> "Terry Flynn" wrote
> >
> > > Nickel silver might be slippery, but mild steel has some big > disadvantages
> > > for small scale models, one is poor electrical conductivity after it > > rusts,
> > > another is steel wheels are no good if you want to use magnetically > > operated
> > > uncoupling. Rusty steel wheels on rusty track also have a high rolling
> > > resistance.
> >
> > Rust? The simple answer there is not to let the track or wheels get > rusty,
> > surely! I don't run models in a garage, a shed, or outdoors though, and I
> > would wholeheartedly agree that steel rails may not be the best option > > there.
> >
> > > If your models cannot pull prototypical loads, don't blame slippery > nickel
> > > silver or stainless steel, look elsewhere. I can run longer than scale
> > > trains using these materials in H0, so there is no reason why others > can't
> > > do it in H0 or 00.
> >
> > I actually model in EM gauge, and I have models with nickel-silver wheels
> > that will pull a house down running on nickel-silver track. These are
> > kit-built, with chassis built following the best parts of Iain Rice's and
> > Mike Sharman's philosophies. I personally find problems when converting > RTR
> > stock, because the chassis designs usually make an 0-6-0 really an 0-3-0 > as
> > far as wheels in contact with track are concerned. One real failure of > mine
> > was converting the Hornby Dean Goods tender drive mechanism to EM using NS
> > wheels, and now it can't pull the skin off a rice pudding. Steel wouldn't
> > have been any better in that case, and the whole thing has been put back
> > into it's box pending a re-think.
> >
> Tender drives should be avoided if traction is important. The tender drive
> is pushing locomotive with bearings which have a high rolling
> resistance compared to pin point bearings. Using small ball bearings instead
> of inside plain bearings should improve things, however a more conventional
> locomotive drive is preferable..
Where do you get ball bearings suited to 2mm axles???
>
> > Ironically, surrounding me whilst typing this is a Hornby Pacer with
> > Branchlines conversion, a GWR 48xx (shown on my website) and a Pannier in
> > build - the latter two with proper chassis - and two out of three have
> > nickel-silver wheels!
> >
>
> Your web site shows some lovely models. Your spinner probably does just > that.
> I have noticed inside bearings and some of the load on your models are on
> non driving wheels. I try to avoid this, your single is the exception to
> this preference for obvious reasons. For example my 4-6-0 is actually built
> as an 0-6-0 with a 4
> wheel bogie floating along in front, doing nothing except looking like it is
> doing something.
Ewwww! Make the bogie earn it's keep! For a start it should be collecting current, so it needs some weight. If it has weight then it might as well be sprung. If you've gone to all that effort then it might as well be guiding the loco, which will cause the entire loco to act more like the prototype does/did rather than an extended 0-6-0 with a small wagon trapped underneath.
This way the friction force of the inside bearings on the
> leading bogie is minimised.
By the time you get to a 4-6-0 the loco is big enough in HO to get more lead inside than the motor can handle!
Never use inside bearings on tenders unless the
> prototype had these, then use ball bearings. Using these rules maximises
> tractive effort for our models without the need of all lead body > construction.
>
> > Anyway, I just prefer steel, and it's my train-set :-)
> >
>
> Can't argue about that.
>
> > --
> > Paul Boyd
> >
formatting link
>
formatting link
>
> >