Pretty disgusting, not only on Aristocraft’s part, but on the part of all LS train manufacturers. Folks here are discussing the variations between NMRA, G1MRA and NEM-MOROP standards while the guys who make this stuff are just oblivious. No wonder we all feel the need to bitch about the status quo!!
Happy RRing,
Jerry
Jerry, I’ve only been in LS since 1999, but one of the first things I found out was “Standards, what Standards?”; between those who won’t tell you which Standards they use for their products (it’s proprietary information!) to those who don’t need to tell you because you check some of their product and you know they’re outside of any published standard that I’ve come across. Add to that the “consumers” of those items who roll their eyes and/or let you know that “we don’t need no blasting standards, we just want to run trains!” and BINGO we get what we have (and some people truly deserve!) As disgusting as it is - reminds me of the messes they used to have in the European smaller scales 'til the model railroaders balked - we keep on buying the stuff, nay some people can’t wait to get their hands on the latest and greatest. As CJ mentioned last night on chat
CJ said:
… For the manufacturers to meet ANY meaningful standard it would prolly require an extra step in the manufacturing process which might cost them an extra $2.98.
HJ said:
John, which step would that be? QC
CJ said:
Oh you said a dirty word, Hans.
Mr.Stan Ames was in attendance to answer any questions anyone had. I had a few, but he didn’t have pertinent answers i.e. he hasn’t read the NEM 310 standard since 2004; really there’s no need to, it hasn’t changed since 1977. He also kept mentioning min and max dimensions. Giving him the benefit of the doubt he probably doesn’t realize that a nominal base dimension can at the same time be either a min or a max dimension, at least in ISO convention. It’s only the muddled conventions that originate in the Imperial system (no, not the Chineses one! :lol:) that set the nominal somewhere else. But what it all comes down to: “Hey guys, lighten up. It’s just a hobby!”, “It’s suitable for G”, “Who really cares, the stuff looks good and has WOW appeal” etc. etc. etc. PS Can you imagine having this same discussion on some of “Those Other Fora”???
(http://www.smiliegifs.de/SMILIES/Liebe/154.gif)
Sheesh it wouldn’t be good for the hobby at all, at all! PS to Greg E: No, I didn’t forget about translating the German notes of NEM310, but the weather was too nice and the garden was calling. 
(I’m the Greg Lewis is referring to in the top of his post).
Actually there are pieces of good news.
The first was that the Aristo track gauge has some reasonable parts to it. I’ve contrasted it to various standards on my site:
http://www.elmassian.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85&Itemid=95
It is a lot better than if Aristo had derived the gauge from their track, turnouts, or wheelsets. I view it as an attempt in the right direction. Currently it’s the best tool out there short of a pair of calipers.
The other thing that happened there was heartening, Lewis did admit there is a back to back problem on thier “modular” gearbox which is used in (virtually) all current production locos, steam and diesel. That is a huge step forward, because it is an insoluable problem for most people.
I just regauged a loco, and was unable to do it right, the thick flanges made it so I could not have back to back and wheel check gauge “right” both at the same time.
I’m working to improve my site and add the NEM 310 standard, hopefully HJ will translate the notes on the bottom of the standard for me.
The bottom line is that at least Bachmann and Aristo think there is a problem, and at least one of them publicly admitted they will do something about it.
Regards, Greg
Greg,
yes it is encouraging that some manufacturers are actually taking the trouble to look at acceptable standards, but one wonders what ‘standards’ they used when commencing production.
On the downside, manufacturers are accepting the need for standards, but the old Aristo 'cronyism' is coming to the surface again - We don't need standards. What do we need standards for? My trains run just fine, why do we need to change anything? From a long term model railroader with a vast empire - What is a 'back to back' measurement? What is a fillet radii? The main problem is that even though not within standards, the products actually operate, leading people to believe that if one wants standards then one is simply a dreaded, spiteful 'rivet counter'.
Modellors these days are in general very complacent and apathetic towards good smooth operation. The current Aristo wide-radius switch is little better now than five years ago and yet modellors (for want of a better term) still use the switch without modification and are pleased with the performance of the switch. Before modifying my trackwork I was embroiled in a 'heated' discussion many years ago on the said forum in which the cronies leapt to the defence of the supreme commander and basically disputed my findings on the switch. Out of the box it is nothing but a child's toy and would be better placed in a Thomas the Tank trainset. However, with a bit of TLC it actually becomes a very reliable, smoothly operating piece of trackwork. Five years ago I asked why the frog moulding could not be retooled to perform better? The frog is retained by three screws only, so the tooling could be reprofiled without affecting the rest of the trackbed tooling for the switch. Also the toylike guardrail needs some work. This would require new tooling for the switch track bed and is hardly likely to occur.
Basic conclusion is that manufacturers are going to look at their consumer base and think why should I alter my product standards when the majority of customers are happy with the current status quo of production quality. It is this apathy that needs to be overcome. I am able to understand the apathy coming from manufactuers as they strive to lower production costs and raise profits, but in this case the manufacturer is actually offering something that will be to our benefit and the vast majority of consumers are saying - why bother, take it off the plate as it is unnecessary. We are all happy with how things are now. The typical modellor (for want of a better word without being derogatory) these days is akin to us being kids running our tinplate clockwork trains on the kitchen or loungeroom floor. That was 'wow' factor. Today's modellor has progressed little further than those heydays of actually playing trains and these days, prefers to just play trains, pure and simple. They do not wish to be embroiled with discussion on standards. Typical response - "We have trains that work 'out of the box', why change anything?"
I feel that manufacturers will allow this discussion to run its course and then place the 'problem' in the too-hard basket for discussion at another time. If consumers do not want change then why would manufacturers change their production standards? Today's modellor is simply boys with their toys.Tim,
I was very careful in one of my posts to call “them” consumers rather than modelers, calling “them” modelers is an insult to those who actually model.
Very perceptive Tim.
Especially the last paragraph.
Icould readily understand the situation.
A manufacturer could, for arguments sake, wring his/her hands in anguish and waffle on about how we need standards to “grow” the hobby.
Then the “shills” find voice and say WHY??? It works out of the box.
Said manufacturer then turns around and says:
“See they don’t want me to change anything. Who am I to argue with my “loyal” customer base?”
Don’t expect too much too soon.
Words are cheap.
Deeds mean more.
Tim Brien said:First off, let me just state that I use the Aristo WR switches, and modify them a bit to improve performance. And since my layout is still under construction, I haven't been able to really put them to the test with frequent, heavy usage. But I do believe there is a need for improvement in this product. Secondly, I'm 100% in favor of manufacturers accepting and maintaining standards.
Today's modellor has progressed little further than those heydays of actually playing trains and these days, prefers to just play trains, pure and simple. They do not wish to be embroiled with discussion on standards. Typical response - "We have trains that work 'out of the box', why change anything?"
That said, IF I had found that the switches worked just fine out of the box, I too might ask what needs to be changed. So how would you respond to someone who does not experience problems with the product? Other than disparaging their modeling skills, that is?
Tony,
being a little cynical but is it possible this whole debate/discussion has been orchestrated to highlight that largescale consumers, in general, want to operate outside of the society that demands standards and was doomed to fail from the very beginning? It only took the supreme commander several years to actually read the facts on his own forum as to why his wheels were ‘falling off’ and now suddenly realises that there is a machining problem. He was told that around two to three years ago and put the ‘problem’ down to incorrect assembly.
One thing the commander in chief can rely on is his large crony support network - anything that he builds must be good so do not criticise it or change it. The consumers voice aloud "We do not see the need for change' and so the manufacturer is vindicated. He tells the vanishing voices in the wind, see everyone is happy so why change just to satisfy the few. Verdict - manufacturer is acquitted of all charges of not meeting acceptable standards and is free to continue production without change. The consumers have spoken.Ray,
in general those who model in smaller gauges/scales are actually modellors. Those in largescale are not, in general, as dedicated to the modelling side of the hobby and have simply entered the hobby for the enjoyment derived by simply running trains. I am not being derogatory but they simply accept the poor performance of out of the box trackwork as ‘normal’. The typical largescaler has not served an apprenticeship in smaller scales and thus does not carry over the experience learned in those hobbies. He accepts what the manufacturer supplies, not being aware that it is able to be improved upon.
