Victorian VLCX - Auscisions, or OTM's - wheel wise

 
  NSWGR1855 Deputy Commissioner

Hi we tried that Sad The problem is that the three way point has frogs very close together. Being electro frogs its mostly metal. But supa gluing strips into the bottom of the frogs did not seem to fix the problem, however it did upset some SEM wheelsets which operated ok before. Supa gluing to the frogs just looked terrible and after trying three thickness of strips we improved the problem by ensuring the bogie actually derailed every time rather than just some of the time.
If Peco is the track standard for a hundred different reasons, mainly availability in all hobby shops, at least looking great if you use code 75 or 83, and relative price not to mention durability in use as well in track laying etc etc. as I said before I am staying with 110!


Cheers
Rod Young
comtrain

Hi Rod,

If the gluing of strips to the bottom of the frog did not solve the problem, the problem has nothing to do with wheel drop or wheel width. Now days you can get black styrene so there is no visual downside to this easy to do wheel drop solution for coarse scale frogs.

First check the wheel  check gauge and back to back before assuming the wheel width is a problem. 88 wheels should have a back to back measurement of 14.4mm to 14.5mm for Peco track work. The SEM wheels that derailed were probably overgauge for the Peco 3 way turnout track.

If you insist on using small radius turnouts (600mm 24"), Peco slips and 3 way turnouts expect derailments from bogies fouling coupler boxes, and other parts of your models.

I have no problem with Peco code 75 turnouts and fine scale wheels because I check that my wheels are within the AMRA wheel and track standard limits and stick to the AMRA minimum radius standard. Thus I avoid the 3 way turnout, small radius turnouts and slips for my mainline locomotives and passenger carriages.



Terry Flynn.

Sponsored advertisement

  SAR523 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Chicago, IL
Comtrain - I most definitely hear what you're saying. But if I could be so bold, I would point out that you are likely using code 70 track because it looks much better than the code 100 track the #110 wheelsets are designed for Smile.

So I'm not sure it's entirely fair to pejoratively refer to people who prefer #88 wheels as rivet counters Smile. And it's probably a bit of a stretch to call code 75 track "standard".

I haven't received my R yet so I can't comment on it but normally it's pretty difficult to see much of a dip in a 4 wheel bogie with wheelsets whose flange don't bridge the frog like #110s do, let alone actually derailing. So this may be more a case of an issue the R pony truck than 88s in general (which does seem to have some issues from the photos I've seen here).

Sounds like you've solved the problem (although I agree, it'd be nicer if it didnt happen) but you can normally improve things more with side shims on the frogs (unless I misread you and that also didn't work for you) than raising the floor (although I've seen both done).

Did some googling around and Shinohara and Model Engineering code 70 frogs don't seem to have much of a problem with 88 wheels. Even code 100s cab drop in most Atlas frogs from time to time so there's no big deal there leaving Peco as apparently being problematic.

That other frogs work fine, most notably those made with Fast Tracks jigs (yes, handmade track I know) would seem to indicate  that it is largely an issue of the manufacturer's geometry and not an insoluble problem.
  comtrain Chief Commissioner

Location: Near Albury Wodonga
Comtrain - I most definitely hear what you're saying. But if I could be so bold, I would point out that you are likely using code 70 track because it looks much better than the code 100 track the #110 wheelsets are designed for Smile.

So I'm not sure it's entirely fair to pejoratively refer to people who prefer #88 wheels as rivet counters Smile. And it's probably a bit of a stretch to call code 75 track "standard".

I haven't received my R yet so I can't comment on it but normally it's pretty difficult to see much of a dip in a 4 wheel bogie with wheelsets whose flange don't bridge the frog like #110s do, let alone actually derailing. So this may be more a case of an issue the R pony truck than 88s in general (which does seem to have some issues from the photos I've seen here).

Sounds like you've solved the problem (although I agree, it'd be nicer if it didnt happen) but you can normally improve things more with side shims on the frogs (unless I misread you and that also didn't work for you) than raising the floor (although I've seen both done).

