My Lionel 520 Boxcab won't go through an O-gauge switch or ride over minor "track bumps"

I had to bend the footplates up a bit in the center, on my 520.  

Dan P.

Thanks for the tip. I'll try that "adjustment."  With a close inspection, I noticed that the entire riveted-on metal pilot on one end of my 520 was slightly loose and a bit lower. Perhaps the previous owner tired to bend the footplate UP a bit and loosened the grip of the two rivets - allowing it to hang a bit LOWER.  I intend to use a flat-end punch and a small hammer to re-seat the two rivets tight while the footplate is in an "up" position. Not "rocket science," but a desperate situation calls for a desperate measure.

Mike Mottler    LCCA 12394
mottlerm@gmail.com

  Mike, if it can droop, it might be lifted higher that normal too. So maybe super glue could act as a wedge to lift it higher than normal...?

  The downside would be a soak in acetone to remove it if that didn't work. Any paint wouldn't survive.

  FYI,   I have a few tacks and cowcatchers with a bit of electrical tape protecting them at grade transistions and some tape on switches were certain loco rollers short out bridging between com.& hot.  I also have some equipment where wheel backs short on uncoupling tracks; so the metal around the "red eye" is masked with electrical tape near the outer rails. I.e. it's not uncommon, and seldom beyond mods to work around it.

Adriatic:

Thanks for the tip about "Super glue to the rescue."

The two pickup rollers on the 520 are not very wide as compared to other rollers on other trains in my collection. I wondered if that small width would make it more likely for the rollers to make unwanted contact with grounded parts of my K-Line O42 switches or at "track bumps."

At today's operating session, I'll test run the 520 at its slowest possible speed to reduce its "wiggling" on the tracks at high speed; which may be the cause of unwanted contact of the low metal footboard with the center rail. Slow speed may be the easiest "fix" of all.

Mike Mottler     LCCA 12394
mottlerm@gmail.com

Look for the driver wheels turning true at the flanges from dead ahead or the rear or flipped & jumped power.  They will wobble like crazy if they are skewed /—/  l—\. I've straighted drivers into better runners simply placing the enginge in a vice and carefully squeezing. It would be the axle is bent usually.

  Still some wobble, but a little has a unique look; like a prototype rolling on bad track.

Worn bearings have some potential for it too.

  Some wobble, actually a shifting side to side, could also be a sign it is out of gauge; as in too narrow. ...Back to wheels hitting their backs on things?

    I'd say the roller diameter or a wide roller would have more errant contact issues than a narrow one. Excepting in curves were the distance of rollers from the closest flanged driver results in an roller tracking off the exact center of the center rail. (present in nearly all trains, rollers between wheels stringline to the inside, outside the wheels tracks too far towards the outside of the curve.) So a narrow roller has a chance to fall off rails based on is position.

The further from the driver or the tighter the curve, the further off center the tracking.  Some diesel rollers will fall off an 0-27 center rail in curves, a wider roller would prevent it. 

 I.e., a narrow roller is best though because it eliminates chances of bridging power sideways.

Diameter:  A smaller roller is more likely to dive into switch and crossing gaps. I have Kline Broadway Lmtd cars with small dia rollers that drop into a Sakai crossing gap causing cars to pole vault there. Larger rollers bridge the gap no problem (Sakai used shoes). 

But too large a diameter could in therory bridge too well and make a connection parallel to the center rail, that a smaller roller could not.  Normally I think a plastic rail nub would precede the metal rail at a gap of that kind, should the nub wear, the larger roller might bridge the metals into a short.  So, without a whole lot of K-line, just going on the one set, Im going to assume that K-line leaned towards wide, small diameter rollers, and designed the switches accordingly.

So, I'd look at the roller dia. being to large too.

It will likes take some slow passes, maybe ultra low power and pushing by hand, and maybe a cheek on the rails to find. (throw down a rag, your cheeks may get pin-prick-shocked as they are more moist and sensative to pain than fingers. (same with sweaty forearms, hardly a shock, they "sting" with low voltage applied to them )

Adriatic - Reply #2:

In the lull preceding the Superbowl on Saturday afternoon, I test-ran the 520 on my L-shaped layout at a slow speed Presto! The little engine that "could" became the little engine that "did." The rest of the story ...

My layout is wired with Lionel's TMCC system, with a 135w PowerHouse, a PowerMaster, a Direct Lock-on, and a CAB-1 controller.  I haven't used the CONV setting of the PowerMaster (the appropriate setting for running the 520), but I became aware of the need for that setting with the 520.  After reading the Instruction Manual, I followed the set-up procedure for CONV operation. Part of my earlier problem was due to my rather tenuous grasp of the technology within the PowerMaster; i.e., I didn't properly "address" the PowerMaster by pressing the necessary buttons on the CAB-1: a T+1 code, followed by the SET button under the cover at the bottom of the CAB-1.

I followed that procedure and placed the 520 on the track.  Viola! the 520 responded to the CAB-1's red wheel for speed control and the DIRECTION button.  I ran the 520 at a slow speed in both forward and reverse directions around the main line.  There were NO shifts to NEUTRAL, although I could see some jostling of the loco over several K-Line O42 RC switches. I need to insert some shims at several switches to level-out the main line and also at the approaches to the Lionel Drawbridge which spans a gap between platform A and platform B with a slight bump.

Confession is good for the soul; albeit embarrassing ...
All my earlier problems were due to not entering the T+1 code and thus activating the PowerMaster.  Without that code, the PowerMaster passed 18v (full throttle) to the tracks.  I mistakenly thought the 520 (with 1956 technology inside) was inherently incapable of responding to the PowerMaster, but a lesson in button-pushing was all I needed.

I cleaned the wheels and the pick-up rollers of the 520 (which probably helped a little), and I'll do some track leveling around the layout to minimize jostling the 520 and minimize some accompanying sparking. The leveling would probably allow faster speeds along the main line. As suggested previously in this thread, I'll bend the footboards upwards a bit to provide more clearance from the rails.

I intend to use the 520 as the motive power to pull Lionel's dual disc Track Cleaning Car, a device that is not motorized. I'll start track cleaning soon, and I believe that task will also help the performance of the 520.

As they say, "All's well that ends well."  Another maxim worth noting, "When all else fails, read the directions."

Mike Mottler     LCCA 12394
mottlerm@gmail.com