quality check--

J

jr switch

New Member
Oct 11, 2006
204
0
83
northern Indiana
I'm considering sending for a 2-6-6-2 by Mantua/ Model Power. I'm hoping some of you have some experience with this manufacturer and can give me some feedback. Iv'e owned engines by Bachmann, Broadway Limited and IHC, and I know from the forum that Athearn and Proto are a good bet, but I'd appreciate some info on this one--Thanks-John R
 
They are great little engines and are now DCC ready. The slow speed operation is pretty decent and the pulling power was better than I expected. Great little engine for the money.
 
my father had one and it worked great,the model power engines have gotten better over the years.personally ive never ownd one but i hear there good locos.and good luck on that buy!:thumb:
 
Loren, Tom and Josh, thanks for the replys. I was hoping to get positive feedback cause I really want this engine. I like how it looks and can't wait to watch the articulation around the curves. The 18" will be too sharp, but it should be alright on the 22".
I'll put something on the forum after I check it out-----John
 
Jr switch, are you getting the logger on the one with the tender? I don't have a logging railroad, but I was thinking of getting the logger. I think not having a tender would look better on my small layout.

Loren
 
Loren, the first ones I saw were the tank engines or logger engines, a couple months ago, and knew I would have to have one eventually. Then, not too long ago, I was checking out the steam engines on Hobbylinc.com and saw the ones with the tenders and that was it. Had to have one. Trouble is, the detail on the tank engines is awesome, but I really like them with tenders.
I'm 64 and pretty much old school in my thinking. I have a hard time with "cab forwards" also. I guess to me, the cab is in the back and it pulls a tender. Go for the logger, they got great colors and they look like something from South America or Africa or somewhere exotic.-------John
 
John, I am 54 and old school when it comes to model railroading to. Heck, I nail cork roadbed right on the plywood. If you want a river, cut the plywood. None of this new fangled foam and glue. But, I like the oddball loco's, like the cab ahead or tankers. I even had one of Mantua's original tankers with the cast boiler(wish I still had it), and I really like the detail on the tanker. A new paint job someday, and it would look great !
Thanks for starting this thread, it really helped me make up my mind on buying one.

Loren
 
grewsome said:
Jr switch, are you getting the logger on the one with the tender? I don't have a logging railroad, but I was thinking of getting the logger. I think not having a tender would look better on my small layout.

Loren
Click to expand...


I want one (my brother has one and it is NICE) without tender (2-6-6-2T) but I have an IHC 2-8-0 Coal tender that I am building an oil bunker for and putting behind the new 2-6-6-2T. I took the tanks off of Timmy's engine and put a tender behind it and it looked cool, but I am going to keep the tanks on mine on the conversion, you know, "for the added tractive effort". :D :thumb:
 
Jim Krause said:
If I remember correctly (which doesn't happen very often) the mechanisms are the same on both the tank and tender loco's.
Click to expand...

They are, but when California Western converted their 2-6-6-2T to a tender engine, they removed the tanks and after that, the engine could barely pull itself around due to the loss of weight for adhesion. That's why I am leaving the tanks on mine. (well, ok, it just *looks* cooler *I* think) :thumb:
 
Hey everybody:wave: , if you left the tanks on and added a tender, would that now be considered a long haul loco, since it would have to make less stops for water? Just curious, never thought of adding a tender to a tanker before.

Loren
 
Seems to me that the reason for the side tanks was to eliminate the need for a tender. I have no idea if any of them ran with both or not.
Another one that is really interesting is the Garret, great big monsters used a lot in Africa that have a pretty much normal looking engine section in the middle, but an extension out the front and back so that they become a 2-8-4+4-8-2. or 2-6-2+2-6-2 or seemingly a number of different combinations. I think some of them were built in England. That would be a scratchbuild!!
Anyway, back to the 2-6-6-2's. Both with and without the tender, they are cool looking engines. Do any of you know what road systems might have used these engines? I know Yellowstones and Challengers were used out west, along with the big boys, but how about back here in the east?-----John
 
The Mantua logging 2-6-6-2 is actually a model of a pair of engines built for the narrow gauge Unitah Ry in Utah. Mantua made it a standard gauge model, not unlike some of the other Mallets used on other standard gauge logging railroads. The Unitah needed some flexible, powerful engines for their extremely steep grades and very sharp curves.

When the Unitah sold the engines, they were converted to tank engines (I could have this reversed) to gain extra traction due to weight of the water over the drivers and the distances run not being as far.

hope this helps
 
I got a book from the local library once titled "Railroads Of The Cour D'Alines" (spelling?) about railroads serving small mining towns in the mountains in the Idaho Panhandle. It had a pic of a 2-6-6-2 mallet on the Northern Pacific c.1910, if I remember correctly, that looked like a dead ringer for the Mantua 2-6-6-2 mallet with tender. It was pulling a train 10 cars long with a caboose and was identified as pulling maximum tonnage that it could handle with the steep grades and tight curves it had to follow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom