Need a helper engine suggestion

Forget about mixing the can motor and Pulmore, they won't have speed curves that match.

Using a Pullmor unit likely won’t work as their speed will be way off. Another FT AA would be simplest if they are the same generation. Not sure if what you have now is Odyssey or non cruise TMCC. If you get a F3B unit you still might be able to swap shells with your FT A. Might have to round the corners on one end though.

Pete

I'm planning to upgrade a F3 w/ pullmor, to ERR Cruise. I haven't reached out to him yet but Frank at Timkko has direct drop in can motors for Lionel F3's.

The real question is, will the gear ratio be the same with the Pulmore truck as with the truck for the can motor...

Gear ratio is only one consideration. You want to get something that has the same type of electronics. Even if the gear ratio of the Pullmor is the same, unlikely, you have to match the electronics. ERR won’t have the same speed steps as Odyssey assuming it even has Odyssey. You would end up spending more converting a Pullmor and adding electronics than getting another FT set.

Best if R4D tells us what he has now.

Pete

It kinda' went without saying that he'd have to swap the electronics if he installed a can motor.

Thanks! Glad I asked. The current FT does not have Odyseey, just plain old TMCC I think 2005 vintage.

Might consider selling these and getting an F3 ABA. Any recommendations pro or con on the K-Lines? Appear to all be powered. Part availability concerns me.

Hmm... You just missed a set I sold, the K-Line A-B-A with quad motors.   The electronics in the K-Line are Lionel, so parts there aren't a big issue.

@raising4daughters posted:

My thought is to buy a powered F3 B unit. I doubt guests would notice that the As are FTs and the B is an F3. I'd bet that "lash up" may have been done in the real world on occasion.

Not "on occasion" - that was done constantly. It was one of the beauties of the diesel-electric - modular combinations with only one engine crew. In fact, as time wore on, a "matched set" of diesel locos was the exception and not the rule. Some roads (and ATSF was one) did try to keep things tidy on important passenger trains, but even that pretty much went away, along with the passenger trains.

BTW - "slipping" typically is an indicator of a weight problem, not a power problem. The loco has the power apparently, but the tractive effort can't be applied to the track. Adding a bit of weight may cure it, but, then, so would that (appropriate/compatible) added powered locomotive.

Who or what is this "Timkko "?  Do you have a webpage for Timkko?

Let Me Google That For You

Frank Timko

Diesels could be MUed but there were limits especially early on.    For one thing, the FTs, were delivered as A-B sets connected with a Drawbar not a coupler.    So they did not have normal draft gear and could on readily be separated and mated with newer F units.    Some RRs did rebuild them and change this to make them separate units, probably at Major rebuilds, not soon.    Also FTs I think were quite a bit shorter than F3s, so swapping shells may not work well if both units are scale size.

Originally EMD F  A units were not built with MU connections on the fronts of the noses, so they could only lead or trail a consist, not be embedded.   Again as they were overhauled, MU connections were added by most if not all RRs

Early diesel brands all used unique MU systems and connections, so Alcos, EMDs, FM, and Baldwins could not be MUed across brands.    EMDs worked with EMDs, ALCOS worked with ALCOs etc.    This was ssomething else that was worked out as time went on, but I have heard it tended to be as the units got to be 15 years old and went through major overhauls.    Also, the builders probably started offering compatible systems on second generation stuff.