OPENING A CAN OF WORMS

[OddDuck]

Dave, any chance you have a better pic of that gauge? On my crappy work computer I can't make out the details of the left end (non y end) regarding the orientation of that end vs the y end. It's sitting on that oil spot on the ground and it's hard to make it out. Doesn't look like a complicated patternmaking job, if I could get some better pics I might be interested in making a batch or two in both gauges.

[Trainman4602]

Google it and you will see it but it is important that if the standard is adapted the spacing on the "Y" be the same.

[Cary Stewart]

Hello All,
In 1956-57 there was a magazine called NORTH AMERICAN LIVE STEAMER which lasted 12 issues. The two fellows that were behind it were using their own funds to publish it and in the end there were not enough subscribers to it folded. From Vol. 1, issues No.s 9, 10 & 11 comes these much edited letters.

No. 9: A letter from Mr. L.D. Hays of Independence, MO
He is planning on building a 1.5" scale loco and wonders what the correct gage should be. He apparently read some place that it was either 7.0" or 7.5" (yes the letter says 7" gage). He also asks if there are any other Live Steamers in his area.

No. 10: Mr. Richard B. Clark responds to the above. Using a slide rule he calculated that the correct gage for 1.5" scale should be 7.05" which for all practical purposes is 7" gage. As a side note I was told that if I wanted to build a true scale track it should be 7 1/16" (7.0625") which would be close enough (Cary). Of coarse this is just academic now.

No. 11: In a response to Mr. Hays' letter came this reply which apparently is from the early part of 1957. I have much edited it as it was just too long to include the text. This letter is from Bob Harpur (correct spelling) of Harpur/Allen Mogul fame. In response he submitted the following information.
In the May 1944 issue of Model Craftsman magazine there is an article my Lester Friend. I think this is the fellow who started Yankee Shop in MA. The title of the article was TRQACK AND SWITCH LAYOUTS FOR LIVE STEAM. Mr. Friend states that the gages which are considered standard by the Brotherhood of Live Steamers and all member clubs are as follows: 1/4" scale track gage = 1 1/4"; 1/2" scale = 2 1/2"; 3/4" scale = 3 1/2"; 1" scale = 4 3/4"; 1 1/2" scale = 7 1/2". Mr. Harpur goes on to discuss and present arguments for the 7 1/2" gage standard.

In my opinion Mr. Friend or the editors of Model Craftsman magazine made a type error that now lives in infamy. Why would a man who saw Live Steam in the North East from the beginning and also saw that earliest 1.5" scale track gage was 7 1/4" gage make such a statement? I have was told a long time ago by a member now long gone that an article in some publication before or during WWII there occurred a typo. So now we have the great North American gage goof up.

In the LALSRRM we have a set of wheel standards that have been part of the clubs regulations almost since the founding. Here is what we have to use as our "standard" for 1.5" scale. This should say 7 1/2" gage.
Reference gage (outside of flanges) 7.44" + .020", - .000"; Back to Back 7.12" + .029", - .000"; Tread Width .59" min.; Flange Depth .187" max. (.187 is design and fabrication recommendation. .22" is the limit after wear); Root Radius .094" + .010", - .010". There is a 10 degree angle either side of the end of the flange with the bottom radius. The tread cone angle is defined as 2 degrees 0 minutes min, 3 degrees, 0 minutes max. We have been compliant with the general IBLS specifications for years. Note that no where in the above are there any mention of track gage limits. I think we had some but they are gone now.

Beat, Cary Stewart

I hope you all find this most interesting.
.

[Cary Stewart]

Hello All,
Here is part two of my reply. From the 1996 LALS Roster at the last page in the book is a set of drawings and dimensions with limits where needed. These diagrams have been a part of our Roster since near the beginning of our club. We did not invent them. They were accepted "standards" already established. In by previous post I gave the current dimensions from the 2015 Roster. We no longer print the change dates but in the 1996 Roster we did and here they are.
The first published set was in 1966. The 1973 Rev. only changed the Tmin (Tread width) to .59". This has not changed since.
The 1980 Rev. changed the coupler height to 4.38" + or - .06". This was again changed in 2006 but this old dimension is still acceptable.
The 1984 Rev. changed only the F (Flange depth) for the 3 1/2" & 4 3/4" gages. Probably also the 7 1/2" gage at that time.
The 1988 Rev. the F to .187" max. and the R (Root radius at flange tread interface) to .095" + or - .015".

Now why have I gone to all this trouble to list these LALS dimensions? I am showing that the accepted IBLS Recommended Standards have been around since the time they were established formally in Live Steam Magazine in the, I believe, the late 1970s. So why would any manufacturer ask to make changes to these "Standards" that have been accepted by most if not all clubs and individuals tracks though out the United States and Canada. Note that I have not mentioned gages since my part 1 beginning. These wheel profile dimensions I believe are common to both gages.

Now about the new 7 916" & 7 5/8" gages. Why were the individual club or owner make this change? Some possibilities come to mind. A bunch of axle-wheel assemblies were manufactured to an error dimension and now must run on the expanded gage. As in the case of LALS a single man made a unilateral decision to broad gage all track panels to make it easier for a new group of men to make many track panels for an expansion. Or maybe your track was made to just the wrong gage by accident. For what ever reason you have changed the 7 1/2" gage arbitrarily. I strongly disagree with this move. It isn't needed on tangent (straight) track or track with a more or less gentle curve no matter how long your rigid wheel base is. Note that I made no mention of more severe curves. These do need a small increase in gage and perhaps some supper elevation. That is accepted railroad practice. I will take a guess and say that if you track curve radius is something over 100ft you may not need to increase the gage. We are about to have our 60th anniversary meet in May of this year. For those with long wheel base locomotives please be aware that our main line has at least two curves that are 60ft radius or a little less. The Smith Valley route may have shorter radius curves. In the case of our main line The design intent in 1979 when we started planning the expansions was to have a minimum track radius of 60ft. It was tough to do in a couple of cases. In our case increasing the radius is not possible because of location restrictions. When Lou Soibleman's Texas was completed he has a little trouble at a couple of places on our track. With a little tinkering his loco now can negotiate the main line fairly well.
If you dream loco is a 2-12-12-2 in 2ft gage prototype (One was proposed for a railroad in South America but was never built.) you will not be able to run that loco on our track or most of the other tracks in this country. I wonder if anybody is building a UP 2-12-2? That one might have problems.

Now a recommendation for Dave. If you plan in making and selling freight trucks in quantity you will probably be making your wheel via CNC and to had turn them just would not make profit possible. So given CNC machined wheels why change the profile?

Cary

[Trainman4602]

If I sell trucks they will be just un-machined castings only. I don't intend to sell finished trucks. It takes up to much time for little money.

BTW I do not uses CNC wheels.

[cp4449]

Cary let's be honest here....when Lou Soibleman's Texas showed up on the track, it straightened out a few curves so well the track crew could not have done it any better.....

I hope we get a lot of large framed locomotives in all scales at our meet this year. Could somebody please bring either a Texas or a Union Pacific type please?

[SteveM]

BTW I do not uses CNC wheels.

Here's how he does it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4_ro19aQZg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aesbEMA0ZBs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOI3E18IR3s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUixFwazDeo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZiElUnwnKs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAI9UGSYJXs

Steve

[Cary Stewart]

In response to cp4449 re. track straightening - Tee Hee. There is always some good that comes out of a problem s0lved.
Cary

[mattmason]

Not that is matters, here is my two cents. There is no need for track standards. The whole purpose of wheel standards is that one can take their train to another track and run successfully. As long as a track can handle a train that is to that standard, it does not matter any track "standards". The standard really is that an IBLS (or other measurements) can run on that track.

Lawyers love standards, as if anything is out of that there is fodder for a lawsuit. That is part of why Seymour lost the MiniRail battle with standards. At least in our area of the woods.

Plus, we all know that track can go in and out of those standards with temperature, wear, etc. Let's not over-think this.

[Trainman4602]

Sorry Matt

I totally disagree with your post. If that were the case then the prototype railroads wouldn't need them.

[Soot n' Cinders]

I'm with Matt, the standard is our equipment runs over it. If it details, it's not usually a big deal like it is on the full size railroads. It takes us a couple minutes to rerail and the damage is minor if there is any. Wear isn't a huge concern for us either because we are not doing this to make money. We don't have to make everything last as long as possible to make ends meet.
And to really play devils advocate, for railhead profile standards, what about railroads that use groovy track or similar systems? There's no way to make a piece of flat steel bar conform to the same profile as the west coast rail many railroads use.

[cbrew]

as i said in an earlier post, the specs i stay in when i machine my wheels. I run on west coast rail and steel bar. zero issues. in a perfect work, everything will be standardized to the exact degree. but this is not one, there is a point where over thinking it muddies the original intend of having fun