Pius,
Apart from the HUGE flanges, the one noticeable difference on TOY wheels is the lacking fillet between the tread and the flange.
Link: That’s funny, I just tried it on two other machines with four different browsers, works like a charm. Download dialog pops up and you select open or save. Anyone else have a problem downloading that very informative (in a prototype sense!) file?
No problemo here!
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Pius,Apart from the HUGE flanges, the one noticeable difference on TOY wheels is the lacking fillet between the tread and the flange.
Link: That’s funny, I just tried it on two other machines with four different browsers, works like a charm. Download dialog pops up and you select open or save. Anyone else have a problem downloading that very informative (in a prototype sense!) file?
You described that fillet between the tread and the flange taper, i guess you meant the radius which is located between running surface and side flange. Any mechanical engineer would not use the therm Fillet, they would describe it with radius. (looking at the drawings in realty there are two or several radius present at that point like “R1.5 and R0.562”. Interesting to learn was that there are two Tapers in use, 1:20=3deg and 1:40=1deg, ref to Baseline.
how ever, looking at the drawings of real wheels, i see 10-15 different details which are not present on a LGB wheel, so i guess i am not wrong if i stated that In the real world, wheel profiles on a engine do not look like the ones we know from LGB or other toy trains.
think global Pius
PJ said:Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Pius,Apart from the HUGE flanges, the one noticeable difference on TOY wheels is the lacking fillet between the tread and the flange.
Link: That’s funny, I just tried it on two other machines with four different browsers, works like a charm. Download dialog pops up and you select open or save. Anyone else have a problem downloading that very informative (in a prototype sense!) file?
hey HJ,
In my case i had to open that PDF by downloading and manual selecting the Prog, i guess my PC has some trouble with Adobe.You described that fillet between the tread and the flange taper, i guess you meant the radius which is located between running surface and side flange. Any mechanical engineer would not use the therm Fillet, they would describe it with radius. (looking at the drawings in realty there are two or several radius present at that point like “R1.5 and R0.562”. Interesting to learn was that there are two Tapers in use, 1:20=3deg and 1:40=1deg, ref to Baseline.
how ever, looking at the drawings of real wheels, i see 10-15 different details which are not present on a LGB wheel, so i guess i am not wrong if i stated that In the real world, wheel profiles on a engine do not look like the ones we know from LGB or other toy trains.
think global Pius
I guess it all depends what kind of a mechanical engineer one is; one with CAD experience.
There are all kinds of write-ups on prototype wheel design - the hows, whys, the wear, the tear and the prevention - on the Net, enough to make your eyes glaze over. The common taper on the wheels is 1:20 (2.862º).
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:PJ said:Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Pius,Apart from the HUGE flanges, the one noticeable difference on TOY wheels is the lacking fillet between the tread and the flange.
Link: That’s funny, I just tried it on two other machines with four different browsers, works like a charm. Download dialog pops up and you select open or save. Anyone else have a problem downloading that very informative (in a prototype sense!) file?
hey HJ,
In my case i had to open that PDF by downloading and manual selecting the Prog, i guess my PC has some trouble with Adobe.You described that fillet between the tread and the flange taper, i guess you meant the radius which is located between running surface and side flange. Any mechanical engineer would not use the therm Fillet, they would describe it with radius. (looking at the drawings in realty there are two or several radius present at that point like “R1.5 and R0.562”. Interesting to learn was that there are two Tapers in use, 1:20=3deg and 1:40=1deg, ref to Baseline.
how ever, looking at the drawings of real wheels, i see 10-15 different details which are not present on a LGB wheel, so i guess i am not wrong if i stated that In the real world, wheel profiles on a engine do not look like the ones we know from LGB or other toy trains.
think global Pius
Pius,I guess it all depends what kind of a mechanical engineer one is; one with CAD experience.
There are all kinds of write-ups on prototype wheel design - the hows, whys, the wear, the tear and the prevention - on the Net, enough to make your eyes glaze over. The common taper on the wheels is 1:20 (2.862º).
that might be right that some CAD programs call it Fillet, then again in the actual drawing of the wheels any radius is called with a R in front of the value. The R stands for RADIUS. And 30Y ago when i went throe my engineering school, it always was referred to as Radius. So if any CAD manufacturer is calling it a Fillet, it just does not say that they are to any common standard.
Something else, i do not know how we got there, but it feels to me as if we two have a kind of war going on, if i mention 3 Deg, you correct me with 2.862 deg. If you state it is a Fillet i correct you with Radius. I belief that really no one else cares for such details, accept us. I belief that in the interest of any body else we should end with this “Tuepflischisserei”
think global Pius
Oh, please don’t! I find it fascinating.
So far the score is HJ 32, PJ 32
You can’t end it there. How about sudden death overtime? :lol:
Pius,
Perhaps that has something to do with you making statements like
PJ said:I find that using proper terminology like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fillet_(mechanics)]"fillet"[/url] clarifies things, even in those cases when people may have to look up what "fillet" in the mechanical sense means. At least then the chances are better that one is on the same page.
real engines do not have this angle, they run wit the full surface.
BTW how exactly “they” arrived at the 1:20 angle on the tread I haven’t read yet (there was some mention of draft angle for the casting forms), but interestingly that angle together with the fillet and the radii on the flange apparently plays in a big way into the wear and tear on the wheels i.e. meantime between having to turn the wheelsets.
All very interesting stuff, at least in my book. 
PJ,
I understood you just fine.
HJ,
I know many words. Now I know the meaning of one more.
I may never use it, but I know it.
Ralph
I found the best thing to clean track with is glue a scotch brite pad to the end of a swifter. Works like a charm and it rotates 360 degrees so it follows the curves and contours of the track great. It makes cleaning almost effortless.
PJ = I think that HJ fogot that when you make a fillet in CAD the program usually asks for a RADIUS, you can’t make a fillet without a radius, but you can make a radius and not have to call it a fillet!!!
Mark Dash said:No, actually I didn't, but then again I'm familiar enough with the terminology that I wouldn't question either the term "fillet" or "radius". :) OTOH this terminology discussion is as interesting - you learn while you go (mostly about people) - as the one I had regarding the term "tangent" as applied in track design (both 1:1 and in model size).
PJ = I think that HJ fogot that when you make a fillet in CAD the program usually asks for a RADIUS, you can't make a fillet without a radius, but you can make a radius and not have to call it a fillet!!!
Mark, the conclusion I usually arrive at: it is all proportional to the “Bliss Factor”. 
If haven’t heard of that one let me know.
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Pius,Perhaps that has something to do with you making statements like
PJ said:I find that using proper terminology like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fillet_(mechanics)]"fillet"[/url] clarifies things, even in those cases when people may have to look up what "fillet" in the mechanical sense means. At least then the chances are better that one is on the same page.
real engines do not have this angle, they run wit the full surface.BTW how exactly “they” arrived at the 1:20 angle on the tread I haven’t read yet (there was some mention of draft angle for the casting forms), but interestingly that angle together with the fillet and the radii on the flange apparently plays in a big way into the wear and tear on the wheels i.e. meantime between having to turn the wheelsets.
All very interesting stuff, at least in my book.
But you can just spin your words and like you usually do and think you know every damn thing there is to know about anything there HJ
Mark Dash said:Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Pius,Perhaps that has something to do with you making statements like
PJ said:I find that using proper terminology like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fillet_(mechanics)]"fillet"[/url] clarifies things, even in those cases when people may have to look up what "fillet" in the mechanical sense means. At least then the chances are better that one is on the same page.
real engines do not have this angle, they run wit the full surface.BTW how exactly “they” arrived at the 1:20 angle on the tread I haven’t read yet (there was some mention of draft angle for the casting forms), but interestingly that angle together with the fillet and the radii on the flange apparently plays in a big way into the wear and tear on the wheels i.e. meantime between having to turn the wheelsets.
All very interesting stuff, at least in my book.
If you actually took time to read that link that YOU posted you will find that not all programs use the term “Fillet” and therefor, not an engineering STANDARD, However no mater what program you use, what country, or language the term “Radius” IS standard not fillet.But you can just spin your words and like you usually do and think you know every damn thing there is to know about anything there HJ
I didn’t question the radius, Pius questionned the term “fillet”. Mentioning the CAD in relation to the engineer, is simply a matter of “it’s basic, dear Watson!”. 
PS Just updated my sig to “HJ — attention to details!”, that could preempt a few “discussions”, eh?!?
Hmmmm… this did start out being about cleaning track, didn’t it? :lol:
You guys can argue about the semantics all you want, but PJ’s early assertion that “. . . real engines do not have this angle, they run wit (sic) the full surface . . .” is incorrect. PJ, you need to take a slightly closer look at the locomotive wheelset you used to illustrate the (incorrect) point. Even in the pix, I believe the wheel taper is obvious.
Prototype (1:1) RR wheel treads are tapered and also employ a fillet or radius between the wheel tread and the inside surface of the flange. This specialized and tightly controlled shape has virtually nothing to do with PJ’s assertion that “. . . the function for this angle is to center the Engine/car while running on straight track . . .”, but has everything to do with the ability of a pair of RR wheels to go around a curve. The difference in wheel diameter between the inside of the tread and the outside of the tread (due to the ‘cone’ or taper) accommodates the different distances traveled by the wheel on the inside of a curve (shorter distance) and the wheel on the outside of the curve (longer distance). This concept is very basic to 1:1 railroad engineering.
BTW, did anyone of you engineering experts notice that the wheelset PJ pictured is from a three cylinder engine? What’s the clue?
I think you all might spend a little more time looking at the prototype along with the engineering behind it, rather than looking at what Aristocraft, Bachmann, LGB (or whatever their current name is), Mike’s Train House and others pass off as “scale models”, then drawing conclusion about the prototype. And, as was suggested earlier, look at the Sierra Valley Enterprises wheelsets. They are very close in practice to the prototype wheels.
As to cleaning the rails, I assume you are all now going to modify your track cleaning tools to only touch down in the area prescribed in the original post.
Happy (Track Cleaning Free: Edges, Top, Web and Bottom) RRing,
Jerry
Steve Featherkile said:Yes, it sure did. Cleaning track is a no-brainer; build a decent cleaning car that will clean through bridges, through tunnels, under catenary and whatever else can get in the way and be done. There are plenty of designs out there. Of course one can just as easily do it by hand, if one feels so inclined. ;) :) Most of the guys who come from the smaller scales learned somewhere along the way that polishing works much better than grinding with an abrasive pad or worse emery cloth. Keeping the railhead with the fewest scratches possible will prevent grime, dirt and gook accumulating, same applies to track powered LS. That leaves the surface crap, IMO best removed with a pad soaked with kerosene. Works like gangbusters in any scale I ever tried it on. Oh and if that pad is mounted on a cleaning car and gets a regular run, the pad gets a regular wash, things will be just "peachy". Since the pad is soft enough, it will even get the contact point on the inside of the railhead, along with the top of the rail.
Hmmmm... this did start out being about cleaning track, didn't it? :lol:
Oh and most of all, get rid of the plastic wheels!
Jerry Bowers said:
....................BTW, did anyone of you engineering experts notice that the wheelset PJ pictured is from a three cylinder engine? What’s the clue?
…
You mean it wasn’t an accident that bent the axle in that funny crankshaft way and then they machined it to look better?? Sheesh them Germans sure have a funny way with their engineering.
Actually since I removed the picture in my quoted post I also knew that the set is from a BR44 (Class44) engine, the designation for the BR44 is 1’E h3
which in plain NA parlance means 2-10-0 with super heated steam and three cylinders. Total number built: approx. 2000
Using a sanding block, regardless of the grit will eventually wear away the top of the rail in about 100 years or so!
All you need to clean is the upper inside of the rail-head and a little bit of the inside top surface.
If your cleaning device block is concave you are cleaning the outside top of the rail and missing the most important contact point.
However, if you are just relying on sliders for most of the pickup, the above doesn’t apply.
Sand and scrub away!
Jerry Bowers said:
You guys can argue about the semantics all you want, but PJ's early assertion that ". . . real engines do not have this angle, they run wit (sic) the full surface . . ." is incorrect. PJ, you need to take a slightly closer look at the locomotive wheelset you used to illustrate the (incorrect) point. Even in the pix, I believe the wheel taper is obvious.Prototype (1:1) RR wheel treads are tapered and also employ a fillet or radius between the wheel tread and the inside surface of the flange. This specialized and tightly controlled shape has virtually nothing to do with PJ’s assertion that “. . . the function for this angle is to center the Engine/car while running on straight track . . .”, but has everything to do with the ability of a pair of RR wheels to go around a curve. The difference in wheel diameter between the inside of the tread and the outside of the tread (due to the ‘cone’ or taper) accommodates the different distances traveled by the wheel on the inside of a curve (shorter distance) and the wheel on the outside of the curve (longer distance). This concept is very basic to 1:1 railroad engineering.
BTW, did anyone of you engineering experts notice that the wheelset PJ pictured is from a three cylinder engine? What’s the clue?
I think you all might spend a little more time looking at the prototype along with the engineering behind it, rather than looking at what Aristocraft, Bachmann, LGB (or whatever their current name is), Mike’s Train House and others pass off as “scale models”, then drawing conclusion about the prototype. And, as was suggested earlier, look at the Sierra Valley Enterprises wheelsets. They are very close in practice to the prototype wheels.
As to cleaning the rails, I assume you are all now going to modify your track cleaning tools to only touch down in the area prescribed in the original post.
Happy (Track Cleaning Free: Edges, Top, Web and Bottom) RRing,
Jerry
Jerry Bowers said:
You guys can argue about the semantics all you want, but PJ's early assertion that ". . . real engines do not have this angle, they run wit (sic) the full surface . . ." is incorrect. PJ, you need to take a slightly closer look at the locomotive wheelset you used to illustrate the (incorrect) point. Even in the pix, I believe the wheel taper is obvious.Prototype (1:1) RR wheel treads are tapered and also employ a fillet or radius between the wheel tread and the inside surface of the flange. This specialized and tightly controlled shape has virtually nothing to do with PJ’s assertion that “. . . the function for this angle is to center the Engine/car while running on straight track . . .”, but has everything to do with the ability of a pair of RR wheels to go around a curve. The difference in wheel diameter between the inside of the tread and the outside of the tread (due to the ‘cone’ or taper) accommodates the different distances traveled by the wheel on the inside of a curve (shorter distance) and the wheel on the outside of the curve (longer distance). This concept is very basic to 1:1 railroad engineering.
BTW, did anyone of you engineering experts notice that the wheelset PJ pictured is from a three cylinder engine? What’s the clue?
I think you all might spend a little more time looking at the prototype along with the engineering behind it, rather than looking at what Aristocraft, Bachmann, LGB (or whatever their current name is), Mike’s Train House and others pass off as “scale models”, then drawing conclusion about the prototype. And, as was suggested earlier, look at the Sierra Valley Enterprises wheelsets. They are very close in practice to the prototype wheels.
As to cleaning the rails, I assume you are all now going to modify your track cleaning tools to only touch down in the area prescribed in the original post.
Happy (Track Cleaning Free: Edges, Top, Web and Bottom) RRing,
Jerry
just guessing here, so do not nail me with this one. Is the clue where the counter weights are located? Just with my mechanical gut feeling judged, they are on a od location.
think global Pius
