Locking the articulated rear engines

[Atlantic Central]

John, I'm well aware that most brass articulated locos have prototypical fixed rear engines. I didn't say anything about brass in the statement you quoted?

Most guys I know are running modern diecast/plastic stuff - not brass. I would say there is plenty of detail on all my articulated locos and double articulation is not limited by any of it. As listed earlier - Bachmann 2-6-6-2's, Proto 2-8-8-2's, BLI 2-6-6-4, Riv 2-6-6-6.

I know many of those old brass locos run fine - once you fine tune them and your trackwork - but I have also seen a lot of them that were nothing but a pain to fine all the rubs and shorts and such.

The other factors are rigid wheel base, boiler length, and total wheel base. The EM-1 is a lot bigger than Y3 in these regards - yet the 2-6-6-2 is not much bigger than most 4-8-2's.

But I'm not buying any $2000 brass locos anyway, so it matters not to me.

Sheldon

[Atlantic Central]

Guys, here is my point, don't be so quick to judge the double articulation until you have really seen it on the curves you plan to use.

The bigger the curve, the less noticable it is, in fact because of the reduced front overhang, it makes big curves look like truely prototypical curves in many cases. While the movement of the rear engine is hardly noticed.

And they pull better with less losses in the curves, and they eliminate the need for un realistic side clearances or track spacing.

Personally, I will just never get this idea that it acceptable to shrink the turnout number or curve size way down, but not acceptable to compromise the equipment at all?

And my layout is built for running big power too - while pulling trains long enough to justify its use.

Sheldon

[wjstix]

FWIW the Mantua (now Model Power) 2-6-6-2 has only the front drivers articulated, but being a smallish engine, can take 18" radius curves.

[2-8-8-4]

Sheldon--

I didn't come right out and say it and should have for the sake of clarity, but my recollection has been that even in plastic/diecast, in many cases the rear engines of articulateds have still been fixed.  I've owned the Mantua 2-6-6-2, and it was a nice engine for the money, indeed with a fixed rear engine.

I never owned a Proto 2000 2-6-6-2 or 2-8-8-2 to know anything about them.  The one P2K Heavy 2-10-2 I tried was not good at all, so I sorta avoid P2K steam power, in general, though I might get an 0-6-0 if the right one comes along.

I no longer own the MTH (formerly Lionel HO) Challenger, but I thought the rear engine was fixed on it.  Perhaps my recollection is wrong.

Also, one need not spend a fortune on a nice articulated--the Oriental Limited/Powerhouse ones show up at train shows for as little as $250 depending on the roadname, in new/mint/hardly used condition--even in recent years.  The only thing is they are not loaded with detail as much as some would like--and the front engine's handrails are soldered up from brass and subject to breakage if mishandled, as seems so often to be the case with stuff dragged from show to show.  For that reason I haven't owned any lately--but nice ones can be found out there.

However, I have had the Powerhouse/Samhongsa ones apart, and the mechanism is the exact same mechanism as what Samhongsa was putting into the big dollar 1980's brass articulateds.  The only difference is the crank is soldered into position on the Powerhouse series and may be screwed onto the high dollar ones.  Also, by the late 1980's, Samhongsa offered (at least for and through W&R) delayed motion articulated gearboxes that allowed the one engine to start and slip before the other one just like a prototype mallet--those gearboxes were of course not available in the Powerhouse Series engines...but I digress from the topic at hand.

[2-8-8-4]

I liked the Model RR News review of the EM-1.  They did say that some of the details that should be on the model, below the running boards, and above the trailing truck, were left off for the sake of trailing truck clearance.  Compromises have to be made, and I understand that.  It's still a nicely done engine.

[Desertdweller]

I suspect the loose wheel center problem on the old Rivarossi steamers could have been corrected by adjusting the drivers until they were back in quarter, then carefully applying a bead of thin superglue between the wheel centers and the rim, or between the wheel centers and the axle.

Back in the day when I was in HO, we didn't have superglue.

I did get involved in an accident on our club layout where my Rivarossi Y6b was destroyed.  We had some hidden tracks that staged trains could be stored on, and advanced by remote control, sight unseen.  Something caused the loco to hang up while under power, and the driver centers were melted.

If I recall correctly, that railroad used 36" curve minimums.  The Y6b handled those very well.

[Atlantic Central]

First, the Mantua engine is a small logging loco, it does not even begin to have the same track requirements as even the Bachmann 2-6-6-2.

John,

In between the old Rivarossi stuff and the current crop of mostly double articulation locos offered in the last ten years or so, there really have not been any other plastic/die cast locos to speak of.

My I politely suggest that it is hard to discuss stuff if you are not familiar with what is out there or with who made which locos. Proto never made a 2-6-6-2.

When it comes to recent articulated locos:

Proto2000 has only made a USRA 2-8-8-2, which is the same as a N&W Y3.

Bachmann has made two versions of a 2-6-6-2, the C&O H4 and the C&O H5 which is also a USRA 2-6-6-2. And Bachmann now has the EM-1.

Rivarossi has made a big boy, challenger and the C&O H8 2-6-6-6

BLI/PCM has made a big boy, N&W Y6b and the N&W Class A 2-6-6-4

Athearn Genesis has made/makes a big boy and a challenger (too many big boys - you know I have never owned one)

Sorry, but limited players like Lionel don't even count in my book.

And until MTH offers all their products with real DCC and/or DCC ready, I don't count them either.

To my recolection, of all of these, only the Rivarossi big boy is not double articulated and I may even be wrong on that.

Other than brass, that's pretty much it - again most are double articulated, and run and look very good.

I can undrstand those who already have older brass planning to keep it and run it, but I would never go looking for an old brass piece if a current production plastic/diecast version is available.

But then maybe I just don't have enough money.....

Sheldon

I don't consider used twenty year old locos as viable choices when deciding on motive power. There is no assurance they can be found. But I guess that view comes from not being a collector - of brass locos or of anything.

As we have discussed before, I'm not a collector or a buyer/seller in the secondary market. That is a hobby all to its self, a hobby I'm not in. I'm a modeler, I am interested in building a very specific layout theme and actually running my trains.

So what Howard buys and likes to run that was made twenty or thirty years ago is of no importance to me.

I don't know what problem you had with a Proto2000 2-10-2, but my two 2-8-8-2's and two 0-8-0's are some of the nicest running locos I have, as are my Bachmann 2-6-6-2's.

[Steve Magee]

A cheap, simple but effective way for allowing for compensation of grade on a helix can be done using an 18" or 24" (the shorter one, preferably) cheap spirit level. If a grade of say about 2% is required (lets call it a 1 in 48 for simplicity sake) then measure 12" from one end and glue a piece of 1/4" x 1/4" something - timber, styrene, whatever - at this mark. You effectively have a 2% grade measuring tool.

To compensate on the curve, place one end of the level on the centreline of the line where your track will go, then swing the 1/4" piece to the centreline up-grade. Because you are measuring the grade rise of an imaginary arc across the curve, but the track takes the longer length of the curves' circumference, you have a compensated grade.

Steve

[Bucksco]

I am going to politely remind all the people posting to this thread that this is the BACHMANN forum. It has been established for the sole purpose of discussing BACHMANN products. While it is perfectly acceptable to discuss model railroading and other manufacturer's products in relation to BACHMANN products it is not a place to carry on long discussions about other manufacturer's wares or lengthy model railroading discussions with one's clique of friends. I believe this thread is heading down that road and will soon be put to bed.

[Jim Banner]

blwfish,

One more important point, having designed and been involved with the construction of a number of layouts with a helix, I would caution you about building a helix with such a small radius.

What will your grade be? Over 3% - plus the resistance of the curve - two of the best pulling steam locos a out there will likely only pull 20 cars up it.

Sheldon

Sheldon, I am not sure how you are doing your calculation but according to mine, a 30" radius helix built 3-3/4" rail head to rail head can have full NMRA clearance and a grade of less than 2%.  With 4" rail head to rail head, the grade is still only about 2.1%.  If you really want to push the envelope and your woodworking skills are up to it, the limit is about a 1.7% grade with 30" curves and 3" clearance over the rail heads.  Not all of us have that extra foot to build our helices with 36" and larger curves.

Jim   

[Atlantic Central]

blwfish,

One more important point, having designed and been involved with the construction of a number of layouts with a helix, I would caution you about building a helix with such a small radius.

What will your grade be? Over 3% - plus the resistance of the curve - two of the best pulling steam locos a out there will likely only pull 20 cars up it.

Sheldon

Sheldon, I am not sure how you are doing your calculation but according to mine, a 30" radius helix built 3-3/4" rail head to rail head can have full NMRA clearance and a grade of less than 2%.  With 4" rail head to rail head, the grade is still only about 2.1%.  If you really want to push the envelope and your woodworking skills are up to it, the limit is about a 1.7% grade with 30" curves and 3" clearance over the rail heads.  Not all of us have that extra foot to build our helices with 36" and larger curves.

Jim   

Jim, I did word that wrong I suppose, I meant the effective grade with the resistance from the curve would be about 3%.

I run on a number of layouts that use the helix design, and the ones with 30" or smaller radius are real challenge from a pulling power standpoint  with steam locos.

The ones built with 36" or larger radius are much more steam loco friendly, and much more suitedto long trains.

I have never been shy about my belief in larger curves, Paul Mallery argued for 48" radius as a minimum mainline radius for modeling a Class I mainline, I'm getting real close to that on the visable portions of my new layout.

With or without double articulation, some of these biggest locos simply look bad even on 36" radius. But in any case, I cannot understand wanting to make the situation worse by insisting on prototypical design of the articulation - unless I had room for 60" curves.

Sheldon