N Scale PRR Small Steam Options

[mmagliaro]

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

Which is just another reason why bashing an H6 will be harder than making an F3 from the MP 2-6-0.
But the H6, I do agree, would be the more desirable engine to have.  The steam chests could probably be scarfed off something like that old Trix K4.  They were a little too small for the K4 anyway, so they might be a good fit for this.

Ed, have we sufficiently discouraged you?  Or does this encourage you to sink your arms in up to the elbows and really cut and hack to build an H6?   

Otto:  I like the Micro Ace idea.  They make good running engines, and you have a good wheelbase match there.

[ChristianJDavis1]

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.

To be fair, Tomix does make a model of the JNR 9600 class as well, but it would probably be in Ed's best interest to go for the Micro Ace model (good runners with tweaking and are easier to find than their Tomix counterparts). Never played with a Tomix steam engine, but I know they are a little rarer then the Micro Ace.

[Lemosteam]

Here is a PRR H3 overlay to both the image of an H3 and an Athearnn 2-8-0,  Pretty spot on, except for the size and location of the tender, which Chris found a solution for, and the cab.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[Lemosteam]

Looking at the tender separately, it appears that the axle centers and bolster centers of the Athearnn as very close too but the height of that tender....

OTOH, the must be a different tender class on the actual H3 builders photo, because the overly is waaay off...

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[badlandnp]

Been reading through this whole thread. Neat idea. So, now I have been looking for some pics of a project I was doing. The MDC motor can be replaced pretty easily with the can motor from Bachmans 4-6-0. Not too much modification required. This left me room for a Loksound chip alongside it, with a bit of grinding inside the tender body to keep the wires free. A TCS 1/2 inch speaker fit in the top of the cab, which sacrificed some weight. But a li'l 2-6-0 doesn't pill a lot anyway, and these little monsters could pull a lot for their size.

Now to find those pictures......

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Ok, so, MDC + B6 != H6. Too bad, that would've been an easy path. The Japanese engine, clearly, is a better way to go, but that's getting a bit exotic for what I was hoping for.

The F3 is a no brainer. I have my eBay alert setup...

And yeah, that H3? Well... uh huh. Also, that builders photo tender looks smaller than the one on 1187 in Strasburg, too.
Not by much, but by some: http://www.steamlocomotive.com/pennsy/rmop/prr1187-glueck1.jpg

[pjm20]

The Atlas 4-4-0 is spot on for early PRR D classes, and with some modifications, you can make it look like the later D classes like the D10, which lasted into the early 20s:

[Cajonpassfan]

Here is a PRR H3 overlay to both the image of an H3 and an Athearnn 2-8-0,  Pretty spot on, except for the size and location of the tender, which Chris found a solution for, and the cab.

(Attachment Link)

Yes, the Athearn 2-8-0 is pretty spot on for an H3, which was a small 1885 vintage locomotive. The H6 is bigger and heavier and replaced the H3 in freight service starting in early 1900's. If one were to build an H3, the Athearn would be perfect. For an H6, I believe the Micro Ace is a much better choice.
Btw John, I love  the way you're able to transpose dimensional data over photos, very cool and a great tool....
Otto K.

[Lemosteam]

Yes, the Athearn 2-8-0 is pretty spot on for an H3, which was a small 1885 vintage locomotive. The H6 is bigger and heavier and replaced the H3 in freight service starting in early 1900's. If one were to build an H3, the Athearn would be perfect. For an H6, I believe the Micro Ace is a much better choice.
Btw John, I love  the way you're able to transpose dimensional data over photos, very cool and a great tool....
Otto K.

Thanks @Cajonpassfan it is really quite simple if you have a .pdf of the drawing, and an image of the loco in MS Paint.

While viewing the pdf, use the Edit>Select Image command in the pdf file to make a bounding box selection and copy.  Note, the image copied is relative to the current magnification of the pdf file when the image is copied.

In your loco image in MS Paint, make sure Transparent Selection is checked in the "select" pull-down  Use CTRL C to paste the pixels copied from the PDF and move around.  if the scale is not right go back to the pdf and change the magnification there and re-copy by right mouse clicking on the higlhlight selection and copy the selection again.

The secret is the pdf file background must be white.  MS paint recognizes white pixels as transparent when the Transparent selection is toggled on.

[Cajonpassfan]

Thanks @Lemosteam, appreciate the explanation. Neat!
Otto

[badlandnp]

And here's a picture of the fit. Since the tender is the same for both locos, the 2-6-0 and 2-8-0, you should be able to get a fit. The only negative is that the tender is way oversize for 1890's.

[robert3985]

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.   

The small steam I definitely get.  I think the reason, at least for me, is that it most looks like it "fits" on our typical medium and small layouts.   4-4-0, 0-6-0, etc, look really at home on a single bedroom-sized layout.  A 2-8-2 or 4-6-2 looks good, too, as long as it's the biggest thing in the room.  But a room size or smaller layout  with 10 engines that large just looks overwhelmed, at least to me.   The biggest thing on my layout is a 4-8-4 passenger engine, and it looks BIG in a 9x12 room layout, but as long as it's the only one, I can excuse it as a big passenger train that's just "passing through" my countryside.