Did some googling around and Shinohara and Model Engineering code 70 frogs don't seem to have much of a problem with 88 wheels. Even code 100s cab drop in most Atlas frogs from time to time so there's no big deal there leaving Peco as apparently being problematic.

That other frogs work fine, most notably those made with Fast Tracks jigs (yes, handmade track I know) would seem to indicate that it is largely an issue of the manufacturer's geometry and not an insoluble problem.
SAR523

Yes I see what you are saying, but my choice over $5500 ago Smile was to standardise on Peco Electrofrog code 75, and I am using the rest of my code 100 on my SG to make it look different, even if the track gauge is wrong. I will buy code 83 from now on, but I still have another 13 points and two boxes of code 100 left to use Smile I simply use slaters strip to modify the code 100 points What a shame they did not make the Electrofrogs a finer scale.

But I must also to keep my post honest, and tell you I just went outside and set the engine up to duplicate the problem and take pictures, and I cannot get it to do it any more. I mean the R's creep or run at 70 scale MPH through the points without a problem. The wheels still fall in the frog, but the bogie does no longer tilt forcing the other side to raise off the track.

The problem has been there for about 12 days and today it is gone. I am at a loss to know why this is so. The only thing different is that it is only 26C in the shed, and it has been 35 C even with the Evaporative Aircon running since before Christmas.
I will just leave it as it is, and wait for it to repeat. I still think that I am right to stick with 110 wheels though Wink What is worse is that I just sent a mail order off to purchase two Tillig slips and a large radius curveable point to try and fix the problem that way Sad
Cheers Rod
EDIT
For those of you who have pulled the lead truck off to remove the spring, could you tell me how you orientated the bogie when you replaced it? My mind says the curved location slot should have the middle leading a ) rather than a ( to allow the truck to radius. This is how mine are, but I did turn one around and it still tracked ok. Makes me think that it simply pivots on wide radius curves.
  SAR523 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Chicago, IL
Hi Rod,

If the gluing of strips to the bottom of the frog did not solve the problem, the problem has nothing to do with wheel drop or wheel width.

...
NSWGR1855

Hi Terry - while I fully agree with the recommendation to check the wheel gauge I'm not sure I agree with the above (unless I'm misunderstanding you).  On many commercial turnouts there's quite a large gap between the wing rails and the point of the frog.  Code 110 wheels normally happily roll over this as their tread is sufficiently wide to ensure that they are always supported by at least one of the rails (as occurs on the prototype).  Code 88 wheels however aren't this wide and hence most definitely can drop into the flange way if said space exists.

As I mentioned above this normally results in a "click-click" for a 4 wheel bogie (or even 4 wheel wagon), rather than causing a derailment or visible movement in the car,  as the other three wheels continue to shoulder the load and the wheel in the frog is only dropping by the axles' play in the bogie.  Ideally at no point in time should the wheel in the frog be supported by it's flange instead of the tread (although raising the flangeway can help in some instances assuming you have relatively uniform flanges depths).

What may be compounding the issue is whoever makes Eurkea's code 88 wheels appears to like to hit the wheel back-to-back minimum which can increase the "drop zone".   At least in my (modest) experience, every code 88 wheel I've received from Eureka is a tight fit in the NMRA gauge and I tend to give them all a twist to widen them as part of the wagon prep.
  NSWGR1855 Deputy Commissioner

Hi Terry - while I fully agree with the recommendation to check the wheel gauge I'm not sure I agree with the above (unless I'm misunderstanding you). On many commercial turnouts there's quite a large gap between the wing rails and the point of the frog. Code 110 wheels normally happily roll over this as their tread is sufficiently wide to ensure that they are always supported by at least one of the rails (as occurs on the prototype). Code 88 wheels however aren't this wide and hence most definitely can drop into the flange way if said space exists.

