Large Scale Central

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

General Discussion
#61

Many, many years ago I bought a Aristo Wide Radius turnout for the sole purpose to establish just where the dimensions fall.

(http://www.rhb-grischun.ca/F-PIX/AristoWide.jpg)

On the premise that it’s supposedly 45mm standard, it is the best of all worlds i.e. it covers all of the NEM tolerance (and then plenty more!) on the Plus side and covers the Gaugeone/G1MRA tolerance (and more) on the Minus side of 45mm.
It was/is also a good tinkering object. But yes, it covers the NEM and GaugeOne tolerance field very generously.

#62

Well, all I can say is that when I started I tried to take stuff from the box to the track and nothing was reliable… I could run a “toy train” sized train, but anything near prototype length was out.

finding a wide variation in my back to back that I could fix relatively easily, adjusting this made a huge difference.

Then I started looking at derailments and found that the “controlling surfaces” of my turnouts did very little “controlling”, narrowing down the width of the flangeways made another huge difference.

Along the way, overly deep flanges and overly thick flanges caused other issues.

Now I keep seeing these “accommodations” for deep/thick flanges, wide flangeways etc. in the standards… it’s very clear to me this is to try to win the manufacturers to the fold, so they can be NMRA compliant… but the very accommodations that have been added are just the things that caused the poor running conditions I observed.

It would be great if we had GOOD standards that manufacturers wanted to embrace, everyone is happy.

Having CRAPPY standards that “go backwards” in the quality of operation JUST TO TRY TO GET THE MANUFACTURERS TO BUY IN is the WORST possible outcome for me.

So all of this “accommodation” by the NMRA makes me sick, and feeling that it is really taking the hobby “backwards”…

I’ll stick with the older G1MRA standards, workable outdoors, and I don’t own anything with “pizza cutter wheels”… I’ve had to tweak all my Aristo turnouts, but it can be done.

My railroad runs great with this formula… it might not be the only combination of ingredients that works, but it works for me, and I can put almost any piece of rolling stock on my trackage (that is not significantly out of gauge) and it will run ok…

Greg

#63

Until you get the manufactures all on the same page you can talk this thing to death and nothing is going to change.

It took a few years but look at the smaller scales they have pretty much adopted to a standard type coupler and wheels. Pretty much trouble free and all the manufactures worked on it.

I pretty much do as Greg does to make my railroad a trouble free operation.

Later RJD

#64

I don’t use any pizza cutter LGB style wheels as I replace them with metal wheelsets as before they go on the track. I do like Gary Raymond’s deep flange wheelsets, semi-scale when LHS is out of the deep flange, set at a b-to-b of 1.575 inches, because TOC told me to. I have yet to try any Kadee wheelsets.

My Aristo wide radius turnouts have all been tweaked a la Fr. Fred. The Aristo No. 6 switches haven’t given me any problems, yet, unless you count grandson forgetting to set the switch for the mainline a problem. :slight_smile:

#65

RJ is right. Unless the manufacturers get aboard, this is just going to be talk. Until then, it doesn’t matter which of the three standards I prefer.

Heck, a recently demised major manufacturer of Large Scale stuff couldn’t even agree with itself. Its locomotives stumbled going through its turnouts, and it marketed a gauge that agreed with very little of its other products.

In the late 40s and all through the 50s, Lionel was the 800 pound gorilla in the 3 rail room. When other manufacturers came along, like MTH, Atlas0, Weaver, Williams and others, they used Lionel’s standards, because their stuff had to run on already built Lionel standard layouts. I am of the opinion that LGB discouraged that from happening when Aristo was accused by them of copying LGBs rail profile.

#66

Yes, RJ is right.

I started this thread because of the changing “NMRA Standards” as mentioned by Greg (referencing his discussion with TOC).
Like Greg I’m not really concerned what mud pie they cook up, it just irks me that every time they make yet another revision, they still don’t see the light and get it right.

