|
|
 Posted - March 29 2008 : 01:16:41 AM
|
Hello Tyconaughts:
I have a question to pose:
How many of you would purchase a PT motor replacement if available that included:
1) Machined or Cast metal power truck block
2) Pancake CAN motor
3) Replacement gears: Pinion/Reduction/Idler.
You would use your own truck block cap and wheelsets.
How many would you likely purchase and at what price would you consider that?
Thanks for your help.
-Gareth
|
Country:  Canada ~
Posts: 4200 ~
Member Since: January 08 2006 ~
Last Visit: November 09 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
 Posted - March 29 2008 : 03:10:46 AM
|
If you'll be making a block for the Chattanooga with the mounting pins for the tender trucks, I'd probably buy one.
The Tyco Depot
|
Country:  USA ~
Posts: 3927 ~
Member Since: June 20 2007 ~
Last Visit: November 19 2015
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 29 2008 : 09:50:15 AM
|
Hi NP:
I think I have one of those, bare unassembled? Can you fire me a pic of that power truck version for me to compare. We're going to do the most generic use truck first, and see where that takes us.
Just email me or PM me the pic. I'd rather keep this thread clear for answers to the question, though thats probably wishful thinking on my part! [:D]
-Gareth
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 4200 ~
Member Since: January 08 2006 ~
Last Visit: November 09 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 29 2008 : 12:04:29 PM
|
I like the direction you're heading with this, and commend the efforts. I'll help how I can.
But personally, I wouldn't be in the market for many, and I can't really see a large one in the first place. Here's why:
People who buy trains can generally be fit into one (possibly more) of three categories:
1) Collectors
2) Serious Modelers / Operators; people whose discretionary hobby income is primarily devoted to Model RRing
3) Casual / part time hobbysists and curious beginners. These may eventually graduate to Category 2.
Now here's the rub. People in Category 2 are the ones who dismiss Tyco outright and won't ever touch the stuff. For them it won't matter how well a Tyco runs, because for their time and money a more superior model of the same loco already exists, and will look better along with running well.
Some of those guys may graduate to Category 1 (Collector) status if they have a sincere appreciation (or morbid fascination) with Tyco and other "inferior" vintage RTR brands. I myself am an example. But as a collector I'm to the point where a re-powered Tyco... isn't. It's no longer authentic, so what would I be collecting?
Which brings me to Category 3: your beginners / casuals / part-timers. You might have a market there. But it will have to be VERY cheap and VERY easy. Because frankly there are better options out there.
I think this project has appeal. Collectors like myself certainly would like to have a few key items that perform well. And I could see a serious hobbyist having some fun on a club layout by sneaking a Rocky Mountain SD24 out there. And a beginner who just got found his childhood set, or inherited his dad's Tyco junk, and REALLY wants to see that Chattanooga engine haul, might be enticed.
But at it's core, the only thing that will make this project viable, is nostalgia. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, or it doesn't exist. Nostalgia is what makes a modeler look at Tyco again. Nostalgia is what makes a collector decide to try running a few. Nostalgia is what makes a beginner or garage-sale buyer try the old stuff instead of the new. But that market is limited.
Just my $.03. I'd be down for a couple at any rate.
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 2175 ~
Member Since: July 15 2006 ~
Last Visit: January 31 2010
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 29 2008 : 12:08:11 PM
|
| To see my GG1 or my Chattanooga Choo-choo tooling around the club layout at train shows, keeping pace with the big boys to the consternation of scale purists...ahh bliss---but at what price? Sounds like a pretty expensive undertaking for a very small market. The best way to make a small fortune in model trains is to start with a large one.[;)]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 29 2008 : 1:25:19 PM
|
Great info.
This is what we need to know.
I figured the market would be limited.
It may be best to start by machining the original Tyco blocks and have an exchange program for the block.
Making the upgrade as simple as possible for the customer is one of the goals.
Maybe a machined block with the new motor installed in the block (with a pinion gear installed) would be how to get this project to the market quickly, then make production changes if the market will support it.
Ray
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 1285 ~
Member Since: December 14 2005 ~
Last Visit: May 16 2019
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 29 2008 : 1:37:37 PM
|
The block exchange would probably be the best way to go...it knocks out tooling costs for a new block and shows the seriousness of a prospective buyer.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 29 2008 : 1:51:13 PM
|
I think you may have guys that might pay to have it done for them or those that may pay for the kit you provide with parts and instructions or those that buy just motors or kits from you on the 'bay.
Wouldn't MRC transformers take care of the voltage problem without additional elctronics using a CD player motor as a replacement?
Alco Fan
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 2496 ~
Member Since: August 03 2006 ~
Last Visit: September 17 2024
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
Roy
Little Six
Status:
offline
| |
Posted - March 29 2008 : 2:58:25 PM
|
quote:| ...People who buy trains can generally be fit into one (possibly more) of three categories... Originally posted by GoingInCirclez |
I agree. A collector, whether he operates his trains or not, will want his PT trucks 100% authentic. He'd want his burned-out armature rewound, his original magnets re-energized, etc.
Several of us here are Tyco-as-cheap-thrills tinkerers. I like the TERP project from at least two angles:
-keeping the Tycos running, as dirt-cheap as possible;
-hot rodding the silly things. What is more patently ridiculous, than maximizing the performance of the cheapest, possibly worst-designed drive in the history of electric trains? Ya gotta love it!
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 108 ~
Member Since: December 25 2007 ~
Last Visit: October 11 2012
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 29 2008 : 2:59:47 PM
|
A block exchange program makes sense. IN essence this would be a repair facility, doing upgrades. Advertised as such, you would get a lot more takers.
However. I believe a target price should be $20 or less. Let's face it: $20 is a pretty affordable number for most people but even that is more than what you can get a lot of Tyco locos for.
By the time you add a customer's expense for round-trip shipping, it may well come in at $30+. Which makes it less attractive.
If I get a dead PT, my mindset is to get another loco for $10 or so. Chances are it will either run outright, or have the parts I need. Even if it doesn't, hey it was only $10... meaning I could get TWO for $20... and have three locomotives of some form. I can even eventually fix the others or resell as parts, recouping my expense and keeping my total cost down.
There are SO MANY PT engines out there, that cheap in-kind replacement is not difficult.
The hard part is getting the knowledge to do this, which take time. Your upgrade service removes the "time and trouble" aspect from most people, so there IS value there. But $20 should be the target. Any more than that and you have to be p r e t t y s e r i o u s to spend that kind of coin on an engine that usually isn't worth that.
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 2175 ~
Member Since: July 15 2006 ~
Last Visit: January 31 2010
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 29 2008 : 4:15:17 PM
|
Half the fun of collecting Tyco is getting it to run. Piecing it together is more fun than simply buying a replacement motor. I think if you were trying to sell replacement motors, you would either need to be selling entire replacement trucks OR would need to make the conversion completely reversible. If you replaced the motor on a Tyco, then it would not be Tyco anymore. I would not replace any motors in my engines because they would not be original anymore. I WOULD however, put new trucks/motor in any old shells I have lieing around, as I would not be making it any less original than it already is...I would simply be enabling it to run.
The only reason that I would replace a motor in a Tyco would be if I was running it in public, and needed it to run for a long time. But like I said, it would have to be completely reversible so I could put the original motor back in afterwards.
-cheez
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 3412 ~
Member Since: September 22 2006 ~
Last Visit: April 10 2025
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 29 2008 : 4:53:10 PM
|
Cheez, it would be reversible, because you could snap another crummy old PT truck right back in. [:D]
Roy, I love tinkering too, but not as much as PT's require! [;)]
It would be nice to have a Chattanooga that actually runs and pulls without tearing itself apart. Tyco definitely designed these drives to self-destruct in 5 weeks of normal use. It isn't as much the PT concept as it is the shoddy execution that's the problem. If Tyco had made larger bearings, heftier enclosed gearing, and a more powerful motor with a larger diameter shaft, they would have pulled like heck.
As far as the replacement tender drive is concerned, it would really depend on price, since my goal is to ultimately motorize the loco itself and replace the tender.
Gareth, check your PMs.
The Tyco Depot
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 3927 ~
Member Since: June 20 2007 ~
Last Visit: November 19 2015
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 29 2008 : 5:16:21 PM
|
quote:NickelPlate759 Posted - March 29 2008 : 3:53:10 PM
Cheez, it would be reversible, because you could snap another crummy old PT truck right back in.
|
Oh ok. I can't picture exactly what these guys are trying to make. Is it basically the front truck without the wheels, sideframes and the truck mounting rings? If that's what they're making then that would be great, but I would still only repower an engine if I needed it to run for long periods of time, or if the original PT was completely dead.
-cheez
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 3412 ~
Member Since: September 22 2006 ~
Last Visit: April 10 2025
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 29 2008 : 5:28:58 PM
|
OK, Cheez. I get it. You're an Orthodox Tyconaught, nott Reformed! [:D] [:D]
-Gareth
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 4200 ~
Member Since: January 08 2006 ~
Last Visit: November 09 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 29 2008 : 7:59:46 PM
|
| I still want to see the faces of those rivet counters at a train show as my Tyco GG1 comes roaring out of the tunnel for the 7,896th lap of the day with nary a bead o' sweat...coupled to the right sound chip and by golly the paramedics will hafta be called in.[:D] [:D] [:D] [:D]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 29 2008 : 8:43:15 PM
|
quote:shaygetz Posted - March 29 2008 : 6:59:46 PM
I still want to see the faces of those rivet counters at a train show as my Tyco GG1 comes roaring out of the tunnel for the 7,896th lap of the day with nary a bead o' sweat...coupled to the right sound chip and by golly the paramedics will hafta be called in.
|
Doing stuff just to see the looks on ppl's faces is great isn't it??[:p] If I was in a train club that had a portable layout that it took to shows, then ya...I'd repower a Tyco engine. Oh....and I'd bring my Turbo Train. Yup...that would be great.[:D]
-cheez
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 3412 ~
Member Since: September 22 2006 ~
Last Visit: April 10 2025
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
 Posted - March 29 2008 : 9:33:41 PM
|
Why don't we just make them rubber band powered? [:D]
The Tyco Depot
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 3927 ~
Member Since: June 20 2007 ~
Last Visit: November 19 2015
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 29 2008 : 10:29:25 PM
|
From a runner of trains: If it takes an investment to get my tyco's running, I will do it!
Mike
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 1586 ~
Member Since: December 07 2007 ~
Last Visit: May 04 2025
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
Roy
Little Six
Status:
offline
| |
Posted - March 30 2008 : 01:41:55 AM
|
quote:Why don't we just make them rubber band powered?
Originally posted by NickelPlate759
|
I had one of those as a kid. It was an Athearn, though.
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 108 ~
Member Since: December 25 2007 ~
Last Visit: October 11 2012
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 30 2008 : 02:24:17 AM
|
quote:Why don't we just make them rubber band powered? [:D]
Originally posted by NickelPlate759Â -Â March 29 2008Â :Â 8:33:41 PM
|
I was thinking of trying a primary belt drive to replace the pinion and large gear of the reduction gear to eliminate the screeching gear noise.
I want to get things worked out with the geared version first.
Ray
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 1285 ~
Member Since: December 14 2005 ~
Last Visit: May 16 2019
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 30 2008 : 02:41:06 AM
|
Actually the more I think about this project, the more intrigued I get.
There's one more key benefit to using a substitute can motor in the original housing: electrical isolation! Meaning that since the block is no longer a direct part of the circuit, you could convert a Tyco to DCC (and sound) more easily. You could theoretically pull power from both sides of the axle as well, addressing another PT achilles heel.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another consideration in long-term development, would be a plastic block. Might be cheaper to source and machine than steel, if a new block needed to be created. You're pretty much going to need a new block anyway if the magic combo to retain the stock Tyco gears can't be found.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Finally, pertaining to the market for these: remember that converting the F-unit to an Athearn drive is a cheap no-brainer. The Shark can be put on an easily-modified Athearn chassis as well. Of course you lose the Tyco sideframes BUT for people who just want to run, those are competing, easy, and cheap options you're competing against.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are 4 "major" revisions of the PT drive, but mechanically they are all the same. There are even more variants if you consider materials and manufacturing combinations. I'll post a photo reference shortly.
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 2175 ~
Member Since: July 15 2006 ~
Last Visit: January 31 2010
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 30 2008 : 03:42:15 AM
|
Hey GIC:
Why would you want to go with a plastic block? What do you see as the advantages/dis-advantages. I'm kinda drawn to non-conducting metal.
I would certainly like to see power pulled from both sides of the track...
As far as an Athearn chassis under "F" sure but I think of this in terms of a "developed" Tyco. As if the Tyler's decided to salvage the Tyco brand by first upgrading the Tyco Diesels. Thus the trajectory of a better Pancake can motor in a modified truck with better gears. Most companies try to leverage their existing assests and inventory.
On the redo for people side I'm not that enthusiastic about that. I think we'd get more sales with a kit that requires the owner to remove the truck block bottom cap, drop out his wheelset or have available an alternative. Set them in the new truck, replace and refasten the cap. reinstall in ring mount. put ring in shell put it on track and fire it up. Potentially you'd do this twice for a front and rear truck unit!
From a manufacturing standpoint, IF the manufacturing is designed WITH the product then it's much more efficientt to make production batches than to take in truck after truck in an Unpredictable demand flow.
Hope that makes sense..
-Gareth
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 4200 ~
Member Since: January 08 2006 ~
Last Visit: November 09 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
Roy
Little Six
Status:
offline
| |
Posted - March 30 2008 : 12:50:29 PM
|
quote:Why don't we just make them rubber band powered?
Originally posted by NickelPlate759
|
An updated Athearn Hi-F drive is a very good idea. It could use an inexpensive gearhead motor, and drive one or both trucks using modern synthetic O rings. All-wheel pickup would be easy.
The trucks could be designed to accept the Tyco sideframes. You could even use nickel silver wheels with the Tyco wheelform. The engine could look original, yet perform much better- for rather little money.
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 108 ~
Member Since: December 25 2007 ~
Last Visit: October 11 2012
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 30 2008 : 12:55:31 PM
|
One of the signature things about Tyco's is the pancake PT motor. Getting too far away from that is contrary to the goal.
Why do you think dsigning a HI-F power drive would be easier?
-Gareth
Edited by - romcat on March 30 2008 12:56:11 PM
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 4200 ~
Member Since: January 08 2006 ~
Last Visit: November 09 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 30 2008 : 3:49:57 PM
|
I suggested a plastic block purely as a "back pocket" concept for the sake of economics. It might be cheaper and easier to machine plastic as opposed to metal.
When I worked for an educational supplier about 10 years ago, one of our products was a basic CNC mill, and we supplied instructional labs to make simple stuff out of plastic stock. Looking at the PT block, I can totally visualize that cheap CNC mill ripping out a clone in plastic. It wasn't very expensive.
My thought is that if you can't find the right combo of motors and simple gears to retain the stock Tyco block, and had to go custom... plastic might be more economical.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As to your "swap and drop" concept... I agree with your stated goal BUT it will never be that simple. You will need to rewire the motor. AND on numerous locomotives, removing the headlight is a PAIN. It's very difficult to remove the metal clip from the tiny post on the Shark, F7, and 430 without breaking it. If you convert to the later direct-mount headlight like the Mk III/IV PT, this is moot. BUT that is additional instruction that will have to be provided to the end-user.
Also, remember that the stock PT uses the block itself as part of the motor circuit. If you isolate the motor (which I recommend) you will need to draw current from somewhere else, and wire accordingly.
Actually, None of the Tyco wiring will be reusable in its stock form. The pickup lead from the rear truck is soldered to the PT armature cover, and that will be tossed. So is the headlight, whether shell- or direct-mount.
None of this is difficult to overcome, but it does preclude a simple drop-in solution. The end-user will have to do a fair amount of work. Which is one of the hallmarks of the hobby... and yet Joe Newbie who just found his "Chattanooga" and wants to get it working, may simply opt to buy another one instead. Or stick that F7 / Shark shell on an Athearn chassis and call it a day....
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 2175 ~
Member Since: July 15 2006 ~
Last Visit: January 31 2010
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 30 2008 : 4:31:53 PM
|
GIC:
Couldn't the motor be chassis ground to the block as in a car/motorcycle?
Pro/Con here. Isolate engine allows all wheel pick-up, whereas the conductive truck simplifys right?
-Gareth
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 4200 ~
Member Since: January 08 2006 ~
Last Visit: November 09 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 30 2008 : 5:52:07 PM
|
I wonder if Joe Newbie would pay extra to have the unit installed for him?
It might be good business to offer that service.
Again, It probsbly wouldn't be a great money maker but it would insure the unit was installed properly.
Another thought was to sell reconditioned Tyco locomotives with the TERP truck installed.
Ray
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 1285 ~
Member Since: December 14 2005 ~
Last Visit: May 16 2019
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
Roy
Little Six
Status:
offline
| |
Posted - March 31 2008 : 08:20:37 AM
|
quote:| One of the signature things about Tyco's is the pancake PT motor. Getting too far away from that is contrary to the goal. Originally posted by romcat |
I'm still struggling to understand all the Tyco values you are trying to preserve. Offhand, putting in an entirely different motor seems like you're "getting too far away"- that is, if you're trying to stay with the original PT motor truck design.
quote:| Why do you think dsigning a HI-F power drive would be easier? Originally posted by romcat |
It's as cheap and simple as you can go. Just a motor with extended shafts, driving the wheels via flexible bands. NO gears are necessary. I already pointed out other advantages, in my previous post.
Edited by - Roy on March 31 2008 4:06:37 PM
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 108 ~
Member Since: December 25 2007 ~
Last Visit: October 11 2012
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 31 2008 : 1:13:13 PM
|
Do any of you think that a line of replacement parts for the original PT truck would sell?
With the variations of the trucks what Parts would be needed?
I would think that Gears, a rewound armature, super magnets, brushes and brush springs.
Should there be a replacement brush holder and block?
At that point we would have almost a complete reproduction truck.
With that said. How many Joe newbies would be able or willing to do a rebuild on their own.
Even this scenario has a limited customer base.
Personally I would like to see reproduction parts and the TERP to cover a larger customer base.
Gareth and I had also discussed manufacturing other parts such as side frames and weights cast from lead allows for extra weight.
Ray
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 1285 ~
Member Since: December 14 2005 ~
Last Visit: May 16 2019
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 31 2008 : 1:30:56 PM
|
Hey Roy:
quote:quote:
One of the signature things about Tyco's is the pancake PT motor. Getting too far away from that is contrary to the goal.
Originally posted by romcat
I'm still struggling to understand all the Tyco values you are trying to preserve. Ofthand, putting in an entirely different motor seems like you're "getting too far away"- that is, if you're trying to stay with the original PT motor truck design. |
It's more a matter of characteristics and my guess is they are different for many. I thought I was pretty clear. Choosing a different motor that stays essentially in the same framework attempts to do that. Perhaps that doesn't satisfy your sense of what that is. You are of course free to design your own solution like the HI-F band drive.
The idea is if the existing product was being updated what are the choices. You'll note GIC speaks of dropping a Tyco shell on an Athearn Chassis. Great idea. He's done it.
One of our guys here has put a C-630 on a Stewart Chassis. Again great. but that for me goes too far away from the original.
At one time when I was a motorcyle mechanic I rode a vintage bike as my "daily" it of course had modeern tires and brake pads. Some guys objected. Said it wasn't original. There choice I made mine.
For me I like the idea like Cheez and Shaygetz of causing people to go "WTF, Thats a Tyco!" Again a matter of taste. I had a buddy in High School and I helped him with his Dad put a Pontiac 283 in a Toyota Corona. I think that was 1975/6. It was a Hoot. To everyone it was a Toyota except when he put his foot down... Choices; make them, enjoy them.
quote:quote:
Why do you think dsigning a HI-F power drive would be easier?
Originally posted by romcat
It's as cheap and simple as you can go. Just a motor with extended shafts, driving the wheels via flexible bands. NO gears are necessary. I already pointed out other advantages, in my previous post. |
So take the idea and run with it. I woud go the GIC route and drop a Tyco shell on an appropriate Athearn chassis. Less design work.
Ultimately this is a Hobby Engineering Project. It won't save the world or feed starving children. However I'm enjoying myself and I suspect Ray is as well.
Thats all I need from it.
-Gareth
Edited by - romcat on March 31 2008 1:51:02 PM
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 4200 ~
Member Since: January 08 2006 ~
Last Visit: November 09 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 31 2008 : 1:33:54 PM
|
| I greatly admire the efforts here to get a PT version that works well...not a bad idea in my opinion. But this sure illustrates the inherent inferiority of the PT. With my PT, it greatly helps to have a clean, oiled unit, clean wheels and track, and powered switch frogs--also using a 6-axle unit helps, also. This way, I can get a PT to run basically as well as it would have originally....which might be the end-goal of a collector. I will run my 630 occasionally, keep in clean, and put it back in it's box. Otherwise, I use MU-2 locos and Tyco/Mantua steam, which are much more dependable. I guess, though, especially for the PT generation, there will soon be a point where you can't find a good, serviceable unit, and I guess the replacement would sound reasonable. I guess if my first train had been a Silver Streak instead of a '69 Santa Fe GP-20, I might want to be able to see it run well....if not just how it used to, maybe how I always WISHED it would run........Just some thoughts, sorry for rambling.
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 874 ~
Member Since: October 15 2007 ~
Last Visit: June 09 2019
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 31 2008 : 1:36:40 PM
|
quote:I wonder if Joe Newbie would pay extra to have the unit installed for him?
It might be good business to offer that service.
Again, It probsbly wouldn't be a great money maker but it would insure the unit was installed properly.
Another thought was to sell reconditioned Tyco locomotives with the TERP truck installed.
Originally posted by Ray Marinaccio - March 30 2008 : 4:52:07 PM
|
I think this is a good idea, I even suggested this earlier. If the cost of the conversion goes above that $20 threshold (which is still just my suggestion), then you will have to sell the value of your upgrade service on top of that. Certainly, people like me would love and prefer to DIY. But the average collector / casual fan / newbie / whatever may be intimidated. As I told Gareth... there WILL be a fair amount of work involved with the wiring. Nothing difficult, but enough to scare away those who lack soldering confidence.
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 2175 ~
Member Since: July 15 2006 ~
Last Visit: January 31 2010
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 31 2008 : 1:57:37 PM
|
quote:Do any of you think that a line of replacement parts for the original PT truck would sell?
With the variations of the trucks what Parts would be needed?
I would think that Gears, a rewound armature, super magnets, brushes and brush springs.
Should there be a replacement brush holder and block?
At that point we would have almost a complete reproduction truck.
With that said. How many Joe newbies would be able or willing to do a rebuild on their own.
Even this scenario has a limited customer base.
Personally I would like to see reproduction parts and the TERP to cover a larger customer base.
Gareth and I had also discussed manufacturing other parts such as side frames and weights cast from lead allows for extra weight.
Originally posted by Ray Marinaccio - March 31 2008 : 12:13:13 PM
|
I like the replacement parts idea. But personally, at least from me, it will have to be competitive with the notion of buying another PT loco on the cheap and harvesting parts from there. Your start-up costs for tooling may not overcome this.
To put that in perspective, what would you rather do: Buy a set of NOS handrails for the going rate of $10 shipped... or find a junker loco with intact handrails (and other goodies) for the same price?
To make replacement parts a worthy investment, you're going to have to address the design flaws of the PT. Which come down to 3 major flaws:
1) Exposed thin gearing and armature
2) Low fault tolerance
3) heat
The fault-tolerance aspect is derived thusly: A well-tuned and running PT DOES OUTPERFORM the competing drives from Life-Like, Lionel, Bachmann, the Mantua MU-2, and other trainset vendors of the era. BUT there is NO room for error on those. As soon as something goes wrong or out of whack, it's game over. And it doesn't take much.
If you make new gears, they will have to be durable. But since they will be exposed, you're still susceptible to contamination, which causes drag that burns the armature or spins the pinion. So you make the armature more durable to handle this, but again you are incurring more expense... at some point a balance will need to be achieved. And how much heat would a super armature generate?
The "super magnets" would be neat. I wonder what that would do to the armature. Too bad you can't use the magnets from a computer hard drive. THOSE things so strong as to be deadly! Just try to remove one from the side of a fridge...
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 2175 ~
Member Since: July 15 2006 ~
Last Visit: January 31 2010
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 31 2008 : 2:14:11 PM
|
Hey GIC:
I'm sure Ray will have his own responses but here are mine:
quote:| I like the replacement parts idea. But personally, at least from me, it will have to be competitive with the notion of buying another PT loco on the cheap and harvesting parts from there. Your start-up costs for tooling may not overcome this. |
quote:To put that in perspective, what would you rather do: Buy a set of NOS handrails for the going rate of $10 shipped... or find a junker loco with intact handrails (and other goodies) for the same price?
|
When most businesses factor out development costs an enormous element of that is Labour. Since this is essentially a labour of love or interest if you prefer it's really about parts/equipment access. Regardless of this project I was going to get a Mill and lather anyway so, their cause is incidental.
The problem with buying another PT is you're buying "Walmart" shoes taht won't last as oppesed to Clarks or Rockport that will. Some people will always buy the cheapest... Remember those old Fram filter ads: "You can pay me now OR pay me later." It is as I said in a earlier posting a choice.
quote:To make replacement parts a worthy investment, you're going to have to address the design flaws of the PT. Which come down to 3 major flaws:
1) Exposed thin gearing and armature
2) Low fault tolerance
3) heat |
In response:
1) Better materails (gears), higher quality motor
2) See #1
3) I would think a heat sink. Personally I think a real fan in one of the mock fan shrouds on the shell allowing real airflow would be way cool!
quote:The fault-tolerance aspect is derived thusly: A well-tuned and running PT DOES OUTPERFORM the competing drives from Life-Like, Lionel, Bachmann, the Mantua MU-2, and other trainset vendors of the era. BUT there is NO room for error on those. As soon as something goes wrong or out of whack, it's game over. And it doesn't take much.
If you make new gears, they will have to be durable. But since they will be exposed, you're still susceptible to contamination, which causes drag that burns the armature or spins the pinion. So you make the armature more durable to handle this, but again you are incurring more expense... at some point a balance will need to be achieved. And how much heat would a super armature generate? |
Have to give the exposure idea some thought...
quote:| The "super magnets" would be neat. I wonder what that would do to the armature. Too bad you can't use the magnets from a computer hard drive. THOSE things so strong as to be deadly! Just try to remove one from the side of a fridge... |
The simple answer according to a friend who's an electrician is: it would increase torque, therefore power and improve efficency...
OK, as Forrest Gump said... "I'm tired now."
-Gareth
Addendum:
I really like the rewind idea with superior magnets btw. It's a more "pure" or Orthodox approach if you will. Gears still need to be improved but a really good PT has it's own special charm. This wouldn't stop me from doing the replacement power truck. That has as much to do with being a machinging project as anything. But It certainly appeals...
Edited by - romcat on March 31 2008 2:21:38 PM
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 4200 ~
Member Since: January 08 2006 ~
Last Visit: November 09 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 31 2008 : 2:29:26 PM
|
quote:Have to give the exposure idea some thought...
The simple answer according to a friend who's an electrician is: it would increase torque, therefore power and improve efficency...
|
And there's the rub. No doubt the armature itself would be markedly improved. But if the rest of the system can't handle it, it would be for naught. That pinion already spin if you sneeze on it. Extra torque on a drag lined gear system won't help. It all has to be designed as a system... a simple can motor, even if it did fit perfectly, might expose other weaknesses.
I mean, when you stuffed that Pontiac engine into the Yota, you had to replace the transmission too, right? [:D]
To the notion of "what would Tyco have done, let's evolve the PT rather than replace it"....
I like the sentiment. I really do. But we already KNOW the answer to that question: after "years of development" to push out a turd of a drive, they just farted around and made minor revisions from then on. 4 revisions and they barely scratched a remedy to the root flaws I described above. And rather than truly fix it, they started buying engines from Mehano, and then exited altogether. So I think "evolution" is subject to interpretation. They PT itself was a replacement for, not an evolution of, the MU-2 after all...
That said, I do like keeping appearances. What if you designed a system that retained the axle centerlines to fit the stock plastic sideframes, and still fit in the mounting holes on the loco shells. Everything else is fair game. I truly think that THIS is the evolution Tyco might have pursued. Get some new gears that fit, and a can motor, and just create a new basic block they fit into. Forget the angst of trying to retain the old PT block and make parts that fit, with their inherent flaws.
Don't read this the wrong way. I'm not criticizing. But I'm trying to present a balanced approach, with all its considerations, as I think of them.
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 2175 ~
Member Since: July 15 2006 ~
Last Visit: January 31 2010
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 31 2008 : 2:45:45 PM
|
Hey GIC:
I was assuming SMART people took over Tyco. Ones with a longer view and love of Model Railiroading itself.
I agree with the whole new block idea, and if possibe a flat can motor. Question is getting power to the wheels in a very confined space allowing for the truck pivot.
I have kinda an Idea of what I'd like to see. Btw: one of my goals is to keep the Tyco sideframes Especially the Vamps! Where approproate, and the BB/CC truck capapbility. Thats also uniquilely Tyco.
Getting the thing to pop into the Tyco mounting ring will be fun!
Remember that scene in Apollo 13 where the guys stand in the room and the one fella walks in and says, "we have to make a carbon dioxide filter and all we have are THESE parts!"
Thats kinda where we are. Step one for me is going to be to borrow a vernier caliper and take some "lines" as boat builders say, off a Mk.3(?) PT front power block. Then get that into a CAD program...
Btw GIC; yeah with the redesign, you toss the chassis ground PT idea and go for a best truck. All wheel pick-up.
One thing. I really feel strongly that any "New" truck design be able to mount in the rear of the shell as well. Just my taste. I want 8-12 wheel drive.
-Gareth
Edited by - romcat on March 31 2008 2:48:52 PM
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 4200 ~
Member Since: January 08 2006 ~
Last Visit: November 09 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
Roy
Little Six
Status:
offline
| |
Posted - March 31 2008 : 3:54:05 PM
|
quote:Do any of you think that a line of replacement parts for the original PT truck would sell?
With the variations of the trucks what Parts would be needed?
I would think that Gears, a rewound armature, super magnets, brushes and brush springs.
Should there be a replacement brush holder and block?
At that point we would have almost a complete reproduction truck...Originally posted by Ray Marinaccio |
I think if all your parts were functional upgrades, while keeping the look of the PT truck the same, you'd have something worthwhile. You could also sell a complete drop-in truck, with all your upgrades. Some more thoughts on particulars:
-Armatures: Can be rewound as original, but also for higher voltage. Should reduce heat somewhat, and likelihood of burnout. Also, you might want to try stacks with more(or fewer) poles, which can be wound for any desired voltage.
-Magnets: Use the newer, MUCH more powerful ones.
-Brushes: Try shunted brushes, for more power, and less heat.
-Pick-up wheels: The reason nickel silver is preferred is that its oxide is still conductive. Again, less ohmic losses.
-Headlight bulbs: Replace with white LED's, which last almost forever, are much cooler, and draw less current.
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 108 ~
Member Since: December 25 2007 ~
Last Visit: October 11 2012
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 31 2008 : 4:18:29 PM
|
Hi Roy:
All constructive ideas.
I just sent an email to a guy to inquire about armature rewinding for more power. I know about the better magnet idea
more poles would make for smoother transition and therefore response.
Didn't know about the brushes idea. At least the type you mentioned...
NS wheelset, Yup. BUT as GIC pointed out, what will people pay.
Light again, yup. It's gonna be about how much work is the model train engineer going to want to do? In this day and age most guys are lazy RTR guys and many don't have a whisper of mechanical apptitude. Can that be cultivated sure!
-Gareth
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 4200 ~
Member Since: January 08 2006 ~
Last Visit: November 09 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
scmich
Little Six
Status:
offline
| |
Posted - March 31 2008 : 5:51:14 PM
|
Interesting discussion. I think GIC took the right approach at determining what group would be willing to pay, or think it worth while to upgrade their old Tyco. Out of the three groups, I think the nostalgic factor would be the most important. A true model railroader would conserve his funds for more pertinent projects I am sure. But someone with a Tyco they had as a kid would probably love to see it up and running for his own kids at Xmas every year. I think I am the epitome of nostalgic when it comes to Tyco. That nostalgia factor I believe comes hand in hand with the inability or a lack of do-it-yourselfness to undertake such a job voluntarily. Thus any demand for the upgrade would have to give the option of installation provided by the experts. I can see a demand for someone wanting to pack up a loco and send it off to a shop which would get it running better than new. The nostalgist won't be too concerned that what is under the hood isn't original, as long as it looks like the trains they played with when they were younger. Based on what these baby boomers pay for some things, there will be a segment of the market that is not concerned with price.
I am sure lots of guys, 30 - 50 yrs old, have taken their lifeless Tyco locos to a hobby shop to get running, only to be told they were better off buying something else. But if hobby shops were informed as to this service, you could drum up enough business to make it worth pursuing. Assuming hobby shops wouldn't still try to steer these folks to other options. (you might have to give incentives to the shops for referrals).
Of course, your peak demand might be Dec 1 thru Dec 20, with everyone wanting their refurbished loco turned around in a day.
Good chatting with you all again.
scott
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 122 ~
Member Since: October 26 2006 ~
Last Visit: April 22 2025
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 31 2008 : 7:21:07 PM
|
Geez...so many new ideas since I read this yesterday. Where do I start...
First off, I think the best idea would be making the new power truck with the same basic design as the PT...but using better materials. I think keeping it the same design as the original would allow people to not only buy replacement motors, but they would also be able to buy just specific parts. This way, collecters who want to fix a PT but keep the engine as original as possible would be able to replace just the broken parts and not have to replace the whole truck.
It may be kind of hard to "remake" a PT and have it run better. Another idea could be to come up with a new design that fits in the original mounting ring, as well as making a few replacement parts for the original truck. So for instance, you could make a whole new truck that an inexperienced guy could drop in (as long as he knows how to solder) and you could also make a small line of replacement parts (like brushes and gears) that an experienced collector could use to fix an old Tyco engine.
Like alot of people have said, it has to be cheap, otherwise people will just buy parts engines for a few dollars off ebay. ...but how much longer will this be cheap? Were seeing a rise in prices on ebay on old Tyco engines, and at the rate of death for PTs, how much longer will it be easy to find working PTs? Maybe there is not a big market for replacements today, but how about tommorrow?
I don't know if everything I said makes sense or is relevant to what everyone else is talking about, as I'm kinda rambling. But that's my opinion on this.
-cheez
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 3412 ~
Member Since: September 22 2006 ~
Last Visit: April 10 2025
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
Roy
Little Six
Status:
offline
| |
Posted - March 31 2008 : 8:49:30 PM
|
quote: I was thinking of trying a primary belt drive to replace the pinion and large gear of the reduction gear to eliminate the screeching gear noise.
I want to get things worked out with the geared version first.Originally posted by Ray Marinaccio
|
Why are you not turning down the armature shaft for the pinion? Is the motor case a bear to open?
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 108 ~
Member Since: December 25 2007 ~
Last Visit: October 11 2012
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 31 2008 : 9:30:42 PM
|
[:D] Just a thought, when this motor repair/replacement company gets operational, we should think of a second product line...
How about handrail kits!
And a third product line of replacement truck sideframes!
Just my two cents...
Mike
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 1586 ~
Member Since: December 07 2007 ~
Last Visit: May 04 2025
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 31 2008 : 10:00:56 PM
|
Hey Cheez:
On target as usual. GIC and I above are discussing a whole new flat can motor/truck drop in.
Mike:
Yeah, the handrail thing, since Anataol "Mr.Tyco" owns dam near every set in the known universe... I'm gonna talk to dan at Yardbird about this... also casting new side frames. This touches oon something Ray and I have been discussing which is metalcasting the TERP truck-block. I prefer machining because it gives me an excuse to get back into machining, but Ray brought up the casting idea and I have to say it's appealing for a lot of reasons, including a few different style sideframes, and a personal interest; an All-Weather cab for the the Tyco/Mantua Steamers!!!
And btw; DARN! This is a BUSY Thread!!!!
-Gareth
Edited by - romcat on March 31 2008 11:52:56 PM
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 4200 ~
Member Since: January 08 2006 ~
Last Visit: November 09 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 31 2008 : 10:21:10 PM
|
[:D] Not to muddy the water more... but I will,
How about the fourth product line being fuel tank replacements tying the missing truck frames you see on used mantua/tyco products.
Two more cents,
I'll see if I can afford anymore...
Mike
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 1586 ~
Member Since: December 07 2007 ~
Last Visit: May 04 2025
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - March 31 2008 : 11:26:02 PM
|
Hi Mike:
quote:| How about the fourth product line being fuel tank replacements tying the missing truck frames you see on used mantua/tyco products. |
Huh? I don't understand.
-Gareth
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 4200 ~
Member Since: January 08 2006 ~
Last Visit: November 09 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - April 01 2008 : 12:31:56 AM
|
Just throwing this out there.
For a source of gears,you might want to check out NWSL (Northwestshortline) they might even do custom stuff.
PS. I like the idea of a PT can motor truck.(but please no rubber bands)
Carl T.
President of the Cape James Terminal RR.
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 691 ~
Member Since: April 16 2006 ~
Last Visit: November 01 2020
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - April 01 2008 : 1:00:22 PM
|
Hey choochin:
NWSL is just too expensive. Thtas often true when somethingis sold to a hobby community.
-Gareth
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 4200 ~
Member Since: January 08 2006 ~
Last Visit: November 09 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
Roy
Little Six
Status:
offline
| |
Posted - April 01 2008 : 2:08:25 PM
|
Since the overall dimensions of the truck are critical to fitting in narrow-hooded diesels, and still allowing minimum turn radii, I think I'd try to integrate the motor casing into the truck frame itself. That way you could mount gear studs, the truck suspension spring pivot, and whatever, right to the motor casing.
Alternately, the casing could be removed, and the motor parts fitted directly into your frame. The advantage here is the ability to redesign the brush holder for easier brush maintenance, for instance.
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 108 ~
Member Since: December 25 2007 ~
Last Visit: October 11 2012
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - April 02 2008 : 02:34:31 AM
|
Instead of manufacturing a whole new truck block, wouldn't it be simpler to take a bunch of scrapped PT's, and machine them to accept the new can motor and gearing? Then you could sell it as a kit, or preassembled for those with less DIY know-how. You could also give a discount to those who donate their old truck block for recycling. You'd need a good supply of old trucks, but PowerTorques show up in parts auctions all the time. Ray probably has more than a few in his junk box.
quote:quote:Why don't we just make them rubber band powered? [:D]
Originally posted by NickelPlate759 - March 29 2008 : 8:33:41 PM
|
I was thinking of trying a primary belt drive to replace the pinion and large gear of the reduction gear to eliminate the screeching gear noise.
I want to get things worked out with the geared version first.
Originally posted by Ray Marinaccio - March 30 2008 : 07:24:17 AM
|
Well, I was joking about the rubber bands, of course, but belt drives do have their merits, like this setup I put in one of my Rivarossi U25C's.
I used pulleys and a belt salvaged from various tape and disc drives. It pulls like heck with no slippage.
The fly in the ointment for a belt in the PT truck would be lubricants slinging off of the gearing, or hair and lint. Either would likely be a deal breaker.
The Tyco Depot
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 3927 ~
Member Since: June 20 2007 ~
Last Visit: November 19 2015
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - April 02 2008 : 02:56:00 AM
|
Hey NP:
Here's my thinking. Now you've done some building obviously from the belt drive on your U-Boat. When I think of the work of disassembly of a PT then setting it up on a Mill's vise, or perhaps using a lathe to machine that block to make another motor fit I'd be wondering, wouldn't it be simpler to produce a set ot PT like TERP blocks. There are changes that could be made in the redesigned block like changing the material. GIC suggested for example using plastic as a block material, Isolating the motor to allow for all wheel pick-up. All thats easier if designed in from the outset, but especially if the manufacturing process is designed at the same time.
Finally, while Ray may have several PT trucks in his junk box as do most of us, I think you need a larger block of "cores" to commit to a production process.
-Gareth
PS: I'd really appreciate some more pictures of that belt drive system!?
Edited by - romcat on April 02 2008 02:57:24 AM
|
|
Country: Canada ~
Posts: 4200 ~
Member Since: January 08 2006 ~
Last Visit: November 09 2021
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
|
|
Posted - April 02 2008 : 05:13:01 AM
|
quote:Well, I was joking about the rubber bands, of course, but belt drives do have their merits, like this setup I put in one of my Rivarossi U25C's.
Originally posted by NickelPlate759Â -Â April 02 2008Â :Â 01:34:31 AM
|
Nice job remotoring the U boat
Ray
|
|
Country: USA ~
Posts: 1285 ~
Member Since: December 14 2005 ~
Last Visit: May 16 2019
|
Alert Moderator
|
|
Home
Forums
Events Calendar
Forum Admins & Mods
Register
