# Standard Gauge 1/29? Random thoughts, ideas, etc



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Have been in this hobby for a while and seen many different debates regarding the 'correctness' of 1/29 compared to 1/32, and being a die hard 1/29 fan, I'm been pondering the feasibility of moving beyond 45mm gauge and modeling the correct 56.5" gauge rail. I know this topic has been debated to death before I've been musing and thinking way to much so here it goes. I want to know what other people think.....
45mm= 1.7716"
56.5" in 1/29 = 1.94827
A difference of ~.177

Now if the standard back to back spacing for 45mm is 1.575" add .17 to back to back spacing and now theoretically the back to back spacing should be okay for 1.948" spacing. So .17 divided by 2 = .0885" that the wheels have to move outward. Couldn't the existing wheel back to back spacing be increased ~.17" and NOT require new axles? (For that's been one of the arguments that I've seen before that makes 1.948" harder to model) Isn't there already a lot of existing 45 mm wheels that come from the manufacturer without the required 1.575" b to b spacing? I would guess that a few are off by ~.17 or close to it? 


I'm not taking into account not having manufactured ties that space the rail correctly at 1.948 because I'm interested in handlaying everything. 


What do you think? I know it would limit the "interoperability" of 45mm gauge that seems to be so common, but I think I could move beyond it.

Craig


----------



## Bighurt (Sep 15, 2009)

Do you really think that .17 matters for something that is essentially a toy. You can hide the fact that your rails are .08 out of gauge by using shorter ties and shorter rail. Considering the exactness of the models isn't fine scale I don't see why our rails should either. Want impressive look at F scale models... 

Not trying to burst your bubble, it's your hobby do as you please but will the effort be noticed by the end product?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

So your sideframes are too narrow on EACH side by almost 1/10" of an inch. 

I agonized over this before entering the scale, debating on whether to go 1:32 or 1:29. 

I'm glad I went 1:29 and the .08 inch on each side is not noticeable to me. 

No, there's not enough metal on anything to move the wheels out. On Aristo they use tapered axles on the locos, so no adjustment at all is possible. 

You can adjust USAT diesels, but there is not enough meat left in the center gear casting in my opinion, but if you were diligent, you could probably move the axles out a bit and move the wheels on the axles and make it. 

On steamers, can't think of any where this would work. 

You need a lathe.... 

Greg


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

I think what we're looking at here are the Pro's and Con's and practical aspects of such a change, to bring the track work into a more fitting scale for our trains. Can 1/29 scale be just as impressive as F scale has grown into. F scale found it's niche. Personally - I think F scale is the best thing that has come out of Our little G scale worlds!! Now we need more standard gauge trains in F scale,.. probably western styled and themed tho! 

So, can modern mainline freights and passenger trains find a spot that is better suited than is currently available to us, close the gap so to speak? 

Curious, is F scale a toy! Is Fn3 a toy? 
I know all our adult hobbies are just toys, but they go beyond the realm of toys into a miniature world, as they get better and have more detail, and make us think more in the line of,... is this real or just 1/29 scale? 

How does each operate their railroad! 

What do you guys think about this? 

Dirk - DMS Ry.


----------



## Bighurt (Sep 15, 2009)

I used the term Toy as in reality much of our worlds is in fact derived from the original toy train. Bring a non train person into our world and it's a toy train. Amongst hobbyists they are models, as we typically refer to tin plate as toy trains. 

F Scale Standard trains would solve one of my biggest issues, desire to model Fn3 and standard together. Just like one would do so with HO and HOn3. In fact if a manufacture produced F Scale models like those found in 1:29th I would completely ditch my 1:29 scale trains.

But the facts are HO isn't a pure scale either Proto 87 filled that niche, it's all a mad world do what makes you happy.

Most everything comes down to cost and space. I can't afford to fill a basement with Proto 87 and to build a Standard F Scale layout in the garden would be acres of space.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

So I quickly laid some rail while watching the world series right now, and it looks that the difference on .250 & .215 rail between 45mm and the correct 56.5" (need a name for this?) is about the width of the rail base. Is it enough that I would notice it 3' away? Probably not, but how long was 1/24 considered okay, and then a massive movement to 20.3 with the production of 1 locomotive! While it not might be noticeable it seems to nag me in the back of my mind especially when I'm building track! 
I'm basically thinking that 'what' if of 1/29. Could 10-15 years from now a new track gauge exist that finally corrects 1/29? 

Bighurt, 
What can't we have fine scale trains? Why does it seem that track gets under looked all the time in most every scale? It seems that we are really concerned about the appearance of the locomotives and the railcars but not the track? Why? 

Greg, 
it looks like USA freight wheels are also tapered so it might not have the right hold to keep everything in gauge for long periods of time. Okay so if a lathe is required what do you think the proper b to b spacing would be? Am I close with my guess? 

Craig


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

You can use wheels on axle stubs that are held together with plastic sleeves such as the old AristoCraft heavyweights and track cleaning cabeese. You can also use the wheels on axle stubs with sleeve gears from USA engines (maybe some AristoCraft too). You may need to find/make a longer sleeve to accomodate your gauge. For that matter, you could cut most any axle and add a sleeve to add width.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Why not a proto:29? Just like in HO. How long did that take for that type of modeling to come into place. For years people said it was impossible, much like the 1/29 today... 
Craig


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Do you have the real estate for prototypical curves? 10'D would be tight on a wharf! For simplicity 1:24 10'd = 60r, O scale 1:48 30"r HO 15"r 
Sure you can do proto 29, but is it practical? 

John


----------



## steam5 (Jun 22, 2008)

Craig, 

In South Australia they used broad gauge instead of standard gauge (what you have in the USA). I know someone who models this in P87 with slightly wider tracks than HO to represent true broad gauge. Broad gauge models on normal HO track frustrated him, it's a lot of work working in fine scale with a slighly wider gauge, but it can be done. Because the wheel tread is finer for freight cars he can take HO trucks and add fine scale wheels with a larger back to back spacing in the mater of seconds, but locos are not this easy. 

If the track gauge of 1/29 on 45mm track is driving you to this level of curiosity I suggest giving it ago. If you don't you'll drive your self crazy, and never be happy.

Good luck, lucky for me I model Fn3. 

Alan


----------



## Bighurt (Sep 15, 2009)

We can, and that is were F Scale has gone, that is what I consider fine large scale, one look at Tom Millers layout is enough to make anyone blush. Now Standard gauge has my interest. 

The problem with proto:29 is that proto:87 at least started with a a true scale. 1:29th is simply on manufactures reaction to what LGB screwed up all those years ago. Now I'm not a rivet counter but there is more out of scale on our trains than the gauge of the rails. But what are my choices hope someone makes a cheap truck replacement for 1:29 or hope someone makes F scale Standard gauge trains. Or do I just deal with the out of scale track and try to hide the out of gauge rails. Magicians get away with miss direction all the time, we just need to be a magician with our rails. 

Not saying you have a bad idea, but what is the cost. Most of us are having trouble saving our pennies for the 1:29 stuff. MRH had an article on "5 Cars for $35", that will never be possible in large scale,and jsut like in HO as we've demanded better detail and true to life models the cost has gone up. So from $5 Athearn blue boxes to $30 RTR trains. Large Scale starts above $100 most to of the time, $600 pieces of rolling stock, count me out.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Prototype curves aren't an argument in smaller scales for proto track, so why should it be in large scale? I plan on building curves as big as I can but now where near the 5 degree curves of the prototype! I am planning on building correct sized turnouts (for the area I'm modeling it's #9's and #11's which is feasible) which is another thing that gets shrunk for modeling purposes. 
Practical? That's why I started the thread!  

Craig


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

They were in my book, one of the reasons I moved up to On3.... not On30 either.... 
I like 1:24 because my smaller equip looks better on my toy like curves. 
John


----------



## Ron Hill (Sep 25, 2008)

The is no way that in any scale one can compeltely scale down from the prototype. We are dealing with such small fractions that it would not be possible. Whether it be N, HO, O or large scale, something has always been "fudged" to make the model work. I am a drafter for the county engineer. I am a stickler for building correctly. But nothing is perfect in the real world no matter how good it looks on paper (or on a computer drawing)! Some things are built to the best possible. My buildings are built to 1:24 because I can work out the dimensions in my head without having to constantly use a calculator. The fraction of difference between my 1:29 trains and 1:24 building is not noticeable from 10 feet. Some of my buildings are a 1/16th to 1/8th out of square because the table saw did not cut it perfectly. But you cannot tell it by looking and in the end that little bit did not matter. The end is to enjoy the hobby and except the flaws built into the models. 
Ron


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

.17"?? Big Deal...its like getting hung up over 1/22.5 vs 1/20.3. I'm sorry but the whole debate to me has done nothing but create headaches. Back when I started everything that was 1/22.5 ran with everything else and everything was a relativly easy to handle, layouts were of reasonable size. Now 1/20.3 is much larger harder to handle and most of the stuff needs a layout half the size of Rhode Island for the stupid turning radiuses ...but Oh, its correct scale HUMBUG! The scale difference was less than 6 scale inches, or +/-1/4",yet it held enormous changes in narrow gauge. If you want to scratchbuild everything, anything and all things in between, go for it... but to me it seams insanely hyper-anal for what amounts to what...1/8"???Phooey ;-)


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By vsmith on 23 Oct 2011 10:45 PM 
.17"?? Big Deal...its like getting hung up over 1/22.5 vs 1/20.3. I'm sorry but the whole debate to me has done nothing but create headaches. Back when I started everything that was 1/22.5 ran with everything else and everything was a relativly easy to handle, layouts were of reasonable size. Now 1/20.3 is much larger harder to handle and most of the stuff needs a layout half the size of Rhode Island for the stupid turning radiuses ...but Oh, its correct scale HUMBUG! The scale difference was less than 6 scale inches, or +/-1/4",yet it held enormous changes in narrow gauge. If you want to scratchbuild everything, anything and all things in between, go for it... but to me it seams insanely hyper-anal for what amounts to what...1/8"???Phooey ;-) 
But isn't it interesting that gauge 1 seems to be the only 'scale' that tries to keep the track gauge the same? For your example why not keep 22.5 and change the track gauge to represent 3' instead of creating a whole new scale/gauge combination? In smaller scales that's exactly what they do. An HO guy all a sudden wants to model narrow gauge, he keeps the scale the same but changes the track. Why do we have it backward in large scale? Is it some long running secret knowledge that everything has to be interoperable? Why? No other scale does this?

