Large Scale Central

It's not enough. (Bachmann 2-6-6-2)

Having followed the article on One Twenty Point Me, and having read the subsequent follow up, I find myself a little less than thrilled at having preordered a 2-6-6-2. But, the die is cast. I’m now the proud owner of a six hundred dollar starter kit.

That said, I have a “Technical Advisor” of my own, who is capable of doing to mine what is described in the review. It’s a good thing, too. While my modeling skills have come a long way in the last nine years or so, I still don’t think in thousandths (eighths is sometimes a challenge…) and I fear I’d be the proud owner of some immobile metal hash if I were to try to undertake the various mods beyond rotating the eccentric crank.

So now I’m happy, right? My locomotive is as it should be, and all’s well in Shangri-La.

Nope. It’s not enough.

Take a look at this fellow’s photos:

http://www.customrcmodels.com/Gardenrailroad/bachmanns_2_6_6_2_mallet.htm

First of all, look at the rear swing of the “Myerized” locomotive. The rear frame is jacked almost sideways under the cab, and the coupler is swung to the stops, making the following car moved almost half off center with the locomotive. Also notice the huge gap between the frame and the cab floor – on the prototype there’s an I-beam arrangement that supports the bunker, and provides a center for the trailing truck as it arches forward to this arrangement… since it’s been left off here, the rear of the frame just, well, floats.

Inside the cab, it looks like someone designing the cab looked at a photo of the cab, and missed that there’s a seperate lever for the firebox doors and the automatic brake; in the Mallet cab, the automatic brake lever looks to be about two feet long, and points toward the firebox. The independant brake looks like the bell valve on the Diesel. The electric light has two shutoff valves, one above and one below the fixture for the light bulb, while the glass itself has none.

And then there’s the boiler itself. I will skip the bit about the saddle tank, because it’s not fair to expect the manufacturer to anticipate kitbashing. I do have an issue with the boiler FORWARD of the saddle tank having a squared off frame at the bottom instead of being round like it should be.

So … now I have quite a lot on my model making plate, don’t I? I need to remove the frame forward of the firebox, and fabricate a new boiler and frame. Salvaging as many of the appliances and fixtures from the original locomotive, I need to build a new superstructure for the locomotive with that boiler. I need to refit the cab so the valves are on the pipes (not the electrical conduits) and the controls are as, and where, they should be. I need to determine whether, with the new larger boiler, I can keep the existing cab, in which case I have to remove the fuel bunker, and extend the roof, or have to use a new cab, in which case I need to modify the cab floor to accept it.

And, I need to tell my “Technical Advisor” that I want to figure out a way to lock the rear engine assembly in place, and rework the front engine to hinge with the back engine, like God intended, and still work. Then I will probably have to duck and cover for awhile while he cools off. At least we have qualified technically minded folks in our community who can help with this kind of re-engineering, and achieve good results.

Oh, yeah, I have to do something about a tender too. While I didn’t mention the electrical nightmare that is this engine, I’m going to need a place to put some electronics. At this point, until there’s a paradigm shift, or perhaps a coup d’etat, I’m pretty much expecting I’m going to have to electrically gut anything that comes out of Philly, and am prepared to do so. Anyone know where to get a really good fire flicker unit that works well on 14.4 volts?

Did I mention I could have bought two brand new “Connies” and built a “never built” mallet very similar to the proposed RGS one (which would have used two K-27 engine assemblies) for less money?

I think Bachmann had a great idea, poorly executed. I hope whatever comes next (in the “new ideas” department) is a little more in keeping with the lines of the K-27, Consolidation, and the other Spectrum engines that we’d come to know and love.

Amen.

Matthew (OV)

As an addendum (so no one misinterprets the “edited” flag) …

I realize my description of the air brake lever above may be confusing to some.

There should be a lever for opening the butterfly firebox doors. There is not, at least in the photos linked previously. The automatic air brake lever, viewed from the door of the cab, might just line up with such a lever if you took a photo from that perspective.

It looks to me (which means: this is my perception of the situation, not necessarily what actually happened) that someone saw a photo of the cab from that perspective, where the air brake lever lined up with the firebox door lever, and instead of making a firebox door lever and a regular size automatic brake handle, interpreted what they saw in the photo as one long handle for the brakes. Otherwise, (again, it seems to me) this means they intentionally didn’t put a handle on the firebox doors, and deliberately made the air brake handle several times as long as it should have been.

Clear as mud? Good. Now explain to me why the treadle for the firebox doors is modeled pointing straight up instead of down on the floor where it should be?

Ok. Shutting up.

Matthew (OV)

“on the prototype there’s an I-beam arrangement that supports the bunker”

One slight problem with your rant- There was never a “prototype” of this locomotive. According to the manufacturer the model is based on a proposal from Baldwin for a company that went out of business before they could have them built! How can it be innacurate if it never existed!

Thank you very much for pointing that out. My only real bone of contention with you is, the above was a discussion of a model, and my efforts to make a silk purse of what increasingly appears to be a sow’s ear. You, like many on the Bachmann forum, appear to have “rant” confused with anything that isn’t gibbering slobbering praise of a model, no matter what may be wrong with it.

But, I suppose we expect that of you. Just so we don’t run on for pages with you calling people names, and waving flags, I concede:

I’m wrong. The 2-6-6-2 is a great engine, and runs well right out of the box, and looks just fine. Since no one was ever built, it’s impossible for there to be any mistakes of any kind, and any way to improve it, as it’s the pinnacle of model railroad perfection. I can only hope they build me a dozen more just like it. (Geez, this is beginning to sound like the Aristocraft board!)

Do you think maybe from now on you could just avoid reading and responding to threads I start? I’m sure we’d both feel a lot better, and we could talk about trains instead of the tripe, semantics, and angst which seem to be the part and parcel of your contribution to any discussion.

See, if this were a real rant, I’d have added “you 6%$#!! troll” to the above. Since it’s not, I wish you a pleasant evening.

Matthew (OV)

Oh, and in case you thought this was the start of some more fun for you, you may rest assured this is my final post that will even acknowledge your existence, on this thread, or anywhere else. I will not give you the fodder to damage my discussions further. I would ask that everyone else respect my wishes on this, and simply ignore anything Mr. Sauer has to say in this thread, and not respond to it.

Mathew:

Since there was never a 1:1 scale prototype, no photos of it or its appliances can exist, and consequently there couldn’t be any interpretation of said photos. Not at all implying that Bachmann couldn’t and shouldn’t have done a better job, but any prototype comparisons just aren’t valid.

What do you see as the minimum radius required when the rear engine is fixed and the front pivots? While I totally agree that it is proper for the Mallet, I would think it would require significantly larger radii than the Bachmann product. If they had done the fixed rear engine in the first place, I can imagine the outcry about it requiring a radius larger than R1!!

I too see Durango Dan’s One to Twenty Point Me website (link) review and especially the update. It’s an excellent, detailed analysis of the valve gear, eccentrics, mechanical clearances and potential improvements.

Unfortunately all his reporting and revisions are cloaked in “. . . our Consultant . . .” (Dan’s capitalization) and “. . . ordered from a model railroad machine shop . . .” so it makes it virtually impossible for others to follow his path to getting competent work done on the locomotive. You seem to be doing similar.

There are several “consultants” that I wouldn’t trust to even get near a new 2-6-6-2 and others that I would accept in a heartbeat. Just because it’s currently popular to bash the world leader in 1:20.3 scale locomotives and rolling stock doesn’t make every basher a qualified expert. Wouldn’t it be better if everyone just published the resources for all this information and these improvements, rather than it requiring a secret handshake to join the 2-6-6-2 improvement club? Even Bachmann published the name of their consultant.

BTW, the 2-6-6-2 is on my acquisition list if I ever get paid for the projects we completed last year. That’s one reason I am following every writing on this locomotive and will certainly be looking for reports of your success!

Happy RRing,

Jerry

Trolls? We have trolls on this forum?
Oh, No!

