D&J RailRoad
Professor of HO
They were smoking units but ta fidn't want them to smoke.
F7 is usually the control for that.
F7 is usually the control for that.
AC6000 locomotives in HO scale
- Thread starter beiland
- Start date
There’s usually also a physical switch somewhere. I think on those engines, it’s under the removable radiator section.
I think.
It’s been a while since I used them.
D&J RailRoad
Professor of HO
Yes, a clearly marked miniature slide switch.
Only a blind seeing eye dog would miss it.
Only a blind seeing eye dog would miss it.
'FLOATING FRONT TRUCKS'
I have a number of these locomotives by one of the few manufacturers who made them, Broadway Ltm. While playing with their programing recently I discovered that they may just be too LONG for my layout.
https://forum.mrhmag.com/post/mth-sd70ace-mikes-train-house-dcs-vs-dcc-12576490?pid=1334626425
Its a shame as they sound pretty good, and run pretty good on most of my tracks. In the first place they are really long wheelbase engines. You can see that in a few comparison photos below:....
So they really like long stretches of LEVEL track,..and they don't care for tight curves, particularly where the curves have turnouts on them. I have several spots on my new layout where I have both of these conditions,...and it results in derailments very often. I think I may have to just sell these locos to avoid the derailing problems?
Their is another problem that contributes to this derailing problem, and I think it is best described here,..
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?3,1465946
good description, "the front truck floats"
This was posted in 2007, and appears to be somewhat of a design problem. Wondering if the factory or a private person ever came up with a solution??
Is it possible a little spring pressure could help?
I have a number of these locomotives by one of the few manufacturers who made them, Broadway Ltm. While playing with their programing recently I discovered that they may just be too LONG for my layout.
https://forum.mrhmag.com/post/mth-sd70ace-mikes-train-house-dcs-vs-dcc-12576490?pid=1334626425
Its a shame as they sound pretty good, and run pretty good on most of my tracks. In the first place they are really long wheelbase engines. You can see that in a few comparison photos below:....
So they really like long stretches of LEVEL track,..and they don't care for tight curves, particularly where the curves have turnouts on them. I have several spots on my new layout where I have both of these conditions,...and it results in derailments very often. I think I may have to just sell these locos to avoid the derailing problems?
Their is another problem that contributes to this derailing problem, and I think it is best described here,..
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?3,1465946
Anyone else having problems with the GE AC6000's?
good description, "the front truck floats"
This was posted in 2007, and appears to be somewhat of a design problem. Wondering if the factory or a private person ever came up with a solution??
Is it possible a little spring pressure could help?
Last edited:
D&J RailRoad
Professor of HO
I have 6 of them in UP and BNSF paint. No problems with the trucks.
Maybe you play to rough with your toys.
Maybe you play to rough with your toys.
I don't play too rough with them, in fact try to handle them with care. I think my major problem is trying to get them to run thru tight curves, and/or pulling heavy loads while running thru turnouts. The trucks tend to 'lift' at one end and that makes the wheel/axle on that one end 'light-headed' (or appear to float),...that makes that end axle/wheel set want to derail for the slightest reason.
migalyto
Well-Known Member
Probably has something to do with your issues!
Last edited:
I picked out one of my AC6000 yesterday to do some experiments on improving the tracking of their trucks, and possible better negotiate tight radi curves.
As I inspected these locos more closely I noticed some very tight clearances between the swinging trucks and the openings provided for them. The brake lines on the trucks come too close to the steps on the body,...and particularly if those brake lines aren't fully seated into their truck frames.
I also found that in most all cases the coupler pockets were a bit too long at their back face,...interfering with trucks when trying to make a very tight turn. I found that filing/shaving off the rear faces of those couple pockets really helped the truck swing far enough to allow the loco to negotiate a 22" radius curve.
photos on request
BTW, I was very happy with the relative ease that the shell can be removed on these locos !!
Now onto the 'floating truck' question.
As I inspected these locos more closely I noticed some very tight clearances between the swinging trucks and the openings provided for them. The brake lines on the trucks come too close to the steps on the body,...and particularly if those brake lines aren't fully seated into their truck frames.
I also found that in most all cases the coupler pockets were a bit too long at their back face,...interfering with trucks when trying to make a very tight turn. I found that filing/shaving off the rear faces of those couple pockets really helped the truck swing far enough to allow the loco to negotiate a 22" radius curve.
photos on request
BTW, I was very happy with the relative ease that the shell can be removed on these locos !!
Now onto the 'floating truck' question.
Last edited:
Here you can see how the truck mount is off center by quite a bit, resulting in this sloppy truck and its desire to 'float' on that one end.
Its the leading axle on each of those trucks that tends to float up against the base of the chassis, and subsequently derails quite easily. It turns out the the base of the chassis frame is pure flat there, so my first thought was to try and put some sort of spacer in there between the top surface of the truck and the flat surface of the chassis ,..in order to limit some of this upper movement.
My first choice was going to be a vertical rod glued to the top surface of truck frame, with a spherical head riding against the chassis bottom, (that would result in the least amount of resistance to this spacer sliding back and forth across the chassis bottom as the engine was swinging thru a curve).
I didn't have anything I could readily fabricate such a 'post' out of, so I decided to utilize a short piece of round solid rod glued to the truck frame. I had several different sizes (diameters) of metal rod. I started with just one truck on one engine with a rod dia of .03" .
I found that to be not quite big enough. I then went to a 0.05" diameter rod. That really appears to be the correct combination at this time.
I found a way to glue that piece rod to the truck body without removing the trucks from the engine. I simply popped one side of gear box loose and let the truck drop down enough to get the spacer rod glued in place.
And I tried running the loco at the steep transition of a downward -to-level grade track with no problems.
Smudge617
Well-Known Member
Nice solution to your problem.Here you can see how the truck mount is off center by quite a bit, resulting in this sloppy truck and its desire to 'float' on that one end.
Its the leading axle on each of those trucks that tends to float up against the base of the chassis, and subsequently derails quite easily. It turns out the the base of the chassis frame is pure flat there, so my first thought was to try and put some sort of spacer in there between the top surface of the truck and the flat surface of the chassis ,..in order to limit some of this upper movement.
My first choice was going to be a vertical rod glued to the top surface of truck frame, with a spherical head riding against the chassis bottom, (that would result in the least amount of resistance to this spacer sliding back and forth across the chassis bottom as the engine was swinging thru a curve).
I didn't have anything I could readily fabricate such a 'post' out of, so I decided to utilize a short piece of round solid rod glued to the truck frame. I had several different sizes (diameters) of metal rod. I started with just one truck on one engine with a rod dia of .03" .
I found that to be not quite big enough. I then went to a 0.05" diameter rod. That really appears to be the correct combination at this time.
I found a way to glue that piece rod to the truck body without removing the trucks from the engine. I simply popped one side of gear box loose and let the truck drop down enough to get the spacer rod glued in place.
And I tried running the loco at the steep transition of a downward -to-level grade track with no problems.
D&J RailRoad
Professor of HO
In your last picture of the frame without the shell, the cap that holds the worm gear down into the truck seems to be partially loose. As though it should be seated further down.
Yes I purposefully opened up that cap to allow the truck to be lowered from the frame in a partial manner,... so I could glue that metal rod spacer onto the top surface of the truck assembly. After that gluing operation I reseated that cap.
Very interesting "fix".
I am interested in learning if the rod stays in place over time?
I am interested in learning if the rod stays in place over time?
I'm interested in that as well,..as I just wetted out a surface on the truck plastic and dropped the metal rod into it,...just super glue. I'm wondering it it says adhered to that slippery plastic they often use for truck pieces?
I think I will run it for awhile before I make the same alterations to the other engines I have.
Last edited:
Coupler Swing?
There is another thing I need to check out with these locos. I most likely will be running them consisted in pairs. Those long bodies let the couplers stick out (way out) over the edge of the rails, and the couplers themselves do not swing any great amount.
So I wonder if those engines will try to pull the (car or engine) behind the lead engine off the tracks on tight radi curves??
There is another thing I need to check out with these locos. I most likely will be running them consisted in pairs. Those long bodies let the couplers stick out (way out) over the edge of the rails, and the couplers themselves do not swing any great amount.
So I wonder if those engines will try to pull the (car or engine) behind the lead engine off the tracks on tight radi curves??
D&J RailRoad
Professor of HO
Long car tracking will be track dependant. The problem with sectional track, i.e. 9" straights and curves don't provide easement into the curve. Flex track does.
Pretty much like steering your car. Sudden hard turns cause problems.
Pretty much like steering your car. Sudden hard turns cause problems.
05c50 wrote:
I'm sure that I'm not the only one that has experienced problems with coupler swing on longer locomotives. I've found that if two long locos are coupled together there is no problem with derailments, but the problem occurs when a long loco is coupled to a short car, like an ore jenny with body mounted couplers. I guess it's a problem caused by the fact that I have to use tighter radius curves than what I would like, something that I just have to live with.
......Paul
You are correct Paul. I first really noticed it when I was trying to pull a very short track cleaning car with one of those long engines.
I think sometimes I have to be hit over the head to see the obvious....ha..ha
I'm sure that I'm not the only one that has experienced problems with coupler swing on longer locomotives. I've found that if two long locos are coupled together there is no problem with derailments, but the problem occurs when a long loco is coupled to a short car, like an ore jenny with body mounted couplers. I guess it's a problem caused by the fact that I have to use tighter radius curves than what I would like, something that I just have to live with.
......Paul
You are correct Paul. I first really noticed it when I was trying to pull a very short track cleaning car with one of those long engines.
I think sometimes I have to be hit over the head to see the obvious....ha..ha
