The way such a standard would be implemented is in the way I expect
99% of all non-safety related standards take hold. The standard
becomes expected on new products, old products make up a slowly
shrinking pool until they are phased out or re-tooled for other
reasons; or because the pre-standard pool is now so small that
maintaining the old tooling is no longer economical.

Certainly all the manufacturers COULD decide that they want to stick
with their own dimensions to avoid tooling a new truck to go on that
new car kit. If all of them persist, the standard goes nowhere. If the
major players adopt the standard, the smaller manufacturers will more
or less have to follow.

Is it fair? Not entirely, but that's business. The classic Beta-VHS
fight of the more recent HD standards struggles aren't necessarily
"fair" either. Ask the pre-DCC command control manufacturers how fair
the DCC standard was to them. That doesn't mean that hobby wouldn't be
improved by such standards. It seems that the argument below would
oppose ANY standard promulgated after manufacturers had produced product.

Pieter Roos
Connecticut

--- In STMFC@..., Larry Grubb <larry450sl@...> wrote:

Mike,
If by "very positive" you mean "a can of worms", I agree.
The problem is reverse compatibility. The number of new trucks

that come on the market every year is quite small, and if today
manufacturers adopted a standard going forward, it would be decades
before a majority of trucks on the market met the standard. Retooling
existing trucks to meet this standard would be expensive and result in
no measurable increase in sales. And if the standard matches
manufacurer A's current practice, the rest of the manufacturers will
have an unfair financial burden placed on them. Retooling every
freight car chassis to conform to the standard - well, I'm not even
gonna go there. I understand the desire for these kinds of standards,
and how much they would simplify both designing products and the
modeler's ability to kit-bash easily. What prevents them from becoming
reality is not coming up with a good standard, it is the complexity of
implementing the standard. If someone has an idea for how such a
standard can be implemented fairly and at a

low cost, then by all means spend the time & effort to set the

standards. If not, then even the best of standards won't stand a chance.

Larry Grubb

Tim O'Connor writes:

"We on the other hand, can build our own models to our own standards.
Some people detail underframes. Some don't. Some convert everything
to scale size Kadees. Some don't. Some use .088 wheels, and most
don't. From my point of view, we all can CHOSE our own level and what
is wrong with that?"

Nothing at all and that's where we are today. As I have tried to pint out, the NMRA currently has at last 4 different wheel profile standards in place for HO, S and O scale and manufacturers have added one of their own to HO. It is left to the modeler to pick which one he/she prefers to use.

Mike Brock

Pieter Roos writes:

"The way such a standard would be implemented is in the way I expect
99% of all non-safety related standards take hold. The standard
becomes expected on new products, old products make up a slowly
shrinking pool until they are phased out or re-tooled for other
reasons; or because the pre-standard pool is now so small that
maintaining the old tooling is no longer economical."

Hmmm. Lessee. You're saying that IF the new accurate standard O scale gage is 4'8.5" between the rails instead of the current 5' gage that the new products...lets say...oh...maybe 100 brass steam locos yearly...will soon outnumber the 12,000 brass steam engines currently in use? Do you really think that current owners of layouts using track and wheel profiles associated with RP-25 Code 110 are going to throw away all their stuff in order to use more accurate wheel and track [ frog ] dimensions? Need a bridge? Cheap?

Obviously it depends upon what the standard is. Kadee #5 couplers do work with their "scale" couplers so applying scale couplers to a fleet of #5's is not a problem.

"Certainly all the manufacturers COULD decide that they want to stick
with their own dimensions to avoid tooling a new truck to go on that
new car kit. If all of them persist, the standard goes nowhere. If the
major players adopt the standard, the smaller manufacturers will more
or less have to follow."

Not really. 99% of the buyers won't know or care. IMO.

"Is it fair? Not entirely, but that's business."

Correct. A manufacturer is going to respond to his market. I can see the manufacturer accepting a standard that 100% of his market can use. I don't think he'll respond to one that 3% of his market can use.

Mike Brock

Before things get to far along, all dimensional values should include tolerances, either limits (ex. .500 - .510) or MAX or MIN values (whose opposite limits are 0 and infinity, respectively).

I think Pieter has the right idea.

One thing mentioned to by Mike below needs highlighting. I don't think ANY standard proposed by the people here is going to appeal to trainset crowd, and frankly there's really no point worrying about them. However, what if the resin companies, Branchline, Accurail, Proto2000, Kadee and whoever else has products directed toward the "Serious Scale Modeler" (SSM) adopted them? The people proposing the standards would be happy, I'd think. For the resin and kit companies, I'd say that standardized dimensions would appeal to 99% of THEIR customers, and strongly doubt people would be turned away from them for doing it ("99% of the buyers won't know or care. IMO").

So we'd have a world where the trainset crowd isn't really following any standard (i.e., exactly like today) and the SSMs would have products that would be easier to use out of the box.

It's lunacy to expect companies to retool to new standards, however judging by those suggested, NEW tool models shouldn't be a burden, rather setting dimensions to one value rather than another.

Anyhoo,
KL

Bureaucracy is the structure and set of regulations in place to control
activity, usually in large organizations and government. As opposed to
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhocracy> adhocracy, it is represented by
standardized procedure (rule-following), formal division of powers,
hierarchy, and relationships. In practice the interpretation and execution
of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy> policy can lead to informal
influence. It is a concept in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology>
sociology and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science> political
science referring to the way that the administrative execution and
enforcement of legal rules are socially organized. Four structural concepts
are central to any definition of bureaucracy:

1. a well-defined division of administrative labor among persons and
offices,

2. a personnel system with consistent patterns of recruitment and stable
linear careers,

3. a hierarchy among offices, such that the authority and status are
differentially distributed among actors, and

4. formal and informal networks that connect organizational actors to
one another through flows of information and patterns of cooperation.

Examples of everyday bureaucracies include
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government> governments,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_force> armed forces,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation> corporations,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital> hospitals,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court> courts,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_%28government_department%29>
ministries and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School> schools.



Hi Tony

Given the above definition of bureaucratic, as a past NMRA board member I
thank you for your compliment.



And I reckon both you and Richard are older than me (and I wasn't the
youngest Director), so that hardening of the arteries chip might be
misdirected (VBG)



As to "quite political"? Yep, that's true.



And you can "do standards yourself". Just might mean that no-one else agrees
or adheres to them.

Establishing industry standards is a different thing.

And then having some way to motivate everyone to comply is another level
altogether.



Seriously, what do people expect the NMRA to do when a manufacturer doesn't
comply?

We don't issue a C&I Certificate. Someone recently suggested elsewhere that
manufacturer be verbally abused.

He needs to get a reality check. This is a business relationship.

Most manufacturers see the advantage to them of using the standards

a) They don't have to reinvent the wheel - the standard is there to
use cost free

b) Their products will interchange with others - which should make
them more attractive to consumers



But no one can MAKE them use the standards. It's their prerogative to build
things as they wish.

What I believe will provide the best result is for modelers to contact the
manufacturer and voice their discomfort.



I personally feel there is a pressing need for a coupler/coupler box
standard. I recently bought some new Athearn RTR, and found while fitting
KDs that the post inside the box was a bigger diameter than the traditional
size. So I had to shave down the diameter. Didn't take long, but I really
shouldn't have to do it.

What leaves me confused is why some designer at Athearn decided to change
what Athearn have used for the last 40? years at least.

What chance have we as hobbyists got, when a company doesn't comply with ITS
OWN standards?

Cheers

Dave North

--- In STMFC@..., "Mike Brock" <brockm@...> wrote:
<SNIP>

Hmmm. Lessee. You're saying that IF the new accurate standard O

scale gage

is 4'8.5" between the rails instead of the current 5' gage that the new
products...lets say...oh...maybe 100 brass steam locos yearly...will

soon

outnumber the 12,000 brass steam engines currently in use? Do you

really

think that current owners of layouts using track and wheel profiles
associated with RP-25 Code 110 are going to throw away all their

stuff in

order to use more accurate wheel and track [ frog ] dimensions? Need a
bridge? Cheap?

Obviously it depends upon what the standard is. Kadee #5 couplers do

work

with their "scale" couplers so applying scale couplers to a fleet of

#5's is

not a problem.

Exactly Mike, the proposals for standard truck dimensions and coupler
box/draft gear sizes would have no effect on existing models and
layouts, nor on the 99% of modelers who would never think of changing
out a truck on a freight car unless it's broken. Trying to force
everyone to adopt Proto 87 standards would undoubtedly be a losing
proposition, yet the standard DOES exist. BTW, if I'm not mistaken
there are a reasonable number of O Scalers who do use the correct
track gauge, and have products available to them that meet that
standard(although most commercial models do require modification).

