Date
1 - 20 of 35
Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA
|
Guys,
There is one thing that we could do that would really help all of us - both the MS and LS modelers amongst us. If we would all lobby the NMRA to produce two new standards/recommended practices we can make a lot of this stuff a lot easier. Specifically, if the NMRA would specify a size and placement for the bolster and mounting -pad- for the truck mounts and coupler mounts that is relative to the top of the track and nothing else. Then any manufacturer's truck or coupler box would be a drop in replacement for any other manufacturer's. I will not address other scales, but in HO scale it would be easy to specify that the trucks and coupler boxes will be mounted with a single 2-56 screw thru a flat level place that is a specific distance from the top of the track. I am also certain that the same thing can be done in other scales ... I just don't know what size screw to recommend. I'm not focused on the specific size of the screw - I just picked 2-56 because it works for HO from my perspective. Please note that I am specifically not recommending that the NMRA specify stuff like the size and shape of the coupler box itself - only the size and shape of the place on the car that it mounts to and the size screw that will go thru it. If all cars were built to this spec/RP then changing out any brand coupler or truck with any other would be a snap - and the NMRA would also get itself out of the way of the manufacturers in terms of saying any thing about the shape and design of the couplers and trucks. Yes, this would mean that the bolsters of some trucks might not be 100% prototypical in terms of size and shape - but all of that would be way up underneath the car where it doesn't matter and the stuff that you can see when the car is finished and on the track would be able to be as prototypically correct as the maker of the truck or coupler wants to make them. I call this "The level playing field RPs". *G* - Jim in San Jose P.S. Yes, I've sent this in to the NMRA. No, I didn't ever receive anything other than an acknowledgement of the receipt of the email. |
|
|
|
Richard Hendrickson
On Oct 8, 2006, at 9:02 AM, Jim Betz wrote:
Guys,Jim, the only problem with your idea is that the NMRA as an organization is increasingly irrelevant and its standards committee is, in effect, if not in fact, moribund. A number of us tried a decade ago to get the NMRA to address the issue of new coupler and wheel standards when it became obvious that semi-scale couplers and wheels were the wave of the future, at least for serious scale modelers, and had the same kind of experience you have had; they wouldn't even respond to our e-mails and phone calls. It's one of the many reasons I dropped out of the NMRA several years ago, and why many others on this list either have given up on NMRA membership or at least have given up hope that the NMRA will do anything useful. For what it's worth most of the manufacturers I work with will say privately, and some will say publicly, that they regard the NMRA standards as an increasingly bad joke. There is at present no organization which can formulate up-to-date standards for the hobby which the industry will take seriously. Richard Hendrickson |
|
|
|
fair_in_ra
Jim, Establishing a standard for a body bolster would be problematic
at best. The size, style, shape and placement of body bolsters varies widely with the era being modeled. Your idea also assumes that the height of the truck bolster from the rail is uniform, both between manufacturers and the various styles of truck. I use only fully sprung metal trucks. Many of these, such as Central Valley Fox trucks, are nearly 50 years old. The CV Fox bolsters are quite a bit taller than almost any other truck I use, including other CV trucks. Attempting to make body bolsters uniform would be a logistical nightmare. Just my opinion. Mike Farina |
|
|
|
Paul <buygone@...>
Jim:
You have to be careful of what you ask for. You are just liable to get the "X2F" NMRA Coupler back. Paul C. Koehler _____ From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Jim Betz Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 9:02 AM To: STMFC@... Subject: [STMFC] Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA Guys, There is one thing that we could do that would really help all of us - both the MS and LS modelers amongst us. If we would all lobby the NMRA to produce two new standards/recommended practices we can make a lot of this stuff a lot easier. Specifically, if the NMRA would specify a size and placement for the bolster and mounting -pad- for the truck mounts and coupler mounts that is relative to the top of the track and nothing else. Then any manufacturer's truck or coupler box would be a drop in replacement for any other manufacturer's. I will not address other scales, but in HO scale it would be easy to specify that the trucks and coupler boxes will be mounted with a single 2-56 screw thru a flat level place that is a specific distance from the top of the track. I am also certain that the same thing can be done in other scales ... I just don't know what size screw to recommend. I'm not focused on the specific size of the screw - I just picked 2-56 because it works for HO from my perspective. Please note that I am specifically not recommending that the NMRA specify stuff like the size and shape of the coupler box itself - only the size and shape of the place on the car that it mounts to and the size screw that will go thru it. If all cars were built to this spec/RP then changing out any brand coupler or truck with any other would be a snap - and the NMRA would also get itself out of the way of the manufacturers in terms of saying any thing about the shape and design of the couplers and trucks. Yes, this would mean that the bolsters of some trucks might not be 100% prototypical in terms of size and shape - but all of that would be way up underneath the car where it doesn't matter and the stuff that you can see when the car is finished and on the track would be able to be as prototypically correct as the maker of the truck or coupler wants to make them. I call this "The level playing field RPs". *G* - Jim in San Jose P.S. Yes, I've sent this in to the NMRA. No, I didn't ever receive anything other than an acknowledgement of the receipt of the email. |
|
|
|
Tony Thompson
On Oct 8, 2006, at 9:46 AM, Paul Koehler wrote:
You have to be careful of what you ask for. You are just liable to get the "X2F" NMRA Coupler back.True. But please keep in mind that the X2f was NEVER an NMRA standard. It was just the result of a committee design effort, which was NOT adopted. Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA 2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com (510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@... Publishers of books on railroad history |
|
|
|
Tony Thompson
Jim Betz wrote:
If we would all lobby the NMRA to produce two new standards/recommended practices we can make a lot of this stuff a lot easier.In your dreams, Jim. The NMRA is either afraid of liability, or unable to finish any jobs in this area. From what I know, there are NO new standards even contemplated, never mind being worked on. Some of the problem is reportedly the very divisive squabbling over evolving DCC standards, with different manufacturers and their shills unable to agree on compromises, but this is only hearsay. P.S. Yes, I've sent this in to the NMRA. No, I didn't ever receive anything other than an acknowledgement of the receipt of the email.The NMRA generally, and their standards people especially, have as bad a case of NIH as you will ever see. (NIH = Not Invented Here) Outsider suggestions are not, and have not been for years, received with any interest whatsoever. Richard Hendrickson has already related his experience with this, around a decade ago; others on this list could multiply the examples. I should add that I remain an NMRA member, and have worked on a number of regional and national convention committees, as well as many other duties over the years, such as division superintendent and regional contest chair. But in the area of standards, the NMRA's record in the last, say, 20 years makes the Bush administration look competent. Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA 2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com (510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@... Publishers of books on railroad history |
|
|
|
Westerfield <westerfield@...>
Paul - The "NMRA coupler" was never adopted as a standard by the NMRA. Designed by Paul Mallery, it functioned well and was cheap to make at a time when there were real problems with interchange between manufacturers' kits. However, at just about the same time Kadee came out with their product which became the de facto standard - exept that it was costly and not sold to other manufacturers. The horn hook coupler was instrumental in bringing HO scale to the forefront of the hobby. - Al
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul To: STMFC@... Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 11:46 AM Subject: RE: [STMFC] Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA Jim: You have to be careful of what you ask for. You are just liable to get the "X2F" NMRA Coupler back. Paul C. Koehler _____ From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Jim Betz Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 9:02 AM To: STMFC@... Subject: [STMFC] Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA Guys, There is one thing that we could do that would really help all of us - both the MS and LS modelers amongst us. If we would all lobby the NMRA to produce two new standards/recommended practices we can make a lot of this stuff a lot easier. Specifically, if the NMRA would specify a size and placement for the bolster and mounting -pad- for the truck mounts and coupler mounts that is relative to the top of the track and nothing else. Then any manufacturer's truck or coupler box would be a drop in replacement for any other manufacturer's. I will not address other scales, but in HO scale it would be easy to specify that the trucks and coupler boxes will be mounted with a single 2-56 screw thru a flat level place that is a specific distance from the top of the track. I am also certain that the same thing can be done in other scales ... I just don't know what size screw to recommend. I'm not focused on the specific size of the screw - I just picked 2-56 because it works for HO from my perspective. Please note that I am specifically not recommending that the NMRA specify stuff like the size and shape of the coupler box itself - only the size and shape of the place on the car that it mounts to and the size screw that will go thru it. If all cars were built to this spec/RP then changing out any brand coupler or truck with any other would be a snap - and the NMRA would also get itself out of the way of the manufacturers in terms of saying any thing about the shape and design of the couplers and trucks. Yes, this would mean that the bolsters of some trucks might not be 100% prototypical in terms of size and shape - but all of that would be way up underneath the car where it doesn't matter and the stuff that you can see when the car is finished and on the track would be able to be as prototypically correct as the maker of the truck or coupler wants to make them. I call this "The level playing field RPs". *G* - Jim in San Jose P.S. Yes, I've sent this in to the NMRA. No, I didn't ever receive anything other than an acknowledgement of the receipt of the email. |
|
|
|
Doug Brown <g.brown1@...>
We all have to look at this objectively. A standards body is useful mostly
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
