Bill; Good points and I am not proposing we change anything but eliminate the NASG proto as it is not really proto but RP25. Maybe you can help here. What I am trying to do is get the NASG to adopt the rest of the NMRA standards that cover High-Rail (NMRA calls this deep flange) and P64. Also set up an RP for those who wish to use code 88 RP25 wheels rather than do P64, This is what the current NASG "Proto" attempts. Proto 64 has specs for S & Sn3, so would the proposed RP. The Engineering work has already been done with the NMRA fine scale spreadsheet. It just needs testing. So no change in the existing standards just additions for the other guys.
Talmadge C 'TC' Carr Sn42 and Hn42 somewhere in the wilds of the Pacific Northwest [email protected] On Jul 4, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Bill Nielsen wrote: > 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 ------------------------------------ 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: [email protected] [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/
