dbduck richhotrain One issue that I perhaps need to consider is weight. What effect does weight have on derailments? Rich Weight (or should I say lack of) will directly affect tracking All of my rolling stock are weighted as close to possible to the NMRA recommended practice RP-20.1 I can pretty much back a train of around 25-30 cars around a modular layout built almost 40 years ago with out derailments
richhotrain One issue that I perhaps need to consider is weight. What effect does weight have on derailments? Rich
One issue that I perhaps need to consider is weight. What effect does weight have on derailments?
Rich
Weight (or should I say lack of) will directly affect tracking
All of my rolling stock are weighted as close to possible to the NMRA recommended practice RP-20.1 I can pretty much back a train of around 25-30 cars around a modular layout built almost 40 years ago with out derailments
Alton Junction
As I recall -- and Ed will recall better, with pictures and numbers -- all three wheelsets on the PAs were the same size on the prototype, and therefore ought to be on the model. It would make at least superficial manufacturing sense to have all the wheelsets on a model identical. If all three are geared -- which the prototype of course was NOT -- then lateral accommodation might involve different flange profile, or effective gauge narrowing, on the center wheelset, but I wouldn't think that would involve flange diameter except perhaps insofar as cutting back flanges from the gauge side of a stock wheelset might remove some of the OD circumstantially. (This all being distinct from the idea of using a wider, blind wheelset in the center to lessen perceived curve resistance as in steam-locomotive-model practice.)
This brings up the issue of whether increasing either free or controlled lateral on that center axle is a possibility, including that it would relieve whatever effect made the axle transiently ride high. There should be some slight lateral permitted by the spur-gear drive unless the teeth have some crowning action (which I doubt on general principles) and perhaps gently filing the edges of the gear would increase the ability of the axle to go sideways or ride smoothly 'at the limit' -- we then have the option of filing the metal if it contacts the face of a wheel, or doing something like truck tuning if the axle stub is bottoming against the plastic sideframe or being forced out of natural line in the metal.
I can think of a couple of ways to kludge active centering on a center axle, including small springs or foam/elastomer blocks. We can take that discussion up if it is appropriate or needed. See the concurrent discussion of Kadee springs for wheel wipers...
Overmod As I recall -- and Ed will recall better, with pictures and numbers -- all three wheelsets on the PAs were the same size on the prototype, and therefore ought to be on the model. It would make at least superficial manufacturing sense to have all the wheelsets on a model identical. If all three are geared -- which the prototype of course was NOT -- then lateral accommodation might involve different flange profile, or effective gauge narrowing, on the center wheelset, but I wouldn't think that would involve flange diameter except perhaps insofar as cutting back flanges from the gauge side of a stock wheelset might remove some of the OD circumstantially.
As I recall -- and Ed will recall better, with pictures and numbers -- all three wheelsets on the PAs were the same size on the prototype, and therefore ought to be on the model. It would make at least superficial manufacturing sense to have all the wheelsets on a model identical. If all three are geared -- which the prototype of course was NOT -- then lateral accommodation might involve different flange profile, or effective gauge narrowing, on the center wheelset, but I wouldn't think that would involve flange diameter except perhaps insofar as cutting back flanges from the gauge side of a stock wheelset might remove some of the OD circumstantially.
richhotrainI was suggesting a possible manufacturing fault.
I'm not sure there's a likely manufacturing error that would turn the tread of the wheel accurately and skimp on the flange, unless the stock from which the wheel blanks were cut had been 'necked' somehow on one end. That might be a subject for discussion.
Overmod richhotrain I was suggesting a possible manufacturing fault. Could be. And if all wheelsets in the truck are made alike you could quickly swap them and see if that makes any critical difference. I'm not sure there's a likely manufacturing error that would turn the tread of the wheel accurately and skimp on the flange, unless the stock from which the wheel blanks were cut had been 'necked' somehow on one end. That might be a subject for discussion.
richhotrain I was suggesting a possible manufacturing fault.
