When I re-worked this older, re-motored Samhongsa model of a B&M B-15, I installed NWSL's "wimpy" springs.
Unfortunately, the locomotive's weight was too much, allowing it to bottom-out and effectively returning the locomotive to the as-good-as-unsprung condition which it had with the original too-stiff springs. It ran fine either way, though, so I re-installed the originals and will save the wimpy ones for some other candidate.
Wayne
In response to Paul's comments above about the sprung drivers of his brass models being too rigid to help on uneven track, I just this morning tested a 1980 Samhongsa produced T&P 2-8-2 by putting a little metal shim under each drive wheel, and I found that the springs were indeed flexible enough to allow the other wheels to still touch. Furthermore, in actual performance on the layout, at slow speed, I can watch each individual axle traverse up and over a just slighly high track joint, one at a time, while the other wheels still touch the rail. So the particular brass models I have do perform more smoothly than the unsprung hybrids.
John
DoughlessBurying the track in dirt or weeds helps hide the joiners and the unstraight joints provide a little wiggle to the freight cars.
That's been my approach after my experiment with denting a section of track.
While my "bad" track worked quite well I never repeated the idea because it didn't look prototypical for such track when compared to photos I took of dented and wobbly track in a urban industrial area back in the late 70s..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Doughless:
Doughlessthe unstraight joints provide a little wiggle to the freight cars.
That's where the 'wiggles' should be. Just to be sure, I'm not advocating doing it on main lines.
Good use of track cut-offs by the way.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I like smooth trackwork on all mainlines. While maybe not the most accurate appearance for branchlines or shortlines, it gives me a sense of well built model trackwork. That is more satisfying to me than seeing freight cars shimmy at slow speeds.
For industrial spurs, I solder together the scraps from building the mainlines out of flex track. Lenghts of two to six inches are used on the spurs, and that many short pieces stuck together are never going to be perfectly straight at the joints. Burying the track in dirt or weeds helps hide the joiners and the unstraight joints provide a little wiggle to the freight cars.
- Douglas
I would like to relate a somewhat educational anecdote related to irregular track.
Tuesday night we were at the train club packing up the layout for a show this weekend. Before dismantling the layout it was decided that we should run a locomotive over all the track to make sure everything was OK. One of the members had just purchased a supposedly new 6 axle diesel so that was the locomotive we chose to do the test with.
The locomotive absolutely refused to run over one point on the track. It derailed every time but only going from right to left. It didn't matter which way the locomotive was pointed. That resulted in some head scratching because there had never been a problem at that location before, regardless of what was being run. There was a rail joint where the locomotive was derailing but the joint was dead straight and level. We checked it with a straight edge. There were about 10 guys all standing around scratching our heads and offering every imaginable cause for the problem.
After observing the locomotive as it ran through the section of track we could see that it was tilting ever so slightly just before it got to the rail joint. Further examination of the track revealed a barely perceptable high spot about six inches to the right of the rail joint where a feeder was soldered to the track, and there was a really tiny spot at the rail joint where there wasn't enough solder to completely fill the joint. We could see that as the locomotive's rear truck ran over the 'bump' the front truck was lifting a wheel just high enough for the flange to catch the rail where the joint wasn't completely filled causing it to climb over the track. The distance between the high spot and the rail joint was just right to cause the problem given the length of the locomotive.
The track was loosened and a tiny bit of the road bed was scraped away, and lo and behold the problem went away.
The rather obvious point is that if you are going to model some irregular track you should do it very carefully, and you should make sure that everything that will eventually run over it will stay on the tracks. There can't be any sudden deflections. If the track is going to have a dip in it the transition from level track to the dip has to be gradual.
We did discover that the locomotive we used to test the track had filthy wheels. It left very black streaks on the paper towel used to clean the wheels. How much the dirty wheels contributed to the derailment problem is difficult to tell, but the dirt certainly wasn't helping. The club member who had just bought it had been told that it was new. Obviously not! The annoying part about that was that he had purchased it from a local dealer who everybody at the club has dealt with.
So, model your 'wobbles' without wobbles!
Regards,
Paul-
Thank you for your comments above.
I offer two observations:
The main offender for derailments on my layout is a hybrid that appears to be too rear heavy regarding the balance point.
I just tried the metal shim suggestion and it appears that I do have one brass engine whose wheels do remain in contact with a smooth surface when a shim is inserted under one driver at a time. It is a recent Boo Rim produced model. I do expect my older brass would perform as you described above.
Paul3If anything, loosening both trucks to the point where both rock is making excuses for bad track. You should be able to run a car with one truck that does not rock (but swivels freely). If you have to loosen it, then the track could be better, IMHO.
Paul,Me thinks you misunderstood. I can not and will never accept a car that waves to me as it rolls by that's why I used the tighten the screw completely down where the truck will not turn back the screw off two turns.This gives the truck the needed swing for curves down to 15" but,they are not loose enough for the car to rock.
With this system my cars will run for endless hours without derailing. That's why I been using that method for 60 years. I can ever make a reverse shove around the club's layout without derailments..
As far as my track I will proudly say its smooth and gives me trouble free operation..
As many times as I said it, you should recall I will never accept anything less then 100% derailment free operation.
----------------------------------------------------------
It actually works well for allowing cars to navigate imperfect trackwork while not shaking or rocking repeatedly.
That's why I still fully believe the 3 point suspension is a excuse for poor track work. If the track is that imperfect that you got to tweak your trucks so they will stay on the track then it would be better to rip out it and properly relay it after sanding the cork or homasote(use fine grit sandpaper on the homasote) to remove the blimishes..
Howard,Aw, shucks. Thanks.
I've been in the hobby "seriously" for about 25 years now, and bought my first brass steamer when I was still in high school. I've been fiddling with brass for a while now, both for myself and for my fellow club members. I enjoy making these old locos run well enough to use. However, I still have a lot to learn. Heck, that part about the springs being for electrical contact I only learned this year when I attended my local RPM meet.
Brakie,In my experience, loosening both screws results in shaky cars that don't look realistic at all.
The 3-point suspension idea is not "nonsense". It actually works well for allowing cars to navigate imperfect trackwork while not shaking or rocking repeatedly.
If anything, loosening both trucks to the point where both rock is making excuses for bad track. You should be able to run a car with one truck that does not rock (but swivels freely). If you have to loosen it, then the track could be better, IMHO.
Paul3There's a reason why the NMRA recommends proportionally heavier weights for cars as they get longer (1 oz. + 1/2 oz. per inch of car length)...they stay on the track better.
Yes,It was called wooden car kits that was extremely light once built along with trucks that was less then desirable and rolled like the brakes was set. I recall those years to clearly.
I never used RP20.1 and have no desire to because I never had derailment issues and my tighten down and back off two turns worked quit well for me for 60 plus years.I never bought into that three point suspension nonsense since it sounded more like a excuse for bad track laying.
We both know derailment free operation is in the track-smooth track work is a must along with wheels being in gauge,coupler and trip pin at the correct height will yield 100% derailment free operation.
I could run my train(s) for hours without derailments during open houses and every day of the county fair.
I could even sit at the table sipping coffee or a pop or just gabbing and check the mirrors from time to time and see-yup,my train is still chugging along trouble free.
I'm impressed with Paul 3's opinions and assememnts. He is right on the money with every comment. I refer to the bit with passenger cars as..."trianglulation" where as to loosen one truck and keeping the other fairly normal. I've been doing this for decades and it works quite well. On weights. I use roughly 1.5 oz per inch. If the loco can't handle the load....just add another and double heading looks great and also increases contact.
HZ
Paul, I am fully aware that it is about equalization, not actual suspension. In fact I have been explaining that very fact for years now on this very forum evry time tne topic of sprung trucks comes up.
Sheldon
Brakie,You missed the part about "lightweight cars". In order for lightweight (1 oz.) cars to stay on the track dependably, they should have a working suspension and only be run on prototypical-size curves. Our heavyweight cars (4 oz. or better) don't need a working suspension (as long as one truck rocks and swivels) and can stay on the track on our very sharp curves due to the extra weight. There's a reason why the NMRA recommends proportionally heavier weights for cars as they get longer (1 oz. + 1/2 oz. per inch of car length)...they stay on the track better.
John M.,Sorry, but whatever the reason your brass locos stay on the track vs. hybrids that don't, a sprung suspension isn't it. Springs on brass steam are so stiff that they are worthless when it comes to keeping the drivers on the track.
I have an NJ/CB NH I-4 (4-6-2) that kept dying on my dead Atlas Code 83 frogs. The problem with many Atlas Code 83 switches is that the cast frog is slightly higher than the surrounding rail. My I-4's center driver was a little lower than the other two. When my Pacific crossed the frog, the slightly lower center driver hit the slightly higher frog and lifted both the #1 and #3 drivers off the powered rail on either side, thus killing the power. I stuck a small brass shim between the cover plate and the driver bearing and it solved the problem.If brass steam driver springs actually meant anything for suspension, the above situation would never have happened.
Springs on brass drivers are not for suspension; they are for electrical pick up. The wheels pick up the power, transmit it to the metal axle which rubs the brass bearing. This bearing is loose in the frame and would make poor electrical contact if it wasn't for the fact that the bearing is pressed into the slot by the brass cover plate compressing the driver spring. Since it is all metal, the bearing, spring, and cover plate assembly works well. If you replaced the metal spring with a plastic one and used a plastic cover plate, the loco would not work nearly as well, electrically.
If you really think brass driver springs work as suspension, try a simple experiment: put your brass loco on a sheet of glass, then put a 0.020" shim (or something like that) under any driver on one side. If the driver spring is a working suspension system, then it all the rest of the drivers should still be on the glass. If it isn't, then all the drivers on that side of the engine will be off the glass, too.
Sheldon,Equalizing is one thing: actual suspension is another. Even your cars don't compress the springs when you put them on the track.
What really affects steam engine performance is balance. The weight of a model should be centered over the middle driver (or between the middle two drivers). Having a steamer that is nose or tail heavy will seriously compromise its pulling power.
BMMECNYC,Density of the material is used to calculate the weight. Our models are not usually steel, so it doesn't matter in this case because we're reducing the whole car by 1/87th.Let me put it this way: say you have a real item like a heavyweight passenger car. It weighs 85 tons. Reduce the length (and only the length) of the car by 1/87th, and you would get 1/87th of 85 tons (roughly 1 ton). You would have an HO-length car (roughly 1 foot) that is still ~10 real feet wide and ~10 real feet high. In addition to reducing the length of the car, you also have to reduce the width and the height to get an actual 1/87th model of a car.So take that 85 tons, and divide it by 87.1 for length, 87.1 for width, and 87.1 for height, and you'll get 4.1 oz. for a heavyweight passenger car in HO scale.
Paul3Actually, our HO freight cars are very overweight. A prototype empty 40' steel boxcar can weigh in at around 45,000 lbs. Weight is figured by the cube, so one divides it by the length, width and height, or, IOW, divide it by 87.1 three times, not just once. 45,000 lbs., in HO scale, is just 1.1 oz. Our empty 40' steel boxcars should weigh in at just above 1 oz., if one wants to be scale about it.
Does that statement not assume that the density of the material in question is identical?
Howard ZaneI guess I should have mentioned that I'm in no way modeling a class 1 railroad, but a well used and run down coal hauling route...heneforth the dips and uneven trackwork.
The same can be applied to ISLs since urban industrial leads isn't well maintain and often slapped with a permanent speed restriction due to the condition of the track.
Needless to say while working on the PRR then after the merger PC I rode in many bobbing and weaving engine cabs and cabin cars.
