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.
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...
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
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
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.
Rich
Alton Junction
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.
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
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
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
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!"
You should have 48" radius tracks.
OK, seriously, just replace the couplers with longer shank couplers.