As far as technology has advanced in the past 10 years, if it keeps going at the rate it is we will probably be able to take a cell phone and put it in our wallet like a business card.
So why hasn't any of the major model railroad companies in the world made a turnout with a small 1/8 inch thick rectangular unit underneath it that would fit into the cork roadbed and all you have to do is hook up two wires and now you don't have to Fiddle with connecting a separate switch machine underneath?
I guess that would make too much sense! I would gladly pay the combined 45-$50 for one of those units for the ease of use. I bet they would "sell like hotcakes".
Your thoughts?
TF
TF, if you think it makes too much sense, why not make these yourself and profit from them while they sell like hotcakes?
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
My thoughts? Something else to go wrong and not an easy way to repair it when it does. It would make way more sense to me to save the $$$ and purchase manual turnouts and mechanical switches. No electrical contacts needed.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Well, hasn't Kato taken the lead in this technology? Their solenoid is self-contained in the roadbed.
I lean toward Tom's thinking — where I have a choice of several options for point motors or hand control.
Cheers, Ed
gmpullmanWell, hasn't Kato taken the lead in this technology? Their solenoid is self-contained in the roadbed.
Kato and Bachmann both have the solenoid under the roadbed.
They can inbed a cell phone into your hand in case you didnt know.
gmpullman wrote: "Well, hasn't Kato taken the lead in this technology? Their solenoid is self-contained in the roadbed."
The problem with the Kato switches with the built-in switch motors is that if there's a problem, these switches can't be opened without them literally breaking. I've had a couple of the motors seize up -- they were unrepairable (at least by me).
The Kato manual switches are better in that the manual lever is easily replaced by an add-on motor. It "sticks out" on the side, though, and is not as "clean" as the switches with the built-in motors. But... these CAN be opened from the bottom if need be, and the motors are replaceable if they fail.
As someone mentioned, if the switch motor broke, you wouldnt be able to fix it, unless you tear the roadbed apart and remove the entire switch. That's why its really only common on roadbed included snap track, such as Kato, or Bachmann EZ track.
Also, many of us dont like switch motors. With my small 4x8, I find no need to install switch motors as everything can be reached by hand. Others prefer snap, or slow mo, or etc.
Instead of having track manuf. making switches with all sorts of versions of motors, they just make the switch and let the user install the machine. I think that makes sense.
There are many other things in this hobby that I wish the (arguably) outdated standards should upgraded to, such as making semi scale wheels the standard, shrinking the oversized "standard" coupler head, etc. But nope!
You gotta admit, these look so much better than our thicc chunky wheels. With the modern technology in making precision gauged track, I think switching to semi scale wouldn't be a big enough issue, but I dont think HO modeling standards will be updated anytime soon.
PS sorry my post got off topic, excuse my rant!
Charles
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling the Santa Fe & Pennsylvania in HO
Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLb3FRqukolAtnD1khrb6lQ
Instagram (where I share projects!): https://www.instagram.com/trainman440
Trainman440 As someone mentioned, if the switch motor broke, you wouldnt be able to fix it, unless you tear the roadbed apart and remove the entire switch. That's why its really only common on roadbed included snap track, such as Kato, or Bachmann EZ track. Also, many of us dont like switch motors. With my small 4x8, I find no need to install switch motors as everything can be reached by hand. Others prefer snap, or slow mo, or etc. Instead of having track manuf. making switches with all sorts of versions of motors, they just make the switch and let the user install the machine. I think that makes sense. There are many other things in this hobby that I wish the (arguably) outdated standards should upgraded to, such as making semi scale wheels the standard, shrinking the oversized "standard" coupler head, etc. But nope! You gotta admit, these look so much better than our thicc chunky wheels. With the modern technology in making precision gauged track, I think switching to semi scale wouldn't be a big enough issue, but I dont think HO modeling standards will be updated anytime soon. PS sorry my post got off topic, excuse my rant! Charles
Charles, we are welcome to our opinions, but until the truck side frames are narrower, I for one have no interest in semi scale wheels.
AND, I don't like the way they "clunk" thru NMRA Standard turnouts.
There are already fine scale standards and products for those interested in more accuracy in these areas.
Expecting long time modelers to rebuild equipment and track and making these changes the new "standard" is a non starter.
Same with semi scale couplers. They may look a little better and they work ok with their own kind. But they do not couple as smoothly to the regular Kadee.
I will not mix them, I don't use them.
