Is there a problem with some wheels not working well on code 83?
I have a sack full of Rivarossi Cab Forwards with I think the largest pre PR 25 wheels, Pizza Cutter wheels and they don’t have any problems running through the Atlas code 83 turnouts or crossovers. Early on I tried every manufactured code 83 double crossover and the large flange Rivarossi had problems either derailing or shorting on all but the Atlas turnouts. I never had a single problem with the Rivarossi wheels in any Atlas code 83 turnout so I made my own code 83 double crossover using Atlas code 83 Custom Line 563/564 #6 turnouts and the Atlas code 83 572 19° crossover.
I have 19 large flange locomorives and I've never any problems going through the Atlas code 83 turnouts.
Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
Interesting. Had a few late 60's/early 70's Rivarossi witht he deep flange and while they ran fine and didn't derail on Code 83 track, they were noisey, because the flanges were clearly hitting on the spike head detail. These were from before they switched over to the still too deep but not as bad flanges of the early 70's.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
RandyI have several Rivarossi articulateds from the 60s and none hit the spikes on Atlas code 83 track. Were the Rivarossis you had articulated, could the flanges be deeper on non articulated Rivarossis?I also have a pair of Rivarossi Krauss-Maffei ML-4000s that don’t hit the spikes but I don’t know when they were manufactured. The flanges appear to be the same depth as my early Cab Forwards and Y6Bs. Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
The ones I tried were some GG1's and the Reno 4-4-0. Never had any of the articulateds, I used to drool over the cab forwards but thy were a bit large for our layout and also a bit outside our price range when I was a kid. I still have the 3 of the 4 old timer locos we had, but no longer have the streamlined Hudson, which was the biggest loco we ran - getting that prompted the extra foot add-on around the outside of the layout to run a larger than 18" radius loop.
My control panel is still under reconstruction but I tacked a couple of wire together and ran a couple of my older Rivarossis (Cab Forward & Y6B) and listened carefully to see if I could hear the flanges hitting the spikes and I couldn’t hear any. My Atlas code 83 track was purchased in the mid 80s can’t say if the newer track is the same as the older track. All of my Rivarossis have added weight (10 ounces), I don’t know if that has an impact on wheel noise.
EDIT:I looked closely at my Atlas track and couldn’t see any wear on the spikes, I thought maybe after 20 or so years of running my Pizza Cutter flanges might have worn the spikes down.
It's fairly easy to trim-down wheel flanges if they're too deep for the track you're using.I have an IHC Mogul that came with not-quite pizza-cutter drivers, and used a cut-off disc in a motor tool to reduce the flange depth.
It's important to keep the loco upright during this operation, as you don't want to get the ground-off material into the mechanism or the motor.
I clipped power wires to the motor, and then, with the workbench power pack set at about mid-throttle and while holding the locomotive upright, carefully touched the face of the cut-off disc to the bottom of one of the spinning drivers. I did this for all of the drivers in-turn, with the contact periods being fairly short, as I didn't want to overheat the tires, and perhaps have them fall off the plastic centres. Simply move from wheel-to-wheel as you work.
Here's the loco, much modified from it's original Espee appearance...
For the large flanges on the lead truck's wheels and those on the tender, I simply replaced the wheelsets.
Wayne
I will caution those with Rivarossi large flanges, if the same engineer or draftsman that came up with the Cab Forward wheels did all of the Rivarossi wheel designs you better measure the tires first before reducing the flanges. The jerk used the flange measurement for the tires instead of the tire measurement making the Rivarossi wheels too small. Reduced flanges on the Cab Forwards make them look strange with tiny wheels. Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
It's probably not a mis-measurement. Almost all model railroad steam engines have drivers smaller than the prototype. Even recent models without the "pizza cutter" flanges still have flanges that are larger than the prototype, so the drivers have to be made a few scale inches smaller so the driver axle spacing can be the same as the prototype. I suspect because of the very large old Rivarossi flanges, the wheels on their engines were even smaller than the normal 3-4 scale inch reduction you'd usually see...but it's not because someone in Italy didn't know how to measure.
wjstix It's probably not a mis-measurement. Almost all model railroad steam engines have drivers smaller than the prototype. Even recent models without the "pizza cutter" flanges still have flanges that are larger than the prototype, so the drivers have to be made a few scale inches smaller so the driver axle spacing can be the same as the prototype. I suspect because of the very large old Rivarossi flanges, the wheels on their engines were even smaller than the normal 3-4 scale inch reduction you'd usually see...but it's not because someone in Italy didn't know how to measure.
Never thought to check that on other my other locomotives.
The measurements below are the tires not the flanges. The older Bachmann GS4s (Plus) do measure smaller than 80” at 75”. My Bowser GS4 wheels measure the correct 80” as does the newer Bachmann GS4 (factory DCC). My very old MDC 0-6-0s (1952) measure the correct 52”.
My Rivarossi Y6Bs measure 55.6”, should be 58”.All my Rivarossi Cab Forwards measure 55.6” instead of 63.5”. (mid 1960s to 1994) Apparently the Rivarossi Cab Forward is the only one that is way off.Thanks Stix for bringing that up! I did use the same method as Dr Wayne to reduce one driver set of Rivarossi flanges. When I saw the results I didn’t do any more, it was obvious even before I put the driver assembly back on the locomotive that the wheels looked way to small. Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
Mel, did you measure the axle spacing for prototype dimension too?
Overmod Mel, did you measure the axle spacing for prototype dimension too?
No only the tires.When I reduced the flanges on the Cab Forward it was a long time ago. Because I screwed up I bought a set of Greenway 63” drivers to replace the wheel sets and that was my second mistake. I didn’t think to measure the axle spacing and the new actual 63” wheels wouldn’t fit the Rivarossi frame, wasted $$$ that time.
Too bad, the Rivarossi Cab Forwards fixed up with a new can motor or motors with added weight make a extreemly nice running and looking locomotive. 8oz of #8 birdshot in the bolier doubles the drawbar traction.
My only problems were early 60s vintage Talgo trucks on Mantua hoppers. These were pizza cutter wheels. The made a racket on Code 83 track, but I never had a derailment issue with them. After a while, I upgraded those cars to metal Intermountain wheels and was much happier with the quiet and lower rolling resistance.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.