Swiveling rear engines/the Arrow

[NW Modeling List]

The articulating rear engine is one of the only details that bother me simply because it is such a large and fundamental deviation from the articulated design.  This issue (and also my limited space) bothers me enough that my layout has a T&OC influence; I haven’t seen any NYC steam locomotives that articulate incorrectly.

Side note - if I happen to be at a train show that Intermountain attends, I always make a point of thanking them for doing the articulation properly.  

Kurt, I’ll look for your de-rear-engine-articulation article.  Circleville on the Scioto Division is still in the plans, so I can’t get completely  away from articulation…

Matt

On Feb 3, 2015, at 3:57 PM, NW Modeling List <nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org> wrote:

Matt, in one of my clinics I spend some time discussing threshold's of tolerance: i.e. what bothers you.  And this will vary from individual to individual.  As I said, the rear engine swiveling bothers me, but it hasn't bothered me enough to keep me from some locomotive purchases.  Factors include things like 6 coupled or 8 coupled, and how much I have to pay for one that doesn't swivel.  Watching the cylinders on the rear engine swing out is mildly irritating.  Hasn't kept me from the Bachman C&O H5 and the Proto 2-8-8-2, but I do prefer the Powerhouse 2-8-8-2.  
 
And one other point in a memo that's already too long (shocker, I know).  Generally, and this involves scores of locomotives, an articulated N&W 2-8-8-2, even with a fixed rear engine, is usually not a minimum radius problem.  Partly because it is articulated (which was Anatole Mallet's point)and partly because the drivers are comparatively small.  A PRR Q-2 or Santa Fe 2-10-4 is more likely to be a problem, but will take 30" usually.  A UP 4-12-2 usually needs 34" or more.