# Frustration Reigns Supreme... [A venting post]



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

Long time intermittent model railroader (going back to the early 1970s). Embarked on a new layout about 2 years ago.... 40 square feet of N Scale [all KAao track], so a moderate size...

The problem is that I _still_ can not get a loco with any number of cars to run smoothly without uncoupling or derailing. This is compounded by the fact that my hands ad eyes are no longer what they once were.


----------



## Lehigh74 (Sep 25, 2015)

I would start thinking about a larger scale, especially if your hands and eyes aren't what they used to be.


----------



## Steve Rothstein (Jan 1, 2021)

If it helps, my Kato locos pull Kato cars very well but have some problems when I add a mixture of Micro Trains cars to them. The couplers on the Micro Trains are good, just not quite the same height or something. It is funny because my son will group the cars by manufacturer and sometimes it looks like the train split in two by manufacturer. I have also noted that the N gauge trains seem to be more sensitive to track differences. Kato Unitrack normally joins together well, but they do seem to have small bumps at the joint more than I expected. Some of the locos and cars are more sensitive to derailing as they hit the bumps. My son has taken to running his finger over the joint to feel for bumps that my eyes are not good enough to see.

I am a very new beginner to the hobby and I am still learning a lot about it. I only have Kato or Broadway Limited locomotives right now, and my cars are a mixture of Kato and Micro Trains mostly, but there are a few other manufacturers tossed in for some of the specific ones I wanted.My son and I finally got the track smoothed out mostly and I do plan on replacing all the couplers to be the same make at some point. 

BTW, my son is 38 and has no problem seeing or handling the N gauge stuff. I am rapidly closing in on social security collection and I need help even getting the train on the rails. If it were not for the tool Kato gives to set the train on the tracks, I think I would need O gauge to feel safe handling the cars.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

This thread illustrates why I stuck with O-gauge and never seriously considered anything smaller.


----------



## prrfan (Dec 19, 2014)

DAvid.Corbin said:


> Long time intermittent model railroader (going back to the early 1970s). Embarked on a new layout about 2 years ago.... 40 square feet of N Scale [all KAao track], so a moderate size...
> 
> The problem is that I _still_ can not get a loco with any number of cars to run smoothly without uncoupling or derailing. This is compounded by the fact that my hands ad eyes are no longer what they once were.


Welcome, David. Well, I agree with the previous posts but it doesn’t really address your problem. 
I model in HO but also use Kato Unitrack. 
What are you using for a sub-roadbed? Plywood, foam, interior door, etc. ?
Are you running feeders or other wiring under the track? Was the track bought new or used? 

Unitrack really likes dead flat and even terrain. Table seams, wiring, or bumpy surfaces cause problems. 

If the track was used, some of the Unijoiners may need to be replaced. They sometimes can be bent or misshapen. I’ve heard people talk about fixing them but I just replace them. 
It’s also not unheard of for it to warp. Sometimes this is caused by the track being under strain due to a tight fit in alignment. Be sure your trackage “lays easy” on your table and you haven’t forced the final connection to cause pieces to flex. 
There is the coupler issue. The N scale folks can help you with that. 
Best of luck. Stick with it, I’m sure you’ll sort it out.


----------



## Mixed Freight (Aug 31, 2019)

DAvid.Corbin said:


> Long time intermittent model railroader (going back to the early 1970s). Embarked on a new layout about 2 years ago.... 40 square feet of N Scale [all KAao track], so a moderate size...
> 
> The problem is that I _still_ can not get a loco with any number of cars to run smoothly without uncoupling or derailing. This is compounded by the fact that my hands ad eyes are no longer what they once were.


Hi David,

A lot of things can cause the problems you are describing, and can occur in any scale. Due to the small size of N-scale however, these items can be especially frustrating. We could really use a lot more information than what you have stated. At least you're using Kato track. Lots of N-scalers use it due to its high quality. So that pretty much eliminates it as a derailing/uncoupling problem. But in the meantime, here is a list of questions/items that can be contributing to your dilemma............

Curve radius and turnout sizes on your layout? (The bigger, the better).
Current coupler brand(s), and are coupler heights and trip pin clearances checked with a coupler height gauge?
Brands, ages, and sizes of locos and rolling stock? (Take age, for instance; most locos made in the last 25 years or so are superior to most older stuff, in my opinion. Better engineered, better running, and better detailed).
Control system: Cheap DC train set transformer, or quality transformer or DCC system?
Are wheel gauges and track gauges checked with NMRA standards tool?
Weight of rolling stock (needs to be per NMRA recommendations for best performance).

I belonged to an N-Trak club for a long time, and several of us routinely would run 20~25 car passenger trains or 70~80 or 100 car plus! freight trains for an hour at a time with little-to-no problems. Pretty much by properly addressing each of the items listed above. And all this on an approximately 20 year-old modular layout that was starting to show its age.

I dunno, but if your hands and eyes are not what they used to be, it may be time to consider going to a larger scale. Although I still have no problems whatsoever with N-scale, I have been moving into O-gauge over the past several years. Not sure why, a major change of pace if nothing else?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Unfortunately, perfect operations requires perfect track and perfect trains. You'll never achieve total perfection, but you can try. First of all, your track must be dead smooth. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because you're using Unitrack you can ignore this aspect. Are all your joints smooth (if you can feel a bump with your finger, you can bet a train can feel it)? Are there any kinks in your track where something didn't quite fit? How about dips due to poor subroadbed? How about S curves, especially around turnouts?

Are you trying to run equipment around curves that are too sharp for it? Do all the trucks of all your cars move freely? Do they turn fully without hitting underbody details? Do you have any inclines? If so, are they properly eased (IOW they start gradually, not abruptly)? Is all your rolling stock at the NMRA-recommended weight or heavier? Are your couplers compatible, and are they mounted at the correct height without too much vertical play? Does your track have any obstructions inside the web of the rails (plastic flash, grains of ballast, dirt, paint, etc).

Use a flashlight, and get your eye right down at track level and you can see exactly where the problem occurs. A good troubleshooting guide is if everything derails at one spot, suspect your track work. If things derail pretty much anywhere, suspect your rolling stock. It may take a lot of painstaking work to correct this, but you will eventually figure it out and cleanup any issues.


----------



## Severn (May 13, 2016)

I think you are right. It's a harder problem than it seems it should be. Care as suggested above for all grades, curves, joints and so forth. I've built and rebuilt in few places to fix all these things. There's something to be said for planning as if building a real thing. But I honestly just like to wing it adding to my troubles. I'm ho ing right now and I'd imagine n being even more finicky.


----------



## flyernut (Oct 31, 2010)

A local hobby shop once told me the "N" in "N" scale stood for nuisance.


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

prrfan said:


> Welcome, David. Well, I agree with the previous posts but it doesn’t really address your problem.///


Thanks... The material was bought new, but has been put down and back up a few times. The roadbed is plywood over frame, with Woodland Scenic risers (1/2") and then Cork. Writing is drilled trough and run under the board....


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

Mixed Freight said:


> A lot of things can cause the problems you are describing, and can occur in any scale. Due to the small size of N-scale however, these items can be especially frustrating. We could really use a lot more information than what you have stated. At least you're using Kato track. Lots of N-scalers use it due to its high quality. So that pretty much eliminates it as a derailing/uncoupling problem. But in the meantime, here is a list of questions/items that can be contributing to your dilemma............
> 
> Curve radius and turnout sizes on your layout? (The bigger, the better).
> Current coupler brand(s), and are coupler heights and trip pin clearances checked with a coupler height gauge?
> ...


13" radius on the curves, #6 turnouts as well as double crossovers. DCC system. I do have a pretty good believe that it is the stock rather than the track, but do not currently have alternative.


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

To all who have suggested a larger scale, thanks - but it is not a viable alternative. Space is limited and my real passion is automated operations. This is a DCC layout with 4 independent routes, 4 reversing loops and multiple cross overs. All of this is controlled by computer (mix of Arduino, Raspberry PI, and PC). The track is currently segmented into 41 "blocks" for detection [DigiTrack BLD-168] so that sequences can be programmed. 

The layout is L shaped with a depth of 40" and a backside length of 8" - and this completely fills the available space in the room. It would be impossible to get the type of complexity desired in any larger scale.

The track is definitely what most modelers would consider overly dense. For example here is one area (where I am not having problems)


----------



## prrfan (Dec 19, 2014)

DAvid.Corbin said:


> Thanks... The material was bought new, but has been put down and back up a few times. The roadbed is plywood over frame, with Woodland Scenic risers (1/2") and then Cork. Writing is drilled trough and run under the board....


You’re welcome. Right, many of us do put down and take up Unitrack. Then it’s considered used, even though we’re the only user. 
I think one of the things that could get the Unijoiners wonky is disconnecting the track improperly. It really needs to be kept on a flat plane. Now I think of my five year old grandson holding a four section piece in mid-air after a play session on the living room floor. Ugh. 
That’s a nice layout you have. I’m sure you’ll be ok ultimately. There’s a lot of N scale expertise on here. 
Yes, space is always the issue. I just have a shelf layout now because I turned my other bedroom back into a bedroom. Why, asked my LHS guy? Lol. 
So my only option for big now is outside. Garden RR. Doable in HO but better in G. 
$$$. Yep, the other factor.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Well, there are millions of hobbyists successfully using N scale, so I think you’ll be ok once you nail down the issues.....I have seen N scale layouts being dragged around to train shows, taken apart and put back together for the next show, and they run perfectly, so I think you’ll be able to overcome.....

Switching to different scales is not the answer.....you could have problems in any scale, and by reading all the posts about all the scales, right here in this forum, all scales have the occasional issues......


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

Old_Hobo said:


> Well, there are millions of hobbyists successfully using N scale, so I think you’ll be ok once you nail down the issues.....I have seen N scale layouts being dragged around to train shows, taken apart and put back together for the next show, and they run perfectly, so I think you’ll be able to overcome.....
> 
> Switching to different scales is not the answer.....you could have problems in any scale, and by reading all the posts about all the scales, right here in this forum, all scales have the occasional issues......


Agreed... As I stated earlier, I have been doing N Scale (off and on) since the 1970's.. This is the 8th generation layout for me. Just a lot of frustration. Different people enjoy different aspects, Some enjoy scenery (honestly, I am fine with raw track, but people come and comment). Other like low density, I prefer to get nearly as much trach as possible into the area (over 130 linear feet of track - nearly 4 scale miles) within the nominally 40 square feet.)....What I really want is for the stuff to "just run" so that I can spend my time with the detection, lights (think how many signals would be in just the snippet I posted above!), automate routing (trains old until routs clear, etc.)...

Just fustrating..

Thinking the thing to do is to spend some $$$, grab some new rolling stock and an engine so I know those are aligned.... TBH: I miss the old big couplers - not eve close to prototypical, but they would hold a train together, the new ones (with the variants) are so much more delicate and picky.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

My old Aurora Postage Stamp train set still has all the old Rapido couplers on all the rolling stock, and when I set it up and run it, I have no problems with the couplers.....sure, they are not prototypical looking, but they sure do work.....


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

DAvid.Corbin said:


> Agreed... As I stated earlier, I have been doing N Scale (off and on) since the 1970's.. This is the 8th generation layout for me. Just a lot of frustration. Different people enjoy different aspects, Some enjoy scenery (honestly, I am fine with raw track, but people come and comment). Other like low density, I prefer to get nearly as much trach as possible into the area (over 130 linear feet of track - nearly 4 scale miles) within the nominally 40 square feet.)....What I really want is for the stuff to "just run" so that I can spend my time with the detection, lights (think how many signals would be in just the snippet I posted above!), automate routing (trains old until routs clear, etc.)...
> 
> Just fustrating..
> 
> Thinking the thing to do is to spend some $$$, grab some new rolling stock and an engine so I know those are aligned.... TBH: I miss the old big couplers - not eve close to prototypical, but they would hold a train together, the new ones (with the variants) are so much more delicate and picky.


Well, you do your layout your way. Never mind what the busybodies say about too much track or too little scenery, or anything else. Your layout, your rules.

It does sound like couplers (especially) and rolling stock may be a big part of your issue. As I said in my initial post, if you have a spot on your layout where you consistently have problems (and since you said that the photo above is an area where you DON'T have problems, I'm guessing there are areas where you do. Check the track there. Carefully.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that a lot of your issue is that, in your desire to "just have things run", you may not have been as thorough on some of your track work and rolling stock inspections as you could have been.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

flyernut said:


> A local hobby shop once told me the "N" in "N" scale stood for nuisance.


That local hobby shop proprietor must be afflicted with a bad case of "BJS" (Braying Jack A** Syndrome.) I wonder if this "savvy businessman" ever sells any N-scale trains, given his total ignorance of the scale. A scale is just a scale. Some are bigger, and some are smaller, but they all work, and all have problems now and then.

Traction Fan


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

DAvid.Corbin said:


> Long time intermittent model railroader (going back to the early 1970s). Embarked on a new layout about 2 years ago.... 40 square feet of N Scale [all KAao track], so a moderate size...
> 
> The problem is that I _still_ can not get a loco with any number of cars to run smoothly without uncoupling or derailing. This is compounded by the fact that my hands ad eyes are no longer what they once were.


David;

In addition to all the other tips given, Kato couplers work very well with more Kato couplers, but they have a long standing reputation for not staying coupled reliably to other brands of couplers. That may well be why Steve Rothstein say his trains separate at the point where Kato and Micro-Trains couplers met.
Another way of practically guaranteeing unplanned uncouplings is to mix truck mounted and body mounted couplers. I advise people to pick one mounting system and use that on everything. For those who have tight curves 12" r. or less, the truck mounts work better, but finding a locomotive or even some cars with truck mounted couplers is getting harder. The trend is toward body mounts. 
I agree with you about the old Rapido couplers. They were ugly as sin, but the one thing they did well was staying coupled. If you don't care much about switching operations there is an old trick that you may already know. Rapido couplers can be trimmed to allow closer spacing on cars that are seldom/never uncoupled. (see photos) The coupler, and cover, and centering spring, are all removed from one end of a car, leaving only the empty coupler box. At the other end of the car the car, parts of the coupler hook are cut off leaving a 'T'-shape. That 'T' fits inside the empty coupler box of the next car. The only way to uncouple the cars is by lifting the end with the empty coupler box off the 'T' end of the other car.

Traction Fan


----------



## nscalewherehouse (Apr 12, 2021)

To echo on a previous comment. The club that I was a member of has attended a number of train shows with N Scale modules that started to show their age and wear, especially at the ends where they joined. Visitors and the HO members were amazed and commented often about the trains running for hours without problems. This was all due to changing the couplers to Micro Trains. My brother and myself would buy the 10 packs of Micro Trains trucks and replace the trucks on ten freight cars at a time, eventualy standardising the entire collection. 

With regards to the Hobby Shop owner making detrimental comments about N Scale -- I have been an N scale modeller for thirty years, I have just opened my own N Scale " only " hobby store. I'm just loving it.


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

CTValleyRR said:


> Well, you do your layout your way. Never mind what the busybodies say about too much track or too little scenery, or anything else. Your layout, your rules.
> 
> It does sound like couplers (especially) and rolling stock may be a big part of your issue. As I said in my initial post, if you have a spot on your layout where you consistently have problems (and since you said that the photo above is an area where you DON'T have problems, I'm guessing there are areas where you do. Check the track there. Carefully.
> 
> Unfortunately, I'm afraid that a lot of your issue is that, in your desire to "just have things run", you may not have been as thorough on some of your track work and rolling stock inspections as you could have been.


Please don't misunderstand. I spent a lot of time with inspections, et. al. This layout took about 6 months just to lay and adjust track. I am definitally willing to put in the work, it is the result (see comment below) of "they just run" that I am after..


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

Thanks to all... Just wanted to give an update..... There are 4 main "loops" on this layout, and I treat CW and CCW differently (as is is not uncommon for trains to behave well in one direction but not the other)....so that is 8 main things to test (not counting switches, crossovers, et. al.)... I decided this morning to focus on just one of these.....

Spend about 2 hours with the track itself. Replaced a few joiners and used 1/32" shims in a few places where things felt a little 'off"..... Then I cherry picked one loco and one car, and spent another 3 hours just getting an engine and car to make repeatable circuits (I did switch out the cars a few times). When I got to 15 minutes run time, I added two more cars... and another 3 hours before it was able to run in what appeared to be a solid manner..... I felt good when it reached 30 minutes right before I took a dinner break...

You guessed it, I came back to a derailment..... so after approximately 60 loops around the track without incident...boom...

I did purchase some new rolling stock, that should arrive over the next few days. Hopefully by using that (all Kato) I may get a solid pull... The kicker is that even once I get this 100% solid (I will consider an overnight run of 8 hours to be "solid"), that is only 1/8 of the "mainline" I need to get working.....


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

traction fan said:


> David;
> 
> In addition to all the other tips given, Kato couplers work very well with more Kato couplers, but they have a long standing reputation for not staying coupled reliably to other brands of couplers. That may well be why Steve Rothstein say his trains separate at the point where Kato and Micro-Trains couplers met.
> Another way of practically guaranteeing unplanned uncouplings is to mix truck mounted and body mounted couplers. I advise people to pick one mounting system and use that on everything. For those who have tight curves 12" r. or less, the truck mounts work better, but finding a locomotive or even some cars with truck mounted couplers is getting harder. The trend is toward body mounts.
> ...


Thanks for the info and attachments... 

Since you brought up switching...and since I did mention that my goal is automation.... have you ever seen a layout that had successful automation of switching in N-Scale?

My "Holy grail" is a 3 track yard with each track long enough to hold three cars #1,#2,#3... They all start in one track and must be moved to the other track, with only one care per move, and never putting a lower number car in front of a higher number car.... The Tower of Hanoi

Honestly, I don't think I will eve get there...buit it is important to have a dream....


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

I would be very frustrated and disappointed if trains on my layout would not operate without a derailment. I put up with enough of that when I was a kid building railroads on a 4x8. My first railroad with perfect trackwork didn't happen until I was 20 and had a better understanding of how track laying can affect operations.

For my current layout I went to great lengths to ensure this trackwork was as perfect as my skills would aölow it to be laid.

I have not been disappointed. It was worth the time and effort I took with the grades, curves, and turnouts to have a layout I can start multiple trains and not worry about a derailment at some random location at a random time. Trains run for hours until I change trains, wagons, or tracks and have to stop one or more to start others.

I remember all too well the frustration as a kid of train derailments to let this happen when I was older and wiser.

I hope you are able to figure out what and why this is happening on your layout.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

Since you say your eyesight is not the best are you sure you are sliding the rail ends into, and not above the opposing rail joiners ? But maybe that's not possible with the simulated-roadbed type sectional stuff.. Never owned any..Otherwise, I can't fathom why you'd have so much trouble...


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

telltale said:


> Since you say your eyesight is not the best are you sure you are sliding the rail ends into, and not above the rail joiners ? But maybe that's not possible with the simulated-roadbed type sectional stuff.. Never owned any..
> Otherwise I can't fathom why you'd have so much trouble...


On initial connection it had happened, but the fingers feel it right away. Also, I regularly check things out wit:


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

Then waz up ?!! How can you be having so much tracking problems ? Are you running old designed trains with the deep (pizza cutter) flanges which could be bottoming out on the simulated spike heads or lifting up at switch frogs ? Do you have low coupler pins getting snagged at switch closure-rails or crossings ?


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

telltale said:


> Then waz up ?!! How can you be having so much tracking problems ? Are you running old designed trains with the deep (pizza cutter) flanges which could be bottoming out on the simulated spike heads or lifting up at switch frogs ? Do you have low coupler pins getting snagged at switch closure-rails or crossings ?


