# Great news - Aristo to redesign steam loco drivers



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

A post from Lewis Polk and a call from Scott Polk today (I had previous conversations with Scott and Navin about the wheel flange problem) has confirmed:


They are going to resolve the issue, thin the flanges to proper dimensions and they are going to China to make sure it's done.

I have to say: "Whoopee"!


Nice to see a quick response to the problem and what an improvement this will make. Even the older steam loks that did not appear to have a problem really did, in an overly narrow back to back, and now that problem will be gone also. Much better running through switches.

Going to save me a lot of time and effort, since I was going to machine all the drivers on my steamers. 


Thanks Aristo!

Greg


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

I've not followed this situation, but what profile are they going to use? Gauge 1 needs a correct profile. I've used G1MRA for scatchbuilds and never once had a problem.


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

BAH!!!!








I was just going to let you know about the wheel change, was talking to Scott this morning.
Great News all the way around, seams things are changing quickly for the better at Aristo Craft, 
now if we could just get USA trains to increase their warranty from 1 year to 5 all would be well in G scale train world









Ron

PS, Greg check your post on directional lighting on the new steamers.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Bob, I asked Scott to email a mechanical drawing of the changes for people to review. 

Whether that happens or not, they are looking at a 1.5mm flange thickness. I also underscored the need for a proper fillet radius (between the tread and flange). 

If you measure their existing steam loco wheels, you will find flange depth and wheel tread taper and width are fine, considering the G1MRA standard (not fine scale) and the NMRA "standard" (not hi rail or proto). 

Ron, while a 5 year warranty on USAT sounds nice, the only consistent problem I have ever had is the split axles. I have about 40 locos, split between Aristo and USAT. I've never said to myself, gee I wish the USAT warranty was longer. I bought the USAT locos knowing that they have a split axle problem (knowledge thanks to forums), so I was prepared. I have, however, been very thankful for the Aristo warranty and service. 

So, let's not start bashing USAT on a thread about Aristo, OK... this was on a positive note... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

The profile G1MRA shows on their website has a 20 degree taper on tread side with a 1.5mm flange thickness and a 0.5mm fillet (root radius). That root radius is important. If they get that in there, you'll be good to go.

To muddy the waters, G1MRA had a profile standard from August 1965 that shows a 10 degree taper on both sides of the flange. I used it on 2 engines not knowing there was a "new" standard.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

My strategy is to ask for the important things first, since it seems so difficult sometimes to change. I did mention that the fillet needed to be smaller, but there's still a lot of "we have used this wheel profile for years" so it might not get changed, but those are the 2 things I asked for each time. I did not mention wheel tread width, taper, etc. 

I personally like the G1MRA better, because everything is there... in the NMRA standards, they do not specify the fillet radius, but suggest a fillet radius of 0.020" - .030", and to check with the RP25 standard for wheel contour (which does not make sense for large scale)... then you go to RP25 and it says that LS wheels follow the G1MRA standard. 

So, BOTH standards say 20 degree taper on the inside of the flange, no spec on the outside, and depending on how you read the NMRA standard, anywhere from 0.0196" to 0.30" fillet radius. 

Many people in 1:20.3 I have talked to follow the G1MRA standard and are very happy with it. ( even TOC likes it!) The NMRA standards are slowly converging on the G1MRA in my opinion. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Greg not bashing just wishing for the perfect world









On another positive note they are going to make the new wheels available for sale for the other steam engines as well.

Ron


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yeah, I understand Ron, but I would so love it if we could keep threads on topic! I always think about these threads being useful later when someone is new and we tell them to search the forums... when they find all kinds of junk, it sucks... when they find a nice "tight" thread that explores a topic and gives helpful information with no extra garbage, well that is a boon to them, to mylargescale, and to us, because it might save us from answering the same question for the millionth time.... ok ok, I'm off my soapbox..... 

Dunno about making them available to replace old ones... I sure just want them to concentrate on getting the wheel right... more info or pushing might get something else not done... Also, I have not measured the axles to see if they are the same as the previous production, (taper, length, etc.) 

I'll be doing more on my thread on the Consolidation, and I will be adding all the data I get to my web site... I've still got to suss out the electrical, lighting, go over the boiler, weights, etc. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

why didn't they do it right the first time? It's not like the G1 standards just appeared.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Ahh, there is a lot of history, and it starts with toy trains, and of course LGB. There's been a very slow evolution towards correct trackwork, wheel standards, etc. 

