Low Profile Wheels

[ai5629]

This may have been brought up before, so pardon me if I am rehashing an old topic.  I took some equipment to my dads to run, and I experienced an unusually high number of derailements.  Our layout has great trackwork, so I don't think that is the problem.  I had several cars that derailed repeatedly.  The cars in question had body mount MT's along with MT low profile wheels.  All of the other cars (body mount MT's and Atlas trucks and wheels) had no problems.  Any thoughts?  I may have to start to convert to Atlas Low Profiles instead of the MT's.  I'm completely stunned that I am saying this.  Any insight is appreciated.

[Chulvis]

Code 80 or Code 55 track? Also what brand of track is it?

You realize you are about to start WWIII with a question like this don't you?


Body Mounted couplers, LP wheels...oh boy...

[ai5629]

Our layout is about 20 years old.  We have Atlas flex track primarily on the mainline.  I thought is was "Code 100."  I never remember having these problems before with the MT LP's.  Up to this point, I have only body mounted couplers onto 60' or less boxcars, some gondolas, and some flatcars.  My hoppers, covered hoppers, and anything greater than 62' are truck mounted.  The cars I had problems with were the Intermountain 50' PS boxcars and some Life Like X72's.  I body mounted MT's and added MT Barber roller bearing trucks with LP's.  It was the first time I ran them since I converted them.  I was really disappointed since I really like MT.  Since I want to operate these cars, I am going to convert to Atlas wheels at first and see if it makes a difference.  Let's try to be cordial here fellas.  We're all friends.  Thanks.

[wcfn100]

The cars could be too light.  I know the Intermountain cars I have seem very light as compared to others.  I don't think I have any Life-Like cars to speak of.

I would check that before I'd give up on the Micro-Trains wheels just yet.


Jason

[Greyryder]

Can't say I've had any problems running MT lo-pros. Most of my cars with MT trucks, still have talgo couplers. I am planning to convert all my MT wheels over to Atlas, but that's only because I preffer metal wheels.

My own trackwork is far from perfect, so I doubt the MT lo-pros are the culprits. I second the suggection to check the weight of the offending cars.

[DKS]

I had very few issues with MT lo-pros and body-mounts running on ME code 55 track and turnouts. But I think the point raised by Jason is a good one: check the weight. Lo-pros on lightweight cars is not a good combination.

Also, what kind of turnouts are on the layout? Where have the derailments been mainly? What was going on at the time of the derailments--switching moves, or just running? These details can help.

[wm3798]

The only cars I have trouble with are Intermountain 40' boxes.  I think that MT lo-pro's have a much finer profile than their atlas counterparts, and a lighter car is going to be more sensitive.
Lee

[tom mann]

The only cars with MT lo pros that I've had trouble with were light, empty Atlas hoppers.

If you're switching, consider FVM metal wheels.  The extra weight is substantial.

[Mark5]

The code of the track has nothing to do with tracking problems (your flanges can't tell how high the rail is).

I don't consider the Atlas wheelsets "lo-pro", I consider them "normal".

IIRC the Atlas wheelsets are something like .024", while the MTs are something like .018".

The MT Pizza Hut Specials run at something like .033".

I've never had problems with "lo-pro" wheelsets on trackwork that is properly gauged and laid. This assumes that the car is properly weighted. Many problems arise with flangeways on turnouts with clearances that exceed NMRA standards - this allows the flange to "pick" the frog (all turnouts built to "euro" N standards seem to have this problem).

In terms of what I prefer for flanges these days (for decades the Kadee/MT lo-pros were the only option) I prefer the flanges more in the normal range, which IIRC is in the .022" - .024" range. I think both IM and Atlas wheelsets are in this range.

[ai5629]

To answer some of the questions posed to me.  First, we have all Shinohara turnouts.  The derailments all occured just running a train.  The derailements all occured when the offending cars went over the turnouts.  As far as the weight goes, I assume they are weighted correctly.  I have not added any weight to the cars.  I don't like to add weight since my layout has a two to three percent grade, and it takes at least three sixes to pull a twenty five car train up the grade.  The grade is maybe a mile long, so the engines have to dig for quite some time.  I have to put three B axils on a 20 car train, and four on a twenty-five car train.  Thanks.

[tom mann]

The newer LPs have sharp flanges.  Older ones have flanges that are more curved.  It sounds like they are picking the points - but I'm not familiar with Shinohara turnouts.

[Kisatchie]

...The cars I had problems with were the Intermountain 50' PS boxcars and some Life Like X72's...

I know the Intermountain cars are very light. They need added weight. A-Line makes lead weights in assorted sizes that stick right to the boxcar floor (preferably centered over the trucks). You can see the strips I'm talking about in the loco here:

http://www.ppw-aline.com/weights.htm

I'd try weighting a couple of boxcars and see what happens.

[wcfn100]

From what I remember of Shinohara turnouts,  they were pretty liberal with the guage.  While this may not always be a problem with guard rails it can be a big problem with the gap in the rail in front of the frog, especially if the cars are not weighted properly.


Jason

[DKS]

From what I remember of Shinohara turnouts,  they were pretty liberal with the guage.  While this may not always be a problem with guard rails it can be a big problem with the gap in the rail in front of the frog, especially if the cars are not weighted properly.

Yes, and if the space in the body of the frog is not only wide but deep, the low-pros can drop down into the frog.

[inkaneer]

The same is true of the Peco Code 80 and the Atlas custom line code 80.  The peco code 55 is made to fine scale standards and should be the standard turnout as it will mate with code 80 track as well as code 55.  Atlas code 55 turnouts have had their issues also.