IM F7s on ME code 40?

[Bill H]

Group:
Do the IM F7s have any problems with ME code 40? If so, would the Kato offset gear low profile wheelsets substitute?

Kind regards,
Bill

[garethashenden]

I don’t have any F7s, but my FTs don’t like ME code 40. I’m not sure if the Kato axle will fix it, the gear is offset but I’m not sure if it’s the same size. I’ll try to swap them tomorrow and report back.

[Bill H]

Gareth:
Thanks , very curious as to what you find. I don't have any left over KATO low profile wheelsets handy ( I used all I had updating some older KATO locos ) or I would have checked myself. I seem to remember that the trucks are duplicates of or are from Atlas.

Kind regards,
Bill

[Bill H]

Gareth:
Did you turn down the wheelsets on your FTs or ?

Kind regards,
Bill

[garethashenden]

Sorry, forgot about this. The Kato wheels go in the FT trucks just fine.

[Bill H]

Gareth:
Thanks for that update. What did you do to solve the problem with your FT? Did you put in the KATO wheels or turn down the IM wheels or?

Kind regards,
Bill

[garethashenden]

Gareth:
Thanks for that update. What did you do to solve the problem with your FT? Did you put in the KATO wheels or turn down the IM wheels or?

Kind regards,
Bill

I haven’t dealt with them yet. They’re not my primary era, so it’s a “I’ll get to it sometime” project. I’ll use Kato wheels when I get to it, they look so good.

[robert3985]

Group:
Do the IM F7s have any problems with ME code 40? If so, would the Kato offset gear low profile wheelsets substitute?

Kind regards,
Bill

Every engine I have, including IM F7's, all Kato engines, all Athearn engines, all LL engines, all my brass engines, will not run on ME C40 flex without banging the inside spikeheads. 

Interestingly, most of them will run fine on old Rail-Craft C40, but the injection molding tool wore out, and ME changed it, making the spikeheads much larger and taller.

Only true "low profile" wheels run okay on present-day Micro Engineering C40 Flex.

I used some of the new ME C40 flex for one of my UP center sidings, thinking it was the same as my stash of Rail-Craft C40, and my Kato F3 test engine hit the spikeheads so much that it lost electrical contact and wouldn't run at all. Since a major part of my motive power roster are Kato F's, it became evident that I either needed to rip this small section of track out and re-lay it with Rail-Craft C40, hand-lay it using ME C40 rails and PCB ties every fifth tie...or SAND THE SPIKEHEADS DOWN SO THEY'RE LOWER.

I decided to sand them down.

I used the NWSL "The Detail Sander" Blue (240 grit) Sander Stick, which is a spring-loaded miniature sanding block with a rounded end and a wedge end, and is available in 120, 240, 320, 400 and 600 grits, with replacement belts available for each color-coded stick.

Sanding the two lines of inner spikeheads went pretty quickly, and fuzz and burrs got removed with light brushing with a small brass brush and vacuuming the debris.  Remember that this is only a small section of track about 18" long.  To do an entire layout or complex module made with ME C40 Flex will take much longer.

The main concern is being careful to not sand the spikeheads so much that they lose their rail foot gripping ability, or sanding them completely away, so you have to do the sanding a little at a time, checking with a test engine or car to determine when you've sanded them down to height that won't interfere with cars or engines that have the tallest flanges you hope to run on it.

An unexpected bonus is that I think they look better sanded down.

Just remember that Micro Engineering C40 Flex is NOT your daddy's old Rail-Craft C40 Flex unfortunately.

Even the Rail-Craft C40 Flex had problems with pizza cutters back in the day when I was involved with the Utah N-Scalers club, and I elected to use hand-laid PCB C40 track on my Park City Branch mainline and yard, because even pizza cutters run okay without interference on the .043" high rails without spikeheads to worry about.

Photo (1) Micro Engineering C40 Flex with sanded-down insides spikeheads positioned between Rail-Craft C55 Flex at the Emory Center Siding on my portable, sectional layout:


If you really want to use C40 rails, and since Rail-Craft C40 Flex is no longer available, I would highly recommend hand-laying your C40 track using the PCB method with PCB ties every fifth tie and wood ties in between.  Micro Engineering sells unweathered (and weathered) C40 rail for hand-laying (I prefer unweathered because I don't have to worry about removing the weathering when soldering), and in England, The 2mm Scale Association sells it in "coils" of various lengths, and the two types are within .0005" (half a mil) of being identical.  The 2mm Scale Association calls their rail "Flat Bottom Rail" or "FB" to differentiate it from their C40 "Bullhead Rail".

Although you sacrifice any spikehead details when hand-laying your C40 trackage, I don't find their absence noticeable, either to my eye, or in my close-up photographs.  Yes, Proto87Stores makes N-scale C40 track details, including tie plates, but the parts are so damned tiny that I've actually lost some of them simply by sneezing near where I'm laying track.  They literally are about the size of dandruff flakes, and for my UP rails, the prototype tie plates are much larger than these etched 1/160th replicas.

Photo (2) - Hand-laid C40 PCB trackage on the Park City Branch (in foreground) on my sectional, portable layout - painted, weathered and ballasted:


For me, hand-laying my C40 branchline, sidings and industrial trackage has been worth it...trouble-free, durable and looking good.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Bill H]

Sorry, forgot about this. The Kato wheels go in the FT trucks just fine.

Gareth:
Sorry, had to do a long haul to Asia and just got back. I seem to remember a thread about those Kato low profiles, something about the axles extend past the wheels further so that the axle shafts are a bit too long for Atlas/IM trucks. Did you have any problem with that?

Kind regards,
Bill

[Maletrain]

Bob, Regarding sanding ME-40 track spikeheads: would it be reasonably easy to make a sanding jig that contacts the rails when the sandpaper has cut the spike heads down sufficiently to clear wheel flanges?  That could help protect against over-sanding the spike heads while also avoiding all of the time-consuming checking-while-sanding needed to avoid that when not using a jig.

[Bill H]

Hi Bob:
Thanks for the thoughts, but I really don't have much interest in sanding down 200+ feet of already painted and weathered ME code 40, which is why I asked about the wheelsset issue regarding IM F7s. I already have all my rolling stock, except some engines converted to FV metal wheel sets which are just fine on code 40, but I have a large number of F7s that are not playing well on code 40. I had read your previous posts on sanding down ME code 40 spike heads, which are almost verbatim to the most recent post in this thread, but that option is clearly something that does not resolve my question. Regardless, thanks for the input.

Kind regards,
Bill

[robert3985]

Bob, Regarding sanding ME-40 track spikeheads: would it be reasonably easy to make a sanding jig that contacts the rails when the sandpaper has cut the spike heads down sufficiently to clear wheel flanges?  That could help protect against over-sanding the spike heads while also avoiding all of the time-consuming checking-while-sanding needed to avoid that when not using a jig.

@Maletrain  I agree that it would be "reasonably easy" to construct a sanding jig to get the ME C40 spikeheads down to a predetermined height, and maybe even make it adjustable.  However, since I only had one short piece of modern ME C40 to worry about, I just used what I had on hand...and the spring-loaded NWSL Detail Sanders worked pretty well, even if I did have to check constantly to make sure I wasn't sanding the spikeheads completely away.  Not much different than sanding a part I'm going to use when building an N-scale structure or car.

If I had a LOT of ME C40 track that I needed to sand down, I would definitely make a sanding jig, which would greatly speed up the process and also make it more precise as well as not take much time to construct out of hardwood, brass, Delrin whatever. 

Since hand laid C40 PCB turnouts don't have spikeheads to worry about, sanding a large amount of ME C40 flex shouldn't be that difficult or take much time...even painted, weathered and ballasted track...although I'm sure that there would have to be some touch ups done on the inside railheads, the tops of the spikeheads that just got shortened, and where any stray ballast got knocked off if stuck to tops of ties or to the inside rail web.

Hi Bob:
Thanks for the thoughts, but I really don't have much interest in sanding down 200+ feet of already painted and weathered ME code 40, which is why I asked about the wheelsset issue regarding IM F7s. I already have all my rolling stock, except some engines converted to FV metal wheel sets which are just fine on code 40, but I have a large number of F7s that are not playing well on code 40. I had read your previous posts on sanding down ME code 40 spike heads, which are almost verbatim to the most recent post in this thread, but that option is clearly something that does not resolve my question. Regardless, thanks for the input.

Kind regards,
Bill

Okay.  Yup, my answer doesn't address the second part of your question dealing with compatibility of Kato "low profile" axles dropping into IMR truck mechanisms.  According to your post to me, you already are having problems with your F7's on ME C40 flex, but you don't specify what make of F7 engine model you're having problems with.  I'm deducting they're IM F7's since you asked about replacing axles in IM F7's in your original post.

Part of my reply specifies that my test engine was a Kato F3.  Does Kato make axles for their F models with wheels that are specifically "low profile"?  If not, Kato wheels aren't going to run on ME C40 flex either, since mine don't run on it at all....NONE of my Kato diesels, but, I've had them for years, so maybe Kato does make lower flanges on their later models.

Although you may not have much interest in sanding down the spikeheads on your painted and weathered ME C40 flex, it may be an easier solution than replacing/modifying wheelsets if most of your motive power won't run on it, especially if you make a sanding jig that fits between the rails, registers on the railheads and automatically takes the spikeheads down to a predetermined height that's compatible with most of your motive power's wheel flange heights.

Sanding 200+ feet of track, without having to worry about the turnouts (since they're hand-laid and have no spikeheads) wouldn't take much time, even including retouching your track and painting the sanded off spikeheads.

Now, if you can find drop-in wheelsets that solve your problem, then GREAT.  If you have the capability or know someone who does, then machining/filing the offending wheel flanges is also a solution.  If you have a lot of engines that need wheelset replacing or flange modifications, then making a sanding jig and sanding the inside spikeheads looks like the easiest solution, even if you don't have much interest in it.

When I reply to a question, I often go into it more than what the OP's question implies.  This is because there are other modelers out there who read the posts they're interested in, and may not be exactly, precisely in the same situation as the OP...and, even though my answer may have been posted in another thread a while ago, it's easier just to re-type it than research back to when I posted it the first time...and more convenient for the readers too.

Since your original questions to the group did not supply any background, such as whether or not you had already laid a lot of ME C40 flex, then painted and weathered it before checking to see if all the engines in your roster would run on it, or if you already knew the answer to your first question and just wanted an answer to your second question...which may not solve your problem unless you already have Kato engines that are running without interference on your ME C40 track, it's logical for the answers to diverge somewhat into adjacent territory.  Believe me, this drift was much less than what is "normal" thread drift for TRW.   

As for others who want to use C40 rails and may be contemplating using ME C40 flex assuming that most motive power will run okay on it...I admonish you to go with hand-laid PCB C40 instead...which has much fewer hassles and will handle any size N-scale flanges you decide to run on it...completely eliminating the type of headaches the OP is having with flange compatibility problems.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore