exactrail 'fine scale' wheels
#1
Hi all,

just wondering if any of you have experience with the Exactrail fine scale wheels. I'm tempted to replace the wheels on my rolling stock to these for a more prototypical look, but what I'm not certain off is if these will work on standard HO track etc, or that it needs to be P87 track?
Cheers!

Koos
Be sure to visit my model railroad blog at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.namrr.blogspot.com">http://www.namrr.blogspot.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#2
Hi Koos,

I think that this is a bit of a misnomer.

They say in one breath that these are "Fine-Scale" and in the next "Semi-Scale"

I'd call Proto87 "Fine-Scale"

The Excactrail wheels are "Semi-Scale"

This is a compromise between regular thick/chunky model train wheels and Proto87.

0.088" semi-scale tread profile - RP-25 Flange Profile

They should run well on regular HO/OO 16.5mm track.
Ron Wm. Hurlbut
Toronto, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Ontario Narrow Gauge Show
Humber Valley & Simcoe Railway Blog
Reply
#3
Good morning, Koos (well, it's morning for me anyway)

I've been using the Intermountain "semi-scale" .088 wheels for some time now. I have all Atlas code 83 track and turnouts (and one curved Shinohara) and they work just fine.

Tom
Life is simple - Eat, Drink, Play with trains

Occupation: Professional Old Guy (The government pays me to be old.)
Reply
#4
Thanks very much, that's what I thought they would be, 'semi scale'. That will do me fine, it's a nice compromise between looks and not having to change my track, just make sure it's laid well. :-)

Koos
Be sure to visit my model railroad blog at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.namrr.blogspot.com">http://www.namrr.blogspot.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#5
Exact Scale has a tendency to not be exact at times..
Tom

Model Conrail

PM me to get a hold of me.
Reply
#6
Meanwhile i replaced all semi-scale wheels like RP25/88 and others with the regular RP25/110 for smoother operation.
Yes the semi scale wheels ran anyhow, but every wheel bounces into the frogs. Thus causing irregular stalling when pushing a string of cars at low speeds during switching operations. Most of my rolling stock has equalized running gear.
I had Atlas Code 83 and Peco Streamline Code 83 rails and switches. These work great with code 110 wheels, but code 88 and smaller wheels will fall right into the frogs. To avoid this you have to alter all the frogs and guard rails on all of your switches.
And when you do the efforts the rebuilt all the switches to the semi scale standards and this is my question:

Why do you not switch completely over to real Fine-Scale standards?

Lutz
Reply
#7
Because I am still relatively new to the hobby, when I first got into it I threw myself into it and could not wait to get started. I found myself obsessing with trackwork. All that said, I wish II had dug deeper as I am sure, that the Proto 87 stuff would have been something I seriously would have considered using. However, I really have no complaints about the RP25's and my small fleet of CP Van's that have semi scale wheels have no problems negotiating the hand laid turnouts and other bits of track I've constructed. In the end the RP25's don't really bother me. I may slowly swap out to the semi scale wheels, but I have other modeling projects to focus on to keep me busy.

I have no comment on commercially available trackwork as I've never used it.
Reply
#8
I too bought a 100-pack of Exactrail's fine-scale wheels(36").I wanted to replace all the Atlas equipped freight cars i have,expecially the tank cars.They look so much better than Atlas stock wheel sets.I have a set of the Intermountain also,they basically have the same profile(.088 RP-25)I prefer the more prototypical look myself.Of course i have yet to lay any track or buy any for that matter.I'm considering Peco or Micro Engineering switches.I too would like to know how well or not fine scale wheels will perform on these to type of switchs...any ideas?
Don Shriner
Reply
#9
This controversy comes up from time to time.

There are 3 wheel standards currently in use:
- Code 110/RP-25 the recommended HO standard, wheel tread is 0.110 inches wide
- Code 88/RP-25 semi-scale wheels with RP25 flange, wheel tread is 0.088 inches wide
- Proto87 wheels scaled very close to exact prototype, flange is thinner and shorter than RP25, tread is approx Code 64 (jsut over 1/2 the width of an NMRA wheel.

Track needs to match the wheel. NMRA studies have shown that the wheel tread width needs to be at least twice the flangeway width for the wheel to be properly supported at a turnout frog. HO NMRA flangeway standard is 0.040" to 0.050". Proto87 is considerably smaller.

As one can see from the dimensions, code 110 wheels will work well with the 0.050" flangeways. The wheel is fully supported, and does not drop at the frog when both wheels and track are correctly gauged.

Commercial turnout manufacturers tend to favor the widest possible flangeway for several reasons. The actual track gauge determines the flangeway width if the check gauge and wheel back-to-back is held constant. Fast Tracks has a video that explains this. A slightly wider track gauge permits use of a smaller minimum radius; conversely, track gauge right at minimum spec pushes minimum radius up. Wider flangeways also let slightly out-of-spec wheels roll through without binding or climbing the frog point. So a commercial turnout with wide flangeways will pass more rolling stock without derailing, at a cost of perhaps some ride smoothness. That said, ME flex track definitely has a slightly narrower track gauge than Atlas; I would assume ME turnouts - I don't have any to compare - match their flex track.

Going back to the dimensions - the code 88 wheels are less than twice the maximum flangeway in width. Which means the wheel runs out of support from the wing rail as it crosses the opposite path flangeway. Which means the wheel drops into the frog flangeway unless held up in the air by the rigid frame of the truck. The drop is more pronounced with larger number frogs. The solution for running code 88 wheels is to use the minimum spec for the flangeway, which means the track gauge is also set to the narrow spec. Then the wheel tread is over twice the flangeway width, and there is no drop at the frog. Unfortunately, the only way to get flangeways at the narrow spec is to build your own turnouts, or custom order them that way. FWIW, Fast Tracks standard dimensions are the wide spec. Fast Tracks tries to minimize the drop by using very sharp frog points, and pushing the frog point further into the frog throat than normal. All that said, most code 88 wheels will not derail in a commercial turnout, but they will "rattle" and suffer wheel drop, especially in #6 and larger turnouts.

Proto87 uses a prototypically thin flange, and a different back-to-back dimension on their wheel sets. These will typically derail in an NMRA turnout because the guard rails don't function correctly with Proto87 wheels.

Wheel tread width is much more visible on models of 19th Century rolling stock than on more modern. And the oversize tread width is much more apparent on the smaller diameter wheels of narrow gauge. Which is why HOn3 typically uses the code 88 wheels.

The ideal is to match track and wheel specs. Less than ideal will produce less than ideal performance.

Fred W
Reply
#10
Thanks Fred for all the valuable information,you sure do know your stuff. Smile
Don Shriner
Reply
#11
A short addition of my experiences with RP-25 code 88 wheelsets.
All my newest models and a few more are equipped with code 88 wheelsets. Look my both videos in my video thread; the cars did run on a modular layout where 20 or 30 modelers built their modules in different quality and equipped with various track system components.
I have had not one derailment of the extreme light cars at the switches, not of the code 110 and not of the code 88 wheelsets and all my models have trucks from different manufacturers, Kadee with the sprung and movable side frames and others with rigid frames. The trains ran and ran and you can see the videos that there are no cuts in the scenes.
Some problems have made the wheelsets on the module connections where not all rails have hade a smooth changeover. However there I have made very different cognizance and I have found the conclusion for my future modeling projects.
First I must say that I love a high prototypical look of my models. And the wheelsets should be backside equipped with rips because I prefer to model in 1900. There are two makers of such wheelsets, Kadee with code 110 wheels and newly also with code 88 and Proto2000 with code 110 only however with a better and smooth surface on rimes and flanges! What should I use – Kadee wheelsets with code 88 wheels and their sprung (movable) archbar trucks?
Three of my five models of the gondola train have such trucks and wheelsets and two models are equipped with turned Intermountain code 88 wheels because the future owners of these two cars would like to prefer Intermountain wheelsets – with metal axles. (I must say also that they roll better than Kadees with plastic axles.)
However the problem was come at the module interchanges only with the Kadee wheelsets! I think that their relatively raw rimes and the very raw flanges – especially the highest line of the flanges – were the reason for derailments. The sharp and raw outline of the flanges climbed on rails and derailed in next step. Not one of wheelset with turned and machined wheels derailed at these points – independently if wheels have had code 110 or code 88 contours! However I must repeat me: these small Kadee wheelsets did not made problems running over switches. (An addition here – all my car model have a three point equalizing so all wheels are in connection to rails.)
My conclusion of this negative experience with the relatively raw surface of Kadees:
I will use Proto2000 ripped back wheelsets with code 110 wheels or - and that will be the preferred solution - I will use Intermountain code 88 wheelsets because their metal axles with better and smoother rolling characteristics. However wheelsets with code 88 wheels are absolutely save working wheelsets – my thinking! And wheelsets with smooth rime and flange surfaces will give a more trouble-free running yet to the models.
Cheers, Bernd

Please visit also my website www.us-modelsof1900.de.
You can read some more about my model projects and interests in my chronicle of facebook.
Reply
#12
At the NMRA convention in Sacramento, Joe Fugate did a clinic on making our trains run reliably. The first thing he discussed were turnouts, and the first thing he mentioned is that there is no r-t-r manufactured turnout that meets NMRA standards! The only turnouts that have been certified to meet the standards are the jig built turnouts from FastTracks, & Proto-87 Stores.

Having the track gauge set at the widest point at the frog is a problem because for reliable operation, you really want to be at the narrow end of the tolerance at that point on the turnout. An easy way to fix such turnouts is to glue styrene shims into the guard rails across from the frog. This way the guard rail pulls the wheel set over onto the stock rail. Jim Fuhrman in the modular club found that Peco switches require a .010 shim when he checked them. Turnouts made by other manufacturers may require a different size. An NMRA gauge has nibs for measuring every thing found on a turnout, so you can check any turnout and install the shims as needed.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)