Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Modeling possibility of GPs

Expand Messages
  • Yuji Kuwabara
    Hello, For GP7/9 fun, it seems to me that there are possibilities of powering those small GPs. By shortening the motor shaft, contriving a motor mounting and
    Message 1 of 19 , May 25 12:08 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello,

      For GP7/9 fun, it seems to me that there are
      possibilities of powering those small GPs.
      By shortening the motor shaft, contriving
      a motor mounting and modifing truck ends,
      a conventional 8mm motor will fit between
      their trucks.
      Anyway, I think it may be good to make the
      shell "power ready", leaving under the hood
      empty entirely from front to rear. Someday,
      someone may develop a good mechanism.

      Regards.

      Yuji Kuwabara
    • Scott A. Whitmire
      ... If anyone is interested, I designed a motor/flywheel and gear tower arrangement for a AC6000CW model I was contemplating. All of the parts, except the
      Message 2 of 19 , May 25 10:10 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        At 5/25/00 12:08 AM , you wrote:
        >Hello,
        >
        >For GP7/9 fun, it seems to me that there are
        >possibilities of powering those small GPs.
        >By shortening the motor shaft, contriving
        >a motor mounting and modifing truck ends,
        >a conventional 8mm motor will fit between
        >their trucks.
        >Anyway, I think it may be good to make the
        >shell "power ready", leaving under the hood
        >empty entirely from front to rear. Someday,
        >someone may develop a good mechanism.
        >
        >Regards.
        >
        > Yuji Kuwabara

        If anyone is interested, I designed a motor/flywheel
        and gear tower arrangement for a AC6000CW model
        I was contemplating. All of the parts, except the flywheels,
        were standard. The gearing was such that the loco would
        top out at a scale 75mph when the motor was running at
        its rated power setting. That is, I think that's what I came
        up with, I'm not totally sure I did the math right :-) The motor
        was the same 8mm motor used in the Rogue Locomotive
        Works models.

        I believe the mechanism could be made to fit in a GP7/9
        body, given the high short hood. I'm not so sure about a
        low short hood model. I know the gearing will fit a two-axle
        truck, and I'm pretty sure the motor is short enough. I can
        take some measurements off a GP7/9 and see, or one of
        you can :-)

        The gears were all NWSL stock gears, using mod 0.3
        gears, although mod 0.2 gears would work much better.

        What I don't have, is anyway to build the masters for the
        carbody or trucks. I also don't have anyway to manufacture
        the parts.

        Perhaps some of us would like to participate in a small
        project...Ok, maybe not a small project...

        I figured the parts would run about $100 per loco, most of
        that being the motors.

        Scott Whitmire
        whitmire@...
      • Jeffrey MacHan
        Welcome to the list, Scott. I know for a fact that there are list members who have the know-how to make your project a success. Unfortunately, I am not one of
        Message 3 of 19 , May 26 3:48 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Welcome to the list, Scott.

          I know for a fact that there are list members who have the know-how to make
          your project a success. Unfortunately, I am not one of them ;-)

          I know of several members who would probably be interested in contributing
          financially to such an undertaking.

          Why not put together a buyers cooperative that would provide a garanteed
          minimum order for the initial production run? The loco shells could be
          brass using a standard chassis design. It shouldn't be too difficult to
          produce a couple of truck side frame designs (EMD, Alco, GE) to fit on MT
          wheelsets, stock NWS gears and 8mm motors.

          This could be the start of 'Z Corp International' !


          Jeffrey MacHan
          CEO: Val Ease Central RR http://www.Val-Ease-Central.com
          Moderator: Z_Scale@egroups.com
          Ztrack Magazine Contributing Editor: http://www.ztrack.com
          ZeBayer: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/val-ease/

          ________________________________________________________________________
          Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
        • Scott A. Whitmire
          ... You might have something there. But brass shells may be too expensive. I have a friend who designs jewelry, and she says that building a master for plastic
          Message 4 of 19 , May 26 9:52 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            At 5/26/00 03:48 PM , you wrote:
            >Welcome to the list, Scott.
            >
            >I know for a fact that there are list members who have the know-how to make
            >your project a success. Unfortunately, I am not one of them ;-)
            >
            >I know of several members who would probably be interested in contributing
            >financially to such an undertaking.
            >
            >Why not put together a buyers cooperative that would provide a garanteed
            >minimum order for the initial production run? The loco shells could be
            >brass using a standard chassis design. It shouldn't be too difficult to
            >produce a couple of truck side frame designs (EMD, Alco, GE) to fit on MT
            >wheelsets, stock NWS gears and 8mm motors.
            >
            >This could be the start of 'Z Corp International' !
            >
            >
            >Jeffrey MacHan

            You might have something there. But brass shells may be too expensive. I
            have a friend who designs jewelry, and she says that building a master for
            plastic casting would not be a problem. I toyed with the idea of using
            Aluminite as the base material. I'm just not good enough to do the master.

            You know, Jeffrey's idea is a good one. Each participant could conribute
            what they could: artistry, management skill, engineering, parts, money,
            whatever. I would be willing to bet that we'd go through a year's production
            just satisfying the demand of the participants. It'd be an easy matter to
            estimate the cost, once we had the plans together. No need to make a
            profit yet, this is a hobby, right?

            I'll package up my notes and drawings and make them available via email
            or a web site (I don't have time for one of my own), if there is interest. NWSL
            is just up the road a peice, and I've already discussed the gearing with them.
            I'm sure we could get mod 0.2 gears from them, for the cost of the tooling.
            They do custom machining, and if we ordered enough sets, the cost per
            set would be almost as low as stock parts.

            OK, how far do we go with this?

            We may have one problem, though. Which loco do we build first. I'd
            dearly love to build an SW1200, if we could figure out how to make it
            heavy enough. Think Micro-Trains would paint them for us?

            Scott Whitmire
            whitmire@...
          • Dan MacKellar
            I m all for this idea. I can contribute Drawing and Design experience if needed. As far as an SW1200, I see one problem. Depending on the orientation of the
            Message 5 of 19 , May 27 4:38 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              I'm all for this idea. I can contribute Drawing and Design experience if
              needed. As far as an SW1200, I see one problem. Depending on the
              orientation of the motor in the shell, it may not have enough clearance
              due to the stepped hood design. That's why I elected to design an
              Alco switcher for this very reason. A Baldwin or Lima unit would also
              work here.

              About the only EMD switcher without a stepped hood is the MP15,
              which is too modern for my 1957 era Lakeshore, Pennsylvania
              and Western. The good thing about doing an MP15 is that it rides
              on conventional EMD Bloomberg trucks, so the MT F7 trucks are
              a perfect match.

              This switcher would be at home on a 1970's to 1990's era layout,
              Whereas the Alco would be more 1950's and 60's. I have an
              idea of how the motor and drive train could be oriented for an
              EMD style switcher, I'll get back to the group on that.

              A Universal GP Chassis would be a good idea as well, I believe
              the general wheelbase is the same from the GP30 all the way
              up to the GP60. Design 2 mechanisms, one for secnd generation
              geeps (As mentioned above) and for first generation Geeps
              (GP7,9,18 and 20) with the shorter wheelbase.

              SD's are another option, but I say concentrate on the Geep and
              Switcher idea for now (Switchers may be cheaper to design
              initially) The weight problem could possibly be solved using
              a cast frame and step assembly as well as a thin weight inside
              the hood (clearance would have to be checked) I'd say go with
              Cast Resin shells due to their low cost and ease to modify.

              It may cut down on weight a bit, but the loco will likely have the
              same tractive effort as a Marklin 8805 0-6-0, which is decent for
              a switcher. I'd be interested in seeing your gear tower design
              Scott. I just designed mine to use standard MT parts with a
              Faulhaber motor (Single shaft)

              I'll draw up my plans (generalization) and post them on the
              group site in about a week (as well as my recently modified
              layout olan...I'm back to a 4'X6.5' Modular setup)

              Good luck on this and I'm willing to help any way I can,

              Regards,
              Dan MacKellar
              >
              >You might have something there. But brass shells may be too expensive. I
              >have a friend who designs jewelry, and she says that building a master for
              >plastic casting would not be a problem. I toyed with the idea of using
              >Aluminite as the base material. I'm just not good enough to do the master.
              >
              >You know, Jeffrey's idea is a good one. Each participant could conribute
              >what they could: artistry, management skill, engineering, parts, money,
              >whatever. I would be willing to bet that we'd go through a year's
              production
              >just satisfying the demand of the participants. It'd be an easy matter to
              >estimate the cost, once we had the plans together. No need to make a
              >profit yet, this is a hobby, right?
              >
              >I'll package up my notes and drawings and make them available via email
              >or a web site (I don't have time for one of my own), if there is interest.
              NWSL
              >is just up the road a peice, and I've already discussed the gearing with
              them.
              >I'm sure we could get mod 0.2 gears from them, for the cost of the tooling.
              >They do custom machining, and if we ordered enough sets, the cost per
              >set would be almost as low as stock parts.
              >
              >OK, how far do we go with this?
              >
              >We may have one problem, though. Which loco do we build first. I'd
              >dearly love to build an SW1200, if we could figure out how to make it
              >heavy enough. Think Micro-Trains would paint them for us?
              >
              >Scott Whitmire
              >whitmire@...
              >
              >------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
              >Remember the good 'ol days
              >http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/1/_/560875/_/959403225/
              >------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >
              >Z: model railroading on a smaller scale.
              >
              >
            • Scott A. Whitmire
              ... Well, I suppose I could settle for a GP7. Everybody used them, and some are still running. An Alco RS2 or RS3 would work, too. ... Good idea. ... OK.
              Message 6 of 19 , May 27 8:00 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                At 5/27/00 04:38 PM , you wrote:
                >I'm all for this idea. I can contribute Drawing and Design experience if
                >needed. As far as an SW1200, I see one problem. Depending on the
                >orientation of the motor in the shell, it may not have enough clearance
                >due to the stepped hood design. That's why I elected to design an
                >Alco switcher for this very reason. A Baldwin or Lima unit would also
                >work here.

                Well, I suppose I could settle for a GP7. Everybody used them, and
                some are still running. An Alco RS2 or RS3 would work, too.

                >A Universal GP Chassis would be a good idea as well, I believe
                >the general wheelbase is the same from the GP30 all the way
                >up to the GP60. Design 2 mechanisms, one for secnd generation
                >geeps (As mentioned above) and for first generation Geeps
                >(GP7,9,18 and 20) with the shorter wheelbase.

                Good idea.

                >SD's are another option, but I say concentrate on the Geep and
                >Switcher idea for now (Switchers may be cheaper to design
                >initially) The weight problem could possibly be solved using
                >a cast frame and step assembly as well as a thin weight inside
                >the hood (clearance would have to be checked) I'd say go with
                >Cast Resin shells due to their low cost and ease to modify.

                OK. Although that Aluminite is very easy to work with, once you
                have the master.

                >It may cut down on weight a bit, but the loco will likely have the
                >same tractive effort as a Marklin 8805 0-6-0, which is decent for
                >a switcher. I'd be interested in seeing your gear tower design
                >Scott. I just designed mine to use standard MT parts with a
                >Faulhaber motor (Single shaft)

                I can scan the drawings, and assuming they come out, post them
                to the group site. If not, I can try to load my TurboCAD and do them
                in that. It's just a matter of finding the time.

                >I'll draw up my plans (generalization) and post them on the
                >group site in about a week (as well as my recently modified
                >layout olan...I'm back to a 4'X6.5' Modular setup)
                >
                >Regards,
                >Dan MacKellar

                One thing does worry me, though. When Rogue did the C44-9W,
                they used two motors. My calculations showed that one would be
                more than sufficient. Did the GP38-2 have power problems (was it
                underpowered)? Anybody have any input? My math could be wrong,
                and probably is, but I don't think I'm off by THAT much.

                Scott Whitmire
                whitmire@...
              • Dave Jones
                Keep up the great discussion guys! I would settle for ANY U.S. prototype/s becoming available. Dave Jones ... Well, I suppose I could settle for a GP7.
                Message 7 of 19 , May 27 11:43 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Keep up the great discussion guys!

                  I would settle for ANY U.S. prototype/s becoming available.

                  Dave Jones


                  At 5/27/00 04:38 PM , you wrote:
                  >I'm all for this idea. I can contribute Drawing and Design experience if
                  >needed. As far as an SW1200, I see one problem. Depending on the
                  >orientation of the motor in the shell, it may not have enough clearance
                  >due to the stepped hood design. That's why I elected to design an
                  >Alco switcher for this very reason. A Baldwin or Lima unit would also
                  >work here.

                  Well, I suppose I could settle for a GP7. Everybody used them, and
                  some are still running. An Alco RS2 or RS3 would work, too.

                  >A Universal GP Chassis would be a good idea as well, I believe
                  >the general wheelbase is the same from the GP30 all the way
                  >up to the GP60. Design 2 mechanisms, one for secnd generation
                  >geeps (As mentioned above) and for first generation Geeps
                  >(GP7,9,18 and 20) with the shorter wheelbase.

                  Good idea.

                  >SD's are another option, but I say concentrate on the Geep and
                  >Switcher idea for now (Switchers may be cheaper to design
                  >initially) The weight problem could possibly be solved using
                  >a cast frame and step assembly as well as a thin weight inside
                  >the hood (clearance would have to be checked) I'd say go with
                  >Cast Resin shells due to their low cost and ease to modify.

                  OK. Although that Aluminite is very easy to work with, once you
                  have the master.

                  >It may cut down on weight a bit, but the loco will likely have the
                  >same tractive effort as a Marklin 8805 0-6-0, which is decent for
                  >a switcher. I'd be interested in seeing your gear tower design
                  >Scott. I just designed mine to use standard MT parts with a
                  >Faulhaber motor (Single shaft)

                  I can scan the drawings, and assuming they come out, post them
                  to the group site. If not, I can try to load my TurboCAD and do them
                  in that. It's just a matter of finding the time.

                  >I'll draw up my plans (generalization) and post them on the
                  >group site in about a week (as well as my recently modified
                  >layout olan...I'm back to a 4'X6.5' Modular setup)
                  >
                  >Regards,
                  >Dan MacKellar

                  One thing does worry me, though. When Rogue did the C44-9W,
                  they used two motors. My calculations showed that one would be
                  more than sufficient. Did the GP38-2 have power problems (was it
                  underpowered)? Anybody have any input? My math could be wrong,
                  and probably is, but I don't think I'm off by THAT much.

