Jim Agnew said:
Dan, I have one I battery powered. Not your dad’s Bachman. Very well detailed and a great runner.
Are you finally switching to the dark side known as narrow gauge (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-cool.gif)(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-tongue-out.gif)
Hey hey. The “dark side” is battery power. Narrow gauge is simply right thinking for models running on 45mm track.
Greg Elmassian said:
Much easier to tune weight on the pilot truck than balance downforce on the pilot truck vs. reduced pulling power.
The problem with simply adding weight is finding the room under the pilot for the necessary weight. Not easy in many cases due to the close clearances and the amount of weight needed. Been there, done that. Stretching and/or stiffening the spring is a much easier solution–provided the design of the pilot truck allows it. LGB’s mogul pilot design uses spring tension pulling up and back on the rear of the pilot arm, not compression pushing down from the top. Fortunately, I’ve found that arrangement to be adequate to push its way through my spring switches without modification. You’d want a stiffer, shorter spring in that case if you needed more downward pressure.
Absolutely, you don’t want to risk putting so much pressure you lift the driving wheels off the track. (Did that on my K-27.) It’s a balancing act, but in practical application, you’re not going to reduce the pulling power of your loco. It doesn’t take much of a stretch to vastly improve performance. Even with my K-27 slanting backwards with the front driver barely touching the rails, she still pulled stumps. More of an issue than reduced pulling power is problematic tracking around curves. That’s what alerted me that my spring was too stiff–the front axle kept derailing on curves because there was so little weight on it. Reducing the pressure on the pilot spring a bit shifted more weight back on the front axle and tracking returned to normal. (As did my front coupler height–another thing to make sure stays in check.)
The other half of that equation is the springs on the switches. If you’re going to use spring switches where your normal operating practice is to rely on the loco to push its way through the switches, you should tune your springs so they exert just enough pressure on the points to keep them against the stock rail, but not excessively so in order for the wheels (especially pilot wheels) to be able to push through them. I’ve found there’s much less grey area on that adjustment than there is on the springs pushing down on the pilots. I have to tweak my reverse loop springs pretty much annually to keep things working properly.
Later,
K
I just have the old Aristo C-16 and adding weight and going to a lighter custom switch spring brought them into balance.
Hmmm thought I added a signature…
Oh well, (groovy it works!)
John
My Bachmann expert indicates that many of these locos often come “ass heavy”, he will often put a stronger spring in the last driver, but this can be a long iterative process.
He indicated to me that if you have a loco with this “attitude”, the last thing you want to do is increase the spring force on the pilot truck.
Please don’t argue with me, you can call TOC and argue with him.
Greg
Yea, its fun when a steam locomotive tries to pop a wheelie.
Greg, I did have a long conversation with TOC on the K27. I have followed all his advice except changing springs on drivers. Primarily because I could not locate any in my town that would fit. However I solved my pilot truck issues by removing the smoke generator (on TOC’s list) and adding the weight from an Aristo 0-4-0 switcher full forward in the smoke box. Put the loco in balance, no more ‘drag ass’ and completely stopped pilot truck derailment. So from that experience it is MY CONCLUSION that the issue is not with the suspension per say, but the weight balance of the locomotive.
NO argument, just my observations.
Bob C.
Is the C-19 in question out of balance like the K-27?
Chris
Greg Elmassian said:
My Bachmann expert indicates that many of these locos often come “ass heavy”, he will often put a stronger spring in the last driver, but this can be a long iterative process.
He indicated to me that if you have a loco with this “attitude”, the last thing you want to do is increase the spring force on the pilot truck.
Please don’t argue with me, you can call TOC and argue with him.
Greg
Greg
Perhaps I can help with this. I helped with the design of the Bachmann C-19 and have quite a few operating on our Railroad. It is the the favorite locomotive or our operators.
I believe you have incorrect information and perhaps are referring to the outside frame 2-8-0 rather then the C-19. If you put a balance between the 2nd and 3rd driver of the 2-8-0 C-19 you will find that it is actually a little front heavy. The design of the pilot wheel allows for maximum movement so derailments of the pilot are rare.
I visited Kevin’s layout at the NNGC a few weeks ago (great layout by the way) and was intrigued by his use of spring turnouts. He was running his C-19 and it went through the turnouts flawlessly. His solution of increasing the tension of the spring is a good one. Myself it I were using spring switches I would use a slightly stronger spring rather then lengthening the existing spring but you can not argue with the success he has with his approach.
Hope that helps clarify the misconception raised on the C-19.
Stan
Yes, note my sentence, with the operative English word highlighted:
“My Bachmann expert indicates that many of these locos often come “ass heavy”, he will often put a stronger spring in the last driver, but this can be a long iterative process.”
Does not say always.
I know this is definitely common on the K, and the 2-8-0… so this is why the words MANY and OFTEN are put in the sentence, I am not indicating absolutes, or certainty.
So, if someone asked me for my advice, it would pretty much be like my first post, I would not want to add spring tension if it took weight off the front drivers.
ANY additional spring tension does that period. Is it enough to cause problems? Maybe. Is adding weight a safer approach since it does not affect the balance of the locomotive, logic would say so.
Now, IF the loco is front-heavy, and IF you add some more spring tension, and IF it does not significantly unload the front driver, it should work, of course you need to experiment a bit with the right tension.
So, for my money, I would try weight first. This is the best answer I would come up with for myself if I was in the situation per the OP.
I’m glad that Kevin came up with a solution that works for him. I have a habit of trying to put the easiest, most successful solution first, since so many people read the forum. A more fool proof solution so to speak.
