Hello All,
Just to throw it out there...
Do you prefer sprung trucks on your rolling stock over un-sprung (molded) either plastic or metal framed? And, why...looks, performance or other reason(s).
I understand that many folks prefer code 88 over code 110 wheels for appearance but what about the rest of it.
Thanks for your input.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
The springs in most HO sprung trucks don't really look much like real truck springing - particularly in photographs, at least not to my eyes. Some O scale sprung trucks look much more real, even going back to the old Carl Auel trucks of the 1930s. Maybe the old Central Valley passenger car trucks in HO had the best looking springs.
The springs are usually too taut to actually work like springs so to my way of thinking genuine sprung trucks are mostly cosmetic, and in HO at least, not convincingly cosmetic.
There seems to be some recent debate or dispute among advanced modelers over whether equalized or sprung/equalized trucks are good or bad, particularly now that so many modelers use wheels that are narrower than NMRA standards. Tony Koester in particular has written on this. Way back when most advanced modelers wanted equalized or sprung/equalized trucks on the theory that they were a bit more forgiving of roughly laid track.
Dave Nelson
Solid molded trucks generally are better appearance-wise. Since physics doesn;t scale, a working sprung truck needs a very light spring that looks nothing like the massive few coils found on the real thing. If the spring were accurately scaled down, it wouldn;t matter thant it could move - it would require far too much pressure to even slightly compress the springs.
As far as operation, I've never had a problem with unsprung trucks, but I take great pains when laying my track to make sure it doesn't have dips and vertical kinks. I have a few Kadee cars that have sprung trucks, but they are neither better nor worse than the vast majority of my rolling stuck which has solid trucks.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
The trucks on my Japanese prototype 'bogie stock' aren't sprung (the prototype uses leaf springs) but they ARE equalized. IMHO, positive equalization beats springing for operation on imperfect track.
HOWEVER, the majority of my freight stock consists of four wheel wagons that are neither sprung nor equalized, so I don't get any slack when laying track for derailment-free operation. For me, 'Good enough," is as close to perfection as I can arrange.
How are the trucks equalized? The cast metal sideframes are held to the body bolster with shouldered screws that allow a few degrees of rotational play. Car weight does the rest.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I don't care for sprung trucks. The springs are almost always too fine to look realistic, and unlike prototype trucks are too few in number (i.e. they only represent the outer row of springs while omitting the others behind them). I've also found no advantage at all in performance.
Typical wheel widths in HO are code 88 and 110 (not 100). If you have good track, either will work fine. Some commercial turnouts (Atlas code 100 #6 and some Walthers/Shinohars curved turnouts) are wide in gauge at the points and may require tuning to keep code 88 wheelsets from derailing.
Here's a prototype ASF 100-ton truck. Note the thickness of the spring material and the fact you can't see through the springs.
Above is ExactRail's unsprung model of roughly the same truck. The sideframe is cast in one piece, but the truck is equalized so the sideframes can move relative to one another.
This is a Kadee sprung truck intended to represent the above. The sideframe looks similar to the prototype, but the springs are far too flimsy to be realistic, and again there's only one row of them per side.
Rob Spangler
Theoretically, yes, a sprung, equalized truck would perform better.
In practice, this is very difficult to achieve, for reasons already stated so I won't belabor them.
Can't speak to the really old stuff, but I have a number of old, later 60s era Train-Minature sprung trucks. They tend to be troublesome, not in a bad way, but the springs are too wimpy to respond to movement and thus don't level after a bump, etc. This is intermittent and ones that are bad simply get deadlined. One piece trucks just go on working.
Just equalized has a better track record. I have found the trucks that allow both sideframes to swivel can be troublesome, better to have just one side pivit IMO.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Sprund trucks are okay, but you can't put enough weight in the car to deflect the srings. Therefore they won't deflect going over rough track, with or without weight added to the car.
Metal side frame trucks with springs have a habit of melting the springs after a derailment on a DCC system. Any trucks that I will be replacing will have plastic side frames. Most likely I'll just replace the wheelsets with Kadees.
South Penn
At first glance I found the idea of HO scale sprung trucks attractive, but with use I decided against them for two basic reasons. 1) Appearrance, the spring areas was transparent (compared to prototype) because the springs were thin and only one row. 2) Operation problems, this is the most important. I want cars to run well. I do not want shelf queens. The problem that I found was that many times if there was movement of the springs the truck side frames would stick at a slanted angle and then I would have a derailment at the next curve.
I replaced all of my sprung trucks with solid plastic ones and I have never regretted it.
All things being equal, I believe some flexibility is desirable, but springs usually have an appearance problem. It's more important to have some equalization than actual springs. Perfect rigidity isn't a good idea.
Tom
I forgot to mention that the key to using solid trucks is to have one mounting screw just loose enough to allow the truck to rotate and have the other screw a little bit looser to allow the truck to slightly rock from side to side.
I am fortunate to be part of a club that has some very accomplished modelers in it. One of them has had several articles published over the years and builds beautiful models another has not been the prolific writter but builds beautiful models as well. You could have one of them easily fall into the class of modeler known as a rivit counter. One of the likes the sprung trucks. I do not. In short trains they produce a great deal more drag than the one piece plastic models by accurail that can be tuned with a micro mark tool to be extremely free rolling.
I use metal wheels plastic trucks and can easily pull or push long trains through all kinds of track work. I have a video above that shows a heavy weighted train being switched through a yard with just two locomotives. The other advantages of plastic trucks is they do not cause shorts which under some conditions metal trucks can.
The free rolling characteristics using either or both 110 or 88 wheels allows me to run prototype length trainsaround the layout and not have any issues with trains staying on the rails for hours or days at open houses etc.
By comparison one of the guys gave me a coal hopper that he had the sprung wheels on and I ended up returning the trucks to him and replacing them with accurail versions because the rolling characteristics were so much better. When I acquire models with these trucks I replace them and give the sprung models to someone in the club that likes them.
Another test I did one day to check out the operating reliability of my rolling stock, a proof of concept if you will regarding standards, ws to run a train backwards at increasing speed to see how it would perform. Train was 90 cars in length and after increasing the speed it eventually reached full speed and ran around our club layout with no issues at all. The speed was unrealistic but did prove the reliability aspect to me of extra weight, coupler settings and kadee exclusive use, wheels and truck tuning as well as properly setting the truck screws etc. Other guys in the club were amazed while watching the train blast around the layout in that fashion going through turnouts, and up and down grades etc.
The big thing for me was if the equipment can handle irregular track that crops up from time to time under extreme and unrealistic conditions like this it will work flawlessly under normal conditions and has.
I was at one time impressed with the idea of the sprung trucks but have found they do not perform as well as the ridgid plastic ones do so have changed my tune.
Omaha53 2) Operation problems, this is the most important. The problem that I found was that many times if there was movement of the springs the truck side frames would stick at a slanted angle and then I would have a derailment at the next curve.
2) Operation problems, this is the most important. The problem that I found was that many times if there was movement of the springs the truck side frames would stick at a slanted angle and then I would have a derailment at the next curve.
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
Mike