The new Bachmann Light Mikados (and I emphasize light) weigh in right around the Athearn Genesis Mikados (Bachmann 11.6 oz, Athearn 12 oz). The drive wheels are not sprung vertically, but do have some side to side play. Bachmann Mike will pull a 10 car train of empty accurail hoppers with metal wheelsets up a 2% grade with minimal wheelslip (to get that figure I had to hand pick my best free-rolling under NMRA specified weight 4 70 ton and 6 55ton hopper cars to shoehorn this thing up the grade). The tender power pick up is the cheap single wiper that has become standard on Bachmann steam. They did however put a washer between the truck screw and the wiper so that the wiper maintains contact with the screw. The rear coupler hangs low and I noticed that the coupler box screw is not fully driven in (flat head, I can see the bevel) and it appears to be at a slight angle. It does have working LED headlight and back up lights. In the case of the one I purchased, it apears to have the wrong valve gear for the locomotive number (MEC 617). Even though MEC was allocated USRA orginals (621-626), Bachmann inexplicably chose to not letter them as such (at least the valve gear would have been correct). The tender capacities are incorrect; Bachmann lists them at 10tons coal and 5400 gal water. MEC 617 was equipped with 20Ton coal and 8000 gal capacity tender (source: MEC locomotive register, 1947). The USRA originals carried more: 16ton, 10000gal (source see above). The preceding 2 figures are the as scrapped conditions, not as built, I chose these due to the fact that the locomotive has the late 1940s speed lettering. And continuing on that subject of speed lettering, the cab numbers are compressed. I feel this thing is slightly over priced for the amount of attention to detail and research done. I feel like I'm not asking for the world here, but maybe a slight amount of effort put into research if you are going to invest in new tooling.
Nice review!
Also, the sanddome is oversized.
Charles
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling the PRR & NYC in HO
Youtube Channel: www.youtube.com/@trainman440
Instagram (where I share projects!): https://www.instagram.com/trainman440
Trainman440 Nice review! Also, the sanddome is oversized. Charles
Actually its pretty close for the MEC non-USRA mikes, slightly too far back on the boiler, but around the right size. MEC mikes had large sand domes.
Andrew
They did do research, but applied the locomotive to as many roadnames to appeal to as many people as possible. You should detail it to how you want to and reletter/renumber it.
I too really wanted to like the new B-man light mikado, but I just didn't see anything that made me want one. Oh well, more money in my pocket for other stuff.
gatrhumpy They did do research, but applied the locomotive to as many roadnames to appeal to as many people as possible. You should detail it to how you want to and reletter/renumber it.
I maintain that either their research was inadequate or a delibrate decision was made to number them outside of this group USRA allocation group.
BMMECNYC Even though MEC was allocated USRA orginals (621-626), Bachmann inexplicably chose to not letter them as such (at least the valve gear would have been correct).
Even though MEC was allocated USRA orginals (621-626), Bachmann inexplicably chose to not letter them as such (at least the valve gear would have been correct).
But this post is more about the operating characteristics than the detail errors. I have come to expect detail errors, but not poor operating. As a side note, I have noticed that it seems that either the tender or the drive wheels are not picking up power consistantly. I will be disecting the tender to have a look at wiring.
While reading Eric White's article in Feb 2016 MR i noticed something. The trailing truck appears to be the correct Delta trailing truck for MEC 617. Which brings up a different problem. I now need a new trailing truck if I am to renumber this one into the USRA series, because MECs USRA mikes didnt have Delta trailing trucks.
On a different note the headlight appears correct for the railroad, something I did not mention from my previous article. Additionally I can confirm that the locomotive does not run all that fast (I dont have a scale speedometer so I dont have a number for comparison) and the chuff rate is too high. I plan to try the reccomended CV 116 value (see FEB MR pg 73 righthand column for the value) to correct the chuff rate and report the results later.
I will also look into adding weight into the smokebox (there doesnt appear to be anything in there in the photos in MR) and into the domes on top of the boiler. I'll post pictures when I get it appart.
I don't have a new Bachmann Mikado yet, but I do have about 35 other Bachmann steamers - so I will offer a few thoughts.
First, those "cheap" tender pickup wipers work just fine on all my locos - but I do add a little weight to all my tenders - Bachmann and other brands.
I don't model the MEC, and don't know anything about their locos, obviously I don't know why Bachmann made the choices they did in lettering the loco. BUT, as mentioned, they made a loco they could offer in a number of roadnames with minimal changes - no worse than the BLI Mikados and Pacifics with wrong details, NO road specific details, wrong drivers sizes, wrong tenders, wrong trailing trucks, and more......
It does appear Bachmann made some effort to offer correct tenders, headlight locations, and trailing trucks.....
As to the tender size thing, sounds like the MEC installed much larger tenders later.....maybe 617 did have the smaller tender at some point? Bachmann long haul tenders are out there - should be any easy conversion.....
Loco speed - common DCC problem from what I have seen - but then again a USRA Mikado would likely never have been run much above 50 mph......
Trailing truck - Bachmann does make both USRA style trailing trucks and Delta Trailing trucks for that loco - maybe their parts department can help you out - or - the part may be the same as the some of their previous locos, like the USRA Heavy Mountain - then I could give you a USRA trailing truck for the price of postage.
Extra weight - I added lots of extra weight to the Bachmann 2-8-4's, which I converted to heavy 2-8-2's - these new Mikes might offer the same possibilities.
Sheldon
Until this thread appeared, I hadn't really looked at the trailing truck on the Bachmann USRA light 2-8-2. As usual, I like to refer to the prototype. As the OP mentioned, the MEC's USRA Mkados were numbered in a series different from that of the model, and while the model's Delta trailing truck is correct for the number on the model, the rest of the model is incorrect and out of proportion. Bachmann would have saved a lot of trouble by just numbering their stock model for one of the MEC's USRA 2-8-2's and using the correct Hodges trailing truck.
Which brings up another point: The trailing truck being supplied on other Bachmann USRA light 2-8-2's doesn't really look a lot like a Hodges either. It looks more like a modified version of a Cole trailing truck, which was used on every USRA road engine EXCEPT the light 2-8-2. A brass Cole trailing truck is (or was) available from Cal Scale, but I don't know of a source for a correct Hodges trailing truck, except cannibalizing another engine. The Bachmann parts dept. might be able to supply the trailing truck they are providing on other versions of this engine, but even if they do, I doubt that it will be a good representation of the correct Hodges design. I say this on the basis of a look at Bachmann's illustrations on their site. I haven't examined the engine in person, and don't intend to.
Tom
ACY Until this thread appeared, I hadn't really looked at the trailing truck on the Bachmann USRA light 2-8-2. As usual, I like to refer to the prototype. As the OP mentioned, the MEC's USRA Mkados were numbered in a series different from that of the model, and while the model's Delta trailing truck is correct for the number on the model, the rest of the model is incorrect and out of proportion. Bachmann would have saved a lot of trouble by just numbering their stock model for one of the MEC's USRA 2-8-2's and using the correct Hodges trailing truck. Which brings up another point: The trailing truck being supplied on other Bachmann USRA light 2-8-2's doesn't really look a lot like a Hodges either. It looks more like a modified version of a Cole trailing truck, which was used on every USRA road engine EXCEPT the light 2-8-2. A brass Cole trailing truck is (or was) available from Cal Scale, but I don't know of a source for a correct Hodges trailing truck, except cannibalizing another engine. The Bachmann parts dept. might be able to supply the trailing truck they are providing on other versions of this engine, but even if they do, I doubt that it will be a good representation of the correct Hodges design. I say this on the basis of a look at Bachmann's illustrations on their site. I haven't examined the engine in person, and don't intend to. Tom
Tom,
You know the difference between a Hodges truck and a Cole truck, and so do I, but for most modelers, at least on this forum, and likely in Bachmann's customer base, one built up trailing truck with a leaf spring above the journal box looks pretty much like the next - especially as a simple one piece casting in HO scale......but the difference between any of those older built up designs and a one piece cast Delta with internal springs is a dramatic difference.
Again, I don't model the MEC, and I'm not a MEC expert - by a long stretch - so I have no dog in this fight regarding the accuracy of this model - but seems to me more effort went into the accuracy of this whole range of roadnames from Bachmann than went into the Mikado and Pacific offerings from BLI......but we don't hear much about that......
I don't have much access to MEC information, the only three locos I could find pictures of were not the USRA versions, and all had small to medium tenders - some with high sides......But otherwise the locos looked similar in proportion to the USRA design.
Additionally, steamlocomotive.com lists all MEC Mikes has having the classic 63" driver running gear and wheel base of the USRA design, and all being originally built with Walschaert valve gear and nearly identical cylinder size and stroke.
Detailed drawings of each class are not among my resources......
And then, the classic problem with modeling steam is those darn things got rebuilt, upgraded, changed, redesigned, streamlined, un-streamlined, converted to roller bearings, improved driver centers, replacement cast bed frames, tenders replaced, etc, etc, etc - so what did that loco look like on Spetember 7, 1937? Who knows.........got a photo with that date........for every loco you want to model.....
But does it have the right number of rivets?
Hobbez But does it have the right number of rivets? Good point Joe
Good point
Joe
If I needed more USRA Mikes, I'd certainly consider Bachmann's offerings first, (based both on Bachmann's quality and their warranty) and since I'm mostly freelancing, wouldn't be too concerned about the details.If I needed a USRA Mike to represent a specific prototype, I'd still consider Bachmann's version first - if the basic locomotive (running gear and boiler size and shape is right) then everything else is easy enough to make right. Instead of worrying about discrepancies, look at them as an opportunity to make your version a unique one, and as true to your prototype as your abilities will allow.
Wayne
This is going to be a bit of a screed/rant. Sorry if it offends. I'm having trouble posting it, so I think I'll post the basic text first, then add edits.
Hobbez and Joe:
I fully understand the implications of your snide little comments about counting rivets. It's a very, very old and tiresome song, sung by those who don't care to do the research, or make the effort, or spend the money to get a model right. The implication is that those of us who do make the effort are somehow lessened by those efforts. It never made any sense to me in the past, and it hasn't begun to make sense to me in the meantime. Accurate models require measurement. That means counting. Rivets are among the many things that ought to be counted. We learned counting in first grade, if not before, for good reasons. Sometimes modeling compromises are made for good reasons, but that does not mean accuracy has no value.
The OP requested accurate prototype information. I am one of several posters who have taken him at his word and attempted to provide that accurate information. If you don't care about accurate information, I have no idea why you are reading this thread. If you have nothing of value to add, then there is no reason for you respond to this thread except to be an insulting troll. I suggest that your time would be better spent on the "I Don't Give A @%^$#% About Accuracy" thread, if you can find it, or playing with your Brio trains. They don't care much about rivet counting at the Brio factory, AFAIK.
Your hobby is your own to enjoy. I don't insult others who have standards different from my own. Some of my friends are more particular than I am, but they don't belittle me for it. Enjoy your hobby as you like, but please do not insult or belittle those whose standards are higher than your own.
If you insist on following threads of this kind, you are welcome to do so in order to learn and be challenged, or in order to be amused if that's what winds your clock. But following the thread and posting on it in order to demean others is pretty immature.
Thank you.
I think the point is that it's unrealistic to expect Bachmann to spend thousands of hours (and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars) to do research on every USRA 2-8-2 ever made in an attempt to produce a museum quality model for every road number of every railroad who ever owned one, and to then be able to sell it for a fraction of a brass engine's price. To be able to sell at a reasonable price, there has to be some sacrifices made, resulting in a more "generic" engine that can be sold to fans of a number of railroads.
