This just in
I wish them the Best of luck!
So are they the sole distributor for North America or is Walthers still in the game?
With Walthers and their scorched earth MSRP policy out of the way, the $64 question will be what will happen to Marklin LGB prices? IMHO the full or near MSRPs pricing though Walthers has really hurt the brand since the Big Hindenburg. They have shrunk in US presence from the 600lb King Kong Gorilla of large scale into Curious George.
Time will tell, but here’s looking forward to a slightly different approach from the Walthers routine.
Is Ron Gibson moving to HHW as well?
Ron is firmly entrenched with Maerklin/LGB. The Heartland outfit is the distributor he will deal with. He says they are really, really good folks.
Speaking of “Good Folks”…it’s good to see you posting here again, David…
TOC is never far away, just sometimes in stealth mode! 
Watch this!
This will bring him out…
1952 FORD Victoria coupe
Original flat-head engine
41,000 miles
Mint condition interior
Exterior superb - stored for 40 years.
Will only sell to a fellow “G” railroader.
Wendell Hanks said:
Watch this!
This will bring him out…1952 FORD Victoria coupe
Original flat-head engine
41,000 miles
Mint condition interior
Exterior superb - stored for 40 years.
Will only sell to a fellow “G” railroader.
How much?
Obviously the phantom ad didn’t work.
Dave is a user/collector of 1949-'52 Fords.
He drives them - with sometime use of his early Jaguar.
I think I am among many who Dave’s commentary and endless how-to knowledge.
Now, back to garden railroading…
Wendell
That’s because Dave and I were just on the phone for an hour or so discussing an attempt by the NMRA to explain how wheels and turnouts work and want us to use check gauge instead of back to back…
Just off the phone… he WILL find you ha ha!
Greg
Greg Elmassian said:
That’s because Dave and I were just on the phone for an hour or so discussing an attempt by the NMRA to explain how wheels and turnouts work and want us to use check gauge instead of back to back…
Just off the phone… he WILL find you ha ha!
Greg
The NMRA is always a subject that merits longer discussion. So they found yet another way to muddy the standards? Always amazes me how many times they try to reinvent the wheel with their hotchpotch of tolerances.
This was an unofficial document presenting the merits of using check gauge over back to back.
As I read it, I found a few tremendous holes in the process that was used to come to that conclusion.
The main one is that there were no standards/tolerances used on the turnout that was used to come to the conclusion, in fact only one turnout was used, and it’s specifications and manufacture were not presented.
I’m going to learn some more and then start a thread on this, it’s time we had another technical discussion somewhere on this forum.
Greg
Greg Elmassian said:
This was an unofficial document presenting the merits of using check gauge over back to back.
As I read it, I found a few tremendous holes in the process that was used to come to that conclusion.
The main one is that there were no standards/tolerances used on the turnout that was used to come to the conclusion, in fact only one turnout was used, and it’s specifications and manufacture were not presented.
I’m going to learn some more and then start a thread on this, it’s time we had another technical discussion somewhere on this forum.
Greg
Oh, lord, my head hurts, already. I’ll try to hang on, should be fun. 
Steve Featherkile said:
Greg Elmassian said:
…
I’m going to learn some more and then start a thread on this, it’s time we had another technical discussion somewhere on this forum.
Greg
Oh, lord, my head hurts, already. I’ll try to hang on, should be fun.
And I’ll be looking out for the first “we don’t need no flipping standards” comment.
Which reminds me, in tool making there are several fits (as in how well two mating parts fit together), apart from the shrink fit, press fit, interference fit, slide fit etc. there is also the throw fit. In Switzerland that term is defined as “stand back a fair distance and throw one part at the other and it will certainly fit”.
PS that could be an interesting discussion.
Hans, oh my! We used to swear that Pannasonic tested their copiers with the “does it fit in the box test”. If it fit into the box, then they would ship it.
I find it a bit amusing that the NMRA is still trying to fit standards to large scale. Large scale tends to work (most of the time) the way it is. So why not just adopt what works and call that the standard?
I also have wondered about the back to back dimension being used to measure if the wheels are in guage. Not all flanges are made the same, so I prefer to measure the gauge on my wheel sets instead of back to back. BUT, back to back does matter when it comes to flange-ways and frogs.
And just to make Hans happie, We don’t need no (new) stinking standards…
The b to b distance seems to be the defacto standard (dang it, I used that word), to assure that wheel sets are in gauge, and it would work, too, if the flanges were made to a common standard (oops, that word, again).
Check gauge would be a better standard (that word), if, and only if, the flanges were made to the same standard (I give up).
Steve I agree, and that is what I was trying to get at.
Maybe we do need some (gasp) standards.
I thought most large scale already corresponded (edit: loosley) with a long time British standards, GRS1 or something like that.