Help needed please. Factory new RMT Beep Diesel.

@DanVW posted:

GRJ, Fun fact; the earlier Beep boards have the exact same components and qty. as the K-Line Porter’s boards. The only difference is the board layout to allow for fitment within the Beep’s shell. And we all know the issues with the K-Line Porter’s boards & motors. Neither are durable enough to run reliably under a decent load. A failing motor will cause the PICs to burn out. Those boards can’t take the amps like the newer boards. I’ve repaired a few Porter boards due to failing motors. I’ll bet the motors in the Beeps are of the same quality given their financial position at the time? I just ordered a few Mabuchi FC-130SA motors to use as replacements for the Porter’s FK-130 motor. The FC-130SA is similar in design as the Beep’s motor but smaller in size like the Porter’s. And double shaft of course. It fits in the Porter chassis by trimming the lower half of the bushing mount on the plastic housing end. This doesn’t affect the bushing mount’s structure. I can post pics of this mod if anyone is interested?

Dan VW

This a decent load?

She'll do this for an hour at 9.5V and she has the "early" board. Motors (Mabuchi w/nylon end bells, don't know model #) get just warm to the touch while the rectifiers and output chips get warmer, but not hot. Lubrication, as I describe above, is all a BEEP needs to give reliable, albeit "bare bones" service, as long as everything is in good electrical and mechanical condition to start with.

Bob ( @RSJB18 ), I haven't started the ore load project yet as I've been working on a recently acquired PW NYC F3 AA "Growler" Set.

@Bill Swatos posted:

This a decent load?

Bob ( @RSJB18 ), I haven't started the ore load project yet as I've been working on a recently acquired PW NYC F3 AA "Growler" Set.

Hmmmmm....I seem to recall seeing a set on the F/S forum recently........

@DanVW posted:

GRJ, Fun fact; the earlier Beep boards have the exact same components and qty. as the K-Line Porter’s boards. The only difference is the board layout to allow for fitment within the Beep’s shell. And we all know the issues with the K-Line Porter’s boards & motors. Neither are durable enough to run reliably under a decent load. A failing motor will cause the PICs to burn out. Those boards can’t take the amps like the newer boards. I’ve repaired a few Porter boards due to failing motors. I’ll bet the motors in the Beeps are of the same quality given their financial position at the time? I just ordered a few Mabuchi FC-130SA motors to use as replacements for the Porter’s FK-130 motor. The FC-130SA is similar in design as the Beep’s motor but smaller in size like the Porter’s. And double shaft of course. It fits in the Porter chassis by trimming the lower half of the bushing mount on the plastic housing end. This doesn’t affect the bushing mount’s structure. I can post pics of this mod if anyone is interested?

Dan VW

Dan, the K-Line Porter has a single VERY small motor, the BEEP has two significantly larger motors, I would venture to say the BEEP could draw far more current in a true stall.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Dan, the K-Line Porter has a single VERY small motor, the BEEP has two significantly larger motors, I would venture to say the BEEP could draw far more current in a true stall.

GRJ, I agree. I’m also very familiar with the Porter/Plymouth motors compared to the Beep’s. I have a Beep and Beef too. I was referring to the boards that are installed in the most recent Beeps compared to the earlier ones. I’m surprised the old boards lasted this long having to drive dual motors through those small flip-flop PIC chips. I thought I’d see more RMT locos with board failures out there because of this.

DanVW

Ok, I’m coming back to this post with a tangential issue/question about the beeps.  I am busily working on my new layout but sometimes… you just want to run something.  So in addition to my christmas oval (o54 curves) I built a small test oval (o31 curves) to test cars as I fix them and mess with various accessories, etc. as I plan the new layout.  Anyhow, getting bored with just and oval I added a figure 8 to give some visual interest for when the grandkids kids are in the shop with me.  I had run all the post war stuff on it and one of the kids saw my two beeps and wanted to see them run.  I had previously run them on the o31 oval with the Z (noted previously) and it ran great set at 10v.  Anyhow, I ran the beep first around the oval (so passing over the turnouts but going straight) and there was some sparkage which surprised me.  I thought maybe it was the short wheel base (really short distance between the two pick ups?).  Then I attempted to run it through the figure 8 and got SHOCKING sparkage thrown out several inches from the track.  Thinking it was that one turn out I tried the other 3 and got the same.  These are the standard Lionel O27 manual turn outs ( 6-5021 and 6-5022).  The beep either does not cross it at all or crosses with huge sparkage.  After taking it off the track out of concern that the engine would be damaged I tried to change the switch back to the oval and found that they were hard to switch… as if it had even slightly melted the plastic.  WOW.  Does anyone else run their beeps on tubular track and if so do you use lionel turn outs?  Help please… there is no point in keeping these if I can’t run them on my track.

I run k-line snap track and switches which is tubular track and have never had any of my 4 beeps throw sparks! Something seems very wrong,

@Chills posted:

Ok, I’m coming back to this post with a tangential issue/question about the beeps.  I am busily working on my new layout but sometimes… you just want to run something.  So in addition to my christmas oval (o54 curves) I built a small test oval (o31 curves) to test cars as I fix them and mess with various accessories, etc. as I plan the new layout.  Anyhow, getting bored with just and oval I added a figure 8 to give some visual interest for when the grandkids kids are in the shop with me.  I had run all the post war stuff on it and one of the kids saw my two beeps and wanted to see them run.  I had previously run them on the o31 oval with the Z (noted previously) and it ran great set at 10v.  Anyhow, I ran the beep first around the oval (so passing over the turnouts but going straight) and there was some sparkage which surprised me.  I thought maybe it was the short wheel base (really short distance between the two pick ups?).  Then I attempted to run it through the figure 8 and got SHOCKING sparkage thrown out several inches from the track.  Thinking it was that one turn out I tried the other 3 and got the same.  These are the standard Lionel O27 manual turn outs ( 6-5021 and 6-5022).  The beep either does not cross it at all or crosses with huge sparkage.  After taking it off the track out of concern that the engine would be damaged I tried to change the switch back to the oval and found that they were hard to switch… as if it had even slightly melted the plastic.  WOW.  Does anyone else run their beeps on tubular track and if so do you use lionel turn outs?  Help please… there is no point in keeping these if I can’t run them on my track.

One characteristic of tubular track is the center rail is "raised" relative to the outside rails due to the insulating material where the tie "crimp" holds the rail. This results in the collector rollers likely riding pretty close to the bottom plate of the BEEP. I believe what is happening when you get the "spectacular" sparking is that the collector rollers entering the turnout/crossover are being pushed up even higher by the center rail feature of the crossover/turnout causing the rollers to contact the bottom plate, especially where it "slopes" up to the axle, and causes a pretty dead short. If you're running 10V, that would probably get hot enough to "fuse" the ABS plastic under the plate at the contact point. What I would suggest is the application of a piece of electrical tape to the bottom plate at both places where the collector rollers might contact it.

Dang I love this group.  thanks for that thought... not sure I would have gotten there on my own.  that is a relatively easy fix if it is that.  I'll give it a try tonight.  thanks for pushing me into new areas of thought. 

@Chills posted:

Dang I love this group.  thanks for that thought... not sure I would have gotten there on my own.  that is a relatively easy fix if it is that.  I'll give it a try tonight.  thanks for pushing me into new areas of thought.

I just realized it may be the drive gear "humps" in the bottom plate that are hitting the "raised" center rail first. You may be able to tape the bottom of both of those and solve the problem. If electrical tape is too thick, clear packing tape, cut to size, might work.

The drive gear bumps are well off the track, even for tubular track.  The travel of the pickup rollers also have plenty of travel after even a raised center rail.  I tend to doubt this is the issue.  I have a BEEP apart and I'm checking it against my track now.

@Chills I have several BEEPS and run them on 027 tubular. They do spark quite a bit on my turnouts. I've learned to live with it but you are not seeing things. I've fiddled with track and pickups to minimize the issues where possible.

Sorry but I'm  sure that's not what you want to hear.

Bob

@RSJB18 posted:

@Chills I have several BEEPS and run them on 027 tubular. They do spark quite a bit on my turnouts. I've learned to live with it but you are not seeing things. I've fiddled with track and pickups to minimize the issues where possible.

Sorry but I'm  sure that's not what you want to hear.

Bob

Indeed. It seems the 2003 and later BEEPs from RMT were designed to run on "plastic roadbed" track like Fastrack (also introduced in 2003) where all three rails are at the same height. I could envision that tubular track from various makers over the years might have varying differences in height of their center rail versus the outer two, causing the observed shorting problems for BEEPs on some manufacturers' tubular track and not others. Because the wheels are so small on the BEEP, and the bottom plate "humps" are so prominent relative to the wheel diameter, even with Fastrack its gearbox cover plate comes the closest (just over 2 mm) to contacting the center rail of any loco I have. That doesn't leave much "room for error" when dealing with a "raised" center rail.

If you want to identify if it's clearance issues, it should be fairly simple.  Using something like Kapton tape, tape the tops of the gearboxes and under the rollers where they'd meet the frame.

To be honest, I'll be a little surprised if this is the issue, I measure over 3mm clearance from the gearboxes to the rail of a perfectly flat piece of track.  If you have a center rail that projects that much higher then the outside rails, I can't imagine that it would be only the BEEP that would have a problem.  I'd be looking for other causes, one being there are only four wheels, and one has a traction tire.  I see wheel sparking over my double-slip switches with small motorized equipment, most likely because of limited outside rail conductivity.

The BEEP saga continues.....

I wanted to swap shells on one of my chassis to run a Chessie shell I have. Since this topic popped up again the other day, I spent a little time checking rollers and clearances on 027 tubular.

IN MY EXPERT OPINION......... THE ROLLERS ARE TOO LONG AND HIT BOTH THE CENTER RAIL AND INNER POINT RAIL ON TIGHT RADIUS TURNOUTS!

The rollers on the test chassis were clean and free of any scars from sparking before I ran it. (Pic taken after a test run) The scars are on the inner side of the rollers.

I did a test by covering the inner curved point of the turnout with electrical tape. NO SPARKS

Looking at the position of the rollers on a curved 027 track section.  Unlike articulating trucks, the rigid wheels and chassis don't allow the rollers to remain centered on the center rail on a curve.

And when on a 5122 switch. The gearbox has adequate clearance. The roller in the background is touching both rails at the apex of the curve.

I took the rollers off the chassis and ground down the ends to give them some taper. Sparking was reduced but still not eliminated.

I then went to the source of the problem....the switch. I've used clear acrylic polyurethane in the past as a rail insulator so I applied 2 coats to the inner point of the turnouts. Results are better than before and more acceptable to me. I don't know if the Kapton tape John mentioned would be an option but I'm open to try other solutions.

Overall a productive hour or so on a rainy Saturday afternoon.

Bob

PS- Looks like I will need to add some shielding to the inside of the shell to block the light bleed.

I guess my 072 minimum curves haven't been an issue here.   FWIW, I do have issues with a couple of engines spanning on switches, but it's the fat blind drivers that are the problem, not the rollers.  I did the same thing to the T1 Duplex, tapered the drivers.  I have to apply the fix to my 2500HP Transfer Engine so I can run it as well.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

I guess my 072 minimum curves haven't been an issue here.   FWIW, I do have issues with a couple of engines spanning on switches, but it's the fat blind drivers that are the problem, not the rollers.  I did the same thing to the T1 Duplex, tapered the drivers.  I have to apply the fix to my 2500HP Transfer Engine so I can run it as well.

Just think what we could accomplish if we didn't have to problem solve all the time......

I didn't mention that I also see sparking on a pair of 042's that connect my inner and outer tracks.

Bob

@RSJB18 posted:

The BEEP saga continues.....

I wanted to swap shells on one of my chassis to run a Chessie shell I have. Since this topic popped up again the other day, I spent a little time checking rollers and clearances on 027 tubular.

IN MY EXPERT OPINION......... THE ROLLERS ARE TOO LONG AND HIT BOTH THE CENTER RAIL AND INNER POINT RAIL ON TIGHT RADIUS TURNOUTS!

The rollers on the test chassis were clean and free of any scars from sparking before I ran it. (Pic taken after a test run) The scars are on the inner side of the rollers.

I did a test by covering the inner curved point of the turnout with electrical tape. NO SPARKS

Looking at the position of the rollers on a curved 027 track section.  Unlike articulating trucks, the rigid wheels and chassis don't allow the rollers to remain centered on the center rail on a curve.

And when on a 5122 switch. The gearbox has adequate clearance. The roller in the background is touching both rails at the apex of the curve.

I took the rollers off the chassis and ground down the ends to give them some taper. Sparking was reduced but still not eliminated.

