Topics

Kadee Trucks


rwitt_2000
 

Tim O'Connor wrote: "At a train club I belonged to, MANY cars with
Kadee wheels (mostly in non-Kadee sideframes) wore down the ends of the
axles to a round nub! In a high-use context, metal axles last longer...
But yeah, on a private low-mileage layout, it's probably not an issue."

======================================

Tim,

Were non-Kadee truck frames metal or plastic? Some of the problem of
wear may relate to what JP Barger noted in his presentations on truck
frames and wheel-sets that one wants metal axles in plastic truck frames
or the opposite. Kadee's older trucks always had plastic axles in metal
truck frames. It will be interesting to see how the new
plastic-on-plastic combination will perform long-term.

Bob Witt


Andy Harman
 

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:49:33 -0000, rwitt_2000 wrote
Tim O'Connor wrote: "At a train club I belonged to, MANY cars with
Kadee wheels (mostly in non-Kadee sideframes) wore down the ends of the
axles to a round nub!
I put Kadee wheelsets into various one-piece delrin trucks over the years. Athearn,
MDC, Walthers, Train Miniature etc. I don't know what the wear profile was but the
rolling quality was definitely inferior.

Funny, that AHM 6-dome car we were talking about... I looked at it last night and it
appears to have Kadee wheelsets stuck into ancient Athearn sprung trucks, or the AHM
equivalent - but most AHM cars I remember did not have sprung trucks.

It is interesting how we've come full circle from sprung, to one-piece, to some bad
attempts at non-sprung equalization, to sprung, to one-piece, and now Kadee's
functional, equalized new design. There was a time when a freight car truck was a
freight car truck, and I just tried to find one that would perform and didn't care if it
was the correct truck. Now I go blind looking at all of the un-branded delrin trucks I
have in my junkbox and try to figure out what they are and if I can use them.

Anybody remember a time - late 60s or early 70s - when Athearn was putting their
then-new delrin roller bearing truck in *every* kit, from their most modern to 40' box
cars to ice reefers? I've often wondered if they just ran out of their "Bettendorf"
trucks and didn't feel like making a run, or if the mold was down for repair or what. I
do still pull out Athearn cars from back then... like an SP steam era box car, and there
are those roller bearing trucks.

Andy


Tim O'Connor
 

Bob, they were plastic.

One thing you can do with plastic-plastic contact is put
graphite in the bearing. This is very easy with Neo-Lube which
is a paintable graphite. With metal-metal contact I sometimes
use moly-grease or a teflon-grease and this seems to mitigate
the squeaking that develops. In other cases I use Tichy nylon
bearings, especially for brass truck sideframes designed for
stubby (shouldered?) journals.

Tim O'

Tim O'Connor wrote: "At a train club I belonged to, MANY cars with
Kadee wheels (mostly in non-Kadee sideframes) wore down the ends of the
axles to a round nub! In a high-use context, metal axles last longer...
But yeah, on a private low-mileage layout, it's probably not an issue."

======================================

Tim,

Were non-Kadee truck frames metal or plastic? Some of the problem of
wear may relate to what JP Barger noted in his presentations on truck
frames and wheel-sets that one wants metal axles in plastic truck frames
or the opposite. Kadee's older trucks always had plastic axles in metal
truck frames. It will be interesting to see how the new
plastic-on-plastic combination will perform long-term.

Bob Witt


Andy Harman
 

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:27:01 -0400, Tim O'Connor wrote
is a paintable graphite. With metal-metal contact I sometimes
use moly-grease or a teflon-grease and this seems to mitigate
the squeaking that develops.
Whenever I have metal to metal, I use Labelle 102 which is called "gear oil". It's
considerably thicker than 107 or 108. Typically a car lubed with 108 starts squeaking
again in 15 minutes (particularly Walthers passenger cars). The ones I lubed with 102, I
haven't had to re-lube after several years of both running and sitting.

