|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Oct 7, 2020 14:11:57 GMT -8
For a HO engine study I have been doing to look at the impact of several variables on Grade & train length and other performance aspects. The process has evolved from a list of more than fifty motors. This group had multiple versions of some motor types. The exercise has focused on examining the following motors:
Mashima 1833
Mashima 1824
Sagami 1833
Atlas China 1833
Athearn High performance
Kato
Athearn Genesis
Bachmann plus
Cannon C-22
The exact specification for each motor not precisely known. The motors have been tested with no load and on at least two test been engines. The current subject motors have been selected based on their impact on these engines. The group are being examined in a DOE type test series to help isolate a number of feature impacts.
Realizing that that is quite a list, I am looking for additional suggestions. Is there current favorites that I am missing. Any help would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by trainguy99 on Oct 8, 2020 3:26:53 GMT -8
I think the Athearn Genesis motor is actually Roco. The Walthers Proto motor isn't on your list.
You don't have any A Line or NWSL motors on your list, but perhaps those are all actually from Mashima or Sagami.
Sounds interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Oct 8, 2020 4:14:02 GMT -8
The Walthers proto versions fell off during the early screens. The Mashima & Sagami motors are from Nwsl & A-line/proto power.
Yes the Genesis is from Roco. Other Roco motors were in the initial screen & fell off like the Walthers.
Just to clerify, motors that did not make this far included several models from Athearn BB, Life like P2K & P1K, Helix Humper
Thanks for the input.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonklein611 on Oct 8, 2020 4:33:53 GMT -8
Kato has a coreless motor too: X037-2193
Their normal motor is the HM-5
|
|
|
|
Post by craigz on Oct 8, 2020 5:07:02 GMT -8
Are you looking at currently available motors only?
|
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Oct 8, 2020 6:23:27 GMT -8
At this stage, a modern, available, relevant motor would be best.
I will check into the core less Kato.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonklein611 on Oct 8, 2020 6:28:32 GMT -8
At this stage, a modern, available, relevant motor would be best. I will check into the core less Kato. Kato Coreless is in their HO P42 (1 each truck), HO E5 Shinkansen (1 each truck of the motor car), and N FEF (1 in body). |
|
rs11
Junior Member
Posts: 71 
|
Post by rs11 on Oct 9, 2020 5:23:42 GMT -8
I'd like to know more about the coreless Kato.
And, only due to other threads, I'd really like to see a test on whatever it is that Rapido is actually using now, either in the B36-7 or something more recent. I would like to know if the problem(s) are all with the particular mother board and/or decoder they are using, and just how their motor stacks up against real competition. (This is since now others are reporting that even in just plain dc their engines die too often.)
While we are at it, I'd like to see how the current motor being used by Atlas/Bowser/Intermountain compares. I know that it is much better than the wimpy one that was used for a couple product runs, but how good is it? Include a Genesis motor, too.
That way it's a fair fight and we might really learn some things.
Like how do the current production motors stack up against what we might perceive to be "the best" currently available???
BLI has crap Paragon 3 motors that can draw 2 amps or even more stall current which fries some P3 decoders, and then a replacement, newer version Paragon 3 motor that is indeed much better (this according to a former BLI employee who now runs Train Service Depot). I have a challenger containing the replacement P3 motor, and it is awesome--will pull everything I can put behind it up to at least 70 cars. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Oct 9, 2020 6:18:31 GMT -8
If you're going to test motors, you should do so. Meaning pull the motors out and test them, stand-alone. It's certainly useful testing them in a complete system (loco + train + layout), but there's a lot of variables there. On the other hand, we've been known to pop a Kato motor in at the drop of a hat. After all, the subject of this topic is "motor choices". A relatively simple test is locked rotor. Lock the motor up, and gradually* increase voltage until it fries. Record voltage and current. Ideally, the locking mechanism would measure torque. Use the same setup for every motor. A more complex one would be using an assortment of standardized loads, while running. Then record voltage, current, and RPM's. The tricky part here would be designing a loading system that was reliable and repeatable. Pittman used to include a fancy and kind of difficult to understand graph illustrating some of this for their motors. You can find a sample page for the DC-70 at HOseeker. Here's a current image very similar to the Pittman ones ( I found it using an image search term: "pittman motor graph"):  And it's also kind of hard to follow. Torque is at the bottom (Newton-meters, convertible to inch-pounds), implying locked rotor failure over to the right. Ed *gradually: kinda interesting, here. One likely would want to allow a certain short duration for a brief physical overload. "Short Term Rating". Then one would want one for a continuous physical overload. |
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Oct 9, 2020 6:53:20 GMT -8
That is a good list. I will see if I can find a source for those motors. The only careless that fits the initial size, volt, rpm criteria that I have found is made by Namiki. I will look further.
