No More Derailments

@Arnold D. Cribari posted:

Another derailment reducer that many of you folks know about, is to put the heaviest train cars in the front, and lightest cars in the rear, of the train.

Generally, this is a prototype practice, also.

I keep telling guys that the perfect RR has no curves, no switches and no grades.

@romiller49 posted:

Hang in there Arnold. They will come.

Hello Arnold. I feel bad.

I should have pointed out in my previous post with the video clip, that if you can run your trains fast without any derailments, then it’s very unlikely you’ll have derailments at the lower speeds.

Just one more thing (Lt. Colombo). Over the years I’ve used different manufacturers’ freight cars with plastic trucks and some with plastic couplers. Now, all of my freight cars have sprung metal trucks and couplers and they stay coupled at any speed.

I am in the process of rebuilding two sections of my layout that were derailment prone. One had a switch at the top of a grade that in retrospect was a "vertical kink." The area on both sides of the switch will be flat going forward. The other was a yard ladder with a lot of switches in close proximity. Vintage Lionel 711 switches with Gargraves flex track in between that I didn't lay very well had both horizontal kinks and unintentional vertical ones, due to the tubular rail being so much taller and me not raising the Gargraves sections enough to match. The rebuilding process is more work than building the layout initially.

Sound construction without vertical or horizontal kinks is vital.

@romiller49 posted:

Hello Arnold. I feel bad.

Don't feel bad, Ron, I thought your comment was hilarious.

@Arnold D. Cribari posted:

Don't feel bad, Ron, I thought your comment was hilarious.

And, of course, the derailment did come. LOL

Incidentally, I'm well aware that I have committed cardinal sins on my layout, causing derailments.

In addition to having sharp 031 curves, I also have many S curves on my layout. And, to compound that problem, many of the S curves involve adjacent 031 switches.

So, you would be wise to avoid derailments by observing much of what I have done, and do the opposite. LOL, Arnold

@Arnold D. Cribari posted:

Incidentally, I'm well aware that I have committed cardinal sins on my layout, causing derailments.

In addition to having sharp 031 curves, I also have many S curves on my layout. And, to compound that problem, many of the S curves involve adjacent 031 switches.

So, you would be wise to avoid derailments by observing much of what I have done, and do the opposite. LOL, Arnold

Then I guess I’ve committed the same cardinal sin on my layout, with a partial S-curve coming out of the tunnel and all 036 curves. Yet, as shown in the video even at high speeds, no derailments.

The sharp curves on my layout dictate short locomotives, including Fs, GPs, and up to Berkshire-length steamers. These, along with 15-inch passenger cars, run well on my layout with no derailments. But then, I don’t have a lot of switches (only 1) either. 😉

@Arnold D. Cribari posted:

It just dawned on me that I have had no derailments for a long time, and can't remember the last time I had one.

I used to get a lot of derailments so I now wonder what caused this zero derailments phenomenon.

If you have had a similar experience, please tell us about it and share what you have done to minimize or eliminate your derailments.

I will share one of my reasons now, and will later chime in on the  rest of them.

I will start by saying that most of the time, but not always, when I run trains, I use command control (DCS remote handheld, LC Universal Remote or dedicated LC+ Remote Unit), for prototypically slow, smooth operation that greatly reduces derailments.

Slow smooth Command Control operation is, IMO, particularly good for hauling Postwar operating cars with sliding shoes. Since getting Command Control I've had no derailments caused by sliding shoes getting ripped off running through 022 switches; before Command Control that happened numerous times resulting in the need for numerous tedious repairs of the cars. Arnold

As you know from another post, grandpa ignored the yellow hit the switches at speed and slammed into the stopped passenger train. The grand kids told me it’s peetest time……………lmao.

FYI all claims settled out of court!

Vern, like you, I've managed to substantially reduce my derailments this past year.  The difference is, I have even sharper 031 curves and numerous S curves involving many adjacent 022 switches.

Now, I might have 1 or 2 derailments per week running trains every day for 15 to 30 minutes per day.

With my layout in its current state, and I don't plan to change it any time soon, I will never get my derailments down to 1 per decade like some of our Forum friends have done. Arnold

@Arnold D. Cribari posted:

Vern, like you, I've managed to substantially reduce my derailments this past year.  The difference is, I have even sharper 031 curves and numerous S curves involving many adjacent 022 switches.

Now, I might have 1 or 2 derailments per week running trains every day for 15 to 30 minutes per day.

With my layout in its current state, and I don't plan to change it any time soon, I will never get my derailments down to 1 per decade like some of our Forum friends have done. Arnold

Yes Arnold, and being able to reduce derailments on a curvey layout like yours with tight 031 curves is rather commendable for as often as you run your trains. Well done. 👍

@walt rapp posted:

A few years back I bought my first ever tin-plate set.  Lionel by MTH make, the Christmas train.  I set up a small circle using MTH track for the purpose of testing things (DCS).

I was surprised that the couplers could not handle the curves on the track.  I'm not sure but I think they are 36" ones.

That MTH track looks like Realtrax Walt.   The piece in the photo actually looks like the O31 curve.   Pretty tight curve for some engines.

Here's a couple of more ideas to avoid derailments:

Avoid warped track. I started out with O27 and switched to O gauge 25 years ago. I found that O was sturdier and less likely to warp than 027.

At the Big E train show a few years ago, I saw some T rail track. It was like the Rock of Gibraltor, extremely sturdy, and it made me think it would be impossible for it to warp.

Another tip: consider creating a layout table that is strong and level, and will be a solid foundation for your layout for many years to come. I followed to the letter a booklet about building benchwork for a train layout (was the author McClellan?) published in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Arnold

@Dallas Joseph posted:

That MTH track looks like Realtrax Walt.   The piece in the photo actually looks like the O31 curve.   Pretty tight curve for some engines.

Thanks Dallas = I couldn't remember what it is called.  I quit using it due to inconsistent contact from piece to piece.

I don't want to derail this topic.  I think what I am discussing and showing fit it well.  I'm trying to point out 2 things:

1. These types of couplers are more restrictive than knuckle couplers on curves.

2. Just because the rolling stock is short, don't assume it can handle tight curves (like I did !!!)

the cars on that particular train are the smallest that I've ever seen - smaller than PW rolling stock.  Here's an image of the set:

I set up a tubular 42" loop and the cars handled it well.