Most of us have to make compromises in our radii for space reasons. I'm probably lucky because I have a 2-car garage for my little empire (nobody parks cars in garages in California, LOL!) so I've been able to construct the Yuba River Sub with 36" radii. But even that gives a few of my big brass articulateds one Helluva overhang on curves, which is probably why I don't have much in the way of telephone poles paralleling my main line.
I don't have any 2-10-4's on the layout (neither of the railroads I model had that wheel arrangement), but I do have a bevy of Rio Grande and SP 2-10-2's (brass) and oddly enough, the overhang on my Northerns seems greater than that of my 10-coupleds, especially those big, hunking SP GS-4's. Go figure, LOL!
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!
twhite Most of us have to make compromises in our radii for space reasons. I'm probably lucky because I have a 2-car garage for my little empire (nobody parks cars in garages in California, LOL!) so I've been able to construct the Yuba River Sub with 36" radii. But even that gives a few of my big brass articulateds one Helluva overhang on curves, which is probably why I don't have much in the way of telephone poles paralleling my main line. I don't have any 2-10-4's on the layout (neither of the railroads I model had that wheel arrangement), but I do have a bevy of Rio Grande and SP 2-10-2's (brass) and oddly enough, the overhang on my Northerns seems greater than that of my 10-coupleds, especially those big, hunking SP GS-4's. Go figure, LOL! Tom
Tom, many people forget about driver size in relation to rigid wheel base. Large drivered Northerns almost all have rigid wheel bases as long or longer than 10 coupled freight locos which generally have small or medium sized drivers.
The GS4 has a rigid wheel base of 21'-6", a great many 2-10-2 only have rigid wheelbases in that same range, 21' to 22'.
Even several 2-10-4's I looked up are only 22'-4", 22'-6", etc.
The grand daddy of wheel bases in the UP 412-2 at 30'-8", but that loco had highly developed lateral motion systems.
The original B&O S class 2-10-2 only had a rigid wheelbase of 21', that is 6" less than a GS4. And the famed B&O S1a 2-10-2 was only 21'-4", still 2" less than a GS4.
Driver size makes BIG difference.......
Sheldon
sheldon:
You're right on that one. 5 63" drivers (my 2-10-2's) vs. 4 80" drivers--my GS-4's--not much of a contest there! Plus a 4-wheel trailing truck and all-weather cab on the GS'. We are DEFINITELY talking 'overhang'. Even those massive Rio Grande F-81 2-10-2's with their 22' 6" wheelbase, among the heaviest of the type ever built, look relatively comfortable on the layout. But oboy, those Northerns--my 2 brass Westside Rio Grande Challengers seem to have less overhang than they do.
1) 30" minimum radius curves. You don't need a football stadium to do this, a 12 x 16 foot room will do, like my old GER.
2) if you run with toy train 24" radius or less curves, then DO NOT buy large steam or diesels as you're asking for trouble. 2-8-2 steam should be the longest steam wheel base and even that's pushing it and B-B diesels. Even then, you will not be able to close couple your tenders.
3) Carefully and well laid track. Slip shod track laying does not work.
4) Remove any springs holding the truck down. Let gravity be your friend and or add weight to the truck.
5) Cabs and tenders that don't touch each other on curves. See note "2" above.
6) Couplers that have enough side to side play on both tenders and what the tender is coupled to.
7) Wheels that are in gauge.
Then you'll never have trucks that derail.
Cheers
Roger T.
Home of the late Great Eastern Railway see: - http://www.greateasternrailway.com
For more photos of the late GER see: - http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l99/rogertra/Great_Eastern/
If you read the last 9 posts since my last reply to this thread, the general consensus is that faulty, or less than perfect, track work is the cause of all steam engine derailments.
As I have said before, I won't claim that my track work is perfect. But, after working on correcting flaws over the last 5 years, it isn't crappy. For the most part, it is level, aligned both vertically and horizontally. None of my diesels ever derail. Most of my steamers perform well with rare derailments.
In my opinion, steam engines are more prone to derailments than diesels, primarily because of their design. The pilot truck and the trailing truck ride too loosely on the rails. The trucks are very light and springy. The other problem is the sheer length of the fixed driver wheel sets. The longer the length of the fixed driver wheel sets, the more likely that the driver wheels will cause derailments on curves and on divergent routes of turnouts, especially at higher speeds, whereas I can run diesels at top speeds around curves and through the divergent routes of turnouts without any problems.
