Replacement HO wheel sets for 1.018" and 0.975" long axles?

I have a mixture of older rolling stock with 33" plastic wheels from several companies (Athearn, Accurail, Details West, Life like, MDC, & Walthers). I’ve confirmed the tip to tip axle length for about half of them. In my current summary, 2/3rds are around 1.018" and 1/3rd around 0.975".

I tried running 36" 110 Intermountain wheels (1.006" axle width,) on a car with a 1.018" axles. Very sloppy when carrying the car but rolled freely on the track. No side to side movement with a gentle push or when pulled by a locomotive.

Any thoughts on long term running with this combination? My guess is there may be more derailments over time.

I have not tried the above Intermountain wheel set with shorter axle length (0.975"). I’m thinking that I may need to use the Micro Mark tuner on the shorter axles.

Do you think I can go with just the single 33" 1.006 intermountain axles or should I find wheel sets that are closer matches to the 1.018" and 0.975" axle widths?

Athearn has Long and Short axles are a close match these two widths but, yikes, no bulk packs and expensive 12 packs. Any other options?

Joe Fugate has written an excellent e-book entitled “Make it run like a dream: rolling stock”. It is available at store.mrhmag.com. He has a table of axle lengths from companies offering replacement wheelsets and those making wheelsets for their locomotives. Joe recommends establishing a standard wheelset and truck for your rolling stock. In my case, I will likely use Intermountain 33" wheelsets with Accurail trucks (sold in 12 packs by Accurail).

An excellent publication, well worth the price!

Why would you put 36" wheels in freight cars that had 33" wheels. The Intermountain 33" code 110 wheelsets work just fine in a large percentage of the freight trucks on the market.

The small excess play is not an issue. Contrary to what some people think, the axles are not intended to ride on the points.

Check out his thread I posted 4 years ago:

https://forum.trains.com/t/how-the-trucks-work-on-our-models-rolling-qualities-and-the-value-of-equalization/319562

Athearn heavy weight passenger trucks do require longer axles, Athearn sells all metal replacements for those wishing to upgrade older cars.

Sheldon

So the old post is cut short, and my pictures would not copy and past, and I don’t have time now to restore them. Here is the text.

In several recent threads the topic of sprung trucks and various brands of wheelsets once again was discussed.

I have gathered some engineering information in an attempt to explain how model trucks actually work, why some roll better than others, why equalization matters, and hopefully dispel a few myths.

Myth #1 - The car rides on the points of the axles.

Myth #2 - Our cars do not weigh enough to make sprung trucks “equalize”.

Myth #3 - Rigid trucks track just as well as equalized trucks.

First, some basic engineering standards for model trucks and their components, from the NMRA:

Interestingly, the axles on Intermountain wheelsets are nearly identical to the design shown above.

The key feature being the small axle diameter outside the wheel, resulting in a smaller axle cone.

Myth #1 - The car rides on the points of the axles.

Well no, actually the cone of the truck journal contacts the cone of the axle tip, but not on the “end” or point of the axle, but rather like this:

Notice from the NMRA specs that the journal cone is 60 degrees minimum, while the axle is 50 degrees maxinum and the max axle length is less than the minimum journal span, creating a minimum standard for side to side play. Interestingly there is no maximum spec for side to side play.

It is assumed that as long as the axle stays in the truck, gravity will center the axle.

This leaves a 5 degree difference on the weight bearing top side to minimize the contact patch of the axle onto the journal.

Varying amounts of side play are allowable, but the axle points are not all the way into the points of journal cones, so the load is not on the axle tip, but on the side of the axle tip near the point.

Myth #2 - Our cars do not weigh enough to make sprung trucks “equalize”.

Well, here is the thing, your freight car does not need to actually compress the springs in sprung trucks, in fact there is no expectation that the springs will provide that sort of “suspension”.

We don’t need that. But what we need is equal loading of the car weight onto all the wheels, typically 8 of them on a freight car.

For that the to happen the only thing that the truck needs is independent flexing of the sideframes at the truck bolster. The springs allow this and very little weight is required to cause this flexing.

Each sideframe needs to move as the red arrows indicate, one end up as the other end moves down, the springs need only compress the smallest amount while still holding the top of the bolster in contact with the sideframe - which is unlike the prototype.

Myth #3 - Rigid trucks track just as well as equalized trucks.

Rigid trucks track “OK” for most peoples needs, no question.

BUT, equalized trucks track better. They will navigate grade transitions better, work better on super elevation with less chance of string lining, and result in smooth running and less slack action because the “dynamic friction load” will not change as much as track conditions change.

All this is pretty small numbers wise - until - your trains get longer, 30 cars, 50 cars, 100 cars.

Much of the time, with rigid trucks, the actual weight of your fright car is only on 6 wheels. No different than a chair on an uneven surface.

Equalized trucks also travel thru turnouts better because no wheels are ever “floating”. Those wheels that might be floating on a rigid truck can more easily ride up on frogs and points.

Why do the Intermountain wheelsets work so good?

Why do the Kadee sprung trucks roll OK, but not great?

Why does the Intermountain wheelset fix this?

The sideframes of a sprung or equalized truck have to move relative to the axles, this changes the relationship of the axle to the journal - some would say this is justification for the rigid truck and “settling” for the 6 wheeel effect.

Kadee, and many others use a large cone axle rather than the small cone in the NMRA Recommended Practices.

They look like this:

As the sideframe moves, the larger cone has more surface area that can come in contact with the journal cone, with more friction and more opportunity for binding.

Admitedly this is less of a concern with rigid trucks, but tests show, and owners report, that small axle wheelsets like Intermountain work better even in rigid trucks.

Here is a photo of the Intermountain axle end (right) vs the Kadee axle end (left):

I started in this hobby at a time when most better equipment came with sprung trucks, and names like Kadee, Central Valley, Lindberg, Walthers and Silver Streak were synonymous with quality sprung trucks. That was 54 years ago.

Today, and for the last two decades, I have been refitting Kadee sprung trucks with Intermountain wheelsets to achieve the most free rolling equalized truck possible.

The goal - derailment free operation of trains in the 40 to 70 car range.

Another side benefit, the weight of metal trucks adds weight where it works the best, down low at the track. Often making it unnecessary to add additional weight even the cars are slightly below NMRA recommended practice.

Questions and comments welcomed.

Sheldon

1 Like

I have two principles.
(1) Use long axles for Athearn BB trucks.
The reason is that short axles tend to come off the truck frame easily.
Currently I buy a 8-pack of Athearn. This is the only product available.

Around 2010 I used a 100-pack of Atlas caboose wheels. Until then, several brands supplied bulk packs.

(2) Do not use 88 wheels on equalized trucks, but use 110 wheels.
The reason is that 88 wheels will drop into the switch frogs. 88 wheels are fine on rigid frames. Also, I don’t like equalized trucks because they can fall apart.

I have 800 freight cars with sprung equalized trucks. And in 40 years not one pair has “fallen apart” in operation or normal handling. Most of them are Kadee metal trucks refitted with Intermountain wheel sets. Others include Central Valley, Lindberg, Walthers, TrainMinature, etc.

Sheldon

Hi Sheldon,

My question is simple, what is a good truck/metal wheelset combination for near perfect performance on older railcars? Many modelers recommend Intermountain 110 wheelsets and they’re reasonably priced so a logical first choice. But what about the existing trucks, will they need to be replaced? A good question given the variance in trucks and wheels between manufacturers. IM wheels are 1.006 inches long, how will they fit my trucks. Based on my measurements, some trucks are perhaps too small and others are too wide resulting in a sloppy axle within the truck.

I tried installing IM wheelsets to a pair of wider trucks and push/pulled the modified car with a locomotive. Performance was very good through multiple turnouts and varying slow to fast speed. No derailments. But, I don’t care for the sloppiness of the axles within the trucks. I have a small switching layout and cars are routinely moved on/off the layout with the 0-5-0. I would notice the sloppiness too often and it would bug me… I know, I know, first world problems… :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

What to do? I appreciate your excellent discussion about the physics and engineering factors influencing railcar performance. I now have a much better understanding about appropriate measurements and how it all fits together. I also understand how sprung trucks are very beneficial for large layouts with long trains, hilly trackwork and higher speed. In my case, I have a small switching layout. Max train length is 6 cars and slow speed operation. IMO, sprung trucks will not improve operational success under my conditions. They’re cool though!

A couple modelers that I know have suggested that I standardize and use Accurail trucks and IM wheelsets. My current cars with metal wheels operate very well and are derailment free unless I forget to throw a turnout… :roll_eyes:

Your discussion and Joe Fugate’s have been very beneficial to me, a novice in regards to wheelset & trucks.

Regards,
Rick

Hi BN7150!

Go Big Green! I’m a huge BN fan and “hate” BNSF orange pumpkins…

My axle measurements are pretty close to your charts. The RTR cars with metal axles have performed really well for me! Unfortunately, Athearn is really proud of their product and have them overpriced IMO. I’m going with IM.

Take care!

I have to admit that I don’t have a recommendation for one rigid frame truck over another. I leave them on some newer equipment if suitable sprung or equalized truck is not available, but generally most everything gets my custom Kadee trucks with Intermountain code 110 wheels. I know, they are a bit expensive, but they work really well.

In Japan, this type of bearing is called a “pivot bearing.” However, it is different from the type used in clocks and watches. It is probably the best structure for a small-scale trailer bearing. It can withstand radial and thrust loads at the same time, has very low rotational resistance, and does not require lubrication or maintenance. When I was a student, I was impressed by this structure and tried to perform an engineering analysis of it, but I was unable to do so.

I would like to point out two things here.

The first is that the journal hole is made of polyacetal (Delrin, etc.) and the axle is made of metal. It is common knowledge that polyacetal is crystalline and self-lubricating against metals. Therefore, basically, no lubricant is required.
However, in the past, some manufacturers used materials other than polyacetal. Tichy Train Group used nylon, and Roco and Liliput used polystyrene. In these cases, lubricant is required.
Kadee and Proto also use polyacetal on the axle side, which causes friction between polyacetal and polyacetal. I apply lubricant just to be safe.

Another issue is the contact area between the journal hole and the axle. If it is to bear a load, it needs an area commensurate with that load. Meanwhile, the theory goes that the smaller the contact radius, the smaller the rolling resistance. How these are related is important for this bearing, but I can’t explain it. My breakthrough is that I surmise that the journal hole side is elastically deforming, increasing the contact area. (Incidentally, the reason I use a long axle with the Athearn BB is because I want the diameter of the journal hole where the axle point comes into contact to be closer. This increases the contact area with even a slight deformation.)
However, I have no way to verify this.

This bearing seems to be the kind of physical phenomenon where practice comes first and theory comes later. I wonder if someone could master this.

Some facts, for which I do not have scientific data handy. And some simple empirical facts.

Even the smallest contact area is more than adequate for the loads in question with our models.

Kadee does not use Delrin side frames, all Kadee side frames are metal or HGC plastic. In either case lubrication is not needed.

Some 20 years ago I had a series of email conversations with Sam Cooke at Kadee, the head of product development. He confirmed all the technical information related to Kadee products that I explained earlier in my post above and confirmed that my approach to a more free rolling Kadee truck was a valid approach.

My approach puts a small cone metal axle in either Kadee side frame, metal or HGC and does require lubricant.

In their metal sideframe the porous nature of their white metal side frames makes the lubricant semi permanent and very long lasting.

Some 20 years ago I did extensive empirical free rolling testing of rigid frame trucks with various wheelsets and sprung trucks with various wheelset to come up with what I use now.

My tests confirm all the theory I presented above.

Years ago a company called REBOXX sold replacement code 88 wheelsets in various axle lengths to address this topic. As it turned out, their calculations for Kadee sprung trucks were too long and completely incorrect because they failed to understand the principles I outlined above.

Eventually modelers realized that code 88 wheels were not always the best choice and that the need for so many different axle lengths was not really important. Their product declined in use and they stopped making them.

Not producing a code 110 wheel was a big mistake for them.

So you are welcome to try and expand on the science all you want, but the practical science I outlined above is based on fact, history and empirical testing.

Sheldon