Large Scale Central

NMRA S-3.2 proposed track standard

Track and Trestles
#1

Hi all,

After reading a very heated discussion on another forum I had to go and double check.

Frankly I’m a bit puzzled about the uproar; on two counts

a) so what is all the commotion? I thought that the track gauge was supposed to be 45mm not 1.750"? Which brings up the next question: to all those who holler very loudly; have you checked what the actual dimensions of the different tracks are??

b) and what’s with the NMRA? If the track gauge is supposed to be 45mm then the actual gauge (taking the tolerance spread they use in the proposal) should be 1.772" + 0.006"

Oh BTW before someone mentions the “established Standards”, please measure the dimensions on four or five different makes and then let us know. Nah, I won’t be complaining to the NMRA, I just use the tie strip that I found to conform to NEM-MOROP Standards and build my own turnouts to the same Standards. The wheels need to be checked and re-gauged in any case, just like in any other scale!

#2

The Gauge 1 Model Railway Society has already set the standards for Gauge 1 track -

http://www.gaugeone.org/Misc/STANDARD%20DIMENSIONS%20FOR%20GAUGE%20‘1’.pdf

Their figures for the track gauge are - 45mm - +0/-0.5mm or 1.772" - +0/-0.020

However, given the plethora of SCALES that run on track of this gauge, and the comparatively large number of manufacturers who make 45mm gauge [nominal] trackage, it should not come as a surprise to find that some makers’ products have slight variations due to manufacturing tolerance creep.

The NMRA appears to suffer from a widely-perceived notion - at least in eyes of the rest of the model train world - the NIH or ‘not invented here’ syndrome.

It is therefore hardly surprising that they should choose to round up a figure to make it easier to cope with in the virtually non-metric US modelling world, populated by hundreds of thousands of well-intentioned modellers who seem to have overlooked that H0 and 0 scale already runs track that is universally known by its metric designation of 16.5mm and 32mm, not their inch equivalents, whatever they are.

Some makers here in UK, Clifford Barker for instance is one - actually go to the trouble of providing track with a 0.5mm gauge spread for use in curves - I would be gob-smacked to learn that any US producer of mass-produced track went to this trouble, except by accident.

Still, the US, as always, be go on its own way, and be happy, while the rest of us will go on ours, equally happy, and nothing will change.

tac

#3

tac,

Not to be picky, but the rule for an inside dimension - such as track gauge between two rail heads - is: the nominal dimension is the minimum i.e. 45mm with any tolerance going to the plus side i.e. 0.5mm

However, it is possible that some who still drive on the LH side of the road and those who still believe that the Metric system is an evil French conspiracy dating back to Napoleon haven’t realized that, yet. ISO is just a three letter acronym!

PS the dimensional rule applies to everything but a pressfit!

#4
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
tac,

Not to be picky, but the rule for an inside dimension - such as track gauge between two rail heads - is: the nominal dimension is the minimum i.e. 45mm with any tolerance going to the plus side i.e. 0.5mm

However, it is possible that some who still drive on the LH side of the road and those who still believe that the Metric system is an evil French conspiracy dating back to Napoleon haven’t realized that, yet. ISO is just a three letter acronym!

PS the dimensional rule applies to everything but a pressfit!


Dear Mr Mueller - please feel free to be as picky as you care to, but not with me.

The track standards for Gauge 1 are not the ravings of a deranged imagination, but were cast in stone in 1898, and rationalised in 1908, as 1.75 inches - the agreed metric conversion dimensions came a LONG time later.

Please feel free to write to the Gauge 1 Association, and advise THEM that in spite of the fact that their track standards pre-date the ISO organisation by about 65 years, they have, in fact, got it wrong.

I’m sure that they will pay you all the attention that the communication deserves.

The almost three thousand of us who are in the G1 Model Railway Association, and the unknown number who are not, will continue to drive our trains around on our out-of-gauge track.

Graders

tac

#5

Dear TAC

I’m not at all concerned what the G1MRA does nor am I concerned what the NMRA does - both as far as application or misapplication of Standards and/or dimensions - just as long as I can depend on the NEM-MOROP to get it right, I’m a happy camper! And when I want it even more precise I can look at the “Spur II” Standards.

Yes, I fully realize that there will always be those stuck in the “horse and buggy days” of measurements, progress can be very slow! :wink: :smiley: :lol: :wink:

#6

If the flanges of my trains don’t bind on the rails, nor to they fall through them I could care less how far apart they are. So far I’ve had neither problem…:slight_smile:

#7
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
I'm not at all concerned what the G1MRA does nor am I concerned what the NMRA does - both as far as application or misapplication of Standards and/or dimensions - just as long as I can depend on the NEM-MOROP to get it [b] right[/b], I'm a happy camper!
As long as the distance between the rails remains the same, what difference does it make whether the gauge is expressed in metric measurements or something else?
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
...those who still believe that the Metric system is an evil French conspiracy...
It's not French? Who's evil conspiracy is it? ;)
#8
Ray Dunakin said:
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
...those who still believe that the Metric system is an evil French conspiracy...
It's not French? Who's evil conspiracy is it? ;)
In the late 18th century, Louis XVI of France charged a group of savants to develop a unified, natural and universal system of measurement to replace the disparate systems then in use. This group, which included such notables as Lavoisier, produced the metric system, which was then adopted by the revolutionary government of France.

The first famous artefact built to metric standards was the guillotine in the Place de la Concorde used to remove the offending monarch’s upper bodywork.

Me, I like the metric system, it’s simple and because it moves in steps of ten, even easier to use for calculations.

Should there ever be an doubt that it really DOES need planetary adoption and for those of you who did not grow up with the imperial system, try this lot -

Money -

One Farthing coin = 1/4 penny
One halfpenny coin = half a penny
Threepence piece coin = three pennies
Sixpence coin = six pennies
One Shilling coin = twelve pennies
Two shilling coin
Two-and-sixpence coin
Ten shilling note
One pound note
Five pound note

Common-user weights -

1 ounce [oz]
16 ounces = 1 pound [lb]
14 pounds = one stone
112 pounds = one hundredweight ]cwt]
20 cwt = 1 ton [2240 lbs]

Common use measurements -

1 inch [ sub-divided into as many even-number fractions as you care to name, from quarters to thousandths or even millionths]

12 inches = 1 foot
3 feet = 1 yard
220 yards = one furlong
1760 yards/5280 feet = 1 statute mile
6080 feet = 1 nautical mile

4840 sq yards = 1 acre [this figure does not have a simple figure square root = 69 feet 6 and one sixteenth inches times itself does not seem very rational to me]

1 pint
2 pints = 1 quart
4 quarts = 1 gallon

Angular measurement -

1 second

60 seconds = 1 minute

60 minutes = 1 degree

On top of that we then have -

Troy weights
Apothecary weights
Haberdasher’s measurements…and more.

Note that these systems were commonplace in UK, the Dominions, and in much of the USA, who went their own way and adopted adifferent gallon volume. In UK, apart from liquids, only sea-food [shellfish/crustaceans] was sold by volume, whereas in the US and rural Canada the quart and gallon are used for selling solids such as ice-cream and fruit - wood for stoves is still measured and sold by the cord in our part of Canada - here in UK it is measured by the truck-load for those rich enough to be able to use it as a source of fuel.

Most of Europe, and Scandinavia had similar systems in place, and most of the present-day English words are derived from the Old Norse and Old Scandinavian words, as well as Old English/Anglo-Saxon.

I grew up with all this imperial stuff, so I am VERY grateful for a rational system, regardless who invented it…

tac

#9

Let us not forget Whole-ball, Once-around, Furlongs/Fortnight and Straight-through. :smiley:

madwolf

#10
Terry A de C Foley said:
One Farthing coin = 1/4 penny etc etc Five pound note
You forgot the groat and the guinea. :D

I remember my last term in Grade 3 in the international (i.e. American) school in Rome, where they press-ganged a poor Scottish lass to teach me librae, solidi and denarii before I was shipped off to prep school in Venta Belgarum.

#11

TAC were you thinking acre in sq yards maybe maybe?

Acre = 43,560 sq ft

from the Wikipedia:
"One acre comprises 4,840 square yards or 43,560 square feet. Because of alternative definitions of a yard or a foot, the exact size of an acre also varies slightly.
Traditionally, an acre was a swath of land one furlong long and one chain wide. "

PS you forgot about Rods, Chains and Furlongs, theres some more confusinators right there!

#12

In the Oklahoma portion of the United States an acre was 1/640 of a square mile. A mile wide and mile long and that was 640 acres.

#13
Victor Smith said:
PS you forgot about Rods, Chains and Furlongs, theres some more confusinators right there!
The Rods are OK; they may even comfort you. It's the Poles and Perches that'll get you. As for the Chains, they're all right if you're into B&D. Dickens unaccountably failed to mention whether Marley was laden with the surveyor's or engineer's variety; you'd think a good fact checker would have sorted that out. As for Furlongs, everybody knows that Fur, long or short, is simply not done these days, dahling. But the best of all measures is the Barleycorn. Glug ...
#14

How bout bushels and pecks and …

#15
Chris Vernell said:
You forgot the groat and the guinea. :D
I'll admit that I'm not exactly in the first flush of youth, but my intention was to show you the imperial system that I personally grew up with, NOT what my great-grandfather grew up with.

Guineas are still encountered, but not as physical legal tender - they are the common monetary designation used on horse race tracks and races.

tac

#16
Victor Smith said:
TAC were you thinking acre in sq yards maybe maybe?

Acre = 43,560 sq ft

from the Wikipedia:
"One acre comprises 4,840 square yards or 43,560 square feet. Because of alternative definitions of a yard or a foot, the exact size of an acre also varies slightly.
Traditionally, an acre was a swath of land one furlong long and one chain wide. "

PS you forgot about Rods, Chains and Furlongs, theres some more confusinators right there!


Dear Mr Smith - you are right. In the rush to get something on paper I made a mistake, but as I have never in my life had to deal with acres [my backyard here in yUK measures 30 feet by 28 feet], it somehow slipped my memory.

I did however, mention furlongs, if you look carefully [220 yards = 1 furlong], but neither rods nor chains are common-user measurements, being used by surveyors, not us ordinary folk. Furlongs are only used in UK in horse-racing distances, not in everyday measurements.

But hey, I guess that where YOU live you use these measurements everday, right?

Some twenty-six years after decimalisation, there are STILL no road markings in anything else other than miles and yards.

tac

#17

All of the above makes me appreciate that both the G1MRA and the NMRA at least use decimal designations. :wink: :slight_smile: It could have been much worse!:lol:

#18

The biggest resistance to going full metric comes from those of us who bend wrenches. Having spent a lifetime learning the difference between 7/16" and 1/2" wrenches, now I am somehow supposed to guess the difference between 13mm and 14mm. :smiley:

#19
Steve Featherkile said:
The biggest resistance to going full metric comes from those of us who bend wrenches. Having spent a lifetime learning the difference between 7/16" and 1/2" wrenches, now I am somehow supposed to guess the difference between 13mm and 14mm. :D
And a couple of the shops I worked in use the decimal system. I'm sure glad they had those huge reference charts on all the walls. Actually, the decimal system is easier to use when kit-bashing/building/ etc. than either metric or inch.

TOG

#20
Terry A de C Foley said:
Chris Vernell said:
You forgot the groat and the guinea. :D
I'll admit that I'm not exactly in the first flush of youth, but my intention was to show you the imperial system that I personally grew up with, NOT what my great-grandfather grew up with. Guineas are still encountered, but not as physical legal tender - they are the common monetary designation used on horse race tracks and races.
The system of my youth, too (or one of the systems, to be exact). As I recall, some shops quoted prices in guineas to extract extra shillings from the unwary. I liked the old British coinage; it felt more solid than the Continental stuff. A bit of psychological subterfuge by the Mint?