G Scale Model Train Forum banner

Got my GR today

32K views 104 replies 33 participants last post by  chuck n 
#1 ·
Nice picture of Shawn V's layout on the cover

Full color full page ad of Aristo trying to unload PCC cars (I hope they recoup some of their losses by re-using the trucks for the long promised S1 switcher)

Full page ad from Train-Li facing the table of contents... wow, that must have cost a lot... the new Zimo handheld looks pretty trick

RLD's ad right in the front too... go Robby!

Nice mining complex kit from gtrainbuildings.com although higher res pictures and more detail on the kit itself would be nice for $270

Class 66 locos from trainworld for $400... beats the $600 from texas!

MTH is still selling PA's direct (screw the dealers?)

Nice article by Kevin on "How to Videotape your railway"... the only error I found is that no mention of real video tape was made (ha ha, maybe talk about making a digital video?)

Nice article on Canadian layouts and plants, nice pictures always gets interest

Good weathering article with various methods

Shawn's layout article interesting on how it came to be, and very photogenic

St. Aubins ad looked sparse, not packed full like the other guys... wonder how they are doing? Their prices seem higher, $580 for an Aristo Consolidation from St. Aubins, the once price leader?


Good how to article on making figures from sculpey...

Really big indoor layout, wow, I guess you can do a lot in a 1,400 q foot basement!

I was disappointed though:

Kevin failed to give the wheel gage of the Aristo Consolidation in his review, which is way out of specification, causing many people to have running problems. There's a lot of detail in the review, picking up many small points, but leaving off the glaring wheel gage problems is disappointing


Again, in the Piko 37430 review, the back to back is way out, and no mention of the wheel gage. One would surmise that unless the flanges are also way out of spec that the wheel gage must also be out.



The magazine finishes off with a final Aristo ad, where one of the bullet points for the dash 9 is "extra weight for better performance"

Well, Aristo went from three 2 pound lead weights (6 pounds of weight) to one 2 pound weight with 2 more "free" ($5 each) to 2 more for $10-$30, to changing to zinc weights at HALF the weight of lead, and you only get one free, to the dash 9 on the back cover, where you get an VEN LIGHTER stack of steel plates...

So the magazine went from good to poor as I went though, but overall I think it was a very good issue, with obvious effort by the GR staff to have more how-to articles, and great photographs.

Greg
 
See less See more
#52 ·
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.
 
#55 ·
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.
 
#56 ·
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.
 
#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
 
#59 ·
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.
 
#60 ·
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
 
#63 ·
In a hypothetical nutshell and with no names mentioned.

Well known Company advertises in well known industry magazine.

Said Company makes a product that soon after release is found to have a glaring design/manufacturing defect that can severely affect operational performance. Thanks to the Internet this design/manufacturing defect becomes widely known and the manufacturer promises to fix it but never does. Allegedly sales of said product come to a grinding halt.

Eventually the well known industry magazine reviews said design/manufacturing deficient product and gives it a tick of approval. No mention is made of the widely known alleged design/manufacturing defects in review.

Is the consumer any better off? I don't think so.

Business as usual? Absolutely.

C'est la vie[/b]
 
#64 ·
@ Greg, I think you're misunderstanding my illustration. I'm measuring across the axle from one wheel to the other. The part in bold is the part that was measured from one side to the other. The first "set" of measurements is wider than the second because I measured from a point farther from the center of the wheelset. Using the drawing above, draw a line somewhere in the middle of the fillet between the outside edge of the flange and inside edge of the railhead. I measured from that point on one side to that same point on the other. When I amended my measurements to just include the width of the flange, I measured across the "wheel gauge" line in that drawing. That's going to be the narrower measurement.

@ Mike, you're correct. The issue with this wheel profile isn't as much the gauge or the flange, as (at least on my sample) they're within standards. It's the fillet. At rougly .050", the locomotive rides on the outer edge of the fillet instead of the tread itself. Had Aristo used a smaller radius on the fillet (say, the recommended .020" - .030") or no fillet at all, the wheel would ride squarely on the tread and look all the world like a G1MRA-profile wheel, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's because of the large fillet that the wheel doesn't sit squarely on the tread. In order for it to do that, you'd have to--as Greg accurately says--move the back-to-back narrower. But with a tread width of .271" and a flange/fillet taking up literally half of that (about .132"), that doesn't leave a whole lot of tread left over, either. The better solution is simply reduce or eliminate the fillet. Aristo's working on a new wheel profle which appears to do that.

Why some people have trouble with it and others don't, I can't say. My sample (with accurate gauge) ran well on my track where other locos (with broad gauge and similar/identical wheels) did not. I thinking what's happening is that the radius of the fillet doesn't give the operator much leeway in terms of how the gauge can vary, even if it's in spec. Given that some wheels on these locos are demonstrably broad in gauge as well (back-to-back as much as 1mm or more wider than spec), it's easy to see how they can decide to take a walk on the wild side. The "simple" solution--everything else being to manufaturer spec and NMRA/G1MRA standard--would be to take a file to the fillet and file enough of it away to give a proper .020" fillet instead. This adds about .030" more "tread" on each wheel, and should allow the loco to ride on the tread instead of the fillet.

@ Gary, I don't think the drawing's showing the measurement through the fillet. The line (as I interpret it) is righ at the edge of the flange where it meets the fillet. (i.e, where the curve goes from concave to convex.)

Later,

K
 
#65 ·
"Simple" solution indeed!

I've already taken my aristo steam drive blocks down, gotten a torch to soften the loctite to remove the wheels, gently and carefully lapped the axle wheel joint with valve compound to try to get a better seat, replaced the wheels quartered properly, and then ground down the backside of the flanges to get reasonable back to back spacing.

Grinding the fillet on eight wheels would be tedious and hard to do. There's no real way to get it accurate and uniform without machine tools. It would destroy the plating. But I guess as long as I was grinding the back of the wheels....

Wait, the simple thing would be to have the wheels sized/shaped the right way to begin with. So they fit the wheel gage you yourself (aristo) make and sell! This isn't rocket science. Why am I spending all this time fixing a $500 product?

I read about the problems with aristo's drive block here. Then I experienced them, after short periods of running--along with faulty wiring of the PnP socket. I never saw a word about either of these things in GR. I avoided the Consolidation because I knew the block was faulty, but wasted good money on RS-3 blocks with stainless wheels that proved to be completely unusable, with cracked axles and badly out of gage.

There's no other way to get aristo to fix these problems than to publicly call them out. I'm hoping that Scott Polk will do a better job. It'd be hard to do a worse job.
 
#66 ·
Posted By Cougar Rock Rail on 07 Mar 2012 04:55 PM
Further to Mike's comment about hunting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting_oscillation

Keith
Thanks...that's an article I can appreciate. Never even thought to look in the wiki...but I knew the term was "hunting" from reading about the 1:1 new C axle trucks.

This article suggests another reason for these engines to be derailing...that being the "hunting" resulting in swaying of the engine (they're top heavy I'd assume). There's a part of that explanation on hunting about induced latitudinal accelerations...sideways one. Then, add any binding of the rods....and you're developing a good reason for these things to derail on straight track at any decent speed.
 
#67 ·
Don't even get me started on the SS wheels, let's just say I have a lot of them that I was promised replacements a year and a quarter ago...

Kevin, you gave all the data, I used your data, and now your information matches EVERYONE ELSE'S experience...Great!

Pictures, videos, people's own experiences... all jive with your measurements...


Bottom line: The wheels gage is over 45 mm, the wheels are wider than the track.[/b]

Greg
 
#68 ·
Greg, part of the mis-communication stems from the fact that there is are 2-8-0s out there with literal gauge issues (such as wheels with a back-to-back near 1.600" in one instance). So when you talk about thick flanges and out-of-gauge wheels, those have very literal meanings to someone looking at things from a purely standards-driven perspective such as where I come from when I look at wheels. Wheels riding on the fillet are not the best profile, but they're not technically "out of gauge." From my standards-based perspective, that has a very specific definition.

I noticed you're updating your web site on the 2-8-0, referencing this thread and the numbers I quoted in an earlier post. If you're going to be quoting my measurements on your web site, can you please use these numbers? These are hard numbers taken from the loco which was reviewed, leaving no room for conjecture relative to the fillet radius, etc., and eliminates any confusion as to what we're measuring.

Actual measurements taken:
Flange thickness (T) = 0.082"
Back-to-Back (B) = 1.560"
Wheel Width (N) = 0.270"
Flange Depth (D) = 0.105"

Extrapolated measurements (per NMRA definitions):
Check gauge (T+B) = 1.642"
Wheel gauge (T+B+T) = 1.724"

Note: consistent with NMRA RP-25, the flange measurement is taken to be just the flange itself, not to include any kind of fillet.

Fillet radius - approx. 0.050"

All measurements are within NMRA standards with the exception of flange thickness, which exceeds standards by only .006". The fillet radius exceeds the NMRA's recommendation of .020" - .030", but since it's only a recommendation, technically speaking it's not out of compliance. I'll definitely agree that the fillet is unusually large, and that given these other dimensions, the wheel rides on the fillet itself as opposed to the tread.

Later,

K
 
#69 ·
Kevin,
How about this. You come on out to my place with any stock 2-8-0 you want and we can run that one with my modified ones for comparison. We can argue measurements in the thousands all day long and get nowhere. I operate in the practical world. Something works like it should or it doesn't. If it doesn't I will cure it if I can or get rid of it. A firend of mine has an outdoor shelf layout that is about at eye level. We took his new 2-8-0 out of the box and tested it. Granted it runs smooth on straight track but had to fight its way through turnouts. Looking at it at eye level you could see it was riding on the fillets,center two drivers not even touching the rail. His track is Aristo with both wide and #6 turnouts. A side note here. On one of my locos we used the new wheel with the insert. On the other we used a set of the old style wheels from a mikado motor block. After turning,both sets worked equally well.
Kevin,I really mean it about coming out. An open invitation. Bring a camera and we can have some fun.
 
#70 ·
Posted By East Broad Top on 08 Mar 2012 01:41 AM
....All measurements are within NMRA standards with the exception of flange thickness, which exceeds standards by only .006". The fillet radius exceeds the NMRA's recommendation of .020" - .030", but since it's only a recommendation, technically speaking it's not out of compliance. I'll definitely agree that the fillet is unusually large, and that given these other dimensions, the wheel rides on the fillet itself as opposed to the tread.



Well...there we have it. The standards are wrong for the intended purpose then. If you agree that the tread is suppose to sit on the rail, then these standards obviously don't result in meeting that requirement. I'd say they're not much good if that is the situation. It's pretty clear to me that the fillet reommendation shouldn't be a recommendation. I have no idea whether the .020 to .030 is correct either...but if you can interpret the standard and have a result where the fillet is the main contact point with the rail...you CLEARLY haven't got a decent standard...well, more precisely, you got crap for a standard.
 
#71 ·
Mike

Question, just what lawful authority does the National Model Railroad Association have? As far as I know none, so the truth is for any manufacturer of model railroad equipment in the U.S. it is simply a matter of voluntary compliance if they choose to do so. Yes, I know it is theoretically better for all concerned (i.e. manufacturers & consumers alike) if they do, however, Apple sure doesn't seem to be doing so poorly by being proprietary in nature.
 
#72 ·
Posted By SteveC on 08 Mar 2012 12:03 PM
Mike

Question, just what lawful authority does the National Model Railroad Association have? As far as I know none, so the truth is for any manufacturer of model railroad equipment in the U.S. it is simply a matter of voluntary compliance if they choose to do so. Yes, I know it is theoretically better for all concerned (i.e. manufacturers & consumers alike) if they do, however, Apple sure doesn't seem to be doing so poorly by being proprietary in nature.


Heck, lawful compliance???...none is the answer. They're not building codes. What hurts is when there IS a standard...and it's junk. The manufacturer trusts it...and it results in a bogus product. The consumer trusts it...because it meets standards....and he gets a bum product.

Standards aren't repaired if everyone just ignores them. This is a situation where the NMRA standard is defective IMHO. It needs repair...IF we really want the NMRA in our sandbox...and we know how much discussion has gone on regarding that...right here on good ole MLS.


Oh..and Apple isn't proprietary as most people think. I'm sure it uses LOTS of interface standards...802.11, USB, etc....just like Aristocraft tried to use the G gauge wheel standard for their wheel interface...apparently unsuccessfully.
 
#76 ·
Actually, the current NMRA standards are extremely close to the G1MRA standards, which WORK, and most people are fine with.

Some of the tolerances on the NMRA "target values" are pretty close to nuts, but that is to "grandfather in" the manufactures of thick flanges and narrow back to back. If you read the standards you can see this.

Of course I understand the idea of getting the manufacturers on board, obviously making a standard that they cannot meet (financially or emotionally) will just alienate them... so the politics is clear.

But, again, look at the TARGET values, and you will find a set of numbers that works quite well, and are usually within 0.001" of the G1MRA.

Regards, Greg

(this is also why you can state that the flange thickness and fillet are close spec, because of wide tolerances allowed)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top