Author Topic: Let's Talk About Future Possible NMRA Recommendations  (Read 3428 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

JMaurer1

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1144
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +288
Re: Let's Talk About Future Possible NMRA Recommendations
« Reply #15 on: June 01, 2018, 11:37:41 AM »
+1
It would be great to have (most of) these things 'standardized'... but it won't happen.

The bigger 'problem' here is that all the NMRA does is offer 'suggestions'. They have no way to enforce the 'standards' they already have. They can SAY whatever they want but unless the MFRs actually DO what they suggest, then it's just howling at the wind. And that is even IF the NMRA wanted to make the suggestions and standards. It seems like more often than not, they choose just to take the membership fees and not do much more.

The perfect example here is DCC (what a mess of a 'standard'). Don't get me wrong, I think DCC should have been (and in some ways is) the greatest thing to come to model railroading, but it's supposed to be inexpensive and (most importantly) EASY. Hook two wires up and run as many trains as you want without wiring blocks and doing all kinds of power routing. I remember when it was originally offered up, it was thought that transponders would quickly cost less than $5 and that all MFRs would automatically install them because they were so cheap...just like LED's instead of lights. Now years later transponders still cost $20-$40 each, are not as 'plug and play' as they could be, and still require a computer programming degree to try and make them work (and I do have a computer programming degree and still have to refer to my notes to make a change).

The NMRA offers standards they they hope the MFRs will listen to (but don't have to and sure don't like being told what to do) but until everyone decides to work TOGETHER, it's just words and they don't look like anything is going to change any time soon. Don't mean to be a pessimist, but history has taught me that we learn nothing from history.
Sacramento Valley NRail and NTrak
We're always looking for new members

cjm413

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1470
  • Respect: +145
Re: Let's Talk About Future Possible NMRA Recommendations
« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2018, 12:54:48 AM »
0
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

Lowering an old freight car to make it not look like a monster truck is one way to "refurb" it.

I have yet to see a prototype freight car with stirrups that are high enough from the road bed to require the use of a separate ladder...
« Last Edit: June 02, 2018, 01:07:20 AM by cjm413 »

nkalanaga

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 9623
  • Respect: +1315
Re: Let's Talk About Future Possible NMRA Recommendations
« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2018, 01:56:35 AM »
0
As for Atlas cars sitting too low on MT trucks, most "runners" wouldn't care, as they would keep the Atlas trucks.  The only Atlas cars I've had ride too low, on their own trucks, were the "modern" boxcars, such as the Evans cars.  There the problem was that the body sat too low on the frame, so I added styrene spacers inside.  No change needed to the trucks or frame.
N Kalanaga
Be well

coosvalley

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1405
  • Respect: +639
Re: Let's Talk About Future Possible NMRA Recommendations
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2018, 04:51:22 AM »
+2
Will there even be an NMRA in the future?....

Honestly, it's too late for so called "standards", it's been 50+/- years of MFRs doing what they feel is best. If there was only one axle length, then how would I convert cars I already own that are not the "standard" length, buy new trucks??..We are lucky to be able to upgrade these cars with different sized axle lengths, depending on which is needed..In this case the diversity of what's available to upgrade cars is a good thing.

And seriously, what the heck do you mean by "standards for ballasted track",?   @daniel_leavitt2000 ...

...Is this right? :trollface:


I wrote to the NMRA and asked them to make this the new standard, and told them all N scalers agree too :trollface: :facepalm:

ncbqguy

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 624
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +384
Re: Let's Talk About Future Possible NMRA Recommendations
« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2018, 11:36:01 AM »
+1
I am a big fan of the Marketplace driving excellence over regulation where there can be unintended consequences.

However, there has to be a means of the consumer to make informed decisions.

To this end I support Spookshow-ish side by side comparisons. N-Bahn and other foreign publications used to do and may yet still direct side-by-side reviews.  In the E7 example under discussion they would have the Rico/Con-Cor. Life-Like, and BLI units in three or four identical views along with nearly as possible same perspective and size prototype views.   A table of dimensions of the models and prototype  along with the technical specs of operation completes the review.

The consumer can look at the pictures and specs and decide which model works best for them.

Beyond models, a similar catalogue of track, wheel, and coupler with uniformly measured technical specs would be an invaluable resource. 

Charlie Vlk
« Last Edit: June 02, 2018, 11:39:00 AM by ncbqguy »

cjm413

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1470
  • Respect: +145
Re: Let's Talk About Future Possible NMRA Recommendations
« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2018, 12:28:45 PM »
0
I am a big fan of the Marketplace driving excellence over regulation where there can be unintended consequences.

However, there has to be a means of the consumer to make informed decisions.

To this end I support Spookshow-ish side by side comparisons. N-Bahn and other foreign publications used to do and may yet still direct side-by-side reviews.  In the E7 example under discussion they would have the Rico/Con-Cor. Life-Like, and BLI units in three or four identical views along with nearly as possible same perspective and size prototype views.   A table of dimensions of the models and prototype  along with the technical specs of operation completes the review.

The consumer can look at the pictures and specs and decide which model works best for them.

Beyond models, a similar catalogue of track, wheel, and coupler with uniformly measured technical specs would be an invaluable resource. 

Charlie Vlk

Agreed - some of the best models are the ones that challenged the status quo.

Most N scale gondola models had stirrups that were high enough from the road bed to function as chin-up bars before the ESM G26 and BLMA ACF gons were released.

daniel_leavitt2000

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 6293
  • Respect: +1245
Re: Let's Talk About Future Possible NMRA Recommendations
« Reply #21 on: June 04, 2018, 05:53:52 AM »
0
For all those dying to know what I mean... Roadbed embedded track such as Unitrack or EZtrack. We almost had it for a while. Model Power had a certain of EZtrack on market that was cross compatible but Bachman objected and it was quickly pulled.

I think the Unitrack would be a great standard as I don't think it's patented. Tomix track is largely the same. I could be totally wrong on it

Another contender for a standard would be LL'S power lock system.
There's a shyness found in reason
Apprehensive influence swallow away
You seem to feel abysmal take it
Then you're careful grace for sure
Kinda like the way you're breathing
Kinda like the way you keep looking away

Gozer the Gozerian

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1795
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +1095
Re: Let's Talk About Future Possible NMRA Recommendations
« Reply #22 on: June 04, 2018, 11:42:30 AM »
+1
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.

I an remember being beat over the head with "everyone" wants proper ride heights and everyone demands prototypical accuracy a few years ago.  I used to call it "better modeling through intimidation " LOL  I agree, most N scalers have a pedestrian view of the hobby, they like the cars and they like the decorations and the relaxation the hobby provides.  Some are much more wedded to it.   Still, points made are good to hear and help us as manufacturers work towards making things as scale as possible.


daniel_leavitt2000

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 6293
  • Respect: +1245
Re: Let's Talk About Future Possible NMRA Recommendations
« Reply #23 on: June 04, 2018, 09:22:12 PM »
0
Joe,
Any word yet on when MTL will have the first underslung truck samples out?

I would love to see centered kingpin and offset kingpin as options.
There's a shyness found in reason
Apprehensive influence swallow away
You seem to feel abysmal take it
Then you're careful grace for sure
Kinda like the way you're breathing
Kinda like the way you keep looking away

Gozer the Gozerian

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1795
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +1095
Re: Let's Talk About Future Possible NMRA Recommendations
« Reply #24 on: June 05, 2018, 04:00:23 PM »
0
Joe,
Any word yet on when MTL will have the first underslung truck samples out?

I would love to see centered kingpin and offset kingpin as options.

I'll find out, the test shots look great.

Joe