A pair of Commodore Vanderbilts getting Pittmanized; Tales From Harmon Shops

Looking good so far. Reminds me of the old Double Mint Gum commercial....

Hmm. Ring, ring, ring! Pat, I'll have to send mine to you at some point. I'll be sure to contact you sometime this month(later) I suppose. I still need to send my first Mohawk over to Alex for work. I think I'll contact him this week on that if I can stop yawning. That's what happens when pollen gets all in your eyes from mowing way too much lawn, lol.

@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:

Hmm. Ring, ring, ring! Pat, I'll have to send mine to you at some point. I'll be sure to contact you sometime this month(later) I suppose. I still need to send my first Mohawk over to Alex for work. I think I'll contact him this week on that if I can stop yawning. That's what happens when pollen gets all in your eyes from mowing way too much lawn, lol.

Which Mohawk are you upgrading Dave?....if it’s one of the old Pulmor jobbers, I can pop the large Pittman in it, then you could send it to Alex for all the electronics if he’s game for that,.....then he could do some real nice ERR upgrades ....the one thing I really strive for is serviceability, so taking it apart and upgrading it is as simple as stock,...

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

Which Mohawk are you upgrading Dave?....if it’s one of the old Pulmor jobbers, I can pop the large Pittman in it, then you could send it to Alex for all the electronics if he’s game for that,.....then he could do some real nice ERR upgrades ....the one thing I really strive for is serviceability, so taking it apart and upgrading it is as simple as stock,...

Pat

Old 18009. He already worked on the other one, which I always fudge the number, 3005.

@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:

Old 18009. He already worked on the other one, which I always fudge the number, 3005.

3005 is 18064, that’s the factory equipped TMCC with Pulmor........18009 is cab number 3000, that’s the old school mechanical e unit conventional only model,...18064 came with a set of smoke deflectors, 18009 did not,.......either way, I’d be humbled to work with one of the masters like Alex,....I’m sure you’ve seen the dozens of Mohawks, T1’s & CSS’s I’ve done here on the forum,......truth be told, I like doing the fabrication work the best anyways,....😁......the electronics isn’t my favorite thing to do,.....don’t get me wrong, I can do it,....it’s just not as enjoyable as cutting a frame in two!...😉

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

3005 is 18064, that’s the factory equipped TMCC with Pulmor........18009 is cab number 3000, that’s the old school mechanical e unit conventional only model,...18064 came with a set of smoke deflectors, 18009 did not,.......either way, I’d be humbled to work with one of the masters like Alex,....I’m sure you’ve seen the dozens of Mohawks, T1’s & CSS’s I’ve done here on the forum,......truth be told, I like doing the fabrication work the best anyways,....😁......the electronics isn’t my favorite thing to do,.....don’t get me wrong, I can do it,....it’s just not as enjoyable as cutting a frame in two!...😉

Pat

I prefer writing than getting dirty, can't stand grease or oil. I said to a coworker the other day, if I had a choice, I choose oil over grease. My work skills are great, but electronics, that was my dad's skill. He knew how to do some things with TV's, transistors and stuff like that. Would have been interesting to see what he could have done with other things like computers, but he was taken too soon. Soldering I haven't even tried. I know GRJ had told me it's easy, but you're talking to a guy who can't cut straight.

Yeah, 18064, yup, that engine got some good running early, but something went in the electronics which is why I sent it to Alex for the upgrade. Initially I was going to send 18009 since the coupler was broken, and I really enjoyed it a lot(first scale engine you know), but decided since 18064 would be an easier upgrade, I went that way. I was going to send 18009 in 18064's box since it would be easier to ship.

Hey guys just saw this ,

Thank you both for the  kind words. Pat it would be an honor to work on an engine you put your hands on. I’m always willing to team up with you and the others on this forum such as , Mike Reagan , Pete (Norton) , GRJ, just to name a few. There’s many others too !

Thanks, Alex

@Alex M posted:

Hey guys just saw this ,

Thank you both for the  kind words. Pat it would be an honor to work on an engine you put your hands on. I’m always willing to team up with you and the others on this forum such as , Mike Reagan , Pete (Norton) , GRJ, just to name a few. There’s many others too !

Thanks, Alex

I’m sure we’ll be doing something together at some point Alex!...that’s what makes this forum great!...as I’ve said before, you, Pete, George, John & many others push me to do better & better work.....the satisfaction of a job well done is the juice!...

Pat

@Alex M posted:

Hey guys just saw this ,

Thank you both for the  kind words. Pat it would be an honor to work on an engine you put your hands on. I’m always willing to team up with you and the others on this forum such as , Mike Reagan , Pete (Norton) , GRJ, just to name a few. There’s many others too !

Thanks, Alex

@harmonyards posted:

I’m sure we’ll be doing something together at some point Alex!...that’s what makes this forum great!...as I’ve said before, you, Pete, George, John & many others push me to do better & better work.....the satisfaction of a job well done is the juice!...

Pat

Just watching what work you and others do brings miles of smiles to my face. I would not have any patience for doing any of the grimy bits of work that you both toil at so hard. I once built a wooden table in high school and the teacher was irritated with me because I took several months, that was because I wanted it just right. The surface was smooth as glass. I haven't done any furniture building in some time, but you can see what a pain I would be.

Is fitting the Pittman any harder than on the standard NYC Hudson? I thought @Norton had some issues fitting a 9433 in his CV.

Pat is the only one who can answer this as I have only done a CV. I had not seen Pat’s builds before I did mine so I mounted the motor slightly differently than he does but it ends up in nearly the same location. The problem isn’t in mounting the motor but the location of the rear screw mounts for the shell. The original shells mounts hit the sides of the motor. I had to machine those off and epoxy new ones forward of the old ones.

No doubt master builder Pat will have a more elegant solution than I came up with.

Pete

Pat,  am I still in the 'Que' for my 763e (6-18056)?

@Norton posted:

Pat is the only one who can answer this as I have only done a CV. I had not seen Pat’s builds before I did mine so I mounted the motor slightly differently than he does but it ends up in nearly the same location. The problem isn’t in mounting the motor but the location of the rear screw mounts for the shell. The original shells mounts hit the sides of the motor. I had to machine those off and epoxy new ones forward of the old ones.

No doubt master builder Pat will have a more elegant solution than I came up with.

Pete

Did Lionel move the rear shell mounts between the standard NYC Hudson and the CV? If not the way Pat modifies the chassis might make the difference in needing to modify the shell mount vs. not having to.

@Lou1985 posted:

Is fitting the Pittman any harder than on the standard NYC Hudson? I thought @Norton had some issues fitting a 9433 in his CV.

@Lou1985 posted:

Did Lionel move the rear shell mounts between the standard NYC Hudson and the CV? If not the way Pat modifies the chassis might make the difference in needing to modify the shell mount vs. not having to.

There’s a “ sweet spot” between the rear posts and the back head for the 9433 to live on these CV’s ....I do have to mill down the insides of the standoffs just a wee bit, but there’s plenty of material there to support life....also there’s a defined lip on the shell, and if you notice, I’ve got the Pittman mounted ever so slightly higher than normal Hudson swaps.....this allows the motor to kinda scoop into where she’s gonna live .......pics of that coming soon, hopefully before the end of the week,....if I can catch a breath,....😬

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

There’s a “ sweet spot” between the rear posts and the back head for the 9433 to live on these CV’s ....I do have to mill down the insides of the standoffs just a wee bit, but there’s plenty of material there to support life....also there’s a defined lip on the shell, and if you notice, I’ve got the Pittman mounted ever so slightly higher than normal Hudson swaps.....this allows the motor to kinda scoop into where she’s gonna live .......pics of that coming soon, hopefully before the end of the week,....if I can catch a breath,....😬

Pat

So the chassis are the same between the standard NYC Hudson and the CV, it's the shell difference that causes the issue.

Yep,...and you have questions, we have answers,....here’s Mike’s CV with the Pittman attached to the frame, nestled down in the shell, with all 3 stock mounting points secured. ....note the rear bearing cap kinda protrudes into the back head area, but is not touching,....there’s still a wee bit of room for fire box flicker if one so decides,....the rear mounting pockets only have the outer most mouth portion trimmed away, and the bolt hole is still plenty intact. This set up retains all stock mounting points,....looks as if they planned for us to put a Pittman in there at some point,....no??.....fits like a glove, easily serviced if need be,....note also, stock alignment pins for ash pan,...all that’s needed is relocation of the mounting fastener,.....😁

Pat

@Dennis-LaRock posted:

Pat,  am I still in the 'Que' for my 763e (6-18056)?

