I actually had a very similar problem with a C&O 2-10-4 and my J1 2-10-4. I originally thought it was the driver play too. When I really sat down and watched them (this took about 2 hours really due to the randomness of the occurence) at speed, I found that the issue was that the lead trucks would “lift” on my Atlas #6 turnouts as they went through the frog.
It turned out the spring was flexing too much and allowing the lead truck to derail which seemed to pull the locomotive out of line with the track. I fixed that problem by swapping out the spring on the lead truck mechanism for a less “springy” one. Just a thought before getting into the flanged driver fix or the lateral motion on the middle driver.
I have the same two BLI locos in question, and in fact used them as test locos when putting down my track on an 11x15 two level HO layout. I use Atlas code 100 trackage, and found that these locos performed flawlessly on the #8s (which are the only ones on the main lines). However, this was not the case with the Atlas # 6s. On some of the # 6s, and not all the time, the 10 drivered locos would derail.
I fully agree that these locos SHOULD be able to navigate a # 6 at speed, but it doesn’t work out that way on my layout. The good news is that there is no reason for these locos to do so (they are heavy freight mainline locos, not switchers), so I am OK with the situation.
By the way, E & F units and various switchers and smaller steam locos work just fine thru the # 6s - even the BLI 4-8-4 (my favorite loco).
For what its worth, it seems that 10 drivered locos have had a rough time on layouts since I got into HO - about 49 years ago.
I have 2 of the J1 beasts. They have no problems even on #5 turnouts. I got to looking at your situation and comparing the 2 of mine. The center blind driver also has the gear. Swapping it with the flanged one is a waste of time and may just compound the issues of derailments. It is also the only axle that is not sprung. The other axles have small springs above the brasses to hold the weight of the locos. On mine the center wheels hardly touch the rail. I can slip a piece of paper under the wheels when standing still. The 1,2,4,and 5 axles have springs. Also to note is the brasses are not drilled to accept the springs as they are on brass locos. If you look at the brasses very carefully you will see that the axle hole is not centered. The side with the most bronze goes against the spring. I suspect that your locos have the brasses turned to the wrong side. This would allow too much weight to be placed on the center driver. When it leaves the rail head it drops down instead of staying above the rails.
I acquired a brass 2-10-0 earlier this year. It came with flanged drivers on the first and last axle. The center 3 axles would do as yours did. Derail on turnouts and curves sharper then 48 inches. I added flanged drivers to the 2 and 4 axles and it is one of the best running locos I have now.
Okay, NOW I get it–for some strange reason, I thought your problems were with brass 2-10-2’s, not ones from BLI (talk about coming ‘late to the party’, LOL! ). Actually, I did have one of those Santa Fe 2-10-2’s for a while (sold off most of my dual-mode BLI’s, mainly because I’m strictly DC and they had too high a starting voltage to work comfortably with my other locos) and while I didn’t have derailment issues with it on turnouts, it was a rough-riding little beastie, because of too MUCH lateral motion and not very good springing. It also was not much of a hauler despite its wheel arrangement.
However, it did come with the hex-nut tool in the box for replacing the flangeless driver (which I did, and it’s not too difficult), so you might want to check the box again. I remember both the ATSF 2-10-2 and 4-8-4 locos having this little tool in the packaging along with the spare drivers.
That 2-10-4 you have is probably the model of a one-of-a-kind ATSF prototype, where a 4-wheel trailing truck was added to a ‘stock’ Baldwin 2-10-2. I know the later Santa Fe Baldwin 2-10-4’s were absolute monsters with 74" driving wheels–close enough to the Pennsy J-1’s that Pennsy even borrowed them late in the steam era for coal trains in the midwest when Santa Fe was phasing out steam.
Sorry to here of your problem with the tens… But if your interested, there is a very repretable LHS in Burbank IL. called The Golden Spike Train Shop. That specialize in HO. His name is Bud our age.He used to repair all types of locos. I don’t know if he still does. You can find His add in the MR mag in the directory…
Hmm…that is odd, Rich. One of he ATSF 5100 series had the highest recorded piston thrust of any modern steam locmotive on record…219K lbs. They were also high-drivered for speed, so they were at least as powerful in terms of tractive effort as the C&O twins of the T-1 and the Penny’s version of it, the J1. And when you look in youtube for the Sandusky shared work between those two engines, (the Pennsy leased about 10 of the 5000’s from ATSF), they are about the same size and mass. So, yes, I’d say something weird has happened if your BLI version is noticeably smaller than the T-1/J1.
I started out the morning by running my “good” 2-10-4, the BLI C&O, which incidentally seems to have been engineered differently than the BLI ATSF 2-10-4. The C&O is a lot bulkier and heavier. Anyhow, I ran it at 20 speed steps on my DCC throttle. It ran around the entire layout flawlessly, maybe 20 times. Then I ran my BLI 4-8-4 at 20 speed steps. Again, it ran flawlessly. So I am satisfied that my track work is not the problem.
Next, I ran the BLI ATSF 2-10-4. Before doing so, however, I added weight to the pilot truck and the trailing truck. It ran flawlessly around the layout. I should note on that loco that the driver wheels used to laterally shift off the rails and I sent it back to BLI for repairs. After two attempts to fix it, BLI succeeded, so the loco is not a problem except for being finicky going through divergent routes on turnouts.
Lastly, I turned my attention to the real problem loco, the BLI ATSF 2-10-2. It derailed at every turnout. So, I bit the bullet and disassembled the driver wheel assembly, not a job for the faint of heart. I was going to swap out the flangeless center driver wheel set and install the flanged wheel set which came with the loco. But the flanged driver wheel set does not come equipped with a gear, so that was a no go. Incidentally, on that loco, there are springs under the square brass bearings for the center driver wheel set. I made sure that all of the square bearings were seated correctly and reassembled the loco. It still continually derailed.
I was surprised that the flanged wheel set in the box was gearless. What is the purpose of that extra wheel set?
I am at wits end with this loco. I may have to break down and send it in to BLI to see if they can do anything with it.
Any more suggestions? You have all been very helpful. I app
I should weigh the two locos and photograph them side by side. My impression is that the C&O is heavier and bulkier thab the ATSF. Maybe I will go down and do that this afternoon.
My fault. I should have mentioned that they were plastic shells up front.
I did find the tool in the box as you and Crandell indicated. Plus the extra driver wheel set which has flanged wheels but no gear so I couldn’t swap it for the flangeless wheels as a test.
I find it interesting that you had the same lateral motion problems and the springing issues. A couple of years back, I sent the 2-10-4 back to BLI for repairs because of the lateral motion causing derailments. After two tri
Rich, Tom White must have been the one to correctly account for the size disparity when there oughtn’t to be one. I’m no expert on ten-coupled steamers, but he has a good eye and I am pretty darned sure that ATSF Texas type of yours is the one BLI marketed as the “Madam Queen”, the first conversion that the Santa Fe did to one of their 2-10-2 engines. So, it isn’t one of the later, more massive 5100’s that the Pennsy borrowed. The 5011’s* had as much tractive effort as the J1 verson with booster. And they were plenty big, a foot longer than the T-1/J1’s. In fact, the Santa Fe units were significantly heavier.
That would make total sense because the two ATSF locos, the 2-10-2 and the 2-10-4 are identical in size and mechanics. The C&O 2-10-4 is quite a bit bigger and heavier. Your explanation must be the answer.
The driver set in the box is to replace the traction wheeled drivers that are on the loco. You will also notice the counter weight is different size. See my earlier post about the brasses. Unlike the prototype the model is actually supported on 2 driver sets. The front and rear drivers support the weight of the loco and supply the tractive force. The rest are along for the ride and looks.
