Yes, the hook.
I can’t tell from the top view, but it looks like it could be “dished out” a bit without loosing height. I’m also looking at a few different types that I have lying around and they look like they could be dished out . You may try one just to see how far you could back-cut the curve without compromising the strength. This could allow for a bit more swing in the corner.
i will try that.
the guardrail, as i put it, is helpfull, but not perfect.
in one round out of about 80 (5 1/2 hours) i still had a derailing.
one too much for automatic traffic.
Thus far, my experiences with curves and tight areas is somewhat limited, but I can say that using hook and loop couplers (though not prototypical), can ease the frustration of having to work with tight track.
i think the same
no knuckles an no bodymounts on my layout.
I think Todd’s onto something. His ‘dishing-out’ might be accomplished with a hot cylindrical tool such as a nail heated with a torch or soldering iron, or on a stovetop, after which the edges could be cleaned up a little with a knife.
Seems like a quick and easy fix to me, just my style…
On metal frogs - I have always wished that G gauge store-bought switches had all-metal frogs, their polarity switched simultaneously with the movement of the points, like hand laid or other good quality switches in other scales. Plastic frogs just seem a very dumb idea to me. Serious H.O. modelers had that well and truly figured out by the 1960’s. I guess I don’t need to be reminded that when these decisions were made LGB was producing toys for kids, and the supposed greater simplicity of insulated frogs made sense to them in that context. Yecch!
I realize Greg uses DCC; the subject of frog design must be highly relevant to DCC users especially and other track power folk in general. With onboard battery power much of it becomes moot. All the same, a metal frog, or a metal-tipped one such as the one Greg showed us here, would be far more durable than a plastic frog, especially where rolling stock has metal wheels.
My 2 cents are spent, thank you very much.
I think Todd’s onto something, Korm. His ‘dishing-out’ might be accomplished with a hot cylindrical tool such as a nail heated with a torch or soldering iron, or on a stovetop, after which the edges could be cleaned up a little with a knife.
Seems like a quick and easy fix to me, just my style…
On metal frogs - I have always wished that G gauge store-bought switches had all-metal frogs, their polarity switched simultaneously with the movement of the points, like hand laid or other good quality switches in other scales. Plastic frogs just seem a very dumb idea to me. Serious H.O. modelers had that well and truly figured out by the 1960’s. I guess I don’t need to be reminded that when these decisions were made LGB was producing toys for kids, and the supposed greater simplicity of insulated frogs made sense to them in that context. Yecch!
I realize Greg uses DCC; the subject of frog design must be highly relevant to DCC users especially and other track power folk in general. With onboard battery power much of it becomes moot. All the same, a metal frog, or a metal-tipped one such as the one Greg showed us here, would be far more durable than a plastic frog, especially where rolling stock has metal wheels.
My 2 cents are spent, thank you very much.
been a long time.
i already thought, you were gone missing.
John, I agree with what you said. But on my hand laid HO switches I went with JB Weld for the frogs. Again, simplicity in wiring.
All of the train-line switches have metal frogs.
The R7 has a reed switch activating the power to the frog.
All the others come with a tab on the bottom that can have a wire soldered to it.
I used the LGB 12010 with the 12070 DPDT add-on to control the point power.
There is a prototype to putting those guard rails in. On my DVD of the Harz Railway in Germany, they have guardrails on many of the tight radius curves. Even thier 2-10-2’s have a give point in the frame to allow those big engines around very tight curves. Both my overhead indoor line and outdoor layout are all R1 curves. I stick to all LGB rolling stock and LGB track. I found when I built a past line using a mix of LGB and Aristo, the rail head profile was just a tad different and the flanges would “pick” the edge of the Aristo track in the curves. Going to metal wheels helped as it added weight down low. Mike
At this point it may be worth noting that US and European gauges are not equivalent. LGB track has a gauge of 45mm; AristoCraft et al have a gauge of 1.75".
Holding a metric ruler adjacent to an Imperial one will prove instructive.
45mm=1.771648 inches
Aristo is supposed to be gauge 1, 45mm… if you measured 1.75, then you have typical Aristo under gauge track.
Not unusual for Aristo curved sectional track to have tight gauge.
John, don’t know if you statement means:
I measured some track and it is 1.75"
OR
Aristo and others state the gauge is 1.75"
but, both are wrong, the first is defective track, and the second is news to me…
Greg
I can always stand correction. I measured some Aristo and it is more or less 1.75". I have heard and read in several sources that US gauge 1 is 1 3/4". Admittedly some of these sources are ancient, from the days of imperial measurement exclusively. However my own measurement seems to confirm it. If Aristo is “officially” 45 mm, then that’s news to me but I’m sure you’re right. All the same, empirically I haven’t seen much evidence of it!
Joe has given us the difference to 6 decimal places. I can report that in joining LGB to AristoCraft track I have found there’s more to it than the difference in rail head profile that Mike accurately reports here. In my experience the gauges don’t match either, by something awfully close to Joe’s figure, give or take some of those decimal places…
The official gauge is 45mm. I have pages with links to where this is specified, like G1MRA, NMRA, MOROP.
I have never seen anything from any manufacturer that states 1.75.
Not being confrontive, just accurate. When you stated “At this point it may be worth noting that US and European gauges are not equivalent. LGB track has a gauge of 45mm; AristoCraft et al have a gauge of 1.75”." this is inaccurate, period. Defective or poor quality control will vary what you have on hand, but the gauge has always been 45mm.
Recent problems with tight gauge track and overgauge drivers as an example: the Aristo Consolidation which will walk right off the rails and ride on the flanges. This was quite a to do a while ago until finally Aristo stopped denying it, and promised new drivers to correct the gauge.
I have about 850’ of Aristo track, much of the curves are under gauge… most of the straights are fine, or a bit over gauge.
If you look at how aristo track is constructed, you can see how the gauge is actually set by the track screws, since the “spikes” normally don’t even fully contact the rail. Take a look at the end of a piece of Aristo track if you don’t know or believe this.
Clearly rail joiners can move the rails 0.0216"… lots of flexibility.
By the way, an all metal frog that requires a change in polarity to match turnout direction is a problem for ANY track power situation, actually it’s a bit easier for us DCC guys since we can use solid state autoreversers instead of relays and switches.
Regards, Greg
Well Wikipedia knows everything and is never wrong so whatever they say must be correct and I don’t see 45 mm anywhere:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Gauge 1 Scale 3⁄8 inch to 1 foot ca. 10 mm to 1 ft Scale ratio ca. 1:32 Model gauge 1.75 in (44.45 mm) Prototype gauge 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge
1 gauge, Gauge 1 or Gauge One is a model railroading and toy train standard, popular in the early 20th century, particularly with European manufacturers. Its track measures 1.75 in (44.45 mm), making it larger than 0 gauge but slightly smaller than wide gauge, which came to be the dominant U.S. standard during the 1920s.
No 1 gauge was standardised, according to Model Railways and Locomotive magazine of August 1909 at 1.75 in (44.45 mm). An exact 1:32 scale would yield 1.766 in (44.85 mm) for standard gauge prototype. The distance between the wheel tyres was set at 1 17⁄32 in (38.894 mm) and between the centre of the track 48 mm (no inch equivalent suggesting it was metric users requirement only). The wheel width was set at 19⁄64 in (7.541 mm).
Definitions using gauge, rather than scale, was used more common in the early days with the four gauges for which standards were adopted being No. 0 (commonly called O gauge nowadays), No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3.
So any data for OUR century?
Well, Todd, when I see figures like the ones in that Wikipedia article I figure it was composed by an American, a guy who probably got his info from the kind of sources I was mentioning befiore - the pre metric ones. He’s starting in Imperial and converting to metric, so he’s getting those impossible decimals.
The early 20th century American makers of Gauge 1 track used 1.75" as their standard. The Europeans were using an even 45mm.
And with the toy train standards of tinplate it’s all moot anyway, isn’t it?
LGB brought 45mm #1 gauge back. No debate about that.
Furthermore, it’s fair to say that LGB became the new standard. Everybody else copied them in one point or another, some blatantly, ie Bachmann H&L couplers, AristoCraft Switches, etc etc., some more subtly.
I haven’t seen it for myself, but if Greg says AristoCraft claims their track to be 45mm, I’d bet it’s true. On the other hand if I say they often claimed one thing and delivered another, I’ll bet he’d agree with that too.
In my experience LGB track is 45mm, Aristocraft is not. Greg has explained its “rubber gaugeness” as a function of how it is held together.
Perhaps originally Aristocraft asked LGB what their gauge was, but I doubt it. Maybe they simply looked at old sources and went with 1.75". A replay of the past like that seems very likely. Perhaps they later claimed it to be 45mm. After all what are six decimal places among friends? Maybe they realized there was a difference and made the stuff rubbergauge on purpose. Ha ha! And if they had been told 45mm. would they have been comfortable using a metric standard in the USA? It’s all a matter of conjecture.
I live in Canada where we now use the metric system. At keast two generations of our school kids have never seen inches and feet. If anyone were to ask me the gauge of my track I’d say 45mm.
Even though much of it is one and three-quarter inches. :-))
Well, I made a track gauge, to 45mm. And I do have to admit that when I use it to check my Aristo Stainless track, its usually not quite 45mm. The one section that was really over-gauge I rebent to bring it back to something more reasonable. And I have at least 2 short sections that are so far under-gauge, that my LGB 4 coupled locomotives actually bob when they pass over those sections. So I agree with Yunz, Aristo track is not quite 45mm. Weather they intended it to be 45mm or not, I dunno.
I can guarantee that Aristo started out at 45mm… I’m surprised you do not know the history.
They cloned LGB track down to the exact wood grain on the ties and were sued for it.
They almost went out of business. No need for further speculation.
Look it up if you don’t believe. By the way, this is when Crest Electronics was spun off I believe, so that if sued, they could not get the whole company. (I’m pretty sure of that date, it was not really announced AFAIK).
Greg