Bachmann Locos and ME Turnouts

[ScottyB]

I just installed the first few Micro Engineering code 83 On30 turnouts on my layout and am having problems with my Bachmann locos running through them.  The shay and climax go through okay for the most part, although there is a very very slight "bump" as they go over the frogs - nothing I was too worried about.

But running the 2-8-0 through them, the first and fourth drivers do a distinctive "bump" over the frog - very noticeable.  So I figured a flangeway problem.  I checked everything with my NMRA gauge - wheels, flanges, track width, frog spacing, and the flangeways - all checks out just fine.  Took a dremel to the flangeways and took a considerable amount of metal away - the "bump" declined somewhat, but is still definitely there on the first and fourth drivers.

What am I missing???  For the amount of work it took to get one turnout somewhat reasonable (but not perfect), I am a bit frustrated.

Like I said, everything checks out with the NMRA gauge, so I'm not sure where to go next.  (Yeah, I know - hand lay... )

Thanks,
Scott

[hminky]

My 2-8-0's always bumped in Atlas Code 83 #4 turnouts because of the long wheelbase. The more "liberal" standards in the Atlas code 100's didn't have the bump.

They are a really large loco.

Harold

[ScottyB]

Thanks Harold - (I've loved all the sites over the years, btw).

After using a fresh, mint, out of the box turnout, it seems the 2-8-0 is the only loco that "bumps".  I have no fear of it derailing or anything like that, just seems it should go through a little nicer.  The lead truck I found was very slightly narrow (not that it is causing the bump) so I fixed that, but the drivers check out just fine.

I have a few FS turnouts I built when I thought I might hand lay (turns out I have better things to do with my time), so I'll run it through that - if it is a significant enough improvement, I may just hand lay the turnouts.  Wonder how hard it is to match the ME flex though...

Otherwise it seems the bump is something I can live with.

Scott

[hminky]

The 2-8-0's fared worse on my hand-laid track in code 83. They really clunked on the code 55 HO track with Atlas equivalent geometry and close NMRA clearances when I had that laid down for my HO 1905 project. They need at least a #6 and 22+ radii or they get cranky and the front coupler has problems with cars on the S curves.

That is why I was expanding the width of the layout for On30, the 2-8-0's are so large. Now I am going back to the 4 foot width width with 55n3.

Harold

[NarrowMinded]

Harald, Aren't you using the same loco's for your Scale 55 as you did for On30? how does changing the scale help you with the radius if this is the case?

Just curious

NM

[hminky]

No, the only locomotive suitable for 55n3 is the small inside framed 4-4-0. It is really small for a Scale48 locomotive.  All the other locomotives are too large.



The Bachmann 55n3 4-4-0 with a lowered Bachmann On30 boxcar and a Scale55 man. Sure looks like this:



A comparison of scales:



Figues are: HO, OO, S , Scale55, and American O. The track is HO gauge which represents correct three foot in Scale55 and PSC On3.

Visit our 55n3 site at:

http://www.55n3.org/

Thanks if you visit
Harold

Oh yeah, there is no such thing as "scale". An object is only what it measures.