Kato FEF and Peco code 80 - oh dear.

[bobthebear]

My layout is quite old, just like me! It was built here in UK when Peco code 80 was king. All locos, including brass, run perfectly well through large radius and curves switches except this new Kato FEF. It throws itself in the dirt at nearly every turnout, and don't even ask it to reverse through any!
I have checked the obvious: gauge of the wheels and with an NMRA track gauge, the switches. As I say, EVERYTHING else runs through them fine.
Beautiful loco, but unless I rip the layout up (20 years work), it's on the shelf!
I wonder if Kato tried it on track other than their own before releasing it?

[peteski]

Bob,
sorry to hear about your troubles.  Kato's Unitrack is also code 80.  But Peco turnouts have excessive gap between the stock rail and the guardrail.  This affects many modern N scale locos (not just the FEF-3).  Those locos are build to be closer to the NMRA specs. To fix the problem modelers often glue a strip of thin styrene on the side of the guardrail facing the track.  I wonder if that is the reason the FEF-3 derails on your layout.

Have you made any observations (running the loco slowly) as to how the derailment happens?  You should be able to get a good idea as to what makes the loco go off the track.

Another possibility is that something on the FEF-3 is "out of whack" (to use a highly technical term). 

[Rossford Yard]

I think Peteski is right. I even have trouble with some of the BLMA metal wheels on their rolling stock, basically being too fine and getting loose in that big Peco opening (I still use it on staging level, with Atlas C55 on main portions of the layout)

I have put shims on offending turnouts over the years when required.  Worth a try, and maybe you would only need to do it on routes the FEF would typically take to avoid doing it everywhere.  Over time, you may have to do them all, or ignore or re-wheel all the great new freight car offerings that are now more fine scale.

[MVW]

I hadn't heard about that particular problem with Peco turnouts. A bit disconcerting, as I'm using them on my new layout.

I only have a bit of track in place at the moment, but I test ran seven different engines (including a couple Bachmann steamers) through the turnouts a few nights ago, and had absolutely no problems. In fact, I was quite happy with the performance of the turnouts.

So if Peco turnouts suck too, that leaves us with precisely zero commercial turnouts that are worth using, right? 

Jim

[C855B]

I'll have the opportunity to confirm this (...or not, hopefully...) next weekend when we have the N-Trak layout up at a train show. Its 100% older Peco turnouts, with questionable maintenance.

I will add to the chorus, however, from my experience with Peco curved turnouts - thin-tread wheels (I use FVM) tend to pick at the frog due to the mentioned guard rail issue. I try hard not to back trains through the couple of spots we have them on modules since they predictably require 0-5-0 intervention.

[bobthebear]

Thanks Guys.
I've had a chance at last to investigate properly. There were two reasons why it was de-railing going forwards. The front truck wheels are just too fine for code 80, so I have replaced them (not painted yet). Also there are 4 bars sticking down behind the front driver which were catching the point blades. I have filed them down.  I will look in my bits box and replace the rear truck wheels too. Hopefully that will cure reversing!
This is the only loco that has not liked Peco turnouts, so don't worry Jim.

[bobthebear]

Haven't found any suitable replacement wheelsets for the rear truck yet, but have added some lead weight and that has done the trick.

[C855B]

Funny... a friend asked me just a couple days ago about rear truck issues and could the tender use a little more weight. And he has older Peco Code 80 switches on his layout. So there you go.

Fascinating. :spock:

[Jeff AKA St0rm]

Having run the FEF on the club layout for almost 2 months now i have noticed no problems with the Peco turnouts. The whole layout is Peco code 80 turnouts and the FEF works great. There was one turnout that gave me problems but that is because there was a kink before the turnout once i fixed that everything was fine.

[bobthebear]

Interesting Jeff. Maybe I have just been unlucky, but it's sorted now.

[randgust]

"too fine for code 80"....??

Generally I've found that the bugaboo is the wheel tread width rather than the flanges, or even the back to back.   Same thing with the first run of the BLMA cars, the tread width was narrow enough it literally 'fell in the hole' at the frog rather than picking the point in some way.  Putting a shim in the guard rail won't help that unless you put it on the frog side to move the wheel over just a bit.   .005 is often just enough.

[mmagliaro]

Having run the FEF on the club layout for almost 2 months now i have noticed no problems with the Peco turnouts. The whole layout is Peco code 80 turnouts and the FEF works great. There was one turnout that gave me problems but that is because there was a kink before the turnout once i fixed that everything was fine.

How interesting:  Has your club put the shims into all the guard rails on those Peco turnouts?
That would be good to know.  I would be surprised if they are not shimmed.  Going back to
the 1990s, and even back into the 1980s, when I used Peco code 80, engines and cars would derail all the time unless those guards were shimmed.  Without the shims, a wheelset can drift over
and ride right up on the point of the frog.   MT cars are always in gauge because of their
one-piece wheelsets, so they were commonly affected by this.  Locos... sometimes you
could get away with it if your wheels were all set too narrow (which is often the case
out of the box).

Those 4 nubs hanging down behind the front drivers on that FEF look like trouble anyway.
May as well file them off.

[peteski]

Maybe I'm looking at this from the wrong angle but the "too fine for code 80" thing doesn't make sense to me.

What is the problem specifically?  The distance between the inside parts of the rail (gauge) is the same regardless of the rail height (code).  But many code 80 turnouts are designed with wider and deeper flangeways than the code 55 track (which more closely adheres to the NMRA standards for the flangeways.

So, the finer wheels of modern N scale models (narrower thread and shallower flange) can pick the frog points (due to the excessive width of the flangeways) or fall down into the frog (due to shallow flanges). Either of these can cause a derailment.  Either of these "problems" can be easily fixed by super-gluing some strip styrene in the appropriate place (a 5 minute job).  friend of mine uses Peco code 80 turnouts and he only had to apply the fix to few of them to make them reliable.  Once I get a decoder installed in my FEF-3, I'll give it a run on his layout. In the past I ran the Kato GS-4 without any issues.

[Jeff AKA St0rm]

How interesting:  Has your club put the shims into all the guard rails on those Peco turnouts?
That would be good to know.  I would be surprised if they are not shimmed.  Going back to
the 1990s, and even back into the 1980s, when I used Peco code 80, engines and cars would derail all the time unless those guards were shimmed.  Without the shims, a wheelset can drift over
and ride right up on the point of the frog.   MT cars are always in gauge because of their
one-piece wheelsets, so they were commonly affected by this.  Locos... sometimes you
could get away with it if your wheels were all set too narrow (which is often the case
out of the box).

Those 4 nubs hanging down behind the front drivers on that FEF look like trouble anyway.
May as well file them off.

No they are unaltered. Most of them are now installed on their 3rd layout. I have laid all the track on the last 2 layouts and have never had any major problems with the Peco turnouts.

[MVW]

Bob, Jeff -- I'm glad to see the conversation moving away from Peco turnouts as the major culprits here.

After having moved away from Atlas turnouts, I've been initially very impressed with the robust construction of Peco's products. But my first thought when I started reading this thread was, "If these turn out to be lemons, too, I'm outta N scale."

Time will tell.

Jim