Author Topic: Changing the attachment of the engines on a mallet? Possible?  (Read 1125 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

2-8-8-0

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 214
  • Respect: 0
Changing the attachment of the engines on a mallet? Possible?
« on: August 29, 2008, 04:01:28 PM »
0
Hey folks. I just was wondering if anyone had ever altered an N scale mallet so that the rear engine was rigidly mounted to the frame and the front was hinged at the rear? Nothing says big steam to me like a mallet coming through a curve with the lead engine swung out to the side, and am wondering if the effort would be worth it (this dosent look like an easy project)

Anyone ever try this?

Tim
Just say no to dummy couplers.

Kiasutha

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Respect: 0
Re: Changing the attachment of the engines on a mallet? Possible?
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2008, 10:40:11 PM »
0
Interesting thought.
Makes me remember my old Mantua mallets in HO...

Tried it? No; well sort of, many years ago; but I started with 2 small conventional steamers (Bachmann Prairies) and connected them. A "bit" different than modifying a commercial "mallet"...
It "worked"; but those old B'Mann mechs just weren't up to it.
I dropped the project for the sake of my thinning hairline...
 
Since all the mass produced articulateds I've seen in N are built more like Mason bogies or "double Fairleys", it would be quite a job. The rear is fairly easy, but the new drive to the front engine and keeping weight on the drivers will take some doing...

I think I can live with the degree of "swing" we have on the front; enough to look good considering most "model" curves.
It does kinda bug me knowing they swing in 3 places they shouldn't, but I don't really see it much, most of the time.
Not enough to risk messing up some fine running locos anyway.
JimR.

Walkercolt

  • Guest
Re: Changing the attachment of the engines on a mallet? Possible?
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2008, 01:46:32 AM »
0
Yeah, try to make a hinged boiler like some Mallets had! You might could make the rear-drivers rigid, but the beast might need 30" radius curves, too. I remember something from John Armstrong's track planning book saying a 4-8-4 would need an 8 FOOT radius curve in N-scale for 65 MPH. The Tehechapi Loop would be over 5 1/2' across in N-scale, and that was and is 25MPH track. How SP got Cab-Forwards across it, I don't know. ???