Kato RS11

[brokemoto]

Even Atlas has admitted that those wipers are not really necessary if you get rid of the tyred wheels.  There are a couple of topics about this on the old Atlas Forum.   I do keep them on mine.  You can NEVER have too much conductivity/electrical contact.

I am with mmagliaro on this one (and on the RS-3, RSD-4 GP-7/GP-9).  I am and have always been somewhat less than impressed with them.  The slow speed control is not that great and they are extremely finicky.  They are prone to stalling on anything less than professional grade trackwork.  They are particullarly prone to stalling on grades and plastic frog switches.  I addressed the stalling problem by hardwiring them in pairs.

I do have one RS-11.  The prototype is just a bit too late for my era, so I do not run it.  I lettered mine into a P&LE passenger lightning stripe scheme with a number at the end of a series of those that arrived at Selkirk in 1960 (?), in lightning stripes(!) (do recall that the order to use the "cigar band" scheme came down from 220 Park Avenue in 1957--Those things never ran on the NYCS anyhow.  The leasing deal fell through so ALCo packed them off to the Delay and Hesitate).  P&LE never ran RS-11s.  I did put mine onto the chassis from an Atlas RS-3 of Chinese manufacture.  I seem to recall that I did have to remove one of the cab retainer clips, but it has been so long since I have even seen it that I am no longer certain what I did.

I will add my voice to those that advocate buying the MT conversion kit.  If you do put it onto a Chinese chassis, you will need to do this, as the RS-11 and RS-3 of Chinese manufacture have body mounts. 

I have put a few of the RS-3s onto the Chinese chassis.  I am much happier with them than the Kato chassis.  Kato used the same chassis for the RS-11 as it did for the RS-3.  I understand that the wheelbase on the RS-11 is a few inches longer than that of the RS-3, but it is difficult to notice the difference in N.  Atlas did do an RS-11 of Chinese manufacture.  I do not know how to fit the Japanese shell onto the Chinese RS-11 chassis, as I did not buy any of the Chinese manufactured RS-11s (see above italicised reason why).  I understand that the Chinese-manufactured RS-11 does have the correct wheelbase.

I would either buy an RS-11 of Chinese manufacture in a less popular road on FeePay, a show, or wherever and swap the chassis, do likewise but use the RS-3 of Chinese manufacture, or take mmagliaro's advice and use a slower speed motor.  The advice offered by mecgp7 does improve things markedly, but it does not always stop the stalling.  As he correctly points out, the secret to these things' operating at their best is the ensuring of continuity in conductivity.  This is why I hardwired pairs of RS-3s, GP-7s and GP-9s together.  (The chassis on the RS-3 and GP-7/GP-9 is the same.  Each one has the appropriate trucks.  This is why the wheelbase on the A/K GP-7/GP-9 is way out of whack).

[peteski]

Even Atlas has admitted that those wipers are not really necessary if you get rid of the tyred wheels.  There are a couple of topics about this on the old Atlas Forum.   I do keep them on mine.  You can NEVER have too much conductivity/electrical contact.

I agree 100%. After all, why would Kato design, manufacture and install a totally unneeded part in those trucks?  While the electrical contact is mostly made through the contact area between the metal axles and metal truck frames, those contacts will also improve connection. On my locos I actually bent those contact outwards to make a better contact with the wheel back.  Traction tires or not, I leave those wipers on.

The weak point of this design is the lack of positive electrical contact between the truck and the chassis.  Burnishing the contact areas on the white metal chassis and white metal truck frames (where the chassis rides on the truck) and coating that with some sort of anti-oxidizing substance does make these locos more reliable.  Adding some sort of brass springy contacts or hard-wiring trucks and chassis using flexible wire would also make them run better.

[skm]

I thought that Atlas re-engineered the newer RS11 chassis' to have the correct (1ft longer than the RS3) wheelbase?

[Mark5]

I thought that Atlas re-engineered the newer RS11 chassis' to have the correct (1ft longer than the RS3) wheelbase?