Could be. And if all wheelsets in the truck are made alike you could quickly swap them and see if that makes any critical difference.
richhotrain A dummy Locomotive is basically just another piece of rolling stock that looks like a locomotive I would apply the same rules for rolling stock to the dummy as well since it probably has a metal frame there is a good chance it already meets or exceeds the recommended minimum dbduck richhotrain One issue that I perhaps need to consider is weight. What effect does weight have on derailments? Rich Weight (or should I say lack of) will directly affect tracking All of my rolling stock are weighted as close to possible to the NMRA recommended practice RP-20.1 I can pretty much back a train of around 25-30 cars around a modular layout built almost 40 years ago with out derailments Thanks for that post, dbduck. My PA/PB consist is a powered PA unit and a dummy PB unit which will normally pull 7 to 14 passenger cars of varying lengths. I have not added weight to any of the passenger cars or the dummy PB. The dummy PB is heavier than any of the passenger cars, so I wonder how I would apply RP-20.1 standards to the dummy PB loco? Any thoughts? Rich
A dummy Locomotive is basically just another piece of rolling stock that looks like a locomotive I would apply the same rules for rolling stock to the dummy as well
since it probably has a metal frame there is a good chance it already meets or exceeds the recommended minimum
Thanks for that post, dbduck. My PA/PB consist is a powered PA unit and a dummy PB unit which will normally pull 7 to 14 passenger cars of varying lengths. I have not added weight to any of the passenger cars or the dummy PB. The dummy PB is heavier than any of the passenger cars, so I wonder how I would apply RP-20.1 standards to the dummy PB loco? Any thoughts?
rrebell ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL I have to say I have never liked cork and can't even think about the idea of putting track on foam. It just does not feel firm enough to me. I sold it for years in the hobby shop, I built display layouts for the store with it. But I have actually never built any part of any of my personal layouts using cork roadbed. As I plan the new layout I am actually considering between Homasote (since a new Homasote roadbed product may appear on the market soon) and possibly making my own wood roadbed. I know cork works well for many people, I just like a more solid feel to benchwork and trackwork. Interesting comments about cork, Sheldon. On my prior layouts, I used Woodland Scenics Foam Track Bed. I always found it to soft. I nail down my track, and the softness of foam winds up deforming the foam when nailed down. On my current layout, I went with cork. Midwest products makes 3' strips and it is firm and supportive for nailed down track. However, for curves, I bought sheets from a commercial source and cut the cork to form the 32" curved roadbed. It seems fine to me, but once ballasted I have noticed that if you remove the ballast to re-lay track as I have done on these two curves, the cork is no longer flat but a bit wavy. Not good. What other alternatives are there for roadbed? Homasote? Wood? Rich Back in the dark ages of this hobby, in the 1950's and 60's, soft woods like basswood or pine were milled into roadbed. Some modelers made their own. The Tru-Scale brand being the biggest commercial line. They made three primary products. Ready Track - it was wood roadbed and ties milled from a single piece of wood. The ties had milled in tieplates (oversized) which helped position the rail, rail was spiked in place with very small spikes. Track was ready go, with the tie area stained brown and the ballast slopes painted gray with some "grit" in the gray paint. Self Gauging Roadbed - simply the product described above in kit form - raw wood milled roadbed with ties, you do the staining, spiking and ballasting. Plain Roadbed - smooth wood roadbed with no ties for use with any brand of flex track, sectional track, or as a base to install your own hand layed ties and rail. A simple Google search for "Tru-Scale Roadbed" will provide some images. Some can always be found on Ebay. They also made a complete line of turnouts, crossovers, crossings, also available "Ready" or in kit form. And the roadbed came in a wide selection of curved radii sizes. In the 70's modelers started making their own roadbed from Homasote - a messy and time consuming job. Then the Homabed product hit the market, similar to cork, two strips already beveled, layed back to back. For curves the sections are kerfed to allow bending. That product changed hands several times as so many products do in this hobby until it got to the last guy, Cascade - then he closed up. Over the years and last two owners the product line expanded to include ramps, different side slope angles, different thicknesses, all in an effort to acheave better realism and improve ease of use. As best we know Cascade closed do to personal family issues, not a lack of business or profit. There is curently an effort underway to get a replacement product on the market. One way or the other I will use wood or Homasote, or some of both. And my track will be glued down to avoid the possiblilty of movement. Yes, I am completely old school on this, the proof is in the pudding. Layouts like the Severna Park Model Railroad Club are still running on track layed on homsote in the 1960's and 70's with minimal repair or maintenance. That layout has only undergone minior changes to the track plan since it was mostly completed in the early 70's. Solid is better, and in my experiance no more noisy than all these "soft" materials. Sheldon Tru-scale track was garbage (quote from original owner), just thought I would throw that in. Never used the stuff but was fasinated by it which is how the previus owner and me dicused his product.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL I have to say I have never liked cork and can't even think about the idea of putting track on foam. It just does not feel firm enough to me. I sold it for years in the hobby shop, I built display layouts for the store with it. But I have actually never built any part of any of my personal layouts using cork roadbed. As I plan the new layout I am actually considering between Homasote (since a new Homasote roadbed product may appear on the market soon) and possibly making my own wood roadbed. I know cork works well for many people, I just like a more solid feel to benchwork and trackwork. Interesting comments about cork, Sheldon. On my prior layouts, I used Woodland Scenics Foam Track Bed. I always found it to soft. I nail down my track, and the softness of foam winds up deforming the foam when nailed down. On my current layout, I went with cork. Midwest products makes 3' strips and it is firm and supportive for nailed down track. However, for curves, I bought sheets from a commercial source and cut the cork to form the 32" curved roadbed. It seems fine to me, but once ballasted I have noticed that if you remove the ballast to re-lay track as I have done on these two curves, the cork is no longer flat but a bit wavy. Not good. What other alternatives are there for roadbed? Homasote? Wood? Rich Back in the dark ages of this hobby, in the 1950's and 60's, soft woods like basswood or pine were milled into roadbed. Some modelers made their own. The Tru-Scale brand being the biggest commercial line. They made three primary products. Ready Track - it was wood roadbed and ties milled from a single piece of wood. The ties had milled in tieplates (oversized) which helped position the rail, rail was spiked in place with very small spikes. Track was ready go, with the tie area stained brown and the ballast slopes painted gray with some "grit" in the gray paint. Self Gauging Roadbed - simply the product described above in kit form - raw wood milled roadbed with ties, you do the staining, spiking and ballasting. Plain Roadbed - smooth wood roadbed with no ties for use with any brand of flex track, sectional track, or as a base to install your own hand layed ties and rail. A simple Google search for "Tru-Scale Roadbed" will provide some images. Some can always be found on Ebay. They also made a complete line of turnouts, crossovers, crossings, also available "Ready" or in kit form. And the roadbed came in a wide selection of curved radii sizes. In the 70's modelers started making their own roadbed from Homasote - a messy and time consuming job. Then the Homabed product hit the market, similar to cork, two strips already beveled, layed back to back. For curves the sections are kerfed to allow bending. That product changed hands several times as so many products do in this hobby until it got to the last guy, Cascade - then he closed up. Over the years and last two owners the product line expanded to include ramps, different side slope angles, different thicknesses, all in an effort to acheave better realism and improve ease of use. As best we know Cascade closed do to personal family issues, not a lack of business or profit. There is curently an effort underway to get a replacement product on the market. One way or the other I will use wood or Homasote, or some of both. And my track will be glued down to avoid the possiblilty of movement. Yes, I am completely old school on this, the proof is in the pudding. Layouts like the Severna Park Model Railroad Club are still running on track layed on homsote in the 1960's and 70's with minimal repair or maintenance. That layout has only undergone minior changes to the track plan since it was mostly completed in the early 70's. Solid is better, and in my experiance no more noisy than all these "soft" materials. Sheldon
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL I have to say I have never liked cork and can't even think about the idea of putting track on foam. It just does not feel firm enough to me. I sold it for years in the hobby shop, I built display layouts for the store with it. But I have actually never built any part of any of my personal layouts using cork roadbed. As I plan the new layout I am actually considering between Homasote (since a new Homasote roadbed product may appear on the market soon) and possibly making my own wood roadbed. I know cork works well for many people, I just like a more solid feel to benchwork and trackwork. Interesting comments about cork, Sheldon. On my prior layouts, I used Woodland Scenics Foam Track Bed. I always found it to soft. I nail down my track, and the softness of foam winds up deforming the foam when nailed down. On my current layout, I went with cork. Midwest products makes 3' strips and it is firm and supportive for nailed down track. However, for curves, I bought sheets from a commercial source and cut the cork to form the 32" curved roadbed. It seems fine to me, but once ballasted I have noticed that if you remove the ballast to re-lay track as I have done on these two curves, the cork is no longer flat but a bit wavy. Not good. What other alternatives are there for roadbed? Homasote? Wood? Rich
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I have to say I have never liked cork and can't even think about the idea of putting track on foam. It just does not feel firm enough to me. I sold it for years in the hobby shop, I built display layouts for the store with it. But I have actually never built any part of any of my personal layouts using cork roadbed. As I plan the new layout I am actually considering between Homasote (since a new Homasote roadbed product may appear on the market soon) and possibly making my own wood roadbed. I know cork works well for many people, I just like a more solid feel to benchwork and trackwork.
I have to say I have never liked cork and can't even think about the idea of putting track on foam. It just does not feel firm enough to me.
I sold it for years in the hobby shop, I built display layouts for the store with it. But I have actually never built any part of any of my personal layouts using cork roadbed.
As I plan the new layout I am actually considering between Homasote (since a new Homasote roadbed product may appear on the market soon) and possibly making my own wood roadbed.
I know cork works well for many people, I just like a more solid feel to benchwork and trackwork.
Interesting comments about cork, Sheldon.
On my prior layouts, I used Woodland Scenics Foam Track Bed. I always found it to soft. I nail down my track, and the softness of foam winds up deforming the foam when nailed down.
On my current layout, I went with cork. Midwest products makes 3' strips and it is firm and supportive for nailed down track. However, for curves, I bought sheets from a commercial source and cut the cork to form the 32" curved roadbed. It seems fine to me, but once ballasted I have noticed that if you remove the ballast to re-lay track as I have done on these two curves, the cork is no longer flat but a bit wavy. Not good. What other alternatives are there for roadbed? Homasote? Wood?
Back in the dark ages of this hobby, in the 1950's and 60's, soft woods like basswood or pine were milled into roadbed. Some modelers made their own. The Tru-Scale brand being the biggest commercial line.
They made three primary products.
Ready Track - it was wood roadbed and ties milled from a single piece of wood. The ties had milled in tieplates (oversized) which helped position the rail, rail was spiked in place with very small spikes. Track was ready go, with the tie area stained brown and the ballast slopes painted gray with some "grit" in the gray paint.
Self Gauging Roadbed - simply the product described above in kit form - raw wood milled roadbed with ties, you do the staining, spiking and ballasting.
Plain Roadbed - smooth wood roadbed with no ties for use with any brand of flex track, sectional track, or as a base to install your own hand layed ties and rail.
A simple Google search for "Tru-Scale Roadbed" will provide some images. Some can always be found on Ebay.
They also made a complete line of turnouts, crossovers, crossings, also available "Ready" or in kit form. And the roadbed came in a wide selection of curved radii sizes.
In the 70's modelers started making their own roadbed from Homasote - a messy and time consuming job.
Then the Homabed product hit the market, similar to cork, two strips already beveled, layed back to back. For curves the sections are kerfed to allow bending.
That product changed hands several times as so many products do in this hobby until it got to the last guy, Cascade - then he closed up.
Over the years and last two owners the product line expanded to include ramps, different side slope angles, different thicknesses, all in an effort to acheave better realism and improve ease of use.
As best we know Cascade closed do to personal family issues, not a lack of business or profit.
There is curently an effort underway to get a replacement product on the market.
One way or the other I will use wood or Homasote, or some of both. And my track will be glued down to avoid the possiblilty of movement.
Yes, I am completely old school on this, the proof is in the pudding. Layouts like the Severna Park Model Railroad Club are still running on track layed on homsote in the 1960's and 70's with minimal repair or maintenance. That layout has only undergone minior changes to the track plan since it was mostly completed in the early 70's.
Solid is better, and in my experiance no more noisy than all these "soft" materials.
Sheldon
Tru-scale track was garbage (quote from original owner), just thought I would throw that in. Never used the stuff but was fasinated by it which is how the previus owner and me dicused his product.
And I would still like an explaination of the comment which you bring up every time TruScale track or roadbed is mentioned?
It worked great, my trains ran very well on it, as did my fathers trains.
Considering the other products of the time, it looked better than most other ready to use track.
Have you ever used it? Have you ever touched a piece of it? I still have some, mostly the bare roadbed, but a length or two of the roadbed with the ties.
Is is "fine scale" in appearance? No. But it looks better than Kato Unitrack or Bachmann E-Z track in my opinion and it was the "roadbed and track in one" product of its time.
I remember many large club layouts being built with it back in the day, and we sold plenty of it in the frist hobby shop I worked in - that was 1971 - must not have been all that bad.
Your comment, or your quote of his comment, is as meanless as the all the "Bachmann is garbage" kinds of comments.
Tell me what about it makes it garbage?
I think Woodland Scenics foam roadbed is garbage, yet they continue to sell that junk.
dbduck A dummy Locomotive is basically just another piece of rolling stock that looks like a locomotive I would apply the same rules for rolling stock to the dummy as well. Since it probably has a metal frame there is a good chance it already meets or exceeds the recommended minimum.
A dummy Locomotive is basically just another piece of rolling stock that looks like a locomotive I would apply the same rules for rolling stock to the dummy as well.
Since it probably has a metal frame there is a good chance it already meets or exceeds the recommended minimum.
PA - 21.45 oz.
PB - 7.20 oz.
85' - 7.05 oz.
Bagg - 5.01 oz.
RPO - 4.97 oz
So, the Proto 2000 PA weighs 3 times the weight of the dummy PB.
The Walthers 85' passenger cars weigh about the same as the dummy PB.
The Walthers baggage car is a bit smaller maybe 72' than the 85' passenger cars, and the RPO is even smaller, maybe 60'.
Waddya think? These are all factory weights.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Your comment, or your quote of his comment, is as meanless as the all the "Bachmann is garbage" kinds of comments. Tell me what about it makes it garbage? I think Woodland Scenics foam roadbed is garbage, yet they continue to sell that junk.
richhotrain dbduck A dummy Locomotive is basically just another piece of rolling stock that looks like a locomotive I would apply the same rules for rolling stock to the dummy as well. Since it probably has a metal frame there is a good chance it already meets or exceeds the recommended minimum. I weighed the PA and PB locos as well as 7 passenger cars. Here are the weights in ounces: PA - 21.45 oz. PB - 7.20 oz. 85' - 7.05 oz. Bagg - 5.01 oz. RPO - 4.97 oz So, the Proto 2000 PA weighs 3 times the weight of the dummy PB. The Walthers 85' passenger cars weigh about the same as the dummy PB. The Walthers baggage car is a bit smaller maybe 72' than the 85' passenger cars, and the RPO is even smaller, maybe 60'. Waddya think? These are all factory weights. Rich
I weighed the PA and PB locos as well as 7 passenger cars. Here are the weights in ounces:
Those weights are just fine.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain dbduck A dummy Locomotive is basically just another piece of rolling stock that looks like a locomotive I would apply the same rules for rolling stock to the dummy as well. Since it probably has a metal frame there is a good chance it already meets or exceeds the recommended minimum. I weighed the PA and PB locos as well as 7 passenger cars. Here are the weights in ounces: PA - 21.45 oz. PB - 7.20 oz. 85' - 7.05 oz. Bagg - 5.01 oz. RPO - 4.97 oz So, the Proto 2000 PA weighs 3 times the weight of the dummy PB. The Walthers 85' passenger cars weigh about the same as the dummy PB. The Walthers baggage car is a bit smaller maybe 72' than the 85' passenger cars, and the RPO is even smaller, maybe 60'. Waddya think? These are all factory weights. Rich Those weights are just fine. Sheldon
LastspikemikeThrust forces on a powered axle will drive the cone on the end of the axle moving it around
There are no thrust forces on a spur cut gear.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
The recommended weight for HO according to RP – 20.1 is
base weight of 1 ounce +1/2 ounce for every inch of length of car
so a 6" long car would be 4 ounces
1 + (6x.5)
so i don't have to do the math every time, I made a ruler marked off in "ounces"
1" = 1.5 ounces
2" = 2
3"= 2.5 And so on
so all I have to do is hold the ruler next to the car & know instantly
dbduck The recommended weight for HO according to RP – 20.1 is base weight of 1 ounce +1/2 ounce for every inch of length of car so a 6" long car would be 4 ounces 1 + (6x.5)
dbduck so i don't have to do the math every time, I made a ruler marked off in "ounces" 1" = 1.5 ounces 2" = 2 3"= 2.5 And so on so all I have to do is hold the ruler next to the car & know instantly
SeeYou190 Lastspikemike Thrust forces on a powered axle will drive the cone on the end of the axle moving it around There are no thrust forces on a spur cut gear.
Lastspikemike Thrust forces on a powered axle will drive the cone on the end of the axle moving it around
Overmod SeeYou190 Lastspikemike Thrust forces on a powered axle will drive the cone on the end of the axle moving it around There are no thrust forces on a spur cut gear. And, unless I'm missing something, no cone on the ends of these axles...
And, unless I'm missing something, no cone on the ends of these axles...
Correct, a blunt end axle riding a simple bore with slight radius on the inside toward the wheel.
And simple straight cut spur gears so no gear thrust side to side.
In fact a necessary condition to allow the lateral motion necessary to get these three axle trucks around curves.
I had an odd derailment that I watched happen and just said, "Huh?"
It was some old reliable Geeps, pulling a boring old reliable short freight. But, it jumped the track and even looked awkward doing so, as if the engines were as confused as me.
I have an Atlas chord bridge, which I spent some time painting and decorating, even making bridge track for. I have a painting crew working on the bridge. One unfortunate painter fell off and was dragged halfway around the layout before he derailed the train. No damage to train, track or painter.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
When I built my new layout, I tested all of my locomotives and rolling stock before I started ballasting. Everything tested out fine with few exceptions, and I fixed those exceptions.
Now that I have completed the ballasting, I starting testing everything all over again. That's when I discovered the PA problem.
When I started this thread, I included "bullet proof" track work in the title, mostly with tongue in cheek. Reasonably, I did not expect the track work to be bullet proof, but I also did not expect many problems with the track work and that has been the case with the exception of the one PA.
Here is something that I noticed today. I use Atlas Code 83 flex track and Peco Code 83 turnouts on my double mainline. I chose to use Peco Code 83 turnouts because I wanted spring loaded turnouts that could be flicked by hand as opposed to Tortoises which I used extensively on my old layout. I use Atlas Code 100/83 rail joiners, and every stick of flex track has a feeder soldered to the outside of the rail. I have just a few turnouts diverging off the mainline and one crossing to reach the passenger station from the outer track over the inner track.
So far, so good. No derailments over the turnouts even though the rail profile is different than the flex track with one exception - - the problem PA. What I noticed today is that the problem PA reacts poorly at the point of the rails joined together, flex track to turnout. Actually, it was the Peco Code 83 crossing, not a standard turnout.
When I looked more closely I could see that the rail joiner was not exactly parallel to the connected rail joint which resulted in the end of the flex track sitting slightly higher than the end of the turnout. So, I used some TLC to even out the rail joint, and the problem went away.
That did alleviate the PA derailment problem at that site, but I still think that I have a front truck problem because there is too much play in the truck. So, I still need to solve the truck problem.
Edit Note: My other PA exhibits no problems at those few rail joints where the problem PA fails.
Lastspikemike I noticed Peco turnouts don't like attaching directly to Atlas rail profile. For that reason I try to connect Peco turnouts to a piece of Peco flex track and then join the Atlas track to the Peco flex track. It seems to form a more reliable joint.
I noticed Peco turnouts don't like attaching directly to Atlas rail profile. For that reason I try to connect Peco turnouts to a piece of Peco flex track and then join the Atlas track to the Peco flex track. It seems to form a more reliable joint.
It also depends on what joiners you use.
If you use actual code 83 joiners from Peco or ME, the joint is tight and the different profiles aren't much of a problem. I like to bevel the corner of the slightly bigger Atlas code 83 track in order to have a smooth unbumpy joint.
If you use the bigger Atlas code 100/83 joiners, the larger joiners are quite sloppy loose on the narrower Peco profile, and the joiners really have to be crimped quite a bit to fit snuggly and to help the joint stay even.
I use Atlas code 80 N gauge joiners to join Peco code 83 track, and to also mate Atlas code 83 track to the Peco. Those joiners are a perfect fit for the Peco, but are tight for the Atlas. Chamfer the edges of the rail base of the Atlas track and the code 80 N gauge joiners fit well (with a little force).
I like the look of the N gauge joiners since they are smaller, more like the prototype, IMO.
Nice and tight and uniform, then I go back and solder all of the joints.
And the N gauge code 80 fit great under the Peco recess. Just needs a little persuasion to break the tension
- Douglas
People also forget about manufacturing defects in track. Installed all new Shinohara code 70 on my layout but one had the throwbar point rise slightly above the rail when thrown to one side, no problem to fix but would have been easier before being installed, never sow one of those on my old layout.
rrebellPeople also forget about manufacturing defects in track.
I recall a batch of the early Walthers/Shinohara code 83 where the plastic bits insulating the frog had somehow "oozed" above the railhead and in some cases interfered with the flange groove in the frog.
A few careful swipes with a knife-edge jeweler's file took care of it but if you were unaware it could cause problems.