As I mentioned above this normally results in a "click-click" for a 4 wheel bogie (or even 4 wheel wagon), rather than causing a derailment or visible movement in the car, as the other three wheels continue to shoulder the load and the wheel in the frog is only dropping by the axles' play in the bogie. Ideally at no point in time should the wheel in the frog be supported by it's flange instead of the tread (although raising the flangeway can help in some instances assuming you have relatively uniform flanges depths).

What may be compounding the issue is whoever makes Eurkea's code 88 wheels appears to like to hit the wheel back-to-back minimum which can increase the "drop zone". At least in my (modest) experience, every code 88 wheel I've received from Eureka is a tight fit in the NMRA gauge and I tend to give them all a twist to widen them as part of the wagon prep.
SAR523

I have found that the wheel drop of 88 on todays RTR turnouts is small, often not observed  and not a derailment causing issue. On older turnouts and toy train set turnouts the wheel drop can be excessive, but often the 110 wheels also drop into these coarse scale flange ways. The problem with decreasing the flange way depth is it then excludes wheels built to coarser standards than the NMRA standard. Prototype street trams often use the flange to support the wheel in crossings. Yes there is a prototype for most things.

Typically wheel flanges on quality Australian RTR are between 0.6 to 0.7mm deep.

Terry Flynn.
  comtrain Chief Commissioner

Location: Near Albury Wodonga
Hi Terry - while I fully agree with the recommendation to check the wheel gauge I'm not sure I agree with the above (unless I'm misunderstanding you). On many commercial turnouts there's quite a large gap between the wing rails and the point of the frog. Code 110 wheels normally happily roll over this as their tread is sufficiently wide to ensure that they are always supported by at least one of the rails (as occurs on the prototype). Code 88 wheels however aren't this wide and hence most definitely can drop into the flange way if said space exists.

As I mentioned above this normally results in a "click-click" for a 4 wheel bogie (or even 4 wheel wagon), rather than causing a derailment or visible movement in the car, as the other three wheels continue to shoulder the load and the wheel in the frog is only dropping by the axles' play in the bogie. Ideally at no point in time should the wheel in the frog be supported by it's flange instead of the tread (although raising the flangeway can help in some instances assuming you have relatively uniform flanges depths).

What may be compounding the issue is whoever makes Eurkea's code 88 wheels appears to like to hit the wheel back-to-back minimum which can increase the "drop zone". At least in my (modest) experience, every code 88 wheel I've received from Eureka is a tight fit in the NMRA gauge and I tend to give them all a twist to widen them as part of the wagon prep.
SAR523

Ah ok
I checked the back to back on leading and trailing trucks on both R's. They all fitted the guage tightly, but at least two were much tighter. I did ease them a little, and so that is maybe why the bogie continues(still) to track through the points, no lifting any more. However all wheels do drop in the second frog as originally described. So far is all good though Smile
Oh and I did do one other thing. I applied a tiny drop of nano oil to the surface to allow the lead truck to rotate with less friction. That is the slot that looks like  )

Cheers
Rod
  SAR523 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Chicago, IL
Ah ok
I checked the back to back on leading and trailing trucks on both R's. They all fitted the guage tightly, but at least two were much tighter. I did ease them a little, and so that is maybe why the bogie continues(still) to track through the points, no lifting any more. However all wheels do drop in the second frog as originally described. So far is all good though Smile
Oh and I did do one other thing. I applied a tiny drop of nano oil to the surface to allow the lead truck to rotate with less friction. That is the slot that looks like )

Cheers
Rod
comtrain

Good to hear!  I'm still waiting on my R so I can't comment about how much vertical play there is in the bogie (e.g. can a dropping wheel actually force the other side up?) but if you are no longer experiencing derailments that's a step forward!
  comtrain Chief Commissioner

Location: Near Albury Wodonga
Good to hear! I'm still waiting on my R so I can't comment about how much vertical play there is in the bogie (e.g. can a dropping wheel actually force the other side up?) but if you are no longer experiencing derailments that's a step forward!
SAR523

Yeah its all good right now. Just hope it stays that way.
David Head is going to drop in on way through Wodonga soon. So hopefully we can put our heads together and see what really is happening Smile
Cheers
Rod

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.