square or vanderbuilt?

which should I use, the vanderbuilt or the square tender?

  • vanderbuilt

    Votes: 9 29.0%

  • square

    Votes: 22 71.0%
  • Total voters
    31
N

nachoman

I've picked up an old Mantua 4-4-2. It needs a few details before I put in on the layout, and I am debating wheter to swap the square tender with an old MDC vanderbuilt tender I have left over. My layout era is 1918, and my other locomotives for my fictional railroad will all have square tenders. But, my railroad interchanges with the SP, and I am considering pretending that the 4-4-2 or a spare tender was aquired from the SP, or possibly just having an SP passenger train to run on my layout.

Either way, i like the look of the vanderbuilt - it's something different and it is already set up as an oil-burner. So what do you all think? Which looks better, the square or the vaderbuilt tender?

Kevin
 

Attachments

  • atlantic1.jpg
    atlantic1.jpg
    147.1 KB · Views: 9
  • atlantic2.jpg
    atlantic2.jpg
    150.9 KB · Views: 9
Square. Those little vandys just look, well I was going to say "silly", but "wrong" works too. That little Atlantic just looks unbalanced with the vandy tender.

'round these parts, it was only the bigger (Mountain, Northern) types that got the Vanderbilt tenders... everything else had the squares.
 
Yeah, I also think that the square tender looks better, mainly because that's a good-sized Atlantic. The Vanderbilt tender looks too small for that loco (and I'm a fan of small tenders).
That MDC tender would probably look good behind one of Bachmann's high-drivered Ten Wheelers, the tender of which, in my opinion, looks too large.
Locos_to_be_rebuilt_004.jpg


In my case, rather than shorten the tender, as I usually do, I'm going to make the loco larger. ;):-D

Wayne
 
Kevin, i am a BIG vandy tender fan:thumb: , but i gotta go with the others, the square tender DOES look better on that engine:winki: .
 
Aye...so I'm the only vandy fan out there...I go crawl under me rock now.:mrgreen:

Wayne, my dearest wish is to be shrunk to HO scale for an hour, just to take the throttle on your layout in one of your well finished steads.:thumb:
 
shaygetz said:
......Wayne, my dearest wish is to be shrunk to HO scale for an hour, just to take the throttle on your layout in one of your well finished steads.:thumb:
Click to expand...

Thanks for the compliment, Bob, but that could be a dangerous job: all of my locos contain quite a bit of lead. :eek:;):-D:-D

Wayne
 
Kevin - that's a fine looking little Atlantic regardless of the tender choice (the vandy does give it that SP look, however). Did you repaint it or is that the original finish? And where did you find a Mantua 4-4-2 that wasn't a PRR E-6 (with the Belpaire firebox)? I've been keeping my eyes on ebay to see how much they run and they seem to be quite rare.

Also, if you're into Mantua (and my apologies if I've already shared this link a dozen times) you need to check out:

www.yardbirdtrains.com

Also, follow the link to the Yahoo group.
 
From what I can tell, it is all original mantua. It's not one of the oes they produced in later years that has the extra details; this is a plain Jane. I picked it up at a train show for 15 bucks, and it runs fine. Atlantics are my favorite steam wheel arrangement because they are unusual, yet very imortant in the development of steam technology. I also like that "short stubby" appearance.

Kevin
 
I like Vandy's, but they look better on larger engines, like 4-8-2's. Besides, Atlantic's have such a graceful, balanced look, a simple square tender fits them well. Btw, if anyone knows where I can find a C&O Atlantic in HO scale, I would dearly love to know.
 
SP did have Vanderbuilt-tendered Atlantics, but I think those tenders were bigger. I like Atlantics, and I like Vanderbuilts, and therefore I like SP Atlantics. But in this case, the Vandy is too small.
 
brakie said:
I think she looks beautiful with a vandy tender..That square tank makes her look-well-ugly.
Click to expand...

How can you have such great taste in track plans and lousy taste in locomotives? :p :cry:sign1

Besides, it's supposed to have a square tender:
4-4-2_atlantic_1.jpg
 
Squidbait said:
Wayne,

Is that one of the first-run 10-wheelers? All the ones I've seen have the small tender:
Spectrum_82301.jpg
Click to expand...

Yeah, the two that I've got are from the first run. As far as I know, the small tender, which would've been my preference, wasn't available with the high-drivered version. My original intention was to make two CNR H-6s, but the driver spacing is wrong as are the cylinders, and the boiler is undersize, too. My next thought was to use them to build NYC 1290 and 1291, the two F-82s that ran out of St. Thomas (with small tenders and auxiliary tenders), but the drivers are too tall. The low-drivered version, like the one in your photo, is a very close starting point for those locos, though, and I may do them after the current crop of rebuilds gets done.

Wayne
 
I don't like either tender. I do like the tender in the picture Squidbait posted...that's the tender I have behind my Santa Fe 4-4-2...and I'd look for something more like that as well (or, bash it!)

I think the vandy just looks wrong...and the conventional tender looks like it belongs behind an 1890s 4-4-0.
 
In the picture Squidbait posted it looks like the side of the cab is lettered for AT&SF. MDC made a Santa Fe type tender that is correct for a Santa Fe locomotive. I think you would need to find a prototype photo of an S.P. Atlantic to see what tender they ran with it. Even if you don't model it as an S.P. prototype, pictures of 4-4-2's with various types of tenders would give you a good perspective of the size for the tender that would be appropriate. I think most 4-4-2's were used in high speed passenger service in the flatlands. As a result of that type of service, they would tend to run bigger tenders compared to engine size than you might find on a 2-6-2 or Mikado.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back