ESM — ASF Ride Control Trucks and Low Profile Metal Wheels

[bbussey]

We diagram the wheel specs on the back of the package. We don’t list the bolster height, although it is the BLMA standard. Yes, different truck styles in the future if these are successful, but definitely 33” 100-packs, and probably 36” and 38” MTL-axle-length wheels and 33” ATL-axle-length wheels first because the startup and tooling costs for wheels is nominal. We won’t need a new truck frame internally until the next XIH run, and there’s a never-before style that we want to tool that we may use for the next XIH run in place of the A-3.  No plans currently though for 100-ton frames. 

[peteski]

Bryan's wheel flange thickness does not look that much different that this @peteski -vaunted ( ) Kato wheelset:

I disagree.  Even few thousandths of an inch make visual difference. At least to me.    But again, this is something that very few would notice, and even less would care to comment on it.  As I said, I made an observation and asked questions.  To me it seemed like something that could relatively easily be modified (in subsequent runs) to make the wheel more true to the prototype. I know Bryan is serious about scale fidelity.  If you don't point out shortcomings on a model, you have no chances of improving it.  The last time I checked, TRW was not an all-attaboy forum.

[bbussey]

Translation: Somebody feels slighted for not being included in the beta test group. 

I know this is facetious and in good humor. But to clarify, the wheel samples were sent to modelers that we knew owned continuous-run layouts so that the wheels could be put through the paces — through various turnouts and crossings, etcetera.

[Point353]

I know this is facetious and in good humor. But to clarify, the wheel samples were sent to modelers that we knew owned continuous-run layouts so that the wheels could be put through the paces — through various turnouts and crossings, etcetera.

IIRC, peteski is a member an NTrak group.
In my several decades long experience with NTrak, if you want a product torture tested on a wide variety of trackwork, then an NTrak (continuous run) layout fits the bill.
Of course, that wouldn't include operation on (non-PECO) code 55 or code 40 track, but presumably other modelers could furnish that data.
As an added bonus, you would have had the benefit of peteski's wide-ranging "curiosity" sooner, rather than later.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

IIRC, peteski is a member an NTrak group.
In my several decades long experience with NTrak, if you want a product torture tested on a wide variety of trackwork, then an NTrak (continuous run) layout fits the bill.
Of course, that wouldn't include operation on (non-PECO) code 55 or code 40 track, but presumably other modelers could furnish that data.
As an added bonus, you would have had the benefit of peteski's wide-ranging "curiosity" sooner, rather than later.

Yeah, NTrak and a loop with Atlas #5 C55 switches are the ultimate test. Those C55 switches... those are bad. I had to re-gauge EVERY engine in my inventory to work with them.

Bryan... I think I have an answer why the trucks look wonky with the bearing caps askew. The caps are triangular and require a drafting angle larger than the circular bearing surface. So when the triangles are not aligned, the drafting angle difference becomes apparent.

[Iain]

Is one side insulated, or both?  One thing I'd like to do is cut axles in two and make wheelsets suitable for electrical pickup.

[GaryHinshaw]

 

... but definitely 33” 100-packs, and probably 36” and 38” MTL-axle-length wheels....

38" wheels would be great.  The Kato wheels are ok, but the tread is pretty wide and the face profile is only so-so, and because they are so large, the face is very noticeable.

https://www.railcarphotos.com/pix/60/DTTX_741459_Seattle_WA_Stan_Lytle_2010_09_25_60228.jpg

Bonus points if you can offer them with 10K resistors across the gap. 

[peteski]

Bryan... I think I have an answer why the trucks look wonky with the bearing caps askew. The caps are triangular and require a drafting angle larger than the circular bearing surface. So when the triangles are not aligned, the drafting angle difference becomes apparent.

Daniel, I don't think that is the case. The truck sideframe faces are done in side-facing molds, so the draft angle on the triangular end caps will be symmetrical, regardless of the rotation of the triangle.  The molds is separated into 4 parts: top/bottom/left/right parts.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Daniel, I don't think that is the case. The truck sideframe faces are done in side-facing molds, so the draft angle on the triangular end caps will be symmetrical, regardless of the rotation of the triangle.  The molds is separated into 4 parts: top/bottom/left/right parts.

Pete take a look at the end caps... they are built like a triangular pyramid. The trucks look right because the narrow part of the base of the end caps is pointing up. But if one was rotated, the flat spot would be on top.


Looking at the base of the prototype end cap base is cylindrical.

[bbussey]

... If you don't point out shortcomings on a model, you have no chances of improving it...

Quite right, no arguments here.

Is one side insulated, or both?  One thing I'd like to do is cut axles in two and make wheelsets suitable for electrical pickup.

One side only, so they are suitable for electrical pickup if desired.

... Bonus points if you can offer them with 10K resistors across the gap. 

Let's not get crazy. 

Success will beget more success.  The level of sustained popularity of this product line will determine the frequency of non-ESM-model-specific items being introduced.  Three definitely are coming – the 36" and 38" diameter .540" length wheelsets (relatively soon), and a truck style that will be new to N (in 2020).  Additional items will be up to the N scale community!   

[peteski]

Pete take a look at the end caps... they are built like a triangular pyramid. The trucks look right because the narrow part of the base of the end caps is pointing up. But if one was rotated, the flat spot would be on top.

Hmmm . . . ok.  I think I was looking at this from another angle (so to speak).  Buy the draft angle will be the same all around the triangular pyramid.  Either way, it is what it is.

Looking at the base of the prototype end cap base is cylindrical.

I agree, but it is a different type of axle end.   But I also suspect that if you found a photo of the exact same axle end, it's sides would also be straight, not angled.
Actually that photo of the 1:1 truck shows that the ESM's wheel rim thickness is pretty close to that particular prototype wheel.  I might have to take back my earlier comments. 

[Cajonpassfan]

Nice work, Bryan, thank you!
Otto K.

[sundowner]

I got excited by the 38” wheels until I remember that the Kato axle length on the Maxis is wider like the old Atlas size. Still 36” are cool, since BLMA and Tangent wheels are becoming hard to find.

[bbussey]

... Actually that photo of the 1:1 truck shows that the ESM's wheel rim thickness is pretty close to that particular prototype wheel.  I might have to take back my earlier comments. 

I think the rim having the illusion of being larger may be due to the (by necessity) oversized flange.  Also, it's more noticeable at G scale size in these photos than actual size.  I don't think you will be unhappy with them when you see them.

I got excited by the 38” wheels until I remember that the Kato axle length on the Maxis is wider like the old Atlas size. Still 36” are cool, since BLMA and Tangent wheels are becoming hard to find.

I don't know if the demand would be large enough to justify tooling a 38" diameter wheel with the Kato axle length.  I do want to tool the .540" axle length at minimum because people can cheat and use them in 100-ton frames until a good 125-ton frame comes along.  We definitely will be doing the Atlas (classic) length axle for the 33" and 36".  We'll see about other diameters moving forward.

[nkalanaga]

Another factor in rim thickness is wheel wear.  As the wheel wears, the rim gets thinner, until finally the wheel has to be replaced.

The only requirement I can find in the 1977 AAR interchange Rules is that "wheels applied must have at least 1 inch minimum rim thickness" when replacing wheels.  I couldn't find what the standard is for new wheels, if there is one.  A standard flange is ~1 inch, and the wheel is out of spec when the flange height reaches 1.5 inches, due to tread wear.  So, it looks to me like a "standard" new rim should be ~1.5 inches.