john papadonis said:.
Well, I was the one who started this thread. I paid about $160 and was thrilled to get it. I have sent back a Rogers loco from Aristo (smoke unit did not work). They fixed it and returned it working at no charge for shipping or repair. I also bought a Bachmann Connie that ran for a few runs and then died. Bachmann charged me for the return shipping, but provided me a new engine at no charge.
David Kapp said:and lots and lots of time ;)
Vic; So who has a milling machine.I used a file, dremel, and track power.
I have one. Several of my friends have them. They are all overgauge, and have at least binding issues in track and switches.
Some people with track that’s a bit wide might have no problems, but often curves and switches have undergauge problems, and then you will see the loco literally ride up out of the tracks.
Battery powered folk can do what Paul did and machine the tread and narrow the flange, because normally these are pretty close in back to back.
Removing the plating on the tread and inner flange is not a good option for me, since I run track power. Also thinning the pot metal flange concerns me for wear.
I’m working on having stainless steel tires made, and machining the flange and tread off the loco wheels. Then just press the SS tire on.
It’s a lot of work to make it a good running loco, and we are still waiting for the promised wheels.
Greg
p.s. Kevin, there is nothing Aristo can do to fix the problem, without new wheels. The previous locos were undergauge on the back to back, which allowed them to have proper wheel gauge. This, of course leads to other problems. They had the right idea in having one of the 3 factors in spec, but the overly thick flange guarantees that you can have either back to back or wheel gage correct but NOT BOTH with the current wheel profile. As you painfully found, even your measurements show this.
I guess on the average the Aristo wheels are just right, as my Pacific wheels were WAY under gauge. 
(http://www.jbrr.com/Pics/Locomotives/EBT/AristoPacific/IMG_6014.JPG)
Frankly, I think they’re whole design is just wrong. There’s no way to keep the wheels in quarter and there’s no way to find any binds in the rods since the wheels won’t free roll even with the motor removed. I’m not a fan of those gear boxes at all.
A fan of Aristo rolling stock and my venerable RS3 even I can appreciate the irony of Bruce’s picture…Yep, that is an Aristo track gauge. 
Tim Brien said:
In all fairness to the GR reviewer, if the item being reviewed conformed to factory specs and performed as expected, then the reviewer has no option other than to report his findings on that sample. This is the flawed method one uses when reviewing a product. A reviewer cannot exercise options outside of the sample provided. In general it is the factory that provides the sample, so is not the review method that is flawed? A reviewer cannot use anecdotal evidence or flaws detected on non-official sampled products, i.e., the exact item under review.That being said, the criticism has been done to death on the Aristo forum many months ago when the loco was released. Of cause there was the flat denial scenario from the president, followed after consultation with a promise that a new wheel would arrive within two months to replace current ‘flawed’ wheelsets. Of cause that promise, like many others has gone with the wind and barring a rerun of the Consolidation, highly unlikely, we will never see a reprofiled wheel. Look to the reprofiled stainless wheelsets. Some got good, well performing motor blocks and others could not even maintain rail contact without repeated derailment.
Wow, everyone needs to re-read this post. The real problem is all of you who bought the Aristo 2-8-0 have a real beef to pick. Kevin, did what he was suppose to do. He reviewed the sample in front of him. Which worked great. You need to contact Aristo and ask why the reviewer in GR got a proper loco and you didnt. In fact you should demand a reason.
Hans mentioned something about buying the product “off the shelf” to be reviewed. That would be a great way to get a “as is” product Unfortunately, that is cost prohibitive and reviewers have to work with what they have.
If your worried about a dealer incuring costs, dont. As a business man I will not pay shipping to ship a defective product back to the manufacture. They pay it or reimburse me. I have never had a problem with this, if I did I would not carry their product any more. Any good business man would do the same.
Kevin, I think you knew you were sitting on a powder keg when you reviewed this loco. Unfortunately, all this missplaced anger was directed at you instead of Aristo. Its too bad.
Jake,
When I do reviews for mags then I buy the stuff from the dealer(s) of my choice, don’t tell anyone what the item is for and the rest rolls from there. Do I get reimbursed? No! I wouldn’t want to be reimbursed, OTOH I only review stuff that I actually use on my own layout.
