Turning down wheels on a lathe

[railnerd]

I now have access to a small "import quality" metal lathe.

Against my better judgement, I have a bunch of older locos from the early 1990s that I'd like to be able to run on lower profile rail.

Any advice for turning down metal wheels on this thing?

I assume work holding is the real trick here.

-Dave

[narrowminded]

Which lathe and what tooling options?  If you're not sure a pic might do.  And do you have any bare bones machining experience at all?  Like tool sharpening, setting the tool on center, using a dial indicator to indicate trueness, things like that?

You're right about gripping being the key but it's not necessarily that hard with the necessary tools.  It's very possible that you'll turn a gripping collar first for accurate center and getting the wheel away from the chuck for tool access.  There will be several options and the method chosen will depend on what tooling you have.  It can be time consuming, especially if it's your first time through, but it's really not too tough and a job like this might be a good one to push the learning curve in methods that will be fundamental to using your lathe properly, getting good work out of it.

[wvgca]

it depends somewhat on the locos ...diesel locos with 'split wheel' would be the easiest ones to do ...
hardest part would be grinding the tool so that it approximated a RP25 flange, and just 'skid' on the tread portion of the wheel, so that you could cut the flange consistently without worrying about the tread portion ..

[CRL]

So I guess spinning the wheel in a rotary tool and holding it against a file isn’t going to cut it? 

[LarryN]

All,
I had turned down flanges on old 1970's series locos like Minitrix U28C's  and the like using a drill press. The chuck just grabbed the wheel tread, and I used a small file and gentle pressure to wear down the flange. I eyeballed the work, but it came out OK. I did old Arnold GG1's and S2's as well. Slow work. Cannot pinch down on the tread too much, or you can put in real flat spots. I suppose it could work on the lathe as well, if you have real estate at the chuck to get a file or tool in there. Good luck, let us know how it goes.

Larry N

[peteski]

You guys are overthinking it. I suspect he simply wants to reduce the height of the flanges on the old models.  Not worry about the RP25 profile or annythign. The models will run, even if the flange is just shaved down flat with a file.  I've done that to my old locos and they run just fine. 

Hawing a lathe just makes it easier to make the process repeatable (even if all we are doing is to cut down the flange's height).

[hminky]

Have reduced flanges on steamers with a cut off disc and/or abrasive wheel in a dremel.

Just hold the cutter up against the flange and let the wheel spin.



Don't need no stinkin' RP25's

Got the idea from a picture of a prototype early rail wheel grinder.

Harold

[nkalanaga]

CRL:  I've done it that way on rolling stock wheels, and on a 4-unit set of Minitrix Fs.  Without a wheel puller, the Fs were a pain, as I had to push the insulated wheels against the gears, and turn both wheels with the excess axle in the Dremel.  Not pretty, but I didn't damage the gears, and the units ran fine afterwords.  Just make sure the wheels are back in gauge when you're done.

[mmagliaro]

I agree that:

1. Wheel holding is the whole key to this
2. You don't have to overthink the precision and flange profile.

It depends on what you are really after, but I suspect that the only important thing here is to get the flanges down so they will run on lower profile track, and thin the edges of the flanges so they will go through turnouts without picking points or frogs.

I have done this in a milling machine, not a lathe, but I essentially am using the mill like a lathe - chucking the wheel in the mill and then running a cutter against the flange.

Ways I've done it... depending on the wheel:

a) A collet in a collet chuck.  If you find the right collet, you can grip the tread of a wheel so that the flange hangs just away from the face of the chuck, and then you can hold a cutter or even a file against it while it spins

b) A screw and nut through the center hole of the wheel, chucking the screw in the lathe (or mill).  Don't laugh.  This worked pretty darn well on some wheels if the center hole was such that a conveniently sized screw fit through the whole snugly with no play.

c) A somewhat complex scheme I came up with using a dead center in the chuck, pressed into the center hole of the wheel, with the wheel against a ball bearing so it would spin.  Just the pressure of the dead center in the hole made the wheel spin, and since it's a dead center, the wheel and bearing automatically centered up under the chuck.  John MeMerise (lemosteam) actually made a spring-loaded point fixture for me that I used after my initial tries with the dead center.
Complicated - but once I got it set up, it worked well.   I'll have to hunt around to see if I have photos of doing this.

I really think the best way is to get an assortment of collets that cover all the wheel sizes you need.

..............

Oh... and yes, I have used all the schemes of holding a file or Dremel disk on spinning wheels right in the loco, flipped on its back in a cradle - no mill, no lathe.  They mostly work - sometimes better or worse depending on the particular wheel and you level of patience and skill.    You don't get an RP25 flange.  But you get a smaller flange, the wheel works on lower rail, and I doubt anybody will notice what the edge of the flange really looks like.

[robert3985]

I now have access to a small "import quality" metal lathe.

Against my better judgement, I have a bunch of older locos from the early 1990s that I'd like to be able to run on lower profile rail.

Any advice for turning down metal wheels on this thing?

I assume work holding is the real trick here.

-Dave

Wellllll....I assume when you say "...lower profile rail." that you're meaning Atlas C55 flex.   I've been running Railcraft/Micro Engineering C55 flex since it got introduced back in the 70's as RailCraft flex...at least I think it was the '70's...but, it's been a long time.  Lots of my fellow club members had old engines and cars with REAL pizza cutters on 'em, and they all ran just fine on the RailCraft flex, and also just fine on hand-laid PCB C40 trackage.

However, new Micro Engineering flex has taller spikeheads than the old RC products, and may not be so compatible with old pizza cutters, but I don't expect the flanges on equipment manufactured in the 90's to be of the REAL pizza cutter variety. 

But, what will run on Micro Engineering flex, may not run on Atlas 55 since Atlas has horrendous "blobs" that keep the rails attached to the ties, and the new run of Atlas track is even worse than the original.

In any case, if you haven't built a layout yet, you should probably check to see if your "early 90's" engines will run okay on Micro Engineering flex and use that rather than Atlas flex.  Another solution would be to go with Peco55 which enjoys the lowest "spikehead" details even though their spikehead details don't look anything like spikes and the ties are all out of proportion for anything prototypical.

Keep in mind that what your eye sees as far as your track is concerned is first, the ties...their spacing and size, then next, the width of the railhead, then the spikeheads, especially if they're way oversized or weird looking, then the profile of the rail, then the height.  This means that for discerning eyes, only two brands are acceptable...Micro Engineering flex and their excellent #6 turnouts, and Atlas 55...because of their North American-looking ties.  Third best is Peco55 from a North American-looking standpoint, their one main drawback being their toy-like tie porportions, but pizza cutters of any height will run on Peco55.

What I'm saying is that it might be better to determine exactly what track is compatible with your pizza-cuttered engines before actually grinding down the flanges...because only one brand of C55 track is likely to have problems with them...Atlas55, and if you haven't started laying track on your layout yet, it would be a lot less work to just choose the track they'll run on.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[peteski]

What I'm saying is that it might be better to determine exactly what track is compatible with your pizza-cuttered engines before actually grinding down the flanges...because only one brand of C55 track is likely to have problems with them...Atlas55, and if you haven't started laying track on your layout yet, it would be a lot less work to just choose the track they'll run on.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

Well, his goal might also be appearance.
Turning down flanges on old models does improve their appearance, especially if large portions of the wheel are visible.  I recall, in the early '90s, turning down flanges on Arnold GG1, and that really improved its appearance when the model was viewed from the side.

[robert3985]

Well, his goal might also be appearance.
Turning down flanges on old models does improve their appearance, especially if large portions of the wheel are visible.  I recall, in the early '90s, turning down flanges on Arnold GG1, and that really improved its appearance when the model was viewed from the side.

I agree Peter that the models WILL look better with smaller flanges, which is the only reason I am converting to FVM lo-pro narrow tread wheelsets for my rolling stock since my plastic ME lo-pros work just fine.  However, the OP didn't say anything about appearance in his initial post, just a statement that he wants his older engines to "...be able to run on lower profile rail."

If the OP hadn't mentioned being able to run on lower profile rail, then I would have assumed his main impetus would have been a more scale appearance, and you ARE correct that maybe the OP wants to kill two birds with one stone by cutting/grinding his flanges down which will be an added benefit in any case.

I'll be interested in what he's got to say about it.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[peteski]

. . .
 However, the OP didn't say anything about appearance in his initial post, just a statement that he wants his older engines to "...be able to run on lower profile rail."

If the OP hadn't mentioned being able to run on lower profile rail, then I would have assumed his main impetus would have been a more scale appearance, and you ARE correct that maybe the OP wants to kill two birds with one stone by cutting/grinding his flanges down which will be an added benefit in any case.

Well, to cover my butt, I specifically stated "Well, his goal might also be appearance".  "Also" is the keyword here. 

[wm3798]

I've done a couple of Rivarossi steamers using the teats up in a cradle method, running the engine with some alligator clips, and carefully filing the flanges as they spin.  I used the Dremel/screw mount on the idlers in the pilot and trailing trucks, and simply replaced the axles in the tender with new insulated wheel sets. 
(if you're upgrading the electrical pick up as well as the appearance, new Bachmann tender trucks will give you all-wheel pick up as well as darkened smaller flanges...)

The trick with that method is to be prepared to tear down the locomotive AFTER you've done the work to clean out the millings before you re-lube.

If appearance is the driver of the project, keep in mind that you're still going to have a vintage shell with all the issues of vintage drives.  I've just finally caved in and gone back to vintage track...  It won't win me any prizes, but I can run my old beasts in endless circles without a lot of fuss.

When I get back to building a more elaborate layout with the tons of Atlas c55 flex I still have, I'll run my newer compatible stuff and put my old equipment back on the shelf.

It's all a matter of priority.

Lee

[railnerd]

Thanks for all the ideas folks—  I've been away from TRW for a few days.

The lathe in question is this one from a few years back:

https://littlemachineshop.com/products/product_view.php?ProductID=4959

Yes, and my goal is to actually operate these things.

-Dave