Large Scale Central

Inadvertant code 352 track?

General Discussion
#1

Has Accucraft, via its American Mainline track, inadvertedly created a “new” standard for track? I say inadvdertedly, as I seriously doubt any largescale manufacturer or importer of code 332 track would want to change code 332 to a code 352 without clearly indicating this change – especially if reviewed by a long-time large scale modeler and reviewer for Garden Railways.

Two pieces of puzzling data that may or may not be coincidental:

FIRST…
The “Errata” notice in the August Garden Railways indicates Kevin Strong’s favorable review of American Mainline’s track in the June issue, was in fact code 352 track not code 332. He understandably stated it as code 332 – the most frequent consumer choice. GR stated: “In fact, it is code 352, which could cause compatiability problems with other manufacturers’ rail.”

SECOND…
In the “Letters” section of this same August issue of GR, is Jake Gillette’s letter noting his “disappointment with the large flanges on the metal wheels” of his recently purchased new American Mainline box car. This is, of course, one of Accucraft’s new products. Jake notes: “I ran the car across a standard, wide radius, Aristo-Craft code 332 switch and the flanges hit the bottom of frog, raising the wheels off the rail.”

QUESTIONS:

1 - Is code 352 an intentional production standard by Accucraft? What is said or not said on their packaging of track – especially so if Kevin missed knowing this change?

2 - Is there a purposeful relationship by Accucraft between their larger wheel flanges and use of their code 352 track?

3 - If there is a relationship, could the larger flanges be related to Aristocraft designing wheel flanges to fit their code 352 track for improved operation – is their a better explanation?

4 - Does the packaging of AML’s rolling stock give any indication their products are best used on code 352 track?

OR…
Is the best choice of explanation simply there was an error in the manufacturing of the track and the wheel flanges and this is just some sort of pecuilar, strange, large scale anamoly?

CONCLUSION:
Do we now have a new track height?

Wendell

#2

Note to Kevin Strong-

Any insight as to what Accucraft has said or not said re: code 352 track – post review?
W.

#3

Wendell,
indeed all very strange considering Aristocraft’s recent announcements as regards redefining their wheel/track standards (one assumed to be more scale-like in appearance). I hardly think that Accucraft would go back to the days of American Flyer/Lionel coarse wheel/track standards. We all know that the Aristocraft wide-radius frog is raised above track level, so wondering if the respondent confused the car traversing the ‘raised’ frog as the flanges bottoming out on the flangeway. He did state the switch was unmodified (standard). Considering Accucraft’s emphasis on code 250 rail, it is inconceivable, from a marketting standpoint, that they would create their own unique code rail as incompatability is a death sentence in the largescale world.

#4

It was hashed out pretty well here -
http://www.mylargescale.com/Community/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/9/postid/32855/view/topic/Default.aspx

-Brian

#5

hmmmmmmmmmm, might be a good idea to check the height of the rail your going to mate it with. Then again, through impatience, I’ve mated 332 to 250 and wondered why it bounced so much going over the joint. Looking at them sitting seperatly it was hard to tell the difference, even together it required a closer inspection, not readily apparent.

#6

Brian -
Thanks for the reference to MyLS.
The conclusion I got from the last three postings in that series was Accucraft did NOT intend to make a change to 352; however, the change was an inadvertant result of manufacturing the rail.
There was no specific quoted statement from Accucraft offering agreement or disagreement with this conclusion.

Is the manufacturer of track now important if quality control successes are specific to any given manufacturer?

Perhaps the unstated question: Is there more than one manufacturer of “G” rail? Maybe not.
For example, is PIKO one of the manufacturers – or THE one? Did PIKO produce LGB’s track prior to the collapse or did LGB manufacturer its own? Is PIKO an extension of LGB’s quality control – good or bad?
Who does Accucraft use? Are Aristo and USA still using the same manufacturer?

I have not heard of track rail size being considered a manufacturing quality issue prior to this incident. Will there be other instances?

Wendell

#7
Wendell Hanks said:
Perhaps the unstated question: Is there more than one manufacturer of "G" rail? Maybe not. For example, is PIKO one of the manufacturers -- or THE one? Did PIKO produce LGB's track prior to the collapse or did LGB manufacturer its own? Wendell
Wendell

PIKO did not produce LGB track. LGB made their track in-house from rail supplied by a third party. PIKO now uses the same rail supplier to produce their own track. There are many companies that produce rail and many more that could.

Jack