Quote from: kmcsjr on May 29, 2017, 06:49:40 PMRead Spookshow's writeup.

I read it.  It appears that the mechanism is binding on those curves.  The cars are eighty-nine feet long, which is something of which I was not aware.  No wonder they need a nineteen inch radius curve and even that one ain't the best.

Quote from: kmcsjr on May 28, 2017, 12:31:41 PM
19" minimum radius required, for that set.

It requires that broad a curve?  I am not disputing what you state, I simply find it curious.  I would not buy an Acela nor would I run one, as it is far out of my era.  Still, the nineteen inch radius piques my curiosity.

I would concur that an 11,25 inch radius would be far too sharp for any passenger cars other than shorties.  An 11,25 inch radius curve works out to just shy of twenty-one inches in HO, which puts it near the mid-point of the "sharp" category.  Passenger cars seventy feet or more, especially if they have body mounted couplers, do not do well on "sharp" or even "conventional" (twenty-four to thirty inch radius in HO, thirteen inches to just over sixteen, in N).  I have gotten away with running full length passenger cars on Kato 13,75 inch UNITRACK (just over twenty-five inches in HO) which is toward the low end of "conventional".  They look pretty silly.

They will not run on a seventeen inch curve, -eh?  A nineteen inch curve works out to just under thirty five inches in HO, which puts it solidly in the "broad" category. 

When I learned this curve business, I was in HO.  At the time, those in the know were teaching us rookies that unless you wanted to run brass, almost anything would run on a thirty inch curve (just over sixteen inches, in N).  Brass was far beyond my means as a high school student, even though I did have jobs in high school.  When I saw how some of the brass locomotives of that era ran, anyhow, I was glad that I was not tempted to save my quarters for one.  In fact, when I see how some of the current N scale brass runs, I will not spend my  money on it.

To Original Poster:

B-mann does sell E-Z TRAK in nineteen inch radius.  Atlas sells SNAP-TRAK in nineteen and a half inch radius.  Kato has an equivalent, but I forget the exact radius, now.  If you use the Atlas, you must use some sort of roadbed.  If you are going to try to mate the Atlas and B-mann or Kato, you must shim the cork or the track, as the B-mann and Kato track do sit higher than does the Atlas on cork.  Mind you, I am not panning the B-mann or Kato track.  Both serviceable.  I use them on my pike, as I use Atlas SNAP-TRAK and FLEX-TRAK, Kato UNITRAM and PECO.

If, indeed, this is the problem, you might also want to get some track cleaner fluid, dip a Q-tip into it and slop some on the armature of the motor where the brushes are. (it is the narrow, copper colored shaft toward the "front" part of the motor)  This will help to clean the gunk from it.  Failing track cleaner, some seventy-one per-cent rubbing alcohol should do the trick, just take care  not to slop any onto the painted surfaces of the model.

Another thing to check is to make sure that the stiff wires in the drawbar (the shaft that connects tender to locomotive) are clean and making proper contact with the split post on the back underside of the locomotive.   If they are not, you  might have to clean the contact post and stiff wires.  If you try to bend them inwards, DO SO VERY CAREFULLY.  Those wires are delicate and break/come unsoldered easily.  You might try taking a small pair of needlenosed pliers and gripping the stiff wires at their base before you pinch them inward.

If there is no split contact post on the back underside of the locomotive, you have an even older version of this.  Instead, there are two brass tabs that contact the drawbar.  You might have to clean those and bend them up from the bottom, slightly.  You can improve the contact further by making sure that the contact tabs on the front tender wheelset are making proper contact with the drawbar.  It is best to disassemble the tender truck to do this, but, if you do not think that you can get it back together, you might get away with loosening the screw and pushing up on the tabs.  Do not loosen it too much and take care that you do not pop the tab/wiper out of the truck.

I recall measuring the drivers on the MDC 2-8-0 many years back.  They scaled out to forty-eight inches.  I can not find my calipers, right now, so I can not be sure, any more.  Athearn now sells the same locomotive.  If I can find my calipers after I get back from the Nationals game, I will measure them, again.  The 2-8-0 in question does have both middle pairs of drivers blinded.

Those things had various wheel arrangements, including an 0-8-0.  I do not know if the dimensions of the MDC/Athearn locomotive might match some of the Winans.  I would expect not, as the MDC/Athearns are 1880s power.

Still, if my measurement was correct, the MDC/Athearn drivers are two to three scale inches closer to the Winans drivers.

Nice weathering jobs on the power and rolling stock.

My B-mann 2-8-0s often climb on nine and three quarters and will sometimes derail.  They always climb and derail on anything sharper.

B-mann sold this in some versions as a 2-8-2 and some as a 2-8-0.  It is really based on a Reading Company I-9 or I-10 (I forget which), which was a 2-8-0.

A while back, I did a test fit to the chassis of what was then a SPECTRUM 2-8-0.  It looked like it would go, but would require more than a little work.  If you want to keep the shell, you could do that.  You would have to give up the Vanderbilt tender, though, as the newer 2-8-0 does require the all wheels live tender.

While the gear ratios were pretty good, the constitution of the gears was not the best.  They tended to crack.  The motor was not the best, either.

I would buy the B-mann 2-8-0 and run it as it is.  If a 2-8-2 you must have, I would buy a Kato USRA heavy or Model Power USRA light.  Several of the MP USRA light 2-8-2s do come with Vanderbilts.  The Vanderbilt that you get on the MP is based on an SP Vanderbilt that it ran on eight wheelers, moguls, some consolidateds and some ten wheelers.  In truth, though, the MPs are best when you swap out the stock tender for the B-mann SPECTRUM tender.   If you do not want to do too much work, buy a later run of the Kato 2-8-2, as it has the traction tyre driver and all of the details installed, already.

You are going to get some on the ties.  It happens.  If you look at prototype track, you will see ballast on the ties.  Unless you have high piles of it on the ties, do not worry too much about it.

The way that I do my ballast is to do it in sections of three to six feet.  I put tape on the tops of the rails.  You must, of course, cut down the tape, as all that you want to do is cover the rails.  You do not want too much overhang/excess tape.

Next, I put a line of Elmer's™ or whatever white glue that you choose, down the middle of the track and on each side.  Next, I spray the glue lines with water.  I let the glue lines spread out, then I pour some ballast in a shaker and shake it on the places where I sprayed the glue.  I let it dry, then take a brush and brush  up the excess.

Quote from: James in FL on March 30, 2017, 11:07:19 PM
@brokemoto
YMMV

My mileage has, indeed, varied.  I was finding that if I left the drawbar on the slopeback as it was, the drivers were not making proper contact with the track.  When I did the surgery that Spookshow and others have described to the chassis and flipped over the drawbar, the problems disappeared.  When I left the slopeback as it was, there were derailments, stalls and poor pulling power.  When I made the changes, all disappeared.

I see that you mentioned MBK.  If B-mann's Forum rules will permit discussing dealers and vendors..............................If Original Poster is buying on FeePay, he might note that there is a seller there, Favorite Spot, who sells large quantities of Bachpersonn.  He knows his Bachmann, so if you use the "Ask Seller A Question" feature, he can tell you if it is the new version with the new motor, the new version with the old motor or the old version period.

There were some split frames issued with the old motor.  They were, indeed, a markéd improvement.  I was running one for some time until the tube that held the drivers split on one driver pair.  The tubes appear to be the same on all versions, so I simply must get out one of the old ones and cannibalise it.

There does seem to be some improvement to the one live truck on the stock tender, but it still creates too much drag for my purposes.  In addition, my experience with half wheels live tenders is not the best, while my experience with all wheels live tenders is excellent.

The newest version with the smaller motor is, indeed, a real winner, once you swap in the SPECTRUM tender.  The "prairie" that you received with the older motor is not bad.

If you want to see what can be done with the split frame with the old motor, Skipgear posted his work on one.  He upgraded a Baltimore and Ohio locomotive.  One thing that he did to cover the back of the motor was add a curtain.  B&O ran any USRA locomotives, including the
0-6-0.  It also ran USRA light 2-8-2s and 4-6-2s.  While Model Power has issued them in N, and MRC has taken over the line, MRC did not address the problems in the MP construction methods adequately.  In addition, many of the details are cast onto the locomotive.  I have seen the HO versions of those that B-mann has issued and hope to see them in N.  I am convinced that B-mann could do a better job.  In addition, the B-mann HO versions have high or center mounted headlights, per the practice of the given road.  While all roads received the locomotives from 1918-1920 with center mounted headlights, when a given road rebuilt the locomotives, they moved the headlight if such were the practice.  Thus, the B&O moved all headlights to the high position.

The MPs with a B-mann SPECTRUM tender run very well.  In fact, adding the B-mann tender addresses all of the runnability problems.  The swap is not difficult.

Miranda's Maxim as explained by ke:  "The poor performance of many N scale steam locomotives is almost always directly attributable to poor electrical contact".

ACTUALLY, all is not lost.  If you buy the version in the plastic box with the newest motor (not sticking out the back of the cab), you can take off the locomotive shell that comes on it and swap in the Christmas locomotive shell,  You can then do the tender shell swap as I outlined above.  The swap is easy, as there is a screw in one of the sand domes that holds the locomotive onto the chassis.  B-mann has not changed that in all the years that it has sold this thing.

Are you buying it on FeePay?  ....from an e-Tailer?....from B-mann?

Depending on who is selling it, he might or might not know. 

You really can not tell unless you look at it.  If the  motor is not sticking out the back of the cab, it is the newest version and decidedly split frame.  Do be aware, though, that the last ones issued with the motor's sticking out the back of the cab were split frame, so if the motor is sticking out the back of the cab, you can not always be sure.  If it is one that has the motor's sticking out the back of the cab, if you flip it over and look carefully, you will see frame halves.  If you look at it from the cab end, you will see a split metal contact post for the drawbar.  If you see that, it is a split frame.  If you do not see it, it ain't.

Quote from: James in FL on March 29, 2017, 10:14:37 PM

The Spectrum Short Tender frame measures 2.104in.
The Spectrum Slope Back Tender frame measures 1.801in.
check out what the Spook says about the conversion;
http://www.spookshow.net/loco/bach262.html

If you choose to use the Spectrum Slope Back, then no modifications, other than slightly closing the gap on the tender wires lokie side, are necessary.

Unlike the USRA 0-6-0 that Bachpersonn sells separately, the Christmas Train Set USRA 0-6-0 actually comes with the correct USRA short tender.  Funny thing is that according to someone who would know, not even any of the USRA 0-6-0 copies left the erecting shops with slopeback tenders.  This same person told me that he never saw a photograph of an original or copy USRA 0-6-0 with a slopeback.  Some roads either modified the coal bunker on the USRA short tender or fitted another tender with a narrow coal bunker to them.  This improved the crew's vision to the back.

I suspect that Original Poster wants to upgrade his locomotive but retain the Christmas shell.  Thus, he wants to swap out the stock tender chassis for a SPECTRUM tender chassis.  To do that, he should follow the quoted poster's advice and check out Spookshow's website for a brief and good description of what to do.  Several have stated that if you do the SPECTRUM swap on the slopeback, you need not do the modifications.  I respectfully disagree.  It has been my experience that you must modify the slopeback chassis and flip the drawbar.

To answer the Original Poster's question:

I found an old stock USRA short tender and a SPECTRUM.  In order to remove the stock shell from the chassis, you must undo the screws holding the trucks.  The SPECTRUM shell pops off the chassis.  Thus, the first difference is that there are two poles cast into the tender shell on the stock, which the SPECTRUM lacks.  On the stock tender, the stirrups are cast onto the tender shell; on the SPECTRUM, they are cast onto the tender chassis.  

When I tried the test fit, the stirrups on the stock shell did get in the way.  Be that as it may, it appears that the stock shell will go onto the SPECTRUM chassis.  I deduce this because if you slide the shell slightly forward, it will go down on one end.  The other end, where the stirrup gets in the way, sits up.  It appears that if you clip the stirrups from the stock shell, it will go onto the SPECTRUM chassis.  I was somewhat less than willing to try clipping the stirrups from mine, but, likely I will do it in the future, as the stock shell with which I was doing the test fit is lettered for the BALTIMORE AND OHIO Railroad.  While I do have some SPECTRUM tenders so lettered, if I do enough swaps on the USRA 0-6-0, I might need it.  

Another thing that might be necessary would be to shorten or clip altogether the poles cast into the inside of the shell of the stock tender.  Despite all of this, I did note that the fit was rather loose.  Thus, if you picked up the tender by the shell, the chassis would fall out.  I would shy from gluing the tender to the chassis, but perhaps Original Poster could wrap some tape inside the shell or find a place to pin or screw  the shell to the chassis.

It looks like it will go with a minimum of work.



EDITORIAL NOTE:  I went upstairs and got out my parts/bashing donor bags and boxes.  It appears that I have more than a few of the stock tenders.  Further, I have several packages of the Gold Medal brass stirrup sheets, thus, I ever I need this particular tender shell and it must have the stirrups, I can replace the stirrups with something from the Gold Medal sheet.

I took a stock tender shell and clipped the stirrups.  It will fit.  The fit is quite loose, so Original Poster must come up with a way to secure the stock shell to the SPECTRUM chassis.  If you are going to leave the shell as is, you must cut down the poles on the stock shell, slightly.  Even then, stock shell is going to sit funny on SPECTRUM chassis.  If Original Poster only wants it for a Christmas Train and is not too touchy about how the shell sits on the chassis, all that he need to is figure out how to secure shell to chassis.

If, however, Original Poster wants a better looking locomotive, he should compare the SPECTRUM shell to the stock shell.  What he will observe is that there is a bar, which represents part of the underframe that would be on the prototype, that is cast onto the stock shell.  On the SPECTRUM tender, the underframe bar is on the chassis.  Thus, for a better appearance, it will be necessary to trim that undeframe bar from the stock shell.  Note that on the stock tender, the chassis fits inside the shell, while on the SPECTRUM, the shell goes onto the chassis.  This can be accomplished with a fresh, sharp eXacto™ blade, a metal straight edge and a VERY HIGH DEGREE OF PATIENCE AND CARE.   Once Original Poster trims the underframe bar from the stock tender shell, said shell will seat properly onto the SPECTRUM chassis.  In addition, Original Poster will need to cut down the poles cast onto the inside of the stock shell even more.  Still, Original Poster must come up with a way to secure the shell to the chassis, as the stock shell sits loosely on the SPECTRUM chassis.

Quote from: kmcsjr on March 26, 2017, 07:44:24 PM
.... Atlas/MicroAce 2-6-0 Mogul (that isn't reviewed as the best runner...

C'mon Bach Man! Get developing small stuff!

The latest version of the B-mann 1870s eight wheeler is actually pretty good.  Buy the version that comes in the plastic box.  The problem with the Atlas/Micro-Ace mogul is that only one "truck" on the tender is live.  Because the electrical contact is so limited, the thing will stall of straight and level at speeds of twenty-five SMPH or less.  The thing runs nicely--when it runs.  The only thing that will save the Atlas mogul is hardwiring it to a live boxcar, caboose or baggage car.


Fortunately, Atlas did address the problem with its eight wheeler.  All of the "trucks" on the tender are live on that one.   All of the tender trucks on the B-mann eight wheeler are live, as well.  Those on the Bachpersonn pivot, as well, which neither of the Atlas do.

The Micro-Ace is an actual model that it did for the market in Japan.  It is based on a 2-6-0 that Baldwin built for Japan in the 1870s.  One prototype does survive.  As I understand it, Atlas approached Micro-Ace with the idea of hanging nineteenth century U.S. and Canada road names on it.  Micro-Ace agreed, as long as no alterations were made to the basic model.   Thus, the only two wheels live on each pole.


The Atlas/Micro-Ace is yet another illustration of Miranda's Maxim as explained by ke:   "The poor performance of many N scale steam locomotives is almost always attributable to poor electrical contact."

The funny thing is that Miranda's Maxim applies less to the Bachmann eight wheeler.  The contact has been the same throughout the various versions of this one.  There is only so much contact that you can get out of something so small.  The problem for years with the B-mann eight wheeler was its construction.  The things used to wobble quite a bit.  In addition, the performance varied wildly model-to-model.  GF has one that will hold a steady twenty five SMPH and pull fifteen nineteenth century cars of various manufacture, on MT trucks, up a one per-cent grade.  I wonder if the prototype would do that.  I had one or two that could not get out of their own way and had only two speeds:  very fast and not-at-all.

I recall seeing a Disney display at a World's Greatest Hobby On Tour show.  They had a B-mann N scale eight wheeler that was operating quite smoothly at fifteen SMPH and pulling several cars on a roundy-round.  I asked someone at the display about it.  He got one of the technicians for me who went into quite a bit of detail on how they had re-worked the thing to get the wobble out of it.

Shortly after that, a cardboard box version of the eight wheeler appeared that showed a marked improvement.   In fact, I put a MT coupler on one and was using it to switch cars on my nineteenth century pike.  Since then, B-mann has done another wave of improvements to this one.  The plastic box version of it is the latest.  It is very good.  If you have not tried it, you should.

The design of the chassis and especially the shell contribute to the racket.  The long metal frame conducts the sound while the shell serves as an echo chamber.  The result is predictable.  Many of the prototypes were quite noisy, as well.  The B-mann looks much like an Australian doodlebug.  There is a video on youtube of it.

Those are newer issues and I have both of them (not Uncle Pete, but I have the models).  The couplers are compatible with MTs, Unimates, Accu-Mates and other knuckle couplers.  It might take some doing to get them to couple, but they are compatible.