MisterBeasley I built the small urban area around my carfloat terminal using Proto:87 girder rail and street running cobblestones. It was difficult trackage to lay, because it was essentially hand laying each individual 3-inch rail section. It looks really good, but I wouldn't recommend it for running freight cars to a carfloat. The rail is just too small, and standard rolling stock wheels easily slip out. The appearance is not worth the number of derailments. For me, a solid, reliably running railroad is better than striving for so much prototype accuracy that reliability is sacrificed.
I built the small urban area around my carfloat terminal using Proto:87 girder rail and street running cobblestones. It was difficult trackage to lay, because it was essentially hand laying each individual 3-inch rail section. It looks really good, but I wouldn't recommend it for running freight cars to a carfloat. The rail is just too small, and standard rolling stock wheels easily slip out. The appearance is not worth the number of derailments. For me, a solid, reliably running railroad is better than striving for so much prototype accuracy that reliability is sacrificed.
When a train is running or even when cars are being switched, who can actually see that the wheels are too wide. We are usually looking at our cars from the side. If some are bothered by the wide wheels, they have the option to replace them.
I want my wheels and couplers to operate reliably and it doesn't bother me one bit that they are both oversized. The NMRA standards aren't broke. Don't fix them.
At our club layout (70x72 with hand-laid track and turnouts), we've banned semi-scale wheels as they do give us quite a bit of trouble. Usually when a car derails it's a car problem rather than a track problem. One member had a lot of semi-scale stuff and most of the derailments were his equipment. Bummer, because they do look nice.
Aaron
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Regardless of wheelset you pick, pls make sure you have the same dimensions on both sides of the cars. Don't ask how I know. It was something I read. Yeah, that's it!
Looks like the .110's have it. Nick says that due to the overwhelming results of the survey Moloco will continue offering .110 tread as the standard RTR wheelset.
Regards, Peter
John-NYBW I'll say one more thing on this topic. I would hate to see the hobby industry adopt a new standard for wheels that would cause operational problems on long existing layouts. For people to whom realistic tread width is important, they have the option of swapping the narrower wheels into their rolling stock. Don't force everyone else to adopt that standard. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The current NMRA standards aren't broke. Don't fix them.
I'll say one more thing on this topic. I would hate to see the hobby industry adopt a new standard for wheels that would cause operational problems on long existing layouts. For people to whom realistic tread width is important, they have the option of swapping the narrower wheels into their rolling stock. Don't force everyone else to adopt that standard.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The current NMRA standards aren't broke. Don't fix them.
One can only hope the opposite comes true. If you don't want to evolve with the hobby, you can always spend the money to change the wheel sets to the larger type.
An "expensive model collector"
I would probably vote for code 88 wheels but see no reason that they should cost more if they become the standard. It shouldn't cost any more to produce code 88 wheels. It might even cost less since slightly less metal would be used.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL John-NYBW I'll say one more thing on this topic. I would hate to see the hobby industry adopt a new standard for wheels that would cause operational problems on long existing layouts. For people to whom realistic tread width is important, they have the option of swapping the narrower wheels into their rolling stock. Don't force everyone else to adopt that standard. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The current NMRA standards aren't broke. Don't fix them. Agreed, I have no dog in this hunt, sinilar to Kevin, I change trucks and couplers on most of the freight cars on my layout. So I am spending extra in any case.
Agreed, I have no dog in this hunt, sinilar to Kevin, I change trucks and couplers on most of the freight cars on my layout.
So I am spending extra in any case.
Ditto. I said I would say one more thing. Make it two more things. A lot of my rolling stock is Accurail kits and I replace those wheels with Kadee 33" wheels which has become my go to standard wheel. Most RTR comes with metal wheels so I if they don't cause problems, I leave them as they are. Since most equipment doesn't come with KDs, I replace the couplers on just about everything. I used the KD #5 for many years but switched to the whisker #148 when that became available. The #5s still work well and I have made no effort to replace them. The #148s are just a little easier to install, not that the #5 was difficult.
The point is that there are those who are happy with what their equipment comes with while others like me are a little more fussy and we adopt our own standards. There is no reason to create a new standard to replace one that has served the hobby well for a very long time.
Most of my freight cars have my "special" truck setup - Kadee sprung metal trucks, refitted with Intermountain code 110 wheelsets, and lubed with a small drop of Labell oil in each journal.
They roll more freely, and track better than anything I have tested. They add extra weight where it is needed most, down low, and allow total car weights to be slightly less while still tracking well in long trains - 50-100 cars.
I also install genuine Kadee original head couplers in everything, I don't wait for other brands of couplers to fail - even the metal ones.
I have tested code 88 wheels, I don't like how they go thru even my hand layed turnouts, or my Atlas and Walthers code 83 turnouts, both of which match NMRA standards pretty well.
To be clear, I 'm not saying there is a derailment problem with the code 88 wheels, I just don't like the "bump", the "bump" that is not there with the code 110 wheels.
I like and want equalized/sprung trucks when possible - and again to be clear, it is not about being sprung, the springs don't compress. It is about equalization - ALL four wheels always being in contact with the rail.
Others will disagree and say "their trains run fine" with rigid plastic trucks. I understand, I'm happy for them.
The other point is this - code 88 wheels are still not scale, they are still 3 scale inches wider than the prototype, and our sideframes are already set wider than the prototype.
If this level of detail in important to you, why not go all in? Proto87 - and get truely scale wheels and track?
Some years back Kadee starting suppling semi-scale couplers on their rolling stock. I only have a few Kadee cars, most made before that change. But when they changed that I bought a small stock of regular head couplers from them with the unique shank that is used on their own rolling stock - so I can convert any future Kadee rolling stock purchases.
Consistant parts, mean consistant and reliable operation.
For those of you who like the code 88 wheels, there are plenty of them out there.
Sheldon
Just like couplers in the way back, if you want something better, you can change it out yourself without afecting sales that would be lost due to non compatability with existing stuff and if it is better, things will gradually change.
Late to the party, but I got that survey as well as I have preordered a couple cars that fit my era and roads. I voted standard as I have 225 pieces of freight and passenger cars that have standard wheelsets. With that number, I just can't see going semi-scale due to the expense of converting them.
ATLANTIC CENTRALReliable operation first, detail and fine accuracy second in my world.
I feel the same way.
maxmanSo somehow the standard wheels also cost more.
Since I always replace the trucks with Kadee trucks and wheels I will always have an extra expense.
It makes no difference to me what trucks and wheels come with a kit, they are hitting the trash anyway.
Kadee trucks and wheels (code 110) have performed flawlessly for me for thirty years. I am not changing now.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
ATLANTIC CENTRALMark, the comment made by Wayne and myself is not about the thickness of the sideframes, it is about the distance between the sideframes that is increased beyond the prototype to allow for the 110 wheels. So when you replace the wheels with 88 wheels, the distance from the back of the sideframe to the face of the wheel increases and leaves a noticeably larger gap than the prototype.
So when you replace the wheels with 88 wheels, the distance from the back of the sideframe to the face of the wheel increases and leaves a noticeably larger gap than the prototype.
Thanks for clarifying that, Sheldon! I completely misinterpreted wht you and Wayne were saying!
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
Thanks to everyone for the input and thoughts. My inclination was to check the standard tread box when first opening the survey window, but after digesting all the info and Mark P's end-view comparison photo I can see the merit in semi-scale.
Thanks again and regards, Peter
mvlandsw Has anyone actually compared the outside width of model trucks to the prototype dimensions? On the prototype trucks the journal box extends to the inside of the sideframe as well as to the outside. The inside extension is eliminated on the model to allow for the excess wheel width. This is at least partly why there is a gap when narrower wheels are used. Mark Vinski
Has anyone actually compared the outside width of model trucks to the prototype dimensions? On the prototype trucks the journal box extends to the inside of the sideframe as well as to the outside. The inside extension is eliminated on the model to allow for the excess wheel width. This is at least partly why there is a gap when narrower wheels are used.
Mark Vinski
Since I have a good library (1940 Car Builders Cyclopedia) and good measuring tools, I did a few simple checks.
The typical HO truck is 3-6 scale inches wider than the prototype measured to the theoretical bearing center line of a prototype wheelset.
Nearly all the HO trucks I measured are 3-4 scale inches wider than the prototype measured back to back, to the back of the side frame main structure at the bolster - NOT to the internal bearing seat extension. Typcally 6'-3"/4" vs 6'-0" on the prototype.
Code 110 wheels measure a scale 5'-9" over the outside of the wheel rim.
Code 88 wheels measure a scale 5'-6" over the outside of the wheel rim.
Prototype wheels measure 5'-3" over the outside of the wheel rim.
So for 3 scale inches, I will stay with the 5,000 wheels that I have, that run better on the track and 140 turnouts I have.
dknelson Painful though this will be for some, I think the NMRA is going to be forced to revisit their standards which are, after all, in most cases from the 1950s or not far different from them.
Painful though this will be for some, I think the NMRA is going to be forced to revisit their standards which are, after all, in most cases from the 1950s or not far different from them.
I agree, but I doubt you will see it for awhile. Too many people stuck in thier ways and opposed to change at that level.
I also got the survey, and voted for semi-scale.
maxman How many people actually put their heads down on the rails and look at cars head-on?
How many people actually put their heads down on the rails and look at cars head-on?
With a shelf style switching layout, I'd say that I probably see the ends of the cars as much as the sides. Probably a three quarters view most of the time....and a lot of cars are parked at spurs.
If I ran 20 trains of 40 cars each, I'd see the ends about 2% of the time, as a guess.
- Douglas
Pruitt doctorwayne The semi-scale wheels ... also exaggerate the overly-wide truck side-frames that are used on most HO scale rolling stock. Wayne That argument seems to be saying that, since the wheel treads are too big, all other parts of the rolling stock (stirrup steps, brake wheels, ladders, grab irons, etc. should also be too big. The closer-to-scale wheel treads may slightly accentuate the overly thick sideframes a bit, but I think the overall appearance is still better: The only downside is that I can't run these cars on the club layout, since it has a lot of old giant-gaps Atlas switches (even some with brass rails!). Not a big deal since I don't like to handle the rolling stock anyway. Things can get broken off when taking cars on and off the layout. But they run very smoothly on my Fast Tracks turnouts. I also prefer the "scale" couplers for the same reason - they look better (IMO).
doctorwayne The semi-scale wheels ... also exaggerate the overly-wide truck side-frames that are used on most HO scale rolling stock. Wayne
The semi-scale wheels ... also exaggerate the overly-wide truck side-frames that are used on most HO scale rolling stock.
Wayne
That argument seems to be saying that, since the wheel treads are too big, all other parts of the rolling stock (stirrup steps, brake wheels, ladders, grab irons, etc. should also be too big.
The closer-to-scale wheel treads may slightly accentuate the overly thick sideframes a bit, but I think the overall appearance is still better:
The only downside is that I can't run these cars on the club layout, since it has a lot of old giant-gaps Atlas switches (even some with brass rails!). Not a big deal since I don't like to handle the rolling stock anyway. Things can get broken off when taking cars on and off the layout. But they run very smoothly on my Fast Tracks turnouts.
I also prefer the "scale" couplers for the same reason - they look better (IMO).
The car on the left looks better. It would look even better if it had smaller couplers.
I've been replacing my kadee #5's with smaller whisker #158s.
Mark, the comment made by Wayne and myself is not about the thickness of the sideframes, it is about the distance between the sideframes that is increased beyond the prototype to allow for the 110 wheels.
If the manufacturers really want to make code 88 wheels look good, they need to make new trucks for them and pull in the back to back dimension of the side frames.
Turnouts, yes old Atlas code 100 turnouts were outside NMRA Standards and RPs by a fair amount. That is really old news since the 20 year old line of code 83 track is nearly spot on to NMRA specs.
And yet code 83 wheels still go "clunk" thru the frog, especially in my sprung trucks, which is most of my freight car fleet.
Look, I'm not against improvements in detail or scale accuracy, but at my stage in this hobby I'm not replacing 140 NMRA spec turnouts, or the wheels and couplers on 1200 pieces of rolling stock.
And maybe I'm a bit OCD, but I prefer not to have a mix of this and that.
Couplers, I agree even with their funny shape, the semi scale coupler is more the correct proportion. But I did some tests years ago when they came out.
Same amount of slack action, less gathering range side to side, and, when coupling to a regular head Kadee, they actually require more impact force then two regular head couplers.
So for those reasons as well, I would rather all my couplers be the same, not a hodge podge.
Too late for me to even think about changing.
This is the part I'm unclear about:
"I would purchase ... cars that come standard with Semi-scale tread (0.088") wheelsets and am willing to PAY THE EXTRA for them."
Why would I want to pay more for an already expensive item?
And a note with the survey states "even if we implement the Semi-scale wheelsets we would still have Standard tread wheelsets as extra purchased part."
So somehow the standard wheels also cost more.
Darn, more grumpy than usual today.
maxman Already responded to that survey. My vote was for standard.
Already responded to that survey. My vote was for standard.
Me too!
Rick Jesionowski
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
Not sure at my age I have a dog in this hunt. But it seems pretty clearly that the days of RTR=beginners or whose who had a low priority for scale is not the case. We are all RTRs now! Like it or not. Modest evidence: RTR used to mean horn hook couplers. Increasingly anyone who likes and uses horn hook has some work to do to install them on new purchases. I suspect the horn hook folks are feeling the pressure.
I think greater and greater scale fidelity is going to be the name of the game. I know more and more modelers who incorporate Proto87 and Proto48 (for the Brits, Proto4) parts into track work. I found that I have semi scale wheels on some of my cars and didn't even focus on it -- and these were USED purchases at swap meets. A friend of mine has converted almost his entire fleet of rolling stock to semi scale and reports not only no problems with his track, much of which he is hand laying to finer standards (many FastTracks turnouts) but interestingly, few if any problems with the older Atlas turnouts in his staging yard, provided he laid them flat. He was pleased and surprised by this.
Painful though this will be for some, I think the NMRA is going to be forced to revisit their standards which are, after all, in most cases from the 1950s or not far different from them. There will always be pressure on them to be compatible with older stuff but at some point you have to and will cut the cord, as the hobby did after WWII when a dramatic and sudden (almost overnight) change from 6 volt to 12 volt forced modelers to either get new locomotives or remotor. And although nonscale thickness of truck sideframes that Wayne mentions is not an NMRA standards issue, I think we'll be seeing changes there too. It will be driven by the wheels and more modelers wanting to avoid that visual mis match.
It seems hard to believe now but there were howls of opposition to the NMRA's RP25 wheel contour and that was (and remains) just an RP not a standard. And when the Japanese brass manufacturers starting making locomotives with a thinner wheel profile than NMRA standards there were all sorts of scholarly demonstrations in the NMRA magazine and elsewhere proving that the wheels would - had to -- fail on NMRA compliant track. And yet the bumblebee flew and continues to fly. Even then MR editor Linn Westcott mentioned in an editorial that the NMRA was insisting that the Japanese brass locomotive wheels could not work ---- but was ANYBODY really having problems? Obviously he was not. He was enough of an NMRA advocate to add however that if wheels actually work then change the standards. That the NMRA would not do.
At my age I do not expect to be an active modeler when this happens, probably in the 2030s. But the forces are there and the trends are there. And unless the NMRA wants to be relegated to the dust of history I think they have to change the standards, which is going to be a ton of work.
Dave Nelson
I'm far more willing to trade less picky performance tolerances over true scale. Oversized couplers and wheels are more forgiving and I'm ok with that.
Plus it isn't like our trucks are even close to how the real ones operate in the first place. "Narrow wheel treads" seems oddly out of place when you take the balance into consideration.
I have far more important things to be concerned with on my railroad than whether the treads on my wheels are to scale or not. I think this one is about #892 on my list.