On both counts, wheels and couplers, reliable operation is more important that getting "half way" to a more scale appearance in my view.
You are welcome to your view, but I will vote with my public opinion and my pocket book to keep wheel, track and coupler standards where they are.
As for the switch motor question, I believe the OP is in N scale. Since I have no experiance with, or interest in N scale, I can only say that intergrated switch machines are not a new idea, and they are an idea that has never dominated more scale/detail focused modeling.
Sheldon
I generally agree that the issue with such a device is related to ease of repair and maintenance. I feel like there's almost nothing mechanical in this hobby that should be un-repairable or un-replacable. Since we tend to permanently mount our track turnouts, an un-reachable, under-track switch machine would be problematic.
Maybe if there was some way to make it replaceable by releasing a clip and pulling it out from the side?
Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad for Chicago Trainspotting and Budget Model Railroading.
EilifMaybe if there was some way to make it replaceable by releasing a clip and pulling it out from the side?
How about just making the whole turnout and switch motor assembly easy to remove? Rapido's uncouplers come with a clear plastic shield that allows ballast to be placed over the uncoupler. If you need to remove the uncoupler, you just pull it out from the bottom. The ballast stays in place. Why couldn't a similar concept be used where the turnout and the ballast sits in a removable tray? Slide the rail joiners off, disconnect the wiring, and then lift the whole thing out including the ballast, giving easy access to the switch motor and requiring minimal repairs to the ballast if the same turnout is being reinstalled.
Just a thought. Like TF said, it might make too much sense.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
ATLANTIC CENTRALSame with semi scale couplers. They may look a little better and they work ok with their own kind. But they do not couple as smoothly to the regular Kadee.
Sheldon,
While still slightly oversized, I think the Kadee #58s/#158 do look better than the #5s. And I've outfitted all my rolling stock and nearly all of my locomotives with #58s and they work better than just okay. I've never had a problem with any of them uncoupling unexpectedly - except on the rare occasion when one loses a spring. That can even happen with a Kadee #5.
And, while I do understand where you are coming from about mixing couplers, I personally have not experienced a problem with coupling any #58s to the occasional #5. That said, I do prefer using like-sized couplers on my rolling stock and locomotives.
Tom
tstage ATLANTIC CENTRAL Same with semi scale couplers. They may look a little better and they work ok with their own kind. But they do not couple as smoothly to the regular Kadee. Sheldon, While still slightly oversized, I think the Kadee #58s/#158 do look better than the #5s. And I've outfitted all my rolling stock and nearly all of my locomotives with #58s and they work better than just okay. I've never had a problem with any of them uncoupling unexpectedly - except on the rare occasion when one loses a spring. That can even happen with a Kadee #5. And, while I do understand where you are coming from about mixing couplers, I personally have not experienced a problem with coupling any #58s to the occasional #5. That said, I do prefer using like-sized couplers on my rolling stock and locomotives. Tom
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Same with semi scale couplers. They may look a little better and they work ok with their own kind. But they do not couple as smoothly to the regular Kadee.
Tom, along with my rolling tests years ago that brought me to my Kadee trucks refitted with Intermountain 110 wheels, I did some coupling force tests, and some train slack tests, and on both counts I found some disadvantages to semi scale couplers mixed with the regular Kadee.
I have never had, nor did I make any reference to unexpected uncoupling, that is not the issue.
The issue is the stretched out knuckle (which I think looks funny) that lets the 58 couple to the regular coupler. It actually creates equal or greater slack and requires slightly more force when coupling to a #5 head.
The the semi scale couplers do work fine with each other, the mixing is the problem.
There is also the issue of side to side gathering range. The semi scale coupler has a smaller tolerance there as well.
I am not refitting 50 years worth of rolling stock, I owned a 1000 pairs of Kadee couplers before the semi scale versions came along.
That happened to the OP TF? This seems like one of those topics created like throwing some red meat into a pool of sharks just to sit back and watch the action. Welcome to MR forums once again.
Track fiddler As far as technology has advanced in the past 10 years, if it keeps going at the rate it is we will probably be able to take a cell phone and put it in our wallet like a business card. So why hasn't any of the major model railroad companies in the world made a turnout with a small 1/8 inch thick rectangular unit underneath it that would fit into the cork roadbed and all you have to do is hook up two wires and now you don't have to Fiddle with connecting a separate switch machine underneath? I guess that would make too much sense! I would gladly pay the combined 45-$50 for one of those units for the ease of use. I bet they would "sell like hotcakes". Your thoughts? TF
They would not be RTR so I don't think they would sell well. The problem would be that you can't use the turnouts without laying roadbed. All current track systems do not require a separate roadbed to be installed. Their turnouts are RTR either with no roadbed or roadbed that is part of the turnout and matching sectional track.
