Any suggestions for HO gradient?

No, Greg, you tell us YOUR theory as to how the difference is detectable in any real model, let alone significant in any practical sense.

When did _I_ become the NMRA? (I was on the NMRA DCC working group for about 3 years, but not the scale committee) THEY considered the difference between the internationally accepted

1:87, the British 3.5mm:1' and 1:87.1 to be significant enough to set it into their standards. If they hadn't felt the distinction to be significant then they wouldn't have made the distinction.

Regards, Greg.P.

You could always put a shim in the bottom of the vee crossing (frog) if you run uniform wheels. i.e., all wheels to RP25 for example. This will stop the wheels from dropping.

-- Cheers.

Roger T. See the GER at: -

Stop avoiding the issue. Do YOU, as fount of all wisdom, deem the difference significant, and if so, why?

Of course it's significant! For a start it requires two extra key presses on the calculator to convert any dimension from full size to scale size.

Now it's time for _you_ to stop avoiding the issue:

- why add two extra keystrokes and an extra .15% to an already existing (and somewhat irrational) scale? Those extra keystrokes increase the likelyhood of errors. What intrinsic advantage is gained by that addition?

- US arrogance?

- a significant improvement in accuracy?

- something I've overlooked?

Rergards, Greg.P.

True, but my HO modelling started in 1959 which results in a wide variety of wheel types in my collection. I convert the worst operating and worst appearing wheels, but I never catch up. I prefer spending my time building new models and I continue to buy those new models that fit my modelling theme. (it's a compromise)

Greg.P.

"Greg.Procter"

I have a small, by North America standards, collection of rolling stock. Something like 150 freight cars, around 20 vans (cabooses) and about 15 passenger cars. A few of these came with metal wheels, usually those purchased in the past couple of years which, in my case would be the passenger cars. However, almost all the freight cars and vans came with plastic wheels. It took me about two years of buying a package or two or three per month of 33" metal freight car wheels to convert the lot over to all metal wheels.

Have you considered doing something similar to standardise your wheel sets?

I found it made a noticeable different by running all cars with the same brand of wheels. My switches could be fine tuned to the one brand and my locos could pull a couple more cars thanks to the freer running steel wheels.

-- Cheers.

Roger T. See the GER at: -

Wow.

So you are agreeing that it doesn't really matter in any practical sense whether it is 87 or 87.1? Good, that's what everyone else has been saying. So at last you have caught up. Congratulations.

"Roger T." wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@grapevine.islandnet.com:

I've started to purchase bulk packs of KD couplers and metal wheels. I seem to run out of both fairly quickly, and the bulk packs are usually cheaper per unit.

Availability not guaranteed. Products available in my location in the US may not be available in other countries, or even the next hobby shop.

Puckdropper

On 2/27/2009 3:17 PM a_a_a spake thus:

Yes. Let me reinforce that in hopes of drilling the idea into Greg's horrendously thick skull: IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER YOU USE 1:87 or

1:87.1. NOBODY'S EVER GOING TO NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE!

So it *doesn't matter* that certain organizations, publications, standards, etc., use one or the other. For all practical purposes, they're completely interchangeable.

Got it? End of discussion.

Sheesh.

David, why hope to achieve the impossible?

I got a thousand odd wheels and axles made in various sizes by a local =

engineering firm. Problem #1 is that there are a variety of sizes and axle lengths. The "standard" size wheel (1m diameter =3D 11.5mm scale)is loosely adher= ed =

to by different manufacturers, so I found I needed three different diameters = to =

be physically able to fit in the underframes. I needed three different axle= =

lengths (24, 25, 26mm) and both spoked and disk. That's more than a dozen =

variations. (26mm axles aren't common so I just got a bag of loose axles) Problem #2 is that I have to buy a large batch which requires money. Problem #3 is I've currently run out and there are other calls on my cas= h =

just now.

I long ago discarded all plastic wheels - same result as you have found.=

I occassionally set up a production sequence and do a large batch of =

wheels. Nowdays several European manufacturers have switched to NMRA profile, bu= t I have about 50 locos to do before I can fill the frog gaps.

Greg.P.

I'm saying that better minds than yours have said that .1 is important and that you have followed meekly along with it without a single thought crossing your mind.

Regards, Greg.P.

So long as you never do any modelling it doesn't matter if you use 1:240,

1:87 or 1:32, so I can see where you're coming from. Your US standards setters have made the statement that the .1 does make a difference, in that they added it over the existing international standard.

Regards, Greg.P.

nobody except you has said it is important

thought? not a concept relevant to your existence.

You haven't put much thought into that statement, have you a_a_a? Your NMRA has put a lot of thought into creating a new standard over the existing International standard and has decided that that .1 is sufficiently important to outweigh the existing international standard.

LOL. The only thought you've had is to attempt to rubbish my thoughtful comments.

Regards, Greg.P.

It's far more likely that someone mindlessly used a calculator and wrote down what it said, in the same mindless way that people convert integer mileages (rounded to the nearest half mile) into apparently precise numbers of single metres.

I rest my case, since you self-identify what you consider "thoughtful" comments.

That's basically what happened. When the weathermen in my locality report record temperatures prior to metrication, they always add a decimal and is something they don't normally do.

In metric, measurements could be standardized as follows:

G - 1:25 O - 1:50 HO - 1:100 N - 1:150 or 1:200

Personally, I think it's a simple method, but defacto standards will prevail. Using a GE 70 ton unit measuring a 37' length as an example:

Prototype: 11,278mm G: 451mm O: 226mm HO: 113mm N: 75mm or 56mm

Likewise, Standard Gauge track at 56.5 inches becomes:

Prototype: 1435mm G: 57mm O: 29mm HO: 14mm N: 10mm or 7mm

The above measurements involve decimal places which are rounded off to the nearest whole number.

Cheers, John

You had a case? Sorry, I seem to have missed it.

Regards, Greg.P.