I take exception and see it as you are having a go at me regard "lack of understanding", I do understand very well, my argument is that Terry seems to have become very contradictory and has got to a point where he is admits that the NMRA standards do work, sure his AMRA standards work as well, the big item in the still relatively course nature of H0 is the B2B measurement, he is admitting they are the same, I machined up some wheels many years ago on my little Unimat lathe, I had basic knowledge of NMRA and hadn't even heard of AMRA back then, I couldn't measure tapers and to the thou's (Oh sorry Aaron, being a psuedo engineer you probably measure in microns), but the wheel and flange looked OK and the B2B was the same as other wheels I had, and surprise surprise to you that all know better, they worked, and have worked for many years.
And I have to disagree with your comment that Terry knows what he is talking about, in past posts, Terry has continually said our trains will derail on Peco points with NMRA wheels, many have responded to say that is not the case, but Terry kept waffling on against quite strong criticism, he his now saying that if NMRA wheels are set for the minimum B2B they will be OK, if that is not a back down I don't know what is. That is not a sign of someone who knows what he is talking about, more the sign of a very arrogant, ignorant man, sounds like a lot of engineers I have met actually.
What I find most amusing is that good old Terry can get on here and tell us we are all wrong, now to put this into another context, we (Australia) are a population of 23,166,662, USA has a population of 316,564,000, now if we estimate that 2% are model railroaders who model H0 and use Peco points (but that is a very generous estimate I reckon), that makes 263,222 Aussies and 6,331,280 yanks have had it wrong all these years, don't you think the yanks might have jumped up and down a bit by now and developed there own Terry to bat for them.
I have issue with his term fine scale wheels, RP25-88 or the AMRA equivalent may be a 'finer' wheel than RP25-110 or the AMRA equivalent, but they aren't fine scale wheels, as far as I am concerned 'fine scale' should be limited to the P4's and P87 modelers.
Now don't take me wrong here, I actually have to agree with others that the funny factor of Terry's comebacks have been amusing, I would sort of like to meet the man to see what sort of personality he has and how many friends he has (the mod must be one), I am another that has baited him for a responce as well but my comment to shut this thread down is for the general benefit of the hobby as whole, everybody has had there say, all the points (no pun intended) that can be made have been made, but now we are right where we were on page 1, that's a sign that it has run it's course in my mind.
Your post contains claims about what I have said which is simply untrue. Go back and read exactly what I have said in the past. I have never said 'NMRA standards do not work
'. I do however have plenty of examples of wheels complying to NMRA standards that do derail on PECO turnouts. That is what happens when you mix track and wheel standards. NMRA wheels are designed for NMRA track. Peco code 100 and 75 is not built to NMRA standards. That is a hard fact, irrespective to what you and others think. There is no back down, you and others simply have not understood the importance of the different check gauges in the 2 standards. If you bothered to read the AMRA standards you would realise the wheel back to back distance of 14.4mm is the AMRA recommended minimum for the AMRA H0 wheel, the same as the metric version of the NMRA standard. This allows AMRA recommended wheels to fully comply with the NMRA standard, allowing use on track work built to NMRA standards.
The fact is the NMRA still uses the term 'finescale H0' to describe their standard with wheels with a RP-25-88 size. This term existed before the invention of NMRA proto87. AMRA uses the term fine tolerance instead for it's 'fine scale' standard. The English also have a number of fine scale standards including 00-SF, (SF= special fine) which is 100% compatible with the AMRA H0 gauge fine tolerance standard.
Here is a US based modellers view of the NMRA standards included on his tips web page http://www.railwayeng.com
. He designs his track and gauges to suit wheels gauged to the NMRA gauge, which works as long as you keep as close to the minimum value of the NMRA wheel gauge as practical, or better still, use a set of metal digital calipers to gauge your wheels. His track gauges produces track that complies to the AMRA fine tolerance standard. His track does not comply with the NMRA standard. QUESTION: #1 When handlaying track, is it best to use a three-point gauge on curves to get a slightly wider gauge, or is it better to use two-point gauges to get the exact gauge? ANSWER:
Here's what we've found:
The NMRA standard has you laying your rails over an inch (prototype) wider than the wheel sets. This means you already have enormous space for play. Curves ... straight ... whatever..
Now if you use a three point gauge and widen the rails just a bit in the curves, your just increasing the slop. If your laying your curves sharper than 18inch radius, then use the three point. But if you are using any radius larger than 18, and you wish to run your trains forward and backward with no length/weight limit, then I have by absolute experience found that you don't want to widen anywhere.
As a matter of fact, you can narrow the track about .005 to .010 thru the frogs, and you will get much better performance.
In 1980 at the NMRA convention at Disneyland, I took a portable railroad (HO) set it up and ran 65 car trains backward with three four five units. Some on front.. ... some pushing ... etc. with my back to the display for six (6) days with absolutely no derailments using the narrow track standard to prove once and for all that the wider gauge of the three point gauge just causes derailments. That's all it does. Period.
By the way, I used both Athearn and Atlas units running together with no problems. If the track is the right gauge, you have fewer problems. Please understand that I don't care what gauge you use and I make the two point gauges for those who want them. At 9.95 for four of the gauges plus the time to package and send them, believe me I don't make any money from the gauges.
One last time ....... Don't widen your track anymore than you have to. There's already too much play. Way more than is needed for your curves. (by the way, the same ratio is in N scale as well)
A little insider info: John Allen didn't use a track gauge.
He used a wheel set for gauge and his
trains ran very well.
I have done all the research to prove this both theoretically as well as physically. If you want to reduce your derailments..... this is one way that works well.
Happy Railroading. I hope this helps some of you. QUESTION: #5
Please send me or point me to correct specs. for track gauge. ANSWER:
My problem in answering you is this:
The list for all gauges is quite extensive.
Do you want NMRA standards (which will derail your trains)?
or do you want specifications that work?
You see NMRA had two standards committees. One did the track spacing and the other did the wheel spacing. Now since the wheels on locos and such are very dificult to change it seemed best to change the distance between the rails especially thru turnouts to match the wheel gauge provided by NMRA.
By the way the heads of each commitee hated each other (jealosy) and never spoke to each other. Most commercial track including turnouts are a bastard compromise between these two dimensions.
What scale do you wish accurate specs for?
I/ll be happy to answer.
I take some of his above comments with a pinch of salt but his conclusions about track gauge are spot on.
From my desk calender
'If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing' ANATOLE FRANCE