|
Post by Judge Doom on Jul 31, 2015 20:18:55 GMT -8
Honestly, I think you need to go out and buy one of these yourself, then maybe you'll see what the rest of us here that actually own units and have run and tested them have been talking about for a while now on this and other threads. --------------------------------------- If I do this (that's a very good chance) I will back my findings up with video not just words. Well, you're welcome right back for all the trouble many of us have taken testing, disassembling, assessing, measuring and looking into this issue. I'm sorry we don't have any video evidence to show you, I guess we're all lying and the manufacturers are changing their motor for nothing. Just be sure to do it with a 6-motor unit, or you won't be doing it to the full effect - like I said before, you probably won't notice it as much on a 4-motor unit. Heck, the 4-motor units might run perfectly fine, there haven't been many complaints from owners of the new Atlas S2 or Bowser C430's, just the IMRC SD40-2 and Bowser C630/636 owners where that motor initially showed up and plagued them with lackluster performance.
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Aug 1, 2015 1:44:30 GMT -8
I'm missing something about this thread. Bowser and Atlas have declared that they will use an improved motor. Yet here we have four pages of folks defending the old motor? What am I missing?
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Aug 1, 2015 3:22:06 GMT -8
Just be sure to do it with a 6-motor unit, or you won't be doing it to the full effect - like I said before, you probably won't notice it as much on a 4-motor unit. Heck, the 4-motor units might run perfectly fine, there haven't been many complaints from owners of the new Atlas S2 or Bowser C430's, just the IMRC SD40-2 and Bowser C630/636 owners where that motor initially showed up and plagued them with lackluster performance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought we was discussing Atlas new motor as per the topic heading? The only 6 axle locomotive I would be slightly interested in is IM SD40-2 lettered for Family Lines but,I already have two Athearn FL SD40-2s. Still I would like to test one of those IM SD40-2 before buying the second for a 2 unit consist.
I suspect these units would suffice for club use on my standard 17 car train(front roller coaster layout) since I don't weigh my cars to RP20.1.
BTW..I'm not accusing anybody of lying I just want to test these motors myself since I vividly recall the babbling, wailing, gnashing and hand wringing about Atlas N Scale Scale Speed motor being junk..
|
|
|
Post by bnsf971 on Aug 1, 2015 4:28:36 GMT -8
Personally, the only "problem" I ever saw with that N scale motor, is it ran about half the speed of a comparable Kato or early China motor in those N scale diesels. It made MUing a challenge. They ran great, pulled well, and were quiet and smooth.
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Aug 1, 2015 4:41:05 GMT -8
Personally, the only "problem" I ever saw with that N scale motor, is it ran about half the speed of a comparable Kato or early China motor in those N scale diesels. It made MUing a challenge. They ran great, pulled well, and were quiet and smooth. That was one of problems-those slow speed engines couldn't be ran at Mach 5..My roster was 100% Atlas so I had no issues mu'ing my engines like others reported and I fully understood that since those engines was slow even at full throttle.
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Aug 1, 2015 6:25:28 GMT -8
I'm missing something about this thread. Bowser and Atlas have declared that they will use an improved motor. Yet here we have four pages of folks defending the old motor? What am I missing? Three companies have used a weak motor and all three have said they are moving to a better replacement now. A few here say that is BS, the motor is fine, and people are just making it up and lying about any issues. So you are not missing anything.
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Aug 1, 2015 6:27:58 GMT -8
Just be sure to do it with a 6-motor unit, or you won't be doing it to the full effect - like I said before, you probably won't notice it as much on a 4-motor unit. Heck, the 4-motor units might run perfectly fine, there haven't been many complaints from owners of the new Atlas S2 or Bowser C430's, just the IMRC SD40-2 and Bowser C630/636 owners where that motor initially showed up and plagued them with lackluster performance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought we was discussing Atlas new motor as per the topic heading? The only 6 axle locomotive I would be slightly interested in is IM SD40-2 lettered for Family Lines but,I already have two Athearn FL SD40-2s. Still I would like to test one of those IM SD40-2 before buying the second for a 2 unit consist. I suspect these units would suffice for club use on my standard 17 car train(front roller coaster layout) since I don't weigh my cars to RP20.1. BTW..I'm not accusing anybody of lying I just want to test these motors myself since I vividly recall the babbling, wailing, gnashing and hand wringing about Atlas N Scale Scale Speed motor being junk.. The motor was used in the IM 6 axle SD40-2 ! We will wait for your video evidence disproving the mountain of complaints and company decisions to move to the improved motor as false (lies), wailing, and babbling.