That's a long story, and might steam some people up. Let's just say that the definition of "what works" and "why" depends on your point of view, length of trains, curvature, ability to have level track, and on and on. 

I started the thread to spread good news, not beat up Aristo over history. The past may be interesting, but I'm looking to the future and happier times. 

Greg


----------



## steam5 (Jun 22, 2008)

That is a good positive outcome, glad to see it. 

I model 1:20.3, so I did not order an Aristo 2-8-0. It seems with the wheels fixed 1:29 guys will have a great medium sized steam loco. 

Alan


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By jfrank on 01 Aug 2011 07:41 PM 
why didn't they do it right the first time? It's not like the G1 standards just appeared. 
Hmmm..............

Maybe because G1MRA is not a model railroad standards organization...........

G1MRA is a UK organization - on their website they state:

_The Gauge One Model Railway Association is a Private Limited Liability Company registered in England and Wales_

There are other single country "Gauge 1" organizations that have defined their own standards - Spur II in Germany comes to mind.

http://www.spur-ii.de/english.html 


Besides, G1MRA has changed their "standards" a number of times in the past and their presentation of their standards is not very professional - I never considered them to be interested in doing anything outside of the UK.

Global standards should be covered by NMRA and MOROP, trouble is that they never took Large Scale seriously (where the csale of the equipment changes rather than the gauge of the track as in all the other model train scales) 


Knut


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By krs on 02 Aug 2011 05:19 PM 
Posted By jfrank on 01 Aug 2011 07:41 PM 
why didn't they do it right the first time? It's not like the G1 standards just appeared. 

Global standards should be covered by NMRA and MOROP, trouble is that they never took Large Scale seriously (where the csale of the equipment changes rather than the gauge of the track as in all the other model train scales) 


Knut 



The NMRA does have standards for gauge one, just the manufacturers don't follow it. They follow their own code whatever that is. I am always amazed that in every gauge except gauge one the manufacturers follow NMRA standards. And when products are reviewed they always point out if there are any exceptions to the standards. In gauge one they don't even use the correct scale, having invented something called 1:29 scale which relates to nothing in the real world.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Knut, I went to the spur II link, they seem not to be embracing any standard gauge scale based on 45 mm track: 

II - Standard gauge 1435 mm - 64 mm gauge 
IIm - Narrow gauge 1000 mm - 45 mm gauge 
IIe - Narrow gauge 760-750 mm - 32 mm gauge 
IIf - Slim and Industrial gauge less then 750 mm - 30/26,7 mm gauge 

Yep, Morop was the standard Aristo mentioned a while back when they said they were going to follow standards... but if you look at MOROP, you will see they still have what I call "toy train" standards, they allow overly deep flanges, wide ranges of back to back, etc. 

The G1MRA "standard" standard is not only well worked out, and does not suffer of gross tolerances from the target values, but the NMRA states it is working to be congruent with the G1MRA stuff... great news to me. In fact if you read up on the NMRA LS wheel standard, and follow their recommendation for wheel contour, you will see that the RP25 page says LS wheels should follow the G1MRA standard. 

Very interesting, and I believe that Kevin Strong had a lot to do with this... great... (my opinion) 

Greg


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By jfrank on 02 Aug 2011 08:01 PM 
The NMRA does have standards for gauge one, just the manufacturers don't follow it.



I always looked at "Gauge 1" and "Large Scale" as two different product groups - and so does NMRA it seems.

Wheel and rail standards for Gauge 1 (which in NMRA are only listed under General Proto Scales) are much closer to the scales down prototypical versions. more suitable for an indoor railroad.

For "Large Scale" or what NMRA includes under "Hi-Rail", more emphasis is placed on reliable operation in an outdoor environment where everything around the scale model railroad rmains in 1:1 scale.

So the rails themselves are higher, the wheel flanges are larger, the tolerances between wheel gauge and track gauge are broader; even the trains themselves are more robust and less detailed that "1 gauge" equipment - everything designed and constructed in a way that makes outdoor operation more reliable.


I really think that Large Scale equipment should never be called "Gauge 1", in my mind they are different types of products adressing totally different product needs.



