Date   

Re: Code 88 wheels?

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Dennis Storzek responds to my: What does twice the flangeway have to do with it?
with:

Everything! It defines the width of the wheel needed to bridge the gap
between the frog point and the wing rail with the wheel in the worst
possible location.
That's correct...as I pointed out next...although it's a roundabout way to get
there. IMO:

Nothing ...except to determine the length to the path traced by the wheel's
tread at some point on the heel side of the frog and for that, it is a convenient measure...

Forget the "length of the path..."
But, Dennis, I didn't say "length of path". I said "length TO the path" an entirely different dimension and the critical one...IMO.

Here is the actual formula for the wheel width W:


W = F + P + F/cos A

F is the flangeway the wheel is sitting at right angles to, the one
the flange is in.

Now, lets run the numbers for an NMRA S-3.2 number four frog:

A four? Geeez, just about the only one I didn't analyze. Couldn't you have picked something I did...like a #10<G>. Oh well...

W = .050 + .006 + .0515 = .1075, leaving .0025 of the Code 110 wheel
on the wing rail ASSUMING the frog point is only .006" wide at its tip.
Lessee. A number 4. 14�15'. 14.25�. Hmmm. Best case, the tread will be intersecting the wing rail at a point 0.091 on the heel side of the theoretical frog point. Worst case:

Using the method I prefer: Tan 14.15= ( 0.08-.02)/D; D=.06/.254=0.236. D-gap distance for the frog; 0.236-.203= 0.033; So, the tread will intersect the wing rail at a point .033 on the heel side of the theoretical frog point [ worst case being that shown in the NMRA S2 fig 2 drawing, back of wheel snug to the interior wing rail and that calculated by Dennis ]. At this point, the frog point is .0084 wide. The equation used by Dennis shows the line to the wing rail perpendicular to the wheel at a "blunt" frog point where it has a thickness of .006. This position is .0236 on the heel side of the theoretical frog point. If we now calculate from the Dennis data the point where the line first intersects the wing rail[ D ], we find that the additional distance is: Tan 14.25�= 0.254= .0025/D; D=.0025/0.254=.0098. Adding this distance to the distance from the theoretical frog point to the point where the .006 thickness exists...+ .0098 + .0236 = 0.0334 to the heel side of the theoretical point of the frog...which is precisely where my method indicates the wheel will be when its tread strikes the wing rail.

The method used by Dennis shows the tread as it rests...or doesn't rest...on the wing rail at a specific point on the frog. In the example shown by Dennis, this is at a point .0236 on the heel side of the frog. That is perfectly correct. However, I prefer to know at what position on the frog...or off of it...where the tread first finds support by the wing rail. I also want to know how far into the "gap" this position is....if it is. The method I prefer is also perfectly correct. I also prefer to look at a best case as well as worst case.

S2 works just fine as a
rule...or does it? We would conclude from it that the Code 88T wheel
will
not perform adequately on track built to S-3.2 standards.

With this I agree.


An important aspect of this issue is just where the flange will be
positioned in the flangeway when it encounters the frog. My original
analysis placed
the "front" of the flange in contact with the frog rail and not the
back of
the flange snug to the wing rail between the
wheels. Is this possible? Actually, I don't think so now...

This, right here, is what you and everyone who says "they work fine
for me..." is missing. They work so long as the flange is snug against
the gauge face. HOWEVER, NMRA S-3.2 allows .023" of gauge widening on
the diverging (curved) route to help those 4-12-2's you run get
through.
I don't widen the gauge. Actually, as I showed, the Code 88T wheels that I tested WILL work on a standard non widened flange on a diverging track. Although the flange still cannot be snug to the frog...I pointed out that the Code 88T I have can reach to .006 of the frog rail...which is close enough that the tread will still find support on the wing rail before losing support from the frog. Note that I premise this with the fact that the wheel will be forced as close to the frog as possible due to the curving diverging track.

When designing a system (and, track and wheels are a system, or should
be) one can't just design for the typical, or the convenient; one has
to design for the limits. The NMRA RP-25 Code 110 wheel meets the
design criteria for the limits of NMRA S-3.2 track. The Code 88 wheel
does not.
Brad Bradley couldn't have said it better. I am not convinced that the Code 88T wheel is a solution I prefer, I don't have enough experience with it. I would suggest anyone planning to use them significantly make certain their turnouts are proper.


so the solution
to any noisy or rough running frog is just to fill the flangeway to
within .025 of the railhead, and the problem is solved.
I think I'll let others do that. Building up flangeways is not my idea of recreation. Heck, it's probably less fun than analyzing frogs and wheels.

Mike Brock


Re: Underframes 101

Douglas Harding <d.harding@...>
 

A few years ago, I believe at a NMRA convention, Gene Green had an extensive
handout on freight car underframes for a clinic he did on Freight Car
Underframes. It was a large multi-page booklet actually. It is the only
thing I have seem that covers the subject of underframes. As I am not sure
where my copy is currently "filed" I cannot elaborate on the contents. But
it might be worth trying to secure a copy from Gene or someone.

Doug Harding
Iowa Central Railroad
http://d.harding.home.mchsi.com


Re: Code .088" wheels

Dennis Storzek <dstorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Denny Anspach <danspach@...> wrote:

Dennis and Tim alluded to filling the frogs to .025" clearance. I
have filled a few frogs in this way using lightweight sculptor's
epoxy. I then cleared out the flangeways to depth with a short
segment of a hacksaw blade (the set of the teeth just about matches
the flangeway width).

After doing a few, I stopped, inasmuch as I perceive no difference
whatsoever in operations- probably at least in part for the reasons
that Dennis outlines.

Denny

Thanks. The real value of all this is when, after watching all those
six wheel Pullman trucks fitted with .088 wide wheels glide through
your turnouts, the two wheel pilot truck you just converted derails
every time, you'll have some inkling as to what is wrong, and how to
fix it.

Dennis


Re: Code .088" wheels

Rich Ramik <rjramik@...>
 

Denny:



How many teeth per inch is the hacksaw blade?



Thanks,

Rich Ramik





_____

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Denny Anspach
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 7:59 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Code .088" wheels



Mike and Dennis: the two of you are amazing, and it is exactly this
type of reasoned erudite dialogue that in the end advances the
science of this hobby a few more notches for all of us.

Dennis and Tim alluded to filling the frogs to .025" clearance. I
have filled a few frogs in this way using lightweight sculptor's
epoxy. I then cleared out the flangeways to depth with a short
segment of a hacksaw blade (the set of the teeth just about matches
the flangeway width).

After doing a few, I stopped, inasmuch as I perceive no difference
whatsoever in operations- probably at least in part for the reasons
that Dennis outlines.

Denny
--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento, California



_____


Re: Code .088" wheels

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

Mike and Dennis: the two of you are amazing, and it is exactly this type of reasoned erudite dialogue that in the end advances the science of this hobby a few more notches for all of us.

Dennis and Tim alluded to filling the frogs to .025" clearance. I have filled a few frogs in this way using lightweight sculptor's epoxy. I then cleared out the flangeways to depth with a short segment of a hacksaw blade (the set of the teeth just about matches the flangeway width).

After doing a few, I stopped, inasmuch as I perceive no difference whatsoever in operations- probably at least in part for the reasons that Dennis outlines.

Denny
--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento, California


Underframes 101

armprem
 

Tim and Dave,I think we all live with some compromises,be it the "three foot rule " or selective compression.If you were to do otherwise you might not have time or space to model every detail.Rule # one on my layout is ,"leave your magni focusers as the door".We all tend to model what we see.One school would say if you can't see it ,why model it?Some of us get satisfaction just knowing that it is there.Armand Premo


Re: Underframes 101 Was: RE: Databases starting with models

Greg Martin
 

Hey back at you Marty and all...

I've always believed that N Scalers have a greater struggle at times getting it as close to realistic as other modelers because they have less support from after market parts makers, but it is changing... KUDOs to N Scalers, more accuracy in less space!

I like your approach on the review with the M-T trains X29, you did a good thing here, as well as having Andy support your efforts.

The issue I was raising was more on the issue of this data base we are pondering, what an endeavor. Most of he work for the PRR modeler is done with the gracious help from Ben Hom. I pointed out the mistake on the underframe in Cocoa Beach to Ben (and Ted) with one of Ted's cars (I believe the one he used in his article) and the underframe is a mix matched beast of sort. The car has two stringers to either side of the center sill and on the as built cars should only have one. Then beyond the bolster the diagonal braces represent the car as built as the twin stringers should continue to the end of the car "As Re-Built" beginning in the mid 1950s. The easy fix is to remove the diagonal and add back the the strings and live with a "re-built" cars. OR do as my brother has and "hog-out" the area between the cross bearers and braces and replace the floor boards, correct the stringers to a single. We are not sure how many cars were actually rebuilt but there were many I would say. Now how do you include this in the data base? I am sure Ben will or has now at least he knows the difference. But where does one draw the line of correct or not correct? And when it comes to underframes who cares?

Greg Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: mjmcguirk@cox.net
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:00:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Re: Underframes 101 Was: RE: [STMFC] Databases starting with models


Hi Greg,

The example I gave was not a situation where the underframe was slightly
modified - the underframe, especially the crossbearers and bolsters, are
different, to say the least, on an X 29 than a PS-1. Despite that, Micro-Trains
uses the PS-1 underframe on its "X-29/ARA Boxcar" --I pointed that out, along
with some other fairly significant errors on the model (roof, doors, rivet
pattern, etc . . .), in a review I wrote while I was on the MR staff...


Re: Underframes 101 Was: RE: Databases starting with models

George Hollwedel <georgeloop1338@...>
 

Marty etal,

I sure glad there are more than one N Scale modeler out there who cares!

George Hollwedel
Prototype N Scale Models

mjmcguirk@cox.net wrote:

I was promptly called on the carpet by the publisher -- who took the attitude that "It's N scale, and so small no >one would be able to tell -- besides they (N scalers, I guess) don't care." Dave's note tells me at least one N >scaler DOES care.
Marty McGuirk





George Hollwedel
Prototype N Scale Models
georgeloop@austin.rr.com
310 Loma Verde Street
Buda, TX 78610-9785
512-796-6883

---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


Re: Underframes 101

David Smith <dsmith@...>
 

Three foot rule? Does that mean you don't have to model what you can't
see it if you're more than three feet away, or what you can't see it if
you're more than three feet tall? Either one could seem to apply to
underframes ;-)

Dave Smith



Tim,How about brake rods and other underbody detail, or do you
abide by
the "three foot rule"?Armand Premo


Re: Underframes 101 Was: RE: Databases starting with models

mjmcguirk@...
 

Hi Greg,

The example I gave was not a situation where the underframe was slightly modified - the underframe, especially the crossbearers and bolsters, are different, to say the least, on an X 29 than a PS-1. Despite that, Micro-Trains uses the PS-1 underframe on its "X-29/ARA Boxcar" --I pointed that out, along with some other fairly significant errors on the model (roof, doors, rivet pattern, etc . . .), in a review I wrote while I was on the MR staff.

I was promptly called on the carpet by the publisher -- who took the attitude that "It's N scale, and so small no one would be able to tell -- besides they (N scalers, I guess) don't care." Dave's note tells me at least one N scaler DOES care.

To his credit, Andy took a look at the car, a look at the prototype information, and came to the same conclusions so we the review ran as I wrote it. It's somewhat historical since it remains the only critical review of a Micro-Trains car that I've ever seen, ever . . . the rest of this group of primarily HO scalers likely skipped it, but I'm sure Charlie Vlk read it . . .

That said, I think the issues with the M-T car were a little different than a situation with a slight variations in the underframe compared with a paint scheme.

Honestly, the example you gave wouldn't bother me (YMMV, of course). I find it akin to using a "Stock" underframe for a 6-foot door car on a car with a 7- or 8- foot door. I don't think that's such a big deal if, to save money, a manufacturer tools only one underframe to use with several door sizes. I'd rather see the resources required to do separate underframes put into different doors, ends, or sides. but something as distinctive as the big, heavy bolsters on the X29 deserve to be captured -- even in N scale. Luckily, the Red Caboose X-29/ARA car(s) make the issue a moot point for N scalers that are "in the know."

Marty McGuirk


From: tgregmrtn@aol.com
Date: 2006/03/30 Thu PM 03:18:31 EST
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Underframes 101 Was: RE: [STMFC] Databases starting with models


Re: Underframes 101

Tim O'Connor
 

Armand

I put that stuff on my models, but I'm sure that a lot of it is
wrong. If you go to a Jack Spencer clinic at Naperville, you
can see what is involved in trying to nail down every last
detail of the underframe and brake rigging. I'm sure I'm not
using the correct levers, slack adjusters, brackets, connectors
etc etc in most cases. I just want it to be visible in a profile
view. I usually add it to fishbelly gons and flats too, even
though you can't see it from anywhere except upside down.
Richard Hendrickson uses giant screws to attach his draft
gear, for Heaven's sake! :-) So we all make compromises.
... except for Jack...

Tim O.

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "A. Premo" <armprem@surfglobal.net>
Tim,How about brake rods and other underbody detail, or do you abide
by the "three foot rule"?Armand Premo


Re: Underframes 101

armprem
 

Tim,How about brake rods and other underbody detail, or do you abide by the "three foot rule"?Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: <timboconnor@comcast.net>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 3:28 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Underframes 101



Underframes are the #1 cause of ulcers with ultrapersnickitey modelers
(not me, at least not always) because so MANY models have errors and/
or omissions. This includes Kadee, Sunshine, and other "gold standard"
models. But unless the car derails and rolls over, who's gonna know?

Should we adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to underframes?

Tim O.

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: tgregmrtn@aol.com

... does it count if the car has the wrong paint scheme on a car because
the car has the wrong underframe attached to the model..... This is why
trying to do this is very difficult AT BEST.


Yahoo! Groups Links









--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 3/24/2006


Re: Code 88 wheels?

Tim O'Connor
 

Dennis, I first encountered this technique at the Nashua Valley club in
Bolton MA. They did what the NMRA recommends you DON'T do -- they
used the NMRA RP-2 track gage as a tool -- You fill the frog will solder,
and then gouge it out with the tool, creating flangeways. It eventually
ruins the tool but it definitely works! There is a five way switch at the
yard throat on that layout that has worked perfectly for 20+ years...

Tim O.

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Dennis Storzek" <dstorzek@elnet.com>

There is a simple way to deal with this .... fill the bottom of the
flangeway to a depth that allowed the wheel to roll on the tip of
the flange.


Re: Code 88 wheels?

Dennis Storzek <dstorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Brock" <brockm@...> wrote:

The NMRA Track & Wheel Relationship...S2, fig. 2...shows a line drawn
perpendicular to the line of travel of a wheel, the line drawn
through the
point of the frog intersecting with the wing rail. S2 states that the
distance of the line is approximately equal to that of twice the
flangeway
and the width of a wheel should exceed this [ for good operation]. I
believe
Dennis Storzek alluded to this concept. The drawing shows the back
of the
wheel snug against the wing rail interior to the wheel. This, I
think, is
derivation for the term "twice the flangeway". I mean, the only
thing we
really want to know is, where will the tread find the wing rail for
support...while the wheel has support from the frog or after the wheel
passes into the gap between the point of the frog and the closure
rail/wing
rail bend point. What does twice the flangeway have to do with it?
Nothing...

Everything! It defines the width of the wheel needed to bridge the gap
between the frog point and the wing rail with the wheel in the worst
possible location.


...except to determine the length to the path traced by the wheel's
tread and for that, it is a convenient measure...

Forget the "length of the path..." If you have a six foot wide ditch
to cross, you want to know how long a plank you need, not how far you
have to go to get it. Here is the actual formula for the wheel width W:

W = F + P + F/cos A

F is the flangeway the wheel is sitting at right angles to, the one
the flange is in.

P is the thickness of the frog point at the place it ends and stops
supporting the wheel. This is the dimension the NMRA standard should,
but doesn't, include.

F/ cos A is the width of the other flangeway corrected for the angle
it has to be crossed, which is the same as the angle of the frog. In
practical terms it doesn't need to be calculated; in the worst case, a
number four frog which has an angle of appx. 14 degrees IIRC it only
adds .0015 in HO scale.

Here's the numbers for the prototype, assuming a number four frog:

W = 2 + .5 + 2/.97 = 4.562"

Prototype AAR wheels are a minimum of 5 3/8" wide (5 1/2 +/- 1/8")
leaving more than 3/4" of tread bearing on the wing rail where the
frog point ends.

Now, lets run the numbers for an NMRA S-3.2 number four frog:

W = .050 + .006 + .0515 = .1075, leaving .0025 of the Code 110 wheel
on the wing rail ASSUMING the frog point is only .006" wide at its tip.


S2 works just fine as a
rule...or does it? We would conclude from it that the Code 88T wheel
will
not perform adequately on track built to S-3.2 standards.

With this I agree.


An important aspect of this issue is just where the flange will be
positioned in the flangeway when it encounters the frog. My original
analysis placed
the "front" of the flange in contact with the frog rail and not the
back of
the flange snug to the wing rail between the
wheels. Is this possible? Actually, I don't think so now...

This, right here, is what you and everyone who says "they work fine
for me..." is missing. They work so long as the flange is snug against
the gauge face. HOWEVER, NMRA S-3.2 allows .023" of gauge widening on
the diverging (curved) route to help those 4-12-2's you run get
through. When the gauge is so widened, and almost all commercial
turnouts are, the wheel back will be right at the opposite wing rail.
When designing a system (and, track and wheels are a system, or should
be) one can't just design for the typical, or the convenient; one has
to design for the limits. The NMRA RP-25 Code 110 wheel meets the
design criteria for the limits of NMRA S-3.2 track. The Code 88 wheel
does not.

There is a simple way to deal with this, however, that the NMRA never
availed itself of. Prototype street railways typically tried to use
wheels narrower than 2X the flangeway; the overhanging tread tended to
chew up the pavement and was liable to chip. Their solution was to
fill the bottom of the flangeway to a depth that allowed the wheel to
roll on the tip of the flange. Prototype "steam" railroads didn't do
this, because the great weights involved would break the flanges, but
that isn't an issue with our models. What was an issue to the NMRA was
having to maintain backward compatibility for all those deep flanges
that used to be NMRA standard under older issues of NMRA S-4. This
shouldn't be a problem for today's prototype modeler, so the solution
to any noisy or rough running frog is just to fill the flangeway to
within .025 of the railhead, and the problem is solved. In this
respect Intermountain and Reboxx have done us a favor with their
non-NMRA RP-25 .088" wide "semi-scale" wheels, because the true NMRA
Code 88 wheel has flanges .002 shallower than the Code 110 wheel, and
either one will drop, or the other bump. Having all the flanges the
same depth makes "flange bearing" frogs possible.

There is another advantage to the large flanges on the "semi-scale"
wheels; they can be mounted at the NMRA S-4.2 standard back-to-back
dimension of .566 +.008 / -000" This puts the outer faces of the .088"
wide wheels almost exactly where they really belong; all the extra
flange is inside the gauge line. The .088" wide wheels mounted this
way are just .003" wider than the older AAR standard wheels and
exactly correct for the modern AAR wide flange wheels. This makes
modeling scale width trucks with completely modeled journal boxes
entirely possible without having to resort to P:87 wheel and track
standards. In contrast, the NMRA HO Fine standard in newly published
NMRA S-3.1 envisions the RP-25 Code 88 wheels mounted with a .581"
back-to-back dimension, which widens them out a scale inch and a half.

I'd personally rather have the scale dimension across the fronts of
the wheels.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Underframes 101

Tim O'Connor
 

Underframes are the #1 cause of ulcers with ultrapersnickitey modelers
(not me, at least not always) because so MANY models have errors and/
or omissions. This includes Kadee, Sunshine, and other "gold standard"
models. But unless the car derails and rolls over, who's gonna know?

Should we adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to underframes?

Tim O.

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: tgregmrtn@aol.com

... does it count if the car has the wrong paint scheme on a car because
the car has the wrong underframe attached to the model..... This is why
trying to do this is very difficult AT BEST.


Re: Underframes 101 Was: RE: Databases starting with models

Greg Martin
 

My question is does it count if the car has the wrong paint scheme on a car because the car has the wrong underframe attached to the model, say for instance the 40-foot Bowser Round roof cars??? The Circle Keystone paint scheme is actually inappropriate for the car as is because the car represents a car that has had it's underframe modified--- almost---! The car should not be shown with anything other than the Shadow Keystone or later, but again the underframe is only close-- not quite-- correct... need attention even as is. This is why trying to do this is very difficult AT BEST.

Greg Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: David Smith <dsmith@davinci-center.org>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:22:19 -0500
Subject: Underframes 101 Was: RE: [STMFC] Databases starting with models


Which makes me acutely aware that I wouldn't know if a car had the
wrong underframe or not. I looked up and found images of the ARA and
Duryea underframes on the NEB&W site, and a PS-1 detail part. I can
tell the PS-1 from the others, but although I can see the differences in
the springs between Duryea and ARA, I can't tell from the builders
photos what the major spotting feature would be on a car sitting upright
on the rails or on a model in the box. Is there a primer somewhere?
Apologies in advance if this was in the archives and I missed it.

Dave Smith


Marty wrote:



Most N scalers seem far more concerned with being able to read
microscopic print than with real gaffs like the wrong roof, a PS-1
underframe, and an incorrect rivet pattern on an "X-29/ARA box" (or
whatever the hell MicroTrains is calling that thing now.)








Yahoo! Groups Links


SF Bay Area RPM event - April 30, 2006

Rob Sarberenyi <espeef5@...>
 

You are invited to attend the 3rd annual Bay Area Prototype Modelers (BAPM)
event on Sunday, April 30, 2006, from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM at the spacious
Marriott Hotel in Fremont, California.

This Railroad Prototype Modeler (RPM) event is open to model railroaders of
all roads, scales, and eras. Finished models, along with those still
in-progress, are encouraged and welcome for display.

BAPM 2006 features:
* More than 3,700 sq. ft. of display space... over 3 times last year's!
* Hundreds of detailed models on display
* Four in-depth clinics (see schedule below)
* Free-mo modular layout display (to learn more about Free-mo visit
http://www.free-mo.org/)
* Manufacturers on-site with displays and merchandise for sale
* Raffle for great prizes from Major Model Railroad Manufacturers and local
hobby shops (see website for sponsors list)

Clinic schedule:
11:30 - 12:00 -- "Flares": Modeling SP's EMD SD45s, by Elizabeth Allen
12:00 - 1:30 -- Lunch break
1:30 - 2:00 -- Modeling Western Pacific Covered Hoppers, by Thom Anderson
2:15 - 3:00 -- Pennsy Modeling without Brain Damage, by Tony Thompson
3:15 - 4:00 -- Building Urethane Resin Kits, by Gene Fusco, Rail Yard Models

When: Sunday, April 30, 2006
10:00 AM - 5:00 PM

Where: Fremont Marriott Hotel
46100 Landing Parkway
Fremont CA 94538
Phone: (510) 413-3700
http://www.fremontmarriott.com
Hotel Reservations: 1-800-228-9290

A special hotel rate of $74 per night (per room, NOT per person) is
available by contacting the Marriott. Make sure to request reservation code
"BAYBAYA".

BAPM Admission: $20.00, or only $18.00 when you bring at least one model to
display.

Pre-registration by April 25th is strongly encouraged and brings you the
following benefits:
1) Express check-in at the door
2) Name badge pre-printed (you don't get the "Hello, I'm _____ " badge)
3) Receive TWO free raffle tickets for prizes from major model railroad
manufacturers and local hobby shops!

Walk-in registrations are also welcome, however, two free raffle ticket
offer reserved for pre-registration only.

Additional raffle tickets will be available for sale at the event.

Visit our BAPM website for details and registration instructions
http://www.bayareaprototypemodelers.org

Questions or need more information? Please visit our website, or contact
me.

Rob Sarberenyi
espeef5@pacbell.net


2006 New England/Northeast Prototype Modelers Meet, June 2-3 (Friday and Saturday)

Dave Owens
 

Please excuse the cross-posting. And please forward this
to other list and folks who might be interested.
Thanks to all,
Dave Owens

2006 New England/Northeast

Prototype Modelers Meet

9 a.m. to 10 p.m., Friday and Saturday, June 2-3, 2006

Canton Community Center, 40 Dyer Ave., Collinsville, Connecticut

Meet cost: $20 in advance/$25 at the door

Tours of Branchline Trains on Thursday, June 1/Layout open houses on
Sunday, June 4

For information about the meet, directions or area lodging, contact
Dave Owens at neprotomeet@gmail.com or 860-233-0303

Two days of clinics, model displays, layout tours, slide shows
and camaraderie intended to teach you a few new modeling tricks and to
get you excited about doing some great model railroading. The most
important part of any prototype meet is the model display. All models
in all stages of completion are welcome. And there are no contests, so
don't be concerned you'll be held to some imaginary standard. Please
bring models to display. We've had hundreds of models on display each
year and we'd love to see your work.

The general schedule is clinics during the day and some slide shows in the
evening. As always, we're looking for people interesting in doing a
clinic or slide show. Please contact Dave Owens at
neprotomeet@gmail.com or 860-233-0303.

The ever-evolving list of speakers includes:
Mike Rose, a well-known modeler and magazine author, who will do a
hands-on clinic on making trees. A $5 fee gets the materials needed to
take home a tree. (Please pre-register for this clinic.)

Preston Cook will speak about "What's in Those Steam Locomotives," a
detailed examination of the parts on a steam locomotive.

George Barrett, of Sheepscot models whose clinics on vehicle modeling
have been favorites every year, will speak on "Bodies, Trailers and
Loads".

Mike Simonds will speak about wiring a locomotive for DCC and sound.

Steve Funaro, of Funaro & Camerlengo, will do a hands-on clinic on
resin kits. (There will be a small fee. Participants will receive a
car kit. Again pre-registration is requested.)

Ted Culotta, well known for his series "Essential Freight Cars," in
Railroad Model Craftsman.

Bill Schaumburg, editor of Railroad Model Craftsman magazine.

Pete McLachlan, a retired railroader who took a camera to work nearly
every day, will show slides about life on the New Haven.

John Orofino, an architect who will speak about structure modeling.

John Sacerdote will speak about hand-laying track.

Art Biehler has developed a clinic called "Transcontinental Passenger
Service on the New York Central in the Post War Era."

Others presenters include Jim Homoki, Dave Messer, Scott Mason, James
Koretsky, Tom Nanos, Bob Lamay, Tom Murray, Ramon Rhodes, Marty
McGuirk, Den Lippert and Neil Gage. More are being scheduled. Speakers
are subject to change without notice.

To register, please send the following information to the address listed below.


Name: __________________________ Email: _______________

Address:______________________________________________

Can you do a clinic? If so on what?________________________________
Scale interest: ______Road name interest: __________________________
To register, please fill out this form, detach and send it with a
check payable to NE Proto Meet to Fran Richard, 34 Ellsworth Road,
West Hartford, CT 06107.

Thanks,

Dave Owens


SP&S truss rod boxcars

lnbill <bwelch@...>
 

In scanning the Funaro & Camerlengo website I noticed they show a kit
for a SP&S truss rod underframed boxcar, their kit # 3704. I thought at
first this might be variation of their NP kits but the kit number leads
me to believe it is related to the GN's design. Since F&C has not done
any bogus offering that I am aware of, I assume there is a prototype. I
am wondering if anyone on the list knows anything about these cars on
the SP&S. Sources for photos would be great, as I have begun working on
a couple of articles for "Railroad Prototype Modeler" on both truss rod
boxcars and refrigerators.

Bill Welch


Re: Code 88 wheels?

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Marty McGuirk asks:

Call me curious, but is there another issue (operational) that's causing
you to spend time on this??) -- or is it simple idle curiousity???
To be honest, the reason IS curiosity. What is REALLY going on...and just
how much are we messing with potential problems? My late friend Brad Bradley
would likely be rather upset with using non-standard wheels on standard
trackwork...so, the least I can do is examine the environment. Actually, it seemed like a good idea...produce a wheel
with more narrow treads on the same Code 110 flange that
would still operate through frogs built to standards designed for Code 110 wheels.
Just how well these wheels would operate I didn't know.
At any rate...they are NOT Code 88 wheels...as defined by the NMRA RP-25. I
then tested some and found that they "dropped" a bit in my relatively large
number 10-12 frogs. A recent message regarding the Code 88T [ what I call
this bastardized wheel to differentiate from a true Code 88 wheel and, while I suppose the term "semi scale" will take hold because manufacturers use the term, it seems no better than "friction bearing" to me ], caused
me to investigate mathematically the operation of these wheels through
various frogs.

Taking another look, considering a point made by Dennis Storzek and doing more analysis, I believe the issue is more complex and variable than I originally concluded. Warning. What follows should not be read if you need to be awake.

I decided to plot frogs of 6,8, 10, 12 and angles of 1�, 80� and 89.9�. I also took Dennis Storzek's point regarding what is found in NMRA Standard S2 [ I believe ].

It looks like the Intermountain/Reboxx
"code 88" wheel is a Code 110 wheel with reduced tread size...even smaller
than that of a Code 88 wheel. That is, with a total width of 0.088", if the
wheel tread is simply reduced in size to produce the wheel size of 0.88",
the tread becomes 0.058"...as opposed to the true Code 88 of .063.


The NMRA Track & Wheel Relationship...S2, fig. 2...shows a line drawn perpendicular to the line of travel of a wheel, the line drawn through the point of the frog intersecting with the wing rail. S2 states that the distance of the line is approximately equal to that of twice the flangeway and the width of a wheel should exceed this [ for good operation]. I believe Dennis Storzek aluded to this concept. The drawing shows the back of the wheel snug against the wing rail interior to the wheel. This, I think, is derivation for the term "twice the flangeway". I mean, the only thing we really want to know is, where will the tread find the wing rail for support...while the wheel has support from the frog or after the wheel passes into the gap betweem the point of the frog and the closure rail/wing rail bend point. What does twice the flangeway have to do with it? Nothing...except to determine the length to the path traced by the wheel's tread and for that, it is a convenient measure. S2 works just fine as a rule...or does it? We would conclude from it that the Code 88T wheel will not perform adequately on track built to S-3.2 standards.

An important aspect of this issue is just where the flange will be
positioned in the flangeway when it encounters the frog. My original analysis placed
the "front" of the flange in contact with the frog rail and not the back of the flange snug to the wing rail between the
wheels. Is this possible? Actually, I don't think so now. Is the NMRA S2 drawing correct? Sometimes.
What really what happens in operation [ of our models ]? When wheels are
moving from the heel side of the frog toward the frog on a diverging track,
I find that S2
is NOT true either. My evidence shows that the wheel is forced as far as possible
toward the frog rail with space between the back of the wheel and the wing
rail. With apologies to the NMRA standards guys...that's what I see happening....on a single wheel, on a truck and, for certain with a 4-12-2 which tries mightily to rebuild the frog. So...just how close can the wheel get to the frog rail? The standards
call for a minimum distance of 0.566 between the backs of wheels. The
distance between the interior of flangeways is 0.564. Thus, one might assume
that there is only .002 of room for the wheel to move laterally. However,
the distance between wheel backs on the Code 88T wheels I have show 0.578
giving a lateral movement capability of 0.014. This will allow the wheel's
flange to move to within .006 of the frog rail. The Code 88T's tread of .058
is now moved back away from the wing rail by the .006 giving a distance
perpendicular to the diverging track of .052. The path tracked by the tread
will, therefore, intersect the wing rail of a #10 frog at a distance of
0.52" from the closure/wing rail point...which is .02" on the heel side of
the theoretical frog. Hence, no drop. However, if the wheel encounters a frog from a non-diverging track...hence, more or less straight track...the wheel might, indeed, be snug to the wing rail interior to it. In this case, the tread will track a path .038" from the frog rail on which the wheel is moving. The intercection to the wing rail occurs in the dreaded gap and the wheel will tend to drop. So...where does the wheel usually find itself with respect to the flangeway? I have no clue...except when traveling on the diverging track. Interestingly, NMRA S2, fig 1 shows a wheel snug to the frog...the configuration I used in my analysis before. However, for the Code 88T wheels I checked, I now don't believe this is possible.

What does it all mean? Simply that the Code 88T wheel will tend to drop sometimes...particularly on straight track through a turnout. As Dennis Storzek notes, the quality [ length ] of the frog plays a large role. The size of wheel also plays a role. A smaller wheel would exhibit more unpleasant tendencies compared to a larger one.

Mike Brock

133121 - 133140 of 186164