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Aug 1, 2015 9:10:51 GMT -8
?? didn't Stewart use Buehler motors for awhile ? have a late U25B and a C628 that have Buehler looking motors in them. Edit-- Thanks Dave my German never got much past "Atchung" . Spikre
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Aug 1, 2015 9:40:42 GMT -8
They were Buehler motors Spikre. All I have are my tests with the old and new motors in C636's. I was given two of the new motors to try by Lee English himself. I was able to drag an old motor C636 backwards while it was at full throttle and weighed an ounce more than my remotored C636 at full throttle. A test with them shoving against each other at full throttle achieved the same results. I posted poor quality on Facebook showing my results. Rob valued my opinioon enough to email me, and Lee valued it enough to test the new motors. I don't know what else folks would like for proof. Lee changed the motors, and as a result Bowser has become my favorite company to deal with. Baldwin sounding C636's notwithstanding...;-)
Dave
|
|
|
Post by canrailfan on Aug 1, 2015 10:29:18 GMT -8
There has been an assumption throughout many threads on motors over the past few months that the appearance of the motor indicates its operating characteristics. While appearance may be a telltale clue, it doesn't in itself indicate how well the motor performs. The magnet material and strength along with the armature winding wire size and method can vary widely and yet be housed in the identical motor case. I've worked with small motors in the past and sometimes the only difference between motors of widely differing operating characteristics was the number stamped on the case.
It may be that the tolerances for the model motor types being used are very wide, yielding some that perform okay and others that don't. Obviously, wider tolerances make the motors cheaper to make.
Some people seem happy with their locos that have what are currently labeled as the 'bad' motors. Maybe they got a motor on the 'good' end of the tolerance limits. Unfortunately, more people have had the opposite experience.
I hope that the replacement motors live up to their early reputation and that one or more of the manufacturers will list the new motors as replacement parts for those who want to buy them. (I have a couple of re-powering projects coming up.)
David
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Aug 1, 2015 11:14:35 GMT -8
Just be sure to do it with a 6-motor unit, or you won't be doing it to the full effect - like I said before, you probably won't notice it as much on a 4-motor unit. Heck, the 4-motor units might run perfectly fine, there haven't been many complaints from owners of the new Atlas S2 or Bowser C430's, just the IMRC SD40-2 and Bowser C630/636 owners where that motor initially showed up and plagued them with lackluster performance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought we was discussing Atlas new motor as per the topic heading? The only 6 axle locomotive I would be slightly interested in is IM SD40-2 lettered for Family Lines but,I already have two Athearn FL SD40-2s. Still I would like to test one of those IM SD40-2 before buying the second for a 2 unit consist. I suspect these units would suffice for club use on my standard 17 car train(front roller coaster layout) since I don't weigh my cars to RP20.1. BTW..I'm not accusing anybody of lying I just want to test these motors myself since I vividly recall the babbling, wailing, gnashing and hand wringing about Atlas N Scale Scale Speed motor being junk.. The motor was used in the IM 6 axle SD40-2 ! We will wait for your video evidence disproving the mountain of complaints and company decisions to move to the improved motor as false (lies), wailing, and babbling. I notice you never posted a photo of your MTH GEVO--just saying...When I test these motors there will be a video.
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Aug 1, 2015 11:20:51 GMT -8
?? Larry, are You going to actually buy a New Loco ? will be waiting on this development. Spikre
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Aug 1, 2015 12:12:32 GMT -8
I agree with David. I will post some comparisons in a day or so. These compare the Boswer C-636 and IM SD40-2 with around 200 other engines that I have tested all in the same way on the same track.
In most of the parameters these two engine compare just below the median of post 2000 engines.
In cases where I have the same model, the motor variations tend to show up clearly. Kato and Atlas have the least variation. Athearn Genesis is all over the place.
