I thought when I reworked the tracks on my layout last month to accomidate my Southern Pacific 4-8-2 Light Mountain that I’d really accomplished something… And then like an idiot I bought a Athearn Challenger recently, and that’s when the work really began. I had to widen all the curves and remove a turnout to get it to run right. I also cleaned the tracks to the point they were sterilized. But, after seeing the Challenger run, I’d have to say it was worth all of the trouble. What a great little loco…
Any of you folks ever had a loco that you were willing to modify your layout for in order to get it to run properly?.
No, but it seems that I have to fiddle with tracks and turnouts every time I introduce a new locomotive. I recently got a good deal on a QSI SW8 from Walthers (Canadian Pacific) from an LHS that is closing, and it has given me problems on my turnouts. Power isn’t the issue, but some wobbles seem to lift the wipers way from contact, or something… not sure at this point. All other locos, including a P2K 0-6-0, have no troubles.
But, it was the same for the Niagara, for the Challenger, big time for the Duplex, and now this little gem. [B)]
The only time I had to make modifications for a loco to run right was when I got my AC4400, but that doesn’t really count I guess, because the modifications were made to the loco, not the layout.
I must be one lucky person as I never have to fool with the trackwork or turnouts as I took my time putting the track down from the beginning. And it has been down now for 5 plus years.
Now every engine gets checked over. I first put it on the layout and make sure that it will run then it gets the wheel gauge checked and all truck movements are free from binding.
Usually that is all I need to do!
If the engine does not want to work then the engine is at fault as the layout will not just change over night!
I also have quite a number of operators that bring their own power and have done so since the beginning.
If THEY have a problem with their engine then it is their engine. We give it a quick checkout and usually we find a simple problem and get it corrected quickly. The owner usually states that they were also having a problem with the engine and after running on their layout at home state that it now runs much better.
Remember that trackwork is the foundation of the layout and without a good foundation the engines and cars can never run properly!
A choice, I see too many times, that modelers (which most do not like to do trackwork) tend to do poorly and then wonder why they have problems with the layout and then eventually tear down the layout!
I started out with a couple of P2k 0-6-0’s when I first started building. My latest acquisition is a P2k 2-10-2. The 4-6-0, 2-8-2’s and other locos have all NOT required any trackwork changes. I put the track down very carefully as I go, and with a generous minimum radius (30"), I’ve seen no loco issues at all.
I did it for some 89’ auto racks I bought. All my curves were 26"-32" except for two. An 18" and a 22". I changed them to 24" and 26" so I should be good to go now.
The snow plow on my AC4400 just nicked the switch motor on my atlas turnouts, and actually threw the switch, when it pushed the tiny lever sticking up out of the top of the switch motor. I took a dremel tool to the snowplow, and trimmed it, rather than rework the entire yard throat. I may eventually replace the Atlas switch motors, with under table switch motors, for better appearance, but that might be a while. My mainline switches and coachyard switches are all #6 or better. But the freight yard has a lot of #4s to save space.
Actually, a new loco drove me to tear down a whole layout.
Well, not exactly… But when I built my first N scale layout, I’d used an Atlas plan that looked like fun, but had a lot of 9 3/4" and 11" radius curves. It also had 3% grades.
The curves and grades were bothersome with a lot of my equipment, especially any 6-axle diesel and 85’ passenger cars. But when I bought the very expensive GHQ Pennsy L1s conversion kit for the Kato 2-8-2, it produced a beatiful model that couldn’t handle curves below 13" and had no traction tires. I didn’t know until I’d built it that the kit dramatically reduces the clearance on the drawbar between the cab and tender. I modified it to where it could just about (but not quite) handle my 11" radius curves, but the grades were also still a problem.
It was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Since last year that layout has rested sideways in my garage, denuded of all structures, trees, and details, awaiting some poor sucker with a small lump of cash willing to try sharp curves and grades.
Now I run a railroad with no grades, a 13.5" minimum radius (everywhere), and #8 mainline turnouts (#6 on sidings). Everything runs as sooth as silk. One issue I thought I had with a section of track derailing a new Kato E8 ended up being due to improperly gauged wheelsets.
I know I would have problems if i built small radius so right from the get go, I made sure no radius was under 24" when starting the layout construction. I haven’t had a problem yet, but it is good practice to take an NMRA gauge and check the wheels before putting it on the layout. Some locos have wheels out of gauge right from the factory (case in point…Athearn is notorious for misaligned wheel sets.) Even a small amount of misalignment may not be enough to cause derailments, but can be enough to create shorts at turnout points when using select control turnouts…chuck
Not a locomotive…but an Athearn dome car. I found out the hard way that they can take down signal bridges if they’re not high enough. I’d just installed the bridge, and everything was going smoothly, until one of my Amtrak trains left. Halfway out of the station, the dome hit the signal bridge…and knocked it over. Oops. Once I mounted it on a pair of “concrete” footings, it had enough clearance
Modeller’s aren’t the only ones to have so severe a problem as that between new locomotives and their track. Almost every railroad has had issues with track when changing over to diesel locomotives because of their greater axle loadings. Those problems aren’t that remarkable as they were well expected. The real fun starts when promises are made and surprises pop up. One notable case involves the McCloud River Railroad. A standard gauge logging railroad on the base of Mt. Shasta, this road started young with little Baldwin standard 2-6-2 logging steamers which served the line well, running on the lightweight shoe-fly style track the road used. The track was about as simple as could be, not much improved over the initial track of the first transcontinental railroad of 1869. In 1947, McCloud River had a visiting Baldwin demonstrator, BLW #1500 (1st) on the line showing what diesels could do. This locomotive was a DRS 6-4-1500, an A-1-A roadswitcher that had the lightest axle ratings for any domestic diesel of it’s power rating. It ran on the tracks without complaint, negotiating the same light weight rails the steamers had used for years. In 1948, McCloud welcomed their first diesel: #29, a Baldwin DRS 6-6-1500, a C-C version of the demonstrator locomotive that had visited earlier. This locomotive had the solid one piece cast bolster Commonwealth Swingmotion trucks used by most other Baldwin C-C roadswitchers. The trucks had a fully cantilevered suspension with an off-center middle axle and axles that could slide up to one inch from side to side. #28 was slightly heavier than any preceding locomotive that ran those rails, and in anticipation of this the track was reinforced a little, but no major overhaul was needed. Over the years McCloud would receive four similar units, #29 in July of 1950, and 34, 35 and 36 in the late 50’s to mid 60’s. Between the arrival of #28 and the retirement
All of the mains on my Oscale layout were built with 72" minimum radius so I could run anything. My largest loco is my Sunset brass ATSF Texas, which had the largest rigid wheelbase in the US, other than a few Pennsy locos. One section of (track that I was using flextrack on because it was hidden) was too tight to get my 72" radius template in to draw it out. So, I estimated. I figured I would tack it down temporarily, test the Texas, and if the Texas works, anything will work. Right? WRONG!
Then I made the stupid mistake of ballasting (why would I ballast a hidden track?[banghead]). After the ballast dried I decided to break out the Cab Forward (by Max Grey) and take it for a few spins. As it turns out, the curve was too sharp and I need to rip it out. I have been putting this off for 4 years now.
I just can’t beleive that Texas can handle a tighter curve than a cab forward. With an extra pair of drivers and much larger drivers, the rigid wheel base on the Texas must be 30% bigger. Why can’t everything be logical?!?[banghead]
I have a few modifications to what Mimbrogno wrote on the McCloud River issue…
The anecdote of the SD38’s is sort of correct. I assume you got most of the information you presented in your post from Kirkland’s Baldwin Diesels book, where he does spend some time and space defending Baldwin’s cast GSC steel trucks as compared to EMD’s Flexcoil trucks as they were applied to the McCloud River. Kirkland’s assessment of the situation is simplistic at best, as it is far more complicated than what he would lead you to believe.
The McCloud River had nothing but problems with the first diesel (#28) when it arrived. It tore up every piece of trackage it touched. It was not just slightly heavier than its steam predecessors, but substantially heavier- in fact, just shy of 100,000 pounds heavier than the largest steam locomotive the McCloud ever owned! The first several trips the new diesel took over the line resulted in numerous derailments, and it ended up being limited to yard service until an accelerated track maintenance program could be completed to make the line capable of handling the machine. The saving grace for the McCloud is that they already had a major track upgrade program in progress when the #28 showed up- but the entire railroad basically had to be rebuilt to support the new diesels. Shortly after the railroad completed much of this work is when the railroad purchased the #29.
The standard Baldwin DRS-6-6-1500 weighed 325,000 pounds. Baldwin built the #28 and #29 at a special reduced rate of 292,000 pounds specifically because of the sketchy trackwork found on the railroad. The McCloud River then filled out their Baldwin diesel fleet with a pair of switchers (four axle trucks, 233,000 pounds and 202,000 pounds respectively) and a pair of RS-12’s (4 axle trucks, 240,600 pounds). Thus only a third of the McCloud’s diesel fleet had the six axle trucks Kir
