ONLINE
STORE
"ASK THE BACH MAN"
FORUM
PARTS, SERVICE,
& INFORMATION
CATALOGS AND
BROCHURES

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 11, 2019, 03:40:19 PM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Check out the photo gallery link above or >click here< to see photos of recently announced products!
+  Bachmann Message Board
|-+  Discussion Boards
| |-+  Large
| | |-+  1/20.3 K-27
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7 Print
Author Topic: 1/20.3 K-27  (Read 40318 times)
ollie

View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: September 01, 2007, 07:07:21 PM »

Well, I am just happy to see this! I guess by far the greatest news on Fscale. Yes I will budget one..... Can't belive it, incredible. Cool Cool Cool
Naturally I'd love to see photos....
Logged
the Bach-man
Administrator


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: September 01, 2007, 11:10:55 PM »

Dear All,
I've corrected my hasty post to eight foot diameter track. Another mistake appears on the flyer prepared for the show- it says Die Cast, but it should say Die Cast PARTS.
I'll continue to post info as cleared, and I have several photos to post asap.
Have fun!
the Bach-man
Logged
Rods UP 9000

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: September 02, 2007, 12:17:48 AM »

 THANK YOU for the K-27.
After looking at the HO scale Blackstone K-27(this is why the long delay of the 20.3 version), BACHMAN did a outstanding job of researching the K-27. With that done, I know each different offerings will be correct. ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS LOOK AT THE BLACKSTONE MODELS of it. Now all I need to figure which 3 do I want to accompany my other K'S (Berlyn K-36, K-37 and Accucraft K-28)
 Rodney
Logged
Hunt
?
MBB


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: September 02, 2007, 02:57:08 AM »

Bach-man,
1) Will all wiring in the K-27 use a consistent color scheme to identify a wire’s function?
2) Will there be documentation and supporting diagram(s) to identify the function of each wire?
Logged
the Bach-man
Administrator


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: September 02, 2007, 11:27:48 AM »

Dear Hunt,
We are working on the interface now, so I hope so. Those who saw it in Portland were very enthusiastic.
Have fun!
the Bach-man
Logged
Curmudgeon
Guest
« Reply #35 on: September 02, 2007, 11:51:37 AM »

So, let me get this right.
http://www.mylargescale.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=48304
Seems Stanley has been working and developing with H.Lee and Lewis P, and has this wonderful socket (which the vast majority could care less about in large scale at this point), we have Mikey, who doesn't do LS, concerned about color codes, and of course, the ever important documentation, and the official word is "We are working on the interface now,"...........
I had strong opinions about dcc and dcc users, most of whom it seems wanted to jump right to the "executive position" without having a clue as to how to actually DO something (to wit: "WAH! How do I install DCC?"), the misguided guidance ("Open frame Pittman motors cannot be used with DCC as one side is grounded". What a load of manure) and they want to do it without removing anything from the track or turning it over.
I now have stronger opinions.

Holy Crap.

As poorly as some are about lubrication and inspection, I would make absolutely certain there were a dozen screws underneath to remove to access anything so the "wonderful consumer" would have to inspect and hopefully lubricate moving parts when he had it upside down.

I see the same community that wants single wire feed is now basically demanding 24-wire-harnesses between loco and tender (complete isolation at the tender......isolation of flicker "A", flicker "B", cab light, head light, markers, smoke, chuff, motors, and gawd only knows what else).

Right now, with the limited photgraphic evidence available, it appears I may have to find another box for electronics.
Logged
Noah Effingway

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: September 02, 2007, 03:05:06 PM »

Aw, cheer up, esteemed Curmudgeon.

First of all, even the 1:1 guys had to turn theirs upside down to work on them or lubricate them:



So, doing the same for the model should be a mere trifle.

My bet is, if there's some joint project with Aristocraft headed up by Mr. Ames, that the kind of Glastnost involved in THAT kind of accord will take a whole LONG time.

That should leave plenty of room in the tender for the proclaimed "Easily Converted for Battery Operation" and "Room Available for Sound Installation" on the ones we'll see anytime soon.

Noah E.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2007, 03:09:40 PM by Noah Effingway » Logged
JerryB

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: September 02, 2007, 04:11:55 PM »

It's interesting that one of the persons who has made the most public noise about not turning the new K-27 upside down for DCC installations has previously reported lots of gear failures on his equipment (not Bachmann). We can probably surmise that those failures were at least partly due to a lack of lubrication, as properly lubricating a locomotive also requires 'upside down'. Makes me wonder how long the new K-27 is gong to run without proper lubrication, regardless of the DCC installation.

