Small Flanges and G Scale Track

[MTheStrong]

Yes, the question was about building a loco, and fine flanges were specifically asked about.

I would wager you don't have any really "fine" or approaching scale flanges.

So I would expect your stuff to work fine on your track.

But, it does not address the question in the original post, which is what I was kind of referencing. Here in the US also, many people never look at or use the standards and they are also usually quite happy too.

I was more questioning why the G1MRA standards do not seem to ever be referenced in the forum, or by this specific question.

Regards, Greg

Could it be that the majority of people here do not scratch build and therefore the question of G1MRA standards are largely irrelevant?

 

[Rhinochugger]

Yes, the question was about building a loco, and fine flanges were specifically asked about.

I would wager you don't have any really "fine" or approaching scale flanges.

So I would expect your stuff to work fine on your track.

But, it does not address the question in the original post, which is what I was kind of referencing. Here in the US also, many people never look at or use the standards and they are also usually quite happy too.

I was more questioning why the G1MRA standards do not seem to ever be referenced in the forum, or by this specific question.

Regards, Greg

Greg, most of the answers to your questions are in the thread, but maybe not fully explained.

1. Fine flanges - I'm not aware of any ready to run fine scale equivalent in G1 (such as EM or P4 in 4mm:1ft) so G1MRA is likely to be the finest (unless someone wants to go it alone as some G1MRA members have done with G1 Finescale).
2. Slaters wheels are G1 wheels and are made to G1MRA standards, and are therefore the finest scale loco wheels readily available off the shelf.
3. As virtually all of the readily available G scale offerings (track and wheels) are interchangeable in use (in principle - a few caveats there) people aren't going to go and look for another set of standards.
4. In fact the G1MRA back-to-back is the same as G scale, so there's no real point worrying.
5. In track terms, you could argue that Peco's code 250 turnouts (available in G scale and G1) are to a finer scale than other manufacturers because the lever throw is shorter, and there is consequently a narrower, and slightly more prototypical, gap between the toe of the blade and the stock rail - but G scale wheels and G1MRA wheels happily pass through them.
6. The finest profiled rolling stock wheels that I have seen are those used by Swift Sixteen, and on their four wheel wagons, they don't always take too kindly to being propelled in reverse through an Aristo #6 in a leading direction.

So, yes, we did answer Ricky's question, because he was not asking about G1 Finescale, he was, in fact, asking about finer wheel profiles than, say LGB.

 

[PhilP]

The other reason 'we' do not mention G1MRA standards, is we are not G1..

We are 'G' (whatever that is at this phase of the moon!)..
We run on a coarser track profile, with coarser wheel-specs., representing a different prototypical gauge.

I would guess most of us, if talking about 'gauge 1', would tend to think of British outline main-line. - I certainly would.

 

[Rhinochugger]

The other reason 'we' do not mention G1MRA standards, is we are not G1..

We are 'G' (whatever that is at this phase of the moon!)..
We run on a coarser track profile, with coarser wheel-specs., representing a different prototypical gauge.

I would guess most of us, if talking about 'gauge 1', would tend to think of British outline main-line. - I certainly would.

Not quite, our wheel specs are only coarse in flange depth - that's my point - G scale and G1MRA standards are the same in the one crucial aspect of back-to-back measurement.

That's why none of us worry about G1MRA standards, 'cos G scale meets it in the vital area, and thus we can run G1 wheels (even if they can't run G scale wheels)

We also only run on a higher rail profile - the gritty bits through turnouts (points) match both wheel sets.

 

[Greg Elmassian]

I've concentrated a lot on getting my turnouts (normally the greatest source of derailments) working well.

I learned a lot about turnouts, back to back, gauge, etc. Let's just say I started learning when I could not back a 7 car train on my inner loop (which is almost all 10' curves)... after I learned a lot about flangeways, wing rails, flange depths, widths, back to back, etc. I can now back a 45 car train on the SAME track.

So, one thing I learned was about flange bearing frogs, mostly exemplified in LGB turnouts, and what happened if you ran wheels with flanges that we not as deep, clearly they now did not ride on the flange through the frog, and had to depend on back to back, and wing rail flangeway width, as well as the guard rail flangeway widths on the stock rails.

In a nutshell I came up with what works and does not look toylike, and allows me to use a set of standards. Somewhere along the way the NMRA updated it's standards and also pretty much adopted the G1MRA standards, albeit with a bit more "latitude", mostly to accomodate the more lax standards by a number of manufacturers.

The bottom line is that by following these standards, my railroad runs much better, and I can have a mix of manufacturer's products. Now, yes, I run much longer trains and demand (apparently) more reliability in running.

But the bottom line, adhering to these standards, re-gauging wheels, eliminating improper flanges on wheels, setting proper flangeway widths, makes my layout run exceptionally well. From how well the G1MRA standards work, I thought that Europe, or at least the UK would be the "Mecca" for adoption of these standards.

But from the responses here, one would be led to believe otherwise, and I am somewhat surprised.

That all (yeah I know, that's enough ha ha!)

Greg

 

[musket the dog]

A lot of good tips in here guys, thanks very much. I only have LGB points at the moment but no permanent line either so pleanty plenty of opportunity to make sure I get the base right when the time comes.

I hadn't come across the Walsall wheels before, I was planning on battery power so the solid spokes wouldn't be too much of an issue. It might be possible to fit a nylon bush or similar to the centre to insulate them. Maybe really push the boat out and use something like carbon fibre axles.

 

[Rhinochugger]

A lot of good tips in here guys, thanks very much. I only have LGB points at the moment but no permanent line either so pleanty plenty of opportunity to make sure I get the base right when the time comes.

I hadn't come across the Walsall wheels before, I was planning on battery power so the solid spokes wouldn't be too much of an issue. It might be possible to fit a nylon bush or similar to the centre to insulate them. Maybe really push the boat out and use something like carbon fibre axles.

Ah, I'd forgotten Walsall wheels - I looked at them a few years ago, but their website wasn't easy, and, as you say Ricky, being cast wheels, there is the insulation issue.

If you can afford them, Slaters are better, and you can also buy cranks and brass axle bearings.

Either way, we'll be interested to watch progress, there are not many G scale scratchbuilt chassis around mainly, I think, due to scarcity of parts.

For my 2-6-2 with bogie tender, all of the wheels cost me £120, and that was a few years ago

 

[musket the dog]

Ah, I'd forgotten Walsall wheels - I looked at them a few years ago, but their website wasn't easy, and, as you say Ricky, being cast wheels, there is the insulation issue.

If you can afford them, Slaters are better, and you can also buy cranks and brass axle bearings.

Either way, we'll be interested to watch progress, there are not many G scale scratchbuilt chassis around mainly, I think, due to scarcity of parts.

For my 2-6-2 with bogie tender, all of the wheels cost me £120, and that was a few years ago

I had thought it quite odd that 3D printing had not been tapped up more for it's chassis making potential. Compared to some of the efforts I have seen people go to to replicate entire body shells, the geometry and 3D modelling involved in making an LGB-esk motor block is quite simple. As long as you're willing to put in the time with a vernier. I'll probably look into the Slater's route, I'l share some progress when the parts start to arrive

 

[Rhinochugger]

I had thought it quite odd that 3D printing had not been tapped up more for it's chassis making potential. Compared to some of the efforts I have seen people go to to replicate entire body shells, the geometry and 3D modelling involved in making an LGB-esk motor block is quite simple. As long as you're willing to put in the time with a vernier. I'll probably look into the Slater's route, I'l share some progress when the parts start to arrive

Cambrian Models make a very simple and cheap chassis

http://www.cambrianmodels.co.uk/16loco.html

 

[dunnyrail]

I think the key to good and successful running is to try to keep to a set of wheel standards. Over the years on my trips to USA I have bought varying small makers metal wheels, I have also had a few from GRS as well. Mostly I found that these were the ones that gave me trouble so have now standardised in LGB and Bachman Metal Wheels. I get the odd derailment mostly caused by too fast running but can happily propell 30 axles pretty well anywhere on my line. Though occasionally a Newquid/LGB Wagon conversion that is light may grumble if next to the engine. My Track/Points are LGB/Peco with a few bits of Trainline and plenty of Aristo Curves most curves are R4.
JonD