Prototypically speaking this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. The locomotives are from different eras. The Santa Fe 3800 2-10-2 (and the one 2-10-4) were some of the last locomotives built in the classic steam era. These specifically were built in 1918-1920 from a slightly modified design from 1901. The 3829 “Texas” type was one of these 2-10-2s that was modified. The C&Os on the other hand were some of the first locomotives of the super steam era after the USRA restrictions were lifted. They were built in 1930, based off stretching a proven Berkshire design. The Santa Fe’s super steam equivalent started with the Madame Queen (#5000) built in 1930, and then the 50xx series built in 1938-1944. Put Santa Fe #5012 next to that C&O and they will look much closer in size. While the C&O locos exerted more tractive effort, the Santa Fe will be larger as the drivers are 74" rather than the 69" of the C&O. The Santa Fe locomotive was therefore faster, which was great for covering the wide open spaces of the southwest US. It also gave them enough speed to be able to be used in passenger service.
The last set of Santa Fe’s Texas locomotives would never had existed if it had not been for WWII. The Santa Fe wanted to order FT units instead but the war board would not permit it. Same applies to the 29xx series 4-8-4s.
This thread has become a real learning process for me. Ever since purchasing these 10 driver wheel locos 6 or 7 years ago, I could never understand the difference in size and bulk between the C&O 2-10-4 and the ATSF 2-10-4. Thanks to Selector and Texas Zephyr, I now understand those differences.
When I first got into the HO scale side of the hobby 8 years ago, I set up a smaller layout with #4 turnouts and 22" and 24" radius curves on the main line. Once I moved away from #4 turnouts to #6 turnouts, I wanted some “bigger” steamers than the 6 and 8 driver wheeler locos that I already had on my layout. So, that is when I purchased the two BLI ATSF steamers, the 2-10-2 and the 2-10-4. I quickly realized that the 22" an 24" inch curves were too tight to permit flawless operation with these 10 driver wheel locos. So, i built a new, larger layout, my current layout, with 30" and 32" radius curves. But, the problems persisted, and I grew disenchanted with the smaller size and bulk of the ATSF steamers. By comparison, the size of the C&O 2-10-4 was huge, and the added weight lent itself nicely tto smooth reliable performance on my layout.
A couple of years back, I returned the ATSF 2-10-2 to BLI for repairs. After two attempts at solving the problem, BLI managed to return the loco to me in good running order. I misspoke in an earlier reply to this thread when I stated that BLI installed a tighter spring on the trailing truck to solve the derailment problems by relieving the pressure on the driver wheels. That was not, in fact, what happened. I recalled that wrongly.
When I went back late last night and read the repair note from BLI, what they said was that they initially put a spring on the trailing truck in the first repair that was too strong, placing too much pressure on the driver wheels. On the second, successful, repair, they placed a softer spring on the trailing truck which "b
Rich, I was having the same issues with Atlas Custom Line #6 turnouts, until I read a tip in MR. If you look closely, the points tend to dip a little below the stock rails on either side. My higher end steam locosor rolling stock with metal wheels that were closer to prototypical profilesgave
Marlon, this is one of the reasons why supporting a turnout along its entire length, and not allowing it to be incorporated in part of a vertical curve into a grade, is so important. I have found that the points rails in commercial turnouts with plastic ties can let the sharp tip of good quality points fall below the stock rail head surface next to them just enough that flanges on RP-25 profile wheel sets will often not get cammed into the desired route. When that happens to the pilot truck and first driver, no one should be surprised to see consistent problems at that turnout with one or more engines, while others don’t seem to have a problem there. It really does pay to have good strong lighting incident on the trouble spot and to wear something like an Opti-Visor. You can spot these defects, once you learn what to spot in the first place.
I was looking at Opti Visors on the Walthers web site, and there are a variety of magnification powers and focal lengths. Any recommendation as to which is more or less suitable?
