SeeYou190 I have heard that six wheeled trucks, like on a PA, have more trouble transitioning into super elevated trackage. -Kevin
I have heard that six wheeled trucks, like on a PA, have more trouble transitioning into super elevated trackage.
-Kevin
I'm pretty skeptical about using super elevation on curves only in the 30" radius range.
First thing I want to to know is how much super elevation and the length of the transition.
Sheldon
Good questions guys--
The one Kato superelevated track is 790 mm radius, a bit over 31" radius. The length of a track section (22.5 degrees of a 360 degree circle) is about 12" (I measured very nearly two 6" chords to get that approximation). The superelevation transition is approximately 1/16" over that 12" length.
If your trackwork has not been ripped up and relaid (like my curves were), and is pretty good, I think the Rapido PA will work fine. Since I didn't get the surface completely dead level prior to installing the Kato superelevated track that compromised the rate of change of cross slope (which is over one track section the way Kato makes the track). Also the one problem area is in a very slight vertical crest curve. This is what is making the long wheelbase, or limited in lateral and vertical motion, loco trucks have issues.
The PA-1 does work for me, so long as I don't try to back it through the one curve.
The BLI P70 coach totally does not work at any slow speed. It may be too light. The trucks ride up over the outside rail at certain slightly uneven spots.
The original Kato 26.375" radius, non-superelevated trackwork that was installed 15 years ago on brand new foam sheet insulation (ie flat) works just fine for the Rapido PA-1. It is the areas where I relaid track and went to larger radius, for various equipment I wanted to run, where I'm having issues.
I hope this is more helpful information that what I provided above.
I think for anyone who starts with a good smooth surface they will have less issues, but yes, long 6-wheel trucks would be the biggest challenge.
The BLI P70 coach only has 4-wheel trucks, but with the electrical pickups and by design they have more limited lateral and vertical motion. So that is why they are more fussy about the track.
My track is not as good as Sheldon's but does work for most equipment including big freight steam and 86' Tangent autoparts boxcars.
John
I would have to say Exactly Correct!
(Zix Heel) trucks have a tough time transitioning well into anything, unless a master of easements can prepare for that
TF
Here are a few examples of my trackwork:
These pictures were taken on my old layout, in a conversation about getting flex track straight - so only few curves shown.
The top picture is a 54"/56" radius curve with 18" long easements.
The bottom curve is a 36"/38" radius curve with 15" long easements.
The roadbed is homasote.
I know there are lots of fans of Unitrack out there, but I'm sorry, sticking a piece of larger radius sectional track at the end of a curve is not an easement.
So I looked up some stuff:
The superelevated Unitrack is roughly 31" radius and uses A 22.5 degree segment for the transition - about 12" long - KATO does not say how much the superelevation is, but for any noticable superelevation 12" of transition is not enough.
Yes, well, I wish I had that kind of space and the carpentry expertise. Actually my Dad's carpentry was excellent, too, but when I relaid certain curves I maybe should have cut out and replaced foam sheets or portions of them.
So if you cut corners on trackwork and space, you get what you get. I do thoroughly test things before ever gluing them down with the Liquid Nails, but as years went by, I ended up running some equipment I never designed for in the first place, and have made accommodations for that, but clearly not perfectly enough.
So for prospective PA owners, either find lots of space or have truly excellent smooth trackwork.
PRR8259 Yes, well, I wish I had that kind of space and the carpentry expertise. Actually my Dad's carpentry was excellent, too, but when I relaid certain curves I maybe should have cut out and replaced foam sheets or portions of them. So if you cut corners on trackwork and space, you get what you get. I do thoroughly test things before ever gluing them down with the Liquid Nails, but as years went by, I ended up running some equipment I never designed for in the first place, and have made accommodations for that, but clearly not perfectly enough. So for prospective PA owners, either find lots of space or have truly excellent smooth trackwork.
Well, I know I'm an old school curmudgeon, but I would never build a model train layout on foam. Not because it does not work, but because I just hate working with it.
Liquid nails, I barely use that in my profession as a carpenter, I would never lay track of any kind with it.
AND, I have always built benchwork I can climb on if need be. I built one layout (shown above) with some sections as a "shelf layout". Never do that or the double deck thing again.
I was so unhappy with the "scenic views", I never finished the layout. Took it down and started on a new plan.
Only time in 50 years I was unhappy with a layout plan once I was into it.
But I'm old and set in ways that have proven to work.......
My dad built the benchwork, but I chose the foam so that I could carve scenic features etc. into it. I was really impressed with some articles I had seen in Model Railroader where people just did a phenomenal job on scenery and said it was much easier to work with--and lighter--than the traditional plaster over some kind of framework method (which is also messier and more difficult and more time consuming). I opted, always, for ease of construction.
I was just down working on a slight adjustment to one curve. Still, even after additional work, the six axle rear truck of the PA-1 wants to ride out over the outside rail when backing up through the curve, just barely but enough to derail. Forwards, the curve is on a very slight downgrade (about 0.4%) and the Rapido PA-1 works fine.
I just tested the Athearn Genesis DDA40X on the same curve, both forward and reverse, with absolutely no issues whatsoever. Why? Because Athearn builds enough axle end-play into those giant 8-wheel trucks, and also Athearn allowed plenty of lateral and vertical truck motion. The big DDA40X is able to easily negotiate things that the Rapido 6-axle truck of the PA-1 just will not do quite as well. The difference is slight but noticeable. I'm not trashing the PA-1 to say it is just a little more finicky about the quality of the trackwork than the DDA40X monster loco.
A big part of the problem here is the wheelbase of the GSC truck used on the PA, 15'-6" compared to 14'-1" for the EMD 6 wheel truck on E units.
And the DD40 truck, having four closer spaced axles is more able to steer itself through the curve, again, agreeing that it needs enough play.
Rich had PA issues with Proto units on 30" curves, but not with EMD E units.
17 scale inches can make the difference.
No one wants to admit that often we are running these models on the hairy edge of the engineering.
I chose a different path...
ATLANTIC CENTRAL A big part of the problem here is the wheelbase of the GSC truck used on the PA, 15'-6" compared to 14'-1" for the EMD 6 wheel truck on E units. And DD40 truck, having four closer spaced axles is more able to steer itself through the curve, again, agreeing that it needs enough play. Rich had PA issues with Proto units 30" curves, but not with EMD E units. 17 scale inches can make the difference. No one wants to admit that often we are running these models on the hairy edge of the engineering. I chose a different path... Sheldon
And DD40 truck, having four closer spaced axles is more able to steer itself through the curve, again, agreeing that it needs enough play.
Rich had PA issues with Proto units 30" curves, but not with EMD E units.
But, the two pairs of Proto 2000 PA/PB locomotives gave me fits, particularly one of the PA locomotives. To my eye, the trucks on the PA and PB units look giant compared to the 6-axle trucks on my E-units. I finally sold off my PA/PB units after a lot of effort working on my track work to no avail.
Every other loco that I own would run without derailing except for that one PA. With a lot of help and advice, I finally solved the biggest problem. The right front truck was being pulled up a slight bit off the rail on one curve. Turned out, the power wire from the truck was wedged between two parts of the frame, lifting the truck off the rail in the curve with resulting derailments when it reached the next turnout.
Once that problem was fixed, most of the derailments disappeared, but at high speeds an occasional derailment would still occur on both PA/PB consists. I got fed up and dumped both consists vowing to never again own a PA or PB unit.
Rich
Alton Junction
17 scale inches.
Agreed. Yes, always knew we are running some of these models at the very limits of what they can possibly do. You see it when watching them track at very low speed.
One has to wonder how many of these things sit in the closet roundhouse for a layout that someone hopes to build, but in most cases never will get around to doing, or else how many just sit on a collector's shelf?
My long time friend is a train store sales manager. He knows that most people are accumulators and don't actually ever run the stuff, beyond perhaps a test run on some kind of tangent test track.
The brass PA-1 models were usually heavy enough (and had enough axle end-play) to be able to handle 30" and lesser curves. Plus the Overlands have individual wheel sprung equalization. That makes a big difference in performance. So when I go 2 decades without playing with a certain type of model, of course I forget that they can be picky.
Having also worked retail in this hobby, and having been involved in it for over 50 years now, there as definitely been a shift in that percentage. In the 70's I would have said, 25% collectors/accumulators. 25% very serious scale modelers, 50% casual modelers with small to medium sized layouts.
Today, I think the collector/accumulators are easily 40% with the other two groups evenly dividing the rest of the market.
And I think region effects these numbers, because of a complex number of factors.
In the northeast and upper Midwest, houses have basements. Nearly free large layout spaces. These areas also have generally high incomes and education levels and dense populations. You are going to find more serious modelers with medium to large layouts.
You have to have more resources to have a big layout in Florida or Southern California, simply based on housing types and costs.
One other thought, it is a chicken and egg effect. As the RTR models improved, it was more attractive to those with means but little time or skills, to be interested in this hobby. That meant good sales for Proto2000, Spectrum, BLI, MTH, Rapido. Which meant more and better models, etc.
Personally, I have my whole layout plan and concept in my head and on paper. However slow, and with a few redirects caused by life, every step I take,every purchase I make, is another small piece of that puzzle.
It is starting to come together now, more layout progress updates soon.
My Athearn PAs can snake through a 22" radius S curve, forward and reverse, with no problems at all.
Living the dream.
SeeYou190 My Athearn PAs can snake through a 22" radius S curve, forward and reverse, with no problems at all. -Kevin
A simple result of a very simple design, one piece side frames, minimal detail on the trucks, lots of side play, and truck mounted couplers.
For its time, and the nature of the hobby at that time, it was a great model. A model that would be impossible to sell in numbers today.
Seems we strayed from the original question.
maxmanSeems we strayed from the original question.
Yeah, like five pages ago.
Well, perhaps we strayed after answering the question a couple pages back.
However, discussion of how to fix trackwork to get the PA-1's (and other related passenger stuff) to operate well also has some merit. Sorry didn't bother to create another topic.
Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good:
My father aged rather quickly at the end. He left lots of tools here because he was always doing stuff on our house. The tools still remain reminding me of him...which is certainly thought provoking as trains run in the basement.
High track joint--gave one rail a few gentle kisses with Dad's hammer (er, persuader). Fixed one curve.
Used Atlas track nails to actually lower the inside of a couple pieces of curved and superelevated Kato unitrack, effectively increasing the superelevation as well as the rate of change of superelevation. Fixed another curve.
Used just one set of Kadee coupler instructions as a shim piece under Unitrack to raise one side of rail that looked low at a reverse curve. Glued in place with canopy glue (it was handy) so that cat cannot remove the shim (he's tried before). Fixed third curve.
Still can only run one direction through the one curve, but can now attain serious toy train speed levels with the Rapido PA-1 in plain dc pulling the token BLI PRR P-70 coach all the way around the layout.
Better lucky than good.
An idea that I have never tried but it seems like it might make 3 axle trucks more reliable is to remove the wheels from the center axles. The axle would have to remain in place for the gearing.
I don't think the absence of the wheels behind the sideframes would be very noticable under most viewing situations. A dummy half wheel without a flange could be glued to the back of the sideframe to ride slightly above the rail to fill the space.
Removing the lead or trailing wheels might work also. I have seen the lead axle of a 3 axle truck derail but the engine continued on for 20 feet until a switch was encountered.
PRR8259New Rapido PA-1 owners, are you happy with your new acquisitions?
So far — still am
Had to have two more in two-tone grey.
PA_NYC-broadside by Edmund, on Flickr
PA_NYC-Pacemaker by Edmund, on Flickr
IF there is a critical point to these, for me, it would be the fitting of the small numberboard to the contour of the nose. I would have much prefered to see a nice radius fillet around the numberboard/class light housing. Minus a quarter of a star. They did a great job with the fit of the large 45° housing.
PA_NYC-old-cab-pass by Edmund, on Flickr
All the talk about PAs prompted me to round a few up for a family portrait:
PA_Roundhouse-lineup-3 by Edmund, on Flickr
PA_Roundhouse-lineup-2 by Edmund, on Flickr
PA_Roundhouse-lineup by Edmund, on Flickr
None of these engines give me any tracking troubles even on superelevated curves. Just lucky, I guess. I did have a couple of the hi-current draw Protos but since weeded them out.
I just sent an order in for some Scale Sound Systems speakers. Rapido likes to use the I-phone type and I'm not convinced they're all that great. I've had excellent results with SSS speakers.
Regards, Ed
Ed, could Archer 'weld decals' provide the required fillet for the visible areas of the numberboards?
One approach I've seen described is to hog out the vertical bearing slots for the middle axle in these passenger trucks with one-piece sideframes, allowing the wheel to 'float' vertically and laterally without being able to twist relative to the gauge. This could then have a contact spring defining the 'downforce' on that axle, which would double as an effective non-powered-axle electrical pickup.
This might well be a solution applicable to a leading or trailing axle in a truck -- remove the drive-gear train to make that axle an 'idler' and position the contact downforce springs so they work 'around' the axle gear if you leave the disconnected wheel set intact. Something for at least consideration is whether stability for one of these trucks with lead or trailing axle removed or floating would be improved if the physical pivot point were moved inside the new 'effective wheelbase'.
