# Got my GR today



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Nice picture of Shawn V's layout on the cover

Full color full page ad of Aristo trying to unload PCC cars (I hope they recoup some of their losses by re-using the trucks for the long promised S1 switcher)

Full page ad from Train-Li facing the table of contents... wow, that must have cost a lot... the new Zimo handheld looks pretty trick

RLD's ad right in the front too... go Robby!

Nice mining complex kit from gtrainbuildings.com although higher res pictures and more detail on the kit itself would be nice for $270

Class 66 locos from trainworld for $400... beats the $600 from texas!

MTH is still selling PA's direct (screw the dealers?)

Nice article by Kevin on "How to Videotape your railway"... the only error I found is that no mention of real video tape was made (ha ha, maybe talk about making a digital video?)

Nice article on Canadian layouts and plants, nice pictures always gets interest

Good weathering article with various methods

Shawn's layout article interesting on how it came to be, and very photogenic

St. Aubins ad looked sparse, not packed full like the other guys... wonder how they are doing? Their prices seem higher, $580 for an Aristo Consolidation from St. Aubins, the once price leader?


Good how to article on making figures from sculpey... 

Really big indoor layout, wow, I guess you can do a lot in a 1,400 q foot basement!

I was disappointed though:

Kevin failed to give the wheel gage of the Aristo Consolidation in his review, which is way out of specification, causing many people to have running problems. There's a lot of detail in the review, picking up many small points, but leaving off the glaring wheel gage problems is disappointing


Again, in the Piko 37430 review, the back to back is way out, and no mention of the wheel gage. One would surmise that unless the flanges are also way out of spec that the wheel gage must also be out.



The magazine finishes off with a final Aristo ad, where one of the bullet points for the dash 9 is "extra weight for better performance"

Well, Aristo went from three 2 pound lead weights (6 pounds of weight) to one 2 pound weight with 2 more "free" ($5 each) to 2 more for $10-$30, to changing to zinc weights at HALF the weight of lead, and you only get one free, to the dash 9 on the back cover, where you get an VEN LIGHTER stack of steel plates...

So the magazine went from good to poor as I went though, but overall I think it was a very good issue, with obvious effort by the GR staff to have more how-to articles, and great photographs.

Greg


----------



## Truthman (Dec 13, 2008)

Greg, not to derail the thread but you mentioned Aristo's PCC's, did they not sell well? I have no idea if they did or not, I was thinking of picking up one or two.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Well, this is a matter of your point of view. 


Many times, for example in the case of the PCC and the Consolidation, Aristo has boasted (yes boasted) that they sold out quickly. 

But this is in reference to selling Aristo's stock to dealers. 

But what you want to know is did PEOPLE purchase them or are they sitting on the dealer's shelves. 

You can answer that question by the availability from dealers. Both products were not hot sellers, it's taken a while to reduce the inventory of the PCC cars and consolidations are being sold at cost now. 

So, there's the real information. 

If you get a PCC car, be sure to consider modifying the wheels to get them in gage, and running true... see my page on them on my site under motive power... aristo.... pcc 

Greg 

p.s. some further reflection on what I said above. It may seem I am picking on the loco reviews, but darn it, a small structure, or a box car is easy to modify... it is IMPOSSIBLE to fix bad wheel gage on Aristo locos without machining the wheels on a lathe and spoiling the plating in the process. 

I expect truthful and factual information from a product review, and measuring the back to back, but NOT the actual wheel gage is no accident, it's a glaring omission.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

I've noticed that the quality of the reviews have gone down quite considerably since Dave Goodson did his last review. I guess GR can't afford to give an honest review anymore. I read the reviews as "Product Advertisement + Review." 

Craig


----------



## Truthman (Dec 13, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 03 Mar 2012 08:33 AM 
Well, this is a matter of your point of view. 


Many times, for example in the case of the PCC and the Consolidation, Aristo has boasted (yes boasted) that they sold out quickly. 

But this is in reference to selling Aristo's stock to dealers. 

But what you want to know is did PEOPLE purchase them or are they sitting on the dealer's shelves. 

You can answer that question by the availability from dealers. Both products were not hot sellers, it's taken a while to reduce the inventory of the PCC cars and consolidations are being sold at cost now. 

So, there's the real information. 

If you get a PCC car, be sure to consider modifying the wheels to get them in gage, and running true... see my page on them on my site under motive power... aristo.... pcc 

Greg 

p.s. some further reflection on what I said above. It may seem I am picking on the loco reviews, but darn it, a small structure, or a box car is easy to modify... it is IMPOSSIBLE to fix bad wheel gage on Aristo locos without machining the wheels on a lathe and spoiling the plating in the process. 

I expect truthful and factual information from a product review, and measuring the back to back, but NOT the actual wheel gage is no accident, it's a glaring omission. Thanks Greg, your insight is always appreciated! I may want one for a shelf queen, not to actually run.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm working on a solution for all Aristo steamers, I want to make a stainless steel "tire" that would go on the original pot metal driver (machined down).

The goals would be:


 correct back to back and gage possible and somewhat adjustable
correct flange thickness (which is necessary for #1 to be possible)
reasonalble flange depth (a little less than the really deep flanges, but enough to keep the loco on the rails)
better power pickup (no oxidation, no pitting, no plating flaking off)
better appearance
improved tread taper (I'm hoping for better traction besides appearance)
low cost

Anyway that's what I am planning.


Greg


----------



## todd55whit (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg 
Still no mailman with my GR! I LOVE how I pay for a subscription for this thing and I don't get it till a week or so after everyone else!! Maybe this time it's coming extra slow as to be readable (in one piece) when it gets here. 

Hey Kevin Strong do you have any pull @GR?


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

...Kevin failed to give the wheel gage of the Aristo Consolidation in his review, which is way out of specification, causing many people to have running problems. There's a lot of detail in the review, picking up many small points, but leaving off the glaring wheel gage problems is disappointing... 

From the review: 

"The back-to-back spacing on the drivers was consistently 1.560", which is at the narrow end of NMRA specs but within tolerances. Each axle is directly powered by the motor, and each axle has some side-to-side and a bit of up-and-down play to compensate for uneven track. The pilot wheel and tender wheels have a back-to-back spacing of 1.575", which is on target for NMRA and G1MRA. ..." 

As stated in the review, the sample provided by Aristo-Craft had wheels that matched factory specs and were within published standards. There were _no_ performance issues relative to the gauge of the wheels on the specific locomotive that was reviewed. I am well aware of the gauge issues that appeared on some individual models of the Aristo 2-8-0. I consider any locomotive with wheels gauged so wide as to not fit on the track (and so far in excess of manufacturer's stated specs) to be defective. It's my policy not to review cleary-defective products, but to return them to the manufacturer so they can remedy the issue. How a manufacturer responts to such requests, and how the returned or replaced item performs or measures up are certainly fodder for comment _if_ either was in any way problematic. If the item is returned or replaced in full working order, it's rare that I'd even mention I had to return the initial product. The manufaturer lived up to his end of the deal by fixing the issue. Yes, I do take others' experiences into account when doing reviews. I use them as a guide for things I need to be taking a hard look at. I do not make it policy to let others form my opinions for me. 

It's not remotely unusual to have two people review a model and come away with differing opinions. One need only compare my review of Accucraft's EBT mikado in GR to Tom Bowdler's review of the same locomotive in _Steam in the Garden_. Tom is a very good friend of mine, but we clearly saw certain aspects of that particular locomotive differently. No individual review should ever be taken as the law of the land. Unless the two reviews are written on the exact same sample, there's no way to know the two models are identical in every aspect. Thus I cannot make any claim relative to the veracity of the other review because I don't know whether I'm looking a the same set of facts. 

What Greg views as a "glaring omission" in my review is simply a reflection of the fact that I didn't see anything out of sorts based the specific locomotive I had in front of me. If it were his locomotive in front of me, it's reasonable to assume my conclusions may be different and I would have commented on that which he feels so strongly was left out. But it's not, and without taking specific measurements from his locomotive, I cannot make any determination as to whether I'd judge that speciific locomotive to be defective. (Though if it's not staying on the track, that's a pretty good indication that it is...) And if I were to consider his locomotive to be defective under these criteria, I would not have reviewed it, thus I could not in good faith reach the same conclusions anyway. So long as he's content to form opinions based on what I'd probably view as a defective locomotive, our perspectives could never align. 

Later, 

K


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Kevin. 
A two part question regarding reviews. 
1). Have you ever actually returned a model to a manufacturer as being not up to standard to be reviewed? 
2). If the defects were remedied and the loco re-supplied for review, did you state that in the subsequent review?


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

I respect Kevin ,yet I need to chime in here.
I HATE having to send something back that I have waited years for to come out. Even if they fix it or not. (thats if I could not have to fixed it)


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

In answer to Tony's questions, yes I have returned defective products to manufacturers--more often than you'd think. What we get is often straight from the factory floor, and sometimes "stuff" happens. In terms of whether I mention the issue in the review, by and large no, provided the product is sent back in full working order. To do otherwise may unfairly prejudice the rest of the review. No matter what I'd write, it'd be colored by "the first one was defective..." There are circumstances where it would be appropriate to make mention of such an exchange or to reference the defect which caused concern, but that's a case-by-case kind of thing. 

Certainly I understand the frustration of getting a product that doesn't work correctly right out of the box. But it's unfair to the manufacturer to criticize them right out of the gate without giving them the benefit of correcting the problem first. I'm not a big fan of "consumers as guinea pigs" but it's hardly a new concept, and hardly limited to model trains. It doesn't justify the practice, but it _is]_ how things are done. By and large, the large scale manufacturers are fairly responsive to widespread QC issues, and take steps to try to remedy them on subsequent products. Sometimes the fix introduces a bunch of new "issues," but--again--that's hardly limited to model trains. Give 'em credit for fixing. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, given the back to back spacing was right, it is IMPOSSIBLE that the wheel gage, which you STILL REFUSE TO REVEAL, is correct. 

The flanges on your loco, being cast, must be the same thickness as everyone else's, and you can PROVE that the wheel gage is out of spec, by adding 2 thicknesses of the flange to your published back to back. 

I just went out and re-measured my Consolidation, and as many people have reported, I got 0.106 " 

Now, take your measurement from above for the back to back: 1.560 and add two flange thicknessses: 

1.560 + 0.106 + 0.106 = 1.772 ..... convert that to millimeters for all those who don't remember the track gage in inches: 45.009 inches, WIDER than the TRACK for your wheels . 

Yes, it's only 9 thousandths on your loco... but I suspect that if you measured and reported all the drivers, you would find more variation. Many Consolidations have perfectly to spec back to back, and thus much wider than the track gage. 

Here is a typical aristo consolidation measurement: 

rear driver 39.97 - 45.25 
next forward 39.53 - 45.07 
next forward 39.53 - 45.13 
front driver 39.86 - 44.33 

Real data, the first number was the back to back and the last the track gage. These were not taken by me, and the grossly large fillet at the base of the flange causes some uncertainty in the readings. 

But the tremendous number of reports of problems, even recognized in the Aristo forum, and the lack of Klambake publishing the actual wheel gage is very disappointing. 

I don't mean to pick on you personally Kevin, since I know the incredible pressure from Aristo and Klambake to not say anything negative. 

But it is a disservice to the community, and the poor guy who buys one of these and has problems later..... when they pop up and we point them to the MLS threads... what will you say about the GR review? 

Oh, well, mine was ok? 

Very disappointing... shows we cannot trust reviews in GR on any large advertiser's product. 

Greg


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 02 Mar 2012 11:12 PM 



Full color full page ad of Aristo trying to unload PCC cars (I hope they recoup some of their losses by re-using the trucks for the long promised S1 switcher)





Gre,
what are you referring to there?
are you talking about the Aristocraft ad on page 3?
When has Aristo mentioned an S1? I dont remember ever hearing that..
also, the PCC cars dont have any sideframes in that ad..
and..the S1 has "blunt trucks" that look like this:










Not even close to anything ever used on any kind of street car..(as far as I know anyway)

so your statement confuses me much..
can you clarify please?
thanks,
Scot


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

1.560 + 0.106 + 0.106 = 1.772 
Er, G1MRA and NMRA standards for track gauge is 1.772", so the wheels are mathematically in gauge according to published standards. The NMRA standards were written in imperial units, then translated to metric, so your .009" difference is a translation issue, not a compliance issue. (NMRA allows for an additional .010", which gives even more "wiggle room.") Technically speaking, the check gauge is .015" too wide, but given the large radius on the fillet, this is hardly material to the locomotive's performance. The sample that was ultimately reviewed operated very smoothly over my railroad without issue. (And my AMS track is actually slightly narrower in gauge than 1.772", with most around 1.760" or thereabouts.) What will I say about my review? The same thing I say about every review I write; that I stand behind it 100%. 

I don't mean to pick on you personally Kevin, since I know the incredible pressure from Aristo and Klambake to not say anything negative. 
There's no place in this debate for innuendo. Stick to the facts, and we'll continue this discussion. You insult me by insinuating that I'm selling my integrity to an advertiser. 

Later, 

K


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Here again.
straight from the factory floor, and sometimes "stuff" happens

I know where and how it comes from. But ,The high percentage of problems that I get and have to fix. I must get only the few ,"things that happen".
Theres lots I don't post either, simply because I get tired of negitive stuff also. 
Most compines do fix there stuff. Its the down time and back and forth you go through.
All that used to be done personally at our local hobby shop with a dealer who has trains and KNOWS trains.
I had a very large HO RR. It was on the 76' layout tours at the NMRA convention. I don't remember hardly ever having to send anything back.
wrong orders yes.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Sorry Kevin, I actually edited your name out several times. 

Let's pretend that you did not write the review. 

I am very disappointed that GR and Klambake did not do their homework to make a fair and honest review and leaving out one of the most important measurements. 

This is not the first time that a review has been "sanitized" in comparison to reality and easily available information on the product. 

The mere fact that there was a lot of discussion on MLS, LSC and the Aristo forum makes it hard to believe in the integrity of the people involved. 

Aristo certainly should have mentioned the fracas over these wheels when presenting their hand-picked locomotive to GR. 

GR certainly should have done their homework, just a simple google of "aristo consolidation problems" (which any person should do before purchasing an expensive item) would have turned up information that would at least resulted in measuring the wheel gage of a locomotive that costs almost $600. 

Thus, I am extremely disappointed in GR. I expect this of a manufacturer to a small degree, although Lewis Polk's dismissal of Paul Burch's problems as "undergauge track" (available on a yahoo forum) is really wrong. 

I've talked to many people, and many people have contacted me privately with their measurements. The one reviewed in GR was the "best" one I have seen, mine, RJ's, and Paul's are way worse. 

Again, I'm sorry that I mentioned your name Kevin, it's the magazine I'm looking to for doing a bad job. 

Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 04 Mar 2012 12:43 PM 
In answer to Tony's questions, yes I have returned defective products to manufacturers--more often than you'd think. What we get is often straight from the factory floor, and sometimes "stuff" happens. SNIP


K 



OK. So that answers the first part of the question. Thank you.


Posted By East Broad Top on 04 Mar 2012 12:43 PM 
SNIP
In terms of whether I mention the issue in the review, by and large no, provided the product is sent back in full working order. To do otherwise may unfairly prejudice the rest of the review. No matter what I'd write, it'd be colored by "the first one was defective..." There are circumstances where it would be appropriate to make mention of such an exchange or to reference the defect which caused concern, but that's a case-by-case kind of thing. 

Later, 

K 

IMHO that attitude, which I assume is corporate and not necessarily personal, gives the impression of looking after the interests of the manufacturer and not looking after the interests of the consumer.
I can understand not mentioning damage sustained in transport but to not mention in a review that a sample submitted for review was unreviewable, for whatever reason other than aforementioned transport damage, seems to me to be biased in favour of the manufacturer over the consumer. 
The consumer needs as much factual information as possible to make an informed choice. They should not have to rely solely on manufacturers claims.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I agree with Tony. I'm thinking why am I even subscribing? 

Since basically all the ads are not final, as many people have found when calling (they are set months before), people are looking up prices on the internet and or calling. 

So what are we buying the magazine for? 

Entertainment and information. 

I used to buy magazines for the review quality, and some still will call call it as they see it, but my faith in GR is gone. 

The way the product should be obtained, is that it should be purchased anonymously and reviewed. If there are any negatives, I think it is fair to call the manufacturer about it, and obtain more information, and perhaps get another sample. 

The manufacturer should then "buy the product back" from the magazine, if the magazine cannot afford to buy the review sample themselves (which seems silly in many cases). 

Just my opinion. 

Greg 


p.s. what is worse for the hobby and manufacturer? 

1. having a thorough review that points out the good and bad points, and in some cases, might convince people to forgo the purchase because of issues. 
2. Or someone plunks down $600 for a loco that had a great review in GR, and find out all these problems AFTER he has purchased it. 

I'll tell you #2 is WAY worse for the hobby, this will be one upset individual, and will be much more negative for the hobby. 

(and what will you say to the guy who asks you about your review, Garden Railroads? that you had no clue, after all the controversy in several forums and the manufacturer was also aware?)


----------



## Tom Parkins (Jan 2, 2008)

Gre,
what are you referring to there?
are you talking about the Aristocraft ad on page 3?
When has Aristo mentioned an S1? I dont remember ever hearing that..
also, the PCC cars dont have any sideframes in that ad..
and..the S1 has "blunt trucks" that look like this:










Not even close to anything ever used on any kind of street car..(as far as I know anyway)

so your statement confuses me much..
can you clarify please?
thanks,
Scot 


******************************* 


Aristo is currently in design of the SW1 not S1. The detailed model plans were on display at the fall ECLSTS and at that point Lewis was hoping that it would be in production in about a year. Perhaps but we know how things work in the Chinese Train making world. There was fairly extensive discussion on Aristo site about SW1 last fall. 


Regarding the trucks, remember that we are talking motor block not actual truck side frames. It is the PCC prime mover that will be utilized, not the side frames. 

Tom P


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Sorry, I screwed up and said S1 when Tom is completely correct with the SW1. Lewis has been wanting to build one for years. 

I think the last official comment was: 

(Aristo forum 6/7/2011) 

Dear Todd, 

We are doing an SW-1 for next year. The R & D is done and mold work will begin soon. 

All the best, 
Lewis Polk


----------



## Bob Pero (Jan 13, 2008)

Liked the article on weathering. Dave Winter's layout is always fun to read about.


----------



## Bob in Kalamazoo (Apr 2, 2009)

So why not at least do a follow up review and say, "We've found people are having these problems with their xxxx from xxxx. Our review gave them glowing comments, but ....." Whatever, basically just something to let readers know that there is a problem. I do like the idea of GR just going out and buying a product and revewing it. As is, without the manufactorer ever knowing where it came from. If there is a problem, send it back as just a user and report your experience. 

I realize Greg can be kind of blunt, but there is nothing wrong with any of his comments. He's right, if GR doesn't look out for it's readers it's going to be history.
Bob


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Bob. 
GR should buy their samples unannounced over the counter for reviews. That would be the least biased way of doing it. However, as far as I know, and I could of course be wrong, GR, for whatever reason, and there could be quite a few reasons, does not go out and simply buy an item. Rather, the samples are submitted by a manufacturer (or an agent) for review. 

That Kevin has received dud samples is to me outstanding, given that a manufacturer had the opportunity to get the sample" right" before sending it in.


----------



## Bob in Kalamazoo (Apr 2, 2009)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 04 Mar 2012 03:54 PM 
Bob. 
GR should buy their samples unannounced over the counter for reviews. That would be the least biased way of doing it. However, as far as I know, and I could of course be wrong, GR, for whatever reason, and there could be quite a few reasons, does not go out and simply buy an item. Rather, the samples are submitted by a manufacturer (or an agent) for review. 

That Kevin has received dud samples is to me outstanding, given that a manufacturer had the opportunity to get the sample" right" before sending it in. I totally agree with all you've said Tony. And it is amazing that any manufacturer would send a dud sample. I remeber working for a company many years ago (over 30) that hand picked and carfully checked out products to send out for review. The company we were trying to sell to finally sent a representative to obaerve our production. I can't imagine why they didn't trust us.
Bob


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 04 Mar 2012 02:46 PM 
Sorry, I screwed up and said S1 when Tom is completely correct with the SW1. Lewis has been wanting to build one for years. 

I think the last official comment was: 

(Aristo forum 6/7/2011) 

Dear Todd, 

We are doing an SW-1 for next year. The R & D is done and mold work will begin soon. 

All the best, 
Lewis Polk 



Ah! ok, thanks..I forgot about the Aristo SW1.. darn, I was hoping for Alco blunt sideframes! oh well.. Scot


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Bob, 
Receiving dud review samples from a manufacturer could be looked at in a couple of different ways. 
1). The manufacturer was honest in that they didn't check the sample first. 
2). The manufacturer had duff QC in not checking them first. 

In either case the consumer was also highly likely to get duds right out of the box.


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Personally, I really wonder if they take time to open the cases ,check it out, then repack and ship. If they just randomly grabed a case and shipped . then all is fair. 
GYs ,I don't think would or could spend the $$ buying over the counter ones, then some add dealers would be mad cause they don't buy from them. its a circle.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Marty. 
It is only fair if the reviewer points out in the review if the supplied "random" sample arrived in an unreviewable condition. Otherwise the manufacturer is being rewarded for shipping a dud.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

(Greg) Aristo certainly should have mentioned the fracas over these wheels when presenting their hand-picked locomotive to GR. 
Greg, you're making suppositions that simply aren't true. I'm surprised the manufacturers don't hand-pick their review samples, but each and every loco or piece of rolling stock I've ever reviewed comes sealed as it left the factory in whatever country it was made. There's no stop-over for tweaking. (This is particularly odd with cottage industries who pack their own products and forget silly things like, oh, instructions... It boggles the mind.) _You'd think they would_, but they don't. I think the reviews are better for it, myself, as it's a more honest view of the product as it comes "out of the box." Sure, the potential for "idealized" products is there, but the practical reality is far different. 

You're also not taking into consideration the possibility that perhaps the 2-8-0 was one such product which was returned for being defective. I did mention I was "well aware" of the issues surrounding the locomotive. Did that knowledge come strictly from reading the forums, or was there first-hand experience? Given what I've written about my policy towards defective products in the context of a review, I'm not going to disclose that fact one way or the other on this forum, either. That's between me and the manufacturer. I would presume, however, that any consumer who purchases a locomotive which falls off the track because the wheels are too wide would have the foresight to contact the manufacturer themselves and arrange for a return/repair. He may be inclined to take careful measurements of the wheels upon its return to make sure things were kosher and the repair effective before putting the loco back on the rails to compare performance. And, would likely be quite pleased to see that the locomotive, with wheels set to company specs and industry standards, stay reliably on the rails when it had previously fallen off.

(Greg) ...and what will you say to the guy who asks you about your review, Garden Railroads? 
Precisely what I just wrote... that if the wheels are so far out of gauge that the locomotive falls off the track, that's a manufacturing defect that should be addressed by the manufacturer under warranty--the same as a broken gear, smoke unit that doesn't function, lights that don't light, motor that doesn't turn, etc. If the factory specs were such that the wheels were out of gauge and the loco fell off the track, that's a different ball of wax. But it's not the case here. A locomotive built to factory specs stays reliably on the rails. 

