I was a member of the Little Rhody Division of the NMRA back in the 80’s when I was modeling in HO and N scales. I think the NMRA has little to do with Large scales as from what I’ve seen, The majority of large scale modelers are mixing scales or are not concerned with scale. This contradicts the NMRA by-laws.
Bob,
Is the lack of articles on large scale due to the lack of authors submitting said articles to magazines like MR/MRH, RMC or is it due to MR/MRH/RMC not wanting publish submitted articles because they know their audience?
I know Joe F of MRH has said that large scale is a minority scale anyways so HO and N scale articles get more ‘eyeballs’ to the product. I would say based on my response from Joe F of MRH that its a "we don’t do that’ here type of response.
Remember MR/MRH/RMC are business ventures with their magazines. The NMRA is non-profit?
I will say the new NMRA president has been pretty open about the new digital world we live in.
Yea, that I don’t know. Large Scale is a tiny fraction of the model railroad hobby, which in and of itself is a tiny, and shrinking hobby. I think a big part of it is the outside view that LS are toy trains, and I believe we’ve brought that on ourselves in a way when some of us say “I can run my 1:29 and my 1:24 and my LGB stuff together and it looks fine”
Bob,
I totally get that. I remember went to my first RPM meet with some large scale stuff I was given some weird looks. Devon and Steve joined in as well in the second year that I attended and Devon blew them away with his project. Folks just thought of large scale as toy trains and hadn’t really seen any scale modeling per say.
I did have a photo of my Snow Dozer scratch build project featured in the RMC summary of the Portland RPM meet and the editor Otto and I had quite the conversation. Sadly that was just before Covid so we haven’t had another meet yet. Having a large scale project highlighted as part of an overall RPM event is saying something.
I don’t know much about NMRA, so I’d be interested in seeing specific things that benefit members in their model RR activities (vs., say, social meetups / conventions), regardless of scale.
After that, I’d wonder if those same benefits apply to LS, and if not, why not?
I’m not referring to standards for, say, small scale couplers, because compliance is (presumably) baked into the products. Ditto for rail profiles, gauge, flange clearance, etc., since the HO switches and track you buy should be reliable.
So, what else is there, for non-manufacturer model railroaders? I’m sure there are tangible benefits, but since I’ve not been involved, I’m not aware. Can someone give an example of how NMRA intervention of some kind specifically informed your model railroad decisions?
Cliff
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 .
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.
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
Bob; hence the arrival of the new GRNews on line magazine, which is proving to be quite popular, and FREE. www.grnews.org
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
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!
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
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.
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.
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” 
] 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.
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!
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
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.
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?
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.