Zubi,
two adjectives spring readily to mind - arrogant and pompous.
Tim Brien said:Ough, Tim! Poor mind;-)!! Has it been challenged too much?? Please give it some rest now... Best wishes, Zubi
Zubi, two adjectives spring readily to mind - arrogant and pompous.
Zubi,
live by the sword. Die by the sword!
perhaps Zubi would care to comment on double heading the K with any of Bachman’s other rod locos in 1:20.
Andre`
Andrè Schofield said:
perhaps Zubi would care to comment on double heading the K with any of Bachman's other rod locos in 1:20.Andre`
Andre, This is an interesting point. Could you elaborate? Best wishes, Zubi
Andre.
You need to remember when it comes to electric powered Bachmann locos, Zubi only does hypotheses.
Unfortunately Zubi cannot comment on the K-27 performance because he has never had the pleasure of actually operating one.
What makes you think he would have had practical experience with other Bachmann 1:20.3 rod locos, such that he could make a valid comparison between them and the K-27?
Tony and Andre, Indeed I sold my one and only Bachmann a very long time ago and I rarely operate electric locomotives. But this forum is open to everyone and I do not see why I personally should provide any comparisons in question. Since apart from Stan Ames posting and citation of Dave Goodson’s review we lack any other objective measurements coming from people who possess K-27, perhaps they will at least take trouble to compare the K with other locomotives??? Sill, one has to keep in mind that double heading is a nightmare, as much in live steam as in electric (of which I own some 20+ by more than five manufacturers but excluding Bachmann) Even the same mechanical design as for example LGB Mogul is impossible to double head between digital sound and analog sound versions… Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi
Double heading locomotives is very simple.
By using prototypical practises, you just have two locomotives with an engineer in each. With Radio Control, Battery, the same can be done in LS. We do it all the time on the IPP&W, with great success. You can use any combination of locomotives, and they can be positioned at any location in the consist of the train.
Our crews enjoy the experience of working together to get thr train over the line, in a situation that real crews experienced many times on the NG pikes.
Of course with modern Diesel locos, it is a different situation, where most locomotives have MU capabilities, and only require one engineer. There is more of a problem with duplicating this in LS, as few Diesel locomotives of different manufacturers, will have the same gearing, or wheel size.
Steam locomotives cannot be MU'd in the real world, so try enjoying the situation in model form.....you might like it !!!!Nightmare, in Live Steam…pure BS…(Double Heading)
All you need is two LS locomotives with operating couplers on both ends; both locos should have R/C controls. Put the locomotives in the care of two operators who know their locos, and have learned what their capabilities are. If the LS locomotives are worth the high prices that many seem to get pleasure paying for them; the two operators, should be able to co-ordinate their locomotives, with the needs of the consist, and start it in motion together without any problems.
I’ve actually seen this happen, on a track that had grades as steep as 3%.
Most live steamers never seem to do anything but fire up their locos; push them into place at the head of a train, then push it to get it to go. Once in action; they seem to get pleasure, only watching the train run around in circles, at speeds comparible with slot cars. Most have never even learned what the capabilitise of their locos are…most seem to avoid R/C control, in favour of running around in circles trying to twig wee joysticks at the trot…I’ve watched these antics and wonder why there can be such enthusiasm, combining, Jogging, and model railroading…and it seems, a slotcar/Lionel mentality.
I'm not knocking it; I'm just observing. My thought is that they must get some sort of pleasure out of it, so I'm the first to say....Have Fun......I had promised myself, never to post to this topic again, as it was getting very boring, but that statement about Double Heading, by a person that obviously only runs locos in circles, and probably has never tried to see what his multitude of owned locos are capable of, just got my wiskers in a twitch…then to say that it was a problem in LS, electric powered locos, just touched the flame to the fuse…
Now…I’m gone from this stupidity…Put an end to it…for god’s sake…
Fred, we do have fun! Next time you are in Tokyo please bring your live steamer with you and join in, you are likely never to get back to operating your sparkies again though… Best wishes, Zubi
PS 3% grade sound good. where was it? which engines?
Gentlemen, there once was a time when I could have been tempted to switch to North American NG, but I count my blessings that I stuck with the “good old RhB” stuff.
All of this would be way over my head. 
:lol:
Zbigniew Struzik said:Zubi. I agree that it is not encumbent upon you to provide practical testing. There has been plenty of evidence from K-27 users as to how the loco behaves in real world conditions.
Tony and Andre, Indeed I sold my one and only Bachmann a very long time ago and I rarely operate electric locomotives. But this forum is open to everyone and I do not see why I personally should provide any comparisons in question. Since apart from Stan Ames posting and citation of Dave Goodson's review we lack any other objective measurements coming from people who possess K-27, perhaps they will at least take trouble to compare the K with other locomotives??? Sill, one has to keep in mind that double heading is a nightmare, as much in live steam as in electric (of which I own some 20+ by more than five manufacturers but excluding Bachmann) Even the same mechanical design as for example LGB Mogul is impossible to double head between digital sound and analog sound versions... Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi
Given that you ask us to accept your hypotheses with your credibilty based upon your academic qualifications, don’t you think it would be prudent to at least acknowledge others in the field have found results contrary to you hypotheses, and accept these contrary results as also being valid?
Tony, thank you for the note. Yes, I definitely acknowledge that. I understand there are numerous people who are unhappy with their K because of its under-performance. Given the data I had, I derived some parameters at max voltage and the full spectrum of permissible loads but from this I cannot see any problem with the K. If possible, I would like to understand what is the source of this discrepancy between their experience and my hypothesis. I cannot do this without measurement data. What I provided earlier in this thread was an estimate based on the motor graphs from Pittman and measurements by Stan Ames. Both can be wrong. All I am asking you and others who own the K and the motor in it, is to identify where the data I used is wrong and provide new, correct data. Best regards, Zubi
PS of course, you can also see in my plots that once Barry or Bachmann provides a higher numerically gear, many people who prefer slow at lower current will be much happier, but their locomotive will not pull any more cars unless they add weight.
Zubi.
Please show me in this thread where anyone has complained about hauling capacity, as in the number of cars it can pull.
What we are trying to communicate is how excessively fast the loco runs compared to other Bachmann Spectrum rod locos on the same voltages, and how there is a lack of smoothness at low speed which we have diagnosed as being caused by a too high a gear ratio.
Mr Ames was responsible for communicating to Bachmann the asked for motor gearbox specifications supplied by Barry Olsen and Dave Goodson.
Subsequently we learn that the ratio was changed from 1:30 to 1:14.5. Common sense should tell you that, if you lower the ratio was raised from 1:14.5 back up to 1:29 the top speed wpould be reduced relative to the motor voltage, and, low speed smoothness would be improved immensely.
How do we know that?
We have tried them in the field.
Extensively.
They run too fast and are not as smooth as they easily could be with the right gear ratios.
Mr Ames is responsible for the error and refuses to admit it.
Why?
Who knows.
Credibility does come into the equation you know. After all, when the K-27 first came out Mr Ames was witnessed on the MLS chat as saying categorically that there was nothing wrong with counterweights, and then, not two minutes later saying “they” had known about it all along.
I believe that “slow at lower current” is the main objective here. Obviously there will be a limit to how many cars any loco can pull without needing additional weight.
But for decent operation we need more choices than just “stop” and “full gallop”. Good slow speed performance is needed to do switching and such, even if the user chooses to go at full speed out on the mainline.
Tony,
the operative word is ‘credibility’. So far, the only information that could be seen as positive for the manufacturer, has come from either those with vested interests, those with little experience in the field and those who would try to baffle the onlooker with dubious specifications.
Let us see if the same disclaimers arise if a problem on the next release.Tim.
As I have said repeatedly.
I am not knocking the K-27 per se. The K-27 is well made with a superbly engineered gearbox and drive assembly. If it had not been so well made I doubt it would perform as well as it does.
It would have been so much better with the originally specified ratio.
One can only speculate as to why Mr Ames continues to deny the undeniable.
TonyWalsham said:
Zubi.Please show me in this thread where anyone has complained about hauling capacity, as in the number of cars it can pull.
[…]
Tony! Right in the beginning of this thread!! The very first posting cites Mr David Funk as suggesting that the K would pull much better with the higher numerically gear ratio. This is disputed by Mr Stan Ames. And perfectly rightly so. There is no doubt that the K would not pull any more with 1:29 gear ratio as opposed to 1:14.5 because the motor is “a horse” as Mr Barry Olsen stated. Indeed it is, and it works at about half the rpm of the 8000 series which Mr Olsen uses for his 1:29 or so gearboxes. Furthermore as I showed on page 9 the motor and 1:14.5 gear combination is optimal to pull any load up to the weight of the locomotive (at perfect adhesion scenario) up to maximum voltage (max speed). For his statement Mr Ames is labelled as a clueless cretin. But noone until now has shown that he is wrong and I doubt that anyone ever will. We are not discussing the top speed. Everyone agrees that it is much higher than that of the prototype, but if this was the wish of the manufacturer to produce a model running well but much faster than the prototype, who’s business is that? If you do not like it don’t buy it! Best wishes, Zubi
Well not quite.
He actually said pull much stronger.
You definitely would be able to pull stronger with a lower ratio.
At a given voltage the power output of the gearbox at the final drive would be more powerful. With a reduced speed.
That works just like a car gearbox.
Now, assuming that extra power could be applied to the rails, you would be able to pull more with a low ratio than with a higher ratio.
We prove that all the time.
If you need to go faster apply a little more voltage.