BLI Class A 2-6-6-4

Dan, I've had mine for a couple of months and I've found it an excellent model. While it does have one pair of traction tyres on the rear engine and that the rear engine does pivot a la P2K and Rivarossi locos, it's not noticable. In fact you have to look really hard to see the traction tyres when the loco is on the track. It's sound system is really good although I wish that the sound system had more polyphonic sounds ie when you have the bell on and you blow the whistle some of the background sounds drop out and on my loco the bell as well. It's hauling capacity is awesome and with the the provision of "load sensing" the steam chuff will generally aproximate a real steam loco ie heavy hauling a longer more pronounced chuff, high speed running a shorter chuff that sort of runs into a continous chuff. It's difficult to descibe best to be heard. Detail wise I didn't think it lacked for anything but the normal things RTR manufacturers seem to omit like the space beneath firebox and above the trailing truck. Another small thing is the rather horrible trailing truck pivot/drawbar. Looks like they employed an ex Rivarossi person to design the trailinf truck pivot drawbar. When I get time I'm going to convert this monstrosity into something more akin to to a normal pivot and seperate drawbar. I'd assume that as the loco is designed to traverse 22" radius this is reason for the drawbar/ training truck pivot arrangement, likewise with the swinging rear engine. Another small thing is the lack of crew. Athearn don't supply a crew neither does P2K. You pay top dollar for an engine and the can't supply a crew. All in all this is an excellent engine whose features far outweigh it's faults and those faults are easily correctable but I'd guess if you want to buy a more accurate loco then you'd have to buy brass, get it painted, add sound and then when the wheels wear out try and find replacements or sit it on the shelf.

regards Charles Emerson, Bellbird, NSW, Australia.

"Dan L. Merkel" wrote in message news:...

the bell on and you blow the whistle some of the background sounds drop out and on my loco the bell as well< Charles, You might want to check the CVs. According to the manual the bell and whistle should be able to be on at the same time. If I remember correctly on my 4-6-4 they were but it's out on loan so can't test it. Also some of the sounds are set up to work at different speed levels and also depending on if the loco is going forward or stopped. The set up for the QSI sound is quite complex. 80 page manual to describe it but the manual is good.

Dan,

First of all....nice to meet you this past June at Fostoria to watch trains. Again thanks for the decals. The Broadway Ltd 2-6-6-4. Like the first respondent said.....AWESOME!! VERY true....dispite any "flaws" this engine is well worth the money. I have a 2% grade on my railroad and have hauled 72 loaded and empty hoppers up the grade and the engine does not even slow down. I have no idea how many cars it may be able to handle on that grade as that train was very heavy and I was afraid of damaging knuckles on the cars. If you have seen the ads about the A hauling 117 cars at the East Coast Hobby Show...well I was there and helped to count the cars on that train. I was told that each of those cars was at least 3 oz....so do the math, the train weighed 21.9 pounds!! GET THE ENGINE!!

Bob Rule, Jr.

Great engine. Shop around for price though.............

Fellas, Whilst I don't know the actual model, the significant feature is that it has traction tyres, which is why it has such good haulage power. You may not like them, but if you want to pull long trains, especially over any sort of gradient, you gotta have them. Regards, Bill.

said.....AWESOME!!

Bill,

The interesting part of your reply has to do with an engines ability to pull long trains. In the HO world, I know of no big articulated engine, made in the plastic realm that pulls trains equivilet to what the prototype pulled, without having the tire. 80-100 car trains in HO scale are HUGH. I pulled

72 hopper cars, loaded and unloaded up a 2% grade. That train, in real world length - were it stretched out straight would be almost as long as my house, 40 ft. In weight it was approx. 20 lbs. So......traction tire was absolutely necessary. You will not find a brass engine that would pull that load. You would have to have an engine like a Bowser to challenge the Class A from Broadway. Basically, in my opinion, if you buy a plastic steam engine without the traction tire, plan on 30 cars especially if you have any significant grades on your railroad. Besides, there is nothing wrong with 30 cars. Visually....30 car trains look like long trains. If one does not like the tire, don't buy the product. As for me....I love this engine and have the comfort to know that when I run my 30 - 40 car trains with it, the tire is helping so that the motor is not overworked.

Bob

Wouldn't that kind of train on a 2% grade have required a helper in the real world?

Erik,

I would agree, most railroads would have used helpers on a 2% grade with a 70+ car train. That is something that I like to do since I have DCC and sound in some of my engines. Nothing like the different sounds from two engines working together.

Bob

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 15:53:28 UTC, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (EBTBOB) wrote: 2000

I just checked some ratings. An SP cab-forward (AC-6 to AC-12) was rated for 27 50 ton cars from Bakersfield to Mojave over Tehachapi. On the flats they were rated for over 100. The combination of grades and curves really took a toll. On the flats of the San Joaquin valley a mogul could pull 100 cars, just not very fast.

Bakersfield to Mojave over Tehachapi< Which always makes me wonder why modelers want the models to pull more than the prototypes.

Excellent point. I recall an article in Trains magazine, perhaps 20 years ago, where they discussed some NP branchline where a 2-8+8-2 was only rated at about ten cars!

The difference (loss) in pulling power between level track and an incline is remarkable for steel wheels on steel rail (due to a low coefficient of friction).

Many modelers want their loco to be able to pull the same load up a grade as it does on the level, and with little effort at that. This is

*NOT* prototypical! To climb hills you need to either switch to a larger loco, double head ... or use a pusher, or break the train and 'double the hill' in two separate movements.

Any train that can climb a long steep grade without doing any of the above is WAY overpowered (two or three times, or more!), meaning excessively expensive to operate. BAD business practice!

Now, a FEW high priority trains, especially in more modern time, are intentionally overpowered to save time on grades ... and their freight rates reflect this extravagance. This is especially true of 'hot shot' piggy and container trains.

In steam days 'drag freights' were more the rule, where a loco left the yard with as much as it could pull, perhaps at 25-40 mph. Every long grade required a helper, or some other method, to surmount it. This can make for a lot of interesting movements in model railroad operations. Sure, there were faster more powerful trains then too, but such overpowered trains were not the norm from my experience. The actual policy varied with the particular railroad the part of the country, and the predominant grade profile in the area.

Dan Mitchell ==========

J>

Actually in the days of drag freights I would suspect 40mph was a race horse.

I would like to read that, I don't understand why they would put that heavy of a locomotive on branchline track. Seems the additional track up keep wouldn't merit it. I know the GN tried the 4-6-6-4s on the branch lines and they didn't work well, and were sent to the SP&S.

The original NP mainline before they got the stampede tunnel built had

6% grades and a train with a 2-10-0 at each end was were rated at 5 cars (well they didn't rate in cars but 200 tons).

The NP spent years 1910-1940 of experimenting and development trying to get a 4000 ton train over the 1.9% grade ending at Bozeman Montana with a single locomotive. Hence the the Z series of locomotives, the "greatest" being the Z-5 Yellowstone. Even those didn't do it and ended up in the badwater section between Glendive and Mandan, where they could pull the whole train all by themselves, with half then number of water stops.

Well, a smaller loco could haul even less cars, and double heading meant two crews. If curves and clearances allowed it, the larger loco was cheaper to operate.

The GN also used switchbacks before the first Cascade tunnel was completed. I don't recall the exact figures, but a 4-8-0 and a 2-6+6-2 together, one at each end of the train, could take perhaps ten freight cars over the switchbacks.

And, yes, the GN largely misused their two borrowed (ex SP&S, NP design) Z-6 4-6+6-4 locos, assigning them to track where they could not work up to their high speed (horsepower) potential. As much as I love the GN, they were pretty 'stick in the mud' regarding 'horsepower' locomotives, preferring tractive effort over power. They were always a 'drag freight' road, at least in steam days. Jim Hill's old motto "maximum ton miles with minimum train miles" was both a blessing and a curse. But it did give us the R2, one of the most impressive articulated locos.

Dan Mitchell ==========

SleuthRaptorman wrote: