In this months Model Railroader Magazine (May 2013) in an article entitled: 4 Technologies shaping model railroading’s future, # 3 is an article about Rethinking the RP25 wheel standard, I found this article extremely interesting! It poses the idea that a larger radius in the corner between the tread and flange will do many good things for how our wheels interact with the rail head and how our cars negotiate our track. The author makes claims that I feel are all good and need to be looked at closely! I also feel (having been involved in the mechanical trades my entire life) that what he states makes perfect sense to me! Read the article and view the videos!
The current .110 wheels are good for the average home and club layout trackage and the finer.088" wheels should be used by advanced modelers with flawless track work…
IMHO the current RP25 wheel standards are fine and should not be changed.
Besides…
Think of this…
Who do you think is going to pay for the new tooling for the “improved” wheel?
Which begs the question.
At today’s prices can we afford another $10.00 per car and we all know how some modelers will demand these new wheels be a standard for RTR cars.
O.K., that’s one vote for not improving the hobby and equipment we use.
The additional cost of a fillet to our wheels would be the cost of modifying the present tooling. It might add pennies to the cost of our wheels. Unless of course, the manufacturers all colluded together and decided they really want to put the screws to their customers!
Oh boy, here we go again…
Maybe these wheels could be a OEM product for those who want 'em?
That would be a win/win for all.
Not to sound harsh but,I don’t want to pay for something that I don’t want nor need.
I’d like to see what is developed before making decisions like that…it could be more useful than what is currently available…
Seeing how I am not a member of the NMRA, I will likely have little to do with any decisions on this matter. I did find the topic interesting and thought provoking. Where would this country be if we didn’t build better mouse traps every now and then? What was the current thinking back when RP25 was developed, should be revisted when possibly better ideas come along. If a better mouse trap is developed, wouldn’t it be a better mouse trap?
That’s just it. What if it allows for more prototypical operation?
I’ve been monkeying around with code 40 track…trying to find ways to make for more wobbly trackage wherein one has to run restricted speed…and see the train almost sashay to and fro…it could possibly lead to better wheels for that type of thing…
I just read the article. The main argument for wheel modification, at least for the author, is to allow greater pulling power so he can add more cars to his trains. That is not as important to me as it would be to develop a wheel that would be less prone to derailment. Any slight imperfection in my track work (admittedly my fault) can result in a derailment of a freight car or passenger car.
Dunno, maybe I need more weight on my rolling stock. But, give me a wheel that is less prone to derailment. From the photos that accompany the article, I see that the flange is wider so maybe the author’s idea will also result in fewer derailments in addition to greater pulling power.
Rich
The only question I have is will a new standard be compatable with curren equiptment allowing for a gradual transition.
IIRC, Athearn was using .088" wheels on their Genesis freight cars in the ~2006-2007 period, but went back to the wider flanges because so many customers complained about derailments…[?]
Ken,There was a discussion about that on the old Atlas forum…IIRC the general conscious was it was a bad idea since one had to have excellent track work and tight switch tolerances.
I read the article with great interest as well. As mentioned by others in this thread, modification o the existing tooling would be needed(and could be phased in as tooling wears out). BTW, RP25 is not a standard - just a Recommended Practice. It was so good, that most manufacturers phased in the new wheel profile over time(the European manufacturers were locked into the NEM standards at the time).
I do not see incompatibility issues if you ran equipment together with both wheel profiles.The author did extensive testing on heavy O scale equipment - I am not sure if we would see the dual wear rings on smaller/lighter HO equipment, but we might see less friction/better rolling cars with these wheels.
Myself, I have RP25 metal wheels on all of my equipment. I have found that a ‘needlepoint’ axle in a delrin plastic truck that has been reamed out with a ‘truck tuner’ seems to roll the best. I do not have a sense that there is a lot of interest within the NMRA to investigate a new wheel profile as the work done back in the 60’s(RP25) was a quantum leap forward. The manufacturer introduced ‘88’ wheels sets have never really caught on as rock solid trackwork is required. I think that this will be a manufacturing introduced item if it happens.
Jim
RP25 uses a flange radius curvature that is broader than the prototype. RP25 is about 1.2" radius in scale inches. I don’t have the prototype radius in front of me, but it is less. I don’t see how making thing less prototypical will improve things or make operations more prototypical. The movement has been to go towards the more scale sized wheels (from code 110 to code 88) which decreases the radius, instead of increasing it.
This sounds interesting!
I do not have my issue yet but will look for this.
From what was said here I would sign up to try these…
As we are not ‘working’ in the real world with scaled physics, etc. this could be a welcomed change.
Really? who looks at inner flanges?
I have P87 (/.64) wheels on a hopper, & no one noticed but me…
Doing the 5 min “get it on the rail head” job to place it on the track properly…
Thanks,
The real issue that is being ignored is how crappy the track quality is. The reason we have out of scale wheels is because the track is so bad.
Before anybody says that it can’t be done in HO or whatever, HOn3 uses code 88 wheels. N scale trains operate with narrower wheels and tighter standards. If the same precision in N scale was applied to HO it would make code 110 wheels obsolete.
I handlay my track and while its not bad, its not “high precision”. I use code 88 wheels and don’t have problems. The manufacturers can go over to tighter standards any time they want, they can do it for smaller scales. Its just easier and cheaper to have sloppy standards and sloppy standards allow modelers to be sloppy in their installation of track (if you read these forums very long you will see that sloppy trackwork is rampant).
Okay, I re-read the article. In the first place I don’t see anywhere where the author says anything about changing the width of the wheel. In the second place he is primarily talking about O scale. In the third place he likes to run trains up to 80 O scale cars long (how many of us do that?). Finally, how many of us have noticed that wear he talks about on the flange?
Yes, what he proposes can be applied to HO or N. But I’m happy with what I have now and see no need to change.
Just my opinion.
I read it too, as noted above the article is primarily aimed at two rail O scale.
I currently pull 50, 80 and even 100 car trains in HO with RP25 wheels with no problems and with reasonable amounts of motive power - my BLI N&W Class A easily pulls 100 cars on level track.
I’m not against better, but I did not see anything in that article that sounds like it would be better for the smaller scales.
My free rolling truck formula, tested better against just about every plastic side frame out there, is to install Intermountain wheel sets in Kadee sprung/equalized metal trucks. Most of my cars are right at or slightly below NMRA recommended weights. Again, I pull very long trains with no problems.
I will not use code 88 wheels or semi scale couplers as they are not as reliable on track built to current NMRA standards.
Fact is that ALL the physics of our track does not scale down exactly. O scale has a better chance of such improvements working in a measurable fashion, but the smaller scales are affected by different dynamics of weight and friction than real trains.
Sheldon
Certianly, this change (if adopted) would work with the RP25 wheels in use today.
I was wrong to call RP25 a “Standard”, it is a Recommended Practice. However the truth is, both Standards and Recommended Practices are voluntary, so both have the same weight as far as enforcement goes, which is “none”.
The idea of the larger radius in the corner between the tread and flange is to keep the flange away from the rail head. It’s my opinion this would be helpful towards eliminating derailments as it will keep the flange from picking the switch points…
It depends on whether or not you value the NMRA conformance warrants. Where I have a choice I pick the product that has the warrant. Even where they don’t apply for the warrant most products conform. Many that don’t conform don’t last - word gets around about track, wheels, etc. that don’t play well with other manufacturers.
As for this Lo-D, reading the article it’s not clear to me if the Lo-D wheels are more prone to derailments or not. Frankly for me, that’s a bigger concern than running 80 car trains on minimum radius curves.
Enjoy
Paul