# Improving Heavyweight Tracking, A New Thought



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

After dealing with too many derailments of the heavyweights through back-to-back 1600-series (8' diameter) last weekend, I started looking into ways to improve their tracking. Yes, I've been to George Schreyer's most excellent web site (and even have contributions there in this area), and converted all to 4-wheel trucks, but when studing this matter further today, I think I've come up with a "better mousetrap" and was wondering if anyone had tried what I am about to suggest.

I see the problem as at least partially being that the heavyweight trucks do not rotate symetrically about their center point as most other trucks do. Linda continually comments, "Why do they track so weird through the turnouts?" This is because of the way the cars "kick out" as they pivot around an asymetrical point. Note in the picture that the pivot point is about 1/3 of the way into the trucks. (BTW, thank you George for use of your photos.)









The actual center point of the two wheels trucks is just behind the curved slot and AristoCraft has been nice enough to even provide a circle parting line here for our guidance. If the bolster is moved away from the end of the car from the 2-to the 3-axle mounting location, it positions the center of the bolster right under this central point parting line. So it is a simple matter to drill a new hole in the truck at this central point, slide the bolster rearward, and re-mount the truck using the new hole and bolster as the new pivot point. The truck would then rotate symetrically about its center point, and I would think that this would improve tracking. Obviously, the old pivot point would have to be ground off so as not to interfere with the swing of the trucks.









So, before I grind off the existing pivot point, has anyone tried this and what have been the results?

Thanks


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The one thing you might not have thought of is that you will affect the truck mounted couplers, I think there will be more swing because the pivot point is further away from the coupler. I believe that mounting that Aristo came up with minimizes coupler swing and also the overhang of the ends of the cars. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 22 Sep 2009 03:39 PM 
The one thing you might not have thought of is that you will affect the truck mounted couplers, I think there will be more swing because the pivot point is further away from the coupler. I believe that mounting that Aristo came up with minimizes coupler swing and also the overhang of the ends of the cars. 

Regards, Greg 

Already looked into this. I use "close mounted" Kadees on shortened coupler tangs. The point that stops truck and coupler swing to either side is the interference between the coupler and the car's steps. I've already checked and this is unchanged under either mounting scenario.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Good... what do you think about the overhang issue? A non-problem? 

Greg


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 22 Sep 2009 05:06 PM 
Good... what do you think about the overhang issue? A non-problem? 

Greg 

Not a problem.

I'm thinking a little more overhang on the outside and a little less on the inside of a curve..., not not much different. The way the trucks now pivot. it shoves the body of the car toward the inside of the curve, which is one reason they look so funny going through back-to-back 1600 turnouts.

I was wondering if there would really be benefit to this before I go cutting up a heavyweight. Drilling a hole in the trucks is no big deal and wouldn't even show if there was no benefit, but once the old pivot point is removed, that is hard to replace without replacing the floor of the car. It just seems logical that the car should track better if the trucks were able to rotate symetrically about their centerlines..., but I could be wrong. I'm not an engineer.


----------



## George Schreyer (Jan 16, 2009)

Instead of gouging up the car, why not just drill a new pivot hole right near the slot and remount on the existing pivot post as a test? the couplers will stick out further and that would have to be changed later, but you could see what the tracking impact was without making hard to reverse changes to the car body.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Funny, my heavyweights track just fine!


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By George Schreyer on 22 Sep 2009 06:28 PM 
Instead of gouging up the car, why not just drill a new pivot hole right near the slot and remount on the existing pivot post as a test? the couplers will stick out further and that would have to be changed later, but you could see what the tracking impact was without making hard to reverse changes to the car body. 

Won't work. This positions the trucks too close to the ends of the cars and they hit the steps. I guess the steps could be removed for the test, but even this would then essentually extend the wheelbase by ~1" in each direction (2" overall). Still, this could serve as a preliminary test without butchering the pivot post.


----------



## noelw (Jan 2, 2008)

OK .. I had to try it ........
I moved the center point back to the swing screw by just adding longer screw and washer so I didn't have to cut off the old mounting for a test.. Boy did they de-rail every time I went in to a switch or curve when I was pushing two other cars behind it... I keep adj. the play in the booster but no help there either...
It put the coupler shank out further for more swing and give it more leverage to push the truck harder on the flanges when going to a side to side affect..

Nope not working here but worth a try. ??????

But I didn't have any problems with my three and two axles truck in the first place. but had to try it out anyway being I have one more three axle coach come in the mail.... 

By using the way they come with a shorter turn distance on the coupler Shank it tracks better in backing up.. I did do one thing tho when I get these HWT cars. I shorten up the couple shank and install USA couplers to almost hit the diaphragm for a more closer look.. Then this make it look better also going thru switches. 

I don't really have any problem backing up on wide Aristo SW's or around 10 dim. track. I did the same like on Athern Ho HWT do theres ..
I can upload a photo if like to see how close I have the cars to each other.
Good test thro...


----------



## noelw (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 22 Sep 2009 07:26 PM 
Funny, my heavyweights track just fine!


















*Just off toptic. 
Greg. Couldn't resist. I goofed on a track swicth with a GP-9 like your pass cars looked..Is this a tracking problem or what???? laf. 








*


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

My case was switch points not quite closed tight enough, nice going there Noel, you make me feel better ha ha! 

I actually backed the train up with the loco and got it on all the same track. 

Greg


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 22 Sep 2009 11:15 PM 
My case was switch points not quite closed tight enough,
Greg 

That's the problem I have. But other cars go through fine and you can't guarentee a "tight point" every time when your train circles every 2 minutes for hours on end.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By noelw on 22 Sep 2009 09:25 PM 
OK .. I had to try it ........
I moved the center point back to the swing screw by just adding longer screw and washer so I didn't have to cut off the old mounting for a test.. Boy did they de-rail every time I went in to a switch or curve when I was pushing two other cars behind it... I keep adj. the play in the booster but no help there either...
It put the coupler shank out further for more swing and give it more leverage to push the truck harder on the flanges when going to a side to side affect..

Nope not working here but worth a try. ??????

But I didn't have any problems with my three and two axles truck in the first place. but had to try it out anyway being I have one more three axle coach come in the mail.... 

By using the way they come with a shorter turn distance on the coupler Shank it tracks better in backing up.. I did do one thing tho when I get these HWT cars. I shorten up the couple shank and install USA couplers to almost hit the diaphragm for a more closer look.. Then this make it look better also going thru switches. 

I don't really have any problem backing up on wide Aristo SW's or around 10 dim. track. I did the same like on Athern Ho HWT do theres ..
I can upload a photo if like to see how close I have the cars to each other.
Good test thro...










I'm not quite sure what you are conveying.

Are you saying that you raised the bolster post and pivoted the truck around the center of the curved slot..., or that you put the existing pivot hole on the bolster point, just moving it back but still pivoting around it..., or something else? I'm trying to understand the dynamics and ramification of how you had them mounted. 

Thanks.


----------



## noelw (Jan 2, 2008)

*We took the 3 axle truck and pivot it at the guide or closes slot to the center axle. by adding washer to raise it up to miss the org. mounting post. So the truck moved or pivot more to the center of the truck. We install a temp. bolt with two nuts and washers to keep it center in the slot.. It raised the pass car high off the trucks to just do a trial swing. dose that help?? Or did I miss something what you are trying to do?? *


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By noelw on 23 Sep 2009 12:59 AM 
*We took the 3 axle truck and pivot it at the guide or closes slot to the center axle. by adding washer to raise it up to miss the org. mounting post. So the truck moved or pivot more to the center of the truck. We install a temp. bolt with two nuts and washers to keep it center in the slot.. It raised the pass car high off the trucks to just do a trial swing. dose that help?? Or did I miss something what you are trying to do?? * 

That helps explain it. So this testing was done with the 3-axle trucks rather than the 2-axle trucks? 

Thanks


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Todd, I know this comes late in the thread, but I have several "back to back" curves, albeit 10 foot diameter. 

When I first got my HW's a short train of 4 cars would derail all the time. I have fixed my cross level in my track, and found that lubrication so the trucks pivot properly, and also the side to side play in the axles was free was important. 

Today, those SAME cars that derailed on a 4 car train run PERFECTLY in an 8 car consist of HWs with mostly 3 axle trucks, but several with 2 axle. 

At the risk of offending you, these cars should NOT require such serious modification unless you have something really strange in your trackwork that has not been brought forward. 

Is this an "S" curve that is derailing the cars? (want to be sure I am interpreting "back to back" properly) 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

At the Botanic, any heavyweight derailment is blamed on 6 wheel trucks, even if none were in the consist.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The newest 6 wheel trucks are more forgiving, with increased lateral movement in the center axle and the "side bearing rib" on top of the truck. 


Greg


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 23 Sep 2009 12:37 PM 
Todd, I know this comes late in the thread, but I have several "back to back" curves, albeit 10 foot diameter. 

When I first got my HW's a short train of 4 cars would derail all the time. I have fixed my cross level in my track, and found that lubrication so the trucks pivot properly, and also the side to side play in the axles was free was important. 

Today, those SAME cars that derailed on a 4 car train run PERFECTLY in an 8 car consist of HWs with mostly 3 axle trucks, but several with 2 axle. 

At the risk of offending you, these cars should NOT require such serious modification unless you have something really strange in your trackwork that has not been brought forward. 

Is this an "S" curve that is derailing the cars? (want to be sure I am interpreting "back to back" properly) 

Regards, Greg 



Before I go cutting up the cars, the next test will be to simply remove the bolsters and see if these were contributing to the problem though binding either at the "swing groove," or anywhere where the trucks could possibly touch the bolters. I will also replace that turnout motor with one that is little used. That turnout is part of the "leap frog" so is thrown every time a train comes through, or about 60 times an hour. That motor gets a lot of use and may have developed some slop contributing to the turnout not "holding" tightly. I have already adjusted the motor's "tooth placement" on the cross-shaft to optimize that.

As for the track work, this is simply an LGB 1600-series turnout laid back-to-back with a 1600-series curved track in a "S" configuration. The very spot is question is shown in the photo and is the second turnout from the bottom that deviates to the right to let the train take the outside track, which is just long enough to accomodate four heavyweights. This entire area is laid on wood covered with tar and roofing paper and is level except for the uneveness of the various track segments of the LGB turnouts.

But as I noted, other cars track through fine, so if the heavyweights can be improved, maybe they could do the same. It's not like they split the turnout every time. But when they come through hundreds of times a day, even 1% is too many derailments.


----------



## pimanjc (Jan 2, 2008)

I consistantly pull 6 to 9 heavyweights up, down, and around my layout. Minimum curve and switch diameter is 8ft [R3]. There are three double crossovers and a reverse crossover. Most of my curves also have a significant grade. Very seldom, do the heavyweights derail. 










When pulling the full set of cars, threre are both 2-axle and 3-axle cars. I find no difference in derails. All of my trucks have been modified in a manner similiar to what George S. illustrates in his Tips. 










Each truck is coated and rubbed in with teflon dry lube on all truck/bolster contact surfaces.

JimC.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Todd, My guess is that your heavyweights do not have the same rib on the top of the truck as Jim shows. (His have been ground off at the sides in his pictures, stock one are full width same height). 

You have a nasty S curve there, and I had a crossover with two Aristo WR switches back to back. There was just too much curve for my heavyweights on that S curve. 

I did not mean to imply your switches were doing what mine did, was trying to inject a bit of self-deprecating humor... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## George Schreyer (Jan 16, 2009)

Mine back through S curves on an 8' diameter and LGB 1600 turnouts, including some S curves made from turnouts. However, I never back more than 4 (the sidings won't hold more than 4 plus a loco) and I rarely pull more than 5. All but one car are the older ones.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

No ribs across the tops of mine.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Even with the S curve through the turnouts what bothers me is the comment that there is a cross level problem with the turnout. If this is the case then this is another problem for the heavy weights. Shorter cars can handle the slight difference in cross level where the longer more rigid heavy weights are more prone to derailing. Try correcting the S curve and smooth out the turnouts. Later RJD


----------



## George Schreyer (Jan 16, 2009)

these things are sensitive to level issues where two pieces of track 2' apart are not the same level with respect to each other. Also, if the turnouts are LGB 1600, they will derail nearly every time when backing through the turnouts due to a gauge problem inherent in the turnout. This only impacts cars being pushed through the diverting path, S curve or not. Truck mounted couplers react worse to this issue than body mounts. It's easy to fix though.


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Welp your best option at this point would be to give them to me and move on to a smaller car


----------

