Kato FEF and Peco code 80 - oh dear.

[mmagliaro]

Don't confuse the Peco code 80 with the code 55 turnouts.  The shimming/clearance
problem is only on the code 80.

I think I see my confusion:
Jeff, are your club's code 80 turnouts electrofog or insulfrog?   The electrofrog turnouts
don't have the guard rail problem.

[nkalanaga]

Actually, I shimmed my Peco code 55 turnouts almost as soon as they were laid.  The only ones I have  are in my staging yard, and neither Precision Masters nor MT lo-pro wheels would go through the curved sides reliably.  I shimmed the frog (guard rail) side of both stock rail flangeways and they work fine.

Another problem I found, which only affected some wheels, was the tip of the points.  My turnouts were a mixed bag, bought over several years, and they had two point styles.  One had flat vertical ends, the other had the top of the end cut back at an angle.   Deeper flanges, including some that worked fine on ME code 40 flex track, worked on either one.  True lo-pro wheels would ride up the angled end and keep going straight, instead of taking the curved route.  I replaced those, and again, haven't had any problems since.  In this case, neither the wheel nor track gauge mattered.

[bobthebear]

Hi Guys.
Thanks for all the feedback.
Quite ofter the problem wasn't the frog, but the wheels riding up over the curved blade, mainly the front truck, which then dragged the drivers over too. Fitting "pizza cutter" wheels (now painted black) on the front truck has almost cured the problem, plus removing those pegs (what the hell were they for?).
Never had problems with Peco switches in 45 years of n scale use, so I suppose it was a bit harsh to give equal blame!
Cheers, Bob.

[peteski]

That still sounds strange. These turnouts aren't by chance the small-radius ones?



Those pegs are way above the rail height and should have absolutely no bearing on the running quality of the engine.  Even if the first driver is in its highest location up in the frame, the pegs are still around 0.030" above the rails. Those pegs are there to restrict the side-play of the front axle. If those pegs even came close to any of the rails then you probably have some really serious problem with your track (I can't even imagine what that could be).

Out of curiosity, what is the largest seam loco model which can successfully run on your layout?

[bobthebear]

Hi peteski.
They are all large radius, or curved.
Previous largest wheelbase are Kato GS4s,  Bachmann 4-8-4s and Con-cor 2-10-2. All have no problem.
Cheers.

[peteski]

Hi peteski.
They are all large radius, or curved.
Previous largest wheelbase are Kato GS4s,  Bachmann 4-8-4s and Con-cor 2-10-2. All have no problem.
Cheers.

That is puzzling. FEF-3 is not all that different (size-wise) from GS-4. I I wonder if the equalized suspension of the front pair of drivers (the only major difference) is somehow playing role here.   Another possibility is that there is something wrong with the model.  Like I mentioned, friend has a layout with all Peco track (C80 and c55).  Once I install a decoder in my FEF-3 I'll try it on his layout.  But that won't be for a while.

[Nato]

     I used my decoder equipped FEF right out of the box for testing on my layout which is wireless DC all my track is code 80 all but two switches are Peco code 80 the two other ones are  Shinoraha (spell check). It runs fine through all the switches even the tightly curved ones like the above picture. These tight switches are in my yard and I ran the locomotive slowly through them forward and backwards because I was not sure about KATO's claims about the tender being articulated . It really is, sorry to hear that someone else received one that does not go through the Peco switches. My only trouble is the cab roof rear overhang striking (rubbing) against a tunnel portal on one main line. The easy fix will be to file the portal down.                 Nate Goodman (Nato).

[bobthebear]

Well I have been spending the day checking all the turnouts and I have come to the conclusion that it's the loco rather than the Peco switches. The frog is NOT the problem. The front or rear drivers (depending which way the loco is moving)are riding up over the outside rail on the curved section of the turnouts. There seems to be an enormous amount of vertical travel in the driving wheels - far more then the flange depth, so once one wheel pops over the side, the others tuck under and over she goes! The GS4s, with the same size flanges, can blast through the same turnouts forwards and backwards.
My next problem is, as I live in U.K., that I bought it from U.S. and have weathered and re-numbered it! A friend has got one, but has not yet fitted a decoder, but I will have a look at his later in the week to see if his drivers are as loose as mine before I decide what to do next. I will keep you informed.
Cheers, Bob.

