I don't think that RP25 needs to be changer either. I look at this like the situation when the X2F coupler recommendation came out and Kadee coupler were in their early stages. The better product eventually became the "standard". If these new wheels are put on the market and if experience proves them to be superior they will become the wheels of choice regardless of RP25. I think that we should all keep an open mind and wait and see.
Joe
NP2626There seems to be a mind-set on this forum that appears to have no interest in taking a look at potential possible improvements!
This is entirely your interpretation. I was interested enough to read the article. I read the description of the improvement. After doing so, I came to the conclusion that what I have works well enough for my situation. If that means that I'm not interested in improvement, then I guess I'm guilty as charged.
I do not have the May 2013 issue yet - will probably pick up a copy from the LHS on Saturday (along with NG&SLG). But I do have a personal interest in wheel and track standards.
Modeling 19th Century creates more exposure to the coarseness of NMRA wheel and track standards and RPs. Wheel width is much more visible, especially in narrow gauge where wheel diameters are smaller. Over-size flangeways are more apparent when using smaller rail sizes. But I don't have the time or the equipment to turn my own steam drivers, nor the time and skill to build tiny, equalized 4-4-0 mechanisms in HO and HOn3. So I compromise with code 88 wheels (standard in HOn3) and carefully tuned or laid track instead of going the P87 route.
In real world practice, code 88 wheels use the same over-width flanges and over-width fillets as RP25 code 110 wheels do. Neither code 88 nor code 110 flanges will fit in the flangeway of a P87 turnout - both the flange and tread have to be narrowed for P87. Which says to me that I really don't want a new wheel with an even wider fillet. If anything, I would like to see a new standard get closer to P87 (scaled from the prototype) rather than further from it.
The other problem I see from the wider fillet in HO is that even more slop would be encouraged in the back-to back wheel setting. The accuracy of the back-to-back is critical to having smooth turnouts with minimum size flangeways.
Having spent many years in 3 rail O, I have seen some of the problems that the article reportedly tries to address with the increased fillet radius. With the very sharp curves and round rail head present in O and O27 track, any flange fillet proved a waste of time. What did work was a much steeper than normal taper on the tread. The movement of the tread taper laterally on the round rail head significantly reduced friction on the sharp curves, and improved tracking on tangent track. So I can believe an increased fillet would work well in O scale on sharp curves.
But not having the article available yet, I have to wonder about the tread taper in the analysis. The RP25 does not mandate any tread taper. The maximum taper allowed is 3 degrees, which is primarily there to allow easier removal from molds. Almost all HO scale wheels have the max 3 degree taper. In HOn3, there are knowledgeable modelers who claim increased traction from their steam locomotives if the taper is removed from the drivers. It is the combination of the taper, fillet, and sharp corner of the railhead that normally creates a very narrow contact point of the wheel on rail.
The combination of extra-wide wheels, tread taper, and extra-large fillet are there in the RP to allow a sloppy track gauge. Sloppy track gauge allows more gauge widening on curves, which allows a smaller minimum radius. That's why minimum radius for P87 is significantly higher (20% or so) than for NMRA standards. Maintain the minimum track gauge on curves instead of widening to NMRA max and see how quickly your minimum radius for a given piece of equipment goes up.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
maxman NP2626There seems to be a mind-set on this forum that appears to have no interest in taking a look at potential possible improvements! This is entirely your interpretation.
This is entirely your interpretation.
There was no interpretation involved, a simple head count of those opposed revealed a strong contigancy satisfied with the status-quo.
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
NP2626 maxman NP2626There seems to be a mind-set on this forum that appears to have no interest in taking a look at potential possible improvements! This is entirely your interpretation. There was no interpretation involved, a simple head count of those opposed revealed a strong contigancy satisfied with the status-quo.
