Lionel 4-4-0 brass hybrids (Jupiter and #119) and O-36 switches

I'm guessing that the locomotive is somehow engaging the anti-derail function of the command switches, meant to throw the points to align with the train when coming to the back of the switch.  I do not know if there is a way to "remove" this feature on FasTrack.  I would try swapping the command switches for manual switches as they don't do this, and see if it stops.

Is it possible that the pony-truck and its wheels follow the straight path through the switch because they are too light or don't have enough download? Is there a coil spring between the pony truck and the underside of the locomotive? Would an increase in spring tension help?

MELGAR

Some batches of Fastrack switches have been known to throw backwards due to being wired backwards.  It's a relatively simple fix to swap the wires that connect to the control rails.  See this thread: https://ogrforum.com/...g-in-wrong-direction.

I have one of these locomotives and I was having a similar problem. My layout is primarily Atlas O-36 and when I took my locomotive around the curves it derailed. After putting it back on the rails I moved the locomotive back and forth over the curves I noticed two things. One, the center "blind" drivers were catching the inside part of the outer rail. Two, when the locomotive glides back onto the outer rail it slightly catches the rail and caused the paint to chip. As a result, I have determined that this locomotive operates best on O-54 and higher.

For you'er case, I would say it is a locomotive problem and not a switch problem. I believe what is happening is when the locomotive goes through the curved section of the switch the center driver, the inner part, touches one of the other rails causing the switch to change its position. I do not know if this is the case since you said the passenger cars cause this problem as well but this is my best hunch based upon my experience with my model.

I have noticed that the forward pair of driving wheels is blind (i.e. non-flanged) and swings pretty severely out of sync with the rails, even when on a normal O-36 curve.  

If this is the case what guides the engine. Are you stating this correctly or am I not reading it correctly.

@romiller49 posted:

There is a set of pilot/guiding wheels in front of the forward pair of driving wheels.  The pilot/guiding wheels guide the engine but the driving wheels move it forward.  It's the forward pair of driving wheels that are blind - all four pilot/guiding wheels are flanged.

In other words, the blind wheels are the first axle on the second set of "4" in 4-4-0.

Should have flanged both drivers.

@MELGAR posted:

Is it possible that the pony-truck and its wheels follow the straight path through the switch because they are too light or don't have enough download? Is there a coil spring between the pony truck and the underside of the locomotive? Would an increase in spring tension help?

MELGAR

I just examined my 119 after reading this thread.  The front truck is not built like our larger die-cast engines with a spring and a large slot the whole truck can "swing" within.  It is just a solid single point mount, with the only degree of freedom being a pivot on the center.  There may be some very minor play in this mount, but nothing like we are used to with larger steamers.  I suspect the extremely small wheelbase is what allowed this design.

(not this direct situation, but on a similar note: when initially examining my engines at the store, I was shocked at the minimal swing on the tender trucks, considering the engine is rated for O36.  After placing it on a stock piece of O36 curve from the box of track at the dealer, the short wheel base aspect of this occurred to me)

@romiller49 posted:

 

If this is the case what guides the engine. Are you stating this correctly or am I not reading it correctly.

See above.  The front truck being constrained by the single pivot point anchored at the body should guide the engine. (well, should - this does not explain the OP question )

@tom21pa posted:

Should have flanged both drivers.

Maybe not?   See my above ideas on why this may be OK for these models (less the switch issue the OP is having).

-Dave

Wow, we learn something every day. I certainly won’t knock the design other than WOW!!

The distance between the two driver axles is not that different than on an 0-4-0 steam engine - which needs 4 flanged drive wheels. So, why were flanges omitted on this model? And why was a conventional front truck mounting with a download coil spring not used? Is there enough pivot on the tender trucks? I would like to see a picture of the underside of this locomotive.

MELGAR

@MELGAR posted:

The distance between the two driver axles is not that different than on an 0-4-0 steam engine - which needs 4 flanged drive wheels. So, why were flanges omitted on this model? And why was a conventional front truck mounting with a download coil spring not used? Is there enough pivot on the tender trucks? I would like to see a picture of the underside of this locomotive.

