# Aristo consolidation problem



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

I received two consolidations yesterday and have a major problem with both of them. The wheel gauge is wide on them. So wide on several axles that the tread doesn't set flat on the rail. They will both derail,even on 8.5' radius curves. Anyone else get any like these or am I just lucky? I'm going to call Navin at Aristo and see what they want to do. It would appear at first glance that the metal sleeve on the newly designed wheel isn't seated far enough. Right now I'm a little pissed off after waiting all this time for thses locos to be released. Maybe I should wait a while before calling Navin.


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm sorry to hear this Paul. I know you have waited a long time for these. Quality Control again! These locomotives should have been checked BEFORE delivery. Bummer.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

That's very disappointing, and frustrating. Lewis posted that the new wheel arrangement makes it "difficult, if not impossible" to remove the wheels. You should call Aristo, and they will probably say "send them back in.". Could you post pictures?


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

I did briefly get hold of Navin. He says back to back spacing should be no more than 39.8mm. I'm reading as much as 41mm.


----------



## Stan Cedarleaf (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Paul Burch on 20 Jul 2011 11:52 AM 
I did briefly get hold of Navin. He says back to back spacing should be no more than 39.8mm. I'm reading as much as 41mm.
That's quite interesting, Paul... As far as I know, that's the first incident reported of any problem with it. All other reports have been very positive. 

Did Navin have a solution????


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

On some of my aristo locos which were out of gage (too narrow) I was able to get them passably in spec by thinning down the back of the wheels/flanges. One of the weaknesses of the aristo motor block is the difficulty in setting back to back spacing. I guess the new bushing they've installed is the problem?


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Well we should know shortly as to the difficulty of removal of the wheels and such. So far no one that has bought them has given us any info at all on the wheel removal or attachment of such. Yes I guess if the back to vack is off then its off to the lath to correct. Later RJD


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

I will talk to Navin again tomorrow. I went out today and bought a new set of calipers. Here are my measurements off just the front axle on one of the locos. Back to back 40.4mm. Tread width 3.34mm. 40.4plus two times 3.34= 47.08mm. I used the same calipers to measure a piece of Aristo track at 45.2mm. The tread to tread on that axle is 1.88mm wider than the track. I have a fairly sharp 5' radius curve on my indoor storage yard that these locos will derail on everytime but my friends mallet will go through just fine along with all twenty of my other locos. They also derail on my loop that is 8.5' RADIUS. I do use Sunset Valley track but don't have any trouble with any other equipment. Anyone who has run on my layout can attest to the smoothness of my track. 
I will call Navin again tomorrow with my measurements and see what they want to do.
Please don't turn this into a flame war. It's already headed that way. I'm just reporting my own experience to see if anyone else is having problems. or maybe fairly isolated from one bad assembly day at the factory. I sure would like to get some measurements from someone who is not having problems.


----------



## jmill24 (Jan 11, 2008)

Paul, I just measured mine tonight and all four pairs of drivers measure 39.8 mm back to back.........................Jim

P.S. Smallest radius tested is 6.5 feet.


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks Jim.
That is the maximum they should be according to Navin. Since we are talking possible too wide spacing could you measure the tread to tread where the flange meets the tread. My guess is you will be somewhere over 46mm.


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Let us know, what gets me is if there is a problem , then that is called, "the truth". Those who have no proplems must be "untruth"?


----------



## jmill24 (Jan 11, 2008)

Paul, that's a tough measurement to take due to the fillet. I measured the flanges outside to outside where the flange is perpendicular. Took measurement twice as a check because it varied a little each time.

44.27 to 44.10
44.00 to 43.85
44.16 to 44.10
44.04 to 43.66

It generaly looks like 44 mm................Jim


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Paul I think your problem is two fold, your curves, and the engine is to light.
 
I think your curves are just to tight for this engine. 
I know Aristo says the minimum diameter is 8ft but I think thats pushing it, I would say 10ft with this engine.
Here is my reasoning, and yes I have all of the mentioned engines.
 
I think Aristo got the min diameter from the Mikado's and Mallet's min diameter since they all use the same motor block you would figure that they would have the same diameter.
The problem with that is the weight of the engines, with Connie's at 8lbs 9ozs it is much much lighter both the Mikado at 12lbs and the Mallet at 16lbs.
 
