MTH Premier PS1 J1e Hudson - How "Good" Are They?

@ogauge1217 posted:

Strongly considering purchasing this engine to start my scale model fleet. I know many tout the K-Line scale J1e as the best model of this engine, but the MTH version appeals more to me. I plan on upgrading the model to modern command spec (may be easier to do than the K-Line), so its relatively low pricing is a plus.

Can anyone shed more light on this model? Thanks.

MTH are the best mechanically.  I'd put any PS1 engine up against what Lionel is putting out currently when it comes to reliability.   You going to install PS2/3 or ERR you will have a great running engine.

I put heavy miles on one for a few years. Would handle 12 passenger cars with ease, with grades. Zero issues. I feel the era of the mid nineties was the golden age of the more modern engines. Made in Korea and high quality.  The K-Line may win out as far as finer details. But I’ll take the robust drive train and motor of the MTH. It’s a lot easier to add some details. The fact that’s it’s non command may be a plus. It will be a bit cheaper and you can add whatever system you want and the features you want.

Agree with everything above, …..a couple things to keep in mind……A PS1 Hudson is conventional. So no command capabilities right out the box. Upgrading to PS3 is the most economical way to go, and will be the quickest install. If considering TMCC, antenna mounting can be the only caveat, ……plus having to deal with providing chuff, etc, and you’ll have to add more boards like John’s chuff generator & super chuffer,….

Pat

I've had my PS1 Hudson for 5 years now, and I've been pretty happy with it so far. The sound effects are nice, it runs smoothly, and it seems like a very well-detailed locomotive to me, especially for a late '90's release. I honestly believe this thing was ahead of its time.

Mechanically it's bullet proof. Put whatever electronics you like in it and the locomotive will pretty much run forever.

I purchased one brand-new for big bucks in 1997.  As others have said, mechanically they are very robust.  Good casting and assembly quality.  Detail equal to or better than Lionel's 1990 1-700e.  Unfortunately like the 700e, there are a lot of "bright" surfaces for what was marketed as a scale model.  If you're not a collector you could probably paint or chemically blacken the offending surfaces, but even doing that takes effort and skill.  MTH toned this down on the PS2 versions a few years later.

The 20-3020-1 was a purely conventional loco.  Its gear ratio is 16:1, which is pretty tall when combined with drivers that scale out to 78".  Unlike Lionel, MTH used a single-threaded steel worm and a 16-tooth bronze worm wheel on the axle.  The worm wheel is quite smaller in diameter compared to the one Lionel used in its 700-series Hudsons.  The "pro" is that the MTH model doesn't have a huge gearbox sticking up above the middle driver.  The "con" is that the smaller gear equates to a shorter lever arm for the worm, and lower starting torque at the wheels.

Although the gearbox is much smaller than Lionel's, when viewed from the side, the boiler shell is still pretty obviously U-shaped, so it looks best when viewed from above.  This loco would have benefitted from a lower casting to round out the boiler, as MTH used on exactly one run of its Premier Berkshires circa 2000.  [In truth there's a lot of daylight visible above the drivers of a Van Sweringen Berk!]  Lionel used a two-piece casting to get a full, round boiler on their Milwaukee S3 and Legacy Reading T1s.

With the stock 9434 12V Pittman motor, my J-1e could exceed 100 scale MPH at full throttle.  On a test loop of O72 tubular, my slowest minimum speed was about 9 scale mph with some slowing noted on O72 curves.  Rubber tires on both sides of the rear axle, fairly wide gauging of the drive wheels, and one-piece side rods without bushings make this a "tight" loco.  It says O42 on the box, but I doubt that it would run realistically into O42 circular curves, particularly when running light (i.e., NOT pulling a train.)  IMO, if your curves are that sharp, you're better off with the metal-tired scale Hudsons from Lionel, or more "traditionally-sized" motive power.

After a year, I decided that I didn't need 100 mph of top speed, and I wanted better low-speed performance.  With a cast-in gearbox there was no hope of changing the gear ratio, so I substituted a 24-volt version of the same Pittman motor.  This is an easy-to-do modification that really mellowed out the loco's performance; if you're going to stay conventional I highly recommend it.  I can still get about 65 mph of top speed with 18-19 volts on the rails.  Current draw is greatly reduced with the 24-volt motor.  Starting a long train with the slack stretched is smoother too.  Unfortunately the slowest minimum speed didn't improve by much.  After a lot of testing I concluded that none of these motors want to keep turning much below 800 rpm in this application, when being fed rectified DC from the Proto-1 electronics.  I'm sure that some flavor of closed-loop speed control would give me a minimum speed of 3 mph or less.