All of this talk about a high fidelity model not being able to negotiate a typical model railroad curve takes me to the thought of a marriage destined for failure from the beginning.
I had a 50 foot boxcar with complex underbody rigging that prevented it from negotiating a 24 inch radius curve. While I blamed the manufacturer, in the end, what business do I have trying to marry the ideas of high fidelity models with low fidelity curves?
As someone mentioned, how many people who buy these models have actually run them yet? Plan to?,Yes. Have done it?, Hmmm.
Maybe we simply need to realize that more prototypically accurate models require more prototypically accurate curves.
- Douglas
PRR8259Well, perhaps we strayed after answering the question a couple pages back. However, discussion of how to fix trackwork to get the PA-1's (and other related passenger stuff) to operate well also has some merit. Sorry didn't bother to create another topic.
Nothing was directed at you, sorry if it sounded that way.
I started a new thread from a comment in this one, and it did not go well at all.
OvermodEd, could Archer 'weld decals' provide the required fillet for the visible areas of the numberboards?
I doubt that will work. No decal setting solution, even Daco Strong, works to soften the 3D effect of Archer decals. These work great on flat surfaces, but do not fill gaps.
DoughlessMaybe we simply need to realize that more prototypically accurate models require more prototypically accurate curves.
I guess that is true. Since I have conceded to 22" radius hidden curves I should just stick to what works.
I had to removed detail from a few things for them to work on layout #5.
Doughless All of this talk about a high fidelity model not being able to negotiate a typical model railroad curve takes me to the thought of a marriage destined for failure from the beginning. I had a 50 foot boxcar with complex underbody rigging that prevented it from negotiating a 24 inch radius curve. While I blamed the manufacturer, in the end, what business do I have trying to marry the ideas of high fidelity models with low fidelity curves? As someone mentioned, how many people who buy these models have actually run them yet? Plan to?,Yes. Have done it?, Hmmm. Maybe we simply need to realize that more prototypically accurate models require more prototypically accurate curves.
In one way or another I think I have been saying this for years.......
And then listening to all those who think I'm an arrogant snob rubbing their face the fact that I have 1000 sq ft (the old layout space) or 1500 sq ft (the new layout space) for my layout.
Which of course is not the case at all. I have friends and acquaintances in this hobby with much larger layouts then mine, and much smaller layouts than mine.
But the hard cold facts of physics suggest that the greatest satisfaction in this hobby comes from building a layout that actually works, no matter its size or complexity.
The great Paul Mallery lobbied for 48" curves as the recommended minimum for modeling Class I railroads - the modular guys took his advice.
Even my 36" minimum pales a little against that standard. And it is for that reason that even I restrict the length of rigid wheelbase steam locos I run, and I avoid 85' streamlined passenger cars, and I minimize the use of 80' heavyweights in favor of mostly shorter heavyweight cars (some selectively compressed, some not).
This allows me to reliably close couple cars and locos with working diaphragms.
My 36" minimum radius in areas were all locos and passneger cars might travel translates into many curves being in the 38" to 42" range and larger as an effect of the double track mainline and concentric curves for yard leads, branch routes and sidings.
Even I had to compromise from and original attempt to stay at 48" radius.
I kept the new layout as simple as possible to meet the stated goals, with 30" curves I could have packed in twice as much "complexity" and features.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Doughless All of this talk about a high fidelity model not being able to negotiate a typical model railroad curve takes me to the thought of a marriage destined for failure from the beginning. I had a 50 foot boxcar with complex underbody rigging that prevented it from negotiating a 24 inch radius curve. While I blamed the manufacturer, in the end, what business do I have trying to marry the ideas of high fidelity models with low fidelity curves? As someone mentioned, how many people who buy these models have actually run them yet? Plan to?,Yes. Have done it?, Hmmm. Maybe we simply need to realize that more prototypically accurate models require more prototypically accurate curves. In one way or another I think I have been saying this for years....... And then listening to all those who think I'm an arrogant snob rubbing their face the fact that I have 1000 sq ft (the old layout space) or 1500 sq ft (the new layout space) for my layout. Which of course is not the case at all. I have friends and acquaintances in this hobby with much larger layouts then mine, and much smaller layouts than mine. But the hard cold facts of physics suggest that the greatest satisfaction in this hobby comes from building a layout that actually works, no matter its size or complexity. The great Paul Mallery lobbied for 48" curves as the recommended minimum for modeling Class I railroads - the modular guys took his advice. Even my 36" minimum pales a little against that standard. And it is for that reason that even I restrict the length of rigid wheelbase steam locos I run, and I avoid 85' streamlined passenger cars, and I minimize the use of 80' heavyweights in favor of mostly shorter heavyweight cars (some selectively compressed, some not). This allows me to reliably close couple cars and locos with working diaphragms. My 36" minimum radius in areas were all locos and passneger cars might travel translates into many curves being in the 38" to 42" range and larger as an effect of the double track mainline and concentric curves for yard leads, branch routes and sidings. Even I had to compromise from and original attempt to stay at 48" radius. I kept the new layout as simple as possible to meet the stated goals, with 30" curves I could have packed in twice as much "complexity" and features. Sheldon
Yes you have. You came to mind as I was typing it.
As I have mentioned in the recent past. I am done with spending time fiddling with stuff that doesn't work. Repositioning brake cylinders is no big deal, but trying to get a long fixed wheel based high-fidelity model to negotiate a curve that is far sharper than the prototype seems similar to someone choosing to sail against strong prevailing headwinds. Do you really want to work that hard? Its a hobby.
You compromised some fidelity in your passenger ops by using/making cars that are shorter. Still, you have to have broader than common curves also to make things work "correctly" (according to your standards).
I like modern railroading in a switching type of atmosphere. IMO, modern times tend to have longer cuts of similar cars. Because of the longer cuts but inherently sharp curves on our layouts, I make it work by trying to limit the predominate cars on my layout to 40 foot Corn Syrup/Molasses tank cars and two bay cement hoppers. These short cars still look better when I use #8 frogged turnouts.
I have generous space for that now. But I have learned that when/if we move to a place that has smaller layout space, I will keep the same principals by doing less. Things will have to look correct and working correctly without spending my hobby/retirement time fiddling with stuff that is inherently challenging to pull off.
Doing less (aka keeping it simple) increases the quality of time spent, IMO.
Doughless Doing less (aka keeping it simple) increases the quality of time spent, IMO.
And while I may be doing more than some, I am doing a LOT less than many would try to do in a space of my size.
A freight yard with 8 tracks 22' long is no more complex than one 12' long, but it is only half as complex as insisting on having 12' long yards at both ends of the mainline.
Kevin--
No worries. Thank you.
I do think this discussion got more interesting here as of late.
Overmod Ed, could Archer 'weld decals' provide the required fillet for the visible areas of the numberboards?
If there were some kind of backing in the gap that might work. Ideally I could find an HO scale caulking gun and a perfectly-matched color to "caulk" the gap. Squadron Green or equivalent would be too messy and I'm afraid a total repaint would be in order after attempting something like that.
NYC_PA-4203-number by Edmund, on Flickr
I'm sure with the passage of time I'll grow to ignore it. In the meantime, Photoshop works
NYC_PA-4203-number-edit by Edmund, on Flickr
Here's a look at a former Santa Fe PA and how the numberboard feathers into the contour of the nose:
Profile in Elegance: D&H PA-1 #16 at Hagerstown Yards, February 5, 1972 by Steve Baldwin, on Flickr
SeeYou190I guess that is true. Since I have conceded to 22" radius hidden curves I should just stick to what works. I had to removed detail from a few things for them to work on layout #5. -Kevin
I certainly did not want to suggest anything negative about anybody else's choices. I was recounting the days that I would spend knocking my head against a wall trying to fix something, then realizing that what I was trying to do was something that inherently was challenging in the first place.
Seems like a person has to plan to have a PA more than other types of locos. I suppose if you want to have a 2-10-0 too, its not something that you just buy casually and expect it to work correctly. I would never have thought any diesel locomotive would have to be thought about like that too.
gmpullmanIdeally I could find an HO scale caulking gun.
Maybe a survey is in order... How much would you pay for an HO scale caulking gun? I have wished for one so many times.
DoughlessI certainly did not want to suggest anything negative about anybody else's choices.
Having 22" radius curves was a tough choice. To fit everything else into the available space... and have a 3 track U-turn at one end of the layout, the inner track had to drop to 22" on the curve.
Figuring out what I needed to have, and the compromises to achieve that, was a hard process.
If my budget was extravagent, I could have done anything, but I am trying so hard not to ever have a real job again.
DoughlessI suppose if you want to have a 2-10-0 too, its not something that you just buy casually and expect it to work correctly.
That is very true.
Furtunately I finally found one of those "Unicorn Rare" IHC 2-10-2 locomotives in undecorated. It will run through a 22" radius S curve as smooth as can be.
-Photograph by Kevin Parson
Every locomotive I buy is a dice-roll.