Intermountain Cab Forwards

[up1950s]

Do you get the feeling that N-scale was just not meant for modelling steam locomotives??

I get the feeling that some N scalers are not meant for modeling steam.

Have you ever noticed the problems seem to keep coming from the same people, over and over.

DING DONG!!!!

The S.

So you like larger flanges ?

[SkipGear]

Running qualities are more important than small flanges or rails to me. It doesn't matter how scale or accurate it is if the loco is unreliable and derails. I run NTrak as well as my home layout so I don't always have control of how well the track is laid.

I will take reliability over fine scale looks any day.

[SirTainly]

Really looking forward to these as they'll be one fo my last loco purchases for a while, due to saving all the spare money for my year abroad. I've been stocking up on out of era boxcars just to put with this loco, so I hope it can pull quite a few. Might even get a chance to run it on Ntrak!  ;D

[sizemore]

Do you get the feeling that N-scale was just not meant for modelling steam locomotives??

I get the feeling that some N scalers are not meant for modeling steam.

Have you ever noticed the problems seem to keep coming from the same people, over and over.

DING DONG!!!!

The S.

So you like larger flanges ?

Nah Rich. With the exception of a few that tax locomotives to failure for the science of improvement (ex: Victor Miranda, Max Magliario ^(sp?)) and those that are just flat out unfortunate I, like Tony, agree that complaints about locomotives always come from the same people.

The S.

[Robbman]

It has got to be tough to do this kind of design and manufacture of a real product remotely...

If it were 1970, heck, if it were 1990, I could see it being tough... but the last time I checked it's 2010, and we have a plethora of cheap reliable communication options that were unavailable to the masses back then, and have had them for a decade or so already.  From e-mail to cellphones to interchangeable file formats in parametric modeling programs, to remote meeting software to test samples... there's no excuse for poor quality other than someone not caring to enforce specs, or not wanting to spend the money to do it right. 

Overseas manufacturers aren't some mysterious Bermuda Triangle where you send something in and simply take what you get back without knowing who and what is involved, and without having any input.

[bsoplinger]

If they don't pull too many cars you could always get the Randy Gulpheson (sp?) cheater express reefer. That thing by itself can pull 3 dozen cars. And its very easy to make and add DCC to if necessary.

[Mark5]

I don't really have a stake in this but given that this is 2010 ...

I've heard possibly that the lead and/or trailing truck has large flanges? Is this true or what?

I recall the 1st Athearn articulateds in N scale also shipped like that. Athearn then corrected this on subsequent runs while offering replacement wheelsets to those that wanted them.

Mark

[wcfn100]

It has got to be tough to do this kind of design and manufacture of a real product remotely...

If it were 1970, heck, if it were 1990, I could see it being tough... but the last time I checked it's 2010, and we have a plethora of cheap reliable communication options that were unavailable to the masses back then, and have had them for a decade or so already.  From e-mail to cellphones to interchangeable file formats in parametric modeling programs, to remote meeting software to test samples... there's no excuse for poor quality other than someone not caring to enforce specs, or not wanting to spend the money to do it right. 

Overseas manufacturers aren't some mysterious Bermuda Triangle where you send something in and simply take what you get back without knowing who and what is involved, and without having any input.

I could be 2070 and there will still be designers that can't make a floating truck that will stay on the track without using larger flanges.

Unfortunately an issue like this isn't surprising from IM.  Maybe they let the guy or young girl who put the glue all over my boxcars in on the design meeting.

Jason

[DocGeoff]

I know somewhere I saw a picture and description of two Digitrax 8 pin sound decoders that appear to fit the AC-12 and now I can't find the page. I searched the Digitrax page and don't see either. Anyone know if I am losing my mind or if I actually saw them?

[POVC]

I know somewhere I saw a picture and description of two Digitrax 8 pin sound decoders that appear to fit the AC-12 and now I can't find the page. I searched the Digitrax page and don't see either. Anyone know if I am losing my mind or if I actually saw them?

Digitrax has announced the SDN144PS sound decoder for N-scale and it has "a short 8-pin harness for HO".  Whether they will work in the AC-12 I don't know, the only data I have is what's in the ad on page 71 of the March 2010 Model Railroader.

Tim

[Nato]

    The Rivarossi Big Boy and later Challemger locomotives had pilot truck wheels that were way undersized from the prototype, little minature things,but the flanges were the wide European NEM design.                 Nate Goodman (Nato). Salt Lake, Utah.

[Mark5]

Some info posted on the A forum:

Originally posted by peteski

Here are wheel diameters:

DRIVERS: 0.363" (58") Flange 0.023"
LEADING TRUCK 0.180" (29") Flange 0.032"
TRAILING TRUCK 0.204" (33") Flange 0.032"
TENDER TRUCK 0.224" (36") Flange 0.032"

That confirms the flange depth is quite different on non-powered wheels.

Oh, all driven wheels pick up power.

Peteski goes on to post that certain FVM wheelsets are "drop-in" replacements.

http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=58634&whichpage=6

Mark

[eric220]

Too much technical, not enough photos.

The PRR UH-1 is essentially a copy of the SP's AC-12 cab-forward, built under contract from Baldwin.  A borrowed AC-12 underwent preliminary testing on the west coast, and the design was found to be promising.  When the SP would not agree to an extended loan for more thorough testing, the PRR decided to build their own.  Here, the prototype UH-1 pulls out of the Juniata Shops and heads for the 12th street shops and the Test Plant.



Early testing at the Test Plant confirms the design as a powerful and useful locomotive, but PRR management is concerned about the safety hazards of having the cab exposed at the front.  Here the prototype leaves the test plant after a hard day of testing, her future uncertain.



Obviously, my AC-12 came today.  It's a beautiful looking model, and I'm now eagerly awaiting the Digitrax DZ125PS that I ordered to power her.  I've also got some decal and detail work to do.  I expect she'll be ready for next week's Weekend Update.  

[Subwayaz]

I have been waiting these locos to hit MBK but now I'm having second thoughts after doing some research.

Check out this link for a review of the first batch:

http://www.tonystrains.com/tonystips/2009/121009.htm

Thoughts?

Dave

If you look at the date of the posted article it is from Dec. 10, 2009; they are talking about the HO edition that came out for the second time.  If you read to the end it even mentions HO layout.  False alarm relax hopefully they got all of the bugs worked out on the HO Crowd.

[bbussey]

There is a thread on the A-boards about the flanges of the wheels other than the drivers being a little large which was affecting performance.  A couple of modelers replaced the factory wheelsets with FVM .540" axle wheelsets.  Once this was done - 28" in the leading truck, 33" in the trailing truck and 36" in the tender trucks - the engines performed flawlessly and the pulling power on grades increased considerably.  So if anyone here is experiencing traction or pulling ability or smoothness issues, especially on Code 55 track, the FVM wheels would be an easy solution to try.