> I am going to propose is a test of all S gauge turnouts for a
> comparison like we have seen done in Model Railroader.
I tend to doubt that Model Railroader magazine would ever have run a
comparison product review between Lionel O gauge switches and Old
Pullman O scale turnouts. Or between Maerklin HO gauge switches and
Shinohara HO scale turnouts. However, this is S and, as we all know,
us S guys are -- well -- different. So on with the show.....
> The testing would involve the running of trains, not pushing trucks
through the turnouts.
As long as we are establishing the criteria, I would suggest that
backing-up 10-car trains through the curved route at medium speed be
part of the test. Pulling only is not sufficient. Pushing and
backing-up also need to be evaluated. And pushing trucks while
applying side pressure is a very valid way of evaluationg things as
well. All of these approaches should be part of a thorough
examination.
> And certainly not just measuring turnouts to one set of
> standards,
Beg to differ here, but it is certainly possible to evaluate
performance by accurately comparing a turnout to well-designed
standards. If the turnout deviates from the NASG scale standards in
one way or another, predictions as to what will happen during
operation are not difficult at all. Same comment applies to high-
rail and AF as well. So any unbiased test should include accurate
and precise measurement and comparison to standards.
> which has little bearing for the vast majority of S gauge
> equipment.
Adhering to NASG standards is the best way, and perhaps the only way,
to achieve flawless operational performance in the SCALE arena. So
if the turnouts being evaluated are intended for scale trains (among
others), any deviations from the standards should be noted and
evaluated. I believe the same comment could be made for high-rail
operators. Not being an AF fan, I have no idea what kinds of
standards, if any, even exist for AF equipment. But if there are
any, the turnouts conformity or deviance from said standards should
be noted. Perhaps precise measurement of a genuine AF Gilbert-
produced switch could be used as a defacto standard for AF.
> All S gauge equipment will be represented - Flyer, Hi-rail and
> scale.
>From what I have heard on this List so far, the pure scale guys could
care less. Likewise, the pure AF guys. Even the pure high-rail guys
probably would not view this testing program as a high priority
activity. The only folks who will care are those who want to run
scale, hi-rail and AF all on the same trackage. This amounts to very
few people. Certainly not the mainstream of our chosen size of
trains. So the question becomes one of how much effort should be put
into a testing program for which only a very few people want to know
the results? Maybe one of those people who really care about the
results should volunteer to conduct the testing program.
> All turnout manufacturers will have their chance to show the S world
> what their turnouts can do.
When the NMRA does this type of testing, they sometimes buy the
product anonymously to insure that the product represents what the
consumer will actually get. Manufacturers have been known to "hand
caress" products in order to pass inspections, but the consumer gets
the mass produced item which might not be as precisely crafted.
Given that most of the turnouts in S are hand built, I would expect a
fair amount of variability from one to another even from the same
manufacturer. Someone will have to be sure that specially tweaked
products are NOT used for this evaluation. Perhaps evaluating
consistency of dimensions for a dozen turnouts within a given brand
should be part of the tesing program.
> To keep the testing above board, I would hope the testers would be
from all aspects of S.
Y'mean if testers were from only one aspect of S that the results
would be dishonest? Sorry, I don't buy into that line of thinking at
all. What if the tester was an HO guy? That way there would be no S
aspect bias at all. The knowledge and skill of the tester is what is
important -- not where he comes from or what kind of trains run on
his layout. If he even has a layout.
> I would welcome the NASG to sponsor the testing
This seems appropriate if the project's goals and test criteria and
measurement techniques are established ahead of time and agreed to by
all. Merely running trains back & forth and noting the percentage of
derailments will prove nothing. It will only show that on July XX,
2007 a train belonging to Sam Smith ran at slow speed and stayed on
the track. This is not exactly a useful thing to know. Even if
San's train derailed on a different brand of turnout, what does that
prove? Maybe one of Sam's wheels was out of gauge? Is it the fault
of the train or of the turnout? This could go on forever......and
really proves little.
In the goode olde daze, the NASG was contemplating a change of
standards for the scale aspect of S. A new set of standards was
proposed and submitted for comments to the S modeling community. It
was obvious from the numbers that the new set of standards was not
fully compatible with the existing set of standards. Much discussion
ensued. A loco was built with wheels gauged to the new standards and
it was run on layouts built to the old standards. It actually ran
fairly well on most layouts. Thus, some folks asserted, the new
standards work just fine with the old standards. But that was not
true in reality. The so-called NASG testing program was only testing
one loco and was not testing the full range of dimensions possible
with the new standards. Due to the tolerances in both sets of
standards, the narrowest possible wheels built to one standard really
did not work well with the widest possible track built to the other
standard. And, conversely, the narrowest possible trackwork built to
one standard did not work well with the widest possible wheels built
to the other standard. Just looking at the numbers could prove this
point without any need for testing. But the loco ran OK on most
layouts and so the arithmetic was incorrectly dismissed by some
folks. The end result was that the new standards were adopted since
they did prepresent significant operational improvements. Many folks
fit and fiddle to run both old and new equipment on the same layout
and it can be done. But the fittin' and fiddlin' is a real pain to
others and many simply avoid it. All new equipment made since the
adoption of the new standard was built to the new standard.
The whole point of this seemingly endless dissertation is that merely
running trains over a turnout will not prove much at all. Why
bother? Doing a turnout evaluation will involve more than simply
observing moving trains.
Lastly, I'd like to thank Dick Karnes for attempting to do a product
review for all of us. Dick did what any reviewer would do: he
reviewed what was sent to him. In retrospect (which is always
perfect), Dick probably should have checked with Tom to be sure that
all the pieces and parts were included. But I am certain Dick had no
idea that an "insert" was missing and so never thought to inquire. I
feel that Dick is very knowledgeable, thorough, objective, unbiased,
careful, etc. The review was a good one based on what was sent to
him. Any suggestion of bias or dishonesty on Dick's part is not
deserved. It was an honest mistake and little more. Is there anyone
out there who has not made an honest mistake? Dick's willingness to
take on these kinds of product reviews should be applauded -- not
demeaned.
End of speech and off soapbox.
"S"incerely....Ed Loizeaux
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
