In this months Model Railroader Magazine (May 2013) in an article entitled: 4 Technologies shaping model railroading's future, # 3 is an article about Rethinking the RP25 wheel standard, I found this article extremely interesting! It poses the idea that a larger radius in the corner between the tread and flange will do many good things for how our wheels interact with the rail head and how our cars negotiate our track. The author makes claims that I feel are all good and need to be looked at closely! I also feel (having been involved in the mechanical trades my entire life) that what he states makes perfect sense to me! Read the article and view the videos!
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
The current .110 wheels are good for the average home and club layout trackage and the finer.088" wheels should be used by advanced modelers with flawless track work...
IMHO the current RP25 wheel standards are fine and should not be changed.
Besides..
Think of this..
Who do you think is going to pay for the new tooling for the "improved" wheel?
Which begs the question.
At today's prices can we afford another $10.00 per car and we all know how some modelers will demand these new wheels be a standard for RTR cars.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
O.K., that's one vote for not improving the hobby and equipment we use.
The additional cost of a fillet to our wheels would be the cost of modifying the present tooling. It might add pennies to the cost of our wheels. Unless of course, the manufacturers all colluded together and decided they really want to put the screws to their customers!
Oh boy, here we go again..........................
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
NP2626 O.K., that's one vote for not improving the hobby and equipment we use. The additional cost of a fillet to our wheels would be the cost of modifying the present tooling. It might add pennies to the cost of our wheels. Unless of course, the manufacturers all colluded together and decided they really want to put the screws to their customers!
Maybe these wheels could be a OEM product for those who want 'em?
That would be a win/win for all.
Not to sound harsh but,I don't want to pay for something that I don't want nor need.
I'd like to see what is developed before making decisions like that...it could be more useful than what is currently available...
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
blownout cylinder I'd like to see what is developed before making decisions like that...it could be more useful than what is currently available...
Seeing how I am not a member of the NMRA, I will likely have little to do with any decisions on this matter. I did find the topic interesting and thought provoking. Where would this country be if we didn't build better mouse traps every now and then? What was the current thinking back when RP25 was developed, should be revisted when possibly better ideas come along. If a better mouse trap is developed, wouldn't it be a better mouse trap?
NP2626 blownout cylinder I'd like to see what is developed before making decisions like that...it could be more useful than what is currently available... Seeing how I am not a member of the NMRA, I will likely have little to do with any decisions on this matter. I did find the topic interesting and thought provoking. Where would this country be if we didn't build better mouse traps every now and then? What was the current thinking back when RP25 was developed, should be revisted when possibly better ideas come along. If a better mouse trap is developed, wouldn't it be a better mouse trap?
That's just it. What if it allows for more prototypical operation?
I've been monkeying around with code 40 track..trying to find ways to make for more wobbly trackage wherein one has to run restricted speed..and see the train almost sashay to and fro..it could possibly lead to better wheels for that type of thing...
I just read the article. The main argument for wheel modification, at least for the author, is to allow greater pulling power so he can add more cars to his trains. That is not as important to me as it would be to develop a wheel that would be less prone to derailment. Any slight imperfection in my track work (admittedly my fault) can result in a derailment of a freight car or passenger car.
Dunno, maybe I need more weight on my rolling stock. But, give me a wheel that is less prone to derailment. From the photos that accompany the article, I see that the flange is wider so maybe the author's idea will also result in fewer derailments in addition to greater pulling power.
Rich
Alton Junction
Joe Staten Island West
IIRC, Athearn was using .088" wheels on their Genesis freight cars in the ~2006-2007 period, but went back to the wider flanges because so many customers complained about derailments...
-Ken in Maryland (B&O modeler, former CSX modeler)
CSX_road_slug IIRC, Athearn was using .088" wheels on their Genesis freight cars in the ~2006-2007 period, but went back to the wider flanges because so many customers complained about derailments...
Ken,There was a discussion about that on the old Atlas forum..IIRC the general conscious was it was a bad idea since one had to have excellent track work and tight switch tolerances.
I read the article with great interest as well. As mentioned by others in this thread, modification o the existing tooling would be needed(and could be phased in as tooling wears out). BTW, RP25 is not a standard - just a Recommended Practice. It was so good, that most manufacturers phased in the new wheel profile over time(the European manufacturers were locked into the NEM standards at the time).
