Coupling KATO and Rapido pass cars

[OldEastRR]

I have a KATO Pennsy 10-6 sleeper I'm trying to run with Rapido's 8600 coaches but the KATO car always has a truck pulled off on a curve if it's coupled to a Rapido car. I know one has truck mounts and the other body mounts but if they don't stay coupled now how would two body-mounts (with no swing) even work? Maybe if I put a longer shank coupler in the two Rapidos that it couples to that might work. Or what?
BTW these are 13.5" (only one) or larger radius curves.

[bbussey]

You already know what the issue is. Body-mount the Kato car or increase the radius, as 13.5” is too severe. A minimum radius of 16” will work with Kato/Rapido-coupled equipment.

[thomasjmdavis]

The other thing that can help is to loosen the coupler on the Rapido car (a screw, rather than the pin MTL uses, at least on my "Panorama" series cars). As with MTL bodymounts, you may get better performance if the coupler can rotate a little. And Bryan is right about 16" radius.  My last layout had 15" curves, and I still had occasional problems with this very issue.

[nkalanaga]

I'm with the others.  16 inch radius is the minimum here.  I'd go ahead and body-mount 1015s (or, even better, 1016s) on the Kato car.  If you wish, buy a new pair of trucks as well, that way you'll have the original truck-mounted couplers if you ever wish to go back to them.

The reason two body-mounts will work is that, unlike prototype couplers, our couplers can turn within each other.  Even if the coupler shanks are against the sides of the box, the couplers themselves can be at an angle to each other.

But this only works if the coupler shanks pivot at about the same distance from the end of the car, AND the cars are about the same length.  Passenger cars fit the second requirement, but body- and truck-mounted couplers pivot at much different distances from the end.  One or the other will usually derail on sharp curves because the couplers can't adapt to that great a difference.

The prototype, all body-mounts, has the same problem with different length cars.  Lines with sharp curves usually have restrictions on which car lengths can be coupled together.  No short ore cars next to the autoracks!

[bbussey]

A sidebar on your choice of equipment. Pennsy “Rapid” series sleepers didn’t run on Washington/Boston trains. InterMountain PRR "City" and “County” cars would be more appropriate, and also are heavier than the Kato cars. However, Kato “Harbor” cars were used interchangeably with NH “State” cars so they would be appropriate, since you’re poaching Kato Broadway equipment.

Or, body-mount your Kato equipment.

[OldEastRR]

I figured it was body/truck mount problems. However, they derail on the 18" radius curve and not the 13". Or the 14" R. And only in one spot. So I'm thinking I have a kink in the big curve or not a good enough easement. Or there's a switch right at the curve so it might be the problem. It's a tricky spot to get to but I'll make more examinations.
An all-KATO train makes all the circuits (3 routes, all with varying curves) w/o problems, and so does an all-Rapido train.
All-Intermountain/CCS not so much. (all pass trains)

[nkalanaga]

Yes, if they derail on a curve wider than ones they go through, it does sound like track.

Another thing you might look for is solder or flash on the inside of the outside rail.  I have one curve, around the end of a peninsula, where the outside rail is closest to the aisle.  I can't see the inside of that rail.  One loco derailed at one spot (not a joint) for years.  I finally gave up running it. 

Since it's code 40 flextrack, I also use that curve to test flanges on new types of wheels.  It's my MILW interchange, and the only "mainline" code 40 I have, so I can get a good test.  Some older Kato passenger cars cleared the spikes, so should have been good, but "clicked" at that spot.  A mirror and flashlight showed a limp of flash on one tie.  After filing that off, my loco ran fine!

Incidentally, that loco was a Kato EF-58 electric - of which I have three, all with the flanges turned down by Pat at Trainworx years ago.  That was the only one of the three that derailed there.  All wheels were in gauge, so I don't know what the difference was.