And then what happens? Used to be the Red Box Brigade would scream blue murder AND I would get emails from people, who really know the prototype under review, pointing out I was too soft on the mfg in view of … then they would list all the stuff that was incorrect and I didn’t mention.
But that was OK, at least I wasn’t beholden to a mfg and didn’t need to write a fluffy review.
The biggest kick usually was when I would translate the reviews from the GARTENBAHNprofi and people would take issue with the precise wording of my translation by picking out one word or one sentence that really stuck in their craw. Funny on account of those being the same people who couldn’t construct a correct sentence - never mind the spelling! - and have no inkling when it comes to translating. Let alone any knowledge of a foreign language or the general mindset of those who speak that language.
Cheers
HJ
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:It is an old, old, phenomenon in publishing, Hans, as I gather you suspect, that the advertiser has the power.
...chances are good that your review won't see the light of day at certain publishers because keeping the advertisers happy is more important than informing the consumer. Of course as always strictly my opinion based on what I've been observing in the LS field!
Moreover, very often the advertiser, writ large, is also the man behind the politician and behind just about everything else, and before too long virtually all mainstream media hold virtually the same opinions, and offer the public nothing in the way of alternative ways of thinking about issues…
But I digress.
I really only wanted to say to you, Hans, that having worked in journalism at several levels from advertising sales to editor’s desk, I have known more than one publisher who thought of the journal’s content as being merely the filler between the ads.
You bet these fellows dance to the advertisers’ tunes. I’ve seen it over and over again. Bullies bullying bullies all the way down the line until the inkstained wretches at the bottom of the pile are censoring themselves, and all of them understanding, at every level, unspoken together, that it’s all about the almighty buck…
Working in these environments ain’t worth it, I tell you, it just ain’t worth the price of one’s soul!
TonyWalsham said:Good to know. I've been scared to buy one. Thanks, Tony. :)
The Shays fitted metal trucks are fantastic runners. The new Climax likewise, is simply just superb.
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:Language does make a much greater difference in mindset than most folk would believe. I think of the French as being far more 'laid back' than Brits, for example. It's only one very small example, as I think the entire personality undergoes a shift from language to language. Same guy, but different attitude. Weird but true.
never mind the spelling! - and have no inkling when it comes to translating. Let alone any knowledge of a foreign language or the general mindset of those who speak that language.
When I speak or write in French I can’t help it; almost immediately I take on something of the ‘que sera, sera’ attitude of my fellow frogs.
Oh, yes, I’ve been burned by AristoCraft’s wheel ‘standards’ as well… It’s a PITA and I don’t like having to do it, but I re-machine the wheels.
John Le Forestier said:
..................Oh, yes, I’ve been burned by AristoCraft’s wheel ‘standards’ as well… It’s a PITA and I don’t like having to do it, but I re-machine the wheels.
Hmmmmm … not widely known here in NA, the PIKO drive packages on their “Gummi” items have been so pathetic that PIKO finally smartened up and redesigned them (like shades of Aristo’s all-new and improved routine in years past?).
I guess once they saw that people would flock to the after-sales market to get decent wheel sets it was time, not that it will improve the crappy motors they use, but it’s a start.
BTW there are those in Germany who buy whatever PIKO offers and PIKO can do no wrong - it’s the “we get something for almost nothing” syndrome at work, OTOH there are those who get burned once and learn the lesson … they absolutely refuse to buy any of that cheap stuff. The kicker on this one? It is supposedly all “Made in Germany”.
John Le Forestier said:Hans-Joerg Mueller said:Language does make a much greater difference in mindset than most folk would believe. I think of the French as being far more 'laid back' than Brits, for example. It's only one very small example, as I think the entire personality undergoes a shift from language to language. Same guy, but different attitude. Weird but true.
never mind the spelling! - and have no inkling when it comes to translating. Let alone any knowledge of a foreign language or the general mindset of those who speak that language.When I speak or write in French I can’t help it; almost immediately I take on something of the ‘que sera, sera’ attitude of my fellow frogs.
Oh, yes, I’ve been burned by AristoCraft’s wheel ‘standards’ as well… It’s a PITA and I don’t like having to do it, but I re-machine the wheels.
Then there is “Changes in Latitudes, Changes in Attitudes.”
I’ve experienced that, a time or two…
As an exercise, Mark Twain translated “The Jumping Frog of Clavaras County,” into French, and then retranslated it back into English. Hilarious.
