Trainman440 @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
@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
There was probably some leakage of my thoughts and memories of other conversations at other times in other threads.
I was passively agreeing with those who said that some things are simple enough that its hard to improve upon the results of the existing devices. I was adding the example that with some things, the only thing left to change is how the device itself works or what it runs on, which often isn't very important but could compromise important things like reliability and durability.
- Douglas
riogrande5761 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.
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.
Funny stuff Rio, Not my intent I assure you all and I do apologize
This thought on turnouts was just a brainstorm the night before going to meet up with family at the hotel for a three day weekend. After a two-day recovery from that weekend, things are back to normal now
Now that I have my track I thought how nice it would be just to carve rectangles into the cork, drop the turnouts in, plug and play.
I would like to thank each of you for your replies. I have to admit I have learned a lot from you all since my brainstorm that night.
If something went wrong with the switch mechanism (and something always goes wrong) it sure would be much easier not to disrupt the turnout and the joining track to just replace the mechanism from underneath.
The Kato turnouts that have the switch mechanism built into the plastic roadbed sure is a nice option for beginners that may not be very experienced laying track.
Personally I love laying cork roadbed, the smell of it, the ease of cutting and working with it and also love covering a lot of ground at a time with 3' flex track.
I don't like these little 5/8 track pieces I have to put in between my PECO yard ladders on my turnouts. Originally I planned my layout with Atlas code 55 turnouts which butted up to each other nicely and have the same divergence angle. I don't know why the New PECO Unitrack turnouts are 5/8 too short at the approach. You would think they would have got that straight on their new multi thousands of dollars tooling setup. Oh well, .. I'll deal with it! It's just good to finally be laying track now.
Again, Sorry about my late response and lack of participation here
TF
Trainman440 ATLANTIC CENTRAL Still wanting to understand what you think would make the hobby better beyond code 88 wheels and semi scale couplers? Sheldon I find no point in wasting my words, since all you're going to do is shut down the idea with your "I've spent decades in this hobby, what works for me works for me, I resist change because then I'd have to change my thousands of models" spew, the same spew you've made in all your past posts. ATLANTIC CENTRAL So don't tell me the standards need to change We're well beyond that point. If you've been reading my previous posts, I've stated that changing the standard isnt what Im looking for, rather to have an open mind toward change. It is pretty clear that it will take a lot of convincing -enough where there's no point in me trying- for you to alter your ways. Someone probably had to talk hundreds of hours to convince you that LEDs were better than incandecent bulbs. You've clearly found what you wanted out of this hobby, and are sticking with it. And good for you. But not everyone has. ---------------------------------------- riogrande5761 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. OP certainly got it if that's what he wished for! This will be the last post from me on this thread, as there seems to be little reason to continue beating the dead horse. Charles
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Still wanting to understand what you think would make the hobby better beyond code 88 wheels and semi scale couplers? Sheldon
Still wanting to understand what you think would make the hobby better beyond code 88 wheels and semi scale couplers?
Sheldon
I find no point in wasting my words, since all you're going to do is shut down the idea with your "I've spent decades in this hobby, what works for me works for me, I resist change because then I'd have to change my thousands of models" spew, the same spew you've made in all your past posts.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL So don't tell me the standards need to change
So don't tell me the standards need to change
We're well beyond that point. If you've been reading my previous posts, I've stated that changing the standard isnt what Im looking for, rather to have an open mind toward change. It is pretty clear that it will take a lot of convincing -enough where there's no point in me trying- for you to alter your ways. Someone probably had to talk hundreds of hours to convince you that LEDs were better than incandecent bulbs. You've clearly found what you wanted out of this hobby, and are sticking with it. And good for you. But not everyone has.
----------------------------------------
riogrande5761 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.
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.
OP certainly got it if that's what he wished for!
This will be the last post from me on this thread, as there seems to be little reason to continue beating the dead horse.
You are so wrong about me, but that's ok.
First time somebody said "here is an LED white enough to be a headlight", I was all in.
First time I saw someone glue down flex track rather than use nails, I was all in.
First time I saw a wireless throttle I was all in.
First time I saw a slow motion switch machine I was all in.
First time I saw a Proto2000 or Spectrum locomotive (I personally knew the guys who were largely responsable for creating those lines) I was all in.
I was almost all in for DCC.
I was not impressed, and still am not impressed with onboard sound - I was selling trains when ModelTronics and PFM came out with their systems, long before DCC.
I switched over to code 83 track as soon as Atlas had their whole product line in place.
I think the electronic Mars lights on my locos are cool - and they work without DCC.
I think code 88 wheels look funny with that big gap at the side frames, so I'm not in.
I tested semi scale couplers extensively when they came out. I rejected them for the engineering reasons previously stated.
Using the throttles I use, all my locos have constant brightness headlights that come on before the train moves - without DCC.
Still wanting to know what marvels of engineering will make the hobby better?
I think others should try whatever new stuff they find interesting, but yes, I know what I want out of the hobby, and I don't need any new miracle product to make it better.
None of the new "miracle" products have changed my direction in the hobby yet. But many have made the direction I am going in much easier.
Find your own direction, just don't expect everyone to join you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling the PRR & NYC in HO
Youtube Channel: www.youtube.com/@trainman440
Instagram (where I share projects!): https://www.instagram.com/trainman440
Trainman440 ATLANTIC CENTRAL Charles, old guys like me are not as opposed to change as you think. We just have experiance that makes us evaluate things before jumping in with both feet. I'm not tech shy or backwards by any measure, but I evaluate new ideas before jumping in. Implying that newer guys jump in head first without thinking? I never said that the younger generation blindly preferres the new "tech" stuff. I fully agree, most of the new stuff is junk, not worth the time, nor the money. Rather, what I meant was that there is new stuff that comes out that I do believe is promising stuff, and should be given a chance. But rarely is it ever given the stagelight for long enough to really take off. ATLANTIC CENTRAL I still build kits, easy ones and hard ones, and I buy mid range and high end RTR. I'd like to break the illusion that newer modelers enjoy the "RTR" era of model railroading. I might be one of few who actually prefer kits over RTR, but we do exist. You'll see that I often only buy kits, or damaged used items for me to restore. I rarely buy RTR, unless am forced to(such as the BLI L1s). Heck, my expanding fleet of (currently only 15, but soon to be 50+) Intermountain ATSF reefers are all kit built. I enjoy the process of both building getting to better know your models. Also get to save a buck in the process. ATLANTIC CENTRAL I will admit, my personal goals are more about running the 30 long trains on the big layout rather than drooling over a few locos up close I find the opposite to be true. Most young modelers couldnt care less about accuracy. They just like to see "cool" trains run. In fact, I know far more of those than people who are interested in detailing, painting, and modifying their engines. ---------------------------------- I seriously dont see why you always put these negative connotations to those younger than you in the hobby, then wonder how there's so few people entering the hobby. I myself have been in this hobby for over 10 years. Believe it or not, I know a thing or two about trains. Now I'll be the first to admit that I still got a lot to learn, but that doesn't mean you should treat me like I know nothing. I understand and respect those who prefer more traditional ways of enjoying this hobby, I would hope that you would respect those who enjoy this hobby differently, as one is no better than the other in accomplishing the goal of passing time! Charles
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Charles, old guys like me are not as opposed to change as you think. We just have experiance that makes us evaluate things before jumping in with both feet. I'm not tech shy or backwards by any measure, but I evaluate new ideas before jumping in.
Charles, old guys like me are not as opposed to change as you think. We just have experiance that makes us evaluate things before jumping in with both feet.
I'm not tech shy or backwards by any measure, but I evaluate new ideas before jumping in.
Implying that newer guys jump in head first without thinking? I never said that the younger generation blindly preferres the new "tech" stuff. I fully agree, most of the new stuff is junk, not worth the time, nor the money. Rather, what I meant was that there is new stuff that comes out that I do believe is promising stuff, and should be given a chance. But rarely is it ever given the stagelight for long enough to really take off.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I still build kits, easy ones and hard ones, and I buy mid range and high end RTR.
I still build kits, easy ones and hard ones, and I buy mid range and high end RTR.
I'd like to break the illusion that newer modelers enjoy the "RTR" era of model railroading. I might be one of few who actually prefer kits over RTR, but we do exist. You'll see that I often only buy kits, or damaged used items for me to restore. I rarely buy RTR, unless am forced to(such as the BLI L1s). Heck, my expanding fleet of (currently only 15, but soon to be 50+) Intermountain ATSF reefers are all kit built. I enjoy the process of both building getting to better know your models. Also get to save a buck in the process.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I will admit, my personal goals are more about running the 30 long trains on the big layout rather than drooling over a few locos up close
I will admit, my personal goals are more about running the 30 long trains on the big layout rather than drooling over a few locos up close
I find the opposite to be true. Most young modelers couldnt care less about accuracy. They just like to see "cool" trains run. In fact, I know far more of those than people who are interested in detailing, painting, and modifying their engines.
----------------------------------
I seriously dont see why you always put these negative connotations to those younger than you in the hobby, then wonder how there's so few people entering the hobby.
I myself have been in this hobby for over 10 years. Believe it or not, I know a thing or two about trains. Now I'll be the first to admit that I still got a lot to learn, but that doesn't mean you should treat me like I know nothing.
I understand and respect those who prefer more traditional ways of enjoying this hobby, I would hope that you would respect those who enjoy this hobby differently, as one is no better than the other in accomplishing the goal of passing time!
Charles,
I think of people in this hobby more in terms of how long they have been in the hobby, and their approach to the hobby, not their age in years. I was not judging others choices, or the fact that they are young, I was explaining my own, and those of others I have known in the hobby for a long time.
I have not changed my modeling goals, my modeling approach, my scale, era, locale, or layout concept in over 25 years.
I have taken advantage of product developements that have enhanced my ability to reach my goals, but I have not changed my goals as a result of a product developement.
And in case you missed it in my other posts when the topic comes up, I am not invested in recruiting people into this hobby. I put my time in selling trains for a decade. You are either in or out, I have no horse in that race.
I am a big fan of doing this however it works for you. Have fun. So don't tell me the standards need to change to make the hobby "better". The hobby, all its versions, is just fine the way it is. It is for each person what they make it.
I'm not a product complainer or a price complainer.
Even with my 40-50 yeears of experiance, previous membership in well known clubs, having met or know personally "famous" people in both the train industry and the hobby, I have taken a lot of criticisum in my 11 or so years on this forum because I am vocal about the things I do differently from the "mainstream" version of the hobby as it exists today.
Trainman440 I think the people above has answered for me pretty well. Maybe I was incorrect for saying we need to change the standards. I guess what I was getting at was that I hope the MR community embraces newer options as they come about, rather than let them fade into obscurity. Too many times I see new, exciting(although often gimmicky) products that have potential come, but are shunned and faded into obscurity due to modelers fearing change. Maybe they weren't good enough, but I do feel that a handful were worthy of potentially changing/improving the model railroading scene, if given the opportunity. Charles
I think the people above has answered for me pretty well.
Maybe I was incorrect for saying we need to change the standards. I guess what I was getting at was that I hope the MR community embraces newer options as they come about, rather than let them fade into obscurity.
Too many times I see new, exciting(although often gimmicky) products that have potential come, but are shunned and faded into obscurity due to modelers fearing change.
Maybe they weren't good enough, but I do feel that a handful were worthy of potentially changing/improving the model railroading scene, if given the opportunity.
I still use DC, but I use radio wireless throttles with PWM control, I use solid state block detectors, and I use a somewhat complex intergrated system of signaling, CTC, block control and turnout control that I designed myself.
We did not have all of that 50 years ago when I started in this hobby.
I have twice seriously considered DCC, and at least in theory I am a fan of direct radio, even though it is unlikely I would convert the main layout.
While I use and prefer metal sprung trucks on most of my equipment, I do also use the new KADEE HGC trucks in some cases.
I glue down my flex track, not something we did back in the day.
I am a fan of some layout based sound effects even though I do not care for onboard sound.
I like well detailed accurate locos and rolling stock, but I have no intentions of "upgrading" everything I have, some of which is older than me. And you might be surprised at how good some of it looks.
I like LED lighting, my signals and control panel lights are LED.
But, I model 1954, there were no ditch lights, in fact railroads were just testing MARS lights and just starting to run with headlights on all the time - I don't need any fancy lighting control.
I am not interested in "high tech" for its own sake, I'm only interested if it provides a real benefit.
Without any computers or processors I have signals, CTC, walk around tower control, one button route control from multiple locations, radio throttles, and even automatic train control - a system on the prototype that stops trains if the run a red signal.
Is all that "tech" enough for you no matter how it is done?
I will admit, my personal goals are more about running the 30 long trains on the big layout rather than drooling over a few locos up close - but I do have more than few you might drool over.........
Trying to balance new with old to build my ultimate railroad........
I can think of one item that would be a huge benefit if it were made a standard/recommended practice and that is freight car wheelset axle length. It's so annoying that all manufacturers use different axle lenghts in the products they sell us and what's worse is that they can vary within the same manufacturer!! It can be a real pita when trying to find replacement wheelsets that fit.
Now when it comes to reception of innovations or simple changes the problem is the modeler that says "I have 500 freight cars that would need to change" or his buddy "I have 300 locos to retrofit." Well sirs, the answer to that is, nobody is forcing you to use the new/improved item if you don't want to. A lot of people point out the fact that not many new young model railroaders are getting into the hobby. Being able to use your cell phone as a way to control your trains could be appealing to a teenager, for example. Point is that not all new/improved things are targeted to Joe Shmo and his old school layout. Companies are looking to being around for many years and have to find ways to attract new customers. So next time some new gizmo comes out (and before you say "I have xxxx to convert") ask yourself if it's something you would even use. If the answer is 'No', move on quietly.
TONY
"If we never take the time, how can we ever have the time." - Merovingian (Matrix Reloaded)
SeeYou190 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. -Kevin
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.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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............
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Paul
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.
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
I never heard of Moore's Law. I read the entire Wikipedia entry, very interesting.
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
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?
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
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.
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
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.
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.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.