Noticed that my Stewart FTA and B-unit combo derails through any switch. #4 or #6. Also happens on a winding main line. Looking at the Units upsidedown, I note that the Side Frame on one truck (or two) has pulled away from one, not two, wheel and the wheel axle point is exposed. I assume the Side Frame then catches on a part of the switch. Did not take the truck appart. Old and shaky fingers! If the three Pins are intact and just slide about, could I add a triny bit of glue to a Pin or two to hold the Side Frame in place? Or? Thanks very much. (temporarily pulling train with P2K E6A)
(Again) What Manufacturers FT Shells fit Stewart Hobbies FT Chassis?
After reviewing many Posts, threads, the discussion is regarding fitting FTA's to FTB's Shells etc. I am interested in finding out if Other Manufacturers, ie: Bachmann FT A or B Shells will fit the Stewart FT Chassis?
Any Shells able to fit the Stewart FT Chassis?
Thank you.
My latter era Stewart labeled F9's came in the two-level boxes; Powered F9A and dummer F9B.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I have Buehler or Canon motors in my Stewart VO-660 & VO-1000 switchers are they run terrific.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
RailtwisterI have three Stewart F-units, the first was a single loco with a Kato (Japan) drive, while the others were sold as an A+B set in the two level box, and both came with Buehler motor drives.
None of mine came in two level boxes with Buehler motors. All mine were purchased as individual models, all powered (even the B units), and all with Kato drives.
Sorry I have no experience or familiarity with Buehler motored Stewart locomotives.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
The locos in question were an F7a (powered) packaged in a single two-level box along with an F7b (dummy) in expanded foam protectors separated by a flat piece of foam about 1/4” thick. While it is possible that the shrink wrap may have been added by the distributor or even the dealer after they left the factory, I am certain these units were new and not used, as evidenced by a close inspection of the wheelsets, which showed no wear marks whatsoever. I spent almost 20 years working for one of the best known shops in the US, and we even had an automated shrink wrap machine, but as I remember, the Stewart locos that came in single loco boxes were not wrapped, but the larger, two unit boxes were shrink wrapped.
I have three Stewart F-units, the first was a single loco with a Kato (Japan) drive, while the others were sold as an A+B set in the two level box, and both came with Buehler motor drives. The second set, I did buy used from a member of a local club for $40 (and it came with American Limited diaphragms). It had all sideframe pins broken, plus a burned trace on the DCC/light board, all of which I chaulked up to customer abuse and repaired after getting new sideframes from Bowser. The third unit stayed in it’s shrink wrap until two weeks ago, when I finally decided to take it out and add a decoder to it. It was then that I discovered all of the sideframe pins on this unit also were broken, so I called Bowser and ordered new sideframes (the sideframes were cheap enough at $1.04 each, but the shipping was more than that). I ordered them on Monday morning, and received them in the mail Thursday afternoon, so thanks to Bowser for the great service! I could tell by inspecting the wheels and drive components that this unit was new and never had been run. Oddly, there were no “nubs” from the broken sideframe pins found in the trucks of the new unit (but there were some in the used unit I had repaired earlier). In any event thanks to the great service from Bowser, all three of my Stewart F7a units are now up and running, finally.
I have tested the American Limited diaphragms on the used A+B along with Kadee #450 couplers on the A unit only, with stock Stewart knuckles on the B unit, and they seem to work on my test oval’s 16-7/8” radius UniTrack curves so it looks like I’ll be ordering some Kadee #450’s and American Limited diaphram kits for the other units now.
Bill in FtL
I have a Stewert U25B with the Atheran drive and it runs great!Had it over 20 years and the only trouble I had is a burned out headlamp.Just had to lighty oil the gears every few years!
They were in sealed plastic bags, but not shrink wrapped. That's how I knew the broken step on my first one was somethign that happened at the factory and not in shipping - the broken off piece was not in the bag, and it was sealed up tight. It was still Stewart then, and even though I bought the loco on eBay, they sent me a brand new repalcement shell (it was of course a Reading unit, not an undec).
I've never had a problem with the truck sideframes falling off, and I've run my various sets quite a bit. Getting the brake parts on was a little fiddly, but they've since stayed togetherm and there's not much delicate stuff to break off in handling, unless you've applied additional details to get grabs, ladders, lift rings, etc.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
I am pretty sure I have 9 or 10 of the Stewart/Kato F units. None of them have any problems at all.
These models for the majority of my diesel fleet.
I am wondering about the shrink wrap. None of my locomotives were shrink wrapped when new that I recall. The box was taped shut, but I do not remember any wrapping.
Bill,
My guess is that someone prior to you attempted to take apart the trucks and broke the pins to the side frames in the process. I know because I did that inadvertantly myself one time with one of my Stewart F3s. IIRC, I ended up contacting Bowser and they were kind enough to ship me three sets of replacement side frames at no charge. Not what I was expecting.
So, it would be worth contacting Bowser and explaining your situation to them. They may just ship you the replacement parts free of charge - just like they did for me.
Bill, how do you know that "shrink wrapped" engine wasn't used and then just shrink wrapped to make it look like new/old stock. I've bought over 20 Stewart F units new back in the 1990's and none of them were shrink wrapped. I strongly suspect you ended up with some used, possibly abused Stewart F units being packaged to appear as new. I've heard nothing but good things about Stewart F chassis for a very long time. Something doesn't sound right here and is far from the experiences I've had or read about over the past 30 years.
As for Athearn blue box F units, if you can tolerate the crude appearnce of the old F7 shell that was tooled by Globe in the 1950's then it's up to you. I find the blue box F7A to look have poorly rendered features such as the huge windshield opening, poorly rendered number boards and featureless air grills. While Stewart are not Athearn Genesis, there is still a night and day difference from the Athearn blue box.
I would still not hesitate to recommend Stewart F units as engines with exellent chassis that run very well - as they should being manufactured by KATO. The shells look pretty good too and are well proportioned and dress up nicely with details.
I used to think Stewart was top quality but my opinion has changed due to my experience with 3 F7 Stewart loco sets where two out of the three powered units have suffered failures of all of the sideframe mounting pins, requiring total tear down of the trucks to fix the problem. The first was on a unit I bought at a local Trainshow from one of the sponsoring club’s members. I thought the damage was simply due to his carelessness until I removed the shrink wrap on a brand new “old stock” set of locos today to add a decoder and finally put into service on my layout. Upon opening it, I found all of the sideframes mounting pins to be broken. Hopefully, the sideframes are still available from Bowser, but when I bought them last time, they weren’t cheap, especially when you consider the minimum cost of shipping. Also, these things are a PITA to tear down without Breaking something else.
The old Athearn blue box locos still are the best balance of robust design, serviceable assembly, and reliable operation, even if they might be a bit noisier.
Hmm!
This thread is from a "few" years back but since it has resurfaced, I'll post my tidbit.
I purchased a "whitebox" Stewart-Hobbies F7 back in the 1990s. New York Central "lightning striper". By today's standards the detailing would be considered bland, but overall it's an attractive unit and what I find impressive is how quietly it runs, along with good pulling power. Current draw is very low.
I've only taken it out of the box a few times over the years to run it on my test track, so she still looks new. I think it is equipped with a KATO drive.
Although the shell is not Genesis level I like how it looks, especially the nose and windshield contours.
I plan on converting it to DCC-sound (likely TCS-Wow decoder). After the 90s I switched my focus to SCL, ACL, and the New Haven but this one will be an occasional "foreign power" visitor on my rails.
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
I have ~50 Stewart/Kato F units. I started purchasing them in the early 90s. I have never had a motor fail. I have never had a mechanical failure. They run extreamly smooth and quiet.
I have a couple of Intermountain and BLI engines. Their bodies are better detailed but they don't run any better.
I recently purchsed some Walthers P2K bodies and they snap right on the Stewart/Kato chassis. A nice upgrade.
The reason some folks got upset with the one motor is that, at nearly stall on a grade, a higher torque motor will continue to spin the wheels and may slip but will try to keep running. The lower torque one used for a few years would apparently stop and then overheat and fry. For those of us who don't run heavier trains at very slow speeds, it might not be an issue.
But for some folks it was an issue.
Not being an electronics expert, this is about the simplest explanation I can provide.
For many users on the typical 4 x 8 layout, with only modest train lengths, any or all of the motors used recently by the 3 manufacturers, even the Buehler of several years ago, would likely suffice just fine.
John
Thanks John. I have a C420 and a U30B from the NdeM run and they do seem to "chug" a bit under load and have the silver motor, so I assume the chugging may be due to low torque, but perhaps not. I do not have any locomotives newer than the NdeM run you mentioned, which seems to be about 2010 to 2012.
- Douglas
Bowser switched to a new much better motor at the time the C-636 was introduced (that is when Lee first specified the change). So far as I am aware, all Bowser production since the very first run of C-636 (which unfortunately was actually assembled with the old motor) uses the new motor.
I haven't opened one up to look at the color of the motor. They might look similar to the "low torque" version, or not, I don't know. The new U25B I just bought runs much better than the C-636 first run engine did.
Since they share the same factory with Atlas and Intermountain, and people had experienced the same issues with motors from all 3, I am very certain that Atlas and Intermountain have also upgraded to the "new" motor.
That is why I said my belief was that the "lower torque" motor, or whatever you choose to call it, was only used on a few runs, over perhaps a couple years. Whether that began during 2010 or not, I do not know. To know for certain one would have to have purchased something from every single production run of all 3 manufacturers from 2010 till now, and who has done that?
The manufacturers make minor changes, at least to the mechanism, or decoders, etc. on nearly every run. Just because you buy a C-630 this year definitely does not mean it is exactly the same inside as one made just last year. They may be the same, and they may not. Usually I find the newer ones to be improved. Everybody has been trying to improve both sound and lighting effects, so two of the same anything one run apart will most likely be different--different voltage response, etc.
Respectfully submitted-
I have a Stewart U25B (late 90's-early 2000's?). Great runner but the front truck derails at some places on the layout. Its the only one of my locomotives that does this. But, still may be my track work, may be the truck on the locomotive. I haven't had a chance to check that out thoroughly. Other than that, it will be one of my best performers, once I get the bugs worked out.
PRR8259 Atlas definitely used the lower torque motors, as discussed to great detail on the Atlas Rescue Forum, on a run of RSD-5's a couple years ago (the run included NdeM red-orange and dark green units). I owned two. They ran very well, but lack the torque of the previous Atlas motors. Also, I'm pretty sure they used those motors on some C-420's, but likely not the very most recent run. (Probably included the run with NdeM high nose C-420's in it). If you go over on the Atlas Rescue Forums, they have photos of the "good" Atlas motor used for many years, and photos of the "weak" motor as well. I believe the motor change was allegedly to be more "ideal" for DCC operations, but unfortunately did involve a loss of torque which really ticked off those who like to haul long/heavy consists. Some Trainman units, GP38-2's and GP39-2's, probably do have the weaker motor, as well. John
Atlas definitely used the lower torque motors, as discussed to great detail on the Atlas Rescue Forum, on a run of RSD-5's a couple years ago (the run included NdeM red-orange and dark green units). I owned two. They ran very well, but lack the torque of the previous Atlas motors. Also, I'm pretty sure they used those motors on some C-420's, but likely not the very most recent run. (Probably included the run with NdeM high nose C-420's in it). If you go over on the Atlas Rescue Forums, they have photos of the "good" Atlas motor used for many years, and photos of the "weak" motor as well. I believe the motor change was allegedly to be more "ideal" for DCC operations, but unfortunately did involve a loss of torque which really ticked off those who like to haul long/heavy consists. Some Trainman units, GP38-2's and GP39-2's, probably do have the weaker motor, as well.
Okay. I should have been more specific. I am aware of Atlas switching from the black kato-ish motor to the silver colored motor in about 2010 for many of the 4 axle GPs, Uboats, C420s and RS's, maybe even six axle diesels (I don't follow them). I believe they continue to use that silver colored motor in current releases.
I read your post as some of the importers used low torque motors for a few runs in the past then got wise and used a more stout motor again.
So my question is, is the silver colored motor found in many new diesel products today still that low torque motor, or did the importers switch to a different motor, but one that looks the same as the low torque job installed starting in about 2010?
PRR8259 In some ways I think people were happier then, with less "expectations" of the imported trains than today.
In some ways I think people were happier then, with less "expectations" of the imported trains than today.
I couldn't agree more.
Chuck - Modeling in HO scale and anything narrow gauge
Bowser used the "weaker" torque motor that some complained about on the very first run of C-636's (they were supposed to have the new motor, but the change was not implemented in China in time for the completion of that particular product run). To the best of my knowledge, all Bowser production since that very first run of C-636's has the new motor, which seems to have plenty of torque (I have a Santa Fe U25B). It is probable that some C-630's and C-628's made prior to the first run of C-636's may have the weaker motor. All Bowser SD40-2's are supposed to have the good, new motor.
Intermountain: some of the ES44's from a couple years ago probably have the weaker motor. As I'm not into the really modern stuff, though I did own a few, I can't say which units.
I'm primarily a steam guy, so have only owned a few of these diesels. They ran ok for me. The Bowser C-636 first run ran great for me--but people who really load their units down did have some issues. There also was some gear noise due to a dimensional issue, which was fixed with a free parts upgrade available directly from Bowser for those units. Bowser to their credit has bent over backwards to provide free parts to replace things that were found to be incorrect (gears, fuel tanks and a slight adjustment to body height off rail).
Other units may have been affected, but people complained about the motors, and the change was pretty quick in coming along, so I don't believe too many product runs came in with the weaker motors--again, because the public started complaining directly to the manufacturers.
What I do not know, and perhaps even my friends who still work for Bowser may not remember, is when the Buehler motors were used and when they were discontinued, and/or what they were replaced with at that time. Obviously, they were trying to find the best motor they could for today's fully-featured locos, and the one just didn't pan out.
I also have absolutely no idea why the Cannon coreless motor once used in brass models during the late 1970's and 1980's was dropped, or is not used for today's HO plastic. Perhaps it was just not a dcc friendly motor. Perhaps it was "too expensive".
Perhaps the following history links may be of some use. There appears to be a rather noticable overlap.
http://www.buehlermotor.com/en/history
http://www.bowser-trains.com/aboutus.html
CG
PRR8259 ...... which prompted them to search for other motors, which also briefly resulted in the low torque motor that appears to have only been used for maybe two years by Bowser/Atlas/Intermountain (who share the same factory) prior to all of them dumping it and replacing it. John
...... which prompted them to search for other motors, which also briefly resulted in the low torque motor that appears to have only been used for maybe two years by Bowser/Atlas/Intermountain (who share the same factory) prior to all of them dumping it and replacing it.
John. Not wanting to derail the thread about Stewart, but what years did those other manufacturers install the low torque motors? Do you know what specific runs?
Bowser used Buehler motors (which at one time had a good reputation; Overland Models used them, too) for a little while on the former Stewart line engines, and they did receive some complaints about the Buehler motors, which prompted them to search for other motors, which also briefly resulted in the low torque motor that appears to have only been used for maybe two years by Bowser/Atlas/Intermountain (who share the same factory) prior to all of them dumping it and replacing it.
I've never heard of any complaints about the original Kato drives. I unloaded those Atlas/Kato and Stewart/Kato models off the delivery trucks years ago, and well remember when they were the "gold standard" of the hobby. In some ways I think people were happier then, with less "expectations" of the imported trains than today.
There also were Stewart models with Athearn drives, and I don't remember what motor was in them (included but not limited to the original U25B)
Ken, I don't know what motors the KATO chassis had in them, but I haven't heard any complaints about them so far and they've been out since the late 1980's. I've got around 13 of the original Stewart F units (white box with red plaide) and they are nice and heavy and run really smoothly as one would expect from a KATO drive.
After Stewart brought the KATO tooling over to the US in the mid-late 1990's, he modified the chassis so they had a different motor and circuit board. Modelers found they ran smooth as the KATO drives but I have not heard long-term if those chassis have held up as well. Bowser took over Stewart Hobbies in 2004 and has continued to provide the legacy Stewart F units as well as versions in the "Executive Line".
I can only personally vouch for the original KATO drive F units which I have run, and they have a long history of highly satisfied customers over the past 25 years.
gmpullmanI had three (maybe four?) that had Bühler can motors that "burned up"
Ed (missing you at the dinner) My had the Buhler motors so that explains why I called them junk. I don't remember how long they ran but when they started BBQing Decoders I got rid of them.
Ken
I hate Rust
DAVID FORTNEY Although Steward F's are nice I have found that Athearns RTR F's are just as nice. With a little work and detailing on both they are great runners. The Athearn RTR runs smooth and they look great. I change out the bulbs to LEDs and close the gap between units and add some details that put it on par with other F's that cost allot more. For around $80+- for new AB units you can't go wrong IMO.
Although Steward F's are nice I have found that Athearns RTR F's are just as nice. With a little work and detailing on both they are great runners.
The Athearn RTR runs smooth and they look great. I change out the bulbs to LEDs and close the gap between units and add some details that put it on par with other F's that cost allot more. For around $80+- for new AB units you can't go wrong IMO.
I don't agree at all about the Athearn RTR looking great. Athearn may put nicer paint jobs on the RTR version than the old blue box version but the basic Athearn F7A shell is to my eye very crude by even 1990's standards but considering the molds were tooled in the 1950's it isn't a suprise. The windshield openings are oversized and gross looking, the side air grills are just horizontal grooves and have no detail, the numberboards on the nose are poorly shaped when compared to the real thing, the top head light casting is also poor.
The Stewart basic F unit shell is orders of magnitude better in appearance and fidelity.
My roster had about two-dozen Stewart/Kato/Bowser locomotives from various "runs" probably spanning ten years or more.
I had three (maybe four?) that had Bühler can motors that "burned up". Sparks would come from the commutator, the motor would stall and the current draw would jump to about 2 amps. When looking for replacement motors I found it was cheaper to find powered chassis for only slightly more cost.
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/744/t/239484.aspx
I could never figure out what failed on the motors. I ran them on a test bench and they would run fine for ten or fifteen minutes then go into a frenzy of sparking, smoking and slowing down, then just as quickly go back to running smoothly again.
These were presumably top quality, USA made motors but there must have been a bad lot of them.
Still, I would rate Bowser as one of my favorite locomotive manufacturers. It was just that one instance of the 3 bad motors that ever gave me any trouble.
Regards, Ed
trwroute cudaken The Stwearts I bought (4 of them) where junk! While it took a while all the motors burned out and ate there decoders. Ken Never heard anyone call Stewart locos junk before. I've had at least a dozen and they were all excellent runners. Not sure why you had a hard time with them.
cudaken The Stwearts I bought (4 of them) where junk! While it took a while all the motors burned out and ate there decoders. Ken
The Stwearts I bought (4 of them) where junk! While it took a while all the motors burned out and ate there decoders.