I know the forum does not allow the bashing of a competitors products, and if my question violates this rule, I do apologize. However this issue has previously been posted on this board and I would like a clarification. It concerns the running quality of their 4-6-2 Pacific. I understand from previous posts that this engine has problems with the running gear but I don't know if its a fixable item or not.
Question 1: What is the nature of the problem?
Question 2: Do all of the engines in the product line have the same problem or are there now current runs that do not have the problem?
Question 3: Does Athern offer any kind of fix to the problem even though the unit is out of warranty? (It's used)
Mr. B. If I have violated your rule, I certainly apologize and you can delete this thread if you wish.
Thanks, Bill
Bill,
I seriously doubt that an honest discussion violates the "bashing" rule. We certainly talk a lot about various DCC products here. Apparently, there was a problem with the drive gear splitting on the Genesis Pacific (and the Mikado, as well). Look here:
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/67861/832180.aspx#832180
Once the fault is fixed, folks seem to like the engine. Thanks for brining this topic up. I was just about to dig mine out of storage, put on the hand rails and install a decoder. I guess I'll just go ahead and re-gear while I'm at it.
Rusty
- The gears in both the 2-8-2 and the 4-6-2 split. They even split in the box before the box is opened.
- Not all engines suffered from this but more than enough did.
- If you contacted Athearn really early in the release of these engines, they may have sent you a replacement set of drivers with axle and gear. You had to fit it yourself. Not easy.
- Once Athearn ran out of parts, which was rather quickly, their response to requests for warranty work was, in effect "tough" and they did not honour the warranty, you were left on your own.
There were also other "issues" with both locos.
- Poor tractive effort due to poor centre of balance.
- Derailing of front trucks and drivers due to the poor centre of balance.
- Derailing tenders due to a stiff wiring harness.
- The wires used to connect the motor with the tender were poorly soldered resulting in the wire(s) breaking at the motor terminal(s).
Detailing was adequate due to the use of cast detail rather than the more contemporary applied details. All the above can be fixed, with difficulty in some cases, and the results are a not too bad engine. Not up to Spectrum standards, but not too bad.
None of the foregoing is "bashing" but is an honest critique.
I have 3 Genisis Mikados, I give em Thumbs up so far. all three are B&O and Facotory Painted(i got 1 off ebay, 2 off a friend who gave up trying to make em DCC), The first one I got had the wire problem witht he motor. Athearn was very helpful in giving me directions to remove the boiler to fix it. Instead of just telling me to ship it back. They helped me walk through checking the problem and fixing it on my own which was fairly easy once i was about to get the boiler shell off.
I missed out on the 4-6-2's but am awaiting the re-relase under the Roundhouse Brand.(Thought they have been pushed back 3 times already)
Side note: they also shipped me free of charge a replacement circut bored for an F3B unit i had which started to smoke(realistic i guess, but it didnt smell great)
Thanks to all for your replies. I'll wait until the Roundhouse version comes out.
Bill
Bill,
The new roundhouse version, while based on the same tooling, has an all new drive and is being manufactured by a different vender.
The main reason Athearn had so much trouble with the orginal was the original vender went out of business.
Everyone is waiting to see if the new ones are as good as all the rest of athearns products, Genesis Mikes & Pacifics excepted.
I had two that never had a gear problem, but like Roger said they where poorly balanced and too light. After reweighting one I sold the other.
Good move to just wait for the new one.
Sheldon
FWIW, I have the Roundhouse vintage locos, they are very smooth and quiet. Some may grumble, as they have traction tires. We only use them for short excursion trains, so I have no problem with them.
They should ban traction tires. If the boiler was cast, you wouldn't need traction tires. The bachmann 4-4-0 and 2-8-0 are good pullers without TTs.
Amen! I had one 4-4-0 pulling 12 of the Roundhouse Milk Cars once(even on a slight uphill climb) and it kept up good pace with very little or no slipping at all.
Since I needed a diminutive vintage in Bumble Bee colors, I took what was available. I was lucky to get the locos separately. Currently they are only available in sets, with NS EZ Track, 4 Overland Cars and Athearn DC controller.
Quote from: pdlethbridge on June 14, 2009, 05:05:42 AM
They should ban traction tires. If the boiler was cast, you wouldn't need traction tires. The bachmann 4-4-0 and 2-8-0 are good pullers without TTs.
Interesting view, just yesterday at an open house of a friends layout, several modelers lamented that the Bachmann Spectrum 4-4-0 needed traction tires because it pulled so little.
