Skip to main content

Bought this new for grandson for Christmas, but even on 036 Fastrack curves the switcher derails the car behind it.   Tried it with one car only - same thing.  It only stays on the track with a heavy car behind it and then I can still see the wheels on the car lift slightly on the curve and then sit back down on the track after the curve.

The couplers seem very stiff laterally on the switcher.  Could that be the problem?  Not swaying far enough to accommodate the sway of the coupler on the follow-car and instead lifting it?

John

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Sounds to me that the curves are too tight for the coupler swing. The coupler has to easily swing to the centre of the track at least or it will want to drag the trailing truck wide and cause it to climb the rail.

It's 036 Fastrack.  To operate as a switcher it should be able to handle 036, no?

RSJB18 and Mannyrock suggested weighting the cars.   Probably end up doing that, but it seems that a switcher should be able to relocate nearly any car (s).

John

@Craftech posted:

It's 036 Fastrack.  To operate as a switcher it should be able to handle 036, no?

RSJB18 and Mannyrock suggested weighting the cars.   Probably end up doing that, but it seems that a switcher should be able to relocate nearly any car (s).

John

The couplers have very short arms as well. If they were a bit longer it would probably help but some of the "scale" would be lost. I have their 70 ton switcher too, has the same issue.

2021-12-15 20.41.53

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 2021-12-15 20.41.53

I guess that since I only use small diesels as mini-road engines, I can always put a heavy car behind the loco.

But, I guess if I really did any switching, I would be equally upset.  What good is a switcher that can't switch?

The RMT Beeps are perhaps the worse.  They have super stiff coupler springs, that you have to hand bend till your fingers bleed to get them to quit throwing cars.  And, the shell on each side of the coupler is a quarter inch too close to coupler arms to allow it to travel on 032 or smaller without derailing cars.  So, you have to cut back the shell on both sides.

Although I love my 44 Scale Tonner, I think if I were you, I would send it back.

Mannyrock

@Mannyrock posted:

I guess that since I only use small diesels as mini-road engines, I can always put a heavy car behind the loco.

But, I guess if I really did any switching, I would be equally upset.  What good is a switcher that can't switch?

The RMT Beeps are perhaps the worse.  They have super stiff coupler springs, that you have to hand bend till your fingers bleed to get them to quit throwing cars.  And, the shell on each side of the coupler is a quarter inch too close to coupler arms to allow it to travel on 032 or smaller without derailing cars.  So, you have to cut back the shell on both sides.

Although I love my 44 Scale Tonner, I think if I were you, I would send it back.

Mannyrock

I'll wait to see if RSJB18 has any luck with the stiff couplers when he removes the springs.

036 doesn't seem unreasonably tight for a switcher to switch.

John

@Craftech posted:

Keep us posted if you don't mind.  I would really appreciate that.

John

John- I took a look at both engines. I couldn't take the couplers off of the 44 because they are under the trucks but I could do it on the 70 ton. The coupler arms are extremely short and do not offer much swing. There is a small centering spring under the coupler which I removed for the test. No difference when I tried several different cars through 027 curves. I have a pair of 042's and things were OK through them.

The tension was reduced without the spring but not enough to make a difference.

2021-12-29 17.26.572021-12-29 17.27.01

Sorry I couldn't offer better news. Now I have the same problem........

I guess we both need wider curves like GRJ has.

For comparison I checked a K-line Plymouth (bottom engine) and they have much longer coupler arms and better swing.

2021-12-29 18.05.04

Bob

Attachments

Images (3)
  • 2021-12-29 17.26.57
  • 2021-12-29 17.27.01
  • 2021-12-29 18.05.04
@RSJB18 posted:

John- I took a look at both engines. I couldn't take the couplers off of the 44 because they are under the trucks but I could do it on the 70 ton. The coupler arms are extremely short and do not offer much swing. There is a small centering spring under the coupler which I removed for the test. No difference when I tried several different cars through 027 curves. I have a pair of 042's and things were OK through them.

The tension was reduced without the spring but not enough to make a difference.

2021-12-29 17.26.572021-12-29 17.27.01

Sorry I couldn't offer better news. Now I have the same problem........

I guess we both need wider curves like GRJ has.

For comparison I checked a K-line Plymouth (bottom engine) and they have much longer coupler arms and better swing.

2021-12-29 18.05.04

Bob

Thanks for doing that Bob.  Really appreciate it.  Maybe GRJ has an idea of how to modify it to work better.

John

One of the reasons for building with wide curves this time was so I could run big engines and even little ones wouldn't give me problems.  My Williams 44-Ton got electrocouplers and custom springs, that one was able to handle O36 Fastrack when I still had it.  I can see the couplers on the 70Ton model are somewhat stiff, and a tight curve could be a problem.  Since they're not electrocouplers, have you considered just taking the springs off?  They won't automatically center, but most of the time without electrocouplers it would likely be a manual operation anyway.

  I can see the couplers on the 70Ton model are somewhat stiff, and a tight curve could be a problem.  Since they're not electrocouplers, have you considered just taking the springs off?  They won't automatically center, but most of the time without electrocouplers it would likely be a manual operation anyway.

Bob tried that and he said it didn't make a difference (above).

John

Last edited by Craftech
@Matt_GNo27 posted:

In regard to the Williams 70-tonner, the problem and solution were documented when they first arrived two years ago. Since making the modifications, I've had no derailing issues.

From that thread:

Matt_GNo27 posted:

WBB rates it for O-27, however, when coupled to a consist, it failed to make the first curve without derailing the first car. Wheel slippage was audible. At first I thought that the fixed pilot was preventing the coupler from swinging far enough, however with upon inspection it turned out that it was the post on the coupler arm that engages the centering spring was preventing the coupler from traveling the full range of the hole in the pilot. It turns out that the groove in the chassis that this post travels in was the limiting factor. Solving the problem required a minor modification to the chassis—lengthening the groove. A Dremel tool would be ideal, a drill press would be nice, but careful work with a hand-held drill worked for me. A small piece of separately-applied detail, perhaps a handle of some type, that is on one side of the pilot opening had to be removed, too. These modifications were necessary to both the front and rear pilot.

John

Last edited by Craftech

Great Info from Matt.

Even with the factory groove being too short, the problem may have been avoided if the coupler arm, as extended out of the pilot, had been longer, as with the K-Line loco.

Looking at the undersigned of the Williams, and the K-Line, it kinda look like that longer K-Line coupler could be used to just replace it onto the Williams.  Probably be impossible to find one though.

Mannyrock

Had a similar problem with a Lionel 0-6-0 tank engine on display duty at a convention using O27 curves.  Had to remove the centering spring in the field, which also holds the coupler up.  The little indefinite flew off to parts unknown.  The following field expedient repair is not recommended for the faint of heart.   

GEDC2410GEDC2411

As they say in German, "Zum Höllen, es lauft!" 

Apologies for the cluttered backdrop, it's ZW disemboweling season. 

Mitch

Attachments

Images (2)
  • GEDC2410
  • GEDC2411

Hi guys- I fiddled with my 70 tonner this afternoon. Made some progress but didn't find a 100% solution. I started with extending the groove in the frame. Didn't get enough swing so I took the pin off the coupler next.....ehh.....
I checked a couple of different couplers but none fit quite right. The K-line Plymouth coupler didn't work, the mount is opposite of what's on the WbB. Ironically, I just bought some Lionel 2" coil couplers and they looked OK but I'd need to find a sleeve to center it on the mounting post.

I tried several different freight cars but they all were pulled off the rails on 027 curves. The pair of 042's on my layout were OK. I then tried a post war size passenger car and it worked fine. The longer arm on the coach was enough to provide the necessary swing.

Finally I tried the engine under the Tree since my loops are 036. That was fine so I'll take the win.

So it wasn't a waste of time and I know where I can and can't run these locos. I can run them pulling a couple of passenger coaches in excursion service, not a total loss. Eventually a larger layout and wider curves will be home to these locos.

Bob

2021-12-30 12.30.252021-12-30 12.41.532021-12-30 13.08.56

Attachments

Images (3)
  • 2021-12-30 12.30.25
  • 2021-12-30 12.41.53
  • 2021-12-30 13.08.56
Videos (1)
2021-12-30 14.25.42
@RSJB18 posted:

Hi guys- I fiddled with my 70 tonner this afternoon. Made some progress but didn't find a 100% solution. .................................. I just bought some Lionel 2" coil couplers and they looked OK but I'd need to find a sleeve to center it on the mounting post.

...........................I tried several different freight cars but they all were pulled off the rails on 027 curves. The pair of 042's on my layout were OK. I then tried a post war size passenger car and it worked fine. The longer arm on the coach was enough to provide the necessary swing.

Finally I tried the engine under the Tree since my loops are 036. That was fine so I'll take the win.

Bob


Thanks again Bob for doing all that.

Do you think the sleeve will make a difference?

John

@Craftech posted:

Thanks again Bob for doing all that.

Do you think the sleeve will make a difference?

John

I didn't look at it too closely John. The pin/ hub on the loco is smaller than the hole in the Lionel CC (w/B style mount), so either a different coupler would be required or a small brass sleeve would be needed to keep the coupler centered on the mount and secure the coupler to the engine. I was going to upgrade the engine with a set of ERR boards but now that it has limited use on my current layout I will leave it conventional.
It's an option if I do upgrade it to add coil couplers since the ERR boards have the functionality. I know that Gunrunner John has done a few upgrades and added cc's and he said it was a bit of a project.

I was simply looking at what I had on hand for different coupler options.

Bob

Just some helpful info.

I have been running my WBB UP scale 44 tonner for about a month now, only about an hour a week, with a heavy car behind it.   My track is all 032 tubular.

Last night, I removed the heavy car, and hooked up three unweighted, empty, traditional Lionel plastic plug cars, and a cheap plastic Lionel caboose.    A very light train.

I ran the train everywhere on my layout at medium speeds for 30 minutes.

No derailments whatsoever.

If I run it fast, then occasionally somehow my loco loses contact with the hot rail momentarily while going over an 022 switches,  and shifts into neutral.    But other than that, no problems.


Mannyrock

Some here may recall I mentioned I bought a WbB 44 Ton engine right after Bob bought his.  After a brief test, I boxed it back up and gave it to Mrs. Claus for the gift shelf.  I didn't run it with any cars in tow, and it just made it's way from under the Christmas tree to the layout yesterday.  From what I'm reading, I may not have the same trouble since my minimum curves are 042, but I'll have to keep the discussion in mind as I start to run it.  Thank you everyone for your insight!

@Mark Boyce posted:

Some here may recall I mentioned I bought a WbB 44 Ton engine right after Bob bought his.  After a brief test, I boxed it back up and gave it to Mrs. Claus for the gift shelf.  I didn't run it with any cars in tow, and it just made it's way from under the Christmas tree to the layout yesterday.  From what I'm reading, I may not have the same trouble since my minimum curves are 042, but I'll have to keep the discussion in mind as I start to run it.  Thank you everyone for your insight!

I think you will be OK on 042 min.

Bob

Brianel K-Lineguy had some ideas back in June of 2021.

https://ogrforum.com/...rings-in-my-couplers

He wrote:

Manny, the problem is the "return spring" as you call it, is also the same spring that puts pressure on the coupler armature, which keeps the knuckle closed in place allowing you to pull a train without it immediately coming uncoupled.

The Lionel and K-Line diesels from the 1990's that came with plastic couplers did have a centering spring, which was nothing more than a Delrin plastic length off the back of the coupler, which inserted into a slit on the top of the engine truck frame, which kept the coupler centered.

I'll try to explain this as clear as I can without the use of photos. If you search around, you can find photos on the internet. But I do suppose you need to know exactly what you are looking for. Doing a generic search won't easily help.

If you look at your Williams engine, you have a C-clip which then holds a spring which is below the coupler armature. This is all held in place by a "T" shaped pin. Though you might not be able to see it without removing the motor truck from the frame, the rounded rear of the coupler is shaped like a roller coaster on the top side of it: The back side is higher and slopes down on each side. The "T" pin engages with this sloped opening, so as the coupler moves from left to right, the "T" pin rides up this slope.

This is basically a Lionel design. But when other companies clone the design, they often change things to avoid legal problems. Like for example, when you look at couplers on train cars, they all look the same. BUT they're NOT. Coupler knuckles from one brand may not work in another brand. The pins that hold the knuckle piece in the coupler are different lengths and diameters. So using parts from one brand to another brand, may not work without some tinkering first.

Back to the issue at hand....

On the Williams coupler (I'm almost certain the same part is used for the RMT Bang S-4 and the RDC Budd car) the slope is NOT gradual enough... it's too abrupt. Which results in what you're seeing: That the coupler seems stiff when it moves to and fro (left to right) thus derailing the first train car behind the engine.

There are 3 fixes, all of which I have done. All involve taking things apart.

One is to replace the "T" pin with a small small hex head screw. OR you can use a Dremel and cut off the extensions of the "T" shaped pin, making it more a upper case "I" shape. Both of these changes will eliminate the self-centering function of the coupler. Not a big deal for a small layout though. But you'll need to use your hand and sometimes manually center the coupler arm when doing some switching on your layout. But you'll still have an operating knuckle coupler that opens and closes.

The other fix is to use a Dremel with a grinding bit, and to reduce the sloped shape on the back side of the coupler arm assembly. So the whole thing has to come apart to do this. But doing this will allow the self-centering coupler feature to be retained, and will eliminate the first car derailment issue.

_____________

Again you might ask, why can't these things work right out of the box? Well again the issue is the designs. And when the competing companies are basically copying a Lionel design, albeit with minor changes, sometimes those minor changes are not for the better. Yep, they make it different, but not necessarily better. The engineers working for Lionel during the postwar years, really knew what they were doing for the most part. I've bought MTH versions of postwar Lionel items, like the Railking searchlight car. Brand new out of the box, the MTH car NEVER worked as well as my postwar Lionel searchlight car. I wish it had, but it didn't. Same goes for some of the MTH clones of Lionel accessories.

Take for example, the RMT S-4 Bang... there were many changes made on that from the original K-Line version, which K-Line altered from the original MARX version. The RMT S-4 is very hard to find these days because of those improvements. I sold a few a mine for more than double what I paid for them (a rarity in today's train market). BUT while many view the die cast couplers on the RMT S-4 as an improvement, they do the same thing that your Williams loco is doing. Never had that problem with the plastic couplers on the K-Line S-2 version. So... is it really an improvement?

OR as you noted, the RMT Bang was always advertised as an 027 friendly loco. But the original versions were derailing train cars, as you yourself noticed, so you have to enlarged the coupler openings on the frame. RMT took note of this problem, changed the design, and on later issues of the BANG, the openings for the couplers were enlarged.

brianel027

------------------------------------------------------

John

Yes, that was really exceptional advice that I received.

Since I was just not skilled enough, or perhaps brave enough, to execute the recommended fixes, I got frustrated, and just unscrewed the bottom of the couplers until I could remove the "return to center" spring. The spring itself had an "O" circle in the middle of it, and an "arm" sticking out of each side of the "O".   The arms were angled upward, about 10 to 15 degrees off of each side of the "true north" of the "O".   

I removed the spring, placed the shaft of a small round phillips head screw driver through the center of the O, and placed the handle of the screwdriver into a vise, with the shafting stick up.  I tightened the vise so that the screwdriver would not rock back and forth.

I then let the spring slide to the bottom of the shaft, near the front edge of the handle, and grabbed the ends of each of those spring arms with the tips of my index fingers on each hand, and bend those arms further back, over and over, really hard.

The sharp pointed ends of the spring arms poked into my fingertips like hypodermic needles, causing a bit of pain and bleeding, but I kept at it, until those arms were permanently bent down to about 25 to 30 degrees from the true north of each side of the "O".

When reassembled, the widened arms of the spring allowed the coupler to swing more freely from side to side, and when it hit the spring arms, they were "softer" and bent back more easily.    The coupler was sluggish moving back to center, and never would swing back to a true center, but it was close enough for me.   

All derailment issues immediately ceased.

I know that this will be of no help to those that need their couplers to snap back to center positions, for ease in switching, but I just thought I would give a follow up of what I did.

Had the manufacturer just used a softer spring to begin with, none of this would have been necessary.  The stiffness of that factory spring was unbelievable.   (Before adjusting it, I tried leaving the loco parked with a heavy car attached to its coupler, with the coupler bent all of the way to one side or the other, for as much as a month at a time.  It seemed to have no effect on that spring or the constant derailments.)

Mannyrock

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×