It's easy to forget that there are a lot of casual hobbyists (who aren't on the forums) for whom RTR is an important feature. They either buy track with roadbed or use track without any roadbed at all.
Paul
OldEnginemanThe problem with the Kato switches with the built-in switch motors is that if there's a problem, these switches can't be opened without them literally breaking. I've had a couple of the motors seize up -- they were unrepairable (at least by me).
For some reason Kato makes two differently designed #6 turnouts in HO scale. The manual turnouts are different from the turnouts that are electric from the factory.
I prefer buying the manual turnouts and adding the retro-fit electric point motors to these. With this design the twin coil motor is much easier to replace.
Also, the replacement motor will not fit the factory electric turnouts, at least not that I was able to figure out.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
sandjamsandjam wrote the following post 2 days ago: gmpullmanWell, hasn't Kato taken the lead in this technology? Their solenoid is self-contained in the roadbed. Kato and Bachmann both have the solenoid under the roadbed.
I believe Bachmann has EZ Track turnouts that have a switch motor and a DCC stationary decoder factory-installed?
Track fiddlerSo why hasn't any of the major model railroad companies in the world made a turnout with a small 1/8 inch thick rectangular unit underneath it that would fit into the cork roadbed and all you have to do is hook up two wires and now you don't have to Fiddle with connecting a separate switch machine underneath?
Mechanical things don't scale down as fast or as much as electronics does (due to Moore's Law, and even it is running out of steam). A 1/8" thick switch motor would be quite the mechanical challenge.
15 or so years ago, one could buy a turnout with a switch machine and DCC stationary decoder attached as a unit. These did not, in fact, "sell like hotcakes" and have long ago been discontinued. (They required a hole in the benchwork, like the PECO “snap-on” switch motors do.) As others have pointed out, prepackaged combinations are already available in HO in click-track.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I never heard of Moore's Law. I read the entire Wikipedia entry, very interesting.
It also helps when you can sell 1,000,000+ of the same thing on the mass consumer market, vs. <10,000 in a very niche and fragmented market.
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Charles, we are welcome to our opinions, but until the truck side frames are narrower, I for one have no interest in semi scale wheels. AND, I don't like the way they "clunk" thru NMRA Standard turnouts. There are already fine scale standards and products for those interested in more accuracy in these areas. Expecting long time modelers to rebuild equipment and track and making these changes the new "standard" is a non starter. Same with semi scale couplers. They may look a little better and they work ok with their own kind. But they do not couple as smoothly to the regular Kadee. I will not mix them, I don't use them. On both counts, wheels and couplers, reliable operation is more important that getting "half way" to a more scale appearance in my view. You are welcome to your view, but I will vote with my public opinion and my pocket book to keep wheel, track and coupler standards where they are. As for the switch motor question, I believe the OP is in N scale. Since I have no experiance with, or interest in N scale, I can only say that intergrated switch machines are not a new idea, and they are an idea that has never dominated more scale/detail focused modeling. Sheldon
Track fiddlerAs far as technology has advanced in the past 10 years, if it keeps going at the rate it is we will probably be able to take a cell phone and put it in our wallet like a business card.
Comparing Model Railroad items to cell phones is ridiculous. Cell phones sell by the millions for as much as $1,000 each - lots of room for ROI in your technology. HO turnouts sell by the thousands for closer to $25 each - no room for the ROI there.
You might as well ask why a skateboard doesn't have all the tech features of a Tesla.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
Trainman440My issue is with how slow it is for the standards to be updated. Maybe Im ignorant, but I don’t recall any major updates in NMRA for a while now. And while one could argue: if it works, why change it? Well, with newer technology coming out every day, I feel like model railroading’s outdated standards have sort of been left in the dust. Oversized couplers, wheels…engines that don’t take advantage of Bluetooth/wireless, but rather are controlled through the overcomplicated way of current pulses from the track. While there is nothing wrong with all that, you must agree that there is room for improvement/upgrading. For example, modern track is built with far more precision than back then, negating the need for wider than usual wheels.
NMRA standards for Proto and Fine scales already exist for wheels and trackwork. There has been no rush to adopt these en mass in any scale. This is probably because the drawbacks to using these out weigh the visual benefits. In particular the need for wider curves is a real problem for most of us.
KD already makes scale size couplers in HO. And you can achieve the same effect with couplers for a scale smaller than the one you are using.
Most DCC has a wireless capability to the command station. Making it wireless directly to the locomotive doesn't seem to offer any benefit and would probably make the decoders more costly. This could change if battery powered locomotives become feasible and at a reasonable price, but it's not there yet.
Trainman440 ATLANTIC CENTRAL Charles, we are welcome to our opinions, but until the truck side frames are narrower, I for one have no interest in semi scale wheels. AND, I don't like the way they "clunk" thru NMRA Standard turnouts. There are already fine scale standards and products for those interested in more accuracy in these areas. Expecting long time modelers to rebuild equipment and track and making these changes the new "standard" is a non starter. Same with semi scale couplers. They may look a little better and they work ok with their own kind. But they do not couple as smoothly to the regular Kadee. I will not mix them, I don't use them. On both counts, wheels and couplers, reliable operation is more important that getting "half way" to a more scale appearance in my view. You are welcome to your view, but I will vote with my public opinion and my pocket book to keep wheel, track and coupler standards where they are. As for the switch motor question, I believe the OP is in N scale. Since I have no experiance with, or interest in N scale, I can only say that intergrated switch machines are not a new idea, and they are an idea that has never dominated more scale/detail focused modeling. Sheldon Sheldon, I totally understand that, and I get that most wouldn't change over. Maybe my example was poor. I thought of it from the top of my head. But that’s irrelevant. My issue is with how slow it is for the standards to be updated. Maybe Im ignorant, but I don’t recall any major updates in NMRA for a while now. And while one could argue: if it works, why change it? Well, with newer technology coming out every day, I feel like model railroading’s outdated standards have sort of been left in the dust. Oversized couplers, wheels…engines that don’t take advantage of Bluetooth/wireless, but rather are controlled through the overcomplicated way of current pulses from the track. While there is nothing wrong with all that, you must agree that there is room for improvement/upgrading. For example, modern track is built with far more precision than back then, negating the need for wider than usual wheels. Now, Im not openly embracing all the new technology and options out there. I myself still stick with the old. But I am starting to wonder, if the standards are becoming a bit outdated. And wondering if our unwillingness to change is prohibiting us from moving forward. If everyone had the same conservative mindset as you Sheldon, how could we possibly progress? Charles
Charles, the whole point of a "Standard" is that is does not change without VERY good reason.
Actually the intire NMRA Standards and Recommended Practices have been recently reviewed, refined, presentation format improved, small changes made, new optional Standards added.
Trust me on this, I still have my 1968 print copy from when I joined, and I was invited to help with some of those revisions a few years ago, but was too busy.
Until DCC, the NMRA stayed completely out of "alternate" control methods. 12 volts DC was the only "standard".
Don't look for the NMRA to get involved in alternate control technolgy, DCC and DC are "enough".
The WHOLE IDEA of a standard is that people can count on it NOT changing to provide INTERCHANGEABLITY, not just between products made now, but between products made years ago, and product that will be made in the future.
Interchangeablity between brands over this wide range of time is what built the HO hobby.
Without it HO would not have been the success it is today. And yet there have been changes. We have better wheels, I remember before RP25 became common place. We have DCC for those who want it, and lots of other improvements.
I don't want bluetooth, I will not use a cell phone as a throttle. While I have used DCC quite a bit on other peoples layouts, and am very familiar with it, I don't use it on my layout.
You are welcome to use "semi scale" (they are not scale by any means) couplers. You can use Sergent Couplers if you REALLY want scale couplers.
My first layout used scale dummy couplers.......
I would argue about track, I suspect my own hand layed track from 40 years ago was just as "precision" as any mass produced track today.
I don't want fine scale track.
The NMRA has standards for it, you are welcome to use those standards for your modeling.
I still want to run the models I built in 1968........
I want to continiously "add" to my model railroad, not "replace" stuff I already have that works and looks fine.
You are welcome to have sound, I don't like it. As an audiofile in another hobby (building HiFi speakers, collecting vinyl records) onboard sounds from two 1" speakers sound like crap to me. And my vinyl records sound better than the shinny ones and zeros of digitally stored and compressed music.
What do you consider "progress" and what kind of progress does this hobby need?
Take a look at some pictures of Dr Wayne's layout. Progress? His excellent modeling does not need any progress. And that goes for a number of other fine modelers on here.
Having grown up in a very mechanically oriented household, that you wouldn't guess by my 35 year profession as a paper pushing financial guy, a pet peeve of mine is when "progress" gets defined by how many of life's functions can be transformed into something that has digital compatibility.
The sole definition of advancement being seen through the prism of whether or not it can be performed by computer....not whether or not the product performs better, and even more importantly, lasts longer, or is easier to repair.
- Douglas
Doughless Having grown up in a very mechanically oriented household, that you wouldn't guess by my 35 year profession as a paper pushing financial guy, a pet peeve of mine is when "progress" gets defined by how many of life's functions can be transformed into something that has digital compatibility. The sole definition of advancement being seen through the prism of whether or not it can be performed by computer....not whether or not the product performs better, and even more importantly, lasts longer, or is easier to repair.
Agreed.
I have a 25 year old garden tractor, so well built it will last another 25 years or more. Progress has not made a better one yet. The company that made it used the same core design from 1971 until 2002. They stopped making them because the market changed, not because the product was obsolete. It does its job very well, lasts long and is easy to repair.........
I built and fix houses for a living. "Progress" has made houses that are hard to repair, and wear out sooner............
I guess that's what makes me different than you then.
I define "progress" as improvement; with the ultimate goal of reaching perfection. I think nothing is at its perfect state. Everything can become better. Its just that in most cases, its not worthwhile.
Modelers I highly respect such as DoctorWayne, RDG Casey, Darthsantafe, and others make some truly incredible and beathtaking models. However, I would believe that even they would agree that the models they make could be improved, if even somewhat.
If you think your layout is the best it can be, and find no more progression, then Im proud of you for reaching your target goal. If you want to model with handlaid track, and run DC, I understand that, no judgement there.
Maybe you're right about standards being designed to not be changed. Maybe this hobby has reached its peak.
@doughless I never specified that upgrading equals transistioning from mechanical to digital. If I were, Id be incorrectly arguing that a 3d train simluator could replace model railroading. As a student currently majoring in mechanical engineering, you bet I would be against that. Rather, "progress" means better running, more accurate to prototype, more details, produced cheaper, etc. I dont know why you're misinterpreating my words as being the guy who wants the future to be the "lets control everything with smart devices, phones, bluetooth and VR" guy.
Just because the old ways work does not make it superior.
Trainman440 I guess that's what makes me different than you then. I define "progress" as improvement; with the ultimate goal of reaching perfection. I think nothing is at its perfect state. Everything can become better. Its just that in most cases, its not worthwhile. Modelers I highly respect such as DoctorWayne, RDG Casey, Darthsantafe, and others make some truly incredible and beathtaking models. However, I would believe that even they would agree that the models they make could be improved, if even somewhat. If you think your layout is the best it can be, and find no more progression, then Im proud of you for reaching your target goal. If you want to model with handlaid track, and run DC, I understand that, no judgement there. Maybe you're right about standards being designed to not be changed. Maybe this hobby has reached its peak. @doughless I never specified that upgrading equals transistioning from mechanical to digital. If I were Id be incorrectly arguing that a 3d train simluator could replace model railroading. As a student currently majoring in mechanical engineering, you bet I would be against that. Charles
@doughless I never specified that upgrading equals transistioning from mechanical to digital. If I were Id be incorrectly arguing that a 3d train simluator could replace model railroading. As a student currently majoring in mechanical engineering, you bet I would be against that.
I agree, if that's what the thread is about.
All results of efforts could be improved upon, and having a better product could be measured in a number of ways.
It could be my perception, but I was detecting in the thread that "how" something was being performed, not the end result (incorporating other factors what that means), was being defined as the measure of progress.
Kind of like turning on your washing machine by pressing a spot on a digital screen being better than turning a big fat mechanical/analog knob that clicks ........which is especially not being better when the replacement screen you have to buy for the one defective spot (contact) costs as much as a new washing machine.
Trainman440 I guess that's what makes me different than you then. I define "progress" as improvement; with the ultimate goal of reaching perfection. I think nothing is at its perfect state. Everything can become better. Its just that in most cases, its not worthwhile. Modelers I highly respect such as DoctorWayne, RDG Casey, Darthsantafe, and others make some truly incredible and beathtaking models. However, I would believe that even they would agree that the models they make could be improved, if even somewhat. If you think your layout is the best it can be, and find no more progression, then Im proud of you for reaching your target goal. If you want to model with handlaid track, and run DC, I understand that, no judgement there. Maybe you're right about standards being designed to not be changed. Maybe this hobby has reached its peak. @doughless I never specified that upgrading equals transistioning from mechanical to digital. If I were, Id be incorrectly arguing that a 3d train simluator could replace model railroading. As a student currently majoring in mechanical engineering, you bet I would be against that. Rather, "progress" means better running, more accurate to prototype, more details, produced cheaper, etc. I dont know why you're misinterpreating my words as being the guy who wants the future to be the "lets control everything with smart devices, phones, bluetooth and VR" guy. Just because the old ways work does not make it superior. Charles
Striving to be a better modeler, to build better models, and expecting the NMRA and the industry to change the minimum functional standards have nothing to do with each other.
Unless, you really don't want to improve your own skills, but simply want some factory to make it for you to buy.
Before you suggest different track and wheel standards, you might want to understand how the track standards of the prototype work, and how all that physics does not scale down to our models.
Have you ever built a layout that reliably runs 100 car trains? or even 50 car trains?
The track standards you suggest would not allow your big modern diesels to run around 24" radius curves.
I'm not against progress, I was converting relay logic to PLC code in 1981. How many decades was that before you were born?
I like my modern automobiles with fuel injection, computer controlled engines and transmissions, variable cam timing...... My 360 hp twin turbo Ecoboost FORD FLEX is a blast, and I built classic hot rods in the 70's. I have built my share of car engines.
But anything that would somehow make my 50 year collection of model trains "functionally obsolete" is not of interest to me.
Newer is not automaticly better, as Doughless and I have pointed out.
Except for wheels and couplers, what do you want to "improve" by mandating different standards?
Who is going to buy me 1200 pairs of new couplers? I'm getting ready to start on a new layout, 1500 sq ft, 400' double track mainline, staging for 30 trains, typical train length 40 cars. Working signals and CTC, radio throttles, a 24' long 8 track freight yard, 36" radius minimum curves. Operational scheme for a crew of 12-14 people. 3-4' scenic depth for lots of scenic features and realism.
Does that not sound like a challenging modeling project to you?
Maybe your modeling goals are different, you are welcome to your choices.
Please, tell me what needs to be improved by changing standards?
I restore 100-200 year old houses for a living. I don't run a big company that does that - I run a small company and work in the field myself. Today I repaired siding on a house built in 1885, and fixed windows in a house built in 1863.
Craftsmanship and skill are essential to what I do. I am more concerned with improving my own results than expecting someone to mandate better results.
I build stuff like this:
And I lay lazer straight model track like this:
You are studing to be a mechanical engineer, very good, we need people in the real world trades.
My training and experiance includes structural engineering, architecture, electrical and mechanical engineering (refrigeration, plumbing, HVAC), electronics, audio/HiFi, automotive.....and model trains.
I started working in a hobby shop, and doing the repairs there, in 1971, at age 14.
My point is this, I like your enthusiasum, and I like the progress that has been made with many of the products in our hobby, but my experiance says the things you are suggesting are not going to have the result you expect.
This hobby is a broad tent, and it only continues to get broader, as I have talked about on this forum before.
Any attempt to steer that by changing core standards will fail.
Everyone has different interests within this hobby, everyone has different goals, everyone has different skills and resources.
What is important to you, is likely not important to a great many others.
Perfection - well, I consider myself a perfectionist at my work, but we do have a saying in construction - "sometimes the enemy of good, is better".
Again, please explain how changing these standards will improve the hobby?
We are not going to see a revolutionary change in Model Railroading until a new manufacturer makes a product line in a new scale with completely proprietary standards.
It is not crazy. Games-Workshop did it in wargaming, completely revolutionized the hobby, and became (by many times over) the largest wargaming manufacturer in the world. Of course, the "Old-Standard" Seakrieg guys hate Games-Workshop and refuse to evolve, and that is fine. They are still welcome at conventions.
At some time, a new toy company will enter the market in maybe 1/72 or 1/100 scale, make an entirely new line of product, market it correctly as an entriely new hobby, and revoltionize model railroading.
It will not change any NMRA standards, but will not follow them either.
I doubt it will happen in the next twenty years, but it is coming.
Then you will get your progress. Until then, we will all be using the NMRA standards because they work very well.