Derailing problem.

[Anonymous]

Thanks mate

Rgds ian

[markperr]

WOW is that wierd. half of these replies I didn't even see yesterday when I replied and yet, I'm at the bottom of the stack. Well, at least it's consistent with the rest of my life. Always late and missing the fun.

Glad you got it fixed,

Mark

[Anonymous]

Mark mate;

You have come in at the end of the saga if it has an end.

While i had the problem the male coupler on the loco did travel the entire length of the female coupler on the tender but now i have fixed the problem it no longer does that.

It was an MTS problem and i fixed it with a few MTS adjustments, look back over this page mate. very interesting


Rgds ian

[markperr]

Do the couplers move the full distance of their arc both on the loco and the tender? This could possibly be a source of the problem. Is there perhaps a slight dip there causing them to slightly uncouple and then miscouple thus causing the "jacknife". I had a problem with a knuckle coupler on one of my diesels that would cause only certain trailing cars to derail at certain locations. It wasn't until I actually got down on my belly that I discovered that the coupler on the loco would bind under tension. Something that wouldn't happen when flipped upside down in my hand and just moved back and forth. I ended up having to modify the spring where it was attached to the body so that the spring would move more easily.

Ian, have you tried separating the loco and the tender and then running them at different settings while going around the bend. Example, run them around the bend at 5, then 6, then 7, etc and watch the characteristics of both units. Keep both units very close together but not touching to see if perhaps the tender is running faster than the loco and maybe forcing the loco off the track at that spot.

Mark

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by iandor

HJ I can see hwere Troy is coming from, I find youhard to understand at times butthanks for your input anyway.

Rgds Ian

Hey no problem, at least not on this end.[;)][:)]

OTOH, this should give you a clue, perhaps coming from one of your countrymen it will be easier to understand. Perhaps you missed Phil's post.

QUOTE: Originally posted by toenailridgesl

QUOTE: Originally posted by iandor

What does TOC mean the purpose of writing is to communicate!

Ian

What does TOC mean ?(question mark)
(Capital letter T) the purpose of writing is to communicate!
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
I think what I'm politely trying to say, Ian, is "Lighten up!"

'nough said!?!

[Anonymous]

HJ I can see hwere Troy is coming from, I find youhard to understand at times butthanks for your input anyway.

Rgds Ian

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by troybetts

I don't mind you years of experience HJ.It's you being up your own backside and smart alec answers that sometimes get to me.

Wellllllllll

I never made it into the "contortionist league" and usually I try to make my replies fit the post being replied to.
That can rub people the wrong way, however since I learned a long time ago that I'm not responsible for how other people feel......... it isn't my problem. [:)][:)]

PS I do receive email from people who find my solutions quite practical, that makes up for the remarks I get from other quarters.

[Anonymous]

I don't mind you years of experience HJ.It's you being up your own backside and smart alec answers that sometimes get to me.

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by iandor

Yes Jack I am sitting here at the computer quietly congratulating myself.

I think this is something all should take notice of and it may save you some heartache down the track.


Ian

Ian,

I like that!

In my previous life I learned to troubleshoot very methodically.
The first question is: What are the variables?
If you're disposed to that kind of job, you get to solve lots of the problems over the phone, by FAX or by email.

Now, what I have found to be the biggest problem: people have a hard time doing things step by step because they "know" that they have already "eliminated" X, Y and Z possibility.

Hey no problem! I always liked to invoice for service calls if people had it "all figured out", except it just didn't work.

I'm sure there are people on this forum who could give blow by blow instructions on just about any problem. The question is: will the blow by blow instructions be followed - elementary in trouble shooting - or will there be x short cuts?
Sooooooooo when the pat answers are not forthcoming (some people get upset about that!) it is most likely because there are no pat answers - only the step by step determination and elimination route.
At least that's what 36 years of troubleshooting experience has taught me.

Yeah, yeah I know, Troy doesn't want to hear about my years of experience. [}:)][}:)][;)][:D]

[Anonymous]

Yes Jack I am sitting here at the computer quietly congratulating myself.

I think this is something all should take notice of and it may save you some heartache down the track.


Ian

[tangerine-jack]

Good for you Ian! I was just thinking earlier when you mentioned that the tender was newer that you might have a running in mechanical problem. Looks like you beat me to the punch! Ok, file this one away for future reference.............................



[oX)]

[Anonymous]

Gentlemen

You can all have a beer on me, i have fixed the problem! Hooray.

I set both the tender and the Stainz to the factory settings ie

CV 2 speed to 0
CV 3 accel to 3
CV 4 brake to 3

I then reset the Stainz speed to 1 and it didn't do anything much.

reset Stainz to 50 and it ran away from the tender

reset Stainz to 10 and it was still a bit fast

reset Stainz to 5 and it was just right, ran around the track for several circuits and the distance between the two remained constant at speed 8.

I then connected the coupling up and ran them in a clockwise direction which where all the trouble was. Ran very well the draw bar was straight just about all the time in and out of tension and comression all the time and it swung briefly to one side then the other as it went around corners, exactly right.

I have now run them for several hours in a clockwise direction and not even the hint of a derailment!

I also ran them all over my entire layout and as far as I am concerned its fixed


The only explanation I can offer is that as the tender is much newer than the Stainz it had run itself in and therefore exprienced a small increase in spedd enopugh to do the damage!
Rgds Ian

[Anonymous]

HJ I think thats what it is but i wouldn't dare adjust the CV you are talking about that is out of my league. I will try CV 2 and see how i go!

rgds Ian

[RhB_HJ]

Hellllllllllllllllllllllllllllo, the CVs to adjust the Back-EMF are CV60, 61 and 62!

To compare the relative speed uncouple tender from engine, separate by 2" then let run over the same section that gives trouble.

Programming speed curves happens with CV67-94. LGB recommends the 55045 programming tool for the PC.

BTW another fluky thing that could happen on the downhill/curve scenario is: tender and train pu***he engine. Frontend of engine lifts just slightly, but enough for the wheels to climb at the next curve!

[Puckdropper]

Can you disconnect tender and engine? That may be the easiest way to tell if they're going the same speed.

How hard is MTS to reconfigure? Sometimes you get the best results by trial and error.

[Anonymous]

Gentlemen

LGB does go wrong quite often particularly when MTS is involved; and I think this is what has happened.

I ran the tender and loco around the track for a long time in reverse and it never derailed; the coupler went into tension and compression alll the time as it should so; i think we are heading in the right direction what do you blokes think?

If I look at the MTS instruction CV 2 covers starting voltage and it is set at the factory at "0" or slowest, what if I increase the Stainz to "01" and see what happens?

CV 3 and 4 control accelaration and braking and are factory set at "3" what about if i leave them as is and see what that does?

What do you think men and Rene.


rgds ian

[tangerine-jack]

Only one suggestion, log what you did each time and the result in a notebook, then you can build a trouble shooting chart for the next time it happens.

I agree that changing the direction of the push-pull should reveal if it is the culprit, which I suspect it is.

(Don't kill me for this Ian, but even LGB breaks once in a while!)


[oX)]

[ttrigg]

That sounds like a well thought possible solution in finding the base problem.

[Anonymous]

Yes gentlemen some good thinking and I take what you say about back EMF, HJ a very good thought.

However don't forget that it has been running fautlessly for nearly a year until about a week or so ago so something must have changed!

I have had an idea and i don't know what you men think but what about if i runit in reverse both ways clockwise and anticlockwise and see what happens and also try to observe the coupling if it goes into tension etc.

If what i think is true the tender will pull the Stainz and the problem should disappear, what do you think?


Rgds ian

[Anonymous]

Ian.
I would think that it is an EMF problem on your tender as HJ says.
If the tender is pushing the engine down the hill it could be a prob

[rayf]

Ian i wonder if we are experiencing somewhat of the same problem mine being the brake car idea ????? good luck rayf

[ttrigg]

HJ

My attempt at "double heading" was over 20 years ago, and I'm most certainly sure that things have improved in that arena since then.

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by iandor



HJ what affect do you think back EMF would have on this problem?

I am having a time soon when i will be doing some MTS (Multi Train System) programming and i think if I crank the Stainz up a bit or drop the tender back this should help a bit, what does everyone think? Please advise.


Rgds Ian

Back-EMF settings will influence the behaviour of the engine and/or tender on the downhill and uphill portions. If the tender has a tendency to run-away on the downhill while the engine is "retarded" then you will also have the weight of the cars in the train added to the tender and as the engine goes into the curve it will slow yet a bit more.

Now I know from members on the RhB Forum that trimming the MTS decoders to behave in an acceptable manner when double-heading is almost impossible. Which is why many people junk all that stuff and install something that behaves as expected.

OTOH you may still have mechanical problems, however I also know from others that MTS is not very forgiving of heat. Something to keep in mind in case you plan on MTSing on top of Uluru. [}:)][;)][:)][:D]

[Anonymous]

Gentlemen;

What a breath of fresh air; after reading all that rubbish from the Coffee Shop boys, thanks for your input.

