Those of us that contributed to the standards ARE Large Scale railroaders. I was drafted to lead this effort after the manufacturers approached the NMRA asking for assistance to help define standards for interchange. The NMRA provides a recognized standards organization to help document and unify the hobby. We welcome the contributions of all and there is a lot more work to be done.

What we have accomplished to date is to work out the details of the track and wheel relationships. The lack of accepted standards in this area that are recognized by the industry has led to interchange problems leading to derailments. I for one would rather my models did not derail due to incompatibilities in the wheel and track geometries. If you do not believe that there is a problem, just check out the public forum discussion from a manufacturer of turnouts who is having problems with locomotives that derail. We both need standards and we need everyone to support them, both the manufacturers AND the modelers. By insisting that our manufacturers conform to the standards, we all win.

This rather dry aspect of wheel and track standards needed attention first. It provides a basis for you and others to build upon.

Large Scalers with whom I have talked about the proposed NMRA standards have expressed three concerns: A. They feel that Large Scale needs relatively few standards -- primarily those related to compatibility of equipment from various manufacturers. (A need for coupler compatibility was mentioned frequently. Nothing was mentioned about different styles of modeling!)

The building block upon which we all depend on is the wheel and track geometries. Most modelers rightly assume that this topic was solved long ago. Unfortunately models from different manufacturers sometimes have different dimensions in this area and a lot of cleaning up needed to be done. As the manufacturers begin to resolve this by following the standards, we all benefit. Please note that in developing the standards we did not start from scratch but instead tried to unify the various work done by others in the past.

I can not help you here. The NMRA is a great organization in part because it is volunteer based and is dedicated to model railroading. The NMRA can and does provide the Large Scale community a vehicle to work with the industry to solve common problems. We do and will continue to work across the community with fellow organizations to solve common problems. Model railroading is a great hobby. But like all ventures it needs a unifying venue to work out key differences. The standards process allows the manufacturers and modelers to work as a team to solve common problems. If you want to feel connected then become part of the process.

Great idea!!! Publishing all sides of an issue is very important. Of course someone has to write the articles and that takes work. The model railroad industry and the NMRA have worked various topics for years. It is natural to continue to use this forum. And remember those of us working the large scale issue under the NMRA banner are indeed Large Scale modelers ourselves.

Standards serve a very important role as it allows the manufacturers to develop equipment that interchanges smoothly. Well written standards should not constrain the modeler from enjoying the hobby. The fact is that standards make model railroading more enjoyable because the products work better together.

The NMRA standards process has tried to be very inclusive and work towards unifying the hobby. But we clearly agree there is much more work that needs to be done.

Those concerns seem to reflect a fear that the standards the NMRA has proposed will pull large scalers away from simply having fun and toward making their railways more like a job than an enjoyable pastime.

Having fun is what its all about. Would it not be nice to be able to purchase equipment whose wheel and track freely interchanged without derailments? How can the existence of a standard designed to solve real Large Scale problems be viewed as a threat to the enjoyment of the hobby?

"Pioneer large scalers made some incredibly creative choices about gauge and scale. They used their gauge resources as a foundation for reinvigorating interest in the larger scales. They regarded each of the many scales they tried as an opportunity to enjoy the hobby in a new way. What they did could have fragmented Large Scale into a welter of scale interest groups, but those pioneers also had the wisdom to focus their modeling on only a couple of gauges (and in North America primarily on 45mm gauge). By doing so they created a mechanism which allowed large scalers to share their interests and which drew Large Scale into the surprisingly cohesive part of the hobby we enjoy today."

My wife and I have only been active in Large Scale model railroaders for 20 years so I do not qualify as a pioneer. Yet I have found that there is a wide variety of different styles out there and while we all hold a common bond of enjoying Large Scale, we differ on how we enjoy it. As the variety of modelers has increased, the differences in style have increased. As a community we must be inclusive to grow. Recognizing only one style as "true" large scale is in my opinion a large mistake.

