I was looking through the latest MicroMark catalog which came with my latest order and was somewhat surprised to see them offering Mantua 2-6-6-2 locos. I had been under the mistaken impression that Mantua had gone out of business quite a while ago. I’ve never bought anything from Mantua so I have no way of judging their quality. I have vague memory that at one time they were associated with Tyco which wouldn’t get them any points with me. Is anyone here familiar with their recent products and have an opinion about their quality. They are offering two versions of the 2-6-6-2, one with a side tank and the other with a standard tender. Both versions are offered with or without sound but the ad says nothing about DCC so I am assuming these are standard DC locos.
I believe that the sound locos come with DCC:
When Mantua closed up, Model Power bought the name and the tooling, sent it overseas, never got the full line into production.
They did make some upgrades to the items they did get into production - DCC ready, better/modern motors, etc.
When Model Power gave up, MRC bought all of Model Power’s assets, So MRC now owns the name and the tooling. It is likely that any product currently offered is basically the same as it was under Model Power.
They run fine, but detail is still strickly 1958 “basic”. All of the Mantua line is/was generally freelanced. Sure, they follow the general arrangement of known prototypes, but detail level is highly generic.
Example - the well known Mantua Pacific follows the proportions and major details of the B&O P7 class at the end of its life - fully modernized - but the cab is generic, not even close.
The Mantua Mikado is nearly dead on for the DT&I 800 class, a rare and little known prototype. But again the cab is not even close.
Back in the day, many of us used them as kit bash starting points, but generally speaking there are better choices
I have a Mantua 2-6-6-2 with the tender, it is nicely detailed and runs very good. I bought it DC and I added an MRC 1731 DCC decoder. As with all my sound locomotives I built my own speaker enclosure.
The only negative I can say about this particular locomotive is it is rather noisy. That was the main reason for adding a sound decoder, to cover the mechanical noise and the decoder does a good job.
It is one of my preferred locomotives and I wouldn’t hesitate buying one.
Mel
Modeling the early to mid 1950s SP in HO scale since 1951
My Model Railroad &nb
I have 2 0-6-0 goats, one from Mantua in the 90’s, and another from Model Power with DCC. I like them both, never had any problems with either, and would not hesitate to buy another one. They’re both very reliable and good starting points if you require super-detail.
Sheldon:
You are correct that the cab is incorrect on the Mantua B&O P-7c/P-7e Pacific. Fortunately, Rivarossi produced a B&O 2-10-2 many years ago with the correct cab. Then they followed that with USRA heavy Pacifics and Mikados. Instead of tooling a new correct USRA cab, they used that same B&O cab on those engines. So if you can find a junker Rivarossi 2-10-2, 2-8-2, or 4-6-2, you’ll have the right cab for the Mantua engine. The tender is a whole different problem, but the Bachmann EM-1 tender could be modified to be a slightly short version of the tenders used on a few of those Pacifics.
Gotta be resourceful.
Tom
Whenever the talk gets around to incorrect details on mass produced locos and rolling stock, I’m glad I’m a freelancer. I don’t have to sweat such details. Everything is wrong on my layout. [:-^]
Got rid of all my Mantua. The proto 2000 steam runs so much better and looks better too and on e-bay cost the same many times.
I’m a freelancer too and I like the idea that I can create my own locomotive standards and details - but I do like them to be plausible for my location and era.
I also model the B&O, C&O and WM, but I don’t go crazy about everything being eaxct - close enough is good enough.
I’m more interested in the overall “feel” of the layout, rather than the correctness of every last piece of equipment. I do like stuff to be reasonably close, but, fore example, I actually prefer the selective compression of shorter passenger cars. I have a large fleet of Athearn and Concor 72’ cars, close coupled with working, always touching diaphragms, and added details. The close coup
[quote user=“ATLANTIC CENTRAL”]
jecorbett
ACY
Sheldon:
You are correct that the cab is incorrect on the Mantua B&O P-7c/P-7e Pacific. Fortunately, Rivarossi produced a B&O 2-10-2 many years ago with the correct cab. Then they followed that with USRA heavy Pacifics and Mikados. Instead of tooling a new correct USRA cab, they used that same B&O cab on those engines. So if you can find a junker Rivarossi 2-10-2, 2-8-2, or 4-6-2, you’ll have the right cab for the Mantua engine. The tender is a whole different problem, but the Bachmann EM-1 tender could be modified to be a slightly short version of the tenders used on a few of those Pacifics.
Gotta be resourceful.
Tom
Whenever the talk gets around to incorrect details on mass produced locos and rolling stock, I’m glad I’m a freelancer. I don’t have to sweat such details. Everything is wrong on my layout.
I’m a freelancer too and I like the idea that I can create my own locomotive standards and details - but I do like them to be plausible for my location and era.
I also model the B&O, C&O and WM, but I don’t go crazy about everything being eaxct - close enough is good enough.
I’m more interested in the overall “feel” of the layout, rather than the correctness of every last piece of equipment. I do like stuff to be reasonably close, but, fore examp
Sheldon, I’m curious about your diaphragms. I also went to 72’ streamline cars for the same reason you gave. I was wanting to use Diaphragms but all I hear are the negatives no positives.
So as not to hijack this post could you send me an IM with your diaphragm details.
Thanks
Mel
This is an old Mantua Pacific, reworked as a Boston & Maine P4.
It was a fun project. The dimensions of the Mantua model (length, height, width) match the P4 to within a few scale inches. I rebuilt the factory plastic pilot with a brass casting, and brass pilot deck air pumps. I decided that the racy slope front cab and oval stack of the P4 were just too hard to do, so I skipped those parts. The stock Mantua open frame motor and no-gear-box drive gave decent low speed performance, and after putting in a can motor, the low speed crawl became exceptionally good. I left the 6 wheel trucks under the tender, even though the P4 tenders had four wheel trucks. The paint is dark gray auto primer from a rattle can. This particular model must have come out of the Mantua factory 30 years or more ago, so it doesn’t really say much about current production, restarted under new management recently But it’s a good omen, the old Mantua’s were good designs, well manufactured. We can hope current production lives up to the good reputation of the old stuff.
[quote user=“RR_Mel”]
ATLANTIC CENTRAL
I’m more interested in the overall “feel” of the layout, rather than the correctness of every last piece of equipment. I do like stuff to be reasonably close, but, fore example, I actually prefer the selective compression of shorter passenger cars. I have a large fleet of Athearn and Concor 72’ cars, close coupled with working, always touching diaphragms, and added details. The close coupling, diaphragms, and other details add more realism than scale length or correct window arrangements in my view.
Sheldon
Sheldon, I’m curious about your diaphragms. I also went to 72’ streamline cars for the same reason you gave. I was wanting to use Diaphragms but all I hear are the negatives no positives.
So as not to hijack this post could you send me an IM with your diaphragm details.
Thanks
[quote user=“jecorbett”]
ATLANTIC CENTRAL
jecorbett
ACY
Sheldon:
You are correct that the cab is incorrect on the Mantua B&O P-7c/P-7e Pacific. Fortunately, Rivarossi produced a B&O 2-10-2 many years ago with the correct cab. Then they followed that with USRA heavy Pacifics and Mikados. Instead of tooling a new correct USRA cab, they used that same B&O cab on those engines. So if you can find a junker Rivarossi 2-10-2, 2-8-2, or 4-6-2, you’ll have the right cab for the Mantua engine. The tender is a whole different problem, but the Bachmann EM-1 tender could be modified to be a slightly short version of the tenders used on a few of those Pacifics.
Gotta be resourceful.
Tom
Whenever the talk gets around to incorrect details on mass produced locos and rolling stock, I’m glad I’m a freelancer. I don’t have to sweat such details. Everything is wrong on my layout.
