Model Train Journal

Trial balloon - a tender drive SP consolidation

Okay - it works. I have two Mikados that have never seen the light of day, and are nearing completion. One of them runs, the other at least rolls, sort of:

And a Deck, last seen in red oxide primer:



Thread title was supposed to be Bob Church's title for his next book, but instead he did the ten-coupled. I love his books!

You turn out a lot of engines Bob!

is the "tender drive" drive shaft under the cab?

Yes.

Nice work Bob!!!

I had an old HO 4-8-2 that had the motor and drive in the tender, I think the boiler was free of electronics except for the headlight. I think it was made by Mehano?

Ran good but the boiler seemed a bit light weight.

Did you have to mount the motor at an angle to get the drive shaft low enough?

I guess no matter where things are located (boiler and/or tender), there will always be wiring between the two for lighting.

Narrow firebox models really look and work better with this arrangement. A giant slug of brass in theboiler takes care of traction. The secret is the coupling - you need a way to disconnect, and a quiet joint. Mine is NWSL horney balls with a hunk of Toyota rubber tube. That drive line could be concealed with an ash pan.

One problem is torque wrap-up. One truck on the tender needs stabilization, much like the real thing.

bob turner wrote:One problem is torque wrap-up. One truck on the tender needs stabilization, much like the real thing.

I had not thought of this. I have both a Lobaugh and Alexander 4-4-0, both with tender drive. Both need some drive work (replaced rubber grommet mounts, fix drive shaft, update wiring, etc). Does the torque wrap-up manifest by a tendency of the tender to lift one side off the rails? If so, what is the recommended compensation?

And I second Wayne's comment -- You do get a lot of models built.

Jim

Not if the tender has some weight. Understand, with a powerful enough motor and a heavy locomotive, this arrangement could have the tender doing aileron rolls. But narrow firebox locomotives need not be heavy or powerful, and I never notice the tenders leaning.

All but one each of my ten-wheelers and 0-6-0s have tender drives. The models that don't - a ten wheeler, an 0-6-0, a 2-6-6-0, and a 2-10-0, will get converted. They are unsatisfactory with a tiny motor in the cab.

PSC made a Harriman 4-6-0, and struggled to get a motor in there. Horribly complex, and not a good runner.

The prototype - tender drive, as originally supplied, but with the NWSL and tube quick-disconnect.

This one is one of my favorites - we have the original in Campo, and I rode behind it under steam in the 1990s. 17/64, and still no room for a motor in the cab!

bob turner wrote:And a Deck, last seen in red oxide primer:

DSC02513.JPG

Thread title was supposed to be Bob Church's title for his next book, but instead he did the ten-coupled. I love his books!

Why were 2-10-2's called Decks?

BH

Well, you really don't expect the Espee to call their 2-10-2's by their
Whyte designation of "Santa Fe", now would you???

Even though the "decks" weren't really true "decapods", that stuck as the
popular name for the class, also officially designated as the "F"
(for "FREIGHT"!) class.

bob turner wrote:

2353.jpg

This one is one of my favorites - we have the original in Campo, and I rode behind it under steam in the 1990s. 17/64, and still no room for a motor in the cab!

Maybe not, but unless the boiler is solid, looks like lots of room.

Motor in back of boiler/front of firebox, shaft pointing rearward. Sprocket on the end. NWSL gearbox on just about any axle, bearing block on worm shaft to allow another sprocket in line with the top one.
Slip the belt off from underneath to take the boiler off.
All hidden.
And no Toyota parts, no tender mounted motors and driveshafts, and still view through between frame and underbelly of boiler.

That was the PSC approach. I like mine about a thousand percent better. Opinion.