Athearn heavyweight passenger car upgrades

[jobfather]

Have quite a few Bev-Bel painted Athearn heavyweights. For better operation was thinking of cutting off truck mounted couplers and adding Kadees to frame; also changing to metal wheels altho that could create a problem for future lighting. Looking for some suggestions, advice, etc.
Thanks!

 

[stationmaster]

Talgo trucks turn MUCH better. I'd leave 'em alone

Bob

 

[jbaakko]

If you're going to swap, I'd recommend buying the coupler pockets Walthers makes for long cars. They'll give you a wider swing on the coupler.

 

[Espeefan]

Talgo trucks turn MUCH better. I'd leave 'em alone

Bob

What's your minimum radius? That will decide what you should do.

Talgo trucks are a great way to get equipment that is too large for your small radius curves to go around them. Unfortuantely, when it's time to back the train, their reliability goes out the window. I long ago removed all talgo trucks/couplers from my equipment, but I have 30" minimum radius curves.

I'm also a fussy old prototype modeler who worries about appearances and I don't like the extreme overhang that comes with trying to operate large equipment like 4-8-4 steamers, six axle diesels, and 85 foot passenger cars on 18" radius curves. I'd rather stick with smaller locos & cars in that situation, but that's me. If you're happy with it, that's all that matters. If you have the broader curves, I'd suggest getting rid of the talgos.

 

[jobfather]

Mainline radii start at 24" minimum, many are greater. Try to get to 30"+ whenever I can. I'll look into the Walthers pockets....I like the way their passenger cars run anyway. And yes, it's the backing up that does concern me!

 

[GWT&P]

As far as metal wheels go, Intermountain wheels have metal axles with one side insulated so you can still use the electrical pick ups and have interior lighting.

 

[stationmaster]

What's your minimum radius? That will decide what you should do.

Talgo trucks are a great way to get equipment that is too large for your small radius curves to go around them. Unfortuantely, when it's time to back the train, their reliability goes out the window. I long ago removed all talgo trucks/couplers from my equipment, but I have 30" minimum radius curves.

I'm also a fussy old prototype modeler who worries about appearances and I don't like the extreme overhang that comes with trying to operate large equipment like 4-8-4 steamers, six axle diesels, and 85 foot passenger cars on 18" radius curves. I'd rather stick with smaller locos & cars in that situation, but that's me. If you're happy with it, that's all that matters. If you have the broader curves, I'd suggest getting rid of the talgos.

I run 4-8-4's , 4-4-4-4's, 2-8-4's. 4-8-8-4's, 2-8-8-2's even E8's minimum radius on the mainline for passenger cars is 28". The club I frequent has a minimum of 26". The cars will sometimes derail at higher speeds on the narrow radii.

Talgos have there use and place in the hobby. I would not tell anyone that using them is wrong.

Bob

 

[Espeefan]

I don't believe I said that Bob. What I said was that they are a compromise and have reliability problems. They do have a place in the hobby: for those who must have tighter radius curves and insist on running the larger locomotives & rolling stock. As I said, if you are happy with it, that's all that really matters. I became frustrated with them because of their reliability. You can't back a passenger train into a stub type engine terminal (or anywhere else for that matter) if the cars are equipped with talgo style trucks & couplers. The gentleman who originally asked the question agreed that reliability was his concern. My first layout had 18" and 22" radius curves. I ran 60 ft Model power passenger cars (with talgo trucks) four axle diesels, and light steam. In the long run any modeler will get more enjoyment out of his/her layout if they learn to accept space limitations and choose the right equipment & operating scenarios. If all you have room for is a 4 x 8 layout with 18" & 22" curves, it's kind of silly to try and run a 10 car Super Chief with ABBA F units. Great to see the train run at first, but after a while, it's just not very convincing. It is neat to run a passneger GP with a couple of shorty passenger cars or a branch line style freight/mixed train, and that train will look better on the layout and be more convincing, don't you think?

 

[stationmaster]

Your point is well taken. I run the "wide box" Kadees on my longer cars, the 85' and 86' rolling stock. On the cars that run talgos, I have change wheels, which I found to help their reliability. Using insulated metal wheels has been a god send. Using higher quality wheels also helped with he cars tracking though the myriad of switches on my layout.

Realism is one of those things that I try to achieve. However, I do, at times, sacrifice it for operation. I prefer to be able to run the trains rather than look at them because the fail to run on the layout. Oddly, with over 800 units, I have been fortunate that little work, on my part, is needed to keep the "road" going. Couplers are all Kaddee and wheelsets are either Kadee or Atlas. Sometimes just changing out axles achieve the desired results.

I have not had many problems at all when using Talgos due to their quality other than the afore mentioned fixes. Many Manufacturers, such as Life-Like, Tyco, Model Power, use Talgos. At the sake of sounding like a "basher", these units are not much more than "toy grade". I do have some products manufactured by these companies, but have made the necessary adjustments to bring them up to par.

I do not consider myself a "rivet counter". I like the trains to look as close to realistic as possible, but will pass on realism for operation.

I agree that if one relishes the longer cars one needs to get a bigger layout with larger radius turns. I have a large yard with #4 and #6 turn outs, wyes and such. Looks relatively realistic with smaller cars, but sometimes, given a certain view the 86-footers do look a bit odd traversing the switches and turnouts.

Bob