Flange-ways in our Turnouts

Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)

beiland

Active Member
#61
Ignoring Prototypical RR dimensions

I might suggest that there are a number of occasions where were we might just well ignore prototypical RR dimensions in our modeling pursuits.

One such case is in coupler sizes. Yes, there are makers of prototypical size couplers for our scale models, and while they look great, have you ever tried using them? Your track work has to be SO GOOD that there are NO unusual little dips. Your turnouts need to have no dips, your mounting of them on the cars has to be very precise,...etc, etc.

Personally I much prefer to utilize my good old reliable Kadees. And why would you think that MOST commercial manufactures stick with these 'oversize couplers',...reliability.

Same thing applies to our model RR size wheels. Seems most commercial manufactures of HO scale model train cars supply them in stock condition with .110" tread width wheels. Why, because in general they are the most reliable in general operating conditions.
That's what I am seeking,..reliable operation, no derailments (or very few).
 

Selector

Active Member
#62
I agree. Bottom line, if you're continually reaching toward your rolling stock attempting to correct even minor faults, your ardour for the hobby will soon cool. The trains HAVE TO work, and work reasonably reliably....with reliability near 98% or higher. The rest is one's willingness to suspend disbelief at what you see before you....ground throws about two scales too big, huge couplers, curved metal rods that stick out the bottoms of the couplers, stirrups on cars and engines that are also far too thick to be realistic, molded on details, and wheel treads that are near 13" wide when the real things are more like 4.5" wide, plus flange. They're just toys, and when toys don't work, they become junk.

The guys who did all that work researching, refining, and then promulgating the specs that make our hobby universally enjoyable should be thanked. They did good solid work, and that's why my trains work, even on other layouts.
 

NP2626

Active Member
#63
I might suggest that there are a number of occasions where were we might just well ignore prototypical RR dimensions in our modeling pursuits.

One such case is in coupler sizes. Yes, there are makers of prototypical size couplers for our scale models, and while they look great, have you ever tried using them? Your track work has to be SO GOOD that there are NO unusual little dips. Your turnouts need to have no dips, your mounting of them on the cars has to be very precise,...etc, etc.

Personally I much prefer to utilize my good old reliable Kadees. And why would you think that MOST commercial manufactures stick with these 'oversize couplers',...reliability.

Same thing applies to our model RR size wheels. Seems most commercial manufactures of HO scale model train cars supply them in stock condition with .110" tread width wheels. Why, because in general they are the most reliable in general operating conditions.
That's what I am seeking,..reliable operation, no derailments (or very few).
If this was directed at me and my research into various aspect of the Standards and Recommended Practices, it is misdirected! I might be one of the first people to tell you to not concern yourself with the fact that some things are not very scale like. After all it's a hobby that I am having fun with, a part of that fun is thinking about and investigating the things I want to investigate.
 

beiland

Active Member
#64
No Mark, my comment was not directed to anyone in particular. Just a general observation about enjoying model trains WITHOUT being a rivet counter.
 

NP2626

Active Member
#65
Beiland, I agree with you that people should be able enjoy model railroading if they don't want to be Rivet Counters. However, I also think that Rivet Counting is a part of the enjoyment for some people and I think that is fine, also. I don't have a problem with Rivet Counters, at least I don't until they start Counting my Rivets and tell me my rivets are wrong! Vice-Verses I don't want people telling me not to count my rivets.

To be honest with you beiland, I have read over all your posts to this thread and the previous thread entitled: NMRA Bone-headed move to RP25 . I've found I don't understand what it was that prompted you to start this thread. I don't think that the depth of the Flange-Ways at the frog was viewed as a problem by yourself. If you voiced what you did have problems with, I guess I missed where you discussed that. Possibly you simply wanted a central place where the videos and information you gathered about wheels and Flange-Ways was contained?

