Topics

Drivers

roblmclear
 

Hello to all and sorry for the cross postings but I have six of the BLI modernized ATSF 2-10-2's that I would like to replace the drivers with the traction tires.   I have tried BLI, Greenway Products and Bowser but no one seems to have the required type of driver.   The diameter across the tread excluding the flange is .700 of an inch.   It is spoked and has a small counterweight.   I really don't need the axles although to have them mounted would be handy I can always put them on to the axles from the existing Broadway Limited axels providing they are the same diameter.   I have attached a picture of the type I am looking for it is the driver on the right in the picture as the one on the left is the wrong size of counterweight.   Hoping someone can point me in the right directions.

prgm_mgr
 

Hi Rob
If push come to shove, perhaps you can replace the driver center, either by using as a pattern the one you have that is correct or having them made by a local casting shop or even by printing them.
You could always get enough of the wrong size ones and file down the counterweight but thats a lot for 6 engines and would be very difficult to get them to match, even on the same loco.

I'm curious why you want to replace them in the first place? Are the ones you have on the loco the wrong size or is it a pulling issue?
Good luck
Mark

John Hagen
 

Hi.

I may be way off base here but I am of the opinion that Rob wants to replace the drivers that have traction tires with ones that do not have traction tires.

That would be a move that I would fully understand.

John Hagen

 

From: HO-Steam@groups.io <HO-Steam@groups.io> On Behalf Of prgm_mgr
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:42 PM
To: HO-Steam@groups.io; rob.mclear@...
Subject: Re: [HO-Steam] Drivers

 

Hi Rob

If push come to shove, perhaps you can replace the driver center, either by using as a pattern the one you have that is correct or having them made by a local casting shop or even by printing them.

You could always get enough of the wrong size ones and file down the counterweight but thats a lot for 6 engines and would be very difficult to get them to match, even on the same loco.

 

I'm curious why you want to replace them in the first place? Are the ones you have on the loco the wrong size or is it a pulling issue?

Good luck

Mark

prgm_mgr
 

That makes sense to me too.

Pete Steinmetz
 

Just get some Bullfrog Snot.  No need to replace drivers.

Our club is banning traction tires.  They make the track dirty.

Pete Steinmetz

Mark Cartwright
 

I have replaced Driver's with Traction Tires with Drivers which do NOT have Traction Tires...and been very pleased with the results.
However....
I have been lessening my Grades over time.
====
I believe most Model Railroaders fall into the category of simply doing 2% or higher grades.
Except I began to test my N Scale Locomotives across the board and found a significant difference when the Grades approached 1.75%.
Further, there was a Series of Articles on the Physics of N Scale in N Scaler Magazine in the early 1990's which came to a Mathematical Conclusion of a Best or Optimal Grade at 1.73%.
My Testing Concurs
Except into a turn, the lateral forces act upon the Grade increasing it's effect. Basically causing a 1.74% Grade to act as if it is a 2% Grade. By lessening the grade to 1.5%, the overall effect was minimal.
This was accomplished ...
AFTER reading BNSF and UP Prototype Specifications, I settled on a continuous grade of 1.5% for straights and radius. This also add stabilization and keeps the momentum of a train in motion by not simply changing the Grades from a Straight into a Curve. I do not believe lessening a grade further to say 1.4% would have a marginal positive effect upon my model railroad.
====
So...
After lessening my grades...I found Traction Tires not only not necessarily but in fact a nuisance. 
Meaning?
After 4-5 hours of use, they can slip their driver and play havoc with the crank rods. Causing them to either ping off or bend and making me do a complete tear down along with re-quartering the whole mechanism. Plus, I believe they add grit/grime to the rails, as well as not the best concept for DCC with sound with conductivity in mind.
=====

Though I have O and HO Scale Layouts...I am only speaking of N Scale. I expect the results may be similar but I have not tested such a Theory.
Hope this helps...
Mark Cartwright

Modeling for now the Central Pacific, as the railroad began to learn from it's own mistakes post 18882.
The Central Pacific began to lessen their grades of 2.2% after that date.
This is a helluva way to run a railroad, but I am not sure when Prototypes began to adopt Standard Grades at 1.5%.

roblmclear
 

Thanks for the information guys but I do not want to have traction tires on any loco on the layout, they do cause problems with keeping the track clean, and I my opinion somewhat stress out the drive train but that is only my opinion.   I have contacted BLI and they do not have any replacements have been in touch with them on several occasions.   I do have three of the earlier 2-10-2's but the bearings are different from the later versions.    (Pictures attached the set on the left is from the first run the set on the right is from the second) I don't want to use bullfrog snot either as that is just replacing one method with another, the aim being to have normal tread drivers on all axles.   With 3 of the earlier versions and six of the later 2-10-2's I need to be able to get all of them without traction tires, why BLI did not include a non traction tired driver with the second run is beyond my ken.   It would have been the obvious thing to do given the fact they did it on the first run.   I have also been in touch with Greenway products and Bowser but neither of those seem to be able to help at the moment.   It now seems I am at a point where there is no viable solution in regard to this.   I may have to just bit the bullet and get hold of some replacement traction tires from BLI, and then sell off the ones I don't need.

Regards
Rob.

Jon Miller
 

On 10/18/2018 6:50 PM, roblmclear wrote:
why BLI did not include a non traction tired driver with the second run is beyond my ken

Cost/profit!:-(

-- 
Jon Miller
For me time stopped in 1941
Digitrax  Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI User
SPROG User
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS

Ken Clark
 

Rob,
  If you swap out the first and fifth drivers on your six, you would have at least three without traction tires and then you might find that models with four traction tires might had decent resale value.

When you think outside the box,
You are out of the loop.
Kenneth R. Clark
P.O. Box 212454
Chula Vista, CA 91921



-----Original Message-----
From: roblmclear <rob.mclear@...>
To: HO-Steam <HO-Steam@groups.io>
Sent: Thu, Oct 18, 2018 6:50 pm
Subject: Re: [HO-Steam] Drivers

Thanks for the information guys but I do not want to have traction tires on any loco on the layout, they do cause problems with keeping the track clean, and I my opinion somewhat stress out the drive train but that is only my opinion.   I have contacted BLI and they do not have any replacements have been in touch with them on several occasions.   I do have three of the earlier 2-10-2's but the bearings are different from the later versions.    (Pictures attached the set on the left is from the first run the set on the right is from the second) I don't want to use bullfrog snot either as that is just replacing one method with another, the aim being to have normal tread drivers on all axles.   With 3 of the earlier versions and six of the later 2-10-2's I need to be able to get all of them without traction tires, why BLI did not include a non traction tired driver with the second run is beyond my ken.   It would have been the obvious thing to do given the fact they did it on the first run.   I have also been in touch with Greenway products and Bowser but neither of those seem to be able to help at the moment.   It now seems I am at a point where there is no viable solution in regard to this.   I may have to just bit the bullet and get hold of some replacement traction tires from BLI, and then sell off the ones I don't need.

Regards
Rob.

Mark Cartwright
 

Jon,
Since you are a NMRA Life Member, and I have been model railroading on and off since 1959.....
Could it be ....
Cause the NMRA has not specifically set up manufacturing/supply criteria to the Producers/Manufacturers/Suppliers of our Hobby?
====
I have several theories on why this has never happened...however; I am speaking directly to a Open Letter from the venerable John Allen, who wondered why the NMRA does not seek out Prototype Standards.


From 1965?
Yeah...and I hadn't even started N Scale yet.
Duh Me? and here is where I am about to give the NMRA some slack....
I did not fully understand what John Allen was speaking till at least 2015 myself, when I ventured to run a Brass ATSF 2-10-4 myself over 19 Inch Track.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgwu7ydD4Bw
After viewing this video and other published thoughts and criteria, I got lazy myself and simply went to Commercially (readily) available 28" Radius Kato Unitrack.   Yes, I Forrest Gumped my way into using broader curves.
Okay...28" Radius Works Good.... What else do I need to know? 
How about a longer turnout which can also access the long tender, especially with DCC/Sound... (also accomplished).
===
In my not so humble opinion...
This is the correct direction for the NMRA:
https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/rp-11_2017.04.08.pdf
Just chagrinned to say....
These NMRA Specifications (Class Q) were not published until AFTER, I had already decided to begin to adopt Prototype Standards in 2015.

Yet...Duh Me?
Only took me 50+ years of Model Railroading to begin to see the light.

Mark 

I found myself saying...
Well first off they are not Toy Trains...I endeavor to model a railroad, using BNSF Specifications.
Mighty Tall Talk for a guy who has 22 Totes of Model Railroad Supplies stacked-up in his Covered Patio...and not yet put into use on a Layout.

Patrick Egan
 

It would be nice if the letter from John Allen were readable.
Pat Egan

Doug Harris
 

On 20/10/2018 18:42, Patrick Egan wrote:
It would be nice if the letter from John Allen were readable.
Pat Egan
Try this - it's the best I can get out of it in Photoshop..

--
Cheers.
--------
Doug Harris
Cambridge, New Zealand