# USAT auto carriers, mini review and some disturbing results



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

My apologies if there is already a review thread on the USA Trains auto carriers, with the search function giving me an error and the posts out of chronological order, I don't have the time nor inclination to invest a bunch of time that should be a no brainer.


I spent a week in Georgia at RJ's working on trains every day.

We played with the 2 auto carrier cars he has. We knew they had a lot of drag, but figured maybe this was due to lack of lubrication.

So one day we went "at them".

First advice: DON'T BUY THEM if you have 10 foot diameter curves or less, unless you want to spend several hours hacking them up with a dremel... and I mean several hours EACH.

The short story is the tradeoff for making them look right height wise... the wheels have MANY interference points with the frame/chassis.

RJ noticed something wrong when he ran his new high hood Aristo SD45 and it would barely pull 2 auto carriers and 2 ordinary cars, and he has VERY minimal grades.

(more news to come of the new SD45 wheels and wiring too!!!)

So, we lubed the axles, which looked dry... they spun OK, not great, but ok...

Then put on the layout they still seemed to have abnormal drag.

When rolling a car by hand from tangent (straight) track to a 10' curve, I noticed 2 things, a heck of a lot of drag and the roller bearing cap STOPPED TURNING.

The heavy weight of the car and deep flanges kept it on the track but it was clear that the wheels were SLIDING on the rails.

So, we figure we would just "Dremel" more clearance.

WRONG! First problem was that there were clearance issues in several places... oh well, just "Dremel" more, ha ha.

Next issue is that on one side, the wheels actually hit a pipe hanging down... no problem, bend it out, or let it rub... not great...

But the topper is the "recesses" in the chassis for the "tops" of the wheels... that part is METAL, hard to get to and just plain complex to grind away.

I'll be posting pictures and a video soon, but very disappointing that the engineering was done so poorly.

Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Gregg: I did look at the cars today. It looks like just a bit of rub yet on the frame. May be able to take a bit more off the center beam. Will try when I get back from FL. Later RJD


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yeah, they seemed to have loosened up after we ran them with 3 locos ha ha! 

Can you see any rub marks on the metal frame? 

Greg


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

So the clearance problems came about from lowering the cars 

Just how much were the cars lowered?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

No, they are stock. What I was trying to say is that when USAT designed them, so they were low, like the prototype (as opposed to being artificially raised like many 1:29 models are) they had such reduced clearances that it restricted the trucks. 

If you look at the average 1:29 rolling stock, they sit too high, mainly to give clearance to the large flanges and sharper curves we have. 

So the STOCK cars have clearance issues because of the proper height and the large flanges and tight curves... 

Greg


----------



## tmejia (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg,

Musta been rough having to WORK on trains all week.








Sounds like you and RJ had a great time figuring things out and fixing them.

Tommy








Rio Gracie


----------



## Lorna (Jun 10, 2008)

I would like to get these cars and have not yet bought the track yet. I was planning on a minimum of ten foot diameter however, this has me thinking. What would you suspect might work as the minimum without the interferance?


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Some of us are changing the wheels to 33in. versions to both lower the car and increase under body clearances...I used USA Well cars wheel sets... 

Dirk... ( the car does generate a great deal of drag however and this area needs to be addressed...)


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Tommy, worked every day until dusk and then ran trains solid from then. Interesting to see how things worked. RJ has mostly Aristo, and more diesels than me, and I saw the effects and corrections needed for the typically undergauge Aristo wheelsets. 

Too bad I could not video all the stuff we did. 

Lorna, until I get more data, I would think just the next "size" up, like 11 or 12 foot. 

Greg


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Greg after reading your post I took my auto racks to recheck my results because my reversing loop diameter is 9.5 feet at the most.

I pulled them through and watched all the wheels to see if they locked up, lifted, or skidded.
They went through pushed or pulled without issues. I have not changed anything other than the kadee mod I did.
That leads me to believe that maybe the stock couplers are the problem, maybe they don't swing as far as the Kadee do.

Just a thought, Ron


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Since they are not truck mounted, the couplers have nothing to do with the trucks in this case. 

I rolled a single car through and the wheels skidded as the backs of the wheels contacted the center rib. 

