Date   

Re: wheels

Todd Sullivan
 

I've tried all the wheel types mentioned - 0.110", 0.088", PROTO:HO and Proto:87, and built limited amounts of track and turnouts on which to run the Proto styles.  Actually, correctly gauged track (straight and curved) supports all 4 types of wheels.  Turnouts, crossings, etc. are a different story due to the back-to-back dimensions of the Proto wheel sets and the necessary narrower flangeway and point dimensions to accommodate them. 

The best compromise that I settled on uses the 0.088" wheel sets and points that are set slightly wider than NMRA standards (resulting in a smaller gap between the point and stock rail).  Everything else about the turnouts are very carefully gauged to the NMRA gauges.  Photos attached - first photo is my point positioning and the second photo is P87 Stores' stock positioning.

Todd Sullivan.


Re: wheels

Tim O'Connor
 

Tony

Well, I know for a fact that anyone who disagrees with what I said is wrong. :-D

It is not based on theory - I have the cars, and I ran them for years on a real
layout. The trackwork was all hand laid and followed the NMRA gauges (those metal
tools). In fact George Bishop - who built many of the switches - used the gauges
as tools. He'd fill the frog and guard rails with solder and scour out the flangeways
with the NMRA tool! He built a 5-way switch at the yard throat that worked flawlessly
for many years and these cars had no problems with it.

A typical problem with turnouts and these wheels is that the wheel drops into the
frog gap because the flangeway is too deep and wide. With the gauge, the flange rides
on the flangeway while the tread rides on the rail. No dropping and no bouncing.

Tim



 You are right that PROTO-HO and PROTO-87 are not the same. And you may be right about "correct" trackwork. But if so, there are a lot of P87 and other folks who say that the flanges are NOT the problem, it's the over-generous NMRA trackwork clearances. I don't know enough myself to jump into this argument, just stating that I have discussed these points with apparently-knowledgeable people who would NOT agree with Tim.

Tony Thompson

--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


SP A-50-16 automobile cars

David
 

"Did other railroads change CLASS when special equipment was installed?"

Not quite the same thing, but Norfolk Southern reclassed their 40-ft double-door boxes from XAR1 to XM4 when the auto loaders were removed.

David Thompson


Re: wheels

Tony Thompson
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:

A PROTO:HO .064 tread will work just fine on NMRA standard trackwork. The problem is that
so many layouts have track that is sloppy. If you use the NMRA track gauge (especially for
guard rails and frogs) then, because the .064 PROTO:HO wheels use RP25 flanges, they will
work just fine. PROTO:HO and PROTO:87 are NOT the same, even though both use .064 tread
widths. The FLANGES are not the same, and therefore the back to back wheel spacing is not
the same.

   You are right that PROTO-HO and PROTO-87 are not the same. And you may be right about "correct" trackwork. But if so, there are a lot of P87 and other folks who say that the flanges are NOT the problem, it's the over-generous NMRA trackwork clearances. I don't know enough myself to jump into this argument, just stating that I have discussed these points with apparently-knowledgeable people who would NOT agree with Tim.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history






Re: wheels

Tim O'Connor
 


Tony, that is incorrect.

A PROTO:HO .064 tread will work just fine on NMRA standard trackwork. The problem is that
so many layouts have track that is sloppy. If you use the NMRA track gauge (especially for
guard rails and frogs) then, because the .064 PROTO:HO wheels use RP25 flanges, they will
work just fine. PROTO:HO and PROTO:87 are NOT the same, even though both use .064 tread
widths. The FLANGES are not the same, and therefore the back to back wheel spacing is not
the same.

Tim O'Connor



In visual terms, this is correct, but there is another issue. The choice of the 0,088 tread width was really made as the smallest practical size that would also operate properly on NMRA trackwork. Anyone operating with 0.064 wheels will have to also rebuild (or replace with scratchbuilt) all trackwork to a scale standard. This standard exists, of course; it's called Proto87, and it looks magnificent. But it is NOT interchangeable with the trackwork we are used to.

Tony Thompson 

--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Re: wheels

Tim O'Connor
 

Colin

The only HO source I know is Northwest Short Line, but they use the old style
cone-point axles and don't offer the wide range of axle lengths of Reboxx. But
I have used them, and they do operate just fine on HO track that conforms to
NMRA trackwork standards. I ran my cars on a large club layout for several years.

I think the jargon is Proto:HO to describe these .063-.064 wheels. As opposed
to P:87 which is scaled down prototype profile.