(Tony) ...IMHO that attitude, which I assume is corporate and not necessarily personal, gives the impression of looking after the interests of the manufacturer and not looking after the interests of the consumer. 
First-off, that is a personal position. I have autonomy when it comes to the standards I use for my reviews. It's my reputation at stake, and I've got to make sure I stay consistent. Other reviewers may have differing criteria. Tony, you're a manufacturer. Suppose you sent me a throttle, and as soon as I plugged it into a battery, it started smoking. (I've had that happen.) I contact you and say "Hey, Tony, this thing just blew up." You say "That shouldn't have happened. Send it back, and I'll send you a new one." I get the new one, and it works as advertised. Do I write the review and say the product may blow up? That's what happened, right? It's a fair assessment of the product. Or, do I take into account that the cause of the failure was not endemic to the throttle, but caused by something out of the norm and write my review based on the working sample. By your reasoning, I should mention the board may blow up because it's in the interest of the consumer. I don't see it that way. I see no reason to scare a consumer away from a product because of a factory defect that is readily and easily corrected by the manufacturer. And I guarantee that you as a manufacturer would be mad as a hatter if I were to write "may blow up" in the review. And quite frankly, you'd be right to be mad. The board blowing up was the result of a random factory defect, not a limitation of the board as designed. (You'd be amazed at how some manufacturers react to even glowing reviews! It, too, boggles the mind.) 

A review is about putting the product in the most accurate light possible. A light that neither favors the manufacturer nor scares the consumer away. What I choose to highlight in terms of positives and negatives is very much a judgment call in terms of how best to achieve that goal. As I wrote earlier, there are circumstances where I mention issues others have with a product that I do not based on what I read on forums or hear from other modelers. I've done it in the past (don't ask me when, I don't remember). As I stated, that's a case-by-case basis. 

There is no "perfect" business model for doing product reviews. Each has its potential for flaws. All I can do is put forth my opinion based on the most solid foundation I can muster. If I made a habit of giving faulty products "passing" grades, my integrity would be shot, and no one would believe what I have to say. Likewise, if I had a habit of raking products unnecessarily over the coals for minor faults, what good does that do to the consumer? No one would buy anything. It's in the hobby's best interest for me as a reviewer to make it a point to stay in the middle of the road; pointing out faults as they arise, but not being nit-picky about things that would scare away customers unreasonably. I can't control how the reader reacts. If you think the system in place is flawed and the reviews are protecting the manufacturers and their advertising dollars, then no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your perception. For my part, I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing, how I'm doing it. As I stated earlier, I'll back anything I put in print up 100%. My integrity is my trade, and I'd be stupid to write anything which would undermine that. 

Later, 

K


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Kevin, 
I must respectfully disagree. 
Given that as a manufacturer I have the right to send in a perfect sample to start with I would be ashamed to hear that it had blown up whilst being tested. Assuming of course the test was being carried out correctly. 
I understand the manufacturer should have the right to inspect and if necessary replace the sample for review. However, unless the test was being carried out incorrectly, I believe the consumer should be told of the circumstances under which the review took place. 
That also means the manufacturer should have the right to query any review to ensure said review is accurate. 

The interests of the consumer should be paramount in all circumstances. Give them facts and let them decide for themselves.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

There is no "factory seal" on Aristo locos, nor rolling stock. This part of the discussion is a needless distraction though. 

The unit reviewed is out of character compared to the majority of the units, it is much better. Still bad, but better than every other one I have gotten actual measurements on. 

My big points are: 

1. There was widespread common knowledge about the problems of wheel gage in the Consolidation 
2. Aristo definitely knew about this. It's on their forum, and subject of public comments by Lewis Polk on 2 different forums. 
3. It was definitely on this forum, so accessible easily by GR. 
4. Given the depth of detail on the review, I cannot understand why wheel gage measurements (and flange measurements) were not revealed. 
4. There STILL are no measurements revealed by GR on the wheel gage of the Consolidation 

My confidence is definitely shaken in GR's reviews, in the review process itself, which includes the review and upper management reviewing it before it is published. 

If anyone has any "pull" with GR, maybe we could get the reason that the all important wheel gage was missing from the review? 

Personally, I cannot believe that the wheel gage measurements were not taken. I notice that no one has denied this. This is just a personal opinion. 

Greg


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm on a roadtrip vaccation now but will have somemore comments on the 2-8-0 when I get home. My Sunset Valley track is NOT undergauge as Lewis Polk stated. I chose not to respond anymore to Lewis because it was pointless. The 2-8-0's are ALL out of gauge. Back to back is ok. I took matters into my own hands and had the wheels turned to a better profile. My two 2-8-0's now run as nice as anyone would want. End of comments for now. I think that if this 2-8-0 topic is to continue,maybe a new thread?


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

The basic problem is that as long as production remains in China where the *number of product* out the factory door is the critical objective not the *quality of product* out the door, the problem is going to remain. These QC problems have been around for at least 10 years. Its not rocket science to know what and where the problems lay.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm not sure it's china, really. Aristo's wheel design design is flawed, the tapered axle into a cast wheel is always going to be problematic. Slathering it with loctite is an obvious sign of a bad design, but they've really done nothing to address it, other than the "fillett" they added to the Consolidation, which tuned out to be an ineffective kludge. 

They should key the wheels and axles--it'd solve most of the problems.



I've fixed some of mine by lapping the taper, and then grinding down the back of the flange to get the back to back right, and also enlarging the holes for the connecting rods on steamers, so out-of-quarter conditions are less problematic. I didn't learn this from Garden Railways, which has never mentioned any of the problems I've experienced with Aristo or USAT. It's one of the reasons I let my subscription lapse.


It seems to me that the print publication model has had its day, and that GR will have to go to an online magazine format, where costs are lower and the need to keep manufacturers on board is maybe less pressing. But I suspect it's too late. I liked GR in a lot of ways--great pictures, the format is easy to read, the ads were useful, the reviews less so. I hope it survives. But as a person who has been burned by a number of purchases, I'd like more critical content.


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Do I write the review and say the product may blow up? That's what happened, right? It's a fair assessment of the product. Or, do I take into account that the cause of the failure was not endemic to the throttle, but caused by something out of the norm and write my review based on the working sample. By your reasoning, I should mention the board may blow up because it's in the interest of the consumer. I don't see it that way. I see no reason to scare a consumer away from a product because of a factory defect that is readily and easily corrected by the manufacturer. 

I think as a reviewer you have to say exactly what happened. If it blew up you say that and you don't recommend the product. Giving the manufacturer a chance to correct the problem isn't the point of a review. If the Q/C lets it get out the door, that's the manufacturers risk and assuming you took a random sample from production then they need to deal with it. You're not doing anyone any favours by sending back a dud and waiting until you get one that works. You are worried that nobody would buy anything if you called a spade a spade? No, they might stop buying the crap you are inadvertantly protecting, but they wouldn't stop buying the good products. 

Keith


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

There is no "factory seal" on Aristo locos, nor rolling stock. This part of the discussion is a needless distraction though. 
Greg, trust me. These things are NOT vetted prior to submission. I'm probably not going to convince you, but when you open the boxes I've opened, and look at the products that come out of them--warts and all--you can reach no other logical conclusion. 

...Still bad, but better than every other one I have gotten actual measurements on. 
"Still bad?" The spacing and gauge--_by your own math_--is within tolerances of the standard. The loco stays on the rails and operates smoothly through switches. Something that's built to standard and runs smoothly is "still bad?" We're at an impasse there, I guess. 

But to your points: 
1. There was widespread common knowledge about the problems of wheel gage in the Consolidation 

For anyone reading the forums, agreed, there is widespread common knowledge of the problem. However, there's reason to debate how widespread the problem itself may be. That's a key distinction to draw. It's one thing to know a problem exists. No one's denying that--it's well documented. That's partly why I paid particular attention to the wheels when doing my measurements. But how widespread is the problem itself? That's harder to answer. If you read the forums, you get conflicting messages. Some like you and Paul would have you believe the entire production run was doomed. Others say their locos ran great right out of the box, or that the issue is far more isolated than critics would have you believe. The truth--if it can even be determined--lies somewhere in the middle. 

2. Aristo definitely knew about this. It's on their forum, and subject of public comments by Lewis Polk on 2 different forums. 

Agreed, and I talked with Lewis about this over the course of the review process. Part of the review process is engaging the manufacturer with any questions that may arise from not only my own observations, but what others are reporting as well. If you look at Lewis's statements over the course of the "gauge debate," he acknowledged there was an issue, but over time stated that it appeared to be more and more isolated. Take that for what it is--a manufacturer's statement about the quality of his own product. But it's a piece of the puzzle that can either be supported or undermined by other, less potentially biased observers, just like comments from outspoken critics can be supported or undermined. In any analysis, you have to consider the source and weigh the evidence accordingly. 

3. It was definitely on this forum, so accessible easily by GR. 

See above. 

4. Given the depth of detail on the review, I cannot understand why wheel gage measurements (and flange measurements) were not revealed. 

I'm having a hard time recalling a time where I stated any measurement other than back-to-back in my reviews. I measure many aspects--including gauge--to see how they conform. It's part of my basic review process. I don't state them in the reviews unless something is horribly out of whack. Space is limited, and so long as things are within tolerances of the standard, there's no reason to bore the reader with statistics they don't care about. What they _do_ care about is whether the loco stays on the track. If the answer is "yes," then end of story. I have never (nor has any other reviewer including TOC to my recollection) stated detailed measurements of every aspect of a wheelset. We measure the gauge, we just don't feel the need to publish it. 

4. There STILL are no measurements revealed by GR on the wheel gage of the Consolidation 
I could go down to the workshop, take a micrometer to the wheels on my sample, even take photos of the process. The numbers would (and do) show the spacing on the wheels is equal to the gauge of the track--a fact mirrored by your own math a few posts back. It would show there's no problem with the review sample; that the wheels are within NMRA tolerances and the unit will operate smoothly on properly gauged track. I could publish that in big bold type, but what to what end? You're convinced "the unit reviewed is out of character with the majority of the units." Why should I bother jumping through those hoops for your benefit when you're going to dismiss them as being an anomaly anyway? 

_I can't prove your theory of a widespread gauge problem with the review sample I have in my workshop._ I know you believe there's a problem, and I know you're disappointed the review didn't bolster that theory, but I cannot in good faith support such a claim based on the locomotive that was sent for review, or my analysis of others' experiences with similar locos. It doesn't mean I'm turning a blind eye to those issues. It simply means I weighed the evidence and rendered my personal verdict. 

I'm not the person who's going to run a product through the wringer simply so I can sound like I'm being critical. I could easily shred virtually every product that crosses my workbench with nit-picky details--being out of scale, the wrong shade of fuchsia, wheels that don't exactly meet NMRA or G1MRA standard, just looking ugly, the list goes on and on. What purpose does that serve? Why is there the perception that to be "critical," I have to rip apart a product? If I always took that path, nothing would ever be "good enough." I can have very high standards. I don't think you do the reader any service by constantly nit-picking products. I think as a reviewer, my first obligation is to be fair, but that fairness has to be spread equally among the product, customer, and manufacturer. Yes, you HAVE to be fair to the manufacturer. That's not as easy as it sounds, especially given the subjectivity of the word "fair." (Just ask my 6-year-old.) Sometimes, "good enough" is indeed good enough.

I've said all I'm going to say on this. I've laid out my philosophy in terms of how I approach reviews, I've made it clear that I did (and regularly do) measure all aspects of locomotive wheels as part of the review process--even if I don't publish the results, and I've defended my review of the locomotive in question. If you still think it's flawed, if you don't think I'm being critical enough, if you think the whole process favors the manufacturer, I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise. As I stated in my first (or second) post, no review is Gospel. It's a subjective analysis of the product in question. I appreciate the feedback, as I do learn from it, and often will "do things differently" in the future as a result. But I simply cannot say things about a product that I do not believe just because there's a vocal chorus of people who think I should. That's a compromise I'm unwilling to make. If I'm ultimately proven wrong in my assessment, I'll admit it. But for now, I can't join this particular choir. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

While I would be inclined to try to "help" the manufacturer out, the only path I could conscience were I to be in the position of reviewing products would be absolute, unassailable truth. Tell it like it happened. 

If the manufacturer indicated that what problems I saw were not typical, I would invite a "re-test" with a larger sample of merchandise. 

If it happened to you the reviewer, then it could happen to the customer as well, although they typically don't get a "second chance". I believe there are several people on this forum who have had a particular 2-8-8-2 loco back for warranty repairs like 4 times and finally gave up. (They were not offered a replacement locomotive). 

People want to believe in the objectivity and integrity of a magazine with experts in the field. 

In this economy, people will vote with their checkbooks, as well they should. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

For the benefit of the reader, I did post a brief follow-up note on the product review on GR's web site relative to the gauge issue. (It may take a bit to show up...) 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Not to try to twist the knife, but I really WOULD like to get the measurements of the gage on your loco. 

But, with the grossly exaggerated fillet, could you measure the gage BEFORE it "climbs" the fillet? I think you will be surprised, you will see that the fillet is what is riding on the inner rail head most of the time. 

Anyway, I've pretty much said all I can say, but be sure it's not just me that is having trouble with these locos, it is many people, it is a systemic flaw in the wheel contour that cannot be overcome without modifying the wheels themselves (and then you have the adjustment problem on top of that). 

I just hope that Aristo will follow up on revising the wheels as promised by Lewis Polk in his forum in response to this problem. 

(Yes, Aristo at first acknowledged the problem before dismissing it on bad track) 

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

But, with the grossly exaggerated fillet, could you measure the gage BEFORE it "climbs" the fillet? I think you will be surprised, you will see that the fillet is what is riding on the inner rail head most of the time. 
Aye, there's the rub, though. The standards consider the flange to be exclusive of the fillet, so by giving you the measurement from the outside of the fillet, I'd be giving you a measurement that is technically not the "gauge" of the wheel, as that's measured from flange to flange. It's fully expected that the locomotive or car would spend varying amounts of time--maybe even all the time--riding on at least one part of the fillet. Given the NMRA's recommendation of a fillet radius between .020" and .030", unless you stuck to the NMRA's standard flange thickness of .059" (which virtually NO ONE does), you'll be hard pressed to find a wheelset that doesn't ride on part of the fillet most of the time. And with an oversized fillet, it's virtually impossible NOT to be riding on it. So I have no doubt the 2-8-0 rides on the fillet. That's what it's designed to do. If there was no fillet, it'd be riding on the tread same as any other wheel. But that's also why the railheads are rounded on the corners. It gives the wheels just that extra bit of wiggle room. 

But, since I'm in a sporting mood (and hopefully it will put this issue to bed), here goes. 

I measure my flange thickness at .082" exclusive of the fillet. I'll meet you halfway, and pick a point about midway on the fillet, which coincidentally is approximately 0.106" (the flange thickness you mention in your math early on). That's nominally at a point that's 45 degrees, or at least where--when I push my calipers down--they stop moving open just with the pressure. The exact point will obviously vary from axle to axle, measurement to measurement, but here are the numbers I got. 

Axle 1 - 1.771" 
Axle 2 - 1.769" 
Axle 3 - 1.762" 
Axle 4 - 1.758" 

As I've stated repeatedly, these numbers are less than the gauge of the track, and within NMRA standards, thus the review sample locomotive tracks extremely well. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Negative negative negative, the fillet is not what it is designed to ride on. That's is basically an outrageous statement. 

And the fillet is assumed to meet NMRA code, which it does not. So splitting it halfway is NOT acceptable. You measure the gage on the tread of the wheel EXCLUSIVE of the fillet. 

(Nor does the flange depth, thickness, etc. meet NMRA) 

You are opening up a can of worms here, and there is more data to prove this. You cannot just make up your own standards on the fly, nor methods of measuring. 

Halfway on the absurd fillet is still absurd... the wheel contour, for lack of better words, is crappy. 

Nope, you are digging in deeper, and further exposing the poor design and quality control, just the thing that Aristo did not want. You are making it worse. 

Regards, Greg 

p.s. people DO follow the NMRA/G1MRA standards, in fact, you need to look at a NEW Aristo Dash 9 (but that's another story).


----------



## Polaris1 (Jan 22, 2010)

I do like warm heated give & take debates. Hot heated debates are for the "Birds"........ 

Recently I have not bought these G Engines due to their higher price point: Aristo Mallet & Aristo Consolidated and the Piko G Alligator.. 

I have however bought the less expensive power units like: 3 Piko G Electric Tauruses, Piko G Mogul Steamer, & Aristo Class 66 DB Schenker diesel.. 

I just may have been fortunate in that these purchased model's do stay on the Track... Only the coming GBay, WI melting snow covered rails will tell..?? 

And I love to read ALL new G Gauge (45 mm) Engine Reviews!!!!!!!! Including CA George S and KC Raymond M. versions............ 

Dennis M.


----------



## VictorSpear (Oct 19, 2011)

Also, the NMRA suggests (highly) that the back-to-back be narrowed in such conditions -> "Should a manufacturer or modeler opt to use flanges greater than 0.076", the back-to-back spacing should be narrowed from the published Target Value to compensate and still fall within Check-gauge tolerances for the wheels."


There's a very good reason for the above and the 'overcompensated fillet' cannot be the ideal way to achieve the published Target Value - IMHO.

Victor.


----------



## Ralph Berg (Jun 2, 2009)

I don't base my purchases on magazine reviews. I know better. If you want a "warts" and all review, that's what the forums are for. 

Magazine reviews are superficial, at best. They have the item for a limited amount of time. They would be best titled as "Overviews". 

If Kevin says his sample tracked fine, who are we to doubt him? 

Kevin contributes much to the forums, for free. Personally, I wouldn't put up with anyone doggin the crap out of me, unless they are signing my paycheck. 

Even then, I may think twice. 

Ralph


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

No one is dogging Kevin, he came into the thread I started, and I did not mean it to blossom into this. 

But, now the BS is getting deep, and making up how a train wheel rides on the fillet, this is way out of whack, and no way I will agree to things that far wrong. 

It's Kevin who is dogging me on this thread. 

Greg


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By VictorSpear on 05 Mar 2012 05:14 PM 
Also, the NMRA suggests (highly) that the back-to-back be narrowed in such conditions -> "Should a manufacturer or modeler opt to use flanges greater than 0.076", the back-to-back spacing should be narrowed from the published Target Value to compensate and still fall within Check-gauge tolerances for the wheels."


There's a very good reason for the above and the 'overcompensated fillet' cannot be the ideal way to achieve the published Target Value - IMHO.

Victor. 



The 1:1 railroads use a "Wheel Check" gage also. Measures from the flange and tire(where the flange angle intersects the angled tire surface) to the BACKSIDE of the other wheel on the axle. The angle of the flange and the angle of the tire, are a theoretical intersection point. Our wheels at Los Angeles Live Steamers are machined to International Brotherhood of Live Steamers standards. If you search for them on the net, you would find them interesting and maybe help with Greg's and Kevin's explanations here.







I DO agree with Greg that the fillet does NOT and SHOULD not enter into the discussion.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg, I'm done. I tried playing nice to give you the measurements you wanted, and you tell me they're BS. And you wonder why I'm reluctant to accommodate your requests. If you want the measurements exclusive of the fillet, subtract .048" from each of the measurements given, since the difference from the flange to the point on the fillet I measured is approximately .024". (.106" - .082") 

Over and out. 

K


----------



## Elcamo (Dec 10, 2011)

@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css); Posted By Greg Elmassian on 05 Mar 2012 07:04 PM 

But, now the BS is getting deep

Greg 


Ah, so you are capable of speaking some truth!


Like any review, you need to learn to take GR's with a grain of salt. They're not going to get into super specific detail in their reviews, as those pages cost money, and often a quick summary suffices for most products. The "problems" that you're talking about don't seem to negatively effect performance in any way, so what's the big deal exactly? One of the magazines staff members and reviewers even went out of their way to give you the information you were looking for, and still that was not enough for you. Kudos to Kevin for putting up with you for as long as he did, I know that I personally would never have tolerated the slander you've been spewing left and right for that long. 

Once again I am satisfied with GR's magazine, and once again I am disappointed by the immaturity of people on the internet who should know better.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Elcamo, whoever you are, you need to read up on the history and problems of the Consolidation... you are completely clueless as to the entire picture. 

And if you do not realize that train wheels have the tread in contact with the rail tops, and not the fillet, you need to learn. 


As for the review, you need to read it too, he went into "super specific detail", just left out the important part, the part that caused all the problems in the first place, that the gage of the loco wheels is WIDER than the track, thus the running problems. Otherwise you should really be quiet so you don't embarrass yourself further by your total ineptitude. 


There's no slander here, other than yours, and if you take Kevin's updated measurements and correct his statement (you ADD the part of the fillet he measured to get the wheel gage) you get: (adding his 0.048 as stated above) 

(think about it, he under measured the wheel gage because he measured "short" of the tread, he started in the fillet. 

Axle 1 - 1.771" + 0.048 = 1.819" ( equals 46.2 mm, WIDER than the track gage) 
Axle 2 - 1.769" + 0.048 = 1.817" ( 46.15, wider again) 
Axle 3 - 1.762" + 0.048 = 1.810" ( 45.974 mm) 
Axle 4 - 1.758" + 0.048 = 1.806" ( 45.87 mm) 

So using all of Kevin's measurements, all of the drivers have a wheel gage (as per NMRA, G1MRA, and prototype definition of gage) WIDER than the track gage... which makes the loco ride up on the fillet, and run poorly. 

So, finally real information, even from the "opposition" proves the point. Thank you Kevin for having the integrity to give the actual data, even though it proves my point.

Greg (my real name)


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Subtract, it, Greg, _subtract._ You DO NOT measure the gauge of the wheelset to include the fillet. That's by definition, from 1:1 down to 1:220 and smaller. *Link* I spent 2 years immersed in wheel and track technical mumbo-jumbo while writing the NMRA's large scale wheel and track standards. The points of measurement for those standards are very clearly defined, and the flange most decidedly _does not_ include any part of a fillet. *NMRA RP-25 wheel profile* The fillet isn't even part of the large scale wheel standards except as a recommendation, so how can it be used if it doesn't even "officially" exist?

Original measurements (in bold): TREAD--FIL*LET--FLANGE ---------------------- FLANGE--FIL*LET--TREAD 

"By definition" measurements: TREAD--FILLET-*-FLANGE ---------------------- FLANGE-*-FILLET--TREAD 

Eliminating the fillet from the measurement _reduces_ the distance, and gives you the "true" gauge of the wheels, since that measurement _by definition_ is taken from flange to flange. (In NMRAspeak, T+B+T or flange thickness plus back-to-back plus flange thickness.) 

Axle 1 - 1.771" - .048" = 1.723" 
Axle 2 - 1.769" - .048" = 1.721" 
Axle 3 - 1.762" - .048" = 1.714" 
Axle 4 - 1.758" - .048" = 1.710" 

Just for fun, I took actual measurements of the "true" gauge of the wheels, so to eliminate the "rough estimate" of the point in the fillet from which I took the original measurements: 

Axle 1 - 1.731" 
Axle 2 - 1.728" 
Axle 3 - 1.723" 
Axle 4 - 1.720" 

That's at least a full .040" _less_ than the gauge of the track. Because the radius of the fillet is larger than recommended, I think it proper to add a slight adjustment outward for that, which is why I took my original measurements from a point somewhere in the middle of the fillet instead of just flange-to-flange. I was actually cutting you a little slack, and still showing that the gauge of the wheels is less than the gauge of the track. Take that added distance away, and the difference is even more clear. 

