Large Scale Central

NMRA/DCC Argument, Why?

General Discussion
#81
Warren Mumpower said:
...There is no excuse for USAT, Aristocraft and Bachmann cars not being able to couple to each other right out of the box...
Between USA and Aristo-Craft, I tend to agree. Between those two and Bachmann, there's that whole "scale" thing that gets in the way. I really think the hobby needs to divorce itself from the notion that 1:29/1:32 is compatible with 1:20.3 (and 1:22/1:24 for that matter). They're two different pursuits that happen to use the same track. Forget the history. We've evolved as a hobby. It's high time we acknowledge that and stop treating all scales as being the same. If they're to grow to their full potential, they need to be allowed to go their own ways.

Later,

K

#82

Kevin…that is possibly the most intelligent statement I have ever heard!

Falls right along the lines of Scale Model railroading vs Pretty trains in the Garden…

#83

Change is one thing but not always good for everything. Ric I’d have to agree that we do not need it shoved at us. If you want it then use it, If you don’t then forget it. Run trains like we use to. Later RJD

#84

Kevin, I will agree wholeheartedly with that concept for 1:20.3. But some stuff made in the beginning in 1:22 worked well as standard gauge too (I’m thinking mainly of their 3 bay hoppers). But now that Bachmann has gone fully to 1:20 maybe I should have left them out. I do agree that 1:20 and 1:29 should go their own way…and maybe 1:32 should too. I’m not sure that the mixed breeding of 1:22 and 1:29 will ever separate.

#85
Warren Mumpower said:
Kevin, I will agree wholeheartedly with that concept for 1:20.3. But some stuff made in the beginning in 1:22 worked well as standard gauge too (I'm thinking mainly of their 3 bay hoppers). But now that Bachmann has gone fully to 1:20 maybe I should have left them out. I do agree that 1:20 and 1:29 should go their own way....and maybe 1:32 should too. I'm not sure that the mixed breeding of 1:22 and 1:29 will ever separate.
Warren,

There is not bastardizing between 1:22.5 (IIm) and 1:29. Not on any selfrespecting model railroader’s layout. :wink: :confused: OTOH I have seen pictures where anything from 1:32 to 1:20.3 “fits, kind of”. :smiley:

#86
Kevin Strong said:
Between USA and Aristo-Craft, I tend to agree. Between those two and Bachmann, there's that whole "scale" thing that gets in the way. I really think the hobby needs to divorce itself from the notion that 1:29/1:32 is compatible with 1:20.3 (and 1:22/1:24 for that matter). They're two different pursuits that happen to use the same track. Forget the history. We've evolved as a hobby. It's high time we acknowledge that and stop treating all scales as being the same. If they're to grow to their full potential, they need to be allowed to go their own ways.

Later,

K


Kevin,
Congratulations on the most sensible suggestion I have heard recently.

One day the manufacturers are going to be faced with making their toys either scale model toys instead of just “near enough scale” toys, or face oblivion.

#87

HJ, “selfrespecting” is in the eye of the beholder and is one man’s opinion.

We know what opinions are like…everybody’s got one and they all stink!

:smiley:

#88

FWIW, Bachmann, USA, Lionel and Delton, plus ex-LGB with Lionel couplers simply screwed on all mate together.
The only ones that do not are Aristo.

I use all except Aristo.

Herb used modified USA couplers, with lift bars working, and I believe the “nub” ground off.

TOC

#89
Curmudgeon said:
...Herb used modified USA couplers, with lift bars working, and I believe the "nub" ground off.
Thanks, TOC. I vaguely recall a very early article on his railroad that mentioned Lionel couplers (this would have been long before USA's couplers were available--may even have pre-dated #1 scale Kadees), and I couldn't remember if he was just experimenting with them, or was using them outright. Whichever it was, it seems he also abandoned them in lieu of the USA couplers.

At the same time, I wonder if it could be made to work…

I think I’ll wait until I see Accucraft’s 1:29 couplers first.

