Modelling Standards - a general discussion. Be nice, please

 
  hosk1956 Deputy Commissioner

Location: no where near gunzels
Aaron, just a question of curiosity but what are the points on the Noarlunga Model Railway Club layout?

Wayne

Sponsored advertisement

  David Peters Dr Beeching

Location: "With Hey Boy".
I could have edited my above post but I thought I would come clean when I realised that I won't have to relay all my points as Peco points comply with the AMRA standards so I only have to worry about a few hand laid points.

Wayne
hosk1956
Personally I would not even worry Wayne as long as it works that is all that really matters, no matter what standard you use. I propose a new standard though for this kind of thing "Rafferty's Standard" as in "Rafferty's Rules". Laughing
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Aaron, just a question of curiosity but what are the points on the Noarlunga Model Railway Club layout?

Wayne
"hosk1956"
Ah, that's an interesting question, and I am pleased you asked! The latest additions are either handmade to NMRA standard or Peco code 83. But see here's the thing, I don't use an NMRA gauge, and I have stated before that I regard them as being not far short of useless because of the points in use. I gauge all of my own wheels which are almost exclusively 88 profile (or maybe some finer) some locos have thicker, but eventually that will change, by my own B2B gauge. My stock runs quite well, I find I hardly ever have a point/track work related derailment. Others at the club could not say the same thing.

If you were to NMRA gauge check my wheels you'd probably look at and think 'hmmm, that's a tight fit on the gauge' - why? My wheels would be gauged near the nominal, remember? The only use I have for an NMRA gauge is for the 16.5mm, and jeez, I must have used it to check that twice.

My own layout? I intend for that to be a modular device built to P87 (again without an NMRA gauge oddly) probably in a code somewhere around 50-60. I'd be closer to building it had a friend who just sold a lathe let me know he was selling it, if I'd have known, I'd be machining wheels for P87 right now, probably re wheeling all my RTR loco mechs, alas that will have to wait until I find another lathe at good price.
  Teditor Deputy Commissioner

Location: Toowoomba
Ah, that's an interesting question, and I am pleased you asked! The latest additions are either handmade to NMRA standard or Peco code 83. But see here's the thing, I don't use an NMRA gauge, and I have stated before that I regard them as being not far short of useless because of the points in use. I gauge all of my own wheels which are almost exclusively 88 profile (or maybe some finer) some locos have thicker, but eventually that will change, by my own B2B gauge. My stock runs quite well, I find I hardly ever have a point/track work related derailment. Others at the club could not say the same thing.

If you were to NMRA gauge check my wheels you'd probably look at and think 'hmmm, that's a tight fit on the gauge' - why? My wheels would be gauged near the nominal, remember? The only use I have for an NMRA gauge is for the 16.5mm, and jeez, I must have used it to check that twice.

My own layout? I intend for that to be a modular device built to P87 (again without an NMRA gauge oddly) probably in a code somewhere around 50-60. I'd be closer to building it had a friend who just sold a lathe let me know he was selling it, if I'd have known, I'd be machining wheels for P87 right now, probably re wheeling all my RTR loco mechs, alas that will have to wait until I find another lathe at good price.
Aaron
Aaron,

Being a supporter of Terry, I have now worked out the formula (You have clarified it above)

You say, and I quote "My own layout? I intend for that to be", the "NMRANEMAMRA" standards are "Gunnado" standards, those that actually "Do-Do" have working layouts and get by with the De-facto NMRA incorrect standards, the Gunnado's are still looking for the "NMRANEMAMRA" gauges so a perfect layout can (but never will be) built.
  CraigW Assistant Commissioner

Aaron,

Being a supporter of Terry, I have now worked out the formula (You have clarified it above)

You say, and I quote "My own layout? I intend for that to be", the "NMRANEMAMRA" standards are "Gunnado" standards, those that actually "Do-Do" have working layouts and get by with the De-facto NMRA incorrect standards, the Gunnado's are still looking for the "NMRANEMAMRA" gauges so a perfect layout can (but never will be) built.
Teditor

Teditor,

I am a little puzzled at what you are trying to achieve here. Aaron was merely noting that he intends to build a layout to P87 standards. They are a standard that exist and are entirely workable - as the existence of Bowen Creek shows.