So we have a couple of ways to go.
Greg
accidental duplicate post deleted
Greg Elmassian said:
Yes, note my sentence, with the operative English word highlighted:
“My Bachmann expert indicates that many of these locos often come “ass heavy”, he will often put a stronger spring in the last driver, but this can be a long iterative process.”
Does not say always.
I know this is definitely common on the K, and the 2-8-0… so this is why the words MANY and OFTEN are put in the sentence, I am not indicating absolutes, or certainty.
So, if someone asked me for my advice, it would pretty much be like my first post, I would not want to add spring tension if it took weight off the front drivers.
ANY additional spring tension does that period. Is it enough to cause problems? Maybe. Is adding weight a safer approach since it does not affect the balance of the locomotive, logic would say so.
Now, IF the loco is front-heavy, and IF you add some more spring tension, and IF it does not significantly unload the front driver, it should work, of course you need to experiment a bit with the right tension.
So, for my money, I would try weight first. This is the best answer I would come up with for myself if I was in the situation per the OP.
I’m glad that Kevin came up with a solution that works for him. I have a habit of trying to put the easiest, most successful solution first, since so many people read the forum. A more fool proof solution so to speak.
So we have a couple of ways to go.
Greg
Greg
I tend to go with first hand information. A criticism I have with second hand or third hand information is that it is often wrong. In this case others such as Chris have taken your emails as accurate information and question if there is a problem with this locomotive.
I would love to see actual first hand information that MANY of the C-19s as delivered by Bachmann are “ass heavy”. I do not believe this is the case and it certainty not the case with any of the 10 C-19s on our railroad. The C-19s are properly balanced as delivered. While I have put stronger springs or spacers on the rear drivers of other locomotive, this is totally unnecessary on the C19. If Dave has a problem with this locomotive I suggest he post his findings here so that other can figure out why he is having the problem.
You often post very useful and informative information. In this case I urge you to get you hands on a C-19 and experiment with it yourself as I believe what you are posting is not accurate information.
Kevin on the other hand has first hand information with how to successfully go through spring turnouts. I have personally observed this on his railroad and can testify that what he has reported does indeed work and work well. Is it the only way to solve the problem. Of course not. But it is an very simple solution that works well for the C-19.
Stan
I stand corrected, I defer to your better experience. The C-19 is not ass heavy.
And you are right, misleading information is not good.
But you did not have to post it twice ha ha!
(although I still maintain that in the larger world, adding weight is less “intrusive” to the balance of the loco, and this would be what I would try first. In this particular case it was easier for Kevin to increase the spring tension, but in many cases (and specifically a K27) increasing the spring tension takes more time and work than simply adding more weight to the pilot truck)
Greg
Greg and Stan,
In my case with the K27 I made no alterations to the pilot truck spring or the suspension springs. I only added weight to the front of the engine in the smoke box, moving the center of gravity of the locomotive forward. I did not do any sort of balance testing, the loco just now sits level on the rails. By moving the top pressure point on the pilot spring down, I merely increased pressure on the pilot truck using the Bachmann engineered spring.
I have recently acquired a C19 and based on a single outing am generally impressed. Pulling power was good, pulling seven mixed Bachmann Spectrum and AMS box cars and an AMS gondola, brought up by a Spectrum caboose. That was the limit of what she would pull out of the box on fairly level track, and I am not sure in excess of what she would pull prototypically. My loco sits level on the rails and I had no derailment issues with the pilot truck. Traversed both leading and trailing point switches in both through and diverging configurations.
Bob C.
I never noticed my K-27 to be heavy on the back end. Out of the box, it ran well on my railroad (though really testing my clearances and visually overpowering my siding) except the pilot didn’t like my spring switches. (At that time, all my switches had simple “V” or over-center springs on them.) I gave the spring a good stretch, put it back together, and didn’t think much more on it. I typically only run my K at shows on 10’+ radius curves. Running in that environment it performed very well. I never really noticed it leaning back on its hind haunches. It was only when I changed out the R/C gear for a new system, and ran it on my rails again that I noticed something amiss. The pilot truck worked great through my spring switches, but the front axle would hop the rails on my 5’ radius curves with the least provocation. That’s when I took a good look and realized it was leaning back.
I remembered discussions about the axle springs, so I inserted some spacer washers on the rear driver. That leveled the loco so it was no longer leaning back, but in checking it on my workbench, I realized that the front drivers had very little (if any) weight on them. The loco was essentially being supported by the rear drivers and the front pilot. I clipped just a bit off of the spring on the pilot, and that put more weight back on the front drivers, and the loco still sat level. Problem (apparently) solved. The pilot pushes through the points okay, and it stays on the rails on my curves. It’s still too bloody big for the railroad, mind you… Can’t do anything about that. The neighbors are thus far reluctant to grant me right-of-way.
Later,
K
Kevin, is your K a first run or second run unit? I learned when I was doing the upgrades to mine that it was a first run unit, but had already had the counterweights repaired. When I opened up the boiler, there were only the two weight stacks on either side with the smoke box area devoid of any additional weight. Ken Brunt posted a pic of his and he had additional weight in from of the screw post holding the boiler on. If yours has the additional weight that may account for the more balanced stance on the rails.
Bob C.
Mine is second-run; at least it came with the re-designed counterweights already attached. I don’t remember what is in the boiler for weights. When I overhauled its control system, I put a 2.5" speaker in the smokebox. I’m sure that doesn’t hurt balancing things forward a bit… My C-19 is scheduled for a control system overhaul this Winter as well, and will likewise receive a speaker in the smokebox.
Later,
K
