Weaver steam locos

Weaver steam locomotives are decent running locomotives.  Don't quote me, but I think most were Korean made.  I'll have to check my Reading G1 to see if it has certificate of authenticity, but all of my GG1s came with them.  Those were prior to the TMCC era though. 

I bought a Weaver PRR steam engine about 3-4 years ago and it did not come with a C of A. I am not even sure what that means or looks like. It runs quite well and was the most reasonably priced as compared to Lionel and MTH models. In fact I've bought a number of Weaver engines over the years including a GG1 and a Santa Fe war bonnet diesel ABA. All run extremely well and I have them pull 6 long aluminum matching passenger cars each (also Weaver). 

JohnF

I have two of the Lackawanna Pocono's and a Pacific   All have been upgraded with PS2  Great engines   This one is pretty rare  Only 100 made  Unfortunately the paint on the tender started to disintegrate

Geojr posted:

How good are weaver steam locomotives with TMCC. Did all weavers come with a COA ( certificate of Authenticity)

Weaver offered (and sometimes actually made) good stuff. Many of their early TMCC locos were before the cruise/speed control era, or came with EOB, a very maddening system (3rd Rail had the same situation). Weaver brass was primarily made by Samhongsa of Korea, the same builder that made the good Williams steamers. The Weavers had a bit more detail, I think.... 

All the later (cut-off date?) brass Weaver steamers came out after Samhongsa exited the model locomotive business. These were, I think, Chinese-built. - but I don't have a box handy. I have some of both generations; seem fine.

Weaver's die-cast locos (0-8-0; 2-8-0; 4-6-2) I'm not so sure about, per their pedigree. I do know that their nice die-cast USRA Light Mikado was released/boxed by both K-Line and Weaver. I think that they did a "joint run" to keep unit costs down. I have one brand; a friend has another. Can't tell the difference. 

I own two Weaver die-cast 2-8-0 (Baldwin Consolidation) steam locomotives that are probably about 15 years old. They are very well made, run well, and have excellent steam sounds and whistles. I like them very much but don't run them often due to concerns about parts availability. I believe they have TMCC but I run them conventionally.

MELGAR

I have several Weaver steam engines which are art deco engines. All have all been upgraded to DCS. They all came with Certificates of Authenticity, but its just a piece of paper. They all run very well. The last one is the New Haven I-5, which Marty Fitzhenry upgraded for me. It's a beauty. The Reading Crusader might be my favorite. Weaver made aluminum cars for it (2 observation cars) because it ran from Philly to NYC and then back. They simply moved the engine to the other end. Alex upgraded the passenger cars with people and LED lighting.

When Weaver first started doing the art deco stuff in the mid-90's, they typically collaborated with MTH, and MTH would make the passenger cars. So the Lehigh Valley John Wilkes, has matching MTH passenger cars. Neat stuff.

Gerry

I have two Weaver DL&W Poconos w/ TMCC; great looking and good runners. I initially had issues with poor traction that Weaver attempted to correct by adding  a little over one pound of weight to each.  It was helpful, but not enough.  I bought some cheap traction tires at a York meet and  voila'!, the big beasts became some of my best pullers.

You can see them in action on our Anthracite Hi-Railers facebook page.  My rivet counting grandson loves to run them.   

I wanted to get a Weaver 2-8-0 back when offered, but was waiting for a western roadname, and, poof!, Weaver was gone.  I thought somebody had  once said on here theyre not good runners, so am glad there are positive votes.  Thought then and now they were obvious short and branchline power.

I currently have 15 Weaver steamers. Most are TMCC with the exception of some early 1999/2000 models with the original QSI that I have converted to either TMCC or PS2. The ones I purchased new all came with COA's. Some of the used models I picked up came with the papers, some not. As Gerry points out above, it's just a piece of paper although it's nice to know the actual number of models produced.

Still miss Weaver, and K-Line for that matter. Big thanks to Joe Hayter and crew for their Milwaukee Road productions over the years.

milwrd posted:

Still miss Weaver, and K-Line for that matter. Big thanks to Joe Hayter and crew for their Milwaukee Road productions over the years.

I think it would be a good thing for O gauge/scale model railroading if Weaver and K-Line were still in business. I like everything I have that they made.

MELGAR

I have a number of the Weaver brass locomotives, the G2sa, 1 of 75.  This is one of my favorites, came with TMCC, and I upgraded it to cruise, fan driven smoke, Super-Chuffer, etc.

gunrunnerjohn posted:

I have a number of the Weaver brass locomotives, the G2sa, 1 of 75.  This is one of my favorites, came with TMCC, and I upgraded it to cruise, fan driven smoke, Super-Chuffer, etc.

We wants us one

I've actually seen this model for sale a couple of times, but they don't show up often.  Interestingly enough, they don't command really big bucks when they do show up, which is somewhat of a mystery to me.  It's a really good looking locomotive with nice detailing.  Given the relative dearth of Reading steam models, it surprises me they are reasonably priced.

My Weaver brass steam locomotives are among the nicest items that I have. Not for sale... This is one.

MELGAR

gunrunnerjohn posted:

I've actually seen this model for sale a couple of times, but they don't show up often.  Interestingly enough, they don't command really big bucks when they do show up, which is somewhat of a mystery to me. 

Most of the older Weaver and 3rd Rail brass locomotives sell for low money.  I believe the reasons are:

1. They are not diecast.  The majority of 3-railers believe diecast=high quality and not diecast=lower quality.

2. Many (most?) 3-railers limit themselves to Lionel and MTH locomotives, with some Atlas diesels.  Weaver is an off-brand that they don't buy.

3. Many (most?) 3-railers want the latest electronics with the latest glitzy features.  They are not concerned at all with the model being prototypically correct.  The brass models don't have these features.

I have many Weaver, Williams and 3rd Rail brass PRR steam locomotives made between the mid-80's and late 90's.  They typically sell today for 25% to 50% of original MSRP.

I've bought a number of 3rd Rail brass for relative peanuts, they're good candidates for a full command and smoke upgrade.   I'm not alone, I have a stack of 3rd Rail brass from customers for various upgrades as well.

I think that I have one of every locomotive that Weaver sold with the Boston & Maine RR logos on it and only had a problem with one of them. The 2-8-0 Consolidation had an improper spring on the pilot truck such that it would derail on some junctions of straight and curved track. The original suggestion was to clip one or two turns off the spring and later they stocked a more appropriate spring. Unfortunately for me, I did not contact them about obtaining a new spring before they went out of business.

Art Howes posted:

I think that I have one of every locomotive that Weaver sold with the Boston & Maine RR logos on it and only had a problem with one of them. The 2-8-0 Consolidation had an improper spring on the pilot truck such that it would derail on some junctions of straight and curved track. The original suggestion was to clip one or two turns off the spring and later they stocked a more appropriate spring. Unfortunately for me, I did not contact them about obtaining a new spring before they went out of business.

Remove the front truck and carefully stretch the spring a bit.

MELGAR

I have the same B&M engine Melgar has.  While not the smoothest at slow speed, she is a good runner.  I’ve added superchuffer and better sounds plus came weathered from weaver.

There is an Interesting difference between 2 railers and 3 railers about diecast and electronics.   

Most two railers find diecast crude and clunky.    Newer stuff has gotten a lot nicer but still is not as finely detailed as brass.     Coal boards on tenders are too thick and crude looking.    Window openings display too thick frames and walls.    Cast on details are alway cruder than etched brass or add-ons.   

In the weaver case the diecast locos are like most made by Lionel and MTH that I have seen, they have the worm shaft from the motor directly driving the axle gear with no gear box.     This is crude 40s-50s type mechanism.     It runs fine a slot car speeds, but does not run well at slow speeds in most cases.     The motors do not have the torque at low rpm to keep turn the gears.

All the Brass steamers I have seen, including Weavers have gearboxes with step down gearing between the worm and the axle gear.    This allows the motor to run at higher speeds for each wheel speed and all these motors have higher torque at higher rpm than just barely rotating.    This is the reason that an automobile has a transmission to allow the motor to run faster at lower speeds to get more torque.

As for electronics, most 2 railers will just install what they like and ignore what is there.     Most 2 railers can and do work on their own equipment and can do such  jobs as installing a decoder/receiver, painting, or  fixing couplers and trucks or replacing them. 

Odd, I have no problem at all running a host of my Lionel steam at very slow prototypical speeds.  Truthfully, I am not all that enamored with the gearing of some brass locomotives.  I did some upgrades on several Williams brass locomotives, they had a 44:1 drive gear ratio.  That ended up being over 8,000 RPM for around 40 scale MPH.  At 8,000 RPM, the motor is really screaming and pretty loud, so the effective max speed of these conversions probably ended up being closer to 30 scale MPH.  That's fine for a lot of running, but I loath being absolutely limited 100% of the time like that.

Hello, Melgar, thank you.

I had one Weaver brass loco - an NKP Hudson.  Very nice model that came with a COA.

Personally, I thought the COA was a nice, honest touch.  Not sure why the number of VL locos is not released....but I wish they were.

I suspect Lionel made a bunch of the VL-BB models at least. 

As a conventional operator running in loops at constant speed, I prefer gearing such that the motor is running in the middle of its RPM range with the locomotive at 30 to 40 scale miles per hour. I am going to record a video of my Weaver Baldwin Consolidation and will post later.

MELGAR

gunrunnerjohn posted:

I suspect Lionel made a bunch of the VL-BB models at least. 

I've repeatedly heard 2,500 or so....but I have no idea if that number has any substance to it.

"I did some upgrades on several Williams brass locomotives, they had a 44:1 drive gear ratio."

John, the Williams Pacifics are indeed 44:1.  Wait until you get a Weaver PRR M1a 4-8-2 on your bench.  The gear ratio on that one is 70:1 if you can believe it.  The smoothest running (non-electronics assisted) steam loco I've seen is the 3rd Rail decapod with a Pittman 9000 series motor and a 31:1 gearbox.

EDIT: It's the Weaver T1 4-4-4-4 that has a 70:1 gearbox.  I don't know the gear ratio for the M1a.  I've heard from multiple sources that the motor in the M1a (Weaver's first brass locomotive) is an amp hog even though it is a can.

30:1 would be a very good gear ratio, that's one that I'd like.  Many of the Lionel and MTH models have more like 18:1 to 20:1, that's too tall IMO.  I was just pointout out. regarding 44:1 gear ratio, too much of a good thing.

Goodness, have a Weaver M1a in a box here that I was going to upgrade.  At 70:1, I'll need a turbine to run it at reasonable speeds!

Weaver was ahead of the times with their brass steam. They could be easily converted to Kadees with bolt on adapter plates, something that can't be said even for 3rd Rail (at least the ones I own/owned).

I'm with @prrjim on this.  44:1 is a little extreme, but Lionel and MTH steamers wouldn't perform very well without their gimmicky and sometimes failure-prone speed control.  Lurching.  Runaways.  Faded tach strips?  Grenading magnets??  None of this is necessary for realistic performance.  Speed control is a nice enhancement for graded layouts, but it shouldn't be applied as a band-aid to a grievous wound.

The limitations are most evident running light, going from a tangent into an un-eased minimum-radius curve, such as when emerging from a service track.  Try this experiment... turn off the cruise control and see if the loco will maintain 10 mph.  As soon as that pair of rubber tires on the rear axle gets into the curve it will slow or stall, spoiling any illusion of realism.  There just isn't enough RPM or torque to prevent a slow-down; the gear ratio should be about double what Lionel and MTH currently use.  44:1 is the highest ratio I've ever heard of.  But 30:1 with medium-sized drivers would afford good control and reasonable RPM from 5 to 45 mph, with more in reserve.  Die-cast tends to mute the sound more than brass, so with a little attention to NVH, high RPMs are not to be feared.

At least with a separate gearbox, if you don't like the ratio you can just install a different gearbox (as opposed to milling out the chassis, and major surgery required with the "captive axle" approach.)  Some of us might want to customize the performance of our locos.  Also, wheels and axles can be repaired or replaced individually without need of a puller and press.  Scullin, or Boxpok?  Rubber tires or not?  Your choice.  And this would be a better way to build a "Proto 3-2" steam locomotive.

Another point: brands L and M are not sprung, so they tend to "thunk" over crossings and switch points.  The captive axle design allows the manufacturers to save money by using one-piece side rods.  These are definitely sturdier than the segmented side rods on a Weaver.  But when locos have eight or more driving wheels, this approach limits the axles from sliding laterally in the chassis.  Wheels binding against the track, chassis, and rods dramatically increases friction on sharp curves, and further degrades slow speed performance.  Try this:  Stop your 4-8-4 in a minimum-radius curve and try to wiggle the outside rod--you cant!  A loco might be rated for O42.   But because of this <-- phenomenon, it will definitely run better on O54.  Manufacturers want to sell trains, Caveat Emptor!

All of that being said, I prefer the "feel" of die-cast to brass.  It's what I grew up with.  I'm no scale modeler.  The thick details are realistic enough for me, and much less prone to breaking off.  No new engineering is required-- Max Grey and US Hobbies had the mechanical design figured out by the 1960s.  All I want is a US Hobbies clone in die-cast metal, optimized for use on 3-rail track.  First one to do it gets my $2000.  I've been waiting 20 years, and I'm starting to think it'll never happen!

I had several Weaver brass steam locos in three rail. Out of the box,they were acceptable runners but mediocre pullers. When I began the switch over to 2 rail. I sold/traded off the 3 rail versions and picked up several of the same locos in 2 rail. The 2 rail versions are quieter and smoother running (Likely due to the lack of traction tires). I've increased the weight in a couple of them and that extra weight greatly improved the pulling power. The ESE and Dreyfuss Hudson's can pull 8-12 scale passenger cars with ease. 

Weight really is almost the "silver bullet" for pulling power, especially without traction tires.

Photos and video of my die cast Weaver Boston & Maine 2-8-0 steam locomotive #2403 on my 10’-by-5’ layout. The model hadn’t run in at least two years and has very little run time since new. If it were offered with current electronics, I would buy a new one. The detail is very good – note the deck plate between engine and tender. Has a good whistle but only two chuffs per driver revolution. Video shows model running at an average 38 scale miles per hour, 12 Volts, about 1.4 Amps. It also ran steadily at about 30 miles per hour on 11 Volts but does not appear to have speed control. Ten volts minimum for sound.

MELGAR

Bob posted:

snip> I don't know the gear ratio for the M1a.  I've heard from multiple sources that the motor in the M1a (Weaver's first brass locomotive) is an amp hog even though it is a can.

I have one. It's an amp hog. Dims the room lights...

I have several Mabuchi 555 motors waiting to replace the ones in Weaver locomotives.  I also have one Pittman, but I'll have to make a mount for that one.

I have a Western Maryland 2-8-0 that is really a nice looking locomotive...it runs very nicely in conventional but is just awful when running in TMCC mode.

The Weaver 2-8-0's were discussed on another recent thread here on the Forum.  These are die-cast and built more like a Lionel or MTH loco.  Traditionally they weren't regarded as great runners.  The current theory is that one pair of driving wheels was made out of "quarter" causing a momentary bind with each revolution of the drivers.  This loco fills an important niche in O gauge; I hope the posters on the other thread unravel the mystery of its poor performance and figure out a way to make it run as well as the latest offerings.

gunrunnerjohn posted:

Odd, I have no problem at all running a host of my Lionel steam at very slow prototypical speeds.  Truthfully, I am not all that enamored with the gearing of some brass locomotives.  I did some upgrades on several Williams brass locomotives, they had a 44:1 drive gear ratio.  That ended up being over 8,000 RPM for around 40 scale MPH.  At 8,000 RPM, the motor is really screaming and pretty loud, so the effective max speed of these conversions probably ended up being closer to 30 scale MPH.  That's fine for a lot of running, but I loath being absolutely limited 100% of the time like that.

John try a Maxon coreless motor with that crazy 44:1 gearing.  They run cool enough to not need vent holes so they don't suck air through the motor with the associated whine. One caveat they don't like PWM below 20khz I think the ERR driver boards operate above 20K. The old ERR site made mention of that.  That. and they are smaller than an iron core motor with the same power output. More room for lead.                  j

John, for the locomotives in question, I don't need a higher gear ratio, I need a lower gear ratio.