What in the coupler appears to be causing the derailments? Trip pin catching? I don't use magnets to uncouple so mine are bent up more than the minimum to clear the Kadee gauge. Lifting the trailing car under load? Might just be a bad coupler, with the pulling face not flat, or a mold part line.
Wheels all properly gauged? Trucks screwed on too hard? One end should swivel freely, but not rock, the other should be a tiny bit looser so it can rock slightly. Too tight and the truck can't swivel to follow curves, too loose and the car will wobble like the Toonerville Trolley.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinker What in the coupler appears to be causing the derailments? Trip pin catching? I don't use magnets to uncouple so mine are bent up more than the minimum to clear the Kadee gauge. Lifting the trailing car under load? Might just be a bad coupler, with the pulling face not flat, or a mold part line. Wheels all properly gauged? Trucks screwed on too hard? One end should swivel freely, but not rock, the other should be a tiny bit looser so it can rock slightly. Too tight and the truck can't swivel to follow curves, too loose and the car will wobble like the Toonerville Trolley.
I am on my way down to the layout, so I will get back to you with a more definitive response to your questions.
But for now, I am not totally sure what in the coupler assembly or installation is causing derailments. I long ago began a practice of clipping the trip bins to avoid entanglements and also to avoid catching the trip bin on obstacles between the rails such as grade crossings. It may be that the coupler is lifting the trailing car under load.
One issue is close coupling on passenger cars where the diaphragms snag each other, but I have pretty much solved that problem by using long center shank couplers, prototypicality be damned.
Regarding the trucks, I will check wheel gauge on offending equipment. I have never heard of the swivel that you mention. I find this comment interesting, "one end should swivel freely, but not rock, the other should be a tiny bit looser so it can rock slightly". I will definitely look into that issue.
Rich
Alton Junction
One issue that I perhaps need to consider is weight. What effect does weight have on derailments?
Sometimes it is manufacture error. It can be so slight that most people would never know. BLI has an NW2 that has a problem with the frame, the hole for the truck is slightly off I think (well documented problem but the hole placement is my best guess). Had a truck one time that was slightly off on a boxcar (easy fix) but to see what was causing it you had to look real close to notice the very slight tilt on one side.
richhotrainMost of my locos, freight cars and passenger cars run flawlessly and consistently. Yet, a few freight and passenger cars derail on occasion, not often but once is too many. Also, a couple of locos that derail, especially in consists.
On the Scale Rails of Southwest Florida HO scale boxcar layout, there was one turnout where one of the club-owned diesel locomotives would derail frequently.
No other locomotive derailed at this turnout, and the locomotive did not derail anywhere else. No one could figure it out.
I remember the day well when club president, Roger W., through the locomotive into the canal that ran next to the clubhouse.
Problem solved.
richhotrainWhat effect does weight have on derailments?
I cannot answer this question other than to say that once I took car weight seriously, I had fewer derailments. Of course other factors were addressed the same time as the weight, so I cannot say what had the greatest impact.
I do not follow the complicated NMRA guidelines... my freight cars are precisely weighted like this:
40 feet and under: 4 ounces
41-59 feet: 5 ounces
60 feet and up: 6 ounces
All cabooses: 5 ounces
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Too light of a car can derail much easier than one with some weight to it. Doesn't even have to be up to NMRA recommendations. One of my favorite cars when I was but a wee lad had a "weight" in it that was virtually pointless. It was as light as air, I swear. It was one of my lightest cars and derailed constantly. My dad popped it open and melted a bunch of solder on the weight in the car making it much much heavier. It was like a different car altogether. Derailments with it virtually vanished.
It was the only change made to the car, so I was convinced.
Mike
rrebellSometimes it is manufacture error. It can be so slight that most people would never know. BLI has an NW2 that has a problem with the frame, the hole for the truck is slightly off I think (well documented problem but the hole placement is my best guess).
Yes the old GSB SD40-2 had endemic tracking problems and one of the Athearn Blue Box SDs did as well, either the SD45 or the SDP40. The old Athearn Blue Box 40' quad hopper was notorious for needing to be overweighted to run right - just something about the physics.
I thought my benchwork and trackwork was pretty bulletproof too but had issues, some of which were due to learning that some Peco turnouts have gauge and flangeway issues. Also I bought a small level, circular and about as big around as a half dollar, with the bubble in the center. I moved it around the track and the benchwork and learned there were all sorts of variations. Then on a whim I took a larger level to the basement floor and made even more discoveries! Sometimes perfect bulletproof benchwork and trackwork nonetheless are transmitting upwards oddities about the floor.
Dave Nelson
If everything is relative, does that mean relativity is an absolute?
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
A laser level on a tripod is the only way to set up a layout.
I rented one in the past. They are inexpensive enough now that I own one.
SeeYou190I do not follow the complicated NMRA guidelines... my freight cars are precisely weighted like this: 40 feet and under: 4 ounces 41-59 feet: 5 ounces 60 feet and up: 6 ounces All cabooses: 5 ounces
I use this exact same schedule.
Terry
Terry in NW Wisconsin
Queenbogey715 is my Youtube channel
dknelsonAlso I bought a small level, circular and about as big around as a half dollar, with the bubble in the center. I moved it around the track and the benchwork and learned there were all sorts of variations.
I also used a flat bubble level but I stepped it up a notch and got one of these:
Digital_level1 by Edmund, on Flickr
It is handy for calculating grades, too:
Digital_level by Edmund, on Flickr
I was amazed, too, at how many areas had dips and high spots that I couldn't see. Laying a good straight edge on the rail head will also find lows and highs.
SeeYou190A laser level on a tripod is the only way to set up a layout.
I agree. It is also handy for aligning track around a turntable:
Laser_RR by Edmund, on Flickr
This little guy is pretty handy around the layout.
Laser_RRtt by Edmund, on Flickr
I suggested a laser-level in one of the threads here a while back and was pretty much told to go soak my head, phoo-phoo. I backed into the corner and left the REAL modeling up to the experts.
I recently bought a dozen of the Broadway Limited P70 coaches and had some derailment issues. It didn't take long for me to figure out that the trucks were too stiff to give any roll axis movement. Adjusting them required shaving plastic off the bolster because they were designed to "snap" into the pivot hole and the clips were too snug.
Likewise, the Walthers Proto cars require a little work since the trucks ride on the metal pickup "pads" and can inhibit roll axis movement. Sometimes passing a good mill file over the heads of the four screws on the trucks will help.
I've never noticed any derailment problems caused by coupler issues. I run lots of long passenger trains on slightly tighter curves (30" min.) and don't recall any issues.
I trimmed all my trip pins, too, more for appearance rather than any operating issues.
Good Luck, Ed
gmpullman I backed into the corner and left the REAL modeling up to the experts.
I will never be a REAL model railroader.
Ed: I think that is the base for the Cornerstone Modern Roundhouse in your picture. If it is, can you let me know the diameter, in approximate inches, of your turntable?
I don't think that level track, or the absence therof, is my problem. But, it is good to raise the issue for others who are following this thread.
My problems seem to be coupler related and truck related. That said, I still cannot figure out what the problems are. The derailment problems are limited to just a few locos and passenger cars.
I don't know that 'bullet-proof' is achievable. It may be 99.9% there, but in my limited experience there will be one engine or car that will derail somewhere along the system. In fact, it's just a fact of life for me that when I get a new type of locomotive, I expect it to act 'homesick'. It balks at something and refuses to budge past it. It takes me anywhere from a few minutes to a whole day to figure it out, but often it's the tracks, and not the locomotive. I usually find that the outer rail on a curve dips just enough over four or six inches to allow the lead axle's outer flange to slip sideways and outside the gauge. Or, at the back, there's the opposite, a rise, and that levers the entire frame high on that side, thus causing the same issue for that lead outer flange.
I used this little level until I downloaded an APP to my phone that is a level and measures grades.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
If you're sure about the trackwork, start checking for truck issues.
richhotrainMy temptation is to just toss these few cars.
Derailments are rarely caused by the car as a whole. Replacement of the offending trucks or wheelsets usually cures the problem. If all else has failed for me, I will often install Kadee HGC trucks. They require filing down the body bolster to create a flat bearing surface, and have an insert that places all responsibility for truck motion on the truck itself. I've had a few cars that were difficult to tune up that have become reliable thanks to the Kadee trucks.
As for coupler issues, they're usually simple to fix with some judicious filing or use of graphite lubrication. In only a few cases have I replaced the draft gear. High quality draft gear from someplace like Moloco might do the trick.
Rob Spangler
richhotrain...in a few cases, I continue to struggle to find the cause and to correct it. My temptation is to just toss these few cars. Any thoughts on how to proceed? Rich
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
SeeYou190Ed: I think that is the base for the Cornerstone Modern Roundhouse in your picture. If it is, can you let me know the diameter, in approximate inches, of your turntable?
I'll take some measurements shortly, Kevin. New thread started in Layouts & Layout building.
Thank you, Ed
selector I don't know that 'bullet-proof' is achievable. It may be 99.9% there, but in my limited experience there will be one engine or car that will derail somewhere along the system. In fact, it's just a fact of life for me that when I get a new type of locomotive, I expect it to act 'homesick'. It balks at something and refuses to budge past it. It takes me anywhere from a few minutes to a whole day to figure it out, but often it's the tracks, and not the locomotive. I usually find that the outer rail on a curve dips just enough over four or six inches to allow the lead axle's outer flange to slip sideways and outside the gauge. Or, at the back, there's the opposite, a rise, and that levers the entire frame high on that side, thus causing the same issue for that lead outer flange.
Pruitt richhotrain ...in a few cases, I continue to struggle to find the cause and to correct it. My temptation is to just toss these few cars. Any thoughts on how to proceed? Rich With exactly that plan. Or sell them on ebay. After a certain amount of time (in my case a few hours of messing around with the offending car) you reach the point of diminshing returns. It's just better to smash the car (very theraputic!) or drop it in the trash can or sell it - anything to get it out of your hair! Then move on.
richhotrain ...in a few cases, I continue to struggle to find the cause and to correct it. My temptation is to just toss these few cars. Any thoughts on how to proceed? Rich
With exactly that plan. Or sell them on ebay. After a certain amount of time (in my case a few hours of messing around with the offending car) you reach the point of diminshing returns. It's just better to smash the car (very theraputic!) or drop it in the trash can or sell it - anything to get it out of your hair! Then move on.
One other thing not mentioned, and I dunno if it's comparatively rare or if it happens more than most of us realize:
The flanges all have to run line-astern when they enter a turnout and get near the guards. They may be in gauge, but they don't really line up if you eyeball them from the back...or the front, whichever.
If you invert the loco, and press all the axles in any one truck to the side, you should find that the flanges are very closely in line. Graphically:
<==)(=======)(==>
<=)(=======)(===>
Both axles are the same length, and both wheelsets ARE in gauge, but.....well....
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
[/quote]
SeeYou190 No other locomotive derailed at this turnout, and the locomotive did not derail anywhere else. No one could figure it out. I remember the day well when club president, Roger W., through the locomotive into the canal that ran next to the clubhouse. Problem solved. -Kevin
I couldnt't tell ya how many times I've resorted to this kind of method to solve any number of operational problems. (Spaced out over many years though)
As mentioned further down, smashing a delinquent piece of equipment CAN be very theraputic. But only after all other known possibled cures have been tried. Dan
I cannot tell you how much that thought appeals to me.
I can’t add to all the good tips you’ve already received Rich. Running exhibition layouts (when there were such things as Train Shows) required bullet proof equipment and I made it a point that none of my stuff was removed due to poor running qualities, in fact I quite like fettling rolling stock.That said I do have one box car that will only run in one direction, don’t ask me why!! What to do with a recalcitrant piece of rolling stock… http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/228055.aspx?sortorder=desc Unfortunately Photobucketitius has struck not only on this past thread but is worse on other similar threads. Cheers, the Bear.
There was an answer in MR Clinic years ago to a question about a layout where one freight car derailed in the same place constantly.
The answer was that the greater likelihood was that the root problem was in the freight car rather than the trackage.
I remember that well, because it was printed at the same time we were having problems with that one locomotive on the Scale Rails of Southwest Florida HO scale boxcar layout, and it did not help at all!
We checked that turnout with the NMRA gauge over and over again... nothing we could detect.
CASE STUDY: I have two identical Life Like PA/PB consists. One runs perfectly around the entire layout either as a consist, just the PA loco, or the PA/PB pullings a 7-car passenger consist. However the other PA/PB consist cannot make it around the layout in one spot. Every other loco that I own own, steamer, 4-wheel diesel, 6-wheel diesel, has absolutely no problem. So, correct me if I am wrong, but the problem has to be the front truck which is the one that derails. Where do I go from here?
richhotrain CASE STUDY: I have two identical Life Like PA/PB consists. One runs perfectly around the entire layout either as a consist, just the PA loco, or the PA/PB pullings a 7-car passenger consist. However the other PA/PB consist cannot make it around the layout in one spot. Every other loco that I own own, steamer, 4-wheel diesel, 6-wheel diesel, has absolutely no problem. So, correct me if I am wrong, but the problem has to be the front truck which is the one that derails. Where do I go from here? Rich
Check the wheel gauge.
Check for smooth lateral motion of all the axles, three axle trucks need lateral motion.
Remove the shell. Set the loco on a smooth hard surface, steer the trucks feeling for any binding or limitation that seems not right.
Also check that all the wheels are setting on the hard surface.
Flip the loco upside down in your hand. Steer each truck from side to side, tilting it side to side and front to back as uneven track might do. You are looking for any kind of bind or limitation that seems within the required range of motion.
Run the loco with the shell off, watch the gear towers for unusual movement as it goes thru the offending area of track.
Check to make sure drive shafts are not bottoming out in their sockets when the truck turns or moves. A socket may not be all the way on its shaft.
Sheldon
There was a past effort to do an inventory of causes of derailments :
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/p/264737/3012077.aspx
Simon
UPDATE: I did two things to try and narrow down the problem.
First, I ran the problem PA loco in reverse several times over the section of track in question. No problem. But, it cannot get through without derailing in the forward position.
Second, I took some photos of both PAs. I have to say, it just feels funny to reposition the problem PA when I grasp the truck. Anyhow, here is the good PA front truck.
The top of the truck appears to be level with the bottom of the shell. In the next photo, the problem truck appears to sag toward the front of the loco. Notice the missing part? It fell off during testing, but I doubt that has anything to do with the problem.
I haven't yet the other tests that Sheldon has suggested, but I will and I will report back. Any thoughts on these photos?
Is replacing the truck an option here? The Proto 2000 PA has been discontinued for a long time, but are there sources for replacement parts?
Rich, you may have a warped truck frame, I may have spare. I have five powered Proto PA's and some spare parts.
It does look to me like the loco with the problem is not sitting correctly on the truck bolster, but it could just be the camera angle.
Also, how old are these? Blue boxes or silver boxes? I don't know how much if any Walthers changed them when they released the silver box versions.
Older LifeLike production versions can be found on Ebay, usually NOS, at reasonable prices.
I will check out what I have.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Rich, you may have a warped truck frame, I may have spare. I have five powered Proto PA's and some spare parts. It does look to me like the loco with the problem is not sitting correctly on the truck bolster, but it could just be the camera angle. Also, how old are these? Blue boxes or silver boxes? I don't know how much if any Walthers changed them when they released the silver box versions. Older LifeLike production versions can be found on Ebay, usually NOS, at reasonable prices. I will check out what I have. Sheldon
Life-Like Products
PROTO 2000 PA Locomotive -- ATSF #73 w/mars light & dynamic brakes
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
Walthers Part # 433-21569.
PROTO 2000 PA Locomotive -- ATSF #70 w/mars light & dynamic brakes
Walthers Part # 433-21568
Lastspikemike It looks as if the truck pivot point is bent backwards by a very small amount. If you take the shell off and observe the motion of the truck does it pivot true? It does the nose of the truck dip down as it passes across straight ahead when turned for its full range? Any chance the locomotive took a nose dive onto the floor? Did it ever run right for you?
It looks as if the truck pivot point is bent backwards by a very small amount.
If you take the shell off and observe the motion of the truck does it pivot true? It does the nose of the truck dip down as it passes across straight ahead when turned for its full range?
Any chance the locomotive took a nose dive onto the floor?
Did it ever run right for you?
As for taking nose dives to the floor, that has never happened with any loco on my layout, thank goodness.
As for whether it ever ran right, I keep a log for each of my locomotives in a notebook. Interestingly, or maybe not, back in December 2019, just prior to ballasting my mainlines, I tested all of my locos on the unballasted mainlines. The problem PA ran fine according to my notes. So, that adds to the mystery.
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL Rich, you may have a warped truck frame, I may have spare. I have five powered Proto PA's and some spare parts. It does look to me like the loco with the problem is not sitting correctly on the truck bolster, but it could just be the camera angle. Also, how old are these? Blue boxes or silver boxes? I don't know how much if any Walthers changed them when they released the silver box versions. Older LifeLike production versions can be found on Ebay, usually NOS, at reasonable prices. I will check out what I have. Sheldon I purchased both of these locos on eBay new, or more precisely New Old Stock, about four years ago. These are blue box models. Here is a summary of each. Life-Like Products PROTO 2000 PA Locomotive -- ATSF #73 w/mars light & dynamic brakes Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Walthers Part # 433-21569. Life-Like Products PROTO 2000 PA Locomotive -- ATSF #70 w/mars light & dynamic brakes Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Walthers Part # 433-21568 Rich
I purchased both of these locos on eBay new, or more precisely New Old Stock, about four years ago. These are blue box models. Here is a summary of each.
OK, I took a look at one of my PA's with the shell off. First thing you need to check is the wires to the headlight bulbs, they are very close to the front gear tower.
A wire in the wrong place could be limiting the travel of the front truck.
Next, there is a cab interior with engineer control stands also tighly fitted above and around the gear tower and the light bulbs. There is a control stand above the gear tower with a small separately applied piece directly over the gear tower, that can easily fall off and jamb or limit the movement of the front truck.
The locos you have are from the 3rd release of the PA by LifeLike dated 9/98. The undecorated locos I have are from the 1st, 2nd or 3rd release, no way to tell for sure, they used the same item numbers. But the packaging suggests the 2nd or 3rd release as well. So you locos should be just like mine.
Here are some photos:
Did you install the decoders?
Hope that helps.
OK, I will take the shell off tomorrow and examine everything more closely.
I did install the decoder myself, an NCE D13SRP.
I brought the problem PA upstairs from the layout and place it on a white kitchen counter. Took two more photos with the camera sitting on the same surface as the loco. In the second photo, taken head on, the loco seems to be leaning distinctly to the left (to the right in the photo).
OK, here is the plan this morning. Reluctant as I always am to open up a locomotive, I see no other option here. As soon as I finish my coffee and get my cat off my lap, I will get to it.
Several troubleshooting suggestions have been made by some of those following this thread, and I will go through them one by one to see if I can narrow down the problem or, hopefully, even solve it. Going into this, I feel like the problem is a warped truck. But, I also cannot dismiss the possibility of some sort of interference with the truck movement under the shell. My worst fear is that I will find nothing.
richhotrain OK, here is the plan this morning. Reluctant as I always am to open up a locomotive, I see no other option here. As soon as I finish my coffee and get my cat off my lap, I will get to it. Several troubleshooting suggestions have been made by some of those following this thread, and I will go through them one by one to see if I can narrow down the problem or, hopefully, even solve it. Going into this, I feel like the problem is a warped truck. But, I also cannot dismiss the possibility of some sort of interference with the truck movement under the shell. My worst fear is that I will find nothing. Rich
Well, if you end up needing a frame or a truck shell, I think I have a dummy chassis that can supply those parts.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Well, if you end up needing a frame or a truck shell, I think I have a dummy chassis that can supply those parts. Sheldon
OK, I took the shell off and did some investigation based upon the suggestions made in this thread.
First, here is a photo of the wiring to compare to the one that Sheldon posted.
Pretty similar except that I do notice that the headlight wiring goes over that plastic block on mine and either thru the block or under it in Sheldon's photo.
When I reattach the shell, I will reposition the wires that extend near the edge of the shell, as shown in that second photo.
I also took a head on photo with the shell off the chassis. It seems to sit straight and not leaning in that photo. That is reason enough to reposition the wires before reattaching the shell.
I did the paper test, using thin parchment paper, to see if I could slide the paper under the wheels. The paper easily slid under the middle wheelset under the front truck, but I could not slide the paper under any of the other wheel sets. Could that be a problem?
I checked the lateral movement of the wheelsets, and they all seemed fine to me. I had previously watched a Joe Fugate YouTube video where he illustrated lateral movement, too much, too little, and just right.
Lastly, I took the loco back down to the layout and ran it several times over the trouble spot where no other locos fail to make it through. It looks good to me, but I am going to re-lay that section of track just in case. That said, with the shell off, I got a much better look at the truck movement. It may be a wheel gauge issue or a lateral movement issue, but the loco derailed every time at that spot.
Thoughts?
Looks like a few parts came off - front brake cylinder, ladder in the middle, and the rear of the two grabs alongside the door is out of its hole in the top. Definitely looks like a leaner there. Unless you pinched a wire under the cab interior, interfering with the truck clip, it's probably a warped truck like Sheldon said.
As far as car weight - I sometimes wonder how off it has to get to cause problems. I believe the club layout has 28" radius curves at the ends. My cars for the most part tend to run on the heavy side, especially the hoppers with loads - I have a bunch of cast hydrocal coal loads which take a way too light 55 ton Accurail hopper and make it well over the NMRA recommended weight. My usual train has cars blocked in an order that would make sense for what my train is supposed to be. That measn there may be a few of those heavy hoppers near the head end, some lighter cars, and more hoppers on the tail - perfect recipe for stringlining, you'd think. But even deliberate mishandling has never pulled anything off to the inside of a curve. Despite being made up of interconnected modular sections, there generally are few issues. Every once in a while, on truck on one car of someone's train will derail somewhere, but never always the same place, and that's one derailmment on one car out of 4-6 trains running at the same time for hours at a time. I'd call that about as bulletproof as it gets. Maybe even five 9s level reliability that if you start a train with everything properly on the rails and try to make one lap of the layout, there's a 99.999% chance you will make it without a derailment. That's on the biggest configuration, I've not been to shows where less than the full length is set up. And now they built some new end pieces to make the whole thing wider - unfortunately one of the places we run the whole thing will not handle the increased width - at the Railroad Museum in Strasburg. The platform widths just about handle the standard width - we can go as long as we like, down between two rows of locos.
Edit: You posted while I was typing. I'd suspect something with the wires going over the top of the block, but if it still derails with the shell off then it's not that the shell pinches the wires and pushes anything down where it shouldn't.
rrinker Looks like a few parts came off - front brake cylinder, ladder in the middle, and the rear of the two grabs alongside the door is out of its hole in the top. Definitely looks like a leaner there. Unless you pinched a wire under the cab interior, interfering with the truck clip, it's probably a warped truck like Sheldon said.
Regarding the loose or missing parts, that front brake cylinder came off during derailment testing. I set it aside to be put back on the truck later.
I am not sure what you are referring to as to the "ladder in the middle, and the rear of the two grabs alongside the door is out of its hole in the top". I don't see what you are referring to with those two parts. Can you help me out there?
A couple of better photos than I previously posted. A photographer, I ain't. I always have problems with lighting.
Lastspikemike The two photos of your locomotive show a different installation of the vertical handrails. In the earlier photo The hand rails were installed incorrectly, left to right, leading to the reversed installation into the step at the bottom. The later photo shows these handrails now correctly installed left and right, into the step at the bottom. We can assume the ladder was removed between the photo events and is now reinstalled correctly.
The two photos of your locomotive show a different installation of the vertical handrails. In the earlier photo The hand rails were installed incorrectly, left to right, leading to the reversed installation into the step at the bottom. The later photo shows these handrails now correctly installed left and right, into the step at the bottom. We can assume the ladder was removed between the photo events and is now reinstalled correctly.
A fix is on my To Do List, but I need to set aside some time to carefully apply a spot of glue at the bottom of each handrail. I hate those tiny spots of glue because they are so difficult to conceal.
I have convinced myself that the front truck is warped. It troubles me that I can slip a piece of paper under the middle wheelset on the front truck. Is there a fix for this?
Hi. I recently bought a LL proto 1000 loco and it too had a derailment issue. I then noticed that the wheels were not all touching the track flatly. I put the loco on its back and removed the truck gear cover. I then noticed that the metal sideframes in the truck were not parallel, causing one of the wheel axles to "sink" between the sideframes. I fixed it by gently prying back the sideframes in order to prevent the axles from sinking. I haven't run the loco much since then - it worked for a couple of feet on track - I still need to install a decoder in it. But maybe you have a similar problem with yours. I had that issue with another LL loco, which I fixed with a few washers to prevent the bearing from falling through. Tried that on the newer LL loco, but it did not work. Prying the metal sideframes gently worked as I described above, but it needs to go through the longer mileage test...
Good points, Simon. Thank you. I will pop off the axle cover and check it all out.
Rich, have you removed the truck? Have you ever removed the truck?
The tilt and odd sitting looks like when a worm gear cover comes loose, and the trucks bolster pin comes out of the hole in the frame.
Or, maybe there is a piece of debris caught between the bolster and the frame.
- Douglas
Doughless Rich, have you removed the truck? Have you ever removed the truck?
That sheet was included in the box, but I appreciate your posting it. If I decide to fiddle with the middle wheelset on that front truck, I am going to have to at least partially disassemble the truck.
Well, finally got this site working again.
Rich, I will take apart the dummy chassis I have and look at the trucks. I have had them apart before but it was years ago.
If your truck frame is bad you are welcome to one of these, they should be the same. You will have to switch over all your drive line parts.
Disassembled parts:
LifeLike_PA-parts2 by Edmund, on Flickr
Bolster pin on body frame. Check for a smooth surface around pin:
LifeLike_PA-bolster by Edmund, on Flickr
Mating hole on truck bolster. Check for smoothness here:
LifeLike_PA-truck by Edmund, on Flickr
Thanks Ed, this site has not worked for me today.
ATLANTIC CENTRALThanks Ed, this site has not worked for me today.
I'm still working around some bugs, too, Sheldon.
Those Life-Like locomotives were built like tanks (or maybe Model Ts) you could strip them down, clean up the parts, tune up the drive line, lightly lube the moving parts and you'd be good for another million miles.
I just picked up another GP30 and an E8, brand new, still in shrink wrap. I stripped them both down and checked them over from the flanges-up. They are both running like satin wrapped in silk! While the trucks are apart I directly solder a pickup wire to the bronze strip that contacts the axle, just for insurance:
Truck-wire by Edmund, on Flickr
Note the heat-shrink as a strain relief. Super flexible silicone insulation, too.
I hope Rich gets to the bottom of his dilemma
Yes, I'm the same way, still buying NOS Proto2000 stuff too. I model 1954 so a pair of SD9's are my newest motive power.
Lots of FA's, PA's, GP7's, BL2's, E units, a few switchers, they are a great.
I'm getting that error if I try to include a quote?
Thanks for posting those photos, Ed. That really gives me a visual of the diassambled truck.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Well, finally got this site working again. Rich, I will take apart the dummy chassis I have and look at the trucks. I have had them apart before but it was years ago. If your truck frame is bad you are welcome to one of these, they should be the same. You will have to switch over all your drive line parts. Sheldon
richhotrainI suspect that the middle wheelset on the front truck may be the problem in that it sits just slightly higher than the lead or trailing wheelset.
If that's the case you should be able to spot right away if one of the "journals" is not engaged in the metal bearing strip on the inside of the truck sideframe:
LifeLike_PA-truck-metal by Edmund, on Flickr
If you decide to disassemble the truck (you don't have to remove the shell to do this) you will disengage each of the four "latches" at each end of the side frames:
LifeLike_PA-truck-clip by Edmund, on Flickr
Once these have been disengaged and tucked under the gear cover you can carefully pry up on the cover. Do not try to remove the truck side frames without first removing the bottom cover.
LifeLike_PA-truck-undo by Edmund, on Flickr
There are four square pins that engage the tabs (eyes) on the side frames which hold them in place. These pins are easily broken.
gmpullman There are four square pins that engage the tabs (eyes) on the side frames which hold them in place. These pins are easily broken.
Hi, Rich
The four doohickeys in my photo arent the ones easily broken. The ones that are a bit fragile are the ones that protrude up from the bottom cover and engage the "locking eyes" that come in from the backs of the sideframes.
Most modelers break these when they try to pry the sideframes off without removing the bottom cover. THAT's the trick.
Sounds more complicated than it really is. I show the end clips (2 on each end of the truck) "tucked" under the cover so that when you pry the cover off these are already out of the way.
This is a better system than the E7 and E8 trucks where they used a big staple to hold the sideframes together
I'll see if I have a photo showing the engagement square pins I'm refering to.
Ed, thanks for that additional info. I think that I know exactly what you are talking about, the four clips that secure the bottom plate the truck assembly. I am always super careful when removing those types of parts. Reminds me of the process to remove the gear box cover on the old Life Like Geeps to replace the cracked gears.
richhotrain I think that I know exactly what you are talking about, the four clips that secure the bottom plate the truck assembly.
Yes, here's a look: (intermediate gears removed)
L-L_PA-truck-open by Edmund, on Flickr
C= Crack developing in axle gear (Never happens on PAs, right?)
E= Engagement eye x4. Square pins on cover plate engage into these to retain the sideframe. These, and the pins are what the uninitiated will break off.
T= Cleverly-designed side-thrust limiters.
L= Latch engagement points x6
Also take note of how axle ends (journals) engage the metal strip welded to the back-side of the side frame.
L-L_PA-gear-cover by Edmund, on Flickr
Once you've become familiar with the Life-Like designs you can field-strip a loco in about six minutes (I've got it down to 4:30!)
Looks like there is a little chunk missign out of the gear that is cracking, right at the edge where the crack is, like something chipped out a bit and started the crack - maybe it even happened during assembly and it's been that way all along.
Great photos and explanations, Ed. I can only thank you profusely.
Any tips on how to remove the cover plate without breaking the pins?
Is it that most modelers break these when they try to pry the sideframes off without removing the bottom cover?
rrinker Looks like there is a little chunk missign out of the gear that is cracking, right at the edge where the crack is, like something chipped out a bit and started the crack - maybe it even happened during assembly and it's been that way all along.
I hadn't even noticed the crack until I was editing the photo.
L-L_PA-crack by Edmund, on Flickr
This particular PA has two cracked gears. I never ran into that before. I've got eight engines on the layout. I'll have to look at them later tonight.
Here's a crop of the original photo without the green arrows:
L-L-PA-unretouched by Edmund, on Flickr
Unfortunately there's a big piece of lint there
Ed
Cheers, Ed
I use a small bladed screwdriver to pry up the truck cover. I have a dedicated old screwdriver that I rounded the edges on. Sometimes the sharp corner of a screw driver can mess with a gear tooth a bit on the more difficult pry ups.
And Eds photo of the bolster means that I said it wrong in my previous post. The frame has the pin and the truck has the hole, at least with that loco. Burrs on either the pin or the hole, or debris on the bolster or frame, can keep the truck from seating correctly in the hole despite the worm gear cover still being attached.
richhotrainIs it that most modelers break these when they try to pry the sideframes off without removing the bottom cover?
Yes.
Once those four tabs are unlatched at each end of the truck you can use your smallest, slotted screw driver and push it into the slight gap at the end of the gear case. The PAs aren't too aggressive with the latch pins. I've had some that are very tricky, like the newer Athearn Genesis in that the catches relatch and you have to keep them apart while you pry up.
It is easy once you've done a few. You did the Geeps OK, right? These aren't much different other than the latches are pretty much hidden.
Good Luck. (I'm turning in for a couple hours' of ZZZs) Ed
Ed, your efforts to post pictures add so much value to this forum. Thanks!
snjroyEd, your efforts to post pictures add so much value to this forum. Thanks!
And thank you, as well, Simon. Hopefully Flickr will be around longer than Photobucket. When I find my old threads that have links to Photobucket my photos have a gray banner across them
As I come across those I replace them with the Flickr links. There are so many "lost" threads out there because the photo hosts have left town
Glad to be of help and as Wayne often mentions, having a visual guide can be invaluable.
Regards, Ed
Hopefully. I don't trust any of them. I can't believe my web host is still doing this, it's really a side business for him and he makes very little money (considering most people have his cheapest plan, I have the second level which is still only $5/mo). But, the same pictures on my web site are in a mirror on my local machine (which is how they get there - I edit the web pages and pictures on my local mirror and then upload them). But what if my computer dies? Well, it's backed up to my server on redundant disks - so it would take lots of failures to lose my local copies - the drive in my desktop, and then two drives in the server. But wait - that's not all - I also back the server up to a cloud backup service. The odds of both my web host and the cloud company disappearing, as well as there being 3 unnoticed drive failures in my house, are pretty slim. Of if my house gets swallowed in a giant sinkhole (don't laugh, it's happened around here! But not up on the hill where my house is), the chance of both the web host and the cloud backup company closing shop is also pretty unlikely.
Now that I've fixed a few cell phones for people, I have a small collection of spudgers which will come in handy for model work. Both the mini pry bar type and the ones that look more like guitar picks. Not to mention REALLY tiny screwdrivers, some are actually Philips head and usable, they're not all those wacky pentalobe screws. Each screen kit comes with a set of tools and while they aren't exactly top quality, but they are trashed afte one use.
snjroy Ed, your efforts to post pictures add so much value to this forum. Thanks! Simon
gmpullman Once those four tabs are unlatched at each end of the truck you can use your smallest, slotted screw driver and push it into the slight gap at the end of the gear case. The PAs aren't too aggressive with the latch pins. I've had some that are very tricky, like the newer Athearn Genesis in that the catches relatch and you have to keep them apart while you pry up. It is easy once you've done a few. You did the Geeps OK, right?
It is easy once you've done a few. You did the Geeps OK, right?
I spent a fair amount of time today watching the performance of my troublesome PA. Interestingly, the problems are all occurring over a 12 foot section of track that forms a curve around the roundhouse at the end of a peninsula on my layout. This 12 foot section of track is essentially a pair of 32" radius curves without easements to form a semi-circle around the roundhouse.
All of my other locomotives negotiate this 12 foot section of track with absolutely no problems. This includes a second Proto 2000 PA. There are no kinks as the curves are all soldered to form smooth curves. No humps or valleys. I used a level and the track is all level with no unevenness.
What I do notice with the problem PA is a sort of "floating" of the front truck at one spot where it exits the curve. So, I re-laid that section of track which is nailed onto cork roadbed (just like the rest of the mainline). I even added a 4-inch piece of 0.040" styrene sheet at the exit point of the curve to provide a more solid base between the track and the roadbed. That seems to have ended the derailments even at top speeds.
Tomorrow, I will check some more before taking apart the front truck. This has been very frustrating, and I am just spending too much time on this one loco.
Time for an Old Fashioned, eh Ed?
I'm happy to see that firming up/lifting the outside rail on a curve was the cure for you, Rich. As I alluded earlier, I have solved more such problems that way than I care to remember. The give-away is that floating truck whose axle eventually lifts out of the gauge.
selector I'm happy to see that firming up/lifting the outside rail on a curve was the cure for you, Rich. As I alluded earlier, I have solved more such problems that way than I care to remember. The give-away is that floating truck whose axle eventually lifts out of the gauge.
I agree that the floating truck with the lifting xle is a dead giveaway. One thing that I have noticed and, to my way of thinking, pretty strange is that it is the middle wheelset on the front truck that I can slip a piece of parchment paper under. However, when the loco derails, the middle wheelset is sitting on the rails while the leading and trailing wheelsets have pivoted off the rails. Go figure.
This recent discussion reminds me of another observation that I should make. All of the derailments have occurred on either the entry curve or or the exit curve on this 12 foot section of track, and the lead truck always derails off the outer rail. For what it's worth.
Having grown up in this hobby starting out with wood roadbed track (TruScale) and then moving to Homasote and hand layed track, and then to flex track glued to homasote roadbed and/or wood roadbed, I have to say I have never liked cork and can't even think about the idea of putting track on foam.
It just does not feel firm enough to me.
I sold it for years in the hobby shop, I built display layouts for the store with it. But I have actually never built any part of any of my personal layouts using cork roadbed.
I still have to think there is some very minor issue with the loco, but fixed is fixed.
As I plan the new layout I am actually considering between Homasote (since a new Homasote roadbed product may appear on the market soon) and possibly making my own wood roadbed.
We will see.
I know cork works well for many people, I just like a more solid feel to benchwork and trackwork.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I still have to think there is some very minor issue with the loco, but fixed is fixed.
I am not yet declaring the problem "fixed" or "cured". Two days ago, I re-laid a 4 foot section of the "exit" curve and it seemed to eliminate derailments. But yesterday the loco was derailing at the "entry" curve, so I re-laid that section of track. Then, today, the loco was back to derailing at the "exit" curve so I added that strip of 0.040" styrene sheet. It is not the track. It has to be the front truck.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I have to say I have never liked cork and can't even think about the idea of putting track on foam. It just does not feel firm enough to me. I sold it for years in the hobby shop, I built display layouts for the store with it. But I have actually never built any part of any of my personal layouts using cork roadbed. As I plan the new layout I am actually considering between Homasote (since a new Homasote roadbed product may appear on the market soon) and possibly making my own wood roadbed. I know cork works well for many people, I just like a more solid feel to benchwork and trackwork.
I have to say I have never liked cork and can't even think about the idea of putting track on foam. It just does not feel firm enough to me.
