Wheel flanges and Peco Code 83 turnouts

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

I am just starting to run some of my rolling stock over a newly laid section of Peco Code 83 track, and have noticed that some cars run through turnouts better than others.

I have a few Proto 2000 8000 Gallon Type 21 Riveted Tank Car models, and they go through the turnouts just fine.

I also have an assortment of Con-Cor boxcars that visibly ride up over the plastic in-fill in the turnout frog, resulting in a very “lumpy” looking ride. It seemed to me that the flanges on these wheels were too deep, so I measured both wheelsets.

Both wheelsets measure 0.38" across the tread, but there is a small difference if I measure the flange diameter. The Con-Cor wheels are about 0.441", while the P2K wheelsets are 0.428".

I also have a few Athern ACL 40’ box cars, which are a bit in between - they measure 0.438", and show a little bit of wobble through the turnouts, but this is minimal. That small difference is enough to cause the problem, it seems.

So, the question is this - are the wheelsets both OK and the Peco flangeways too shallow, or is it just the Con-Cor wheelsets “at fault”. I put this in quotes because, unless I have misinterpreted things, they do conform to RP25.

If the latter, perhaps I should just swap out the wheelsets on the Con-Cor cars (I currently have half a dozen of them to do), in which case what should I look for as replacements?

Suggestions welcomed as usual.

Thanks,

Bob

2

Bob,

I suppose the first question is can you deepen the fill in without ruining the turnout?

If you can fix the turnout, the pertinent question becomes; How many wheels need replacing vs how many turnouts need fixing? I would go with the path of least resistance. J.R.

3

I have not tried to deepen Peco Code 83 turnouts, but I have tried to deepen Peco Code 83 crossings without much success. Maybe I just don’t know the proper way to do it. I think that in your situation, it would make more sense to swap out the wheelsets.

Rich

4

Even before there was RP25 wheel contour the NMRA standards for wheel flanges in HO should have few problems with Code 83 turnouts or crossings. The real offenders were the European imports that AHM sold which had problems even with some Code 100 track.

I suspect it might be weight, the size of the bearing openings on the trucks (perhaps too much up and down slop possible on the ConCors?), or interaction between axle ends and those bearings. But sometimes a car design just seems cursed - at one time the Athearn blue box quad hopper was so regarded. It was also under weight. And there can be casting lumps on flanges and wheels, as well as wheel wobble, that escaped quality control at the factory. If testing the flanges on the NMRA template, turn the wheel entirely through so that every bit is tested.

Sometimes there are just combinations of turnouts, wheels, flanges and rolling stock dynamics that do odd things. I have completed a string of 50’ boxcars of various makes, all of which were retrofitted with aftermarket extended coupler pockets because the cars proclaim they have cushion underframes.

I put all of them through a torture test of a crossover on my layout, Peco turnouts. All wheels were replaced with Kadees and all wheels were in gauge. But certain cars had problems and swapping out the wheels often was the cure. The same wheels in another car - no problems. (But I also did learn that the turnouts had some gauge problems which I addressed.) Still, weird and evidently there was just something between particular examples of the same make of wheel, and other examples of that wheel.

Try removing the trucks from the offending cars and pushing them by hand (finger pushing down on the bolster with varying degrees of intensity) through the frogs. You’ll feel a bump I suspect. Is it different than how the “good” trucks feel?

Dave Nelson

5

I would not fiddle with a Peco Code 83 unless I was absolutely sure it was presenting whatever problem I was seeing. I find that, far and away, it’s easier to isolate ‘bad’ cars, or even poorly gauged axles.

When I encounter problems at a turnout, of any kind, and one or two cars don’t behave, I don’t blame the turnout. I remove the troubled cars and inspect them carefully for everything from coupler pin droop to flashing in the truck cones to mis-guaged flanges. With the standard of rolling stock these days, it’s likely to come down to gauge problems, especially when 90% of the rest of one’s rolling stock seem to roll through that one turnout smoothly.

On the other hand, some have reported flange-path incompatibility near the frogs on earlier Pecos. Some have had to resort to placing thin styrene shims against the flange face of the guards, and maybe only one of them, not both. But, having to file out the flange path near the frog is something I have never had to do, and I have my share of Peco Code 83 turnouts.

6

I have replaced all my old plastic wheelsets with metal ones from Intermountain. Even with none of the problems you mention, performance is significantly improved.

7

Part of the problem here is that the NMRA has made some revisions and additions to the Standards and Recommended Practices.

Current RP25 wheel dimensions for flange depth remain unchanged from its 1961 introduction with a flange depth of .025" for code 110 wheels.

But in those days there were lots of products on the market with deeper flanges and different flange profiles.

So the 1962 trackwork standard S3 and wheel standard S4 allowed for a max wheel flange depth of .035" and a minimum flangeway depth of .038"

Today S3.2 is calling for a minimum flange way depth of .025" to match the RP25 wheel.

There is no max flangeway depth, there is no design “requirement” for wheels to ride on the flanges thru frogs. That is a relatively new idea both on the prototype and on our models.

Yet the new S4.2 wheel standard allows flanges as deep as .028"???

Based on the numbers posted by the OP, the problematic wheels in question have flanges of .029" and .031", slightly deeper than the RP25 profile or the new .028" S4.2 wheel standard.

The wheels in question are well within the old standards, but if PECO has built their new code 83 line to the new S3.2 minimum (again, there is no max flangeway depth), then many older wheels are going to bump a bit.

I’m sure most of my equipment is riding on wheels that meet the RP25 standard, but I do have some older stuff.

But even a wheel that conforms to the new S4.2 max of .028" is going to bump if a frog is built to the new S3.2 minimum of .025"? What is the NMRA thinking here? And what is PECO thinking here?

And just one more reason I am glad I do not use PECO track…

How do I know all this? I joined the NMRA in 1968, and still have my original printed set of Standards, Recommended Practices, and Data Sheets…

Replacement wheelsets - Intermountain is my choice.

Sheldon

8

Have you tried a hacksaw blade? That’s how I was taought to clear solder out of scratch built frogs.

Sheldon

9

Thank you to Sheldon and others for your comments and suggestions. I so far have 14 of the Peco turnouts laid, so swapping wheelsets on a few cars is by far the easier and safer option for me.

I did try putting the wheelsets from one of the P2K takers onto an offending Con-Cor boxcar, and that worked fine, so if I remain unhappy with the look of these I shall get hold of some new wheelsets - Intermountain (possibly not easy here in UK?) or Kadee - and give it a try, but I’d want to be pretty sure that what I was buying was going to be the right size.

Bob

10

I find Kadee wheels work in most trucks, but I do not care for the coating on the wheel treads, so I use a wire brush in a motor tool to make the wheel tread gleam like, well, like a prototype wheel tread does.

I do not like the shiny look of wheel faces out of the box regardless of make so I also paint all my wheels, using a wheel painting mask that protects the treads from getting painted. P2K wheels look fine once painted.

Again the strange thing is even swapping out wheels of one brand with other wheels of the same brand can often be the solution! One of life’s mysteries I guess.

Dave Nelson

11

I use Kadee Wheel/Truck assemblies on everything. I have no regrets, and everything operates well.

You are going to want to upgrade eventually, whether Kadee or Intermountain. You might as well start now.

-Kevin

12

All I can say on this one is that I have never had issues with my Blue Box plastic wheeled stuff on code 83 turnouts and most of those will be 30 years old. The only things I had an issue with many many years back were, as some have pointed out, the old pizza cutter wheels. Me; I’d buy some kadee or similar wheels and see if that fixes a car or 2 then you’ve isolated the issue.

Speaking from experience the “fun” you’ll have switching our a ballasted turnout must be worth a few dollars. If you knacker the turnout digging around in it. There’s a video of a guy from Auz on YT doing a fix to tighten the gap in the checkrails.

13

Finding them at the moment in UK seems to be a problem, and if I try to order them direct from Kadee (I decided to go for #501 arch bar trucks and wheels, for my 20s/30s time frame) the unit cost is OK, but the $65 they want for shipping is crazy!

I can get hold of a few here and there from UK stockists, but nobody seems to hold a decent quatity of them or the replacement couplers I want too.

I’ll wait a while and not worry about it till I can source the right stuff.

Thanks for all your advice.

Bob

14

Kadee charges a high shipping price to ship within the USA also. That is why I rarely order direct from them.

MB Klein is a good source. Are there eBay sellers that will ship to UK?

Plus, you are on the bad side of the exchange rate right now.

-Kevin

15

I wasn’t going to mention this as you pays your money and takes your chances modelling US stuff from the UK but I ordered 2 sets of non traction tyre drivers from Broadway Limited shipping $50 something. Seemed steep. Anyway after the usual 2 weeks or so the arrived. At first I just took the package from the guy at the door casually as I was on a call and set it aside assuming it was a pair of boots or something for my wife. A couple of days later I checked the tracking and it said it was delivered. Lo and behold it was in the giant box. Rediculous. Totally. The box would easily have accepted a double E Unit or non articulated steamer yet all that was in it was a mass of plastic packaging and then another box containing the wheels in yet more packaging. I couldn’t believe it. All for 2 tiny little wheels. The postage is calculated by volume asnd weight so no wonder it was so expensive.

Conversley in Dec I bought a full 10 HO scale 20th century limited. Came in a way bigger box which was fairly heavy and that guy charged $74.

16

Oh, just don’t get me started on inappropriate packaging … [8o|]

17

Well as mad as I may be I have ordered another 3 sets of drivers in some sort of dilusional future-proofing excercise. Shipping $68.

This time I will take a picture when the box turns up.