I have found out the hard way that my EZ-Track #4 turnouts have a problem... The point for the curved route is straight (no curve in it at all)... B-B engines seem to be able to work OK, but C-C engines do not.
The problem is that the corresponding rail IS curved, and with the point being straight, this creates a "pinch point" in the middle of the turnout... This causes engines such as my SD40-2 to derail almost every time - even when the engine does not derail, there is an audible "clunk" as the wheels ride up on the pinch point, then drop back down...
The most obvious "solution" would appear to be to BEND the switch point to match the curve in the corresponding rail... However, initial attempts seem to risk damage to the switch. the tip of the point is only a friction fit into the plastic bar that moves the points and the opposite end is just riveted to a contact... Forcing a bend in the point risks either breaking the bar or the rivet attaching point...????
Has anyone else had this problem...?
How did you solve it..?
Just an additional note: The NMRA gauge will NOT fit through the pinch point in the switch... the tight spot created by the straight point -vs- the curved rail is roughly 1mm too narrow for the gauge...
Quote from: RCtrax05 on July 09, 2015, 10:34:10 PM
I have found out the hard way that my EZ-Track #4 turnouts have a problem... The point for the curved route is straight (no curve in it at all)... B-B engines seem to be able to work OK, but C-C engines do not.
The problem is that the corresponding rail IS curved, and with the point being straight, this creates a "pinch point" in the middle of the turnout... This causes engines such as my SD40-2 to derail almost every time - even when the engine does not derail, there is an audible "clunk" as the wheels ride up on the pinch point, then drop back down...
The most obvious "solution" would appear to be to BEND the switch point to match the curve in the corresponding rail... However, initial attempts seem to risk damage to the switch. the tip of the point is only a friction fit into the plastic bar that moves the points and the opposite end is just riveted to a contact... Forcing a bend in the point risks either breaking the bar or the rivet attaching point...????
Has anyone else had this problem...?
How did you solve it..?
The switch is built like all North American switches. On North American prototype switches, the switch points, the bits of rail that move, are straight so in that it is prototypically designed.
I don't use EZ-Track, for numerous reasons but I'd suggest you try and
carefully file a little off the stock rail, the rail against which the switch point "nests" and also a little from the outside of the switch point, the side that touches the stock rail and see that helps. If the trouble persists on both the straight and curve route, then perform that little surgery on both sides.
That may help.
Cheers
Roger T.
I would suggest that when working on the "curved" point, that you line the switch for the straight route and wedge the "curved" point open with a matchstick or other solid object. this way, when you do try to work on the point, it won't flop around and you won't be putting a lot of pressure on the throwbar. good luck!
When this "clunk" occurs, is it like a car hitting a pothole?
I am sorry, what are B-B and C-C engines?
I would also trust what the NMRA gauge is telling you. A lot of folks overlook they can be used for turnout trouble shooting. Good on you for using it!
Quote from: jbrock27 on July 10, 2015, 07:24:21 AM
When this "clunk" occurs, is it like a car hitting a pothole?
I am sorry, what are B-B and C-C engines?
I would also trust what the NMRA gauge is telling you. A lot of folks overlook they can be used for turnout trouble shooting. Good on you for using it!
B-B and C-C can be Googled but a B-B engine had two four wheeled trucks and a C-C engine has two six wheeled trucks.
Cheers
Roger T.
Thanks Roger. You're up early.
But don't get why the initials would designate same?
To RCT's observation, this would be bc there is more "flexibility" and less travel distance for a B-B vs C-C loco's trucks.
RCT, I see you have been dealing with issues on these for a time:
http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/board/index.php/topic,30212.msg222808.html#msg222808
Quote from: jbrock27 on July 10, 2015, 07:35:20 AM
Thanks Roger. You're up early.
But don't get why the initials would designate same?
Prototype diesel wheel arrangements (ini the US) use a combination of letters and numbers to denote powered axles (letters) and unpowered axles (numbers). By "powered" and "unpowered" I mean that the axle either has a traction motor mounted to it or it doesn't. For example.....
An EMD SD40-2 is a C-C locomotive because it has 3 powered axles on each truck.
An ALCO PA-1 is an A1A-A1A locomotive because the outermost axles on each truck are powered, but the center ones are unpowered. They are there to help spread the weight of the locomotive over more axles.
An EMD FL-9 (duel-mode F-units built originally for the New Haven RR) are B-A1A locomotives with 2 powered axles on the lead truck and a powered / idler / powered on the rear truck (again, to spread the weight of the unit).
And a GP38-2 is a B-B locomotive because it has 2 powered axles on each truck.
Thank you Piyer for the additional information and lesson. I get all that and knew that when it came to, for example, U-Boat diesel locos, that the 1st #, 4 or 6 of the series designated whether it was a 4 or 6 axle diesel. That is pretty straighforward and logical, making sense.
But, I still am not seeing how "B-B" an "C-C" came to have any correlation with the number of axles ??? I see nothing in the info that has been provided that tells where using a "B" and a "C" to differentiate them, came from. It does not look to me, unless I am missing something, that B or C are short for anything, so...
It's an AAR wheel arrangement descriptor for diesel-electric locos, similar to the Whyte system for steam power
There's a pretty good description of the system at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAR_wheel_arrangement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAR_wheel_arrangement)
Len
Thank you Len. I checked it out. Looks to me like AAR came up with using the letters they did, to designate a number; ie: A (first ltr of alphabet) =1, B (second letter of alphabet)=2, C (third letter of alphabet) =3 and etc.
