MTH Sharknose Diesels

Versus the prototype, the fuel tanks are too small and the truck wheelbases are too short.  The couplers are also way too big.

Pretty close to Lionel Legacy near as I can tell.

gunrunnerjohn posted:

Pretty close to Lionel Legacy near as I can tell.

See to me, the Legacy (and Century Club) versions look more correctly proportioned.  I have seen some photos of the prototype from different road names, and it looks like a few had smaller or larger fuel tanks (but some might be RF-16s and others could be DR-4-4-15s).

Hard to say, I haven't seen the MTH ones in person.  I have the Century Club PRR Sharks as well, same tank as the Legacy from what I see.

Lionel's sharks have correct wheelbase trucks and also correct fuel tanks.  The MTH sharks use the old Weaver tooling (sold by Weaver to MTH) whereas Lionel made new tooling for the Century Club II sharks (this tooling also used for Legacy sharks).  All of the 3-rail shark models to date have been RF-16's.

The AAR type B truck came in at least two different lengths depending on whether they had Westinghouse or GE traction motors.  Those with Westinghouse motors were longer and are the appropriate truck for the RF-16s.  Weaver's AAR-B trucks were originally designed for their Alco RS-3  a shorter truck than the RF-16s trucks.  I guess Weaver did not want to spend the money to tool up for the longer Baldwin AAR truck when most would not object too loudly about the short truck on their sharks.  However it seems that when they designed their Ultra Line (china drive) they could have corrected the short trucks since the side frames had to be retooled as diecast anyway.  Guess the answer is the longer truck could not have been used on the Alco FA and RS locos so they would have been faced with having two different AAR-B trucks only 1/8th inch different from one another. Since Weaver was a smaller company I guess the added cost of two different lengths of AAR trucks would have been cost prohibitive.                     j

Thanks for all the info.

gunrunnerjohn posted:

Pretty close to Lionel Legacy near as I can tell.

gunrunnerjohn posted:

Hard to say, I haven't seen the MTH ones in person.  I have the Century Club PRR Sharks as well, same tank as the Legacy from what I see.

 

Bob posted:

All of the 3-rail shark models to date have been RF-16's.

While they all have been advertised as RF-16s, I always thought the Lionel versions were closer in configuration to the DR-4-4-15 with the Sharknose body (PRR RF-15 or BF-4 before 1-1-50).  Notice the fuel filler location is higher and just behind the front trucks, and the forward sand filler in front of the door.  See diagrams below.

Anyway, since my PRR layout is set in late 40s I call Lionel’s version a RF-15.

CAPPilot posted:

While they all have been advertised as RF-16s, I always thought the Lionel versions were closer in configuration to the DR-4-4-15 with the Sharknose body (PRR RF-15 or BF-4 before 1-1-50).  Notice the fuel filler location is higher and just behind the front trucks, and the forward sand filler in front of the door. 

Anyway, since my PRR layout is set in late 40s I call Lionel’s version a RF-15.

Not only that, but the fuel tank is of the earlier pre 1-1-50 BF-4 configuration as well.

rplst8 posted:

CAPPilot posted:

While they all have been advertised as RF-16s, I always thought the Lionel versions were closer in configuration to the DR-4-4-15 with the Sharknose body (PRR RF-15 or BF-4 before 1-1-50).  Notice the fuel filler location is higher and just behind the front trucks, and the forward sand filler in front of the door. 

Anyway, since my PRR layout is set in late 40s I call Lionel’s version a RF-15.

Not only that, but the fuel tank is of the earlier pre 1-1-50 BF-4 configuration as well.

 

Did not notice that before.  Makes my argument to call my Sharks RF-15s even stronger.  Thanks.

gunrunnerjohn posted:

Pretty close to Lionel Legacy near as I can tell.

Not a big fan of Sharks, nor of the "Hudson Bonnet" paint scheme, but, d**n, that Legacy Lionel Shark looks good. Crisp, big low tanks, sharp trucks, sharp paint - sharp nose!

No, mustn't think about it.....no, no....

I two- railed and detailed a set of Lionel ABBA sharks;

https://ogrforum.com/...el-legacy-prr-sharks

Some may find the introduction I wrote to that post of interest:

INTRODUCTION: I really like the PRR sharks, particularly the as-delivered Brunswick green five stripe version.  (The only PRR freight locomotives to have five stripes, by the way).  They fit my layout time frame (1956 ish), but not my locale (Electrified main line).  No matter, it’s my layout and I can do what I want.

Over the years, five different manufacturers have released models of the PRR Sharks.  Here is my assessment: 

Overland: Done in brass, with a single motor drive.  This is the well established gold standard of the lot. They are prototypically accurate with all the details you could want.  However an ABBA set will cost as much as a perfectly decent used car.  And most of the ones I have seen for sale are missing lit number boards (if not the headlights), have suffered some ill fitting parts over the years,  and lack sound (Yeah, I like that).  All of which is fixable.

Lionel: A surprisingly good model.  Yes the shells are made of ABS, and they have the much reviled twin motor drive with spur gears.   But they are dimensionally correct and come fully painted and lettered.  They have a lot of added scale size brass details such as grilles, grab irons, horns, trust and builder plates.  And they come out of the box with a complete suite of lights,  sound, and smoke.  They also benefit from the precision that is inherent to mass production.  One of the biggest (and most pleasant) surprises is the truck wheel base is almost spot on—it measures out to 9’9”.  The Sharks had 9’10” wheel bases, which are considerably longer than most AAR Type B trucks.  The longer wheelbase was necessitated by the larger Westinghouse Traction motors.   These were unique to the Sharks, and kudos to Lionel for getting this right!

