My beef is any standard legitimizing the deep flanges of Flyonel or old American Flyer. The old product will always be with us. But high rail flanges comparable to the AM and SHS flanges should be the standard for highrail. This should not be a threat to new product from Flyonel. The AM or SHS highrail flanges will do just fine on AM turnouts and hopefully on the upcoming AM Fastrack turnouts. The challenge is to get Lionel to conform to a more reasonable flange depth. I realize we are not exactly talking scale. But this could be important for high-scalers and for anyone trying to operate scale and highrail on the same track, either using SHS rail with Tom's Turnouts or AM turnouts. Maybe someone will eventually offer a truly universal track system that can handle both scale and highrail. But its unlikely the deep flanges would be compatible with this,. - Earl Henry, Nashville In a message dated 7/6/2013 7:47:12 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
I don't see what the issue is here. As far as I can see there are effectively 3 standards, coarse (deep flange), fine (NASG/NMRA - called "scale" by some manufacturers) and Proto64. (Coarse and fine are used in the sense of engineering standards with respect to the real thing scaled down, not pejoratively.) Sure, some people are using code 88 wheels, some on fine track alongside code 110 wheels, some alongside P64, because they're almost the correct scale width over the whole tyre (despite a poor profile) which provided they make requisite adjustments to the check gauge are ok, but this is their personal choice - proving the check gauge is set correctly to suit one of the three core standards, everything is hunky dory. Can't see any need to change a damn thing, other than to align the NASG/NMRA standard. And to make sure the deep flange standard accommodates the key manufacturers. Proto:64 is AAR to 1:64 scale - otherwise it isn't "Proto": doesn't involve or need any accommodation or alteration. (Life is so much simpler the Proto:64 way!) Calling it Proto:64 or P64 means everyone understands what it is, within and without S scale. The key thing is to state what the standards are, and what they key tolerances are. If individuals wish to deviate from them, it is up to them but they move away from inter-operability, which is the whole point of standards. --- In [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) , Paul Vaughn <pv_sn3@...> wrote: > > Hi all: You have hit on a dear spot for me. Just a note that you can run code 88 thru code 110 on the same track IF all wheel sets have the same check gage! No new standards need to be generated. I use all three wheel sents on my own layout (codes 88, 93 & 110). They all use the same check gage. > Remember the Track and Wheel check gages MUST be Equal, as a set dimension! > That's the key point - code 88 wheels can be set to run alongside code 110. Many overlook this. > Creating P64, P48, P87 etc. only creates as bunch of elitists who don't care if their equipment works on your layout or not. My opinion. Oh dear. Presumably, anyone working to NASG/NMRA standards is elitist, compared to those who use deep flanges? Quite an unhelpful and needlessly divisive remark which rather spoils a good post, but that's just my opinion. Simon Dunkley