I’m just waiting on the little brown truck to drop off your little brown box,...😉

Pat

I see the difference Pat. I used a 9434. The extra length is what required moving the mounts.

Pete

@Norton posted:

I see the difference Pat. I used a 9434. The extra length is what required moving the mounts.

Pete

Yep, I remember that build, ....you had to shoe horn that big block in there,....I’m surprised vasoline wasn’t applied to the sides to get that monster in there!...that was an impressive execution buddy,.....I look like amateur hour when you break out the big guns,...😉

Pat

@Norton .....I do see a strong resemblance on how you trimmed your chassis, and the way I do mine,....so we’re on the same page there,....

Pat

I was amateur hour. Its called ignorance. I didn't even know the difference in Pittman sizes back then. Need a Pittman? OK here you go, now go jam it in there.

Pete

Well that explains the issue. The extra length of the 9434 is gonna cause problems.

The 9433 pat is putting in the CV is probably a better fit for the chassis. I feel like the 9434 in a 6 driver locomotive is overkill. MTH used a 9434 in their Premier Hudsons (NYC, ATSF, CNW MILW, etc) and it's very much overkill. The locomotives don't have enough weight/traction to take advantage of the greater torque of the 9434, so the performance difference really doesn't show up.

Pretty sure that engine will pull 15 cars easily even with a tender alone  that weighs about the same as three of the cars. 13, which was the most our club yard could hold was no sweat. The CV is a heavy engine, made back when men were men.......you fill in the rest.

Pete

The 9433 only gives up pennies to the 9434,....the bigger motor is just plain a bear to fit in.....I’ve evolved and refined the Pittman swaps to make them simpler and much more affordable for the end user,......where the rubber meets the road for me, is in testing, and the 9433 performs just fine,....low amp draws, lots of cars, and smooth running on a rectifier,....if it passes that test, then electronics is just the icing on the cake,.....all of these scale sized Pulmors basically have the exact same construction,.....use the big motor, and you have no choice but to wipe off the stock rear mounts,...that’s all the Hudsons, Mohawks, T1’s etc......the 9433 is just a perfect fit,....we’ll save all those CPR motors for the big MTH steamers Lou,...😉

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

I’m just waiting on the little brown truck to drop off your little brown box,...😉

Pat

Fantastic!!!  I'll email you for the particulars and get it sent out this week.

AWESOME!!!!

Check this out!...y’all mighta thought I knew what I was doing!...not bad for a wannabe,...😁......anyways, we’ve trimmed up the stock shaft and turned it down to accept these really nice slip joint universal shafts, .......makes for a clean install,...this one is Mike’s chassis, Sid’s is up next,....gotta keep these two neck & neck ......

Pat

@Lou1985 posted:

Well that explains the issue. The extra length of the 9434 is gonna cause problems.

The 9433 pat is putting in the CV is probably a better fit for the chassis. I feel like the 9434 in a 6 driver locomotive is overkill. MTH used a 9434 in their Premier Hudsons (NYC, ATSF, CNW MILW, etc) and it's very much overkill. The locomotives don't have enough weight/traction to take advantage of the greater torque of the 9434, so the performance difference really doesn't show up.

well shove in some bullets!

GRJ slugs that is....

his pic, I hope he doesn't mind?

@harmonyards posted:

I’m just waiting on the little brown truck to drop off your little brown box,...😉

Pat

OK... the 763e has been pulled from the shelf ...I just sent you an email.  I know that some of my past emails went into your JUNK folder (thank you )... so, check there if it doesn't magically appear in your inbox.

Thanks!!

@harmonyards posted:

Check this out!...y’all mighta thought I knew what I was doing!...not bad for a wannabe,...😁......anyways, we’ve trimmed up the stock shaft and turned it down to accept these really nice slip joint universal shafts, .......makes for a clean install,...this one is Mike’s chassis, Sid’s is up next,....gotta keep these two neck & neck ......

Pat

That is a big motor Pat. How many cars will that pull(whether coaches or freight)?

Rain coming down here, making me more sleepy than I already was. I was going to email you with some questions, I guess I'll do that tomorrow so I am not sleeping here typing endless "z's" in the draft email, lol. I'll get with you tomorrow. ZZZZZzzzzzz...

@Dennis-LaRock posted:

OK... the 763e has been pulled from the shelf ...I just sent you an email.  I know that some of my past emails went into your JUNK folder (thank you )... so, check there if it doesn't magically appear in your inbox.

Thanks!!

I got you this time Dennis, ....last time you went out in the trash, I rescued your email address,....😉.....sent you a reply buddy,..

Pat

@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:

That is a big motor Pat. How many cars will that pull(whether coaches or freight)?

Rain coming down here, making me more sleepy than I already was. I was going to email you with some questions, I guess I'll do that tomorrow so I am not sleeping here typing endless "z's" in the draft email, lol. I'll get with you tomorrow. ZZZZZzzzzzz...

At least 15 heavyweights I’d think Dave,.....stay tuned, it won’t be long before we put Mike’s chassis to the test on a rectifier run .....we’ll pile on the cars till she can’t take anymore,....subtract that one, and that’ll set the bar,....😉....if I recall, Pete managed 18 heavys on his club layout with his build, so we’ll see how close we can get to that,....but let’s see if he can chime in with the magic number he yanked with his,....

Pat

Actually I was only able to fit 13 on the layout we had setup the day I ran that engine. 15 would be no sweat I am sure. These were MTH and K-Line heavyweight cars. Lionel 21" cars are lighter and roll even easier so 20 of those I am sure would be doable if not prototypical. BTW I agree there is minimal difference between 9433s and 9434s in terms of actual performance. Wheel slip/tractive effort is the limiting factor.

Pete

@Norton posted:

Actually I was only able to fit 13 on the layout we had setup the day I ran that engine. 15 would be no sweat I am sure. These were MTH and K-Line heavyweight cars. Lionel 21" cars are lighter and roll even easier so 20 of those I am sure would be doable if not prototypical. BTW I agree there is minimal difference between 9433s and 9434s in terms of actual performance. Wheel slip/tractive effort is the limiting factor.

Pete

Yep, I’d drink to that,....totally agree, we’ll run out of locomotive long before we run out of motor,...😉

Pat

Yeah, I seem to remember 15 or something like that. Wasn't there some freight being pulled behind the passenger cars as well, or was I dreaming?

Great to see Pat's mastery work on one of my own. In seeing his previous examples on the forum, we knew it would be in great hands.

Also, we'll likely only be running 4-5 Lionel 18" heavyweights behind this girl at any given time. However, glad to see that we'll have some headroom.

We've owned the CV for a number of years but the running characteristics were always difficult to get past - Especially, after running anything from the Legacy roster. Pat's transformation will narrow that gap considerably. We're going to keep the original sounds as, while somewhat dated, is still one of our favorite whistles.

Thanks again Pat!

Mike

@harmonyards posted:

Pat

One curious question I just thought of, didn't these have the crummy tether with the 6 points that may come out? I know that my CCI S2 Turbine lost one on it and no sounds no more. Do you change that somehow Pat?

@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:

One curious question I just thought of, didn't these have the crummy tether with the 6 points that may come out? I know that my CCI S2 Turbine lost one on it and no sounds no more. Do you change that somehow Pat?

Dave, one is going IR, the other will be getting a more modern tether,.....both will be losing the exposed pin tethers.....

Pat

@graz posted:

Great to see Pat's mastery work on one of my own. In seeing his previous examples on the forum, we knew it would be in great hands.

Also, we'll likely only be running 4-5 Lionel 18" heavyweights behind this girl at any given time. However, glad to see that we'll have some headroom.

We've owned the CV for a number of years but the running characteristics were always difficult to get past - Especially, after running anything from the Legacy roster. Pat's transformation will narrow that gap considerably. We're going to keep the original sounds as, while somewhat dated, is still one of our favorite whistles.

Thanks again Pat!

Mike

I kept the stock sounds on mine too when I did my swap Mike, ....I’m actually tickled with the stock sounds,....maybe a tad dated???....but that whistle keeps me coming back for more!!.....you’re quite correct,....it is a haunting whistle for early railsounds,...

Pat

@harmonyards Pat, this is definitely an interesting build.  Until you posted this thread a few days ago, I had no idea what a great craftsman you are.  Great work!  I'm enjoying watching your progress on these beauties.

One question, did you use your ZW for the motor mount welding?

(Everyone else please ignore that inside joke, Pat knows what I'm talking about).