This is related to a thread on the ‘Layouts and layout building’ forum which discusses using Walthers (or other makers’) 85’ passenger cars on a 4x8 layout.
I have the same question, but in this thread I would like to ask you specifically what modifications you have made to the Walthers cars to get them to run reliably on ± 24" radii.
In the other thread, a couple of people including Rich recommended using long shank couplers (Kadee’s #146 for example). Rich also suggested reaming the truck axle holes, and maybe using a bit of lubrication.
What modifications have you tried and/or succeeded with?
Those actions have always been enough to fix any problems with Walthers 85’ passenger cars.
There is an unfortunate perception out there that the Walthers cars are irrevocably flawed. They are not. They merely need some tweaking to perform flawlessly.
It has been a while, and I’m a bit fuzzy on the details. I think…I seem to recall…removing the layered weights and lighting kit in mine, including the contacts above the bolsters. The weights because I had steep grades and they’re heavy enough to track well without them, and those screw-like contacts because they caused the trucks to bind when they swiveled in my 24-28" curves two layouts ago.
Lubing, yes, definitely, and I reamed several of my bearing cups, but I didn’t think it was doing a lot of good.
Oh, and forget backing them on those 24" curves if they are coupled. Maybe you’ll get lucky, I didn’t, and that backing in the one place was also up an approximately 1% grade didn’t help. It’s the diaphragms.
It’s an investigative process. Gotta find the problems and fix them. No big deal. The Walthers 85’ passenger cars are not unfixable. Blame Walthers, though, for not taking better care to do a little QC before shipping out those cars. If Walthers has the roadnames that you are looking for, by all means buy them.
If you are interested, this how I make the link work in my own posts:
Once you submit the post and it shows your link in plain black print, hit the ‘Edit’ option. Then go to beginning of the link and type ‘[’ followed by ‘url’ followed by ‘]’. No spaces and no quotation marks. Then go to the end of the link and type ‘[/’ followed by ‘url’ and then ‘]’, again no spaces or quotation marks. Then update your post and the link should work.
The reason for the drawn out typing instructions is that the ‘[url…’ is actually a command that the system responds to. If I type it out directly it will try to execute the command and that will mess up the message.
Obviously this is far more complicated than need be. Others may have a quicker solution.
I found that it’s not so much the screw-like contacts per se as it is the slight burr that can be found often at the top of the screw where the Phillips head is cut into the top of the screw. The burrs cause the truck to catch on the contact, rather than allowing it to swivel easily. A few swipes with the right file and things run much better.
I just read through the 2008 thread that Hrjove posted the link to, and it has a lot of good suggestions. Here is a summary of the issues mentioned in that thread, some of which have already been noted above (thanks again for the link Hrvoje):
loosen the truck screws,
check wheel guage,
check the screws on the truck frames for burrs (already suggested by Mike Lehman),
lubricate the axles (already mentioned),
put thin styrene on the diaphram striker plates,
trucks hitting center sill,
trucks hitting the coupler box,
twisted trucks caused by overly tightened truck assembly screws,
improperly seated contact strips.
It seems that the Walthers cars have a lot of potential problems, but several people on the 2008 thread and above have managed to get the cars to run properly so there is hope!
Overall, the Walthers 85’ passenger cars are very nice pieces of rolling stock. It is worth the effort to “tune” them up. There is really no good reason to avoid them.
This sounds great for the traditional 85’ passenger cars, but what about the Amfleet and Horizon cars? They have a different type of truck. I’ve tried loosening the trucks, adjusting the bolsters, but to no avail. Any suggestions?
Cutting away the underbody backbone where it appears to limit truck pivot radius gets you very little if any additional rotation. The front end of the truck touches the coupler box anyway. Walthers claims these cars will run on 24" radius but I know they won’t run on anything tighter. Occasionally, your track will seem to be all 24" radius or higher but actually have tight spots. Your Walthers heavyweight will find any of those quite reliably.
They will run over a genuine #5 turnout.
My first strategy would be fitting longer shank couplers, to one end of each car to begin with, then both ends if necessary. Coupler lateral travel limits radius possibly more effectively than anything else, assuming the trucks actually swivel far enough. Binding couplers just lift the wheels off track, a physical vertical derailment, not just a wheel flange climbing up the edge of the rail.
Although the use of longer couplers is often the answer, there is an unavoidable disadvantage associated with doing so. It becomes more difficult to backup the passenger cars.
When I am feeling lazy, I sometimes back a passenger train into one of the station’s stub end tracks. But, as I noted, there is always a risk that a car will derail, leading to a chain reaction with the other cars in the consist, a form of stringlining if I am using the term correctly.
Or, you know, if people want to run 85’ passenger cars reliably, they could try designing layouts with larger curves to accommodate them…or not run 85’ long cars at all. When I built my old layout, I specifically designed it for full-length passenger car operations and used nothing less than 30" radius curves and nothing less than a #6 switch. That worked great with my fleet of passenger cars.
And no, I’m not boasting, just trying to get across the idea that we modelers should temper our wants with reality. If you only have layout space for small curves, don’t run 80’+ cars (freight or passenger). If you want to run long cars, find a layout space that can handle that or change the layout design. Maybe go point-to-point vs. a loop.
Yep, good points, Paul. Even though my own layout is fairly large and the curves are moderately broad at 32" radius, I use #6 turnouts. I would be better served using #8 turnouts, especially on the station ladder where derailments are most likely to occur.
I noticed at about the time the B&O Capitol Limited cars were coming out, maybe four or five years ago, that Walthers was supplying these taped to the underside of the packaging.
Also included was another “cover plate” but I don’t know if changing this out is necessary or not. The “extended shank” is only about .085 longer but I presume the designers knew what they were doing.
Using the longer draft gear may help with the backing up issue?
Short of that Walthers offers a whole Talgo-style truck:
I imagine to use these you would eliminate the draft gear box, or cover, which is held on by the two screws.
I’m blessed with wiide enough curves that I havent encountered any problems. I think I did have to do a little tune-up work on one of the huge “Super Dome” cars but I don’t recall exactly what I did to improve those particular cars.
I’ve had good success by trimming/removing the center frame of the trucks. These allow me to run them on my 22" radius. (I know, they look really bad on it, but you gotta do what you gotta do)
I dont like long shank couplers as that creates a gap between the diaphragms.
I trim the center frame for lightweights, and remove on heavyweights. I obviously try to trim as little as possible:
Here’s a video of them running at speed on my 22" radius oval without fault:
I also make sure the trucks arent too tight, coupler boxes swing freely enough, and make sure the cars are weighted enough.
I have yet to come across a car that I couldnt make reliably travel across my curves, but if I do, I will have to resort to using long shank couplers (in addition).
Yep, that can be a problem. We need Sheldon to chime in here. He is a big advocate of flexible diaphragms, the brand name of which I do not recall. He claims that these flexible diaphragms look totally prototypical and that the cars don’t snag on each other. Hmmm.
