I guess the first question would be: does anyone know of a LS manufacturer that adheres to an existing standard?
Hans, in my opinion the manufactures adhere to the standards they have set for themselves. So items from different manufacturers don’t always play well with other manufacturers products.
But, that said, in the GR reviews of products I am seeing less mention of wheels out of gauge, and more mention of pads on equipment for body mount couplers. So, in my unscientific opinion, it seams to me that the manufacturers are slowly drifting toward some common standards.
It would be nice, and a great step forward, just to have wheels and track produced to the same standards.
For a long while, several manufacturers’ wheels were not made to the same gauge as their track. One, produced a track/wheel gauge that their own track did not correspond to.
I don’t care whose standards are decided on, in fact I wish the politics were kept out of it…just stick to one standard, at least for track and wheels. If “Common Sense” hadn’t been killed, years ago; it could prevail today, and help us have good sensible standards.
Heck; the real railroads that we model, have them, and manage to agree on them, for their common good.
It is nice to see, some indication the there may be a coupler height standard being worked toward (Maybe), with the fore-mentioned coupler pads, but even there, there is a long way to having more than 1 in 100 people agreeing on a standard coupler.
For those that yell and scream, that they “Don’t want no stinkin’ standards”; I have to ask, what they think keeps a flanged wheel set on the track, without some type of standard ?
I would really like to see the many answers to that question…and we may find that the lack of sticking to some standards, causes the frustrations many people experience, when operating model trains.
BTW, Hans; Thank you for opening up this thread.
Now, if everyone avoids bashing named manufacturers, and sticks to contributing good suggestions, and experiences; we might find a few great ideas, where a common standard could be found for just about anything, allowing for variations, for those who are devoted to modelling railroad models not of the common variety.
PLEASE…no bashing such organizations as the NMRA…bashing serves no purpose.
If you want constructive change, join the group, and put some dedicated effort into the development of the GOOD standards you want.
I’m sure there are questions to be answered…now we have a thread where they can be asked, and answered in a constructive and friendly manner.
Let’s prove to Bob McCown that this thread doesn’t need moderating…
EPL had a fairly stringent set of standards, their own, but by adhering to them you could be very certain that everything within the products line worked with or on everything else in the product line. Beyond that it gets willy nilly. Bachmann standards waver from one product to the next. We all know how much Aristos standards varied over the years.
Standards are a funny thing. There are three “sets” of standards that cover large scale; G1MRA, NMRA, and MOROP. G1MRA originated in the UK, and is pretty much the standard on that side of the pond. MOROP covers continental Europe. The NMRA covers North American manufacturers. (There are no rules governing who needs to adhere to which, but it tends to fall within those geographical lines.) Within those, there are multiple sets of standards for “fine scale” and “standard” standards. So, when one speaks to sticking to standards, the obvious question becomes “whose?”
For all intents and purposes with regard to running trains outdoors, you can pretty much eliminate G1MRA’s and NMRA’s “fine scale” standards. MOROP’s standards can also be set aside. They’re generally on the “fine scale” end of things, and would also mean 1:32 models would have different standards than 1:22.5 models. (They’re also based largely on the NMRA’s “RP-25” wheel profile, which is not all that practical outdoors.)
So, that leaves G1MRA’s “Standard” and the NMRA’s “Standard” and “Deep Flange” standards as being the viable standards for use in the garden. For all intents and purposes, the NMRA “Standard” and “Deep Flange” standards are identical except with regard to the flange thickness and depth. (This is very much by design.) The “Standard” and “Deep Flange” standards with respect to the track itself are for all intents and purposes identical.
G1MRA’s “Standard” and the NMRA’s “Standard” standards are very similar. When we re-wrote the NMRA standards 5 years ago, we looked specifically to G1MRA to mirror their standards as much as possible. The problem was, however, that there were few (if any) manufacturers who were adhering strictly to the G1MRA standards especially when it came to flanges. Most felt such small flanges would be problematic in a typical garden environment, and given some of the trackwork I’ve seen over the years, I couldn’t argue with them. The overwhelming sentiment seemed to be “you can do what you want with your standards, but we know what works for us, thank you.”
What good are standards that are ignored? So we looked at the wheels that the manufacturers were using, and looked to see if we could find enough common ground there to create a set of standards that still played well with the track standards, but also addressed the manufacturers’ concerns about flange depth. Thus, the “Deep Flange” standards were born.