Since the smaller scales have been mentioned a few times, here’s an example of how the NEM sorted out the coupler “question” in the smaller scales: they came up with a simple standardized socket into which the various mfgs can pop their couplers i.e. any coupler into the same pocket. Prior to that it was a regular PITA to get that “perfect piece of rolling stock” from XYZ mfg because changing the couplers was not a simple matter. And here’s the dot on the i; Kadee produces couplers that fit the NEM pocket.

Isn’t that incredible?

#67

Steve Featherkile said:

…

In the late 40s and all through the 50s, Lionel was the 800 pound gorilla in the 3 rail room. When other manufacturers came along, like MTH, Atlas0, Weaver, Williams and others, they used Lionel’s standards, because their stuff had to run on already built Lionel standard layouts. I am of the opinion that LGB discouraged that from happening when Aristo was accused by them of copying LGBs rail profile.

I thought they “emulated” the track as such, not just the rail profile??

#68

tom huisenga said:

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

Tom, yes to us it would make sense. But to some manufacturers, not just in our hobby, they want proprietary stuff so the consumer is “stuck” with their product and only their product.

As for “all the problems”…before I converted to metal wheels and KaDee couplers, I was running trains. Bachmann locomotives with Bachmann, USA, and Aristo cars. Or an Aristo or USA locomotive with Bachmann USA and Aristo cars, or… They did work together, but not as well as they should have. My biggest problems were USA and Bachmann couplers popping open, and the plastic wheels not tracking well in some areas. The newer USA couplers aren’t as prone to popping open, but I am all KaDee now. And the conversion to metal wheels solved a lot of issues, and then setting them all to the same gauge solved the few I still had.

So, yes, there are “issues” when you mix and match, but in my experience, many times they are somewhat exaggerated. BUT, one uncommanded uncoupling can be catastrophic if it happens at the wrong time. So even if it only happens once, it can be a real bad thing.

#69

Steve wrote: [i]"

G1MRA. B to B 1.654 inches

NMRA. B to B. 1.575 inches"[/i]

Steve, you’re looking at G1MRA’s “fine scale” standards. Look at the “standard gauge 1” standards at the top of that page. Those are what we used. The G1MRA “fine scale” standards are akin to NMRA’s “proto” standards (S-#-1). Incidentally, the b-t-b for that standard is 1.649" for the NMRA’s “Proto:32” standard, and 1.588" for “Proto:20.32n3”. Note that these values are derived directly from the prototype dimensions, thus different values even though the track gauge is the same.

With no offense meant to Steve for looking at the wrong standards (honest mistake), here’s a side-by-side comparison of G1MRA “standard” and NMRA “standard” (S) and “deep flange” (DF) standards. Values represent the total range of acceptable measurements. Where there is no suffix to the NMRA values, they are identical for both sets.

Track:

Gauge:

G1MRA - 1.752" - 1.772"

NMRA - 1.766" - 1.782"

Check gauge:

G1MRA -1.654" - 1.674"

NRMA - 1.648" - 1.662"

Span:

G1MRA - 1.555" maximum (no minimum specified)

NMRA - 1.535" - 1.555"

Flangeway:

G1MRA - 0.100" - 0.120"

NMRA (S) - 0.092" - 0.117"

NMRA (DF) - 0.091" - 0.118"

Wheels:

Back to Back:

G1MRA - 1.574" - 1.594"

NMRA - 1.560" - 1.594"

Check Gauge:

G1MRA - 1.614" - 1.634"

NMRA - 1.619" - 1.648"

Flange depth:

G1MRA - 0.079" maximum

NMRA (S) - 0.066" maximum

NMRA (DF) - 0.118" maximum

Flange width:

G1MRA - 0.040" - 0.060"

NMRA (S) - 0.041" - 0.061"

NMRA (DF) - 0.060" - 0.076"

Wheel width:*

G1MRA - 0.216" - 0.236"

NMRA - 0.236" - 0.271"

*G1MRA wheel widths are based on a prototypical wheel width in 1:32 scale only. NMRA Wheel Width values allow for the manufacturer to produce wheels to a prototypical width in all scales from 1:32 to 1:20.3.

@Greg, I’m curious–I found this on your web site where you commented on the NMRA’s standards a while back (at the time, still in draft proposal form, which I would presume to be one of the drafts I sent you to get your input. Alas, the link is broken, so I don’t know the specific draft.)

“Also, the flange depth is nuts for outdoor use. 2mm deep flanges are tough for almost everyone, 1.68 deep is ludicrous.”

1.68mm flange depth appears to reference S-4.2, the NMRA’s “standard” standard. I agree–that’s a bit small for reliable outdoor use. The 2mm flange depth is G1MRA’s maximum flange depth. In your post above, you describe the G1MRA standard as “workable outdoors,” but your web site describes its flange depth “tough for almost everyone.” If that’s the case, would you not agree that increasing the depth to 3mm might make strides in terms of making it “easier” for almost everyone?

Funny, the crux of this discussion seems to be that standards are moot without manufacturer buy-in. We decided on a 3mm flange depth specifically to foster manufacturer buy-in. The manudacturers told us 2mm was too shallow for their customers. It was a non-starter. What choice did we have but to meet them halfway if we wanted them to consider the standards? Doing so had no impact on the efficacy of what we were proposing.

Concurrent to us working on these standards, certain manufacturers shifted to a more scale wheel profile that happened to meet the standards we were working on. Coincidence? Dunno. We and the manufacturer were both working towards the same goal–better looking wheels that still ran reliably in the garden. Did they copy what we were doing, or what other manufacturers of quality wheels were doing? All I know is that wheels that are manufactured to meet the current NMRA standards now ride under a fair amount of large scale equipment, and they run quite reliably outdoors. It wasn’t just “dumb luck.” Steve mentions Gary Raymond’s wheels as being his preferred wheels. Gary was instrumental in these discussions. His knowledge of all things wheel and track-related was invaluable to writing these standards. I can’t see him allowing a standard to be published to which he wouldn’t manufacture himself.

Bottom line, the NMRA has a somewhat dubious history when it comes to large scale standards. That’s precisely what got me involved in the process. I saw what they were proposing, and opened my mouth a bit too wide. They came back and said “please help us, then.” I accepted, knowing it was going to be a really tough sell in the large scale community, no matter what we came up with. I went on the forums asking for input. What I got in return was anything but constructive. So it doesn’t at all surprise me to still hear reverberations of those early criticisms.

I think we achieved what we set out to do. Those critics are always going to be there. I’ll point to the models on my shelf which meet these new standards whose predecessors do not. I’ll troubleshoot problematic rolling stock or trackwork, confident that if I stick to the standards, I’ll likely solve the problem. It’s not going to silence the critics–nothing ever will. But I know that when I was critical of something and someone said to me, “okay, fix it,” I had the intestinal fortitude to step up to the plate despite the unpopularity and give it my best. If those results fall short of your expectations, grab a set of calipers and have a go yourself. Ain’t a thing in the world stopping you but you.

Later,

K

#70

Kevin,

You make one valid point in this argument that stands above the rest in my humble uneducated opinion. That is the NMRA or any other organization setting standards has a tough job. That are trying to establish standards after the fact; after manufactures have been doing what they are doing. After consumers have established what they want and prefer; and dollars drive manufacturers not arbitrary standards.

I say this to say that the most important part of this is that unless we the hobbyist agrees then the manufacturers will never ever establish a standard. The 5 or 10 people in on this discussion can’t agree on whats right so how can the NMRA or anyone else provide an acceptable standard.

I model 1:20.3 American narrow gauge circa 1890. This conversation seems to boil down to track gauge as it applies to wheels and also standardizing couplers. So I propose since I model American narrow gauge that we set all the standards to reflect my preference for link and pin and 1:20.3 wheel sets. Not going to happen.

A comprise can and will be made someday. One problem I see compared to other scales is how Large Scale has gone. There isn’t one scale there is one gauge and scale was adjusted. So wheels are different sizes, couplings different sizes etc. In HO it was one scale 1:87 and if you wanted to model narrow gauge you chose a different gauge track such as N or hand laid your own. That way wheels were the right size and couplers were too. How can you develop standards when there is such a radical difference in scales. 1:20.3 (or larger) down to 1:32.

The consumer will drive this. And Kevin you did the only thing you can do as a consumer and hobbyist, use your money at the store and your expertise with the standardizing committee.

Now I realize I speak in generalization and I have no expertise but it not rocket science to see that unless WE agree the manufactures never will.

#71

Yes Kevin, broken links, in fact the NMRA seems determined to keep changing stuff around so I can’t reference it for more than a year…

Sort of like Russian history books…

No, I don’t agree making deeper flanges is good, and it’s a common misconception that these deep flanges keep the trains on the tracks… remember that was what people thought in HO and that the RP-25 wheels would never work because how much smaller the flanges are.

Deep flanges are a half-way crutch to address or mitigate other trackwork and wheel issues.

Like duct tape instead of fixing it right.

And Devon, I disagree that because everyone on this thread cannot agree that we can never have standards.

We need to follow the proven model of HO, buy the product that works, complain to the manufacturers when they don’t make what we want, and demand better operation, not toys only sold in Costco.

Greg

#72

So, if 2mm deep flanges are “tough for almost anyone” by your own description, but 3mm is too deep, what’s your ideal flange depth? And since you’re talking about the difference of only 1mm, doesn’t that border on splitting hairs?

I’m with you–I think the emphasis in garden railroad construction should be on smooth trackwork so that semi-scale (2mm-ish) flanges can work reliably. One of my cabooses rides on Rich Yoder trucks, which have a very scale-looking flange. (I’ll have to measure it later, but they’re the smallest I run.) With the stock springs, the trucks were virtually rigid and would walk off the rails at the slightest bump. I replaced the springs with softer ones so the sides were properly equalized, and it runs around my line no problem. Absolutely it’s possible–it just takes a great deal of diligence.

I should note that the NMRA’s RP-25 wheel profile is represented in the S-4.2 “Standard” standards. For large scale, that’s the 1.68mm flange depth which you described as “ludicrous.”

Unfortunately, there’s an inherent difference between indoor railroads where the track is laid on a solid foundation and outdoors where it often is not. Indoors with solid foundations, you can use proto:## wheel profiles in large scale without a whole lot of worry. Alas, many garden railroads are laid on piles of crushed stone, mulch, or even just out in the grass. There’s no such thing as a “solid roadbed” in those circumstances. Heck, even going from carpet to tile flooring causes bumps and twists under the Christmas tree.

For those whose track is in that good of condition to allow semi-scale flanges, there are the “Standard” standards which folks can apply to their railroads. For those whose trackwork is a little less “ideal;” whose trucks cannot be equalized; whose locomotives have long rigid wheelbases, you need the deeper flanges to keep things on the track in such uneven environments. They are–for better or for worse–a necessary evil. Thankfully, however, experience has demonstrated that they need not be near as deep as once believed and practiced. And those smaller “deep” flanges are what are described in S-4.3.

Later,

K

#73

Kevin,

Which LS mfg delivers out of the box items (engines and cars) with wheel sets that conform to a published standard. No approximations need apply!

#74

Devon Sinsley said:

A comprise can and will be made someday. One problem I see compared to other scales is how Large Scale has gone. There isn’t one scale there is one gauge and scale was adjusted. So wheels are different sizes, couplings different sizes etc. In HO it was one scale 1:87 and if you wanted to model narrow gauge you chose a different gauge track such as N or hand laid your own. That way wheels were the right size and couplers were too. How can you develop standards when there is such a radical difference in scales. 1:20.3 (or larger) down to 1:32.

Devon I don’t believe the obvious has ever been brought into this discussion. We hint at different scales , but holler that the different manufacturers equipment doesn’t play well with others. And at the same time most talk of how ridiculous 1/20th pieces look running with 1/29th pieces, running with 1/24th equipment.Now though each manufacturer uses a different scale (please don’t get your panties in an uproar here gent’s, I know some make multiple scales)everyone want’s them to play together even though these same people only run certain equipment because of scale.

You can’t have both! If you want scale appearence in your equipment you can’t put an Aristo couple on a Spectrum boxcar and think it will look right.

Standards are needed, but you have to fight for realistic goals.

#75

Dave, I don’t disagree with you, but this was attempted a while back. Remember the Alphabet Soup Proposal the NMRA floated maybe 5-6 years ago? It was so complicated it couldn’t gain traction.

I think the NMRA is on the right path now by concentrating on wheels and track. Couplers and coupler height are where the scale really gets in the way.

#76

Yes Dave, right on the money.

Even if it may sound elitist, if one doesn’t know what one wants or wants to have everything running together, it’s best to reinvent one’s very own scale and standard. And take his/her chances without complaining.

#77

Why I try my best to stay out of this and others John.

There are answers and some have been shown on this thread. Again. But until ALL aspects of a problem are included in a conversation, you can’t get very close to a solution. Nor can you even hope to get a company to change their methods if you can’t present them with a viable solution.

If I make 1/23.476 scale equipment and have a good market why should I change my operations to give a portion of my sales to a company that makes 1/30 scale stuff? It’s business to them. Give them a money making solution and they will change

And you acknowledgement should be directed to Devon, Hans> I was using his posting.

#78

Greg Elmassian said:

Yes Kevin, broken links, in fact the NMRA seems determined to keep changing stuff around so I can’t reference it for more than a year…

Sort of like Russian history books…

No, I don’t agree making deeper flanges is good, and it’s a common misconception that these deep flanges keep the trains on the tracks… remember that was what people thought in HO and that the RP-25 wheels would never work because how much smaller the flanges are.

Deep flanges are a half-way crutch to address or mitigate other trackwork and wheel issues.

Like duct tape instead of fixing it right.

And Devon, I disagree that because everyone on this thread cannot agree that we can never have standards.

We need to follow the proven model of HO, buy the product that works, complain to the manufacturers when they don’t make what we want, and demand better operation, not toys only sold in Costco.

Greg

OK I Greg then I want the standard to be 1:20.3 scale wheels and link and pin couplers standard. That wont look funny at all on a 1:32 diesel.

How are you ever going to standardize it? I really don’t see how. lets drop the link and pin for a moment. A 1:32 knuckle coupler will look microscopic on a 1:20.3 train. Where lies the compromise.

Don’t get me wrong I think a standard is a noble goal but when nothing in the industry is standard what do you do? I can see coming to a agreed upon back to back spacing and maybe a coupler height, maybe a coupler pocket size, but in the end any decision will be a comprise that wont make all of the people happy all of the time.

That is obvious to me just in this thread.

You really can’t use other SCALES as an example because we are not a single scale. We are a single gauge (that’s a generalization I know) with at least what 4 or 5 representative scales not including the fringes. That’s throwing out guys like me who want to be period/prototype correct with things like link and pin.

I think in my short time in the large scale end of things this is a group of individuals who are very specific in their desires and definition of right.

#79

Dave,

Maybe the reason I am so genius in my observation is because i am new to the debate. Fresh eyes maybe. One of the things I love about large scale is its variety, the very thing that cripples it. I honestly had very little desire to model narrow gauge in HO because lets face it n scale running gear on an HO locomotive just never did it for me. I gravitated to Large scale because I heard about Fn3 a scale tailor made for 3 foot gauge. It happened to be on a track that some other guys used but who cares it was a scale all to myself.

I guess maybe I am one of those people who will fall on the side of the fence of “we don’t need no stinking standards”. Now since we do all use the same track (ha ya right, code 215, 250, 332 is that right)I can see that and since we all use the same track I can see having a standard track profile and wheel spacing and flange profile. I might even forgo wanting code 215 if something else becomes standard.

Beyond that I guess we build to suit our needs and bring zip ties to the club meeting.

#80

…and then, while describing “Track” and standards there in…we must remember the difference between “Track” and “Rail”

Rail is only one of the components of Track, another is Ties…each has standards of its own…