| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| swchief3 |
Posted - 11/20/2014 : 23:03:51
I had intended to post an update before now, but life intervened. I had to move, among other things, so I've been pretty preoccupied.
Anyway, my oldest Kato P42s are now over a year old... already. Running with these oldest units has been up and down, and I almost threw in the towel a few times, because they were really slowing down. They were losing speed big time, and they were drawing more current than they had before. The newer units were still doing pretty well, but my concern was with the older units, because I was trying to see how these things would hold up in the long run.
I scrounged around on the internet for some solutions and/or some other user reviews, etc., and found a post a gentleman had made on the NMRA British Region forum. This gentleman had observed that his twin trucks were not always running at the same speed, which was an issue I was having. He installed some small wood wedges under the rear pilot, and found that his trucks matched speeds better than before. I tried something similar with my engines. I just tore off small pieces of an old business card, and placed them in between the metal weights and the plastic beams where the trucks mount, one piece in front and one in the rear. The difference was nothing short of AMAZING! These oldest engines perked right up, and ran like gangbusters. Much more power, much better speed, reduced current draw, and consistent running. Each engines' trucks seemed to match better, and the units themselves matched much better than before.
I applied this fix to the rest of the fleet, and I am just blown away by the results. Not only is the engines' performance improved, but also the ride height is better. At first, I thought the Kato model's height was right, and the Athearn model was too tall. When I put the shims in the Katos, it boosted them up just a touch, and I realized that they'd been sitting a bit too low... to my eye, anyway. The change of height made the units look even better and more realistic than before.
Nothing but plusses, so far, with the installation of the paper shims. I'd tried just about everything else, but had never thought of putting shims in. So, thank you, Mike Ruby, for the idea! 
On the down side, though, I've got one unit with untraceable binding in its rear truck. I've checked everything multiple times, but can't find anything obvious. I'll probably just have to give in and replace the truck.
I hope Kato will release more HO P42s. Last time I talked to them, which was awhile ago, they had no immediate plans to do any more. I hope they change their minds, and will do another run. I hope they'll do the older paint schemes.
Thanksgiving is a week away. For those who celebrate, have a happy one! |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| swchief3 |
Posted - 11/23/2015 : 22:45:02
No reply from Kato. I have since disposed of all nine units. |
| swchief3 |
Posted - 11/08/2015 : 06:03:53
I hadn't anticipated posting any more about these things, but there's more to report. I went ahead and replaced both motors on AMTK 66, and the unit is now running fine. But, now I've got other motors failing. AMTK 145, my newest unit (received June 2014), has just about lost its front truck. It doesn't run now, unless you jiggle the flywheel. AMTK 156's front truck is showing signs of impending failure. It sputters badly in reverse, and is quirky going forward. The usual tweaks, including wheel cleaning, did not work. The 156's motors have been replaced at least once. (Got 156 and 66 in February 2014.) These engines are not that old.
Here's the interesting part. I looked on the Kato website just now, and saw that they are SOLD OUT of the front motorized trucks in the dark gray, as seen on the phase V units. A status of "sold out" is odd, and makes one wonder what exactly they're saying. "Sold out", as in "no more coming"? "Sold out", as in "discontinued"? Really makes me wonder. How many of these things have they actually sold over these last two years? Why have they sold so many of these trucks? Conversion projects, or replacements for failed motors?
It'll be interesting to see what happens down the road. Motors that only last a year, give or take? Not good.
EDIT: I am assembling a letter to Kato, outlining all these failures. I will also ask what their intentions are, re: parts. I'll report back with their reply. |
| swchief3 |
Posted - 08/29/2015 : 05:29:01
Got a motor failing tonight... first failure in awhile. AMTK 66's rear motor has failed completely in reverse, and is sputtering forward. Standard tweaks didn't fix it. Re-cleaning wheels didn't fix it. Motor is shot. The 66's motors are originals, and we're just about to the two-year point with the oldest of these engines.
A two-year lifespan for these motors???
EDIT: Oops! AMTK 66's motors had been replaced... back in late April. |
| swchief3 |
Posted - 08/21/2015 : 00:55:14
Running again. Some of the wheel wipers had "gone flat", thus interfering with current flow. These engines are still quite sensitive. |
| swchief3 |
Posted - 08/17/2015 : 02:35:19
Having trouble with trucks not matching again. Locomotive performance is starting to decline, because of it. Dang. |
| swchief3 |
Posted - 07/14/2015 : 05:41:22
All the P42s are running great now. I haven't had any more trouble. Just got the two newest units today, AMTK 91 and AMTK 150. Adjusted the wheel wipers, flipped the rear trucks around, lubed at the axle/wiper interfaces, and off we went. Both new units are teamed up with a ten-car train. Smooth sailing.
|
| swchief3 |
Posted - 06/19/2015 : 05:35:13
Finally managed to get the 184 running, and it's doing pretty well. Still the same overall results with these engines... they are extremely variable and extremely touchy. Constant tweaking required! On the good side, the motor-orientation thing seems to be holding. Locomotive performance is much better with the twin motors pointed the same direction. No surging. Of course, when these engines decide they want to act up, the motor-orientation thing goes right out the window. Trucks still do not match, when run independently, but they seem to equalize when mounted.
I run straight DC, so I am free to turn the trucks around. I don't know how well that would work with the DCC/sound units, or even IF it would work. I have no idea. |
| swchief3 |
Posted - 06/16/2015 : 08:48:34
It was a mistake to get these things out again. AMTK 184 started acting up, when I put it on the road this past evening. Rear motor is brand new. Front motor started to sputter and jerk (with clean track and clean wheels), so I went ahead and replaced it. The replacement motor sputtered and jerked, as well. The engine runs worse now, with BOTH MOTORS REPLACED, than it did initially.
Too many problems. Too many failures. It's ridiculous to have to keep replacing motors over and over again. Enough of this. |
| swchief3 |
Posted - 06/15/2015 : 02:10:55
Up and running again. Same as before, these things will be really good for awhile, and then they suddenly turn really bad. Right now, we're back to "really good". Running a 15-car train with three engines, and the running has been fantastic! AMTK 184 has its new rear motor. Haven't put that engine on the road yet. It still ran very slowly during brief testing, so I may just go ahead and change the front motor, as well.
These P42s are still quite variable. The "good" is really good, but the "bad" is annoying and frustrating... same as when any other locomotive acts up. |
| swchief3 |
Posted - 05/31/2015 : 04:21:25
More motors are sputtering and stuttering. Even with the change of motor configuration, the same problems are coming back. AMTK 66, whose original motors had started to sputter and hitch awhile back, is now bad-ordered again... doing the same thing. The tweaks didn't last. AMTK 68, whose motors have been replaced once already, are stuttering and trying to stall, as well. I had both these units on a train yesterday and today, and I had to pull them off, as both units were about to fail. I could physically see the stuttering and hitching, as well as the random spurts.
Too many motor problems and/or failures with these things. Entirely too many. Ready to give up again. Having to order replacement motors every time I turn around is getting old... and expensive.
|
| swchief3 |
Posted - 05/21/2015 : 18:20:37
Started running them again last night. Same as before, everything seems to be fine now... except the 184. I do have to get a new motor for its rear truck. That engine has been iffy from the beginning.
I didn't stop to think that I may still have some motors fail, in the wake of a year and a half of them running in opposite directions... if this theory is correct, and it still holds. It makes sense.
|
| swchief3 |
Posted - 05/16/2015 : 08:53:16
Same problems are coming back. AMTK 184's rear truck failed completely. Motor will not spin in either direction. The 184's front truck is stuttering and sputtering, as are the trucks on 68, 66, 156, and 145.
I thought I had these problems solved. This latest fix lasted, what, maybe a week? |
| swchief3 |
Posted - 05/08/2015 : 01:24:04
Things are going better now with these engines. Some of them had gone "out of tune"... had to retorque some of the motors a bit. Aside from that, I don't know what the deal was with these things the other day. Now running 66 and 184, with motors turned flywheel-forward. Running started out rough and shaky, but has improved dramatically... same as all the others I've tested.
Had a problem with AMTK 145's rear truck. Its gears slipped while I was cleaning the wheels with the wire brush. I didn't notice any slippage when the truck was on the rails, but, with the wire-brush cleaning, the gears slipped. I'm thinking it was a wheel set that just slipped away from the drive gears. We'll see.
Even with the aggravating quirks and glitches that recur, the Kato running characteristics are better than the Athearn units, and now even more so with the twin motors turned flywheel-forward. I have fingers crossed that the good results will hold. But, as we've seen, these Katos are variable... and extremely touchy.
Might be good to reiterate a good point about these Katos. I absolutely LOVE the lighting on these things. They did a fantastic job with the lights.
Let's hope for continued good results. I think it really did make a difference to point the motors in the same direction.
I'll check back in if anything weird happens, or if there's some catastrophic failure. Hopefully, no more of those!
Until then... |
| swchief3 |
Posted - 05/05/2015 : 07:42:19
Same problems are coming back. Enough of this. |
| swchief3 |
Posted - 05/02/2015 : 03:04:03
Oh, no... here we go, again. This guy just won't shut up about these things!  I'm almost afraid to post this, for fear I'll jinx myself. Guess I shouldn't have said that this was the end of the line.
This afternoon, I went ahead and installed the new motors in the front trucks of AMTK 68 and AMTK 161. I also made one other change... I turned the rear trucks around. I did some scrounging around online last night, and read some coreless motor discussions on some RC car and RC airplane/helicopter forums, and the sense I got was that coreless motors sometimes favor running in one direction over the other. This got me thinking about all the weird experiences I've been having... and documenting ad nauseam... with these engines. I HAVE noticed that some of the Kato motors spin one rate one direction, yet another rate... slower or faster... the other way. So, I started experimenting with these engines by reorienting the motors, so they're pointed the same direction. Sure enough, the difference was dramatic. (Dramatic improvement, that is.) I flipped the rear trucks around on all seven engines last night, and did some quick testing, and locomotive performance skyrocketed.
In last night's online reading and scrounging, I ran across a business that sells coreless motors. I know... big deal... there are a lot of places that sell these things. Here's the "big deal" that got my attention. This retailer, whose name I don't remember, offered a coreless motor PAIR for sale. The item description stated that these two motors were tuned to run in opposite directions. (Hmmm... ) This is why I flipped the rear trucks around on all my P42s, so both motors are facing the same direction... flywheel-forward. As I mentioned, the difference was amazing. Current draw is much better, overall running is much smoother, top-end speed is much higher, and there is no longer any sense of the motors "fighting each other".
The Kato replacement coreless motors offered for sale don't specify an operational direction. (Not that I've seen, anyway.) The only directional indicator is the way the truck itself is configured. Perhaps this is why I've had so much trouble with these things, i.e., with one motor pointed one way, and the other motor pointed the opposite direction. It seems to make sense. All the problems I've had with surging, lagging, power loss, premature motor failure... maybe this is it. I don't have the specific scientific knowledge to say definitely that motor orientation discrepancy is why I've had all these problems. I can only speak from direct, hands-on experience. If a merchant is selling a coreless motor pair that is specifically tuned to run in opposite directions, then maybe there's something to having these P42 motors pointed the same direction. The Kato coreless motor does not specify a direction, i.e., they don't sell a "forward-running" motor or a "rearward-running" motor. They just sell a motor. So, if this one motor favors running in a specific direction, it would make sense that they would conflict, when positioned facing opposite ways.
I am running the 68 and the 161 this evening, and the running is the smoothest and most responsive it's ever been. Over the next several days, weeks, whatever... I'll cycle through all seven engines, to see if this theory plays out, and to see if the consistency holds.
I am encouraged. |
|
|