Three Things I Want From Standards: First, I would like standards which reflect how Large Scale works and which give an indication of how it came to be this way. Although standards can never be a completely detailed picture of Large Scale, they can be a snapshot. I want them to be a good one.

The above is a great document to write but does not have much to do with wheel and track geometry. A standard is intended to define a key element for interchange. For example most users will get lost reading the DCC standards as they talk about bits and bytes. Articles and books help the modeler understand what they need to understand. The standards on the other hand define the key characteristics needed by the manufacturers to ensure interchange.

What clearly is needed is a document that explains the relationships of the numbers from a Large Scale perspective. For example the NMRA standards use minimum and maximum numbers for the standards. A companion document could explain the same thing using a mid number with tolerances. Means the same thing but some are more comfortable with one approach than another. Writing documents takes a lot of time and work. Why not join the effort and write some of these important companion documents?

This has changed a great deal in the last 25 years. As new modelers have entered the hobby there has been a tendency to gravitate to one or more styles. I visit a lot of railroads and the diversity is very apparent. In my own case I have found that I like American 3 foot narrow gauge. While visitors bring just about anything to run on the railroad, most of the time it is narrow gauge steam and over the years has gotten more unified.

This is not much different from the way others have evolved the hobby. Standard gauge in 1:29 is very popular and on these layouts you will find a lot of modern diesels but few 1:20 wood narrow gauge rolling stock. Many 1:32 layouts simply have no 1:22.5 models on them. This is neither right nor wrong. We each enjoy the hobby differently.

If you desire a Large Scale railroad with a collection of all the scales, that's fine as well. Lets enjoy the hobby rather then trying to form a them versus us approach.

When we developed the standards we took great care to ensure that the track and wheel basis for all this was the same so future modelers could max and match or gravitate to one or another style and all be included. If you look at the details you will find that whenever possible we chose a common track and wheel profiles for Large Scale to allow just for the type of Large Scale modeling you desire. What differs is the minimum flange depth and you can build track to accommodate both.

Third, I want standards which lessen confusion about Large Scale. We have lots of scales with countless names, but we use only one gauge. We large scalers need a way to make sense of this situation for ourselves and for others.

Again this is not the role of a standard. Diversity is one of the key elements of our hobby and few desire to see you or I or anyone else try to limit this diversity. Separate documents geared to the user need to be written to help explain the different aspects of the hobby and also explain why the standards makes this all transparent. Unifying documents can also be useful but these documents likely should not try to define the key dimensions that a standard defines.

When one constructs standards one needs to address the needs of model railroaders and model railroaders tend to have different needs. Imagine the outcry if we tried to eliminate one style of model railroading. We chose instead to recognize the entire community of model railroaders. There are Large Scale railroaders who are very concerned with fidelity to prototype and those that could care less. Neither is good and neither is bad.

Some modelers do not care much about scale but others care a great deal. We found it impossible to create a single set of standards that could meet the needs of each community. So we developed standards for each community and tried wherever possible to allow for interchange. You for example fall into the deep flange community. This community allows for exactly what you desire. It includes a variety of scales all lumped unto the generic G category which all work on the same track with free interchange. It would appear from your comments that you do not like the fact that there are also prototype modelers who also need standards.

I doubt that you or I will ever model in proto scale. I model outside and a few acorns can mess things up quite a bit. So I opt for larger flanges and code 332 rail. Others want a model that is as near exact as possible. Why should you or I feel threatened that other in the hobby have different interests? Why can we not try to accommodate both needs?

The large scale press is aware of our efforts and we have held several meetings one on one with them. I agree that more should be written but I for one do not have the time, talent, or energy. I and others have tried to explain what we are doing and to seek input. One of the largest threads on LSOL happened last year on this topic and the inputs received were incorporated. Please remember that this is just a start. As we in the community need enhancements or change, the process allows this to happen. These are living documents. Its not a you versus us thing. We all need to work together to build this great hobby.

2. The revised standards continue to be organized much like those for the rest of the hobby. They give the false impression that Large Scale functions like scale modeling. They show an unwillingness to understand Large Scale. They certainly do not reflect how Large Scale actually works.

