ARTHILL wrote: Welcome to the club. As much as people warned me, when I got back into this a couple years ago, I ended up sith some stuff that won't work. For me, I just took the hit and decided that I had some stuff that will look good, but not run. I am continueing with code 83. Some of that old Eropean stuff looks pretty good though. I will sit a couple near the roundhouse. As far as enthusiasm goes, this will not be the last hit it has to take. This is a great hobby because it is such a diverse challenge. Post some pics. We can celebrate how much progress you have made and then we can both go back to the train room and press on.
Welcome to the club. As much as people warned me, when I got back into this a couple years ago, I ended up sith some stuff that won't work. For me, I just took the hit and decided that I had some stuff that will look good, but not run. I am continueing with code 83. Some of that old Eropean stuff looks pretty good though. I will sit a couple near the roundhouse.
As far as enthusiasm goes, this will not be the last hit it has to take. This is a great hobby because it is such a diverse challenge. Post some pics. We can celebrate how much progress you have made and then we can both go back to the train room and press on.
I hear you, Art. I had the same experience. I had a small fleet of Rivarossi steam that I planned on converting to DCC when I got back into the hobby after a 10 year hiatus. I discovered most of my old Rivarossi stuff would scrape the ties of my code 83 track. I had previously used code 100. The exception was a 1991 Hudson that seems to have gotten code 83 compatible wheels.
Rivarossi flanges have always had the problem of being oversized. I once heard them described as pizza cutter flanges. I'm guessing that since IHC used to be affiliated with Rivarossi, their stuff still uses the Rivarossi components so I am not surprised that both brands are having trouble negotiating the smaller rail sizes.
I seem to recall an article back in either MR or RMC about 25 years ago that showed a solution to running Rivarossi steam on the lighter rail. Back then, Rivarossi needed code 100 to run smoothly. If I remember right, It involved cutting a small groove into the ties to make room for the flanges. Seemed like a lot of work but if someone wanted to run their Rivarossi locos badly enough, they might give it a try. Passing through turnout frogs was also a problem and I don't recall what the solution was for that.
DeadheadGreg wrote:but can you replace wheelsets in engines too?
DeadheadGreg wrote: Only the IHC engines and cars and my Rivarossi 2-8-8-2 mallet have wheel flanges too big to run on this track. Why don't these companies advertise this?
Usually, companies only advertise the positive aspects of their products, not the negatives!
Falls Valley RR wrote: If I recall correct, the motor is by itself in the cab and it is HUGE.I would think the dremel will "Throw" the shavings far away across the entire plane of the grind wheel.
If I recall correct, the motor is by itself in the cab and it is HUGE.
I would think the dremel will "Throw" the shavings far away across the entire plane of the grind wheel.
This is true but not always the case. To be safe use tape/ cardstock barriers if there is any chance you may have filings enter a gearcase or open parts of the frame. Replacing the wheelsets is the best to get a decent tread/ flange.
Modeling B&O- Chessie Bob K. www.ssmrc.org
BlueHillsCPR wrote:Would you not be attracting and dropping metal filings into the motor by doing that?
I do my flange reducing with the loco lying on its side. The metal being removed from the flanges is non-ferrous, so it won't be attracted by the motor's permanent magnet.
Happily for all concerned, Japanese manufacturers embraced the RP25 contour for HO wheels early on, so most of my rolling stock (much of which is 40+ years old) has flanges that are comfortable on code 70 flex track.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I ground down my rivarossi flanges with good success. If you got em cheap it ain't no thang, right?Turn your loco upside down and place it in a foam cradle. You may have to remove the superstructure to hook up wires to the locos motor so you can spin the wheels. Then while turning use your Dremel to reduce the size of the flanges. Have the dremel situated so that its rotation aids the locos motor in rotating the wheels. Then carefully grind down the flanges while they are turning. It only takes about a half hour to do this. The leading and trailing truck wheels can be replaced. Be careful not to grind the flanges off and remember it doesn't take much,somethinlike a 32nd total diameter.
I've got a couple of old Rivarossi engines that won't run on my track.
I use Code 100.
Yeah, there are flanges that big.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
No, engines you have three choices.
Lathe down the flanges, buy newer engines or fatten the rail code.
I used to run code 100 and ballasting down like crazy to give appearance of smaller rail.
Code 83 is as low I go.
Now I wonder about some of the older trainstuff and doubt the ability of the famed pizza cutters to traverse my track so.... I dont use em unless I can replace the wheelsets.
Look at your rolling stock's bumbpbumba-bump as a cry for help and new wheelsets.
Sometimes a image of a engine displaying 1960's technology in terms of large flanges are sometimes a sale breaker on sight. The Marketing people likes to show engines in the best possible.... angle. Yes.. camera angle.
yeah yeah, i know. i was just excited about the layout because i thought i'd had my engine fleet complete, and that I didn't need to buy anymore. I'm going to stick to the code 70 because it looks so good, but i'm thinking about maybe having a loop of code 83 so that i can run the Rivarossi, if only in a circle lol.
do you know whether Bachman engines can run on code 70 rail? This is so frustrating now, because there are a lot of good deals around, but they really dont show pics of the wheel flanges to see how big they are and whether they would work or not.
yeah... i mean, i guess thats what I get for buying IHC stuff, thinking I'm getting a good deal on new engines on sale for $20 at train shows. Its strange though, because its ONLY their stuff that I have that wont work, along with the Rivarossi mallet. Its about 10 years old, so do you think that it would work with code 83? It works on the Bachman EZtrack that I have set up now, but i'm assuming that thats code 100 because the rail looks huge.
man... this just took a huge blow out of my enthusiasm
"i can't believe that theres HO products incompatible with each other, in terms of code 55/70 rail and huge wheel flanges. "
Well, you can believe it now. If it wasn't for the NMRA there would be no standardization. As is, there is a lot, but wheel flanges and couplers are a big problem and foriegn manufacturers have different groups they sell to. A lot of older stuff won't even run on code 83.
My guess is, that if you are going 70 and 55, there will be a lot of stuff that won't run without changing wheels.
At least from now on, you can plan your rolling stock around your track.
So I just got another Shinohara code 70 turnout in the mail today... and I went to set the 3 i have up to make sure the track widths were ok. So i grab an IHC caboose I have, put it on the tracks, and it goes clunkclunkclunkclunkclunk over the ties. the flanges are too big!!! realizing this huge mistake I probably just made.... I check my other stuff. Only the IHC engines and cars and my Rivarossi 2-8-8-2 mallet have wheel flanges too big to run on this track. Why don't these companies advertise this??
Is there anything I can do if I want to run these engines, aside from going up to code 83 rail?
i can't believe that theres HO products incompatible with each other, in terms of code 55/70 rail and huge wheel flanges.
arrgh!