I was just wondering if the driver code or tire thickness of KTM built models (MG, USH, WS, PSC) changed over the years? I kinda thought the MG and early USH locos were built with wider driver/tires than maybe the later USH, WS and PSC models.
Secondly, when did KTM start installing can motors rather than open frame?
Third, were KTM can motors really Pittmans in disguise or actually a Japanese built motor?
Last, where would a KTM can motor, model RH-4462S, fit into the genesis of power installed in KTM models?
No this isn't a pop quiz, I'm very interested in any and all information.
Butch
KTM built models tire size and motors?
Re: KTM built models tire size and motors?
Butch
Perhaps this is a start, but bear in mind this is mostly based on the memory of easily in the hundreds of KTM gone through the workshop over the years, and not by having much of any primary reference material such as adverts or dealer flyers to hand. Bear in mind, that an old man's memory is a capricious thing. That said, here we go.
As far as wheels, the thickness evolved to a degree as the entire profile evolved and the latter is perhaps a better way to look at it. Remember the early Max stuff (and International before it) was made to operate on NYSME profile Code 172 rail as the de facto postwar standard. If I was to make a judgement, the profile evolved radically during the Max era, the NMRA standard being applied, then not so much during USH and Westside, and got a visible tweak with the PSC Crown and on with KTM USA. I would say the most improvement was done during Max' tenure when I think about it. Not at all the conclusion one would guess and certainly arguable.
An aside would be the finesse of the brass-coining driver centres which are the hallmark of the PSC Crowns; the Hudsons and Niagara are the Crowns of my experience.
Can motors? Memory serves that was a Westside-and-on thing. I don't remember any late USH that came that way. If you are talking of the green bodied can, I would say that one is not a Pittman in disguise. They weren't as robust as a Pittman can nor did they have the longevity. I've changed them out for Pittmans by necessity more often than not.
Not just those of us in the finishing and rebuilding trade but many many hobbiests must share responsibility for muddying the waters on that motor question, for we all put Pittman cans in thousands of these things. One must remember the context; these were not collector items but the bread-and-butter for the operator of O Scale steam from Max arguably through Westside. It is hard to keep in perspective but I never painted and tuned anything for a collector until the 1990's, but did loads for guys to run; the collectors (the true collector being the guy with lit cases of minty unpainted examples displayed in the manner of jewellery) were few and far between compared to the operators. That said, purely unadulterated Max or USH are probably vastly outnumbered by the repowered, detailed, painted, used examples we all cranked out for folks to run. It muddies the timeline waters you are asking about significantly.
Hopefully some of this is helpful, and perhaps even correct. GRIN!
Perhaps this is a start, but bear in mind this is mostly based on the memory of easily in the hundreds of KTM gone through the workshop over the years, and not by having much of any primary reference material such as adverts or dealer flyers to hand. Bear in mind, that an old man's memory is a capricious thing. That said, here we go.
As far as wheels, the thickness evolved to a degree as the entire profile evolved and the latter is perhaps a better way to look at it. Remember the early Max stuff (and International before it) was made to operate on NYSME profile Code 172 rail as the de facto postwar standard. If I was to make a judgement, the profile evolved radically during the Max era, the NMRA standard being applied, then not so much during USH and Westside, and got a visible tweak with the PSC Crown and on with KTM USA. I would say the most improvement was done during Max' tenure when I think about it. Not at all the conclusion one would guess and certainly arguable.
An aside would be the finesse of the brass-coining driver centres which are the hallmark of the PSC Crowns; the Hudsons and Niagara are the Crowns of my experience.
Can motors? Memory serves that was a Westside-and-on thing. I don't remember any late USH that came that way. If you are talking of the green bodied can, I would say that one is not a Pittman in disguise. They weren't as robust as a Pittman can nor did they have the longevity. I've changed them out for Pittmans by necessity more often than not.
Not just those of us in the finishing and rebuilding trade but many many hobbiests must share responsibility for muddying the waters on that motor question, for we all put Pittman cans in thousands of these things. One must remember the context; these were not collector items but the bread-and-butter for the operator of O Scale steam from Max arguably through Westside. It is hard to keep in perspective but I never painted and tuned anything for a collector until the 1990's, but did loads for guys to run; the collectors (the true collector being the guy with lit cases of minty unpainted examples displayed in the manner of jewellery) were few and far between compared to the operators. That said, purely unadulterated Max or USH are probably vastly outnumbered by the repowered, detailed, painted, used examples we all cranked out for folks to run. It muddies the timeline waters you are asking about significantly.
Hopefully some of this is helpful, and perhaps even correct. GRIN!
Re: KTM built models tire size and motors?
Good information Sarge and pretty much parallels my thinking. Back in the 90's it was easy to get answers for these types of questions, but the old guard grows thin. And, back then our memories retained what we learned......not so much today. I don't remember when I heard it or from who, but I was told the last of the Westside locos used a thinner driver thickness.
My reason for asking is I recently purchased a Challenger represented as USH. I could tell from bad photos it had some type of interior and the listing said "can" Motor. Paint was great and the price was good, so I went for it.
Upon receipt I discovered it not only had a complete cab interior, but has a KTM black can motor (like the PSC "Crown" DD-40) and the driver thickness measures out at .162 instead of .172. So, this model was either heavily modded my a very professional builder or it's a WS model in a USH box. One can speculate why someone would put a WS model in a USH box.
My reason for asking is I recently purchased a Challenger represented as USH. I could tell from bad photos it had some type of interior and the listing said "can" Motor. Paint was great and the price was good, so I went for it.
Upon receipt I discovered it not only had a complete cab interior, but has a KTM black can motor (like the PSC "Crown" DD-40) and the driver thickness measures out at .162 instead of .172. So, this model was either heavily modded my a very professional builder or it's a WS model in a USH box. One can speculate why someone would put a WS model in a USH box.
-
bob turner
- Posts: 13438
- Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:57 pm
Re: KTM built models tire size and motors?
Trying to stay below having my name on three posts in the top ten. Somebody post something on my Scale Craft Pacific - I think I spent a week cutting tires.
But I have to add something here. Butch and I have been carrying on in PMs just so I could avoid four in the top ten.
I have a very late USH 0-8-0 and a very early Westside TW-8. Both have driver tires .178" wide. Contour is Lobaugh, or NMRA before the RP-25 standard came out. Lead truck on the TW-8 is .172".
So I submit that MG, USH, and early Westside used the 1940s standard wheel width and contour. Later Westside went to narrower tread, and then, unhappily, to something resembling Q Gauge.
I know nothing about the motors, except to say that the best replacement in my opinion is an 8424 Pittman, of 12 Volts, ball bearings, silver graphite brushes. I wire them in with .032 aircraft safety wire, and cushion with truck inner tube rubber.
Connection is always Toyota #0 hose.
But I have to add something here. Butch and I have been carrying on in PMs just so I could avoid four in the top ten.
I have a very late USH 0-8-0 and a very early Westside TW-8. Both have driver tires .178" wide. Contour is Lobaugh, or NMRA before the RP-25 standard came out. Lead truck on the TW-8 is .172".
So I submit that MG, USH, and early Westside used the 1940s standard wheel width and contour. Later Westside went to narrower tread, and then, unhappily, to something resembling Q Gauge.
I know nothing about the motors, except to say that the best replacement in my opinion is an 8424 Pittman, of 12 Volts, ball bearings, silver graphite brushes. I wire them in with .032 aircraft safety wire, and cushion with truck inner tube rubber.
Connection is always Toyota #0 hose.
Return to “O-Gauge, 2-Rail, Model Railroading”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests