Light weight and traction issues.

[Delboy]

I have some self adhesive lead strip and intend to use it in my rolling stock. I am not to sure I would risk it underneath them in case they came off and caused a short.

[ntpntpntp]

I am not to sure I would risk [lead strip] underneath them in case they came off and caused a short.

Paint the lead - you wouldn't want shiny metal showing anyway - that'll help insulate it in the rare event it did fall off.     

[Old Crow]

Yes! Think I'm going to go down the road of adding a little weight disguised below; I do think those coaches are very light indeed. But have you more experienced guys had good results with them?  Admittedly I'm just testing at present with some set-track with 10.5" curves and a couple of points. Come over the points at speed and everybody dies! I also note the world needs to be very flat and stable.

In the planning stage at present with 8ft by 2ft 9" surface up in the loft; should be able to get nice long straights and reasonable curves with flexitrack.
Regarding points. Since I'm running passenger expresses to Glasgow, would you recommend the gentlest, widest radius turnouts and streamline rather than set-track?

[Newportnobby]

Since I'm running passenger expresses to Glasgow, would you recommend the gentlest, widest radius turnouts and streamline rather than set-track?

Simple answer from me is "Yes!"
Use the largest point on the scenic sections and small ones in the fiddle yard if you have one.
I use code 55 electrofrogs throughout. The small ones, being 12" radius curve, get used in the fiddle yard and branch line and large ones for the scenic main running ovals.

[daveg]

Regarding points. Since I'm running passenger expresses to Glasgow, would you recommend the gentlest, widest radius turnouts and streamline rather than set-track?

Most definitely!

Dave G

[ntpntpntp]

Since I'm running passenger expresses to Glasgow, would you recommend the gentlest, widest radius turnouts and streamline rather than set-track?

Absolutely!

It's one of the basic "rules" of railway modelling: always use the widest curves and longest points that you can accommodate on your layout.  Trains will always run better.

[PLD]

If they're the ones I'm thinking of, the wheel profile is horrid with no transition from tread to flange... Adding weight may help, but as you say it's compensation for rather than addressing the root cause which isn't simply lack of weight...

Adding weight does help. That's a fact. The other option is to have them virtually unusable. The wheel size is a compromise for the scale. So it's not a fallacy at all. Pretty weird stance actually. I assume you take any weights out of stock to make them easier to haul?

No, I leave them as they are - don't add anything, don't subtract anything - what's so weird about that ? 

As YOU said and I AGREED with, it's compensating for and not addressing the root cause of poorly profiled wheels or badly laid track.
Quite weird that you call me weird for agreeing with you... 

I get the track right and replace wheels where necessary...

[njee20]

But it does resolve the symptom, so it's by no means a fallacy that adding weight helps. Which were your words.

There are also examples, like that I gave of the Megafrets, where the design is the cause,  more so than track laying. Even on other stock, adding weight is generally easier than relaying track or redesigning a layout.

As for removing weight, I just thought that if you think adding weight serves only to limit the hauling power, surely you'd try and make stock as light as possible? Some stock is much lighter than others as we've don't adopt NMRA guidelines, so it's weird to dismiss adding weight, yet fully accept the wild variations in stock weight. Didn't say you were weird, that's just a weird, and contradictory stance IMO.

Regarding points. Since I'm running passenger expresses to Glasgow, would you recommend the gentlest, widest radius turnouts and streamline rather than set-track?

As others have said I think you should always go for the most gentle radius you can. Model points are vastly compressed, and even large radius are much tighter than anything you'd find on a main line in the UK.

[Dr Al]

No, I leave them as they are - don't add anything, don't subtract anything - what's so weird about that ? 

As YOU said and I AGREED with, it's compensating for and not addressing the root cause of poorly profiled wheels or badly laid track.
Quite weird that you call me weird for agreeing with you... 

I get the track right and replace wheels where necessary...

I would strongly agree with PLD - don't add weight to anything RTR - it's almost always a poor solution to any actual problem, usually rooted in the trackwork. Moreso, it just gives your locos harder work to do which isn't desirable for mechanisms and motors. Indeed, Farish when produced in England used to explicitly warn against this in their included guarantee cards.

Any time I get a piece of RTR stock secondhand with weight added that weight immediately gets removed and binned.

The only exceptions are plastic kitbuilt wagons or coaches which tend to be *very* light - but any weighting added is only to bring up to the weight of an equivalently sized RTR model.

Cheers,
Alan

[Delboy]

Quote from Dr Al,

I would strongly agree with PLD - don't add weight to anything RTR - it's almost always a poor solution to any actual problem, usually rooted in the trackwork.

So what is your solution to my "non-trackwork routed" coupling problem with a brand new set of 3 x RTR Farish wagons that I mentioned earlier as I do not want to mess with the coupling springs as was suggested by DLP. Especially as I am told, in a later post by another forum member, that the DLP solution is not correct and would in fact result in stiffer springs.
Please advise.
Dennis.

[Dr Al]

So what is your solution to my "non-trackwork routed" coupling problem with a brand new set of 3 x RTR Farish wagons that I mentioned earlier as I do not want to mess with the coupling springs as was suggested by DLP. Especially as I am told, in a later post by another forum member, that the DLP solution is not correct and would in fact result in stiffer springs.

If you're not willing to adjust coupler springs then that's hardly helpful, as cutting down their length to reduce their spring constant would be the obvious thing I'd first do....

Cheers,
Alan

[Dr Al]

But you could replace the couplers with Peco Elsies, that don't have springs.

Cheers,
Alan

[Delboy]

Thanks for the advice Dr Al,
It just seems sad that anyone should need to mess with fresh "out of the box" wagons in order for them to function properly.
Dennis.

[JanW]

The answer to that is quiet simple: it's a matter of choice and the manufacturer made this choice for you.
If you just run the coaches behind the loco and watch the trains go by you will be very pleased with the couplings as they are. I suppose the majority of buyers will expect this behaviour.
When the spring tension is reduced the chance of unwanted uncoupling increases and the loco can loose its train on a bad track section.
Difficult coupling/shunting is not only the case with n gauge couplings but also with some close coupling systems in the larger scales.
It seems there is still no coulping system that fulfills the needs of all modellers.....

Jan

[Steven B]

There's nothing wrong with light stock if the wheels and track-work are up to it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4P4YBdrM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs57P-C2q_8

If you can't couple up to stock without it moving then I'd be looking at modifying the coupling (the spring modification already mentioned, or replacing it) rather than adding weight.


Steven B.