I acquired this in a GER tram locomotive, and I am curious which Bachmann device it came out of. Maybe the small trolley? Anyone have a clue?
Aren’t those plates on the sides for skates? That would make it not Bachmann right?
LGB or USAT?
What does the bottom look like?
Greg
Looks a lot like Bachmann’s trolley drive- which is similar arrangement for both On30 and G. Metal plates on top are for contacts which carry current for body lighting.
Now, which box in the closet are my trolley drives buried in?
Okay, that was a quick find. Here are both Bachmann’s G and On30 trolley motor blocks, top and bottom.
I do not have a G trolley body - bought motor block as a part for a scratchbuild project.
Hmm, their website doesn’t seem to have a parts diagram for open streetcar listed.
But the part is available, http://estore.bachmanntrains.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=69_613&products_id=513
That would make it not Bachmann right?
The bottom does say Bachmann China, so no doubt there. And Forrest’s photo clinches it. Thanks very much - you guys are the best!
Cool, more things learned.
Now, am I crazy, or is that block look like it was designed to be fitted with skates? The slot, the “boss” to limit the travel, with a hole for a screw and washer, the “pimple” in the metal plate to hold the spring?
Greg
Greg Elmassian said:
Now, am I crazy, or is that block look like it was designed to be fitted with skates? The slot, the “boss” to limit the travel, with a hole for a screw and washer, the “pimple” in the metal plate to hold the spring?
Nah, it’s totally impossible to put any kind of skate at all there, see.
And back to being serious, those dimples are inboard of block edge and not open.
Those pictures help a lot, I REALLY AM crazy!
Has anyone made a little plate to do this? Looks like a small plate screwed on top of the existing plate, with a slot or hole for the tip of the skate piece and a spring does that part, and a washer and a screw secures the skate.
Greg
Nah, it’s totally impossible to put any kind of skate at all there, see.
I take it that was a tongue-in-cheek comment. Not that I’m a fan of skates - this little beast is getting a Bluerail receiver and some batteries. Deadrail Rules!
Pete Thornton said:
I take it that was a tongue-in-cheek comment.
Huh? What? I can’t hear you, you’re breaking up, there’s too much static in the cable.
Well, for track power, that might be a good addition for a lightweight trolley.
Interesting.
Greg
But, aren’t the Bachmann trolley motor block infamous for eating their gears?
David Maynard said:
But, aren’t the Bachmann trolley motor block infamous for eating their gears?
The short answer; yes.
The long answer; which Bachmann whatever, isn’t?
David Maynard said:
But, aren’t the Bachmann trolley motor block infamous for eating their gears?
The availability of a ‘geared axle’ spare part would confirm this.
Whether they eat gears or not, I would think that if you have one, then you are running it, and gear or not, improving the power pickup might be useful.
Greg
Greg Elmassian said:
, improving the power pickup might be useful.
Quite true.
That motor block of mine hasn’t been much run yet since what to build on it hasn’t been decided.
Even HLW’s little 4-wheel Mack and Sparky locos which likely will run reliably until the end of time could use another contact point since they have non-sprung axles.
Clearly the contact patch of a skate is way larger than a wheel.
Funny, some responses are like the famous ones like a guy asks for help to solve a track power problem and someone suggests converting to battery.
So we talk about improving the power pickup and it’s “why bother because the gear is no good”…
Hmm…
Greg
No, I didn’t say “why bother”, I simply asked a question.
And as for all Bachmann’s eating gears, I am still running my Reading 10 wheeler set, its the first train of the season, every season since the railroad opened. It was the “golden spike” train when the railroad opened in 03.
Greg Elmassian said:
Clearly the contact patch of a skate is way larger than a wheel.
, , ,
Greg
OK. I’ll bite. Is that scientifically proven to improve electrical continuity, even if true?
-
I doubt that any more of the skate is actually in contact with the rail than the wheel at the microscopic level.
-
The wheel is putting much more pressure on the rail than the large flat skate.
I suspect the benefit of skates is due to springs - most of these little 0-4-0s are unsprung, as Forrest pointed out, and therefore they often only have 3 wheels actually on the rails. I am a firm believer in equalization - one axle should pivot so that all 4 wheels stay on the rails. And the skates provide a (5th, 6th?) point of contact with the rails, besides the 4 wheels.
There is an opinion that the sliding action of the skate, and yes by needs sprung, is more beneficial for electrical contact and it is also somewhat believed that as a bit of an added bonus at no extra charge the sliding action offers a bit of benefit in keeping the rail clean-er than otherwise.
May be related to how a number of trolley and interurban lines here in US went from trolley poles with wheel collectors to sliding shoe collectors because the shoes offered more continuous contact than the wheels, which could bounce a bit at times.
There are potential issues with these sliding shoes. Among them snagging on uneven rail ends at joints, even with ends of shoe turned up; shorting across turnout/switch parts which have too little clearance between rails; having issues with switch frogs; snagging on the same if a groove is allowed to wear in shoe; and probably more which are not recalled at the moment.
As it happens, pantograph shoes have the same groove wearing problem, which is why you will see catenary wires zig zagging across track centerline so as to spread out the wear. There are also pantograph shoes which have a spanwise slot to carry lubrication of some kind of conductive grease or the like.
Back to the shoes on G trucks; several real-world electric operations which have not used the conventional outboard 3rd rail have used shoes on the running rails or more often on conductive rails between the running rails. But they are able to use sloped approaches and exits from the conductive rail which would not be workable on running rails.
I haven’t any available documentation to prove this statement but the characteristics of sliding contact shoes is well understood in the prototype world and used to be in the model world, maybe up through the 1950s before declining in favor of 2 rail, except for traction modeling.
Somewhere in a model magazine in the 1980s was article about a fellow who had a large layout in O scale which still used outboard 3rd rail current supply even on the big steam locomotives.
I wonder who that was? Hmm. There was a Bill Schoop who did O scale scratchbuilding of brass steamers but I don’t think it was him.
Oh, speaking of him, have seen a 1950s scratchbuild of on of the little B&O “Docksider” 0-4-0T (which I think they classed C-16) (they also had 0-6-0 called Docksiders) where Bill drilled one driver axle hole off-center by something like 1/64 or 1/32 inch in order to emphasize the rocking and hunting the very short wheelbase caused in the prototype.
Wow, that’s far more trivia flooding out than I expected.
Oh well, here it is, make of it what you will 
{EDIT: Hey! where did the paragraph spacing go??? I typed this with double spaces every few sentences like newspaper articles and now some web articles do}