[color=darkgreen]Ouch, guess I am glad I waited! I applaud the ability to tinker on such mechanisms, but I do not have the intestinal fortitude to attempt such a daunting task. Too bad, because the more I look at the 2-6-6-2, the more I like it…at least from a distance. I will await some person of renown bringing happiness to said valve gear, before I partake of this nifty beastie. [/color]
The valve gear should be fine, post treatment … the one in the Durango Dan review appears to be running just fine now, and I expect mine will be identical, for all intents and purposes. What we’re into now is how to “remallet” this thing … and make it into a locmotive and tender instead of a tank engine.
Matthew (OV)
Matthew, remember that most of the mallets around are really meyers and as such are really like a diesel locomotive with two powered trucks. When one affixes the rear truck and pivots the lead truck then problems arise due to any gauge clearances built into the loco. If I was to load bear my mallet lead truck, then conceivably, the smokebox could hang up to an inch or more out of alignment as it leaves a curved track and enters a straight section. This is because there is nothing to assist the body of the loco to align with the straight section of rail, because of the difference between the inside gauge of the rail and the flange to flange measurement of the drive wheels on the trailing/rear powered truck. The front drive truck is really a ‘powered’ pilot truck and can only carry any weight that can be affixed to it. However, remember that in my loco there is two cast Annie weights sitting over the rear truck. Of course there is a tendency for the locomotive body to expend some of this weight, due the overhanging potential of the body forward of the rear truck and this does slightly take some weight off the rear axle on the rear truck, but what it does accomplish is putting more weight on the lead axle on the rear truck. This loco is definately not a slouch and while I have not tried it in a tractor pull contest, it certainly has potential. Photo shows drive chassis.
(http://www.lscdata.com/users/tim_brien/_forumfiles/madmalb.JPG)
John Joseph Sauer said:
"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!
tac
www.ovgrs.org
Just another reason why, when I need a new loco (too many now!)…I’ll try to find NOS Bachmann, at least by then we should be aware of any needed fixes!
I’ll admit, this loco in question is a “looker”…but I’m interested in a “runner”.
cale
John Joseph Sauer said:
"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!
C. Nelson said:
I'll admit, this loco in question is a "looker"....but I'm interested in a "runner".
120.me blog said:Cale, It sounds like a runner to me?
Some will find the above issue is of little personal relevance to them. Either because it’s impossible to look at both sides of the locomotive at the same time, .... Moreover, there are modelers to whom the inaccurate action of the expansion link when the locomotive is in motion would never have caught their attention had the issue not first been raised here. .... To the above groups, we happily say "go enjoy your engine!" Chances are that any defects, cosmetic or other will never effect these modelers.
I think if I had the cash, I’d rather pre-order the LGB Unitah Mallet, but as I dont have the coin, if I want a Mallet I think I’ll take Tim’s approach and build my own, at least that way I be certain it will work right “out of the box”.
Jack,
I’m not one of those “modelers” mentioned…
cale…
Vic, I agree for the funds one could have the Unitah and prob w/o the fixes…just the wrong scale.
Terry A de C Foley said:Apples and oranges... No starship has ever existed, and the "science" and techology of it is almost completely mythical. There is no prototype for reference. Mallet locomotives do exist and are based on existing, well-known technology. Although the specific prototype for this particular Mallet was never constructed, there are plenty of other Mallets -- and Mallet plans -- which can serve as reference.
It's a bit like criticising a model of the Starfleet 'Enterprise'.......both are imaginary.
Of course, in order to be affordable and operable on a wide range of layouts, any model locomotive (and Mallets in particular) will require a certain amount of “artistic license”. The acceptable level of variance will depend on the individual.
I guess the world needs Rivet Counters too!!! Rivet Rivet said the frog!
(http://www.lscdata.com/users/blueregal/_forumfiles/oldmanme.jpg.gif)
C. Nelson said:Not for me ;) :D
Vic, I agree for the funds one could have the Unitah and prob w/o the fixes...just the wrong scale.
Quote:
It's a bit like criticising a model of the Starfleet 'Enterprise'.......both are imaginary.tac
www.ovgrs.org
O that is just great. What next, No Santa or Easter Bunny.
This is a real bummer. I’m not sure I can over come this bit of bad news.
Victor Smith said:Vic (or anyone interested):
I think if I had the cash, I'd rather pre-order the LGB Unitah Mallet, but as I dont have the coin, if I want a Mallet I think I'll take Tim's approach and build my own, at least that way I be certain it will work right "out of the box".
No need to pre-order or wait. I have a test run only LGB Uintah #51 that I would be happy to turn into cash, and it is available to anyone ‘off my shelf.’
BTW, since it is currently a point of great concern, that LGB “Mallet” also is actually a “Meyers,” with both engines pivoted and the trailing (hook & loop) coupler truck mounted. The leading coupler is mounted to the pilot, but is a dummy.
I also dug out my two stored H0 brass articulated locomotives. Both the Little River 2-4-4-2 and the Weyerhauser / Sierra #38 2-6-6-2 are true Mallet configurations, with the rear engine firmly attached to the frame / boiler. I know the relatively tiny Little River locomotive will easily go around 18" radii, but if I remember, the Sierra 2-6-6-2 required something like 21" radius to be comfortable. Those radii would be equal to ~6’ 5" and 7’ 6" respectively in 1:20. Remember: RADIUS, not diameter.
I truly can’t imagine Bachmann producing a locomotive that would require 13’ diameter curves like the 2-4-4-2, much less the 15’ minimum diameter that the 2-6-6-2 would be happy on.
Happy RRing,
Jerry
Matt,
I have experienced no operational problems with my installation. I knew that fixing the rear drive would increase the minimum diameter, but felt that if able to run on my ten-foot diameter curves, then I would be happy. The lead drive behaves exactly like a pilot truck, tracking into curves and aligning on exitting curves. It shows no tendency to ‘rear-up’ and has no discernible slip, in comparison to the rear drive truck. I installed a front mount point on the lead truck, but its only purpose is to stop the lead truck swinging wildly when handling the loco. I may have mislead slightly with my thoughts on an earlier posting. When exitting a curve, if the front truck is loaded, then friction prevents the body of the loco from straightening up when leaving the curve. It is the loco body that attains the crab-like stance. By ensuring no body weight on the lead drive truck, then the body responds to the position of the rear drive truck to which it is rigidly attached.
I would not expect the lead truck to have the drawbar pull of the rear truck and in fact that is not its intention on the model. The prototype has the weight and the tight rail clearances to enable both trucks to exert equal effort. The model mallet is purely cosmetic when set up prototypically. To gain maximum adhesion on a model, the Meyer configuration is more preferable. When I chose to run with my design several years ago, I was actually severely discouraged by 'those with the experience (the Meyer camp)' and almost abandoned the project. In my opinion, I have achieved my aims, as afterall it was initially just a design exercise, but has excelled itself on the track.All very good information. Thanks, Tim.
Matthew (OV)
John Joseph Sauer said:There there JJ I can understand your pain, but, that was not so hard to acknowledge after all, now was it?
Basically what I was getting at but what do I know I'm just an 6%$#!! troll. SNIP
Don’t suppose you’ve looked at your avatar lately…
John Joseph Sauer said:He looks at it every day and has a good chuckle. And waits for the next comment regarding the obvious (from one of the dull knives on the fora). :) :/ :)
Don't suppose you've looked at your avatar lately......
You all act like children… but it is a toy train you are talking about