This whole push to DCC is being done by a few folks who would rather work on computers, programming, codes and electronics rather than running a model railroad. Dealers and manufacturers of DCC components are strongly involved in this push. I fully respect that this computer control stuff is a small segment of the model RRing hobby, but just that, a small segment of a very large hobby.

As an example of some of the problems DCC brings, the so-called "hybrid' drive currently being pushed forward is the result of at least one proponent / supplier of DCC finding that the amount of track and wheel cleaning required to keep power and signal going to the target locomotive was even more than straight DC power required. Hybrid drive may be somewhat effective in solving part of this problem, but it really adds another level of complexity to an already unnecessary and overly complex solution to a simple problem. And largely done just so DCC supporters can sell more of their products.

Too bad that newcomers are being forced to participate in the push to fully DCC powered layouts. More so when outdoor running is considered. How many folks will want to get started in the model RRing hobby, read all the hype about DCC, try some of it (or even be forced to try it due to equipment availability), find out how much tech work is involved just to get a train around a circle, then give up the hobby.

I believe the folks pushing this as a universal solution do the hobby a great disservice, and manufacturers who are trying to make this a required standard / purchase also hurt all of us in the hobby.

Happy RRing,

Jerry
« Last Edit: September 02, 2007, 04:18:18 PM by JerryB » Logged

Sequoia Pacific RR in 1:20 / 70.6mm
Boonville Light & Power Co. in 1:20 / 45mm
Navarro Engineering & Construction Co. in 1:20 / 32mm
NMRA Life Member #3370
Member: Bay Area Electric Railway Association
Member: Society for the Preservation of Carter Railroad Resources
yrfavdob

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: September 02, 2007, 10:08:35 PM »

Actually the stacks are not straight but taper in towards the top - many manufacturers got that wrong over the years. Briefly looked the 453 model over at Portland and domes do not seem quite right (too narrow perhaps - or it might be my eyes)but a very impressive model.   Dennis O'Berry                                         
Ummm.......(oh boy!) uh......guys? I hate to nit-pick right off the bat (especially since I have been waiting so long!) but that tapered stack is wrong! I checked through Dennis O'Berry's book, "The Mudhens" which has copious amounts of pictures of all of the K-27's and only found one picture with a tapered stack and that was of #463 when she was still a Vauclain compound engine in 1908! Every other picture shows a straight stack! How could Bachmann make such a glaring error??!! I sincerely hope that someone at Bachmann caught this early enough so that when the production models come out this will have been corrected! (If not, Accucraft makes a stack that would work in it's place.)
Logged
Perry Ottoman

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: September 03, 2007, 02:52:48 AM »

I believe thats just an optical illusion caused by the perspective of converging verticles. Take a look at this, looks parallel to me. 



I've got loads of pics and they all look like this.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2007, 02:56:04 AM by Perry Ottoman » Logged
r.cprmier

View Profile
« Reply #40 on: September 03, 2007, 07:42:19 AM »

Really a great looking model!!  Kudos to those little cuties in that Chinese factory.  Sure beats hell out of making defective dog food.  I will be buying two anyway.  Two questions do come to mind, though:

1: Will I still be able to keep my HO layout?

2: Will the Prototype Police come and arrest me if they catch me operating it on my free-lance railroad?

Again; great job, Bachman.

RIch
Logged

Rich

NEW YORK NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RR. CO.
-GONE, BUT NOT FORGOTTEN!
bobgrosh

View Profile
« Reply #41 on: September 03, 2007, 09:54:32 AM »

So, let me get this right.
http://www.mylargescale.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=48304
Seems Stanley has been working and developing with H.Lee and Lewis P, and has this wonderful socket (which the vast majority could care less about in large scale at this point), we have Mikey, who doesn't do LS, concerned about color codes, and of course, the ever important documentation, and the official word is "We are working on the interface now,"...........
I had strong opinions about dcc and dcc users, most of whom it seems wanted to jump right to the "executive position" without having a clue as to how to actually DO something (to wit: "WAH! How do I install DCC?"), the misguided guidance ("Open frame Pittman motors cannot be used with DCC as one side is grounded". What a load of manure) and they want to do it without removing anything from the track or turning it over.
I now have stronger opinions.

Holy Crap.

As poorly as some are about lubrication and inspection, I would make absolutely certain there were a dozen screws underneath to remove to access anything so the "wonderful consumer" would have to inspect and hopefully lubricate moving parts when he had it upside down.

I see the same community that wants single wire feed is now basically demanding 24-wire-harnesses between loco and tender (complete isolation at the tender......isolation of flicker "A", flicker "B", cab light, head light, markers, smoke, chuff, motors, and gawd only knows what else).

Right now, with the limited photgraphic evidence available, it appears I may have to find another box for electronics.

These are some very good points Dave. I really have to agree with you.

As a DCC user, I could care less about some stupid plug, socket or connector. Most likely, it will end up being something that a big DCC dealer can buy, mark up 2,000% and sell.  Just what we need, something keyed and hard to find or only available from Tyco industries in case lots of 1,000.
I would probably cut it off. strip the wires and put them into the small screw terminals on a generic decoder.


The only good thing about a NMRA plug, is that I can identify which of those 20 or so black and white wires goes to what by it's position on the plug. I won't have to tear the loco COMPLETELY apart or waste time with an ohm meter tracking down every wire.

Done right, a plug will allow you to disconnect all the insane electronics some manufacturers cram into their locos and toss them. That would be a boom for battery/RC, DCS, DCC or any other type of control system.

As far as I'm concerned, each manufacturer could come up with their own "standard". If they want to use some weird proprietary plug, fine, as long as they sell a mating plug with a pigtail and identify what each wire goes to. I think most anyone could then get the right wires into the right screw terminals on a decoder.


Quote
I see the same community that wants single wire feed is now basically demanding 24-wire-harnesses between loco and tender (complete isolation at the tender......isolation of flicker "A", flicker "B", cab light, head light, markers, smoke, chuff, motors, and gawd only knows what else).

I'm not sure what sort of idiot WANTS a 24 wire harness to the tender. I sure don't. I don't even want two wires. When I install DCC in my locos with tenders, I use a separate decoder in the tender just for the backup light. I even forgo a cam and use auto chuff if the speaker ends up in the tender. I'd much prefer the loco has good pickup and not even have to add track wires to the tender for extra pickups. I do want access to every light. If the firebox has two lights, I want them separate. Most decoders do have at least two different lights for the firebox.

Please don't tell me to wire to one regulator that feeds 16 different little circuit board scattered all over the loco.

When I saw the pictures and discovered there is all those wires (on TWO plugs) I thought, GAWD, what a nightmare.

A few weeks of running outside on my layout and the Florida humidity would have me cussing those connectors all the time, at least until I punt the loco into my neighbors yard for his pit bulls to play with.

However, in my case I know I can't rewire a highly detailed Bachmann Spectrum loco without breaking off dozens of little parts. BUT THAT'S JUST ME!!! I've done dozens of smaller locos. Ones I can hold in one hand. I've even done a few larger ones using 2" foam rubber pads, but those were "toy" trains made to be handled.


 The only way I will ever be able to run Bachman Spectrum locos is indoors. The only way I'll be able to get one with DCC is if it comes with it, or very easy to install. I've wanted to run the geared locos since I first saw them. My very first "G" loco was a Bachmann Bighauler set just to try out the size. My first big loco purchase was a first run Shay.

Here is my experience with those:
I converted the Bighauler. Had to get inside the motor block, rewire, etc. Took the whole thing apart. Used 2 inch foam pad on work surface. Never broke a single part. Converted it THREE TIMES, once to battery/RC Then to DCC and again to DCC with sound. NO PARTS BROKEN DURING ANY CONVERSION.

I got the first run Shay. I drove 300 miles to pick it up to avoid shipping damage. I selected one from the center of a pallet. Outer brown carton in perfect condition. There were 6 broken parts in the sealed bag containing the loco. The dealer broke two more taking the loco out of the bag to check it on the test track. I figured I could glue them back on and got the Shay anyway.

Once home, I tried laying it on my two inch foam on the left side. I broke off all but one of the hooks for the water hose, and a step. I decided to set it on a display track and glue the parts back on. It was moved to a display case where it sat for years.

Once, my son and I managed to move it to the garden railroad without breaking anything. We ran it about 30 feet using DC, pulling a dozen cars. I did not order metal replacement trucks. It has not been run since.

