I'm experiencing a situation with a number of my locomotives since I pinned
my track down to foam where by they seem to Jam / stick or bounce (however
you wish to look at it) as the travese accross the points. The problem
doesn't seem to occour so much if they are travelling straight through the
point, and, it doesn't de-rail the train completely, but the power to them
is interrupted, and if travelling at an excessive speed they will derail.
This situation doesn't affect all my locos, but certainly the newer longer / heaveir ones (I'm operating 00 Gauge) and Bachmann ones too.
Please can soeone advise how I can stop this happening, it seems that the
points are riding higher than the other pieces of pinned down track.
Have you pinned down the points affected? I have found that the whole
format of peco points can be easily distorted by heavy handed pinning.
Having foam either side and not pinning the points however , can lead
to uphill profiles into the point from all directions . If you place
an engineers rule along any track you should be able to see any
horizontal deviation with the aid of a torch shining behind the rule.
Most of my similar problems have been traced to failure of power
pick-ups ( bad contacts) on the locos which cause hesitation at speed
when transiting uneven sections followed by over-running of the train
and subsequent derailment.
Graham Kendall said the following on 14/04/2006 19:53:
The clue might be in that sentence. Which points are you using? It may
be just that you are using clunky code 100 points that newer locos don't
like. Have you checked the back-to-backs of locos that derail, compared
to locos that are OK?
The points I am using are either the small Hornby ones - or the equivalent
PECO Set-track ones, as that's what I had to work with. Please can you
explain the term "Back - to - back" as I don't know where you mean to be
Graham Kendall said the following on 18/04/2006 13:12:
I'm pretty sure (but maybe someone else can confirm) that newer stock
doesn't like set-track points, Peco or Hornby.
The back-to-back measurement is the distance between the back faces of
the wheels. For OO, I think it should be 14.5mm, and it does seem as if
there is variation between manufacturers. For set-track points, that
back-to-figure might need to be less, but you can't usually adjust it
I'm trying to keep this thread alive so that someone with more RTR
experience can help! I model in P4 and S4n2, so have a whole different
set of problems!
In message , Paul
This doesn't seem to be the case where the stock is checked for accurate
B2B and where the front bogies are correctly aligned. Our layout uses
all set-track points and slips [well over a hundred]. We run our
mainline locos approximately nine [full scale] miles per day, usually
pulling long rakes, so they are well tested [also regularly well
serviced]. We run on code 100 as it takes the curve wear better for our
particular purposes. However we also allow our volunteers to run their
own stock from time to time and in line with your comment, there have
been some major problems while running non serviced straight out of the
box locos with less than accurate wheel geometry ex works.
A very wide variation and not necessarily between manufacturers but
quite often between individual locos from the same stable
Not wishing to muddy the waters, but we measure and adjust all wheel
spacing from the inner wheel face to opposing outside face as we get a
more accurate result, with the actual precise measurement depending on
the wheel type and manufacturer. While this might seem overkill, It's
essential that in our case we act to pre-empt running problems as a pile
up of up to 40 wagons per rake with four main lines operating plus the
yards, while in full view of the public and with only two operators
present is not at all amusing :o( We also replace all of our rolling
stock plastic wheels with decent ?? metal types. We have found very
little variation between various batches and between individual items of
Peco code 100 set-track. The locos and some items of rolling stock seem
to be the main problem. We won't even mention Virgin Voyager coupling
Recently with one well known manufacturer's wagon chassis, the plastic
used was of such appallingly poor quality [brittle and springing] that
the chassis actually began to twist. This caused us no end of problems
until in desperation we made up a jig to accurately test each chassis
level and alignment. The manufacturer replaced all of the defective
units free of charge of course and without quibble. However I have
developed an abiding hatred of Kadee couplings that still remains :o)
On 18/04/2006 16:00, Roy said,
I was trying not to muddy the waters :-) The "check gauge" is actually
the more important measurement where you have variations in flange
thickness, but is a little harder to measure. This is where a fixed set
of standards such as used in P4 or EM, or even the oxymoron that is
FS-OO, is of massive benefit. It seems to me a bit bizarre that in all
the decades that OO has been around, there is still no fixed standard!
Depends on your viewpoint :-)
In message , Paul
True! The kids of course love it. Nothing funnier [when one is not
involved personally that is] than watching the two operators each
blaming one another to the accompaniment of the various 'witty' comments
from the onlookers. Only last Saturday after a minor accident and a
shunting derail, a little blonde angel of about six years old proclaimed
quite loudly to the whole assembly [some thirty or so people] "My daddy
always says 'Oh shit' when that happens and then throws things about".
Her mother was mortified and dad quite sensibly beat a hasty retreat :o)
Many Thanks again Paul, I think I see where you're coming from and so what
is going on. Does that mean then, that if I shaved a small amount off of
the broadness of the plastic checkrail, on the side that sits between the
plastic check rail and the outer running rail, I would overcome my
Are you sure you mean 'set-track' ? The pictures of your layout look
more like Streamline to me and I admit, like Paul, to going by hearsay
but I believe there is a difference in the flageway standards.
On 18/04/2006 22:20, Graham Kendall said,
Now that is well outside my experience - I haven't used commercial
pointwork for years. It might also be the case that you need to add a
shim of plastic to reduce the gap, rather than increase it. This might
be OK for newer models, but then your older models may have problems.
It could do but I haven't done the maths to see just how much the
effect could be. On the curved road of a turnout, raising the
height of the check rail will tend to have the effect of reducing the
back-to-back of a set of wheels. If the back to back measurement of
your wheels was on the tight side on a straight road, then on a
curved road, they would be tighter, and with a raised check rail on
the curved road, they would be tighter still. If your back to back
measurement becomes too tight at check rails, then you will get a