I do not see incompatibility issues if you ran equipment together with both wheel profiles.The author did extensive testing on heavy O scale equipment - I am not sure if we would see the dual wear rings on smaller/lighter HO equipment, but we might see less friction/better rolling cars with these wheels.
Myself, I have RP25 metal wheels on all of my equipment. I have found that a 'needlepoint' axle in a delrin plastic truck that has been reamed out with a 'truck tuner' seems to roll the best. I do not have a sense that there is a lot of interest within the NMRA to investigate a new wheel profile as the work done back in the 60's(RP25) was a quantum leap forward. The manufacturer introduced '88' wheels sets have never really caught on as rock solid trackwork is required. I think that this will be a manufacturing introduced item if it happens.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
NP2626 In this months Model Railroader Magazine (May 2013) in an article entitled: 4 Technologies shaping model railroading's future, # 3 is an article about Rethinking the RP25 wheel standard, I found this article extremely interesting! It poses the idea that a larger radius in the corner between the tread and flange will do many good things for how our wheels interact with the rail head and how our cars negotiate our track.
In this months Model Railroader Magazine (May 2013) in an article entitled: 4 Technologies shaping model railroading's future, # 3 is an article about Rethinking the RP25 wheel standard, I found this article extremely interesting! It poses the idea that a larger radius in the corner between the tread and flange will do many good things for how our wheels interact with the rail head and how our cars negotiate our track.
RP25 uses a flange radius curvature that is broader than the prototype. RP25 is about 1.2" radius in scale inches. I don't have the prototype radius in front of me, but it is less. I don't see how making thing less prototypical will improve things or make operations more prototypical. The movement has been to go towards the more scale sized wheels (from code 110 to code 88) which decreases the radius, instead of increasing it.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
This sounds interesting!I do not have my issue yet but will look for this.
From what was said here I would sign up to try these....As we are not 'working' in the real world with scaled physics, etc. this could be a welcomed change.
Really? who looks at inner flanges? I have P87 (/.64) wheels on a hopper, & no one noticed but me... Doing the 5 min "get it on the rail head" job to place it on the track properly....
Thanks,
The real issue that is being ignored is how crappy the track quality is. The reason we have out of scale wheels is because the track is so bad.
Before anybody says that it can't be done in HO or whatever, HOn3 uses code 88 wheels. N scale trains operate with narrower wheels and tighter standards. If the same precision in N scale was applied to HO it would make code 110 wheels obsolete.
I handlay my track and while its not bad, its not "high precision". I use code 88 wheels and don't have problems. The manufacturers can go over to tighter standards any time they want, they can do it for smaller scales. Its just easier and cheaper to have sloppy standards and sloppy standards allow modelers to be sloppy in their installation of track (if you read these forums very long you will see that sloppy trackwork is rampant).
Okay, I re-read the article. In the first place I don't see anywhere where the author says anything about changing the width of the wheel. In the second place he is primarily talking about O scale. In the third place he likes to run trains up to 80 O scale cars long (how many of us do that?). Finally, how many of us have noticed that wear he talks about on the flange?
Yes, what he proposes can be applied to HO or N. But I'm happy with what I have now and see no need to change.
Just my opinion.
maxman Okay, I re-read the article. In the first place I don't see anywhere where the author says anything about changing the width of the wheel. In the second place he is primarily talking about O scale. In the third place he likes to run trains up to 80 O scale cars long (how many of us do that?). Finally, how many of us have noticed that wear he talks about on the flange? Yes, what he proposes can be applied to HO or N. But I'm happy with what I have now and see no need to change. Just my opinion.
I read it too, as noted above the article is primarily aimed at two rail O scale.
I currently pull 50, 80 and even 100 car trains in HO with RP25 wheels with no problems and with reasonable amounts of motive power - my BLI N&W Class A easily pulls 100 cars on level track.
I'm not against better, but I did not see anything in that article that sounds like it would be better for the smaller scales.
My free rolling truck formula, tested better against just about every plastic side frame out there, is to install Intermountain wheel sets in Kadee sprung/equalized metal trucks. Most of my cars are right at or slightly below NMRA recommended weights. Again, I pull very long trains with no problems.