Pulling power is excellent, although I did have two instances when the loco shed a rubber tire.  In one case the tire got tangled in the side rod; thankfully I noticed it before serious damage was done.

My biggest source of dissatisfaction with the loco is the lack of coasting.  For a long time I ran with others on public displays.  Despite having a (small) flywheel, the MTH Hudson's tall gearing and self-locking worm drive made for a rod-graunching, grinding halt any time someone caused a short circuit, or accidentally turned off the track power.  These things happen, and the "emergency stops" were scary to see and hear.  Rubber tires are partially to blame for this too, because as 2-rail O scalers know, smooth wheels skid a little, even with the gears locked up.

A minor, related problem is that the Hudson has only two rollers on the loco and none on the tender.  It would occasionally stop abruptly on switches, crossings, etc., because both rollers landed on dead spots, and there wasn't enough coasting, capacitance, etc., to reach powered rail.  I looked into adding a roller to the tender, which I'm sure would help.  It's doable, but would take some original engineering, trial-and-error.  Shame on MTH for not offering an upgrade kit, or building it with 3 rollers in the first place!!

Re: coasting, the flywheel is nestled just above the front of the ashpan, and there isn't much room for a larger one.  I thought about milling out the boiler shell, but it would be visible.  I even tried having a custom flywheel "slugged" with tungsten rods inserted near its rim (think bullets in the cylinder of a revolver) by a local machine shop here in TX.  After a few months of silence I checked back with them only to learn that they somehow "lost" my materials .  Although mechanically identical, PS2 versions that appeared a few years later do exhibit some degree of coasting. This amazes me!  (Unfortunately the PS3 versions don't coast, at least in conventional! )

Bottom line, I guess now these are a bargain, although it would take money and effort to add the features everyone expects in today's top-end locos.

I don't recommend it if you want coasting or smooth, single-digit speeds on curves tighter than O54.  PS2 versions have blackened bright-work, coast better, and should crawl right out of the box--if they run.  PS2 electronics are a different kind of crap-shoot.  Personally, if mine were lost to fire, theft, etc.  I would replace it with a Vision Line.  Back-drivable gears and OEM Legacy speed control make it worth saving up for IMO.  My $.02.

@Ted S My table has O42 as my biggest curves, and it always got through them just fine. Of course, it's not quite pretty, but I can live with it.

@carnerd3000 what I meant is this: if you set your loco and tender running (without a train) on straight track at single-digit speeds, when the loco gets into an O42 curve it will stall due to the added friction.  Alternately: if you set up a sectional O42 oval and set your transformer to the minimum voltage needed to get through the curves, you'll see the loco speed up noticeably and unrealistically when it goes from curved to straight track.

Now if that same oval is perfectly level, a Lionel 773 Hudson made in 1950 that's operating correctly should also make it around at an average of 9 scale mph.  But the Lionel will exhibit less obvious speed variation when going from straight to curved, and vice-versa.  The MTH is "tight" whereas the Lionel, lacking rubber tires and designed for even sharper curves, is more flexible.  And YES they will both look silly, with a ton of overhang!

All great information, thanks. I know in the future that besides upgrading the electronics, I would possibly want to modify the handrails to achieve a more realistic look. How can I do this easily?

@ogauge1217 posted:

All great information, thanks. I know in the future that besides upgrading the electronics, I would possibly want to modify the handrails to achieve a more realistic look. How can I do this easily?

In modeling, there is no easy, ….if it was all easy, there’d be no challenge ……

The early PS1 Hudsons have very nice handrails & stanchions. Quite correct in placement, & looks, however, the stainless handrails can stand to be darkened. This is the challenge, …..the only method I’ve found tried & true that works is lightly scuffing the handrails with 800 grit paper, then using Caswell’s stainless blackener ( black oxide) refinishing system. Once you blacken stainless, you must use a sealer on it, or it will turn brown. Then reinstall the handrails on the engine…..So you see, there’s no easy, unless you want to paint them in place, and then they’ll look like crap, but it’ll be easy,……😝

Pat

@Ted S Ah, okay. I've ran my locomotive at slow speeds, but probably not the bare minimum. Maybe I'll try it at some point and see what happens on my end.