This has probably been discussed before, but does anyone know, what the pros & cons, ins & outs of scale HO wheels versus commercial HO wheels are, including price?
Define Scale vs Commercial Wheelsets.
If you mean tread thickness, I've read that there could be issues with scale treads with some turnouts.
Springfield PA
If by, "Scale wheels," you mean Proto-87 wheelsets, be aware that they are a LOT more sensitive to minor tracklaying irregularities (and commercial specialwork compromises) than RP-25 wheelsets. Also, if your track is built 'Proto-87 friendly' it may not be so friendly to RP25 wheels. As for cost, if you're converting from plastic or pizza cutters to quality metal wheelsets there may not be much difference. OTOH, if you have no reason to convert other than to get the (admittedly) better appearance...
Will it be worthwhile to convert? The only person who can answer that question for you is the one who ties your shoelaces.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
You will have to bring your track standards to P87. That means tighter guard rails and P87 frogs. If you hand lay track then do not spread rails on curves. Two point track gauges instead of three point. P87 has tighter tolerances then NMRA RP25. Locomotive wheels in P87 will be hard to find if darn near impossible for your steam locomotives. There are diesel locomotive wheel sets available in P87 but not much in steam. Cars with end mounted trucks like hoppers and tank cars will have a large gap between the journal box and wheel that will look out of place. Therefore some of the trucks will have to be modified or replaced. From what you have heard is myth that RP25 will not work in P87. Good quality RP25 wheels will work great in P87 track work. Older pizza cutters will not. The NMRA gauge will tell you if they are RP25.
I am currently building and super detailing a contest quality hopper that will have P87 trucks and wheels.
P87 is one of those things that you either jump both feet into or stay away from.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
It will take a few minutes to digest what you all say.
Any websites or publications that explore the subject from square one?
I'm just considering "scale appearance", but if these scale wheels cause so much trouble, operating and other, then it seems they are not worth the trouble, but I really don't understand all the parameters yet.
Howabout price? No one mentioned price.
Just a few more words to Proto87.
With Proto87, rails and wheels are exactly to scale. The flanges of Proto87 wheels are hair thin - much smaller than the standard NMRA RP 25 wheels. Laying Proto87 track requires utmost care and a lot of effort - also in terms of cost. There is no out-of-the-box equipment available, and all of your locos and rolling stock need to be rebuilt to accept Proto87 wheel sets. The looks is fantastic, but is it worth the trouble? If you build a small layout or a diorama - yes, but I personally would shy away from building a larger layout according to Proto87 standards. A layout is for operation, so you need to focus on a reliable performance of your track and rolling stock. That´s not an easy task with regular tracks and wheels.
I am quite happy with code 83 rail and NMRA RP 25 wheels.
Model RR is GoodIt will take a few minutes to digest what you all say. Any websites or publications that explore the subject from square one? I'm just considering "scale appearance", but if these scale wheels cause so much trouble, operating and other, then it seems they are not worth the trouble, but I really don't understand all the parameters yet. Howabout price? No one mentioned price.
Let's start from the beginning because not all the information you have been given is correct. First critical point:
There are 3 commercially supported wheel standards in HO:
Compatibility between the different wheel specs is often misunderstood. If you do a careful comparison between track and wheel specs, you will see that the driving issues are flange thickness, tread width, and check gauge. These directly control, or are controlled by flangeway width and check gauge in the turnout. Note flange depth has no impact unless you have a filled frog or other special track where the wheel rides on the flange.
The code 110 and code 88 wheels have a flange that is twice as thick as a Proto87 flange. As a result, RP25 wheels will not pass through a P87 flangeway.
For a while, NWSL was selling "scale" wheels that were essentially code 64 wheels. Although having a tread width similar to P87, the flange thickness prevents a code 64 wheel from running through P87 flangeways.
Proto4 - the British scale wheels for OO scale - are close enough to P87 to be used, and will run on P87 track. Most of the few P87 steam engine drivers available are sourced from P4 suppliers.
Going the reverse direction for compatibility - tread width and check gauge drive the issue.
For a wheel to be properly supported all the way through the transit of a frog requires the tread width to be at least twice the flangeway width. Code 110 wheels work very nicely with a 0.050" flangeway. Code 88 wheels will not be supported fully during the frog transit with the same flangeway, resulting in wheel drop. The wheel drop becomes worse with large frog numbers. The current trend to rigid truck frames with no equalization of the wheels can prevent wheel drop. But it also means that wheel is floating in air when it should be dropping.
If you reduce the flangeway to 0.040", the code 88 wheel now has proper support during the frog transit, and will not drop. Almost all commercial turnouts, including Fast Tracks, use the wider flangeway. The wider flangeway is used because model locomotive and rolling stock manufacturers like to "cheat", using a minimum back to back dimension. The wider flangeway ensures these wheels that are gauged slightly narrow will run just fine through the turnout.
Why the emphasis on wide flangeways, code 110 wheels, and track gauge towards the wide end of the spec? Minimum radius. Gauge widening allows a longer rigid wheel base through a given radius curve - or effectively reduces the minimum radius required. A wider tread width allows more gauge widening than a narrow tread width.
If a 0.040" flangeway is used, track gauge is driven to the minimum value to maintain the check gauge at the correct dimension. With the narrower flangeways, turnout frog # requirements go up for a given locomotive.
The net result is that using code 88 wheels on NMRA-spec track will often result in wheel drop or "rattle" but not particularly increased derailments (HOn3 guys with dual gauge track know about this). Narrowing turnout flangeways for good code 88 performance will also allow code 110 wheels to pass quite well, but results in increased minimum radius. And wheel gauging has less tolerance.
P87 wheels have to be equalized because of the much smaller flanges. The wheel drop in an NMRA-spec frog is pretty horrible. And the back-to-back is bigger in P87 than in NMRA wheels because of the reduced flange thickness. The result is picking of the frog by P87 wheels in an NMRA turnout. Finally, typical NMRA gauge widening on curves and in turnouts will allow the narrow P87 treads to drop off the rail inside the track.
Usually the technical issues are of more concern to the modeler considering switching to semi-scale or P87 wheels than price. Finer detail almost always comes at a higher price because of the more expensive, finer manufacturing tolerances.
Bottom line: you can use semi-scale wheels on NMRA track. P87 is a world unto itself for both track and wheels.
For more information on P87 (and prices), see Proto87 Stores at http://www.proto87.com/. Another useful resource is the Proto87 Yahoo Group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proto87/.
Probably more than you wanted to know.
Fred W
Well you sure got a lot of info to read, so here's a picture that shows a comparison of the different wheels that are being talked about:
These are all Proto 2000 covered hoppers with 36" wheels:
Left - P2K code .110 wheels with Kadee #5 coupler
Middle - Semi-scale Intermountain code .088 wheels with Kadee #58 semi-scale coupler
Right - Proto:87 Scale wheels with Sergent Engineering coupler
I have my equipment set up with semi-scale wheels (.088) and Sergent couplers, I find that to be a good balance for me.
TONY
"If we never take the time, how can we ever have the time." - Merovingian (Matrix Reloaded)
Looking at that pic I think I'd prefer the middle but with the atlas turnouts I'll be staying with the fat stuff.
Go over to the Northwest Short Line/Oso Railworks website > wheelsets > HO scale -- they have a photograph there showing the difference between 110 point/88 point/P:87 64 point wheelsets. We have a modeler here in town who has equipped all his rolling stock with NWSL 64 point wheelsets . . . . . they look fantastic but they also add 8-11 smackers to the price of each car.
Northwest Short Line/Oso Railworks makes 72 point/64 point/50 point wheelsets for N-Scale . . . . . I would love to have all of my rolling stock with these 50 point wheelsets but these add about $10.00 to the price of each car.
. . . . . . . . . . one of these days! . . . . . . . . . . maybe! . . . . . . . . . .
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
Model RR is GoodThis has probably been discussed before, but does anyone know, what the pros & cons, ins & outs of scale HO wheels versus commercial HO wheels are, including price?
Not a bad idea
Proto87 belongs on museum dioramas. Not on model railroads.
Mark
It works.
We have at FREMO a group who operates modules and roster in 1:87. But every steam engine must be rebuilt, with true to scale parts. Model engines have other distances for wheels, axles and pistons than 1:87 engines.
But you get a much better view.
But you have to do most work by yourself or pay (a lot for the engines). Too much for me.
Wolfgang
Pueblo & Salt Lake RR
Come to us http://www.westportterminal.de my videos my blog
markpierceProto87 belongs on museum dioramas. Not on model railroads. Mark
This is not true. P87 operates just fine. No need to make this kind of broad judgment.
Proto 87 operates just as well as regular HO. But it's not for everybody. Your trackwork has to be ultra precise. You must be willing to shell out extra $$ for wheels--which can add up FAST if you have a large stable of cars.
For steam modelers, there are extra difficulties, and as a previous poster stated, wheels for locos are darned near impossible to come by. For diesel modelers, it's much easier. Commercial products are available. However, six-axle locos require much more tinkering than four-axle locos.
For a small to medium layout, P87 is an option. But yes, it's more work to get things up and running. You have to decide what you're willing to invest--in both time and money. It's all about personal choice. I am currently building a 13x21 shelf layout in Proto 87. It ain't easy, but I have made the choice to go this route because I like the look of the scale wheels and turnouts (keep in mind that scale wheels require tighter clearances on the turnouts, not to mention everywhere else.) Others may not give a hoot. Or their prototype choice may not be a good match for P87. If I were interested in mainline modeling with lots of six-axle diesels and hundreds of freight cars, many of which were 89 foot auto racks, I might think long and hard before jumping into P87. But I model a backwoods branchline that only saw 4-axle units. And my stable of freight cars isn't that big. So the choice works for me.
But don't believe that P87 is ONLY for museum dioramas. It's a viable option for anybody. You just need to know what you're getting into.
HamltnblueLooking at that pic I think I'd prefer the middle but with the atlas turnouts I'll be staying with the fat stuff.
Don't shy away from the .088 wheels because you have Atlas turnouts (unless they're SnapSwitches, in which case replace them). All you need to do to prevent derailments is to put a small triangle of .020 styrene in the throat of the frog, to eliminate wheel drop. If you have code 83 track, that's not as much of a problem. And if you don't mind the drop, just put the styrene in the #8 switches...
---
Gary M. Collins gmcrailgNOSPAM@gmail.com
===================================
"Common Sense, Ain't!" -- G. M. Collins
http://fhn.site90.net
I have Intermountain semi-scale wheelsets on most of my cabin cars.
I don't have any wheel drop problems through Atlas super switch #6, custom line #4, or snap.
The only thing I own that has wheel drop issues is a Mantua 4-4-2, that has extremely narrow treads, and a tight guage to boot. Not to mention it's a rigid 4 axle frame.
1948PRRI have Intermountain semi-scale wheelsets on most of my cabin cars. I don't have any wheel drop problems through Atlas super switch #6, custom line #4, or snap. The only thing I own that has wheel drop issues is a Mantua 4-4-2, that has extremely narrow treads, and a tight guage to boot. Not to mention it's a rigid 4 axle frame.
You probably don't have sprung trucks. I do, and with code 100 track, there is definitely a wheel drop issue. However, It's not a big deal except in the single #8 curved Shinohara I have. The rest of the layout (Peco switches) it's just a visual issue. I finally put the pieces of styrene in all of the turnouts, just to get rid of the bounce. My freight customers were starting to complain!
Because of the shorter rail height, code 83 track would have very little wheel bounce. The issue with the curved switch was that the wheels would fall completely off the railhead, and the guardrails were not tight enough to keep the wheels from wandering to the wrong side of the frog point. A small slip of styrene fixed the problem completely. My next step would have been to remove and tighten the guardrail flangeway.
Is there anyway you can determine if the scale or semiscale wheels will malfunction in straight track and various turnouts before you buy the wheels?
I have a mix of different track codes and switches. The least expensive I have is Atlas, but I also have Shinohara and some other expensive switches.
Model RR is Good Is there anyway you can determine if the scale or semiscale wheels will malfunction in straight track and various turnouts before you buy the wheels? I have a mix of different track codes and switches. The least expensive I have is Atlas, but I also have Shinohara and some other expensive switches.
1) Scale wheels are going to cause problems on commercial HO track.
2) To use semi-scale wheels successfully, use an NMRA gauge and adjust your track - especially turnouts - so that none of the track specs are at the widest tolerance. You may need to add a 0.005" shim on the inside of your guard rails to prevent frog point picking.
Model RR is GoodIs there anyway you can determine if the scale or semiscale wheels will malfunction in straight track and various turnouts before you buy the wheels? I have a mix of different track codes and switches. The least expensive I have is Atlas, but I also have Shinohara and some other expensive switches.
For starters, I agree with some of the previous posters that true scale wheels are not a good mix with NMRA standard track. That said, the "semi-scale" (.088) wheels will work very well with NMRA track, with the exceptions which I've noted previously. Straight track will have no problems. The only "issue" may be with turnouts (switches). If you have Atlas "snap" switches, I would replace them immediately, whether or not you go with different wheels. They just are not reliable over the long haul. Other types should be checked for non-standard flangeways in the frogs and guardrails, and modified as necessary. Often it's as simple as gluing a strip of styrene to the inside of the guardrail, to make the flangeway smaller.
If I were you, I would change out the wheels on maybe 3-4 cars, and haul them around the layout, noting if there are any problems. Then address the ones you find, and don't sweat the rest. You may find that only certain brands of switch cause problems, in which case, you always have the option of replacing the switch, if you can't figure out how to fix it.
I love the look of the semi-scale wheels, especially under cars with open ends or frames, like tanks and hoppers. I've changed well over 100 cars to sprung metal trucks with semi-scale wheels. I love it!
I'll have to pick up a few sets and give them a try. I do have some snap switches but an earlier poster said he had no problems with them..
1948PRRThe only thing I own that has wheel drop issues is a Mantua 4-4-2, that has extremely narrow treads, and a tight guage to boot. Not to mention it's a rigid 4 axle frame.
Funny - I have one of those lovely little E7sd Atlantics, and have no problems at all, especially with wheel drop. I haven't changed out any of the wheelsets on the loco.
The "wheel drop" I refer to happens because the tread of the .088 wheels is narrow enough that the wheel drops into the frog throat, instead of riding across to the point to pick up the railhead. This becomes significant when using code 100 rail. Code 83 rail would not have as noticeable an effect. Run one through a turnout very slowly and watch what happens as the wheel crosses the frog. Then compare it to a standard 0.110 wheel set. You'll see what I mean.
So I still have'nt seen what the price is for semi-scale or scale wheels unless I missed that post.
I have noticed that IM regular wheels and semi-scale wheels are about the same price. Reboxx wheels are about the same price also. Around $10 for 12 wheels.
Model RR is GoodSo I still have'nt seen what the price is for semi-scale or scale wheels unless I missed that post.
Will
Well names have been thrown out to ya...intermountain, reboxx, proto87, NWSL, etc. Here are the websites that you would have found if you'd have googled the names:
http://www.proto87.com/model-railroad-weelsets.html
http://www.reboxx.com/wheelsets.htm
http://www.imrcmodels.com/ho/hoacc.htm
http://www.nwsl.com/wheelsets/ho-and-p87%C2%A0nickel-silver%C2%A0wheelsets
I'll leave the rest up to you.
I think you've gotten some good advice here already, but I'll give you my experiences so far.
Since I'm in the process of building a layout and a roster, I'm getting wheelsets as needed. However, since most cars come with metal wheelsets nowadays you don't necessarily have to replace them right away.
My original plan was to go with Proto:87 standards. I'm modeling all diesel right now, largely due to the availability and price of New Haven steam. As a result, I wasn't initially concerned with steam wheels. I'm also (semi-)handlaying my track, using Central Valley switch ties and other parts from Proto:87 Stores. Andy has standard HO, Code 88 friendly, and Proto:87 frogs available.
I've used standard, code 88 and proto:87 wheelsets. The Proto:87 really look significantly better, but primarily from the end. From the side it's still noticeable, but not as much. BTW, I believe RP-25 refers to the shape and size of the flange, and I'm pretty sure Code 88 wheelsets all use RP-25. They just have scale or near-scale width treads.
In the end I've decided to go with Code 88 wheelsets. The reason I've settled on this is some of my operating buddies have New Haven steam, and if I stay away from Proto:87 they can bring them over for ops sessions.
The Code 88s look very good, and should work OK on any available turnout that's in gauge. That's the real key, and regardles of what wheelsets you use you should be checking and correcting the gauge of your turnouts to make sure they are in spec.
As for price, the Code 88 are comparable, if you're already planning on replacing all of your wheelsets. I build a lot of kits, including resin kits, and some trucks are available with Code 88 wheelsets (Tahoe Model Works for one). It's certainly a lot more 'affordable' if you're setting them up as you go, rather than retrofitting a couple hundred cars.
Also, as long as your turnouts are in spec there's no reason why you can't run both standard and Code 88 wheelsets at the same time.
Happy modeling!
Randy
http://newbritainstation.com
gmcrail 1948PRRThe only thing I own that has wheel drop issues is a Mantua 4-4-2, that has extremely narrow treads, and a tight guage to boot. Not to mention it's a rigid 4 axle frame. Funny - I have one of those lovely little E7sd Atlantics, and have no problems at all, especially with wheel drop. I haven't changed out any of the wheelsets on the loco. The "wheel drop" I refer to happens because the tread of the .088 wheels is narrow enough that the wheel drops into the frog throat, instead of riding across to the point to pick up the railhead. This becomes significant when using code 100 rail. Code 83 rail would not have as noticeable an effect. Run one through a turnout very slowly and watch what happens as the wheel crosses the frog. Then compare it to a standard 0.110 wheel set. You'll see what I mean.
Mine's the E6 "Lindbergh" engine.
I measured the wheel tread and it is extremely narrow.
As soon as the first pair of drivers encounters the frog gap, the whole thing nosedives. I tried putting in a stiffer pilot truck spring, as I'm not really concerned about tractive effort (this loco will only need to pull 2 or 3 Bachmann P70 coaches), but didn't have too many options for tyhat spring. My next move was going to be trying to redistribute the weight. That's when I noticed how thin the driver treads were. At that point my plans changed to seeing about replacing the drivers. Now I'm contemplating kitbashing a new mechanism from a Bachmann K4. That would give me both rail pickup on the drivers as well.
Before I shifted hobbies (I'm currently engrossed in rerstoring a 1966 Dodge Coronet 383 car), I was looking at buying a Bachmann spec 4-4-0, to see how that tracked.
Wow, how many times can I say Bachmann in this post?
At least it is in a positive way
...and no, I don't have many sprung trucks. My cabins are Walthers, Bowser and a couple well detailed Model Power, with a smattering of brass, that have had their trucks replaced with Bowsers. I pretty much need a plastic truck frame so I can have a metal wheel and axle (insulators, one on each side), with a resistor in between the axles for block detection. At least that has proven to be the least expensive way.
My double deck, double track main 23x12 is all P87. It is no more difficult than hand-laying RP25, and if you like flex track instead, it works fine on that, too. I hand build my switches, so it's all the same to me. Once you build it right the first time, it is as reliable as RP25, and looks flat-out awesome. I don't model steam, so no problem for me, but steam in P87 requires a lathe work on the wheels.
Even back in the 1960s, imported brass steam locomotives from Japan had wheel widths narrower, often significantly narrower, than NMRA standards of the time, although not as narrow as P87. Linn Westcott, then editor of MR, wrote an editorial on the subject to the effect of, in theory we should be having all manner of problems with these narrower wheels on our NMRA standards track -- but is anybody actually having problems? He clearly was not. The audience for MR back then was likely to include more guys who laid their own track, and MR was not really aimed at the RTR/18" radius group.
Westcott was trying to generate some discussion about whether the NMRA standards, which had been thoroughly worked up by some very talented and skilled modelers with engineering backgrounds, were too conservative, too "fail safe," although he felt strongly that if narrower wheels really do work, then there should be NMRA standards that include them. He was a big believer in NMRA standards.
P87 wheels look great, even more particularly in photographs, and it is evident that a complete layout can indeed be accomplished using those standards. But to my way of thinking P87 calls for a really dedicated approach that few modelers are prepared to adopt, and I think for the "average" modeler either the NMRA standards or the visibly narrower compromise semi-proto wheels are the likely best and most practical way to go.
Dave Nelson