Yes, It’s possible:
I wish I could get mine to handled the inside route of the Walthers’ #8 curved turnout (32"-36" radii). I have several problem children that seem to always derail when passing through it. I’ve checked the wheels as well as the track width with the NMRA gauge and have compared them to the Walthers cars that don’t derail on that turnout and can’t see why I’m having trouble with these few cars.
There are four* trouble areas:
First, the bolster doesn’t pivot well against the very slight ridges running parallel to the frame’s long axis on either side of it, but on the frame. If you remove the truck, look where the bearing surface is on the model. Beside…those ridges.
Secondly, the truck bucks up over the two chromed screws on either side of the frame bearing surface. I have been known to grind mine down a bit. I’m not interested in lighting and interiors. Not yet, anyway.
Thirdly, the bottom edge of the shell where it meets the floor. If there’s a slight ridge there, it must be dealt with. Maybe with the stirrup, too.
Lastly, if I recall, the coupler is in a box that also moves with the truck (I don’t have one near the computer to remind myself, sorry…) That needs work to make the whole draft gear move side-to-side without snagging.
-Crandell
*Five if you count the stiff, snaggy, diaphragms. The stiffness is about 50% of the problem on tight curves, but I also think they snag each other with enough pressure as they slide in one of the directions.
I just fixed a problem child of my own today. It’s a simple 40-foot tanker that I’d just upgraded to metal wheels. The solution was to back off the screw holding the truck in place by 1/4 turn. They need some sideways play to negotiate frogs sometimes.
I’ve cured several unexplained derailment problems, by adding weight to the cars that derail. Even if the weight meets NMRA guidelines, heavier cars hold the rails better.
True, although if done excessively it can really cut down on the number of cars you can call a ‘train’, especially on a grade.
-Crandell
Sorry, but that video alone proves nothing.
The only true curve in the video is the first appearance of the loco, and that curve looks a lot broader than 18 inches. All that jiggling is essentially on a straight run of track where the diaphragms are not really catching on one another.
Tell us more about that test run.
Are you saying that the cars were run out of the box, totally unmodified?
No coupler changes, no loosening of the truck screws, no rubbing of screw heads on the metal lighting strips?
Which cars were they?
I’m not buying it for a moment.
Rich
Rich, you are correct, from a coupler/diaphragm/truck swing geometry stand point that is nearly straight track - because the continious arc of the curve does not exceed the truck wheel base of the car.
Same thing is true on turnouts IF the diverging route goes directly into a straight track longer than the car - the short section of curve (the closure rail radius) becomes effectively a larger radius.
BUT as soom as you continue curving away from the main route, actual radius restriction come into play.
My few 80’ cars, (close coupled with diaphragms) will go through an Atlas #4 crossover (really a #4-1/2) but they will not go around a 22" radius curve - yet the closure rail radius of an Atlas #4 is 22".
Again, the video proves nothing and is a silly parlor trick.
Sheldon
http://s184.photobucket.com/user/MFJ_album/media/Model%20trains/2012-03-01001_zps1e12c27a.mp4.html
I can get one car around 18" radius turns. The carbodies bump into each other if I have more than one.
Mine go through less than 18" radius [swg]
[(-D]
While it is correct that extra weight cuts down the hauling capacity of a loco, most passengers trains are fairly short, maybe 6 to 8 cars, and most locos will pull them up a reasonable grade. On freights, I just add locos, just like the prototypes.
As I explained earlier, it is a parlor trick. The cars are not really going around an 18" radius, so it is meaningless.
Sheldon
That was my point, as Sheldon has indicated. I am not challenging the validity of the video itself. What I am saying is that the track configuration does not prove that the train can make it around an 18" radius curve without derailments occurring.
Rich
The cars are going through 18* radius curves that change direction every 20 degrees. Yeah, it’s a trick, but they do look kinda cool dancing back and forth like that.
LOL
They do look cool.
Rich
Ya, if they won’t go around a 22" radius (none of mine will) they won’t do a “real” 18" radius curve. Video is kinda neat to watch. One word of advice though…TRIPOD.
[C):-)]