I have found that the lighter the rolling stock the more issues you will have with track work and curve radius, 
(just try running a doodle bug unweighted and you will see what I mean







) which is why the Mallet can negotiate your curves, and the Connie derails.
 
I think if you add the extra weight you will find that it will stay on the track just fine. Aristo Craft has approved an extra 6lbs with no warranty problems.
It is a simple thing to try out before you go through all the hassle of shipping it back and waiting for it to return, 
not to mention still having the same problem when you get it back *IF* it is the light weight and your curves thats causing the derailments.
 
Of course the other thing you can do is to make your curves larger, which I would think is not an option for you







.
 
Ron


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Ron,
Not to be inflamatory or anything but 10ft. radius curves as _minimum? _I don't know anybody (well, except Marty and Richard) that has a layout that large! My minimum radius is 5ft on my inner loop but even my outer loop has to use a parabolic arch that starts with 10ft. radius and sharpens to 5ft. for a couple of feet. I've seen the locomotive in question at the NGRC in Kansas City and it is relatively small! For something that small to require a layout that massive to even stay on the tracks is......_unwise _ (I was going to say something incindiary like "ridiculous" or "insane" but thought better of it...) at least from a business point of view! Now, if you mean 8ft._ diameter_, then it makes a lot more sense!


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

He meant diameter..that's obvious. 
8 foot diameter is a well-known benchmark in the hobby.. 
its a "minimum" often used by Aristo and other manufacturers these days.. 
no one ever talks about 8 foot radius or 16 foot diameter!  
its very obvious he meant diameter. 

Scot


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Just clarifying Scot. Just clarifying... (C'mon guys, lighten up! It seems pretty clear that the 2-8-0's in question were assembled incorrectly! I'm curious as to how Aristo will deal with this situation.)


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

me too!  
clarifying is good.. 

this brings up a topic I have suggested before: 
I think we should make an effort, as a hobby, (or maybe just as a forum) to always refer to curves in Diameter only.. 
Diameter makes so much sense that radius, because its the full circle, not half of the circle! 
and if everyone did that, minor confusion like this would go away.. 

Ron *was* talking in diameter!  which makes sense, because everyone understands the "8 foot diameter minimum" thing.. 
he just made the mistake of "thinking diameter, but saying radius".. 

who's with me!  
always talk about curves in diameter only!  

Scot


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Yes guys I meant DIAMETER, my bad. 
It has been corrected . (Geezze Steve slow day in Kansas?? LOL jk bud) 

As for this being a "small" engine I think that's incorrect, the plastic shell may be small it's motor block is not. 
The saying be careful what you wish for... comes to mind. 
This engine was supposed to have blind drivers, which would have made small curves easy to handle. 
The backlash to blind drivers was so high that Aristo changed their mind and made them all flanged. 
I guess they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. 

Ron


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

The thing that I don't quite understand is, after Paul's statement regarding the gauge of the locomotive's wheel sets, just exactly why the curvature of the track is of any importance at this point.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The Consolidation should handle curves the same as the Mikado. As far as I can tell, it's the same motor block/driver diameters. 

The new bushing has probably caused new measurements. 

Like the new PCC car with a new drive train, there is a problem. 

The back to back on my loco is around 39.8mm to 40.5 mm. This is fine. 

BUT! The gage of the wheels is related to the back to back AND the flange thickness. 

For the back to back to be right and the gage to be right, the flange thickness needs to be in spec too. 

If you check the NMRA and G1MRA specs, you will find that flange thickness needs to be NO MORE than 1.5 mm.... 

Well, if you measure the flange thickness away from the tread (not really right), I get 2.3 mm !!! 

And if you measure it where it starts away from the tread, with a very large radius fillet, you can measure 3.3 mm. 

Therein lies the explanation. It is impossible with this wheel contour to achieve NMRA or G1MRA specifications... 

Given this extreme flange thickness, and poor wheel contour, you have 2 choices: 

Set the back to back properly. You get proper operation through switches and guardrails, but the locomotive literally does not contact both rails on a given axle... the loco will appear to walk up and out of the rails. 

OR 

Set the gage properly. The loco will run fine on curves and straights, but most likely derail and pick the frog point on switches. 

I'll be going into more detail on my review thread, but I wanted to measure my loco to add to the data. 

I see that Aristo is trying to improve, but darn it, why don't they check with someone that understands track and wheel specifications first? 