Thirty years ago the members of the National Association of S Gaugers
decided the existing NMRA track and wheel standards for S scale were
too coarse and established a new standard which was, in fact,
incompatible with all existing equipment. About two years ago NMRA
officially adopted the NASG standards, recognizing that nothing had
been manufactured to the old NMRA standard in about twenty years.
Granted, the installed base was tiny compared to HO or even O scale,
but such a major change can and did happen.

"Certainly all the manufacturers COULD decide that they want to stick
with their own dimensions to avoid tooling a new truck to go on that
new car kit. If all of them persist, the standard goes nowhere. If the
major players adopt the standard, the smaller manufacturers will more
or less have to follow."

Not really. 99% of the buyers won't know or care. IMO.

Also true, but why should a manufacturer like LL Canada invent a new
bolster height for their Fowler cars if a recognized standard exists?
While we are at it, how many of those 99% really care about the
accuracy of models. Yet the manufacturers HAVE responded to those who
do and improved the accuracy of their models.

"Is it fair? Not entirely, but that's business."

Correct. A manufacturer is going to respond to his market. I can see

the

manufacturer accepting a standard that 100% of his market can use. I

don't

think he'll respond to one that 3% of his market can use.

Mike Brock

Yep, standards for the sake of standards will not work. Standards that
render new models incompatible in operation with a large installed
base probably won't fly unless there is a very clear advantage to the
new standard. I don't know if the bolster height, axle length and
draft gear standards would be economically persuasive. On the other
hand, the position that such standards shouldn't be considered because
manufacturers might actually have to change something is a call for no
standards or improvements.

Pieter Roos

Mike,
I'm not kidding, but I guess I'm not explaining myself well.
By implementation I am not referring to the policing of the standard, I'm referring to the difficulty of making the transition in real time. Here's an example:
A resin kit manufacturer wants to produce a kit with bolster height & details that conform to the new standard. But he knows the best available trucks to use for this model do not conform to the standard. Does he violate the standard so the car sits at the correct height above the rail when using the best available trucks? Does he comply with the standard knowing that no accurate models of the correct truck exist that will allow the modeler to build the kit to the proper height above the rail?
I certainly am not trying to discourage anyone from working on new standards, what I am trying to do is show that developing the standard is only phase one of the process, and if you have not also worked on a plan for phase two, you may find all of your good work was for nothing.
Larry Grubb


Mike Brock <brockm@...> wrote:

"I understand the desire for these kinds of standards, and how much they
would simplify both designing products and the modeler's ability to kit-bash
easily. What prevents them from becoming reality is not coming up with a
good standard, it is the complexity of implementing the standard."

I'm not so sure. Who decides what the standard is? Implementing it? You're
kidding...right?

Mike Brock

Hi Larry;

Granted, some thought should be given to possible adaptation. Your
example, however, is just one possible case. In the current "open
market" case, how does someone like Tahoe Model Works who plans to
design a truck that could run under a number of manufacturers cars
decide on the bolster height? Or if the same resin manufacturer
designs a car and there are two or more trucks that are appropriate,
but each was designed with a different height? For that matter, the
same manufacturer today may choose to match his car to the best
available truck, only to have a better but incompatible truck offered
shortly after his kit is released! Is that really a better situation?

In fact, for many years the Athearn/MDC and Kadee truck designs served
as somewhat defacto standards, although most of us became accustomed
to adding washers raise the car floor even on Athearn cars with
Athearn trucks to meet the standard coupler height. Surely working
with the current mixture of components is no worse than trying to deal
with standard and legacy non-standard components? At least a standard
gives reason to hope the situation will eventually clear up.

Pieter

--- In STMFC@..., Larry Grubb <larry450sl@...> wrote:

Mike,
I'm not kidding, but I guess I'm not explaining myself well.
By implementation I am not referring to the policing of the

standard, I'm referring to the difficulty of making the transition in
real time. Here's an example:

A resin kit manufacturer wants to produce a kit with bolster

height & details that conform to the new standard. But he knows the
best available trucks to use for this model do not conform to the
standard. Does he violate the standard so the car sits at the correct
height above the rail when using the best available trucks? Does he
comply with the standard knowing that no accurate models of the
correct truck exist that will allow the modeler to build the kit to
the proper height above the rail?

I certainly am not trying to discourage anyone from working on new

standards, what I am trying to do is show that developing the standard
is only phase one of the process, and if you have not also worked on a
plan for phase two, you may find all of your good work was for nothing.

Larry Grubb


Mike Brock <brockm@...> wrote:

"I understand the desire for these kinds of standards, and how much

they

would simplify both designing products and the modeler's ability to

kit-bash

easily. What prevents them from becoming reality is not coming up

with a

good standard, it is the complexity of implementing the standard."

I'm not so sure. Who decides what the standard is? Implementing it?

You're

kidding...right?

Mike Brock







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Pieter,
Points well taken. As I said, this is not a reason not to proceed, just realize setting the standard is only part of the battle. I am curious if Sam Clarke would put aside his usual good judgement by giving some hypothetical answers to some hypothetical questions:
If the new standard was different from Kadee's existing standard, would you revise all your products to meet it? Would you warehouse all the old product in sufficient quantity for the need for spare parts for the old designs? How much fun would this be?
Larry Grubb

pieter_roos <pieter_roos@...> wrote:
Hi Larry;

Granted, some thought should be given to possible adaptation. Your
example, however, is just one possible case. In the current "open
market" case, how does someone like Tahoe Model Works who plans to
design a truck that could run under a number of manufacturers cars
decide on the bolster height? Or if the same resin manufacturer
designs a car and there are two or more trucks that are appropriate,
but each was designed with a different height? For that matter, the
same manufacturer today may choose to match his car to the best
available truck, only to have a better but incompatible truck offered
shortly after his kit is released! Is that really a better situation?

In fact, for many years the Athearn/MDC and Kadee truck designs served
as somewhat defacto standards, although most of us became accustomed
to adding washers raise the car floor even on Athearn cars with
Athearn trucks to meet the standard coupler height. Surely working
with the current mixture of components is no worse than trying to deal
with standard and legacy non-standard components? At least a standard
gives reason to hope the situation will eventually clear up.

Pieter

--- In STMFC@..., Larry Grubb <larry450sl@...> wrote:

Mike,
I'm not kidding, but I guess I'm not explaining myself well.
By implementation I am not referring to the policing of the

standard, I'm referring to the difficulty of making the transition in
real time. Here's an example:

A resin kit manufacturer wants to produce a kit with bolster

height & details that conform to the new standard. But he knows the
best available trucks to use for this model do not conform to the
standard. Does he violate the standard so the car sits at the correct
height above the rail when using the best available trucks? Does he
comply with the standard knowing that no accurate models of the
correct truck exist that will allow the modeler to build the kit to
the proper height above the rail?

I certainly am not trying to discourage anyone from working on new

standards, what I am trying to do is show that developing the standard
is only phase one of the process, and if you have not also worked on a
plan for phase two, you may find all of your good work was for nothing.

Larry Grubb


Mike Brock <brockm@...> wrote:

"I understand the desire for these kinds of standards, and how much

they

would simplify both designing products and the modeler's ability to

kit-bash

easily. What prevents them from becoming reality is not coming up

with a

good standard, it is the complexity of implementing the standard."

I'm not so sure. Who decides what the standard is? Implementing it?

You're

kidding...right?

Mike Brock

Hi Tim;

Sure, but if we were ignoring the other shortcomings of an Athearn
bluebox car, did we care that it sat .010" or .015" too high?

BTW, it appears there already is an RP on covering truck bolsters:

http://test.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/rp-23.html

There is also an RP for a "Universal Coupler Pocket" which is 50 years
old!

http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/rp22.html

Any manufacturer actually follow either of them?

Pieter Roos

--- In STMFC@..., timboconnor@... wrote:

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "pieter_roos" <pieter_roos@...>

In fact, for many years the Athearn/MDC and Kadee truck designs served
as somewhat defacto standards, although most of us became accustomed
to adding washers raise the car floor even on Athearn cars with
Athearn trucks to meet the standard coupler height.

Pieter,

Which in most cases, is actually the wrong solution! :-) If you do

that, then the

Athearn car sits too high.

And recently, Athearn modified their bolsters on new cars so if you

take old

Athearn trucks and put them under new cars, or put new trucks under

older

Athearn cars, you'll immediately have problems!

I really don't think there is any compelling case for creating a

"standard" that

anyone will follow, in the particular case of bolster heights.

It would be lovely to have a standard draft gear box and coupler

shank design

to fit it, such that every coupler would sit properly in the box and

not droop! But

even as practical as that would be for virtually ALL modelers, what

are the

chances of getting such a standard accepted?

Tim

New Standards are new products! I would expect the new products will
not fully comply with new standards. Horizon/Athern claims
compatibility with Kadii products at the coupler face yet they make
it hard to use a sompetative product. Let the buyer beware!
Couplers were never successfully standardized by NMRA because buyers
did not demand compliance; in fact, we bought the best product and it
became a de facto "standard."
Freedom is wonderful; the free have responsibility!
Lndsay Smith

David North wrote:

Given the above definition of bureaucratic, as a past NMRA board member I thank you for your compliment.

This ain't exactly the list topic, David, but I'm sure you know perfectly well that a widely used ADDITIONAL definition of "bureaucratic" is "government officialism or inflexible routine; see red tape." I leave it to you to figure out which definition I had in mind.

Seriously, what do people expect the NMRA to do when a manufacturer doesn't comply?

That's a different question that the one we've been considering: "what do people expect of manufacturers when the NMRA doesn't revise old standards and create new ones, despite a need for same?"

I personally feel there is a pressing need for a coupler/coupler box standard.

I agree, and for a time tried to work on the NMRA Coupler committee. The reasons aren't important in this forum (I can share them with you off-list if you like), but I have given up on that activity.

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

Larry is absolutely correct. His own accomplishements are to be commended and one of the best IMHO was his CORRECT RS2 in the Life Like PK1000 line. He did what KAto couldn't seem to do... Seeing a thing and having the vision to doing it better is a challenge often overlooked by some in the industry.

Greg Martin

Tim O'Connor wrote:

It would be lovely to have a standard draft gear box and coupler shank design to fit it, such that every coupler would sit properly in the box and not droop! But even as practical as that would be for virtually ALL modelers, what are the chances of getting such a standard accepted?

If you don't write that standard, the chances are zero.

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

The NMRA is currently revising the Standards but IMHO is still missing the boat.
I think it would be extremely valuable if, instead of worrying about standardizing formulae for establishing vertical curves (the transition between flat and grade in track) and other esoterica (should they establish standards for O-27 or OO Scale???) the NMRA should concern itself with providing information about real world problems that most Model Railroaders face.
It seems to me that the downfall of the NMRA started when they developed the X2f coupler and then steadfastly refused to recognize the Defacto Standard of the Kadee coupler in HO (and then later the Micro-Trains in N).
I understand the excuse that they didn't want to bless a commercial product as "standard".... but it sure would have been helpful for them to, either with the cooperation of Kadee and Micro-Trains or simply by measuring them, establish complete, uniform measurements of the couplers and draft gear so that modelers and manufacturers could have single dimensions to work with when they have to interface with the defacto standard. Instead, because of the head-in-the-sand approach, every coupler and rolling stock manufacturer has to make their own measurements with the result that interchange is no longer insured.
The same holds true for rails, wheels, trucks, bolster heights, etc... A catalog of uniformly presented measurements of products in use would be much more useful than "standards". Right now the NMRA is developing new standards or reworking the old ones.... without the input of the Model Railroad Industry or the vast majority of Model Railroaders (who are not NMRA members).
I think that if products were presented in a format that would allow side-by-side comparison it would press for evolution to a standard.... or at least be a valuable reference for both modeler and manufacturer. The marketplace where everyone gets to vote with their dollars is a better developer of standards than a group of volunteers.
I don't believe the NMRA would be inclined to do something like this..... it doesn't allow creation of a "standard" to enforce and issue or deny certifications around to establish control. Perhaps a Wikopedia of Model Railroad Product Measurements would be a way of accomplishing this......
Charlie Vlk

Yes, I have seen those pockets before. The problem is that
Kadee's invention made the standard obsolete. Now that Kadee
is the 'standard', the NMRA could update that RP!

Tim O'Connor wrote:

It would be lovely to have a standard draft gear box and coupler shank
design to fit it, such that every coupler would sit properly in the
box and not droop! But even as practical as that would be for
virtually ALL modelers, what are the chances of getting such a
standard accepted?

If you don't write that standard, the chances are zero.
Tony Thompson

I hope that you meant the collective "you" and not me personally.
I certainly do not believe that I am the first person to think of
it, nor does the hobby lack the talent to produce such standards.
And as Pieter pointed out, there's an existing RP -- it just needs
to be brought up to date!

Tim

When I was at Kato I was tasked with providing the dimensions for a coupler pocket that would work with a Kadee #5.
The NMRA "Standard" was designed for the Baker, Devoe and Mantua couplers. Now wasn't THAT useful!!!!
Charlie Vlk


Yes, I have seen those pockets before. The problem is that
Kadee's invention made the standard obsolete. Now that Kadee
is the 'standard', the NMRA could update that RP!

>There is also an RP for a "Universal Coupler Pocket" which is 50 years old!
>http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/rp22.html
>Any manufacturer actually follow either of them?
>Pieter Roos

.