That's the "by the book" take on wheel profiles as they relate to the 2-8-0. There's no grey area. Using clearly-defined points of measurement, the measured gauge of the wheelset is less than the standard gauge of the track, therefore by definition it gets a "passing" grade. That's one of the NMRA's "tests" for authoring standards. "T+B+T < G (track gauge)" must be "true." If that condition is satisfied, the standard passes that particular test. (There are 9 or 10 such measurement tests for a full set of standards.) You can argue whether a train "should" ride on the fillets all you want, it makes no difference in terms of the "by the book" definitions where the fillet doesn't exist. When I write a review, I use "by the book" definitions. Consistency from one review to the next is important, so having black-and-white standards from which I can draw makes it a lot easier to try to make sense of each manufacturer's individual (often multiple) wheel profiles. 

Later, 

K


----------



## norman (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi Guys: 

Firstly, I would not buy this Aristo Consolidation loco given all of the wheel gauge problems. 

What are the exact gauge measurements? It does not matter. Folks could argue all week long over the measurements and as to whether they conform to NMRA standards. The point is many of these locomotives do not run ( or track ) along the track properly. I accept the review of the various hobbyists who bought this model and now are out of pocket due to wheel gauge error problems. 

Would I take the chance and hope that, at random, I receive a Consolidation that will track properly? Not likely. 

I am not getting into a review of Kevin's GR review. Kevin did his best to offer his personal unbiased review and that is the end of it. 

Greg, possibly you could direct your efforts into maybe teaming up with Barry's Big Trains on offering an after market product to solve this Aristo Consolidation problem. The hobbyists who have bought a defective Aristo Craft Consolidation will definitely appreciate your efforts. Hounding Kevin on measurements accomplishes nothing. The defective Consolidations are still defective. 

Hopefully Aristo Craft will continue to offer us reasonably priced products in the future. The Aristo Craft level of product inventory presently offered does not present to me the picture of a robust company. For the 40% off sale, Aristo Craft had zero inventory of heavyweights, C-16, etc. I don't believe things are exactly booming right now at Aristo Craft. That said, I still am not buying one of their Consolidation locos from this first production run! 

I think Aristo Craft presently needs the support of the train hobbyists more than ever. Let us hope that they, and all of us, survive this cruel world wide recession. 


Norman


----------



## jake3404 (Dec 3, 2010)

Kevin, 

I think your review was done well. You are going off your own integrity and what you have in front of you. I know the review process is not perfect. I think some one suggested that you go buy the product off the shelf you could get a more "normal" loco instead of a hand picked one. However, I know that the budget of the magazine would not allow that type of process. You have to work with what you get. I commend you for not only reviewing what you have in front of you and defending it, but also trying to placate the "haters". 

Greg, 

Your review of the Aristo Connie was very good. I dont model in 1:29 but based on your data I would not buy one. I think you have done a good job of documenting the problem with the loco and I know you are compassionate about it for the sake of improving the hobby. However, you cant ask Kevin to take your data and insert it into his article. Unfortunately your not an "employee" of the magazine and so your data is considered circumstantial. Any lawyer would have a field day with it. I dont think you should beat up Kevin for doing what only he can do, "which is review what is in front of him." 

For all, 

You are not going to get a critical review of any model in any model magazine. I have never seen one, I have been a subscriber of not only GR, but Model Railroader (Kalmbach again) but also Railroad Model Craftsman, Narrow Gauge and Short line Gazette, Model Railroading Mag and a few others. It is the nature of the business that is outside of Kevin's paygrade (sorry Kevin but it is true). Publishers will not bad mouth a manufactures product because it is them who buy ads. It is not the subscriptions that pay for the magazine, they are only a very small part of the budget, the ads are what makes the mag. A publisher is not going to throw good money down the drain because they bash a manufactures product. The best way is here on MLS and few other website who are not beholden to the manufacture's dollar. 

A final note, the real issure here is where we are getting the product. I work in the optical business. All of our products come from China. I've noticed a large decrease in the quality of frames these days. It is largly due to the Chinese manufacturing process. So it is not issolated to only the Model Railroad industry.


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

these repetive threads about faulty products make me curious. 

do you northamericans pay your toys with three dollar bills? 

or why do you discuss like you do, instead of abstaining to buy junk?


----------



## todd55whit (Jan 2, 2008)

Finaly got my GR today. Kodos to our MLS contributors. Very nice job fellas.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By kormsen on 06 Mar 2012 05:53 PM 
these repetive threads about faulty products make me curious. 

do you northamericans pay your toys with three dollar bills? 

or why do you discuss like you do, instead of abstaining to buy junk? 



Korm, buying LS is like a little trip to Vegas, Will I beat the odds and WIN, or will the house odds win and leave me burned. IOWs will I get one of the good correctly made products thats good to go out of the box, or will I get a lemon that will require either weeks of time in transit for repairs or DIY repairs that may require an electronics degree or a machinist qualification.

Why do we put up with this? Few or no alternatives I guess.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By vsmith on 07 Mar 2012 09:02 AM 


Posted By kormsen on 06 Mar 2012 05:53 PM 
these repetive threads about faulty products make me curious. 

do you northamericans pay your toys with three dollar bills? 

or why do you discuss like you do, instead of abstaining to buy junk? 



Korm, buying LS is like a little trip to Vegas, Will I beat the odds and WIN, or will the house odds win and leave me burned. IOWs will I get one of the good correctly made products thats good to go out of the box, or will I get a lemon that will require either weeks of time in transit for repairs or DIY repairs that may require an electronics degree or a machinist qualification.

Why do we put up with this? Few or no alternatives I guess.


If you look at any reviews on the web for any product you will find the majority are full of complaints. Few people will take the time to post glowing reports of what they purchase. But if there is a problem, then they are more than willing to take the time to complain... partially to get help in correcting the problem, partially to get sympathy for having the problem, and partially to "get back at" the supplier of the product.

If you ever need surgery I STRONGLY recommend that you DO *NOT* do a web search to see what people report of the procedure. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of gall bladder surgerys everyday, but if you read the web for stories about what people have experienced you would never submit your body to such an operation!

You will notice that many companies are BEGGING people to write reviews of products and transactions and even offering incentives to get people to do so. "Please submit a review and get a chance to win $1000!" E-bay will hound you to "Rate" a seller. If they didn't the only ratings would all be bad, because few people would ever think of going back to say they had no problems.

I seldom read the reasons people rate a seller the way they did... I just look at the number of transactions vs the number of complaints.


----------



## Truthman (Dec 13, 2008)

accidental post


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, I think you have confused yourself. "Subtract, it, Greg, subtract."
WRONG


You DO NOT measure the gauge of the wheelset to include the fillet.
RIGHT 
(extraneous affirmations of experience with wheels deleted)

Original measurements (in bold): TREAD--*FILLET*--FLANGE ---------------------- FLANGE--*FILLET*--TREAD ( I changed your bolding, but you measured in the middle of the fillet)

ROGER

"By definition" measurements: TREAD--FILLET--*FLANGE *---------------------- *FLANGE*--FILLET--TREAD
WRONG WRONG [/b][/b] WRONG [/b] WRONG [/b] WRONG - you are in direct conflict with your statement above "You DO NOT measure the gauge of the wheelset to include the fillet"
[/b]
You are not only wrong, but you are in disagreement with your fundamental (and correct) statement. 


How it really works:: *TREAD*--FILLET--FLANGE ---------------------- FLANGE--FILLET--*TREAD*

So the distance you measured first was NARROWER because you measured PAST the tread and into the FILLET... Now the distance is WIDER. 

Thus you ADD the missing distance. 

Your "gage" was narrower because YOU measured closer to the flange in conflict with your (correct) assertion that you do not include the fillet in the measurement. 

In your quest to be right, you are making it worse by arguing with yourself.

Greg


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm finding this discussion of "how" to measure the gauge of a wheel set most intriguing...and am wondering about how the standards are actually put together for our trains. I've always understood:

a. The flat part of the tread is what was supposed to support the load.
b. That the flat part was tapered to help a wheel around a curve...in that as the wheel set moves to the outside of a curve, the outside wheel is on the larger part of the taper (i.e. with a bigger circumference because it has to travel further) and the the inside wheel is on the smaller part of the taper (i.e. with a smaller circumference because it has to travel less far).
c. That a fillet was added (on 1:1) wheel sets so that there was no stress point where the flange met the tread.

Now...that kinda simple explanation means to me that the gauge of a wheel set WE NEED should be independent of the size of the fillet. The flat part (tread) is what is supposed to sit on the rail. In other words, it should be measured from the outside of the fillet to the outside of the fillet on the other side...and that should be less than the gauge of the track. How-some-ever....that's NOT how Mr. Armstrong defined "wheel gauge".











So, IMHO if the wheel gauge is such that the back to back is right (meaning it will go through turnouts well...as that is the critical dimension there) but the fillet is so large that the wheel set's tread cannot sit FLAT on the rail...well, then...Houston, we got a problem. It will mean the wheel continuously hunts back and forth since it can never get flat on the rail...which causes a lot of drag as the flange rubs against the side of the rail...and reduced traction because of the small contact area. To me it would also seem to increases the potential to climb the rail and derail when moving fast.


Recently on 1:1 railroads, the manufacturers of engines recently addressed this issue by adding mechanisms INSIDE the power trucks on the big three axle trucks to turn the forward and aft axles when the truck was in a curve. This helped keep the flat tread of the wheel on the rail...and increase traction....reduce drag...reduce rail wear...and reduce derailment potential.


Now, I don't have one of these new Consolidations...but it the wheel contour is so weird that the engine actually rides on the fillet, not the tread, when the back to back is correct, I can't see that this wheel profile is right. Then again, I'm extrapolating from 1:1 designs...thinking they also apply to our models. Further, you'll note that in Mr. Armstrong's diagram above, it shows the rails are tipped inward. I don't think our model RR track has that incorporated in it's design...and if not, the taper of the wheels alone would cause the wheel set to hunt...so adding a big fillet would make the hunting even worse.


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Here is a link to the International Broherhood of Live Steamers Standards. pretty much used throughout the world. Note the "Wheel Check" standard. This one nails the relationship of back to back and wheel gage. I disagree with the wheel gauge on John Armstrong's drawing. I never heard of making that measurement through the radious of the fillet.

http://www.prairiestaterr.org/posti...ndards.pdf


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

DELETED


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Further to Mike's comment about hunting: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting_oscillation 

Keith


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

In a hypothetical nutshell and with no names mentioned.

Well known Company advertises in well known industry magazine.

Said Company makes a product that soon after release is found to have a glaring design/manufacturing defect that can severely affect operational performance. Thanks to the Internet this design/manufacturing defect becomes widely known and the manufacturer promises to fix it but never does. Allegedly sales of said product come to a grinding halt.

Eventually the well known industry magazine reviews said design/manufacturing deficient product and gives it a tick of approval. No mention is made of the widely known alleged design/manufacturing defects in review.

Is the consumer any better off? I don't think so.

Business as usual? Absolutely.

C'est la vie[/b]


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

@ Greg, I think you're misunderstanding my illustration. I'm measuring across the axle from one wheel to the other. The part in bold is the part that was measured from one side to the other. The first "set" of measurements is wider than the second because I measured from a point farther from the center of the wheelset. Using the drawing above, draw a line somewhere in the middle of the fillet between the outside edge of the flange and inside edge of the railhead. I measured from that point on one side to that same point on the other. When I amended my measurements to just include the width of the flange, I measured across the "wheel gauge" line in that drawing. That's going to be the narrower measurement. 

