G Scale Model Train Forum banner

41 - 60 of 105 Posts

·
Super Modulator
Joined
·
20,514 Posts
Discussion Starter #41
Negative negative negative, the fillet is not what it is designed to ride on. That's is basically an outrageous statement.

And the fillet is assumed to meet NMRA code, which it does not. So splitting it halfway is NOT acceptable. You measure the gage on the tread of the wheel EXCLUSIVE of the fillet.

(Nor does the flange depth, thickness, etc. meet NMRA)

You are opening up a can of worms here, and there is more data to prove this. You cannot just make up your own standards on the fly, nor methods of measuring.

Halfway on the absurd fillet is still absurd... the wheel contour, for lack of better words, is crappy.

Nope, you are digging in deeper, and further exposing the poor design and quality control, just the thing that Aristo did not want. You are making it worse.

Regards, Greg

p.s. people DO follow the NMRA/G1MRA standards, in fact, you need to look at a NEW Aristo Dash 9 (but that's another story).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
133 Posts
I do like warm heated give & take debates. Hot heated debates are for the "Birds"........

Recently I have not bought these G Engines due to their higher price point: Aristo Mallet & Aristo Consolidated and the Piko G Alligator..

I have however bought the less expensive power units like: 3 Piko G Electric Tauruses, Piko G Mogul Steamer, & Aristo Class 66 DB Schenker diesel..

I just may have been fortunate in that these purchased model's do stay on the Track... Only the coming GBay, WI melting snow covered rails will tell..??

And I love to read ALL new G Gauge (45 mm) Engine Reviews!!!!!!!! Including CA George S and KC Raymond M. versions............

Dennis M.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
363 Posts
Also, the NMRA suggests (highly) that the back-to-back be narrowed in such conditions -> "Should a manufacturer or modeler opt to use flanges greater than 0.076", the back-to-back spacing should be narrowed from the published Target Value to compensate and still fall within Check-gauge tolerances for the wheels."


There's a very good reason for the above and the 'overcompensated fillet' cannot be the ideal way to achieve the published Target Value - IMHO.

Victor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
I don't base my purchases on magazine reviews. I know better. If you want a "warts" and all review, that's what the forums are for.

Magazine reviews are superficial, at best. They have the item for a limited amount of time. They would be best titled as "Overviews".

If Kevin says his sample tracked fine, who are we to doubt him?

Kevin contributes much to the forums, for free. Personally, I wouldn't put up with anyone doggin the crap out of me, unless they are signing my paycheck.

Even then, I may think twice.

Ralph
 

·
Super Modulator
Joined
·
20,514 Posts
Discussion Starter #45
No one is dogging Kevin, he came into the thread I started, and I did not mean it to blossom into this.

But, now the BS is getting deep, and making up how a train wheel rides on the fillet, this is way out of whack, and no way I will agree to things that far wrong.

It's Kevin who is dogging me on this thread.

Greg
 

·
A Steamed Elder
Joined
·
3,857 Posts
Posted By VictorSpear on 05 Mar 2012 05:14 PM
Also, the NMRA suggests (highly) that the back-to-back be narrowed in such conditions -> "Should a manufacturer or modeler opt to use flanges greater than 0.076", the back-to-back spacing should be narrowed from the published Target Value to compensate and still fall within Check-gauge tolerances for the wheels."


There's a very good reason for the above and the 'overcompensated fillet' cannot be the ideal way to achieve the published Target Value - IMHO.

Victor.



The 1:1 railroads use a "Wheel Check" gage also. Measures from the flange and tire(where the flange angle intersects the angled tire surface) to the BACKSIDE of the other wheel on the axle. The angle of the flange and the angle of the tire, are a theoretical intersection point. Our wheels at Los Angeles Live Steamers are machined to International Brotherhood of Live Steamers standards. If you search for them on the net, you would find them interesting and maybe help with Greg's and Kevin's explanations here.
I DO agree with Greg that the fillet does NOT and SHOULD not enter into the discussion.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,960 Posts
Greg, I'm done. I tried playing nice to give you the measurements you wanted, and you tell me they're BS. And you wonder why I'm reluctant to accommodate your requests. If you want the measurements exclusive of the fillet, subtract .048" from each of the measurements given, since the difference from the flange to the point on the fillet I measured is approximately .024". (.106" - .082")

Over and out.

K
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Providers/HtmlEditorProviders/CEHtmlEditorProvider/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css); Posted By Greg Elmassian on 05 Mar 2012 07:04 PM

But, now the BS is getting deep

Greg


Ah, so you are capable of speaking some truth!


Like any review, you need to learn to take GR's with a grain of salt. They're not going to get into super specific detail in their reviews, as those pages cost money, and often a quick summary suffices for most products. The "problems" that you're talking about don't seem to negatively effect performance in any way, so what's the big deal exactly? One of the magazines staff members and reviewers even went out of their way to give you the information you were looking for, and still that was not enough for you. Kudos to Kevin for putting up with you for as long as he did, I know that I personally would never have tolerated the slander you've been spewing left and right for that long.

Once again I am satisfied with GR's magazine, and once again I am disappointed by the immaturity of people on the internet who should know better.
 

·
Super Modulator
Joined
·
20,514 Posts
Discussion Starter #49
Elcamo, whoever you are, you need to read up on the history and problems of the Consolidation... you are completely clueless as to the entire picture.

And if you do not realize that train wheels have the tread in contact with the rail tops, and not the fillet, you need to learn.


As for the review, you need to read it too, he went into "super specific detail", just left out the important part, the part that caused all the problems in the first place, that the gage of the loco wheels is WIDER than the track, thus the running problems. Otherwise you should really be quiet so you don't embarrass yourself further by your total ineptitude.


There's no slander here, other than yours, and if you take Kevin's updated measurements and correct his statement (you ADD the part of the fillet he measured to get the wheel gage) you get: (adding his 0.048 as stated above)

(think about it, he under measured the wheel gage because he measured "short" of the tread, he started in the fillet.

Axle 1 - 1.771" + 0.048 = 1.819" ( equals 46.2 mm, WIDER than the track gage)
Axle 2 - 1.769" + 0.048 = 1.817" ( 46.15, wider again)
Axle 3 - 1.762" + 0.048 = 1.810" ( 45.974 mm)
Axle 4 - 1.758" + 0.048 = 1.806" ( 45.87 mm)

So using all of Kevin's measurements, all of the drivers have a wheel gage (as per NMRA, G1MRA, and prototype definition of gage) WIDER than the track gage... which makes the loco ride up on the fillet, and run poorly.

So, finally real information, even from the "opposition" proves the point. Thank you Kevin for having the integrity to give the actual data, even though it proves my point.

Greg (my real name)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,960 Posts
Subtract, it, Greg, subtract. You DO NOT measure the gauge of the wheelset to include the fillet. That's by definition, from 1:1 down to 1:220 and smaller. Link I spent 2 years immersed in wheel and track technical mumbo-jumbo while writing the NMRA's large scale wheel and track standards. The points of measurement for those standards are very clearly defined, and the flange most decidedly does not include any part of a fillet. NMRA RP-25 wheel profile The fillet isn't even part of the large scale wheel standards except as a recommendation, so how can it be used if it doesn't even "officially" exist?

Original measurements (in bold): TREAD--FILLET--FLANGE ---------------------- FLANGE--FILLET--TREAD

"By definition" measurements: TREAD--FILLET--FLANGE ---------------------- FLANGE--FILLET--TREAD

Eliminating the fillet from the measurement reduces the distance, and gives you the "true" gauge of the wheels, since that measurement by definition is taken from flange to flange. (In NMRAspeak, T+B+T or flange thickness plus back-to-back plus flange thickness.)

Axle 1 - 1.771" - .048" = 1.723"
Axle 2 - 1.769" - .048" = 1.721"
Axle 3 - 1.762" - .048" = 1.714"
Axle 4 - 1.758" - .048" = 1.710"

Just for fun, I took actual measurements of the "true" gauge of the wheels, so to eliminate the "rough estimate" of the point in the fillet from which I took the original measurements:

Axle 1 - 1.731"
Axle 2 - 1.728"
Axle 3 - 1.723"
Axle 4 - 1.720"

That's at least a full .040" less than the gauge of the track. Because the radius of the fillet is larger than recommended, I think it proper to add a slight adjustment outward for that, which is why I took my original measurements from a point somewhere in the middle of the fillet instead of just flange-to-flange. I was actually cutting you a little slack, and still showing that the gauge of the wheels is less than the gauge of the track. Take that added distance away, and the difference is even more clear.

That's the "by the book" take on wheel profiles as they relate to the 2-8-0. There's no grey area. Using clearly-defined points of measurement, the measured gauge of the wheelset is less than the standard gauge of the track, therefore by definition it gets a "passing" grade. That's one of the NMRA's "tests" for authoring standards. "T+B+T < G (track gauge)" must be "true." If that condition is satisfied, the standard passes that particular test. (There are 9 or 10 such measurement tests for a full set of standards.) You can argue whether a train "should" ride on the fillets all you want, it makes no difference in terms of the "by the book" definitions where the fillet doesn't exist. When I write a review, I use "by the book" definitions. Consistency from one review to the next is important, so having black-and-white standards from which I can draw makes it a lot easier to try to make sense of each manufacturer's individual (often multiple) wheel profiles.

Later,

K
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
Hi Guys:

Firstly, I would not buy this Aristo Consolidation loco given all of the wheel gauge problems.

What are the exact gauge measurements? It does not matter. Folks could argue all week long over the measurements and as to whether they conform to NMRA standards. The point is many of these locomotives do not run ( or track ) along the track properly. I accept the review of the various hobbyists who bought this model and now are out of pocket due to wheel gauge error problems.

Would I take the chance and hope that, at random, I receive a Consolidation that will track properly? Not likely.

I am not getting into a review of Kevin's GR review. Kevin did his best to offer his personal unbiased review and that is the end of it.

Greg, possibly you could direct your efforts into maybe teaming up with Barry's Big Trains on offering an after market product to solve this Aristo Consolidation problem. The hobbyists who have bought a defective Aristo Craft Consolidation will definitely appreciate your efforts. Hounding Kevin on measurements accomplishes nothing. The defective Consolidations are still defective.

Hopefully Aristo Craft will continue to offer us reasonably priced products in the future. The Aristo Craft level of product inventory presently offered does not present to me the picture of a robust company. For the 40% off sale, Aristo Craft had zero inventory of heavyweights, C-16, etc. I don't believe things are exactly booming right now at Aristo Craft. That said, I still am not buying one of their Consolidation locos from this first production run!

I think Aristo Craft presently needs the support of the train hobbyists more than ever. Let us hope that they, and all of us, survive this cruel world wide recession.


Norman
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
595 Posts
Kevin,

I think your review was done well. You are going off your own integrity and what you have in front of you. I know the review process is not perfect. I think some one suggested that you go buy the product off the shelf you could get a more "normal" loco instead of a hand picked one. However, I know that the budget of the magazine would not allow that type of process. You have to work with what you get. I commend you for not only reviewing what you have in front of you and defending it, but also trying to placate the "haters".

Greg,

Your review of the Aristo Connie was very good. I dont model in 1:29 but based on your data I would not buy one. I think you have done a good job of documenting the problem with the loco and I know you are compassionate about it for the sake of improving the hobby. However, you cant ask Kevin to take your data and insert it into his article. Unfortunately your not an "employee" of the magazine and so your data is considered circumstantial. Any lawyer would have a field day with it. I dont think you should beat up Kevin for doing what only he can do, "which is review what is in front of him."

For all,

You are not going to get a critical review of any model in any model magazine. I have never seen one, I have been a subscriber of not only GR, but Model Railroader (Kalmbach again) but also Railroad Model Craftsman, Narrow Gauge and Short line Gazette, Model Railroading Mag and a few others. It is the nature of the business that is outside of Kevin's paygrade (sorry Kevin but it is true). Publishers will not bad mouth a manufactures product because it is them who buy ads. It is not the subscriptions that pay for the magazine, they are only a very small part of the budget, the ads are what makes the mag. A publisher is not going to throw good money down the drain because they bash a manufactures product. The best way is here on MLS and few other website who are not beholden to the manufacture's dollar.

A final note, the real issure here is where we are getting the product. I work in the optical business. All of our products come from China. I've noticed a large decrease in the quality of frames these days. It is largly due to the Chinese manufacturing process. So it is not issolated to only the Model Railroad industry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,021 Posts
these repetive threads about faulty products make me curious.

do you northamericans pay your toys with three dollar bills?

or why do you discuss like you do, instead of abstaining to buy junk?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,297 Posts
Posted By kormsen on 06 Mar 2012 05:53 PM
these repetive threads about faulty products make me curious.

do you northamericans pay your toys with three dollar bills?

or why do you discuss like you do, instead of abstaining to buy junk?



Korm, buying LS is like a little trip to Vegas, Will I beat the odds and WIN, or will the house odds win and leave me burned. IOWs will I get one of the good correctly made products thats good to go out of the box, or will I get a lemon that will require either weeks of time in transit for repairs or DIY repairs that may require an electronics degree or a machinist qualification.

Why do we put up with this? Few or no alternatives I guess.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,510 Posts
Posted By vsmith on 07 Mar 2012 09:02 AM


Posted By kormsen on 06 Mar 2012 05:53 PM
these repetive threads about faulty products make me curious.

do you northamericans pay your toys with three dollar bills?

or why do you discuss like you do, instead of abstaining to buy junk?



Korm, buying LS is like a little trip to Vegas, Will I beat the odds and WIN, or will the house odds win and leave me burned. IOWs will I get one of the good correctly made products thats good to go out of the box, or will I get a lemon that will require either weeks of time in transit for repairs or DIY repairs that may require an electronics degree or a machinist qualification.

Why do we put up with this? Few or no alternatives I guess.


If you look at any reviews on the web for any product you will find the majority are full of complaints. Few people will take the time to post glowing reports of what they purchase. But if there is a problem, then they are more than willing to take the time to complain... partially to get help in correcting the problem, partially to get sympathy for having the problem, and partially to "get back at" the supplier of the product.

If you ever need surgery I STRONGLY recommend that you DO NOT do a web search to see what people report of the procedure. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of gall bladder surgerys everyday, but if you read the web for stories about what people have experienced you would never submit your body to such an operation!

You will notice that many companies are BEGGING people to write reviews of products and transactions and even offering incentives to get people to do so. "Please submit a review and get a chance to win $1000!" E-bay will hound you to "Rate" a seller. If they didn't the only ratings would all be bad, because few people would ever think of going back to say they had no problems.

I seldom read the reasons people rate a seller the way they did... I just look at the number of transactions vs the number of complaints.
 

·
Super Modulator
Joined
·
20,514 Posts
Discussion Starter #58
Kevin, I think you have confused yourself. "Subtract, it, Greg, subtract."
WRONG


You DO NOT measure the gauge of the wheelset to include the fillet.
RIGHT
(extraneous affirmations of experience with wheels deleted)

Original measurements (in bold): TREAD--FILLET--FLANGE ---------------------- FLANGE--FILLET--TREAD ( I changed your bolding, but you measured in the middle of the fillet)

ROGER

"By definition" measurements: TREAD--FILLET--FLANGE ---------------------- FLANGE--FILLET--TREAD
WRONG WRONG [/b][/b] WRONG [/b] WRONG [/b] WRONG - you are in direct conflict with your statement above "You DO NOT measure the gauge of the wheelset to include the fillet"
[/b]
You are not only wrong, but you are in disagreement with your fundamental (and correct) statement.


How it really works:: TREAD--FILLET--FLANGE ---------------------- FLANGE--FILLET--TREAD

So the distance you measured first was NARROWER because you measured PAST the tread and into the FILLET... Now the distance is WIDER.

Thus you ADD the missing distance.

Your "gage" was narrower because YOU measured closer to the flange in conflict with your (correct) assertion that you do not include the fillet in the measurement.

In your quest to be right, you are making it worse by arguing with yourself.

Greg
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,093 Posts
I'm finding this discussion of "how" to measure the gauge of a wheel set most intriguing...and am wondering about how the standards are actually put together for our trains. I've always understood:

a. The flat part of the tread is what was supposed to support the load.
b. That the flat part was tapered to help a wheel around a curve...in that as the wheel set moves to the outside of a curve, the outside wheel is on the larger part of the taper (i.e. with a bigger circumference because it has to travel further) and the the inside wheel is on the smaller part of the taper (i.e. with a smaller circumference because it has to travel less far).
c. That a fillet was added (on 1:1) wheel sets so that there was no stress point where the flange met the tread.

Now...that kinda simple explanation means to me that the gauge of a wheel set WE NEED should be independent of the size of the fillet. The flat part (tread) is what is supposed to sit on the rail. In other words, it should be measured from the outside of the fillet to the outside of the fillet on the other side...and that should be less than the gauge of the track. How-some-ever....that's NOT how Mr. Armstrong defined "wheel gauge".




So, IMHO if the wheel gauge is such that the back to back is right (meaning it will go through turnouts well...as that is the critical dimension there) but the fillet is so large that the wheel set's tread cannot sit FLAT on the rail...well, then...Houston, we got a problem. It will mean the wheel continuously hunts back and forth since it can never get flat on the rail...which causes a lot of drag as the flange rubs against the side of the rail...and reduced traction because of the small contact area. To me it would also seem to increases the potential to climb the rail and derail when moving fast.


Recently on 1:1 railroads, the manufacturers of engines recently addressed this issue by adding mechanisms INSIDE the power trucks on the big three axle trucks to turn the forward and aft axles when the truck was in a curve. This helped keep the flat tread of the wheel on the rail...and increase traction....reduce drag...reduce rail wear...and reduce derailment potential.


Now, I don't have one of these new Consolidations...but it the wheel contour is so weird that the engine actually rides on the fillet, not the tread, when the back to back is correct, I can't see that this wheel profile is right. Then again, I'm extrapolating from 1:1 designs...thinking they also apply to our models. Further, you'll note that in Mr. Armstrong's diagram above, it shows the rails are tipped inward. I don't think our model RR track has that incorporated in it's design...and if not, the taper of the wheels alone would cause the wheel set to hunt...so adding a big fillet would make the hunting even worse.
 

·
A Steamed Elder
Joined
·
3,857 Posts
Here is a link to the International Broherhood of Live Steamers Standards. pretty much used throughout the world. Note the "Wheel Check" standard. This one nails the relationship of back to back and wheel gage. I disagree with the wheel gauge on John Armstrong's drawing. I never heard of making that measurement through the radious of the fillet.

http://www.prairiestaterr.org/posti...ndards.pdf
 
41 - 60 of 105 Posts
Top