 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Cars...states...tractors...medallions...Atlas...sense of humor...chain-drives...drag-racing...anatomy... Good lord, next time I'll think twice about using illustrative metaphor in this crowd!  Coffee anyone? |
||||
|
I agree that the low humidity has had me rather elated yesterday and today.
refreshing! ...is that coffee really strong? Chris |
||||
|
Chris:
It'll strip Scalecoat off plastic shells without damaging the detail. Let us all now discuss this subject in our usual serious gentlemanly style. drifting...drifting...I see a light...Rosebud! |
||||
|
 |
Jay,
Thanks for posting the photos. Holy cow!! What is that monstrosity!?!? Keeping things straight on the tangent... the tires are no longer 3 rail width but now the driver centers are grossly too wide. Does anyone else see that? I don't know if that is prototypical or not, I'm mainly a modern diesel guy with a few steamers but that is an odd ball look.
Michael Pitogo NYSME - oldest model railroad club in America "Do, or do not, there is no try" - Master Yoda |
|||
|
Michael,
You're absolutely correct. Like I said, it ain't a perfect fix. If a person really wanted to improve it even more they should narrow the centers also. The easy fix isn't there unless you don't mind cutting into the counterweights. In other words, to narrow the wheel center you'd have to cut into the counterweight which, in the end, would reduce it's size/profile. Obviously, that's not desirable either. It's all kind of a compromise. Having said all that, it can be done but it would increase the time (read cost) considerably. Guess it all depends on what you can live with and how much you wanna pay. In my opinion, I wouldn't buy one of these engines. I don't think they are worth the money. I'll take brass over cast any day. Much easier to tinker with. Jay C |
||||
|
 |
I noticed that. I'd think you'd want to cut off all but the counterweight. Usually the counterweights are not as thick as they should be on models. Not sure if this is the case on this model. |
|||
|
Christopher,
You're correct also. Most models have counterweights that are too thin. I think part of that comes from trying too keep the overall mechanism width as narrow as possible so are 5' wide wheels can fit under an engine that supposed to have 4' 8 1/2" wide drivers under it. I may be wrong but that's my theory. As a matter of fact, I'm having some driver centers cast up right now for a proto 48 conversion where I've made the counterweights too thick on purpose. I can turn down the face when I'm machining them and end up with the correct thickness (.040" to .080"). At least two things make narrowing the wheel somewhat problematic. They are, if you are using a lathe when your narrow the wheel you cut into the outer edge of the counter weight. Whatever you remove from the wheel gets removed from the counterweight thus decreasing it's overall diameter. That doesn't look right either. Again, there are other ways to narrow the wheel and not cut into the counterweight but it's a totally different process (I use a rotary table and a vertical mill) which adds to the overall cost. The other issue can be, if you narrow the wheel too much the spokes can end up flush with the rim (they are supposed to be inset). This doesn't look right either. If I owned one of these engines I would probably remove the wheels from the axles, tires from the wheels, completely re-machine everything or have new driver center cast up, make new tires and wonder why I purchased the thing in the first place. One thing that really bothers me and nobody is talking about is the valve gear. All the pieces look way too large. To be honest it looks like 3R from 50 years ago. My 1 1/2 cents, Jay C |
||||
|
 |
I never said anything of the sort. I simply meant that me, myself personally, would rather drive a Dodge Viper than a Porsche or a Corvette. I do not own a Viper but plain and simple I am a MoPar fan and that's what I like. As to which is best I admit it probably isn't the Viper. I said a Viper would cause more of a stir simply because you see them less often than 'Vettes and Porsches. Brian I have no idea what the typical Viper owner looks like but I have to admit I got chuckle out of your description although it much more reminded me of the typical gueedos I saw while growing up in Brooklyn who would put fancy wheels and extremely loud stereos in Cadillacs and other luxury cars. These guys did it to attract women. I would drive a car like Viper because I like the car not to attract women. Being married, the last thing I need is some kind of run in with the opposite sex. I must admit I was also surprised about the jab at NJ.  2 railer but respectful to 3 railers! Happy Railroading Everyone! Stilll waiting for 1:48 scaled autos.... Phil Gatto |
|||
|
"Gueedos"? Hey, wait a minute buddy. My wife's Italian and so's my father-in law! I'm dismayed, nay shocked, to discover that humor based on stereotypes is bantered about so freely here. I'm surprised at the country-bashing.