@ Mike, you're correct. The issue with this wheel profile isn't as much the gauge or the flange, as (at least on my sample) they're within standards. It's the fillet. At rougly .050", the locomotive rides on the outer edge of the fillet instead of the tread itself. Had Aristo used a smaller radius on the fillet (say, the recommended .020" - .030") or no fillet at all, the wheel would ride squarely on the tread and look all the world like a G1MRA-profile wheel, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's because of the large fillet that the wheel doesn't sit squarely on the tread. In order for it to do that, you'd have to--as Greg accurately says--move the back-to-back narrower. But with a tread width of .271" and a flange/fillet taking up literally half of that (about .132"), that doesn't leave a whole lot of tread left over, either. The better solution is simply reduce or eliminate the fillet. Aristo's working on a new wheel profle which appears to do that. 

Why some people have trouble with it and others don't, I can't say. My sample (with accurate gauge) ran well on my track where other locos (with broad gauge and similar/identical wheels) did not. I thinking what's happening is that the radius of the fillet doesn't give the operator much leeway in terms of how the gauge can vary, even if it's in spec. Given that some wheels on these locos are demonstrably broad in gauge as well (back-to-back as much as 1mm or more wider than spec), it's easy to see how they can decide to take a walk on the wild side. The "simple" solution--everything else being to manufaturer spec and NMRA/G1MRA standard--would be to take a file to the fillet and file enough of it away to give a proper .020" fillet instead. This adds about .030" more "tread" on each wheel, and should allow the loco to ride on the tread instead of the fillet. 

@ Gary, I don't think the drawing's showing the measurement through the fillet. The line (as I interpret it) is righ at the edge of the flange where it meets the fillet. (i.e, where the curve goes from concave to convex.) 

Later, 

K


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

"Simple" solution indeed! 

I've already taken my aristo steam drive blocks down, gotten a torch to soften the loctite to remove the wheels, gently and carefully lapped the axle wheel joint with valve compound to try to get a better seat, replaced the wheels quartered properly, and then ground down the backside of the flanges to get reasonable back to back spacing. 

Grinding the fillet on eight wheels would be tedious and hard to do. There's no real way to get it accurate and uniform without machine tools. It would destroy the plating. But I guess as long as I was grinding the back of the wheels.... 

Wait, the simple thing would be to have the wheels sized/shaped the right way to begin with. So they fit the wheel gage you yourself (aristo) make and sell! This isn't rocket science. Why am I spending all this time fixing a $500 product? 

I read about the problems with aristo's drive block here. Then I experienced them, after short periods of running--along with faulty wiring of the PnP socket. I never saw a word about either of these things in GR. I avoided the Consolidation because I knew the block was faulty, but wasted good money on RS-3 blocks with stainless wheels that proved to be completely unusable, with cracked axles and badly out of gage.

There's no other way to get aristo to fix these problems than to publicly call them out. I'm hoping that Scott Polk will do a better job. It'd be hard to do a worse job.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Cougar Rock Rail on 07 Mar 2012 04:55 PM 
Further to Mike's comment about hunting: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting_oscillation 

Keith 
Thanks...that's an article I can appreciate. Never even thought to look in the wiki...but I knew the term was "hunting" from reading about the 1:1 new C axle trucks. 

This article suggests another reason for these engines to be derailing...that being the "hunting" resulting in swaying of the engine (they're top heavy I'd assume). There's a part of that explanation on hunting about induced latitudinal accelerations...sideways one. Then, add any binding of the rods....and you're developing a good reason for these things to derail on straight track at any decent speed.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Don't even get me started on the SS wheels, let's just say I have a lot of them that I was promised replacements a year and a quarter ago... 

Kevin, *you *gave all the data, I used *your *data, and now *your *information matches EVERYONE ELSE'S experience...Great!

Pictures, videos, people's own experiences... all jive with *your *measurements... 


Bottom line: The wheels gage is over 45 mm, the wheels are wider than the track.[/b]

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg, part of the mis-communication stems from the fact that there is are 2-8-0s out there with literal gauge issues (such as wheels with a back-to-back near 1.600" in one instance). So when you talk about thick flanges and out-of-gauge wheels, those have very literal meanings to someone looking at things from a purely standards-driven perspective such as where I come from when I look at wheels. Wheels riding on the fillet are not the best profile, but they're not technically "out of gauge." From my standards-based perspective, that has a very specific definition. 

I noticed you're updating your web site on the 2-8-0, referencing this thread and the numbers I quoted in an earlier post. If you're going to be quoting my measurements on your web site, can you please use these numbers? These are hard numbers taken from the loco which was reviewed, leaving no room for conjecture relative to the fillet radius, etc., and eliminates any confusion as to what we're measuring. 

*Actual measurements taken:* 
Flange thickness (T) = 0.082" 
Back-to-Back (B) = 1.560" 
Wheel Width (N) = 0.270" 
Flange Depth (D) = 0.105" 

*Extrapolated measurements (per NMRA definitions):* 
Check gauge (T+B) = 1.642" 
Wheel gauge (T+B+T) = 1.724" 

Note: consistent with NMRA RP-25, the flange measurement is taken to be just the flange itself, not to include any kind of fillet. 

Fillet radius - approx. 0.050" 

All measurements are within NMRA standards with the exception of flange thickness, which exceeds standards by only .006". The fillet radius exceeds the NMRA's _recommendation_ of .020" - .030", but since it's only a recommendation, technically speaking it's not out of compliance. I'll definitely agree that the fillet is unusually large, and that given these other dimensions, the wheel rides on the fillet itself as opposed to the tread. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Kevin,
How about this. You come on out to my place with any stock 2-8-0 you want and we can run that one with my modified ones for comparison. We can argue measurements in the thousands all day long and get nowhere. I operate in the practical world. Something works like it should or it doesn't. If it doesn't I will cure it if I can or get rid of it. A firend of mine has an outdoor shelf layout that is about at eye level. We took his new 2-8-0 out of the box and tested it. Granted it runs smooth on straight track but had to fight its way through turnouts. Looking at it at eye level you could see it was riding on the fillets,center two drivers not even touching the rail. His track is Aristo with both wide and #6 turnouts. A side note here. On one of my locos we used the new wheel with the insert. On the other we used a set of the old style wheels from a mikado motor block. After turning,both sets worked equally well. 
Kevin,I really mean it about coming out. An open invitation. Bring a camera and we can have some fun.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 08 Mar 2012 01:41 AM 
....All measurements are within NMRA standards with the exception of flange thickness, which exceeds standards by only .006". The fillet radius exceeds the NMRA's _recommendation_ of .020" - .030", but since it's only a recommendation, technically speaking it's not out of compliance. I'll definitely agree that the fillet is unusually large, and that given these other dimensions, the wheel rides on the fillet itself as opposed to the tread. 



Well...there we have it. The standards are wrong for the intended purpose then. If you agree that the tread is suppose to sit on the rail, then these standards obviously don't result in meeting that requirement. I'd say they're not much good if that is the situation. It's pretty clear to me that the fillet _reommendation_ shouldn't be a recommendation. I have no idea whether the .020 to .030 is correct either...but if you can interpret the standard and have a result where the fillet is the main contact point with the rail...you CLEARLY haven't got a decent standard...well, more precisely, you got crap for a standard.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Mike

Question, just what lawful authority does the National Model Railroad Association have? As far as I know none, so the truth is for any manufacturer of model railroad equipment in the U.S. it is simply a matter of voluntary compliance if they choose to do so. Yes, I know it is theoretically better for all concerned (i.e. manufacturers & consumers alike) if they do, however, Apple sure doesn't seem to be doing so poorly by being proprietary in nature.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By SteveC on 08 Mar 2012 12:03 PM 
Mike

Question, just what lawful authority does the National Model Railroad Association have? As far as I know none, so the truth is for any manufacturer of model railroad equipment in the U.S. it is simply a matter of voluntary compliance if they choose to do so. Yes, I know it is theoretically better for all concerned (i.e. manufacturers & consumers alike) if they do, however, Apple sure doesn't seem to be doing so poorly by being proprietary in nature.









Heck, lawful compliance???...none is the answer. They're not building codes. What hurts is when there IS a standard...and it's junk. The manufacturer trusts it...and it results in a bogus product. The consumer trusts it...because it meets standards....and he gets a bum product. 

Standards aren't repaired if everyone just ignores them. This is a situation where the NMRA standard is defective IMHO. It needs repair...IF we really want the NMRA in our sandbox...and we know how much discussion has gone on regarding that...right here on good ole MLS.


Oh..and Apple isn't proprietary as most people think. I'm sure it uses LOTS of interface standards...802.11, USB, etc....just like Aristocraft tried to use the G gauge wheel standard for their wheel interface...apparently unsuccessfully.


----------



## jbram (Jan 18, 2008)

Gee: I miss Dave.!


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By jbram on 08 Mar 2012 01:27 PM 
Gee: I miss Dave.! I surely don't.


----------



## Dave Meashey (Jan 2, 2008)

"Gee: I miss Dave.!" 

As in TOC? 

Yours, 
David Meashey


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Actually, the current NMRA standards are extremely close to the G1MRA standards, which WORK, and most people are fine with. 

Some of the tolerances on the NMRA "target values" are pretty close to nuts, but that is to "grandfather in" the manufactures of thick flanges and narrow back to back. If you read the standards you can see this. 

Of course I understand the idea of getting the manufacturers on board, obviously making a standard that they cannot meet (financially or emotionally) will just alienate them... so the politics is clear. 

But, again, look at the TARGET values, and you will find a set of numbers that works quite well, and are usually within 0.001" of the G1MRA. 

Regards, Greg 

(this is also why you can state that the flange thickness and fillet are close spec, because of wide tolerances allowed)


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Mike, I'm open for discussion on how to improve them. If there's a loophole, let's try to close it. I can easily lobby to modify the language to specify that the fillet cannot exceed the recommended range. (We didn't think we'd need to specify something that common-sensical, but nothing is foolproof.) E-mail me. 

Paul, I'll gladly come visit, controversy or not. I'd love to see your railroad (even with those ugly metal boxes you call "locomotives.") 

Later, 

K


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Well...my two bits on the standard would be:

a. TOTALLY get rid of any loose standards designed to "grandfather" old designs into "compliance". I do NOT see that this serves a useful purpose. We should set the standard for going FORWARD...and forget about the older designs. I'd LOVE to see Aristo come out with a rerun of an old car...but one the box be able to say "New Trucks....full compliant with NMRA standard XYZ". Heck...folks might actually buy another car just because of that. And...I don't care if I have an older car that is NOT compliant...I'll figure out how to get-er-done...and run it...or not.


b. I like the way International Brotherhood of Live Steamers wrote their standards at http://www.prairiestaterr.org/postings/IBLS Standards.pdf. 



What they have there look like target values...don't know what to say about tolerances.


c. I think it's OK to improve standards...and NOT go for the end all all at once. Perhaps the G1MRA standard is a first step...or a tightening up of the current NMRA standard...I really don't know. Look at wireless ethernet...it went from 802.11a to b to c to n to u.


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

This entire discussion for the past couple of weeks about the dimensions on Aristo's 2-8-0, could have been resolved in manufacturing and assembly by using standards that every professional engineer on this site is very familiar. Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing, Y 14.5-2009. Every print used in manufacturing and assembly today has these "funny looking" little symbols next to every dimension to make EVERY dimension ABSOLUTELY clear and precise. No question to the person machining the part AND NO question to the inspector checking the part. I would bet that the prints that Aristo uses for the manufacturing of there products in China OR any other part of the for that matter, knows GD&T. 

Link to GD&T Y14.5.









http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomet...olerancing


----------



## Bruce Chandler (Jan 2, 2008)

Well, my two cents... 

Here's a shot of my Aristo Pacific drivers... 










Not good...and from way back when...


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Talk about a "picture is worth 1000 words"!!!!!!!!!!! Woof.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yeah, also notice these wheels have virtually no fillet.

An example of back to back so undergage that the loco rides up out of the switch: (the left wheel is not on the rail any more)


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

I went back through my existing photos to see if I had anything that shows the turned wheels on the Aristo 2-8-0. This is the best I could do. At some point I will get some closer shots. Anyway,you can see that it now sits nicely on the treads like it should. The track is Sunset Valley code 250 aluminum.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

So:

if the wheel rides on the fillet (as you say below)
then
the wheel is not riding on the tread (the fillet is not part of the tread)
therefore
by definition, the wheel gauge is too wide.

I won't put your "data" on my site as you have given it because it is INACCURATE and IMCOMPLETE, and DECEPTIVE as presented, you have "cheated" by not really including the distance from the tread to the backside of the wheel in your "flange thickness", you have "lost" the fillet "width".

This allows you to claim that the flanges are only slightly too wide and the wheel gauge is ok, when really this is far from the truth.

If you had given these three measurements

back to back
flange width not including fillet
"fillet width" (from flange width to tread)

Then it would work, it would be complete data, and not deceptive... but it would only underscore what I have been stating over and over... blame it on too thick of a flange or too thick of the sum of the flange and the fillet... whatever... the gauge of the wheel... measured from the TREAD is over 45 mm... per YOUR data.

Greg

Posted By East Broad Top on 08 Mar 2012 01:41 AM 
Greg, part of the mis-communication stems from the fact that there is are 2-8-0s out there with literal gauge issues (such as wheels with a back-to-back near 1.600" in one instance). So when you talk about thick flanges and out-of-gauge wheels, those have very literal meanings to someone looking at things from a purely standards-driven perspective such as where I come from when I look at wheels. Wheels riding on the fillet are not the best profile, but they're not technically "out of gauge." From my standards-based perspective, that has a very specific definition. 

I noticed you're updating your web site on the 2-8-0, referencing this thread and the numbers I quoted in an earlier post. If you're going to be quoting my measurements on your web site, can you please use these numbers? These are hard numbers taken from the loco which was reviewed, leaving no room for conjecture relative to the fillet radius, etc., and eliminates any confusion as to what we're measuring. 

*Actual measurements taken:* 
Flange thickness (T) = 0.082" 
Back-to-Back (B) = 1.560" 
Wheel Width (N) = 0.270" 
Flange Depth (D) = 0.105" 

*Extrapolated measurements (per NMRA definitions):* 
Check gauge (T+B) = 1.642" 
Wheel gauge (T+B+T) = 1.724" 

Note: consistent with NMRA RP-25, the flange measurement is taken to be just the flange itself, not to include any kind of fillet. 

Fillet radius - approx. 0.050" 

All measurements are within NMRA standards with the exception of flange thickness, which exceeds standards by only .006". The fillet radius exceeds the NMRA's _recommendation_ of .020" - .030", but since it's only a recommendation, technically speaking it's not out of compliance. I'll definitely agree that the fillet is unusually large, and that given these other dimensions, the wheel rides on the fillet itself as opposed to the tread. 

Later, 

K


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

So if the wheel rides on the fillet, then the wheel is not riding on the tread. By definition, the wheel gauge is too wide. QED 
No, Greg, not by NMRA, G1MRA, or prototype definitions. The fillet is considered part of the wheel tread. Therefore even if the wheel is riding on an unusually large fillet, it is still--by definition--riding on the wheel tread. See Mike's drawing above that clearly illustrates that. Yes, the wheel rides on the fillet. No, that's not ideal. But since I have to use concrete definitions associated with standards when writing reviews for consistency from one review to the next, I cannot consider that a wheel riding on a fillet to be "out of gauge" when by definition it is not, even if it is not "ideal." I can't tweak the concrete definitions to suit my whims. That's why they're defined in black-and-white. For the purposes of my reviews, the fillet is part of the wheel tread, period, end of story. It's defined by the standards organizations against which I measure the wheels. 

Obviously you disagree with that assessment, and I can only agree to disagree. Those are the measurements I took, those are the standards and definitions against which I determine whether a wheel is in compliance. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 21 May 2013 08:05 PM 
So if the wheel rides on the fillet, then the wheel is not riding on the tread. By definition, the wheel gauge is too wide. QED 
No, Greg, not by NMRA, G1MRA, or prototype definitions. The fillet is considered part of the wheel tread. Therefore even if the wheel is riding on an unusually large fillet, it is still--by definition--riding on the wheel tread. See Mike's drawing above that clearly illustrates that. Yes, the wheel rides on the fillet..... 

Later, 

K 
Kevin...go back and look at that drawing. In prototype, the fillet is NOT consider part of the WHEEL TREAD...and the wheel is supposed to NOT ride on the fillet. If in NMRA or GIMRA standard the fillet is consider wheel tread...then those standard are wrong. 

That Armstrong drawing CLEARLY shows that the distance from the outside of the fillet to the outside of the fillet on the other side should be equal to the gauge of the track...in our case, 45mm...the TRACK GAUGE.

Note also, that's NOT how Mr. Armstrong defined "wheel gauge". He measures that from inside of flange to the inside of the flange on the other side. The difference between the track gauge (inner tread edge to inner tread edge on the other side) and the wheel gauge (inner flange edge to inner flange edge on the other side) is twice the width of the fillet. 

So...if the fillets are too big, then the engine rides on the fillet...and hunts...and that is WRONG.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The resurrection of this thread is from accusations by Mr. Strong that I refused to put his "data" on my web site. 

I may be a lot of things, but purveying incomplete or just plain erroneous information is out of the question and accusing me of not allowing said "data" on my site is deceptive and underhanded. 

It's made worse by Mr. Strong bragging on the same thread that he wrote the standards, and yet still cannot separate the fillet from the tread. 

Unfortunately I feel compelled to defend my honor to the few people who are fooled by twisted logic and doubletalk. 

It sucks to have to do something like this, but I'll not take this lying down Mr. Strong. 

Greg


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Did we just go from an 2012 discussion to today on this page?? 

I would still love one day to have one of these Connie's...but I'd have to do alot of fixes...like losing the pilot wheels....and grinding the center wheels to create blind drivers(since AC thinks we don't deserve a small engine model that can take a tighter than 8' dia curve)....then maybe it would work on my layout. 

,,,but I sure as shuck ain't going going to fork out a bucket full of cash for a factory NIB just to carve it up with the hope it will work on my R1s and LGB turnouts.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Mike, in your drawing, the line that determines the _wheel gauge_ is right in line with the edge of the flange--the transition point between concave and convex, denoted by the big long vertical line on both wheels. That's the AAR definition of wheel gauge (at least per the research I did), and is reflected in NMRA and G1MRA definitions. In terms of measurements, the fillet is part of the tread. I'm open to evidence to the contrary--something that shows that the fillet is part of the flange instead of the tread. I never found it, and the NMRA folks are pretty OC in their definitions when it comes to being based on prototype practice. 

I understand that from a prototype perspective, the wheel is not supposed to ride on the fillet; it's there to keep the wheels centered on the track. That's reflected in your drawing where the outside edge of the fillet is in line with the track gauge. If the fillet on the Aristo wheel was within the range recommended by the standards (between .020" and .030") it, too, would look very similar to the Armstrong drawing with regard to the outside edge of the fillet. That difference between wheel and track gauge is largely where the recommended radius for the fillet comes from. 

Greg, I requested that you put the most recent measurements on your web site because they are the most accurate, direct measurements available to the discussion, and left nothing to interpretation. I asked you to post them for the very reason you state--that you want the most accurate information on your web site. The previous numbers were not as accurate as they could be, hence the confusion. If you think these revised numbers are "erroneous" or "incomplete," I don't know what other numbers I can provide. They're more accurate and complete than the previous set, and cover all the dimensions the NMRA and G1MRA mention for wheels. 

Bottom line, we're at lagerheads... the two of you want to group the fillet with the flange, but I'm bound by a definition that doesn't allow for that. I get where you're coming from, and in some ways I wish I had the flexibility to agree with you. But so long as I've got to retain consistency in my published reviews, I've got to anchor myself to established definitions, and they do not allow me to group the fillet with the flange. It doesn't get any more black-and-white than that. I get why you feel my numbers are wrong because you feel I should be grouping the flange with the fillet. If you cannot accept my definition and why I cannot make that leap, we're going nowhere. 

Later, 

K


----------



## astrayelmgod (Jan 2, 2008)

"Did we just go from an 2012 discussion to today on this page?? " 

I have a terrier who is the same way about bones... just can't let it go.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Okay, here are some drawings to illustrate my position that the flange thickness is measured independent of the fillet. First, the prototype. This comes from the Proto48 web site, showing the prototype measurements and how they scale to Proto48. (I couldn't quickly find an AAR drawing that was so clear-cut.) 

*Prototype: *









T is the flange width, W is the tread width. W _includes_ the fillet; T does not. 

*NMRA's RP25: *









Here again, W includes the fillet, T does not. 

*NEM/MOROP: *









Again, T does not include the fillet. These standards do not list a specific tread width, ostensibly it's the wheel width minus the flange width. 

*G1MRA: *








While difficult to tell on this drawing, E is the flange width, B is the tread width. B includes the fillet 

And for good measure, some other ones for ride-on-type scales: 


















None of these examples group the fillet of the flange with the flange thickness. These are the standards from all the major hobby associations, and they're all consistent with prototype practice. That's why I use these conventional definitions--so manufacturers can't come back and say "that's not how we measure things" if they disagree with a review. It's obvious Greg and Mike disagree with my review, and this entire thread seems to be centered on them saying "that's not how we measure things." Well, here's the conventions I'm using, and why I use them. Agree, disagree, I don't care. I've given you my data and my definitions. I stand firmly behind my conclusions.

Later,

K


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 22 May 2013 01:10 AM 
Okay, here are some drawings to illustrate my position that the flange thickness is measured independent of the fillet. First, the prototype. This comes from the Proto48 web site, showing the prototype measurements and how they scale to Proto48. (I couldn't quickly find an AAR drawing that was so clear-cut.) 

*Prototype: *









T is the flange width, W is the tread width. W _includes_ the fillet; T does not. 

*NMRA's RP25: *









Here again, W includes the fillet, T does not. 

*NEM/MOROP: *









Again, T does not include the fillet. These standards do not list a specific tread width, ostensibly it's the wheel width minus the flange width. 

*G1MRA: *








While difficult to tell on this drawing, E is the flange width, B is the tread width. B includes the fillet 

And for good measure, some other ones for ride-on-type scales: 


















None of these examples group the fillet of the flange with the flange thickness. These are the standards from all the major hobby associations, and they're all consistent with prototype practice. That's why I use these conventional definitions--so manufacturers can't come back and say "that's not how we measure things" if they disagree with a review. It's obvious Greg and Mike disagree with my review, and this entire thread seems to be centered on them saying "that's not how we measure things." Well, here's the conventions I'm using, and why I use them. Agree, disagree, I don't care. I've given you my data and my definitions. I stand firmly behind my conclusions.