for fine tuning details. Typically several vendors introduce something new with differing designs. In some cases the customer decides the standard with their checkbook. VHS comes to mind. I other cases vendor experts meet as a standard committee to determine the outcome. Most standards are the result of fine tuning a vendor's de facto standard. Standards only work when the vendors see more gain from working together than from fighting each other; or when a powerful interest (government, a major customer, etc.) forces it upon them. In the early years of the NMRA none of the model vendors were large. NMRA standards were welcomed because they made each vendor's products more valuable when they worked together. While they were not perfect for today, they enabled vendors to succeed better. The X2f committee could not come up with the perfect solution. The vendors adopted as a de facto standard because it met their need of something that would work interoperable with other products. It did not meet many modelers' needs. But how many modelers did not buy a model because it did have X2f couplers? Far fewer than those who bought them because they did! P87 and P48 are effective because they are not trying to make everyone do things their way. Standards that benefit only a subset of consumers are fine, but they must be applicable only those who benefit from them. Doug Brown -----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Westerfield Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 2:09 PM To: STMFC@... Subject: Re: [STMFC] Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA Paul - The "NMRA coupler" was never adopted as a standard by the NMRA. Designed by Paul Mallery, it functioned well and was cheap to make at a time when there were real problems with interchange between manufacturers' kits. However, at just about the same time Kadee came out with their product which became the de facto standard - exept that it was costly and not sold to other manufacturers. The horn hook coupler was instrumental in bringing HO scale to the forefront of the hobby. - Al ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul To: STMFC@yahoogroups. <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> com Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 11:46 AM Subject: RE: [STMFC] Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA Jim: You have to be careful of what you ask for. You are just liable to get the "X2F" NMRA Coupler back. Paul C. Koehler _____ From: STMFC@yahoogroups. <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups. <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Jim Betz Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 9:02 AM To: STMFC@yahoogroups. <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: [STMFC] Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA Guys, There is one thing that we could do that would really help all of us - both the MS and LS modelers amongst us. If we would all lobby the NMRA to produce two new standards/recommended practices we can make a lot of this stuff a lot easier. Specifically, if the NMRA would specify a size and placement for the bolster and mounting -pad- for the truck mounts and coupler mounts that is relative to the top of the track and nothing else. Then any manufacturer's truck or coupler box would be a drop in replacement for any other manufacturer's. I will not address other scales, but in HO scale it would be easy to specify that the trucks and coupler boxes will be mounted with a single 2-56 screw thru a flat level place that is a specific distance from the top of the track. I am also certain that the same thing can be done in other scales ... I just don't know what size screw to recommend. I'm not focused on the specific size of the screw - I just picked 2-56 because it works for HO from my perspective. Please note that I am specifically not recommending that the NMRA specify stuff like the size and shape of the coupler box itself - only the size and shape of the place on the car that it mounts to and the size screw that will go thru it. If all cars were built to this spec/RP then changing out any brand coupler or truck with any other would be a snap - and the NMRA would also get itself out of the way of the manufacturers in terms of saying any thing about the shape and design of the couplers and trucks. Yes, this would mean that the bolsters of some trucks might not be 100% prototypical in terms of size and shape - but all of that would be way up underneath the car where it doesn't matter and the stuff that you can see when the car is finished and on the track would be able to be as prototypically correct as the maker of the truck or coupler wants to make them. I call this "The level playing field RPs". *G* - Jim in San Jose P.S. Yes, I've sent this in to the NMRA. No, I didn't ever receive anything other than an acknowledgement of the receipt of the email. |
|
|
|
cj riley <cjriley42@...>
Tony et al,
While I am sympathetic to the NMRA Tech Dept being less than exciting for a few years, the DCC standards (while not perfect) have allowed that important technology to move ahead. I will point out that new Dept head Di Voss is an accomplished engineer and manager and is working hard to clear out dead wood and get things moving again. An example is giving manufacturers the lead in evolving DCC technology, rather than having slow volunteers hold things up. He has been looking at all the standards, recent Scale Rails piece on turnouth non-compliance is an example. Di was chair of the Seattle convention in 94 and is extremely organized, self employed but semi-retired, and is determined to make progress. I suggest anyone with ideas such as this contact Di directly. His email is TECH-CHAIR@.... Challenge him and see what happens. CJ Riley --- Tony Thompson <thompsonmarytony@...> wrote: Jim Betz wrote:If we would all lobby the NMRA to produce two newIn your dreams, Jim. The NMRA is either afraid of liability, or __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com |
|
|
|
Richard Hendrickson
On Oct 8, 2006, at 2:08 PM, cj riley wrote:
I will point out that new Dept head Di Voss is an accomplished engineer andYeah, yeah. Every new standards chairman for the past dozen years has said exactly the same thing, with no significant results. Di was chair of the Seattle convention in 94 and is extremely organized, selfBeen there and done that - several times, in fact. If he's looking for input from expert and highly experienced modelers, he can get plenty of it from subscribers to this and other specialized e-mail lists. But it will be a hard sell if he or anyone else at the NMRA is looking for volunteers; the NMRA's past performance over a period of many years drove most of us away a long time ago. Personally, I consider the standards committee and the NMRA as a whole to be a lost cause, and I'm far from being alone in that belief. I'd gladly be proven wrong, but I don't see the NMRA as having either the resources or the leadership that it would take to reverse their downhill slide into oblivion. The whole organization is fading away like the Cheshire cat. Richard Hendrickson |
|
|
|
Tony Thompson
cj riley wrote:
I will point out that new Dept head Di Voss is an accomplished engineer and manager and is working hard to clear out dead wood and get things moving again.Uh, huh. We hear this with each new head of the "technical" department. If you don't mind, I'll wait and see. If I were the NMRA, I'd say less about the famous DCC standard: it's not only the only thing they've done in standards since about 1960, but even it is the subject of considerable ongoing controversy, most of which is luckily not reaching the public. Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA 2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com (510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@... Publishers of books on railroad history |
|
|
|
Didrik A. Voss <davoss@...>
--- In STMFC@..., Jim Betz <jimbetz@...> wrote:
If we would all lobby the NMRA to produce two newstandards/recommended practices we can make a lot of this stuff a lot easier. If you would like to volunteer in developing a new set of S&RPs, I would be happy to review your work. P.S. Yes, I've sent this in to the NMRA. No, I didn't ever receiveI am still waiting for your email to arrive. What NMRA address did you use when you sent the message? Fortunately, someone forwarded your remarks to me. I have joined this group to address your concerns and suggestions. Remember, the NMRA Technical Dept (now called Standards & Conformance Dept.) is a volunteer organization. I am looking for volunteers to help in updating our S&RPs. Didrik Voss, MMR Director, S&C Dept. NMRA |
|
|
|
Tony Thompson
Didrik A. Voss wrote:
Remember, the NMRA Technical Dept (now called Standards & Conformance Dept.) is a volunteer organization. I am looking for volunteers to help in updating our S&RPs.You have our best wishes, Didrik, but you will find a lot of people with a pretty uphill track on taking the S&C department seriously until it actually does something, and actually takes volunteers or outside ideas seriously. The NMRA has been kind of "crying wolf" on how great the S&C program was GOING to be, for some years now, and unfortunately you will have to build something high enough to hide all that history. Just my opinion as a long-time (and present) NMRA member. Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA 2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com (510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@... Publishers of books on railroad history |
|
|
|
Mike Brock <brockm@...>
Tony Thompson notes about DCC standards:
"it's not only the only thing they've done in standards since about 1960, but even it is the subject of considerable ongoing controversy, most of which is luckily not reaching the public." Actually, quite a bit of standards and RP's have been produced since then. Take a look at: http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp-4.html and you'll see just one example. I would also point out that manufacturers are not obligated to follow a standard or RP. I don't have time to research it now but I don't think any NMRA standard or RP calls for an RP-25 Code 110 wheel flange with an RP-25 Code 88 wheel width. That's what at least some of the so-called semi scale "code 88" wheels are. So, what is the NMRA to do when a manufacturer doesn't follow a standard? I might note that I did volunteer to help develop a "scale sized" coupler standard and never received any response. Mike Brock |
|
|
|
Tony Thompson
Mike Brock wrote:
Actually, quite a bit of standards and RP's have been produced since then.The page says "revised 1-90" but since I don't know what it looked before 1-90, I can't tell if this is significant. I can't find my NMRA Standards book at the moment, but IIRC RP-4 has been around for some time. My complaint was not that NO standards work has been done, but that no SIGNIFICANT standards work has been done. I realize that "significant" varies with the observer. There is also the issue of conformance, once indicated by permission to use the NMRA conformance warrant, which Mike raised earlier. I realize there may be legal problems with denial of warrants, in our litigious society, but the plain fact is, for most freight car-related standards, that there is no meaningful conformance activity by the NMRA. That is probably true for most other standards. If anyone can prove me wrong, I'm happy to be enlightened. Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA 2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com (510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@... Publishers of books on railroad history |
|
|
|
James Eckman
Why not ask the manufacturers to list this information as a first step?
I drop my depth gauge through the truck center but this doesn't work well for sprung trucks. Also sometimes I forget to subtract the flange depth. The bolster is a bit more of a challenge I admit. List intended height above the rails? Jim Eckman |
|
|
|
cj riley <cjriley42@...>
Keep in mind, NMRA's work with conformance applies only to interchangabilty
issues, not to conformance with prototypes or other issues. It's obvious from this group that protype conformance is a big deal to keep up with. CJ Riley --- Tony Thompson <thompsonmarytony@...> wrote: Mike Brock wrote:Actually, quite a bit of standards and RP's have been produced sinceThe page says "revised 1-90" but since I don't know what it __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com |
|
|
|
Tony Thompson
cj riley wrote:
Keep in mind, NMRA's work with conformance applies only to interchangabilty issues, not to conformance with prototypes or other issues. It's obvious from this group that protype conformance is a big deal to keep up with.CJ is quite right, except that he should have said "USED to apply only to interchangeability . . ." <g> Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA 2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com (510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@... Publishers of books on railroad history |
|
|
|
Doug Brown <g.brown1@...>
I think there are three important numbers involved:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
- Rail to top of truck bolster. - Bottom of body bolster to coupler box mounting surface. - Coupler box mounting surface to centerline of coupler knuckle. If coupler box is integral with underframe the last two are combined. Doug Brown -----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of James Eckman Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 10:30 PM To: STMFC@... Subject: [STMFC] Re: Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA Why not ask the manufacturers to list this information as a first step? I drop my depth gauge through the truck center but this doesn't work well for sprung trucks. Also sometimes I forget to subtract the flange depth. The bolster is a bit more of a challenge I admit. List intended height above the rails? Jim Eckman |
|
|
|
Dennis Storzek <dstorzek@...>
--- In STMFC@..., Jim Betz <jimbetz@...> wrote:
standards/recommended practices we can make a lot of this stuff a lot easier.that is relative to the top of the track and nothing else. Then anymanufacturer's truck or coupler box would be a drop in replacement for any otherWhy? What's wrong with just following the prototype? There were only two common dimensions from the rail to the bolster centerplate (the part the body pivots on) used on freight cars throughout most of the twentieth century; 2'-2 3/4", standardized, I believe, early on by the Master Car Builder's association, and 2'-1 3/4", used on the USRA design cars and standardized by the AAR in the thirties. These dimensions scale out to .307" and .296" respectively. There are also only two common model truck centerplate heights. The NMRA suggested 5/16", .313", in RP-23, last revised in 1961. This was obviously a compromise dimension based on a happy medium of the models then in production, NOT the prototype. Kadee and Model Die Casting were the last hold-outs still using this dimension. In the mid sixties, Athearn adopted a lower height that allowed correctly modeling centersills and body bolsters, and just about everyone else followed suit. This dimension is .296" which is a scale reduction of the AAR standard. This lower height has advantages; if the car has correctly modeled body bolsters that call for the older 2'-2 3/4" (.307") centerplate ht., a single Kadee red fiber washer gets it there. Using trucks made to the old NMRA RP is more problematic, as they put a properly modeled body either .006" or .017" too high. I personally can live with the first, but not the second. The last thing the hobby needs now is another arbitrary standard. How about letting the prototype engineers do all the work, and just follow their standards? Keep in mind that arbitrary standards are a double edged sword. While they initially make the interchange of commonly used components easier, if they call for dimensions that are anything less than exact scale reductions of the prototype, they will eventually serve to stifle innovation and freeze modeling at the status quo, because building a better representation of the prototype makes it non-standard. Dennis |
|
|