ATLANTIC CENTRALWhat is a code 88 wheel? - it is a semi scale wheel with a overall width of .088", compared to the original NMRA standard wheel of .110". A true scale wheel would only be .064" wide in HO scale
i think a discussion on using more scale wheels also deserves a more thorough discussion of trackwork
presumably a modeler that users more prototypical wheels is also builiding more prototypical trackwork that has a higher degree of accuracy and probably detail (e.g. fishplates). one obvious aspect is track gauge which needs to be tighter than 1/16" (0.0625) when considering a wheel width of 0.088".
the other aspect mentioned (video) is flange depth at frogs. of course a more prototypical flange would also be shorter
my understanding is the gap between rails at frogs increases in length with frog #. this is probably less of a problem for modelers using smaller turnouts (4-8)
tony koester says he fills that gap with solder and uses a hacksaw blade to cut the grove for the flange but only to a depth that allows the wheel flange to be supported by the solder. a monolithic frog seems more prototypical
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
gregc ATLANTIC CENTRAL What is a code 88 wheel? - it is a semi scale wheel with a overall width of .088", compared to the original NMRA standard wheel of .110". A true scale wheel would only be .064" wide in HO scale i think a discussion on using more scale wheels also deserves a more thorough discussion of trackwork presumably a modeler that users more prototypical wheels is also builiding more prototypical trackwork that has a higher degree of accuracy and probably detail (e.g. fishplates). one obvious aspect is track gauge which needs to be tighter than 1/16" (0.0625) when considering a wheel width of 0.088". the other aspect mentioned (video) is flange depth at frogs. of course a more prototypical flange would also be shorter my understanding is the gap between rails at frogs increases in length with frog #. this is probably less of a problem for modelers using smaller turnouts (4-8) tony koester says he fills that gap with solder and uses a hacksaw blade to cut the grove for the flange but only to a depth that allows the wheel flange to be supported by the solder. a monolithic frog seems more prototypical
ATLANTIC CENTRAL What is a code 88 wheel? - it is a semi scale wheel with a overall width of .088", compared to the original NMRA standard wheel of .110". A true scale wheel would only be .064" wide in HO scale
Completely agreed. But many modelers don't get that memo and just start buying code 88 wheels without considering track work issues.
If you want to, and have the skills to build finer scale track, great. Go for it, and use code 88 wheels.
I have the skills, but not the time or ambition given my other chosen modeling goals.
The frog in your picture is very modern, not seen in the era I model.
When I do build turnouts for special situations I do the same as Tony, fill the frog and file them out with a hacksaw blade. But I'm not keen on the flange riding on the frog bottom for the reasons explained in the video.
And none of that addresses what I consider the ugly side frame gap.
My personal goals are not in the micro detail camp, standard wheels and track, painted and weathered, are fine for me.
What is important to me is that 40 car train running reliably on enough layout to make it look good. Without having to belong to club and be subject to the will of others.
Sheldon
.
ATLANTIC CENTRALWhen you replace the code 110 wheels in a model trucks with code 88 wheels, you move the outer face of the wheel farther from the back of the sideframe. This is not prototypical, the wheel faces on the prototype are pretty close to the back of the sideframe.
Trucks North American Railcar has tooled an all new ASF 70-ton Ride Control roller bearing truck with free rolling scale 33" diameter wheels and rotating bearing caps to accurately match the trucks that were delivered on the prototype cars. With a magnifying glass, you can even read the foundry data cast onto the side frames! After a number of years in service, some cars were modified and equipped with 100-ton trucks with 36” diameter wheels. North American Railcar will include our highly detailed, very free rolling Barber S-2 100-ton trucks on appropriate models to match the prototype.
North American Railcar has tooled an all new ASF 70-ton Ride Control roller bearing truck with free rolling scale 33" diameter wheels and rotating bearing caps to accurately match the trucks that were delivered on the prototype cars. With a magnifying glass, you can even read the foundry data cast onto the side frames!
After a number of years in service, some cars were modified and equipped with 100-ton trucks with 36” diameter wheels. North American Railcar will include our highly detailed, very free rolling Barber S-2 100-ton trucks on appropriate models to match the prototype.
This issue came up quite a bit in O scale even before reference to Proto:48 using regular ("five-foot gauge") sideframe assemblies. It's even more obvious there when the wheels are too far back, the brakeshoes don't line up correctly close to the tread, etc.
I don't see technical difficulties with making a three-piece equalizing truck with scale cross-sections in its side-frames, appropriate adjustment of bolster length to get the back-to-back dimension correct for different wheel types or standards, and axles that 'fit' the contact patches correctly with the wheel spacing accurate. It could be argued that the Kadee 'centering truck' construction could be improved with little more than calibrated shims and a slightly revised interlocking-bolster design to produce this.
Note that adding only about 3 paragraphs to the original article text, with only a couple of additional illustrations and drawings, would produce a guide of exactly what to modify, and what dimensions to use or apply, when converting wheel types or correcting sideframes...
All that from a company with one product..... let's see how well they do.......
It would be easy, but would require making a new truck, more or less.
For what level of dimensional accuracy? A prototype wheel is about 5.5" wide, a code 88 wheel is about 7.6" wide, a code110 wheel is about 9.5" wide.
Times 2 = 8" of extra width making our truck assembly too wide by .092".
I think the reality is most modelers are not going to pay the money to ungrade, and likely may not pay more for new models to get that closer to right.
I could be wrong, but I'm not loosing any sleep over a few scale inches in 1/87 scale.
So I'm not interested in using code 88 wheels either.
I understand the desires of those who do, nearly became that kind of modeler....
ATLANTIC CENTRALFor what level of dimensional accuracy? A prototype wheel is about 5.5" wide, a code 88 wheel is about 7.6" wide, a code110 wheel is about 9.5" wide. Times 2 = 8" of extra width making our truck assembly too wide by .092". I think the reality is most modelers are not going to pay the money to ungrade, and likely may not pay more for new models to get that closer to right.
I for one do notice the ugly sideframe gap and unprototypical spacing, just as I notice the absence of polish on the contact faces of tread and flange -- and, while we're on it, of the faces that retarders bear on. I'd prefer to see objective discussion of the 'yes' before getting to the YMMV part.
LastspikemikeThe darned thing won't track properly.
Russell
Overmod ATLANTIC CENTRAL For what level of dimensional accuracy? A prototype wheel is about 5.5" wide, a code 88 wheel is about 7.6" wide, a code110 wheel is about 9.5" wide. Times 2 = 8" of extra width making our truck assembly too wide by .092". I think the reality is most modelers are not going to pay the money to ungrade, and likely may not pay more for new models to get that closer to right. So let me get this straight. You notice and disparage the 'ugly sideframe gap'. Then when someone proposes how to address the issue you point out how trivial it is and how no one would likely care about it. I for one do notice the ugly sideframe gap and unprototypical spacing, just as I notice the absence of polish on the contact faces of tread and flange -- and, while we're on it, of the faces that retarders bear on. I'd prefer to see objective discussion of the 'yes' before getting to the YMMV part.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL For what level of dimensional accuracy? A prototype wheel is about 5.5" wide, a code 88 wheel is about 7.6" wide, a code110 wheel is about 9.5" wide. Times 2 = 8" of extra width making our truck assembly too wide by .092". I think the reality is most modelers are not going to pay the money to ungrade, and likely may not pay more for new models to get that closer to right.
So let me get this straight. You notice and disparage the 'ugly sideframe gap'. Then when someone proposes how to address the issue you point out how trivial it is and how no one would likely care about it.
My point from the beginning on the code 88 wheel issue is that the oversized code 110 wheels in the too wide sideframe spacing at least has reasonable proprotions and reasonably close spacing from the wheel face to the back of the sideframe.
Which are lost when you just stick code 88 wheels in the too wide sideframes.
You are welcome to discuss solutions to whatever part of that problem you want to solve.
I made it clear that it was just my OPINION that it is not a problem I want to solve, I don't want to use code 88 wheels because I don't want to build fine scale track to stop them from clunking thru turnout frogs.
I simply pointed out that we are talking about a problem of a few scale inches that would cost cubic money for me to correct on my fleet of 1000 freight cars and on my future layout of 2,000 feet of track and 140 turnouts.
To my eye, the spacing and proprotions are not objectional UNTIL you put the code 88 wheelsets in the sideframes made for code 110 wheels and draw your attention to it.
And we should do all this and the wheels will still be wider than true scale?
I have no problem with the choices others make, my choices are often outside the mainstream. I've been told I was nuts more than once on this forum.
I am more than happy to except the existing established track and wheel standards to the end of building and operating my planned layout.
One of the primary goals of which is to run multiple long trains reliably.
One goal not on my list is for every piece of rolling stock to be a museum level model.
I accept that others may have different goals.
But based on what I read on this forum, what I hear from other modelers I know, and my experiance behind the shop counter, the number of modelers willing to spend a lot of time (or money) on this is small.
AND, it is unlikely that many of them are building large layouts........
I could be wrong, it has happened.
And, for the record, I feel the same way about semi scale couplers with their funny shaped head so they will mate with the oversized couplers that have a suitible gathering range for the less than perfect track and wheel standards.
I have a way to equalize rigid trucks that can also adjust the sideframe to wheel spacing. It could also be used to maintain equalization in sprung trucks while replacing the wimpy looking springs with heavier ones to improve the appearance.
Start by drilling a #60 hole into the end of the bolster from the outside of the truck. Tap for a 00-90 screw. Cut the sideframe from the bolster about 1/16" behind the sideframe. Thread a 00-90 screw into the bolster and cut it off leaving enough length to thread the sideframe onto it.
The final width of the truck is controlled by how far you thread the sideframe on to the screw. The final width can be adjusted to fit a certain axle length or a truck tuner can be used to deepen the axle holes.
If the bolster does not have enough material for a #60 hole I glue a block of styrene to it using some small pins to reinforce the joint between the delrin bolster and styrene block.
Mark Vinski
Well I'm one of the folks who do use the .088 wheel treads. Here's why:
Now sure, therre's all sorts of unrealistic elements to these tank cars (clunky looking stirrup steps, steel angles that come up from under the coupler pockets, 6-inch-thick placard holders, and so much more), so every little bit of closer-to-scale parts helps. These cars are the old Walthers 8,000 gallon car kits from 25 years or so ago. On cars such as these, where the wheels are especially visible, I think there's a definite visual gain in the semi-scale wheels.
And, if your trackwork is per NMRA standards they operate just fine. While I don't know about the new Walthers or the latest Peco turnouts, Atlas and everyone else (this included Shinohara when they were being produced) violate(d) NMRA turnout standards in the area of flangeway width. Intentionally.
My .088 wheel cars will not run well through Atlas turnouts (which means I can't run them on the club layout). They function perfectly on my Fast Tracks turnouts, because the jigs used to make those turnouts are crafted to meet all NMRA turnout specs. ALL of the specs. No fudging them for toy train sets or out-of-spec rolling stock. When I bought my jigs years ago, apparently commercial turnout manufacturer met NMRA specs for the flangeways. They were all spaced too wide.
To me, the sideframe gap is much less noticable than the fatter treads, or for that matter the gaping flangeways of commercial turnouts.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
And as per the beginning of this conversation when Greg responded to my post, as he suggested, and I agreed, if you are willing to build finer more accurate track, code 88 wheels work fine, no question.
The appearence thing is subjective, but the only person who counts on your layout is you.
But I just checked a dozen Atlas code 83 Custom Line #6 turnouts with a brand new NMRA gauge I just bought a few months ago and the flangeway width (both frog and guard rails) and flangeway back to back at the frogs were all spot on, on both the straight and diverging routes.
