MTH caboose pickup rollers suck.

Your caboose with kadee couplers look very nice.

Gary, that pickup design goes back to pre war. The earlier MTH cabeese don’t seem to have that problem. Maybe the springs in this one are too strong???

Pete

Hi very nice cabooses very detailed! Alan

One observation. The pickup roller seems to have a lot of side play on the pin. Most rollers if they are not as wide as the pin have a bevel on them. Almost enough if it was totally off to one side. There’s enough left to snag a rail. While you shouldn’t have to modify your entire trackwork to accommodate a particular car. I’m wondering if inserting track pins into the center rails of the turnout that don’t connect into the main rail and bending them down to create sort of a ramp would help. If anyone remembers Stud Rail. This was recommended on turnouts where you used a sort of ski that snapped on the pickup roller. You just have to be careful and keep it away from any wheel passing by.

Atlas had similar issues with theirTrainman Passenger cars. Digging up some old posts might provide some fixes. I know one was a horseshoe shaped styrene shim to raise the roller up a bit.

While not for everyone. I’ve been changing out to battery power. I become intrigued reading about the HO Rapido cars with Magic Wand lighting. On my older Lionel’s. I was only interested in lighting up the Tomar markers. I can’t vouch for how long the battery will last. But it works very well.

As far as looks. Comparing it to a Lionel which was made for years but was truly dated. You can see the differences just in the handrail size and the steps. Plus the separately applied grab irons. MTH got the correct 4 running boards and the stack on the correct side. My Rutland’s arrive today. First up is to add Kadee’s.

@Norton posted:

Gary, that pickup design goes back to pre war. The earlier MTH cabeese don’t seem to have that problem. Maybe the springs in this one are too strong???

Pete

I don't remember my other MTH cabooses having this setup.  But this latest design looks a lot like a Weaver setup with the same issues as Weaver.  I know there's been a lot of complaints on these so it's just not me.  I'll look into it more.

@Dave_C  interesting observations.  I won't let one minor flaw, take away the great detail in these cabooses.

I purchased four of the recently released MTH Premier wood-sided cabooses – two Boston & Albany (#1179, #1299), one New York Central (#19877) and one Rutland (#36). They are very realistic, well-made models and I’m satisfied with their quality, although the handrails are fragile and not perfectly aligned. I hadn’t run any of them prior to reading the above comments, so I decided to see how NYC #19877 ran through the Atlas O-54 switches on my 10’-by-5’ layout.

The two videos show the caboose running forward (pulled) and backward (pushed) through the curved path of the switch. The tracking seems smooth running forward but not as good running in reverse – where a bump can be seen and a click can be heard as the wheels cross the frog. Probably to be expected. I’m not sure if the pickup rollers are responsible. The pivoting of the trucks seems stiff due to the wires between the pickup rollers and interior lights.

I also have a similar Railking version of NYC wood-sided caboose #19654 (30-7721) made in 1998 with the same type of pickup rollers. I’ve been running it for many years with no apparent problem. The trucks pivot more freely and it runs through the switch about the same as the new model. The handrails are perfectly aligned but noticeably thicker than on the new models.

MELGAR

I've got several MTH cabooses with that pickup roller design, and they track through Ross 072 switches without issue. Maybe the springs on the latest run have changed?

Watching Mel’s video. It sure looks like when the pickup roller contacts the isolated rail right before the frog. It’s slamming into it rather than riding smoothly over it.  Causing the wheels to lift slightly.

@Dave_C posted:

Watching Mel’s video. It sure looks like when the pickup roller contacts the isolated rail right before the frog. It’s slamming into it rather than riding smoothly over it.  Causing the wheels to lift slightly.

Dave,

It seems that on the Atlas O-54 switches, the wheels drop down slightly as they cross the frog and the flanges contact the surface of the frog.

@Lou1985 posted:

I've got several MTH cabooses with that pickup roller design, and they track through Ross 072 switches without issue. Maybe the springs on the latest run have changed?

Lou1985,

I compared the up/down stiffness of the pickup-rollers on the new model with the Railking version. Vertical stiffness seems the same to me...

MELGAR

@MELGAR, been the tabs down where the wires attach.  That should help and prevent the wires/tab from interacting with the frame of the caboose.  I've see improvement but not a total elimination of the issue bending down those wire connections.  You can also pull a little more wire out for more slack.  There's plenty of wire in those cabooses.  No reason for anything to be stiff.

I just looked at my B&A. Haven’t run it yet. I believe the problem may be in how the wires are routed.  There is quite a bit of space between the coils of the pickup roller spring. Enough so that the wire can easily get lodged in there. I pivoted the truck back and forth and kept pushing on the roller. A few times the roller did bind up. No upward movement. The wire was jammed in between the springs coils. As the truck pivots as you run it. It will free back up again.

The design has the wires forming a loop to get back to the slot to enter the car body.  The design of the slot is so that when the trucks pivot. The 2 wires follow along moving back and forth in the slot. One end of my car. The wire never moves. It’s at the furthest point of the slot. Bound up. The pivot of the truck is replying on the wires flexing. The other end moves only a bit. To me the idea of the slot is for the wire to move from side to side with no restriction. I think you have to see what’s going on under the chassis as to how the wires are secured . Somewhere between the cars floor and the metal chassis is causing the wires not to move. I have an older MTH caboose of a different design. But it still features the loop in the wiring to get into the car body. The wire is set dead straight in the slot and moves following the truck.

I think Dave found the problem. The slot in the frame for the wires to pass through should be at least a 1/2” inboard from the truck terminal, not outboard towards the center of the truck.  MTH uses that same pickup on virtually all their rolling stock including passenger cars. That may have been the result of mounting the trucks further inboard following prototype. Most 19000 NYC cabeese have the trucks under the platform which is wrong.

Pete

Yes, we have seen the issue of the routed wires.  After bending the connector tab down a bit, most of the binding issue is resolved, however putting more slack in the wires can be a challenge.  Thankfully I’ve only heard from a small handful of customers who have experienced this problem out of nearly 300 cabooses we had produced.

Thank you all who are helping others with your suggestions.

Agreed the pickup rollers seem a big step backward in quality.   My NYC custom run wouldn't even sit fully on the track on one truck.   Had to bend pickup wire connection tabs down and lubricate the rollers.  It sits correctly on the track but still doesn't roll as nicely as previous mth cabooses I've bought.  My rutland came in with similar issues. I know how to fix stuff, but we shouldn't have to on something brand new lol

It seems like the pickup roller problem with these cabeese is universal.  I had to bend the connector tabs downward to clear the frame on my Rutland model, but it tracks well now.  I also had to attach some loose handrails on the rear platform with CA glue.  It appears MTH quality ain’t what it used to be.

John

@Norton posted:

I think Dave found the problem. The slot in the frame for the wires to pass through should be at least a 1/2” inboard from the truck terminal, not outboard towards the center of the truck.  MTH uses that same pickup on virtually all their rolling stock including passenger cars. That may have been the result of mounting the trucks further inboard following prototype. Most 19000 NYC cabeese have the trucks under the platform which is wrong.

Pete

Hey! Credit where credit is due: I think that I was first to document the problem and the solution.

https://ogrforum.com/...6#177257758608808626

Edit to add: @Steam Crazy, one of the platform railings was loose on mine, too. Likewise, a tiny drop of CA glue did the trick.

I did some further examination and testing of the Railking and Premier caboose trucks.

Photos 1 and 2 show the front and rear trucks on the Railking caboose (at left) and the new Premier caboose (at right). They are different designs. The diameter of the pickup roller is larger on the Premier caboose but the mounting of the rollers is similar.

Photo 3 shows a side view of the trucks. Railking at left and Premier at right. As mentioned above, the Railking trucks are mounted closer to the ends of the model and the Premier trucks are mounted about 1/2-inch inboard.

I slowly pushed both cabooses through the curved path of the Atlas O-54 switch. The Railking caboose rolled through the switch smoothly and without any resistance. The Premier caboose encountered resistance and bounced at the point where the pickup roller crossed the straight rail as shown by the red arrow in Photo 4.

The pickup roller is forced downward into contact with the center rail by a coil spring that is not shown in my photos. Shortening the coil spring might reduce the resistance but access would be difficult.

I also did additional running of Premier caboose NYC #19877 through the switch in forward and reverse. While the truck bounces as the wheels cross the frog, there were no derailments. The train was running at 12 scale miles-per-hour.

MELGAR

Here’s my latest.  Difference with old caboose, and improvement but not a full fix

@JR Junction Train & Hobby posted:

Yes, we have seen the issue of the routed wires.  After bending the connector tab down a bit, most of the binding issue is resolved, however putting more slack in the wires can be a challenge.  Thankfully I’ve only heard from a small handful of customers who have experienced this problem out of nearly 300 cabooses we had produced.

Thank you all who are helping others with your suggestions.

First, Thankyou for this project.  I’m now complete on cabooses.  But as my video states there’s differences from past production on these pickups and it’s not just the wires.  Not your fault but MTH needs to fix this for future runs.  As for not many complaints,  I’m getting huge responses about this on my YouTube channel.  Not just comments but emails on the issue.  With four cabeeses three from you one from Public Delivery, and all having issues until I did my fix.  I would say I’d bet 100% or close to it would see this.  So either people haven’t unboxed them yet, or haven’t run them yet.  Hope most will see this thread and know how to improve their purchase

Having leveled some criticism at MTH, I think it’s only fair to say I’m happy my favorite manufacturer is still in business.  If the faults in their product are as easy to correct as those on my caboose, I can live with it.  MTH set the bar on quality so high in the past, it’s tough to match.

John

My new MTH Premier woodsided B&A caboose derails through the 031 curves of some of my 022 switches. It is supposed to run well through 031 curves.

I have not attempted the recommended fixes on this thread, but will do so soon, and then I'll report back.

Thanks to Phil at JR Junction and Beth at Public Delivery Track for having made these cabooses. I've been waiting for Boston & Albany, New York Central, and Rutland cabooses for years. They are fine as is and I'm glad I bought them.

MELGAR

The recommended fixes helped, to wit: slightly bending down the tab connecting the wire to the truck, and pulling out that wire a little bit so there is more slack.

I also carefully lubricated the wheels and the pivot point where the coupler arm connects to the truck.

Tomorrow I will run the caboose throughout my layout to see whether it derails.

I think there is less of a chance of a derailment with the caboose running forward rather than running backward.

IMO, this caboose is a beautifully detailed model, of a quality comparable to Atlas models.

Arnold

I have the NEW YORK CENTRAL version of this car. It is very nice.

When running forward through the diverging route of an Atlas    0-54 right turnout, the front truck bumps noticeably.

I noticed that there is a difference between the pickup roller on this car and my other MTH cabooses. The pickup roller armature on this car is nylon or plastic instead of metal. It may be scraping through the hole in the mount causing more friction.
I decided to apply a small amount of gear oil to the armature by pressing the roller all the way up. This exposed the nylon shaft for lubrication.

This seems to cure the problem for me.

Hope it continues and works for others.

@Arnold D. Cribari posted:

The recommended fixes helped, to wit: slightly bending down the tab connecting the wire to the truck, and pulling out that wire a little bit so there is more slack.

I also carefully lubricated the wheels and the pivot point where the coupler arm connects to the truck.

Tomorrow I will run the caboose throughout my layout to see whether it derails.

I think there is less of a chance of a derailment with the caboose running forward rather than running backward.

IMO, this caboose is a beautifully detailed model, of a quality comparable to Atlas models.

Arnold

Before reading this thread, I had given up on this beautiful MTH woodsided B&A caboose:

Why?  Because it was derailing on many of my tubular track 031 curves. I was resigned to having it as a shelf queen caboose.

IMO, this forum is invaluable for hobbyists like me who are less than brilliant mechanically. The fixes described in my earlier above post, recommended by some of our very clever train doctors, plus the lubrication mentioned therein, did the trick. I ran the caboose throughout my layout at the end of a train pulled by a smooth running diesel, and there were no derailments. I'm very grateful for the advice I got here.

Don't despair if you are having derailments running this caboose through 031 curves. IMO, if you follow the above advice, there is a good chance that those derailments will be a thing of the past.

Arnold

I have a muffins custom SOO run of this. its not prototypical but it sure is nice. I did not have any issues with mine,but this thread has some good info and tips.

seeing garys run video makes me wish mth and lionel for that matter would start putting capacitors in these for flicker free lighting. this is 2023 and not 1999 for goodness sake.

lets get these up to modern lighting standards we have come to expect nowadays. leds and flicker free lighting.

the cost maybe more but not having to do add these two components yourself would be worth it. at least to me.

@Arnold D. Cribari posted:

Don't despair if you are having derailments running this caboose through 031 curves. IMO, if you follow the above advice, there is a good chance that those derailments will be a thing of the past.

Arnold

Arnold you run this on 031. Do the couplers hit the steps? One of the improvements on this version was bringing the steps inboard. On older versions they stick out like wings. Get the speed up and they take off.

Pete

I had the same problem with some mth passenger cars running on fastrack.

I used a small piece of stick on foam to bridge the gap between the center rail and diverging rail so the roller doesn't drop down into it:

https://youtu.be/m7QSoo_UV3U?feature=shared

I'm sure you could glue a piece of styrene or whatever to achieve the same result.