Some posts have cautioned against the use of springs on steam engine trucks. Yet, the manufacturers put springs on the trucks, and in the case of my balky 2-10-2 and 2-10-4, BLI's solution when I sent the locos in for repair is to place stronger springs on the trucks.
I do agree with the suggestion that some types of steamers should not be purchased if your curves are "too tight". In my case, with 30" and 32" minimum radius curves and #6 turnouts on my layout, the radius of the curves is too tight to properly run 2-10-2 and 2-10-4 locos. I don't doubt that 48" radius curves are required for trouble free operation of 10 driver wheel sets.
But, again, I contend that even on locos with fewer driver sets like the 4-8-4, 2-8-4, and 4-8-2, while the driver wheels never cause problems, the trucks can be balky unless sufficient weight is added.
My layout is large at 42' x 25', so there are a lot of curves and a lot of turnouts. Sometimes, I think my only solution is to start all over with a brand new layout to completely solve my problems. But, is that really necessary just because of a few balky steam engines.
I am convinced that if someone built a layout with minimum radius curves of 36" and only used #8 turnouts, and the track work was deemed "perfect", that certain steam engines would still derail, primarily because of the faulty design and insufficient weight of the pilot truck and the trailing truck.
Rich
Alton Junction
Lets not forget the reason for the NMRA to recommend a heavy weight for rolling stock. The RP was for the bad track work that was bound to happen even on the best layouts. Modern manufacturing has been better in keeping the standards close to the crude RP that the NMRA has been slow to change. Wide wheels, oversize gaps and large flanges are compromises we must endure. Since most of our steamers pilot and trailing trucks are not tied into the suspension systems as in the prototypes. They rely on gravity to keep the light axle on the rail. As long as there is no clearance or interference in the articulation of the trucks. Any little bounce or bump could lead to derailments.
We all can agree that most derailment problems can be traced to track that is not held to the RP standards set by the NMRA. The other side of the coin is the rolling stock not to standard specifications. I believe instead of a weight to length calculation there should also be weight on wheel/ axle standard also. Locomotive drivers should have twice or even three times the weight on the rail then any other wheel. This means that if the drive wheel has three ounces on the rail then the pilot wheel next to it should be at least one ounce. The antiquated RPs and standards set by the NMRA should all be examined and modernized. Weight on axle is a better alternative.
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!
I am in the camp that has good luck by adding lead sheet weight to the trucks using the thicker double sided tape.
60YOKID I am in the camp that has good luck by adding lead sheet weight to the trucks using the thicker double sided tape.
Any hints on how you mount that stuff on the trucks? On the top of the truck? On the underside of the truck? How do you apply enough weight without having the weight get in the way of the performance and operation of the truck?
richhotrain Any hints on how you mount that stuff on the trucks? On the top of the truck? On the underside of the truck? How do you apply enough weight without having the weight get in the way of the performance and operation of the truck? Rich
Rich,
I sense a little frustration.
This is what I did to solve the front pilot problem with a Bachmann 2-6-0 'James' locomotive (I know, it's a Thomas and Friends toy but it is still a steamer that had pilot problems). First step was to remove the factory spring, then fill in the center of the pilot frame with some .060 styrene,
[View:http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/themes/trc/utility/:550:0]
same thickness at the pilot frame, then attach an automotive wheel weight with its own adhesive backing.
The wheel weight is on top of the pilot frame and between the wheels. Some black paint pretty well hid it. Completely solved the problem.
Currently working on the front pilot on a Bachmann GS4 4-8-4. On my small layout the curves are all 18" and I first found that the pilot wheels touched the cylinder housings on the frame, so a Dremel was used to clearance the front lower edge of the cylinder. Next the front pilot was removed, lashed up to a Talgo truck and pushed around the track. It stayed on the track just fine but as you can see
the wheels rub the rails at quite an angle. Two things are planned to finish this pilot, shim both sides of each axle to reduce the excessive clearance allowing the pilot to better align with the rails, and add a section of wheel weight to the center of the pilot. The weight will need a hole drilled in the center and a small amount removed where the draw bar swings.
