Love mine. PS2.   Looks great with the six state cars.  Outpulls anything except maybe the Brute, but the B doesn't fit on the layout, the Super does.  There are some limitations, to layout clearances, accessory use (bridges, switches etc.), as noted in previous threads, but not difficult to make it work.  My outside loop is built to accomodate the Super.  

I did make a small modification with the Dremel, to those unecessary low outside aprons on the shell, to improve underside clearance.  Love the 381 detailing on the Super, operating pantographs, etc, as opposed to the slab-of-bacon Brute.  

One of my favorite engines on the layout.  But that's because I could dedicate the outer loop to it, and use the bridges etc that it won't fit through on other loops, so I'm not sacrificing anything.  The Super is large, but not out-of-scale large like the Brute.  The Super works well with the other larger standard gauge equipment.

In a word, .. superb.

I own and operate the traditional version in two-tone green. With two open frame three pole motors growling away, one truly senses that one is operating a genuine piece of machinery. And, the ozone! Just bringing up the power, watching the lights intensify, and hearing the rising buzz of the e-unit is magical and gently hints that the locomotive is connected to Grand Cooley Dam.  It is tastefully decked out with just the right amount trim and is perfectly proportioned for the State cars by length and height. Consequently, the train so assembled 'looks right'. It mates well with 200 series freight cars, too.

As hojack says, you have to watch clearances -- it will not pass through a Heck Gate bridge, for example, but there are other bridges one can place on its loop. Checking the spur gear lubrication from time to time is essential and will reward you with splendid running. This is one big baby that generates a sense of momentum that you can literally feel.

Bob 

It hits lighted MTH lock ons. Hits MTH switches on turns. Derails on MTH switches. Does not clear 280 bridges. I could run my Avon 381.

Hojack - How much did you grind off the bottom? Can you post a picture? I've been thinking about doing something like that to mine. I've also thought about shimming the pilot, but that would be complex because then I'd have to add thicker shims to raise the body some more. 

In my enthusiasm, I should have mentioned a few things....

The Super 381 is not the most practical piece around. It is heavy (20 lbs.). Much of its mass is on the large swinging pilots on ends of the engine where the motors and the traction weights are located. There are good reasons why Cowen did not take it into production. 

I have not had any pilot to body interference issues. External clearances must be noted, although a lit MTH lock-on can be easily replaced by a conventional style lock-on. However, if one is going to get into purchasing a State set headed by locomotive as singular and special as the S381, it is pretty much a given that one will need to adapt the right of way to its use. It is a very good copy of the original with all that being a large unique piece implies.

Bob

Train Town bridges Nos. 1 and 2 (if you can find them) also clear the Super.

Bob

Here's a bit more on shimming the body and the pilots. The body rides on the side rails of the center section, as shown in the photo below. I made shims out of brass bar stock and drilled holes in them to match the two holes in the side rails. I also made brass shims for the pilots, somewhat thinner than the ones for the body. The "disastrous results" alluded to by Hojack were probably because the person who did the work shimmed up the pilots without raising the body at the same time, resulting in a collision between the body and the pilot decks. 

How did you modify your 280 bridge to allow your Super to pass through?  Can you please post a picture or two of your modifications to the 280.

Bob

Bob, I probably wouldn't have done this to a 280 in original condition.  These 2 bridges I found very rusty, sandblasted both of them, and painted one gray and one black.  The black one is on the second loop, where ther Super 381 does not go.

You can see from these photos how I mangled the gray one to let the 381 through.  It was a matter of bending those tabs down flat so the 381's low side aprons couild go through.  Theoretically they could be bent back up to restore the bridge in the future, but it's a pretty severe bending job.

Hojack,

Thanks!  Your pictures showed me exactly what I needed to know, i.e., that the truss sides of the 280 bridge are not the problem, rather the it's the small triangular supports along the bottom that create the clearance problem, which your neat modifications solve.

You indicated that the Super has a problem with navigating over the 101 bridge and ramps.  I would imagine that the posts on each corner of the 101 bridge make it simply too narrow to allow the Super to pass through. Correct?  But is navigating up the ramps also a problem for the Super?  If not, attached below is a photo of another possible solution using ramps that would allow the Super to pass over an "unmodified" 280 bridge.

Lastly, you mentioned the Super would not navigate over a Hellgate Bridge.  Could you please explain where the clearance problem(s) occur(s)?  Is the height of the Hellgate's portals over the track at each end simply to low to allow the Super to pass through without the pantographs making contact?  Or is there another clearance problem between the Super's apron and the track on the bridge or the bridge itself?  If the latter, do you know if this problem exists with all types/brands of original and reproduction Hellgate bridges including Lionel's Hellgate Bridge #6-32999, whose base was modified to allow two O gauge tracks to run over it? See comparison photos below.

Bob

I can only share with you my experiences, which of course do not cover all possible combinations.

