Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Modernizing the Fleet of Modernism: upgrading IHC passenger cars.

2302 views
38 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • 2,213 posts
Modernizing the Fleet of Modernism: upgrading IHC passenger cars.
Posted by NWP SWP on Sunday, May 13, 2018 7:18 PM

I have a small collection of IHC passenger cars, among the upgrades I wish to give them are, body mounted Kadee couplers, metal wheels, proper weighting, and I was considering swapping them from 2 axle trucks to 3 axle trucks. The cars have offset bolsters that I'll have to either find trucks that match or correct the position.

The kit I plan to use for the couplers is Kadees #451 "extended swing" gear boxes.

Steven

Crooner, Imagineer, High School Graduate, living with Aspergers, President of the Republica Pacifica micronation,  President of the NWP-SWP System.

Hook'em Longhorns! 

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • From: Southern Florida Gulf Coast
  • 2,585 posts
Posted by SeeYou190 on Sunday, May 13, 2018 7:33 PM

Steven,

.

As with most of your plans, my question is... WHY?

.

I am not a passenger car guy, I strongly prefer freight trains.

.

However, I do have four passenger trains, and one of these is a nine car set of IHC smooth side lightweights pulled by a nice A/B set of Stewart/Kato F7s. I assume these cars are similar to yours.

.

I run 24 inch curves in my hidden trackage.

.

My IHC passenger cars perform just fine with the factory wheels and the factory installed talgo style horn-hook (X2F) couplers. The Stewart/Kato F7s came with these couplers also, so the rear of the "B" unit is not converted to Kadees.

.

What problem are you having? These cars do not lend themselves easily to any of the modifications you are suggesting. I think you are opening a can of worms here.

.

In the words of Beast Boy: "If it ain't broke, don't fiddle with it."

.

You might have a lot more fun building interiors for these cars.

.

-Kevin

.

Happily modeling the STRATTON & GILLETTE RAILROAD located in a world of plausible nonsense set in August, 1954.

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • 2,213 posts
Posted by NWP SWP on Sunday, May 13, 2018 7:39 PM

The talgo trucks and the couplers haven't worked well for me, they derail and uncouple like crazy.

Also I want to bring them to club standards so I can run them there.

Steven

Crooner, Imagineer, High School Graduate, living with Aspergers, President of the Republica Pacifica micronation,  President of the NWP-SWP System.

Hook'em Longhorns! 

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • From: Southern Florida Gulf Coast
  • 2,585 posts
Posted by SeeYou190 on Sunday, May 13, 2018 7:51 PM

NWP SWP
they derail and uncouple like crazy.

.

When do they derail? Are you trying to back them up?

.

The uncoupling is a bit strange. You can say a lot of bad things about the Horn-Hook (X2F) coupler design, but they do stay coupled. IHC's version of the NMRA coupler is one of the better ones.

.

I would like more detail on the problems.

.

Six wheel trucks will make derailments more of a problem.

.

-Kevin

.

Happily modeling the STRATTON & GILLETTE RAILROAD located in a world of plausible nonsense set in August, 1954.

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • 2,213 posts
Posted by NWP SWP on Sunday, May 13, 2018 8:04 PM

They decouple at any change in elevation, and derail at switches, while running forward.

They've been in storage a while and I'm really wanting to get them running again.

These trucks have the offset bolster pin maybe them in black would work?

Steven

Crooner, Imagineer, High School Graduate, living with Aspergers, President of the Republica Pacifica micronation,  President of the NWP-SWP System.

Hook'em Longhorns! 

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • From: Southern Florida Gulf Coast
  • 2,585 posts
Posted by SeeYou190 on Sunday, May 13, 2018 8:10 PM

NWP SWP
They decouple at any change in elevation, and derail at switches, while running forward.

.

.

Did someone clip the uncoupling pins off of the couplers? That should keep them from face seperating on elevation transitions.

.

The Walthers six wheel passenger car trucks are completely rigid. Your trackwork better be PERFECT before you even consider these. Otherwise, you will be lifting flanges all over the place.

.

Did the cars get hot in storage? Maybe the floors have deformed slightly.

.

-Kevin

.

Happily modeling the STRATTON & GILLETTE RAILROAD located in a world of plausible nonsense set in August, 1954.

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • 2,213 posts
Posted by NWP SWP on Sunday, May 13, 2018 8:17 PM

There's the trucks and the couplers.

Steven

Crooner, Imagineer, High School Graduate, living with Aspergers, President of the Republica Pacifica micronation,  President of the NWP-SWP System.

Hook'em Longhorns! 

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • From: Southern Florida Gulf Coast
  • 2,585 posts
Posted by SeeYou190 on Sunday, May 13, 2018 8:22 PM

Those look like mine.

.

My train has only ever run through Kato or Shinohara trackage. Never a problem going forward. I do not attempt to back up passenger trains.

.

Have you checked the wheel gauge? Have you added any car weights? Is anything interfering with the truck swing or motion? Have you checked the trackage?

.

I have added about 3 ounces of weight to each of mine using 1/32" lead sheet.

.

Passenger cars are much less forgiving than freight cars.

.

-Kevin

.

Happily modeling the STRATTON & GILLETTE RAILROAD located in a world of plausible nonsense set in August, 1954.

  • Member since
    August, 2003
  • From: Collinwood, Ohio, USA
  • 5,970 posts
Posted by gmpullman on Sunday, May 13, 2018 8:44 PM

McHenry makes a snap-in replacement coupler:

http://www.athearn.com/Search/Default.aspx?CatId=THCC

I'm not a big fan of plastic couplers but in the case of the Rivarossi cars these are a good replacement. They have another model for the six wheel truck and yet another for baggage/RPO cars.

Repeated uncoupling is more of a track/roadbed problem. I used to run long trains of Rivarossi cars with no uncoupling issues.

Just looking at the photo I might guess your gauge to be a little wide?

Back when I ran lots of Rivarossi cars I would use the Kadee #520 33" wheel as a replacement. The 36" wheel would rub the brake shoe and trying to bend it away would usually result in breaking it off.

http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/204295.aspx

 

Good Luck, Ed

  • Member since
    March, 2002
  • From: Milwaukee WI (Fox Point)
  • 9,515 posts
Posted by dknelson on Sunday, May 13, 2018 8:45 PM

NWP SWP
a small collection of IHC passenger cars ... I was considering swapping them from 2 axle trucks to 3 axle trucks.

As a rule the one thing you can say for IHC passenger cars is that if they came with two axle streamline trucks, those are correct trucks at least in terms of axle count.  Certain dome liners and reworked heavy weight steamline cars had 3 axle trucks but they were in the minority.  Is there a prototypical reason you want to convert to 3 axle trucks?  

IHC at one time offered after market metal wheels for their trucks which were undersized as are the originals, but pretty nice.  You still see them at swap meets.

So I'd keep the trucks; upgrade the wheels instead.  Maybe upgrade to the correct 36" wheels but be mindful what that does to coupler height as well as overall car height. Some shaving of the bolster may be in order.  On AHM Rivarossi cars swapping out to 36" wheels also meant the cast on brake shoes had to be filed down or they'd rub on the wheel treads.

There are after market knuckle couplers that are Kadee compatible that adapt to the bolsters.  Body mounted couplers on full length passenger cars need broad radius curves (and be coupled to other cars and/or a locomotive that have some generous swing to their coupler mount as well. 

Yeah I know some guys are sticklers for body mounted couplers and when it comes to freight cars I am among them.  But frankly, the extended swing needed for body mounted couplers on 80' or 85' passenger cars often comes at the cost of accurate and prototypical details for steam hoses and other passenger car details.  Ironically those details CAN be mounted on the bolster mount and in that sense there are certain situations where truck mounted couplers on long passenger cars can permit MORE prototypical detailing than can body mounted.  

Just this guy's opinions of course.

Dave Nelson

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • 2,213 posts
Posted by NWP SWP on Sunday, May 13, 2018 10:10 PM

Thanks for the input guys, I was wanting to change to 3 axle trucks as if the cars received them to increase the smoothness of the ride and reduce axle loading.

This is the coupler I was thinking of using.

Edit, I checked Walthers and the trucks I was considering cost 15 bucks a pair and are DWSO (discontinued when sold out) so I cross checked the three axle trucks off a IHC HW RPO (courtesy Ed, thanks again!) The bolster hole sits between halfway between two axles and the middle axle, so like this    A l ABl A

A, is an axle

I, is the exact middle between two axles

B, is where the bolster hole sits.

So to get the hole in the right spot I'll take some styrene make a plate that sits atop the truck I then drill a new bolster hole in the right spot. I'll save a lot of money only having to scrounge for trucks from older cars.

As far as the Talgo trucks I've heard a lot of atrocious things about them, I just don't feel comfortable lugging a 24 car train (that's my ultimate goal, to have a 24 car set of matching cars to run behind the T-1) up the helixes 3% grade and 32" radius with Talgo couplers.

Steven

Crooner, Imagineer, High School Graduate, living with Aspergers, President of the Republica Pacifica micronation,  President of the NWP-SWP System.

Hook'em Longhorns! 

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • From: 53° 33′ N, 10° 0′ E
  • 463 posts
Posted by Tinplate Toddler on Monday, May 14, 2018 12:22 AM

Steven,

again, the title of your thread does not tell what it is about. This is not your highschool paper, so please be more descriptive next time.

Why change a prototypical train into something, which never existed and waste time and money on it? I am afraid this is a stillborn project, like many previous ones.

Cheers,

Ulrich (aka Herbert The Tin Man)

"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • From: Southeast Texas
  • 4,890 posts
Posted by mobilman44 on Monday, May 14, 2018 4:57 AM

Have to agree with Tinplate Toddler, but I also want to add........

Six wheel trucks were used on the old heavyweight passenger cars because they were pretty heavy (duh).   When the "streamlined" or lightweight cars came out, they were significantly lighter and used 4 wheel trucks.  The IHC car you show is of that type.  So putting 6 wheel trucks on them - even if you could get them to fit - just would not make sense in the prototype world (or the modeling world).

 

ENJOY  !

 

Mobilman44

 

Living in southeast Texas, modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central 

  • Member since
    June, 2007
  • From: Northern Virginia
  • 5,672 posts
Posted by riogrande5761 on Monday, May 14, 2018 6:25 AM

Tinplate Toddler

Steven,

again, the title of your thread does not tell what it is about. This is not your highschool paper, so please be more descriptive next time.

I also agree with Mobileman and Ulrich,

The title of the thread doesn't tell the reader what the topic is about.  I find it annoying that I get "hooked" into reading something and finding out it is not what it implied by the title.  It also wastes my time.

As Ulrich recommended, please be more descriptive;  IIRC, you can go back and edit your title after the fact as well.

Please be more considerate of your fellow forum members.

Rio Grande.  The Action Road

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • 2,213 posts
Posted by NWP SWP on Monday, May 14, 2018 12:25 PM

I have found that on the club layout six axle passenger cars are more reliable than the four axle ones, besides I think it looks cool, while the rivet counters are getting fired up the T-1 probably will need help pulling all those cars around so by the end of the summer I hope to buy a BLI E8b and get it painted in Brunswick Green and have striping to match the T-1, that's right a B unit running behind a steam locomotive, WITHOUT an A unit!

I'll keep you guys posted on the upgrades!

Steven

Crooner, Imagineer, High School Graduate, living with Aspergers, President of the Republica Pacifica micronation,  President of the NWP-SWP System.

Hook'em Longhorns! 

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • From: Southern Florida Gulf Coast
  • 2,585 posts
Posted by SeeYou190 on Monday, May 14, 2018 3:16 PM

NWP SWP
, I just don't feel comfortable lugging a 24 car train (that's my ultimate goal, to have a 24 car set of matching cars to run behind the T-1) up the helixes 3% grade and 32" radius with Talgo couplers.

.

Good Heavens! This is a disaster waiting to happen.

.

The only times I have seen 24 car passenger trains running are on N-Trak modular layouts.

.

An HO scale 24 car passenger train with locomotives might weigh as much as 12 pounds, maybe even more! The coupler stress on the front car going up a grade in a helix would be completely unreasonable.

.

That Kadee coupler you want to use will have more seperation issues than the stock coupler you are already using. That little screw on the centering hub will be experiencing way too much stress.

.

A "B" unit behind a T-1 is your own taste, but that would never happen in my world of nonsense, and my world of nonsense includes an organic switch engine! Doing it on a Pennsylvania train... well... to each his own.

.

Enjoy yourself. You are in for a challenge.

.

I did not see any project updates from you in Weekend Photo Fun. Has the Proto 2000 freight car effort stalled?

