2-10-0 Russian Decapods

My only gripe is they never did one in FRISCO.

After all, there's only 5 Frisco's still in existence and one even operates...

Rusty

I thought one of the stinks raised pertained to the "back porch" on the rear of the tender, to which l always want to take a hacksaw.  If this was a perfect world, a replacement tender shell would be available. But only in HO can you get separate sale tenders (post K-Line).

The "back porch" has been corrected on the latest version.  

Ed

Anyone else? 

Operation, sound, etc...

Considering the PS3 Susquehanna.

Seems to work well.

One of several MTH offerings that has a 3rail/2rail convertible design.   There are instruction about the conversion and a couple of switches on the tender.

Rear porch discussion.

Small decapod, compared to a 3rd Rail Pennsy I1 decapod.  No problems on an O54 layout.

There was some discussion about the visible drive tower.

Shell has been lifted in this picture.

Mike CT, Looking at the front end of your Shawmut MTH decapod and 3rd rail Pennsy decapods, the front couplers look great.  Is that what they came with or something you added?

I ask because I have a railking engine with a fake front coupler and flat front beam that I would like to change.  I looked at the kadee catalog online and only saw offerings for freight cars couplers that mounted underneath.

By the way I would love to have A WM Russian decapod but they have always been out of my price range.

John Z

Thank you Mike CT for the good information  

Clem

jhz563 posted:

Mike CT, Looking at the front end of your Shawmut MTH decapod and 3rd rail Pennsy decapods, the front couplers look great.  Is that what they came with or something you added?  Both the Russian Decapod and the Pennsy I1 are as they came.  Thirdrail has been upgrade to TMCC. 

I ask because I have a railking engine with a fake front coupler and flat front beam that I would like to change.  I looked at the kadee catalog online and only saw offerings for freight cars couplers that mounted underneath.    As pictured, out of the box.

 

By the way I would love to have A WM Russian decapod but they have always been out of my price range.

 

John Z

Mike CT posted:

jhz563 posted:

Mike CT, Looking at the front end of your Shawmut MTH decapod and 3rd rail Pennsy decapods, the front couplers look great.  Is that what they came with or something you added?  Both the Russian Decapod and the Pennsy I1 are as they came.  Thirdrail has been upgrade to TMCC. 

I ask because I have a railking engine with a fake front coupler and flat front beam that I would like to change.  I looked at the kadee catalog online and only saw offerings for freight cars couplers that mounted underneath.    As pictured, out of the box.

 

By the way I would love to have A WM Russian decapod but they have always been out of my price range.

 

John Z

 

Thanks Mike

In turning one over, I was surprised to find that there are no center rail pick up rollers on the locomotive; only 2 on the tender, which has a short wheel base...

Seems unusual.  Thoughts?

Jim Harrington posted:

In turning one over, I was surprised to find that there are no center rail pick up rollers on the locomotive; only 2 on the tender, which has a short wheel base... Seems unusual.  Thoughts?

I noticed recently that my MTH Premier New York Central 0-4-0 and (USRA) 0-6-0 locomotives have two pickup rollers on the tender and none on the locomotive.  I was definitely surprised. Both of these models run well on my Atlas O-54 track and switches. See photos of 0-4-0 below.

MELGAR

To gain a Forward coupler on a steam engine a wire must be given up.  So some times it is the engine pick up wire that becomes the coupler control wire. G

Unfortunately these engines have neither...

MELGAR posted:

Jim Harrington posted:

In turning one over, I was surprised to find that there are no center rail pick up rollers on the locomotive; only 2 on the tender.

Looks to me that one pick up roller could be added to that engine. In my experience I have seen that MTH will design provisions for pick up rollers on some steam locomotives but will not install them at the factory. I had worked a Premier Royal Hudson for a customer in Canada. He was having issues with pick up through his Atlas Switches. All I had to do was add pickups to the engine....if I remember right?? (this was 4 years ago) 

MELGAR

Back to the 2-10-0...

So was the installation of a roller engineered but not installed, or is the workbench engineering?  Not that I am afraid of that modifying an older locomotive , but for a new $1K locomotive, this is disconcerting...

Runs fine around the test loop, but am concerned that operation on #7 turnouts may be an issue...

Jim Harrington posted:

Unfortunately these engines have neither...

What are you talking about?  The 0-4-0 that I was posting about has both. G

MTH uses several variations of pickups.  Usually 2 or more on engine and none on tender.  Some have one on each, others have both on tender and none on engine.  Yes designed and produced that way.

As I stated for small switchers it is to gain a feature on the engine since PS-2 is limited by 10 wires in tether.  On others may be interference on gearbox/motor mount.  Or to gain the extra wire for 2rail/3rail feature.

No one complained how it ran, but maybe it will have issues on your switches.

If holes are there you probably could add pickups you than need to disable the feature and rewire engine and tender for the typical pin 7 AC Center rail. G

BRUK, your customer may have been using the older style Atlas switches (pictured at right). The newer style (on left) are much more pick-up roller friendly. If so, he may be able to purchase and add the missing pick-up roller rails from Atlas. The turnouts in the picture are #7.5 High speed. Both have same part number so you never know which your getting when you order on line.   

GGG posted:

Jim Harrington posted:

Unfortunately these engines have neither...

What are you talking about?  The 0-4-0 that I was posting about has both. G

The 2-10-0, which was the topic of the original post and subject of my question...

Jim Harrington posted:

GGG posted:

Jim Harrington posted:

Unfortunately these engines have neither...

What are you talking about?  The 0-4-0 that I was posting about has both. G

The 2-10-0, which was the topic of the original post and subject of my question...

Which was back in August and over with. Someone decided to use your post in Dec about switchers.  That is what was addressed. G

Thank you for your flippant and erroneous response. 

My post/question on 12/20/17 was about the 2-10-0 and lack of pick-up rollers, and the responses were about pick-up rollers, using the switchers as an example.  

Merry Christmas.

Thanks Jim, Merry Christmas to you too,  I missed that you resurrected a 4 month old post to question pick up rollers. So I addressed the specific 0-4-0 post.  Have you bought the engine yet?  Regardless, my post informs why some don't have pickups on the engine, rather than your disconcerting questioning of the product engineering.  If the spacing of the pickup rollers on the engine are as short as a tender would it matter where they were? G

I'm not debating whether they should be on either the locomotive or the tender.  All my TMCC steam locomotives have four - two rollers on the loco AND two on the tender.

My MTH FT-Units have four - two on each truck.

If there is room (and there seems to be), why wouldn't MTH put them on both the loco and tender for better reliability?  (Loaded question - probably "value engineering"). 

I have an MTH scale wheel 0-6-0 that did not like Ross turnouts, so I had Stockyard Express put a roller in the empty hole in the Locomotive, and tie all the grounds together (probably never run it in 2 rail mode). Know most reliable small engine I have. Also a lot better smoke output.  

Jim Harrington posted:

I'm not debating whether they should be on either the locomotive or the tender.  All my TMCC steam locomotives have four - two rollers on the loco AND two on the tender.

My MTH FT-Units have four - two on each truck.

If there is room (and there seems to be), why wouldn't MTH put them on both the loco and tender for better reliability?  (Loaded question - probably "value engineering"). 

TMCC has to have 4 especially when IR sensor used otherwise the tender has no power for the boards.  TMCC has boards in engine and tender.  MTH has main board in one location.  Even early TMCC with 4 wire harness had same issue.  3 of the 4 used up for serial data, coupler and reverse light.  SO they tied AC ground between units and used pickups on tender to power RS. It is not about reliability.  It is why sometimes sounds go out on TMCC engine over switches. Tender and engine do not power each other.

In general only  minimum necessary are used.  Does your FT have 2 individual pickups per truck or a single double roller type.

You seem to be implying some defect in engineering, yet plenty of models are done this way and seem to work fine with out reliability issues.  No body in the train industries does redundancy, which is really what your talking about.  Not reliability.  Some one early on posted it ran fine with no issues.  G

So I picked up a new 20-3638-1 and am having some problems, and started another post.

https://ogrforum.com/...89#77452619067897089

Input is appreciated...

Thanks,

Jim