Weaver Pennsylvania G 5

I don't have the models to compare, but does the Weaver look like this:

No the belpaire is much sharper to the cab. the max grey and the Mth look closer

The Weaver is a nice model for the bucks.  I have heard it is too long - driven by wheelbase/flange/pilot truck requirements.  I am happy with Saginaw.

Weaver G5

bob2 posted:

The Weaver is a nice model for the bucks.  I have heard it is too long - driven by wheelbase/flange/pilot truck requirements.  I am happy with Saginaw.

Bob; I once had a Saginaw many years ago. when I left the hobby I traded it off. It was a nice model.   What do you think of the max grey model?  I took a look at an Mth model I thought the drivers look big and it was a bit to long. No ruler used just my observation. Any  comments on any of the models mentioned are most  welcomed .

Franky-Ogee

I don't recommend assessing PRR O scale locomotive "correctness" using KTM models as a reference point.  Specifically the C1 (USH), E6 (MG), G5 (MG), K4 (MG & USH) L1 (MG & USH), and M1a models have incorrect diameter boilers and firebox widths.   The root cause of the error was that KTM used the same diameter smoke box front coining from their MG I1sa 2-10-0 model on several follow-on PRR models.  The scale 88.5"diameter smoke box on an I1s (and K5, M1, M1a)  it is 8% over sized when used to represent the  82" diameter  smoke boxes on PRR C1, E6, G5, K4, and L1 locomotives.  The difference bothered me enough that I sold the MG G5.  

Other G5 candidates: 

Weaver G5:  The  boiler, firebox, and cab are correctly sized, but Samhongsa lengthened the smoke box  to accommodate high rail flanges.  The downward slope of the belpaire firebox to my eye seems steeper than that of the prototype.     IMO the length vs. width ratio difference fails to capture the stubby look of the prototype. 

Sunset G5 (1980's)  Another flawed model!!!  The smoke box length and diameter are correct, as is the cab.  Unfortunately the boiler lacks the conical shape of the prototype as the boiler course behind the smoke box is straight - not tapered.    The rods and valve gear on the model are also very light.  (The same mistakes are also found on the Sunset E6 and H9/10 models Sunset imported at the same time.  I purchased the 3 Sunset PRR models but sold them off when more accurate models were imported (Sunset 3rd Rail E6, Key H's).  On the plus side the Sunset G5 tender is spot on. 

MTH - Can't comment - never had one. 

As a boy growing up on Long Island the G5s was the first steam locomotive I remember seeing.  I just had to have one.  After a 40+ year search for a "right looking" G5 (no success in getting Scott Mann to do one) I broke down and commissioned Frank Miller to build a model of PRR G5s 5741 for me.  The starting point for the project was a basket case Sunset G5 I found on eBay.  Frank scratch built the boiler, cylinders, and valve gear.  The mechanism, cab and tender are carryovers from the Sunset model.  Distinctive features include the angled front air tank supports and pilot beam ends.  The ball is now in my court to install DCC and paint the model.  

My recommendation is to buy the model that in your opinion comes closest to capturing the look of the prototype, and when and if a better G5s model is imported buy it and sell the more flawed one.

Thanks, Ed.  As a closet SPF, I do not often get further than an overall impression.  As a doorstop freak, Scale Craft and Saginaw are just fine.  If I wanted a cheapo handsome locomotive, the Weaver G5 would do.  I have standardized on the Williams B6sb.  It captures Pennsyness for me.  I keep one Lionel B6 for nostalgia - 2-railed, of course.

Maybe some pictures later.

The Williams/Samhongsa B6sb is indeed a nicely proportioned Pennsy model that can be acquired at a very favorable price. With no  leading and trailing trucks few compromises with scale dimensions had to be made to produce 2 and 3 rail versions.  (The same can be said of the very nice Weaver/Samhongsa PRR A5s 0-4-0).  Looking at the models in profile, the most noticeable deviation from the prototype  is the fat smokestack - a compromise made to equip the model with a Seuthe smoke unit.  These well built models run nicely, and for those with the inclination, are excellent starting points for a super detailing project. 

Weaver A5.  Note: The tender has been modified to accept a TMCC upgrade with electro-couplers, front and back. 

Right in this picture, the lower coal doors have been moved forward.

Tight fit, early TMCC equipment and sound.

We 2-railed one of those decades ago.  A very nice, well-built model.

Keystoned Ed posted:

As a boy growing up on Long Island the G5s was the first steam locomotive I remember seeing.  I just had to have one.  After a 40+ year search for a "right looking" G5 (no success in getting Scott Mann to do one) I broke down and commissioned Frank Miller to build a model of PRR G5s 5741 for me.  The starting point for the project was a basket case Sunset G5 I found on eBay.  Frank scratch built the boiler, cylinders, and valve gear.  The mechanism, cab and tender are carryovers from the Sunset model.  Distinctive features include the angled front air tank supports and pilot beam ends.  The ball is now in my court to install DCC and paint the model.  

My recommendation is to buy the model that in your opinion comes closest to capturing the look of the prototype, and when and if a better G5s model is imported buy it and sell the more flawed one.

 

You're blessed to know someone to build you accurate PRR steam  Ed. 

For all of the flak that Pennsy modelers get and how the impression is that Pennsy models and modelers somehow dominate the market, it seems we're stuck with a majority of very inaccurate models.

Wonder why that is...

Dunno - probably the fault of doorstoppers.  Most of you know that I am capable of fairly accurate, well detailed models, not including brake rigging (very often).  Herewith a few of my PRR attempts and non-attempts.  I will start with the G5, untouched except for insulation and re-machining of drivers.  Doesn't even run very good, but I am happy.  Someday it will get a new firebox, valve gear, paint (alas I hate to mess with somebody else's attempt at hand lettering) and motor.Let me insert a K4 of somewhat dubious provenance.  Boiler came from the East Coast - Scale Craft - and somebody's wife had addressed it with a ball peen hammer.  Frame is Ed Alexander, drivers are Lobaugh, tender is USH.

One more - a Decapod, from Scale Craft, CLW, and Lobaugh parts:

Great thread....thanks to all contributors........

Bob, for years I have loved the fact you put together engines from all manner of sources.

Mix and match extraordinaire.

Thanks.  I have no objective other than having fun and creating.

Why so many errors on PRR steam locomotives - possible reasons.

Lack of data/inadequate research in earlier times

 A significant number of PRR prototype  O scale models were produced in the cast boiler "doorstop model". era , and still later in the early brass import era - all prior to ready access to PRR archive drawings and data.  Absent railroad drawings, PRR models were sometimes produced based on drawings in Kalmbachs's Locomotive Cyclopedia that had dimensional errors.  My pet pieve being  undersized front air tanks on PRR I1's from MG, USH, Sunset, and MTH.  To date no production PRR I1s has correct large diameter front air tanks - the most destinctive feature of the prototype.    Steve Grabowski used to offer replacement I1s air tank kits at PRRT&HS meets 

 3 rail compromises:

The Samhongsa (Wiliams, Weaver) PRR E6, G5, H10, K4, and L1 all suffer from longer than scale engine length as a result of compromises made to provide clearance for high rail flanges running on O-31 curves.

Progress

Recent PRR O scale models by Key, Overland, Kohs, and Sunset 3rd Rail have higher prototype fidelity than earlier models as a result of importers collaborating with  PRR fans that have obtained copies of railroad drawings from the PRRT&HS and other archives.  

Also keep in mind that steam was being constantly rebuilt at multiple locations. While Pennsy was the master at standardization, variations existed.  ?? a Boiler would see 4 or 5 rebuilds in it's life??, at many different locations??  Super heaters and other appliances were added.  Locations of appliance also changed.  The one remaining  M1a/b has an interesting variation/stretch, front frame, not sure what prompted this modification.  So some of it is what/when was the model to represent.  IMO.

The Weaver M1a probably is a bit long in the nose.  IMO.  Shorten the pilot and pudge the nose a bit to be more representative of an M1a.  Air tank back under the work platform a bit.  One of Weaver's first attempts at a brass model, some correction required. IMO  Could use more appliances and piping, which seems to be lacking on a lot of steam models, especially diecast.

Anyone thought about starting a thread along the lines of what the N&W buffs are doing.......but maybe a simplified version, only consisting of Locos?

Call it    "PRR - Best of the Worst"

That meaning, the best or better example of what is out there. It would eliminate this kind of thread. Just bookmark it and reference it if you have a question. Give highlights of what is good and bad.

For example, how are the 3rd Rail L1's? Haven't heard much about them, good or bad!

I am up to my arse in other stuff or I would do so myself!

Cheers,

Simon

Mike - IMO the Weaver M1b isn't worth the upgrade effort if you are financially in a position to replace it with one of the better detailed 3 rail M1a/b's imported by Lionel or Sunset 3rd Rail in the years since the Weaver came in.  On the plus side like most late production Samhongsa models they are well made (they don't shed parts parts like many early production Samhongsa models) and the drive train is solid.  Back in the day I rebuilt the front end of my 2 rail Weaver M1b  (relocated the pilot and air tank, replaced and centered the lead truck) but it still had a barren look when compared to the prototype.    Hover from a scale dimensions perspective the Weaver was closer to prototype than the USH/KTM M1b (too fat boiler, too short tender).  Over a span of 40 years, on my railroad a Weaver M1b displaced a USH M1b, and still later an Overland M1b replaced the Weaver.   

Simon  - A friend and I advised Scott Mann on development of the Sunset 3rd Rail L1s.  We worked hard to harmonize the era specific details on the pre and post war version of the model,  providing drawings, photos, and review comments on the pilot model.    While not every change made it to production, IMO the Sunset model is the most accurate O scale PRR L1s locomotive commercially produced  to date.  

