Re: NMRA Standards and the Need for Revisions

Roger Miener <Roger.Miener@...>

Schuyler G Larrabee says ...

Discussion is happening and progress is reputedly being made.
Roger Meiner also has been seen lurking around the Proto87 list.
Maybe he'd
like to comment here?
Eh, well, er, Roger Miener (Note, it's "Mie" and "Mei") is about to

Ergo, as to the NMRA thing, I can confirm that discussion is in fact
happening and, the last I heard, progress is indeed being made.

Proto:87 is not a standard to replace the present NMRA standard. It
is a standard that is an alternative to the present standard. It is a
coherent set of dimensions for wheel and rail. I'll say it again -
*wheel and rail*. You have to specify the dimensions of both in order
for Proto:87 to work.

You can decide to do Proto:87, or not. It is up to you. However, if
you do decide to do Proto:87, then the Proto:87 standards for wheel
and rail are intended to give you a coherent set of dimensions that
work well together. No dropping into the gap at frogs - even at
number 12 or number 20 frogs - OK? And, there is no need to fill the
flangeways at the frog with solder. Mike Brock loves that part.

Proto:87 is a whole new world. You really need to see how gorgeous
the track looks, and by that I mean the turnouts, crossovers and slip
switches. Proto:87 track looks like the real thing, and well it
should. Proto:87 track is a virtually spot-on scale reduction of the
real thing. It is cool. It is also big.

Absent some weird circumstance, there are no 18" or 24" radius curves
in Proto:87. The current NMRA standards are designed to accommodate
such sharp curves. That is why the current NMRA standards are so
popular. As for Proto:87? No way! Real is real -- And 18" and 24"
radii in HO scale are not real!

Look around your basement or attic. Think about what you want to
accomplish in the available space. It is not an easy choice to make.

Roger Miener
at Tacoma WA

Join to automatically receive all group messages.