Large Scale Central

NMRA Panel Discussion

General Discussion
#26

BD,
I personally have not myself but would LOVE TOO I have pretty much all archived what I have done over the years. For me it’s about the time to put an article together. If someone would like to have my archives on a jump drive or something like that then they may.

I was doing toy trains today 15 years myself (played hookie from work and called in sick…my boss would have been pissed if he knew I was lying)

If Rod Stewart is an NMRA member and he is coming to Hersey this August perhaps he could swing buy and give his insight on my “Outdoor Railroad” with Amtrash running on it .

019
0191920×2880 723 KB

1 Like
#27

Dan, may I politely disagree? For a start, the “Bylaws” talk about educating, following prototype practices, and advancing “scale” model railroading. I don’t see running 1/24th trains and 1/29th trains as “contradicting” that.

We are lucky that we can run modern prototype trains on our layouts, and also old-fashioned narrow gauge trains on the same layout. Best not to run both at once - my layout had 1/32nd track on one side and 1/20th scale on the other side. Walk round the 1/32nd side and the modern stuff looked great.

I didn’t run both at the same time, but I don’t see it is any of NMRAs business if we happen to be able to do so. The HO guys can run On30 if they want, but they don’t seem to - maybe outdoors the clearances are easier?

So my 1/20th trains were ‘scale’ and prototypical, and my 1/29th trains also. I would say that NMRA should come to grips with the multi-scale issue and include it in their “Bylaws”. And if a 1/24th scale boxcar happens to be a close match for a small 1/20th scale boxcar, then who’s to say it is not ‘scale’ railroading to run them together?

Now, what I see as NMRA’s area of expertise is promoting consistent and reliable inter-operability. Like coupler standards, wheel standards, etc. But the idea that only “scale model railroading” is to be part of the National Model Railroad Association’s focus is just silly, imho.

#28

Peter; in conversations with TOC over the years, I have never dared to ask that question, as I didn’t want to involve politics in our friendship "
Fred Mills

#29

Bob; hence the arrival of the new GRNews on line magazine, which is proving to be quite popular, and FREE. www.grnews.org

#30

Craig;
Communicate with Clara Breitner, the Editor of GRNews…she is interested…look at the latest edition, it even accepts the idea of actual railroad operations on a LS railroad, out of doors…even the old Garden Railways wouldn’t look at an article on operations…
Fred Mills

1 Like
#31

The more I thought about it, the sillier it seemed. Why exclude Dave Meashey and his wonderful RR:

https://largescalecentral.com/t/the-railway-equipment-of-middle-earth/79661

It’s all very well to be ‘scale’ in HO when there are dozens of beautiful scale trains to buy for a small $. Can’t do that in large scale!

#33

I think you are missing the point. It’s not about the NMRA rejecting you for running 1:29 or 1:24 or a mix. I’m quite certain they will let you or Dave Meashey join no matter what yall run. I refer to “develop technical standards to promote consistent and reliable inter-operability between equipment of various manufacturers” I believe it would be pointless to even attempt to create “standards” for the mixed scales. When developing standards - stick to the true scales.
BTW: I only run 1:29ish equipment and none of it is true to scale as I would need to re-gauge all the wheels and hand lay the track.
-Dan

1 Like
#34

I’m not an NMRA member. But every time they have a show in So Cal, they ask me to put the T&LB on display…, which I always do. It is always well received by people into all scales and may have even converted some to the garden.

1 Like
#35

Where is the real ‘0’ scale in the NMRA standards? If H0 is for ‘half 0’ (3.5mm=1’-0") then should not ‘0’ be 7mm=1’-0"? 1:48 (1/4"=1’-0") is a close enough scale I suppose, but not true.

This issue goes back to the early 1970s when I first started in model railroading as a hobby. The old versions of the standards showed both. I took a hiatus when family precluded a hobby, and when I returned 7mm was gone. As far as I am concerned, NMRA writes the rules to suit themselves, and quite frankly this issue is likely a reason TOC feels the way he does about the NMRA.

I was a member back in the .70s, but not now, not ever again. Like the standards I follow at work, written by academics with little regard for the folks who have to follow them.

#36

Dan, I absolutely agree they wouldn’t kick me out for modelling Middle Earth, or a moonscape for that matter.

I also agree that “promote consistent and reliable inter-operability between equipment of various manufacturers” is a great goal.

But why do you think they have to promote interoperability between different scales? As I mentioned, the last discussion I participated in concerned 1/29th coupler standards [after some long diversions as they didn’t understand what we think of when you say “g scale” :roll_eyes: :grin:] I think NMRA (interesting it isn’t the North American SCALE Model Railroad Association? I wonder why not - but I digress,) could get some friends and make some progress if they treat each scale separately. G1MRA has Gauge-1 at 1/32nd covered. Nobody has standards for 1/29th scale, so your Aristo and USAT cars won’t even couple together. And how about something for 1/20th scale? Couplers are all over the place, though the Kadee height gauge does help make them all the same height, if not able to couple. I leave others to consider the issues of standards for 1/22.5 scale.

I think you worry too much about ‘true to scale’. Outdoors the track has to be robust and I bet your track works fine. The G1MRA has “Fine” and “Standard” standards (how confusing is that!) and neither has a standard for rail height/code. So any 45mm gauge track is to G1MRA Standard and as long as it is code 225 or greater, it’s to NMRA standard too.
https://www.g1mra.com/resources-links/standard-guidance/

As far as wheels are concerned, you only need to worry when they start derailing. Then you (typically) check the back-to-back, make sure the run true and not wobbly, etc.

#37

I don’t think the NMRA wants to you to install fine scale wheels on your 1/29th equipment for use outdoors. In fact, in researching that statement on the NMRA website I found this statement (S1.3)

"The term LS (Large Scales) is used to refer to range of scales developed
to be able to be operated together, typically in an outdoors setting, for 
example a garden. LS models all use the same wheel and track profiles 
to facilitate interchange."

This demonstrates a total misunderstanding of LS, in my opinion. I do not think that the “range of scales” were developed to be operated together - LGB developed models of metre gauge equipment, Aristo developed models of American std gauge equipment (ignoring the Delton stuff for now, as they didn’t develop it.) Accucraft developed scale 1/20th models of narrow gauge equipment. None of them were developed to operate together! In fact, Aristo and any other commercial manufacturer would prefer you NOT buy anyone else’s equipment, so the NMRA statement is wrong right off the bat.

Secondly, LS equipment does not all use the same wheel and track profiles. Some 1/20th equipment is finer scale than some 1/29th equipment, but as most owners concentrate on a single scale, they set up their track to work with the scale they have chosen.

My suggestion to NMRA would be to address each SCALE as they have done for the smaller scales. Not assume that all LS equipment must interoperate!

#38

Peter,
I do not want the NMRA to create standards or best practices for 1:29 or 1:24 scale equipment running on 45mm track. If you are curious about my personal opinion then please feel free to PM me and refrain from using this thread for anything but posting answers to Bob’s questions.
Thank You,
-Dan

#39

Dan, my comments weren’t addressed to you specifically. You did say your 1/29th trains weren’t NMRA standard, and I was just trying to point out that they were. You may not agree, and that’s fine.

Here’s Bob’s questions:

I think most of my commentary was to the point, but I will shut up now and let someone else say something.

1 Like
#40

Peter,

I have been TAUGHT by my ELDERS that most DO NOT CARE what ROOSTER thinks! Never stated I don’t like NMRA but I have been dealing with standards for 30 yrs. as a career so why do I have to have them with my hobby as the MANUFACTURES sure didn’t follow them!

Have you ever had any dealings (bullshit sessions) with Lewis Polk or especially Charlie Ro?

#42

First off, it’s a little hard to impose standards when there’s virtually no new production to try to work those standards into. Let’s face it, G F or whatever you want to call it is withering on the vine after shrinking significantly from pre-recession levels. There being nothing but repaints, discontinued models, embargoed manufacturing, or outright closures. So they are welcome to try but I have to wonder just who’s going to listen to them? Bachmann, doubt it, LGB, forget it, USA or Accucraft, maybe but I doubt they are going to pure money into retooling what is already a small niche anymore.

Secondly, the former NMRA members I have talked to at shows tell me that there are an uncomfortable number of NMRA members that treat ANY scale outside of HO as a red-headed step-child. This was coming from N and Z modelers and most of the O guys seem to ignore them as well, so take that as you may.

#43

Responding to Bob’s original question.

This has taken some time for me, since I don’t know what NMRA offers, or doesn’t, for us. I wanted to see how NMRA might benefit me, by looking up their activities. So here goes.

  1. Discounts. Raw materials are often offered in sizes useful to LS folks, and the NMRA discount might well apply to such purchases. IMO, NMRA should really go for any “scalable” raw material discounts, e.g., Plastruct, Mt Alberts, Testors, Evergreen, Reynolds, etc.

  2. Gauges. NMRA has standards gauges offered for sale in N, HO, O & S, both standard and narrow gauges. Why would they not have the same for all the “G” “gauges” / “scales”? Seems like a no brainer to do, and a deliberate “not welcome” sign if not.

