Disappointed

[firepa63]

I bought a DCC Sound-Equipped K4 4-6-2 Pacific (item number 84403) today and tried to run it on my small layout which uses Atlas True Track.  The engine kept derailing, so I returned it to the store where I bought it.  The sales person told me that I was the second person to say that there were problems trying to run the engine on track with integrated ballast.  Anyone have any thoughts?

[Atlantic Central]

Your curves may be too sharp. i do not know what the recommended radius is for that loco, but 18 or 22 is very sharp for such a loco.

Sheldon

[firepa63]

You're probably right about the radius.  Mine is 18".  However, I'm sure I read somewhere that the loco was supposed to be able to handle the 18" radius.

[r0bert]

just curious, did you remove the foam pads from between the lead / trailing trucks and the body? it's the same color as the loco, it caused me all kinds of grief, and I felt really dumb when I discovered it was the source of all my troubles. 

[SteamGene]

Mr. B - please tell Mr. Riley to include "Remove packing foam from locomotive wheels and trucks" and/or make them shocking pink, not locomotive black.
They are:
1.  unusual
2.  invisible.
Thanks, 
Gene

[firepa63]

There were no foam packing pads.

[SteamGene]

Okay, what derails?  Pony trucks?  Drivers? Trailing trucks?  tender?
Gene

[firepa63]

Pony trucks going forward and the trailing trucks in reverse.  In all cases it was coming out of a curve.

[Chesticus]

I don't think that 22' radius is too tight for your loco. I have had cerailment problems with the truck on the front of my N&W 4-8-4 going into and coming out of a curve on an 18 radius. It is fine on a 22'. But i have had other Bachmann engines of the same configuration run just fine on all of my track.

The best part is that you were able to take yours back. Mine was a gift. There need to be more of a conserted effort by some of the companies to give info on the box for people looking to by these engines so they will know if it supposed to go around the track or not.

Personally, I think some of these trucks have some problems.

Chesticus

[SteamGene]

Check the gauge; remove any springs you can. 
Gene

[Yampa Bob]

The sides of joints need to be as smooth as the tops, especially on curves. Run a fingernail along the sides, if a joint catches your nail, it will also catch the wheel flange.

Usually there is no weight or down pressure on the trucks, they are free to bounce up and down at every imperfection. 

Two wheel trucks: Pony derails forward, trailing derails reverse.  Why? The pivot point is always behind the truck. The truck wants to turn around so that the pivot is in front, like a "crazy" wheel on equipment.  A poor joint helps it to do what it wants to do naturally.  A little weight on the truck might help.  I agree with Gene about the springs.  On my Connies I removed the spring and added a small block to limit the vertical movement a bit so the flange can't climb over the rail. 

Four wheel trucks derailing:  Probably bad joints as mentioned above or a binding spring.  I have not used Tru Track, but I have found that some integrated road bed track is sometimes out of gauge at the ends, it takes some sidewise forcing to join them.  I had to file some joints on the sides to stop similar derails.

Yampa Bob

[firepa63]

Bob, you are probably correct.  Since I returned the loco to the dealer, I can't really check to see if filing will correct the problem.  Diesel engines have no problems running on the track, but of course they don't have trucks with no weight on them.  Since I want to change over to steam, I think I am going to start over with new benchwork and go to flex track.

[Atlantic Central]

And remember more's law -

If some is good, more is better and too much is still not enough.

Apply that in choosing the radius for your curves and you will do well. Bigger is ALWAYS better.

On my layout the minimum is 36" radius and most of that is hidden. Most visable mailine curves are over 42" radius.

Saw a great modular layout at the train show last weekend, 80" radius curves  - looked great!

Just remember, scaled down to HO even an EMD F unit would require about a 40" radius - so most of what we run on is SERIOUSLY compressed. The hobby would be greatly served if set manufacturers started including 22" or larger curves with their sets so that new people get the idea right away, especially with all this big steam power on the market!

Idealy, a industry minimum of 24 or 28 would do wonders for the frustration level of many new people, but it would require a different thinging from the 4x8 "platform".

Sheldon

[SteamGene]

The best instrument to find track problems is a long wheel base steam locomotive. 
Gene

[japasha]

I agree with Gene on the last. I think the magazines should dump  the 4' x 8' platfoprm for a set of modules that would be sized to fit in an average room, say 2' x 4' long with corners that have a minimum of 36 inch radius. I have a set I boult and it occupies an area of 6.5 " x 9.5 '. Large for some people but can be fit into an average room pretty easily.

4' x 8' was done in the late 40s and 50s because it was there was that handy piece of plywood available. Even with that, 22 inch radius will fit on a piece of plywood easily. I'm using modles these days to save space, I assemble them for my HO layout when I have that urge. Same with my On3 modules.  There may be an Sn3 set of modules soon. Modules allow me to play and still have a large On30 layout.

Disappointed, Take some time to look at your track. If there appeares to be a problem, fix it. If you aren't sure aboput your K4, find a frined with a layout and try it there. If it runs normally, get back and fix your layout. All of us have the same problem at one time or another.