MELGAR

The pony truck is now swung, it pivots.  If they put a flange on the front drivers then the min radius would be O72 or more.  I think this was a better choice in doing blind front drivers.  I have a Lionel Legacy Atlantic and it is done with a sprung swinging pony truck and all drivers flanged, and it's the worst tracking locomotive I have.  It bounces all over the place and the pony truck is always coming off the track on curves or at switch points.  There isn't enough weight on the front to push down.  These American locomotives have even less front end weight, so by removing the spring and swing arm what little weight it has does a better job at pushing down and keeping the pony truck wheels on the track.  My #119 handles my track way better then the Atlantic ever did.  And the tightest I have is O45 switches (All Atlas track) and out of habit I always take it slow through them with all my locomotives and the 4-4-0's don't give any issues.

There are a lot of factors you must consider when it comes to mechanical design (Which I do for a living.), and the one you must always pay attention to is physics as physics will always win.  And as a design engineer I am very impressed with what Lionel was able to do with these locomotives.

@sinclair posted:

There are a lot of factors you must consider when it comes to mechanical design (Which I do for a living.), and the one you must always pay attention to is physics as physics will always win.  And as a design engineer I am very impressed with what Lionel was able to do with these locomotives.

I will reply to your remark only by saying that, between the two of us, you are not the only one who is knowledgeable about physics and engineering.

MELGAR

@sinclair posted:

I'm guessing that the locomotive is somehow engaging the anti-derail function of the command switches, meant to throw the points to align with the train when coming to the back of the switch.  I do not know if there is a way to "remove" this feature on FasTrack.  I would try swapping the command switches for manual switches as they don't do this, and see if it stops.

Agreed.  An even easier method:  Simply tape over the straight anti-derail rail with some painter's tape or similar, for a short distance (an inch or two) past the frog.  See if this will allow your train to run through the curved route without triggering the switch to throw straight.

If this cures the switch problem, then I would guess that the pilot truck wheel gauges (or the width of the pilot wheels themselves) are too large and causing the problem by briefly contacting the straight rail while going through the curved portion.  Come to think of it, the pilot truck wheels in your pictures do not look to be fast angle profile, which may also exacerbate the problem.

Give this a try and see if it helps.  If not, we'll have to work on another solution.

Quick question - does the issue happen when the engines are run by themselves with just the tender and no passenger cars or only when connected to the passenger cars ?

I’m sorry but the engine looks ridiculous going around the curve with the front drive wheels leaving the rails as pictured above by the original poster. I’ll bet this engine is going to be a nightmare for Lionel. I would not have produced this engine if that’s what was needed for 036 running.

@romiller49 posted:

I’m sorry but the engine looks ridiculous going around the curve with the front drive wheels leaving the rails as pictured above by the original poster. I’ll bet this engine is going to be a nightmare for Lionel. I would not have produced this engine if that’s what was needed for 036 running.

And what's the story with the other "hybrid brass" 4-4-0's ?

@romiller49 posted:

I’m sorry but the engine looks ridiculous going around the curve with the front drive wheels leaving the rails as pictured above by the original poster. I’ll bet this engine is going to be a nightmare for Lionel. I would not have produced this engine if that’s what was needed for 036 running.

Hey Rod,

That's the trade-off Lionel had to come up with in order to get a scale-sized train to run on toy train curves.

Had Lionel put flanged drivers on both drive axles, that would have limited it to probably at least O72 curves, if not larger.  Thereby severely limiting the amount of modelers that could buy and run it on their layouts.

I’m all Lionel and I hope everyone that bought it will be pleased. I’ll just have to pass on this one.

One thing to note, many mid-1800s 4-4-0s (and some other types of that era) did have blind drivers on the first axle.  The B&O #25 "William Mason" is one such example.  The lead truck simply pivoted as any other truck would about one axis and wouldn't have had the lateral motion swing links that later locomotives acquired as technology progressed, therefore it kept the front end of the locomotive on the rails.  The blind drivers were typically wider than a flanged driver as well to prevent issues such as what the models described above are experiencing.  

It appears that the replica 119 and Jupiter locomotives have flanged drivers on both axles, but perhaps some reference was found to say the original prototypes did not?

@SantaFe158 posted:

One thing to note, many mid-1800s 4-4-0s (and some other types of that era) did have blind drivers on the first axle.  The B&O #25 "William Mason" is one such example.  The lead truck simply pivoted as any other truck would about one axis and wouldn't have had the lateral motion swing links that later locomotives acquired as technology progressed, therefore it kept the front end of the locomotive on the rails.  The blind drivers were typically wider than a flanged driver as well to prevent issues such as what the models described above are experiencing.  