From the very beginning I was aware that the Aristo track needed tweaking. How one could accept such a poor level of performance is beyond me but obviously we all have different expectations of what is and what is not acceptable. Adoption of standards will eventually improve the hobby, even for the novice, but because there will be non-standard wheelsets around for a long time to come, then wheel/track standards will be compromised until uniform production is established. I do not see manufacturers establishing dual production lines to cater for both the standard and non-standard production items, so there will inevitably be compromise.
The hobby will always have those who just like to simply play trains and will accept out of the box and there will be those who push for adoption of standards to better their enjoyment of the hobby and derive better performance from their equipment. If the prototype behaved through trackwork like our models do on 'out of the box' trackwork then we would complain and yet we seem to accept what the manufacturer has provided at face value accepting the level of performance as normal. If we as modellors can achieve better performance from trackwork with minimal handtools and a little time expended, then why cannot the manufacturer produce a more acceptable/reliable product? the problem boils down to our own expectations and unfortunately some are too easily pleased.
In a friendly way, on another forum I was 'criticised' for using a vernier caliper to measure my wheelsets. In my opinion largescale is an engineering scale not an oversized Lionel 'Thomas the Tank' trainset.Tim and Tony: right on!
Ray: I think what you say is “I understand you are not having any problems, but there are others that do, maybe your demands or environment make the difference”. One thing I believe though, is improving things will not HURT anyone, and will help everyone. The people with no problems will continue to have no problems. They MIGHT find that, surprisingly, they can now run trains twice as long, or can run longer cars, or can back up a longer train.
And finally to Tim: I actually sort of started this by responding to Lewis’ post on the Aristo forum. So I can assure you I did no orchestration, I just want things to work better. I completely agree with your last paragraph, this “technique” for justification of inaction has been often used.
Regards, Greg
Greg,
in no way would I implicate you in such underhand dealings. The ‘tone’ of the posting initially from Lewis made me think that maybe you had had offline discussion with Lewis by email or direct face to face discussion at an exhibition and as the posting was seemingly personally directed at you then it seemed as if you were responsible for stirring up a hornet’s nest in a positive direction. Few seem to understand the benefits derived and seem to prefer shooting the messenger. If Lewis would have simply instigated a change in production techniques and introduced acceptable standards, without a publicity fanfare, then we would have all marvelled at the sudden improved reliability in performance. Reliability is not simply measured in whether our locomotives move when we introduce power to them, but track performance and rolling stock performance/behaviour all come into play.
I noticed over there on the Aristo Forum, that all was going quite well in Polky’s favour, until his "Production Manager, John somebody; poked his nose in and showed he didn’t have a clue.
This may be Polky’s biggest problem…poor advice from his staff, and questionable knowledge in his so called engineering staff…
Thanks Tim, maybe I was trying to clarify things that needed no clarification!
Yes, I’ve had many conversations with Lewis along this line, and yes, it was personally directed at me.
Yep, if several of his moderators would have their way, they would definitely show up at my house with weapons! Unfortunately I have the reputation of trying to “control” the forum and the minds of the forum members.
My decision to stop posting there (unless I see something really crazy) was based on that misinterpretation, and the fact that I could not seem to discuss anything that could be interpreted as negative without invoking the corporate ire.
It’s too bad, it’s not my intent to make people “slavishly” (note that exact word in his post) follow what I say.
But that is life, and no reason to bang my head against the wall.
I do believe that Lewis really wants improvement, and believes that standards will help. I’m hoping that he will carry this forward. His latest posts have given me hope.
Regards, Greg
We have been “Improving” the WR switches lately, by replacing the throwbars with brass…true we don’t use track power, and so it works well for us. We also cut off the plastic guard rails and replace them with brass or aluminium rail, filed down to fit closer to the stock rails, as per the “Aristo gauge”…yes it does have it’s uses !!
I still hate to sight down the straight track through the frog and see the poor angles that exist, but at least with proper guard rail spacing the switches are improved.
Fred,
I still run track power and have not altered my throwbar on the X-radius switch. On the #6 I needed approx 0.080" extra throw to reliably operate the LGB switch machines and thus replaced the stock throwbar with one made from Micarta strip. This positively allows the switch machine to travel full throw. I also filled in the too deep flangeway for better running on the #6. On the x-radius I overlayed thin brass strip to narrow the guard rail clearance and modified that horrible piece of plastic, euthemistically called a frog for want of a better word. Ideally a longer replacement guardrail is required to better ‘guide’ the wheelsets away from the frog entry. At present the ‘guidance’ is too abrupt. The x-radius is little better than a scaled up R1 switch, but with a little care and a selective blind eye, one is able to achieve excellent performance. Let us face it there is really little else on the market to choose from in code 332 rail.
With a little thinking, Aristo could make the pig's ear X-radius switch into a nice little silk purse. It would not take much other than overcoming the inertia of "We have been making it this way for five or more years so why change now?"Greg, you have mail! Translation done!
Got it and thanks! I’ll digest it, and then I think it would be fun to have a “track and wheel” thread.
The goal would be to discuss things about workable dimensions.
Maybe with all the brain power on this site, we could come up with some good ideas.
The first thing I do is read the stuff, and look for things that don’t make sense… I’ve been outside all day nursing a sick loco, so only got a few minutes to look at the translation, but it seems that the standard allows flange bearing frogs too, and then “modifies” things to allow this.
Wow, this could get complicated.
I spent some time looking very carefully at my switches, I only have Aristo, so that’s all I will comment on.
The Wide Radius switch can be made almost perfect, the frog is almost right to work properly, and you can shim the guardrails properly and you can deepen the wing rail flangeways. After these mods, it might be as good as something made to loose standards as it can be.
My #6’s are a big disappointment. The frog is just plain unworkable. There is no way to fix the fact that the frog point does not extend enough. Wheels will drop into the frog no matter what you do. Modify the guard rails to something more reasonable, like .106 and the wheel drop is minimized, but it there to stay. Only the gentle angle of these switches saves them. The frog flangeways are so deep, nothing will keep this from happening. The only salvation may be shimming the flangeways to make it a flange bearing frog, but then you have all the negatives of this design.
Well, it will be fun.
Regards, Greg
Greg,
the large gap in the #6 frog entry point may be easily corrected by addition of shims to the base of the flangeway depth, building it up until one achieves smooth transition with the wheelsets with the deepest flange. The flange would actually ride on the additional shim material added. Smaller flanged wheelsets will then have a more acceptable transition through the frog (less noticeable drop). In my case I added plastic (styrene) and then flooded the flangeway with ABS solvent to meld the plastic to fit the flangeway. If too much plastic added then a wipe or two with a file will correct it. The plastic is then painted if UV protection is a worry.
I have also revisited my X-radius switches and find that I am undoing some previous work and actually adding plastic shim to the frog flangeway where I was a little overzealous with the file a few years ago. Transition through my wide-radius frogs is now more acceptable and operation through the frog extremely smooth.Greg,
The one with the flange bearing frog is just an “accommodation” of sorts, scoffed at by modelers. How much “politics” is in that “concession”? I don’t know but if you ask me that one wouldn’t pass the smell test without a challenge. 
PS have fun digging through the stuff! I’m contemplating redoing a graphic of years ago - before “the” question reared its head - showing where the limits of the wheels on track tolerances fall.
So are we saying that the wheel flange rolls through the frog on the bottom of the “ditch,” rather than the wheel tread rolling on the rail top?
That seems to this observer to be a rather silly way to design something.
Of course, I could be wrong. Its happened before. I once thought I was wrong… turned out that I was right.