                  Scott Whitmire
                  whitmire@...

                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Long Distance Relationship? Join beMANY! And pay less each month
                  for Long Distance.
                  http://click.egroups.com/1/4165/1/_/560875/_/959482876/
                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Z: model railroading on a smaller scale.
                • Scott A. Whitmire
                  ... I just thought of something. There is no reason the flywheel has to be between the motor and the worm. For the rear truck, just put the worm in the stepped
                  Message 8 of 19 , May 27 11:53 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 5/27/00 11:43 PM , you wrote:
                    >At 5/27/00 04:38 PM , you wrote:
                    > >I'm all for this idea. I can contribute Drawing and Design experience if
                    > >needed. As far as an SW1200, I see one problem. Depending on the
                    > >orientation of the motor in the shell, it may not have enough clearance
                    > >due to the stepped hood design. That's why I elected to design an
                    > >Alco switcher for this very reason. A Baldwin or Lima unit would also
                    > >work here.

                    I just thought of something. There is no reason the flywheel has to be
                    between the motor and the worm. For the rear truck, just put the worm
                    in the stepped area, and put the flywheel in the cab. One flywheel on
                    the front might be enough, anyway.

                    > >A Universal GP Chassis would be a good idea as well, I believe
                    > >the general wheelbase is the same from the GP30 all the way
                    > >up to the GP60. Design 2 mechanisms, one for secnd generation
                    > >geeps (As mentioned above) and for first generation Geeps
                    > >(GP7,9,18 and 20) with the shorter wheelbase.
                    >
                    >Good idea.

                    Although it's not difficult to stretch the wheelbase by adding to the
                    shaft length.


                    Scott Whitmire
                    whitmire@...
                  • Jeffrey MacHan
                    Very creative thinking about flywheel positioning, Scott. I agree with Dave that I would take anything that comes. How about an Alco S2-3-4? They were nice
                    Message 9 of 19 , May 28 8:49 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Very creative thinking about flywheel positioning, Scott. I agree with Dave
                      that I would take anything that comes. How about an Alco S2-3-4? They were
                      nice switchers too. My personal preferences would be 1st-Geep 2nd-SW1200
                      then whatever comes along ;-)

                      As for rolling stock, with enough interest, we could commision Penzee, for
                      example, to do special road name runs of the 3 bay hoppers...and why not
                      eventually design and produce new body types: covered hoppers, Gunnerson
                      stack cars, MOW equipment, etc.

                      BTW, here is another suggestion for Don B. who is looking for ideas for
                      injection molded accessories...US prototype containers, wood loads.

                      If this thread keeps generating interest, I'll start a poll concerning
                      possible participation in a Z scale production coop. It will probably take
                      a week or so for the thread to be read by the majority of the list members
                      in any case.

                      Cheers,
                      Jeffrey MacHan


                      ________________________________________________________________________
                      Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
                    • Dan MacKellar
                      ... From: Scott A. Whitmire To: z_scale@egroups.com Date: Saturday, May 27, 2000 10:01 PM Subject: Re: [z_scale]
                      Message 10 of 19 , May 28 9:30 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Scott A. Whitmire <whitmire@...>
                        To: z_scale@egroups.com <z_scale@egroups.com>
                        Date: Saturday, May 27, 2000 10:01 PM
                        Subject: Re: [z_scale] Modeling possibility of GPs


                        >At 5/27/00 04:38 PM , you wrote:

                        >
                        >Well, I suppose I could settle for a GP7. Everybody used them, and
                        >some are still running. An Alco RS2 or RS3 would work, too.
                        >
                        I just did some planning, and an EMD switcher IS possible possibly
                        with a Flywheel as well (although a very small one). The motor sits
                        in the hood with a dummy truck under it. I designed this for use with
                        microtrains trucks so the trucks are a foot too wide, but it isn't very
                        noticable. The Flywheel (max 7mm O.D.) can be located between
                        motor and the worm. The rear truck only is powered. I didn't add a
                        Flywheel, but it wouldn't be hard. Due to clearance, there's no step
                        down in gearing (it may be possible) and the unit just uses a straight
                        shaft from motor to worm.Now the next question arises of where is
                        on to get a true 7mm brass flywheel?




                        >
                        >Good idea.


                        As Far as the Universal chassis, I just looked into it. The GP38-2
                        is 2 feet longer than a GP30,35 and 40. Not that that's really
                        noticable in Z (I mean, what's 3mm between friends).

                        >
                        One thing I noticed though in scaling down a GP7 plan, Microtrain's
                        F units are too short. The Geep scales out to about 2-3' longer in
                        model form, but is the same length in prototype. Go figure...
                        >
                        >OK. Although that Aluminite is very easy to work with, once you
                        >have the master.

                        Never worked with Aluminite so I wouldn't know.

                        >>Regards,
                        >>Dan MacKellar
                        >
                        >One thing does worry me, though. When Rogue did the C44-9W,
                        >they used two motors. My calculations showed that one would be
                        >more than sufficient. Did the GP38-2 have power problems (was it
                        >underpowered)? Anybody have any input? My math could be wrong,
                        >and probably is, but I don't think I'm off by THAT much.
                        >
                        I really don't know about that, can anyone else on the list shed some
                        light on this?


                        >Scott Whitmire
                        >whitmire@...

                        Regards,
                        Dan MacKellar
                        >
                        >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        >Long Distance Relationship? Join beMANY! And pay less each month
                        >for Long Distance.
                        >http://click.egroups.com/1/4165/1/_/560875/_/959482876/
                        >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        >
                        >Z: model railroading on a smaller scale.
                        >
                        >
                      • dbouchard@uswestmail.net
                        ... The dash 9 was given two motors and a single flywheel originally in my prototype chassis (although I have heard the production model will only have
                        Message 11 of 19 , May 28 9:14 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Sun, 28 May 2000, "Dan MacKellar" wrote:

                          > >One thing does worry me, though. When Rogue did the C44-9W,<BR>
                          > >they used two motors. My calculations showed that one would be<BR>
                          > >more than sufficient. Did the GP38-2 have power problems (was it<BR>
                          > >underpowered)? Anybody have any input? My math could be wrong,<BR>
                          > >and probably is, but I don't think I'm off by THAT much.<BR>
                          > ><BR>
                          > I really don't know about that, can anyone else on the list shed some<BR>
                          > light on this?<BR>
                          The dash 9 was given two motors and a single flywheel originally in my prototype chassis (although I have heard the production model will only have one.)because I felt that a loco the size and power of a C44-9 should be able to pull at least 40-50 cars even in Z scale over any prototypical terrain.
                          As far as the power of the 8mm faulhaber motor, it is adequate but by no means a perfect solution, if you have everything tuned just right it will give excellent performance but if something is slightly out of alignment or binding just a little you will have much trouble.
                          As for figuring gear calculations and speed load ratings, If your calculations are using the factory stats for the micro-mo go ahead and toss them and start again, You can bet that any chassis/ gear train/ truck design will be running at 130 percent motor load and as much as 35 percent decrease in RPM without any rolling stock and on flat and level track.
                          These numbers will increase dramatically under additional load of rolling stock on 2% grades. The fact that the motor can tolerate these abuses only proves the quality of these motors.
                          If a calculation is made with factory stats that a loco will top out at 75mph I think 50-55 would be pretty close to real but add some rolling stock and you will drop off to 40 pretty quick. The up side, of course would be the slow speed response.
                          As for powering one truck, this design works well for single unit locos, like a doodlebug or perhaps a budd car. it would be almost useless(in my opinion) for moving more than just a few pieces of rolling stock
                          Hope this helps,
                          Happy modeling
                          Don


                          Signup for your free USWEST.mail Email account http://www.uswestmail.net
                        • Scott A. Whitmire
                          ... OK. I can buy that. ... That s good to know. ... It sounds like I m going to have to invest in the parts and see what happens. I designed a couple of gear
                          Message 12 of 19 , May 28 10:39 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 5/28/00 09:14 PM , Don Bouchard wrote:
                            >The dash 9 was given two motors and a single flywheel originally in my
                            >prototype chassis (although I have heard the production model will only
                            >have one.)because I felt that a loco the size and power of a C44-9 should
                            >be able to pull at least 40-50 cars even in Z scale over any prototypical
                            >terrain.

                            OK. I can buy that.

                            >As far as the power of the 8mm faulhaber motor, it is adequate but by no
                            >means a perfect solution, if you have everything tuned just right it will
                            >give excellent performance but if something is slightly out of alignment
                            >or binding just a little you will have much trouble.
                            >As for figuring gear calculations and speed load ratings, If your
                            >calculations are using the factory stats for the micro-mo go ahead and
                            >toss them and start again, You can bet that any chassis/ gear train/ truck
                            >design will be running at 130 percent motor load and as much as 35 percent
                            >decrease in RPM without any rolling stock and on flat and level track.
                            >These numbers will increase dramatically under additional load of rolling
                            >stock on 2% grades. The fact that the motor can tolerate these abuses only
                            >proves the quality of these motors.

                            That's good to know.

                            >If a calculation is made with factory stats that a loco will top out at
                            >75mph I think 50-55 would be pretty close to real but add some rolling
                            >stock and you will drop off to 40 pretty quick. The up side, of course
                            >would be the slow speed response.

                            It sounds like I'm going to have to invest in the parts and see what happens.
                            I designed a couple of gear tower arrangements, and can try both of them to
                            see which ratio works best. I'm not going to ask what ratio you used in the
                            GP38-2, because I don't want to know, yet.

                            The low gearing might work very well in the SW9/1200.

                            > As for powering one truck, this design works well for single unit
                            > locos, like a doodlebug or perhaps a budd car. it would be almost
                            > useless(in my opinion) for moving more than just a few pieces of rolling stock

                            This shouldn't be a problem in a switcher.

                            >Hope this helps,
                            > Happy modeling
                            > Don

                            Thanks for contributing. Having done this, you will be a valuale resource, even
                            if you choose not to participate directly.

                            Scott Whitmire
                            whitmire@...
                          • Jay & Anne Greer
                            Hi Scott and Dan, Sounds like you guys are hot on a very interesting project. If I may, I would like to contribute to your project by offering to make the
                            Message 13 of 19 , May 29 8:49 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi Scott and Dan,

                              Sounds like you guys are hot on a very interesting project. If I may, I
                              would like to contribute to your project by offering to make the flywheel
                              for you. Give me the exact dimensions and I will turn one out for you.
                              Cheers,
                              Jay Greer/Der Wegmann

                              > From: "Dan MacKellar" <DMackellar@...>
                              > Reply-To: z_scale@egroups.com
                              > Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 11:30:29 -0500
                              > To: <z_scale@egroups.com>
                              > Subject: Re: [z_scale] Modeling possibility of GPs
                              >
                              >
                              > -----Original Message-----
                              > From: Scott A. Whitmire <whitmire@...>
                              > To: z_scale@egroups.com <z_scale@egroups.com>
                              > Date: Saturday, May 27, 2000 10:01 PM
                              > Subject: Re: [z_scale] Modeling possibility of GPs
                              >
                              >
                              >> At 5/27/00 04:38 PM , you wrote:
                              >
                              >>
                              >> Well, I suppose I could settle for a GP7. Everybody used them, and
                              >> some are still running. An Alco RS2 or RS3 would work, too.
                              >>
                              > I just did some planning, and an EMD switcher IS possible possibly
                              > with a Flywheel as well (although a very small one). The motor sits
                              > in the hood with a dummy truck under it. I designed this for use with
                              > microtrains trucks so the trucks are a foot too wide, but it isn't very
                              > noticable. The Flywheel (max 7mm O.D.) can be located between
                              > motor and the worm. The rear truck only is powered. I didn't add a
                              > Flywheel, but it wouldn't be hard. Due to clearance, there's no step
                              > down in gearing (it may be possible) and the unit just uses a straight
                              > shaft from motor to worm.Now the next question arises of where is
                              > on to get a true 7mm brass flywheel?
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >>
                              >> Good idea.
                              >
                              >
                              > As Far as the Universal chassis, I just looked into it. The GP38-2
                              > is 2 feet longer than a GP30,35 and 40. Not that that's really
                              > noticable in Z (I mean, what's 3mm between friends).
                              >
                              >>
                              > One thing I noticed though in scaling down a GP7 plan, Microtrain's
                              > F units are too short. The Geep scales out to about 2-3' longer in
                              > model form, but is the same length in prototype. Go figure...
                              >>
                              >> OK. Although that Aluminite is very easy to work with, once you
                              >> have the master.
                              >
                              > Never worked with Aluminite so I wouldn't know.
                              >
                              >>> Regards,
                              >>> Dan MacKellar
                              >>
                              >> One thing does worry me, though. When Rogue did the C44-9W,
                              >> they used two motors. My calculations showed that one would be
                              >> more than sufficient. Did the GP38-2 have power problems (was it
                              >> underpowered)? Anybody have any input? My math could be wrong,
                              >> and probably is, but I don't think I'm off by THAT much.
                              >>
                              > I really don't know about that, can anyone else on the list shed some
                              > light on this?
                              >
                              >
                              >> Scott Whitmire
                              >> whitmire@...
                              >
                              > Regards,
                              > Dan MacKellar
                              >>
                              >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              >> Long Distance Relationship? Join beMANY! And pay less each month
                              >> for Long Distance.
                              >> http://click.egroups.com/1/4165/1/_/560875/_/959482876/
                              >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              >>
                              >> Z: model railroading on a smaller scale.
                              >>
                              >>
                              >
                              >
                              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              > Find long lost high school friends:
                              > http://click.egroups.com/1/4056/1/_/560875/_/959527998/
                              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              >
                              > Z: model railroading on a smaller scale.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • Scott A. Whitmire
                              ... You got yourself a deal. All I know right now is that it needs to be 7.0mm in diameter. I ll get you the length and the shaft diameter as soon as I find my
                              Message 14 of 19 , May 29 11:50 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                At 5/29/00 08:49 AM , you wrote:
                                >Hi Scott and Dan,
                                >
                                >Sounds like you guys are hot on a very interesting project. If I may, I
                                >would like to contribute to your project by offering to make the flywheel
                                >for you. Give me the exact dimensions and I will turn one out for you.
                                >Cheers,
                                >Jay Greer/Der Wegmann

                                You got yourself a deal. All I know right now is that it needs to be 7.0mm
                                in diameter. I'll get you the length and the shaft diameter as soon as I
                                find my notes and compare them with the bolsterbase of a GP7, probably
                                later today or tomorrow.

                                Thank you! That was one part I didn't have a plan for yet.

                                Scott Whitmire
                                whitmire@...
                              • jjabour
                                Hi I have been reading this thread and want to make a few comments. Having built a GP38 using a dual shaft MicroMo 8 mm motor, I agree with Don that if
                                Message 15 of 19 , May 30 6:26 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi
                                  I have been reading this thread and want to make a few comments.
                                  Having built a GP38 using a dual shaft MicroMo 8 mm motor, I agree
                                  with Don that if everything is right the motor will probably pull 40-50
                                  cars. I have not had everything right (yet) and I can pull 30 cars on a
                                  level grade. The engine runs about the same speed as a MT F7.
                                  I use standard MT F7 trucks and the gear ratio (if I remember right) is
                                  10-1.
                                  I have also run this engine with only 1 truck connected and was almost
                                  useless. It couldn't get any traction until I put about 3 oz of lead over
                                  the
                                  truck.
                                  As far as the flywheels you need, I turned mine on my lathe (it took about
                                  10 minutes). You should be aware that the shafts on the 2 ends of the
                                  dual shaft 8mm motor are different. I don't have on in front of me but if
                                  you need the measurements, I can go down and measure it.
                                  Also, if you buy the single shaft motor you can get it with 2 different size
                                  shaft, depending on the option you order (by the way the motors are about
                                  $55 US plus shipping in single units).

                                  Hope this helps
                                  John
                                • Scott A. Whitmire
                                  ... Any kind of real experience helps. Thank you. I was aware of the different shafts. The technical information available on the MicroMo website is awesome,
                                  Message 16 of 19 , May 30 9:13 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At 5/30/00 06:26 PM , you wrote:
                                    >Hi
                                    >I have been reading this thread and want to make a few comments.
                                    >Having built a GP38 using a dual shaft MicroMo 8 mm motor, I agree
                                    >with Don that if everything is right the motor will probably pull 40-50
                                    >cars. I have not had everything right (yet) and I can pull 30 cars on a
                                    >level grade. The engine runs about the same speed as a MT F7.
                                    >I use standard MT F7 trucks and the gear ratio (if I remember right) is
                                    >10-1.
                                    >I have also run this engine with only 1 truck connected and was almost
                                    >useless. It couldn't get any traction until I put about 3 oz of lead over
                                    >the
                                    >truck.
                                    >As far as the flywheels you need, I turned mine on my lathe (it took about
                                    >10 minutes). You should be aware that the shafts on the 2 ends of the
                                    >dual shaft 8mm motor are different. I don't have on in front of me but if
                                    >you need the measurements, I can go down and measure it.
                                    >Also, if you buy the single shaft motor you can get it with 2 different size
                                    >shaft, depending on the option you order (by the way the motors are about
                                    >$55 US plus shipping in single units).
                                    >
                                    >Hope this helps
                                    >John

                                    Any kind of real experience helps. Thank you.

                                    I was aware of the different shafts. The technical information available on
                                    the MicroMo website is awesome, right down to very detailed drawings.

                                    The total gear reduction in an MT F-7 is about 24:1, with much of that
                                    on the shaft itself. Coming from the motor, the shaft turns a small
                                    pinion, which turns on the inside of the flywheel. From there, the reduction
                                    to the axles is 12:1 (if I remember correctly). 10:1 seems a little high, to
                                    me, and a lot fast, but it might not be. By varying the gear sizes, we can
                                    experiment to find the best reduction ratio.

                                    I like the idea of using standard MT trucks to start, because that makes
                                    it easy to get parts to play with.

                                    Scott Whitmire
                                    whitmire@...
                                  • bjkronen@aol.com
                                    ... Interesting question # 3,493: The MT split frame chassis has everything it takes to build a non-F7 loco, were it not for the width of the frame halves and
                                    Message 17 of 19 , May 30 9:42 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Scott, John and others:

                                      > The total gear reduction in an MT F-7 is about 24:1 <snip>
                                      > I like the idea of using standard MT trucks to start, because that makes
                                      > it easy to get parts to play with.

                                      Interesting question # 3,493:

                                      The MT split frame chassis has everything it takes to build a non-F7 loco,
                                      were it not for the width of the frame halves and the size of the motor.
                                      Since I don't own a Unimate or an End Mill (and long forgot how to use one
                                      anyway), wouldn't it be possible to take a look at just grinding away all of
                                      the frame that won't fit under the skin of say a 44 tonner? (or 66 tonner, 97
                                      tonner, etc.). The centrally located motor would be inside the full width
                                      cab of the 44 tonner.

                                      No, its not an RS1 or anything fancy, but it would certainly be a quick way
                                      to get a real US switcher on-line.

                                      But I've probably left something out. Like maybe 15 years of machine shop
                                      experiences.

                                      Bill
                                      Houston
                                    • jjabour
                                      Scott You are right about the gear reduction on the MT F7. It has 2 sets of reduction (I forgot about the one off of the motor). I don t use the one off of
                                      Message 18 of 19 , May 31 4:55 AM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Scott
                                        You are right about the gear reduction on the MT F7. It has 2 sets of
                                        reduction (I forgot about the one off of the motor). I don't use the
                                        one off of the motor. My motor goes directly to the worm which turns
                                        the final gears in the trucks. That is the reduction I use and its either
                                        10:1 or maybe 12:1.
                                        Thanks for the correction.
                                        John

                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: Scott A. Whitmire <whitmire@...>
                                        To: z_scale@egroups.com <z_scale@egroups.com>
                                        Date: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 12:13 AM
                                        Subject: Re: [z_scale] Modeling possibility of GPs


                                        >At 5/30/00 06:26 PM , you wrote:
                                        >>Hi
                                        >>I have been reading this thread and want to make a few comments.
                                        >>Having built a GP38 using a dual shaft MicroMo 8 mm motor, I agree
                                        >>with Don that if everything is right the motor will probably pull 40-50
                                        >>cars. I have not had everything right (yet) and I can pull 30 cars on a
                                        >>level grade. The engine runs about the same speed as a MT F7.
                                        >>I use standard MT F7 trucks and the gear ratio (if I remember right) is
                                        >>10-1.
                                        >>I have also run this engine with only 1 truck connected and was almost
                                        >>useless. It couldn't get any traction until I put about 3 oz of lead over
                                        >>the
                                        >>truck.
                                        >>As far as the flywheels you need, I turned mine on my lathe (it took about
                                        >>10 minutes). You should be aware that the shafts on the 2 ends of the
                                        >>dual shaft 8mm motor are different. I don't have on in front of me but if
                                        >>you need the measurements, I can go down and measure it.
                                        >>Also, if you buy the single shaft motor you can get it with 2 different
                                        size
                                        >>shaft, depending on the option you order (by the way the motors are about
                                        >>$55 US plus shipping in single units).
                                        >>
                                        >>Hope this helps
                                        >>John
                                        >
                                        >Any kind of real experience helps. Thank you.
                                        >
                                        >I was aware of the different shafts. The technical information available on
                                        >the MicroMo website is awesome, right down to very detailed drawings.
                                        >
                                        >The total gear reduction in an MT F-7 is about 24:1, with much of that
                                        >on the shaft itself. Coming from the motor, the shaft turns a small
                                        >pinion, which turns on the inside of the flywheel. From there, the
                                        reduction
                                        >to the axles is 12:1 (if I remember correctly). 10:1 seems a little high,
                                        to
                                        >me, and a lot fast, but it might not be. By varying the gear sizes, we can
                                        >experiment to find the best reduction ratio.
                                        >
                                        >I like the idea of using standard MT trucks to start, because that makes
                                        >it easy to get parts to play with.
                                        >
                                        >Scott Whitmire
                                        >whitmire@...
                                        >
                                        >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        >Hot off the press- summer's here!
                                        >School's out and it's sizzling hot. Whether you're planning a
                                        >graduation party, a summer brunch, or simple birthday party,
                                        >shop GreatEntertaining.com before your next celebration.
                                        >http://click.egroups.com/1/4473/1/_/560875/_/959746410/
                                        >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        >
                                        >Z: model railroading on a smaller scale.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                      • Scott A. Whitmire
                                        ... Please don t consider that a correction. I was going from memory, and I had disassembled both the MT F7 and the Marklin F7. I do know the Marklin s are
                                        Message 19 of 19 , May 31 8:46 PM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          At 5/31/00 04:55 AM , you wrote:
                                          >Scott
                                          >You are right about the gear reduction on the MT F7. It has 2 sets of
                                          >reduction (I forgot about the one off of the motor). I don't use the
                                          >one off of the motor. My motor goes directly to the worm which turns
                                          >the final gears in the trucks. That is the reduction I use and its either
                                          >10:1 or maybe 12:1.
                                          >Thanks for the correction.
                                          >John

                                          Please don't consider that a correction. I was going from memory,
                                          and I had disassembled both the MT F7 and the Marklin F7. I do
                                          know the Marklin's are geared higher (17:1 total). The whole exercise
                                          was an attempt to figure out how they worked, and get some idea
                                          of how to design small mechanisms. This was all about a year ago,
                                          and I had to count the 12:1 reduction three times. I picked 12:1 because
                                          that was the answer I got two of the three times.

                                          Scott Whitmire
                                          whitmire@...
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.