Still in the Big Boy crazy but I have seen the Y6b and I like it as well. Does not look as stream line as the 4-8-8-4 but still has a good nasty look.
Just wondering if there are any PCM Y6b owners here and what do you think of it. Anyone besides PCM made the Y6b?
APX 3 days till the PCM Big Boy is here, feels like I am 12 again and Christmass is only 3 days away.
Y6b Ken? Hum
I hate Rust
Let's say that the Y6b from PCM is the last word in Y class engines in HO scale. I think it is right up there with the Class A's from BLI. If they were not so frigging expensive I would have ordered one already. But I got the Y3 from Proto and it does a good job. I may get another Y3 as if one isnt enough.
The only other Y6 Im familiar with is the old AHM ones from way back with the big flanges, the one I know of still runs very well under analog power and pulls fairly good. But the PCM Y6 is several generations ahead and is quite possibly the last word in good performaing engines.
Keep in mind that the Big Boy was made for the west but the Y's were made to chain themselves to the mountains back east where it is all uphill, sideways and down with incredible tractive effort.
I have one. It is without a doubt my favorite locomotive. I also have three BB from PCM but to me atleast they do not give the same impression of brute force that the Y6b do. In other words, I love it and can really recomend it. It's also more useful in my mind since it's a little bit smaller and not as "UP" as the Big Boys are.
Get one, I guarantee you satisfaction.*
* Not a real guarantee
Magnus
cudaken wrote: Still in the Big Boy crazy but I have seen the Y6b and I like it as well. Does not look as stream line as the 4-8-8-4 but still has a good nasty look. Just wondering if there are any PCM Y6b owners here and what do you think of it. Anyone besides PCM made the Y6b? APX 3 days till the PCM Big Boy is here, feels like I am 12 again and Christmass is only 3 days away. Y6b Ken? Hum
I have the Y6b and enjoy the running qualities of the model. It is not as detailed as I would have expected, but it has a great overall look. I replacee the orange headlight LED with one of the SMT/LED's. That made a great difference in the appearance of the model.
It has the correct N&W whistle and they try to get the compound and simple sounds with a function switch. That function is less than great, but it is a must model for N&W fans, which is one of my favorite railroads in addtion to the Union Pacific and about ten others.
I like the weight of the model and the fact it does not use traction tires.
Cheers
davidmbedard wrote: Cool! I cant wait for the "Why wont my Y6B run around my 18" radius?" threads.David B
Cool! I cant wait for the "Why wont my Y6B run around my 18" radius?" threads.
David B
I don't think I'll be purchasing anything that large but I'm avoiding tight curves on my new layout just so I don't have problems later on. What do I do with a scale mile of snap track?
Nice to see Ken still hanging in here.
other than the brass versions, AHM/Rivarrosi was the only maker.
I'm glad PCM did, I plan to get 3 and sell my RR's.
Dave that was a cheap shot. I saw a old RR Y6b at K-10 the other day. Still like the BB better but, hum but. I would feel better if I had the Big Boy and it made it around my 1 POS 18' turn.
(one last time the Athearns would take the POS 18" turn, first one pulled like if had a brick in the tender. Second one only derailed making left hand turns on a 26" turns! Took the 18" with no problems!!!!!!!!!!!!! Reason they went back was because of the Decoder's!)
Talked with Bob at BLI and only problem they have had is the female plug in the tender. Seems if you push a little hard they break off. He said to use a little CV glue on the side of the plug and it would help a lot.
Hum, time to think some more. Like I need another engine anyway. Boy to think 8 months ago I swore I would never spend over $80.00 for a engine and I did not like DCC or sound.
Cuda Ken, sort of thinking again.
PS any PIC of the other Y's?
Rivarossi also brought the Y6 out later with small flanges and the motor in the middle of the boiler instead of the cab like the AHM version was. It was/is a great pulling engine and although not as detailed as the PCM version, it still looks really sharp!
Dick
Texas Chief
I too have a PCM Y6b but....
I Just got mine back from PCM after sending it back almost 3 months ago for a decoder programing issue.........
It looks and runs good but I will say this..........It does not pull 100+ cars that it was advertized to do.
Just the fact alone that the tender is cast metal it does weigh 12.4 ounces does not help with traction......I will however be reinstalling the 7 ounces of lead weight just to try to get it to pull 50-65 cars on the level.
It would have been nice to have a plastic tender with some kind of lead alloy cast for the loco frame and boiler.
Traction tires would help ............they did this on the Reading T-1 and others.
The whistle is dead on and I also like the sounds of the injector overflow (which to me sounds like the engineer is taking a whiz) and the tender fill sound (which also sounds like someone flushing the toilet).
Rdgk1se3019@hotmail.com
Dennis Blank Jr.
CEO,COO,CFO,CMO,Bossman,Slavedriver,Engineer,Trackforeman,Grunt. Birdsboro & Reading Railroad
Gee....they are nice locos. I don't know why it jumps some of my curves. They are 15R.
I don't know why they don't seem to like my Atlas #4 snap switches either, they lead into other Atlas switches and "ess" curves or tight arcs.
It also won't fit on my 9" Atlas turn table either.
Must be defects in maufacturing. I wonder if there is a warantee?
-G .
Just my thoughts, ideas, opinions and experiences. Others may vary.
HO and N Scale.
After long and careful thought, they have convinced me. I have come to the conclusion that they are right. The aliens did it.
Cuda Quest Ken:
the Athearns would take the POS 18" turn, first one pulled like if had a brick in the tender. Second one only derailed making left hand turns on a 26" turns! Took the 18" with no problems!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DO YOU THINK your 'Big Boy's multiple-wheeled 'Buckeye' tender could have been the problem? or (2) your use of ATLAS flex for your "26"r curve" could have had 'kinks' - tighter curves within the larger - causing the pilot truck problem?
WHY do I think this? - (1) When making small models, it is easy to make sightly off-center holes for pilot trucks.
(2) I had this very problem with my only ATLAS curve - (26"r) derailing my 4-4-2, and I don't think you are more careful than I when laying curves.
CURE was to substitute (more expensive) SHINOHARA flextrack. When once bent it holds its shape. GONE were my 'kink' caused derailing problems.
FOR SOME REASON 'forcing' an engine around a too-tight a curve is a feeling of accomplishment for some, rather than a badge of 'inexperience'.
This is NOT an accusation, but is meant as a Question based on personal experience. I had an expensive engine hit the follr once. Note the word "Once", (not Twice).
because I handlaid track I would "cheat" the gauge wider on a curve.
When bending flex make sure you arent "narrowing" the gauge, flex with alternating connections would do this nasty. Your best flex will have one side solid connect rail the other side flexes for the curve.
Note the Rivarrosi equipment was designed to run on 18" radius. But go buy a brass EL-2 with accurate details and you must have 33" radius curves or it wont go. My Alco Brass EL-2 will take snap switches and snake thru them great. Thinking radius on my new layout has been a challenge for everything to fit and work. You have to think like how the railroad works and situate the needs accordingly. I will have track down to 15 inch for industrial sidings. Of course with trolley I'll go down to 6 inch 8-D
We have all been thrown a curve on this issue which is fundamental for weeks and weeks now, if this is the best we can do beating this dead horse then I have a problem with it.
I plead the Mowhawk 4-8-2 thread as evidence as purity of topic tracking. I was hoping to learn as much I can about the Y6 from PCM but apparently we cannot escape getting sidetracked on the old tight curves problem. And Im sick of it.
davidmbedard wrote: galaxy wrote: davidmbedard wrote: Cool! I cant wait for the "Why wont my Y6B run around my 18" radius?" threads.David B Gee....they are nice locos. I don't know why it jumps some of my curves. They are 15R. I don't know why they don't seem to like my Atlas #4 snap switches either, they lead into other Atlas switches and "ess" curves or tight arcs.It also won't fit on my 9" Atlas turn table either.Must be defects in maufacturing. I wonder if there is a warantee? My point has and always be that if you have a space limitation on your layout that requires you to have tight curves, then you should purchase equipment that is designed to negotiate said curves. Buying oversized equipment and having them squeeze through tight corners is just asking for MR trouble. You see, thats what oversized flanges were for (Older Rivarossi)....todays nearer-to-scale flanges are not made to compensate for the tight curves.David B
galaxy wrote: davidmbedard wrote: Cool! I cant wait for the "Why wont my Y6B run around my 18" radius?" threads.David B Gee....they are nice locos. I don't know why it jumps some of my curves. They are 15R. I don't know why they don't seem to like my Atlas #4 snap switches either, they lead into other Atlas switches and "ess" curves or tight arcs.It also won't fit on my 9" Atlas turn table either.Must be defects in maufacturing. I wonder if there is a warantee?
My point has and always be that if you have a space limitation on your layout that requires you to have tight curves, then you should purchase equipment that is designed to negotiate said curves. Buying oversized equipment and having them squeeze through tight corners is just asking for MR trouble. You see, thats what oversized flanges were for (Older Rivarossi)....todays nearer-to-scale flanges are not made to compensate for the tight curves.
I don't know about Dave B.'s, but my posting was definately humor-driven, based on some er, ah, "uniformed"? statements some have made in the past. I do have a small layout, but I also have a small budget. A BB in neither in my space or dollar range, though they are nice locos. I have an older N scale 2-8-8-2 which does negotiate the 11 curves. Even in its small scale, it is impressive!
Safety Valve wrote: Let's say that the Y6b from PCM is the last word in Y class engines in HO scale. I think it is right up there with the Class A's from BLI. If they were not so frigging expensive I would have ordered one already. But I got the Y3 from Proto and it does a good job. I may get another Y3 as if one isnt enough.The only other Y6 Im familiar with is the old AHM ones from way back with the big flanges, the one I know of still runs very well under analog power and pulls fairly good. But the PCM Y6 is several generations ahead and is quite possibly the last word in good performaing engines.Keep in mind that the Big Boy was made for the west but the Y's were made to chain themselves to the mountains back east where it is all uphill, sideways and down with incredible tractive effort.
I saw the BLI Class A at the last open house..IMHO its a great engine and I love that "hooter" whistle!! I fully agree the Y6B should be just as nice.
BTW..That AHM Y6B is still a very nice locomotive in my book.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Don, I as well was wondering about my track laying skills. One thing that puzzel me was why would one Athearn Big Boy take all my turns from 18" to 32", but yet the other one did the truck tilt?
Don, I as well started to wonder about my track laying skills. But why would one make all the turns but had the tender that pulled like a brick. Other one pulled like heck would tip the front trucks?
As far as the Flex track, my gauge says it is all ture code and like I said before the first one had no problems. Both of the old and gone Athearn BB's wheels where in gauge as well. Far as the 18" turns, it is not due to lack of spaces or money but finding the time. Have a new bench butted up against the 18" section made right. I would guess it would talk apx 4 hours to pull the 2 main lines and 2 passing spurs that are in that section. Find 4 hours is the tuff part.
My PCM Big Boy is here still in the box. Looks good and like the little darker look. Will break it in at K-10 train Friday on his great bench! After that if there is a problem at the house then I know it is the track or turn out's.
Derailing again Cuda Ken
NOT
Safety Valve wrote: We have all been thrown a curve on this issue which is fundamental for weeks and weeks now, if this is the best we can do beating this dead horse then I have a problem with it.... apparently we cannot escape getting sidetracked on the old tight curves problem. And Im sick of it.
We have all been thrown a curve on this issue which is fundamental for weeks and weeks now, if this is the best we can do beating this dead horse then I have a problem with it.... apparently we cannot escape getting sidetracked on the old tight curves problem. And Im sick of it.
It IS fundamental - like trying to force a 'sqare peg' down a 'round' hole.
Trying to run a copy of a multi-side-rod coupled engine needing 4X the radius is 'amateurish', to say the least. There are other words that can be used.
ATLAS' code 100 flextrack is intentionally wider than scale to admit more engines passage through curves - like How about the 'minimizing of complaints'?
FLEXTRACK is also 'overly-flexible' - so much so, that it is difficult to maintain a constant radius; however do we hear complaints from owners because it's "easiest" to bend?
TRACKING is nothing more than wheels following the contours of the rails -so screw the laws of Physics.
A recent (& 'popular') $350 4-8-4 HO engine had drivers 6" undersized to justify it taking 22"r curves. How much 'slop' is now added to 6 axle diesels to accomplish the same thing? Trucks are linear. Curves are not. The 4-8-4 is scheduled for a 2nd run.
How big do we make the hole to take the square peg? (Craftsmanship it's not).
The problem starts with the 'bump' in the marketplace. - WHO CARES? -as long as it makes the curve - be it 18", 15", or 22".
LIONEL's TOY trains were 27" radius. Any 6 yr old could do it. (that's 13.5" in HO). How close we are getting? 14"?
NMRA recommends 3X length in inches = Radii (in inches).
"But my board is only 48" wide!"
S.V. What's in your wallet - er, on your board? - and what are you now "sick" of?
CudaQuestKen:
SPECIFICLY:ALL manufacurers have to design 'play' (slop) into their product for (the market's) TOYLIKE curves.
THE CURVES are toy-like because a 4x8 plwood board is flat and easy to build a layout on. As long as one doesn't run off the edge skills are not needed.
The 2-8-8-4 cab forward plying the Tehachapi Loop, were on a 1200'+ diameter track (84"r HO) to gain altitude. I'm not sure the UP's Big Boys could have 'hacked' that.
ATHEARN, with their Chinese sub-contracter has had Qaulity Control problems (You are living proof). By exceeding or forcing dimensional limits, you are gathering the rewards. As the Nipponese say, 'Rots-of-Ruck'.
ANY HOLE drilled (slightly) off center - but within mfg. tolerances - allows the pilot truck to lift vs.track when going opposite directions and the curve is too tight.
USE OF ATLAS SUPER-FLEX track suggests you may have some 18" 'kinks' in your 26" curve. I did. Less flexible SHINOHARA cured it. Knowing your penchant for 'bargains', I'm guesssing your 26" curve is NOT 100% Shinohara.
WHY will your "BB" go thru an 18"r switch? SURPRISE! I'm guessing it doesn't, or - 'there's a whole lot of slop goin' on'. Ever try running it when crawling?
MY GUESS: When you're forcing your limits, things 'blow'. Even Hemi's.
UNTIL you get your trackwork straightened out, you're adding to the problems.
Sayonara!
cudaken wrote: Don, I as well was wondering about my track laying skills. One thing that puzzel me was why would one Athearn Big Boy take all my turns from 18" to 32", but yet the other one did the truck tilt?
Ken, it might have been a problem with the engine that could go through those curves!!! Maybe it was so sloppy (quality control) that it was able to do what you hoped it would do...by error. On the other hand, the engine you found most problematic was perhaps,.....just maybe...the one that had the better assembly and parts, and it was showing you just how bad your tracks really were...or at least, that the better made models of that type were not meant to negotiate the curves to which you were subjecting them.
That's the problem with quality control...which is which? I think that is what Don is trying to tell you, that when you decide early to build bullet-proof track with reasonable curves, and then try different locos, the problematic locos will be found out...and there won't be any guessing that maybe it's just the track. Eliminate the track as a source of problems, and you are left with go/no go on the engines and rolling stock.