# Wheel Gauge?



## roadranger (Jan 6, 2008)

Where can I purchase a wheel gauge for 45mm track, to check my rolling stock and engines?
Is there one recommended over another?
Thanks!


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Hi Jim, 
You can try Sunset Valley Railroad. 
http://www.svrronline.com/TrackandRail.html 
I have had one for years, but can't say I have really used it! 
All the best, 
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

If you've got a caliper the back to back should be 1.575" Caliper can be used for a multitude of different things as well. 
Here's a link the gauge 1 standards 
http://www.gaugeone.org/Misc/STANDARD DIMENSIONS FOR GAUGE ‘1’.pdf


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I really like the Aristo one has go / no go and quite a few measurements. Track, wheels, flangeways, check gage, etc. 

Made from stainless and cheap. 

Greg


----------



## roadranger (Jan 6, 2008)

Thanks for the info, guys! 

Greg - Your website says the Aristo gauge is not correct for several parameters, so why do you recommend? 

I've got calipers, but how does "back to back should be 1.575" take into consideration flange thickness? 

With 3 different parameters, NMRA, the G1MRA, and MOROP, this is ALL so confusing!!


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Jim, 
I said go with the back to back of 1.575" because that seems to be the 'standard' back to back spacing. Yes if you have overly thick or overly thin flanges will change the back to back reading. What wheel set are you trying to get in gauge? 

Welcome to the 'standards' in large scale! 

Craig


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I've got calipers, but how does "back to back should be 1.575" take into consideration flange thickness? 
If the flanges are thicker than typical (i.e., greater than .080"ish), then you should narrow the back-to-back spacing closer to the 1.560" mark. The dimension you want to keep fairly constant is the "check gauge," which is B-T-B + flange thickness. The NMRA standards peg this at 1.633" plus or minus around 0.015". If that measurement is too wide, then you run the risk of the flange picking the point of the frog as the wheel goes through the switch. Too narrow, on the other hand, and you run the risk of the backs of the wheels riding up on the guard rails. 

With 3 different parameters, NMRA, the G1MRA, and MOROP, this is ALL so confusing!! 
Yep... And then you throw in (a) manufacturers who don't care and do their own thing anyway and (b) manufacturers who can't stick to their own standards even if they're within these ranges, how things even stay on the rails remains something of a mystery.  

I'm in the "the best gauge is an accurate dial caliper" camp. The quick gauges like the Aristo are fine for really quick checks, but because flange thickness can vary (often significantly), you've also got have a way of looking at the complete picture to set the wheels for optimum performance. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

OK, so what is the measurement you should get with the caliper when you measure from flange face to flange face? That is the important measurement, and flange thickness should have no bearing on that measurement.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Amber, 
It's never mentioned in the gauge 1 standards. They list B to B + flange (BE on chart) as 1.634" +/- 0.020" Kevin would know better if the NMRA standards have this measurement. I don't think a flange to flange measurement could be consistent from manufacturer to manufacturer because they all use slightly different flange designs. Were would you measure the flange at? At the middle, at the bottom, at the top? At least with a B to B measurement you are measuring two flat sides. 

Craig


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Miss Amber, 

The thickness of the flange is actually quite important. The problem with the std "G1MRA" wheel spec is the fact that it is not really capable of good running. It is in essence a "Colonial Wheel" profile with a conical taper. The specs detail the flange width and the root radius. It still bears it origins in the 1920's quite firmly -even the new spec SO32 cannot be said to be a good wheel... Friends who have made this wheel have said that it is only really good for indoor work with extremely accurately laid and very clean track(!) 

regards 

ralph


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

Aristo site has the gage in the special sale section and the shipping is more than the gage cost, so buy 2!!!!


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

I would think, and I could be wrong here but, if you measure with a caliper from the base of the flange where it meets the wheel tread, that should be the measurement that you want to have correct so that the wheel will be properly gauged for the track gauge. Too wide, it would want to climb the rail, to loose and it would be prone to climbing the switch frog and guard rails. The thickness of the flange is usually accounted for with the construction of the switch frog width on factory made switches such as LGB etc. The more prototypical the width and depth of the switch frog, the pickier you have to be about the flange width and height. The typical model standards allow for a fair amount of slop for different wheels. 
It would be nice to gave a "go-no go" gauge for the wheels.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

This is a very complex subject, which cannot be simplified if you really want to understand it. 

