Anybody out there seperate AZL and MT locos?

JoeS Dec 16, 2013

  1. JoeS

    JoeS TrainBoard Member

    2,788
    426
    49
    I keep em seperated...

    If anybody knows me they know my favorite loco is the MT Mogul. I think they look great...until they are next to an AZL mike. Then the cab suddenly looks HUGE! Funny, the bolier and everything else looks good but the cab suddenly looks chunky. I never thought that before. Running the two together just doesn't look good. If I run the moguls they run together or with MT diesels.

    I had this issue with the AZL GP 7 and the SD 40-2 from MT, it kinda looked like a bowa that just swallowed a goat. But those were just diesels. So it didn't matter to me then.

    Now I am not down on MT at all. The MT locomotives are very reliable and super runners and look great, as long as I keep them together. For instance the GP 35, GP 9, and SD 40 from MT look just fine together, but I can't throw in an AZL GP 30 or 7 without thinking how skinny they look. So I go in cycles and run locomotives in tandom based on manufacturer so they look right. (The GP 38 from AZL is kinda a twinner and looks good with both.)

    So I seperate, and with the mikes running well my moguls are not getting as much run time. I used to think the AZL gp 7 was the best runner, now I think it is the mike. They are loud but never, I mean never stutter or stall....and they look great. I don't want to take them off the rails.

    Now I am contemplating how I could cut the cab off of a MT mogul and replace the marklin motor with a coreless and maybe cut the cab off of a marklin mikado shell donner and create a loco that I can run with the AZL mikes that looks correct. Because right now I just can't do it.

    Anybody feel the same way?
     
  2. Kenneth L. Anthony

    Kenneth L. Anthony TrainBoard Member

    2,743
    464
    49
    Hi, I'm just with that big clunky N stuff, but... Have you looked up prototype scale drawings to check the relative sizes of the real locos? Could there have possibly been that much difference in the actual cabs? (I don't know, just throwing out a possible "maybe" to check...
     
  3. markm

    markm TrainBoard Supporter

    795
    232
    20
    Joe,
    First of all, I would be reluctant to modify the MT Mogul, it's a rather rare engine and cabs varied in size in that era so while it may not match the AZL cabs it can still be prototypically correct.
    Beyond that, I think what you're seeing is the march of progress in model railroading. The availability of smaller, better motors allows manufacturers to design more prototypically accurate engines. Better molding techniques allow more detail and there is even better paint. If you compare MT's F7s from 15 years ago (12000, 14000 series) to the current F7s, the current molded detail is better, applied horns and the paint for the UP units now matches the prototype. I've seen the new AZL GP7/9 and the new ones look much better than the first ones AZL produced.
    I do find myself running MT GPs together with the AZL GP7 and the newer AZL GPs together, mainly because of similar levels of detail.

    Mark
     
  4. Garth-H

    Garth-H TrainBoard Supporter

    986
    52
    23
    MT made several versions of the mogul and not all were Z scale. at least one was n scale narrow gauge, still runs on same track as Z but different scale, that aside getting a cab to fit over Marklin motor on the 2-6-0 even in z scale might have required a compromise as it was a casting not an etching. some things to consider. Nigel Lawton in the UK does have 6v can motor conversion for the 2-6-0, if you are interested in modifying you engine, but it's resale value would take a skid plus the lost weight would affect the engines performance.
     
  5. Cleantex

    Cleantex TrainBoard Member

    468
    2
    18
    If you want to be prototypical in Z, you must throw away most of the steamers, but anyway I would never modify my Moguls, the effect would be not better looking but money burning. Its not just the Cab, after this you must put the drivetrain lower, have black wheels, have real functioning valve control and so on.You will not believe me, I am even back on my old Märklin Mikados, they dont shake because of the heavy weight. And the most important is the far look and general impression on the track in action.
    I am always surprised, not that Märklin dont arrive to make new motor(I dont think anymore that they are able of real technological jump), but that nobody else in all that years made a replacement motor for the Märklin trains.
     
  6. JoeS

    JoeS TrainBoard Member

    2,788
    426
    49
    Probably not worth choping one up but it does make me think about it. It really makes me recosider what is running that is for sure
     
  7. shamoo737

    shamoo737 Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    4,530
    381
    67
    Joe, I run AZL and MTL together. I match the running speed of the locos more then by their looks. I also like to match the SD40 with the SD70 on tight curves, because the SD70 has truck mounted couplers. Right now, most cars have truck mounted couplers, and the difference in the swing of the truck mounted coupler and body mounted couplers can cause a derailment.
     
  8. Garth-H

    Garth-H TrainBoard Supporter

    986
    52
    23
    IN Nn3 when we create A Mikado many of us also replaced the motor with a Faulhauber 8mm can and bell type flywheel and then added a pewter boiler and cab changed the side rods and slide valve added a tender with pickup and DCC board. engine pulls better with added weight and with fly wheel will coast when power is cut. West Model made several upgrade kits for Marklin Z which followed these lines in addition to those for NN3 plus side rod upgrade kits for Marklin engines. It isn't as if these options were not available, there was the cost and you had to do the work yourself or find someone to do it for you, which did not appeal to too many, resulted in nice running engines thou
     
  9. ddechamp71

    ddechamp71 TrainBoard Member

    2,140
    620
    44
    Speaking of MTL hood units, they are known to be too wide of about one scale foot, in order to accomodate the Maxon 8mm motor. MTL chose to make the whole unit too wide, not only the hood (thus both hood and cab are too wide). Their goal having correct width of the cab and side footsteps related to the hood.

    Mixing AZL and MTL hood units is not really a visual issue when you look at them laterally, but it's unpossible not to notice when you watch them from the front or above. Thus all depends on one's layout, and on its visible spots...

    Speaking of steamers I can't say. My only steamers are AZL's accurate samples, a GS4 and a USRA Mike, but indeed I had already heard of MTL's Z scale Moguls with their oversized cab many years ago...

    Dom
     
  10. umtrr-author

    umtrr-author TrainBoard Member

    2,115
    617
    46
    For those of you keeping score, that is .05454 (repeating decimal) actual inch.

    Also, as far as I know, the 2-6-0 Mogul has never been released by MTL as anything other than an Nn3 model. Looking in their official databases, the four catalog numbers (15901 to 19504) are all listed in the Nn3 data file.

    So, yes, the cab would be oversize for Z Scale... because it is not a Z Scale model. It is an N Scale model.
     
  11. JoeS

    JoeS TrainBoard Member

    2,788
    426
    49
    MT released both a Nn3 and a Z scale mogul. Z was numbed 16000 series there was an article in z track magazine with pictures They used the same mechanism so that would explain the cab
     
  12. umtrr-author

    umtrr-author TrainBoard Member

    2,115
    617
    46
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 21, 2013
  13. ztrack

    ztrack TrainBoard Supporter Advertiser

    2,024
    388
    42
    Yes it is completely true that MTL released 3x different moguls for Z and one for Nn3. See the July/August 2011 issue of Ztrack for more information.

    http://www.ztrack.com/issues/issues_11.html

    We ran a Collector's Corner article on the release. The shells were brass and sat on a modified Marklin 2-6-0 chassis. The scale was closer to 1:190 than 1:220, but they were an excellent addition to Z! Today they are highly collectible.

    Rob
     
  14. JoeS

    JoeS TrainBoard Member

    2,788
    426
    49
    It was the July/August issue 2011. The numbers are 16000/16001 and 16002. I own the 16000 and the 16002. Not sure why they are not listed? Here are the pics of mine the 16000 [​IMG]

    and the 16002
    [​IMG]
     
  15. JoeS

    JoeS TrainBoard Member

    2,788
    426
    49
    The boiler and pilot look right and really so do the wheels, but the cab and height become glaring next the mikes. Rob I think your comment about being slightly larger might be right on. They look right and great when I run them together, or with MT deisels.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 21, 2013
  16. umtrr-author

    umtrr-author TrainBoard Member

    2,115
    617
    46
    OK, so the actual release would have been some time before the August 2011 cover date of the magazine since MTL had already moved to the eight digit catalog number. Please stand by while I research the release date... could actually be that I wrote about these in the UMTRR and don't remember doing so.

    And MTL will need to update its all-time release data worksheets...
     
  17. JoeS

    JoeS TrainBoard Member

    2,788
    426
    49
    I think they were released late 98 early 99.
     
  18. ztrack

    ztrack TrainBoard Supporter Advertiser

    2,024
    388
    42
    What gave way the scale to me was the smoke stack. It road so high that those of use with catenary couldn't run the locomotive under it!

    We first reported these in September/October of 1998. MTL ran a 1/2 page ad in this issue announcing the run.

    Rob
     
  19. umtrr-author

    umtrr-author TrainBoard Member

    2,115
    617
    46
    Yes, that's right and I'm wrong... I mentioned the pre-order announcement in my UMTRR for September 1998. The Micro-News of the same date carried the pre-order announcement, and the Micro-News and Short Line for December 1998 showed that they were "Shipping Now." $499.99 list each, three road numbers (1798, 1785, 1681).

    Could be that MTL decided that this was more of a "Special Run" than a "Regular Run" and therefore chose not to include it in their data... though I would have for reference.

    So much for that photographic memory I am alleged to have.
     
  20. Cleantex

    Cleantex TrainBoard Member

    468
    2
    18
    1785, I have. The main difference of the 2 versions was the oil tender.
    Moguls_1.jpg
     

Share This Page