There was no mention of creating a new standard, merely an intention of using a  different standard - hardly anything to do with NMRA or AMRA standards.

Craigw
  miktrain Deputy Commissioner

Location: Adelaide SA
Aaron, just a question of curiosity but what are the points on the Noarlunga Model Railway Club layout?

Wayne
hosk1956
All Peco code 100 mostly large radius some medium. All modified to make them electrically reliable but no gauge changes or tweaks.

Tony
  Teditor Deputy Commissioner

Location: Toowoomba
Teditor,

I am a little puzzled at what you are trying to achieve here. Aaron was merely noting that he intends to build a layout to P87 standards. They are a standard that exist and are entirely workable - as the existence of Bowen Creek shows.

There was no mention of creating a new standard, merely an intention of using a  different standard - hardly anything to do with NMRA or AMRA standards.

Craigw
CraigW
Craig,

I am not trying to achieve anything, I have a standard I work with (NMRA), you have answered your own question and that of Aaron, and again I will quote; "There was no mention of creating a new standard, merely an intention of using a  different standard - hardly anything to do with NMRA or AMRA standards."

So my interpretation of this statement is that the AMRA standards are not really viable as we keep getting told the NMRA ones are not and the need to use yet another comes in.
  miktrain Deputy Commissioner

Location: Adelaide SA
All Peco code 100 mostly large radius some medium. All modified to make them electrically reliable but no gauge changes or tweaks.

Tony
miktrain
Ah yes, I forgot the scratch built ones I made, one crossing using a gauge and a couple of double track arrangements that were built without a gauge because it was lost in the junk at the time so I just used a vernier calliper and a (NMRA) wheel-set.
Here is one of them under test https://ozfreemo.com/members/index.php/Tony/My-scratch-building/Double-Track-Wye-Points/Tram-Points-Test note that there is one section of rail missing in the middle of that section that is why the wheels jump.

Tony

Link updated
  CraigW Assistant Commissioner

Craig,

I am not trying to achieve anything, I have a standard I work with (NMRA), you have answered your own question and that of Aaron, and again I will quote; "There was no mention of creating a new standard, merely an intention of using a  different standard - hardly anything to do with NMRA or AMRA standards."

So my interpretation of this statement is that the AMRA standards are not really viable as we keep getting told the NMRA ones are not and the need to use yet another comes in.
Teditor
Teditor,

It is not a case of the AMRA or NMRA standards not being viable. Simply put, if you want to be closer to the prototype then locally we will need some variations from NMRA standards and recommended practices. Different track centres and shorter axle lengths on 4 wheel wagons are two that come to mind.

On my following of this thread what Terry seems to be saying is that Peco track does not comply with NMRA standards and you will get more reliable running if the B2B of wheel sets is altered to match the track. The AMRA standard reflects this.


NMRA have listed "Proto" standards on their site though I do not believe they originated them.  P87 and the other standards of this type came about because some modellers do not like the compromise that the over scale RP25 standards entail. Proto standards in al there forms are basically an accurate scaling down of prototype track and wheels dimensions. But they have nothing at all to do with this discussion which is basically about commercial wheels and track

Craig W
  LaidlayM Chief Commissioner

Location: Research
Craig,

I am not trying to achieve anything, I have a standard I work with (NMRA), you have answered your own question and that of Aaron, and again I will quote; "There was no mention of creating a new standard, merely an intention of using a  different standard - hardly anything to do with NMRA or AMRA standards."

So my interpretation of this statement is that the AMRA standards are not really viable as we keep getting told the NMRA ones are not and the need to use yet another comes in.
Teditor
Another interpretation might be that Aaron lives in a broad gauge state (historically broad gauge at least) so he might be correcting the gauge thus decided to correct the standards at the same time.

My layout is built to NMRA standards (no Peco turnouts) but I wish I had used AMRA fine as the turnouts would look less crude but still allow standard RTR 110 and 88 wheels to run.  It has a mainline about 50 metres long with 62 pairs of points in the handbuilt turnouts.

Mark
  NSWGR1855 Deputy Commissioner

I will give you some things have to be done by the seat of you pants and the V crossings are one in a Peco point that a NMRA gauge will not gauge properly, but all the rest that I know of do or get close to and I still have my original instructions that came with my gauge as well. But I don't often need to use the check gauges on this gauge because everything I have runs through the Peco points superbly like they were made for one another. No derailments at all and most of the stock I have now all has these modern wheels and profiles on them. I have not needed to check a point in a long time and only do so if something is amiss which as I said is virtually never.

Terry stated that using the more modern wheels with Peco points results in derailments yet I and a few other hundred people have not had this problem, so if there is no problem why is Terry banging on about AMRA standards. If the points accidentally comply to his AMRA standards well frankly whoop dee do to most people. I think most of us are using more than one standard though, a mix of them to be precise but they all work for me and most others as well. So why bang on about it. Miktrain has even proved that the flange depth in the AMRA standard is still virtually a Pizza cutter wheel against a lot of others. So we cannot all be wrong can we. Keep the AMRA standards the other side of the blue mountains and the rest of us will be happy.

All he has done on here is confused us all actually by making statements that contradict what he said previously, no wonder some of us lower edamacated dolts are confused. Laughing
David Peters
Again you tell lies about what I have said. Which post is I say 'using the more modern wheels with Peco points results in derailments'. I was the one saying most modern Australian RTR wheels and track comply with AMRA standards and therefore there is no derailment problem.
Of course the Peco turnouts comply with AMRA standards, the standard was deliberately designed to be relevant to RTR track wheels and track. Most people plonk the models on their track, therefore most comply with the AMRA standard.
Milk train proved nothing about flange depths. The AMRA recommended flange depth is no deeper than the NMRA maximum flange depth. More rubbish from you.

So why do you insist in promoting mixing standards, when there is a practical proven set of standards for Australian RTR? Mixing standards is really saying you don't know what you are really doing. And if you truly do not want to confuse people, stop posting lies about what I have said.

Terry Flynn
  NSWGR1855 Deputy Commissioner

The confusion is in Terry's mind, many many here have tried to tell him that we have NMRA RP25-110 wheels that quite happily go thru Peco points, he had continually stated that this can not be so because Peco points aren't NMRA compliant, then various standards were being dragged into the argument, fine scale wheels seem to be the big argument now, mud is being thrown around but nobody is giving in and double standards are being used (for your information Terry, I am quite well aware of standards and how they are used, I have been scratchbuilding in this hobby in various gauges for 40+ years, I build my own points in H0, H0n3 and gauge 1 so know full well what standards are for and how they need to be used, you should perhaps stand back and stop assuming that you are the ant's pants and accept that a lot of others in this big wide forum know their stuff as well).
I and many others have stated with total truth that NMRA wheels will go thru Peco points reliably, some have commented that in some cases the B2B may have to be tweaked, Terry jumps on that to say that "ha, you are not working to NMRA standards then", but we are still working within the NMRA standards tolerance, something that even he admits is in the AMRA standard (hence my double standard comment).
I for one will concede that Terry may be right about fine scale wheels and fine scale point work, I actually don't give a rats smeg, I am quite happy to run 'steam roller' wheels with Peco points, interestingly, my only fine scale engine is a Brass 520 class with Rp 25-88 wheels which has never to my knowledge derailed on any Peco points. I am not interested in fine scale so I haven't read your AMRA standard, I lay my own points to NMRA standards to run my NMRA standard wheels and by happy perchance, all my NMRA wheels run thru my Peco points, which is also good in that NMRA wheels are about as standard as you can get.
If I am doing something wrong, well so be it, I am happy, my trains run, on club layouts and others railways as well and vice versa, if you are having that much trouble running trains that you had to design your own standard Terry, I could have come around and show you how to lay track properly years ago and save you a lot of trouble.
But I do have one question which others have actually asked with no answer that I can find, if I was to embrace the AMRA standard, relay all my points and re wheel all my stock, where do I buy all those wheels that I will need, now I will need some replacement wheels for all my locomotives as well, my 520 is the only one I wouldn't have to convert, that is lucky???  
But I will be doing this to correct a problem that I don't have, so I am not sure I can spare the time, I won't have time to count the rivets on all my rolling stock (you do that as well don't you Terry), yeah, I know, I'm slinging mud but what the heck, it doesn't seem to stick on Terry anyway.
Having re read this post I realised I do have to own up to my 520 derailing on a Peco point, actually 2 Peco points, a 3 way and a double slip, both very old, I have tried shimming them but I suspect the bigger issue is the tight radius thru these 2 points, we have problems with other stock as well.
Happy modelling.

Wayne
hosk1956
Another poster who tells lies of what I have said.

Putting the record straight again.

Some wheels complying to the NMRA standards will derail on Peco code 100 and 75 turnouts.  I have plenty of NMRA wheels in my reject tin of wheels. As mentioned many times in the past the NMRA wheel check gauge maximum is 15.4mm, and Peco turnouts use 15.2mm. If you understand the standards than you will realise this is one fundamental problem that will cause derailments. The NMRA compliant wheels that do not derail on Peco turnouts have a check gauge of 15.2mm or less. Because these non derailing NMRA wheels have a check gauge of 15.2mm or less they now fully comply with the AMRA standard. If your track is not to NMRA standards, then you are not working to NMRA standards, by definition. I to have a brass NSW 50, made in Korea. The wheels are not RP25-88 as you suggest. They are slightly wider and the flange is deeper and wider than RP25-88. If anything it closer to the recommended AMRA standard flange size, the back to back new was under the NMRA minimum.

To answer your question about converting to the AMRA standard. You do not need to change anything that is already working. it appears all your track including your NMRA track complies with the AMRA standard. The only dimension you might have trouble with as far as compliance goes is the maximum track gauge. The AMRA maximum limit is 16.8mm. The NMRA maximum limit is over 17mm. Even the NMRA recommends building track as close to the minimum gauge as possible.

Terry Flynn.
  Dazz Deputy Commissioner

I think there is a massive misunderstanding going on here which is causing some issues, aggression, pig headedness, digging in of heels and reducing the benefits of openly discussing and sharing practical experiences of the use of "different to" NMRA standards.

So in dot point form:

* This is a discussion about standards, yes? So lets be open minded and discuss and compare the different standards, based on their merits and disadvantages in a factual way based on actual application.

* Discussing standards is probably more relevant to those who are building their own track and points, as RTR stuff is largely what it is, and used "as is" I would imagine. So for those who aren't interested in building their own track, while their point about using their RTR stuff with no problems is true, it really adds nothing to the discussion of what might be "better" as most RTR stuff only vaguely complies to any standard.

* "Better" does not mean RTR doesn't work, but simply that it can be improved upon for those who want to. I personally don't like the attitude of "what I have works so why would anyone want anything better" which seems to be some peoples opinion. By the same token there's no reality in anyone not wanting to use a "better" standard being less of a modeler or having less reliable running.

* Having built some points, using first the NMRA gauge, then using Terry's/AMRA fine scale dimensions and also a set to the OO-SF standard (which is very close to Terry's fine scale), the latter two are by far much better looking than the NMRA ones, and by default of being built to closer dimensions work better. All of my loco's and rolling stock are RTR from Austrains, Trainormama, Eureka, and Austrains, with some older AR Kits stuff I built nearly thirty years ago as a pimply teenager, and they all run through the finer points with no problems, apart from some where the back to back was wrong from the factory. My opinion about what I have found to look and work better is thus based on practical application of the three standards, that was undertaken with an open mind.

If you want some interesting reading, go to the following link and read Question 5 and 6, it explains some of what has been talked about with the NMRA standards, and shows more practical experience that it is not the "best" way to go.

http://www.railwayeng.com/rrhints.htm

A loaded question, but I am a bit of a stirrer, has anyone used the AMRA std and found it works worse than the NMRA standard?
  hosk1956 Deputy Commissioner

Location: no where near gunzels
Another poster who tells lies of what I have said.

Putting the record straight again.

Some wheels complying to the NMRA standards will derail on Peco code 100 and 75 turnouts.  I have plenty of NMRA wheels in my reject tin of wheels. As mentioned many times in the past the NMRA wheel check gauge maximum is 15.4mm, and Peco turnouts use 15.2mm. If you understand the standards than you will realise this is one fundamental problem that will cause derailments. The NMRA compliant wheels that do not derail on Peco turnouts have a check gauge of 15.2mm or less. Because these non derailing NMRA wheels have a check gauge of 15.2mm or less they now fully comply with the AMRA standard. If your track is not to NMRA standards, then you are not working to NMRA standards, by definition. I to have a brass NSW 50, made in Korea. The wheels are not RP25-88 as you suggest. They are slightly wider and the flange is deeper and wider than RP25-88. If anything it closer to the recommended AMRA standard flange size, the back to back new was under the NMRA minimum.

To answer your question about converting to the AMRA standard. You do not need to change anything that is already working. it appears all your track including your NMRA track complies with the AMRA standard. The only dimension you might have trouble with as far as compliance goes is the maximum track gauge. The AMRA maximum limit is 16.8mm. The NMRA maximum limit is over 17mm. Even the NMRA recommends building track as close to the minimum gauge as possible.

Terry Flynn.
NSWGR1855
Finally we agree on something, "I don't need to change anything that is already working". Terry I do not know if my points and wheels happen to fall within AMRA standards, I don't give a crapper doodle if they do or don't, you are so befuddled with your own arguments that you are not listening (or reading) to what people are saying.
To iterate my comments, I use the NMRA gauge to check my wheelsets, I find they work best if set to a minimum setting, BUT THEY ARE STILL WITHIN THE NMRA TOLERANCES, DID YOU HEAR ME THIS TIME? I don't know how they compare to AMRA, I don't care, I use Peco points quite reliably, some older points have required shimming, I find the code 75 points are ok. I have laid my own points and I have used the NMRA gauge quite successfully for that, I use their wheels, I use their standard, makes sense to me, so to summarize, my NMRA wheels (which I assume are all correct, I only check ones that play up) work thru the Peco points I have and the points I have laid, which according to you won't work, I am happy with that. Incidently, I find the 'playing up' issue relates more to bogie swing and clearances etc than dodgy wheels, but I check them anyway.
My annoyance with your arrogant holier than thou attitude is you can not admit or see that we are happy with that, we don't need to attack all our points and wheels with verniers to check everything, if it aint broke, don't fix it.
I don't know about your brass 50 class, I didn't mention one of them at all, I talked about my SAR brass 520 class, that is a different engine dip stick.
And I will tell you again, I understand standards, they are a fact of life in my working world, I work in the railway industry, I deal with big real wheels, they have B2B measurements and flange wear and shape limits as well, I had a chuckle when you compared your model wheel profiles with a real one, do you realise how many different wheel profiles the real railways use? and they can't agree on the correct profile either.
I use the standards I need to use to maintain a smooth running railway, I don't go into it as deep as yourself, but I don't feel that I have to, I don't measure my B2B, I find the NMRA gauge is a good enough quick and easy to use gauge, I am happy with that, accept that Terry and give up on trains and take up bridge building, you need to get over one.