Andy


Mike Fleming
 

I use Kadee wheelsets exclusively and about 90% on the stock trucks. I use a truck tuner to clean out and shape the pocket on the trucks and I have found that the ride quality improves and I have never had an axle or truck frame failure.
The caveat is that if I am using the truck tuner on a bunch of cars at once it really aggrivates the arthritis in my thumb.

Mike Fleming
Superintendent, Bluff City Div. SER, NMRA
President Emeritus, Memphis Society of Model Railroaders
Vice President, Memphis Railroad and Trolley Museum Model Railroad Club, a 100% NMRA Member Club

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@comcast.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Kadee Trucks
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:27:01 -0400


Bob, they were plastic.

One thing you can do with plastic-plastic contact is put
graphite in the bearing. This is very easy with Neo-Lube which
is a paintable graphite. With metal-metal contact I sometimes
use moly-grease or a teflon-grease and this seems to mitigate
the squeaking that develops. In other cases I use Tichy nylon
bearings, especially for brass truck sideframes designed for
stubby (shouldered?) journals.

Tim O'

Tim O'Connor wrote: "At a train club I belonged to, MANY cars with
Kadee wheels (mostly in non-Kadee sideframes) wore down the ends of the
axles to a round nub! In a high-use context, metal axles last longer...
But yeah, on a private low-mileage layout, it's probably not an issue."

======================================

Tim,

Were non-Kadee truck frames metal or plastic? Some of the problem of
wear may relate to what JP Barger noted in his presentations on truck
frames and wheel-sets that one wants metal axles in plastic truck frames
or the opposite. Kadee's older trucks always had plastic axles in metal
truck frames. It will be interesting to see how the new
plastic-on-plastic combination will perform long-term.

Bob Witt


dennyanspach <danspach@...>
 

I have had, and have been using Kadee's 0.088" tread wheel sets for about six months. They look good -even great- and roll well, especially so in their new trucks (not surprising, perhaps!). As expected, the quality control is superb.

How the plastic/plastic journal/bearing interface will wear in the long run is not yet in evidence; but, as pointed out, it probably would not be close to a relevant issue for the vast majority of us. In any case, there would be no difference in this regard as compared to Kadee's standard wheel sets because they share the same axles.

In my rollability tests with the beautiful new Kadee Barber plain bearing trucks, both the Kadee and the Reboxx 0.088" tread replacement wheel sets (the latter with 1.020" axles) rolled only insignificantly better than the OEM standard wheel sets, not enough to make changes on that basis alone. With none of the tested wheel sets, however, did these Barber trucks roll beyond a mid-point "Acceptable/Good" level, a point just beyond half way to the "Superior" level of rollability achieved by a number of other contemporary trucks- most with replacement wheel sets.

A similar test (less the Kadee 0.088" wheel sets) with the equally new Barber S3 roller bearing trucks demonstrated about a 50% increase in rollability with Reboxx 1.025" wheel sets as compared to the OEM sets.

Denny

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


brianleppert@att.net
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, cobrapsl@... wrote:

Thanks Brian, I will now be forever confused as to weather I need a Proto 2000 Type B, or a Kadee Type B-1 under my models requiring that type truck!!
Paul Lyons
OK Paul, for you and other truck-challenged modelers <grin>, here's some applications for National Malleable & Steel Castings Co's "B" trucks on 40' steel box cars.

1937 AAR 10' IH Box Cars:

CN 472500-472799 blt 1937-38 Type B
477350-477649 blt 1939 Type B
485515-485764 blt 1944 B-1

ERIE 78000-78249 blt 1936 Type B
78500-78999 blt 1940 Type B

T&P 40000-40499 blt 1937 Type B


1937 AAR Modified Box Cars:

ATSF Bx-34 some blt 1940 B-1
Bx-37 some blt 1941-42 B-1

CB&Q 33750-33827 blt 1942 B-1
34000-34171 blt 1942 B-1

ERIE 80000-80199 blt 1941 Type B

IC 17800-17999 blt 1939 Type B
18800-18999 blt 1939 Type B
19300-19499 blt 1940 Type B

NP 27350-27499 blt 1942 B-1
27500-27999 blt 1942 B-1


Post-War Box Cars:

DL&W 52500-52999 blt 12-48 B-1

ERIE 82000-82499 blt 10-45 B-1


Sunshine offers a mini-kit for the IC box cars. Cudahy's 36' meat reefer, also from Sunshine, can use the B-1 truck, depending on built date.

Athearn did a pretty good rendition of the B-1. However, their brake shoes sat too high above the railhead and Athearn choose not to market the trucks separately.

As kind of a truck nut myself, I sure do welcome Kadee's new truck.

Brian Leppert
Tahoe Model Works
Carson City, NV


-----Original Message-----
From: brianleppert@... <brianleppert@...>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, Apr 13, 2011 5:27 pm
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Kadee Trucks

The P2K and Kadee trucks are two different prototypes.

P2K's model represents the National Type B. This was introduced in the early 1930s and produced until about 1940. It was superceded by National's Type B-1.

This change took place about 1940-1942. Santa Fe's Rr-29 reefers were built mid-1940 with B-1s, but I think that there were other cars delivered after that still with plain Type Bs.

The major spotting difference is the bolster end. The later B-1 had the bottom of the bolster end parallel with the top. On the earlier Type B, the sides of the bolster end tapered up towards the top.

Other differences included side frame shape, beading and, on the B-1, "Dual Control" features.

In the CBCs, National calls their newer truck a "B-1", but the raised lettering on the prototype side frames can be "Type B-1".

Athearn made a B-1. Kadee's new truck is the Unit Truck version of the B-1.

So both P2K and Kadee trucks will be usable under the proper cars.

Brian Leppert
Tahoe Model Works
Carson City, NV


Tim O'Connor
 

Denny, are you testing the trucks with or without a car on top
of them? I only test trucks with cars, and my measurements with
the Kadee HGC trucks puts them only very slightly behind Tahoe
trucks, and superior to most other truck/wheelset combinations.

The weight of a car makes a very big difference, in my experience.

Tim O'Connor

In my rollability tests with the beautiful new Kadee Barber plain bearing trucks, both the Kadee and the Reboxx 0.088" tread replacement wheel sets (the latter with 1.020" axles) rolled only insignificantly better than the OEM standard wheel sets, not enough to make changes on that basis alone. With none of the tested wheel sets, however, did these Barber trucks roll beyond a mid-point "Acceptable/Good" level, a point just beyond half way to the "Superior" level of rollability achieved by a number of other contemporary trucks- most with replacement wheel sets.

A similar test (less the Kadee 0.088" wheel sets) with the equally new Barber S3 roller bearing trucks demonstrated about a 50% increase in rollability with Reboxx 1.025" wheel sets as compared to the OEM sets.

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


dennyanspach <danspach@...>
 

Tim O'C inquires about the effect of weight on truck rolling test data.

I do not routinely test truck rollability with/without weights, although I do so on occasion. My reason for not doing so is that I use the test data to conveniently guide my choices of wheel sets going forward (not excluding leaving OEM alone!) without having to parse out with testing anew with each install the usual small inherent differences resulting from both variable weighting, but also rollability differences caused by the common variability between nominally-identical trucks. Sometimes the weight improves rollability, occasionally in dramatic fashion; while at other times, the same weight can all but stop a truck dead in its tracks. Most of the time, in real time, it makes no difference.

As to the new Kadee trucks, I did indeed test the Barber S3 with and without weight. The weight (a 1-oz. lead block balanced on the truck bolster) caused the rollability to improve, but ever so slightly- remaining still in the midst of the Acceptable/Good field. This was why it was not mentioned.

Denny

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


Tim O'Connor
 

Denny, a 1 oz load is about 1/2 the typical load of a freight
car. There are also rolling dynamics involved. And under load,
the shape of the bearing and journal, and the materials, makes
a big difference. Kato ASF A-3 trucks for example roll incredibly
well without a load, but as the load increases, the performance
is affected -- it's almost a straight-line correlation.

