MODEL: Rating of HO LOCOMOTIVES
Ed Brovet
This is a request for opinions. Does anyone have a hierarchical list
of HO locomotives, such as
Brand A The best
Brand B Almost as good
Brand C poor Price/performance
Brand D good buy for the money
Brand E avoid at all costs
???
I'd be interested in learning from your experiences. Steam & Diesel,
it doesn't matter. maybe this might turn into a rating system>
Ed Brovet
Mike Kingdom
>
>
>This is a request for opinions. Does anyone have a hierarchical list
>of HO locomotives, such as
>
>Brand A The best
>Brand B Almost as good
>Brand C poor Price/performance
>Brand D good buy for the money
>Brand E avoid at all costs
For diesels I'd say:
The best: Kato
Almost as good: Atlas (I think they're based on a Kato chassis(?))
Good buy for the money: Athearn
Border line: Bachmann (Spectrum line is better)
Avoid at all costs: Tyco and Life-Like (except for the new BL2 they sell.)
-- Mike
Victor Andersen
As a further request from another beginner, along with posting what
are the best and worst, could you also tell why you think they are
good or bad. Also, what can you expect to pay for different brands?
Thanks...
Victor Andersen
Chris Webster
>>
>>The best: Kato
>>Almost as good: Atlas (I think they're based on a Kato chassis(?))
>>Good buy for the money: Athearn
>>Border line: Bachmann (Spectrum line is better)
>>Avoid at all costs: Tyco and Life-Like (except for the new BL2 they sell.)
>>
>>-- Mike
>
> As a further request from another beginner, along with posting what
>are the best and worst, could you also tell why you think they are
>good or bad. Also, what can you expect to pay for different brands?
>
> Thanks...
>
> Victor Andersen
I'm not the original poster, but since I agree with his recomendations, I
am going to jump into this.....
The better locomotives are better detailed and better running. You can
see the better detailing when the locomotive's on the shelf, so I won't
really discuss it here. The better locos have several features that make
them run better:
1) Better motor: has more poles (usually five), draws a low amount of
current, and is also powerful.
2) Flywheels: When you turn the power off, instead of sliding to a halt,
the locomotive coasts to a stop. This is a very useful feature to have,
as gaps in the rail, turnout (a track switch) gaps, dirty track, all
cause the power to briefly be turned off. The locomotive with flywheels
will coast right over it, while the junker with either lurch or come
to a dead stall (that requires a nudge; if I wanted to nudge my trains,
I would still have strings on them. :-)
3) All wheel pickup: Every wheel picks up current. On a "cheapie",
only some of the wheels pick up current. Again, this is a feature
to get the locomotive over dirty track, gaps in the rail, etc.
4) More weight: The more weight you have, the more you can pull. Also,
the heavier the locomotive, the less trouble you'll have with dirty track.
5) A low gear ratio: To move, the motor has to spin faster, thus requiring
a higher voltage, which means you are less likely to stall at low speeds.
You'll also have better control, but your trains probably won't do
mach II. (That's not really a bad thing, though.)
As for the list given: (I am only refering to HO models.)
Kato: They are very heavy, probably the heaviest RTR locos you can buy.
They use a very high quality motor, have very nice flywheels, a very
nice gear ratio, and are extremely quiet running. The detail is usually
incredible. Note that Kato has produced units that were sold under the
Atlas name. They also made the chassis that the Stewart F units run on
(incredible models), and did a model or two for Con-Cor a few years
ago. (I have Con-Cor's MP15; I think they also made an NW2 that rode
a Kato chassis.)
Atlas: Some of the older models (SD24, SD35, FP7, GP38, GP40) were made
by Roco. I believe that the SD and GP units are now produced by ConCor,
while the FP7 is being produced by them. (Incidently, I bought two
FP7's maybe four years ago, at two different swap meets, and paid
$25 and $30 each. The new units retail for $100.)
These units are nice, but not quite the Kato quality. The gear ratio
is higher than the Kato's (hence, they don't run quite as slow), and
the tooling is a decade older, so the detail is not quite as good. (It's
say, very good, instead of excellent.)
Athearn: Extremely good value for the money. However, the owner of the
company died within the last month. Hence, there may be problems with
the continued production of this line. I am in no position to say there
is or will be, nor am I in a postion to say there will not be. (Let's
just hope there is not.)
They are ruggedly built, have flywheels, weigh enough, etc. However,
while the motors are five pole, they're not the quality of the Kato and
Roco units. Instead of having soldered wires, the pickup relies on a
contact bar--a potential trouble spot. The gears may have some flash,
etc.
For what you will be paying, $30 or less, retail, you'll be getting
a very nice locomotive. They're perhaps the most rugged of the better
units. Heck, they're the first quality units I bought, when I was 11,
and that first SD40-2 took a lot of punishment. Still runs well, though.
The Spectrum line seems to be a bit better than Athearn but not
as good as the Kato and Roco units. (I own three C40-8's, but nothing
else of this line.) They have flywheels, a decent motor, but the detail
isn't the greatest (the trucks are actually rather crude, in my opinion),
and mine seem to have tracking problems. (The only operation I get to
do is on a modular layout, and the six wheel trucks didn't like the
corner module joints.)
The Like Life Proto/2000 line I have only seen. I don't model the
era in which I could use these. The BL2 runs on a clone of the Athearn
chassis, it's almost identical, so see above for comment. The detailing
is better than the Athearns. Although I have not seen an FA in person yet
(I have not been to the hobby store in months...), in the ads they look
incredible. I really want an A-B-B-A set, but I want a lot of things....
The normal Bachmann, Tyco, and Life-Like lines have none of the
features (decent motor, decent gearings, all wheel pickup, flywheels,
etc) of a decent locomotive. They're more trouble than they're worth.
My experience as a kid was that, although you could probably buy three
for the price of two Athearns, I'd break them easily. You can't get
parts for them, as you can the Athearn and better locomotives.
Hope this helped.
--
-Chris Webster AT&T net: (315)423-3565 |"Republicans understand
Cit-86 net:"Chris Webster"@UCC [Utica College Cit]|the importance of bondage
Internet:cweb...@rodan.acs.syr.edu |between mother and child."
Smail: 108 Trinity Place; Syracuse, NY 13210 | -Dan Quayle
Bill Gripp
>>>For diesels I'd say:
>>>
>>>The best: Kato
>>>Almost as good: Atlas (I think they're based on a Kato chassis(?))
ALL their locos are made by KATO or ROCO. Atlas does not produce their
own locomotives. The only differences I know of model wise, between the
KATO SD40 and the contract KATO locos (Atlas, Stewart, ConCor) is that
the SD40 has a full cab interior and extra external details (separate
grab irons, etc.). I don't know of ANY mechanical differences so would
say they are equal.
>>>Good buy for the money: Athearn
>>>Border line: Bachmann (Spectrum line is better)
>>>Avoid at all costs: Tyco and Life-Like (except for the new BL2 they sell.)
>>>
>>>-- Mike
>>
>> As a further request from another beginner, along with posting what
>>are the best and worst, could you also tell why you think they are
>>good or bad. Also, what can you expect to pay for different brands?
>>
>> Thanks...
>>
>> Victor Andersen
>
>I'm not the original poster, but since I agree with his recomendations, I
>am going to jump into this.....
>
<stuff about what makes one loco better than another deleted...>
>As for the list given: (I am only refering to HO models.)
>
>Kato: They are very heavy, probably the heaviest RTR locos you can buy.
>They use a very high quality motor, have very nice flywheels, a very
>nice gear ratio, and are extremely quiet running. The detail is usually
>incredible. Note that Kato has produced units that were sold under the
>Atlas name. They also made the chassis that the Stewart F units run on
>(incredible models), and did a model or two for Con-Cor a few years
>ago. (I have Con-Cor's MP15; I think they also made an NW2 that rode
>a Kato chassis.)
Kato also produced the chassis for the later run of Stewart U25B's. The
first U25B's had an Athearn mechanism. But the later run (EL, P&LE, MEC)
was on a Kato drive.
>Atlas: Some of the older models (SD24, SD35, FP7, GP38, GP40) were made
>by Roco. I believe that the SD and GP units are now produced by ConCor,
>while the FP7 is being produced by them. (Incidently, I bought two
>FP7's maybe four years ago, at two different swap meets, and paid
>$25 and $30 each. The new units retail for $100.)
The Atlas S2/S4 switchers are also by Roco. The road Alcos (RS1, RS3,
RS11, RSD4/5, RSD12, C424, C425) and the GP7's are by Kato.
> These units are nice, but not quite the Kato quality. The gear ratio
>is higher than the Kato's (hence, they don't run quite as slow), and
>the tooling is a decade older, so the detail is not quite as good. (It's
>say, very good, instead of excellent.)
I was told by Atlas that the die work on the FP7 was completely redone.
Indeed the pilot on by old vs new FP7's has a different opening where
the coupler is attached. Also the size of the dynamic brake fan is
different (on the models which have one). The original FP7's only came
with a single headlight and d/b. The new FP7's come in 4 different
versions, w/ and w/o d/b and single or dual headlights.
>Athearn: Extremely good value for the money. However, the owner of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dare I say the best price/performance ratio?
>company died within the last month. Hence, there may be problems with
>the continued production of this line. I am in no position to say there
>is or will be, nor am I in a postion to say there will not be. (Let's
>just hope there is not.)
>
> They are ruggedly built, have flywheels, weigh enough, etc. However,
>while the motors are five pole, they're not the quality of the Kato and
>Roco units. Instead of having soldered wires, the pickup relies on a
>contact bar--a potential trouble spot. The gears may have some flash,
>etc.
>
> For what you will be paying, $30 or less, retail, you'll be getting
>a very nice locomotive. They're perhaps the most rugged of the better
>units. Heck, they're the first quality units I bought, when I was 11,
>and that first SD40-2 took a lot of punishment. Still runs well, though.
I beleive another poster said that the Athearn shells do not have the
detail that the Kato products do. While I agree with this, IMHO the newer
Athearn (SD40-2, GP38-2/40-2/50, etc.) shows a marked improvement over
the older stuff (GP7/35, SD45, etc.).
> The Spectrum line seems to be a bit better than Athearn but not
>as good as the Kato and Roco units. (I own three C40-8's, but nothing
>else of this line.) They have flywheels, a decent motor, but the detail
>isn't the greatest (the trucks are actually rather crude, in my opinion),
>and mine seem to have tracking problems. (The only operation I get to
>do is on a modular layout, and the six wheel trucks didn't like the
>corner module joints.)
The Spectrum line varies a bit. The C40-8's are probably the best ones
Bachmann has done so far. The GP30 seems to be on par with Athearn, the
GE44T and GE70T a little below Athearn. We'll have to wait to see how
the F40PH rates.
> The Like Life Proto/2000 line I have only seen. I don't model the
>era in which I could use these. The BL2 runs on a clone of the Athearn
>chassis, it's almost identical, so see above for comment. The detailing
>is better than the Athearns. Although I have not seen an FA in person yet
>(I have not been to the hobby store in months...), in the ads they look
>incredible. I really want an A-B-B-A set, but I want a lot of things....
They are incredible! The level of detailing on both the Life Like FA2's
and the Kato SD40's truely rivals brass. I hope Life Like sees fit to
redo their C-628 in Proto/2000 quality. Seems like for classic diesels,
we're still missing decent C628's, C630's, C636's, SW-1's, FT's, U25C's,
and H15/16-44's. Any of you HO manufactures out there on the net
listening??? =8^)
> The normal Bachmann, Tyco, and Life-Like lines have none of the
>features (decent motor, decent gearings, all wheel pickup, flywheels,
>etc) of a decent locomotive. They're more trouble than they're worth.
>My experience as a kid was that, although you could probably buy three
>for the price of two Athearns, I'd break them easily. You can't get
>parts for them, as you can the Athearn and better locomotives.
I couldn't have said it any better myself.
IMHO:
A Kato, Atlas/Kato, Stewart/Kato, ConCor/Kato
A- Atlas/Roco, ConCor/Roco
B+ Life Like Proto-2000, Bachmann/Spectrum
B Athearn, Stewart/Athearn (RS3, AS16, AS616, early U25B),
Roundhouse/Athearn (RS3), Model Power (FA, E7, E8, Baldwin Sharks)
C
D- Tyco
F Model Power (F3, C430, RS2 and other former AHM junk)
You get what you pay for really applies here. In general the higher the
grade, the higher the price. But the difference in price between the
Athearn at B and all the junk at D is really minimal. If price is the
main consideration, don't go for any of the D junk over an Athearn just
because you're going to save $5 (if that). In the long run you'll end
up spending more.
Now that we've eliminated everything below the B grade, you need to
decide if the increase in mechanism quality and/or body detail beyond
the Athearn is worth the increase in cost. As a ballpark:
The other B grade locos cost about 1.5-2.0 times an Athearn,
the B+ grade locos cost about 2.0-2.5 times an Athearn,
the A- ConCor/Rocos cost about 2.5 times an Athearn,
the A grade Kato locos cost about 4 times an Athearn.
If you are looking for a specific model of locomotive, you won't have
much choice. There is a little overlap between manufacturers (Athearn
and Stewart F7's, Athearn and Atlas GP7's, Atlas and Stewart and
Roundhouse RS3's, etc), but if you have your heart set on an RS-1, it's
Atlas or brass. If you just want an F or an SD you have more lattitude.
If you just want any old diesel, then you're in a position to get
anything.
If you are just looking to get a loco to expand, aren't really concerned
about infintessimal detail or being able to move at a scale 1 mph, and
are looking to minimize the capital expenditure, as I said before
Athearn's price/performance is hard to beat.
Bill Gripp
>see the better detailing when the locomotive's on the shelf, so I won't
>really discuss it here. The better locos have several features that make
>them run better:
>
>1) Better motor: has more poles (usually five), draws a low amount of
>current, and is also powerful.
>
>2) Flywheels: When you turn the power off, instead of sliding to a halt,
>the locomotive coasts to a stop. This is a very useful feature to have,
>as gaps in the rail, turnout (a track switch) gaps, dirty track, all
>cause the power to briefly be turned off. The locomotive with flywheels
>will coast right over it, while the junker with either lurch or come
>to a dead stall (that requires a nudge; if I wanted to nudge my trains,
>I would still have strings on them. :-)
>
>3) All wheel pickup: Every wheel picks up current. On a "cheapie",
>only some of the wheels pick up current. Again, this is a feature
>to get the locomotive over dirty track, gaps in the rail, etc.
>
>4) More weight: The more weight you have, the more you can pull. Also,
>the heavier the locomotive, the less trouble you'll have with dirty track.
>
>5) A low gear ratio: To move, the motor has to spin faster, thus requiring
>a higher voltage, which means you are less likely to stall at low speeds.
>You'll also have better control, but your trains probably won't do
>mach II. (That's not really a bad thing, though.)
I have no arguement with any of these statements. But do those who
model in HO feel that HO locos are getting TOO powerful? I suspect that
most people would jump in quickly to say "of course not, are you kidding?"
Thing is, who needs all the power that is being engineered into locos
these days? I recall that when RMC reviewed Atlas RS1, they said it
could pull _100_ average HO freight cars. I recall chasing an NYSW
freight which required 2 RS1's to hauld a 10 or 12 car freight! So do I
need a model which outperforms the prototype by 10 or 20 times? And how
many layouts can accomidate a 100 car train?
Maybe I want my 2 or 3 unit lashup to stall on that 2.5% grade so that
the pushers are really required to help the freight up to the summit.
Any and all flames are directed to /dev/null. This thread is intended
for intelligent discussion.
Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879
by bi...@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp):
>
> But do those who model in HO feel that HO locos are getting TOO powerful?
>
> could pull _100_ average HO freight cars.