I went to the local auto parts store and two tire stores and ended up with 3 different shapes of stick-on wheel weights, then picked the one that fit best for each Pilot. The GS4 will use a different shape of weight than the 2-6-0. The adhesive is much better than double sided tape from the LHS and should hold indefinitely.
Weights are also being used to balance the loco Fore and aft. The rear drivers weighed 5 oz. more than the front drivers allowing the front drivers to bounce up over any imperfection in the track.
Running the front pilot around the layout without a loco over it really opened my eyes and helped me see what was happening. BTW found and fixed a couple more problems with the track while doing this.
HTH
Dave
From Mt Pleasant, Utah, the home of the Hill Valley and Thistle Railroad where the Buffalo still roam and a Droid runs the trains
Blame track, blame the track, always its blame the track. I can't blame the track. My BLI Hudson's truck derails, the Prcision T1 (Reading) trucks pick out, the Sectrum Mountain did it too. Each time a ddifferent place, a different speed, and the track is 45years old, but it's had plenty of time to be tweaked. It's not the track, those trucks need some help. One of the issues, weight don't scale down.
-Morgan
Flashwave Blame track, blame the track, always its blame the track. I can't blame the track. My BLI Hudson's truck derails, the Prcision T1 (Reading) trucks pick out, the Sectrum Mountain did it too. Each time a ddifferent place, a different speed, and the track is 45years old, but it's had plenty of time to be tweaked. It's not the track, those trucks need some help. One of the issues, weight don't scale down.
I have two PCM Reading T1's and nine Bachmann Spectrum Mountains and they all work fine on my track? Never had to do a thing to pilot trucks on any of them.
Dave Merrill richhotrain: Any hints on how you mount that stuff on the trucks? On the top of the truck? On the underside of the truck? How do you apply enough weight without having the weight get in the way of the performance and operation of the truck? Rich Rich, I sense a little frustration. Running the front pilot around the layout without a loco over it really opened my eyes and helped me see what was happening. BTW found and fixed a couple more problems with the track while doing this. Dave
richhotrain: Any hints on how you mount that stuff on the trucks? On the top of the truck? On the underside of the truck? How do you apply enough weight without having the weight get in the way of the performance and operation of the truck? Rich
You got that right, Dave, maybe a lot of frustration. I have a fairly large layout with a double main line, and I sometimes run two trains on each main line. So, any derailments along the way can lead to a myriad of problems with the other trains moving in both directions.
I like your idea of running the front pilot around the layout without a loco to test the track work. I may give that a try.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Flashwave: Blame track, blame the track, always its blame the track. I can't blame the track. My BLI Hudson's truck derails, the Prcision T1 (Reading) trucks pick out, the Sectrum Mountain did it too. Each time a ddifferent place, a different speed, and the track is 45years old, but it's had plenty of time to be tweaked. It's not the track, those trucks need some help. One of the issues, weight don't scale down. I have two PCM Reading T1's and nine Bachmann Spectrum Mountains and they all work fine on my track? Never had to do a thing to pilot trucks on any of them. Sheldon
Flashwave: Blame track, blame the track, always its blame the track. I can't blame the track. My BLI Hudson's truck derails, the Prcision T1 (Reading) trucks pick out, the Sectrum Mountain did it too. Each time a ddifferent place, a different speed, and the track is 45years old, but it's had plenty of time to be tweaked. It's not the track, those trucks need some help. One of the issues, weight don't scale down.
You can draw a lot of different conclusions from that observation. One of which is that it may not be the track work at all but, rather, that some locos have imperfections that others don't. It is just like owning a car that is a lemon. Others who own the same exact model of the car have no problems.
Flashwave's experience is similar to my own. Each time a different place, a different speed, and the track has had plenty of time to be tweaked. Does that suggest that the entire track work across the entire layout is flawed? I doubt it. Does it suggest that your track work is absolutely perfect, flawless I think not.
Rich, Flashwave and all:
There is a third possible explaination which I suggested in my original posts on this subject - because of my more conservative standards of using broader curves, easments and larger turnouts and still restricting the use of longer wheelbase locos, I am not pushing the engineering of these locos to their mechanical limits - thereby I have less, or no problems.
While I am pretty picky about my trackwork, I agree it is likely not perfect. The Spectrum heavy Mountain will run on 22" radius according to Bachmann. Some people have even claimed they run them on 18" radius. I don't run them on anything less than 36" radius - I still say that is why I don't have problems.
And I will not disagree with the "lemon" theory, but I do have two PCM T1's and NINE Spectrum Heavy Mountains, not just the one "lucky" copy of each. I improved my Mountains by adding weight to the tenders and modifing the drawbars to better clear the wires, BUT, I also shortened the drawbars in the proccess for better looks.
The pilot truck on a Spectrum Heavy Mountain is metal, I don't think it needs more weight. It simply needs to not be expected to go around yard curves at mainline speeds.
The PCM locos had some tracking problems when new, but it was fixed by balancing the weight, not jury rigging the pilot trucks. Out of the box they are nose light because of the space left in the smokebox for a fututre "smoke unit" - I added several ounces of weight up there and fixed interference at the tender frame and drawbar. I run them close coupled.
But maybe Flashwave has the "unlucky" copies of these locos.
And remember, I usually remove those pesky down pressure springs on pilot trucks. A Bachmann 2-8-0 pulls several more cars and tracks better without that spring - at least on 36" radius curves.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL And remember, I usually remove those pesky down pressure springs on pilot trucks. A Bachmann 2-8-0 pulls several more cars and tracks better without that spring - at least on 36" radius curves. Sheldon
Sheldon, thanks for that additional input.
Your response reminded me of something that I forgot to comment on, and that is the issue of springs on the pilot truck and the trailing truck. I am totally surprised to constantly read that a lot of forum members remove those factory installed springs. On the 2-10-2 that I returned to BLI for repairs, they replaced the spring on the trailing truck with a stronger spring and that solved the derailment problems. Now, on the 2-10-4 that I just sent back to BLI, Larry indicated to me that they would repace the spring on the trailing truck of that loco as well. According to Larry at BLI, they have experienced a lot of derailment problems on both the 2-10-2 and the 2-10-4, and installation of a different spring is the fix. There was no mention of removing the spring altogether.
Yes blame the track, not the quality of the track installation, but rather the engineering standards chosen by the layout owner.
If the real loco will not go around a 220' radius curve, except maybe at a crawl speed, why should we automaticly expect the model to go around a 220 scale foot radius curve at mainline speed?
If the real loco would derail in a 14 degree (#4) turnout, Why do we automaticly expect the model to be able to go through it?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL If the real loco will not go around a 220' radius curve, except maybe at a crawl speed, why should we automaticly expect the model to go around a 220 scale foot radius curve at mainline speed?
Sheldon, that is a great point.
Is there a published standard for the prototype on the minimum radius curve for the various types of steam engines. In other words, on the prototype, what is the minimum radius curve for a 2-10-4, a 2-10-2, a 4-8-4, etc. ?
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL: If the real loco will not go around a 220' radius curve, except maybe at a crawl speed, why should we automaticly expect the model to go around a 220 scale foot radius curve at mainline speed? Sheldon, that is a great point. Is there a published standard for the prototype on the minimum radius curve for the various types of steam engines. In other words, on the prototype, what is the minimum radius curve for a 2-10-4, a 2-10-2, a 4-8-4, etc. ? Rich
ATLANTIC CENTRAL: If the real loco will not go around a 220' radius curve, except maybe at a crawl speed, why should we automaticly expect the model to go around a 220 scale foot radius curve at mainline speed?
Unfortunately such data is largely not available in that kind of simplified form and remember on the prototype it is not just how small a curve, but at what speed. And it is different for each class/design of loco based on frame and suspension design, driver size and spacing, presence of lateral motion equipment, etc.
We do however have some good data on prototype curves vs speed from John Armstrong.
Prototype Curves vs Speed limits:
100+ MPH = 1 degree curve = 5729' radius = 830" radius in HO = 69' in HO
45-50 MPH = 5 degree curve = 1146' radius = 157" radius in HO = 13' in HO
30-35 MPH = 10 degree curve = 573' radius = 79" radius in HO = 6.6' in HO
20 MPH = 22 degree curve = 260' radius = 36" radius in HO = 3' in HO
Below 26 degrees of curvature (220" radius, 30" in HO) it is noted that trackage would be off limits to all but switchers and short freight cars.
So a 36" curve would be restricted speed in a yard or terminal, and even 80" radius in HO would be restricted speed mainline curve.
Real life example - the B&O mainline west through Pittsburg has gentle curves - they designed and used some of the most powerful 2-10-2's ever built on that line - the B&O "Big Six".
Those same locos could not be used on the sharper curves of their other route west - on several tries they layed the 2-10-2's on their side or put them on the ground trying to go around between 5 and 10 degree curves (80" radius in HO).
But we want those same locos to run on trackage that would be limited to 0-6-0's? And at mailine speeds?
The B&O used articulated locos on that other route because their rigid wheelbase is only 16'-9" per driver set - compared with 22' for a 2-10-2. Which one do yoU think is better for sharp curves?
So even Paul Mallory's recommendation of 48" radius would be a highly speed restricted curve in real life.
How many more 2-10-2's dooes your layout need?
richhotrain I am convinced that if someone built a layout with minimum radius curves of 36" and only used #8 turnouts, and the track work was deemed "perfect", that certain steam engines would still derail, primarily because of the faulty design and insufficient weight of the pilot truck and the trailing truck. Rich
Rich.
But ONLY if you don't fix the pilot and trailing truck weight issues and run the locos as they come out of the box. If you take the time to remove the springs and add extra weight to the trucks use the NMRA gauge to check the wheels are correctly in gauge, then you'll get your steam to run as well as your diesels. Mine did. :-)
rogertra richhotrain: I am convinced that if someone built a layout with minimum radius curves of 36" and only used #8 turnouts, and the track work was deemed "perfect", that certain steam engines would still derail, primarily because of the faulty design and insufficient weight of the pilot truck and the trailing truck. Rich Rich. But ONLY if you don't fix the pilot and trailing truck weight issues and run the locos as they come out of the box. If you take the time to remove the springs and add extra weight to the trucks use the NMRA gauge to check the wheels are correctly in gauge, then you'll get your steam to run as well as your diesels. Mine did. :-)
richhotrain: I am convinced that if someone built a layout with minimum radius curves of 36" and only used #8 turnouts, and the track work was deemed "perfect", that certain steam engines would still derail, primarily because of the faulty design and insufficient weight of the pilot truck and the trailing truck. Rich
Well, that is my point. If you have to remove the springs and add extra weight to the trucks to keep these steamers from derailing, then the problem is faulty product design, not just poor track work.
P.S. Am I the only guy who doesn't remove the factory installed springs on the trucks?
The springs actually transfer weight off the drivers. Since our models do not have fully equlized suspensions like a real loco, there is nothing good about reducing the weight on the drivers. It reduces pulling and tracking ability of the loco.
If I take an Athearn plastic freight truck with metal wheels - or a Kadee metal one, not attacted to a freight car, and give it a push down my track, it should roll along and stay on the track.
So, by similar operation, a pilot or trailing truck being gently dragged or pushed from its center bolster should be able to do the same thing. If its mounting to the loco is free moving/pivoting, its wheels in guage, it should just roll along.
There may be a few out there that need extra weight, but that would be IF the springs are removed. And I would say more weight and no spring is better than a spring at any weight.
But I have found very few that would not work fine as long as they have metal wheels which generally seem to have enough weight/mass.
So my take is - reasonable radius/turnout standards to start with, near perfect trackwork is a must, remove the springs, check guage and movement, then add weight as a last option.
I hate to belabor the point, but why do manufacturers put springs on the trucks in the first place?
Springs don't transfer weight they store and then transfer energy. If they are effective they can help compensate for small irregularities in the track.
Visualize the engine and drive train absolutely parallel to the track while the wheels move up and down. Or think of your car with no springs. It would be difficult to drive because the chassie would follow the wheels dirrectly and you would feel every single bump etc. Also the tires wouldnt want to stay on the ground all the time and you would have excessive wheel hop.
I've read that there are opinions that the NMRA track spacing in curves is too wide. Rather than keeping the wheels inside the rail head the additional space allows the wheels to wander towards the outside rail and eventually climb it causing a derail.
Additional weight on the pilot wheel seems to correct this by adding a downward force that is greater than the lateral force and prevent derailing. While this is a sorta cure it doesn't address the cause of the problem.
BobH13 Springs don't transfer weight they store and then transfer energy. If they are effective they can help compensate for small irregularities in the track. Visualize the engine and drive train absolutely parallel to the track while the wheels move up and down. Or think of your car with no springs. It would be difficult to drive because the chassie would follow the wheels dirrectly and you would feel every single bump etc. Also the tires wouldnt want to stay on the ground all the time and you would have excessive wheel hop. I've read that there are opinions that the NMRA track spacing in curves is too wide. Rather than keeping the wheels inside the rail head the additional space allows the wheels to wander towards the outside rail and eventually climb it causing a derail. Additional weight on the pilot wheel seems to correct this by adding a downward force that is greater than the lateral force and prevent derailing. While this is a sorta cure it doesn't address the cause of the problem.
In this case the energy they transfer is gravity - a function of mass, measured as weight.
If the springs are too stiff - which the usually are, the are supporting some of the weight of the loco.
Weight supported by the pilot or trailing truck is not available at the drivers for traction - confirmed by a number of simple pulling power tests.
Again I would disgree that there is anything wrong with NMRA track and wheel standards given the long time and large number of modelers who have had good success with them.
In a perfect application of wheel/rail technology, flanges seldom if ever engage the rail. Gravity, tappered wheels, rounded rail heads are all intended to keep the wheel set relatively centered.
The flange is actually just a safety stop gap for the process. That is why very sharp curves on the prototype have flange oilers and often guard rails. The friction of flanges rubbing along rails is very hard on the wheels and the rail - not to mention it requires much more HP to move the train.
While the physics do not scale down perfectly, all the same factors are at play with our models.
Again, I suggest that we roll a bare truck down our trackwork - if it stays on so should an unsprung lead or trailing truck.
richhotrain I hate to belabor the point, but why do manufacturers put springs on the trucks in the first place? Rich
They assume, correctly in many cases, that a number of modelers have poor trackwork and/or will try to run the loco around too sharp a curve or through to tight a turnout.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Again, I suggest that we roll a bare truck down our trackwork - if it stays on so should an unsprung lead or trailing truck.
The one trouble with that test is that it does not account for a boiler and driver wheelsets that may not be in balance from front to rear. In my case, BLI long ago conceded that the boiler and driver wheel assembly was not balanced properly and that is why their solution is to add a stronger spring to the trailing truck to replace the weaker spring initially installed at the factory. They have reworked a large number of 2-10-2 and 2-10-4 steamers that have been returned to them for that reason.
I would otherwise agree with you that rolling an unsprung bare truck down the track is likely to stay on the track. But that doesn't guarantee that the same truck will stay on the track when connected to a steam engine with balance problems.
In my experience, there are four possibilities:
Maybe it just comes down to the steamer and the layout not "liking" each other. If you just can't get the loco to stay on the track, banish it from the layout. Trade it or sell it. You may trade for an identical one that sticks to the track and never jumps a rail.
Just my experience. Others' experiences may differ.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
Brunton In my experience, there are four possibilities: Trackwork needs to be better; Locomotive has some problem in the functioning of the trucks - catching as the truck swings, out of gauge wheelsets, slightly twisted truckframe, or something else; or Layout curve standards are incompatible with the locomotive, regardless of what the locomotive manufacturer says the loco will handle. A combination of the above. Maybe it just comes down to the steamer and the layout not "liking" each other. If you just can't get the loco to stay on the track, banish it from the layout. Trade it or sell it. You may trade for an identical one that sticks to the track and never jumps a rail. Just my experience. Others' experiences may differ.
Gotta agree with that - - - wholeheartedly !
richhotrain 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
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?
To answer your question, I don't know much about steamers, pilot and trailing trucks, etc....but if you want to add weight to a difficult place, try using lead shot secured by Walthers Goo or traditional two-part epoxy.
I use A-line lead shot secured by two-part epoxy on the underside of many of my diesels shells. The little spheres can be placed in places that a big blob of lead can't. go and,, when dry, forms about any shape needed.
Between the weight of the thicker glue and a few shot balls, that might be enough weight.
Now back to the OT debate......
- Douglas