Back to back flange measurement
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Joined
·
22,733 Posts
If you are following the G1MRA standard 1.574".
Evolving standards point to 1.582" as things are "tightened up"...
You might find this page entertaining: http://www.elmassian.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85&Itemid=95
Regards, Greg
Evolving standards point to 1.582" as things are "tightened up"...
You might find this page entertaining: http://www.elmassian.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85&Itemid=95
Regards, Greg
Joined
·
1,643 Posts
1.575", + or - .010" is what I've used, others looser, like .020".
If the enema-ray says change it, tell them where to put it.
If the enema-ray says change it, tell them where to put it.
Joined
·
22,733 Posts
What guardrail flange width do you use TOC?
Greg
Greg
Joined
·
1,643 Posts
Immaterial, as long as the check gauge from wing to guard is 1.535"
I find I do not set for the clearance, rather the check gauge.
I find I do not set for the clearance, rather the check gauge.
Joined
·
22,733 Posts
Works out the same, as far as I understand.... thanks...
Should I regauge if I am using DCC?
Greg
Should I regauge if I am using DCC?
Greg
Joined
·
1,643 Posts
Yes.
I think there is a Tony's Special Track and Switch Gauge for dcc users.
Conversely, I hear some inventor/self promoter wants "special" gauge issues, probably for dcc.
But only if some Lense can have it first.
Not sure what that means.
First option for most LSers will be the "special" track for 1:29, to remove it's illegitimacy.
The new "standards" will be forced upon the manufacturer, with threats of some "ray" enforcement that mimicks some medical procedure, followed by the statement "get on board or get left behind", and then statements posted on some obscure, self-righteous group's website that states "manufacturers WILL adopt this standard".
It's a slippery slope, but we have to start somewhere, and since dcc users seem to really think so highly of this inventor/self promoter, why not put the ring through their noses first and lead them off?
I think there is a Tony's Special Track and Switch Gauge for dcc users.
Conversely, I hear some inventor/self promoter wants "special" gauge issues, probably for dcc.
But only if some Lense can have it first.
Not sure what that means.
First option for most LSers will be the "special" track for 1:29, to remove it's illegitimacy.
The new "standards" will be forced upon the manufacturer, with threats of some "ray" enforcement that mimicks some medical procedure, followed by the statement "get on board or get left behind", and then statements posted on some obscure, self-righteous group's website that states "manufacturers WILL adopt this standard".
It's a slippery slope, but we have to start somewhere, and since dcc users seem to really think so highly of this inventor/self promoter, why not put the ring through their noses first and lead them off?
Joined
·
3,134 Posts
How DO you adjust the gauge anyway? How do you actually move the wheels? Greg, I see on your website you use an arbor press--that'd do it, for sure, but space is tight in my little shop and for me it'd be a one-purpose tool
Can you make a jig and tap the wheels/axles with a light hammer to adjust gauge?
Do you need a set of calipers, or is the aristo track gauge thingy enough?
Can you make a jig and tap the wheels/axles with a light hammer to adjust gauge?
Do you need a set of calipers, or is the aristo track gauge thingy enough?
Joined
·
4,797 Posts
I have a cheap digital caliper I got from EBay for like $15.
Most wheelsets are easily adjusted by hand. Just grab one wheel in each hand and pull firmly while twisting.
For others, you need a little equipment:
![]()
I was widening it a little. The clamp is to keep it from going way too much when it budged. I think I used it to squeeze them back together just a hair after they moved.
Most wheelsets are easily adjusted by hand. Just grab one wheel in each hand and pull firmly while twisting.
For others, you need a little equipment:
I was widening it a little. The clamp is to keep it from going way too much when it budged. I think I used it to squeeze them back together just a hair after they moved.
Joined
·
150 Posts
The 1.582 dimension is if you are using narrower wheels such as Gary Raymond's semi scale versions.
John
John
Joined
·
3,912 Posts
Somebody on the forum made a wheel-puller/compressor from small c-clamps, to do this work. I think it was JJ. Maybe if he sees this, he can comment.
Joined
·
22,733 Posts
Tom, your picture is scary! I have images of wobbly wheels!
Back to back has nothing to do with thinner wheels, might make a bit of difference, but the turnouts are the area of attention. I worry more about guardrail flangeways, but it is really the check gauge as TOC said.
Regards, Greg
Back to back has nothing to do with thinner wheels, might make a bit of difference, but the turnouts are the area of attention. I worry more about guardrail flangeways, but it is really the check gauge as TOC said.
Regards, Greg
Joined
·
150 Posts
Greg
I think you need to contact Gary Raymond and get updated.
John
I think you need to contact Gary Raymond and get updated.
John
Joined
·
22,733 Posts
About what?
That back is more important? Or thinner wheel treads? (keep the track gauge good)
Let's discuss here.. I'm interested in what you mean.
Regards, Greg
That back is more important? Or thinner wheel treads? (keep the track gauge good)
Let's discuss here.. I'm interested in what you mean.
Regards, Greg
Joined
·
1,643 Posts
The problem is, the nmra ignored LS for literally decades.
They want to change things now.
Ever look at the new prototype profile on the K-27?
That's where we're headed.
Using a check gauge isn't that big a deal.
I won't.
As long as:
The track gauge needs to stay unchanged, the frog wing to guard needs to stay the same, and the existing flanges needs to stay close.
There is someone now in charge of the nmra wheel and track standards WG who has brought the process to full stop while they determine what is out there.
In the meantime, I would encourage the nmra to go stuff.....ooooops...I mean, go away.
They want to change things now.
Ever look at the new prototype profile on the K-27?
That's where we're headed.
Using a check gauge isn't that big a deal.
I won't.
As long as:
The track gauge needs to stay unchanged, the frog wing to guard needs to stay the same, and the existing flanges needs to stay close.
There is someone now in charge of the nmra wheel and track standards WG who has brought the process to full stop while they determine what is out there.
In the meantime, I would encourage the nmra to go stuff.....ooooops...I mean, go away.
Joined
·
150 Posts
What I mean is that when Gary started making the thinner semi scale wheels, the 1.575 backside on them started giving problems with the frontside. So Gary recommended the 1.582 dimension for those using them. I had some problems with them slipping off the track to the inside until I went to the wider dimension.
John
John
Joined
·
1,643 Posts
One of the reasons nobody around here even uses Gary's wheels anymore.
Just think about the existing 1.535" wing to guard clearance.
The 1.582" is almost .050" wider than the switch check gauge.
Also, the upper limit of the nmra existing spec.
Anything more than about .024" guardrail to stockrail clearance, and you'll be picking the point of the frog.
You play with the back to back with existing wheelsets and turnouts, you're asking for problems.
And, if you're going to use those wheels, you should probably look into the finescale nmra specs.
Like, for track and turnouts.
You are mixing fine and coarse.
Just think about the existing 1.535" wing to guard clearance.
The 1.582" is almost .050" wider than the switch check gauge.
Also, the upper limit of the nmra existing spec.
Anything more than about .024" guardrail to stockrail clearance, and you'll be picking the point of the frog.
You play with the back to back with existing wheelsets and turnouts, you're asking for problems.
And, if you're going to use those wheels, you should probably look into the finescale nmra specs.
Like, for track and turnouts.
You are mixing fine and coarse.
Joined
·
22,733 Posts
I've collected the standards I could find, and also contrasted them with the gauges I could find:
http://www.elmassian.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85&Itemid=95
As TOC said, you have to match apples to apples. Finescale wheel with tinplate standards won't work.
After reading, talking, listening, more reading, more listening, and experimentation, I lean more towards the proposed spec of 1.582" but I set my check gauge and flangeways appropriately, again more towards the proposed specs. This means I have to examine and modify my turnouts, but they are all Aristo, and had to be modified anyway!
Regards, Greg
http://www.elmassian.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85&Itemid=95
As TOC said, you have to match apples to apples. Finescale wheel with tinplate standards won't work.
After reading, talking, listening, more reading, more listening, and experimentation, I lean more towards the proposed spec of 1.582" but I set my check gauge and flangeways appropriately, again more towards the proposed specs. This means I have to examine and modify my turnouts, but they are all Aristo, and had to be modified anyway!
Regards, Greg
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
