Well, they finally did it. I know some of the rivet-counters on the NP modelers list were nitpicking these new Challengers a bit, but lordy... they sure are pretty. Anyone have any advance advice on getting/waiting? Who's ordered them so far? Heck, do the Challengers sound as good in person as they seem to in the Youtube videos? Online description; The Northern Pacific ordered 21 "Challengers" from the American Locomotive Company in 1936 and took delivery of them during 1936 and 1937. These 4-6-6-4s were designated Class Z-6 and were assigned road numbers 5100 through 5120. They had four 23 x 32 cylinders, 69" drivers, a 250 psi boiler pressure, exerted 104,500 lbs of tractive effort and weighed 624,500 pounds. In 1941, another six "Challengers" came from ALCO. These were designated Class Z-7 and they carried road numbers 5121 through 5126. They had four 23 x 32 cylinders, 70" drivers, a 260 psi boiler pressure, exerted 107,000 lbs of tractive effort and weighed 644,000 pounds. The last steam locomotives bought by the Northern Pacific were the 20 "Challengers" it purchased from ALCO during 1943 and 1944. This group designated Class Z-8 was assigned road numbers 5130 through 5149. The Class Z-8 locomotives were virtually identical those of Class Z-7. Two oil-burning Z-8s were also delivered to the SP&S. http://www.some train store.com/v/vspfiles/templates/MTS2015/images/clear1x1.gif http://www.some train store.com/v/vspfiles/templates/MTS2015/images/clear1x1.gif Features Brand new locomotive and tender tooling NP and SP&S road specific details Cast pilot with fold-down coupler Enclosed cab with side entry doors, fixed roof hatches and simulated diaphragm Smokebox-mounted air pumps Two sizes of wheels in the trailing truck NP-style expansion link, which supports much of the valve gear NP specific welded coal tender SP&S specific welded oil tender Fully-assembled and ready-to-run Boiler backhead with printed manual controls Individually applied piping, valves, generators, etc. Correctly operating eccentric cranks Headlights and number boards with directional light change Tender light Genesis five pole, skewed armature can motor with flywheels Pivoting front and rear engines for negotiating 11" radius curves Current pick-up on all driver and tender wheels 8-pin connector plug between loco and tender McHenry operating knuckle couplers installled Minimum radius: 11" Recommended radius: 15" Onboard DCC decoder with SoundTraxx Tsunami sound Sound units operate in both DC and DCC Full DCC functions available when operated in DCC mode Engine, whistle, and bell sounds work in DC All functions NMRA compatible in DCC mode Excellent Slow speed control Many functions can be altered via Configuration Value (CV) changes CV chart included in the box
I hope that they last longer than Spookshow's Big Boy...he sent his back to Athearn twice for repairs and has it up on ebay...the starting bid was a penny.
Huh. Fro what I recall the later releases were stronger/better? My buddy wants a Big Boy, should I warn him off it?
Heavens those are beautiful. I have a wife for sale so I can get one. She's a good cook, any takers? ha ha
Got mine this week. Haven't run mine either......I'm between layouts and just have a little 2 X 4 layout I use for testing. Curves are a little tight for a challenger, although it might be fun to try. Testing will be next weekend at our monthly NTRAK setup. I've wanted a good articulated loco for quite a while, but no one made one in a railroad I was interested in.
Great Cesar's Ghost, what a beautiful engine!! I am ordering mine tomorrow! I'm darn excited at the prospect, but I'm literally going to have to build a new layout to run her...
Well.......Mine looks great, sounds great , has fantastic low speed............and has zero pulling power. OK, maybe not zero, but a loco that size with 4 traction tires should pull more than 20 cars. A friend was running his (from a previous run) at our setup today, and had 32 cars behind his (that's what would fit on the siding). We shut his loco down and put mine on the mainline and ran it for a couple of laps.....everything was great, so we uncoupled his loco and coupled on mine. It would not even attempt to move........just sat there and spun. I don't have an explanation yet, although we did note that the new loco has a spring loaded trailing truck that the older loco doesn't have, and the spring under the pilot truck seems much stiffer on the new loco. Might be that the spring loaded trucks are actually lifting the drivers.....the 2 axles with the tires are the 2 closest to the springs. Anyway....debating what to do. I hate to tear into a $400 brand new loco that is perfect in every other way, but also am not happy with it's current pulling ability, AND I hate to send it back when there may be nothing wrong (except the design) and the replacement will be exactly the same. I'll wait to hear from others on how theirs run before deciding.
I don't know how these are built , but IF they use bearing blocks like Bachmann does I may have a fix for you . Carefully remove the TT driver from its slot and then place a tiny sliver of Scotch tape in the frame where the bearing block sits and replace the driver in the slot . This will shim the driver down and make better contact with the rail . I used this method on a Bachmann lt. mtn. and now have a loco that pulls very well ......Mike
Yeah, that worked on my Lt. Mountain too Mike. But when the loco is setting on the track, if you push down you can see the drivers go down, and when you take the pressure off, you can see the drivers lift up again .......pretty sure it's the springs in the trucks.
Why, are there springs in the trucks? I would think this would make the loco unable to pull much. And second, keep it from having good contact on the tracks? I would say to heck with the warranty, and remove whatever springs are in the trucks. It might also be the reason for the stuck truck. Just my opinion... Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I'm all for opening and hacking a loco, but this ain't their first run so this B$ should not be happening. I wonder how many folks are affected so far? I remember Bachmann saying "just use more locos".... at $429 that ain't even on the table here.
Has anyone contacted Intermountain to let them know about this problem.? It is not a good idea to attempt to fix it yourself, you will void the warranty. If there is nothing posted in the next 24 hours I will call them in Longmont, Colorado. The Challengers that have not arrived in the first shipment will be in Intermountains offices in early December. I have a specific Northern Pacific loco reserved with my local hobby shop and am concerned. If it can’t pull 16 40’ boxcars and a NP caboose on a level surface with Kato #6 turnouts and 19” to 28” radius curves, I am not a buyer unless Intermountain fixes the problem before it is shipped to my dealer.
Sorry about that, Athearn. I should have known better, I have a D&RGW Challenger from the 2013 run. Absolutely no problems.
Mine also has a pulling problem. You can tell that the middle wheels of the "6" trucks sit just a little lower than the other two, keeping the traction tires at the back from touching the rails decently. I don't think it is the spring in the back "4" truck causing it as that would cause the wheels in the front of the rear "6" truck to contact best of all, but you if you move the trucks around when it is sitting on the track you can see it is the middle wheels touching the best. The height difference is very small, probably on the order of a piece of paper, but enough for the traction tires to not grip. This is why the piece of tape under the bearing block should fix it, if indeed this model has bearing blocks. Another option could be to reduce the size of the middle wheels by grinding them a little in something like a lathe, but that would be pretty difficult. I know some have reduced wheel flanges on "pizza cutter" wheels in older locomotives this way. I wonder if it is a re-design flaw or a component tolerance flaw. If all of the new models have the problem, there is no point in trying to get a replacement. Is "It doesn't pull as many as it could with a slightly better design" grounds for a refund?