I’m a freelancer too and I like the idea that I can create my own locomotive standards and details - but I do like them to be plausible for my location and era.
I also model the B&O, C&O and WM, but I don’t go crazy about everything being eaxct - close enough is good enough.
I’m more interested in the over
Sheldon being a B&O modeler you should know that the Mantua Pacific is a model of a B&O P class locomotive. I also think they run very well.
Here is a link to a photo of the Mantua painted and letters car. It would be nice if someone knew the road name and when it was released?
[quote user=“ATLANTIC CENTRAL”]
jecorbett
ACY
Sheldon:
You are correct that the cab is incorrect on the Mantua B&O P-7c/P-7e Pacific. Fortunately, Rivarossi produced a B&O 2-10-2 many years ago with the correct cab. Then they followed that with USRA heavy Pacifics and Mikados. Instead of tooling a new correct USRA cab, they used that same B&O cab on those engines. So if you can find a junker Rivarossi 2-10-2, 2-8-2, or 4-6-2, you’ll have the right cab for the Mantua engine. The tender is a whole different problem, but the Bachmann EM-1 tender could be modified to be a slightly short version of the tenders used on a few of those Pacifics.
Gotta be resourceful.
Tom
Whenever the talk gets around to incorrect details on mass produced locos and rolling stock, I’m glad I’m a freelancer. I don’t have to sweat such details. Everything is wrong on my layout.
I’m a freelancer too and I like the idea
With pre-Model Power Mantua it kinda depends which engines you’re talking about - it’s almost like two different lines. The earliest (1950’s) ones like the Pacific and Mikado with metal boilers were/are pretty basic in detailing (although in the 1980’s they did create a new boiler shell that is pretty close to a USRA outline). Of course, you can add details, as John Allen did to his 2-8-2. The later (1980s) more detailed plastic bodied engines like the 2-6-6-2 or 4-4-2 look much more realistic.
Mantua switched from open frame to Sagami can motors in the late eighties, and the can motor equipped engines generally run quite well.
[swg]My Mantua’s go back a ways, long before we were able to obtain these nice detailed plastic versions. Back then you had brass, and as Tony Koester says you just did not have good running brass. Meanwhile Mantua kept on pumping them out. I remember when they advertised in MR and what a thrill it was to see the models, especially at the hobby shops.
Then, according to my scources, Bachman and Life-Like got together and said we can build a much better product when it comes to engines, with much more detail, and better running engines that wouldn’t jerk and stall every five feet. They even made a wager; well look what happened, new, better running and more detailed engines hit the market, really competing with the brass guys.
Meanwhile, Mantua knew they were going to have to make changes to get in the game, so changes took place. Now with Sagami motors that run like clock work, but the engine itself still has a generic look. For me, that is where the fun begins, Custom Engines. I take my old Mantua’s go to Precision Scale and find nice brass additions, glue them on and match them up. It has become a fun project detailing my presidental line of highly colored presidential steamers, adding all of the details of brass that really spruces things up.
Like I said these are custom engines with my custom added details, IT’S MY RAILROAD AND i’M HAVING FUN, some how we loose that once in while. I have been building layouts and trains for over sixty years and yet some folks still say, “you ain’t doin’ it right,” I just look back and say, “it is for me”.
Robert Sylvester
Newberry-Columbia Line, SC
As mentioned, the old Mantua/Tyco Pacific was a model of a B&O engine. How successful it was is up to your judgement.
Ed
I know that Mantua was a branch of the TYCO brand for a period of time, until they went out of buisness in 1993. Mantua branched off and started on its own.
Mantua trains are good trains. I’m getting an 0-6-0 in the mail in a few days, and I have a number of Great Northern cars.
“Your never too old to play with trains”
Liam
They are low in detail but such great runners. I have had Bachmann steamers that the gear splitted yet, the Mantuas keep running.