Nobody is telling anyone how to enjoy the hobby. If one's idea of fun in this hobby is watching a $300 N scale loco bounce on pizza cutter wheels on poorly designed track, the NMRA is not going to intervene. If more manufacturers built things to some of the basic standards and recommended practices, such as the ones that specify the distance between the tracks or the profile of the wheels we wouldn't have to have these sorts of discussions, but not all of them do, so we are left trying to get incompatible pieces to work together.
Exactly! But why does it have to be by NMRA standards? Ford parts wont fit a Chevy and Chevy wont fit a Ford. If a manucturer builds locomotives and rolling stiock that works well together on their product and another manufactures stuff wont work on it...thats free enterprise. If a IM wont run on Atlas track...oh well...buy an Atlas locomotive. Atlas aint in the bussiness to have modelers buy the competitions products. The other half of that coin...locomotive manufactures should make their products runnable on Atlas track...the most popular brand. Why not put the blame where it belongs. Layouts are done with whatever track...usually Atlas...locomotives come from any # of manufactures. Then again...Kato dont give a hoot if their locos will run on Atlas track or not...buy Unitrack!!! Its a vicious circle. BUT...Atlas has been making track longer then most manufactures of motive power or rolling stock have been in bussiness...they arent at fault. I just get real worked up when someone complains that a certain locomotive wont run on a certain brand of track. Blame the loco manufacturer...not the track. You cant put a Chevy alternator on a Ford. You cant put a Ford starter on a Chevy. Nuff said...ty .
Why the NMRA? Because this is a hobby of TRAINS, not a hobby of Atlas.. or a hobby of Kato... or a hobby of Intermountain. Ford doesn't make parts for Chevy, and vice versa, but both are required to meet specifications by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulation. Can you imagine buying a Ford whose body width is too wide to fit in a street lane? Is it reasonable to limit those buyers to only drive on roads paved by Ohio?
But you don't drive your Ford on a Chevy road, so there's where the analogy falls apart. It would be one thing if I were trying to put an Atlas motor in a Kato, but how am I going to run an Intermountain AC-12 on Intermountain track? Intermountain doesn't make any track. If the track is also giving us fits with other locos then perhaps there is a problem there. The problem could also very well be with the wheels on the locomotive. To ignore one side of it completely because so-and-so has been in business longer is not terribly helpful. The reason I bring up Atlas' c55 track is that, when there are problems with "spike" heights" here it's nearly always Altas c55 track. There could be a reason for this, and some of the measurements reported here on this board seem to indicate variable "spike" heights on Atlas track. Nobody says that anyone HAS to use NMRA standards. I tend to avoid products that have shown incompatibility with other products when it comes to simple stuff that shouldn't vary all over the place, like coupler height, track gauge, rail code (height), and flanges. Nobody else has really come forward with such a comprehensive set of standards, so I don't think it is unreasonable that those of us who do like maximum compatibility, and don't have enough space to have a Kato layout, an Atlas layout, an Intermountain layout, etc., look to the established standards for at least some guidance. I am not going to put on my jackboots and riot helmet and break into your house to tell you how to run your layout if your needs and priorities are different. :tb-wink::tb-wink: Adam
I'm not interested in playing the blame game, and I'm quite sure my AC-12 will run just fine on my Peco Code 55 track, since everything else I've ever tried does so (including my Challenger, which supposedly had a similar problem fixed by new wheelsets from Athearn). But. A hobby like model railroading depends on its participants being relatively comfortable that pieces from different manufacturers will work together. As a consumer, I shouldn't have to worry about whether an IM loco will run on Atlas track. If I DO have to worry about that, then at some point I'm likely to lose enthusiasm for the hobby (e.g., "will this loco, one of my all time favorites work? How can I find that out BEFORE buying it? Jeez, this is just too much trouble; I think I'll take up golf, where all clubs seem to work fine with all balls and all golf courses."). Having standards of interoperability that are observed by manufacturers helps everyone. Consumers enthusiasm stays high because they don't have to worry about interoperability issues and they buy more stuff; manufacturers make more money because they don't have to supply a "turnkey" system and can operate in niches that prove profitable and sell more stuff. Buying a car is different - you ARE buying a "turnkey" solution to transportation. But suppose we didn't have standards of interoperability for, say, telephones (by the way, many of those standards had to be forced upon ATT, who saw the standards as eroding their monopoly position)? Or suppose there weren't standards for lane widths on highways, so that a trucker wouldn't know whether a rig that was just fine on New York roads would be able to navigate Illinois roads? Or suppose there weren't standards of interoperability for prototype train equipment, and as a result, only cars owned by the UP could be moved by UP trains, and only cars owned by BNSF could be moved by BNSF trains. That would be a pretty messed-up world, don't you think? Or suppose there weren't standards of interoperability for, gasp, the INTERNET? Oh my . . . We don't have to pick the NMRA as the standard for interoperability; but we MUST pick some standard, or the hobby is doomed. John C.
Ok...just so I dont have to quote everyone about whether anyone said anything about the NMRA being involved in any of this...the suggestion that NMRA was law came from the first reply in this thread I quoted... Originally Posted by jrwirt NMRA Standard S-4.2 specifies that flanges not be larger than .022" above the wheel tread. The Hi-Rail standard given in S-4.3 (for sharp curves and other adverse track conditions) is .035" maximum. The variability of spike heights found with the Atlas C55 flex track seems to indicate that it may not in fact be fully compliant with the NMRA Hi-Rail standard. But then the MTL high profile wheels are not compliant at all. I expect I will have my AC-12s within a couple weeks and I will measure the flanges when I get them... When people state the fact that something isnt NMRA specific...that just erks me. ( I am entitled to my opinion on that). Once again...the NMRA is not law. And personally from what I have read on them...there is more negative then positive in their "rules...regs...guidelines...suggestions...recommendation..." whatever anyone wishes to call them or quote from their site or handbook. Do I personally think there needs to be some sort of 'uniformity' and/or 'cooperation" between manufactures and the goods they make in N scale...A resounding YES!! Do I think WE as modelers should put that decision making power in the NMRA's hands...Absolutely NOT!! JMO...ty .
Well, looks like there's an opportunity there for you! I will go by just about any standards for interoperability and cooperation as long as they are generally agreed upon, whether they are established by the NMRA, by a board of modelers, by some agreement between manufacturers, or by some guy named Bob who manages to get all the manufacturers on board. :thumbs_up::thumbs_up:
See...we CAN Agree !! :thumbs_up::thumbs_up: Except for "...whether they are established by the NMRA..." :tb-tongue: * IF...( BIG IF ) the manufactures themselves could all sit down together and come to standards amoungst themselves...that would be a perfect world. Kato saying they would make their Unitrack ties and spacing more US RR "prototypical". Atlas agreeing to making C55 flex that didnt have spike heads that seemed taller then the rails themselves !! Peco agreeing to make their flex track more "flexible". Lots of possibilties...but...aint gonna happen I am afraid :-(. Having an outside governing body like the NMRA TELLING manufactures what to do... I dont see that working. JMO again...thnxs
Has it been verified that some of the flanges are large? (how big are they?) I recall that the 1st batches of Athearn's Challengers shipped with large flanges on the lead wheels. Athearn corrected this on subsequent runs and offered replacements to those that got the 1st run. Perhaps IM will follow suit. Mark
As far as the AC-12 is concerned. What's recommended DCC decoder for these, I'm assuming it won't be a straight forward drop in.
Haha! Yes, we can agree on the usefulness of standards. I don't see the NMRA telling anyone how to really do anything. I am personally very glad that they established DCC standards for decoders. Can you imagine if one's DCC locos needed to have different decoders for Digitrax systems than NCE systems than MRC systems than Lenz systems and so on? The NMRA has some standards. Manufacturers can choose to use or ignore them. As consumers then, we each decide whether that is important. I had considered using Atlas c55 track more extensively, but this spike height thing has given me significant pause. Similarly the legendary unreliability or lack of interoperability of certain other manufacturer's items has kept me from buying those products.
My first question is why? What's wrong with the NMRA's current standards? This might do well as a separate thread.
Like I said...I read enough in the NMRA "standards" that made me say "pfffffffffftttttttt...yeah...right !!". I am sure the various manufactures have read the same "standards" and said "pfffffffffftttttttt...yeah...right !!" Maybe thats why the manufactures havent adopted the NMRA "standards" . HHhhmmmmm...just a thought :tb-wink: .
What is it about them? The track gauge is 9mm. I am glad that this has been established or someone would have 9.7 mm track and someone else would have wheels made for 8.5 mmm track and someone else may just decide to round off to 10 mm and we'd be all over the place. I think a lot of manufacturers don't follow them because they don't care because they're customers have not communicated to them that they care. When we have repeated problems with a product, such as the spike height on Atlas c55, it does make you wonder whether agreement on some sort of standard would be useful. I say that it would be.
Yup...track gauge at 9mm...but I honestly doubt NMRA had anything to do with it. Just sayin. As far as Atlas spike height...I do believe they read this forum as well as others. Whether they care if someone elses equiptment hits the spikes...only Atlas can say. I can only say that it makes you wonder though...if there are as many complaints on other forums too about this one problem...why hasnt Atlas fixed it...hmmmm. If they simply fixed the spike height problem...they would sell a boat load more C55...dontcha think? No governing body needed...just modelers demanding better...with their wallets ;-) .
I agree. I have not purchased c55 from Atlas yet precisely because of this problem. I have an AC-12 coming because, well, I really want an AC-12. Hopefully, it will run on the c80 and Unitrack I have, and will run on future c55 trackage that I may yet build.
But whether or not you say "yeah right" if the manufacturer would have adopted them anyway, we would not have this incompatibility issue, period. NMRA standards are there, right now, for free, and if applied, work. So my question remains, why not use them or at the very least, use those that pertain to compatibility from manufacturer to manufacturer?
I dont like this system because it costs too much. Atlas spent thousands to create their C55 track. If we the consumers find incompatibility faults with it and dont buy it, Atlas looses thousands, and soon goes bankrupt. Does it not then make sense to have those standards in place, which would save Atlas from building an incompatible product?
I started a new thread for the Product Compatibility discussion. Please continue this discussion in the new thread so that those with questions relevant to the AC-12 can get back to them here.