That is the gotcha, I am not sure "Waz Up" 

Rolling stock is a mix, but all less than 10 years old [new cars on order]. I don't have (or know of) a set of calibrated gauges to measure the flanges (as an example). None of the problem areas are at a switch...


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

Last update for the evening... After (another) good cleaning, I have been able to reduce the speed down to above 22 mph (scale) or 2.4 inches/second action..... There seems to be (not suprisingly) an improvement in stability at lower speeds [I was initially running between 40 and 45 mph...

Going to let it run, will check before turning in for the night.


----------



## Mixed Freight (Aug 31, 2019)

flyernut said:


> A local hobby shop once told me the "N" in "N" scale stood for nuisance.


Obviously uninformed. 

All N-scalers know that "N" stands for "Normal size".  And as for the rest of the scales...................

"Z" stands for "Zoiks"!
"HO" stands for "Horribly Over-sized".
"S" stands for "Super-sized".
"O" stands for "Oh my gosh"!
"G" stands for "Gargantuan!!!"
And live steamers are really weird - they actually enjoy getting lumps of coal in their Trick-or-Treat bags and Christmas stockings.

All in good fun, of course.


----------



## Mixed Freight (Aug 31, 2019)

DAvid.Corbin said:


> That is the gotcha, I am not sure "Waz Up"
> 
> Rolling stock is a mix, but all less than 10 years old [new cars on order]. I don't have (or know of) a set of calibrated gauges to measure the flanges (as an example). None of the problem areas are at a switch...











Here's a picture of an NMRA N-scale standards gauge. Most better hobby shops and virtually all on-line mail order shops that offer N-scale should carry them. They are a little expensive, but they are stainless steel and will last a lifetime. An indispensable tool to keep around.









A Micro-Trains coupler height gauge and trip-pin clearance gauge (flat plate). Picture compliments of nscalemonster.com. Another indispensable little set of tools to have for problem-free trains.

If you want excellent performance out of your N-scale trains, you should only have two types of couplers - Kato, and Micro-Trains Line (MTL).

Kato couplers do not work or play well with others. For passenger trains, run Kato locos with Kato passenger cars.

For any other brand of locos, freight cars, or passenger cars, convert them to MTL trucks and couplers if they do not already come with them. Convert Kato freight locos to MTL couplers if you wish to pull freight cars or non-Kato passenger cars. MTL trucks and couplers are the defacto standard of the N-scale world, and they are the magic secret you are looking for. MTL makes trucks and couplers to fit virtually any N-scale car or loco ever made.

And don't forget about proper weight. Properly weighted cars go a long ways towards staying on the rails without derailing.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Mixed Freight said:


> Obviously uninformed.
> 
> All N-scalers know that "N" stands for "Normal size".  And as for the rest of the scales...................
> 
> ...



You forgot TT. I'm really wondering what that might stand for.


----------



## Mixed Freight (Aug 31, 2019)

MichaelE said:


> You forgot TT. I'm really wondering what that might stand for.


I was hoping that nobody would notice.. 

I haven't figured out a good one for it, yet.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Total trash.....


----------



## Steve Rothstein (Jan 1, 2021)

Mixed Freight said:


> And don't forget about proper weight. Properly weighted cars go a long ways towards staying on the rails without derailing.


I completely forgot the weight problem. One of the things that helped our trains stay on the track was to put a little weight inside each car. We bought a few of the sticks of weight that have about ten 1/4 ounce pre-notched blocks and the self-stick tape on the back. My son put two blocks in each passenger car (one at each end to hep keep it balanced) and in the box cars and cabooses. For the gondolas, we just laid the weight in the car for now. It made an amazing difference in how well they stay on the rails.

And we are talking about converting all of our couplers to one brand. I am leaning towards buying a lot of the MTL couplers and even switching the Kato engines over, but I may skip the trains that are all Kato and always will be (things like the Amtrak set and the C&NW set). As you can imagine, we have no problems with them staying together. The mixture of freight cars is the problem.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Old_Hobo said:


> Total trash.....



Tell that to Auhagen and Tillig.


----------



## Mixed Freight (Aug 31, 2019)

Steve Rothstein said:


> I completely forgot the weight problem. One of the things that helped our trains stay on the track was to put a little weight inside each car. We bought a few of the sticks of weight that have about ten 1/4 ounce pre-notched blocks and the self-stick tape on the back. My son put two blocks in each passenger car (one at each end to hep keep it balanced) and in the box cars and cabooses. For the gondolas, we just laid the weight in the car for now. It made an amazing difference in how well they stay on the rails.
> 
> And we are talking about converting all of our couplers to one brand. I am leaning towards buying a lot of the MTL couplers and even switching the Kato engines over, but I may skip the trains that are all Kato and always will be (things like the Amtrak set and the C&NW set). As you can imagine, we have no problems with them staying together. The mixture of freight cars is the problem.


One heck of a LOT of N-scale rolling stock is underweight. Even though some of them have a steel weight in them, they are still not up to snuff.

The NMRA recommended weight for rolling stock is a simple little formula - .5 oz initial, plus .15 oz per inch of car length. Take a ubiquitous 40' N-scale box car, for instance. It measures right about 3" long. So, .5 oz. plus (3" x .15 oz, i.e., .45 oz) equals .95 oz total weight (almost 1 oz.) for the 3" long box car. You don't have to be super-exact, just try to get them close to their calculated weight, and you will be fine.

If you don't already have one, try to obtain a cheap, but fairly accurate, digital scale from Harbor Freight Tools or some place similar. In addition to the two indispensable tools I mention in my earlier post # 31 above, this is the 3rd indispensable tool a serious N-scaler should have.

Stick-on weights as Steve mentions are an easy way to add weight. But you might have to get inventive on some cars. Steel shot and BB's can work in some instances. Glue in place as you would ballast. Or make loads for flat cars and gondolas to add weight. For example, I have made steel plate loads out of sheet metal for flatcars in order to weight them down. Empty hoppers, gondolas, and flatcars are a real challenge, if you want to run them as empties. You just may have to try adding weight underneath of them in some fashion. Or, run all of your lightest cars at the back of the train.

I have taken really cheap (but nice) older freight cars, replaced the crappy original trucks and Rapido couplers with Micro-Trains trucks and couplers, added weight as needed, and ended up with some superb rolling stock that never gives me problems.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

MichaelE said:


> Tell that to Auhagen and Tillig.


I don’t know them....could you tell them for me.....?


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

Mixed Freight said:


> One heck of a LOT of N-scale rolling stock is underweight. Even though some of them have a steel weight in them, they are still not up to snuff.
> 
> The NMRA recommended weight for rolling stock is a simple little formula - .5 oz initial, plus .15 oz per inch of car length. Take a ubiquitous 40' N-scale box car, for instance. It measures right about 3" long. So, .5 oz. plus (3" x .15 oz, i.e., .45 oz) equals .95 oz total weight (almost 1 oz.) for the 3" long box car. You don't have to be super-exact, just try to get them close to their calculated weight, and you will be fine.
> 
> ...


Thanks... So a longish train (say 30 cars) would have a dead weight of nearly 2 lbs....suprised that would not cause slippage when the engine tries go from dead stop....


----------



## J.Albert1949 (Feb 3, 2018)

Perhaps it's time to leave N scale behind, and move up to HO scale?

My eyes and dexterity aren't what they once were.
I would not keep frustrating myself with stuff that's too small to see and too difficult to handle.
But perhaps "that's just me"...


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

The scale I am finding is : NMRA 98-8 Standards Gauge, N Scale But there appears to be some updates after 1998 to NMRA info... is there any difference?


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

I really appreciate all of the comments EXCEPT for those recommending changing scale. If you are going to post something along those lines, please don't bother, and if you do, I will simply be ignoring such posts.


----------



## Mixed Freight (Aug 31, 2019)

DAvid.Corbin said:


> Thanks... So a longish train (say 30 cars) would have a dead weight of nearly 2 lbs....suprised that would not cause slippage when the engine tries go from dead stop....


Yup - it does.

N-scale, full-size trains, and everything in between, doesn't matter. Throttle management, along with ruling grades and locomotive size/weight and number of units (lashups), all come into play.


----------



## wvgca (Jan 21, 2013)

i don't know when i had the last derailment on mine, maybe three years, maybe five ...
don't really run long trains, in the range of twenty to thirty cars ... mind they are weighted close to the RP and most run intermountain metal wheels, both 88 and 100 wide, and most [if not all] run kadee number 5s... i gave up on N a long time ago, when i found out there were a dozen different lengths of axles, lol


----------



## Mixed Freight (Aug 31, 2019)

DAvid.Corbin said:


> The scale I am finding is : NMRA 98-8 Standards Gauge, N Scale But there appears to be some updates after 1998 to NMRA info... is there any difference?


The NMRA has a website, you could go to it, dig around and see what any updates may have been (may not amount to much of anything).

Hmmm, I checked on your link for the gauge at Model Train Stuff. The reviews were a little disparaging. Apparently what they have for sale is now made from plastic or aluminum? If so, I think the $22 price tag is out of line, in my opinion.

For years, these things were made from stainless steel. I have two of them, both purchased in the early & mid 2000's. If these gauges were still made from stainless steel, then $22 would be about right at today's prices.

If these plastic or aluminum gauges are the latest and greatest thing however, I'd recommend checking around to see if anyone has any older stainless steel gauges in stock. Or at least, see if anybody has any better prices on the plastic or aluminum gauges. If not, oh well, folks will have to live with what's available. Regardless of what they're made of, still a worthwhile (and necessary) tool to have around.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

DAvid.Corbin said:


> Thanks for the info and attachments...
> 
> Since you brought up switching...and since I did mention that my goal is automation.... have you ever seen a layout that had successful automation of switching in N-Scale?
> 
> ...


David;

It wasn't automated, there was a human operator, but I saw a Micro-Trains demonstration layout at a train show where cars were uncoupled, pushed onto sidings, and re-coupled repeatedly, with no problems at all. They used all Micro-Trains couplers, of course, and the M-T between the rails type of exposed uncoupling magnets. Of course everything was adjusted perfectly for this demonstration. I don't know of any reason why the same thing couldn't be done with automation, as long as the computer could monitor the position of the cars & locomotive accurately.
I'm a retired service tech, and a long time model railroader. Having spent a good part of my lifetime troubleshooting things, I can tell you that the old "divide and conquer" technique works. Pick one trouble spot on your track. Check it with a long level. Are the rails flat enough that they touch the level continuously all along the length of the level? Is the track, and particularly the turnouts, actually level, as well as flat? Where things derail get your eyeball down to rail top level and run a train through that trouble spot super-slowly. You may well see the wheels ride up & off the rail. Use an NMRA gauge to check the track and the wheels to make certain that both are properly gauged. Above all, take your time, and work in small baby steps to find each problem in turn. The #1 cause of unplanned uncouplings is coupler height. Usually this is checked by eyeball. Even Micro-Train's own coupler height gauge depends on an eyeball estimate of how well a car's coupler matches the height of the gauge's coupler, and both couplers can move vertically a bit. I came up with a more accurate test. I cut two slots in an NMRA standards gauge. One measures the height of the coupler knuckle, and the other measures the height of the trip pin. (See Photos) 

Traction Fan


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

Mixed Freight said:


> The NMRA has a website, you could go to it, dig around and see what any updates may have been (may not amount to much of anything).
> 
> Hmmm, I checked on your link for the gauge at Model Train Stuff. The reviews were a little disparaging. Apparently what they have for sale is now made from plastic or aluminum? If so, I think the $22 price tag is out of line, in my opinion.
> 
> ...


I agree completely, but as of now I have not found a stainless version source... if anyone has one I would appreciate a link.


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

traction fan said:


> David;
> 
> It wasn't automated, there was a human operator, but I saw a Micro-Trains demonstration layout at a train show where cars were uncoupled, pushed onto sidings, and re-coupled repeatedly, with no problems at all. They used all Micro-Trains couplers, of course, and the M-T between the rails type of exposed uncoupling magnets. Of course everything was adjusted perfectly for this demonstration. I don't know of any reason why the same thing couldn't be done with automation, as long as the computer could monitor the position of the cars & locomotive accurately.
> I'm a retired service tech, and a long time model railroader. Having spent a good part of my lifetime troubleshooting things, I can tell you that the old "divide and conquer" technique works. Pick one trouble spot on your track. Check it with a long level. Are the rails flat enough that they touch the level continuously all along the length of the level? Is the track, and particularly the turnouts, actually level, as well as flat? Where things derail get your eyeball down to rail top level and run a train through that trouble spot super-slowly. You may well see the wheels ride up & off the rail. Use an NMRA gauge to check the track and the wheels to make certain that both are properly gauged. Above all, take your time, and work in small baby steps to find each problem in turn. The #1 cause of unplanned uncouplings is coupler height. Usually this is checked by eyeball. Even Micro-Train's own coupler height gauge depends on an eyeball estimate of how well a car's coupler matches the height of the gauge's coupler, and both couplers can move vertically a bit. I came up with a more accurate test. I cut two slots in an NMRA standards gauge. One measures the height of the coupler knuckle, and the other measures the height of the trip pin. (See Photos)
> ...


Thanks, I have been trying the "divide and conquer" approach by focusing on one of the 4 loops, and only in one direction. Some of the measurement techniquest you mention are non-trivial, as the track is made up of more curved than straight, and much of is is at a 1.5% to 1.75% grade... but I will keep trying... hopefully the new cars will arrive soon (and thinking that a set of 6 purchased together should have good matchup)


----------



## bpiperjr (Dec 12, 2011)

DAvid.Corbin said:


> Thanks... So a longish train (say 30 cars) would have a dead weight of nearly 2 lbs....suprised that would not cause slippage when the engine tries go from dead stop....





DAvid.Corbin said:


> Thanks... So a longish train (say 30 cars) would have a dead weight of nearly 2 lbs....suprised that would not cause slippage when the engine tries go from dead stop....


Hi David, I also run N scale with a similar sized layout and had similar problems. I'm not using Kato track. I use a combination of Atlas and Peco. I have a double track mainline running two loops with two outside loops. I decideed to convert all freight cars to mtl trucks and couplers and replaced the plastic wheels with 33" .540 metal wheels. That ended the uncoupling. Secondly, I ordered motorcycle tire weights on ebay. With these changes I'm able to run more cars because the cars were jumping the track coming down the grade because of the weight from the cars behind them. My EM-1's can now pull 13 cars. I hope this helps.


----------



## Rich1853 (Jun 25, 2018)

MichaelE said:


> You forgot TT. I'm really wondering what that might stand for.


Since I have a TT layout, let me say
Textbook to a T
Because it was derived from an Engineering Scale 1:10 (1:120in)


----------



## NewTexan (Apr 29, 2012)

Lots of good suggestions, I have two more -- one helpful, and one meant to be humorous. Humor first. Try Z scale for a while, then when you go back to N it will seem LARGE and easier to see! Helpful -- take your most reliable engine and run it alone everywhere on your layout. If no problems, start adding cars on or to at a time -- preferably of the same make. Try building a tst train with a different make of cars. These steps should help isolate the problem. Good luck!


----------



## Madman (Aug 22, 2020)

The last time I tried "N" scale was way back in the early '70s. That's when I could see anything up close or far away without glasses. I dabbled in it once more in the late '70s just before I switched to "O" scale. My eyes were still excellent, but when I hit my early forties in the late '80s, all of a sudden I needed reading glasses. 

I know you said a larger scale was not viable at this time, but think about this. Large scale, "G", can be very rewarding even in a limited space. The ability to detail it to the extent that the smaller scales do not allow or at the least are more difficult as one gets older, is astonishing. 

On the large scale forum I belong to, there are modelers who have built streetcar layouts where you really have to look three times to see that it is a model.

Just some food for thought for tired old eyes.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

Mixed Freight said:


> View attachment 557945
> 
> Here's a picture of an NMRA N-scale standards gauge. Most better hobby shops and virtually all on-line mail order shops that offer N-scale should carry them. They are a little expensive, but they are stainless steel and will last a lifetime. An indispensable tool to keep around.
> 
> ...


One other thing you can do is to make a couple ( no pun intended) or how ever many you need, transition cars for your trains. A special car with a kato coupler on one end and a MT coupler on the other to be placed between the locomotive and the rest of the MT coupler equipt cars, freight or (other brands) passenger cars. I'd pick unique enough cars as the transition cars such as a particular billboard boxcar or a flat car with a unique load. For the passenger consists you could use a REA reefer or your era specific head-end car. It was prototypical that scheduled passenger trains would include one to several specially equipt for high speed running head-end cars between the loco and the first passenger car. REA reefers were common as were mail cars, and horse cars. They contained time sensitive high value cargo and were located there so that when the train pulled into a station stop, the loco with the head-end cars were uncoupled from the passenger cars and taken to a special yard location where they were dropped off for immediate unloading by a crew standing by for it. If it was a small single track station with a freight shed the head-end cars may have stayed coupled and unloaded while the passengers were boarding. If there was enough business to warrant it the railroad would have high speed scheduled trains of all head-end cars.


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

Madman said:


> The last time I tried "N" scale was way back in the early '70s. That's when I could see anything up close or far away without glasses. I dabbled in it once more in the late '70s just before I switched to "O" scale. My eyes were still excellent, but when I hit my early forties in the late '80s, all of a sudden I needed reading glasses.
> 
> I know you said a larger scale was not viable at this time, but think about this. Large scale, "G", can be very rewarding even in a limited space. The ability to detail it to the extent that the smaller scales do not allow or at the least are more difficult as one gets older, is astonishing.
> 
> ...


Yes, =but imagine the space needed to have the desired level of complexity in O scale. At a minimum 30 feet by 30 feet, and that would be without access panels (suspend myself over the layout like Mission Impossible)?


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

Was able to get an overnight (almost 7 hour) run with 4 cars . Looking for recommendations to do full truck replacements on most of my rolling stock (takes cae of wheels, couplers, and should help with equal height. Is this a good option (both selection of product and price)??? https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005JTMH5S


----------



## Steven Johnson (Feb 23, 2021)

DAvid.Corbin said:


> Long time intermittent model railroader (going back to the early 1970s). Embarked on a new layout about 2 years ago.... 40 square feet of N Scale [all KAao track], so a moderate size...
> 
> The problem is that I _still_ can not get a loco with any number of cars to run smoothly without uncoupling or derailing. This is compounded by the fact that my hands ad eyes are no longer what they once were.


Trackage and couplers will be the source of most of these issues. Make sure that your couplers are the same height and that they move smoothly side to side. Also be sure that your trucks are not binding as they follow the curve of the rails and that the wheels turn freely. You may need to invest in some better trucks with better couplers. Kato Unitrack is a very good product but the rail joints can be bumpy. If you have not already done it, take each piece of track and gently file the sharp edge off the top of the end of each piece of rail, This should help to minimize bumpiness. If you are derailing through turnouts, then also carefully file down the top inside edge of the points where they meet the stock rail. Another option is to put a notch in the stock rails which the points will fit into to make truck transitions smoother, but this is more difficult. Meticulous detail to trackage, couplers, and trucks should help a great deal. Keep up the faith with N scale. You can get much more trackage in a small space. The products are much better than ever with great detail. Locomotives move with great precision even at slower speeds. If your locos move with too much speed even at lower voltages, MRC makes a resistor array that is easy to use and will decrease the output voltage of your power pack so you can utilize more of the range of your rheostat, I did that and it's great. You will find that you need to move the rheostat further before your loco begins to move, but that is the point...to slow things down. I am nearly 74 and now that I am retired I am moving full steam ahead with a new N scale layout. It will be 14 feet by 2-4 feet, kind of like a square dog bone. Try getting that large a layout in HO (It would be like 28 feet by 4-8 feet!) or O (Even more enormous!!) scales without having to use your entire basement or put an addition on your house! Make sure your eyes are in the best condition that they can be!! Good luck and have fun!!


