HI Bill --- Thanks for chiming in on this. I have been a bit busy and didn’t really have the time to answer TC well, and I don’t know if the following will help or not.
First, I think there is a problem with terminology. P64 used to imply an exact miniaturizing of the real wheel and rail specifications, but now seems to include the current scale S (code 88 through 110) wheel profile. My opinion is that the P64 designation be dropped, and the standards are either NASG/NMRA (RP 25) or 3/16 AAR (for the exact copy). If there is to be another set of standards it ought to be known as Extra Fine scale. I have to agree that the current standards for “regular” scale S are just dandy and don’t need to be messed with. As Bill Peter is virtually the only Sn3 manufacturer, and his stuff is as good as it gets, making any changes is both inconvenient and polishing the deck chairs on the Titanic. Re: Extra Fine standards, this seems to be something that could be done, but whether it is needed or not is another story. However, if the data is already on hand, TC can make a case by presenting it to the engineering committee of both the NASG and the NMRA. Now for 3/16 AAR, that could be yet another story. I think that having more than one version is both counterproductive and muddies the water. Additionally, only one would supposedly be correct, so it should be easy (relatively speaking) to toss the inaccurate versions. I am not an expert on this aspect of modeling, and I suspect the number of persons that would be affected is next to zero, so I can’t get too excited about making this an NASG priority. If, at some point in the future, TC wants to put together a presentation on this so we can all be enlightened, that would be good. I also think that this whole thing has a lot to do with the “someone should do this” syndrome. In regard to coordinating with the NMRA, I agree that is the purview of the NASG. But when it comes to actually making these things, one has to step up and do it themselves—either funding an existing manufacturer’s costs of production or starting a business of their own, but the NASG does not need to be involved. I hope I haven’t muddied the water here ... Bill Winans NMRA 1750 ------------------------------ As both an NASG member and NMRA life-member, and also as one of the people involved in getting the NMRA to adopt the NASG track and wheel standards (over 20 years ago) for "Fine Scale S", in order to have consistent standards between the two groups so that manufacturers could produce "S" scale products that would be compatible and interchangeable, I would caution against trying to change or "can" any current "Fine Scale" standards without the input and direction of both the NMRA and NASG Engineering departments. Several of the involved manufacturers (S Helper/MTH, Lionel, American Models, River Raisin, and PBL) should probably also be included. Also, when considering any changes to any sets of "S" scale standards, please consider the effect such changes would have on existing equipment being run on existing layouts. No one wants the carpet yanked out from under them, especially when they have invested thousands of hours (and dollars) in their layouts and equipment. As far as I know, equipment built to the current NASG/NMRA Fine Scale standards is cross-compatible for both standard and narrow gauge "S". As for Proto-64, having one set of numbers makes sense, but I wonder just how many people are really using any of those dimensions for actual operating layouts or modules? I certainly don't think we should eliminate the existing S Fine Scale standards in favor of Proto-64, even if one set of P-64 numbers can be agreed upon. Regards, Bill Nielsen NMRA L3808 -------------------------------- > > Bill; > Expanding upon the stuff we talked about over the phone. > I have sent a message to Ed McCamey at the NMRA referent to the previous > discussions he and I had about code 88 wheels in "S" and P64. > There are currently 3 sets of stds for P64 and this is confusing to say the > least. I propose we can the other 2 and adopt the tested ones from the NMRA. > Further I propose we adopt the stds for High Rail and Narrow Gauge from the > NMRA or better as we now have non for this and are spossed to be for ALL "S" > modelers. > There are no cast in stone stds for Sn42 but most of us use H0. I propose all > narrow gauge stds except P64 use code 88 wheels. I do not know what Sn3 > currently uses. > I also think we should add a couple of RPs. One for Extra-fine (near-proto) > std gauge. And another for 3/16 AAR. > Most all of this has been engineered if not fully tested. I have spread > sheets for all but 3/16 AAR and will have that soon. The RP for ExFine is > basically the work done by desPlains with some additions by Ed. > TC Carr
