Wheel flanges ?

[Flatrat]

I'm back with another Newbie question. I plan to run Atlas Code 55 on my new layout.
I have several older engines from my last foray into N scale from the 80's and as of this weekend my older brother kindly gave me ALL of his older N scale stuff from the same era which includes about a dozen nice diesels and a few steam locos. I'm currently buying newer locos but will I likely encounter problems with the wheel flanges on some of these older engines if I choose to try and run them on Code 55?
I might also like to run some of the older rolling stock initially from both of our collections. I plan on doing a proper job of mounting couplers on them in the future, etc., etc., but in the mean time can I purchase newer trucks or wheels to pop into the older trucks to get started running the old stock 'as is' on the smaller rails or is it more trouble than it's worth and should I just buy newer rolling stock?

What are suggestions for dealing with those issues? Can the wheels on the engines be filed down somehow if they ride high on the rails and switches?

[robert3985]

I'm back with another Newbie question. I plan to run Atlas Code 55 on my new layout.
I have several older engines from my last foray into N scale from the 80's and as of this weekend my older brother kindly gave me ALL of his older N scale stuff from the same era which includes about a dozen nice diesels and a few steam locos. I'm currently buying newer locos but will I likely encounter problems with the wheel flanges on some of these older engines if I choose to try and run them on Code 55?
I might also like to run some of the older rolling stock initially from both of our collections. I plan on doing a proper job of mounting couplers on them in the future, etc., etc., but in the mean time can I purchase newer trucks or wheels to pop into the older trucks to get started running the old stock 'as is' on the smaller rails or is it more trouble than it's worth and should I just buy newer rolling stock?

What are suggestions for dealing with those issues? Can the wheels on the engines be filed down somehow if they ride high on the rails and switches?

[nkalanaga]

Trainworx used to offer a wheel turning service.  Send them the wheels, they turn them.  That was before they got into freight cars, so you might contact them and see if they still do.  I had them do mine, and all turned out fine.

[randgust]

If you have nice-running or sentimental equipment, you'll want to look at some kind of wheel turning.   I've done split-axle diesels in a dremel with a micrometer; chuck it down and keep checking it.  Not impossible. 

Steamers are a different matter.

If you are using truck-mounted couplers, you probably have a good population of Rapido couplers as well.  Changing out the wheels and the couplers is expensive enough that you'll spend as much on that as the car originally cost, so you'll decide on a car-by-car basis whether it is worth it or not.   Wheels swap out pretty easy, but you'll want that micrometer again to know your axle lengths you're replacing. If you know that, there's plastic and metal replacements from several sources.

Or, you can take the cowards way out and look at Peco C55 for the tie clearance.... which is what I did.  I think it makes a big difference on what you're modeling.  My prototype has dark ballast and you really don't notice the ties at all.  That stuff will clear any wheel flanges known to man.   I love to run to old stuff.

[Flatrat]

Hmm. I am fairly unfamiliar with the Peco code 55 and did not know that tie clearance was an advantage to it. I wondered about the large ties and thought I'd just go with Atlas. The older I get I find myself taking the path of least resistance more and more depending on the project. I haven't bought track yet but I know I don't really want Code 80 so that may be the solution to being able to enjoy all these older locos and rolling stock.

Thanks for the insight. I'll research Peco track further.

[randgust]

Wheel flange clearance - and the relatively robust construction - is the only advantage.   Honestly, I've seen such beautiful layouts with Atlas C55 I don't want to chase you off, but if you are wanting to operate legacy stuff, it really is the way to go.    If you paint the track - including the ties - right after testing, jumpering, soldering,... I think it looks pretty good, certainly way better than C80.

The other thing I'm particularly fond of on the Peco line is the Electrofrog switches.  I ended up relaying an entire industrial district out of Atlas C80 over to Peco C55 just because of that reason alone.  No more slow-speed stalls on switch frogs, plus C55 appearance.  It was actually worth it.    I have a four-wheel 25-tonner I run over this stuff, it can't handle plastic frogs:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-KYPCfBCJcU

The geometry closely matches Atlas C80.   Because you have heavy C80 rail partially cast into the ties, it's a son-of-a-gun to cut and bend, it is really rugged stuff.  It doesn't slide around on the flextrack end either.   It holds gauge well.   Another odd advantage (sometimes) is that you can mate it up with C80 really well if you find a particular switch that doesn't come in any other geometry but C80, or you want to use C80 in storage yards, hidden track areas, etc.   

Because of all these characteristics my new logging module is Peco C55; hidden track is C80, I needed to cut in some super-sharp 9" radius SL switches only available in C80, and I needed two vintage Trix curved switches as well, only ever made in C80.   I'm running everything from Atlas shays to Bigfoot the Heisler, which has deep flanges dating back to its roots as a Roco GP30.

[Flatrat]

If you paint the rails and ties and bury the ties in ballast it sounds like it would look good enough for me. More realistic than Code 80. My goal on this particular project is to get a simple layout up and running fairly quickly to look at in my office. Few switches, just two long loops basically to watch N scale trains run through nice scenery. Being able to fiddle with the old stuff without spending any money and time to modify it makes me think Peco 55 is the way to do this layout at this time.

I may buy some pieces to play with bending etc. before making my mind up but from what you tell me I think it's my solution. I want to learn more about the insulfrog as opposed to the electrofrog switches too.

Thanks!

S

[robert3985]

Sorry about my previous post.  Got distracted before I finished it.  The answer to your problems is to use Micro Engineering code 55 flex and Atlas 55 turnouts. 

Not only does Micro Engineering flex allow pizza cutters to run without buzzing, it also has much better "spikehead" and "tieplate" detail than Atlas 55.  It costs a little more, but you get an actual yard of track per section, rather than a meter.

I would recommend ME #6 turnouts too over Atlas, but...they're in and out of production and difficult to find.  I like their over-center spring action so that you can just use your finger to throw them rather than using a switch motor.  I also like the fidelity of detail and the correct proportions over Atlas 55 turnouts.

However, Atlas 55 turnouts (#7's & # 10's) are reliable and work well with a switch motor or whatever to provide a positive throw on the points.  The "spikeheads" are too high, but with a medium bastard file, or sanding stick, you can easily take off the less than .010" you need to, to allow most pizza cutters to run without buzzing. When you've sanded them down so they clear tall flanges, you'll probably have some "fuzz".  Go over the turnout with a fine brass welder's brush to remove the plastic "fuzz".

Regarding Atlas 80 or Peco (55 and 80) track.  When the main recommendation for a brand of track is "Bury it so it can't be seen"...I cannot recommend it in any way. Yes, your trains will run okay on either Peco "fake" 55, or Atlas 80, but the grossly huge tie proportions and spacing, but too short in length tie appearance you're being advised to "paint and bury in ballast" is mainly what you see when looking at model track.  The rail height is the least obvious fault.  that's why, IMHO, that Peco and Atlas 80 suffer from the same problem.  Ya gotta bury the ties to make either of them look halfway presentable.  Which means they look BAD.  Simple.

Why not go with good looking, excellent functioning track?  Atlas 80 and Peco trackage offer no advantages in my mind unless you're dropping anvils on them.  Both were designed at the same time as pizza cutter flanges and Rapido couplers as "toys"...not "models".  If you want to run "toys" then GREAT! Go with Atlas 80 or Peco.  But, if you want a more scale fidelity, then go with ME and Atlas 55.

As to your old cars.  I started machining my own low-profile wheelsets back in the '80's when the only ones available were from NWSL and they were ultra-expensive.  It wasn't that difficult to do since the N-scale division of Kadee (now Micro Trains) wheelsets were three-piece, with a metal axle and press-on plastic wheels with a ribbed back...and I have my own machine tools (lathe and mill).  Kadee truck sideframes were okay and the only thing I did with them was cut the coupler off and body mount them.  Later, I discovered Micro Trains' Z-scale couplers and I have been body mounting them, and lowering my cars since then.  It is an on-going project, which I have halted until DKS comes out with his fine-scale N and Z scale couplers.

However, I did finally remove and trash ALL of my Rapido couplers, but I made three "transition" cars that had MT couplers on one end and Rapidos on the other so I could run my cars with Rapidos until I got my entire roster upgraded.

Since metal wheelsets have come out, I've been replacing all of my plastic low-pros with them.  I particularly like FVM's and BLMA's, and I've been putting them on my most detailed cars first, because they are not cheap.  Eventually, all of my cars with have metal wheelsets to make them detectible with my yet-to-be-installed train detection and signalling electronics with the addition of an SMD resistor and conductive paint on one axle on each car.

Basically, you'll have to decide on a car to car basis if it's worth it to put metal low-pros on it.  Some old cars look pretty good (such as Kadee cars) and would be worth it to upgrade.  Others just need new running boards or weathering to look okay, and some, just slap ME trucks with ME low-pros with truck mounted couplers and be done with it.

Follow the good advice from other posters about your engines and the flange turning services.  You'll find there is more than just pizza cutter flanges that degrade performance in a lot of your old engines.  Newer production models run MUCH better than the vast majority of older N-scale engines...especially steam.

Those engines that DO perform okay with a little "massaging" usually do not have ultra-deep pizza cutters and will run okay on your ME track with the shortened spikehead Atlas 55 turnouts.

I'll review my solution to your questions.  (1) Use ME code 55 flex for your "tracks" (2) Use Atlas 55 turnouts and sand or file the spikeheads just a little to clear your pizza cutters on your motive power (3a) Evaluate your cars individually, upgrading the best ones first with metal wheelsets, body mounted couplers, and lowering them. (3b) Those cars that hold sentimental value but are of substandard quality but you still want to run them, upgrade them with the simplest solution which is MT trucks with truck mounted MT couplers and MT plastic low-pro wheelsets. (3c) In the interim before your upgrading is complete, you can run all of your cars by making a "transition" car (or cars) by mounting an MT truck and coupler on one end, and keeping the truck-mounted Rapido on the other end. 

I promise you that if you go with Atlas 80 or any Peco track products, you'll regret it down the road.  I've worked on several N-scale modelers layouts who always apologize to me for their code 80 trackage and wish they had gone with code 55.  Every N-scale modeler I know in my locale who is building a new layout, is going with either my solution, or Atlas 55 (and running NO pizza cutters), or ME flex (both 55 and 40) and hand-laying their turnouts to save a LOT of money, increase their track-planning possibilities because they are now not dependent on what the manufacturers decide to produce as far as switches and diamonds are concerned...and, well-made, hand-laid turnouts are more reliable than RTR turnouts, can be fixed "in-place" if they break, as opposed to having to rip out a whole turnout if an RTR one gets broken or fails, and they can look exponentially better, with proper super-detailing.

But...hand-laid turnouts is a whole, different thread.

That should about do it!


Cheers!
Bob Gilmore

[randgust]

I think its very useful to get some pieces of various track and expiriment, you'll reach your own conclusions.   Track and wheel choices are still one of the 'live wires' of forum discussions.   What makes it interesting is that none of this is theory, both Robert and I have operating layouts and have been doing this stuff for years and years.    Like I said, I've seen absoloutely beautiful Atlas C55 layouts.  I was also at the 'funeral' when one of the largest Atlas C55 home layouts possibly ever built was abandoned due to chronic Atlas switch problems.  Still gives me chills.   There's not even a little bit of comparison between unballasted Peco anything, C80 anything, and either ME or Atlas C55.  You can spot it 10 feet away.   By the time I'm done though, I'm satisfied with my Peco C55.  It's the interim period that it admittedly looks way chunky.

It also depends a whole lot on your comfort level with various tasks.  Working with Peco C55 is like building a house out of 2x6's instead of 2x4's, everything takes more thought and work.  I'm confortable with soldering track, cutting with abrasive disks, fitting and refitting as needed.  That's a long way away from popping together Atlas C55 sectional pieces, which often looks VERY tempting instead of the cutting and fitting I get into.   On the other hand, I've been building mechanisms since I was 16 - almost 40 years - basically fearless, and I still stop short of pulling apart a Rivarossi steamer to turn flanges.  Nope, looks OK to me.   I just had to requarter an Atlas 2-6-0, yup, no fun, won't try that again.   I don't like pulling drivers off of axles to turn them one little bit.  And my old Rivarossi stuff is still going strong, along with Rapido, Trix, and other stuff in the legacy wall cabinets.    I guarantee you that if I had a whole fleet of Trix K-4's and Con-Cor J3's that would be enough to impact the decision.

You'll still find the odd new stuff out there that has deeper flanges.  One of the odder things is the Tomytec TM-XX mechanisms, which are just great except for that one little detail.  But they are split axles, easy to take apart, and very easy to turn down with a simple Dremel, a file, and a micrometer to measure flanges.   Believe it or not, I turn down a lot of wheels for other people so they can run this stuff on Atlas C55, so I certainly hold no grudge!

I've had great initial results with some of the metal lo-pros and relatively poor results with the original MT low-pros.   When low-pros have some other direct benefits (like allowing proper deck height on a piggyback flat), I'm jumping right in.  Haven't hit the floor yet.

[havingfuntoo]

Why don't you just build a basic layout using code 80, so that you can run all your equipment both old and new? As you gain experience and decide what you like and don't like you can then progress onto a more advanced layout using the knowledge you have gained from your experience. My personal preference is for Micro Engineering code 55 non weathered track. Using their weathered track is ok in the yards where strait sections are called for but trying to get it into a smooth bend is a total bitch, the ties grab on the weathered rail and go all over the place, it is just pure hard work and destroys ones enthusiasm quickly.  I would not invest too many resources into the old equipment until I had experienced its performance. The one thing to be careful of is buying second hand track, keep away from it if you can.......... unless ....... it is new, as in unused and being moved on.     

[Ken G Price]

My recommendation is to go with the Atlas or ME C55.
That way you get good looking track and a closer to correct tie spacing then the Peco.

Then on some sections of track try out every piece of rolling stock and the engines to see what works from the git go.
Work with those items on the track and switches for getting the track work as perfect as can be.
You can then work on changing wheels, couplers, trucks etc, as time and money allow.
It does not need to be done all at once.

Your layout won't be ready for every thing for a while anyway so you only need enough cars and engines for testing your track laying.

[Zox]

Not only does Micro Engineering flex allow pizza cutters to run without buzzing, it also has much better "spikehead" and "tieplate" detail than Atlas 55.  It costs a little more, but you get an actual yard of track per section, rather than a meter.

I have to point out that a meter is actually longer than a yard, by about three inches.

However, Atlas flex track is 30 inches rather than a full yard, so your point stands. 

[Flatrat]

Hmm...How did I JUST know this morning when I posted that I was leaning towards Peco 55 and getting some to try out that I had a can of worms in one hand and a can opener in the other [Laugh!]

I expected to get other opinions and really appreciate all the advice regarding my track selection for this layout. From what I read, the Peco track and turnouts will require less fiddling and filing of spike heads etc. for smooth running with older wheel flanges. I also had read about Peco being a little harder to bend etc. than 'real' code 55 track and could see the thick ties that would need to be buried in ballast or something to compensate for their appearance just like using Atlas code 80. I was also already aware that I'd need do something regarding adding a switch motor or other device to hold the Atlas switches open and closed if I used their switches. I figure the best route is to buy some peco and some ME track and nail it to a board for a test track and see if the old stuff I have and inherited run well enough to even bother with first. I ordered a Bachman spectrum 2-8-0 a few days ago and have my eyes on buying some current diesel models like intermountain F7s and newer GP7s that by others accounts all are good running locos.

Sooo...I plan on doing a fair amount of test driving since everyone's mileage can vary to see which track and if it's better to just buy all new stuff and be done with it. Thanks again for all the input. In some ways it makes the choices a little less clear but then again hearing other's experiences gives me advance knowledge of things to look for and lookout for.

[Bsklarski]

Yup, I think with the factors you have, you have an excuse for TWO layouts.

[Flatrat]

Maybe not two different layouts but maybe two in one.
This is kind of an experimental foray back into N scale. I plan on a very basic 8x5' layout modelling Western Maryland freight from the area I grew up in. An outside runaround loop for pulling freight and coal drags and an inside loop with a siding or two to service a feed mill and maybe an industry.
Another solution to that is Atlas code 80or Peco 55 on the outside loop and let the old stuff just run as smooth as it can on that and try out code 55 ME track and turnouts on the inside loop and play with the newer smoother engines and rolling stock on the inside loop. If the experiment is a success then down the road change/tear up things and redo it.