Don't forget i got the tender for Christmas last year and this combination has been working quite well up to about a week or so ago.

I like to run it at speed 8, it suits many other things, but at speed 7 it doesn't seem to do it much at all and at 9 it is very unstable.

I have read what everyone has said and there have been some good thoughts, so i will tell you a bit more; that is even more puzzeling.

1/ It doesnt like right hand bends or too many of them. My area 2 which is a circle; you can run it around anticlockwise as much as you like with very little trouble. But clockwise it doesn't like, all right bends.

2/ My area 3 which is a complex figure 8 it also handles ok, but not as good as the anti clockwise run where it is doing left hand bends alll the time just about.
.
3/ The tender seems to be right up the Stainz' bum all the time as i observe it going around, instead of sometimes in tension and sometimes pushing as it should be.

4/ Whenever it derails the front of the Stainz is off the track pointing to the left of the track and the tender is off the track pointing to the right whicjh looks like a jackknife to me.

HJ what affect do you think back EMF would have on this problem?

I am having a time soon when i will be doing some MTS (Multi Train System) programming and i think if I crank the Stainz up a bit or drop the tender back this should help a bit, what does everyone think? Please advise.


Rgds Ian

[tangerine-jack]

Hmmm, yes Bob, but why only that one loco? Perhaps the loco's parts are expanding and contracting causing the problem? Too wide a gauge on the drive wheels? I was under the impression the track ran downgrade into a 120deg curve, then the loco derails, not through the curve first then upgrade. I may be wrong. What is the slope of the grade? I don't think Ian could have missed installing expansion blocks of some type in this area, but it's possible. The track is stock LGB, I doubt there is anything wrong with it. Maybe Ian can mail his RR to North America for analysis[;)]

It is hard to diagnose such a problem over the forum, if I could put an eyball on the track and loco maybe I could pick up a visual clue. How about a couple of photos of the affected track area and the loco coulplers Ian? Thanks.



[oX)]

[Capt Bob Johnson]

TJ, you're forgetting the other engine that jumps when going the other way! I think the first idea was more likely. tension distortion of trackage!

Oops, that was somebody else's problem that one train derailed going right to left and a different engine derailed going left to right both both in same place! Solly Cholly!

[tangerine-jack]

QUOTE: Originally posted by piercedan

I have track power and run 2 engines all the time.

I have 2 MTS porters paired, 2 sd-45's and 2 LGB cow engines, plus 2 sets of LGB engine/tender combinations.

These do not give me any problems and run for hours on my RR.

The key here is the units that are matched have power cables between them and the speeds are almost identical at slow, medium and fast running.

You must be the exception to the rule! I have failed to get any manner of lash-up to run to my satisfaction. In Ian's case, I believe it's a problem with the grade and the curve at the end of it. I'm sure on level track a lash-up will give no problems, but running downhill? What is the mechanical resistance of the motors/gearing in each powered unit during a freewheel? I don't know. I might have to fly to Australia and experiment on Ian's RR[;)]

I think Ian will have to decide if it's his power units, coupling, or gravity/grade issue. Perhaps superelevating the curve 8-10 mm would relieve this problem. A simple shim under the outside portion of the curve would do.


[oX)]

[piercedan]

I have track power and run 2 engines all the time.

I have 2 MTS porters paired, 2 sd-45's and 2 LGB cow engines, plus 2 sets of LGB engine/tender combinations.

These do not give me any problems and run for hours on my RR.

The key here is the units that are matched have power cables between them and the speeds are almost identical at slow, medium and fast running.

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ttrigg

I understand the physics of the problem, what I encountered was that the two units never did share the same power/speed graph slope. For Example: at a power setting of three unit 1 ran at 50 feet per minute, unit 2 rant at 49.5 feet per minute. However at power setting 4 their speeds reversed, unit 1 at 60 feet per minute and unit 2 at 62 feet per minute. Then at power setting 5 unit 1 would do 70 fpm and unit 2 would do 65 fpm. I never could get a uniform speed/power graph going. Thus as I ran through the spectrum of power range, I would get the "push me/pull me" fight going and it always happened when the trains would run along the edge of the layout with the floor five feet below!!!!!!!!!! Lost more units than I care to count like that!

Tom

Did you do all this with DCC??

Some of the high-end decoder/control combos let you fine tune performance curves to the nth degree or 'til you see stars. Whichever comes first.