I'd suggest reading my page as a starter, and then the various standards. There is a lot of interaction, but the current NMRA standard follows the G1MRA pretty well. Overly thick flanges make it so you cannot meet the spec on back to back and wheel gage at the same time, as in the recent Aristocraft Consolidation, and excellent example of what not to do. 

Merely playing with the back to back to get the wheel gage right makes trouble in well constructed switches. 

Once you start to grasp the interplay, then the grossly wide flangeways in Aristo and LGB switches start to make sense, and also, the LGB solution, for standardizing flange depth and make switches "flange bearing" so you bypass the problems of huge gaps in the frogs and overly wide flangeways; well the LGB solution makes sense... as long as you can live with standardized flange depths... great if all your flanges are the same... but they aren't unless you buy LGB only... 

It's not simple if you really want to understand, and you cannot change one thing without affect another. 

I've standardized on the NMRA specs, but holding to the target values, not accepting some of the grossly "lenient" tolerances (which "grandfather in" some of the more toy-like stuff). 

One I did that, I found I can run very long trains very reliably on ridiculously steep grades, which I have proven/shown on my youtube videos. 

So, this method works for me, there are other methods and compromises. 

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I would think, and I could be wrong here but, if you measure with a caliper from the base of the flange where it meets the wheel tread, that should be the measurement that you want to have correct so that the wheel will be properly gauged for the track gauge. 
To a large extent, you're correct. So long as the back-to-back plus 2 times the Flange is less than the gauge of the track, the wheels will track okay (provided they are wide enough so not to fall between the rails). 

Until you get to a switch. 

That's where the dimensions get a little more critical. 

That's where "proper" back-to-back (and check gauge--btb+one flange) becomes important. Consider a wheelset at the point of the frog of a switch. Place the wheelset so that the back side of the outside wheel is pressing against the guard rail. Now look at where the flange on the other wheel is. If the back-to-back is too narrow (less than the distance between the guard rails), it will be riding up on the inside guard rail. If the back-to-back is too wide, then the flange will be riding up on the point of the frog. So long as the back-to-back is such that when the back of the outside flange is pressing up against the guard rail, the opposite flange is in the middle of the flangeway on the frog, you're golden. 

Here's the catch, though... it may be the switch that needs tweaking, not the wheels. The check gauge of the switch is as critical as the check gauge of the wheel. If the switch's flangeways are too wide (common on LGB, Aristo, and other switches), then even a properly-gauged wheel may pick the point of the switch, because the check gauge of the switch is too narrow (distance over the guard rails plus the flangeway of the frog). This allows wheelset to track far enough towards the center of the switch to where the flange hits the tip of the frog. That's fixed with a thin shim on the outside edge of the outer guard rail, which essentially pulls the wheelset further away from the frog, eliminating the potential bump. 

(Yeah, I know--this is where a picture is worth a thousand words...) 

@ Craig, the NMRA usually considers "check gauge" to be the primary dimension in any wheel or track standards set. It took quite some convincing to get them to accept that large scale uses back-to-back as the easiest-to-measure, primary dimension. For practical purposes, the NMRA's and G1MRA's check gauge dimensions are identical. (within .001", and .005" on tolerances.) 

Later, 

K


----------



## roadranger (Jan 6, 2008)

OK, a lot of discussion about Aristo and LGB wheels... 

How about Bachmann metal wheel sets? Does the generic back to back measurement work on these?


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Pretty much. I use them on much of my rolling stock, and they're all within spec. I've not had to adjust them, at least, and theybrun through my Sunset Valley switches. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

I really have a chuckle reading this thread. Measuring a set of wheels for proper back-to-back or back-to-back plus the flange thickness is NOT a complex problem. Nor is it impossible to do. Just look at a section of a wheel, note the location of the tire taper, the fillet between the flange and tire and the flange itself. As a die sinker/tool and die maker by trade, I had to hold tolerances to LESS than .001 of an inch on contours definitely more complex than a railroad wheel contour. According to what has been stated about NMRA standards, we have .020" to play with. Not a big deal! You guys are making this a lot more trouble than it deserves. Makes for endless discussion, but in practical terms....NOT so much.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Did not say it was a complex problem. 