Some of the results you want are tricky to isolate. My activity works in several steps.
1.- no electronic module. Filtered DC, no PWM. Engine only with no grade. 2.5% grade at 12 volts supply, engine only & various train lengths until no movement.
2.- fixed DC module(Rail Pro) repeat data points from 1.
3.- DCC module, repeat data points from 1
In 2 & 3 either 9 pin plug or the decoder is hard wired. I am do not want to deal with a mother board. It adds more complexity & variation potential.
In 1.- I am looking for the motor performance as well as some other mechanical/geometric features.
In 2 & 3 the module impact is the goal. Because the module can be programmed the results can be changed. That opens Pandora’s box. For now, I am going to look at factory settings only. I am looking at multiple models & manufacturer's decoders, but not intending to be all encompassing.
Understand that while these tests are severe at times. They are not endurance tests. Over hundreds of tests, I have experienced only one outright motor failure, a Kato can motor in a Stewart F unit that was factory sealed when I got it.
Additionally, these motor models have the normal variations. This can & does have significant impact on the results. Where possible, I try to understand that variation. For this series, I am focused on train length on a 2.5% grade. So the chosen models have done the best there in a limited set of tests. When There is only one of a motor model, It is unclear how it fits in the possible population of that motor. The results are still informative with that caveat.
I will look into sources for the suggested motors.
|
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Oct 9, 2020 7:11:30 GMT -8
Ed, the first tests in the motors are motor alone. I use a tach & measure rpm & current draw at several supply voltages. I have found the torque implications there to be misleading. Primarily because you do not know the efficiency. The speed data seems to be very consistent. How they actually handle the load in test bed engines does not necessarily follow the motor only implied results. A better screen for this activity is how it performs in test bed engines. I am using 6 engines in the overall study. These all have different aspects. To be in, a motor needs to be competitive in two engines. This leads to a lot of tests, but with COVID I have nothing but time.
|
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Oct 9, 2020 8:12:31 GMT -8
Kato USA had a HO cordless motor available. It is on its way.
Bowser has 4 different HO motors available. Atlas has 3 Based on engine type. Not sure which is the one that would be appropriate. Drew a blank on BLI
|
|
rs11
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by rs11 on Oct 9, 2020 9:56:58 GMT -8
Wow, 4 Bowser motors? Well, I'd remove any Buehlers right away. Though I personally liked them, some people did not and complained, and they were "older" Bowser production and not current today. My question would be of the 4 available, which ones are currently going into new engines coming into the country (which ones will we see more of)? Or do they actually use all 4 motors based upon what can fit where?
I guess I'm interested most in what goes into your average road diesel, middle of the road sized model.
Steam is always a different animal, and BLI, MTH, et al probably have to make decisions more based upon what can fit and how many drivers do they want to power. |
|
|
|
Post by es80ac on Oct 9, 2020 16:42:11 GMT -8
Why did Walthers motor fell of the list? It is one of the best OEM equipped motors I think.
The current Bowsers, Atlas motors may have been improved from the Mabuchi clone ones, but they still do not feel very powerful to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Oct 9, 2020 18:34:32 GMT -8
What is the vintage of the Walthers Proto motor your talking about? The motor that I have fell short of a number of motors, the ones on the above list & several others. I am limiting the full tests to one motor of a given type. If not the series would be limited to Mashima, Kato & Sagami.
The screen I’m using is based on results for two test bed engines, one four axle and one six axle. The parameter of focus is the number of cars the engine with this motor can pull up a 2.5% grade. This result is normalized to an average engine weight of all the engines in this group of tests. The weight derivative is defined in the tests for each engine motor combination. That way the difference is motor related with no impact of weight.
These results for the Walthers motor were consistent with the previous experience I have had with Walthers Proto engines. In particular, 2 2016 E7’s & a 2015 0-8-0 were not good pullers. The motor they are using now may be different. If you can point me to the current motor, I will consider it.
|
|
|
|
Post by es80ac on Oct 9, 2020 19:50:25 GMT -8
What is the vintage of the Walthers Proto motor your talking about? The motor that I have fell short of a number of motors, the ones on the above list & several others. I am limiting the full tests to one motor of a given type. If not the series would be limited to Mashima, Kato & Sagami. The screen I’m using is based on results for two test bed engines, one four axle and one six axle. The parameter of focus is the number of cars the engine with this motor can pull up a 2.5% grade. This result is normalized to an average engine weight of all the engines in this group of tests. The weight derivative is defined in the tests for each engine motor combination. That way the difference is motor related with no impact of weight. These results for the Walthers motor were consistent with the previous experience I have had with Walthers Proto engines. In particular, 2 2016 E7’s & a 2015 0-8-0 were not good pullers. The motor they are using now may be different. If you can point me to the current motor, I will consider it. 0-8-0 was a life-like p2k hertitage engine right? The pulling power of that one I am pretty sure is limited by the engine weight, not the motor. I assume the E7 was also a Life-Like legacy carryover, the motor maybe the Life-Like Athearn clone? (not sure since I only have the original Life-Like E7). The current Walthers motor in their ES44AC and SD70Ace seem to be a good one on par with the old Atlas motor prior to the Mabuchi clone episode. |
|
|
|
Post by lvrr325 on Oct 10, 2020 3:29:38 GMT -8
It would be interesting to compare to a few vintage motors, the fat Roco 7-pole used in FA, Shark, E-units (and the Atlas O F9), maybe a late Athearn BB motor, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Oct 10, 2020 5:11:47 GMT -8
Initial list had a number of vintage motors. P1K cans, P2K & Athearn BB open frame and others. I did not include motors that were not DCC friendly. Size also matters. Being able to install a motor tends to limit the length & diameter. I want to limit the amount of tailoring required to fit the motor for practical & data reasons.
While in this discussion, I am asking for motor options, the motor is one of several variables that are included in the DOE.
The early results indicate that the motor and weight are not the largest drivers to several results. Sure they matter, but they are not as dominant as I was expecting.
An example is the Mashima 1833 motor in a specific six axle engine pulls 41 cars up the grade. In a four axle engine it could only pull 12 cars. Again, this result is weight normalized. The only difference
Is the truck geometry, which were cleaned, tuned & adjusted before the activity started. That is not the only surprise. I will get into some of those later.
|
|
rs11
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by rs11 on Oct 10, 2020 6:26:50 GMT -8
Larry--
I will appreciate whatever data you are able to provide. Thank you for doing the tests!
|
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Nov 24, 2020 15:38:44 GMT -8
Just a quick update. I added three additional motors to the activity.
1- I got a Rapido replacement motor for my RS18, not sure if it is the same as the original or an updated version. It is what they are sending for warranty replacement. This far my impression is that it is slightly weaker than most. High end speeds are down & train lengths are also down.
2- added a Chinese motor that is similar in size to the Atlas China motor in the series. It is supposed to be high torque. It is also current production, which made it interesting.
3- I have been through four different core less versions. So far all are under sized. I have one that is running in the test bed engines, but the results have been lack luster. This is where time has been spent with disappointing results. I have a couple of additional leads on a version that is 16x30 mm. These should provide sufficient power for HO applications. The current options do ok for engine only & n-drive axle train lengths on a level grade. They suffer at n-axle train length at 2.5% grade. The also require more than desired voltage to sustain movement on the low speed side.
This is a complex issue, so I am tracking a number of different variables. It will be surprising if one motor is the best for all.
I am about half way through the DOE test runs- 72 for the number of motors and other features. Will provide additional updates as appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Jan 20, 2021 10:31:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Jan 28, 2021 17:09:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Jul 9, 2021 5:53:34 GMT -8
I have been encouraged to run a similar motor test series on mostly single shaft motors. To facilitate this a Hobbytown of Boston PA chassis is being used as the test bed. Nick has been very supportive. These motors have six to 10 poles & have very strong magnets. The testing is ongoing. Some background & initial impressions can be found here: www.llxlocomotives.com/?p=2874Some of the initial results are posted here: www.llxlocomotives.com/?p=2995These posts will be updated as the testing proceeds. Thanks, Larry |
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Aug 25, 2021 14:14:45 GMT -8
Well into this activity. An combining the results of the 2020 series with this series. The latest info is posted on the previous links
|
|
