Tim, it is essentially trivial to measure the motor characteristics (I used such from the motor which Barry Olsen indicated as the one that is on the K-27, or recommended to be there, whichever version you like…). It will save us all a lot of time if you go and measure these from your K-27 motor and let us see the diagrams. Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi
Zbigniew Struzik said:Zubi. I meant for an analysis to be based on actual hands on experience with the said models.
Hi Tony, I do not have time to play with toys... when I have time for trains, I run live steam. I will wait until you provide objective and verifiable comparison and quality measurements and diagrams so that we can see if and how they are different from those that we have so far!! Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi PS metal Accucraft K-27 locomotive does not compare very well with plastic K-27 by Bachmann because 1) plastic one is probably lighter, therefore not capable of converting motor torque into tractive effort 2) plastic one is probably considerably cheaper therefore cannot permit waste of money on sub-obtimal motor choice (i.e. power overkill cannot be a design option) 3) plastic one is probably meant for a somewhat broader market not restricted to proto-nerds running proto-speeds, people who run electric toy trains probably want to have fun too and see their train actually moving;-))...
No just a hypothesis.
TonyWalsham said:
Zubi. I meant for an analysis to be based on actual hands on experience with the said models.No just a hypothesis.
Tony. I perfectly understand you and I also agree that actual measurements would be better. But if these is not available, an (educated) hypothesis is also a valuable way to approach the problem. In any case, it is better than hand-waving or throwing mud at one another… Best wishes, Zubi
Zubi,
So an electrically-powered model is a “toy”, but a steam-powered model is not? Thanks for clearing that up. But how can we be “proto-nerds” if we’re just “playing with toys”? And if steam-powered models are so much more real, wouldn’t that make you an uber-proto-nerd?
Zubi,
the specs that you based your results on are copyrighted 2001. The K-27 has a custom wound Pittman motor, to bachmann specs that was definately not around in 2001. You say that is is ‘essentially trivial to measure motor characteristics’ and yet the only specs that you have provided are for a non-B’mann motor.
Ray Dunakin said:Oh, Ray, don't take this too seriously. I am just in the middle of packing my live steamers to go for a steamup and I do not really have much time to answer the same hand-waving stories over and over again... And yes, I am more than an uber photo nerd - I am actually dangerous - live steam can be very contagious... Best, Zubi PS OK, OK..., Bachmann's K-27 is a nice model;-) not only a toy. But I am only interested in discussing objective measurements not subjective experiences!!!
Zubi, So an electrically-powered model is a "toy", but a steam-powered model is not? Thanks for clearing that up. But how can we be "proto-nerds" if we're just "playing with toys"? And if steam-powered models are so much more real, wouldn't that make you an uber-proto-nerd?
Zubi,
from your last posting - “discussing objective measurements not subjective experiences.” I have yet to see an objective measurement from you. You based your results on a generic motor that is not in the B’mann K-27. For someone who has such little free time, you certainly seem to have enough time to present your ‘facts’.
Tim Brien said:Holy Moly Tim! I used the specs for the motor indicated and allegedly recommended to Bachmann by Barry Olsen, I said it before - if this motor (but for 19 V) is not actually used on the K-27 then just use my illustration to understand why Barry's recomendation was sub-optimal and why it makes more sense to use 1:14.5 with this particular motor - end of the story. If a very different motor is used on the K-27 why is this so? And why Barry who supposedly guided Bachmann in their motor choice pointed me this motor??? Best, Zubi PS please ask your student to measure the actual K-27 motor!
Zubi, the specs that you based your results on are copyrighted 2001. The K-27 has a custom wound Pittman motor, to bachmann specs that was definately not around in 2001. You say that is is 'essentially trivial to measure motor characteristics' and yet the only specs that you have provided are for a non-B'mann motor.
Zubi,
have a nice day with your live steamers. At least Aster knows what gear ratio is correct for their live steam locomotives.
The whole point of this debate has been the fact Bachmann were given a set of specifications. Specifications that they did not adhere to.
Perhaps we could expect the next flurry of statistics from you to be based on what Bachmann are actually using.
Zbigniew Struzik said:TonyWalsham said:
Zubi. I meant for an analysis to be based on actual hands on experience with the said models.No just a hypothesis.
Tony. I perfectly understand you and I also agree that actual measurements would be better. But if these is not available, an (educated) hypothesis is also a valuable way to approach the problem. In any case, it is better than hand-waving or throwing mud at one another… Best wishes, Zubi
ZUBI.
I certainly don’t disagree with that.
Therefore one would expect that just as much weight is given to practical experience when trying to come to a conclusion?
TOC published his stall current figures for the K-27 earlier in the thread. See page # 2 towards the bottom.
Those that choose to ignore the outcome of independent testing by reputed testers do so at the peril of losing their own reputations.
TonyWalsham said:
ZUBI. I certainly don't disagree with that.Therefore one would expect that just as much weight is given to practical experience when trying to come to a conclusion?
TOC published his stall current figures for the K-27 earlier in the thread. See page # 2 towards the bottom.
Those that choose to ignore the outcome of independent testing by reputed testers do so at the peril of losing their own reputations.
Tony, Mr Goodson (TOC) seems to have a rather large experimental error… and reports incomplete data… on page #2 in this thread he says 5 Amp but in Garden Railways it was “Full slip on straight track, at 13.5V, drew 1.7A forward and 1.8A reverse.” Not a reliable source for me, sorry. Best wishes, Zubi
TonyWalsham said:
The whole point of this debate has been the fact Bachmann were given a set of specifications. Specifications that they did not adhere to.Perhaps we could expect the next flurry of statistics from you to be based on what Bachmann are actually using.
No, no, Tony, the whole point of this debate is that a bunch of Highly Esteemed Contributors to this thread do not seem to be conversant with pretty elementary concepts required to understand the posting of Mr Stan Ames, as cited in the opening of this thread. This was already perfectly evident on the page 2, although one might have still had some hope that they just preferred to avoid any mental effort… By now any reader of this thread should be pretty much convinced that the said contributors simply do not have the capacity to grasp such concepts!! I am not sure that it is wise publicly to demonstrate this level of incompetence;-)) Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi
PS The specifications did not make sense - I showed this clearly on page #9.
[b]WOW, Thanks Zubi!!!
That was the nicest way anyone has ever described my (and many other LSC members) total ineptitude…[/b]boy I wish my wife could be so kind…
Speaking of Dave’s test and remarks posted on page 2…lets look at those carefully, shall we?
Quote:
. . I should add, those [b]current draw figures were obtained [i]after[/i] the review was written, on the old aluminum track out on the railroad, not the shiny brass stuff in the review area with track power[/b].Almost 3X more current required to go to full slip.
All the Pittman motored 4-6-0’s, inside and outside framed 2-8-0’s are tested on the same aluminum trackwork.
.
.
I hope that clears the air on your above question.
Zubi.
You showed innumerable calculations of theory. Not one bit of practical experience.
Theory is all very well, in theory. It remains just theory until proven, or otherwise, by reliable hands on testing.
Now, you may not regard TOC as a reliable source but I am sure others here do.
So in that case it is really down to just a matter of opinion.
If you choose to listen to Mr Ames, instead of those with extensive experience, so be it.
I know plenty of other Sciolists.
Cale, You are most welcome!! 
Zubi PS there is still hope for you, not so for some others though…
Tony, you know, I am almost tempted to buy one of these K beasts and measure it up. For now, let’s not waste any more time on this, OK? We all had some fun but good times cannot last forever… that’s enough;-)) best wishes, Zubi
Zbigniew Struzik said:They are all toys. The live steam is just a more expensive toy. RalphRay Dunakin said:Oh, Ray, don't take this too seriously. I am just in the middle of packing my live steamers to go for a steamup and I do not really have much time to answer the same hand-waving stories over and over again... And yes, I am more than an uber photo nerd - I am actually dangerous - live steam can be very contagious... Best, Zubi PS OK, OK..., Bachmann's K-27 is a nice model;-) not only a toy. But I am only interested in discussing objective measurements not subjective experiences!!!
Zubi, So an electrically-powered model is a "toy", but a steam-powered model is not? Thanks for clearing that up. But how can we be "proto-nerds" if we're just "playing with toys"? And if steam-powered models are so much more real, wouldn't that make you an uber-proto-nerd?
Ten pages and I STILL can’t figure out what, if anything, is wrong with the thing! Does it suffer from poor low speed performance or not? Dave Goodson’s review does not mention poor low speed performance. Dave Funk’s review says it’s not geared right, and this could lead to poor low speed performance, but he doesn’t mention any actual instance of poor low speed performance, but he doesn’t mention any problem that can’t be solved by turning the throttle down in DC.
What is the problem with the thing other than it does not agree with one set of people’s opinion about optimal gearing while it does agree with another’s?
I know musicians who will play a gig and their guitar sounds great but they will be driven crazy by the fact that the treble roll off cap is the wrong value and thus it’s not “optimal” or the finish on the guitar is poly instead of nitro and thus it’s not “optimal.” Is that what we’re looking at here? Because I totally understand that kind of thing
Hello fellow LSCers, I am the person who posted on 1:20.3 site and the one who’s comments started all these discussions. I’ve been a lurker here for about 1 year. I am a 48 year old male who has been involved in model RRing all my life. I have spent years building,painting or repairing trains. My passion is narrow gauge RGS and DRGW and I’ve built them in HOn3 and On3 and currently in 1:20.3. I know from experience when a model locomotive is built (and geared) correctly. Like many others I anxiously awaited the arrival of the new B’mann K-27. I was hoping that the release of this engine would be a sucess for B’mann and it would spur them on to do other DRGW locos. Years ago I gave up on expecting a manufacturer to create a perfect specimen of a model,but still expect them to be responsive to a consumer when the inevitable problem arises. B’mann has failed in this area. Being told to" have fun “on a web site is not very usefull. While B’mann was telling me to” have fun" and not admitting to a problem, one LSC member referred me to Dave Goodson. Dave took his own time to help me resolve the counterweight issues(shims still in place and will remain so. Several hours of run time and they are still tight as when installed,thanks, Dave!). I thought my problems were over. That is when I noticed this engine runs like a bullet train.Yes ,I know how to lower the throttle to slow it down!!! I have owned other locos in smaller scales and know how gearing mismatches perform.THE MAIN POINT IS: The K-27 has the wrong gears in it …the only reason it runs and pulls is it is relying on the torque of the Pittman motor to compensate for the gearing deficiency. My complaint with the model is that while it does run…it could have been a SUPERB running model the would have rivalled an Accucraft K-27 for 1/3 the cost! Using DCC to fix a gearing issue is not the answer as many modelers don’t want the added cost and hassles of DCC. I would have liked to have double headed the K with my Connie but the K’s fast gearing won’t allow that. Yes, for a mass produced steam loco the detailing is very accurate and I have found only a few minor changes that I will do to make it specific the RGS #455 Circa 1942. I would gladly answer any questions that any one would have regading my experiences with the B’mann K-27. Dave Funk