Not that my life and hobby endeavours could not have carried on as normal w/o knowing all that, but I thank you for clarifiying :D
Quote from: Piyer on July 10, 2015, 12:14:37 PM
Prototype diesel wheel arrangements (ini the US) use a combination of letters and numbers to denote powered axles (letters) and unpowered axles (numbers).
It not just a USA system, it's an international system actually based on European steam locomotive wheel arrangement designations or more probably the French system.
The French would describe a 4-6-2 steam loco as a 2C1 not as a 4-6-2.
Because the system of using letters rather than numbers for wheel arrangements wasn't invented in the States, the USA had to be different so while the rest of the world uses designations like BB and CC the USA inserts a dash, hence B-B and C-C. Canada, of course, follows the USA and inserts the dash. Not sure what Mexico does.
Cheers
Roger T.
Quote from: jbrock27 on July 10, 2015, 07:35:20 AM
Thanks Roger. You're up early.
Not up early but getting home after work. :)
Roger T.
Quote from: rogertra on July 10, 2015, 01:27:44 PM
Not up early but getting home after work. :)
Roger T.
Out late then ;). Regardless, thank you for being the first responder to my question.
Update:
I won't say the problem is "fixed" yet - still a lot of testing "miles" to verify, but I does seem to be OK now...
I looked at all my other EZ-Track #4 turnouts, and found that all of them had a slight (but visible) curve in the switch point for the divergent route - I proceeded to CAREFULLY put a similar bend in the point on the problem turnout...
I did some "bench testing" and spotted another problem with this turnout. The metal frog installation had multiple problems.
1) The frog was "high" and not level with the track leading up to it or departing from it. This would be one source of the "clunk" sound, as the truck wheels would potentially hit the edge of the frog on approach and drop off the trailing edge as they pass over it...
2) The molded plastic around the (metal) frog made the above problem worse as it seemed to have expanded out in such a way as to both stick up above the rails in the gap between the rail and frog, and it also had pushed out to the side of the frog/rail junction, creating an obstacle for the wheel's "lip"...
I again CAREFULLY worked on the frog, filing the top down to be level with the rails, and then used an exacto knife to clean up the plastic so that it was smooth and flush with the rails, but not sticking out...
NOW the turnout seems to "work", and initial testing with two SD40's and an old blue box SD9 have been successful....
After more extensive testing, I will try to post how it is doing....
for what it's worth, a hacksaw blade can be used to clear the flangeways of a frog, as it just happens to be the same width as the nmra specs. I build my own switches, and after soldering all the parts together, this is what I use to clear the flangeways.
the frog sitting higher than the surrounding rails is not a problem unique to Bachmann, certain atlas switches have had this problem as well.
Quote from: jward on July 10, 2015, 11:27:37 PM
the frog sitting higher than the surrounding rails is not a problem unique to Bachmann, certain atlas switches have had this problem as well.
Correct. Which is why I had asked about the "clunk". Some time ago, I had found and saved this, for in this case, a fix for the Atlas #6:
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/113975.aspx?page=2
Everything I had come across on the subject spoke to "building up" as opposed to "filing down" to be the best solution. As in the fix here using the strip of styrene.
Quote from: jward on July 10, 2015, 11:27:37 PM
for what it's worth, a hacksaw blade can be used to clear the flangeways of a frog, as it just happens to be the same width as the nmra specs. I build my own switches, and after soldering all the parts together, this is what I use to clear the flangeways.
Exactly how I build my frogs when I hand lay track.
Quote
the frog sitting higher than the surrounding rails is not a problem unique to Bachmann, certain atlas switches have had this problem as well.
I've encountered that on some of my Atlas code 83 No. 6 switches. The judicious use of a flat file is required to lower the frog casting. I notice some of the longer wheel based steamers would "bump" when going through switches and the file fixed it.
Cheers
Roger T.
so trax's solution works better than the one endorsed by that magazine? it would seem to me to be easier than to try to build up like they suggest.
my dad, who I learned my trackwork skills from, has a saying that if you need to shim up a piece of track to get it to work, you've done something wrong. while he was mainly referring to twists in the trackwork that caused derailments, it would also apply here. critical locations like switchpoints and frogs are no place for a vertical curve and especially not a hump in the track.
Quote from: jward on July 12, 2015, 09:45:07 PM
so trax's solution works better than the one endorsed by that magazine? it would seem to me to be easier than to try to build up like they suggest...if you need to shim up a piece of track to get it to work, you've done something wrong...critical locations like switchpoints and frogs are no place for a...not a hump in the track.
I can only assume you are addressing me, since you often find reason to disagree with things I post and by rule are quicker to point that out, than to affirm agreement. So I will respond on that assumption.
Maybe you did not read through the whole link. No one placed a "hump" in the track, rather the process was filling in a dip, "pothole" if you will, in the track to bring it to level. Don't know what you see as complicated about that solution, it looks pretty simple to me with material easily available. Plus, no worry about removing too much material. When you go about it by removing material, you run the risk of taking too much off and if you do, no way to put material back, so...
Regardless of the whole generations of model railroading bit, different solutions are presented to help solve various problems and can make themselves known as time rolls along. They can be used or not, but hey, whatever you say. To each his own. Seems to me more questions should be asked as to why these turnouts need so much "tweaking " in the first place.