BLI Pennsylvania M1a/b

[RBrodzinsky]

Is it an optical illusion, or is their a mold seam on the smokestack of #6798, such that the engineer's side is slightly lower than the fireman's?

[chicken45]

So, these were dual service, right? I don't think I've ever seen a pic of them pulling varnish.

[djconway]

Even Bachmann put a working coupler on the front!!  So far my only complaint.
Picked up my 3 about 45 minutes ago. 
Sounds great!

[chicken45]

That whistle...aww jeah.

[eric220]

So, these were dual service, right? I don't think I've ever seen a pic of them pulling varnish.

Check out 00:30 below

[peteski]

Josh, the front view pics don't show the dummy coupler very cleanly, and at that angle it to me looks like a representation of a Z scale MT coupler rather than a true AAR coupler.  Is that what it is?  Can you show it more from the top view?

[Dave V]

With respect to M1s being dual-service, I have some pics showing them doing passenger duty even into the 50s, but by then the vast majority of passenger trains were dieseled.  By the 50s, M1s were primarily in freight roles where they did quite well.

As for the dummy coupler up front, it doesn't bother me too much because I don't plan to double-head these that often (they really weren't double-headed much on the real PRR either) but as long as I can slip the real coupler of the next engine over the front coupler that'll do...I don't have a layout desinged for cutting in and cutting out helpers (besides, helpers were more of a Pittsburgh Division thing!).

[seusscaboose]

That whistle...aww jeah.

am I gonna hear it tonight
and will it be weathered?

[chicken45]

Josh, the front view pics don't show the dummy coupler very cleanly, and at that angle it to me looks like a representation of a Z scale MT coupler rather than a true AAR coupler.  Is that what it is?  Can you show it more from the top view?

With respect to M1s being dual-service, I have some pics showing them doing passenger duty even into the 50s, but by then the vast majority of passenger trains were dieseled.  By the 50s, M1s were primarily in freight roles where they did quite well.

As for the dummy coupler up front, it doesn't bother me too much because I don't plan to double-head these that often (they really weren't double-headed much on the real PRR either) but as long as I can slip the real coupler of the next engine over the front coupler that'll do...I don't have a layout desinged for cutting in and cutting out helpers (besides, helpers were more of a Pittsburgh Division thing!).

I've heard and read conflicting information on the regions/divisions/etc. Where did the Middle Div end and Pitt begin?
I could not couple an N or Z coupler to the dummy pilot. There was not a functioning coupler included, either.

So, the website says it comes with TWO MTL couplers AND working backup light.  Now, the backup light here is basically a lantern, right? I wouldn't be surprised it it didn't light up since it has jewels on it and because of its small size.
I just got off the phone with BLI and they are looking in to it for me. She noted that early K4 runs (in HO) did not include working backup lights, if I understood her correctly.

[prr7161]

I've heard and read conflicting information on the regions/divisions/etc. Where did the Middle Div end and Pitt begin?

In the transition period and before, the break happened more or less at Altoona passenger station.  MP 0  bounced around between there and SLOPE depending on the timetable edition.  The 1964 region reorganization shuffled things around a bit to avoid breaking administrative segments at major terminals, and generally pushed the mainline "division" segments westward.

[Dave V]

That would be unfortunate if the coupler provided isn't the one that was advertised.  It doesn't look like a trivial replacement, either...  But again, for Middle Division (Marysville, PA to Altoona, PA) I've seen little photographic evidence to suggest that these ran doubleheaded very much.

If you're working the Slope and the Curve, however, you're gonna need working couplers on both ends!

[chicken45]

I am indeed working the Slope-n-Slide!
Heard back from BLI:

The rear lighting that really lit up was the intent, and it appeared in one of the prototypes--so that's what the web editor went off of when he wrote up the spec. Usually, those stay the way they are by the time he gets them, but every so often there are last-minute changes after that. Here, it came down to "workable space" in the tender, so the lighting had to be replaced by the jeweled markers.

The coupler in the front--we don't believe that one will be interchangeable, again due to space concerns, but until we get our spare parts, we actually don't want to say "yay" or "nay" on that. We never like to say 'never', as there seem to be no general rules in model railroading (about the time you think you have a rule figured out, you find out there are none ). We're expecting these parts to come in by some time in mid-May, so you may want to check back with us on that. In the meantime, we corrected our web pages for that (thank you for letting us know!).

I'm ok with no backup lighting. It would be tough to get a light in that little lamp unless your last name ends with "H, I, or E."

I'm not sure what she meant by "spare parts" but I do rather need working couplers in on both ends (TWSS). I emailed them back about that bit.

[SkipGear]

I never noticed how small the backup light really is. I can see that being a problem. The only way I can see to solve it is similar to the way that Atlas did the light in the 4-4-0 and make a clear casting, paint everything but the lense and shine an LED up from the bottom.

[basementcalling]

Slobbering Pennsy Freak, and don't you forget it! 

I owe ya a slobbering.

So which is better, the K4 or M1?

[chicken45]

The M1 is of finer tooling, and more accurate. It not only has the correct sand dome, but different class lamps based on version.