One learns to pour coffee from his Thermos without spilling a drop of coffee.
I guess I should have mentioned that I'm in no way modeling a class 1 railroad, but a well used and run down coal hauling route...heneforth the dips and uneven trackwork. Had I been modeling a class 1 route like the PRR in the late 40's, then perhaps my track modeling would be somewhat different. Actually I had heard the the DL&W during this period had the finest roadbed and track maintenance facilities.
Of course I must agree that six axle diesels will perform very well on less than ideal track.
Sheldon was fortunate to acquire as many sprung locos as he did.
If I run my hybrids fast they are more likely to derail at high speed than the fully sprung brass steamers.
PRR8259 To me this is another argument in favor of full on brass locomotives: My son of course was pressuring me to complete re-laying a big chunk of my mainline to much larger radius. By mistake, and because I was using flextrack curved by eye in some locations, I managed to build a couple slight kinks into it at joints. The full on brass locomotives with their fully sprung drivers actually handle most of the slight kinks on my layout with ease, but the hybrid locomotives, which have unsprung drivers, do not. As a result the hybrids are more likely to derail at a slight kink, especially if it is what civil engineers sometimes refer to as an "over-vertical" or "crest" type of kink. John
To me this is another argument in favor of full on brass locomotives:
My son of course was pressuring me to complete re-laying a big chunk of my mainline to much larger radius. By mistake, and because I was using flextrack curved by eye in some locations, I managed to build a couple slight kinks into it at joints.
The full on brass locomotives with their fully sprung drivers actually handle most of the slight kinks on my layout with ease, but the hybrid locomotives, which have unsprung drivers, do not. As a result the hybrids are more likely to derail at a slight kink, especially if it is what civil engineers sometimes refer to as an "over-vertical" or "crest" type of kink.
I don't have any hybrid locos. But of the 40 plus die cast and plastic locos I have, and two brass locos, most have sprung drivers. A few have hybrid sprung driver systems where some drivers are sprung and some are not. These include several Bachmann Spcetrum models from 10-15 years ago.
They all track very well.
I did some extensive pulling power studies years ago, and found that many of these hybrid spring systems not only track well, but pull as well or better than fully sprung systems on similar locos.
And that steam locos with only two drive axles actually perform better with no sprung drivers........Atlantics, etc.
Guess I have just picked the right die cast locos, the ones with sprung driver systems......
Paul3 If you want to model some bankrupt Class I railroad, a backwoods branch, or some poor shortline, then by all means beat the heck out of your track (and add weeds). At my club, we tried putting in a small shim every 39 scale feet on top of a tie (it was all handlaid track and easy to do) on our HOn3 branch. It resulted in a very realistic sway in the cars, with every other car leaning to the right then left while the other cars leaned to the left then right. The other club members didn't like it because a brass 2-6-6-2 didn't stay on the track. I still think it looked cool at low (narrow gauge) speeds. OTOH, if you're modeling a profitable Class I, a passenger mainline, or a wealthy shortline, then dinging up your track is not realistic. Old time railroads actually took care of their track when they had money and they wanted speed. Just because it was jointed rail did not mean it was rough riding. doctorwayne,Actually, our HO freight cars are very overweight. A prototype empty 40' steel boxcar can weigh in at around 45,000 lbs. Weight is figured by the cube, so one divides it by the length, width and height, or, IOW, divide it by 87.1 three times, not just once. 45,000 lbs., in HO scale, is just 1.1 oz. Our empty 40' steel boxcars should weigh in at just above 1 oz., if one wants to be scale about it. Loaded, that same car might have a 60 ton capacity, so in HO scale that is up to 2.9 oz. But not the 4 oz. called out for by the NMRA. My HO BLI hybrid I-5 (4-6-4) weighs in at 2 lbs. The real NH I-5 weighed in at 697,300 lbs. in working order. If you figure the scale weight, the model is almost twice as heavy as it ought to be because 697,300lbs(16oz.)/87.1/87.1/87.1 = 16.9 oz, not 32 oz.The major problems with lightweight cars staying on the track is a lack of working suspension of the cars and our wicked sharp curves compared to the real thing. More weight keeps the cars on the track, along with fat wheels and large flanges (which all of us use, except for the Proto:87 guys).
If you want to model some bankrupt Class I railroad, a backwoods branch, or some poor shortline, then by all means beat the heck out of your track (and add weeds). At my club, we tried putting in a small shim every 39 scale feet on top of a tie (it was all handlaid track and easy to do) on our HOn3 branch. It resulted in a very realistic sway in the cars, with every other car leaning to the right then left while the other cars leaned to the left then right. The other club members didn't like it because a brass 2-6-6-2 didn't stay on the track. I still think it looked cool at low (narrow gauge) speeds.
OTOH, if you're modeling a profitable Class I, a passenger mainline, or a wealthy shortline, then dinging up your track is not realistic. Old time railroads actually took care of their track when they had money and they wanted speed. Just because it was jointed rail did not mean it was rough riding.
doctorwayne,Actually, our HO freight cars are very overweight. A prototype empty 40' steel boxcar can weigh in at around 45,000 lbs. Weight is figured by the cube, so one divides it by the length, width and height, or, IOW, divide it by 87.1 three times, not just once. 45,000 lbs., in HO scale, is just 1.1 oz. Our empty 40' steel boxcars should weigh in at just above 1 oz., if one wants to be scale about it.
Loaded, that same car might have a 60 ton capacity, so in HO scale that is up to 2.9 oz. But not the 4 oz. called out for by the NMRA.
My HO BLI hybrid I-5 (4-6-4) weighs in at 2 lbs. The real NH I-5 weighed in at 697,300 lbs. in working order. If you figure the scale weight, the model is almost twice as heavy as it ought to be because 697,300lbs(16oz.)/87.1/87.1/87.1 = 16.9 oz, not 32 oz.The major problems with lightweight cars staying on the track is a lack of working suspension of the cars and our wicked sharp curves compared to the real thing. More weight keeps the cars on the track, along with fat wheels and large flanges (which all of us use, except for the Proto:87 guys).
This is why most of my freight car fleet rides on equalized metal sprung trucks.......
PRR8259The full on brass locomotives with their fully sprung drivers actually handle most of the slight kinks on my layout with ease, but the hybrid locomotives, which have unsprung drivers, do not.
John,First I fully agree steam locomotives with sprung drivers track far better then their nonsprung breathern.
Food for thought.
However,a 6 axle diesel should do quite well over rough spots in the track at scale speeds but,running 3/4 or throttle will cause derailments because our tiny flanges doesn't have time to adjust like they do at slow 1/4 throttle.
Could nonsprung drivers have the same issues at high throttle settings while being more forgiving at 1/4 throttle? I dunno but,suspect high speeds can be the cause of a lot of track woes..
Some of these kinks might have been avoided if I totally re-leveled the layout surface after tearing up old roadbed, but I didn't want to add more plaster...and instead used the Woodland Scenics flexible, sound deadening roadbed (which for the most part works very well) and only adjusted some spots.
By my fast reconstruction, building in a few slight track discrepancies on tangents was no problem--I did that--you can look down prototype tangents even today and still see the same. Even if perfectly aligned when track is placed, things move due to frost action, differential settlement, variations in subgrade compaction, etc.
The study of soils engineering tells us that you only have what you have at the location that samples are taken and tested, and that even 8' away, conditions may be different. So even with today's modern mechanized track placement, things will still be "off" slightly after a time--they just want the deflection to remain within reasonable tolerances (and they combat any movement by "resurfacing" the ballast fairly often).
Paul3More weight keeps the cars on the track, along with fat wheels and large flanges (which all of us use, except for the Proto:87 guys).
Actually the weight is needed at the rail head so,metal wheels help in that area. Of late I've been slowing adding 3 pieces of stick on weight over each truck.
