Let's Talk About Future Possible NMRA Recommendations

[daniel_leavitt2000]

I was swapping metal wheels into some of my cars and was getting a bit tired of measuring the axles on each truck for conversion. Why so many axle lengths? Maybe the NMRA could add a few new Recommended Practices.

1. Standardized axle length. One size fits all, just decide if you want metal or plastic, 33 or 36 inches and proto or wide treads.

2. Standard coupler pocket. Accumate, MTL, EZmate, McHenry. All made to use the same pocket. Just buy the coupler itself, not the boxes.

3. Standard kingpin sizes for both body and truck. No more reaming trucks to fit what you have.

4. Standardized truck bolster height. This would allow us to use any truck we wish and have the car ride at the appropriate height.

5. Standards for ballasted track.

6. Standardized speaker and connections for sound decoders.

What would you like to see?

[mmagliaro]

I appreciate what you are trying to do: make all these components swappable.  But allow me to poke a few holes in the form of physical constraints, in this balloon.

Standardized axle lengths would probably work for every kind of truck until you consider trucks with electrical pickup strips on the insides of the frames with the cone-shaped holes for the axle points.  Axles have to be necessarily shorter to allow those strips to fit inside, without forcing the side frames to get too thin or the wheel treads too narrow.  So I think there would have to be at least two axle lengths in the standard.

I love the idea of standard kingpin sizes.  I have spent a lot of hours in my life custom-making tubes and sleeves to get a truck to fit properly under a car or locomotive tender.

What do you mean by standards for ballasted track?  Standard for "pre" ballasted products like Unitrak?  Or do you mean standards for the way that we use roadbed and ballast?

I'd like to see a standard  for how far the coupler is allowed to stick out past the car body.  I know there are variations on this in real life.  But there surely must be a maximum that should not be exceeded.   This is another place where modelers spend a lot of time pulling trucks or couplers in under bodies to get the rolling stock to close-couple and look realistic, just because the cars aren't made that way and easily could be.   Lots of time spent on repetitive, unsatisfying tasks that do not really stretch one's modeling ability are good things to eliminate with standards.

[cjm413]

I was swapping metal wheels into some of my cars and was getting a bit tired of measuring the axles on each truck for conversion. Why so many axle lengths? Maybe the NMRA could add a few new Recommended Practices.

1. Standardized axle length. One size fits all, just decide if you want metal or plastic, 33 or 36 inches and proto or wide treads.

2. Standard coupler pocket. Accumate, MTL, EZmate, McHenry. All made to use the same pocket. Just buy the coupler itself, not the boxes.

3. Standard kingpin sizes for both body and truck. No more reaming trucks to fit what you have.

4. Standardized truck bolster height. This would allow us to use any truck we wish and have the car ride at the appropriate height.

5. Standards for ballasted track.

6. Standardized speaker and connections for sound decoders.

What would you like to see?

#3 - 2-56 flathead screw

[nkalanaga]

#2:  Very easy.  Just make sure your box has the MT notches in it.  The other three all work in plain boxes, so are already interchangeable.

#4:  Basically we already have a "standard", with two options.  Almost all older models, and many new ones, use the 1960s standard, including MT's replacement trucks.  Some newer models use the lower, more prototypical, bolster height, originally set by BLMA(?).  Between the two, one can find a replacement truck for almost any car, and, by using the low-bolster trucks on a high-bolster car, lower the car (if needed) with a lot less work.

As long as companies stick to one of the standards, trucks will be interchangeable.

[jpwisc]

I’m also curious what you mean by standards for ballasted track. There seem to be too many variables here. Is it all supposed to look like fresh Class 1 mainline or rural branch line sidings?

Or are you saying Unitrak should be able to plug right into Bachmann snap track and so on?

[MetroRedLine]

Who are you kidding? The NMRA doesn't care about N scale! They are an HO-centric organization!

[ncbqguy]

The NMRA was founded by 3Ms ....Modelers, Manufacturers, and Magazine people.   Manufacturers dropped out of active participation with the X2f coupler debacle and magazines left as they hired journalists over Model Railroaders.
The NMRA Technical Standards people want to be a combination of Underwriters Lab and Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval grantors.   They are also hamstrung by the way the NMRA is set up which requires a huge vote of the membership to enact standard changes.
Without the participation of the factories and importers no company is going to let a bunch of ametuers design their products.   I sat in on the DCC committee and saw it dissolve because of NMRA politics and competing commercial interests.  I don’t see any possibility of standardization on the points mentioned and while it might be nice if they were standardized we got bigger problems in N....like really good Code 55 and smaller realistic rugged operational turnouts.
Charlie Vlk

[nkalanaga]

"like really good Code 55 and smaller realistic rugged operational turnouts."

Suggestion for that:  Roadbed track, with the roadbed matching the thickness of cork roadbed.  No need for ballast, or a ballast shoulder, just a slab under the ties.  That would provide enough strength to avoid bending for code 40, or smaller, rail, while still allowing the purchaser to match the ballast on their other track.  For those who don't use cork (like me), a standard thickness would make it fairly easy to notch our roadbed, or route out a flat surface such as a yard, and get the track at the proper height.

A basic turnout would be just that, a more-or-less solid slab, possibly with holes for feeders to power the frog.  A more advanced one could have a microswitch in the base, activated by the throwbar, which would power the frog automatically.  It might even be possible to build a smaller-than-current groundthrow and/or switch stand that could be plugged into either side, making it a manual switch without any fancy linkages.