Keystoned Ed posted:

Mike - IMO the Weaver M1b isn't worth the upgrade effort if you are financially in a position to replace it with one of the better detailed 3 rail M1a/b's imported by Lionel or Sunset 3rd Rail in the years since the Weaver came in.  On the plus side like most late production Samhongsa models they are well made (they don't shed parts parts like many early production Samhongsa models) and the drive train is solid.  Back in the day I rebuilt the front end of my 2 rail Weaver M1b  (relocated the pilot and air tank, replaced and centered the lead truck) but it still had a barren look when compared to the prototype.    Hover from a scale dimensions perspective the Weaver was closer to prototype than the USH/KTM M1b (too fat boiler, too short tender).  Over a span of 40 years, on my railroad a Weaver M1b displaced a USH M1b, and still later an Overland M1b replaced the Weaver.   

Simon  - A friend and I advised Scott Mann on development of the Sunset 3rd Rail L1s.  We worked hard to harmonize the era specific details on the pre and post war version of the model,  providing drawings, photos, and review comments on the pilot model.    While not every change made it to production, IMO the Sunset model is the most accurate O scale PRR L1s locomotive commercially produced  to date.  

The L1s is a wonderful model.  I own two which was the limit of my finances at the time.  Most saddening is that it is a slow seller or we'd likely have more accurate PRR steam such as G5's or I1's or even early K Pacifics.

In your original reply to my "why" post you made a point that I usually don't pick up on.    Most of the PRR models were done in the era when accurate drawings just didn't exist and concessions were made.  

By the time the "modern" times arrived the market was saturated and was dwindling as more modelers moved in to the diesel era so builders needed to make concessions to make the models appropriate for both the 2 rail and the 3 rail market.

Interestingly, accurate PRR locomotives such as the Key H series, which are accurate but dated in their level of detailing, still command a premium price.

PRR certainly has few glamorous steamers and this likely contributes to the lack of interest in the workaday world of G/H/I/L model locomotives.

I have an MG G5, and I think it captures the stubby look of the prototype.      It looks chunky from the front and short stubby from the side.    To my eye, it looks more like the photos I have seen than the other models even with its faults.   It also shows up at shows at very reasonable prices and is a good puller, although often modelers prefer to replace the original MG motor because it runs too slow.    I have still seen these at shows unpainted.   

The GEM B6 is another model that shows up at good prices.   I have one that runs fine and has enough detail.    I also have a Williams version.    they are different versions of the same class.    The Gem is an early version which had been built with manual reverse and hence the large cab to have the space the johnson bar throw I was told.     It also has cylinders angled in at the top.     The williams models a later or last version built power reverse the later sort of standard small pennsy cab.     The cyclinders are angled out at the top for a quite different appearance from the other model.    It probably runs a smidge smoother than the gem.

Agree with PRRJIM - of available production models the MG G5 best captures the chunky look of the prototype.  Where it disappoints is when it is viewed adjacent (like in a terminal) to a correct diameter PRR locomotive.   Though I no longer am in the hunt for a scale dimentioned PRR G5, those that want one should email Scott Mann. 

Regarding the Gem B6sb.  GEM imported B6sb's twice.   The first run  was produced in Japan around 1971.   It had an open frame motor and was solidly built.  Several years later Gem imported a similar B6sb by Korean builder Samhongsa. This version was powered by a Pittman can motor.  For a brief period I owned both models and  found the assembly quality of the Korean model to be week.  Quite a few of the machine screws had poorly formed heads and had to be replaced.  

The most highly detailed production B6sb in O scale was done in short and long cab versions by PSC in the 1990's.  I reserved a 4 window (long cab) version, waited several years, and was disappointed to find when it came in that the cab was the wrong length. ( back then we didn't typically get to see or hear about pilot models).  The builder incorrectly used the same length cab. With different window counts, on the two versions.  In addition to the noticeably miss proportioned cab, the otherwise highly detailed (and expensive) model used undersize headlight and bell castings.  This was despite the fact that PSC offered correct PRR headlight and bells castings in their catalog!  While it is relatively easy to solder on replacement  headlights and bells, replacing a cab is several orders of magnitude more challenging.   Fortunately Steve Grabowski (Keystone Model Works) produced a few hand riveted sheet brass 4 window cabs and I had one retrofitted to my PSC B6sb.  I recommend against purchasing a 4 window PSC B6sb - the 2 window version is the better option.  From a cost effectiveness perspective the Williams model offers the best value.

Ed Rappe;  Thank you for sharing your expertise on Pennsy  locos. I  value your opinion. and am grateful for your sharing your knowledge.

Wish you all the best  Franky-Ogee

I traded a Gem even for a Williams and never looked back.  I too prefer the longer cab, and one of my W's is going to get one.  Maybe I will eBay the short cab?  Tender will get the square coal bunker.  New cylinder block? - not sure - will have to research that.

My three can often be seen triple-headed in front of 14 heavy freight cars.