Update: And my digital calipers confirmed the gauge readings as being within NMRA spec.
Mark, what size rail is that?
That's code 70 rail, Sheldon.
Maybe the Custom Line switches do meet NMRA specs. Are they newer switches - the Mark V?
I bought my turnout jigs at the Philadelphia NMRA National in 2006 (OMG! Was it really 15 years ago??), and my understanding from Tim Warris, who owns Fasttracks, was that no commercial turnouts met the flangeway specs. Maybe things have changed since then.
I started building my own turnouts because, even back then, commercial turnouts were getting expensive. That's even truer now. Even using Fasttracks' rather pricey Quick Sticks ties and PC board ties (with the rail purchased elsewhere), my turnouts today cost about $7.50 each (I amortized out the $120 fixture cost years ago). That's half (or less) the cost of a new Atlas turnout from the discount houses.
And I really do like the look of the narrower wheels on those tank cars!
Pruitt That's code 70 rail, Sheldon. Maybe the Custom Line switches do meet NMRA specs. Are they newer switches - the Mark V? I bought my turnout jigs at the Philadelphia NMRA National in 2006 (OMG! Was it really 15 years ago??), and my understanding from Tim Warris, who owns Fasttracks, was that no commercial turnouts met the flangeway specs. Maybe things have changed since then. I started building my own turnouts because, even back then, commercial turnouts were getting expensive. That's even truer now. Even using Fasttracks' rather pricey Quick Sticks ties and PC board ties (with the rail purchased elsewhere), my turnouts today cost about $7.50 each (I amortized out the $120 fixture cost years ago). That's half (or less) the cost of a new Atlas turnout from the discount houses. And I really do like the look of the narrower wheels on those tank cars!
I thought so on the rail size, and yes that does magnify the wheel tread issue.
I use all code 83.
Mark, the Atlas code 83 line has not changed measurably since it was introduced in 1996/97. The code 83 turnouts have never used the "Mark III, IV or V" designation. That only applies to the ongoing improvements to the code 100 turnouts which have recently been upgraded to the same standards the code 83 have always had, which much better than the older code 100 product.
I recently purchased some more code 83 #6 turnouts for the upcoming layout build, from one of the local shops, my price was $18.00 each, they retail for $23.95
I hand layed lots of track and turnouts back in the day. My first layout was all TruScale.
But I am more than happy with the Atlas code 83, despite the stuff you will read on this forum.
Yes, hand layed track is less expensive - but it takes time - I need 140 turnouts for the new layout, half of them will not be seen. I will only build the specials.
And I prefer the electrical characteristics of the Atlas design, it works well with my Advanced DC Cab Control.
I tried some code 88 wheels in my sprung Kadee trucks, I was not happy.
I think you might be very surprised at the quality and detail of many of the code 83 turnouts on the market today - and yes, most others are more pricey than Atlas.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, I have followed your layout thread somewhat, looks very nice.
This is a hobby of compromises, we all decide what we can live with, and what we must have.
Sheldon: ..... Your discussion about code 88 and code 110 wheels is very interesting ... Same for contributions from Mark V and Mark P ....
In my case, I tried code 88 wheels and they did derail on turnouts where code 110 wheels did not derail. Simple conclusion: Don't use code 88. ...... (My philosophy: It takes an unusual mind to make an anaysis out of the obvious.)
Mark P ... While I can see the differance of wheels on tank cars in your picture, I don't think it is significant. Just my opinion, but I certainly respect your opinion.
Sheldon .... Again, I appreciate your indormative thread.
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
ATLANTIC CENTRAL The code 83 turnouts have never used the "Mark III, IV or V" designation.
I can put this up for bid on eBay and really, honestly say it IS scarce AND rare
Atlas_83_MK-IV by Edmund, on Flickr
Cheers, Ed
I will have to look at my #8's that are still in the package, my brand new #6's don't say that?
Can't say I remember one way or the other about older ones.
The Atlas web site clearly describes the new code 100 turnouts as "Mark V" but does not use any such terminology for the code 83 line?
Nor does a few Walthers catalog references I checked.
Point remains the code 83 line has always been to NMRA flangeway spec and has not been redesigned multiple times like the much older code 100 line.
So, you are right Ed, it must be rare. I looked thru about two dozen unopened Atlas code 83 turnouts, not one is labeled that way, #4, #6 or #8.
For what it is worth, I found a photo of two Atlas Code 100 turnout packages labelled as "Mark-3" under my layout. But I cannot find any Atlas Code 83 turnout packages labelled as Mark.
Rich
Alton Junction
Whatever the case may be with the Atlas package markings, I never had much luck with Atlas turnouts - derailments on them far too often. I never tried their newer stuff though, including their entire Code 83 line. Their older products had already left a distinctly bad taste in my mouth (I do like their code 83 flextrack, though).
I used Shinohara / Walthers and Peco for many years, but from the very first Fast Tracks turnout I built, the performance and appearance was superior to any commerial turnouts I tried. I really like the Peco over-center spring, though...
All I know for sure is what I was told by Tim Warris, who did (and does) not strike me as one to lie about a competitor's product to make a sale. But whatever.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL So, you are right Ed, it must be rare. I looked thru about two dozen unopened Atlas code 83 turnouts, not one is labeled that way, #4, #6 or #8. Sheldon
No, not that way, but the other way. The new way has the "Mark IV" written up the right side....
- Douglas
Did not even notice that, but it is only on the #8 turnouts? And again, no use of that term on the web site regarding code 83 anything.
Pruitt Whatever the case may be with the Atlas package markings, I never had much luck with Atlas turnouts - derailments on them far too often. I never tried their newer stuff though, including their entire Code 83 line. Their older products had already left a distinctly bad taste in my mouth (I do like their code 83 flextrack, though). I used Shinohara / Walthers and Peco for many years, but from the very first Fast Tracks turnout I built, the performance and appearance was superior to any commerial turnouts I tried. I really like the Peco over-center spring, though... All I know for sure is what I was told by Tim Warris, who did (and does) not strike me as one to lie about a competitor's product to make a sale. But whatever.
The old code 100 stuff, I would have to agree, it was just so so. But that was 30 years ago.
I use mainly Atlas, all code 83, and a few specials (double slips mainly) from Walthers.
Anything else I need, I build.
Being a DC operator, and using an Advanced Cab Control system, my mainline turnouts have switch motors for CTC, and my manual turnouts need to give me electrical feedback for power routing (done with relays) and signaling. That leaves out the little PECO springs.
PECO makes great stuff, but their features don't fit my needs.
Never had any operational problems with Atlas code 83.
I also have learned how to actually curve the Atlas turnout into very large radius curved turnouts.
Lots of friends who are happy Atlas code 83 users as well.
Lastspikemike For quality of manufacture I rate Peco turnouts the highest. The new Walthers stuff looks good and fits really well. I suspect the new Mark V Atlas Custom 83 will be aimed at the new Walthers stuff. It had better be. Sadky, I find the quality control of the very good looking Micro Engineering Code 70 turnouts to be the worst of the bunch. ME needs to improve or they're gong to get beat out of the market. I'll never buy another. Dead point rails are also just a real nuisance. Atlas turnouts have sketchy frogs and flimsy points, but apart from that they're fine har har. I'm just not buying any more unless the Mark V is much better made. The Super Track #6 are a cut above the Custom line. Maybe the Mark V line will be based on those. They are comparable to Walthers new stuff, barely.
For quality of manufacture I rate Peco turnouts the highest. The new Walthers stuff looks good and fits really well. I suspect the new Mark V Atlas Custom 83 will be aimed at the new Walthers stuff. It had better be.
