Quote: Originally Posted by tony22 I'm thinking of going to the FVM wheelsets but want to be sure of something. Since these are one-side insulated wheels, I assume I do one truck with the insulated wheels on one side, and the other truck with them on the opposite. Is that right? Doesn't matter. This is an issue only for a car where you are picking up electric current for lighting effects. In that case the wheel/axle orientation depends on the kind of pickup system in use. - I checked out the FV website, their wheels are made of blackened brass. Q's 1. Based on brass being "softer" than steel, do these wheels "click" with a duller sound than say the old Atlas metal wheels? 2. Being that brass normally oxidizes (ask anyone in HO with old brass track) and reduces electrical conductivity, does the blackening process counter this effect? Will FV wheels used for signaling or lighting purposes develop poor electrical conductivity as they age? 3. Being that brass is much heavier than plastic, how much weight do these wheels add to our cars? What reduced train lengths can we expect? I'd hate to spend $300 rewheeling everything only to find out that I need ABBA sets of diesels to pull 15 cars up a 2% grade... :tb-hissyfit:
Anybody can buy one, most good hobby shops will have them in stock. 1. Not sure, I've never really compared them for sound. I like the clickety clack of metal wheels, but many don't. 2. I've used them as replacement tender wheels in MP steamers, and tested the Atlas signals with a caboose fitted with FVM wheels with the back of the insulated wheel painted with homemade resistance paint, both seem to work ok. 3. Most importantly, FVM wheels, if anything, make cars roll better so your engines will pull more. Just make sure you use the correct length axles so the wheels roll freely. That $300 will be amongst the best you ever spent, but you don't have to spend it all at once, you can do a few cars at a time. But be warned, once you start you will be hooked.
Externally, they all looked pretty much the same. The 4 axle ones had an extended cover plate over the fuel tank. The Atlas model appears to be a copy of the New Haven CPA24-5 #790/791 due to the style of louvres on the front of the cab... most had full-length louvres, these are 2 sets separated by blank space. Milwaukee Road had similar louvres, but they were CFA16-4s... Just a guess, though...
Even if they roll better than MTL, the cumulative weight of all those sets have to be pulled along, and if uphill, they suddenly force the engines to do additional work. Maybe we need to test this theory out... :tb-biggrin:
One question on the Atlas code55 packs. They come in packs of 6, well how many packs do you need for a complete circle? No references as to how much of a circle 6 pieces make... Does it change for different radii? Thanks
According to their RightTrack software, it takes 16 full curve or 32 half curve pieces to make a circle. This is the same for any radius except the two largest, which are designed to be turn back curves for the #5 and #7 switches. It's to bad they don't come in 8 packs instead of 6 packs.
Why is no one defending the pizza cutters? I see other people complaining about wheels that pick points, derailments, but no defense of the pizza cutters. Well I'll drop one. "Pizza Cutter" wheels help prevent derailments by compensating for bad trackwork. The smaller your flanges, the more perfect your trackwork, grades, and transitions have to be, and the more likely a derailment. Pizza cutters keep your trains running. In other words they increase the FUN. There's a pretty good reason why US-prototype Kato diesels run on code 55, but JDM Kato models (EMUs, Shinkansen, etc) have pizza cutters. Most Japanese don't have space for a permanent layout, so the vast majority of layouts are built using snap-together pieces, either Kato Unitrack or Tomix Finetrack. Grade changes are abrupt and angular, and since temporary layouts preclude Flextrack, most modelers end up "forcing" the various sectional pieces off by a few millimeters to create interesting layouts. Japanese trains need to perform flawlessly in this environment, which is why JDM trains have pizza cutter wheels and Rapido couplers. Let me tell you what this means personally. I have both HO and N scale equipment, with Kato Unitrack for both (Code 83 and Code 80, respectively). I also live in an older, wood frame flat and the floors sag. I've got Japanese Kato N scale... runs without a hitch. I've got ancient Rivarossi HO, with X2F couplers... runs without a hitch. I've got Athearn F59/Bombardier, with new prototypically accurate knuckle couplers... AND THEY DON'T STAY COUPLED. The Athearn couplers are realistic. So realistic, in fact, that they can't compensate for the differences in railhead height created by my oh-so-unprototypical saggy floors. I've tried shims, I've tried realigning, but it doesn't work. So you know what? My "modern" Athearn HO sits on the shelf, while my "standards of the 1960s," "pizza cutter" Japanese N gets set time. So which is better? I'm working on plans for a permanent layout, and you better believe it's going to be Code 80 (or Peco Code 55) and Rapido all the way. You know it.
I am struggling with this too. The atlas stuff sure looks good, but to be honest, I never felt the Peco tie spacing took anything away from the layout. I might still go with Atlas, but I have so much Peco track and more importantly turn outs, that hate the thought of not using it. What a waste. I would use it in a staging yard, but my staging yards will not be hidden. Do the atlas turnouts have a spring to hold the points in place? I will not be using remote switches on this layout, I really like just throwing the switch with my finger, and if there is no way to hold the points in place, then it will most likely be Peco for me again, but we'll see. I want to get some flex and a turn out before I make up my mind.
