The long wait for the new K-36 from MMI in On3 is finally over. I have added a few pictures just to give an idea of this very detailed beauty. Here is the first duo.
Here is the second pair of pictures. I have not tried to run the models yet. In fact, there was a note added by my supplier that some tender-truck axles might have to be turned around. Apparently, Korean precision and price cutting did not allow a test run. And it is not that easy to detect which way they should be to get the insulation right. The axles can be pulled out and put back in; no need to unscrew any trucks or whatever. There is now a Kadee coupler in the back, but the front coupler is still a dummy as in the earlier MMI K-models. In fact, there is a protrusion on the inside that prevents direct use. Maybe that could be filed off? It would seem that double-heading is not possible without having to interfere with the original model. It is not clear to me why this sales-promoting possibilitiy has not been actively furthered. When you open the box, have your vacuum cleaner ready! That styrofoam is strange with fibrous stuff sticking out. It is also on the top of the foam inside of the box, but not on the rest. The fibers may be something like glass wool or glass fibers, they seem to itch on the skin. And they stick on the clothes. You certainly do not want to inhale them , and they should be removed with the vacuum cleaner before one ventures further to the contents. Very annoying. But that is the only complaint. I have not unpacked the added detail parts so far. There are a crew, a snow plow, spark arrestor, and the tender coal board extensions. There is no instruction for them. Just a sheet how to disassemble the loco.
I have seen the pics in the new Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette and await a full report on their running abilities. They look really great...almost want to make a guy change road names, eras etc. to accomodate those engines!!
Not that I can afford one or that it would fit my layout, but has anyone seen any reports on how they run?
Here's a thread over on Freerails that may answer your question: http://www.freerails.com/view_topic.php?id=1761&forum_id=4&page=1
Thanks for that! WOW, at that price I would have thought the things would have come with DCC and sound! Now if MMI could just put out an 2-6-0 in Colorado and Southern paint I would start salivating!
Wow, what a beauty! But I do not like to pay that much when Bachmann is making very decent On30 2-8-0's that sell for ~ $65-$75 on ebay. I wonder if Bachmann will take their On30 Spectrum 2-8-0 and make one of those? and even add DCC adn Tsunami sound like they did with their shay & climax. Would not seem like much to do to make them form the current 2-8-0. maybe a different tender shell, a little longer boiler and maybe cab? and a trailing truck and some details. but maybe 75% of it is done from the current 2-8-0???
There is a lot of chatter about this very thing on the Bachmann website. I suspect there is some fear at Bachmann about getting "too specific" with their models. As a rule they choose something that can be applied (loosely) to multiple roads.
too specific meaning if it were all black and not lettering I would have to put my own rio grande on it? just get me close Bachmann and I can change out a bell or whistle and road# and road name.
I have since finished my two On3 engines. One was running perfectly from the beginning. The other one must have been a "Monday model". It had the brake assembly of a On30 model, and the front runner was also On30 instead of On3! It took quite a while for me to figure out what was wrong. But I had good support from MMI, both for trying to find out why I had shorts all the time, and for getting the replacement parts sent very quickly. MMI does issue its models with empty tenders, a rather "unnatural" looking feature. Thus, I have now added coal loads. I also added some "spilled" coal as can be seen in one picture. I did not do any weathering, being afraid I might just spoil the fine looks. But I did darken the rods and the counterweights a bit. As for the costs of these fine models: They are certainly not cheap, but they are probably only between a fourth and a third of a brass model. One thing MMI actually did get wrong on both of them: The wires from the bell and the steam whistle to the cab are reversed. It's not that easy for me to correct that without doing more damage than good, so I left that as it was.