We also have a massive problem with a lack of steam switchers in N Scale.  For those who model steam, our yards should be crawling with them, but the 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 generally run or look so lousy that you just don't see them much.

@mmagliaro  Max, I hafta disagree with ya.  It's not the BIG ENGINES that look out of place on a small/medium layout, it's the LAYOUT that looks out of place around the big engines!  A fairly small layout, even one that fits in a 9X12 room, if properly designed, will accommodate large steam...and make the engines and trains behind them look appropriate.  The same holds true with large layouts...if large engines are going to run on them, then certain things need to be done to make the layout look "right" surrounding the big steam. I think the operative word you used is "typical" for room-sized layouts.  For big engines to look at home on small layouts, the layout needs to be not typical in some important ways. 

Also, when modeling large railroads, such as the PRR, omitting large steam engines from the roster loses a lot of the "flavor" of the road since it, along with several other major railroads, was pretty famous for its big, powerful steam engines.

Although Dr. Dave's ( @Dave V ) N-scale Juanita layout is pretty small, fairly large steam engines and passenger trains look pretty good on it...if run slowly and looked at on certain areas of it which minimize the small curves.  I'm not sure how big Otto's ( @Cajonpassfan ) layout is, but from his photos, it handles big steam just right and they don't overpower it at all.  Ed's ( @ednadolski ) new sectional Tehachapi Loop, which isn't "large" by any definition, is going to make big engines and long trains look fabulous!  There are other TRW layouts which aren't large that run big steam and look really great too, and it's because of their not-typical design and execution, usually meaning more depth than usual, broad visible curves (hiding small curves) and using layout scenic dividers to isolate one scene from the next...AND...building prototype LDE's or near-prototype scenes.

Fortunately, small steam also looks exponentially better running on these layouts than spaghetti bowl track-plan layouts, so designing and building a layout that accommodates big steam engines and long cars benefits small steam and little trains too.

Of course luckily for small steam engine fans, there are beloved railroads that ran only small steam, or sections of big railroads where only small steam was used.  Just like using prototype scenes as an example to run big steam through, little steam will benefit equally from modeling prototype elements.

Unfortunately, for a running model railroad bigger IS better...and I don't mean the size of the engines...I mean the real-estate the trains run through.  My good friend Gregg Cudworth is filling his basement chock-full of Nn3, code 30, hand-laid track, double-decked RGS...and I mean his ENTIRE basement, excluding the bathroom, his workshop and the crew lounge.  He runs his standard N-scale D&RGW trains at the shows we attend with our sectional layouts at two to three shows a year, but the rest of the time...he runs little, narrow gauge engines and trains through BIG scenery. 

I also don't think it's an "American psyche" thing at all...it's just that many railroads in the USA had huge steam engines, and fans of those railroads sometimes would like to run those engines, even if they don't have the real estate...and for sure if they do.

Gregg Cudworth's done the opposite of what is "typical" by having the space to model a large, class 1 prototype...but he has chosen to model the RGS...nearly ALL of it!

Here's a little sample....

Photo (1) - Gregg Cudworth's RGS...a specific place and bridge on the RGS in Nn3 with one of Gregg's little narrow gauge engines pulling a train:


My own sectional layout was designed to "grow" as I acquired more space for it, and now it occupies a minimal room space of 11X26, but it only has two major LDE's right now, with two smaller ones on the ends...but it's at least 30" deep (in one place 54") has minimum 24" spiral-eased, superelevated mainline curves and is composed of ONLY prototype scenes...and was designed specifically to run the largest of steam engines, UP's Big Boys, Challengers, huge FEF-3's, UP TTT's and huge diesel and turbine power.  The idea was to let the scenery dominate the trains like it does in 1:1 reality, so the largest steam power in the world would "fit" in N-scale, using 1/160th's unmatched scenery-to-track ratio within the limitations of the length of my arms and a 6' module length.

Also, there's no compunction to run 100 car trains behind big steam for it to look proper.  I run a maximum train length that will fit in my 9', 7.5" passing sidings, which works out to a Big Boy, thirty 40' reefers and a caboose, or an A-B-A E-unit lashup and 15 passenger cars.  The freights look just fine with only 30 cars and a caboose, so big steam engines really DON'T mean that to look "right" they have to be super long.

Anyways, enough thread drift for today, except to say that your medium and small sized engines are quite fabulous Max.  One day, I'd love to see what you would be willing to do with a "big" steam engine!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Dave V]

Love it!  Although I'm sticking with HOn3 for the RGS because...Blackstone.

[EdKap2]

Baad influence???

Model Power mogul probably best place to start an F3.  The F3b class were radially stayed.  Add a Shapeways E/F/H class cab and oil headlight. 

Bachmann ten wheeler could be start for an F1 mogul ... even though billed as 63" drivers

For the H6, Tsuguo Ebihara' s conversion of Kato JNR 9600 to PRR C1 is probably good starting point for the H6, because the 9600 starts life as 2-8-0 and 53" (vs proto 56") drivers.  Side views of his engine are reminiscent of the H6 in RRMPA. Between Trix and Shapeways boilers, decent model could be done.  Depends on how many 9600s you can find on internet...

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Ah ***** guys, I better start to behave, my Dad's here!

I hope he doesn't go read this... https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=42457.0