MTH caboose pickup rollers suck.

I have a fair amount of MTH rolling stock with pickup rollers including passenger cars and cabooses. I don’t have this particular caboose but do have 4 or 5 from older runs. None have the issues that this one has. Reading the posts it appears that while the pickups on this run are similar, its not the same as the older ones. Stronger springs, more sideplay slop and less wire freeplay seem to be the culprits here. I noticed MTH no longer carries the ones with the metal rivets but only the ones with plastic rivets. These may be something new altogether.

Hopefully all the posts here will have them rethinking the move to the cheaper version.

Pete

@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

Except isn't the point of using a sprung roller to have preload on the spring? If there is a gap that allows vertical motion of the roller before the spring is engaged, doesn't that increase the risk of flickering lights, and perhaps more importantly, arcing? And, if roller is deflected so much that the shortened spring is engaged, wouldn't you then have the same problem, especially with a greater spring constant? Wouldn't the better solution be to either use a spring with a lower spring-constant or add weight to the car?

Edit to add:

I don't think that the spring preload is the issue. The spring's wire gauge and length appear to be comparable to all my other cabooses with the same basic vertically-sprung pickup roller, which is all but two of my cabooses, these include Lionel, MTH, Atlas, and Weaver. The spring stiffness also feels comparable. (Admittedly, the differences are too subtle for me to detect.) The outstanding difference is that, as someone pointed out earlier, I believe, the column inside the spring is plastic. Perhaps the increased friction between the metal bracket holding the roller and the plastic column are significantly increasing the resistance to vertical travel of the roller, especially when a lateral force is applied as the car moves on the track.

@ThatGuy posted:

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.

Yes, I do as well and have never had issue until this new production.  The fact the pickup assembly is longer than past productions is a issue as well and all the slop/side to side movement of the pickup roller itself tells me someone is asleep at the wheel when it comes to new production.  I've gotten them 90% better then they were before.  I'll get in there with a pair of dykes to shorten the springs sooner or later.

Something I didn't mention before because I was always going to convert to Kadee so it wasn't a bother.  I did notice while the latching of the lobster claws is top the notch, the lobster claws themselves suck as well.  50% of the claws on my four cabooses had issues coupling to Lionel and MTH cars.  Looks like the castings were not cleaned up after a forming.  Filing down the imperfections should solve the issue.  But again, why do we need a thread like this to fix our trains at the prices we are paying.  All need to do better.

Weaver caboose trucks are unusable as well. They have no play in them. Going over switches the spring pushes the roller down in the rail gaps and derails the car.

FWIW here is a pickup from a MTH passenger car made in 2006. Compare to yours. It has the metal rivet which unfortunately appear to be NLA.

Pete

@superwarp1 posted:

Yes, I do as well and have never had issue until this new production.  The fact the pickup assembly is longer than past productions is a issue as well and all the slop/side to side movement of the pickup roller itself tells me someone is asleep at the wheel when it comes to new production.  I've gotten them 90% better then they were before.  I'll get in there with a pair of dykes to shorten the springs sooner or later.

Something I didn't mention before because I was always going to convert to Kadee so it wasn't a bother.  I did notice while the latching of the lobster claws is top the notch, the lobster claws themselves suck as well.  50% of the claws on my four cabooses had issues coupling to Lionel and MTH cars.  Looks like the castings were not cleaned up after a forming.  Filing down the imperfections should solve the issue.  But again, why do we need a thread like this to fix our trains at the prices we are paying.  All need to do better.

Gary,

since the roller has more drop to it, how about shorting the drop along with the spring? Take a measurement off the older version and try to duplicate the drop.

Why let MTH off the hook. Send them back and make them offer a fix.

@Norton posted:

FWIW here is a pickup from a MTH passenger car made in 2006. Compare to yours. It has the metal rivet which unfortunately appear to be NLA.

Pete

Apparently, the metal rivet was shorting to the car frame, that's why they went to the plastic ones.

My MTH NYC Railking caboose (left) has a pickup roller with a smaller diameter. The new Premier model (right) has a roller with a larger diameter.

It seems to me that the issue could be resolved or improved by substituting a pickup roller of smaller diameter. Unfortunately, that involves removal of the pin on which the roller rotates. Are the Railking pin and roller available? But they might not be easy to install...

MELGAR

@MELGAR posted:

My MTH NYC Railking caboose (left) has a pickup roller with a smaller diameter. The New Premier model (right) has a roller with a larger diameter.

It seems to me that the issue could be resolved or improved by substituting a pickup roller of smaller diameter. Unfortunately, that involves removal of the pin on which the roller rotates. Are the Railking pin and roller are available? But they might not be easy to install...

MELGAR

It might work, bring the height down.  fixing the stiffer spring another thing that will help.

Wondering why they changed the lengh?  Going to plastic on the rivit is one thing. The fact the newer assembles are taller and are higher/lower (depending on how you are looking at your caboose) than the wheel flang.

My Premier UP caboose who tracks flawlessly.

Pics first one is of the new production, second is older.

It's not much of a difference but it's enough.

I took apart my Rutland to add Kadee’s. Figured while the trucks were out I’d roll them along the track. You could feel and hear the roller digging into the turnout rails at times and getting hung up. The truck with the stock  coupler attached sits on the rails with the inboard axle where the roller is up off the rails. I grabbed an Atlas truck off the shelf and the spring appears softer but they both sit similar. So I’m guessing the spring tension is fairly close. Never had an issue with an Atlas truck. With the coupler removed not acting as a counterweight. The inboard wheels at least touch the rails. Once mounted on the chassis they level out. I was just interested in comparing the spring tension between the 2.

I really got down and studied what was happening. The roller on the Atlas is about the same width as the MTH. It will click slightly but it’s not noticeable going through turnouts. The MTH has a lot of side play. When rolling it seems to be always way off center. If it hits a Ross turnout just right. The roller gets cockeyed and can wedge down in the rails. This is I think the click and the wheel lift you see when it frees up. I’m reaching. But a wider roller maybe a tapered one is the answer.

Interesting indeed.

@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

My new premier MTA caboose has always run a little funny over switches, elevating a little but not derailing.  After reading this thread, I figured I try the easy tweaks nicely summarized by  @Arnold D. Cribari above.  After bending the wire tab connecting to the truck down towards the bottom of the metal frame and seeing no improvement, I tried bending them down towards the track. Eureka!  no longer any  elevation going over the switches and decently smooth tracking over my entire layout.   I second Arnolds other comment commending this forum for once again providing such useful information.  Thanks to @superwarp1 for flagging this and all who responded with helpful suggestions.

Another try!

After reading Dave C’s post above about reducing the amount of travel downwards, I fashioned a styrene shim to insert when the roller is squeezed upwards (see picture.)

I fashioned the shim from 3/32” thick styrene stock and drilled a 9/64” hole (see picture.)

I tested this on an Atlas double slip switch. Most of the bumping is substantially reduced and the lights still stay on.
It may be possible to make the shim even thicker without adversely affecting the electrical pickup. I found this thickness works for my situation.

@ctr posted:

Another try!

After reading Dave C’s post above about reducing the amount of travel downwards, I fashioned a styrene shim to insert when the roller is squeezed upwards (see picture.)

I fashioned the shim from 3/32” thick styrene stock and drilled a 9/64” hole (see picture.)

I tested this on an Atlas double slip switch. Most of the bumping is substantially reduced and the lights still stay on.
It may be possible to make the shim even thicker without adversely affecting the electrical pickup. I found this thickness works for my situation.

Good idea but it increases the pre load. Best if you cut a coil off the spring when you use this. Easiest if you have a pair of cutters with carbide jaws.

Pete

Norton,

I don’t think that this increases the load against the middle rail.

It increases the pressure on a reduced travel when the roller slips off the  middle rail. The reduced travel makes it easier for the pickup roller to climb back once it falls off.

If I had a cutter with carbide jaws that fit, I would try your idea the next time that I have the car apart.

What cutter do you recommend?

I tested the tracking of my MTH Premier Boston & Albany #1299 wood-sided caboose when pushed and pulled through the curved path of an Atlas O-54 right-hand switch and recorded four short videos. Prior to the testing, I bent the wire connecting tabs downward slightly and pulled additional short lengths of wire through the floor. I don’t think that had much effect.

In cases 1 and 2, the car was pushed through the switch in both directions with the rear (cupola) end facing forward. In case 2, there was a noticeable bump as the car went through the switch.

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

The operation of this caboose through the switches is not perfect but there were no derailments and they can be run as is through the Atlas O-54 right-hand and left-hand switches on my 10’-by-5’ layout.

MELGAR

@ctr posted:

Norton,

I don’t think that this increases the load against the middle rail.

It increases the pressure on a reduced travel when the roller slips off the  middle rail. The reduced travel makes it easier for the pickup roller to climb back once it falls off.

If I had a cutter with carbide jaws that fit, I would try your idea the next time that I have the car apart.

What cutter do you recommend?

Spring rate stays the same but pre load increases the force. Its defined weight per distance like 1 oz per millimeter of compression.

Search the auction sites or Amazon for ‘hard wire cutters”. You can find them for under twenty bucks.
You could use a Dremel with a cut off wheel but risk cutting the rivet.

Pete

@Strap Hanger posted:

My new premier MTA caboose has always run a little funny over switches, elevating a little but not derailing.  After reading this thread, I figured I try the easy tweaks nicely summarized by  @Arnold D. Cribari above.  After bending the wire tab connecting to the truck down towards the bottom of the metal frame and seeing no improvement, I tried bending them down towards the track. Eureka!  no longer any  elevation going over the switches and decently smooth tracking over my entire layout.   I second Arnolds other comment commending this forum for once again providing such useful information.  Thanks to @superwarp1 for flagging this and all who responded with helpful suggestions.

Nice distinction, Strap Hanger: the bending down of the tab is towards the track, not towards the metal frame of the caboose.

Love your precise explanations, Melgar. It's great having professional engineers like you, provide input on the Forum. My regret is that I struggled with calculus and switched to liberal arts classes in my freshman year at Columbia. LOL.

I suspect that it might make a big difference in terms of derailments whether the new MTH woodsided caboose is run through 054 Atlas curves like yours, or 031 tubular track curves like mine.

The fixes recommended by Superwarp1 and Strap Hanger seem to have worked for me.

@Arnold D. Cribari posted:

I suspect that it might make a big difference in terms of derailments whether the new MTH woodsided caboose is run through 054 Atlas curves like yours, or 031 tubular track curves like mine.

The fixes recommended by Superwarp1 and Strap Hanger seem to have worked for me.

Arnold,

I suspect the problem is more noticeable on O-31 switches than on O-54 switches. I'm glad that your caboose is running OK.

MELGAR

@ctr posted:

What cutter do you recommend?

Knipex. The best.

MTH Premier woodsided B&A caboose, after the above-mentioned adjustments, running forward and in reverse through 031 curves without derailments:

The adjustments made a huge difference. Arnold

Checked my soo line last night and it tracks fine through my 036 fastrack switches. Only snag up was going through two switches that made a S curve. Its is 036 after all and this was in a small yard the caboose will never enter anyway.

Light oil on the plastic rivet was a great suggestion. I have since oiled all my metal rivits on my other cabooses as well. This greatly helped the pickup roller move up and down a lot easier.

I have a lot of new mth cabooses I just purchased so as I run them again I am oiling and checking the rollers for this problem. So far so good though.

Ar the risk of beating a dead horse, see below.

S curves?

No problem!

Arnold, I think you’ve come up with the ultimate test, the ability to track well through an S curve made up of O31 switches!  There’s a little wiggle and wobble; I could live with that but I suspect some of our fellow Forumites would find it unacceptable.

John

Received my Mr. Muffin’s unlettered model yesterday. After a little lube and some minor tweaking, it seems to run okay(not great) thru the switches. The pickup roller mechanism is definitely sub par for MTH. Other than that, it’s a fine looking caboose.

Gene

I finally ran my Rutland around the layout. While it twitched a bit going through a variety of Ross switches it stayed on the rails except for one switch. An older designed Ross 3 way. Fine through the straight portion but instant derailment on the diverging routes. Ran an older different style MTH caboose with no issues. This switch has a lot going on as far as a multitude of rails to navigate. Luckily in normal running. The caboose has no reason to go through that switch. I’m not big on lighted interiors if there’s not a lot to see. I may just remove the rollers and go with a battery and latching reed switch to light the markers. The Rutland used red to the rear and amber lights on the side. This was done on the B&A version I bought. But for some reason they changed it upon the Rutland and they are sort of a lime green.

If your thinking of adding Kadee’s. Have no fear of taking the truck apart just by removing the screws and taking it completely apart to remove the coupler. There are no springs to go flying off the workbench in the sideframes with the simulated leaf springs. Unless you opt for the short Kadee coupler. You will need to trim off the coupler mount. I don’t know what screwdriver works with the provided mounting screws. I have multiple quality sets that none fit properly enough to tighten the screw while forming threads. I ended up just using standard 2mm threaded screws.

I haven't taken a look at mine out of the box, sort of running short on time. Seems like when I want to do something, no time to do it, or forget something, which wastes what time I have. Note to self, please write down stuff on a piece of paper so you can make a call tomorrow, lol.

@Steam Crazy posted:

Arnold, I think you’ve come up with the ultimate test, the ability to track well through an S curve made up of O31 switches!  There’s a little wiggle and wobble; I could live with that but I suspect some of our fellow Forumites would find it unacceptable.

John

I agree with you, Steam Crazy.

Followup on 8/28 post.

I fashioned a 1/8” shim as described before.

Best performance yet. Almost no  bounce at all. No flickering of lights.

A very simple solution that compliments lubricating the nylon shaft.

No need to perform spring surgery.

@ctr posted:

Followup on 8/28 post.

I fashioned a 1/8” shim as described before.

Best performance yet. Almost no  bounce at all. No flickering of lights.

A very simple solution that compliments lubricating the nylon shaft.

No need to perform spring surgery.

@ctr,

I examined the pickup roller/spring design and decided that a shim such as you installed is the simplest way to eliminate the problem. I didn't try it because my four new cabooses run reasonably well through my Atlas O-54 switches, so I will leave them as is. It seemed to me that the shim should be about 3/32" to 1/8" thick and it could be permanently attached to a plastic part of the truck with polystyrene cement.

MELGAR