I’ve always liked Baldwin’s Articulated Loggers and although not my principle modeling interest I do have a logging line as an adjunct to my main layout, providing me with all the excuse I needed to acquire one. I understand that the model is a scaled-up version of the Uintah narrow gauge machine and thus no prototype exists for the mantua model. Nevertheless, it’s close enough to suit me and of course it can be super detailed to more closely resemble a prototype Baldwin. Although there are some brass beauties around based on the Baldwin prototypes, they are way to rich for my blood, and I’m very happy with my choice.
I purchased my model from Trainworld and I selected #353001, a black-painted, undec, DCC ready, saddle tank, oil-burner version because that’s closer to the Baldwin prototypes in the photos I’ve seen than the side tank versions. I always buy DCC ready where possible because I prefer to install my own decoders and I don’t like sound.
The reason for this post is that I’ve read a number of articles stating that these models have current pickup problems along with different ideas of just how many wheels are involved in collecting current, one poster even maintaining that because the right rear driver of the rear engine contains a traction tire, this assembly only has 2-wheel pickup. I wanted to find out for myself just how Mantua accomplishes this feat.
The first thing I did after receiving the locomotive was to run it on my layout with the throttle set to 0000. It seemed to run okay so next I replaced the couplers with scale-head Kadees. The loco came through from the factory with a pronounced droop in the front coupler so I corrected that problem as well.
Installing a decoder requires that the oil bunker be removed by pulling it straight back then pulling the cab up and back. No screws are involved but be careful pulling so as not to break anything. Once removed, a rat’s nest
One thing I like about this locomotive is that it’s built like the prototype in terms of the way it articulates. The rear engine is rigidly affixed to the locomotive frame while only the front engine, connected to the rear engine by a link, is free to swing while negotiating curves. Some model articulateds are designed to have both engines pivot and/or swing in order to accommodate sharp curves. With its 50" diameter drivers, and relatively short rigid wheelbase, negotiating sharp curves as befits a logging railroad should not be a problem for this engine.
In order for the front engine to support its share of the locomotive weight and to ensure good tracking and current pickup, a spring-loaded pin projects upward from it and contacts the bearing plate attached to the underside of the boiler. This applies a downward force to the front engine while allowing it to follow curves and accommodate changes in grade.
Finally, both the front and rear pilot trucks are spring loaded with Mantua’s conical spring to help keep their wheels on the rails and aid in tracking. While testing the locomotive for its current pickup paths, I discovered that the metal front engine housing is electrically live. Thus, if a metal leading truck with an uninsulated wheel on the engineer’s side were substituted for the factory part, it would provide another current pickup point - 4 wheels instead of 3.
Although the OEM lead and trailing trucks are slightly different (2-different model numbers), they share the same characteristic of being an outside bearing design and, being made of plastic with double insulated wheels, they were never intended to act as a current pickup. Now, every photo I’ve seen of the Baldwin standard gauge articulated loggers show them as having inside bearing lead and trailing trucks usually with spoked wheels. As luck would have it, I happened to have in my junk box a brass, 2-wheel, inside bearing truck with a single-insulated
Thanks for posting your experience with this loco! I have thought about buying one and doing similar and your post has answered many questions I’ve had.
I’m sorry folks but after giving such high marks to the locomotive I’ve discovered what I believe to be a design flaw that should give pause to anyone considering its purchase. After determining the current path pickup in the locomotive and changing the lead truck, I tested it by running it back and forth on a tangent track section of my layout devoid of turnouts. It was based on this paradigm that I reported it was a good runner. Then, I put it to work which of course involved running it through turnouts. It was at this point that I noticed the locomotive would sometimes balk going through the turnout or even stop and require a push to start up again. It seemed that this always occurred when the drivers hit the frog. After continued inspection I saw that the middle (blind) driver of each engine sometimes sparked as it went over the frog. This never happened with the flanged drivers. Next, I noticed that, compared with the flanged drivers, the blind drivers had an inordinate amount of side play, probably designed to enable the locomotive to negotiate ridiculously tight curves. At the wing rail of the frog, the two rails of opposite polarity are closest together so I placed the blind driver over this point and, using a toothpick moved the blind driver from side-to-side. Because of the excess side play, I was able to move the driver so that it contacted both rails of opposite polarity at the same time, thus shorting out the system and causing the spark. Whenever the locomotive went over the frog, shorting and sparking would occur depending on the relation of the blind driver to the opposite polarity wing rail.
My turnouts are all Peco insulfrog (Nos. 5, 6 and 7 curved) and all of my other locomotives, steam and diesel, run through them without a problem so it is definitely due to excess play in the blind drivers that is the culprit here.
This leads me to believe that the problems with current pickup of th
Thanks for taking the time to do such a detailed write up and root cause. The common game plan with these engines seems to be the return for refund option when a problem is found.
This happens to other engines as well but the owners do not understand it is a partial short as opposed to a stall.
Try moving a flanged one from another position to check for clearance.
This is not that hard of a task. Scribe a couple of marks on the axle and wheel for reference and use a NWSL puller. A good test prior would be to add some slip in shims. I would try to get a thin washer and slot it for a temporary fix. Then install it and see. A fiber or brass plumbing washer might be a likely candidate.
My personal dealings with Model Power have been less than satisfactory. They are a far different company than Mantua was, with the way
I am also the owner of one of these Mantua 2-6-6-2t logger DCC ready locomotives. I purchased DCC ready with the intention of installing a Tsunami sound decoder and speaker into it. I could have purchased a DCC version, but desired the Tsunami over the factory-installed MRC decoder. It required removing some of the boiler weight and inner boiler plastic body to get that Tsunami in there.
I fought with poor power pickup from the time I removed this locomotive from the factory packaging, and discovered as you (and likely numerous other modelers) did the nature of the power pickup design. My solution was to heed the advice of several of my more learned forum members, and add additional power pickups using wipers, on both rear drivers.
BIG difference in power pickup performance, needless to say, but still not perfect. I thoroughly lubricated the side rod pivot points and wheel bearings with a conductive model lube, and that helped even more. As has been mentioned, this model’s design is very challenged in the power pickup department, and will never be my smoothest runner.
I purchased this locomotive because I desired this particular wheel arrangement and look, and couldn’t embrace the cost of a brass version. Every desire and “must have” comes at a price.
One of these came to me last year. As an experiment, I tried out a TCS Keep Alive add on capacitor set in addition to the TCS decoder. It worked astonishingly well. Since room is very limited in the cab and bunker, use a separate decoder and place in the bunker and place the Keep Alive capacitor set in the cab near the roof. I did not have the courage to try adding sound.
Thanks for all the advice and words of encouragement from Soo Line fan, oregon shay and PHARMD98233. Some of your ideas I will try in the future. I did receive a prompt response from Model Power to my email detailing the locomotive’s problems and the tech person who answered me told me to send it back to him and he would check it out for me. He also wrote that no one else has contacted him with a similar problem with this loco but that he would see what he could do. Curious! I’m sending it out to him today and I will keep you posted about further developments. It seems that the simple purchase of this locomotive has turned into a real Odyssey. Let’s hope that its resolution doesn’t take as much time as Homer’s account covered.
I thought you might like to be aware of some prototype information about the Mantua 2-6-6-2t locomotives. My plan is to super-detail the Mantua logger loco that I purchased. Digging around on the old innerweb I found some relevant data on it that you might be interested in. As you know, Baldwin Locomotive Works made locomotives like the models Mantua sells. The Mantua item# 353103 is their version of an actual Baldwin loco, the White River Lumber Co. #7, which is Baldwin’s builder # 58272. Because I need some accurate photographic references to correctly detail my loco, I was able to find some decent pictures of Baldwin’s locomotive in operation. Check out the web link that follows - scroll down to March 1925 and follow the link for some photos of this locomotive.
Thanks very much for the links. Although I already knew of the Logging Mallets site, the second one is new to me. Since we’re both interested in super-detailing our loggers, I also found some photos that could aid us in this quest. The first site contains photos of an earlier NWSL brass 2-6-6-2 built by TOBY and based on Weyerhaeuser’s #105.
The second site is Precision Scale’s home page and by scrolling down you will find photo of a prototype Rayonier 2-6-6-2T which supposedly serves as the basis for their forthcoming models.
I figured it’s time for an update although I have nothing new to report. As already stated, my 2-6-6-2T arrived at the Model Power Service Center in Farmingdale, NY on Friday, August 23rd. As of yesterday I had received no word from them on the status of the repair and consequently sent them an email asking for a progress report. I have so far not received a reply. I hope I will hear from them this coming week and will share the outcome with you as soon as I’ve been notified.
Thanks for the links, more good information. The brass products are very tempting, for sure - I’m still trying to wrap my head around the notion of their prices. I have talked with Model Power’s support people a number of times in the recent past - they seem sincere. I hope you get some satisfaction.
Another update but again nothing new to report. I never received a reply to my email so I called Model Power about a week ago and finally managed to talk to the repair technician, Michael Sicurelli. He told me that he had received the 2-6-6-2T but hadn’t written it up so forgot what had to be done. When I reminded him of the problem, he said that perhaps replacing the blind drivers with flanged ones would cure the problem, a solution to which I agreed. He said he would get on it and, I assume, send it back to me when the conversion was accomplished. Since then, I’ve heard nothing from him and so I called Model Power again today, asked for the repair department and was told it was closed today and to call back tomorrow.