Sadky, I find the quality control of the very good looking Micro Engineering Code 70 turnouts to be the worst of the bunch. ME needs to improve or they're gong to get beat out of the market. I'll never buy another. Dead point rails are also just a real nuisance.
Atlas turnouts have sketchy frogs and flimsy points, but apart from that they're fine har har. I'm just not buying any more unless the Mark V is much better made. The Super Track #6 are a cut above the Custom line. Maybe the Mark V line will be based on those. They are comparable to Walthers new stuff, barely.
There is no announcement from Atlas about any changes to the code 83 turnout or track product line.
The February 11, 2021 announcement regarding "Mark V" turnouts is code 100 only, and represents improvements in the code 100 line to bring them up to the same standards as the existing code 83 line which has not been changed in any measurable way since its 1996/97 introduction.
As we discovered this morning, only the code 83 #8 turnouts have any "Mark" designation on the package, and the web site makes no use of the the term regarding the code 83 products.
I recently bought some additional Atlas #6 and #8 turnouts for the upcoming layout build.
After listening to quality control complaints on this forum I carefully compared the new ones to a large group of ones purchased at various times since the introduction of the product.
I could find no measureable differences, and if anything, the new ones seem to be better made. Less issues with raised frogs, etc.
I'm done debating the "quality" of this product, they work great for me, and for a long list of other modelers who's layouts I have helped build and spent hours operating trains.
I have no quality complaint with PECO or Walthers, I use Walthers for things like slip switches.
PECO features and design are simply not a fit for my needs.
My success with Atlas trunouts may be related to how I install them, and my previous track building experiance, but at a much lower price than the others, and with features that fit my needs, I'm all in, 140 turnouts worth.
I have said this many times before, and I will say it again here politely. Considering how and where these products are made, considering that times change and things evolve, it is likely unwise to prejudge a product from brand X because you had a bad product from brand X three decades ago.
A funny story about the Atlas vs PECO springs. One modeler friend of mine, who only lives about 6 miles from me, and has a basement filling walk around double deck layout. It is all built with Atlas track and #6 Custom Line turnouts. He only has switch machines on a few hard to reach turnouts. On the rest of his turnouts guess what he uses for ground throws? Nothing. The throw bars are just there, you just pull or push it and they stay put and thirty car trains have been running around that layout for 25 years - no problems.
I think he did have one or two that would not stay where you left them. He put a very thin styrene shim under the throw bar to give it some resistance but still slide easily.
25 years, no springs, no ground throws, no switch machines. I have operated on that layout many times.
ATLANTIC CENTRALThe throw bars are just there, you just pull or push it and they stay put and thirty car trains have been running around that layout for 25 years - no problems. I think he did have one or two that would not stay where you left them. He put a very thin styrene shim under the throw bar to give it some resistance but still slide easily.
Yes, that's what I did on my last layout. Worked fine.
Have to agree with Sheldon. I've seen more badly-laid track than badly-made track. Some people are strangers to the terms, flat, level, and gradual rise.
PruittThat's code 70 rail, Sheldon. I bought my turnout jigs at the Philadelphia NMRA National in 2006 (OMG! Was it really 15 years ago??), and my understanding from Tim Warris, who owns Fasttracks, was that no commercial turnouts met the flangeway specs. Maybe things have changed since then. I started building my own turnouts because, even back then, commercial turnouts were getting expensive. That's even truer now. Even using Fasttracks' rather pricey Quick Sticks ties and PC board ties (with the rail purchased elsewhere), my turnouts today cost about $7.50 each (I amortized out the $120 fixture cost years ago). That's half (or less) the cost of a new Atlas turnout from the discount houses. And I really do like the look of the narrower wheels on those tank cars!
Agreed.
I use the code 88 wheels due to modeling 19th Century in both standard and narrow gauge. Wheels and rail size and rail spacing is much more apparent in modeling the smaller and lighter equipment of the 19th Century. The smaller tread width of the code 88 wheels are much more visible with the trucks mounted closer to the end of the car, the car frames riding higher on the trucks than is 20th C practice, the smaller diameter wheels, and the thinner rail head. All these contribute to making narrower tread widths more important visually.
For the same reasons, I use MT N couplers on my HOn3 rolling stock. The newer design MT N couplers also have been redesigned to remove much of the "slinky" motion - the Kadee #711/714s have not.
As has been addressed by several folks already, code 88 wheels run much better when the track gauge and flangeways are kept at NMRA minimums. Interesting that the 3 major lines of code 83 flex track all use different track gauges, with Atlas being the widest. Atlas is NOT out of spec, just at the wide end. Which in turn forces their turnouts to have wider flangeways - can be within spec, just at the wide end. This leads to much greater chance of code 88 wheel drop in the frog.
ME track has visibly and measurably narrower track gauge for their flex track. I have not bought Peco track to measure so will not comment. The narrower flangeways and track gauge avoid code 88 wheel drop. The same is true for my handlaid track, which with the disappearance of Shinohara, has become necessary for any dual gauge turnouts.
I have not seen others mention this, but it is true. The closer to minimum track gauge, the higher the minimum radius required is. Not much of an issue for a 19th C modeler, but could be a big deal for 20th+C modelers. It's not a great increase - a car/locomotive that will barely pass 18" curves on Atlas track might require 19" min radius on ME track, especially with code 88 wheels. With P87 track and wheels, that same car/locomotive might require 22" radius.
Finally, as Sheldon points out, handlaid track and refitting rolling stock with more to scale couplers and trucks is both time consuming and expensive. For large layouts, this can be prohibitive, especially in time. Since there is a dearth of RTR 19th Century, even in HO, large layouts weren't going to happen anyway.
My thanks to Sheldon (and others) for posting how to obtain reliable and reasonably realistic operation on a large scale using off-the-shelf equipment with little modification. I am simply pointing out a different path for those who want to go there.
Fred W
....modeling foggy coastal Oregon, where it's always 1900....
fwright Pruitt That's code 70 rail, Sheldon. I bought my turnout jigs at the Philadelphia NMRA National in 2006 (OMG! Was it really 15 years ago??), and my understanding from Tim Warris, who owns Fasttracks, was that no commercial turnouts met the flangeway specs. Maybe things have changed since then. I started building my own turnouts because, even back then, commercial turnouts were getting expensive. That's even truer now. Even using Fasttracks' rather pricey Quick Sticks ties and PC board ties (with the rail purchased elsewhere), my turnouts today cost about $7.50 each (I amortized out the $120 fixture cost years ago). That's half (or less) the cost of a new Atlas turnout from the discount houses. And I really do like the look of the narrower wheels on those tank cars! Agreed. I use the code 88 wheels due to modeling 19th Century in both standard and narrow gauge. Wheels and rail size and rail spacing is much more apparent in modeling the smaller and lighter equipment of the 19th Century. The smaller tread width of the code 88 wheels are much more visible with the trucks mounted closer to the end of the car, the car frames riding higher on the trucks than is 20th C practice, the smaller diameter wheels, and the thinner rail head. All these contribute to making narrower tread widths more important visually. For the same reasons, I use MT N couplers on my HOn3 rolling stock. The newer design MT N couplers also have been redesigned to remove much of the "slinky" motion - the Kadee #711/714s have not. As has been addressed by several folks already, code 88 wheels run much better when the track gauge and flangeways are kept at NMRA minimums. Interesting that the 3 major lines of code 83 flex track all use different track gauges, with Atlas being the widest. Atlas is NOT out of spec, just at the wide end. Which in turn forces their turnouts to have wider flangeways - can be within spec, just at the wide end. This leads to much greater chance of code 88 wheel drop in the frog. ME track has visibly and measurably narrower track gauge for their flex track. I have not bought Peco track to measure so will not comment. The narrower flangeways and track gauge avoid code 88 wheel drop. The same is true for my handlaid track, which with the disappearance of Shinohara, has become necessary for any dual gauge turnouts. I have not seen others mention this, but it is true. The closer to minimum track gauge, the higher the minimum radius required is. Not much of an issue for a 19th C modeler, but could be a big deal for 20th+C modelers. It's not a great increase - a car/locomotive that will barely pass 18" curves on Atlas track might require 19" min radius on ME track, especially with code 88 wheels. With P87 track and wheels, that same car/locomotive might require 22" radius. Finally, as Sheldon points out, handlaid track and refitting rolling stock with more to scale couplers and trucks is both time consuming and expensive. For large layouts, this can be prohibitive, especially in time. Since there is a dearth of RTR 19th Century, even in HO, large layouts weren't going to happen anyway. My thanks to Sheldon (and others) for posting how to obtain reliable and reasonably realistic operation on a large scale using off-the-shelf equipment with little modification. I am simply pointing out a different path for those who want to go there. Fred W ....modeling foggy coastal Oregon, where it's always 1900....
