LastspikemikeThe darned thing won't track properly.
Russell
ATLANTIC CENTRALFor what level of dimensional accuracy? A prototype wheel is about 5.5" wide, a code 88 wheel is about 7.6" wide, a code110 wheel is about 9.5" wide. Times 2 = 8" of extra width making our truck assembly too wide by .092". I think the reality is most modelers are not going to pay the money to ungrade, and likely may not pay more for new models to get that closer to right.
I for one do notice the ugly sideframe gap and unprototypical spacing, just as I notice the absence of polish on the contact faces of tread and flange -- and, while we're on it, of the faces that retarders bear on. I'd prefer to see objective discussion of the 'yes' before getting to the YMMV part.
All that from a company with one product..... let's see how well they do.......
It would be easy, but would require making a new truck, more or less.
For what level of dimensional accuracy? A prototype wheel is about 5.5" wide, a code 88 wheel is about 7.6" wide, a code110 wheel is about 9.5" wide.
Times 2 = 8" of extra width making our truck assembly too wide by .092".
I think the reality is most modelers are not going to pay the money to ungrade, and likely may not pay more for new models to get that closer to right.
I could be wrong, but I'm not loosing any sleep over a few scale inches in 1/87 scale.
So I'm not interested in using code 88 wheels either.
I understand the desires of those who do, nearly became that kind of modeler....
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRALWhen you replace the code 110 wheels in a model trucks with code 88 wheels, you move the outer face of the wheel farther from the back of the sideframe. This is not prototypical, the wheel faces on the prototype are pretty close to the back of the sideframe.
Trucks North American Railcar has tooled an all new ASF 70-ton Ride Control roller bearing truck with free rolling scale 33" diameter wheels and rotating bearing caps to accurately match the trucks that were delivered on the prototype cars. With a magnifying glass, you can even read the foundry data cast onto the side frames! After a number of years in service, some cars were modified and equipped with 100-ton trucks with 36” diameter wheels. North American Railcar will include our highly detailed, very free rolling Barber S-2 100-ton trucks on appropriate models to match the prototype.
North American Railcar has tooled an all new ASF 70-ton Ride Control roller bearing truck with free rolling scale 33" diameter wheels and rotating bearing caps to accurately match the trucks that were delivered on the prototype cars. With a magnifying glass, you can even read the foundry data cast onto the side frames!
After a number of years in service, some cars were modified and equipped with 100-ton trucks with 36” diameter wheels. North American Railcar will include our highly detailed, very free rolling Barber S-2 100-ton trucks on appropriate models to match the prototype.
This issue came up quite a bit in O scale even before reference to Proto:48 using regular ("five-foot gauge") sideframe assemblies. It's even more obvious there when the wheels are too far back, the brakeshoes don't line up correctly close to the tread, etc.
I don't see technical difficulties with making a three-piece equalizing truck with scale cross-sections in its side-frames, appropriate adjustment of bolster length to get the back-to-back dimension correct for different wheel types or standards, and axles that 'fit' the contact patches correctly with the wheel spacing accurate. It could be argued that the Kadee 'centering truck' construction could be improved with little more than calibrated shims and a slightly revised interlocking-bolster design to produce this.
Note that adding only about 3 paragraphs to the original article text, with only a couple of additional illustrations and drawings, would produce a guide of exactly what to modify, and what dimensions to use or apply, when converting wheel types or correcting sideframes...
.
gregc ATLANTIC CENTRAL What is a code 88 wheel? - it is a semi scale wheel with a overall width of .088", compared to the original NMRA standard wheel of .110". A true scale wheel would only be .064" wide in HO scale i think a discussion on using more scale wheels also deserves a more thorough discussion of trackwork presumably a modeler that users more prototypical wheels is also builiding more prototypical trackwork that has a higher degree of accuracy and probably detail (e.g. fishplates). one obvious aspect is track gauge which needs to be tighter than 1/16" (0.0625) when considering a wheel width of 0.088". the other aspect mentioned (video) is flange depth at frogs. of course a more prototypical flange would also be shorter my understanding is the gap between rails at frogs increases in length with frog #. this is probably less of a problem for modelers using smaller turnouts (4-8) tony koester says he fills that gap with solder and uses a hacksaw blade to cut the grove for the flange but only to a depth that allows the wheel flange to be supported by the solder. a monolithic frog seems more prototypical
ATLANTIC CENTRAL What is a code 88 wheel? - it is a semi scale wheel with a overall width of .088", compared to the original NMRA standard wheel of .110". A true scale wheel would only be .064" wide in HO scale
i think a discussion on using more scale wheels also deserves a more thorough discussion of trackwork
presumably a modeler that users more prototypical wheels is also builiding more prototypical trackwork that has a higher degree of accuracy and probably detail (e.g. fishplates). one obvious aspect is track gauge which needs to be tighter than 1/16" (0.0625) when considering a wheel width of 0.088".
the other aspect mentioned (video) is flange depth at frogs. of course a more prototypical flange would also be shorter
my understanding is the gap between rails at frogs increases in length with frog #. this is probably less of a problem for modelers using smaller turnouts (4-8)
tony koester says he fills that gap with solder and uses a hacksaw blade to cut the grove for the flange but only to a depth that allows the wheel flange to be supported by the solder. a monolithic frog seems more prototypical
Completely agreed. But many modelers don't get that memo and just start buying code 88 wheels without considering track work issues.
If you want to, and have the skills to build finer scale track, great. Go for it, and use code 88 wheels.
I have the skills, but not the time or ambition given my other chosen modeling goals.
The frog in your picture is very modern, not seen in the era I model.
When I do build turnouts for special situations I do the same as Tony, fill the frog and file them out with a hacksaw blade. But I'm not keen on the flange riding on the frog bottom for the reasons explained in the video.
And none of that addresses what I consider the ugly side frame gap.
My personal goals are not in the micro detail camp, standard wheels and track, painted and weathered, are fine for me.
What is important to me is that 40 car train running reliably on enough layout to make it look good. Without having to belong to club and be subject to the will of others.
ATLANTIC CENTRALWhat is a code 88 wheel? - it is a semi scale wheel with a overall width of .088", compared to the original NMRA standard wheel of .110". A true scale wheel would only be .064" wide in HO scale
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
So the last several posts brought up comments about code 88 wheels, a topic I was planning to explore here anyway.
Before I get started, please understand, my thoughts on code 88 wheels are my OPINION, based on some simple facts. I am not suggesting code 88 wheels don't work, but they don't work well enough for me, on the track and turnouts I use.
What is a code 88 wheel? - it is a semi scale wheel with a overall width of .088", compared to the original NMRA standard wheel of .110". A true scale wheel would only be .064" wide in HO scale.
Just like our wheels are not exactly scale, our track is not exactly to scale either. It allows for more play, larger flangeways, etc, when compared to the prototype.
Code 88 wheels are simply the narrowest wheel that is expected to nogotiate NMRA standard HO track without derailment. This does however cause issues with wheels possibly droping into, or "bumping over", turnout frogs much more so than the wider code 110 wheel.
When you replace the code 110 wheels in a model trucks with code 88 wheels, you move the outer face of the wheel father from the back of the sideframe. This is not prototypical, the wheels faces on the prototype are pretty close to the back of the sideframe.
So code 88 wheels offer a finer, more scale appearance to the wheel, at the expense of the overall visual proportions of the truck as a whole which was designed for a reasonable prototype proportion with code 110 wheels, despite being slightly wider than prototype trucks.
I am unaware of any trucks on the market that use code 88 wheels and bring the sideframes in to a more scale width. A tooling expense no one seems willing to do at this point.
You are in fact improving one out of scale appearance without fixing the related out of scale distance between the sideframes, and thereby drawing more attention to that fact.
And the wheels are still wider than scale?
Rigid trucks or sprung, code 88 wheels will "clunk" thru many of the commercial turnouts on the market.
I use primarily Atlas Code 83 Custom Line turnouts. The operation of code 88 wheels thru that product is at best "clunky".
This video should give you some idea of why a more narrow wheel can cause issues at turnout frogs. They address that issue in the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbSmoUH1Cqk
So I ask why use them? I have decided not to on my equipment.
But my disclaimer is this, I'm a bigger picture modeler, building a larger layout, viewed from a generally greater distance, with a large fleet of cars expected to run reliably on several thousand feet of track - that is for me more important than very small gains in scale appearance.
Sheldon: Thanks for starting this informative discussion. Your comments are very insightful and very well written. Easy to understand.
Others who contributed: .... Thanks for your informative comments, too.
I have changed trucks on plastic passenger cars made by Rivarossi, Con Cor, and IHC. The replacement trucks have been mostly out-of-production trucks made by Central Valley, Tenshodo, and the IHC premium line.
My Walthers heavyweight cars with 6-wheel trucks were not free rolling when new. I used Labelle 134 teflon lubricant in each bearing, and that quickly solved the problem. I also use Labelle 135 graphite. I have used teflon on Walthers streamline cars with 4-wheel trucks, too, and am pleased with that.
My BLI California Zephyr cars have not had issues with lubrication. However, the corners of the truck frames did strike the inside surfaces of the body skirts on tight curves. A little filing took care of that.
Regarding Code 88 wheels on freight cars, some of them derailed if trunouts were not perfect. Therefore, I use Code 110.
I have not experienced freight car derailments because of rigid trucks, and most of mine do not have real springs.
Again, Sheldon: .... Thank you !
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
ATLANTIC CENTRALIt would be a happy day if Kadee or someone developed a magic bullet in the form of a simple, affordable, equalized passenger truck, but given the limitations I don't see that happening.
Yeah, but we can dream.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
ATLANTIC CENTRALIn your case, no, very little would be gained.
Hi Sheldon,
Thanks for your advice.
I will keep your recommendations in mind if I have any cars that consistently derail after all the basic tuning efforts have failed. Adding sprung trucks in that case would seem to be a logical move.
I will also say thanks for your analysis of truck dynamics. You put a lot of time and effort into providing us all with valuable information.
Cheers!!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
hon30critter Hi Sheldon, I want to ask you whether or not you feel it is worth the expense to switch all of my 230+ cars with rigid trucks to sprung trucks given the following: - Very few of my trains will be longer than 8 - 10 cars (Okay, I'll probably run longer trains sometimes just for fun), - There are no grades and I'm not going to indulge in superelevation, - I already have Intermountain wheel sets in almost all of my rolling stock, - All of my freight cars/passenger cars are weighted to NMRA recommendations, - All of my couplers are either Kadee #5s or #48s, - I do not anticipate operating at breakneck speeds. Switching to sprung trucks will cost a fortune! Is it worth the expense? Thanks, Dave
I want to ask you whether or not you feel it is worth the expense to switch all of my 230+ cars with rigid trucks to sprung trucks given the following:
- Very few of my trains will be longer than 8 - 10 cars (Okay, I'll probably run longer trains sometimes just for fun),
- There are no grades and I'm not going to indulge in superelevation,
- I already have Intermountain wheel sets in almost all of my rolling stock,
- All of my freight cars/passenger cars are weighted to NMRA recommendations,
- All of my couplers are either Kadee #5s or #48s,
- I do not anticipate operating at breakneck speeds.
Switching to sprung trucks will cost a fortune! Is it worth the expense?
Thanks,
In your case, no, very little would be gained.
The payoff to sprung/equalized trucks is long heavy trains, particularly thru complex trackage. As the total train weight increases, the side load on wheels and flanges increases on curves for the cars at the front/middle of the train.
With equalized trucks these additional forces are much more evenly distributed to each wheelset.
Remember what Kevin posted above about the Scale Rails club? Sprung trucks required - they pull long trains.
But, given a choice for a replacement or on a scratch built car, I would pick Kadee or some other high quality sprung truck even if my other rolling stock was not so equiped.
Some related topics:
Passenger trucks - sprung and equalized passenger trucks are available, and are nothing new.
Central Valley and others offered the most popular styles going back to the late 50's and 60's.
Today Precision Scale Company makes a wide selection of both kits and RTR sprung passenger trucks - but get your wallet out - with many prices in the $35 to $50 a pair range.
And honestly, because of their complexity and often brass construction, they can be fussy and short circuit prone if not perfectly assembled.
While I still consider equalization important, I have found a few things to be true about passenger trucks that make rigid trucks more forgiving than their freight counterparts.
Facts to consider:
Even long passenger trains have much fewer cars - 15 or 20 passenger cars is a long train, compared to my 40 plus car freight trains. I think for a great many of us, 8-12 cars is a more typical passenger train. Mine seem to mostly vary between 10 to 15 cars.
Passenger trucks are longer, which, if made out of plastic, makes even rigid trucks more flexible. Example - if you set a chair on an uneven floor it wobbles, but a table on a similar floor will likely flex and sit fine.
Passenger cars are, or should be, heavier. But yet still often ride on four axles, changing the dynamics of their tracking somewhat and possibly taking advantage of the flexibility of a plastic rigid truck.
Don't get me wrong, in a perfect world I would prefer equalized trucks on all equipment, but cost, reliablitly, availablity and need are factors to consider.
It would be a happy day if Kadee or someone developed a magic bullet in the form of a simple, affordable, equalized passenger truck, but given the limitations I don't see that happening.
My own passenger fleet rides on a lot of different trucks, only some are sprung and equalized. Many are Athearn and ConCor 72' cars, and ride on the original plastic rigid trucks refitted with metal wheels if they did not come that way.
Others ride on vintage Central Valley sprung metal trucks, brass sprung trucks or various original equipment trucks.
Three axle trucks - rigid or sprung require additional side play in the center axle, and require extra vertical play on rigid sideframe trucks. The goal being to have the car weight on the outter two axles and have the center axle go along for the ride on three axle rigid trucks.
As I add these additional topics, I will limit the scope of each post to make specific responses simpler to qoute.
Nice analysis, Sheldon.
I've used sprung trucks for decades, because despite what many folks argue, they derail much less frequently than rigid frame trucks.
One thing that you didn't mention is that rigid frame trucks may be slightly warped because of internal stresses in the frames, aggravating the floating wheel problem.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
dehusman I have been replacing the Kadee sprung trucks on cars with Tahoe rigid trucks with Intermountain wheels because I have way more problems with Kadee trucks derailing than I do with the Tahoe trucks. Not sure whether its the springing, the Kadee journals, or that the Kadee's have code 110 wheels and the Intermountains are code 88 wheels. Just know that if a cars chronically derails, changing the trucks will fix it.
I have been replacing the Kadee sprung trucks on cars with Tahoe rigid trucks with Intermountain wheels because I have way more problems with Kadee trucks derailing than I do with the Tahoe trucks.
Not sure whether its the springing, the Kadee journals, or that the Kadee's have code 110 wheels and the Intermountains are code 88 wheels. Just know that if a cars chronically derails, changing the trucks will fix it.
Are we talking about Kadee cars that came with Kadee trucks, or other cars that they were applied to?
Personally, I am not a fan of code 88 wheels, also a topic I plan to cover.
I use code 110 wheels from Intermountain, I do not use any code 88 wheels.
What kind of track? What kind of turnouts?
Logicly, and based on my 54 years at this, there is nothing inherent about sprung trucks that would increase derailments. I have nearly 800 freight cars with sprung trucks and live in a derailment free world for the most part.
I would suggest there is some "combination" of factors at work here. Some lack of compatibility in the whole "trackwork/coupler/truck" system.
I would be interested to here more details - types of cars, which sprung trucks, what kind of derailments, types of track.
Thanks to everyone for the kind words. Having started in this hobby at age 10, with a strong boost from my father, I have been a life long student of both our models and the prototype.
I am happy to share what I have learned.
I do plan to add some additional info here, and offer some thoughts on specific things like passenger car trucks, three axle trucks, and discuss in more detail the strengths and weaknesses of rigid frame trucks and why sprung or equalized trucks are not always practical.
I wil drop this hint about that topic, cost, complexity and availablity, combined with some different physics, put passenger trucks in a different class from the general freight car fleet.
More later,
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Your presentation of that information was very well-done, Sheldon. I am not at all surprised.
Wayne
Mark B Thank you for the great analysis. Are there any studies or opinions as to the use of lubricants on the axel tips as to rolling qualities or incompatabilities of materials? These lubricants would include everything from the Kadee "Grease-Em" to the line of Labelle products and anything else (i.e powdered graphite or Teflon type product) being marketed. I model On30 using the stock Bachmann trucks and have never lubed or adjusted any of their trucks as they seem to roll just fine. Any opinions on the "truck tuner"? Or "truck tuner" and a lubricant? Just something I've kind of wondered about but never tried. Again, thanks to Sheldon for the great information. Mark B.
Thank you for the great analysis. Are there any studies or opinions as to the use of lubricants on the axel tips as to rolling qualities or incompatabilities of materials? These lubricants would include everything from the Kadee "Grease-Em" to the line of Labelle products and anything else (i.e powdered graphite or Teflon type product) being marketed. I model On30 using the stock Bachmann trucks and have never lubed or adjusted any of their trucks as they seem to roll just fine. Any opinions on the "truck tuner"? Or "truck tuner" and a lubricant? Just something I've kind of wondered about but never tried.
Again, thanks to Sheldon for the great information.
Mark B.
As Overmod points out, the truck turner is useful to insure a smooth bearing surface in the journal.
I use Labelle 108, I prefer it over graphite or Teflon powder.
Another guy I ran into years ago who also puts Intermountain wheels in Kadee trucks, uses 108 as well.
One other note about Overmods earlier comments, yes, no matter how sharp it feels to you, the axle tip is rounded off, to the benefit of the actual contact point.
It is not that things don't mater (spung trucks, etc.), it is just that if enough other things happen (bolster rub or missing exact center at attachment point, etc,), then it negates the effectiveness of the item. The reason for extra weight on sprung trucks is it counteracts the dozens of things that negates their effectivness (in other woods, all things do not scale due to gravity etc.).
I appreciate all you went through to provide us with your informative post, Sheldon. It's good, solid, information, well thought out, and well-presented. Thank-you.
riogrande5761 Good info for novices!
Good info for novices!
Well, this novice sure learned something.
Thanks for your work in putting this together Sheldon, I found it very informative.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
Truck tuning often makes good sense. Note that it works by smoothing the 60-degree cone in the sideframe. Even though the 'active' bearing area might be only from about 5 degrees before and behind 'top center' and only a few thou long, it's easiest to cut and smooth the whole cone at one time.
The lubricated area on these is small and any hydrodynamic bearing wedge likely slight at most. I think the use of lube depends on the sideframe and axle materials -- and only the smallest amount. Dust will preferentially get up in there over time if you overlubricate, and it can be surprising how little constitutes 'over'doing it.
Sheldon, thanks for your informative post.
I find your first diagram interesting regarding axle length. When I decided to go with metal wheelsets, I measured the original axle and also the Intermountain and Proto metal wheelsets I had acquired. I had noticed that another vendor offered a variety of axle lengths and a chart to chose the best length item for a particular freight car, which made me wonder how important axle length is.
I found that the Intermountain wheelsets did very well in downhill rolling resistance as long as the IM axle length was not much longer (it was often shorter) than the original. So that became my default. I used the Proto in cases where I wanted the ribbed back wheelsets for older cars.
Your explanation firms up my guess that shorter axle lengths than original are usually not an issue because the axle point does not need to ride in the very end of the cone. Of course, too long an axle length, exerting horizontal force into the cone ends would not be desired, as that would creating a binding force.
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
Very good discussion. This ought to be a 'sticky' somewhere...
I want to draw attention to the intentional 'blunting' of the tips of these axles. This defines the 'bearing' area on the axle slightly differently: it is now where the curved radius of the blunted tip intersects the 50-degree cone machined or formed in the axle end.
In my opinion, it follows that this very small region is the 'only' part of the axle that needs to be carefully trued and polished. But there is another implication of this radius: it maintains a good contact area on both ends when the two sideframes equalize...
Naturally there is a small deformation between the near-point contact of the relatively hard axle and the softer sideframe material -- the latter will, ideally elastically, deform slightly to give the required bearing area. I suspect you'd need very good instrumentation to measure this.
A Delrin sideframe will distort 'more' than a brass one, but the inherent low surface activity of acetal will ensure low friction of the 'deformed' area even without lubrication.
Something I have not read about is the bearing arrangement used for those trucks with rotating simulated roller-bearing endcaps. Those usually involve a small 'wire' extension on the axle end that penetrates the sideframe. Now if you remember your Hot Wheels cars, those use a Delrin tube bearing with line contact to a thin wire axle... and roll very well. The question is whether the rotating-bearing trucks 'bear' on those pins, or on a contact with the axle taper inboard of the pin end.
When I was in Scale Rails Of Southwest Florida, we had a demonstration board showing why sprung trucks (HGC did not exist yet) were required on all cars that ran on the club layout.
It was just a piece of flex track with a couple of staples over the track. Rigid trucks would always derail, but a string of freight cars with sprung trucks would glide right through the obstacles.
The fact is that when a sprung (equalized) truck has one wheel lifted, the other three stay on the rail. When a rigid truck has one wheel lifted, another wheel is also lifted, and there is a derailment.
Great work on the post Sheldon. THANK YOU!
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Well done, Sheldon, and quite convincing!
Takeaways: Sprung or equalized trucks are superior to rigid trucks. Intermountain metal wheelsets are the best wheelsets. Any other takeaways to note?
Rich
Alton Junction