I'm going to either machine the flanges, like I did on the PCC, or turn them down and make replacement nickel silver or stainless tires.. for ALL my Aristo steamers... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Posted By SteveC on 20 Jul 2011 10:31 PM 
The thing that I don't quite understand is, after Paul's statement regarding the gauge of the locomotive's wheel sets, just exactly why the curvature of the track is of any importance at this point.


The reason I mention it was because the lighter the engine and the tighter the curve the more critical everything else becomes.
I measured my Mikado, Mallet, Connie and all mine and they are between 40.25-40.54 mm and I have zero problems, But I also have much larger curves. 
I was just trying to give him an option to try before going through the hassle of sending it back, and maybe it still will have issues because of track work or motor block size. 

Ron


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Ron, what is the gage of your wheelsets? 

Please measure BEFORE the fillet leading to the flange, i.e. the flat part of the tread. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

OK, you do mean from the inner part of the flange to the other inner part of the flange correct?, if so mine went from 43.89mm on the lowest to 44.83mm on the highest.

As my other thought wouldn't the fact that the Connie is 3 1/3 to 7 1/3 pounds lighter than the other two engines that share it's motor block also be an issue as to diameter sensitivity?

Ron


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

No, I mean the actual part of the wheels that sit on the rails... You measure up until the tread starts curving towards the flange. This is the operational part of the wheel that will ride on the rail head. 

Due to the huge fillet (curve between tread of wheel and flange itself), it may be difficult to measure. 

Your calipers will NOT be touching the flange. 


The goal is to measure the "narrowest" dimension of the treads of the wheel. The tread is the angled flat part. The fillet is the connector between the flange and the tread.










Greg


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By BodsRailRoad on 20 Jul 2011 11:04 PM 
Posted By SteveC on 20 Jul 2011 10:31 PM 
The thing that I don't quite understand is, after Paul's statement regarding the gauge of the locomotive's wheel sets, just exactly why the curvature of the track is of any importance at this point.
The reason I mention it was because the lighter the engine and the tighter the curve the more critical everything else becomes.
I measured my Mikado, Mallet, Connie and all mine and they are between 40.25-40.54 mm and I have zero problems, But I also have much larger curves. 
I was just trying to give him an option to try before going through the hassle of sending it back, and maybe it still will have issues because of track work or motor block size. 

Ron 
Ron

I understand what you're saying and why. However, since Paul has already stated that the width from the outside of the flange to the outside of the opposite flange on the same axle won't allow the respective wheel treads to rest on the rail head on a section of straight track. He's not to the point of having to consider the concern of a light engine on a tight turn yet, that's all.


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 20 Jul 2011 11:26 PM 
No, I mean the actual part of the wheels that sit on the rails... just exactly what I said... You measure up until the tread starts curving towards the flange. This is the operational part of the wheel that will ride on the rail head. 

Due to the huge fillet (curve between tread of wheel and flange itself), it may be difficult to measure. 

Greg 


Ahh ok one sec, brb.


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Ok I measured them all as close as I could and they measure from a small of 45.60mm to the largest of 46.30mm.

I also measured the track from flat part of the railhead to flat part and it's at 47mm, 45.3mm edge to edge.

Ron


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yep, sounds too close.. your wheel gage should be about 43 mm, not more... you can see this in the NMRA standard and the G1MRA standard. 

This is the problem. The track gage should be about 45. So you see with 45.6 to 46.3 trying to fit inside 45 does not work. 

This is caused by setting the right back to back, but having flanges way too thick, which "widens" the gage on the wheels, and makes them too wide to fit on the track. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Hmm I must not be measuring it right becuase if that were the case I'd have tons of issues, and yet I have none.

I did check one of my older Mikados and you can see where the plating is starting to rub off and it's only right at the flange curve and is only about 1.5 mm wide.

Ron


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Nope I rechecked it and its pretty close give or take .2 or.3 mm.

Just for giggles Greg I placed one of my Mikado's on a piece of track on an elevated table and back lit it.

I was really supprised to see that it basically rides on the curved flange area, and almost none of the flat actually contacts the rail







.

Stranged thing is this Mikado's run flawlesly all day long pulling 12 coal cars.

Ron


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Unfortunate geometry, but then your comment about adding weight is actually operational... My mikado was seriously undergauge, but they were all over the map... 

The commonality is thick flanges... 

The very pronounced fillet may be the saving grace here... 

Greg


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Ron,
My mainline radius is 10'. My branchline coming from my indoor storage is 8.5' radius which neither one of my consolidations will negotiate. My indoor tests are on 5' radius which these should handle but will not. Greg has this right. He is looking at the total width of the gauge just like I Have been saying. Measuring the back to back is fine when looking for undergauge but when its overgauge the back to back has to be considered along with the flange width. I could have a machinist rework the flanges and make them run like a top but I shouldn't have to.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm also concerned that the flanges are overthick because of the material the wheels are made of. I call it pot metal, but I don't feel that the metal is strong enough to handle a really thin flange, like the all steel wheels of Aristo diesels. Pot metal can be brittle. 

Also, if to make these right, the flange needs to be machined thinner, and on the "wheel tread" side, I have a concern that machining off the plating will cause corrosion or oxidation problems. Since I am track power, this is a concern. 

(on the diesels and the PCC car, you can machine the back side of the wheels and not have this issue) 

Anyway, I need to do more investigation, but it looks like not all factors (back to back, flange thickness, and wheel gage) were considered by Aristo. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

I just talked to Navin. They are going to send me a pickup slip and I will send them to Navin to take a look at. He asked me what other locos I run that run ok,so I went through the list which includes just about everything made in 1/29. When I mentioned the mallet he said that it's the same motor block and wheels. I had to remind him that this new loco has a different (new) mounting system for the wheels. The mallets wheels tend to be undergauge while the cosolidation looks like they are right at and in some cases beyond the outer gauge limit. This is the last post I will do on this. If Aristo says they are with in specifications then I will probably just sell them. Someone might get a real deal and it will be one of my biggest disapointments in sixteen years of modeling in 1/29.


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

I just checked my new mallet, its from 39.28 to 39.87 .


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I likewise talked to Navin this morning and communicated the data on my loco and my observations, also bringing forth the NMRA and G1MRA standards. 

I'm going to modify my wheels. I have proper back to back, flange thickness, and gage on the rest of my locos. (Aristo steam excepted) 

I have likewise modified my turnouts, and as a result am enjoying great operation, reliable and smooth, over all Aristo track and switches. 

I'm not going backwards. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

I guess till Greg or some one else removes the wheels we will not be able to determine if when the wheels are put on the axles if the new bushing is causing the problem. Sounds like not all locos have this problem. At least others so far have not made mention of it. 

It's a shame that this comes up and puts AC back in the lime lite but I've always said QC is what it is all about and when a new product is ready to run a QC inspector needs to be right there and show the Chines that we will not put up with the poor QC. If I was AC you can bet I'd have one off my folks there inspecting. Later RJD


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg,

Did you measure your back to back wheel spacing? What was it? Did you have a problem when you tried to run your loco?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yes, I measured it, all 4 were basically the same as Paul's. 

Not run yet, got last night, and am going to tear it down and do an in-depth review. 

I have had the same experience with other Aristo steamers when I first corrected the back to back, and made the gage out of spec. Even on straight track the loco will list from side to side and have reduced pulling power. 

I will do as I promised, an in-depth evaluation based on facts and objective information. 

The irrefutable issue is using a loco with a wheel gage of 46 or 47 mm on 45 mm track. Just will not fit. May not derail, but cannot work well. 

I'm sure there are a number of solutions, and while I do not want to guess, the simplest solution may be to lap the wheel into the axle end to decrease the back to back and the gage. The tolerances in NMRA and G1MRA allow for this. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

So it sounds like the Santa Fe units are suspect at this point. Paul, what flavor do you have? Jim has B&O with the reported wheel back to backs above. 

On another note, Greg, what does fixing it yourself do for the warranty?


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

My UP just arrived and I'm done with my measurements. Mine measurements about at the max but will allow the loco to operate without problems. Here is my measurements.

Rear driver B to B 39.97 Flange Gage measurement 45.25
next driver B to B 39.53 Flange Gage measurement 45.07
next driver B to B 39.53 Flange Gage measurement 45.13
Front driver B To B 39.86 Flange Gage measurement 44.33

I also took measurements of Gage of track for 8ft diameter and it measured 45. 21. This track has been in use. I also took a brand new tangent piece of track and took Gage measurements of it. Gage measured 45.23. I also turned the loco upside down and used a short piece of tangent track to check how the drivers fit between the Gage of track. Some side to side movement which one should have.

I have not run my loco as yet as I have to steal a QSI board out of my RDC so I can run. Will do this later today after it cools down some. One final note is that when I had the loco upside down I could see what looked like a spline grove sticking out from each driver. What was interesting as the amount that could be seen varied from each side. It looked like on the fireman side all drivers had the same amount of spline showing where as on the engineer side some where further into the drivers than others. Makes me wonder if the drivers are pressed fit and some not totally presses all the way on. This would cause the Gage issue.


PS
For folks that are not track guys just for your info Gage is spelled correctly and is how the RRs and FRA spell it. Later RJD


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Paul I'm sure that your engines will be fixed correctly Navin is top notch.
It sucks that your having problems with the new engines, but yours is the first one that I have heard having any problems.

Ron


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

You mean the first three, right? You mean Paul, RJ, and I? 

Since I just got mine yesterday, RJ today, and Paul just a couple of days ago, your statement is true "first one that I have heard having any problems.", but it's so new, there's not enough out there.... only the people who had them directly shipped from Aristo have had them until recently. 

Not trying to burst any bubble, but with only 3 reporting in from "non-privileged" people, we need to not say "first time I heard"... because you could also say "they all have this problem".... both statements equally unfair... 


Greg


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Ron,
Count me a two. I have two that act the same.


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Posted By Paul Burch on 21 Jul 2011 04:43 PM 
Ron,
Count me a two. I have two that act the same.


LoL ok Paul count you as two.
I'm not trying to defend anybody here and am in no way a "privileged" anything but I have all three of the new engines released this 
year, The Mallet, the Pacific, and now the Consolidation, and they all run great.

I measured them like Greg says, which I admit I may not be doing right, and by those measurements they all should not be running great but they do.

I really hope that Greg and Rj's engines run fine even thought they don't gage right by the micrometers, if they don't I'm sure they will 
be corrected.

Now if only QSI would get those Titan boards out so I can add all these engines officially to the roster









Ron


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Ron: I've been robbing perter to pay Paul so I can at least test run the locos with QSI. Easiest is removing from the RDC1 very simple. Was in the process of trying to get it up and running but got dark on me and had interruptions. Maybe tomorrow. Later RJD


----------



## jjfromny (Jul 21, 2011)

I had 3 on order and just canceled them today based on this post, thank you all so much
So So tired of buying stuff that does not work.


----------



## Ward H (Jan 5, 2008)

Ran my 2-8-0 for the first time tonight. Ran about 3 hrs on my upper loop which has a couple of tight 8ft curves. No derailments during the run. Ran it light for breakin. Don't know if adding cars will make a difference. Will add some cars this weekend. 

Brought it in and measured the back to back spacing. Found 40.10, 39.90, 40.02 and 40.01.


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Posted By aceinspp on 21 Jul 2011 07:02 PM 
Ron: I've been robbing perter to pay Paul so I can at least test run the locos with QSI. Easiest is removing from the RDC1 very simple. Was in the process of trying to get it up and running but got dark on me and had interruptions. Maybe tomorrow. Later RJD 

I am so trying to resist doing that, I feel bad for the engines that get robbed, it's like I can hear them sobbing in the basement









I may just have to though, I'm just trying to decide which ones to gut I'm thinking one of my B units, my RDC3's are still on the "waiting" list.

Ron


----------



## Madstang (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By jjfromny on 21 Jul 2011 08:02 PM 
I had 3 on order and just canceled them today based on this post, thank you all so much




Thats great for business! I am sure everyone involved with this will be glad to know posts here are causing people to cancel spending money.
Which will ultimately cause the decline of NEW products being brought to the market!

Way to go boys!

Everyone here that is into G scale knows that there is always problems with what ever is new and brought out to the market..unless it is a piece of rolling stock! Even then.

USA had split axels, 1st run Hudsons had thready wires, Bachmann, well their stuff looks GREAT, but is ALWAYS laden with problems..Aristo, well this post tell what is up!

1st run LGB Mikados had to have new motor blocks replaced, I know I have 2 of them..this hobby is a"problematic" hobby...that will never change!

Many times I ask myself "Please tell me again whay I am into this hobby? But here I am still solving problems......and loving it!!! 

Give the manufactures a break, word on the street is you NEVER buy 1st run of anything! Anything, OR you get to solve problems that are not seen in the planning and manufacturing phase!

Here it just seems to become a mud slinging, bashing orgy! And I am starting to think most people here LOVE that kind of crap!

Again..."Im not say'in..I'm just say'in!

Bubba


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Bubba theres a fatal flaw in your argument, if no one bought the 1st run, there would be no 2nd runs, just a bunch of stuff collecting dust at Trainworld. SOMEONE has to buy these things eventually, and the same problem will still be there. 

It is not unreasonable for people to be upset if after how many years of development we still get some lemons in the apple crate, especially if we get one after another after another G scale product thats got problems with it right out of the box, why in the **** should I fork out several hundred dollars for a new engine if I'm going to forced to spend more money and time shipping it back and forth from the manufacturer. Should I as the consumer expect a quality product if I'm being asked to spend alot of coin on a product? 

Some of these issues can be fixed by the buyer but seriously....would you buy a brand new car knowing you would have to spend hours under it fixing loose nuts, bad wiring and out of alignment tires??? I mean seriously, when did buying large scale become the equivalent of buying a new Yugo??? 

I mean * its always something, Isnt it?*. I have been reading these "QC from the PRC" problem stories for 10 years now. It never ends, I'm sick of it, better if they are going to charge brass prices for plastic they might as well build them in Japan or Korea and get a better high quality end product. As it is small layout guys like me are increasingly getting left behind anyways, so I'll just keep running my little HLWs.


----------



## Madstang (Jan 4, 2008)

I understand what you are sying. BUT also when you DO buy 1st runs....._remember you are potentially going to HAVE problems_......so UNDERSTAND that and deal with it..OR again do not buy 1st runs.

I have also been upset when I have purchased something that had issues, but the constant complaining and bashing. is rediculous! That is what I am saying. And, just like problems also hurt the hobby.

You have to admit there are folks here that just LOVE to point out the ""flaws", with everything,_ (and it doesn't stop with just trains_), that is new and just out, not to mention the company bashing.

We are supposta enjoy the journey, there is always problems, as I stated in my previous post......just deal with it, work through it. Even Bachmann if you tweak their stuff it becomes workable. Do I agree with the fact that you have to tweak their stuff...H--L no, but they have a nitch that the other companies refuse to go,. so I am forced to "tweak" their stuff if I want the items they have....again I expect issues, anyone in this hobby for sometime comes to the realization that their WILL be issues with what ever comes out new..no way around that...do we like it, again h--l no! 

Again...I'm not say'in ..I'm just say'in

Bubba


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Two things happen Bubba when no one complains. The manufacture continues to not correct issues cause no one complains and no other products will get sold. There are many other types of forums dealing with all kinds of products with issues and I'm dealing with one right now with a brand new Doge pick up with 800 miles on it. The dealer has hd it in it's possession longer than I have. I have posted on the dodge forum just like many other folks with problems. This is how things get fixed if folks listen and most due. AC has corrected issues after listing to there customers. Just takes awhile. I still say go to the source and that is QC till you actually put some one at the end of the assembly line and check it out you are going to have some that slip through the crack. Later RJD


----------



## Chris France (Jan 3, 2008)

Greg, exactly how am I privileged? I bought my consolidation from Star Hobby. Drove out and picked it up two days after they received them. I'm getting sick of this insinuation that I'm some kind of shill for Aristo. I don't have calipers or micrometers, I put mine on the track and it runs well. That's my test.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Vic said "It is not unreasonable for people to be upset if after how many years of development we still get some lemons in the apple crate, especially if we get one after another after another G scale product thats got problems with it right out of the box, why in the **** should I fork out several hundred dollars for a new engine if I'm going to forced to spend more money and time shipping it back and forth from the manufacturer. Should I as the consumer expect a quality product if I'm being asked to spend alot of coin on a product? "

I agree, it is not unreasonable to be upset. In times like these, I look to the manufacturer to either make it right or make a 'fix' available. Frustrating? Yes. I went through this with my Lionel Atlantics when I was 12. Then I went through it with my LGB mogul a few years after. Coming from my professional background, I can share with all of you that even million dollar pieces of equipment manufactured here in the good old USA have start up problems. ANyone own a Harley? How long did it take to get it to stop leaking oil? Nothing is ever perfect. There's always something. What needs to happen when there is a problem is the manufacturer needs to have the opportuntiy to make it right. Aristo is not telling the customers that they aren't going to NOT fix their brand new trains. It is the opposite.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Chris, absolutely no one is pointing at you, there are some people that got Consolidations before the dealers did. Theirs were shipped directly from Aristo. There's even more to the story, but I'm sorry if you think you were pointed out... I did not see anyone mention your name, and I surely did not. 