These kinds of figures are usually given for straight and level
track with "average" trucks and uniformly lightly weighted cars.
The same engine would probably have trouble with heavy cars (for
example, some olf Fleishman cars I have that are just about solid
zinc) on a grade with worse-than-average trucks.
> I recall chasing an NYSW freight which required 2 RS1's to hauld a 10 or
> 12 car freight!
I'd assume that the track wasn't straight and level, and I'd assume
that the cars weren't all emptys.
> So do I need a model which outperforms the prototype by 10 or 20 times?
As I said, I'm not sure the model outperforms the prototype by that
much. What could a prototype RS1 pull if it was pulling empty cars
on straight level track?
Flywheels, all-wheel pick-up, high gear ratios and low-current
motors aren't a matter of power, they provide performance. Real
engines don't hesitate when they hit dust on the rails, they simply
crush it. Real engines don't stall on an insulated frog (imagine
using polystyrene frogs on a prototype railroad -- how long would they
last?). The low-current can motors don't necessarily put out more
power than their high-current open-frame counterparts, but they do
run more smoothly, and most of them run a bit faster (thus requiring
higher gear ratios).
> And how many layouts can accomidate a 100 car train?
Not mine!
Doug Jones
jo...@cs.uiowa.edu
Tim Christensen
B: Spectrum by Bachman, Roco, Atlas by Roco
C: Athearn
D: Life Like, Model Power
E: Tyco, Mantua, Bachman
No argument, Kato is tops.
B: and C: catagories are a little rougher. Depending on the individual unit you purchase, the Athearn could be better and the Spectrum, Roco could be worse. You would not be going wrong buying any of the A, B, C brands.
ALWAYS test drive the loco before you purchase it. If it doesnt sound right or accelerate smoothly, try another one. It your money and you are the customer.
Tim Christensen
The Lost Wilbury
>Thing is, who needs all the power that is being engineered into locos
>these days? I recall that when RMC reviewed Atlas RS1, they said it
>could pull _100_ average HO freight cars.
I have a Kato RS1 (I would call it Atlas, but there is nothing on the loco
to tell me it is an Atlas -- the Kato trademark is even on the chassis --
not atlas :-)). If it pulled 100 HO freight cars they would have to be
extremely light, have really free rolling wheels and be heading downhill.
On a flat surface 50 AVERAGE cars would be reasonable and if there is
any incline that would cut it down to at most 40.
>I recall chasing an NYSW
>freight which required 2 RS1's to hauld a 10 or 12 car freight! So do I
>need a model which outperforms the prototype by 10 or 20 times? And how
>many layouts can accomidate a 100 car train?
>
>Maybe I want my 2 or 3 unit lashup to stall on that 2.5% grade so that
>the pushers are really required to help the freight up to the summit.
The problem with cutting the power down that far is that the running will
not be smooth. The extra power is needed so that at 2 volts the RS1 will
crawl smoothly -- a lesser motor won't be able to do this until a much
higher voltage, if at all. That I feel is the main reason. It is just an
artifact of the weight and the smooth and powerful motor.
--
Kevin Kuehl
k...@cs.purdue.edu
Chris Webster
>From article <1991Jul29.1...@bony1.bony.com>,
>by bi...@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp):
>>
>> But do those who model in HO feel that HO locos are getting TOO powerful?
>>
>> I recall that when RMC reviewed Atlas RS1, they said it
>> could pull _100_ average HO freight cars.
>
> These kinds of figures are usually given for straight and level
> track with "average" trucks and uniformly lightly weighted cars.
> The same engine would probably have trouble with heavy cars (for
> example, some olf Fleishman cars I have that are just about solid
> zinc) on a grade with worse-than-average trucks.
Now, if that RS1 was to be pulling coal cars loaded with actual coal, I
think it'd be having trouble. (I'm thinking of Tony Koester's column in MR
where he has written about using "Live Loads" on his layout. His coal hoppers
are filled with actual, loose coal! I imagine the cars track very well. :-)
It is an interesting idea though; very prototypical. If I ever get a layout
built (just after I get out of college, get a job, married, etc...) I will
try it.
I also recall MR reviewing the Atlas S2 in which they said it would pull
over 60 cars. When it first came out, we tested one at a modular setup.
Since we were running on modules, I doubt that they were level. However, it
could handle approximately 20 cars on level-looking :-) track, running at a
slow scale, drag speed.
That's really the key to this debate: If you wanna pull a long train, at a
scale drag speed, and that's really how you run long trains (unless you like
running them into the floor at an acceleration of 32.2m/s^2 :-) you need a
lot of power.
>
>> I recall chasing an NYSW freight which required 2 RS1's to hauld a 10 or
>> 12 car freight!
>
> I'd assume that the track wasn't straight and level, and I'd assume
> that the cars weren't all emptys.
>
The RS-1 has what, 1000 horsepower? It's not a powerful engine. Now,
if we were talking an SD60..... however, a RS1 could prototypically drag
long cuts of cars in a straight and level. You need the power that comes in
the Kato unit to simulate this.
Also, I once road a NYSW excursion out of Utica to Sherburne, NY. We
went up and over the Paris hill grade with six or seven passenger cars, fully
loaded. On the southbound run, we had a C430 and an RS1. They left the C430
at Sherburne and brought us back, up over the curvy hill, with the RS1.
A lotta fans onboard didn't think it was the C430 that we should've been
dropping off, but nevertheless, we did make it.
>> So do I need a model which outperforms the prototype by 10 or 20 times?
>
> As I said, I'm not sure the model outperforms the prototype by that
> much. What could a prototype RS1 pull if it was pulling empty cars
> on straight level track?
>
> Flywheels, all-wheel pick-up, high gear ratios and low-current
> motors aren't a matter of power, they provide performance. Real
> engines don't hesitate when they hit dust on the rails, they simply
> crush it. Real engines don't stall on an insulated frog (imagine
> using polystyrene frogs on a prototype railroad -- how long would they
> last?). The low-current can motors don't necessarily put out more
> power than their high-current open-frame counterparts, but they do
> run more smoothly, and most of them run a bit faster (thus requiring
> higher gear ratios).
I realize that flywheels and all wheel pickup aren't matters of performance,
but isn't a lower gear ratio? Isn't it the same principle as why you gear
prototypical freight engines lower than prototypical passenger engines, or
in the case of older steam engines, put smaller drivers on the freight engine?
I thought you could put more torque out at the sacrifice of a higher
acceleration?
>> And how many layouts can accomidate a 100 car train?
>
My modules can make up part of a layout that can! :-) Actually, the biggest
train I ever had going on it was 35-40 cars, and they were modern prototype
(50' or longer). Ran pretty reliably (didn't derail in a hour of running,
quite a feat considering the trackwork it was running on), but as soon as
the old farts (30 and above.... :-) with their "trains" consisting of a MDC
2-8-0 and two shorty passenger cars showed up, they decided it would derail,
etc, and that they'd impose a rule that the longest train could be 10 cars.
Sigh. Modular railroading would be fun if it weren't for the politics.
(So would the NMRA, but that's another story.)
On another note, has anyone ever set up a railroad-specific bulletin board?
I'm thinking of buying a better modem, and since a lot of companies offer
50% off discounts to sysops, I am thinking of becoming one. Any ideas?
Mike Kingdom
>are the best and worst, could you also tell why you think they are
>good or bad. Also, what can you expect to pay for different brands?
Sure. Here's why I said what I said:
>>The best: Kato
>>Almost as good: Atlas (I think they're based on a Kato chassis(?))
Very smooth running, low current draw, good scale speed, can run nice
and slow with little problem, pick up power from all wheels, drive all
wheels, have flywheels (help smooth out their running and add some
momentum.) Excellent out of the box detail. You can find them for ~$80.
(I found some at the Denver NMRA convention for $70.) The Kato's have
gotten good reviews in Model Railroader Magazine (August '91 issue,
I think.)
>>Good buy for the money: Athearn
For $35 or less, Athearns are inexpensive and run reasonably well out
of the box considering the price. With a little effort as another person
mentioned, they run a bit better. Most (all?) Athearn's have flywheels
and are reasonably heavy so they run pretty smoothly. Low end speed
isn't quite as good as Kato/Atlas but acceptable to me. All trucks
are powered and pickup power from the track making them less likely to
stall. Their detail (especially on the trucks) has improved over the
years. The motors pull a bit much current (.75 to 1.0 A), but many
companies like mashima and sagami sell remotor kits made especially
for Athearn's. These motors draw less than 0.5 amps at full power and
run more smoothly and slowly.
>>Border line: Bachmann (Spectrum line is better)
>>Avoid at all costs: Tyco and Life-Like (except for the new BL2 they sell.)
Bachmann is a little better than Tyco and cheaper Life-Like's, but these
models are cheap in price ($10-$20) and quality/ability. They generally
only pickup power from one truck, don't have flywheels and draw more
current. The result is a jerky engine which stalls easily and can't
pull much. A little too annoying despite the benefit of cheap price.
Hope this helps.
-- Mike
Tim Christensen
They are well broken in and run a variety of grades.
Loco 1% grade 2% grade 3% grade
Athearn GP9 15 cars 11cars 6 car
Athearn SD40-2 30 cars 22 cars 10 cars
Roco GP38 18 cars 13 cars 8 cars
The nickel wheels on the ROCO are slipperier than the Athearn units.
This is on NS code 83 track from Railcraft. No modifications to the Locos.
Tim Christensen
han...@physc1.byu.edu
point about Athearn models that hasn't been mentioned.
Athearn originally produced locomotive models that were about 1 scale foot too
wide in the shell to accomodate the motors they used. The later went to a more
narrow motor and their most recent engines are scale width. Unfortunately,
this only means the GP-38/40/50 series, the SD-40-2, the SD-40T-2, and the new
SW's are scale width. All the other hood units that I am aware of from Athearn
are too wide by the 1 scale foot. This difference really stands out when you
mix scale width with the too wide units in my opinion, so I would be very
careful about mixing the two shell widths. That is one of the main reasons I
spent the extra $ for the atlas GP-7, for example. It was the only way to get
a scale width GP-7 model since Front Range had already gone out of business.
Note that this problem doesn't occur with the Athearn F-7, and the PA's.
Unfortunately, if you are really concerned with appearances, the Athearn F-7
nose doesn't have quite the correct curvature.
One final thing. I read a copy of a general letter from a Mr Conway at my
hobby store yesterday. I believe he is the Con part of Con-Cor. This letter
was a tribute to Irv Athearn, and it contained a paragraph that reports that
Irv's widow and family intend to continue operations pretty much as before.
This may not last forever, of course, but for the time being, it appears that
Athearn will continue in production and won't be sold or liquidated as various
rumors I have heard had indicated.
Doug Hansen Han...@xray.byu.edu
Paul De Bra
>In article <1991Jul29.1...@bony1.bony.com> bi...@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) writes:
>>Thing is, who needs all the power that is being engineered into locos
>>these days? I recall that when RMC reviewed Atlas RS1, they said it
>>could pull _100_ average HO freight cars.
>
>I have a Kato RS1 (I would call it Atlas, but there is nothing on the loco
>to tell me it is an Atlas -- the Kato trademark is even on the chassis --
>not atlas :-)). If it pulled 100 HO freight cars they would have to be
>extremely light, have really free rolling wheels and be heading downhill.
>
>On a flat surface 50 AVERAGE cars would be reasonable and if there is
>any incline that would cut it down to at most 40.
The only reason for having all that power is for going uphill.
Almost all model railroads have hills that are just incredibly steep
compared to what a real train can handle.
I have read (an Arnold Rapido catalog if i remember correctly) that
the rated number of cars a loc can pull must be divided by 2 for a grade
of 1%, by 3 for 2% and by 4 for 4% or something like that.
Many layouts have slopes of more than 2% or even more than 4%.
Even the best locs (Fleischman in my opinion) have a bit of difficulty
pulling a long freight train up a 4% hill.
Paul.
Wilson P Snyder
>From article <1991Jul29.1...@bony1.bony.com>,
>by bi...@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp):
>>
>> But do those who model in HO feel that HO locos are getting TOO powerful?
>>
>> I recall that when RMC reviewed Atlas RS1, they said it
>> could pull _100_ average HO freight cars.
>These kinds of figures are usually given for straight and level
>track with "average" trucks and uniformly lightly weighted cars.
I agree. Most cars don't come with enough weight. When the
cars are weighted correctly, have good trucks, and are on level track
a RS1 can pull about 30 cars.
>> I recall chasing an NYSW freight which required 2 RS1's to hauld a 10 or
>> 12 car freight!
>I'd assume that the track wasn't straight and level, and I'd assume
>that the cars weren't all emptys.
On our layout's major "hill" one RS1 can handle about 10 cars,
few more. As I vagely recall, the prototype could also handle around
10 cars.
>> So do I need a model which outperforms the prototype by 10 or 20 times?
>As I said, I'm not sure the model outperforms the prototype by that
>much. What could a prototype RS1 pull if it was pulling empty cars
>on straight level track?
I do agree that the models are more powerful, but perhaps by
around 2 times or so. The main thing is that the loading curve for a
model is very different from that for the prototype, which I would
guess is limited by the diesel engine rather than the motors.
Many steam engines are much closer to the prototype then the
diesels. Perhaps this is only because the linkages and electrical
pickup in steam engine models limit their performance.
>Flywheels, all-wheel pick-up, high gear ratios and low-current
>motors aren't a matter of power, they provide performance. Real
>engines don't hesitate when they hit dust on the rails, they simply
>crush it. Real engines don't stall on an insulated frog (imagine
>using polystyrene frogs on a prototype railroad -- how long would they
>last?). The low-current can motors don't necessarily put out more
>power than their high-current open-frame counterparts, but they do
>run more smoothly, and most of them run a bit faster (thus requiring
>higher gear ratios).
Almost always we run two engines to reduce electrical
problems. Especially with command control, multiple engines are
needed as much to smooth out the motion as to provide pulling power.
>> And how many layouts can accomidate a 100 car train?
>Not mine!
MINE! :-)
Ed Brovet
I've learned a lot from this already, and it will probably save me $$$ as
I grow my railroad. Thanks for the opinions, and please, keep'em rolling in.
Ed Brovet
Eddie Oliver
Virtually all comment in this thread about Life-Like, Model Power and Tyco
has been unfavourable. I think this is a bit unkind.
There are SOME locos from all three manufacturers which perform very well.
There are SOME that are appalling. Moral - test before you buy.
Obviously the new Life-Like BL2's (and presumably the FA's) are manufactured
to much higher specifications; I support the views of other correspondents
about the high quality of the BL2's. However some of their GP38-2's are
also good. The trouble is manufacturing variability/ lack of quality control.
Example: Recently Southeastern RPO (who advertise in MR etc) had a special on
a Bev-Bel "combo pack" of GP38-2 and cars. This was so cheap that it was
attractive for the loco alone, and D&H was offered as a roadname. I bought
one pack, because I wanted a D&H loco in that colour scheme. (As it happens
I'll keep a couple of the cars as well, but that's another story.) On first
trial, it ran happily for 5 minutes, then it stopped. Dismantling showed a
faulty solder joint, which was fixed in 30 seconds flat. I lubricated it
a bit while I was at it. It now runs beautifully - just as well as most
other locos except for the absence of flywheels. It will walk away with
loads which even Athearn locos struggle with.
I have had similar experiences with Model Power and Tyco, and for that matter
with Athearn and in one case Atlas. In other words, the problem is often more
in the care of assembly than in the mechanical parts themselves - but
obviously if you start off with cheaper mechanical parts, there is more
likelihood of poor assembly creating problems.
The irony is that the people who are most likely to be able to make the cheap
locos run well are the people who are least likely to buy them in the first
place.
Eddie Oliver