Matthew (OV), I have a question.
Does the proposal drawing of this locomotive not show it as a Mallet?
Does the drawing not call it a 2-6-6-2 articulated MALLET locomotive?
Is not the unit as built a MEYER?
It seems strange that the company would let the information out, of the drawing showing that information, and still build a Meyer.

Matt,
when I built my mallet based on an Annie, I had the rear drive fixed and the front drive pivotted as per prototype, allowing sideways and vertical movement of the lead truck. considering that the lead truck was load bearing on the smokebox saddle on mallets, the minimum possible diameter for my 4-4-4-0 freelance mallet was ten feet. To build other than a Meyer (and most, if not all mallets on the market, are really meyers), would raise the minimum diameter rule from eight feet, which is currently accepted on largescale models, to at least ten feet.

   As we know,  this would alienate a majority of the 'enchanted children'.  I am firmly in agreeance with your discussion and do not consider it a rant.  The B'mann forum,  since the announcement of the 'K' around two years ago,  has become little more than a mutual praise arena for the enchanted ones to lick boots and any who speak out against them ('Amen Choir' as one devotee put it) must be part of the problem and not part of the gameplan.  The only outstanding thing of the latest creation,  is the lack of praise on other than the manufacturer forum.  Three largescale problems in a row does not bode well for the future.  It must be us the consumers,  who are the problem,  because we actually think with our minds and not our wallets.
Jerry Bowers said:
Mathew:

any prototype comparisons just aren’t valid.


Apparently nobody told Baldwin that. The original proposal contained the following phrase:

“similar to “16 28/46 ¼ DD 20, dwg 9, Neg. 10205, except 36” gauge, 60 to 70 tons weight”

Unless you are suggesting that the above drawing doesn’t exist (which it does) or that the locomotive to which it refers, Weyerhaeuser #110, of which there are many photos, drawings, and a working prototype to look at is less valid a comparison for the modeler than for the Baldwin Locomotive Works, or that the prototype locomotive is actually a Meyer, has the unusual cab anomalies I pointed out, or has an unsupported frame under the cab, I don’t see the validity of your argument.

I am quite sure that the final product of my shop will not negotiate R1 curves. I have no plans to ask it to do so; most of my locomotives will not, and I see no reason why I should insist that this one should. And, I am NOT bashing Bachmann. In fact, as a show of support and confidence, I bought the damnable thing, even in the face of warnings to “wait for the review” … I think my $600.00 buys me the right to constructively criticize what I bought, and I do mean constructively; I’m attempting to work out solutions to the problems instead of simply ranting about them. I’ll leave the gushing to the marketing department.

Matthew (OV)

Jerry Bowers said:
Mathew:

Since there was never a 1:1 scale prototype, no photos of it or its appliances can exist, and consequently there couldn’t be any interpretation of said photos. Not at all implying that Bachmann couldn’t and shouldn’t have done a better job, but any prototype comparisons just aren’t valid.

What do you see as the minimum radius required when the rear engine is fixed and the front pivots? While I totally agree that it is proper for the Mallet, I would think it would require significantly larger radii than the Bachmann product. If they had done the fixed rear engine in the first place, I can imagine the outcry about it requiring a radius larger than R1!!

I too see Durango Dan’s One to Twenty Point Me website (link) review and especially the update. It’s an excellent, detailed analysis of the valve gear, eccentrics, mechanical clearances and potential improvements.

Unfortunately all his reporting and revisions are cloaked in “. . . our Consultant . . .” (Dan’s capitalization) and “. . . ordered from a model railroad machine shop . . .” so it makes it virtually impossible for others to follow his path to getting competent work done on the locomotive. You seem to be doing similar.

There are several “consultants” that I wouldn’t trust to even get near a new 2-6-6-2 and others that I would accept in a heartbeat. Just because it’s currently popular to bash the world leader in 1:20.3 scale locomotives and rolling stock doesn’t make every basher a qualified expert. Wouldn’t it be better if everyone just published the resources for all this information and these improvements, rather than it requiring a secret handshake to join the 2-6-6-2 improvement club? Even Bachmann published the name of their consultant.

BTW, the 2-6-6-2 is on my acquisition list if I ever get paid for the projects we completed last year. That’s one reason I am following every writing on this locomotive and will certainly be looking for reports of your success!

