An HO 2-6-6-2T?

[Steam Freak]

The Bach-man, would you be so kind to please pass on the request to have an HO scale version of the 2-6-6-2T that you guys have made in G scale? Due to Clover Valley #4 now running once again at Niles Canyon, I would love to own an HO scale model of it :-)

And before Mantua's model is mentioned; they're not even close.

[the Bach-man]

Dear SF,
I will certainly pass that along.
Thanks!
the Bach-man

[electrical whiz kid]

Didn't the Boston and Albany have one?
Rich C.

[J3a-614]

The Boston & Albany's engine or engines would be early main line 2-6-6-2s, similar to a design the New York Central used.  The Clover Valley engine suggested above would be a logging locomotive (and in this particular instance, a tank engine to boot), and would be much smaller, with 44 or 45 inch drivers.  To give you an idea of how small those drivers are, they happen to be about the size that's under Bachmann's 0-6-0T.  The whole engine is small compared with its mainline counterpart, weighing only about 110 tons (perhaps the overall weight of a Russian Decapod), and has only 26 square feet of grate area (a USRA light 2-8-2 has 66 square feet of grate).  Tractive effort of Clover Valley 4 is only 38,000 lbs, not much more than a light 4-6-2.

Something like this could be a good seller, though, to those who like logging engines.  As noted, driver size happens to be that of an existing switcher in Bachmann's line, and a behemoth of a logging Mallet, Sierra's famous 38, has 50 inch drivers, the same size as under the Bachmann USRA 0-6-0. 

It's not advisable to post links at the moment due to some virus issues here, but a search for "Mallets in the Tall Timber" will take you to a site that lists all the logging Mallets built, plus some that were proposed but never built, including the Biles-Coleman engine that is the prototype for Bachmann's large scale model.

[Doneldon]

Freak-

Mantua has sold both tank and tender 2-6-6-2 loggers since I was a kid (and that was so long ago that I'm a kid again). They, well, it, really, since they use the same mechanism, are solidly built and very reliable. That's not a surprise after so many years of manufacture. However, it would be very risky for Bachmann or any other moderately priced line to bring out a competitor for the Mantua locos.
                                                                                          -- D

[Steam Freak]

Mantua has sold both tank and tender 2-6-6-2 loggers since I was a kid (and that was so long ago that I'm a kid again). They, well, it, really, since they use the same mechanism, are solidly built and very reliable. That's not a surprise after so many years of manufacture. However, it would be very risky for Bachmann or any other moderately priced line to bring out a competitor for the Mantua locos.
                                                                                         -- D

"Solidly built and very reliable".  You're joking right? Mantua's have NOT had a very good reputation. Nor do they even have decent detail. They look very toy-ish. They also look absolutely NOTHING like the compound mallet that Clover Valley #4 is; as well as the G scale model Bachmann built. If Bachmann or any other company built an HO 2-6-6-2T, there wouldn't be any competition or risk at all. Mantua would loose that battle. Hands down!

[J3a-614]

Cogitating about this made me think of a minor dilemma for producing such a model--which one or ones do you build?  Take a look at the "Mallets in the Tall Timber" site, at the engines that were built.  A lot of them were one-off jobs, some looked like they were built from parts in a bin (and probably almost were), with custom fabrication of things like water tanks (not a big deal for Baldwin, but a big deal for the cost of dies at Bachmann). 

It's interesting to note that Bachmann chose a locomotive that was proposed but never built as its prototype for the large scale model.  Part of that was undoubtedly that the large-scale line is narrow-gauge based, but if that were the case, why not pick the engines that were built, Uintah Railway's 50 and 51, which later became Sumpter Valley's 250 and 251?  Or why not even go with an export engine, which is the 2-8-0?  Alco built a number of narrow-gauge export 2-6-6-2s as well, including some engines that went to Romania (!) that had outside frames!