MTH:  Have a diecast body that is again close to spot on dimensionally.  It’s a bit narrower than the prototype but its only 3”. So who would notice.  Certainly not me. Like the Lionel, it comes fully painted and lettered with a full complement of lights and smoke.  I had an ABBA set back in my three rail days and they were among the best runners I had.  Also like the Lionel, they have excellent, scale sized body details, wire grab irons, and etched body grills. They also have see through fans.  The AB units are tethered together, and the tether is big and obvious. Not an intractable problem, but it would still need to be solved.  The bigger problem however, is the trucks:  They measure out to only an 8’4” wheel base.  Now before you pen your indignant post about me being a Uber-SPF.  That is a whopping 3/8” too short and really obvious.   As MTH took the pains to get the wheel openings right, the thing looks like a C7 Corvette running on space saver spares.

New Jersey Custom Brass; In my opinion the details on these are down several notches from the three listed above.   They are 2 rail (a minor plus for me) and their brass construction has all the usual advantages that allows such as a lighter look and thin window openings.  

Weaver:  These are available from the factory in 2 rail.  They are scale size, and the truck wheelbase is close enough at 9’4”  (The standard length of an AAR truck with GE Traction motors).  But the models are almost totally devoid of any added detail. 

So I selected the Lionel. 

*********************

For more details, see the above linked thread

I have the Lionel CCII Sharks and they are really good looking engines.   The problem is they don't represent a particular model, and definitely not the RF16 as advertised.  The body and fuel tanks represent the early (pre Jan 1950) DR4-4-1500, but there are post Jan 1950 DR4-4-1500/RF16 details like the horn and pilot mounted sand filler.  It also has the right side nose ladder that was added to all sharks around 1960.  The cab numbers are also for the last two RF16s built.

I have been thinking about what needs to be done to the Lionel Shark to make it a pre-1950 DR4-4-1500 to fit into my layout's late 40s era.  Change the multi-horn to a single horn, remove the ladder, file down the pilot mounted sand filler and change the cab numbers.  That should do it.

UPDATED to correct previous statement on the nose ladder.

It's odd that the Weaver tooling was as inaccurate as it was. I just watched a video from Eric's trains of the Weaver PRR Baldwin BP-20s and they are absolutely stunning. Maybe MTH will do a run of those someday. 

John Sethian posted:

I two- railed and detailed a set of Lionel ABBA sharks;

Lionel: A surprisingly good model.  Yes the shells are made of ABS, and they have the much reviled twin motor drive with spur gears.    

What about the twin motor drive with spur gears is reviled?  From the pictures it that thread (and others) they look like pretty much like any motor with a flywheel and gears on the side of the truck frame.  I think every MTH engine I own is like that.

Not all of us are so critical of the China drive design.

rplst8 posted:

It's odd that the Weaver tooling was as inaccurate as it was. 

I do have Weaver's BP-20 AB consist and it is really nice.  You did get me curious on what their freight sharks looked like.  Found a good photo of a Weaver PRR shark and you are correct - very little detail.  No sand or fuel filler detail, minimal detail elsewhere, horns not right for any model, and no TrainPhone which was on all PRR sharks.

geysergazer posted:

         

Photo mine, was taken by my Dad at Driftwood, Pa c. 1955.

Lew,

Since this post started I have gotten more knowledgeable on Penny Sharks.  First off, I did not realize the Pennsy was the only road to buy the DR4-4-1500 Sharknose engines (except for the two demonstrators that later went to the B&O).  The other roads that had Sharks all had RF16s.

FYI, the Shark in the picture your dad took is a post 1-1-1950 DR-4-4-1500, or a PRR BF15a.  It has the RF16's body, fuel tanks, fuel filler cap, and sand fillers caps.  But it has the small nose door of the DRs.  Thought you would like to know. 

Thanks, Ron. BTW, that is me in the Fireman's seat.  Railroaders have always had a soft heart for kids who stare at trains. 

gunrunnerjohn posted:

Not all of us are so critical of the China drive design.

Plus really, it could be more accurately named Postwar Lionel GP/F drive. Vertical motor with a worm gear on the motor-shaft driving a jack-shaft housed in the truck-block. Outboard spur-gears and idlers driving gears cast on the backside of the drivers. "Modernized" with the use of DC (permag) can motors. A very mature design simply continued when production moved to....China. 

Maybe. bit more detail can be gleaned from these pics:

Looks like a ladder was required to wash the windshields. What a maintenance headache.

geysergazer posted:

Maybe. bit more detail can be gleaned from these pics:

That is really great that you have that picture of you in the cab.  Fun.

Wish I could see the horn better.  There are very few photos of the BF15a that show the horn, and most of those are too dark/blurry to see it clearly.

The Pennsy's BF15 had a one chime horn, the BF15a had a two chime horn, and the BF16 had a three chime horn.

geysergazer posted:

Cropping a bit

Thanks.  Looks like two horns with one facing backwards.  I read an article where they made the point of saying all three horns on the BF16 faced forward, so maybe one on the BF15a did face backwards.  Interesting.

Again, thank you!