Here's a little scheme that I don't really have the talent for yet, but might try anyway: I want to 'back-date' a Spectrum 2-8-0 by substituting a smaller tender, essentially, the size / type now used on the MP 4-4-0 This would bring the locomotive acceptably close to M & P # 41 or 42 (or 43 if you like feed water heaters) for my little world. Soooo.. IF I can acquire a tender and all the works from Model Power, - Do you think that it is possible to mate it to the Spectrum 2-8-0? One absolute requirement is archbar trucks. Your comments, suggestions and above all encouragement would be appreciated. Thanks!
Boxies: Why would you want to use a MP tender when the Spectrum tender is so electrically perfect. You could always reface the trucks with the archbar design. You could also reduce the body size of the Spectrum 2-8-0 USRA tender to get what you want. You could mate a MP tender to the Spectrum 2-8-0 by redesigning the drawbar and it's connection to the 2-8-0. Have fun... Stay cool and run steam....
I agree that it may be easier to adapt the Bmann tender than to try another manufacturers tender due to drawbar and current pickup differences. The Bmann tender is sometimes available at shows for a few bucks or you could buy a defunct engine being sold as is cheap and use the tender from it. Some of the tenders from the older Bmann 2-6-2s etc. are a few feet shorter and probably could be cut down even smaller. Some of these tenders have pickup and you could sand off the truck details and then sand down some archbar side frames to make them a little thinner from the back and laminate them to the original truck sides as stated in the previous post by Powersteamguy. I have found in the past that it is sometimes simpler to use the original engine drawbar and adapt it to the new tender than the other way around in some cases. Sometimes the tender gangway design will make it necessary to remount the drawbar attachment post further forward.
The problem with the Bachman 2-8-0 is that it has relatively large drivers for a Consolidation... 63", the same as a USRA Mikado. Most medium consols had 57" or so drivers. IIRC the MA & PA loco (the more modern one, not the deckless older loco that is a smaller boilered version of the MDC/Athearn loco) was about in that size category. Changing the tender wouldn't do that much as the MA & PA 2-8-0 didn't have that much smaller of a tender than the USRA type trailing the Bachmann engine. Charlie Vlk
Following up on Charlie's comments...backdating with a smaller tender implies an older, smaller loco as well...since the Bachpersonn consol is a very LARGE loco for the wheel arrangement, it is perhaps not the best candidate...MDC/Athearn would be much closer to the proportions you are shooting for. Someone posted a photo on another forum of the 2-8-0 beside a Van Swearingen 2-8-4...and the 2-8-0 stood taller and appeared to have a bigger boiler. That is one BEEFY consolidation!
Boxies, Did you get my PM over at Atlas? Funny you should mention backdating a Bachmann 2-8-0 because I'm in the middle of doing the same thing. Most of all Erie's 2-8-0's had 62-1/2" drivers, so 63" is fine with me: http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/loco/erie-s1801l.jpg http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/loco/erie-s1812l.jpg Mine is going to have a shortened Vandy tender, but the MP 4-4-0 tender is a great match for other Erie 2-8-0's. I would just put Kato caboose trucks on the MP tender. Mp doesn't have parts for the 4-4-0 yet though. Convert it like this: http://www.railimages.com/albums/chrisschmuck/agm.jpg http://www.railimages.com/albums/chrisschmuck/agn.jpg http://www.railimages.com/albums/chrisschmuck/agp.jpg http://www.railimages.com/albums/chrisschmuck/agq.jpg http://www.railimages.com/albums/chrisschmuck/ahb.jpg Or you could just shorten the Bachmann tender. This one is shortened: http://www.railimages.com/albums/chrisschmuck/acs.jpg Although I cut the top off to make it a "clearview". You could glue on archbars to the stock Bachmann trucks. Either way I say go for it!
Hmmm. A bit more to think about than I originally anticipated, especially from a dimensional standpoint - I should have done some measuring before starting this thread. Seemed like a good idea at the time, if not an easy one. Thank's for the input, guys, I'll be giving this more thought. Chris: I responded to your pm- let me know if you did not get the response.
