Another problem

Once again I’m here with a problem.

I have two (2) Athearn Double Stack cars (N Scale) that do not play nice on my railroad, primarily in the yard but there are other areas. The problem is that they both derail when passing through switches, but only when they are being pushed either way while taking the diverging route.

I know what the problems are:

1. I built the yard and the other problem areas using Peco shorts (9 inch radius) years before getting the cars
2. Athearn states Recommended for 11" and larger curves I did not read the fine print (not so fine) on their website before buying the cars on EBay.
3. Cars have body mounted couplers (may or may not be a problem)

I have come to the conclusion that I have to do one or more of the following

1. Live with the derailments.
2. Replace the switches that these cars will travel through. A quick count resulted in 12 – 13 switches to replace
3. Rebuild the cars so that they play nice on the railroad. I have some Roundhouse Double Stack cars (before Athearn) that have truck-mounted couplers that play nice.
4. Get rid of the cars
5. Stop using the cars

I’m not sure what restricts these cars to eleven inch or larger curves. Is it the body mounted couplers or the trucks or both.

So here are the questions:

1. Should I bite the rail spike and replace the short switches with mediums (larges are out of the question)?
2. Change the body mount coupler with a longer reach coupler?
   1. What coupler should I use?
3. Change the body mount and current truck to a MTL truck with coupler?
   1. What modifications would I need to do to the cars?
4. Get rid of the cars?
5. Any combination of the above?

Any suggestions, thoughts, ideas?

Thanks,

Gary

 

Gary, I'd check to see if there is anything fouling the wheels and trucks when making sharp turns. A little judicious milling may fix the problem. Which couplers do the cars have? Can you install extended couplers on them, if that's the cause of the derailments?

 

I'd stick with the body-mounts, and try a first fix with new wheels- try a set of Fox Valley wheels just to see if that eases passage through the short switches, if it does not your out $15 or so in wheels and they'll look better anyway. I used to use those switches as well and run a lot of intermodal and can tell you that they are most likely gonna be a problem. With mine I got to a point where the wellcars would derail a little less than about 50% of the time, livable. Since that time I ripped up that layout and now use none of the small Peco turnouts.

See if wheels fix it any, its the cheapest, easiest, least intrusive attempt available, I found the Athearns to run pretty well and I can push or pull them through larger turnouts without issue which I found impressive for such a light car.

good luck!
Jan

 

What rail code are the turnouts, 80 or 55? If 80 then the problem may lie with the sloppy specs in the turnout. Usually glueing a .01 piece to both guardrails at the frog area will bring the turnout into spec. Those short turnouts are very sharp and more suited to trolleys and traction equipment. Also how heavy are these cars? I use the Walthers well cars which are metal. You may try to add weight also. I'd try these two relatively inexpensive possible fixes before buying new wheels.

 

These cars came with factory install Mchenry's.
Any idea what MTL coupler to change to?
Gary

 

Hi Jan,

Any idea what Fox Valley wheel set works in the Athearn truck?

Gary

 

I believe the wheels are FVM 3301. I have 2 of the Athearn well cars, and when I changed the wheels out it made a world of difference.

 

The switches are code 80.

These Athearn cars are much lighter then my Walther's and about the same as my Roundhouse. These are the only Double Stack cars I have problems with.

Upon a quick inspection, it looks like the problem is that the wheels hit the coupler pocket restricting the turning of the trucks, restricting the minimum radius.

Gary

 

With the wheels are hitting the coupler, how does changing the wheels make a difference? Are the flanges different? Smaller?

Gary

 

Gary,

If you were to change from the PECO SETRACK (9") units to the PECO STREAMLINE MEDIUM, you'd have another problem arising, because they don't use the same geometry - the track centres are as different as they are between Kato 4 and Kato 6 . . . You can, apparently, mix STREAMLINE MEDIUM and STREAMLINE LARGE, but not SETRACK and STREAMLINE. Equally, Peco themselves say the geometry of Code 55 and code 80 is different!

Regards,

Pete Davies

 

Hi Pete,

Changing out the switches will require some new track work and I have the space to make the needed adjustments. Furthermore if I'm going to remove the Shorts in the yard I plan on making a couple other changes like removing the 10.5 inch 180 degree turn that has a short stuffed in the middle of it. I now have room for at least a 12 inch radius and without getting the tape measure out, maybe a bit larger. All of the possible changes will result in some track realignment and slight relocation of some customers. The major factor at this point is, this mornings switch count was 13.

Since I may be doing some rebuilding, I might take the ell as seen at the bottom right of the track plan below and make it into a loop like seen at the top right. Doing that I would remove the switch at the bottom left and broaden the curve there, also while making it a 90 degree turn. Somehow I will have to bring the track back to the current loop. These changes will result in a larger loop while eliminating the out and back spur. Customers 10 and 11 then may be located between the main line, or lost to the changes. As for the yard it may lose a track.

Maybe I just need to rip it all up and start over with less customers and less bench work. Getting rid of the Time Saver in the middle of the mess around customers 1, 2, & 3. Starting over will let me install the switch machines while building and not after the fact.

All this because of 2 double stack cars.

Gary
​

 

Why do people want to go with the minimums all the time? Like is there a law or something that says you have to? In the track plan above there appears to be room for larger radius curves as well as turnouts. I always tell people that using the minimum radius curves and minimum radius turnouts is like getting a 'D' in a school subject. Yeah, you passed with the minimum grade but so what?

 

Looks can be and are deceiving.

When I built the portion of the layout that holds the 180 degree curve in question the bench work was only 24 inches deep. See the green section in the image below.

In an attempt to keep the track away from the edge (drop off) and from scraping the wall, I left 1.5 inches at the back and front. 2 X 1.5 = 3, 24 - 3 = 21, 21 / 2 = 10.5 inch radius. At that point 10.5 inch radius was the max that could be put there. I believe that with the max being 10.5 inches that my grade for that area = 100%. Furthermore by the time I added the roadbed the space between the edges was cut almost in 1/2. That did not leave much room to keep something from hitting the floor.

When I added the narrow blue section to the green that area became 27 inches deep. At that time I could have rebuilt the curve and increased it to a 12 inch radius, but that would have required rebuilding much more then just the curve, and I did not feel that it was worth the work to gain the 1.5 inch. Also in that area I added a track to connect to the yard. The area in question is the only area on the main that has a radius less then 15 inch. For more information on how the track plan has changed over the years please visit the history page of the railroads website.

Yes the yard can hold larger switches, and that is one of the things I am debating. One of the stumbling blocks is the additional cost of 13 turnouts. The cheapest I have found them is $13.55 each or $176.15. No the yard does not contain 13 switches but there are a few other areas that I would want to change at the same time.

If it were not for the grandchildren (they like to run the trains), this would be a point to point layout. But they are to young to understand anything other then continues running. Even the oldest who is about to be 12 is not mature enough to understand operations and follow directions, futhermore he only visits 2 -3 times a year.

After 6.5 years into this layout, if I was to start over there would be many changes.

Now getting back to the original problem,

My 2 Athearn Double Stacks with factory body mounted couplers derail when being PUSHED through the Peco short switches.

Is there a way to modify the cars so that they will not derail going through the Peco shorts.

Some have suggested changing the wheels out to Fox Valley wheels. I don't understand how that will help because it looks like the current factory wheels hit the coupler pocket, and the flanges on the factory wheels look to be low profile.

Gary
​

 

I am a simple minded SOB...Simple solution: Dont run the 2 offending double stacks !

No layout redoes and you get to run the trains ya got and have fun. You are talking changing some 13 turnouts because of these 2 double stack? Changing track geometry? Take this out...take that out?...hmmmmm. If I had your problem...those 2 cars would become static displays in a museum setting on the layout. Maybe they would be shelf queens...or be on DaBay !!

Like I said...I am a simple minded SOB...LOL.:tb-biggrin:

.

 

Hi George

That same idea has passed through my pea brain also.

I do believe there has to be a way to change the cars and not the layout. Maybe a sledge hammer will fall on them.

Gary

 

I just bought 8 of those well cars. At first they derailed all the time.
Then I made sure that the containers had weight added to them. This helped. Then I ordered more Atlas metal MT wheel sets (they are the same axle length as the Athearn) to replace the stock ones. They track much better now.
They will always have containers in them when moving. Either full going to the unload yard, or pretend empty containers returning to staging and the port.

I hate the McHenery N-Scale couplers. They are harder to close then Accumate plus the springs fall out. That's my story and I,m sticking to it.:tb-biggrin:

 

Can you file notches in the coupler pockets to give the wheels a little more clearance?

 

Was just thinking this after rereading that the flanges where hitting the coupler box. Maybe file the corners off the coupler box...or wherever the flanges are hitting. Probably wouldnt take much.

 

I could try that.

I have a friend that's layout has curves no less then 18 inches. Christmas is coming, maybe he will get a couple cars.

Gary

 

I agree that if the problem is the wheels hitting the coupler box new wheels will probably not solve that. Here is a possible solution that entails filing down the coupler box area on an older MDC model that these came from:

http://home.comcast.net/~j.sing/MDC_Husky_Stack_Micro-Trains_1035_Short_Shank_Coupler_Install.html

I had a similar issue with the new BLMA wheels hitting the body mounted couplers I put on some MT Ortners, I switched to MT Z scale body mount couplers which are narrower and they run fine now, so maybe try some Z scale body mount couplers? They are at least a cheap fix and look very good also!

my best,
Jan