I will not use code 88 wheels or semi scale couplers as they are not as reliable on track built to current NMRA standards.
Fact is that ALL the physics of our track does not scale down exactly. O scale has a better chance of such improvements working in a measurable fashion, but the smaller scales are affected by different dynamics of weight and friction than real trains.
Sheldon
Certianly, this change (if adopted) would work with the RP25 wheels in use today.
I was wrong to call RP25 a "Standard", it is a Recommended Practice. However the truth is, both Standards and Recommended Practices are voluntary, so both have the same weight as far as enforcement goes, which is "none".
The idea of the larger radius in the corner between the tread and flange is to keep the flange away from the rail head. It's my opinion this would be helpful towards eliminating derailments as it will keep the flange from picking the switch points..
NP2626 Certianly, this change (if adopted) would work with the RP25 wheels in use today. I was wrong to call RP25 a "Standard", it is a Recommended Practice. However the truth is, both Standards and Recommended Practices are voluntary, so both have the same weight as far as enforcement goes, which is "none". ...
...
It depends on whether or not you value the NMRA conformance warrants. Where I have a choice I pick the product that has the warrant. Even where they don't apply for the warrant most products conform. Many that don't conform don't last - word gets around about track, wheels, etc. that don't play well with other manufacturers.
As for this Lo-D, reading the article it's not clear to me if the Lo-D wheels are more prone to derailments or not. Frankly for me, that's a bigger concern than running 80 car trains on minimum radius curves.
Enjoy
Paul
NP2626 What was the current thinking back when RP25 was developed, should be revisted when possibly better ideas come along.
I don't know if anything was actually changed, but it appears that RP25 was last re-visited in July, 2009.
http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/pdf/RP-25%202009.07.pdf
I read with interest the article in question. I tend to agree with his conclusions on a theoretical basis, but I would question the degree of their effect on the rolling stock in HO, N, and Z scales. A nice idea, but of limited interest in the smaller scales.
In HO, I have converted all of my rolling stock (with the exception of a few passenger cars) to the Reboxx "code 88" wheelsets, primarily because they just plain look better. I have had zero problems since I filled in the over-wide frogs of my turnouts with bits of .020" styrene. I do NOT have "rock solid" trackwork, nor is it handlaid. I use code 100 rail, and though it's a bit trickier to put a car on the rails, once it's on, it's no different from a car with code 110 wheels, as far as operations go. I just wish I could get locomotive drivers with code 88 tires.
My next layout will have code 83 rails, which should eliminate the need for fillers in the frog gaps...
---
Gary M. Collins gmcrailgNOSPAM@gmail.com
===================================
"Common Sense, Ain't!" -- G. M. Collins
http://fhn.site90.net
Personally, I am more interested in better operating characteristics, easier pulling and possibly less derailments. With 63 year old eyes, my ability to see a .022 difference in the width of the tread of Code 88 wheels is maybe non-existant. However, we all address those issues which seem most important to us,
NP2626 O.K., that's one vote for not improving the hobby and equipment we use.
I consider it as following the old mechanic's adage, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Rather like DCC - which others swear by and I simply ignore.
In HO, RP25 already incorporates a rather sizable fillet - about half the height of the flange. The photos in the original article didn't tell me much. I wish there had been side-by-side wheel sections. As Sheldon noted, O scale has requirements at considerable variance with those of the smaller scales. In my experience, the critical point is keeping the wheel TREAD in solid contact with the railhead. On tangent track, the flanges shouldn't even get involved.
As far as noticing the difference between .088 inch and .110 inch, that's a 20% difference in wheel width (or 25% if going up.) The Old Sarge's 75+ year old eyeballs can detect differences a lot smaller than that at normal operator-viewing (1.5 meter) distance. Note that it's larger than the difference between Code 100 and Code 83 rail height.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
tomikawaTT I consider it as following the old mechanic's adage, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Rather like DCC - which others swear by and I simply ignore. As far as noticing the difference between .088 inch and .110 inch, that's a 20% difference in wheel width (or 25% if going up.) The Old Sarge's 75+ year old eyeballs can detect differences a lot smaller than that at normal operator-viewing (1.5 meter) distance. Note that it's larger than the difference between Code 100 and Code 83 rail height. Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
You can see it, that's great! Your refined eyes obviously can see the difference and you feel the difference is noticable enough that the wider wheels bother you. I say your doing great and your choice is fine with me. From my perspective, I'm talking about a detail which is under the car, somewhat difficult to see and mostly seen from an angle. So, I'm going to place more emphasis on the tread being shinny than the width being correct.
The discussion on the width of the tread has nothing to do with the original discussion on increasing the size of the fillet between the tread and flange. None of us here will be changing this dimension, if change occurs, it will be because the NMRA has asked manufacturers to do so.
Whether you; or, I want this increase in the size of the fillet, matter's very little. I simply thought Mr. Takashi research and investment in his idea was interesting and worth further investigation. I'm not very interested in 3D printers, nor do I have any interest in running my trains from a smart phone. I can see some benefits to running trains form their own power source and controlling them with a Radio Control system. Of the four ideas submitted in the article, I thought the new wheel contour the most interesting. These types of simple ideas impress me the most. What idea "Thwapped your Magic Twanger, Froggy?
I have not yet read the article but will.
I am commenting on Jim's observation "Myself, I have RP25 metal wheels on all of my equipment. I have found that a 'needlepoint' axle in a delrin plastic truck that has been reamed out with a 'truck tuner' seems to roll the best".
I was advised by MLHS to put intermountain 33" wheelsets into the trucks that come with Accurail kits. I have the truck tuner but have not used it. Lately I have been building a lot of their kits. I have to say that I have had really great results with that set up. When I spin the wheels while holding the truck in my hand the wheels seem to spin forever. The only derailing problems I have now are basically caused by my old track that was poorly laid out (not by me).
Sorry if this does not add much to the conversation.
KG
I can see the change of the fillet radius going larger as NOT being a great tooling change. I assume the metal wheels are machined with a high speed lathe/screw machine and the tool cutting the wheel tread diameter and ultimately the fillet radius is a standard cutting bar which has the required radius ground onto the point/end of the tool. This minor change will not cost a gazilliion $$ because to change the radius to a LARGER one is a simple grinding operation on the tip. I am only bringing this point up to suggest that JUST CHANGING THE RADIUS is not a major retooling operation, nor that costly.For injection molded wheels, that is a little more work to modify multiple cavity molds; but still not a major retool effort.
Just my thoughts on this subject. BTW, I had read the article and also found this particular segment to be very interesting. I also don't know if it is that big of a deal in HO but would be interested in seeing it tested (fillet radius change only!).
-Bob
Life is what happens while you are making other plans!
All we can do is consider this change and give an opinion on what we think might be the benefits/problems. Many have already brought up that they don't think there would be much advantage for the smaller scales with this change to the fillet. Mr. Takashi feels the physics are the same for the smaller scales, so the benefits should also be the same. I don't see any reason not to agree with him. I do understand that scale can affect how things work and in this case, feel scale isn't a factor.
As far as any tooling changes that would be required, after 35 years in the machine trades, I will freely admit I I have no idea how these metal wheel-sets are manufactured. Plastic wheels, yes, obviously they are molded. But, metal wheel-sets with their highly finished tread and flange, detailed ribbed; or, straight backs and plastic axles, may/may not be turned, ground, molded; or, use some type pressure casting process. I use the Proto 2000 wheel-sets which even have the cast on words on the outer faces of the wheels per the full scale manufacturer.
Still, I don't think changing the tooling; or, process to incorporate a larger radius at the flange/tread will add much to the cost of the wheels.
Certainly, I'm not going to swap all my present P2K wheels for this new design (I have a small fortune invested in these)! However, new equipment with the change (should it be enacted) would fit right in on my layout, no problem!
I don't know about the kazilion dollar tooling cost but,I know it won't be free nor will it be pennies on the dollar..I heard that song and dance before with the requested C83 rail we wanted higher levels of detail etc.
RP25 isn't broken or outdated to my mind but,none the less these wonder wheels could be offered as a aftermarket part like I mention.
I don't believe I'm saying that RP25 needs to be changed, if this idea doesn't prove out.
However, I truly am glad that these decisions are not voted upon here on this forum! There seems to be a mind-set on this forum that appears to have no interest in taking a look at potential possible improvements!