Switcher Saturday 01-21-2023

@Bill Swatos posted:

Here's how I solved the "fixed pilot problem" MELGAR discusses above on my WBB 70-tonner:

Taking a basic idea from another person's post on another thread (I can't seem to find it to give full credit), I ground the curved coupler guide pin groove farther out in both directions with a Dremel such that the coupler swings all the way to either side of the pilot opening, as the photos show. I had to remove a tiny detail part on the pilot face that appears to be an air hose connection to get full swing to that side of the opening. After the grinding operation, I painted the area with stove paint that I "cured" on with a heat gun at low heat. I also did away with the improperly-designed* centering torsion spring and replaced it with a "split" washer against a couple of SS shim washers on the coupler mounting post that act as a "clutch" to create just enough friction in the coupler swing action (with the mounting screw screwed in firmly against the top of the post) to hold the coupler in the centered position after uncoupling on a straight uncoupling track section. The coupler pivot action is free enough, however, that it allows the coupler to move with the mating coupler of any rolling stock on my layout, including Williams passenger cars with long coupler shanks, around 036 curves (the tightest I have) without even the slightest "lift" of the lead truck.

Going forward, I'm looking at properly-designed centering spring options which is why I went to all the trouble of preserving the guide pin on the coupler shank and spring retaining pins on the locomotive frame. Any torsion spring suggestions are welcomed.

* The factory torsion spring doesn't work to properly to center the coupler because it twists TIGHTER around the mounting post as the coupler swings thus causing the "arms" to bend permanently outward.

You mean like this.......

This coupler fix is very interesting, but for those like me who are timid about attempting such a fix (for fear of possibly making the problem worse, which has happened to me numerous times), another possible solution is what I did:  Make the 1st car following the locomotive a passenger car, not a freight car.

For my Legacy Susquehanna SW 2 diesel, when that 1st car was a passenger car, the front truck of that car would not derail. However, when that 1st car was a freight car, the front truck often derailed.

I could be wrong, but I believe that for some fallen flag railroads, it was not uncommon for trains that were primarily freight trains to include 1 or 2 passenger cars.  If any one knows what specific railroads did that, please share what you know.  Arnold

@Bill Swatos posted:

Nice "shaker" Super Bees and '55 T-birds! Who made the T-birds? I like the Coke theme and reverse chrome wheels.

Hi Bill, thanks.  The Dodges are made by Champs.   I believe the Thunderbirds are actually licensed Coca Cola products but I don't know for sure.  Neither of these were actually sold like this.  Years ago I got the idea, instead of waiting to see what, if any, new interesting cars/flatcars were coming out in the new manufacturer's catalogs, I'd put together some of my own... buying the cars separately (usually off eBay) and pairing them with empty Lionel and MTH flat cars.  You can get some unique, unusual and highly detailed cars this way.  Case in point, I saw this Ford Escort online and thought it looked interesting.  Found a matching one and then put them on this old postwar flatcar.  

Arnold, I'm no railroad historian, but I'll take a shot at your question about passenger cars on freight trains.

They're called "mixed trains".  It's likely almost all railroads ran them on lightly traveled branch lines that didn't have enough passenger or freight business to justify the expense of separate trains.  In addition, there were roads that had little to no passenger business - but were required to offer it by government regulation - so they attached a passenger car to a freight train comply with the law.

Run passenger cars with freight cars as you please and know there's a historical precedent!

John

@Steam Crazy posted:

Arnold, I'm no railroad historian, but I'll take a shot at your question about passenger cars on freight trains.

They're called "mixed trains".  It's likely almost all railroads ran them on lightly traveled branch lines that didn't have enough passenger or freight business to justify the expense of separate trains.  In addition, there were roads that had little to no passenger business - but were required to offer it by government regulation - so they attached a passenger car to a freight train comply with the law.

Run passenger cars with freight cars as you please and know there's a historical precedent!

John

Thanks, John, for that info.

I know very little about real trains, never saw such a real mixed train in personal and can't recall seeing such a model mixed train on a layout.

Aa I've recently mentioned on another thread, I have a Legacy diesel switcher with a problem with its couplers that causes the front truck of freight cars, not passenger cars, to derail; specifically, the train car immediately behind the locomotive. So, when I want it to pull freight cars, I run a mixed consist that includes 1 or 2 passenger cars immediately behind the locomotive. When I do that, there are no derailments.

It's nice to know that such mixed consists are prototypical for numerous real railroads. Arnold

Arnold, I have never run a mixed train on my layout.  That's about to change.  Stay tuned!

John

Here's my favorite switch engine on my layout, matter of fact it is the only switch engine I own.

@Arnold D. Cribari posted:

I could be wrong, but I believe that for some fallen flag railroads, it was not uncommon for trains that were primarily freight trains to include 1 or 2 passenger cars.  If any one knows what specific railroads did that, please share what you know.  Arnold

Hey Arnold, i was just reading in some back issues of the B&M Historical Society magazine that the Boston and Maine did that in the 30s and 40s on unprofitable branches where, as you mentioned in another post, gov't regs or even original charters for the railroad as far back as the 1880s required the continuation of passenger service.

@Guitarmike posted:

Here's my favorite switch engine on my layout, matter of fact it is the only switch engine I own.

A classic

@Farmall-Joe posted:

Hey Arnold, i was just reading in some back issues of the B&M Historical Society magazine that the Boston and Maine did that in the 30s and 40s on unprofitable branches where, as you mentioned in another post, gov't regs or even original charters for the railroad as far back as the 1880s required the continuation of passenger service.

That's great. I already have an MTH PS3 B&M diesel switcher and freight cars. Down the road, will get some B&M passenger cars and make it a mixed consist. In the meantime I'll use New Haven passenger cars that I already have to make that mixed consist.

@RSJB18 posted:

You mean like this.......

Um, yes. Do you have the Rutland version of this loco? It may have been the first one of your posts that I got to read on the forum after I got this loco. Lucky me!

@Steam Crazy posted:

Arnold, I have never run a mixed train on my layout.  That's about to change.  Stay tuned!

John

Same for me!

@Bill Swatos posted:

Um, yes. Do you have the Rutland version of this loco? It may have been the first one of your posts that I got to read on the forum after I got this loco. Lucky me!

Yes Sir!

@RSJB18 posted:

Yes Sir!

And I imagine she'll pull anything around that 027 (031?) curve without a second thought! Thanks for the inspiration for me to fix mine, Bob!

@Bill Swatos posted:

And I imagine she'll pull anything around that 027 (031?) curve without a second thought! Thanks for the inspiration for me to fix mine, Bob!

There are only two traction tires on this engine. One on the front truck and one on the rear truck. Tractive force is sufficient on my O-36 with 4 boxcars and a caboose as shown in this video. Would also like to see this on engines from other manufacturers.

MELGAR

@Bill Swatos posted:

Nice "shaker" Super Bees and '55 T-birds! Who made the T-birds? I like the Coke theme and reverse chrome wheels.

Bill, I just happened to pull out that flat with the Thunderbirds to add to the layout earlier  today and was able to see that the T-birds were made by DINKY.

@mike.caruso posted:

Bill, I just happened to pull out that flat with the Thunderbirds to add to the layout earlier  today and was able to see that the T-birds were made by DINKY.

Thanks, Mike! I found one (two, actually) on ebay and, since the shipping is $10, I might just get both of them. Now all I need is a flatcar!

Mel that 70 tonner almost sounded like a steam engine in that video.

@coach joe posted:

Mel that 70 tonner almost sounded like a steam engine in that video.

I think mine sounds more like a washing machine. I'm tempted to pull the Williams sound board and put a railsounds board in. I also discovered that at the 6v starting voltage from my KW that the sound is up at "full" speed. I had it on my Christmas loop last year with a Z-750 and the sound board has a start up step that I hadn't heard before.

The scale 44 tonner has the same sound set in it too.

ERR has a gas doodlebug RS board that would work well. Lionel also makes a LC 2.0 44 ton engine. I haven't heard one running though to comment on the sound set.

@RSJB18 posted:

I think mine sounds more like a washing machine.

Bob,

The sounds are scratchy and not quite up to MTH standards. But the engine is a great value for the money at TW and I like it. I also see some nice engines in your video.

MELGAR

@MELGAR posted:

Bob,

The sounds are scratchy and not quite up to MTH standards. But the engine is a great value for the money at TW and I like it. I also see some nice engines in your video.

MELGAR

I'm not bashing the Williams engine at all. If I wanted scale sounds, I'd pony up the $$$.

I agree that the WbB's are a great value.

Looking at the current Lionel catalog, I'd say we need more engines like the 70 ton.

Bob

@Bill Swatos posted:

Here's how I solved the "fixed pilot problem" MELGAR discusses above on my WBB 70-tonner:

Taking a basic idea from another person's post on another thread (I can't seem to find it to give full credit), I ground the curved coupler guide pin groove farther out in both directions with a Dremel such that the coupler swings all the way to either side of the pilot opening, as the photos show. I had to remove a tiny detail part on the pilot face that appears to be an air hose connection to get full swing to that side of the opening. After the grinding operation, I painted the area with stove paint that I "cured" on with a heat gun at low heat. I also did away with the improperly-designed* centering torsion spring and replaced it with a "split" washer against a couple of SS shim washers on the coupler mounting post that act as a "clutch" to create just enough friction in the coupler swing action (with the mounting screw screwed in firmly against the top of the post) to hold the coupler in the centered position after uncoupling on a straight uncoupling track section. The coupler pivot action is free enough, however, that it allows the coupler to move with the mating coupler of any rolling stock on my layout, including Williams passenger cars with long coupler shanks, around 036 curves (the tightest I have) without even the slightest "lift" of the lead truck.

Going forward, I'm looking at properly-designed centering spring options which is why I went to all the trouble of preserving the guide pin on the coupler shank and spring retaining pins on the locomotive frame. Any torsion spring suggestions are welcomed.

* The factory torsion spring doesn't work to properly to center the coupler because it twists TIGHTER around the mounting post as the coupler swings thus causing the "arms" to bend permanently outward.

Turns out this was the very first thread that mentioned the WBB 70-ton coupler mods I read that I couldn't remember in my post above:

https://ogrforum.com/...c/williams-ge-70-ton

Unlike Bob's guidance, though, Matt GNo27 did not provide specific instructions or photos of the coupler mods. Matt also mentioned changing the motor wiring to series to generate a lower-speed operating range.