Large Scale Central

G1MRA standards - promoted as important?

General Discussion
#1

The recent posting by Grant discussing his manufacturing G1MRA standard turnouts conflicting with a manufacturer’s specific motor block because of a varied wheel standard makes one big point: Each track product meeting the G1MRA standards should clearly say so on the packaging.

Now, the all too obvious message means any track-dependent non-workable product is a defect of that product NOT the track.

To me G1MRA standards make sense. However, my guess is to the public G1MRA is an oral history slogan --not a acknowledged, trusted, and publicized manufacturer’s standard for the large scale hobby.

If it REALLY is a standard make it real and say so on all packaging.

Now, who has the problem?

Wendell

#2

G1MRA is the only standard with a full spread.
the nmra copied most of it, but screwed with the numbers.
MOROP/NEM does not appear to be anywhere as precise.

No wonder the manufacturers are clamouring to use MOROP!

#3

Hehehe Dave,

You know when G1MRA Standards started to be accurate? The revision they underwent in, was that 2006 or 2007? No matter, I still have what I printed out in 2004 with the old dimensional data.

Prior to that they didn’t even have a tolerance spread, just ask Grant. I’m sure he’ll gladly tell us what fine email correspondence he had with “the blokes”.

And their max. gauge spread is still 1.0mm, compare that to the max of 0.3mm that the NEM-MOROP specifies. Further note that they use a minus (-) tolerance for an inside dimension (track gauge between railheads) to conveniently circumnavigate the “we really talk 1.750 inch gauge, we just make it look like 45mm” fact. Sly move! :lol: :lol:

#4

I do know they did not have a “spread”.
When I fought the enema-ray 4 years ago, it was 1.575" period.
You know why certain manufacturers want to go MOROP/NEM and NOT G1MRA/nmra?

#5

Yes Dave, I have a fairly good idea. My question would be: Whatever got into them? If up to now they adhered to the G1MRA standard - did any of them ever admit to that?!? - it seems very curious why they would change at this point. Things will be plenty more interesting than they are already!

OTOH some mfgs getting some standards wouldn’t be a bad thing. Imagine they start with the track and then proceed step by step to the other aspects … sheesh … before you know they’ll arrive at “testing prior to production”, spare parts, a standard for wiring etc. etc.

Dave, it will be a sad day neither you nor I will have reason to harp. But come to think of it, won’t happen in our life time!

#6

My answer as to “why” mfg.'s don’t adhere: My guess is G1MRA is not promoted by any manufacturer as being important. It is NOT a consumer decision point. It has not been promoted as a product decision point. It now needs to be. Check over any current product packaging – no reference. Sure, there’s the "“G” and the 1:29 on Aristo’s products. No reference to G1MRA. Will there be a replacement? Where’s the consumer pressure to retain G1MRA as the singular important workability feature across all manufacturers?

Let’s talk about the solution: Every G1MRA product needs a compliance label. The manufacturers who adhere to the standard band together for at least one informative “advertisement” in Garden Railways making CLEAR to the unwashed what the consequences are IF the standard is aborgated and each and his own is on his own.

The short end of the stick is held by the consumer. By an implicit understanding, the standard has been presumed for wheels, track, and switches — except for the unfortunate gauging foibles with the Aristo switches. Now, IF a new standard is championed there will be obsolescence for those meeting dead-on G1MRA and a possible remedy for products that are NOT in skew with G1MRA. “Make is loose and it will fit” is the suggested gimick.

And your judgment is?

Wendell – I’m a G1MRA standard if my birth certificate is accurate.

#7

Wendell,

You need to get yourself a fine assortment of track, turnouts and wheelsets from the different mfgs (the more the merrier), a trusty digi-vernier and have at it. When you’re through measuring, tell us what you think.
Best done by using a spread sheet to register the spread (no pun intended!), make sure you have enough sub-categories, you’ll need them! :wink: :slight_smile:

#8

Becaus Mr Ames is involved in all of this I would be very wary that there will actually be any sensible standards adopted at all.

