I have three major problems for which the manufacturers were of absolutely no help at all and I am hoping someone reading this can be.
I have a fairly large layout, recently upgraded to 22" radius curves. I am not a fan of DCC, so everything I own is analog. The main probelms I have, all relating to locomotives, are as follows:
My Athearn Dash 9 BNSF locomotive (with six wheel trucks) will not negotiate a curve without derailing the rear trucks. All of my curves are banked and I also run Rivarossi E-8’s, also with six wheel trucks, without any problems. Any siggeations?
Similar to number one, I have a beautiful Bachmann (I know-not too many Bachmann fans out there but this one is really nice) Niagara 4-8-4. It will run the rails perfectly until I put the tender on it. Then, either the pilot or trailing trucks will jump the rails everytime it enters a curve-anywhere. I have tried adding weights to the trucks, but this doesn’t help. This was also the reason I upgraded from 18 to 22 inch radius curves.
Any help will be appreciated.
athearn trucks don’t have much of a turning radius…I tried to file down some of the areas on the frame where the trucks hit the frame especially the SD’s with no luck…my solution now is that I have no curves under 26" radius…it works…i’ve had all my SD’s in boxes for over 10 years because they would not negotiate the curves on my last layout that had only 15" and 18 " radius curves…my new layout has not had any derailment problems with the SD’s since i increased the size of the track radius…24" is in my opinion the bare minimum radius for athearn sd locomotives and will probably apply to your steamer also…Chuck[:D]
I don’t know about the Bachmann Niagara, but the problem with the Athearn Dash 9 is probably due to a lack of adequate lateral play in the trucks. I had the same problem with Athearn Genesis SD70 models – there is not enough free play in the trucks to allow for any changes in gradient, such as you have with your banked curves.
My suggestion would be to remove the shell and see if you can’t find a way to give the trucks more free play, both side to side and front to rear. Check also for excess plastic on the truck sideframes that can be filed away to let the trucks swivel more freely.
Try some experiments with larger radius curves (on a sheet of plywood, out on the patio during a nice day, like that) and see at what point the derailments stop. You should try curves in the range of 24" - 30". You should see the derailments stop well before you reach 30" if the sharpness of the curves are your issue.
It could be you have some out-of-guage wheels, and that means your problem is not curve sharpness. Get yourself an NMRA guage and check the guage of the loco wheels.
Banking model train curves only increases your chance of derailments (although just slightly). If the loco trucks are having any issues, banking is a sure way to bring out the tracking issues. I bank the curves on my layout, but I make sure everything else is taken care of (like wheel guage and loco weight) first. And also, I use a minimum radius of 30" on my branchline and 36" on my mainline.
Check the wheelset gauge as well. I’ve found that a lot of 6-axle Athearn locos come with the wheelsets set slightly too wide - my problem was that they derailed at point frogs and tended to become “wedged” on short tight curves - like trying to carry a long board down a narrow corridor with a bend in it. I reset all wheel back to back gauges to 14.5mm using a micrometer, and they’re now fine. I’m using Peco track . Hope this helps
It sounds like the hole in the tender drawbar is a bit tight. Instead of allowing the connection to float, it’s staying rigid. when the engine goes over a slight dip in the tracks, the tender is keeping the back end of the engine from following the dip, which is where you’re getting your derailments from.
I’d suggest reaming out the drawbar hole until the connection is a bit sloppy. Apparently, this engine doesn’t draw power from the tender wheels, so it’s no problem if the connection is loose. If the tender does draw power through the drawbar, I’d solder a length of steel wire to the back of the drawbar, positioned so it rubs up against the pin the drawbar fits into.
I’ve run across this sort of problem before, on both inexpensive engines and brass. It’s a pretty common problem, and an easy fix!
Almost everything seems to be well covered above, and I will ad just a couple of items:
The RIvarossi E unit has very flexible truck mounting, and axles that can move side to side a great deal, it is a toy train, and will run okay on just about any track. The Athearn is a model train, and needs track work to a higher standard - though it is rather forgiving compared to most brass models.
As Joe says; get a NMRA guage, and use it.
It sounds like your transitions to banking are too abrupt. Consider removing the banking, or reworking the transitions.
Banked curves could be your problem. I have banked curves, which my Rivarossi heavy weight cars will tolerate but will from time to time jump the rails.
With elevated curves the track must be absolutely level as any minor dip will lead to catastrophe. The other question is what is the angle of elevation? Is it to steep?
How rigid are your trucks? by this I meen though there is plenty of lateral play is there any vertical or horizontal play, can the trucks rotate on all three axis?
You may recall I posted a thread a couple of months ago with regards to guard rails. Again this was because some engines were derailing on rising/descending super elevated curves. The guard rails have eliminated the problem.
Hope this helps
Just a little info, I recently purchased an athearn AC4400 which is a similar sized engine. I had 22 radias curves and found that the engine couldn’t take it. I looked at my curves and dedcided for looks and operation I’d widen my curves as much as space would permit. So I’ve 26-30 inch curves now and I have no problems with the engine anymore. So if you have the space go for wider curves.
Another problem I found was how athearn engines are made, atleast blue boxes. The metal connecter which connects the trucks to the engine, when going around a tight turn will pop off of the engine, which stops the engine. Just another thing to think about.
Andrew Miller
Just thought of another modification that you could try, if you’ve not done it already. Remove the metal strip taking power from the trucks to the top of the motor, and replace it with flexible wire soldered in place. Just make sure there’s enough wire to allow the trucks to swing properly and rock slightly both fore and aft and side to side. This will give you more reliable pickup and will also allow the trucks more freedom of movement - this can be usefully done on all Blue Box locos.
FACT: 22" in (and smaller) curves exist to fit the restrictions of a 4’ X 8’ board of plywood, and those 101 designs go back almost 50 years.
It’s an improvement over the 'Circle around the Xmas Tree and you can enjoy it all year around and add some buildings.
OPINION: Today’s long cars and engines are out of place and look ‘toylike’ on curves designed for 50 year ago equipment…
85’ Passenger cars cars on sheet plywood’s 4’ limiting curves, resemble more an ‘Octagon’ more than a circle… and in the case of 18" curves, a sextegon. - upright, or laying on it’s side-
Just like the REAL railroad.
Not meaning to get off topic, but that superelevated curve looks impressive!! [:D][8D]
There is a superelevated curve on the CSX mainline near my house (former Seaboard Coast Line). I really enjoy watching the intermodals “sling through” that point at about 60 m.p.h! It’s neat to see large, modern locomotives “lean into the curve”, wheels squealing. The wheels on the freight cars squeal even louder! [:p]
Thanks for the heads up on superelevating for on model layouts. I was not aware that derailment chances increased, so apparently “precise trackwork” is a must. [^]
Thanks to all who replied. I have already tried most of the suggestions, from gauge to radius. Since the Dash-9 is the only unit giving me this kind of trouble, I will probably just sideline it. As for the Niagara (a 4-8-4), I have a GS-4 (same wheel configuration) which runs perfectly, perhaps that problem is with the unit itself. “Ask the BAchmann” was of no help whatsoever. I only have one other response however, and it is to the reply of “nfmisso” from Minnesota. I have a hard time accepting Rivarossi as a “toy train”. Perhaps Lionel, Marx, cheap LifeLike units and alot of Bachmann maybe, but both in price and performance I can’t put Rivarossi in that same category and keep a straight face. But then that’s my opinion and that’s what makes this forum great. Thanks again. Lawman
You mentioned having more room. You might want to consider less trackage which would free up more real estate allowing for curves with larger radii (is that spelled correctly?) Any way. . .Some times, less is more.
