Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

IHC 2-6-0 Mogul Review

30626 views
58 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2020
  • 1 posts
Posted by HM_California on Saturday, May 23, 2020 12:57 AM

NOTE: A detailed run-down on the history of the SP/T&NO M-4 class, written by Andy Sperandeo, was published in August 1994 Model Railroader. Also, surviving locos are viewable at museums in Saugus, CA and Tuscon, AZ.

 

The complaint about the pulling power of this loco is misplaced, I think. This locomotive is barely 9 inches long, including tender. More importantly, it is detailed to represent the class between about 1920 when the headlight was lowered, the air pumps were upgraded to compound type, and piston valves replaced the original slide valves, to when the last were scrapped (or preserved), about 1958. By 1920, despite installation of superheating, the M-4 was strictly a branchline and local freight locomotive on the SP/T&NO. When built, their tractive effort was only 28,710 pounds; for the sake of comparison, the tractive effor of a USRA Light Mikado was nearly twice that, even though both locomotives rolled on 63 inch drivers. 

Given all that, a pulling power of 11-13 cars is reasonable, even on a club-size model railroad. I look forward to using it to switch cars on the industrial switching railroad I plan to build, as the slow-speed performance of this engine is excellent on DCC or a transitorized throttle.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 101 posts
Posted by BF&D on Thursday, December 13, 2012 11:20 PM

And these days you can get a Bachmann "sound ready" 2-6-0 loco with sound for under $120.  Not quite Spectrum detail level, but better than IHC, and with some of those decal rivets you can add rivets to the cab roof and sides for a lot less fuss and bucks than it would take to add sound to the IHC.

  • Member since
    June 2005
  • 4,367 posts
Posted by Darth Santa Fe on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:42 PM

I replaced the tender axles on mine with Intermountain 36" freight car wheels. They were a perfect fit, they look great, and they work great!

_________________________________________________________________

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:25 PM

I do not know if anyone will read this but I'll try anyway.

       I purchased a IHC 2-6-0 during the breakin I found the wheelsets on the tender were badly out of gauge. I've fixed that but in the process found another problem that needs addressing. 

       The conducting wheel(non insulated) is so close to the end of the axle that it rubs against the truck sideframe. Can someone give me an idea of where I might be able to get a replacement set of wheels? I would think NWSL would work but am unsure of the dimensions.

Many Thx IGN

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 30, 2011 1:00 AM

A shortline usually did not have much of a roster of locomotives, not more than 1 or two, unless traffic required to have at least two locos under steam.

The Crystal River & San Juan RR, located in Colorado and running from Aspen to Marble, may serve as an example. In the final days of the line, they just had to locos - one 2-6-0 and one 4-6-0, both from the 1890´s and "upgraded" along the time to fulfill safety rules. Abandonment came in 1940, when the marble quarry in Marble was pretty much depleted.

A lot of info can be found in the book "Crystal River Pictorial" by Dell McCoy & Ross Collman, now out of print, but maybe obtainable here

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • From: Oreland PA
  • 986 posts
Posted by UncBob on Monday, April 25, 2011 8:40 AM

Just got a new one for $46  on EBAY

I will be converting it to DCC/Sound

51% share holder in the ME&O ( Wife owns the other 49% )

ME&O

  • Member since
    January 2008
  • From: Stockton, CA.
  • 333 posts
Posted by Truck on Saturday, April 23, 2011 3:41 PM

What I was  trying to do was get someone elses statement or part of their post to show up on top of my reply like you guys do. would that be the same as doing a quote. when I did it I hit the quote button on the reply post but that did not work the way I expected it to.

  • Member since
    May 2007
  • From: East Haddam, CT
  • 3,272 posts
Posted by CTValleyRR on Saturday, April 23, 2011 9:52 AM

dehusman

 

 Truck:

 

My quote reply didn't come out right,

 

 

Its usually pretty easy to fix..

 

 

any suggestions on what I did wrong.

 

 

The quote has to have the word "quote' surrounded with square brakets "[ ]" at the beginning of each segment quoted AND (critical part) the "/quote" (slash quote) surrounded with square brackets "[ ]" at the end of the quote.

I will miss spell quote to show you what the quotes I made above look like in the "Post Message" window.

[qoute user="Truck"]

My quote reply didn't come out right,

[/qoute]

Its usually pretty easy to fix..

[qoute]

any suggestions on what I did wrong.

[/qoute]

Dave -- no wonder it didn't work.... you misspelled "quote".  Whistling Laugh

Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford

"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,621 posts
Posted by dehusman on Saturday, April 23, 2011 7:49 AM

Truck

My quote reply didn't come out right,

Its usually pretty easy to fix..

any suggestions on what I did wrong.

The quote has to have the word "quote' surrounded with square brakets "[ ]" at the beginning of each segment quoted AND (critical part) the "/quote" (slash quote) surrounded with square brackets "[ ]" at the end of the quote.

I will miss spell quote to show you what the quotes I made above look like in the "Post Message" window.

[qoute user="Truck"]

My quote reply didn't come out right,

[/qoute]

Its usually pretty easy to fix..

[qoute]

any suggestions on what I did wrong.

[/qoute]

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    January 2008
  • From: Stockton, CA.
  • 333 posts
Posted by Truck on Saturday, April 23, 2011 2:11 AM

My quote reply didn't come out right, any suggestions on what I did wrong.

                                        Truck.

  • Member since
    January 2008
  • From: Stockton, CA.
  • 333 posts
Posted by Truck on Saturday, April 23, 2011 1:58 AM

[quote user="jwmurrayjr"]I have a couple of IHC moguls and they run very well on DCC. Slow speed control is good and they are quiet (silent running decoders). I have a "short line" and pulling a lot of cars is not an issue.

And they do have a dummy front coulper. But it snaps into a socket so maybe that would make adding a working coupler easier. Maybe someone has done this and I missed it.

Smile

Putting a coupler in can be tedious, alot of trial and error fitting and filing to get the gear box to fit and get the coupler hieght wright. I did an IHC 2-6-0 and this Mikado, sorry for the fuzzy pic's. But you can tell it looks better with a Kadee than a dummy.     

  • Member since
    January 2008
  • From: Stockton, CA.
  • 333 posts
Posted by Truck on Saturday, April 23, 2011 1:27 AM

I put a LOKSOUND 3.5 decoder in this IHC Mikado along with yellow glow led's on loco and tender. It sure runs and sounds nice. It is the one pictured in my Avatar.      

  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: Canada, eh?
  • 13,375 posts
Posted by doctorwayne on Friday, April 22, 2011 8:10 PM

rogertra
Darth Santa Fe wrote the following post on Friday, April 22, 2011

"The flanges are a compromise between RP-25 and NEM, and will work on rail down to Code 83. Or so IHC says."

Steam roller wheels then.  :-( 

Too bad, it had great possibilities for kit-bashing.  The hobby is in desperate need for a "modern" HO scale 2-6-0 with piston valves etc..

 

 

 

If the appearance of the flanges is a problem (they're not a problem operationally if you're using code 83 or larger), they're easy enough to turn down, as I outlined in my earlier post.  I think, though,  that the tires are a little bit on the heavy side (too high), but my use of white "sidewalls" does tend to accentuate that somewhat. Smile, Wink & Grin

Both of my Moguls are currently "in the shop" getting new cabs and a few other "modernising" touches.  I've been looking for a set of cylinders similar to those on the IHC loco, as I want to convert the 34 to piston valves, but it looks like I'm going to have to scratchbuild them.  The 37 may get a better motor while I'm at it, too.

 

Wayne

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: Franconia, NH
  • 3,130 posts
Posted by dstarr on Friday, April 22, 2011 6:55 PM

Mine ran fine on the club's code 83 track (all hand laid with hand laid turnouts).  The flanges are a little deeper than RP25 calls for, but they run fine of code 83.

 

 

 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Shawnigan Lake, BC
  • 406 posts
Posted by rogertra on Friday, April 22, 2011 6:42 PM
Darth Santa Fe wrote the following post on Friday, April 22, 2011

"The flanges are a compromise between RP-25 and NEM, and will work on rail down to Code 83. Or so IHC says."

Steam roller wheels then.  :-( 

Too bad, it had great possibilities for kit-bashing.  The hobby is in desperate need for a "modern" HO scale 2-6-0 with piston valves etc..

 

 

Cheers

Roger T.

Home of the late Great Eastern Railway see: - http://www.greateasternrailway.com

For more photos of the late GER see: - http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l99/rogertra/Great_Eastern/

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,621 posts
Posted by dehusman on Friday, April 22, 2011 6:22 PM

trainobsessed

Actually, I freelance, remember?

Actually I don't because when I commented on the Sn42 scale/gauge in another thread you said you were basing your layout on the 42 in guage railroads of Newfoundland.  So my suggestion was to look at those engines to get ideas on how to detail your engines.  Since you have asked dozens of questions about how the prototype does things and about how prototypical various engines were so I assumed that you were interested in some measure of prototypical conformance or at least what was typical.

That can give you some idea of how you will have to rebuild the cabs, what details you will have to add and which you will have to take off.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    June 2005
  • 4,367 posts
Posted by Darth Santa Fe on Friday, April 22, 2011 6:21 PM

The flanges are a compromise between RP-25 and NEM, and will work on rail down to Code 83. Or so IHC says.

_________________________________________________________________

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Shawnigan Lake, BC
  • 406 posts
Posted by rogertra on Friday, April 22, 2011 5:03 PM

Doesn't it have steam roller wheels, only suitable for over-sized code 100 rail?

That important detail wasn't mentioned in the review.

If it has RP25 wheels, for use on code 80 and smaller rail, then it would be a "really useful engine".

 

 

 

 

Cheers

Roger T.