I roll test every car that I put together, or make ready for
operation. It takes a little time, maybe 20 minutes, to identify
the proper truck design for that model and then find a model truck
and wheelset combination that gives good results. It's makes no
difference to me how well a truck rolls "in theory".

For example, remember those old Lindbergh trucks? Those things
rolled like crazy, we thought they were miraculous in the 1960's.
Oh wait, until you put a car on them. Then your results may vary.

Tim O'Connor

Tim O'C inquires about the effect of weight on truck rolling test data.

I do not routinely test truck rollability with/without weights, although I do so on occasion. My reason for not doing so is that I use the test data to conveniently guide my choices of wheel sets going forward (not excluding leaving OEM alone!) without having to parse out with testing anew with each install the usual small inherent differences resulting from both variable weighting, but also rollability differences caused by the common variability between nominally-identical trucks. Sometimes the weight improves rollability, occasionally in dramatic fashion; while at other times, the same weight can all but stop a truck dead in its tracks. Most of the time, in real time, it makes no difference.

As to the new Kadee trucks, I did indeed test the Barber S3 with and without weight. The weight (a 1-oz. lead block balanced on the truck bolster) caused the rollability to improve, but ever so slightly- remaining still in the midst of the Acceptable/Good field. This was why it was not mentioned.

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


docdenny34 <danspach@...>
 

Tim, I cannot disagree with your own results and/nor your reasoning. However, perhaps i did not make clear that in my own experience over the years, the "theoretical" (your term) results recorded from the rolltester seem to broadly track observable real-time rollability under the car on the layout. This is not always, of course, but it is enough for me to use the recorded data as a reliable guide without the routine of additionally testing the results under a car.

The one oz. test load is not ideal, but most of the time it seems to be enough; and of course, it is simply additive to whatever the weight of the truck cum wheels might be- relatively little fora Tahoe or Accurail truck, relatively more for Kadee with their metal-bearing plastic frames. I don't routinely weight my cars to exact NMRA standards, but when challenged, the cars actually weigh out pretty close- mostl very slightly on the light side. No problems.

As for the Lindberg trucks, placing weight on them did, and does make them roll by themselves even on a flat surface. However, they also will -by themselves- roll uphill after replacement by Reboxx wheels- with or without weight.

Denny

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:


Denny, a 1 oz load is about 1/2 the typical load of a freight
car. There are also rolling dynamics involved. And under load,
the shape of the bearing and journal, and the materials, makes
a big difference. Kato ASF A-3 trucks for example roll incredibly
well without a load, but as the load increases, the performance
is affected -- it's almost a straight-line correlation.

I roll test every car that I put together, or make ready for
operation. It takes a little time, maybe 20 minutes, to identify
the proper truck design for that model and then find a model truck
and wheelset combination that gives good results. It's makes no
difference to me how well a truck rolls "in theory".

For example, remember those old Lindbergh trucks? Those things
rolled like crazy, we thought they were miraculous in the 1960's.
Oh wait, until you put a car on them. Then your results may vary.

Tim O'Connor




Tim O'C inquires about the effect of weight on truck rolling test data.

I do not routinely test truck rollability with/without weights, although I do so on occasion. My reason for not doing so is that I use the test data to conveniently guide my choices of wheel sets going forward (not excluding leaving OEM alone!) without having to parse out with testing anew with each install the usual small inherent differences resulting from both variable weighting, but also rollability differences caused by the common variability between nominally-identical trucks. Sometimes the weight improves rollability, occasionally in dramatic fashion; while at other times, the same weight can all but stop a truck dead in its tracks. Most of the time, in real time, it makes no difference.

As to the new Kadee trucks, I did indeed test the Barber S3 with and without weight. The weight (a 1-oz. lead block balanced on the truck bolster) caused the rollability to improve, but ever so slightly- remaining still in the midst of the Acceptable/Good field. This was why it was not mentioned.

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento