Very well done, Ed. I think that you have this issue covered. The only thing I might disagree with you on is the number of people who want to run all types of S trains on the same track, but I have only anecdotal evidence. I did at one time include myself among them, but I abandoned my quest for the holy grail of a universal turnout and sold or traded all of my AF and hirail stuff.
Since this is supposed to be the scale list after all, hopefully we can put this issue to rest or perhaps export it over to the hirail list. Roger Nulton ----- Original Message ----- From: ed_loizeaux To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 12:43 PM Subject: 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 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 [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/
