Ian i wonder if we are experiencing somewhat of the same problem mine being the brake car idea ??? good luck rayf
Ian.
I would think that it is an EMF problem on your tender as HJ says.
If the tender is pushing the engine down the hill it could be a prob
Yes gentlemen some good thinking and I take what you say about back EMF, HJ a very good thought.
However don’t forget that it has been running fautlessly for nearly a year until about a week or so ago so something must have changed!
I have had an idea and i don’t know what you men think but what about if i runit in reverse both ways clockwise and anticlockwise and see what happens and also try to observe the coupling if it goes into tension etc.
If what i think is true the tender will pull the Stainz and the problem should disappear, what do you think?
Rgds ian
That sounds like a well thought possible solution in finding the base problem.
Only one suggestion, log what you did each time and the result in a notebook, then you can build a trouble shooting chart for the next time it happens.
I agree that changing the direction of the push-pull should reveal if it is the culprit, which I suspect it is.
(Don’t kill me for this Ian, but even LGB breaks once in a while!)
[oX)]
Gentlemen
LGB does go wrong quite often particularly when MTS is involved; and I think this is what has happened.
I ran the tender and loco around the track for a long time in reverse and it never derailed; the coupler went into tension and compression alll the time as it should so; i think we are heading in the right direction what do you blokes think?
If I look at the MTS instruction CV 2 covers starting voltage and it is set at the factory at “0” or slowest, what if I increase the Stainz to “01” and see what happens?
CV 3 and 4 control accelaration and braking and are factory set at “3” what about if i leave them as is and see what that does?
What do you think men and Rene.
rgds ian
Can you disconnect tender and engine? That may be the easiest way to tell if they’re going the same speed.
How hard is MTS to reconfigure? Sometimes you get the best results by trial and error.
Hellllllllllllllllllllllllllllo, the CVs to adjust the Back-EMF are CV60, 61 and 62!
To compare the relative speed uncouple tender from engine, separate by 2" then let run over the same section that gives trouble.
Programming speed curves happens with CV67-94. LGB recommends the 55045 programming tool for the PC.
BTW another fluky thing that could happen on the downhill/curve scenario is: tender and train pu***he engine. Frontend of engine lifts just slightly, but enough for the wheels to climb at the next curve!
HJ I think thats what it is but i wouldn’t dare adjust the CV you are talking about that is out of my league. I will try CV 2 and see how i go!
rgds Ian
Gentlemen
You can all have a beer on me, i have fixed the problem! Hooray.
I set both the tender and the Stainz to the factory settings ie
CV 2 speed to 0
CV 3 accel to 3
CV 4 brake to 3
I then reset the Stainz speed to 1 and it didn’t do anything much.
reset Stainz to 50 and it ran away from the tender
reset Stainz to 10 and it was still a bit fast
reset Stainz to 5 and it was just right, ran around the track for several circuits and the distance between the two remained constant at speed 8.
I then connected the coupling up and ran them in a clockwise direction which where all the trouble was. Ran very well the draw bar was straight just about all the time in and out of tension and comression all the time and it swung briefly to one side then the other as it went around corners, exactly right.
I have now run them for several hours in a clockwise direction and not even the hint of a derailment!
I also ran them all over my entire layout and as far as I am concerned its fixed
The only explanation I can offer is that as the tender is much newer than the Stainz it had run itself in and therefore exprienced a small increase in spedd enopugh to do the damage!
Rgds Ian
Good for you Ian! I was just thinking earlier when you mentioned that the tender was newer that you might have a running in mechanical problem. Looks like you beat me to the punch! Ok, file this one away for future reference…
[oX)]
Yes Jack I am sitting here at the computer quietly congratulating myself.
I think this is something all should take notice of and it may save you some heartache down the track.
Ian
Ian,
I like that!
In my previous life I learned to troubleshoot very methodically.
The first question is: What are the variables?
If you’re disposed to that kind of job, you get to solve lots of the problems over the phone, by FAX or by email.
Now, what I have found to be the biggest problem: people have a hard time doing things step by step because they “know” that they have already “eliminated” X, Y and Z possibility.
Hey no problem! I always liked to invoice for service calls if people had it “all figured out”, except it just didn’t work.
I’m sure there are people on this forum who could give blow by blow instructions on just about any problem. The question is: will the blow by blow instructions be followed - elementary in trouble shooting - or will there be x short cuts?
Sooooooooo when the pat answers are not forthcoming (some people get upset about that!) it is most likely because there are no pat answers - only the step by step determination and elimination route.
At least that’s what 36 years of troubleshooting experience has taught me.
Yeah, yeah I know, Troy doesn’t want to hear about my years of experience. [}:)][}:)][;)][:D]
I don’t mind you years of experience HJ.It’s you being up your own backside and smart alec answers that sometimes get to me.
Wellllllllll
I never made it into the “contortionist league” and usually I try to make my replies fit the post being replied to.
That can rub people the wrong way, however since I learned a long time ago that I’m not responsible for how other people feel… it isn’t my problem. [:)][:)]
PS I do receive email from people who find my solutions quite practical, that makes up for the remarks I get from other quarters.
HJ I can see hwere Troy is coming from, I find youhard to understand at times butthanks for your input anyway.
Rgds Ian
Hey no problem, at least not on this end.[;)][:)]
OTOH, this should give you a clue, perhaps coming from one of your countrymen it will be easier to understand. Perhaps you missed Phil’s post.
'nough said!?!
Do the couplers move the full distance of their arc both on the loco and the tender? This could possibly be a source of the problem. Is there perhaps a slight dip there causing them to slightly uncouple and then miscouple thus causing the “jacknife”. I had a problem with a knuckle coupler on one of my diesels that would cause only certain trailing cars to derail at certain locations. It wasn’t until I actually got down on my belly that I discovered that the coupler on the loco would bind under tension. Something that wouldn’t happen when flipped upside down in my hand and just moved back and forth. I ended up having to modify the spring where it was attached to the body so that the spring would move more easily.
Ian, have you tried separating the loco and the tender and then running them at different settings while going around the bend. Example, run them around the bend at 5, then 6, then 7, etc and watch the characteristics of both units. Keep both units very close together but not touching to see if perhaps the tender is running faster than the loco and maybe forcing the loco off the track at that spot.
Mark
Mark mate;
You have come in at the end of the saga if it has an end.
While i had the problem the male coupler on the loco did travel the entire length of the female coupler on the tender but now i have fixed the problem it no longer does that.
It was an MTS problem and i fixed it with a few MTS adjustments, look back over this page mate. very interesting
Rgds ian
WOW is that wierd. half of these replies I didn’t even see yesterday when I replied and yet, I’m at the bottom of the stack. Well, at least it’s consistent with the rest of my life. Always late and missing the fun.
Glad you got it fixed,
Mark