Any track and turnout has to be carefully examined inch-by-inch after laying for this reason.
Good Luck, Ed
gmpullman I recall a batch of the early Walthers/Shinohara code 83 where the plastic bits insulating the frog had somehow "oozed" above the railhead and in some cases interfered with the flange groove in the frog. A few careful swipes with a knife-edge jeweler's file took care of it but if you were unaware it could cause problems. Any track and turnout has to be carefully examined inch-by-inch after laying for this reason. Good Luck, Ed
I can still clearly recall my first days into HO scale modeling in January, 2004. I started out with sectional track that I decided to nail down on top of Woodland Scenics Foam Track Bed to hold the track in place.
Shortly thereafter, I moved up to flex track upon the advice of my LHS guys. Nothing but problems with derailments and unintended uncouplings. Humps and valleys on the straight mainlines and kinks on the curves. I cannot tell you how many times I wanted to quit the hobby. Even today, some 17 years later, I am still learning new things about track laying techniques.
So I can only echo your sentiment. Any track and any turnout has to be carefully examined inch-by-inch after laying it.
gmpullman rrebell People also forget about manufacturing defects in track. I recall a batch of the early Walthers/Shinohara code 83 where the plastic bits insulating the frog had somehow "oozed" above the railhead and in some cases interfered with the flange groove in the frog. A few careful swipes with a knife-edge jeweler's file took care of it but if you were unaware it could cause problems. Any track and turnout has to be carefully examined inch-by-inch after laying for this reason. Good Luck, Ed
rrebell People also forget about manufacturing defects in track.
I have had to take a file to a few of my WS turnouts at the frog, all was well.
I have a lot of WS curved T/Os and while I tend to let my T/Os float I find the curved ones need to be securely anchored down. Diesels and small steam go through a curved floater OK but a big steamer will torque it out and derail. Once it is secure problem solved.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
richhotrainI can only echo your sentiment. Any track and any turnout has to be carefully examined inch-by-inch after laying it.
Hi Rich,
I would respectfully suggest that any track, especially turnouts, should be carefully examined before laying it. My experience at my old club with Atlas Code 83 turnouts showed that almost all of them required some tuning to get them to work reliably. There were two common problems. One was that the frogs were higher than the rails leading to them so they had to be filed down. The other problem, which would be much more difficult to fix with the turnout in place, was that the frogs popped loose when we were trying to attach feeders to them. We were simply trying to tap the hole in the frogs so we could attach the feeder wire, but in several instances the frogs came loose.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
hon30critter richhotrain I can only echo your sentiment. Any track and any turnout has to be carefully examined inch-by-inch after laying it. Hi Rich, My experience at my old club with Atlas Code 83 turnouts showed that almost all of them required some tuning to get them to work reliably. There were two common problems. One was that the frogs were higher than the rails leading to them so they had to be filed down. The other problem, which would be much more difficult to fix with the turnout in place, was that the frogs popped loose when we were trying to attach feeders to them.
richhotrain I can only echo your sentiment. Any track and any turnout has to be carefully examined inch-by-inch after laying it.
My experience at my old club with Atlas Code 83 turnouts showed that almost all of them required some tuning to get them to work reliably. There were two common problems. One was that the frogs were higher than the rails leading to them so they had to be filed down. The other problem, which would be much more difficult to fix with the turnout in place, was that the frogs popped loose when we were trying to attach feeders to them.
gmpullmanAny track and turnout has to be carefully examined inch-by-inch after laying for this reason.
Absolutely!
Also, and small problem you find during this examination needs to be repaired to perfection. Anything you think "should not cause problems", will cause problems.
Track must be perfect, and any time spent on careful inspection is never time wasted.
The one thing that keeps nagging at me is the practice of leaving turnouts unsoldered for ease of access or maintenance. If that is so, even if the turnouts are properly lined and surfaced originally, there may be preferential distortion at those joints if stresses in the flex should develop.
I've wondered if soldering some distance away from the turnout to make a 'larger' or better reinforced removable piece might be wise in some cases...
OvermodThe one thing that keeps nagging at me is the practice of leaving turnouts unsoldered for ease of access or maintenance. If that is so, even if the turnouts are properly lined and surfaced originally, there may be preferential distortion at those joints if stresses in the flex should develop.
Once ballast is glued in place, there will be no flex.
I do not solder my turnouts, and rarely trim them for ease of replacement. However, they are always held in place by the ballast and glue.