What have you done to make Walthers passenger cars run reliably on 24" radii?

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Lastspikemike

Run without diaphragms.

 

So do we lock the passengers in their one car or let them jump across?

Sheldon

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

richhotrain

Whatever the modeler chooses to do, he has to solve the snagging issue where the diaphragm on the end of one car catches on the diaphragm on the end of another car.

Rich

 

If the diaphragm faces are touching, and they stay in contact with each other without becoming totally misaligned, then they will not snag.

This is where EASEMENTS are very important, they limit the "offset" of the two car ends going in and out of the curves. 

This is also why I use the same diaphragm and coupler setup on all brands of cars, consistant relationships between the cars are important for trouble free operation.

As is adequate size curves.........

The late great Paul Mallery of model railroad fame back in the day (multiple books on trackwork, electrical wiring, etc) suggested that 48" radius should be the minimum in HO for a modeling Class I railroads.......

Interesting that the modular layout standard is 48" radius - wish I had that kind of space......

Actually, with 36" as my minimum mainline, and having a double track/multi track design, most of my curves are more in the 40" range........

I will try to post some more pictures tonight.

Sheldon

[richhotrain]

Whatever the modeler chooses to do, he has to solve the snagging issue where the diaphragm on the end of one car catches on the diaphragm on the end of another car.

Rich

[BurlingtonNorthern2264]

I have considerd using AL diaphragms for my older passenger cars at some point, I might get a few to make my old ones up-to date.

[richhotrain]

Good info, Sheldon.   

Rich

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

richhotrain

 

 

Trainman440

I dont like long shank couplers as that creates a gap between the diaphragms. 

 

 

 

Yep, that can be a problem. We need Sheldon to chime in here. He is a big advocate of flexible diaphragms, the brand name of which I do not recall. He claims that these flexible diaphragms look totally prototypical and that the cars don't snag on each other. Hmmm.

 

Rich

 

OK, I avoided this thread just based on the topic, because my knee jerk reaction in like Paul3, only worse. 

Dave, I think the world of you, but 85' passengers just don't belong on 24" radius curves..........

I use American Limited diaphragms.

http://www.americanlimitedmodels.com/ho-passenger-car-diaphragms/

 

Here they are on some ConCor 72' cars:

 

Not sure I have much to offer here, my 72' passenger cars will not even run on 24" radius curves after I body mount the couplers, close couple them, and install the diaphragms.

When I body mount the couplers, I do use long shank Kadee's, set way back to close couple the cars.

I have only tested them down to about 28" radius, and Atlas #4 (4.5) Custom Line turnouts.

I run them on 36" rdaius with easements and #6 and #8 turnouts.

I do have some 80' heavyweights, Bachmann and Branchline, that are set up the same way as my 72' Athearn and ConCor stuff. They run fine on my 36" radius and larger curves, never really tested them any sharper.

I don't own any 85' streamlined cars, I don't own any Walthers passenger cars except for one 60' RPO, actually made by Rivarossi for them 15 years ago or more.

I run mostly the Athearn and ConCor 72' cars because of appearance on curves, and because for me, the always touching, working diaphragms are very important appearance wise.

We selectively compress all sorts of things, I have no problem with selectively compressed long equipment to go with our selectively compressed curves.

And yes, even 36" radius is pretty "selectively compressed" for a class I mainline.

The Americam Limited diaphragms work just like the diaphragms on the Proto2000 diesels. You have to build them, but it is really not that hard. They make various versions for different brands of equipment.

But on my Athearn and CoCor passenger cars I actually slice off the molded on "door frame/dummy diaphragm" and mount the diaphragm prototypically which allows closer coupling, very close to scale distances.

Any of you familiar with the ConCor cars will be able to look at the photo above and see where I removed the molded on dummy diaphragm.

Here is an Athearn Heavyweight:

If it was me, and I was stuck with 24" radius, I would be running what I run, but with the stock talgo trucks - Athearn and ConCor 72' cars.

Sorry I don't have any photos of my coupler setup or closeups of the diaphragms.

One final thought before Paul3 scolds me again for my "toy like" passengers cars (of course I think big gaps between the cars make them all look toy like), not every car on the prototype was 80' or 85' long.

I won't list them all, but you might be surprised at some of the cars that were not 80' long - like SP Daylights, some early ATSF streamliners, Harriman cars, many coaches and combines on many roads, a number of office cars, just to name a few.  

Sorry I'm not more help.

Sheldon  

 

[mlehman]

selector

Nope. No it isn't. If a newcomer pays the price for those otherwise nice cars, and then learns he's been fibbed to, it's a great opportunity to learn something.

Barring a bitter experience by plunging ahead without doing some due diligence, they could read this thread or the many others and realize a fundamental fact of the hobby. Minimum radius is no guarnatee of actual performance, just what might be possible on a good day with the wind at your back.

The trick is to limit the hands on and fail portion of the festivities so that it doesn't discourage a much needed adjustment to a second version of the trackplan to more realistically suit your desires for prototype traffic.

I'm not going to diss Walthers, They're simply stating things in the way they've traditionally been, which is not as an absolute guarantee of performance. Every layout is different is just the start of the difficulty in defining that value (min R), but one should expect some difficulties that may need to be addressed when pushing at the defined limit. I'm pretty sure all my Walthers cars can handle 24" R side tracks, after some adjusting in many cases, but generally living up to the expectations they set for me.

[selector]

mlehman

The finger-wagging over using 24" curves is warranted...

Nope.  No it isn't.  If a newcomer pays the price for those otherwise nice cars, and then learns he's been fibbed to, it's a great opportunity to learn something.  But no finger wagging until he/she has failed to seize that opportunity to learn.  

If there's any finger wagging to be done, point it at Walthers.

[selector]

Paul3

Or, you know, if people want to run 85' passenger cars reliably, they could try designing layouts with larger curves to accommodate them...or not run 85' long cars at all.  When I built my old layout, I specifically designed it for full-length passenger car operations and used nothing less than 30" radius curves and nothing less than a #6 switch.  That worked great with my fleet of passenger cars.

And no, I'm not boasting, just trying to get across the idea that we modelers should temper our wants with reality...

I was foolish, uneducated, and naive.  I actually trusted Walthers' advertized specs for performance on their heavyweights.  Silly me.  Now that I have been fooled twice...(the second time was with their claimed inner radius for their #7 curved turnouts.  I think I can still hear them laughing if I try.)

[mlehman]

SeeYou190

So, I use drawbars to connect the passenger cars...SNIP...Coupling and uncoupling cars is a real pain. I do not have any pictures, because I have not completed but a couple of test cars, but the system works. It looks ok on 30" curves, and will stay together on my 22" hidden curves.

22" hidden curves!?! That's indeed tweaking the dragon's nose with anything long.

[richhotrain]

Trainman440

 

richhotrain 

Trainman440

I dont like long shank couplers as that creates a gap between the diaphragms.  

Yep, that can be a problem. We need Sheldon to chime in here. He is a big advocate of flexible diaphragms, the brand name of which I do not recall. He claims that these flexible diaphragms look totally prototypical and that the cars don't snag on each other. Hmmm. 

Rich 

Id assume its American Limited? That's like the one and only diaphragm company I know...and heard good things about. 

That's it.   

Rich

[Trainman440]

richhotrain

 

 

Trainman440

I dont like long shank couplers as that creates a gap between the diaphragms. 

 

 

 

Yep, that can be a problem. We need Sheldon to chime in here. He is a big advocate of flexible diaphragms, the brand name of which I do not recall. He claims that these flexible diaphragms look totally prototypical and that the cars don't snag on each other. Hmmm.

 

Rich

 

Id assume its American Limited? That's like the one and only diaphragm company I know...and heard good things about. 

I think Walthers diaphragms are fine though, as long as they spring in and out theyre good enough for me. I need to buy some American Limited diaphragms to replace some branchline and Rivarossi cars though. 

[SeeYou190]

richhotrain

He is a big advocate of flexible diaphragms, the brand name of which I do not recall. He claims that these flexible diaphragms look totally prototypical and that the cars don't snag on each other. Hmmm.

I am also a big advocate of flexible diaphrams.

Mine do not look completely prototypical, and they do not allow operation...

My passenger trains are run as "units". They run through the scene only, no operations, and no changing cars.

So, I use drawbars to connect the passenger cars and a single flexible diaphram between the cars held in place by a pair of small rare earth magnets. The diaphram is permanenty fastened to one car and magnetized to the other. The wires for lighting pass through the diaphrams.

Coupling and uncoupling cars is a real pain.

I do not have any pictures, because I have not completed but a couple of test cars, but the system works. It looks ok on 30" curves, and will stay together on my 22" hidden curves.

-Kevin

[BurlingtonNorthern2264]

I'm currrently going to get long shank replacement couplers to put on my upcoming passenger cars instead, but if this is an easier solution I'd like some information.

FYI the passenger cars I'm getting are from the earlier run of Empire Builder passenger cars in 2007, rather than the most recent 2014 run.

[BurlingtonNorthern2264]

Trainman440

Hi! Good question!

I've had good success by trimming/removing the center frame of the trucks. These allow me to run them on my 22" radius. (I know, they look really bad on it, but you gotta do what you gotta do)

I dont like long shank couplers as that creates a gap between the diaphragms. 

I trim the center frame for lightweights, and remove on heavyweights. I obviously try to trim as little as possible:

Here's a video of them running at speed on my 22" radius oval without fault:

I also make sure the trucks arent too tight, coupler boxes swing freely enough, and make sure the cars are weighted enough. 

I have yet to come across a car that I couldnt make reliably travel across my curves, but if I do, I will have to resort to using long shank couplers (in addition). 

Cheers!

Charles

 

That sounds interesting? What exactly do you do to the trucks, since I've never owned a Walthers streamlined passenger car other than the Superliners. Maybe a step-by-step guide or comparison picture before/after would help me see what you did better.

[riogrande5761]

richhotrain

 

gmpullman

I'm blessed with wide enough curves that I havent encountered any problems. 

 

In my experience, that means 36" radius or broader. Anything less than 36" radius requires some compromises, like longer couplers, etc.

Rich

You've had to replace couplers even on 32-inch curves?

[mlehman]

The finger-wagging over using 24" curves is warranted, but it is possible to make them run with enough effort and sometimes outright hacking.

The luxury of 30" would be nice, but often hard to justify for the space taken. Things designed to run on 24" R do tend to run OK straight out of the box on 30" R. That said, you can often gain much of what is achived with 30" R by going just a little wider than 24" R. I went with either 26" or 28" - right now my memory is rusty on that. After a little work, everything long runs reliably

Another thing about some of the fixes offered here for axhieving 24" R is that some issues can show up evern if you have the larger curves. The burrs on the screw heads is one of them, although as R increases, it becomes less of an issue. It's just random enough that it should be checked if you have issues, even if you're running larger than 24" min R.

[mbinsewi]

Trainman440

I've had good success by trimming/removing the center frame of the trucks

That what I did to make them work on 24" r.

Mike.

[richhotrain]

gmpullman

I'm blessed with wide enough curves that I havent encountered any problems. 

In my experience, that means 36" radius or broader. Anything less than 36" radius requires some compromises, like longer couplers, etc.

Rich

[richhotrain]

Trainman440

I dont like long shank couplers as that creates a gap between the diaphragms. 

Yep, that can be a problem. We need Sheldon to chime in here. He is a big advocate of flexible diaphragms, the brand name of which I do not recall. He claims that these flexible diaphragms look totally prototypical and that the cars don't snag on each other. Hmmm.

Rich

[Trainman440]

Hi! Good question!

I've had good success by trimming/removing the center frame of the trucks. These allow me to run them on my 22" radius. (I know, they look really bad on it, but you gotta do what you gotta do)

I dont like long shank couplers as that creates a gap between the diaphragms. 

I trim the center frame for lightweights, and remove on heavyweights. I obviously try to trim as little as possible:

Here's a video of them running at speed on my 22" radius oval without fault:

I also make sure the trucks arent too tight, coupler boxes swing freely enough, and make sure the cars are weighted enough. 

I have yet to come across a car that I couldnt make reliably travel across my curves, but if I do, I will have to resort to using long shank couplers (in addition). 

Cheers!

Charles

[gmpullman]

richhotrain

Although the use of longer couplers is often the answer, there is an unavoidable disadvantage associated with doing so. It becomes more difficult to backup the passenger cars.

Longer shank couplers have been mentioned here but I would try these longer draft gear pieces first.

https://www.walthers.com/long-shank-extended-drawbar-20-pack

I noticed at about the time the B&O Capitol Limited cars were coming out, maybe four or five years ago, that Walthers was supplying these taped to the underside of the packaging.

Proto_truck2 by Edmund, on Flickr

Also included was another "cover plate" but I don't know if changing this out is necessary or not. The "extended shank" is only about .085 longer but I presume the designers knew what they were doing.

Using the longer draft gear may help with the backing up issue?

