NMRA Bone-headed move to RP25


Just to clarify the RP25 standard, it came about in the early 1960s, when all HO rail was code 100, and mostly brass. Back when flex track and some switches had fiber ties. RP25 wheels operate without issue on code 100, code 83, code 70 and code 55 rail. The code 110 designation is new, to designate the difference between Proto 87, (code 88) wheels used in fine scale modeling.

So while Proto 87 wheels look better and are closer to the size and contour of the prototype, they are not intended for operational models.(Although some fellows do operate with them. (I think Scale Rails Rivet Counter Series come with Proto 87 .088 wheels). RP25 wheels work so much better on operational railroads. Pizza Cutter NEM standard wheels were common on Rivarossi and other European manufacturers back in the 60s and 70s, but by the 80s, even they were migrating to RP25 standard for product sold in North America.

Personally, I operate RP25 wheels on most of my equipment, and I use code 70 rail. I have minimal tracking problems, except for a few sprung Roundhouse and Athearn trucks dating back before RP25 was accepted.

For What it's worth, it may be your track, or the talgo trucked cars.
 
I am not into NMRA rules but when I changed from N scale to HO scale, I also went with code 70 track. some track and turnouts are hand laid and the rest are Shinohara. I guess I mainly went with the code 70 was because of the grossly oversize rail in N scale. As I was putting my rolling stock together, all wheels were changed out to Kadee wheels. In more recent years I have also been using Internountain and Proto 2000 wheels also. I have have almost no derailments caused by these wheels. I have a few passenger cars with Central Valley trucks that apparently have the Proto 87 wheels on them and have had a few derailment with these cars. I could be caused because they are three axle trucks.
 
You guys do realize that you are commenting on a SEVEN YEAR OLD Thread?

I doubt the originator is still around?
 
Chet: FWIW, the Central Valley Trucks, at least the ones I have, were not made to the RP25 Standard. There was an article, recently - somewhere on the internet - where a fellow drilled out all the rivets, disposed of the old wheels, used the Micro Mark truck tool on the truck sides, added new 36" metal wheels, and tapped the rivet holes for screws. It's almost easier to buy some of the newer Walthers trucks and use them, but that requires a Mod also.

Sherrel: Good catch on the old thread. :rolleyes: I hardly ever look at the date. It did attract a lot of new attention though. Another thought, some of the same disinformation, never seems to go away, it just takes on a life of its own. When a new modeler sees this stuff, it creates a wrong impression.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its the subject matter, NOT the date of the posting that matters. And it is NOT necessary that it just be limited to responding strictly to the original posting.

I participate on a couple of other RR forums that have software running them that DO NOT allow one to return to particular postings like this one does. I find that really helpful things get lost in their 'history',...likely to NOT surface again....shame.

HISTORY MATTERS
 
Define RP25 wheels

What would you fellows think of this explanation??

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GDeg5wDi1Zd5Gz4QQFZ5Ssnu88WrqZeXq-2OHxcr8VM/edit

vmj2ix01EwZnu_Z5t7E7MTKbQRgHVbRlh8bpdEKjAw9C8EUbb96taFL_0tx_LEkPW51AVQ=w1200-h630-p
 
This might be a 7 year old thread, but there are many new members on the forum who might find this interesting Sherrel.

Garry - I'm not really worried about the old Central Valley trucks. These trucks were put under a couple of old Athrean Harriman passenger cars that I rarely use any more. the flanges are a lot more shalllow than RP25 wheels, a lot closer to being right to scale. It's probably easier to totally replace the trucks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
montanan said:
This might be a 7 year old thread, but there are many new members on the forum who might find this interesting Sherrel.

You’re right about that! I read through the entire thread last night, and found it to have a wealth of information. Glad it was brought to the surface again.
Click to expand...
 
montanan said:
It's pronanly easier to totally replace the trucks.
Click to expand...

Chet, What does PRONANLY mean, never seen this word before?

Are we going to stick with it being that the NMRA was Bone-headed to move to RP25? In today's model railroading world, everyone is clamoring for our trains to be more and more realistic. The old "Pizza Cutter Wheels" where neither more realistic; nor, better operating than RP 25 wheels are. (My opinion, of course)!

I can see that, If we wanted to discuss the depth of the flange-way at the frog, that might be a better cure for what can cause some of our derailing problems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Flangeways in our Turnouts

NP2626 said:
I can see that, If we wanted to discuss the depth of the flange-way at the frog, that might be a better cure for what can cause our derailing problems.
Click to expand...
Over the past 2 weeks I've done quite of bit of reading about what causes most of our problems with derailments in our turnouts. Naturally the flangeways are a major concern,....the depth and width of these flangeways.

I was going to start a new subject thread entitled "Flangeways in our Turnouts' where we might try to bring together a lot of this 'scattered' info/discussions/illustrations. Documentation I wanted to condense for myself, and might be helpful to new persons seeking a sort of central depository of such info.

I may yet do this, but for the moment I am trying to select a basic new layout plan for my train shed.

PS: From my readings thus far the depth of the flangeways is not as important as first believed, and a lot of these suggestions of having the wheel flanges supported by the turnout's 'bottom depths' is NOT such a great idea. And I could see real problems here with conductive metal shims that might be employed to assist with frog excitation under DCC operations
 
The depth of the flange-ways at the frog does cause a lot of dipping and wobbling of both locos and cars, this is very unrealistic in my opinion. Almost all of my turnouts are Atlas and Code 100. I have one Double (scissors) Cross-Over that was made by Shinohara, Code 100. I'm going to do a study of the depth of the flange-ways on the frogs of my layout and post my findings here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Almost all of my over 110 turnouts are Atlas code 100, and most if not all have deep flange-ways/high frogs. I make "V"-shaped spacers out of .020" styrene to insert at each frog on the #6's to prevent dipping.

Willie
 
My findings for the flange-way depth of some of the turnouts on my layout are as follows: For Atlas Code 100 Custom Line Turnouts I found by checking 11 turnouts that the depth of the flange-way of the frogs varied between .044 to .050 in depth. I measured one Atlas snap switch, with a plastic frog at .056 deep. My Shinohara Double (Scissors) Cross Over had 8 frogs on it and all measured .060 deep. So, what does this mean? Without knowing the depth of the flanges on my locomotives and rolling stock, nothing!

So the next step will be to take some measurements of flange depths.
 
I took 16 readings off of various manufactured wheel sets and found the flange depths to be consistently around .025 deep. Variation ran from .024 to .030, however, the .030 reading was taken from a Varney Docksider (Little Joe) which is possibly older than 60 years. So RP-25 is older than July of 2009, the latest revision.

Making a pad for the bottom of the frog flange-way that is .020 thick, per how Willie is doing it would seem the correct way to fix the dip into the frog that cars and locomotives do. My guess is that Atlas made this depth to handle the older cars and locomotives which had the old Pizza Cutter Flanges and never corrected the frog to fit the new standards. Nobody complained, so the squeaky wheel never got greased!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
beiland said:
I am trying to select a basic new layout plan for my train shed.
Click to expand...
Oh, I thought the train shed track plan was a pretty done deal.

I like the idea of a thread for data and statistics related to flangeways, point gaps, and the like. I don't know why this one wouldn't work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top