| Author | Messages | |
TonyWalsham
Melbourne Vic Australia
Foreman
Posts:295
Send Message
 | | 09/17/2008 6:22 AM |
| Posted By bobgrosh on 09/16/2008 5:04 PM
OK, So Tony LIKES the DCC socket and I tossed mine.
The world must be coming to an end.
Not quite LIKE Bob. More, tolerate.
With a little help from Phoenix I figured out a way to make the optical chuff work properly and then incorporated the design into the RCS/EVO PnP-3BK.
I guess battery R/C users are lucky in that they don't have to worry about the inrush currents DCC users have to worry about.
BTW, I would much rather have had a set of sensibly wired screw terminals. | |
Best wishes,
Tony Walsham
Remote Control Systems. www.rcs-rc.com/
Evolution Radio Control. www.evo-rc.net/
The primary problems of the planet arise not from the poor, for whom education is the answer. They arise from the well educated - for whom self interest is the problem. William Sloane Coffin. | |
| bobgrosh
1st Class Member
Tallahassee Florida
Foreman
Posts:232
Send Message
| | 09/17/2008 7:44 AM |
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By gdancer on 09/16/2008 3:21 PM
... snip
For myself, I am probably one of the people you put in the category suggested by your second assumption. I love building the railroad; the engineering required; less interested in the model-building side or even in the "running" of the trains. However, about 50% of my rationale for my railroad --at least in my excuses to the wife--is that it's for "the grandkids", of which I have 7 now with another in the oven, ranging in age from 14 down to minus 5 months. I need to buy locomotives that operate well and can stand a certain amount of heavy handling by little hands. Thus, I may be in a very small minority of the hobby.
...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess I am in that small minority too.
You could divide my rolling stock into two groups.
The ones I got for my grandkids (and all their friends)
The ones I bought for me.
I bought the LGB two axle locos for the kids. over 20 of them, diesels, porters, field locos, Stainz etc. Kids can pick them up, Kids can put them on the tracks.
Also for the kids, I bought the LGB F3 A/B set. With 30 pounds of added lead, They can't pick it up, but they can't derail it either, so they don't have to be able to put it back on the track. My 2 year old grand son likes to ride it. It's indestructible.
Some of the kids locos came with decoders. Others ran in stretched mode. Gradually I added decoders to all of them. None of them took more than an hour to convert. I did one the other day in five minutes.
For me, I like odd looking old steamers. I bought a big hauler, Annie, first run two truck shay. Hestler, Climax, three truck shay. Kay and LGB Forneys for my logging operations. These are for ME, not the grandkids.
When a loco looks good, runs flawlessly right out of the box, doesn't take a week or more to convert, and doesn't crumble to pieces in the sun, I buy more of them.
I've never bought a second of anything from Bachmann.
The LGB Forney is not my first choice for logging loco. BUT!!! It takes less than an hour to convert to Kadee, DCC and sound. I don't have to cut and toss, just a simple adapter cable. I do some painting and customizing so they don't all look the same. They RUN. They PULL. They negotiate every turnout without fail.
After running the first Forney for three months, I bough six more. I wish I had six Shays, Climaxes and Hestlers instead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By gdancer on 09/16/2008 3:21 PM
... snip
Again, my first priority has to be: it must operate well. (Not just for the grandkids, but also to cover my own deficiencies!) But, man, do I love the look of the K-27! As the author of this thread--though not all the aspects of it--I started out by saying that I "lusted" for a K-27. And its appearance first generated that lust. So, again, it's not exactly right to say it's only how well a loco runs that I--and perhaps others like me--care about.
...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By gdancer on 09/16/2008 3:21 PM
... snip
Implied in your comments is an imporant point. If this Forum--not necessarily this thread--relentlessly picks apart the offering of our few manufacturers, running them down, emphasizing their shortcomings, etc so that the market is virtually eliminated, we soon will not have any company making products for us. No company wants to pay out all the front end costs of design, manufacturing, marketing etc only to have their product dissed to the point of market destruction. We therefore need to exercise caution in how we phrase our critiques and balance them against the good points of the products. Hopefully, the critiques as a fair assessment of all of a product's qualities would be helpful to manufacturers, rather than accusations as to how good it might have been. In this, I fully and wholeheartedly agree with you.
...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is where I disagree a little.
Sure, I lusted for the Kay. 10 minutes after I got my first one unpacked. I ordered a second. A day later I put a hold on the order. A month later I canceled the order.
Feedback on what is wrong with a loco should allow a manufacturer to correct the problems. Bachmann should learn from this feedback. As an example, the Mallet should at least accept the plug and play decoder the interface was designed for. It should not be putting out 4 amp spikes with any decoder and limit you to just three or four locos on the track at the same time, even when they are stopped.