The upshot is that there are still plenty of outliers to these standards, particularly with respect to flange depth. But whether by conscious effort or mere coincidence, more wheels are falling into the range of compliance as new products come out.
Alas, it’s not so cut-and-dry to list which manufacturers do and do not conform to standards. If you look at three different products from any given manufacturer, you’re almost certain to find at least two different wheel profiles, often more. (Locomotives–especially–are prone to having multiple wheel profiles for drivers vs. pilot wheels. vs. tender trucks.)
Later,
K
Kevin,
Over the years I mentioned this several times, but I’ll gladly repeat it again.
In my opinion any standard that is supposedly applying to a 45mm track gauge and has a tolerance field that extends below that 45.00 mm track gauge nominal value has been designed by people who are either unwilling or unable to comprehend that inside measurements, in this case track gauge, have a nominal value and a plus value starting at the nominal value and increasing from there.
Anyone in doubt about that principle should consult the applicable ISO Standards — Caution: It will require some Swiss Francs to obtain those standards.
The following is quoted straight from the ISO Standards Home page (http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards.htm)
Standards
What is a standard?
A standard is a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. We published over 19 500 International Standards that can be purchased from the ISO store or from our members.
What are the benefits of ISO International Standards?
ISO International Standards ensure that products and services are safe, reliable and of good quality. For business, they are strategic tools that reduce costs by minimizing waste and errors, and increasing productivity. They help companies to access new markets, level the playing field for developing countries and facilitate free and fair global trade.
Learn more about the benefits of ISO standards
From the rule applying to inside measurements it follows that outside measurements have a nominal size e.g. 45.00 mm from which value the tolerance field decreases.
Those two rules are the 101 of inside and outside dimensions and their tolerance fields.
Now have a look at the NMRA Standard applying to LS track measurements - on Page 3 of the PDF
http://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/s-3.2_2010.05.08.pdf
With that I rest my case i.e. they just don’t get it! And the rest follows from there.
BTW The G1MRA Standards used to be based on a 1.750" track gauge, they have now revised those to have a nominal track gauge of 45mm and merrily proceed from there with a minus tolerance in order to fall into the range of their previous standards. http://www.g1mra.com/pdf/standard-dimensions-for-gauge1.pdf
Nice try, but no cigar!
What else is there to mention? From a Standards point that follows ISO conventions: nothing at all!
Whud’e say?
BUT there are a few red herrings to catch.
- Practicality e.g. the NEM-Morop tolerances are too tight for the garden falls into the same category as
a) Code 250 and Code 215 is not suitable for the garden
or
b) finer scale wheels than the established deep flange variety are not suitable for the garden.
The interesting fact is that plenty of model railroads in the garden seem to work just fine with those materials.
- outliers in Standards. Now there is an oxymoron if I ever saw one.
Basically it seems to condense to: try to please everyone.
Which is just like the committee that was tasked to design a new horse and after long, thorough consideration, discussions and revisions presented: … a camel!
HJ,
With all due respect, I think you need a course in Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T). Tolerances are considerably more variable than what you describe. Any given dimension can be generically toleranced in the following forms:
-0.00 +0.XX
+/- 0.XX
-0.XX +0.00
However, in the GD&T world, that is no longer acceptable tolerancing. I don’t have the time, and I don’t believe the folks here care for a several week disertaion on GD&T, but I will say “You are wrong in this case.” For proper tolerancing to occur it takes looking at ALL THE MATING COMPONENTS, not just track gauge. If you change the profile of the rail versus the wheel, it becomes a new set of tolerances. The mate between the injection molded tie strip and the rail base is another set of tolerances. Personally I don’t envy the manufacturers attempting to be a ‘one size fits all’ when in reality that can’t truly be done.
As far as standards are concerned, I live in the ASME/ANSI Y14.X world, which heavily included GD&T. Every standard I have ever been in contact with over my 40+ years in the engineering fields have been the ‘after thought’ of several manufacturers or other concerns in a given industry taking a position the ‘our stuff needs to play well together’. As a result the standard is ALWAYS written with a caveat that ‘…or your company standards may apply’. I have never seen a standard written PRIOR to product being manufactured, they are always a secondary discussion.
As a final comment, although I was not a party to it, it is my understanding that historically the same sort of ‘discussion’ was had for a long time in the smaller scales - HO and O in particular. I believe the toughest issue here is that the standardizing body choose to wait far to long to get involved and is now treated by most as coming to ‘close the barn door after the horse has long left’. Standards can be deliberate or defacto. In large scale I see it as most if not all current manufacturing standards (not those recently written) are a result of at least in a loose fashion making sure that each manufacturers product will play with others - how well is a debatable issue.
The other factor that comes into play here is the faction (and I believe it is substantial) follow the “We don’t need not stinking standards!” fraternity. If you are running only your own equipment with only your own equipment and only on your railroad, that works. For any interchangeability to be possible, standards of some nature are mandatory. The prototype railroads learned that very early on, why it has not carried over to the model industry I have not idea.
My tuppence to throw gas on the fire.
I find no problem with using the MOROP standards, in fact, I need to go over them again, but they are “looser” than G1MRA, especially with regard to flanges
Code 250 is suitable for the garden and so is 215, they will be somewhat more “finicky” on clearing debris, but there is no INHERENT issue with the lower rail, given proper flanges. Following proper specs, there are no “flange depth issues” with 215.
I agree, fine scale wheels are impractical for the garden.
Kevin completely ignored flange thickness, which wreaks havoc with flangeways, picking the frog, etc, and also espousing “check gauge” and saying that the “back to back” can get “tighter” if someone wants to use thicker flanges is pretty nuts. I’d say about 90% of derailments occur on switches, where all the specs need to work together.
I don’t give a rat’s patoot about what the manufacturers want, because their goal is not mine, they want to keep prices down and not change their specs and manufacturing savings… I want more reliability and trains longer that 6 cars.
I can’t blame the manufacturers for embracing what they perceive (probably correctly) as their target market, I’m not their target market, but I want some standards that will allow me to meet my goals of reliability, realism, longer trains, etc.
I’ve settled on G1MRA pretty much. There’s a few places the standard is “lacking” somewhat, but common sense and UNDERSTANDING how things work has gotten me through.
Greg
In a nutshell, what are the significant differences between NMRA, G1MRA, and MOROP? How can they be different enough to cause a fuss?
Bob “IA3R#7” Cope said:
HJ,
With all due respect, I think you need a course in Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T). Tolerances are considerably more variable than what you describe. Any given dimension can be generically toleranced in the following forms:
-0.00 +0.XX
+/- 0.XX
-0.XX +0.00
…
My tuppence to throw gas on the fire.
Bob,
My first course in GD&T was back in 1961 based on the VSM standards, followed up by several courses between 1967 and 1969 in conjunction with QC in a high precision tool room where tolerance fields of 0.002 - 0.004 mm (0.00007874 - 0.00015748") were common. Starting in 1970 I got the benefit of the DIN standards to add to the VSM Standards, next followed by the ISO standards. Customers in the high precision field used ISO standards, … except a few branch plants of American companies who tried to adhere to “the same old” until such time as they were forced to adapt ISO to conform to their customers stipulations.
BTW the 101 of inside and outside measurements as outlined in my post is how it applies in industry. To the best of my knowledge in any of the mfg countries I had to deal with in Europe and Asia, apparently all of them conforming with ISO.
Now if you want to throw gas on the fire, that’s your prerogative. 
BTW the applicable ISO standard would be this http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_ics_browse.htm?ICS1=17&ICS2=40
When I looked at the list yesterday the charge was Sfr. 175.00
HJ.
It is nice of you to emphasise in your quote of my post the incorrect means of tolerancing, which I clearly stated in the following paragraph as being incorrect for GD&T. I chose to not expound on that because the vast majority would not understand the terminology.
OK, so you have been trained, interesting that in all your rebuttal to my post you totally glossed over or ignored all the pertinent comments I made on proper tolerancing. I am aware of and have worked with ISO, which for my money is applicable for making Swiss watches and rockets, not model railroad products - far too stringent. We don’t need that high a tolerance for our product unless of course you really want to pay considerably more for what we buy.
I will bow out of this thread before it goes places I don’t want it to go.
Let me close with this question…“Is there any subject you are not and authority on?”
Bob “IA3R#7” Cope said:
…
I will bow out of this thread before it goes places I don’t want it to go.
Let me close with this question…“Is there any subject you are not and authority on?”
Yes, there are millions of them. I’m in Einstein’s camp who put it this way.
“The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know.”
It’s a handy way to keep on learning, along with retaining what one has learned.
BTW when I question practices I don’t question the tolerances. I question the basic methodology of applying consistent rules that govern standards.
As far as tolerances in industry go, the Swiss watch mfgs are/were by far not the only ones; the micron tolerances I quoted related at that time to high reliability micro relays used in every day telephone communication applications.
You know, you guys can just ignore each other instead of going at it.
Standards?
My guess is, and it is one, that the major vendors of “G” products are used by the manufacturers as the basis for making, changing, modifying, altering, or adopting any changes in their products independent of any outside source – NMRA or? Obviously, advocated standards do coincide with consumer choices made through vendor purchases. If consumer complaints about product compatibility become lethal to the market place, then there are competitive product announcements and the offending products retreat. A new “standard” is either created or an old one reinforced.
As I asked rhetorically on another posting: "What is TRAINWORLD’s influence on standards with the manufacturers?
It is still a good question.
Wendell
Wheels
MOROP: http://www.morop.eu/fr/normes/nem310_f.pdf
G1MRA: http://www.g1mra.com/pdf/standard-dimensions-for-gauge1.pdf
NMRA: http://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/S-4.3%202010.02.24.pdf (copy and paste)
Track
MOROP: http://www.morop.eu/fr/normes/nem110_f.pdf
G1MRA: http://www.g1mra.com/pdf/standard-dimensions-for-gauge1.pdf
NMRA: http://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/S-3.3%202010.02.24.pdf (copy and paste)
Note: The MOROP standards are not available in English. Here is the root web page for all of their standards: http://www.morop.eu/fr/normes/index.html
Use Google Translate to translate the page with the links, but then open the native French web page in another window/tab to open the standards and look at the .pdf files. If you need to translate the .pdf files, click on the links on the Google-translated page. You get the text, but not the illustrations. Note also that what MOROP calls “large scale and garden railways” is not us. Those standards are for the ride-on scales.
You will find the MOROP standards to be very tight with regard to wheels gauged for 45mm. They are very fine scale, with a back-to-back range of 41.8 - 42mm, a wheel tread width–including flange–of 4.4 - 4.6mm, and a maximum flange depth of 1.6mm. (It’s notable to mention that at 1:32, a wheel measuring 4.6mm wide scales out narrower than the prototype wheel would be!) If you accept the premise that if you’re modeling narrow gauge thus actually running “Scale II” and use the standards for 64mm track, your maximum flange depth increases to 2mm, and wheel width to 6mm, much more in line with G1MRA and NMRA’s “Standard” standards. Alas, the back-to-back measurements are set for 64mm track, so you’re on your own there.
I thought there were at one time MOROP standards which were looser (more in line with LGB, Piko, etc.) but I’m unable to find them now, either on my hard drive or the web.
With regard to Greg’s concerns about the NMRA standards, his concerns are moot. There is a long series of mathematical “checks” for the standards which pit the wheel standards against the track standards for back-to-back, check-gauge, etc. to ensures everything works together. Those equations take the tolerances into consideration. All conditions of these equations must be met before the standards can be approved. If the wheels meet NMRA spec with regard to back-to-back and check gauge tolerances, they will always be less than or equal to the check gauge of the switch, thus they will not derail at the frog. And–yes–there is a little bit of a margin for “wider than spec” flanges. Provided you don’t exceed the maximum check gauge allowable for wheels, you’ll be fine.
Later,
K
Uhh… earth to Kevin, where in my post do I mention the NMRA?.. I know certain substances are now legal in Colorado, but misinformation is still misinformation.
Get your stuff straight…
Greg
Kevin Strong said:
…
I thought there were at one time MOROP standards which were looser (more in line with LGB, Piko, etc.) but I’m unable to find them now, either on my hard drive or the web.
…
Later,
K
Kevin,
Let me assure you that the NEM-MOROP Standards have been tighter than the G1MRA or the NMRA Standards as far back as the early 2000s when I decided to use NEM as basis for my scratchbuilt turnouts. Main deciding factors at the time were: tight tolerances and use of the ISO measuring conventions.
The complete set of NEM Standards is available for every year going back to 2008 as a ZIP file for the respective years.
I haven’t tried out how close the French translation is to the German version, no comment on that. But I have just noticed that the complete set of standards is also available in CD format from the German and the Swiss model railroaders associations.