Short of that Walthers offers a whole Talgo-style truck:

https://www.walthers.com/streamlined-passenger-trucks-w-talgo-couplers-pkg-2

I imagine to use these you would eliminate the draft gear box, or cover, which is held on by the two screws.

I'm blessed with wiide enough curves that I havent encountered any problems. I think I did have to do a little tune-up work on one of the huge "Super Dome" cars but I don't recall exactly what I did to improve those particular cars.

Good Luck, Ed

[riogrande5761]

Paul3

Or, you know, if people want to run 85' passenger cars reliably, they could try designing layouts with larger curves to accommodate them...or not run 85' long cars at all.  When I built my old layout, I specifically designed it for full-length passenger car operations and used nothing less than 30" radius curves and nothing less than a #6 switch.  That worked great with my fleet of passenger cars.

I agree with the above.  A 9 car passenger train of 85' cars on a 4x8 oval would be an exercise in frustration if they can even be made to run at all.

And no, I'm not boasting, just trying to get across the idea that we modelers should temper our wants with reality. 

Time for a father Ted meme.

[richhotrain]

Paul3

Or, you know, if people want to run 85' passenger cars reliably, they could try designing layouts with larger curves to accommodate them...or not run 85' long cars at all.  When I built my old layout, I specifically designed it for full-length passenger car operations and used nothing less than 30" radius curves and nothing less than a #6 switch.  That worked great with my fleet of passenger cars.

And no, I'm not boasting, just trying to get across the idea that we modelers should temper our wants with reality.  If you only have layout space for small curves, don't run 80'+ cars (freight or passenger).  If you want to run long cars, find a layout space that can handle that or change the layout design.  Maybe go point-to-point vs. a loop. 

Yep, good points, Paul. Even though my own layout is fairly large and the curves are moderately broad at 32" radius, I use #6 turnouts. I would be better served using #8 turnouts, especially on the station ladder where derailments are most likely to occur.

Rich

[Paul3]

Or, you know, if people want to run 85' passenger cars reliably, they could try designing layouts with larger curves to accommodate them...or not run 85' long cars at all.  When I built my old layout, I specifically designed it for full-length passenger car operations and used nothing less than 30" radius curves and nothing less than a #6 switch.  That worked great with my fleet of passenger cars.

And no, I'm not boasting, just trying to get across the idea that we modelers should temper our wants with reality.  If you only have layout space for small curves, don't run 80'+ cars (freight or passenger).  If you want to run long cars, find a layout space that can handle that or change the layout design.  Maybe go point-to-point vs. a loop.

[richhotrain]

Although the use of longer couplers is often the answer, there is an unavoidable disadvantage associated with doing so. It becomes more difficult to backup the passenger cars.

When I am feeling lazy, I sometimes back a passenger train into one of the station's stub end tracks. But, as I noted, there is always a risk that a car will derail, leading to a chain reaction with the other cars in the consist, a form of stringlining if I am using the term correctly.

Rich

 

[nealknows]

This sounds great for the traditional 85' passenger cars, but what about the Amfleet and Horizon cars? They have a different type of truck. I've tried loosening the trucks, adjusting the bolsters, but to no avail. Any suggestions?

Thanks!

Neal

[mbinsewi]

richhotrain

They merely need some tweaking to perform flawlessly.

I'll have to try your method, from the other thread, on a couple of Walthers cars that I haven't attacked yet.

Previously, I had to cut away some under frame to get the trucks to swing enough for a 24" r.

Mike.

[richhotrain]

Hope springs eternal. 

Overall, the Walthers 85' passenger cars are very nice pieces of rolling stock. It is worth the effort to "tune" them up. There is really no good reason to avoid them.

Rich

[hon30critter]

I just read through the 2008 thread that Hrjove posted the link to, and it has a lot of good suggestions. Here is a summary of the issues mentioned in that thread, some of which have already been noted above (thanks again for the link Hrvoje):

- loosen the truck screws,

- check wheel guage,

- check the screws on the truck frames for burrs (already suggested by Mike Lehman),

- lubricate the axles (already mentioned),

- put thin styrene on the diaphram striker plates,

- trucks hitting center sill,

- trucks hitting the coupler box,

- twisted trucks caused by overly tightened truck assembly screws,

- improperly seated contact strips.

It seems that the Walthers cars have a lot of potential problems, but several people on the 2008 thread and above have managed to get the cars to run properly so there is hope!

Dave