Tim O'Connor



I would like to see .64 wheels produced in a cost effective way and then we can match
the realism of our wheels with all the etched metal parts we put on our cars.
Colin Meikle

--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Re: SP A-50-16 automobile cars

Tim O'Connor
 


Here is part of a page from the 1959 ORER showing many groups of 40 and 50 foot
box cars in XAP assignments. I know some of these are A-50-16's. I have a 1967
photo of SP 640217 (not shown on this page) which was an A-50-16. As you can see
only one entry is new, so as Tony pointed out this had been going on for a few
years already.

The Southern Pacific renumbering into the 600000's for special box car
assignments resulted in some cars being renumbered more than once, and being
given more than one number.

Note that DF loaders were special too, so cars were not all XAPs. SP numbered
brand new loader equipped cars (DF, CarPac, etc) into the 600000's as well, and
this included the new RBL's (insulated box cars).

Cars not specially assigned or equipped would be put back into their original
number series.

Tim O'Connor


 Gene Green wrote:
  My question is about the cars from this series NOT listed as being equipped to handle automobile engines.  Are they just being used as ordinary box cars by April 1950?  Would their class no longer be A-50-16?  Does anyone know what was SP's actual practice in using the cars NOT equipped to handle automobile engines?


  Todd Sullivan has already answered this. I cannot think of a case where SP changed car CLASS  because of assignment or special equipment. After 1956, car NUMBERS were often changed to reflect assigned service pools, but CLASS remained the same. Did other railroads change CLASS when special equipment was installed?
 Tony Thompson

--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Re: wheels

Kemal Mumcu
 

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Tony Thompson wrote:
Kemal Mumcu wrote:

I would like to see .64 wheels produced in a cost effective way and then we can match the realism of our wheels with all the etched metal parts we put on our cars.

     In visual terms, this is correct, but there is another issue. The choice of the 0,088 tread width was really made as the smallest practical size that would also operate properly on NMRA trackwork. Anyone operating with 0.064 wheels will have to also rebuild (or replace with scratchbuilt) all trackwork to a scale standard. This standard exists, of course; it's called Proto87, and it looks magnificent. But it is NOT interchangeable with the trackwork we are used to.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history
 

You are correct Tony. This is also the path that P48 people tread. I've dabbled in P87, (I even converted recently my first steam engine to P87) but I feel I can't jump fully into P87 without more commercial support. The look of the finescales are beautiful but they require more dedication/money /tools/and time that even I'm not willing to invest in.

All that to say that after experimenting with P87 wheelsets, "semiscale" wheels look toylike in comparison.

Colin Meikle

 

 

 

 


Re: wheels

Tony Thompson
 

Kemal Mumcu wrote:

I would like to see .64 wheels produced in a cost effective way and then we can match the realism of our wheels with all the etched metal parts we put on our cars.

     In visual terms, this is correct, but there is another issue. The choice of the 0,088 tread width was really made as the smallest practical size that would also operate properly on NMRA trackwork. Anyone operating with 0.064 wheels will have to also rebuild (or replace with scratchbuilt) all trackwork to a scale standard. This standard exists, of course; it's called Proto87, and it looks magnificent. But it is NOT interchangeable with the trackwork we are used to.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history






Re: wheels

mopacfirst
 

That's the thing, there are lots of cars out there in my inventory, some I haven't seen for awhile.

Among the relatively few detail parts my LHS stocks are the Tahoe trucks (and the Kadee HGC trucks).  I buy some of them almost every time I come in, partly because I know I'll eventually upgrade a lot of the existing roster, and partly because I buy more because I know he'll restock.  I also know where the wheelsets in those trucks come from, because it's been discussed here, so I really don't care whether I buy the 100s or the 200s, because I also have an inventory of the .088 wheels from Intermountain.  For building new cars, I generally try to install the .088 wheels, and if I'm rehabbing a car that's come off the layout for some reason, I'll often change the wheelsets or the entire truck if I'm changing the couplers, which is my number one reason for upgrading or repairing a car.  This is primarily the replacement of #5s that don't center (say, in a Branchline draft gear box) with #58 whisker couplers in a new box.  If the trucks have to come off anyway, which is not always true, then I might as well upgrade the wheelsets also.

Or, there's the Athearn Airslide, which I have quite a few of because they were common in my area.  Beautiful cars, and even better with the Kohlberg decals, but Athearn's ancient truck.  Like lipstick on a pig, you can put nice wheelsets in it and it's still the old poorly detailed molding.  So I change them, but those truck screws, eeeccchhh!  I've even filed the kingpin hole a few thou larger to get a Tahoe truck to fit the Athearn deformed kingpin.  The coupler covers, even worse.  I use a small flat-blade screwdriver sometimes on those #0 or #00 Phillips head screws just to budge them.  I can usually drive them closed again with the right Phillips screwdriver, but I might still use the flat-blade on them just to see that they're properly tight.

For reference, I use the 88-safe frogs from Proto-87 stores in new construction.

Ron Merrick


Re: SP A-50-16 automobile cars

Gene Green <genegreen1942@...>
 

Thank you, Todd and Tony,
That was the sort of answer for which I was hoping.   I like the idea that a 50' double-door, box car could be used to haul a variety of loads.  

The only railroad about which I know anything at all is the M&StL which had 10 automobile cars, all used in exactly that service so far as I have been able to determine.  After the C&NW takeover, that might have changed.  I don't know.  The M&StL had, in the 1940s and 1950s about 3500 freight cars in interchange.  The M&StL had no car classes to my knowledge so, Tony, I can't answer your question.
Gene Green


Re: URTX 7567 Wood Refrigerator

gtws00
 

Great looking car Lester. Nice write up and tips on its construction in your blog.
Thanks for posting
George Toman


Re: wheels

Kemal Mumcu
 

I would like to see .64 wheels produced in a cost effective way and then we can match the realism of our wheels with all the etched metal parts we put on our cars.

Colin Meikle


Re: wheels

Lester Breuer
 

Jon a large fleet with the .110 wheels and a large inventory of the .110 to use.  Would be costly to change.  Currently, using the .088 on tank cars where quite visible.
Lester Breuer


Re: SP A-50-16 automobile cars

Tony Thompson
 

Gene Green wrote:

My question is about the cars from this series NOT listed as being equipped to handle automobile engines.  Are they just being used as ordinary box cars by April 1950?  Would their class no longer be A-50-16?  Does anyone know what was SP's actual practice in using the cars NOT equipped to handle automobile engines?

 Todd Sullivan has already answered this. I cannot think of a case where SP changed car CLASS  because of assignment or special equipment. After 1956, car NUMBERS were often changed to reflect assigned service pools, but CLASS remained the same. Did other railroads change CLASS when special equipment was installed?

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history






Re: wheels

James E Kubanick
 

I use the .088's on all new builds, but my overall fleet is too large for complete conversion. It will happen over time, however.

Jim Kubanick
Morgantown WV

On Sunday, September 23, 2018, 8:25:41 PM EDT, Jon Miller <atsfus@...> wrote:


    Not sure how to word this without sounding negative but it's not!  I'm just curious. All the work and extremely fine details  these various cars have they all seem to have .110 wheelsets.   Why not the .088?

-- 
Jon Miller
For me time stopped in 1941
Digitrax  Chief/Zephyr systems, 
SPROG, JMRI User
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS


Paints

Jon Miller <atsfus@...>
 

    I have been looking through all the Vallejo paint line.  They have a lot of washes and dirt paints.  Mostly colored for military vehicles like tanks.  Wonder if anyone has used any of these on underframes and various other places?  I did buy one, Vallejo Environment "mud and grass".  Looks really neat but not sure where to use it yet:-\!

-- 
Jon Miller
For me time stopped in 1941
Digitrax  Chief/Zephyr systems, 
SPROG, JMRI User
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS


wheels

Jon Miller <atsfus@...>
 

    Not sure how to word this without sounding negative but it's not!  I'm just curious. All the work and extremely fine details  these various cars have they all seem to have .110 wheelsets.   Why not the .088?

-- 
Jon Miller
For me time stopped in 1941
Digitrax  Chief/Zephyr systems, 
SPROG, JMRI User
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS


URTX 7567 Wood Refrigerator

Lester Breuer
 

Time to reduce the plastic inventory.   I chose URTX 7567, a 5th Avenue Car Shops/Accurail, wood refrigerator to upgrade to start.  Upgrade includes milling running board, installing wire grabs and ladder rungs and ice bunker drains.  Adding and improving  “B” end details.  The photos and writeup are on my blog I started to share photos and writeup of modeling projects on my Minneapolis & Northland Railroad Company.   If you would like to take a look please do at the following:

 

http://mnrailroadcab100.blogspot.com/

Lester Breuer

 


Re: SP A-50-16 automobile cars

Todd Sullivan
 

Hi Gene,

Most western railroads had lots of 50ft DD boxcars that were unequipped and unassigned to special service.  They were often used for lumber, especially plywood loading, due to the easy access through the double doors. On the SP and UP, the cars would retain their original class designations and would be stenciled with them.  Any special uses were noted in the ORER notes and on waybills. Only occasionally were cars stenciled for special equipment and uses, and I think most of the ones I saw were from eastern railroads.  This was true through into the early 1960s when I was a yard clerk.

Todd Sullivan.

26561 - 26580 of 185294