Wheels slipping

[MGCJerry]

I'm new to Lego trains. I have 2 60052, and my girlfriend has the 60051 and we share a track layout. With as light as the 51 is, it doesn't suffer this problem as much. The 52, whether I'm using the stock rolling stock or my own loads the wheels slip quite easily especially on the flexible track. What are some ways I can improve wheel traction?

1. I've already separated the axles for the unpowered wheels because there are no differentials and it helped a lot with the cornering.

2. I have tried putting regular wheels and the wheels with the rubber on one side of the motor (no differential thing again with cornering) and that only made the overall slipping worse.

3. Tried adding 2 motors to a single engine which seemed to work "ok", but I can imagine it would kill the batteries much faster and requires quite a bit of modifications to the engines. I like having 2 powered engines though.

Thanks :)

[THERIZE]

I think the cause is the flex track. I've heard more problems about flex track. the design is pretty strange.

Modified 12V curve by Alexander, on Flickr

the flex track has rails that cover both sides of the wheel that increases friction I think.

[Dutchiedoughnut]

I would try putting the powered wheels under the battery box (you want weight for grip) and use the rubber bands on all powered wheels.

I have no problems with my 60052...

[davidzq]

The friction rings that come stock on the wheels are worthless, but easy to replace with a visit to any hardware store.

http://railbricks.co...nctions-primer/

I will also second the fact that more weight means more traction, and therefore more pulling power.

Edited September 6, 2015 by davidzq

[someguy]

I agree with the above as well. More weight over driving wheels means more traction, increasing the factor of friction. Also, only put rubber rings on the wheels that are directly powered by the motors. The more o rings you place on wheels the more the boggies will bind on curvers. Your local hardware store should have some o ring kits for toilets. Those kits usually have a good selection of different size o rings to use.

Edited September 6, 2015 by someguy

[Rail Co]

I would recommend an O-ring pack or two they are pretty cheap and do the job well the company i bought from was Danco (found in most hardware stores) the number off the box is #96749 if that does you any good

-RailCo

[dr_spock]

Having the battery box centered over the PF motor can make a difference. If you look at 60051, the battery box is right on top of the train motor. With 60052, only part of the battery box is over the train motor. That could account for why your girlfriend's 51 train is not slipping or slipping as badly.

[MGCJerry]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

I had added another level of difficulty for our trains by creating a 48 stud long truss bridge that has an elevation of 4 blocks. The 51 can go over it at a lower speed than the loaded 52. With both engines on a single train with all my rolling stock, the train has to be on speed 4 to go over the bridge.

Therize, oh yea and its even worse on the flex tracks especially on any kind of a slope. I also agree that the design is indeed strange and thought they looked really weird when I actually had them in hand. What is that track you have on the inside?

Dutchiedoughnut, the wheels are sort of under the battery box per instructions. I may try actually moving the receiver and putting the battery box directly over the powered wheels. While the wheels are ok for the standard rolling stock on regular rails, they seem to slip a lot on a train with custom stock.

Davidzq & Rail Co thanks for the info about the o-rings. The local hardware store has them in stock and I'll pick some up today and see how it works.

dr_spock, didnt see your post when typing mine and gathering information. I'll be giving that a shot too.The lame train in question:

I *just* swapped to a one facing backward setup and it still works ok, but looks more like the trains I see passing through with 2 engines. Just got stuck by 2 trains on the way to get a late lunch, and just missed a train by 30 seconds when coming home. Here, the trains pass by every 20-30 minutes all day & night.

Thanks again for the replies. I'll post back with an update.

Edited September 6, 2015 by MGCJerry

[LEGO Train 12 Volts]

Modified 12V curve by Alexander, on Flickr

This picture is amazing!

[Rijkvv]

Of course you can improve the locomotive, but there's room for improvement for the train itself as well. The two-axle open wagons have their axles spread further away than what was usual on official sets. While this may look more realistic, it increases the friction in corners.

Maybe not much, but it should roll a bit better when you place the two axles closer together.

[davidmull]

Would a second motor help? I'm having the same issue.

[andythenorth]

- avoid flex track

- add a second motor (you'll need a PF switch to reverse polarity to one of the motors).

Edited September 6, 2015 by andythenorth

[MGCJerry]

Update: I have replaced one of the engine's rings, and it derailed at flex track joints coming down and going up the bridge. I have reconfigured both engines and have the new o-rings on the drive wheels and the kept the original rings on the unpowered wheels. Seems to have improved stability on the flex tracks. With the new rings, the train can climb the bridge much better, but just requires more care when setting up ramps to an elevated bridge. I can live with that. I have also restored the 2nd engine's drive wheels back to normal to keep the weight over the driven wheels. Since I want to add lights, I'll get a switch and swap direction that way on the backward facing engine so I can keep the weight over the drive wheels.

I don't care for the flex track myself. With a bridge that is 4 blocks high, what is the ideal angle and can it be reliably done with non-flex tracks? I will need to get more straights regardless.

[someguy]

- avoid flex track

- add a second motor (you'll need a PF switch to reverse polarity to one of the motors).

https://www.flickr.c...6/in/datetaken/

Instead of a PF switch to reverse polarity, try this 2x4 plate with contacts https://www.bricklin...=1&itemID=1333.

Simply place both connectors on the plate such that 1 wire would face north and one faces south( just opposite directions). I did this for one of my engines so I could spin the control clockwise for forward instead of backwards.

Edited September 7, 2015 by someguy

[jtlan]

Instead of a PF switch to reverse polarity, try this 2x4 plate with contacts https://www.bricklin...=1&itemID=1333.

Simply place both connectors on the plate such that 1 wire would face north and one faces south( just opposite directions). I did this for one of my engines so I could spin the control clockwise for forward instead of backwards.

????? Why did you need to do this? There's a switch on the remote that reverses the direction.

[Rail Co]

????? Why did you need to do this? There's a switch on the remote that reverses the direction.

If the motors are on the same channel and slot on the receiver they will be opposite of each other Diagram: Front <-- Middle --> Back. If they both go forward the train goes nowhere.

-RailCo

[jtlan]

If the motors are on the same channel and slot on the receiver they will be opposite of each other Diagram: Front <-- Middle --> Back. If they both go forward the train goes nowhere.

-RailCo

Right, I get that, but someguy said "I did this for one of my engines so I could spin the control clockwise for forward instead of backwards." Maybe he (?) meant "for one of my motors"?

Edited September 7, 2015 by jtlan

[Rail Co]

Oh, didn't catch that I would assume so

-RailCo

[someguy]

Right, I get that, but someguy said "I did this for one of my engines so I could spin the control clockwise for forward instead of backwards." Maybe he (?) meant "for one of my motors"?

Oh, didn't catch that I would assume so

-RailCo

What happened was I added a train motor and I had to add the 2x4 piece and then I removed the train motor. But, yea I did leave it in there for that reason. I did not know there was a button on the remote for that lol! Thought it was for something else!

[zephyr1934]

The newer train motors should not have problems with slippery traction bands, it was only the first year or two that had major problems. Still, the O-rings probably won't hurt. Looking at your train, you might be approaching the limits of a pair of PF train motors, especially with a grade to and from the bridge and the "S" curve. The rule of thumb is one plate per track section, but if you are already near the limits of your locomotives even this shallow grade could be a killer. If the motors are in separate locomotives you should not need the pole reverser switch.

[pirzyk]

I will add my voice to try to avoid flex track, the only train I have found that can run on flex track is the 2010 Red Passenger Train (7938).

The length of the train and the number of curves the train is in will also affect the slippage of the wheels. If your train is in multiple curves at the same time it increases the resistance on the engine. Try to space out the curves as much as possible but that limits the designs you can have and forces you to have much more straight track than curves. Also if you do stay with flex track, keep the radii of the turns as wide as possible.

The type of non powered axles in the engine and rolling stock also has an effect on resistance. If you can avoid using technics axles and use the metal ones that will help.

For inclines I have been told to keep the rise as 1 plate for 16 studs run. I have been able to do 2 plate rise for the 16 stud run but that really depended on the speed I had coming into the incline and what the train was pulling (2 PF motor Maersk).

[MGCJerry]

I have removed the flex track on all but 2 places, and eliminated some of the curves including the one in the picture. Now my layout is *much* smaller. The train does run a lot smoother over the layout and is able to climb the slope much better than the stock rings. I can even stop the train on the slope, and start it again on the slope without problem or wheel slip. The train can climb the slope on speed 3. It does slow down a little though. I can pull this rolling stock with one engine, but I have to increase the speed to 6 for the single engine to make it over. I like the look of 2 engines anyway. The wheel layout on the 7938 looks about the same as the 51, which didn't have problems with the flex track or the bridge.

I'll admit my bridge slope is much steeper than 1 plate every 16 studs. I'm more like 1 brick per one track or so. The bridge is cobbled together with all kinds colors parts as a prototype and I lack enough remaining Technic pieces to make it all one color. We have to watch the Lego spending because what we have spent thus far is embarrassing.

I have also moved the livestock cars wheels closer together by 2 studs with little change. I do feel a slight difference when pushing by hand around corners and I didn't notice a change in the overall train.

I think we can consider this resolved. Using the new o-rings are a huge help, but does cause issues when using flexible track.

Here is the prototype bridge.

The couple pieces of flex track are the only flex track on the layout now. These 2 flex locations have not been a problem with the new rings, but were a source of slipping with the old rings unless I was going fast enough. Sorry about the dodgy pictures, they are just taken quickly and resized smaller. Hardly what I consider a photograph worthy subject.