CraigZ Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Well yes, I suppose I was wondering if they reacted to adhesives well - didn't become brittle or so on. Guess i'll have to try some! A little drop of cyano is what I've done; alternately I've used contact cement. The Hi Tech Details hoses look excellent and do not break off. Most of the Moloco draft gear kits come with the hoses, and the Moloco draft gear kits make a great improvement in the appearance of the model. If it's a fairly easy install, I use them. But if you don't nip off the Kadee trip pins, you have two brake hoses, sort of... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted August 25, 2011 Author Share Posted August 25, 2011 Craig, Which US Branded contact cement do you recommend (generally)? Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigZ Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Weird. I know I answered this earlier today. Anyway, I'm partial to the Barge brand. It thins with MEK. For etched running boards I'll put a dollop of the cement in a metal bottle cap and thin it so it's about the consistency of thick cyano. Apply to both surfaces per instructions, apply etch. It's a flexible joint so the stuff doesn't pop as easily; if it does a little MEK on a paintbrush 'reactivates' the adhesive and it will restick the parts. Good stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted August 26, 2011 Author Share Posted August 26, 2011 Cheers, Craig! You expecting to be alright where you live? Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigZ Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Cheers, Craig! You expecting to be alright where you live? Best, Pete. Yes, thanks...we should prove to be just far enough west that the hurricane gives us 1-2 inches of rain and 35 mph wind gusts. 45 miles east of here it's going to get nasty; 90 miles west of here it's going to be ugly. Along the barrier island it's going to be bedlam. You guys in NJ are in for a rough ride. Hurricane force winds and tropical heavy rains...bad. We went thru that here in 1996 with Fran...the city of Raleigh lost 25,000 trees and nearly every house in the city lost power. Best wishes you don't get anything that crazy... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Fingers crossed for you both. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve1 Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Fingers crossed for you both. Hear, hear! And any other RMWebbers in the danger area. steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigZ Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Hear, hear! And any other RMWebbers in the danger area. steve Pete Piszczek is going to take a much harder wallop from it than I am here....7-8 inches of rain and 50 mph winds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted August 27, 2011 Author Share Posted August 27, 2011 They keep talking about a repeat of "Gloria" but to me it looks like "Floyd" of 1999.......................the route looks identical. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigZ Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 They keep talking about a repeat of "Gloria" but to me it looks like "Floyd" of 1999.......................the route looks identical. Best, Pete. Gloria ran about 60 miles further east. If you go here http://www.wral.com/weather/hurricanes/page/5878513/ you can pull up the tracks of many hurricanes...Glorida is on the 'Major NC Storms' list... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted August 29, 2011 Author Share Posted August 29, 2011 It definitely ended up like "Floyd" complete with the massive rainfall up the Hudson Valley. You see the shots of the town in the Catskills? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7imAc29Rbw Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A4CML Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 The maximum flangeway gap for full support is 1.0mm, i.e. these wheels are for EM, DOGA-Fine, 00-SF and H0-SF. They have largely replaced the old EMGS wheel profile (2.3mm wide), most EM modellers now using these RP-25/88 wheels. Hi Guys, I would agree that EM modellers use wheels of approx. 0.088'' width but would say that they are almost certainly not RP25 profile. Visually EM wheelsets have a 'sharper' flange whereas RP25 is a more rounded profile. I seem to remember some debate as to whether RP25 wheels could be used on EM track or not, but I suppose at the end of the day if you are happy with the running qualities of whichever type you use, you make your own decision. On a side note, being an EM modeller who runs US HO too, I always thought that 'original' RP25 wheels look a little wide in proportion to their diameter compared to EM wheels. regards Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollywoodfoundry Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 On a side note, being an EM modeller who runs US HO too, I always thought that 'original' RP25 wheels look a little wide in proportion to their diameter compared to EM wheels. regards Chris That seems to be an odd statement, as there is no relationship between diameter of a wheel and the tyre profile. RP25 only specifies the contruction of the tyre profile, so if you think the wheel is a bit wide for your purposes, you can elect to use a smaller profile, such as perhaps Code 72. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A4CML Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 That seems to be an odd statement, as there is no relationship between diameter of a wheel and the tyre profile. RP25 only specifies the contruction of the tyre profile, so if you think the wheel is a bit wide for your purposes, you can elect to use a smaller profile, such as perhaps Code 72. You are correct of course, there is no relationship in the spec between the tyre diameter and the profile. I was suggesting that to my eyes the proportion between the two in HO doesn't look quite as refined as in EM. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollywoodfoundry Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 You are correct of course, there is no relationship in the spec between the tyre diameter and the profile. I was suggesting that to my eyes the proportion between the two in HO doesn't look quite as refined as in EM. Ah, that's different then. As I type this I am looking at Code 110, Code 88 and P4 wheels side by side, and the most notable difference to me seems to be the flange size. Each is slightly narrower than the one before, but the P4 flange is very thin in comparison to the other two. For what it is worth, an Australian model manufacturer has been producing models with NMRA RP-25 Code 88 wheels for some time, and one of those models is a 4-8-4 + 4-8-4 Garratt. As far as I am aware there have not been any significant criticisms of its ability to run on ready-made track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 There's correspondence in this months Model Railroader. Basically the NMRA saying, don't blame us if they don't work, and Andy Sperandeo (SP?) saying they work fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share Posted September 7, 2011 Wow, I only got my copy in New Jersey, yesterday, Jon! Actually Ed C. is a good guy and behind the new standards for P87, I believe (he does seem to be wrong on this issue, however). Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Sorry to drag this thread up from the depths, but just thought I could share that, after running a train with a mixture of "normal" and "88" wheels round RS Tower for two days at Barrow, there was no discernible difference in performance between cars equipped with either standard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigZ Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Sorry to drag this thread up from the depths, but just thought I could share that, after running a train with a mixture of "normal" and "88" wheels round RS Tower for two days at Barrow, there was no discernible difference in performance between cars equipped with either standard. Jon, Using Peco turnouts or what? Just curious...we've had the occasional issue with 88s with Atlas switches...which seem to play a little loose with the standards gauge at time... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Mainly Peco I think, but Martyn (Gloriousnse) will be able to confirm? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodmayes Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Wow, I only got my copy in New Jersey, yesterday, Jon! Actually Ed C. is a good guy and behind the new standards for P87, I believe (he does seem to be wrong on this issue, however). Best, Pete. Nope. It's MR that is wrong. Remember, just the month before another of their authors "re-invented" PECO (and WRENN?) "universal" points of the 60's. And why? - To cure their "widespread problem" of NMRA stanadards track having bumpy point frogs of course!!! The problem is real and obvious if you just look at the two simple diagrams on the NMRA standards intro page. http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/s-1_Overview.html The only thing holding the wheels up just before they make it across the gap in front of the crossing vee is the wing rail. If the wheel is narrow, and not close to the vee side of the flangeway, then it doesn't reach over far enough to sit on the wing rail. At that point the wheel is floating on air. Oooops! And on the prototype, there would rapidly be lots of damaged wheels and a broken frog and a potential catastrophe. However, in HO practice, it's a statistical worst case scenario where the effect only occurs slightly and only some of the time, and for smaller diameter wheels when they roll by more to one side than the other. So most unaware users either don't notice it or think it's a natural noise. (Gee - Don't all wheels click going over frogs?). And RTR typical rigid trucks frequently are able to hold up a single floating wheel enough to let it cross the gap relatively harmlessly. So as far as the blissful majority of clattering model freight train owners are concerned – What problem? Ted Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Exactly. They work fine. Technically they don't, or at least shouldn't but practically yes they do. Ok, so differing makes of track produce different effects (see Craig's point above), but for the majority of us clattering model freight train owners they do the job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodmayes Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 You do realize that there is absolutely no difference between using code 88 wheels on regular HO, versus running your trains with roughly 1/10" long slots cut in one side rail, and having lots of those slots dotted all around your track??? Remember, Andy Sperando was the editor of the Model Railroader for the major construction article the month before that recommended drastically rebuilding turnouts to "fix" their widely perceived problem of wheels bumping by dropping down on frogs. So clearly some "expert" Model Railroaders notice it, even if they got the cause of it completely wrong. Ted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve1 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 As it happens, the layout I was considering using these wheels for doesn't have any pointwork. As it also uses Micro Scale Code 70 track, I suspect that "88" wheels (or even Proto 87 but I'm not opening than particular tin of worms now) should work fine. I raised the original query to see what experiences other modellers have had with them. steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 I think Ted's referring to the article in the June MR about so called "high speed" points? I don't see anything in that article to suggest the modeller concerned was using semi-scale wheels. His efforts appear to address his own individual perception that movement through frogs is less than perfect. I guess Proto-87 would be an alternative solution to the perceived problem. At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, they do work. Even over points. Maybe they shouldn't, maybe its the rigid trucks holding them in line, it doesn't matter, they work. Now I'm not likely to start replacing metal wheel-sets on cars which already have metal 110 wheels, but on cars with plastic wheels these are a valid replacement. And I'm certainly not going to re-wheel my Athearn or Exactrail (Or Tangent or whoever) cars that come with 88 wheels as standard. They work just fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.