Large Scale Central

First LS hand laid turnout

Track and Trestles
#21

Patrick McGrath said:

Definitely a work in progress but the main parts are all there. I need to fuss over the points themselves a little more, especially the one for the diverging route. I looked at a few dozen prototypes but I can’t seem to get that same look to where the points lay over the rails but for now the cars seem to roll through just fine.

What do you guys think?

Any input or suggestions to make the next one better?

Patrick

Looks great.

I have been building stainless Steel code 332 turnouts for our layout when a commercial one does not fit well.

Over the years I learned that outdoors it is best if I pre-drill holes for the spikes and use CA to hold them in place. Before I did this the spikes tended to work themselves out of the ties over time. I also now solder a few tie plates to the rails and screw them into the ties. Does not look as good when you look closely but since doing this everything has stayed in gauge with no maintenance.

A thought on the standards. I grew up believing Back To Back was the key wheel standard and keeping the guardrails both at the frog and the stock rails as narrow as possible within the standard was the key to success.

Some years back I attended a clinic who purpose was to convince the attendees that Check Gauge was the key dimension. At the time I tended to think he was a little off the mark but over time I have learned that in Large Scale, Flange Width and Check Gauge and not back to back are the key.

I now build turnouts that have the guard rail next to the stock rail in standard only across from the end of the point and wider at both entry and exit.

The guard rails that are part of the frog have a wider flangeway. The advantage is that all commercial wheels glide smoothly through the turnout.

Hope this helps

Stan

#22

Stan Ames said:

. . . . .

Over the years I learned that outdoors it is best if I pre-drill holes for the spikes and use CA to hold them in place. Before I did this the spikes tended to work themselves out of the ties over time. I also now solder a few tie plates to the rails and screw them into the ties. Does not look as good when you look closely but since doing this everything has stayed in gauge with no maintenance.

Stan,

I assume you are also using stainless spikes? I found that regular steel spikes in wooden ties will rust into the wood and you will never get them out. The heads break off first.

A thought on the standards. I grew up believing Back To Back was the key wheel standard and keeping the guardrails both at the frog and the stock rails as narrow as possible within the standard was the key to success.

Some years back I attended a clinic who purpose was to convince the attendees that Check Gauge was the key dimension. At the time I tended to think he was a little off the mark but over time I have learned that in Large Scale, Flange Width and Check Gauge and not back to back are the key.

I now build turnouts that have the guard rail next to the stock rail in standard only across from the end of the point and wider at both entry and exit.

The guard rails that are part of the frog have a wider flangeway. The advantage is that all commercial wheels glide smoothly through the turnout.

Hope this helps

Stan

A little clarification, please? Maybe a pic would save a 1000 words if anyone can find one.

My experience was (I think) similar. If you have different vendors wheels, then you will end up with different flange widths and different back-to-back measurements between the wheels. To ensure smooth passage, you have to move the guard/check rail opposite the frog as close to the stock rail as possible, and open the frog gap so that all the wheel types can go through without bumping up on the check rail(s).

The downside is that scale wheels with small flanges will drop into the frog gap and noticeably bump down - though they won’t derail unless the car is totally rigid framed.

#23

Stan, I agree, back to back alone does not work, the check gauge is convenient because it combines back to back / gauge with the flange thickness.

Many commercial wheels have a flange that is too thick, which means you can have correct back to back OR correct gauge, but NOT both.

Of course I want all of it, so I measure gauge, back to back and flange thickness (among other things). Many times I have machined the back of a wheel to correct the flange, and then set the gauge / back to back.

A good example of this is the ill-fated Aristo PCC car which had flanges so thick, it would not run correctly anywhere, it would ride up off the rails on normal track.

Greg

#24

Huh? I was just running 2 of my PCCs. I didn’t notice any issues.

#25

David,

Sometimes “problems” are created in one’s own mind! (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)Ignorance is bliss I’ve been told. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-cool.gif)

#26

Well known issue… check the back to back and also check the gauge, I’ll bet you any amount of money one or the other is way out of spec for NMRA or G1MRA.

The issue is the flanges are too thick, making it impossible to get both specs right. Normally, in the 6 or so that I have handled, the gauge is a bit wide and the back to back is way off. (the wheels often did not run true either, most had a wobble)

Just measure the wheels… the typical symptom is that they actually ride up off the railhead on curves. Many people might not noticed this, but the obvious symptom is they don’t seem to run smoothly. After modification, they run smooth as silk.

I’ve done the machining for several people:

http://www.elmassian.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=535&Itemid=647

They can also suffer from the “cracked axle” syndrome, just like USAT diesels, and the fix is also the same, brass tubing on the ends of the gear casting:

(this picture below shows the set of axles, with flanges reduced from the 0.083" (!!!) to 0.060, treads trued, axle castings sleeved (notice the real long sleeve), axle tips ground to allow setting correct gauge/back to back, and of course properly gauged.

But all of this stuff can be fixed, it’s much easier than trying to re-gauge an aristo steamer.

Greg

#27

Greg, yes the first run, Pittsburgh Railways, PCC I got, would not even fit on the track. I was so torqued off, since I pre-ordered the thing and waited so long for it (another thing Aristo was known for). I refused to pay to ship it to New Jersey, like I had several other Aristo products, so I found the fix online. I re-gauged the wheels, it was easier then I thought it would be, and the thing runs just fine. I have 3 other PCCs, and they didn’t need as much adjustment to get the wheels gauged properly. Yes, the flanges are too large, so I gauged the rail side of the flanges. So the back to back distance is probably too narrow. But the flange-ways in the Aristo switches are too wide (another known issue) and between those 2 flaws, my PCCs run just fine. All 4 of them.

#28

Greg is correct that wheels that follow all the standards are the best way to go.

The reality however is that a vast amount of commercial product in the market has overly wide flanges and/or overly wide or narrow back to back spacing.

We encourage visiting equipment on the SJR&P. Since it is not realistic to expect all existing equipment to have had their wheels re-profiled and since our goal on our railroad is to allow as much commercial product as possible to operate we have chosen instead to modify our turnouts.

A number of years ago Kevin Strong measured a number of commercial wheels and developed a spreadsheet. We use the minimum and maximum dimensions to guide us in turnout design.

Using the following diagram for reference, we keep the flangeway at the stock rail narrow and decrease the span “S” to allow wheels of small back to back to pass… The result is a frog flangeway that is a little wider which makes the frog for some wheel profiles either a flange bearing frog or a partial flange bearing frog. This appears to be similar to what Pete is doing as well.

Again using Kevin’s measurements we try to keep our flange depth at a mid way depth. This works very well and is the same strategy used by Bachmann in their successful brass turnout.

Hope that helps

Stan

#29

David Maynard said:

Huh? I was just running 2 of my PCCs. I didn’t notice any issues.

Aristo re-profiled the wheels of the PCC after reports of problems with the first batch. I have one of the “new” PCCs, and its wheels are within NMRA specs. Flange width of 0.074" and a back-to-back that ranges from 1.565" to 1.575". (It’s almost like they read the standards! Whoa!)

I would agree that “check gauge” is the important dimension when looking to troubleshoot issues with wheels at the frogs. Alas, check gauge is a bloomin’ bugger to measure, so that’s why back-to-back has long been held up as the go-to spec for checking wheel gauge.

Later,

K

#30

Again, if the back to back is right, and the flange THICKNESS is within spec, it’s a high probability the gauge is right.

Check gauge is a nice measurement since it combines several things, but again harder to measure.

Kevin, you use the term “flange width” but I have found that is not a good way to describe anything, because most people that are new to the standards or measuring take it to mean “flange depth” since it’s the thing that is most obvious, the “toylike flanges” on some models.

I tend to use flange depth and flange thickness, and no one is ever confused.

Greg

#31

Greg Elmassian said:

Kevin, you use the term “flange width” but I have found that is not a good way to describe anything, because most people that are new to the standards or measuring take it to mean “flange depth” since it’s the thing that is most obvious, the “toylike flanges” on some models.

Semantics, Greg. Both the NMRA and G1MRA use the term “width” on their published standards. Given my familiarity with them, I use that term pretty much by default.

Later,

K

(The NMRA’s track standards can be found here, if anyone is curious.)

#32

Yep, there’s the difference between being technically correct, and people understanding.

Greg

#33

Greg, I agree. In my job I have to meet people at their level. I could technobabble right over their heads, but that would do no good.