con cor kato and china U50s, truck wheelbase, wheel diameter, measurements etc

[scaro]

Hi

I am hoping someone may be able to tell me the truck wheelbase ( I know it ought to be a scale 9'4" (but these things vary) and the distances between bogie centres on the U50 powered trucks, which I think are the outermost ones.

Also, I am wondering if the axles have the same construction as the Kato PA and the likes of the Atlas/Kato RS3, that is wheels with stub axles of 3/32" (2.38mm) outer diameter tubing, sleeving a 1/16" (1.6mm) plastic gear muff.



I am aware that there were two runs, one by kato in 1973 and one in 1997 by Con Cor itself (mostly made in China, I think) so I am hoping someone may be able to say whether there were any variations between the two.

Also keen to know if both runs have 48" wheels (should have had 40" but this error may make them particularly handy ... they interest me as a TT modeller because they are very big locos for N and may have application for TT if they can be regauged.

Regards to all and Merry Christmas

Ben

[C855B]

Dimensions are identical between original Kato and most recent ("Rail Baron") Con-Cor production. It's my understanding that Jim (Conway) owned the Kato tooling, retrieved it and gave it to the Chinese production house.

Yes, confirm on the 48" (0.3") wheels. I measured a scale ~9'2" on truck wheelbase, but any discrepancy from 9'4" might just be parallax.

Powered (outer) bolster centers are 4.34", aforementioned parallax error notwithstanding.

Can't answer the gearing and axle diameter questions without taking things uncomfortably apart.

[scaro]

thanks Mike

when you say bolster centres, does that mean bogie centres? 

it is bogie centres that are usually more of an issue for scratchbuilding, in the end as far as appearance goes, it often does not matter what point a model truck pivots from.

i had data from the dieselshop site that the real units were 68'1" 'distance between truck centers'. http://www.thedieselshop.us/GE%20U50.HTML#TechData

that would be 129mm or 5.09",  so it sounds as if there is a possibility that the the con cor unit at 4.34"or (110.29mm) is a bit short. 

but then dieselshop data has often been suspect, and on such a complex chassis, i do not know what exactly was measured.   

cheers, benjamin

[3rdboxcar]

Hi

According to the diesel locomotives cyclopedia by model railroader.

The U50's used the trucks and span bolsters from the turbines. The drawing in the book is of the turbines.

Not knowing how the model is assembled the real locomotive has 2 trucks mounted on a span bolster and this span bolster mounts to the under frame of the locomotive.

The truck axle centres are 9' 4"

The truck centre to where the span bolster mounts to under frame differs, the outer trucks are 8' 7.5" and the inner trucks are 6' 8.5"

Now the span bolster centres to under frame on the turbines were 15' 4" but I cannot confirm definitely whether the U50's were the same although I think they are.

If you wish the outer truck centres they are 32' 7" on the drawing for the Turbines.

Hope the above makes sense and is of use.

Seasons greetings.

Alexander

[scaro]

Thank you.  I suppose i am not understanding how the measurement of 32'7" is derived correctly, since if that were the case, the gas turbine would be about the same length as a GP35.

I wish there were a U50 diagram.  However I do not rate Con Cor on accuracy at all ... many of their N locos from that era are incorrect. 

I am going to take my TT rule to the shop and measure their loco to see if it is suitable.

Merry Christmas,

Benjamin

[C855B]

... when you say bolster centres, does that mean bogie centres? ...

Yes. Truck centers, outer trucks.

Guys, forget about the span bolsters on the model. The outer trucks are where all the action is, and the gear towers are centered on the trucks. The inner trucks are merely little trailers floating on the track. Appearance is comical on sharp curves, but, hey, 9.75" was our standard back then and that's how it was done.

Model pilot-to-pilot length is 6", +/-. 80 feet is 'bout right. Retry your math, Benjamin - 4.34" = 57'10". And I wouldn't trust thedieselshop.us any further than I could throw it.

The wheel diameter is the most glaring failure - m'lady has big feet - everything else is pretty close. Actually, remarkably close for an N scale model designed in 1972. I don't know where or how you came to the general conclusion that early Con-Cor/Kato product had glaring dimensional accuracy issues. It was precisely the opposite, they were the go-to brand at the time. It was only when Jim began to acquire closeout tooling from non-Kato production (~1980) that fidelity started to suffer. We'll ignore the penchant for non-proto paint schemes... that came a little later, too.

[scaro]

Hi

Thank you for the confirmation.  My maths is the same as yours, I think. Or near enough; I made 4.34" x 25.4mm (that is one inch in our European mm) = 110.29 mm.  Divide that by 1.9 as N is 1.9mm/ft. That's 58'. 

However my question arose as Dieselshop has them a whole 10' longer at 68'1.  Agree that Dieselshop is often rubbish, however it's often all you have in relation to some locos. 

OTOH, my experience of pre 1980 ConCor is not sufficiently different to Dieselshop to where I would conclude, 'well obviously ConCor are right and DS are wrong' if it came down to a question of who is right on dimensional accuracy. (Kato may be a different story, but I didn't say Kato.) 

This is not a view I came to without suffering. 

I had an early ConCor C636, almost certainly too short. Early 70s. CC might say in mitigation that it was made by Mehano, but they were happy to stick their name on it.  I found it was designed to use Mehano's RSD15 chassis. 

A little later, I got a strange ConCor F3, late 70s, and it was halfway to TT scale. A great disappointment; the detail was way better than most of the other F units at that time.  I later found via Spookshow that it was made by Fleischmann to fit a Euro mech.  Similar sins have been committed by Marklin in Z and Rowa and Tillig in TT. 

Then I got an 'improved' Con Cor C636, different trucks and mech, same stubby shell.  Those trucks, which i still have, are 5'10" `+ 5'10" not right for a C636 either. 

Later still, I got an 80s CC SD40-2 which used the same trucks, which make them 2' short for EMD C trucks, and a stretched version of that late version C636 mechanism.

So if I see the ConCor name, I think it's better not to assume.

Benjamin

[C855B]

Early Con-Cor ≠ all early Con-Cor. There is a distinct timeline. Everything you're complaining about is after Jim and Kato parted ways. That's when Con-Cor became synonymous with lesser product by buying whatever tooling was being sold at fire-sale pricing. As you cite, the C636 was rubbish, as was most Mehano production, with or without Con-Cor in the picture. Can't speak to the 1980's production, as that's long after I gave up on the hope that Jim was paying attention.

The PA, U50, and rolling stock production circa 1970 were stellar product. If you were modeling in N and hand-laying Code 55 or even Code 40 (as I was), Con-Cor (again, Kato-produced) was all that would run. I still have a couple dozen cars from that era that are very nice, and rival current MTL in quality and detail.

I'm assuming nothing. I know what I'm talking about here, as I was there when it happened.

[scaro]

I can say without too much doubt that I was there when I bought those pieces of crud, waaaay before 1980. You asked initially why I am suspicious of Con Cor. I think I have given sufficient reason why.  Happy for others mileage to vary.

[C855B]

Ah. You're absolutely right. In the recollection, I saw the "new" C636 at my LHS in '73, and remember my abject disappointment in the horrible execution. I think the U50 and GTEL4500 were the last collaborations between Con-Cor and Kato, and was '72 or '73. There was, I think, subsequent production with existing tooling up to a point, but nothing new. I didn't buy Con-Cor after then 'cause unless it was Kato production, it was pretty much crap.

[3rdboxcar]

Thank you.  I suppose i am not understanding how the measurement of 32'7" is derived correctly, since if that were the case, the gas turbine would be about the same length as a GP35.

Benjamin

Ooops  - sorry that should read 58' 9"

Alexander

[spookshow]

Ah. You're absolutely right. In the recollection, I saw the "new" C636 at my LHS in '73, and remember my abject disappointment in the horrible execution. I think the U50 and GTEL4500 were the last collaborations between Con-Cor and Kato, and was '72 or '73. There was, I think, subsequent production with existing tooling up to a point, but nothing new. I didn't buy Con-Cor after then 'cause unless it was Kato production, it was pretty much crap.

For the record, the last Con-Cor/Kato collaboration was their 4-8-4 S-2 in 1985.

Cheers,
-Mark

[C855B]

Thanks, Mark.

Now looking at your site - shame on me for not doing it sooner - it appears I badly needed to refresh my Con-Cor production history (apologies, Benjamin). Conway was all over the map with suppliers the entire time, and much, much more than I thought. I've been over-remembering the earliest couple of years when the PA was new and he was also sourcing rolling stock from Kato. Rose-colored rear-view mirror, I guess.

This thread has rekindled my own interest in detailing the U50s I've accumulated over the years. #1 thought is doing something about those oversize wheels. The prototype was really tall, but not that tall. With luck NWSL might have something that can be retrofitted.

[scaro]

Mike, you helped me;  I can possibly help you ... if the U50 uses the same design of wheel as the other Katos like the PA and RS3, that is, a wheel with a sleeve stub axle of 3/32" outer diameter and 1/16" inner diameter, i may be able to send you some sets from an old Atlas RS3 and an RSD4/5. I on the other hand could use some of the original 48" U50 ones, if you want to do a swap!

Regards, Benjamin

[scaro]

Mark, you may be in a position to say...what was the height and width of that Con Cor F3?

The review you quoted on your site says it is 3' too long ... Which may make it handy... I am thinking of instances like the Lima Plymouth where an ostensibly N loco actually did turn out to TT scale.

Benjamin