# Info re Bachmann K-27 from owners



## gdancer (Feb 19, 2008)

I'm beginning to lust after the Bachmann K-27 but have several concerns that you pioneering owners might be able to help me with. I am in a small town in the mountains of Colo and do not even have access to a hobby shop to look at one. From reading the threads, it appears that Bachmann has now solved most if not all the serious design issues. 1) Am I correct on this? 

Unfortunately, I have several curves on my layout where I had to use 8' diameter track. 2) Will the K-27 easily take 8' diameter without larger diameter transition track? 

Finally, I had to quit using a Bachman Annie on my Aristo stainless 4 years ago as I am convinced that some sort of electrolysis occurred between the cast drivers on the Annie and the stainless track: required serious cleanup every 10 minutes of operation to the point of serious frustration. (I had no problem with the turned steel drivers of my LGB locos.) Of course, that was just on DC, not DCC which I am presently using. 3) Does the K-27 have power pickup thorough the drivers or throuch a 'shoe' a la LGB? 4) Are the drivers of the K-27 cast rather than turned? 5) Has anyone with stainless track experienced unusual black deposit on stainless while using the K-27? 

6) Any recommendations of DCC decoders for ease of installation on the K-27? 

Thanks for your input, guys!


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Some of this I can answer, and some I can't, for reasons that will become clear.... 

First of all, the K is a great looking model. I happen to have the post wreck 455 version lettered for my own railroad. Stopped and posed someplace it looks, well, fantastic. All it needs is some weathering to take the shine off of some things, and accent some others, and folks will drool. 

The problems come primarily when you want it to move. 

There is what is now a well documented problem with the running gear. There was a machining problem with the counterweights on the first batch that required the shimming or replacing of the counterweights, and they did make counterweights availalble to those who could swing the replacement process themselves. Newer K's should have the replacements already installed. 

There is an issue with the horizontal play in the axles on the locomotive. On mine, Dave Goodson was good enough to lock the first and fourth axles with washers. This solves the problem of the locomotive sliding sideways on curves and striking objects near the track because the whole locomotive tended to travel to the outside of the curve, but still allows the inner axles to slide, which helps the locomotive on tighter curves. Other people have come up with other solutions, or run theirs as-is, in some cases adjusting the clearance along their lines to accomodate the 'slide." 

There is an electrical issue whereby the chuff trigger requires power for the light source in the optical chuff ... this makes the chuff inoperative at low speeds without modification. The chuff was also designed on a positive trigger instead of a ground trigger, which posed some problems with some existing control and sound systems. Those users who chose to use "auto chuff" of one kind or another avoided the issue entirely, and others installed circuits to power the light source, and invert the chuff signal. On mine, Dave Goodson installed a new chuff timer of the magnetic reed type on the rearmost drive axle, which works very well, and again circumvents the entire problem. 

There are some questions as to the current handling capabilities of the on-board electronics. My locomotive is equipped with battery power and radio control, and most of the factory wiring (the ubiquitous "Super Socket") have been removed .... so I'm not in a position to comment personally on the extent of the problem. You might ask Bob Grosh, or other users who installed DCC equipment about their results with this. 

There are some users who find the color of the marker lights and quality of the headlights is not what they wanted and replaced them with incandescent lamps. This is the case with my locomotive, and I'm very pleased with what it looks liike now. 

Finally the motor and gearing produce some interesting problems. The locomotive has a large motor and very solid metal gears, which is good ... but the gearing of those gears is such that the locomotive behaves as if it were a truck stuck in third or fourth gear sometimes, and has some issues with acceleration (see: very steep (fast) curve) and a lot of power consumption in the higher ranges. That said, the locomotive will pull prototypically long trains nicely, and with a little practice on the throttle can be made to run well, however if you have grades on your layout, you will find it difficult to find a "cruise" speed and walk away from the controls, particularly with a long train. To date there is NO fix for this particular issue, but I understand that the speed control inherent to some DCC systems may deal with it somewhat. 

Other than that, there's a fan in the top of the boiler that needs to be reversed (physically) or it sucks the smoke back down the stack (if you use smoke) versions with the plow need a whole new pilot deck if you plan to remove the plow, and the sun shades over the cab windows are quite fragile so you need to be careful with them, both installing and adjusting! But none of those are really a huge deal. 

Mostly, I like mine VERY much ... it's the flagship of the Slate Creek fleet .... and now that it's been "K-Rexxed" it's a lot of fun to run as well. I say go for it, and work out the bugs... well worth it. 8' curves are a bit tight ... but from what I understand, if you don't have clearance issues, and can oil your flanges a bit, you'll make it. 

Matthew (OV) 

http://bp0.blogger.com/_3Hdj0jDlqqs/SISBg3FnHzI/AAAAAAAAADM/X_hkbtxjSfI/s1600-h/DSCN2565.JPG


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Oh, forgot... there's a space conflict between the bar on the outside of the cab doors (front) and one of the injector pipes in front of the cab that prevents the door from being fully opened. Dave Goodson modified several to recess the bar a bit into the door, and now it opens fully. 

In re-reading the above, it seems like I've detailed more problems than assets .... I'm not trying to scare you, just tell you what there is, so you're prepared. Once the issues are dealt with or circumvented, the locomotive is really a fantastic piece, and well worth whatever effort is needed to make it right. I particularly love to sit with my head at track level and slowly start the locomotive.... between the Phoenix sound and the valve gear it's just like being there.... only no cinders in my eyes. 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## gdancer (Feb 19, 2008)

Matthew.... Great response. Thanks for taking the time to cover all the bases for me and at great length. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/wow.gif I know it's a great looking loco from the pics in Garden Ry mag, but operation is more important. That'd be an expensive model to park on a library wall! Who is Dave Goodson and how does one go about getting him to modify all those design flaws? BTW, I won't need the loco until next May as my pike is at my summer home in Colo; maybe Bachman will fix some of the problems before then????/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif As they say in Italian, "Speriamo!", i.e. let us hope! Thanks again!


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Dave Goodson, aka "The Old Curmudgeon" (TOC) is the Professor Emeritus of Marconigalvanic Ferroequinology* currently in residence in the Pacific Northwest. (He can also tell you a great deal about submarines, Jaguar vehicles, and good cigars (and liquids that go with them.)) He knows more about most large scale locomotives and what makes them tick than most folks you'll find, and he's generally willing to help if you ask him. 

Contact information is here: http://dnkgoods.home.mindspring.com/ ... give him a call; you'll be glad you did. 

Matthew (OV) 

PS. Check out http://120pointme.blogspot.com (the sponsor of this forum) for even more in depth discussion and lots of links on the Bachmann K-27. 

*Marconi-galvanic-Ferro-equinology: Study of iron horses of the radio-battery variety...


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

A while back someone here at MLS was having trouble with his K derailing. I made some measurements on mine and discovered that there was a small gap between the engine and the tender on 8' diameter curves and a much larger gap on 10' diameter curves. Extrapolating those measurements I've concluded that the engine (cab) and the tender would touch on curves between 7 and 7.5'. Tighter curves would require a longer drawbar. I also thought that there was no lateral play in the drivers on the 8' curves. Any tighter curves would most likely cause excessive wear on the track and drive wheels. 

I have two of the K-27s (#453 and #455). I received 453 in early January, by mid-January I had to shim the drivers, no problems since then. When I bought 455 in April I ask the vendor (Caboose Hobbies) to fix the drivers before they shipped the engine to me in Virginia. The engine has run perfectly since I received it. I have not added sound or batteries so I cannot answer any of your questions along that line. 

There are the minor problems that others have mentioned, the dim head light and the reddish marker lamps, but I'm not planning to do anything about that at the moment. 

My roadbed isn't the greatest. It took me 2 years of tweaking the roadbed and my Accucraft K-28 before it would go around the track once. The Bachmann K has great suspension and handles my roadbed like a good mudhen should. 

It's a very good engine and it pulls nicely. If you want a reasonably priced K, I can strongly recommend it. 

Chuck N


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

LGB 1600's are what, 7'8" diameter? 
With 1 and 4 locked, stock drawbar, the locomotive works through 1600 curves and switches just fine. 
That is TIGHTER than the 8' minimum set by the manufacturer.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks for the clarification. I measured the distance between the cab and the engine on LGB 1600s. I had always heard that that was 8' diameter. Therefore the minimum diameter would probably be closer to 7', but I don't think that it would be very good on the motor, gears, drivers, and track. 

Chuck N


----------



## jbwilcox (Jan 2, 2008)

So if you were interested in buying a K-27, how would you know if you were getting a first run edition or one that had all the problems fixed? 

Especially if you buy it from mail order, how could you be sure what you were getting? 

JOhn


----------



## gdancer (Feb 19, 2008)

Good point! Wouldn't you think that premier shops ..e.g. Watts, St. Aubin, etc...would provide the upgraded K-27, esp if you specified same?


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

I was in Caboose Hobbies last April and I specifically said "that I would buy it if they would fix the counterweights". I would hope that any of the major dealers would make sure it was correct. Especially if you said that you would return it to them if it wasn't. I have heard that there is a sticker on the box if Bachmann did the fix before shipping later orders, I can't confirm this, but it might be something else to ask the dealer. 

Chuck N


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

I know the guy who recommended they mark the ends of the boxes with a note that new counterweights have been installed. 

If the box says that, they are. 
That is the ONLY mod performed prior to arrival on your doorstep.


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm beginning to lust after the Bachmann K-27 but have several concerns that you pioneering owners might be able to help me with. I am in a small town in the mountains of Colo and do not even have access to a hobby shop to look at one. From reading the threads, it appears that Bachmann has now solved most if not all the serious design issues. 1) Am I correct on this? 

Unfortunately, I have several curves on my layout where I had to use 8' diameter track. 2) Will the K-27 easily take 8' diameter without larger diameter transition track? 

Finally, I had to quit using a Bachman Annie on my Aristo stainless 4 years ago as I am convinced that some sort of electrolysis occurred between the cast drivers on the Annie and the stainless track: required serious cleanup every 10 minutes of operation to the point of serious frustration. (I had no problem with the turned steel drivers of my LGB locos.) Of course, that was just on DC, not DCC which I am presently using. 3) Does the K-27 have power pickup thorough the drivers or throuch a 'shoe' a la LGB? 4) Are the drivers of the K-27 cast rather than turned? 5) Has anyone with stainless track experienced unusual black deposit on stainless while using the K-27? 

6) Any recommendations of DCC decoders for ease of installation on the K-27? 



I can perhaps answer all your questions. I currently have 3 K27 models on my layout. I have both stainless and brass track, run both DC and battery power, and have numerous LGB 1600 turnouts (which are gradually getting replaced on the main line) 

I should note that I did provide some thoughts to Bachmann prior and post release and and this locomotive is clearly my favorite locomotive on my railroad. 

The very early first production locomotives had loose counterweights. While there are likely a few of these models still in the market with this issue, Bachmann replaced all the ones that Dealers notified them on. If you get one of these Bachmann will supply free replacements which can easily be replaced. 

The power pickups are through the drivers and work exceptionally well in both DC and DCC. With one K-27 I have installed Hybrid Drive so that I do not have to clean wheels or track. My others have other boards at present and work fine but these do have to have their wheels cleaned from time to time like any locomotive. As an aside installing Hybrid drive on your Annie will completely solve the issue you were having with the wheels. 

The K27 has the expanded Aristo Craft socket which is identical to the one Aristo has been using for about 10 years. You asked about DCC use. QSI and ESU have DCC sound boards that plug into the socket. The ESU board supports all the functions including sound with no modifications. The QSI board requires a simple inversion transistor should you wish to use the on board chuff circuits rather then the boards auto chuff feature. There is one chuff sensor in each cylinder triggered at the half way point. 

Perhaps it would be useful if I also commented on some of the comments that Matthew provided. 


There is an issue with the horizontal play in the axles on the locomotive. On mine, Dave Goodson was good enough to lock the first and fourth axles with washers. This solves the problem of the locomotive sliding sideways on curves and striking objects near the track because the whole locomotive tended to travel to the outside of the curve, but still allows the inner axles to slide, which helps the locomotive on tighter curves. Other people have come up with other solutions, or run theirs as-is, in some cases adjusting the clearance along their lines to accomodate the 'slide." 



As shipped the drivers of the K27 locomotive can go around 5 ft curves.(the total locomotive an tender need a little more then a 6 foot diameter). This is accomplished by a design with has an inner and outer axle with side play. Many of us have layouts designed for smaller locomotives and the K27 is rather large by comparison. Because of the locomotives size and design the side to side play can cause clearance problems on many layouts. As noted Dave Goodson developed a method to reduce the side to side play by locking the 1st and 4th axles. I did this on one of my K27s. Because of the subsequent tendency to derail I quickly altered the approach. One can accommodate 90% of what Dave was trying to accommodate and improve the locomotive tracking at the same time by locking the 2nd and forth axles. Locking the axles will indeed reduce side to side play but will increase the radius required. With this mode the locomotive will still easily handle LGB 1600 curves This after market improvement is totally optional. I should note that over time I have adjusted my layout to accommodate a greater side to side play and have not decided if I will do this mode to my other K27s. 

Note that if you have the snowplow version you will have to do a minor mod for Aristo manual turnouts to prevent the plow from hitting the manual throw mechanism. 


There is an electrical issue whereby the chuff trigger requires power for the light source in the optical chuff ... this makes the chuff inoperative at low speeds without modification. The chuff was also designed on a positive trigger instead of a ground trigger, which posed some problems with some existing control and sound systems. Those users who chose to use "auto chuff" of one kind or another avoided the issue entirely, and others installed circuits to power the light source, and invert the chuff signal. On mine, Dave Goodson installed a new chuff timer of the magnetic reed type on the rearmost drive axle, which works very well, and again circumvents the entire problem. 


Perhaps I can correct this observation a little. Low track voltages not low speed. Most sound boards designed for DC use require a battery to run at low track voltages. The K27s motor will start at a slightly lower voltage then the chuff circuit. A pair of diodes on one motor lead (the LGB approach to allow the electronics to activate before the motor) or coupling the locomotives and battery circuit both solve this issue. DCC or RC users will not see this issue. The second issue raised is the need for a chuff inversion for many but not all sound systems. The ESU plug in board for DCC users works fine and the RCS plug in board for RC users has the required inversion built in. If you want to use a sound system that requires the inversion it is very simple to add. 


There are some questions as to the current handling capabilities of the on-board electronics. My locomotive is equipped with battery power and radio control, and most of the factory wiring (the ubiquitous "Super Socket") have been removed .... so I'm not in a position to comment personally on the extent of the problem. You might ask Bob Grosh, or other users who installed DCC equipment about their results with this. 



I try to follow all reported problems for this locomotive and I am not aware of any current handling issue if the stock electronics are used.. I run my railroad at 21.5 volts DCC and have many hours on my K27s 


Finally the motor and gearing produce some interesting problems. The locomotive has a large motor and very solid metal gears, which is good ... but the gearing of those gears is such that the locomotive behaves as if it were a truck stuck in third or fourth gear sometimes, and has some issues with acceleration (see: very steep (fast) curve) and a lot of power consumption in the higher ranges. That said, the locomotive will pull prototypically long trains nicely, and with a little practice on the throttle can be made to run well, however if you have grades on your layout, you will find it difficult to find a "cruise" speed and walk away from the controls, particularly with a long train. To date there is NO fix for this particular issue, but I understand that the speed control inherent to some DCC systems may deal with it somewhat. 



An issue you will likely never encounter. The K27 has a top speed that is very similar to other plastic models built by companies such as Aristocraft, LGB, Charles RO and others. This top speed is twice a K27 prototype speed and much faster then many comparable brass models. While the prototype modeler likes the slower speeds, the market still demands the faster speeds. Most of us use the after market electronics we have chosen to adjust our top speed to suit our preferences. 

The K27 has a very large motor and some electronics in the market have problems powering the motor/gear mechanism. Comments such as a sluggishness, poor acceleration or stuck in third gear are an observation of a poor marrage between the drive and the electronics. Other electronics in the market is designed for high efficiency drives and the power is smooth across the speed range. I have used Lenz, QSI and ESU drives in my K27s. All have high frequency back emf as part of their design and none have any of the problems reported by Matthew. In fact several sound manufacturers had to slightly alter their software to accommodate the ultra slow performance that is achievable by this model. 

Hope that helps. 

Stan Ames 
http://www.tttrains.com/largescale


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Stanley, you are so full of yourself, you can't see reality. 

The locomotives need to run normally and properly on track power FIRST, not designed to work best with your choice of DCC. 

But, maybe your influence may fade. 

For the good of the hobby, one can only hope.


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

I stand corrected, Stan. 

With #1 and #4 axles locked, I have never had a derailment with my K-27 except on one occasion when I ran a switch set against me. But you're right; locking #1 and #4 axles won't work on 4' radius curves. It will work on a #4 switch with a reverse curve, but then I've never asked it to go around a 5' diameter curve, so that capability may be lost when one locks the axles. Of course, it never occured to me to ask my locomotive to take a curve radius that was less than its length... shame on me. You're right again. 

And, you're right. I misspoke. the optical chuff does not come on at low speed, it comes on at low voltage. You're right. How utterly silly of me. Part of the confusion arises from the fact that people running the locomotive on DC power (track or battery) achieve low speeds by using low voltages. And, you're right.... our sound systems come with batteries to power themselves during times of low voltage (which, entirely coincidentally (apparently) is when the locomotive is moving slowly.) I think I must have forgot that on the K-27 there is hardly any slow speed, even at low voltage, but let's address that seperately, shall we? For the moment, I'm glad to see you agree with my assessment that if you use auto chuff, you can use a QSI decoder without modification, or modify the chuff circuit and use the chuff timer. It's kind of like where I said I wasn't aware of any current problems with the socket, even though there had been some reports, and to address the question to someone (like Bob Grosh) who uses the socket with DCC equipment. So "Correct" my assessment all you want ... on track power if the locomotive is unmodified and moving slowly, you're not going to hear anything from the chuff timer unless you have the mod from Phoenix that uses the sound system battery to power the light source, and thereby requires the smoke unit be disabled to avoid depleting the battery entirely. But you're right, it's low voltage, not low speed. 

As to the gearing being an issue "most people" will never encounter, excuse me but PHOOEY. My original assessment of the situation was that the locomotive is geared too high. I would say that twice prototypical speed is TOO HIGH. My part of "the market" (whatever that is) does not demand a K-27 that can run at eighty miles per hour, and I have NEVER heard anyone anywhere complain that a K-27 should be able to achieve highway speeds. You say that the marriage of the electronics and the drive is a poor one, and I AGREE. I cannot believe that anyone with any concept of how to power a model locomotive would design a drive mechanism in such a way that every current battery and track powered system currently in use marries poorly to it, and that only a DCC decoder with back EMF, constant track voltage over 20 volts can compensate for the elephantine problems caused by YOU not understanding the material you submitted for the gearbox that halved the gear ratio. Perhaps if you really WERE a consultant for Bachmann, you'd catch errors like that before you submitted them to become part of the design of an otherwise fantastic model. 

Everyone ... I surrender. Listen to this guy Stan, and you won't go wrong. He's got five K-27's running on DCC, and they can all run over a stick. He's never had a problem, and everything's wonderful. Because of his innovations, all of the K-27's produced to date have run wonderfully right out of the box, and to date, I've just been a part of a conspiracy of mean spirited phillistines who have abused a nice guy for no reason. I just made up the rest of this to be difficult.... none of it's true, and actually, I'm going to rip out all my batteries and track power and install a full on DCC system next week so I can take full advantage of all the hobby has to offer. 

And... the lobotomy hurt a great deal less than I'd feared. 

Anyone whose experience with the K-27 differs from Stanley Ames' expert opinion feel free to contact me OFF BOARD and I'd be happy to talk about my imaginary success with imaginary modifications and imaginary fixes that solved all of my imaginary problems. I'm tired of being called a liar, or a misguided child every time I try to help.... so my discussion of anything Mr. Ames has ever had a hand in stops as of this post, unless it's "What a great model, it runs great, I love it, and wish they'd make more." Promise. To the new guy who started this thread, I apologize.... it's not always like this here, except when politics gets in the way of reason. To the moderators, I've said my piece, I'm done, save your ammo..... 

With my compliments.... 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## david bunn (Jan 4, 2008)

Oh dear,vitriol is alive and boiling. 
Matthew, my K was delivered with a new set of counterweights for me to put on.No sweat very very easy to do probably only 25mins total.It runs fine on track power,VERY slow to fairly ballistic,easy fix here don't open up the throttle fully and drive the loco don't just let it run espescially with a heavy consist. 
Great model and very pleased. 
Happy Ks 
Bunny


----------



## david bunn (Jan 4, 2008)

Sorry, forgot to mention the bonus of fixing the weights yourself is a set of six weights for future loco construction.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Another one failing to grasp the issue. 

It isn't really worthwhile trying to explain it. 

However, suffice it to say, if you follow Stanley's reasoning, we don't really need gears at all in our trains. 
Rather, some new dcc control system, and the wheels connected directly to the motor shafts. 

I am seriously puzzled by the total lack of any understanding of engineering and design principles shown by some.


----------



## tj-lee (Jan 2, 2008)

Matthew (OV), 
> every time I try to help.... stops as of this post 

Well, not being a shill for anything and therefore only speaking for myself I wish you would seriously reconsider. 

I am very dependent on the help provided by you and many others that share their experience and know-how with less experienced newbies like myself here on MSL. If guys like yourself leave the forums to the vested interests the hobby will become much harder for many of us to progress in and enjoy. 

For anyone that frequents the forums regularly, (and based on my own experience getting into the hobby I can attest that information starved newbies haunt the MSL forums as lurkers for months before actually getting up the gumption to post a question), it's not hard to figure out who is really trying to help and who has an axe to grind (or a bridge/agenda to sell). 

Best, 
TJ


----------



## Marauderer (Jan 5, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 09/02/2008 6:04 PM
Stanley, you are so full of yourself, you can't see reality. 
The locomotives need to run normally and properly on track power FIRST, not designed to work best with your choice of DCC. 
But, maybe your influence may fade. 
For the good of the hobby, one can only hope.




I am trying to figure if it is just biting wit or you are really bashing Stan. I am running DCC and I felt that Stan's post were right on.


----------



## Marauderer (Jan 5, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 09/03/2008 9:10 AM
Another one failing to grasp the issue. 
It isn't really worthwhile trying to explain it. 
However, suffice it to say, if you follow Stanley's reasoning, we don't really need gears at all in our trains. 
Rather, some new dcc control system, and the wheels connected directly to the motor shafts. 
I am seriously puzzled by the total lack of any understanding of engineering and design principles shown by some.



That is pure bull on your part. All I got from that is that Stan felt the K 27 was geared wrong. No where did he say that gears shouild be done away with. Whats up???


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

haha, oh.....choke....... 

"An issue you will likely never encounter. The K27 has a top speed that is very similar to other plastic models built by companies such as Aristocraft, LGB, Charles RO and others. This top speed is twice a K27 prototype speed and much faster then many comparable brass models. While the prototype modeler likes the slower speeds, the market still demands the faster speeds. Most of us use the after market electronics we have chosen to adjust our top speed to suit our preferences. 

The K27 has a very large motor and some electronics in the market have problems powering the motor/gear mechanism. Comments such as a sluggishness, poor acceleration or stuck in third gear are an observation of a poor marrage between the drive and the electronics. Other electronics in the market is designed for high efficiency drives and the power is smooth across the speed range. I have used Lenz, QSI and ESU drives in my K27s. All have high frequency back emf as part of their design and none have any of the problems reported by Matthew. In fact several sound manufacturers had to slightly alter their software to accommodate the ultra slow performance that is achievable by this model. ' 

NOWHERE does he say it's wrong. 
What he does is waffle on about "the market still demands the faster speeds". 
And, that like Bose speakers, some manufacturers have "slightly alter"ed their software. 

The gearing was supposed to be 29 or 30:1. 
It IS 14.5:1. 

Find me another steam loco with that gearing. 

Toys, maybe, but certainly not 1:20.3 scale models! 

One thing you may not have noticed, I have been working this problem for some time now. 

I have copies of more stuff than even I can believe. 


Stanley has many time said, in print, there is no problem with the gearing. 
If 14.5:1 is okay, why not do away with gears altogether? 

Remember: 

Read with comprehension!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By Marauderer on 09/03/2008 2:01 PM
Posted By Curmudgeon on 09/03/2008 9:10 AM 
Another one failing to grasp the issue. 
It isn't really worthwhile trying to explain it. 
However, suffice it to say, if you follow Stanley's reasoning, we don't really need gears at all in our trains. 
Rather, some new dcc control system, and the wheels connected directly to the motor shafts. 
I am seriously puzzled by the total lack of any understanding of engineering and design principles shown by some.

That is pure bull on your part. All I got from that is that Stan felt the K 27 was geared wrong. No where did he say that gears shouild be done away with. Whats up???" border=0>




Oh, and telling me my comments are pure bull is not really productive. 
I may be outspoken, and hard to get along with, but "bull" isn't part of the equation.


----------



## Marauderer (Jan 5, 2008)

Well, I apologize for saying it was pure bull but, you do have an elitist attitude and are very frustrating in saying that I don't get it and that it isn't worth explaining. So how about explaining it so I don't feel so frustrated. Talk about being not really productive.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

I did. 

MANY years of experience showed about 30:1 with a 19V Pittman was ideal. 

This engine is half that. 

Because of that, the current "curve" is outside the normal envelope, i.e., while it will haul 28 cars on level track (do it), at 20 on 4% it exceeds 3 amps by so much it trips the output protection on the throttles every 4 feet. 

Done it. 

I know full slip is over 4 amps. 

Elitist? 

Really? 

There is one person on this thread who qualifies as "elitist", and it i neither you nor I.


----------



## Marauderer (Jan 5, 2008)

So, the motors are to small, draw to many amps, and the gearing is wrong. That I understand. Would it be almost impossible to modify one and get it right??? Or maybe just not cost effective. Of course it is a hobby to me so cost effective is kind of an oxymoron. Thank you for clarifying it for me. I guess I will look elsewhere for a 120.3:1 Big Loco than the K27.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

The motors are NOT too small. 
However, they have a continuous current rating of half what the loco draws. 
Haven't had any burn up, so they probably will be okay. 

New gears have been in-work for about 6 months.


----------



## Ted Yarbrough (Jan 2, 2008)

Barry, 
Bill Crowden, one of our club members, is hosting the next meeting. He has a Bachmann K. Come out and see it for yourself September 13.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

And, all of that said, the locomotive is fine within the confines of the limitations. 
You stay inside something reasonable (like, say, prototypical loads on prototypical grades) you'll probably be just fine. 

Personally, I don't like the current spike. 
Nor 11/16" side-play at the pilot beam. 
Nor cab doors that won't stay fully open. 
Nor optical chuff triggers that don't work out of the box, nor wimpy yellow LED's and the need to re-wire to use incandescents. 
Nor 13 wires between engine and tender (I cut out 5). 

I know what was proposed over a year ago on the motor and gear ratios. 
I have a fair idea of what was actually happening behind the scenes. 

And, I'm not interested in doing any more to help sort out their issues under the current arrangement.


----------



## Marauderer (Jan 5, 2008)

Posted By Ted Yarbrough on 09/03/2008 3:56 PM
Barry, 
Bill Crowden, one of our club members, is hosting the next meeting. He has a Bachmann K. Come out and see it for yourself September 13." border=0>



Thanks Ted, but I will be in Mojave Desert on 9/13 and won't be back until around 11/15. I will call Bill when I get back and check it out. Have a great meeting down in Fayetteville. I will get a chance to get down to Carlsbad and visit Greg E. and see some of his prototype QSI cards for the USAT's.


----------



## Marauderer (Jan 5, 2008)

Big "C", it sounds like you have been involved in the K27 project. I am not a tron guy but work at understanding what is happening. It sounds like I should wait a while and see what happens.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Waiting isn't going to accomplish much. 
The "second run" of K's was originally scheduled for this fall. 
That seems to have been supplanted by the Liver Spot. 
The locomotive is what you get. 
The fixes are easy, and if you don't run sound or don't care about bright incandescent-glow headlights, doors that open all the way, and have lots of side clearances with little grade or short trains, you're set. 

The "fixes" are published. 

I wasn't "involved" per se. 
I was asked about motors and gearing, which I wrote a full report on (still have the original). 

For 11-1/2 years now, I have been involved (on my own time and dime) with generating field fixes to keep locos running. 
I tried to generate them in such a manner as to be able to be accomplished by the average modeler. 

"Biggies" I have always run past Philly Phirst, to let them have a shot at their own "fix". 
The last one, they sat on it, and it was released, including the "Model A" shim use (from the old shims when I had a Model A) to someone else to release, and I don't work with people who do that.


----------



## Marauderer (Jan 5, 2008)

I checked out your bio and web site. You do keep busy!!


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

So, the motors are to small, draw to many amps, and the gearing is wrong. That I understand. Would it be almost impossible to modify one and get it right??? 



Unfortunately whenever the Bachmann K-27 is discussed a lot of emotions seem to be put forward. We all have differences of opinion but hopefully it is possible to have civil discussions. 

Dave has posted some useful information so lets continue the thread by filling in some of the blanks omitted. 

The current production Bachmann K-27 uses a Pittmann 19 volt 9234 motor with ball bearings. This is one of the most powerful motor used in any large scale locomotive. 

It has a max torque rating of over 41 oz-in and is an excellent choice for such a large model. 

I am a modeler and not an expert in motor selection or gear ratio so when Dave first raised the question of gear ratio I asked several manufacturers who are known for excellent motor/gear selection. 

What I learned is that the motor gear ratio is not as simple as a set number, there are many factors that go into the optimal selection. 

Dave has a lot of experience with the Pittmann 8000 series motor and Dave has observed that for the 8000 series motor in a typical large scale locomotive that 30 to 1 is optimum for his usage. That of course assumes a similar driver size and similar desired top speed. 

But there are differences. For one the 8000 series motor is a 10,000 RMP motor while the 9000 series motor is a 6,000 RPM motor, The same gear ratio for both motors is going to result in a much different speed curve as well as a much different top end speed. 

Other factors are driver size weight, trying to stay at the high efficiency side of the motor curve and ensuring that the locomotive slips well before motor stall. 

When all this is factored into a locomotive the final and key issue is both slow speed performance and top speed. And it is the top speed that is the hardest for modelers to agree on. 

As has been pointed out on a few other threads there is a great difference in what modelers desire in their large scale models. We are very fortunate that multiple manufacturers are building some beautiful locomotives in a variety of large scales. But we as a community do face an interesting issue. It takes a lot of money to produce a mass produced model so the manufacturers have to support a large variety of modelers. 

On the high end we are very concerned about fidelity to scale and gauge and also prototypical speed. The mass market however tends to operate trains faster and is less concerned with the details and specific prototype. 

What the manufacturers are trying to do is develop models that can appeal to both groups of modelers. This can be a win win for all concerned. 

The K-27 prototype has a max allowed speed of 30mph. This speed limit is posted in the cab. A typical RC user operated his locomotive at 14.4 volts and the Bachman K27 will have a top end speed in the 30mh range at that voltage. 

Some time back when this issue first came up I actually measured the speed of the Bachmann K-27 at a scale of 1:20.3. Unless I made a mistake in the calculations the unloaded speed on DC was 41 scale MPH at 18 volts DC. At 23 VDC 69 scale MPH and at 13.8 VDC about 33 scale MPH. Personally I think the 24 volt speed is a little high. I personally prefer a mid 50s speed at 24 volts as this allows headroom at the slightly lower voltages but can live with the slightly faster top speed. At the low end I measured 0.2 scale miles per hour which is well below what the prototype is capable of. 

If I do the math right, for you 1:29 folks for comparison that would be a top speed at 24 volts of under 50mph which is slower than the max speed of most of your equipment and well in your preferred operating range. 

If we as a community could agree on a desired top speed then I am sure we could get the manufacturers to implement that desire. But as it is now a lot of us like to run our locomotives much faster than prototype narrow gauge speeds and reducing the 24 volt DC top speed of the Bachmann K-27 by half as Dave suggests would I fear only appeal to a very few. 

I am confident that if there are enough models that prefer a lower speed that after market folks will develop a new set of gearing. For me the current gearing is fine as most of the electronics I use has the ability to customize the speed range and it is trivial to set the top end speed to be what I desire. For DC users that want a slower top end speed simply do not crank the throttle up to full voltage. 

Hopefully the above provides a balanced view of gearing issue and perhaps will lead to a positive and productive discussion on desired top end speed for the community. 

Stan Ames 
http://www.tttrains.com/largescale/


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

This is what was submitted: 

K-27 motor proposal 12JUL07 


I have in my possession for evaluation two Pittman motors for the upcoming K-27. 

I have evaluated these motors, not only on their stand-alone merits, but based upon much experience with Pittman motors in Large-Scale locomotive. 


Barry Olsen of Barry’s Big Trains uses Pittman motors. 
I do R&D work with Barry on new chassis. 
Much trial-and-error has resulted in a 19V motor that works with all applications. 

The motors in hand are a 9234E847, 15VDC, and a 9234E848, 19VDC. 
Follows is pertinent data: 

9234E847 9234E848 

Torque: 6.1 oz/in 6.1 oz/in 

Stall Current 12.1A 10.1A 

Continuous current 2A 1.7A 

Max no-load speed 6150RPM 6150RPM 

As you can see, the 15VDC motor will handle more current. The 19VDC motor will be a good “compromise”. 
Be advised there is a 25-26% overload feature in both, so the 19VDC motor will function fine on 24VDC. 
The 1.7A continuous rating of the 19VDC motor is about three times what any of your other engines draw. 

Working with Barry, we discovered a 30:1 gear reduction was best for prototypical speeds. I would not want to see much less than 26:1, as we don’t need folks flying these big locos off curves. 

The 30:1 works well with Barry’s use of Bachmann 4-6-0 2” drivers, as well as the 1.75” drivers on his 2-8-0. 

I would suggest a double-lead worm with a gear reduction to obtain the desired end ratio. 
Double-leads eliminate “worm lock”, yet can retard runaways on downgrades with heavy loads, something a gearhead motor with bevel gears on the axle are unable to accomplish. 

Discussing this with Barry, he advises me that his new replacement gearbox and motor for the 2-8-0 Bachmann Consolidation is ready for production after having been field tested. 

He also states that he would be willing to discuss with you sharing the use of the development of this new gearbox, which has ball-bearings on each shaft, and quite beefy gearing. 

The 9000 series motors I have will bolt into this gearbox and fit his worms. 

You need to discuss details with him. 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

Since nobody runs at 6,000 or 10,000 RPM, the motor speed through the gears to the driver diameter governs speed. 
Obviously, they missed the mark, and I know why. 
Want that published, too? 

And, you're right. 
You DON'T know.


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

Um - did we just see checkmate?!


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hmmmm........I was wondering what was happening with the K-27 over at Bachmann! I, too, had my K-27 modified by Dave Goodson and I had him shim the counterweights (the fix before the replacement weights were available) shim the 1st and 4th drivers (by the way, NO derailments and the K tracks properly!) change out the headlights and the classification lamps (_much_ better!) fix the door so it opens properly, rip out most of the electronics including the "supersocket" and install one of those tried and true "Jurassic Park" RCS r/c units with a Soundtraxx Sierra digital sound system and powered by NiMH batteries. My K-27 #463 is now the flagship of my fleet and it runs spectacularly! 

DCC may indeed prove to be the wave of the future. Maybe someday I'll try it but for now I am satisfied with having my trains run when and where I want them to _without_ having to worry about dirty track, polarity, amperage overload, computer interfaces, etc.... 

I'll say this one last time. Dave Goodson is THE expert where the issues of electronics and mechanical innards of Bachmann's products are concerned. He has time and time again devised "fixes" for each and every one of Bachmann's _Spectrum_ locomotives and he has done this for the good of the hobby. He's not looking for a legacy! His reviews in Garden Railways were always scrupulously impartial but certain individuals at Bachmann were afraid of what he would publish about the K and more importantly, the "Super Socket" and so he was essentially "blacklisted" by Bachmann!! Dave may no longer be doing any reviews but I won't buy another new Bachmann engine unless he first goes over it and "debuggs" the thing!


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Roll on the Mallet???? 

Chomp Chomp Chomp.


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

Discussing this with Barry, he advises me that his new replacement gearbox and motor for the 2-8-0 Bachmann Consolidation is ready for production after having been field tested. 

He also states that he would be willing to discuss with you sharing the use of the development of this new gearbox, which has ball-bearings on each shaft, and quite beefy gearing. 

The 9000 series motors I have will bolt into this gearbox and fit his worms. 


Dave 

I saw Barry’s drive in Phoenix. Very impressive and with the 8000 series motor a sure hit in the 2-8-0. The 2-8-0s production motor is way under powered and Barry’s replacement will be a big plus. Barry also told me that his drive would fit the 9000 motor. 

Any yes indeed with a 30:1 reduction you will get a true scale 30mph on the K27 at 24Vdc. But this for me who runs at 20 volts will likely be to slow a top end speed and in the opinion of most its way to slow for the mass market. I personally believe it will be a hard sell get Bachmann to half the top end speeds for their models. 

I always welcome discussions with Barry as I am also a customer. But I do not understand your comment about sharing development. Those types of comments should be directed to Bachmann Industries. I think you can agree that they have shown in the K27 that they know how to build a top end motor gear box. True you do not like the top end speed but that is a marketing decision they have made. Perhaps we can get a 10-20% reduction in top end speed at 24 volts in the future but frankly most do not see a real large market for real slow models in Large Scale. 

But who knows. If Barry’s replacement drive is a real big hit and the market starts wanting slow models who knows, they have adopted to change in the past and will likely continue to do so in the future. 

I will be in Portland next week for the NNGC and I believe Lee Riley from Bachmann Industries will be in attendance as well. Why not stop by and share your thoughts. 

Stan Ames 

PS In Phoenix Barry was using the 8000 motor. The 9000 K27 motors I sent you some time back to look over have a continuous torque of 6.1, max 41 while the 8000 motor has a 2.6 continuous max 17. While I am sure Barry can get an 8000 series motor in the 2-8-0 I doubt a 9000 will fit and likewise while he can get a 8000 motor in the K27, I suspect he will find it is not powerful enough. I also suspect you will find that the 9000 motor in the same drive will result in a slower top end speed then the 8000 motor. I for one have an open mind and will be eager to see the results in both locomotives.


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

"True you do not like the top end speed but that is a marketing decision they have made." 
Marketing? Is that how they finally spun it? I was always told (including AT the Bachmann booth) that the gearing was a mistake - that someone at Bachmann listened to a "consultant" from the East Coast and by the time anyone else caught his mistake, it was too late and K-27's were coming off the line in China.


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Steve Stockham on 09/03/2008 8:31 PM 
Dave Goodson is THE expert 


What else is there to say? If I _ever_ buy another Bachmann locomotive, the first thing I will do is rip out that socket. The liklyhood of me getting another Bachmann is slim, since I am going to spend my money on a worthless socket that I am going to throw out anyway. Yes, Bachmann does make great locomotives, I have a Consolidation and a Shay. Both are great locomotives, and they have never failed me. But they are too expensive to just throw away half of the locomotive /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/angry.gif" border=0>. If I am going to spend $700 on a K-27, I would much rather spend it on an LGB locomotive, that would actually work right out of the box. If anyone is interested, I might be able to have a real train run over one of those sockets /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/w00t.gif"


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Don't worry Josh. 

Catch him out with one load of BS the story can and will change faster than your head can spin to another slightly different load of old cobblers. 

That is why we love Stanley so much, and why I have kept a record of every of bit of correspondence he has ever sent me. Some of it is very illuminating.


----------



## tj-lee (Jan 2, 2008)

Somehow the phrase "follow the money" comes to mind whenever I read one of Stan's posts. 

TJ


----------



## gregcoit (Jan 2, 2008)

This is a fascinating discussion for me since I'm planning on buying one at the 2008 NNGC this next week. (there are no hobby shops within 3.5 hours of my home). I've often harassed Bachmann for their choice of prototype (and occasional quality issues), but I think the K-27 is a benchmark in 1:20.3, especially considering it's excellent price and prototype-specific detail. 

Having said that, and recognizing that we large-scale modellers are a diverse group, I do find it hard to imagine that anyone would want to the the K-27 at twice the prototypes maximum speed (that's 43 real feet in 10 seconds - 5280 feet/minute divided by the scale of 20.3 scale/the divided by 6 to convert from minute to 10 seconds). I would *much* rather have good control and range at slower speeds then run a loco 2 times what the prototype ran at. And I suspect that I'm not alone in this belief. Stan Ames said it's hard to guess what max speeds the modelling public wants (again remembering how diverse we are). But I think the prototype itself offers some basis to make that decision - a 1:32 F or E unit should be able to operate at some decent scale speeds. Not so much for a 1:20.3 NG steam locomotive. 

BTW - I'm not arguing with Stan Ames in any way - he's not the guy who made the decision. Just giving my 2 cents, if it's worth even that....  

Greg Coit 
Arcata, CA


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By gregcoit on 09/03/2008 11:48 PM
Stan Ames said it's hard to guess what max speeds the modelling public wants (again remembering how diverse we are). But I think the prototype itself offers some basis to make that decision - a 1:32 F or E unit should be able to operate at some decent scale speeds. Not so much for a 1:20.3 NG steam locomotive. 
BTW - I'm not arguing with Stan Ames in any way - he's not the guy who made the decision. Just giving my 2 cents, if it's worth even that.... " border=0> 
Greg Coit 
Arcata, CA




How do you know he didn't? 
You might just be amazed at what may or may not have been claimed at one time or another, what's in print, and what the truth really is. 
Nobody wants to argue with Stanley. 
It's pointless. 
Just be very careful to understand what you THINK he says in a response.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

..........because it might just be open to interpretation if it looks like being caught out in facts.


----------



## Bruce Chandler (Jan 2, 2008)

Stanley said "in the opinion of most its[sic] way to[sic] slow for the mass market". 

There's a mass market for the K-27? Really? 

And they want it to go 60 scale miles per hour? On their 8' diameter track? Can it really do that? 

I model in 1:20, and the fastest I've ever got my trains to go was 34 scale miles per hour. I really didn't feel comfortable with them at that speed, and I have 15' diameter curves. Typically, I run in the 12-18 scale mph range. Sometimes slower. 

Perhaps I don't hang out with the "mass market" crowd, but no one I know likes to run that fast. We like prototypical slow starts and slow speeds. Slow speed performance is extremely important to me. A high top end speed is meaningless.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

I don't want any more slot trains.


----------



## gdancer (Feb 19, 2008)

Wow, Guys!!!! I had no idea what sort of controversy (ies) I would unleash by my inquiries. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crazy.gif I'm the newbie that innocently started this thread. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/doze.gif I do very much appreciate all the positive input and will go forward with my currently unsatisfied lust for the K-27, but with all the caveats you guys have so helpfully provided.....motor gear ratio notwithstanding. I will operate at the lower speeds and, apparently, in DCC some of the other issues will be minimized. I will be buying next spring and, hopefully, by then some of the major outstanding issues will have been solved by Bachmann taking into consideration all your input. Thank all you guys for the great advice!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

I do want to thank you. 
You asked a simple question, which drew out the one responder is always a joy to deal with (but only after half a bottle of single-malt Scotch). 

Just remember, all the stuff you read from said person, all the contrived, extrapolated bul.....err....baloney, explanations of why that are so weak they collapse before the keyboard is silent, this person is continuing to have input on product prior to release. 

Remember that.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Going back to something stated about the top speed of this locomotive being twice the prototype to satisfy the 'masses'. 

If they spent all that time and money getting the details of the K-27 correct, it stands to reason that the top speed should also be correct. 

For this model, the majority of the users report they run the locomotive at prototype speeds. In fact, if someone off the street bought this engine, I would imagine it would be to run it at prototype speeds pulling prototype consists. It is simply a huge locomotive. The gearbox is clearly a mistake to me. I've only seen this engine run a few times, but it was at what looked like proto speeds. But I guess in order to keep from having to replace everyone's gearboxes, they can't officially admit they made an error. Incidentally, I haven't noticed their Shays or the other geared locos running at 30 MPH, so why the change for this loco? I really hope that the new Mallet doesn't come painted for Acela, but then, the LGB Mikado was made in SP Daylight, so who knows. 

My Bachmann 4-4-0 seems to run awfully fast, on the top end. However, on the bottom end, she really can creep where my Aristo locos will shudder. 

Mark


----------



## bobgrosh (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By gdancer on 09/01/2008 11:14 AM

snip...

, it appears that Bachmann has now solved most if not all the serious design issues. 

1) Am I correct on this? Unfortunately, I have several curves on my layout where I had to use 8' diameter track. 

2) Will the K-27 easily take 8' diameter without larger diameter transition track? Finally, I had to quit using a Bachman Annie on my Aristo stainless 4 years ago as I am convinced that some sort of electrolysis occurred between the cast drivers on the Annie and the stainless track: required serious cleanup every 10 minutes of operation to the point of serious frustration. (I had no problem with the turned steel drivers of my LGB locos.) Of course, that was just on DC, not DCC which I am presently using. 

3) Does the K-27 have power pickup thorough the drivers or through a 'shoe' a la LGB? 

4) Are the drivers of the K-27 cast rather than turned? 

5) Has anyone with stainless track experienced unusual black deposit on stainless while using the K-27? 

6) Any recommendations of DCC decoders for ease of installation on the K-27? Thanks for your input, guys!

















1) No

2) No, (define easily)

3) No shoe, sorta through the drivers.

4) I don't know what process was used, but, they are definitely not nickle plated or polished like the LGB wheels

5) I don't have stainless track, but I did notice the black "deposit" on both nickle silver and brass rail. I would suppose it will on stainless, or aluminum also. (See "Arcing Modification" below)

6) My final configuration ended up being a SFX064D and a K1 in the tender and a DG583S, TF4 and K1 in the loco.



First, some videos of the Kay in action on the ALLY...

This was it's first run.



Actually it took a dozen attempts to get that shot. The Kay kept locking up and would not start when commanded. I wanted the camera dolly loco  to be moving when the Kay started. (See "Bind Fix" below)



Here is a couple showing the different whistles I loaded into the SFX sound card.





 

Here are some of the improvements I came up with:

In no particular order:



Tender Wire Improvement

The wiring diagram that Bachmann published shows wires from each truck to the plug board.

They also show wires between the two trucks. Those wires DO NOT EXIST! Had they been there, they would shunt high currents around the lands on the plug board should the front and rear trucks happen to be on reversed polarity track. That could happen if backing through a reverse loop, or if the rear truck derails when backing through a turnout.

Unfortunately, the loco wiring does not match the drawing (in this and a few other respects)

I redrew the drawing, corrected the errors and colorized the wires to make the drawing easier to follow.










(Full size version can be downloaded HERE )



Notice that there are no wires connecting the front and rear tender trucks. If there is a derailment and the rear truck polarity is opposite the front truck, the traces that run the length of the circuit board will have to carry all the current.

If you run the Kay on a power source greater than 5 amps, and uses slow blow fuses, thermal cutouts or DCC delays longer than 500 ms, I recommend you make the following improvement.



*Unsolder the red and black wires from the rear truck where they enter the board. Extend them and solder them to the same solder pads that the front truck uses.



*Note: do not move the front wires to the rear to accomplish the same thing. If the entire tender is at the opposite polarity from the loco, then the current will still go through the lands of the board to the loco.





Tender Wire improvement 2



On my Kay, after a few days of testing, the loco began applying intermittent shorts to the rails on curves. I noticed sparks coming from the area of the tender trucks pivots.



It turns out the wires to the trucks go through small holes in a METAL part of the trucks. The holes are too small and have sharp edges. They wore through the track pickup wires.



*Replace the wires from the tender trucks with  good quality rubber insulated test lead wire. Drill the holes in the trucks out larger and file edges smooth. Install Teflon selves where the wires pass through the trucks.

*



Arcing Modification



On both DC and DCC the wheels on my Kay would pit and crud up really fast. In less than an hour of running, I had to clean the drivers, trailing truck, and to a greater extent the tender wheels.

I was also noticing burn marks on the tops of both my brass and Nickle silver rails. Some might mistake these burn marks for a crud build up. In reality they seemed to me to be caused by arcing. By watching the loco at night I discovered severe sparking on only one side of the loco when running on DC. On DCC the arcing was less, but equal on both sides of the loco. By running the loco in one direction for an hour on on a freshly polished test track, I discovered the black "deposits" were only showing up on one rail, the one where I observed the sparking. I therefor theorize that these black "deposits" are related to the arcing and may be carbon deposited from the pits in the wheels. 

To find out why this loco arcs so bad, I traced the circuit boards and drew a schematic of the majority of the boards. This was weeks before Bachmann published a schematic. When the Bachmann did publish the schematic, I compared mine to theirs. This lead me to complete mine which corrects some errors on theirs, (not the least of which is that they had the + and - outputs of the bridge rectifier reversed.

As far as I can tell, this is a correct schematic. Thanks to Tony and George for their assistance.












( FULL SIZE VERSION HERE )

Notice that there are two 470 micro-farad capacitors on the output of the bridge, These act as a dead short until they are charged up and will therefor absorb the maximum instantaneous current your power source can provide. ( This can be considerably higher than the rated sustained current or the value of the fuses. )



I could not eliminate these capacitors because it would result in immediate failure of several regulator chips. Worse still, the regulator chips themselves draw their max current until the output voltage reaches the desired output voltage. 

To determine if the arcing was due to the motor itself, or the capacitors and regulators on the boards in the loco and tender, I temporarily unplugged the connector on PCB 8  and connected the loco track pickups directly to the motor. This bypassed all the circuitry.



Running the loco on DC with all the boards bypassed, the arcing was almost gone. After three hours, both rails appeared equally clean with no black carbon deposits or sign of pitting on one rail. If there was any carbon or pitting going on, the loco was wearing it back off as fast as it was depositing the carbon.



*The best fix would be to rewire the filter circuit to form a twin "T" filter. However, I did not go that route because of other issues. That leaves only four other solutions, remove the boards with the capacitors and all the boards that depend on them and wire the loco for DC. Or, do a normal wired DCC decoder install. Or convert to battery/RC. Or clean the wheels and rails every hour or so. 





*Tender Shell Repair.

There have been many reports that screw towers inside  the tender break. Three of the four in my tender were broken. In addition, part of the tender shell was broke out at the rear.












Apparently the factory tightened down the tender shell but did not check to see if the cutout lever was in the correct position. It was captured between the tender shell and tender floor.

This caused a big chunk of to be broken out of the shell. Fortunately, the broken part ended up inside the tender. A couple other broken parts were in the plastic bag.














The breaks were fairly clean with no deformation of the plastic. I was able to fit the part tightly back in place, then apply a drop of CA on the inside to hold it there. I then reinforced the part with Epoxy on the inside of the tender.

Because My Kay is an undecorated one, it was easy to spray primer, sand and then repaint the entire shell. The repair is invisible thanks to the hardness of the plastic Bachmann used. Had the plastic been soft, it would have deformed and the repair would have been a lot harder to hide.



The screw towers can not be glued. They are slightly shorter than needed, so when you tighten the screws they will pop again. If your screw towers are not broken, be careful not to over-tighten the screws.

Several fixes have been published. However, I opted to cut the towers in half and then shorten them by taking 1/4 inch out of the center, I then rejoined the two halves with a short piece of surgical tubing. I epoxied the lower halves. This provided a spring loaded hold down of the tender shell when the screws are tightened, which stretches the tubing.





Smoke Improvement



The smoke element runs at 12 volts. I have not had mine burn out yet. However, the 12 volt regulator did quit after an hour or so. I by-passed it with a 12 volt regulator and heat sink from Radio Shack. I drove the regulator directly from the yellow lead of the decoder which I remapped for the smoke unit. I also set a qualifier so the smoke would be on when moving to conserve fluid when I parked the train.



When the smoke is on, no smoke will come out of the stack. When I looked down into the stack , I could see that the element was smoking, but all the smoke was being sucked down inside the loco.



*To get the smoke to come out the stack, remove the four screws holding the fan in place. Discard the two longer screws. Flip the fan over and re-install the two shorter screws.

*










With the fan blowing upward, this is what it looks like.



Improving lighting effects.



Despite assurances that the fancy current regulator would not interfere with FX effects like firebox flicker, they did. There is no way to get the two phase flicker effect included with Digitrax and SoundTraxx decoders to work through the Bachmann circuits. I bypassed them by wiring them through 1 meg 1/8 watt resistors to the decoders.



If you want the headlight to brighten and dim properly in sync with the generator sound on a Tsunami sound card. you will have to bypass the regulator circuit. I replace the Bachmann LED with a 5 volt bulb. The regulator will not provide enough current for a bulb, so I used a 270 Ohm 1/4 watt resistor and drove the bulb from a K1 function decoder mounted on the back side of the boiler front..



I did not like the orange LED in the front markers. I used three bulbs per marker, red, yellow and green, and wired the front markers to a Digitrax K1 decoder so I could operate the Kay in sections or as specials.

I did the same thing for the tender, as seen here:


















Improving Sluggish Operation.



I have no issues with the high top end speed. I normally try to find out what the prototype typical speed is, and set the decoder vMax to that speed. This provides a full 126 speed steps over the entire speed range for more accurate control.

However, a low gear ratio, (one that makes the loco run too fast) also sacrifices pulling power and smooth low speed performance. 



As a typical train for the Kay, I decided that I liked the looks of one 1:20 Bachmann box car, 12 LGB logging disconnect pairs and a caboose. 



_This would be typical of the length and weight of a train I would pull with the Kay on the ALLY. It is not so long that it can pass it's tail, and there are places where the entire train can bee seen. Yes, Ideal train length is purely subjective and largely a matter of personal preference.

_

Before setting up back EMF, I always run the train with BEMF off. It is always best to get the loco running smooth prior to setting up BEMF.

I noticed that this train lugged down the Kay in the curves. I pulled the same train with a LGB Forney  Also with BEMF off) for comparison and there was no drastic slowing in the curves. (I have no grades)

After looking at several possibilities I finally discovered that with the decoder removed, the voltage at the motor under moderate load was 2-1/2 to 3 volts lower than the voltage on the tracks. So somewhere in the loco wiring the Kay was dropping a lot of voltage as the amps went up.



OK, Let's trace the current as it flows from the left front driver through the motor and out the front right driver.



right front driver

pickup brush

front brush board

red jumper wire

through printed circuit board (PCB) 07

red jumper wire

through PCB 05

8 pin connector

ribbon cable

through main loco circuit board

red wire to tender

7 pin connector

through PCB 09

red jumper wire

through PCB 01

the DCC socket Track R

PCB04 or decoder

the DCC socket Motor +

through PCB 01

orange jumper

through PCB O9

7 pin plug

orange tender jumper

through main loco circuit board

ribbon cable

8 pin cable

through PCB 05

red wire to motor

black wire from motor

through PCB 05

8 pin connector

ribbon cable

main loco circuit board

gray jumper to tender

6 pin connector

through PCB10

gray jumper wire

PCB 01

DCC socket Motor -

through PCB 04 or decoder

DCC socket 

through PCB 01

black jumper

through PCB 10

6 pin plug

black tender cable

through main loco circuit board

ribbon cable

8 pin plug

through PCB05

black jumper wire

through PCB 07

black jumper wire

front pickup board

brush

front left driver

 

Try to count how many solder joints.

Try to count how many mechanical contacts ( don't forget the four on the direction switch, which I didn't list).

Just how many time does it have to go through a circuit board?

I estimated over 9 feet of thin stiff brittle wire.



OK, so I figured I'm losing three volts somewhere, but where?

The problem is, the more resistance, the less able the motor will be able to maintain speed. The problem is worse because the motor has to run too slow due to the gear ratio. I could either change the ratio, or reduce the resistance.

As an experiment, I disconnected the ribbon cable from PCB 05. Then I jumped the red and black from the loco pickup to the red and black motor leads. Now the wiring is reduced to 6 inches and all plugs are eliminated. I ran the Kay again. Pulling the same box car, 12 disconnects and caboose, the loco breezed through the curves without slowing down.



*To prevent the Kay fr lugging down, eliminate as much wiring and as many connectors as you can.

*



Installing a decoder.



I tried 6 different motor decoders, (three different brands) using the socket. I tried 7 different sound decoders, (three different brands)

I tried all of the tricks published on the Bachmann site to get them to work. I tried little transistors, big transistors, three transistors.

I followed all the Bachmann web site instructions.



Did they work? Well some people might say so. In most cases the Kay would run, sort of. In many cases the chuff would work, if you weren't very particular.

I wasn't satisfied. The Kay did not run or sound like a model should. Certainly not nearly as well as my stock LGB Mikado.

Along the way, I hooked up a scope and really experimented with the chuff. I discovered that a 1 k resistor from rail A to + out worked just as good as any of the transistor "fixes". I also found out that a Phoenix 2K2, a SoundTraxx and even the three different Digitrax SFX cards would chuff perfectly using the optical chuff, if they had a battery, and a battery for the optical circuit. But, only if you connect the rail inputs of the sound cards to the + and - outputs of the dummy card INSTEAD OF THE RAIL PICKUPS.

Of course if all you want is perfect chuff's, that is great. but the sound card always thinks the loco is going forward, so the whistles, uncouple and some other features are messed up. That was about the closest I came to a perfect sound installation using the optical chuff.

I had to stop and evaluate the situation.

I really wanted to use a standard DCC interface. It would be easy to try new decoders. Easy to swap sound cards on a whim.

But, I had already bypassed the flicker circuit to get an acceptable flicker. I bypassed  the headlight, to get a generator effect, the markers to get rid of the LED, the smoke because it burned out, the capacitors were causing arching issues, the rats net of wires were causing performance e and reliability issues, and all the handling had introduced a couple connector failures and broken wires.



I removed everything.



Here is what I installed:

 I positioned a DG583S in the loco with the connector next to the motor. I re-wired the pickup boards and trailing axle to the track inputs. I connected the existing motor leads directly to the decoder. Total wire length from driver to driver through the motor, 10 inches.

I connected a two conductor cable with a plug on it to the decoder track terminals. This carried DCC up into the loco and provided a plug to make it easy to disconnect the boiler. I mounted a K1 to the back of the boiler for the six bulbs in the markers and the headlight. 

I mounted another K1 on the blackhead for firebox flicker and cab light.

I connected the smoke unit to the F0F screw terminal and common on the motor decoder. The fan is powered by the F0R screw terminal and set to turn off when the loco stops to reduce noise when the loco is standing..

In the tender, I installed two 4 ohm speakers in series, a Digitrax sound bug and a K1 on the rear tender wall for the six bulbs in the lanterns. My Kay came without a backup light, so I installed an LGB headlight which I connected to the K1. 

Why did I use the sound Bug? Well It cost less than $50.00. Go back and listen to the videos, was it worth it?

For the chuff, I installed two reed switches in the cylinders and glued magnets to the optical flags. I wired the switches to the draw-bar and the draw-bar pin in the tender to the Sound-Bug. 

Why separate decoders? Simple, I now have a two wire track/data buss going to all the major components of the Kay with a two pin plug in each wire. Disassembly and maintenance is a snap. Fewer wires equals fewer failure points. Total cost of all the decoders was about 120 dollars street price. If I want to upgrade the sound, motor a function decoder in the future, I don't have to replace a big expensive multi-purpose decoder and do extensive rewiring. I can pick and choose features to "build" a decoder that does everything without sacrificing some feature just because the super decoder does not have it. Some will point out that a separate sound decoder can not be aware of the load on the motor. To that, I'll just say that those people do not understand just what decoder feedback is all about. Both the sound card and the motor decoder have Transponding, a Digitrax decoder feedback technology.



All wires between the loco and tender are totally eliminated with only the chuff input going through the draw-bar. I did not feel the need to feed the pickups in the tender to the loco. They both are heavy enough to work on the ALLY. The tender pickup is probably not as good as the loco pickup so eventually I may get sound dropouts. If that happens I can add a super cap to the sound, jumper the loco to the tender, or change out the Bachmann axles with LGB BB axles with electrical pickups.



Bind Fix



There was a lot said about the Kay locking up due to the loose eccentrics. The drive rods get out of wack and the Kay won't move.



Mine did it from the very start.

I also noticed that the front left wheel had a slight wobble.



TOC published a fix for the loose eccentrics, which I immediately applied.(shims and shortening the shafts a little.)

The lockups obviously caused by the eccentrics went away, but, the loco still galloped. It would seem to bind one per revolution.

I waited for my replacement eccentrics.

They came in, I put them on. they were tighter than the originals, but still a little loose and so the sidrods did some funny jumpy things..

I still had the galloping.

I could not get shims in the smaller space of the flat spots, so I took off the new eccentrics and put the old ones on and the shims back in.

I still had the galloping. and once in a while, the loco locked up when changing direction.

This time I noticed that the third right hand driver had a wobble.

I knew I had not moved the front wheel to the third position, so I removed the CW. and found... A BENT SCREW.

Well DUH! I should have wondered why one screw was always harder to tighten.

The loco still locks once in a great while.

If I am not pulling cars, it is OK

If I stop suddenly while backing, and the cars coast and create slack, it is OK.

If I slow very gradually, backing, and keep a small amount of resistance against the rear coupler. It locks UP.

I took out and disassembled the motor and gear box.

Found nothing.

I ran the loco on rollers for 24 hours. 10 seconds forward, 10 seconds backward (DCC and a program on my desktop)

The problem seemed to go away. still, every once in a while, It won't budge going forward after a smooth gentle stop when backing a string of cars. When that happens, the only way to get it to move, is to throw it in reverse, back up slightly and then go forward. When it is locked, all the junk on the sides are free of binds, only the geared driver is tight.



I was told the loco would take five foot curves.

It will.

It will navigate my R3 turnouts at each end of the passenger sidings.



The only problem is, the loco AND TENDER WON'T. 

It throws the tender off the tracks at both ends of both sidings. I looked at possible modifications, but decided they weren't worth the effort. and would make the loco look bad. 

Sure is a nice looking loco.

I canceled my order for a second Kay. Bought another Forney with factory DCC and sound (for about the same price) 

I found a shelf in my den where I can admire how great the Kay would have looked on the ALLY.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Bob- Thanks. 
Glad to see you were able to get a long post up. 

Stanley- 

Now what are you going to do? 
Call Clambake and get Bob fired? 
Gee, can't do that. 

Complain to Howard Lee and get him pitched? 
Gee, can't do that. 

Get someone on the East Coast to ignore the polish on his shoes long enough to demand a re-review? 
Gee,can't do that. 

Tell everybody Bob doesn't like DCC and is picking on someone's choice of control systems? 
Gee, can't do that. 

Stanley, you stuck your nose in where it didn't belong, utilizing skills you didn't have, and you alone stand responsible. 
Now you're involved with the Liver Spot, and God alone knows what you've done there. 

Thank Heavens you were successful in getting me pitched. 

I feel no strong urges to sort out your mess this time. 

And, please, stop with the e-mails and phone calls. 
They will NOT be answered.


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Bob, 
Yikes! No one can say you didn't give it the "Good 'ol college try!!" Too bad all that hard work didn't pay off in the end. Funny, I always thought that a locomotive should run correctly out of the box and not need someone with an electrical engineering degree to make it work. As I understand it, the optical chuff _doesn't_ work with most sound systems without modification. Now how did _that_ come about? I've heard rumors that the circuits are reversed in some instances.... If this is indeed the case why wasn't it caught before the K was sent out to the public? 
I also heard a rumor that the gear ratio problem was actually NOT a problem.....until they changed from a double head worm gear to a single head and they didn't halve the gearing (or something to that effect.) Again, it sure sounds as if there was a screw up and somebody is desperately trying to cover it up.....


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

Bob 

Thanks for the most informative post. It will take some time to get to the bottom of all of your observations. Some are likely limitations of the model and your observations will hopefully lead to improvements. Some of what you report may be a result of a damaged locomotive or a result of the modifications you made. All manufacturers have a feature set they provide in their models. As modelers we often modify them to try to improve upon them but it is often a mistake to blame the manufacture when we are unsuccessful with those modifications. 

I am on my way to Portland so I am unable to take apart one of my Ks to try to recreate some of your observations until I return. Some of what you report however can easily be addressed. 

Lets take them one at a time. 


It will navigate my R3 turnouts at each end of the passenger sidings. 

The only problem is, the loco AND TENDER WON'T. 

It throws the tender off the tracks at both ends of both sidings. I looked at possible modifications, but decided they weren't worth the effort. and would make the loco look bad. 



Just so we are on the same page by R3 you mean the 1600 line of turnouts. As many have reported (even in this thread) the locomotive and tender work just fine on these turnouts. If you like I can post a video of the K27 (and tender) going through a pair at full speed. I made this video while experimenting with Daves axle locking procedure. 

So why then do you have problems while others do not. I think I may have a clue. When I first got a K27 of my own, the first thing I did was take it apart so I could fully understand it from the perspective of the additions I chose to make. When I reassembled it the first time my locomotive and tender could no longer navigate 1600 turnouts. Most times the tender derailed. After a lot of head scratching I found the reason was that I had inadvertently shortened the wires to the tender and when the locomotive entered the 1600 curve it literally picked the tender wheels off the track. The problem went away when I went back and lengthened the wires. Perhaps you inadvertently did the same thing. 


There have been many reports that screw towers inside the tender break. Three of the four in my tender were broken. In addition, part of the tender shell was broke out at the rear. 



When you first got the K, I seem to remember you reported a greatly damaged outer box that occurred during shipping. I would never accept a clearly damaged model. All manufacturers will try to improve things when problems occur but some things are out of their control. The back of the tender does not get a hole in like yours had without some real extreme pressure. In your case a shipment that clearly had gone through the wringer and had a broken tender inside should in my opinion been immediately returned. 


This time I noticed that the third right hand driver had a wobble. 

I knew I had not moved the front wheel to the third position, so I removed the CW. and found... A BENT SCREW. 

The problem seemed to go away. still, every once in a while, It won't budge going forward after a smooth gentle stop when backing a string of cars. When that happens, the only way to get it to move, is to throw it in reverse, back up slightly and then go forward. When it is locked, all the junk on the sides are free of binds, only the geared driver is tight. 


I mentioned the shipping damage because I know of no one else who has these performance problems. True with the loose counterweights many had binding problems, especially on rollers, but to the best of my knowledge no one else has had these binding problems or bent screw problems once the proper counterweights were installed. I can not help you with this one. In my opinion, either something got real damaged in shipment, you put it back together wrong, or something has been damaged in some other fashion. All 3 of my K-27s have the replacement counterweights (one set I did the others had been done already) and none have any binding problems. Perhaps someone else can help you with this one. 


To get the smoke to come out the stack, remove the four screws holding the fan in place. Discard the two longer screws. Flip the fan over and re-install the two shorter screws. 


Yep you are credited at finding this one. A fan that blows air into the locomotive is sure going to dampen the smoke output. 


Despite assurances that the fancy current regulator would not interfere with FX effects like firebox flicker, they did. There is no way to get the two phase flicker effect included with Digitrax and SoundTraxx decoders to work through the Bachmann circuits. 


Bachmann uses a single wire to control its firebox flicker. To get the effects you desired you need two independent wires to control the flicker. There is nothing wrong with wanting to add more features to a model than is provided off the shelf. Many of us do this type of enhancement to a model. (I especially like the three LED effect on the classification lights) I doubt that you will ever get all your desired effects in a production locomotive 


If you want the headlight to brighten and dim properly in sync with the generator sound on a Tsunami sound card. you will have to bypass the regulator circuit 

I have not tried the Tsunami effects but all the other brands tested the effects work just fine with no mods. For example the ESU decoder also has a similar lighting generator effect and it works perfectly out of the box with the K-27. Current regulation is usually ideal for LED effects. When I return I will try to get with Soundtraxx and figure out why you had the problem. In Phoenix Soundtraxx was demonstrating the Tsumani with the Airwore RC inside the K27 and I thought they showed the lighting effects working properly but I may be mistaken on this so will check it out. 

Those are the easy issues you raised 

Now lets get to the harder ones. 


I noticed that this train lugged down the Kay in the curves. 


An interesting set of observations. I will have to try to recreate your cause and effect. I chose a different set of decoders for my installations and have absolutely no lugging or lack of power in or out of curves. My slow speed performance is exceptional and my Ks will pull much longer trains than you report up the long 2% and 3% grades on my railroad. I can set the locomotive at speed step one and it will tie crawl over the entire layout for hours with no change in speed or ability to pull. 12 volt versions of the same Pitmann motors are used in brass O scale and one of the brass builders has used them for year. He also has reported that not all decoders control these motors well. It is the high efficiency aspect of these motors that can confuse the back emf detection on most of the earlier decoders and many of the decoders produced today. For many years these motors have been the gold standard for achieving good performance which few have met. I will have to talk to him about his observations with the decoders you chose but based on the magazine decoder reviews performed in Europe, I suspect this one of the the real root causes of the problem you have reported. 


I was also noticing burn marks on the tops of both my brass and Nickle silver rails. Some might mistake these burn marks for a crud build up. In reality they seemed to me to be caused by arcing. By watching the loco at night I discovered severe sparking on only one side of the loco when running on DC. On DCC the arcing was less, but equal on both sides of the loco. By running the loco in one direction for an hour on on a freshly polished test track, I discovered the black "deposits" were only showing up on one rail, the one where I observed the sparking. I therefor theorize that these black "deposits" are related to the arcing and may be carbon deposited from the pits in the wheels. 


It has been a long time since I have run on DC but I will try to recreate your observation when I return. On DCC with the installs I did I have not observed the problem you report and on one locomotive I am charging batteries as well as operating the motor and effects. As we discussed in the past the capacitors on the +- leads can cause problems with some decoders. In particular manufacturer of the decoder you chose specifically cut the ground wire on their production decoders because they did not want this connection made. This issue interests me so I will look more into it when I have some time. Perhaps there is a design principle that needs to be explored for specifying internal locomotive wiring that needs to be explored here. 

All for now 

Stan Ames 
http://www.tttrains.com/largescale


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

Stanley, you stuck your nose in where it didn't belong, utilizing skills you didn't have, and you alone stand responsible. 
Now you're involved with the Liver Spot, and God alone knows what you've done there. 


Dave 

The above is a well written expression of your feelings. It is very unfortunate that you self destructed on the internet earlier this year and no I did not do any of the things you claim I did to you, you did it to yourself. 

In the past you have been a great asset to the hobby. Most of us here have used your procedures to improve on those model you choose to do this on or used your procedures as a starting point to develop our own set if improvements. 

Bachmann industries took a great risk in developing what is perhaps the most advanced 1:20.3 mass produced model ever produced. Many of us in the community had pleaded for years for Bachmann to produce a large locomotive. And many of us clearly hope that they will produce another such model for a different prototype in the future. Most of us who have this model really enjoy it and to many of us it is our favorite locomotive. 

We had many discussions and many attempts were made to get you involved. You simply can not continuously insult everyone; try to scare everyone with fictional door number two, DCC for all, etc; break confidences continuously; and expect people to share things with you. 

Unfortunately since the first pre production locomotive first ran on my layout last year as part of the NNGC, you have continuously blasted me, many Bachmann employees, their products and just about anyone who tries to post anything positive. 

I truly hope that in the future there is a way to work together for the better of the hobby which is why I invited you to sit down in Portland next week and try to work things out. I am going to be in your neighborhood as an attendee and Bachmann will be there as an exhibitor. Its not often that such an opportunity presents itself. 

You have worked hard to get a very loyal and vocal customer base who will follow you anywhere. Lets hope the community can find a way to harness this energy in a positive fashion for the good of the large scale community. 

Stan Ames 
http://www.tttrains.com/largescale


----------



## Duncan (Jan 2, 2008)

"Lets hope the community can find a way to harness this energy ..." 

I'm figuring that "this energy" will be best used to power up the BS sifter... 

* Is the K27 geared wrong? Yes or No... 
* Do all of its functions perform properly on DC or battery power right out of the box? Yes or No... 
* Are there "work-arounds" required to achieve the intended/advertised/desired performance of the K27 before it hits the rails? Yes or No... 
* Are there any aspects of TOC's evaluations or discoveries blatantly incorrect or non-factual? Yes or No... 

I see two sides to this conundrum. 

One side is represented by someone who has a direct interest in the public's acceptance of a toy train that potenially has "issues" in its original configuration for distribution. 

The other does not...


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Duncan. 

In order. 

Yes. 
No. 
Yes. 
No.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

I did not self destruct. 
If that's your view, stuff it. 
I will let you figure out where. 
I put in 11-1/2 years fighting prima-donnas, and I certainly don't need any more. 
Fighting or prima-donnas. 
You wormed your way into the Pholks at Philly, and look what we've got. 
Read Bob's post, if you want a dcc version of the issues. 
Obviously, since I use a system different than dcc, I am not qualified to evaluate the units, nor write reviews. 
I cannot wait to see how your influence has affected the next loco out of the shed. 
Self-destructed? 
Boy. 
You don't understand mechanics, nor electronics, and you certainly do not understand what was happening. 
Personally, I have determined that as long as you are involved with this company, and that includes making statements for them, I will not purchase anything from them. 
That's my opinion. 
I have no intention of encouraging anyone else, publicly or privately, to either purchase or not purchase products from said company. 
That said, look at the comments from folks waiting for the "next run" of K's. 
While Marketing and the ecconomy may have something to do with sales, when even staunch dcc-users come out with huge posts on "issues", you become a lone voice (added to your particular shill following), and we all wonder if the consumer isn't looking at all the comments from actual owners before deciding to buy or not. 
Remember the counterweights. 
While I am trying my darndest to get them to look at the issue and allow publishing of a field fix, all I am hearing is "Stanley says there is no problem". 
That is, until you had an engineer look at it and confirm what you had fought against. 
I have other things to do now that do NOT include the company in question.


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

"Many of us in the community had pleaded for years for Bachmann to produce a large locomotive." 

Yes, many of us did... and when they agreed, you came riding in, pushed Goodson out of the way, and flat out managed to F'up what otherwise would have been a great engine and a home run for Bachmann! If I were China - I'd be suing your ass off Stan!! If I was H. Lee Riley I'd be disavowing as loud as possible having ever even known you! 

Wanna know a little secret? Let me fill you in... (Hey Bud, are you watching this? H. Lee? Ray? Doug? Let's make sure EVERYONE is paying attention here... because this is VERY, VERY important. Mr. Kenneth Ting Woo-shou, sir - I hope you are reading this... as I also hope you are as well Mr. Ivan Ting Tien-li. In fact, it's been said that Bachmann folks monitor all of the Internet forums when it comes to poor reviews and postings about their products... so here goes...) 

I own one K-27. Onboard the Queen Mary, when the K-27 was announced, I stood at the Bachmann booth and said I would buy THREE of them. 

The reason I own only one K-27 is simple. It is because of Mr. Stanley Ames Jr.'s involvement with the development of the locomotive. 

Not the cost. Not the economy. Not availability. 

No, the reason I have yet to purchase a second and third engine is that I, like many people, am waiting for the second, "corrected" run of K-27s to be produced. 

You see gentleman, you have a MARKETING problem. I hate the "super socket" - I hate having to pay for it, I hate the confines it has backed me into, I hate that I had to PAY MORE after buying the engine to "work around" it. So imagine my relief when Ray Buteux began telling folks that a second, updated run of K-27's would be coming 2008/2009. No more INCORRECT red marker lights. (and Stand, I'm going to go ahead and preempt your B.S. about "running backwards" - don't even try that crap here)... Screw terminals for RC use... Corrected Fan... oh... and of course that oh-so-little-teeny-tiny little problem of BROKEN COUNTER WEIGHTS THAT PREVENT THE ENGINE FROM MOVING... 

All of the things that said to me (and to MANY other people) "Wait! Don't buy anymore engines from the first, maligned, run - wait for the next run!" 


So you see gentleman, the first mistake was allowing your "consultant" to mess with what could have been... what SHOULD have been the greatest single engine to have ever been produced in 1:20.3. The engine that all of us had cried and begged for... 

Gentleman - your sales are not suffering due to the economy, or miscalculation on market share... no. Your sales are suffering because we are all waiting for the second generation of engines that no longer suffer the scars of forced DCC integration, loud as a jet engine cooling fan, cross your fingers that the drivers don't lockup, fast as a bat out of ****, and for the sake of all that is holy, don't look directly into the lights: they're as gaudy as a ten dollar whore's Christmas tree, consulting! 

Mr. Ting Woo-shou, I like your products sir, and I want... I really, really want to buy more of them and the best way you can get me to do so is to FIRE Stanley Ames Jr. Don't for one second longer allow him to continue to alienate and drive away customers like myself by advising you on product development he knows nothing about. 

And - again in the interest of a preemptive strike - if Mr. Ames cannot be "fired" if, as he claims, he is not an employee (though Bachmann people keep saying he is - ****, Mr. Riley boasted that fact to many in Arizona) then sir, I highly encourage you to FIRE H. Lee Riley, the man who brags at train shows he's "hired" Mr. Ames.


----------



## bobgrosh (Jan 2, 2008)

Stan, Thanks.


 I think I may have a clue. When I first got a K27 of my own, the first thing I did was take it apart so I could fully understand it from the perspective of the additions I chose to make. When I reassembled it the first time my locomotive and tender could no longer navigate 1600 turnouts. Most times the tender derailed. After a lot of head scratching I found the reason was that I had inadvertently shortened the wires to the tender and when the locomotive entered the 1600 curve it literally picked the tender wheels off the track. The problem went away when I went back and lengthened the wires. Perhaps you inadvertently did the same thing. 

That is not possible. If you read the entire post, you will see that I removed all of the Bachmann wiring. I specifically stated:

"_All wires between the loco and tender are totally eliminated with only the chuff input going through the draw-bar. I did not feel the need to feed the pickups in the tender to the loco._ "

You can also clearly see this at the very end of my first video. There are no plugs, no wires. Just the draw-bar and the Bachmann provided footplate between the cab and tender.




There have been many reports that screw towers inside the tender break. Three of the four in my tender were broken. In addition, part of the tender shell was broke out at the rear. 

When you first got the K, I seem to remember you reported a greatly damaged outer box that occurred during shipping. I would never accept a clearly damaged model. All manufacturers will try to improve things when problems occur but some things are out of their control. The back of the tender does not get a hole in like yours had without some real extreme pressure. In your case a shipment that clearly had gone through the wringer and had a broken tender inside should in my opinion been immediately returned. 



Sorry, but I did not report a damaged box. I reported the the box was dirty, scuffed and soaking wet. The outer foam pads, inner box and molded foam retainers were in perfect condition.

Look again at this picture.












Are you suggesting that, someone dropped the box, the three tender supports broke, the screw in the remaining support worked loose, the shell lifted up far enough for the cut lever to flip over into this position, the shell fell back into place, and then the remaining screw somehow worked itself back tight again? I don't buy that. I had to remove the remaining screw and pull hard to get the tender released from the floor.  Then I had to lift the entire shell almost an inch and a half to get the cut lever back outside the tender.








I mentioned the shipping damage because I know of no one else who has these performance problems. True with the loose counterweights many had binding problems, especially on rollers, but to the best of my knowledge no one else has had these binding problems or bent screw problems once the proper counterweights were installed. I can not help you with this one. In my opinion, either something got real damaged in shipment, you put it back together wrong, or something has been damaged in some other fashion. All 3 of my K-27s have the replacement counterweights (one set I did the others had been done already) and none have any binding problems. Perhaps someone else can help you with this one. 


Maybe others were so excited to get the counter weight problems fixed to the point where the loco would at least RUN without totally locking up, they were willing to overlook a small bind.



However, I will concede that I could have put it back together wrong.



I might mention that I used to work for National Cash Register back in the days when they used gears to keep totals, figure tax, keep hundreds of department, cashier and shift totals and print out multi page sales reports. The last mechanical cash register NCR made was the most complex mechanical machine ever built. A single Class 5 NCR cash register had twice as many parts as the Saturn 5 rocket that took us to the moon. Our final exam was to completely disassemble it and put it back together. Later I worked on IBM Selectric typewriters IBM summery punches, and over one hundred other mechanical monstrosities. I could put most of them back together blindfolded. 

But, you are right, I COULD have not known how to inset a screw into a counterweight without bending it.






Yep you are credited at finding this one. A fan that blows air into the locomotive is sure going to dampen the smoke output. 



You have that backward. As shipped the fan blows air down and OUT the bottom of the loco causing a slight partial vacuum. The only place the Kay can get air back into the loco to fill the vacuum is the smoke stack.

I reversed the fan so it sucks air IN from the bottom to provide a slight positive pressure inside the boiler. The only place for the air to exit is therefor UP through the smoke stack.




 I chose a different set of decoders for my installations and have absolutely no lugging or lack of power in or out of curves. My slow speed performance is exceptional and my Ks will pull much longer trains than you report up the long 2% and 3% grades on my railroad. I can set the locomotive at speed step one and it will tie crawl over the entire layout for hours with no change in speed or ability to pull. 12 volt versions of the same Pitmann motors are used in brass O scale and one of the brass builders has used them for year. He also has reported that not all decoders control these motors well. It is the high efficiency aspect of these motors that can confuse the back emf detection on most of the earlier decoders and many of the decoders produced today. For many years these motors have been the gold standard for achieving good performance which few have met. I will have to talk to him about his observations with the decoders you chose but based on the magazine decoder reviews performed in Europe, I suspect this one of the the real root causes of the problem you have reported. 




My Kay, also ran around the ALLY at speed step 1 with a DCC decoder installed.

And, in a pulling test, it once pulled 24 cars one complete lap.

The problem with lugging down has nothing at all to do with slow speed performance or pulling power.

Nor does it have anything to do with back EMF.

I specifically reported that the loco lugged down on DC. As always, I followed the instructions provided by almost EVERY DCC manufacturer.



MAKE SURE THE LOCO RUNS SMOOTHLY AND HAS NO ISSUES ON DC PRIOR TO BEGINNING THE DECODER INSTALL.



I also thought I made it clear that the issue is not motor related. The motor slows down because as the load increases, and therefore the current increases, the internal wiring is not capable of delivering full track voltage to the motor. IE there is too much resistance and not enough current carrying capacity in the the wiring. I saw nothing that indicates the motor was weak or defective, lower voltage = lower speed. The motor did exactly what any motor would do when it's power source has to much impedance. It slows down more under load because the voltage delivered to the motor drops. A higher gear ration might help, but it would only mask the problem.

With the decoer I currently have in the Kay, back EMF compensates for the lugging in the curves. It shoulden't have to. The curves are not that tight.



I was able to measure the amount of voltage drop, and I reported it in my post.

I also was able to take the 9 feet of wire, all those connectors and circuit board traces out of the equation and repeated my measurements and observed an improvement.



Again, I am just following the directions provided with one of my decoders. 



PLAN YOUR INSTALLATION FOR THE SHORTEST WIRES. CUT ALL WIRES TO LENGTH. 

Or for wired decoders.

"EXTRA LONG WIRES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. BE SURE TO CUT AND REMOVE ALL EXCESS WIRE."



B0B


----------



## gdancer (Feb 19, 2008)

Bob.... 
As always, you have nailed things down tight. Your curiosity, diligence and relentless pursuit of solutions is virtually incomprenhesible to an unknowledgeable hack like myself. Thank you again for what you bring to the hobby. And thanks for saving me a bunch of money. I'll back off and control my lust: It is a really good looking model, but I don't want a model for my wall. I need a loco my grandchildren can operate with a little supervision. Maybe BAchmann will take all the input developed by you and others and in time offer a loco that will work out of the box. I don't have the knowledge or skill to even begin to do the 'fixes' you suggest. I'm in the process of throwing cold water on my lust for the Kay. Brrrr! I'm already shriveled!/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sick.gif


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Bob- Dontcha love it when he tries to spin the facts to fit his limited scope of understanding? 

gdancer- as long as Stanley is even remotely involved with the company or its designer, not much chance of getting usable input through. 

Ask folks in his working groups with the nmra and find out how data is controlled through the "choke point".


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Let's at least _try_ and keep the discussion civil Gentlemen. Discussing the issues are fine, but let's _try_ to keep personalities out of it please. 

I fully realize the history here, and I fully realize that the battle lines were drawn long ago. I also realize that these discussions are important and necessary, and go to the core of what MLS is all about. I merely ask that you keep the discussion impersonal (if possible). This isn't the place for hostility. 

Thank you.


----------



## tj-lee (Jan 2, 2008)

Dwight, 

I think the issue of a vested interest trying to minimize PR damage and effect major spin control on MLS under the guise of being just a "fellow hobbiest/modeler" is more important than any heated egos and offers a real risk for readers trying to make a determination as to where to spend their hard-earned dollars. If I read an advertising piece by Bachmann or any vendor I know I'm getting the "marketing" centric view and can exercise caution. 

When I read comments from people like TOC and Bob I take them to heart because they clearly state they don't have any vested interests and I believe them based on many hours of haunting the forums. I do however believe that Stan does have a vested interest but he seems to be trying to hide same. 

I think everyone should be able to voice "their opinion" (even at the top of their lungs), nor do I have a problem with a vendor having a voice and presence on the forums (as long as I know that the "voice" has their own agenda), I just don't think shills who spout a manufacturer's party line as part of their job are good for the hobby in general nor for MLS inparticular when the average reader has no way to tell they're reading more than just some guy's opinion or personal experience. 

Just my 2 cents. 

Best, 
TJ


----------



## jimtyp (Jan 2, 2008)

Gdancer, I really enjoy my K-27 and have no problems running it with my DCC system. The only thing I "had" to do was to shim the loose counterweights. My understanding is the new locos come with that fixed already. 

I changed the headlight and classification LEDs to something more of my liking. I'm not sure who decided the colors but they went way overboard in my opinion. The headlight is too yellow and the classification lights too orange for me. But then again my LGB Mike came with fake, non-working classification lights. It was easier changing the LED than putting in an entire classification light  

I'm not happy with the smoke output, so I'm working on replacing it with a better smoke unit, either the Aristo or Turbo Smoke - but I've done the same with Accucraft and LGB locos - the only steam loco that puts out good smoke from the get go is MTH, in my opinion. 

I run my K-27 on 8' diameter track no problem, and even up to 45 scale mph, although I typically run it at about 25 - 30 scale mph. 

The slow speed control is not that great because of the gearing but with some freight cars or AMS passenger cars in tow and the fine control DCC offers it gets much better. Also, because of the gearing I’m not sure I would run it on a layout with steep grades, unless you have a decoder with Back EMF, as it can take off going down hill. My layout is pretty flat. 

I put in a Phoenix P5, while it was definitely not plug and play the installation didn’t take much time and is documented on the Bachmann site. 

The next closest offering to the B’ K-27, I believe, is the Accucraft, but being brass (and sold out) it's quite a bit more expensive. 

Even with everything not being perfect out of the box, for $700 (what I paid) it's a tough model to beat for the price. The accuracy is beyond what models much more expensive offer, including a suspension system replicating the prototype. 

If you'd like a great looking 1:20.3 loco that runs pretty good at a good price, you might reconsider. If you want some changes made but don't want to do it yourself, several others have said that Dave (MLS ID: Curmudgeon) does good work and has several customers reporting they are very happy with their B' K-27 from him.


----------



## bobgrosh (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 09/05/2008 9:17 AM

Bob- Dontcha love it when he tries to spin the facts to fit his limited scope of understanding? gdancer- as long as Stanley is even remotely involved with the company or its designer, not much chance of getting usable input through. Ask folks in his working groups with the nmra and find out how data is controlled through the "choke point".





TOC, I think you are being too hard on Stanly. I actually liked the idea of a standard socket. Stanly tried to introduce a standard that expanded on an existing proprietary socket. He assigned the purpose that each pin was to be used for, including several pins that had been unused in the proprietary socket. 



Stan has said, several times, he is not an electronics engineer. It was Bachmann's responsibility to implement the standard. 



Bachmann did not seem to understand the basic concept of DCC plug and play sockets. 



Most manufacturers seem to adhere to a simple concept. The socket exposes the hardware in the loco to a set of defined pins. IE: the pins go to tracks, motor, lights, smoke generators, pantograph lifters, or whatever. These are usually assigned generic names like F1, F2, etc. In this way, we don't need a hundred or more defined pins to cover every conceivable device that a loco might have. 



So, a loco maker can simply tell the user that "This electric has motorized pantograph's and can be controlled on F6" or "this steam engine has a smoke generator and can be controlled on F6." Or, This switcher has a operating uncoupler, it can be controlled on F3.) 





An important part of this concept is the word "exposes". It means that a wire goes from the F6 pin in the interface to the pantograph motor, coupler lifter, light bulb, LED, uncoupler solenoid or whatever. The manufacturer then lets us know what we need to operate these with statements like, "This loco uses 5 volt lighting for brighter lights at low speed on DC." Or, in the manual; "The uncoupler (F3) draws less than 100 ma and is rated for continuous operation." 



For most HO locos that have a DCC plug and play socket, there is a "lighting board", others with DCC plug and play simply have a "dummy board". 



The purpose of both is to connect the motor and lights to the track using the standard pins on the interface. A lighting board may also have electronics to provide directional, constant or special lighting effects like mars lights. 



Remove either the dummy board, or the lighting board, and you expose the rails, motor and all the lights so that you can install a decoder. 



Notice that I did not say, DCC DECODER, just decoder. HO users can and do install Marklin or Motorola decoders as well as DCC decoders. In the small scales, due to space, the electronics for the DC lighting effects are removed and discarded. In some cases the lighting board has the lights actually soldered to the lighting board. Decoder manufacturers make decoders with the lights soldered to the decoder. The DC lighting board and the decoder are both the same size and shape so the whole process is just a direct swap of boards. 



*Does this same concept extend to "G"? 

*

Yes, some manufacturers understand this concept. Look at the LGB plug and play socket. The LGB socket consists of a circuit board with two rows of pins. All the wires from the rails, motor(s) lights, smoke generator, accessory socket, pantograph's (if so equipped) go to this board and connect to one row of pins. There is a small dummy plug. Remove it and all the wiring in the loco is exposed on the pins of the interface. The motor and lights are no longer connected to the rails, or anything else for that matter. 





LGB also included a lighting board. Just like the small scale lighting board, it regulates voltage or lights and special circuits depending on what the loco needs. Unlike the smaller scales, there is no problem with space for those circuits. So, LGB leaves the circuits in the loco. They are on the same circuit board as the socket, but, they are disconnected nonetheless. This may be a cost savings, but more importantly, it is easy to convert back to DC without having to search though the junk drawers for the right lighting board for a particular loco. 



Just like the smaller scales, the LGB pins exposed all the hardware in the loco. Now the user can plug in a decoder. Again, I did not say DCC DECODER, just Decoder. Like the smaller scales, we have a choice, EPL decoders or DCC decoders. (there is a difference) 

With the right adapter cable, you could even plug in and RCS decoder. 

OK, They don't call the RCS radio unit a decoder, but it DOES decode digital data from a radio signal, provides the same control, and meets the generic definition of "decoder". Like the EPL decoder it is NOT a DCC decoder. Just as the Airwire is not a DCC decoder even though their wireless digital decoder has a subset of the DCC standard as an output..



Just like the smaller scales, the manufacturer (LGB) has to tell us what all this hardware requires to operate. Everything you need to know is spelled out in their catalog and on line. Each loco lists the number of lights, motors ans other accessories, as well as the light and smoke voltages. Most newer LGB locos have 5 volt lights. If our decoder outputs 5 volts or can be set to 5 volts, then we are all set. If our decoder only outputs 18 volts, or we prefer to use 18 volt bulbs and the decoder outputs are selectable, the we simply pop the headlight off, unplug the original bulb and plug in the bulb of choice. Some decoders can be configured for anything from a LED, 1 volt bulb or any common value up to 24 volts. 



Now compare this concept that nearly all other manufacturers do to what Bachmann did. 



Bachmann started with a very ambitious DC lighting board. They included flashers for the firebox. current regulators for LED lighting, Optical chuff, etc on their lighting board. The tried to incorporate a set of standard pins for a decoder (generic) interface. Unfortunately, the pins are not in the right place. (electronically the right place) Instead of being between the DC lighting circuits and all the hardware, they are inputs to more circuitry they added  as an additional interface to external decoders. When you remove the dummy plug, you are not disconnecting all the DC lighting circuits like the small scales or LGB. Instead, you are removing just the bridge rectifier that provides raw DC to the DC lighting circuits. The fact that you removed the bridge is testimony to just how badly Bachmann failed to understand the basic concept. As soon as you remove the dummy plug, you expose the INPUTS to their hardware interface, ( NOT THE REQUIRED HARDWARE) 

Of course the interface will no longer work because it no longer has a power source. You now have to replace the bridge rectifier you just removed to power the interface which sits between you and the hardware you need to control.



It gets worse...

The DC lighting part of this mess is designed for a fixed set of devices. It will only drive the provided LED's or electrically identical LEDs. Want a brighter LED? You can't have it. Want a five volt or 24 volt bulb, Sorry! Don't want a rock convert light show in your firebox. sorry but you are stuck with it. Most modern decoders have realistic lighting effects. They are designed for incandescent light bulbs. You can drive an LED, but it will not look anywhere near as realistic as a bulb. A bulb will average the pulses sent by these effects and GLOW at whatever the brightness the effect requires. LED's are either on of off. They do it so fast they SORT OF fool the eye into thinking they are dim, but the effect is not  the same. Look a bulbs driven by a rotary beacon effect from a Digitrax decoder and it looks like the bulbs are actually rotating. Connect LED's instead, and it looks like one of those cheep lighters from the quick mart. Worse still, the pulsing patterns on LED's, while too fast for the human eye simply can not be video taped. Take several photos with a digital SLR using a fast shutter speed and that "Dim" LED headlight will show up at full brightness in some shots and totally off in others.

Show the picture to a friend and he'll say" what happened to the headlight, it's not working. Now, Stan and others CLAIM this mess works, but you have photographic evidence that it does NOT.



Digitrax, SoundTraxx and others, have gone so far as to say, "do not use LED's for special effects"

SoundTraxx has even added a new feature to the Tsunami that tried to make the effects work better with LED's Their firebox flicker and dyno effects now have the option of providing an entirely different pattern of pulses to the light to try to compensate for the ON/OFF nature of LEDs. I connected a Tsunami to the Kay firebox function pin. The Bachmann electronics sees the fast pattern of pulses as "ON" and turns on it's own "ROCK CONCERT LIGHT SHOW". According to Bachmann and Stan, it "WORKS" Well, yea, I have to agree, the rock concert feature works. Maybe CW can put some clay on the Kay and make a rock concert loco out of it.



OK, so I am too particular. I expect too much.

Yep, I admit it. I want a simple interface that exposes the hardware to a set of pins. I do not want a super fancy DC lighting effects board with a do everything battery, RC, Air-wire, DCS, Analog DC, anything but DCC interface.



And Yes, It pisses me of that those who don't want all that electronic car call it a DCC interface, It is everything BUT a DCC interface.



I am a DCC user and I do not like being forced to pay for expensive stuff that adds cost, I can't use, doesn't provide any benefit, has to be ripped out and thrown away.



I'm really lusting over that mallet. Someone talk me out of it.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By bobgrosh on 09/05/2008 1:25 PM 
TOC, I think you are being too hard on Stanly. I actually liked the idea of a standard socket. Stanly tried to introduce a standard that expanded on an existing proprietary socket. He assigned the purpose that each pin was to be used for, including several pins that had been unused in the proprietary socket. 


You have no idea, and I am by NO MEANS being "too hard" on poor old Stanly (sic) 


Stan has said, several times, he is not an electronics engineer. It was Bachmann's responsibility to implement the standard. 

And, Stanly (sic) advised them...... 


Bachmann did not seem to understand the basic concept of DCC plug and play sockets. 

BINGO! 


Most manufacturers seem to adhere to a simple concept.

The purpose ..... is to connect the motor and lights to the track using the standard pins on the interface. A lighting board may also have electronics to provide directional, constant or special lighting effects like mars lights. 



Remove either the dummy board, or the lighting board, and you expose the rails, motor and all the lights so that you can install a decoder. 



There is a small dummy plug. Remove it and all the wiring in the loco is exposed on the pins of the interface. The motor and lights are no longer connected to the rails, or anything else for that matter. 

Now compare this concept that nearly all other manufacturers do to what Bachmann did. 



Bachmann started with a very ambitious DC lighting board. They included flashers for the firebox. current regulators for LED lighting, Optical chuff, etc on their lighting board. The tried to incorporate a set of standard pins for a decoder (generic) interface. Unfortunately, the pins are not in the right place. (electronically the right place) Instead of being between the DC lighting circuits and all the hardware, they are inputs to more circuitry they added  as an additional interface to external decoders. When you remove the dummy plug, you are not disconnecting all the DC lighting circuits like the small scales or LGB. Instead, you are removing just the bridge rectifier that provides raw DC to the DC lighting circuits. The fact that you removed the bridge is testimony to just how badly Bachmann failed to understand the basic concept. As soon as you remove the dummy plug, you expose the INPUTS to their hardware interface, ( NOT THE REQUIRED HARDWARE) 

Of course the interface will no longer work because it no longer has a power source. You now have to replace the bridge rectifier you just removed to power the interface which sits between you and the hardware you need to control.



It gets worse...


Really? 

The DC lighting part of this mess is designed for a fixed set of devices. It will only drive the provided LED's or electrically identical LEDs. Want a brighter LED? You can't have it. Want a five volt or 24 volt bulb, Sorry! Don't want a rock convert light show in your firebox. sorry but you are stuck with it. Most modern decoders have realistic lighting effects. They are designed for incandescent light bulbs. You can drive an LED, but it will not look anywhere near as realistic as a bulb. A bulb will average the pulses sent by these effects and GLOW at whatever the brightness the effect requires. LED's are either on of off. They do it so fast they SORT OF fool the eye into thinking they are dim, but the effect is not  the same. Look a bulbs driven by a rotary beacon effect from a Digitrax decoder and it looks like the bulbs are actually rotating. Connect LED's instead, and it looks like one of those cheep lighters from the quick mart. Worse still, the pulsing patterns on LED's, while too fast for the human eye simply can not be video taped. Take several photos with a digital SLR using a fast shutter speed and that "Dim" LED headlight will show up at full brightness in some shots and totally off in others.

Show the picture to a friend and he'll say" what happened to the headlight, it's not working. Now, Stan and others CLAIM this mess works, but you have photographic evidence that it does NOT.

****, I know. 
I was gutting them before you ever got one! 


OK, so I am too particular. I expect too much.

Yep, I admit it. I want a simple interface that exposes the hardware to a set of pins. I do not want a super fancy DC lighting effects board with a do everything battery, RC, Air-wire, DCS, Analog DC, anything but DCC interface.



And Yes, It pisses me of that those who don't want all that electronic car call it a DCC interface, It is everything BUT a DCC interface.



I am a DCC user and I do not like being forced to pay for expensive stuff that adds cost, I can't use, doesn't provide any benefit, has to be ripped out and thrown away.



I'm really lusting over that mallet. Someone talk me out of it.







Gee, Bob, I can't wait for you to tell us what you REALLY think! 
If you only knew the extent of Stanley's involvement in all of this......and the latest falderdash......


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2008)

I'm really lusting over that mallet. Someone talk me out of it.

Ok, go back and re-read the previous 3-4 pages of post...worked for me! /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crazy.gif


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Bob, 

Do you ever miss the good old days of those little LGB field locos?!! 

I really find it hard to believe that the old Keep It Simple, Stupid, has been so lost on this project. Does anyone know if this crap has been put in the new release of the 4-4-0?


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2008)

Posted By markoles on 09/05/2008 4:25 PM 
Bob, 
Do you ever miss the good old days of those little LGB field locos?!! 
I really find it hard to believe that the old Keep It Simple, Stupid, has been so lost on this project. Does anyone know if this crap has been put in the new release of the 4-4-0? 


I've been Championing the whole KISS (Keep It Simple Stanley) idea for the last few years (as the K release approached)..now I hear that the RCS PnP may not fit in the new logging loco, maybe it shoulda been (Keep It Standard Stanley)?...wait a min, I thought that was the purpose of all this "socket" mumbo-jumbo?/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crazy.gif


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By tj-lee on 09/05/2008 10:26 AM
Dwight, 
I think the issue of a vested interest trying to minimize PR damage and effect major spin control on MLS under the guise of being just a "fellow hobbiest/modeler" is more important than any heated egos and offers a real risk for readers trying to make a determination as to where to spend their hard-earned dollars. If I read an advertising piece by Bachmann or any vendor I know I'm getting the "marketing" centric view and can exercise caution. 

When I read comments from people like TOC and Bob I take them to heart because they clearly state they don't have any vested interests and I believe them based on many hours of haunting the forums. I do however believe that Stan does have a vested interest but he seems to be trying to hide same. 

I think everyone should be able to voice "their opinion" (even at the top of their lungs), nor do I have a problem with a vendor having a voice and presence on the forums (as long as I know that the "voice" has their own agenda), I just don't think shills who spout a manufacturer's party line as part of their job are good for the hobby in general nor for MLS inparticular when the average reader has no way to tell they're reading more than just some guy's opinion or personal experience. 
Just my 2 cents. 

Best, 
TJ




Posted By Dwight Ennis on 09/05/2008 9:55 AM
Let's at least _try_ and keep the discussion civil Gentlemen. *Discussing the issues are fine*, but let's _try_ to keep personalities out of it please. 

I fully realize the history here, and I fully realize that the battle lines were drawn long ago. *I also realize that these discussions are important and necessary, and go to the core of what MLS is all about.* I merely ask that you keep the discussion impersonal *(if possible)*. This isn't the place for hostility. 
Thank you.


----------



## placitassteam (Jan 2, 2008)

I have been reading all this and wondering if I made a mistake. A couple of weeks ago I ordered a K (What I actually wanted is an Accucraft live steamer but can't afford one). Yesterday it arrived and it is beautiful!! I ran it back and forth on 12 feet of track (my layout does not have power) and it did just great. It would just creep along at about 3 1/2 volts and moved at a nice pace on 7 1/2 volts. I will be converting to battery, not sure how much of the electronics I'll be discarding. One thing I don't like is the difficulty disconecting those two huge plugs between the loco and tender. They will definately go. I'M HAPPY!!!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Just a note: 

While operating tonight, I ran my K for a while. 
I widened on 'er, wide open at 14.4V of battery. 
It became a 1-4-1 at the first #4 turnout. 

Read my post about it a nice engine. 
Read others postings about how it could have been a nicer engine. 

IF we had correct (or, closer) gearing, IF we didn't have to deal with the Ames Super Socket, or the "With Integrated Production Electronics", or the 13 wires between engine and tender, early units with counterweight issues, red class lights, impossibility of just placing an incandescent bulb in without rewiring, very small surface mount electronics impossible for the average hobbyist to repair, 11/16" of side play at the pilot beam, the jet-blast-roar of the fan on battery or dcc, inverted chuff that needs "modification" and still won't work at low track voltages without MORE modifications that preclude the use of the smoke unit, silly things like doors and holes in the sides of smokeboxes, then, yes, worth every penny. 

I've fixed all the issues on mine, and probably a dozen others, and they all run fine. 

This could have ben a home run. 

The pinch-hitter they brought in appears to have not been up to the task, and has been successful in one thing. 

Getting the person who kept the locos running not wanting to do it anymore. 

But, hey, the pinch-hitter is more than capable of finding folks to do a better job. 

Just remember, if the stuff was built without any problems, we wouldn't need to fix them, and look at all the fun we'd miss out on.


----------



## gdancer (Feb 19, 2008)

What this entire thread says: since LGB no longer is manufacturing American style locos, it would be nice if someone could step up and manufacture reliable, uncomplicated equipment, at a reasonable price (e.g. under $1,000) to meet our common market. 

We then could each decide on the direction of the power, i.e. DCC, battery, etc. Bob Grosh, Greg Elmiassin (sp?), etc....the guys who have the time and talent (or at least the talent!)...to modify the uncomplicated equipment could then do so. In fact, I suspect they really enjoy taking something simple and complicating it....it's the part of the hobby they most enjoy (I'm just guessing at that, based on their threads and websites.). The Kay is obviously a great looking model , but complicated in that it requires a bunch of fixes; maybe released before it had been properly vetted. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sick.gif (One can understand the need to get what has been designed and manufactured to market quickly: all that front end negative cash flow produces enormous pressures to do so. Nonetheless, in this case Bachmann is suffering serious damage to its image that will no doubt carry over to later items. Maybe a really bad marketing decision?) 

Of course I love having a "DCC ready" loco in which I could simply buy a decoder and literally just plug it in. But, obviously that's a lot more complicated than I imagine due to the variety of power options used in the hobby. I certainly wouldn't mind purchasing a basic loco, buying a decoder plus sockets, etc, etc. as extras if...if...that would make a loco more acceptable to other non-DCC power people. But then I don't have enough understanding to even know what that would entail. 

I really hunger for a great-looking and great operating steam loco similar to the one's I see operating within 50 miles of my summer home here in Colo: the Durango & Silverton and the Cumbres & Toltec. 

I haven't given up on the K-27....yet. Several of you guys have said you're reasonably satisfied after a couple of major fixes, i.e. slims and counterweight fixes. I'm not buying until next Spring; perhaps later runs will be better. Some suppliers can make the fixes for my untalented, unknowledgeable self and.....we'll see. 

My apologies for unwittingly kicking off some heated discussions.....but a discussion that no doubt will serve a good purpose. As always, I am indebted to you brother RR's. You guys in MLS are truly a great bunch....not that you always agree with each other!.....but nonetheless gracious, hospitable and extremely generous. Thanks for always being there for me (as the younger generation says). 

(BTW, altho my current posts show me to be a brand-newbie, I have been a first class member for several years, just hadn't posted anything since last summer and apparently MLS reset the postings during the winter. I've been a RR'er for almost 70 years.)


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

It IS a nice loco. 
Don't mis-understand me. 

The push was for a home-run, and for simplicity. 

If you followed older threads (now probably in the archives), I had a counter-proposal for screw terminals at one end of the tender, on the floor, that ANYBODY could connect virtually anything to. 

With the limited space in the next announced engine (two vertical motors, 21MM of height for a speaker, and whatever version of Ames Super Socket) plus smoke unit, weights, any other electronics, and a flicker board, I would be willing to guess someone in the organization is re-thinking the screw-terminal approach and re-evaluating why anyone listened to the socket promoter in the first place. 

While the K was a good candidate for "cut and throw", from what I have seen, the next big one is almost a mandatory. 

I had to re-shuffle my boxes and bags of cut out locomotive electronics earlier in the week, and it's getting to be a problem storing this crXp. 

But, there is a reason I keep it.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

So, since the focus was so deftly re-aligned to a new thread to take any further comment from this one (and seemingly to avoid answering "difficult" questions), has the information needed been provided satisfactorily? 

Certainly would be enlightening to have some of the issues raised addressed........


----------



## chuckger (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Guys, 

A few questions, I have a K and considering converting to RC/battery/w sound. After spending over $700.00 on the engine and now looking at an additional $600.00 to $700.00 for battery, sound and rc, I want to make sure i'm not wasting my money. 

When we bought the engine we where told it had the new/replacement counterweights. So far no problems with binding or lockup. I would say it has 15hrs run time pulling 8 cars. I have not noticed any sparks at the tender pickups or any crud on the track. I'm running on brasstrack using a 20 volt MRC tech2 powerpac. 

My concern's are based on the three questions Doug asked earlier in this thread 

* Is the K27 geared wrong? Yes or No... 
* Do all of its functions perform properly on DC or battery power right out of the box? Yes or No... 
* Are there "work-arounds" required to achieve the intended/advertised/desired performance of the K27 before it hits the rails? Yes or No 

To this Tony W replied yes,no,yes. 

Tony can you give a better explination than yes no yes?? 
How does RCS control the downhill running of this engine?? 
Is anyone planning to make a 30 to 1 set of gears for it or does it really need a gear change?? 
What functions will not preform properly on battery power?? 
What workarounds are needed?? 

After reading the last few threads on this engine, looking back I would have waited to buy one. 

Thanks, Chuck


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

gdancer, 

If you read Bob's posts carefully, he had to use a variety of DCC decoders before finding ones that would work. That sounds like the opposite of DCC ready. I don't think he really likes taking things apart to fix them right out of the box. Remember the problems he had with those LGB field locomotives? The gyst of those was that he was getting brand new LGB locomotives that would fail the first time he put them on the tracks. He has moved to bigger power since then, but it seems his troubles with out of the box trains persist. And then, to add insult to injury, his experience is completely dismissed. His story is too ridiculous to be made up. 

Its kind of like how I know way too much about the workings of a Volkswagen, and not because I am an engineer.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Stanley claims that using a back-emf decoder solves the problem, yet he says there is no problem. 
It is fast, and with all the battery r/c units I have done, one just anticipates stops on downgrades. 

I haven't had any issues controlling downgrade running. 

I have heard some r/c systems might, but that's not confirmed, so not quite sure. 

Nice loco, and if you get the nose to go where you want it to (lock driver slide) and lengthen the wires by 1/4" or so, make the "chuff" work with your sound system, re-wire the electronics in the boiler so you can use an incandescent bulb, remove the entire Ames Super Socket (which allows you all the room you need for any install, plus removes a layer of components that might give rise to problems later), glue a piece of .080" black styrene over the Ames Super Socket opening to improve bass response and keep condensation out, plus allow you to load real coal into the bay without filling the tender, put in WHITE class lights, and it's fine. 
Just don't use more than 14.4V.


----------



## Crosshead (Feb 20, 2008)

I keep coming back to the old poem: 

One bright day in the middle of the night; 
Two dead boys got up to fight. 
Back to back they faced each other, 
Drew their swords and shot each other. 
A deaf policeman heard the noise; 
came and shot those two dead boys. 
If you don't believe this lie is true; 
just ask the blind man: He saw it too! (-- Anon.) 

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with [Extremely potent naturally produced and sized morsels of organic plant growth aid sourced from Bovine producers] 

" ... and the plan became policy. This is how [that sort of organic material] happens. " 

Must be Twisty Thursday.


----------



## Crosshead (Feb 20, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 09/11/2008 11:59 AM
Stanley claims that using a back-emf decoder solves the problem, yet he says there is no problem. 
It is fast, and with all the battery r/c units I have done, one just anticipates stops on downgrades. 
I haven't had any issues controlling downgrade running. 
I have heard some r/c systems might, but that's not confirmed, so not quite sure. 
Nice loco, and if you get the nose to go where you want it to (lock driver slide) and lengthen the wires by 1/4" or so, make the "chuff" work with your sound system, re-wire the electronics in the boiler so you can use an incandescent bulb, remove the entire Ames Super Socket (which allows you all the room you need for any install, plus removes a layer of components that might give rise to problems later), glue a piece of .080" black styrene over the Ames Super Socket opening to improve bass response and keep condensation out, plus allow you to load real coal into the bay without filling the tender, put in WHITE class lights, and it's fine. 
Just don't use more than 14.4V.




(Apologies to Stan for borrowing his "double post response" technique, which I'm sure is patented somewhere) 

Curmdungeon: Isn't that what the original response to the question said, way back at the beginning of all of this?


----------



## bobgrosh (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By markoles  on  09/11/2008 10:43 AM
gdancer, 

If you read Bob's posts carefully, he had to use a variety of DCC decoders before finding ones that would work. That sounds like the opposite of DCC ready.  I don't think he really likes taking things apart to fix them right out of the box.  Remember the problems he had with those LGB field locomotives?  The gyst of those was that he was getting brand new LGB locomotives that would fail the first time he put them on the tracks.  He has moved to bigger power since then, but it seems his troubles with out of the box trains persist.  And then, to add insult to injury, his experience is completely dismissed. His story is too ridiculous to be made up.   

Its kind of like how I know way too much about the workings of a Volkswagen, and not because I am an engineer.   






Yep. Tried two other brands. Happened to have them because people recommended them for other locos. Did not like their features (or lack of them).

Since they weren't being used and there were instructions from Bachmann to install them, I tried. Liked them even less in the Kay.



Let's go back to the beginning.

Bachmann announced they had this big beautiful loco. It would have a DCC  plug and play interface that would accept the same decoders  as the Aristocrat plug and play locos.



At the time, the only decoders that were plug and play were the Digitrax DG583AR and DG383AR, Since I use a lot of those decoders and they have every feature I need I got excited.



My only concern was the weight and size of the loco. I had a couple Shays and I was not able to convert them. Their weight made them impossible for me to manage the work required without breaking all the small parts. If the loco required lifting and turning it over, I would need someone else help me. Bachmann and others assured me that the only access I would need could be gained through the tender coal load. NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH.



I was the first person to order a Kay from Wholesale trains. I placed an order the day they determined the price. A full week before any other dealer would take an order.



When I got the Kay, I checked it on a DC pack and a 10 foot straight test track. The motor and electronics seemed OK but the side rods got out of whack and locked up ever time I tried to change directions.



I open end the tender, unplugged the dummy board and plugged a DG583AR in it's place. The decoder worked on the dc power pack, current draw was acceptable and I determined that the loco might even run on the DG383AR. Of course the loco still locked the drive chain when reversing, so I posted a question on the Bachmann site.



I disconnected the DC pack and connected a 6 amp Digitrax command station.



The loco instantly shut down the DCC booster and the booster indicated a short circuit.

I tried a 8 amp booster. same problem

I tried an old LGB booster. Same problem

I tried A friends Lenz system, Same problem

I tried a NICE system at a hobby shop. Same problem.

I tried three different DG583AR decoders. Same problem on all of them

I tried a DG383AR decoder. Same problem.

I hand wired the wired version of the decoder (DG583S) to an adapter to match the Aristo plug. Same problem.

A thread was posted on this forum by someone who said he was going to do a builder log to document his install of a DG583AR into the Kay, He got to the same point I did, then mentioned "some sort of grounding problem" and "awaiting parts" then never posted again.



Bachmann posted install procedures for a variety of decoders, including the Digitrax DG583AR. The procedure contained the same basic "open the tender" procedure as the rest of the decoder installs but stopped there with a note about waiting for final approval. *Eventually Bachmann removed the Digitrax procedure from their support area.

*

I confirmed via email and various forums that at least four other people had the exact same problem. One of those people was Stanly. None of them had a solution.



At the time, Bachmann had not published a schematic. I removed all 13 circuit boards, mounted them in a test gig, and drew a complete schematic.

Using a Tektronix 455 scope and two digital meters I determined the exact cause of the false shorts. The lighting circuit draws over 12 amps for a couple milliseconds about 9,000 times a second. (once at each transition of the DC signal.) It does this through the lighting circuit supply, so the motor, smoke and lights do not need to be connected to cause the shutdown. Instead of putting a proper DC filter, like a twin ""T" the two 480 micro-farad capacitors and all the regulators are connected directly to the un regulated rectified DCC signal. This presents a dead short to the bridge rectifier at every transition through zero of the  track voltage. Decoders that use bridges with regular diodes, like the QSI have a high forward resistance, so in effect the diodes provide a current limiting resistor during each short circuit. The only harm from the Kay circuit is that those decoders get hotter  than they should. Decoders with Schottky diodes in their bridge like the DG583 have a very low forward resistance. They have the advantage of running cooler and delivering moor power to the motor. In this case they try to "burn through" the short circuits in the Kay, transferring up to 12 amps into the capacitors at every transition of the  track voltage. Most modern boosters will see multiple short circuits as a fault, even though the average voltage is perhaps less than one amp.



*I find It Ironic that Bachmann Introduced the Kay as compatible with the Digitrax/Aristocraft DCC plug and then we find out, it is those are very decoders that can NOT be plugged into the Kay without shutting down our railroad.* We are forced to spend hundreds of hours troubleshooting their faulty design, accepting decoders that are not plug and play and do not have the features we require, or gutting the entire loco and starting from scratch.



I really want a couple mallets. I will likely pre-order one of them. First, I want assurances that the plug and play interface will work with the DG583AR and the loco can be converted without lifting and flipping over the loco. Those are the same thing I got assurances for on the Kay prior to ordering, This time I also want assurance that I don't have to disassemble the entire Mallet and gut it. If these assurances are given again, then MAYBE I'll order the Mallet. However, Unless the Bachmann is very convincing, shows photographic, video, or schematic proof, I am no longer inclined to trust him. He lied before. I will not be so easily fooled this time.









B0B


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

I don't know, Bob. 
Lied? 
You think they would LIE to YOU? 

We always called it "expedient".


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Bob, 

Maybe the DC filter fell out during shipping. Did you check the box? Maybe it escaped through that hole in your tender.


----------



## gdancer (Feb 19, 2008)

Jimtyp... Bob's most recent--plus his earlier--comments are deadly. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sick.gif If Bob can't fix something, it can't be fixed. (OTOH, his standards are extremely high because his knowledge and skills are equally high!). /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/wow.gif 

It sounds as if there is no decoder that will work satisfactorily with the K. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crying.gif H/e, you indicated earlier that you were quite satisified with the K on DCC (which is what I operate on). What kind of decoder did you use? Did you install it yourself?


----------



## bobgrosh (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By gdancer on 09/12/2008 9:12 AM
Jimtyp... Bob's most recent--plus his earlier--comments are deadly. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sick.gif" border=0> If Bob can't fix something, it can't be fixed. (OTOH, his standards are extremely high because his knowledge and skills are equally high!). /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/wow.gif" border=0> 
It sounds as if there is no decoder that will work satisfactorily with the K. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crying.gif" border=0> H/e, you indicated earlier that you were quite satisified with the K on DCC (which is what I operate on). What kind of decoder did you use? Did you install it yourself?




Thanks for the confidence. 

In my opinion, any decoder will "WORK", If you simply gut all the crap that Bachmann put in and do a reasonably neat wired install. 

So, some people are happy. They popped in a decoder, soldered a few wires, cut a few traces, plopped the Kay on their track, the Kay actually managed to run and they got a big smile on their face. 
First, I would NEVER put the motor decoder in the tender. It has to go through twelve different pins in the connectors, six feet of wire, twenty solder joints and yards of wire and circuit traces. 
Will they still be smiling a year from now? 
If possible connect the motor to the decoder with 1 inch long wires. Connect the decoder to the track pickups with the shortest possible wire with the largest possible gage. If the wire has to bend, use noodle wire, braided wire, or heavy rubberized test lead wire. 

DCC operation will only be as good as the decoder. If you are happy with decoders that have a 2.4 volt drop through the bridge, and another through the motor driver then you will initially be happy with that the decoder in the Kay. If you prefer decoders that have Schottky circuitry and fully adjustable BEMF then you will be happy with the Kay if it is direct wired into the loco. You might even be happy with plug and play if you don't mind the rock concert light show in your firebox or orange marker lights. 

I am extremely pleased with the DCC performance of my Kay. 

If it did not have the gear bind problem, and, the derailment problem, I would also be happy with the actual loco. 

I am not happy with Bachmann, who did not deliver a plug and play loco that accepted the very decoder the design was supposed to be based on. 

I am not happy that it took most of my modeling time for two months to repair and repaint the tender shell, decipher the electronics prior to gutting them, shim the CVs, replace the CVs and reinstall the original CVs and shims. I also had to spend hours grinding and polishing parts of valve gear to get rid of interferences and make the loco run smoothly. I had to reverse the fan, build new chuff switches, modify tender trucks, etc etc. 


At least the Kadee install was a snap. THANK YOU BACHMANN. 


OH, and if the gear ratio was double what it is, I'd be ecstatic.


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

I am a great fan of the D&RGW railroad and would loved to have had a K27 (or two). 

But I did not feel justified in spending the equivalent of just over $1200 for a loco: no matter how good. I have 1:29 locos and two Annies that were a fraction of the price that are reliable and work extremely well. 

Having read the threads here about this loco I am rather glad that I don't expect ever to own one. 

I am only one potential customer but I wonder how many others share my point of view? It may, or may not, interest Messrs. Bachmann.


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Great Western on 09/14/2008 7:55 AM 
I am only one potential customer but I wonder how many others share my point of view? 



I am the same way. I was going to buy a K-27 at some point.....not anymore. And with the new Mallet coming out this fall, would love to get one. Logging Mallets are one of my favorite locomotives. But I will _not_ be buying Bachmann's Mallet, or sadly, any Bachmann if they keep stan on the pay-roll.


----------



## Marauderer (Jan 5, 2008)

Posted By Great Western on 09/14/2008 7:55 AM
I am only one potential customer but I wonder how many others share my point of view? It may, or may not, interest Messrs. Bachmann." border=0>



I also was considering the K 27. Now if I do get one I will have to do major surgery to get it to DCC, and wait and see if BBT comes up with some aftermarket gearing to make it right. I will just wait and see what happens in the industry and hope that they get it more right than it is./DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/w00t.gif


----------



## gdancer (Feb 19, 2008)

Bob...Just got back to the thread. As always, your comments--invariably objective and based on your personal excellent hands-on research--are not just persuasive but definitive. I think your last 9/12 statement is also dispositive of whether or not I will purchase a K. There seems to be a large market out there for the K but..BUT...ONLY if Bachmann undertakes a number of serious fixes which likely would add to the cost. It's a problem, but thanks to you it's Bachmann's problem, not mine. Thanks for "being there" for the rest of us hacks. 

Perhaps Bachmann should enlist you as a consultant?


----------



## jlinde (Jan 2, 2008)

When I first read this thread, I was surprised and a little turned off by the acrimony (after all, we're talking about model trains here). By the end of the thread, however, I concluded that it was among the most helpful and fascinating discussions I'd been privy to on mls. It's not often you get such technical insight combined with a glimpse into the internal politics associated with the G scale industry. 
Most importantly, though, it's saved me money and hassle. I've already purchased one locomotive that simply did not work straight out of the box, and the last thing I want to do is pay a ton of money for an item that will frustrate and anger me - unlike some of the exceptionally skilled retired folks in the hobby, I've got very limited time to enjoy my trains. Between my job and my family, I cannot (nor wish to) devote hours of my time to beta testing an expensive toy. I'm guessing that most customers would choose a locomotive that *works* over a shelf queen with more features than the mars lander. 
Finally, if I purchased a camera that failed to function out of the box, I'd return it and get another. With most G-scale products, all of which are comparatively low production, if they don't work, I'm stuck with the darn thing until someone (either me, the dealer, or the manufacturer) can fix it. This makes the beta-testing quality of these products much, much more frustrating. 
I think I need a cigarette!


----------



## gdancer (Feb 19, 2008)

jlinde.... Ten-four and Amen to your comments. Well stated.


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

It has been an interesting thread ... and though much of the substance is a rehash of things said earlier, there has been some insightful additions. 

The latest posts focus on a loco that runs right out of the box and the statements are made in a way that takes as a truth that everyone agrees with two basic assumptions. The first is that the K-27 does not function and the second is that running qualities are they only thing that matters in a model locomotive. 

Both assumptions have a grain of truth but are far from the total reality. 

The K as delivered has some well documented flaws - this thread has outlined them once again. Besides normal QC screwups that can make any loco a lemon, the initial version of the K had loose counterweights causing binding. That problem has now been fixed and even for those with the original version, the parts are available and the fix is reasonably straightforward. A K should now run straight out of the box. 

Personally I don't attempt to run big locos around 5 foot RADIUS curves so I do not LIKE the slop in the driver sideplay, and I do not LIKE the colour of the lights and I do not LIKE the electronics and I do not LIKE the gearing ratio but these are quibbles ... the K does acttually run. 


The second assumption I take great issue with. If running qualities were all that mattered, then why do we care what the outline of the loco is at all. Just buy any old LGB loco that is renowned for its engineering and get on with it. It will operate perfectly and everyone should be happy. But it seems that the odd large scaler out there actually cares what the loco looks like. In fact, many of us care a great deal what it looks like. The mechanics and electronics can be changed but it is a long uphill climb for most of us if the model is off the mark. 

B'mann has produced a brilliantly executed model of the icon of the narrow gauge. In fact it is hard to find fault with any of the modelled details. For the great throng of modellers who wish a K-27, this is the only game in town. And the price, in my opinion, is a bargain for the model being delivered. 

A few folks who only want a loco that runs will choose something different - fair enough. But those who want an Fn3 K-27 will buy and will operate as is or find time to make changes to the loco to meet their tastes and budgets. 

I have not bought mine yet but I will be spending 10 days in the USA at the beginning of November ... and St Aubin's is on my itinerary. Nothing said in this thread has changed my mind about the K-27. 

Regards ... Doug


----------



## gdancer (Feb 19, 2008)

Doug.... I agree with much of what you say, but your second assumption "that people care ONLY about whether the loco runs well" is perhaps somewhat of an unfair statement. I think that even with all the negative contributors to this thread, most would agree that it is a great model--as a model. But their point is, "Of what value is a great looking model if it won't operate well?" As Bob Grosh put it very early in the thread, the price of the K was too much just to use it as a model on the wall.....this said after he had devoted uncounted hours trying to make it meet his operating standards. 

For myself, I am probably one of the people you put in the category suggested by your second assumption. I love building the railroad; the engineering required; less interested in the model-building side or even in the "running" of the trains. However, about 50% of my rationale for my railroad --at least in my excuses to the wife--is that it's for "the grandkids", of which I have 7 now with another in the oven, ranging in age from 14 down to minus 5 months. I need to buy locomotives that operate well and can stand a certain amount of heavy handling by little hands. Thus, I may be in a very small minority of the hobby. 

My point: we in the hobby are a diverse group, not all interested in the same aspects of the hobby. Some are rivet counters and, though I disagree with the pejorative terminology, I fully accept and appreciate their desire for painstaking detail. But that's just not my schtick. Some like to operate; others like to build; others are into the electronics, etc, etc. But, I think saying any one kind of large scaler is "interested only in"... some particular aspect is an unfair characterterization. Most of us would like to have as much as there is out there (i.e. paintstaking detail, easy to apply electronics, outstanding operating characteristics, etc )but find--like life itself--we have to compromise and therefore have to establish our priorities before --rather than after--we buy. 

Again, my first priority has to be: it must operate well. (Not just for the grandkids, but also to cover my own deficiencies!) But, man, do I love the look of the K-27! As the author of this thread--though not all the aspects of it--I started out by saying that I "lusted" for a K-27. And its appearance first generated that lust. So, again, it's not exactly right to say it's only how well a loco runs that I--and perhaps others like me--care about. 

Implied in your comments is an imporant point. If this Forum--not necessarily this thread--relentlessly picks apart the offering of our few manufacturers, running them down, emphasizing their shortcomings, etc so that the market is virtually eliminated, we soon will not have any company making products for us. No company wants to pay out all the front end costs of design, manufacturing, marketing etc only to have their product dissed to the point of market destruction. We therefore need to exercise caution in how we phrase our critiques and balance them against the good points of the products. Hopefully, the critiques as a fair assessment of all of a product's qualities would be helpful to manufacturers, rather than accusations as to how good it might have been. In this, I fully and wholeheartedly agree with you. 

Sorry if I got long winded here. And your comments in no way raised any ire, only that you may have misstated your second assumption without realizing it. I--like you--regret some of the aspects of this thread, but it does I think offer fair warning and truth to fellow hobbyists from men whom we have grown to know and respect through this Forum. Unfortunately, again like life, the truth is not clear-cut for everyone, but like the little boy at Christmas digging through the pile of horse leavings, "There's bound to be a pony in here somewhere!"


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

gdancer 

You clearly agree with the categorical statement "Of what value is a great looking model if it won't operate well" ... In my view the K runs as well as most large scale steamers - in other words it is not perfect but it does run. Those with the highest standards for operation will want to tune it. 

And those who feel the price is too high for a loco that requires a bit of tuning will pass up this opportunity. You have put yourself in this category and that is fair enough. 

Those who wish a K-27 and value the fine detail will buy and find ways to resolve any particular shortcomings in the mechanicals or electronics. I find the price tag to be very reasonable for the fine model that is presented. For me, it needs only the drivers locked to reduce the slop and the electronics tossed so battery RC (and lighting) can be installed. But one man's garbage is another's treasure I suppose. In terms of the statement quoted above, the K is very valuable (to me) even if it does not meet the highest mechanical/electronic standards. 

Regards ... Doug


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dougald on 09/16/2008 4:08 PM
SNIP For me, it needs only the drivers locked to reduce the slop and the electronics tossed so battery RC (and lighting) can be installed. SNIP 
Regards ... Doug 





Not necessarily so Doug. 

My RCS and EVO PnP-3BK R/C controllers simply plug into the existing Bachmann electronics. 
They interface flawlessly and have a built in inversion transistor so the chuff timing will work as designed.


----------



## bobgrosh (Jan 2, 2008)

OK, So Tony LIKES the DCC socket and I tossed mine. 

The world must be coming to an end.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

The one thing that seems really sad to me, and that hasn't been brought up yet, is that Bachmann will be very reticent to make any more Colorado locomotives. Modelers griped for years that Bachmann chose obscure prototypes (not always, but often - the Connie comes to mind) and wouldn't produce models of D&RGW, C&S, etc. They follow the same pattern with their On30 products, like the 4-4-0 and now, an "outside frame" 4-4-0 (who ever heard of an outside frame 4-4-0 - in America at least). 

With the failure of the large scale K-27 to sell out, some of the powers that be at Bachmann - the same people who for years didn't want to produce Colorado prototypes to begin with - will use it as a reason not to produce anything else like it. This despite the fact that it wasn't the K itself that failed, but rather how it was implemented that caused poor sales. The follow-up loco is a logging Mallet that never existed in real life - much more "in form" for Bachmann and how they've always done things - at least it seems so to me. 

MHO spoken solely as a forum participant.


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Unfortunately, you're probably right. It would be just like Bachmann to infer the wrong "lesson" from the K-27 incident! What ticks me off about it is that it was so _unnecessary!_ We give Stanley a lot of grief for what we perceive to be his contributions to this mess (in my opinion with good cause!) but this project was doomed for troubles from the very beginning! Marketing and product developement were NOT on the same page even to the "leaking" of the information at a train show (remember the picture?) and the litany of "mistakes and bad judgement goes on and on... 
Before you roll your eyes and *sigh* again, I LOVE my K-27!! Bachmann came out with a beauty and the wait was worth it....for me! I had Caboose Hobbies send it directly to Dave Goodson for an RCS installation and for "fixing" all the little problems before I ever even saw it! The point is _Bachmann should have taken the time to address these issues BEFORE they ever let one out to the public!!_ The K needed to be a "Grand Slam" and it wasn't but it's NOT because of the decision to make a model of a Colorado prototype!!!


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By bobgrosh on 09/16/2008 5:04 PM
OK, So Tony LIKES the DCC socket and I tossed mine. 
The world must be coming to an end.




Not quite LIKE Bob. More, tolerate. 

With a little help from Phoenix I figured out a way to make the optical chuff work properly and then incorporated the design into the RCS/EVO PnP-3BK. 
I guess battery R/C users are lucky in that they don't have to worry about the inrush currents DCC users have to worry about. 

BTW, I would much rather have had a set of sensibly wired screw terminals.


----------



## bobgrosh (Jan 2, 2008)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Posted By gdancer on 09/16/2008 3:21 PM 
... snip 
For myself, I am probably one of the people you put in the category suggested by your second assumption. I love building the railroad; the engineering required; less interested in the model-building side or even in the "running" of the trains. However, about 50% of my rationale for my railroad --at least in my excuses to the wife--is that it's for "the grandkids", of which I have 7 now with another in the oven, ranging in age from 14 down to minus 5 months. I need to buy locomotives that operate well and can stand a certain amount of heavy handling by little hands. Thus, I may be in a very small minority of the hobby. 
... 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
I guess I am in that small minority too. 
You could divide my rolling stock into two groups. 
The ones I got for my grandkids (and all their friends) 
The ones I bought for me. 
I bought the LGB two axle locos for the kids. over 20 of them, diesels, porters, field locos, Stainz etc. Kids can pick them up, Kids can put them on the tracks. 
Also for the kids, I bought the LGB F3 A/B set. With 30 pounds of added lead, They can't pick it up, but they can't derail it either, so they don't have to be able to put it back on the track. My 2 year old grand son likes to ride it. It's indestructible. 
Some of the kids locos came with decoders. Others ran in stretched mode. Gradually I added decoders to all of them. None of them took more than an hour to convert. I did one the other day in five minutes. 
For me, I like odd looking old steamers. I bought a big hauler, Annie, first run two truck shay. Hestler, Climax, three truck shay. Kay and LGB Forneys for my logging operations. These are for ME, not the grandkids. 
When a loco looks good, runs flawlessly right out of the box, doesn't take a week or more to convert, and doesn't crumble to pieces in the sun, I buy more of them. 
I've never bought a second of anything from Bachmann. 
The LGB Forney is not my first choice for logging loco. BUT!!! It takes less than an hour to convert to Kadee, DCC and sound. I don't have to cut and toss, just a simple adapter cable. I do some painting and customizing so they don't all look the same. They RUN. They PULL. They negotiate every turnout without fail. 
After running the first Forney for three months, I bough six more. I wish I had six Shays, Climaxes and Hestlers instead. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Posted By gdancer on 09/16/2008 3:21 PM 
... snip 
Again, my first priority has to be: it must operate well. (Not just for the grandkids, but also to cover my own deficiencies!) But, man, do I love the look of the K-27! As the author of this thread--though not all the aspects of it--I started out by saying that I "lusted" for a K-27. And its appearance first generated that lust. So, again, it's not exactly right to say it's only how well a loco runs that I--and perhaps others like me--care about. 
... 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Agree 100% 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Posted By gdancer on 09/16/2008 3:21 PM 
... snip 
Implied in your comments is an imporant point. If this Forum--not necessarily this thread--relentlessly picks apart the offering of our few manufacturers, running them down, emphasizing their shortcomings, etc so that the market is virtually eliminated, we soon will not have any company making products for us. No company wants to pay out all the front end costs of design, manufacturing, marketing etc only to have their product dissed to the point of market destruction. We therefore need to exercise caution in how we phrase our critiques and balance them against the good points of the products. Hopefully, the critiques as a fair assessment of all of a product's qualities would be helpful to manufacturers, rather than accusations as to how good it might have been. In this, I fully and wholeheartedly agree with you. 
... 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Here is where I disagree a little. 

Sure, I lusted for the Kay. 10 minutes after I got my first one unpacked. I ordered a second. A day later I put a hold on the order. A month later I canceled the order. 
Feedback on what is wrong with a loco should allow a manufacturer to correct the problems. Bachmann should learn from this feedback. As an example, the Mallet should at least accept the plug and play decoder the interface was designed for. It should not be putting out 4 amp spikes with any decoder and limit you to just three or four locos on the track at the same time, even when they are stopped. 
Now, will Bachmann listen? 

If they don't, people will not buy their locos. If they do, then someday I'll have dozens of Bachmann locos on my railroad, and so will lots of other people. 

Do we need to balance our critiques with the good points? Well, I bought one. That is an obvious testimony. I published TWO very complimentary videos on YouTube. I took the time to draw and publish two accurate drawings, one of them before Bachmann did. 

Should I do and say more. There is already some great pictures on Bachmann's site. I don't need to praise the quality of the paint, level of details, operating Johnson lever, others already have. Last I checked Bachmann has not put me on their pay role as a sales rep. 

Bachmann continues to hide their head in the sand. They only decided to send replacement CWs, after EXTREME pressure. They continue to blame nearly every fault on someone else. They dismiss what consumers say they want and instead, give us what some consultant or market analyst wants. 
So, yes, we may loose a supplier. Some other supplier will have another market opened to them. Maybe AMS or Accucraft or USAT or Aristocraft or Marklin will decide to jump at the chance to produce affordable plastic shays, Climaxes, Heislers, etc. I'd much rather take the shorter path and see Bachmann fix the products they already have. But, as long as they keep deleting posts, shooting the messengers, and denying the facts, it does not look good. 

Either way, we won't have fewer products to choose from, just better ones.


----------



## gdancer (Feb 19, 2008)

Bob.... I always...always...defer to your expertise! 

Let us hope that other mfgrs will take the place of those who opt out. Marklin seems no longer interested in the American market, at least the market for American style locomotives. Maybe that's just a re-tooling problem for the time being, but this seems to be a big market they just decided to ignore. 

Darn! I wish Bachmann would just fix the Kay. Sort of like Nike's slogan, "Just Fix it!"


----------



## gdancer (Feb 19, 2008)

Bob... BTW, you helped me put sound and a decoder in my Forney two years ago. A great loco with a great Phoenix sound! I have not bought two sets of locos as you have; maybe I should. Good thought!


----------



## BarrysBigTrains (Sep 4, 2008)

Bob, 

Just one correction; to the best of my recollection, the counterweight problem was solved with one phone call from TOC to Bud Reese; the new counterweights were in the air in less than ten days. 

That is an excellent response. 

Barry - BBT


----------



## bobgrosh (Jan 2, 2008)

I can only guess, but the LGB club newsletters I am getting from Marklin lead me to think they concentrated on track and EPL components. It seems they are up to speed on those. Now they are concentrating on locos, European ones, and even a couple completely new European locos. Cars, and accessories seem to be pushed to a later date. I suspect they prioritize getting stuff into production based of the profitability of each segment, so.... it is hard to where in the order of priority, American prototypes will fall. I have not seen anything official from LGB that indicates that they don't intend to produce everything that LGB used to produce. All I see is, that they had to prioritize. We are not seeing anything here is the US because the LGB distribution channel is gone. The best place to watch is the existing Marklin distribution. Watch the Walther Catalog. 

Lets hope Bachmann starts listening to it's customers and after market suppliers. Maybe we won't have to suffer through a long dry spell like the LGB situation. Frankly, I'd be tickled if: Bachmann went to a simple DCC plug similar to what the small scales have. All wires from the track, lights, smoke and motor, go to a central place and a passive circuit board (just resistors and diodes) ties it all together for DC operation. I see no reason the Battery/RC or the DCS or the Airwire or the DCC users need to pay for all those 13 boards and dozens of connector pins. Instead of all that garbage. include provisions for track sliders. Put ball bearings everywhere. Make all the wheels driven off the motor, not poorly fitting sloppy side-rods. Seal the motor, gearbox and bearings against the weather. Use plastic the will last in the sun. Use plastic in the windows that won't turn brown in a year outside. Put in a motor with a standard mount. 

Lets go over that last one again. 
Put in a motor with a standard mount. 

Most RC electric cars all mostly use a standard motor mount, screw spacing, thread size, shaft diameter, etc. 

Entry level cars come with a small motor, more expensive cars come with a bigger motor. The two are interchangeable. There are dozens of different motors to choose from. Prices range from 20 to 200 dollars. Motors with or without ball bearings. High torque battery earing motors, High speed battery eating motors, Motors for durability in long races with pit stops. Motors that sip gently on the battery juice for endurance races. Motors that will plow through deep sand or scream on a smooth airport runway. Motors that have adjustable brush holders that can be tuned one way for more torque, the other for more speed. Brush-less motors that don't screw up the radio receiver. Efficient motors that provide long run times. 

Think what that would do for the Kay. Bachmann could supply the cheap motor and keep the cost down. Most buyers would be happy. Some of us would put change to one with a lower top rpm and more torque to get up grades. A few would choose a faster one to pull their passenger trains on their flat layouts. TOC would pick one that could go up a 40% grade and not melt the battery. :^) I might pick one just because it ran silently and didn't detract from my sound card. Bachmann could issue an Anniversary edition with added detail and a upgraded motor based on what users decided was popular. 

Most if not all of those things could be done for less than what Bachmann spent on the stupid conglomeration of boards. 
I don't think any of these ideas are new. Others have proposed them. 

Did Bachmann listen to what their customers, dealers and third party suppliers wanted? 

Will they listen now? 
I doubt it.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Bob, 

Thanks for telling it like it is. 

It won't be long before you are "persona non grata" too.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

A slightly different perspective: 

Bob's comments about a standard motor mount are interesting, and certainly he has a point. However, while such things are common in the R/C car/plane/boat hobby, it simply doesn't exist in the model train hobby--in any scale. The likelihood of it doing so are slim. It would take much more than a single manufacturer deciding to do that to get such an endeavor off the ground. Most importantly, it would take a strong 3rd-party motor industry to support it, which currently doesn't exist. What good is a replaceable anything if there's nothing to replace it with? I remember in the 80s when repowering HO scale locomotives with can motors was all the rage. The manufacturers had an opportunity at that point to do something similar--work a "universal" mount into their locos so the end user could easily replace them with smoother motors should they so desire. Alas, they did not, and that _was_ with the ready availability of good 3rd-party motors. I went through my share of silicon caulk to attach motors to my locos. 

There's also the issue that in the R/C hobby, motors aren't as placed in such confined spaces as they are in large scale. Despite the term "large" in large scale, many of our locos are quite small, or at the very least, the space available for motors (either in a power truck or between narrow frames) is seriously limited, so motor size necessarily varies from one locomotive to the next, dependent on space available. For motors to be interchangeable--and to support a strong aftermarket motor industry, there needs to be one or two sizes at the most. Otherwise the small numbers that would be produced would not make it cost-effective. It's an interesting concept, but in my opinion, not a realistic one. 

I think what Barry's Big Trains offers is the next best thing. It's not quite as inexpensive as swapping out the motors, but if the manufacturer is going low-cost on the motors, there's a fair chance the gears may not be the highest quality either. A repower kit would ideally include more robust gearing as well. (Not that we've had problems from any of our manufacturers relative to split gears.  ) 

I'd rather see the manufacturers put suitable motors in the locomotives in the first place. Certainly when you're paying 4-figures for a locomotive, you expect top-grade motors and gears. Lower down the food chain, those would represent a higher percentage of the costs, but certainly a good mid-grade motor and gearset would be workable. At the prices we pay for our trains, I honestly don't think there's anyone who would begrudge an extra $30 per loco for a decent motor and gears that won't break. When was the last time we heard anyone complain that an LGB motor was underpowered? 

As for the control boards, I agree with Bob's sentiment that a central control board into which all the pertinent wires run is a positive thing. By and large, that's where we seem to be heading. Bachmann's and Aristo's nearly-identical socket boards inherently do this, and Accucraft seems to be of a similar mindset, though they prefer screw terminals to any single socket protocol. Smaller locomotives can easily benefit from similar boards, though a smaller plug interface for DCC or R/C would definitely be in order. (Here is not the place to discuss the merits of a standard socket. Suffice to say that Bachmann and Aristo have their versions, and the existing NMRA socket protocols for the small scales are only marginally suitable for the current draw of large scale locos.) Whether you like or use the sockets or not, having all the wires right there nice and handy to easily connect directly to aftermarket products saves a bunch of time and effort. In terms of waste, when I compare my R/C install on the K-27 to my previous installs in "non-centralized" locos, it's rather clear. Guess which one I didn't have to toss anything? 

Later, 

K


----------



## BarrysBigTrains (Sep 4, 2008)

Just a quick comment on the K-27 motor: by Pittman, has all of the specs I would have suggested. Highest torque available,
Highest RPM for the version. And Bachmann added a few more. It is a ball bearing version (that implies a zero end play), not a gearhead version, unnecessarily a thrust bearing and flywheel have been added. The flywheel contributes nothing to the performance of the loco or any of it's characteristics. I experimented with larger flywheels on
my 8000 series motor with no effect. The fly wheel is there for those DCC systems who need an optical reader input. It could have been plastic.

This is not a cheap motor, I just received a reorder of my motor and I gaurantee the 9000 series used on the K-27 is not cheap. In my opinion, it may be the best motor for large gauge one locos. 

Barry - BBT


----------



## jimtyp (Jan 2, 2008)

Barry, Are you going to provide any gearing mods for the K-27?


----------



## bobgrosh (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By BarrysBigTrains on 09/25/2008 1:45 AM
Just a quick comment on the K-27 motor: by Pittman, has all of the specs I would have suggested. Highest torque available,
Highest RPM for the version. And Bachmann added a few more. It is a ball bearing version (that implies a zero end play), not a gearhead version, unnecessarily a thrust bearing and flywheel have been added. The flywheel contributes nothing to the performance of the loco or any of it's characteristics. I experimented with larger flywheels on
my 8000 series motor with no effect. The fly wheel is there for those DCC systems who need an optical reader input. It could have been plastic.

This is not a cheap motor, I just received a reorder of my motor and I gaurantee the 9000 series used on the K-27 is not cheap. In my opinion, it may be the best motor for large gauge one locos. 

Barry - BBT







Guess I went off half cocked. Obviously. I defer to Barry's expert opinion. I should have done at least little browsing through Pittman specs. So, the question remains. Are there other versions of this motor that are a direct bolt in replacement? Can we pick and choose different Pittman motors for higher torque, or higher RPM ,or lower current draw?


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Bob- 
Why higher RPM? 
You want it to go FASTER? 

The current is okay until you load it, like 20 cars on a 4%, and it crowbars. 

Tork is fine. 

Like taking your 66 Mustang GT with a 271 horse 289 and 4-speed and putting a 2.73 automatic rear end in it.


----------



## bobgrosh (Jan 2, 2008)

Faster? No, not me. But somone else might. 
I was under the impression that brush timing is a trade off. Higher RPM gives you less torque, lower RPM = more torque. There are all sorts of other opions that affect torque and speed, double winding, different skew, more or less windings, more poles, different brush materials, different bush assemblies. I see well over a hundred choices for a given physical size of motor in the RC car catalogs. It seems to me that we should be able to swap out the Pittman motor to meet the conditions we have on our railroads. 
Somone with 5% grades 200 feet long might need more torque and better cooling, Somone using it for short passenger trains and low voltage might indeed want a higher top end. Somone who runs a lot in high humidity and heavy rains may opt for an otherwise mundain motor but one that is sealed, corrosion proof and super reliable.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

I run long trains, 150' of continuous 4%, and I know what motors and gear ratios work. 
Jim, the gears have been in work since this whole situation began over 8 months ago. 
The "innovative" design makes it just more difficult.


----------



## BarrysBigTrains (Sep 4, 2008)

Jim,

I am working on it.

All else,


An interesting aspect of the electric motor and electric locomotives. During the 20's and 30's there pulling contests between the promoters of electric locomotives and steam locos. What the steamers didn't know was that they never had a chance. The electric locos develop peak torque at (theoretical) zero RPM. Therefore the electric loco began to pull, the steamer lost rail contact (traction) and the electric pulled it as far as it wanted. A very pursuasive marketing argument.

If the K-27 could be regeared (it will be) it could be the strongest puller ever. The motor is right.


Barry - BBT


----------

