The driver is on the third axle. And honestly out of the two options, frame or bushings/bearings......I would much rather mess with the bearings vs the frame. My thinking there is, if I jack up the frame I'm out and basically have ruined the model without some serious fixing. If I mess up the bearings I would think they would be easier to fine and replace. Or remake if needed.
So you guys think I should thin bearing #2 and #4. I can understand that. But my only concern is that #4 is very light and not entirely on the track the way 1-3 are. But I get that you want some axles straight so the loco doesn't fishtail down the track.
This shouldn't be too bad actually. If you look down on top of the frame towards the ground, the bearings stick out about 1/16th of an inch. So it will be fairly easy to grind them down and get to match.
The one thing I might need is a puller to get the wheels out of the axles. Just thought about that. Or at least one of them.
Hmm. I'll look at it tomorrow a little closer and see.
Now that has me thinking of something else. So if those wheels are just pressed on the axle.....theoretically couldn't I just push that axle in just a hair and then it would force the wheel out a bit creating more room? That is one part I hadn't adjusted or messed with. I wonder if the previous owner maybe put them on too tight?
Thoughts?
Mike
selector If the third driver axle is the driven axle, then I wouldn't fool around with it. Concentrate on the first two axles if you decide to thin the bushings.
If the third driver axle is the driven axle, then I wouldn't fool around with it. Concentrate on the first two axles if you decide to thin the bushings.
I thought it was the second axle that was driven. If it's the third axle, I'd recommend leaving #1 and #3 alone, and working on #2 and #4.
I think it advisable to have the longest "rigid" wheelbase as possible, so as to minimize yawing. For that, if you want to leave the geared axle alone, then the other "left alone" one should be farthest from that axle.
If I had my heart set on thinning the bearing while still on the axle, I would certainly slide each bearing to the center of the axle. That way, the file will abrade the axle in a position where it doesn't matter. There is, of course, a limit to how far you can "thin" the bearing. You still have to have enough of the outer flange to keep things together.
I would go with my plan B.
Ed
If the drivers truly don't have enough lateral play, and I mean after determining that NOTHING ELSE is keeping them from moving sideways enough, there's two solutions:
You take some metal off the outer face of the bearings (bushings to you). I do not believe that can be done with the bearings on the axles. So ya gotta pull the drivers. Great care with a file is then used to thin them down. Now ya gotta reassemble them.
Plan B is to narrow the frame. But the amount of metal you remove on the outside faces must be added on the inside faces. Assuming the frame is the 2-bar style. The simplest way to do this is to solder on some brass on the inside, first. Then you remove enough on the outside to get the bearings to fit again.
Neither is my idea of fun.
Some good news is that you don't have to do all axles. In theory, two should be enough. I would be tempted to leave the geared driver (#2, I think) and #4 alone.
Actually, plan B is looking pretty good. The brass pieces don't really have to be accurately cut or placed. The DO have to be flat when soldered. In fact, I wouldn't even notch the brass pieces for the bearing slots. I'd file them out later. Ya wanna be REAL anal about filing the outside faces of the frame. But it is certainly doable.
Guy,Good words there for sure. I like the idea of soothing the pain a bit but.....It's going to drive me insane until I can figure out and get this stupid loco going. But I might have to do just that. I'm waivering on the Bachmann just because there are no other choices for the 4449 Daylight which sucks. But that might have to do in the meantime.
I think I have all the bugs worked out on the decoder and stuff. The electric side of this is a little bit easier because if you take your time I think you can find a good majority of the shorts. Hoping I'm right there. But yes, there is so much metal to metal it's kind of a nightmare of making it all work together.
I guess my biggest hesitation is jacking a good looking loco up. I'm handy with tools, metals, and electronics but sometimes things just happen and I just don't want to end up with a complete dud.Maybe I should look for a professional to take a look at it and send him a box of parts. I don't think there is anyone local that I would trust to look at it. But I might do some digging around to see if there is someone that would take a look at it.
Hahaha, thanks selector....I'm not sure if it's tenacity or just plain stubborness! Or the fact I've got a $350 nice looking paper weight until I get this figured out!
My only concern about grinding the bushings down is the 3rd axle. The one with the gearbox. That one for obvious reasons is the tightest and while the gearbox is one with the axle.....for that reason alone it won't have a lot of play. I'm not sure how much I need here?Probably best to start small and then ease into it. I'd prefer not to hack into the actual frame to give the gearbox more wiggle room. But we'll see.
Man.......now fitting a speaker, 10 led's, decoder and keep alive in a unit into an SP MP15 doesn't seem nearly as much of a pain after this Daylight! LOL! That was cake looking back and comparing it to this!
Regarding Brass: I have been exactly where you are now – lots of times. Brass locos are finicky. I have had some of the most annoying, frustrating things happen when dealing with brass locos. The list is long - Dead shorts, missing gearboxes, driver set installed backwards (dead short), fried motors, tracking problems, loose parts and worn gears.
And then there are mistakes that you will make - One example: There was the time I was done with the decoder install and smoked the whole thing as I was testing the install one more time before buttoning it up. The speaker fell out of the tender shell shorted the decoder out on a live tender deck …Take it apart and do over. Done it many times. Most people I know who run brass, spend time maintaining their fleets and experience brass frustration at times.
Suggestions:
Find a local or semi-local expert in brass locomotive repair. Take the loco to this person and see what they can find. I have found that large wheel based rigid framed models are the worst in terms of the problems you are describing. Some weren’t designed to take model curves without some modification. There might also be a part catching or hanging up as the loco rounds the curve.
Call Dave at NWSL, get his opinion as to what fixes he might recommend. You might also ask on the Yahoo brass list or the Yahoo SP list to find out about quirks with this particular WSM model and, if applicable, the various production runs of the model.
If it ain’t broke, I don’t recommend taking apart the running gear unless you are a machinist, have experience in brass or have a guru to help you. Sometimes something runs well and you strip it down and put it back together and it doesn’t run as well as before you messed with it…
The repair process might take some time. I have put locos away in boxes and returned to work on them over a period of years in some cases.
Soothe the pain:
Buy some spectrum and some BLI and other new hybrid steam. You’ll be OK when the brass craps out when you drive your 4-6-0 or cab forward around as it runs perfectly (god willing you get a good one). This will give you the serenity to deal with the brass.
Ugly Truth:
There are brass models that aren’t fixable in this life by mere mortals (I have one). There are some dogs in terms of the entire run and other times just a particular model in a run didn’t go together right. Knowing when you have one of these is not always a slam dunk….
I have several really nice brass models that run great. They are a joy, some of the rest of them not so much… I run brass because I can’t find modern plastic in the prototypes I want…
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
I admire your tenacity. I think it will pay off, and you'll be the better for it.
I think you have already guessed at the solution. I doubt whether you'd need to alter those bushings much, maybe half a mm each. It sounds like painstaking work, but you sound like you're handy. Just go easy if you decide to do this, as you don't want those axles sliding so much that the rods begin to grind against the tire rims or against each other. Also, I would concentrate initial efforts on the middle two axles only.
Ok so I'm back with some actual test results.
I loaded the chassis up with the weight and found some glass and did the paper test. The front set of wheels are on the glass. They and the third axle(gearbox) are by far the two that have the most weight. The second axle back has quite a bit as well.....maybe 10% less than the front? Maybe? The last however is in the air. I could pull the paper all around under those without even touching the wheels. I also looked a little more careful at the slop in the wheels from side to side. There is hardly any. The bushings are right tight to the edge of the wheel. My only option in looking at things is to machine down a little of the bushing to give it some slop. Which I'm perfectly willing to do if it's going to help. I might try to pull things apart just to confirm that I don't have anything in upside down or backwards or left a wrench in there or something. Even with the weight and hand dragging it around my 36" radius there is substantial resistance in the corner. And my corners are good. I don't think track is to blame there.
And if you get a bachmann, check the gear towers for greese often. That is a large failure point on a number of their engines. (The gears wearing out or cracking.) I've had two H-6, one H-5, and two 4-8-2 Mtn class fail. All gear tower problems. Then there's the shay...cracked bevel gears.
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
Although I am admittedly not the technician at making steam run like Paul3 and others, I would like to address some of the comments about today's plastic or diecast engines being "as good as" or rather "as detailed as" brass: Perhaps that is true when you compare them to some of the 50 or more year old vintage brass, Akane or LMB or some other earlier models.
However, if one honestly takes the latest BLI PRR 2-8-0, which is very nice (excepting the first run has plastic gears that can fail in as little as 10 hours use, as mine did) and you compare that engine to later brass models of PRR 2-8-0's, it clearly falls short. It's a "nice" model, with really nice lights, and overall good proportions, but the real fact is that the better brass models out there have all kinds of fine detail that BLI simply is not able to provide at their price point.
USRA 2-8-2 steam engines: there's plenty on the market, heavy, light, some plastic boilered, some diecast, or hybrid, etc. Lots of them are pretty good looking models, and will make many, perhaps even most people, very happy. However, if one honestly takes most of the USRA engines readily available (at affordable prices) and compares them to the Key Imports/Samhongsa built models which were made from 1977 through 1981, in limited quantities (50 to 125) with numerous road specific details, including correct oil (replacement) tenders for applicable roads, re-arranged piping and appliances to match the later 1930's-on appearance of most of the prototype steam engines, there is honestly no contest--the brass models are going to win on getting the road specific details right. Some are easy to find and may go for as little as $300. They have really good Cannon coreless motors and good gearboxes, and often run very well right out of the box without any tuning required. Others are more scarce and can go for as much as $875, for essentially the same model but with different details and perhaps a "hotter" or "more desirable" road name.
I'm not an expert, but no reasonable person can tell me that the rather generic USRA stuff on the market in plastic and/or diecast honestly holds a candle to the Key/Samhongsa brass, and the later brass is just far and away beyond...
Now, as Sheldon will likely chime in here, there is absolutely nothing to prevent one from buying the generic USRA plastic or diecast models and buying all the Cal Scale or other after-market brass castings necessary to make the upgrades to get it "right" for your particular road, or even one's personal road. In some instances one can even do that for less money than the brass...and if it's your railroad and you need large fleets of motive power, that may certainly be all that is ever needed.
The better brass models will still be "art" and might take a great deal of time, patience and expense to exceed if "doing it yourself".
John
Mike,Absolutely do the glass check with the weight(s) in the boiler. Test it as you are going to run it. BTW, sometimes the tender can exert some downforce on the rear of the boiler because the drawbar height is messed up, so watch for that, too.
Without weight the #1 driver is higher than the others? That's a red flag right there. All drivers should be equal. Even if it's only a little bit higher, it means that there is no downforce on that driver at all.
Another trick I was taught was to make a balance point for the loco. Either using something like a triangular file or a razor blade in a vise...sometimes just a pencil, whatever works... Anyways, take your loco "set up" (with the boiler weight, all trucks, etc., but without the tender), and put it on the balance point so that the center of the middle driver is on the balance point. Or, in your case, halfway between the #2 and #3 drivers. The loco should be balanced on this point. If it isn't, add weight to the lighter end. It doesn't have to be perfect, but it should be close.
I have seen steamers pull better with less overall weight because it was balanced better. If you have a lot of rear weight on a 4-8-4, you're really only getting about 2 axles worth of traction. The others are just there along for the ride. Put them to work by making sure all drivers are contacting the rails equally (or as much as possible).
Oh, and one other thing: I tend to use lead flashing for brass steam boiler weights (while I'm wearing gloves, of course). The great thing about it is that you can pieces and form them into a "hot dog bun" shape, insert them into the boiler, than expand them once inside. This presses the soft lead into the little brass pieces inside the boiler from the detail parts on the boiler. This will actually hold the lead in place, which means no glue is needed, and the lead can be removed if it's too much for the motor (yes, that can happen...I've done it and I had to take some lead out).
Good luck!
5150WS6 I will however require the address of all of you who have told me Bachmann is now awesome and a good purchase.....Just in case! ;)
I will however require the address of all of you who have told me Bachmann is now awesome and a good purchase.....Just in case! ;)
It sounds like the weight is not fully balanced on the loco, and that there is too little side-to-side movement capability.
The glass test is with weight, as it will show if the balance of the weight needs to be shifted around more, and it sounds like yours needs a bit more nose weight, but unless there is side-to-side play in the drivers, it will not take curves, even with more nose weight. (To put into perspective, my two steamers have more side-to-side play than vertical give via the sprung drivers! So, my 2-8-2 can handle a 18" radii and #4 yard ladder, but I restrict the 4-8-4 to mainline minimum 22" radii, and it is banned from the yard ladder.)
And, I am one of the ones that defy RichHO's logic, I run a 4-8-4 J-class on 22" radii, but mine is a plastic model, not brass... And, no, no migraine meds in my medicine cabinet! (It is my "railfan excursion" loco.)
I understand the whole "problem child" on the roster.... My "problem child" is a Broadway 2-8-2 Mikado..... It is getting a new electrical system once I get around to it...... I am tired of it frying the chuff sensor, but that was a poorly designed unit in that regard. (The 2-8-2 is a local Historical societies public good-will effort on my layout.)
Hoping that yours can be easily resolved! Steam is a very beautiful thing, when under power!
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
5150WS6Concerning the Bachmann. To me this issue comes down to the same Ford vs Chevrolet thing that I promise almost every one of you guys have.
Maybe in some of those towns where there is a peer pressure to buy GM, Ford or Chevrolet almost everyone has one of those brands. But I've read extenisve repair histories on many brands of cars and at that time, almost all were in the poor category but Nissan, Toyota and Honda all had good repair histories so due, I chose to go Japanese to minimize repair costs. In the 1990's I did buy a new 94 Ford Taurus wagon and the head gasket went around 60k miles; between that experience and the metrics on repair history, I swore off being an "almost everyone type of guy Ford vs. Chevy". Yeah, some of the last few years been all kinds of recalls across the board.
For one reason or another you think the other is a lesser brand or not as good as the one you have picked. In the past I have had not one but two Bachmann's that were complete junk. Granted this was 20 years ago. But I Bachmann taught me in the past that buying their stuff was a waste of money. And as we all know, this hobby is like throwing money out the window anyway! LOL! So that being said. I can agree that companies change and step up sometimes and can come around. So for that I'll order the Bachmann version of the Daylight. I will convert it over to Loksound though only because they rock and I don't have time to deal with CV's and like their programmer. But this will give me sort of a base to see what my brass needs to go round corners as far as play and stuff. I will however require the address of all of you who have told me Bachmann is now awesome and a good purchase.....Just in case! ;)
Word on the street is that Bachmann has upped their game. I still don't own any Bachman but I'm a 70's/80's western RG/SP fan and so far nothing they offer has impressed me, at least from the body end of things. I have always wanted a Daylight GS having watched the real thing when I lived in northern California and I wasn't impressed with the earlier Bachman GS's - fairly toy-like to my eye. If they have re-tooled the body and chassis I may have to take another look, although I expect it won't be up to MTH or BLI standards. One of those companies reportedly had a fairly HQ version but the molds were lost reportedly.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Well, I don't run steam, but two things I have learned from reading this forum over the years:
The drivers need enough side play to negotiate sharp curves, and some side play to negotiate any curve.
The front driver leaving the track could be due to the loco being weighted too heavily towards the rear.....the loco is doing a "wheelie" into the curve. Even if it was mistakenly tested with no weight, it could still be too light in the front.
- Douglas
There have been a few HO brass models that had a 30" minimum radius, that's the largest I've ever heard of for an HO engine. Most will do 22-24" radius.
One thing to keep in mind is that before the 1990's, brass engines were often the poorest running engines available. People bought them for the detail level, which was far superior to anything available in plastic or metal-boilered (like Mantua) engines, expecting to spend hours getting them to run successfully.
Starting in the late 1980's, many model railroad manufacturers began having new lines that were much higher quality than their previous items, like Bachmann's Spectrum line, Life-Like's Proto line, or Athearn's Genesis. Comparing the upgraded lines to old versions of these company's standard lines from decades ago is like comparing a new Lincoln to Dad's old Edsel....
Mike, again best of luck with the current loco, but if you do spring for the Bachmann, here is some advice.
Yes change the decoder, and not sure on that model, the tender may be sound ready. I throw their decoders away.....I run DC........
Check to see if you can add some weight, I added a lot to my Berkshires.......
Add weight to the tender, it will track better and improve electrical pickup.
Follow this advice, I'll bet you will be very happy. I understand you feeling about past experiances, but if we judged Ford and Chevy on everything in their past, we would be walking....
I use to drive Chevys, now I drive Fords, would not give up my F250 or my FLEX for anything on the road........and would not give up my fleet of Bachmann/Spectrum stesm.......
Sheldon
Mike:
5150WS6And as we all know, this hobby is like throwing money out the window anyway! LOL!
Can I stand outside your window?
There has been some discussion about short circuits. Clearly the cause is not a short circuit. Your original post didn't make it clear that you had addressed that possibility but you have, and besides, short circuits don't cause binding. If there is a short the locomotive stops dead in its tracks. You are experiencing the binding even without the motor installed.
I'm betting that the lack of side to side play in the drivers is the problem. I don't know didley squat (is that a bad word Steven?) about brass locomotives, but from everything that you and others have said, logically that seems to be the problem. Several people have talked about the need for side play in the drivers. You don't have side play. Voila! You are trying to put a square peg in a round hole. The locomotive is square (i.e. straight - it can't curve because there is no side play in the drivers) and your track is round (i.e. curved).
I will repeat my recommendation to get in touch with Howard Zane.
Good luck with it! I'm really curious to find out what the solution is!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Ok guys here we go and I'll try to answer all the comments and questions.
First to get this out of the way. Concerning the Bachmann. To me this issue comes down to the same Ford vs Chevrolet thing that I promise almost every one of you guys have. For one reason or another you think the other is a lesser brand or not as good as the one you have picked. In the past I have had not one but two Bachmann's that were complete junk. Granted this was 20 years ago. But I Bachmann taught me in the past that buying their stuff was a waste of money. And as we all know, this hobby is like throwing money out the window anyway! LOL! So that being said. I can agree that companies change and step up sometimes and can come around. So for that I'll order the Bachmann version of the Daylight. I will convert it over to Loksound though only because they rock and I don't have time to deal with CV's and like their programmer. But this will give me sort of a base to see what my brass needs to go round corners as far as play and stuff. I will however require the address of all of you who have told me Bachmann is now awesome and a good purchase.....Just in case! ;)
My problem and frustration is this. Growing up my dad wouldn't shut up about brass. It's the best and nicest detail and blah blah blah. And while I think it is, or at least was 20 years ago, I totally agree that some of the injection molded stuff is just as good if not better. The detail some of the locos have today is insane and I'm impressed! So that's why I still hang onto this brass. I think it's somewhat a work of art and took some time to create and that's why I won't give up on it.
Now as far as the brass goes. Onto those questions. First the shims. No, I don't think those will cause any issue what so ever. They are paper thin, and cut exactly as well as glued to any parts that were in danger of touching even in extreme cases. Like the brake shoes and such. So they are thousanths of an inch thick and shouldn't cause any problems. Most of them were on the trailing trucks of the last 4 under the cab of the loco and that has been removed for most of the testing here.
As for the movement of the trucks. All the springs work nicely. They all move up and down probably an 1/16th of an inch. Like I mentioned before they are all silky smooth and the running gear works flawlessly from what I can see.
Side to side movement. This is a whole nother story. There is little to no side to side movement with the axles. So little in face that I will have to get out a metal straight edge and some calipers to measure. It's tiny at best. Again I would say maybe 25% of the up and down movement it has with the springs. So not a lot there.
Paul, when you say I should do the glass test with paper. Is this with or without weight in the loco? I honestly think that was part of my problem was not enough weight in the loco when I ran it. I did push down on the top of the loco and hand ran it around the track and there is still binding, so I think it's more in the running gear than a weight issue. And without weight the #1 axle is a slight bit higher than the other axles. But minimal at best. Let me know if I should do the test on glass without or with weight and I will see.
Andre. I did not get a chance to ever run or see the model run. It was DC and I never had anything but DCC set up. So I should have. But the screws were factory painted over. I don't think anyone had it apart before me. And I was quite surgical when it came to making sure everything was installed. But.....it could have been a bad day and I could have thinking about taco's or something and missed something.
Could things be too tight in my running gear? It sure seems to run nice and smooth without the gearbox and such. Really free and nice. I'm just not sure where the issue could be. But after talking with all of you it's definitely sounding like it's in the axles somewhere. I'm just not sure how to correct it. I can pull it all apart again but.....
I will start with making sure the wheels are all on the same level. I was planning on cutting some weight out of the nose to house the decoder up there but after all this I think I will be loading as much weight as possible up there and mounting everything in the tender. Much more work and wiring but nothing I can't handle.
Thanks again for all your input guys, I really appreciate the help in diagnosing all this. I'm planning a trip back to Portland in March and am doing to take as many pictures as I can of the real thing to try to match it as exact as possible. Just hoping it's running by then so I can have it look as good on the track as it would sitting on my shelf as a paperweight right now! Hahaha!
I have been buying some brass steam from Howard Zane and have discussed some of these issues with him. He has clearly stated that during the time Westside and PFM were importing most of their models, the truth is that most people in the hobby did not have large radius curves,and that the models, including the articulateds, were actually designed to run on moderate radius curves. I have 28 inch radius easements into the 26.38 inch radius Kato curves. I actually am ok running vintage brass on those radii. It works. Now, I won't be trying the largest NP steamers, but there are plenty that will work including some 2-8-8-2's. Oriental Limited Powerhouse USRA articulateds are fine. I have tried them. PFM L-131 Rio Grande articulateds are ok. This says nothing about overhang or aesthetics, only that 30 inch or larger curves were rare back in the day.
MTH made a diecast HO SP Daylight 4-8-4. It is likely not as good of a model as the Westside version and has compromised smaller drivers, in between the SP and Western Pacific version. It will do tighter radii but runs fast and any abrupt change in superelevation may result in a derailment. I had to pay careful attention to fixing my superelevation to get it to be able to run at its maximum speed, which is faster than any brass model I now have.
Mike,With a lot of brass locos, there is a small hole drilled into the top of the bearing that acts as a cup for the spring. On the model I fixed, that hole was on the bottom. When the model ran into a track bump, or when the owner was putting down on the track in the first place, the bearing would get stuck up a bit and that was all it took.
On your model, try flexing the axles into the chassis by compressing the springs. The springs should freely and easily return the driver bearings all the way down to the bottom plate. The springs, BTW, are just there for electrical contact. They serve no other purpose, and should not be relied on for smoothing out track bumps.
One other trick to try is to put your loco on a level sheet of glass (and any flat glass will do, like a cheap 8x10" picture frame). Take a small piece of paper, card stock, or thin styrene, etc., and try to shove it under each wheelset, one at a time. The pressure or resistance should be equal each time, but especially so the wheels on the same axle. If the shim slides easily under one or more drivers, check the bearings to make sure they are all being forced down by the springs properly. One can also check the balance of the loco on the drivers (all steam locos should be balanced on the center of the driver set).
If one driver actually sticks down too far (which has also happened to me), you can shim the bearing up with a small piece of brass between the bottom plate and the bearing.
Sadly it could be any number of problems.
As a simple fix, try loading up a ton of LEAD into the front smoke box to put more weight towards the front drivers.
Unfortunately as beautiful and detailed as brass is, it can be finicky. Part of the problem is it's closer to the real thing. Articulids, for example, down allow the rear drivers to swing on brass. This creates enormous curve radiuses.To get larger steam engines around curves, modern mfg's emply a number of tricks. Blind drivers (like BLI's 2-10-4) and side to side wheel play. See if you have any side to side wheel play, and check your flanges for NMRA compliance.
I cannot get it to go around any curve. Not the small one, medium or outside 36" radius! It binds, throws the front wheels of the "8" part of the 4-8-4 off the track. Slow, fast, pulling, solo.....it will not go around any of the radius period.
To what degree have you checked the side play of the drivers? On an 8 coupled engine in a curve, the #2 and #3 axles should offset to the outside of the curve, while the #1 and #4 axles should offset to the inside. The less offset, the larger the required radius.
I only own 1 brass engine, a Westside SP GS-8 (ex Cotton Belt L1). This engine has a shorter rigid wheelbase than the GS-4. The prototype GS-4 had a 21' 6" wheelbase (including the 6" offset between the first and second axle to accommodate a lateral motion driving box which allowed more flexibility when rounding curves). The prototype L1/GS-8 had an 18' 9" rigid wheelbase and no lateral motion driving box. The drivers on the prototype L-1/GS-8 are 10" less in diameter than the GS-4.
The GS-8 I own is unmodified from its factory configuration. In the 40 odd years I've owned it, it's only been test run and it will easily go around a 30" curve. The gearbox is on the #2 axle. All drivers are sprung, but the geared axle doesn't have has much vertical play as the non-geared. I haven't measured how much each driver set will offset laterally, but it's enough cumulatively to allow a 30" radius with no problem. I haven't tested it on smaller radius, but it wouldn't surprise me if the GS-8 would go down to at least 28".
Do your drive axles move freely up and down as well as move easily from side to side? The geared axle should have some vertical movement as it was standard Westside construction to spring all drive axles. Did you test run the engine prior to doing all the work on the chassis to make sure it would take your curves? I ask that because it's possible that you could have introduced some lateral or vertical stiffness into one or more axles that precludes the engine from taking a curve it should be able to round with relative ease. You might also want to check out Mark Schutzer's website http://schutzer.net/ as he has extensive experience rebuilding brass engines as well as installing DCC in same.
