|
|
 Posted - July 15 2006 : 6:22:24 PM
|
There seem to be a few of you with unique insights and connections in the hobby, so can any of you shed any light on the PowerTorque drive?
I mean, WTHeck was Tyco thinking? The Mantua drive has been credited as reliable and durable if a bit crude, whereas the Powertorque has been universally reviled by both operators and collectors alike.
I would even go so far as to say the PowerTorque is probably responsible for Tyco's decline and exit from the hobby. I know my parents got fed up with replacing engines and accused me of not taking care of them... but it wasn't my fault!
I know that all the RTR firms were using pancake motors, none of whice were exactly great, but at least the Kader (Bachmann, Lionel, LifeLike) units actually _ran_, if only decent within reason. Maybe Tyco thought they were onto something with their heavier metal motor housing in lieu of plastic, but that blasted thin nylon gear ALWAYS seemed to strip! (I've had this happen to at least 6 units, which at least put them outta their misery, I guess).
The Mantua drive in my GN430 is the first I've ever used. At over 30 years vintage and lacking a tune-up, it still hauled 20 modern, heavy cars around my 4x8' without a problem. Whearas I have a couple "like new" PowerTorques that can't even get out of their own dang way!
So really, what was the reason for going to the PowerTorque in the first place, and why didn't they change it to something else when it was proven to be such a horrible drive "in the field"?
Surely Tyco was aware of this? How many train sets got returned to the store with engines that didn't run after a short time? Wouldn't retailers have complained? (Is this why they don't carry train sets anymore; the newer Bachmann RTR sets are awesome and might actually introduce and keep people in the hobby if they were more readily available...)
It's a shame because I do have fond memories most of the Tyco stuff I grew up with, but the PowerTorque drive literally kept me out of the hobby for a few years. It wasn't until begging my parents to take me to a "real" hobby shop and getting my first Athearn that I learned that not all HO engines had to run like crap...
Edited by - GoingInCirclez on July 16 2006 2:50:33 PM
|
Country:  USA ~
Posts: 2175 ~
Member Since: July 15 2006 ~
Last Visit: January 31 2010
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
 Posted - July 16 2006 : 12:47:42 PM
|
Power-Dork-Drive:
Without examining the particulars of Mantua/Tyco's sale of Tyco to Consolidated Foods, might I suggest the simple answer to "why Power Torque" might simply be the new company's disinclination (or, perhaps, inability) to obtain the rights to manufacture the reliable old Mantua power truck. It is interesting to note, for example, the initial catalog appearance of the Consolidation ('73-'74: Consolidated Foods/Tyco's second catalog offering) is a conventionally (Mantua) powered motor-in-frame unit instead of the Power Torque motor-in-tender that came to the market. I hardly think this is coincidence and speaks to Consolidated Foods Tyco seeking a power alternative from the near-onset of their acquisition.
I agree with the editorialist who lamented the decision to use this questionable motor across the board during the Consolidated Foods era. The choice is vaguely reminiscent, I think, of the last dying gasps of American Flyer, when interesting, flashy and very toy-like items came to market (All-Aboard panels and the James Bond 007 road race sets that did Rather/A.C. Gilbert in). While not the death knell of Tyco, these choices clearly precipitated the Tyler family re-emergence in 1977 to satisfy old Tyco Mantua customers who lamented the absence of these fine old scale-models and their reliable drive units.
But this is mere speculation, based on evidence derived from catalog offerings and marketplace news appearing in RMC and MR at the time. It would be great to get the skinny from folks who were there.
Magnolia Academy
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 446 ~
Member Since: December 09 2005 ~
Last Visit: October 28 2006
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - July 16 2006 : 8:32:58 PM
|
| I would guess that it is a cost cutting measure
|
Country:  Australia ~
Posts: 44 ~
Member Since: May 14 2006 ~
Last Visit: February 18 2007
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - July 28 2006 : 12:36:20 PM
|
quote:I would guess that it is a cost cutting measure
Originally posted by alexander13 - July 17 2006 : 01:32:58 AM
|
While at first that seems overly simplistic, maybe you're on to something.
As evidence I recall the original Bachmann GP40 of the early 70's, which had a heavy diecast frame, can motor, and I even seem to remember flywheels. This was a very nice drive for its time. But, by the late 70's it had been cheapened with the ubiquitous Kader pancake drive and a plastic frame. Certainly this drive was cheaper, and performance likewise sufferred although not to the extent of PowerTorque woes.
I think Magnolia Academy's theory is also plausible, in that the Tyco/Mantua split resulted in the need for a new drive. That I can see.
I guess what I don't understand is why some effort wasn't made toward rectifying the problems with the Powertorque, or switching to a new mechanism altogether (Kader, anyone)?
Is it more than just coincidence that the hobby sufferred a decline as the mass-market RTR guys cheapened their drives to the point of embarrasment?
Edited by - GoingInCirclez on July 29 2006 12:48:47 AM
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 2175 ~
Member Since: July 15 2006 ~
Last Visit: January 31 2010
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - July 28 2006 : 12:49:04 PM
|
I'll go into more detail with my remark.
I have heard that Tyco made there motors to run for 40 hours, and after that parents wouldnt retrun them to the store. if they can get cheaper componments because of this, well, it is great buisness sense.
How many trains has Tyco sold? Even if they only save 5 cents, enough 5 cents make a dollar, and it goes on
Both theroies may be correct, ie they needed a new drive, and slapped somthing cheap together
Oh yeah, i like to say it with as few words as possible
alexander
Edited by - alexander13 on July 28 2006 12:51:43 PM
|
|
Country: Australia ~
Posts: 44 ~
Member Since: May 14 2006 ~
Last Visit: February 18 2007
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - July 28 2006 : 3:39:39 PM
|
Tycoots:
In a response to a forum "Art Imitates Life" I commented on the necessity of considering model train production in the context of the time. Subsequently, I'm inclined to doubt Consolidated Foods Tyco deliberately dumped substandard product on unsuspecting young train fans. When the Power Torque debuted C/Foods Tyco had to balance their requirement for return on investment while being cognizant of the fact they faced stiff competition in the low-end model train (toy) field. The death of American Flyer only a few years earlier was precipitated primarily by Rather Corp./Flyer offering a cheapened train and slot car line. A high volume of Christmas returns of their James Bond road race, sold thru Sears in '65-6, was caused by cheap motors in the cars. This very-public debacle put Flyer out of business. Lionel lapsed into limbo after a series of similar cost-cutting fiascos that turned off even their most loyal customers.
With AHM, Life Like, and Bachmann on their heels--all with motive power that balanced economic requirements with longevity and reliability--it would have been unthinkable for C/F Tyco to deliberately dump a motor in their trains that would frustrate young kids, piss-off parents and infuriate retailers trying to peddle Tyco.
If you examine the catalogs from the C/F Tyco era you will see they actually expanded the train line upon acquisition--hardly the act of solely cost-concious bean counters. On the contrary, advertising expenditure, product development and acquisition of new markets were obviously a Consolidated Foods priority.
To settle this question requires input from C/F Tyco insiders from that era and I hope someone chimes in. In the meantime, though, I still believe the retension by Mantua of their old reliable drive, and the reappearance of that drive with Mantua's re-emergence in 1977, speaks more of a licensing matter than anything else--that, and Consolidated Foods Tyco engineers perhaps wanting to put their own stamp on the direction motive power would take in their new corporation.
Magnolia Academy
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 446 ~
Member Since: December 09 2005 ~
Last Visit: October 28 2006
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - July 28 2006 : 11:11:23 PM
|
| I think that someone would be able to make a fortune,making mechanisims for the old Tycos, LifeLikes, Bachmanns.
|
|
Country: Australia ~
Posts: 44 ~
Member Since: May 14 2006 ~
Last Visit: February 18 2007
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - July 28 2006 : 11:37:36 PM
|
I would definitely buy a few quality motor trucks if they were relatively
inexpensive$20-30.00.
Something with a flywheel would be nice.
Carl T.
President of the Cape James Terminal RR.
Edited by - choochin3 on July 29 2006 12:06:21 PM
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 691 ~
Member Since: April 16 2006 ~
Last Visit: November 01 2020
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - July 29 2006 : 01:05:20 AM
|
While I haven't tried this myself, I venture there's no shortage of tried-and-true Athean frames and drives available that could be had very cheaply and modified to suit the purpose.
The F-unit frames should be a direct swap , while the dash-2 frames look like they might have potential underneath the 430 and SD24. The Sharknose wouldn't take an Athearn frame well (not without some serious modification) but it might be possible to adapt just the drive...
The C630 would be most difficult because of its length... you'd need to make driveshafts and all. I'd probably hack in a KaderCake somehow.
As for the diesel switcher... why bother?
As a bonus, you'd probably end up with better truck sideframes to boot, although if desired, you could probably keep the Tyco "630" trucks which arguably are part of the charm of those models.
Hmm. This could be a fun project in futilty...
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 2175 ~
Member Since: July 15 2006 ~
Last Visit: January 31 2010
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - July 31 2006 : 11:29:01 AM
|
Gee.. and here I was thinking the charm of the Super 630s stemmed from the fondly-remembered aroma of burning plastic and the neotenic recollection of the sound of grinding gears... those magical memories and the attendant recollection of seething parents dealing with disgruntled retail store owners a few weeks after Christmas.
Ahh, the good old days...
MagnoliaAcademy
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 446 ~
Member Since: December 09 2005 ~
Last Visit: October 28 2006
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - July 31 2006 : 10:18:46 PM
|
quote:While I haven't tried this myself, I venture there's no shortage of tried-and-true Athean frames and drives available that could be had very cheaply and modified to suit the purpose.
The F-unit frames should be a direct swap , while the dash-2 frames look like they might have potential underneath the 430 and SD24. The Sharknose wouldn't take an Athearn frame well (not without some serious modification) but it might be possible to adapt just the drive...
The C630 would be most difficult because of its length... you'd need to make driveshafts and all. I'd probably hack in a KaderCake somehow.
As for the diesel switcher... why bother?
As a bonus, you'd probably end up with better truck sideframes to boot, although if desired, you could probably keep the Tyco "630" trucks which arguably are part of the charm of those models.
Hmm. This could be a fun project in futilty...
Originally posted by GoingInCirclez - July 29 2006 : 06:05:20 AM
|
The SD24 would go best with a....................................... SD24!!!!! Atlas makes a SD24, and it is very good too!!!
|
|
Country: Australia ~
Posts: 44 ~
Member Since: May 14 2006 ~
Last Visit: February 18 2007
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - August 01 2006 : 07:23:21 AM
|
You conversion-hungry fellows need to get started cutting and hacking as quickly and with as much gusto as possible. If you retrofit enough of the old Power-Dork equipped locos, between the high rate of attrition of existing non-modified models and converted models the Tyco/Mantua mint-in-box collector types may actually have some hope for Power-Torque collectibility. (Come to think of it, though, you might have to recruit several thousand conversion addicts to account for the huge number of old Power Torque Tycos languishing with low miles or often virtually unused. Get to it!)
MagnoliaAcademy
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 446 ~
Member Since: December 09 2005 ~
Last Visit: October 28 2006
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - August 01 2006 : 10:41:41 AM
|
Hey,
With respect to attempting to make a TYCO Shark Nose run...the E-R Models drive and Model Power's drive might easily fit. Also, there is the rumor that IHC may resurrect the TYCO Shark Nose molds and then a simplier fit might be possible using that model's drive.
Tony Cook
HO-Scale Trains Resource
http://ho-scaletrains.net
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 1658 ~
Member Since: December 03 2005 ~
Last Visit: February 07 2010
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
 Posted - August 01 2006 : 11:00:32 PM
|
Magnolia - OH but those were certainly fine traits, but it was those truck sideframes that eventually made you wonder "why?"
Actually as a kid I didn't know any better, but after learning they originally DID have prototype frames (and having seen a chessie unit so equipped), I'm more intrigued than ever. I would love to see that RMC review someday.
Alexander - Ha ha, fair enough. But Atlas drives are still a bit pricey considering the goal - to retrofit a Tyco cheaply - and even the 70's Atlases command a decent price at times. Forget about a new one! Although a fake Chessie or Rio Grande might just be worth the novelty. Nonetheless, an Atlas drive in a Tyco surely betrays the same morbid curiosity that leads people to cram 'Vette engines into Pintos and such... which is a good thing... [:D]
Tony and all -
Well I'm a moron. Oh Sure, the Athearn Dash-2 frame IS a tough Sharknose retrofit ... but wouldn't you know it, I tried an Athearn F-unit frame and the dang thing fits almost perfectly! Just need to grind a little material from both sides of the pilot, and the whole thing disappears inside the shell as if it was made with the intent. And the mouting lugs line right up! (And here I thought the narrow nose of the shell had a more pronounced point, but I forgot about the subframe profile underneath it which allows this mod to work so well).
Now the nuances of this shop job are interesting. The fuel tank is larger and fills the space between the trucks nicely, but the trucks are a little more inset from the ends (the F-unit frame is a bit shorter than the Shark). Needless to say, the Tyco truck sideframes don't line up to the Athearn wheelsets at all... but the set of oft-traded EMD Blombergs make for an interesting and plausible rebuild. I might try a set of Athearn GE trucks for comparison. I think some 3-axle trucks might fit too...
Only other thing to do is build a styrene pad for a kadee draft-gear box at the rear, and you're all set.
This is a thrilling discovery because I've been wanting to add my Rock Island Shark to the ops fleet for a while now. Why didn't I think of this before?! [8D]
Edited by - GoingInCirclez on August 02 2006 12:48:32 AM
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 2175 ~
Member Since: July 15 2006 ~
Last Visit: January 31 2010
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - August 02 2006 : 01:41:23 AM
|
quote:Power-Dork-Drive:
Originally posted by MagnoliaAcademy - July 16 2006 : 5:47:42 PM
|
Hahaha, good joke
Power Dork drive
also, TYCO: Trains You Cant Operate
|
|
Country: Australia ~
Posts: 44 ~
Member Since: May 14 2006 ~
Last Visit: February 18 2007
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - August 02 2006 : 08:14:57 AM
|
Wow! I who'd have thought this forum would have stirred such interest in Power Torque Tyco--evidently the trains we "love to hate." I think the T.Y.C.O. acronym from Alexander13 is a hoot: being from the old Blue/Red Box era I've never heard his (probably oft-repeated by a younger generation of railroaders): Trains You Can't Operate. Ironically, being from a generation dealing with mountains of Flyer and Lionel hand-me-downs (which were literally the proverbial dime-a-dozen), we'd get our Penn Line, Athearn and (most especially)Tyco catalogs at the local hobby shop and dream of T.Y.C.O.: "Trains You Covet Owning." Sadly, only about ten years separates these two eras.
to olden times...
Magnolia Academy
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 446 ~
Member Since: December 09 2005 ~
Last Visit: October 28 2006
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - August 02 2006 : 10:39:55 AM
|
quote:Wow! I who'd have thought this forum would have stirred such interest in Power Torque Tyco--evidently the trains we "love to hate." I think the T.Y.C.O. acronym from Alexander13 is a hoot: being from the old Blue/Red Box era I've never heard his (probably oft-repeated by a younger generation of railroaders): Trains You Can't Operate. Ironically, being from a generation dealing with mountains of Flyer and Lionel hand-me-downs (which were literally the proverbial dime-a-dozen), we'd get our Penn Line, Athearn and (most especially)Tyco catalogs at the local hobby shop and dream of T.Y.C.O.: "Trains You Covet Owning." Sadly, only about ten years separates these two eras.
to olden times...
Magnolia Academy
Originally posted by MagnoliaAcademy - August 02 2006 : 1:14:57 PM
|
yep. i'm 14 years old. That may mean somthing. I'm an Avid Model RRer, Railfan, whatever to do with trains, i'm there. I am specifically interested in the BN.
The only TYCO (loxo, that is) that i "own" is no longer in my possesion, it is with my dad. it runs, slowly. real slow.
|
|
Country: Australia ~
Posts: 44 ~
Member Since: May 14 2006 ~
Last Visit: February 18 2007
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - August 02 2006 : 12:04:42 PM
|
Alexander13:
As you get older you may find that--like that old Tyco engine, and many of us ancient Tycoots--you, too, begin to run "slow, real slow."
On the other hand, I own fifty-year-old Varney, Hobbyline, Fleischmann, Marklin, Revell, Penn Line and--most unequivocably--T.Y.C.O./Mantua engines that are good for hours around the layout at speeds and/or dragging loads that would surprise you. Unfortunately, by the time the 1970's and '80's rolled around much of the operational qualities of ready to run HO trains had gone by the wayside.
G' day!
MagAc
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 446 ~
Member Since: December 09 2005 ~
Last Visit: October 28 2006
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - August 03 2006 : 2:23:34 PM
|
yep. i hate that tyco thing. i'd guess stripped gears.
as for slowing down, not yet. infact, the afforementioned Atlas SD24 spends most of its time at close to 3 quarter throttle. not that i'm reckless, just like high speed freights[:D] [:D] [:D] [:D]
i also own an Athearn SW1500, and will soon be fixing an ols Athearn U30C. I run a mix of older Tyco and newer Lifelike cars behind these locos. I'm not so much a "Tyco Collector", but more of a Model Railroader, who as previouly mentioned likes the BN.
|
|
Country: Australia ~
Posts: 44 ~
Member Since: May 14 2006 ~
Last Visit: February 18 2007
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
Home
Forums
Events Calendar
Forum Admins & Mods
Register