The only thing that should be banned is the idea of banning things.
I do think manufacturers are smart to offer seperate drivers so modelers have a choice. But I like all my traction tire locos and have never had a problem with them.
To each his own, as opposed to those who would impose their will on others.
Sheldon
I have found that with the bachmann engines, if you push them too hard you'll break them. I feel that traction tires will speed up that process.
Quote from: pdlethbridge on June 15, 2009, 07:09:23 PM
I have found that with the bachmann engines, if you push them too hard you'll break them. I feel that traction tires will speed up that process.
This may well be a valid observation, but it is way different than your other statement.
I have mostly Bachmann steam, so only a few of the "other" brands have traction tires. My smallest Bachmann steamer in the 10 wheeler and I am happy with the performance of all my steam, with and without traction tires.
Such blanket statements about anything are seldom valid, especially in the world of engineering. There are always variables that change the dynamic. Some locos benifit greatly from traction tires, some don't.
Sheldon
[/quote]
I do think manufacturers are smart to offer seperate drivers so modelers have a choice.
Sheldon
[/quote]
As a non traction tire fan, I agree 100% with the above statement. Bachmann please note!
Traction tires have been used, mostly on lower end, light weight trains for years. I have used heavy locos since my first mantua kit in the early 60's It didn't need traction tires then and it still doesn't. Hauling 50 cars was its ads selling point. My latest kit is the Bowser USRA light mike and that doesn't need TT's either. The only locos that might need them are my GE 44 tonner and my spectrum 0-6-0t. But when you get into small engines, you will have a problem with electrical pick-up when TT's are used.
The new locos with TT's such as some BLI units really don't need them. How many here run prototype length trains on their layouts? If you stay within the parameters of the loco, you will NOT need TT's.
For steam, I use a simple formula to determine correct train length. I add the number of drivers and trailing truck wheels and divide by 2 for passenger cars and add all wheels and divide by 2 for freight. Most of us have small layouts and that keeps the trains short and keeps the locos from tearing themselves apart.
For diesels, mine are all the same, 8 car freights, 4 car passenger. As I only have 3 passenger cars, they don't pull them.
I have no hills, so grades aren't a problem, but the curves are, so trains are kept short. Any way, wheel slip is a good thing and keeps the loco from self destructing.
If you want to test your engines to see how many cars you can pull, go for it. But please don't fault me when you traction tired loco goes up in smoke because it really wasn't meant to pull that many cars.
There are many modelers who add extra weight to every engine to get better traction. This to me is no better than having traction tires.
I have recently purchased several Hornby and Roco engines from the UK.
They have been using traction tires for years and years with tender drives.
The Roco engines run like Rolex watches. Both types will pull the paint off the walls, even on grades. The smallest engines you don't have to worry about, they pull just as well as the largest. Everything is in the tender with a very simple drive. This makes them a snap to work on. The boiler is empty, easy to work on and plenty of room to add electronics.
My brother in-law just built a track plan with 2% grades and 18 to 22 in curves. He is lucky to get a single engine to pull 7 cars around. Double figure 8 with lots of switches. If he wants longer trains he will have to add weight or look for traction tires.
I have the Athearn 2 8 2 and have removed the front and rear truck springs, along with adding a lead tool box to the front. This has very much improved traction. These would be great engines if they added traction tires.
Bob
I forgot to mention i like long trains. I have no grades and have both 18 and 22in radius. I run a 21 car freight train and a 12 car passenger train.
I have over 100 engines with no duplicates and every one of them will pull these trains. I don't keep removing or adding cars for each engine.
Bob
Quote from: pdlethbridge on June 16, 2009, 05:27:30 AM
Traction tires have been used, mostly on lower end, light weight trains for years. I have used heavy locos since my first mantua kit in the early 60's It didn't need traction tires then and it still doesn't. Hauling 50 cars was its ads selling point. My latest kit is the Bowser USRA light mike and that doesn't need TT's either. The only locos that might need them are my GE 44 tonner and my spectrum 0-6-0t. But when you get into small engines, you will have a problem with electrical pick-up when TT's are used.
The new locos with TT's such as some BLI units really don't need them. How many here run prototype length trains on their layouts? If you stay within the parameters of the loco, you will NOT need TT's.
For steam, I use a simple formula to determine correct train length. I add the number of drivers and trailing truck wheels and divide by 2 for passenger cars and add all wheels and divide by 2 for freight. Most of us have small layouts and that keeps the trains short and keeps the locos from tearing themselves apart.