Understanding all the bits of the tolerances used and how to make your switches work, and what to do when you have thick flanges on wheels so that you cannot meet specifications IS a complex subject. 

Gary, not everyone here has a lathe and the ability to correct or make new wheels. 

For the average guy trying to make his trains run better, it's tough. For example, you CANNOT adjust the wheel gage on ANY Aristo locomotive (that I know of, might be an old model that you could). 

So if you get an out of gage loco, or wheelset, what do you do? 

How do you improve switches so they can handle longer trains? 

What do you do about receiving a switch with a tight gage in the closure rails? 

What specs do you use? 

It all depends on what you want... want to run 5 cars in a loop with no switches, sure, it's simple. 

Want to run long trains, or very reliably, or back trains up into a switchyard? 


Greg


----------



## armorsmith (Jun 1, 2008)

Roadranger, 

I have been using Bachmann metal wheels since I returned to model railroading hobby. I have had no bad luck with these wheel sets. Others have reported different experiences than mine. I have probably 50 or more pieces of rolling stock, and other than 6 AMS cars (that came with finer scale wheels), all of my mixed Bachmann, AristoCraft, USA Trains, LGB and Lionel are equipped with Bachmann 31.0mm wheel sets. I am now experimenting with some logging equipment using the 24.5mm wheel sets, but the jury is still out on these. As far as cost, the Bachmann have to date been the lowest cost, with a bit of give in the quality. 

My tuppence worth. 

Bob C.


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 20 May 2012 01:22 PM 
Did not say it was a complex problem. 

Understanding all the bits of the tolerances used and how to make your switches work, and what to do when you have thick flanges on wheels so that you cannot meet specifications IS a complex subject. 

Gary, not everyone here has a lathe and the ability to correct or make new wheels. 


Greg 

Never said ANYTHING about owning a lathe or about correcting the problem by making NEW wheels. Reading comprehensin again Greg









This discussion is about a gage to check the btb. Apair of inexpensive calipers and a couple of C-clamps to make the wheel puller that JJ described years ago and you are good to go. NOT rocket science, but apparently you want to believe it is.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

I also do not understand the difference in the perceived needs between a short train and a longer train... 

Any car or switch needs to meet certain standards to function and be compatible with each other, some times the wheels are "off' or sometimes the track work is "off". 

Dirk


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

No, I don't have the animosity you have to generate that kind of response Gary. 

If you want to talk about reading comprehension... 

1. I did not say it was a complex problem, but you think I did. 
2. I did not say you had a lathe, said not everyone has one. 
3. you cannot set the gage on Aristo locos, but apparently you missed that one again since you want to tell me about JJ's wheel puller WHICH IS ALREADY ON MY SITE... 

Read again.. but I guess you will just come back with something nasty again. 

The discussion has gone way beyond just back to back... 

It's not rocket science BUT it's not just a simple matter of setting the back to back and you are done. I'm not the only one saying this, but you want to pick on me. So be it. 

Enjoy.. 

Greg


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Dirk, you can "get away" with looser tolerances with shorter trains, basically because you don't have as much force to deal with. 

Pulling a long train through a switch is much more difficult than a short train. Same goes for backing. 

When there is more tension on the cars as they pass through a switch, how the cars roll through the points and the frog is more critical. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

This puts "ME" in the critical group than doesn't it!! :~} 

I have a great tendency to run tight tolerances - Anyway / regardless.. just My nature...without thinking about it!!! 

So for me a short or long train will be a great runner, either way!! 

cheers, 
Dirk


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yep, that's my philosophy too. What I found works well is to use the "target" values for the NMRA specs, and get as close to those as I can... some of the published tolerances are way too great in my experience. 

I should also note that the recent specs are much better and also work very well with people using G1MRA and we have our own Kevin Strong to thank for this, in my opinion. 

Greg


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Greg, 
Do you have a link to the NMRA specs on your page? For those inclined to do so it would be interesting to compare the NMRA and GIMRA standards side by side. I know that they are close in a lot of aspects. Meanwhile while taling about flange thickness it's interesting to compare wheels. For instance I have a set of USA standard wheels with an overly deep flange that has a flange width of .080", meanwhile a 'semi-scale' wheel set from NWSL has a smaller flange depth, but has a thicker flange width of .100". This whole conversation just reminds me of the often quoted 'Standards? Who needs stinking standards?".... 
How long did it take HO scale to finally get all the manufacturers on board in regards to standards. I have a feeling that large scale is going to take even longer! 

I'm with Dirk and yourself regarding having tight tolerances. One of the reasons I enjoy handlaying track, so I can at least keep my track in the correct gauge. 

Craig


----------



## Amber (Jul 29, 2011)

For me it comes down to 2 questions: #1- Where do I measure the wheels from? #2 what is the measurement that I'm looking for? If it's back to back plus the flange thickness, OK, I can see the logic of that because of running through switches. The measurement standard was given on the first page, so I guess that's what I'll go with. I just swapped wheels on axle for a couple of wheel sets and I'd like them to be "in the ball park" on the gauge measurement. I don't own a switch yet so I can't try that test. Most of my metal wheels, but not all of them, are Sierra Valley wheels, they seem to be good quality. My Bachmann stuff still has the factory plastic wheels, I'm more concerned with the wheels for the cars that I build. Eventually, I'll probably get rid of the rest of my "Big Hauler" cars once I've built enough of my own cars.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Amber

I don't think you'll get there with just your criteria of...

 Where do I measure the wheels from?
 What is the measurement that I'm looking for?

 Because not all manufacturers of large scale product (i.e. track & rolling stock) adhere to the same specifications (i.e. neither their own or some standards group's). I believe the best you can do is settle on an easy measurement (e.g. back-to-back, at say 1.575"), then see how that works out for the track you've got down, and the equipment you've got running on it.

If you find that there are trouble spots and/or equipment then check for proper tolerances, if found to be out adjust accordingly. After the initial mess and resulting grinding/gnashing of teeth and such, things should slow down a bit, and all you'll have to deal with is the addition of new track work and/or equipment as it occurs.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Craig, I indeed do, in fact the page has links to NMRA,G1MRA and MOROP / NEM standards.


*http://w...ong>



I make the following statement often, when I started, I could not run trains very well backwards, and would often "Stringline" with only 6 or 7 cars. Now my layout runs reliably with 45-50 car trains on the SAME curves and SAME switches.

I gauged my wheels, and shimmed some of my Aristo locos
I corrected problems in frogs, with depth and other details
I corrected problems in switches with improper flangeway widths
I smoothed out track, added vertical transitions, and checked and corrected crosslevel.

My layout went from frustration to enjoyment.

I'm hoping to convey that information to others so they can have the same level of improvement and fun in the hobby.

Greg 

*


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Amber, probably 90% of the time, with the commercial wheels on the market, you can go with 1.575" as a back-to-back spacing and not have any issues. That's why it's been the "standard" for as long as it has. Some wheel profiles have unusually thick flanges, so if you notice a wheelset being set to 1.575" and still having trouble, then check the flange thickness and reduce the b-t-b accordingly. (That's why there's tolerances on the standards.) When I was doing the research on wheel profiles for the NMRA standards, I found few wheels that when set to 1.575" b-t-b would be problematic. They may have technically exceeded the standards by a few thousandths, but in practical application, they'd not ruffle many feathers. Reducing the b-t-b a bit to compensate would all but guarantee smooth performance. 

Later, 

K


----------



## K.A.Simpson (Mar 6, 2008)

I had trouble on some of my 250 flex track. After using the Aristo track gauge I discovered that the flex track is undersize & this is after I checked all wheel b to b sizes. When track is curved to make the bends it goes smaller still in some cases which causes some of the locos or wagons to derail. I had no trouble on the straights but some curves. 

I am thankful for battery power to slowly creep the loco along to find the trouble. 

Maybe just a single batch fault with the 250 track, but it may pay to check out your straights no matter what size to see how they are. 

Andrew 
Sandbar & Mudcrab Railway


----------

