# Wheel and Track Standards



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

*Preface*
About two years ago, the NMRA put forth a proposal for large scale wheel and track standards. A copy of that proposal made its way into my inbox for me to look over. I read over what they had proposed, and found it quite out of line with what the large scale community had been doing. I drafted a letter to the NMRA expressing my concerns, going further to question the NMRA's involvement in large scale, given the perceived mutual exclusivity of the two communities. I was expecting a "thanks for your note" response at the most; more to the point, I was fully expecting to be completely ignored. Instead, the NMRA asked me to work with them, even to take a leadership role in the process. I could hardly justify turning them down, so I agreed to take on what had up to this point proven to be a very quixotic task.

*The Process*
Over the next year or so, I gathered information on what standards currently existed (G1MRA, MOROP), as well as measured wheels and track to see who was doing what, and how they compared to those standards. I talked to manufacturers and and others who have been involved in this process in years past to get their perspective. The goal was to come up with a set of standards tight enough to where trains would stay on the rails, but loose enough so that they allow for smooth operation of most of the models already being produced. Together with Gary Raymond, the NMRA's technical coordinator for large scale, and input from others in the large scale community along the way, we drew up three "levels" of standards for large scale, tailored to match the NMRA's standards format. Once we had our numbers put together, we took them to Didrik Voss and Ed McCamey, who head the NMRA's standards committee. (Forgive me if I'm getting the exact titles wrong.) Didrik and Ed took the numbers we came up with, and ran them through a series of mathematical equations that check for incompatibilities (i.e., wheels wider than track, etc.), and came back to us with their results. With just a little adjustment here and there (in most cases, no more than .002") we finally agreed on a set of numbers that should provide a solid foundation for large scale wheel and track. 

*The Proposal*
The full proposal can be viewed here: http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandr...esv1-5.pdf 

What it does:
The proposal establishes a single wheel and track standard for all of the principle scales that run on gauge 1 (45mm) track. This includes scales from 1:32 to 1:20.3. The thought process there being that trains of all those scales are inherently designed to run on the same track, therefore a single standard regardless of scale would ensure maximum compatibility. The proposal does allow for a fair amount of flexibility in terms of tread width, flange width, and flange depth so that a manufacturer of 1:20.3 trains can develop a wheel profile suitable for that scale, while leaving the 1:32 manufacturer free to use a wheel profile with a more scale appearance for that particular scale and still be compliant. 

The proposal establishes two basic standards, a "standard" profile and a "hi-rail" profile. The _only_ difference between those two standards is with regard to flange width and depth. The "hi-rail" standard allows for deeper and thicker flanges than the "standard" standard. Manufacturers are already building wheels that fall into the specs for both of these standards, and run successfully in the garden, so there's no worries about one being "too finescale" for outdoor use. There is no difference in track standards between the two sets of numbers. 

The numbers in the proposal closely mirror certain G1MRA standards which have become common practice in large scale (such as a target back-to-back spacing of 1.575"), but tolerances have been loosened here and there to accommodate legacy products, such as older locomotives with much tighter back-to-back spacing or deeper wheel flanges. These legacy dimensions may exist outside the specifications, but the track standards are designed such that they should still operate smoothly. 


What it does not do: 

The proposal makes no attempt to individually identify any of the scales in the 1:32 to 1:20.3 range so far as wheels and track are concerned. Historically, the notion of individually identifying each of the various scales has never caught on, so the committee decided there was no point in doing something that was going to be completely ignored anyway. Instead, they are all grouped under the generic "LS" heading. One set of numbers, one overall classification. ("Fn3" is singled out in the Proto specifications, not covered by this proposal.) This proposal also does not directly specify standards for 7/8" scale (2' gauge on 45mm track) or 1:20.3 (F) Standard gauge (70.6mm gauge), though recommendations for those scales are mentioned in the footnotes. 


This proposal also does not address anything above the wheels and track relative to large scale. It doesn't set coupler heights, interfaces, operational protocols, or anything of that nature. It is singularly aimed at the interface of the wheel and rail. 


*My Editorial Comments*
I expect the immediate reaction to this proposal by some members of the large scale community will be that it's viewed as an intrusion on large scale by a group that has "no business" messing around with us. Certainly previous attempts by the NMRA have resulted in numbers that clearly did not reflect the needs nor practices of the large scale community. I believe this time is different. The NMRA really changed their way of thinking relative to these standards. It was a bit of a tough row to hoe in the beginning, but our discussions over the past two years have opened a lot of eyes (mine included) as to how each community works. They really let go of a lot of control in this process. This proposal is in no way "them" telling "us" how to do things. These standards are fundamentally based on "our way of thinking," but presented in a format that meshes with the NMRA's standards format. Ultimately, the end result is the same--workable standards to which manufacturers current and future can refer when developing new products, ensuring our trains--past, present, and future have the best shot at staying on the rails. 


If you feel an uncontrollable urge to comment on this proposal, you may do so by clicking this link: http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/consist.html then clicking on the "Comments from Members" link near the top of the page. 


*In Closing* 

I know there's a fair amount of anti-NMRA sentiment in large scale. In fact, it was my own biases against the NMRA that got me involved in the process. I would not have spent 2 years working on this if I felt it wasn't going to help the hobby. I don't care which letters are at the top of the sheet of paper, the concept of a set of numbers to which manufacturers can look to establish a baseline for their products will ultimately be a good thing for all of us. We've all spent too much time trouble-shooting switches and re-gauging wheels for us not to recognize the need for some sense of agreement. The manufacturers have been marching there--slowly--if only because we complain when things don't stay on the track. This proposal serves as a guide, reinforcing the direction that many of these manufacturers have gone, and hopefully providing a bit of incentive for others to join along. 

Later,

K


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

QUOTE:


Together with Gary Raymond, the NMRA's technical coordinator for large scale, and input from others in the large scale community along the way, we drew up three "levels" of standards for large scale, tailored to match the NMRA's standards format. Once we had our numbers put together, we took them to Didrik Voss and Ed McCamey, who head the NMRA's standards committee. (Forgive me if I'm getting the exact titles wrong.) Didrik and Ed took the numbers we came up with, and ran them through a series of *mathematical equations* that check for incompatibilities (i.e., wheels wider than track, etc.), and came back to us with their results. 


UNQUOTE: 


Forgive my curiosity... 


*WHAT* Equations did they use and *WHERE* did they source them from ?


Just a simple question from an EU citizen and non NMRA member...


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

They're listed on the proposal--a series of 9 or so equations using various dimensions. They're essentially basic tests to make sure that things like the back to back spacing between the wheels is wider than the guard rails, the flanges are narrower than the flangeways, things of that nature.

Later, 

K


----------



## altterrain (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 23 Oct 2009 12:43 AM 

I know there's a fair amount of anti-NMRA sentiment in large scale. 





Why should that be, when they won't even acknowledge 7/8's scale modelers?

-Brian


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Since I have invited the NMRA via their representative to explain and document the validity and source of their formulae use for the generation of their tabled data. I think it meaningful and worthwhile to the discussion to examine the data tables and formulae that I have used to: design and built my own locomotives, and trackwork...


http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/mls/HG/


The source volume is (of course), *"Model Railways, Their Design, Details, and Practical Construction"* by Henry Greenly Associate of the Institute of Locomotive Engineers. I have the 1924 Edition published by Messrs Cassel.

Note: this volume being over 75 years old is thus out of Copyright.


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Having consulted the document at high resolution -would you like to indicate WHERE the formulae may be found?


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

I applaud your efforts Kevin! As you can see though, even something as straightforward as wheel standards (without anything else added) is going to have to be able to defend itself and the process by which it came about! Ralph's question is an excellent illustration of the need for the NMRA to document _everything_ in the process if we are to get beyond the mistrust and acrimony (and not just about wheel standards!) Again, thanks for your efforts as it was going to take _someone_ from our side with some clout to actually convince the powers that be (and to work with them) to get the process started!


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Ralph, the pertinent equations are the "relationship tests" located immediately under the standards located on page 2 and 4 of the draft proposal. As for any other mathematical formulae used to derive these numbers, there are none. We didn't go at this from a theoretical perspective. We went from the perspective of what has already been demonstrated over the years to work, (and not work) and built from there. Greenly didn't have the advantage of decades of practical experience to draw upon when he did his work. We do, and it's decidedly to our advantage. We know what works, and can look at physical examples of why it does (and why it does not). Presumably, G1MRA likely based their standards on the work of Mr. Greenly, and since these standards are at least partially based on G1MRA, we are--by extension--building upon his formulae as well. When you compare Greenly's numbers to what is in this proposal, you'll find them remarkably similar. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

I too applaud your effort Kevin. 

Large scale is where HO was 60 years ago. I do not hear any lamenting the good old pre standards days amongst HOers though there were plenty of naysayers at the time. The NMRA, despite its shortcomings with large scale, is still the best positioned organization to deal with standards in North America.

So carry on and yes there will be naysayers especially those who would not accept a standard with the NMRA logo on just because it has the logo. But some patience and perseverance on your part may finally see this thing through.

Regards ... Doug


----------



## Dr G (Jan 16, 2008)

Kevin, 

Great work. I am a ex-HO scale convert and I must agree with Doug's comments, I do not lament the "good old days"--the more manufacturers make their equipment adhere to NMRA standards the better it runs. They are far from perfect--that horrid X2F standard HO coupler from my childhood is a great example, but it is a place to start. 

I personally appriciate the great amount of work you have done and look forward to some kind of standard. Maybe even an NMRA standards guage--it was a godsend in my HO days in making sure everything ran well. If it don't run well, it aint no fun!!!! 

And for me this is all about fun. 

Besides, if the nay-sayers hate the idea of NMRA standards so much--why can't they just ignore them? 

Regards, 

Matt


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

At first review, this looks a whole lot better. Making sure you execute the relationship tests is vital, and it is very welcome, since the previous approved standards did NOT work in some cases. 

I'll look forward to examining them in more detail, and I will experiment by implementing them if I find no glaring errors. 

Thank you for your perseverance, I only know too well the frustrations and work it takes to get something like this done. Maybe I will be re-inspired to work on the standard electrical interface again... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Well thank you... That explains why I could not find them -*they are not there*. What is there is -i*s a box with a number in it*.

QUOTE:

Ralph, the pertinent equations are the "relationship tests" located immediately under the standards located on page 2 and 4 of the draft proposal.

UNQUOTE: 


The following is quite possibly the most *damning* statement attached to any proposal I have ever read.


QUOTE:

As for any other mathematical formulae used to derive these numbers, there are none.

UNQUOTE:

The following statement I had to read slowly several times before the full impact resulted.


QUOTE:

Greenly didn't have the advantage of decades of practical experience to draw upon when he did his work. We do, and it's decidedly to our advantage. We know what works, and can look at physical examples of why it does (and why it does not).

UNQUOTE: 


The last statement I think sums up everything....

QUOTE: 


When you compare Greenly's numbers to what is in this proposal, you'll find them remarkably similar.

UNQUOTE:

Yes, the numbers from 1924 and 2009 are very similar and after 2 years work the question you and the NMRA never asked each other is -*WHY? *


regards

ralph


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Maybe I'm just stupid, but when I look at the document, I'm not confused after looking at it. I see a box that says: 

#1 0.050 .... 

Right below it I see: 

#1 Gmin - Bmax - 2Tmax 


So relationship test #1 is Gmin - Bmax -2*Tmax ..... no rocket science here. 

So the box with a number must be the result... 0.050 .... OK, makes sense, and I can use the numbers for Gmin and Bmax and Tmax and check them for myself. 

There is a comment that "ALL tests MUST equal zero or positive" .... OK, the number is positive... 


So, I see the formula for the test, I see the variables in the forumula defined, I see the criteria for passing the test, and I see the results of the test. 

What's wrong? 

Regards, Greg 

p.s. I don't know why we want to beat up on Kevin, and I took it as a POSITIVE that the current NMRA results are congruent with another popular existing standard. After years of NMRA being "off track" in large scale, I'm SURELY not going to be upset over progress.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Ralph, look under the boxes with the numbers in them. You'll find things like "#1 Gmin - Bmax - 2Tmax". Those are the equations to which I refer. I just double-checked to make sure I wasn't looking at an earlier copy from my cache. If you're still not seeing them, PM me with your e-mail address and I'll send you my copy. In this example, Gmin is the minimum gauge, Bmax is the back-to-back maximum, and 2T max is twice the flange width. So, what you have is a test to make sure that the minimum gauge specified is always wider than the maximum back-to-back plus the width of the two flanges. In this case, the difference is .050", meaning the wheels are gauged narrower than the track, so they'll work just fine. 

The following is quite possibly the most damning statement attached to any proposal I have ever read. 
QUOTE: 
As for any other mathematical formulae used to derive these numbers, there are none. 
I'm a bit confused by your requirements for additional mathematical formulae. The numbers are derived from a compilation of data physically gathered from a variety of wheelsets and existing standards. The "math" involved comes from looking at that data, determining where the averages lie (no real "formula" involved, just looking at numbers and determining statistical groupings), and what--based on practical experience--would happen should those variables be changed. The latter part requires physical experimentation more so than mathematical theory. That's why we took the approach we did. We also had to contend with legacy products which simply _have_ to be relatively compatible. No manufacturer I talked to through this process would remotely consider adopting standards which rendered their current production incompatible. One can crunch all the numbers he wants to develop the "perfect" wheel profile--if the manufacturers aren't going to play ball, what's the point? You got to come up with what works "best" given the constraints put on the system. 

Yes, the numbers from 1924 and 2009 are very similar and after 2 years work the question you and the NMRA never asked each other is -WHY? 
I would think that the fact that the same numbers were derived from two different approaches would only go to prove the ultimate validity of those numbers. Our practical research reinforces Greenly's writings of 80+ years ago. There's no need to ask "why." The "why" would have to be asked if the numbers were vastly different. I look at the correlation and think "we done good." 

Later, 

K


----------



## 7270 (Jan 28, 2009)

Posted By Dr G on 23 Oct 2009 11:09 AM 
Kevin, 

Great work. I am a ex-HO scale convert and I must agree with Doug's comments, I do not lament the "good old days"--the more manufacturers make their equipment adhere to NMRA standards the better it runs. They are far from perfect--that horrid X2F standard HO coupler from my childhood is a great example, but it is a place to start. 

I personally appriciate the great amount of work you have done and look forward to some kind of standard. Maybe even an NMRA standards guage--it was a godsend in my HO days in making sure everything ran well. If it don't run well, it aint no fun!!!! 

And for me this is all about fun. 

Besides, if the nay-sayers hate the idea of NMRA standards so much--why can't they just ignore them? 

Regards, 

Matt And, fellow Doctor, ignore them we shall.
They have no place in worldwide model railroading, as everyone else uses G1MRA or a derivative.
Standards should be just that.
We had standards, voted on and approved, but your NMRA once again chose to develop their own standards.
If they are successful, with the help of an MLS Moderator, in their invasion of LS, it does not bode well for those in LS.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

as everyone else uses G1MRA or a derivative 
Dr.G, therein lies the heart of the issue. If you take the time to compare G1MRA to what we've proposed, there's a LOT of overlap. They're not mutually exclusive, in fact some values are lifted straight out. The key word is--as you say--"derivative." There are obviously some differences, but then most of the LS manufacturers don't adhere to G1MRA, either. If they did, this issue would never have been raised. 

If they are successful, with the help of an MLS Moderator, in their invasion of LS, it does not bode well for those in LS. 
Well, thanks for the vote of confidence. I'd like to think I'm doing this _for_ the benefit of large scale, so that since the NMRA is bent on establishing standards, we shape them so they make sense and are reflective of what's actually being used within the community as opposed to the quagmires they've proposed in the past. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Kevin and thank you for your efforts.


----------



## armorsmith (Jun 1, 2008)

Kevin, 

I fear that Dr G has a bad case of 'Convince a man against his will, he is of the same opinion still!'. A great quote I credit my English grandfather for. 

I am too new to LS model railroading to comment on the past, but the future is something I am interested in. I have purchased rolling stock on eBay made by most of the common current and some of the defunct manufacturers, and NONE of the wheel sets are up to ANY standard, including G1MRA. The consistency is entirely hit and miss. My Aristo-Craft cars don't even match the Aristo-Craft gauge....go figure. 

Bob C.


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Kevin - This is not a topic I have any real concerns over at the moment, but I do appreciate your efforts to help our hobby. This kind of stuff can be very time consuming with little or no reward, and you won't have agreement on all fronts. But thanks anyway!


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

I echo the sentiments expressed by Del. 
Thank you Kevin.


----------



## Ray Dunakin (Jan 6, 2008)

Kevin, thanks for taking on this task. 

I haven't been in large scale very long but can see the need for standards. I've also seen at least some of the uproar raised over this topic, both past and present. (And I've seen the same thing happen in other hobbies.) You'll never be able to please everyone, and there will always be a few who refuse to be satisfied, for whatever reason.


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm glad Kevin has seen some result of his labor to make the "new" standards closer to the "old" ones. The original "new" ones were ... well, not. 

That said, I have a question, and I'm not attempting to be conversation provoking here, inflammatory, or to invite the usual people who find it necessary to jump on anything I say with both feet simply because I said it to jump on it with both feet simply because I'm asking it: 

Since so many of the people in large scale railroading who care whether there's a standard or not hold the G1MRA standards in such high regard, what would prevent the NMRA from simply adopting them? I mean, certainly, it's great to measure of "how close to G1MRA" the new standards are ... but if G1MRA is "the thing" ... other than being able to say "We're the NMRA and we wrote this... and it is now the law" why would the NMRA reinvent the wheel ... so to speak? What's wrong with the G1MRA standards, that they need to be reinvented? 

Secondarily, standards tend to apply to things not yet built. "older locomotives with much tighter back-to-back spacing or deeper wheel flanges," were obviously not built to G1MRA standards, and new locomotives are typically not quite so tight back to back, and have shallower wheel flanges .... why make a new standard to accomodate common practice, if common practice is to not adhere to ANY standard? 

My dad used to say "If it's not broken, don't fix it." I commend you for your efforts here, but I want to understand before I make up my mind what I think about it -- why wasn't it feasible to use the existing G1MRA (which again, seems to be what most of the folks here who care about a standard seem to prefer) and necessary to invent a new one that was based on it, close to it, but .... different? 