Everyone knows the day they arrived at Aristo. The timeline is public information from the Aristo forum. It has always been clear you got yours after they were received by dealers. You even mentioned how you got it and where. 

But, there are people who were in possession of new Consolidations before ANY dealer had received theirs. 

Enough said. And I'm glad yours runs fine. And some will and some will not, because the wheel gage is on the "hairy edge". 

Regards, Greg


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Bubba I know what your saying about first runs. The problem is that it rarely seems to get better, like you said, I am not going to even consider purchasing a new item (like a Lyn) until its been around and the bugs (if any) are known. The thing to me has partly to do with the engineering of things but mostly with QC on the production line, most of the problems could be eliminated with better QC control before it leaves the factory, it can be done, I have 50+ year old Marx engines that still run perfectly, one even after being stored in a attic for a dozen years, just lubed it and its runs great. I feel that as long as the manufacturers continue to produce product in the PRC we are going to get the same QC problems time and again, and as I said the prices keep getting higher each year, they might as well produce them here in the US or Korea or Japan or someplace where they give a dam about QC . 

Its like buying a 1970's GM car, your QC depended on what time of day it was built, who was on the assembly line, how much they had to drink the night before, if they had an arguement with their wife before shift, or if it was friday and they were itching to get off shift for the Detroit Tigers game that evening, all this together determined whether you got a decent car or a lemon whos doors weren't aligned, leaked oil, or pulled to the left as soome as it left the assembly line. 

But it can be done, anyone remember how crappy Hyundai's when they first reached the US, they paid deep attention to the complaints and defects, improved each model every year, and today are every bit as good as Nissan or Toyota. I can be done but it has to be on both ends, engineering AND production. The engineering has always been good on LS products, its the execution where things go awry.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Well I just spent two hrs running my new Connie and no problems observed. Ran 1 hr forward and 1 hr in revers. Ran flawlessly. I do have 8 and 10 diameter curves so no issues there either. I now will do some pulling test as I discovered that a -9 lead weight (about 2 pounds) will fit quite nicely over the two center drivers and be able to reinstall the boiler. Should be 6 oz under the AC is allowable for additional weight. Later RJD


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

any updates from Paul?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Not recently. 

I ran mine yesterday evening, have same experience as RJ, ran fine, BUT it's jammed into the rails, no play at all on Aristo SS track. At the very least this will cause wear on the flanges. It is DEFINITELY riding on the flange or fillet. RJ says his is "tight in the rails" too. 

Paul has different track, so maybe the average gage is different. 

Also found out something else weird, but will hold off until I investigate. 


Updated my web site page with more info on the electrics, etc.

*http://www.elmassian.com/trains-mai...solidation*

Greg


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Ok,update time. My Sunset Valley track is right at 45mm. The consolidations will not run on my track althought evrything else in 1/29 that I have run is fine. I'm very curious if anyone else out there has tried running one on any other brand of track other than Aristo. I guess there are just not enough of them out there yet. I can set the loco on the track and look down the lenght of it and visually see that it is sitiing up on the filleted part of the wheels and therefore agree with Greg about the wheel gage. I have had some personal contact with Aristo about it but that went nowhere,they think its fine. Thats all I'm going to say because anymore just starts flame wars. I know how to fix mine so that it will run on any brand of track like it should but until I do I'm going to stop posting about it.


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Your a true gentleman. I was thinking, Aristo ties have lots of play in them , does your track not have any play? I had bought some track from you way back that I never used because it was glued so tightly to the ties. I guess I just use it for displays.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

While it's true that Aristo tie strips have lots of play, if you are using sectional Aristo track (like I am), the "play" between the "spikes" makes no difference because the rail is held in place with screws. 

Now if you remove the screws, you have that play. 

I don't know how the gage varies on Aristo "flex" track. If the tie strips are the same, then the gage must vary a lot. 