Maybe because it works fine. Keep in mind the author of that article is in O scale - completely different situation. There is little evidence or science to support the idea that such a wheel would improve anything in HO.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Maybe because it works fine. Keep in mind the author of that article is in O scale - completely different situation. There is little evidence or science to support the idea that such a wheel would improve anything in HO. Sheldon
Sheldon, Speaking as someone who has worked with complicated mechanical equipment my entire working career, I am going to have to disagree with you. I think this modification to HO wheels would be beneficial to this scale. I also don't believe that in this case HO and O scales are a "Completely Different Situation". The above is my opinion and guess what, your opinion and likely many others will disagree with mine. "Big Deal"!!
To simply state that the contour of the RP25 wheels are at the best shape our wheels can ever be, is unacceptable to me! Things can always be made better! In this thread, I am simply espousing that: I think Mr. Takashi's idea is worth looking into!
InterMountain Railway Company is, perhaps, the leading manufacturer of HO scale metal (brass) wheels.
I wonder how InterMountain would respond to Mr. Takashi's article.
it would be interesting to learn their view on this issue.
Rich
Alton Junction
mobilman44 Oh boy, here we go again..........................
Oh boy, here we go again..........................
This is fun!! ain't it........
Cheers,
Frank
What the article showed to be the RP25 standard frankly did not look like RP25 to my eye. It looked more like the older wheels (really older) that had a basically flat 90 degree surface for the wheel tire, and then a knife edge flange. The advance of the RP25 was the fillet which presumably helped wheels avoid climbing up the flange on sharp curves. In essence the fillet brought to the wheel something of the same reasons why toy trains used tubular track -- to make the wheel slip back down to the track when it starts to ride up on curves. The mating of curve and flat in other words but putting the curve on the wheel so that the track could look real and not toy like.
There was a lot of heated debate about the RP25 when it was new and some pretty famous modelers at the time went on on a limb predicting disaster. They would say for example that maybe it is OK for rolling stock but not for pilot or trailing wheels on a steam locomotive. Some people who experience problems with their steam locomotives might tend to agree to some extent. At least one modeler expressed it more or less like this-- scale wheels on nonscale track just won't work. In his view the RP25 was too close to scale.
About the same time as the NMRA developed RP25, Central Valley had its own proprietary idea for addressing the problems caused by wheels with very flat 90 degree tire surfaces that in all respects met NMRA standards but still caused problems. I can no longer recall the marketing name they applied to it (CV something). Perhaps it would be worth revisiting that Central Valley wheel contour if the RP25 is now found wanting.
And back in the early 1960s the brass importers were using wheels that were narrower than NMRA standards, still not fine scale or semi-fine scale, but visibly narrower and better looking. I recall Linn Westcott writing an editorial along the lines of "in theory these wheels should be giving us problems on track and turnouts that meet NMRA standards but is anyone really having those problems? If not perhaps it is time to revisit the standards."
The "problem" (if that is the right word) of course is that all NMRA standards are expressed as tolerances. Stuff that is in the safe center -- either the track standards or the wheel standards -- can be very forgiving. Stuff that is at an extreme will have problems if it meets somethng that goes to the other extreme of its set of tolerances. The goal of the NMRA is of course that if it meets the standards it will work with other stuff that meets standards. That means a degree of coarseness.
And just maybe the real "problem" is the excellent nature of today's model photography. Wheels and couplers and track that looked just fine 25 years ago are looking less acceptable to our eyes.
Dave Nelson
NP2626 ATLANTIC CENTRAL Maybe because it works fine. Keep in mind the author of that article is in O scale - completely different situation. There is little evidence or science to support the idea that such a wheel would improve anything in HO. Sheldon Sheldon, Speaking as someone who has worked with complicated mechanical equipment my entire working career, I am going to have to disagree with you. I think this modification to HO wheels would be beneficial to this scale. I also don't believe that in this case HO and O scales are a "Completely Different Situation". The above is my opinion and guess what, your opinion and likely many others will disagree with mine. "Big Deal"!! To simply state that the contour of the RP25 wheels are at the best shape our wheels can ever be is unacceptable to me! Things can always be made better! In this thread, I am simply espousing that: I think Mr. Takashi's idea is worth looking into!
