Precision Craft Models I1 Tender question

Precision Craft Models page for PRR 2-10-0
http://www.precisioncraftmodels.com/products/prri1sa.htm

Class 210F82 (20,500 gallons, 30 tons, 6 axle) The page states that the long tender will be shipped with a second run of the model.

Will the tender look the same as this engine at Baltmore Maryland:

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/wm1115s.jpg

I searched for imagery of the heavy tender and found a brass modeler who has an image of a massive 8 axle monster:

http://daily.webshots.com/photo/418273673/1418291164057532647RQWxmS

Does anyone have knowledge of the tenders of the 30 Ton 6 axle class that was made for the I1’s for the PRR and WM?

I am asking because I am confused by the lack of information on the net. My search skills are not the best so I apologize in advance for errors.

The picture you show a link to is a WM Decapod which is not a PRR I-1. The second run of the I-1’s are supposed to have the same tender as the M-1 A did. The larger 8 whl. version was alot more common and hopefully they will offer this one as well.
------------------ Ken McCorry

Thank you for your answer KemacPrr, I am not sure about the differences between a PRR Decapod and a WM decapod (Not the Russian… way too heavy for a Russian).

It should be easy enough for PCM (Aka BLI) to perhaps swipe a batch of M1a or even J1 tenders and snap them to the 2-10-0’s except I see that the WM version has a fish belly frame.

I am very interested to see what comes out of the factory.

another vote for the 8-wheel tender! Already have an M1b, so for diversity’s sake…

The J1 tender will not be correct for the I1 class. The M1 is close, but not correct either.

The J1 had a 210F84 tender, which was 84" in deck height.

The I1 with the large tenders used a 210F82am which was 82.5" in deck height.

The M1 used a 210F75.
They looked somwhat alike, but were different in the deck height and varied in coal and water capacity.

Interesting data.

interesting data but would you REALLY bother the 1.5 scale inch, that’s 4.37931034474 milimeter height difference???

OMG! LOL.[(-D]

the difference is small no doubt and would not be that obvious. The coal loads and water seems to vary among the three tenders and that shows up in the overall shape if you look close.

The M1 standard tender is a much older design and has less coal capacity, but some of the I1’s might have received the extra large tenders from some of the out of service J1’s in 55 or 56. There are a few pictures in Pennsy books that do not looke exactly like the run of the mill large tenders for the I1.

I am currently working on a kitbash of an I1 in N-Scale, so I also came across the write-up at the Precision Scale website on their HO version. However, from what some of you have said, and from what I see on their historical write-up, I am more confused than ever about the tenders. At http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/,
you can find a number of drawings of different I1 versions. They seem to have:
90F82 - short tender, 4-wheel trucks
130F82a - slightly longer version of the above, still 4-wheel trucks
180F82 - “long distance” tender, but this is the 6-wheel truck version, not the 8-wheel, and it
is STILL not the bigger 210F75 one used on the M1.

The 180F82 is about 6 feet shorter than the 210, and more noticeably, it’s coal bunker is
short, only about 3 feet longer than the one on, say a K4 tender, whereas the 210 had
a coal bunker that was about half the length of the entire tender.

Looking at books like Pennsy Steam A to T (by Carleton) shows I1 locomotives with
all sorts of short and long tenders. What’s with the 180 series tenders? Did they get replaced quickly by the 210?

Im sure PCM already has a good idea which way to go because they stated that the 6 axle tenders will be issued with the second run of the engine.

Instant trainspotter reference:

PRR I1 had a Belpaire firebox (squared-off top rear of boiler,) like most PRR-designed power.

WM decapod had a radial-stayed firebox (round rear boiler top.)

Neither one can successfully masquerade as the other, regardless of what tender they happen to be dragging around. Conversion would be a major kitbashing project.

Chuck