At the White Bear Lake Century College train show last saturday I bought a Clinchfield 6005 GP38 for only $25! I went to the show for fun with a low budget. An older gentleman sitting behind the table saw me looking at it and said $25. I said "for the engine"? He replied nicely, yes I just want to get rid of it. So I bought it for $25. Looks good and not beat up. Dual motors. He said it runs. I have not ran it yet. All other diesels I have are GP9 8158 and two twin motor GP20s. I'm VERY happy to have gotten this deal,,, the engine was probably over $200 when sold new. I'm wondering if there is a way to lower the chassis a little bit so the body of the engine sits a little bit lower? I probably will paint it in either DM&IR or DM&E eventually.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
When Lionel did that with the MPC Geeps, we were horrified.
We took one once.......many moons ago....I think the handrails were spot welded to the frame...cut out or drilled out all the spot welds, flipped the frame, re-soldered, I think, the handrails.....and found out the trucks needed heavy work to allow the frame to sit lower, and threw it all away, never bough another post-post-post war Geep.
I think it's fixable, but as the Vegamaster said, ain't worth the effort.
if this is one of the MPC/LTI geeps with the plastic truck assy's with the can motors it can't be done. the design of the truck prevents it. you'll just have to live with it.
MPC did that so they could use the motor assembly from the 200 series Alcos and the 600 series switchers to power the Geeps. (Lionel Corp had used the more expensive motor from the F3s in its Geeps.) More than being cheaper per unit, this let MPC get away with producing only one kind of diesel motor in its first years (F3s did not reappear until '73). So it was a clever move from an engineering standpoint, but it did make the engine sit high. (One thing I still do not quite understand is why MPC chose to use what appears to be the pilot from the PW 44-tonner. It is shorter than the PW Geep pilot, which makes the gap between the pilot and frame worse than it needs to be.)
When they developed the can motor trucks, I'm sure it made sense to leave the rest of the engine the way it was, so the can motor trucks also require the "flipped frame." But to my eye, the can motor equipped engines look even taller than the earlier MPC offerings--not sure why that had to be.
The way to lower it would be to recess the truck into the cab area. That would involve cutting out the center of the frame (where the truck attaches) and making a replacement out of sheet metal. Trouble is, the truck is wide, and its "shoulders" (for lack of a better word) would hit the underside of the walkways. Maybe the "shoulders" could be filed down? It's your engine to experiment on if you like, but I think there is a high chance of failure. It might be better just to get used to looking at it.
Just look for a used Williams. They sit lower and run much better.
I have not had a thing for the GP38. I would love to have an SD40-2, but cheap ones are hard to find in 3 rail. Maybe I could just ebay this one and save the money toward an SD40-2,,, or I might buy a 2nd DM&IR 8158 to go with the one I was given back in 1981.
I have two of those. An L&N model from some years ago and a Chessie system model. Both run well I think. A williams GP-38 will probably pull more cars, but the Lionel 027 GP-38's a still good models. To my eye, the hieght is not an issue. I think you should just run and enjoy it the way it is.
George
The height is noticeable when the engine is at eye level. The lower part of my layout is about 40 inches,, upper level is about one foot below my eye level. So I think I will keep the engine physically stock and paint it in either DM&E or DM&IR colors.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month