Opinions on MTH Premier PRR L1 Mikado

I don't know if you've seen this video Jeff( not mine), it may help. Looks like a nice model. I'm curious if the whistle is prototypical.

I can't attest to the scale fidelity of the MTH model, but would offer that I like to go to the following site to look at actual photographs of the real thing:

www.northeast.railfan.net/prr_steam1.html

You can access the other classes of Pennsy locomotives towards the top of the page.

Jim

The MTH tender is incorrect for an L1s.  MTH chose to recycle their I1s tender (PRR class 90F82) rather than modeling the 90F7 commonly trailing L1s locomotives.  The easiest spotting difference are the straight sides on the 90f82 while the 90f75 has angled coal boards..  One could perhaps replace the drawbar with a shorter one to close the engine-tender gap, but it may be dificult to improve the appearace of the spring between the frame and trailing truck. If you are not wedded to DCS, I'd hold off on an L1s decision until you can compare the upcoming Sunset Third Rail L1s with the MTH model.

Ed Rappe

Rick, yes, I have seen that video, but thanks for posting it here.  I don't know whether the whistle sound is prototypical but I doubt it.  The chuffing sounds a bit better than many of the mth steamers though.

Jim, thanks for posting the link.  I was on my way there and stopped in here to check in, what timing! 

Ed, thanks for your input.  That's exactly the kind of thing I am looking to find out.  Regarding the upcoming 3rd Rail engine, my current layout is quite unprototypical with a lot of 072 curves and steep grades.  My 3rd Rail engines aren't happy in such an environment.  That being said, my dream layout for someday is what you are doing now!

Are 3rd Rail 3 rail engines easily converted to 2rail?  By easily, I mean can it be done by a pro for a reasonable amount of money? 

Ed, another question, is the 90f82 based on on the 90f75?  I see what you are saying about the angles at the top sides of the 90f75.  Is that the most pronounced difference between the two?  Thanks for the info.

Since Sunset/3rd Rail offers 2-Rail models also, why not just order/reserve the 2-Rail version?

my current layout is quite unprototypical with a lot of 072 curves and steep grades.  My 3rd Rail engines aren't happy in such an environment.

Jeff

If operating characteristics are a factor in your decision that should favor the MTH locomotive.  I have put many miles on an MTH  USRA light Mike with a drive train similar or identical to the L-1.  It is good for 20+ modern plastic O scale freight cars  (Atlas, Lionel, MTH, K-Line) on a 2.5 % grade with O-72+ curves.

This video shows the MTH USRA mike with 18 cars and a caboose pulling the hill through Spiral Tunnel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIleIVxIC-M

Ed is right on the drawbar length.  If the version you are considering has the wireless drawbar you can swap it out the for a shorter one.  Since the 3 rail version of this locomotive is advertised for O-42 curves you should be able to go to a shorter drawbar on O-72.

Operating characteristics should not be an issue with 3rd Rail.  I have a 4% grade that my engines are able to climb quite well pulling 15 cars or more.  The same for passenger cars.  I use Atlas tracks and turnouts--no problems with the big Pennsy  3rd Rail steamers:N1,Q1,Q2,J1a,T1,etc.  I have an O-63 reverse  and an O-63 curve on a trestle.   All other curves are O-72 or greater--no problems.

I look forward  to the new L1.

Norm Rish

Pennsy freight engines had single-chime "Hooter" whistles, so that whistle sounds fairly accurate to me.

Jeff - 90F82 and 90F75 tender classes are two different designs with common water capacity. In  PRR tender classification the first numbers  stand for the water capacity in hundreds of gallons (90 indicating 9000 gallons), the letter representing primary service (F for freight, P for passenger, S for switching), and the last numerals the firing deck height above the rails. Two good spotting features to differentiate between these tender classes are the previously mentioned coal boards, and the tender deck slope sheet support.  The 90F75 used a pair of angled heavy rods to support the slope sheet, while the 90F82 used a vertical plate across the full width of the tender.  There are also different rivet patterns on the tender sides, with the L1s 90F75 having a sloping line of rivets in the area of the slope sheet, and the 90F82 rivets not.  All previous imported models of the 90F75 tender (MG, USH, Weaver, Williams) had errors in coal board length/location and doghouse width due to errors in the Kalmbach Loco Cyc. L1s drawing.  I helped a fellow SPF in providing Scott prints of PRR drawings and later we provided critiques of the pre-production drawings and pilot model photos.  Hopefully the Sunset Third Rail L1s will be the best one yet in O scale.  

Also agree with Wowak - the MTH single chome "hooter" sounds right for a "typical"  L1s.  Most PRR freight power built up to the 1930's had hooter whistles - but some were later re-equipped with multichime ones like heard on K4s locomotives - probably from locomotives going to the scrap yard.  A few years ago the PRRT&HS Keystone had a very complete article on PRR whistles, and the society sells a CD set with audio recordings of the major classes of PRR power.  

Ed Rappe

Ed,

Thanks for all of the information on the tender for the L1.  I'm really looking forward to the 3rd Rail model now more than ever.  There has been a glaring need for a Pennsy Mike made true to scale for a long time.  It would seem that 3rd Rail will have another beauty !  Next up: an N2 and then a streamlined K4,or vice versa.

Norm Rish

Ed, thanks for all the info.  That is some good stuff right there.  Its cool that you were able to be involved to help develop this project by 3rd Rail.  Now I want want one!

How does the MTH version of the engine itself stand up in terms of scale proportion and accuracy?   

I notice the pre-production sample of the 3rd Rail has the double crosshead guides (excuse me if my terminology is wrong), whereas at least the few pictures I looked at of the prototype show a single guide.  Did some of the L1s mikados have the double guides?

Is there a thread about the 3rd Rail L1s?  I was not able to find it.

Sharp eye Jeff.  There  are several corrections that should be made to the pilot model in addition to the valve gear.  As the changes do not entail major tooling hopefully Scott can have the builder incorporate them in the production models.

I haven't had one of the MTH L1s models in my hands to measure against PRR drawings - but I could spot the tender and the trailing truck issues from model photos.  I've always wanted a correctly proportioned L1s model to operate on my railroad.  Not satisfied with stock offerings, over the years I have taken what some would think exthings erasures to get an accurately dimensioned model.  This has including cutting almost a scale foot out of a Williams L1 boiler while shortening the frame to adjust for it.  Most recently I had Frank Miller modify and mate a PSC K4s boiler to a USH L1s a chassis (the KTM/MG/USH L1's have boilers about 8% over diameter).  The left over PSC K4s mech and tender  were modified and mated with a scratch built boiler to create a PRRT&HS award winning K5s 5698.

Hopefully I won't have to do similar surgery on the Sunset Third Rail "modernized" L1s I've ordered.

Ed Rappe

I have both the 20-80007A L1s Mikado and the 20-3253-1 I1s Decapod.  The tenders are not the same.  Also, remember that Pennsy was notorious for swapping tenders between locomotives, even going through the bother of changing the deck heights.

Stuart

Stuart – points made.  Though the MTH L1s tender has an angled slope sheet, it appears from photos that it shares the same side body details (size, rivet pattern, vertical coal bunker sides) as the MTH I1s tender.  If so it is likely MTH tool makers started with what they had from their I1s tender and modified it with several L1s tender features. 

Many changes were made to PRR tender classes over the years such as mid life addition of dog houses and stoker equipment which changed their appreance.  And as  noted the PRR was known for swapping tenders.  Sole surviving L1s 620 at Strasburg trails a recycled 110F75a tender off an M1 or K4s.   I've studed over a hundred L1s photos (books, internet, videos) and have not found an L1s tender with the same spotting features (straight sides, no angled coal board extension, and exposed angled slope sheet without a matching line of rivets on the tank side) as found on the MTH model.  With 574 L1s locomotives perhaps a photo exists of a prototype for the MTH tender – but at the very least it would be atypical of the class.  Based on photos the angled coal board extention 90F75 tender being modeled by Sunset is the most common tender  trailed by PRR L1s' in their decades of service.

