I hope you all do not find this presumptious:

These are opinions, and this is a discussion. It is fun, first of all, and not very important in the global scheme of things. There is no law against expressing ones opinion until others are simply tired of it.

When you get tired of the arguments, it is always okay to say so. But do not blame others for your tiredness - you have the option to not read the same arguments over and over.

I do not think a really good E7 has been offered in plastic yet. The Lionel is rumored to have not very many axles powered, and I am sure Williams got some of the contours around the windshield wrong. My experience with Williams is that usually their larger models are a tad too small - I know that to be true on the scale Challenger, and suspect it to be true on the scale PA.

If Scott can do what he proposes, with a scale body and reasonably accurate contours, I think there will be a market.

All opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by bob2:


These are opinions, and this is a discussion. It is fun, first of all, and not very important in the global scheme of things. There is no law against expressing ones opinion until others are simply tired of it.

When you get tired of the arguments, it is always okay to say so. But do not blame others for your tiredness - you have the option to not read the same arguments over and over.

All opinion.

Bob:

Agreed until we get to the point where these attitudes are repeated so often as to assume the mantle of fact. The "it can't be done" and "we don't deserve it" bit is worse than tiresome, it's pervasive enough to be crippling the initiative this scale so desperately needs.

Do we move forward, as in HO, or slowly drown in the ever increasing inertial swamp fed by business as usual cranking out the same stuff in the same boxes, albeit with "New Paint Schemes! (How Exciting!) There are already mountains of this stuff with no signs of anything but glut and stagnancy over years.

As long as this myth is repeated as the convenient fact, it's taken as acceptable by those who would rather pile more boxes on the mountain than move the scale forward.

As long as this defeat is accepted and repeated as a convenient excuse not to move forward, not to try, hence not to succeed, the grumpy voice from the Opposition Bench will continue to growl until his last breath against such hobbling tripe and applaud those who see opportunity and take it at the expense of the mountain pilers, whom we really don't need for they are drowning us.

How's this for opinion; seems like Sunset/GGD is the only manufacturer out there showing initiative at all; loud huzzahs from this side! The rest offer more of the same outdated silage under which we deservedly are being smothered, yet the "sages" (and to a degree the magazines; just read the reviews and product announcements!) keep telling us to believe it's indeed what we deserve.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Brian Scace,

As long as this defeat is accepted and repeated as a convenient excuse

uh, that's the entire reason we wear out our fingers in this discussion Brian, not much chance of that happening among this bunch.

I'm but a flegling O Scaler. But I am a long term, well seasoned model railroader..45 years plus of active participation and still very enthusiastic.

After a lot of hesitation I decide to give O scale a try as sort of my retirement scale. It's been pretty interesting and I've enjoy most of it.

That was until it became very apparent there was a definite lack of product developement such as I had become accustom too in HO. I buy an Atlas diesel and it runs like toy, not a scale model...welcome to china drives and welcome to manufacturing compromises to enhance profit rather than to make quality goods. That was education through experience...prior to which all the china drive discussions meant nothing to me. I bang my Kadee couplers into the Atlas version of a knuckle coupler and nothing happens...or maybe it breaks...or maybe it couples...again education through experience. I learn!

Where does this leave me now? I'm not an Atlas customer anymore. I don't buy anything which doesn't get adequate approval by the rest of the O scale community through actual use and over time. I mean use as in not on a shelf on display, but use in an operating environment by those who demand performance because they actually NEED these locomotive to do so. Then it must meet my specific prototype needs as well. So if they are all making BigBoys so be it...but not with my money. I don't know how to force the hand of the manufacturers better than to deprive them of my hobby dollars until they meet my now better informed expectations. I do own some quality motive power and since I'm at bats here let me say who they are...YODER AND SUNSET

Thanks

Bob

This message has been edited. Last edited by: flanger,

I have been in O Scale since 1957. Hollering about innovations is something I do, but I am on the other side of the fence. There is more of everything available today than there ever has been in O, and it is all pretty much way better. I own Scale Craft, Lobaugh, Max Gray, All Nation, CLW, US Hobbies, K-Line, Sunset, MTH, and now Lionel in the form of a spectacular huge FEF parked right behind the same thing from USH. I did own a PSC Cab Forward, but it was just too flimsy.

I agree that there are problems with China Drive - and that Scott is taking a step in the correct direction. There are also advantages to the China Drive that are simply not there in any other mechanism I am aware of, including CLW. If Scott designs a bullet proof and maintainable horizontal drive with three worm gear assemblies, all enclosed, with low internal friction, he will indeed replace the China drive.

If that Atlas switcher is as good as you say, why is that that mechanism not sold for use in everything? We will be happy to test it for you, and see if it makes it two months in our heavy duty environment.

If there is one side of this discussion that is "truth" I do not see it. Prove it with a test. Now that the O Scale portion of our museum is a 501(c)(3), you can deduct any expenses.

Hi Scott,
I like your ideas about a 2-rail drive train. They sound very encouraging.
Here are my thoughts. Two horizontal motors with your belt drive should do the trick. Make sure the motors are wired in parallel with at least 8 wheel pick up. 12 wheel pick up would be better.
Use a 2-rail truck bolster so that the truck side frames don't stick out like high rail trucks do.
Equalized 6 wheel trucks with real springs make for good tracking and they look so much better.
Agear box on all axles, with at least a 20:1 gear ratio, for 12 wheel drive is a given. Please make this drive available by itself. There are thousands and thousands of 3-rail Diesels waiting to be converted.

2-rail has grown up. I am willing to pay a little more for a good 2-rail drive with very little compromise to 3-rail.

Woody's ramblings are very old school. You know what you can do with the China drive!!!

When we get a great drive, then we can talk about railroad specific details.
One or two headlights?
Slanted passenger pilot or endented freight pilot?
Pilots with or without coupler shrouds? Opened or closed?
Original small numberboards or large 45 degree numberboards?
Or later flush E8 or E9 numberboards?
Orig. three openings or later added side grills?
This can go on and on.

We need to give Joe Foehrkolb (pronounced Fear-cob)a break. He has many 2-rail steam locomotive projects of his own.

Dana Metcalf

Dana you are spot on. Ed

quote:

Originally posted by bob2:
If that Atlas switcher is as good as you say, why is that that mechanism not sold for use in everything?

That's the million dollar question.

quote:

We will be happy to test it for you, and see if it makes it two months in our heavy duty environment.

If there is one side of this discussion that is "truth" I do not see it. Prove it with a test. Now that the O Scale portion of our museum is a 501(c)(3), you can deduct any expenses.

You've often said that the MTH China Drive runs for months at a time. Wonderful. When the majority of us model by flipping a toggle switch and letting 'er go round and round a museum loop at a constant speed until it dies, then perhaps this test would be valid. Until then, a turd that runs for months is only a robust turd. It won't start smoothly, it is worthless to switch with, and the oft cited list goes on, but it sure lasts a long time in a unique environment that has nothing to do with what most hobbiests do with their gear. Not a valid proof for the intended purpose, I'm afraid.

Let's move on and start offering a mainstream drive that meets the desires of the hobbiest. Lord knows there are plenty China Drive equipped "models" (that are for all intents unsellable) out there to keep your museum replete for years to come.

BTW, I'll be happy to swap you one-for-one some MTH and Atlas units languishing under my benchwork for your undesirable CLW and USH stuff. Care to put up?

Guys, I don't quite understand all of the disagreement expressed by some of the folks following my post on page 1. Did I write that I particularly liked China drives? I don't think I stated any such thing. I share the views of those who object to motors visible thru cab windows and jerky starts. (I have a couple of Atlas FM Erie-Builts and a few MTH narrow-body road freight units, so I know what China drives are & how they run.)

My comments concerned the economics involved in trying to produce two different types of drives for 2R & 3R--from the viewpoint of the large-volume importers such as Atlas. I think the Atlas switcher used a horizontal drive system (similar to All Nation?) because of carbody height limitations. I hear that loco has excellent performance. But it appears that Atlas has not deemed that drive suitable for any of its road diesels.

Now Sunset is not a large-volume importer compared to some of the O Scale "biggies." I've just caught up on this thread & read Scott Mann's post with great interest. His idea for power trucks seems good to me at first glance. Though not stated in detail, I expect he will have the belt drive on the truck connected to the motor shaft via a U-joint. If the motor is always in line with the carbody, the result will be similar to other well-known transmissions except for use of the belt instead of spur gear trains or chains & sprockets. Horizontal motors attached directly to the trucks would not have much room in which to pivot on curves. I don't think they'd work in narrow-body diesels & they'd be totally unsuitable for typical 3R curves.

His belt drives in steam locos have stood up to typical 3R operation as well as 2R use, so it seems logical that the system could be applied to diesels as well.

It will be interesting to learn if Scott can get his builder to supply power trucks as separate parts. (My impression is that the Asian builders do not want to supply loco detail parts or even separate tenders, like KTM used to do for US Hobbies.) But if there is a strong market for power trucks, which probably could be used to retrofit other makers' diesels, I think that would be a profit opportunity worth exploring by Scott & his builders.

I'm still waiting to see if Scott can be persuaded to offer GM's "Train of Tomorrow." I've proposed that idea on other threads so won't go into further detail here, except to say that the original four-car train could be marketed as a set to include the E7 diesel as well. (The same cars could be offered as a set painted for UP, with E-units offered separately for the different RRs that bought that model.)

Everyone knows, I trust, that I'm a big fan & supporter of Sunset and products of GGD as well. I certainly wish for Scott to be successful in his endeavors, & will wait as eagerly as the rest of you to see what happens with his proposed E-unit.

Scott, I will tag in with Hot Water and gnnpnut... I want a 3-rail version with slow speed gear ratio. Please! There are already plenty of fast-running E-units out there for those that want them. Another idea: put both sets of pulleys in the box. Use brass pulleys affixed with a set screw, so any duffer with an Allen wrench can get the gear ratio he wants.
After years of toylike drives from other importers, you have a real opportunity to raise the bar here. Please don't disappoint us!
Thanks,
Ted

They are generally glass filled plastic - holds up a lot better than brass, which is why you do not see brass pulleys in your printer.

I think Brian may mis-read me here. My best diesel is a horizontal pair of 9234 Pittmans driving six CLW gear boxes. No U joints. It is a cast bronze E7, and it will pull your socks off at very slow speeds. 12 wheel electrical pickup. I have an Overland E7 here, and I doubt that it will measure up.

Our museum is not the only entity who likes to see trains go round and round. I actually do not like switching moves, and prefer to see my trains make a couple of loops every other day while I sip cappuccino or wine. And the museum, while it may get months out of an All Nation or Overland diesel, takes about three years of every day eight hour operation to burn up an axle gear, ten years of the same kind of running to burn up the worm (which takes special fixtures and heat to replace) and fifteen or more years before the porous bronze axle gears get replaced. That's on MTH. We get several years on Atlas, but again I haven't figured out the failure mode. The big problem is electrical pickup, and we have our own solution for that.

I line up with Woody here - the vertical motor is the only one that will work without U joints in something like an SD7. My radius is 74" and I have to do the U joint or flex tube thing to make those diesels run. I am not unhappy with my USH, I am just trying to say we have more and better choices right now than ever before - at very favorable prices.

Woody and Bob:

I'll throw in a couple thoughts here. I think you might want to open your eyes as to what the 3RS folks are doing here (you guys feel free to weigh in if I am not seeing you're efforts accurately). Most of these guys are after radii larger than the norm for hirail, a requirement for fixed pilots on diesels, full length passenger equipment, et al. Sitting in the back and listening, I'm hearing (and hopefully understanding) that an o-72 curve is the absolute tightest in general convention for these folks; perhaps the practical mechanical limit between fixed pilots, Kadees, 80' cars, &c vs. curvature.

These are the three rail guys predominantly (I'm sure there're exceptions) looking at these units and the core of Scott's customer base on the 3R side of the question. In this case, Lionel makes an E7 with vertical motors and all the foibles (and advantages) in tighter radii 3 rail that go with the drive design style. There is no point for SS to replicate the Lionel one and (in the process) add another vain attempt at cross-dressing it as a 2-rail model to capture a market segment already occupied.

Horizontal drives work fine in the larger radii environment of 3r scale (if you can bend a PRR T1 or a 4-12-2, you can certainly bend an E7). These guys (bless 'm) are also calling for gear ratios in kind with what we're after in 2 rail.

Sounds like there're many good solid reasons doing a mid-range model here, and breaking new ground. The lower end market is flooded with Atlas, MTH, et al. I couldn't in good conscience encourage SS to enter that market for that reason. The stuff is so pervasive (and so compromised) as to be virtually un-sellable. I've priced Atlas Gold at $250 a unit, DC only at half that, and it barely trickles off the table at many a show. An older MTH FP-45 is unsellable at $50. These are the true measures of value (not pricepoint).

No way would I suggest Scott does more of the same as a newcomer to the diesel segment. This is the crux of my vehemence in disagreeing with both of your positions. You are half right, there has never been more. However, we part company when you add "better", for it obviously isn't perceived as such, based on perceived value above.

The area that appeals to 3rs, now that it's truly starting to define itself, and appeals to us 2-rail guys is the new ground to break, and the area where it's quite possible that 3-rail and 2-rail products can actually complement each rather than compromise each other.

I got to thinking, after Woody's comments, about the Atlas SW horz. drive and why it has never been re-offered.
This drive is an updated, modernized version of the drive used in the older Atlas-Roco F9 units. The fact that this older model was a cooperative effort between 2 builders may reveal why, after the new SW release, patent or copywrite issues came into play, and may prevent its re-use.

But I don't want to derail this thread, further discussion on the topic should be moved to a new thread.

I would like to see non-powered/dummy units produced. They should have all your lighting system too. If the new engines were available we could put our own drives in them.

Because Doug is no longer with us to install his robust drives I believe the next best drive is Jerry Snow's type. For those unaware of the specifics to this drive, the basics are, an 8000 series Pittman motor with rare earth magnets, ball bearings, large flywheel on one end, and a 19:1 gear head on the other. All of this driving 1:1 ball bearing gearboxes on all axles. Not cheap but very strong and quiet.

I think what I like best about this setup is, everything beyond the gear head is running 19 times slower than conventional drives with gear reductions done on the axle. Not only does this greatly reduce noise and vibration but wear on drive train components.

I would love to install some of these drives in Scott's new E units.

One word of caution, I'm only talkin two rail here, I'm not man enough to attempt 3 rail.

What do you think Scott?

Brian wrote:

quote:

I'll throw in a couple thoughts here. I think you might want to open your eyes as to what the 3RS folks are doing here (you guys feel free to weigh in if I am not seeing you're efforts accurately). Most of these guys are after radii larger than the norm for hirail, a requirement for fixed pilots on diesels, full length passenger equipment, et al. Sitting in the back and listening, I'm hearing (and hopefully understanding) that an o-72 curve is the absolute tightest in general convention for these folks; perhaps the practical mechanical limit between fixed pilots, Kadees, 80' cars, &c vs. curvature.

These are the three rail guys predominantly (I'm sure there're exceptions) looking at these units and the core of Scott's customer base on the 3R side of the question. In this case, Lionel makes an E7 with vertical motors and all the foibles (and advantages) in tighter radii 3 rail that go with the drive design style. There is no point for SS to replicate the Lionel one and (in the process) add another vain attempt at cross-dressing it as a 2-rail model to capture a market segment already occupied.

Well, since you solicited the opinion of 3RSers, I chime in with my perspective.

I think Scott "gets it". As I detailed in my post above, the only things that I encourage him to rethink for us 3RS types is gear ratios in line with what the 2 rail community here is actively promoting, and the pilots. I have a sneaking hunch that he will listen. If he doesn't on the GR, it won't affect me that much, as the ER TMCC will address slow speed concerns, to a point. We will still get that "lurch" from zero speed to some minimum speed. THAT cheezes me off, and would like that addressed. It won't cause me not to purchase an accurate model though.

I don't consider Atlas to be the "low end" of the market, not at an announced MSRP of $549.00 for their latest geeps. For that money, yes, they better start addressing our concerns, which means the darn thing better have fixed pilots with hirail flanges right out of the box. If they don't, I don't buy. Railroad specific details are a bit of a crapshoot. I'd be happy just to have them reach the level of the P2K units in HO. The details are not totally railroad specific there either, but they are darn close. I think they hit that today. This means that I can live without a five step pilot for Great Northern geeps, as long as they have the winterization hatch and winter window extensions. I won't sweat the horn placement either if that is a big deal to standardize. The other details would be glue on, just like HO.

We may be 3RS folks, but remember that many of us still have to operate on layouts build in earlier eras, where switches are not always numbered, and reverse curves are rampant. Yea, it sucks, but it is reality, and I don't see a lot of people ripping out portions of their railroad, or in my case, building new modules, to address these concerns.

A final comment on price points. I got into 3RS (as a hirailer) six years ago because I felt 3rd Rail offered value in the pricing of their steam locomotive offerings (bought a NP Z-5, A-3, and A-5 as my opening salvo). They were cheaper than an equivalent latest issue HO offering, with sound, command control, and smoke (which I could live without, but is kinda neat at shows). If the price points for a combination 3RS / two rail push much beyond $550.00 for a powered E7, GP7 / GP9, F unit, then my threshold of pain has been reached. And at that price, the darn thing better fall out of the box ready to roll with the exception of screwing on a pilot and Kadees.

Well, thats all for now, off to the Bears game.

regards,
Jerruy

Jay C,

I agree. His drives are quiet and smooth, no flying axle shafts and universals.

Ball bearings on the journal axles too if they aren't already instead of bronze.

I'd like to second GNNPNUT's points, above! I'll also add, that as a former HO modeler (since the late 1950s), I switched to O scale, 3-Rail in the early 1990s. Why? Well, I was just begining to get serious about putting sound in my HO steam locomotive models, and it didn't take me long to discover how expensive it was going to be. In order to "up-grade" all my N&W and C&O steam models to DCC and sound was goung to cost a MINT! Plus, as I got older, I neede bi-focals to see what the hell I was working on. I began thinking about O Scale.

I then discovered MTH & Sunset/3rd Rail! Fantastic values for the money! I could lay MTH "Real Trax" 3-Rail track ALL AROUND the living room, with all 072 minimum curves and 072 switches, and run my NEW SP 4449 & UP 844 models from MTH, any time our grandson came over (weekly!). Once the upstairs layout was designed (by GNNPNUT) and construction had begun, we used Atlas O nickel silver T section "21st Century" track system, so that I could operate 2-Rail rolling stock along with 3RS rolling stock. I thus got much more "bang for my buck" in a smaller space, than going O scale 2-Rail. Besides, the O scle big steam locomotive models I would have purchased STILL DID NOT HAVE DCC NOR SOUND (I don't give a crap about smoke, and I unplug the red marker and green class lights too), and I would have been right back in the HO situation of having to add sounds & DCC. Lastly, the 3rd Rail steam locomotive models I have cost one helluv a lot less than ANY OTHER 2-Rail producd on the market, AND THEY RUN GREAT!!!

It looks like most folks really are looking for complete realism to the degree possible with these E units. I also believe Scott posted they will have all 12 wheels driven. Jack W can correct me if I am wrong but didn't the real E units have 8 wheels driven with the center axle as an idler?

Are we willing to make that compromise?

I'm glad you guys are weighing in here, for you have a vested stake in this, too.

I'll bow out after a calm and quiet summation of points to ponder, now.

At least in 2 rail, there is a glut of "low-end" China Drive power. We might disagree about the semantics of "low-end"; I tend to rate Atlas' stuff there only because it's the bloody same stuff as marketed now eight years ago at $300 something, now out there for $550 something MSRP, yet hard to sell in 2-rail at $250 street in my experience. Regardless, there's tons of it, and entering at this late juncture with more of the same isn't something I'd feel right about recommending to anyone whose livelihood depends on the success of their entry. To be honest, it's outdated and there's too much of it out there still un-employed.

The future belongs to the next innovative and aggressive new player. Jerry and Hotwater, I'm with you in the opinion that Scott is on the right track. I look forward to seeing what comes out of the container when it arrives.

Michael,

Yep, ball bearings throughout and wipers too.

Now for the rest of the story. Working with Norm Buckhart (of Protocraft and P:48 fame) we have obtained a large quantity of the correct Pittman gearhead motors and gearboxes using NWSL 1:1 cases. All of this was intended for P:48 but because Norm hasn't fully converted me yet I convinced him to make standard 2r O Scale available also. I don't believe our scale will show up in his catalog (it's probably blasphemy for those guys) but I know they will be available. If it's appropriate here is a link to his new catalog, http://www.protocraft.com/ I suppose if it's not appropriate the link will be removed. Please note his catalog is a work in progress so some of the items are not listed yet.

I think this entire discussion is great. We have to remember that at least some of us, including me, are participating with opinions, not facts.

I did visit the Protocraft link - my next E7 would use up $240 worth of gearboxes, not counting shipping and tax. I am glad such nice stuff is being offered. I believe the Snow mechanism never made it to production - that may have been because you could get three complete MTH diesels for the price of one mechanism.