Paul, I have an idea on how to fix the problem myself also, let's work on this via email. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

I need to make a clarification to my last post. When I said that I have had contact with Aristo but that went nowwhere I did not really mean it that way. They did offer to take a look at my two locomotives and see what they could do. I want to be fair to Aristo,they did offer to help. My reference was to specifications and not to their service which is top notch. I just don't think that the new wheel gage setting for the 2-8-0 in general is going to work on my non Aristo track even if all the axles on my locomotives were set to what looks like 39.6 to 39.8 mm back to back spacing.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I have some 9 year old Aristo 10' dia curves, a lot in one area, a small loop about 25' across. This track is original, unmodified, and I have the same situation as you Paul, I'm riding on the fillets or flanges. 

Greg


----------



## jake3404 (Dec 3, 2010)

I'm giong off my HO experience here, but can you change the gauge of the wheels by pressing them in. I had to do that on occasion with some of my HO equipment. And not to start any flames but it was usually brand new stuff including high end stuff like Broadway Limited. HO is considered the premier scale in model railroading and it happens there. 

I feel for you guys, it is extremely frustrating to be waiting for such a long time, anticipating the release. Only to get the product and it doesnt work as advertised. I think you guys have legitimate "beefs" and are in your right to air it. I dont really read any AC bashing except for specific problems with this loco. I say explain on about your problems. I dont model 1:29, but if this was in my scale I would not be discouraged into buying this product, but it would certainly give me a heads up on what issues to look for in my new purchase.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Jake, up until recently, the Aristo locos have a tapered axle, with a tapered hole in the wheels. There is no adjustment possible as you have with a constant diameter axle and a normal hole in the wheel. 

The new setup, which no one has seen yet apart, has a "knurled" bushing pressed into the alloy wheel, and we THINK still a taper on the bushing inside, and the axle outside. 

There is no way to adjust it as far as we know on the new one. It's definitely not adjustable on the old ones. 

The non-adjustability is a big issue if there are gage problems. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Send it back and ask for a replacement and hope THAT one is in correct gauge.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Well, not to flog a dead horse, but it appears that this new incarnation is the same as the old incarnation, i.e. non adjustable. 

So far, all the people who have measured their wheelsets and published that data are within a few thousandths of each other, Paul, RJ, and I have virtually identical measurements. 

So, my point is that this is non-adjustable, by anyone, and consistent in gage. 

Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Well until someone pulls a wheel off we can make a lot of assumptions. I believe that it is possible to repress the wheel and bring them into compliance so that they will run like mine. I have all AC track and my gage will vary just like any track but my loco runs fine as is. Greg has said his has run without derailing also. Just how big of an issue is it. That depends on ones opinion. As Paul has not given any gage measurements of track then I'd say it goes to a track problem more than equipment problems. You all know there is a certain amount of give and take when operating in the environment that we do. Making things to close to real and we have problems. Later RJD


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Paul has stated several times that his track is right at 45mm... 

As soon as I can get a wheel off I will report if there is any relief there. (There's mounds of red loctite on the axle screw) 

Greg


----------



## Trains (Jan 2, 2008)

Isn't there any quality control at Aristo Craft?


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hot off the presses from AristoCraft. 

"[/b]*The Consolidation was tested out for months before delivery" *

So there.


----------



## K27_463 (Jan 2, 2008)

A number of years ago when the Aristo Mallett was new, I had a friend get two of them, and he had about 600 feet or more of Sunset in his backyard. Locos would not stay on the track. We checked gauge, and all the drivers on both locos were all over the place, mostly such that the drivers were up on the fillets or flange . Contact to Aristo got a similar disclaimer as Tony described- even though no two driver axles measured the same. Problem was fixed bu custom machine work in a shop by a very experienced machinist who was also a large scale guy. 
Of course the mallet motor block is different...but the back to back was still too wide in most cases. 

jonathan/EMw


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Just for everyone who may be coming into the thread late, the wheel castings on the 2-8-0 are the same wheel contour as the Mikado and Mallet, but there is a recent change to how the wheel affixes to the axle. 

At the same time, the back to back gauge is now different that it has been historically. Prior production had proper "tread to tread" gage, but narrow back to back. 

Now the back to back is right, but, since the flanges exceed the NMRA and G1MRA standards, the gage is too wide. 

You just cannot have an overly thick flange and get BOTH back to back and wheel gage right at the same time, it's a mathematical and physical impossibility. 

So hopefully this answers people's questions of how come it worked before with the same wheels. 

Also, many manufacturer's switches (where back to back is important) have overly wide flangeways, to accomodate this narrow back to back... (of course this does not work well, but it sort of works) 

Greg


----------