Steve,
Anyone has that possibility today, you press Google or BableFish into action and voilà … “perfection” if there ever was any. Now, for the really adventurous I can recommend doing that in a triangle between three languages like A>B>C and then straight back to A. But I digress …
Getting production back to NA ( as mentioned in that other thread) is in principle a good idea (QC close to home! and the butts to kick just as close), but … since the corporations, who are still here, try with all their might to get wages of those who actually produce - from design to assembly - to an ever-lower level … who is supposed to buy this “Made in USA” stuff? The same people who are already complaining because they can’t make ends meet?
Quote:Here are raw measurements from the loco which was reviewed, taken from conventional, clearly defined points. (see my last post on other site for references and explanations.)
... ...Kevin, there is nothing Aristo can do to fix the problem, without new wheels. The previous locos were undergauge on the back to back, which allowed them to have proper wheel gauge. This, of course leads to other problems. They had the right idea in having one of the 3 factors in spec, but the overly thick flange guarantees that you can have either back to back or wheel gage correct but NOT BOTH with the current wheel profile. As you painfully found, even your measurements show this.
Flange thickness (T) = 0.082" Exceeds NMRA tolerances by .006" By definition (NMRA, G1MRA, and Prototype), the flange thickness is measured independent of any fillet. (reference the aforementioned other post)
Back-to-Back (B) = 1.560" Within NMRA specs (1.560" - 1.594" with footnote explaining that the thicker the flange, the narrower the B-T-B must be, such that check gauge (K) is in compliance.
Wheel Width (N) = 0.270" Within NMRA specs (0.236" - 0.271")
Flange Depth (D) = 0.105" Less than NMRA max (0.118")
All NMRA numbers come from s4.3 Deep Flange standards:http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/pdf/S-4.3%202010.02.24.pdf Those are the standards I reference whenever I do any kind of product review that has gauge 1 wheels on it. I use the same points of measurement for everything so I keep things consistent from review to review.
By the NMRA’s definitions (which are mirrored by G1MRA and the prototype):
Check Gauge (K) = B+T = 1.642" Compliant with NMRA standards (1.619" - 1.648")
Wheel Gauge (T+B+T) = 1.724" The NMRA’s test for gauge compliance is that it must (obviously) be less than the track gauge (G). NMRA standard track gauge range from 1.764" to 1.782". T+B+T (1.724") < G (1.764 minimum), therefore it’s in gauge. You cannot define gauge any other way under these guidelines, therefore no claim can be made that the wheel is “out of gauge.”
The fillet on the wheel is larger than what the NMRA recommends (0.050" vs. 0.030") It’s only a recommendation to even have one in the first place, it’s up to the manufacturer to determine whether they want one and what radius it should be. With all the variation in manufacturer’s wheel profiles (even on the same locomotive, as is the case with the 2-8-0’s drivers compared to the pilot and tender wheels) the minutia of those profiles aren’t worthy of comment so long as they stay on the track.
I can’t speak to anyone else’s loco, since I don’t know how they measure. I can say that the review sample ran very well on both my outdoor line (AMS and Sunset Valley) and my indoor switching railroad (Aristo). I know locos with wheels that are by definition “out of gauge” (i.e, check gauge exceeds standards, or wheel gauge exceeds track gauge) will have troubles. They’ve run on my track and they’ve predictably fallen off the rails. Address that issue first. If your measurements are nearly identical to mine, and you’re still having issues, I’d probably look at the fillet as being the culprit. Reduce that to the recommended .020" - .030" range, and your wheel would come very close to the G1MRA profile that’s been used successfully for decades.
That is all the time I’m spending on this matter.
Later,
K
Same doubletalk different forum…
From Kevin’s own numbers (published on that other forum):
Kevin’s updated measurements (measuring wheel gage halfway into the huge fillet) and adding in the correction for measuring PAST the tread into the fillet ( 0.024 per fillet, again numbers provided by Kevin)
(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" ( 46.15mm , 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.
Thank you Kevin for having the integrity to give the actual data, even though it proves my point. Sorry you still apparently have math problems.
Over and out…
Greg
And, lets not let the bickering start here, too.
Thank you Bob!
Hmm …Greg, you mean to tell me this is a matter of knowing what and where and how to measure? Sheesh, I’m flabbergasted! 