Pruitt That's code 70 rail, Sheldon. I bought my turnout jigs at the Philadelphia NMRA National in 2006 (OMG! Was it really 15 years ago??), and my understanding from Tim Warris, who owns Fasttracks, was that no commercial turnouts met the flangeway specs. Maybe things have changed since then. I started building my own turnouts because, even back then, commercial turnouts were getting expensive. That's even truer now. Even using Fasttracks' rather pricey Quick Sticks ties and PC board ties (with the rail purchased elsewhere), my turnouts today cost about $7.50 each (I amortized out the $120 fixture cost years ago). That's half (or less) the cost of a new Atlas turnout from the discount houses. And I really do like the look of the narrower wheels on those tank cars!
Fred,
Thank you for the kind words and I completely agree with the visual issues of 19th century equipment.
As I am often saying on here, the compromises and choices we make are based on each persons modeling goals.
Onesize does not fit all, not in track, or wheels or control systems, or layout design, or any other aspect of this hobby.
That's a great piece of work thanks for the effort.
With Walthers passenger cars I take the wheels out an put a spot of 108 in the frame and i have great running, silent from squealing cars and i don't believe I have had to do them egian.
It was a labour of love in the early 2000s when i bought a mountain maybe 40ish in a great sale Walthers had.
On a different topic which is a response or maybe recommendation to a solution to a post that Ed did a few years ago about the coupler distances on MTH heavyweight cars. When those Walthers arrived en-mass with minimum 36" curves I installed Kadees all round with a short shank at one end which worked well. The bearing oiling excercise reminded me as I tackled both at the same time.
I spend very little time in the train room this time of year, but do check in on the forum. Well tonight I got curious and went in and looked to see if I had any Intermountain wheels in the wheelsets box.
Yes, one pkg of 33s. I put them on 3 of the 13 IHC cars I mentioned in the 1st reply to this topic. Made a huge difference, as I was expecting by now. I'm testing them by inclining my 6 foot test-track-on-a-stick to differing grades.
I can't remember what brand wheelsets I put on these originally. They have acetal axles and fine cast lettering on the face, ribbed backs. I'll put them on something else, but the rest of these ore cars will get IMs. Which I'll buy exclusively from now on.
Thanks again Sheldon, and others who added some insight. Great, constructive topic. Dan
Southgate 2 They have acetal axles and fine cast lettering on the face, ribbed backs.
Those sound like Life-Like wheelsets. Quite a few of mine have the plating coming off the treads.
LL_wheelsets by Edmund, on Flickr
LL_crop by Edmund, on Flickr
In my experience, a bit of experimentation is in order to find the right combination of replacement wheelset mated to a particular truck bolster/sideframe assembly.
Southgate 2Which I'll buy exclusively from now on.
Again, don't shy away from the other manufacturers. The I-Ms may be the perfect "sweet-spot" for these ore cars but may not like being mounted in something else.
Good Luck, Ed