Now, will Bachmann listen?
If they don't, people will not buy their locos. If they do, then someday I'll have dozens of Bachmann locos on my railroad, and so will lots of other people.
Do we need to balance our critiques with the good points? Well, I bought one. That is an obvious testimony. I published TWO very complimentary videos on YouTube. I took the time to draw and publish two accurate drawings, one of them before Bachmann did.
Should I do and say more. There is already some great pictures on Bachmann's site. I don't need to praise the quality of the paint, level of details, operating Johnson lever, others already have. Last I checked Bachmann has not put me on their pay role as a sales rep.
Bachmann continues to hide their head in the sand. They only decided to send replacement CWs, after EXTREME pressure. They continue to blame nearly every fault on someone else. They dismiss what consumers say they want and instead, give us what some consultant or market analyst wants.
So, yes, we may loose a supplier. Some other supplier will have another market opened to them. Maybe AMS or Accucraft or USAT or Aristocraft or Marklin will decide to jump at the chance to produce affordable plastic shays, Climaxes, Heislers, etc. I'd much rather take the shorter path and see Bachmann fix the products they already have. But, as long as they keep deleting posts, shooting the messengers, and denying the facts, it does not look good.
Either way, we won't have fewer products to choose from, just better ones. | |
You'l find me out back, in the ALLY. | |
| gdancer
1st Class Member
Brakeman
Posts:17
Send Message
| | 09/17/2008 8:49 AM |
| Bob.... I always...always...defer to your expertise!
Let us hope that other mfgrs will take the place of those who opt out. Marklin seems no longer interested in the American market, at least the market for American style locomotives. Maybe that's just a re-tooling problem for the time being, but this seems to be a big market they just decided to ignore.
Darn! I wish Bachmann would just fix the Kay. Sort of like Nike's slogan, "Just Fix it!" | | | |
| gdancer
1st Class Member
Brakeman
Posts:17
Send Message
| | 09/17/2008 8:52 AM |
| | Bob... BTW, you helped me put sound and a decoder in my Forney two years ago. A great loco with a great Phoenix sound! I have not bought two sets of locos as you have; maybe I should. Good thought! | | | |
| BarrysBigTrains
1st Class Member
Brakeman
Posts:10
Send Message
| | 09/17/2008 1:10 PM |
| Bob,
Just one correction; to the best of my recollection, the counterweight problem was solved with one phone call from TOC to Bud Reese; the new counterweights were in the air in less than ten days.
That is an excellent response.
Barry - BBT | | | |
| bobgrosh
1st Class Member
Tallahassee Florida
Foreman
Posts:232
Send Message
| | 09/17/2008 2:54 PM |
| I can only guess, but the LGB club newsletters I am getting from Marklin lead me to think they concentrated on track and EPL components. It seems they are up to speed on those. Now they are concentrating on locos, European ones, and even a couple completely new European locos. Cars, and accessories seem to be pushed to a later date. I suspect they prioritize getting stuff into production based of the profitability of each segment, so.... it is hard to where in the order of priority, American prototypes will fall. I have not seen anything official from LGB that indicates that they don't intend to produce everything that LGB used to produce. All I see is, that they had to prioritize. We are not seeing anything here is the US because the LGB distribution channel is gone. The best place to watch is the existing Marklin distribution. Watch the Walther Catalog.
Lets hope Bachmann starts listening to it's customers and after market suppliers. Maybe we won't have to suffer through a long dry spell like the LGB situation. Frankly, I'd be tickled if: Bachmann went to a simple DCC plug similar to what the small scales have. All wires from the track, lights, smoke and motor, go to a central place and a passive circuit board (just resistors and diodes) ties it all together for DC operation. I see no reason the Battery/RC or the DCS or the Airwire or the DCC users need to pay for all those 13 boards and dozens of connector pins. Instead of all that garbage. include provisions for track sliders. Put ball bearings everywhere. Make all the wheels driven off the motor, not poorly fitting sloppy side-rods. Seal the motor, gearbox and bearings against the weather. Use plastic the will last in the sun. Use plastic in the windows that won't turn brown in a year outside. Put in a motor with a standard mount.
Lets go over that last one again.
Put in a motor with a standard mount.
Most RC electric cars all mostly use a standard motor mount, screw spacing, thread size, shaft diameter, etc.
Entry level cars come with a small motor, more expensive cars come with a bigger motor. The two are interchangeable. There are dozens of different motors to choose from. Prices range from 20 to 200 dollars. Motors with or without ball bearings. High torque battery earing motors, High speed battery eating motors, Motors for durability in long races with pit stops. Motors that sip gently on the battery juice for endurance races. Motors that will plow through deep sand or scream on a smooth airport runway. Motors that have adjustable brush holders that can be tuned one way for more torque, the other for more speed. Brush-less motors that don't screw up the radio receiver. Efficient motors that provide long run times.