[OldEastRR]

#4:  Basically we already have a "standard", with two options.  Almost all older models, and many new ones, use the 1960s standard, including MT's replacement trucks.  Some newer models use the lower, more prototypical, bolster height, originally set by BLMA(?).  Between the two, one can find a replacement truck for almost any car, and, by using the low-bolster trucks on a high-bolster car, lower the car (if needed) with a lot less work.

Except not. On at least some newer Atlas cars (the 1944 AAR box and others like it), there's a very narrow rim on the bolsters. MTL trucks have a wider kingpin hole than that rim, so they sit farther up into the frame. Which means the car sits really low. I had to use the MTL washers on the pins to hold the frame up higher.
And how far the couplers stick out: yes. Among others, Atlas falls into the "sticks out a mile" category, with their "two-way" trucks that can fit either a Rapido or Accumate coupler. Because God forbid they neglect the ever-burgeoning crowd of Rapido coupler users and the hordes that love removing truck couplers and putting on body mounts. I guess Atlas is determined not to let Rapido couplers fade away. But look on the bright side -- with 4-6 feet between cars you can have long trains without buying lots of cars!!!

[cjm413]

Except not. On at least some newer Atlas cars (the 1944 AAR box and others like it), there's a very narrow rim on the bolsters. MTL trucks have a wider kingpin hole than that rim, so they sit farther up into the frame. Which means the car sits really low. I had to use the MTL washers on the pins to hold the frame up higher.
And how far the couplers stick out: yes. Among others, Atlas falls into the "sticks out a mile" category, with their "two-way" trucks that can fit either a Rapido or Accumate coupler. Because God forbid they neglect the ever-burgeoning crowd of Rapido coupler users and the hordes that love removing truck couplers and putting on body mounts. I guess Atlas is determined not to let Rapido couplers fade away. But look on the bright side -- with 4-6 feet between cars you can have long trains without buying lots of cars!!!

Nobody "loves" removing truck couplers and putting on body mounts.  It's the feeling of disgust when looking at a car that's been jacked-up like a monster truck to accommodate a pair of toy choo choo trucks that compels us to do this

[nscalbitz]

Nobody "loves" removing truck couplers and putting on body mounts.  It's the feeling of disgust when looking at a car that's been jacked-up like a monster truck to accommodate a pair of toy choo choo trucks that compels us to do this

For purists maybe.
Modelling is modelling no matter the extent.
Some of us just use old stuff and refurb it, so the 'purism' of exact ride heights may not be an issue where one has never experienced the symptom in real life.

I'd like my 'oldie' gons to stay on the rails (without a weighted fake load in them) so do try to add weight in an appropriate manner.
FWIW, davew

[peteski]

For purists maybe.
Modelling is modelling no matter the extent.
Some of us just use old stuff and refurb it, so the 'purism' of exact ride heights may not be an issue where one has never experienced the symptom in real life.

I agree. There are probably 1 or 2 percent of N scale modelers who care how high the car rides, how the couplers are installed, and how wide are the gaps between boards of a reefer car.  Great majority of N scale modelers do not worry about these things - they just buy their models and run them (unmodified) on their average-quality layouts without worrying too much about prototypical accuracy.  As long as these models reliably stay on tracks and stay coupled, they are perfectly happy.

[nkalanaga]

Part of the reason for Atlas keeping the dual-mode coupler boxes is economic:  Changing them would require at least some retooling, which can get VERY expensive.  If the molds are ever damaged, or when they wear out, we'll probably see Accumate-only boxes with closer coupling.

And, as Peteski said, for many modelers, it really doesn't matter.  Those who are more interested in running trains than photographing, or critiquing, them, probably don't care.  After all, there are some very nice O scale layouts still using "toy train" track and wheels.

In many cases, I don't care, but for another reason.  Replacing the truck-mounted Accumates with body-mounted MTs, usually 1025s, gives me a free supply of Accumates, which can go into homemade extended draft gear.

[OldEastRR]

Maybe so, but what I was seeing was the Atlas cars riding too low, in fact such that the trunks were hitting underbody detail and thus derailing. Unless derailing is just a preference some railroaders want, I'd say really low-riding cars are a negative.
Maybe simply running the trains is all some people need, but still I have to think when they see two cars supposedly the same prototype but one rides way lower (or higher) than the other, or some boxcars whose doors match evenly with a loading dock and others are a foot above it, or looking at a train down its length and the lower edges of the sides of gons and boxes make an up and down line instead of one common height,  you really have to notice that that's not how real life trains look.  You can argue whether that means anything or not, but they'd certainly have to notice the difference.

[peteski]

Maybe so, but what I was seeing was the Atlas cars riding too low, in fact such that the trunks were hitting underbody detail and thus derailing. Unless derailing is just a preference some railroaders want, I'd say really low-riding cars are a negative.
Maybe simply running the trains is all some people need, but still I have to think when they see two cars supposedly the same prototype but one rides way lower (or higher) than the other, or some boxcars whose doors match evenly with a loading dock and others are a foot above it, or looking at a train down its length and the lower edges of the sides of gons and boxes make an up and down line instead of one common height,  you really have to notice that that's not how real life trains look.  You can argue whether that means anything or not, but they'd certainly have to notice the difference.

They might, but the big question is "would they really care?" I think not since  all those cars seem to sell rather well.  Again, you (and many here on TRW) are very fastidious and prototype-educated modeler(s) - the unwashed N scale masses are not.  Don't worry, I'm on your side here - it is just that it doesn't matter much - the low-fidelity models will keep on being produced for as long as the average modelers keep on buying them.