Skip to main content

This took most of the morning and into early afternoon, but only because in addition to making it into a calf, I removed the motors and boards, making in a dummy calf.  Reason: the motors are identical to those in EZ-Street vehicles but have a flywheel.  Since I have a powered "A" unit, I could make this a dummy and get two flywheel motors to play with:'Streets vehicles benefit a lot from having a flywheel, the only deficiency I see in their design, frankly.  I have fit larger motors with flywheels, but a stock size motor with flywheel will come in handy.  I removed the boards, too, for use elsewhere and another time.  

Slide1

Here they are moving . . .  

 

I am generally pleased with the result of how the calf looks.  I will probably order vinyl sticerk numbers in the ATSF font for "465b" for it. 

 

REMOVING THE MOTORS WAS A MISTAKE.   Before modification, I briefly ran the pair (both converted to series motors) together and with both powered they were a sweet pair, pulling six cars and a caboose nicely.  But now, with only a single powered unit, and it with only two driven axles, it can pull its equal-weight partner calf, and only one or two cars around 36" curves, before it spins its wheels - and it spins them badly trying to get up a 3% grade - badly.  Not a good train.  But it looks good, and fun, and it was a fun project. 

 

Slide18

Slide19

Slide20

 

I had a couple of request for pictures during the conversion, so . . .

 

Start by removing the four screws (red arrows) and releasing the four hook tabs that hold body to chassis (yellow arrows).  The body pulls off.

 

Slide2

 

But the body won't go very far because of the wires attached its light to the chassis.  I converted this puppy to series motors previous, hence the two wires you see on the motor control board sticking up, cut. 

Slide3

 

The cab removes from the body.  Just pull it out at both sides and it pushes off . . . 

Slide4

 

I removed the signel figure and mounted it as a second operator in the other 44-tonner.

Slide5

 

I made the follow cuts.  At the top, widening the gap enough to get past the end partitions, so I have clear air to inside right below the body roof.  At the sides, I trimmed the plastic a bit.

Slide6

 

I built a bridge across the top, from under both sides of the body casting, using white styrene sheet cut to size. 

Slide8

 

And sdid similarly at the sides.  

Slide9

 

I cut, fit, and grooved a 1/10 inch piece of styrene to fit as the top, seen here. 

Slide10

 

I made sides as seen here, this is white styrene too, just from a piece that was painted flat black on one side.  I scribbed panel seams and attached tiny door handles . . . 

Slide11

 

The stacks pried right off the cab casting.  I cut each (black part below) and glued 1/2 of a plastic tube (5/16 dia) and sanded and smoothed the seams a bit . . . 

Slide12

 

And attached them in place.

Slide13

 

Then masked the past I won't repaint . . . 

Slide14

 

Priming it (Rustoleum spray gray) 

Slide15

 

Initially I did it flat black, but that was too flat . . . I went ahead, mounted it, and completed the railings.

Slide16

 

Then went back and removed the body, remasked, and sprayed it satin black. Silver line at the top was hand painted. 

Slide17

Attachments

Images (21)
  • Slide1
  • Slide18
  • Slide19
  • Slide20
  • Slide1
  • Slide2
  • Slide3
  • Slide4
  • Slide5
  • Slide6
  • Slide7
  • Slide8
  • Slide9
  • Slide10
  • Slide11
  • Slide12
  • Slide13
  • Slide14
  • Slide15
  • Slide16
  • Slide17
Videos (1)
DSCN2587
Last edited by Lee Willis
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Lee Willis:
REMOVING THE MOTORS WAS A MISTAKE.   Before modification, I briefly ran the pair (both converted to series motors) together and with both powered they were a sweet pair, pulling six cars and a caboose nicely.  But now, with only a single powered unit, and it with only two driven axles, it can pull its equal-weight partner calf, and only one or two cars around 36" curves, before it spins its wheels - and it spins them badly trying to get up a 3% grade - badly.  Not a good train.  But it looks good, and fun, and it was a fun project.

Its takes a real professional (engineer) to ever admit a mistake!  I know, because I'm one and have had my share of mistakes in my career, but I've honestly learned the most from them than my successes.

 

It looks really good though.  I guess you can chalk this one up to partial success.  Can you not put the motors back in the dummy and get the look along with the power?  Or is your heart set on living with it, using the salvaged motors in your future super-street projects?

 

I as well of others have always enjoyed your creativity in our hobby.  Good luck whatever you decide.

 

 
 
Last edited by pmilazzo

Ron045 - putting the motors back in parallel would not fix the problem.  The loco has power, it lack traction, just spins its wheels.  Only one axle in each truck is powered.

 

pmliazzo - yes, I could put the motors back in the unit and get a powered calf.  But an easier way is to just order another unit and switch the body out when it arrives.  I just did that.  I can use all the spare parts from the switcher's trucks anyway on a project I have in mind. 

Originally Posted by AGHRMatt:

I think the only solution for the traction issue is ballasting the engine. Fortunately, despite its diminutive size there is quite a bit of space inside the shell.

Good idea. But my intuition tells me ballasting will accomplish nothing.  It's nice and heavy already.  if you add weight, half of it will be on the unpowered axles: you won't be gained a whole lot it doing so.  the dummy I created by removing the motors was heavy and had higher-tan-average friction.  I was, literally, a real drag.  I think this beautiful little loco just has to be loved for what it is: a little loco that has limits.  Still a great little loco.

Adding weight to it will definitely help its tractive effort, besides, its a switch engine, not a road engine meant for 3% grades pulling a train

 

Just like in the real world, it was a very little engine, limited to specific duties.

 

I know, I know, you painted the 611 in UP colors  

Last edited by Former Member
Originally Posted by Laidoffsick:

Adding weight to it will definitely help its tractive effort, besides, its a switch engine, not a road engine meant for 3% grades pulling a train

 

Just like in the real world, it was a very little engine, limited to specific duties.

 

I know, I know, you painted the 611 in UP colors  

Yes He did paint a "J" class in UP colors and it looked BETTER than the original

 

Doug

Nice Job Lee.  Nice project - nice pictures and description. My only question is why put a second operator in the cab when the purpose of the 44 Ton diesel was to get past the requirement for two operators for any engine over 45 tons? I know, it's your world and you can run it as you like. I answered my own question and I agree. 

My only question is why put a second operator in the cab when the purpose of the 44 Ton diesel was to get past the requirement for two operators for any engine over 45 tons?

 

According to some of the history on the development of the 44 Ton, the weight limitations was to eliminate the Fireman on the crew.

 

"Predicting modern diesels, where the lone engineer shares his cab with a train crew that no longer has a caboose, the 44-tonner's cab also sported a second seat for a brakeman or conductor"

 

So a second person in the cab would not be unheard of.

 

Ron

 

Originally Posted by Pat Kn:

My only question is why put a second operator in the cab when the purpose of the 44 Ton diesel was to get past the requirement for two operators for any engine over 45 tons? I know, it's your world and you can run it as you like. I answered my own question and I agree. 

You are correct on the 44 ton rule and that under it meant no fireman: one loco and one man.  

 

However, as I understand the way the rule was written, the rule applied only to one 44-tonner.  Therefore, the RR would have to have an engineer and a fireman when running a 44-tonner and its calf.  Thus, I added the additional figure.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×