The Hellgate Bridge issue with the Super 381 seems to be one where YMMV.  If I remember correctly, Steve (F&G RR) reports that the Super fits through his Hellgate - barely.  Mine does not, it hits at several points:

As for the 101/104 type bridge, the answer is both: the bridge posts are too narrow, and there are issues with the ramp incline as well.

Here's the Super in one of my tinplate bridges by 100 Year Bridge Company, marketed for G Scale: it is a very comfortable fit, unfortunately I do not think they are still making bridges:

Damian at Mainline Bridges does beautiful work, also primarily for G Scale, all welded steel and powdercoated, this is one of his and it has more clearance than the 100 Year bridge: 

The S381 will easily clear through a Train Town No. 2 open truss bridge (shown). A  S381 will also clear the Train Town No. 1 truss bridge (to the right) that the 44E (254E) is passing through. These might be useful for someone looking for a bridge that takes up less real estate.

Bob

Bob, 

According to MTH's online catalog, the Super's width is 5-1/8" and the Brute's width is 5-1/2".  Based on your photos, it would appear that the Brute might also be able to navigate over Train Town bridges.  Do you know if it can?

Bob

Bob,

I am not familiar with "Train Town" bridges.  Who made them, when were they made, and where might I find them for sale?

Bob

Thanks for all the info on Train Town bridges Nos. 1 and 2.  I'll be on the lookout for them when I next attend York!

Bob

I've had a super 381 for some time now but just got up and running on my new layout. I've just got a simple loop with 72 curves and so far it runs great. Just one thing I noticed that looks strange.When coming out of a curve the body of the loco does not recenter with the frame, it stays twisted about 1/4 to 3/8 inch out of alignment, as going around a curve.  It is easily manually straightened but I believe this should happen automatically. Guess its not really not detrimental to the operation, just looks wierd. I've read the preceeding posts which seem to suggest that there are clearence issues with the frame / body combination. Thought maybe some lube would help but not sure where to apply it. So far, I haven't ventured to tear this beast apart. Just thought there might be an easier solution. 

Thanks

Willy

hojack,

Based on your photos, your Hellgate Bridge is either an original or is a reproduction of an original and is not one of the wider modified versions, nos. 6-32904 and 6-32999.  Lionel redesigned these Hellgates to provide the space needed for two O gauge mainlines to run across the bridge.  It would appear, therefore, that Steve's Hellgate is likely one of the modified versions, which would not have the same side clearance problems as evident in your pictures above as the modified versions are around 2 inches wider through the arches than originals.  You can see this width difference in the attached photos showing end views of an original vs. the wider modified version of the Hellgate.

It would appear that the Super 381 with its pantograph lowered should readily pass through the wider modified Hellgate bridges, nos. 6-32904 and 6-32999, without any problems.

Bob

My Hellsgate bridge is a MTH. It does go through the bridge but I would never attempt it under power. It is so tight it most likely has the same clearance problems as Hojacks. 

Update: My handrails for the doors were bent in a little to give clearance.

It would seem with the Lionel extra wide bridge and possibly using the lower profile Gargraves track to lower the engine clearance problems may be solved. I do not have this bridge or any Gargraves track to experiment.

Jim C Steve was a typo.

Bob B your layout looks really well done. Are the brown roads carpet also? Could you post some overall photos?

Jim,

The roads are done with parakeet gravel. The short nap outdoor carpeting, chosen to suggest seasonal Christmas garden imitation 'grass'*, holds the gravel in place fairly well. The use of parakeet gravel is authentic to period. My uncle and father used it on their Standard gauge layouts of the 1920's and 30's. Due to the added 'stuff' in modern gravel, one has to sift it to obtain 'pure' gravel as of old. Its use is also convenient. If one wishes to change a road, just vacuum up what is to be eliminated and lay new gravel down to suit. And, road repairs are easy.

Other vintage (1930's) choices include the use of original Jefferson hedges and hedgeway gate, trees, flag plot, flower mounds, bird bath, fountain, arbor, rocks, etc. Jefferson Sales Co. (of Jeffersonville - Norristown, Pa) also marketed 'Color-Rite' gravel that was a lot like parakeet gravel.

I need to get off the dime and take some more up to date pictures. There is one dated picture posted in the current Photo Fun string that will give a reasonable notion of appearance.

Thanks for the kind words.

Sorry for the wander off topic.

Bob

*Artificial grass, whether loose or glued, ultimately presents a problem with dust when a layout is to stand for extended periods of time. Short nap outdoor carpet is easily vacuumed when the job comes due.

Jim, sorry, not even a typo, a total brain short circuit, inexcusable.  My Hellgate is an MTH also, we're just dealing with a little local variation with the clearances.  Too close to call.  

The inside protrusions in the HG bridge, at the bottoms of the curved part of the arch, on mine measure 5-3/8" apart.  This defines the width clearance for the bridge, as they are the closest points.  And the Super hits these protrusions.  For this reason, I would be very skeptical of the 5-1/8" given as the width of the loco by MTH.  It's a little difficult to actually measure the width of the loco with a tape or ruler, all curves and so on, but I measure at least 5-1/4 for the cab itself, and then add for the railings.