Model Railroading and the Art of Compromise

All that matters is that you like what you have and you enjoy it IMHO

Thank you Mark for saying what I believe many of us feel from the "he said, he said" post. It's all about what works for us as individuals

Anymore bickering on this one and we would have to add a third rail 

Ben

It's all good....

Hi Mark and All,

I hope I am not bringing anything to the table that could be construed as bickering.  I am sorry the other thread disintegrated without any resolution.  Without finding an answer, the topic will only surface again.  And I will say that saying my turnouts have a visually bad appearance does get my hackles up.  Again, I apologize if you feel I am high-jacking this thread.

That said, I agree with what you are saying, except the problem is we don’t have a standard when it comes to rail height and terminology.  That is why I started the ‘Flyer vs Hi-rail vs scale’ thread a while back.

I, for one, would like to see some movement in that direction.

What rail sizes would you consider ‘Traditional’?  Or Hi-rail?  I think scale is covered pretty well, but I don’t know about compatibility between ‘scale’ and P64.

Your code 83 in H0 is considered scale, however the code stated in the NMRA Standard S-1.3 --  http://www.nmra.org/standards/.../S-1.3%202009.07.pdf  -- did surprise me.  Code 100 is very close to the SHS rail, code 138… AKA #155.  I believe the scale side of S considers this Hi-rail.  At least for S anyway.

I’ll stop short of what I’d really like to say.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Tom,

I agree with you and it seems to me, your comment was the crux of most of the responses on some of those threads, even though they got a bit heated.  Of course everyone wants to have fun and enjoy their trains on an individual basis. However, standards let all of us individuals enjoy commonly manufactured models.  

Sure, the old "I'm o.k.,  your o.k. - it is all good" mantra always sounds fine on internet forums.  When a guy buys an expensive, new engine and then finds out it derails in the flangeways or at the guardrails of his turnouts to the point he cannot consistently run it strait out of the box on his pike because one manufacturer made the wheels one way and another manufacturer made his track and TO's another?  Well, lets just say at that point, all those "compromises" start sounding and awful lot like profanity.

I would go so far as to say that I would not even expect a manufacturer to make things exclusively to the standard that I would choose (Scale for me), but I would like to know that products are consistently being built to some type of common standard so I can figure out if their products will work for me as an individual or what type of modifications I need to do to determine if the effort justifies the end results.

Also, sorry to hear your TO's got criticized.  IMO, you make a good product and are putting more thought into the issue of track and wheel profile compatibility than just about anyone else I've met in this scale.  Your posts have helped me to realize that you can look at wheel profile and NMRA RP25 all day long, but if the Turnouts you use are not built with compatibility in mind you still have a problem.

Model Railroading is definitely compromise.

The spectrum in S ranges from Flyer - Proto 64. Let's say Flyer=Black and P:64 = White.

There are many shades of gray in between black and white. There are people who prefer Black and there are those that prefer White. There are also those that prefer a shade of gray in between. The issue that I have is when someone that falls into a shade of gray themselves has the audacity to criticize others who are a different shade of gray.

Unless you are full on Flyer or Proto 64 with code 87 wheels on scale rail with correctly gauged turnouts you are a shade of gray in the middle.  Code 110, Rail over code 138, RP25 contours, etc... are all compromises that were made to make products easier to produce, run better, and be more affordable.

It all boils down to what compromises you as a modeler are willing to live with. I know guys that don't mind 3 rail track, huge flanges, and oversize couplers but they will chisel the hinges off of a Lionel smokebox because they are oversized?!?! To me the flexibility to run scale and hi-rail on the same layout that Tom's turnouts brings is worth a slightly less than perfect prototypical appearance. Of course that's just me. That's my shade of gray.

Troy,

You are right; standards are a fleeting thing at least as far as one of our major players is concerned.  We’ll have to wait until the other really enters the game.  However, for Hi-rail and scale, AM Models is very good (though their turnouts leave something to be desired).

Also, sorry to hear your TO's got criticized. 

You should have been there when I first announced my turnouts.  But, of course I was making some pretty bold claims.  Still, time has proven that my turnouts will allow for all 3 aspects of S to operate at the same time.

 

The spectrum in S ranges from Flyer - Proto 64. Let's say Flyer=Black and P:64 = White.

Johnny, your analogy is really the beset I’ve heard.  I’ve been using a holdover form my liberal arts education with the bell curve but I think not many really went for it.  Your ‘black & white’ is perfect.  I like only P 64 being ‘true’ scale.  So most ‘scalers’ are really what?  Semi-scale or near-scale?  I love the irony.

People who have a gray layout shouldn’t throw white ballast.  Or something like that.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine