I purchased 8 HO WalthersProto 85’ Amfleet II passenger cars for my newly layed track layout that has mainly 32 and 34 1/2" radius curves, but some are 28." Regardless of the radius the cars still derail in various spots on several of the curves. You can see the adjacent cars hitting each other as they go around the curve and not just the wheel truck binding. I thought I would be safe since Walther’s claims 24" minimum radius, but apparently that doesn’t seem to be the case. Tried removing the door diaphrams, but still have the problem. Tried reading another forum, but really not sure what the fix is or should I just give up and stick with freight trains with much smaller cars. Very disappointed with Walther’s on this especially with the money spent and now past 30 day return period.
If the cars physically hit you need longer coupler shanks or drawbars than installed. Likewise if the diaphragms hit or interfere, they need to be cut back or replaced with ‘softer’ material or more compliant construction.
It’s easy to assess truck swing by turning the car over, setting the truck flanges against a suitable piece of curved track or a trammel-cut arc of, say, cardboard and seeing where the truck pivoting might be impeded. What you cut away or smooth to fix the impediment will depend on what you find.
I added Kadee #146 Long shank couplers. The bigger problem are the trucks don’t roll freely like they should and will cause derailments and drag. They never fixed that issue despite upgrading the cars…
Do these cars use the same goofy twin pivot couplers used on the 6 axle heavyweights?
Those are rated for 24" radius according to the Walthers box but nope.
Even cutting away the central underframe beam won’t get you the truck pivot range you need. The rear of the truck contacts the beam but cutting it away doesn’t help enough because the front of the truck also contacts the coupler box.
Take a piece of 24" Atlas sectional track and apply it to the trucks with the car upside down. Longer couplers can’t fix truck rotation limit problems.
I want to thank everyone for there input and great advice. I think most of you are telling me to go with longer shank couplers and one of you gave a specific type Kadee #146 Long shank couplers. I know I still have one spot that I think its also the truck not able to pivot enough as it derails there with only a single car.
If I can get the rest of the layout to work OK with the longer couplers and only have the spot I might not be able to do anything about I’ll be a little more satisfied and just will have to back the trains up when I get to that spot.
Someone asked me about whether I had any S curves. All my curves are regular curves and I went through alot of planning before and during laying the roadbed and track to ensure the radius were supposedly sufficient for these longer cars. Used the MicroMark track tools for determing distances between tracks (I have double main lines) and would constantly check everything to ensure proper track separation distances and to sure there were no kinks and curves looked like they flowed properly. I used Atlas code 83 flextrack throughout and Atlas number 6 and 8 turnouts and number 8s for curved turnouts. I know that reduces the radius somewhat from my 32 and 34 1/2" laid out curves, but I didn’t think that should have been a problem and they are not playing into the areas where they derail.
Being new too model railroading having only done a 4x8 N scale layout in the 1980s I’m not sure the type of couplers that Walther’s currently uses on these cars. These were the newly released Amtrak cars.
Again, I want to thank everyone for there great help.
Those turnouts should not be the problem unless something like snagging coupler pins is causing this. Curved #8 turnouts will have generous radii in them, well above 26" even on the inner route (if they have the geometry advertised and are NMRA compliant).
I think it might be a combination of things. Often fixing one suffices, but sometimes it takes some doing to get cars to couple reliably, to trail reliably, and to be shoved without derailing. I’m talking about long passenger cars. It could be that they’re too light for the rolling resistance they offer to the locomotive, and if going around tight curves, that could be a problem.
Guard rails at frogs, or high frogs, can also be a problem. Wheel gauge can be a problem. And you have been advised that at least one truck may not pivot well enough to keep things moving, but atop the rails.
When I had trouble with my Walthers heavyweights 14 years ago, I found that they needed a wider radius than the 24" that Walthers claimed on their advertising that the cars could han
Rest assured, these problems can be fixed. It’s just that it takes a fair amount of time and effort to find and resolve the problems. I agree with Selector on the list of possible causes.
Snagging coupler pins can definitely be a problem, particularly on curves and when
Selector thanks for the input. I’m not experiencing problems with the turnouts its other places on the curves some of which do not have turnouts at all. Going to go with the longer shank couplers and probably what Rich said as far as using 146 and 148 Kadee couplers. I know I’m going to have to modify the area that stops the wheel truck from turning more as one or more curves a single car moved by hand (My track is not completely wired yet, but alot is) slowly or quickly will derail, so its not a problem in those areas with distance between cars or diaphrams. What you mention about car weight I’m not sure if that is a problem, especially since the areas with the problems is with hand pulled cars (no engine pulling them).
I’ve laid all my track already and really thought I would have been OK with my 32 and 34 1/2 radius curves, but had I gone any bigger on my double mainline layout the curves would approaching the other adjacent track and would leave no room for scenery (river, some small hills, etc.). I’ve run my long diesel engines and coal cars through some of the areas with passengar car derailment and I experienced no problems.
Again, thanks again for your help. I appreciate it.
Hello all, interesting for me to hear about reasons and remedy for p.car derailment. 10 years ago I changed my complete roster from german/austrian into US trains keeping the Roco track. The layout is along the room walls with only one reverse loop, made of R3 means radius 420 mm or 16 1/2 inch. A few problems with freight cars occured, but heavy problems to bring my first passenger train the Walthers Empire Builder 10 car train to work. This for me required to elevate every car by 1,2 mm using wire formed to a ring as a shim. This has big influence on the pivot range of the trucks, nearly no cutting was necessary. Every car got one long shank coupler on one end. And the end cars needed one low shank coupler to match with the F7 locomotives. Additionally I closed the diaphragms with transparent TESA tape a little wider than the diaphragm to prevent from hooking up with the neighbour. Recently I purchased Walthers Amfleet cars, some are critical because of more friction than normal, and drive a 5 car train with no derailment. Looks a little strange in the reverse loop, but works. Even a brass 4-8-4 goes through this loop. [:D]
My minimum radius is 32" also. I don’t have any Walthers Amfleet II passenger cars but I do have a bunch of heritage Walthers passenger cars. Have had them on 34 inch curves in staging but the 32" curves aren’t laid yet. Here is hoping.
Has this expedient been tried in the past, or discussed here?
It occurs to me that some means of removing part of the backing adhesive from the ‘visible’ edge might be necessary to prevent dust buildup. I wonder if templates could be made up to cut transparent ‘guards’ to size from tape and then facilitate removing or ‘passivating’ adhesive without impairing adhesion to the diaphragm face. Or alternatively making the guard out of a price rod* properly chosen clear film or sheet and applying adhesive that wouldn’t show…
*This was thoughtfully ‘corrected’ by crApple and I have no recollection what it originally was intended to be. At least the idea is there…
If Your cars have swing arm coupler pockets like the ones in the photo, You should not have any problems with Your radius size…Mine will run flawlessly on a small stretch of 28’’ that I have incorporated into all over 36’’ radius on the rest of layout:
Take Care! [:D]
Frank
BTW: I should mention that all the engines(which are close coupled) and cars have working diapharms.
Frank, that is re-assuring. I’ve always heard negative things about the Amtrak Amfeet cars. The heritage cars based on older ATSF, UP, GN/NP etc. have also been mentioned as not playing well on the stated minimum radius, which I think is 24 inches, so I have always hoped 32 inches was enough to allow them to operate well without modifications. I’ve tested them on 34" that I have laid, and no issue there so far.
Notice the cast in cut outs in the centerbeam. Those are to allow the rear of the trucks to rotate further than they otherwise would. I made these modifications to the centerbeam under a Walthers heavyweight car. However, the front rotation of the truck is also restricted by the coupler pocket. No doubt that is why the coupler is a swinging type.
I have two of these: a service diner and a service sleeper, different step locations, different trucks and different coupler designs. Using the centerbeam cut out technique wouldn’t work on the diner car.
I’d check to see if the front of these trucks actually can rotate far enough.
Looking again at this problem would fitting a short axle wheelset into the center position of the Heritage three axle trucks work? Like flange less drivers?
The problem still exists with the Amfleet cars. Adding the Kadee #146 couplers help, but the drag on the wheels and trucks are the main issue. I’ve tried adding graphite to no avail. I haven’t seen anyone post a fix for the Amfleet cars.
I thought you said that the cars ‘hitting each other’ was the main problem. If you don’t have pivoting coupler pockets with enough swing (a la Frank) the cars may still be pulling sideways in curves putting load on the trucks or wheels. That will be a difficult thing to address.
You might start by ensuring that the truck wheels do not bind when horizontally loaded – polish the backs of the wheels and make ‘hub liners’ of thin Teflon or acetal sheet, or some other antifriction approach.
Second, make sure the truck swiveling is likewise free under side pressure, without rocking. I’d at least think about a short brass or plastic bushing cut from tube, with the hole in the truck frame reamed to fit smoothly.
My practice was to arrange cars like this for ‘three-point’ support, i.e. the truck at one end fixed only to swivel, the other end purposely allowed to wobble a tiny bit to simulate equalization and keep all 8 wheels tracking. Ideally the tight curve will not result in the car trying to ‘cock’ over the slight wobble to bind its rotation in curve following… or twist the truck into binding or derailing.
The OP has the same issue as I do, and I’m sure others…
These are not the traditional trucks and wheels as you would find on other passenger cars. I’ve added graphite, bent the contacts that hold the wheels to the trucks to no avail. The couplers / coupler pockets are not the issue, at least with me. Running them on a straight section of track, the cars still drag. They’re an issue and despite reaching out to Walthers for a fix, they try to sell you new trucks and wheels. However, they don’t fit the older models!
I just may change the trucks entirely to something that runs better than what they supply. Maybe Superliner trucks? Will it be prototypical? No. Do I care? Not really if my passenger cars will run better (I have over 20 of these). If a rivet counter complains, well, I give them the directions to the door!!
