I’ve already decided to stick with code 100 rail for this loco (among some other reasons) but wanted to know if installing DCC in a pre 1988 Rivarossi Cab Forward is any big deal? Is it as easy to insulate the motor from the frame and/or install the decoder in the tender as it is for most locos?
If it’s not worth it, I’d consider selling it and going with Code 83, but where I grew up back east, Code 100’s
prototype equivalent was pretty common so it doesn’t bug me as much as a lot of folks. If (I’m just starting planning for my weird layout rooms) I can’t accomodate 24" to 30" curves throughout the mainline I’ll maybe switch…
If you want only a motor and light control decoder, it can be installed in the boiler. I have converted both old Rivarossi Big Boy and Cab Forward engines to DCC, and it was fairly simple to do because the motors were totally isolated from the frame.
All you have to do is remove the contact strip that runs from the motor frame to the brush holder to isolate any Rivarossi motor. I think their 3-pole cans are suitable for DCC; the older square open frame motors draw higher current.
NewHaven I-5, Ok, next time, sorry. Thought maybe the loco aspect made it more general but I see your point!
dinwitty, I thought that the larger flanges (I think they were 72 hundreds?) wouldn’t run on code 83 switches? Isn’t there a bunch of posts to that effect in the code 100 vs. 83 threads?
cacole and SteamFreak, thanks for the motor isolation info. If it’s that easy (I haven’t entered the
21st century of DCC yet-just starting to read up on the subject).
I presume it’s not cost effective to have the drivers switched out for .025 flanges, rather than sell and buy a newer version?
There aren’t any equivalent drivers you could substitute without a lot of machining. The older Riv axles are shouldered to keep the wheels centered. Some people turn the flanges down with a file or a lathe, but it’s not easy work.
Thanks SteamFreak.
That’s what I’d been told by locals but wanted to check “nationally” as the info. pool is bigger.
By the way, I’m an ol’ Joisey boy myself. Passaic County (Wanaque). Hence my signature.
Where are you located, unless you’d rather keep that under your hat?
Thanks again for the info.
Capt. G.
Like you, I heard that the older Rivarossi NEM flanges wouldn’t work on code 83, but I have several European-style locos with NEM deep flanges (Roco Crocodiiles) that work on code 83 quite well. So I wouldn’t worry about needing to turn down the flanges on your Rivarossi cab-forward. I really think it’s code 70 that gives those deeper flanges fits. I use code 100 for my mainline, but code 83 in my yards, and those Crocodiles run with no problems. Well, a little bump through the switch frogs, but no derailing.
Thanks Tom,
I wanted to try it out on a Code 83 turnout at the hobby shop but they didn’t have one opened.
I’ve been afraid to go on faith but if I get a chance to find out on someone’s layout before I buy everything
else, I might see if I can trade my Code 100 in.
The 100 isn’t bothering me as much as some other folks
because I saw a lot of it’s equivalent in prototype on the Pennsy line and I’m pretty sure on the Erie Lackawanna too, where I grew up-so it’s always looked “right” to me…
Seeing as this will be my first finished self designed layout, maybe it wouldn’t hurt to stick with the 100 anyway to reduce potential running problems as a beginner. I think even the “bumping” through might un-nerve me being a rookie and all…especially as I want to run the Cab Forward on the mainline at mainline speeds…
It’s good to know that you can run yours on 83 in the yards at yard speeds.
More fuel for thought…
If you are talking about pre-1990 Rivarossi steamers, the pizza cutter flanges are problematic on code 83. I have a small fleet of them and they will run on code 83 but they can sound like they are on a washboard as the flanges make contact with the plastic “spikes”. They will noticeable raise up when going through the frogs of my Atlas turnouts. In the late 1980s, the revolution toward code 83 had begun and Rivarossi responded with slightly smaller flanges. The streamlined Empire State Express Hudson they released to coincide with the 50th annviersary of its inaugural run, which was also the 50th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, runs fine on the code 83 rail.
Code 100 can be made to look smaller with painting, weathering and ballasting, if it turns out that you are forced to use it with deeper flanged locos. The mainline on my Rio Grande Yuba River Sub is all code 100 and I don’t have any trouble with it visually. It’s all a matter of personal choice, mind you, but it doesn’t bother me at all.
thanks for the code 100 encouragement twhite. I think it’s likely I’ll stay with code 100 considering all of the older switches i still own form a previous layout attempt and “questionable” variances from brands to brands, etc with 83…
Don, would you advise my selling my Rivarossi Cab Forward? Seeing as you and I are both from the Pacific NW, I was wondering if you knew what their used prices generally are at swap meets and or for trades in our region? I’ll be going DCC anyway. I’ve been stubbornly holding on to this "brand new"run once locomotive as the “key” to fulfilling my dream, but if parts are going to be an issue anyway (aside from the few folks listed previously on this board who have some) maybe I’ll consider parting with it…
Are there any more modern companies producing cab forwards that will take less than optimum (visually) curves available?
And finally, if you wouldn’t mind PMing me as to where in the PNW you live, if we’re at all close,
I’d be interested in seeing your layout if you have open houses, etc. If that’s too weird/personal,
just ignore!
I wouldn’t worry about the parts issue, Capt. G. Older Rivarossi’s weren’t the best runners because of their 3-pole motors, but they hold up very well with routine maintenance. They used all metal gearing, so they aren’t plagued with cracked axle gears like Athearn steamers or early P2K diesels.
If parts are ever an issue, I know where to get them - including motor brushes. But you have to run those motors a very long time before they wear out. I think the only deciding factor is whether or not you’re comfortable with 100 code rail. If you decide to sell, it should fetch a decent price on eBay, since it’s in new condition.
Well…now I’m really confused. I was able to run my cab forward on a “new” friend’s layout yesterday, all code 83, #6 turnouts and some Xovers and it ran fine! No washboarding or lifting up on ties or plastic spikes at both low and high speeds. Perhaps this loco has the “in between” sized flanges. I was told it had 72 instead of 25s. I’m going to try and find someone who has a #4 code 83 turn out. If it’ll take that, I’m now really really tempted to go with code 83. There was a single tiny click as it passed through the frog of each turnout (that’s normal, right?) but it even took Shinohara curved turnouts fine. Anything else to check out or does it sound like
I’m “good as gold” for code 83? The loco ran like a champ and took a 3.7% grade just fine.
I know it’s a mistake to plan a layout/code based on one loco, but it’ll be quite awhile after laying track before I will be able to afford another articulated. If I buy a newer loco lst, I won’t be able to buy the track…
I think I see the problem here, the vintage of the advice is in line with the vintage of the Code 83 track in question. Early Code 83 track, as well as hand laid, used large spike heads (in relation to scale size) which caused the “bouncing down the ties” problem. Newer Code 83 track has lower profile spike heads and will give better clearance for the oversized flanges. I also have one of these beasts that I bought back in the late 60’s, but haven’t pulled it out of the box yet since getting my layout up and running.
RIVAROSSI Artic’s were made mostly to European standards, and were slow to adapt to the American market and NMRA standards.
If yours is running OK, keep it. Someday, you’ll acquire a locomotive you like better - we all do, regardless of brand. - so why should you be excused?.
ALL Artic’s look better (and run better) on wider curves, so that should be your top priority. Code 83 track is an updated version of code 100, but code 100 works, Rivarossi’s like it -especially PECO - so why not? My 'Mainsl are code 100 because I have it left over from previous endeavors. Many buy it 'cause it’s cheaper. So?
Cantilevering an 8’ board 12" wide will allow 28" radius corves on a piece of plywood, but a 6’2" wide layout will allow 36"r. curves with ‘walk-around’ operation. My home is a split leve /basement recr. room (in SW Portland OR.) so I am trying an 18" wide ‘L’ shaped Point/Point.
Will I like it? - Compared to a full basement? I don’t know, but it fits the room!
twhite. I think it’s likely I’ll stay with code 100 considering all of the older switches i still own form a previous layout attempt and “questionable” variances from brands to brands, etc with 83…