>stupid running around "sharp" curves, I kind of figured that after much
>searching, can someone give me an idea of a wheel configuration that will
>work well down to about 24 inch radius. I am still looking for a steam
>engine from the early to mid 1900's.
>I thank you for all the help earlier.
One of the reasons prototype mallet engines were built was their
ability to negotiate tight curves (lower bridge loading was the other
'big reason'). Most the models will negotiate tight curves -
particularly if you keep the speed low - but there will be excessive
boiler overhang on curves. This 'overhang' problem may be what other
responders are referring to when they suggest that it may look
If you had a 2-6-6-2, it would have a shorter boiler and much less
overhang and more realistic appearance than the 'Big Boy' you
mentioned earlier. 2-6-6-2's built in the early 1900's frequently had
a boiler that was about the same size as a modern 2-8-2. Most
2-6-6-2's had small drive wheels for drag service. They were
frequently used in switching yards and negotiated tight curves with
ease. These same qualities should translate into a well designed
model. In theory, a 2-6-6-2 should be able to negotiate the same
curves as a 2-6-2 'Prairie' or even an 0-6-0 switcher -- pretty sharp
stuff. And excessive boiler overhang shouldn't be a problem. FWIW,
2-6-6-2's were the most popular mallet wheel arrangement built.
The 'Big Boy' in your original message was a mainline locomotive -
used for high speed freight and even passenger service in a very
particular section of UP's main line. A model of the UP Challenger
would be slightly shorter but it was also a very large locomotive
intended for mainline service.