Wheel Change

[sd75i]

   I bought this duo to experiment with track cleaning and doesn't work well on code 55 track!   Anyone happen to change out wheels on these?  If so, what did you use?  Thanks in Advance!

[nkalanaga]

Depending on how hard they are to take apart you might try chucking them in a drill and filing the flanges.  I did that with MiniTrix Fs and they worked fine.  Since you'll have to take the mechanism apart anyway to change the wheels it's worth a try.

[peteski]

   I bought this duo to experiment with track cleaning and doesn't work well on code 55 track!   Anyone happen to change out wheels on these?  If so, what did you use?  Thanks in Advance!

Good luck with those Fleischmann engines. I don't know of any low-profile replacement wheels.  Maybe some European TRW member knows if there are retrofit wheels available.

These might be from some earlier production runs which, like most old N scale items, have extra-deep flanges.  Maybe more recent run of these would have slight smaller flanges.  The other option is to turn down the flanges. Many modelers have done that with various older models.

As far as track cleaning goes, I don't quite like how these work. They have spring-loaded fast-spinning sandpaper disks sanding down the track. To me that is way too aggressive.

[robert3985]

   I bought this duo to experiment with track cleaning and doesn't work well on code 55 track! ...

"...code 55 track!"   Okay...it's NOT "...code 55 track!" that's the problem, it's Atlas Code 55 track that's the problem.  Pizza cutter flanges work perfectly on both Micro Engineering Code 55 and Peco Code 55 track.

Atlas opted to maximize the nubs which hold the ties to the rails in their C55 track, both in height and longitudinal size so that any wheels which are not NMRA compliant as far as flange depth and/or flange taper degree will not run without interference with the Atlas attachment "nubs".

Although Micro Engineering's "new" Code 55 flex track, with its bigger, more uniform spikeheads (AKA as "less realistic") is a step down from their initial offering when Micro Engineering was Railcraft, pizza cutters work fine on it as long as they're not deeper than .055".  Pizza cutters will work just fine on hand-laid Code 40 rails too if they're glued down or soldered to PCB ties.

"Spikeheads" on Peco C55 track are purely decorative since the rails are imbedded in the plastic tie injection casting, and also offer near zero interference with older pizza-cutter flanges.  I say "near-zero interference" because for all I know, there are some N-gauge pizza cutter wheelsets out there with flanges deeper than .055", although I've never seen any in the last 40 years.

Soooo...it's only Atlas Code 55 that has the pizza-cutter flange interference problem...NOT any other code 55 track.

Yup, I know this is picking nits, but it's a pet-peeve of mine because it misrepresents two thirds of the N-scale code 55 track products out there and implies that it's the height of the track that's the problem, and may wrongly mislead beginning N-scale model railroaders into thinking that less prototypical looking track products with higher rails are the way to go to ensure their older big-flanged equipment will run reliably.

...just sayin'...

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[peteski]

"...code 55 track!"   Okay...it's NOT "...code 55 track!" that's the problem, it's Atlas Code 55 track that's the problem.  Pizza cutter flanges work perfectly on both Micro Engineering Code 55 and Peco Code 55 track.

Atlas opted to maximize the nubs which hold the ties to the rails in their C55 track, both in height and longitudinal size so that any wheels which are not NMRA compliant as far as flange depth and/or flange taper degree will not run without interference with the Atlas attachment "nubs".

Soooo...it's only Atlas Code 55 that has the pizza-cutter flange interference problem...NOT any other code 55 track.

Yup, I know this is picking nits, but it's a pet-peeve of mine because it misrepresents two thirds of the N-scale code 55 track products out there and implies that it's the height of the track that's the problem, and may wrongly mislead beginning N-scale model railroaders into thinking that less prototypical looking track products with higher rails are the way to go to ensure their older big-flanged equipment will run reliably.

Bob,
the real elephant in the room is the lack of defined standards for the distance between the top of the rail and the spike head for N scale track.  Because of this every company does whatever they want.  While I don't know whether the Chinese engineer (I assume here) who designed the Atlas C55 molds was considering the deep flanges of the N scale "toys" we were using for decades, or did they only consider the NMRA wheel specs to make sure their track was compatible.  Or maybe the larger spikes were used to make the track more sturdy? I think that this incompatibility is the result of non-model-railroad-savvy engineers designing more RR products.  Kudos to Peco engineers for creating a very clever solution in their version of C55 track - someone there actually gave things some serious thought. The result was a very sturdy track which is also compatible with the old-style deep flanges.

Before c55 track became widely adopted, the previous defacto N scale standard (deep flanges and c80 track) was widely accepted and all the N scale track and rolling stock were compatible.

The only spec I see in http://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/s-3.2_2010.05.08.pdf for what I assume depth in N scale is "WHEEL code 72".  Whatever that means...