This is true.

I got rid of my old Kato units when the Atlas re-tooled one was released.

The Kato units were fantastic in the 80s, not so great today. Back then I replaced the wheels that had traction tires with solid wheels to improve pickup. Still, those units were too fast for my taste.

[mecgp7]

Sirenworks,
Yes, the wipers on the backs side of the wheels. If everything else is clean they are not needed. I recall another forum post somewhere where a member of Atlas' staff even said they weren't necessary.
If you really clean all contact areas, you'll see amazing results. I use alcohol on the various parts. The other big factor is your track. If it is dirty, these older chassis will let you know due to the lack of flywheels.
I have a dozen or so of these types of locos (RS3, RS11) and they operate flawlessly.

There is one caveat. If you have one of the earliest versions, it'll have the worm gear directly attached to the motor shaft. These can be difficult to get to operate as well as the later versions. I usually convert them to the later drive train.

[strummer]

One of the things about this discussion I find interesting are the comments regarding the high speed of these units. One could say that about a great many models, in all scales,I'd guess. Am I wrong on this?

My units are perfectly capable of slow speed operation.

As Spookshow Mark says (more or less) in many of his reviews, if the top speed seems high, don't run 'em so fast...

Mark in Oregon

[Power Stroke]

I don't get the issue with the high speed either. Yes, these units do have a high top speed but who is running them at full throttle. Adjust as needed.
Yes the starting voltage is higher than more modern locomotives, however, use of judicious throttle will eliminate the sudden start, or for that matter, the sudden stop.
I did not go into as much detail about the cleaning and setup but that was the point. Good contact of the wipers will assure good conductivity. removal of the TT wheels and replacement with non TT wheels will certainly help but I don't see it as necessary evil. 1 of my six is 1st gen w/o blackened wheels, 4 are 2nd gen w/ blackened wheels, and TT, and 1 is 3rd gen, blackened wheels, no TT.  Unlike Spook's page, I have 2nd gens that have the solid shaft motor. They all run very well, and are capable of pulling 12-15 cars on my layout.
If there are issues with starting, running, and stalling, maybe the loco and track needs maintenance. For 10 bucks a pop (60.00 or more for Chinese), you can't lose, outside of shell mods, I can not see any reason to spend money on changing the mechanism, other than the cost of cleaning materials, and your time. I highly recomend the use of Deoxit!
Here is one my D&H not converted to MT pilots yet.
I have not paid more than 25.00 for any of these. You got a smokin' deal.

[mmagliaro]

The solution to an engine running too fast is *not* just keeping the throttle turned down.

At low speeds, motors don't run as well, nor do they generate nearly as much torque as compared
to the middle or upper end of their speed range.  Coreless motors do better in this regard in that
they can run very smoothly at extremely low speed, but they still put out a lot more power
at higher speeds.

Mechanically gearing-down the driveline gives you an engine with a lot more useful motor power, which
overcomes friction and real-world loads like hills and curves.   And engine that is geared down
at 60:1, running at 10 mph,  runs far better than one that is only geared down at 24:1 running at 10 mph.

Things like PWM and back EMF can only do so much.   Those are "tricks", if you will, that are trying to overcome
the laws of physics.   It is better to just gear down the engine and let physics work for you instead of against you.

[mecgp7]

I've had little problem getting these locos to crawl smoothly. Even so I took it one step further and mu-ed a pair with two tiny wires. Together they were awesome.

I really like these "ol' girls" and I enjoy running them.

[Power Stroke]

The solution to an engine running too fast is *not* just keeping the throttle turned down.

At low speeds, motors don't run as well, nor do they generate nearly as much torque as compared
to the middle or upper end of their speed range.  Coreless motors do better in this regard in that
they can run very smoothly at extremely low speed, but they still put out a lot more power
at higher speeds.