[Pacific Northern]

Note, the 2-6-6-2 in both the tender and tank version made by Mantua have been updated and re-released a few times now by Model Power.

The new versions have quite acceptable running characteristics.

I have both versions of the new re-released locomotives and would not hesitate to recommend them to anyone.

Also, note that there were a number of different versions of the 2-6-6-2,s tender and tank versions made by Mantua, the later editions were significantly  improved over the earlier open frame versions.

I agree, it would not make sense for Bachmann to re-tool to release an HO version now that Mode Power has released their version of the 2-6-6-2's. The newest release now has sound, pity it is MRC, but sound never the less

[Steam Freak]

I repeat:

"Mantua looks very toy-ish and has no real model detail. They also look absolutely NOTHING like the compound mallet that Clover Valley #4 is; as well as the G scale model Bachmann built".

I haven't seen too many simple-expansion logging mallets, have you? Bachmann got it right with their G scale model. Now unless you all want to go buy a $900 dollar brass compound mallet, I think it would be wise if Bachmann came out with an HO scale version of their G scale model.

Mantua aka Model Power's 2-6-6-2's aren't even real locomotives. They based them off of COMPOUND articulated engines. Lets take Weyerhauser Timber Company's 2-6-6-2T for an example. Well that was a Compound-expansion engine. Mantua made it into a simple-expansion locomotive. And no, it would be impossible to kit-bash them into what they are suppose to look like. Sumpter Valley and Unitah's 2-6-6-2 was a real locomotives.....however it was only Narrow Gauge. Oops!

As for railroads that used Standard Gauge Compound 2-6-6-2T's?

1. Rayonier Inc.
2. Clover Valley Lumber Co.
3. Weyerhauser Timber Co.
4. White River Lumber Co.
5. Potlatch Lumber Co.
6. Saginaw Lumber Co.
7. Feather River Lumber Co.

Want more?  http://www.steamlocomotive.com/2-6-6-2/

[Pacific Northern]

You dismiss the Mantua/Tyco too easily,

http://loggingmallets.railfan.net/models/mantua/mantua.htm

I have mainly HOn3 brass logging engines on my layout now, but some years ago I used a few of the Mantua, Bachmann Shay and Rivarossi Heislers.

[Doneldon]

PacNo-

I'm with you. The Model Power (nee Mantua) 2-6-6-2 was a solid model which allowed lots of folks to run articulated locomotives who would have been unable to afford the alternatives. They were easy to customize or super detail and were real attention getters plodding along on the twisty tracks which showed them off so well. And they ran well, especially later versions. The earlier ones required a bit of fine tuning but that was also true of the brass examples back in the day. I don't understand why they seem to be so reviled in this thread.
                                                                                                                          -- D

[WoundedBear]

And Doneldon....I will agree with you guys on this topic.

I am very happy with my couple of Mantua 2-6-6-2's that run on my layout. Here's one of the tenderized ones. MRC sound too.....not factory, I installed it before Mantua started doing it.



Sid

[electrical whiz kid]

For some reason-not too sure why-the Mantua 2-6-6-2 (of which I am a proud owner of-as well as a very large stack of Playboy), always reminded me of the GORRE AND DAPHETID...
Rich C.

[J3a-614]

For reference, here is that "Mallets in the Tall Timber" page:

http://loggingmallets.railfan.net/

There are several neat features on it, including a logging Mallet roster with illustrations of about every logging Mallet built (some with dimensions), comments on painting of stock Baldwin locomotives (surprise--the stock Baldwin paint job was an olive green, not black), a link to a photo roster of export locomotives (and some of those are interesting, including 2-8-8-2Ts, 4-8-2s, 4-8-4s. and even a 2-8-8-4, all on narrow gauge), and a dissertation on logging Mallet models, including the Mantua 2-6-6-2 and 2-6-6-2T.