Think what that would do for the Kay. Bachmann could supply the cheap motor and keep the cost down. Most buyers would be happy. Some of us would put change to one with a lower top rpm and more torque to get up grades. A few would choose a faster one to pull their passenger trains on their flat layouts. TOC would pick one that could go up a 40% grade and not melt the battery. :^) I might pick one just because it ran silently and didn't detract from my sound card. Bachmann could issue an Anniversary edition with added detail and a upgraded motor based on what users decided was popular.
Most if not all of those things could be done for less than what Bachmann spent on the stupid conglomeration of boards.
I don't think any of these ideas are new. Others have proposed them.
Did Bachmann listen to what their customers, dealers and third party suppliers wanted?
Will they listen now?
I doubt it.
| |
You'l find me out back, in the ALLY. | |
| TonyWalsham
Melbourne Vic Australia
Foreman
Posts:295
Send Message
| | 09/17/2008 5:00 PM |
| Bob,
Thanks for telling it like it is.
It won't be long before you are "persona non grata" too. | |
Best wishes,
Tony Walsham
Remote Control Systems. www.rcs-rc.com/
Evolution Radio Control. www.evo-rc.net/
The primary problems of the planet arise not from the poor, for whom education is the answer. They arise from the well educated - for whom self interest is the problem. William Sloane Coffin. | |
| East Broad Top
Moderator
Centennial, CO
Conductor
Posts:601
Send Message
| | 09/18/2008 11:06 AM |
| A slightly different perspective:
Bob's comments about a standard motor mount are interesting, and certainly he has a point. However, while such things are common in the R/C car/plane/boat hobby, it simply doesn't exist in the model train hobby--in any scale. The likelihood of it doing so are slim. It would take much more than a single manufacturer deciding to do that to get such an endeavor off the ground. Most importantly, it would take a strong 3rd-party motor industry to support it, which currently doesn't exist. What good is a replaceable anything if there's nothing to replace it with? I remember in the 80s when repowering HO scale locomotives with can motors was all the rage. The manufacturers had an opportunity at that point to do something similar--work a "universal" mount into their locos so the end user could easily replace them with smoother motors should they so desire. Alas, they did not, and that was with the ready availability of good 3rd-party motors. I went through my share of silicon caulk to attach motors to my locos.
There's also the issue that in the R/C hobby, motors aren't as placed in such confined spaces as they are in large scale. Despite the term "large" in large scale, many of our locos are quite small, or at the very least, the space available for motors (either in a power truck or between narrow frames) is seriously limited, so motor size necessarily varies from one locomotive to the next, dependent on space available. For motors to be interchangeable--and to support a strong aftermarket motor industry, there needs to be one or two sizes at the most. Otherwise the small numbers that would be produced would not make it cost-effective. It's an interesting concept, but in my opinion, not a realistic one.
I think what Barry's Big Trains offers is the next best thing. It's not quite as inexpensive as swapping out the motors, but if the manufacturer is going low-cost on the motors, there's a fair chance the gears may not be the highest quality either. A repower kit would ideally include more robust gearing as well. (Not that we've had problems from any of our manufacturers relative to split gears.  )
I'd rather see the manufacturers put suitable motors in the locomotives in the first place. Certainly when you're paying 4-figures for a locomotive, you expect top-grade motors and gears. Lower down the food chain, those would represent a higher percentage of the costs, but certainly a good mid-grade motor and gearset would be workable. At the prices we pay for our trains, I honestly don't think there's anyone who would begrudge an extra $30 per loco for a decent motor and gears that won't break. When was the last time we heard anyone complain that an LGB motor was underpowered?
As for the control boards, I agree with Bob's sentiment that a central control board into which all the pertinent wires run is a positive thing. By and large, that's where we seem to be heading. Bachmann's and Aristo's nearly-identical socket boards inherently do this, and Accucraft seems to be of a similar mindset, though they prefer screw terminals to any single socket protocol. Smaller locomotives can easily benefit from similar boards, though a smaller plug interface for DCC or R/C would definitely be in order. (Here is not the place to discuss the merits of a standard socket. Suffice to say that Bachmann and Aristo have their versions, and the existing NMRA socket protocols for the small scales are only marginally suitable for the current draw of large scale locos.) Whether you like or use the sockets or not, having all the wires right there nice and handy to easily connect directly to aftermarket products saves a bunch of time and effort. In terms of waste, when I compare my R/C install on the K-27 to my previous installs in "non-centralized" locos, it's rather clear. Guess which one I didn't have to toss anything?
Later,
K | |
Tuscarora Railroad
Friends of the East Broad Top | |
| BarrysBigTrains
1st Class Member
Brakeman
Posts:10
Send Message
| | 09/25/2008 1:45 AM |
| Just a quick comment on the K-27 motor: by Pittman, has all of the specs I would have suggested. Highest torque available, Highest RPM for the version. And Bachmann added a few more. It is a ball bearing version (that implies a zero end play), not a gearhead version, unnecessarily a thrust bearing and flywheel have been added. The flywheel contributes nothing to the performance of the loco or any of it's characteristics. I experimented with larger flywheels on my 8000 series motor with no effect. The fly wheel is there for those DCC systems who need an optical reader input. It could have been plastic. This is not a cheap motor, I just received a reorder of my motor and I gaurantee the 9000 series used on the K-27 is not cheap. In my opinion, it may be the best motor for large gauge one locos. Barry - BBT
| | | |
| jimtyp
1st Class Member
Centennial, CO
Conductor
Posts:720
Send Message
| | 09/25/2008 9:13 AM |
| | Barry, Are you going to provide any gearing mods for the K-27? | |
livin' la vida loco | |
| bobgrosh
1st Class Member
Tallahassee Florida
Foreman
Posts:232
Send Message
| | 09/25/2008 2:20 PM |
| Posted By BarrysBigTrains on 09/25/2008 1:45 AM Just a quick comment on the K-27 motor: by Pittman, has all of the specs I would have suggested. Highest torque available, Highest RPM for the version. And Bachmann added a few more. It is a ball bearing version (that implies a zero end play), not a gearhead version, unnecessarily a thrust bearing and flywheel have been added. The flywheel contributes nothing to the performance of the loco or any of it's characteristics. I experimented with larger flywheels on my 8000 series motor with no effect. The fly wheel is there for those DCC systems who need an optical reader input. It could have been plastic. This is not a cheap motor, I just received a reorder of my motor and I gaurantee the 9000 series used on the K-27 is not cheap. In my opinion, it may be the best motor for large gauge one locos. Barry - BBT
Guess I went off half cocked. Obviously. I defer to Barry's expert opinion. I should have done at least little browsing through Pittman specs. So, the question remains. Are there other versions of this motor that are a direct bolt in replacement? Can we pick and choose different Pittman motors for higher torque, or higher RPM ,or lower current draw? | |
You'l find me out back, in the ALLY. | |
| Curmudgeon
Foreman
Posts:401
Send Message
| | 09/25/2008 4:06 PM |
| Bob-
Why higher RPM?
You want it to go FASTER?
The current is okay until you load it, like 20 cars on a 4%, and it crowbars.
Tork is fine.
Like taking your 66 Mustang GT with a 271 horse 289 and 4-speed and putting a 2.73 automatic rear end in it. | | | |
| bobgrosh
1st Class Member
Tallahassee Florida
Foreman
Posts:232
Send Message
| | 09/25/2008 10:34 PM |
| Faster? No, not me. But somone else might.
I was under the impression that brush timing is a trade off. Higher RPM gives you less torque, lower RPM = more torque. There are all sorts of other opions that affect torque and speed, double winding, different skew, more or less windings, more poles, different brush materials, different bush assemblies. I see well over a hundred choices for a given physical size of motor in the RC car catalogs. It seems to me that we should be able to swap out the Pittman motor to meet the conditions we have on our railroads.
Somone with 5% grades 200 feet long might need more torque and better cooling, Somone using it for short passenger trains and low voltage might indeed want a higher top end. Somone who runs a lot in high humidity and heavy rains may opt for an otherwise mundain motor but one that is sealed, corrosion proof and super reliable. | |
You'l find me out back, in the ALLY. | |
| Curmudgeon
Foreman
Posts:401
Send Message
| | 09/25/2008 11:17 PM |
| I run long trains, 150' of continuous 4%, and I know what motors and gear ratios work.
Jim, the gears have been in work since this whole situation began over 8 months ago.
The "innovative" design makes it just more difficult. | | | |
| BarrysBigTrains
1st Class Member
Brakeman
Posts:10
Send Message
| | 09/26/2008 1:38 AM |
| Jim, I am working on it. All else,
An interesting aspect of the electric motor and electric locomotives. During the 20's and 30's there pulling contests between the promoters of electric locomotives and steam locos. What the steamers didn't know was that they never had a chance. The electric locos develop peak torque at (theoretical) zero RPM. Therefore the electric loco began to pull, the steamer lost rail contact (traction) and the electric pulled it as far as it wanted. A very pursuasive marketing argument. If the K-27 could be regeared (it will be) it could be the strongest puller ever. The motor is right.
Barry - BBT
| | | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 |
|