Hi Gang!!
This is related to a thread on the 'Layouts and layout building' forum which discusses using Walthers (or other makers') 85' passenger cars on a 4x8 layout.
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/285265.aspx
I have the same question, but in this thread I would like to ask you specifically what modifications you have made to the Walthers cars to get them to run reliably on +- 24" radii.
In the other thread, a couple of people including Rich recommended using long shank couplers (Kadee's #146 for example). Rich also suggested reaming the truck axle holes, and maybe using a bit of lubrication.
What modifications have you tried and/or succeeded with?
Thanks,
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
hon30critter In the other thread, a couple of people including Rich recommended using long shank couplers (Kadee's #146 for example). Rich also suggested reaming the truck axle holes, and maybe using a bit of lubrication.
There is an unfortunate perception out there that the Walthers cars are irrevocably flawed. They are not. They merely need some tweaking to perform flawlessly.
Rich
Alton Junction
It has been a while, and I'm a bit fuzzy on the details. I think...I seem to recall...removing the layered weights and lighting kit in mine, including the contacts above the bolsters. The weights because I had steep grades and they're heavy enough to track well without them, and those screw-like contacts because they caused the trucks to bind when they swiveled in my 24-28" curves two layouts ago.
Lubing, yes, definitely, and I reamed several of my bearing cups, but I didn't think it was doing a lot of good.
Oh, and forget backing them on those 24" curves if they are coupled. Maybe you'll get lucky, I didn't, and that backing in the one place was also up an approximately 1% grade didn't help. It's the diaphragms.
It's an investigative process. Gotta find the problems and fix them. No big deal. The Walthers 85' passenger cars are not unfixable. Blame Walthers, though, for not taking better care to do a little QC before shipping out those cars. If Walthers has the roadnames that you are looking for, by all means buy them.
Hi Hrvoje,
Maybe this will work:
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/125277.aspx
P.S.
If you are interested, this how I make the link work in my own posts:
Once you submit the post and it shows your link in plain black print, hit the 'Edit' option. Then go to beginning of the link and type '[' followed by 'url' followed by ']'. No spaces and no quotation marks. Then go to the end of the link and type '[/' followed by 'url' and then ']', again no spaces or quotation marks. Then update your post and the link should work.
The reason for the drawn out typing instructions is that the '[url...' is actually a command that the system responds to. If I type it out directly it will try to execute the command and that will mess up the message.
Obviously this is far more complicated than need be. Others may have a quicker solution.
Thanks Dave. Usually I do not have problems, but from time to time I simply cannot create clickable link although I do as I always do.
Hrvoje
selectorIt has been a while, and I'm a bit fuzzy on the details. I think...I seem to recall...removing the layered weights and lighting kit in mine, including the contacts above the bolsters. The weights because I had steep grades and they're heavy enough to track well without them, and those screw-like contacts because they caused the trucks to bind when they swiveled in my 24-28" curves two layouts ago.
I found that it's not so much the screw-like contacts per se as it is the slight burr that can be found often at the top of the screw where the Phillips head is cut into the top of the screw. The burrs cause the truck to catch on the contact, rather than allowing it to swivel easily. A few swipes with the right file and things run much better.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
I just read through the 2008 thread that Hrjove posted the link to, and it has a lot of good suggestions. Here is a summary of the issues mentioned in that thread, some of which have already been noted above (thanks again for the link Hrvoje):
- loosen the truck screws,
- check wheel guage,
- check the screws on the truck frames for burrs (already suggested by Mike Lehman),
- lubricate the axles (already mentioned),
- put thin styrene on the diaphram striker plates,
- trucks hitting center sill,
- trucks hitting the coupler box,
- twisted trucks caused by overly tightened truck assembly screws,
- improperly seated contact strips.
It seems that the Walthers cars have a lot of potential problems, but several people on the 2008 thread and above have managed to get the cars to run properly so there is hope!
Hope springs eternal.
Overall, the Walthers 85' passenger cars are very nice pieces of rolling stock. It is worth the effort to "tune" them up. There is really no good reason to avoid them.
richhotrainThey merely need some tweaking to perform flawlessly.
I'll have to try your method, from the other thread, on a couple of Walthers cars that I haven't attacked yet.
Previously, I had to cut away some under frame to get the trucks to swing enough for a 24" r.
Mike.
My You Tube
This sounds great for the traditional 85' passenger cars, but what about the Amfleet and Horizon cars? They have a different type of truck. I've tried loosening the trucks, adjusting the bolsters, but to no avail. Any suggestions?
Thanks!
Neal
Although the use of longer couplers is often the answer, there is an unavoidable disadvantage associated with doing so. It becomes more difficult to backup the passenger cars.
When I am feeling lazy, I sometimes back a passenger train into one of the station's stub end tracks. But, as I noted, there is always a risk that a car will derail, leading to a chain reaction with the other cars in the consist, a form of stringlining if I am using the term correctly.
Or, you know, if people want to run 85' passenger cars reliably, they could try designing layouts with larger curves to accommodate them...or not run 85' long cars at all. When I built my old layout, I specifically designed it for full-length passenger car operations and used nothing less than 30" radius curves and nothing less than a #6 switch. That worked great with my fleet of passenger cars.And no, I'm not boasting, just trying to get across the idea that we modelers should temper our wants with reality. If you only have layout space for small curves, don't run 80'+ cars (freight or passenger). If you want to run long cars, find a layout space that can handle that or change the layout design. Maybe go point-to-point vs. a loop.
Paul3 Or, you know, if people want to run 85' passenger cars reliably, they could try designing layouts with larger curves to accommodate them...or not run 85' long cars at all. When I built my old layout, I specifically designed it for full-length passenger car operations and used nothing less than 30" radius curves and nothing less than a #6 switch. That worked great with my fleet of passenger cars.And no, I'm not boasting, just trying to get across the idea that we modelers should temper our wants with reality. If you only have layout space for small curves, don't run 80'+ cars (freight or passenger). If you want to run long cars, find a layout space that can handle that or change the layout design. Maybe go point-to-point vs. a loop.
Paul3 Or, you know, if people want to run 85' passenger cars reliably, they could try designing layouts with larger curves to accommodate them...or not run 85' long cars at all. When I built my old layout, I specifically designed it for full-length passenger car operations and used nothing less than 30" radius curves and nothing less than a #6 switch. That worked great with my fleet of passenger cars.
Or, you know, if people want to run 85' passenger cars reliably, they could try designing layouts with larger curves to accommodate them...or not run 85' long cars at all. When I built my old layout, I specifically designed it for full-length passenger car operations and used nothing less than 30" radius curves and nothing less than a #6 switch. That worked great with my fleet of passenger cars.
I agree with the above. A 9 car passenger train of 85' cars on a 4x8 oval would be an exercise in frustration if they can even be made to run at all.
And no, I'm not boasting, just trying to get across the idea that we modelers should temper our wants with reality.
Time for a father Ted meme.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
richhotrainAlthough the use of longer couplers is often the answer, there is an unavoidable disadvantage associated with doing so. It becomes more difficult to backup the passenger cars.
Longer shank couplers have been mentioned here but I would try these longer draft gear pieces first.
https://www.walthers.com/long-shank-extended-drawbar-20-pack
I noticed at about the time the B&O Capitol Limited cars were coming out, maybe four or five years ago, that Walthers was supplying these taped to the underside of the packaging.
Proto_truck2 by Edmund, on Flickr
Also included was another "cover plate" but I don't know if changing this out is necessary or not. The "extended shank" is only about .085 longer but I presume the designers knew what they were doing.
Using the longer draft gear may help with the backing up issue?
Short of that Walthers offers a whole Talgo-style truck:
https://www.walthers.com/streamlined-passenger-trucks-w-talgo-couplers-pkg-2
I imagine to use these you would eliminate the draft gear box, or cover, which is held on by the two screws.
I'm blessed with wiide enough curves that I havent encountered any problems. I think I did have to do a little tune-up work on one of the huge "Super Dome" cars but I don't recall exactly what I did to improve those particular cars.
Good Luck, Ed
Hi! Good question!
I've had good success by trimming/removing the center frame of the trucks. These allow me to run them on my 22" radius. (I know, they look really bad on it, but you gotta do what you gotta do)
I dont like long shank couplers as that creates a gap between the diaphragms.
I trim the center frame for lightweights, and remove on heavyweights. I obviously try to trim as little as possible:
Here's a video of them running at speed on my 22" radius oval without fault:
I also make sure the trucks arent too tight, coupler boxes swing freely enough, and make sure the cars are weighted enough.
I have yet to come across a car that I couldnt make reliably travel across my curves, but if I do, I will have to resort to using long shank couplers (in addition).
Cheers!
Charles
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling the PRR & NYC in HO
Youtube Channel: www.youtube.com/@trainman440
Instagram (where I share projects!): https://www.instagram.com/trainman440
Trainman440 I dont like long shank couplers as that creates a gap between the diaphragms.
gmpullman I'm blessed with wide enough curves that I havent encountered any problems.
I'm blessed with wide enough curves that I havent encountered any problems.
Trainman440I've had good success by trimming/removing the center frame of the trucks
That what I did to make them work on 24" r.
The finger-wagging over using 24" curves is warranted, but it is possible to make them run with enough effort and sometimes outright hacking.
The luxury of 30" would be nice, but often hard to justify for the space taken. Things designed to run on 24" R do tend to run OK straight out of the box on 30" R. That said, you can often gain much of what is achived with 30" R by going just a little wider than 24" R. I went with either 26" or 28" - right now my memory is rusty on that. After a little work, everything long runs reliably
Another thing about some of the fixes offered here for axhieving 24" R is that some issues can show up evern if you have the larger curves. The burrs on the screw heads is one of them, although as R increases, it becomes less of an issue. It's just random enough that it should be checked if you have issues, even if you're running larger than 24" min R.
richhotrain gmpullman I'm blessed with wide enough curves that I havent encountered any problems. Rich
You've had to replace couplers even on 32-inch curves?
Trainman440 Hi! Good question! I've had good success by trimming/removing the center frame of the trucks. These allow me to run them on my 22" radius. (I know, they look really bad on it, but you gotta do what you gotta do) I dont like long shank couplers as that creates a gap between the diaphragms. I trim the center frame for lightweights, and remove on heavyweights. I obviously try to trim as little as possible: Here's a video of them running at speed on my 22" radius oval without fault: I also make sure the trucks arent too tight, coupler boxes swing freely enough, and make sure the cars are weighted enough. I have yet to come across a car that I couldnt make reliably travel across my curves, but if I do, I will have to resort to using long shank couplers (in addition). Cheers! Charles
That sounds interesting? What exactly do you do to the trucks, since I've never owned a Walthers streamlined passenger car other than the Superliners. Maybe a step-by-step guide or comparison picture before/after would help me see what you did better.
I'm currrently going to get long shank replacement couplers to put on my upcoming passenger cars instead, but if this is an easier solution I'd like some information.
FYI the passenger cars I'm getting are from the earlier run of Empire Builder passenger cars in 2007, rather than the most recent 2014 run.
richhotrainHe is a big advocate of flexible diaphragms, the brand name of which I do not recall. He claims that these flexible diaphragms look totally prototypical and that the cars don't snag on each other. Hmmm.
I am also a big advocate of flexible diaphrams.
Mine do not look completely prototypical, and they do not allow operation...
My passenger trains are run as "units". They run through the scene only, no operations, and no changing cars.
So, I use drawbars to connect the passenger cars and a single flexible diaphram between the cars held in place by a pair of small rare earth magnets. The diaphram is permanenty fastened to one car and magnetized to the other. The wires for lighting pass through the diaphrams.
Coupling and uncoupling cars is a real pain.
I do not have any pictures, because I have not completed but a couple of test cars, but the system works. It looks ok on 30" curves, and will stay together on my 22" hidden curves.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
richhotrain Trainman440 I dont like long shank couplers as that creates a gap between the diaphragms. Yep, that can be a problem. We need Sheldon to chime in here. He is a big advocate of flexible diaphragms, the brand name of which I do not recall. He claims that these flexible diaphragms look totally prototypical and that the cars don't snag on each other. Hmmm. Rich
Yep, that can be a problem. We need Sheldon to chime in here. He is a big advocate of flexible diaphragms, the brand name of which I do not recall. He claims that these flexible diaphragms look totally prototypical and that the cars don't snag on each other. Hmmm.
Id assume its American Limited? That's like the one and only diaphragm company I know...and heard good things about.
I think Walthers diaphragms are fine though, as long as they spring in and out theyre good enough for me. I need to buy some American Limited diaphragms to replace some branchline and Rivarossi cars though.
Trainman440 richhotrain Trainman440 I dont like long shank couplers as that creates a gap between the diaphragms. Yep, that can be a problem. We need Sheldon to chime in here. He is a big advocate of flexible diaphragms, the brand name of which I do not recall. He claims that these flexible diaphragms look totally prototypical and that the cars don't snag on each other. Hmmm. Rich Id assume its American Limited? That's like the one and only diaphragm company I know...and heard good things about.
SeeYou190So, I use drawbars to connect the passenger cars...SNIP...Coupling and uncoupling cars is a real pain. I do not have any pictures, because I have not completed but a couple of test cars, but the system works. It looks ok on 30" curves, and will stay together on my 22" hidden curves.
22" hidden curves!?! That's indeed tweaking the dragon's nose with anything long.
Paul3 Or, you know, if people want to run 85' passenger cars reliably, they could try designing layouts with larger curves to accommodate them...or not run 85' long cars at all. When I built my old layout, I specifically designed it for full-length passenger car operations and used nothing less than 30" radius curves and nothing less than a #6 switch. That worked great with my fleet of passenger cars.And no, I'm not boasting, just trying to get across the idea that we modelers should temper our wants with reality...
Or, you know, if people want to run 85' passenger cars reliably, they could try designing layouts with larger curves to accommodate them...or not run 85' long cars at all. When I built my old layout, I specifically designed it for full-length passenger car operations and used nothing less than 30" radius curves and nothing less than a #6 switch. That worked great with my fleet of passenger cars.And no, I'm not boasting, just trying to get across the idea that we modelers should temper our wants with reality...
I was foolish, uneducated, and naive. I actually trusted Walthers' advertized specs for performance on their heavyweights. Silly me. Now that I have been fooled twice...(the second time was with their claimed inner radius for their #7 curved turnouts. I think I can still hear them laughing if I try.)