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
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!
Mike
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.
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.
Ed
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.
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.
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.
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?
5150WS6Now 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.
Moving the wheels outwards on the axles will most likely put them out of gauge. They are already tight on the track by the sounds of things.
Even if you only move them "a hair" they will have a tendancy to ride up on the rails, especially at the switches. You will go from binding to derailing.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Shoot. You're right. Not sure how I forgot about that part. Geez. Ok back to the drawing board!
Looking at sanding down bushings/bearings.Mike
If you pull the wheels, thinning down the bearings should be pretty simple. The trick is putting the wheels back.
Doing that has struck fear in the heart of modelers for over half a century. You likely will want to familiarize yourself with this (NWSL quartering jig):
As one who has disassembled brass diesels and had them run badly after I reassembled them I must respectfully suggest trying harder to find a good tech before commencing my own machine work. A good tech might have it all fixed up for a reasonable sum and less frustration.
Again, there was an MTH Daylight too. They should be out there...multiple runs. They smoke and light well.
PRR8259 I must respectfully suggest trying harder to find a good tech
Mike:
I am of two minds. On one hand I agree with Ed to seek professional help. On the other hand, if you are confident enough to improve the side play in the drivers yourself, then go for it. You will be taking a bit of a risk of course, but unless you take a cutting torch to the thing, you really can't destroy the locomotive. Yes, you may have to replace the bushings if you mess them up. Yes, you may have to re-inforce the frame if you remove too much of it. Neither of those tasks are insurmountable. Yes, you should invest some money in the proper tools, i.e. a NWSL wheel puller and Quarter. Personally, I would attempt the work myself just for the experience and enjoyment of having solved the problem on my own.
However, there is a perfect compromize between sending it away for repair and trying the repair on your own. What you really need before doing anything is sound, knowledgeable advice. For the love of Pete, contact Howard Zane!!!! What do you have to lose by talking to him?!?
http://cs.trains.com/members/howard-zane/default.aspx
Respectfully,
P.S.
I hope you understand that I am not trying to be disrespectful, but this thread is tearing me up! Can you tell? I refuse to ever let one of my locomotives become a shelf queen.
This old forum thread offers lots of great info on the model in question (spoiler - apparently they are known to need some more sideways movement in the drivers)
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/p/39915/507540.aspx
Guy
Clickable link.
5150WS6 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'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.
BLI makes excellent steam engines, including a model of 4449. You can get it with or without sound installed. Even if BLI doesn't currently have it in stock, I'd bet you could find it (for a lot less than list price) if you shop around.
http://www.broadway-limited.com/bli-2027nycj1ehudson4-6-45396cccandstlblockletteringparagon2sounddcdccho-1-2.aspx
You said "I have added small pieces of styrene painted black to any point that could even in a long shot touch or rub." Were any of these near the drivers, where it might inhibit the drivers from having any lateral / side-to-side play? Most engines need some play to get around curves.
What code rail are you using? If it's less than code 100, and you have a very old brass engine, it might be it has flanges that won't work on code 83 or code 70 track.
If you haven't tried it yet, I would take the earlier suggestion and get some Kato Unitrack or similar "click track" and try running the engine through a curve and see what happens. Layouts need to be fine-tuned for each engine running on it, and engine that never derails on the owner's home layout might derail on a friend's layout.
One thought for your ultimate plans.
IF you cannot make your Brass model take your reasonable curves, AND you purchase a quality current model that satisfys your need for a 4449....
What could you $ell the Bra$$ one for? (Self funding is a good thing!)
I have seen both the MTH and BLI Daylight. After some research I would probably lean towards the BLI but they are few and far between to find them. Even had a buddy at the LHS call BLI direct and they said they have no plans on rerunning the Daylight anytime soon. :(
I have had many brass steam engines in the past. Although I love the detail that can be done in brass the running gear leaves allot to deal with. Most mfgs. Never spent the time on the running ability of they're brass steam engines, IMO.
I never wanted to take the time and effort to get them to run like they should and trying to add dcc to older brass is a total waste of time IMO.
It would be best to shelf it and buy something more modern and save yourself all the frustration of trying to get it to run correctly.
I'm sort of regretting the fact that you might be right David. What sucks is I have it remotored, decoder installed with lights and sound all ready to go. Sort of sucks to get to this point to have to rip everything out and scrap the idea. But unfortunately it's looking more and more like something I might just do.
Would the locomotive perform better on a wider radius curves?
And, if so, do you have the room to widen the curves?
Rich
Alton Junction
I just did a search on all three pages of this thread. While plenty of people mentioned checking the wheels with an NMRA gauge, I did not find any mention of the OP actually doing that.
Did I miss it somewhere, or has that still not been done?
Central--I'm sorry I forgot to mention that. I did check the wheels and the track. Both are correct as far as the gauge.
Rich--I wish I could expand, but I'm already pushing the limits of the garage as it is. No room for wider. And as far as we are along I wouldn't tear up a railroad layout just for one loco to run around the widest loop. I'd keep it as a paperweight. I can't do high maintenance locos! LOL!
I sent Howard Zane a PM asking for his advice. He has had no direct experience with your particular locomotive although he was aware of it. He suggested getting in touch with "...a real expert..." Jan Willard. I have his phone number. I will send you a PM.
The largest minimum radius I've ever seen for an HO engine was a CP 2-10-4 that needed 30"R curves - although, in a review, it easily went around Kato Unitrack 28"R curves. If this engine won't go around a 36"R curve, there's something wrong with it. Even if you had the room, I wouldn't consider increasing my curve radius.
Before giving up, I'd take it / send it to someone else to look at. Sometimes when working on something we just get too close to it, and overlook something that might prove obvious to a fresh set of eyes.
p.s. I'm still wondering if any of those black styrene pieces you added to prevent shorts were anywhere near the wheels, and could be restricting lateral play?
Dave, thanks for the PM. My frustration level with the loco is growing again and my time is just too tight these days to spend much more time messing with it. I will get in touch with Jan and see what he says. Thanks for that!
Stix
No, as mentioned before the styrene pieces were on the trailing "4" wheels and those have been removed. The only thing on the track is the "8" of the 4-8-4. And the "8" didnt have any styrene in them. So that shouldn't be a factor.
Think I'm going to just send it off. I'm frustrated and would rather spend what time I have running or working on scenery than just continually smashing my head into a wall over it. And I confirmed with Broadway Limited. They have NO plans of rerunning the Daylight. So that option is out.
5150SWS6,
Based on the discussion, this is a case where the right experience guy watching it run will likely tell you right away what is wrong and what can be done to make it right.
the notion that it works on straight sections, but derails on curves is pointing to something specific. The drivers need the leading and trailing trucks to turn with any speed. 0-x-0 switchers were limited in speed running.
I do not remember anyone asking about the number of flanged drivers. If all four wheels on each side have flanges, then there has to be some side to side play in the driver wheels. This can cause problems with the driver rods. Another way that these were set up to do curves was to leave the flanges off the center set of drivers. on a x-8-x the second and third drivers would be flange less. The flanges are creating two straight lines. If you have four flanges, that put four points on that line. This conflicts with the curve arc. The result will be a derailment, likely the front wheels. Side to side movement allows the drivers to creat an arc, more consistent with the curve arc. If the middle flangs are removed, the two points left on the line do not cause a bind unless the curve is very sharp.
Just a thought, hope it helps.
So many trains, so little time,
Larry
www.llxlocomotives.com
5150WS6 Stix And I confirmed with Broadway Limited. They have NO plans of rerunning the Daylight. So that option is out.
And I confirmed with Broadway Limited. They have NO plans of rerunning the Daylight. So that option is out.
Well, AHM/Rivarossi haven't made any HO passenger cars in 20 years, but I just bought one last month. If you search around the web, train shows, hobby shops, etc. long enough, you'll find one.