The original question was “I’d like to hear comments about this model from the perspective of scale fidelity and accuracy to the prototype”.  IMO the MTH tender doesn’t look like the ones I see in L1s photos and film.   We all accept some prototype compromises in the models we buy for reason of price or operation.  Fortunately if one wants a model of a PRR L1s we'll have several to choose from in the near future.  If DCS is not a driving factor I’d wait for the Forum member reviews/photos of the production models and then buy the one which best meets your value preferences.

Ed Rappe

PRR L-1 Pilot Sample shows the wrong Valve Guide. This is being changed to the Laird cross head guide.

3rd Rail L-1 is coming this May. Only 100 models being produced.

Scott - China

Weaver L1s from the 90's   This one has been upgraded to EOB drive system.  Note the distance between the locomotive and tender. I'll let the expert tell you all that is wrong with this offering.


Second locomotive on the table. Click on the triangle to access a video.

From what I am hearing the 3rd Rail pilot model is outstanding which means the final will likely be simply an incredible model that you can run.  MTH makes nice running trains, that is not in doubt, but if you are looking for two rail and true scale fidelity, 3rd Rail will normally come out ahead and they run like clockwork.

I've purchased 11 3rd Rail steamers  no issues.  I have  a postwar styled L1s on order, and am thinking about buying a second pre-war one as the railroad ran quite a few unmodified into the 1952 time frame on my railroad.

Ed Rappe

This was a nice thread until it turned into a typical Purple ad.  I'm out. 

Being the three rail scale forum, I thought the discussion was about fidelity to the prototype? 

Being the three rail scale forum, I thought the discussion was about fidelity to the prototype?

Indeed it is about fidelity to the prototype.  And since we are not static modelers but scale model railroaders that fidelity includes the ability to operate in a prototypical fashion on a model railroad.  For the 3RS crowd that means specif things.

The original poster said:

Regarding the upcoming 3rd Rail engine, my current layout is quite unprototypical with a lot of 072 curves and steep grades.  My 3rd Rail engines aren't happy in such an environment.

O-72 curves are a defining part of 3RS.  Grades are certainly prototypical.  And grades of 2.5 to 3% are what one could expect to find on a scale oriented model railroad in any scale.  As the OP noted those can be significant factors impacting the suitability of a particular locomotive for his model railroad.

Roy asked:

So, even with this love fest going one, NO ONE else has had one that was a lemon?

I said that my experience was not as negative as Roy's but that 3rd Rail locomotives tend to be lighter with less pulling power that their diecast Lionel and MTH counterparts.  And I said that the tender weight and drawbar design can have a negative impact of 3rd Rail locomotives suitability for operating through prototypical movements.

Does anyone think that those are not factual statements?

Does anyone have a 3rd Rail steam locomotive that weights more and can out pull a similar sized diecast model?

If you are going to accuse me of posting a "Purple ad" at least be accurate.  If that was an ad it was and Orange and Purple ad.

Some people seem to have a spell any time they hear something they don't like.

If you think that I am in error on a fact please say so.

If you just don't like a fact please save us the drama. 

Yea, you are right Ted, it is an Orange and Purple ad.  Have fun, I'm not playing.

Sincerely,

Drama Queen Jer

Groan. I do. I have brass engines that will outpull their MTH counterparts. Simply done by adding weight. A direct comparison is my stock brass PSC class A with the added weight that came with it outpulls an MTH A by 5 cars. Someday I'll add weight to the MTH version, too. Unfortunately you can't help people who don't want to help themselves.

I think my Sunset/3rd Rail C&O H-8, with its sprung drivers, also out-pulls one of my MTH C&O H-8 models, which has no sprung drivers.

Which reminds me:three weights come out of my Q1(streamlined version) and I can't seem to be able to find where they were---they're about as big as the end of a little finger.

Norm

Here is my MTH Premier L1 Interstate RR. I don't have a place for new trains right now but if I did I would be asking why 3rd Rail didn't do the Interstate.

Maybe Scott Mann was not aware that the Interstate Railroad had any former PRR L1 locomotives, nor did anyone reserve/order one.

How about painting them Santa Fe, really class 882, 3 engines were purchased from the Pennsy in July 1945 and scraped two years later.

Soo Nut,

3rd Rail is offering a Santa Fe version,I do believe.

Norm