It appears that the replica 119 and Jupiter locomotives have flanged drivers on both axles, but perhaps some reference was found to say the original prototypes did not?

The Wm Mason was built in 1856 by Mason Machine Works.  The UP 119 was built 12 years later, in 1868 by Rodgers Locomotive and Machine Works.  That's enough time for the suspension technology to improve, along with perhaps two different engineering philosophies.

Rusty

@Rusty Traque posted:

The Wm Mason was built in 1856 by Mason Machine Works.  The UP 119 was built 12 years later, in 1868 by Rodgers Locomotive and Machine Works.  That's enough time for the suspension technology to improve, along with perhaps two different engineering philosophies.

Rusty

I'm sure there were many improvements in that time period, I simply cited the William Mason as a surviving example so people wouldn't think I was nuts for suggesting that such a concept ever existed

@Mixed Freight posted:

Agreed.  An even easier method:  Simply tape over the straight anti-derail rail with some painter's tape or similar, for a short distance (an inch or two) past the frog.  See if this will allow your train to run through the curved route without triggering the switch to throw straight.

If this cures the switch problem, then I would guess that the pilot truck wheel gauges (or the width of the pilot wheels themselves) are too large and causing the problem by briefly contacting the straight rail while going through the curved portion.  Come to think of it, the pilot truck wheels in your pictures do not look to be fast angle profile, which may also exacerbate the problem.

Give this a try and see if it helps.  If not, we'll have to work on another solution.

Hi @Mixed Freight, thanks for the suggestion.  This solution sounds sensible but I'm not exactly sure what you mean so I've attached a picture of the relevant switch.  I think the frog is what I outlined in yellow.  The red lines are the breaks in the rail, which I remember from my O-27 switches are insulated, so I assume that's where the frog ends (electrically speaking).  Is the "straight anti-derail rail" what I've highlighted in green?  Is that what I should try covering in tape?

The plot thickens: I ran the locomotive very slowly (speed step 1) over the switch a couple of times.  The pilot truck fails to follow the switch onto the curve.  This is before the anti-derailment feature throws the switch back to straight.  The pilot truck (all four wheels of it) runs ahead straight when the switch is set to curve.  The blind drivers obviously do what the pilot truck is guiding them to do and they also run straight.  The flanged driving wheels then follow the switch onto the curve of the siding, and it's the tender that seems to set the sparks flying (I'm still working through that last bit but that seems to be when the sparks strike).  I'm willing to try the electric tape solution but this makes me think the problem is probably something to do with the weight or the stiffness of the pilot truck, which isn't following the curve of the switch to begin with.  In other words, I suspect the anti-derailment feature is a symptom rather than a cause of the problem, which seems to begin as soon as the pilot wheels fail to follow the switch.

Has anybody who runs these locomotives successfully navigated them through any switch?  @Trainmaster04, can you successfully get these through Atlas switches?  What's the smallest radius they'll handle?

I can't really comment on Lionel's engineering ingenuity or not.  The engines look gorgeous.  The blind driver doesn't bother me and I'm willing to accept weird looks on tight curves.  But it's kind of annoying if Lionel sold these engines as O-36-rated and they cannot, in fact, navigate a simple Lionel-brand O-36 switch.

@BC1989 posted:

... I ran the locomotive very slowly (speed step 1) over the switch a couple of times.  The pilot truck fails to follow the switch onto the curve.  ...  The pilot truck (all four wheels of it) runs ahead straight when the switch is set to curve.  The blind drivers obviously do what the pilot truck is guiding them to do and they also run straight.  The flanged driving wheels then follow the switch onto the curve of the siding... this makes me think the problem is probably something to do with the weight or the stiffness of the pilot truck, which isn't following the curve of the switch to begin with.  In other words, I suspect the anti-derailment feature is a symptom rather than a cause of the problem, which seems to begin as soon as the pilot wheels fail to follow the switch.

I think you are now correctly diagnosing the problem.

In my previous post, I asked why was a conventional front truck mounting with a download coil spring not used. I asked this because this engine is relying on the pilot wheels to steer it into the curves. If they derail and don't follow the curved path, the drive wheels certainly will not. I suspect the problem arises at the front truck which needs additional download force (from weight or a download spring) so that it steers the engine into the curve. That is one of the purposes of the pilot wheels on a full scale engine.

MELGAR

BC1989,

A possible (but expensive) solution for your layout might be to substitute O-72 Fastrack switches for the O-36s. The engine might follow the larger radius without derailing.

MELGAR

@BC1989 posted:

Hi @Mixed Freight, thanks for the suggestion.  This solution sounds sensible but I'm not exactly sure what you mean so I've attached a picture of the relevant switch.  I think the frog is what I outlined in yellow.  The red lines are the breaks in the rail, which I remember from my O-27 switches are insulated, so I assume that's where the frog ends (electrically speaking).  Is the "straight anti-derail rail" what I've highlighted in green?  Is that what I should try covering in tape?

The plot thickens: I ran the locomotive very slowly (speed step 1) over the switch a couple of times.  The pilot truck fails to follow the switch onto the curve.  This is before the anti-derailment feature throws the switch back to straight.  The pilot truck (all four wheels of it) runs ahead straight when the switch is set to curve.  The blind drivers obviously do what the pilot truck is guiding them to do and they also run straight.  The flanged driving wheels then follow the switch onto the curve of the siding, and it's the tender that seems to set the sparks flying (I'm still working through that last bit but that seems to be when the sparks strike).  I'm willing to try the electric tape solution but this makes me think the problem is probably something to do with the weight or the stiffness of the pilot truck, which isn't following the curve of the switch to begin with.  In other words, I suspect the anti-derailment feature is a symptom rather than a cause of the problem, which seems to begin as soon as the pilot wheels fail to follow the switch.

Has anybody who runs these locomotives successfully navigated them through any switch?  @Trainmaster04, can you successfully get these through Atlas switches?  What's the smallest radius they'll handle?

I can't really comment on Lionel's engineering ingenuity or not.  The engines look gorgeous.  The blind driver doesn't bother me and I'm willing to accept weird looks on tight curves.  But it's kind of annoying if Lionel sold these engines as O-36-rated and they cannot, in fact, navigate a simple Lionel-brand O-36 switch.

To answer your question, yes, I have been able to get my model through a curve just fine. The only problem is the switch it went through was O-72. Currently, the smallest switch that I have on the layout is O-72. The only way I would be able to test to see if it will go through anything smaller (O-36) would have to be on some fast track that I have from my previous layout. Which in this case would not be of any service too you since that is what you have. Also, I would have to agree with MELGAR. If I remember correctly the isolated parts of the frog is what completes the circuit for the switch. Since the pilot and the blind set of drivers are able to go through the switch they then able to go over the frog. As a result, passing the isolated section and completing the circuit and changing the position of the switch. Also, since the second driver is flanged, and carries most of the weight, it is able to go through the switch normally. In other words, I think we’re back down to what MELGAR was saying. If there was more downforce on the pilot wheels then it would be able to follow through the switch and not cause a problem.

@MELGAR posted:

I think you are now correctly diagnosing the problem.

In my previous post, I asked why was a conventional front truck mounting with a download coil spring not used. I asked this because this engine is relying on the pilot wheels to steer it into the curves. If they derail and don't follow the curved path, the drive wheels certainly will not. I suspect the problem arises at the front truck which needs additional download force (from weight or a download spring) so that it steers the engine into the curve. That is one of the purposes of the pilot wheels on a full scale engine.

MELGAR

I expect it was because either the cylinder size or position would have to be compromised on a scale proportioned locomotive.  Or the pilot wheels would have had to been severely reduced in size which would also compromise the "scale" classification.

Let's not forget, O36 is still an extremely sharp curve.  It's practically "street radius" for trolley cars.  It's about the equivalent of 9" radius for HO, which no HO 4-4-0 would tolerate.

Rusty

Rusty,

That may be the reason. But the first priority in design is to make the model operate properly under the stated conditions - apparently O-36.

MELGAR

@BC1989 posted:

Hi @Mixed Freight, thanks for the suggestion.  This solution sounds sensible but I'm not exactly sure what you mean so I've attached a picture of the relevant switch.  I think the frog is what I outlined in yellow.  The red lines are the breaks in the rail, which I remember from my O-27 switches are insulated, so I assume that's where the frog ends (electrically speaking).  Is the "straight anti-derail rail" what I've highlighted in green?  Is that what I should try covering in tape?

Hey BC1989,

The frog is the yellow portion.  The anti-derail rails are the rails just past the frog, with your red marks.  These are the rails that you could tape over to test, and NOT the green rail.

That being said, this apparently is not your problem.  Take a good look at your picture, and notice the point rails are set to the curved route.  Now take an even better look at the curved route point rail that is supposed to be touching the straight stock rail.  See the slight gap?  This is your problem, there is not supposed to be a gap there at all.  This tiny gap is letting the flanges of your pilot truck go on through the straight route and derail the front truck.  Then the rear flanged drivers on the engine try and take the curved route, and total derailment ensues.

Something needs to be done to correct that slight gap at the points.  As I don't own any Fastrack, I can't tell you for sure if there is an adjustment you can make, or if the switch is defective.  At any rate, either way the switch is thrown, whichever point rail is guiding the train wheels to the proper route needs to be tight to the stock rail.  A slight gap in the point rail will result in problems every time.

Either get that curved route point rail adjusted somehow or replace the switch one that has no gap for the thrown route and that should solve your problem.  Hope this helps.

It does look like there may be a gap between the point rail and the stock rail which could result in "picking the switch." However, the OP did substitute another O-36 switch and the problem remained. Maybe both switches were at fault.

MELGAR

I have run mine though O45, O54, and O72/O54 (curved) switches, all Atlas without issues.

If the pony truck is bypassing the points then the rest of the switch is functioning correctly.  You'll need to look at the points and see if you can get them to sit tighter to the rails.  I have noticed that the flanges on the pony wheel are very 'sharp' and with the FasTrack switches having rounded top rails I can see how the wheels pick the points.  Other then making adjustments to your points I'm not sure there is an easy solution.

@MELGAR posted:

Rusty,

That may be the reason. But the first priority in design is to make the model operate properly under the stated conditions - apparently O-36.

MELGAR

While the model may have issues with O36 turnouts, do they not run OK on O36 curves?

Judging by Paul's analysis, it would appear the issue is more with the O36 FasTrack turnout.  And who is to say the engineering samples didn't work properly on a turnout mounted on a hard flat surface in engineering rather than a carpet?

Rusty

We had a similar problem on our club layout.  The locomotive would derail on a left hand turnout.  I think it is 072.  The problem was the pilot truck would pick the switch and run straight whereas the drivers would follow the curved rail.  The switch was as shown in the previously posted photos.  The curved rail was not firmly against the outside rail.  Never noticed it before as all the other locomotives we run on the layout go through the switch just fine.  If I manually push the curved rail against the outside rail and run the locomotive slowly through the switch, the locomotive will follow the curved direction.  Haven't come up with a solution yet.  Have thought of indenting the outside rail so the curved rail would sit into the outside rail (like the 022 switches).

Naturally the switch is the farthest from our control panel and cannot be seen from the control panel.  So we are afraid to run it.

It is a shame we can't run this beautiful locomotive.  Can anyone suggest a possible solution?

Don

Good afternoon all, I took the liberty yesterday of messaging Ryan after looking at this thread with great interest. Ryan answered today so I figured when I got home I would post his reply(I am a little later than I would like, sorry about the unexpected delay).

Well, I don't exactly know what he is referring to but guessing he means that the tracks are not snug fit to each other? Please let me know if that helps and makes sense.

@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:

Good afternoon all, I took the liberty yesterday of messaging Ryan after looking at this thread with great interest. Ryan answered today so I figured when I got home I would post his reply(I am a little later than I would like, sorry about the unexpected delay).

Well, I don't exactly know what he is referring to but guessing he means that the tracks are not snug fit to each other? Please let me know if that helps and makes sense.

Thanks, @Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 .  A simple solution sounds great but I'm really not sure what Ryan Kunkle means by "adjust[] the points".  Does that mean push the curve part of the switch flush against the outside rail?  I see what you're saying but I have no idea how to achieve the result.  I've done that with my hand but of course that rather defeats the whole idea of command control switches.  It's not practical for me to literally hold the switch with my finger every time the train goes through it.  Does Ryan mean something more mechanical, like tightening a screw somewhere?  How could I get in touch with Ryan Kunkle?

