gordon s Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I've just seen that Ultrascale are offering a complete set of replacement wheels for the Fiatrains 10000/10001. They're not cheap at ??60 for the complete set, but they say it has cured all the derailing issues associated with these locos on tight radius curves. They say they are running the loco without problem on 17.25"/438mm curves. It could be an answer to those of us who did not have our locos modified last year. Having taken the bogies apart on my own loco, it would seem a far simpler mod that the changes to the universal joints etc which were suggested last year. I've ordered a set and will be happy to report back once they are received. Current delivery is 16 weeks according to the Ultrascale site. Ultrascale Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete55 Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I've just seen that Ultrascale are offering a complete set of replacement wheels for the Fiatrains 10000/10001. They're not cheap at ??60 for the complete set, but they say it has cured all the derailing issues associated with these locos on tight radius curves. They say they are running the loco without problem on 17.25"/438mm curves. It could be an answer to those of us who did not have our locos modified last year. Having taken the bogies apart on my own loco, it would seem a far simpler mod that the changes to the universal joints etc which were suggested last year. I've ordered a set and will be happy to report back once they are received. Current delivery is 16 weeks according to the Ultrascale site. Ultrascale Hi Gordon S have you read MRJ 182? Article covers how to convert the FIA Twins using Gibson wheels, solves all the cornering problems too. Talk to Colin Seymour of Gibsons, he will probably do you a set to match the FIA axle diameter, if he hasn't already got a set on stock...... Oh yes, its also a lot cheaper too! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted December 22, 2009 Author Share Posted December 22, 2009 Thanks Pete55. I'm not a subscriber to MRJ and as such wasn't aware of the article. I'll see if I can get hold of a copy somewhere. Are they assembled sets of wheels including the gears or just plain wheels? The reason for asking is that I took mine apart (very carefully as there are some really small screws!) and tried adjusting the B2B with a wheel puller. Of course I was concerned about breaking something, but even with a proper tool for B2B's, the wheels would not budge. The appeal of the Ultrascale ones is that they are a relatively simple exercise to fit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Thanks Pete55. I'm not a subscriber to MRJ and as such wasn't aware of the article. I'll see if I can get hold of a copy somewhere. Are they assembled sets of wheels including the gears or just plain wheels? The reason for asking is that I took mine apart (very carefully as there are some really small screws!) and tried adjusting the B2B with a wheel puller. Of course I was concerned about breaking something, but even with a proper tool for B2B's, the wheels would not budge. The appeal of the Ultrascale ones is that they are a relatively simple exercise to fit. I don't mean to query Ultrascale etc, but the mere changing of the wheels is not the complete issue, although it may well be part of the cure, the fault was the design not having enough side play for the tightest curves people might have run it on. The original parts can be modified quite easily, but it is an engineering job and the whole bogie has to be widened about 2 mm and the bearings altered. I left the middle set un-modified , but altered the outer pairs clearances. The outer bearings needed deeper drilling to get some working side play, the holes were not deep enough, and restrained the wheelsets, especially through tight points in a crossover. The other option is to fit thinner tyred wheelsets, and it seems that Gibson's and Ultrascale normal tires width is narrower than the originals, resulting on just enough extra side play, without moving the frames out, re-drilling, or milling away a small amount of the inner faces of the side frames. The cures are amazingly simple, it was just too tightly designed for tight curves, pure and simple. There is one remaining issue, and that is the bogies do tend to crab, (not run true to the track centre), when the whole model is under load. This effect is slight, but aggravated the de-railments, but as soon as the wheelsets are eased the issue falls away. It is not easily curable, as it is inherent in the design of drive and universal joints that the design uses, any drive has a reactive force opposite to the applied force from the motor, and this type of transmission causes the gearboxes to move sideways under power and load. All of this would not be noticed on a simpler and cheaper model, it is the basic sound engineering which shows up the effect more, but it should not affect day to day running. It could be countered by compensated springing, but frankly is barely worthwhile. Both 10000 I worked on are now perfect, with no change of wheels, they work smoothly, and on all available Peco point setups. Stephen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted December 22, 2009 Author Share Posted December 22, 2009 This is the comment on the Ultrascale site, so your summary Stephen appears spot on... Out of interest, the Fiatrains wheels are 2.75mm from inside to outside. "The new wheels sets have more end float between the track and the wheel flange, which should allow for slightly better running on curves. Following tests with the converted model with ???OO??™ gauge wheel sets, it was found that it had no problems running through 17 1/4??? (438mm) radius curves. Issue: 002-081218 This conversion is only available in 'OO' at this time due to the bogie side frames being to narrow for EM and 18.83 gauge wheels. However, it may be possible to do a conversion to E.M. using our EMF wheel profile, but the development work has yet to be done for this option. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Sounds as if the Ultrascale wheels are a touch slimmer, which gives more play. The profile on the original wheels is a fraction strange, it fits RP25 standards, just, but has larger root radius than I would make a profile tool to. The original would promote better running on straight track. We are, by the way, talking of sub thou dimentions here, and accumulated errors adding up to trouble. The back to back was within NMRA specifications for 16.5 gauge. It was the unusual decision by the designers to fit working outside bearings that was the trouble, as the total depth of the hole matched the axle stub, so that the end had nowhere to move to when under side pressure. Drilling out the hole depth about .35mm cured this. The "crabbing" is another slight issue, and shared by lots of US outline diesels, and the famous Hobbytown drive as well, and is down to torque reaction, which tries to lift one side of the bogie, but the weight of the loco stops this actually happening, but something has the happen, and the result is the whole bogies trying to move sideways, crabbing as the end is looser than the drive end where the shaft restrains the movement. Running light, nothing happens much, but with a full train load the bogies crab a bit. No simple cure, only springs would compensate, and the arrangement would be unnecessary and complex. If the wheels from Ultrascale are solid nickel silver, the replacement set is quite good value, better than the originals plated metal, (I assume brass under the plated surface on originals). Stephen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted December 22, 2009 Author Share Posted December 22, 2009 Thanks Stephen once again. Some useful information. I'll let you know how I get on, once the Ultrascale's turn up. I have limited engineering facilities to do such intricate work, so hopefully the Ultrascales will solve the problem.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete55 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Thanks Pete55. I'm not a subscriber to MRJ and as such wasn't aware of the article. I'll see if I can get hold of a copy somewhere. Are they assembled sets of wheels including the gears or just plain wheels? The reason for asking is that I took mine apart (very carefully as there are some really small screws!) and tried adjusting the B2B with a wheel puller. Of course I was concerned about breaking something, but even with a proper tool for B2B's, the wheels would not budge. The appeal of the Ultrascale ones is that they are a relatively simple exercise to fit. The Gibsons are just the wheels.........the Ajin(FIA) wheels do come of their axles, but it is a brute force job using the open jaws of a vice to support the back of the wheel and drive the axle down and out, as it were. Trick is to use something softer than the axle between hammer and axle end to prevent damage! They are an extreemly well made interference fit, I doubt that normal model wheel pullers can exert enough force. Refit the Gibson wheels, even to EM, despite what anyone else has said, there is plenty of room, I know, I have "done" seven of them now! Only mod needed was to file the brake shoe rear faces to a slight chamfer to allow for EM............and they all sail through tight radii without a problem. Those I have altered incude the original one piece shaft connecting all three gearboxes as well as some with the later modified split shaft.......both run equally well with the Gibson wheels. And just out of interest Bertiedog, they are made from what seemed to be a very nice freecutting mild steel under the plating, because before I struck on the Gibson route, I had turned the faces down to achieve a thinner overall wheel.........the flange profile of which, as you put it, is rather strange! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 Morning guys, me again... Mrs S is cooking away, so I thought I would dismantle my 10000 and look at the issue once again. I've taken on board what you have said and wanted to revisit the issue. As you say there is little or no sideplay with a stiff shaft joining the three axles together. One of the things I have found though, is that the sideplay is restricted by the wheel centre boss hitting the back of the hornblock. It doesn't appear to be limited by the axle bottoming out in the bearing. Bearing in mind your comments re hand built/assembled limited editions and possible variations between similar models, was this the same on your locos? I can't see at this stage how drilling the depth of the bearing will increase sideplay if it is the wheel centre that may be limiting travel. Your views would be appreciated.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete55 Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Morning guys, me again... Mrs S is cooking away, so I thought I would dismantle my 10000 and look at the issue once again. I've taken on board what you have said and wanted to revisit the issue. As you say there is little or no sideplay with a stiff shaft joining the three axles together. One of the things I have found though, is that the sideplay is restricted by the wheel centre boss hitting the back of the hornblock. It doesn't appear to be limited by the axle bottoming out in the bearing. Bearing in mind your comments re hand built/assembled limited editions and possible variations between similar models, was this the same on your locos? I can't see at this stage how drilling the depth of the bearing will increase sideplay if it is the wheel centre that may be limiting travel. Your views would be appreciated.... In my opinion, simply re wheel using either the Gibson route I chose, or the Ultrascale route. Either way will give you a decent wheel flange and profile. Then it should go round corners without derailing. Even at "silly" speeds!! All the ones I have dealt with ran perfectly ok without resorting to extra sideplay or modified shafts etc. I am covinced the real cause of derailments was the awful flange profile, as shown to perfection in your picture! My own have the solid one piece shaft connecting all 3 gearboxes, and they perform fine, after re wheeling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 Thanks Pete. Having looked again at the Ultrascale site and measured one of their 00 wheels, the wheel thickness is only 2.33mm versus the 2.75mm of the originals. Assuming the axle is the same length, then the reduction in wheel thickness should allow an additional 0.42mm in clearance on each side, which is very similar to Stephen's mod of 0.35mm each side. I think I'll put it all back together and leave well alone for 16 weeks as it's clear the new wheels will solve all the issues without having to place universals in the drive shafts. All good things come to those who wait..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 I fully agree with not fitting the universals, it is a bit pointless in a way as the outside frames tend to restrain any extra movement, restricting any advantage. It does loosen up the drive a bit, less stiffness, but the advantage would only be felt if the axles boxes were all independant completely with compensation bars fitted. I did experiment with universals, it worked, but no better than a simple mod to free up any sideplay, without a more massive re-build. This would improve the general contact of the tyres on the track, but this is not the issue really, it is the strange behaviour on points and tighter curves, and yes, the wheels profile is odd, the flange is at top thickness of what could pass NMRA specs, and the tyre is somewhat narrow in proportion. But once the play is there then the wheels can track properly, and the troubles vanish, even with the original wheels. The whole trouble was the truck was too rigid, and could not track the curves evenly, resulting in one of the outer set jumping frogs or even track. A case of over engineering in fact, too tight all round. The whole bogie can be modified completely, even adding inside frames would be feasible, but it would be an engineering exercise, and need a good home workshop to do it all. The basics are there, it all works, but needs a bit of a re-design to get the best from it. Stephen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 original image copyright of poster and use for illustration purposes only. I think the shot covers the problem, the profile in the line drawing is to RP-25, and I have adjusted the image to fit at scale for comparison. The photo was not absolutely at right angles above the wheel so the lines are adjusted to the real positions, and show the tyre too narrow and the flange over sized and round topped, not the product of two curves to a point as it should be. Not a good profile, although just within the maximum limits except for the flange tip. Stephen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold toboldlygo Posted December 24, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 24, 2009 I've been watching this thread with interest, I have both Twins and they have had the drive shafts modified (picture below is 10001's modded bogie) The ultrascale wheels look like a way of making them even more trainset curve friendly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Funny how we in the UK always seem to get inferior designs given to us when the same makers have been providing better designs to the USA for many years. Presumably this was specified to Ajin by the importer? I'm glad now that I didn't splash out on one of these locos. I had assumed that Ajin would have supplied a simlar design to those they supply to Overland in the USA. I have one of the latter purchased as a spare chassis about 20 years ago. It is clear from the photos that ist uses exactly the same gearboxes and gears. But the drive shafts between gearboxes are split and sleeved to allow some angular deviation and all the 12 axleboxes have coil springs in cast brass sideframes. Running is faultless. It seems foolish to take a design using multiple gearboxes specifically to provide springing and then to make it all rigid. Regards Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Funny how we in the UK always seem to get inferior designs given to us when the same makers have been providing better designs to the USA for many years. Presumably this was specified to Ajin by the importer? I'm glad now that I didn't splash out on one of these locos. I had assumed that Ajin would have supplied a simlar design to those they supply to Overland in the USA. I have one of the latter purchased as a spare chassis about 20 years ago. It is clear from the photos that ist uses exactly the same gearboxes and gears. But the drive shafts between gearboxes are split and sleeved to allow some angular deviation and all the 12 axleboxes have coil springs in cast brass sideframes. Running is faultless. It seems foolish to take a design using multiple gearboxes specifically to provide springing and then to make it all rigid. Regards Keith There are two issues, the design was altered, but the use of such models is different in the US as well, rooms are bigger, cellars are used for larger layouts without the tight curves and short points that are more the norm in the UK. Brass locos are considered above all as collectors items, and running on a regular basis may be somewhat more restricted than in the UK with brass based designs. Ajin had issued other designs with rigid construction without issues arising, so to save money the simpler approach was adopted. Costs where an issue the sales are minute compared to the States. The UK importer should have been more on the ball, but European and UK importers have not got the backup or experience that the US importers have got. It was a bit different a few years ago when all Japanese production was involved, the makers like Tenshodo got things right by shear experience, and the products worked just fine, but times change and modern brass comes from both Korea and sub contractors in China and Hong Kong, along with Philippines suppliers. The Chinese especially deliver what is ordered, they do not know what the subcontracted parts are even destined for in some cases. The LMS diesels are not bad, they just like running on much larger curves above about 4 foot radius, strictly no set track curves, no Hornby or set Peco tightest radius. They are not designed for it. Most US basements can use at least 6/8foot radius, and rooms average 20 foot square, allowing larger curves, against the 12/13 foot square average in the UK and we have few cellars in use. Even where a loft is available it is probably in a semi where the max width would be about 24 feet, and you cannot work against the eves in a loft, reducing available space to abut 13/14 foot at most, often less. A lot of American houses have lofts three times as big, and a cellar of the size of the total ground area of the house. This one of the reasons that O gauge toy railways survived so dramatically there, whilst vanishing commercially here after the war. Anyway the problems are totally curable, but don't expect the loco to sail around 2 foot radius curves even when modified, it is not destined for such use!! ....it is a main line design after all is said and done, Happy Christmas Stephen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meple Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 original image copyright of poster and use for illustration purposes only. I think the shot covers the problem, the profile in the line drawing is to RP-25, Which RP-25? you can only say it is too narrow relative to a profile code. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Which RP-25? you can only say it is too narrow relative to a profile code. The image is strictly copyright of the NMRA and is provided for illustrative purposes only.The full specifications are available to non-members on the net, in both web pages and PDF form. and provide the details for each gauge and code standard. The current profile is the virtually the same, relative to both "fine" and "universal", it is just scaled to either size. (it even closely follows P4!, bar the depth). I did not want to complicate the answers with such details, the usual Aijn models in the States are the same profile, which falls into the new "universal sizes", not the "88 type". The overlay is based on the max width of the old RP-25 in use, an example is the width Kadee/NWSL use. The point is that Aijn do not do the "double curve", R2/R3 curves, the "bishops mitre" shape to the tip of the flange, they have radiused it as a round top, and it is thicker than expected for the newer 88 code type, and is deeper, but is within the overall profile for the courser limits. The larger flange makes the tyre narrow, and using the right back to back results in a tight wheelset, on tightly curved track, or minimum radius points. But as I said, they run fine, if the gearboxes, and axles are freed up, with universals or other modifications. They then run fine, the profile may be technically wrong, not matching the specs, but it works!!!! NMRA discussions are getting a bit esoteric now with the recent changes in the standards, done for good reasons, but opening up the NMRA standards to misunderstanding in the UK and Europe, as they have previously been simpler and more universal, and are indeed in danger of becoming more difficult to refer to as a universal standard for HO. The US market is rapidly changing, Code 100 track is fast disappearing, and finer track is bringing finer wheels very fast, and the NMRA has moved to cover the changes, the same is not true in the UK, we are well out of touch with the moves, retaining the basic wheels profiles, and copies of the older universal NMRA. Curiously Peco in the UK tripped the advances with their US code 88 track, it has changed the whole US market. It's the difference between having a body in charge, and no body in control of standards in the UK, apart from the makers. Advances in the UK are far too un-organised, people still want set track curves and tend to put up with no real standards, bar accepted practice. Stephen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 I should add that there is a lot of reading to do on the net about Wheel standards and the application of the NMRA standards, it is little understood over here, and raises hackles sometimes as it comes from abroad. UK modellers do not realise how powerful the NMRA is, in the States, it's decades long adherence to tighter and tighter standards is completely at odds with the attitude in the UK, where trade and club standards have come and gone over the years, with accepted commercial practice the main option, and standards offered by interest groups like the P4 society etc. We also forget that it represents all gauges and scales and standards, the whole lot, all of them, it has no axe to grind, which regrettably has sometimes been to the detriment of model railways in the UK. Have a good read through the standards , they are relevant to our uses, but in the long term I wish the UK would get it's act together and organise a British Model Railway Association for the UK, but can you imagine the arguements etc., involved............we can't even make commercial models in the UK, or agree about scales and track. The NMRA solved this, it covers the lot!! Maybe the RM should promote a BMRA ..... Happy New Year.....Xmas is almost over..... Stephen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted May 27, 2010 Author Share Posted May 27, 2010 They've finally arrived and will be fitted by the weekend... Look like a huge improvement to the originals and hopefully will cure the derailment problem after coming through an S bend. If not they could be going down a U bend... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted December 19, 2010 Author Share Posted December 19, 2010 27th May 2010 - They've finally arrived and will be fitted by the weekend... Well it's only taken 7 months, but I've finally fitted the Ultrascales..... ....and I have to say the transformation is amazing. The loco soars round reverse curves and sails through pointwork without any sign of a wobble, thump or derailment. Clearly, it was the wheels that were causing the problems and not the gearbox/drive shafts. One word of caution however. The loco and bogies have to be completely stripped to fit the replacement wheelset. No problem if you have good lighting, a very small crosshead screwdriver and the patience of Job.....Allow yourself an hour to complete the change. One really pleased punter.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.