If you as the buyer want to take your model and super-super-detail it for an exact engine on an exact date, that's great. No one's knocking you for doing that. It's the idea of someone expecting a model train manufacturer to spend all that time and money to produce exactly the engine that a few 'rivet counters' want, as opposed to the majority of modellers, that's unrealistic.
This is especially true given that MEC is not exactly the most modeled line in the country and getting any steam locomotive at all lettered for the MEC is well nigh a miracle in and of itself. The diesel fan is a lot luckier given that the primary difference between a Santa Fe GP7 and a MEC GP7 (to give a for instance) is a matter of paint and lettering more than anything else.
Bachmann has already done an MEC steamer, using the Harriman 2-8-0 and giving it MEC speed lettering. The only thing the Harriman has really has in common with an MEC W class 2-8-0 is the wheel arrangement. I think someone (IHC comes to mind) lettered a USRA light 4-6-2 for the MEC. As a stand-in, I suppose it works, but the the last 4-6-2's built for the MEC had Coffin feedwater heaters, Delta trailing trucks with boosters, and were actually smaller than USRA lights. Nobody's going to do a proper MEC engine, especially given the lack of demand and the fact that most MEC steam engines (not all, but most) were homely to the point of ugliness.
I hadn't paid attention to the trailing truck on the Bachmann USRA Mike, either, until it was mentioned. Looks to me like what happened is Bachmann used the trailing truck off its KCS USRA light 2-10-2 to give the engine something of the look of the non-USRA S class Mikes. Given the oversized sand dome on the "USRA" engine, this was probably a good choice. However, Bachmann neglected to add the booster engine piping which was the reason for applying a Delta trailing truck in the first place, http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2397881 In any case, the booster was a later add on and didn't come with 617 from the factory.
Though I said MEC steamers were generally homely, at least their last Pacifics and their 2 Hudsons weren't bad at all:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3007371
http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?//august99/08-29-99/mc701_2.jpg
Andre
wjstix I think the point is that it's unrealistic to expect Bachmann to spend thousands of hours (and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars) to do research on every USRA 2-8-2 ever made in an attempt to produce a museum quality model for every road number of every railroad who ever owned one, and to then be able to sell it for a fraction of a brass engine's price. To be able to sell at a reasonable price, there has to be some sacrifices made, resulting in a more "generic" engine that can be sold to fans of a number of railroads. If you as the buyer want to take your model and super-super-detail it for an exact engine on an exact date, that's great. No one's knocking you for doing that. It's the idea of someone expecting a model train manufacturer to spend all that time and money to produce exactly the engine that a few 'rivet counters' want, as opposed to the majority of modellers, that's unrealistic.
And, I will repeat, Bachmann has gone to way more trouble with this group of locos than BLI did with their USRA Mikes and Pacifics.
At least we got three tenders, two trailing trucks, some different headlight locations....
I had not considered this loco either, and had passed on the BLI light Mike as well do to my bad experiances with two BLI heavy Mikes.
But I may have to reconsider a possible spot for a few of these on the ATLANTIC CENTRAL, as well as a few B&O copies.......
Currently the ATLANTIC CENTRAL has 7 Mikes, 3 or 4 more might round out the freight fleet nicely......
So, I did a little research,
While not "perfect" in every detail, the B&O, PRR and Frisco models are good representations.
Of course B&O 4500 is just 25 minutes from my house and I have seen it many times.....
The Southern model - I was unable to find pictures from regular service, but 4501 is a Southern USRA Mike, perserved, and it has a long tender similar to the Bachmann model.
The Pere Marquette model seems correct - except for the number? Did the C&O renumber PM steam after 1947?
The UP model apears to be reasonablely correct.
The Western Pacific model is numbered for the wrong class - but the WP did have 5 USRA light Mikes.
The NYC model is also numbered wrong?
The Rock Island is a correct number - no photos found.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL {snip} The Pere Marquette model seems correct - except for the number? Did the C&O renumber PM steam after 1947? {snip}
{snip}
Well, since you asked, nope- it's not a correct combination of number and lettering. While the C&O did renumber many of the PM's steam locomotives following the merger, Bachmann used a lettering style and size that is similar to that applied by the PM when the locomotive arrived in 1918 and that only lasted into the mid-1930s on the Mikes. Then Bachmann gave it a post-1947 number. Plus, when the C&O renumbered PM steam locomotives, it gave them C&O lettering on the tender at the same time.
I had a lengthy conversation with a Bachmann rep at a train show last year about this. The rep claimed to have a photo showing this combination, but I've gone through several hundred photos of PM USRA Mikes taken over their service lives for articles I've been writing about modeling them, and have yet to find that combination of early lettering and post-merger number documented anywhere.
At one point since the initial announcement they changed their literature to show that they planned to release the locomotive with its original number, 1039, which would have matched the lettering (I think that this was in the flyer they handed out at Springfield last year). But then they reverted to the wrong (too new) number for the finished model. Perhaps they were already too far along in the production process to make the change.
I give them a pass on their choice of tender, since nobody makes the tenders that most of the PM Mikes had by the time that they were renumbered.
I really hate to criticize a product when the manufacturer has gone to the effort to release a PM-painted model, but this one's just a bit far off the mark.
-Fritz Milhaupt, Publications Editor, Pere Marquette Historical Society, Inc.http://www.pmhistsoc.org
I"m not at all sure I'd give 'em points for anything other than the top mounted headlight as the tenders were already in production for other models (the trailing truck for MEC "617", which was not a USRA engine, is the same as used for the KCS light 2-10-2), so no new tooling was done and the real MEC 617 was equipped with a booster when the original (Cole, IIRC) was replaced with a Delta.
Did they really get things all that right?
Southern 4501 was an Ms class 2-8-2 built in 1911, way before the USRA. (source: steamlocomotive.com and prior knowledge)
As pointed out earlier, MEC 617 was not a USRA Mike (they were numbered 621-626).
Western Pacific. I don't know why they even bothered. While the WP did get 5 USRA lights, they were sold to the Wabash in 1920. Hardly worth the effort, unless you're modeling WP in around 1919. Of course, they assigned the wrong number to add insult to injury.
Rock Island 2319. They could have but an oil bunker in the tender, after all, they did it for the KCS 2-10-2's, why not for the Rock? Here's a pic of sister engine 2316: http://www.steamlocomotive.com/mikado/crip2316.jpg
B&O 4500 - First USRA Mike. Engine was delivered with a flatter cab roof than used by most of the USRA engines (not to mention Bachmann) and this can be seen here http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=402011 as the cab apparently was never changed. Engine was also delivered with a centered headlight rather than top of smokebox front, so either mounting is appropriate depending on year. EDIT: Delivery photo of B&O 4500 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USRA_Light_Mikado#/media/File:USRA_Light_Mikado.jpg
I will give them credit for getting the trailing truck (and number) right for Frisco 4027 as well as correctly identifying 4027 as a USRA light.
Doesn't really matter to me. SP had no USRA engines of any type. Too bad. The USRA light was superior to the Harriman Standard 2-8-2 and SP could have had a good Pacific by marrying the USRA light chassis with the heavy boiler (similar to what SRR did with the Ps-4). That would have given SP a superb engine.
Now, now, folks. Count rivets all you want, but when you start getting into discussions of the merits of rivet counting, hackles tend to rise. Keep discussion on the topic of the model, please.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
Steven Otte Now, now, folks. Count rivets all you want, but when you start getting into discussions of the merits of rivet counting, hackles tend to rise. Keep discussion on the topic of the model, please.
Aw come on now, Steven. Rivet counting is so last century. Headlight placement and type, what type of trailing truck is used, whether or not booster equipped, type of feedwater heater, if any. Disc or spoked drivers and on how many drive axles. That's what REAL anal retentive types argue about.
Really, really anal retentive types like yours truly care about things like which SP Mt-4's were modified to have multiple bearing crosshead guides and when and where was the change done? When was the skyline casing applied and where? How about disc main drivers? After all, if I'm going to buy an Athearn Mt-4, it's got to have multiple bearing crosshead guides, disc mains AND the 160C style tender. Apparently my wish will be be granted in March. Oh yeah, it's got to have the post 1946 large lettering.
Rivets? I don't care who you are, that's funny.
I've had my say on the rivet counting question, but I still wonder why they chose to model an oversized sandbox and incorrect trailing truck when the original prototype sits about 100 miles away from their front door, available for measuring. Here are a couple more comments specific to the model, some favorable and some not so much:
The NYC version has a correct number (6405) because some of the NYC's USRA 2-8-2's were renumbered from the 1700-1894 series into the 6400 series to make numbers available for new F units.
B&O 4500 had an unusual roof line and was the only USRA light Mike to use that cab. Thus Bachmann's number 4508 is correct for that version of the engine. Several B&O USRA Mikes carried large Vanderbilt tenders in later years, and 4508 was one that carried an unusually large one for a time in the 1950's. Many other details were changed in the later years.
I have also been unable to find evidence that any of the Pere Marquette 1011-1040 series USRA Mikados continued to carry P.M. lettering on their small tenders aftrer being renumbered into C&O's 2350-2379 series. A future run with Bachmann's large PM/NKP tender and corrected lettering would make a lot of sense.
As mentioned, SR 4501 is an earlier class Ms engine that predates USRA's by about 7 years. While the size is somewhat similar, there are differences. SR did operate 60 class Ms-1 USRA light Mikes, however, so the model could be used correctly numbered 4750-4774, 6285-6319, or 6612-6621 (painted black).
After the USRA had passed on, the U.P. was the only road to continue operation of USRA lights in the Far West. The U.P. system engines were Union Pacific 2480-2499 and subsidiaryOregon Short Line 2535-2554. New headlights and greatly enlarged Sweeney stacks gave them a singular appearance.
Well, I said I did a little research. Regarding the Southern, it just must have been too late at night, because I know that was not a USRA loco.....
Again, like previous Bachmann locos, some are prettty close, others not so much so.
As to where Bachmann got the parts or how many parts they already had tooling for - so what? That is how manufacturing works. But being a big Bachmann owner/kit basher, I suspect the tender with the rounded top is new tooling.....
And yes, both trailing trucks are likely from the 2-10-2 or the 4-8-2 heavy - yes they made a Delta for that too - but you will never find it on a parts diagram....
They added it as an optional included part about the time they started offering sound in the Heavy Mountain - they are hard to find.....all my ATLANTIC CENTRAL Bachmann locos have been converted to Deltas.
Back to my busy life....
wjstixThe OP gives a negative review of the new Bachmann USRA 2-8-2, basically saying it's not perfectly detailed for the railroad in question. My point is, I don't recall Bachmann saying "we're going to makes sure our new 2-8-2 is museum quality, with precise details for every railroad that ever owned a USRA 2-8-2." So slamming them for not producing such a model doesn't make much sense.
So if you read my post and follow up posts carefully, you will find that the primary irritation is that this thing weighs LESS than a Athearn Light Mikado (read title of article).
Edit: The reason this one (Bachmann) outperforms (slightly) the Athearn model is that neither the drivers, nor the leading or trailing trucks are sprung (unlike the Shamagosa drive mechanism on the Athearn). This means that all 12ish ounces of weight falls on the drivers vice being spread across all wheels.
I also said that I have come to expect Bachmann steam to not have perfect details.
BMMECNYC But this post is more about the operating characteristics than the detail errors. I have come to expect detail errors, but not poor operating.
But this post is more about the operating characteristics than the detail errors. I have come to expect detail errors, but not poor operating.
However, my main gripe with their research department is the deliberate choice to represent a non-USRA mike as a USRA mike, when a google search and 5min of reading would yield a number range for USRA mikados of any railroad.
I should have surmised by original post better, but I kept losing (twice) what I was writing due to computer shutting down (laptop, power unplugged) and closing wrong browser window. The op was a third draft. The main problem is operation of the locomotive in question. The inaccuracies in detail were just the icing on the cake to round out the review.
BMMECNYC wjstix The OP gives a negative review of the new Bachmann USRA 2-8-2, basically saying it's not perfectly detailed for the railroad in question. My point is, I don't recall Bachmann saying "we're going to makes sure our new 2-8-2 is museum quality, with precise details for every railroad that ever owned a USRA 2-8-2." So slamming them for not producing such a model doesn't make much sense. So if you read my post and follow up posts carefully, you will find that the primary irritation is that this thing weighs LESS than a Athearn Light Mikado (read title of article). Edit: The reason this one (Bachmann) outperforms (slightly) the Athearn model is that neither the drivers, nor the leading or trailing trucks are sprung (unlike the Shamagosa drive mechanism on the Athearn). This means that all 12ish ounces of weight falls on the drivers vice being spread across all wheels. I also said that I have come to expect Bachmann steam to not have perfect details. BMMECNYC But this post is more about the operating characteristics than the detail errors. I have come to expect detail errors, but not poor operating. However, my main gripe with their research department is the deliberate choice to represent a non-USRA mike as a USRA mike, when a google search and 5min of reading would yield a number range for USRA mikados of any railroad. I should have surmised by original post better, but I kept losing (twice) what I was writing due to computer shutting down (laptop, power unplugged) and closing wrong browser window. The op was a third draft. The main problem is operation of the locomotive in question. The inaccuracies in detail were just the icing on the cake to round out the review.
wjstix The OP gives a negative review of the new Bachmann USRA 2-8-2, basically saying it's not perfectly detailed for the railroad in question. My point is, I don't recall Bachmann saying "we're going to makes sure our new 2-8-2 is museum quality, with precise details for every railroad that ever owned a USRA 2-8-2." So slamming them for not producing such a model doesn't make much sense.
OK, the sarcasum in the title did not translate well.........I don't think I'm the only person who didn't really get that.
And again, I don't have any yet, I may or may not go for a few, but as I posted earlier, I found it easy to add weight to the Bachmann 2-8-4, greatly improving its pulling power - this loco seems similar.....
My BLI heavy USRA Mikes don't pull any better without their traction tires.......
The Athearn Mike suffered from three combined problems - bad springing, too light, not well balanced - I had two, fixed one, got rid of the other.....
What does the Bachmann Mike pull on level track? Acording to the MR review it pulls 38 cars?
John Amstrong published data in 1980 suggesting that a 2% grade reduced prototype pulling power to only 12% and that with free rolling wheels, it reduced model pulling power to 33%.
33% of 38 is 12 cars.......
In 1940, on the B&O leaving west out of Baltimore, it required two Mikes of this class to pull 50-70 car trains up the 1% ruling grade to Brunswick - the same train then required two 2-8-8-4's to move it over the next subdivision - rulling grade 2.6%.
A little more weight, some Bull Frog Snot, I may get one now just to check it out.....
ATLANTIC CENTRALMy BLI heavy USRA Mikes don't pull any better without their traction tires.......
Dont have one yet, but I have their light pacific and it pulls amazingly with traction tires.
ATLANTIC CENTRALThe Athearn Mike suffered from three combined problems - bad springing, too light, not well balanced - I had two, fixed one, got rid of the other.....
Have 3, the MEC 626 and 2 that I have undecorated. I put sound and keep alive in 2 of them. Have partially fixed the balance problem on all of them (adjusted the screws on the leading and trailing trucks (added benefit of more weight on drivers). They are getting weight and bullfrog snot.
ATLANTIC CENTRALWhat does the Bachmann Mike pull on level track? Acording to the MR review it pulls 38 cars?
I will have to take their word on it. I dont have a long enough level tangent track to pull 38 cars. As far as adding weight to the Bachmann: The area inside the smokebox is hollow, so a piece of 5/8" or 3/4" diameter x 3/4"L brass bar stock should slip right in. Any other Ideas about how to get the weight up?
Also mine seems to have an electrical pick up issue. I need to clean the wheels again to be sure though.
BMMECNYC ATLANTIC CENTRAL My BLI heavy USRA Mikes don't pull any better without their traction tires....... Dont have one yet, but I have their light pacific and it pulls amazingly with traction tires. ATLANTIC CENTRAL The Athearn Mike suffered from three combined problems - bad springing, too light, not well balanced - I had two, fixed one, got rid of the other..... Have 3, the MEC 626 and 2 that I have undecorated. I put sound and keep alive in 2 of them. Have partially fixed the balance problem on all of them (adjusted the screws on the leading and trailing trucks (added benefit of more weight on drivers). They are getting weight and bullfrog snot. ATLANTIC CENTRAL What does the Bachmann Mike pull on level track? Acording to the MR review it pulls 38 cars? I will have to take their word on it. I dont have a long enough level tangent track to pull 38 cars. As far as adding weight to the Bachmann: The area inside the smokebox is hollow, so a piece of 5/8" or 3/4" diameter x 3/4"L brass bar stock should slip right in. Any other Ideas about how to get the weight up? Also mine seems to have an electrical pick up issue. I need to clean the wheels again to be sure though.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL My BLI heavy USRA Mikes don't pull any better without their traction tires.......
ATLANTIC CENTRAL The Athearn Mike suffered from three combined problems - bad springing, too light, not well balanced - I had two, fixed one, got rid of the other.....
ATLANTIC CENTRAL What does the Bachmann Mike pull on level track? Acording to the MR review it pulls 38 cars?
Yes, traction tires generally double the factor of adhesion, doubling the pulling power.....
The math, which I can post if you like, using commonly accepted values for rolling resistance and factors of adhesion, suggests exactly the result you reported on a 2% grade - similar to the info I posted earlier.
Assuming it does not create balance issues, I would load the domes and smoke box with lead. I added a total of 4 ounces to my Bachmann 4-8-2 locos - made a big difference.
Domes can be filled with lead shot and then sealed in place with epoxy. Lead adhesive weights can be shaped to fit other spaces.
Bull Frog Snot can be applied to one set of drivers.
Electrical pickup - I always add 2-3 ounces of weight to most steam loco tenders for several reasons. First the drawbar connection between a loco and the tender generally has different dynamics than a coupled car, creating greater side forces, so more weight is needed for good tracking. The wire conncetions typical of all modern steam loco models can offer resistance and pressures counter to good tracking - again more weight helps. AND, anything that improves tracking improves electrical pickup.
By adding this weight to the tender, your worst case is you loose the pulling power for one car - but usually not, since there is no added wheels, just the extra weight.
If you can add 3-4 ounces in the USRA Mike, pulling power should increase by 30% or more. That would be 13 cars, which would actually be close to prototype for a grade that steep. Some quick math with the known numbers suggests a USRA Mike would be limited to 14 50 ton cars on a 2% grade.
Yet on level track with gentle curves that same prototype loco would likely handle 50-60 cars, loaded to 50 tons each, without much trouble.
And those numbers match actual practice on the B&O - two Mikes to handle 2500-3000 tons on 1% grades.
Back to running: my older Bachmanns that have small tenders have had another particular weight problem - the two interconnecting cables (why not just one?) tend to lift or steer the front of the very light tender, causing derailments and contact problems. I put an ounce or more extra weight in the front of those tenders. Helps P2K 0-6-0 and 0-8-0's too.
I also believe the drive ratio in the smaller Bachmanns has tended to be too low for the torque of the motor, depending on the model; some can run like the dickens light, but slow or stall too easily under load. This, combined with belt drive in some older designs, also tended to make for jerky low speed. Haven't tried a Mike, but my EM-1 and ATSF 4-8-4 seem OK.
Hal