I was reading on several German language forums about potential derailment issues of these new models on switch tracks, as can be seen in this video:



More specifically: https://youtu.be/V_Ib0MO9ZTg?t=734

If you look a few seconds earlier, the locomotive seems to run fine, but just prior to the accident, you hear a "clack" as the locomotive enters the video frame
This seems to have destabilized the locomotive, causing the front bogie to take the wye while the rear bogie continues straight. I can't see on the video the exact track structure coming out of the tunnel on the right side, but it seems that something occurred which triggered the issue, either the slider was knocked out of alignment or perhaps one of the wheelsets?

I don't have the model and have not seen it in person, so I cannot comment on more than what I saw in the video.
I would rather have liked to have seen the train run without the shell, so that we can better see how the bogies move.
Running it with the V320 and BR103 doesn't really help that much.

A second run through https://youtu.be/V_Ib0MO9ZTg?t=885 shows that the locomotive passes through an S-curve on the exit from the tunnel.
A third run through https://youtu.be/V_Ib0MO9ZTg?t=904 shows a derailment of the rear bogie. This suggests to me that the slider (front bogie) may not be the issue

A shot of the chassis from earlier in the video does not show any obvious sign of a potential issue https://youtu.be/V_Ib0MO9ZTg?t=178
I wonder if the bogie completely clears the coupling assembly.
A shot of the model running solo over the problematic spot would be helpful here, even better without the shell.

If any of you have this or the other UP or KCS models, have you experienced any issues?

Regards

Mike C

I will check mine Saturday evening and i will let you know.

Is the Maerklin/Trix version adapted from the Broadway Limited model or is it a separate model of the same type of locomotive by a different company?

If it is a separate model, then there is no redesign, but only an interpretation by the designers and engineers who created the model for Maerklin.

Regards

Mike C

A user on a HAG forum reported that the wheel spacing was too wide. he measured approximately 14,3 so he squeezed the wheels together a bit and according to him, it solved the issue......
ref: https://www.forum.hag-info.ch/forum/index.php?thread/10989-m%C3%A4rklin-neuheiten-2023/&postID=155230#post155230

What I've learned from converting several two rail (Athearn, Kato, Proto2000) DC locos to Märklin three rail is that the 14,3 mm DC inner flange width will need to be reduced to 13,8 or 13,9 mm. Othervise derailments on turnouts will happen most of the time. After the modification, it basically never happens. It is also an easy task to do, at least with the Athearn / Walthers / Kato wheelsets.

BR,
Eino

I was very tempted to get this model, but I wanted to see some reviews before ordering, and these flaws have put me off. So, I'm glad I did hold back a bit before ordering.

The above photo leaves me speechless 😮

-Eino

Hi!

Yeah it’s most likely the combination of inner flange width AND the height/shape of the flange.

With DC wheels the wheel falls down to the gap in the turnout fork, because the flange is very low. For that reason having narrower flange width will cause the wheels to pilot themselves over the gap without derailing. I guess this is not true for Märklin flanges that do not fall in to the gap.

However on every Märklin loco I have, the inner width seems to be 13,8mm…

I’d say it’s still worth trying if having issues. There’s a great tool for it: https://www.fohrmann.com/en/rail-gauge-h0.html

Also taking out the middle wheel set could take away the issue, but would obviously introduce other visual issues 😅

-Eino

On my layout I do, but not on my carpetbahn test track.

I ran the loco on my layout for a bit, but this wasn't very successful but only because the layout hadn't been used for some time and some dead spots were encountered. I rescued the ES44 before it disappeared into an area not easily reached, but the loco did not have any point issues on the turnouts it did go over including ones with lanterns. I did notice that because of the locos length there was limited clearance for catenary masts, but at no time did it hit any masts.

I ran a friend's MTH ES44 loco to my layout.The loco broke the lanterns on 24612 and 24611 turnouts when i do not ran her straight.

These running issues are horrible! Is it possible the wheel flanges are too shallow for C track, and or the wheel diameter? There are two or three different ho rail profiles.

I just received my 38440 yesterday. It is very heavy and has a lot of fragile plastic details. I am afraid I will break some of these details down the road. Actually when I opened the box and took the lok out, a very very small piece of grey plastic something fell out. Still have not figured out where it dropped off from.

Here is the more important question:

I am having trouble running it on my metal M track where it loses power and stops on my 5207 double slip switches when running at slow speeds. Not sure if the wheel lost electrical power or the center pickup shoe lost contact with the center studs. Bending the shoe up or down does not seem to help.
Anyone have this issue and know how to correct it. Thanks.

Perfect locomotive,now we are waiting for the 18 car hopper combo by the end of the year.

I am bumping this thread to see if there is any more feedback on how well these locos track.

I talked myself out of getting them initially due to the BLI design. My BLI derived UP 844 does not track nearly as well as my Big Boys or Challengers, so that was a red flag for me. I understand why Marklin would want to save development costs by buying the design from BLI, but these locos were not designed to run on Marklin track and have just been adapted for that use.

Just recently I have been reconsidering them but this thread reminds me of why I held back earlier. Two ES44AC locos and that hopper set would not be inexpensive and if they don't run well I would be very, very disappointed.

So after more track time, have the problems been sorted out or are they still causing problems?

How about changing the wheels to ones with bigger flange? What is the diameter of the axle? 🤔

-Eino

The problem I had with the 38441 is that the front coupler is too low it get caugh in turnout, which had it change lane each time it pass a turnout.

Is that with the knuckle coupler, the Marklin coupler, or both?

I don't think the issue here is Broadway Limited's fault, I have several of their newer-design locomotives and they have given me less trouble than recent Marklin has...

Points to consider:

Standard Marklin turnouts use R2 for the curved arm/element, which is 17 1/4". A Broadway Limited ES44AC has a minimum radius of 18". That is likely (but not objectively) related to the issues you guys are having, in particular in areas involving multiple curves or S curves surrounding the switch/point of trouble. Or S curves and other problem points of regular R1 & 2 trackage in general...

K track is code 100 rail, that shouldn't be an issue, and actually help with the center pickup and slider clearance. C track, however is less. For C (and for K on the "raised" pukos of switches), I'd check slider compression anywhere that is causing the loco to derail. I have to wonder if the slider is "bottoming out" of clearance on these. I can easily see this being an issue if marklin cut a corner on (locomotive) R&D....

Just ideas, but with logic behind them. I saw these locomotives in real life at the Amhearst Model RR show last weekend, they look great! (and no issues running on the factory display layout...)

Edited by user 29 February 2024 19:29:34(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I've been experimenting with different wheels for some cars that derail frequently. I have C track, and it hasn't made much difference. I wonder if trains derail less with K track? A Swiss modeler built a huge layout with K track and says he wouldn't use it again, but rather Roco track because of appearance. He has recreated the entire BLS route. Personally I think K track looks great.
Note that Roco has both code 83 and code 100 rail profile,or at least they did.
I think that Marklin designed the C turnouts in particular to operate well over appearance and are durable. The puko studs are higher than the adjoining tracks. I realize that a certain tolerance is required for good operation but I don't think it is optimal for some cars or locomotives.

Success in running with no hesitation of my ES44AC on my metal M track. Here is what I did to my ES44AC to modify and make it run well now on all my Metal M tracks including the 5207 double slip switches (see my posts 27 and 32), where it would lose power pickup from the wheels. I finally found some time to take it apart and see what I can do to improve it. (see posts 33 and 40 by Eino).
Loosen 6 small philips screws to remove the shell. The instruction pamphlet that comes in the box shows the picture. I was disappointed that this body shell is made of plastic and not metal. Removing the body ensures you do not break any of the plastic details when working with it. Put the chassis upside down on a piece of soft sponge.
Remove the bottom tension bracket (see post #10) with a sharp screwdriver to push it off. (Not a Marklin design, Marklin would have designed and used philips screws).
Found out only 2 of the 3 axles in each bogie are geared. If counting from the front, it is the axles #1 and #3. Wheels on axle #3 have tires. Axle #2 is not geared and no tires. Important to see 2 very small coiled springs in the PLASTIC bogie that rub against this axle #2. So good grounding is done with this axle only thru the metal springs. Using my meter I found the 2 coiled springs are electrically connected to the motor shaft in the bogie and is the GROUND power for the whole lok and decoder. So for the whole locomotive, if the axles #2 and #5 (in second bogie) lose power, the lok stops dead- no electrical power. The 2 bogies, and gears are all plastic. Axles #1, 3, 4, 6 do not pass current to the decoder/ground.
So I was lucky in my box of cannibilized motor parts, I have the axle/wheels from my broken ALCO New York Central (make by Marklin in the early year 2001 and that it runs well on metal M track. So with luck, the axle diameter are the same, and metal wheels can be used to replace the ES44AC and I did that. You need a good gear/wheel puller to do this. It is brand Mascot. I also have an old COX slot car gear puller and pusher that is also helpful. I changed the wheels for axles #1, 2, 3, 5, 6. Used the original axles. I think just changing wheels in axle #2 and #5 axles may have been enough.
If you compare the wheels, the flange diameter for the wheels from the ALCO and ES44AC are the same. BUT, the wheel diameter (that runs on and touches the rail) in the ALCO wheels is just a very slightly smaller. So the wheel flange is able to dig deeper and touch the shiny silver metal conductors at the bottom of the 5207 double slip switches. Very happy now, can now run this lok at extremely slow speed on my metal M track (half my layout is M track, other half is all K track, I have no C track).

Correction: Nov25-2024
1) After all the parts were put back together again, I checked using the meter, and found out all 6 axles/wheels are grounded. So there is some metal piece in the bogie that conducts current to all the 6 axles. That is good.
2) After closer examination, I found out the body/shell is made of metal. It is thin, actually very thin, though, and very light weight, and that is what made me to believe the shell was plastic initially. Most other Marklin body shells weigh heavy when you hold them, but this one is light weight.
So this is a good running lok, and I am happy the way it runs now.

Edited by user 26 November 2024 04:18:20(UTC)  | Reason: made corrections