[mmagliaro]

Have you checked the gauge between the rails with an NMRA gauge?
When steam locos go through a switch, especially the curved parts of the switch, if those rails are even
a slight bit narrow in gauge, they will tend to force the engine to climb up and out rather than
negotiate the curve.

This will affect all locos differently. 

I run a lot of steam and have had a lot of experience with this problem even though I am not using Peco
track now.

As a double-check, put that NMRA gauge between the rails right at the point where you
see that first engine wheel start climbing up the rail.  See if the rails are just a little narrow at that point.

[bobthebear]

Yes, use the NMRA gauge all the time and everything checks out. That is what's so puzzling.

[peteski]

Bob, the loose drivers are there by design.  ALl FEF-3s have them.  It is an evolutionary step of the GS-4 design.

In the GS-4 the first and the driven axle (3rd) had not vertical play. Basically the entire loco was supported by those 2 axles.  The 2nd axle was free to move up and down and the last (4th) axle was also free to move vertically but it was also softly spring (not enough though to support any appreciable weight).  So, 2nd and 4th axles were pretty much cosmetic only.

The FEF-3 retained the features of the 3rd and 4th axles. Bit instead of the 1st axle being fixed and 2nd being totally loose (vertically), Kato coupled those axles onto a teeter type of suspension. The teeter's center pivot is attached to the frame and the 1st and 2nd acle are attached to the ends of the teeter.  That is why there is so much vertical play. When the 1st axle goes up, the 2nd axle will go down by the equal amount and vice-verse.

This is supposed to be an improvement over the GS-4 design.  Too bad that you are having so much problem with this model.   It is also surprising that others who also use Peco turnouts don't seem to see the same issue. It will be interesting to see how your friend's FEF-3 behaves on your layout.

Are the turnouts on flat portions of the layout?  What kind of roadbed did you use?  Could you take a photo (from above) of one of the turnouts on which the loco derails?  Is the FEF-3 able to traverse any of the large radius or curved turnouts on your layout?

[bobthebear]

Thanks for the explanation peteski.
Here are the "offending" turnouts. They are on cork roadbed. The loco (now that I have replaced the leading truck wheels) only derails in reverse by climbing up the closure rail. The frogs and points are ok.
The last one is on the exit to the loco depot, so I'm deciding if I need to rip this turnout out and replace it.

[peteski]

Hmmm. So is a mix of plastic and electro frogs.  They seem to look ok.  Does the FEF-3 derail on both straight and diverging routes?

One ting that I noticed in the photos is that the the tops of the points seem dull (not shiny) almost as if the top of the points rails is lower than the rail tops so when you clean the track the points do not get shined up. But that might be just the way they photographed.  But if the top of the point rail was below the stock rails that could cause a problem with a small-flanged loco like FEF-3.

[bobthebear]

Hi.
It's the diverging route, especially in reverse that causes the problem. The last turnout, in the photos, after investigation, was "humped" in the middle. Hadn't noticed it before, and all other steamers ran through in reverse no problem, so no reason to even look. That has now been dealt with, and is now satisfactory with the FEF. All the other turnouts are level.
I think the dull look are the photos as there is less metal on the points. And, it's not the points but the closure rails that cause the problem.

[victor miranda]

I have been puzzling over this for a while.

the driver has enough leeway to come off the rails,
somehow the flange is finding enough traction to lift the driver.

what makes your problem unique is that so few have the issue.
my test loop is 12 inch radius  and when I first looked at the front drivers
I wondered how they would stay on the rails because there didn't seem any weight on them.

there is weight on them, just not the entire loco all at once.

so, any bumps inside the rails?  this would be kinda like a de-railer
does pulling a train make any difference?
is the traction tire driver falling into a frog losing traction and shoving the loco sideways?

very curious.