Last December, I bought a three truck shay. When my indoor layout is ready, I'll have my two grown sons come over and help me unpack it, lubricate it, and set it on the rails. I ordered it with DCC and sound. I will never be take it off the rails.

Maybe I'm a klutz. I WILL admit that. I do NOT like to admit that I have limitations, but, just so you know, the only locos I can pick up and handle or carry are the smaller 0-4-0's etc. I've done nearly 50 DCC conversions and never broke any parts on items that weigh 5 or 10 pounds. My biggest problem was getting out tight screws on diesel fuel tanks.

All my larger locos that I regularly run (Mikado, Moguls, FA FB came with DCC. My granddaughter helped me get them unboxed, Kadee'd and, together, we set them on the rails in the back yard. They have never been off the rails since.

 I have converted a few larger locos. A pacific and some F units. They take me a long time. Those locos have no where near the detail of the Shay and I had no problem with broken parts. However, working on big heavy locos is not something I find easy.



It's interesting that one of the persons who has made the most public noise about not turning the new K-27 upside down for DCC installations has previously reported lots of gear failures on his equipment (not Bachmann). We can probably surmise that those failures were at least partly due to a lack of lubrication, as properly lubricating a locomotive also requires 'upside down'. Makes me wonder how long the new K-27 is gong to run without proper lubrication, regardless of the DCC installation.
... snip
Jerry
Sorry Jerry but you would be wrong to surmise that the failures were ... due to a lack of lubrication.

Those locos were properly lubricated in the factory. According to the manufacturer they should not need gear lubrication until the gear, brushes, or motor are replaced. Nearly all my gear failures were confined to more than a dozen (belt drive) Field Railway locos.

Two of them (new) failed on the dealers test track during the normal test run many dealers are required to do for that brand of loco. ( I never even touched them.) The dealers (two different ones) sent them for repair.

Six of them failed within the first 5 minutes of operation when I got them home. Run very slow, started gently, not pulling any cars. One of them only traveled two inches before the gears gave out.

Two of them (both part of Disney sets) never failed.

There were 5 failures of the repaired ones on the dealers test tracks when they came back from repair.

I never even got them home and they had to go back a second time.

One went back three times. I called the manufacturer (not Bachmann) and he accuded me of abusing them. Can you imagine? I not only never actually touched the one that failed three times, I never even got to hold the box it came in.

In all, I've had 26 gear failures on these particular locos.

It was not due to lubrication.

I wondered why these locos kept striping the gears. Only the tips of the gears were broke off. I took a lot of measurements, even made cad drawings and discovered that only the outer half of the plastic teeth are making contact with the worm on the motor shaft. I confirmed that this was not right with Barry in a post on MLS. Then I took one loco to a machine shop that makes R/C race cars. All I had them do was drill a larger hole for the rear axle that was closer to the motor and install a bushing. This moved the axle closer to the motor.  I then installed new, OEM plastic gears. The modified loco, weighted down with a 20 pound bag of buckshot, pulled 3 heavyweight passenger cars (three axle trucks) for 7 hours non stop.
In all my excitement to try out the new axle position, I realized after the test that I had forgotten to lubricate the new gear.

The loco still runs today. At nearly $200.00 each to have the rear axle repositioned, I decided to abandon the small field locos except for the three I now have that work.

I've spent nearly 20 hours on the phone with people at the locos service department concerning this problem. Naturally, they officially deny any problem. Unofficially one engineer admitted that a series of the motor blocks used in some of those models have a reputation for stripping gears.

By the way. I have absolutely NO problem picking one of those locos up, turning it over, lubricating it. tearing it apart or putting it together. I can probably do it with my eyes closed. I can hold it in one had without breaking it.
Logged
bobgrosh

View Profile
« Reply #42 on: September 03, 2007, 10:09:44 AM »

...snip
This whole push to DCC is being done by a few folks who would rather work on computers, programming, codes and electronics rather than running a model railroad. Dealers and manufacturers of DCC components are strongly involved in this push. I fully respect that this computer control stuff is a small segment of the model RRing hobby, but just that, a small segment of a very large hobby.
... snip

Maybe the the whole push to battery RC is being done by a few folks who would rather charge batteries, hack up battery cars and wire in electronics rather than running a model railroad. Dealers and manufacturers of battery RC components are strongly involved in this push. I fully respect that this battery/RC control stuff is a small segment of the model RRing hobby, but just that, a small segment of a very large hobby.

Maybe Battery users don't like cleaning track to run on DC
Maybe DCC users don't like cleaning track to run on DC... or charging batteries.



...snip
As an example of some of the problems DCC brings, the so-called "hybrid' drive currently being pushed forward is the result of at least one proponent / supplier of DCC finding that the amount of track and wheel cleaning required to keep power and signal going to the target locomotive was even more than straight DC power required. Hybrid drive may be somewhat effective in solving part of this problem, but it really adds another level of complexity to an already unnecessary and overly complex solution to a simple problem.

...snip
First of all, for those who have not run a DCC layout in the garden, DCC eliminates most (but not all) track cleaning. Many DCC users report cleaning track once or twice a year.

Ask any DCC user  who has been running for months on DCC to temporarily connect DC to their rails. It will take them hours to get the trains to run on their dirty track.

Some DCC users who run only locos with track sliders, NEVER clean their rails.

Hybrid drive:

Several years ago, George tried capacitors, Big clunky ones. Following his methods, I tried small rechargeable batteries and circuitry to switch to battery on dirty track. Did the duct tape on the rails for other garden railroaders 8 years ago. Worked like magic. Used it for two years in 5 locos. Then abandoned it.

Useless technology.

You are 100% right, it  adds another level of complexity to an already unnecessary and overly complex solution.

1 It is not necessary, (unless you have a pervert with a duct tape fetish in your neighborhood)
2 It really only is of any use in small locos with a short wheelbase. Of course, small locos have the least room for such things.
3 It helps with larger light weight locos that have poor pickups or no sliders. But, filling the space needed for batteries, relays and wiring with lead weight will often be more effective.
4 If you look at the Hybrid schematic, you see that the battery supplies power through a normally open contact. Set the loco on track with tape over one rail. There is no power reaching the decoder from the rails (tape) and no power reaching the decoder from the battery. (normally open contact stops that.) So, ask yourself two questions, Where is the decoder getting the power to read signals through the paper? Where does the decoder get it's power to energize the relay so it can switch to battery? The loco ain't gonna move.

Years ago, I and several others improved the the battery backup concept (It was not called Hybrid back then.) beyond what is currently being pushed.  One improvement was to wire the battery through the normally closed relay contact, energize the relay from the track power.  In effect, it just DISCONNECTS the battery when not needed and connects it to a trickle charging circuit. After lots on trials, many experiments, hundreds of hours running, the whole concept was dumped. Reasons sited above and several others besides.

...snip
 And largely done just so DCC supporters can sell more of their products.
...snip
Sorry, but I do not see many DCC manufacturers jumping on that bandwagon.
Let's try to understand why it IS being pushed.
There are two methods of getting the DCC data into the micro processor, resistive, and capacitive.
Resistive looks at voltage polarity (pos - neg) to read data. Noise can be filtered out just by smoothing it with a filter capacitor. . Capacitive looks at changes. Every piece of sand produces a change. Capacitive pickup can read through tape, resistive can't. Capacitive pickup is so prone to noise that some model railroad clubs have banned the use of those decoders on their club railroads. Most decoder manufacturers use resistive signal pickup.

It is my opinion that battery back on DCC is only being pushed as a band aid for problems with capacitive pickup.
I don't know anyone who tried battery backup years ago that still endorses the idea, including me. Newer, better decoders and better track contact, eliminates the need for it.

...snip
Too bad that newcomers are being forced to participate in the push to fully DCC powered layouts. More so when outdoor running is considered. How many folks will want to get started in the model RRing hobby, read all the hype about DCC, try some of it (or even be forced to try it due to equipment availability), find out how much tech work is involved just to get a train around a circle, then give up the hobby.

I believe the folks pushing this as a universal solution do the hobby a great disservice, and manufacturers who are trying to make this a required standard / purchase also hurt all of us in the hobby.

Happy RRing,

Jerry
I know of absolutely no one who is being forced to buy DCC. The Shay is available in many models without DCC, including two undecorated ones. The DCC version is only available in three modes, including two undecorated ones. LGB made quite a few DCC locos. All of them ran on DC. Look at the difference in price between the shays, You can't buy a decent sound card for that.

If I understand the K27 info so far, nobody will be forced to use DCC in it. Supposedly, it should make installing ANY system much easier. (Read cheaper if you have someone else do it for you.) I'm all for that.

I am not for letting the NMRA dictate a design. They have not been very good at that lately. It could be that some decoder manufactures have way to much influence and are pushing pet designs. Maybe there is two much politicks. I have talked to the owners of a couple DCC companies who complain that any new designs of theirs gets stuck in endless review while suddenly other manufactures come up with competing (and sometimes non working) solutions and those are pushed through. That is what is hurting the hobby.

I am NOT for a standard plug. No standard plug will work for every loco. Small scales, yes, but there are way to many possibilities in large scale to be covered by one design. IE: will it force us to only use 2 wire DC motors instead of the next generation 3 wire brushless motors?

Here is what I AM for:
I'm for making it easy to convert analog DC locos to any other technology, (other than steam or clockwork)

I'm all for manufacturers developing their own standards and offering a plug to fit their locos with an optional pigtail featuring NMRA color codes.

I'm all for making it easy to remove all their basic DC electronics and swapping it with any other DCC or battery/RC control system.

I'm all for them selling their own DCC or battery RC system as a separate item, pre-wired to their own standard for direct plug and play.

I'm all for them working with other DCC and battery/RC suppliers in advance of any new additions to their standard. It should be noted that Digitrax offers the exact same decoder in dozens of different shapes and with different connectors for installation in dozens of different locos and brands of locos. Only a couple of those locos have the NMRA plug.

I'm all for them working with people in the industry who are DCC and/or battery/RC installers to improve the way their products perform and upgrade with different solutions. (Confidentiality agreements of course.) To me that is a much better solution that submitting it to the NMRA where all you competitors can copy it, nix it or delay it till they have your new improvement.

I am for complying with minimum NMRA standards og track, motor and running lights where posible.

Frankly, even though I am a DCC user, I would much rather trust TOC to design the wiring in a loco than anyone from the bureaucracy the NMRA has become in the last few years. TOC understands what it takes to make a loco work. The NMRA understands how to recruit members and form committees.

Last. I would have preferred a plug in solution behind the firebox door for the motor and loco lights. A second in the tender for the sound and backup lights. As long as I don't have the wrestle with a 50 pound locos and run the risk of scratching it, or braking off some beautiful little detail, I'm fine.

Added plugs between the tender for track power or battery are fine too, better if I can leave them off. To put two huge plugs between the loco and tender is just plain stupid (in my opinion). However, if that is the only way the loco gets made, then I'll live with it. If it turns out to be a big pain, then next time I'll know to look somewhere else for motive power.

B0B
Logged
Curmudgeon
Guest
« Reply #43 on: September 03, 2007, 11:42:23 AM »


[/quote]
I know of absolutely no one who is being forced to buy DCC. The Shay is available in many models without DCC, including two undecorated ones. The DCC version is only available in three modes, including two undecorated ones.
B0B

[/quote]

Bob, Bob, Bob.
Try to buy a Westside 3-truck Shay without Quasinami.

Unless someone did you a favor and gutted it, that's the only was, and for a $100 or so fee.

This wonderful plug.

Outdoors.
Moisture, corrosion, all of that.

When asked some time ago, I recommended a simply screw terminal strip, with a jumper wire on one side.
No mating plugs, no corroded contacts, simple insert wires and tighten screws (even from above).

But, somebody somewhere decided to go with something else.
I have never asked for or advocated any plug and socket arrangement to satisfy one particular manufacturer, supplier, or sub-advisor.
I figured a screw terminal strip is about as generic as you can get.

Oh, and the ex-LGB late Moguls, with sound, and MTS ONLY.......you had no freaking choice, and you put any PW power into it, you get smoke.
Logged
James Thomas

View Profile
« Reply #44 on: September 03, 2007, 01:06:34 PM »

If model railroading is fun, why are there so many angry model railroaders?

I have large scale indoors.  When I got Bachmann's 2-8-0 I had major clearance problems -- but managed to eleviate them.  I think someone said that the 2-8-0 is very wide for its size.  Question:  If the 2-8-0 fits, is there a good chance the K-27 will fit?  Likely the cab roof may swing out farther around curves (8 foot diameter)?

Another question:  The ability to interface with other electronics is interesting, but will we still be able to do simple things like have two power leads go into a Phoenix or Sierra sound system, and have an exhaust cam on an axle with wire leads into the tender?

Looking forward to seeing the K-27 in the stores.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!