Scale Wheels / Ross Switches

 

Dave

 

The Scale wheel are meant to operate on 2R your going to have to change out the wheel sets with high Rail. Changing one will not work either as you still will have derailment issues. The issue is with the frogs 3R has a wider gap than 2R

 

Doug

I think just changing out one wheelset might be worth a try.   If the lead axle is climbing the frog, that would guide the truck into the frog and the smaller flanges should follow.    The curved switch might be a big culprit too as opposed to a normal switch.

 

I am not familiar with Ross Switches.   however, many years ago I was sort in transition.   I had bought some 2 rail locos that I liked and I had a layout built with Gargraves track.   I found I could run  most stuff, engines and rolling stock, on the gargraves track and through their switches.    The key is that the rail must be flat top and obviously in gauge.    If the rail has much of a crown or is rounded like or lionel tubular track, it will not work.   

 

Most equipment will handle the crude frogs reasonable well.

 

Another option is to put in a higher tighter guardrail across from the frog that keeps those wheels on the track.   However, if you tighten the gap on the guard rail to do that, it may be too tight for your other tinplate wheels.

Dave,

We've had issues with scale flanges dropping down at the frogs which are designed to have the 3 rail wheel ride on the flange. (unlike the prototype which seems to drop and pound the point) Doug is right, 3 Rail wheels are a bit "chunky" width wise.

Hot Water has most likely your easiest solution. Would be interesting to try that first axle trick and see if it works, not sure another axle might have issues later or in reverse.

Hello Dave

 

I had this problem with my 120-096 curved turnouts. I just put high rail wheels on. However when I bought my 2 rail 0-6-0 I had more issues that where solved by making the switch guard rail the same height as the running rail. Just glued a shim to top of guard rail and trimmed with xacto knife. That tip came from HW, thank you Hot water. I think its worth a try. 

 

Clem 

 

Dave my switching layout is all Ross and I tried and tried with 2 rail wheels. For the most part I get everything to move forward ok, but any shove moves were an issue. I decided to stay with hi rail wheels on my cars and engines. All the scale wheel engines I buy, I swap out those 2 rail wheels , because I hate derailments. I can usually find someone on the forum who wants the 2 rail wheels so we just swap them out. You can work and work, but I could never get 2 rail flanges to be consistent with Ross/Gargraves.

Dave:

 

The simplest solution is the hi-rail wheel swap. We have a #8 Ross Curved turnout (O-120/O-96) and the problem is the long frog with curvature (normal Ross 11-degree the frog is straight). We had problems with some 3-rail equipment as well and since we wanted to be able to support scale-wheeled equipment, Dave O'Connor modified the frog with a machined aluminum "point" within the frog. We installed an additional Tortoise motor to trip it. Works flawlessly. I've backed full scale-wheeled trains into the staging yard's sidings through the 11-degree turnouts without a lot of problems, save the occasional underweight car.

Very good Matt, I forgot I did extend the frog on a couple of mine. but yours is really cool. any chance of me buying a few of those frogs?

 

Clem

Thanks guys.  This my first fixed pilot engine.  Wish I went 2 rail.

 

Dave

Steve Brenneisen (hope I spelled that right) came down to the club after the WGH Show several years ago and saw the switch modification demonstrated. That was a one-off modification which involved the use of the full-sized template of the turnout and a lot of machining on Dave's part. We were hoping that Ross would consider that. Ironically, there is a close prototype called a closed-frog switch where the frog closes. It's relatively easy on a straight frog like a #5 (11-degree), #6 or #8. It gets tricky with curved frog turnouts. The #8 was real fun because there were two curves involved.

 

This one appears to be the type where it is sprung so that traffic from the diverging route forces it open.

 

This one is in Germany for high-speed rail.

 

This one is an S-scale turnout with a factory frog-point.

 

There's a wikipedia reference here and it refers to it was a "swingnose" crossing. This has apparently been applied to diamonds as well for the same reason.

I am convinced that there is a "compromise" frog flange width and guard rail flange width that might permit using both 2R and 3R equipment. I just haven't found it yet. I did trace (and eliminate) some problems on some of my 2R cars. One problem was that the lateral wheel and axle play (ie the side to side movement of the wheelsets in the truck frame) would not allow the wheelsets to "follow" a 2R car on a diverging route with body mounted kadee couplers. (The train would pull the body of the car over to the diverging route, but the wheelsets would not follow in time and would foul the frog.) Selecting cars with wheelsets with very little or no lateral play fixed that problem. The second mode that I found was excess clearance in the guide rail that was fine for "pizza cutter" wheels with broad (wide) flanges, but was far too wide for scale wheelsets. The answer to this issue is to glue styrene onto the side of the guard rail to partially close up this clearance. I am now making measurements to determine what the optimum value might be using Atlas switches. The final answer would be for the manufacturers of the higher end models (Premier, etc.) to determine a wheel tread and flange thickness that would work "best" on 2R and 3R turnouts. I have a 2R and a 3R layout, and the visual appearance of close coupling cars and lower cars using non 3R wheels and flanges, is very nice when compared with the somewhat "toylike" appearance of much 3R engines and equipment. It is my goal to be able to run both 2R and 3R locos and cars "anywhere".

