NMRA Proto 87 SIG and MR irresponsible or incompetent !!
stea...@webtel.net.au
For over 2 years the NMRA proto 87 SIG has had a proposed RP on the
web which is impossible to make, now we see an article in Model
Railroader from this group with the same useless proposed RP. What is
their problem. Isn't the international proto 87 standard that current
manufacturers are building to good enough? Why does the NMRA need to
change any of the dimensions, thus creating a close incompatable
alternative that is impossible to build?
I have already published on my web page an alternative proto 87
standard, I call it P3.5 (I should call it practical proto 87), which
is a little easier to build, and is 100% compatable with the
International proto 87 standards.
The MR article by Paul J. Dolkos is full of miss information and
inaccuracies. Firstly his diagram of the wheel track geometry showes
diagramiticaly a wheel position which is over gauge. The diagram also
incorrectly defines the check gauge and track gauge. Clearly the
Author and MR do not understand basic wheel track mechanics. Paul
claims in the article that a check rail is not necessary for proto 87.
Wrong, like the prototype, most cases require a check rail for 100%
derailment free running. His statement that Proto standards make it
easier to lay track is another false statement. Its harder because you
need to be more accurate. Now why does the author not know of the
international proto 87 web page or my web page? The address for the
international proto 87 page is:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/proto87.team/norme
Finally Paul shows his lack of knowledge in the area of measurement
and converting dimensions from metric to imperial units.
It is impossible to measure without error. Therefore it is impossible
to build track to a track gauge of 0.65" +/- 0.00". Thus your
proposed NMRA RP published in MR is impossible to comply with. Because
you have rounded to the nearesr 0.001" you have introduced significent
errors, making the NMRA proposed RP incompatable with existing proto
87 wheels and track. Only the check gauge quoted , 0.626" is close
enough to be compatable with the existing proto 87 standards.
The dimensions you should have used in imperial measure are as
follows:
Track gauge at the crossing vee 0.6496" 0.6508"
flangeway gap 0.0236" 0.0224"
wheel flange width 0.0138" 0.0122"
wheel back to back 0.6122" 0.6094"
Now you have the necessary conversion into out of date units to add to
the other out of date NMRA RP's that the NMRA insist on using.
Proto 87 standards exist. The world does not need the NMRA experts to
re invent the proto 87, nor Model Railroader to continue to spread
NMRA propaganda such as Pauls Proto 87 article.
Terry Flynn
For up to date HO scale model railway standards go to
http://www.freeyellow.com/members/trainstandards/index.html
Includes extra finescale standards improved P87 and correct wagon weight formulae.
Train Man
stea...@webtel.net.au wrote:
>
> For over 2 years the NMRA proto 87 SIG has had a proposed RP on the
> web which is impossible to make,
Nothing is impossible.. Expensive? Yes, Impossible No.
Now this is in no way a defense of either the NMRA OR MR. I have my own
personal issues with both. However I personally find, and I may be alone
in this, the current regular HO standards acceptable. I can't remember
the last time I could see the width of the train wheel riding on the
rail. Can't remember the last time I cared to. The NMRA track and wheel
standards have changed very little since they were introduced. I'm not
knocking the proto xx push here either. If you want to choose or invent
your own standard(s) for track, trucks, couplers, buildings, etc... have
at it and have a ball. Just be prepared to do a lot of scratch building
(not all bad in itself). My point is if everything is built to a
specific and UNIQUE standard then it will look right AND will operate
smoothly. This entire post goes way back to the reason for the NMRA to
begin with.... 1 unique set of standards... so you could take your
trains and run them on your freinds layout.
MR and the NMRA were born together, grew up together and are now growing
old together. ANYTHING that the NMRA says will always be gospel to MR.
The NMRA could say something rediculous like "the new standard for
painting sky back drops is RP-BS001: Sky backdrops should be painted
brite pink and have green polka dots for clouds." Mark my words, you
would see a slew of articles in MR stating THAT is the ONLY way to paint
a sky backdrop. So to nit-pic (and I don't know that's what you are
doing) about being accurate to 4th digit decimal places seems rather
pointless to me. Those are standards that only experienced machinests
with expensive laser accurate measuring tools and a LOT of time on their
hands could hope to achieve...
Car wieghts... See paragraph about unique standards above.
NMRA standard Turnouts... I agree 100%. Personally I draw my own
templates FULL scale using a cad program based on prototype and then
scale them down. Haven't had a de-railment yet as long as I stick to the
same standard for spacing, flanges, and the like. It is here that I
think a lot of manufacturers fall way short.
A little more than 2 cents worth,
Jeff
Keith Norgrove
>
>For over 2 years the NMRA proto 87 SIG has had a proposed RP on the
>web which is impossible to make, now we see an article in Model
>Railroader from this group with the same useless proposed RP. What is
>their problem. Isn't the international proto 87 standard that current
>manufacturers are building to good enough? Why does the NMRA need to
>change any of the dimensions, thus creating a close incompatable
>alternative that is impossible to build?
The P87 dimensions given on the P87 SIG webpage are the same as those
given on the P87 international site which, in turn are the same
dimensions published in 1972 by the MRSG in the UK as a spinoff from
the P4 development.
>
> I have already published on my web page an alternative proto 87
>standard, I call it P3.5
Ah, so the NMRA should not change any dimensions but you can!
>The MR article by Paul J. Dolkos is full of miss information and
>inaccuracies. Firstly his diagram of the wheel track geometry showes
>diagramiticaly a wheel position which is over gauge.
Yes, true but its not meant to be a scale drawing.
>The diagram also
>incorrectly defines the check gauge and track gauge. Clearly the
>Author and MR do not understand basic wheel track mechanics.
More realistically they goofed up on the proofreading.
>Paul
>claims in the article that a check rail is not necessary for proto 87.
Not so, he makes no such claim. What he does say is that P87 makes it
possible to correctly model "self guarding frogs" which is a perfectly
valid statement. This is a prototype method of eliminating check rails
which is quite common in North America and requires consistent wheel
width to function and scale wheel width if not to look ridiculous.
>Wrong, like the prototype, most cases require a check rail for 100%
>derailment free running. His statement that Proto standards make it
>easier to lay track is another false statement.
Except, once again he does not make that statement. His reference is
only to long turnouts and complex formations. And in such cases I
agree, many complex formations are impossible to reproduce correctly
with significantly overscale flangeways.
> Its harder because you
>need to be more accurate. Now why does the author not know of the
>international proto 87 web page
He acknowledges the help of the P87 international group in his
article.
> or my web page?
Probably you haven't told him yet!
> The address for the
>international proto 87 page is:
>http://perso.wanadoo.fr/proto87.team/norme
>
>Finally Paul shows his lack of knowledge in the area of measurement
>and converting dimensions from metric to imperial units.
>
>It is impossible to measure without error. Therefore it is impossible
>to build track to a track gauge of 0.65" +/- 0.00".
True that the tolerance on guage is the only dimension missing from
the tables given.
> Thus your
>proposed NMRA RP published in MR is impossible to comply with. Because
>you have rounded to the nearesr 0.001" you have introduced significent
>errors, making the NMRA proposed RP incompatable with existing proto
>87 wheels and track. Only the check gauge quoted , 0.626" is close
>enough to be compatable with the existing proto 87 standards.
>
>The dimensions you should have used in imperial measure are as
>follows:
>
>Track gauge at the crossing vee 0.6496" 0.6508"
>
>flangeway gap 0.0236" 0.0224"
>
>wheel flange width 0.0138" 0.0122"
>
>wheel back to back 0.6122" 0.6094"
This is just bullshit, no practical tracklaying method will achieve
accuracy to a tenth of a thou, rounding to the nearest thou is
perfectly acceptable and all the dimensions given in the P87 SIG/MR
data are equivalent to the Metric figures given by the P87
International group
>
>Now you have the necessary conversion into out of date units to add to
>the other out of date NMRA RP's that the NMRA insist on using.
You might not like it but the USA has not gone metric yet, and doesn't
show much signs of doing so. Conversion is therefore necessary.
>
>Proto 87 standards exist. The world does not need the NMRA experts to
>re invent the proto 87,
We don't need Terry to re-invent them either.
>nor Model Railroader to continue to spread
>NMRA propaganda such as Pauls Proto 87 article.
How does a couple of one line mentions make a 3 page article into
propaganda? The Scalefour Society got a bigger paragraph.
Make friends in the hobby.
Keith
Visit <http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~keithn>
New update.
Jim Guthrie
Norgrove) wrote:
Keith
>The P87 dimensions given on the P87 SIG webpage are the same as those
>given on the P87 international site which, in turn are the same
>dimensions published in 1972 by the MRSG in the UK as a spinoff from
>the P4 development.
Thanks for that confirmation. I spent a fair part of yesterday
surfing the web to see if there were alternate standards for Proto87 -
including seeing if the inclusion of a colon in the name made any
difference :-).
I think Terry is at it again. He never responded to me and others
some months ago when he decried the feasibility of the P4/S4
standards. It looks like Proto87 is now getting his undivided
attention. I can't wait till he starts on ScaleSeven and the UK "S"
Scale standards :-).
Jim.
Dabbling in S7 at www.netcomuk.co.uk/~sprocket/index.html
S7 Dabbling at www.netcomuk.co.uk/~sprocket/index.html
C.L.Zeni
>
> On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 01:56:19 GMT, kei...@globalnet.co.uk (Keith
> Norgrove) wrote:
>
> Keith
>
> >The P87 dimensions given on the P87 SIG webpage are the same as those
> >given on the P87 international site which, in turn are the same
> >dimensions published in 1972 by the MRSG in the UK as a spinoff from
> >the P4 development.
>
> Thanks for that confirmation. I spent a fair part of yesterday
> surfing the web to see if there were alternate standards for Proto87 -
> including seeing if the inclusion of a colon in the name made any
> difference :-).
>
> I think Terry is at it again. He never responded to me and others
> some months ago when he decried the feasibility of the P4/S4
> standards. It looks like Proto87 is now getting his undivided
> attention. I can't wait till he starts on ScaleSeven and the UK "S"
> Scale standards :-).
And for our US readers who are not familiar with Proto standards and may
be willing to believe the hoo-hah that "it's not do-able", I would offer
that I have seen it work. I have seen Keith Norgrove's layout and
watched him repeatedly PUSH a cut of two axle cars around a curve,
through a turnout, which is certainly as difficult a track/wheel test as
one can find.
Regret that Terry's seagulling again...flying in, making a lot of noise
and stink, then leaving...
--
Craig Zeni - REPLY TO -->> clzeni at mindspring dot com
http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/index.html
A closed mouth gathers no feet.
D Holliday
Folks, we're trying to create *models* of reality. Not recreate reality
itself. Can't be done, unless 12"=1' scale is employed. And lots of
"extras" are acquired.
HO, as a generic product, isn't to "scale" anyway. Look at the "grab"
irons on most freight cars. Look at the coupler distance; see any
"break bars"? Then we get to authentic sounds and practices. I love
watching my Pacifics move over the ashpit and "unload". Taking on oil.
Doing both.
I've always found a "colon" to be useful. A semi-colon might be useful
in the future, considering the alternatives. <g>
David in WA
TOM
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
<><><> TOM <><><>
-----------------
Fred Dabney
Keith Norgrove wrote in message <36aa73df...@news.globalnet.co.uk>...
>On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 10:55:20 GMT, stea...@webtel.net.au wrote:
>
>>
>>For over 2 years the NMRA proto 87 SIG has had a proposed RP on the
>>web which is impossible to make, now we see an article in Model
>>Railroader from this group with the same useless proposed RP. What is
>>their problem. Isn't the international proto 87 standard that current
>>manufacturers are building to good enough? Why does the NMRA need to
>>change any of the dimensions, thus creating a close incompatable
>>alternative that is impossible to build?
>
>given on the P87 international site which, in turn are the same
>dimensions published in 1972 by the MRSG in the UK as a spinoff from
>the P4 development.
>>
>>standard, I call it P3.5
>
>Ah, so the NMRA should not change any dimensions but you can!
Terry's problem is that if the NMRA should define "daylight" as being the
period when the sun appears to be above the horizon, he'd discover that the
sun simply looks to be above the horizon when the geometry is such that it's
truly below it, but the atmospheric diffraction makes it /look/ above it,
therefore the definition was grossly wrong and without merit.
It's not the dimensions or the RP, it's the organization that is his
problem.
Et tedious cetera. Time to light the pilot light again, I guess...
Fred D.
TOM
Do they make them Et teduous (tedium?) ceteras in N gauge too?
<><><> TOM <><><>
-----------------
Jim Guthrie
<dholli...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
David
>Who cares?
>Folks, we're trying to create *models* of reality.
I like my models of reality to run better<g>.
Jim.
S7 Dabbling at www.netcomuk.co.uk/~sprocket/index.html
C.L.Zeni
>
> Colons are good too::: When they work, that is::: :>))
Mine works fine. Except after too much beer, chili and pink pickled
eggs...:::::::
TOM
subject...
How 'bout dem Bulls?
<><><> TOM <><><>
-----------------
Keiran Ryan
biggest problem, ------- us ---- yes !!! that's right ---- us, the modellers who get
sucked in to answering him whenever he is let out of his cave. And do you know why,
because we give him credence by answering him. SOLUTION --- Ignore him, he may go
away, we can always hope..
Regards Keiran
stea...@webtel.net.au wrote:
> For over 2 years the NMRA proto 87 SIG has had a proposed RP on the
> web which is impossible to make, now we see an article in Model
> Railroader from this group with the same useless proposed RP. What is
> their problem. Isn't the international proto 87 standard that current
> manufacturers are building to good enough? Why does the NMRA need to
> change any of the dimensions, thus creating a close incompatable
> alternative that is impossible to build?
>
> I have already published on my web page an alternative proto 87
> standard, I call it P3.5 (I should call it practical proto 87), which
> is a little easier to build, and is 100% compatable with the
> International proto 87 standards.
>
> The MR article by Paul J. Dolkos is full of miss information and
> inaccuracies. Firstly his diagram of the wheel track geometry showes
> diagramiticaly a wheel position which is over gauge. The diagram also
> incorrectly defines the check gauge and track gauge. Clearly the
> Author and MR do not understand basic wheel track mechanics. Paul
> claims in the article that a check rail is not necessary for proto 87.
> Wrong, like the prototype, most cases require a check rail for 100%
> derailment free running. His statement that Proto standards make it
> easier to lay track is another false statement. Its harder because you
> need to be more accurate. Now why does the author not know of the
> international proto 87 web page or my web page? The address for the
> international proto 87 page is:
> http://perso.wanadoo.fr/proto87.team/norme
>
> Finally Paul shows his lack of knowledge in the area of measurement
> and converting dimensions from metric to imperial units.
>
> It is impossible to measure without error. Therefore it is impossible
> to build track to a track gauge of 0.65" +/- 0.00". Thus your
> proposed NMRA RP published in MR is impossible to comply with. Because
> you have rounded to the nearesr 0.001" you have introduced significent
> errors, making the NMRA proposed RP incompatable with existing proto
> 87 wheels and track. Only the check gauge quoted , 0.626" is close
> enough to be compatable with the existing proto 87 standards.
>
> The dimensions you should have used in imperial measure are as
> follows:
>
> Track gauge at the crossing vee 0.6496" 0.6508"
>
> flangeway gap 0.0236" 0.0224"
>
> wheel flange width 0.0138" 0.0122"
>
> wheel back to back 0.6122" 0.6094"
>
> Now you have the necessary conversion into out of date units to add to
> the other out of date NMRA RP's that the NMRA insist on using.
>
> Proto 87 standards exist. The world does not need the NMRA experts to
> re invent the proto 87, nor Model Railroader to continue to spread
> NMRA propaganda such as Pauls Proto 87 article.
>
>
Jsteve RR
In article <78g19u$38q$1...@bubba.NMSU.Edu>, "Fred Dabney" <fda...@nmsu.edu>
writes:
>Terry's problem is that if the NMRA should define "daylight" as being the
>period when the sun appears to be above the horizon, he'd discover that the
>sun simply looks to be above the horizon when the geometry is such that it's
>truly below it, but the atmospheric diffraction makes it /look/ above it,
>therefore the definition was grossly wrong and without merit.
>
>It's not the dimensions or the RP, it's the organization that is his
>problem.
You've got ole Terry pegged down to a tee IMHO.
John Stephens
Spring Valley, Ca.
TOM
to give da Bulls their privacy..
What's that?...
I gotta put some she-cows in da barn too?...
No wonder them boy-cows was a-lookin at me lak that when Ah walked thru
da barn las' night.
I jus' got a note from da barn askin' fer pizza, beer, and ceegars...
NBA... No Bulls Allowed... :>))
<><><> TOM <><><>
-----------------
Allan Brown wrote:
>
> Yair .... how about dem bulls? How is the captive breeding programme
> going, anyway?
>
> Allan
Allan Brown
stea...@webtel.net.au
wrote:
>This is in response to all 3 posts by this gentleman.
>
>stea...@webtel.net.au wrote:
>>
>> For over 2 years the NMRA proto 87 SIG has had a proposed RP on the
>> web which is impossible to make,
>
>Nothing is impossible.. Expensive? Yes, Impossible No.
Impossible to measure anything with 100% accuracy, therefore how do
you no that your track gauge is exactly 16.5mm? Also if yor track
temperature varies, so will the track gauge, again becoming outside
the proposed standard.
>Now this is in no way a defense of either the NMRA OR MR. I have my own
>personal issues with both. However I personally find, and I may be alone
>in this, the current regular HO standards acceptable. I can't remember
>the last time I could see the width of the train wheel riding on the
>rail. Can't remember the last time I cared to. The NMRA track and wheel
>standards have changed very little since they were introduced. I'm not
>knocking the proto xx push here either. If you want to choose or invent
>your own standard(s) for track, trucks, couplers, buildings, etc... have
>at it and have a ball. Just be prepared to do a lot of scratch building
>(not all bad in itself). My point is if everything is built to a
>specific and UNIQUE standard then it will look right AND will operate
>smoothly. This entire post goes way back to the reason for the NMRA to
>begin with.... 1 unique set of standards... so you could take your
>trains and run them on your freinds layout.
NMRA have changed their track standard for HO,
>MR and the NMRA were born together, grew up together and are now growing
>old together. ANYTHING that the NMRA says will always be gospel to MR.
>The NMRA could say something rediculous like "the new standard for
>painting sky back drops is RP-BS001: Sky backdrops should be painted
>brite pink and have green polka dots for clouds." Mark my words, you
>would see a slew of articles in MR stating THAT is the ONLY way to paint
>a sky backdrop. So to nit-pic (and I don't know that's what you are
>doing) about being accurate to 4th digit decimal places seems rather
>pointless to me. Those are standards that only experienced machinests
>with expensive laser accurate measuring tools and a LOT of time on their
>hands could hope to achieve...
It's the only way to correctly describe proto 87 in imperial units,
rounding errors have resulted in the impossible to build track gauge
dimension.
>Car wieghts... See paragraph about unique standards above.
Every second review in MR tells us to add more weight to comply with
NMRA weight. Thats allot of manufacturers who agree with me. The NMRA
weight formula is to heavy.
