This review is on Rivarossi’s 0-8-0 Yard Goat switcher. This one is the second version with a ball-bearing motor in the cab.[:D]
This 0-8-0 may not be that great compared to today’s higher quality steam engines, but for its time, it had excellent detail and was a smooth runner. Most of the detail is molded on, but it all looks very good. There’s a lot of detail on it that you wouldn’t find on a lot of other steam engines from the 60s, probably including brass. There’s finely molded tread around all the walkways, which improves its look a lot. There’s a lot of piping all around the body that’s molded finely enough that some of it almost looks separate from a distance. They even put some piping in places that you can’t see unless you pick up the engine. The large water heater and bell on the front of the boiler are both separate plastic parts that are glued in place. There are also a lot of details around the frame, including a reverse gear, shock absorbers, and the third cylinder. There are separate railings with stancions along the boiler with grab irons on both ends, and there’s also a positionable lift bar on the front pilot. The only part of the engine that’s not really detailed is the inside of the cab, which is completely filled with the large motor. The tender isn’t as well done as the engine, with bulkier detail and a coal load that doesn’t look that great. It does have a separate ladder and grab irons, which all look fine. The frame and trucks are well detailed, but Rivarossi didn’t give it the correct front power truck until the mid-late 80s. The paint is all very smooth, and the lettering on the engine is very clear and looks great, but the large numbers on the tender don
Thanks for the pictures Darth. I have several of these motors with the white metal gearbox, and wasn’t sure which loco they came from, but now I know. I love those old ball bearing motors. They make such a cool sound, and can run very smoothly. I recently regeared one of their old Y6B’s with NWSL 32% reduction gearing, and the larger ball bearing motor that they used in their old Docksides. A tight fit, but it runs beautifully.
If you can find an old Dockside shell, the headlight lens is a perfect fit in the 0-8-0. Lenses weren’t included, and the tender is detail is pretty crude because it’s one of their earlier models. The Tender is the same one that was used for their tender drive consolidations, which probably dates from the 50’s.
I have the 3rd version of this engine, with the vertically mounted Can/pancake motor. Much smoother gearing, but there’s a hitch in the drivers I haven’t been able to resolve. I’ve been thinking about buying the last version of this, with the RP25 flanges, blackened wheels, and can motor. If it runs as well as the Big Boy, it’ll be a night & day difference.
I hate to be an a$$, but no ball bearings or anything else are going to make a 3 pole motor run like a 5 pole motor. Also, why are we doing reviews of 15 year old engines? I am not complaining or bi##hing, just wondering.
I have two of these locos I had forgotten about, and since you reminded me so I may sell them, thanks. In the context of today I would rate them no better than a C-.
1 - It’s beginning to be train-show season again - there could potentially be a lot of these floating around
2 - He was able to show how easily this loco is able to be made runnable (well, at least this particular one) which might convince others who may be “on the fence” to buy one of them.
Personally, I think it was a good review of the loco.
Lastly - what does it matter if the loco is 15 years old? This hobby isn’t about having the newest or the best locomotive all the time.
Well, this motor runs that good. It’s smooth, powerful, and has good low speed control.
I do reviews of any engines under $150 (and I mean any; I once reviewed a Tyco C-630), and even though this one’s 35 years old, I like it so much I thought it deserved a good review.[:D] When you don’t have much money, you take what you can get, and this is a great engine for the price you’d usually get it for now (around $30).[:D]
The hobby is what you make it. People are interested in many different aspects of model RR’ing – in fact I understand that some people are interested in model trains with three rails! Personally, I can’t overlook it, but I understand that there’s a lot of people who are devoted to Lionel.
I have a number of high-end locomotives, and they tend to sit on the shelf. I start to get bored if I don’t have to tinker or modify. It’s just my thing. It’s a kick to take a vintage loco and make it run as smooth (or almost as smooth) as a modern high tech one. And if the motor only has 3 poles, all the better! It’s more of a challenge. It’s true that there are certain laws of physics your never going to overcome, but you’d be amazed at what careful lubrication & fine tuning can accomplish. I think a lot of guys who don’t know how to maintain or lubricate their locos blame the gears and motors when they fail. I even have a pair old Bachmann 0-6-0’s that are 25 years old, and have never had a problem. They’re quieter now because of what I’ve done to them, they have excellent low speed, and they pull like hell. Those inexpensive pancake motors hardly even get warm . They’ll never grace the pages of Model railroader, but I don’t care. And the personal satisfaction is tremendous.
Don’t sell vintage equipment short – some of it was better than you think, and they can serve as starting points for those of us who like to modify or kitbash.
Well, they may not grace the pages anymore, although I’m willing to bet some of these vintage (or as Virginian so eloquently put it) “junk” locomotives were at one time top of the line…
The AHM engines have never been in the upper half of any line, let alone the top, but I read the review and thought it was interesting since he took the time to do it. I actually forgot had bad these really were until I looked at the article. The early ones had large flanges and the three pole motor could not be controlled very effective. I had purchased some of the early Berkshires and Big Boys and got some of the first Challengers also. All were actually junk and could not be used on Code 70 or any of the better turnouts and none of mine have every been run except on a test track.
A review of any model should include slow running speed, voltage start speed and current draw at various speeds including stall. It also should include details missing and how well the model compares to the prototype.
This particular model was modeled after a one of a kind locomotive and was not popular except as the only 0-8-0 that was available. I skipped them for sure.
I still have several old Rivarossis around here somewhere, with the three pole - not even long or skew wound - motors, and no amount of anything is going to stop them from cogging at slow speed. The old Canon can motors that came in most of the brass locos were mostly 3 pole, but they were pretty darned smooth if you got them timed right. You can rather easily modify the Riv pizza cutter flanges to work okay on code 83 with a Dremel.
I did not say it was junk (Tycos ARE junk), and I was just asking about the review. Please include tractive effort in future reviews - then we can really get an argument going !
I actually did in the section that tells about running.[:D]
“The only weights in the engine are the large motor and a turned steel weight in the boiler, so it doesn’t weigh as much as it could. There’s a traction tire on the left wheel of the third axle, so it should still pull about 35 free rolling cars on level track.”
I don’t really have enough track to really test its pulling power, but it feels like it could pull that much when I hold the coupler.
CAZEPHYR, I did included slow speed and current draw readings in my review, which are also in the running section.[:)]
“The minimum speed I could keep it running at was about 6 scale MPH, which is pretty good for this engine’s gearing.”
“The current running free at 12 volts was 0.38 amps, and the maximum stall current was 1.75 amps. Replacing the large light bulb with a better one or an LED should take almost 0.1 amps off the current, based on a number of tests.”
I’d be the last one to defend some of Rivarossi’s decisions – namely why they were so married to large flanges, 3 pole motors, and high speed gearing. When they finally started redisigning them in the 90’s, it was probably too little too late, even though they were a vast improvement, and the best plastic steam available for a time. What bothers me most about the large flanges is not the 100 code rail necessary to run them, but the fact that the flanges could only be made larger by reducing the wheel diameter, which really affected the asthetics of the locomotive. And no, you’re never going to get all the cogging out of a 3 pole motor, but I’ve gotten much better performance and lower starting speed from all of my locos with better lubricants than you’ll get from the factory. The easiest alternative is regearing, since remotoring usually necessitates carving up the boiler weight.
Interestingly enough, Mabuchi makes some 3 pole motors that are cogless without even skewing the armatures.