I think the arguement over rail codes is ridiculaus! I even read last year here at TB where one modeler 'demanded' that Atlas quit making code 80 and force everyone to use code 55...what a bunch of poopycock! There is room for everyone with any degree of track laying skill level in N scale. Just because some of us arent 'masters' at laying track and find C80 is easier to work with...does that make our layouts any less viable? C80 is the most forgiving of all codes. People will run what they like and feel most comfortable with. Atlas knows where their bread and butter comes from. I fully expect C80 to be around forever. Why demand others run strictly C55? So my layout trackage isnt totally 'prototypical'...who cares...I know I dont. My trains run just fine on C80...with no derailments whatsoever...for hours and hours on end. I am happy ! Why do some want to try and tell me otherwise? I buy lots of older locomotives and rolling stock off the internet sites like ebay for pennys on the dollar...all because someone was told to use some code of track and now their stuff wont run on it! If someone loves Unitrack or C55....great ! Just dont tell me if I aint using it I am a lesser of a modeler. If ya love the look of C55 flextrack...cool. Just dont tell us C80 users that in no uncertain terms we suck! I am amazed at those who can hand lay track and/or turnouts. Am I going to....nope. I am planning a short trip over the mountain this summer...just to see one members layout and his handlaid turnouts. I expect to be absolutely amazed. When someone sings the praises of one certain aspect of the hobby and tells someone else if they dont go that route they may as will pack it all up and sell it...how does that promote N scale? To many people who have an interest in the hobby are put off simply by getting in over their heads on someone elses unattainable recommendations for them. There is room here for all people of all skill levels here. Do I feel bad my layout doesnt look half as good as someone elses...nope. Do their layouts inspire me to try just a bit harder to make mine look a bit better...yup ! Read up people...do your homework...then decide what pleases you and what will work best and easiest for you and go for it. Your layout only has to please one person...YOU! I now fully expect the silent running black helicopters loaded with hardcore NMRA members to come down and burn down my train trailer...just becuae I dont follow some arbitrarily instituted 'standards" for track...life sucks...LOL. Just my little vent for thw day...ty. .
Oh man, the pressure is on!!!:ru-shocked: Nice rant George! I'll give you all the code 80 I still have left -Mike
DEAL!! I should have some free time in May...will let ya know when the time gets nearer...:tb-wink: *BTW...got any C80 turnouts ya wanna get rid of...before I place my order online?...LOL .
No. The Atlas turnouts do not have a spring, and if you want to simply have reliable manual operation you need to by a manual switch machine. I know in HO everyone is all about the Caboose industries ground throws... not sure how well the N ones work. In any event I'm pretty happy for now accepting the limitation of Kato turnouts, and when the time comes where I need something like an 18"/36" curved point it will most certainly be Peco!
I use the N scale Caboose INdustries ground throws on my Atlas turnouts with good results- the points snug up just fine. BTW, my visible track is code 55, with ME code 40 in sidings and spurs. Yes, I replaced all my deep-flange wheelsets with lo-pro wheels, and all my locomotives are fairly new with proper flage depth, so no problems there. When I get new cars, if they're MTL cars I replace the wheelsets with lo-pros and go on from there. Some cars I got had Rapidos, and were replaced with MTL trucks & couplers (with replaced lo-pros). As for trackwork, yes, the smaller codes do demand care in tracklaying, but let's face it- on any layout, bad trackwork can put a dent in your day, regardless of rail size. I have no problems whatsoever with folks who still use code 80 track- that's like the HOers who still use the code 100. It's a matter of preference, and at the table of model railroading, there's plenty of room for everyone.
Well I beg to differ. I run MTL LoPro wheelsets. These have the smallest flange of any wheelsets that I know of. I am also a Ntraker. Now if you want to talk about bad track work try running on Ntrak modules that are entering their third decade of abuse. All of our older modules have the dreaded "ski jump" at each end due to the middle of the module sagging. Put a level on them in three spots and you'll get three different readings. Depennding on who is setting the joiner tracks we can have gaps of 1/16" or more. Yet I have no trouble operating on these modules with Lo Pro wheelsets. I have not experience the point picking with the MTL Lo Pro wheels. Maybe mine are not the newer variety. Atlas makes a plastic wheelset that will will fit the MTL freight car sideframe. They have a deeper flange than MTL and are cheaper. I went with MTL over the Atlas wheelsets because I envisioned N scale eventually going to C40 or C45. Now I am not so sure since Ntrak has banned Atlas C55 due to the backward compatibility issue with the heritage locomotives. As time goes on I expect that will change. Maybe we will have a form of N Gauge "Hi rail". As for saggy floors we use a "T" nut in the bottom of each leg with an eyebolt as a leveler. Eyebolts are easier to turn than regular hex head bolts and can be done by hand.
