PRR I1sa build thread

[Lemosteam]

I am going to "Magliaroize" a Kato Mikado to make an PRR I1sa using the GHQ L1sa kit.  My only beef using a Mike mechanism for this build is the crosshead slide.  The PRR was known for its use of the Laird style slide with a single split pair of guides and an underslung slide connected to the main rods and the Mike slides just do not cut it for me.



The recent thread regarding the MRC Berkshire, got me to thinking about using parts form one to upgrade the looks of the existing Mike slide.

http://www.spookshow.net/mrc284.html

I purchased a cylinder and rod set from Max and set to work.  First I disassembled the donor loco, and separated the Kato cylinders from their slides. I drilled out the upper slide hole to be round and sized to fit the pin on the front of the MRC slide and glued it in place.  I have an extra mechanism to trim and test fit. 



A small notch on the valve gear support allowed it to rest in the rear of the opening under the boiler of the Mike frame.  I trimmed both supports to meet in the center with the slides parallel to the centerline of the loco in the plan view.  To make the cylinders a semi-rigid assembly, I drilled a hole in the ends of the supports for a brass rod glued in one and a light press fit in the other.



 

Surprising, the rods from the MRC connect to the slides in nearly the same fashion as the Kato.

Here's the new arrangement so far:

 

[mmagliaro]

Yowzers.... that looks great!

(and by the way... just in case anyone wonders, I didn't exactly "sell" these...
I usually just ask for a five-er so that I can pay for the mailing expenses     )

[victor miranda]

now now Max,

you can't be handing out free parts all the time.

sometimes you have to take a few dollars.


and !! danged good idea thar, lemosteam!

2-8-2 2-10-0 ... same wheel count.

victor

[chicken45]

Whew boy here we go!!!

[Lemosteam]

I purchased obtained a cylinder and rod set from Max and set to work.

Better Max?  LOL!

[Lemosteam]

Thanks Victor.  i am praying that the main rod length will work within the new slide's range, but we'll see.

Also hoping for others that the Bachmann valve gear set will be available for parts as well.  Those should be state of the art, but as always I am trying to do this on the cheep!

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Oh man. This is gonna be hot.

[Dave V]

Ah, a Pennsy steam bash...  Now there's some Railwire goodness!

[chicken45]

John, just to be safe, you'd better make two. Not to double head, but to let me "borrow."

[nscaleSPF2]

Uh, John, I would like to make a suggestion.  If you have not already done so, you may want to check the height of the boiler relative to the rails.  Based on my experience with the GHQ boiler and the Kato mechanism, I had to remove a major amount of material from the inside of the boiler, to bring it down to a scale height.  My end result would have looked strange, without this effort.

Just a suggestion.

[Lemosteam]

Ed, Dave, I sure hope it turns out that way!

Josh, how many locomotives are you going to pilfer from me?    LOL!

nscaleSPF2, knowing that in N scale it is nearly impossible to achieve prototype fidelity, I follow the "Reasonable Proportion" method.  As such I am not so much worried about the ability to achieve a certain dimension, (especially when so many others are already compromised).  What I will be going for is the overall look.  For instance, a Reasonable Proportion fail is the GHQ L1 boiler itself.  When the finished L1 model is placed next to a Minitrix K4, which is widely regarded to be somewhat accurate in the boiler diameter and height, the two are hardly similar, even though we SPF's know that the boilers were shared between the L1 and K4.  this is why I converted a Minitrix decapod into an L1 instead and the reason I am going to convert both of my L1 kits into I1 hippos.  The GHQ shell is much closer to that behemoth than an L1.  Also, when a K4 is eventually produced, I do not expect it to be anything near the size of the GHQ boiler.

hope no one misconstrues this as a slam against GHQ. iIt is not intended to be- they had to make compromises to get that shell to fit on a Kato mech.

This is just my opinion and I respect and appreciate your advice.

I just want my fleet, when lined up next to each other, to look proportionally close to what one would expect in images.

I'll post some pics later to illustrate my point.

[chicken45]

Uh, John, I would like to make a suggestion.  If you have not already done so, you may want to check the height of the boiler relative to the rails.  Based on my experience with the GHQ boiler and the Kato mechanism, I had to remove a major amount of material from the inside of the boiler, to bring it down to a scale height.  My end result would have looked strange, without this effort.

Just a suggestion.

I'd love to see a pic of that, dude!

[Cajonpassfan]

Ed, Dave, I sure hope it turns out that way!

Josh, how many locomotives are you going to pilfer from me?    LOL!

nscaleSPF2, knowing that in N scale it is nearly impossible to achieve prototype fidelity, I follow the "Reasonable Proportion" method.  As such I am not so much worried about the ability to achieve a certain dimension, (especially when so many others are already compromised).

I just want my fleet, when lined up next to each other, to look proportionally close to what one would expect in images.

I'll post some pics later to illustrate my point.

+1! and that's where the science turns into art...
Keep the pics coming John!
Otto K.

[nscaleSPF2]

I'd love to see a pic of that, dude!

You have already seen the pics, dude.

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=26978.615#lastPost

[chicken45]

You have already seen the pics, dude.

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=26978.615#lastPost

Ooh yeah ! I remember that now. I didn't know/remember you milled out the shell. Did you happens take any pics of that part?