IBLS Wheel Standards

[david griner]

Hello,
The IBLS Wheel Standards provide dimensions for new construction of wheel sets. Are there any condemning limits provided for that standard?
Attached are some of the limits associated with CFR 49 Part 230 for full size steam locomotives. Has this sort of dimensioning been developed for the IBLS Standard?
Respectfully,
Dave Griner

[Cary Stewart]

Yes, back in the 1970s. My brother and others set about to make detailed spec.'s but was met with a great deal of resistance. It seems that these kinds of specifications are not popular with many live steamers. Some of the limits did find their way into the LALS standards and some were used in the so called IBLS standard. Things happen. The gauges of the various tracks around drift from what supposedly was a 'standard'. The LALS track is one them. It is an interesting subject though.
Cary

[mattmason]

Not sure there neds to be. If a track feels a wheel is worn beyond a safe point, they can ask the equipment to be parked. More importantly, if condemnation standards are out there and an accident happens, you have given a lawyer a potential hook to hang their hat on.

[tburzio]

Most poorly performing cars I've seen seem to be a result of poorly designed or executed bolsters rather than bad wheels. Usually, the tight radius on our tracks creates a bind or rub and the wheel pops off the rail.

[keyrouteken]

Hello Everybody-- I was just going to post some Standards info here, and after having all the info ready to go, hit CANCEL and blew everything away! Duh ??

Ok--to try once again...

In 1978-1979 there was a "Blue-Ribbon" committee formed of SIX (6) individuals
who were asked to meet and put together a defined list of "BLS WHEEL STANDARDS".
These individuals, known to many in our Fraternity, were as follows:

Austin Barr
Brenton Barnfather
Ken Shattock
Jack Kerr
Doug Alkire
Robert Brinkman

Because of our efforts to put together these BLS Standards, we were each presented with the "10th Annual Live Steam Magazine Award" on December 1, 1979 by the late William C. Fitt, then-Editor of Live Steam Magazine.

The points brought up in the Chaski forum tonight, raise some interesting issues.
For the time being, I would like to share some of the Standards developed by the Golden Gate Live Steamers back in 2009.

Please make comments regarding this discussion. Also, please don't forget to answer the Survey posted earlier this week about the Pros and Cons of establishing an IBLS Website and some other ideas too. Thanks everybody!

Happy Live Steaming !!

Ken Shattock

Secretary
North American Region
IBLS

[keyrouteken]

2009 GGLS Standards (continued)

Ken Shattock

Secretary
North American Region
IBLS

[Cary Stewart]

Seveal decades ago at a major meet at the LALS we had a visitor from somewhere who showed up with a loco and a few cars with a wheel profile similar to Ken's Fig. 57.17 KiB. One of the meet officials followed the fellow around the track (aluminum at that time) and picked up the shavings that he left on curves. When the fellow came in for water out meet chairman and others confornted the man gently and told him that his sharp cornered no taper wheel design was not acceptable to run on our track. He got very hot and said that he had run all over the US with those wheels and there was never a problem. He packed his train up and left. In some cases we had to go around and file the rough places so that other trains would not derail. This is an extreme case but it points out why we have wheel standards and enforce them. The ones at LALS have been modified from time to time with great deliberation and checking. I believe that they are compatible with the IBLS standards and as long as your 'back to back' and flange depth and thickness are not too excessive you will probably be allowed to run. If you have wheels like the ones I described you will be asked to remove you train from the track and bring it back when you have re machined the wheels or replaced them. Now off the soap box.
Cary

[Loco112]

IBLS Proposed standards.

[Harlock]

Since everyone uses them, they are a 'de-facto' standard. It no longer matters if they were proposed or not.

The big problem with the IBLS standards is that they are designed for 1 1/2" scale equipment, and even then the flange is too shallow.

I see lots of derailments on bad track that might otherwise not cause flanges to leap over the railhead if the flanges were a little bit deeper.

Fortunately I stick to short wheelbase engines, 0-4-0s and 0-4-2s and the like. Not generally a problem for me, but been stuck behind plenty of people waiting for them to re-rail their monster thing with screw jacks and such. Live steam tracks aren't generally maintained like mainline tracks, they very to extremes in quality, which is why a tolerant standard is desirable.

That's a nice thing about our 9" gauge standard at Mesa Grande Western. It was designed from the ground up for 3" scale and for good operation. Doug Alkire also made those standard sheets. I will be discussing them in the Nov/Dec issue of Live Steam.

[hudson]

In continental Europe we have standards established by NEM

see:

http://www.miba.de/morop/nem310g_d.pdf

and

http://www.miba.de/morop/nem311g_d.pdf

I do not know if the individual clubs adhere to these standards or not.

The wheel flange has a different profile.

hudson

[cbrew]

Since everyone uses them, they are a 'de-facto' standard. It no longer matters if they were proposed or not.

The big problem with the IBLS standards is that they are designed for 1 1/2" scale equipment, and even then the flange is too shallow.

I see lots of derailments on bad track that might otherwise not cause flanges to leap over the railhead if the flanges were a little bit deeper.

Fortunately I stick to short wheelbase engines, 0-4-0s and 0-4-2s and the like. Not generally a problem for me, but been stuck behind plenty of people waiting for them to re-rail their monster thing with screw jacks and such. Live steam tracks aren't generally maintained like mainline tracks, they very to extremes in quality, which is why a tolerant standard is desirable.

That's a nice thing about our 9" gauge standard at Mesa Grande Western. It was designed from the ground up for 3" scale and for good operation. Doug Alkire also made those standard sheets. I will be discussing them in the Nov/Dec issue of Live Steam.

Mike. I believe the derailment problems you speak of has little to do with the flange and everything to do with flexibility. you don't need much of a flange as long as the wheels stay in contact with the rail. RMI and Mountain car have always (in the past) sprung there trucks way to tight so they would derail a lot. the trucks on my junk have over a .5inch travel before getting close to binding and the only time i have been on the ground (other then points not closing on the switches) is when i hooped my cattle car on the ground by too much speed as it hooped off of a crossing at TM..

I first started cutting my flanges close to the max of .1875, but after talking with vets in the hobby. I now aim for .150 ish. one gentleman aims for .125 and had very little derailments.

[PRR G5s]

I know this might fan the flames, but I wonder why it appears so many people are opposed to standards. Standards are what allow individuals in our hobby to go from one track to another with their equipment. The IBLS Wheel "Standard" is only a stepping stone to other standards our hobby should include. I won't list them, because instead of fanning the flames, I'd be throwing gasoline on the fire. Someone mentioned by adding "acceptable" wear standards to wheels would be opening the hobby up to liability. Isn't giving rides to the general public already doing this? I think by not having standards is opening ourselves up to litigation, especially hauling the public. Unfortunately, something may happen that causes either the government to develop standards for us, or the government shutting us down. I'll get off my soapbox now. BTW, I'm not a lawyer.

Eric L.