----------



## Steven Johnson (Feb 23, 2021)

MichaelE said:


> You forgot TT. I'm really wondering what that might stand for.


Tiny trains?? I think


MichaelE said:


> You forgot TT. I'm really wondering what that might stand for.
> [/QUOTE
> Tiny Trains??!! I think that it is like OO. Both are like HO, but I think they they are only in Europe. But I am not sure!! I know, that is no help.


----------



## Steven Johnson (Feb 23, 2021)

Sorry, Half of my reply wound up in someone else's (MichaelE) post.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

TT is not that tiny....it’s 1:120 scale, bigger than both N and Z scale.....


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

DAvid.Corbin said:


> Was able to get an overnight (almost 7 hour) run with 4 cars . Looking for recommendations to do full truck replacements on most of my rolling stock (takes cae of wheels, couplers, and should help with equal height. Is this a good option (both selection of product and price)??? https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005JTMH5S


Just changing out trucks and hoping that fixes your coupler height issues probably won't help much. There really isn't any substitute for getting in there with either your NMRA Standards gauge (you do have one of those, right?) or a coupler height gauge and check every single one. Fix any that don't rigidly conform.

Unfortunately, there is no short cut to a well-running railroad. Bullet-proof track work, perfectly aligned (and matching) couplers, and meticulously tuned rolling stock will solve 99.99% of all operating problems. You just have to roll up your sleeves and fix anything that is sub-par.


----------



## Mixed Freight (Aug 31, 2019)

DAvid.Corbin said:


> Was able to get an overnight (almost 7 hour) run with 4 cars . Looking for recommendations to do full truck replacements on most of my rolling stock (takes cae of wheels, couplers, and should help with equal height. Is this a good option (both selection of product and price)??? https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005JTMH5S


Yes! That's one good option, although maybe a bit pricey. Or, take a look here, too..................





__





MICRO-TRAINS COUPLERS


MICRO-TRAINS COUPLERS – TRUCKS – ACCESSORIES *** NOTE***We ship to Canada and Overseas – ONLY if paid with Paypal! Buyer must have a verified Paypal address. Buyer will be charged actual Priority Mail Postage plus 2.00 handling fee!!!




hogtrainz.com





Bettendorf trucks w/short extension couplers - these are my personal favorites because my general modeling period is the late steam and first/second generation diesel. The short extension couplers allow closer coupling for a much more prototypical appearance.

They are also available in medium and long extension couplers too, if so desired. Some freight cars actually require the longer extensions to clear the end of the car. Plus, some of their trucks are available in either black OR brown.

The only thing you still have to check on these MTL trucks is the coupler trip pin height. Make sure they are at least .005" above the top of the rail. You can use any .005 shim to check them, or you can even eyeball it if worse comes to worse. Simply lay the shim on top of the rails, and make sure the trip pins can roll over it without catching.

If you're modeling more 1970's and later, you may wish to go with roller bearing trucks instead of the Bettendorfs. Matter of fact, Bettendorf trucks are no longer allowed in interchange service on the full size railroads, and nowadays it's even quite rare to see Bettendorf trucks on any non-interchange cars.


----------



## Mixed Freight (Aug 31, 2019)

CTValleyRR said:


> Just changing out trucks and hoping that fixes your coupler height issues probably won't help much. .........................


Sorry CTVRR, but respectfully disagree. While the rest of your suggestions are right on the money, changing out to MTL trucks and couplers WILL make a considerable improvement. Guaranteed.

But you don't have to take my word for it, just ask 100% of N-Trak modular railroaders what brand of trucks and couplers they use to successfully run up to 100-car freight trains on their layouts. And don't think for a minute that their module track work is always up to snuff. If their modules are anything like my club's modules, the track work is getting well worn and needing some maintenance from all the setups, tear-downs, wear & tear, and age.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

DAvid.Corbin said:


> Thanks, I have been trying the "divide and conquer" approach by focusing on one of the 4 loops, and only in one direction. Some of the measurement techniquest you mention are non-trivial, as the track is made up of more curved than straight, and much of is is at a 1.5% to 1.75% grade... but I will keep trying... hopefully the new cars will arrive soon (and thinking that a set of 6 purchased together should have good matchup)


Non-trivial? Did you mean non-applicable? A shorter strait edge, like a 9" level can be used on curves. By "flat" in my post, I don't mean with no gradient. Rather I mean that the top of the rail is in a straight line vertically.

Traction Fan


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Mixed Freight said:


> Sorry CTVRR, but respectfully disagree. While the rest of your suggestions are right on the money, changing out to MTL trucks and couplers WILL make a considerable improvement. Guaranteed.
> 
> But you don't have to take my word for it, just ask 100% of N-Trak modular railroaders what brand of trucks and couplers they use to successfully run up to 100-car freight trains on their layouts. And don't think for a minute that their module track work is always up to snuff. If their modules are anything like my club's modules, the track work is getting well worn and needing some maintenance from all the setups, tear-downs, wear & tear, and age.


Fine. That's why we have these discussions. If it's simply a question of stuff being worn out, or of different brands being less compatible in N scale, then perhaps so. My assessment is based on the fact that if the trucks aren't swiveling properly, new trucks won't help without fixing the clearance issues. If the coupler is body-mounted and the truck at the wrong height, the new truck will still be at the wrong height.

My primary consideration, though, it to keep him from just throwing money at the problem without really knowing what's causing it.

I also don't mean to imply that everything on a layout has to be perfect. But if you try to make it that way, the tiny imperfections that do creep in are less likely to add up to a major problem. Don't tolerate known problems or sloppy work.


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

Steven Johnson said:


> Trackage and couplers will be the source of most of these issues. Make sure that your couplers are the same height and that they move smoothly side to side. Also be sure that your trucks are not binding as they follow the curve of the rails and that the wheels turn freely. You may need to invest in some better trucks with better couplers. Kato Unitrack is a very good product but the rail joints can be bumpy. If you have not already done it, take each piece of track and gently file the sharp edge off the top of the end of each piece of rail, This should help to minimize bumpiness. If you are derailing through turnouts, then also carefully file down the top inside edge of the points where they meet the stock rail. Another option is to put a notch in the stock rails which the points will fit into to make truck transitions smoother, but this is more difficult. Meticulous detail to trackage, couplers, and trucks should help a great deal. Keep up the faith with N scale. You can get much more trackage in a small space. The products are much better than ever with great detail. Locomotives move with great precision even at slower speeds. If your locos move with too much speed even at lower voltages, MRC makes a resistor array that is easy to use and will decrease the output voltage of your power pack so you can utilize more of the range of your rheostat, I did that and it's great. You will find that you need to move the rheostat further before your loco begins to move, but that is the point...to slow things down. I am nearly 74 and now that I am retired I am moving full steam ahead with a new N scale layout. It will be 14 feet by 2-4 feet, kind of like a square dog bone. Try getting that large a layout in HO (It would be like 28 feet by 4-8 feet!) or O (Even more enormous!!) scales without having to use your entire basement or put an addition on your house! Make sure your eyes are in the best condition that they can be!! Good luck and have fun!!


Thanks... The only thing to point out is I am running all DCC - so the track voltage is not the same set of concerns as would be for a DC layout.


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

traction fan said:


> Non-trivial? Did you mean non-applicable? A shorter strait edge, like a 9" level can be used on curves. By "flat" in my post, I don't mean with no gradient. Rather I mean that the top of the rail is in a straight line vertically.
> 
> Traction Fan


The track curves away from the level quickly as shown below.... Also consider flat track followed by 1.5% grade for 9" then flat again, the differential in height it 0.135"...

So yes, the measurements you mentioned are important and can be made, but doing so is not a trivial task to get real numbers. Most of the improvements I have gotten (and 5 minutes to 7 hours I do consider a significant improvement - but still ways to go) have been with shims that are 1/3 [0.03125"]....


----------



## DAvid.Corbin (Apr 12, 2021)

CTValleyRR said:


> Fine. That's why we have these discussions. If it's simply a question of stuff being worn out, or of different brands being less compatible in N scale, then perhaps so. My assessment is based on the fact that if the trucks aren't swiveling properly, new trucks won't help without fixing the clearance issues. If the coupler is body-mounted and the truck at the wrong height, the new truck will still be at the wrong height.
> 
> My primary consideration, though, it to keep him from just throwing money at the problem without really knowing what's causing it.
> 
> I also don't mean to imply that everything on a layout has to be perfect. But if you try to make it that way, the tiny imperfections that do creep in are less likely to add up to a major problem. Don't tolerate known problems or sloppy work.


For the rolling stock I have, the couplers are mounted to the trucks, so I would think that differences in distance (if any) in the attachment of the truck to the body should not be relevant. I do agree that if the tucks don't swivel (they all appear to do so freely) there would be problems....

I should be receiving balancng weights later today, so hope to do the weight testing over the weekend.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

I’m willing to bet you will find that weight will make a difference......


----------



## Chops124 (Dec 23, 2015)

Throw in my two cents. You have taken up an intimidating number of projects on the operational end, what with automation and all. I assume this is all within your scope. Far beyond my pay grade,

One assumes your track is clean, although you never mentioned it, or I missed it. Clean track generally fixes a lot of symptoms you described, but you say this is an 8th generation layout, so you probably have all that worked out. Track cleaning methods are hotly contested, so I won't even in go into it other than suggest you do some internet research on the subject.

The photo of your interchange looks like a fairly complex wad of track, particularly if you add in all these electronic control features. What are your thoughts about starting over from scratch, but starting with one line of track, perfect it, before moving on to adding more and more layers of complexity?

Getting older stinks. "Golden Years" my arse.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

DAvid.Corbin said:


> For the rolling stock I have, the couplers are mounted to the trucks, so I would think that differences in distance (if any) in the attachment of the truck to the body should not be relevant. I do agree that if the tucks don't swivel (they all appear to do so freely) there would be problems....
> 
> I should be receiving balancng weights later today, so hope to do the weight testing over the weekend.


Weight will definitely help, especially if your rolling stock is underweight to NMRA recommended practices. As far as truck mounted couplers, while Irealized that this tende to be more common in N scale, there are known drawbacks to truck mounted couplers in terms of reliability and tracking.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Those drawbacks of truck mounted couplers usually show up more when backing a train.....


----------



## johnccaravello (Oct 14, 2021)

DAvid.Corbin said:


> Long time intermittent model railroader (going back to the early 1970s). Embarked on a new layout about 2 years ago.... 40 square feet of N Scale [all KAao track], so a moderate size...
> 
> The problem is that I _still_ can not get a loco with any number of cars to run smoothly without uncoupling or derailing. This is compounded by the fact that my hands ad eyes are no longer what they once were.


My eyes are older also. I've been modeling H.O. scale all my life and without magnification I'm lost. My family got me a Carson Pro Magnivisor Deluxe. It's a headband with a light and has about a half dozen thick plastic lenses which pop in and out of the headband easily. You find the one that gives to the magnification you need to see things more clearly. It's amazing what you can locate on your trains and your track. If I had to start the hobby again, I would go with S Scale. They run well and look realistic and you can see everything more easily. Today there is much more availability in this scale than there was in the 1950's and 1960's. My ship has sailed. I've got too much invested in H.O. scale now. The magnification lenses have made the biggest difference in locating trouble spots. I also use an NMRA wheel gauge to check the spacing on any trouble cars and also use their track gauge to check the spacing of the rails on the railroad. Good luck. Have patience. You will prevail. It just takes practice. Figuring things out is what makes us better model railroaders. Don't forget, the real full-scale railroads have derailments at times also. Usually the track or a faulty set of wheels. Occasionally it is train handling by the Engineer but as a Retired Locomotive Engineer myself, I am hesitant to put the blame on my Brothers and Sisters. We are well trained before they put us behind a throttle on our own. Good Luck.


----------



## johnccaravello (Oct 14, 2021)

CTValleyRR said:


> Weight will definitely help, especially if your rolling stock is underweight to NMRA recommended practices. As far as truck mounted couplers, while Irealized that this tende to be more common in N scale, there are known drawbacks to truck mounted couplers in terms of reliability and tracking.


I will pass on a trick told to me years back. It may or may not work but it's an easy fix sometimes. The screws that hold the truck on the bottom of your railroad car, leave one end a little looser than the other by backing out one screw just a little. It sounds too easy but I've had some good successes. The weights will also help. On a full-scale railroad older empty cars seem to derail easier than loaded cars. They have the same problems we do but it's easier to spot the problems without wearing magnifying lenses like we sometimes need to do. Good luck. Hope this helps.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Old thread...


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Not as old as some that get resurrected….. 😁


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

No, but there is now at least a little warning box above the typing area that warns when you are about to reply to a post that is more than 6 months old...


----------