This overall data also shows the loss in draw bar force from pre 2000 to post 2000.
I think to know what is going on hard data is needed. While interesting, a video and a tug of war are not conclusive. As David said, one of the motors may be sick while the other is a hot rod. To start having an understanding, a family of at least 10 is required. At that point the statistic significance starts to show up. That is where is gets tough on limited run and new procucts. Because of that the comparisons I show will have to be regarded as a sample of one an not necessarily the norm. The number of complaints imply there are some bad actors out there. Are we hearing about the bad and not about the good?
I'll have more to say after I post the data. The charts are almost ready.
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Aug 1, 2015 12:50:08 GMT -8
The motor was used in the IM 6 axle SD40-2 ! We will wait for your video evidence disproving the mountain of complaints and company decisions to move to the improved motor as false (lies), wailing, and babbling. I notice you never posted a photo of your MTH GEVO--just saying...When I test these motors there will be a video. Oh please Really? Sad
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Aug 1, 2015 12:51:15 GMT -8
?? Larry, are You going to actually buy a New Loco ? will be waiting on this development. Spikre He will need to post verified photographic evidence of everything he claims or be branded a liar here.
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Aug 1, 2015 16:19:53 GMT -8
?? Larry, are You going to actually buy a New Loco ? will be waiting on this development. Spikre Yes..I gotta test it for myself like I did Atlas N Sale Scale Speed Motor..That turned out to be a great motor--unless one wished to operate his trains at Mach 5 then it wasn't a good motor for that type of running. I will go with IM's Family Lines SD40-2 and test it on the club's layout.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Doom on Aug 1, 2015 17:49:21 GMT -8
Combined I've handled/run/tested just under a dozen Bowser C630's and IM SD40-2's - all with the same motor. Only one 630 out of the lot had an acceptable performing motor, the rest were as sluggish as the next. The IM units I was initially impressed with the detailing, but they performed more sluggish than the Bowsers, and were on the light side. Rather than a sick motor here or there, it's more like a plague. Good on Bowser, Atlas and IMRC for pressuring their supplier to change motors. I think to know what is going on hard data is needed. While interesting, a video and a tug of war are not conclusive. As David said, one of the motors may be sick while the other is a hot rod. To start having an understanding, a family of at least 10 is required. At that point the statistic significance starts to show up. That is where is gets tough on limited run and new procucts. Because of that the comparisons I show will have to be regarded as a sample of one an not necessarily the norm. The number of complaints imply there are some bad actors out there. Are we hearing about the bad and not about the good? I'll have more to say after I post the data. The charts are almost ready.
|
|
|
Post by milgentrains on Aug 1, 2015 18:55:40 GMT -8
On a single level switching layout would I have trouble with an IM SD40-2's pulling power?
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Aug 1, 2015 19:22:37 GMT -8
My data would say level track operating at 20 smph or lower would not be a issue at all. Mine had the no sound pilot decoder. It set a standard, for me, crawling along at 0.7 smph. The issue woul come if you tried to pull a load and wanted speeds above this.
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Aug 1, 2015 19:40:53 GMT -8
They were Buehler motors Spikre. All I have are my tests with the old and new motors in C636's. I was given two of the new motors to try by Lee English himself. I was able to drag an old motor C636 backwards while it was at full throttle and weighed an ounce more than my remotored C636 at full throttle. A test with them shoving against each other at full throttle achieved the same results. I posted poor quality on Facebook showing my results. Rob valued my opinioon enough to email me, and Lee valued it enough to test the new motors. I don't know what else folks would like for proof. Lee changed the motors, and as a result Bowser has become my favorite company to deal with. Baldwin sounding C636's notwithstanding...;-) Dave Fact: Stewart/Bowser did use Buehler motors for awhile--and guess what: there were folks who actually hated them and complained about them too. So at some point several years ago now (I honestly don't know when, or even if the complaints were before the internet became so popular) Lee switched away from the Buehler motors to something else. Unfortunately, they ended up with at least one motor that was a dud during the last couple years. I know that at one time the Buehler motors were actually liked in brass imports, but for everyone who I've personally met that says they liked them, I meet people who also say they hated them, too. In my experience it's almost a 50/50 split between love and hate with seemingly very few in the middle. As I believe Dave has found out, Lee is absolutely committed to good customer service and will be truly helpful to those who ask. If Atlas says they are switching motors, I would absolutely believe them, but also understand that for products currently in the pipeline they may not actually know what motor is in the models until they get here--then if it's the wrong one, it's too late for that particular batch, unless somebody decides to go to the extraordinary step of replacing all the motors. I have an Intermountain F unit here that I'm pretty sure has the "craptacular" motor, too, based upon its performance being similar to what has been described above. Hopefully the models with the "craptacular" motor will clear the market place soon and be only a memory. This particular unit isn't too bad other than being noisy and only pulling 5 or 6 lighted passenger cars on my nearly level grades (0.4% max). John
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Aug 1, 2015 20:01:05 GMT -8
Judge Doom--
There's also a "gear fix" for some of the Bowser 6-axle Alcos. I think Dave posted a topic on it some time ago.
Some of them had gears that fit too tightly and needed to have the center hole reamed out, I thought??? They may even have replacement gears available now.
milgentrains--
The performance of the engines with the weak motors, if on a level layout, will depend on how many cars you want to move at one time with one unit. For some folks who have short trains, they might be just fine. However, for folks who run longer trains, and don't have multiple units to throw at them, they will definitely notice performance issues.
I think the real question is how many cars constitutes a "typical" train for you on your layout? If you are less than 10--it may not be a big deal at all. Somewhere between 10 and 20 cars, if it's a weak motor, you may start to see the performance issue--depending upon your horizontal curvature (which increases train friction drag on the rail) and whatever your maximum grade, though actually slight, might be.
My Dad did the benchwork for my current shelf layout. When anchoring it to the wall, we managed to get it "off" by about 0.4% grade--just enough to begin to see a speed reduction due to grade with longer trains running behind a single unit. For me, on my particular layout, most manufacturer's diesels can pull at least 10 normal freight cars, but it's somewhere beyond that length where I begin to notice "issues".
The other issue--which we don't know for sure--is will the weak motor actually last as well as the previous ones? And until somebody documents a thousand or so hours on one, we won't know if they were any good (ie durable enough) for "light duty" engines or not, right?
John
|
|
|
Post by Judge Doom on Aug 1, 2015 20:21:57 GMT -8
Judge Doom-- There's also a "gear fix" for some of the Bowser 6-axle Alcos. I think Dave posted a topic on it some time ago. Some of them had gears that fit too tightly and needed to have the center hole reamed out, I thought??? They may even have replacement gears available now. John I think that was an issue with the later run C636's with the hi-add trucks. Mine are the Canadian C630M versions with the Dofascos. The trucks I had removed (when installing the little wheel slip bearing replacements the model comes with) rolled pretty good on their own.
|
|
|
Post by bnsf971 on Aug 2, 2015 0:25:43 GMT -8
Judge Doom-- There's also a "gear fix" for some of the Bowser 6-axle Alcos. I think Dave posted a topic on it some time ago. Some of them had gears that fit too tightly and needed to have the center hole reamed out, I thought??? They may even have replacement gears available now. John I think that was an issue with the later run C636's with the hi-add trucks. Mine are the Canadian C630M versions with the Dofascos. The trucks I had removed (when installing the little wheel slip bearing replacements the model comes with) rolled pretty good on their own. The issue seemed to start with the C630 with the hi-ad trucks. I have one, and Lee sent me a motor and trucks for it. It works acceptably. Not great, but okay.
|
|
|
Post by Great-Northern-Willmar Div on Aug 2, 2015 4:50:46 GMT -8
On a single level switching layout would I have trouble with an IM SD40-2's pulling power? My Intermountain SD40-2W struggled with 10 free rolling cars on a flat as a pancake layout with 22" radius curves.
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Aug 2, 2015 6:10:13 GMT -8
I am moving my performance comments to another thread.
Does anyone one know what models may have these motors? Does an earlier discussion have a list or initial time period when they started to be used?
|
|
|
Post by Donnell Wells on Aug 2, 2015 22:07:21 GMT -8
Listed below are some specs I found for three of the most common Mashima motors. They were taken from Hollywood Foundry website.
