Just curious. I’ve read several times where structure kits might not be to a true scale and be somewhat small. Does the same hold true for locomotive manufacturers?
First, I don’t own a huge stable of locos to compare, so I’m limited. I have a few Rivarossi’s (4-6-2, 0-8-0’s), a Genesis Challenger, Bachmann 4-8-4 and 2-8-0, and an IHC 2-8-2 Mikado.
The IHC Mikado has always seemed small in size to me. Boiler (diameter), height, it just seems small. I use one of the RR 0-8-0’s behind it as a helper many times, and the switcher seems to dwarf it. I ran it with the RR Pacific, using the Mike as a helper, and the Pacific dwarfs it (seems to).
This came to a head today as I decided the tender with it was just too small for a road loco in my dry ATSF, UP, SP region, where ATSF had huge tender’s with water capability. The 0-8-0 switcher’s tender was just as big as the Mike’s. I decided to try mating the loco with a larger tender. I had an old half stripped Rivarrossi tender (ATSF 3423, used with several locos), robbed a 6 wheel truck (actually rivarossi truck!) from a flatcar to replace the missing one, used small gears as shims for that truck and a homemade drawbar, mounted a Kaydee draft gear box with shims for height and hooked it up. The tender seems larger than the loco (not really, but it IS big, compared to it).
I like the conversion, though it really brings out the small IHC boiler diameter, further comfirming my perception of IHC locos being small for scale. So have you all run across manufacturers or models that really aren’t “right” when it comes to size? I’m not talking nitty-gritty details, but just actual size being real?
Thanks a bunch for comments. I look forward to learning something here for future purchases!
My First impression was; Hmm… HOn3 conversion candidates!!! Yes!!!
I guess it would take breaking out the Scale Rule & really checking if they were in Scale or not…
Builders specs changed greatly with trends & technology in the steam era.
I usually go by the ‘impression’ of the Cab sizes & the Ride heights.
However, in steam, I believe there is quite a bit of variance, especially with the small to mid sized engines, & the various builders of the time.
But, that is what makes it really interesting, at least to me!
I subscribed to this thread, as I want to hear what others have to say, & am very interested in your topic.
Thanks!
Tender swapping was quite common on some RRs. Tenders would be chosen according to the expected service for the loco, meaning some classes of locos used several different sizes.
As the end of steam neared, larger tenders became available and were applied to relatively smaller locos than they originally were assigned to.
I’m not familiar with the IHC loco’s prototype. However, there were some dramatic variances in the boilers applied to locos. Many real-life locos had some disproportionately sized boilers, so IHC may have simply been following real-life.
The IHC steam engines, although made with old tooling, are actually well proportioned for their prototypes. The Rivarossi 0-8-0 and 4-6-2 are based off some of the largest steam engines made with those wheel arrangements (especially the 0-8-0, which was a 3-cylinder giant!), while the IHC 2-8-2 is based off one of the smaller engines of its type. The Bachmann 2-8-0 is also fairly large. I have both the IHC and the Athearn Genesis models of the same USRA light Mikado, and the overall dimensions are very close (and the Genesis models were made as close to prototype measurements as possible).
The Challenger and 4-8-4 steam engines are very large, so a small to medium steam engine like a light Mikado would be dwarfed in comparison. One thing I’ve found with HO scale is that models are almost never undersized. In fact, models are often oversized to make room for big motors and gearboxes (just look at the old Athearn diesels, or AHM 4-wheel switchers!).
Your IHC Mikado is exactly the size it should be.[:)]
Gidday, just to back up Darths’ comments. Quoted from “Product Review” November 2008 issue of “Model Railroader”
" Made by International Hobby Corp, this model captures the overall proportions of the USRA (United States Railroad Administration ) Light 2-8-2 Mikado locomotive,"
I have the IHC 2-82 Light Mike as well. I always thought it a bit small compared to other engines, but other manufacturer’s engines are also BIG for the proper proportions needed to be an “actually scale model”.
As mentioned, if you are comparing it to the Challenger {which was huge} or even the 4-8-4 {which was also large in 1:1}, then you would be disapointed. The larger engines in real life dwarved some of the smaller lighter weight engines. And Bachmann locos can be a bit “oversized”.
Even the Mike {a heavy mike I think} at Steamtown in Scranton PA is a nice size, and can appear small compared to say, the Big Boy on display or some of the other larger 1:1 engines on display. Even ST’s Pacific seems bigger than the Mike there, and both are running engines, though the pacific is down for the necessary inspection/tear down.
Thank you all, especially Darth and Bear. I had not really looked at it from the perspective of others possibly being a bit larger than scale, like you said to fit motors in and such. This gives me a fresh angle to consider when I go into the train room again. And I know the Challenger and 4-8-4’s would dwarf it.
Like I said, I liked the conversion overall. It gives the Mike a more “road engine” look like I was after, and gives the 0-8-0 a more switcher look (a secondary “like I was after”), defining more of who the boss and who the helper is. I was able to couple the tender up quite close, closer than expected, and with minimal filing to the cab corners. For reference, I removed the electrical contact from the RR tender and used the existing hole for the new drawbar. The new drawbar was drilled for loco pin and tender screw at 13mm O.C,. I run 22" radius; with a larger radius it could have been even closer!
Yet to come (someday[*-)][:-^]), I would like to obtain a heavy Mountain or two, more Connies (the one I have is shot) and more Mikes, with a non-exsistent train budget of course!
That’s probably very true. After running it again this mroning for a while, it realy grew on me and looked more natural. I’ve had that thing for a long time with the shorter tender, but it looks so much better to me now.
BTW, it’s through these forums that I’ve gained the ideas about doing these things… reading about RR’s all over, what they ran, what all of you do with your models, the kitbashing and converting… I would have never done this project without all the information you all share in these forums. THANKS!
Even PRR couldn’t settle on a tender size for some of its L1 2-8-2s.
And just for fun…C&O’s G9 2-8-0 came with 2 different types of tenders a Vanderbilt or the standard rectangular.C&O also had some of the biggest Mikes around which made the G9 look small…
Got a chuckle out of your, “The tender looks bigger than the locomotive…”
Take a look at some Pennsy locos with their humongous 16-wheel ‘Lines West’ tenders - which were applied to a lot of different classes, not all of them huge. Or the NYC Hudsons that were fitted with the 4-10 pedestal tanks that came standard on the Niagara. Brings to mind the 5-year-old in Mama’s high heels…
As for immense tenders, the Santa Fe 16-wheeler didn’t take a back seat to anyone!
On the opposite hand, my steamers have limited fuel and water capacity. Of course, they only have to run about sixty kilometers, and can stop for water enroute. (The TTT is steeper, but shorter - 14.3 KM between end-of-the-line bumping posts. For those conditions, a large tender would be gross overkill.)
where the loco was a standard New South Wales Railway design coupled to a humongous tender which comprised about 20% of the weight of the trains they hauled. The water was necessary on account of the poor quality water available on the desert railway.
As a proportion to the loco, I would think these were bigger than the tenders on Santa Fe and possibly the biggest in proportion in the world. 4 of these tenders survived into the diesel era as water supply vehicles as much had to be carted 500-600 miles depending on which end of the railway you were at!
By coincidence, the local hobby shop, is dropping its model railroad line and focusing on radio controlled cars and airplanes. The cars are the main seller, with the planes a distant second.
Anyway, They are selling off their IHC steam engines for $79.99. Had a look and they have 2–8-0’s, 2-8-2’s and 2-10-2’s.These are all DCC ready.
I was tempted, at that price, Not bad looking and detail level acceptable but just do not need any more locomotives.
The 2-10-2 is a great locomotive Don. Got one for Christmas a few years ago when Loblaws in Canada had their “Presidents Choice” train sets during that time of year.
To take this in the other direction, I had an IHC Mogul, that I always felt looked to big and just didn’t look right to me! I suspect, as has been stated previously, that steam locomotive size varied. There could be big ones and small ones of various wheel arrangements.
I believe the prototype for this model was a very large SP 2-6-0, and that it’s another of those engines that are big for their wheel arrangement. I have one of these and consider it not only a very nice looking model but an excellent runner. I really like it, and have it lettered for my imaginary terminal line. I model B&O as well, whose B&OCT also had large, modern moguls, which gave me the idea.
Another problem with IHC engines, is wheel diameter. Almost all their engines were old Rivarossi’s which due to the pizza cutter flanges had drivers that were about 6" undersize, which would alter the perception of their engines versus another manufacturer’s.
IHC locomotives were made by Mehano, They were not old Rivarossi’s, but their own brand.
FYI Mehano is considered now to be one of the manufacturers of high end European locomotives.
Contrary to many stories, they did survive bankruptcy and continue to make model trains for the European market. They have not re-entered the North American market, nor does it appear they ever will. The Euopeon market is huge in comparison…