To simply state that the contour of the RP25 wheels are at the best shape our wheels can ever be is unacceptable to me! Things can always be made better! In this thread, I am simply espousing that: I think Mr. Takashi's idea is worth looking into!
Me too, I've assembled automobile engines, wired sky scrapers and auto assembly plants, designed houses, heating systems, electrical controls, HiFi speakers and machine parts.
I don't doubt your experience one bit. You are most welcome to have a batch made in HO, run some tests and prove me and the rest of us wrong.
Much like I saw a problem with the operation of my GRAVELY tractor, engineered a solution, invested the money to have the parts manufactured, made some of them myself, solved the problem to my satisfaction (just like Mr. Takashi did in his case) and provided the solution to others who were interested - many were not, and I respected that.
As others have said, I see no point in moving farther away from accurate scale wheels.
The REAL problem is our unrealistically sharp curves with exceed the engineering design parameters of the prototype.
So for me the easy solution that I have been using for 35 years is simple - 36" minimum radius curves, #6 minimum mainline turnouts, spiral easements and careful track installation.
On the 1:1 railroad, the tapered wheel and the soft round flanges use Gravity and physics to keep the flanges off the rail on all but the sharpest curves. On extremely sharp curves the prototype restricts speeds and lubes flanges if needed.
Mr Takashi's solution takes the wheel tapper into the realm of a parabolic curve so that the "steering" effect of the larger inner diameter of the wheel accelerates rapidly as the flange approaches contact on sharp curves - something tinplate trains do by simply using a very aggressive tapper in the first place - again as others have previously noted.
So, in my case, with no sharp curves to deal with at any mainline speeds, the existing technology is just fine.
I did give Mr. Takashi's article a serious read, before your original post when the mag first showed up in my mail box.
And I have done extensive work of my own on decreased rolling resistance and improved loco pulling ability. Which has resulted in my use of what others see as an unnecessary and expensive freight car truck set up - Kadee sprung metal trucks with Intermountian wheel sets - trust me they roll more freely than any plastic rigid truck - and it caused quite a debate on here a few years back by those who said it could not work - but it does.
I would hope that this detailed response would demonstrate to you that at least as it relates to me, your views and Mr, Takashi's work was not simply dismissed out of hand.
I have done a fair amount of study on the technical aspects of both prototype and model trains, and while his solution appears to be an effective one for larger scales, also running on relatively sharp curves, I don't see any direct benefit for me or most HO modelers.
I read that article with interest. It sure does spark discussion here. What we need is some testing, testing done by someone other than the inventor. I can remember when RP 25 came in. It looked so much better than the pizza cutter flanges that preceded it, and it stayed on the track as well or even better and so it was adopted fairly quickly.
If this new wheel pattern is truly better in the looks and stay on the track department, some testing will show the virtues. Until such tests are performed and published, I remain neutral. Lower rolling resistance is of less importance to me, long trains are an excuse to add more power on the head end. An ABBA lashup of hood units would move the longest train I could fit on the club layout, and pull the grade up Campanella Ridge.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
I like the idea of a larger radius since it should reduce derails by keeping flange further away from rail, more like having larger taper. It would also be interesting to see a more prototypical rail head which would help avoid derails.
If it were offered I would try it and see how they worked for real. The rest would left up to a cost/benefit analysis of sorts. Not everyone liked can motors or fully enclosed motors when they hit the market. But, it's nice to have the choice for those who want it.
Richard
BrianinBuffalo As a "Very Good Looking" member of the NMRA I will let you know what I decide when I decide it!
As a "Very Good Looking" member of the NMRA I will let you know what I decide when I decide it!
Having studied your avatar, I get your point.
Sheldon, So, out of hand you simply reject Mr. Takashi's hard work and effort and that in HO, your experiments have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that his idea has no merrit? Good enough!.I will take your responses and Brakies, as in the negative then, thanks for your time.
I don't know where the idea arose that I was going to have some wheels made up to prove anything! I can't afford locomotives anymore, let alone pay for tooling and production of some samples.
All I have ever stated is: I feel this to be worth a closer look!
And, Sheldon, even if I was to prove out Mr. Takashi's ideas, I severly doubt you would accept my findings. Am I right; or, am I right?
NP2626 Sheldon, So, out of hand you simply reject Mr. Takashi's hard work and effort and that in HO, your experiments have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that his idea has no merrit? Good enough!.I will take your responses and Brakies, as in the negative then, thanks for your time. I don't know where the idea arose that I was going to have some wheels made up to prove anything! I can't afford locomotives anymore, let alone pay for tooling and production of some samples. All I have ever stated is: I feel this to be worth a closer look! And, Sheldon, even if I was to prove out Mr. Takashi's ideas, I severly doubt you would accept my findings. Am I right; or, am I right?
You really did not read a word I said, did you?
I read Mr. Takashi's ideas with great interest. I also used my own work and knowledge on the subject. I kept in mind is work is in O scale. I respect the fact that in his situation, in his scale, with is goals, he made an improvement that was benificial to him.
Nothing he wrote suggests reduced derailments, nothing about the science of flange wheels on steel rails suggests his approach would result in fewer derailments.
His goal was reduced rolling resistance on what are proportionately sharp curves for the size trains he is running - he was successfull at that.
Just like I was successfull at that in HO by installing Intermountain wheel sets in Kadee trucks. I searched, but could not find the threads on here where several "experts" told me that simply can't be true, and that I was using the wrong axle length wheel sets.
They did not understand how sprung trucks work differently than rigid trucks.
I did not say Mr. Takashi's ideas won't work in HO, I simply suggested that HO and O are not the same, and the benefits would be small if any. And that I for one am not interested in moving any father away from a scale wheel profile since I have no operational issue with RP25.
I most assuredly did not simply dismiss the his ideas out of hand - I gave it reasonable consideration - then dismissed it. And I do have the resources to have a few wheelsets made, but see no point in it. I will spend those resources on more tractor parts that will turn a profit - even if it is just a "hobby profit".
Currently on my layout I have a Proto2000 2-8-8-2 and a Bachmann 2-8-0 double headed on a 55 car train - no derailments, no problems with pulling power on 2% grades.
NP2626 There seems to be a mind-set on this forum that appears to have no interest in taking a look at potential possible improvements!
There seems to be a mind-set on this forum that appears to have no interest in taking a look at potential possible improvements!
Truth time!
NP, have you procured and used the modified wheels you seem so enthusiastic about? Or are you simply playing Sancho Panza to the developer's Don Quixote?
I note that the developer has a Japanese surname. Was the work done in Japan? If it was, it seems to have escaped the notice of the editorial staff at Tetsudo Mokei Shumi. Please note that the Japanese cross between MR and RMC is quick to report on promising new developments - but only after they have been demonstrated as useful.
As for me, I wouldn't be quick to embrace The New Thing simply because it's new. Some changes are NOT improvements. I prefer to let others make the tests and enjoy the disappointments. One shouted Eureka is trumped by a half-century of practical experience. If this makes me a surly curmudgeon, so be it.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with the best of 1:80 scale technology)
TomakawaTT see below:
NP2626 I don't know where the idea arose that I was going to have some wheels made up to prove anything! I can't afford locomotives anymore, let alone pay for tooling and production of some samples. All I have ever stated is: I feel this to be worth a closer look!
The above, for the second time today!
ATLANTIC CENTRAL You really did not read a word I said, did you? Sheldon
You're right and finally do understand what I think of what you have to say, Sheldon!
jrbernier 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. Jim
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.
