NP2626 our model trains have no brakes.
our model trains have no brakes.
Thank goodness for that! I just did a complete brake job on my F-350 and it took me all day. I can't imagine the backlog on the train room workbench if I had to do brakes on rolling stock!
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
dehusman Part of my lack of interest is that it isn't prototypical. Why does that matter? IIRC the reason for the change is to reduce rolling friction. That would be of huge importance to prototype railroads who operate much heavier and longer trains. However, after decades (if not a century) of prototype rail research into wheel profiles, the prototype doesn't seem to be heading in that direction. I would think that if it really worked or was a major breakthrough that it would have been tried on a prototype road.
How many things on your model railroad aren't prototypical? My guess is it is a lot! As I stated earlier, the rail head shape isn't prototypical. Real rail is rounded at the top with a nice radius on both the inner and outer edges. HO rail is flat on the top and with fairly sharp edges. There are brakes on every wheel on the prototype, our model trains have no brakes. I could go on; but, suffice it to say there are many things which aren't prototypical in model railroading.
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
NP2626 What I found somewhat astounding, is the lack of interest in pursuing potentially better ways of doing things by the folks participating here on the MR Forum and this, coming from someone who is an advocate of being involved in the hobby the way it was done in the past, with no interest in RTR; or, ready built, anything, which is squarely where the center of interest in this hobby is today!! Ain't that a "Kick in the shorts"?
What I found somewhat astounding, is the lack of interest in pursuing potentially better ways of doing things by the folks participating here on the MR Forum and this, coming from someone who is an advocate of being involved in the hobby the way it was done in the past, with no interest in RTR; or, ready built, anything, which is squarely where the center of interest in this hobby is today!!
Ain't that a "Kick in the shorts"?
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
It's been a week, since I sent the note to the editors of Model Railroader and there has been no response. If I hear something farther, I will post it here.
I have sent a note to the editors of Model Railroader Magazine, asking if Mr Takashi would be interested in joining this discussion here on the MRForums. I also asked if he has an email address where I could contact him.
We will see what happens!
Mark
Navyman636, I don't know who you are referring to.
However, I made the exact same point back on page 2 of this thread, I said I have invested a small fortune in Proto 2000 wheel sets and am not to likely to dump these, simply because a better mousetrap was built. This doesn't mean (at least to me) that the better mouse trap shouldn't be built, as any new wheel design would certainly work with old equipment!
You raise useful points but you don't seem to get the other guy's point about wanting or having to replace the wheelsets on everyone's existing rolling stock. I spent a small fortune that I really can't afford to spend again, just to install metal wheelsets on my vehicles.
This debate can continue without end on this forum, but let's face it, good idea or not, Intermountain kicked the can down the road in its communication with the OP.
What ought to be done next is to contact Kalmbach who published the article and ask for contact information for Mr. Takashi. Invite him to visit this forum and respond to forum members questions and concerns.
Otherwise, this whole issue has reached an impasse.
Rich
Alton Junction
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I would still like a to see a drawing of Mr. Takashi's wheel so that I can compare it to RP25. Having a good understanding of both model and prototype wheel/rail relationships, and having done the work that I have done with free rolling trucks, I want to see a drawing - not just a verbal description - before passing final judgement one way or another, or even deciding that further testing is warranted. Sheldon
I would still like a to see a drawing of Mr. Takashi's wheel so that I can compare it to RP25. Having a good understanding of both model and prototype wheel/rail relationships, and having done the work that I have done with free rolling trucks, I want to see a drawing - not just a verbal description - before passing final judgement one way or another, or even deciding that further testing is warranted.
Sheldon
I agree; but, sorry, I can't help you with this.
6 to 1, half a dozen to the other. Fix one thing and two more "out of scale" problems crop-up, ain't that always the way?
What Mr. Takashi's idea tickled in me was, what I felt the common sense of the idea. Obviously, most others didn't see common sense in it. Then, I wondered if the idea wasn't totally lost on some, who brought up the wheel tread "Code"s that are available, as choices. It also pointed out that, to many of us, we think closer to scale, is most important.
Although you can't really draw any conclusions by what trends seem popular here on this; or, any forum as there are so few people participating in them. What might be a clear choice here, may be only a tiny "not shared" opinion of the whole of Model Railroaders.
Fred,
With regard to the issue of space between code 88 wheels and the side frames, it should be noted that regardless of side frame back spacing, various brands of trucks have journals of different depths requiring different axle lengths.
And, regarding different axle lengths, it should also be noted the correct axle length for a rigid truck vs a sprung/equalized truck are two different issues. Rigid side frames roll best with the longest possible axle that does not bind.
This is not true for sprung trucks. Contrary to common conception, the axles do not ride on the "points" in any case, they ride on the top of the point "cone". With sprung trucks it is necessary to have enough play to allow for equalization movement without binding.
This is a fact REBOXX did not allow for in developing its recommended axle lengths for Kadee and other sprung trucks - their recommended axles do not work as well as shorter ones in those applications.
This is why Intermountain code 110 wheels work so well in the Kadee trucks, they are the right length and have the smaller axle end point recommended by the NMRA. This eliminates the binding actually caused by Kadee's own axle design.
All issues of appearance aside, the NMRA standards and RP's provide very reliable operation and wide based interchangeablity among brands - something most consider very important. But for me, the gap at the sideframe is no better than the over wide wheel.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Wayne said - "Overlooked in that discussion is truck width, which is un-prototypically wide to accommodate the most commonly-used wheels. Narrow wheel treads only accentuate that discrepancy." Yes, I agree completely overlooked. That big gap between the wheel and the side frame with code 88 wheels is one of my big objections to them. That. and the fact that I use NMRA standard track and do not care for the noise and drop/rocking action as they pass through turnouts - even if they do not derail. In my view, code 88 wheels simply swap one out of scale feature for several other visual and operational issues. Sheldon
Wayne said - "Overlooked in that discussion is truck width, which is un-prototypically wide to accommodate the most commonly-used wheels. Narrow wheel treads only accentuate that discrepancy."
Yes, I agree completely overlooked. That big gap between the wheel and the side frame with code 88 wheels is one of my big objections to them.
That. and the fact that I use NMRA standard track and do not care for the noise and drop/rocking action as they pass through turnouts - even if they do not derail.
In my view, code 88 wheels simply swap one out of scale feature for several other visual and operational issues.
The NMRA RP25 code 110 wheel was designed to work well with the typical HO track specs in North America at the time. The extra wheel width is needed to facilitate use of maximum allowable flangeway width in turnouts and crossings without any wheel drop. The extra wheel width also supports maximum gauge widening on curves. Both practices are used by track manufacturers (Atlas) to help with minimum radius and turnout number requirements. Squeezing passenger cars (shorties) and 8-coupled steam locomotives around 18" (or smaller) curves was quite common in the '50s and '60s. Today, there is still a significant group who wants their full length passenger cars or Big Boys or 4-8-4s to do 18" radius, or at least be happy on a 22" radius. So any wheel and/or track spec that increases minimum radius requirements is not going to appeal to the majority.
Use of narrower wheel widths has also been with us for a long time. Japanese brass would often have narrower than NMRA spec wheels to have a finer appearance. This was seldom an operational problem becasue the tread narrowing never went less than about .085 inches, and the brass steam models were known for needing a larger minimum radius than their US die-cast counterparts.
Out of this experience grew the desire for a "fine-scale" wheel spec that would operate on NMRA HO track, yet be more to scale. So code 88 wheels were/are being tried. The NMRA has never been happy with the results, and has never issued a standing fine scale RP, despite several attempts to do so. To make code 88 wheels work as well as code 110 requires a tightening of the track spec - the minimum flangeway width (.040") has to be used to avoid wheel drop at the frogs, and track should be kept at or closer to minimum gauge. The advantage of track spec'd at NMRA minimum is that both code 88 and code 110 will work just fine on the same track. The disadvantage is some increase in minimum radius and turnout number requirements.
P87 doesn't worry about the compatibility issue - it isn't. P87 is a matched set of wheel and track specs that work very well when used properly. Most P87 practicioners consider 24" about the smallest practical minimum radius, and most use more than that.
The compatibility issue is what drove me to favor code 88. If one hand lays turnouts, the turnouts look better, the rolling stock with code 88 wheels look better (especially the 19th Century stock with wheels much more visible), and operation is very smooth. On commercial turnouts, the code 88 wheels will rattle and drop on #6 and larger turnouts, but at least there is operational compatibility until I can replace with hand laid. In the meantime, my older locomotives and cars with code 110 or equivalent wheels are still good to go.
As for the distance between truck frame and wheel, Reboxx makes wheels with a variety of axle lengths for a reason. Some trucks have sideframes closer to the wheels than others. Shortening bolsters is possible - it's done sometimes in P87 to get rid of the issue.
my thoughts and experiences, your choices
Fred W
I do use metal wheels largely because I do pull long trains, and they are part of the low rolling resistance formula. But I can see where those not pulling long trains would have little concern for rolling resistance issues.
NP2626 .....As far as a swing towards more prototypical width wheels, if that is where the NMRA wants to lead us, I would adjust. However, this is a separate issue and not the purpose of this thread. The purpose of this thread was simply to talk about Mr. Takashi's idea. No one here will be making any decisions about enacting this change to shape of; or, the width of our wheels.
.....As far as a swing towards more prototypical width wheels, if that is where the NMRA wants to lead us, I would adjust. However, this is a separate issue and not the purpose of this thread.
The purpose of this thread was simply to talk about Mr. Takashi's idea. No one here will be making any decisions about enacting this change to shape of; or, the width of our wheels.
I'm just still waiting for a drawing so I can "see" the real difference.
I been following this topic with interest and came upon a passing thought.
Maybe by using Mr. Takashi's idea we could reinvent the wheel and then maybe we could use closer to scale track like say C55 or C65?
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Some have continually brought up Pizza Cutter Flanges. While I had my share of cars and locos with those types of wheels, I don't see the comparison to Mr Takashi's examples shown in the photo in the article about this idea.
As far as a swing towards more prototypical width wheels, if that is where the NMRA wants to lead us, I would adjust. However, this is a separate issue and not the purpose of this thread.
The purpose of this thread was simply to talk about Mr. Takashi's idea. No one here will be making any decisions about enacting this change to the shape of; or, the width of our wheels.
Hi gentlemen,
I read a story in the Layout Design Journal about David Barrow. His crew was so involved in operating they did not spot the part of his layout rebuild with code 83 track (assuming the remainder was code 100). According to the Journal he has done this on purpose to find out if rebuilding other sections or domino's was worth the effort.
Sometimes I am very aware of our wheels being to wide, maybe due to the angle the picture was shot. Sometimes I am very aware of it looking at my own cars. So I am secretly thinking to start experimenting with P87 track and wheels. About 30 years ago I started using RP25 wheels and code 55 and 70 track. With a friend I build my first handlaid turnout a few month's ago, the plan is to buy some P87 wheels and build a second switch according to P87 standards.
In the mean time my grandson and I are still busy with my old Marklin track. However we are running up to 4 engines with their easy and cheap DCC-system for kids. A starter system with an engine and 4 cars for less then 100 dollars. Adding decoders and throttles for a few more engines made this change worthwhile.
Hopefully when a larger part of the model railroading scene starts using P87 standards producers will follow. Though I do understand why owners or dreamers of big railroad empires are not waiting for those developments.
Just as with all new developments folks will find issues, even if already is proven the new stardards are working great. I vividly remember the hot debate about the need of pizza cutter flanges and why the RP25 profile would never be working of a "few" decades ago. IMHO the furure will be with battery operated engines with more prototypical wheels. Though don't let this stop you from modeling right now.
Smile
Paul
NP2626;Thanks, For most track the .110 ones are fine, since I use all OTC track at the moment (Code 83 & 70 in HO), the standard RP25 is recommended, & I have used it on most of my rolling stock.However, on the other hand, I aspire to grow into more scale modelling, & personally like the .088 wheels, as they are more easily railed & less prone to be knocked about than true .064 P87 wheels.Before I get attacked, I know that the ultimate for P87 is to lay your own track, etc, but the models do "look" scale wearing them. (To me, it is a looks thing for those pix, & honestly you don't see it unless you try hard).. ha hah..However, when I run trains, even on my limited switch plate, the RP25's work, as do the .088, but with more 'noise' & my choices in over the counter track & turnouts are the issue.But, the compatibility is there, & on some nicer cars & Lokies that will have that fitment, but I know that I must strictly adheare to closer tolerances (gauge) & practice a little trial, error, & tweak/correct some more.That makes it interesting to me & makes me feel more like a Modeller, than the mostly RTR (Plus detailing & Weathering), person that I usually am 80 some % of the time.... To me experimenting & tuning is an enjoyable part of the hobby.
Chad,
I'm with you, and am willing to experiment. I haven't tried out Code 88 wheels and lack interest in doing so. When Life Like came out with their Proto 2000 wheel sets, I liked them so well, that I invested in buying them for all my rolling stock. Although certainly there is a width difference between the Code 110 and Code 88 wheel, as I explained earlier, the difference is something I have decided to simply overlook, feeling that the shinny tread of the P2K wheel set was more important than the more scale width of the tread of Code 88 wheels.
Interesting thread.I would still be 'game' to try this in HO Gauge.I am one to try many new technologies, but yet, can be caught working on an old Tyco from 1971...I have many new wheel sets, in everything from P87, many installed '88 series, to the standard RP25's.
I am also excited to try these on some new Projects, from RailFlyer Model Prototypes, some nice 088, 40" drivers, & even a couple 'scale' Driven Motor Sets..I'll try things out, anytime!
dehusman If this really is a good idea, why are prototype wheels designed in the opposite direction with a smaller fillet? Real railroads have a huge investment on making cars roll better and in reducing wear on track. Why is the proposed profile on a real wheel considered a defect while on a model wheel its an enhancement? Of course this whole thing is somewhat speculative, since I didn't remember seeing a diagram of the profile in the article.
If this really is a good idea, why are prototype wheels designed in the opposite direction with a smaller fillet? Real railroads have a huge investment on making cars roll better and in reducing wear on track. Why is the proposed profile on a real wheel considered a defect while on a model wheel its an enhancement?
Of course this whole thing is somewhat speculative, since I didn't remember seeing a diagram of the profile in the article.
I would guess the wear of both the rail and wheel tread of full scale, changes far more than our little trains. I would also guess that the inside rail head and wheel to flange profile end up looking pretty much mirror image of each other on full scale. The top of my HO rail is flat and the inside edge of my HO track's rail head is pretty much a square edge, with maybe a .005 radius. Full scale rail is rounded on the top of the rail head and has a good radius on the inside edge.
So, no matter what you feel might be close to prototypical in the wheel profile of our models, it really isn't.
NP2626 I took a look at RP25 and was unsure of what I was looking at. Instead of scales (the size of the model) it calls out Codes. Because the size of the tire width bandied about is .110, is it safe to assume the rest of the dimensions given in the .110 line are the RP25 dimensions for our sort of standard HO wheels?
I took a look at RP25 and was unsure of what I was looking at. Instead of scales (the size of the model) it calls out Codes. Because the size of the tire width bandied about is .110, is it safe to assume the rest of the dimensions given in the .110 line are the RP25 dimensions for our sort of standard HO wheels?
Yes that is correct - but, since all our wheels are wider than the prototype, the NMRA did it that way so that if one chooses to use let's say code 110 wheels in S scale to be more to scale, the same proportional dimensions apply.
IIRC, RP25 is very close to the prototype wheel profile, just oversized to suit our wider wheels.
Since wheel width and profile have no interconnection with wheel diameter, a given spec can be applied to any scale/gauge/diameter as needed.
ATLANTIC CENTRALand the thinner flange
Yes, it did look more like a return to the pizza cutter to me.
richhotrain There is a photo of the Lo-D wheelset included with the article, comparing it side by side with the RP-25 wheelset. Rich
There is a photo of the Lo-D wheelset included with the article, comparing it side by side with the RP-25 wheelset.
In that photo, it is very unclear as to exact nature of the difference. Photos can be very deceiving in that regard.
I too would like to see a drawing - a cross section just like RP25, to compare against RP25.
The article does describe the flange as being thinner, and the fillet larger, but the larger fillet is not really clear in the photo.
The two things that the photo does show to my eye is a more angled tread and the thinner flange.
It would seem to me that no matter how carefully radius-ed, a thinner flange would pick switch points more easily if it did come in contact with them.
But again, complete evaluation requires a drawing at minimum.