Question: How much weight does it take to keep the pilot truck and the trailing truck on the tracks?
The obvious answer is as much as it takes to keep the trucks on track and no more. LOL
But, seriously, how much weight is required? And what material do you use? And how do you apply the weight to keep it in place?
I have tried pieces of lead sheet with double faced tape, but after awhile the tape gives and the weight falls off. Often, there is insufficient room on the truck to apply the necessary amount of weight.
Do you apply the weight to the top of the truck or the underside of the truck?
In some instances, I have wrapped solder wire around the axles of the trucks. But, sometimes, because of the design of the truck, it is difficult to wrap the solder wire around the axle.
So, what do others do and use to apply weight to the pilot truck and trailing truck of a steam engine and how do you secure it in place?
Rich
Alton Junction
When I was into steam many years ago I would glue a small coil spring to the top of the truck and allow the top of the spring to slide against the frame. Where the spring came from was unimportant as it was taken from whatever was available at the time. There were a lot of old government pens in the house and some of them disappeared.
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
jeffrey-wimberly When I was into steam many years ago I would glue a small coil spring to the top of the truck and allow the top of the spring to slide against the frame. Where the spring came from was unimportant as it was taken from whatever was available at the time. There were a lot of old government pens in the house and some of them disappeared.
LOL
I hear you.
Actually, placing a small coil spring on top of the truck, as opposed to adding weight to hold the truck down, is a pretty good idea.
It is probably a track problem.
Unless it is a four wheel lead truck and the spring balances the engine I always threw the springs away.
Just let the trucks hang there they don't do anything mechanically.
Harold
hminky It is probably a track problem. Unless it is a four wheel lead truck and the spring balances the engine I always threw the springs away. Just let the trucks hang there they don't do anything mechanically. Harold
I won't disagree with you about the possibility of faulty track or poor track work.
But, is it a fact that an HO scale steam engine will never have the pilot truck or trailing truck derail if the track work is perfect? That just seems to good to be true.
Rich.
Like I posted in the other thread, Screws, glue, double stick tape and just setting the weight in the frame works on most applications. On pilot trucks 2 and 4 wheel I hardly ever put weight on. The ones I have, had very little weight to work good. How much goes into the loco is a different thing. I add as much as possible. On a Bachmann K4 Pacific I added just a few ounces to more than double the pulling power. It only takes a few ounces to make a big improvement. It is equally important to equalize the weight from front to back of the drivers. I also remove the springs on the pilots and trailing trucks so they never support any part of the loco. Having the non drive wheels support any part will decrease the driver traction. I also get rid of the traction tires. They tend to wobble and actually try to push the front drivers over the rails. If you insist in traction tires, put them on the front so they pull the loco and not push it.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
Interesting topic.
I have problems with my challenger, sometimes when I run it at full speed the front pilots want to ride up the rails. I thought about adding some lead weight.
Interested to see what others do.
Michael
CEO- Mile-HI-RailroadPrototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989
locoi1sa Rich. I also remove the springs on the pilots and trailing trucks so they never support any part of the loco. Having the non drive wheels support any part will decrease the driver traction. I also get rid of the traction tires. They tend to wobble and actually try to push the front drivers over the rails. If you insist in traction tires, put them on the front so they pull the loco and not push it. Pete
I also remove the springs on the pilots and trailing trucks so they never support any part of the loco. Having the non drive wheels support any part will decrease the driver traction. I also get rid of the traction tires. They tend to wobble and actually try to push the front drivers over the rails. If you insist in traction tires, put them on the front so they pull the loco and not push it.
Pete,
I am not sure if I am pleased to read this or not. If you check my thread on Problems with the 2-10-2 and 2-10-4 Steam Engines, you will see that I just returned my 2-10-4 steamer to BLI for repairs because the driver wheels continually derail. BLI says that the solution is to place a tighter spring on the trailing truck to balance the weight from front to rear on the boiler. In my repair note to BLI, I noted that the fourth set of driver wheels were wobbly. I cannot recall if that set of driver wheels had traction tires or if it was only the fifth set. Oh brother !
Rich, have you tried stick on wheel weights? I have had good luck with them, they use a good double side tape and I have never had one come off.
When the spaces is real tight, I take the wheel weight and places it in my bench vices and flatten it out some.
After I read your posting about the 2-10-2 picking turnouts, mine started doing it? Never picked one till then! Now I guess my weights will start to fall off!
Ken
I hate Rust
cudaken Rich, have you tried stick on wheel weights? I have had good luck with them, they use a good double side tape and I have never had one come off. When the spaces is real tight, I take the wheel weight and places it in my bench vices and flatten it out some. After I read your posting about the 2-10-2 picking turnouts, mine started doing it? Never picked one till then! Now I guess my weights will start to fall off! Ken
Ken,
I agree that the double faced tape on automotive weights holds a lot better than household double faced tape. The only problem that I have with automotive weights is their thickness. Often, there is not enough clearance on the trucks to use automotive weights.
Hi,
I did not read all the posts so this may have already been mentioned..........
In the "old days", a common way to attempt a fix was to wind solder around the axles in question. Of course today's HO locos may not have the spacing to allow this, but very small diameter solder is available and perhaps it would fit................
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
I'm afraid I won't be with the group advocating adding weight. I have no two steamers alike, perhaps 16 in all, and most of them caused me grief the first time I ran them on my layout. It was rare that I had to do any fiddling with the engine..... I can think of one case, and that was the BLI Hybrid TTT-6 from the Union Pacific. Its tender derailed on one curve....just one. I altered the bend in the drawbar just a bit, but it didn't help. Ripped up the curve, shimmed the outer rail a bit, and reballasted. Worked like a darn after that.
So, standing in Harold's circle, I can honestly report that all those first-run engine problems were corrected when I accepted that I needed to take a learning-oriented approach to looking at my trackwork. "Struth!!
Hi!
I've had a number of steamers since the early 1970s and to the best of my recall, there have only been four that I would consider absolutely trouble free AND tolerant of less than perfect trackage.....
The first was a Bachmann 0-4-0, and the second an AHM 0-8-0. Given they had no lead or trailing trucks, they should have worked just fine - and they did.
The third was the Bachmann 2-8-0, which has been with us for decades in one form or another. My first one was easily my favorite, and even on my brass track and less than perfect connections, it worked like a charm. I have two of the newer ones today, and they are fine, but not flawless.
The fourth one - my favorite - is a BLI Paragon ATSF 4-8-4. This was a $300 loco, and it was easily worth every penney. Yup, I also have the BLI 2-10-2 and 2-10-4, and they are ok, but not in the same league as the 4-8-4.
For what its worth..................
richhotrain Question: How much weight does it take to keep the pilot truck and the trailing truck on the tracks? The obvious answer is as much as it takes to keep the trucks on track and no more. LOL But, seriously, how much weight is required? And what material do you use? And how do you apply the weight to keep it in place? I have tried pieces of lead sheet with double faced tape, but after awhile the tape gives and the weight falls off. Often, there is insufficient room on the truck to apply the necessary amount of weight. Do you apply the weight to the top of the truck or the underside of the truck? In some instances, I have wrapped solder wire around the axles of the trucks. But, sometimes, because of the design of the truck, it is difficult to wrap the solder wire around the axle. So, what do others do and use to apply weight to the pilot truck and trailing truck of a steam engine and how do you secure it in place? Rich
How much weight is needed? All the weight that you can fit in there isn't too much. I place the weight where ever I can get it to fit, topside, downside, or wrapped around the axle. I use sheet lead flashing from the hardware store. Pickle the weight in vinegar to prepare the surface and get rid of that greasy feel of the lead. Then stick it in place with silicone bathtub caulking compound.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
Rich:
Though I've had few problems with either leading or trailing trucks over the years, the several times I have had problems, a little flat lead epoxied onto the bottom of the truck tongue has seemed to help a lot.
The one time I had a problem with a particular locomotive--a brass 4-8-2--I found out that after re-assembling the locomotive after painting it, I had inadvertantly installed the lead truck upside down and it was catching on the cylinders. Boy, was I embarrassed, LOL! Flipped it back right side up and the loco tracked like a dream.
I tend to be in Crandell's camp in that a lot of times, the problem can be caused by uneven track-work. Even if the eye can't see it, the darned lead or trailing trucks can. Steamers can be really picky.
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
I have never added weight to pilot or trailing truck to keep it on the track, in fact I often remove the factory springs designed to hold them down - they only detract from the locos pulling power.
The secret to keeping pilot and trailing trucks on the track is excelent trackwork and large enough curves and turnouts for the locos in question.
That's why even with my 36" radius and larger curves, I don't own any 2-10-4's or even any 4-8-4's with 80" drivers - their rigid wheel base is too long - making them potential problems.
All my pilot and trailing trucks stay on the track just fine.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I have never added weight to pilot or trailing truck to keep it on the track, in fact I often remove the factory springs designed to hold them down - they only detract from the locos pulling power. The secret to keeping pilot and trailing trucks on the track is excelent trackwork and large enough curves and turnouts for the locos in question. That's why even with my 36" radius and larger curves, I don't own any 2-10-4's or even any 4-8-4's with 80" drivers - their rigid wheel base is too long - making them potential problems. All my pilot and trailing trucks stay on the track just fine. Sheldon
Interesting that you avoid the larger rigid wheel base steamers even with 36" radius curves. I am not going to claim that my track work is perfect, but I continually hope that by placing additional weight on the pilot trucks and the trailing trucks I can minimize the possibility of derailments.
I've done that too, but I find it ends up taking weight off the drivers, and on a steamer especially, we can't afford our locos to be any more slippery.
Van Hobbies H1b, K1a, T1c, D10g, F1a, F2a, G5a. Division Point: H24-66 Hammerhead, Alco covered wagons A-B-B-A, C-Liner A-B-B-A, EMD FP7A A-B-B.
H1b modified to replicate modern day 2816. All with Tsunamis.
I have this brass 4-4-4 Jubilee that always throws the lead truck off the tracks, and no matter what I do, it won't pull more than 2 or 3 passenger cars.
You hate to put a traction tire on it because you'll end up losing half of your electrical pickup. Springs under the lead truck keeps it glued to the rail, but then it'll only pull the tender and maybe one car as well.
really frustrating
CP guy in TX I have this brass 4-4-4 Jubilee that always throws the lead truck off the tracks, and no matter what I do, it won't pull more than 2 or 3 passenger cars. You hate to put a traction tire on it because you'll end up losing half of your electrical pickup. Springs under the lead truck keeps it glued to the rail, but then it'll only pull the tender and maybe one car as well. really frustrating
I just had a flash of what I hope is insight, so bear with me here: Just as a long wheel-base steamer can lever its frame in such a way that it helps to lift either truck's flange on one wheel clear of the tire surface on the rail head, I think a small set of drivers on a rigid frame can to the same thing. If all you have is a four-point stance on a long frame, and if you have even minor transverse level problem between rails at any one point, as one driver axle dips or rises, you will get the entire frame yawing and pitching. It should be no wonder that you will have the truck pivot moving just enough relative to the rails that the truck gets twisted and lifted enough to cause the same thing. So, I would be getting out the Opti-Visor and bright lights and running that fine gazelle at very low speeds to see if I could find such events taking place in slow motion. If I didn't, it wouldn't mean that it wasn't happening at higher speeds due to momentum effects.
Honestly, no one likes to accept that they might have to take up their track and maybe even take the time to redo or resurface their roadbed. But every single time a (new) engine of mine has problems with track, it isn't the engine....it's the track. My proof has always been that in the end, I have caved and begun the deconstruction and restoration of the problem area, and it has always paid off....every single time.
Crandell
Rich, not all tire weights are the same thickness. I have to agree most tracking problems is in the turnout or track. But at the same time, do we need to redo the track for a new engine that dos not like a turn, where the other 40 engines are fine with the layout? Fix that section, then a engine you had does not like what you have done?
I have to agree with Ken. You can't fix your perfectly good working track every time a new engine has problems with it.
Or better yet, stay away from these large steamers.
cudaken Rich, not all tire weights are the same thickness. I have to agree most tracking problems is in the turnout or track. But at the same time, do we need to redo the track for a new engine that dos not like a turn, where the other 40 engines are fine with the layout? Fix that section, then a engine you had does not like what you have done? Ken
I wholeheartedly agree with you on that one. I have 15 steamers and too many diesels to count. All of the diesels, and most of the steamers, negotiate my double main line layout, turnouts included, with no problems whatsoever. So I am real reluctant to tear out a turnout when a rogue steamer misbehaves and derails.
I am in the fix the track camp. My BLI C&O 2-10-4 has found three troublesome spots over the last couple of years. One was a long curved turnout that was being torqued out of gauge when the steamer hit it at speed. I like to let my turnouts float as a rule and out of about three dozen on the layout at that time, that was the only one that ever had a problem. A bit of caulk in the middle solved that issue.
The other two I could not figure out, no way no how. I finally sat the video camera on the layout pointed at the spot in question at the time. Watching it on the big screen TV frame by frame showed the problem instantly and it was a very quick fix. The camera doesn't lie. The problem in both those cases was one rail dipping ever so slightly when the engine hit the spot. I could not pick it up with the eye but the camera sure showed the problem.
Cameras have shown the reasons for disasters such as the Challenger blowing up. Using them to slow down our trains to spot an ongoing problem is like having your layout under a Microscope.
Just my .
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
BATMAN I am in the fix the track camp. My BLI C&O 2-10-4 has found three troublesome spots over the last couple of years. One was a long curved turnout that was being torqued out of gauge when the steamer hit it at speed. I like to let my turnouts float as a rule and out of about three dozen on the layout at that time, that was the only one that ever had a problem. A bit of caulk in the middle solved that issue. The other two I could not figure out, no way no how. I finally sat the video camera on the layout pointed at the spot in question at the time. Watching it on the big screen TV frame by frame showed the problem instantly and it was a very quick fix.
The other two I could not figure out, no way no how. I finally sat the video camera on the layout pointed at the spot in question at the time. Watching it on the big screen TV frame by frame showed the problem instantly and it was a very quick fix.
The BLI C&O 2-10-4 ???
No way.
I have that exact model, and I call it The Beast. That sucker tracks better than any other steamer that I own.
I love the video camera idea. Hmmm, maybe I will try that sometime.
I never let a curved turnout or a double crossover float. That is just asking for trouble.
Assuming that the loco actually needs the pilot wheels to help it track around curves, the pilot truck needs a centering device much more than it needs a load of weight or a spring rigid enough to lift weight off the drivers. Most of my (1960 era brass) steamers have a tension spring on the centerline, connected to an extension of the pilot truck frame. All of these are two-wheel pilot trucks, and they actually help to stabilize the locomotive.
Many moons ago, a gentleman named Darwin had an article in MR on reworking an early Tenshodo Big Boy. Among other mods were actual ramp-and-roller centering devices on the lead and trailing trucks. Granted that the prototype has them, but on a model that's gross overkill.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I'm a physicist and an engineer. I enjoy analyzing and solving problems. So far, every time I've had to fix a dereailing steamer problem, it's been the trackwork. Every time.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL: I have never added weight to pilot or trailing truck to keep it on the track, in fact I often remove the factory springs designed to hold them down - they only detract from the locos pulling power. The secret to keeping pilot and trailing trucks on the track is excelent trackwork and large enough curves and turnouts for the locos in question. That's why even with my 36" radius and larger curves, I don't own any 2-10-4's or even any 4-8-4's with 80" drivers - their rigid wheel base is too long - making them potential problems. All my pilot and trailing trucks stay on the track just fine. Sheldon Interesting that you avoid the larger rigid wheel base steamers even with 36" radius curves. I am not going to claim that my track work is perfect, but I continually hope that by placing additional weight on the pilot trucks and the trailing trucks I can minimize the possibility of derailments. Rich
ATLANTIC CENTRAL: I have never added weight to pilot or trailing truck to keep it on the track, in fact I often remove the factory springs designed to hold them down - they only detract from the locos pulling power. The secret to keeping pilot and trailing trucks on the track is excelent trackwork and large enough curves and turnouts for the locos in question. That's why even with my 36" radius and larger curves, I don't own any 2-10-4's or even any 4-8-4's with 80" drivers - their rigid wheel base is too long - making them potential problems. All my pilot and trailing trucks stay on the track just fine. Sheldon
Rich, Do you realize just how sharp even 36" radius is compared to prototype curves? Just because modelers have used sharper curves for decades does not make it the best choice.
