Big HO steam locos that can handle 18 inch curves

[markpierce]

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

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.

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

[markpierce]

PASMITH

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

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.

Mark

[PASMITH]

Mark, I agree and the two bashes Carl made sure looked great. Aside from the drivers, his techniques for modeling and detailing the cab forward and tender made it look very much like the SP version. By the way, I seem to remember that there use to be an HO brass kit available for the MM-2. I think it might have been put out by Kemtron? Peter Smith, Memphis

[andrechapelon]

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

[mobilman44]

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