Wayne
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Aaron,

Being a supporter of Terry, I have now worked out the formula (You have clarified it above)

You say, and I quote "My own layout? I intend for that to be", the "NMRANEMAMRA" standards are "Gunnado" standards, those that actually "Do-Do" have working layouts and get by with the De-facto NMRA incorrect standards, the Gunnado's are still looking for the "NMRANEMAMRA" gauges so a perfect layout can (but never will be) built.
"Teditor"
You just don't get it do you? My layout will be built to P87, there's nothing in that that suggests a new standard, the P87 standard is well defined, widely circulated, and away from you perhaps, widely known of and more importantly, to those that use it (unlike the NMRA standard) widely understood. Once again we see a post from someone who doesn't get it, you CANNOT that it is, it is fundamentally impossible to claim to have built a layout to an NMRA standard if you use Peco point work in code 75/100.
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Craig,

I am not trying to achieve anything, I have a standard I work with (NMRA), you have answered your own question and that of Aaron, and again I will quote; "There was no mention of creating a new standard, merely an intention of using a  different standard - hardly anything to do with NMRA or AMRA standards."

So my interpretation of this statement is that the AMRA standards are not really viable as we keep getting told the NMRA ones are not and the need to use yet another comes in.
"Teditor"
We've been over this before, but I'll humour you again. In my post I made reference to using P87, what is your specific problem with that statement? There's logic in that statement, which to be fair I should have known you'd have trouble with, so I'll ask you this. I model in a period and location that was EXCLUSIVELY 5'3" now given (and I know this is a controversial topic) I regard my track (and it's gauge) as a model too, which NMRA standard and which NMRA gauge would you suggest I use? Additionally, because I like challenges, I intend to create additional modules featuring 3'6" correctly gauge modelled too.
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
there is no need to have a tolerance, to list a tolerance only encourages sloppy lazy building in those that don't really care.
"hosk1956"
To iterate my comments, I use the NMRA gauge to check my wheelsets, I find they work best if set to a minimum setting, BUT THEY ARE STILL WITHIN THE NMRA TOLERANCES, DID YOU HEAR ME THIS TIME?
"hosk1956"
Wow! You've done it, you've confused me, are you trying to be accurate, sloppy or lazy now? I thought you didn't need tolerances? I thought you'd set everything to nominal, precisely nominal, that is nominal with a tolerance of exactly zero. Now you're at the lowest end of the tolerance huh? Suddenly that looks almost un lazy, because you've had to do work to get to that point, but tolerances only exist for lazy people? Wow, I am so conflicted... And this is a text based forum, it has zero tolerance for the spoken word, so no, we cannot hear you.
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
if it aint broke, don't fix it.
"hosk1956"
What was broken with Hornby magnahesion?
  David Peters Dr Beeching

Location: "With Hey Boy".
What was broken with Hornby magnahesion?
Aaron
Aaron this shows your ignorance a lot. There was nothing wrong with Hornby Magnahesion at all. It was simply the fact that the Track supplier to Hornby at the time was not going to make track with steel rails anymore and it was changed to Nickel/Silver rails which is of course not magnetic. So it was simply removed from locomotives and then they introduced those dreadful Ringfield motors.

Hornby themselves never made the original System 6 track as it was called it was all made by Roco I think in Austria. They had to get in steel especially for Hornby where as there own track and those they made for other companies like Atlas for instance were all nickel silver rails. I still have a few pieces of System 6 track here somewhere that are branded made in Austria.
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Aaron this shows your ignorance a lot. There was nothing wrong with Hornby Magnahesion at all. It was simply the fact that the Track supplier to Hornby at the time was not going to make track with steel rails anymore and it was changed to Nickel/Silver rails which is of course not magnetic. So it was simply removed from locomotives and then they introduced those dreadful Ringfield motors.

Hornby themselves never made the original System 6 track as it was called it was all made by Roco I think in Austria. They had to get in steel especially for Hornby where as there own track and those they made for other companies like Atlas for instance were all nickel silver rails. I still have a few pieces of System 6 track here somewhere that are branded made in Austria.
"David Peters"
It doesn't show my ignorance, I know exactly why magnahesion went, and you have quite neatly proven my point without even noticing.

So I'll ask the question again.

Given we're not to fix things that ain't broke, and magnahesion wasn't broken, why do we no longer not have it available? - Do you see the point now?

The answer I was not ignorantly looking for, is that society can advance itself, (and not just in the context of model railways) by evolving ideas and techniques, without there being a specific problem that needed 'fixing'. I'll rephrase that point to emphasise it, not every change happens out of response to a problem, change can happen simply because of (or even to cause) improvement.
  David Peters Dr Beeching

Location: "With Hey Boy".
Yes but like all things in this world a step forward in technology is not always a good thing though. How many things when I was younger had to be turned off for a couple of hours just to reset them selves. None that I know of, but today you do this to computers, modems, Tv's and set top boxes to name a few all made with modern technology. Like I said this is not a step forward  at the best of times, if you have to do this then the technology could have been improved a lot.

Oh and I have had to do all of these at some time in the last few months.
  hosk1956 Deputy Commissioner

Location: no where near gunzels
Wow! You've done it, you've confused me, are you trying to be accurate, sloppy or lazy now? I thought you didn't need tolerances? I thought you'd set everything to nominal, precisely nominal, that is nominal with a tolerance of exactly zero. Now you're at the lowest end of the tolerance huh? Suddenly that looks almost un lazy, because you've had to do work to get to that point, but tolerances only exist for lazy people? Wow, I am so conflicted... And this is a text based forum, it has zero tolerance for the spoken word, so no, we cannot hear you.
Aaron
I reckon that is about as close as I will ever get to winding you up Aaron.
It's a shame you can't hear my written word as you would hear me blowing raspberrys at this thread.

Wayne
  hosk1956 Deputy Commissioner

Location: no where near gunzels
What was broken with Hornby magnahesion?
Aaron
Magnahesion?  WTF, who mentioned magnahesion?

Wayne
  hosk1956 Deputy Commissioner

Location: no where near gunzels
It doesn't show my ignorance, I know exactly why magnahesion went, and you have quite neatly proven my point without even noticing.

So I'll ask the question again.

Given we're not to fix things that ain't broke, and magnahesion wasn't broken, why do we no longer not have it available? - Do you see the point now?

The answer I was not ignorantly looking for, is that society can advance itself, (and not just in the context of model railways) by evolving ideas and techniques, without there being a specific problem that needed 'fixing'. I'll rephrase that point to emphasise it, not every change happens out of response to a problem, change can happen simply because of (or even to cause) improvement.
Aaron
WTF, have you stopped taking your medication again Aaron.


Wayne
  Dazz Deputy Commissioner

This thread sums up why this is one of the least progressive and technically challenged hobbies around, with genuine improvement in wheel and track standards challenging continental drift for speed!

I think unfortunately an actual discussion on finding better ways to do things is not able to be had due to those who steadfastly cling to old world ideas with no open mindedness for change.

The really sad thing is that those who are new to the hobby, are often led down the old world road and spend up on items before realising there is a better way to go, and too late to then scrap everything they have bought and start again.

Nobody is saying if you don't use AMRA standars you are wrong, but why do those who fanatically defend the NMRA standard (some of which who seem to think having track set to 16.5mm gauge is using full NMRA standards) refuse to acknowledge that there may be (proven) other better standards?

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.