The export locomotive link:

http://narrowmind.railfan.net/

The model page:

http://loggingmallets.railfan.net/models/modelmallets.htm

From the commentary on these Mantua engines:

"Starting in the early 1980s, Mantua Metal Products began producing an HO scale 2-6-6-2 that they dubbed the "articulated logger."  Since then, many of these articulateds have been sold in a variety of road names and in kit form, making it probably the most common logging Mallet related item produced.  The model itself is based on the narrow gauge Uintah #50.  Mantua solved the gauge problem by scaling up the locomotive to standard gauge proportions.  While this makes what should be a small tank engine into a behemoth comparable to Sierra #38, the result is still quite presentable.  The models look right at home on a logging layout, and they run better (and cost a lot less) than any of the brass logging Mallets."

Oh, there were some simple logging Mallets, but the only roads to use them were the  Uintah (50 and 51, later Sumpter Valley 250 and 251, both narrow gauge) and Weyerhauser (105, 106, 107, and 111, all standard gauge).  These engines were rare compared to the much more common compounds with their cylinders of different sizes, and apparently Weyerhauser even decide to return to compound engines after the last of the simples were built in 1930.

A simple 2-6-6-2T that was proposed for Simpson Logging Co. in 1927 but never built looks a lot like the Mantua model, and perhaps it should; notes with the proposal say it was, like the Mantua model, based on the Uintah's engines.

It's interesting to note that all of the simple 2-6-6-2s were built as tank engines, although some were modified as tender engines later.

Weyerhauser also had the only 2-8-8-2s (200 and 201) built for logging service in North America; both were tender engines, and both were compounds.

Have fun.  

[Steam Freak]

For reference, here is that "Mallets in the Tall Timber" page:

http://loggingmallets.railfan.net/

There are several neat features on it, including a logging Mallet roster with illustrations of about every logging Mallet built (some with dimensions), comments on painting of stock Baldwin locomotives (surprise--the stock Baldwin paint job was an olive green, not black), a link to a photo roster of export locomotives (and some of those are interesting, including 2-8-8-2Ts, 4-8-2s, 4-8-4s. and even a 2-8-8-4, all on narrow gauge), and a dissertation on logging Mallet models, including the Mantua 2-6-6-2 and 2-6-6-2T.

The export locomotive link:

http://narrowmind.railfan.net/

The model page:

http://loggingmallets.railfan.net/models/modelmallets.htm

From the commentary on these Mantua engines:

"Starting in the early 1980s, Mantua Metal Products began producing an HO scale 2-6-6-2 that they dubbed the "articulated logger."  Since then, many of these articulateds have been sold in a variety of road names and in kit form, making it probably the most common logging Mallet related item produced.  The model itself is based on the narrow gauge Uintah #50.  Mantua solved the gauge problem by scaling up the locomotive to standard gauge proportions.  While this makes what should be a small tank engine into a behemoth comparable to Sierra #38, the result is still quite presentable.  The models look right at home on a logging layout, and they run better (and cost a lot less) than any of the brass logging Mallets."

Oh, there were some simple logging Mallets, but the only roads to use them were the  Uintah (50 and 51, later Sumpter Valley 250 and 251, both narrow gauge) and Weyerhauser (105, 106, 107, and 111, all standard gauge).  These engines were rare compared to the much more common compounds with their cylinders of different sizes, and apparently Weyerhauser even decide to return to compound engines after the last of the simples were built in 1930.

A simple 2-6-6-2T that was proposed for Simpson Logging Co. in 1927 but never built looks a lot like the Mantua model, and perhaps it should; notes with the proposal say it was, like the Mantua model, based on the Uintah's engines.

It's interesting to note that all of the simple 2-6-6-2s were built as tank engines, although some were modified as tender engines later.

Weyerhauser also had the only 2-8-8-2s (200 and 201) built for logging service in North America; both were tender engines, and both were compounds.

Have fun.  

Thank you!! Im glad at least someone is paying attention to my posts and not acting like a typical politician having the information I provide go in one ear and out the other.