I recall reading on the On3 group that some people found the earlier 2-8-2s to be underpowered and were dropping more powerful motors (mostly Faulhabers). I've also heard of a number of people swapping out the speakers...to get more lows. Very nice locomotives. Maybe a Mason Bogie will be in the future. B-man's 2-8-0 is a decent starting point for a K-27...but not for any of the other Ks. B-man's 2-8-0 has the same drivers as the K-27s, but they are too small for the others. It won't look right. There is still quite a bit of tooling that would be needed (many of the details, a new frame, new tender, new lead & trailing trucks, new cylinders, new crossheads, basically...the drivers, maybe the cab, and maybe the domes are the only things that are correct) and the market has been substantially reduced by MMI's 2-8-2s...which were catered to the market for engine # specific details which seems to be a requirement of most Rio Grande modelers. I tend to think that a T-19 or T-12 would have been the best bet for B-man, prior to the announcement of their Tweetsie 4-6-0. Another good bet would have been an early 2-8-0, but AMS will cut into that market (and B-man doesn't do 19th century stuff...other than their old 4-4-0s). The odd thing about B-man's line is that it doesn't include a single 37" drivered locomotive. 37" drivers were the most wide spread of all narrow gauge locomotive drivers. The popular Brooks moguls used throughout the country had 37", as did almost all of the IF 2-8-0s, and the Mason Bogies. I'd really like to see the B-man offer a large industrial locomotive...a Porter-Bell 0-6-0. They were used all across the country, including over the Georgetown Loop...and would use the same drivers as the IF forney and 4-4-0. I think the B-man generally goes after generic looking stuff for freelancers. On30 is not an accurate scale for US prototype modeling (there were only 40 miles of 30" gauge RR total in the past, or 440 miles of 3; for every mile of 30"), so anyone that really cares about a specific prototype is already making a more visually noticeable concession than train length or curve radius...so it is nice to make stuff that can be used for either 2' or 3' lines, without looking silly. After all, how many Mt Gretna modelers do you know? Their's was the protoype for IF 4-4-0, the only authentic 2' gauge 4-4-0 in US history. It is super specific, but it is so obscure that it appears to be generic. The key to generic is not so much whether it is specific or not, but whether it has the character of a well known road or not (D&RGW marker lights, a C&S Ridgeway Spark Arrester, EBT's Vulcan trucks). Let's see how the 4-6-0 goes, it'll help to predict the direction that they may take. I highly doubt that the Tweetsie's 3' 0-8-0 would follow, but maybe an OF 4-6-0 a la OR&L or NdeM. An IF F&CC 2-8-0 would be a smashing move...accurate for the additional SPng(?), MS, Uintah, Rio Grande, etc...passable for the Silverton Northern...and distinctly different from BLI's C-16. Maybe an EBT 2-8-2 (#14 & #15) could happen, since it would be not that much bigger than the Tweetsie 4-6-0, and not previously offered for under $800. Btw, K-27s are accurate power for the D&RGW, RGS, and WP&Y...K-28s are accurate power for the D&RGW, OR&L, and WP&Y. If it weren't for the Tweetsie 4-6-0, a T-19 would be an excellent choice. Built for the F&CC, they ended up on the RGS (and occassionally leased to the D&RGW) and SPng.
Rear coupler height? Sorry for digging out this fairly old thread, I just got myself started with a small On3 collection. One thing I noted on my K-36 is that the rear coupler is very low compared to the Kadee gauge (it covers only about half of the coupler). My other two locomotives (K-27 and K-37) turn out at exactly the correct height, and I didn't notice any mounting problems of the coupler box on my K-36. Has anyone else made this observation on his model? Of course this is only a minor problem as it can be quickly solved with some washers to increase the tender height.
Hi Streetcar, I assume your K-36 is a PSC/MMI Die Cast model? If so the rear coupler height on my MMI K-36 is perfect when compared to my Kadee coupler height gauge. Did you buy the loco new or did you get it second hand? I ask because it is not widely known that the prototype K-36 and K-37 locomotives had their tenders "Raked" where the rear of the tender was purposely raised to allow for the water in the tank to flow towards the locomotive while the locomotives were on steep grades. This supposedly made it easier to feed the water into the boiler. (When I was at the C&TSRR Engineer school last October I asked the Fireman if this really helped or not - he replied no. ) As such the tenders on my K-36 and K-37's do show the rears being higher than the fronts, although it is at best 2 scale inches higher. The attached link below shows the PSC/MMI picture of the On3 model and the "raking" is hardly noticable. http://greenwaycatalog.com/a_brass_psc_hon3_k36.shtml If yours is second hand model perhaps the original owner didn't know this and lowered the rear of the tender to make it look level? That could possibly explain why your rear coupler is too low. In either case, it is as you said a simple fix by adding washers as needed. Just make sure that the front remains lower than the rear. As an aside, in what part of Germany do you live? It's neat to see so many Europeans interested in our narrow gauge railroads. In fact there were 2 guys from Switzerland in my Engineer class. Both Friends of the C&TSRR.
If anything, mine are rather a tiny bit (.5mm) too high. I don't have a Kadee gauge, so I just compare within the rolling stock and engines. I'd say a very good average height on both of my K-36s.
Dan & Robert, thanks for the replies. Yes, the model is from MMI, and it was purchased new. I have seen this "raking" of tenders on many pictures, so I was actually considering this as an option for my problem. As I did take a closer look at my tender again I made a different discovery: A spacer (painted) was added to the frame / bolster lowering the coupler by exactly the difference to the Kadee gauge. (I'll try to post a picture of the part later). This spacer is not flat though, so I have to shim the back of the coupler to keep it level. This spacer is not present on my other models, although I can't explain its purpose (lower for On30 Bachmann standard maybe?). I live in southern Germany in the city of Nuremberg (well known for it's railroad history). In my case spending part of my childhood in Oregon hooked me to US prototype railroading; my main interest is in N scale, owing to the ever present space constraints. So most of my rolling stock is smaller and painted yellow Chris
Hello Chris, I think you found the explanation. One of my two On3 K-36 models came with some On30 parts mixed in as I had mentioned in an earlier post. So I think you got a tender body that was from the On30 lot. I'd suggest removing that spacer instead of lifting the tender. That way you keep the correct height of the tender. I don't think it would be very difficult to remove the spacer.