I have enjoyed this discussion and interesting information has come to light, because of this thread. So, I want to thank you for bring the subject up, even though I don't know why you did so!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

beiland

Active Member
#66
Out of Spec Wheelsets on new Loco

...excerpted from a Model Railroader forum posting... Thought it might be of interest...


I noticed all three of my Athearn RTR Gas Turbine Veranda locomotives bounced severely when crossing the #8 double slip switch and they caused frequent shorts on the frogs of the Peco insulfrog turnouts. I measured the width of the wheelsets and found all 14 axles on the locomotives/tenders were out of spec/narrow on all three locomotives/tenders. Internet research showed I wasn't the only person who noticed that problem. So I purchased an NSWL 'the puller' and adjusted the wheelsets/axles so they are within NMRA specification and now the locomotives/tenders run MUCH better.


Video of the Athearn Gas Turbine loco/tender bouncing across the #8 double slip switch:
[video=youtube_share;dUhwys24a1A]https://youtu.be/dUhwys24a1A[/video]
 

beiland

Active Member
#67
Wouldn't let me post 2 videos in one posting, so here is the 'after' video.

Video of the Athearn Gas Turbine loco/tender crossing the #8 double slip switch after fixing the wheelsets so they are in spec.
[video=youtube_share;uu5XQzy9m4o]https://youtu.be/uu5XQzy9m4o[/video]

Loong posting link
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/244850.aspx?page=11#3039445

also
The vast majority of turnouts are Peco Insulfrog: Code 100 Large in hidden areas and code 83 (#6 and #8) in visible areas.

The only non Peco turnouts are two Walthers code 83 #8 curved turnouts, one Walthers #8 double slip switch, and five Micro Engineering code 70 #6 turnouts.

The visible flex track is almost entirely Atlas code 83 and there is about 75 feet of Micro-engineering code 70.

The hidden flex track is a mix of Atlas code 100 and Peco code 100 (leftover from previous layout).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NP2626

Active Member
#68
I would think it to be fairly unusual for there to be so many wheel-sets out of gauge on one locomotive. I know that the Turbine has many wheel-sets under it. Have you brought up your findings to Athearn. They should be informed about the problem. The NWSL wheel puller is a great tool that I would think everyone should have. Being partial to steam, I have had one for at least 30 years; or, as long as I have been deeply involved in the hobby. With the actions of the loco while crossing the double slip, was it easy enough to deduce that you had a "gauge" problem?

As far as Code 100 verses Code 83 or Code 70, when I started my layout, Shinohara Code 83 track was just becoming available and pretty expensive. I do not recall Code 70 being available unless as individual rail to hand lay. I was told and feel this is correct, that painting my track, roof brown reduced it's apparent size. With all the Code 83 and Code 70 track available today, where I to start over, I would go with lower Code Numbers. I would also be working in narrow gauge, where smaller rail is much more important.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

santafewillie

Well-Known Member
#69
I was told and feel this is correct, that painting my track, roof brown reduced it's apparent size.
That is what I have observed on many other older layouts. Having started in model railroading over thirty years ago like you, I have stuck with code 100, and with paint and ballast, I cannot see the difference.

Willie
 

montanan

Whiskey Merchant
#70
I can't really complain about having any problems with turnouts. As mentioned, my layout is a combination of hand laid code 7o track and turnout and Shinohara flex track and turnouts. Smooth and no bouncing going through turnouts. Mark, when my Kadee spike gun crapped out for the sixth and last time, I started using Shinohara code 70 flex and turnouts. This was before Walthers became the primary importer. It was a pain from time to time because many items could be out of stock and had long waits on occasion for resupply. This was in the early 80's. There were times that I had thought that I made a bad choice by deciding to go to code 70 track, but now that all of the track is down, I think it was well worth if because of how well it looks. Joe mentioned yesterday that Peco has announced introducing code 70 turnouts and flex track. 30 years too late for me.

I have on a couple of occasions left the train room with trains running and not return to the layout until the next day and the train is just chugging around the layout without any derailment problems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NP2626

Active Member
#71
Other than the bounce some of my cars and locos make when crossing some of my turnout's Frog Flange-Ways, I have no real problems with all of my turnouts, either. The bounce; or, "Pot Hole" they cross is more a matter of not looking very realistic and very occasionally it does cause a derailment. My switching to a Peco Turnout where I have an old Atlas "Snap Switch" is a matter of wanting to see if I like the Peco Turnouts and if I do any additions to the layout, possibly I will use Peco instead of Atlas.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

beiland

Active Member
#72
I've heard such good things about Peco turnouts for a number of years, and from a number or folks. I think I have enough stored away to use them exclusively on my new layout plan
 

NP2626

Active Member
#73
I have taken two of my Atlas Turnouts with .050 deep frog flange-ways and added .020 thick pads to the bottom of the flange-ways. Previous to doing this, every car; or, loco was hitting a pot hole at these locations. With the pads, everything flows smoothly across the frogs. I don't find that every one of my Atlas Frog Flange-Way has this affect on my rolling stock and I am unsure why this is! I would think everyone of them would be a pot hole! Where I have noticed the "Pot Hole Effect", I will be adding pads.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

santafewillie

Well-Known Member
#74
Mark - That's what I have been doing for over 25 years on my Atlas turnouts, not to fix a problem, but to visually get rid of the "dipping" effect. I suggested this in one of the recent threads regarding turnouts (there's been a bunch) but I didn't know whether you saw it or not. Even if you didn't, you seemed to have have resolved it to your satisfaction. I find it to be more prevalent with #6's that have a longer frog.

Willie
 

NP2626

Active Member
#75
Willie, I did see it and thought I'd give it a try. I wanted to say that it appears to be a good idea and is working well for me, too!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#77
My $0.02, I don't really like the look of code 110 wheels. To me they look like monster truck tires. I also do not want to go through the expense of re-placing a whole bunch of trucks to make P87 wheelsets look right (those dont look right either in the code 110 trucks, as the truck frames are spread farther apart to accommodate the .110 wheel profile). So I am considering using code 88 as a compromise. I really like the look of P87 trackwork. Its all compromises here... So I figure I will add as many details as a can to the track that I build myself.
 

beiland

Active Member
#78
I love all the fancy details on the undersides of our cars (freight and passenger) these days, but since I rarely see them when they are on the layout, I could get along without them. I can also live with 110 wheels if they cause me that much less trouble,...besides I'm not really looking that closely at the wheels when I'm playing with trains.

Interesting observation by an older model train guy about how unrealistic some cars appear when taking curves of less than 30". He pointed out that if we had our trains operating at anywhere near eye level, we wouldn't notice those unrealistic car views that we might notice if we viewed from more directly overhead.
 
#79
Its mostly the caboose or last car in the train when switching, or steam locomotive pilot truck wheels that I notice. Couplers too, but those of you who are on the MR forums know my stance on couplers, so I will leave that be here.
 

NP2626

Active Member
#80
Your talking choices here. You like things the way you like them and I like them the way I like them. We should all be aware that the manufacturers would really like to do away with choices as this allows them to streamline their product lines. I like Code 110 wheel sets and don't care that they are wider. I also like Code 100 track, because that is what was readily available and reasonably priced when I started out. Painting actually makes the rail look smaller in height and more scale like. It is that "Choices" are available that we need to protect. It is my opinion that the expensive scale do-dads on our rolling stock pretty much disappears when a train is rolling by. You disagree and I'm absolutely O.K. with that too!

My $0.02, I don't really like the look of code 110 wheels. To me they look like monster truck tires. I also do not want to go through the expense of re-placing a whole bunch of trucks to make P87 wheelsets look right (those dont look right either in the code 110 trucks, as the truck frames are spread farther apart to accommodate the .110 wheel profile). So I am considering using code 88 as a compromise. I really like the look of P87 trackwork. Its all compromises here... So I figure I will add as many details as a can to the track that I build myself.
 



ModelRailroadForums.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com