Forums » Motive Power

List of newest posts

    • April 2, 2020 2:17 AM EDT
    • Gents, 

       

      Thanks again.   Mike, there are no missing parts, and, as Bill suggested, the poor fit is more a matter of a poor picture.  The motor, Mike, is held in place by the port and starboard side of the chassis.  A motor block lid then drops on top of the assembled chassis.  This is held in place by four screws, two on each side.  The whole is made fast with a couple screws around the cab, and, to some extent by the wheels and axles themselves.  Per Dan's warning of years ago, I have been observant of the issue of quartering, so I do not suspect that to be the cause.  Oh, and Greg, this is the original motor.  There is no observable damage.

          Like Bill said, this seems to be an issue of wear… but where?  And, like Greg said, it has to be in the drive train.  Because both idlers get stripped each time I "fix" Glitchy Gustav,  I am inclined to think the motor is, in fact, sitting wrong.  Since it is grinding out both idlers at once, wouldn't this suggest:

      1. The motor wiggles port-to-starboard, eventually binding the idlers. 
      2. The idlers themselves no longer spin true, eventually binding on the drive gears, much to their physical detriment
      3. The axles no longer spin true, eventually locking one or more of the drivers.

       

           As for what I am willing to spend, Greg, this has been a running thought project.  I am willing to take the time to engineer a solution.  Monetarily, I am at that "Las Vegas Rules" tipping point.  Since i am in over $100 (I had already purchased long-lost detail parts before this issue with the gears), I have reached a point where I am willing to spend for a permanent fix, but I am not willing (or allowed) to throw cash at experiments anymore.  I have considered buying a used one on e-Bay just to enjoy the look of this loco on our railroad again (trust me, it somehow looks "right" amidst our tight curves and bright flowers), but the proposal met with universal non-approval on the Homefront.  The style of the locomotive is evocative of some of the side tankers that ran out here, so fitting this shell to another chassis of a different wheel base (2-4-2 or 0-6-0) is on the table, but, for the moment, probably beyond my skillset.  Probably...

       

           Glitchy Gustav is in parts (again), and I am happy to take new, hopefully better pictures of the internals if that'd be useful.   I'll call it a homeschool class in "mechanical engineering" and get some help and credit with the crew's teachers.  Otherwise, I am going to bolt him back up to avoid losing parts.

       

          Thanks to all for the renewed interest and continued discussion.  Having shredded the gears through misassembly of my recently re-animated m2075, I am hoping to use this to avoid a similar chain of missteps in the future if not to get this loco back on the tracks.

       

      Aloha.

      Eric

       

           

       

       

       

       

    • March 31, 2020 8:01 PM EDT
    • Eric

       

      The black rings Dan mentions in his post on 10/12/2017 beginning with "since the model 2017 was mentioned" maybe missing. These "BLACK RINGS" hold/retain the motor in place. I'd guess the gaps I noted above would tighten up if the rings are missing.

       

      Michael 

    • March 31, 2020 3:24 PM EDT
    • Eric, all I see from the 12/11 picture is it looks like the motor isn't low enough in the housing to engage the idler gears properly, but then again it might just be the picture but the worm gear should engage the idler gear and I'm not seeing how a warped housing could be the problem, worn yes warped no 

    • March 31, 2020 3:10 PM EDT
    • Eric,

       

      The picture on 12/11 with halve of the motor block assembled with NEW idlers clearly suggest to me that the motor is not properly aligned with the idler gears. Note the gap on the left side as compared to the right idler and worm. The motor alignment is an issue IMO. The motor does not appear to be perpendicular to right angles. Is the motor held in place with the block halves molded for centering the motor end bells? Or is there a cradle, or?

       

      Michael

    • March 31, 2020 12:39 PM EDT
    • well, I would look at what you have NOT replaced... clearly the gears and siderods are not at fault. The body shell is irrelevant.

      has motor been replaced?

      I suspect you do have some binding in the geartrain you have not discovered.

      How much time and money total are you willing to invest?

       

      Greg

    • April 2, 2020 1:45 AM EDT
    • Jim,

      Does the frame widen for the cargo bed?  Or could you more easily hide with sideboards, a load, or whatever, modifications to the frame to all you to mount the drive?  Either could enable you to put the driver under the bed and the truck up forward.  It might look "off," but it could simplify things, to include the simulated chain drive.  

       

      I say this, of course, as one who has yet to master the art of the straight cut!

       

      Eric

    • April 2, 2020 12:07 AM EDT
    • I've been gathering stuff to build a roughly bashed together railtruck based on a 1926 Mack truck with some freight and some passenger capability (i.e. a railtruck combine-ish sort of hack).

       

      I'm inspired partly by Ray Dunakin's railcar [link]:

       

       

      and Dennis Rayon's backwoods Porter [link]:

       

       

      Hollywood was gracious enough to send me a Mack truck model I can use for this bash:

       

       

      I had already built one of these [link] and hope I'm ready to bash this similar model into something that actually runs.

       

       

      Boomer pointed me to an eBay seller that had a Northwest Short Line #1 gauge Magic Carpet drive, and I'm hoping to use that as the motive power. Right now I'm struggling a bit with how to integrate that, and a regular truck, with the frame of the Mack truck, as they are similar widths. Hopefully I'll figure that out soon.

       

       

      It would also be great if I can have a chain drive (maybe not actually doing the "drive" part but at least animating, and I'm experimenting with a MicroMark set of sprockets and chains:

       

       

      Wish me luck! Suggestions are welcome!

       

    • April 1, 2020 8:14 AM EDT
    • Pete Thornton said:
      John Wilda said:

      Thank you both for that input. I am, however, going to be replacing the Bachmann wheels. They are slightly too small to match the Hall. I'll be using metal Piko drivers!

