Switcher Saturday 09-04-2021

@Don McErlean posted:

@lee drennen : Lee I will apologize in advance for being a "research nerd" but your acquisition of the #633 diesel switcher by Lionel got me thinking.  1962 was the beginning of Lionel expanding its ties with the large retailer and mail order firms.  This trend would continue and expand as Lionel sought a means of sustaining sales in what was clearly becoming a declining market.  So what did that mean for your #633??  Well as I said in my original post, the 633 was only used by Lionel in ONE traditional catalogued outfit (set) that was # 11212 sold one year only 1962.

However the #633 was used in 6 promotional outfits in 1962 and one in 1963.  They were:

1. # 19191 sold through Montgomery Wards

2. # 19149 sold through JC Penney

3.# 19151 sold through Allied Toy Distributors

4.# 19152 sold through a large buying cooperative, Associated Merchandising  Corp (AMC)

5. # 19184 sold through Halle Brothers

6. # 19198 sold through Robin Distributors

All of these sets were sold in 1962 only.  However your #633 did make it into 1963 in one set

#19321 sold through Sears and Roebuck.

Another interesting fact, the Allied Toy Distributors set, # 19151 came with a Lionel Trestle Set and the #633 was improved slightly for this set in order to pull 5 cars up the trestle.  This was a "promotion only" modification.  The basic #633 was officially called the 633-25 and had "2 wheel drive" the modification that was made to what became known (engineering designation) #633-50 was an upgrade to "4 wheel drive" .  IAW my reference material the 633-50 is more scarce having only 3,600 produced vice the basic 633-25 which had 11,900 produced.

Oh yes, all these promotional sets had different cars, track, accessories, etc.  I do have the data on them but it would be too long to list here.  Lionel in this era borrowed a trick from Marx and would "throw in" various accessories, add on's, change rolling stock, add track etc to meet any retailers price point.  Hence most of these sets, except for the engine, can have different rolling stock.  They also used these promotional outfits to clear out any left over inventory that was available especially in rolling stock.

So you have found a really interesting little engine for sure

Regards, Don

Don thanks so much for the info I just dug one shovel full in the research I did finding out it was in the Cyclone set but you dug a Crater. Thanks for all the leg work and I now will Cherish it even more because of you.

@Leroof posted:

Bob, as per the blooper reel dilemma, I would apply automotive tire weights. Worked well for me.

another great switcher Saturday! Thanks to all.

In stock at my local Harbor Freight.

TedW thanks for the information and clearing the issue up

Don

Bob, I use those and the smaller ones.  Gives me some flexibility when positioning the weights.

Lee thanks for your comment on my "research" , I am glad that you enjoyed it.  I have always enjoyed your posts and pictures.

Don

@RSJB18 Bob, as illustrated in your "blooper" video, this is the exact reason why I drill out the rivets holding truck sets and replace those with a truss screw and locknut. Outside of my own error, like forgetting to throw a switch track, I haven't had a derailment in longer than I can remember. Really, my layout could be called "derailment free."

It is the looseness of the trucks held on by rivets can contribute greatly to derailments: When pushing a train backwards, all the weight (or pressure) is on the couplers - which are attached to the trucks. The loose mounting of the trucks via the rivet (and sometimes even those with factory screw mounting) allows some play, so that one on the wheel sets will ride upwards, over the rails thus causing the derailment.

Of course, you can add some weights to the cars, but then this makes your locomotive work harder to pull heavier cars: A detriment when it comes to some of the Lionel locomotives with these new smaller motors, like your Dockside. The only cars I ever add weights to are those with roller pickups, such as a caboose, which does help to reduce light flickering.

BUT, the still coupler on your Docksider could still cause derailments even with re-attached trucks or weighted cars.

Above is a photo of rear coupler assembly from the Docksider. This design principle has been around for a long time and is also utilized by other companies such as Williams and RMT. The RMT S-4 BANG switcher has a very similar design (and stiff) coupler. I have gone to the trouble of removing the coupler, getting out the Dremel, and altering these to work much better. The other thing I've done is to remove the "T" pin holding the coupler arm to the mounting and replacing that with a small head screw. You loose the self-centering function on the coupler arm, but you also entirely loose the derailments due to the stiffness of the spring.

But there's another solution. I could do this with the RMT type, whether or not it will work on your Docksider. Do this when you take the engine off the track and are not going to run it for a while. Take the coupler and push it all the way to either the left or right until it "locks" in place. Lock might not be the best word, but the coupler arm will stay in place. This helps to put some pressure on the spring to help loosen it up just a little. Leave it that way for a few days or better yet, a week, then do the same thing in the opposite direction. So if you initially moved the coupler arm to the left, now move it to the right. The catch here is that the same spring also puts pressure on the "thumb tack" armature to keep the coupler closed. But I found these springs are so stiff, that leaving the coupler arm pushed over to ones side for a week didn't adversely effect the coupling.

It takes some time, but I did find this helped with the stiff coupler on the RMT Bang, so that I didn't encounter as many derailments.

Anyways just a suggestion. You could add weights, but then you either have to add them to everything, or remember which cars are weighted to pull directly behind the Dockside.

@brianel_k-lineguy posted:

@RSJB18 Bob, as illustrated in your "blooper" video, this is the exact reason why I drill out the rivets holding truck sets and replace those with a truss screw and locknut. Outside of my own error, like forgetting to throw a switch track, I haven't had a derailment in longer than I can remember. Really, my layout could be called "derailment free."

Thanks Brian. I do agree that the coupler on the switcher is very stiff. Same goes for some K-line S-2's. I'm still going to add some weight to the cars, but maybe not too much.  I will look at the engines as well since that's where the pushing force originates.

Obviously this issue is much more pronounced on my tight 027 curves.

Oh Goodie! Another project to add to the list !

The couplers on both of my RMT BEEPs are so stiff, that you have to add a car behind them that is so heavy that there is only enough pulling power to pull one or two light cars behind them.

I pulled these couplers over one side as far as they could go, and I guess that they are a different type because they will not lock in place or stay there.

So, I pulled them all of the way over to one side, and taped them in place.  Let them sit a month, and then did the same by pulling them to the other side, taping them, and let them sit for another month.

Remarkably, no change in the couplers.  Still derail anything behind it but a very heavy car.

So, I unscrewed the vertical phillips head screw that holds the coupler together, took it apart, and remove the spring.  It is a circular coil, with the each end of the spring sticking straight out of the sides of the coil at a 90 degree angle.

I put a thin round screwdriver through the center of the coil, held the screwdriver firmly in place in a vise, and then used my fingers on each hand to simultaneously bend those straight sections of the spring all of the way back as far as I could.

I did this over and over, until those sections were bent back about another 15 to 20 degrees.  (Really hurts your fingers, but the sections will bend.)

I re-assembled the coupler with the spring.   Now, the coupler returns most of the way to the center under the spring power, but not all of the way, kind-of mushy, but it doesn't derail any cars I am putting behind it.

I only did this with the rear couplers, leaving the front ones alone, since that is the only one I use, and I only haul cars, I don't do switching. 

Of course, no matter how you try to solve the stiff coupler problem on a BEEP, you also have to cut back the plastic shell of the BEEP on each side of coupler, about an eighth of an inch, or the coupler hits the side of the shell in tight turns and will also cause a derailment.

Mannyrock

@RSJB18 posted:

Same goes for some K-line S-2's.

Bob, same idea for the S-2's: They have a single piece of Delrin plastic that acts as a centering spring. So when you're not running trains, park your S-2 on a curve track with train cars attached. Gradually over time, this will help with the stiffness of the plastic centering spring.

Remember, I've learned this all by experience: I have 027 curves too. And with lots of No-No's as far as the rules of layout design, like switch tracks directly before curves, and "S" curves, etc. All the things that are more problematic for derailments, yet make for more interesting layout designs in a small space.

Good fix idea Manny for your BEEP.

At one point early on, RMT enlarged the opening in the BEEP shell for coupler swing. It could be you have one of those earlier models. It could also be that they still - even after their alteration - didn't enlarge the opening quite enough.

I make pilots for my K-Line S-2's to "fill in" the open gap that is there between the sheet metal steps of the frame. But as seen in the photo below, I still leave quite a bit of open space to allow for adequate coupler swing for tight 027 curves.

@braniel k-line guy :  Hi you know I have posted pictures of my K-line S-2 on this post several times but had not seen anyone else post on the S-2.  I picked mine up by chance, with little product knowledge, and it sat around in its box for several years.  Then one day last year I put it on the tracks and was extremely impressed with its performance. I couldn't believe it was twin motored.   Its now a regular performer since I have a small radius, low clearance layout and the S-2 fits perfectly and performs very well.  I just wondered if your experience was the same.

Respectfully

Don

Very nice work Brianel!

Mannyrock

@Don McErlean posted:

Its now a regular performer since I have a small radius, low clearance layout and the S-2 fits perfectly and performs very well.  I just wondered if your experience was the same.

Respectfully

Don

Don, you haven't been on the forum long enough. I have long raved that the K-Line S-2 is one of the very best small locomotives, especially for those with smaller sized layouts. The common criticism of these budget starter set K-Line locos is the jack-rabbit starts when using a traditional 6 volt starting voltage Lionel transformer. I use the Lionel 1033, the perfect transformer for these locos with the B-U voltage (0-11 volts) post setting.

And when RMT put out their version of the same loco, called the BANG s-4, they made quite a few improvements. Visually the frame additions are obvious, but internally they used a different spec motor that allows for much improved performance utilizing a traditional transformer with a 6 volt starting voltage. They have to be popular with operators because you now very seldom see one for sale, and prices are double what they were when they first came out.

Back to the K-Line S-2: My only quibble with that loco is the growling noise it makes, especially around curves. K-Line put the traction tires all over the place with these locos: 1) On both geared wheels on the same side of the truck. 2) One on each side of the same axle on a motored truck. 3) Diagonally, with one being on the geared side and the other being on the other axle on the opposite side.

I've found (and this is the way Lionel does it) that the growling noise is reduced on the engines that have the traction tires both on the geared wheel side of the motor truck.

Though another issue can be that two motors seldom run precisely the same exact speed. So when two motorized trucks have traction tires, they can "fight" with each other a little bit. So I've experimented with removing traction tires on one of the two motorized trucks - and this helps with the growl.

Due to the gradual decline of K-Line parts availability, I've also experimented with replacing a motored truck with a dummy with the other motored truck having the traction tires on the same geared wheel side. Because my layout is smaller, I seldom run more that a 10 car length train, and the single motored loco does fine with a shorter train.

But outside of these quibbles, yeah I love the K-Line S-2 and also the Alco FA, which share many of the same parts. As do the MP-15 and the RDC Budd car. Having a fleet of locos that use the same parts does have its' advantages. And as you can see by my photo above, I do a lot of repainting and making alterations.

Not to leave the MP-15 out of the discussion, here's a chopped and cut down Lionel U36B shell mounted to a K-Line MP-15 chassis. At the time I took the photo, it wasn't entirely finished, but now it is. I wanted a somewhat modern looking diesel that still didn't look out of place on an 027 layout with the smaller sized K-Line and Lionel cars. Take a gander at my repaint thread, bookmarked below, to see a good deal more of my 027 creativity.

brianel -  You are right, I have only been on the forum since about 2019 when the shut down started.  Never realized it was there, was surfing the net and found it by chance.  Best discovery ever!  Thanks for the words on the S-2 I am going to keep a lookout for more of those.  I do have an MP-15 the UP version and it runs very well.  I had to shorten the end railings to go around my tight clearances but the tight radii does not seem to bother it.  I only run short, mostly freight, trains and run a mixture of postwar Lionel, MPC (and subsequent Lionel entities) , and Menards freight cars.  I have to stick with 40 ft or so freight cars on the inner loop but the outer loop (0-31) can handle some slightly longer cars and some of the short Lionel "streamlined" passenger cars...but not the long 2500 series aluminum jobs.

I also have about 3 RMT "BEEP's" that I like to run.  They make the turns and clearances easy but don't have anywhere near the pulling power of the S-2 / MP-15.  In truth I had not heard of the "Bang" loco's before.

Regards and thanks for responding.

Don