  3. Contests. Should apply to LS, I don’t see why it wouldn’t. Ditto for their educational programs.

  4. Groups. Chapters & SIG’s, while technically open to LS, will always be primarily populated by small scalers. But if Devon showed up with his donkey, maybe they’d all be his new best friends, who knows? Just sayin.

  5. Resources. Their prototype archives and experts might be very useful, depending on the RR you cared about.

  6. Controls. Seems like NMRA is a great place to learn about DCC, and understand where it and LCC are heading. That’s applicable to me, but at this point in my life I don’t have the bandwidth to pay much attention.

  7. Conventions. If you’re retired (I’m not, but want to be) and want something new to do, heck, why not.

Well Bob, that’s all I got.
Cliff

#44

Cliff; if they are going to offer support for DCC, and LCC, why not R/C Battery maybe that should be #8 on your list. Heck there are some people even going in that direction in HO, and O. NWSL was at one time offering RC in smaller scales. As batteries get smaller, it is the way to go, for realistic operations.
Fred Mills

#45

Bob,

Thank you for this thread. It prompted me to go and look at the NMRA website and to at least review some of its standards. With the caveat that my location on the remote borders of the empire shapes my view, I’ll take your questions in order:

  1. How do you view the NMRA? It is a remote organization. The one club that was out here folded sometime in the last couple years. The division that includes Hawaii has an active newsletter and has active club events, but its landing page is out of date. I already belong to the closest “large scale” (LS) club, the Rose City Garden Railway Society, and for the dues I get an newsletter with immediately useful articles, access to the track locker, and, of course, e-mail contact with fellow enthusiasts at least near my timezone.
  2. How do you view the NMRAs standards? I am sure they are fine. I was shocked to find standards for Zn2 but only a handful of the grab bag of scales running on 45 mm track. To be fair, this was a random sampling.
  3. How do you think the NMRA views Large Scale? No opinion.
  4. Are any of you NMRA members? No. As stated in my answer to Question #1, the NMRA has no immediate relevance. I did write the local club when it was still around, but they never wrote back. Had they written me, I would be both a member of the club and the NMRA. Now, the point is moot.
  5. Why do you think that the NMRA treats Large Scale as the red-headed step child? No opinion.
  6. Have you experienced any kind of feedback from the NMRA directly, or is it “I heard that…?” I never had reason to ask for NMRA feedback, and, until this evening, hand no reason to ask anyone about their experiences.
  7. Have any of you ever submitted an article about LS to Model Railroader, or any other non-LS magazine and had it rejected? No. I did get an article in Tropical Fish Hobbyist, though, extolling the virtues of running a railroad around an outdoor pond! In all seriousness, I have not tried to write for the broader model railroading community. Instead, I have written for the LS community via the RCGRS newsletter, and one of those articles subsequently made it into GRNews. Did I err? Should I have written for the hobby writ large first, then sent the article to our niche community only after a rejection?
  8. Is it because there is no LS content in magazines in general? I subscribe to MR, as, at least for me, it has things to teach that scale up. In my case, between the RCGRS newsletter and GRNews, I guess I am just not missing the LS content in MR.

In short, I am unable to meaningfully comment on the NMRA’s technical standards. I would love to adhere to its scale standards, but not at the cost of being able to run our railroad in the space and budget we have. I would consider membership, though, if the NMRA served a valuable social function, like this website and the RCGRS.

Sorry if this is not all that helpful.

Eric

#46

Fred, I’m not knowledgeable about why they do or don’t choose to support certain things, but it seems like interoperability between manufacturers is a key thing.

DCC (and I think LCC) involves codes, CV’s, frequencies, etc., so that one controller can talk to a different manufacturer’s decoder. So NMRA has had a big hand in nailing down standards for that, it seems to have been effective.

For R/C, are there similar areas? Perhaps standardizing things like control frequencies & channels & etc. would have made products more interoperable. But it might be too late? Don’t know. I suppose it would be nice if all ESC’s talked to all railroad-purposed transmitters, at least in the main functions. Is that what you mean?

#47

(Quote)
" I would again like to open the discussion. How do you view the NMRA? How do you view the NMRAs standards? How do you think the NMRA views Large Scale? How do you think the NMRA could provide benefit to Large Scale as a whole? Are any of you NMRA members?"

I don’t think MNRA standards apply to the majority of us that model Narrow Gauge. Two foot, three foot and meter gauge. Most of these railroads out shopped their own equipment for their particular needs.
As for my view, I think the NMRA views large scale as a scale that can’t work together nice because of the various “modern standard gauge” running on the same gauge track. 1:24, 1:32, 1:29 and whatever LGB scale used for their American series.
So I, speaking for myself, says the NMRA should quit concerning themselves about us as a group and just work with HO, which is why they formed the association in the first place.