On my prior layouts, I used Woodland Scenics Foam Track Bed. I always found it to soft. I nail down my track, and the softness of foam winds up deforming the foam when nailed down.
On my current layout, I went with cork. Midwest products makes 3' strips and it is firm and supportive for nailed down track. However, for curves, I bought sheets from a commercial source and cut the cork to form the 32" curved roadbed. It seems fine to me, but once ballasted I have noticed that if you remove the ballast to re-lay track as I have done on these two curves, the cork is no longer flat but a bit wavy. Not good. What other alternatives are there for roadbed? Homasote? Wood?
rich ho wrote: "It has to be the front truck."
How about fixing it the "Penn Central way"?
That is, swap the front truck for the rear one...
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL I have to say I have never liked cork and can't even think about the idea of putting track on foam. It just does not feel firm enough to me. I sold it for years in the hobby shop, I built display layouts for the store with it. But I have actually never built any part of any of my personal layouts using cork roadbed. As I plan the new layout I am actually considering between Homasote (since a new Homasote roadbed product may appear on the market soon) and possibly making my own wood roadbed. I know cork works well for many people, I just like a more solid feel to benchwork and trackwork. Interesting comments about cork, Sheldon. On my prior layouts, I used Woodland Scenics Foam Track Bed. I always found it to soft. I nail down my track, and the softness of foam winds up deforming the foam when nailed down. On my current layout, I went with cork. Midwest products makes 3' strips and it is firm and supportive for nailed down track. However, for curves, I bought sheets from a commercial source and cut the cork to form the 32" curved roadbed. It seems fine to me, but once ballasted I have noticed that if you remove the ballast to re-lay track as I have done on these two curves, the cork is no longer flat but a bit wavy. Not good. What other alternatives are there for roadbed? Homasote? Wood? Rich
Interesting comments about cork, Sheldon.
Back in the dark ages of this hobby, in the 1950's and 60's, soft woods like basswood or pine were milled into roadbed. Some modelers made their own. The Tru-Scale brand being the biggest commercial line.
They made three primary products.
Ready Track - it was wood roadbed and ties milled from a single piece of wood. The ties had milled in tieplates (oversized) which helped position the rail, rail was spiked in place with very small spikes. Track was ready go, with the tie area stained brown and the ballast slopes painted gray with some "grit" in the gray paint.
Self Gauging Roadbed - simply the product described above in kit form - raw wood milled roadbed with ties, you do the staining, spiking and ballasting.
Plain Roadbed - smooth wood roadbed with no ties for use with any brand of flex track, sectional track, or as a base to install your own hand layed ties and rail.
A simple Google search for "Tru-Scale Roadbed" will provide some images. Some can always be found on Ebay.
They also made a complete line of turnouts, crossovers, crossings, also available "Ready" or in kit form. And the roadbed came in a wide selection of curved radii sizes.
In the 70's modelers started making their own roadbed from Homasote - a messy and time consuming job.
Then the Homabed product hit the market, similar to cork, two strips already beveled, layed back to back. For curves the sections are kerfed to allow bending.
That product changed hands several times as so many products do in this hobby until it got to the last guy, Cascade - then he closed up.
Over the years and last two owners the product line expanded to include ramps, different side slope angles, different thicknesses, all in an effort to acheave better realism and improve ease of use.
As best we know Cascade closed do to personal family issues, not a lack of business or profit.
There is curently an effort underway to get a replacement product on the market.
One way or the other I will use wood or Homasote, or some of both. And my track will be glued down to avoid the possiblilty of movement.
Yes, I am completely old school on this, the proof is in the pudding. Layouts like the Severna Park Model Railroad Club are still running on track layed on homsote in the 1960's and 70's with minimal repair or maintenance. That layout has only undergone minior changes to the track plan since it was mostly completed in the early 70's.
Solid is better, and in my experiance no more noisy than all these "soft" materials.
"Swap the front truck for the rear one"?
Trouble is, that is really not a solution. Just moving the problem around.
richhotrain "Swap the front truck for the rear one"? Trouble is, that is really not a solution. Just moving the problem around. Rich
The Alco PA has a fifteen foot-six inch truck wheelbase. Life-Like's design leaves something to be desired with the two rigid strips on the insides of the side frames which engage the axle ends.
There is no provision for flexing or equalization. By contrast their E8 truck has a knee-action pivot which allows one pair of axles to remain rigid while the third axle can rise and fall with undulations in the track work. A very good design IMHO.
L-L_E8_truck by Edmund, on Flickr
Note the pivot point at the bright, brass rivet and the two springs which provide downward pressure on the trailing axle. Also, the bronze bearings are allowed to "float" inside those metal retainers.
I have had some issues early on when I first got these PAs, what, fifteen years ago, maybe twenty?
I had most of my curves superelevated. That caused some troubles with these almost 16' wheelbase trucks. Like you, I pinpointed trouble areas and eventually worked them all out.
It may be that some of the "stiffness" of the axle journals and the pivot points of the truck bolsters have "loosened up" over the years. I probably have over a hundred hours or more running time on these engines.
If your truck is not sitting with all six flanges touching evenly on a flat surface that has to mean that those stamped metal inserts have been compromised in some way. Maybe even a shock during shipping or other impact that warped the metal strip.
IF you have a drill bit just slightly larger than the bore in the side frame stamping you could slightly enlarge the hole for the center axle which may allow some "float". A reamer would be better. I'm thinking just .0015± or so enlargement.
L-L-PA-sideframe by Edmund, on Flickr
The "journal" diameter is 1.47mm (.0580") you could try a #53 drill (.0595") and see if that allows a little "slop" for the middle axle.
Just an idea. Otherwise if you can pinpoint which wheelset/axle is out of "tram" with the others you could try carefully tweaking the metal strip to correct the misalignment.
I agree with Ed, allowing the middle axle some more vertical motion would be a good idea.
gmpullman richhotrain "Swap the front truck for the rear one"? Trouble is, that is really not a solution. Just moving the problem around. Rich The Alco PA has a fifteen foot-six inch truck wheelbase. Life-Like's design leaves something to be desired with the two rigid strips on the insides of the side frames which engage the axle ends. There is no provision for flexing or equalization. By contrast their E8 truck has a knee-action pivot which allows one pair of axles to remain rigid while the third axle can rise and fall with undulations in the track work. A very good design IMHO. L-L_E8_truck by Edmund, on Flickr Note the pivot point at the bright, brass rivet and the two springs which provide downward pressure on the trailing axle. Also, the bronze bearings are allowed to "float" inside those metal retainers. I have had some issues early on when I first got these PAs, what, fifteen years ago, maybe twenty? I had most of my curves superelevated. That caused some troubles with these almost 16' wheelbase trucks. Like you, I pinpointed trouble areas and eventually worked them all out. It may be that some of the "stiffness" of the axle journals and the pivot points of the truck bolsters have "loosened up" over the years. I probably have over a hundred hours or more running time on these engines. If your truck is not sitting with all six flanges touching evenly on a flat surface that has to mean that those stamped metal inserts have been compromised in some way. Maybe even a shock during shipping or other impact that warped the metal strip. IF you have a drill bit just slightly larger than the bore in the side frame stamping you could slightly enlarge the hole for the center axle which may allow some "float". A reamer would be better. I'm thinking just .0015± or so enlargement. L-L-PA-sideframe by Edmund, on Flickr The "journal" diameter is 1.47mm (.0580") you could try a #53 drill (.0595") and see if that allows a little "slop" for the middle axle. Just an idea. Otherwise if you can pinpoint which wheelset/axle is out of "tram" with the others you could try carefully tweaking the metal strip to correct the misalignment. Regards, Ed
I will head down to the layout shortly.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I agree with Ed, allowing the middle axle some more vertical motion would be a good idea. Sheldon
richhotrain Is there any downside to doing this?
"There are always consequences, Captain". OK, I guess that's not exactly the quote.
I'd say to be sure the drill bit is not too big of a step up from the size of the present hole. I'd use a pin vice and carefully "shave" the metal out being careful that it does not grab. Using a power drill might cause the bit to pass right through the plastic journal cover
You'll notice the stamping is made with a radius so there is a little more bearing surface. I suppose it would be nice to be able to polish the surface a little after you open the hole.
Again, a reamer would be the best route if you can find a 1.55 mm reamer?
I don't think you'll affect the gear "mesh" or backlash at all since most mass produced locos have pretty sloppy gearing anyway.
I suppose you could cut down a tapered, round toothpick so it would fit into the enlarged center hole then use a "grinding compound" of some kind, metal polish or scouring powder. This might help smooth over any possible rough spots?
Should be an interesting project
Lastspikemike Before you modify the truck "journals" is it possible the rear truck is running out of vertical travel somehow and just lifting the front truck by enough to derail it?
Before you modify the truck "journals" is it possible the rear truck is running out of vertical travel somehow and just lifting the front truck by enough to derail it?
Lastspikemike Does the locomotive derail when reversing but traveling in the same direction over the particular track section?
Does the locomotive derail when reversing but traveling in the same direction over the particular track section?
Lastspikemike If you consist your two PA does this truck still derail when running in either direction of the consist?
If you consist your two PA does this truck still derail when running in either direction of the consist?
I have a real question about the design of these Proto PA power trucks.
It looks like the design of these trucks is a combination of older (metal sideframe) and newer (plastic sideframe) Athearn trucks.
There appear to be two support points on each end of each axle, the new style bronze bearing (red circle) and the sideframe (blue circle).
What is the point of having the axles extend into the sideframes? Athearn did away with this when they updated to the bronze axle bushings and plastic sideframes.
Having the truck sideframes put downward pressure on the axles seems like it would also weaken the electrical contact between the bronze bushing and the electrical strip (green circles).
What would happen if all the axle extensions were removed from the wheel sides to make it like a newer Athearn design? Would the replacement Athearn 42 inch wheel/axle/bearing assemblies fit in this model?
LATEST UPDATE:
Lots going on this morning.
I finally got up the nerve to open up the gear box. Ed, thanks to your excellent tutorial, which I followed to the letter, everthing went along just fine. No broken tabs.
I took a pretty good look at the middle wheelset. I could not see any problems. I decided not to ream the axle point holes, figuring that I can always do that later if necessary. When I re-assembled the gear box, the parchment paper no longer slipped under the middle wheelset. Hmmm.
Before disassembling the gear box, I ran the loco very very slowly over the exit point of the curve. Although it did not derail in several tries, I did notice a slight vertical hiccup.
So, I marked the exact spot where the hiccup occurred. I then moved the loco manually over that spot and noticed that the middle wheelset moved ever so slightly vertically upward at the point where two rails join together. Hmmm.
Then I moved the other PA manually over that spot. Nothing, no hiccup. I got a small metal file and ran it a few times over the edge of the rail joint. Took the problem PA and moved it manually over that spot. Nothing, no hiccup.
Dunno, have I solved the problem? I will run some full passenger trains around the layout several times later today to see what happens.
While I was at it, I glued the brake cylinder back on the truck and glue the two vertical handrails back in place. Looking good.
Yep, those are E8 photos. That front wheelset pivots. There are two gear box covers, one for the front wheelset and the other for the middle and rear wheelsets.
SeeYou190There appear to be two support points on each end of each axle, the new style bronze bearing (red circle) and the sideframe (blue circle). What is the point of having the axles extend into the sideframes?
It would be overconstraint to have two sets of bearings -- to say nothing of preventing the 'knee action' from doing anything -- if the sideframes were rigid like those illustrated for the PA truck in question and the axle ends located by them.
I need to look at all of my 6-axle diesels to see if any pivot. I find this interesting and something that I never noticed or thought about.
SeeYou190 I have a real question about the design of these Proto PA power trucks. It looks like the design of these trucks is a combination of older (metal sideframe) and newer (plastic sideframe) Athearn trucks. There appear to be two support points on each end of each axle, the new style bronze bearing (red circle) and the sideframe (blue circle). What is the point of having the axles extend into the sideframes? Athearn did away with this when they updated to the bronze axle bushings and plastic sideframes. Having the truck sideframes put downward pressure on the axles seems like it would also weaken the electrical contact between the bronze bushing and the electrical strip (green circles). What would happen if all the axle extensions were removed from the wheel sides to make it like a newer Athearn design? Would the replacement Athearn 42 inch wheel/axle/bearing assemblies fit in this model? -Kevin
Kevin, This is the E8 truck, Ed was showing how it is different.
The weight is on the inner bearing like the 4 wheel Athearn design. The one axle pivots. All axles are powered.
The axle extension extends into the journal just for the looks of the moving/floating journal boxes.
The PA truck is completely different and bears the weight of the loco on the axle ends, there is no inner bearing at all.
Ed also posted photos of the PA truck.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL The PA truck is completely different and bears the weight of the loco on the axle ends, there is no inner bearing at all. Ed also posted photos of the PA truck.
So, did the problem disappear by re-assembling the truck?
snjroy So, did the problem disappear by re-assembling the truck? Simon
I released the sideframes from the gearbox, popped the gear box cover, opened up the sideframes, and took the middle wheelset out to examine it. I could not detect any problems, so I reassembled the truck.
Once reassembled, I could no longer slip parchment paper under the middle wheelset. I put the PA back on the layout and ran it without any derailments.
I canonly guess that by taking the truck apart and putting it back together, I must have repositioned the middle wheelset and solved the problem.
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL The PA truck is completely different and bears the weight of the loco on the axle ends, there is no inner bearing at all. Ed also posted photos of the PA truck. If you look at that last photo that I posted, that is the disassembled front truck on my problem PA. You can see that the assembly is rigid, no pivot point. Rich
If you look at that last photo that I posted, that is the disassembled front truck on my problem PA. You can see that the assembly is rigid, no pivot point.
Yes, the PA truck is rigid, the EMD E8 truck pivots. Do you have any Proto2000 E units?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Do you have any Proto2000 E units?
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL Do you have any Proto2000 E units? No, not Proto 2000. I have three E-units, but they are all Broadway Limited Paragon passenger diesels. Rich
No, not Proto 2000. I have three E-units, but they are all Broadway Limited Paragon passenger diesels.
All of my E units are Proto2000, a B&O set, C&O set, and one ATLANTIC CENTRAL set.
They are very nice, but in my case they are also very quiet.........and they don't have any brains.......
No pictures handy......
richhotrainIt appears that it did.
I'd be happier knowing what might make that center axle hang upward slightly, but still turn, in that odd design of rigid sideframe with some kind of bearings presumably taking the geartrain thrust. In that little detail, I suspect, hinges both the derailment propensity of the truck and perhaps some of the assumptions in what made for 'bulletproof' track alignment that could apparently be fixed with a few gentle file strokes...
Overmod richhotrain It appears that it did. I have always been profoundly nervous about mysterious problems with no apparent cause that spontaneously resolve themselves with removal and reassembly. What happened once might happen again in a case like that. I'd be happier knowing what might make that center axle hang upward slightly, but still turn, in that odd design of rigid sideframe with some kind of bearings presumably taking the geartrain thrust. In that little detail, I suspect, hinges both the derailment propensity of the truck and perhaps some of the assumptions in what made for 'bulletproof' track alignment that could apparently be fixed with a few gentle file strokes...
richhotrain It appears that it did.
I have always been profoundly nervous about mysterious problems with no apparent cause that spontaneously resolve themselves with removal and reassembly. What happened once might happen again in a case like that.
I agree with you, Overmod, that just because the problem went away after disassembly and reassembly of the truck does not instill a great sense of confidence that the problem will not reoccur.
What I feel more comfortable with is the fact that the "few gentle file strokes" really seemed to result in much smoother passage of that front truck over the trouble spot.
The thing that keeps twinging like a tooth pain is that slight elevation. Which went away with R&R and didn't require any reaming to fix.
Tell me again if the locomotive had trouble from day one it was taken out of its box. That would indicate some issue with assembly alignment (as I don't see a manufacturing defect like slight warp in a sideframe or error in registering the metal 'bearing' insert to the plastic face being resolved just by taking the truck apart) and I'd like to figure out what that might have been in case it's a common-mode issue in other examples.
I wonder if reaming the center bearings might actually tend to make the axle kick up and bind a bit under certain conditions if it is driven by a train of gears with relatively sloppy engagement fit and bearing precision. My gut hunch, of sorts, is to ream or relieve just the bottom edge of the bearing, so that the center axle can drop a bit but not rise relative to the 'square' of the outer four wheels.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL I have to say I have never liked cork and can't even think about the idea of putting track on foam. It just does not feel firm enough to me. I sold it for years in the hobby shop, I built display layouts for the store with it. But I have actually never built any part of any of my personal layouts using cork roadbed. As I plan the new layout I am actually considering between Homasote (since a new Homasote roadbed product may appear on the market soon) and possibly making my own wood roadbed. I know cork works well for many people, I just like a more solid feel to benchwork and trackwork. Interesting comments about cork, Sheldon. On my prior layouts, I used Woodland Scenics Foam Track Bed. I always found it to soft. I nail down my track, and the softness of foam winds up deforming the foam when nailed down. On my current layout, I went with cork. Midwest products makes 3' strips and it is firm and supportive for nailed down track. However, for curves, I bought sheets from a commercial source and cut the cork to form the 32" curved roadbed. It seems fine to me, but once ballasted I have noticed that if you remove the ballast to re-lay track as I have done on these two curves, the cork is no longer flat but a bit wavy. Not good. What other alternatives are there for roadbed? Homasote? Wood? Rich Back in the dark ages of this hobby, in the 1950's and 60's, soft woods like basswood or pine were milled into roadbed. Some modelers made their own. The Tru-Scale brand being the biggest commercial line. They made three primary products. Ready Track - it was wood roadbed and ties milled from a single piece of wood. The ties had milled in tieplates (oversized) which helped position the rail, rail was spiked in place with very small spikes. Track was ready go, with the tie area stained brown and the ballast slopes painted gray with some "grit" in the gray paint. Self Gauging Roadbed - simply the product described above in kit form - raw wood milled roadbed with ties, you do the staining, spiking and ballasting. Plain Roadbed - smooth wood roadbed with no ties for use with any brand of flex track, sectional track, or as a base to install your own hand layed ties and rail. A simple Google search for "Tru-Scale Roadbed" will provide some images. Some can always be found on Ebay. They also made a complete line of turnouts, crossovers, crossings, also available "Ready" or in kit form. And the roadbed came in a wide selection of curved radii sizes. In the 70's modelers started making their own roadbed from Homasote - a messy and time consuming job. Then the Homabed product hit the market, similar to cork, two strips already beveled, layed back to back. For curves the sections are kerfed to allow bending. That product changed hands several times as so many products do in this hobby until it got to the last guy, Cascade - then he closed up. Over the years and last two owners the product line expanded to include ramps, different side slope angles, different thicknesses, all in an effort to acheave better realism and improve ease of use. As best we know Cascade closed do to personal family issues, not a lack of business or profit. There is curently an effort underway to get a replacement product on the market. One way or the other I will use wood or Homasote, or some of both. And my track will be glued down to avoid the possiblilty of movement. Yes, I am completely old school on this, the proof is in the pudding. Layouts like the Severna Park Model Railroad Club are still running on track layed on homsote in the 1960's and 70's with minimal repair or maintenance. That layout has only undergone minior changes to the track plan since it was mostly completed in the early 70's. Solid is better, and in my experiance no more noisy than all these "soft" materials. Sheldon
Overmod Tell me again if the locomotive had trouble from day one it was taken out of its box. That would indicate some issue with assembly alignment (as I don't see a manufacturing defect like slight warp in a sideframe or error in registering the metal 'bearing' insert to the plastic face being resolved just by taking the truck apart) and I'd like to figure out what that might have been in case it's a common-mode issue in other examples.
Overmod I wonder if reaming the center bearings might actually tend to make the axle kick up and bind a bit under certain conditions if it is driven by a train of gears with relatively sloppy engagement fit and bearing precision. My gut hunch, of sorts, is to ream or relieve just the bottom edge of the bearing, so that the center axle can drop a bit but not rise relative to the 'square' of the outer four wheels.
I get what you are saying about just reaming the bottom edge of the bearing. I have to say, the very thought of reaming it bothers me. Why? Just because. It seems like a radical thing to do.
Hmmmm... this indicates an emergent, and perhaps transient, issue with the PA axle, perhaps combined with a slight emergent 'warp' right at that particular joint between rail ends. Could there be something in how the locomotive was oriented or handled when put away, stored, and taken out again that might have cocked or 'mislocked' the axle in question?
Whatever else this analysis establishes -- it sure proves that very small causes can produce substantial derailments when allowed to act.
Overmod Could there be something in how the locomotive was oriented or handled when put away, stored, and taken out again that might have cocked or 'mislocked' the axle in question?
Could there be something in how the locomotive was oriented or handled when put away, stored, and taken out again that might have cocked or 'mislocked' the axle in question?
Overmod Whatever else this analysis establishes -- it sure proves that very small causes can produce substantial derailments when allowed to act.
But, I learned from my mistakes. That's why I titled this thread, in part, as "bullet proof" track work. When I completed the double mainline, I was pleased but not surprised that my locos performed flawlessly without any derailments. So, I was pretty surprised to run into this problem with one of my PAs.
As I write this, I wonder if that 12 foot section of track slightly warped as a result of ballasting or humidity changes or whatever. Perhaps just enough to cause derailments with a flawed truck.
OvermodMy gut hunch, of sorts, is to ream or relieve just the bottom edge of the bearing, so that the center axle can drop a bit but not rise relative to the 'square' of the outer four wheels.
My theory would be that the center axle should be allowed to rise, rather than drop. So, ideally, you could elongate the bearing vertically by removing material above the journal rather than from below.
When observing some of my L-L PAs I could see the lead or trailing flange rise above the rail when encountering a small rise in the rail profile (frogs especially).
Small dips or depressions did not pose a problem as you point out the four "corner" wheels would remain in good contact with the rail.
Imagine a six-leg table where the floor humps and you now have a seesaw (teeter-totter in some parts).
If the floor sags the table will lack support in the center but at least will remain stable.
So, then, what would be the objection to slightly reaming the entire bearing?
richhotrain One issue that I perhaps need to consider is weight. What effect does weight have on derailments? Rich
Weight (or should I say lack of) will directly affect tracking
All of my rolling stock are weighted as close to possible to the NMRA recommended practice RP-20.1 I can pretty much back a train of around 25-30 cars around a modular layout built almost 40 years ago with out derailments
richhotrain So, then, what would be the objection to slightly reaming the entire bearing? Rich
Well, that's why I mentioned that earlier. It is much easier to make a small round hole into a larger round hole.
Being that it is a "blind" hole you really couldn't get a file in there. Ideally you would have an HO scale Bridgeport and a 1.5 mm end mill in order to elongate the existing bearing hole.
Enlarging the bearing all-around is simply an easier operation. If Removing the metal strip would be an option then you could certainly file the material off but you would have to epoxy the side frame back in place since it is "heat-welded" to the metal strip.
gmpullmanMy theory would be that the center axle should be allowed to rise, rather than drop.
All that ought to be needed to relieve 'one side' of those bearings is to use a variant of time-honored glass-drilling methods. Instead of putting the grinding material or abrasive in a pool on the end of the rod or tube (here, that would just loosely fit in the bearing hole, although it could be smaller), put it in oil on the side, and while spinning it exert gentle pressure in the direction(s) you want to relieve.
Only a hair is likely required (I am saddened that I can no longer use color to denote just how little) as only a hair was associated with the original issue.
Overmod gmpullman My theory would be that the center axle should be allowed to rise, rather than drop. My concern with that theory is that what I recall Rich reporting was that the center wheelset is what was a hair high.
gmpullman My theory would be that the center axle should be allowed to rise, rather than drop.
My concern with that theory is that what I recall Rich reporting was that the center wheelset is what was a hair high.
I am curious about something here. Is it possible that the center wheelset bearings are in line with the leading and trailing bearings but that the flange(s) on the middle wheelset are slightly smaller in circumference? At times like this, I wish that I owned a caliper.
dbduck richhotrain One issue that I perhaps need to consider is weight. What effect does weight have on derailments? Rich Weight (or should I say lack of) will directly affect tracking All of my rolling stock are weighted as close to possible to the NMRA recommended practice RP-20.1 I can pretty much back a train of around 25-30 cars around a modular layout built almost 40 years ago with out derailments
As I recall -- and Ed will recall better, with pictures and numbers -- all three wheelsets on the PAs were the same size on the prototype, and therefore ought to be on the model. It would make at least superficial manufacturing sense to have all the wheelsets on a model identical. If all three are geared -- which the prototype of course was NOT -- then lateral accommodation might involve different flange profile, or effective gauge narrowing, on the center wheelset, but I wouldn't think that would involve flange diameter except perhaps insofar as cutting back flanges from the gauge side of a stock wheelset might remove some of the OD circumstantially. (This all being distinct from the idea of using a wider, blind wheelset in the center to lessen perceived curve resistance as in steam-locomotive-model practice.)
This brings up the issue of whether increasing either free or controlled lateral on that center axle is a possibility, including that it would relieve whatever effect made the axle transiently ride high. There should be some slight lateral permitted by the spur-gear drive unless the teeth have some crowning action (which I doubt on general principles) and perhaps gently filing the edges of the gear would increase the ability of the axle to go sideways or ride smoothly 'at the limit' -- we then have the option of filing the metal if it contacts the face of a wheel, or doing something like truck tuning if the axle stub is bottoming against the plastic sideframe or being forced out of natural line in the metal.
I can think of a couple of ways to kludge active centering on a center axle, including small springs or foam/elastomer blocks. We can take that discussion up if it is appropriate or needed. See the concurrent discussion of Kadee springs for wheel wipers...
Overmod As I recall -- and Ed will recall better, with pictures and numbers -- all three wheelsets on the PAs were the same size on the prototype, and therefore ought to be on the model. It would make at least superficial manufacturing sense to have all the wheelsets on a model identical. If all three are geared -- which the prototype of course was NOT -- then lateral accommodation might involve different flange profile, or effective gauge narrowing, on the center wheelset, but I wouldn't think that would involve flange diameter except perhaps insofar as cutting back flanges from the gauge side of a stock wheelset might remove some of the OD circumstantially.
As I recall -- and Ed will recall better, with pictures and numbers -- all three wheelsets on the PAs were the same size on the prototype, and therefore ought to be on the model. It would make at least superficial manufacturing sense to have all the wheelsets on a model identical. If all three are geared -- which the prototype of course was NOT -- then lateral accommodation might involve different flange profile, or effective gauge narrowing, on the center wheelset, but I wouldn't think that would involve flange diameter except perhaps insofar as cutting back flanges from the gauge side of a stock wheelset might remove some of the OD circumstantially.
richhotrainI was suggesting a possible manufacturing fault.
I'm not sure there's a likely manufacturing error that would turn the tread of the wheel accurately and skimp on the flange, unless the stock from which the wheel blanks were cut had been 'necked' somehow on one end. That might be a subject for discussion.
Overmod richhotrain I was suggesting a possible manufacturing fault. Could be. And if all wheelsets in the truck are made alike you could quickly swap them and see if that makes any critical difference. I'm not sure there's a likely manufacturing error that would turn the tread of the wheel accurately and skimp on the flange, unless the stock from which the wheel blanks were cut had been 'necked' somehow on one end. That might be a subject for discussion.
richhotrain I was suggesting a possible manufacturing fault.
Could be. And if all wheelsets in the truck are made alike you could quickly swap them and see if that makes any critical difference.
richhotrain A dummy Locomotive is basically just another piece of rolling stock that looks like a locomotive I would apply the same rules for rolling stock to the dummy as well since it probably has a metal frame there is a good chance it already meets or exceeds the recommended minimum dbduck richhotrain One issue that I perhaps need to consider is weight. What effect does weight have on derailments? Rich Weight (or should I say lack of) will directly affect tracking All of my rolling stock are weighted as close to possible to the NMRA recommended practice RP-20.1 I can pretty much back a train of around 25-30 cars around a modular layout built almost 40 years ago with out derailments Thanks for that post, dbduck. My PA/PB consist is a powered PA unit and a dummy PB unit which will normally pull 7 to 14 passenger cars of varying lengths. I have not added weight to any of the passenger cars or the dummy PB. The dummy PB is heavier than any of the passenger cars, so I wonder how I would apply RP-20.1 standards to the dummy PB loco? Any thoughts? Rich
A dummy Locomotive is basically just another piece of rolling stock that looks like a locomotive I would apply the same rules for rolling stock to the dummy as well
since it probably has a metal frame there is a good chance it already meets or exceeds the recommended minimum
Thanks for that post, dbduck. My PA/PB consist is a powered PA unit and a dummy PB unit which will normally pull 7 to 14 passenger cars of varying lengths. I have not added weight to any of the passenger cars or the dummy PB. The dummy PB is heavier than any of the passenger cars, so I wonder how I would apply RP-20.1 standards to the dummy PB loco? Any thoughts?
rrebell ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL I have to say I have never liked cork and can't even think about the idea of putting track on foam. It just does not feel firm enough to me. I sold it for years in the hobby shop, I built display layouts for the store with it. But I have actually never built any part of any of my personal layouts using cork roadbed. As I plan the new layout I am actually considering between Homasote (since a new Homasote roadbed product may appear on the market soon) and possibly making my own wood roadbed. I know cork works well for many people, I just like a more solid feel to benchwork and trackwork. Interesting comments about cork, Sheldon. On my prior layouts, I used Woodland Scenics Foam Track Bed. I always found it to soft. I nail down my track, and the softness of foam winds up deforming the foam when nailed down. On my current layout, I went with cork. Midwest products makes 3' strips and it is firm and supportive for nailed down track. However, for curves, I bought sheets from a commercial source and cut the cork to form the 32" curved roadbed. It seems fine to me, but once ballasted I have noticed that if you remove the ballast to re-lay track as I have done on these two curves, the cork is no longer flat but a bit wavy. Not good. What other alternatives are there for roadbed? Homasote? Wood? Rich Back in the dark ages of this hobby, in the 1950's and 60's, soft woods like basswood or pine were milled into roadbed. Some modelers made their own. The Tru-Scale brand being the biggest commercial line. They made three primary products. Ready Track - it was wood roadbed and ties milled from a single piece of wood. The ties had milled in tieplates (oversized) which helped position the rail, rail was spiked in place with very small spikes. Track was ready go, with the tie area stained brown and the ballast slopes painted gray with some "grit" in the gray paint. Self Gauging Roadbed - simply the product described above in kit form - raw wood milled roadbed with ties, you do the staining, spiking and ballasting. Plain Roadbed - smooth wood roadbed with no ties for use with any brand of flex track, sectional track, or as a base to install your own hand layed ties and rail. A simple Google search for "Tru-Scale Roadbed" will provide some images. Some can always be found on Ebay. They also made a complete line of turnouts, crossovers, crossings, also available "Ready" or in kit form. And the roadbed came in a wide selection of curved radii sizes. In the 70's modelers started making their own roadbed from Homasote - a messy and time consuming job. Then the Homabed product hit the market, similar to cork, two strips already beveled, layed back to back. For curves the sections are kerfed to allow bending. That product changed hands several times as so many products do in this hobby until it got to the last guy, Cascade - then he closed up. Over the years and last two owners the product line expanded to include ramps, different side slope angles, different thicknesses, all in an effort to acheave better realism and improve ease of use. As best we know Cascade closed do to personal family issues, not a lack of business or profit. There is curently an effort underway to get a replacement product on the market. One way or the other I will use wood or Homasote, or some of both. And my track will be glued down to avoid the possiblilty of movement. Yes, I am completely old school on this, the proof is in the pudding. Layouts like the Severna Park Model Railroad Club are still running on track layed on homsote in the 1960's and 70's with minimal repair or maintenance. That layout has only undergone minior changes to the track plan since it was mostly completed in the early 70's. Solid is better, and in my experiance no more noisy than all these "soft" materials. Sheldon Tru-scale track was garbage (quote from original owner), just thought I would throw that in. Never used the stuff but was fasinated by it which is how the previus owner and me dicused his product.
Tru-scale track was garbage (quote from original owner), just thought I would throw that in. Never used the stuff but was fasinated by it which is how the previus owner and me dicused his product.
And I would still like an explaination of the comment which you bring up every time TruScale track or roadbed is mentioned?
It worked great, my trains ran very well on it, as did my fathers trains.
Considering the other products of the time, it looked better than most other ready to use track.
Have you ever used it? Have you ever touched a piece of it? I still have some, mostly the bare roadbed, but a length or two of the roadbed with the ties.
Is is "fine scale" in appearance? No. But it looks better than Kato Unitrack or Bachmann E-Z track in my opinion and it was the "roadbed and track in one" product of its time.
I remember many large club layouts being built with it back in the day, and we sold plenty of it in the frist hobby shop I worked in - that was 1971 - must not have been all that bad.
Your comment, or your quote of his comment, is as meanless as the all the "Bachmann is garbage" kinds of comments.
Tell me what about it makes it garbage?
I think Woodland Scenics foam roadbed is garbage, yet they continue to sell that junk.
dbduck A dummy Locomotive is basically just another piece of rolling stock that looks like a locomotive I would apply the same rules for rolling stock to the dummy as well. Since it probably has a metal frame there is a good chance it already meets or exceeds the recommended minimum.
A dummy Locomotive is basically just another piece of rolling stock that looks like a locomotive I would apply the same rules for rolling stock to the dummy as well.
Since it probably has a metal frame there is a good chance it already meets or exceeds the recommended minimum.
PA - 21.45 oz.
PB - 7.20 oz.
85' - 7.05 oz.
Bagg - 5.01 oz.
RPO - 4.97 oz
So, the Proto 2000 PA weighs 3 times the weight of the dummy PB.
The Walthers 85' passenger cars weigh about the same as the dummy PB.
The Walthers baggage car is a bit smaller maybe 72' than the 85' passenger cars, and the RPO is even smaller, maybe 60'.
Waddya think? These are all factory weights.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Your comment, or your quote of his comment, is as meanless as the all the "Bachmann is garbage" kinds of comments. Tell me what about it makes it garbage? I think Woodland Scenics foam roadbed is garbage, yet they continue to sell that junk.
richhotrain dbduck A dummy Locomotive is basically just another piece of rolling stock that looks like a locomotive I would apply the same rules for rolling stock to the dummy as well. Since it probably has a metal frame there is a good chance it already meets or exceeds the recommended minimum. I weighed the PA and PB locos as well as 7 passenger cars. Here are the weights in ounces: PA - 21.45 oz. PB - 7.20 oz. 85' - 7.05 oz. Bagg - 5.01 oz. RPO - 4.97 oz So, the Proto 2000 PA weighs 3 times the weight of the dummy PB. The Walthers 85' passenger cars weigh about the same as the dummy PB. The Walthers baggage car is a bit smaller maybe 72' than the 85' passenger cars, and the RPO is even smaller, maybe 60'. Waddya think? These are all factory weights. Rich
I weighed the PA and PB locos as well as 7 passenger cars. Here are the weights in ounces:
Those weights are just fine.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain dbduck A dummy Locomotive is basically just another piece of rolling stock that looks like a locomotive I would apply the same rules for rolling stock to the dummy as well. Since it probably has a metal frame there is a good chance it already meets or exceeds the recommended minimum. I weighed the PA and PB locos as well as 7 passenger cars. Here are the weights in ounces: PA - 21.45 oz. PB - 7.20 oz. 85' - 7.05 oz. Bagg - 5.01 oz. RPO - 4.97 oz So, the Proto 2000 PA weighs 3 times the weight of the dummy PB. The Walthers 85' passenger cars weigh about the same as the dummy PB. The Walthers baggage car is a bit smaller maybe 72' than the 85' passenger cars, and the RPO is even smaller, maybe 60'. Waddya think? These are all factory weights. Rich Those weights are just fine. Sheldon
LastspikemikeThrust forces on a powered axle will drive the cone on the end of the axle moving it around
There are no thrust forces on a spur cut gear.
The recommended weight for HO according to RP – 20.1 is
base weight of 1 ounce +1/2 ounce for every inch of length of car
so a 6" long car would be 4 ounces
1 + (6x.5)
so i don't have to do the math every time, I made a ruler marked off in "ounces"
1" = 1.5 ounces
2" = 2
3"= 2.5 And so on
so all I have to do is hold the ruler next to the car & know instantly
dbduck The recommended weight for HO according to RP – 20.1 is base weight of 1 ounce +1/2 ounce for every inch of length of car so a 6" long car would be 4 ounces 1 + (6x.5)
dbduck so i don't have to do the math every time, I made a ruler marked off in "ounces" 1" = 1.5 ounces 2" = 2 3"= 2.5 And so on so all I have to do is hold the ruler next to the car & know instantly
SeeYou190 Lastspikemike Thrust forces on a powered axle will drive the cone on the end of the axle moving it around There are no thrust forces on a spur cut gear.
Lastspikemike Thrust forces on a powered axle will drive the cone on the end of the axle moving it around
Overmod SeeYou190 Lastspikemike Thrust forces on a powered axle will drive the cone on the end of the axle moving it around There are no thrust forces on a spur cut gear. And, unless I'm missing something, no cone on the ends of these axles...
And, unless I'm missing something, no cone on the ends of these axles...
Correct, a blunt end axle riding a simple bore with slight radius on the inside toward the wheel.
And simple straight cut spur gears so no gear thrust side to side.
In fact a necessary condition to allow the lateral motion necessary to get these three axle trucks around curves.
I had an odd derailment that I watched happen and just said, "Huh?"
It was some old reliable Geeps, pulling a boring old reliable short freight. But, it jumped the track and even looked awkward doing so, as if the engines were as confused as me.
I have an Atlas chord bridge, which I spent some time painting and decorating, even making bridge track for. I have a painting crew working on the bridge. One unfortunate painter fell off and was dragged halfway around the layout before he derailed the train. No damage to train, track or painter.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
When I built my new layout, I tested all of my locomotives and rolling stock before I started ballasting. Everything tested out fine with few exceptions, and I fixed those exceptions.
Now that I have completed the ballasting, I starting testing everything all over again. That's when I discovered the PA problem.
When I started this thread, I included "bullet proof" track work in the title, mostly with tongue in cheek. Reasonably, I did not expect the track work to be bullet proof, but I also did not expect many problems with the track work and that has been the case with the exception of the one PA.
Here is something that I noticed today. I use Atlas Code 83 flex track and Peco Code 83 turnouts on my double mainline. I chose to use Peco Code 83 turnouts because I wanted spring loaded turnouts that could be flicked by hand as opposed to Tortoises which I used extensively on my old layout. I use Atlas Code 100/83 rail joiners, and every stick of flex track has a feeder soldered to the outside of the rail. I have just a few turnouts diverging off the mainline and one crossing to reach the passenger station from the outer track over the inner track.
So far, so good. No derailments over the turnouts even though the rail profile is different than the flex track with one exception - - the problem PA. What I noticed today is that the problem PA reacts poorly at the point of the rails joined together, flex track to turnout. Actually, it was the Peco Code 83 crossing, not a standard turnout.
When I looked more closely I could see that the rail joiner was not exactly parallel to the connected rail joint which resulted in the end of the flex track sitting slightly higher than the end of the turnout. So, I used some TLC to even out the rail joint, and the problem went away.
That did alleviate the PA derailment problem at that site, but I still think that I have a front truck problem because there is too much play in the truck. So, I still need to solve the truck problem.
Edit Note: My other PA exhibits no problems at those few rail joints where the problem PA fails.
Lastspikemike I noticed Peco turnouts don't like attaching directly to Atlas rail profile. For that reason I try to connect Peco turnouts to a piece of Peco flex track and then join the Atlas track to the Peco flex track. It seems to form a more reliable joint.
I noticed Peco turnouts don't like attaching directly to Atlas rail profile. For that reason I try to connect Peco turnouts to a piece of Peco flex track and then join the Atlas track to the Peco flex track. It seems to form a more reliable joint.
It also depends on what joiners you use.
If you use actual code 83 joiners from Peco or ME, the joint is tight and the different profiles aren't much of a problem. I like to bevel the corner of the slightly bigger Atlas code 83 track in order to have a smooth unbumpy joint.
If you use the bigger Atlas code 100/83 joiners, the larger joiners are quite sloppy loose on the narrower Peco profile, and the joiners really have to be crimped quite a bit to fit snuggly and to help the joint stay even.
I use Atlas code 80 N gauge joiners to join Peco code 83 track, and to also mate Atlas code 83 track to the Peco. Those joiners are a perfect fit for the Peco, but are tight for the Atlas. Chamfer the edges of the rail base of the Atlas track and the code 80 N gauge joiners fit well (with a little force).
I like the look of the N gauge joiners since they are smaller, more like the prototype, IMO.
Nice and tight and uniform, then I go back and solder all of the joints.
And the N gauge code 80 fit great under the Peco recess. Just needs a little persuasion to break the tension
People also forget about manufacturing defects in track. Installed all new Shinohara code 70 on my layout but one had the throwbar point rise slightly above the rail when thrown to one side, no problem to fix but would have been easier before being installed, never sow one of those on my old layout.
rrebellPeople also forget about manufacturing defects in track.
I recall a batch of the early Walthers/Shinohara code 83 where the plastic bits insulating the frog had somehow "oozed" above the railhead and in some cases interfered with the flange groove in the frog.
A few careful swipes with a knife-edge jeweler's file took care of it but if you were unaware it could cause problems.
Any track and turnout has to be carefully examined inch-by-inch after laying for this reason.
gmpullman I recall a batch of the early Walthers/Shinohara code 83 where the plastic bits insulating the frog had somehow "oozed" above the railhead and in some cases interfered with the flange groove in the frog. A few careful swipes with a knife-edge jeweler's file took care of it but if you were unaware it could cause problems. Any track and turnout has to be carefully examined inch-by-inch after laying for this reason. Good Luck, Ed
I can still clearly recall my first days into HO scale modeling in January, 2004. I started out with sectional track that I decided to nail down on top of Woodland Scenics Foam Track Bed to hold the track in place.
Shortly thereafter, I moved up to flex track upon the advice of my LHS guys. Nothing but problems with derailments and unintended uncouplings. Humps and valleys on the straight mainlines and kinks on the curves. I cannot tell you how many times I wanted to quit the hobby. Even today, some 17 years later, I am still learning new things about track laying techniques.
So I can only echo your sentiment. Any track and any turnout has to be carefully examined inch-by-inch after laying it.
gmpullman rrebell People also forget about manufacturing defects in track. I recall a batch of the early Walthers/Shinohara code 83 where the plastic bits insulating the frog had somehow "oozed" above the railhead and in some cases interfered with the flange groove in the frog. A few careful swipes with a knife-edge jeweler's file took care of it but if you were unaware it could cause problems. Any track and turnout has to be carefully examined inch-by-inch after laying for this reason. Good Luck, Ed
rrebell People also forget about manufacturing defects in track.
I have had to take a file to a few of my WS turnouts at the frog, all was well.
I have a lot of WS curved T/Os and while I tend to let my T/Os float I find the curved ones need to be securely anchored down. Diesels and small steam go through a curved floater OK but a big steamer will torque it out and derail. Once it is secure problem solved.
richhotrainI can only echo your sentiment. Any track and any turnout has to be carefully examined inch-by-inch after laying it.
Hi Rich,
I would respectfully suggest that any track, especially turnouts, should be carefully examined before laying it. My experience at my old club with Atlas Code 83 turnouts showed that almost all of them required some tuning to get them to work reliably. There were two common problems. One was that the frogs were higher than the rails leading to them so they had to be filed down. The other problem, which would be much more difficult to fix with the turnout in place, was that the frogs popped loose when we were trying to attach feeders to them. We were simply trying to tap the hole in the frogs so we could attach the feeder wire, but in several instances the frogs came loose.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
hon30critter richhotrain I can only echo your sentiment. Any track and any turnout has to be carefully examined inch-by-inch after laying it. Hi Rich, My experience at my old club with Atlas Code 83 turnouts showed that almost all of them required some tuning to get them to work reliably. There were two common problems. One was that the frogs were higher than the rails leading to them so they had to be filed down. The other problem, which would be much more difficult to fix with the turnout in place, was that the frogs popped loose when we were trying to attach feeders to them.
richhotrain I can only echo your sentiment. Any track and any turnout has to be carefully examined inch-by-inch after laying it.
My experience at my old club with Atlas Code 83 turnouts showed that almost all of them required some tuning to get them to work reliably. There were two common problems. One was that the frogs were higher than the rails leading to them so they had to be filed down. The other problem, which would be much more difficult to fix with the turnout in place, was that the frogs popped loose when we were trying to attach feeders to them.
gmpullmanAny track and turnout has to be carefully examined inch-by-inch after laying for this reason.
Absolutely!
Also, and small problem you find during this examination needs to be repaired to perfection. Anything you think "should not cause problems", will cause problems.
Track must be perfect, and any time spent on careful inspection is never time wasted.
The one thing that keeps nagging at me is the practice of leaving turnouts unsoldered for ease of access or maintenance. If that is so, even if the turnouts are properly lined and surfaced originally, there may be preferential distortion at those joints if stresses in the flex should develop.
I've wondered if soldering some distance away from the turnout to make a 'larger' or better reinforced removable piece might be wise in some cases...
OvermodThe one thing that keeps nagging at me is the practice of leaving turnouts unsoldered for ease of access or maintenance. If that is so, even if the turnouts are properly lined and surfaced originally, there may be preferential distortion at those joints if stresses in the flex should develop.
Once ballast is glued in place, there will be no flex.
I do not solder my turnouts, and rarely trim them for ease of replacement. However, they are always held in place by the ballast and glue.
I'm not opposed to soldering turnouts in place, but turnouts are expensive and soldered rails reduce their resale value unless you can completely clean off the solder.
richhotrain I'm not opposed to soldering turnouts in place, but turnouts are expensive and soldered rails reduce their resale value unless you can completely clean off the solder. Rich
That is an interesting view?
I have never sold a piece of used model train track, turnout or otherwise, nor have I ever considered the idea.
I have never salvaged a piece of track from a layout after that track was ballasted.
I have salvaged raw rail, both from hand layed track and flex track.
I have salvaged turnouts from staging areas and areas not yet ballasted.
I glue my track down, with real adhesive, not painters caulk, but I don't glue the turnouts down. I do solder the rail joints to the turnouts, just like I solder all the rail joints within each signal/control block.
I have never even tried to salvage glued down track, unballasted or ballasted, with the stuff I use, it's not coming up in one piece.......
On the old layout, I did have some straight hidden staging yards that I nailed down rather than glued down, I did salvage that track, but clipped the soldered rail joints with cutters. I will clean them up as I reuse them.
My years of experiance in this hobby has me very sold on the idea of rock solid trackwork, and my experiance on the layouts of friends who used foam, cork, and other soft/lightweight materials has done nothing to change my mind.
After hand laying track and/or using Tru-Scale wood roadbed track for many years, I was excited when Atlas introduced the code 83 line, and Homabed became available. But when I read my first article about gluing down flex track, that was the icing on the cake, rock solid track like hand layed track, but faster and with better detail.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain I'm not opposed to soldering turnouts in place, but turnouts are expensive and soldered rails reduce their resale value unless you can completely clean off the solder. Rich That is an interesting view? I have never sold a piece of used model train track, turnout or otherwise, nor have I ever considered the idea. I have never salvaged a piece of track from a layout after that track was ballasted.
Back to original, how about pulling a train and a certain order of cars derails the engine but not another order, found no defects in the cars.
rrebell Back to original, how about pulling a train and a certain order of cars derails the engine but not another order, found no defects in the cars.
I'm now waiting to see if the axle-cocking problem recurs in time, perhaps with some combination of track curvature and applied torque.
That should be the whole of the immediate derailing issue ... at least, the part that isn't due to some other PA-related issue we haven't analyzed or he hasn't solved.
I have seen some Athearn six axle trucks where the center axle is not in the same plane as the outer axles. The truck will rock on the center axle causing the lead axle to raise off the rail leading to derailments. The long wheel base of the PA truck can cause similiar problems on even a very slight hump in the track.
I've thought of but never tried using a slightly smaller diameter wheelset in the center axle position.
Maerk Vinski
mvlandsw I have seen some Athearn six axle trucks where the center axle is not in the same plane as the outer axles. The truck will rock on the center axle causing the lead axle to raise off the rail leading to derailments. The long wheel base of the PA truck can cause similiar problems on even a very slight hump in the track. I've thought of but never tried using a slightly smaller diameter wheelset in the center axle position. Maerk Vinski
selector On my most-imaged layout from back in 2006-2012, I had one section that wouldn't work for a new BLI Hybrid TTT-6 UP 2-10-2. All other locomotives were good on it, but not this one new locomotive. I was careful to eliminate the locomotive, perhaps the obvious choice for the real problem, so that left the tracks. I kept lifting the outer rail on a curve until the locomotive ran through it without derailing. By then, the ballast was a mess. So, I took up the rail after softening and scraping away the ballast, rejigged the roadbed at the bad spot to keep the outer rail at the correct height, and then reballasted. No more problems, thankfully the other locomotives didn't start acting up due to the changes.
On my most-imaged layout from back in 2006-2012, I had one section that wouldn't work for a new BLI Hybrid TTT-6 UP 2-10-2. All other locomotives were good on it, but not this one new locomotive. I was careful to eliminate the locomotive, perhaps the obvious choice for the real problem, so that left the tracks. I kept lifting the outer rail on a curve until the locomotive ran through it without derailing. By then, the ballast was a mess. So, I took up the rail after softening and scraping away the ballast, rejigged the roadbed at the bad spot to keep the outer rail at the correct height, and then reballasted. No more problems, thankfully the other locomotives didn't start acting up due to the changes.
This was actually a lesson that I learned long ago. Find your worst performing locomotive and use it to final test your track work. As the theory goes, if your worst performing locomotive can travel the mainlines without derailment, then all of your other locomotives should be able to make the run as well without derailment.
In my case, every other one of my locomotives runs flawlessly across my entire 165 foot double mainline. But, as of yesterday, the troublesome PA was still experiencing its front truck lifting off the rails in one final spot, a 32" radius curve with an easement on both ends of the curve. So, I relaid the entire curve, taking great care to keep it level and without kinks.
I am still not ready to call the problem solved, but the PA did make it through the curve, several times, without so much as a hiccup. No derailments! I still think that there is some type of problem with that front truck, warped, whatever. So, I will continue to keep an eye on it.
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain I'm not opposed to soldering turnouts in place, but turnouts are expensive and soldered rails reduce their resale value unless you can completely clean off the solder. Rich That is an interesting view? I have never sold a piece of used model train track, turnout or otherwise, nor have I ever considered the idea. I have never salvaged a piece of track from a layout after that track was ballasted. When I demolished my old layout, I was able to salvage a lot of lightly ballasted flex track from my yards which I cleaned up and sold for $1.50 a stick on eBay. I also sold a bunch of Atlas Custom Line turnouts, both Code 83 and Code 100 for $5.00 to $7.50 per turnout depending upon condition. None of the turnouts had solder on the rails. The buyers were thrilled. Rich
When I demolished my old layout, I was able to salvage a lot of lightly ballasted flex track from my yards which I cleaned up and sold for $1.50 a stick on eBay. I also sold a bunch of Atlas Custom Line turnouts, both Code 83 and Code 100 for $5.00 to $7.50 per turnout depending upon condition. None of the turnouts had solder on the rails. The buyers were thrilled.
It dawned on me this morning why I never considered selling used track!
Because I have never considered buying used track!
But then again, I buy very, very little of anything that is truely "used", like in a loco that actually spend measurable time operating on a layout.
Sure, I have bought lots of NOS, or got test run and sat on a shelf for 10 years. But the obviously "used" stuff, I skip right over.
ATLANTIC CENTRALI have never sold a piece of used model train track, turnout or otherwise, nor have I ever considered the idea. I have never salvaged a piece of track from a layout after that track was ballasted. It dawned on me this morning why I never considered selling used track! Because I have never considered buying used track! But then again, I buy very, very little of anything that is truely "used", like in a loco that actually spend measurable time operating on a layout. Sure, I have bought lots of NOS, or got test run and sat on a shelf for 10 years. But the obviously "used" stuff, I skip right over.
richhotrain (...) I am still not ready to call the problem solved, but the PA did make it through the curve, several times, without so much as a hiccup. No derailments! I still think that there is some type of problem with that front truck, warped, whatever. So, I will continue to keep an eye on it. Rich
(...)
Maybe you can find a donor engine and swap the front truck. Unfortunately, these probably don't come by very often on Ebay... Maybe the problem is with the wheels/axles, which I think you could find a replacement at NWSL. Have you tried swaping the middle wheels between the front and back trucks?
I must say that your story makes me worry about my own trackwork. I would not not qualify it as bullet-proof, although I rarely get derailments. I have bought some engines in the past that have shown flaws in the trackwork that I had never noticed. I don't have any scenery or ballast done yet, so fixing it hasn't been a problem. I'm just worried that when I do get around to getting the scenery done, I may have problems with future engines that will require scenery surgery... Oh well, I guess it's part of the fun.
snjroy Maybe you can find a donor engine and swap the front truck. Unfortunately, these probably don't come by very often on Ebay... Maybe the problem is with the wheels/axles, which I think you could find a replacement at NWSL. Have you tried swaping the middle wheels between the front and back trucks? I must say that your story makes me worry about my own trackwork. I would not not qualify it as bullet-proof, although I rarely get derailments. I have bought some engines in the past that have shown flaws in the trackwork that I had never noticed. I don't have any scenery or ballast done yet, so fixing it hasn't been a problem. I'm just worried that when I do get around to getting the scenery done, I may have problems with future engines that will require scenery surgery... Oh well, I guess it's part of the fun.
So far, I have not swapped any wheelsets. I could, but I am more inclined to think that the truck and/or sideframes are warped.
As for "bullet proof" track, I put those two words in the title to the thread with tongue in cheek. Of the 54 locos that I own, steamers, 4-axle diesels, and 6-axle diesels, only the one PA, a 6-axle diesel, derails.
So, is my track work "bullet proof"? Perhaps. If the PA truck is at fault, then I will conclude that my track work is, indeed, "bullet proof", since the truck is at fault. We shall see.
After nearly 3 years of building and detailing this layout, I am ready to fully operate it. But, I first need to decide on the future of this problem PA loco.
What I find most perplexing about this entire issue is that I have two identical Life Like Proto 2000 Pa locomotives. One PA successfully runs in both directions around both of the double mainlines. But the other PA fails the test.
At one point, the problem PA derailed in several spots on two semicircular curves. One by one, I wound up relaying track over those spots. That left one spot yesterday, so I wound up relaying track over that spot.
All of that relaid track would suggest that the track, not the PA, was the problem. But, recall, all 53 other locos including one other PA had no problems negotiating any part of the double mainlines before I ever relaid any track.
So, it has to be the one PA. To save my sanity, I should probably replace the front truck on the problem PA. Or, banish the problem PA to the Island of Broken Locomotives.
Have you tried putting the loco on a flat surface, such as a scrap piece of plate glass?
Should be easy to check if one or the other truck rocks back and forth about the center axle.
maxman Have you tried putting the loco on a flat surface, such as a scrap piece of plate glass? Should be easy to check if one or the other truck rocks back and forth about the center axle.
richhotrain selector On my most-imaged layout from back in 2006-2012, I had one section that wouldn't work for a new BLI Hybrid TTT-6 UP 2-10-2. All other locomotives were good on it, but not this one new locomotive. I was careful to eliminate the locomotive, perhaps the obvious choice for the real problem, so that left the tracks. I kept lifting the outer rail on a curve until the locomotive ran through it without derailing. By then, the ballast was a mess. So, I took up the rail after softening and scraping away the ballast, rejigged the roadbed at the bad spot to keep the outer rail at the correct height, and then reballasted. No more problems, thankfully the other locomotives didn't start acting up due to the changes. This was a post by Selector on another thread, but it prompted me to go back and look at the performance of my other locomotives on the PA trouble spots. This was actually a lesson that I learned long ago. Find your worst performing locomotive and use it to final test your track work. As the theory goes, if your worst performing locomotive can travel the mainlines without derailment, then all of your other locomotives should be able to make the run as well without derailment. In my case, every other one of my locomotives runs flawlessly across my entire 165 foot double mainline. But, as of yesterday, the troublesome PA was still experiencing its front truck lifting off the rails in one final spot, a 32" radius curve with an easement on both ends of the curve. So, I relaid the entire curve, taking great care to keep it level and without kinks. I am still not ready to call the problem solved, but the PA did make it through the curve, several times, without so much as a hiccup. No derailments! I still think that there is some type of problem with that front truck, warped, whatever. So, I will continue to keep an eye on it. Rich
This was a post by Selector on another thread, but it prompted me to go back and look at the performance of my other locomotives on the PA trouble spots.
rrebell The gauge is tight, still in gauge but tight. There is a certain amount of slop in gauges (I use ribbin rail ones). It is not much but have learned that is the most likely cause of riding up.
The gauge is tight, still in gauge but tight. There is a certain amount of slop in gauges (I use ribbin rail ones). It is not much but have learned that is the most likely cause of riding up.
richhotrain maxman Have you tried putting the loco on a flat surface, such as a scrap piece of plate glass? Should be easy to check if one or the other truck rocks back and forth about the center axle. Oh yeah, I did that early on using a piece of thin parchment paper on a flat white countertop surface. The parchment paper slipped under the center wheelset of the front truck. Rich
maxman
Have you tried putting the loco on a flat surface, such as a scrap piece of plate glass? Should be easy to check if one or the other truck rocks back and forth about the center axle.
Oh yeah, I did that early on using a piece of thin parchment paper on a flat white countertop surface. The parchment paper slipped under the center wheelset of the front truck.
maxman richhotrain maxman Have you tried putting the loco on a flat surface, such as a scrap piece of plate glass? Should be easy to check if one or the other truck rocks back and forth about the center axle. Oh yeah, I did that early on using a piece of thin parchment paper on a flat white countertop surface. The parchment paper slipped under the center wheelset of the front truck. Rich If the paper slipped under the center wheelset, sort of eliminates the possibility of that wheel set being high, does it not?
N-Scale turnouts in PECO code 55 are 5/8 of an inch too short for yard ladders
A great help in bulletproof track work
I posted a longer hands on experience with this but got deleted
TF
richhotrainSeems to me to suggest the opposite. That center wheelset is not sitting on the countertop. It is sitting up too high compared to the leading and trailing wheelsets. So, the scrap of parchment paper slides under the wheel when it shouldn't.
Had a feeling that was going to cause confusion. I meant "high" relative to a plane set to a line between the first and third wheelset. Or said another way,... oh drat, that will still cause confusion. You know what I mean...the truck will rock on the center axle. Friend of mine had a bunch of Athearn SD70Ms (?) that all rocked across that center wheelset.
I had a Proto E8 and a Proto SD9 that were derailing at two different switches. I could find nothing wrong with either the locos or the switches. I finally discovered that the trouble was with the track about 15 feet before the switches. The six axle trucks have enough side play in the axles that the lead axle could derail but the loco continued following the track guided by the other two axles in the truck until the switch was encountered and the loco went sideways. One location had tight gage and the other had a cross level problem where hand laid track joined flex track.
Mark Vinski
mvlandsw I had a Proto E8 and a Proto SD9 that were derailing at two different switches. I could find nothing wrong with either the locos or the switches. I finally discovered that the trouble was with the track about 15 feet before the switches. The six axle trucks have enough side play in the axles that the lead axle could derail but the loco continued following the track guided by the other two axles in the truck until the switch was encountered and the loco went sideways. One location had tight gage and the other had a cross level problem where hand laid track joined flex track. Mark Vinski
richhotrain What I find most perplexing about this entire issue is that I have two identical Life Like Proto 2000 Pa locomotives. One PA successfully runs in both directions around both of the double mainlines. But the other PA fails the test. At one point, the problem PA derailed in several spots on two semicircular curves. One by one, I wound up relaying track over those spots. That left one spot yesterday, so I wound up relaying track over that spot. All of that relaid track would suggest that the track, not the PA, was the problem. But, recall, all 53 other locos including one other PA had no problems negotiating any part of the double mainlines before I ever relaid any track. So, it has to be the one PA. To save my sanity, I should probably replace the front truck on the problem PA. Or, banish the problem PA to the Island of Broken Locomotives. Rich
Way back in July 1963 Model Railroader, Linn Westcott was researching derailments, and how to prevent them.
Westcott ended up marking the track where more than one derailment occurred. If it got a third derailment, it was "out of order" until repaired - which puts a lot of pressure on fixing track.
If the same car or locomotive derailed in more than one place on the layout, it was tagged and removed from the layout until repaired. Puts a lot of pressure on fixing locmotives and rolling stock.
Usually the problem is a combination of "OK" track and "OK" wheels and couplers that mostly work but have a couple of deadly combinations. Your one PA has problems, but it served the purpose of finding problems in the trackwork. Three axle trucks are more likely to be problemmatic than 2 axle trucks. All 3 sets of wheels have to ride correctly, with the middle axle also needing some axial play on sharper curves.
Good luck, and getting rid of (or replacing) your problem child is always an alternative.
Fred W
There is a currently running thread titled, Will The Glitches Never End, which has prompted me to update this thread on my Proto 2000 PA problem with derailments.
In desperation, I finally broke down and swapped the front and back trucks of the problem PA. No easy task because I basically had rewire the locomotive in the process.
The problem PA now runs flawlessly without any derailments. But, in my opinion, that doesn't mean that the front truck was the problem. In fact, upon close observation, I could find no sign of warping or any other issue that might have caused the derailments.
What I have concluded is that the wiring was the cause of the derailments. When I began to remove the front truck, I noticed that the power wire connected to the truck was wedged between the part that holds the engineer's and the conductor's seat and the frame itself.
As a result, even the slightest dip in the track kept the front wheelset from holding down on the rails at the point of the dip. The dip itself was not noticeable to the naked eye, and a level failed to detect the dip. But, the wedged wire held the truck as if it were fixed in place, such that it could not follow the dip. Problem solved!
Glad to hear you found the issue Rich. What a frustrating journey. Bet you are glad it's over!
Water Level Route Glad to hear you found the issue Rich. What a frustrating journey. Bet you are glad it's over!
Yes, I am ecstatic.
I run a few Bachmann sound values and had two identical steam, first ran perfect, when the second one came it had issues, turned out to be the wires needed to be tucked up, a common Bachmann issue.