Happy RRing,

Jerry


Basically what I was getting at but what do I know I’m just an 6%$#!! troll.
It’s a pity that there isn’t a manufacturer out there that can build models that please everybody!

Oh, so we do have trolls.
Shame, it is.

Why the new identity Mr. Goodson?

Nice catch Jack!

Tim Brien said:
Matt, when I built my mallet based on an Annie, I had the rear drive fixed and the front drive pivotted as per prototype, allowing sideways and vertical movement of the lead truck. considering that the lead truck was load bearing on the smokebox saddle on mallets, the minimum possible diameter for my 4-4-4-0 freelance mallet was ten feet. To build other than a Meyer (and most, if not all mallets on the market, are really meyers), would raise the minimum diameter rule from eight feet, which is currently accepted on largescale models, to at least ten feet.
Have you got a photo of that? Also, if you can get into a bit more about the load bearing front truck, I'd like to hear some more about it. I have read that with an 0-6-6-0 that the front engine bears some weight, but on a 2-6-6-2, 2-8-8-2, etc, that the front bearing (on the prototype) actually "floats" with about 3/4 of an inch clearance, and the front truck takes up some of the load, but I'm not sure exactly how it's arranged.

I’m hoping my worst case scenario with 5+ foot radius curves will not be any worse than this:

Hm. Can’t get the link to post without embedding, and don’t want any nastygrams, so…

http://bpratt15.home.bresnan.net/uintah_paintings.htm see the last one on the list,at the bottom.

I suspect that on my version that the front engine will bear more weight than the prototype would.

Matthew (OV)

Matthew, on the prototype, the lead drive truck was pivotted to the front fave of the rear truck and supported the smokebox at the saddle. The saddle mount allowed a little sideplay. There are several sites on mallets that show the saddle construction and the rear pivot attachment. On a model the scenario is quite different. Any weight bearing on the lead drive truck will cause the lead drive truck to maintain a crab-like stance when it exits a curve. The early split gearbox LGB Mikado had a similar problem when leaving curved sections of track. On a model that the lead drive truck is pivotted to a fixed rear truck, then no weight-bearing load must be transmitted to the lead drive truck. In effect, the boiler/smokebox is cantilevered forward of the cab and is essentially ‘floating’ in air. This method requires weight to be placed over the rear truck to counteract the weight of the body forward of the rear truck. Any weight over the lead drive truck will cause the truck to maintain the curved attitude when it exits the curved track section. I required two B’mann Annie cast weights, bonded inside the firebox, to counteract the tendency of the body to tilt forward and apply weight to the lead drive unit.

(http://www.lscdata.com/users/tim_brien/_forumfiles/madmountaa.JPG)

This photograph shows the lead drive truck rear pivot (just forward of the rear set of cylinders) and the forward ‘pivot’ utilising the curved slot of the pilot truck from the Annie chassis (under the smokebox saddle). On a straight section of rail, a clearance of approximately 1mm exists to ensure that the saddle does not exert a load on the lead drive truck.

(http://www.lscdata.com/users/tim_brien/_forumfiles/maaami.JPG)

Last photograph shows full lead truck deflection (equates to ten foot diameter).

(http://www.lscdata.com/users/tim_brien/_forumfiles/madmountag.JPG)

Thanks for that, Tim. Here’s one of the references I’m using:

http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/blwmal00.Html

You don’t have one that shows the underside or more of the connection between the two trucks do you?

Matthew (OV)

This is about the closest photo that I have for the pivot point. I really just beefed up existing structure and used a large screw encased in a brass tube as the pivot point. It has proven very reliable. Link to You-Tube showing Mallet. For some reason I have only a couple of very short videos of it in action. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=pmmFuUPcF8w&feature=channel

(http://www.lscdata.com/users/tim_brien/_forumfiles/aaame.JPG)

Again, thanks. I’ll be interested to see how mine goes.

Matthew (OV)

Tim (or anyone else who’s built one)

Since you’re not bearing boiler weight on the front truck, how do you get any adhesion out of it?

Matthew (OV)