.

Keep us posted.

.

-Kevin

.

Happily modeling the STRATTON & GILLETTE RAILROAD located in a world of plausible nonsense set in August, 1954.

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • 2,213 posts
Posted by NWP SWP on Monday, May 14, 2018 4:32 PM

Not stalled but waiting in the siding, why? Well graduation is this coming weekend, so I'm busy.

Steven

Crooner, Imagineer, High School Graduate, living with Aspergers, President of the Republica Pacifica micronation,  President of the NWP-SWP System.

Hook'em Longhorns! 

  • Member since
    January, 2013
  • From: PA
  • 473 posts
Posted by Schuylkill and Susquehanna on Monday, May 14, 2018 5:08 PM

Duplicate post.

 

Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!

  • Member since
    January, 2013
  • From: PA
  • 473 posts
Posted by Schuylkill and Susquehanna on Monday, May 14, 2018 5:10 PM

gmpullman

McHenry makes a snap-in replacement coupler:

http://www.athearn.com/Search/Default.aspx?CatId=THCC

I'm not a big fan of plastic couplers but in the case of the Rivarossi cars these are a good replacement. They have another model for the six wheel truck and yet another for baggage/RPO cars.

 

I've used the McHenry couplers to upgrade a set of IHC PRR MOW passenger cars.  They seem to work pretty well, and I don't plan on running long MOW trains.  If only they came in metal...

 

I hate to nit-pick, but the PRR didn't use a hyphen in "T1".  For a second I was thinking you were talking about the Reading RR locomotive and went "what stripes?"

 

As for pulling a 20+ passenger car freight train up a grade, much less a helix, I can't help but feel that's asking for trouble.  Not only do you have to worry about the tension on the couplers, but also the radial component of the force as the train climbs the helix.  I'm not saying that it isn't possible, but it will definitely take a lot of work and troubleshooting to make sure it's bulletproof.  The last thing you'd need is a 19 car runaway on the helix.

 

If you do pull it off, please post a video!  I'd love to see it running, B-unit and all.  :)

 

Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • 2,213 posts
Posted by NWP SWP on Monday, May 14, 2018 5:31 PM

Luckily the helix is only only thee decks, so it shouldn't cause too many problems.

I will certainly post a video when I get them running!

The club is almost completely flat except for a few changes in elevation here and there.

Steven

Crooner, Imagineer, High School Graduate, living with Aspergers, President of the Republica Pacifica micronation,  President of the NWP-SWP System.

Hook'em Longhorns! 

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • From: Southern Florida Gulf Coast
  • 2,585 posts
Posted by SeeYou190 on Monday, May 14, 2018 7:52 PM

NWP SWP
Not stalled but waiting in the siding,

.

Even if the project is unfinised, I encourage you to post some sort of update in WPF. It can help motivate you to keep going, and it is fun to share some real model work with the community.

.

Join in!

.

-Kevin

.

Happily modeling the STRATTON & GILLETTE RAILROAD located in a world of plausible nonsense set in August, 1954.

  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • From: Springboro, Ohio
  • 169 posts
Posted by ripvanwnkl on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 3:08 PM
IHC-Hobby carries IHC passenger car McHenry truck mounted knuckle couplers. I've used them successfully for my 100+ IHC cars. http://www.ihc-hobby.com/

Dave

USAF (Retired)

 

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • From: Southern Florida Gulf Coast
  • 2,585 posts
Posted by SeeYou190 on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 3:10 PM

NWP SWP
Luckily the helix is only only thee decks, so it shouldn't cause too many problems. I will certainly post a video when I get them running! The club is almost completely flat except for a few changes in elevation here and there.

.

Does anyone else in the club run passenger trains this long? I guess if the layout is built for something like that it would be an acceptable project.

.

-Kevin

.

Happily modeling the STRATTON & GILLETTE RAILROAD located in a world of plausible nonsense set in August, 1954.

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • 2,213 posts
Posted by NWP SWP on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 3:18 PM

The club models 1970s but people run older and newer equipment at will, longest train ever run is 48 but the longest continuous string of cars is 30, the train would really be for display purposes during open houses.

Steven

Crooner, Imagineer, High School Graduate, living with Aspergers, President of the Republica Pacifica micronation,  President of the NWP-SWP System.

Hook'em Longhorns! 

  • Member since
    February, 2003
  • From: Morristown, NJ
  • 303 posts
Posted by nealknows on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 3:54 PM

This is a disaster waiting to happen. Unlike the real railroads, with 24 IHC passenger cars, metal wheels, cars weighted properly, on a 3% is an accident waiting to happen. You would need at least 4 powerful engines to attempt to do this. I have a 2% grade helix with 8 of the IHC cars with McHenry couplers and it needs two diesel engines to safely handle the helix. 

More important, is the club allowing you to do this? While we cant tell you what to do, others have made their comments clear. I would never attempt to do this, not even to prove a point that it could be done, certainly not with 2 engines...

Neal

  • Member since
    July, 2004
  • From: Weymouth, Ma.
  • 5,199 posts
Posted by bogp40 on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 4:31 PM

Don't know why you would want a 20 car passenger train. Asking for all sorts of problems especially any turn under 30" radius. I wouldn't run any more than 10, maybe 12 on the club layout where mainline turns are min 32". My Capital Limited is 2 E units and 10 cars. Actually quite a long train looks perfect running.

Modeling B&O- Chessie  Bob K.  www.ssmrc.org

  • Member since
    February, 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 10,632 posts
Posted by wjstix on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 4:41 PM

Most passenger station tracks / platforms were only set up to handle trains up to about 16 cars at most. About the only 20 car trains you'd see would be mail trains. If a real RR had to run 20 passenger cars up a steep grade, they'd probably split the train into two sections.

Running a steam - diesel doubleheader was fairly common in the transition era, but the steam engine and diesel engine would each have to have it's own crew - so it would have be some type of diesel with a cab to run the engine from. B units - except for some with hostler controls so they could crawl around a service area - had no way to run without being connected to an A unit.

p.s. Still not sure how replacing streamlined roller-bearing trucks with antiquated friction heavyweight trucks would be considered 'modernizing'?? Kinda like 'modernizing' your auto by removing the electric starter and replacing it with a crank.

Laugh

Stix
  • Member since
    January, 2007
  • From: Kentucky
  • 8,630 posts
Posted by Heartland Division CB&Q on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 4:54 PM

  I sometimes communicate with Steven in the Diner..... Below is a copy of my suggestions regarding this topic. .... My remarks are consistant with others here. 

"Steven NWP SWP... I saw your thread on the IHC cars.  I would suggest you start with a much shorter train than the 24 cars you are considering. I would suggest starting with only 5 or 6 cars and later adding more.  .... IHC cars are constructed similar to Rivarossi cars and Con Cor 85’ cars.   I modify them to operate on my layout as follows.... Take off trucks .  Install body mounted long shank Kadee couplers. Couplers should be set back far enough so the gap between cars is minimal.  Install good quality trucks with pivot point in center of trucks instead of offset.  A new mounting hole will be needed with its surface even with old mounting hole. You have to add a little flat plastic to do this. Use a screw instead of the pin ... Add weight to get the car at NMRA standards.  

Check coupler height after trucks are installed, and adjust as needed.  " 

Furthermore: ..... Couplers should only be loose enough to pivot back and forth. They should not jiggle up and down because cars will uncouple at the wrong time. 

McHenry couplers mounted on the trucks can jiggle up and down causing cars to uncouple. 

GARRY

HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR

EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • 2,213 posts
Posted by NWP SWP on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 4:59 PM

Worst case scenario I can just run on the upper deck not run on the helixes.

Steven

Crooner, Imagineer, High School Graduate, living with Aspergers, President of the Republica Pacifica micronation,  President of the NWP-SWP System.

Hook'em Longhorns! 

  • Member since
    January, 2017
  • From: Southern Florida Gulf Coast
  • 2,585 posts
Posted by SeeYou190 on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 5:00 PM

Heartland Division CB&Q
Below is a copy of my suggestions regarding this topic. ...

.

At this point I would just be thrilled if Steven shared a picture of his T1 (I left the hyphen out this time) on the club layout with a passenger car or two behind it.

.

I would love to see what he is actually accomplishing.

.

His enthusiasm is amazing. I think once he actually gets something done his projects will become more reallistic in scope and possibility.

.

-Kevin

.

Happily modeling the STRATTON & GILLETTE RAILROAD located in a world of plausible nonsense set in August, 1954.

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!