BLMA 52' Gon

[sirenwerks]

1/16" tungsten welding rods work good for gons. And they come in a handy 10 pack.

For what, may I ask? Weight? Representing a load? I'm sure it's just me, Chris, and I mean no disrespect, but you have me lost in non sequitur land now trying to figure it out.

[John]

I pulled all of the BLMA wheelsets and installed MT plastic lo-pros.  Derailments decreased substantially.  The cars still need a boost in weight, but going to the MT wheelsets made a big difference. 

why do you think the cars derail with the BLMA wheels .. what kind of track, etc ..

[Chris333]

I put the tungsten rods in-between the center sills so they are pretty much invisible and since they are tungsten you won't need much to bring a car up to weight.

[MichaelWinicki]

why do you think the cars derail with the BLMA wheels .. what kind of track, etc ..

It's Atlas code 55.

I think a big part of it is the narrow tread width.

If the cars had more weight, the narrow tread path may not be as much of an issue.  But I didn't feel like screwing around adding weight so I swapped out the wheelsets to see how that would affect things... Pretty much just a test.  And it made a big difference.

I sent an email to Hay Brothers to see if they've come up with a load for these cars... And if they haven't, I'm sure they can. 

I also ordered some appropriate sized Atlas metal wheels because they have a wider tread. 

Once I get the weight thing sorted I'll probably try the BLMA's again just to see how they do with a heavier car.

[John]

it will be interesting to see your results ..

[conrail98]

Remember back on the Atlas turnout issue thread that the NMRA tolerances were narrowed for wheel treads and what they found was the Atlas turnouts were built to the wider tolerances and the newer wheels were built to the newer tread? It sounds similar here in that you may have track that's "in-gauge" for the older tolerances but out of gauge on the newer one to which the BLMA and other wheelsets are now being developed against (assuming that's what they are being built against). Again, I could be wrong, but I remember that being a contributing factor to the whole "Atlas turnouts out of gauge" question/concern,

Phil

[Packer]

The BLMA gon is a 52'6" gon...

Lol. I meant the same prototype.

[MichaelWinicki]

Remember back on the Atlas turnout issue thread that the NMRA tolerances were narrowed for wheel treads and what they found was the Atlas turnouts were built to the wider tolerances and the newer wheels were built to the newer tread? It sounds similar here in that you may have track that's "in-gauge" for the older tolerances but out of gauge on the newer one to which the BLMA and other wheelsets are now being developed against (assuming that's what they are being built against). Again, I could be wrong, but I remember that being a contributing factor to the whole "Atlas turnouts out of gauge" question/concern,

Phil

There maybe something to that Phil.

[sirenwerks]

Remember back on the Atlas turnout issue thread that the NMRA tolerances were narrowed for wheel treads and what they found was the Atlas turnouts were built to the wider tolerances and the newer wheels were built to the newer tread? It sounds similar here in that you may have track that's "in-gauge" for the older tolerances but out of gauge on the newer one to which the BLMA and other wheelsets are now being developed against (assuming that's what they are being built against). Again, I could be wrong, but I remember that being a contributing factor to the whole "Atlas turnouts out of gauge" question/concern,

Phil

I wonder what FVM wheels are gauged to?

[SAH]

I'm running them over c55 Atlas #7 & curved and Micro Engineering #6 c55.  Also Atlas and ME c55 track, plus some handlaid.  Also a curved turnout that some dummy built and then fiddled and fiddled and fiddled with to get it to work.  I've not changed the wheelsets out.  Runs fine over all of it after I added weight.  Mixed in with a 17 car train, pulled and pushed in each direction.  I've made up my mind what needs to happen on my layout.  YMMV of course.

BTW, Craig:  They ARE very nice looking cars.  Thanks for thinking of the steam ear / early diesel era modelers.  

Steve

[Mark5]

I pulled all of the BLMA wheelsets and installed MT plastic lo-pros.  Derailments decreased substantially.  The cars still need a boost in weight, but going to the MT wheelsets made a big difference. 

I find this interesting, especially since I test a fit a MTL wheelset to the BLMA truck this past weekend and decided it was too snug of a fit (the wheel would barely turn). ???

Mark

[Mark5]

I've been comparing my gon to my BLMA 4000, which tracks quite well. But my BLMA gon keeps derailing on my Unitrak 15" radius test track.

I noticed that the coupler pocket cover plate seems to be wider on the BLMA gon compared to the 4000:



Actually, it may be more about the wide portion sticking out further, thus increasing the possibility of the wheel flanges rubbing on curves.

I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but I'm gonna try removing some of the material on the plate on both sides as indicated by the red arrows here:



I will report back later with the results.

Interesting little side note, the tread on the 33" wheels seems to be a little narrower than on the 36" wheels.

Mark

Ok, finally got around to re-sizing the coupler cover plates - like this:



This seems to have solved the problem, as now the car can be pushed/pulled in a three car consist on my 15" and 11" radius test tracks. Not sure how it will do in a train since I don't have any track laid yet.  : As soon as I find my NMRA standards thing I will check the gauge on the wheelsets.

If you decide to narrow the coupler cover plates, be SURE not to take too much off, as on one side (the "hidden" side) there is a recessed area designed for the corresponding "pin" on the MTL coupler.

I lined up a underside photo with a piece of Atlas 11" radius track "sitting" on the trucks to illustrate how close the flanges get to the coupler box, but it did not turn out, so will try again to get this photo tomorrow.

Mark

[MichaelWinicki]

I lined up a underside photo with a piece of Atlas 11" radius track "sitting" on the trucks to illustrate how close the flanges get to the coupler box, but it did not turn out, so will try again to get this photo tomorrow.

Mark

Boy oh boy, that's a lot of work to get these to pass through 11" radius curves without causing an issue.

Maybe someone from BLMA can weigh in on what sort of radius these gons can navigate through.

[Mark5]

Boy oh boy, that's a lot of work to get these to pass through 11" radius curves without causing an issue.

FWIW I started looking at this due the car derailing on 15" radius (this will likely be the mainline min radius).

I have a 11" minimum radius on sidings for the current layout.

[MichaelWinicki]

FWIW I started looking at this due the car derailing on 15" radius (this will likely be the mainline min radius).

I have a 11" minimum radius on sidings for the current layout.

15" radius is a decent size.  A car that represents the prototype length that this one does should be able to handle a 15" radius curve.  I would think that the vast majority of N-scale pikes are 15" radius or smaller.

I've been adding a .25 ounce to the cars as a test and that seems to do the trick as far as being able to back them up through switches.