Later,

K

#90

It would be nice if the various manufacturers could agree on a standard track-head to car-bottom distance, too. No more cut or fill.

#91

You know as far as the manufacturers go, I’ll vote with my wallet. My problem is the NMRA and their attitude of trying to create a market in large scale for DCC, that I don’t think exists. I don’t even care if it does, if magazines like GR keep producing far more articles about DCC than they do about battery/rc electronics and operations, I will find little to cause me to keep having a subscription to their magazine. 4 pages ago, that is what I tried to state, deleted because of no response and then reposted because somebody wanted to talk about it. I don’t give a flying fig about DCC nor the NMRA and I’m tired of the amount of page space they get without paying for it and I have to bypass.

#92

I like to swap out the original LGB trucks with the Aristo Barber roller bearing trucks. This gives me a better looking truck with the added bonus of quality metal wheels for generally less than the price of a set of wheels on their own. I spent hours modifying the LGB knuckle couplers to enable them to fit the Aristo truck. Only when a new box of trucks came in did I realise that the Aristo coupler mates very well with the LGB knuckle coupler. Now I am starting to standardise on the Aristo coupler for standard gauge rolling stock. This has now given me a surplus of those very rare LGB knuckle couplers to use on my narrow gauge rolling stock (along with the original LGB hook and loop couplers, which despite their toylike appearance, continue to work perfectly).

I am not fond of the USA Trains knuckle coupler as there is a design flaw in the extended coupler ‘spring’ tang, which allows the tang to break off at its base, losing its self centring feature. The Lionel coupler is very good in that it mates easily withthe mainstream competition, although like the USA Trains coupler, it can be a little stiff across the jaw pivot, making operation a chore. The USA Trains coupler is not as deep as the Bachmann coupler so that coupler height alignment is more critical. With a little TLC, the Bachmann coupler has proven to be very reliable in operation.

#93

Boy talk about getting off track you guys can sure do it. Can not think of why half this stuff referes back to Ricks question. Yikes. Later RJD

#94

Sure it does.
nmra/dcc/standards/enforcement/what works/enema-ray go-away…

#95
R.J. DeBerg said:
Boy talk about getting off track you guys can sure do it. Can not think of why half this stuff referes back to Ricks question. Yikes. Later RJD
Hey RJ

Anytime the NMRA enters the picture it becomes a wide ranging subject. :smiley: :wink: Starts with DCC, reminds one of the track standards, from there it is on to couplers. And we haven’t touched the scale designations, yet. :lol: :lol: Or not really, anyway. :wink: :slight_smile:

But getting back to Ric’s original beef, the real questions still are

a) how much extra will it cost per unit

b) will it make conversion to 1) DCC 2) Battery 3) Battery/DCC 4) any other combo easier

c) will the mfgs agree to a common scheme for the pin outs

a) is important as far as the CnT factor is concerned (CnT - Cut 'n Throw)

b) if it is easier will it be as reliable as the previous methods

c) if that happens it will be a step forward - without all the proprietary crap we have seen up to now; in which case the CnT was the best way to go.

Of course that’s just my opinion and you know what that is worth. :lol:

#96

Ric;
I agree…in fact I’m about to stop buying GR, which I’ve been threatening for months. I’m NOT a Garden Railroader, I’m a LS model railroader, and the magazine really gives me very little now. (Seen one pretty pike; you’ve seen 'em all)
Pretty Garden Railroads, appeal to many, and they do look nice (Pretty), but on top of the increasing ratio of ads to content; the magazine isn’t worth the $10 Canadian that it costs me.
I’ll buy the odd NG&SLG, as it has more ideas in it that appeal to my interests, especially the research on old short lines.

Just to see the difference in interests; you just have to look at the thread on what couplers people are using…some can’t figure why all my rolling stock has to be of one type…they just don’t understand the concept of operation, or care. Usually “Roundy Roundy” is all they think of…

This is not my interest, and operation as I use it, isn’t theirs. GR appeals to them, but not to me.

We all have a choice. The only problems we are sure to encounter in the future, is having choices taken from us by standardization on a lot of crap in locomotives, that many of us don’t want or need; but will still have to pay for.
Usually this "Standardization will appeal mostly to the “Lionel Mentality” crowd, that forms the nucleus of the Garden Railroad group.

I’ll get flamed for making these statements; I know, by people who won’t take the time to understand that I’d be the first to respect, and defend everyone’s right to their own choices in the hobby. Whether I like what they enjoy, or not.
I only ask that they respect, and defend my rights , as I do theirs.

#97
Tim Brien said:
With a little TLC, the Bachmann coupler has proven to be very reliable in operation.
The one problem I have with Bachmann's couplers is getting them to close completely to the point where the pin will drop. Once they close properly they don't come uncoupled until I pop the pin up, but most of the time it seems nearly impossible to get them fully closed. Can you suggest a solution?
#98

Ray, TOC and Bart have a lot of experience with Bachmann couplers and have been quite successful at gettting them to work correctly.

Fred, I have to agree and I guess that is why we get a long so well, because in most instances we want the same thing. As I buy less and less, I get more particular as to how I spend that dollar for the item I want. Our interest are not the same, nor should they be, but the path to our indidvidual goals keeps our interests close.

The internet has really taken the place of a whole lot of tabloid reading. Usually, by the time something is in print, we know quite a bit about it. One real nice thing about being associated with a group like this, is that you know many of authors in the magazine articles and once you read the article, you have the benefit of asking questions directly to the author on the sites we hang out on.

I certainly don’t mind debating the benefits to some of DCC or the NMRA, but that doesn’t happen in an article. The articles are certainly extremely one sided, not offering debate and, in my opinion, take up more magazine space than they deserve. I have given to the point, that if I am reading a mulitple scale magazine I should expect that.

But, the point that prompted this discussion, why should I be forced to buy an item with extra electrical parts that I don’t want and won’t use, if I want a certain paint scheme or design. That is the gripe, that if a “Little River” engine only comes with DCC items installed, why should I pay more for that engine only to have to take the stuff out. That to me is the NMRA/DCC argument in large scale. Who is pushing this crap? Where are the vast number of people using this crap? It certainly isn’t anyone in the circle of people I communicate with and through all the people that read this and know other people, doesn’t it seem someone would step up and say, “Ric you are wrong, because in my club of 100 guys, I am the only one that doesn’t belong to the NMRA and everyone else in my club uses DCC.” That hasn’t happened or even been hinted at.

So the only conclusion a person can come to is that it is a conspiracy and they are out to force feed us their garbage. It isn’t working.

#99

Ric;

They are hitting a stone wall here, Ric.
I don’t need anything more in order to operate my railroad. I have the fleet of locomotives I need, and more than enough rolling stock to actually create “Gridlock” !!
YES, gridlock; can you imagine ? Most of those GR types couldn’t even fathom what that means in a model railroad context…

So, what this amounts to; is that they can throw anything they like into the future locomotives, but it will just mean that there is no likelyhood of me purchasing any of it.

The more crap they put into it; the less likely it is that I’ll purchase it.

The 1:20.3 rolling stock is a perfect example of going too far…
I had hopes of starting a third operation on the IPP&W, in that scale. But the equipment they are producing is far too delicate for any real operation out in the real world. I’d just end up with a right-of-way littered with parts; to say nothing of another storage problem.

So far the two Connies have stood the test, although they appear to be rather delicate. There has been very little damage, or parts falling off, in the limited operation they have been subjected to. The Annies only suffer from brake shoe damage, caused by the handling, and shelf storage.

#100

Yep I’ll say that also I have what I need and do not need to have the other funtions available. I’m not saying that I may try but that is a possibility. I do like the basic funtions that exsist and really can do without all the added stuff. Later RJD