Here are the specs the Igarashi can motor found in BLI locomotives. Model: A182331-130-G-5
Voltage: 12V No Load Speed: 8700 No Load Current: 0.07A
Max Efficiency Torque: 23.8 g-cm Current: 0.025A Power: 1.65W Efficiency: 55%
Stall Torque: 104 g-cm Current: 0.85A
Here are the specs for three generic dual shaft can motors I found online.
|
|
| 12 Volt DC Motor - 16234 RPM
Specifications •Nominal Voltage: 12 VDC •Voltage Range: 6-12 VDC •Speed: 16234 RPM (@ max. efficiency) •Current: 0.98 Amps (@ max. efficiency) •Torque: 35.93 g-cm (@ max. efficiency) •Efficiency: 52% •Terminal Type: 0.08" solder tabs •Shaft Diameter: 0.078" •Shaft Length: 0.31"/0.43" (dual shaft) •Size (Diameter x Depth): 0.78" x 1.0"
| 12 Volt DC Motor - 18587 RPM
Specifications •Nominal Voltage: 12 VDC •Voltage Range: 6-12 VDC •Speed: 18587 RPM (@ max. efficiency) •Current: 1.18 Amps (@ max. efficiency) •Torque: 41.50 g-cm (@ max. efficiency) •Efficiency: 56% •Terminal Type: 0.08" solder tabs •Shaft Diameter: 0.078" •Shaft Length: 0.31"/0.43" (dual shaft) •Size (Diameter x Depth): 0.78" x 1.0"
|
12 Volt DC Motor - 25253 RPM
Specifications •Nominal Voltage: 12 VDC •Voltage Range: 6-12 VDC •Speed: 25253 RPM (@ max. efficiency) •Current: 1.48 Amps (@ max. efficiency) •Torque: 33.20 g-cm (@ max. efficiency) •Efficiency: 50% •Terminal Type: 0.08" solder tabs •Shaft Diameter: 0.078" •Shaft Length: 0.31"/0.43" (dual shaft) •Size (Diameter x Depth): 0.78" x 1.0"
|
The specs look to be similar except for the higher motor speeds on the generic motors. However, once the flywheels, drive train, and a load are added, the motor my behave differently. I'm going to order a pair each and test them. I will not have any results soon, but am curious to see how they perform in actual use.
Donnell
|
|
|
Post by Judge Doom on Aug 2, 2015 23:09:13 GMT -8
Bowser etc have reported before that it's not a Mashima or Mabuchi (the latter was thought to be the one used, not a Mashima). But from whatever it is it's a similar looking clone to a Mabuchi, with 5 poles inside instead of 3.
There are lots of similar looking motors out there, so if you want to actually accurately test one you'll want to pull it out of one of the models it's used on.
|
|
|
Post by Donnell Wells on Aug 2, 2015 23:40:20 GMT -8
Bowser etc have reported before that it's not a Mashima or Mabuchi (the latter was thought to be the one used, not a Mashima). But from whatever it is it's a similar looking clone to a Mabuchi, with 5 poles inside instead of 3. There are lots of similar looking motors out there, so if you want to actually accurately test one you'll want to pull it out of one of the models it's used on. Hi Judge,
I know that the motor in question is of its own design, but it is likely that it started from a Mabuchi base. In any event, the reason I posted the Mashima motor information is because we need to establish some sort of baseline for the performance that we expect from the motors we currently use.
Does anyone have any specs on the Kato HM-5, Genesis Roco motor, or Athearn BB motor?
Donnell
|
|
|
Post by curtmc on Aug 7, 2015 22:23:06 GMT -8
I believe the first run of the IM Gevos with the weaker motors was the first CSX release. That is the first time I heard it mentioned - by Bruce who had bought several of the CSX ones... I know the IAIS/Rock special Gevo and the CSX 3000 series in the later run had the weaker motors.
|
|
|
Post by Spikre on Aug 8, 2015 10:35:51 GMT -8
Donnell, since Kato sells the HM-5 as a replacement motor they should have Specs somewhere on their web site or even packed with the Motors ? thought Athearn had Specs with the replacement drop in motors for the RTR SD45s or SD40-2s ? or maybe somewhere in the Genesis litature ? the Kato is a good replacement motor when they are available. Spikre
|
|