Craig


----------



## steam5 (Jun 22, 2008)

Posted By vsmith on 23 Oct 2011 10:45 PM 
.17"?? Big Deal...its like getting hung up over 1/22.5 vs 1/20.3. I'm sorry but the whole debate to me has done nothing but create headaches. Back when I started everything that was 1/22.5 ran with everything else and everything was a relatively easy to handle, layouts were of reasonable size. Now 1/20.3 is much larger harder to handle and most of the stuff needs a layout half the size of Rhode Island for the stupid turning radiuses ...but Oh, its correct scale HUMBUG! The scale difference was less than 6 scale inches, or +/-1/4",yet it held enormous changes in narrow gauge. If you want to scratchbuild everything, anything and all things in between, go for it... but to me it seams insanely hyper-anal for what amounts to what...1/8"???Phooey ;-) 
Why does Craig need to scratch build everything? He would use comperically available 1:29 stock, but re gauged. What he is thinking about is quite plausible.


I think having a clear scale reduces headaches. If one knows their scale, they can stick to it and everything looks in scale. I do notice the difference between 1:22.5 and 1:20.3. Like in HO, I notice the difference between HO and OO scale. People like Craig didn't like OO, so they made P4, OO on correct gauge track (fine scale)


I'm not sure why people hammer the 1:20.3 is to big point. Sure if you want to run large D&RGW steamers your going to need a bit of room for 1:20.3 or 1:22.5. If you want to run logging or smaller prototypes 1:20.3 will fit in a much smaller place. 1:29 will in general get around tighter curves from what I have read. But running 4 diesel locos out the front of a freight train that's only 10 cars long, Sure you can run it in a smaller place, but it doesn't look right.

You may call it hyper anal, but I call it prototype scale modeling.


Alan


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

i'm compromising to 1:29 too. 
being lazy i seldom work by scale, but by thumb. i never would relay all track for an 8mm difference. 

that said, if the correct gauge is, what turns you on, just do it! 
there is nothing worse in a hobby, than a nagging thought in the back of the head, saying: "maybe i should have done..." 
its your happyness. you seem to know the difficulties of doing, what you dream about. 
if you still like it, just do it!


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

I've thought about this one as well. First, to all of you who say "Why bother, they're only toys?" I would like to answer that you might as well pull a 1:32 streamliner behind an LGB Stainz and throw in a handful of random freight cars being shoved by a Bachmann Climax, and call it good enough. Some people are happy with that sort of random "anything on rails" approach, but some want a little more realism. If you don't want to add to the discussion, be respectful of those who do and read quietly or go away. 

Now, on the subject at hand. I find gauge 1 wheel and track standards to be laughably toy-like. Would it not be possible to turn down the treads and flanges to something a little more prototypical, and keep the sideframes and axles as they are? In Proto:87, they have to use narrower axles and truck bolsters, because typical HO ones are too long to accommodate overly wide wheels. I rather suspect that 1:29 trucks are actually quite close to the correct width for a scale model, with the gauge narrowed to make wider wheels fit inside. 

For those wheels with a tapered fit on the axle, it ought to be pretty easy to re-gauge them. A tapered spacer shouldn't be that hard to make - you could probably get away with making only one spacer per axle, but you might need two for locos if you cannot shift the entire axle sideways by the right amount. 

I say go for it. It would be great to see somebody running properly gauged 1:29 trains for a change. I know it's a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but the gauge thing has always bothered me.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

A foot hold , some substance, this is good... 

Now in the practical scheme for this - what will it take to make a BIG Boy run with wider spaced wheels? I really want to "see" one run on my layout!! 

Dirk - DMS Ry.


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

DKR 

There is a group of "Proto32" modelers both in the USA and the UK. The issue is the same as it will be when [not if] someone chooses to go to the wider track gauge for 1:29 standard gauge, regardless of whether they choose "Proto29" or not; the social aspect of sharing your railroad with others [in terms of running] will initially evaporate. P32 wheel and track standards are very close to correct. The issue is the old bugaboo of maintaining your track and roadbed so that there are NO rolls / pitches / yaws that will allow a wheel with a flange of less than 1/16 inch come off the track. Rail size needs to go down to code 200 or less. And yes, there are manufacturers in the UK producing Ga 1 track with code 180 as the standard height. 

For those who want to blaze a trail in 1:29, contact Bill Mai at Llagas Creek Railways; he has had other inquiries about making tie strips for the NEW GAUGE. You will just need to figure out how to commit to enough track [in advance, with money not words] to get him to invest in producing the molds at a cost of $10k+++.


----------



## Tom Parkins (Jan 2, 2008)

To me it does not matter, but that is not what you are asking. 

Track: Hand laying 1/29 56-1/2" track should be no different than hand laying 45 mm track. That is often done. Folks hand lay switches all of the time so that's no different in the "full gauge" ...so yes this is all practical. 

Rolling stock. Moving the wheel apart sound easy, depending on the axle design. Are the truck frames going to work with "wider wheels."? If so then that too should be practical. 

Motive Power. WOW. Here is the challenge in my view. Widening the gauge on diesels and steam engines could be a real issue. I'm mostly familiar with the Aristo Prime Mover and I think the tapered axle may present some challenges. I would think this may be the hardest part. I think your best bet is to disassemble one and try it. With steam engines you may have to relocate cylinders. Is it practical to move just one side and have the locomotive slightly off center???? I don't know. The practicality of this will be decided on an engine by engine basis. 


Keep us posted on the project, and share some pictures. I'd really like to see your work and read about some of the challenges and how they are overcome. 

Tom


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By steam5 on 24 Oct 2011 12:57 AM 
Posted By vsmith on 23 Oct 2011 10:45 PM 
.17"?? Big Deal...its like getting hung up over 1/22.5 vs 1/20.3. I'm sorry but the whole debate to me has done nothing but create headaches. Back when I started everything that was 1/22.5 ran with everything else and everything was a relatively easy to handle, layouts were of reasonable size. Now 1/20.3 is much larger harder to handle and most of the stuff needs a layout half the size of Rhode Island for the stupid turning radiuses ...but Oh, its correct scale HUMBUG! The scale difference was less than 6 scale inches, or +/-1/4",yet it held enormous changes in narrow gauge. If you want to scratchbuild everything, anything and all things in between, go for it... but to me it seams insanely hyper-anal for what amounts to what...1/8"???Phooey ;-) 
Why does Craig need to scratch build everything? He would use comperically available 1:29 stock, but re gauged. What he is thinking about is quite plausible.


I think having a clear scale reduces headaches. If one knows their scale, they can stick to it and everything looks in scale. I do notice the difference between 1:22.5 and 1:20.3. Like in HO, I notice the difference between HO and OO scale. People like Craig didn't like OO, so they made P4, OO on correct gauge track (fine scale)


I'm not sure why people hammer the 1:20.3 is to big point. Sure if you want to run large D&RGW steamers your going to need a bit of room for 1:20.3 or 1:22.5. If you want to run logging or smaller prototypes 1:20.3 will fit in a much smaller place. 1:29 will in general get around tighter curves from what I have read. But running 4 diesel locos out the front of a freight train that's only 10 cars long, Sure you can run it in a smaller place, but it doesn't look right.

You may call it hyper anal, but I call it prototype scale modeling.


Alan 




Alan some thoughts:

Will stock trucks accomodate the spreading of wheelsets to the new gauge or will the trucks have to be widened to fit them, if so new axles may be needed.
Motor blocks, same issue, steam engines may require the entire piston rod assembly to be moved out, some steam engines like Aristo use a tapered axle so forget about wideneing the gauge without providing completely scratch milled new wider drive axles. Its easy to say it sounds plausable, its quite another when you start actually think about it, and it seams to while some stuff might be regauge-able quite alot is by design, difficult if not almost impossible to modify. hence the notion that quite alot of stock will have to be bashed to work or live with a possibly very limited rolling stock selection.

ALL track would have to be hand laid, granted you could reuse some brands just reset onto wood ties but it just seams to me for what abouts to fractions of an inch, the work load you would be imposing would be prohibitive, now lets talk resale, should you ever have to sell anything its worthless, unless you find someother radical rivet head whos also doing "correct" 1/29 scale track. Forget having any friends bring their trains over to run unless they are also doing this.

Call me a "hyper-slacker" but for 1/8" track gauge difference I just cant fathom WHY? Unless you have tons of free time and lots of cash to spend on speciallized milling machines to create what will be needed to modify the unmodifiable, I just cant help but wonder, whats the point? Better if you dont like the way 45mm gauge track looks in 1/29 how about trying something less radical like switching your track to a more scale looking Code 250 rail, the smaller rail can do wonders for the look of 1/29 stock.

As for the "correctness" of large scale track radi thats in the eye of the beholder, I have no interest in running K-27s the size of my office desk, I like my smaller stuff, and love the R1s they run on, I always have as I have never had room to run large wide radius curves, I love being able to create complex funky layouts in areas that most guys would only deam fit for a spur siding. I know what I do used to be common in LS but now is on the far fringe, but I am proud to say I have no interest at all in "Prototype Scale Modeling", why the heck do you think I bailed on HO years ago? I was sick to death of the hyperbola of the proto-heads. If thats what you want to do fine, go for it, just dont impose your values on guys like me, which is what I have been seeing happen over the last ten years. I love the funkyness of small engines on tight curves in impossible geology, Malcomn Furlow rules, Tony Koester drools. If Craig wants to try this, go for it, but be wide awake and know about what your stepping into. Think about it before you go recreating the wheel.

Vic the "hyper-slacker"


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

To tackle one of the motive power drives in our hobby, I started with a USA SD70 motor block. 

It has pressed on wheels, the shaft is straight, a dia. of .177", with the hole in the wheels of the same .177' dia. No taper or knurling... 

Now a spacer of .088" thick with a outer dia. of say a .375" could easily slip on after the wheel is removed and then replace the wheel. The new gauge will be set - no fussing here, and equal on each side. A bonus is this, the large surface of the inside spacer will contact the tiny bump cast into the side of the plastic motor block case, which is used to control side play of the axle. This means side play will be the same as an original assembly. No further challenges here, put it back in service and go play trains! 

Sounds like steam will be the big challenge yet! 

5 degrees curves eh, anybody figure that out? 

Dirk -DMS Ry.


----------



## Bighurt (Sep 15, 2009)

Posted By SD90WLMT on 24 Oct 2011 10:46 AM 


5 degrees curves eh, anybody figure that out? 



1146.3 ft radius on the prtotype

As a point of reference the manufacture of 85' auto-racks lists minimum turn radius as 1000'.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Okay I just measured an axle off a USA truck. Here's the measurements: Axle length 2.796" Width at center of axle .1835" width at end .1175" (length at .1175" end = .236") Taper width .173" length of taper .129" So that leaves (2.796"- .358 [taper + axle stub]=) 2.08" of .1835" width to move the wheels outward without getting into the taper of the axle. 

Craig


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

"1146.3 ft radius on the prtotype" 

1/29 =39.5'r or 79'D... (I ommitted the .3 in computation) 
Probably will need 2 acres for more than a loop, but what realism! 

John


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

mmmmmmm John, Are you sure we can't interest you into going mainline RRing!! 

I'll go for the realism.... ;-} 

Dirk - DMS Ry.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Another way to look at it is the debate between 0n3 and 0n30, both are 1/48 scale, one is the correct gauge, the other is affordable. 

Everything doable in 0n3 is now doable in 0n30 yet there is still a loud, vocal but very small group of dissenters who becry that 0n30 is not acceptable, and never will be, despite the fact that 0n30 has blown open to doors to narrow gauge layout building and brought in literally hundreds of new modelers to the hobby they still thumb their noses at the '*******' gauge. Why? I have often been told that the major difference between the two gauges is the number of decimal places in the price tags. Maybe thats something to do with it, the "mercedes benz" like exclusivity of having all brass 0n3 stock, but I would rather have the extra cash so I could build an even bigger layout on the savings from using 0n30 vs the "correct" gauge, the gauge difference is impercepatble to my eyes. Same here with this issue, the gauge difference for all intents and purposes would be imperceptable, are their no other alternates to recreating the wheel?


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By vsmith on 24 Oct 2011 11:07 AM 
Another way to look at it is the debate between 0n3 and 0n30, both are 1/48 scale, one is the correct gauge, the other is affordable. 

Everything doable in 0n3 is now doable in 0n30 yet there is still a loud, vocal but very small group of dissenters who becry that 0n30 is not acceptable, and never will be, despite the fact that 0n30 has blown open to doors to narrow gauge layout building and brought in literally hundreds of new modelers to the hobby they still thumb their noses at the '*******' gauge. Why? I have often been told that the major difference between the two gauges is the number of decimal places in the price tags. Maybe thats something to do with it, the "mercedes benz" like exclusivity of having all brass 0n3 stock, but I would rather have the extra cash so I could build an even bigger layout on the savings from using 0n30 vs the "correct" gauge, the gauge difference is impercepatble to my eyes. Same here with this issue, the gauge difference for all intents and purposes would be imperceptable, are their no other alternates to recreating the wheel? 
That's kind of what I'm asking here. If it's possible to use existing equipment (axles, trucks, etc) it would not require any additional cost to correctly model the correct gauge. Remember I'm throwing out the whole track issue as I'm interested in handlaying track regardless. So if no additional cost is required then why not model the correct gauge? But again to bring up my point I asked earlier why is there is common idea that 45mm must remain the correct gauge? 

And yes I am using code 250 and 215 rail, and would love to go smaller to represent 90 lb rail but no one currently makes anything close to that. 
Craig


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Sometimes, it ceases to be about what looks good, and becomes about what compromises a person is willing to accept. I'll freely admit that the visual difference between 1:29 on 45mm and "correct" gauge track is minimal at best. I do think that 30" gauge looks different than both 2' and 3' gauge, but still.. To some people, the problem is not in the look - it's knowing that the gauge is wrong, that it's a compromise made. All models must have compromises, of course, but the question is what are you personally willing to accept? 

What would you say to the live steam modelers, who feel that it's the best way to accurately model or recreate the experience of a steam locomotive? Would you argue that electric models are better because they are more available, or cheaper, or easier to use, or sound better, or are less dangerous? That may or may not all be true, yet some people really want to know that their steam locomotive is propelled by boiled water pushing on a piston, rather than by electricity turning a motor and gears. Some people want to know that their models are running on properly gauged track.


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Craig 

Code 200 and code 180 rail are available. Peco SM32 track is code 200 and so is Tenmille. Since there are Peco dealers here in the USA, I am reasonably certain they can get the rail by itself. I am sure you could also find code 172 rail from some of the O scale suppliers.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

SO , 

Since I'm building curves "Larger than 5 degrees", ( which mean less then 5 ) how many are willing to play trains in AZ? 

REALLY long trains could be run, and short ones too! The minimum will be 45 foot radius on the main.... 

and with a high degree of "John's Realism" in store also!!!! 

Dirk - DMS Ry.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Craig, rolling stock would simpler, you would find a way to extend the bolsters to space the sideframes out, and if you did something like put a small ball bearing in the journal, I believe you could do it. You might have to restrict your wheelsets to only one or two brands. 

It's the motive power that would be the trick. 

A definite no on Aristo, you would need to machine new longer half axles for the Aristo diesel blocks, and then space the sideframes out. 

On the steamers, now you need the same thing, but now your rod gear is further out, so you might have clearance problems due to the fixed location of the cylinders. You might luck out though, since the Aristo steamers have the same gearboxes with that huge side to side lateral movement. You might have to pay a penalty in restricted curve radii... or make center drivers blind on the steamers. 

On USAT diesels, I believe there is enough "give" between the axles in the gear casting and the wheels on the axles that you might be able to do it, again play with the sideframes. 

Other steamers, like Bachmann probably will be trouble, but you are 1:29, so Bachmann is most likely not a concern. 

I'm not super familiar with the LGB stuff in terms of how much "meat" is available to change gage. 

If I was to do it, I would contract with a company to make new Aristo half axles, it could be done, but the half axles would most likely be $5-$10 each, so $10-$20 per axle. 

This could mount up quickly. 

Greg


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Dr Rivet on 24 Oct 2011 11:33 AM 
Craig 

Code 200 and code 180 rail are available. Peco SM32 track is code 200 and so is Tenmille. Since there are Peco dealers here in the USA, I am reasonably certain they can get the rail by itself. I am sure you could also find code 172 rail from some of the O scale suppliers. 
I thought Peco was code 250? I wasn't able to find any code 172 when I looked a couple of months ago. But 90lb rail is equal .181 or code 180. Code 172 represents 80-85 lb rail. I really would like some flat bottomed code 180 rail! The sub I'm modeling is mostly 110-100lb rail which is code .215 and ~.205 but some parts are 90lb sections.

Craig


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

I show about .052" - .060" extra clearance on each side, for a stock freight car truck frame with the wheels widened only. 

used a USA intermodal frame and metal wheels set... 


Dirk - DMS Ry.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 24 Oct 2011 11:37 AM 
Craig, rolling stock would simpler, you would find a way to extend the bolsters to space the sideframes out, and if you did something like put a small ball bearing in the journal, I believe you could do it. You might have to restrict your wheelsets to only one or two brands. 

It's the motive power that would be the trick. 

A definite no on Aristo, you would need to machine new longer half axles for the Aristo diesel blocks, and then space the sideframes out. 

On the steamers, now you need the same thing, but now your rod gear is further out, so you might have clearance problems due to the fixed location of the cylinders. You might luck out though, since the Aristo steamers have the same gearboxes with that huge side to side lateral movement. You might have to pay a penalty in restricted curve radii... or make center drivers blind on the steamers. 

On USAT diesels, I believe there is enough "give" between the axles in the gear casting and the wheels on the axles that you might be able to do it, again play with the sideframes. 

Other steamers, like Bachmann probably will be trouble, but you are 1:29, so Bachmann is most likely not a concern. 

I'm not super familiar with the LGB stuff in terms of how much "meat" is available to change gage. 

If I was to do it, I would contract with a company to make new Aristo half axles, it could be done, but the half axles would most likely be $5-$10 each, so $10-$20 per axle. 

This could mount up quickly. 

Greg 
Not being interested in steamers so that solves that problem! I currently don't have any Aristo so that problem could be delayed for now. So it's just a matter of solving the USA axles and sideframes. I just measured the sideframes at the axle journal on a USA freight truck, it's 2.3815" I wonder how much of the current slop that exists in between the axle and sideframe could be eliminated. 
Interesting discussion to say the least! 4 pages in less then a day! 

Craig


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Craig, 

The inter-modal frame I played with is also 2.381" or so. I had previously installed .030" plastic spacers on each axle end to minimize side play also. 
So the wheels can be reset to S.G., and the spacers still used for a snug assembly! 
And still have around .020" clearance per side.... 

Dirk - DMS Ry.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By bnsfconductor on 24 Oct 2011 11:48 AM




Not being interested in steamers so that solves that problem! I currently don't have any Aristo so that problem could be delayed for now. So it's just a matter of solving the USA axles and sideframes. I just measured the sideframes at the axle journal on a USA freight truck, it's 2.3815" I wonder how much of the current slop that exists in between the axle and sideframe could be eliminated. 
Interesting discussion to say the least! 4 pages in less then a day! 

Craig 



There is a lot of "slop" in the USA sideframes. So much so that I've actually had wheels come out from their journals on my NW-2.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By toddalin on 24 Oct 2011 12:58 PM 


Posted By bnsfconductor on 24 Oct 2011 11:48 AM




Not being interested in steamers so that solves that problem! I currently don't have any Aristo so that problem could be delayed for now. So it's just a matter of solving the USA axles and sideframes. I just measured the sideframes at the axle journal on a USA freight truck, it's 2.3815" I wonder how much of the current slop that exists in between the axle and sideframe could be eliminated. 
Interesting discussion to say the least! 4 pages in less then a day! 

Craig 



There is a lot of "slop" in the USA sideframes. So much so that I've actually had wheels come out from their journals on my NW-2. 
Interesting that you have that much slop. This is what makes me think it might be possible to embark on this project/quest without requiring an extensive or expensive modifications.

Craig


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By bnsfconductor on 24 Oct 2011 11:16 AM 
Posted By vsmith on 24 Oct 2011 11:07 AM 
Another way to look at it is the debate between 0n3 and 0n30, both are 1/48 scale, one is the correct gauge, the other is affordable. 

Everything doable in 0n3 is now doable in 0n30 yet there is still a loud, vocal but very small group of dissenters who becry that 0n30 is not acceptable, and never will be, despite the fact that 0n30 has blown open to doors to narrow gauge layout building and brought in literally hundreds of new modelers to the hobby they still thumb their noses at the '*******' gauge. Why? I have often been told that the major difference between the two gauges is the number of decimal places in the price tags. Maybe thats something to do with it, the "mercedes benz" like exclusivity of having all brass 0n3 stock, but I would rather have the extra cash so I could build an even bigger layout on the savings from using 0n30 vs the "correct" gauge, the gauge difference is impercepatble to my eyes. Same here with this issue, the gauge difference for all intents and purposes would be imperceptable, are their no other alternates to recreating the wheel? 
That's kind of what I'm asking here. If it's possible to use existing equipment (axles, trucks, etc) it would not require any additional cost to correctly model the correct gauge. Remember I'm throwing out the whole track issue as I'm interested in handlaying track regardless. So if no additional cost is required then why not model the correct gauge? But again to bring up my point I asked earlier why is there is common idea that 45mm must remain the correct gauge? 

And yes I am using code 250 and 215 rail, and would love to go smaller to represent 90 lb rail but no one currently makes anything close to that. 
Craig 




Well then if your up to modifying your USAT stuff and handlaying all your track...and you know what your getting into...












Keep us up to date and post alot of pics


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By bnsfconductor on 24 Oct 2011 01:02 PM 
Posted By toddalin on 24 Oct 2011 12:58 PM 


Posted By bnsfconductor on 24 Oct 2011 11:48 AM




Not being interested in steamers so that solves that problem! I currently don't have any Aristo so that problem could be delayed for now. So it's just a matter of solving the USA axles and sideframes. I just measured the sideframes at the axle journal on a USA freight truck, it's 2.3815" I wonder how much of the current slop that exists in between the axle and sideframe could be eliminated. 
Interesting discussion to say the least! 4 pages in less then a day! 

Craig 



There is a lot of "slop" in the USA sideframes. So much so that I've actually had wheels come out from their journals on my NW-2. 
Interesting that you have that much slop. This is what makes me think it might be possible to embark on this project/quest without requiring an extensive or expensive modifications.

Craig 



The USA side frames and wheel sets are an excellent candidate. Even if they don't have quite enough room, they are screwed together from the sides and a shim or washer could possibly be added to widen things out a bit more, if really necessary. The stub axles could be pulled out a bit more and a brass sleeve applied to ensure that they stay tight. Many of us already do the brass sleeve trick when the axle sleeve cracks. Furthermore, there is no protruding center lip on the wheel around the axle to bind on the side frame as you find on most other species.

The USA diesel wheels were the only wheels I found that I could do this too without milling the centers down. And yes, the spinners can still spin.



You can even see a brass sleeve on this one.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Side by side comparison of 45mm and correct gauge (I really need a name for this!) wheels










Track









Both wheels on new track section









Side by side, 45mm on right











Unmodified original USA truck with new gauge. All I did was pull both wheels further out on the axle. B to B of 1.796" compared to 1.575" of 45mm











Craig


----------



## Bighurt (Sep 15, 2009)

Lets see a locomotive! 

I'm impressed... 

Now lets see 1:29 length ties and spacing..


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm watching the world series and working on this right now so I don't have a picture of the correct tie spacing at the moment. I have a bunch of turnout ties cut and I could post a picture of turnout ties with correct spacing if that's okay? 

Craig


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

We are already doing the correct size for ties and spacing! 

I use 8-9 ft ties, or 3.31" - 3.72". 
I use 15 ties per foot. I have walked on 15-16 ties per 29 real feet! ON a mainline. 

Dirk - DMS Ry.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Go look at my switch on - "DMS Ry., One Man's Journey" - switch ties spaced at 15 per foot!!! 

Dirk


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Ties centers on my turnout diagram are between 18" on center to 22" on center with one place at 15" centers. Centers on regular track can range from 20" to 23" depending on the quality and grade of the track. 
Craig


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

there is about .080" - .090" side play existing on a motor block - on a stock SD70 USA Trains part. 

Adding .088" to each side requires a spacer to maintain side play, but a .088" spacer built to fit over the shaft will set the back spacing and limit the side play, both. 

Dirk - DMS Ry.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By bnsfconductor on 24 Oct 2011 07:43 PM 

Side by side comparison of 45mm and correct gauge (I really need a name for this!)








I would just go with "1/29 scale"..pronounced "one twenty nine scale"

people already are used to saying "one twenty point three scale" "one twenty four scale", "one twenty two point five scale" etc.. 

so "one twenty nine scale" makes sense, people will easily understand it..

at one time, years ago, I heard "A scale" used (the letter A..perhaps for Aristocraft?) but I dont think that works well..and it never "stuck".. 


I had to make up a name for one of my projects..I ended up with "29n2 scale" as making the most sense:
29n2 scale 

"Side by side comparison of 45mm and 1/29 scale track"
it works!  


Scot


----------



## Ron Hill (Sep 25, 2008)

Boy, did this topic strike a nerve or what!!!!!!! 
Ron


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

So on the boxes of trains that magically show up on our door steps, ha, we could consider this for a new label, which I thought about over dinner. 

Boxes all say the track and scale up in a corner, like #1 - Gauge & 1:29 - Scale 

something like this maybe,..... 1/29 scale - Gauge & 1:29 - Scale 

And I really think that for Manufactures to get into this would be very easy to do also. They could even offer a choice of either #1 - or 1/29 scale in the trucks they sell on equipment! 

BUT - all this is the base of the topic and really very easy to accomplish thus far! What is the real issue at stake tho is the "Social issue" - Who will get into the sand box? This is where the real discussion will set a new standard in G-scale. Yes, it can be done, & with out difficulty or great amounts of labor or time or expense. Still - has anyone actually done this before? And will many find this compelling enough to get on board? 

Food for thought isn't it guys!! Thanks ....! 

Dirk - DMS Ry.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Wow 24 hours and 6 pages! I haven't seen a topic this hot in a while. That's good, discussion brings about solutions.  
Craig


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Before I can really get more involved in this I need to build a couple of new track gauges. Any thoughts on what approach to take? A styrene 3 point gauge? 
Craig


----------



## Bighurt (Sep 15, 2009)

Posted By bnsfconductor on 24 Oct 2011 09:42 PM 
Before I can really get more involved in this I need to build a couple of new track gauges. Any thoughts on what approach to take? A styrene 3 point gauge? 
Craig I think a metal version would last longer and stay true.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

I thought about simply cutting my snapper gauges in half and resetting them to a accurate standard and adding plastic and glue it all back together.... 

New tools simple and cheap?!! Easy to make and replace.... 

Dirk


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Bighurt on 24 Oct 2011 09:45 PM 
Posted By bnsfconductor on 24 Oct 2011 09:42 PM 
Before I can really get more involved in this I need to build a couple of new track gauges. Any thoughts on what approach to take? A styrene 3 point gauge? 
Craig I think a metal version would last longer and stay true.


Any suggestions on how to make one? I've got limited tools while I'm at grad school so that's why I was thinking styrene for now because it would be easier to make. 

Craig


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

hey, quit typing and read :~} 


Dirk


----------



## Bighurt (Sep 15, 2009)

Posted By bnsfconductor on 24 Oct 2011 09:49 PM 
Posted By Bighurt on 24 Oct 2011 09:45 PM 
Posted By bnsfconductor on 24 Oct 2011 09:42 PM 
Before I can really get more involved in this I need to build a couple of new track gauges. Any thoughts on what approach to take? A styrene 3 point gauge? 
Craig I think a metal version would last longer and stay true.


Any suggestions on how to make one? I've got limited tools while I'm at grad school so that's why I was thinking styrene for now because it would be easier to make. 

Craig 



Does your school have a shop?


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Stretching a snapper gauge is a 5 -10 minute job, can be done at home and is simple for the time being, solves a problem with out great expense... 

If we don't go farther down the road, then a lot of time was not spent on a bunch of milling solid stock for nothing. 

Try a quick gauge for trial track work and go from there... 

Dirk - DMS Ry.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Dirk,
We posted at the same time. I'm thinking that cutting and pasting could result in less then perfect measurements.


Does my school have a shop? I'm not really sure I may have to ask some questions... That would be a really easy way to make metal gauge. But if not suggestions?


I guess for the short term a set of calipers would work okay, but it would be a little time consuming to keep everything 'set' 


Craig


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Craig, you showed me you have the digital tools to master this easy project!! Go for it, you will know if it is good or not! 

Spike two rails - exactly as you want them to be! Place the two parts over each rail and glue / splice a piece to bridge them together! Let it set and dry! Test and measure it, go lay track and double check it ... 


:-} - Dirk


----------



## Bighurt (Sep 15, 2009)

If not I'm sure there is a local shop in the area. In reality all we are talking about is plate with three pins milled to set against the rails at a precise point.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

How much tolerance do you want in a tool ? How much tolerance is there in track built by mass production companies that everyone uses?!! 

I'm pretty sure you can beat their tolerances doing it yourself. You can than build several gauges to use at once while laying rail...! 

Dirk


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Well I want fairly exact tolerance or otherwise I should just stick to 45mm after all! LOL 
I was thinking that a total of 6 pins would be required, one on each side of the rail. I think I can round up some scrap styrene to make a little test. 

Craig


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

LOL OK 

But I was talking .001" kind of tolerances.. 

IF you measure stock factory made track you'd be surprised - if you have not done this already. 

Say the 1/29 scale track spacing of 1.948' plus or minus .002" - can you do that? It is nowhere close to 45 mm at 1.7716" after all! 

Dirk


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Ok - I found a brand new piece of track, never run on, never in the sun or used in a layout... 

USA train - track.. the rail of course is code 332 - right, yet it measures .340" tall, mmmmm 

And as lightly as I can - with out pushing the rail away, which is easy to do - I measured 1.777"........mmm 
AND if I add some pressure it goes up to 1.785", that's a whopping .014 thousandths extra toooo big! 
if it is pushed together I get 1.736" much too small for wheels maybe, I can "just" drop a wheel set into the rails, but snug.... 

( I wonder why - another reason - that I want to hand lay my own rail and track ) 

You can do better than that, I know!! Good luck! 

Dirk - DMS Ry.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

To late to start now, but tomorrow I'm going to cut some 8' ties and start spiking a 39' section of rail. Hopefully I can make a track gauge too. I will post pictures when I have a chance. 

Craig


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By bnsfconductor on 24 Oct 2011 07:43 PM 














Craig 



Dude..BANDAID !!!!


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Why not look at the NMRA specs for track and wheels and use the same tolerances they do... the target number will be different, but the plus and minus tolerances being the same makes sense. 

(Or you can use G1MRA specs) 

The links to these specs are on this page: *http://www.elmassian.com...trong>** 

Greg*


----------



## wigginsn (Jan 9, 2008)

Craig,

Good project, go nuts and post lots of photos!!

I made some track guages from Aluminium bar when doing some turnouts (switches - whatever..). I hand cut the slots with a hacksaw at first then filed to guage and rail head width. Easy to do with Al.











I made some with two slots to space the guard rails as well, one is sititng on the pile on the right in the pic. The main change I would make if I made more would be using some angle stock vs bar, Mk I version tended to fall over at the wrong times. 



Cheers
Neil


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By SD90WLMT on 24 Oct 2011 09:37 PM 
So on the boxes of trains that magically show up on our door steps, ha, we could consider this for a new label, which I thought about over dinner. 

Boxes all say the track and scale up in a corner, like #1 - Gauge & 1:29 - Scale 

something like this maybe,..... 1/29 scale - Gauge & 1:29 - Scale 

And I really think that for Manufactures to get into this would be very easy to do also. They could even offer a choice of either #1 - or 1/29 scale in the trucks they sell on equipment! 

BUT - all this is the base of the topic and really very easy to accomplish thus far! What is the real issue at stake tho is the "Social issue" - Who will get into the sand box? This is where the real discussion will set a new standard in G-scale. Yes, it can be done, & with out difficulty or great amounts of labor or time or expense. Still - has anyone actually done this before? And will many find this compelling enough to get on board? 

Food for thought isn't it guys!! Thanks ....! 

Dirk - DMS Ry. 



My opinion:

And I really think that for Manufactures to get into this would be very easy to do also. They could even offer a choice of either #1 - or 1/29 scale in the trucks they sell on equipment!

easy-ish perhaps..the tricky part will be convincing manufacturers that enough people care that it will be worthwhile..thats probably not likely..(although I could be wrong!)

What is the real issue at stake tho is the "Social issue" - Who will get into the sand box? This is where the real discussion will set a new standard in G-scale.

personally, I dont care! im not in the sandbox..sorry..I plan to build a 1/29 scale garden railroad too! with 1/29 scale buildings, figures, etc..because the majority of my trains will be 1/29 scale..
so im building my railroad to match the scale the majority of my trains (probably 70%) will be in..Eventually I would also like to have all "standard gauge profile" 45mm track as well..meaning "standard gauge ties"..
im starting out with Aristo "narrow gauge tie" spacing, simply because I already own the track, but eventually I would like to replace it all with Code 250 "standard gauge" 45mm track, for looks..

but..

I also have other trains..Bachmann Big Haulers, Bachmann spectrum locos, various "narrow gauge" freight cars..etc..
I will want those trains to be able to run on the whole railroad..it doesnt bother me that they will be "out of scale" for my 1/29 scale buildings, my "standard gauge profile" track, etc..

And will many find this compelling enough to get on board? 

well..since you asked!  I dont want to discourage anyone's ideas..and if you want to do this for yourself, thats all well and good..
but for me, even if "1/29 scale track" existed commercially, I doubt I would even want to use it! because I want to be able to run ALL my trains on my railroad..
I doubt there will be many people who will own ONLY 1/29 scale trains, when there is so much other cool "not 1/29 scale" stuff in the hobby as well..

some consider the "multiple scales running on one track gauge" to be a problem..I think you will find the majority actually consider it a *good* thing!
simply because we *can* run all our trains on the same track..

Im in a Garden RR club..we do lots of "public displays"..train shows, garden centers, etc..
I have found no one pays the least attention to the "look" of the track...Im not even sure what tie profile we have on the "club track"!
but we run EVERYthing on that track..last weekend we had a 1/29 scale Aristo GP40 on one loop, a 1/22.5 scale LGB mogul on the 2nd loop, a Bachmann 1/20.3 scale Spectrum mogul,
(all with roughly matching trains for the loco) a 1/24 scale trolley, and Thomas the tank engine! all running at the same time..the club members, and the public, love it all...

If I had a choice between 1/29 diesels gauged to 45mm, or 1/29 diesels in properly scaled "1/29 scale" gauge..
I would chose 45mm..sorry, but its just WAY more practical that way..

and I simply dont care that its "too narrow"..I honestly cant see it..
When I first found out about this "scale/gauge" mismatch for 1/29 scale, it bothered me for about a day..
then I simply got over it, and havent cared since..and I even "care" enough to build my *entire* railroad to 1/29 scale!
but I still wont care about the track gauge..to me, the benefits of being able to run ALL trains on ALL track *far* outweigh the drawbacks..
which is only a visual drawback..and barely visable at that..

sorry, but you asked! 

Scot


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By bnsfconductor on 24 Oct 2011 07:43 PM 

Side by side comparison of 45mm and correct gauge (I really need a name for this!)

Why not follow the lead of the folks in the other scales where gauge is a problem (OO, O) and call it Proto29, or just P:29? Acually, in thinking about this issue, it seems VERY similar to the P:48 vs O gauge debate. If it can take off in O, I cannot see why it cannot take off in 1/29. It will probably always be a fringe element, but an accepted and respected part of the hobby.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

P29 could work..but in P48 its MUCH more than just the correct gauge!  
P48 modelers want *everything* in scale as much as humanly possible.. 
scale rail size, scale ties, they even like to use scale tie plates for the rail joints, and scale (or nearly scale) wheel flanges! etc.. 
even Fn3 modelers dont go to those lengths, for the most part..We have lots of Fn3 modelers, but extremely few "ProtoF" modelers..if you see what I mean.. 

Although if a movement is going to form, might as well go all-out and declare it P29 then!  
you will need *one* goal, one declared manifesto, to make it work, if more than one person is going to adopt it.. 
will it "P29 scale" running on scale size rail? scale wheels and the whole nine yards? 
or more simply "1/29 scale" correct in gauge only, but still using huge clunky code 332 track and oversized flanges? for practical reasons? 
there are drawbacks and benefits to both ways...P29 track might not stand up well to outdoor use, for example.. 
scale sized "mainline" track (lets say 132lb rail..code 83 in HO scale) in 1/29 scale works out to Code 250.. 
can work outdoors, but its more fragile than code 332..just something to consider.. 

I like the idea! in theory..if I was brand-new to the hobby, and was *only* interested in standard gauge, then P29 scale, if it existed, 
would be very tempting..still, you have the drawback of not being able to run anything else though.. 
maybe for some, they simply wouldnt care..maybe im too "old school" to change now, because I already own lots of other trains that arent 1/29.. 
but thats just me.. 

Scot


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Craig /others 

Peco has code 200 nickel silver rail in three foot lengths. It is product IL-8 sold in packs of six lengths. 

There is some debate as to whether this is flat bottom or bullhead rail. 

Contact Dave Glatte at Heartland Hobby Wholesale [Lincoln NE] on 1-402-464-6456 and he can identify a local dealer for you.


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

As per Scot...this speaks to the heart of the matter:

Im in a Garden RR club..we do lots of "public displays"..train shows, garden centers, etc..
I have found no one pays the least attention to the "look" of the track...Im not even sure what tie profile we have on the "club track"!
but we run EVERYthing on that track..last weekend we had a 1/29 scale Aristo GP40 on one loop, a 1/22.5 scale LGB mogul on the 2nd loop, a Bachmann 1/20.3 scale Spectrum mogul,
(all with roughly matching trains for the loco) a 1/24 scale trolley, and Thomas the tank engine! all running at the same time..the club members, and the public, love it all...


We setup our portable at public events. Ryan and I are mainly operators of Standard Gauge but our track is narrow gauge. Why? More robust and able to handle the abuse (in particular track fires) of live steam. I do not know anyone that would say, I rather not run on your track with my properly scale 1:32 standard gauge equipment because of narrow gauge ties or not having proper rail size.... So, I would rather spend my time running instead of repairing track ties on the layout. As to the topic...if that is what one wants to do, so be it but do not wait until the major manufacturers offer the goods.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 25 Oct 2011 07:34 AM 
P29 could work..but in P48 its MUCH more than just the correct gauge!  
P48 modelers want *everything* in scale as much as humanly possible.. 
scale rail size, scale ties, they even like to use scale tie plates for the rail joints, and scale (or nearly scale) wheel flanges! etc.. 
even Fn3 modelers dont go to those lengths, for the most part..We have lots of Fn3 modelers, but extremely few "ProtoF" modelers..if you see what I mean.. 

Although if a movement is going to form, might as well go all-out and declare it P29 then!  
you will need *one* goal, one declared manifesto, to make it work, if more than one person is going to adopt it.. 
will it "P29 scale" running on scale size rail? scale wheels and the whole nine yards? 
or more simply "1/29 scale" correct in gauge only, but still using huge clunky code 332 track and oversized flanges? for practical reasons? 
there are drawbacks and benefits to both ways...P29 track might not stand up well to outdoor use, for example.. 
scale sized "mainline" track (lets say 132lb rail..code 83 in HO scale) in 1/29 scale works out to Code 250.. 
can work outdoors, but its more fragile than code 332..just something to consider.. 

I like the idea! in theory..if I was brand-new to the hobby, and was *only* interested in standard gauge, then P29 scale, if it existed, 
would be very tempting..still, you have the drawback of not being able to run anything else though.. 
maybe for some, they simply wouldnt care..maybe im too "old school" to change now, because I already own lots of other trains that arent 1/29.. 
but thats just me.. 

Scot 
Maybe a better term would be finescale:29 although F:29 would get confusing with Fn3. It would be an interesting experiment to see if P:29 could/would work outdoors. I know for one thing track work would have to be exactly perfect! Code 215 in 1/29 is equal to 110 lb rail which is fairly normal, but not exactly heavy mainline 132lb rail.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

P29 would be like 1/20.3 standard gauge. You might get a smaller track mfr to supply tie strips or flex track, but it will likely remain a niche gauge. The F standard guys could have compromised and used Gauge 3 track and wheels which are still available in Britain, its only slightly narrower but instead are going the Full Monty which means just about everything will be scratched built or kitbashed.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Bighurt on 24 Oct 2011 07:48 PM 
Lets see a locomotive! 

I'm impressed... 

Now lets see 1:29 length ties and spacing.. 
I just cut some 8' ties and 39' rail sections with code 215 rail. I will try and spike some track later tonight during the World series game and after I get back from my class. I can't promise I will get it done tonight, but when it is I will post some pictures. I'm just trying a little test section of straight track right now. 

Craig


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

So tonight I made version 1.0 of a new track gauge and spiked some rail. I know three important things now; having a gauge makes it way easier to spike the rail correctly, my gauge is off by .010", and my track is now off by .010"! After I spiked a section I measured with my caliper and it was exactly 1.938" or .010" off. Now I know the gauge 1 standards call for up to .020" +/- but I'm thinking it might be wise to build a new gauge so that .010" off isn't already built into the track. I know its kind of anal, but isn't that why I'm trying this in the first place? 

Craig


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Okay a couple of days late then I thought, but now I've got pictures to prove what I've been working on. First I had to make a couple of different track gauges to make spiking track easier. That took a while, but now I have at least two different gauges that work; a 3 point and a 2 point. 
The track, ties are on 22" spacing, with the exception of the joint in the middle, the ties are at 18". Kind of hard to see in this angle. I glued the tie plates on the rail to keep the ties in the right place. This spacing is for "branch main tracks, all passing tracks and important yard tracks" while main tracks are at 20" centers according to NP standard plans. 









A little closer up. Ties are purposely offset length wise as this is branch line trackage.










Just to 'prove' it's not 45mm! 









The rails are 39' sections, but I'm not to sure I want to keep cutting the rail that much. I'm trying to find something to model rail joiners right now so the 2 pieces aren't joined. I may just cut the web and head of the rail to represent 39' sections while keeping the rail intact in 6' sections. 

This weekend I may take my GP9 out and see what spreading the wheels is going to require. IF it looks easy and works, I may commit to this new gauge. Then if I do, I will have to come up with some standards. Right now my track is 1.948" +/- .0005. And my wheels are around ~1.771" I really need to figure out the optimal wheel flange/rail interface. 
Craig


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Man, that track looks nice! This whole thing has me quite excited.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By DKRickman on 29 Oct 2011 12:13 AM 
Man, that track looks nice! This whole thing has me quite excited. 
So can you see a difference? The tie plates make a big difference in my opinion. Now if I could just get it painted and find something for the rail joiners, it would look even better.

That and having ballast to show in the pics too. This makes me miss my old layout at home now, because I know I have 150lbs of ballast sitting at home in storage! Argg

Craig


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

wow, that looks great! nice job! 

we cant really "see a difference" with just a "single stimulus" photo.. 
we need to see side-by-side comparisions to tell if its very noticable.. 

obviously this is going to look much better than code 332 "narroiw gauge" profile track, which most people use.. 
the best comparision would be 1/29 track compared to 45mm track with the same tie spacing.. 
Llagas creek or Sunset Valley code 250 track, 45mm, with "standard gauge ties" would probably be the best track to use to compare 
to the hand-laid 1/29 track..so the main difference we see is just the gauge difference.. 

or, for the best comparision, you could hand-lay 45mm and 1/29 side by side..same rail, same ties, the only difference being the gauge.. 
lay some identical locos or rolling stock on the two tracks, and take photos from different angles.. 
if the gauge difference is highly noticeable in *that* case, that would sell the concept.. 

Scot


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 23 Oct 2011 08:58 PM 

You can adjust USAT diesels, but there is not enough meat left in the center gear casting in my opinion, but if you were diligent, you could probably move the axles out a bit and move the wheels on the axles and make it. 

On steamers, can't think of any where this would work. 

You need a lathe.... 

Greg 
Greg,

What would you recommend 'meat' wise on the gear? I measured the USA axle (with a NWSL wheel) and the axle length is .748" This is with wheel at the end of the axle. The gear (NWSL replacement) has a total length of .904" with a inside depth to the stop at .433" and .428" How far in do you think the axle needs to be in to maintain a hold on the gear? 

I discovered that the NWSL gear is prone to cracking just like the USA one. When I was taking it apart I noticed a small crack on one side of the gear. I wonder what NWSL would say? I will have to look at the 3 other gears to see if they have the same problem or if it was just an isolated gear.

Craig


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Have you read my site on making sleeves to put on the casting? Works even with split castings. I would press the wheels out on the axles a bit first, and then do the fine adjusting with the axle into the casting. 

If you split the amount you need into 4 parts, it's pretty clear you are making very little difference in the amount of axle in the gear casting. 

I got a press from harbor freight... search "tools" on my site to see a picture of it, works great for pressing the wheels on the axles, and doing the final adjustment on the gage. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Greg, 
 No I haven't had a chance to read you site about the sleeves. I will have to look at it soon. I was under the impression that the NWSL gears would not split like the USA ones. I've sent them an email to ask if they've heard of splitting before. Now these gears are over 10 years old so it might be reasonable to expect that they could/would split? 
Right now my wheels are at the ends of the axles (as I put them there when I replace them with NWSL wheels. I may have found another problem with the loco conversion as it looks like the gear box itself might not be wide enough. If this proves to hard to move outward then the whole idea is getting more and more complicated. 
Craig


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

A follow up on the ideas for locomotive truck problems... It looks like the sideframes on the USA locomotive trucks (GP9) are too narrow, and will not work without modification. But the good news is that it looks like the sideframes only need to move out about ~.180". So I'm thinking about the idea of using shims between the sideframes and the swivel mount of the truck to increase the width. By increasing the length of the sideframe screws it seems possible to widen the truck/sideframes without serious modifications. This is what I'm thinking, start with a .060" T shaped shim and place between the 2 sideframes to move the sideframes out by .120" then if needed use .005-.020 shims in addition to get the required width. Once I know the actual width say .0820 I can then take a piece of .080 styrene and make something more permanent. Now my idea is just to use the 3 sideframes screws to hold everything on (yes it will require longer screws but I think that is an easy fix). This way if in the future I wish to sell or go back to 45mm nothing is permanently glued or mounted to the trucks which would prevent back conversion. So it might be a little bit more work then something off the shelf, but with only a small locomotive fleet (3 right now, eventually 5-6) it's not to much of a process that prevent this grand idea from moving forward. 
Pictures will come with progress (and failure too!) 
Craig 
Ps. Greg did you ever get my email I sent to you?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Nope, no mail that I saw, but I'll look this evening. 

Your idea sounds cool Craig, and will most likely work. By the way, if I have not implied, good for you pursuing your idea! 

Greg


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Greg,
Let me know if you didn't get it. I can always resend it.
Craig


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

For what you want to do, I would not put the brass sleeve on as Greg outlines it on his site. He shows the inside and outside of the plastic sleeve being chamfered and if you are pushing the axles outward, you want/need maximum strength at the outter edge.

When I press the brass sleeve on I do not chamfer the plastic. Instead, I use a flare tool to slightly flare the end of the brass sleeve. The flare ends up next to the gear away from the outter edge where you don't need maximum strength.


----------



## Bighurt (Sep 15, 2009)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 01 Nov 2011 09:19 PM 
Nope, no mail that I saw, but I'll look this evening. 

Your idea sounds cool Craig, and will most likely work. By the way, if I have not implied, good for you pursuing your idea! 

Greg I have to agree Craig, your persistence is impressive. Good on you for following your own idea to it's end weather you meet success or failure.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By toddalin on 01 Nov 2011 09:58 PM 
For what you want to do, I would not put the brass sleeve on as Greg outlines it on his site. He shows the inside and outside of the plastic sleeve being chamfered and if you are pushing the axles outward, you want/need maximum strength at the outter edge.

When I press the brass sleeve on I do not chamfer the plastic. Instead, I use a flare tool to slightly flare the end of the brass sleeve. The flare ends up next to the gear away from the outter edge where you don't need maximum strength.

Thanks for the tip. I will have to see if I can find some brass tubing that will work at the local hardware store. 
Craig


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By bnsfconductor on 01 Nov 2011 10:08 PM 
Posted By toddalin on 01 Nov 2011 09:58 PM 
For what you want to do, I would not put the brass sleeve on as Greg outlines it on his site. He shows the inside and outside of the plastic sleeve being chamfered and if you are pushing the axles outward, you want/need maximum strength at the outter edge.

When I press the brass sleeve on I do not chamfer the plastic. Instead, I use a flare tool to slightly flare the end of the brass sleeve. The flare ends up next to the gear away from the outter edge where you don't need maximum strength.

Thanks for the tip. I will have to see if I can find some brass tubing that will work at the local hardware store. 
Craig 



I use common 3/8" brass tube.

If you are concerned about the strength because pushing the axles out doesn't give enough "bite" on the axle, you can extend the sleeves beyond the plastic (but leave enough space to get the tip of a CA bottle behind the wheel), mount, true, and gauge your wheels, then backfill the void space with CA.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Okay I followed through with some pictures.
Here's the axle and wheel without the gear box. You can see how far I need to move out the sideframes to make it work









Not quite the correct back to back spacing but it works. Another reason why I need to come up with some standards.









45mm on left hand side, P:29 on right










New spacer. It's .060" styrene











In place on the sideframe.










How it will be placed









In place with both shims. I used the factory screws right now, but would like to get longer screws.









Side view. The white certainly causes it to show up! If .060 on each side seems to work I will trim the edges so that it is not visible.











Craig


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By toddalin on 01 Nov 2011 10:20 PM 
Posted By bnsfconductor on 01 Nov 2011 10:08 PM 
Posted By toddalin on 01 Nov 2011 09:58 PM 
For what you want to do, I would not put the brass sleeve on as Greg outlines it on his site. He shows the inside and outside of the plastic sleeve being chamfered and if you are pushing the axles outward, you want/need maximum strength at the outter edge.

When I press the brass sleeve on I do not chamfer the plastic. Instead, I use a flare tool to slightly flare the end of the brass sleeve. The flare ends up next to the gear away from the outter edge where you don't need maximum strength.

Thanks for the tip. I will have to see if I can find some brass tubing that will work at the local hardware store. 
Craig 



I use common 3/8" brass tube.

If you are concerned about the strength because pushing the axles out doesn't give enough "bite" on the axle, you can extend the sleeves beyond the plastic (but leave enough space to get the tip of a CA bottle behind the wheel), mount, true, and gauge your wheels, then backfill the void space with CA.
I think I would like to avoid using CA as a back fill because then it would not make back conversion easy. But couldn't I make two sleeves? One for the extended axle, and another over the gear, and the extended axle? Just thinking out loud, so if it sounds weird it could be! Gluing the two sleeves together would/could eliminate having to back fill with CA right? But finding a sleeve for that would work might be hard... 

Craig


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I see you are making up the distance with just the axles in the casting... Do the wheels still run fairly true? 

You won't be able to put a sleeve on a sleeve mainly because the knurled end (in the casting) is larger in diameter than the smooth part of the axle. 

You could do it if you pressed the wheel completely off the axle and put a sleeve on that side, but for this to work well, you need a press fit, and that would take a lot of friction, even if you find a brass tube of exactly the proper dimensions inside and out. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Greg, 
Yes the wheels do seem to run true. I have just press fit them together for now as I would like to get them equally spaced on the gear, and also put them together with a press like you suggested. The only wheel that doesn't run true is the one side with the cracked gear! Now to find the best wheel/flange & rail interface so I can come up with a correct b to b spacing. 
Okay I get what your saying about the sleeves. Better just stick to what works. 
Craig


----------



## ConrailRay (Jan 2, 2008)

Craig,
Do it, Do it!! I was after this pursuit a few years ago. Proto29!!

Here's some of the ideas I came up with for the track:

1) having made "tie plate plugs". I believe Llagas has made simple ones in the past, but I figured the proper ones (similiar to the style of the metal ones you're using) would look good on accurately cut stained ties and be easier to assemble then hand spiking. Also, I really wanted to produce a version with rail anchors on them. I mean they have this in HO scale, why can't we have them here where you can actually see it?!? Also, using tie plate plugs instead of having full tie strips made, allows you to come up with several different variations/styles of track. ie, mainline tie spacing, altering standard tie plate with rail anchor tie plate. secondary track with wider tie spacing and maybe rail anchors every 3rd or forth. Then you can go different styles of single directional track usage, where the rail anchors have some crazy spread out cross pattern and are only on one side of the tie plate. I wanted to use the Llagas rail foot base width, since they can supply both code 215 and 250 already with the same foot width).

2) cast tie plates for switches. There's a lot of different tie plates that make up a switch. Would cast them for low volume and handspike the switches. 

3) possibly smaller rail.4) stick rail replication. put a slice in the top and bottom of the rail as you suggested. This should save the continuity of 6' rail lengths. 

4) joint bars: Grandt lines sells cast O scale joint bars that you can glue onto the web of the rail. I was considering this, but would be afraid to glue this to the web and watch them possibly pop off with expansion/contraction. I was thinking of casting something similar, but where the back of each joint bar has either a male or female protrusion. You could then drill a hole in the web of the rail, which would allow these parts to pass through, so you're effectively gluing the plastic together keeping them lightly clamped around the web of the rail.

This editor blows. seriously....

Anyway, I never really tried to modify any locos. Spreading the frames sides should be fairly easy on the aristo 3 axles locos, but not sure about widening the wheel guage themselves, as they are screwed on to a tapered axle end. I did however spike some track and altered one set of the aristo roller bearing trucks by widening the bolster, grinding down the cookie-cutter flanges, and adding small washers to the axles to keep the new proper wheel gauge.

In the end, no one seemed interested in even the tie plate plugs at the time, which would have helped spread the cost of the injection mold and reduce price per part for higher runs. Ended up getting Llagas 1/32 track, as it looks dam good on its own, and not too shabby even with a 1/29 loco sitting on top of it! 

Good luck!
-Ray


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yeah, and a little wobble is fine... watch the wheels on some of the 1:29 steam locos, they don't run true... 

Greg


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By ConrailRay on 01 Nov 2011 11:37 PM 
Craig,
Do it, Do it!! I was after this pursuit a few years ago. Proto29!!

Here's some of the ideas I came up with for the track:

1) having made "tie plate plugs". I believe Llagas has made simple ones in the past, but I figured the proper ones (similiar to the style of the metal ones you're using) would look good on accurately cut stained ties and be easier to assemble then hand spiking. Also, I really wanted to produce a version with rail anchors on them. I mean they have this in HO scale, why can't we have them here where you can actually see it?!? Also, using tie plate plugs instead of having full tie strips made, allows you to come up with several different variations/styles of track. ie, mainline tie spacing, altering standard tie plate with rail anchor tie plate. secondary track with wider tie spacing and maybe rail anchors every 3rd or forth. Then you can go different styles of single directional track usage, where the rail anchors have some crazy spread out cross pattern and are only on one side of the tie plate. I wanted to use the Llagas rail foot base width, since they can supply both code 215 and 250 already with the same foot width).

2) cast tie plates for switches. There's a lot of different tie plates that make up a switch. Would cast them for low volume and handspike the switches. 

3) possibly smaller rail.4) stick rail replication. put a slice in the top and bottom of the rail as you suggested. This should save the continuity of 6' rail lengths. 

4) joint bars: Grandt lines sells cast O scale joint bars that you can glue onto the web of the rail. I was considering this, but would be afraid to glue this to the web and watch them possibly pop off with expansion/contraction. I was thinking of casting something similar, but where the back of each joint bar has either a male or female protrusion. You could then drill a hole in the web of the rail, which would allow these parts to pass through, so you're effectively gluing the plastic together keeping them lightly clamped around the web of the rail.

This editor blows. seriously....

Anyway, I never really tried to modify any locos. Spreading the frames sides should be fairly easy on the aristo 3 axles locos, but not sure about widening the wheel guage themselves, as they are screwed on to a tapered axle end. I did however spike some track and altered one set of the aristo roller bearing trucks by widening the bolster, grinding down the cookie-cutter flanges, and adding small washers to the axles to keep the new proper wheel gauge.

In the end, no one seemed interested in even the tie plate plugs at the time, which would have helped spread the cost of the injection mold and reduce price per part for higher runs. Ended up getting Llagas 1/32 track, as it looks dam good on its own, and not too shabby even with a 1/29 loco sitting on top of it! 

Good luck!
-Ray 












Ray,
I was thinking that I may try and make some resin ties with tieplates molded onto them if the cost is similar or cheaper then handlaying all the rail. I don't think I will use tie plates on every single piece of track (unless I can do it fairly cheaply), but rather have selected 'scenes (the major towns, sidings, bridges etc)' on the railroad that are highly detailed but in between I would just spike the rail directly to the ties. But time will tell what I do. 



Your second point about tie plates for turnouts is right! I've got the engineering drawings for the two types turnouts I will need (#9, #11) and there is a bunch of different styles of tie plates; completely flat, regular tie plates, extended regular tie plates, and angle brace tie plates. Once again if it seems possible I may try and make some resin turnout ties, or at least copy the different styles of tie plates. Or even try and make them with a low melting metal that I've seen advertized in micromark. 

I think having 6' length rails would be ideal, but replicating 39' sections or short is possible. Is it a detail that would be noticed 3-5' away? No, but if I make scenes that are highly detailed then it looks better for the eye and the camera.

I didn't know grant line made joint bars for O. I bought a switch stand kit from Llagas and it included one point bar, but I need 2 more to complete the point set. I thought the switch stand would be smaller, but it's over 2' wide. A little over scale but I don't know if an O scale switch stand would; 1 have the throw distance to move the points, and 2 last outside. I thought about taking brass rod stock and making my own joint bars & point bars, but I will have to see. 

I don't currently own any Aristo Craft locomotives, and only have 1 car so I don't really know how the conversion process will be if I end up with more Aristo stuff. Most of my equipment is USA and LGB (which I may replace the trucks anyway with USA). So that's why I figured if I could convert easily most of my equipment it would allow this project to move forward. In regards to using code 215 and 250 rail with oversized flanges I've never had a problem. I would like to get smaller flanges but it's not a requirement for me (again cost/value issue). 




Any one know the where the flange of the wheel should sit on the rail? Should the flange be right up against the rail head, or should it be moved back? Looking at my wheels I notice that both the flange and the wheel body have wear marks, so I'm looking for advice so I can determine the correct b to b spacing.



Craig


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Any one know the where the flange of the wheel should sit on the rail? Should the flange be right up against the rail head, or should it be moved back? Looking at my wheels I notice that both the flange and the wheel body have wear marks, so I'm looking for advice so I can determine the correct b to b spacing. 
Craig, 

As someone pointed out a few pages back, all you have to do is take the 1/32nd standards (G1MRA and NMRA) and add the differential to the back-to-back. Why re-create the wheel? Your track is 0.2" wider, so your back-to-back should be 1.575+0.2 = 1.775".


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

all you have to do is take the 1/32nd standards (G1MRA and NMRA) and add the differential to the back-to-back. 
Agreed. Since your wheel profiles are not changing, simply broaden the targets for back-to-back and check gauge on the wheels, and check gauge and span on the track by .2" (the difference in overall track gauge.) Flangeways, etc. need not change. 

Later, 

K


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Alright thanks for the info. I will add .20 to the G1 standards and create a 'new' set of standards. 
Thanks for all the encouragement as this is something completely new and different to me, but at the same time kind of exciting. I wish I could see into the future to see if something like this would catch on ever. 
Craig


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

OK - back in the beginning of this on the first page it says - 
" I want to know what other people think..... 
45mm= 1.7716" 
56.5" in 1/29 = 1.94827 
A difference of ~.177".." ( Craig! ) 

The increase in track width is not .020" guys!?? ( Dirk ) 

I think the math was done then, on the first page! either 1.77" increase in b to b or round it up (1.7716" to 1.772") and use 1.76" b to b spacing, or average that out to a precise 1.765" and call it good to go!! 

Let's get the ball rolling and the whistle blowing, steam it up guys !!! Get on board!!! wooooooooo woooooooooooo!! 
What's that, "P-29" - mmmmm, sounds like a plane!!? weird... stuff,... going on here!! 

Dirk - DMS Ry.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Craig, 

Back on some of your power truck pictures is a down-ward looking view, showing where the new spacer would be located... 

But, I'm curious - in the original bolster mount there are 4 small tabs sticking out that should be in the way of your new spacer. IF you remove them, it is in conflict with the idea of removing the spacer to return to a normal track width?! What are your plans and how did you get around this issue? 

Thanks - Dirk - DMS Ry.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

1.771 seems to be the extreme end that the USA freight axles will allow, so it might be better to use .176. 

Craig


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By SD90WLMT on 03 Nov 2011 07:08 PM 
Craig, 

Back on some of your power truck pictures is a down-ward looking view, showing where the new spacer would be located... 

But, I'm curious - in the original bolster mount there are 4 small tabs sticking out that should be in the way of your new spacer. IF you remove them, it is in conflict with the idea of removing the spacer to return to a normal track width?! What are your plans and how did you get around this issue? 

Thanks - Dirk - DMS Ry. 


Dirk,
I know what tabs you are talking about. No I did not remove them, nor does it seem to be a problem that a spacer is over them. I think they are about .040" thick. I 'think' the original purpose is to keep the sideframes in the correct place. So it might be possible to remove them and not have any problems, but I went the easy route and put a shim over them. The side frames seem to hold well with out the tabs, but if one was to get picky a shim of .040 could be placed above the tabs, followed by a .060 shim but I don't see that as neccessary.

Craig


----------

