# Standards



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

What I knew before today about this is not available.

However, all the BS about track standards, and my continuing push to leave the LS community alone, as we use G1MRA, and my mention that Llagas was BUILT using G1MRA standards......well, lookie here:

http://www.nmra.org/standards/candi/warrants.html

scroll down to 2010-0006.

Must be the nmra decided that G1MRA was right after all, eh?

Who else has a track standards conformance warrant?

Sheeeeesh.
I'll have to quit promoting Llagas, now.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Well, I see some conformance warrants on a tunnel portal. And a transformer. Interesting... never seen the RP for a transformer. 

Well, Llagas has the distinction of (seemingly) having the only "NMRA" turnout, ha ha! 

Greg


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Hmmm.... 

2010-0012 Athearn NMRA 75th Commemorative Car 

Fidelity to prototype?


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Not so much "Fidelity" as "Design Consideration".


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

To obtain these warrants, each product had to adhere to all NMRA Standards, applicable Recommended Practices and Industry Norms. 

And who defines what "applicable recommended practises" and the "industry norms" are? That's what I thought.... 

I don't know why I even ready your threads TOC, they just get my blood boiling. 

Keith


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Keith- 
That's what I'm here for! 
Keeping yer blood boiling! 

I can't figure it out, either, since the turnouts are made to G1MRA standards...yet gets a nmra warrant. 

Makes MY head spin.


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Even the name "warrant"....kinda says it all: "Hey boy...ya got a warrant for that there deeecoder?". 

How long before they're publishing the list in a clambake publication I wonder? 

Keith


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Next week, if the Rabid Chihuahua has anything to do with it.


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Not a big fan of Chihuahuas...yappy little ankle biters... 

They sure are putting on a push to make everyone conform...manufacturers...readers...of course there is no money in it for them unless they can get everyone in line. 

Keith


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Must be the nmra decided that G1MRA was right after all, eh? 

Well, yeah, they did. Not without a fight, but they finally came around to accepting what the large scale community has been using for decades. Silly, I would think such agreement between standards organizations would be a positive. 

Yes, the Llagas switches are now NMRA "compliant" because the NMRA has in sum and substance adopted the G1MRA standards to which the switches are built. Any other G1MRA-standard switch will likewise be NMRA compliant. (I'm not going to list them, but many of them are.) Whether the manufacturer gives a darn to submit it for formal review (to get the "official" warrant) is up to each individual manufacturer. I'm surprised any large scale manufacturer would even bother, given the state of things. I know it wouldn't make a bit of difference to me one way or the other whether it was "official" or not, so long as it was built to the G1MRA (and now NMRA) specs to which I've built the rest of my railroad. 

Bottom line, like the NMRA, don't like the NMRA, it doesn't matter. Those of us who fought this battle did so to make sure we ended up with consistency between the two groups' standards. I still have no desire to join the NMRA, but I recognize that they're a source of information for upcoming manufacturers. I'd much rather they have standards that match what we're doing than something cobbled together by those who really don't understand large scale at all. Those who know me (including TOC) know me well enough to realize I wouldn't endure the crap I've had to put up with if I didn't see a positive outcome. I think seeing how easy it is for G1MRA-compliant track to get the "NMRA warrant" for whatever its worth (IMO nothing) merely by being built to G1MRA's long-existing standards speaks well to how well we succeeded. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hmmm.....seems to me that it's a bit like sausage being made - you really don't want to look too closely at the process or it'll ruin your apetite! All you really want is a great brat simmering on the grill at the tailgate party on Sunday! As long as my trains run through the turnouts without trouble I couldn't care less if they are NMRA compliant. If, by having NMRA warrants helps to insure that manufacturers make turnouts that will work properly with my trains then bravo! My only question is: "Why all of the unnecessary fuss? The G1MRA standards have been around for decades! Oh well, better late than never!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 29 Sep 2010 01:50 AM 
Must be the nmra decided that G1MRA was right after all, eh?

Well, yeah, they did. Not without a fight, but they finally came around to accepting what the large scale community has been using for decades. Silly, I would think such agreement between standards organizations would be a positive. 

Yes, the Llagas switches are now NMRA "compliant" because the NMRA has in sum and substance adopted the G1MRA standards to which the switches are built. Any other G1MRA-standard switch will likewise be NMRA compliant. (I'm not going to list them, but many of them are.) Whether the manufacturer gives a darn to submit it for formal review (to get the "official" warrant) is up to each individual manufacturer. I'm surprised any large scale manufacturer would even bother, given the state of things. I know it wouldn't make a bit of difference to me one way or the other whether it was "official" or not, so long as it was built to the G1MRA (and now NMRA) specs to which I've built the rest of my railroad. 

Bottom line, like the NMRA, don't like the NMRA, it doesn't matter. Those of us who fought this battle did so to make sure we ended up with consistency between the two groups' standards. I still have no desire to join the NMRA, but I recognize that they're a source of information for upcoming manufacturers. I'd much rather they have standards that match what we're doing than something cobbled together by those who really don't understand large scale at all. Those who know me (including TOC) know me well enough to realize I wouldn't endure the crap I've had to put up with if I didn't see a positive outcome. I think seeing how easy it is for G1MRA-compliant track to get the "NMRA warrant" for whatever its worth (IMO nothing) merely by being built to G1MRA's long-existing standards speaks well to how well we succeeded. 

Later, 

K Except........some of us fought this battle in 2003, and thought we had "won", until some yay-who in the nmra decided to bring it all up again for a re-try.
Now, I have some good information on who that was, and it really doesn't surprise me.

But tell me this:

When some of us with experience and facts try to argue the point, why is it there is so much opposition?
You recall the thread where I was accused of not wanting standards?

After the fight in 2003, and now this one, and who knows what the future holds, do you start to understand the mantra "nmra go away"?

There is real reason behind that statement.

Do you have any idea how many people showed up for the clinic by the nmra on standards at the last convention?
Should give pause to any further attempts by said organization to try this again.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

do you start to understand the mantra "nmra go away"? 

Yes, but they're not listening. It's their nature to create standards for model railroading, and no amount of yelling is going to change that. You may as well stand on your back porch yelling at the clouds for dumping rain on you. That's what clouds do. You're better off just grabbing an umbrella and staying dry, letting the rain fall where it may. It does have some tangible benefits. 

Do you have any idea how many people showed up for the clinic by the nmra on standards at the last convention? 
From your tone, I gather the implication is that it wasn't exactly standing room only. Wouldn't surprise me. I've maintained all along that the NMRA is pretty much irrelevant to the large scale community. I also know that the average modeler doesn't care about who creates the standards, so long as they allow the trains to stay on the track. 

who knows what the future holds 
Neither you nor I, but I can make some educated predictions: 
1) The NMRA will continue to be marginalized within the large scale community. They've got a long track record there, with no real signs of either community wanting to change that. 

2) If Llagas and other manufacturers _do_ submit more of their G1MRA products for NMRA warrants, it establishes within the NMRA the sense that "their" standards (really G1MRA's) are being used, and they're less likely to go and change them down the road. The manufacturers aren't going to support standards that change every 5 years, so with a broad enough base of support, they demonstrate that what has been the status quo for decades is fine. 

3) Manufacturers will continue to do what the blazes they want, regardless of whether the NMRA gives them a "stamp" or not. Llagas gets the "stamp" because it's easy to submit G1MRA trackwork because the standards are the same. But by and large, the manufacturers just don't care what the NMRA does. Look at the "socket." Aristo developed it on its own. Bachmann adapted it and pushed to get NMRA approval. That didn't happen, but it didn't stop them from using (and continuing to use) the socket in their locos. They didn't need a "stamp" to do what they felt necessary for their product line. They don't care about the NMRA any more than the consumers do. They design what works for them, and that's the end of the discussion. If it happens to fall within "standard," then it's a happy coincidence. 

4) The sky will not fall. The NMRA has had standards for large scale in one capacity or another for 20 years or more. They have yet to show any impact on large scale product development as a result solely of those standards. Quite the contrary--many of the NMRA's large scale standards stem from existing practice. Those that don't (previous wheel and track standards) have been cheerfully ignored. 

What does the future hold? Who knows. But we have essentially gotten the NMRA to adopt G1MRA standards, which is precisely what you were chanting between choruses of "NMRA go away." I can't say some yay-hoo isn't going to come in and want to shake things up a few years down the line, but we build the case for stability by supporting that which has finally been established. If there's broad-based support for the G1MRA standards that have just been adopted by the NMRA, there's less chance that future attempts at revising them will gain any traction. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Six.


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Is that a quorum?


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

"standard" number of pallbearers.


----------



## GN_Rocky (Jan 6, 2008)

* Now I'm not one anymore for getting into any of these "intensed" threads here on the public forum, it usually gets me in trouble years past. But all I can say about this would be more like a question. **And that question is this: "Why would you let some person or group of people that are inadaqute and self inferior feeling(ie. calling themselves the nmra) come waltzing into your hobby, your place to go to escape the craziness of this insane world and rain this down on you to wreck the fun and relaxation of playing with or working on your trains just to push their set of values, their set standards and their way of doing things. It's pointless, unless you want to be just like them. Ah heck, I like working on, building and playin' with my trains and I don't care WHO it is, but I'll do my hobby the way I want to do my hobby. It ain't perfect, yet far from it. BUT I do have fun at what I do and that's what's important to me. So don't let them rain on your lunch. Sounds like they tried to do it before, they trying again now and they try it again sometime later. It ain't worth getting yourself all upset. If they contact me, I'll say "Talk to the hoof" - goat hoof that is. and also "I'm sorry, life's too short to sit and count rivits into a bucket your way, I'll do things my way" Nuff said, I'll come down off of Mount Olympus now







Just enjoy the hobby and do it the way you want to







Rocky*


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

NMRA just a bunch of money hungry folks that do not know jack S. My 2 cents. Later RJD


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

They had a reason for being in the past to try and rope things in, and when not, one has the issue like we have of "G" becoming some benchmark for G = 1:32, 1:29, 1:27, 1:24, 1:22.5, 1:20.3, 1:19....etc. So now an H0 Atheran loco can couple to a Kadee boxcar and run on Atlas track sans problems in H0. 

But some stuff don't make sense, including like somehow justifying moving the library from a paid for long owned building in Chattanooga, TN where they have been for nearly 30 years to California due to it making some sort of economic sense... Funny, as a lot of things are moving TO Chattanooga these days as it is moving from being a dirty foundry city to a technology and tourist one. 

I went to one NMRA meeting once with dad (he belongs, has all the three ring binders with specs and what not from the 1960s/70s) and it was literally a discussion of what needed to be done to get one's "merit badges". 

Nothing wrong with fine contest level modelling, I have done that in H0, but some things have evolved.


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 29 Sep 2010 02:31 PM 
"standard" number of pallbearers. 
LOL! How fitting....


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

To "thumb me nose", I put Mantua couplers on my H0 restorations. 
You ought to see the look on nmra folk's faces when they see than.


----------



## todd55whit (Jan 2, 2008)

TOC 
Seems like a new thing in society, No doesn't mean no until it has been brought up 3 or4 times. Maybe the NMRA has been taking lessons from my towns school department. We have had to vote no 3 times now for a new school in the last year!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

We voted three times to keep the old Kingdome Stadium (not paid off) and NOT build a new one. 
Three times. 

They imploded the stadium and built TWO new ones!


----------



## BarrysBigTrains (Sep 4, 2008)

They build stadiums, but can't finish the highway system to get to the stadiums.

Hmmmm.

Barry - BBT

P.S. TOC, welcome back.


----------