I have one BLI engine from the initial run of the Santa Fe 3751 class. Like the GS-4, the 3751's, in their final configuration, had 80" drivers. One thing that's really obvious compared to the Westside GS-8 is that the BLI engine has at least twice the lateral sideplay in the drive system. It will go around a much sharper curve than the shorter wheelbase GS-4. Lateral sideplay is critical to getting a long wheelbase steam model around model railroad curves without problems. That's where I'd begin.
Andre
About allowing lots of 'side-play" in the valve gear and wheel-sets, the way they do that is to make the frame less wide than the prototype dimensions might require, and to make the driver axles a bit long. This allows the axles to slide laterally and to accommodate our necessarily tight curves. Then, further up and along, the wide axles allow the side rods, main rod, and valve gear to be almost laughably sloppy and floppy so that no binding takes places as the two center axles slide wide at the apex of the curve. Also splacers need to keep the inner faces of the rods away from the tire rims in the same circumstances.
What you could do, seeing as how you're apparently not faint-of-heart, and seriously wanting to deal with this problem, is to invert, cradle, and power the tender wheels with the loco. Give it some throttle and watch the drive train from above. Then, use a wooden toothpick or something to force one of the middle drivers well to one side, keeping it at the rim so as not to make contact with the rod and crank, and watch for unwelcome changes in motion, including contact or binding. You may see the problem.
Incorrectly installed springs or bushings for the drivers: they cause no end of problems.
I hope you solve it soon for your sake and so that you can report back about what you had to change. We can all stand reminders or to learn something from you.
richhotrain Now, someone will come along on this thread and say, Nonsense, I run 4-8-4 steam on 18" radius curves. Check that guy's medicine cabinet and you will see that he takes pills for migraines. Rich
Now, someone will come along on this thread and say, Nonsense, I run 4-8-4 steam on 18" radius curves. Check that guy's medicine cabinet and you will see that he takes pills for migraines.
Rich
18"? Why, that would be silly.
But PFM said my Tenshodo GN 4-8-4 (my first brass loco) would take 22". And it did. Snap-track, actually.
And you kids stay outa my medsin cabnet. Them pills are fer grownups!
Your post points out an important fact that many are unaware of or simply don't believe until someone shows them first hand. Just because Bachmann made a GS4 in 1980 that was poor quality, and just because the second version was only slightly better, those models have nothing to do with the current, completely retooled version made for the last 6-8 years now.
From 3 feet away, it's pretty hard to distinguish the Bachmann GS-4 from any other. The friend who hosted the Op session I attended yesterday also has a Bachmann "Warbaby" GS-4 (i.e. skirted, but in black). Unless you're right up on it, it's very hard to tell it's not a more expensive model.
Steam has no place on a SUBWAY LAYOUT.
Yes, the first elevated railways used steam, but these were little Forneys that could twist and turn their way along city tracks. They were never used underground except during the construction of the IRT in an age when diesels were not yet a gleam in Mr. Diesel's eye, and naturally before the electricity was yet installed in the tunnels.
London did use steam underground, but the British are well different. They probably do not breathe oxygen.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
5150WS6 Maybe the plastics are super sloppy?
As usual you are getting some excellent opinions from the group. As you know, brass can be finicky, and requires some extra skill and knowledge to get them reliable. Please don't abandoned steam yet, as many have mentioned, the current offerings of plastic/metal steam locos don't usually require a lot of work, most work right out of the box, some require some minor tweaks to help run on your particular layout or operating scheme. With that said, the newer model need some engineered "slop" in order to run on our sometimes unrealistic trackwork as far as radius. Richs formula is solid advice, and of course, I will be the guy that has an exception I have a logging layout, with 18" radius and one 15". I have the 2-6-6-2 Mantua Classics logger (no tender) simply because I have always wanted one. The loco has blind drivers, and much "slop" in the drive in order to negotiate tight radius. The only modification I had to do was to add weight to the front and rear pilot trucks to keep them from derailing.
This is an extreme example I know but remember that some some tolerences are designed into the plastic models to accomidate, I don't believe brass is this way and built to represent protoype accuracy, even though there may be blind drivers on these.
Keep it up, don't quit, and take your time. If you get frustrated walk away for a while and noodle it. It took me months to get a brass PFM shay with improved wipers, DCC sound equipped and installed front, rear and firbox flicker with keep alive installed. Now its the gem of my roster.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/