Take your cars and look at them at that point. It would be hard to believe that yours are molded differently from the two I tested at RJ's. 

The wheels stop turning a bit, and I was not pressing down on them for extra traction. The wear marks and most importantly, the radically increased drag on the curves is the problem... 

I'll post a video of the wheels not turning. 

Greg


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

So is this a case where "raising" the cars could be a solution?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

In one clearance area yes, but it remains to be seen if the center sill can be ground down enough to clear. there are 4 places where there is interference on 10 foot curves. 

Greg


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

I checked my Auto Carriers and there is indeed some very slight rubbing on the inner beam from the fwd trucks inner aft wheel, and aft truck forward inner wheel.
I imagine that it would also be on the other side if I ran them the other direction. The rubbing is very slight and not enough to lock the wheel up.
If fact if you hadn't brought it up I would never have had a reason to check.

I did measure the loop again to get an exact measurement and it is only a 9ft loop so it is understandable that there is rubbing since I'm under the 10ft minimums.

Ron


----------



## San Juan (Jan 3, 2008)

So does this mean they should have smaller diameter wheels?

What is the "scale" wheel diameter the USA autoracks come with? Prototype is 33". Some tri-level autoracks use 28" wheels.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Of the 4 clearance problem areas, smaller wheels would help two of them, but those ones are the hardest to overcome, so it might be worth a try. I'll have to look into what the prototype uses and the current car height, but since they are roller bearing wheels, they will be harder to find I suspect. 

Greg


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

I thought some of us posted about these cars in another thread when they first came out?? simple changes if someone wanted to. 
I plan to get more cars once other projects get done.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

oem uses 36 in. wheels...USA Trains that is.... in-correct tho.. if one so chooses. 

Prototype uses 33'' wheels on the double decks, and as mentioned above 28'' wheels are on the lower, triple deck cars, but they sit on a different flat car, which has cut-outs for the trucks in the sides, and does sit lower than other cars.. 

To me the model still needs to be lower to look correct, the under frame is still way tooo high off the rails...... 

And I wish for a long arm swinging KD coupler for a decent replacement, like a real car has.... 

The things we dream about, ugh!!!!!! 

Dirk


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

In theory adding smaller wheels will not make a change to the side to side clearance. I will be changing out the trucks to use AC RB which roll better any way. Also will try to remove more material now that I'm back from FL. Later RJD


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Here's a picture of the main problem area. Note well: the lower part of the material is METAL, part of the chassis... so it's not as easy as just cutting away the plastic.

I have more pictures and more detail here:
*http://www.elmassian.com/trains/rol...ar-carrier*


----------



## bicyclexc (Mar 31, 2010)

They look awesome, but they seem SOOOOO huge that they would be impossible to run on 90% of garden railroads. 

Seems like basically, if your layout uses sectional curves, forgeddaboutit. Flex track layouts only. 

They're so prototypical one would need equally prototypical curves and clearances (30' diameter maybe.) 

I'll wait for youtube vids of the 10% of layouts they look good on.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Greg, 
You might want to change your page to read "Overview" Based upon a 89' flat car. I'm not sure what the model scales out to be, but the prototype is 89'. I believe it's 20' 2" from the top of the rail to the top of the car as well. 

Craig


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Craig: done, thanks! 

Bicycle: Sectional track does come in much larger diameters, 20' is available from Aristo. 

Yeah, clearance is a definite consideration. 

My post is about the fact that they are a problem on the curves they are advertised for. 

Here's a "clearance" video



Greg


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

While I can't get near a model car to touch and measure, here is a link for a flat car drawing.... 

As is the typical 'internet syn-sation', not all sites list the same numbers or dimensions,.... 

this page shows a 3'-6'' deck height, I have also found info giving 3'-7 5/8'' deck heights...... with-in an inch or so, what's your tolerance today???? 

.......http://www.ttx.com/Services/railcars-for-sale/Flatcar-89-steel-deck.aspx 

Happy Rails! Dirk....


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

......even in Greg's very large pic of the truck jammed into the corner pocket, yes a smaller diameter wheel will give more clearance, and a slightly increased turning radius for the truck itself...tho probably not enough to solve RJ's issues ..... 

the smaller 33'' wheels may even keep you guys off the steel ballast sheet also.... 

Dirk - DMRR & DMS Ry.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Dirk: Ok wheels are wheels. So how does a smaller dia make it take a sharper curve and not touch the center sill. The back side of the wheels will still touch the the center sill no matter the size. Later RJD


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Dirk 
that's a good site. Been there many a times.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Dirk, the first problem is on the back of the wheel to the sill... this is unaffected by wheel diameter, and as I point out, part of the area that must be ground down is part of the metal frame,which makes it worse. 

Take a look again at the picture... you will get it. 

Thanks for the deck height info. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Thanks for asking RJ... 

For me it works due to a mechanical and drafting background as a means to solving problems. 

A 36'' wheel scales to 1.241'', a 33'' wheel scales to 1.1379'' 

half the difference is a .051'' tho... 

now since I am not able to get down to my 'puter and do a drawing - an overlay of Greg's wheel photo, bear with me here... 

in the photo, the 36'' wheel is really jammed into the corner ,.. and up against the side of the clearances in the frame... 

Try to imagine a line drawn across the back side of both wheel faces, this line intersects the plastic and, this is where the solution lies, USA made the clearance slot a different angle than the imaginary line you placed across the wheel backs, so as the wheel diameter is reduced along the imaginary line it also pulls away from the clearance edge of the plastic, without the truck changing the current position it is in, as the wheel gets smaller there now are increasing amounts of room to 'turn the truck inboard more', thus increasing the turning angle of the truck - i.e. - turning a tighter radius... 

So Yes indeed,.. the wheels will still touch the frame - if pushed to that point, but as the wheel diameter is reduced the truck angle will increase... 

Hope that helps some what, your working in small numbers here, and doing so will help. I'm not sure without further calcs and working with it more, will provide you with the needed clearance You need for your Layout here!! as in most areas of this non-standard L.S. hobby we all enjoy,.. your mileage may vary.. 

While the wheel difference is about .050'' you may only realize a rotational gain of say .010'' - .015'' - .020'' but when this becomes a change in angle, it will help the turning radius. 

Good luck, and have fun with your trains!! 

Dirk


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

How come that ttx site didn't list minimum radius? They'll never sell any cars that way! 


Dirk, the rubbing seems to be equatorial rather than the circumfrence. 

What? ttx leases oh my! 

JC


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Really I'm on your team here Guys!!! 

My Wife keeps laughing at me, My mind is not clear on pain drugs. she thinks it's funny, haha what's a Nurse for....!! 

OK, I snuck down to look at a car, the wheel backs 'do jam' up against the full surface of the slots, parallel with each other.. 

I will post a pic later today, 3 of 4 wheels touch full contact, but the 4th wheel has a full 1/16th in. clearance...??? could be a bad design, or tolerance stack-up in parts. 

I would use a 1/8'' dremel mill type cutter and remove the amount needed in layers and steps. 

Do bad there is always some bugg'ar with nearly every product we get to play with..... 

I read several different radius's for real cars on line... same to same - same to a 40' car, which is the largest radius...one other... 

morning Gents, Dirk !!


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

How sure are you that those curves you tested it on were 10'? 

The reason I ask is that in the closeup picture you have where the truck is cranked over to the point of touching that looks like it would be a lot tighter than 10'. In the video at the bottom of the screen it sure looks tighter than 10'. 

Keith


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The curve tested on is 10', freshly laid. 

This car is 90 scale feet long, and the wear marks speak for themselves. 

The video is in a different location, approximately 9 foot. 

I have another video on the 10' curve showing the wheel caps, just trying to lighten it up... trying to see a small black cap turning in a black truck in the bright sunlight next to a silver car is pretty tough. 

Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks dirk


I spent 41 years in the rail industry so I know a little bit about the characteristic of wheels and there design. Guess you realized where the problem now lies. Sounds like you where trying to associate the wheels hitting the main frame and not the center sill. A truck can only swivel so far till it runs out of room to turn. Later RJD


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

The video is in a different location, approximately 9 foot. 

That's what I thought--looked less than 10. 

Can you measure the angle the truck is at when it is at it's limit, and the center to center distance of the trucks? It seems to me the place to start would be a sketch so one could figure out the minimum radius it will tolerate.


----------



## Steven Gugel (Jan 9, 2008)

All,

This model was designed for a 1500mm (9'-10-1/8" actual) / commonly called 10 ft. diameter. There is 0.05mm of clearance between the inside face of the wheel and the center sill notch. So there IS CLEARANCE built in for the stated 10ft minimum diameter and the car WILL go around it. The axle to sideframe fit allows some lateral play and that may allow the wheels to rub. It was designed for use with existing trucks and wheel sets. Unless your track is in a flat perfect arc you will undoubtedly have all or a portion of the arc tighter radius than the minimum. Running this car on a 10' diameter, although is possible, makes it or them look ridiculous. How can on be striving for absolute realism and prototype fidelity in a product and at the same time try to use it like a toy train? Any car of this length needs large radius curves to look and run good.

There are those who seem to delight in finding or trying to find faults in products. There are those that bug and bug manufacturers about "why don't you make" such and such a model. They listen. They make it. They get beat down by the same people complaining about this or that. Let those complainers put up the piles of money and time it takes to make a product and then be themselves beaten down and I guarantee you they'd never try again. Where is the incentive for anyone to make new products when they know no matter how well it's made someone will gripe and tell others. It's too high; it's too low; it's too wide; it's too narrow. Don't like it? Learn to or make it yourself.

Regards,
Steven Gugel


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Steven, do you have one of these cars? 

I have personally handled 2 of them through a 10' diameter curve that is level, and not only does the drag go up astronomically, but I can clearly see that the wheels stop turning when this happens. 

So whatever they were DESIGNED for is interesting, but the ACTUAL REALITY is that they have issues on 10' diameter curves. And if there was only .05mm clearance I would not care, the PROBLEM is the increased drag and that the wheels BIND / stop turning. 

I don't delight in finding fault in things, we were trying to run trains! 

What about the person who plunked down almost $400 for a car that was SUPPOSED to work and does NOT? 

And your advice: Like it or make it yourself? Well if we don't bring problems to the attention of the manufacturer, then we are stupid, paying money for something that is not as advertised. 

By the way, do you own Garden Metal Models? 

Greg Elmassian, proud consumer not ready to be bilked because he should just learn to like it. 

p.s. I HAVE put up piles of money, it's in the products I have purchased to keep these manufacturers alive.


----------



## Dick413 (Jan 7, 2008)

I get confused were does usa measure the dia. outside rail, inside rail or in the center between the rails? 
thanks dick


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The standard convention is to measure to the centerline between the rails..... everyone in all scales do this. 

From the binding, one or 2 inches more or less would make no difference from what I have seen. 

Greg


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

OK RJ, ya need to sit down fer this one Buddy! 

Yes,.. wheels are wheels, 
...but not all truck frames are created equal... 

I'm down by trains tonight, going over this auto rack issue... 

Had to call Greg at last... 

I was playing with a heavy tape measure and only getting readings of 4'-8'' to 4'-10'' - on the radius - well below any 10ft. dia. circle. 

I could not figure what was taking place until I compared the USA well car truck/33'' wheels .... with the OEM truck off the car itself. When placed side by side I saw there is a difference in the wheelbase between the 2 trucks, the OEM w/36'' wheels has a longer wheelbase than the well truck does... 

What this does is reduce the turning radius of any given truck, by using a truck side frame with a longer wheelbase. The longer wheel base is the result of the 36'' wheels and brake details on the truck, a steel version however. 

So swap out a set from a well car on to your autorack without the coupler on it, and give it a push around your layout! 

Good Luck - let us know tomorrow what happens.. 

Dirk - DMRR & DMS Ry.


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

Here is a comparison I did about emulated roller bearing type trucks for the Vignette about *Optimizing the AML Metal Roller Bearing Truck*. It may be a helpful contribution with respect to the USAT auto carrier car.

Shown below are plastic or metal roller bearing type freight trucks intended for 1/29 scale made by the model train companies of Aristo-Craft, AML, and USA Trains.









-Ted


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Just to back up Ted's info and verify the trucks used on the Autorack, it is a match to USA's metal version shown above and also measures 2.400'' cl to cl 

a side note tho, they are now using a heavier axle shaft on this car series.... 