That the track gauge happens to be similar (actually not identical if you look at things closely), is a bit of a coincidence in a sense - when LGB started with this is 1968, their target market was to create a "toy train" for kids - large, robust, inexpensive and with tight curves so it could be use inside as well as out - that meant trains roughly based on narrow gauge railroads where rolling stock was shorter and curves tighter than for standard gauge, so they ended up with 1:22.5 scale and the equivalent of Meter-gauge track (not that the prototypes of many of their early models actually ran on Meter-gauge track, but they were at least all narrow gauge).

One question that comes up in Europe a lot - can LGB equipment run on model gauge 1 track and/or can gauge equipment run on LGB (or Large Scale) track - and the answer is "No" and "Not Reliably."


Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 02 Aug 2011 08:07 PM 
Knut, I went to the spur II link, they seem not to be embracing any standard gauge scale based on 45 mm track: 

II - Standard gauge 1435 mm - 64 mm gauge 
IIm - Narrow gauge 1000 mm - 45 mm gauge 
IIe - Narrow gauge 760-750 mm - 32 mm gauge 
IIf - Slim and Industrial gauge less then 750 mm - 30/26,7 mm gauge 

Yes Greg, I had my blinkers on when I made this comment since I run Meter gauge not standard gauge, so these "Standards" popped into my head.

My main point was really that one cannot consider any individual club or country organization to have established a "standard" that applies beyond that club or organization.

A true "Standard" needs to be developed and officially endorsed and published by the appropriate 'Standards Organization" and that for moder railroading is NMRA and MOROP.

I'm actually a bit 'pissed' that NMRA and MOROP are not more in tune and that MOROP has published all their standards only in German and French with English only available for some of them.
But I suppose a lot of that is volunteer work.

Glad to hear that there seems to be some activity to create (or adopt) a wheel/track standard for "Large Scale" at NMRA. Should have happened at least 20 years ago or even earlier, but I assume NMRA thought 'Large Scale' was a passing fad. 


As an aside, about a year ago I collected replacement metal wheel sets designed for 'Large Scale' from a wide range of manufacturers because that standards issue has come up umpteen times in the past and I wanted to find out which "standards" the manufacturers followed and what the actual dimensions of the various wheelsets and track geometries were.

Well - as far as "Standards" they followed - I either received no response or something vague like the "LGB standard"
As to dimensions - they tended to be a bit all over the map, but in most cases things did end up being compatible simply because of the large tolerances that allowed a lot of 'slop' but still provided reliable operation.

Knut


----------



## Tom Leaton (Apr 26, 2008)

I understand your conclusion that G1 trains do not run well on Large Scale/Toy track and vice versa. But based on my NMRA experience, I would venture to say that if a G1 loco can not run on LS track then something is wrong. Obviously, big toy flanges can hit the spike heads and flangeways of fine scale trackage. But properly built large scale track should be able to accommodate scale locos: I have seen Aster locos run on LGB track, and I imagine their owners rightly expect to do so. If the LGB plastic ties have loosened and the rails are starting to spread then it is time for a box of spikes.
\
Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Tom Leaton (Apr 26, 2008)

Just out of curiousity, since Marklin uses smaller flanges than LGB, what standards do they use? 

cheers


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Tom Leaton on 03 Aug 2011 06:47 PM 
I understand your conclusion that G1 trains do not run well on Large Scale/Toy track and vice versa. But based on my NMRA experience, I would venture to say that if a G1 loco can not run on LS track then something is wrong.

This is actually not my conclusion but what people have reported who have tried these combinations - I don't own any "fine scale" 1/32 model trains like Hübner or Märklin.
The issue running them on LS track relates to a large degree around various types of switches - also to some degree how well the LS track has been laid or if it has slightly shifted due to the weather.

That's why the answer is not a categorical "No" but a "Not Reliably".
Large Scale equipment has no problem handling track that is not laid perfectly or the various types of LS switches (well most of the time anyway), fine scale gauge 1 does - those model trains are really meant for indoor use and more prototypical trackwork.


Knut


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

Posted By Tom Leaton on 03 Aug 2011 06:55 PM 
Just out of curiousity, since Marklin uses smaller flanges than LGB, what standards do they use? 

cheers 


You mean the Marklin Gauge 1 equipment like this?
http://www.eurorailhobbies.com/erh_detail.asp?mn=1&ca=5&sc=1&stock=55563 
I assume they follow the MOROP standard NEM 310 (only available in German and French unfortunately)

http://www.morop.eu/de/normes/nem310_d.pdf

Don't know for sure but it wouldn't make any sense for them to use anything else.

Knut


----------

