After getting all of the first level track laid,(N Scale) on an around the wall layout, I start testing it with locos. Because I'm doing N Scale with a lot of curves, it's a mountain layout, most of my curves are min radius, 9 3/4" radius. I figure that's OK since I'm doing steam and early diesel with short locos and cars and most of the curves are going into scenery so they won't be eye catchers..All of the diesels did fine no bumps, grinds, hiccups, etc., and I'm feeling pretty good about my first track-laying experience. Now the steam.. All of the steam I tried, Kato, Bachman and Model Power try to derail on any curve where there's a joiner. I could actually see the drivers lifting off the track, but it was intermittent. I finally figured out that it was the Atlas joiners that the steam locos don't like. The profile is too high on the inside of the track and the flange on the drivers is rolling on top of them. It probably wouldn't be an issue on a larger radiu curve, but they sure don't like these. I switched some of the joiners with Peco joiners and problem goes away. Now I'm replacing rail joiners with Peco, scrutinizing and replacing one joint at a time... I'm starting to wish I hadn't soldered every rail connection..
Look on the positive side:
At least you have figured out the problem and it's a somewhat easy fix. Be glad your layout isn't covered with scenery yet!
I'm not familiar with N scale, but is it possible the joiners were for a different code of track than what you used?
Don Z.
Research; it's not just for geeks.
Never, never solder rail connections! Sooner or later, one has to separate rail joints and rejoining is nearly impossible, (if they had been soldered). If there is any possibility that I may have to "gap" a connection, I use plastic joiners and use a soldered "jumper" across the joint. Perhaps, this is "overkill" but, I solder "feeder" wires to the center of each section of flex track, on my 240 yds of HO Flex track. Bob Hahn
A lesson learned long ago was to test as I go. After every section of track, turnout, or electrical device is installed, test it. It is easier to fix then, and for things electrical, makes diagnosis a heck of a lot easier.
Mark
Could you take a dremel and grind down the inside of the joiners to lower then re reduce the flanges hitting them? Sounds like you've already fixed the problem, though.
What brand and code track are you using?? At least you caught it before you did your ballast!
loathar What brand and code track are you using?? At least you caught it before you did your ballast!
Atlas Code 80 track..
I had considered grinding the inside with a Dremel, but I was afraid I might slip or just have an unsteady moment and nick up the rail. I guess I could try it.I'm only out a piece of track if I slip. Although it's a PITA to unsolder, re-using the track isn't much of a problem. The copper braid that the electronic houses sell for removing solder from circuit boards works very well. If I didn't learn anything else in the Navy, at least they taught me how to solder/de-solder.. You can bet that when this is finished, a lot of locos are going to get a lot of running time before anything else gets put in place..
I had a similar problem with HO code 100 rail. A friend gave me a bunch of old Atlas rail joiners and they caused the same problem for a couple of my steamers. You would not think that you would have a problem like this with code 100 rail, but I did. Now I use nothing but Peco rail joiners for my Peco track.
You should not have problems with the rail joiners being too high. Not EVER. With respect to HO Code 100 - way back when I ran AHM (Rivarossi) locos with overly deep flanges and never had an issue with Atlas Code 100 track and joiners. ANd with Atlas Code 80 N scale track and joiners - never had a problem even though almost all N scale equipment had the big pizza cutter flanges back then.
Now, if you soldered the joints, you may have far too much solder in them - it should not be bubbled up above the joiner. But I suspect a combination of kinks and too small a radius for the locomotive. Sectional track is notorious for poor dimensional tolerances - the number of pieces that are supposed to make a circle often have a huge gap. It's extremely easy to insert a kink which will cause the wheels of the loco to climb up right at the joint - easy to mistake it for the loco lifting at the joiner. The numbers just don;t add up for a flange to strike a joiner on code 80 N scale track or code 100 HO track.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
HHPATH56Never, never solder rail connections! Sooner or later, one has to separate rail joints and rejoining is nearly impossible, (if they had been soldered)
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
rrinker You should not have problems with the rail joiners being too high. Not EVER. With respect to HO Code 100 - way back when I ran AHM (Rivarossi) locos with overly deep flanges and never had an issue with Atlas Code 100 track and joiners. ANd with Atlas Code 80 N scale track and joiners - never had a problem even though almost all N scale equipment had the big pizza cutter flanges back then. Now, if you soldered the joints, you may have far too much solder in them - it should not be bubbled up above the joiner. But I suspect a combination of kinks and too small a radius for the locomotive. Sectional track is notorious for poor dimensional tolerances - the number of pieces that are supposed to make a circle often have a huge gap. It's extremely easy to insert a kink which will cause the wheels of the loco to climb up right at the joint - easy to mistake it for the loco lifting at the joiner. The numbers just don;t add up for a flange to strike a joiner on code 80 N scale track or code 100 HO track. --Randy
Maybe they aren't supposed to add up, but in this case they do. I know I'm not nuts because I can stand there and watch the driver wheel lift off of the track when it rolls over it. I replace the Atlas joiners with ones by Peco, and relay the track usingthe same pieces and in the same position, and the problem goes away. I think it's just a combination of small radius curves, fixed drivers on the loco as oppsed to diesel trucks that swiveland the driver is being forced down on the joint as it passes over. The bottom line is that my problem goes away with Peco joiners..
I agree with most of the others. I'd be more inclined to think it's a kink. It's very easy to get a kink when you have a joint in the middle of a curve. It helps if the two rails don't join across from each other. You can also get derails on drivers and even some triple wheel trucks if the outside rail is lower than the inside rail.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
I suspect that in my case, using Peco code 100 flex track with Altas rail joiners, the lower flange of the Peco track was maybe larger, which forced the Atlas joiners to spread open more which would have made the top lip of the joiner stand up straighter. Not sure if this is the case, but switching back to the Peco joiners cured the problem.
markpierce A lesson learned long ago was to test as I go. After every section of track, turnout, or electrical device is installed, test it. It is easier to fix then, and for things electrical, makes diagnosis a heck of a lot easier. Mark
I don't always agree with Mark's opinions , but he's right on with this!! If you test like this, you know the instant you have a problem - I don't even nail flextrack more than a foor past the joint without running one of my more finicky cars over the joint!!
I still have a lot to learn in this hobby, but two things I am confident I have down really well...how to lay curves and how to join two ends of rail. With that in mind, I would bet big bucks that the joiners have nothing to do with your problem (well, they could if your flanges were oversized...is that likely?).
If Chuck Beckman were to jump into this thread, he would undoubtedly agree, and offer the following advice: whenever you undertake to match up two ends of rail, whether with metal joiners or just laid up close an in alignment to keep them gapped, get into the habit early of using a small metal file and scrubbing the top tire surface of the rail heads just at the edge and the flange surface to place a visible bevel on those two surfaces...of each rail, remember. That way, slightly wide gaps and slightly off alignments on tight curves will still allow the flanges to get guided past those gaps. This is really important! The beveled edges act like cams and guide the flanges around the gapped curve. The tighter the curve, the more important it is.
However, no matter how wide the curve, and even on tangent track, the idea is to get used to reaching for the file. This means turnouts, too, whether you build 'em or buy 'em; all six rail ends.
rlandry6Atlas Code 80 track.
My gosh, Code 80 is huge--you should have no problem with the flanges striking the rail joiners, even with older pizza-cutter locos. People routinely use much smaller rail and don't experience this issue.
Something else is amiss here....
Midnight Railroader rlandry6Atlas Code 80 track. My gosh, Code 80 is huge--you should have no problem with the flanges striking the rail joiners, even with older pizza-cutter locos. People routinely use much smaller rail and don't experience this issue. Something else is amiss here....
I was thinking the same thing. I can't beleive someone posted they had the same problem with HO code 100!
I have some old Atlas N scale rail joiners that are visibly higher than the ones I buy now. They are still a bit higher than Peco joiners, but I haven't had any more problems with them. The Peco joiners are really tight on Code 80 track. I'm tearing up track right now, preparing to build a new layout. Desoldering joints takes a little time, but so far I have only had to discard about half a dozen pieces of track from desoldering. On flextrack, I just cut back but on sectional pieces I try to save the joint. I will certainly second the suggestion to file a slight bevel on rail ends. It makes a world of difference.
loathar Midnight Railroader rlandry6Atlas Code 80 track. My gosh, Code 80 is huge--you should have no problem with the flanges striking the rail joiners, even with older pizza-cutter locos. People routinely use much smaller rail and don't experience this issue. Something else is amiss here.... I was thinking the same thing. I can't beleive someone posted they had the same problem with HO code 100!
Heck I used Code 83 and ran a few old Rivarossi HO locos with the pizza cutter flanges, just to try them out. Sorta sounded like putting baseball cards in your bicycle spokes as they ran on the spiek and tieplate detail. Bounced REAL nice at the turnouts, but if I didn;t run them at warp speed they actually stayed on the track. Gentle curves - 30"+ and those old locos were made to handle 18" so that's probably why they stayed on, as much as anything I did with the track. Modern stuff with RP25 flanges of course had no trouble - even at warp speed. Which is my testing method - if the track can handle a cut of cars pushed and pulled at ridiclous speed and not derail I'm pretty confident that when run at realistic speeds there will be no issues.
I've been building N scale layouts for 30+ years, and I can say with confidence that it's not the joiners. 9-3/4" radius is the absolute minimum most equipment is designed to run on, but that doesn't gaurantee that it will run well...
I don't use anything less than 15", and if I don't install them just right they can give me fits. Here's some helpful hints.
First, use flex track whenever practical. Every rail joint is an opportunity for a problem... Sectional track puts a problem every 6".
Second, if you must use 9-3/4" radius, add a transition curve that is a shallower radius going in and coming out of it. This means you'll still need more room for your curve, but the locomotive will be able to track through it more readily by gradually curving rather than an abrupt transition from straight to curve.
Third, if you are making an "S" turn, add a length of straight track that is at least as long as your locomotive between the curves, and include transitions as described above.
Fourth, do a little homework on prototypical trackwork. If you follow a prototypical approach to track laying, then you'll find the only place you need a curve as tight as a 9-3/4 is on a roller coaster!
Steam engines in particular don't like quick transitions. Take some pictures of what you've got built, and maybe we can diagnose the problem more specifically. But I think based on what I've read thus far, the curved sectional track is killing you.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
The joints I have soldered, I have only applied solder on the outside of the rail. That way any solder build up is not a problem. Then I file the top of the rail if I left some there.
The only problems I have had is when the joint was not right, like when I pulled away too fast because I was afraid of melting ties. I had to go back because the electrical connection was poor.
I have started using jumper wires however to avoid soldering the joiners.
While you are testing the track you may want to try it with the longest car you will be using even if you have to buy one now since you have tight curves. like you I tested my track with my locos first and then cars and got rid of a few kinks and eased two s curves. Then I bought a smooth side grain hopper. Not only was it longer than a box car but the trucks were at the very end of the car instead of being tucked underneath like a freight car thus increasing the wheel base. It may be to late for me to correct this problem and just have to run the shorter hoppers to my grain facility. Just thought I'd mention this possibility with regards to your curves.
Bob
Don't Ever Give Up