Can these be made to run smoothly? I have never had one in my hands, and as a possible alternative to Athearn/Cary S-4 or SW1500 (and the older Walthers/Roco H10-44s, which are also pretty hefty) is this a viable alternative? How about, is it a sensible alternative? If so, are these better remotored, what is parts availability like, etc.?
Mike
Mike,
Were it Me…I would not waste My time. They were of Train set quality and not very good at that. Noisy, high current draw motor, poor pick-up. Basically to get it to run smoothly, would mean starting from scratch, motor, drive-line, trucks were not the greatest either. They were OK, by 1956 standards, but not as good as Varney or Tyco. Parts???
Here is a pdf. of the 1958 version of the motor:
http://hoseeker.net/revellinformation/revellf7eightwheeldrive1958pg2.jpg
Take Care! [:D]
Frank
The Revell switcher for its day was slightly better then Varney’s switcher and those were the choices we had for EMD switchers and the majority opt for a 0-6-0 or 0-8-0 for yard work.
When Athearn released their SW7(called a SW1500) it all but killed the Revell and Varney switcher.
To answer your question,no,there’s no way a Revell switcher can be made to run smooth unless you toss the drive and replace it with a better drive and I’m not sure that can be done.
If I wanted a powerful switcher I would use either a Atlas Alco switcher, RS1 or GP7.Atlas/Roco AlcoS4 isn’t that bad either.
If you want to go old school and can find one the Hobbytown switcher drive kit is a phenomenal runner.
Another alternative is look for the one that ConCor marketed way back in the 80’s?..they originally used the Revell shell with a Kato drive, but I think later versions may have switched to an Athearn drive instead. Chris M
Whoa! I have all but forgotten that drive…Yes,that would work if one can be found…
Thanks guys. I have some nice GP-7s, H10-44s, just scored my first Atlas S-2(!), and a few Athearn SW7s (metal trucks with the outside bearings, which work great for what I am doing), so really, I’m set. Nice to know the Revell is not worth pursuing.
M
I got a Revell Switcher new in the mid 50s and thought it was OK for a diesel, didn’t do well at all compared to my Roundhouse 0-6-0. It sit in the box most of the time figuring it was just a dud. I got an Athearn rubber band drive later on and I found out the Revell wasn’t so bad after all. Seriously don’t waste your time on a Revell locomotive. I ended up giving both the Athearn and Revell to my younger brother as toys.
Mel
Modeling the SP in HO scale since 1951
My Model Railroad
http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/
Bakersfield, California<
The Revell body is a slip fit onto an Athearn SW7 chassis (so is the Varney). Some poking around at a swap should locate one of the Athearn chassis at a good price.
Is fine locomotive. Do not give up on it. Park it at the far end of your back shop with weeds and even a tree growing up between its steps. It will look great!
ROAR
Wow! I just learned something new! Gotta love this hobby since its a never ending learning process.
John,Thanks for sharing that information…[tup]
Almost any engine can be made to run good, the trouble is, is it worth all the work and do you have the skill???
The Athearn model’s body is .10" longer than it should be.
I would imagine Athearn added the length so that they could fit their drive inside. So, if the Revell body is scale length, it would likely have difficulty fitting on the drive. The difficulty could be surmountable. Or not. But I’m not seeing a simple slip fit happening.
I’ve got a Revell switcher with eight wheel drive. The drive is a disaster. If the Athearn drive can’t be made to work out, I’m sure the Hobbytown can be made to fit. I recommend the slow speed gearing. I believe it tops out at 35 smph. If you keep your switcher off the main line, it’ll be marvelous.
Ed
All I can say is I’ve done it. Give it a try.
So, as suggested, I tried it. My Revell is undoubtedly at the bottom of several boxes–I’ll save that one for later.
But I did find my Varney switcher body.
Definitely NOT a slip fit. But I think it can be worked out:
The “fuel” tank on the Athearn chassis is .012 wider than the available space between the air tanks on the Varney. Some carefully done filing can remove the metal from the chassis.
You will also have to file some more off the frame near the"fuel" tank–you’ll see it when you try to do that slip fitting.
You are also going to have to file a bunch of the deck under the cab to allow for the Athearn gear tower.
Mounting couplers and attaching the body to the chassis is NOT straightforward. Right now, just looking at the parts, I don’t have a decent solution.
There’s not a lot of clearance front-to-back for the shell to fit over the gear towers. I think it would fit, though. One thing you’d probably want to do is remove Athearn’s light bulb mounting bracket. You might have to also do a “clever trick” to have the cab rear clear the gear tower.
My Varney body casting is bare. Which means there’s no cab. So I can’t tell you much about clearances there. I was planning on using a Cannon cab when/if Cannon produces more.
As a matter of interest, the Varney body casting (without cab or end steps) weighs 3 3/8 ounces. The Athearn body weighs 5/8 ounce without the cab.
I will also note that the Varney cast is REALL VERY NICE. The doors, for instance, are flush, rather than raised, as on the Athearn.
So, since the Varney is NOT a slip fit, I am still suspicious about the Revell being so.