[bbussey]

I figured it was body/truck mount problems. However, they derail on the 18" radius curve and not the 13". Or the 14" R. And only in one spot. So I'm thinking I have a kink in the big curve or not a good enough easement. Or there's a switch right at the curve so it might be the problem. It's a tricky spot to get to but I'll make more examinations.
An all-KATO train makes all the circuits (3 routes, all with varying curves) w/o problems, and so does an all-Rapido train.
All-Intermountain/CCS not so much. (all pass trains)

Upgrade the IMRC/CCS trucks to Kato trucks.

[Sokramiketes]

Upgrade the IMRC/CCS trucks to Kato trucks.

Early cars had the three piece assembled trucks, and were prototypical but not very reliable.

Later cars were issued with MTL trucks, all one style and not correct, but ran well.  AND, they were undersized enough to work with the skirting cutouts.

Kato trucks are a project, both in notching the floor to clear the pick up tabs, and in widening skirting cutouts to allow the larger (and wider) trucks to fit.  But they are the gold standard in operability. 

I just wish the clip on Kato trucks didn't flop around on a screw mount (once you clip the ears they fit, but rattle)

[bbussey]

Early cars had the three piece assembled trucks, and were prototypical but not very reliable.

Later cars were issued with MTL trucks, all one style and not correct, but ran well.  AND, they were undersized enough to work with the skirting cutouts.

Kato trucks are a project, both in notching the floor to clear the pick up tabs, and in widening skirting cutouts to allow the larger (and wider) trucks to fit.  But they are the gold standard in operability. 

I just wish the clip on Kato trucks didn't flop around on a screw mount (once you clip the ears they fit, but rattle)

I just clip the nubs on the ears.  I use the newer trucks on screw-mount Kato cars also where a newer truck style is the correct prototype for the model (or for kitbashed models using a Kato body as the core).

[OldEastRR]

Luckily, I don't own any CCS pass cars, but a friend of mine who has a ton of them in NYC colors does and runs them at times on my layout. Since my streamline trains run fine, he doesn't have the excuse that "it's the track". The problem seems to be that CCS on their early cars started out with the skirt cut-outs designed to fit their own brand of truck (a 3-piece jobbie that was forever getting out of alignment) but changed to using std MTL 4-wheel passenger trucks that don't quiiiiiiite clear the skirt cutouts . So the cutouts need some filing or carving to give the extra few N inches the MTL trucks need. And of course beware of the low-hanging uncoupling clip end. So something to be aware of when mixing car parts (or consists) from different mfgrs. Not everybody uses the same specs for the same proto equipment.

As for my problem, I've learned you can't just look at track from above to see if it looks right -- you need to do it at eye-level too. Turns out there was a rather noticeable dip in the tracks where they joined at that point in the curve in question, which may explain some other mysterious derailments on it that happened with other cars and engines. Thought I had finally mastered good trackwork but apparently only in the horizontal axis (those points between bridges and abutments on grade are tricky, too)

[nkalanaga]

That will do it!

I found most of the dips, humps, and "transverse level faults", where one side of the track is higher than the other, early.  The first-run Kato F3/7 had almost no play in the trucks, so any short faults would cause one truck to derail, especially after turning the flanges down. 

That's how I found that the early Micro-Engineering turnouts had "humped" frogs.  My Fs derailed at the points, but only when going through the curved side, facing-point.  The rear truck would climb over the point.  The odd thing was that it did it almost exclusively on the rear truck, of the third unit, of a four-unit set, pulling a train.  No train, no problem.  Three or fewer units, no problem.  Didn't matter if the third unit was an A or B.  Didn't matter if it was a freight or passenger train. Only those Fs had a problem, and it was all of them. That one took almost a year to solve!

It wouldn't have been so bad except that, in 1974, the BN had a LOT of Fs!

[Sokramiketes]

I just clip the nubs on the ears.  I use the newer trucks on screw-mount Kato cars also where a newer truck style is the correct prototype for the model (or for kitbashed models using a Kato body as the core).

I wasn't too clear, but yes I clip just the nubbin.  Still flops around.  Fine for skirtless cars, but not for early cars.