RS11s under ER sharks

[CodyO]

My dad started the retrofitting of our ER-Models PRR Shark shells to run on Atlas/Kato RS11 mechanism he asked me to share his progress.

First the break down of the models keeping the shell and nose piece from the ER Model. Kato mech, light boards and fuel tank from the RS11.




Cut down the light tube and making room for the LED






Small notch in the front top and making the angle on the bottom corners longer. Also will be using a recycled light broad that has a LED but separating the pickup from the LED.



Decoder wired to the motor and Kapton tape installed. Decoder wired to the board.




Coupler mounts. The truck pickups is not the best so we will be running "Plug & Play" MU cables on AB sets when i get the B's done.They are removable for service and programing. Doing this makes them run so much better. Not one flicker over the yard ladder.




And here is the AA set till i work on doing the B's. Loaded into JMRI, speed matched, MU together and RTR. These were so fast i had to set CV5 to 140 so much better than the ER mechs. Wheel base is two scale feet longer and fuel/air tanks are incorrect but having models that run well we can live with that.

[CBQ Fan]

What are you using for your railing?

[CodyO]

What are you using for your railing?

http://www.nscale.net/forums/content.php?191-Flexable-Safety-Rails

[CBQ Fan]

Thank you.

[reinhardtjh]

IIRC the Kato/Atlas RS11 is shorter than the Chinese Atlas RS11?  Or is it just the wheelbase is different?  Would the Chinese version work also?

[craigolio1]

Nicely done.  What was the reason for MUing them?  They both have power and decoders.

Craig

[CodyO]

I would assume they would be the same length but according to spookshow the wheelbase is different between the two runs

The truck spacing on the original Kato-made RS-11's was a bit off (as compared to the prototype) - this due to Atlas's decision to use the same RS-3 chassis for all of their early Kato-made diesels

The wheelbase is off for the Baldwin Sharks though
Sharks had a 29' 2" wheelbase RS3`s had 30' and RS11 was 31'

The chinese would also work I just went for the older run engines due to them being good runners and a lot cheaper $25/$35 each

Nicely done.  What was the reason for MUing them?  They both have power and decoders.

Craig

They were having pickup problems so to share both engines pickup`s

[nkalanaga]

I wired my RS3s together for the same reason years ago, when they first came out.  Nice locos, but they tended to stop on dirty spots, and not want to start again, so two wired together had a better chance of restarting when switching.  It helped to keep the tops of the trucks and the underside of the frame polished, but that meant taking the loco apart, rather than just cleaning the wheels.  A coal stove for heat didn't help anything!

I did the same thing with my MiniTrix F units.  A four unit set, fully jumpered, was almost unstallable.  With 32-wheel pickup at least one wheel on each side was almost certain to be on clean track, and they could pull more cars than I could fit on the railroad.

[Alwyn Cutmore]

Cody,
I am glad that has worked out for you.

Gear splitting is no longer an issue and with the three foot rule applied no one would know the difference.

Regards

Al

[brokemoto]

Informative topic; thank you.

I agree on the necessity of hardwiring pairs together.  The Atlas/Katos ran nicely, as long as you maintained electrical contact.  Due to their being prone to stalling at anything less than thirty SMPH, I was somewhat less than impressed with them.  Hardwiring pairs together addressed most of the problems, but there were situations where I wanted one locomotive, not more.

A question, though:  Why the discarding of the original E-R mechanism?  (or did I miss something?).  Would it be due to the lack of availability for the drop-in decoder?

[CodyO]

Informative topic; thank you.

I agree on the necessity of hardwiring pairs together.  The Atlas/Katos ran nicely, as long as you maintained electrical contact.  Due to their being prone to stalling at anything less than thirty SMPH, I was somewhat less than impressed with them.  Hardwiring pairs together addressed most of the problems, but there were situations where I wanted one locomotive, not more.

A question, though:  Why the discarding of the original E-R mechanism?  (or did I miss something?).  Would it be due to the lack of availability for the drop-in decoder?

the ER mechs never ran well for us,
After catching one smoking we removed them from the layout and decided to replace the unreliable mechs with something we could actually run and pull trains with:)

[nkalanaga]

In my case the jumpers were actually sockets made from 1/32 inch outside diameter brass tubing, wired to the frames, and stock in holes in the pilots.  The jumpers used 0.015 brass wire as pins and very fine stranded wire for cables.  The cables were soldered at right angles to the pins, so the wires hung down, then curved up to the other pin, allowing for stretching on curves.  The worked fine on 11 inch radius curves.

Naturally, that also required full pilots and body mounted couplers, making it somewhat impractical for most cab units.  My MiniTrix Fs had the wires soldered to the PC board under the motor, routed up alongside the motor, to the rear of the frame, and down, then under the end of the shell.  The other end had a tab on it that was jammed between the shell and the frame, which was grounded to the uninsulated wheels.  That meant that locos had to have their frames grounded to alternating sides, easy to do on AA or ABBA sets, but a little hard on ABA.

[mmagliaro]

Nice project!  I think that because the older RS-11's had a slightly too-short wheelbase, they would fit
those shark shells better because they are closer to the correct shark wheelbase, no?  Than
the Chinese RS-11 would be).

I have one of those RS-11's too.  And until I got rid of the traction tire wheel and put a plain wheel in there,
it was too stall-prone to actually use on my layout.  That extra wheel contact made a big difference.
It cost me some pulling power, but it was worth it.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

It's funny you're doing this.

My dad had a set of shark shells that he used Atlas RS11s under years ago too.

This was all before ER came out with them, of course.

[brokemoto]

I wonder if you might have received some lemons.  Still, it would be unusual to get two bad A-B pairs, which I am guessing happened to you, as you have two A units and have mentioned the Bs.

I have more than a few of the E-R models.  They have always run and pulled well for me, with one exception.  I did have one pair that I had to hardwire together because one of the trucks on the B was always losing contact.  The weakness that I have found in these is the B-mann inspired method of transmitting electric from rails, through trucks to live frame.  The tabs that contact the frame have always been the heart of the problem, although the whole wiper business really is  not the best way to do it.  Most of mine came with erratic contact, but with the exception of the above cited B unit, bending the contact tabs up, ever so slightly and carefully has always addressed that problem.

Mine have some of the best slow speed control of any N scale power out there.  The prototypes, when they were working properly (which was less frequently, as time passed, according to everything that I have ever read about them, at least),  were very good at schlepping heavy, massive or dense commodities at speeds from fifteen to twenty five MPH.

Mine have never had the problem with the smoking.  As others have cited, this topic describes well what you did when  the V-line shells were the only way to have sharks.  Some did use the LL plastic frame FAs, when they appeared, which was subsequent to the A/Ks.   I have seen and run the V-line shark shells on both chassis.   It was my experience that the LL chassis performed better at the slow speeds at which the prototpye often ran.   In addition, everyone is aware that the LL plastic frame FAs will pull every piece of rolling stock that you own up a fifty per cent grade on a seven inch radius  curve.  To be sure, the A/K has better and more sturdy construction, thus will last longer before repair is necessary.  Harwiring a pair together makes the contact as reliable as the LLs.   

The major weakness in the LLs was flexing wires soldered to pivotting trucks.   Almost every LL plastic frame B-B trucked diesel that I have ever owned has the wires break off the trucks due to the constant pivotting and flexing.  LL did address this problem with its plastic frame A-1-A trucked passenger diesels, by going to something similar to the A/K SD-7/SD-9, in that it had the wire from the motor soldered to a stationary phosphor bronze strip that the trucks contacted.   Hardwiring an  LL pair together would increase the length of time required between resolderings.