Later,

K
Hey guys,

Los Angeles Live Steamers follows the 1:1 prototype profile at the top. I have been machining wheels for club projects AND my own ride-on stuff for 30 plus years. Kevin, your comment, "None of these examples group the fillet of the flange with the flange thickness", is true. I replied to this thread a year or so ago regarding this same problem. It has to do with "theoretical intersecting points with respect to PARTIAL FILLETS. When I layed out a forging die part in a forging die and we had partial fillets just like this, it becomes quite "dicey" to verify this dimension with an inspector. Fitting templates to made either by hand or NC'ed and turned in to the inspecter to nail down the accuracy of the intersecting point. AND I was dealing with tolerances far "tighter" than what we are discussing here! That type of area CANNOT be measured by caliper or micrometer, IMHO, unless checked by a CMM(Coordinate Measuring Machine) OR the point is trigged out to a point ABOVE the fillet on the angled wall. OTHERWISE this is ALL guesswork and theory. I have had "discussions" with many engineers during my forty years in the trade and I would have to make gages or templates to show them that what I had was correct. I and a couple of other toolmakers made the track gauge that we use now at LALS to check engines and rolling stock for correct back to back, flange thickness, fillet size and wheel gauge. It has been used there for over twenty five years and immediately put a halt to arguments as is occuring here on MLS. I will try to scan OUR drawing of the wheel profile and dimensions and tolerances and post them here later today.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Captain Obvious has asked me to point out that real rails as well as our own are not flat on top and the corners where the fillets roam are rounded off. The section of rail in my front yard clearly is rounded on top.... The area of contact is about a dimes worth. 

Carry on. 

John


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

@Kevin, I see your point, but (I'll pull a Hillary) What difference does it make? I actually think of the wheel profile having three parts...flange, fillet, and tread...but I'll accept your definition that the fillet is part of the tread. I'm not trying to argue what is what...I define a wheel in three pieces (flange, fillet, and tread)...you (and everyone else apparently) define it in two pieces. That leads to communication difficulties...which are unintended. 

All I'm trying to say is that the standards should emphasize that (when the back to back is proper) the flat part of the wheel tread (not including the fillet) should sit flat on the track...and the fillet should NOT sit on the track when the wheel set is centered on the track. So...when the standard ALLOWS a wheel fillet to sit on the rail head when the wheel set is centered on the track...Houston, we have a problem...with the standard. 

The radius of the fillet should clearly be spec'd in the standard such that the wheels on each side sit on the flat part of the tread...and NOT the fillet part of the tread. To me...there's really two critical requirements for the wheel set...the back to back (so it can go through turnouts right) and the distance between the inner flat part of the tread and the inner flat part of the tread on the other side...which needs to be close to the track gauge (so that the wheel sits flat on the track). 

Thus, with proper back to back spacing set, if the wheel profile results in the wheel sitting on the fillet, then it's my contention that the standard wasn't tight enough. 

Those, to me, are the two overarching requirements for a wheel design. 

If it were me, I'd have a spec on the MAXIMUM distance between the inside of the flange across the wheel profile (where one would measure back to back) to the point where the fillet ends and the flat part of the tread starts...instead of how all those standards you posted are drawn. I know that won't help someone write a CNC routine...but it would establish perhaps the most crucial specification for a wheel profile. 

As I said earlier, I think we'd be much further ahead IF the NMRA only focused on a standard to use in the future. I see nothing to gain by grandfathering old designs. What we're trying to do is get a working standard that the manufacturers voluntarily accept.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The real bottom line: 

The locomotive does not ride on the rail top as it should, it rides on a ridiculous "fillet" and the tread of the wheel does not always contact the rail head (and on mine, never!). 

There are numerous videos and personal testimonies that this is true and results in "waddling" and derailments and poor pulling power.

So whatever word play is there, the review in GR left out the wheel gauge... that much is incontestable. 

Kevin admits that the loco runs on the "fillet" and says everything is OK. 

Irrespective of verbal jousting, the customer should make his own determination. Those of you who have one know what the situation is. It's a shame so much work is going into "defending" something that is not right, and then accusing me of not allowing this "data" onto my web site when the concern should be for us, the customers, the hobbyists, the people who make the industry possible. 

I'll be sure to document this effort on my web site, and in my opinion, it is deceptive, and bad for the hobby, not just the poor people who might buy one and have difficulty. 

Greg


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Bruce Chandler on 08 Mar 2012 06:53 PM 
Well, my two cents... 

Here's a shot of my Aristo Pacific drivers... 










Not good...and from way back when...


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Apparently it was a gift from Aristo to Kevin, after the review, since Kevin still has it. Luckily he has the only one I know of that has no problems. 

I wish I was that lucky, tuly... because I have a loco that I cannot operate, and I cannot turn the wheels down to get the gauge back since I run track power, and pot metal is lousy for power pickup.

Greg


----------



## VictorSpear (Oct 19, 2011)

The history of railroad mishaps has seen more than sufficient evidence of the catastrophic results of thermodynamic stress fatigue due to riding the fillet. One of the largest carriers of freight and passengers in the millions - Indian Railways among others - has published a significant report on this after a a colossal accident. Dynamic and thermal stress fatigue from heavily laden and uncontrolled fillet incursions at high speed, inducing hairline wheel cracks that can only measured by ultrasonic methods, has resulted in numerous accidents and - death. 

One doesn't have to wait for 'Kevin to 'lobby' against a gross oversight in an important specification. A postcard to the NMRA office in Chattanooga should be more than sufficient if enough such arrive and jam their mailbox.

Cheers,
Victor


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

and pot metal is lousy for power pickup.Not so great for strength and wear either.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

This may sound like a dumb question, but is it possible to take one of the drivers off each axle and add a small washer of suitable thickness to the back of the wheel? Or is the end of the axle tapered so that increasing the length of the BTB wouldn't work, because the wheel would wobble?

I had thought about getting one, but now I'm glad I didn't.


Chuck


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Chuck... doing that would exacerbate the fillet problem which is too wide already.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Thus, with proper back to back spacing set, if the wheel profile results in the wheel sitting on the fillet, then it's my contention that the standard wasn't tight enough. 
No argument from me. When we started out evaluating the wheels to write the standards, few (if any) were even using fillets on their wheels. Since the NMRA's wheel standards don't specifically mandate a fillet of any variety, we made the recommendation of .020" - .030". I wish we could mandate it, but we can only recommend it. (Note that their "RP25" wheel profile is also just a "recommendation." It's just been around long enough for people to take them up on it. To be honest, given that few wheel manufacturers were even _considering_ fillets, the thought that someone would jump to the opposite extreme didn't even enter our thought process. We thought it would be pulling hens' teeth just to get them to include them in the first place. Of course, since there's no evidence one way or the other that Aristo even looked at the standards, you can't use this one instance to judge the standards one way or the other. If they followed them--including the recommendations on the fillet--we wouldn't be having this discussion. 

As I said earlier, I think we'd be much further ahead IF the NMRA only focused on a standard to use in the future. I see nothing to gain by grandfathering old designs. What we're trying to do is get a working standard that the manufacturers voluntarily accept. 
In a Utopian world, that's the way to do business. And we could very easily have done that. Problem is, there's not a large scale manufacturer making trains who would even look at them if that were the case. They've got the market share, so if we want the standards to have even the slightest effect on the hobby, they've got to be made relevant to the manufacturers who are _already_ making trains. You've got to get their attention if you want them to follow you. The standards can always be refined down the road. And feedback on forums like this is instrumental to making those refinements. Relying on upstarts to lead the way in that regard simply doesn't work. You've got to get the big forces behind you. 

Fortunately, while the manufacturers don't necessarily listen to the NMRA, they do listen to their customers. Aristo-Craft is famous (notorious?) for changing wheel profiles in response to consumers--as was seen most recently with the PCC and with the wheels on the 2-8-0. They've re-profiled the wheel to have a smaller fillet. Again, I don't know if that new wheel has made it into production yet, but at one point I did see drawings of the refinements. 

Kevin admits that the loco runs on the "fillet" and says everything is OK. 
That's a fair assessment. The locomotive ran very well wherever I ran it, and continues to provide reliable service for its owner. I readily acknowledge others' experiences with this locomotive, and I use their experiences as a guide to help me look for particular areas of concern. Since the locomotive came out, I've heard both sides... people like Paul Burch who had to re-work the locomotive to get it to track reliably, and others who say they don't have any running issues at all. (Can't explain why you haven't heard those positive tales, Greg, but they're out there.) I can only write the review based on my firsthand account with the locomotive on hand. Others' experiences are hearsay. If I didn't witness it to know all the circumstances surrounding it, I can't support any conclusions I might want to draw, no matter how much I trust the source. With the review, I'm saying "this is what _I_ found," not "this is a collection of unsupported anecdotal evidence I found on the 'net." The dangers of libel are real, and I've got to be able to soundly defend my statements to those who disagree with my conclusions. I can't do that telling a 2nd-hand story. It's not that I don't trust the source, but it's my reputation, and I won't risk it on someone else's story good or bad. 

The reality is that a magazine product review is one tool in the consumer's playbook. That's where forums like this come in. This is where individuals can share their personal experiences in aggregate, and a consumer can read the good and the bad, and read about the circumstances surrounding different peoples' different experiences and how they frame their conclusions. That's precisely why this is the "Product Review" forum on MLS. Greg can post his experiences, I can post mine, Joe Schmoe can post his, and Sally Jane can read all of them and decide if the loco is right for her. 

Also a question for Kevin... are there any suspicions that a sample heading for a reviewer may be "tweaked" beforehand? 
No, in fact the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. I've received product samples that are just outright defective. When I get locos from Aristo-Craft, Bachmann, or Accucraft, they're still boxed and wrapped as they left the factory. 

Apparently it was a gift from Aristo to Kevin, after the review, since Kevin still has it. 
It's the manufacturer's prerogative as to whether they want an item returned or not. It's used merchandise that's typically been abused to some extent that they can't sell as "new" anymore if they do want it back, it's a tax write-off if they don't. That's just how business is done. There's a lot of criticism of that model, but it's very common in many circles, not just model trains. All the more reason for us as reviewers to be able to remain vigilant about being able to defend any conclusions we might draw. 

Later, 

K


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Dwight, I asked that because the wheels in both of your pictures don't appear to have a rounded fillet. The angle between the tread and the flange appears sharp, not rounded. It also looks as if a slight increase in the length would permit the wheel to drop into the gap between the frog and the rail. There seems to be ample room for the flange in the gap on the right side, with or without a fillet (if it isn't rounded is join still called a fillet?). If it won't work, it won't. Just an uninformed suggestion. Chuck


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Chuck, all aristo locos with the "prime mover" gearboxes have tapered tips on the axles, so regauging the wheels is impossible without special parts. 

But the problem is not only incorrect back to back (varies between locos), but overly thick flanges (at the base), so that it is mathematically impossible to get back to back AND gauge correct at the same time. (This is really at the beginning of this thread). 

Now, this year some of the diesels came with PERFECT wheels... ALL dimensions were right on, back to back, gauge, flange depth, flange thickness.... these are on the Dash-9's shipped this year. 

Unfortunately, there has been a radical change since then, and we have new problems on the SD-45... but I don't want to divert from the main point. 

I had issue with the GR review, the wheel gauge was not specified in the review. 

Virtually everyone on the planet had running and derailment issues with this loco. I bought one... it was clear what the problem was immediately, before putting calipers on. 

Kevin was and is convinced that there is an alternate explanation, that the gauge is not wrong, the fillet is part of the tread, and since the loco is running on the fillet, then it's ok.. 

The consolidation setup is different from the previous steamers, the wheel contours (huge fillet, overly thick flange, poor flange contour, etc.) are pretty much the same, but older Aristo had proper gauge, but narrow back to back. 

So with switches with overly wide flangeways (most toy-derived switches)... this was accommodated... they ran ok on track and pretty sloppy on switches. This is kind of the LGB legacy which we have inherited with USAT and Aristo cars and locos... 

Now the machining of the fit between the axle and the wheel was changed slightly in the Consolidation, and the back to back was set properly... but with the existing wheel contour problems, now the gauge is wrong. 
*
Until the wheel contour changes (like has been done on the diesels)... it will be IMPOSSIBLE to have both back to back and gauge correct at the same time. *

Regards, Greg


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks Greg, it was just an idea. Chuck. ps if you want a couple of swipes analyzed, send me an email, I got approval the other day.


----------

