Large Scale Central

Standards — what are they and what purpose do they serve?

General Discussion
#41

Bob, I’m not sure tighter standards would have any effect on how well manufacturers fare in foreign markets. As we’ve seen with LGB, you can ignore existing standards and sell a rock-solid product worldwide. LGB wrote their own “standards” for their trains. Their primary strength comes from reliability and strict QC. No one really cares that their flanges are 3 times as deep as G1MRA standards specify or narrower than G1MRA’s back-to-back. The trains run on track built to LGB’s standards and also track built to G1MRA’s standards. So long as it does that, folks seem happy. I think that’s largely why published standards are often viewed as somewhat irrelevant in large scale. LGB did “set the standard” for large scale in many respects, and other manufacturers merely copied what they did regardless of what G1MRA, the NMRA, or MOROP said “should” be done.

With regard to couplers, we looked at that shortly after we wrapped up the wheel/track standards. Standards currently exist in the NMRA for coupler height. Those standards come directly from LGB and Kadee playbooks, and for the most part, manufacturers are pretty good about keeping to them. It was pretty much left at that. We decided that a “standard” coupler design wasn’t worth pursuing given the variety of scales and a lack of buy-in from the manufacturers. Besides, we had Accucraft making prototypically accurate, working couplers, and Kadee, long established as the de facto 3rd-party “standard.” There was really nothing there that we could improve upon.

http://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/rp-21_2010.07.09.pdf

Later,

K

#42

Kevin, there is no dis-agreement in terms of what has transpired in the hobby industry. However, in the industrial world where product manufactured in America must mate with product manufactured in Germany, France or other EU nations, those standards are quite important. Hobby product is just that, however I don’t think an Airbus (manufactured in I believe 6 or 7 countries) would assemble unless it was all built to the same standards of manufacture and tolerancing. Not to instigate, but GD&T is a system of tolerancing and has nothing to do with units of measure.

I participated some in the Yahoo group on couplers. I was disappointed when, even after pointing them out, the ‘Spectrum’ couplers were mostly ignored. I have read what was published and agree with it in principal, but like most have other thoughts on the subject. My answer on couplers was only to directly answer the question posed by Tom. I agree with most folks, I wish someone would choose a standard - regardless of whose, and lets move forward. I can tell you that in industry, when new standards are set, it is usually an attrition institution, whereby the manufacturers deplete existing materials while developing the necessary tooling and procedures to institute the new standard.

I think world peace is some day attainable, and so are Large Scale standards. It just takes providing the ‘economic advantage’ of instituting either/both for them to happen.

#43

As long as we are talking about couplers, I’ve found that couplers from Kadee, USAT, Aristo, Bachmann and Lionel, play well together, as long as they are mounted at the same height. I body mount mine at the Kadee 830 height, and have great results.

It is when they are mounted at different heights that troubles emerge, and it doesn’t matter who the manufacturer is. Even mating two of the same manufacturer’s couplers, at different heights, even as slight as difference as 1/16 of an inch, will cause problems, especially when the trackwork needs attention.

#44

Tom Ruby said:…

So, for the time being, you have to pick a standard for your railroad that makes sense for what you model and adapt everything…

Tom and that is what most of us are doing. A bit of KaDee standard, a bit of the G1MRA, maybe a pinch of NMRA, and some trial and error and I have a working railroad.

#45

David Maynard said:

Tom Ruby said:…

So, for the time being, you have to pick a standard for your railroad that makes sense for what you model and adapt everything…

Tom and that is what most of us are doing. A bit of KaDee standard, a bit of the G1MRA, maybe a pinch of NMRA, and some trial and error and I have a working railroad.

What happens when you take your stuff and go visiting?

#46

Steve, I aint never done that yet. But since my wheels are set to (I believe) G1MRA standards, and my Kadee couplers are set using the KaDee height gauge, my toys should play well with others.

#47

Steve Featherkile said:

David Maynard said:

Tom Ruby said:…

So, for the time being, you have to pick a standard for your railroad that makes sense for what you model and adapt everything…

Tom and that is what most of us are doing. A bit of KaDee standard, a bit of the G1MRA, maybe a pinch of NMRA, and some trial and error and I have a working railroad.

What happens when you take your stuff and go visiting?

Visiting is what I mainly do.

My locos run on batteries and have no track pickups. I use all Aristo couplers, but keep a couple KDs in my battery box as well as hook and loops, and a few twist ties (universal G gauge couplers). When visiting, I keep 3 rules in mind:

  1. Trust God.

  2. Be flexible.

  3. Maintain a sense of humor.

Last railroad I visited, I brought Madam Mallet, but she was obviously unsuited to the narrow gauge mountain railroad, so she stayed in the car.

#48

David Maynard said:

Steve, I aint never done that yet. But since my wheels are set to (I believe) G1MRA standards, and my Kadee couplers are set using the KaDee height gauge, my toys should play well with others.

David, with you observing G1MRA standards, and your friend observing Enema Ray standards (the devil made me do it), you might have trouble getting through his turnouts gracefully. Therein lies the problem. With multiple standards, there is no standard.

So, I ask again, which standard, and who chooses?

#49

Even though he does not run trains as long as I do, I follow the TOC standard.

Learning a lot about how turnouts work, and then laying for hours on the lawn at track level watching what happens on various turnouts and various wheel dimensions really helped.

By the way, I violently disagree with the statement with " No one really cares that their flanges are 3 times as deep as G1MRA standards specify or narrower than G1MRA’s back-to-back."

No one? Well I for one think they look like toys, like bigger Lionel.

Greg

#50

"Steve Featherkile said:

David Maynard said:

Tom Ruby said:…

So, for the time being, you have to pick a standard for your railroad that makes sense for what you model and adapt everything…

Tom and that is what most of us are doing. A bit of KaDee standard, a bit of the G1MRA, maybe a pinch of NMRA, and some trial and error and I have a working railroad.

What happens when you take your stuff and go visiting?"

Hope for the best?

#51

Steve, yes with multiple standards there is no standard. But, since I run on my home road, my standards work for me. Right now, that what I care about. I can place 2 trains on the track, any of my trains, and watch them play tag for hours, without any derailments nor uncommanded uncouplings.

#52

Well, here is where Greg and I part company. :slight_smile: I am blessed with critters that range through my railroad, resident deer that lost their mama before they were old enough to learn that they are deer (they think they are part of the pack, or at least my dog thinks so). I have free range elk and moose that wander through, from time to time. The worst, though, are SWMBO’s chickens. They scratch, tossing scale boulder sized rocks and plant debris onto the track. The scratching also undermines the ballast, making the track less than level.

So, I appreciate the great Claymore like blade of the deep flange. From ten feet away, I don’t notice. I’ve tried the semi-scale profile made by a well known maker of wheelsets. Unless I’ve spent a couple of hours fussing with the track, I have problems. I’ve rarely had a problem with the deep flange profile.

#53

Having read through this and watching as people discussed this over some years, I always wondered about what all the different companys that made trains might of missed, if Bachman trains did not work well with other trains and Aristo did not work with others also, reading about how many problems people had mixing couplers, trains and wheels and so on.

If they might of thought about coming to a some what similiar standards that maybe they would of expanded there customer base, I know LGB people might not get a long with Bachman people, but maybe more people would of bought more different stuff to run on there own RR`s if more of the stuff was compatible.

I think it would of helped them financially(IMHO) yes I know they were competing with each other, but couplers that were similiar to each other or wheels that were similiar would of given different people the opportunity to run different things on there RR`s, expanded there customer base.

Just my thoughts, I know if the opportunity was there for me to run a logging train on the same RR as diesel engine train I would of done it because I like a lot of different trains, like most I am a total train nut, just not one nut.

But the issues I would have because of the differences does not allow me to do that, make the customer base smaller.

Tom H

#54

Steve, do you need flanges as deep as LGB, or do Aristo and Bachmann and USAT and AMS work ok?

I was only commenting on the overly toylike LGB.

Greg

#55

David, with you observing G1MRA standards, and your friend observing Enema Ray standards (the devil made me do it), you might have trouble getting through his turnouts gracefully. Therein lies the problem. With multiple standards, there is no standard.

Not the case. The NMRA track standards are virtually identical to G1MRA track standards. If there are differences, they are on the order of .005" or so in most regards. Again–we authored the NMRA standards to mirror the G1MRA standards as much as possible. The only major departure is with regard to flanges on the wheel standards. We did that specifically to avoid having radically different standards in play.

…I violently disagree with the statement with " No one really cares…

sigh Forgive me for violating the cardinal rule of writing in absolutes. I agree with you–I don’t like the aesthetics of uber-deep flanges either. During our discussions in developing the standards, I referred to them as “pizza cutters” and lobbied to strike a compromise between a scale appearance and opening up the standard just a bit beyond G1MRA so the manufacturers wouldn’t simply scoff at it, as that was the #1 response from the manufacturers; that G1MRA’s flange depth was too shallow for them–their customers demanded deeper flanges so their trains would stay on the tracks.

The NMRA maximum flange depth is 0.118" (3mm). G1MRA’s maximum is 2mm. The latest production wheels from Bachmann and Accucraft are mostly in the neighborhood of 2.5mm (.100"), so they’re either listening or coming to the same conclusion as many of us have already–our trains don’t need to cut pizzas as they roll. I would imagine that with Bachmann and Accucraft demonstrating that you can get away with reasonable flange depths, we may (eventually) see other manufacturers follow suit. (By comparison, LGB’s flanges run typically from 3.5 to 4.5mm.)

I will say that for my purposes, while I object to the aesthetics of the uber-deep flanges “pizza cutter” flanges, it’s not enough for me to chuck the wheels in a lathe and turn 'em down. I may replace them where possible, but for locomotives, it’s not worth the effort.

Later,

K

#56

Kevin,

Be careful, that pizza cutter (Pizzaschneider) moniker originated in Germany and the guy who coined it might sue you. He is very possessive when it comes to his intellectual property.

I will say that for my purposes, while I object to the aesthetics of the uber-deep flanges “pizza cutter” flanges, it’s not enough for me to chuck the wheels in a lathe and turn 'em down. I may replace them where possible, but for locomotives, it’s not worth the effort.

That’s just as well, unless you’re prepared to re-plate the wheels after you’re done turning

On the size of the flanges, did you know that the original LGB wheel sets have no problem running on Code 215 rail (Llagas “G” version tie strips)?
While I’m on “G” ties, they are the closest in dimensions - tie spacing etc. - to what one will find on the RhB … if one ignores the fastening hardware.

Interchangeability i.e. visiting rolling stock and motive power; no problem as long as it is RhB prototype from one of the usual mfgs.

#57

“…That’s just as well, unless you’re prepared to re-plate the wheels after you’re done turning …”

I don’t push electrons through my wheels, so the plating doesn’t matter. That, and it wears off anyway with enough running.

“…On the size of the flanges, did you know that the original LGB wheel sets have no problem running on Code 215 rail …”

So long as the distance between the railhead and the top of the spike/anchor detail is greater than the depth of the flanges, you’re golden. (They may bounce through switches depending on the flangeway depth.) For those interested in trivia, the distance between the top of the rail and the anchor detail on LGB code 332 track is the same as the distance between the railhead and top of spike detail on AMS code 250.

Later,

K

#58

Kevin, the difference between the back to back standards of G1MRA and NMRA is nearly a tenth of an inch, according to the documents that you provided. That’s enough to make things go “bump in the night.”

G1MRA. B to B 1.654 inches

NMRA. B to B. 1.575 inches

NMRA has a fudge factor of .004 inches, so it could be even worse!

Greg, I missed your reference to LGB. I use metal wheels, and replace their plastic wheels, anyway.

#59

As it happens I started collecting information on LS Standards quite some time ago, due to the vagaries of the Internet — here today, gone or replaced tomorrow — I printed out hard copies.

Since Greg E mentioned “SMFH” the other day, that is the correct acronym for the development and/or rewriting of “the Standards” by the NMRA and Gaugeone.org/G1MRA.
As far as I can determine they just don’t get it, the “it” being if one bases one’s standard on a 1.75" track gauge and then over time migrates that to calling it 45mm, doesn’t change the fact that when all the “bells and whistle” come off, it is still based on 1.75".
I fully understand the concept, one of the instances that generated much laughter in ISO circles was the supposed attempt by General Motors to have a fastener designated M6.3 (commonly known as 1/4").

As I mentioned already in this thread, it’s the methodology I object to, together with the attempt to sell it as a 45mm track/wheel standard.
If one paints stripes on a donkey, it doesn’t become a zebra; its DNA doesn’t change.

#60

Yup, 1.75 inches equals 44.450 mm. What could possibly go wrong? :slight_smile: