OK Gang - what is wrong with the picture of the new Dreyfus Hudson on page 48 of the new Lionel catalog?
Hello Roy:
I do not know much about the NYC or its Hudsons. But I will say the model does look very nice and I wouldn’t mind owning it. Looking at other pictures of the engine, I could not spot any mistakes. The only guess I could come up with is that for this engine # (5448) the drivers are incorrect. Am I close?
Regards,
John
John - sort of…you are getting warmer…
Drivers are right, # 5448 did get Boxpok drivers while some others J3s with Dreyfuss Shrouds had the Scullin Double Disc. The “PT” tender didn’t come until 1943. The hex nuts on the side rods would be wrong, should be roller bearing cap shaped screws, as was the pre-war 700E.
The drivers don’t match the description.
Although the artists drawing of the drivers is not great, they are the correct Boxpok style drivers. 5448 was equipped with these (5449 had the Scullin DisK) and there are good photos of both in Alvin Staufers books on NYC Steam Power (Vol 1) and Thoroughbreds.
This is more fun than I thought it would be…
BTW - no one has caught the issue in the picture yet.
For DMUinCT - it is very hard to tell - but one might infer from Staufers books that the 5448 was originally equipped with Boxpok drivers and shrouding and that the rods for Boxpok drivers as originally equipped appear to be friction bearing vs roller. The photos are not the best angle to nail this down.
The 5449 came originally equipped with Scullin disk and roller bearings on the rods.
Got to love it when you guys talk “technical”! [bow]
The drivers are not properly quatered to eachother?
Marty - you are hot - but not yet!
I don’t know the technical term but the weight on the rear one is not in the same position as the middle driver.
Marty - bingo!
The artist drew counterweights helterskelter on each driver.
Must not have been an inganear - although I wonder what the artist had to look at to get it that wrong!
BTW that is what I meant the first time but I guess I was saying very well.
I thought so but I wanted to see if anyone came in on the counterweights - the drivers are in alignment as the crank pins are in a row [:D].
This was a good one - - -[;)]
Hello Roy:
Can you clarify this a little bit? I do not understand your explanation. Are the rods incorrectly positioned on the wheel? Please help.
Regards,
John
John,
The quartering of the drivers is actually from one side of a driver to the other. There is a 90 degree spacing of the crank pins on each side of one set of drivers (one axle). In a very basic sense this is so a loco can get started regardless of what position the driver is in - particularly if one crank pin is at bottom dead center with respect to the cylinder.
Here is a link to additional explanation of quartering and the slight offset of the counterbalances.
http://home.new.rr.com/trumpetb/loco/cbal.html
Back to your question - since all the crank pins that are attached to the main rods are in a row - the drivers are in proper perspective to each other. However - since we cannot see the other side of the loco - one can only assume the drivers on each axle are in quarter to each other.
BTW - the quartering is important to a degree on a toy train to make the drivers transfer power from the geared/powered axle to the non-powered axles. As Lionelsoni pointed out to some folks a couple of years ago - on Lionel steamers with spur gears driving all the axles - this keeps the drivers rods in alignment and being out of quarter (as long as all the drivers on each axle are out of quarter the same amount) should not matter. One driver on a toy loco being out of quarter will cause the mechanism to bind.
Boy are you right, no counter weight on the front driver, counter weight on the rear driver is not opposite the “crank pin”. Center driver counter weight is too light (has to take the weight of both side rod and drive rod. I guess I can’t be called a Rivit Counter any more. That was right before my eyes.
Thanks for the link. I see why the drivers must be “quartered.” However, that doesn’t necessarily make the picture wrong since each driver must be quartered to the driver on the same axle. Do the counter weights need to be opposite of the eccentric? Would all of the counter weights be located on the same spot of the wheel as shown on the Berkshire on p. 6 of the catalog?
I learned that the hard way when I added a decoder to an LGB engine a couple of years ago. I had to disassemble the loco a second time to make sure the rod mechanism did not bind. [:(!]
Regards,
John
John,
The counterweight is opposite the crank pin. It is there to counterbalance the weight of the pin and connectiong rod assembly. So yes - the counterbalances are all opposite the driver crank pin to which the driving/connecting rods are attached.
The easiest way to explain it is for static balancing. If I took one driver crank pin and attached its portion (assuming I allocate a “piece” of the drive rod associated with that driver) of the connecting/drive rod - that is a lot of weight and it is offset from the axle. So to statically balance it - I attach a counterbalancing weight directly opposite the connecting pin and rod to balance the driver assembly.
If you have ever seen an automotive crank shaft - there are counterbalancing weight extensions directy opposite to where the piston rod attaches.
Hello Roy:
Thank you for your help, I am learning something new today. However, as I previously asked, would it be typical to see the counterweights of all the drivers on one side of the engine in the same location?
Regards,
John