N Scale PRR Small Steam Options

[peteski]

I have never seen the appeal on the huge steam (i.e. x-10-x, or larger, or articulated) unless you happen to have a huge layout where 100 car trains where those big drag freight engines look good.  And so few of us have layouts like that, it must just be the American "bigger is better" psyche.   

That is a viewpoint of an operator or at least a layout owner. But don't forget that there are plenty of collectors out there who like those unusual things (like large impressive locos with lots of wheels). I know that I do.  Lots of people buy those models to admire, not to run them. I have display case with all sorts of oddities (from li'l Arnold critters to giant Big Boys and Big Blows).  Actually, many layout owners also collect models. So they might be interested in some huge loco which might never run on their layout.

[Point353]

I have never seen the appeal on the huge steam (i.e. x-10-x, or larger, or articulated) unless you happen to have a huge layout where 100 car trains where those big drag freight engines look good.  And so few of us have layouts like that, it must just be the American "bigger is better" psyche.   

Some have access to club layouts where "huge steam" might not look so out of place and running 100-car trains is quite feasible.

[Missaberoad]

Some have access to club layouts where "huge steam" might not look so out of place and running 100-car trains is quite feasible.

This... The n trak influance is still huge... Same reason why modern unit trains are so popular in N scale... Easy to run on a club layout...

Personally i like the mid sized stuff, I pine for more pacifics, mikados and later small steam

[peteski]

Some have access to club layouts where "huge steam" might not look so out of place and running 100-car trains is quite feasible.

Yeah, they look very impressive in that setting. I do sometimes take my display-case-models and run them on the club's NTRAK layout.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Thanks to a photo from @mmagliaro , I was able to put this together yesterday, showing that making an H6 out of an MDC/Athearn 2-8-0 using the B6 shell looks good.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

So that means that an H3 converted from one of these is possible, as is an H6.

And I really like that F from the MDC engine. I'll be on the lookout for one of them now.

[Dave V]

I like that a lot.  As someone who has a bunch of those little MDC and Athearn 2-8-0s, I recommend going with the Athearn one.  They run very well.  That said, converting one to DCC is quite possible but not trivial.  Google is, of course, your friend in that regard.  One guy has a YouTube video of one of these with a Tsunami onboard so it's possible!

As I think of it, though, the MDC/Athearn 2-8-0 is powered by the tender...  If you plan to replace the tender to something more like what an H6 pulled, you have a substantial amount of work ahead of you.

Calling @Chris333 !

[peteski]

As I think of it, though, the MDC/Athearn 2-8-0 is powered by the tender...  If you plan to replace the tender to something more like what an H6 pulled, you have a substantial amount of work ahead of you.

Calling @Chris333 !

Yeah, and it is pretty much filled by a rather large motor. IIRC, they used a small H0 motor in this loco.  No room for sound decoder. Even a non-sound decoder might be a tight fit. Replacing the motor with something smaller should help, but might affect the smooth performance of the stock motor.  Having said that, I'm going from memory - I haven't fondled one of these for quite a while.

[Cajonpassfan]

Thanks to a photo from @mmagliaro , I was able to put this together yesterday, showing that making an H6 out of an MDC/Athearn 2-8-0 using the B6 shell looks good.

(Attachment Link)

So that means that an H3 converted from one of these is possible, as is an H6.

And I really like that F from the MDC engine. I'll be on the lookout for one of them now.

Before you put a lot of effort into this, and it will take effort, I'd look into using a Tomix 2-8-0 chassis. The Athearn loco is too small for this in my opinion: the front of the cab should be almost over the rear axle instead of hanging way out back (and the cylinders need to stay aligned with the stack). Added advantage: motor in the cab with room in the tender for all kinds of DCC magic. And no blind drivers. Just saying...
Otto K.

[Chris333]

My old MDC 2-8-0 to Ma & Pa bash:
https://goo.gl/photos/zrMeeb3g6n9r4tyD9

You can use just about any motor and it will still run well. The gearing is in the loco. You can see I was working with a Mashima 1015, then changed to a Faulhaber 1016.

Ma & Pa loco still sits in the basement un-finished 

[brokemoto]

One Who Knows...

I always meant to ask you:  What did you use for WM passenger car lettering?.....or did you?

[Cajonpassfan]

My old MDC 2-8-0 to Ma & Pa bash:
https://goo.gl/photos/zrMeeb3g6n9r4tyD9

You can use just about any motor and it will still run well. The gearing is in the loco. You can see I was working with a Mashima 1015, then changed to a Faulhaber 1016.

Ma & Pa loco still sits in the basement un-finished 

Wow Chris, what a stunning little model! You really ought to finish it...
Otto K.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Wow Chris, what a stunning little model! You really ought to finish it...
Otto K.

Agreed.

If you need inspiration, come visit, and I'll take you up to Ma & Pa country. It'll be hard to resist...

[mmagliaro]

Before you put a lot of effort into this, and it will take effort, I'd look into using a Tomix 2-8-0 chassis. The Athearn loco is too small for this in my opinion: the front of the cab should be almost over the rear axle instead of hanging way out back (and the cylinders need to stay aligned with the stack). Added advantage: motor in the cab with room in the tender for all kinds of DCC magic. And no blind drivers. Just saying...
Otto K.

Otto:
Good point.

The problem is that the Athearn engine has VERY small drivers, thus a short wheelbase, and those nutty inner blind drivers only make it that much shorter.  (Yes,  know that engines like this really did have blind drivers in real life, but on the Athearn engine, the oversized flanges on 1 and 4 make the inner ones stand out.  I always thought this made the engine look kind of toy-like).  The flanges are .025", which isn't awful, and it will run on code 55 track.  But with such small drivers, you really need to keep the flanges all that much smaller to avoid proportion problems.

A PRR H6 should have 56" drivers.  The Athearn engine has only 42" drivers across the treads (which on the inner drivers, is all you've got!).

[Cajonpassfan]

Max, we're on he same page here. I've always thought blind drivers don't translate well in N scale, for reasons you mention, and the Athearn is an earlier generation prototype, with much smaller drivers. The loco I had in mind for this bash is actually a Micro Ace (A9715) not a Tomix, my bad. The drivers scale to about 54", with fixed wheelbase of just under 16'. It's much smaller then the Bachmann Consie (which was a huge prototype), see pics. It's a sweet runner, too. I bought it to build an ATSF 1950 class 2-8-0 which is about the same size as the Pennsy H6, another pic below.  Of course, it's still a way down on the list of "projects"...
Ed, if you're following this, the dimension between the c/l of the cylinders/stack and the rear axle is just about 21', for what it's worth.
Otto K.

[Dave V]

Also don't want to lose sight of what the cylinders should look like (versus the steam chests on the Athearn model):