I am interested in getting a 81XXX series Mogul, but I have never seen one in person. My biggest worry is that I am trying to stay with 1:20.3. I know the engine will be small, but in the pictures, it look more like is a standard gauge engine, which would make it 1:22, not narrow gauge. I would think that if it is a 1:20.3 it would have more over hang over the wheels. Does this make sense?
Bruce
The mogul is a c. 1876 locomotive, as such is a small locomotive for no other reason than they were all small at that point in narrow gauge development, compared to the K-27s etc., which we commonly associate with narrow gauge which are of a much later (by around 40 - 50 years) vintage. There's none of the "typical narrow gauge overhang" because at that point, the common thinking amongst railroad engineers was that equipment should be no wider than around twice the gauge of the track. By the 1880s, that thinking had been proven obsolete, and locos (and rolling stock) became wider by a bit, pushing 8' wide in many cases, sometimes wider. Once the "outside frame" locomotives came into vogue, particularly on the western RRs, the motive power really took on that "hunkered down" look we often associate with narrow gauge. The reality is, though, that a lot of narrow gauge equipment looked the world like slightly scaled-down standard gauge equipment with slightly larger cabs.
(A side note - standard gauge on 45mm track is 1:32, not 1:22)
Later,
K
Kevins remarks are very true, I will just add that disneyland has a couple rebuilt narrow gauge 2-6-0 moguls and they are spot on, I bought my 2-6-0 because of my love of the Disney steamers I was going to repaint it to match but when I opened the box it was so pretty I could not.
NM
Thanks guys! Thanks for putting it back into perspective for me. I should have known these things.
I will be getting one of these. I plan on changing it somewhat though. I would like to enclose the cab, and put Kadee couples on it.
1/32 is what I meant to say. I was typing quickly and did not proof my writing. Thanks again.
Bruce