--------------------------------------------------------------
(snip)The major problems with lightweight cars staying on the track is a lack of working suspension of the cars and our wicked sharp curves compared to the real thing.
That's what they teach but,I don't believe a word of it since I have had decades of derailment free operation with the basic tighten the truck screw down and back off 2 turns.Some Athearn BB trucks requires 1 1/2 turns.
As I mention before I've used snap switches as crossovers on some of my small ISLs-not recommended for those that like to run their trains at warp speed or cars over 50'. 36 footers would be better with a 0-4-0T or a 0-6-0T. I would never recommend a snap switch crossover.
Ed:
7j43kI've got to admit I've never seen mainline trackwork on my favorite railroad anywhere near that awful.
I should have mentioned that the track at the top of Clifton Hill has torn out soon after we were there. I strongly suspect that the maintenance had been minimal for a while knowing that the track wasn't going to be there much longer.
I will say that the train was going faster than it should have been given the track conditions.
Howard ZaneI Have had visitors bring some of their light weight plastic equipment over to run, and yes....there were derailments. Point....don't overdue!
The only weight I use is whatever comes with the car which is Athearn and Roundhouse flat sheet steel in the majority of the cars but,I do have some Roundhouse cars with metal floors but,neither one derail at 10 smph.
I fully concure..Less is best when it comes to modeling poorly maintain track.
Rather then denting the track of late I been perfering to place weeds in the gauge,split ties and use very little ballast-a mixture of earth,grass,cinders and dark gray ballast works for me. Once the track is down,I remove some of the plastic tie and replace with wooden ties that I damage once they are glue and spiked in place.
There is a modeler, named Davis if memory serves (perhaps Dave Davis?) whose layout was featured in MR or Great Model Railroads or Model Railroad Planning - or perhaps all three - and his trackwork features scale sized rail in 39 foot lengths, with a modest depression at each rail joiner, just as with the minimally maintained C&NW line he models. As with the prototype the rail joints were never across from each other but were staggered. The result according to the article was that the slow moving trains had the sort of "camel ride" lurching from side to side aspect that you see on low speed low maintenance railroads.
As noted above this is not easy to replicate because poor track, even if done deliberately for effect as Howard advocates, often merely causes freight cars to wiggle like puppies rather than ponderously lurch from side to side. You even see this wiggle on many Allen Keller videos. If I understood the article correctly, Davis laid his track in such a way that it was not only very realistic to look at, but somehow managed to make the models move in a way that mimicked the prototype.
Dave Nelson
My trackwork, although made imperfect by design does not cause any derailments at any speed. Most likey this is due to extra weight in both locos and rolling stock....most locos are either brass or diecast steam and weigh no less than 16oz, freight cars...usually around 5-6 oz., and passenger equipment is pegged on 12 oz minimum. I Have had visitors bring some of their light weight plastic equipment over to run, and yes....there were derailments. Point....don't overdue!
I took a jewelers hammer to a section of track on one of my ISLs eons ago and dented the rail and slapped a permanent 10 smph restriction one it.The cars dip and rock their way through that section of track.
Running a fast speed through this section would without a doubt cause a derailment but,when you creep over it like the prototype would there was no issues.
How is that possible you may wonder?
A secrete I've known for decades.Contrary to the "experts" constant blabbing about perfect track work.You see our models are more forgiving at slower speeds then at half to three-quarters throttle.
However,one should lay smooth track for derailment free operation at normal track speeds. Switching never calls for high speeds or reversing a engine without stopping.
doctorwayneI vaguely recall an article, quite some time ago, in either MR or RMC, on using a solenoid and some sort of optical detector to cause the rail ends at a joint bar to deflect downward as each wheel passed over it.
I remember seeing that article as well, but in my recollection it was one of those infamous articles that appear in the magazine annually in the April issue.
In other words; an April Fools joke.
I have figured out what is wrong with my brain! On the left side nothing works right, and on the right side there is nothing left!