MTH Electrics Minimum curves

Where do you see O-42 for the EP-3?  I’m looking at the features on the page that you linked for 20-5628-1 and it says “Operates on O-72 curves”.  That’s sounds about right.  The MTH GG-1 has the same wheel arrangement and is rated for O-72.  That’s why I got Williams GG-1s (rated for O-42) and had them converted to PS-3.

My Lionel 751E set (rated at O-72) is happy on Gargraves flex track that I curved to around 68” diameter.   You might be able to get the EP-3 to run on something slightly less than O-72, but I’d bet against running the MTH EP-3 on your O44.5 Fastrack. 

@Lehigh74 posted:

Where do you see O-42 for the EP-3?  I’m looking at the features on the page that you linked for 20-5628-1 and it says “Operates on O-72 curves”.  That’s sounds about right.  The MTH GG-1 has the same wheel arrangement and is rated for O-72.  That’s why I got Williams GG-1s (rated for O-42) and had them converted to PS-3.

My Lionel 751E set (rated at O-72) is happy on Gargraves flex track that I curved to around 68” diameter.   You might be able to get the EP-3 to run on something slightly less than O-72, but I’d bet against running the MTH EP-3 on your O44.5 Fastrack. 

I linked the wrong one. I meant to link this one. It does read 0-42. I've thought about the Williams G. If I did it, I'd want operating pantographs and smoke in addition to PS3. I wonder if anyone has done that.

From experience, both the NH EP3 and NYC P2 require full O72 and will slow down slightly if it finds even the slightest of kinks in those curves!

Modifications, if possible would require increased coupler swing as well as running gear mods.

Jim

I can tell you for sure, the MTH GG-1 won't run on O48 curves.  My TMCC upgraded Williams makes it around an O36 Fastrack curve.  I also have the JLC GG-1, another one that needs O72, but it did manage to make O60 curves.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

I can tell you for sure, the MTH GG-1 won't run on O48 curves.  My TMCC upgraded Williams makes it around an O36 Fastrack curve.  I also have the JLC GG-1, another one that needs O72, but it did manage to make O60 curves.

Cool. If I did a GG1 (with my current curves in mind) I'd do the William's. I'd get it upgrade to PS3 with smoke and operating pantographs. Would that be possible? I'd probably want to do another Williams G with TMCC and the fix ins too, again would that be possible? 

@Jim Policastro posted:

From experience, both the NH EP3 and NYC P2 require full O72 and will slow down slightly if it finds even the slightest of kinks in those curves!

Modifications, if possible would require increased coupler swing as well as running gear mods.

Jim

 

Well that answers that. I'm really curious to see what that guy did to his P2 to get 031 out of it. 

@Trainlover9943 posted:

Cool. If I did a GG1 (with my current curves in mind) I'd do the William's. I'd get it upgrade to PS3 with smoke and operating pantographs. Would that be possible? I'd probably want to do another Williams G with TMCC and the fix ins too, again would that be possible? 

Forget about operating pans, that ain't happening without a lot of time and expense!  The PS/3 with the steam release is certainly possible.  I've considered adding the steam release to my Williams upgrade.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Forget about operating pans, that ain't happening without a lot of time and expense!  The PS/3 with the steam release is certainly possible.  I've considered adding the steam release to my Williams upgrade.

Oh well. I take it's a ton harder to add pans than it sounds. 

@Trainlover9943 posted:

... I'm really curious to see what that guy did to his P2 to get 031 out of it. 

Me too!!! 

Jim

@Jim Policastro posted:

Me too!!! 

Jim

If he replies I'll post it here. It really doesn't look like he did anything to it. 

Ive done three layouts with over head wire and it's not hard, it's simply looks like a lot of work. Once everything is in place it's easy. Don

The Bi-polar does not have a rigid frame. It is made of three section that are linked together. It runs like a snake and will run on less the 072 track. I would guess my GE box cabs would run on something under 072 but never tried.  Don

@scale rail posted:

The Bi-polar does not have a rigid frame. It is made of three section that are linked together. It runs like a snake and will run on less the 072 track. I would guess my GE box cabs would run on something under 072 but never tried.  Don

Well that's interesting. Nice layout btw! Here's the Bi-Polar thread FWIW.

@scale rail posted:

Ive done three layouts with over head wire and it's not hard, it's simply looks like a lot of work. Once everything is in place it's easy. Don

Looks awesome! I'm an east coast guy mainly but this looks awesome! 

@scale rail posted:

Ive done three layouts with over head wire and it's not hard, it's simply looks like a lot of work. Once everything is in place it's easy. Don

We were talking about actually making the pans on the Williams GG-1 work automatically.  However, the catenary is also difficult, as you say, "a lot of work".  That spells "difficult" to me!

I got to thinking John, Could you put an MTH GG1 shell on a williams frame which would have the pan motors in the pans I believe? Would that work? 

Nope.  Remember, the pans have to have logic to drive them.  Look at the parts listing for the JLC TMCC GG1, it has operating pans and the smoke feature.  It also has a control board that receives serial data from the R2LC and controls the pans.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Nope.  Remember, the pans have to have logic to drive them.  Look at the parts listing for the JLC TMCC GG1, it has operating pans and the smoke feature.  It also has a control board that receives serial data from the R2LC and controls the pans.

Darn. I take it for PS/3 it would need the flash code for the pans to work if the motors were installed? Although I'd love it, it seems like operating pans are out of the question. 

"...guy who took a PS1 P2, converted it to LC (ugh)"

I'm not sure what "LC" is supposed to mean, but I assume it is some sort of Lionel/ERR/TMCC/Legacy reference. Well, I took my MTH NYC (black scheme) that came with faulty PS2 (it was second-hand) and put ERR Cruise Commander in it and it runs just as well as anything could. There is no "ugh" in converting one to TMCC, if that was your thrust.

BTW, even in the instructions I do recall it mentioning that the loco (P-2) could derail the following car even on an 0-72 curve or switch due to inadequate (not their word) coupler swing, and they recommended running only cars with articulated couplers - common on better RS anyway - so that the car could disguise the loco's flaw (again, not their terminology).

Love the P-2 - my favorite electric - but that coupler swing is weak. But - I do not think that I have the latest release, whenever that was.

@D500 posted:

"...guy who took a PS1 P2, converted it to LC (ugh)"

I'm not sure what "LC" is supposed to mean, but I assume it is some sort of Lionel/ERR/TMCC/Legacy reference. Well, I took my MTH NYC (black scheme) that came with faulty PS2 (it was second-hand) and put ERR Cruise Commander in it and it runs just as well as anything could. There is no "ugh" in converting one to TMCC, if that was your thrust.

BTW, even in the instructions I do recall it mentioning that the loco (P-2) could derail the following car even on an 0-72 curve or switch due to inadequate (not their word) coupler swing, and they recommended running only cars with articulated couplers - common on better RS anyway - so that the car could disguise the loco's flaw (again, not their terminology).

Love the P-2 - my favorite electric - but that coupler swing is weak. But - I do not think that I have the latest release, whenever that was.

LC is lionels Lion Chief system, a super basic sound and control system. 

@Trainlover9943 posted:

Darn. I take it for PS/3 it would need the flash code for the pans to work if the motors were installed? Although I'd love it, it seems like operating pans are out of the question. 

The PS/3 boards I believe have the code, but you'd have to figure out all the bits you need extra and then wire it all up.  I haven't even looked at this issue, but I know it ain't gonna' be cheap.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

The PS/3 boards I believe have the code, but you'd have to figure out all the bits you need extra and then wire it all up.  I haven't even looked at this issue, but I know it ain't gonna' be cheap.

Ah. Well for now it's just a dream but I'll definitely keep this info in mind. 

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

We were talking about actually making the pans on the Williams GG-1 work automatically.  However, the catenary is also difficult, as you say, "a lot of work".  That spells "difficult" to me!

Sorry John, When I think of working pantographs I think of working overhead live wire. By the way I never use the automatic pan feature for what it's worth, and it ain't worth much. How are the pans on the Williams GG1's? I know they were terrible on the small Williams GG1's for overhead operation. I had to switch mine with Lionel's. The Williams swayed back because of weak springs.  Don

Well, I haven't used the pans for live running, so I can't say how good they are.  They look reasonable...

@Trainlover9943 posted:

If he replies I'll post it here. It really doesn't look like he did anything to it. 

@Jim Policastro he messaged me. Heres what he did. 

In other words, it was a real PITA to make that happen!

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

In other words, it was a real PITA to make that happen!

Basically. Not sure if I'd want to do all that. I think I'll just wait on it till I have bigger curves. 

Thanks, Matt.

That was a lot of grinding! 

I'd settle for O54 -should be a lot easier to accomplish.

Someday, I'm going to have to sit down and take a good look at what that would take.

Jim

@Jim Policastro posted:

Thanks, Matt.

That was a lot of grinding! 

I'd settle for O54 -should be a lot easier to accomplish.

Someday, I'm going to have to sit down and take a good look at what that would take.

Jim

 

 

 

Sure was. I think I'll just wait on it and the EP-3 till I have bigger curves. I'll settle for the Bi-Polar for now  

Matt, fwiw just got an mth swiss traxx F140 AC engine lettered on the side for cargo. I got the powered and non powered units used off ebay. Nice engines and very detailed. The movable pantographs are sweet but tricky to work on at first. Especially if you have never had an engine with movable pantographs. I can attest first hand that these babies need at lest 072 to operate. These engines are very similar to the alp I belive. If you want that engine I say go for it since mth is going to be closing get it now while you can,make sure it works 100%. Still get parts or serviced if needed and then shelve or store it and run it then when you get a larger more 072 freindly layout. Thats what I am doing and why I had to have those two traxx in my collection. mine just needed a little tlc and they are going to be good as new. So glad I poped on them. I dont regret it one bit. 

@Lionelzwl2012 posted:

Matt, fwiw just got an mth swiss traxx F140 AC engine lettered on the side for cargo. I got the powered and non powered units used off ebay. Nice engines and very detailed. The movable pantographs are sweet but tricky to work on at first. Especially if you have never had an engine with movable pantographs. I can attest first hand that these babies need at lest 072 to operate. These engines are very similar to the alp I belive. If you want that engine I say go for it since mth is going to be closing get it now while you can,make sure it works 100%. Still get parts or serviced if needed and then shelve or store it and run it then when you get a larger more 072 freindly layout. Thats what I am doing and why I had to have those two traxx in my collection. mine just needed a little tlc and they are going to be good as new. So glad I poped on them. I dont regret it one bit. 

Those Traxx F140 engines may just run on something smaller than 072..older catalogs from MTH have these listed as running on 042 (not 42" radius) in the Hi-rail versions. My guess is that they will run on at least 054 even though MTH has them NOW listed as 072 minimum for H-rail wheels. Would love to know for sure as my layout cannot go any bigger than 054. If you do have any of these curves on your layout perhaps you can take a minute and try, would greatly appreciate it.

sorry for the delayed reply. I do not have any curves that big to test it on sorry. 

@Maverick0394 posted:

Those Traxx F140 engines may just run on something smaller than 072..older catalogs from MTH have these listed as running on 042 (not 42" radius) in the Hi-rail versions. My guess is that they will run on at least 054 even though MTH has them NOW listed as 072 minimum for H-rail wheels. Would love to know for sure as my layout cannot go any bigger than 054. If you do have any of these curves on your layout perhaps you can take a minute and try, would greatly appreciate it.

The ALPs will run on o54, but it’s not advisable. I was curious one day and tried. I wouldn’t go under o54 but keep it at a slow pace. You also may run into some mechanical problems/wheel grind with the small curves. I’ve ran both my ALPs on o72 and 60 sidings ever since and don’t plan on going smaller again.

@GF93 posted:

The ALPs will run on o54, but it’s not advisable. I was curious one day and tried. I wouldn’t go under o54 but keep it at a slow pace. You also may run into some mechanical problems/wheel grind with the small curves. I’ve ran both my ALPs on o72 and 60 sidings ever since and don’t plan on going smaller again.

Thank Gabe for info on that...might just try it and run slow. What type of track did you test it on? Gargraves? Tubular?

Now I have in the past stayed out of these "my O72 engine will run on O63 discussions but can't this time.

First of all if you want a GG1 that WILL actually run/work on O42 get a Williams.  They were designed and rated for O42.  Way back in the day bought one and know it will do it!

Now as once doing product design my shorts get into a knot when I hear their manufacture's product rated spec of O72 will run on OXX.  I get exasperated when individuals think they know more than the designers.  Now I am sure some O72 engines may run on tighter curves but.  Now these may be riding up on the tapered flanges and "appear" to work.  Due the coupler/pilot design geometry will any coupled cars be thrown off the track?  Now pulling may be less of a chance but backing?

Plus one track manufacture's O72 is probably almost always different than another.  In fact Gar Graves plastic tie O72 CL to CL is .83-inches less dia. than their wood tie curves.  And Ross's O72 is different either!  And as I recall but it has been awhile since I measured it Lionel tubular if a different Dia. than their FasTrack.  Now did one track manufacturer do O72 CL to CL, another outside rail to outside rail, and then the other inside rail to inside rail.  Would say in general our toy train loco makers probably based their spec on the O72 (or what ever size) that they themselves make.

Just saying the manufacturers may have looked into all these possibilities  when they spec'd  out their product.

Ron

@PRRronbh posted:

Now I have in the past stayed out of these "my O72 engine will run on O63 discussions but can't this time.

First of all if you want a GG1 that WILL actually run/work on O42 get a Williams.  They were designed and rated for O42.  Way back in the day bought one and know it will do it!

 

Now as once doing product design my shorts get into a knot when I hear their manufacture's product rated spec of O72 will run on OXX.  I get exasperated when individuals think they know more than the designers.  Now I am sure some O72 engines may run on tighter curves but.  Now these may be riding up on the tapered flanges and "appear" to work.  Due the coupler/pilot design geometry will any coupled cars be thrown off the track?  Now pulling may be less of a chance but backing?

Plus one track manufacture's O72 is probably almost always different than another.  In fact Gar Graves plastic tie O72 CL to CL is .83-inches less dia. than their wood tie curves.  And Ross's O72 is different either!  And as I recall but it has been awhile since I measured it Lionel tubular if a different Dia. than their FasTrack.  Now did one track manufacturer do O72 CL to CL, another outside rail to outside rail, and then the other inside rail to inside rail.  Would say in general our toy train loco makers probably based their spec on the O72 (or what ever size) that they themselves make.

Just saying the manufacturers may have looked into all these possibilities  when they spec'd  out their product.

Ron

I Read this 3 times and not sure at all what your point is.....