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


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


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


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


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


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






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

 

 

 

 


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


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


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






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


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.


Dennis Storzek
 

I recall that when Raul Martin of NWSL started producing RP25 Code 64 wheels for the P:87 crowd he also mounted some to the NMRA standard (not the P:87 standard) back to back in case someone was foolish enough to want to run them on NMRA standard track. They looked nice but ran poorly, dropping in frogs and derailing. Since these wheelsets were not to P:87 spec he needed another name and called them PROTO:HO. I liked that name and adopted it, with his permission, for our scale size Accumates, since couplers don't really have any dependence on track standards. At any rate the wheels are the same, the only difference was the spacing on the axle.

Saying that Code 64 wheels have RP25 flanges doesn't mean they are the same size as Code 220 wheel flanges, since RP25 has only ONE profile; the number designates the tire width, and all other dimensions are proportional.

Dennis Storzek


Jim Betz
 

  Proto is as proto does

  Most people - when they talk about "Proto" actually use "semi-scale" ...

  ... if you run your equipment on a 'less than perfect' layout (track) -or- the
track is 'commercial track' (any brand) -or- you aren't in control of all of the
equipment being used (standards) ... you -will- have operational difficulties
running "proto" anything (couplers, wheels, etc.).
  Yes - the old wheels and couplers we all know don't -look- as good as 
the proto stuff ... but they do operate better (less likely to derail, have
coupling problems, etc.). 

  If you are in total control of all of the equipment and the layout then you
can get them to operate well - or at least well enough to be willing to live
with them.
  If you are building for contests/display models only ... then you can do
what ever you want.
  Am I lobbying for pizza cutter wheels and code 100 track?  Of course
not.  I'm just saying that they operate more reliably.  Is 'semi-scale'
better looking than the older/larger?  Yes.

  My personal experience is that the proto stuff only operates with the
proto stuff (doesn't 'interchange' well with non-proto) ... and even then
it doesn't operate as well (i.e. with as few problems) as the non-proto.

  It's a Choice ... or maybe an obsession/religion?  ;-)
                                                                                                     - Jim

P.S. Oh yes, I forgot to mention that scale couplers are harder to see
       and therefor more difficult to uncouple.  Add in a bit of tremor and
       you see the 'need' for Proto differently.