Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

72754Re: electric pick-up problems Wheel spacing

Expand Messages
  • mark2playz
    Apr 29, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Jeff,
      I agree back-to-back isn't the best number which is why I recommended the S-4.2 document. But since it is specified as a derived value per the standard it is a little more useful than for guard track placement. It should include the variation of wheel placement and flange width (and implies a tread variation, if one assumes the goal is for the assembly to fit in the truck). But I'll bet a Mikado that at least one manufacturer uses it as a manufacturing standard since it's an easy production measurement.
      I use the NZT clearance gauge as well as MTL's track/coupler gauge, but since we don't know the manufacturing tolerances for them, I'm not sure I recommend them to others. I prefer to rely on my digital micrometer.

      Mark

      --- In z_scale@yahoogroups.com, BAZ <sjbazman49@...> wrote:
      >
      > Well . . . the back-to-back sets a guide for inside turnout guard rails but doesn't account the variation in the flange and tread profile. Even the manufacturers have issues, with manufacturing tolerance on wheels to turnouts. Märklin locos, turnouts and Rokohan track have never had gauge issues.
      >
      > I use both the Nn3 standard gauge (via Northwest Short Line) and MTL's track/coupler gauge. I find that if any manufacturers flange (that maximal diameter part) it's in the *middle* of the notch, it run on anything. A few thou either way (the width of that notch) and you can have issues.
      >
      > Rodney's tools made a wheel gauge tool. Needs a chamfer gradient files on one edge to allow it to get on under gauges axles. Still, check the flange. At least it makes the wheels parallel (some just put a screwdriver in there and wedge the wheel out, causing wobbling.
      >
      > Jeff
      > SF Bay Area Z
      >
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic