Randy,
I remember that article (now that you mentioned it!) and have it somewhere in my collection of MR mags. I have most from the early 50's to the present. Will have to unpack some boxes tomorrow as they are all in storage under my layout or in the closet in the trainroom. Would be nice to have the DVD now!
-Bob
More useful info: in the April and May 1956 MR there is a two part article on scratchbuilding a model of CNJ 1000.
--Randy
[/quote]
Life is what happens while you are making other plans!
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Someone in the railroad-line.com is doing this boxcab with the Stanton drives, number 39259-4, which are 38" wheels with a 7' wheelbase.
He says the drives zip along quite nice with a little bit of juice.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
Well, with the other links I've found, the wheels are the next cunundrum. The MDC ones are too large, the 44 tonner ones are too small. However, with those nicer, open sideframes on the 44 tonner trucks it might not look as bad - since the model flanges are oversized anyway. The other alternative on the one site i linked it just a tad too expensive for my taste - using the NWSL STanton drives. I can buy a pair of boxcabs, a pair of 44 tonners, and 2 sets of those sideframes for the cost of one Stanton unit, though it surely is nice.
rrinker Gentlemen, our problems are solved! Here are some replacement sideframes for the 44 tonner trucks that look much more like the proper Boxcab ones and are more detailed than either the MDC ones or the Bachmann ones. http://www.laserkit.com/ldgecab1.html Note that in my searches I also found MDC made two versions of the body shell - both with and without the end doors. Most of them had end doors - which for whatever reason seems to be the shell version MDC included int he track cleaner versions of the boxcab - ie, the one where you couldn't see the doors! The other big difference, only the first ones had the big 'pot' exhause stacks, almsot all others had a pair of mufflers mounted horizonatally on the roof. ANd other modeling link I found: http://www.railroad-line.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=36088&whichpage=1 Dang it, now I want to build one for myself. I have enough things to work on without adding a new project to my list. --Randy
Gentlemen, our problems are solved! Here are some replacement sideframes for the 44 tonner trucks that look much more like the proper Boxcab ones and are more detailed than either the MDC ones or the Bachmann ones.
http://www.laserkit.com/ldgecab1.html
Note that in my searches I also found MDC made two versions of the body shell - both with and without the end doors. Most of them had end doors - which for whatever reason seems to be the shell version MDC included int he track cleaner versions of the boxcab - ie, the one where you couldn't see the doors! The other big difference, only the first ones had the big 'pot' exhause stacks, almsot all others had a pair of mufflers mounted horizonatally on the roof.
ANd other modeling link I found:
http://www.railroad-line.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=36088&whichpage=1
Dang it, now I want to build one for myself. I have enough things to work on without adding a new project to my list.
Great link on the sideframes, I'll be picking up set, thanks Randy
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
Well now I have started a small book with notes, photos and sketches on the Boxcab! The more I read about what others are doing and seeing the photos, I find myself preferring the larger wheels on the MDC rather than the smaller ones on the 44 tonner. Just my preference but it seems to make a diffierence in the overall look of the engine. This is not a final decision of course! Just a lot of data to look at now and as I always say "When in doubt, do nothing!". I obviously need to do more research on this to resolve the power train issue, so keep posting data guys!
As always, thanks for your help.
farrellaa Geared Steam: Nice job and you are right about not noticing the sideframes. I did notice the smaller wheels on the 44 tonner when I put them next to each other today. Maybe I will reconsider using the 44 tonner. Also, thanks for the prototype photo; I wasn't sure about some of the details on the model. I just think it is an unusual loco and it has some appeal being so compact. -Bob
Geared Steam: Nice job and you are right about not noticing the sideframes. I did notice the smaller wheels on the 44 tonner when I put them next to each other today. Maybe I will reconsider using the 44 tonner. Also, thanks for the prototype photo; I wasn't sure about some of the details on the model. I just think it is an unusual loco and it has some appeal being so compact.
I too have developed a love for these boxcabs (funny how that happens) I was at one time considering modelling the Butte, Anaconda and Pacific RR that ran from Butte to Anaconda,but instead of gas/diesel, they used a trolley. Look at those trucks!
http://greatnortherntech.com/B%20A%20&%20P/B.P.%20&%20A.%201.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butte,_Anaconda_and_Pacific_Railway
Some Tichy ore cars, cantenary plus the opportunity to model the Milwaukee Road, NP and the BAPRR all in one canyon.
Tim Warris also helped me catch the bug, check out his boxcab (with sound) on his famous Bronx Terminal layout.
Regardless of how you do it, have fun and good luck.
Likewise. I have a soft sopot for these locos,a nd even though the Reading ones were off the roster and scrappe dby my era, I plan to fudge a little and have one. Under the new numbers, since I already have S1's 50 and 51, so I have to do 98 or 99. ANd yes, too many projects alreayd in the works to start another right now.
Once thing I shoudl mention, the last oen I tried to o, not only did I paint the interior in the institutional green color, I also lined it with sheet lead for more pullign power. That made it a LOT quieter - half the noise I think is the cab providing a sounding board for the noise of the gears. I remain convinced that with some careful work and maybe repalcement of a few parts they can run reasonably quietly without swapping the chassis. I'm not a rivet counter, but the 44 tonner just looks wrong to me. More so if you would plan to do an as-delivered unit like it was new, with the drivers whitewalled like a steam loco, the smalelr wheels on the 44 tonner would really stand out then. I guess I've paid far too much attention to these early boxcabs over the years. It's liek the signature Reading drip rails on the cabs roofs of locos, now that I've put them on some of my GP7's, I notice them missing on every other loco, so I need to add them.Tiny detail but once you see it, you knwo when it's not there.
Thanks for the info and links to the boxcabs. This is becoming a new direction for me and may require another model to work on as a separate 'detailing ' project. Not that I don't have enough 'projects' already, but this is truly a unique loco and deserves more attention.
Thanks again,
Unique isnt the word. This was the first operational diesel-electric switcher in the US.
The details are 'average' - they didn;t ALL look the same, the whole thing was highly experimental and they tried a bunch of different options, especially witht he cooling. Instead of those radiators liek the model and that particular prototype, some had a small box with fans in it. Such as this photo of Reading #99 from Railfan.net:
The Reading units were ogirinally 50 and 51, until the Also S1's came along, and the boxcabs were renumberd 98 and 99 for their last few years. 50 (98) looked like the model and the prototype pictured above, 51(98) had the box, although it appears this may have been changed at some point. There used to be a nice web site covering all variations of these locos (there are larger, heavier ones with dual diesel engines as well), but it appears to have been a victim of AT&T removing personal web pages. AH, it found a new home. Here, more info that you could ever want on these and similar locos: http://sbiii.com/boxcabdx.html
Change the 44 ton side frames to the MDC side frames, I preferred to have an operating loco vs a poorly running blender for twice the price. but good luck to you, I did much research on this prior to making my decision, even talked several times to LaFever,in the end, I went with the modern approach, no one ever notices the side frames, or cares that much, paint and weathering will help
Well the 44 tonner is a little longer on the wheelbase and as Randy said, the sideframes arent' the same. So far mine is running quite well although a little noisey and it almost sounds like a diesel. I think I will just try a decoder for now and if that works OK I will leave the motor as is. The photo of the can motor with gear and flywheel looks exactly like the can motor I have, so that may not be a difficult job if I decide to replace it.
I am really grateful to all you guys for the input on this. At least I know this little engine has had some serious rework done by others. I will post some pics when I get it done and when I get a new camera! (mine just won't work anymore, apparently I got some sand in the lens mechanism at the beach earlier this year and it is jammed.).
Guys,
Thanks for all the quick replies. I have the Climax running on the club's DCC layout and I've added an LED headlight. The noise of the unit is quite distracting, especially since it makes adding sound not feasable.
I've spoken to NWSL and he said that he might work on a repowering/regearing unit for the Roundhouse Boxcab/Climax and to watch for its release. When? Who knows. He told me that the current option that combines various available parts, would be too difficult for a novice. Meanwhile, I wanted to add a can motor while I was waiting for regearing but I'm inclimed to agree with the poster who blames the noise on the plastic gears and frame rather than the open frame motor.
BTW, the unit looks dynamite repainted in black and earth (does a decent job resembling wood). With the LED and the DCC installed, the unit looks much better than it sounds or runs.
I hope that NWSL actually makes a regearing/remotoring kit. If others are insterested, I suggest that you make it known to NWSL. I have 2 other units ready to be reworked.
Thanks.
Ed
The original open frame motor and flywheel in the boxcab photos does not run as well as the Climax with can motor and flywheel. Each end of flywheel shaft in the original adds a little friction and noise. The original fly wheel is kind of a rough casting and wobbulates a little in the plastic support for each end of the flywheel.
Roughly simulates the sound of a noisy diesel when run on our DCC club layout as it has the track cleaner pads.
Actually, NWSL even says the stock motor doesn't have to be repalced - it's an open fram Sagami what runs well. It's the gears and drive that are noisy.
Yeah, the 44-ton repalcement is definitely one way to go, but as I mentioned, the truck sideframes and the wheelbase are off. Doesn't really matter for the Climax since half of those were built up from what seems to be spare parts anyway. If you're not picky, it's probably close enough for the boxcab.
I do know NWSL has nothing specific but Ron might have found something there that worked. At any rate, when I get home I will see if I can find the book he wrote for the specifics.
The motor runs very well but I was surprised at the price. I have seen similar motors on ebay once in a while.
A lot of fine tuning in each truck is needed as well as #30 wires instead of the metal clips used on each truck.
The frame had to be shaved.
The plastic shells transfer any vibration quite well.
A site called, Two Guyz and Some Trains had a very good article using a drive belt anf two pulleys instead of the gears but the site is gone.
Can always fall back on what Geared Steam did.
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/2009/09/mdc-boxcab.html
I don't think those are NWSL products, or if they are, they don;t have anythign anymore. The current catalog lists, under the ROundhouse CLimax/Boxcab section, that these locos cannot be economically re-geared - which makes no sense to me, unless I am missing somethign it's a matter of making a better quality gear inthe same size, and they have TONS of different size gears they already make. At any rate, the only kits they have are for the Shay, and it appears that the Shay is vastly different than the Climax/Boxcab even though they all drive from the center in much the same fashion.
The person I got the parts from is gone from the Internet becasue of health reasons. He published a book with details but I have to find it. Below is the motor, flywheel and gear. I think the gear and flywheel are from NWSL but I have to find the book.
I saved his website as an HTML document for the below data.,
OPTION #5 - PRECISION CAN-MOTOR FF-180PH - $10.OO PLU4.55 SHIPPING
MOTOR WITH FLYWHEETL AND BRASS 26 TOOTH
All motors are new, not used. Motor running at full throttle when power is shut off, will take 2-3 seconds to coast to a stop.
You might try a Internet search for Ron LaFever Climax book.
A question to Dave at NWSL about possibly this guy ordering from him might help.
Hi everyone,
I'm new to remotering and rebuilding and my first project is the Roundhouse Climax (HO). I have successfully installed an LED and a decoder but I want to replace the open frame motor.
Can anyone tell me what motor to use and where these motors can be obtained?
Thanks
Rich,
Same question as Randy: What motor and gear are you using? Looks like a nice setup. My can motor looks a lot like the one you have, but I only paid $5 for it on Ebay a few years ago (just in case I might need one?), so it probably isn't the same one. I have a spare 44 tonner that I will check into tomorrow and see how close it comes to fitting. These are some great ideas, keep them coming, I might find one that 'fits inside the box' so to speak.
I put some NYC decals on mine today and started a cab interior. I also plan to use the typical green interior cab color which I did on my Athearn Hustlers.
I have a few NCE basic decoders that I am sure will do the job here.
Rich: what motor and drive gears are in that Climax? They might also work in the Boxcab, since it's essentially the same chassis and drive. I have an old issue of Railroad Modeler where they introduced the Climax as a kitbash of the boxcab, and also showed a few other bashes that never made production.
Elmer: I don't know that it's a direct drop in, with no work involved, but it seems to be easy to do. However, the 44 tonner sideframes are wrong. The Roundhouse ones really do look like the proper type, the 44 tonner ones are a newer style. I know, picky, I suppose.
One thing that I have heard is that the Bachmann 44 ton chassis is almost a direct replacement for the box cab and the climax by Roundhouse. (Both use the same frame and drive system.) You might want to checkout the truck spacing just to make sure. That would eliminate a lot of issues with the nosy drive.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
Quite easy. Red wire to insulated brass strip and black wire to frame of loco. An old Digitrax decoder.
Did almost the same with a MDC Climax with Micro Tsunami sound.
I had one when I was a kid, the early versions did not have the flywheel. At full throttle is used to never go more than 15-20 smph, until one day is just sort of took off and flew off the end of the layout. I still have most of the pieces of that one. I bought anohter one later on which I was planning to paint for some road or other, I never did get that far. I did paint the interior with that generic institutional green color that was widely used for such things. One of the truck retainers broke on it, and it's packed away somewhere as well. I think between the two I can make one good one.
The first one was in the Ingersoll-Rand scheme, my grandfather worked at the plant where they used one as a plant switcher. Somewhere although I haven't sen it in years, is some information he managed to get when they had a ceremony retiring the unit. I've alwyas loved boxcabs liek that, and the Reading did have 2 of them, one of which was the second one ever built. Both were retired and/or scrapped by the era I model, but on my version, one will still exist. I'll either fix up/modify the Roundhouse one or try to find one like Tim Warris has for his CNJ Bronx Terminal layout - I think it's a brass model, it runs VERY quietly and smoothly.
One thing that you can do with the pickups is to solder wires to the wipers on top of the trucks. On the brass bar side, you can probably runt he wires up through the holes used to mount the brass bar and the screw on the bottom that the truck wipers rub on, on the other side it might be hardeer, drilling that soft metal can be difficult, you need to go slowly and back out frequently to clear the chips or you will break the drill bit. Some oil for lubricant wouldn;t hurt either. This way contact would no longer be dependent on a brass wiper that can get dirty rubbing on a screw head.
The can motor has isolated contacts so it should work as you suggested. I already canned the flywheel??, it would have worn out the plastic bushing in a week and nothing was balanced. I was hoping to detail the cab interior at that end (where the flywheel was). It also looks like an easy loco to add LED's. Thanks guys for all the good comments.
Bob:
I had one of these and replaced the original motor with a can motor and converted it to DCC. I can't remember what decoder but there is plenty of room. The drive is noisy especially going around curves. I tried replacing the gear that drives the large "bull gear" but that didn't help. There is also a contact issue with the pickups from the trucks. You need to keep the area where they rub on the frame contacts very clean or the performance suffers. I liked the loco and it performed reasonably well until it took a fatal plunge to the concrete. I still have the p[eces and may try to resurrect it one day.
Joe