Improved tender trucks for Sunset/3rd Rail Allegheny?

Why don't you just scale em out? Probably not that tough to do if you have the time. 

Ron H -- I'm not sure what you mean by "scale 'em out." 

What I meant was working from photographs of the scale trucks, make the changes to the trucks that will detail them the way you wish. That could mean grinding off the cast brake cylinders, adding new ones or adding struts or rods, chains, what ever is needed. 

Thanks -- I see what you mean. The most significant issue, however, is that the original 3rd Rail trucks are not sprung (or equalized), and I can't really do anything to change that. The PSC trucks have sprung journals and articulated side frames like the real ones, and I thought it would be nice to have them under the tender, both for looks and for improved tracking. On the other hand, there's nothing seriously wrong with the 3rd Rail trucks that are in place now, and I haven't had any problems with derailments, so probably I'll just leave them alone after all. There are already mounting lugs on the tender for safety chains, so maybe I'll add some chains for a little extra detail, like you suggested.

Why not jut buy the PSC parts and have a look?  Last time I bought Buckeyes from them they were still bargain-priced.  The 3-axle kit will have bolsters that you can try to fit in the four axle side frame.

I used the 3-axle roller bearings under a Lobaugh Greenbrier, and they are perfect!  I too have the Sunset trucks under my MG Allegheny - a friend gave them to me. I have one eye open for the Max trucks, or maybe even a Max tender.

BOB2 -- You're right, the parts are still a bargain, so it's no big deal to do the experiment. That's a good idea about the bolster, too. Thanks for the suggestion. If I recall correctly, you reviewed the Sunset/3rd Rail Allegheny for "O Scale New/48 to the Foot" when it first arrived and were very complimentary (I agree). The only thing I've had to modify is the cab apron so it won't bind against the tender, which happened even on broad curves.

Yes - the Sunset makes my Max Gray look primitive. I shall look for a photo.

I think that review was almost two decades ago.  Good memory!

The problem with the sprung and equalized trucks is they will not really ride any better than your existing trucks unless you put a lot of weight in the tender. I will eventually put a lot of weight, to be determined, in my rolling stock. I play around with the spring rates on my steam locomotives and actually use stiff grease on the springs to slow down their jounce and rocking frequency.

Not a really simple cut and dried process, but who cares, it's my time and my dime. You can also put different springs between your bolster and stock trucks and experiment with weight and spring rates. Any comprehensive electrical supply house with have all kinds of little springs you can play with for a few cents.

Good luck.

Ron

We are opposite.  I drill and fit for coil springs on all my steam frames, but unless I have tracking problems I insert cork cushions, ensuring that all drivers touch on a surface plate.  Never noticed any difference between sprung and unsprung.  Others wildly disagree.

bob2 posted:

We are opposite.  I drill and fit for coil springs on all my steam frames, but unless I have tracking problems I insert cork cushions, ensuring that all drivers touch on a surface plate.  Never noticed any difference between sprung and unsprung.  Others wildly disagree.

Exactly Bob." I've never seen any difference either", unless the car or loco is made very very heavy. I'll put a demo video on here soon to show the difference weight can make.

I agree with the comments from Bob2 and Ron H that there is no appreciable difference in operation between sprung and unsprung trucks. My notion of replacing the stock trucks was just for the sake of the nicer detail in the PSC versions, and for the pleasure of tinkering with them (a part of the hobby I enjoy). I have adjusted the stock 3rd Rail trucks so that all wheels touch the track (the sideframes were a little skewed at first) and I have allowed very little play between the truck bolster and the tender-floor mounting boss in order to eliminate side-to-side rocking of the tender body. The trucks operate perfectly well this way -- no derailments ever.  I allowed a little extra lateral motion for the center axle/axles on both trucks.

In fact, I don't use springs on the kingpins/mounting screws of my freight car trucks either, for the same reason: I don't like to see them rocking from side to side. After I have adjusted the trucks for a particular car to the right height, I then use thin washers between the head of the stock mounting screw (e.g. PSC or USH that are designed to bottom out) and the bottom of the truck bolster in order to eliminate most of the play, but still allow the truck to swivel properly (I use almost all Athearn trucks). For some other cars I use a #4 wood screw (or machine screw) with its head turned down to a diameter that allows it to fit into the hole in the bottom of the Athearn bolster so that I can tighten it down enough to eliminate wobble and still let the truck swivel easily. I have done all my freight cars this way, some brass, some old wood kits, some All Nation, some resin, and I have never had any problems with operation on my layout. 