I then went to the source of the problem....the switch. I've used clear acrylic polyurethane in the past as a rail insulator so I applied 2 coats to the inner point of the turnouts. Results are better than before and more acceptable to me. I don't know if the Kapton tape John mentioned would be an option but I'm open to try other solutions.

Overall a productive hour or so on a rainy Saturday afternoon.

Bob

PS- Looks like I will need to add some shielding to the inside of the shell to block the light bleed.

This explains why collector rollers are so narrow on PW 027 locos. Great work, Bob! BTW, how do you get the riveted rollers off and back on? This will help me on a bunch of locos with worn rollers.

@Bill Swatos posted:

This explains why collector rollers are so narrow on PW 027 locos. Great work, Bob! BTW, how do you get the riveted rollers off and back on? This will help me on a bunch of locos with worn rollers.

I took the whole assembly off and held the roller against my dremel. I didn't remove the roller but I'm sure it can be done.

One screw holds the board in place. The screws for the pick ups are in the well below.

Thanks Bill

@RSJB18 posted:

I took the whole assembly off and held the roller against my dremel. I didn't remove the roller but I'm sure it can be done.

One screw holds the board in place. The screws for the pick ups are in the well below.

Thanks Bill

Thanks, Bob. I thought you had removed the riveted pins and machined the rollers on a mandrel in the chuck of your Dremel. I'm very reluctant to remove the riveted pins as I don't have a rivet tool to re-rivet them.

@Bill Swatos posted:

Thanks, Bob. I thought you had removed the riveted pins and machined the rollers on a mandrel in the chuck of your Dremel. I'm very reluctant to remove the riveted pins as I don't have a rivet tool to re-rivet them.

TCL-44 rollers come pre pinned, while 2328-95 rollers come pre-tapered and you can solder the rivet into place...

Mitch

@RSJB18 posted:

The BEEP saga continues.....

I wanted to swap shells on one of my chassis to run a Chessie shell I have. Since this topic popped up again the other day, I spent a little time checking rollers and clearances on 027 tubular.

IN MY EXPERT OPINION......... THE ROLLERS ARE TOO LONG AND HIT BOTH THE CENTER RAIL AND INNER POINT RAIL ON TIGHT RADIUS TURNOUTS!

The rollers on the test chassis were clean and free of any scars from sparking before I ran it. (Pic taken after a test run) The scars are on the inner side of the rollers.

I did a test by covering the inner curved point of the turnout with electrical tape. NO SPARKS

Looking at the position of the rollers on a curved 027 track section.  Unlike articulating trucks, the rigid wheels and chassis don't allow the rollers to remain centered on the center rail on a curve.

And when on a 5122 switch. The gearbox has adequate clearance. The roller in the background is touching both rails at the apex of the curve.

I took the rollers off the chassis and ground down the ends to give them some taper. Sparking was reduced but still not eliminated.

I then went to the source of the problem....the switch. I've used clear acrylic polyurethane in the past as a rail insulator so I applied 2 coats to the inner point of the turnouts. Results are better than before and more acceptable to me. I don't know if the Kapton tape John mentioned would be an option but I'm open to try other solutions.

Overall a productive hour or so on a rainy Saturday afternoon.

Bob

PS- Looks like I will need to add some shielding to the inside of the shell to block the light bleed.

Ok, thanks so much Bob!  Yes, you have replicated my exact issues and I noticed the same scars on the rollers immediately.  I’m sorry to say I can’t see exactly where you applied the poly.  Can you take a pic with a pointer or something.  So sorry, you have been a great help.  Second question, while many of my turn outs are 27” I also have a number of 42”.  Will I have the same issue there?  If so, I will try the same application there as well.  I’m thrilled with the help as I was so excited to have these two beeps for the grandkids.  

@Chills posted:

Ok, thanks so much Bob!  Yes, you have replicated my exact issues and I noticed the same scars on the rollers immediately.  I’m sorry to say I can’t see exactly where you applied the poly.  Can you take a pic with a pointer or something.  So sorry, you have been a great help.  Second question, while many of my turn outs are 27” I also have a number of 42”.  Will I have the same issue there?  If so, I will try the same application there as well.  I’m thrilled with the help as I was so excited to have these two beeps for the grandkids.  

No problem Chills...that's what this forum is all about.

I applied the poly to this part of the switch (in the blue box). I did my 027's and 042's since the engine sparked on both.

Bob