In a recent post, someone mentioned I have the Mantua 2-6-6-2 as part of my shortline’s roster, and I was wondering how good it is. Even if I don’t use it on my shortline, it would still be pretty cool to have one of those.
I have one, got it brand new. I put it on the track, and before the wheels turned one revolution the motor just started spinning freely. Never bothered to fix it, Someday, maybe.
I have the 2-6-6-2 with tender, this is the new version that comes DCC ready.
The engine was test driven and ran great, I have since added a decoder and the engine has great slow speed control and pulls well. I had intended to use it for servicing a mine but decided to run a Shay instead.
What is better, the 2-6-6-2, or the shay? I have had mine eye on both, but really, I’ve got my eye on a lot, anywho, which is better?
They are two different engines.
The Spectrum Shay, being a geared engine runs extremely SLOW. Some owners of the Shay have contacted Bachmann and posted on model railroad web sites wondering if there was something wrong with their engine that it ran so slow.
A Shay running 15 MPH would be a tab on the fast side, 10 MPH would be more the norm, but they could climb grades and they could pull. That is why Shays could be found in Mining and Forestry.
The Mallet was used in the forest industry but not to climb steep grades, it was more suited more for drag consists on less torcherous lines hauling significantly more weight.
If my Mine had been a larger operation I would have gone for the 2-6-6-2, but being a more modest size the Shay was the better choice. Remember the 2-6-6-2 is a far larger engine and the trackage would have to be more sturdy.
The 2-6-6-2 was a line-haul locomotive (designed to run on a line with 90 foot radius curves and 6.8% grades) while the Shay was designed to run at low speed on preposterous track. Somebody moving substantial loads for considerable distances on rails that don’t look like sidewinder tracks would probably want the rod drive because of its higher speed. For a short branch that squirms and wiggles over the natural contours of terrain that would ordinarily call for major earthworks, the Shay wins hands down.
That said, I roster a cosmetically modified Mantua 2-6-6-2T that has no problem with my 4% grades and 350mm radius curves, and can handle a train that would require doubleheaded x-6-x tank locos plus a pusher. I’m very happy with the performance of the basically stock mechanism.
I don’t own a Shay. The line is too congested to allow track space for such a slow machine.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with modifications)
Recognize that the Mantua “Tank Engine”, the one with the side tanks and no tender was the first one offered by this company. They have subsequently offered the same mechanism in a saddle tank version and a tender version. A potential “concern” with this process is that the initial side-tank locomotive was patterned after the 3-foot gauge Uintah Railway locomotive, which was then “inflated” in dimensions to become a somewhat oversized HO standard gauge locomotive. If one is looking for “an articulated” at a relatively low price, this may be suitable, but these models are not likely to closely match the actual dimensions of specific locomotives.
I do have one of the early Mantua 2-6-6-2 tank engines (with the Uintah heritage). I do sometimes enjoy watching the dual sets of drivers operate, but the engine is too big to fit through the doors of my roundhouse and it spends almost all the time in the display shelf. Newer versions may well have improvements to the mechanism. A difficulty with mine was that the one gearbox cover on the bottom was so low that it actually rubbed across the diverging rails when going over a turnout, causing a short. I ground down that cover plate some and then painted it with several coats of clear sealer/barrier to keep it from shorting out on turnouts.
My Bachmann 3-truck Shay (DC, no sound) operates beautifully and sees regular service. As mentioned in earlier posts, the usual assignments of these two different locomotives types (2-6-6-2 vs Shay) would have normally been quite different on an actual railroad.
Bill
Hmmmmm…I thought that engine was based on the GP 2-6-6-2T which later became the Sierra RR #38 when they removed the side tanks and gave it a tender.
I had an old PFM Sierra 2-6-6-2 with no running gear and bought one of these to use under that boiler, it’s an almost perfect fit.
Mark
WGAS
Ya, one of the early reviews of the engine in the 1980’s said that it was an up-sized version of a 3’ gauge engine, but I don’t think that’s ever been confirmed. As noted, the Sierra had very similar std. gauge engines, and the model isn’t too far off from some of the earliest Mallets like the c.1906 GN ones (except for the belpaire firebox of course).
Is this one of the new Model Power ones, or an original Mantua one?? I don’t know about the newer ones, but the original ones had a rubber/plastic tube that connected the motorshaft to the gearbox. A drop of ACC or something would probably resolve the issue, or adding a ball-and-socket joint or something similar. Back in (I think) 1989 Model Railroad did a cover story on someone who upgraded a 2-6-6-2 and tender that included that modification.
BTW the earliest ones came with open-frame motors, but by 1989 they were being delievered with Sagami can motors. Mantua offered a retrofit kit to add the can motor to older engines.
The HOn3 version of the Mantua 2-6-6-2T is a model of Uintah #50, easily confirmed by comparing it to prototype photos.
The standard gauge version simply widened the mechanism by 6mm, without changing anything else.
I don’t know how accurate the Mantua tender is for the (prototype) Sumpter Valley conversion of the ex-Uintah side tankers to tender engines. IIRC, both ended up in Guatemala, where they were scrapped.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Simple solution to the question, take the Mantua version with the tender and set it next to the PFM Sierra RR version. PFM also made a Uintah version of the 2-6-6-2T and while it is similar it is also quite a bit smaller.
Mark
WGAS
The HOn3 version of the Mantua 2-6-6-2T is a model of Uintah #50, easily confirmed by comparing it to prototype photos.
Yup. Here’s a couple of pics:
http://home.bresnan.net/~bpratt15/images/DPS/MalletAtAtchee.jpg
Pic of #51: http://home.bresnan.net/~bpratt15/images/DPS/MalletAtAtchee2.jpg
The prototype had 42" drivers and was 3 foot gauge whereas the Mantua version uses 50" drivers on standard gauge with proportions changed to match. They did something similar with their 4-6-0 which was based on Sierra #3 (pics here: http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24487 ). Sierra #3 has 56" drivers whereas the Mantua version has the same 61 1/2" drivers used on the Mikado with proportions altered to match. Mantua’s 4-6-0 is oversized for HO.
A pic of one of the engines in Guatemala: http://home.bresnan.net/~bpratt15/images/251inGuatBW.jpg
Incidentally, Sierra #3 has been returned to service. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fXape5S2Po&feature=related
Andre
Just for interest, I recently bought one of the new 2-6-6-2 tender engines, with the object of cosmetically modifying it to resemble one of the relatively few classes of South African Mallet; that being my area of steam loco interest. In my relatively unexpert opinion, it seems to be quite a decent model, especially for the price. The reason Mallets did not prosper there was the Garratt, of course, with its ultimate flexibility (no special clearances for high passenger platforms), even with the eventual enormous proportions and power.