An O-72 radius pike will not support an E7 with horizontal motors rotating with the truck. I will double check that with an actual measurement using a 9000-series motor and a thin wall diesel body.

I find that, for 2-rail scale, where we do not use rubber tires, all axles powered makes a significant difference in pulling power. My K-Line TMs out pull the early MTH SD, hands-down.

I would opt for Sunset transmissions as now envisioned, for all my power needs. I still have four or five dummy E7s and PAs laying around waiting for the old CLW trick (I stockpiled them).

The thing that always gets me - if the envisioned all ball bearing, sprung and equalized, low noise high power reliable transmission is so trivial to design and produce, where is it? I am ready! I am tired of building my own - and not enamored of wearing out the ones I have already built. So I run MTH and K-Line when all I want to do is see cars go by. I am getting reasonably good transmissions with sideframes and motors for $75/pair, and would be willing to go twice that price for better ones with proper spacing for E, PA, and SD. I cannot buy those at any price right now. If Scott makes a $500 E, I would guess that $300 will get the mechanical part, and that is still not out of line, although four times the price of what I can buy now.

To answer rheil's question above, ALL EMD E units had A-1-A trucks, thus ONLY the first and third axles of each truck wher powered. I should also add, that except for the Rock Island RR, all EMD E units where delivered with36" diameter wheel sets (CRI&P got 38" wheel sets, and DL&W/EL converted their E units to 38" wheel sets at a later date).

With a chart of the value of a dollar against other currencies like this, anything manufactured overseas is going to cost more dollars then they have in the past.



That said, I think that gnnput nails it with this statement:

quote:

I'd be happy just to have them reach the level of the P2K units in HO

I also think he nails it with regard to price/performance issues.

quote:

Originally posted by bob2:
The thing that always gets me - if the envisioned all ball bearing, sprung and equalized, low noise high power reliable transmission is so trivial to design and produce, where is it? .

It is not here because people had not demanded it, yet. That is the purpose of this thread as I see it. It looks like some are speaking out for real progress here.

Bob2,

Well, please tell the dozen or so Snow drives that I have they were never produced. They will be surprised. Yet another case of misinformation out there.

Are the gearboxes expensive? Yes, but they are far less than NWSL was charging, when they had them their list price was around $55.00 each.

If I remember correctly, the gearhead motors I bought from Jerry were around $165.00. I really don't remember for sure. I could look for the receipts if anyone cares. I'm also not sure what Norm is going to charge for the identical motor/gearhead but I assume it will be far less. We should know within a week.

By the way, none of this was done with the intention of competing with Jerry. His niche is Standard 2 rail O Scale and Norm is focusing P:48. With me in the middle (we'll call me Proto:5').

What I meant by production was - you could not simply send Jerry money and get one within a reasonable period of time. If the market is as good as indicated above, get Jerry started on the old assembly line. I have the feeling he did not see the potential for the project that we do.

I was wrong about the 36" radius - my motor mounts hit the side of the diesel, but the 9234 motors have lots of clearance - could be more if they were centered over the bolster pivot. Who knows? Maybe the 8x2y motors can be operated in an SD7 on O-72?

Pittman motors can still be had for under forty bucks each, in quantities over a hundred. Someday we should organize a non-profit effort. I used to get them in packages of twenty, but those days are gone.

Bob2,

When I purchased mine you could do exactly that. I can't speak for purchases attempted today (I haven't tried). Depending on what your customer wants, maybe Norm, or even I, can help.

I'm not speaking to the 9xxx at this point though they would fit in an E Unit fairly easy but the gear reduction on the 9xxx is somewhat larger than the motor itself so the 8xxx is more viable (in my opinion). As far as power goes, the motors being used are GM8724F217's and they provide plenty of power.

You are correct about purchasing motors from Pittman in quantity but please remember this isn't just the motor it has a gearhead attached which provides the 19.5:1 gear reduction. Now I realize you won't accept this but the gearhead actually adds to the cost.

Unless you've tested one how do you know anything about it?

Your Friend (seriously folks, we like each other),

Jay

Rob Heil,

The E7s and E8s had A1A trucks. This means that the center axle was unpowered. It was there to improve the ride and distribute the weight.

I have no problems with the models also having A1A trucks. In Fact I hope the models have A1A trucks. If they are models of locos with Idler axles, in the spirit of trying to get accurate models, the model should have unpowered center axles.

