I think I have hit a big obstacle with the development of my layout. The trains look like they are moving well until they get to the ramp on the layout. The cars in back of the engines keep uncoupling at the ramp. I am not sure if its the ramp or the couplers. I am using rapido style couplers. I am pretty sure that it's fine when I use just one car in back of the engine. It's when I add multiples that the uncoupling occurs. I will do some more test tonight see pictures below of ramp TOP BOTTOM BOTTOM
If that's not an optical illusion - you really need to work on that change in grade at the end of the girder bridge. Your solid piece of wood there on the left needs to be tapered down so that the change in grade (particularly at the plate girder bridge) is much less abrupt. Sharp changes in grade like that will also plague you with MT couplers, longer-wheelbase steam locomotives, most passenger cars, and anything with a frame-mounted coupler. You're now at a good time to work on these issues, and it will be well worth the time to make the grade changes much more gradual.
The pitch from the bridge to the top of the wood it too steep.That needs to be much more gradual than what it is.Once you get that fixed you ought to be doing great.Also nice job on the layout.
The camera angle could be playing tricks on these old eyes, but that appears to be a short, steep grade. Grades add resistance to the trailing load, and can cause disconnects by themselves, but the most common cause of disconnects is vertical kinks in the trackwork at the top and bottom of a grade. Just like a train can take a pretty sharp curve left or right if there is a short easement section of wider radius leading into it, the beginning and end of a grade need to be flared out, too. The worst case scenario with sectional track is to start or end a grade at a track joint. You can also start your grade a section sooner and end it a section later, and make the first and last elevation increments a quarter inch, and see if that helps smooth things out. Rapido couplers can give very reliable operation. I used them from 1965 until 1998. I posted a list of Rapido secrets a while back, and you might be able to find that with the TB search. To summarize: Although they look the same, some brands of Rapido couplers are hopelessly incompatible. The Model Power, Bachmann, LifeLike and MDC Rapidos that come on their freight cars are some of the worst. Some of the Con-Cor Rapidos are pretty bad, too. Some have springs that are too stiff, while others are just plain "floppy". The Rapidos on Atlas, MDC and LifeLike locomotives are pretty good compared to what comes on some of the cars. Adding weight to the cars can help Rapido coupler performance. If the wheels are not tracking true, the couplers move around, up and down, and can disconnect. Anything that improves tracking will usually improve Rapido coupler performance. The NMRA recommended practice for car weight is RP20.1. click for RP 20.1 RP 20.1 presumes that all cars are weighted consistently, and that our trackwork is something less than "silky, smooth as glass". The rougher the trackwork, the greater advantage a car weighted according to NMRA RP20.1 will have. I switched all my equipment over to Microtrains trucks and couplers between 1998 and 2001, but I still use RP20.1 weighting since I run on a lumpy, bumpy NTrak layout most of the time. I have a friend in the NTrak club who is using this method with Rapidos, and he routinely pulls a heavy unit coal train of around 50 Atlas 90T hoppers equiped with Rapidos, and disconnects in that train are rare. I hope this information is helpful. Post again if you have additional questions. Looks like you are making great progress with your layout, BTW. You are a lot further along with yours than I am with mine....... [ September 22, 2005, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: LongTrain ]
OK- Please ignore suggestions in my mail to you earlier today. It is now apparent what the problem is. You have a severe vertical kink at your rail joiners - certainly on the left side of the bridge, and possibly on the right side, as well. The Rapidos and other couplers will detach from one another when going over the kink. 1. Release the screws holding down the corner and one or two towards the bridge by 1/2" or more at the corner, and possibly more toward the bridge. You will need to get the same screws with a longer length to accomplish this. 2. AFTER you do that and run test trains, Plane down the long strip of wood to get rid of whatever kink is remaining. It will make the grade up to the top a bit steeper, but it is spread over a much longer distance. I will post below when wife returns camera in a few minutes. [ September 22, 2005, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Fotheringill ]
Above- No kinks- I can not give you a long shot of the ramp since I have attached a guard edge made from bottom molding in case of derailment and plunge into canyon below. Above- complete release of retaining screws closest to bridge (on the low side) Note the gap- Trust me, it will not cause instability. Above- after release of screws to even things out a bit on the left side, use a good, old fashioned plane and plane down the slope. It will still have to be pretty much dead even smooth on the long ramp with a bit of an increased angle, but it will eliminate the vertical kink in the track. THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE AN EASY PROCESS AND MAY TAKE SEVERAL HOURS OF TRIAL AND ERROR TO CORRECT THE ERROR IN THE ATLAS BOOK. I, TOO, HAD THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM. MAKE SURE YOU ARE EVEN ON ALL PLANES WHEN YOU SHAVE DOWN THE RAMP, OTHERWIS, YOUR TRAINS WILL TIP OFF THE LAYOUT.
If you smooth out that vertical transition, as the above posters have recommended, I think you'll find your problems fixed. That vertical kink was just too much for any coupler. Vertical kink problems can spring up just about anywhere. We probably don't pay enough attention to them, as we're more concerned with minimum radius and maximum grades.
Everyone thanks for replying. Last night I actually had up to 8 cars working but now I realize that some adjustments need to be made. It is very kinky at that part. Mark I noticed you have tracks coming together inside the bridge. I will try that. It should help on fixing the kink. [ September 23, 2005, 08:11 AM: Message edited by: cripp12 ]
Cripps: Adjust the vertical alignment of your track and reduce the grade as it's much too steep. Stay cool and run steam.... [ September 23, 2005, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Powersteamguy1790 ]
Bob- He can't reduce the grade without doing what I outlined. It is one of the design boo-boo's in the Atlas plan.
Mark: Any plan can be modified to reduce the grade. Looks awfully steep to me. Stay cool and run steam.....
I know. But the high end turns with 9 3/4" at the end of the ramp into the short side of the upper level. The upper level floor, at the highest point off the lower level is a scant 2" from the base level to the bottom of the plywood base of the upper level. That was the first thought that came to my mind, but clearance is needed at the lower level for roadbed, track and train (no modern stuff on the LLL, mind you) and that comes to 1 3/8" which leaves 5/8" for the top of the tunnel structures and to give some semblance of balance on the lower level when viewing. Also, whoever is using that book is/was a neophyte. Now, almost two years later and two rip ups and redesign of the upper level the ramp is still too steep and the turns are still too tight. With my knowledge today, I would have gone 6 x 10 or better yet, gone around the room.
Same 4x6 as Mr. Atlas intended. I am still cleaning up and adding finals here and there and have downloaded a CAD program for the fall and winter season for the expansion. Other than the general layout, I have to make the Kato Unitrak go where I want it to go, decide on wood or metal for the benchwork, relight the 1/4 of the basement I will be using and decide whether to go one or two levels around the room. I have to relocate a door to storage area under the stairs and get someone to move my water meter which is in a corner much needed.
I was able to run 11 cars(I didn't try any more)on the ramp without a hitch. I lowered the top level to match the top of the ramp and raised the bottom level to match the bottom of the ramp. The problem I have now is that the viaduct is a little to high on that side. I was thinking of either cutting the bottom of the leg to the viaduct just a bit or placing a double layer of roadbed were the track meets the viaduct. Any thoughts. Also, can anyone give me clarification on this measurement 1- 5/16. Does this mean one inch plus 5/16 or 15/16. This could be the stem of my problem. See link below for picture of measurement. Thanks http://www.railimages.com/gallery/claudioippolito/abm?full=1
To match the rest of the grade in that section, and to make a reasonable grade from there down to the turnout, it should be fifteen sixteenths. It appears from the photos that you made the ramp one and five sixteenths. The dash between the 1 and 5 is a mistake. If you notice the 2 and 1/8 measurement (and almost every other fraction an the track plan) is made with smaller script for the fractional measurement. It will also help if you make the "cookie cutter" cut go closer to the turnout.
Rats. Thanks Nelson. I'll have to fix that. If you look at this link...... http://www.railimages.com/gallery/claudioippolito/aaa?full=1 you will see that Atlas has done this throughout the benchwork plan. Also, Do you mean the cut at the top right where it says "bend down to match the slope of ramp." Thank You
That is correct near the top of the ramp. I actually had to use a 4" carriage bolt drilled down from the plywood level deep into the lower level near the #23 turnout. I used this so I could easily adjust the height so I could get the least kinky track installation. I then had to lop off the excess of the bolt sticking up since it interfered with the trains going by.
