Sounds like quite an effort.
I would be concerned about too much heat generated that would make the plastic hub get soft and distort. Also, watch the grinding dust from both the stone (grit getting into gears and bearings) or metal dust getting into brushes.
Good Luck, Ed
A fellow recommended the loco running under it's own power with a dremel grinding disc against the flange, then a thorough cleaning. Gently, I would imagine. Cannot confirm, have not yet tried it myself, but the source seems like a somewhat prolific repairman.
I did an 0-4-0, no problem. I ran the engine at full speed and ran my Dremil swithing between wheels so the never got hot till I got the flange depth where I wanted (for code 70).
Is there an issue of whether to simply reduce the diameter (such as against a flat file) vs. ensuring a somewhat sharp edge so the flange will more likely not pick points? Just curious as I formerly tinkered with a 4-6-2 secondary brand with a file, with same objective as yours to ensure ok handling of my Atlas code 83 crossings, which seem tight regarding depth for larger flanges.
Let us know how it goes.
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
peahrens Is there an issue of whether to simply reduce the diameter (such as against a flat file) vs. ensuring a somewhat sharp edge so the flange will more likely not pick points? Just curious as I formerly tinkered with a 4-6-2 secondary brand with a file, with same objective as yours to ensure ok handling of my Atlas code 83 crossings, which seem tight regarding depth for larger flanges. Let us know how it goes.
I turned down the driver flanges on this IHC Mogul...
Wayne
I removed the flanges of the middle drivers of a Bachmann 2-10-4 to make it run on my 22" curves. I basically did the same thing as the Doctor did. It worked. My Rivarossis have rubber rings on some of the drivers. I would change these wheels in order to remove the flanges.
Simon
doctorwayne I turned down the driver flanges on this IHC Mogul... With the boiler/cab assembly off, and wires from my shop transformer hooked to the motor, I set the throttle to a medium speed. Then, while holding the loco upright, touched the face of a cut-off disc, running at fairly high speed in a motor tool, to the bottom of flange of one of the spinning drivers. Since the spoked wheels are plastic, contact was maintained for only a few seconds, to avoid overheating the driver's tire and damaging the plastic. I simply moved on, from wheel-to-wheel in the same manner, until all flanges presented a more prototypical appearance. The wheelset in the lead truck was replaced with one from my parts department, as were those on the tender... Wayne
With the boiler/cab assembly off, and wires from my shop transformer hooked to the motor, I set the throttle to a medium speed. Then, while holding the loco upright, touched the face of a cut-off disc, running at fairly high speed in a motor tool, to the bottom of flange of one of the spinning drivers. Since the spoked wheels are plastic, contact was maintained for only a few seconds, to avoid overheating the driver's tire and damaging the plastic. I simply moved on, from wheel-to-wheel in the same manner, until all flanges presented a more prototypical appearance. The wheelset in the lead truck was replaced with one from my parts department, as were those on the tender...
RR_Mel ....I’m sure the IHC flanges weren’t as large or deep as my Rivarossi flanges, did you do anything for the thickness at the edge after reducing the flange? Another worry is point rails with a wider flange, the wider flange shouldn't pick the points but could be a problem elsewhere....
You're probably right about the IHC flanges being less than those on the older Rivarossi locomotives. I didn't bother attempting to thin the flanges that remained, reasoning that if they worked okay with the larger flanges, they should be alright with what's left. I've had no issues caused by the modifications.I did, however, replace the original motor in the 37. While it ran well with a brass Mogul (also re-motored and extensively modified), it required quite a bit more current to get moving, with the result that the brass one pulled the IHC loco and the trailing tonnage for at least a car-length or-so before the 37's motor kicked-in.
Here's the re-worked 34, (formerly a Boston & Maine B-15) also with a cab from a Bachmann Consolidation, and the "Economy" valve chests re-worked as sorta-regular piston valves...
The two together are pretty-decent haulers....
RR_Mel The older large flange Rivarossi drivers measure .637” at the tire or 55½”. The RP-25 (newer) flange drivers measure .723” at the tire or a true 63” Baldwin Cab Forward wheel. The Rivarossi Y6B measures .586” at the tire or 49¼”, the Y6B has 58” drivers.
That's quite a disparity from the prototypes' wheels, so I can appreciate your comment about them looking okay with the large flanges. It would be nice if you could get nickel-silver tubing, in suitable sizes and thicknesses, to re-tire the drivers over the existing too-small tires, while leaving the too-deep flanges in place. I'd guess that the resultant thicker tires would be less noticeable than the current too-deep flanges, which, with the new tires, would likely be just right.
RR_Mel...Earlier on I had looked into replacing the wheels with Greenway 63” Wheels (only one locomotive because of the cost) but the flanges touch in the Rivarossi frame....
I used the Greenway drivers to redo this brass Mogul for a friend, as the original drivers' centres had a bad case of zincpest...
It also got a new can motor and a NWSL gearbox.
I'll be putting Greenway drivers in this John English Pacific, along with a gearbox and new motor...
...it's currently torn down...
...until I find some free time. The new drivers should give more reliable pick-up than the brass originals.
Mel, I think that you made the best decision regarding those old Rivarossi drivers.
doctorwayne Mel, I think that you made the best decision regarding those old Rivarossi drivers. Wayne