NWSL Saved!

[nickelplate759]

Huzzah!

[Joetrain59]

Great news indeed!
 Joe D

[robert3985]

Excellent news!  (WHEW!!!    )

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[ednadolski]

Maybe I should ask them about making Proto:160 wheels.....   

<... sobers up....>


Ed

[BCR 570]

What we really need are the low profile replacement wheels for the Atlas/China diesels which were sold as #2675-6.

Good news though; some of their tools such as Chopper and True Sander are indispensable for scratch-building and kit-bashing.


Tim

[diezmon]

sweet!  This was the whole reason i started looking into grinding down my old LL flanges   

[nkalanaga]

Ed:  Why not?  The British have proven that exact-scale 2mm scale wheels work, and N scale isn't that much smaller.  There probably wouldn't be much of a market, but they wouldn't have to keep them in stock, either.  Make them a special order item.

I imagine they'd sell a few to people who want them for photos, even if they don't use them on the layout.

[narrowminded]

Are specs for Proto:160 wheels and NMRA- N Fine Scale wheels similar? 

[up1950s]

This IS the best possible outcome , best wishes to him/her and them .

[ednadolski]

Are specs for Proto:160 wheels and NMRA- N Fine Scale wheels similar? 

https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/s-4.1_2006.01.pdf
https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/S-3.1%202006.01.pdf


Technically, Proto:160 does not exist, since the NMRA Proto scales define a Fine:N but not a Proto:160.    One could always scale say P:87.1 by 0.5444, but the result would be non-conformant by definition (as there is nothing with which to conform).   A P:87.1 wheel is code 64, which scales to code 35 for P:160. Fine:N is code 51 by comparison, and the Fine:N flange is actually pretty close to P:87.1.

The trackwork is where it gets even trickier, with flangeway tolerances around 0.0011" max.  I don't think I could build turnouts that accurately (but I'd bet that @robert3985 could ).

Ed

[garethashenden]

Ed:  Why not?  The British have proven that exact-scale 2mm scale wheels work, and N scale isn't that much smaller.  There probably wouldn't be much of a market, but they wouldn't have to keep them in stock, either.  Make them a special order item.

I imagine they'd sell a few to people who want them for photos, even if they don't use them on the layout.

2mm Finescale isn’t exact-scale, the flanges are bigger. Here’s a comparison photo. On the left is a 4mm scale P4 wheel, that does have proto flanges but in a scale twice as big. The flange depth is 0.014”. Next is a 2FS 10mm driving wheel, the flange depth is 0.019”. After that is a NWSL code 50 33” wheel, flange depth of 0.013”. Finally is a FVM 33” fine wheel, flange depth of 0.016”.

[nkalanaga]

So N scale already has production wheels as close to scale as the 2FS?  Interesting.

Defining Proto:160 would be easy enough with a calculator.  Get the AAR wheel and track standards, and reduce them to N scale.  No harder than starting with P:87, and more accurate.

"Conformance" shouldn't be an issue with something that, by definition, is an exact reduction from a prototype.  Everybody calculating the standards should get the same results.

[peteski]

"Conformance" shouldn't be an issue with something that, by definition, is an exact reduction from a prototype.  Everybody calculating the standards should get the same results.

You are correct of course, but like Ed stated, trying to keep those very fine tolerances would not be easy. Just as truly-scaled handrails and  grab irons in N scale are almost impossibility (and even if someone accomplished that, they would likely be too delicate to handle - display model only).  At least that's how I see it.

[ednadolski]

Just as truly-scaled handrails and  grab irons in N scale are almost impossibility (and even if someone accomplished that, they would likely be too delicate to handle - display model only).

Heh, didn't know I accomplished the 'impossible'....

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=39361.msg480564#msg480564

As for durability, while I wouldn't let the cat bat it around, it certainly isn't so fragile that I have to consign it to the display case.

/>

Ed

[robert3985]

...The trackwork is where it gets even trickier, with flangeway tolerances around 0.0011" max.  I don't think I could build turnouts that accurately (but I'd bet that @robert3985 could ).

Ed

Thanks Ed!  However, a tolerance of .0011" is insane, and I am sure I couldn't build turnouts that complied with that measurement.  OTOH, I'm not sure that such a tight tolerance would be necessary for a Proto160 turnout to work with Proto160 wheels...and work well.

Let's get a real picture of the sizes of some of the measurements of an N-scale wheel that complies to scaled-down AAR prototype wheels.

There are three types of wheels that are running on track that complies to AAR standards...a (1) Wide Flange Wheel, a (2) Narrow Flange Wheel, and a (3) Cylindrical Wheel and some measurements are different between all three.

The one common measurement between all three is the flange height.  AAR compliant wheels have a flange height of 1", or .00625" in N-scale.

Wide Flange Wheels have a flange width of 1.3750" or .0086" in N-scale.

Narrow Flange Wheels and Cylindrical Wheels have a flange width of 1.1563"/1 5/32",  or .0072" in N-scale.

Total tire width for Wide Flange Wheels and Narrow Flange Wheels is 5.7188" or .0357" in N-scale.

Total tire width for Cylindrical Wheels is 5.5" or .0344" in N-scale.

When looking at actual cross-sections of all three of these prototype wheels, it is immediately noticeable that their profiles are quite complex, with tread tapers and several different radii on flanges and other surfaces.

Being under a time-constraint at the moment, I don't have time to convert the PDF image to a jpg to post here, but I'll edit this post later to include at least one wheel cross section.

For reliable Proto160 operation, it becomes pretty obvious that not only do the wheels need to be compliant to a prototype cross section, but the railheads on the rails that we'd make our track from also need to be scaled-down to 1:160th scale from prototype specifications, and that, fellow a$$-hats, is not going to happen in the foreseeable future unless one of us wins a major lottery.

However, if just a scale-sized flange height/width and tire width are all that's wanted, instead of a completely prototype wheel cross-section, maybe reliable running could be accomplished on presently available track...code 40 being the only track that represents the height of any prototype N-scale rail with a rail-like cross section.

Just thinking about it, it would seem to me that using the same tools I use to lay N-scale turnouts and track, converted to Proto160 measurements, would work okay for reliable turnouts and track, but...I'm only guessing.

A flange height of only .00625" is really tiny, and the possibility that laying track to the vertical smoothness needed for a flange that small to run reliably would be extremely difficult.

But, it would really look great!

I'm pretty happy with the flanges and tire width on FVM narrow wheelsets.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore