Sam, You wanted to see this

I like the look. Was that a Hi-rail or Scale-wheeled Blue Goose that ran through?

Nice Work Marker. Whose mfg. center cab loco is that in the background? Those are massive.

Butch

It was Hi-Rail, although a 3-2 version.  I ordered a Scale version of the MTH 2-10-4 about a year before I ordered the Goose.  I couldn't get it to negotiate even my widest radius curves which were Atlas 0-108.  (I should have read the specs.)  I was afraid to order the Goose as a Scale version.  

As it turned out the Scale MTH version was having problem negotiating the 2 rail track with a 84" radius.  I finally solved the problem by removing the engine truck spring which was too stiff and causing the engine to lift.  

Interesting. My scale-wheeled goose seems to handle 36" radius OK, but HATES uneven or out-of-gauge track. Didn't know about the pilot truck spring issue -- need to check that.

Whose mfg. center cab loco is that in the background?

MTH has released them a couple of times.  Mine is from the first release from around 2006, I think.  

I had to pull out a bunch of equipment for testing to see if the switch worked.

Ted Hikel posted that tinplate wheels would clear Code 148 rail.  He was partially correct.

Not all tinplate wheels clear all Code 148 track, however it does clear Micro Engineering Code 148 flexible track and Atlas 2 rail switches.  

Atlas flexible track is a problem.  Lionel Standard O engines, some 50's 3 rail wheels are a couple of things I had problems with bottoming on the ties/molded in spikes.  Unfortunately the all the things I first tried, worked.  I then laid the Atlas track to find there was equipment that didn't.    

Didn't know about the pilot truck spring issue -- need to check that.

That might help.  It's worth a try.  The engine truck is heavy enough that my engine tracks fine without a spring.  It hasn't derailed since I removed it.

Marker...I am watching this with great interest!  I really like the look....

Alan

Thanks Alan.

There is one thing more I should mention.  I'm having some 2 rail switches made by Signature Switch.  When I first read about the Code 148/100 idea, I realized that the switches would be the main problem.  I asked Brad if he could build one for me. His reply he mentioned that a difference with tinplate wheels going through a frog, was that the bottom of the flanges ride on the frog.  If you look at all current 3 rail switches available and also the switches that the Hikel's have built using a manufactured frog, they all use a one piece frog, i.e. it is not like the frogs you create when building a 2 rail switch.  

I was ready to start hand laying my own switches but Fast Tracks was out of the assembly fixtures.  I was thinking about the frog from my Atlas 2 rail or 3 rail switches and the Fast Track assembly fixture.  A few days before I received Brad's email, I checked out an Atlas 2-rail switch to see if I could use the frog.  The frog seemed fine.  It seemed that the only thing preventing 3-rail trucks from running through the switch was the guard rails.  After removing the guard rails, tinplate trucks ran through the switch with no problem.  I just had to reposition the guard rails.  It worked.  The only problem left was what code rail to use for the 3rd rail.  I knew the rollers had to be able to travel over the closure rails.  I thought I would continue with the Code 100 for the 3rd rail and work on the height needed for the roller to clear.  The 3rd rail is ramped to match the height of the closure rails.  

What you should have gotten out of all the rhetoric is that you need a one piece frog for tinplate wheels.  They support the wheel traveling through the frog.

Howard