Large Scale Central

They fibbed for years and years and years

Track and Trestles
#1

Hi all, Who would that be? LGB It has been a very interesting few days, someone on a German forum asked is “the R3 radius really 1175mm?” This guy was doing an indoor layout and the geometry just didn’t jive. I reconstructed his track arrangement in CADrail and everything was just fine i.e. things fall into the 25mm geometry pattern. Then someone mentioned that LGB lists the diameter of their circles measured overall outside (outside of the ties); which is lunacy, but OK lets see Then I remembered that a few years back there was some funky measuring and calculation and things didn’t jive. So I always used the measurements that have been in the catalogue for decades and are molded into the curved segments. R2 = 765mm; R3 = 1175mm. Well neither is correct and once I take that into account … whooosh … there goes the complete very nicely calculated LGB track geometry. One will need more little pieces of equaliziation track than Dr. Carter has liver pills! Luckily the only LGB items I usually use for track planning are the turnouts.

If I was very sceptical regarding what LGB advertises … now I won’t believe a darn thing of theirs unless I check it! :wink: :slight_smile: :frowning: Oh, I hear the Ventilators revving up with the “There is enough give in that track”. Sure there is, give me a break! PS this “condition” also throws some interesting curves into the parallel track dimensions! Whoa!

#2

LGB isn’t alone with this. This holds true for Aristocraft too. Check it out for yourself. I don’t know for sure with USAT but I would bet an LGB turnout and raise you one that it is true there too.

#3
Warren Mumpower said:
LGB isn't alone with this. This holds true for Aristocraft too. Check it out for yourself. I don't know for sure with USAT but I would bet an LGB turnout and raise you one that it is true there too.
Warren,

That’s what someone suggested on the German forum: “They are probably all fibbing!” :wink: :smiley:

#4

Or…we have to get over the fact that we cannot use HO standards for “G” scale…:confused:

#5
Warren Mumpower said:
Or...we have to get over the fact that we cannot use HO standards for "G" scale...:/
Warren,

That’s one of the handicaps of written information issued by the mfgs i.e. if it says “R=1175” then that means 1175 mm, not 1175 “we’ll let you know” units.
As far as I know it works the same in the Imperial system; clearly defined measuring units! That the “Standards” (what Standards?) are iffy is quite another matter, that’s why they tell us about proprietary information etc. etc. :wink: :slight_smile:

#6

Hehehe …This is why I still love my “hated by all others” R1 track, if you build it, it will run, and exactly as layed out on CADD :wink:

#7

Standards are still there HJ. It’s just a matter of understanding where the measurement is taken from. HO takes it’s measurement to the centerline of the track and large scale to the outside of the circle…tie end. If you understand that concept then all works just fine. Now, if some German machinist mis-sets his rail bender because he had one too many lagers at lunch…:confused:

#8

If it’s true that the measurement is to the outside of the circle, AND Aristo is measured the same… Then why I wonder did my first 4 Ft. circle of track not fit on a 1/2 sheet of plywood??? I had to add nearly 4 inches at the center of each side to support the circle.

Now days I don’t care. I buy straight track and bend it to go where I want.

JR

#9
Warren Mumpower said:
Standards are still there HJ. It's just a matter of understanding where the measurement is taken from. HO takes it's measurement to the centerline of the track and large scale to the outside of the circle...tie end. If you understand that concept then all works just fine. Now, if some German machinist mis-sets his rail bender because he had one too many lagers at lunch......:/
Warren,

Track radii from the 1:1 down to the 1:400 are referenced to the centerline, except perhaps by some lunatic who would like to confuse a few issues.

As far as “LS takes it to the tie-end” is concerned, really? Are you telling me that the four feet diameter of the Aristo track is not measured center to center?

If anyone knows of a LS track producer - other than LGB - who would even consider stating something different from either the radius to center of track or the diameter center to center, please let me know. The only “funny conventions” I’ve come across are the ones from LGB.

#10
Victor Smith said:
Hehehe ...This is why I still love my "hated by all others" R1 track, if you build it, it will run, and exactly as layed out on CADD ;)
Vic,

I have some of that hehehe track, too. It will be fine for a switching layout with short cars, short engines and short attention spans at shows. :wink: :slight_smile: :smiley:

As I mentioned, as a rule I don’t use LGB track when planning layouts, other than the turnouts; Aristo has a much better selection and the price used to be quite a bit better, too.

#11

I’ll stick with the long lengths od LGB track. It doesn’t lie when you bend it to fit!

#12
Doug Arnold said:
I'll stick with the long lengths od LGB track. It doesn't lie when you bend it to fit!
Doug,

My sentiment! Besides, if you do it yourself you know which butt to kick when things don’t jive. :wink: