agreed Roger except lets punt it rather than export it. cheers ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Nulton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]>; "ed_loizeaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 6:21 PM Subject: Re: {S-Scale List} proposal (turnouts)
> 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 > > > > 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/