Now, my loco has been at Model Power since Friday, August 23rd and I had never heard from the company until I called them, and since then, nothing. I don’t know what’s going on but I’m rapidly losing confidence in Model Power. They have one of the worst customer relations policies I’ve ever experienced and I’m beginning to wonder if I’ll ever get my loco back. At this point, I’m very doubtful that I would ever buy another product from them again. Let’s hope that I can get through to them tomorrow.
It’s now time to continue my tale of woe. To recapitulate, I sent the 2-6-6-2T back to Model Power for evaluation and repair. During its sojourn there, I sent them one unanswered email and then spoke to them twice on the phone. During the first conversation, after reminding the technician of the reason the locomotive was there (not very confidence-inspiring), he said that he would replace the blind drivers with flanged ones which, I believed, would cure the problem of shorting across the wing rails of the frogs. After another week with no news I called again and was told the locomotive was ready and would ship to me the following day. By now, it had been over a month since Model Power had the locomotive at there repair facility. This they did, however, since I received the locomotive back three days later.
With great expectations and high hopes I eagerly opened the box and removed the model. When I noticed that the blind drivers were still in place, my heart sank and a flicker of apprehension passed through me that, after all this time, nothing had been done to resolve the problem. Quickly placing the model on my layout, I ran it through turnout after turnout watching the blind drivers sparking their way merrily over the frogs’ wing rails as they shorted the two opposite polarity rails together. Needless to say, I will never, ever, buy a product from Model Power again. I figured there was no point in contacting them again (I know when I’ve been hustled) and that it was up to me to resolve the problem on my own, if it was resolvable. I do believe that if I had never contacted them they would never even have sent the locomotive back to me. Maybe they figured that I would just forget about it. Ultimately, I think there is a serious design flaw in the locomotive and I don’t think they’d ever admit to that.
I decided to carry out a step-by-step approach to see if I could ameliorate the situation. Noting that the blind drivers had an inordinate amount of sid
I understand your frustrations,with Model powerless,I have been dealing with them for quite some time now for a Forum member from the UK,THAT HAS TO BE THE WORST RUN CO. ever,no one knows,whose job is what over there,there is supposed to be a shake up going on now to hopefully get it going right…I believe it is a shame too,it’s not Mantua’s fault.
zstripe, I’m sorry to hear that you’ve been having problems with Model Power, also. It’s good to hear that there’s a shakeup going on as they certainly seem to need one. Let’s hope for the best.
I purposefully held off writing this post because I wanted to test a similar type of locomotive and compare it with “Sparky” (my new name for the Mantua 2-6-6-2T), first. I happen to have a United Sierra 2-6-6-2 imported by Pacific Fast Mail (my only brass locomotive). It was bought new by an old hand friend of mine, sometime in the late 50s, early 60s I believe, at a cost of US $60 from a dealer. Doesn’t this price make you want to cry? It’s a beautiful model (still unpainted) and runs very well even with its original open-frame motor. At some point my friend gave it to me as a gift and I plan to eventually install in it a can motor and DCC. Since it’s identical in wheel arrangement to Sparky, I thought I’d do a comparison. The only mods I’ve so far done to it have been to spring the lead and trailing trucks and to build a centering device for the lead truck so that it actually guides the front engine in and out of curves, similar to the prototype. As you can imagine, it tracks very well. Additionally, the side-to-side driver play is much less than on Sparky and all drivers are flanged. So how did it perform out on the road? In a word, flawlessly - absolutely no sparking. It’s kind of pathetic to see a 50-some year old locomotive outperform an almost brand-new one, but there it was.
What are my options now? I’m guessing that I could eliminate the frog-shorting problem if I replaced the blind drivers with flanged ones. The problem is that I might not be able to do so because of lack of clearance between the drivers. It looks like replacement might not be possible because the flanges may make contact. I’m not sure but, since replacement drivers are relatively inexpensive, I just may go this route and give
Yes Model Powerless,is a trip to say the least,anyway,doe’s ‘‘Sparky’’ have split axle drivers? The kind that are two piece and go into the gear? The reason I ask,I had bought two Kato GP9’s different #'s otherwise identical,one ran perfect the other would run stop,run stop,it would stop,because it was shorting out,so I watched closer and sparking was coming from one of the trucks…I checked the wheel gauge and they where all fine,so i took the wheel sets out and noticed,that one axle,had more showing on one side than the other,what they had done was to get it in gauge,they had pushed one side of the axle in further than the other,so any lateral movement the axles would touch slightly in the gear and short out…I’m wondering if yours is doing the same…If you do need new wheels,I would recommend NWSL (North West Short Line,great service there…Good Luck!!
