Postwar v. LC+ and Derailments

Derailments?  Why else would a grown man play with trains!

Arnold, I haven't noticed any derailments with my post-war locos.  However, I don't run my trains as fast as you, so that could be one reason.  I have had derailments due to poor control.  That is if I do something stupid.....LOL   So far I am very happy with my two LC+ locos.  As you say, their slow running capability enhances tracking immensely.

Hi Arnold, I thought I would add that I currently I have super K line tubular track on the tables. I may be adding some traditional PW Lionel track if layout is expanded. I use modified 022 switches, cutdown to fit table space. Forced Track Geometry is not perfect here, still PW engines can take it without derailments surprisingly.

I don't have LC+ can't comment on the difference personally. I do like how your blue comet runs so evenly.  However I run my PW Lionel trains at slow to moderate speed without derailments. My former layout had the same 031 curves the only difference was that I banked them for higher speed insurance. Historically my GEEPs, GG 1's, NW's and EP 5  really were even more reliable at slightly elevated 031 (at GOMEZ speed). I have intention to re establish the tight curve high speed insurance. This is necessary as the tables are only 3 feet wide, and it's a long way down to concreteville. Besides, I like the way the trains lean in as they speed by, always thrilling. 

Arnold D. Cribari posted:

I have noticed that on my conventional layout with Postwar tubular track, 031 curves and 022 switches, I have much fewer derailments running LC+ as opposed to Postwar locomotives.

For those with traditional O or O27 tubular track layouts like mine, who have run LC+ and Postwar engines on them, what has been your experience with derailments?

You might also give reasons for derailments or lack of them.

I believe the fewer derailments I get with LC+ has to do with their slow and steady speed. Another factor is the imperfections in my track work.

Arnold

 

Arnold,

I believe you mentioned that your LC+ products are steam locomotives. One significant difference on the LC+ steam line is the very stiff spring compression on the front trucks, compared with less stiff, or age-weakened pilot springs on postwar equipment. There is much less "hop" of the pilots, one of the leading cause of derailments.

In some circumstances, the excessive spring loading of the front pilot can cause a LC+ loco to snag on a turnout, but most of the time, the added compression helps keep the pilot truck glued to the track as it negotiates curves and switches.

When I had old Lionel track and switches running fast through the switches was about the only time I had trouble. Don

Arnold,

   This also depends on the engine and cars you are running in your consist, the old  Magna Traction GP-7 engines stick to the tracks quite well, even better than the new modern LC+ steam engines.

PCRR/Dave

Hi Arnold, 

I think it depends.   I think I stated before I have LC+ New Haven Rectifier that has magna traction, and my other 2 LC+ do not.   Just like my postwar engines the magna traction make a big difference and track much better than without, especially when running at higher speeds, curves and grades.

PW Magnatraction and weight certainly is a factor in stability.

Ahh, Good point mentioned, The front lead  truck spring adherence really is a Big part of higher speed stability particularly on 022's or similar turnouts. I know that my PW GG 1's could be run GOMEZ speed with a spring modification as discussed on this board elsewhere. Another thing on the to do list.

Arnold, you make things happen with your thought provoking posts!

Another great Arnold Cribari topic, but I can't offer an opinion as I don't have LC/LC+ or traditional tubular track. However, I do agree with the comments about spring download on pilot trucks.

MELGAR

The 2 best tracking locomotives on my Fastrack layout are the postwar 675 2-6-2 and the LC+ Hudson. They both have tightly sprung front trucks and stiff draw bars. The only locomotive that derails frequently is the 2004 Polar Express Berkshire. I think the reason for this is that there is too much slack in the draw bar when reversing through a switch.

All very interesting and instructive replies, Thank you.

My attitude about my occasional derailments is positive. The derailments are incentive for me to make adjustments to my track. I often add shims (little pieces of asphalt shingle) under the track in spots where an engine or train car repeatedly derails, often banking the curved track. 

As a result of your replies, I now know there are other factors besides the track that cause derailments, such as draw bars and spring tension in trucks.

Another trick to avoid derailments, which many of you know, is to have heavier train cars in the front, and lighter cars in the back, of trains. Running trains through 031 or 027 curves in reverse is always challenging.

Arnold

bostonpete posted:

Hi Arnold, 

I think it depends.   I think I stated before I have LC+ New Haven Rectifier that has magna traction, and my other 2 LC+ do not.   Just like my postwar engines the magna traction make a big difference and track much better than without, especially when running at higher speeds, curves and grades.

I didn't know that LC+ locos came with Magne-Traction.

Dan Padova posted:

bostonpete posted:

Hi Arnold, 

I think it depends.   I think I stated before I have LC+ New Haven Rectifier that has magna traction, and my other 2 LC+ do not.   Just like my postwar engines the magna traction make a big difference and track much better than without, especially when running at higher speeds, curves and grades.

I didn't know that LC+ locos came with Magne-Traction.

I also did not know that, but recently read, probably somewhere on this Forum, that there are modern Lionels with both Magnetraction and traction tires.

Arnold D. Cribari posted:

Dan Padova posted:

bostonpete posted:

Hi Arnold, 

I think it depends.   I think I stated before I have LC+ New Haven Rectifier that has magna traction, and my other 2 LC+ do not.   Just like my postwar engines the magna traction make a big difference and track much better than without, especially when running at higher speeds, curves and grades.

I didn't know that LC+ locos came with Magne-Traction.

I also did not know that, but recently read, probably somewhere on this Forum, that there are modern Lionels with both Magnetraction and traction tires.

I can assure you my Lionchief plus New Haven E-33 Rectifier has it.  I tested it myself, and it's quite impressive.

I didn't know at first but I made an educated guess based on the way it pulled well and tracked on the layout, so I tested it off the layout with a spare piece of track and it held that track while I held the engine vertical.   I could feel the very strong magnetic resistance as I pulled the track off the wheels.

I don't own these other engines but my understanding is you will find it in certain runs of the Lionchief Plus FTs, RS-3s, and the GP-7s as well.   I don't believe and I have ever heard or seen anyone say any of the LC+ steam engines have it.

This was not an advertised feature so it may be hit or miss depending on the parts used in certain production runs at certain times.

Just as a side note I did notice Trainworld has some pretty good prices currently on the LC+ rectifiers right now at $159.99 and the FT AA units at $299.99.  I think they are still a forum sponsor so I hope this is okay to post.