Bob McCown said:
You know, you guys can just ignore each other instead of going at it.
Yes Bob,
It is also more productive to discuss the merits/short comings of the various Standards.
Interesting. The Back to Back on G1MRA is 1.654 inches. The Back to Back on NMRA is 1.575. G1MRA does not list a fudge factor, but the NMRA lists one of .004 inches.
The difference between the two is nearly a tenth of an inch (.08 inches, to be exact.).
The MOROP lists a B to B of between 5.25 and 5.5 mm
With differences like that, its no wonder that we have problems.
Our first task is to pick one, and discard the others, but which one, and who is going to make the decision?
Standards are needed to ensure compatibility/interchangeability between various manufacturers. But we don’t need tolerances down to the micron level. I have a wheel and track gauge I made out of a piece of plexiglass. I measured the wheel flange notches I cut into the plexiglass with a metric ruler. So my gauge isn’t accurate down to the micron level, but, but when I set my wheels to that gauge, the wheels run fine on my railroad.
I also have a track gauge, again cut into the same piece of plexi. if the tabs on that gauge fit between the rail, without the step in the gauge fitting between the rails, they are close enough. My simple tool looks a lot like the NMRA (gasp) HO track and wheel gauge.
So we can talk about a measurement plus x or minus 0, or a measurement of y plus 0 or minus x, but really, if we work inside a certain bracket, then things should work fine. For instance, if the track is set to 45.5mm +/- .5mm then we should be ok.
Sometimes I think certain threads are started, or certain posts made, to stir up controversy. I think all of us can agree that compatibility and interchangeability are needed in our chosen gauge. Some of that has been achieved, but we still have a ways to go. Until the manufactures realize that, and realize how it would benefit them, we can draft and argue our favorite standards all we want, but it isn’t going to accomplish anything.
Sometimes I think certain threads are started, or certain posts made, to stir up controversy.
Thank you David. After Bob chastised HJ and my self, I was considering making that very comment, but decided discretion was the better part of valor. If you read back, I made the same comments referring to the standardization of HO and O scales back in the day.
Of course we don’t need standards down to the micron level, what we need is standards that are consistent across the board.
BTW the commercial flex track I bought from two of the smaller producers holds very close tolerances e.g
the Llagas track has a track gauge of 45.08mm, the Terog track (out of production) has 45.14 mm track gauge. Both types are Code 215 rail
That’s about as good as it gets (needs to be).
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
I guess the first question would be: does anyone know of a LS manufacturer that adheres to an existing standard?
Can you first classify the definition of “LS manufacturer”… meaning mass produced or just simply manufactured?
If just simply manufactured then why not post pics of the models you have purchased or have produced look like on your railroad with sloppy tolerances.
We can’t all run to Amtrak tolerances Mr. Mueller ¿¿¿
Steve Featherkile said:
Interesting. The Back to Back on G1MRA is 1.654 inches. The Back to Back on NMRA is 1.575. G1MRA does not list a fudge factor, but the NMRA lists one of .004 inches.
The difference between the two is nearly a tenth of an inch (.08 inches, to be exact.).
The MOROP lists a B to B of between 5.25 and 5.5 mm
With differences like that, its no wonder that we have problems.
Our first task is to pick one, and discard the others, but which one, and who is going to make the decision?
Actually MOROP’s BtoB for 45mm track gauge is 41.8 - 42 mm (1.645 - 1.653"). The Sierra Valley sets that get retrofitted to a lot of our rolling stock have a BtoB of 40.0mm. However they fit the NEM conform track and switches perfectly because of their overall design i.e. the distance between the tangent points of the flange radii to the treads checks out to 45.0mm.
I thought that I took it right off their chart. Guess I was wrong. Happens.
David Russell said:
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
I guess the first question would be: does anyone know of a LS manufacturer that adheres to an existing standard?
Can you first classify the definition of “LS manufacturer”… meaning mass produced or just simply manufactured?
If just simply manufactured then why not post pics of the models you have purchased or have produced look like on your railroad with sloppy tolerances.
We can’t all run to Amtrak tolerances Mr. Mueller ¿¿¿
LS as in somewhere between 1:20.3 and 1:29.
I’m not familiar with “AMTRAK Standards”, what are they?
I’m afraid I can’t help with sloppy tolerances, but in due time I’ll shoot videos of how motive power and rolling stock look when rolling on the track I purchased and the turnouts I built.
The test track at #40 I built with Aristo product, I could shoot some of that, too.
Would love to see it !
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Of course we don’t need standards down to the micron level, what we need is standards that are consistent across the board.
.
Yes Hans, I think we all agree on that. The “issue” is…the issues are;
What standards to push for?
How do we, or anyone, motivate the manufacturers to adopt them?
Hell, I would just be happy, if they coupled up to each other.
Greg wrote: “Uhh… earth to Kevin, where in my post do I mention the NMRA?.”
You appear to take issue with the notion of using check gauge as a determining dimension for wheels, and that back-to-back spacing can be narrowed to accommodate thicker flanges. Since that specific language is in the NMRA standards (because I put it there), the presumption on my part was that you were taking issue with that aspect of the NMRA standards. Combine that with you calling me out by name, you being keenly aware of my involvement in writing the current NMRA standards, and the fact that you and I have been round that horn many times in the past, it seemed a logical conclusion.
HJ, thanks for the comment about the MOROP standards. Now I’ve got to try to figure out whose standards I was looking at, or if it was a comment by a manufacturer, or what…
Steve wrote: “Our first task is to pick one, and discard the others, but which one, and who is going to make the decision?”
For our own personal uses? We pick the one that suits our needs best. I’m perfectly happy with G1MRA and NMRA’s take on things. HJ likes the precision of MOROP. It all depends on your railroad and the trains you run on them. How much work you need to do in order to get commercial products to conform to your chosen standard depends solely on your choice of standards and how close the products you buy come to meeting them.
As for the manufacturers coming to consensus, I believe achieving world peace will be simpler.
(And Nico, let’s not get carried away. Let’s start with world peace and go from there.)
Later,
K
I went back and looked at my notes, I was basing my comments on the old NEM/MOROP being “looser”…
I just went and looked at the new ones, and they are way tighter than they were, and G1MRA.
The old morop was 39.80 back to back (looser than G1MRA), new is as presented here 41.8 to 42mm…
Likewise max flange thickness is thinner and max flange depth is less…
So, with the current standard, morop is much “tighter”.
Good for them, seems that they are too tight for garden use, as HJ said.
Greg
The question keeps popping up (with variations) “How do we influence the mfgs to adhere to published standards e.g. G1MRA, NEM-MOROP, NMRA?”
Way back when I inquired at EPL regarding the “Standards” question. No answer from “The Boys”, but Dave Buffington commented that the “Standards” were proprietary. Since I had already read the Gospel according to EPL e.g. regarding electrics and usage of third party components etc. it looked like/was an impossibility to get concrete answers. Has it changed in LS? Not as far as I can see.
With tongue very firmly in cheek!:
OTOH at the rate LS mfgs are folding their tents/exiting the market, there will be fewer of them that need convincing about common standards being a good thing. But I’m still not holding my breath.
As I read this thread and am lost in all of it, I have to wonder what this means to me. I used to by HO locomotives and rolling stock and put it on my track made by at least two and I think in the end three different manufactures. I never once worried about standards nor had an issue with compatibility. Now I was aware that some differences existed in Large scale; but this thread has me thinking the problem is bigger than I had first thought. As a scratch builder who will make the vast majority, if not all, of my rolling stock and locos what does this mean for me. Do I pick a track and then make sure my wheel sets and loco wheels fit it?
Am I going to run into problems when I buy certain wheels not fitting on the track I chose? If so when I buy my track will I know what standards it is made too or am I going to have to measure it then buy wheels that are made for it.
I was only prepared to deal with flange height as I am going to use code 215 track.
In many regards, (and I know this inflamatory) this is something of a tempest in a teacup. I run all manner of equipment on my railroad without much trouble at all. LGB, Aristo, USA, Bachmann, Accucraft, Piko, el-cheapo “G-gauge” kids toys… they all run on my track mostly without any issues.We run all manner of equipment out at the Colorado RR Museum, and it behaves well, also. I run code 250 with Sunset Valley switches, the museum uses LGB and Aristo track and switches. When I first started working with the NMRA on standards, there was a very loud chorus of “We don’t need standards!” based largely on the premise that–despite each manufacturer doing what they want–things generally play fairly well together. The standards are there for when something doesn’t play well together, you have a place to start looking.
If you’re going to find issues, you’ll find them at the switches. That’s where a proper relationship between wheels and track is critical. Switches from LGB, Aristo, and the like tend to use looser standards for flangeways and guard rails than those from Sunset Valley, Llagas Creek, etc. When you have loose tolerances like that, you occasionally get wheels that go “bump” at the frog. If you’re using switches built to tighter standards, then equipment with looser standards for the wheels might pose problems at the switches as well. Fixing those problems requires knowing whether the “issue” lies with the wheels or track, or perhaps a combination of both.
Unfortunately, it’s not a matter of knowing which “standard” the wheels or track are built to, as each manufacturer does their own thing. It’s more a case of finding out the specifics for a given product and going from there. In your case, you’ll either be hand-laying your switches or using those from Llagas Creek, Sunset Valley, or similar. Most of those guys use G1MRA track standards for their frogs and flangeways. Most of what’s on the market will roll through that without so much as a hiccup. Scratchbuilding your rolling stock, you’ll likely use wheels from manufacturers who use either G1MRA or NMRA guidelines for their wheels. (For our project, I sent the NMRA’s standards for the wheel profile.) I use Bachmann’s regular 31mm wheels for most of my scratchbuilt stuff, and they roll plenty well through my SV switches. They’ve got flanges that are a bit “out of spec” with regard to NMRA and G1MRA, but it’s not enough to cause issues.
The good news is that the “problem children” are fairly well documented on the web. If there’s a switch or loco with known issues, you’ll read about it on the forums. In many cases, the fixes are easy. Wide flangeways on switches can be shimmed. Wheels can often be re-gauged.
It’s not something I obsess over. I’m on the “if it runs fine, I don’t sweat it” side of the coin. Folks who run under “extreme” conditions (really long trains, high speeds, or folks who like true-scale flanges and the like) will be more inclined to pay closer attention as those extremes rely more on things working very smoothly.
Later,
K
Thanks Kevin,
For this newbie to large scale, this is the practical type of information that can be gleaned from this conversation.
While I do believe the argument is deserved, because standardization would not, in my opinion, be bad thing, I will leave that to those smarter than me and use my dollars to influence the process.
Well…
I worked for years in a big electronics company where an expert dictated standards for us to follow, and I’ve noticed a few things about standards.
-
Great idea. They allow things to work together.
-
The things they standardize have to be close enough to the same thing for the standard to apply.
-
If you set a standard too early, you get a brain-damaged standard that nobody wants to follow. You have to let technology mature and settle out a bit before you pick what the standard is.
-
If the person picking the standard has an ulterior motive, you’ll get a useless standard.
How’s this apply to Garden Railroads?
-
Wouldn’t it be nice if things were more like HO and you could just buy something, set it on your track and be done with it!
-
But what should we standardize? 1:19? 1:20? 1:22? 1:24? 1:29? 1:32? Whatever LGB made? Hook & Loop? Link & Pin? Knuckles? European style? We have people here who model all of these, and one man’s coupler would be another man’s eyesore.
-
Yup. The “standard” G gauge coupler is the hook and loop. Notice how the newer ones from some manufacturers won’t hook unless you work them by hand?
-
You REALLY want ME to pick the standard?
So, for the time being, you have to pick a standard for your railroad that makes sense for what you model and adapt everything. For track, switches and wheels, we have a couple standards now and it’s annoying that little equipment meets them. It’ll take a while yet, first to decide which one to follow, then manufacturers need to update their processes and the like. I imagine as time passes, we’ll see the newer products closer to the NMRA suggestions, but it’ll take some time and there will always be lots of old, non-standard equipment around.
I believe the process can be expedited to a great extent, IF any one manufacturer would commit to any one of the standards. Publicize your commitment, and manufacture to your commitment. One point HJ made is very true, in order for American manufacturers to successfully compete in the European and Asian markets, they must meet ISO standards for their product. It is my opinion that whoever is the first manufacturer to commit and manufacture to one of the standards, the standard he chooses will likely become the ‘industry standard’.
Tom, if you do some archeology in HO you will find this same rough start was there into the '60s if my memory is correct. One of the driving factors in settling some of the HO standards (and O as well) was the introduction of Kadee couplers. Great for Kadee as they became the defacto standard everyone was chasing. To a similar degree I believe there are those in the large scale hobby that would like to see same in Large Scale.
As for what scale to standardize, if we are only referring to track/wheel and coupler interfaces, then why not all of them. Consider that there are those that are close enough in scale that you would only end up with maybe 3 different groupings if you wanted to differentiate wheel profiles and coupler height centerlines.
Couplers? Don’t standardize the ‘type’ of coupler, just the interface location relative to the top or rail.
For the present your closing paragraph is likely as accurate as anyone else’s.