I think these would be a popular item, especially if offered in a variety of lengths.  By having other lengths (than the standard one), they could appeal to modelers as replacements for standard length knuckle couplers, as well as replacements for Rapido style couplers.

I see no future for Rapido-style couplers.  Their performance and appearance is inferior to knuckle couplers, and they have no advantages.

Les

Nice, clean work!


Les

Good rant, Rusty!

Merry Christmas!

Les

brokemoto,

Thanks for your informative post.  Having spent my railroad career mostly in the West and South, I had no contact with RDC's until I visited the museum.

There really isn't a lot of information about RDC's in the railfan community, and some of it is wrong.  For  example, I sometimes read that the RDC's had roof mounted engines!  I knew they had hydraulic transmissions, but never considered that would limit their pulling ability.

The most recent issue of "Classic Trains" featured Rock Island passenger operations at Kansas City.  It showed a RDC car operated in a passenger train.  The RDC was the rear car, and would be set out at an intermediate station to run independently on a branch line.  I have also seen pictures of a RDC car operated mid-train as a coach.

Both these situations would require that the RDC be equipped with regular trainline air, both so it could pass air tests and so it could transmit the air to following cars.  But it would not require that the RDC be able to control trainline air.  If the RDC was not physically capable of hauling cars, there would be no reason to have that capability.

The RDC then, would only need a small air compressor and reservoir to supply the straight air system onboard.  Each RDC car in a multiple-unit consist would have its own.  These straight air systems would be controlled from the lead car just like in a multiple-unit locomotive consist.

The "baggage/observation" car was also shown.  I think it is pretty funny!  When you think about it, it is just a combine with a streamlined end.  And, like a combine, it would need to be operated at one end of the train or the other.

I'm glad we can discuss this kind of stuff here.  I think it adds to the enjoyment of model railroading to be able to understand actual railroad equipment and operations better, and why things were done the way they were.

Les

Sweet!

Les

Jerry,

Thanks to the link to your post.  I'm glad to hear that worked for you, and am looking forward to your pictures.

I'm located in a rather remote rural area without a local source for piano wire.  I'm planning to stiffen my springs by shortening their flexible portion and see how that works.  If that doesn't work, I'll start a scavenger hunt for something suitable to use as spring wire.

Most of my track switches are located too far from the switch controllers to power with the wire supplied.  I've extended these wires using bulk wire and barrier strips from Radio Shack.  I've discovered that some of my problems with poor solenoid performance was caused by poor connections at the barrier strips.  To correct this, I am in the process of installing Radio Shack forked telephone connector lugs on all wire connections on my railroad.  I have about 600 of these connection points, and am two-thirds of the way through the project.

While this has helped a lot, I still think a more powerful solenoid would solve a lot of the problems.

Kevin,

Excellent idea!  I was just trying to think of what I could use.   I'm sure I have some of these around.
That would be something that could be added to the existing design in production for very little cost, too.

The next time I have to pull a switch out, that coffee stirrer is going in!

Also a good excuse to go out for coffee!

Les

jb,

If you construct anything beyond the most basic of track layouts, you are apt to wind up with "wires going everywhere".  Even DCC systems beyond the smallest require multiple feeders to maintain optimal performance.  Track switches require their own power feeds.

And if you want to have powered accessories, or lighted buildings, well, that all needs wiring too.

It seems "wires going everywhere" is just a fact of life under model railroads.

Les

Skip,

Thanks.  Apparently, it is a generic design.  I could use a few of these in N scale to round out my secondary passenger trains.

It is interesting to see doodlebugs pulling standard heavyweight cars.  On a previous model railroad, I used an RDC to pull a regular streamlined car.  It wasn't until I visited a railroad museum that had RDC cars that I realized this would have been incorrect.  Sitting in the engineer's seat, I realized the RDC did not have a regular automatic brake system!  The only air brake equipment was the independent brake, the straight air brake system that operates the locomotive brake only.  This would not be a problem if RDC cars were run in multiple unit sets.  They would be subjected to the same air brake test as a light locomotive set.

So, while a doodlebug can haul a regular passenger car or two, an RDC cannot.  Without train air, the RDC-hauled train could never pass an air brake test.

I assume a doodlebug must carry the same air brake equipment as a conventional locomotive.

I hope Bachmann sees fit to sell these trailer cars as individual items.  They would also make good cars to include in steam or early Diesel train sets.

Les

Danlee,

I just wanted to thank you for giving me an idea to solve a problem I have been having with my DC EZ-Track N-scale turnouts.  Most of them work OK, but I sometimes run into the problem you are having with the spring wire not holding the points (the moveable part of the track) in position after the switch has been activated.  As you noted, the switch machine, being a geared solenoid, exerts no force after the points have moved.  The vibration of a train passing over the switch (or even near it on an adjacent track) will cause the switch to gap, resulting in a derailment.

I have 28 of these switches on my model railroad.

I have gotten a lot of advice by reading this forum, as it seems to be an ongoing problem.  The conventional methods for dealing with this are: bending the switch point slightly (risky because of possibility of breakage);  grinding a small relief on the stationary rail (known as the stock rail) for the point to rest in (risky again because it introduces a weak spot; putting a dot of solder (or glue?) on the stock rail just before the point, to bump the wheel past the gap (this introduces a narrow spot in the switch, and causes rough operation over it); putting a slightly thicker spacer between the spring rod and the slot in the underside of the track; bending the spring rod slightly in the desired direction to increase tension (not a real good idea, as when tension is increased in one direction it is lessened in the other); and replacing the spring rod with a heavier one (a difficult task. A suitable spring rod would be difficult to obtain, and the work to replace it would involve opening bigger holes in both the plastic lever that moves it, and in the metal piece that the spring fits into).

A very useful bit of advice I got from this forum is to note the orientation of the small lug on the pinion gear that operates the spring rod.  The positions of this lug should be at one o'clock and seven o'clock for the two different routes.

I hadn't thought of stiffening the spring by bracing part of its length, effectively making the spring shorter and therefore stiffer.  It might prove an elegant solution to the problem.

Be aware that there is also a copper rocker contact that has to contact two metal plates for each direction, and if the rocker gets out of synch with everything else, power will be routed incorrectly to the powered frog (the metal X-shaped thing that the wheels pass through).  If this happens, a short circuit will occur.

These switches apparently had a lot of thought put into their design, but suffer in their execution.  I am hoping that if their problems are discussed like this in a public forum, it might encourage the manufacturer to correct them in production.

My suggestions:  use more powerful electromagnets in the solenoid; use a stiffer wire as a throw rod; mount the pinion gear on a longer shaft that can be mushroomed to keep it on the shaft; do the same with the lever that the pinion activates; devise a better way to maintain tension on the contact rocker (a stronger solenoid would allow this); and run the power connections between the switch mechanism and the stock rails closer to the frog (so continuity would not be lost if a factory-attached rail joiner had to be replaced, or if the stock rails were shortened to use the switch in a special application like a yard ladder.

If the entire switch were redesigned, consider powering it with a DC motor instead of a solenoid.  The sliding rack could be replaced with a worm.  Since motion can only be transmitted one way through a worm, it would automatically lock the points tight against the stock rail in either direction.  The power routing rocker would then have to be actuated by the worm gear.

As you can imagine, I have spent many hours myself on this.  I am a retired railroad locomotive engineer.

Les

Me too!

Les

Nice pictures and reviews, guys.

Skip: Is the trailer coach a model of a car that was specifically designed to be a doodlebug trailer?  Or could it be used as a car that would be proper to run in a conventional train?  I like the idea of a "lightweight-heavyweight", especially now when the selection of heavyweight coaches is so limited.

Les

mf5117 brings up a good point that has not been mentioned before.  A lighweight car, like an empty flat car, especially a long one, will tend to derail when pulling a tight curve or a switch if it has heavier cars behind it.  The force needed to pull the car overcomes the force of gravity holding the car to the track, and can lift the flanges right over the rail.

This happened to me once pulling a string of heavy cars with an empty trailer flat car between the loads and the empties on a full-sized railroad.  The car climbed a rail on a switch.  So, it is a consideration on real railroads and it would be proper to consider this in train makeup on a model railroad, too.

On my passenger-oriented model railroad, I help avoid this by adding a little extra weight to my baggage and RPO cars that are run on the head end of my trains.

Don's mention of a Hi-F Geep brought back memories to me.  I had one of those, too.  It actually was a pretty good loco for the time: very smooth and quiet, and would run well with any other loco.

When I was just getting into model railroading (1968) what equipment I had was Athern HO.  There was a Tyco train set in a store downtown I really wanted.  I bought it and mixed its contents with my existing model railroad.  Of course, all the rolling stock was equipped with horn-hook (x2f) couplers.

I soon realized there was a problem.  All my Athern stuff would operate OK by themselves.  And all my Tyco stuff would operate well by themselves.  But when I mixed the cars, I would get derailments.  It turns out that the Athern cars all had body-mounted couplers, and the Tycos all had truck-mounted couplers.  So began my education of what works and what doesn't.

Les

Darth,

Here is how you adjust wheel gauge.

One or both wheels will have a plastic center (for insulation).  Take the wheel and axle out of the truck.  Hold the wheel set by the axle with a needle-nosed pliers.

Take a regular slip-joint pliers and adjust it so it doesn't close completely.  With your other hand, take the slip-joint pliers and grasp the insulated wheel.  While twisting the wheel slightly on the axle, move the wheel in or out on the axle.

It will be helpful if you have a wheel gauge to check the spacing.  If you can't buy one, make one by filing notches with a three-cornered file the same distance apart as your track gauge.

Be careful not to mess up the wheel flange.

Les

lilpuu,

That should be 33 inches, not 33 feet.

Les

No, you do not always have to use the power supply included with the set.

As long as the loco you want to run is DC, and the power supply is DC and in the voltage output and has sufficient amperage to handle the load imposed by the motor, it will work.  I would think an LGB powerpack would have no trouble powering your WP&Y engine.

Les