It has come to my attention that a certain model train manufacturer’s new 3-axle motor blocks have issues with my turnouts (OUTBACK TURNOUTS). It was first brought to my attention in May of 2003, but it was thought because it was a first run model, and in the rush to get them on the market a gauging issue was overlooked as to tolerance. It was thought at the time that this would be picked up by the manufacturer and put to rights.
Not so!
It now appears after a conversation with a respected model railroad magazine in the States, who is reviewing one of my turnouts, as well as the latest release model loco using the same 3 axle motor block, that it too is under-gauge. After a long phone call to the writer of the review, it was found that the model in question is not just under gauge but has a variance on each back-to-back wheel spacing. There is no consistent figure to say it is off by this or that amount. Each axle was different. Numbers varied on each axle, being 0.020-0.050†too narrow. And that was on one motor block. The other block also varied with the exception of one axle that was to all intents and purposes on the money.
I wish to state the following:
-
I make my turnouts to exacting G1MRA standards, which have been in existence for over 50 years.
-
These standards have recently been accepted by the NMRA (as far as track gauge and wheel back-to-back wheel spacing are concerned). This proposal has been distributed to the NMRA members for their approval as I write.
(I thank Dave Goodson for his hard work and forbearance with the NMRA to get them to accept the G1MRA track standards.)
-
So far, only the 3-axle motor blocks from this manufacturer seem to be at issue.
-
The 2 axle units from the same manufacturer seem to be fine.
So here is the problem I have:
The wheels are under gauge. When the model is run thru one of my turnouts it tries to jump of the track as soon as the unit gets to the frog / wing rail and check rail area. This problem was also brought to the attention of a distributor in Australia of the makers’ locos, and he asked could I loosen the clearances I use to allow this loco and the earlier unit to be able to run thru my turnouts. Thinking about the request for about 1 nano second my reply was NO! (I point out here that after this conversation he again phoned me and is now a seller of Outback Turnouts in Sydney.) This request was also asked by the reviewer of my turnouts and he received the same reply. NO!
If I had of acquiesced to these requests it would have presented problems not only with other manufacturers’ models but also the other models the manufacturer in question produces. If I would modify my turnouts to accommodate these under-gauged units, then correctly gauged units are very likely to have problems, and pick the frog.
I am unwilling to depart from what will hopefully be a universally accepted set of standards to get around a problem which apparently affects only a small number of models on the market. But this touches on a larger problem in the hobby in general, namely the importance of maintaining correct back-to-back wheel spacing on ALL rolling stock to ensure the best operation through turnouts – no matter what the brand.
POLLUTED STANDARDS ARE NO STANDARDS AT ALL !!!
As a manufacturer, I will simply not compromise my self-imposed high standards to accommodate any manufacturer’s faulty engineering.
So again I ask this question, and I remind people that feelings will predictably run high on this issue. It has been made clear to me by the fine host of this forum that personal attacks will be pulled and even the thread closed for the same. I applaud Bob McCown of LSC and Shad Pulley of MLS for having the courage to even allow this thread to be posted. Others might not be so generous. Keep it civil gents.
The question before the board is:
Should I compromise standards for one major manufacturer??