Lionel Locomotive Best Suited for Super O?

I believe the old 665/646/685/2046/2055/2056/2065 4-6-4's might be your answer.

In one of John Armstrong's books, he said to avoid S curves for exactly that reason, that they are derailment prone. The derailments on the S curve may be a function of the geometry instead of the track/engine incompatibility. Sometimes, the little clips between sections on the buss bar will work off and cause derailments.

The main thing about the O27 designation plate meant that the locomotive was designed to handle the O27 curve, the sharpest curve that Lionel made.

"S" curves can be a problem with any locomotive, particularly with very sharp curves like O27.  Sometimes some fiddling around with the locomotive can take care of the problem, other times not.

In the grand scheme of things, even Super O track is considered a very sharp curve

Rusty

Many of Lionel's locomotives were sold as both "0" and "027", differing in only the stock numbers, and maybe the tender.  Some were also sold under a third number when they came in sets with Super "0" track.

The 027 turbines were marked 2020.

The motors used in a postwar Lionel 2036 tend to have very strong magnetraction, and the locomotive seems to have a low center of gravity, so they tend to stay on the rails.
Put a 2035 locomotive on the tracks, and I think you will find that it derails at the bottom of that grade, just like your turbine.

Thanks for the responses, and thank you CW for the insight on the 2036 motor with the low center of gravity. Would a 637--which appears to be identical to the 2036 save for the smoke unit--perform exactly the same on Super 0 as a 2036 would? While the 637 was sold in Super O sets and the 2036 was intended for 0-27, are the wheel and axle dimensions precisely the same on the two locos?

If you dare move up to a diesel the 2359 was sold with super O track in set number 2572 also they sold the 637 with super O in set 2571 

Desert Center CA posted:

Thanks for the responses, and thank you CW for the insight on the 2036 motor with the low center of gravity. Would a 637--which appears to be identical to the 2036 save for the smoke unit--perform exactly the same on Super 0 as a 2036 would? While the 637 was sold in Super O sets and the 2036 was intended for 0-27, are the wheel and axle dimensions precisely the same on the two locos?

The only physical difference is the number on the cab.  Otherwise, if I recall correctly, the 637 has smoke where as the 2036 does not.

Rusty

Any Postwar Locomotive is compatible with Super-O track - nothing special there at all. The derailments are due to track plan and/or speed. Yes, If you nit-pick, you could argue differences in weight, weight distribution, and magnetraction make a difference - however, for the best reliability, simply avoid excessive speed and squirrely track arrangements.

I have a Super O layout. The only postwar locomotives that are not compatible with Super O track are going to be limited to a small number of early postwar steam locomotives with deep flanges that ride (bump) along the ties. Otherwise, the issue isn't the Super O track in particular but rather some issue with the track geometry, levelness or flexibility on an elevated/graduated trestle set. The absolute worst arrangement on any track system is the S curve, particularly when switches are involved.

They cataloged certain sets as 027 and certain sets as O gauge in the old Lionel catalogs. From 1957 to 1966 the O Gauge sets were meant to run on Super O. So, I would say the 773, 746, 736, 646 should not be used with 027 but any 027 locomotive should run fine on Super O.

The problem coming off the decline could have to do with the grade %. If you are not using the Lionel 110/111 trestle set you may not have noticed that Lionel intended for the % of incline to be shallower at the bottom and the top, easing the locomotive into and out of the grade.

Also, if you have a Super O switch at the point where it derails, and it is coming off a curve, it may be hitting the switch machine. You would have to add a small 1 3/4" straight section to the approach to the switch.

Thanks for your replies, and I see from your experienced responses that purchasing, say, a 637 locomotive would yield the same result as my 2036. 

No physical track modifications can be made at this point. I have a 4' x 8' space that holds essentially 3 levels of track...

I made all of the trestles to fit, and I had a tough time making all of the clearances work. I thought that in my testing nearly 2 years ago I tried my 681 & 682 locomotives with consists; they all worked at @12.5v then, but now I am having derailing issues with those heavy turbines after a steep decline. Again, the 2036 does not derail, but the aforementioned "s" curve coming out of one of the tunnels causes front wheel derailing for the 2036 even though it isn't an issue with the 681.

The 2036 seems to be bottom-of-the-line and the small front wheels just flop around with no resistance. It seems that a heavier spring might help stabilize the wheels so that they aren't so prone to jumping off the tracks. Someone mentioned above fiddling around with the locomotive; any other suggestions?

I have been told that it's not good for the transformer, but I suppose I could insulate the downward grade section and assign in to a different section of the ZW(R) transformer set at a lower voltage. Any advice welcomed...

PS-- There are no switches at all in the layout.

Sometimes, one can spread the gauge of the pilot truck wheels. They tend to be a little closer together for more play in smaller curves. Try that on the 2036 and run it through the S. I am assuming the pilot truck is jumping off first. match it to the inside width of the driver wheels. (inside flange to flange)

Super O is O36 curves, so an S of two half curves would be really snappy.

Thanks Carl--

It's only the front wheels, which I suppose are the pilot trucks, that are jumping off. Do you recommend a specific method or tool for spreading the wheels a tiny bit?

My Postwar PRR turbine CAB# 671 runs great on Super O, as does my postwar SantaFe 2383 F3, and modern TMCC  Santa FE 2343 F3 (from 1996).

The PRR 671 was a regular runner on our Christmas layout in the 60's with very similar ups and downs as the layout pictured in this thread.

Desert Center CA posted:

......

......... I suppose I could insulate the downward grade section and assign in to a different section of the ZW(R) transformer set at a lower voltage. Any advice welcomed...

Lionel recommended this in some of their dealer display setup guides for this type of situation. 

Desert Center CA posted:

I have been told that it's not good for the transformer, but I suppose I could insulate the downward grade section and assign in to a different section of the ZW(R) transformer set at a lower voltage. Any advice welcomed...

Using a Lionel rheostat as found very affordably HERE, you can power the insulated downhill portion of the track, as desired(you control the section(s) of track to insulate by pulling 2 of the center rail connectors/bus bars where needed). The #95 is probably the best, but any will do.

Just connect one post of the rheostat to the center rail of the regular, uphill portion of track and the other post to the center rail of the downhill portion of track. The rheostat is an adjustable resistor, so it limits current as a result. This means that the resulting voltage drop will be different for each locomotive, but you can fine tune it for each engine change, as well as changing the length of the uphill & downhill portions by moving where the 2 missing center rail connectors/bus bars are for additional tweaking.

EscapeRocks posted:

Desert Center CA posted:

......

......... I suppose I could insulate the downward grade section and assign in to a different section of the ZW(R) transformer set at a lower voltage. Any advice welcomed...

Lionel recommended this in some of their dealer display setup guides for this type of situation. 

I will refer to an earlier discussion HERE on that subject.

Here is another brilliantly simple illustration on another great method on how to provide voltage drops for grades.

If you want adjust-ability, substitute the rheostat(s) (only one per block needed, though) for the rectifiers.

I grew up with a 100% Super O layout (we fell into a very large quantity of it at the start of our O postwar binge).

I had trouble with a 746 sometimes hitting the Super O switch housing depending on track geometry. 736 was Ok.

The early 50's FA's (I had an Erie Set, but common mechanism with UP, Rock Island,etc) did not like the switches either  - that extra long center roller) - had to get rid of them.  F units, Trainmasters, GP7/9's all Ok.

Also had 2025, turbines, a 226, not too much trouble.

Tried to run a prewar 763E around - believe it or not, it would just about make it (supposed to be 072, Super O is like 036 diameter)

GG1, EP5's, OK, the General kind of bounced around, but it's junk anyway in my opinion.

623 switcher, a prewar 203, no problem. Even ran a modified Atlas F9 with a cobbled together center rail pickup and some of those light cars of theirs.

Jim Waterman

Because steam locomotives have the drive wheels in the middle, the overhang is to the outside. On some, depending on the position of the drive wheels, if they are more toward the front the overhang can be more to the back. If there is a wall or tunnel portal near the spot of the derailment, you might want to make sure the back corner of the cab roof is not hitting something, which could cause the pilot truck to derail.

Desert Center CA posted:

Thanks Carl--

It's only the front wheels, which I suppose are the pilot trucks, that are jumping off. Do you recommend a specific method or tool for spreading the wheels a tiny bit?

The wheel puller tool. I only had a small gear puller, but a scrap of 1/8" wood over the axle end and moved each wheel slowly. I went too far and then had try and use a socket on one end and tap the axle under wood.

It sucks without the wheel puller and press. It did it on my PE Berk Jr.

Some of the quick clamps can work as spreader, but I had ends that were too large.

It may only be a .15", but it makes a difference.

Found this service document in the O library - check out their derailing fixes.

El Classico posted:

I believe the old 665/646/685/2046/2055/2056/2065 4-6-4's might be your answer.

Gentlemen:

Replying to my own thread that I started a few months back. The derailing issue I discovered put me off the project for awhile, but now I have renewed interest in finding a solution. 

Before I start messing with rheostats/resistors/electronics in general that are decidedly not my forte, I am considering experimenting with another locomotive. To briefly recap, my 681 & 682 turbines derail often when coming out of a 9 or 10% downward grade and pulling 4-5 car consist; my cheapie 2036 does not derail at that point, but yet the pilot trucks pop off the tracks at a different point in the layout where I have two consecutive & opposing sections of track (Super 0) which I have come to find is referred to as the dreaded "S curve." The 681 & 682 never have derailing issues at this spot.

If I were to go with one of the 4-6-4 locomotives as El Classico has suggested, I see there is the 2046 with magnetraction and the nearly-identical 2056 sans magnetraction. Which of the two would be the better potential candidate for staying on the track coming out of the steep grade I've described, where the 681/682 locos are derailing?

Thanks for your consideration!

This may sound crazy but I have heard of this working also. reverse the direction of your locomotives. Sometimes a engine can't handle the grade and curve one direction but can the other

Hi Bill and thanks-- 

This one definitely runs in only one direction. I figure the grade to be 9 or 10%, and there's no way one of these postwar locos is pulling a consist up that grade. Am hoping to get lucky and find a locomotive (perhaps a 4-6-4) that can come out of the downward grade like the 2036 can, but yet will pass through the S-curve of "backwards" track sections, like the 682 can.

Here's another of the wall idea.  What about super elevating the track in the derailment prone area ?   Not sure what you can do about the S curve, short of eliminating it.  

Thanks Dan--

The best solution would be to bank the track, yes, but unfortunately there is too little clearance to make the track passing above work. The smokestack on the caboose has about 1/16" clearance when passing through this spot, so I really cannot do any track modifications.

Desert Center CA posted:

...I see there is the 2046 with magnetraction and the nearly-identical 2056 sans magnetraction. Which of the two would be the better potential candidate for staying on the track coming out of the steep grade I've described, where the 681/682 locos are derailing?

 Anything with MagneTraction will outperform its non MagneTraction twin.

Even better for your purpose would be the slightly lower profile / lower CG 2055/2065/665 Hudsons, all having MagneTraction.

Desert Center CA posted:

Thanks Dan--

The best solution would be to bank the track, yes, but unfortunately there is too little clearance to make the track passing above work. The smokestack on the caboose has about 1/16" clearance when passing through this spot, so I really cannot do any track modifications.

Looks like you're caught between the proverbial rock and hard place.  

Can someone briefly explain Magne Traction? Is a MagneTraction-equipped loco better in holding the train to the track in this downward-grade application as I am describing, or would a lighter, non-MagneTraction twin advantageous here? Again, I am trying to determine why the 681 and 682 derail 6 out of 10 times at this juncture pulling the consist, but the cheapie 2036 derails 0 out of 10 times at this very spot pulling the identical consist.

Thanks Rob-- 

I will look into a 2055/2065/665. That is exactly the info I am hoping to find on this great site. Any/all advice still welcomed!

Desert Center CA posted:

Can someone briefly explain Magne Traction? Is a MagneTraction-equipped loco better in holding the train to the track in this downward-grade application as I am describing...

Yes.

Desert Center CA posted:

or would a lighter, non-MagneTraction twin advantageous here?

No. Non-MagneTraction twins of MagneTraction locos are only lighter by a minuscule, sometimes none.

Desert Center CA posted:

Again, I am trying to determine why the 681 and 682 derail 6 out of 10 times at this juncture pulling the consist, but the cheapie 2036 derails 0 out of 10 times at this very spot pulling the identical consist.

 It's obviously a combination of track geometry and wheel arrangement leading to your woes.

I would do the pilot. Like was said. See what your side to side movement is.

Or if the wheel flange is wide turn it down.  The OD.. If there is alot of slop ..side to side movement. The flange of wheel might be hitting the hump in the tie.

Is it a 2 wheel or 4 wheel pilot.

I've had Super O layouts, and some with a mix of Super O and Gargraves (which matches up nicely with Super O except the center rail, where I solder a track pin from the Gargraves to the center rail where its got a cutout for the Super O clip.Might be worth using a section to ease the S curve. Other guys have found ways to reshape Super O curves to longer radii.

A 9 to 10% grade is a problem where it transitions back to flatland - are you getting the pilot hitting the rails? If not, great, but maybe the lead truck bottoming out to the frame. Might be a problem with any steam loco.

The 665/2055's are not great pullers, probably equal or better than your 2036. The 2046/646 is a heavier loco, similar mechanism, I like it a LOT better, and it pulls substantially better than the 665/2055.

My favorite is the 736. Nice and heavy, pulls great, so smooth. Would have to check how the lead truck interferes with the frame up front as with the other engines. I had a 746 at one point, it would nail the Super O switch motor housing with certain track geometries coming into the switch.

Jim Waterman

With all the limitations you have, I would try to fine tune the track and locos to try to eliminate the problems first. I agree on the 736, love mine  and I have all the the turbines and the 2065. Also like the 646.  It is amazing how a small difference in track geometry and wheel functioning can help clear up problems.  Make a list of all the advice and go through it one at a time.

Hello Jim P and Jim W--

Thanks for the turbine tips. To be clear, my problem is not so much with pulling, but almost to the opposite, with having too much force down-grading into the curve. Running the 681/682 by themselves or with a short consist and the throttle of the ZW transformer at 12 or 13, the locos will make it around 10 out of 10 times. (Increasing the speed above 13 causes derailing; below 12, and it can't climb the other grades in the layout.) The problem is when I add trains to the consist so that it's a tender, 3 cars, and a caboose: it's evidently too much weight behind the 681 or 682, as both derail more than half the time at the aforementioned locale. The pilot is hitting the rails, yes; it's just too much speed with the weight behind it coming out of the grade and into the curve. 

In light of the fact that the 2036 does not derail at this curve pulling the exact same consist, can I assume that a lighter locomotive is the way to go? Again, the 2036 has the problem where the pilot trucks derail at an S-curve elsewhere on the layout, which is why I was thinking a 4-6-4 loco might be the way to go.

Re-engineering the layout would require major backtracking and work at this stage, and if I can hit on the right locomotive without too much trial & error (not to mention too much cost...), I'm hoping that would be the best solution. 

Desert Center CA posted:

Re-engineering the layout would require major backtracking and work at this stage, and if I can hit on the right locomotive without too much trial & error (not to mention too much cost...), I'm hoping that would be the best solution. 

I hear you, but you have to decide which is the worse poison. Spending time now re-engineering the layout, or spending time later wishing you had done so, because you have limited yourself to only being able to run a very few engines out of the vast number available.

Is this going to be your only layout, or do you have other places to run the engines that won't work on this one? Are you planning to keep this one for a long time, or re-do it in a couple years?

I haven't read where you have tried running a diesel.  I may have missed it though.  I have found, from experience, that diesels track somewhat better than steam locomotives on the typical post war type layout, with it's tighter radii on both curves and turnouts.  It may have to do with the rigidness of the steam loco running gear as opposed to the quite flexible movement in diesel trucks.  

Can you mark one of the pictures, pointing to the specific trouble area(s)? Is the clearance problem just the tunnel portal?

Try a 1/16" shim under the outer edge of the problem curves (the wide curves, not the "S" curves). It doesn't take much to alter the center of gravity...... of course we don't know how fast you are trying to run these.

I like the overall look of the layout. A small, modern loco with speed control would look good on it. Are the two top levels one loop, with the bottom independent? Can you post a picture of the track plan?

Dave