ExactRail wheel announcement (video)

[wcfn100]

If they are out therre, show me. This is the closest photo that I could find to th ER wheel.

Until they're in hand it might be hard to find an exact profile match (if there is one), but this looks like a good start.





Jason

[Hyperion]

Wheel rear profile changes by size and by manufacturer in extremely large ways.  BLMA's contour matches that of a cast wheel from the likes of Griffin/Amsted (who produce most of the plates used in the US today), but doesn't match that of a forged wheel from Standard or Sumitomo or the numerous Eastern European manufacturers which can have a very noticeable rear 'dished' profile that's, essentially, the inverse of the front profile.

Frankly it's, 1> nearly impossible to even see  the rear profile anyways, and 2> for whatever reason, the smooth curves of the rear profile of a plate just never photograph right anyways and always look flatter than they really are; so even in the rare picture, you're never going to really tell if your profile is 'right' or not, just as long as it's not flat with no noticeable rim or hub you're okay.

As one who ran the largest wheelset plant in the country for several years, and therefore seen millions of plates and hundreds of thousands of axles, the ER profile on the wheel plate doesn't look 'perfect' (neither is BLMA's, if nothing else then for scale issues alone, as the rim and hub appear out of scale), but it doesn't look wrong either and is more suited to a plate that's not cast from Griffin, which really means it's more suitable for half the railcars in service today and the further back in time you go from today, the less marketshare Griffin's cast wheels had.  If you wanna get really technical, BLMA's rear profile from a modern cast wheel isn't suitable for many of the cars people them on or eras they're operating them in.

And I'm not sure at all why ER went through the trouble of tapering the axles down to the center, since that's not prototypical at all.  Or perhaps it was once, but it's certainly not that way anymore.  I've never seen an E, F, K, or G axle from any manufacturer that was tapered in the center out towards the seat in such an obviously visible manner (and new K+ not at all).  I do like how the axle has a noticeable wheelseat on it though, and I do like the rear profile around the hub which appears much more in scale than BLMA's, but the image may have been of an HO version.

[C855B]

All of this discussion has left out NWSL as a wheelset supplier, albeit noncompetitive now.

What I want to know is when somebody is going to do wheelsets based on the Southern Wheel Company prototype. With or without cracks. Those of us who model the '70s would be loathe to put a white U-1 stencil on anything that didn't have a properly-represented wheel.

  

[wcfn100]

And I'm not sure at all why ER went through the trouble of tapering the axles down to the center, since that's not prototypical at all.  Or perhaps it was once, but it's certainly not that way anymore.

I think that's it.  There are multiple drawings within the Car Builders Cyclopedia's showing tapered axles including AAR standard drawings (all '66 and earlier).

edit: The picture I posted above also shows the taper.

My '66 version shows an AAR drawing that has no taper and even specifies a tolerance.

Jason

[DKS]

And I'm not sure at all why ER went through the trouble of tapering the axles down to the center, since that's not prototypical at all.  Or perhaps it was once...

Certainly was once...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31019817@N02/7392820838/lightbox/

And the backs are deeply dished, too...

[Andrew Hutchinson]

Thanks Hyperion, PFS, skipgear, wcfn100, DKS etc for the enlightenment. I had just just asked a question regarding the types of dish on MFCL when I noticed this thread. Should have checked here first...

On recent trips through the west I've noticed more than a few different types of dish on 33" wheels. I made my first mostly successful (non-chattering) dish cutter only last month but I screwed up the actual shape and was interested to note the differences documenting various wheels for a new set of cutters.

Hyperion, since you were in the industry,  what sort of mix of wheel makers would be applicable to the 1960s? I ask because it would be interesting to know if only to avoid the trap of replicating the most era specific or seldom used wheels and also  because more tool making generally leads to better tool making especially where form tools are concerned.

Here's a locomotive wheel made with an inaccurate dish form cutter (wrong shape/learning experience/ etc) that I made last month.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32922165@N06/7463573464/in/photostream

Thanks for your time,

Andrew Hutchinson
BC RPM Trains 2012

[Sokramiketes]

Thanks Hyperion, PFS, skipgear, wcfn100, DKS etc for the enlightenment. I had just just asked a question regarding the types of dish on MFCL when I noticed this thread. Should have checked here first...

On recent trips through the west I've noticed more than a few different types of dish on 33" wheels. I made my first mostly successful (non-chattering) dish cutter only last month but I screwed up the actual shape and was interested to note the differences documenting various wheels for a new set of cutters.

Hyperion, since you were in the industry,  what sort of mix of wheel makers would be applicable to the 1960s? I ask because it would be interesting to know if only to avoid the trap of replicating the most era specific or seldom used wheels and also  because more tool making generally leads to better tool making especially where form tools are concerned.

Here's a locomotive wheel made with an inaccurate dish form cutter (wrong shape/learning experience/ etc) that I made last month.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32922165@N06/7463573464/in/photostream

Thanks for your time,

Andrew Hutchinson
BC RPM Trains 2012

Thou art the fellowe!  Nice.

[Hyperion]

Hyperion, since you were in the industry,  what sort of mix of wheel makers would be applicable to the 1960s? I ask because it would be interesting to know if only to avoid the trap of replicating the most era specific or seldom used wheels and also  because more tool making generally leads to better tool making especially where form tools are concerned.

Andrew Hutchinson
BC RPM Trains 2012

Though I can tell you all sorts of things about modern-day wheelset components, suppliers, and demand; I am, by no means, an expert on the history of wheels.  But, my guesstimation, would be that the overall mix wouldn't be much different than it is today.  Griffin still would've made the majority, Standard would have been next.  You'd have had Southern back then still, which would have taken the fairly distant third place that Sumitomo and misc other eastern European makers have taken today.  Overall wheelset profiles were changing considerably back then though, as Griffin began casting wheels sometime in the 50s/60s and the modern parabolic profile we see today began appearing in numbers in the 60s/70s.

[GaryHinshaw]

That's quite a piece of work Andrew!  What is your end game with those?  When you get the tooling worked out, do you anticipate that they will perform well?  If you decide to toss those, you should rust them up and make an awesome flat car or scrap load with them. 

[Andrew Hutchinson]

Thanks Hyperion/Mark. Prior to yesterday I didn't know or couldn't remember any of the names you listed so  I am a world ahead of where I was. Hopefully others are too.

Gary, the wheels are for use. Don't know yet if they will do what I want. They match the GN and NP trackwork shown earlier. They are set up to the tight end of the Model Railway Study Group Proto: 120 specs set out in 1966~ back when Proto:4 was first being formalized. They are smaller than Nfinescale (or FS160, which has a long running history) and scaled up are somewhat closer to scale than an HO code88 wheel but they are NOT scale. The wheels pictured were done with an Nfinescale form tool, the tool being brought in a couple of thou to narrow the flange then manually bringing the flange diameter to spec with a well oiled file. New cutters need to be made all round to reduce the flange/tread fillet and make flange forming a one move operation again. The fillet on my FS160 cutter was too large and lead to some  rocking but I am hoping the recent addition of a lomo stereo microscope  will lead to better tool making. For production I'll need to build a pair of turrets that are currently under design but for testing it isn't a big deal to turn them unoptimized on the lathe. Much testing remains to be done with the adapted proto TT. A somewhat happy side effect of my on again off again appreciation of the hobby is that I am less concerned with building an albatross than I was several years ago.

I should mention that outside of actually learning to tool and produce the wheels I don't have a whole lot of interest in them but they are a requirement for the track and vehicles I am trying to produce. If things were different I'd buy a bit more of what is available.

Andrew Hutchinson