problems with Bachmann products ON 30

[william webb]

I have 2 problems as stated above, 1. A forney 2-4-4 that will not stay on the rails especailly going in reverse over switches, my track is not perfect , I noticed the trucks under the bunker is so loose it flops all over the place evn to put it back on the rails, very frustrating,
2. A pulpwood car with load, when I received it one set of wheels  had fallen out of the truck frame so I put it back  but noticed the one truck screw is stripped  and will not tighten down so the truck is very loose and will not run properly in other words it derails even on stright track.

I would appreciate your reply.

Thanks

William Webb

[Bucksco]

Your best bet is to contact the Bachmann service department and ask for the service manager
http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/service_2010.php

[railtwister]

William,

The Forney can be a problem on snap-track switches due to the fact that they use a sharper curve (18" radius) than even a #4 turnout. The first thing you can easily do at home is to be sure the wheels a in gauge using an NMRA check-gauge. Another thing is to see if the truck is jamming against it's limits as it tries to negotiate the turnout. If there is no obvious interference causing the problem, try adding some weight to the truck if you can. You might also try different turnouts if you can fit them into your trackplan, I use Peco Oe (On30) Wye turnouts on my modules, and my Forney goes through them fine with no modifications needed. I also use no less that 22" minimum radius curves, which for the Forney's geometry are pretty tight, but it seems to work. I wouldn't recommend any less than 22" curves. You say your track is not the best, so be sure the problem isn't being caused by the track before you blame the loco.

As for the pulpwood car, you might be able to fix the screw hole by gluing a piece of styrene rod into the stripped hole using a good solvent glue (do NOT use super glue, it will dry to hard for the screw to cut it's threads into), then after letting it dry thoroughly for several days, carefully re-drill the hole to the proper tap size for the screw using a pin-vise, and re-thread the screw into the hole. An alternate method would be removing the frame from the car and gluing in a piece of styrene plastic into the back of the frame that can be drilled for the screw. You will then need to remove the stripped out boss from the floor of the car so the modified frame will fit back onto the car. With the second method, you may need to lightly glue the frame to the car bottom since the screw will no longer hold the frame onto the car, it will only be holding the truck to the frame.

Also, be sure your all of your car's trucks roll freely, are also in gauge, and haven't lost any of the little inserts in the sideframes that represent the springs/bolster stabilizers, there should be one pressed into each side-frame.

Good luck,
Bill in FtL

[Tomcat]

William,

as Bill said, the Forney Engines are very picky on track. They can´t take sharp curves and can cause derailments to the trailing cars due to the big overhang. This can be fixed, but is a bit of work. As Bill mentioned, this is my recommendation too: try to put some weight to the trailing truck (not into the tender body, the weight needs to be on the truck. If possible, try to get some very thin lead or something you can glue underneath the truck. There is not much space and please be extra careful as you don´t want to have a electric short here...

If this doesn´t help: why not make a nice little tender engine out of the Forney. The Backwoods Miniatures folks have a wonderful conversion kit for it and this will make the Forney take sharper curves.

Kind regards, Tom

[Artfull Dodger]

I second the Backwoods Miniatures kit for the Forney.  Really transforms the engine.  MIke

[railtwister]

As I have said, I have a couple of Forneys (with sound) that I really love, and are great runners, even on 22" radius curves, but unfortunately, I have given up on trying to operate them on the modules due to their constantly coming uncoupled because their couplers swing so much vertically when crossing the module joints, they come completely out of the knuckles of the cars that are being pulled. This is a big disappointment for me, since I run all my On30 on modules at shows, where less than perfect alignment of tracks at the module interfaces are a reality. This uncoupling happens even after the modules are very carefully aligned and leveled at home (more than would likely be possible at a show) so that any vertical changes in the track are not obvious to the eye. The Forneys run fine by themselves, but simply can't stay coupled to any cars. Perhaps if the knuckles of the couplers were deeper, it wouldn't be such a problem, but the OEM HO couplers just don't allow for that much vertical travel.

I know that bashing the Forneys into tender types would eliminate this problem (at least for the tender coupler), but I really want to keep them as Forneys reminiscent of the Maine two-footers. I really wish I had the room for a permanent home layout where I could tweak the track work to perfection so that I could operate the Forneys without suffering these uncoupling problems.

Bill in FtL

[JohnR]

Bill -

Foothill Models has a knuckle extender that is compatible with kadee couplers. 

-John

[railtwister]

Bill -

Foothill Models has a knuckle extender that is compatible with kadee couplers. 

-John

Thanks John,

I had thought of trying that, as well as possibly switching to Kadee On3/S scale couplers. Also, the P2k knuckle couplers are supposed to be bigger than Kadee, but I'm not sure if they could be enough bigger to make any difference. Problem is, I'm not real anxious to start grinding off the coupler boxes on all my Bachmann cars to mount different couplers...

Bill in FtL

Bill

[railexpert]

Hi,

This Forney couplers are an old problem. There are made alredy many topics for the Forney rear coupler. Go to "search" on top of this page an search for "Forney rear coupler" or "Forney derail" or "Forney coupler". You will find a lot of answers for a solution of this problem.

See also http://www.freerails.com/view_topic.php?id=985&forum_id=6

Railexpert

[railtwister]

Hi,

This Forney couplers are an old problem. There are made already many topics for the Forney rear coupler. Go to "search" on top of this page an search for "Forney rear coupler" or "Forney derail" or "Forney coupler". You will find a lot of answers for a solution of this problem.

See also http://www.freerails.com/view_topic.php?id=985&forum_id=6

Railexpert

I think you have misunderstood the problem, which is not about horizontal swing (left-right) or track radius, but is about the vertical swing (up & down) caused by the long rigid frame moment (distance from the coupler to the drivers) which causes loss of coupling when the loco coupler slides vertically up or down due to otherwise almost imperceptible changes in track elevation at the interface joints between the modules. The uncoupling occurs even on straight track across the interface of modules closely aligned with pins and close fitting holes. It is worse with the rear coupler, but still can occur on the front coupler as well. Small problems at interface joints on modules are an unfortunate fact of life, and the coupler-wheel geometry of the Forney is what it is. Short of installing a dedicated car behind the Forney connected with a draw-bar which allows for greater vertical travel (like most tenders use), I'm having a hard time finding a simple & easy solution.

Bill in FtL

Bill in FtL

[Royce Wilson]

The Forney is just a 4-4-0 running backwards so there is a radius problem.I remember when we were begging Bachman to give us a Baldwin 8-18C 4-4-0 and all we got was that these engines could not take a 18" radius. So why would you purchase a Forney for a small layout?

Royce

[Royce Wilson]

I meant to add that this is a beautiful engine and thanks to Bachmann for producing it.

Royce

[Artfull Dodger]

I agree with Royce, beautifull engine but not the choice if you have rough track work and tight curves.  The 2-6-0 Mogul, 0-4-0/0-4-2 Porter, or one of the geared enignes would have been a better choice.  Even possible the BLI C16 2-8-0 might have been better suited.  I will test that engine on my tight curves soon, I have a second hand #278 flying Rio Grande in layaway at the LHS.  Have to say the forney's details rival brass models that are out there. Cheers   Mike

[railtwister]

The Forney is just a 4-4-0 running backwards so there is a radius problem.I remember when we were begging Bachman to give us a Baldwin 8-18C 4-4-0 and all we got was that these engines could not take a 18" radius. So why would you purchase a Forney for a small layout?

Royce

Royce,

Do you read all of a post before making a comment? If so, you must have missed where I said the problem does not concern radius at all, it is caused by vertical motion of the coupler across module joints, even on straight track, and is a coupling issue only due to the exaggerated amount of vertical travel of the undersized HO knuckles that causes one of them to rise or fall out of the others grip. Again, I will repeat, IT IS NOT A RADIUS PROBLEM WHEN IT OCCURS ON STRAIGHT TRACK!

Unfortunately, there is always likely to be slight alignment problems between module interfaces, especially when the modules are built by several different people. My own modules were built with accurately drilled bolt holes that were lined with brass tubing epoxied into place for precise alignment of the bolts, and this was done before the basswood roadbed (not cork or foam) and track was installed. Even though I take a lot of care setting up and leveling my modules to the point where any elevation changes are all but imperceptible to the naked eye when sighting down the rails, they are still enough to cause uncoupling (note: I did not say derailments) as the train moves down the track. 

To answer your question as to WHY I would choose the Forney, it's hard to avoid a Forney if you love the Maine Two Footers.

Bill in FtL

[railtwister]

I agree with Royce, beautifull engine but not the choice if you have rough track work and tight curves.  The 2-6-0 Mogul, 0-4-0/0-4-2 Porter, or one of the geared enignes would have been a better choice.  Even possible the BLI C16 2-8-0 might have been better suited.  I will test that engine on my tight curves soon, I have a second hand #278 flying Rio Grande in layaway at the LHS.  Have to say the forney's details rival brass models that are out there. Cheers   Mike

Hi Mike,

Why is it everyone assumes that all problems are caused by curve radius? My track work is better than most, but the very nature of dealing with modular layouts is that it is almost impossible for everything to be absolutely perfect across module joints, especially when the modules are built by many different members with varying degrees of skill at both carpentry and track laying.

As I have stated twice previously, the problem in this particular case is not the radius of any curves, since it occurs on straight track. The problem is less obvious on locos that have tenders, because the distance from the last supporting truck to the coupler (aka moment) on a tender is so much less than it is on the Forney, and it's this "moment" that amplifies any slight vertical shift at the railhead into excessive coupler movement. The 2-6-0 or 4-4-0 (especially the OF version) running in reverse pulling a car with the coupler on it's pilot during switching moves may approach having the same problem, but at least that scenario is less common than just trying to pull a few cars in the conventional manner.

Regarding other locos, I would love to see an upgraded 2-6-0 with all wheel pickup, DCC and Sound. Until then, they aren't suitable for modules, mostly due to pickup issues at turnouts, and equipping an existing one with sound and DCC will exceed the value of the loco.

I have both of the Porters (the 0-4-0 and the 0-4-2), as well as a couple of Gas Mechanicals, and while I like them a lot, they also have limited power & pick up capability for venturing out on the mainline and onto other modules.

As for the Bachmann geared engines, I have both a couple of Shays and also a Climax, and they would be great if their gears didn't split before getting from one end of the layout to the other. They're also pretty much strictly logging locos, rather than being suitable for freight or passenger service.  As it is, they do make nice looking locos sitting on the out of service/repair track.

The BLI C-16 has it's own tracking faults, in addition to a non-working front coupler and general lack of fine detail, that makes it less desirable for use on modules.

Surprisingly, I have found that for use on the modules, my Bachmann 2-6-6-2 articulated and BLI Goose seem to be among the most reliable runners. The Bachmann inside frame 4-4-0, and the Baldwin 4-6-0, also work pretty well, but the 4-4-0 seems too small, and the 4-6-0 seems to big (the Goldilocks syndrome). Personally, I think one of the SR&RL 2-6-2 tender locos would be "just right".

Bill in FtL