Please do not read any of my questions or discussion here as an attempt to cast aspersions on your efforts. I commend you for trying to work this out, against seemingly insurmountable odds, particularly the proposed set of standards that started you out on this path. I just feel like I need to understand more about what's going on. 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

What's wrong with the G1MRA standards, that they need to be reinvented? 
Very fair question. While we hold G1MRA to such a high ideal personally, when you analyze the numbers, there's a fair amount of deviation between those standards and what the manufacturers have been using for various aspects of wheel and track construction for quite some time. These deviations have been accepted as "standard practice," despite them being somewhat "off the mark." For instance, standards for flanges under G1MRA are smaller than what's commonly produced by the manufacturers. Since there are manufacturers who insist on producing wheels with deep flanges, we had to relax those standards a bit to accommodate them. Yes, we could have stuck to our guns a bit more in that regard, but the other sad reality is that there are a number of garden railroaders who can't lay track to save their lives. The smaller flanges of G1MRA will definitely work outdoors--history has demonstrated that. However, they require a level of attention to proper construction. If consumers run their trains over roller-coaster track and the trains fall off, it's going to be perceived as the wheels' fault, not the track. They'll go back to the manufacturer and demand deeper flanges so the trains stay on. It doesn't matter that the "true" answer to the question is to build your track correctly. It's far easier to cure the symptom. If we were to simply adopt G1MRA standards, the manufacturers would be equally out of compliance with them as they are G1MRAs in these arenas. As much as we'd love to see G1MRA adopted across the board, it's not a realistic expectation given the marketplace. So, it's better to author the standards to reflect reality as opposed to ideal. 

why make a new standard to accomodate common practice, if common practice is to not adhere to ANY standard? 
While there is no adherance to any one single standard, there is at the very least a pattern that can be used as a target. Most of those values are fairly close (or identical) to G1MRA standards, while some are not quite so close. As such, the standards reflect the "best practices" of what's out there, an average of sorts, which happen to fall mostly in line with historically established standards with a few exceptions. 

I honestly don't know the NMRA's motives for wanting to do standards for large scale beyond the notion that that's what they do--standards for model railroading scales. Dogs dig in the dirt, blue herrons eat fish out of our ponds, the NMRA develops standards. Personally, I don't care which letters are at the top of the standards sheet, so long as there's a mechanism in place for consistency for large scale railroading. I think if manufacturers have a viable benchmark, it's a good thing. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Crosshead (Feb 20, 2008)

So then in the small scales the NMRA tells manufacturers what size to make models (the "standard") based on good modeling practice, because modelers demand high quality properly scaled models to avoid problems. 

In large scale, the manufacturers tell the NMRA what size to make their "standard" based on a perceived lack of modeling practice, because modelers will blame problems on properly scaled models' high quality. 

I wonder why the opposite approaches, particularly given the success of HO over the last 50 years. 

Richard C


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

Ok - so what I just read boils down to... "our entrance exam is too difficult - make it easier!"









REALLY?!?![/b] 


Ladies and Gentlemen - _welcome to the NMRA's version of Large Scale railroading_... the scale of the lowest common denominator... 


Sheesh! I just don't know - as a *MODEL* railroader... and with all this... being a part of the National *MODEL* Railroad Association... how's about we all try - oh... I don't know.... a bit of %&ing *MODELING*!!!










Yes, we could have stuck to our guns a bit more in that regard, but the other sad reality is that there are a number of garden railroaders who can't lay track to save their lives.

Way to fold like a wet noodle...

I mean... 


REALLY?!?!?[/b]


What you have just told us, Mr. Strong, is that the NMRA has NO HOPE of affecting what the manufacturers produce, or to what level of accuracy... and that the Large Scale hobby, on the whole, cannot support exacting efforts of most any kind, so the answer is to develop standards that are, de facto, already in place, with no enforcement of punitive recourse to those that fail to meet them... and to spend two years doing so.








I'm dying here!










I'm reminded of a quote my father used to say to me... "remember son... if they're riding you out of town on a rail, act like you're leading the parade!" [/i]


And people wonder *why* there is such contempt for the NMRA around here... "give us your _money_, and give us your _membership_, and we'll do whatever_ the manufacturers_ tell us, because if we don't they won't listen to us anyway and we'll appear like the antiquated, inept, impotent organization that we are."



Tell me Kevin, how's the Drum Major uniform fit these days?


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

Can anyone else here imagine what the rest of the world would be like if the NMRA applied it's "problem solving" practices to it?










"Sir, there seems to a problem in town... motorist keep speeding through the 25 mph residential zone!"[/i]
"Well, that's not very safe.... we'd better raise the speed limit!"[/i]


"Have you been able to study the manufacturing line? We know that lead keeps getting into the cake mix somewhere, but we can't figure out where... what should do?"[/i]
"No problem, don't worry about where the lead is coming from, we'll just change the recipe..."[/i]

"*Bzzzzzz-t*!"[/i]

"Oh, I'm sorry little Johnny, the capital of California is not Los Angeles... your answer is incorrect...."[/i]
"Wait a second judge - the Teachers Union has just decided that it's far easier to accept that answer, than it is to invest the time to actually teach little Johnny.... as such, were going room to room in the school, changing the maps."[/i] _"Well I'm sorry little Johnny, I mispoke - Yes! Los Angeles *IS* the capital of California..."_


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

And before I forget.... let me make it clear here Kevin - I'm not pissed at you.... far from it.... in fact, I feel sorry for you in a way - spending as much time as you did on this. Honestly, I'm sure you felt your heart was in the right place... and I'd agree. It's just such a shame that someone of your talent and modeling caliber could get sucked up in the NMRA's effort to convince all of us there is a need for them in Large Scale... 

The day they actual enforce anything in LS, that's the day I will pay attention to them... but since the only standards they seem fit to write are ones designed to meet the very status quo in the marketplace... well, I'm not gonna pay dues. 

They're like the Sheriff that wants the job, not because they're going "clean up" the town - no sir, that'd be dangerous... they just want to wear the badge. 

The day they start writing, and enforcing some laws... then we'll talk... but so long as they're just walking around, happier to be called "officer" than to actually make a difference (as painful as that might be), well then... they're just wearing a shinny piece of tin... 

Really Kevin, forest from the trees buddy - you can't see that this has just been one big "do loop" so the NMRA can inch closer to finding a new source of dues? 

I say go back to flooding this forum (and every other one) with more photos of your 1:20.3 railroad... at least then you give people something to aspire to! I'd say 10 new hobbyists looking at a photo of your Tuscaroroa Railroad and saying "Hmmm.... what's this "F" scale thing?" will always be far more productive than developing any number of "standards" that no manufacturer will ever be penalized for not meeting.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

What you have just told us, Mr. Strong, is that the NMRA has NO HOPE of affecting what the manufacturers produce, 
To an extent, that's true. Look at the major players. For years, the dominant force was LGB. Assuming they get back into production, they're still not going to change to a tighter standard. They've always done their own thing regardless of where the market is headed. Even out of production, their trains are so ubiquitous in the market where any new standard has to take compatibility with them into account. Another major manufacturer told me he has no interest in conforming to the NMRA's standards, as he's quite happy with the standards he's using now. Those two companies make up very likely a third to a half of the large scale market. You can't author standards for only half the marketplace and expect them to gain any kind of traction. You simply _have_ to take that into account. 

I can't speak for the manufacturers relative to their opinions of the NMRA, but they are also part of the large scale community and have been as affected by the NMRA's overall lack of interest as we have. They have every reason to view standards as an "intrusion" as we do, if not more. They've so far not gotten on board with anything the NMRA has put forth to date, which indicates how ineffectual the NMRA really is within the large scale community. 

It's just such a shame that someone of your talent and modeling caliber could get sucked up in the NMRA's effort to convince all of us there is a need for them in Large Scale... 

The NMRA has a long row to hoe before I'll send them my dues. Right now, they're quite irrelevant in large scale, and not likely to change without some serious overtures on their part. My chief concern when I first got involved in all of this was that they'd put something together that was a frightful mess, and then some new manufacturer would come along and actually start building to it. I figured if they wanted standards, it's best to work with them to at the very least "codify" the status quo so things can't get any messier. Some day, I hope the two communities can come together on friendly terms. I've certainly made some good friends "across the aisle" through this process. There's really only a minority of each community where interests overlap, but I think both camps are missing out in that regard as a result of this perceived rift. 

Later, 

K


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Kevin 
your still alright in my book. I have simply stuck with Kadee standards. 
Thanks for your efforts.


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

If you want to set L scale standards. How do you get the manufactures to go along with it.? You can't take them to court. You can't send Noonzio and Gweito to take them out back and pull thier fingernails out. Can you see USA and Aristo sitting down at a table with each other and saying "This is good" 
How do you get them to comply?


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

"we done good." 
I'll drink to that. Great job, Kevin. 

Dogs dig in the dirt, blue herrons eat fish out of our ponds, the NMRA develops standards 
I guess that's what they do. I know in the smaller scales they get the manufacturers representatives together to hammer out compromises so the stuff is inter-operable. 

Parkdesigner said: 
The day they start writing, and enforcing some laws... then we'll talk... but so long as they're just walking around, happier to be called "officer" than to actually make a difference (as painful as that might be), well then... they're just wearing a shinny piece of tin... 
I don't understand the negative comments, Mr P. If you are one of the users of a technology (e.g. flashlight batteries) then you might get together to propose to the manufacturers that they make batteries the same size and shape. 

Surely having a standard, based on the G1MRA and (as far as I can see) entirely compatible with it, is a good thing. Wouldn't you like to be in a position to ask a manufacturer why he is ignoring "the standards" ? 

That being said, you have to wonder about NMRA's motives beyond 'that's what they do'. I assume they hope more LS folk will eventually become members. Some people - the kind who volunteer to run organisations like NMRA - get their jollies from the number of people they "represent". 

Mr K said: 
The NMRA has a long row to hoe before I'll send them my dues. 
You mean they let you get involved and drive all this without even becoming a member? Way to go! 

Right now, they're quite irrelevant in large scale, and not likely to change without some serious overtures on their part. My chief concern in getting involved in all of this was that they'd put something together that was a frightful mess, and then some new manufacturer would come along and actually start building to it. I figured if they wanted standards, it's best to work with them to at the very least "codify" the status quo so things can't get any messier. 
It is usually better (less bloody) to push for changes from within rather than causing a revolution.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

As I understand it, Aristo uses the longer flange to avoid wheel drop through their switch's frog...will the new and improved finer standards cause an ill effect on stiff suspension? 

How can you expect to unite these manufacturers when we have such a hodge-podge of scales on 45mm? How can an acceptable 1:20.3 flange look good on 1:32? 

I'm more concerned with each Co. following a set profile. Then again we get wider treads to handle too tight curves... for some... will they get left out? 

I was an NMRA member once, probably too soon in my modeling and soon thought my dollars would be better spent on the RR. Never looked back. 

Sure we all benifitted when Standards were accepted, but all the other scales are scale, we are a gauge! As long as we are a collective...well I just don't know if there is a magic formula. 

Will look forward to the future... I guess. lol 

John


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I have a few comments: (note the word "you" is NOT meant to indicate any particular person)


I cannot really talk to people who say "we don't need no stinking standards". Sure, your railroad works, you are able to buy the rolling stock you want, and you have made it work. Outside of your "realm" you don't care, pretty much. Well, that is understandable, so your concern must be that standards COULD affect you somehow negatively.

I'll get heat for this, but when you are just considering yourself, and not the hobby as a whole, I can't talk to you on this point. The idea of standards is to benefit a much larger group.


If though, you realize that standards, PROPERLY conceived and applied, can be good, then the discussion can go forwards.


My thoughts are that the NMRA should move forward with 2 standards (which are there, but a bit flawed in my opinion).

The goal of the first standard would be to have something "workable" that you can get the major manufacturers to embrace. The bottom line here is if they won't buy in, then the standard can never be very "helpful" in "evolving" the products we get as consumers. So go larger flanges, relax the tolerances so that the manufacturers can meet them with relatively minimal effort. 

To be clear: don't just bend over and make it so everyone is automatically grandfathered in, that is really impossible to combine with track and wheel standards that will do mor than pull a 4 car toy train on a loop with no switches.

There should also be a "higher quality" standard that is really tuned for running trains outdoors, in realistic conditions, but aimed at greater reliability and running qualities.

I think the 3.xx and 4.xx standards should be pointed in this direction.

I'm not an expert, but I've learned a lot in the last 10 years, and when I started with "out of the box" stuff, I could only run about a 7 car train on my small inner loop, which has 3 switches on it.

Now I can run 45 cars on the same track. What did I do? I gauged all the wheels to the "right" number, and kept the tolerances to just a few thousandths. I worked over my Aristo switches, the frogs, the wing rails, the check gauge, and the flange widths and depths.

So I know that "tightening" and improving standards does reflect in better operation.

Bottom line, it has to have buy in from the manufacturers to a CERTAIN degree, and show BENEFIT to us, the modelers.

Regards, Greg


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

How can an acceptable 1:20.3 flange look good on 1:32? 

John, 

If you go back and read the first post[/b] by Kevin, you'll find it addresses that very question: 

The proposal does allow for a fair amount of flexibility in terms of tread width, flange width, and flange depth so that a manufacturer of 1:20.3 trains can develop a wheel profile suitable for that scale, while leaving the 1:32 manufacturer free to use a wheel profile with a more scale appearance 
My apologies for the following, but we're up to 4 pages and 50% of the comments are addressed in the initial post!
_Please, if you feel strongly about this topic, at least do your homework and read the proposal first!_


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Thanks, Pete, I reread it before... honest  

I'm having problems seeing how, with such a range we have in LS as compared to the NMRA tolerances in HO and On3, that some formula would be embraced by the manufacturers. 

Unfortunately many smaller companies need inter operational appearances to establish a market, most advetise as 'compatible with...' 

As I remember the NMRA track and wheel gauge was used on the both sides of the flanges, if 1:32 uses a smaller everything, how are the wheels gauged when all the measurements are back to back? Will they track ok through switches? Aren't guard rails used to keep flanges off the frogpoint? So 1:32 modifies it's track, but then the larger scales aren't able to run through... 

The above just an example of my thinking... 

So the; 'I'll look forward to the future ... I guess.' was putting a positive spin on it, sure I checked my emotions, but .... we'll see.... as Mom used to say. 

John


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Kevin 

I am really disappointed that the NMRA is going to throw in the towel and addopt the "toy train" philosophy as an attempt to get something acceptable to the "masses" of large scale, along with the major manufacturers; none of whom actually care if therir track and trains are interoperable with any other brand. 

There is a very good reason why G1MRA has "coarse or standard" and "fine" scale standards. They have progressed beyond the "I am happy to have a scale model of X that is of an extremely high standard; except that the wheels are the wrong gauge, the treads 1.5 times too wide, the flanges twice as deep as would befit the rest of the model". And we accept that because we are making economic and operational compromises in the outdoor world. But guess what? Most of the G1MRA membership [which is NOT in the US] does not subscribe to that. They consider themselves scale modelers, and their standards reflect that. 

Given the stated mission of the NMRA, which includes encouraging the production of models to a higherer standards of scale fidelity bethey scratch built, kit bashed, or commercially produced, this "one size fits most of us" is a back slide in the wrong direction. Mr, Polk has personally stated repeatedly that he sees no relevance to ANY standard established by either G1MRA or the NMRA. Given that attidude, WHY NOT establish standards that are more in tune with the "scale modelling community" and just let the manufacturers dwcidse whether they want to comply or not. In the end, it will ONLY matter when enough of the customer base uses this conformance to standards in a purchasing decision. NOTHING ELSE REALLY MATTERS in the commercial sector. 

The major manufacturers of track and wheels in the UK advertize that their products conform it the G1MRA standard BECAUSE they found it influences customer choice of product. Otherwise, why waste the time. 

If you look at the history of the NMRA's attempt to get these standards in place over the last TEN YEARS, you will see that the committee has been dominated by manufacturers and people percieved as "influential" inn widely circulated large scale model publishing {Marc H, Kevin S]. Too bad they are ALL looking inward, at what now exists, instead of pushing for standards that could move SCALE MODELING in large scale FORWARD to new levels. 

END OF RANT!!!


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

Very well put Dr. Rivet... very well indeed.


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Perhaps that is all true but just look at the last time the NMRA tried to set LS standards! Kevin is absolutely right in that the NMRA has a long row to hoe! They really _don't_ understand LS which is why it is so good that someone like Kevin is taking the time to try and "stabilize" the standards where they are now! Personally, I think it is the only solution that has a measurable chance of success! What good is trying to get manufacturers to change their own standards when they will just ignore you? Get everybody on the same page at least and _then_ work from there! I will be interested in seeing how this turns out.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Here's a comparison of the NMRA vs. G1MRA target values: 

Gauge 
NMRA 1.772" 
G1MRA 1.772" 
(equal) 

Track Check Gauge 
NMRA 1.652 
G1MRA 1.654 
(difference of .002") 

Span 
NMRA 1.537 
G1MRA 1.555 (max) 
(difference of .018", though the max dimension of the NMRA is identical to G1MRA. The narrower target is to accommodate legacy products with narrower back-to-back wheel spacing. 

Flangeway 
NMRA 0.116 
G1MRA 0.120 
(difference of .004") 

Flangeway Depth 
NMRA 0.118 (min) 
G1MRA Unspecified 

Wheel Check Gauge 
NMRA 1.633 
G1MRA 1.634 
(difference of .001") 

Back to back 
NMRA 1.575 
G1MRA 1.574 
(difference of .001") 

Wheel Width 
NMRA 0.236" - 0.271" (wheel width is meant to be proportional to scale, so 1:32 wheels would be on the 0.236" end, while 1:20.3 would be on the 0.271" end. 
G1MRA 0.236" (max) 
(G1MRA standards do not allow for a scale wheel width in scales larger than 1:32) 

Flange Width ("standard," "Hi-Rail") 
NMRA 0.059, 0.074 
G1MRA 0.060 
(difference in the "standard" set, .001", .014" in the hi-rail set.) 

Flange Depth 
NMRA 0.066, 0.118 
G1MRA 0.079 
(NMRA depth is smaller by .013" on the standard side, .037" larger on the hi-rail side. 

Most of the target values are essentially equal. Much of the difference between the two standards lies in the tolerances allowed from the specified targets. The NMRA's tolerances are greater. G1MRA tolerances tend to set the "target" values at one end of the spectrum then allow tolerances either up or down, but not both. NMRA's tolerances are asymmetrical, but the tolerances have an up and down component to them. I mentioned in an earlier post there's a lot of overlap, and this comparison illustrates that. Most of the key differences (beyond tolerances) all come down to the flanges. The Hi-Rail flanges reflect the deep flange history of the hobby, and allow the manufacturers the freedom to make their as deep as they deem necessary (up to the max) to keep their customers happy. The reality is that we run our trains outdoors in less-than-ideal conditions, and there's a reason why people like deep flanges. 

To speak to Jim's points, the NMRA also has "proto" standards for 1:20 and 1:32, which are not part of this standards set. These would arguably be closer to G1MRA's "finescale" standards. The NMRA's "standard" standards (S3.2, S4.2 on the chart) allow for flanges that are much smaller and narrower (more scale) than what's currently being used by the manufacturers, and smaller than what's specified by G1MRA's "standard" standards. The NMRA's "hi-rail" flange width standards (at .074") are narrower than many of the flanges on current production wheelsets, which tend to range from .075 - .090" and wider. The maximum depth is on par with the maximum depths measured on current production wheelsets, though many were notably shallower. So, even the hi-rail standards offer a subtle push towards a more scale appearance on our wheels. Whether the manufacturers opt to go there is up to them. A wheel with thicker-than-specified flanges set to the target back-to-back spacing will still make it through switches--there's enough tolerance. 

Too bad they are ALL looking inward, at what now exists, instead of pushing for standards that could move SCALE MODELING in large scale FORWARD to new levels. 
These do a bit of both. Certainly the "standard" standards are more finescale than what G1MRA specs. That's definitely by design to give the manufacturers an avenue for pursuing a more scale approach to wheels than anything we've ever had before. While I don't see the train manufacturers going down that road in large numbers, I do see 3rd-party wheels being produced to those specs. Wheels built to those standards will run very well over commercial track built to either G1MRA or NMRA specs. The "hi-rail" standards allow for back-compatibility with legacy products because they have to in order to foster manufacturer support. 

One follow up--due to some comments received from modelers, we're currently working on standards for F (1:20.3) standard gauge for both "standard" and "hi-rail" standards in addition to the proto standards. So disregard the notes on the proposal relative to not having Fstandard standards. They will be included by the time this gets voted on. David Queener's been brought into the fold to assist us in that regard. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Kevin 

The following is an example of which I speak. 

Span 
NMRA 1.537 
G1MRA 1.555 (max) 
(difference of .018", though the max dimension of the NMRA is identical to G1MRA. The narrower target is to accommodate legacy products with narrower back-to-back wheel spacing. 

This dimension is VERY critical in trackwork using very narrow angle frogs [#9 and larger numbers], along with the check gage. From personal experience, building trackwork that easily accomodates the 39mm B2B of early Aster engines like the Schools class causes problems for equipment with longer wheelbase trucks with wheels that meet the 40mm B2B standard. 

THAT is why I think the STANDARD should be more restrictive and describe the MORE DESIRABLE dimensions. The STANDARD should not be relaxed just to allow OLD STUFF [sorry, legacy] to fall within the allowable dimensions. The problem is that with the proposed dimensions, long wheelbased trucks [or two axle cars] with wheel sets conforming to the 40mm B2B often will not reliably operate on track that MEETS the proposed standard. 

I have agonized over this with my own layout because if I go back and "fix" my trackwork, some of our older equipment will have to be "fixed" as well. Every HO club I know of enforces some level of equipment testing to insure that the wheels are gaged correctly, the coupler height is right, and the minimum car weight standard is met for proper tracking. 

I think people react negatively because they interpret setting standards as the same as saying they must comply with them. They assume that not embracing the standard implies they "don't get it" or "are just wrong". The proper view [from my personal perspective] is that adopting the standards will significantly [a] increase the ability of equipment to operate together and improve operations by insuring that the wheels and track are "made" for each other. I do not require that people have their equipment inspected before it runs on my track, BUT I have seen lots of folks "fixing" their wheel sets during my meets because they are out of gage enough to consistently derail on my #10 turnouts. 

I firmly believe that the standards should be set, and that people should be able to adopt or ignore them as they see fit. Just don't tell me they should not exist because you don't want to use them. THAT in fact is like saying "YOU cannot have speed limits, BECAUSE I don't want to have to obey them". I know, a VERY extreme analogy, but the logic is identical. 

I am amazed that for the standards where the difference is 0.004 in and less, NMRA felt obligated to deviate from the established G1MRA dimension. However, I am sure there is a reason. 

Regards


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Jim said:

"Kevin 

The following is an example of which I speak. 

Span 
NMRA 1.537 
G1MRA 1.555 (max) 
(difference of .018", though the max dimension of the NMRA is identical to G1MRA. The narrower target is to accommodate legacy products with narrower back-to-back wheel spacing. 

This dimension is VERY critical in trackwork using very narrow angle frogs [#9 and larger numbers], along with the check gage. From personal experience, building trackwork that easily accomodates the 39mm B2B of early Aster engines like the Schools class causes problems for equipment with longer wheelbase trucks with wheels that meet the 40mm B2B standard. 

THAT is why I think the STANDARD should be more restrictive and describe the MORE DESIRABLE dimensions. The STANDARD should not be relaxed just to allow OLD STUFF [sorry, legacy] to fall within the allowable dimensions. The problem is that with the proposed dimensions, long wheelbased trucks [or two axle cars] with wheel sets conforming to the 40mm B2B often will not reliably operate on track that MEETS the proposed standard."

I'm in violent agreement Jim, opening the standard up, i.e. increasing tolerances to accomodate legacy stuff is allowing the manufacturers to never change.


Again, I believe there should be the 2 standard "levels", but the current situation where they only differ by flange width and depth is really silly. There are more problems with back to back gauge, which is a fundamental problem through switches. (yes, related to span).

The idea of "target" dimensions with tolerances sounds nice at first, but when the tolerances are huge (to allow legacy stuff), then people will continue to use them, and then THERE WILL BE NO IMPROVEMENT.

It's no good to set a speed limit, if you allow a tolerance of plus or minus 40 miles per hour!

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Okay, a little perspective... 

The G1MRA measurement is written as a maximum. They state no minimum, nor a target. In otherwords, anything _up to_ 1.555" in that regard is acceptable. Through this process, not one of the switches I measured came to that maximum, even my Sunset Valley switches. The industry trend was on the narrower end of the spectrum--some far narrower than 1.537, even. (With no consistency on the same switch, I might add.) In terms of performance through switches, the "span" measurement effects _only_ the back to back spacing of the wheels. If the span is wider than the back-to-back, there will be issues as the wheels ride up over the two guard rails. That's the primary issue with wheels gauged too tight running through switches. Beyond that, the span has no impact on performance. If you've got half the marketplace building models to a narrower back-to-back spacing (with a stated and/or demonstrated intention to _not_ change), what favor do we do the hobby by mandating a measurement that's in direct conflict with that? 

The critical dimension at the switch is the check gauge, which is the span plus the flangeway width (specified at .116" maximum.) In terms of switch geometry, it's the flangeway opposite the frog that controls whether the flange on the opposite wheel picks the frog. If the flangeway is too wide, then the wheel can slide too far over to the opposite rail and hit the tip of the frog. If it's too narrow, you run the risk of the span exceeding the width of the back-to-back spacing. The reality is that wheelsets gauged narrower than "standard" have a better likelihood of making it through switches without picking the frog because the wheels are closer together. Their risk--as stated above--is that they'll ride up over the outside edges of the guardrails because that measurement is wider than the back-to-back. In the case of these standards, the specified flangeway width is narrower than G1MRA, which inherently pulls the wheels further away from the inside edge of the rail on the opposite side. Because of that narrower dimension--and the industry trends towards narrower back-to-back spacing--we felt it acceptable to specify a narrower span. 

We went back and forth on developing two levels of standards for track, but the reality is that no manufacturer has said they have any interest in producing two separate lines of track to two different standards. Would you? If they're going to ignore the standards, there's absolutely no point in writing them in the first place. That's the reality under which we operate. I wish it were different, but it's not. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I agree with everything you said Kevin, except the conclusion:

We went back and forth on developing two levels of standards for track, but the reality is that no manufacturer has said they have any interest in producing two separate lines of track to two different standards. Would you? If they're going to ignore the standards, there's absolutely no point in writing them in the first place. That's the reality under which we operate. I wish it were different, but it's not. 


I'll try to make it clear again. Make one standard that the manufacturers will be interested in and can produce to AND has a positive effect on operation. Don't just roll over (which I did not say you did!).

Make the finer, tighter standard. Maybe the DESIRED measurements are the same, but the tolerances are tighter. This is where modelers will usually have to adjust wheelsets, shim flangeways, etc. (we are already doing this anyway!) BUT It will be a standard, AND it will have BETTER operational results that the "looser" standard.


Yes, of course, no person in their right mind would suggest that you make two standards and ask all manufacturers to meet both (though some might). I never said that and never implied it. Please erase that idea from your head when reading this.


But, you have to make AT LEAST ONE standard that is worth a damn to those of use looking for something better. The current standards are of little improvement over what I am doing now, and to me, they do not "challenge" the manufacturers OR me to do better.

I hope this is clear this time. 2 standards, a looser one, that can get the manufacturers aboard (somehow), and a tighter one, for improved operation and to look to the future, a goal.


You already have the structure for this. 


Regards, Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

You can set the standards for the switch but then again you also have to set the standards for the back to back. Failing to do both makes for a big Minus. You can not do one without the other. I think you still are going in a back wards direction for any of the standards that are being considered. Later RJD


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Okay, I'm a bit confused here. Under the "standard" standards, you've got wheel widths specified to allow prototypical wheel widths from 1:32 to 1:20.3, flanges that range from within less than 1/2" of the prototype to virtually spot on depending on the scale, and if you take the span to the maximum allowed dimension of 1.555"--_which is perfectly acceptable under these standards_--track standards identical to those which have stood the test of time for decades. How much finer would you like? If you want more accuracy, that's what the proto standards are for. They exist for 1:32 and 1:20.3 (though I had nothing to do with them.) Of course, you sacrifice being able to run whatever you want in that case, but if you're cool with that, go for it. 

So forgive me if I'm not seeing the deficiencies in the standards of which you purport. No, the standards are not scale specific. They're purposefully written so that a manufacturer can choose wheel widths and flange profiles suitable to the scale to which they're building without fear of rendering their trains incompatible with the rest of the marketplace. If we were to have tighter tolerances, we'd have to go scale specific for each individual scale. That's not what this set of standards are written to do. To have standards such that a manufacturer can choose wheel profiles ranging from darned near scale (if not exact) to deep flange and have them all run properly on the same track, that's not to shabby of an accomplishment. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Were you replying to me or RJ? 

If you were replying to me, you completely missed my point. (If you weren't I would appreciate your thoughts on what I said) 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I was responding to the general tone of the discussion that these standards weren't "fine" enough, nor capable of leading the hobby forward. Within these standards lie the capability for darned-near-scale wheel profiles for all of the scales in the spectrum. I'm not sure how you tighten that up without going into scale-specific subsets of tolerances. These standards are authored specifically _not_ to do single out each scale as individual. If the modeler or manufacturer wishes to design wheels for their particular scale, they need only break out the calculator to see which end of the specified range they should be leaning to be appropriate. The standards aren't designed to hand-hold them through the process. Remember, "we're Large Scale, and don't need the NMRA telling us what to do." The standards give the manufacturers the flexibility to make their own choices, confident that whatever they choose, it will run smoothly on the track provided they stick to the standards. 

The track is paramount. The standards are already far more "scale" than anything in use by LGB, Piko, Aristo, etc.. (For instance, the span on those three brands is around 1.500, while the flangeways vary from .120" to .200") Again, I'm not sure how one could go tighter on the proposed standards without getting scale specific. Once you do that, you undermine the universality that is large scale railroading. Can you imagine a steam-up at Jim's if each scale needed its own track? The single most fundamental element of large scale railroading is that everything will run on the same track regardless of the scale to which it's built. That mandates a single track specification, which mandates a great deal of similarity in wheel standards since many aspects are inter-related. These standards accommodate this very well. I spent a fair amount of time in the workshop with wheels of different profiles and gauges over switches of varying standards to check the numbers. I'm not naive enough to say there will "never" be issues, but if the trackwork is even, scale wheels can operate very easily over track built to these standards. 

But, you have to make AT LEAST ONE standard that is worth a damn to those of use looking for something better. The current standards are of little improvement over what I am doing now, and to me, they do not "challenge" the manufacturers OR me to do better. 

I hope this is clear this time. 2 standards, a looser one, that can get the manufacturers aboard (somehow), and a tighter one, for improved operation and to look to the future, a goal. 

How I see it, we have two standards that do exactly that. I suppose that's where the disconnect lies. You see even tighter tolerances beyond what's being proposed as mandatory for improved operation, where I believe that goal can be reached simply by adhering to the standards in the first place. The lion's share of the problems we have now stem from switches that are far out of bounds in terms of consistency and standards. How often do you hear people complain about Sunset Valley or Llagas Creek switches? Not very. There's a reason for that. Couple that level of reliability with the ability to run scale wheels over it, and you have solid recipe for being able to push the hobby to the next level. 

The thing is, standards will never drive the hobby. They do not "challenge" anyone or anything. They simply "are." The hobby's driven by creative modelers and manufacturers who aren't afraid to blaze new trails. You want to "do better?" Challenge yourself. You want the manufacturers to do better? Demand it from them. Standards aren't going to do it. If you're going to sit idly by and expect a mere set of numbers to inspire, you're in for a long wait. It's not about having standards that can foster change, it's about having standards that can accommodate change once we bring it about. I personally believe we have that in these standards. It's up to us to push the hobby to take full advantage. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Sigh... I know you can actually understand what I am saying, so I'm taking it that you really believe what you are saying, which, I think is the wrong way to get buy-in or real progress on either side. 

I'm only going to put one concept per post... the long response to simple questions and statements is getting nowhere. 

Here we go: 

Please quote me in context: yes, I use the word "challenge", but you cannot take the word out of the sentence... ""challenge" the manufacturers OR me to do better" is what I said. I DID SAY "challenge yourself".

You took my sentence that was a positive and aimed equally at modelers and manufacturers and turned it into a negative, and intimated that I was not open to challenging the modellers. 

"challenge" as in a goal, a positive goal, a positive direction, a positive result. 

That's the entire concept for this post. 

I know that it's clear now. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

Posted By John J on 24 Oct 2009 08:49 AM 
If you want to set L scale standards. How do you get the manufactures to go along with it.? You can't take them to court. You can't send Noonzio and Gweito to take them out back and pull thier fingernails out. Can you see USA and Aristo sitting down at a table with each other and saying "This is good" 
How do you get them to comply? Let me Re Pharase my question 

How do you get the manufactures to comply with the standars?


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg, The way I'm reading your post is that you think if we write standards that prompt manufacturers and modelers towards finer modeling, the hobby will inherently improve. I disagree. The mere existence of standards is insufficient motivation. We've _had_ finer standards than the industry status quo for decades: G1MRA. They're ignored. Manufacturers could abide by them if they wanted. They could even choose the finescale G1MRA standards if they wanted. They haven't. Modelers have pushed their wheels closer to G1MRA over the years in the interest of smooth operation on their own roads. They do that because they want their trains to run smoothly. The G1MRA standards are merely a guide that helps them figure out how to achieve their goal. It's the same for the manufacturers. They have to have the desire to change before they start looking for guides to help them make that change. They're not going to do so because the numbers magically appear from on high. (We've got one manufacturer whose wheels don't even match the gauge _they_ produce!) 

All standards can do is show the horse where the water is. It's up to the horse to realize he's thirsty. 

John, you ask the $64,000 question. The answer is to craft standards that are as painless for them to adopt as possible, and hope they climb on board. After that, it takes public pressure, which is where the "demand better of the manufacturers" from my earlier post comes in. Profit is a great motivator. If we consumers can demonstrate that their adhering to standards will help their bottom line, they'll listen. But it can't come from customers who say that and then buy whatever anyway. It's got to come from customers who refuse to buy something because it's off standard. Money talks, and if money says "status quo is okay," then ain't nuttin' gonna change.


Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, I guess my last post was not interesting enough to address, I'll take that as tacit understanding. 

No, the way you should read what I say (other than literally!!!!) is: 

The standards have to have something in them that motivates manufacturers and modellers. As I have stated this before, I will leave this without my explanation of HOW to get there. 

This is my FUNDAMENTAL point. There must be something in them for the manufacturers and modellers. This is really a no-brainer statement if you think about human psychology. 

I really cannot understand WHY I am being misunderstood... maybe because the fundamental point is not accepted? 

Maybe there is a belief that the does not need to be something in it for us? or the manufacturers? 

Again: FUNDAMENTAL point... do you agree with this or not? If you do not, then there's really no reason at all to even go forward, you will fail, there will be no "quid pro quo", and thus no progress. 

Yes or no? A single 2 or 3 letter word will suffice as a response. (I'm a step by step guy) 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Dr G (Jan 16, 2008)

Keven,

I have been off line for a while and discovered the posts on this forum a little late.

I am a little concirned as there are 2 "Dr G"'s on this forum now. I hope you could tell the difference. I (Matt-the FEC nut Dr G with a space) are in great support of your efforts, the other gentlemen (DrG no space) is not quite so supportive and I fear it is difficult to tell the differnece. The first comments are mine the second is someone else.

On another note, anyone know how I can fix this problem?

Matt Gatof (aka Dr G the 1st)


----------



## jobusch (Feb 29, 2008)

As we say at work ... standards are good ... that is why we have so many of them (even if they are in conflict)!

This discussion is getting a little off kilter, which is why I spend so little time on MLS ...


I suggest that the first thing that needs to be done by the NMRA (and the committee members) is to decide WHY we need YET ANOTHER SET of standards the NMRA can call their own ... especially when almost all of the dimensions are within an [three letter acronym familiar to machinists] of each other ... to feed the NMRA's organizational ego and attempt to attain relevancy within one of the few areas of model railroading to experience real growth in the past few years? If not that then what?


Once a set of objectives is set and agreed to, then proceed ... the current proposal tries to be all things to all people (or at least the manufacturers and those with a financial interest in blowing their horn). If standards are to advance the "state of the art", then why have tolerances that appear to appease manufacturers rather than ones that represent realistic engineering tolerances to accommodate manufacturing and scratch building practices?


BTW, just in case you think I'm anti-NMRA, I'm not. I appreciate the work done in earlier years to get standards in place for the smaller, newer, gauges (the creation of standards for gauges 1, 2, and 3 goes back a couple of turns-of-the-century ...) at a time when there was no dominant manufacturer in these scales and standards were needed to promote interoperability among manufacturers, who adopted them because they recognized the commercial advantage of doing so. This is NOT the situation in "large scale" today ... the dominant manufacturers see no commercial advantage in interoperability, as Dr. Rivit so ably pointed out. 


Pete Jobusch
NMRA Life member 1784


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The standards have to have something in them that motivates manufacturers and modellers. 

I disagree. (In other words, "no.") The standards are numbers on paper. They have no motivational component. They represent the _capacity_ to achieve great things, but by themselves are capable of achieving nothing. The desire to adhere to them has to come from outside. People have to _want_ to improve the status quo. 

There _is_ something in the standards--potential. I personally believe--and I would not have published them if I did not--that these standards can be used to create some very accurate wheel profiles, and they'll run on track that can accommodate that and the deep-flange stuff from other manufacturers, thus maintaining the "run whatever" mentality that is the foundation of large scale railroading. _What the manufacturers do with that potential is entirely up to their individual desires._ If you cannot see the potential that lies within these standards, then there's no point in continuing the discussion. Obviously you're looking for something different and these standards will not suit your desires. I wish you luck in your quest. 

When I set out to take on this task, I had no delusions of even remotely changing any of the current manufacturers' ways of thinking. For starters, most indicated they're happy with what they're doing. Secondly, these standards are coming from a group which historically has ZERO credibility in the large scale community. That right there is arguably enough of an insurmountable hurdle, even if the numbers were brought down from Mt. Sinai on stone tablets. Instead, I saw this as an opportunity to instill some sense of consistency across the various standards bearers to help manufacturers and the individual hobbyists who were looking for guidance; those who _want_ to improve the status quo. 

Again: FUNDAMENTAL point... do you agree with this or not? If you do not, then there's really no reason at all to even go forward, you will fail, there will be no "quid pro quo", and thus no progress. 
I definitely _do not_ agree with your fundamental position. I believe there's sufficient potential for improvement to the status quo within these standards, but the standards in and of themselves will not effect any sort of change. It takes the will and desire of the individual to follow them in order for that potential to be realized. 

Greg, what would you do differently? Given the constraints on the system (1) at least some degree of back-compatibility with LGB, Aristo, and other traditionally non-conformist products that make up probably half the marketplace, and (2) A single track standard that allows all trains to run together regardless of scale. How would you address it? 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Actually Kevin I answered all of your questions in my earlier posts. 

Since you do not agree with my fundamental point: "The standards have to have something in them that motivates manufacturers and modelers.", I have extreme difficulty as a modeler finding that the converse: (which you do explicitly espouse, as far as I can understand): 
"Standards do NOT need something in them that motivates manufacturers and modelers" 

So if you feel that a standard should NOT motivate me, I understand the English and we have nothing to talk about. 

I did feel that we did have a fundamental disagreement, and thank you for responding so I could distill it down to basics. I'm not happy with the outcome, but it's better than bashing my head against the wall assuming that the NMRA standards would "have" something for me. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

My question isn't a general one, I'm in fact looking for specifics--exact numbers. I know you'd like tighter tolerances. That's a given. Given the constraints put upon the process, specifically where and by how much would you tighten the tolerances so that you would find the standards--to use your word--motivational? I'm asking for two reasons--first, my own curiosity. I'm always interested in learning how those who disagree with me would attack a problem. This entire process was built on similar exchanges with others who have disagreed with me. I've taken a lot from those discussions, and I value others' insights. Nothing improves with closed minds. More importantly, this process isn't yet signed, sealed, nor delivered. We're in the "review" process where critical, detailed feedback is essential to crafting the final product. 

I'll look forward to examining them in more detail, and I will experiment by implementing them if I find no glaring errors. 

I'm left to assume by your current opinion of the standards that you have--in fact--found something that you consider "glaring." It might do the process good to let us know what that is. If you're of the opinion that the entire process is flawed; that by kowtowing to non-complying manufacturers we're inherently limiting the system, then we can't help you in your quest for the ideal. As much as I'd like you to see these standards from my perspective, you never will, and they will always be flawed in your mind. For my part, I remain motivated by the desire to have trains running smoothly on the same track regardless of scale. That's what motivates me through this process. The standards are a means to that end. 

Later, 

K


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

Holy Jebus!!










There _is_ something in the standards--potential. 


Did you really just say that Kevin?! 

PLEASE tell us - just what "potential" there is in a standard that *you specifically wrote* so everyone *ALREADY MEETS IT*! 
I mean - com'on... _potential_?!











You and your merry band of committee-ers have just TAKEN AWAY any _potential_ a wheel standard would ever hope to have! 

Potential...

HA!


What? Sure, I guess you could say that your new standards afford today's manufacturers _the potential_ to keep on doing *EXCATLY* what they have been for years... (But now that would really bring into question why on earth anyone felt the need to do this in the first place, now wouldn't it?







)


_Potential_... pffffft!

"Hey everybody... we just wrote a 'standard' that does absolutely nothing! Huzzah! And it only took us two years!"


Great, just great... you feel you "need" to grandfather in all the out-of-scale, out-of-gauge, cross-scaled junk on the market today because... uh... oh! That's right, because if you don't, the manufacturers might *not* listen to you!?!? Com'on...

You know, since the NMRA cannot sink any lower in large scale than it already is (basically non-existent), what say you guys to maybe actually growing a backbone, standing up for what is right and making the "Standards" worth something... make them count... sure, no one's gonna listen to you (****, Lewis will more likely wipe something with the paper they're printed on than actually take the time to read them...), but at least then you could hold your head high knowing you didn't just sugar coat another completely transparent impotent effort to try and appear useful to Large Scalers... 


You keep saying that *it's up to us* to encourage the manufacturers to change - to _follow_ standards.... well tell me dear Kevin, just how do we do that when you went off and wrote a document that everyone already meets?! 

Tell you what, you go back and give us something that _actually _requires effort and some attention from manufacturers to meet... and I'll give the NMRA what they so desperately want... I'll start walking up to booths at train shows, looking at reps, and asking *"Does this meet NMRA standards?" *

I'll ask *"Did you comply with the NMRA?..." "Is this NMRA accepted?..." ""Where's your NMRA cert?..." "NMRA, *_NMRA_[/b]*, *_NMRA_[/b]*, *_NMRA!!!!!"







_[/b]


Afterall, that's what this is about isn't it? The NMRA getting their name into the mix? Looking relevant? Entering the discussion amongst Large Scalers and their buying habits? 

Go get a backbone, and stand up to the manufacturers.... what's the risk?!? That they might ignore your standards if they don't meet them? Huh, I thought we'd all already agreed *they are going to ignore them no matter what*!


Go back and write something that makes sense... since no one is going to listen anyway... give me something I can have integrity standing behind at the train show hammering reps about... you say change will have to come from the public, forcing the manufactures to change?

Ok then, one Large Scaler reporting for duty.... now *give me my bullets!*

Give me my ammunition...

Because all you're handing me right now Kevin, is a white flag.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

This is all so much hot cockery the mind boggles. 

The manufacturers are *NEVER* going to comply with any sensible standards unless a carrot is dangled under their noses. 

There is only *ONE* such carrot the NMRA can dangle. 

If they do not comply they do not get the imprimatur of the *NMRA*. 
Now, I grant you that may not work, but it is the only way to go. 

If they do comply, the badge of honour will be there for all to see.


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By Dr Rivet on 25 Oct 2009 08:48 AM 
The STANDARD should not be relaxed just to allow OLD STUFF [sorry, legacy] to fall within the allowable dimensions. The problem is that with the proposed dimensions, long wheelbased trucks [or two axle cars] with wheel sets conforming to the 40mm B2B often will not reliably operate on track that MEETS the proposed standard. 


Indeed, sorry Kevin, but what is the meaning of standards when they are so wide as to allow everything we have all seen as the reason we want standards?!
In other words I agree totally with Greg, Parkdesigner and Tony.


You do have one thing right Kevin, and that is that it is us, the customer, that have to pressure the manufacturer into compliance. And the standard itself should not be something the manufacturer wants.

Then why have you guys gone so far in catering to them? How the **** are we going to pressure them to better themselves when they allready do comply with a standard? a standard that is made so that they can squise in without making an effort... there's no challenge there?

wich of-course also means that if you later revise the standard to a finertolerance they will simply say you changed the ground rules, or that they conform to the 'original standards'


I would also like to point out that since we do run on 45mm gauge there really shouldn't be a need to use scale specific standards as you say. All it really does mean is that the standard should be as coarse as can be accepted by gauge one (1/32, 1/30.5 and 1/29) (notably the standard previously known as G1mra). And the rest of the scales can quite simply conform to the same standard. The end result is only that the wheelsets on Fn3 will appear to be fine-scale. But if a gauge one enthusiast can lay track to that standard, then I am certain a Fn3 enthusiast can do the same?

And all is well, we can still run on each others layouts... 

As you say, we have the advantage of experience.
My experience is that I have no problem with running Bachmann or LGB on a G1MRA layout allready now, except that the LGB flanges hit the railspikes on every tie, because it's too large for the standard.
I don't recall any Fn3 modellers crying for LGB size flanges to run reliably?


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Gentlemen, I invite you all... 

Go take a micrometer to your Aristo, LGB, USA, etc., wheels and switches. See how they measure up. Look at the variations in back-to-back, flange depth, wheel width--sometimes on the same locomotive! Then do the same for the track. Look at flangeways, gauge (yes, gauge!) and the span (the distance between outside edges of the two guard rails. You will find that what we've put together as "standards" are much tighter and a vast improvement over the wide variety we have today. 

As for "relaxing" the standards to meet what's on the market, you're misunderstanding the amount of relaxation. There's a TON of stuff on the market that DOES NOT MEET these standards! Easily half the marketplace, and probably the vast majority of the track in use on our railroads doesn't. These standards do not give a "green light" to everything. Far from it. Wheels built to these proposed standards may have trouble running through LGB's and Aristo's switches without tweaking the switches. Aristo and LGB locos with narrow back-to-back spacings may still hang up on guard rails set wider than the wheels. If you build to these proposed standards, things will work smoothly. If you build outside of them, there's enough "wiggle room" to where you may not have a lot of trouble, but there will still be issues. These standards ask a lot of the current manufacturers to adjust how they're building their track and wheels. Whether they do so, who knows. We did take their needs into consideration, but we're asking them to at least meet us half way. 

Flange depth: Manufacturers insisted on keeping flange depths relatively deep because _their customers demand it._ They're not going to abandon that. I wish the large scale community would learn how to lay track so we could go tighter without issue, but that's life. People like their roller coasters. So, we picked a value that was smaller than what the manufacturers in question were currently using, but still deep enough to hopefully satisfy them. (BTW, I did not measure a single flange lower than .090" on any of the equipment from the major manufacturers. In fact, we had some as deep as .187 (that's 3/16"!) Our maximum of .118" is a fair amount smaller than "average." 

Flange width: Here again, we settled on a value about 60 - 75% smaller than most commercial production flange widths. Many came in between .090" or more. We've pulled that back to .076" maximum. 

Back-to-back: Yes, we went a bit narrower on the minimum for b-t-b than what G1MRA states. That's the difference between how the two standards are set up. G1MRA states values at one end of the spectrum as target, then the variance to the other. NMRA states the target in the middle, then variances in both direction. The target was the critical dimension here, which we wanted to be the same as G1MRA and what the hobbyist has been using as an "ideal" for years. (Shame the manufacturers haven't gotten that memo.) We relaxed the minimum back to 1.560" again to accommodate those manufacturers who are infatuated with their deeper, thicker flanges. 1.560" is a vast improvement over the 1.535" they're using. Again--like the flange depth--it's something of a compromise aimed at gathering their support. The notes specify that the narrower end of the b-t-b spectrum is intended for those who use flanges at the thicker end of the spectrum. The tolerances built into these standards aren't an "anything goes" thing, they're designed to give the manufacturers wiggle room to create wheel profiles that match their customers' needs and still operate smoothly. 

Span: (This seems to be where the biggest blow-up is, since it "differs" from G1MRA.) We settled on a target value of 1.537" with a max. of 1.555 and a min of 1.535. G1MRA states _only_ a max, which implies the minimum can be anything the manufacturer wants it to be. In other words, it's _not_ a critical dimension. Commercial switches from "the big guys" all came in around 1.500" for that measurement. They're ALL out of compliance with the NMRA standards, but would be fine under G1MRA. And you say _our_ tolerances are too accommodating? The "only" thing we did differently from G1MRA was to set the target at such a value to where we were confident it was narrow enough to allow the legacy products not to bump on the guard rails. _You've still got the back-to-back and check gauge requirements that keep the wheels where they're supposed to be._ Span is really not important to how our trains run unless the wheels are too tight. 

Flangeways: While we're not "tighter" than G1MRA in terms of tolerances, our flangeways are across-the-board tighter than G1MRA, and much tighter than what's being produced commercially by "the big guys." This addresses the nasty fiddling one has to do with LGB, Aristo, etc. switches that's lamented so often on the boards. 

I know many of you "dissenters" feel we should have just grabbed the bull by the horns, left the Aristos, LGBs, and those who don't have any interest in playing along with finer standards in the dust. There's a fair amount of logic to that which I can't argue with. The theory is that they'd eventually play ball or they'd lose sales. That's great--in theory. In practicality, they'd still do very well. People are champing at the bit for LGB to get fully back into production. Why? Because they run reliably. They've got uber-deep flanges that accommodate roller-coaster track, and motors that don't quit. Aristo's got a very solid market share that's not likely to evaporate just because the standards change. Their stuff will still work with their track, and people will be very happy. So, rather than just leaving them in the dust, we made subtle adjustments that require them to tighten up their current practices by a fair margin, but still allow products built to the old way to at least squeak by in terms of operation. That way, while the standards aren't ideal, they are at the very least consistent--which is something we definitely do not have right now. 

As for the draw of the "NMRA Compliant" badge? Do you honestly think the manufacturers give the remotest fig about putting "NMRA Compliant" on their large scale packaging? In this community, they'd arguably _lose_ sales, even if the standards were ideal. Heck, we it took us long enough to get them to state the friggin' scale of the product on the box. 

As for comments relative specifically to Fn3, you will find the tolerances specific for Fn3 wheels and flanges to be a bit narrower than what we've prescribed for the "LS" standards. There are two reasons we could pull that off. First, it's a scale-specific standard. Second, manufacturer conformity is already much, much tighter than what's present in all of large scale. 

These standards are not the end-all-be-all of large scale standards. They are an attempt to get people to look at the same playbook. Once we're all looking at the same playbook, the advantages of doing so can be demonstrated to the manufacturers, and we can work to tighten the standards. Some (Bachmann, Accucraft) are doing so without guidance from anyone. Others will take a good deal of convincing. But--consider each of your reactions to these standards. 

I'll close with one more question... 

We've had G1MRA standards for 60-something years. NONE of the major manufacturers adhere to it on a wholesale level (in fact, b-t-b is probably the single aspect some do). On what basis do you believe that these manufacturers would even consider a standard that's even tighter or smaller? 

Later, 

K


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

Well said Kevin, thank you for taking the time to both work out these suggested standards and also debating them here.
We may not all agree on everything, but I agree that it's a start. Just warning against thinking it is possible to tighten the standards later.

Not totally convinced the manufacturers really listen to what their customers want, rather what they can get away with and people still buying their stuff


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

You will find that what we've put together as "standards" are much tighter and a vast improvement over the wide variety we have today. 

Keep going, pal. You are on the right track. 

As for the draw of the "NMRA Compliant" badge? 
I think there's great *potential* for this. What's the "national" standard for - it's a guide to the manufacturers. It's up to us to pressure them to follow the standards. 

Dr Rivet has a point - if you saw his track with a 50-car train behind a $5000+ locomotive going full chat, you'd appreciate he doesn't want any derailments. And, to his eternal credit, we show up with all kinds of stuff and the derailments come from tree debris on the track - not from wheel versus track standards. 

But your point - that these standards are better then what we have on 50% of the equipment sold today - is valid, and I think most of us support your efforts. Despite the argumentative types!


----------



## Terl (Jan 2, 2008)

Kevin 

I support your effort on getting this track standard adopted. I trust your research on how you came up with the numbers. and how closely they are to the British standards. I didn't delve too deeply into the actual numbers because they were all in English decimals, which I find somewhat confusing, I have built my track to come out in even metric numbers, but I know that in many cases the inch measurements are just conversions of the metric measurements. I think that mainly agreement on this standard would give the manufactures something to look at when they make their stuff. I know having been in the garden railroading hobby for for more than 20 years, that so much stuff was made by manufactures (swithces and wheel sets) that diid not work or had to be modified by me to work mainly because I think that the manufacturers didn't have a common standard to look at when this stuff was made in the factory. Thanks for your effort on this. 

Terl


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

Some time ago Joe Macaluso and I proposed to the NMRA that mass produced 45mm gauge products should be made to the GIMRA Ordinary Standard - a long standing and internationally used standard. We also proposed that each scale running on 45mm had its own (fine?) scale standard, serviced by small businesses making replacement wheelsets etc. We had some doubt about ultra finescale standards being used in the garden because of the number of factors involved in the outdoor environment and the difficulty of controlling them, (particularly if the line is landscaper rather than planks on sticks and I am not being derogatory about the latter).

For the nay-sayers, bear in mind that the use of disparate standards between companies is a commercial ploy to bind folk to the one manufacturer - restraint of trade. Use of a common standard should mean better running between different makes; the competition being based on quality and price rather on what can or cannot be used with your set up. It is also an issue for the manufacturers or scratch builders NOT theaverage individual. Standards after all are the reason mass manufacture is possible, and why spare parts are available off the shelf. They are about engineering fit being fit for purpose and not some sinister control policy. Given the global market it makes sense to use standards that have a history of being used internationally.


There are sound reasons why an independent body should sort the matter out rather than having the trade argue it out. IF graden railway enthusiasts are concerned that thier interests are not being properly represenrted they can always join said body and lobby it.

There is one minor technical problem re the GIMRA standard in that the 3mm flangeways could do with a little narrowing to provide a better tolerance, but this is a minor matter which could be rolled out gradually. The Gauge 0 Guild Coarse standard had a similar problem which they solved by altering the flangeway from 2.5mm to 2.2mm. This did not involve any alteration to wheelsets. Existing track could either be left as is, have the guard rails shimmed (already done with some G switches) or the guard rails repositioned. It is however NOT CRITICAL, merely an improvement.


Best

Sam E


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

If you are still reading this thread Kevin, I need to use a standard soon, as I must modify some of my steamers to have the right back to back and the right gauge, and I have to modify the wheels and shim the axles. 

To wit: you indicated the standard published on the NMRA site is wrong. Maybe you can share what you said is right/better since you are working on the committee... I sure do not want to start using something that the NMRA will abandon. 

Any input? 

Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg, what's posted there now is the latest revisions to the standards proposal: 
http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandr...esv1-5.pdf 

There are some refinements that are not published in that specific set relative to F and Fn3, but that's it. Essentially, the Fn3 standards use the same track standards, but narrow the "allowable" variation in terms of wheel tread, etc. to suit that single scale. Since you're 1:29, your standards would fall within this set linked above. 

If you're looking to adjust back-to-back, use 1.575", which has long been the recommended practice in large scale regardless of any published standards. 

I sure do not want to start using something that the NMRA will abandon. 
Well, there's no guarantees they won't up and change things in another 4 years.  But it ain't gonna be me leading that charge, that's for certain. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Thanks for the quick reply Kevin, now I see tolerances that you might have luck getting the LS manufacturers to buy into. 

I notice the deep flange spec is what most people think of if I look at the flange depth. I'll have to consider if trying to go to the standard specs are workable. 

For now I'll try to go to the deep flange spec... that's what the flangeway depths are set for in my switches, 3mm... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

My main concern with the "standard" specs for your situation would be the shallower flanges (.066" max) on your long trains. My worry would be that the lateral "clothesline" forces on the string of cars going around the curves might be enough to pull the flanges up and over the rails if they're given the slightest incentive. This would be less of an issue on wide curves, but I don't remember what your minimums are. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Good idea Kevin, I often run trains in excess of 40 cars, and pull them around the R.J. DeBerg Memorial Hairpin Curve, so I'll stick with the deep flanges. 

Any other areas/items not quite fully developed / searching for improvement? 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I can't say there are specific areas we're looking for suggestions or improvements, but the whole purpose of publishing the numbers for review is to get outside eyeballs to look at what we've put together to point out the obvious--things we've missed because we're too close to the process. If there are specific specs that you think could be improved upon, we're definitely open to hearing your ideas. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Well' I'll give them a shot and tell you how it works. My setup may not be a complete test, but it will work the standard a bit, since I work to get stuff to run for hours at a time with no problems. I also have only Aristo switches, so certain things cannot be set right unless I start building my own frogs. 

I'll concentrate on locomotives and cars and flanges and flangeways for now. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I hear you on the Aristo switches. I recently built a shelf "test railroad" in the workshop that's at eye-level using some of their 5' radius switches I've had sitting unused for a while. Suffice to say they're a friendly reminder as to why we've been working on standards... 

Later, 

K


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

It is NOT wheel VERSUS track. The whole point of a standard is to have a set of dimensions for both track and wheels that are a good 'fit' and enable stock and track products from different manufacturers to work in harmony. Standards do not of themselves prevent derailments - twigs , grit and badly laid track will do that. The point is that use of consistent standards removes one factor from the equation and it IS something that manufacturers can do something about.

Sam E


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

A 2 mm flange depth ougtht to be sufficient for most purposes. If track is badly laid even deeper flanges may not prove adequate. Obviously the 2mm standard originated on Ga 1 with its generally wider curvature- however 16mm scale experience of using it on smaller radius curves (either 32 or 45mm gauge) has been positive but train lengths are shorter. If you are going to run very long (scale?) length trains through R1 curves there are going to be issues - however it pays to remember that using the max radius you can has been a kind of mantra in the UK, it tends to look better, and in real life you would not try to pull too long a train through sharp curves, and certainly not at any speed. Look at train lengths on the Uintah. It is not just the gradient which limits train length over the Baxter Pass but also the curvature. The friction on a sharp curve is much greater than on an easier one and is in itself a limiting factor in the model as well as the real world.


Shallow flanges need compensation or springing and this in turn means greater skill in construction or greater expense in RTR. Basic GIMRA loco designs are not sprung, 


The other point is that 3mm flanges are somewhat unsightly. 2mm is a good working compromise and ought to reduce, tho not stop, fulminations about fine scale standards. 


The point of making the GIMRA standards universal for mass produced models is that the US market tends to run multiple scales on any given track, so varying track /wheel standards for each scale is not a practical solution. Even if one was not to mix the scales on any one pike, a GR Society would have members using different scales, who would seek to run on each others track at garden meets so one would see Fn3 trains running on the same track as 1:29 trains etc and there is no harm in that.


IMHO Finescale is OK forshowcase or indoor models or those with high skills/incomes models but would exclude many and be asource of frustration out in the garden for the average joe. Not to say it cannot be done but that it is probably for a very minority following.


I am not sure why the NMRA wants to reinvent the wheel when with a small tweak see (earlier post) we have a proven set of dimensions already extant and widely used over the globe.


Sam e


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

I agree in that IMHO a onesize fits all approach ought to benefit the majority. Joe Mac and I also suggested specific standards for eack scale but there are two issues as you posit. Do you you make a finer 'scale' standard wheel standard that will still run on average joe's Standard track? Compromises oiuld have to be made with the 'scale' wheel standards. In effect this is the sort of three layer standards system once suggested by the NMRA. A 'G' High Rail standard for mass production. An 'ordinary' scale standard in which the principle variant is the flange depth; the stock would run on hi rail track, although any of the latter track reliant on a flange floor in the frog/crossing for its smooth running might be problematic with very small wheeled stock. Finally the FINE scale track & Wheel standards where the scale approach is paramount and stock would only run on track specific to it.

All is not lost - the HO RP-25 standard was of benefit to that scale and in the face of worldwide differences in 16.5mm gauge standards bought some unity. This is not the case in 45mm scale when in the face of indifference from the model rail hobby for many years GIMRA kept the 45mm gauge flag flying and effectively became an international body as no one else was interested. It would seem obvious to build on that rather than throw a spanner in the works.


Sam e


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Sam, one of the reasons I mention flange depths is because many "G" gauge switches are flange-bearing or HAVE to be made flange-bearing to work. 

A particular example is the Aristo #6, a properly gauged wheelset will still drop into the frog with a bump. The geometry is bad on this frog, but the only simple and inexpensive way to fix it is to put in one of the Train-Li inserts and make it a flange bearing frog. It pains me to do this, but I have over $1,000 of these switches and have to do something. 

So, this is why I'm interested in this particular facet. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## armorsmith (Jun 1, 2008)

Greg, Kevin, et al, 

A general comment about standards and standards committees. ANSI (American National Standards Institute), ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers), ASTM (American Society for Testing of Materials), etc, etc, etc are, like NMRA, organizations who's primary function is the authoring and maintaining of standards for various industries. They don't produce anything but paper documents saying how and why. When these organizations deem a set of standards necessary for a given subject, they will collect data from a number of sources, determine the BEST course of action and publish that information. I am not aware of them ever going out of their way to be all inclusive of the industry the standard governs. After that the industries make their mind about whether to comply or not. Those that do not, usually don't last long. 

It is my opinion that the standards for wheels and track should be written in a manner that allow for the variations in scale we currently know about, optimizing the standard for functionality, not to be all inclusive of the existing product lines. Why should we bend to their wishes when they have made it fairly clear they have no intention of adopting the standards anyway. The standards should be published and advertised. We the purchasing public should then follow suit by purchasing as much product as we can from 'compliant' vendors. Nothing gets a vendors attention like his bottom line going down. All the current vendors who think they have the market all sewn up may find a different story when the time comes. 

All of the effort in the world put into standards will not be beneficial to anyone unless the standard is supported by both the vendors who produce the product, and the purchaser who uses the product. If you don't think the buying public has any power, look at the American automobile industry. They are in trouble because they didn't listen to their customer. The arrogant suppliers in this hobby can wind up there just as quickly. 

Kevin, write the standard for the standard - not to suit the vendors. As has been mentioned in this thread, the vendors don't even adhere to their own standards. Write standards that WORK! 

Bob C.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Bob, Sam, and others, 

Understand that these standards are not written as "all inclusive" standards to accommodate the manufacturers. Many products currently on the market are not in compliance. (Please refer to my earlier post which describes some of the measured numbers and how they compare to the standards). These standards do "work." If they didn't, we wouldn't have put them forward. If you're of the opinion that these standards don't work, please site specifics. What dimensions are flawed, and why? That's the kind of data we need to make improvements. Generic negative statements are of no constructive help.

The problem is that large scale differs from other standards arenas mentioned. We've got a very limited pool of manufacturers, with few (if any) up-and-comers waiting in the wings to take over for the old guard. You can't just put out new standards and say "get in line or get left behind." Who's going gonna leave them behind? The old guard will continue to ignore the standards, and people will continue to buy their products. Nothing changes.On the other hand, if you craft standards that (a) work, and (b) allow legacy/non-compliant equipment to at least marginally still work, then you've got a better chance at slowly nudging everyone towards the common goal. It's our belief that these standards achieve this. Time will tell how many manufacturers actually get on board, but even if it's one or two, it's arguably more than what's on board with any other standards out there. 

Later, 

K


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 04 Dec 2009 03:02 PM 
Sam, one of the reasons I mention flange depths is because many "G" gauge switches are flange-bearing or HAVE to be made flange-bearing to work. 

A particular example is the Aristo #6, a properly gauged wheelset will still drop into the frog with a bump. The geometry is bad on this frog, but the only simple and inexpensive way to fix it is to put in one of the Train-Li inserts and make it a flange bearing frog. It pains me to do this, but I have over $1,000 of these switches and have to do something. 



As I see it what we have to resolve is tha fact that garden scales tend to be mixed either in terms of different scales in one train. or visitors running trains of differemt scales on the same track. One would hope that the mass manufacturers would move towards adhering to an agreed standard and better geometry /accuracy of manufacturer as moulds and jigs have to be renewed. As far as flange depth is concerned I personally think that 2mm is more than adequate and less likely to stoke the fires of the finescale rumbling than a 3mm flange depth. At least if the problem is flange drop you seem already to have come up with a solution to remove the drop. The other problem would be that 3mm flange lift at switches would be rather more difficult to resolve that using the inserts.


Sam E


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

I never thought that they would be written as all inclusive. After all some manufacturers have varied their standards within the history of their production and it is difficult to legislate for that. On the other hand it pays to have an agreed set of dimensions to point to. One of the problems is that such have not yet existad in any formal sense within large Scale. Personally I still aver that a tried and tested set for the base line/average mosellers is what should be aimed for rather than re-inventing wheels. Cocniscenti and aesthetes can either make or purchase wheels and track to scale standards, but for themajority they are not a realistic option for use in the garden environment.


One minor point. If the standards are not written as 'all inclusive' how do you square that withytour later statement that they should allow legacy/non-compliant track /wheelsets operate within the mix. Surely this IS all inclusive, and not likely to be very satisfactory.

Sam E


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By armorsmith on 04 Dec 2009 04:28 PM 
Greg, Kevin, et al, 


"It is my opinion that the standards for wheels and track should be written in a manner that allow for the variations in scale we currently know about, optimizing the standard for functionality, not to be all inclusive of the existing product lines. Why should we bend to their wishes when they have made it fairly clear they have no intention of adopting the standards anyway. The standards should be published and advertised." 

So you are the gent who is going to tell the Large Scale hobby that they cannot run different scales on 45mm track??? The sensible thing is to have a universal standard for mass manufactured items on 45mm ga regardless of scale. This will keep the majority as 'happy' as possible. Standards can also be drawn up for specific scales on 45mm for those who want a more scale approach. This can be catered for by aftermarket wheel/wheelset conversions and hand built track etc.



"All of the effort in the world put into standards will not be beneficial to anyone unless the standard is supported by .... the vendors who produce the product"

True

".... and the purchaser who uses the product.If you don't think the buying public has any power, look at the American automobile industry." 

I am less convinced by this. Most purchasers do not give a fig what standards are used in the production of their auto as long as it works, and spare parts fit properly. Most Large Scalers do not really understand that the world of engineering is dependent on the use of various standards to ensure aan appropriate fit between components (track/wheels in our case)and if a group of manufacturers adhere to a single standard in a given situation it can have enormous benefits rather than be proscriptive. If each CD/DVD manufacturer usas their own recording standards one would probably need a different player for each company producing video/film/music recordings. Enough upheval is caused when a new standard is introduced and a war is started (VHs/Betamax ubtil one becomes the industry standard for the rtime being. At least in theory this constant upgrading ought to be avoidable in our arena if some consensus could be arrived at. 



"Kevin, write the standard for the standard - not to suit the vendors. As has been mentioned in this thread, the vendors don't even adhere to their own standards. Write standards that WORK!"

Ah but standards that work where? What is suitable for an indoor layout is less likely to be successful in the garden environment. As I said you CAN use finescale standards out doors if you have the skill or money to be able to adopt solutions to cope but this is not likely to be the majority, and aftermarket and cottage industries would best cope with demand for finescale.

Sam e 



Bob C.


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

This problem is a lot like the national healthcare debate. Is there a legitimate problem that needs addressing? Absolutely! The devil is in the details. The NMRA trying to set all inclusive "standards" that the LS model railroading industry will abide by is much like the Dems trying to re-vamp the entire healthcare industry by themselves! Simply put, it's too big of a chunk to swallow all in one bite! You're gonna have to give it to the manufacturers in itsy bitsy digestible bites if you want them to go along with your plan! I'm assuming that y'all have figured this out without _me_ telling you! 
Which leads to my real point, if these "standards" only marginally work with "heritage equipment" (or not at all) then _why _should we, the consumer, even consider purchasing this stuff? This isn't a complaint....yet! Respectfully, Kevin, a negative comment_ is _worthy of consideration if it raises a valid concern! Our hobby is hideously expensive (in comparison with HO and N model railroading) so changing things "for the good of the future of the hobby" is correspondingly more expensive and (as such) _won't _be greeted with enthusiasm by the average consumer! Nobody wants to see their $$$ which they have invested in their railroads rendered obsolete! Thus, no hard earned $$$ going to "new standards" stuff! Correct me if I am wrong but isn't_ that _the real reason that the manufacturers won't adopt any new standards? They fear that if they change their manufacturing, not only will they get hit up front with additional tooling costs but that there is a real chance that the consumer (us) won't buy the new stuff which will hit them with lousy sales...a double whammy! Good luck getting around _that _problem! 
Realistically,I do believe that, like Congress, you will only succeed if you win a tiny victory here and there and eventually arrive at a concensus that is "half improvise and half compromise!" fully pleasing none but nevertheless getting the job done. Again, I applaud you for trying and I do wish you the best of luck but economics and human nature are standing firmly between you and success.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Which leads to my real point, if these "standards" only marginally work with "heritage equipment" (or not at all) then why should we, the consumer, even consider purchasing this stuff? 
That's precicely my point. These standards are by necessity written so to at least allow the legacy equipment to operate witn no more difficulty than it currently does. If we didn't, few _would_ buy the new stuff even if it were made. With the standards as written, the incompatibilty that would exist between "compliant" and "non-compliant" stuff is no worse than what we have with the "anything goes" practices of the manufacturers now. Nothing gets "worse" with these new standards. What you have is a situation where trains built to them running on track built to them will run very smoothly (the goal of the standards). Trains built to standards running on track not built to them (i.e. current LGB, Aristo, etc. switches) may have the occasional bump depending on the particular switch. Likewise, trains not built to these standards running on track built to these standards may have similar bumps at switches dependent on the wheels. The latter two are exactly the situation we have now with no consitent standard, and its why we spend so much time making sure our wheels are guaged properly to whatever individual standard we choose for our railroads. 

The overwhelming sentiment I'm hearing from folks here is that these standards don't go far enough to force the manufacturers' hands to adopt better standards _because_ they're not mutually exclusive from the status quo. Our approach has been that they simply cannot be mutually exclusive for exactly the reasons you state. There's simply too much money invested on the manufacturers' and consumers' parts to drop everything and start new. That's been made crystal clear from the manufacturers through this process. They're _not_ going to obsolete their existing product lines. Many of us are in similar boats. We're not going to rip out our non-compliant track and replace it. This is very much a "gentlle nudge" approach to the problem. Manufacturers can adopt these new standards without obsoleting their current lines, and consumers can buy products built to these standards without worry that they'll have to deal with things not working--at least no more than they currently do. 

Respectfully, Kevin, a negative comment is worthy of consideration if it raises a valid concern! 
Absolutely. But "it won't work" without any reasons as to why doesn't fit that billing. That's all I'm asking--is that those who think these standards won't work give specific areas to illustrate their concerns. What specs are out of line, will cause conflict, etc.? What would each suggest to remedy the problem as they see it? That's the kind of info I need to make changes if I can. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I know others might agree with my methods, but I will try the standards, and see if they work for me and if I find problems. I've been trying some, and the previous approved ones were not so great, the ones "approved" in July were NOT what had been on the NMRA web site for a year (very disappointing Kevin), but the ones there for for review now have hope. 

I will try them out and see if things get better or worse. 

I'm not trying to inflict self abuse, but my evaluation of the G1MRA standards left me wanting a bit more. I don't want to start flame wars, but I'm not running protoype grades or curves and I run very long trains, so I am searching for the best I can do. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## armorsmith (Jun 1, 2008)

Kevin, 

"We've got a very limited pool of manufacturers, with few (if any) up-and-comers waiting in the wings to take over for the old guard." 

You are absolutely correct. Part of that reason is that new manufacturers need a considerable edge in order to break into a market place where the existing players have such a strangle hold. The ability for a new manufacturer to be able to state he is in compliance with the standard might be that edge, as I said earlier, dependent on the purchasing public. 

Sam, 

"So you are the gent who is going to tell the Large Scale hobby that they cannot run different scales on 45mm track???" 

Absolutely NOT!! What I am advocating is to create ONE standard for 45mm track and wheels to cover all the variations on a theme that is 'G' scale. For the rivet counters that want the scale flanges, there will always be the 'Gary Raymond's' in the hobby to pick up the slack, and introduce the 'New Blood' alluded to above. EVERY manufacturer since the Big Red Box was that new blood at one time. Per se, I don't care about keeping anyone in particular 'happy', I simply want to be able to purchase materials from vendors that are in compliance with the adopted specification and stand behind what they market. 

'Finescale' standards can be developed if that is what is required by each special interest group. 

"Most purchasers do not give a fig what standards are used in the production of their auto as long as it works, and spare parts fit properly." 

If you truly believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I will sell you real cheap. GM got bumped out of the No 1 spot by Toyota on two fronts. First and foremost, they stopped building good quality cars (not that I am a bow tie person). The purchasing public got tired of second rate cars and went to the manufacturer that produced the better product and stood behind it. I have bought Fords all my life, most of them used, and got good performance out to them. When my wife and I needed another car two years ago, I bought a Toyota. WHY?? Because the provided a better product than Ford and a better warrentee. I believe this to be true in all industries. 

Kevin, 

As I said earlier, write standards that work. To quote an old adage, 'You can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.' I believe that what makes 'G' scale what it is, is what is making standards so difficult - the variety of 'scales' that operate on the 45mm track. 

Maybe you, and Greg and a couple other of the senior (not necessarily age) modelers who have developed your own variations of what has been available in terms of standards should get together and see what has been working for each of you, find the common threads, and stitch a standard out of that. I don't profess to have all the answers, but I do believe that tayloring a standard to suit the existing hodge podge of manufacturers is not the answer the hobby wants. 

I'll shut up now and go back in my corner.  

Bob C.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I have a wheel and track standards page on my site. I'm constantly updating it (and it needs updating now with the new proposals). 

I put my own observations and what standards I am using there. 

http://www.elmassian.com/trains-mainmenu-27/track-mainmenu-93/track-and-wheel-standards-mainmenu-95*[url]http://www.elmassian.com/trains-mainmenu-27/track-mainmenu-93/track-and-wheel-standards-mainmenu-95* [/url]

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

(very disappointing Kevin), 
How do you think _I_ felt when they voted on large scale standards in July that weren't what we were working on? 

I'm not trying to inflict self abuse, 
A bit too late for that, but you're not alone in your masochistic tendencies.  Seriously, I look forward to what you come up with. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

You will be the first I consult with Kevin, and I know you were disappointed, and I was happy to hear you were not behind the insanity. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

What I am advocating is to create ONE standard for 45mm track and wheels to cover all the variations on a theme that is 'G' scale. 
By and large, that's what these standards allow. There's one single track standard for all scales from 1:32 to 1:20.3. Those numbers are consistent even between the "standard" and "deep flange" standards. The wheel standards are similarly identical across the scale spectrum. We've written in tolerances so that a manufacturer can tailor the width of the wheel and flange dimensions to best suit their particular scale. (i.e., a 1:32 manufacturer would use the wheel width at the lower end of the spectrum, while the 1:20.3 manufacturer would use the widths at the upper end). That's the reason there's no "target" value for wheel width or flanges. All measurements within the specified range are kosher with respect to the track standards. The only difference between the "standard" and "deep flange" wheel standards lie in regard to the size of the flange. The deep flange standards allow for a deeper flange (though still shallower than many commercial wheels), and allows the flange to be a bit thicker as well, so to avoid the "pizza-cutter" look of some of the early wheels with uber-deep flanges. 

Later, 

K


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 05 Dec 2009 09:02 PM 
I have a wheel and track standards page on my site. I'm constantly updating it (and it needs updating now with the new proposals). 

I put my own observations and what standards I am using there. 

http://www.elmassian.com/trains-mainmenu-27/track-mainmenu-93/track-and-wheel-standards-mainmenu-95*[url]http://www.elmassian.com/trains-mainmenu-27/track-mainmenu-93/track-and-wheel-standards-mainmenu-95* [/url]

Regards, Greg 


Hi - I have a similar web site at http://www.sam.c.evans.talktalk.net/page9.html. One of my problems was that the manufacturers were very closed mouth about what track and wheel dimensions they specified or what tolerances for manufacturing error were tolerated. Obviously one could measure the products but unless a degree of accuracy in both manufacture and measurement is used then all one can come up with is an average abnd not an'official' figure. Another problem is that NMRA keeps changing its proposals so the foigures on my page may not be the current proposals.

Sam E


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By armorsmith on 05 Dec 2009 08:45 PM 
Kevin, 

"Sam, 

. 


My aploogies but that is not how I read your post. We are in fact in agreement 






Ah we are using the word standard in two different senses. I am not referring to Quality Standards but production engineering standards such as thread form, interference fit, sliding fit, etc etc. In part Quality Standards are whether the manufacturer insists on good compliance to its own engineerin standards or adopts a 'that's close enough' attitude in which case what you say is likely to become true>>


----------



## SE18 (Feb 21, 2008)

what about 7/8, 16mm, 1:12 scale?


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

If the official Imprimatur of the NMRA is considered such an advantageous tool in marketing Large Scale products, then compliance with these proposed standards, assuming they are sensible, would be quickly adopted by the manufacturers who wanted such Imprimatur.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

what about 7/8, 16mm, 1:12 scale? 
We had to draw the line somewhere. We decided that line would be the 5 principle scales run under the generic "G-scale" or "large scale" banner specifically on 45mm track. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think the only way to "sell" the standard, is if manufacturers believe that people will buy more products that meet these standards. For that to happen, it's my opinion that customers must feel that the standard has some benefit for them. 

Case in point: the RP-25 wheel contour did make my HO trains run better, so I bought wheels that met this contour... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By SE18 on 06 Dec 2009 04:40 PM 
what about 7/8, 16mm, 1:12 scale? 
In this instance we are talking 45mm ga and in the UK these scales tend to use the GIMRA standard on that Gauge. If we are talking 32mm in the UK we use the Gauge 0 Guild Coarse standard with the GIMRA wheel profile which is compatible with most track codes used for these scales.

Sam E


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

[No message]


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)




----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

I note that the Hi rail standard quotes a wheel check gauge of 41.48mm . The btb (40mm) plus the flange width (1.88mm) however gives a wheel check gauge of 41.88mm. Which is the correct figure please? 

Sam E


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

In all but the gauge, the metric is mathematically derived from the imperial, so check to make sure the imperial measurement is okay. If that's kosher, there's a math error in the metric. Let me know and I'll look into it. 

Later, 

K


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

[No message]


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Sam, note 8 covers that. Where thicker flanges are to be used, back-to-back can be decreased to still fall within the values for check gauge. Even compensating for nothing, the check gauge works out to the maximum. (Mathematically, it exceeds it by .001", but from a practical standpoint that's equal.) But that's why we have tolerances to the negative on the back-to-back. If you want to use thick flanges and hit the target check gauge, you decrease the back-to-back to compensate. If you want to hit the target back-to-back, then you can do so with confident assurance that your trains will still roll smoothly through track built to standards. (Note: on tests, I could have wheelsets set to exceed the track check gauge by .005", up to .010" for wheel profiles with a fillet and still roll smoothly through the switch. There's an inherent tolerance above and beyond what's written into the standards just based on the physics. 

Keeping it at 1.88 means that it will not be compatible with NEM, and GIMRA old Ordinary track standards 
That's why the S4.2 standards exist. Those values are in line with G1MRA and MOROP(NEM) standards. Problem is that none--and I mean ZERO, ZIPPO, NADA--of the major manufacturers in the US (for whom specifically these standards are authored) use wheels anywhere close to those standards, and will not simply because the NMRA says to do so. That's the fundamental reality from which we were working. So, we wrote the deep flange standards to allow them to use something akin to deeper flanges to which they so dearly cling, but still reign them in to a point where they're fully compatible with the track without having to shim, trim, or otherwise tweak. Everything still works out within tolerances, so from our perspective, we're good. We could have simply specified deeper flanges without increasing the thickness, but there's also an aesthetic consideration. A flange can be oversized, but so long as its depth is proportional to its width, it looks a bit more scale than something that looks like a pizza cutter. 

Later, 

K


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 14 Dec 2009 10:38 AM


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I'd just like to interject that this is a GREAT discussion and I am learning a lot here. 

Sam, I may have gotten a bit confused on the quoting in your post, but if you have a spreadsheet and you have the NEM standards as part of it, I would love a copy, my email is in my signature. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

If the wheel and track 'target'check gauges are equal there is always the possibility that by manufacturing error the wheel check gauge will exceed the track check gauge leading to interference, 
Yes, there is always that possibility. But that's why there's .020" difference between the two target values. The maximum wheel check gauge is equal to the minimum track check gauge. Given the practical experience that wheel check gauge can in fact _exceed_ track check gauge by a very small margin, this will in all probability not be an issue in real world applications. Again, you can always narrow the back-to-back, which is 100% allowable (and advised) for flanges on the thicker end of the standard so that you maintain a comfortable variance between wheel and track check gauges. 

Are your proposals replacements for the July 2009 LS 4.2 and LS Hi-rail 4.3 standards dated July 2009? 
Specifically the standards proposal currently on the web site relative to LS standards 3/4.2 and 3/4.3, version 1.6. 

The NEM standards have been updated this year from the 1977 set, were you aware of that? 
No, but that's not going to change anything on our standards proposal. Please send me a copy of their new stuff. I'd be interested in seeing what they've changed. 

My understanding was that Bachman Spectrum stock theoretically uses G1MRA standards, 
They do not adhere strictly to G1MRA standards in production. Their flanges--even on their new 1:20.3 stuff--are far around .100" deep and .090" thick, with fillets ranging from non-existent to marginally visible. Their back-to-back sorta hits 1.575", but varies down to 1.560, often on the same piece of equipment. (G1MRA wheel widths are woefully undersized for 1:20.3 equipment, so I'm not even considering that variance.) 

My impression was that the HO scale lines generally follow NMRA standards including RP 25, not the least because HO modellers had a better grasp of the idea that a single track & wheel standard shared by manufacturers meant far better compatibility over the whole range of HO stock and track than would otherwise be the case. 
The thing to remember is that HO is three to four times smaller than what we run outdoors. The tolerances and physics involved are different. We can get away with a greater range of profiles simply because there's more weight in play. Our goal was not to go out and specify a single wheel profile, because experience had demonstrated that such a tight standard was neither needed nor desired. Instead, we came up with a range of values to which manufacturers could build and still maintain full compatibility no matter what the exact specifics of their profile would be. They could tailor things to match their specific scale. The other thing with this goes back to trackwork. I've not seen a lot of UK garden railways, but the ones I have seen tend to have very good trackwork. That is FAR from the case over on this side of the pond. I've seen some absolutely horrendous trackwork in the garden, and the owners wonder why nothing will stay on the track. (It's aways the wheel's fault, too.) Manufacturers listen to their customers, and their customers demand uber-deep flanges to compensate for their inadequate trackwork. Nothing would please me more than to see that change, believe me. But hey: 










I needn't look far to see examples of track that's not perfect. Through the operating season, I do get places where I'm glad I've got deep-ish flanges. 

Personally I have no problem with deeper flanges which is why I would like to see 4.2 standards accept 2mm deep flanges 
Quite honestly, I agree with you, but at that point the only difference between the "standard" and "deep flange" standards becomes the difference of 1 mm in depth and 0.3mm in thickness. At that point, why bother with two sets? There had to be enough of a separation between the two standards to warrant having two standards. The "standard" standards allow for scale or darned-near-scale flanges across the range of scales involved. In that flange width and depth are the only variables between the two standards, is it not really just an extended range? Any flange from--well, there's no stated minimum--to 3mm is perfectly acceptable and will run on the track. It's up to the manufacturer to determine how deep they would like to keep their flanges. 

Given that part of the LS paranoia is that one might end up with stock which was incompatible, surely the thinner flange for 4.3 would be better? I appreciate that the 1.88 flange might loohk better but are the hi-railers that interested in the look of the thing? 
Here again, though, we have to look at practical experience, too. Very few of the wheels that run over my rails fully match these standards. (I'd bet that probably none do in every regard.) I don't tweak 'em unless (a) they give me fits, or (b) I've taken them apart for some reason and need to reassemble them. Over the past two years, that's been very much intentional because I wanted to see how the manufacturers' wheels perform straight out of the box. My switches, on the other hand, do meet these standards. I don't have derailment problems on my switches beyond picking points, which isn't a wheel thing, it's a "blasted piece of ballast stuck in the points" thing. Given that, thinner flanges are unnecessary for the standard, because thicker flanges still work well. Again, if they're overly thick, you compensate by narrowing the back-to-back slightly. That's specifically why the standards allow for that. (A further advantage is that you can narrow existing wheels with significantly thicker flanges--beyond the stated maximums--and still maintain reliability. Recall that currently, no major manufacturer's wheels meet the .074" flange width. They're all going to have to narrow things just a bit to be in compliance. 

Please bear in mind that I am talking through more years of experience than I care to think of. 
I have no doubts of that, but while I'm loathe to compare resumes, I think my experience over the years has afforded me some level of competency in that regard as well. (Coincidentally, I also did HOn30 in the mid 80s.) 

As the US seems to use a variety of scales on 45mm gauge and expects to be able to mix scales either within any given train or social operating sessions. I would have thought therefore that the need for a high degree of conformity would be welcome. I think you are pretty much there except for just a few small points. 
In that the only variables between any of these standards are relative to flange thickness and depth, and that varies by around 1mm in most cases (less than .3mm on the thickness), I think there's _tremendous_ conformity across the scales. It's exponentially more uniform than anything we have currently being produced. By its very nature of being non-scale-specific, it cannot be any more uniform. Flanges and wheel thicknesses need to have some latitude for variation relative to scale. Experience has demonstrated that the specific flange thickness (and to an extend depth) isn't near as important to reliable operation as constancy in back-to-back and check gauge dimension. Those are the same across the board for that reason. 

Later, 

K


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin
First I am not interested in a resume competition, however I wanted to make it clear that the issue of standards has been an interest for many years, and that I am a practical modeller.
The whole point of standards in both model and real world is to completely eradicate the possibility of interference between wheel and crossing point. In this your hi-rail standard fails the test. The wheel check gauge MUST be no more that the track check gauge and preferably a little less. The other primary condition is that the track dimension span should be less than the wheel btb.
I hear what you say that it seems that you can get away with the wheel check gauge being larger than the track check gauge. I thought that too in the early days of my interest but I now know it is not so. As I said earlier if you are just rolling stock or a truck through a switch then it seems to prove your point. However a train of stock behaves differently in different situations (tension, compression, degree of curvature etc, as do steam loco wheel arrangements and this is where it bites. To put it in perspective 0.10” is 3.2 inches in 1:32 and 2 inches and a bit in 1:20.3. I do not think such interference would be tolerated in the 1:1 world. 
Folk may notice that check rails show little signs of wear; there is a tale that some eastern investors inspecting a western ng line that they had just purchased noticed this, and as the rails plainly were not used demanded that they be pulled up and sold to realise their value in scrap. It took the railroad men considerable time and patience to explain that the $10 bit of rail was there to ensure that they did not have many $1,000s dollars of repair bills. Equally, one modeller averred that check rails were not necessary and built a pike to prove the point. A great deal of care and attention was paid to the track laying etc. Well it seemed he was right but....it was pointed out to him that he was running his trains in tension and thus were less likely to need the services of a check rail than trains in compression. Furthermore we in the garden certainly could not aspire to the near perfection required to try and pull such a stunt off.
By way of a practical illustration; I ran at a guy’s event and my 0-6-2 persistently derailed at one switch. No one else’s loco did, every one ran through that switch in tension. I was puzzled. I got out my vernier to check that my wheels had not come out of gauge/standard; no they hadn’t. Then I noticed that for some reason the switch had no check (guard) rails. The weight of the train behind the asymmetric wheel base tended to keep the loco going straight – the overhang from the rear driver acting as leverage. As the loco went round the diverging route the lead flange was trying to follow the straight and it picked up the apex of the crossing and split the switch without fail..... Had guard rails set at the correct dimension been present there would have been no way that the loco could have derailed because of ‘frog’ pick up.
As far as flange depth is concerned 2mm is known to work without springing or compensation providing the track is reasonably well laid. I am not objecting to finer flanges – simply suggesting that they be used with an advisory that springing or (perhaps more effectively) compensation be used.

The point about pizza cutters is well made however hi-rail is used by folk who are less confident about their track laying or the track-laying of others and seek to make the situation as foolproof as possible. I would venture to suggest therefore that mechanical fit is rather more important than the look of a flange. Any possible interference at the switch vee should be avoided. High-railers, particularly the inexperienced, will be less than happy with the seemingly inexplicable intermittent derailments for which there is no apparent visible cause, due to the mis-match with the proposed 1.88mm flange thickness.
At this juncture folk will worry about the 0.001s” that pepper the table of dimensions. This is not a problem. Again I refer folk to US industrial history, and the work of John Hall at Harper’s Ferry Armoury. He was the man who pulled all the strands together, and added his own take, to be the first to make mass produced precision items which used truly interchangeable parts. One of Hall’s innovations was the use of precision gauges to set the machine tools. In doing this he deskilled the work which made him rather unpopular (one of the superintendents was shot dead by a disgruntled worker when he refused to reintroduce the more traditional way of manufacture). As far as the Average modeller is concerned this is why the NMRA makes track wheel and clearance gauges. All the measuring is pre done, you do not need to look at a vernier; much less know how to use one. All that is needed is to use the gauge to check the fit of RTR stock, or track & wheel sets one is making.
The new NEM track standard has a span dimension that is larger than the target btb of all the other standards. The goal posts have been moved again. I would point out that I suspect that the NEM standards are principally aimed at indoor track power 1:32 from hi end makers rather than for use in the garden.
Best
Sam E


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I wanted to make it clear that the issue of standards has been an interest for many years, and that I am a practical modeller. 
Your informed arguments speak volumes towards that end without the need for reinforcement. 

I hear what you say that it seems that you can get away with the wheel check gauge being larger than the track check gauge. I thought that too in the early days of my interest but I now know it is not so. 
I'm not saying it's the ideal solution. The ideal solution is--as Note 8 suggests--to narrow the back-to-back towards the 1.560" end of the tolerance to ensure that the wheel check gauge remains on target, and less than the track check gauge. I'm just pointing out that there can be a small degree of overlap with a high degree of probability of success due to the presence of fillets and other physics in play. Most definitely you want a safety margin between the two check gauges, hence the allowance for narrowing the back-to-back to maintain that. 

As far as flange depth is concerned 2mm is known to work without springing or compensation providing the track is reasonably well laid. I am not objecting to finer flanges â€" simply suggesting that they be used with an advisory that springing or (perhaps more effectively) compensation be used. 
At this point in the game, I don't know that worrying about too-small flanges from the manufacturers is much of a concern. They've all been quite loathe to break beneath the .100" mark, so differentiating between values far smaller than that seems a bit superfluous in my opinion. I think perhaps a note relative to the "standard" standards that speaks to making sure trucks are somehow compensated due to the nature of the flanges might be in order. (Flanges specified there are under 2mm.) 

The point about pizza cutters is well made however hi-rail is used by folk who are less confident about their track laying or the track-laying of others and seek to make the situation as foolproof as possible. I would venture to suggest therefore that mechanical fit is rather more important than the look of a flange. High-railers, particularly the inexperienced, will be less than happy with the seemingly inexplicable intermittent derailments for which there is no apparent visible cause, due to the mis-match with the proposed 1.88mm flange thickness. 
With due respect to your experiences, we've demonstrated repeatedly that the flanges as specified in the hi-rail standards work very well with these track standards, so there's no reason to worry about intermittent derailments. Flanges well in excess of that thickness have been running without issue on my railroad for 4 years now over track that meets these standards, so it's not even a marginal acceptance, it's a right-down-the-middle-of-the-road testament that the "thick" flanges work with these standards. (I use "thick" in quotes because what's specified is still far thinner than nearly every flange I measured. The exceptions were from the UK). We wouldn't have published them as standards if we weren't confident in their ability to work. 

I would argue your point about hi-rail users. People use deep flanges in the garden because that's what the manufacturers produce. There's been a subtle push--especially among the 1:20.3 manufacturers--towards a more scale-looking flange, but even they come in well above the "standard" standards. Accucraft's wheel is the closest to these proposed _hi-rail_ standards with a flange width of .080" and a depth of .090". Bachmann's flanges are between .090" and .100" deep, with a thickness of around .085" to .090". Since these wheels have proven time and time again to work, there's simply no reason to push for even thinner flanges. The manufacturers are just not going to go there if what they're currently making works and looks good. As a fine-scale modeler, both considerations are equally important for me. I want my trains to look good, but I want them to run in the garden, too. I view my models from the end on, and the flanges simply have to look reasonably well proportioned or I'm chucking them. 

Any possible interference at the switch vee should be avoided. 
That's why you narrow the b-t-b to 1.560" as allowed if necessary. 

As far as the Average modeller is concerned this is why the NMRA makes track wheel and clearance gauges. 
There's no reason why there cannot be a gauge built to these standards for exactly that purpose. The track is a single standard across the board for everything. For the wheels, you set the gauge to measure the back-to-back at 1.575, with an shoulder at the minimum 1.560". I believe this is how the Aristo track gauge is designed. (Shame they don't use it on their own trains.) For flanges, you set the profile at the maximum width and depth for one standard on one edge, the maximum width and depth for the other standard on the other edge. Unlike the small scales, you cannot do a single clearance gauge due to the scale differences in play. 

BTW, thanks for the spreadsheet! It will be interesting to see if the NEM specs actually catch on in the garden environment, of if the manufacturers who adopt them find any kind of backlash from their customers who run their products in the garden. 

Later, 

K


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin. 
Following on from your last posting I have revisited your note 8, and the proposition contained therein. I have calculated that using the 1.88 flange thickness the BTB would have to be reduced to 39.6 which is only 0.2 mm (0.0079”) larger than the span. This leaves little margin for manufacturing errors.
The real problem is that a variable dimension in a standard is a fudge of the kind I think you are trying to eradicate. 
A practical problem is that it would be impossible to make a gauge tool to check the BTB as these could vary by 0.4mm (0.016”). Gauge tools need to be accurate otherwise there is no point to them.
Using the 1.88 flange at the target BTB means an interference of 0.4mm (0.016”) as the check (guard) rail will not keep the flange from striking the apex of the crossing and at speed could flip the wheel, leading to derailment. Any manufacturing error could make this figure more significant. The greater the speed involved the more likely the strike will lead to a more problematic flip. Alas one cannot legislate for the speed at which folk operate their trains, so it is better to avoid a situation where it may present a problem.
Of course the gauge could be eased to avoid the problem but this then raises the issue of gauges again. What dimensional value do you use for them? Again accuracy then becomes an issue and if a gauge tool is not accurate it is worthless.
Keeping the flange width for Hi-rail at 1.5mm resolves the gauge tool issue as the value for BTB and gauge is then constant regardless. It would seem that the principle issue is flange depth and its practicality and not the aesthetic of a thin flange. If flange aesthetics are an issue then one can either use the ‘Standard’ standard or the appropriate proto-standard.
IMHO the important thing is to observe the wheel check gauge at maximum being equal to the track check gauge, but better still being less to give adequate clearance. Ditto the BTB being adequately wider than the span. Introducing variables kind of gives lie to the concept of standard dimensions.

Sam E


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Following on from your last posting I have revisited your note 8, and the proposition contained therein. I have calculated that using the 1.88 flange thickness the BTB would have to be reduced to 39.6 which is only 0.2 mm (0.0079”) larger than the span. This leaves little margin for manufacturing errors. 
Target span is 1.535", so a wheel set to the minimum b-t-b of 1.560 still has .025" play between it and the gaurd rails. The maximum span is 1.555", which is .005" narrower than the minimum b-t-b. Yes it's close, but it's enough. There's a reason we set the target where we did. We expanded to 1.555 on the maximum to parallel G1MRA. 

A practical problem is that it would be impossible to make a gauge tool to check the BTB as these could vary by 0.4mm (0.016”). Gauge tools need to be accurate otherwise there is no point to them. 
Whaddaya mean you can't make a gauge tool that can handle two (even three) steps of back-to-back spacing? 










Look on the left edge. The nearest notch is stepped. The first step is a minimum, the bottom I'm presuming to be the target. You could easily add a third step for maximum. 

Using the 1.88 flange at the target BTB means an interference of 0.4mm (0.016”) as the check (guard) rail will not keep the flange from striking the apex of the crossing and at speed could flip the wheel, leading to derailment. 
Sorry, but your math is wrong. Using the target b-t-b of 1.575 plus the target flange of .074 gives you a check gauge of 1.649". The MINIMUM check gauge on the track is 1.648," a difference of only .001" It's still .009" shy of the target track gauge. There's no interference. Even if you up the flange width to the maximum (.076), your offset is only .003" greater than the minimum track check gauge. That's easily compensated for by the fillet (also recommended in the notes) and the rounded edge of the flange. Sam, I've done the math, I've tested the samples. It works. 

If flange aesthetics are an issue then one can either use the ‘Standard’ standard or the appropriate proto-standard. 
I strongly disagree. Why should good aesthetics be limited to fine-scale when experience proves it can be applied to the masses? 

IMHO the important thing is to observe the wheel check gauge at maximum being equal to the track check gauge, but better still being less to give adequate clearance. Ditto the BTB being adequately wider than the span. Introducing variables kind of gives lie to the concept of standard dimensions. 

And the wheel check gauge at the maximum _is_ equal to the track check gauge at it's minimum (and separated by .019" at respective target values.) 

Ditto the BTB being adequately wider than the span. 
A difference of .005" between the minimum b-t-b and maximum span is adequate. Remember, it's not the job of the standards to accommodate manufacturing tolerances; it's the job of the manufacturer to ensure that tolerances fall within standards. 

Introducing variables kind of gives lie to the concept of standard dimensions. 
We're not introducing variables, we're allowing for tolerances. Fairly tight tolerances compared to what's currently on the market. The "thicker" flanges work with these standards, plain and simple. The math works, the physics works, the wheels work. 

Later, 

K


----------



## armorsmith (Jun 1, 2008)

Sam & Kevin, 

You are both essentially correct, however, the standards that drive manufacturing must be loose enough so that A) they can be mass manufactured and B) the cost is not prohibitive to the purchasing end user. If you make the tolerances too tight, more units will fail inspection that will pass. Higher failure rate equals higher cost to the consumer. Yes, standards need to drive manufacturing, but not out of business. 

Bob C.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

From the "A Picture is Worth 1,000 Words" department: 










Stats: 

Stock Bachmann 2-8-0 tender truck, no modification. 

Back-to-back = 1.561" (in compliance, .001" from minimum) 
Flange thickness = .092" (out of compliance by .016") 
Check gauge = 1.653" (out of compliance by .005") 
Flange depth = .099" (in compliance) 

Track - TrainLine45 R3 switch 

Gauge (at frog) = 1.769" (in compliance) 
Flangeway (outboard rail) = .112" (in compliance) 
Flangeway (next to frog) = .145" (out of compliance) 
Span = 1.512" (out of compliance) 
Check gauge = 1.648" (in compliance--at minimum value) 

So, what you've got is a switch whose check gauge is at the minimum allowable, and a wheelset whose check gauge is .005" _wider_ than the track check gauge thanks to very thick flanges. Yet as is evidenced by the photo, even with the wheelset as far over towards the frog as the guard rail will allow, the flange is in no danger of picking the frog. No amount of coaxing, twisting, or pushing will get the tip of that flange to make contact with the tip of the frog. The tip of the frog will hit the side of the flange somewhere on the taper, and the laws of physics at that point will push the wheel not up and over the frog, but back towards the other rail. 

Now, keep the back-to-back the same, and narrow the flanges to .076" (the maximum allowed under the NMRA proposal). The flange moves further away from the tip of the frog by .016", bringing the check gauge to 1.637", which is fully in compliance and .011" less than the track check gauge. 

"Thick" flanges play very well with these standards. 

Later, 

K


----------



## SE18 (Feb 21, 2008)

Good points, Kevin. Well illustrated. This should convince anyone why standards are so important!


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin.
Re your hi-rail spec
I am a little bothered by your definition of tolerances. As said before standards are really for use by manufacturers and home builders and all the average modeller requires is a go no go gauge to check dimensions with. I had assumed that the tolerances quoted were the range of allowable manufacturing errors, and not a range that could be nibbled into to allow a new target dimension. If you take the new target dimension for the flange thickness you also cite tolerances. It seems obvious to me that if you alter the flange thickness one must by any normal engineering practice alter the target BTB to 1.559”. You then have to apply the tolerance values either side of that. If you do, then worst case scenario is that the max span (including tolerances) is significantly larger than the minimum allowable ‘new’ BTB (including tolerances), and the wheel set cannot pass. A manufacturer using the thicker flange would have to work to significantly greater accuracy in order to use the track standard as it is proposed, rather than if the flange was 0.059” thickness. As one correspondent points out, this would have practical and economic consequences.
Engineering standards do not have anything to do with aesthetic but everything to do with ‘fit’. If you want a scale aesthetic one needs to move to a standard that uses more scale dimensions, ultimately proto standards. As we agree these latter are not practical in the garden unless highly skilled or wealthy. What you are proposing is to make the flange thickness visually proportional to the flange depth to more closely represent the prototype proportions NOT prototype sizes in a given scale. THIS DOES NOT MAKE THEM MORE TO SCALE. A 3mm deep flange is pretty over scale. Is there any real point in making the flange thicker (more out of scale) at the cost of either ignoring the rule, and it is a rule, that the wheel set check gauge dimension should be equal or smaller than the track check gauge, or running into problems with manufacturing tolerances?
Your remark about the gauges has some value but as a track maker I would prefer not to have to use the kind of device you describe, whether it be an NMRA style gauge, or a roller gauge or T-gauge, as far as track is concerned. Gauges used in home construction ought to stay put, leaving your hands free to work. As far as using a gauge to check RTR work is concerned your comment is fair enough however the use of what are effectively variable target values worries me. Tolerances are provided for acceptable manufacturing error, not taking up the slack in target values. Taking the worst case scenario of the reduced btb of 1.559” and increased flange of 0.074 “ you should still be able to apply the same tolerances because, as I said above, what you are seeking to do is alter the target values..
A further point is that if target values are variable, how is the average modeller supposed to know which to apply to his case? Using a single set of values is less likely to cause confusion.
As for ‘a picture paints a thousand words’ I am afraid I am not convinced. I have run test like this and I know from practical experience that it does not represent the behaviour of track & wheel in the field. _Theoretical_ physics may suggest that the frog will push the wheel set out of the way by means of the flange taper. Galileo Gallilei proposed that if one dropped a cannon ball three foot behind the top of the mast of a ship moving forward then the ball would land three feet away from the foot of the mast. It was an invocation of a fundamental rule of physics that later supported the launch of Newtonian Physics – Galileo was right, however as you might imagine, he could not demonstrate the correctness of his assertion. Winds, the movement of water etc., etc, are factors that cannot be ruled out. Similarly a feather and a cannonball should fall at the same rate, Galileo again. Air resistance makes an experiment to demonstrate that it ought to very difficult. Galileo had no means of excluding air efficiently enough from any experiment he could arrange. 
The taper may push the wheel away from the frog at low speed or on the straight road but on the diverging road the ?centripetal/ centrifugal? force will tend to push the flange towards the frog, the faster the train speed the greater the effect. It may push the flange up against the frog sufficiently for friction allowing the flange to climb out of the rail. This may be exacerbated by a flange drop of a lesser or greater extent, flipping the wheel upwards as the tread hits the nose of the frog. Other factors also in play also include, among others, the curvature of the switch, the angle of the crossing, and whether there is any twist in the switch depending on how it is laid. Now these are factors that you cannot legislate for. The only solution, as far as standards are concerned, are for the dimensions to ensure that the check (guard) rail allows no part of the flange to strike the frog. 
NB The issue of flange depth and crossing floors allowing drop, which in turn allows tread strike and ‘flipping’, is more problematic, but at least if the flange taper is kept away from the frog then it cannot cause ‘climb’ adding to the ‘flip’.
Best

Sam E


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

I accept your penultimate paragraph only in the CONTEXT OF THE EXAMPLE CITED. There are many other track and wheel set combinations and one has to legislate for all of them. The best way of doing this is to have a set of TARGET values, with sensible tolerances, which guarantee that no part of the flange touches the frog, This not the current position with your propose hi rail standards. IMHO it is dangerous to start including the tolerances in considerations of target values other than to ensure that the tolerances do not negate the effect of the target value interacctions. tolerances are for tool setters and quality control and should be kept that way.

Sam E


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Sam, I really agree with your last post. 

Words like "narrow your back to back to compensate for flange width", besides the logical arguments you have presented, just seems wrong in principal. 

I understand the idea to somehow make something that encompasses all the current manufacture, on the theory that this will encourage participation, but I think this backfires, it encourages the manufacturers to DO NOTHING in my opinion, since now they ALREADY meet the standard. 

It bears repeating: It is US, the consumers that have to drive the need... we have to believe that the standards will make our trains run better, and then get the manufacturers to believe that our spending habits will reflect this. It's as simple as the allmighty dollar. Aristo, Bachmann, USAT, AML are not going to change because they like us, they will change to make more money, you can't blame them for that, they are businesses. 

I'm on vacation right now, but would love to work with you on suggestions to "fix" the 1.6 proposals, and I want to do some measuring on my Bachmann and Aristo and USAT locos. 

I also believe that some kind of assumption of wheel contour, or at least where you measure a wheel needs to be stated, since many wheels have no fillets, or even no taper. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The best way of doing this is to have a set of TARGET values, with sensible tolerances, which guarantee that no part of the flange touches the frog, This not the current position with your propose hi rail standards. 

Okay, I'll stipulate that if you build a wheelset to target back-to-back and flange values, your check gauge is .001" out of the tolerances. That overage has to be combined with a track check gauge that is at its _minimum_ tolearance for there to be anything that resembles a conflict. There's simply no way that a conflict of check gauge of a mere .001" is going to cause a derailment in this scale, not with all the geometric angles, tapers, and fillets in play. That's less than the thickness of a piece of paper. The flange is _not_ going to strike the frog. Since the standards state that the *check gauge is the primary consideration,* then it's not so much building to a constant back-to-back, but building to a constant check gauge, minus the wheel flange which yields a back-to-back which is marginally non-complaint (by the same .001"). Since that still exceeds the maximum span value, there is no conflict. 

it encourages the manufacturers to DO NOTHING in my opinion, since now they ALREADY meet the standard. 

They DO NOT meet the standards already. Most, if not all manufacturers are in at least one, in many ways mostly outside these standards. There is a lot of conflict between non-compliant "legacy" products relative to these standards. My K-27 picks every blasted Aristo frog on my test railroad because of a check gauge mismatch. Yes, there are certain aspects (span, for example) which are specifically authored so not to alienate legacy products. That's a necessary bone to get manufacturers' acceptance. But what good is putting together a set of ideal standards if no one's going to adhere to them? I'm not in this to pat myself on the back and say "this is the ideal, thou shalt listen to me." I'm in this to try to find some common ground upon which the manufacturers are willing to strive. It's the "willing to" part that's the trick. The G1MRA standards have been demonstrated to be pretty ideal. Unfortunately the manufacturers are not willing to go there. 

Later, 

K


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Your remark about the gauges has some value but as a track maker I would prefer not to have to use the kind of device you describe, whether it be an NMRA style gauge, or a roller gauge or T-gauge, as far as track is concerned. 
Sam, the standards for the track are the same across the board. There's NO variation between hi-rail and standard. Heck, there's virtually no variation between that and G1MRA as far as track standards go. (The NMRA flangeways are tighter by .004", check different by .002") You can use a G1MRA track gauge and be perfectly fine. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, in their mind they probably believe that they are within the proposed 1.6 standards MOSTLY or at least in some way.

I know you are technically correct, but we are talking what these manufacturers BELIEVE.... some of them believe huge stinking loads of BS.... I can give examples over and over about blatant "mistruths"

The point is again not what you focused on, but that WE the consumers need to see something that we want bad enough to "vote with our pocketbooks", meaning it's beneficial.

When that happens, we have the next hurdle, to convince the manufacturers that we want it and will pay for it.

This is like anything else... the "what's in it for me" has to be proven to the manufacturers, and I do not believe they think they have any operational issues that affect sales....

So, it has to "bubble up" from the consumer. I think voluntary adoption by the manufacturers of a GOOD standard is a pipe dream... it is FOR SURE in this economic climate!!!

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Kevin, in their mind they probably believe that they are within the proposed 1.6 standards MOSTLY or at least in some way. 
Well, many _are_ in that boat. The trick is to convince them that "close" isn't good enough. There are a few issues in play there. First, we know where established goal lines are (G1MRA), and we know the manufacturers have objections to certain provisions of that, hence their long-demonstrated reluctance to go there. It's futile to to go there, so we're forced to make certain concessions if we want their support. Second, there's the consumer angle. We've been putting up with the status quo for the same amount of time, and have demonstrated the same reluctance to do anything more than pay lip service to the incompatibilities. We essentially roll over and play dead, and not demand better. (i.e., we still buy the stuff.) 

So, we look at what the "ideal" is, and where the typical departures are from it. We look at what absolutely, positively has to work (track specs, check gauge, and where we can play a little looser in order to win the hearts and minds of the manufaturers (flanges). That's where we're at. The core, key specs are pretty spot on for G1MRA. The variations may push the limits of the core specs, but they most decidedly work within them. 

Now, all we're doing is taking the mud out of the water in the trough. (Sam obviously disagrees, but...) There's still the battle of convincing them to drink it. We can demonstrate how they work and still operate in the typical garden setting, but in the end, it's ultimately the consumer who's got to step up to the plate and say "build it this way or we're taking our money elsewhere" _and_ have the courage of our convictions. (i.e., _don't_ buy the stuff.) That becomes easier if there are alternatives, and alternatives are easier to come by if there are clear standards to which newcomers can build. 

Later, 

K


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

tolerances are for tool setters and quality control and should be kept that way. 
I get what you're saying, but I think there's a difference in meaning in play. "Tolerance" as you're describing it I take as being related to manufacturing, and is defined as a specific deviation from a single ideal. (i.e, that hole is supposed to be .125", plus or minus .003".) In terms of the NMRA standards (not just for large scale, but across the board), the minimums and maximums aren't deviations, but are in and of themselves legitimate values. There's a preferred "target" or "norm," but it's not intended to be the absolute ideal as might be implied in manufacturing circles. It's a subtle difference, but an important one, I think. For instance, the NMRA specs for wheel back-to-back specify a range from 1.560 to 1.594. That's far too lose for manufacturing tolerances. A manufacturer would set the back to back at a specific value within that acceptable range, and then set a far narrower tolerance for manufacture. That's why I say it's up to the manufacturer to make sure the values he selects within this set of standards are still compliant given his specific manufacturing tolerances. 

A further point is that if target values are variable, how is the average modeller supposed to know which to apply to his case? Using a single set of values is less likely to cause confusion. 
Target values are not variable. Target values are just that--targets. In the case of the NMRA's standards, the target value for check gauge is held to be primary. You set the primary target (check gauge), aim for the next target (either flange or back-to-back), and if necessary, the third target gets slid within the range of acceptable values so to complete the equation. That's how the modeler knows. He reads the notes, figures out which value is held to be key, and adjusts the rest to fit. The NMRA is very specific across the board in stating that of all the relationships between wheels and track, the check gauge is the most important one to heed. (Alas, it's also the biggest pain to measure quickly.) 

Words like "narrow your back to back to compensate for flange width", besides the logical arguments you have presented, just seems wrong in principal. 
When you take the primary consideration that the proper check gauge relationship should be maintained at all times, then the "narrowing your back-to-back" exists as instructions for where to take up the slack so that the proper check gauge is maintained. I'm just not understanding the disconnect. Maybe it's because I'm too close to the issue, but to me it's simple math. If A + B = C, and C is held to be a constant, then for a given B, A has a certain value. If B increases, then A has to decrease. Mathematically, that's what note 8 says. 

Could we have set a very specific flange and back-to-back spacing? Sure. But that bordered on creating a single wheel profile which was not our goal. Our goal was to set forth a universal track standard and establish a range of wheel measurements that were suitable for the range of scales which ran on the single track standard such that the manufacturer could tailor his wheel profile to suit his specific scale and still be compliant. 

I accept your penultimate paragraph only in the CONTEXT OF THE EXAMPLE CITED. 
The example cited has flanges that are non-compliant. If the flanges were within spec (.074") then at that back-to-back spacing (also in compliance) there's _absolutely no possible way_ the flange will strike the frog in that example. The problem is that in large scale, we've held back-to-back to be the primary dimension to be adhered to, ostensibly because it's the easiest to measure. But if you have a back-to-back of 1.575" and a flange thickness of .100", you've got check gauge issues. That we haven't had more trains bouncing on frog points because of this is either dumb luck or applied physics keeping the wheels somewhat centered on the rails despite lateral forces. I'd give more credence to the former, but I'm sure physics can't be completely ruled out. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Hagen (Jan 10, 2008)

I agree with you Kevin, I do think the manufacturers and some of the guys here are overly worried about keeping the gigantic flanges, but I notice no reliability differences in running NEM flanges or Bachmann. Except that Bachmann flanges hits all the nailspikes due to my code 200 rails


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

"When you take the *primary consideration *that the proper *check gauge *relationship should be maintained at all times, then the "narrowing your back-to-back" exists as instructions for where to take up the slack so that the proper check gauge is maintained. I'm just not understanding the disconnect."


That's because it's *your *primary consideration is not *mine*. Your's is check gauge, mine is back to back. 

Most derailments occur at switches, and I see trains pick the frog all the time, or conversely, have such a tight back to back they ride up out of the switch.

I'm basicly "allergic" to having the back to back play second fiddle.

Regards, Greg


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

> 
OK so taking your example... 
You quote a target wheel check gauge of 1.633â€� 
The wheel check gauge, which we will call C and hold to be constant comprises of BTB or â€˜Bâ€™ plus nominal flange thickness which we will call â€˜Aâ€™. 
IF we hold that C is constant then 1.633 ought to equal 0.074 plus 1.575. It does not â€" A plus B equals 1.649â€�. If you ad in the 2 thou tolerance you are within 1 thou of the target track gauge which leaves little room for error. I appreciate that you have allowed 10 thou max + tolerance that would alleviate the issue but you cannot control whether the track manufacturer has erred towards the â€"ve tolerance, or the + ve. If you have a situation where the wheel set manufacturer has gone one way and the track manufacturer the other you could end up with a wheel set values of 1.651â€� and a track value of 1.580â€�. The flange has the possibility of flange strike of 0.071â€� or the better part of a tenth of an inch and I would argue that that IS significant. 
Whatever you say I reckon that a manufacturer will read the tolerances quoted in your table as limits for manufacturing error, whether you like it or not. 
In order to meet the target C one has to reduce either A or B. If the target B is the variable, and A has primacy it will come to 1.559â€� and this, NOT 1.575â€�, should be quoted as the target figure. 
If we are still holding that C is constant and that nom/target A is the variable and dimension B has primacy then the value of A should be ca 0.058â€� and should be the target figure as per the Scale standard and not 0.074â€� 
As it stands your hi-rail wheel table does not add up or subtract mathematically. Arguably there is a situation where if you stick to your A & B figures then C must vary and become a target of 1.649â€� 
Tolerances are margins of error and should not be used for shuffling/fudging target values. If you do then you lose any sense of definitive values/ideals and IMHO that is dangerous ground and allows playing fast and loose, which is the problem that we have currently. You cannot rely on tolerances to compensate for flexible target figures because as your target figure moves within the quoted tolerance range to compensate for variation in other target figures you actually decrease the error margin one way or another. You may end up allowing such a slim degree of error at one or other end of the tolerance range that manufacturers will have conniption fits. The alternative is to move the tolerance range with the target figures. This however can lead to incompatibilities within the relationship between the values. 
As far as allowing some degree of flange strike because the physics will compensate â€" as I have said before you cannot rely on physics as other factors are at play which may overcome the physical effect you are banking on. 
There was a time when the GIMRA standard and the Gauge 0 Guild standard for 32mm ga had track and wheel check targets that were equal. Concern was expressed that this might leave no margin for error. Some very wise heads revised standards so that there was no possibility of the flange striking the frog in any way. I figure if they thought it was worth the revision, flange strike is something to be avoided at all costs â€" that has certainly been my experience. 
YOU may well get away with it at your speeds of operating, combination of track and wheel manufacturers, and competency of track making/laying. You cannot legislate for what others will bring to the party. They may run much faster than you, they may use different wheel sets, when you go to their tracks they may use track manufactured by another which does not suit the wheels you use, or have hand built switches to dimensions unsuited to your wheels. The whole point of standards is to eradicate as much as possible such variations to ensure a high degree of compatibility when running socially. As I said this is an issue for us to state what is desirable to us and to cajole manufacturers into taking them up. No good will come of having variations within a standard or providing standards tables where the figures do not add up unless you take the margins for error into account. 
I wish you well with the Standard scale 1.6. I think it a real advance, with the codicil re flange depth and springing /compensation. 
As far as the Hi rail table is concerned IMHO it is flawed. We will have to disagree. 
Lose Note 8. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is dangerous and may encourage folk (including some in the trade who have a less than perfect grasp of what standards are about (and from my years of study of and correspondence the subject there are more of these than you may think) and they may play fast and loose with your values and bring them into disrepute. 
Sam E 


Kevin 
You said:


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

Greg

The back to back and span dimensions are part and parcel of the track and wheel check gauges. They most definitely DO NOT TAKE SECOND FIDDLE. However the wheelset fit over the span is only part of it. In order to keep the flange well away frog the wheel check gauge should be, at absolute maximum, equal to the track check gauge. To do the job properly it should be smaller, but not so small as to have the back to back element of the value jamming on the span value (distance over operating faces of guard (check) rail and wing rail). It is explained in the preceeding posts.


Sam e


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

That's because it's your primary consideration is not mine. 
We went back and forth with the NMRA over which convention should be primary (check vs. b-t-b), and ultimately lost the battle. Across the board, their rule is check gauge is paramount, and they offer some very strong arguments for it--much along the same line as the arguments Sam is putting forth. So, in the interest of consistency among their own standards and the ability to move forward, we authored the standards under that premise, with the underlying notion that it ultimately doesn't matter. It's either A + B = C. or C - B = A. You can use the target b-t-b with the target flanges and be fine. Use 1.575 b-t-b, and add your .074" flanges. You're exceeding the maximum wheel/minimum track check gauge by .001". If your track is built to target values as your back-to-back is, then you've still got .003" clearance--thus no problem. Even if your track is at the minimum check gauge, a difference of .001" is simply _not_ going to cause anything that resembles an issue. I respect Sam, but I don't agree with his argument that .001" is enough to cause a derailment, no matter what the operating scenario. No one in large scale manufacturers to .001" tolerances. 

Remember--Gary Raymond was as much a part of this process as I was. He's been making top-drawer wheels for large scale for quite some time. Think what you will of my 30 years experience _running_ whoever's wheels over whoever's track. I'd like to think Gary's experience _designing and building_ wheels would afford the process a level of expertise that probably none of us currently in this debate here could equal. I can't speak directly for him, but if I were a well-respected manufacturer of wheels, I wouldn't give my stamp of approval to standards to which if I built wheels would in any way damage my reputation. Since he raised red flags all through this process as to what his experiences were relative to what we were discussing, I'd think that by the end his approval means all his objections have been addressed. 

Later, 

K


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

You quote a target wheel check gauge of 1.633â€� 
The wheel check gauge, which we will call C and hold to be constant comprises of BTB or â€˜Bâ€™ plus nominal flange thickness which we will call â€˜Aâ€™. 
IF we hold that C is constant then 1.633 ought to equal 0.074 plus 1.575. It does not â€" A plus B equals 1.649â€�. 
Sam, this is closely related to Greg's post about b-t-b being _his_ primary element. We could have easily changed the target b-t-b on the hi-rail standards such that C = the stated targets for A + B. But that would have muddied the waters because now we're sporting two separate back-to-back measurements. It's a case of "we know what the NMRA wants, but we also know what the large scale community uses." So, we kept the b-t-b the same across both levels of standards, confident that even if you were to use flanges at the upper end of the thickness spectrum, they'd still play very well with the track. 

I appreciate that you have allowed 10 thou max + tolerance that would alleviate the issue but you cannot control whether the track manufacturer has erred towards the â€"ve tolerance, or the + ve. 
It's the job of the manufacturer to make sure his manufacturing tolerances still fall within the scope of the standards. If the manufacturer's tolerance is Â±.005, then he shouldn't be setting targets at the far edges of the range. While I appreciate there are instances where the manufacturing tolerances may be greater than the specified range, common sense would dictate you pick a value that gives you the most likely chance at conformance with the standard. 

that is dangerous ground and allows playing fast and loose, which is the problem that we have currently. 
What we have today is the result of 40 years of _blatant disregard_ for G1MRA's standards, not merely playing fast and loose with them. That we've been generally successful in running such a random mishmash of wheels on such a random mishmash of track defies logic. I suppose if we weren't, we'd have tighter adherence to standards already, and this entire debate would be moot. 

No good will come of having variations within a standard or providing standards tables where the figures do not add up unless you take the margins for error into account. 
We'll have to disagree. I think when you take the standards along with the notes, the standards make a great deal of sense and--if adopted by the manufacturing community (and that's the $64,000 "if")--will have a very positive impact on the hobby and the ability to run socially without worry. It is going to be up to us to provide them feedback (both positive and negative) as to how they're doing relative to sticking to the standards. If they're misinterpreting something, we need to be proactive in correcting them. If they're hitting the nail on the head, we need to be praising them for it. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, I'm not impugning Gary's or your experience. 

You said you did not understand why I said something, and I told you it was because YOUR top consideration is not MY top consideration. 

Now, you should understand that and appreciate it and respect it. Maybe we don't agree on the top consideration, but respect should be given both ways. I'm respecting your decision. 

I understand the politics you have to play in the NMRA... it is not really rocket science, and I am definitely smart enough to understand. 

Don't fall into the trap of continually explaining the same thing because people don't agree, I understand, I don't agree. 

Some of the people in the world can be overcome by just beating them senseless over and over with the same words... I am not one of them. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

It's called "tolerance stackup", Kevin, where parts are at the extremes of the spec scale and they don't work. 

I am using virtually all Llagas turnouts, some so old they have wood ties. 
The "standard" in use, some extrapolated 15 years ago from G1MRA is: 

1.777" gauge 
1.574" back-to-back. 
1.530" wing to guard. 
You calculate the flangeway from that. 

It has functioned flawlessly for all this time. 

I have old LGB 1600's in the shed, and if you want problems, that's where they will be. 

I know what works and can prove it. 

nmra going to break tradition and actually BUILD wheel, track and turnouts to those standards and place them in real-time service to "prove" the concept? 

Please pass along my message to the nmra to butt out. 

If the (mainline) manufacturers of wheels cannot build to existing standards, even when it was continually pointed out to them, the last thing we need is ONE manufacturer coming out with something "different". 

I am really sorry your turnouts and wheels don't work. 

Maybe if you used turnouts that were to the existing standard, you wouldn't have this issue? 

Back to logged-out status. 

Thirteen freaking pages (on my settings). 

Geez.


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

Dave

Agreed. 

I have no issue with the NMRA setting standards as long as they are wholly compatible with GIMRA.


G1MRA have 'recently' altered their track span measurement, see

http://www.gaugeone.org/Misc/STANDARD DIMENSIONS FOR GAUGE ‘1’.pdf

This is in the response to the fact that the 'target' track & wheel check gauges were equal which gave little room for error. The effect of the increase in span is to keep the flange further away from the frog so that there can be some allowance for error. The only minot point is that the math ought to indicate a reduced but still effective flangeway, however for some reason theuy still quote 3mm which does not quite add up. I have made enquiries as to whether there is an error but so far no reply. This will not affect current set ups but any new switches should use the new span measurement.Best

Have a good Christmas


Sam E


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

One thing is clear. There are as many approaches to developing standards as there are standards themselves. I think overall, each of our approaches and specific numbers are in reality quite compatible with each other, going back to Greenley's work which Ralph referenced some umpteen pages ago. "What works" for Greenley is specifically different from "what works" for Dave, which is different from "what works" for Sam, "what works" for Greg, "what works" for me, etc. Yet, all of us swear by what we're using, and have no trouble with it on our respective railroads. Each of our personal standards vary by just that little bit here and there. If nothing else, that would seem to illustrate that quibbling over a few thousandths of an inch is neither productive nor really necessary in the grand scheme of things. 

I think we can all set our back-to-back wheel spacing to 1.575" (or 1.574") and be confident that we won't have trouble running on track built to G1MRA/NMRA standards. I don't think Dave's been turning his flanges down over the years, I know I never have. Greg would be able to buy a new locomotive with the scrap value of his metal shavings if he were. If (generally speaking) we're having success running the wheels we have now set to that spacing, and we know fully-compliant G1MRA wheels set to that spacing will work, then it stands to reason that wheels set to that spacing whose flange standards fall between those two points should have a similar success rate. Time will tell. 

Later, 

K


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

One final point. An acquaintance of mine was a professional design engineer on our rail network dealing with, among other things, the interaction between wheels and track in traction trucks. He assures me that the point of a guard (ckeck rail) is to prevent any contact between flange and frog with the exception of the root radius. Any hammer blow at this point is highly undesirable. While physics says that the coning etc should do this job in practice other factors apply to negate this at times. Hence the provision of guard rails as a preventative. As I said earlier they are not needed all the time, however when they are neaded in a given situation they do a valuable job. When the wheel/track check gauge relationship fails to do this job this accounts for that irritating intermittent derailment at a switch that is so difficult to diagnose. This can manifest itself as a % of locomotives/stock not derailing but other stock persistently derailing, or ones stock occasionally derailing because circumstances are such that the flange CAN strike the frog rather than be kept away from it by the guard rail. 

The btb is important as a component of the wheel check gauge and its relationship with the span dimension. 

A story as to why totally compatible standards without variance are important. On the Leighton Buzzard Lifht Railway (preserved industrial line) a visiting full size 2 ft steam loco became stuck fast in the middle of a grade crossing and three locos sent to pull it off could not shift it. In the end it took a 4X4. I know this because I was there at the time. On investigation it was fiound that the visiting loco had slightly different wheel set values from thos locos of the home fleet. While it coped well with the switches and most of the grade crossings the span of this particular crossing was a tad larger than the rest. The home fleet passed over this grade crossing OK but the variation of the visiting loco was just enough to jam it pretty tightly. 

Sam E


----------

