NW-Modeling-List Digest, Vol 140, Issue 18

[NW Modeling List]

I can't think of any pre-rivarossi models that swiveled the rear truck. 
Not even Bowser.
But its been pretty normal for manufacturers to find solutions to get 
models to work or sell.
Aside from that think what the Beyer-Garratt engine is all about.
But the model railroad curves are far sharper than the prototype unless 
you go traction...

The real 4-12-2 has jointed siderods to get around sharper curves. It 
might also havea set of drivers blind. I'm waiting on BLI's 4-12-2 how 
they solved this, not liking MTH's idea making it articulated, just not 
the model what its supposed to be.

-Lynn-

On 2/8/2015 1:39 AM, nw-modeling-list-request at nwhs.org wrote:
> From: NW Modeling List<nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org>
> To: NW Modeling List<nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org>
> Subject: Re: Swiveling rear engines/the Arrow
> Message-ID:<mailman.2210.1423333899.1308.nw-modeling-list at nwhs.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> 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