And more bad news I guess, I was looking at the unit I have still as a flat car, and it does not have clearance ramps molded into the wheel pockets holes... making the wheels hit very easily, but get this,.. only on one end of the car, the other car floor half is correct with clearance ramps... 

end with only partial clearance ramps.... 

 

end with correct and complete clearance ramps.... 

 

Unless someone has a better reason for this omission....? 

Dirk - DMRR


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Well Dirk it took you to call Greg to get it figured out and as he told you I'm about as right as I can be. I also have the well cars and it does not take a rocket scientist to see that wheel spacing is different. So no help there. He also told you that my cars have all AC truck mounted couplers so no issue there. Some folks just don't want to admit that what may seem to work does not. BTW if you run your cars around the same direction you will never see that if run on reverse curves they will also bind. As you know Greg has seen and observed these cars. Later RJD


----------



## Joe Mascitti (Oct 30, 2008)

Then there are those that point out flaws in products that keep people like me from throwing away $400.00 on a car that is supposed to run on a 10' curve but won't. Thanks to folks like Greg, Ted, Marty, Dirk and RJ who only point these issues out to benefit EVERYONE interested in the hobby. They could always keep their findings among themselves and leave the rest of us to get angry and frustrated when products do not work as advertised on our home layouts. Then there are others who rather take pot shots at them rather than contribute helpful information. There are people out there that really know what they are taking about, either from experience or education. Those cars are SUPPOSED to work fine on RJ's layout given the size of his curves. But they don't. We should all learn from each other. This stuff cost way to much $$$ to use a dremel tool on.... 


OK, back to running trains! 

Joe


----------



## Lorna (Jun 10, 2008)

I for one both appreciate the manufacturers that do come out with products like this and the ones like Greg that I see more as helping point out some of the problems. As pointed out, 10ft diameter for a car like this is terribly short. I read reviews of trucks and cars before I buy and is there problems for something that costs in the thousands of dollars - yes indeed.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Well finally got to install my AC RB trucks. First thing I noticed is that wheel size is closer on the AC trucks to a 33 inch wheel. So now my car sets lower and has to be raised to match couplers. So I added a couple of metal washers under each truck. Now back to the RR and the car still binds up. back to the shop. More dremel tool work. It looks like now more material can be removed with out having to grind on the metal weight on the bottom of center sill and floor. That's good news. Back to the RR and test just by rolling around 10 ft curve no problem. Hook up to a train. 

Train consist is AC Connie auto rack and one AC heavy weight observation car. Auto rack gets onto 1st 10ft curve then it derails. Observation of cause is heavy weight truck does not swing enough and also auto rack coupler binds up in pocket resulting in car lift and coming of track. Also tender on loco starting to lift and derail. Looks like back to the drawing board. 

If I recall when we first ran these cars we had them at the rear of the stack pack cars and then a caboose and they at least made it without derailing but binding. Will try this combo next for my test with mods. Later RJD


----------



## honeybooboo (Jan 10, 2014)

Great thread, I just picked up 4 of these bad boys and how nice they are.
Can't begin to tell you how happy I was too get them with only one car door broken but Mike from USA Trains fixed it up in a hurry.
They run great as I only converted the lead coupler to a Kadee and left the rest as USA made them as it will be run as a unit train.
Thank USA Trains for making the stuff that us younger folk want and 
the Quality as usual is 1st rate. 

Boo Boo


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Would it have been easier to swap out the wheels with some that are a bit shorter with a lesser flange (e.g., San Val), and use those wheels on something else?


----------



## honeybooboo (Jan 10, 2014)

Die cast trucks not so easy to swap wheels out.


Boo Boo


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

It's not the flange depths, it's just the recesses to accommodate the swing of the trucks.

You'd have to have scale flanges to have even a small advantage, and smaller wheels to boot... now the units will ride too low.

Greg


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Dare I bring up the all important need to first check..the back to back wheel spacing..
These auto cars are notorius for having the wheels set very tight!!!!

Let me repeat....

The wheels are well below the typical measurements for back to back spacing..

They need to be widened to the maximum allowable width...

Having wheelsets that are under spec..will prevent a given truck from fully turning with in the available space under a toy car!!!

This adjustment needs ..and should be done...before any other conclusions are reached...

This is a problem not typical in g rolling stock.
However it is understated in relation to the autorack cars...their size and length place such a car on the ragged edge of working or not...
There is little room for error...
Spacing the wheelsets wider is a big help...and may even be the only real issue...if done first...

If it is missed...all kinds of work comes up short of fixing the problem..

Dirk


----------



## Doug C (Jan 14, 2008)

Or ya can just buy these units to set on a siding to represent what quite a few 1:1s have done over the last 3-4 yrs due to the downturn in auto sales therefore movements ..... 

ex CP was using a deadended branchline in the Bassano, Ab. area (just off the TCH), to store over a dozen various roadname autoracks for almost a whole yr. ... just collecting pigeon poop and fresh graffiti !! 

These USAT units do look awesome ! Shocked to hear about all the running/performance issues though. 

doug c

p.s. i wonder if we'll see these units being heavily discounted due to poor sales 'cause of design flaw and usage restrictions. Or will USAT just send them off to a scrap heap like some video game corp. has done in the past (not likely as the gaming corp. has seemingly larger budget..) 
hmmm maybe see on discount at ST'15  Do see them already below 200usd on at least one vendor's site !!!


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

SD90WLMT said:


> Dare I bring up the all important need to first check..the back to back wheel spacing..
> These auto cars are notorius for having the wheels set very tight!!!!
> 
> Let me repeat....
> ...


Has anyone looked at that?

The GBDB database currently includes a comment about the potential issue running these cars on a 10ft diameter track - if the incorrect back-to-back spacing is part of the issue (or a potential solution) I would like to include that info in the database listing.

Knut


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

UMMM....

This thread started in 2013, and 6 pages long, perhaps you might want to read it? 

Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Greg,

I did read it before I posted but I didn't see anything about anyone checking the back-to-back wheel spacing and what effect that would have on the problem.

Sometimes hard to follow the comments if one doesn't have a car to look at or pictures to illustrate the problems which on this car seem to be several.

Regards,
Knut


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

You know Knut, you are correct, the back to back was never mentioned. But you should know that RJ and I are fanatics about wheel tolerances and back to back especially... maybe you don't remember the huge issues I had with Aristo management and Kevin strong about back to back... 

Anyway, yes, since most USAT stuff is narrow on back to back that is the FIRST thing to "fix" and it was what RJ and I did, I was out in Georgia, rolling that **** car through curves, inspecting the wear points and then trudging back up the hill from his layout to the train shop to grind off more metal... it was quite a day!

Regards, Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

If you remember correctly Greg I had changed the trucks out and installed Aristo RB trucks. Guess that is why the back to back never came up. Later RJD


----------



## Doug C (Jan 14, 2008)

"...then trudging back up the hill from his layout to the train shop to grind off more metal... it was quite a day..'

We not only learn new things in our hobby be it first person (or via forum threads like this one), but we also quite often get a lot of exercise  

nite.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I won't even start on the "sd-45 DCC assembly line"... (RJ is probably grinning his butt off at the mention)

Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Now SD45 is a totally different animal  Later RJD


----------



## honeybooboo (Jan 10, 2014)

Autoracks work very well out of the box when run on a good size radius curve. 37 make a cool train with Dash 9s or SD 70's at the head end.
My personal suggestion is to not squeeze them onto small dia curves,


Boo Boo
Now located in upstate N.Y.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Just got a Christmas catalog from USA Trains....
Says the racks are min. radiused at 8 ft. Or ... a 16 ft circle....

Misprint .... or...a change on their part..

I built a test track...comprised of 4 curves; 12', 10', 8', 6' - all radiuses..
Setting the auto rack ... with a truck on the rails..and swinging the other car end inboard till it binds..the other truck is beside the track one truck width..inside the 12 ft circle..
I really cannot see how these can even work on less than a 12ft circle...... 11.5 ft circles perhaps , .but jammed up in so doing..

Dirk


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

They need modification for 10 foot as the article describes... but should be no problem for you Mr. Wide Radius ;-)


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Yea....it could ....maybe...even run on my sidings here...
The rest...well...!! LOL...


----------

