, the more scale sized F3 should run on 027 track and clear switches. The Lionel ones did anyways. The only reason the MTH ones might not would be if the locomotive fuel tank sits lower than the Lionel one, or if the loco is a tad wider.

But with the layout I think you are planning on having, the smaller F3 would be right at home. I could also suggest you keep your eyes open for the K-Line Alco FA's. These were very similar in size to the Lionel ones, but the K-Line ones look better and have more detailing than the Lionel ones. At one point, K-Line had upgraded these FA's with die cast front couplers and dual motors in both A units. They then cut corners again with the release of the Seaboard Alco FA to just dual motors in the lead unit and plastic couplers. The K-Line Alco FA's have been made in a variety of roads... you'll want to look for ones with a vintage of 1996 or later. The early Alco FA's were usually unpainted plastic with molded in details. K-Line made improvements and added metal handrails, rubber diaphragms on the back doors and paint schemes also improved. The Santa Fe war bonnet FA is stunning and a great running loco.

Going again by memory here without looking at catalogs:
Early Alco FA's included: Southern, PRR, NYC, WP, UP, US Army, and Santa Fe.

Later ones include: PRR (the KCC ones were the nicest), NYC, US Army, Santa Fe, Southern, Seaboard, SP, UP, Rock Island, Golden State (KCC offering) and uncataloged Conrail ones made for employees only as Safety Award bonuses... these CR ones show up on eBay. The CR Alco FA looks to be a molded plastic color though and not dark enough as the real Conrail ones were. The later UP and Santa Fe Alco’s are much nicer looking over the early versions.

One more footnote: The 4 motored K-Line A-A units used a wire connect between the 2 locos to connect them to the reverse board eunit in the first loco. The rubber diaphragm between the 2 units helps to conceal this.

[alton6]

lionelsoni,

Some folks who are partial to traditionally sized rolling stock prefer having pulling power that doesn't tower over its consist like a mama duck over her ducklings. It just doesn't "look right" to us. To each their own, of course.

Brianel, thanks for the inventory. Was there a difference in proportion of earlier and later SD45s and SD90MACs to each other, or was it just the addition of (electonic) bells and whistles that was changed?

Carl

[lionelsoni]

May I make a few small corrections to Brianel's comments? Any deviation that made a model larger than the Lionel F3s would be out of scale and I think unlikely. In particular, EMD specified the width of the F3 at 10 feet 8 inches to the outsides of the grabirons. Allowing a reasonable 4 inches for the grabirons, the Lionel models were exactly the right width, at 10 feet even. Actually, the reason that the vertical-motor F3s could handle O27 switches when their predecessors could not was that Lionel cleverly moved the center bearings (the truck pivots) closer together, so that the middle of the body stayed closer to the track than before. Any good scale model would have to do the same in order to get through the O27 switches.

[msacco]

To add to Brianel027's comments about k-line alcos. I don't own the later FAs but do own an early NYC from the early nineties. These are pretty spartan locos made of mostly plastic with truck mounted motors and no flywheels (pretty sure, anyway)
I was just running these for the first time in many years and they run rough and are just not that well made. Paint and graphics on my NYC are nice though and I believe the units are indeed painted.
K-Line would go on to do so much better.

[brianel027]

Thanks Bob for the clarification. I wasn't trying to imply that the F3's are that scale... but they are closer to reality than the Alco FA and don't look too out of wack with tradionally sized cars, at least as compared to other loco choices.

On the K-Line Alco FA's. It's not fair to compare them to other better locos with larger motors and flywheels, such as Williams which are quieter runners for certain. All the dual DC truck mounted motored locos (be they Lionel or K-Line) suffer from what I call a "growl" noise, especially on curves. In comparision to the newer Lionel Alco FA's, the K-Line model is still the winner be they older or newer versions.

K-Line had their traction tires all over the place. One thing I have found that does help some is to remove one traction tire from each motorized truck and to add a little weight to inside the shell if deemed necessary. It is inevitable that two DC can motors will probably not run at precise identical speeds. But having double traction tires on the same truck - especially if the tires are on opposite sides of the same truck - will contribute to the growling noise especially on curves.

Alton, I am unaware of earlier versions of the SD45 and SD90MAC, other than the Railking versions and then probably the Scale Railking versions after 2000 or 2001 when MTH basically started using the former Premiere line dies for the new Railking releases.

When the first Railking Dash-9's came out, I borrowed one and made a scale drawing. Then I took scale drawing from the Model Railroader or RMC, scanned them into a computer and then played with them in a graphic arts program. I basically started from scratch to see if I could make a better proportioned version than MTH did. And then I showed my work to the fellow I borrowed the loco from. And he agreed that I had made a better looking scaled down loco. The KEY here is to NOT use a scale ruler, but to throw away the scale ruler and go by FEEL.

So I'm just saying by my opinion that MTH did a far better job on the Railking SD45 and the SD90MAC as far as shrinking them down in size, yet keeping the overall feel of the look of the real locomotive. Bear in mind, on a 14 inch long model loco that the height is a big factor. I've taken the shells from the Lionel U35B's and chopped them down in length and height. Shortening the shell height in particular makes the engine actually look bigger... you eliminate that "shoebox" on wheels look that some have. I've shortened the height of some of my K-Line MP-15's and other folks agree, that by doing this it makes the engine look bigger - especially in relation to the smaller sorts of cars that many 027 operators run.

Just as an off note aside, I do like the K-Line 765-series modern steel welded box car. Although bigger than a traditinal 6464 type, the K-Line 765 has a modern looking roof without the traditional roofwalk (which many railroads did away with by the late 1970's)and the with shortened side ladders, the 765 resembles a larger high cube box car when run with the smaller 6464 size types. Actually looks better with the smaller cars than does the Lionel Hi-Cube box car. Although as noted other times, real trains usually vary in height quite a bit, so it's fun to throw in a couple of slightly different sized cars.

I've taken some Railking box cars and shortened the mounting nubs inside the shell and then reattached the shell leaving just enough clearance for the coupler to swing by the ends. I've done the same thing to a Crown series reefer.

Also replacing trucks on a MTH Railking car with the new Timken styled K-Line truck used on the Train-19 cars will help some since the truck is not as high as the others: compare a normal K-Line 027 caboose with normal plastic or earlier K-Line die cast trucks to a K-Line Train-19 issue... the Train-19 caboose is lower.