Hey Joe question on the "new wheels"

Prefer Large Flanges - Pizza Cutter

I like the MT pizza cutter flanges.

 

The molded on ladders draw attention also..

Rob, keep it up - look how far you have brought us in flange/tread size.
http://www.wildcatmines.com/pics/miner-roughing-it.jpg



Al

 

Mmm, pizza!

A good photo requires so many factors. Good weathering, good scenery, prototypical appearance, interesting detail, great backdrop, I could go on. I have only very, very rarely seen a layout so perfect in all these respects that my eye would be "drawn" to the wheels. (Frankly, I've never even SEEN anyone's wheels in a photo. Either I've admired the layout and photo or I've been distracted by plastic people, poor scenery or backdrops, or overly garish and shiny vehicles and accessories). Being so phenomenally focused on wheels seems a little more like an obsession to me. I wonder, Rob de Rebel, is your layout really so phenomenal that MT wheels destroy it? I think if you are so distressed by this one aspect of your layout, you should buy expensive wheels to replace them and be done with it.

And no, being mean to people does not help spark progress. It actually retards it.

I love MT cars and their wheels work great on my layout.

 

Well while there are both good pros and cons pointed out in this thread, I would like to share my opinion and experiences.
First, I have Atlas code 55 track, therefore I have to use the low profile wheel sets. So I have a mixture currently of Atlas and MT wheels and a few metal wheel sets. Currently I have not had any problems out of my cars derailing with any brand of wheels. I do not run trains over 15 cars as a general rule due to the size of the layout. None of my rooling stock has had extra weight installed to bring them to the recomemded NRMA practices. That will be done later on. But even so, with the tight curves that I have and arrangement of turn outs, no cars derail due to the wheels. I have had a few derail due to the coupler trip pin being to low but that is a work in progress that I will fix as time goes by. All my rolling stock has truck mounted coupler as well and that has not been a factor towards derailments. Maybe one day I will change to body mount but that is not really a high priority on my list. I think that if the wheels pass the NMRA guage test then there is no reason not to use the wheel set unless you bend the axel while installing it into the truck frame. By which you cause the car to wobble from side to side.

 

What you say is true, to have everything perfect except the wheels, such that the wheels draw attention is very rare. However, when the wheels are perfect as well, it does make a world of a difference.

One images comes to mind from member Caleb Austin. Here is the link to it as I don't want to embed it with out his permission. But check it out! Had those cars had pizza cutters, this photo would not have made anywhere near the impact it does.

Should we ridicule those for choosing or designing pizza cutters? ABSOLUTELY NOT! However when expressed appropriately, demanding the most prototypical products will only make our hobby/scale grow.

As I said in this thread on couplers. Just replace "coupler" with "wheels"

 

The Trainworx gons didn't come with MT's new wheels - they are not out yet (they came with the second version of MT's "low pros").

On another post - Rob, where'd you get the idea that the new wheels will not be NMRA compliant?

Mark

 

First of all, this isn't a debate on the merits of the N.M.R.A. organization or its history with N Scale. While I believe that there is a need for National Standards (whereby I mean North American as opposed to Worldwide because of fundemental differences in the marketplaces in North America vs. the EU and Japan) and a framework to promote the Hobby of Model Railroading, the N.M.R.A. isn't it now and is unlikely to be it IMHO.

That aside, the Wheel Standards published by that organization going back into the 1960's are sound and relevant today for all scales.
The new M-T wheels may fall within the back-to-back and flange depth tolerances of the standards, but from a casual examination of the 36" wheel at least, will not comply because of the lack of any taper in the tread and absence of fillets in the flange/tread transition.
These are not "improvements" in the existing standard.
Two factors seemingly suspend the laws of physics for some that work for others in all scales otherwise...... the use of truck mounted (aka "Talgo") couplers and poor track.
The original production Fox Valley have fine flanges and narrower treads than the norm.
On track that is spread out in gauge or turnouts that are sloppy (as in Peco) the narrow treads can be a problem. FVM is addressing this with a new line of wheels with more "normal" N Scale tread width.
Talgo couplers can put skewing forces on the trucks which promote the wheels to climb the rail and allow the flange to clear the rail and derail. A deeper flange has to ride up more for this to happen. Perhaps in the example cited the use of pushers can add to the problem.
Back in 1972-3 I tested the orginal Kadee M-T low profile wheels which were reduced size versions of the so-caled HO "RP-25" wheel. At the time we found ZERO difference in derailments as compared to common OEM metal wheelsets and the diecast Kadee M-T standard deep flange. Since then I've seen and operated on many large and small N Scale layouts using non-deep flanges that have derailments only due to operator error.... running through a turnout or off the end of a siding, etc...
I will concede that deeper flanges probably give good service for the low average standard of N Scale track...... given all the NTRAK setups with joiner tracks that have rails that are on top of the rail joiner instead of in it for a weekend's worth of setup, badly laid flextrack with joints on curves that have angles, and poor leveling of the rail surfaces at turnouts and other places on home layouts.
I'd rather see another standard "Coarse" or maybe more PC "Heritage" than any movement to discredit the proven NMRA wheel contours (which, by the way, build on the prototype wheel dynamics and shape). If a portion of the marketplace feels the need for deep flanges.... fine. Just don't force it as the defacto standard. Deeper flanges impact the ride height and appearance of cars and locomotives as do talgo couplers.... and it is time to move away from these trainset features.
If we paid more attention to our track and coupler standards we wouldn't need to have flanges different than other Scale Model Railroad Scales.
Charlie Vlk

 

As a previous HO modeler, and still a medler, than thse are ill informed HO'ers. Or there just too stuck in their ways. Besides, any real modeler, would welcome a challenge. Sounds like you're talking to ready to run HO'ers. That's no way to base your opinion.

Amen, Charlie. Amen.

 

I object to calling the high profile flange wheelsets "pizza cutters". I have two reasons for doing so. First, when using them as such, you get a really skinny slice of pizza and secondly you cannot get a whole slice of pepperoni on that skinny slice.

 

The only thing I am going to say is "Keep it civil".

There are personal swipes at posters (both ways) in the three pages of this thread so far and THAT is not acceptable.

 

Thanks Charlie,
you said it better than I, I recall back in my earlier days the same problems with Ho scale
modelers, the same arguments, the same B.S. HO went through this krappola and apparently its still our turn.
As they say, history repeats itself, and apparently through ignorance or whatever, there are those whom refuse to learn from the past.
There will always be a market for the entry level potential modeler, but that shouldn't
put a damper on developing finer tolerances for those whom wish to do so.
As with any change there will be resistance to it, teething problems (such as when HO scale went through)

One should find his level and then strive to improve on it, if you not able to keep up with the "jones's" perhaps you should get out of the kitchen and try a larger scale.
Something more friendly to those whom have difficulty with working with ultra small models. Alternatives is to stay with the "entry level track systems, aka Kato, Atlas's new true track and the plathora of other (in some cases junk) of items on the market that cow cow to the "new entry modeler"

Recall that there are quite a few that objected to added fine details, with the argument that they easily break off, concern was also about the finer handrails, added grab irons, metal etched roof walks, (all valid concerns to those whom enter the hobby and have a heavy hand when using those highly detailed models) Hence there is a need for the rebust models (at least for the entry level m) Atlas has come out the trainman series for such people, and the true track system.

So to conclude this, I will always push for higher standards, and if you wish for the same, great, if you don't well thats your business, just don't tell me my opinion and views are "dribble" because quite frankly its not.

R