I posted a preliminary photo of this as part of a recent thread on the Aristo 2-8-8-2, but I’m going to start this one so it has its own. When the Bachmann 2-6-6-2T was released, there were a lot of cool things about it … but as the initial reviews showed, some concerns as well. So, when I ordered mine, it was with the idea that it would never really see service ‘as delivered’ and would become something entirely different. The prototype issue is a sticky one in that the model is B-mann’s concept of what a proposed 3’ gauge 2-6-6-2T would have looked like, had it ever been built … but in the case of this specific prototype, never was. At the Slate Creek, that’s not a problem, so long as the resulting model makes sense with the rest of the 1:20 equipment; that is, while there’s no drawing or locomotive to scale down to a model, the result has features and dimensions that make sense. (Please, I don’t want this thread to turn into a re-hash of that weeks-long flap.) To me, the cab on the model ‘as delivered’ would have been a bit uncomfortable (in the real world) for a big fellow like me, and the whole back of the locomotive looks … odd … (It does on the prototype too, incidentally.) So, I thought we’d try a new, larger cab and a tender. Originally, I had planned to remove the tanks as well … there was some speculation that there might be (as with the 0-4-0) an actual boiler under there. Now, at the time, this was a project of such large scope that I’d never have tackled it on my own … but just like the big guys, I found a “Technical Consultant” who could make what I was talking about happen without having to buy more than one of these things. So … this was the original concept:
(that’s a hack job of the original promo photo.) As it turned out, there was NO boiler under the tank, and because of the way the floor of the locomotive forward of the cab was constructed, there was no easy way to make one. There’s a great big hole in the middle of the structure (for a speaker) and even at the front, the boiler is not exactly round, being supported instead by a flat section of the rear frame. Also, without the tanks, the boiler is especially skinny, and would make for a very long, narrow looking locomotive, particuarly when it was discovered that the cab, while plausible, would have several dimensions similar to the cab of a Maine 2-footer. With the factory cab in place (and modified, as above) it’d look OK, but once you see the resulting locomotive in perspective with other parts of the 1:20 world, it really is quite a small thing. For it to make sense to me, it’d need a much larger cab … meaning the tanks would have to stay to make it look at all close to proportionally “right.” No really good answers were forthcoming … there were only a couple of similar prototypes with an American outline … and it might really have made sense to just start from scratch instead of trying to modify this particular piece. So, the project stalled for awhile. I called up every photo I could find of similar locomotives, and along the way learned quite a lot about how the real ones work. Ultimately I found this photo of one of the Uintah/Sumpter valley locomotives “mid transition”
Now I know that this was just a matter of a photo taken before the SV shops could remove the tanks … but I’ve seen reports that after they did, there was a weight and driver slip issue requiring lengths of rail and other things to be attached to the walkways … so in my story, the tanks were left both for extra water capacity and added weight. Then came the issue of sourcing the “donor” parts. A B-mann 2-8-0 was located, and the cab and tender salvaged. The 2-6-6-2 rear frame was modified, lowering the cab and cab floor, and a new drawbar system was designed. This locomotive is very different in “layout” than the SV and similar engines in that the boiler is more or less ABOVE the rear drivers instead of BEHIND it … and that made a trailing truck hard to position correctly, as the cab was considerably further forward than it was on other types, and for awhile we considered making a 2-6-6-0 out of it … lack of actual prototypes and a desire to maintain the original arrangement eventually convinced me to decide on a more heavily modified rear frame assemblyto make room for the trailing truck. Meanwhile, from the initial reviews, there was a running gear issue to address. New eccentric rods were fabricated, and the Walshaerts link was modified. The front engine was altered, moving the motor from the middle of the block to the rear, and adding a hinge system that would allow it to pivot from the front engine. The rear engine was fixed in place. As delivered, the dry pipes on the rear engine are in two pieces, allowing it to swing left and right … this was closed with brass tubing, and the rear frame was attached to the lowered cab floor frame. A sliding bearing system was designed for the front of the front engine, where the flat “floor” of the superstructure actually proved beneficial, although some heavy modification was required to make it work. So, the locomotive is now a functional Mallet … this will remove some of its adaptablility to railroads with smaller curvature, etc, but it only has to work here, and all initial reports indicate that it should that nicely. And then, from there, the standard radio/battery conversion, phoenix sound, etc. The locomotive is nearing completion, a project now of some three years … and here’s the first photo that gives the sense of what it’ll look like when finished:
Left to do: The sound triggers are being worked out … they’ll be magnetic ones. The trailing truck is being modified, and then it’ll need some engineering testing to work out any issues. At that point, it’ll be shipped to the SCRY, where the cab details will be upgraded, decals and other details applied, and then it’ll be ready for service! Stay tuned for more photos as that happens. Matthew (OV)