Most truck bolsters have simulated rollers about 2/3 out to the side frame.  The matching carbody part has a "land" or flat spot for the roller.  It is not practical for a model to use this "outrigger" idea on both trucks, but I use it when necessary (e.g. tender drives) on a single truck.  Solid stabilization.

I don't like the standard mounting system of a shouldered machine screw with a spring that bears against the bottom of the truck bolster. In my experience, if the spring that is stiff enough to prevent the car from rocking from side to side, then it also prevents the truck from swiveling easily, which interferes with tracking. I have experimented with using small screws projecting above the top of the bolster far enough to contact the bottom of the car (or tender,) like rollers and flats do on the real thing, but so far I haven't needed them for operation. I try hard to keep my trains from wobbling and shimmying down the track!

Hi All,

B SMITH said," ... if the spring that is stiff enough to prevent the car from rocking from side to side, then it also prevents the truck from swiveling easily, which interferes with tracking." 

When I encounter this, I cut the length of the spring to reduce the tension and the problem is solved.

I have also noticed that real freight cars do not ride rock solid.  Instead, they do rock side to side.

Tough choice: which way to go, rock solid or allow some rocking.

Hope this helps.

Ed

That's true, real freight cars do sway somewhat, particularly at switches or on bad track, but it's hard to capture the effect in a model.  Everyone to his own, of course, but I just happen to like the appearance of cars that don't sway very much. I'm about to take a Sunday drive to watch trains at a control point on the UP double-track main east of town, where I know I will see some ponderously swaying freight cars. The westbound Sunset Limited will also come through late this afternoon. Sometimes it switches tracks at the CP, and then it sways, too!

Having seen all your posts Mr. Smith I think you'll thoroughly enjoy outfitting the PSC trucks and , of course, it is always a pleasure to watch your work roll by. Have fun.

Ron H

It was a good afternoon at Mescal CP (at the crest of the hill between Tucson and Benson, AZ): six heavy UP freights and Amtrak during about two hours. This is an interesting location because west of Mescal there are separated alignments for the next 15-20 miles going toward Tucson. The original SP alignment is used by eastbound trains because of its lower grades (lots of twists and turns), while the former El Paso and Southwestern alignment (which used to cross the SP a little east of Mescal) is now mostly used for westbound traffic because it is shorter and the eastbound grades are stiffer. The EP&SW crossing of SP was eliminated years ago and the line rerouted so that it joined the single-track SP/UP line at Mescal.

When UP double-tracked the Sunset route, Mescal became a CP with double crossovers. A little to the west of Mescal, part of the old SP trackage was eliminated as part of a project to improve Interstate 10 in this area (there was a low overpass for the SP at one point, which was removed and the track realigned north of the highway), leaving a long spur that now holds hundreds of UP locomotives waiting for an upturn in business. Last night the Sunset Limited approached Mescal on the south track (eastbound main, old SP route) in order to get around a freight, but then crossed over to the north track (old EP&SW route) in order to take the westbound track into Tucson. There was some swaying...

My grandfather was station agent at Fairbank, and I remember him drawling "44 at Mescal Junction."  I also remember double-shotted red and orange Daylight Northerns racing through our back yard.

Mescal is the highest point for a Piper Cub transcontinental flight.  I could always clear it by a couple hundred feet.

I brought the Allegheny home for photos - will get to it soon.

I remember traveling with my parents to Tucson from Chicago (and vice versa) several times in the 1950s by that route on the Golden State Limited. The line dropped down from Benson through Fairbank to Douglas (just south of the important copper mines at Bisbee), then back up through southern New Mexico (south of the SP route) to El Paso. In the summer of 1917, 1,185 striking miners (IWW-inspired) and other supporters at the Phelps-Dodge operations in Bisbee were illegally herded into old boxcars by the Sheriff and a group of vigilantes, at the request of Phelps-Dodge officials, and then taken via EP&SW to Hermanas, NM, where the men were abandoned. A few days later, another train brought some water and other supplies, and the Army showed up after about two weeks. Three hundred of the deported men brought civil suits against EP&SW and the copper company, but in the end all suits were either dismissed or settled, except for one against a vigilante, which ended in a verdict of "Not Guilty." The State of Arizona (then five years old) took no action. 

I guess I'm getting a little far afield from the original subject of replacing my Allegheny tender trucks.

Bob2 -- Wow, flying across the country in a Piper Cub sounds like a neat adventure. Do you follow railroad tracks most of the way, or is it merely coincidence (altitude) that you cross the hills at Mescal? 

15 transcontinentals in my Cub, mostly no radio.  One needs to be within a short walk of civilization at all times.  I did have an engine explode in Oklahoma a couple decades ago.  Killed some soybeans. Farmer refused to bill me.

And literally hundreds of transcontinentals in 737s, 757s, and the Airbus.  Lots easier and quicker.

The Golden State, Sunset, and others bypassed Benson, leaving Mescal with a straight shot to Fairbank.  The little doodlebug was based at Benson, and used an M-4 Mogul or a GE 44 tonner - #5115.  The Mogul still exists, somewhere in Tucson.  I rode behind both.

The Mogul used to sit rusting away in a Tucson park, but was moved to a covered area adjacent to the Tucson Depot, part of which is now a transportation museum. The old SP waiting room houses a CTC machine as an exhibit, and other parts of the station are home to a market and a good restaurant, as well as Amtrak. The station complex was improved as part of a program to revitalize downtown Tucson. 

Here you go:  this project was left to me by a departed friend.  We don't know where the tender went.  My friend was a Dremel devotee, so it took quite a bit of effort to get the locomotive back to some semblance of order.  I pressed rivets, and my buddy Greg sent the Sunset trucks.  Then it got parked while other good things were happening.  Herewith:

Very nice -- this is the Max Gray you mentioned, yes?

Two photos of SP M-4 1673  (built 1900 by Schenectady locomotive Works), now residing at the Tucson Depot. 

Those look good.  I take it they put a boiler jacket on?

I'm not sure. Perhaps I can find out at the Museum downtown. Here is a link with more photos and information:   http://www.rgusrail.com/azsp1673.html

Nope.  No boiler jacket.  But glad they painted it.  The writeup in your link omitted 1673's last and most famous role: Starring in the movie "Oklahoma!"

You're right, on a second look those photos clearly show that it has not been fitted with a boiler jacket. But double check the link, which does mention its role in Oklahoma and which shows 1673 approaching a station called Claremont. 

Quoted from text of the same link:   "Above, #1673 had a brief role in the 1954 film Oklahoma, for which it was fitted with a diamond stack and other turn of the century equipment."

Oh, yeah.  My iPad didn't show the horizontal nature of the link.  I think "Claremore" is really Elgin Az.  My brother Mike was in the caboose on the first run-by, with some actor dancing on the caboose roof.  The film director pulled him out for the second run.  Didn't want a snot-nosed kid in his movie, I guess.

Right, it's Claremore (not "Claremont," as I misread it). A Google search for filming locations confirms that the Claremore station scene was indeed Elgin (with additional filming at Sonoita and other areas of the San Rafael Valley).

You have motivated me to finish the Allegheny tender.  Bought brass beams today - brass is now over seven dollars a pound at the local store, and the wait times are now such that I will place the order one day and pick it up the next.

photos to come.

That's great -- looking forward to photos. 

10-4 on the photos.

Here it is - motivated by this thread.  Replaces a wood plank.  It is not prototypical; the real thing is a water-bottom casting.

That looks very nice. I'm glad this thread provided motivation for someone else, because so far I have done nothing more with my Allegheny tender trucks, even though I initiated the discussion. Right now I'm thinking that the Sunset trucks are actually perfectly OK, and that I will leave them in place, perhaps with the addition of safety chains. Advancing age and receding eyesight have placed practical limitations on my ability to complete certain projects. But that's OK -- I can still run trains, and I am less inclined to sweat the small stuff.

I forgot to add: I am also motivated by the Lobaugh style of modeling.  My tender underframes follow the pre-WWII Lobaugh bronze castings.  Here is a photo of the rare 1941 Lobaugh Cab Forward tender underframes (my sides and rivets; MG trucks):