| Author |
 Topic  |
|
mcevoyi
Brakeman
United Kingdom
|
|
|
bud
Foreman
USA
|
 Posted - 15 Aug 2004 : 10:18:53
|
Had the same problem, first thing I did was re level my track especially eliminating any humps.
I just made a flat lead weight the shape of the floorboard and glued it in the cab.
I also added weight inside the front of the front truck to keep it from spinning.shaped the weight to fit in the cavity.
You are right, the rear is very light and needs weight.
The front truck gets no weight from the frame and also needs weight.
Runs much smoother now and all wheels pull evenly even in reverse up a grade.
Bud |
Bud Steinhoff
 |
|
|
|
Art
Engineer
1st Class Member
USA
|
Posted - 15 Aug 2004 : 10:43:12
|
Leveling the track will help, but also look at the frogs in your turnouts. I have to mill most of mine or the consist looks like it is on as seesaw when going over them.
Art |
|
|
|
pipelion
Conductor
USA
|
Posted - 15 Aug 2004 : 12:23:46
|
Iain,
The Challenger's extreme lenght exagerates the track's surface. Any ridgid two and a half foot tube cannot conform to humps or dips shorter than itself. One of my test track tables has a slight sag in it. Even my F units show the flucuating track surface. I've yet to experiment with wieghts.
Allan |
1:32 1:29 What ever it takes.
Edited by - pipelion on 17 Aug 2004 13:41:52 |
|
|
|
|
mcevoyi
Brakeman
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 16 Aug 2004 : 13:46:34
|
| thanks everyone for the advise i have been looking at the track to level it .... and i amabout to remove the body from the chassis to add weight ...GULP ... and just to upset my bank manager ,,,just ordered the Bigboy !!!!!! i wounder if mth are mad enough to produce the dd40??? HMMMMMMM !!! |
iain
|
|
|
|
RAK
Brakeman
USA
|
Posted - 16 Aug 2004 : 17:51:54
|
mcevoyi,
If it means anything to you, the large O gauge articulateds, from any of the manufacturers, do this also. They are diecast and very heavy for their size (small compared to what you are running). I agree completely with Allan's (Pipelion's) observations regarding the length of the boiler and how it exagerates variations in the track/roadbed, switch points, etc.
As for a DD40AX, MTH did it in O gauge-if they feel they will sell enough of them, they will probably do it. |
Edited by - RAK on 16 Aug 2004 22:03:37 |
|
|
|
|
Rayman4449
Engineer
USA
|
Posted - 16 Aug 2004 : 21:48:11
|
That's funny, I was just wondering about the DD40 myself today. We can only hope.
As far as the seesawing, I experience/experienced the same thing. Everyone is correct, leveling the track will be the best you can do for it. It has to be pretty smooth to minimize the bouncing. Good luck.
|
Need a Non-MTH engine equipped with DCS Protosound 2? I can help.
 Raymond - Gardner, KS
http://www.rayman4449.dynip.com
Edited by - Rayman4449 on 17 Aug 2004 07:32:27 |
|
|
|
|
Chucks_Trains
Conductor
1st Class Member
USA
|
Posted - 17 Aug 2004 : 07:12:40
|
mcevoyi, You have plenty of time to save up for a Big Boy as they aren't scheduled to ship until Aug. of 2005. With a few delays it'll be xmas of 2005. But that's okay by me.
MTH's first issue O Scale Challenger was really bad at seesawing.
Lionels JLC Challenger was very bad at seesawing also but everybody turned their head to it..Why I don't know. I spent alot of time trying to correct the Lionel JLC Challenger of this problem and finally gave up and sold it. I don't know why the engineers design these locos with this inherent flaw esp. with no weight on the lead drivers. It needs a spring between the boiler and front driver set I think. Weights under the cab deck would help also. |
|
|
|
RAK
Brakeman
USA
|
Posted - 17 Aug 2004 : 08:53:31
|
Chuck,
If you watch a Railking (O gauge) Big Boy run over uneven track, you will immediately notice the lack of bouncing. This is due to the fact that the two "engines" under the boiler are really mounted like trucks-each is mounted in such a way that it pivots independently under the boiler.
The scale offerings are intended to be much more realistic, with the boiler mounted rigidly to the rear engine, and the rear of the front engine is hinged to the front of the rear one. Anything less would not be accepted for a model of this price.
If a real Big Boy or Challenger had to deal with the fluctuations in track, roadbed, switch frogs, etc. that our little ones have to face, they would provide a very rough ride for the engineer! |
|
|
|
|
pipelion
Conductor
USA
|
Posted - 17 Aug 2004 : 13:47:17
|
Hello track gang,
My Challenger's front driver assembly doesn't have a spring where it connects to the boiler. Does anyone have one? And does anyone know if it's supposed to.
Thanks,
Allan |
1:32 1:29 What ever it takes.
Edited by - pipelion on 17 Aug 2004 13:54:10 |
|
|
|
|
pipelion
Conductor
USA
|
Posted - 17 Aug 2004 : 13:53:31
|
Speaking of DD40s.
On a trip to California once, while driving through Nevada, I came across at least 30 to 50 DD35's and DD40s parked out in the desert, maybe more. They were in storage or on thier way to the bone yards.
The widows were covered with paper (no UV ). I walked around them for a long time. It was quite a sight. Being a commercial
photographer, I did my duty and commited the entire experiance to memory. Sorry no pics.
Allan |
1:32 1:29 What ever it takes.
|
|
|
|
pipelion
Conductor
USA
|
Posted - 17 Aug 2004 : 13:55:54
|
Chuck,
Big Boys in a year! Cool!
Allan |
1:32 1:29 What ever it takes.
|
|
|
|
Chucks_Trains
Conductor
1st Class Member
USA
|
Posted - 18 Aug 2004 : 06:26:28
|
RAK,
Here's the builders data (ALCO) for the U.P.'s 3950-3969 series 3 Challengers.
Weight of total engine...627,000 lbs.
Weight on drivers...404,000 lbs.
Roughly 2/3rds. of the engine weight was on both drivers, not just the rear drivers. The front engine wasn't just slung under the boiler to go along for the ride.
Lionels JLC Challenger had a spring under the boiler and the front engine to help put some weight to the front engine. Stiffer springs helped take some seesawing out of those locos but the drivers were sprung which really compouded the problem.That's why I say that Lionels JLC Challenger is a shelf queen.
These MTH #1 Gauge Challengers are truley a masterpiece and I have lots of respect for MTH. Those folks did an outstanding job with these Challengers and in fact I'm seriousley considering buying the grey version. I just like to tweek and tinker with trains and I'm going to open mine up to see if there is any way to transfer more engine weight to the front driver set.
|
|
|
|
Rayman4449
Engineer
USA
|
Posted - 18 Aug 2004 : 06:37:28
|
| Chuck, if you figure out a good way to transfer more weight to the front, let us know. Thanks. |
Need a Non-MTH engine equipped with DCS Protosound 2? I can help.
Raymond - Gardner, KS
http://www.rayman4449.dynip.com
|
|
|
|
RAK
Brakeman
USA
|
Posted - 18 Aug 2004 : 09:09:05
|
Chuck,
I was not suggesting that the front engine on the real one did not support a large percentage of the weight, only that, for a model with this detail and in this price range, it would not be acceptable to do a "RailKing O Gauge" type of solution (i.e. the boiler had to be rigidly mounted to the rear engine), which does completely eliminate the issue. It was done there to get a Big Boy which would go around 031 curves. I have both the the RailKing and scale versions of the BigBoy so I am able to observe the differences in how they track.
I am sorry, I did not mean to come off "heavy handed" in my comments. |
|
|
|
|
Rayman4449
Engineer
USA
|
Posted - 22 Aug 2004 : 15:38:00
|
| Bud, can you explain in a little more detail, where in the front truck you were able to add weight? I want to do this in addition to what I've done so far in my very latest post yesterday. Thanks! |
Need a Non-MTH engine equipped with DCS Protosound 2? I can help.
Raymond - Gardner, KS
http://www.rayman4449.dynip.com
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
All Forums
Forums
challenger bounceing along the rails
Forum Locked
Printer Friendly