Wait a minute, I did it too, didn't I. I guess I'll have to go back to the professional, fatherly, kind and gentle wit that is expected of me. How silly we've become. |
||||
|
Getting back to my normal serious self, I'd think the only solution to this one, short of new drivers, is to either accept the drivers as they are, trim the tires a la Mashburn and accept it as it is, or do the Mashburn trim and install the resulting thinned tires aligned with the face of the wheel. Then, you can shave the back of the wheel and regauge. This will preserve the detail on the driver face. If you do the last choice, you'll have to figure in a bushing to get the mainrod bushed out at the crank so the pistons line up again with the holes in the steamchest. The siderods can stay where they end up. Don't forget to trim the axles back flush with the new position of the wheelfaces, or the siderods will smack 'em |
||||
|
Shee-eesh! You guys aren't just buying an engine, you're buying a career! Maybe you could buy completely new drivers instead of trying to machine them. Odd-d
R. E. Ottosen |
||||
|
Odd-d,
Fantastic idea! Any idea where I can buy new drivers? I'd love to buy all they have. Jay C |
||||
|
Folks,
The more I look at this, the more I am convinced there is nothing you can do to make this look TOTALLY right. There is a fundamental dimensional mismatch because the steam chests are too far outboard: The rods come out of the steam chest a certain distance from the engine center line. Call that distance X. To be in gauge, the inboard side of the flanges must be a certain distance from the engine centerline. Call that distance Y. It then follows that the total width of the drivers (tread plus flange) is given by X minus Y. From Phil’s measurements back on page 2, the total width of the driver is .237 If you want to go with prototypical width drivers, say .172”, you have to make up that 1/16” somewhere. Buying new drivers alone will not do this! Brian offers a solution that requires bushings between rods and drivers. Another is to let the rods angle inwards. You might be able to get away with that if the system doesn’t bind up. But in my opinion, all of these will end up looking odd. And this is coming from an avowed rivet ignorer. The only viable solution is to reposition the steam chest. Might as well scratch build the whole locomotive. My guess is that all this arises because Atlas wanted to keep the same steam chest position between their 2 rail and 3 rail versions. It also begs the question, how do Sunset and MTH do it? My guess is that you can angle the rods inward in locos with a pony truck, so the steam chest is some distance from the drivers That’s it for now. LeMans starts Saturday at 4:00 and I’ve got to prep the Honda. This message has been edited. Last edited by: John Sethian, |
||||
|
Talk about trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's eat. This 0-6-0 sucks for 2 rail. Ed
|
||||
|
More compromizes. good lord when will it end. Do this do that. Bull.
Atlas is not listening folks. Bill
|
||||
|
Ed, Could you be a little more clear about your feelings on this engine? I don't think I understand.  Butch |
||||
|
I modified one of the Atlas GP-9's and although a much simpler fix than this 0-6-0 it's sort of the same problem. Once you start trying to make it right where do you stop. And you still have a compromise when you are finished. Just how far do you go to make it look and run right.
On this GP-9 I lowered the frame on the trucks by removing some of the material on the cast on bosses on top of the trucks. but, then the idler gear on the side of the truck ground on the slider plate so I had to enlarge the hole in the slider plate. Then I notice a strange noise and impeded performance and found the motor shafts grinding into the inside top of the shell so they had to be cut down. Then the electronics didn't fit under the shell correctly so the post mounts had to be shortened. Then the shroud around the motor in the cab area didn't fit correctly so it had to be modified. Nothing very difficult but a succession of modifications once the process started. I certainly understood the theory of the carrot and the cart by the time I was done. I was going to address the overwidth trucks but said the heck with it and sold it. I've got some RC kits that will build up nicely. It kind of a shame too as the paint on the Atlas model is fantastic and I'm not a painter. The handrails, grabs, lifting rings and other details are all metal rather than delicate plastic. The headlights, numberboards and class lights all worked great. But, it just didn't look right in my eyes and there was no slow speed running what-so-ever so I lost interest. I love their SW-9! Butch |
||||
|
As far as I know, the only way to really correct the driver width requires removing the drivers from the axles and machining (facing) off the excess width of the driver centers down to a "scale width" from the back of the castings, leaving the detail on the front of the casting intact. At a minimum, the tires would have to be moved outward on the centers to avoid cutting off their flanges during this operation.
Then you could possible move the tires/flanges flush to the back of the centers and carefully machine the excess tire width off of the tires from the front bringing them down to the new scale width of the driver center. Then, correct the axle length for the new tire width (they will now be longer than required for the scale width tires) and reinstall the drivers in quarter. I do something similar to this on all of my 3 rail to 2 rail conversions except that I machine a completely new tire to replace the hi-rail tire and flange. In most cases (except Sunset) the hi rail flanges are cast integral with the driver center castings and a bald tire is pressed up against the cast flange. You have to remove the cast on flange completely to insulate the drivers for 2 rail. It is not a one hour job to do it this way but the results would be more pleasing to the eye. Joe Foehrkolb |
||||
|
|
|
Joe,
I would agree trimming the back of the driver center is the key then moving the tires out to match the scale profile would improve the look. Michael Pitogo NYSME - oldest model railroad club in America "Do, or do not, there is no try" - Master Yoda |
|||
|
Do You GUys have any fun? |
||||
|
Yes |
||||
|
fun? oh yeah, way more than this barrel of monkeys I have here.
Chris |
||||
|
Fun?
We're supposed to have fun???? And here I thought this hobby was all about the suffering, Questions are a burden to others, answers a prison for oneself |
||||
|