I tested the tracking of my MTH Premier Rutland #36 wood-sided caboose when pushed and pulled through the curved path of an Atlas O-54 right-hand switch and recorded four short videos with the car running at 26 scale-miles-per-hour.

In cases 1 and 2, the car was pushed through the switch in both directions with the rear (cupola) end facing forward.

In cases 3 and 4, the car was pulled through the switch in both directions with the front end facing forward.

In some cases, there was a slight bump as the pickup roller crossed the straight rail of the switch but there were no derailments. Operation is satisfactory through the Atlas O-54 right-hand switch on my 10'-by-5' layout. Operation through the O-54 left-hand switch on the layout also was satisfactory.

MELGAR

Add me to the list. I just received (and will be returning) the Rutland caboose from Public Delivery. The front truck and coupler are broken so mine has issues beyond the rollers. I did notice the swing restriction due to the wiring. I will address that when I get my replacement.
I had a few loose grab bars also.

I also have a new LIRR caboose with the same trucks. I have noticed the pick up rollers do catch on my electric uncouplers (mine are customized, not Lionel original). This one rolls well otherwise.

I'd add that it appears that the rollers are not only shorter, but smaller in diameter as well. The smaller OD could also contribute to the roller catching in rail gaps that the older, larger rollers do not.
The off-set wing style pickups used on locos are a better design since the downward force of the spring is not directly over  the roller.

@Lionelzwl2012- I have a NLOE LIRR Bobber caboose that has a regulated power supply. Agreed, all lighted cars should be equipped with these from the factory. It's all about cost tho.....

Bob

Bob! Bummer on the Rutland caboose, but Beth will do the right thing. It will look great with your other Rutland equipment.
I must say the Map LIRR caboose is really calling my name now! Did you get it in Lynbrook?
Good luck on the small but important modifications.
your layout continues to intrigue  me.

@superwarp1 posted:

Check it out.  Anyone come up with a good solution?

Try shortening the spring,the issue is not so much the spring but because the roller is up and down, it hits. A looser spring may help

@ThatGuy posted:

Try shortening the spring,the issue is not so much the spring but because the roller is up and down, it hits. A looser spring may help

Check out my second video

@ThatGuy posted:

Try shortening the spring,the issue is not so much the spring but because the roller is up and down, it hits. A looser spring may help

Shortening the spring will make the spring stiffer.

@Matt_GNo27 posted:

Shortening the spring will make the spring stiffer.

If the spring is shortened sufficiently, its free length will be shorter than the gap and there will be zero preload on the spring until the pickup roller is displaced upward and the spring begins to be compressed. In this case, it's not the spring rate but, rather, the preload that is important. The longer spring causes a larger (downward) preload on the pickup roller. Shortening the spring will reduce the preload and allow the pickup roller to be displaced upward (by the middle rail) more easily. The spring itself is designed to operate in the linear range (force = k * x) irrespective of its compressed length, but the initial preload is what determines the vertical motion of the pickup roller, not the spring-constant (stiffness). Shorter spring = less preload = more vertical motion of the pickup roller.

MELGAR

That's exactly what I was thinking MELGAR.

Increasing the amount of "free travel" vertically before the compressive tension of the spring comes into play has got to be better???

Couldn't see how shortening the spring would make it stiffer.

Peter  (Buco Australia) 

@Matt_GNo27 posted:

Shortening the spring will make the spring stiffer.

Shortening the spring, will allow a little more travel before the spring is actually engaged

@MELGAR posted:

If the spring is shortened sufficiently, its free length will be shorter than the gap and there will be zero preload on the spring until the pickup roller is displaced upward and the spring begins to be compressed. In this case, it's not the spring rate but, rather, the preload that is important. The longer spring causes a larger (downward) preload on the pickup roller. Shortening the spring will reduce the preload and allow the pickup roller to be displaced upward (by the middle rail) more easily. The spring itself is designed to operate in the linear range (force = k * x) irrespective of its compressed length, but the initial preload is what determines the vertical motion of the pickup roller, not the spring-constant (stiffness). Shorter spring = less preload = more vertical motion of the pickup roller.

MELGAR

Yep, you got it

@superwarp1 posted:

Check out my second video

Hi Gary, I saw the second video. Yes, I have the same pick up rollers on some of my MTH equipment. The problem comes down to the way the roller vcontacts the rail since it’s straight up and down as it drops into a gap it bangs as it goes back up. Taking some of the tension offspring allowing the pick up shoe to come up a little quicker Will alleviate some of the banging. You will not be able to eliminate it all because of the nature of the contact of the third rail.