Getting the manufacturers to "come along" may be very difficult, because of the existence of high cost tooling and entrenched commercial interests. The NMRA and other groups could do us all a big favor if they would establish recommended dimensions that would allow this interoperability while minimizing the commercial issues for the manufacturers.

"The NMRA and other groups could do us all a big favor if they would establish recommended dimensions that would allow this interoperability while minimizing the commercial issues for the manufacturers."

 

    The NMRA has standards for inter-operability among compatible products but 2 rail and 3 rail are by design not compatible. The wheel set  back to back distances and flange size are too different for a universal track standard. Sure it's possible to make something that will work like leaving off guard rails and moving point frogs but it's still a compromise of the standards as it spoils the looks for scale modeling and overly complicates the track for 3 rail use. Modelers just need to pick one and build to the appropriate standard then they'll have no problems, it's possible to put 3 rail wheels on 2 rail cars or convert 3 rails cars to 2 rail use so why overly complicate a layout when a simple solution lies at hand? ..DaveB 

Dave,

I would say that the main reason to try to make 2 rail equipment work is realism/appearance. I also believe that anything that improves and standardizes 2R and 3R would benefit both.

Naaaah Dave, then you would be really limited on your choice of motive power

Just an observation, but I've met a lot of 3 rail modelers, myself included, that wished they went 2 rail, but I've never met a 2 rail modeler that said they wished they went 3 rail.

 

If the 3rd rail bothers you then it will always bother you. If it doesn't then you don't understand the big deal and 100 plus years of products is very compelling. Heck, I'm still tempted by all of the products. I just can't seem to accept the 3rd rail anymore. Even though many guys (your layouts included) have excellent Hi-Rail or 3RS layouts I still notice the 3rd rail and it spoils it for me. Personally I just don't think I can go back.

 

If it were a perfect world, I would stick with S scale, but that's another discussion...

"I would say that the main reason to try to make 2 rail equipment work is realism/appearance. I also believe that anything that improves and standardizes 2R and 3R would benefit both."

 

   Two rail equipment already works fine. I never had derailments on my O layouts. The problem only comes from trying to mix incompatible products. 3 rail was designed for a different purpose than 2 rail and is great for that purpose. Trying to put 3 rail trains on two rail track or 2 rail trains on 3 rail track is not what they were designed to do so much problem should be expected, mixing the two just gives one the worst of both....DaveB

Good morning

 

Actually I think we have a second alternative MTH 2/3 rail locomotives with Hi Rail wheels should work on two rail track and you can get Gargraves in two rail. large rails but it is only two of them.

 

Clem k

"Actually I think we have a second alternative MTH 2/3 rail locomotives with Hi Rail wheels should work on two rail track and you can get Gargraves in two rail. large rails but it is only two of them."

 

  But why bother with high rails if you are going to run 2 rails? All the 3 rail cars would need new insulated wheel sets so might as well just go with 2 rail scale all the way?......DaveB 

Thanks guys.  This my first fixed pilot engine.  Wish I went 2 rail.

You wil.

Dave I have to disagree with this.  I have been mixing 2R rolling stock with 3R rolling stock and I am in the process of converting all my rolling stock to kadees. Since I have been replacing the 2R wheel set with Atheran 2R metal wheel sets that have a larger flange  my derailments have dropped to zero running through Fast Track turnouts forward and reverse. What I don't do is connect them to Weaver claw couplers and I run them in series

( Atlas 3R-2R-2R-2R-3R atlas/lionel) 

another consist 3R-2R-2R-2R-3R-2R-2R-2R-3R 

The key on the non Athearn/All Nation cars is to in sure the lead weights are above the trucks. Eventually I will be replacing the fast track with Ross/Gargraves or Atlas.

 

 

 

Yes. If he can be turned, he would be a powerful ally.

I have a two rail layout and a three rail layout on the same tables. Each runs fine using its respective equipment...2R for the two rail layout and 3R for the three rail. I would like to improve the appearance of the 3R trains, which is the reason that I am looking for a compromise set of standards, if they can be developed, that would permit the use of 2R equipment on the 3R.

In my history with 2R, there have been a few different wheel tread and flange thicknesses that have been and are being used. While not publicized, if you look at 3R wheels and flanges from a variety of manufacturers, there is quite a variety also. I know in the history of 3R that the Lionel 700E, while a 3R engine, would also operate on 2R using outside pickup, so it appears that we all "lost something" here.

If a simple fix like slightly reducing the dimension of the guide rail on a turnout can make this work, I would like to determine what it will take.

Compared with HO, O gauge and O Scale make up perhaps 10-15% of scale modeling. I am pretty well convinced that once all of the 3R Lionel guys are gone, 3R will slowly disappear and "the norm" will be 2R. The sooner that 2R O Scale and 3R O gauge merge, the healthier our part of the hobby will be. I would like that to happen sooner rather than later...

 "I am pretty well convinced that once all of the 3R Lionel guys are gone, 3R will slowly disappear and "the norm" will be 2R. The sooner that 2R O Scale and 3R O gauge merge, the healthier our part of the hobby will be. I would like that to happen sooner rather than later..."

 

    Two rail and three rail are too different to merge. Three rail can run on much sharper curves than two rail so there a good reason to keep it. Three rail could eliminate the third rail and keep the large flanges and truck mounted couplers like American Flyer but then you get reversing loop polarity problems so I wouldn't trade the present simplicity for that extra complexity. As long as some folks trains must run on sharp curves then might as well keep three rail like it is. Two rail takes more room due to the smaller flanges and body mounted couplers but that's the price some are willing to pay for the more realistic appearance. Choice is good , no reason to take it away.....DaveB

No, they are not. With steam, I agree that there are significant differences. But we "steam guys" are declining in numbers, and the prices of steam models is high, compared with diesels. A four axle diesel "will go anywhere that a 40 ft box car will go", and a six axle diesel will also accept fairly sharp, non prototypical curvature. The "problem" with reversing loops is largely overblown; there are electronic circuits available today in the hobby and on some locomotives that automatically sense and change polarity. Body mounted couplers are a little bit of an issue but Lionel already has an answer for prototypical coupler appearance on sharp curvature, and I am sure there will be other solutions as time goes by.

The "change" will not be "taken away", the market will determine what remains. I personally do not have any problem "looking at the third rail". The availability of "near scale" locomotives and cars and the availability of a broad "something for everyone" models makes 3 rail a delight and also permits me to run my older stuff, but the appeal of 2R scale is undeniable, and I believe the wave of the future.

I installed the 3R wheel sets yesterday.  It was very fast and easy to do.

 

I LOVE the fixed pilots!  Kadees are next.

 

Thanks to all for the help!

 

Dave

Dave, I'm also intrigued by this fixed-pilot thing.  Would you mind sharing what engine you purchased?  Maybe I missed it, but I just scanned through this entire thread and didn't see it mentioned.  I'm also curious to know if your fixed-pilot loco came  with any couplers included.  Thanks!

The MTH "Scale wheel" models with fixed pilots do NOT come with couplers. They recommend the Kadee #804, which apparently has a shorter "gear box" with the standard metal Kadee coupler.

Excellent. The hot ticket for MTH diesels is the Kadee 740, but on six-axle diesels you'll need to grind the boxes down to clear the coupler mounting boss on the truck. MTH recommends the 806 or 743 short-box, but shaving about 1/8" off the rear of a standard box provides enough clearance. Most MTH 4-axle diesels can use the 740's unmodified. The only engines that I've encountered so far that really require an ultra-short box are the rear of the GP35's and the Sunset GE 44-ton.

Thanks, Hot Water.

I installed the Kadees yesterday.  I ended cutting the claw mount off of the truck.  It went pretty fast.  I was able to do both engines under an hour.

 

 

 

 

Joe, The engines are NS Heritage ES44ACs PRR and Monongahela.  MTH has a scale proto-coupler that has been developed but it is on the back burner right now.  I wish they would put it out.

 

I originally kept the scale wheel and axle set in the middle position but ran into some derailment problems and ended up turning off the flanges in a lathe. (MTH did not have the 3 axle sets in stock)

 

Dave

Its an addiction

Thanks, Dave.  They look great!

 

I wasn't wishing the "demise" of anyone at all. And I don't especially value your opinion of me either. This is a FORUM, and I documented the tech advances that have brought 2R and 3R closer together. I have both 2R and 3R so have no particular "axe to grind". There are many areas where 2R and 3R overlap already, and with advances in a few areas, this commonality will increase. We already have engines that run conventional, DCS, DCC, and the previous Lionel system, and either AC or DC. Now its time to work on the mechanicals....

And this is my OPINION.

DEMISE of LIONEL 3R. . . . you wish!

 

2rail WILL MOST LIKELY GO THE WAY OF THE DOO DOO,  LONG BEFORE 3R.

Now that's what I call commitment. Never though about blinding the flanges on the center axles