NWSL Saved!

[peteski]

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

I know you're a superb modeler Ed. My statement was "truly-scaled handrails and grab irons in N scale are almost an impossibility".  And I also congratulate you for having a light touch - I have encountered my share of ham-fisted, or unintentionally careless operators (especially at an NTRAK layout settings).  Under those circumstances, a display case would be a safer place for your very realistic model.

My statement was to augment your "The trackwork is where it gets even trickier, with flangeway tolerances around 0.0011" max" statement, Those are pretty close tolerances.

[nkalanaga]

Peteski:  You're right about the tolerances, and I certainly wouldn't want to try it myself.

Bob:  A biger problem than the too-wide railheads is the too-wide rail bases.  Even with code 40 rails, the base of every guardrail would probably have to be filed to get the flangeway narrow enough.  Not impossible, but certainly a major nuisance.  I had the same problem, to a lesser degree, building dual-gauge turnouts.  In code 55, for my mainline, a guardrail would just barely fit between the standard and narrow gauge rails.  Of course, since "Nn3" is actually "Nn3.5", that made it worse, but the combination has been used on the prototype.

[Mark5]

Fantastic news about NWSL! Hopefully now I can get the pieces I need to lower my MTL autoracks using Bryan Bussey's method. 

[robert3985]

As promised, here's a plan view of an AAR Wide Flange Wheel with respective measurements.

Photo (1) - AAR Wide Flange Wheel Measurements:


Not a simple project to reproduce in N-scale.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[ednadolski]

My statement was "truly-scaled handrails and grab irons in N scale are almost an impossibility". 

I was just overtly nit-picking on your terminology (since this is TRW after all)    I wouldn't say impossible, since nearly anything imaginable can be done given enough time+money+determination.... but call it impractical (es.p for model manufacturers) and I 100% wholeheartedly concur.

Ed

[GaryHinshaw]

Andrew Hutchison machined his own proto:160 wheels once and installed them on a Kato F7.  They looked amazing, but they kind of got lost on the loco because they were so far behind the truck side frame.  We tried to run it on TBC but it did not do especially well, even with relatively carefully laid ME flex track.  The biggest issue was treads slipping between the rails.  I shudder at the thought of laying much proto:160 compliant track.

I'm very happy with fine FVM wheels, though I would be tempted by /50 wheels if they had a nice face profile and were affordable.

[peteski]

I was just overtly nit-picking on your terminology (since this is TRW after all)    I wouldn't say impossible, since nearly anything imaginable can be done given enough time+money+determination.... but call it impractical (es.p for model manufacturers) and I 100% wholeheartedly concur.

Ed

You are correct on all counts.  I guess I am not as skilled in conveying my thoughts as are others here.  English being my 2nd language has something to do with that. When one part of the time in English, and the remaining time in Polish, things can get a bit unclear.    Yes, I've used that excuse before, and I'm doing it again. 

One thing I know that when I read something I just wrote, I notice that changing something in my statement will make it clearer. I could repeat the process over and over again, but at some point I just have to call it "good enough".  You will often see that my posts have been edited, usually for that reason.  Then of course are typos (often not picked up by the spell checker).

[narrowminded]

Making the wheels wouldn't be an issue.  In fact, if someone wants 1000 or so, send a note and I could price them.  BUT, before to get too excited, they would likely need a new set of track standards with guard rail clearance narrowed being a big part of that BUT... I don't see the need for the .001" tolerance that's been thrown about.  The main reason that the flangeways would need to be tightened is the narrower wheel flange but the tolerance for the flangeways once the new dimension is the target wouldn't need to be so impossibly tight.  I haven't thoroughly studied the whole thing but again, feel that the tolerances might be tighter than current NMRA but not impossibly so.

What might be able to be done to accomplish the desired look is to just reduce the flange diameter, maybe in half, from the NMRA spec.  This would probably mean adjusting the corner radii slightly but I suspect that could be done and satisfactorily although, again, I didn't dig into the gory details to be absolutely sure.  The advantage to this approach would be to allow current track standards to work adequately.  While these adjustments would not be as forgiving as the current wheel flanges and tread widths they would still afford reasonable tolerance so that decently executed track should be sufficient.  Real crap track, not so good. 

[ednadolski]

I don't see the need for the .001" tolerance that's been thrown about. 

Perhaps it's not really necessary, that number is just a scaling of the tolerances the NMRA had for P:87.  I'm not really sure of all the factors that go in to setting mechanical tolerances, but linear scaling is probably not the right way to do it.  JMHO it doesn't look too promising that the NMRA didn't even attempt to put something down on paper (whether or not anyone could or would ever care to actually build it seems like a different question).

My concern is that expanding tolerances would have a ripple effect back into the other dimensions, but once you start going there then whatever you end up with wouldn't be able to be called "Proto:160" any more.

Ed

[ednadolski]

In fact, if someone wants 1000 or so, send a note and I could price them. 

Any ballpark/SWAG on what that might actually cost?

Ed

[narrowminded]

Any ballpark/SWAG on what that might actually cost?

Ed

Very rough estimate for quantity of 1000- 33" wheelsets (any flange or width spec but all identical units) as follows:

1) Nickel Silver Wheels
2) Delrin Axle
3) Assembled in Gauge
4) Drawing and Setup

These parts would be VERY accurately CNC machined and assembled in a fixture to assure perfect gauge as received. 

As described the estimated cost would be just short of $2.00 per axle.  A fair portion of that is the one time drawing, program, and setup.  In measurably larger quantities the cost might go down to as little as $1.00 per axle.  For quantities in the tens of thousands this cost could probably be down in the $.75  per axle range, maybe probably even less.  (Edit: Thought about it some more.)

Another consideration could be unassembled but not sure that the small savings would be worth it especially if it resulted in difficulties that would most assuredly be blamed on the parts.  

Please understand that this is a very rough estimate.  Serious discussions could proceed if the interest is there.

Another thought and one that strikes me as an attractive option would be the same thing that's basically available now from folks like Fox Valley but with a smaller flange that could run on currently available track.  That could be toyed with by modifying existing wheelsets.  If a workable set of dimensions were arrived upon, produce those in massive quantities.