Pennsy K4s?

[superturbine]

I have to agree, I see a huge difference in favor of the Kato. To me, driver size and spacing are the very essence of steam locomotive design, it's the bones on which everything else is built. We can fudge a lot of things, but the drivers have got to look and feel right, even though they are virtually always, of necessity, undersized.
Which brings me to a question I asked before on this thread to no avail; what are the c55 driver size and spacing dimensions pls.?
Thanks in advance, Otto

I dont have one but here is what I found on driver size
The driver diameter:
Kato JNR C55: 11.8 mm

[mike_lawyer]

The valve gear and the overall mechanism are much improved on the Kato C55.  I would definitely recommend using it as a platform instead of the Minitrix.  The Minitrix is not bad, just the Kato is better.

[mike_lawyer]

I will take a more close-up picture of the drivers and valve gear over the weekend.

[Cajonpassfan]

Thanks guys!
Hey, Jason, I didn't know you knew metric in Texas
11.8mm works out to about 74.33"... still a bit on the small size...
Regards, Otto

[victor miranda]

there are three plastic c55.  two by microace and none of them are the same dimensions.

this is from the Kato c55, the one recomended for this conversion/.
my calipers got 12.02 mm
the flanges are bigger.   (from memory they are 25 thous.)
so the flange diameter is 13.2mm... (I did not measure it again tonight.)
and the driver spacing seems to be 14mm.

the flange is bigger that 80 scale inches and the tread is smaller by a similar amount under.
by most n-scale standards. it is an 80 inch driver.

victor

[kelticsylk]

Guys...
When I say it doesn't add much to the loco's appearance this is what I mean...

The top half of the picture is Mike's K4 with the angle changed to match the angle of the real K4 on the bottom half. The K4 drivers are almost on top of one another. It's very compact and adds to the kinda powerful businesslike look of the locomotive. To me neither the C55 nor the Trix mechanism looks K4ish. Either way I have to deal with the limitations of whats available...I'll opt for the cheaper option.

Frank

P.S.  Sorry Guys, I used the wrong picture the first time I posted and didn't check the preview.

[victor miranda]

I am seeing a nice k4 on a paper turntable?

[mmagliaro]

As Victor points out, you ain't going to get a true 80" driver in N Scale.
A .015" flange, which is mighty aggressive for an engine, is 2.4 scale inches.  So even with such a super-fine
flange, you are going to add a scale 4.8" to your wheel diameter.  Hence, an 80" driver will look like 85"
because of the flanges, and this is being kind.  A more realistic .022" flange would add 7".
So if you get within 5", that's about the best you are going to do.

The real problem with the Trix drivers isn't their diameter.  It's their spacing.

[Lemosteam]

Otto, EBIT measured those for me on the Atlas Fourm once.  I'll see if I can find the thread and edit this post...

[superturbine]

 I quoted Ebits measurements

EBIT


 Posted - 2010 November 09 :  01:41:58 AM   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
pdesigndavidson,

Looks like you are confusing "the MicroAce Manchurian RR Pashina" with "the MicroAce JNR C55"
because this thread was stared about "the Kato JNR C55".

Let me make a simple answer to prevent any confusion.

The driver diameters are

Kato JNR C55 to be released in February : 11.8 mm
MicroAce JNR C55 : 10.8 mm
MicroAce Manchurian RR Pashina : 13.3 mm

I hope that you understand them but please let me know if you have any more question.

Ebi

 
 

[Lemosteam]

I didn't even see that there was a second page on the thread!!  Sheesh..

[superturbine]

BTW
I dont know if there will be any real interest in a K4 casting.  But I will do that next, it might save some from having to buy a Trix and a c55.  Besides the body should be nicer than a stock trix.  What do you think? 


Oh and-
Price will be less than the T1.

[Dave V]

BTW
I dont know if there will be any real interest in a K4 casting.  But I will do that next, it might save some from having to buy a Trix and a c55.  Besides the body should be nicer than a stock trix.  What do you think? 


Oh and-
Price will be less than the T1.

Specifically for the Kato mech?  Might be.  I've got my brass but if you can make it nice enough and have it ready to drop on a reliable mech, I'm maybe in for another.

[victor miranda]

I am not sure I'd try for a replacement shell, in that the shell
on the minitrix is not objectionable.

non-working k4s with shells rarely go for more than 40 on the bay
most times 30.

the trix has other appearance issues like the steam chest
and the trailing truck and the tender trucks.
It would be nice to have a slat pilot that can accept a
microtrains coupler of one sort or another.

the problem is that the c55 conversion needs more than a shell,
it uses a lot of the parts of the entire k4.

If you want to get overrun, make a PRR h8/9/10 shell to clap over
the spectrum 2-8-0.

[Dave V]

If you want to get overrun, make a PRR h8/9/10 shell to clap over
the spectrum 2-8-0.

THIS.

It's crossed my mind more than once to do this and make castings.