Jim
Oh? Sort of like Pirates of the Carabean? Not a "rule" but more like a "guildline"?
Sorry I couldn't resist. Well, lets be practical, people treat it like a standard so I won't bandy semantics with y'all!
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I want to make comment about this thread and how it has been missinterpreted by some:
Being the original poster of the thread and having just read over every post I have made since the first, I can't understand how people have misinterpreted what I have said and that is: I thought that Mr. Takashi's idea is interesting and worth further investigation!
What did I mean by the above? I mean from my point of view, Mr. Takashi's idea makes sense. I mean manufacturers should be interested in this idea, as it might lead to our locomotives being able to pull more cars and it could also lead be better tracking of the wheels on the track, if this idea proves out, the manufacturers would be producing a higher quality product. I mean the NMRA should also be interested in this idea, as again, if the idea were to prove out, the NMRAs RP pertaining to wheel shape could be upgraded to reflect a better quality product design!
Beyond all the above, I feel ideas that may give potentially better performance should always be investigated! Isn't it the mantra of modern living, the pursuit of a better mousetrap?
richhotrain InterMountain Railway Company is, perhaps, the leading manufacturer of HO scale metal (brass) wheels. I wonder how InterMountain would respond to Mr. Takashi's article. it would be interesting to learn their view on this issue. Rich
NP2626, send an email to InterMountain and reference the article in the current issue of MR magazine.
riogrande5761 jrbernier 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. Jim Oh? Sort of like Pirates of the Carabean? Not a "rule" but more like a "guildline"?
And you have to be a pirate for them to apply.
Sorry..Couldn't resist
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
It did sound interesting. As an iron ore modeller, I think the benefit of adding wheelsets that have less drag and allow for longer trains would probably be worth an extra expense. In my case, many of my ore cars are the old plastic MDC/Roundhouse ones (now made by Athearn), most of which still have their original plastic wheels...so if I need to replace the wheelsets with metal ones anyway, a few extra bucks for improved rolling capability should work out well.
richhotrain richhotrain InterMountain Railway Company is, perhaps, the leading manufacturer of HO scale metal (brass) wheels. I wonder how InterMountain would respond to Mr. Takashi's article. it would be interesting to learn their view on this issue. Rich NP2626, send an email to InterMountain and reference the article in the current issue of MR magazine. Rich
Rich,
I have sent an email to Intermountain asking for their thoughts. I sent a link to this thread in hopes they might contribute. We shall see.
Mark
wjstixIn my case, many of my ore cars are the old plastic MDC/Roundhouse ones (now made by Athearn), most of which still have their original plastic wheels
Just out of curiosity, have you already tried any of the new metal replacement wheelsets already available?
NP2626 Rich, I have sent an email to Intermountain asking for their thoughts. I sent a link to this thread in hopes they might contribute. We shall see. Mark
Mark, that is a good move. I hope that InterMountain responds either on the forum or directly to you.
It just seems to me that if MR magazine thought positively enough about the idea to print the article, it ought to be explored further.
richhotrain NP2626 Rich, I have sent an email to Intermountain asking for their thoughts. I sent a link to this thread in hopes they might contribute. We shall see. Mark Mark, that is a good move. I hope that InterMountain responds either on the forum or directly to you. It just seems to me that if MR magazine thought positively enough about the idea to print the article, it ought to be explored further. Rich
I got a response from Intermountain, from a Richard Frazier. It is very well thought out and explains Intermountain's position. I have asked him for permission to reprint his letter here in the MR Forum. We'll see if he is O.K. with that. I would rather he speak for himself and his company.
BRAKIE riogrande5761 jrbernier 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. Jim Oh? Sort of like Pirates of the Carabean? Not a "rule" but more like a "guildline"? And you have to be a pirate for them to apply. Sorry..Couldn't resist
Yarrrrr!!!! So RP25 and a pirate and you are cooking with gas!
Here is Mr. Frazier's response along with my original email to him:
First my email to Intermountain:
Dear Sirs/Madams,
In the May 2013 issue of Model Railroader there is an article entitled 4 Technologies Shaping Model Railroading’s Future. One of these is a look at a new idea about the shape of our wheels. I have posted a thread about this on Model Railroaders General Discussion Forum.
I think the idea presented in this particular article is very interesting and I wonder what your company, as a manufacturer of very well thought of wheel sets, for the model railroader thinks of this look into model train wheel shape. The thread can be viewed here http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/216460.aspx You are welcome to contribute to this on-going thread of discussion, if you so desire.
I am very interested in your opinion as a manufacturer of wheel sets, what you think of the idea itself and what would be your concerns.
Thank you for your time!
Mark DeSchane
Now Intermountain's response:
Mark, I do not have direct access to the article in question, nor the ability to post on the thread. I'll have to try and find a copy in the next few days to give it a read. After that I'll see if our thoughts/position would change. In reading only the thread our initial response, and though this may sound some what dis-interested, InterMountain (and I'm sure other manufacturers would say something similar) will go where the hobby goes. In other words, we will sell/provide what out customers want, and are willing to buy. Our hobby industry is generally led, from a standards approach, by what the NMRA Standards & Recommended Practices statements provide, however as we all know, many of them have rather wide interpretations available. InterMountain continually tries to review the interest of our customers and provide for those interests. A good example would be when we converted all of our HO locomotives to be DCC equipped. Our decision has since proven to align with the market well, as approximately only 5% of our customers still run exclusively in DC only environments. This is based on the number of customers that contacted us to modify the locomotives to eliminate the decoder motor functions. With regards to our wheels - clearly we have had much success with our wheelsets (over 7 million axles sold - HO scale), and that does not count the ones installed on our rolling stock. Over the years there has been regular discussions regarding changes, but few have panned out enough to generate an investment in tooling, marketing, and distribution. Certainly, if there is a change in the NMRA Recommended Practice we will review it closely, but in the end, our question must be - "Will it sell?". I can say that our experience tells us that people want to run/operate their trains, so anything that enhances that ability is always positive. I can also say that variability in track work does create challenges in what is brought to market - we as a manufacture can control our wheels, we can't control the track work, so for us success is finding a product that will work on most every layout. So, if a change in wheels makes it more prototypically accurate, but it will only work on 50% of the layouts, we will not be interested. Our objective must be that people want our products not only because they look nice, but because they also run well. Over the years I have seen layouts that have been so tuned that the owner could PUSH a 100 car train around the whole thing (N scale at that!). I have also seen layouts where most of the switches have been nailed shut, just so the cars might have a chance to make it through! In those cases, and everything in between, it came down to "does the products meet my needs for the hobby?". Clearly, our success at InterMountain is based on meeting the majority of the consumers needs. In summary, we will watch the conversation and listen to any suggestion. But remember we will want to know - will it work in most all cases, will it sell, will it be accepted by the consumer? Is InterMountain going to try and drive new standards - no, not our purpose, but we will always go where the hobby goes, and do our best to meet the needs, wants, and desires of our customers.
Thank you for your support of InterMountain Railway Company products.
-Cheers
Richard Frazier
InterMountain Railway Company
I had rather figured that a manufacturer would not really want to do research into this idea as it would be a risk: research, design, then bring to market and worry whether the market was interested. It's sort of putting the cart before the horse.
The NMRA should be involved in research and redesign. Although really only a small percentage of Model Railroaders are members of the NMRA, it is (in all reality) every model railroaders governing entity. I would think manufacturers would want the NMRA's endorsement, previous to their having much interest in incorporating change to wheel shape.
My guess is that unless some NMRA members think this is a worthwhile endeavor, nothing will ever happen with it.