A small loco should have a small tender

In real railroading, not always. The PT tenders that the NYC upgraded their Hudsons with were only 2' shorter than the locomotive and 30 tons heavier when fully loaded.

 

Yes, but . . .  they loco looks really good with that bigger tender.  I've wanted to get one of those "centipede" PTs for my Hudsons for some time . . . on the other hand the slopeback tenders, as I said, don't look good.   

I totally agree Lee,

 

Not much of a fan of slopebacks either. That little Shifter looks a whole lot better with a "real" tender behind it!

I must be in the minority. I actually prefer the slope back tender.

Different strokes..... 0-4-0s were used primarily as switch engines. Their tenders were designed for vision to the rear with narrow fuel bunkers. 

 

Pete

IDK, the tender seems out of place, like it was meant for an older style locomotive.  But then looking at Lionel's site the tender looks better, so maybe it's just the angle of your photo.  I personally don't have anything against the sloped tenders, and if it were me, I'd enjoy having one with and one without, just to mix things up.  Are you going to find tenders and mod the other 2?

The slope-back tender is correct for this PRR 0-4-0 switcher (not "shifter"); the 

slope-back looks very nice with it.

 

(Lee - if you want to sell the slope-back tender, e-mail me.)

 

I like these K-Lionel 0-4-0's - except for one BIG (to me) omission, and it has kept me

from buying one (plus they always seem a bit pricey), so far: the valve gear is incomplete.

That is, the loco has a combination lever, valve stem, etc  - but no eccentric crank or

lever! This arrangement would not exist in the real world, and every time I see one of these, that omission stands out like a sore thumb. Even Lionel's PW (and later) PRR

0-4-0 has an eccentric lever - about 4 feet too long, but there! K-line skimped in the 

wrong place, and Lionel didn't correct it.

 

Anyway, the slope-back is cool, and is one of the things I like about the USRA-inspired

Chinese jack-of-all-trades 2-8-2's. 

 

If you want to see a locomotive with a long tender, have a look at the South African Railways class 25. 

I have two of the 0-4-0's, a Christmas red one and a green Southern.  They run really great like Lee says.  I think they would look much better if they had two hand rails on the tender though.  Different strokes...........  I like the tender you substituted Lee.  Will you paint them to more closely match each other?  

I need to see some prototypical photos of small switchers (0-4-0's?) and road engines with coal fired Vanderbilts.  (of course, Lionel offered an 0-8-0 with Vandy)

It's not quite an 0-4-0, but it's small and an interesting combination. 

 

New York, Ontario and Western #159 with a tender inherited from an Erie H4.  

Lee, I like your substitution, but actually prefer the slope-back tender:  its a classic look that seems proportional to the small loco.   Nice to have two tenders and run both arrangements.

I am a big advocate of "if you like it", that's all that really counts. Nice conversion.

I think the problems with the Lionel slope-back are it sits to high on the trucks, and it's too tall. Check out this picture of an SP slope back to see what I mean:

 

 

If you think about the functionality of the slope back, light and ability for crew to see rear coupler during shifting operations, that tender on 0-4-0, 0-6-0's makes best sense....... and its realistic.

Yes.  Like I said, I understood why the RRs had slopeback tenders - sort of necessary for good switcher operation, yes.  But I don't have any switch yards, don't do switching.  My three 0-4-0 locos do duty as the "big" engines on my Beepworld loop (nothing longer than a Beep allowed) towing a consist of nine shortened cars (so they too are shorter than . . . ).  I just like the look of this square "cross-country" tender better.  

I do all kinds - square or rectangular, slopeback, sausage, and Vanderbilt - often interchangeable.  I was going to show you my 17/64 scale Mantua Shifter, but Photobucket again changed format, making it even more obscure how to share photos.  They are also shuffling things, which makes it almost impossible to find stuff.  So until I find a better photo storage site, no more photos.

 

I guess it is their call - it is free.