Well known modeler from the past, Paul Mallery suggested MANY decades ago that to model a Class I mainline in HO one should use nothing less than 48" radius.
It was his view on this that lead the adoption of the current modular standards of 48" curves for modular groups.
Many of my curves are much bigger than 36" radius - that is truely my mainline MINIMUM. But I still prefer to stay away from long wheel base steam locos (but I do have a number of large articulated locos) and while I do have some 85" pasenger cars, most of my passenger car fleet are selectively compressed 72' "shorties" for their much better appearance on curves.
All my passenger cars are close coupled with working diaphragms that touch and stay touching all the time - an appearance feature I consider essential.
I don't mean this in a neagative way, but I don't just "do what everyone else does" in this hobby. I have studied the hobby, railroading and both model and prototype railroad engineering for my whole life - I make my own choices based on my 40 plus years of activity and experiance in this hobby - much of it ends up being somewhat different than the "mainstream".
I model for a specific combination of appearance and operational reliablity. My appearance standards are based on the overall "impression" of the model, not absolute down the inch scale accuracy.
Like I said about passenger cars, to my eye the close coupling, the diaphragms and how they look going around curves and through turnouts is more important to a good visual effect than the scale length of the car.
And a 2-10-4 looks totally out of place on a 36" curve, let alone on a 30" curve.
But that's just my opinion.
Sheldon,
48" curves? Are you serious? Anyone using 48" curves is either a huge club layout, or someone with a very large basement. Which about 99% of us don't have.
A 30" minimum is a pretty good sized radius, and should handle any large steamers. Why does everything else Rich owns runs perfectly fine? Again it's the locomotives in question.
Your standards are YOUR standards. If everyone went by your standards, nobody would be able even have a layout because of the room requirements.
Motley Sheldon, 48" curves? Are you serious? Anyone using 48" curves is either a huge club layout, or someone with a very large basement. Which about 99% of us don't have. A 30" minimum is a pretty good sized radius, and should handle any large steamers. Why does everything else Rich owns runs perfectly fine? Again it's the locomotives in question. Your standards are YOUR standards. If everyone went by your standards, nobody would be able even have a layout because of the room requirements.
Locomotives with long rigid wheelbases, that is those with 4 or more drive axles and large diameter drivers are going to have a harder time going around sharper curves - it is simple physics.
The longer distance between the front driving axle and the rear driving axle, the more side to side play is needed to allow the loco to go around a given radius - the more play, the more chance for other problems.
AND, as the frame gest longer, the farther off center the trailing and lead trucks have to move to stay on a given radius, again creating more chances for binding and other problems that may cause derailments.
It is rediculous to expect a 2-10-4 to go around the same minimum curve as a 4-6-2 for example.
So the fact that some of his locos run fine has nothing to do with why, or why not the 2-10-4 lead truck derails.
The curves may be to sharp or the trackwork may not be smooth enough.
As for what size curves people can and cannot use, that is obviously a function of how much space they have - AND how they choose to use it.
Have you ever seen a typical modular group setup in HO? They are most all using 48" radius on their 90 degree curve modules and are using 48" or larger for all mainline curves on any module.
I'm sorry you don't have a big basement. You might be surprised to find out how many people do have big basements.
Come visit here in the Mid Atlantic were everyone has a basement and I will make a few calls and take you on a long list of layout tours of layouts with 36" and larger curves - and even a few with 48" radius curves.
Layouts don't have to be real large to have larger curves, some layout builders choose simple designs that work in their space with 30", 36" or eevn larger curves rather than seeing how much they can cram in the space with 22" radius - this hobby is full of choices - mine don't include sharp curves or 2-10-4's because I like my trains to stay on the track and look realistic.
Why did you find my views so offensive? It is just my view, but, it is based in FACTS of physics, math and railroad engineering that will not change even if you don't like them.
Anyone is welcome to try to run whatever loco on whatever curve, and they are welcome to modify it as needed with whatever success or lack of success to that end - I really don't care - I simply offered my thoughts on the topic.
From here in the Mid Atlantic, the land of large basement model railroad empires,