Author Topic: MT Heavyweight Pass. Car Derailments  (Read 2054 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SecretWeapon

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 421
  • Respect: +38
Re: MT Heavyweight Pass. Car Derailments
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2019, 12:13:36 PM »
0
the body mounted couplers suck! on passenger cars & freight cars. when coupled to passenger cars equipped with MTL 1017, going around a curve, they force(the body mounts) the cars with the 1017's to jump the track. i'm very disappointed with MTL lately. i took a hopper out of the case, barely touched the body mounted coupler & it exploded like a crapumate. no screw, only pressed on. the only good thing that's coming out of this, i'm saving lots of money.
Mike

nickelplate759

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1253
  • Respect: +105
Re: MT Heavyweight Pass. Car Derailments
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2019, 12:51:35 PM »
+2
Different strokes I guess.  I'm very happy that Micro-Trains is using body-mount couplers.
George

NKPH&TS #3628

I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

mmagliaro

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4437
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +862
    • Maxcow Online
Re: MT Heavyweight Pass. Car Derailments
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2019, 12:54:18 PM »
+7
Mixing body mounts with truck mounts is a recipe for disaster.  Don't blame the body mounted couplers.
You have to convert them all or problems like this can happen, especially on long passenger cars, and especially on tight curves (and I consider 12" a really tight curve for an 80' passenger car).  Remember, just because "everything else works" doesn't mean that your trackwork is "friendly".  As more and more equipment comes out made to finer tolerances, the more the trackwork has to obey more real-world laws of physics.

I know, I know.  For everybody who says this, there will be people who say, "I run these on 12" curves just fine".  Sure.  Maybe you do.  Maybe you've got really good trackwork, and got your cars and couplers adjusted just so and it all just works for you.  All I'm saying is that reliable operation is a combination of good practices to minimize trouble.  80' cars on 12" curves is not a good practice.

I also realize that my "screed" doesn't help the OP's problem, so...
So back to the OP's problem.  You have 12" curves, you can't change the track, and you want to run these cars.
Of all the solutions proposed, I think randgust's idea of switching to MT 1016's is your best bet.  You will get some more side-to-side motion in those longer coupler arms, which should cut down the lateral forces in the curves.  You could switch the couplers on two cars and see if the coupling between those two cars ever causes a derailment again.  If it  works, then you can change over all the others.  So your only investment is 4 MT 1016 couplers.    If you don't like the longer coupling distance on the 1016, you can, as Randy suggested, mount the 1016's in a new hole a little further back under the body.  But for starters, I'd just swap in the 1016's and see how it works.
 


chicken45

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4092
  • Gender: Male
  • The guy who made DKS pee that one time.
  • Respect: +659
    • Facebook Profile
Re: MT Heavyweight Pass. Car Derailments
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2019, 12:57:22 PM »
0
While not crystal clear on my shop, since these are not PRR specific items, they fall into Keystone Customs (my non-PRR brand).
https://www.shapeways.com/shops/keystone_details?section=Keystone+Customs&s=0

@chicken45 can shut up before he even writes.   :trollface: :trollface: :trollface:

I would, but you know me better than that LOL. I told you this would someday lead to confusion!

Just dump everything in to one bucket and sort by two road names: "PRR" and "not PRR".
Or just specify the PRR names with PRR in the name of the part.

person 1: Where'd you get that sweet a$$ step/coupler part?
person 2: I got it from a shop called Keystone Details.
p1: Really? I just looked at their shop and didn't even see that.
p2: It's because it's a Keystone CUSTOMS by Keystone Details part that is on a separate page.
p1: Why not have all his stuff in one place?
p2: I'm confused, too.


I am person 2.

:-*
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 12:59:01 PM by chicken45 »
Josh "John" Surkosky
Darth Vader of Penn State
PRRT&HS Member
Bass Trombone Enthusiast
Bearded Dynamo
Kentucky Colonel

              The Pig 
The pig, if I am not mistaken;
Supplies us sausage, ham, and bacon.
Let others say his heart is big—
I call it stupid of the pig.

craigolio1

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1417
  • Respect: +238
Re: MT Heavyweight Pass. Car Derailments
« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2019, 01:04:38 PM »
0
If I can add to @mmagliaro ‘s post, if you do plan to remount a new coupler, it may help to assess what the type of couplers are on your other equipment that works, and the mounting location of those couplers, and then using similar / the same couplers, mount your new couplers in the same location on the car.

Sometimes you can have one type of car with an arrangement that works great with other like cars, and then another type that works well with its counterparts. But put one with the other and problems happen.  For the most reliable operation they need to be as alike as possible.

Craig

Cajonpassfan

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3369
  • Respect: +607
Re: MT Heavyweight Pass. Car Derailments
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2019, 01:13:28 PM »
+2
(In response to Post#15 above)

I wouldn't be so harsh on MT. This has been a dilemma for all manufacturers since Day 1: do we take liberties with our designs to make them track on tight radiuses (pivoting engine pilots, truck mounts etc etc) or do we attempt to be closer to prototype and sacrifice tight radius operation. In my personal view, and yours may vary, I applaud manufacturers who try to get away from the super toy stuff and closer to prototype (I also think that 80+foot cars, passenger or freight, just don't belong on tight curves; they look silly to me... YMMV).

One other thing is the MT cars' weight. They are relatively light considering their length: only about 37g or 1.3 oz. This works well for long mainline trains on larger radii in that it allows steam engines of the era to pull the lighter consist. Adding a bit of weight may improve tracking on tight radius curves and having transitions is a must; the tighter the curve, the greater the need for it.

I think the MT heavyweight line fills a great need and only wish more Pullmans were coming...
Otto K.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 01:17:06 PM by Cajonpassfan »

Lemosteam

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3876
  • Gender: Male
  • PRR, The Standard Railroad of my World
  • Respect: +1180
    • Designer at Keystone Details
Re: MT Heavyweight Pass. Car Derailments
« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2019, 01:17:19 PM »
0
I would, but you know me better than that LOL. I told you this would someday lead to confusion!

Just dump everything in to one bucket and sort by two road names: "PRR" and "not PRR".
Or just specify the PRR names with PRR in the name of the part.

person 1: Where'd you get that sweet a$$ step/coupler part?
person 2: I got it from a shop called Keystone Details.
p1: Really? I just looked at their shop and didn't even see that.
p2: It's because it's a Keystone CUSTOMS by Keystone Details part that is on a separate page.
p1: Why not have all his stuff in one place?
p2: I'm confused, too.


I am person 2.

:-*

I don't care that you can's interpret the simplest of concepts.   :trollface:

First time in 5 years an issue with a real customer.  My website saves that by having a proper search that works better than SW and provides a direct link to the model.

SW is not my homepage.  Their search blows and the reason I pay for a website.  Beside that "Customs" better aligns with what I am doing for other railroads.  Yeh "not PRR is really marketable..  Pfshshhh.

Mark5

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 8907
  • Always with the negative waves Moriarty ...
  • Respect: +160
Re: MT Heavyweight Pass. Car Derailments
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2019, 01:18:03 PM »
0
I am still puzzled as to why the truck bolsters were not put to the outer ends of the cars - this increases the end "overhang" on curves.

It is on my "to do" list to move the bolster holes toward the ends on these cars.

Mark

Lemosteam

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3876
  • Gender: Male
  • PRR, The Standard Railroad of my World
  • Respect: +1180
    • Designer at Keystone Details
Re: MT Heavyweight Pass. Car Derailments
« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2019, 01:23:37 PM »
0
If I can add to @mmagliaro ‘s post, if you do plan to remount a new coupler, it may help to assess what the type of couplers are on your other equipment that works, and the mounting location of those couplers, and then using similar / the same couplers, mount your new couplers in the same location on the car.

Sometimes you can have one type of car with an arrangement that works great with other like cars, and then another type that works well with its counterparts. But put one with the other and problems happen.  For the most reliable operation they need to be as alike as possible.

Craig

@craigolio1 that is exact what my steps do.  They are designed to put the coupler at the dimension MT specifies on their coupler pages and actually pull the couplers in about 1mm for closer coupling too.

BUT, on small radii, physics and mechanics will eventually take over, regardless.

@Mark5 likely to allow the trucks to work on smaller radii, even if the couplers won't.  Again though, the coupler itself is supposed to swing on that design to mitigate some of that overhang.  i crEated an image somewhere but i can't find it,
« Last Edit: March 06, 2019, 01:35:49 PM by Lemosteam »

gkoproske

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • Respect: +11
Re: MT Heavyweight Pass. Car Derailments
« Reply #24 on: March 07, 2019, 12:16:36 PM »
0
Can I assume these Micro-Trains heavyweight passenger cars use 36" and not the 33" wheels?

nickelplate759

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1253
  • Respect: +105
Re: MT Heavyweight Pass. Car Derailments
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2019, 01:25:01 PM »
0
Can I assume these Micro-Trains heavyweight passenger cars use 36" and not the 33" wheels?

Yes they do (36" wheels).
« Last Edit: March 07, 2019, 02:17:34 PM by nickelplate759 »
George

NKPH&TS #3628

I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

chicken45

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4092
  • Gender: Male
  • The guy who made DKS pee that one time.
  • Respect: +659
    • Facebook Profile
Re: MT Heavyweight Pass. Car Derailments
« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2019, 01:30:42 PM »
0
Can I assume these Micro-Trains heavyweight passenger cars use 36" and not the 33" wheels?

Hmm. I actually don't know what size wheels they are.
I'm eager to learn!
Josh "John" Surkosky
Darth Vader of Penn State
PRRT&HS Member
Bass Trombone Enthusiast
Bearded Dynamo
Kentucky Colonel

              The Pig 
The pig, if I am not mistaken;
Supplies us sausage, ham, and bacon.
Let others say his heart is big—
I call it stupid of the pig.

thomasjmdavis

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1769
  • Respect: +234
Re: MT Heavyweight Pass. Car Derailments
« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2019, 03:30:02 PM »
0
The newer MT trucks do have a nominal 36" wheel.  I say nominal because there is a certain amount of "eye of the beholder" since the flange, like almost all model flanges, is too big.  But it is larger than the 33" wheels of the 1018 truck and they are not interchangeable per se.  Not sure if you can replace the smaller wheelsets with the larger ones- or if this would cause issues. 

Measuring the tread near the flange with my really cheap caliper I get 0.227 which my calculator tells me is 36.32.
Tom D.

Some things are better left unsaid. Which I generally realize right after I have said them.

Lemosteam

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3876
  • Gender: Male
  • PRR, The Standard Railroad of my World
  • Respect: +1180
    • Designer at Keystone Details
Re: MT Heavyweight Pass. Car Derailments
« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2019, 05:51:16 PM »
0
Smaller wheels will lower the couplers as well. The trucks with 36" wheels are designed to place the couple at the proper height above railhead. Smaller wheels will change that.

thomasjmdavis

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1769
  • Respect: +234
Re: MT Heavyweight Pass. Car Derailments
« Reply #29 on: March 07, 2019, 07:46:34 PM »
0
Smaller wheels will lower the couplers as well. The trucks with 36" wheels are designed to place the couple at the proper height above railhead. Smaller wheels will change that.
You're right, of course, but I don't see any advantage to replacing the 36" wheel with a 33"- I was thinking about the other way around- replacing the wheels on the old 1018 truck with the new wheels (or any 36" wheels) to give the trucks a more prototypical look. It would require an extra shim to lower the coupler by about .010. I may give it a try with some of the kitbashes I did with old Rivarossi cars, some of which  have 1018 trucks. 
Tom D.

Some things are better left unsaid. Which I generally realize right after I have said them.