Mechanically gearing-down the driveline gives you an engine with a lot more useful motor power, which
overcomes friction and real-world loads like hills and curves.   And engine that is geared down
at 60:1, running at 10 mph,  runs far better than one that is only geared down at 24:1 running at 10 mph.

Things like PWM and back EMF can only do so much.   Those are "tricks", if you will, that are trying to overcome
the laws of physics.   It is better to just gear down the engine and let physics work for you instead of against you.

As a motorsports racer I have no arguement with your statement. The physics and theory are correct. That being said, I don't pull trains long enough to warrant really low gears, and that is mostly because anything more than 15 cars on my layout look foolish due to it's restrictions. I can pull that amount easily at 4.5 to 5.5v with one of these RS11s. No danger of destroying the unit. I think the point was, was it money well spent? The answer should be a resounding yes. I unlike many do not have oodles of parts laying around to be used for upgrades, (something I am not against) so to buy said parts, however you may go about that, would then negate the low price paid for a perfectly good, and useable locomotive. I guess it ultimately comes down to requirements, and what you are willing to spend but if it ends up costing as much as a low speed Chinese unit, where is the advantage?

[mmagliaro]

Agreed.
If you don't have the parts, don't want to buy them, the engine can run acceptably slow just the way it is,
and you are happy with it, then why go through the trouble and expense?

My point about the gearing is not about pulling power.  It's about smoothness of operation.
What bugs me about the way mechanisms are made is that they are geared to allow the engine
an absurdly high top speed (often up to 200 mph) instead of just gearing them down so they
top out at around 80.  They are wasting the best part of the motor's operational range.

And there is no reason commercial models can't be geared low.  The Spectrum 2-8-0 and the old
Kato F3 are both good examples of commercial nice low gearing.
 

[peteski]

And there is no reason commercial models can't be geared low.  The Spectrum 2-8-0 and the old
Kato F3 are both good examples of commercial nice low gearing.
 

Which specific run of F3s are you talking about?  IIRC, the initial run used truck construction similar to the trucks discussed in this thread (and maybe the Kato GP38-2 trucks).  Did these F3 trucks have different gear ratio than the trucks discussed here?  If yes, what was the overall gear ration of those F3s compared to other runs of F3s or to the models discussed here?

[strummer]

And there is no reason commercial models can't be geared low.  The Spectrum 2-8-0 and......
 

Funny you should mention the Connie. When I first got mine I thought something might be wrong with it, as it was (and still is) slower than everything else I have...works great for a peddler freight,etc.

Mark in Oregon

[Mark5]

I don't get the issue with the high speed either. Yes, these units do have a high top speed but who is running them at full throttle. Adjust as needed.

The issue for me was poor slow speed control.

[mmagliaro]

The issue for me was poor slow speed control.

+1
If you can use the entire voltage range of the motor, 0 - 12 ) (nominal), not just 0 - 6,
you get much finer control and responsiveness.  DCC can help here because you can program all
the speed steps however you like, but even if you do that, you are not taking advantage of the motor's
full potential - not even close.

Peteski:
I have a pair of F3's from the very first run, back in the 1980s.   I can't say how they compare
to the GP38 or other Kato engines, except some later F7's I have which are much much faster.

I found with the RS11 that most of the difference was the motor.  Putting an F3 motor in it slowed it way down.

But the truck gears were also part of it: putting F3 gears in it knocked off another 10%.
The gear ratio in the F3 is not the same as it was in the RS11.  The gears are not the same.
In fact, the F3 idlers are physically larger, so I had to cut out some access holes in
the cover plate in order for them to fit into the RS-11 trucks.

Not being able to get F3 gears anymore (I was using gears from one of my actual F3's), I got some
GP50 trucks and took the gears out of those, and saw they were the same as the F3.

So I am guessing the GP50 would be the same as the F3, but I don't really know that because I never owned
a GP50.

I can't speak to any other Kato diesels other than the old F3 and the newer F7, and this old RS11.
I don't own any others.