I have pushed the switch when it was set to straight and the movable rail does lie more tightly against the outside rail when it is set to straight than when it is set to curve.  There's a tiny bit of "give" to the moving part of the switch when it is set to curve but there is no "give" when it is set to straight.  If I knew how to eliminate that "give" ("adjust[] the points"), I would!

I have been extremely busy at work and will be for the next 10 days so it is unlikely I'll be able to give Lionel a call during what were once known as "business hours" until December 15 or 16.

I did try running the trains in reverse through the other switch and that didn't work either (the passenger car derailed).  So the two locomotives derail on two left-hand switches; and the passenger coach derails on a right-hand switch; so it's definitely not not just a matter of one bad switch.

@BC1989 posted:

Thanks, @Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 .  A simple solution sounds great but I'm really not sure what Ryan Kunkle means by "adjust[] the points".  Does that mean push the curve part of the switch flush against the outside rail?  I see what you're saying but I have no idea how to achieve the result.  I've done that with my hand but of course that rather defeats the whole idea of command control switches.  It's not practical for me to literally hold the switch with my finger every time the train goes through it.  Does Ryan mean something more mechanical, like tightening a screw somewhere?  How could I get in touch with Ryan Kunkle?

I have pushed the switch when it was set to straight and the movable rail does lie more tightly against the outside rail when it is set to straight than when it is set to curve.  There's a tiny bit of "give" to the moving part of the switch when it is set to curve but there is no "give" when it is set to straight.  If I knew how to eliminate that "give" ("adjust[] the points"), I would!

I have been extremely busy at work and will be for the next 10 days so it is unlikely I'll be able to give Lionel a call during what were once known as "business hours" until December 15 or 16.

I did try running the trains in reverse through the other switch and that didn't work either (the passenger car derailed).  So the two locomotives derail on two left-hand switches; and the passenger coach derails on a right-hand switch; so it's definitely not not just a matter of one bad switch.

Sorry that took a bit. You can find Ryan's email on his profile Conrail6358. I didn't know if I am allowed to post profile pages, I think posting his email would probably get popped right away. You could also search up Dave Olson too if you wanted to ask both at the same time to get a more specific answer. Reference this topic, your handle on here, and of the problems you are facing. I would at least give them about 2-4 business days to respond if you email as soon as tonight. That would mean at least Tuesday-Thursday you would have an answer.

As far as knowing a lick about Fastrack, I don't own any so I can't even begin to advise on what is going on or how to fix it. A lot more qualified people have already spoken here, that is why I was hoping that some would answer. I guess however that it could be that they don't own the engine in question as well as not knowing exactly what Ryan means either. Either way, hopefully you get an answer.

@BC1989 posted:

Thanks, @Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 .  A simple solution sounds great but I'm really not sure what Ryan Kunkle means by "adjust[] the points".  Does that mean push the curve part of the switch flush against the outside rail?  I see what you're saying but I have no idea how to achieve the result.  

You can GENTLY bend the points towards the rail a bit in order to make them fit more flush against the rail.

This is done when the locomotive is "picking" the points.  When this occurs, usually one of the pilot wheels gets behind the point and flips it the other direction as the locomotive travels through the switch.

However, if the loco is throwing the switch as its crossing it as you stated in your original post, bending the points will do little to stop that.

Somehow the loco is making the switch "think" its coming from the other direction activating the auto anti derail feature.

I agree with the above where I think the pilot wheels are picking the points.  I ran into this with 5 Fastrack switches I had to fix.  Depending on engine running through them it would derail,  The pilot gets in between, in that gap and goes one direction and drivers go another and it derails. The point needs to be flush against the rail.  You picture shows a good gap there.

Are you sure its it actually activating the anti-derail or is it just picking the switch points?

I have these 2 engines and they go through the switches fine (of course I do have 072 though).

@Rusty Traque posted:

While the model may have issues with O36 turnouts, do they not run OK on O36 curves?

Judging by Paul's analysis, it would appear the issue is more with the O36 FasTrack turnout.  And who is to say the engineering samples didn't work properly on a turnout mounted on a hard flat surface in engineering rather than a carpet?

Rusty

That could be the case. Maybe the track is bent? That could play a factor too. The FasTrack on my layout runs fine. When I've received my Hybrid 4-4-0, it ran over the 0-36 switch. I should point out that my switch is manual. Is the switch in question brand new?