Unless of course some sort of deal has been done to convince Mr Polk that he should adopt the new, revised, Super Socket specs in exchange for being allowed to “adopt” sloppy, but official wheel and track standards.

Is it beyond the realms of reality to wonder exactly what jiggery pokery these so called “experts” will try and get up to, given the uncritical observations by the plebs to date?

Who knows.
Very murky waters indeed.
Just speculation of course.

#9

Wendell,
Grant’s posting dates from four years ago (March, 2004). Since then basically the status quo. The problem occurs for manufacturers when one begins to adhere to accepted, published standards. As Grant found out producing track to a defined standard, resulted in one manufacturer’s product reported as not being compatible with his ‘standardised’ product. Of course the average modellor would simply think would it not be simpler to adhere to the standards set by the locomotive/rolling stock manufacturers. However, even they cannot agree on what is an acceptable standard. Grant was criticised for not altering his standards to comply with the non-standards set by manufacturers.

        The president of a mainstream American company,  replied,  when questioned about his apparent lack of adherence to accepted standards,  that he made his trackwork to be compatible with most of the wheelsets then available from all the major manufacturers.  This was a compromise to make his product compatible with a larger market.  He could have built his trackwork to comply with published standards but then he would not have only limited the market potential of his product,  but most of his locomotives would not have even run on his own trackwork due the wheelsets being notoriously undergauge. 


        To manufacture a product,  a manufacturer needs a set of engineering drawings indicating the dimension tolerances for machining, etc.   Therefore,  one must conclude that rather than stick to an accepted standard,  the manufacturer makes a conscious decision to ignore published standards and produce his product to his own set of standards,  which have very toylike dimensions and clearances.  In essence, the manufacturer sees his product as nothing more than a toy.  I have tried to 'converse' with a certain president of a 'toy' company by way of their company sponsored forum,  that largescale is an engineering scale and not simply toys.  Engineering standards need to be applied and not a continuation of the old toy tinplate train lack of standards applied pre- and post-war.  It is time that manufacturers matured in the marketplace and realised that the average modellor these days is not some pubescent boy with his tinplate toy trains,  playing on the kitchen floor.   Modellors these days generally invest/spend thousands of dollars on their hobby and at the end of the day really have nothing but expensive toys.
#10

Tim-
Your writing is clear and the message is also: “large scale is an engineering scale” in reference to the need for clear running compatibility.

Second, this website alone betrays your point that it is an adult hobby as the writing input is from adults not kids. What clear thinking manufacturer believes their consumer base is children? Then adults have the need to purchase any product that has wheels with the confidence it will function on the track they continue to purchase.

#11

Wendell,
I am not saying that the consumer base is children. What I am saying is that most major manufacturers are caught in the tinplate/collector timeframe and so cater their product to the standards (if there were any) when American Flyer and Lionel reigned supreme. The manufacturers need to be made aware that consumers have moved on from tinplate standards and demand standards comensurate with their hobby. We have ever more sophisticated electronics and yet the basic wheel/track standards are not even agreed to or adhered to. If electronic manufacturers can get it right (Bachmann not withstanding) then why cannot track and wheel manufacturers get their act together? I am not referring to the specialist wheel/track manufacturers, but the dominant model train manufacturers who also make track. It is these people who need to be ‘won’ over to the advantages of common standards.

ps. I just visitted the Aristocraft forum and Lewis has posted on conforming to gauge standards. He hopes that some agreement may be reached this summer. This is indeed good news (however, exactly whose standards are being agreed upon is still in the air).

#12

Tim-
My reference to manufacturers thinking their customers are primarily children was, albeit, a dig at the presumption of any company thinking that way.
Yes, “hopes for agreement” makes clear “disagreement.” If there is disagreement over what has existed, then what constitutes agreement – gulp, some sort of compromise. How is that done? Part of a standard applies and part does not? OK, the G1MRA standard applies for the first truck of a freight car and the second truck is the compromise?

Here’s hopes that whatever Lewis wants he will get by staying with our G1MRA standard for wheels and what they run on.

Thanks for the input. Your writing is clear and helpful.

Wendell

#13

It would be helpful if, presuming the various manufacturers can’t agree on a standard, that they made the axles and wheels so they could be adjusted to a local standard. Then I could adjust all my rolling stock and track to that standard.

#14

Steve-
Ah, clear thinking for the manufacturers. I have used said remedy with Bachmann’s wheels - not recently, however – by twisting the wheel in or out on the axle. If B’mann still manufacturers so this twist 'em to fit act can work, I don’t know.
Wendell

#15

Of course, there is a PS to Steve’s inspiration.
I’ll give mine.
While I think Steve’s idea is sharp, does it not give way to indirect endorsement for failure if G1MRA is not chosen as a manufacturer’s standard?

Here’s how:
So the rolling stock packaging has a graphic on the box that is supposedly dead accurate – some lines you put the axle and wheels on for measurement to either G1MRA or the “other” way – and you make your choice. For sure, everyone will find out what irritates people the most – changing to the “other” way or changing to G1MRA.

How would this work?
Of course, the packaging would have to indicate which “way” was pre-selected by the mfg… Bulls-eye! The consumers will choose product package stating which ALREADY FITS what they ALREADY have! Gee, whiz, bet its G1MRA! My guess is any mfg. dumb enough to change from what 99% of us are already running, already have in our yards, would NOT like to make obsolete, and don’t want to screw around with moving wheels in 'n out, will choose the products that currently fit. Sounds like G1MRA. So the sensible will have G1MRA in glowing letters on the box to tell consumers “no screw-around with wheels.”

In effect, Steve is brilliant in that the quickest way to vaporize any thoughts by Aristo to change is to show how this idea would be implemented.

Wendell

#16

Wendell,

There is a much easier way to get wheelsets to proper B-to-B dimensions. It’s a spacer that fits over the axle, then you press the wheels to the spacer. Should work in any scale. :wink: :slight_smile:

#17

I’m working myself to come up with some standards I can use myself.

I have Grant’s shim kit for Aristo locos, and I needed it badly!

I’ve put a page up on my site more for my own use to try to come up with a set of standards that will:

  1. Improve the reliability of my operation
  2. Be possible with current equipment
  3. Be based in part or whole on some existing standards.

#1 is a given, it’s the reason I’m working on it. Just doing some minor improvements in my Aristo switches and setting the back to back to some reasonable value on rolling stock made a HUGE difference in how my trains run.

#2 This is really important to me, and I’m HOPING I can avoid turning flanges on my locomotives or changing out their wheels (although I’m pretty frustrated at the moment). I think any standard adopted needs to not FORCE everyone to buy ALL new stuff. That said, there may have to be some cost/effort to make things work, but it CANNOT be wholesale “start over”, or ridiculously expensive for existing “reasonable” equipment.

#3 is difficult, the more I look, the more the CURRENT stuff seems to be getting worse. My recent talks with manufacturers and NMRA people are very frustrating. There are all kinds of wild new theories on how wheels and track interact. I just got in a big arguement with Lewis about what’s more important on specs on wheels.

There is definitely no magic bullet to solve this, but people keep ignoring the basics of how real trains run, and those fundamentals should GUIDE us on how wheelsets and turnouts need to function, my strong opinion.

Regards, Greg

#18

Greg

Hear, hear!

#19

HJ-
Spacer on the axle? Of course! I had hoped it more difficult therefore making the idea of variable specs not feasible.

#20

My experience has been so far that the B-B is too tight, need a spreader!

Funny, you can buy a gauge from a manufacturer, and none of their products meet the gauge… Well, I do give them credit for at least making the gauge close to published specifications.

Pretty funny, I thought.

Regards, Greg