Can the Atlas H16-44 frame be swapped out for some other loco frame?

[OldEastRR]

I wouldn't expect it to be a perfect match, but with the same general dimensions and truck spacing. Also the cutesy marker-light feature would be eliminated to provide more frame. I assume some milling would be needed to get the substitute to work. The original Atlas frame is apparently quite inferior.
I'm thinking maybe Randgust or Spookshow or Peteski may have the information on frames.

[randgust]

Probably a stupid answer, but....

http://www.spookshow.net/loco/atlash1516.html
vs.
http://www.spookshow.net/loco/bachh16-44.html

I don't have either, so this is nothing more than an observation.

[thomasjmdavis]

I bought mine in 2003 or 4 when they first came out, and a couple more picked up on eBay.  Mine all still work (just put decoders in a couple of them last year).  In what way are the frames "inferior"?  Are you just looking for more weight, or are you encountering conductivity issues or some kind of metal rot?  Do I need to lay in a stock of spare parts for the next 15-20 years?

[Chris333]

I just had my Bachmann versions out the other day. Can't believe how good they run.

[bbussey]

The Bachmann units are pretty hearty, although tough to find now.

I don’t know what’s so inferior about the Atlas units. It sure is a lot of work to fit another mechanism underneath. Especially since there is no less metal on the H16-44 frame than any other DCC-friendly Atlas frame. The marker lights, which simply are additional SMLEDs on a normal-sized decoder, can be turned off. And no other N scale model has the same truck frames.

[brokemoto]

As Spookshow points out in his review, there have been complaints of cracking of a drivetrain component.  I have had two of them show this.  Atlas replaced one in-warranty.  The other one was out of warranty, so I got stuck.  I simply bought another, swapped the shells and kept the old one for parts.  I still have three.  All of them run well.

I have one of the B-manns.  I like the B-mann.  My one complaint is the incorrect coupler height.  It does run well.  I am surprised that Bachperssonn has not kept this one in production.

The Bachmann and Atlas represent two different versions of this.  Baltimore and Ohio  had both versions.  Atlas and B-mann both issued B&O versions.

[thomasjmdavis]

Atlas produced 2 versions- the original curved side window "Loewy" version, and the (would this be "phase 2"?) second version that had squared off windows and other simplifications.  The Bachmann represents the last (or at least late) version, with the higher walkway and some other detail changes.

My only (very minor) gripe with the Atlas is that they produced the early version in ATSF only with the original numbering in the 2800 series.  These were re-numbered very early on as the 3000 series (with the second order with square windows starting at 3010), and they never (AFAIK) produced the re-numbered 3000-3009, which would be the correct numbers when run with their second series 3010-3019.  I've never had the courage to re-number them myself- it is just the sort of thing I mess up.

[OldEastRR]

The problem is my sound decoder installer found the frame to be very fragile and lightweight, and thus broke apart when milling out space for a decoder and speaker. But apparently no other frame -- other than the Bmann version -- can be swapped out for it.
Just my luck -- I buy the Atlas version and the BACHMANN version is better. The world turned upsidedown ...

[nickelplate759]

The Bachmann version may be sturdier, but I'm not at all certain I would call it better.

[thomasjmdavis]

The problem is my sound decoder installer found the frame to be very fragile and lightweight, and thus broke apart when milling out space for a decoder and speaker. But apparently no other frame -- other than the Bmann version -- can be swapped out for it.
Just my luck -- I buy the Atlas version and the BACHMANN version is better. The world turned upsidedown ...

Forgive me for pointing this out, but what you said in the original post is that the Atlas frame is "quite inferior".  It is obviously NOT inferior.  The issue here is that you are trying to mill away an (undisclosed) amount of the frame in order to install an (undisclosed) decoder-speaker combination- and that attempt failed.  Perhaps the way to approach it is to ask the board how to install what you want to install, instead of maligning Atlas.

[mmagliaro]

The problem is my sound decoder installer found the frame to be very fragile and lightweight, and thus broke apart when milling out space for a decoder and speaker. But apparently no other frame -- other than the Bmann version -- can be swapped out for it.
Just my luck -- I buy the Atlas version and the BACHMANN version is better. The world turned upsidedown ...

I've been following this thread, and although I don't own one of these engines, I looked at photos of it and it did look to me like the frame gets very thin around the motor,  particularly the way the center motor section connects to the larger end sections over the trucks.  I scarfed a photo of the bare from off an eBay ad from somebody who is selling the frames.  The metal looks REALLY thin where that top center section connects to the ends.  I thought NCE made a drop-in replacement decoder board for these.  Can you post photos of the now-broken frame so we can see what's going on here? 

[jdcolombo]

Hi folks.

I'm the one trying to install a sound decoder for Old East.  I was trying to mill a bit of the frame off the center top to fit a Loksound, and it broke apart.  I wasn't taking a very deep cut (.5mm), but the frame flexed there and broke.  Never had this happen before, and I've milled a LOT of frames - including a lot of Atlas frames.

As Max mentions, after this disaster I did notice that the metal is VERY thin around the motor - and also very light.  The whole frame weighs 29 grams - about 1 oz.  There's just not much there around the motor.

Max - I tossed the broken frame, but it broke apart where the holes are for the motor housing on the right-hand side of your photo.  The odd thing is that I wasn't milling that area; I was trying to mill the thicker area to the rear (left) of that. 

I've ordered some replacement frames from Atlas (or tried to - their web site seems a bit flakey, and I may have to call to verify the order went through).  I'll be much, much, much more careful the next time (I might just hand-file the area), and with any luck there will be space left on at least the front "shelf" to add some lead sheet for a bit more heft.

John C.

[mmagliaro]

John, first thank you for being so forthcoming about what happened here.  What I mean is... this could happen to anybody and I hope you're not beating yourself up about  it!

Does this picture (below) accurately represent what happened?   If you clamped the frame under the mill cutter, and just tried to mill off the top as shown, then I think a sturdy brace, even just a firm block of wood inserted in the opening under where you're milling, should protect the frame from breaking at the thin points noted in the photo.  Did you do this with a milling machine, or just a Dremel?

Update: In fact, upon rethinking it, it would be even better to clamp the top of the frame from the sides so the frame is totally supported only by that top part, so that when the cutter comes down, it can't flex the frame, which is what probably happened here.   Maybe that's what you already tried, I don't know, of course.

[jdcolombo]

Hi Max.

Yep, you identified the break points and where I was milling.

I ordered two sets of frames, just in case.  And yes, I think your assessment of where to clamp and how to support the frame halves the next time is spot on.  I just didn't realize how thin the metal was; now that I know, I'll be a lot more careful with the support and clamping before trying all this again.

And on a side note - doesn't 19 grams for a frame sound . . . light?  I think one half of one of my Atlas GP9 frames weighs that much!

John C.

[mmagliaro]

Hi Max.

Yep, you identified the break points and where I was milling.

I ordered two sets of frames, just in case.  And yes, I think you're assessment of where to clamp and how to support the frame halves the next time is spot on.  I just didn't realize how thin the metal was; now that I know, I'll be a lot more careful with the support and clamping before trying all this again.

And on a side note - doesn't 19 grams for a frame sound . . . light?  I think one half of one of my Atlas GP9 frames weighs that much!

John C.

I'm sure you'll get it, John.  It's one of those freak things that you don't think about until it happens.
19 g is AMAZINGLY light.  And it doesn't look like there's really many places to put weight slugs in there.  Those lowered areas in the front and rear get filled up by circuit boards. 

An "old school" Kato F unit weighs about 125g.  Now I know that's from back when they could use lead in the frames, but still.  19?  Even with the motor and shell on it, the whole engine must weigh something like 40g.