Hi Guys
How about asking Model Railroad News?
Even though one our own writes the S-Curves column, I am sure he could get
someone else to run the tests and he JUST report the results and then pass
those results to other s oriented rags. It would be up to them to publish.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mon, 28 May 2007 19:43:47
+0000Subject: Re: {S-Scale List} proposal (turnouts)
> 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
> testingThis 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
_________________________________________________________________
Change is good. See whatÂ’s different about Windows Live Hotmail.
www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/default.html?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_changegood_0507
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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/