>NMRA standard Turnouts... I agree 100%. Personally I draw my own
>templates FULL scale using a cad program based on prototype and then
>scale them down. Haven't had a de-railment yet as long as I stick to the
>same standard for spacing, flanges, and the like. It is here that I
>think a lot of manufacturers fall way short.
I totaly agree with you on this point.
>A little more than 2 cents worth,
>Jeff
>
stea...@webtel.net.au
Norgrove) wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 10:55:20 GMT, stea...@webtel.net.au wrote:
>
>>
>>For over 2 years the NMRA proto 87 SIG has had a proposed RP on the
>>web which is impossible to make, now we see an article in Model
>>Railroader from this group with the same useless proposed RP. What is
>>their problem. Isn't the international proto 87 standard that current
>>manufacturers are building to good enough? Why does the NMRA need to
>>change any of the dimensions, thus creating a close incompatable
>>alternative that is impossible to build?
>
>The P87 dimensions given on the P87 SIG webpage are the same as those
>given on the P87 international site which, in turn are the same
>dimensions published in 1972 by the MRSG in the UK as a spinoff from
>the P4 development.
No it is not, the dimensions on the SIG page are rounded up and down
approximations, far from the same.
>> I have already published on my web page an alternative proto 87
>>standard, I call it P3.5
>
>Ah, so the NMRA should not change any dimensions but you can!
My improvement simply allows a larger maximum check face (span). This
makes it easier to build,and necessary if you wish to buils diamond
crossings and other complex track. I can because my solution is sound,
practical and will work. The NMRA proto 87 SIG has shown itself unable
to grasp the importance of toleranceing, and track geometry.
>>The MR article by Paul J. Dolkos is full of miss information and
>>inaccuracies. Firstly his diagram of the wheel track geometry showes
>>diagramiticaly a wheel position which is over gauge.
>Yes, true but its not meant to be a scale drawing.
The diagram is still incorrect.
>>The diagram also
>>incorrectly defines the check gauge and track gauge. Clearly the
>>Author and MR do not understand basic wheel track mechanics.
>
>More realistically they goofed up on the proofreading.
Like they goofed up on the web page and other standards and RP's.
>>Paul
>>claims in the article that a check rail is not necessary for proto 87.
>
>Not so, he makes no such claim. What he does say is that P87 makes it
>possible to correctly model "self guarding frogs" which is a perfectly
>valid statement. This is a prototype method of eliminating check rails
>which is quite common in North America and requires consistent wheel
>width to function and scale wheel width if not to look ridiculous.
If you are talking about high speed frogs that close, than this can be
achieved with the coarser standards. It is irrelavent information in
order to promote his propaganda.
He also claims finescale narrow treads are not reliable on normal
track, wrong. I have narrow wheels 2.1mm that run on track which is as
wide as 16.9mm. No derailment problems, though it is better to use a
narrower track gauge. For HO wheels correctly gauged you can go as
narrow as 16.1mm on straight track without any problems.
>>Wrong, like the prototype, most cases require a check rail for 100%
>>derailment free running. His statement that Proto standards make it
>>easier to lay track is another false statement.
>
>Except, once again he does not make that statement. His reference is
>only to long turnouts and complex formations. And in such cases I
>agree, many complex formations are impossible to reproduce correctly
>with significantly overscale flangeways.
Why is it then that you can buy off the shelf double slip crossovers
that work OK. I have scale crossing anges on my layout in which
everything stays on. Using my extra finescale track standard or
Railway Engineering's track produces all the advantages of Proto87
except for a minor visual difference. You need to be really looking
hard. As for performance, it is superior because you can run deeper
flanges which can handle rougher trackwork. It has the advantage of
being 100% backward compatable with existing RTR trackwork. It has the
advantage of being easier to build. The proto 87 standard is
impractical for complex track work unless you use my improvement to
the standard, then you still need to re wheel everything and
compensate or make working suspension for your models.
>> Its harder because you
>>need to be more accurate. Now why does the author not know of the
>>international proto 87 web page
>
>He acknowledges the help of the P87 international group in his
>article.
and excludes their web page
>> or my web page?
>
>Probably you haven't told him yet!
>
>> The address for the
>>international proto 87 page is:
>>http://perso.wanadoo.fr/proto87.team/norme
>>
>>Finally Paul shows his lack of knowledge in the area of measurement
>>and converting dimensions from metric to imperial units.
>>
>>It is impossible to measure without error. Therefore it is impossible
>>to build track to a track gauge of 0.65" +/- 0.00".
>
>True that the tolerance on guage is the only dimension missing from
>the tables given.
The MR article defines a 0 tolerance!
>> Thus your
>>proposed NMRA RP published in MR is impossible to comply with. Because
>>you have rounded to the nearesr 0.001" you have introduced significent
>>errors, making the NMRA proposed RP incompatable with existing proto
>>87 wheels and track. Only the check gauge quoted , 0.626" is close
>>enough to be compatable with the existing proto 87 standards.
>>
>>The dimensions you should have used in imperial measure are as
>>follows:
>>
>>Track gauge at the crossing vee 0.6496" 0.6508"
>>
>>flangeway gap 0.0236" 0.0224"
>>
>>wheel flange width 0.0138" 0.0122"
>>
>>wheel back to back 0.6122" 0.6094"
>
>This is just bullshit, no practical tracklaying method will achieve
>accuracy to a tenth of a thou, rounding to the nearest thou is
>perfectly acceptable and all the dimensions given in the P87 SIG/MR
>data are equivalent to the Metric figures given by the P87
>International group
You build Proto 87 track using very accurate track gauges which need
to be machined to such accuracy, easily done at the factory or on a
good lathe.
The tolerance above is not 0.0001", it is 0.0012". Thus rounding to
0.001" gives you a 20% error, which is to large. You simply do not
understand toleranceing or accurate measurement as shown by your above
statement.
>>Now you have the necessary conversion into out of date units to add to
>>the other out of date NMRA RP's that the NMRA insist on using.
>
>You might not like it but the USA has not gone metric yet, and doesn't
>show much signs of doing so. Conversion is therefore necessary.
Not exactly true, the US has been metric for a long time, the US yard
is legaly defined with reference to the metre. Its just that the
republic's citizens continue to use imperial units.
>>Proto 87 standards exist. The world does not need the NMRA experts to
>>re invent the proto 87,
>
>We don't need Terry to re-invent them either.
There is alway an easy and a hard way of doing things. The original
proto 87 dimensions are the hard way. The NMRA attempt is the wrong
way. My way is the practical way, wether you like it or not. .
>>nor Model Railroader to continue to spread
>>NMRA propaganda such as Pauls Proto 87 article.
>
>How does a couple of one line mentions make a 3 page article into
>propaganda? The Scalefour Society got a bigger paragraph.
The exclusion of the international proto 87 web page address proves
the propaganda element of the article, but then MR is largely a
propaganda tool of the NMRA.
>Make friends in the hobby.
>Keith
>Visit <http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~keithn>
>New update.
stea...@webtel.net.au
wrote:
>After reading -- no browsing this group of postings, I've just realised Terry's
>biggest problem, ------- us ---- yes !!! that's right ---- us, the modellers who get
>sucked in to answering him whenever he is let out of his cave. And do you know why,
>because we give him credence by answering him. SOLUTION --- Ignore him, he may go
>away, we can always hope..
>
>Regards Keiran
Thank's Kerian for your thoughts on track standards. What track
standard did you say ypu were going to use?
Jim Guthrie
terry
>No it is not, the dimensions on the SIG page are rounded up and down
>approximations, far from the same.
Here are the variations of some of the significant dimensions
Check gauge - 0.000015748"
Track Gauge - 0.000393701"
BB Max - 0.000204724"
BB Min - 0.000448819"
That's using a conversion ratio of 25.4mm/inch and a Hewlett Packard
Scientific calculator. Maybe you could define your use of the word
"approximation". You would need laboratory conditions to measure
these differences accurately.
>My improvement simply allows a larger maximum check face (span). This
>makes it easier to build,and necessary if you wish to buils diamond
>crossings and other complex track. I can because my solution is sound,
>practical and will work.
<snip>
>The proto 87 standard is
>impractical for complex track work unless you use my improvement to
>the standard,
These statements are rubbish. The P87, P4, S7 etc., standards work
and there's plenty of evidence in working layouts to prove it. Have
you ever actually built any trackwork to any of these standards to
find out for yourself? If you haven't then maybe you should, and
criticise, if necessary, from experience rather than nit pick
standards to four or five decimal places.
Jim.
Mike Tennent
>>
>>We don't need Terry to re-invent them either.
>
>There is alway an easy and a hard way of doing things. The original
>proto 87 dimensions are the hard way. The NMRA attempt is the wrong
>way. My way is the practical way, wether you like it or not. .
>
It always comes down to this, doesn't it, Terry?
Everyone else is wrong, not you.
Mike "Look! Everyone in the marching band is out of step except our little
Johnny" Tennent
"IronPenguin"
'98 Ironman Canada, 16:17:03
Keith Norgrove
>>>Paul
>>>claims in the article that a check rail is not necessary for proto 87.
>>
>>Not so, he makes no such claim. What he does say is that P87 makes it
>>possible to correctly model "self guarding frogs" which is a perfectly
>>valid statement. This is a prototype method of eliminating check rails
>>which is quite common in North America and requires consistent wheel
>>width to function and scale wheel width if not to look ridiculous.
>
>If you are talking about high speed frogs that close,
No, you should do some research into track design. A self guarding
frog is a cast steel frog which includes built in checking faces which
bear on the front face of the wheel tyre. The wheel thus runs between
the checking face and the wing rails. It has no moving parts.
>than this can be
>achieved with the coarser standards. It is irrelavent information in
>order to promote his propaganda.
Its relevant because such frogs are a common feature of the prototype
which coarse standards make difficult to model.
> He also claims finescale narrow treads are not reliable on normal
>track, wrong. I have narrow wheels 2.1mm
Not exactly P87 are they!
>that run on track which is as
>wide as 16.9mm.
No wonder you see P87 as difficult.
Train Man
>
> On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 08:57:44 -0500, Train Man <jsi...@mich.com>
> wrote:
>
> >This is in response to all 3 posts by this gentleman.
> >
> >>
> >> For over 2 years the NMRA proto 87 SIG has had a proposed RP on the
> >> web which is impossible to make,
> >
>
> Impossible to measure anything with 100% accuracy, therefore how do
> you no that your track gauge is exactly 16.5mm? Also if yor track
> temperature varies, so will the track gauge, again becoming outside
> the proposed standard.
years and have had very few problems as long as, like I said before, I
stick to the SAME standard.
I don't know about where you are but my basement is climate controlled
(AC in summer and heat in winter). I spike my own rail on ties glued to
basswood roadbed which is glued to 1/2" or 3/4" plywood. Haven't had a
track or turn out come out of gauge yet.. And yes it is Noisy too!
>
> >Now this is in no way a defense of either the NMRA OR MR. I have my own
> >personal issues with both. However I personally find, and I may be alone
> >in this, the current regular HO standards acceptable. I can't remember
> >the last time I could see the width of the train wheel riding on the
> >rail. Can't remember the last time I cared to. The NMRA track and wheel
> >standards have changed very little since they were introduced. I'm not
> >knocking the proto xx push here either. If you want to choose or invent
> >your own standard(s) for track, trucks, couplers, buildings, etc... have
> >at it and have a ball. Just be prepared to do a lot of scratch building
> >(not all bad in itself). My point is if everything is built to a
> >specific and UNIQUE standard then it will look right AND will operate
> >smoothly. This entire post goes way back to the reason for the NMRA to
> >begin with.... 1 unique set of standards... so you could take your
> >trains and run them on your freinds layout.
>
> NMRA have changed their track standard for HO,
NOT while I've been in the hobby... Spacing hasn't changed, wheel
spacing hasn't changed, they still recommend the horn hook couplers
(last time I checked). I have nmra gauges that are over 30 years old and
they are spaced just like the newer ones I have, at least according to
Mr. Starret..
>
> >MR and the NMRA were born together, grew up together and are now growing
> >old together. ANYTHING that the NMRA says will always be gospel to MR.
> >The NMRA could say something rediculous like "the new standard for
> >painting sky back drops is RP-BS001: Sky backdrops should be painted
> >brite pink and have green polka dots for clouds." Mark my words, you
> >would see a slew of articles in MR stating THAT is the ONLY way to paint
> >a sky backdrop. So to nit-pic (and I don't know that's what you are
> >doing) about being accurate to 4th digit decimal places seems rather
> >pointless to me. Those are standards that only experienced machinests
> >with expensive laser accurate measuring tools and a LOT of time on their
> >hands could hope to achieve...
>
> It's the only way to correctly describe proto 87 in imperial units,
> rounding errors have resulted in the impossible to build track gauge
> dimension.
>
> >Car wieghts... See paragraph about unique standards above.
>
> Every second review in MR tells us to add more weight to comply with
> NMRA weight. Thats allot of manufacturers who agree with me. The NMRA
> weight formula is to heavy.