For diesels, mine are all the same, 8 car freights, 4 car passenger. As I only have 3 passenger cars, they don't pull them.
I have no hills, so grades aren't a problem, but the curves are, so trains are kept short. Any way, wheel slip is a good thing and keeps the loco from self destructing.
If you want to test your engines to see how many cars you can pull, go for it. But please don't fault me when you traction tired loco goes up in smoke because it really wasn't meant to pull that many cars.
I understand, and for you I'm sure that's fine.
Personally I do haul prototype or near prototype length trains, and so do MANY of my friends. You are perfectly welcome to pull only 8 cars with whatever locos, large, medium or small, that you own. The point of the hobby is to have fun.
To me locos like 2-8-2's or 4-8-4's hauling 8 cars look ridiculous. My average freight train is 25-35 cars, some are longer. I do have mild grades (1.8%) and double head locos when needed. Mainline passenger limiteds are 7-10 cars.
If I only had room for that size train, I would model a prototype that was suitable, like the Ma & Pa. But since I have the room, the resources and the interest, I model a 1953, east coast/Appalachian mountain region Class I railroad.
Interestingly enough one of my traction tire locos is a Mantua General.
I understand the bias against them based on all the "old" facts from years ago - that is like judging a new Ford based on a 71 Pinto. Many of those old locos you refer to where junk, with or without traction tires. I knew that then, that's why I never owned any of them.
My Broadway N&W Class A has pulled 80 cars around a layout with 1.8% grades. My Rivarossi 2-6-6-6 will do nearly that well. My bachmann 4-8-2 Heavies will pull 25-30 cars under those conditions. I use 2 Bachmann 2-8-0's to pull 40 car hopper trains.
Part of my long train secret is very free rolling trucks.
And, as I said before, in a perfect world the manufaturers give us the choice with a spare axle/driver set. But why would I "fault" you if my traction tires fail? In most cases they are easily replaced or subsituted with the non traction tire spare - where is the problem?
Seems to me you are creating a problem where one does not exist.
Bachmann has chosen not to use traction tires on any of their newer locos so far, that's fine. That's also why I don't own a Russian Decopod. I have no use for locos that cannot haul a resonable train, with or without traction tires.
I do have a somewhat large fleet of Bachmann Spectrum steam locos:
6 - USRA 4-8-2 Heavy
8 - 2-8-0
3 - 2-6-6-2
Again, I am very happy with their performance. I am also happy with the performance of my BLI, PCM, Proto locos with traction tires. In fact, I wish all my Proto locos where the traction tire versons, then maybe they would pull as well as the Bachmann's.
As for diesels, most of mine run in 3-4 unit sets, all units powered (I have never owned a dummy unit in my 35+ years in this hobby) and have no trouble with 50 or more cars. They are Proto2000, Intermountain, Genesis, PCM, older reworked Athearn, etc. None are older train set junk, none have traction tires, none need traction tires.
Having been in this hobby since 1967 and having worked in several hobby shops, I have long since stopped assuming that otherS are modeling, or want to model, the same way I am. It is an assumption that will always offend or alienate your fellow modelers.
I do all kinds of things others don't think is "right" - I don't care, but I don't assume anyone is doing it my way. I offer my knowledge and experiance for others to take or leave. And I do comment when it seems others would have everyone do it "their" way.
I vote for choice and up to date facts, not restriction and old bias from out dated info.
Sheldon
My Bachman 2-8-0 pulls 24 coal and 12 ore cars loaded around my 22"oval with no problems
It is way too long for a 4X10 but I wanted to see how it did
Normally run 6-12 coal or 6-10 box/gondola or 12 ore
Sheldon, your layout is the exception rather than the rule. Mine is a total of two 4x8's. The majority of my locos are bachmann and after testing each one to its limit I'm convinced that adding TT's to any of these engines would ruin them. For example, I tested a long freight on the SD-45, a rather heavy diesel. It just sat there and didn't even spin its wheels. Had I run the test longer, it would have started smoking and TT's would not have helped. The components in the Bachmann engines are just not built for heavy use applications.
pd,
First, I agree not every loco would benifit from traction tires, especially not diesels, except maybe the smallest of them.
Second, I have no Bachmann road diesels (standard or Spectrum) to compare/judge/test. Most of their diesel products are out of my era or lack detail available from others - so I have not purchased the few (FT) that are in my era.
Third, I doubt any well engineered HO scale road diesel model needs traction tires. My Proto2000 GP7's (most likely the lightest road unit out there) pull just fine. each unit can handle 20 or so cars, two or three handle my average trains with ease.
Steam is another story, the physics is complex, but I do agree most Bachmann models as offered now would most likely not benifit from traction tires. But the other products out there are engineered differently.
Why is my layout the exception? Do you have the inside stats on layout size/ownership throughout the country? Why do you assume you are median? Here where I live many people have layouts that fill all or most of 1500 sq ft basements. A quick count gave me 10 within 10 miles of my house. Within 25 miles I'll bet its 100.
Sheldon
64 square feet is all I have room for, and all I can afford to maintain and handle. I can't crawl under anything to fix it. Every thing is within easy reach. I would imagine that if you took a poll on the board you would find a majority of small layouts, 100 square feet or less.
Hey, Sheldon,
My basement is 850 sq feet and the train room shares it with a guest room, bath, and office. I have about 200 sq feet for my train room, but I have to share THAT with the pellet stove. As it is, I have more room than I have ever had before for a layout, but I've always had a loyout. A few years ago MR did a survey and found that the average layout was less than 100 sq ft...65-70 sticks in my mind. You know it already, but you live a privileged life amongst privileged neighbors, and if you don't know it, you need to get out more. Enjoy.
Rusty
I guess my main problem with the AG USRA light Mike and Pacific is the fact that Athearn knows it has/had a problem and is fixing it, apparently wit the new run, but is doing nothing for those of us with the old run. I'd be more than willing to trade my old ones in for new ones and send Athearn $25 or so for each. But that is not what they are willing to do.
Gene
I wrote a rather lengthy post on the topic, but the forum must have "ate it". Oh well, it was probably in the category of "Who cares what Bob thinks". :D
I'm not typing it again, so will just say, I only run 4 Overtons or 4 J&S Excursions, so I have no concern about "breaking it". Anyway, my wife says "they're cute", she runs the heck ouf of them. 8)
Quote from: SteamGene on June 16, 2009, 08:34:31 PM
I guess my main problem with the AG USRA light Mike and Pacific is the fact that Athearn knows it has/had a problem and is fixing it, apparently wit the new run, but is doing nothing for those of us with the old run. I'd be more than willing to trade my old ones in for new ones and send Athearn $25 or so for each. But that is not what they are willing to do.
Gene
Ditto Gene.
Athearn well and truly shafted the purchasers of the Genesis 4-6-2 and 2-8-2.
rustyrails,
You can call it privilaged if you like, I make no apologies for my success, but I call it education (formal and informal) and hard work. Judging by the number of homes bigger and nicer than mine that I drive past every day, there are a lot of people who are more "privilaged" than me, although they may find that discription just as offensive as I do. I wasn't "given" anything but opportunity.
Sheldon
Quote from: Atlantic Central on June 16, 2009, 06:28:18 PM
pd,
Why is my layout the exception? Do you have the inside stats on layout size/ownership throughout the country? Why do you assume you are median? Here where I live many people have layouts that fill all or most of 1500 sq ft basements. A quick count gave me 10 within 10 miles of my house. Within 25 miles I'll bet its 100.
Sheldon
I would imagine that this is typical for most neighbourhoods................
Quote from: rustyrails on June 16, 2009, 08:30:17 PM
Hey, Sheldon,
My basement is 850 sq feet and the train room shares it with a guest room, bath, and office. I have about 200 sq feet for my train room, but I have to share THAT with the pellet stove. As it is, I have more room than I have ever had before for a layout, but I've always had a loyout. A few years ago MR did a survey and found that the average layout was less than 100 sq ft...65-70 sticks in my mind. You know it already, but you live a privileged life amongst privileged neighbors, and if you don't know it, you need to get out more. Enjoy.
Rusty
I asked that very question as to what was the average size HO model railroad just recently on the Model Railroader Forum and received very little useful information. Would you have any idea what issue that information was released?
PacNorth: I don't know the date. It was several years ago. I remember filling out a questionaire. I'll go digging through my library and see what I can find. NMRA probably has some figures, too. Perhaps you could start a new thread since this has all sort of moved away from the vagaries of Genesis steamers.
Rusty
The survey, conducted jointly by the NMRA and Kalmbach, was conducted in April of 1995, quite a while a go at this point. A summary/interpretation of the results was published in Model Railroader in May of 1996. How valid the results were, or are now, is open to debate.
With respect to layout ownership and size:
78% indicated they had a home layout
of those, size breakdown was as follows:
44.6% - 74 sq ft or less
23.9% - 75-149 sq ft
18.8% - 150-299 sq ft
10.3% - 300 or more sq ft
2.4% - no answer to this question
The inhearent problem is how did each modeler measure their layout size? did they include isles, give overall room size of train deticated space OR measure actual bench work surface area. The info provided in the survey does indicate if such information was requested of, or suggested to, the respondants.
There is a natural tendancy that would suggest a person with two 4x8 platforms, lets say in one corner of a basement, would respond saying his layout is only 64 sq ft. BUT, a person with an around the walls layout that fills a spare 12 x 16 room may likely just say his layout is 192 sq ft. Yet his actual bench work area is likely only half that. Making his layout only 40% larger than the two 4x8 layout, rather than the indicated 300%
I have done a lot of layout design work for other modelers. In general only 50% or less of the floor space translates into layout surface area. But people with two 4x8 platforms don't think about their isle space, which is typically as much or more than the "benchwork" area. A two foot walkway all the way around your two 4x8's is 80 sq ft - larger than the benchwork!!!
I'll bet most have isles bigger than two feet wide! pd, your layout is now 144 sq ft when compared to my 800 sq ft deticated room! Not as big a difference measured that way. A great many of those who indicated their layouts where less than 74 sq ft, may well have layouts very similar in working size and scope to even the next two catagories up.
My layout is in a 800 sq ft room above my garage/workshop. It is still under construction. BUT, as designed, even with its double decks, will only represent about 500 to 600 sq ft of bench work surface area. My isles are purposely big for easy access and viewing.
One big factor in this is layout shape and design concept. Most meduim to large layouts these days are "walk around" in nature with bench work only 1 to 3 feet deep wraping or weaving around the room. After all, trains are a "linear" kind of thing.
Still working hard for more "privilages",
Sheldon
I feel a poll coming on! I, too, would be very interested to know the average size of a home layout. By the calculations discussed above, my benchwork area is 122 sq ft. If I add isle space for walking around the layout, that's an additional 142 sq ft: total 264 sq ft. If anyone is interested I would be happy to start a new thread. We could call it "Average Layout Size" or something similar. Thoughts?
Regards,
Jonathan
The question should be "How much space, in square feet, does your model railway.road occupy?"
Mine's in a 12 x 16 foot room but it isn't a 192sq. ft. model railway. You could probably take away 50 to 60 sq. ft. for aisle space but is somebody asks "How big is your model railway?" I say, "It occupies as 12 x 16 foot room."
So, if you have a 4 x 8 stuck in the corner of a room, then you can say that you have a 4 x 8 stuck in the corner of a room. If you have a 30 x 50 foot basement full of a model railroad then just give that dimension. If you model railroad occupies say half of a 30 x 50 foot room, then just say that it's half of a 30 x 50 foot room.
No need for square footage as that can mean at least two different things.
But then again, some people like to impress others with size. :)
Shucks, I wasn't even counted in the survey. How about a category "32 square feet or less". I only have 30 square feet. >:(
Guess I could build a wall wraparound shelf layout in my bathroom and have 80 square feet. :D
We have 60 acres ranch proper, I would build a full scale railroad except for the 10% grades.
Amazing how this thread has gone from "split gears" > traction tires > weight > layout size > "can you top this?". Yeah, blame it on me. I should have never mentioned "traction tires". Oops...Excuuuuuuuuuse me. :D
Quote from: jonathan on June 18, 2009, 07:23:17 AM
I feel a poll coming on! I, too, would be very interested to know the average size of a home layout. By the calculations discussed above, my benchwork area is 122 sq ft. If I add isle space for walking around the layout, that's an additional 142 sq ft: total 264 sq ft. If anyone is interested I would be happy to start a new thread. We could call it "Average Layout Size" or something similar. Thoughts?
Regards,
Jonathan
Go for the poll
I myself would opt for the net size of the layout. Aisle areas would in my opinion distort the real layout size.
Also note that the poll would be for HO only.
When I previously asked what the average size was I was surprised how many people took exception to the word "average", it appears that a more acceptable word would have been typical size.
Sheldon, my layout is still only 64 sq ft. Its only 2 - 4x8 homasote covered plywood no matter how its sliced
The basement is 15' wide
(http://s167.photobucket.com/albums/u134/pdleth/th_presentlayout-1.jpg)