Mr. Heil,

I am afraid I must disagree with PRRJIM. I hope all 12 wheels are powere and all 12 wheels pick up current. I need these to pull 12 or 13 cars up almost 3% grades.

ChipR

I must admit that I agree with ChipR! Sure I know the real E series units had A-1-A trucks, but remember that E units where designed and built for speed, NOT tractive effort (pulling power at slow speed). Thus, in an O scale model, either 2-Rail or 3-Rail, my opinion is to lean towards pulling power and electrical pick-up performance. I therefor vote for ALL wheel powered. I mean, how are you going to tell which axles are powered and which are not from two feet away as the train passes by on a layout?

Well guys, I offered my post about idler axles on the center axles as a tongue in check aim at some humor.
Knowing that E units used A-1-A trucks I thought it would be fun to see what the replies would be to willingness to move away from accuracy in this regard while campaigning for absolute accuracy in other areas.

Personally I believe the only correct drive to use in these engines would be
11.8125 engines. It should be easy to figure that out.

Now Bob2 will probably disagree with this but I'm in favor of all axles being driven for two primary reasons.

One, more tractive effort at any speed.

Two, less wear on the drive train. Okay Bob, I say that because you are spreading the resistance to movement across more surface area.

Jay

Rheil,
OK Bob, I am tired and my mind is in reverse. What do you mean by 11.8125 engines?
Ed

11.8125 is 1/48 of 567. Good one.

Add me to the list of 3-railers who'd like smooth slow speed running and with no use for anything over a 50-60 mph top end.

I would agree that even if the prototype was designed for 90mph, who would actually run it that fast on their layout?

50-60 tops is a great place to start working back to 0.

If I understand this correctly are we now talking tiny little diesel powered prime movers inside at a 11.8125 cid running high torque traction motors between the wheels? At $500?

Guys,

If powering all axles on an E-unit is OK -

Then maybe we should have 8 drivers on a K4 Pacific.

Or how about powering the tender trucks?

Gee lets take that to ultimate - lets power all axles on all cars -

We could run our trains with dummy steam engines then!

That certainly is NOT a logical statement! We were NOT talking about adding wheels to the E7! Just powering all the axles that are there. In fact, EMD would have loved to have done just that on the E10 model, but with the E type truck, the axle spacing was too close to mount a traction motor on the center axle!

I guess Jay and I are having a separate discussion here. Let me set his concerns to rest:

I am in favor of all axles powered. Period.

I am not adverse to using Snow power units. Quite the opposite, I think they might be the greatest thing yet for O Scale. I use 8x24 motors in everything now, without gear heads, and would love to get about ten more at prices around thirty bucks each.

I am not adverse to seeing the China Drive completely eclipsed by Scott Mann's new mechanism.

I am surprised that, given the depth of feeling on this issue, nobody other than Jay has any of the Snow mechanisms. After all, here is the solution, and it sounds a lot like the Cockerham and Bultmann solutions, neither of which sold in any quantity. If we order a thousand of these things, I bet Jerry could produce them for under $200 each. All the non-recurring expenses are already paid for.

Jerry Snow does not produce the gear boxes. They were produced by NWSL using their molds and gears. You could buy them from NWSL and assume you still can with the new owners. It is an excellent gear box but you must devise a transfer case or drive band system and get a motor. Ed

Bob2,
By 8x24, do you mean the Pittman 8000 series? What does the 2 mean and how long is the motor?
Thanks,
Ed

Maybe $250 if you want to sell everything for cost.

Ed,

NWSL didn't make the gears for the 1:1 box. They contracted it out. Just like we did.


Jay

Jay are you talking about the Smow gear boxes? Ed

Ed,

They are identical to Jerry's and NWSL's. Bottom line neither could/would supply them so we bought the cases, screws and thrust washers from NWSL and contracted out the rest. I you open one of ours and either of the other two you can not tell the difference. They are identical. So no, I'm not talking about Jerry's I'm talking about an identical 1:1 gearbox for less money.

The motors are the same also. There's nothing special about them. They are a Standard Pittman Gear head motor. We just bought a lot of them.

I really thought some of you sharper guys could read between the lines. Must be getting late on Sunday night.

I you want specifics, call me.

Jay

Not me - I read the actual lines, where you said the Snow mechanisms were being produced, and were available. You did not say that they were Jay C mechanisms. If you can produce onesies and twosies at $250 without losing money, you can produce a thousand at $200 and make big bucks.

Motors are eighty bucks each in low quantities; thirty each at a hundred. That's without the gearheads, but you can expect the same price break.

Last time I bought a Boston gear it was thirty bucks - that was a very long time ago. Four thousand of the same kind of gear would be about two bucks each - maybe less. Same with ball bearings; they get dirt cheap in quantities of a thousand or so.

Cockerham used to say, back a truck up to my basement and keep unloading until you owe me money!

Pittmans work this way: First digit = diameter. Second digit = how the pins or wires come out. Third digit: 1 = not for model train use. 2 or 3 = rare earth magnets, ideal for model trains. Fourth digit = length, and is related to power. 8000-series are smaller, faster, and less powerful than 9000s. I no longer use 9000s in anything. I have about twenty 9434s installed in everything from 4-4-0s to cab forwards. The 8x24 is way better for my modeling. As I recall, if the x is a 2, there are wires coming out the side. If it is a 4, the pins are on the back.

Bob2,

Better re-read it. I said I purchased some from Jerry. I didn't say when. I went so far as to say, I wasn't sure about current availability from him. Maybe you should ask him.

They are not Jay C mechanisms. They are just the components being made available for less than they were previously.

You are correct about price breaks, to a point. Now I'm not the shrewd business man you are but, why would anyone buy 10,000 or so of something to save money when they can only market 1000? So they can sell them for less before they go out of business. Surely that would be the case trying to sell to you.

Jay

quote:

I believe the Snow mechanism never made it to production - that may have been because you could get three complete MTH diesels for the price of one mechanism

- that quote should not have gotten me in trouble. It is an opinion, but from the reaction, it sounds like it is accurate.

I think we are getting in to a misunderstanding here. You are correct; I do not have the bucks for truly fancy mechanisms manufactured elsewhere - My Train Masters would be Bultmann, not K-Line, if I had unlimited funds for my train addiction. I refuse to be bothered by folks who think less of me for not buying more expensive stuff. My hobby is older O Scale, and the plastic is here so I can pull trains without wearing out my CLW.

I really don't care whether the Snow mechanism is available or not, and was only trying to point out that if the market would support it, you could buy one and have it shipped tomorrow. I am quite happy with the ability to send $75 plus ten dollars shipping off and get inaccurate but running trucks to slip under all the Atlas SD-35s around here from which I stole the Atlas running gear. That is for six axles powered by two motors including side frames.

I sincerely hope that Sunset can offer basically the same deal with a horizontal Pittman motor for under $500. That is, after all, the whole point of this thread, and I am in favor of it. As to how many I will be buying, I think that my six Adams E7s will be enough for now.

Bob I for one do not think less of you because of what and how you model and I don't think many people do either. I appreciate what you do in modeling and your contribution to the hobby. You are a fine craftsman and a gentleman. Ed

Mike Pitogo's photo above of the E8s that he converted from 3R to 2R does not do justice to what he accomplished.

For a test run of the E8s Mike assembled a test train using two Pennsy trains that were in the terminal between runs. Test train is putting it mildly, 17 passenger cars running the 2.5% grades on the NYSME layout.

This youtube video shows what he accomplished, take a look at
Lackawanna E8s

Oh, Arn't these verticle motor China drives?

quote Phil Gatto

I wish I had access to a lathe (and the know how to use one) but I don't.

Phil
All work was done in NYSME's machine shop and we have members who will teach you. Right up the road from you. One mile from Turnpike Exit 16W (Giants Stadium)
As my signature says.

Andy Brusgard, VP-NYSME

quote:

Originally posted by AndyB:
Mike Pitogo's photo above of the E8s that he converted from 3R to 2R does not do justice to what he accomplished.

This youtube video shows what he accomplished, take a look at
Lackawanna E8s

Andy Brusgard, VP-NYSME

Mike,

Would you be so kind as to explain what you did to your MTH E8s and what was required to convert them from 3 rails to 2 rails? I think another thread would be very useful and informative for most 2 rails enthusiasts.

Thanks in advance.
Yves

quote:

If you can produce onesies and twosies at $250 without losing money, you can produce a thousand at $200 and make big bucks.

That's still a $200k investment up front and you'd have to sell 800 units to break even.....not counting time invested, and all the related stuff that goes with putting something in a box and actually selling it.