Welcome to the forum   
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Share
Options
View
Go to last post in this topic Go to first unread post in this topic
Offline Poor Skeleton  
#1 Posted : 25 February 2020 23:08:22(UTC)
Poor Skeleton

United Kingdom   
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 200
Location: England, Cambridge
I've been on the look-out for an old style chassis diesel loco for a while - mainly so I can compare performance - and I finally won one on ebay. Actually it was quite a find - sold as repair/spares, but in good cosmetic condition and after a bit of cleaning and lubrication it's running pretty well.

So, comparing this 8874 to a more recent 88786 I find performance pretty similar, particularly in terms of slow speed running. What is noticeably different, though, is the weight. My 88786 weights in at 24g, whilst the old 8874 is a massive 37g! That has to correspond to much better haulage.

I have to say, I'm disappointed that Marklin have sacrificed so much mass in making other aspects more sophisticated and refined.

Now I'm faced with the decision whether to upgrade to a 5-pole motor. I suspect it won't improve things any but on the off-chance it might just be worth it!

Cheers


Chris
Offline parakiet  
#2 Posted : 26 February 2020 19:58:09(UTC)
parakiet

Belgium   
Joined: 20/02/2017(UTC)
Posts: 23
Location: Flanders!
thanks for sharing that info!
Offline Poor Skeleton  
#3 Posted : 27 February 2020 23:15:17(UTC)
Poor Skeleton

United Kingdom   
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 200
Location: England, Cambridge
As a quick follow-up, I ran the loco on my layout last night and whilst it can definitely haul more than the more modern counterpart, the difference wasn't as enormous as I expected. My Ludmilla, which weighs a few grammes less can out-haul it by quite a margin. I wonder if the modern blackened wheels grip better than the silver ones?

Cheers


Chris
Offline d_landen@yahoo.com  
#4 Posted : 03 March 2020 06:39:22(UTC)
d_landen@yahoo.com

United States   
Joined: 02/10/2013(UTC)
Posts: 129
Location: West Texas
Hello. I have always heard the older 216s are real pullers but remember the Ludmilla even at it’s lighter weight has 6 drive wheel per truck and a 5 pole compared to a 3 pole and 4 drive wheels per truck.

The extra drive wheels seem to make a great deal of improved traction which makes a difference even with the older 103s or 151s.

Enjoy the 216 whenever you can. Not certain about attempting a motor upgrade. Seems many modifications would be necessary. Cutting the frame would concern me. Keep us posted.
Offline Poor Skeleton  
#5 Posted : 03 March 2020 19:22:46(UTC)
Poor Skeleton

United Kingdom   
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 200
Location: England, Cambridge
Originally Posted by: d_landen@yahoo.com Go to Quoted Post
Hello. I have always heard the older 216s are real pullers but remember the Ludmilla even at it’s lighter weight has 6 drive wheel per truck and a 5 pole compared to a 3 pole and 4 drive wheels per truck.

The extra drive wheels seem to make a great deal of improved traction which makes a difference even with the older 103s or 151s.

Enjoy the 216 whenever you can. Not certain about attempting a motor upgrade. Seems many modifications would be necessary. Cutting the frame would concern me. Keep us posted.


The more modern Ludmillas (mine included) only have four axle drive, so there's no extra drive coming from the additional two pairs of wheels. Perhaps the additional spacing between the driven wheels give more grip via the flanges on curves, where it most counts.

I have a spare (broken) 5 pole motor and it seems to fit perfectly into the chassis so I don't think I'll have to hack about with the frame. I wouldn't be considering the "upgrade" if that was what it entailed.

I will keep you posted on progress - I have a motor turning up any day now!

Cheers


Chris

Edited by user 04 March 2020 22:48:36(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline Poor Skeleton  
#6 Posted : 03 March 2020 19:35:20(UTC)
Poor Skeleton

United Kingdom   
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 200
Location: England, Cambridge
For my own interest, I did a weigh-in of my various locomotives last night.

8874 BR216 (V160) B-B Diesel Hydraulic 37g
81870 BR 111 B-B Electric 24g
88132 BR W 232.01 Co-Co Diesel Electric 34g
88203 BR220 (V200.0) B-B Diesel Hydraulic 33g
88740/88742 BR 64 2-6-3 21g
88780 BR218 (V164) B-B Diesel Hydraulic 26g
88786 BR218 (V164) B-B Diesel Hydraulic 24g
88942/88943 BR 94 0-10-0 31g
88956 BR 130 2-6-0 28g
88962 BR 86 2-8-2 25g

It's surprising how much the weight varies between models, but the biggest surprise is in the last two. Despite being quite a large 2-8-2 locomotive 88962 is remarkably light and couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding. (Apologies to those of you not familiar with the British delicacy that is rice pudding.) In Contrast 88956 is surprisingly heavy for such a small locomotive and performs correspondingly.

If anyone else would like to join in and weigh their own collection, I'd be delighted to add the results to my "database" and publish the entire list here.

Cheers


Chris
Offline Poor Skeleton  
#7 Posted : 04 March 2020 22:47:29(UTC)
Poor Skeleton

United Kingdom   
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 200
Location: England, Cambridge
Originally Posted by: d_landen@yahoo.com Go to Quoted Post
Not certain about attempting a motor upgrade. Seems many modifications would be necessary. Cutting the frame would concern me. Keep us posted.



Of course you are right. There's not much in it, but the motor housing is just a bit to big to sit level in the loco frame.

Cheers


Chris
Offline d_landen@yahoo.com  
#8 Posted : 05 March 2020 05:38:29(UTC)
d_landen@yahoo.com

United States   
Joined: 02/10/2013(UTC)
Posts: 129
Location: West Texas
Hi. Yes I believe the frame is one matter. Perhaps modifications to the electrical plate may be needed also.

I thought I had seen a YouTube on it but I have not located it again. I believe the mod was to a 103.

I will keep looking for it and share should I come up with it. It is an interest process.

Thanks
Offline Wal  
#9 Posted : 05 March 2020 11:17:51(UTC)
Wal

Australia   
Joined: 07/09/2012(UTC)
Posts: 67
Location: Sydney
Chris,

Here's the weights of my fleet....

81071 BR218 24g
81176 BR V 200.0 31g
81450 BR232 #1 33g
81450 BR232 #2 33g
81551 BR111 23g
88131 BR234 36g
88133 BR232 #1 34g
88133 BR232 #2 34g
88699 BR212 26g
88783 BR216 23g
88784 BR216 #1 24g
88784 BR216 #2 24g

88131 is my strongest lok. It does better by a couple of wagons over any of the other "ludmillas". All of the lighter looks have about the same performance and can only manage about half the # of carriages as the heavier looks.

The 88699 is a very strong lok but goes considerably slower than all the others. It almost feels like it's been geared down.

All of these weights include the digital circuit board which replaces the Marklin lighting board.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Wal
Offline d_landen@yahoo.com  
#10 Posted : 05 March 2020 19:29:18(UTC)
d_landen@yahoo.com

United States   
Joined: 02/10/2013(UTC)
Posts: 129
Location: West Texas
Hi. Found something I believe may be insightful. I was wrong, the modification was for a Marklin Br 151. The 3D printed shell, to me, is not as good as the original.



I dread the possibility of non-recoverable mistakes to try this because I either lack abundant spare parts or lack the correct tools. If I had the tools and enough spare parts I might consider doing this because it would be a great experience, for sure.

Check it out, let us know your impressions.
Offline Poor Skeleton  
#11 Posted : 05 March 2020 23:16:57(UTC)
Poor Skeleton

United Kingdom   
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 200
Location: England, Cambridge
Originally Posted by: Wal Go to Quoted Post
Chris,

Here's the weights of my fleet....

88131 is my strongest lok. It does better by a couple of wagons over any of the other "ludmillas". All of the lighter looks have about the same performance and can only manage about half the # of carriages as the heavier looks.

The 88699 is a very strong lok but goes considerably slower than all the others. It almost feels like it's been geared down.

All of these weights include the digital circuit board which replaces the Marklin lighting board.


Thanks for that, I'll add them to my database and publish a complete list.

It's strange that your Ludmillas perform differently - I should compare mine and see if they differ.

It looks like 88699 has reduction gearing in the bogies, so that probably explains its slower speed.

Thanks again


Chris
Offline husafreak  
#12 Posted : 06 March 2020 17:49:11(UTC)
husafreak

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2019(UTC)
Posts: 183
Location: California, Bay Area
Wow, do you mean they are all converted to DCC? Which digital circuit board (or boards) do you use?


Originally Posted by: Wal Go to Quoted Post
Chris,

Here's the weights of my fleet....

81071 BR218 24g
81176 BR V 200.0 31g
81450 BR232 #1 33g
81450 BR232 #2 33g
81551 BR111 23g
88131 BR234 36g
88133 BR232 #1 34g
88133 BR232 #2 34g
88699 BR212 26g
88783 BR216 23g
88784 BR216 #1 24g
88784 BR216 #2 24g

88131 is my strongest lok. It does better by a couple of wagons over any of the other "ludmillas". All of the lighter looks have about the same performance and can only manage about half the # of carriages as the heavier looks.

The 88699 is a very strong lok but goes considerably slower than all the others. It almost feels like it's been geared down.

All of these weights include the digital circuit board which replaces the Marklin lighting board.


Offline Poor Skeleton  
#13 Posted : 06 March 2020 19:51:46(UTC)
Poor Skeleton

United Kingdom   
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 200
Location: England, Cambridge
For those interested here is the current list of models and their weights.

8874 BR216 (V160) B-B Diesel Hydraulic 37
81071 BR218 B-B Diesel Hydraulic 24
81176 BR V200 31
81450 BR232 Co-Co Diesel Electric 33
81551 BR111 B-B Electric 23
81870 BR 111 B-B Electric 24
88131 BR234 Co-Co Diesel Electric 36
88132 BR W 232.01 Co-Co Diesel Electric 34
88133 BR232 Co-Co Diesel Electric 34
88203 BR220 (V200.0) B-B Diesel Hydraulic 33
88699 BR212 B-B Diesel Hydraulic 26
88740 BR 64 2-6-3 21
88742 BR 64 2-6-2 21
88780 BR218 (V164) B-B Diesel Hydraulic 26
88783 BR216 B-B Diesel Hydraulic 23
88784 BR216 B-B Diesel Hydraulic 24
88786 BR218 (V164) B-B Diesel Hydraulic 24
88942 BR 94 0-10-0 31
88943 BR 94.5 0-10-0 31
88956 BR 130 2-6-0 28
88962 BR 86 2-8-2 25


Rather than creating a new post every time, I'll jut edit this one to keep it up-to date

Hope this is of interest


Chris
Offline Wal  
#14 Posted : 07 March 2020 10:39:24(UTC)
Wal

Australia   
Joined: 07/09/2012(UTC)
Posts: 67
Location: Sydney
In reply to husafreak, yep I run an almost entirely digital environment. The loks are all converted to digital using Velmo decoders. My turnouts, and uncouplers are all run off marklin decoders (can't remember the exact p/n). I use a Mobile station 2 to drive it so I can only have 10 loks configured at a time. One day I'll get around to getting a CS3 to control it all. I still use analogue blocks controlled by circuit tracks and universal relays to stop the trains running into each other.

Cheers,

Wal
Offline Poor Skeleton  
#15 Posted : 18 March 2020 23:31:31(UTC)
Poor Skeleton

United Kingdom   
Joined: 09/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 200
Location: England, Cambridge
Originally Posted by: d_landen@yahoo.com Go to Quoted Post
Not certain about attempting a motor upgrade. Seems many modifications would be necessary. Cutting the frame would concern me. Keep us posted.


Well, I gave up trying to get the old motor to rum smoothly. Nothing I did seemed to help and I noticed it was getting much warmer than I'm used to. The armature measures about 12 Ohms, whilst the 5-pole ones are about 30 Ohms, which would explain it.

A colleague has a milling machine and he offered to modify the chassis for me so I took him up on that. He didn't need to take of much metal for the 5-pole motor to drop in nicely. I did have to cut off the suppression capacitor from the motor and solder on a couple of leads to make contact with the circuit board, but that was the only other modification that was necessary. It runs nicely now, though is noticeably noisier than my 88786s.

As for its haulage capabilities, I did some comparisons this evening. My 88786 will pull 6 26m bogie coaches up my helix, whilst the 8874 can manage 8, so I guess that is roughly in proportion to the additional weight.

Cheers


Chris
Users browsing this topic
OceanSpiders 2.0
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

| Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2020, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.656 seconds.