Home of the late Great Eastern Railway see: - http://www.greateasternrailway.com

For more photos of the late GER see: - http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l99/rogertra/Great_Eastern/

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,621 posts
Posted by dehusman on Friday, April 22, 2011 2:43 PM

Since "high" or "low" boiler is purely subjective and were not used as a designation (other maybe by Bachmann) .  Why not research the railroads you are interest in and then see what you need to do convert the engine to a model of that engine.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    June 2005
  • 4,367 posts
Posted by Darth Santa Fe on Friday, April 22, 2011 10:35 AM

5 year old review Resurrection!!

The IHC 2-6-0 is as tall as most of my medium to large steam engines, so I would call it a "high boiler". It's a little bit larger overall than the Spectrum high boiler 4-6-0, but it's a pretty light-duty puller because of the plastic construction. That can be fixed with "Bullfrog Snot" traction substance (I don't know what the proper term for it is).

EDIT: I later measured the speed at closer to 70 scale MPH, which is appropriate for a steam engine this size.

_________________________________________________________________

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Northern Va
  • 1,924 posts
Posted by yougottawanta on Friday, April 22, 2011 8:32 AM

Hello Loather  havent seen you in a while !Have you been okay ? Sorry about being off topic. I think the review was nicely done. Not really an IHC fan , though I do have them. But with some extra parts and weathering it looks great !

  • Member since
    July 2009
  • 36 posts
Steam engine in the Little Rascals episode
Posted by trfindley on Friday, April 22, 2011 8:27 AM

The engine is actually a Santa Fe 4-6-2, with big numbers on the tender.

The distant shots of Farina sitting up and laying down are of a dummy controlled by a cable.

 

I just noticed the poster asked about this in 2006.

  • Member since
    May 2002
  • From: Just outside Atlanta
  • 422 posts
Posted by jockellis on Sunday, March 12, 2006 12:24 AM
G'day, Y'all,
In one of the old Little Rascal films, an SP mogul is set in motion while some of the Gang are on it. Does anyone know what model mogul that is?
Jock Ellis
Cumming, GA US of A
Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers

Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers

  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: Canada, eh?
  • 13,375 posts
Posted by doctorwayne on Saturday, March 11, 2006 10:05 PM

A well-done review. I got one of these locos quite some time ago, possibly when they were first released. If I recall correctly, it cost about $30.00. I bought it to go with a brass Mogul from PFM that I had remotored. Even though the IHC version doesn't pull as well as the PFM and its starting voltage is higher, I'm generally pleased with its performance. I didn't change mine too much: a few details, some extra weight and a new paint job to match her older sister. Mine came with the deep flanges on the drivers: I trimmed them down to size with a cut-off disc, running at high speed in a Dremel tool, held lightly against the drivers as they turned, also at high speed. A quick and easy fix, as long as you keep the cutting residue out of the works, and much less stress on the mechanism than using a file on the drivers as they turn.



Here's the PFM: it's based on a Boston & Maine prototype, with a few details added or altered. I left it with slide valves, although I may modernize it eventually. The motor (can't recall whether it's a Sagami or a Mashima) is mounted in the boiler:  that is, when the superstructure is removed, the motor stays with it. Connection with the worm is via a sliding u-joint coupling; a bit fiddly to connect using tweezers, but a much larger motor than could have been frame-mounted and still allowed disassembly. Operation is very smooth and quiet.


Wayne

  • Member since
    April 2015
  • 329 posts
Posted by WilmJunc on Saturday, March 11, 2006 5:43 PM
I bought an IHC Mogul last year. They may be fine if you are going to use them with DC but it was a pain to convert to DCC. They are not at all DCC ready and I thought they appeared fairly cheaply made. It will be my first and last IHC loco.

Modeling the B&M Railroad during the transition era in Lowell, MA

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: US
  • 517 posts
Posted by jwmurrayjr on Saturday, March 11, 2006 4:46 PM
I have a couple of IHC moguls and they run very well on DCC. Slow speed control is good and they are quiet (silent running decoders). I have a "short line" and pulling a lot of cars is not an issue.

And they do have a dummy front coulper. But it snaps into a socket so maybe that would make adding a working coupler easier. Maybe someone has done this and I missed it.

[:)]

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: Pacific Northwest
  • 3,864 posts
Posted by Don Gibson on Saturday, March 11, 2006 4:43 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by dingoix100 SMPH on 12 volts? MRC packs put out 18 to the track. Is there any way to gear it down so it runs slower


My guess that's in an 'unloaded' condition only. MRC's are unregulated supplies, and under 'load' conditions probably only put out 12 V.
Don Gibson .............. ________ _______ I I__()____||__| ||||| I / I ((|__|----------| | |||||||||| I ______ I // o--O O O O-----o o OO-------OO ###########################
  • Member since
    June 2005
  • 4,367 posts
Posted by Darth Santa Fe on Saturday, March 11, 2006 4:22 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by dingoix

70 SMPH isn't so bad, but w/ a MRC pack it may be 100 SMPH- what do you use for a power pack?


A 20 year old power-pack that's pretty much unknown to most model railroaders. It's called a Micro-Pac, and blows MRC's power-packs away![:D]

_________________________________________________________________

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, March 11, 2006 3:27 PM
70 SMPH isn't so bad, but w/ a MRC pack it may be 100 SMPH- what do you use for a power pack?

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!