      This is going to be one of those "conversions" where the only original parts will be the number plates. 

      Exactly, Pete! It was meant to be more of a conversion originally, but the more I get into it the more it becomes "well, I guess I'm building that now too!".

    • March 31, 2020 4:59 PM EDT
    • Isn't that how its done Pete? That's why I try and be careful when calling mine a kit bash versus a scratch build. While it does use some radically modified pieces of the original not much is left but can you really call it a scratch build when you are using the the main guts. Its all semantics I suppose. The important part is that you have a working loco when its done. Something I failed at on my first try whatever you call it.

    • March 31, 2020 4:48 PM EDT
    • John Wilda said:

      Thank you both for that input. I am, however, going to be replacing the Bachmann wheels. They are slightly too small to match the Hall. I'll be using metal Piko drivers!

      This is going to be one of those "conversions" where the only original parts will be the number plates. 

    • March 31, 2020 3:38 PM EDT
    • Thank you both for that input. I am, however, going to be replacing the Bachmann wheels. They are slightly too small to match the Hall. I'll be using metal Piko drivers!

    • March 31, 2020 2:39 PM EDT
    • While i am a believer in bashing what you got I have to agree with Pete on this one. The Annie chassis is much nicer. My 2-6-0 was built of the non Annie version with metal wheels. My current 2-4-0 is built off the Annie. Just better all around from its construction to its looks.

       

      Here is my 2 cents. Continue as you are making it so that it comes apart from the chassis. As much as you can make detachable the better. Then use this chassis. When and if you wear it out or the gear breaks you can either get new metal wheels from Bachmann or an entirely new chassis and all your stuff should fit. There basic construction is the same.

    • March 31, 2020 2:03 PM EDT
    • John, I hate to say this but your chassis is the early battery version produced in the 1980s with plastic wheels. Those wheels are known to shred as the brass rails grind them on corners.  Bachmann sells replacement chassis with better gears and metal wheels at a discount (the current version seems to be reliable, so Stan tells us they are selling off the spares.) The Anniversary chassis even has fluted metal rods.
      https://estore.bachmanntrains.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=69

    • March 31, 2020 9:35 PM EDT
    • Rooster, 

       

      Me anal? Coming from you that's kinda funny. I plan to connect the Johnson bar. And that will land on a linkage between the drivers. 

       

      John,

       

      I like it. Very doable 

    • March 31, 2020 9:27 PM EDT
    • Funky ok?

      Extend the lower bar (square tubing) until a cross support from under the frame, behind the wheel can support it. Run a vertical to support the upper bar where it ends.

    • March 31, 2020 8:12 PM EDT
    • Devon Sinsley said:
      Joe Zullo said:
       

      Devon,

      I SHOULD have known you weren't finished yet. What was I thinking?

      I am having a bit of a dilemma though. Something I had not planned for was where the end of the crosshead rails are in relation to the driver.

       

      In this pic you can see that it ends well into the side of the driver. i wish i had moved the cylinders back further so that the cross head rails would end up closer to in between the drivers. This would allow me to mount a crosshead support between them. I can mount the bearing and lever between them and extend the rod to the steam chest but not sure how to put in a cross head support. Anyone have any ideas? 

       

       

      I have an idea if you are gonna be anal ..."connect the Johnson bar first so you can control them" otherwise this conversation is mute?

       

       

      Right ?

    • March 31, 2020 7:23 PM EDT
    • Forrest Scott Wood said:
      Devon Sinsley said:
      I already had to cut almost 3/4 off the connecting rod, the stock one was too long for the current placement.

      That brings to mind, and at the moment I can't name and quote a specific source or sources, that there came a point, especially with 2-6-0 & 0-6-0 locomotives, where the railroads and locomotive builders learned that too-short of a main rod made for bad physics which caused several kinds of trouble.

      Oh gee thanks. I needed that.

    • March 31, 2020 7:17 PM EDT
    • Devon Sinsley said:
      I already had to cut almost 3/4 off the connecting rod, the stock one was too long for the current placement.

      That brings to mind, and at the moment I can't name and quote a specific source or sources, that there came a point, especially with 2-6-0 & 0-6-0 locomotives, where the railroads and locomotive builders learned that too-short of a main rod made for bad physics which caused several kinds of trouble.

    • March 31, 2020 2:58 PM EDT
    • Forrest Scott Wood said:
      Devon Sinsley said:

        i wish i had moved the cylinders back further so that the cross head rails would end up closer to in between the drivers.

      Are you sure that would allow room for the crosshead to still be outside of the cylinder when fully forward ...??? I'm not.

      No I am not sure. And when I originally placed it thats what I was most concerned with. I wanted to make darn sure I had a full range of motion on the piston rod (or whatever its called). That and it landed where it needed to for the smokebox (although that could have been modified). So I am not really sure I could have move it back any more than it is. I already had to cut almost 3/4 off the connecting rod, the stock one was too long for the current placement. This is a smallish problem. I am sure I will come up with some sort of solution to put a crosshead support on it.

       

      There is already so much going on, especially on the engineers side that I am not sure how much more I can practically cram in there in the way of detail parts. One Idea would be to make the support so that it is between the crosshead rails tying them together and looking like it goes over to the frame to support it. Then I could put the valve rod on that.

    • March 31, 2020 2:46 PM EDT
    • Devon Sinsley said:

        i wish i had moved the cylinders back further so that the cross head rails would end up closer to in between the drivers.

      Are you sure that would allow room for the crosshead to still be outside of the cylinder when fully forward ...??? I'm not.