Question re 6-wheeled trucks/bogies

[nkp_174]

I'm wondering what is most accurate, though. I suspect that these Athearn coaches are correctly designed (i.e. they originally had 6 wheels per truck on the real thing). If I were to remove one of the wheel-sets, I could at least "fake it" since they would still have the appearance of being 6-wheel trucks. However, maybe there were/are variations in real life. I might do some googling to check!

Thanks, Rob

As a general rule of thumb, the Athearn heavyweights are not very close to being accurate. Very few heavyweights were 70' long, 75'-85' was the norm. Those under 80' usually had 2-axle trucks...unless they were head end cars (which were usually shorter...sometimes 60'). The 2-axle trucks were NOT at all like the 2-axle trucks from Athearn (which are post-1939 trucks). Both the light and heavyweight Athearn cars were intended to be caricatures of real cars to minimize the overhang on tight curves. That is why they are noticeably shorter than the premium priced passenger cars from Branchline, Rapido, Walthers, and brass. Other manufacturers have offered 2-axle trucks which would be correct for heavyweight era cars.

If you like the look of 3-axle trucks, keep them and try removing the middle axle as suggested (my Athearn heavyweights still have their 3-axle trucks...I like them regardless as to their length). Most people don't know beans about passenger cars, and so they would never notice! Modelers have long accepted the equivalent to a UP Big Boy in place of an NYC hudson in passenger cars for many years, even while they demand year specific details on their locomotives and accurate freight cars. (please note that I am not directing this at members of the gauge...there are plenty of knowledgeable people here...far more knowledgeable than most people I run across at my LHS).

If you want a more accurate car, get a proper set of 2-axle trucks...but be aware that you'll probably have to adjust the bolster height either with a file or a washer.

What is the problem with the couplers? Is the trip pin snagging on stuff? If so, trim it off or adjust it. If the knuckle isn't closing, either the metal spring is missing or it had a plastic spring which is sprung. If the coupler head is off, perhaps either adding washers in between the trucks and the car or replacing the coupler with either an under or over shank variety.

Michael

[RobertInOntario]

I had a Roco Flat car with 3 axle trucks a few years ago. It had the same problem. I think it originaly had truck mount couplers Which I changed to body mount. I checked wheel gauge and Alignment. Same problem. Took it to LHS he called me and said its fixed. I picked it up and it still wouldn't stay on the track. I have several other cars with 3 axle trucks with no problem. Did you notice the wording in the first line of this reply

Thanks, Lester. I appreciate this info. BTW, not all of these coaches derail but there are 1-2 of them that are problematic. I wasn't sure by what you meant about the wording of the first line though. Thanks again, Rob

[RobertInOntario]

[quote="RobertInOntario"
As a general rule of thumb, the Athearn heavyweights are not very close to being accurate. Very few heavyweights were 70' long, 75'-85' was the norm. Those under 80' usually had 2-axle trucks...unless they were head end cars (which were usually shorter...sometimes 60'). The 2-axle trucks were NOT at all like the 2-axle trucks from Athearn (which are post-1939 trucks). Both the light and heavyweight Athearn cars were intended to be caricatures of real cars to minimize the overhang on tight curves. That is why they are noticeably shorter than the premium priced passenger cars from Branchline, Rapido, Walthers, and brass. Other manufacturers have offered 2-axle trucks which would be correct for heavyweight era cars.


What is the problem with the couplers? Is the trip pin snagging on stuff? If so, trim it off or adjust it. If the knuckle isn't closing, either the metal spring is missing or it had a plastic spring which is sprung. If the coupler head is off, perhaps either adding washers in between the trucks and the car or replacing the coupler with either an under or over shank variety.

Michael

Thanks for the background, Michael, especially regarding the history of these cars. This makes me want to consider replacing them with more accurate 4-wheel truck coaches -- maybe I could do this gradually since they (the more accurate ones) cost so much more.

The couplers occasionally uncouple, usually after going through some curves. I suspect that the problematic couplers are the "non-Kadee" knock-offs that come with the Athearn coaches.

One day, I hope to have a large layout that is totally flat and has nothing tighter than 22"R curves!

Rob

[Lester Perry]

I had this car as in I no longer have it. Also a large layout comes with its own problems.

[RobertInOntario]

I had this car as in I no longer have it. Also a large layout comes with its own problems.

OK, thanks Lester! It is tempting to consider selling or trading these in for the more authentic (and hopefully better running) 4-axle kind. Take care, Rob

[jim currie]

I had this car as in I no longer have it. Also a large layout comes with its own problems.

OK, thanks Lester! It is tempting to consider selling or trading these in for the more authentic (and hopefully better running) 4-axle kind. Take care, Rob

if you go for more authentic you will be getting longer cars with your tight curves that might be a problem as for the 6 wheel trucks most of the photos for CNR weavyweights show 6 wheel's. the major reason the athearn cars are short if for there being able to negotiate tighter radius, you other alternative would be to find some Harriman(sp?) style cars.
Jim

[BR60103]

Rob: these cars look like the CNR 5200 series (5283-5307), They ran on 6 wheel trucks. Built 1942. As coaches, these came between the clerestory-roofed cars and the smooth-sided "streamlined" cars of the 50s. I remember riding in these cars, often on fan trips. They had a large ladies retiring room with a couch (and the washroom off of that).
The length may be a bit short, but the body style is reminiscent. I wouldn't worry about scale length until you have a larger layout.
If they're running all right on the sharp curves, I would worry more about the track. There may be a bit of tweaking you can do on the trucks -- check if they sit flat on the rails or rock about the middle axle.

[RobertInOntario]

Rob: these cars look like the CNR 5200 series (5283-5307), They ran on 6 wheel trucks. Built 1942. As coaches, these came between the clerestory-roofed cars and the smooth-sided "streamlined" cars of the 50s. I remember riding in these cars, often on fan trips. They had a large ladies retiring room with a couch (and the washroom off of that).
The length may be a bit short, but the body style is reminiscent. I wouldn't worry about scale length until you have a larger layout.
If they're running all right on the sharp curves, I would worry more about the track. There may be a bit of tweaking you can do on the trucks -- check if they sit flat on the rails or rock about the middle axle.

Thanks, David. I think I'm more familiar with British rolling stock since (as you know) I mostly operate my layout in "British mode" but occasionally get my Canadian trains out as well. At any rate, it's good to know that these Athearn coaches are at least reasonably accurate. They're fairly common and I've often seen them for sale at George's Trains, etc.

BTW, I tried removing one of the wheel sets on one of the shorter (baggage) cars and the derailing problem was MUCH worse! I experimented with removing different wheels (i.e. middle, ends, etc.) and it derailed like crazy, so I quickly went back to using all six wheels.

I actually had a cut of 4 coaches running quite well this afternoon behind my CNR (IHS) Hudson -- no derailing or uncoupling issues ...
But there are definitely quirky problems with the couplers. If I coupled the coaches up in one particular order, they were OK. Otherwise, some of the couplers uncoupled when the coaches were arranged in a different order. I think the Kadee coupler on the Hudson is actually causing problems and might need to be replaced -- so much tweaking & trouble-shooting, it can drive you crazy!

Rob

[Russ Bellinis]

If you are running the stock couplers from Athearn, they have the plastic knuckle spring. These will take a set over time and lose tension allowing the coupler to open under load. Replace the couplers with Kaddee and you problem with uncoupling should be solved if your track is level enough. I think Kaddee now offers a "tight lock" version of their couplers, and I've heard they are a bit harder to uncouple, but are almost immune to nuisance uncoupling problems.

[Sumpter250]

Walthers, "Athearn coupler" conversion kit, PN 933-997, $5.98, is the same coupler assembly used on the Walthers auto racks. I used them on my kitbash auto racks, that started with the Athearn 89' flats (with the long arm coupler mount). I couldn't run my racks with the Walthers ones, without derailments. Once my racks got the conversion kits, I no longer had that problem.
My CNW/Metra coaches, kitbashed from Rivarossi smooth side coaches, still have a dreailment problem, and that's with 4 wheel trucks. I suspect that the "offset bolster" actually causes the wheels on the "long end" to try to move farther than those on the "short end". Same with the six wheel trucks. I would expect better performance if the bolster was directly above the middle axle.

[RobertInOntario]

If you are running the stock couplers from Athearn, they have the plastic knuckle spring. These will take a set over time and lose tension allowing the coupler to open under load. Replace the couplers with Kaddee and you problem with uncoupling should be solved if your track is level enough. I think Kaddee now offers a "tight lock" version of their couplers, and I've heard they are a bit harder to uncouple, but are almost immune to nuisance uncoupling problems.

Thanks, Russ. I'm pretty sure that this is 90% of the problem (these stock couplers from Athearn). Kaddee's "tight lock" versions sound excellent for my purposes and layout. I'll check these out at an LHS. Cheers, Rob

[RobertInOntario]

Walthers, "Athearn coupler" conversion kit, PN 933-997, $5.98, is the same coupler assembly used on the Walthers auto racks. I used them on my kitbash auto racks, that started with the Athearn 89' flats (with the long arm coupler mount). I couldn't run my racks with the Walthers ones, without derailments. Once my racks got the conversion kits, I no longer had that problem.
My CNW/Metra coaches, kitbashed from Rivarossi smooth side coaches, still have a dreailment problem, and that's with 4 wheel trucks. I suspect that the "offset bolster" actually causes the wheels on the "long end" to try to move farther than those on the "short end". Same with the six wheel trucks. I would expect better performance if the bolster was directly above the middle axle.

Thanks, as well, for this info. I'll also ask about the Athearn coupler conversion kit at my LHS as well. Cheers, Rob

[RobertInOntario]

Over the past 7-10 days, I've had a lot of success in resolving these problems. These CN coaches seldom derail -- although they're still the quirkiest of all my coaches but are running much better.

Also, I've been resolving the uncoupling problem by making a note of which cars and couplers cause problems and then just simply gradually replacing their knuckle couplers with new ones. In most cases, I believe I'm replacing the Athearn imitation ones with genuine Kaddees, although I did have to replace one Kaddee that was causing problems.

I still haven't had much luck finding the new Kaddee "tight lock" couplers. I asked at one of my LHS's and they hadn't heard of them -- maybe they're known by another name? I'd still like to get some as they could really help as my layout has fairly tight curves.

Thanks for your help here,
Rob

[Russ Bellinis]

I understand that Kaddee is offering tight lock couplers, but I don't know the model #. I'm going to my railroad club meeting tonight, so I'll ask there. If no one can answer you before I get home, I'll give you the Kaddee # then.

[RobertInOntario]

I understand that Kaddee is offering tight lock couplers, but I don't know the model #. I'm going to my railroad club meeting tonight, so I'll ask there. If no one can answer you before I get home, I'll give you the Kaddee # then.

Thanks, Russ! Then I'll try again at my LHS sources. It could be that I was describing them incorrectly. Rob