[mmagliaro]

I see it as just the opposite.

The flanges are bigger than the code 55 standard.  It's the flanges that are the problem.   The fact that oversized flanges work on other brands just means that with other brands you are lucky that those manufacturers saw a way to make their rail heights low without being hit by oversized flanges.  Well, that's good for them, but the flanges are still oversized and I really can't lay the blame at Atlas' feet for this.

I think beginning N Scale modelers would be better served by being told that they should buy equipment that has standard-compliant
wheels, rather than telling them they can go ahead and buy bigger flanges and they will "mostly" work on code 55 track except for Atlas.

As for N Scale track lacking defined standards, it *does* have one very clear standard (among others), the maximum allowable depth for the wheel flanges.   After all, part of the code 55 standard is the maximum allowable flange depth.   Atlas track does obey that standard and those wheels do not.   

[peteski]

I see it as just the opposite.

As for N Scale track lacking defined standards, it *does* have one very clear standard (among others), the maximum allowable depth for the wheel flanges.   After all, part of the code 55 standard is the maximum allowable flange depth.   Atlas track does obey that standard and those wheels do not.

While I like the way to flipped this discussion (and blame) around to the wheel design, you have to admit that there is still a lot of older equipment out there and that Peco made a smart decision to make their c55 track compatible with it.  As far as ME track goes, I will spaculate that their design (finer spikes) made it compatible with older wheels totally by-chance.

[robert3985]

While I like the way to flipped this discussion (and blame) around to the wheel design, you have to admit that there is still a lot of older equipment out there and that Peco made a smart decision to make their c55 track compatible with it.  As far as ME track goes, I will spaculate that their design (finer spikes) made it compatible with older wheels totally by-chance.

Peter @peteski  , I am ambivalent about Peco's innovative C55 track design.  I agree completely that it eliminates the flange interference problem with older non-NMRA wheelsets, but functionality is only part of an engineer's design parameters.  Peco, after spending all that time and development money could have made their Code55 N-gauge track the best-looking and most durable (bullet-proof) N-scale track out there, but chose very deliberately to have it appear nearly identical to their toy-like competitors' designs.

They had the opportunity to corner the market for prototypical-looking track, but chose to look like everybody else...a wasted moment in N-scale history for sure.

I disagree with your speculation that Railcraft track was accidently designed to be compatible with deep flanges because of this one fact...it was introduced when low-profile wheelsets were produced only by a single obscure manufacturer...Northwest Shortline, and every other N-gauge wheelset out there had pizza-cutters.  Of course Railcraft had to design their truly N-scale track to be compatible with these deep flanges if they wanted to sell any of their product.  This fortuitously required extremely small "spikeheads", which both ensured compatibility AND looked hellaciously excellent at the same time!  The bad side to this was relatively fragile track, although I never had problems with rails stripping from the tie strips way back in the middle '80's when I started using Railcraft flex.

Lately, the general adoption of smaller flanges (not necessarily "low-profile" yet...but not pizza cutters) encouraged Micro Engineering (formerly Railcraft) when redesigning their worn-out tie injection molds, to go to a noticeably larger, but stronger "spikehead"...making the track stronger, but looking worse.  Dammit...   a bad call IMHO...and making their code 40 flex nearly unusable with anything but true lo-pros.

...I think beginning N Scale modelers would be better served by being told that they should buy equipment that has standard-compliant
wheels, rather than telling them they can go ahead and buy bigger flanges and they will "mostly" work on code 55 track except for Atlas.

As for N Scale track lacking defined standards, it *does* have one very clear standard (among others), the maximum allowable depth for the wheel flanges.   After all, part of the code 55 standard is the maximum allowable flange depth.   Atlas track does obey that standard and those wheels do not.   

Max @mmagliaro , I agree that beginning N-scale modelers should be advised to buy NMRA compliant products, but NMRA standards are not the end-all as far as functionality is concerned as is evidenced by the Atlas C55 track problem...and it IS a problem.  Atlas built their N-scale C55 track products to comply with NMRA design parameters, but it obviously doesn't work for a lot of legacy N-gauge trains...this is an Atlas product design problem, and IMO, it's a good thing to let new N-scalers know about the problem, and that they have other choices if they perceive the Atlas C55 problem as insurmountable due to whatever equipment they may have or may choose that they want to run on their trackage.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[peteski]

Peter @peteski  , I am ambivalent about Peco's innovative C55 track design.  I agree completely that it eliminates the flange interference problem with older non-NMRA wheelsets, but functionality is only part of an engineer's design parameters.  Peco, after spending all that time and development money could have made their Code55 N-gauge track the best-looking and most durable (bullet-proof) N-scale track out there, but chose very deliberately to have it appear nearly identical to their toy-like competitors' designs.

They had the opportunity to corner the market for prototypical-looking track, but chose to look like everybody else...a wasted moment in N-scale history for sure.

Could it be something totally different?  While I have not verified this personally, I heard that the Peco tie dimensions and spacing is correct for the British railways (which after all is Peco's primary market)?

I disagree with your speculation that Railcraft track was accidently designed to be compatible with deep flanges because of this one fact...it was introduced when low-profile wheelsets were produced only by a single obscure manufacturer...Northwest Shortline, and every other N-gauge wheelset out there had pizza-cutters. 

Unless you know this from someone at Micro Engineering/Railcraft who was involved in the design of this product then I would treat your opinion as another speculation (but it does have merit). So unless we can verify this with someone directly from the manufacturer, we will never know for sure.

[Teditor]

I don't often have much to say in these forums, but why would you go to Code 55 track to be more realistic and expect large (Pizza cutter) wheels to operate, if you want the large flanges, use the larger (Code 80) track, you can't really have your cake and eat it as well, I am always amazed at people who are exacting in prototype fidelity, yet excuse many other aspects such as course wheels to suit themselves.

Ted (Teditor) Freeman
From the Land Down Under.

[nickelplate759]

I don't often have much to say in these forums, but why would you go to Code 55 track to be more realistic and expect large (Pizza cutter) wheels to operate, if you want the large flanges, use the larger (Code 80) track, you can't really have your cake and eat it as well, I am always amazed at people who are exacting in prototype fidelity, yet excuse many other aspects such as course wheels to suit themselves.

Ted (Teditor) Freeman
From the Land Down Under.

In my case it's simple - because I have some old treasures with pizza-cutter flanges that I'd still like to play with.
In some case I rework them with smaller flanges, but sometimes I can't (easily).

George

[mmagliaro]

In my case it's simple - because I have some old treasures with pizza-cutter flanges that I'd still like to play with.
In some case I rework them with smaller flanges, but sometimes I can't (easily).

George

This is always the quandry.  When I originally used ME code 55, it was for exactly this reason.  I had a bunch of kitbashed steam that
I thought I could not adapt.  Eventually, I bit the bullet and forced myself to learn how to grind flanges down on anything where I couldn't easily just replace wheelsets.

I'm not saying your decision is wrong.   If I had a bunch of equipment I liked that had larger flanges, I'd probably do the same thing.

All I'm saying is that I think that having two options for code 55 (some that allow just a bit more clearance to run legacy equipment, and one, Atlas, that doesn't) is not a bad thing.  And I'm not about to carp about Atlas's choice when they stuck to the flange clearance standard.  I may have been annoyed by it when that track first came out, but folks, code 55 is not "new" anymore.   Those big flanges
are going to phase out just like 9-3/4" "standard" curves.
   

[peteski]

This is comical - someone down-voted Bob's and my posts and up-voted Max's.  I don't get it.  We were all discussing topical subject and I didn't think there was any negativity in those posts. Funny how these things work. 

[nkalanaga]

The big issue here is that both the wheels and track meet "standards".  The track is built to NMRA standards, which were established for American modellers, and most commonly used in the USA and Canada, or by others modeling NA railroads.

The wheels, on the other hand, were built to European standards, and while they may have changed in the last twenty years or so, the NEM standards allow deep flanges, which is why most European track is still code 80.

This problem occurs in any industry with more than one standard, and someone tries to mix incompatible designs.  Think PC and MAC...  NMRA wheels on NEM track usually works, NEM wheels on NMRA track often doesn't.

[robert3985]

This is comical - someone down-voted Bob's and my posts and up-voted Max's.  I don't get it.  We were all discussing topical subject and I didn't think there was any negativity in those posts. Funny how these things work.

Most likely somebody doesn't like our "tone"...whatever that is...

I upvoted your comments as I enjoy intelligent, well-informed comments as well as spirited and logical defense of opinions which I may or may not agree with...one of the things I really appreciate about TRW.

As to the well-distributed opinion that Peco, Atlas, Shinohara, and other manufacturers of N-gauge track took British Railway's track standards as the example to model their track after...I did a bit of research a few years ago, and determined they don't comply with any prototype track standard.  I've lost the information in the years since then, but it wasn't difficult to find at the time.  Nope, Peco C55 track doesn't look much like prototype British Railway trackage...of any era.

My conclusion was (and is) that whomever designed the first N-gauge track designed it to look generally like railroad track, but to be sturdy enough to allow trains to run while the track was set up on green or orange shag carpet.     It's toy track...while N-scale Railcraft/Micro Engineering track is model track...and Atlas C55 is almost model track.

Not that there's anything intrinsically "wrong" with toy track, since a pretty strong argument can be made that ALL model railroading is just people playing with toy trains...in one way or another...

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore