|
Wheel and Track Standards Last Post 19 Dec 2009 04:15 AM by samevans. 130 Replies. | Sort: |
East Broad Top
Moderator
Foreman
Send Message
Posts:1600
 | | 23 Oct 2009 12:43 AM |
| PrefaceAbout two years ago, the NMRA put forth a proposal for large scale wheel and track standards. A copy of that proposal made its way into my inbox for me to look over. I read over what they had proposed, and found it quite out of line with what the large scale community had been doing. I drafted a letter to the NMRA expressing my concerns, going further to question the NMRA's involvement in large scale, given the perceived mutual exclusivity of the two communities. I was expecting a "thanks for your note" response at the most; more to the point, I was fully expecting to be completely ignored. Instead, the NMRA asked me to work with them, even to take a leadership role in the process. I could hardly justify turning them down, so I agreed to take on what had up to this point proven to be a very quixotic task. The ProcessOver the next year or so, I gathered information on what standards currently existed (G1MRA, MOROP), as well as measured wheels and track to see who was doing what, and how they compared to those standards. I talked to manufacturers and and others who have been involved in this process in years past to get their perspective. The goal was to come up with a set of standards tight enough to where trains would stay on the rails, but loose enough so that they allow for smooth operation of most of the models already being produced. Together with Gary Raymond, the NMRA's technical coordinator for large scale, and input from others in the large scale community along the way, we drew up three "levels" of standards for large scale, tailored to match the NMRA's standards format. Once we had our numbers put together, we took them to Didrik Voss and Ed McCamey, who head the NMRA's standards committee. (Forgive me if I'm getting the exact titles wrong.) Didrik and Ed took the numbers we came up with, and ran them through a series of mathematical equations that check for incompatibilities (i.e., wheels wider than track, etc.), and came back to us with their results. With just a little adjustment here and there (in most cases, no more than .002") we finally agreed on a set of numbers that should provide a solid foundation for large scale wheel and track. The Proposal What it does: The proposal establishes a single wheel and track standard for all of the principle scales that run on gauge 1 (45mm) track. This includes scales from 1:32 to 1:20.3. The thought process there being that trains of all those scales are inherently designed to run on the same track, therefore a single standard regardless of scale would ensure maximum compatibility. The proposal does allow for a fair amount of flexibility in terms of tread width, flange width, and flange depth so that a manufacturer of 1:20.3 trains can develop a wheel profile suitable for that scale, while leaving the 1:32 manufacturer free to use a wheel profile with a more scale appearance for that particular scale and still be compliant. The proposal establishes two basic standards, a "standard" profile and a "hi-rail" profile. The only difference between those two standards is with regard to flange width and depth. The "hi-rail" standard allows for deeper and thicker flanges than the "standard" standard. Manufacturers are already building wheels that fall into the specs for both of these standards, and run successfully in the garden, so there's no worries about one being "too finescale" for outdoor use. There is no difference in track standards between the two sets of numbers. The numbers in the proposal closely mirror certain G1MRA standards which have become common practice in large scale (such as a target back-to-back spacing of 1.575"), but tolerances have been loosened here and there to accommodate legacy products, such as older locomotives with much tighter back-to-back spacing or deeper wheel flanges. These legacy dimensions may exist outside the specifications, but the track standards are designed such that they should still operate smoothly.
What it does not do:
The proposal makes no attempt to individually identify any of the scales in the 1:32 to 1:20.3 range so far as wheels and track are concerned. Historically, the notion of individually identifying each of the various scales has never caught on, so the committee decided there was no point in doing something that was going to be completely ignored anyway. Instead, they are all grouped under the generic "LS" heading. One set of numbers, one overall classification. ("Fn3" is singled out in the Proto specifications, not covered by this proposal.) This proposal also does not directly specify standards for 7/8" scale (2' gauge on 45mm track) or 1:20.3 (F) Standard gauge (70.6mm gauge), though recommendations for those scales are mentioned in the footnotes.
This proposal also does not address anything above the wheels and track relative to large scale. It doesn't set coupler heights, interfaces, operational protocols, or anything of that nature. It is singularly aimed at the interface of the wheel and rail.
My Editorial Comments I expect the immediate reaction to this proposal by some members of the large scale community will be that it's viewed as an intrusion on large scale by a group that has "no business" messing around with us. Certainly previous attempts by the NMRA have resulted in numbers that clearly did not reflect the needs nor practices of the large scale community. I believe this time is different. The NMRA really changed their way of thinking relative to these standards. It was a bit of a tough row to hoe in the beginning, but our discussions over the past two years have opened a lot of eyes (mine included) as to how each community works. They really let go of a lot of control in this process. This proposal is in no way "them" telling "us" how to do things. These standards are fundamentally based on "our way of thinking," but presented in a format that meshes with the NMRA's standards format. Ultimately, the end result is the same--workable standards to which manufacturers current and future can refer when developing new products, ensuring our trains--past, present, and future have the best shot at staying on the rails.
In Closing
I know there's a fair amount of anti-NMRA sentiment in large scale. In fact, it was my own biases against the NMRA that got me involved in the process. I would not have spent 2 years working on this if I felt it wasn't going to help the hobby. I don't care which letters are at the top of the sheet of paper, the concept of a set of numbers to which manufacturers can look to establish a baseline for their products will ultimately be a good thing for all of us. We've all spent too much time trouble-shooting switches and re-gauging wheels for us not to recognize the need for some sense of agreement. The manufacturers have been marching there--slowly--if only because we complain when things don't stay on the track. This proposal serves as a guide, reinforcing the direction that many of these manufacturers have gone, and hopefully providing a bit of incentive for others to join along. Later, K
| | 
Tuscarora Railroad Blog
Friends of the East Broad Top |
|
|
ralphbrades
Brakeman
Send Message
Posts:354
| | 23 Oct 2009 01:16 AM |
| QUOTE: Together with Gary Raymond, the
NMRA's technical coordinator for large scale, and input from others in
the large scale community along the way, we drew up three "levels" of
standards for large scale, tailored to match the NMRA's standards
format. Once we had our numbers put together, we took them to Didrik
Voss and Ed McCamey, who head the NMRA's standards committee. (Forgive
me if I'm getting the exact titles wrong.) Didrik and Ed took the
numbers we came up with, and ran them through a series of mathematical
equations that check for incompatibilities (i.e., wheels wider than
track, etc.), and came back to us with their results. UNQUOTE: Forgive my curiosity... WHAT Equations did they use and WHERE did they source them from ? Just a simple question from an EU citizen and non NMRA member... | | 
The Home of Articulated Ugliness | |
| East Broad Top
Moderator
Foreman
Send Message
Posts:1600
| | 23 Oct 2009 01:24 AM |
| They're listed on the proposal--a series of 9 or so equations using various dimensions. They're essentially basic tests to make sure that things like the back to back spacing between the wheels is wider than the guard rails, the flanges are narrower than the flangeways, things of that nature.
Later,
K | |
Tuscarora Railroad Blog
Friends of the East Broad Top | |
| altterrain
Foreman
Send Message
Posts:1179
| | 23 Oct 2009 02:02 AM |
|
Posted By East Broad Top on 23 Oct 2009 12:43 AM
I know there's a fair amount of anti-NMRA sentiment in large scale.
Why should that be, when they won't even acknowledge 7/8's scale modelers? -Brian
| | President of
 | |
| ralphbrades
Brakeman
Send Message
Posts:354
| | 23 Oct 2009 04:50 AM |
| Since I have invited the NMRA via their representative to explain
and document the validity and source of their formulae use for the
generation of their tabled data. I think it meaningful and worthwhile
to the discussion to examine the data tables and formulae that I have
used to: design and built my own locomotives, and trackwork... http://www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/mls/HG/ The source volume is (of course), "Model Railways, Their Design, Details, and Practical Construction" by Henry Greenly Associate of the Institute of Locomotive Engineers. I have the 1924 Edition published by Messrs Cassel.
Note: this volume being over 75 years old is thus out of Copyright. | |
The Home of Articulated Ugliness | |
| ralphbrades
Brakeman
Send Message
Posts:354
| | 23 Oct 2009 04:53 AM |
| Having consulted the document at high resolution -would you like to indicate WHERE the formulae may be found? | |
The Home of Articulated Ugliness | |
| Steve Stockham
1st Class Member
Foreman
Send Message
Posts:1224
| | 23 Oct 2009 07:18 AM |
| I applaud your efforts Kevin! As you can see though, even something as straightforward as wheel standards (without anything else added) is going to have to be able to defend itself and the process by which it came about! Ralph's question is an excellent illustration of the need for the NMRA to document everything in the process if we are to get beyond the mistrust and acrimony (and not just about wheel standards!) Again, thanks for your efforts as it was going to take someone from our side with some clout to actually convince the powers that be (and to work with them) to get the process started! | |  | |
| East Broad Top
Moderator
Foreman
Send Message
Posts:1600
| | 23 Oct 2009 09:28 AM |
| Ralph, the pertinent equations are the "relationship tests" located immediately under the standards located on page 2 and 4 of the draft proposal. As for any other mathematical formulae used to derive these numbers, there are none. We didn't go at this from a theoretical perspective. We went from the perspective of what has already been demonstrated over the years to work, (and not work) and built from there. Greenly didn't have the advantage of decades of practical experience to draw upon when he did his work. We do, and it's decidedly to our advantage. We know what works, and can look at physical examples of why it does (and why it does not). Presumably, G1MRA likely based their standards on the work of Mr. Greenly, and since these standards are at least partially based on G1MRA, we are--by extension--building upon his formulae as well. When you compare Greenly's numbers to what is in this proposal, you'll find them remarkably similar.
Later,
K | |
Tuscarora Railroad Blog
Friends of the East Broad Top | |
| Dougald
1st Class Member
Brakeman
Send Message
Posts:766
| | 23 Oct 2009 10:21 AM |
| I too applaud your effort Kevin. Large scale is where HO was 60 years ago. I do not hear any lamenting the good old pre standards days amongst HOers though there were plenty of naysayers at the time. The NMRA, despite its shortcomings with large scale, is still the best positioned organization to deal with standards in North America. So carry on and yes there will be naysayers especially those who would not accept a standard with the NMRA logo on just because it has the logo. But some patience and perseverance on your part may finally see this thing through. Regards ... Doug | | 
Doug Matheson
Manotick Ontario
SA #122 | |
| Dr G
1st Class Member
Brakeman
Send Message
Posts:235
| | 23 Oct 2009 11:09 AM |
| Kevin,
Great work. I am a ex-HO scale convert and I must agree with Doug's comments, I do not lament the "good old days"--the more manufacturers make their equipment adhere to NMRA standards the better it runs. They are far from perfect--that horrid X2F standard HO coupler from my childhood is a great example, but it is a place to start.
I personally appriciate the great amount of work you have done and look forward to some kind of standard. Maybe even an NMRA standards guage--it was a godsend in my HO days in making sure everything ran well. If it don't run well, it aint no fun!!!!
And for me this is all about fun.
Besides, if the nay-sayers hate the idea of NMRA standards so much--why can't they just ignore them?
Regards,
Matt | | 
Matt--FEC Nut
http://www.fecrs.com/ | |
| Greg Elmassian
1st Class Member
Engineer
Send Message
Posts:5741
| | 23 Oct 2009 11:17 AM |
| At first review, this looks a whole lot better. Making sure you execute the relationship tests is vital, and it is very welcome, since the previous approved standards did NOT work in some cases.
I'll look forward to examining them in more detail, and I will experiment by implementing them if I find no glaring errors.
Thank you for your perseverance, I only know too well the frustrations and work it takes to get something like this done. Maybe I will be re-inspired to work on the standard electrical interface again...
Regards, Greg | |  Be sure to visit my site, lots of technical tips and modifications, and you can search for topics and key words.
Click here for Greg's web site
PLEASE NOTE: I have disabled private messages. Please use regular email greg@elmassian.com | |
| ralphbrades
Brakeman
Send Message
Posts:354
| | 23 Oct 2009 11:54 AM |
| Well thank you... That explains why I could not find them -they are not there. What is there is -is a box with a number in it. QUOTE: Ralph, the pertinent
equations are the "relationship tests" located immediately under the
standards located on page 2 and 4 of the draft proposal. UNQUOTE:
The following is quite possibly the most damning statement attached to any proposal I have ever read.
QUOTE: As for any other mathematical formulae used to derive these numbers, there are none. UNQUOTE: The following statement I had to read slowly several times before the full impact resulted.
QUOTE: Greenly didn't
have the advantage of decades of practical experience to draw upon when
he did his work. We do, and it's decidedly to our advantage. We know
what works, and can look at physical examples of why it does (and why
it does not). UNQUOTE:
The last statement I think sums up everything.... QUOTE:
When you compare Greenly's numbers to what is in this proposal, you'll find them remarkably similar. UNQUOTE: Yes, the numbers from 1924 and 2009 are very similar and after 2 years work the question you and the NMRA never asked each other is -WHY?
regards ralph
| |
The Home of Articulated Ugliness | |
| Greg Elmassian
1st Class Member
Engineer
Send Message
Posts:5741
| | 23 Oct 2009 12:51 PM |
| Maybe I'm just stupid, but when I look at the document, I'm not confused after looking at it. I see a box that says:
#1 0.050 ....
Right below it I see:
#1 Gmin - Bmax - 2Tmax
So relationship test #1 is Gmin - Bmax -2*Tmax ..... no rocket science here.
So the box with a number must be the result... 0.050 .... OK, makes sense, and I can use the numbers for Gmin and Bmax and Tmax and check them for myself.
There is a comment that "ALL tests MUST equal zero or positive" .... OK, the number is positive...
So, I see the formula for the test, I see the variables in the forumula defined, I see the criteria for passing the test, and I see the results of the test.
What's wrong?
Regards, Greg
p.s. I don't know why we want to beat up on Kevin, and I took it as a POSITIVE that the current NMRA results are congruent with another popular existing standard. After years of NMRA being "off track" in large scale, I'm SURELY not going to be upset over progress.
| | Be sure to visit my site, lots of technical tips and modifications, and you can search for topics and key words.
Click here for Greg's web site
PLEASE NOTE: I have disabled private messages. Please use regular email greg@elmassian.com | |
| East Broad Top
Moderator
Foreman
Send Message
Posts:1600
| | 23 Oct 2009 12:53 PM |
| Ralph, look under the boxes with the numbers in them. You'll find things like "#1 Gmin - Bmax - 2Tmax". Those are the equations to which I refer. I just double-checked to make sure I wasn't looking at an earlier copy from my cache. If you're still not seeing them, PM me with your e-mail address and I'll send you my copy. In this example, Gmin is the minimum gauge, Bmax is the back-to-back maximum, and 2T max is twice the flange width. So, what you have is a test to make sure that the minimum gauge specified is always wider than the maximum back-to-back plus the width of the two flanges. In this case, the difference is .050", meaning the wheels are gauged narrower than the track, so they'll work just fine. The following is quite possibly the most damning statement attached to any proposal I have ever read.
QUOTE:
As for any other mathematical formulae used to derive these numbers, there are none. I'm a bit confused by your requirements for additional mathematical formulae. The numbers are derived from a compilation of data physically gathered from a variety of wheelsets and existing standards. The "math" involved comes from looking at that data, determining where the averages lie (no real "formula" involved, just looking at numbers and determining statistical groupings), and what--based on practical experience--would happen should those variables be changed. The latter part requires physical experimentation more so than mathematical theory. That's why we took the approach we did. We also had to contend with legacy products which simply have to be relatively compatible. No manufacturer I talked to through this process would remotely consider adopting standards which rendered their current production incompatible. One can crunch all the numbers he wants to develop the "perfect" wheel profile--if the manufacturers aren't going to play ball, what's the point? You got to come up with what works "best" given the constraints put on the system. Yes, the numbers from 1924 and 2009 are very similar and after 2 years work the question you and the NMRA never asked each other is -WHY? I would think that the fact that the same numbers were derived from two different approaches would only go to prove the ultimate validity of those numbers. Our practical research reinforces Greenly's writings of 80+ years ago. There's no need to ask "why." The "why" would have to be asked if the numbers were vastly different. I look at the correlation and think "we done good." Later, K | |
Tuscarora Railroad Blog
Friends of the East Broad Top | |
| DrG
Passenger
Send Message
Posts:17
| | 23 Oct 2009 03:45 PM |
| Posted By Dr G on 23 Oct 2009 11:09 AM
Kevin,
Great work. I am a ex-HO scale convert and I must agree with Doug's comments, I do not lament the "good old days"--the more manufacturers make their equipment adhere to NMRA standards the better it runs. They are far from perfect--that horrid X2F standard HO coupler from my childhood is a great example, but it is a place to start.
I personally appriciate the great amount of work you have done and look forward to some kind of standard. Maybe even an NMRA standards guage--it was a godsend in my HO days in making sure everything ran well. If it don't run well, it aint no fun!!!!
And for me this is all about fun.
Besides, if the nay-sayers hate the idea of NMRA standards so much--why can't they just ignore them?
Regards,
Matt And, fellow Doctor, ignore them we shall. They have no place in worldwide model railroading, as everyone else uses G1MRA or a derivative. Standards should be just that. We had standards, voted on and approved, but your NMRA once again chose to develop their own standards. If they are successful, with the help of an MLS Moderator, in their invasion of LS, it does not bode well for those in LS.
| | | |
| East Broad Top
Moderator
Foreman
Send Message
Posts:1600
| | 23 Oct 2009 04:49 PM |
| as everyone else uses G1MRA or a derivative Dr.G, therein lies the heart of the issue. If you take the time to compare G1MRA to what we've proposed, there's a LOT of overlap. They're not mutually exclusive, in fact some values are lifted straight out. The key word is--as you say--"derivative." There are obviously some differences, but then most of the LS manufacturers don't adhere to G1MRA, either. If they did, this issue would never have been raised. If they are successful, with the help of an MLS Moderator, in their invasion of LS, it does not bode well for those in LS. Well, thanks for the vote of confidence. I'd like to think I'm doing this for the benefit of large scale, so that since the NMRA is bent on establishing standards, we shape them so they make sense and are reflective of what's actually being used within the community as opposed to the quagmires they've proposed in the past. Later, K | |
Tuscarora Railroad Blog
Friends of the East Broad Top | |
| rlvette
1st Class Member
Brakeman
Send Message
Posts:795
| | 23 Oct 2009 05:17 PM |
| Hi Kevin and thank you for your efforts.
| | | |
| armorsmith
Passenger
Send Message
Posts:132
| | 23 Oct 2009 05:21 PM |
| Kevin,
I fear that Dr G has a bad case of 'Convince a man against his will, he is of the same opinion still!'. A great quote I credit my English grandfather for.
I am too new to LS model railroading to comment on the past, but the future is something I am interested in. I have purchased rolling stock on eBay made by most of the common current and some of the defunct manufacturers, and NONE of the wheel sets are up to ANY standard, including G1MRA. The consistency is entirely hit and miss. My Aristo-Craft cars don't even match the Aristo-Craft gauge....go figure.
Bob C. | | | |
| Del Tapparo
1st Class Member
Brakeman
Send Message
Posts:668
| | 23 Oct 2009 05:48 PM |
| Kevin - This is not a topic I have any real concerns over at the moment, but I do appreciate your efforts to help our hobby. This kind of stuff can be very time consuming with little or no reward, and you won't have agreement on all fronts. But thanks anyway! | | Del Tapparo
Custom Vinyl Lettering & Simple Low Cost Battery Power
www.GScaleGraphics.net | |
| TonyWalsham
1st Class Member
Foreman
Send Message
Posts:1070
| | 23 Oct 2009 06:29 PM |
| I echo the sentiments expressed by Del.
Thank you Kevin.
| | Best wishes,
Tony Walsham
Remote Control Systems. www.rcs-rc.com/
Beltrol Radio Control. www.beltrol-rc.com/
The primary problems of the planet arise not from the poor, for whom education is the answer. They arise from the well educated - for whom self interest is the problem. William Sloane Coffin. | |
| Ray Dunakin
Brakeman
Send Message
Posts:712
| | 23 Oct 2009 06:34 PM |
| Kevin, thanks for taking on this task.
I haven't been in large scale very long but can see the need for standards. I've also seen at least some of the uproar raised over this topic, both past and present. (And I've seen the same thing happen in other hobbies.) You'll never be able to please everyone, and there will always be a few who refuse to be satisfied, for whatever reason.
| | 
http://www.raydunakin.com | |
| SlateCreek
Brakeman
Send Message
Posts:475
| | 23 Oct 2009 06:37 PM |
| I'm glad Kevin has seen some result of his labor to make the "new" standards closer to the "old" ones. The original "new" ones were ... well, not.
That said, I have a question, and I'm not attempting to be conversation provoking here, inflammatory, or to invite the usual people who find it necessary to jump on anything I say with both feet simply because I said it to jump on it with both feet simply because I'm asking it:
Since so many of the people in large scale railroading who care whether there's a standard or not hold the G1MRA standards in such high regard, what would prevent the NMRA from simply adopting them? I mean, certainly, it's great to measure of "how close to G1MRA" the new standards are ... but if G1MRA is "the thing" ... other than being able to say "We're the NMRA and we wrote this... and it is now the law" why would the NMRA reinvent the wheel ... so to speak? What's wrong with the G1MRA standards, that they need to be reinvented?
Secondarily, standards tend to apply to things not yet built. "older locomotives with much tighter back-to-back spacing or deeper wheel flanges," were obviously not built to G1MRA standards, and new locomotives are typically not quite so tight back to back, and have shallower wheel flanges .... why make a new standard to accomodate common practice, if common practice is to not adhere to ANY standard?
My dad used to say "If it's not broken, don't fix it." I commend you for your efforts here, but I want to understand before I make up my mind what I think about it -- why wasn't it feasible to use the existing G1MRA (which again, seems to be what most of the folks here who care about a standard seem to prefer) and necessary to invent a new one that was based on it, close to it, but .... different?
Please do not read any of my questions or discussion here as an attempt to cast aspersions on your efforts. I commend you for trying to work this out, against seemingly insurmountable odds, particularly the proposed set of standards that started you out on this path. I just feel like I need to understand more about what's going on.
Matthew (OV) | | | Visit the Slate Creek Railway website! | |
| East Broad Top
Moderator
Foreman
Send Message
Posts:1600
| | 23 Oct 2009 10:32 PM |
| What's wrong with the G1MRA standards, that they need to be reinvented? Very fair question. While we hold G1MRA to such a high ideal personally, when you analyze the numbers, there's a fair amount of deviation between those standards and what the manufacturers have been using for various aspects of wheel and track construction for quite some time. These deviations have been accepted as "standard practice," despite them being somewhat "off the mark." For instance, standards for flanges under G1MRA are smaller than what's commonly produced by the manufacturers. Since there are manufacturers who insist on producing wheels with deep flanges, we had to relax those standards a bit to accommodate them. Yes, we could have stuck to our guns a bit more in that regard, but the other sad reality is that there are a number of garden railroaders who can't lay track to save their lives. The smaller flanges of G1MRA will definitely work outdoors--history has demonstrated that. However, they require a level of attention to proper construction. If consumers run their trains over roller-coaster track and the trains fall off, it's going to be perceived as the wheels' fault, not the track. They'll go back to the manufacturer and demand deeper flanges so the trains stay on. It doesn't matter that the "true" answer to the question is to build your track correctly. It's far easier to cure the symptom. If we were to simply adopt G1MRA standards, the manufacturers would be equally out of compliance with them as they are G1MRAs in these arenas. As much as we'd love to see G1MRA adopted across the board, it's not a realistic expectation given the marketplace. So, it's better to author the standards to reflect reality as opposed to ideal. why make a new standard to accomodate common practice, if common practice is to not adhere to ANY standard? While there is no adherance to any one single standard, there is at the very least a pattern that can be used as a target. Most of those values are fairly close (or identical) to G1MRA standards, while some are not quite so close. As such, the standards reflect the "best practices" of what's out there, an average of sorts, which happen to fall mostly in line with historically established standards with a few exceptions. I honestly don't know the NMRA's motives for wanting to do standards for large scale beyond the notion that that's what they do--standards for model railroading scales. Dogs dig in the dirt, blue herrons eat fish out of our ponds, the NMRA develops standards. Personally, I don't care which letters are at the top of the standards sheet, so long as there's a mechanism in place for consistency for large scale railroading. I think if manufacturers have a viable benchmark, it's a good thing. Later, K | |
Tuscarora Railroad Blog
Friends of the East Broad Top | |
| Crosshead
Passenger
Send Message
Posts:34
| | 23 Oct 2009 11:06 PM |
| So then in the small scales the NMRA tells manufacturers what size to make models (the "standard") based on good modeling practice, because modelers demand high quality properly scaled models to avoid problems.
In large scale, the manufacturers tell the NMRA what size to make their "standard" based on a perceived lack of modeling practice, because modelers will blame problems on properly scaled models' high quality.
I wonder why the opposite approaches, particularly given the success of HO over the last 50 years.
Richard C | | | |
| parkdesigner
1st Class Member
Passenger
Send Message
Posts:130
| | 23 Oct 2009 11:27 PM |
| Ok - so what I just read boils down to... "our entrance exam is too difficult - make it easier!"  REALLY?!?! Ladies and Gentlemen - welcome to the NMRA's version of Large Scale railroading... the scale of the lowest common denominator... Sheesh! I just don't know - as a MODEL railroader... and with all this... being a part of the National MODEL Railroad Association... how's about we all try - oh... I don't know.... a bit of %&ing MODELING!!!  Yes, we could have stuck to our guns a bit more in that regard, but the other sad reality is that there are a number of garden railroaders who can't lay track to save their lives. Way to fold like a wet noodle... I mean... REALLY?!?!? What you have just told us, Mr. Strong, is that the NMRA has NO HOPE of affecting what the manufacturers produce, or to what level of accuracy... and that the Large Scale hobby, on the whole, cannot support exacting efforts of most any kind, so the answer is to develop standards that are, de facto, already in place, with no enforcement of punitive recourse to those that fail to meet them... and to spend two years doing so. I'm reminded of a quote my father used to say to me... "remember son... if they're riding you out of town on a rail, act like you're leading the parade!" And people wonder why there is such contempt for the NMRA around here... "give us your money, and give us your membership, and we'll do whatever the manufacturers tell us, because if we don't they won't listen to us anyway and we'll appear like the antiquated, inept, impotent organization that we are." Tell me Kevin, how's the Drum Major uniform fit these days? | | | |
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |