Hi Everyone:
My new layout has long mainlines - about 100 feet - the inner one is 22" minimum radius, the outer mainline has 24" minimum radius.
I have purchased several Walthers passenger cars over the last couple of years - both modern 4-axle types as well as some heavyweights - looking forward to the day I could run them on my layout.
I am now trying to run them and they constantly bind and derail, regardless of the track they are on.
Now, before all you pros jump all over me saying I should have 48" radius tracks - not enough room, had to scale everything down to fit.
What can I do to get them to run on my smaller radius curves? I would have thought they would make them for the average model railroader, not just the museum layouts...
You should have 48" radius tracks.
OK, seriously, just replace the couplers with longer shank couplers.
Rich
Alton Junction
A quick fix that is, understandably, not liked by modelers that prefer snug, prototype spacing between their scale passenger cars is to install longer shank couplers.
I've done this since my layout is going to have 22" radius curves. On the designated "front" end on each of my Walthers units I installed a medium shank coupler while on the "rear" of each car I installed a long shank coupler. For me, the gap between the diaphragms is still small enough that it doesn't bother me.
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
I have 25-26+ curves and the first 7 Walthers streamlined (4-axle, armour yellow) cars I bought did ok except one liked to derail. First I had to be sure which car was causing the problem as a derail could derail it's mate also. Observation indicated the culprit and I noted that on one the truck, when turned, could hit the skirt of the car side that hangs down. A bit of filing fixed that.
I also bought some super sale Walthers silver UP MOW cars (6-axle) and they are quite a problem on my layout with derailing. They are built a bit differently than the yellow streamline cars with respect to the couplers system. The most common derail spot is the inner (diverging) curve of 7-1/2 curved turnouts. They are closer coupled than the 4-axle cars and the diaphragms push against each a fair amount and I thought that might be the issue. My LHS did not have the longer Kadees in stock so I looked closer and do not think that's the issue. I found that the trucks seemed to have play on their mounting screws as the truck screw hole is rather large. This allows the truck to move lengthwise toward the coupler and the corner of the truck can hit a big cover over the moving coupler box. I used a Dremel to reduce the corners being hit and that may have helped but I think I still have a problem with the trucks turning fully (still have derailing). I thought the wheel flanges were possibly hitting the coupler box assembly centering springs (long plastic fingers). But on a closer look I think the flanges might first be hitting a vertical ridge that the coupler box centering fingers use. I might have to file those to extend less downward to ensure the flanges can't hit the ridge. It's hard to tell whether interference occurs when holding the car upside down and turning the truck as I can't keep the truck precisely level with the car when turning it (maybe I should tighten the screw for this observation and do it on the flat desktop...don't know if I'll be able to see what I need to). Anyway, the problem is still on my to-do list.
The point is, check for interference issues as well as car to car coupler length issues.
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
By the way,,,if you have Kadee coupler's and are interested in a longer shank coupler,,it is #148,long shank whisker coupler..
Cheers,
Frank
wigman Hi Everyone: My new layout has long mainlines - about 100 feet - the inner one is 22" minimum radius, the outer mainline has 24" minimum radius. I have purchased several Walthers passenger cars over the last couple of years - both modern 4-axle types as well as some heavyweights - looking forward to the day I could run them on my layout. I am now trying to run them and they constantly bind and derail, regardless of the track they are on. Now, before all you pros jump all over me saying I should have 48" radius tracks - not enough room, had to scale everything down to fit. What can I do to get them to run on my smaller radius curves? I would have thought they would make them for the average model railroader, not just the museum layouts...
Wigman,
Respectfully, I would like to ask, how is it you have room for 100' of mainline but could not manage curves bigger than 24"?
48" radius is nice, it is what famous modeler of years gone by Paul Mallery strongly recommended for HO.
But it is surely not needed just to get 85' cars to operate well.
BUT, 28" or 32" might have been a good a idea? And 36" radius has long been the prefered minimum of most clubs and operation minded modelers with larger spaces.
OR, one could stay with shorter, "selectively" compressed passenger cars like those offered for decades by Athearn, ConCor and others. They run really well on 22" curves and can even be coupled fairly close on such curves.
For those who say they are not to scale, I would ask, which looks more toy like - the 85' cars with 5 scale foot gaps between them? or shorter cars coupled in a scale manner? you choose. I just want someone to model the dead passenger in the middle of the tracks who did not make the jump from car to car.
Personally, I prefer shorter cars, couled at scale distances, with touching, working diaphragms, running on my 36" radius and larger curves. I do have a few 85' cars, and they too work on 36" curves with scale coupling distances and touching diapragms, but they don't look as good as the shorter ones.
Sheldon
Sheldon, you make some great points.
I will agree that if you want to run 85' cars in prototypical fashion, then you ought to have minimum radius curves of at least 36" and, preferably, around 48".
Otherwise, as you say, you are better off with the 72' shorties.
I run the 85' cars on 32" radius curves with medium to long shank couplers, and it requires passengers with broad jumping skills to make the leap from car to car.
LION made sure that the tables were cut to a minimum 24" radius, you would think that the tracks would be 26, 28,30, and 32, but that would be too much thinking and it did not work out that way. Some will not handle 85' cars, but what the heck, LION runs 50' SUBWAY cars so "No Problem!".
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
ATLANTIC CENTRAL wigman Hi Everyone: My new layout has long mainlines - about 100 feet - the inner one is 22" minimum radius, the outer mainline has 24" minimum radius. I have purchased several Walthers passenger cars over the last couple of years - both modern 4-axle types as well as some heavyweights - looking forward to the day I could run them on my layout. I am now trying to run them and they constantly bind and derail, regardless of the track they are on. Now, before all you pros jump all over me saying I should have 48" radius tracks - not enough room, had to scale everything down to fit. What can I do to get them to run on my smaller radius curves? I would have thought they would make them for the average model railroader, not just the museum layouts... Wigman, Respectfully, I would like to ask, how is it you have room for 100' of mainline but could not manage curves bigger than 24"? BUT, 28" or 32" might have been a good a idea? And 36" radius has long been the prefered minimum of most clubs and operation minded modelers with larger spaces.
That was my first thought too, exactly my first thought. How can you have room for 100' mainline but such tight curves? With the fact that passenger cars and long freight cars are common, 89' feet common, I would recommend a minumum radius of 30 inches, which has kind of become the new minimum since the early 1980's if you read lots of the old Model Railroader layout articles.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I have a few Walthers cars tha pop of 28" radius curves when I push them one at a time by hand. Couplers have nothing to do with it.
Dave
Just be glad you don't have to press "2" for English.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ_ALEdDUB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hqFS1GZL4s
http://s73.photobucket.com/user/steemtrayn/media/MovingcoalontheDCM.mp4.html?sort=3&o=27
I have in the neighborhood of 120 Walthers 85 ft cars bought over a 10 year or so period, and have found that trying to run them on anything less than 28" radius is often going to require fixes. As pointed out, diaphragms push on each other with springs strong enough to derail, or catch on each other. Trucks can hit coupler boxes, skirts and ladders. Twisted truck frames are trouble, more likely on 6-wheel trucks.
But even worse, once a consist is OK going forward, try backing it up. Because the coupler slack disappears, a more likely minimum radius for backing is 36". Using longer coupler shanks may fix going forward, but also cause worse backing problems.
Proper coupler height is almost twice as critical on 85' cars as 50' freight cars, to avoid decoupling on short-term variations in track height, because of the greater bolster to coupler distance.
Walthers' use of steel axles into metal sideframes seems to result sometimes in not very free-rolling wheels. Sometimes a truck tuner helps. Some squeak, but oil doesn't always help.
Long passenger cars tend to be a pain. Especially Walthers. IMHO, of course.
Hal
steemtrayn I have a few Walthers cars tha pop of 28" radius curves when I push them one at a time by hand. Couplers have nothing to do with it.
Nothing?
Do they, ''Pop off'' at a 100 smph push,or a 200 smph push?? YIKES!!
Frankie
I believe Walthers recommends 24" minimum operating radius for their passenger cars, as do other manufacturers of full length 85' cars. (BLI's CZ car have full skirts and although they can do 24" radius, they don't like it--neither did any of the brass models of the very same cars, which require about 28" minimum just to operate, as I have owned them).
Additionally, the various Kalmbach layout planning books (including those written by Armstrong) which have been available on the market for many years have consistently recommended 27"-28" radius for full length passenger car operation.
Accordingly, if I were building a layout, I would not have used anything less than 24" radius, period. I'm not saying this to be arrogant or mean, so I hope it doesn't read that way--but I would not design for the minimum radius, especially if I had space for 100' mainlines, because designing for the minimum does not allow any room for error in track joints, etc. Even with Kato track, which is very rigid, it is still possible to get "kinks" in the alignment that can be enough to derail a long passenger car or a large steam engine.
My minimum curve radius is (Kato metric converted to English) 26.375". I own several Walthers cars, both lightweight (4 axle) and heavyweight (6 axle). Some of them are a pain to operate as they derail. I find that replacing the factory couplers with Kadee #148 whisker couplers helps to eliminate most but not all of the derailments. Some squeak and oil doesn't always help--the 6 axle cars tend to be noisier in general.
John
This is exactly why I'm getting rid of all my 24" radius curves, and reworking the tracks for min radius of 32".
I run a lot of passenger trains. Walthers, MTH, Rapido, BLI.
Michael
CEO- Mile-HI-RailroadPrototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989
Well, now that I have heard from everyone who thinks anyone can fit huge radius turns on their layouts, I can't. Don't have the room on my long and narrow layout, and my trains have to have some method of getting back to where they started by other than going backwards.
My serious beef here is that Walthers, BLI, and all the others who say their cars can negotiate 24" minimum radius curves. The cars SHOULD be able to do so right out of the box without a problem or weeks worth of adjustment so they will work properly. I attribute this to these companies trying to get small pike owners to buy these cars at exorbitant prices, knowing full well that they will NOT work on the stated minimum radius turns.
It is false advertising, if you ask me.
These cars cost a small fortune to purchase, and apparently they aren't worth it to anyone other than those who can run huge radius turns on their layouts.
I guess the solution to it all is go back to the old Rivarossi, Athearn, Model Power, etc. cars that don't have a problem with these radius turns, cost 1/10 as much, and to hell with the fancy stuff - they can spend their lives on the display shelves in my layout room.
I had purchased the entire Empire Builder set from Walthers at great expense and it isn't worth a crap, if you ask me, because I can't run it on track that THEY said it would run on. The Proto2000 locos will run on track down to 18" radius, they are fine and perfect examples of high quality at reasonable cost.
From this point on, I will not be purchasing any more of these cars. Their loss, not mine.
Thanks for all the replies, I appreciate your input very much!
Wig
wigman My serious beef here is that Walthers, BLI, and all the others who say their cars can negotiate 24" minimum radius curves. The cars SHOULD be able to do so right out of the box without a problem or weeks worth of adjustment so they will work properly. I attribute this to these companies trying to get small pike owners to buy these cars at exorbitant prices, knowing full well that they will NOT work on the stated minimum radius turns. It is false advertising, if you ask me. Wig
LOL
Wig, I couldn't agree with you more.
Out of the box, they don't run all that well on 24" radius curves and, for that matter, they don't run all that well out of the box on larger radius curves either, without some fine tuning.
But, don't despair. Add some long shank couplers, and you just might be surprised at the improved performance.
The cars are able to do 24" radius if your track work is nearly perfect--ie no vertical kinks at joints and no vertical kinks or superelevation the wrong way on horizontal curves.
Again--the layout design books clearly state that operation of full length passenger cars on anything less than 27" radius curves is problematic at best. You are asking the car to negotiate curves sharper than the prototype ever could--and any vertical displacement, or one rail being higher than the other one at a given joint--is all that is needed to cause a derailment.
The manufacturers make it possible for these cars to negotiate 24" radius curves--sharper than the prototype ever could--but that doesn't mean they will operate perfectly. One bad Chinese-made axle on a given truck can cause a problem. All wheels on each truck should touch a piece of glass sitting on a table top. If you can rock the truck on the piece of glass, it should be adjusted, period. Also check the wheel gauge--sometimes it can be a little bit too wide, and if the axles don't roll true relative to truck centerline, they can bind on curves.
Having owned several brass passenger cars through the years, I think Walthers is doing an absolutely terrific job on the current production--especially the cars with factory lights and grab irons installed. That's how I've wanted them, and I'll keep buying them. I have 4 sleepers pre-ordered now along with the Rock Island red/yellow F unit.
Trimming the sill plates on each end will allow better performance on 24' curves, 22' is pushing it. Believe Walthers has this recommendation in the instructions that come with the cars, could be wrong on that one though. they can be touchy though. mine sit on a siding most of the time and I run 5 old AHM cars, not as nice by a long shot, but they just run and run.
Well Wigman, you have a couple of choices..........
- somehow get to 26 inch minimum radius
or
- not run the walthers cars
Other than ruining the cars (i.e. tearing out the undercarriages, etc), what you are trying to do won't work well. And whatever cars you do get to run will look pretty uncomfortable.
If you are stuck with the 22/24 inch curves, get some Athearn cars and enjoy!
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Perhaps the reason Rivarossi and Bachmann are re-releasing their shorter length HW passenger cars in a number of new road names is due to this lack of better quality coaches not being able to run on the shorter radius curves.
While I did buy some of the 60' Rivarossi coach sets back when they were first released I certainly could use additional coaches and combines to add to my roster.
I don't buy Walthers ans similar high priced RTR passenger cars - guess why? Because they WILL go around 24" or 26" radius curves. What? That's right. I will not buy expensive RTR passenger cars that have gaps between them that allow them to go around sharp curves - yes 28" radius is a sharp curve in my view.
For the kind of money those things cost, they should couple at scale distances and have perfectly detailed working diaphragms that touch and stay touching all the time. And that can be made to work very well down to about 30" or 32" radius.
I am not about to spend that sort of money, and then have to rebuild the coupler/diaphragm system on the cars to my standards.
I would much rather start with some other car and built it and detail it to my standards.
As for the OP's comments about false advertising on the part of Walthers regarding this issue - like Rich, I tend to agree.
As to the OP's personal situation regarding his layout - all I can say is that in this information age it would not have taken much research to know that 85' passenger cars and 22" radius curves were a bad idea BEFORE either building the layout or buying the cars.
Sheldon--
The fact is that Walthers has been doing a fine job of making incremental improvements on their passenger cars. The diaphragms on the newest cars actually work pretty well, all things considered--and if I had the luxury of operating on 30" or 32" radius curves, I bet the diaphragms would actually be touching almost all the time.
I was most upset at one time that the lighting units didn't actually fit at least one of the cars...but times change. They have improved, and now that I don't have to butcher the roof during attempted removal (because factory installed lighting--and even installed figures on some special releases--are now available) I find them to be an outstanding value--especially compared to comparable newer brass cars at $750/each.
Respectfully submitted--
UP 4-12-2 Sheldon-- The fact is that Walthers has been doing a fine job of making incremental improvements on their passenger cars. The diaphragms on the newest cars actually work pretty well, all things considered--and if I had the luxury of operating on 30" or 32" radius curves, I bet the diaphragms would actually be touching almost all the time. I was most upset at one time that the lighting units didn't actually fit at least one of the cars...but times change. They have improved, and now that I don't have to butcher the roof during attempted removal (because factory installed lighting--and even installed figures on some special releases--are now available) I find them to be an outstanding value--especially compared to comparable newer brass cars at $750/each. Respectfully submitted-- John
John,
I can't say I have seen every version of every car, from Walthers or the others like BLI, MTH, Rapido, etc, but most all that I have seen, on layouts or on display, when coupled and stretched out on straight track, have gaps between the diaphragms - some very small, some pretty obvious, but gaps none the less.
I install American Limited diaphragms on all my passenger cars at a coupling distance that is literally only about 4 scale inches more than typical prototype car spacing. The diaphragms touch under all conditions and run fine. And depending on the length of the car, work fine down to about 30" radius and #5 turnouts.
Not the best photo, but maybe you can see what I mean about close coupling:
As for brass, not on my radar. I'm really not interested in collecting expensive models, I'm into building them myself. Sheldon
As for brass, not on my radar. I'm really not interested in collecting expensive models, I'm into building them myself.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I can't say I have seen every version of every car, from Walthers or the others like BLI, MTH, Rapido, etc, but most all that I have seen, on layouts or on display, when coupled and stretched out on straight track, have gaps between the diaphragms - some very small, some pretty obvious, but gaps none the less. I install American Limited diaphragms on all my passenger cars at a coupling distance that is literally only about 4 scale inches more than typical prototype car spacing. The diaphragms touch under all conditions and run fine. And depending on the length of the car, work fine down to about 30" radius and #5 turnouts.
The developing, underlying theme to this thread seems to be that if you don't have diaphragms that touch each other, it is not worth modeling passenger trains at all. I beg to disagree.
If you replace the Walthers supplied couplers with Kadee long shank couplers and run your equipment on 32" radius curves as I do, it still looks fairly realistic and there will be no performance issues such as derailments.
Let's be honest with ourselves. Even if your passenger cars have diaphragms that touch, how realistic does the rest of your layout look? You are running trains on highly compressed versions of the real thing. Even on the largest club layouts, you might have a 15 or 20 car passenger train running over what? A mile or two of track in scale terms? So why get too caught up with diaphragms that touch?
Get real, guys. I get it when I see 85' cars trying to run on 18" curves, it does look rather silly. But, once you get up to 24", it doesn't look too bad, and by 30" or larger, it begins to look pretty good. And, we are talking about curves. On the straight sections of mainline, 85' passenger cars with long shank couplers look pretty darn good even without those diaphragms touching. Model railroads can only look somewhat realistic. The rest is up to the imagination.
richhotrain steemtrayn I have a few Walthers cars tha pop of 28" radius curves when I push them one at a time by hand. Couplers have nothing to do with it. Nothing?
That's right, nothing. (In this case, anyway.) How could couplers have anything to do with the derailment when there is nothing coupled to them?
zstripe Do they, ''Pop off'' at a 100 smph push,or a 200 smph push?? YIKES!! Cheers, Frankie
Actually, it was more like a 10 smph push. Using E-Z track, I started on a section of straight track, and gradually decreased the radius, starting with 35.5, then 33.25 then 28.
I did the research, and now I share the results. No charge.
I will most definitely agree with Rich and some others who posted,,the want,of having 85ft cars,seems to be over bearing in this case,,but reality sets in as to the function,or purpose of having them..One good point that was mentioned,was the locale of your layouts theme,,,a one horse town with a whistle stop station,or a two horse town?Where are all the people coming from,that will be on that train??
Just My Reality,Thinking,
steemtrayn richhotrain steemtrayn I have a few Walthers cars tha pop of 28" radius curves when I push them one at a time by hand. Couplers have nothing to do with it. Nothing? That's right, nothing. (In this case, anyway.) How could couplers have anything to do with the derailment when there is nothing coupled to them?
Oh, I see what you are saying. If you push them and they derail, what does a coupler have to do with that.
True, but pushing a car is not a totally accurate test. You can derail a perfectly fine car if you apply too much pressure or too much speed or too much lateral movement. The better test is to couple the cars together and couple them to a locomotive and run the train.
Now we have another,equation added to the mix,,,,Pushing,verses Pulling...And coupled, at that..