I don't add weight at all... Personally I think it is a waste of time
and money (however minimal they may be). I find as long as my track and
wheels conform to that piece of stamped steel, the NMRA guage, I have
VERY few problems.
>
> >NMRA standard Turnouts... I agree 100%. Personally I draw my own
> >templates FULL scale using a cad program based on prototype and then
> >scale them down. Haven't had a de-railment yet as long as I stick to the
> >same standard for spacing, flanges, and the like. It is here that I
> >think a lot of manufacturers fall way short.
>
> I totaly agree with you on this point.
>
> >A little more than 2 cents worth,
> >Jeff
> >
> >> re invent the proto 87, nor Model Railroader to continue to spread
> >> NMRA propaganda such as Pauls Proto 87 article.
> >>
> >>
Jim Fischer
>
> On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 14:08:16 +1100, Keiran Ryan <krmo...@acay.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >After reading -- no browsing this group of postings, I've just realised Terry's
> >biggest problem, ------- us ---- yes !!! that's right ---- us, the modellers who get
> >sucked in to answering him whenever he is let out of his cave. And do you know why,
> >because we give him credence by answering him. SOLUTION --- Ignore him, he may go
> >away, we can always hope..
> >
> >Regards Keiran
>
> Thank's Kerian for your thoughts on track standards. What track
> standard did you say ypu were going to use?
>
> >
>
>
> For up to date HO scale model railway standards go to
> http://www.freeyellow.com/members/trainstandards/index.html
> Includes extra finescale standards improved P87 and correct wagon weight formulae.
Stephen Devenish
all day long.
As for people responding to Terries writtings well if you want to, do!
What standard do I use? Any as long as it runs and connects. I know I
might get flamed, but when you spend 10hrs a day doing QA on track work and
looking a plans the last thing I want to do is QA my layout.
If anyone wants me to come a give your layout the QA treatment then just
call.
If anyone is interested and if I can find the standards on disk I might
post them. We work to tolerances on real railroads and at the end of the
day, the first train always pushes everything to to its gauge.
Cheers and keep em going We need more posts on this site
Stephen Devenish
PS: It seems after my original post on the concrete squeeling problem the
last post echoed the same sentiments and yet didn't get flamed???????
PPS: Yes my speelllinng is BAD............. I'm a unCivil GinerBeer
stea...@webtel.net.au wrote in article
<36ae3ca5...@news.webtel.net.au>...
David A. McConnell
NOT a Standard.
Don't use 'em if you don't want to.
John E Richards
>
>After a diet like that, mine... Naw, I think we should change the
>subject...
>
>How 'bout dem Bulls?
>
><><><> TOM <><><>
>-----------------
>
>C.L.Zeni wrote:
>>
>> TOM wrote:
>> >
>> > Colons are good too::: When they work, that is::: :>))
>>
>> Mine works fine. Except after too much beer, chili and pink pickled
>> eggs...:::::::
>> --
>> Craig Zeni - REPLY TO -->> clzeni at mindspring dot com
>>
>> http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/index.html
>>
>> A closed mouth gathers no feet.
Sounds like a lot of Bull to me 8-}
--
Builder in Brass of Australian Model Steam Locomotives
http://www.iinet.net.au/~richardj/
Tom E Arnold
>
> After a diet like that, mine... Naw, I think we should change the
> subject...
>
> How 'bout dem Bulls?
>
trivial to you) who came back by here looking for specific Australian
rail data, this really makes me feel welcome.
Da Bulls _where_ as great a team as the NBA has ever seen, but that team
is no more. I'll be watching to see what comes of the franchise, but I
doubt the wider world will.
--
TEA/
My current neighborhood: http://www.coldspringpark.org
My next neighborhood: http://www.geocities.com/athens/acropolis/9361
Charles F Seyferlich
Now it looks like the best major sports team Chicago has is the Cubs.
Good grief.
John E Richards
>
>TOM wrote:
>>
>> After a diet like that, mine... Naw, I think we should change the
>> subject...
>>
>> How 'bout dem Bulls?
>>
>As a Chicagoan (actually in Milwaukee now but that distinction must
seem
>trivial to you) who came back by here looking for specific Australian
>rail data, this really makes me feel welcome.
>
>Da Bulls _where_ as great a team as the NBA has ever seen, but that
team
>is no more. I'll be watching to see what comes of the franchise, but I
>doubt the wider world will.
>
>--
>TEA/
> My current neighborhood: http://www.coldspringpark.org
> My next neighborhood: http://www.geocities.com/athens/acropolis/9361
-
Good Evening Tom,
Hmmmm, I think we may have our bulls mixed up
some-how. I was having a crack at the other Tom, who has bulls
in the barn, sending him notes for more beer and Pizza.
Best of luck with your Bulls as well,
Regards,
Lil John-
Builder in Brass of Australian Model Steam Locomotives
http://www.iinet.net.au/~richardj/
http://wagr.railfan.net/wagr.html
stea...@webtel.net.au
Norgrove) wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:41:00 GMT, stea...@webtel.net.au wrote:
>
>>>>Paul
>>>>claims in the article that a check rail is not necessary for proto 87.
>>>
>>>Not so, he makes no such claim. What he does say is that P87 makes it
>>>possible to correctly model "self guarding frogs" which is a perfectly
>>>valid statement. This is a prototype method of eliminating check rails
>>>which is quite common in North America and requires consistent wheel
>>>width to function and scale wheel width if not to look ridiculous.
>>
>>If you are talking about high speed frogs that close,
>
>No, you should do some research into track design. A self guarding
>frog is a cast steel frog which includes built in checking faces which
>bear on the front face of the wheel tyre. The wheel thus runs between
>the checking face and the wing rails. It has no moving parts.
>
>>than this can be
>>achieved with the coarser standards. It is irrelavent information in
>>order to promote his propaganda.
>
>Its relevant because such frogs are a common feature of the prototype
>which coarse standards make difficult to model.
No, not difficult, just over scale. In fact as usual it is easier to
build self garding frogs using coarser flangeways. You simply need to
keep to the same width wheels.
>> He also claims finescale narrow treads are not reliable on normal
>>track, wrong. I have narrow wheels 2.1mm
>
>Not exactly P87 are they!
They stay on the track without resorting to compensation or
suspension. The difference is only 0.5mm, (less than 2 HO inches)
which is hardly noticeable, because the tread width difference is
only 0.2mm due to the wider flange. Unless you view your models
using a microscope, who cares.
>>that run on track which is as
>>wide as 16.9mm.
>
>No wonder you see P87 as difficult.
Just a waste of time for minimal visual gain.
stea...@webtel.net.au
wrote:
>stea...@webtel.net.au wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 08:57:44 -0500, Train Man <jsi...@mich.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >This is in response to all 3 posts by this gentleman.
>> >
>> >stea...@webtel.net.au wrote:
>> >>
>> >> For over 2 years the NMRA proto 87 SIG has had a proposed RP on the
>> >> web which is impossible to make,
>> >
>> >Nothing is impossible.. Expensive? Yes, Impossible No.
>>
>> Impossible to measure anything with 100% accuracy, therefore how do
>> you no that your track gauge is exactly 16.5mm? Also if yor track
>> temperature varies, so will the track gauge, again becoming outside
>> the proposed standard.
>I don't.... However, I do know that I've been building track for over 15
>years and have had very few problems as long as, like I said before, I
>stick to the SAME standard.
But remember, my comments are about the proposed MNRA RP for proto 87
as published in MR. Not the NMRA HO standard. For reasons for not
using the NMRA HO standard see my web page.
>I don't know about where you are but my basement is climate controlled
>(AC in summer and heat in winter). I spike my own rail on ties glued to
>basswood roadbed which is glued to 1/2" or 3/4" plywood. Haven't had a
>track or turn out come out of gauge yet.. And yes it is Noisy too!
My definition of out of gauge for HO is broader than the NMRA's. I
allow the minimum to go less than 16.5mm. See my extra finescale web
page for details. I do not spike my rail, as spikes designed to hold
rail in HO are overscale. I use many brands of flexy track, combined
with scratch built turnouts of soldered construction. Yes, I to use
plywood base boards, and I like to hear the noise made from metal
weels on metal rail. My layout enviroment is not ideal, temperature
varies from about 6 degrees c. to about 28 degrees c.
>>
>> >Now this is in no way a defense of either the NMRA OR MR. I have my own
>> >personal issues with both. However I personally find, and I may be alone
>> >in this, the current regular HO standards acceptable. I can't remember
>> >the last time I could see the width of the train wheel riding on the
>> >rail. Can't remember the last time I cared to. The NMRA track and wheel
>> >standards have changed very little since they were introduced. I'm not
>> >knocking the proto xx push here either. If you want to choose or invent
>> >your own standard(s) for track, trucks, couplers, buildings, etc... have
>> >at it and have a ball. Just be prepared to do a lot of scratch building
>> >(not all bad in itself). My point is if everything is built to a
>> >specific and UNIQUE standard then it will look right AND will operate
>> >smoothly. This entire post goes way back to the reason for the NMRA to
>> >begin with.... 1 unique set of standards... so you could take your
>> >trains and run them on your freinds layout.
>>
>> NMRA have changed their track standard for HO,
>NOT while I've been in the hobby... Spacing hasn't changed, wheel
>spacing hasn't changed, they still recommend the horn hook couplers
>(last time I checked). I have nmra gauges that are over 30 years old and
>they are spaced just like the newer ones I have, at least according to
>Mr. Starret..
Try measuring the check gauge. Also note the track gauge is not the
standard, but a tool hopefully within the standard.
>>
>> >MR and the NMRA were born together, grew up together and are now growing
>> >old together. ANYTHING that the NMRA says will always be gospel to MR.
>> >The NMRA could say something rediculous like "the new standard for
>> >painting sky back drops is RP-BS001: Sky backdrops should be painted
>> >brite pink and have green polka dots for clouds." Mark my words, you
>> >would see a slew of articles in MR stating THAT is the ONLY way to paint
>> >a sky backdrop. So to nit-pic (and I don't know that's what you are
>> >doing) about being accurate to 4th digit decimal places seems rather
>> >pointless to me. Those are standards that only experienced machinests
>> >with expensive laser accurate measuring tools and a LOT of time on their
>> >hands could hope to achieve...
>>
>> It's the only way to correctly describe proto 87 in imperial units,
>> rounding errors have resulted in the impossible to build track gauge
>> dimension.
>>
>> >Car wieghts... See paragraph about unique standards above.
>>
>> Every second review in MR tells us to add more weight to comply with
>> NMRA weight. Thats allot of manufacturers who agree with me. The NMRA
>> weight formula is to heavy.
>
>I don't add weight at all... Personally I think it is a waste of time
>and money (however minimal they may be). I find as long as my track and
>wheels conform to that piece of stamped steel, the NMRA guage, I have
>VERY few problems.
I find track built to accurately machined gauges easier to use.
stea...@webtel.net.au
wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:41:00 GMT, stea...@webtel.net.au wrote:
>
>terry
>
>>No it is not, the dimensions on the SIG page are rounded up and down
>>approximations, far from the same.
>
>Here are the variations of some of the significant dimensions
>
>Check gauge - 0.000015748"
>Track Gauge - 0.000393701"
>BB Max - 0.000204724"
>BB Min - 0.000448819"
>That's using a conversion ratio of 25.4mm/inch and a Hewlett Packard
>Scientific calculator. Maybe you could define your use of the word
>"approximation". You would need laboratory conditions to measure
>these differences accurately.
>
>>My improvement simply allows a larger maximum check face (span). This
>>makes it easier to build,and necessary if you wish to buils diamond
>>crossings and other complex track. I can because my solution is sound,
>>practical and will work.
><snip>
>>The proto 87 standard is
>>impractical for complex track work unless you use my improvement to
>>the standard,
>
>These statements are rubbish. The P87, P4, S7 etc., standards work
>and there's plenty of evidence in working layouts to prove it. Have
>you ever actually built any trackwork to any of these standards to
>find out for yourself? If you haven't then maybe you should, and
>criticise, if necessary, from experience rather than nit pick
>standards to four or five decimal places.
>
>Jim.
P4, S7 are different standards to P87. The difference is they are
easier to build as the tolerances are larger than P87. Thus you need
to show me an operating P87 layout and equipment. With allot of effort
It can be done. Using my improvement, less effort is required to
achieve Proto87. As for building trackwork, I have built track to a
tolerance of 0.05mm, which is tight enough, thank you. My extra
finescale web page has details. My layout has been working, like many
others without derailment due to correct track and wheel dimensions
for 15 + years. In fact why use Proto 87 when I can make turnouts that
work as well, and use wheels that out perform Proto87 wheels, with
minimal compromise in apearance. I have seen the difference, Proto87
is simply not worth the effort or cost .
stea...@webtel.net.au
wrote:
>stea...@webtel.net.au wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>We don't need Terry to re-invent them either.
>>
>>There is alway an easy and a hard way of doing things. The original
>>proto 87 dimensions are the hard way. The NMRA attempt is the wrong
>>way. My way is the practical way, wether you like it or not. .
>>
>
>It always comes down to this, doesn't it, Terry?
>Everyone else is wrong, not you.
>
>Mike "Look! Everyone in the marching band is out of step except our little
>Johnny" Tennent
>"IronPenguin"
>'98 Ironman Canada, 16:17:03
Good to see you are still reading my posts. You don't seem to have
found any mistakes in my caculations Mike.
Jim Guthrie
Terry
>My layout has been working, like many
>others without derailment due to correct track and wheel dimensions
>for 15 + years. In fact why use Proto 87 when I can make turnouts that
>work as well, and use wheels that out perform Proto87 wheels, with
>minimal compromise in apearance.
Your problem is that you are farting against thunder proposing yet
another compromise set of standards.
Modellers nowadays either model to the established scale/gauge ratios
or track and wheel standards, or model to exact scale standards if
they wish for something more accurate. Proposing yet another
compromise set of wheel and track standards for HO will only be
perceived as further "muddying of the water".
And you have to get off your hobby horse about exact scale track and
wheel standards not working. They do work and many people have proved
it. If you ever get a chance, look at a layout built to 2mm scale
standards - arguably the finest standards anyone has to work to in
terms of precision and tolerances. I exhibited at a joint SScale/2mm
exhibition in the UK a year or two ago, and my abiding memory of that
exhibition was seeing superb operation from all the 2mm layouts which
would have put many larger scale layouts (to any track and wheel
standards) to shame.
stea...@webtel.net.au
wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 11:22:28 GMT, stea...@webtel.net.au wrote:
>
>Terry
>
>>My layout has been working, like many
>>others without derailment due to correct track and wheel dimensions
>>for 15 + years. In fact why use Proto 87 when I can make turnouts that
>>work as well, and use wheels that out perform Proto87 wheels, with
>>minimal compromise in apearance.
>
>Your problem is that you are farting against thunder proposing yet
>another compromise set of standards.
These are standards designed for the most commonly supplied fine scale
wheels in HO. These standards have been used by many modellers without
knowing it. All I have done is define the most practical track
dimensions simply.
>Modellers nowadays either model to the established scale/gauge ratios
>or track and wheel standards, or model to exact scale standards if
>they wish for something more accurate. Proposing yet another
>compromise set of wheel and track standards for HO will only be
>perceived as further "muddying of the water".
Most HO modellers use commercially mass produced track which falls
into NEM and AMRA standards, (very few mass produced brands of
turnouts comply with NMRA HO) .I have simply provided a simple
description. The extra finescale standards I have provided are the
compatable solution to currently available extra finescale wheels
supplied on current HO brass steam locomotives. Again these track
standards are compatable with many brands of HO wheels.
>And you have to get off your hobby horse about exact scale track and
>wheel standards not working. They do work and many people have proved
>it. If you ever get a chance, look at a layout built to 2mm scale
>standards - arguably the finest standards anyone has to work to in
>terms of precision and tolerances. I exhibited at a joint SScale/2mm
>exhibition in the UK a year or two ago, and my abiding memory of that
>exhibition was seeing superb operation from all the 2mm layouts which
>would have put many larger scale layouts (to any track and wheel
>standards) to shame.
Your 2mm scale track when scaled up to HO hardly compares with exact
scale standards in larger scales. The tolerances are as tight, but it
still it is over scale, like my extra finescale standards in HO scale.
Comparing 2mm scale to larger scales is a waste of time. I can get my
models to run smother than 2mm scale models, just as O scale models
can run smother than HO, and so it goes.
Again I state, the current proto 87 standard is impractical, and a
slight modification to the standard is required. The solution is on my
extra finescale web page.
As for the 2mm scale standard, 7mm scale standard ect, I do not model
in these scales, therefore have not looked at these standards or have
I commented on them.
>Jim.
>S7 Dabbling at www.netcomuk.co.uk/~sprocket/index.html
Terry Flynn
Jim Guthrie
Terry
>Your 2mm scale track when scaled up to HO hardly compares with exact
>scale standards in larger scales. The tolerances are as tight, but it
>still it is over scale, like my extra finescale standards in HO scale.
>Comparing 2mm scale to larger scales is a waste of time.
Read my lips(?). I said
>If you ever get a chance, look at a layout built to 2mm scale
>standards - arguably the finest standards anyone has to work to in
>terms of precision and tolerances.
I wasn't talking about scaling 2mm standards up - I was talking about
people working to the finest tolerances - a rebuttal to youir oft
repeated statement that modellers can't work to fine tolerances.
>Again I state, the current proto 87 standard is impractical, and a
>slight modification to the standard is required. The solution is on my
>extra finescale web page.
And you won't get very far slagging off the opposition - a lesson
learned the hard way 30 years ago in the UK when missionary style
zealots for finer standards probably set their cause back rather than
progressed it. Build it, prove it, demonstrate it, then persuade
seems to be a better way to go, and that takes a lot of time and
effort - certainly more than just knocking together a few pages of
HTML.
stea...@webtel.net.au
wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 11:27:54 GMT, stea...@webtel.net.au wrote:
The mathematics prove wether it will work or not.
I have built it, and it works, over 15 years of operation using the
coarser AMRA standard, (about 20 turnouts and 2 diamond crossings) and
many others have worked to similar flangeway dimensions. I have simply
defined what many manufacturers and modelers are doing. I have also
built track to the extra finescale standard , and it worked first go,
as one would expect using realistic tolerances. The gauges were made
using a rather inacurate hobby lathe.
>Jim.
>
>S7 Dabbling at www.netcomuk.co.uk/~sprocket/index.html
Terry Flynn
Jim Guthrie
Terry,
> Build it, prove it, demonstrate it, then persuade
>>seems to be a better way to go, and that takes a lot of time and
>>effort - certainly more than just knocking together a few pages of
>>HTML.
>
>The mathematics prove wether it will work or not.
>
>I have built it, and it works, over 15 years of operation using the
>coarser AMRA standard, (about 20 turnouts and 2 diamond crossings) and
>many others have worked to similar flangeway dimensions. I have simply
>defined what many manufacturers and modelers are doing. I have also
>built track to the extra finescale standard , and it worked first go,
>as one would expect using realistic tolerances. The gauges were made
>using a rather inacurate hobby lathe.
So now you've got to PERSUADE.
Jim.
Progressing (maybe) in S7 at www.netcomuk.co.uk/~sprocket/index.html