When you write a standard you must pick a framework for documentation. It is easy to reformat the data to represent many different styles. What is key though is that the numbers that back up the data are accurate and these numbers represent the key elements of wheel and track geometry key to ensure the interchange you desire. You seem to be more concerned with form than substance. I might recommend that for your community you ignore the standards that do not affect you and perhaps reformat the ones that are part of your community in a way you feel comfortable with.

The interesting thing in all your article is that you appear not to question the actual numbers that have been presented. That would imply that we got it right. If so then why not join together and work to present the material in a variety of formats.

Who gives you or I the right to define what a true Large Scaler is. Is someone that has chosen a specific scale to model in any more or less a true large scaler than one who has chosen a generic scale? Neither the NMRA or I tried to divide the community. The community is already divided into the styles of modeling each likes best. Instead we tried wherever possible to make interchange easy between the communities. Model railroading is a hobby and is supposed to be fun. I respect the style of railroading you have chosen and I ask you respect the style I have chosen. That's what makes Large Scale so much fun.

For example, I have few structures on my railroad. It can best be described as a railroad in the garden. Others have chosen to spend a great deal of time building a scene in scale outdoors. Is one or the other better? I think not but they are sure different.

I think it is time for you and others to recognize that Large Scale represents a large number of different interests and no one is any better or more right than another.

5. Names -- The situation with the names has gotten much worse with the decision to give each style of modeling a separate name. For instance, 1:20.3 would be called Proto20.3n3, Fn3, and G. For a part of the hobby with so many scales and so many names for those scales, adding more is not a step towards less confusion.

Names are a funny thing. I for one could care less. But others find names very important. Try to have a discussion about Gn3 with a Proto20.3n3 modeler. I tend to like Large Scale and LSxx as names, but the manufacturers strongly wanted G. If the community desires a different set of names these can easily be changed. Getting consensus on any names is going to be hard.

7. The revised standards still list gauges not heavily enough used to warrant standards (70.62mm, for example) -- another example of a failure to recognize the importance to the organization of Large Scale of sharing the same track gauge.

A standard gauge prototype in 1:20.3 uses a 70.62 track gauge. There are currently manufacturers developing in standard gauge 1:20.3. They have asked that we include standards for this emerging scale. I see no reason why we should not recognize these modelers as Large Scale modelers. I invite you to have this discussion on the One-20point3 yahoo group. The large scale modelers there might have a different opinion then you on this topic. S-1.3, S-3.3 and S-4.3 were all developed to recognize the unique interchange of 45mm track you wish to model in. Why do some Large Scale railroaders feel threatened by the desires of other Large Scale modelers?

You are absolutely correct; there are indeed many other tools appropriate for many items. We need a lot of work done to communicate to the modelers a vast array of items. The smaller scales have a lot of data sheets to help them. We have very few in Large scale. However, the basic definitions of wheel and track are by definition part of what is included in standards. If we want our manufacturers to develop models that interchange we need standards.

9. My biggest concern with the revised standards is that they do not reflect how Large Scale works at all. They do not give a detailed picture; in fact, they do not even give a snapshot of Large Scale. The hobby they show is nothing like the Large Scale I know. (They do not even include 1:13.7 -- 7/8n2.)

Gee, above you thought that standard scale in 1:20.32 should not be listed and now you desire 1:13.7? Our approach was not to include scales at this time that did not have manufacturers and modelers both requesting standardization. We can easily add 1:13.7 if there is a desire. Be aware, though that the track spacing for parallel tracks needed in 1:13 is a tad different then that needed in 1:32.

10. Interchange -- I find it quite surprising that the NMRA, an organization dedicated to promoting interchange within the hobby would fail to recognize the very special way we North American large scalers practice it by all using the same gauge regardless of scale. Perhaps the NMRA's bias toward scale modeling has blinded them to the possibility that gauge can be an important factor in the hobby.

Not at all. That's why S-1.3, S-3.3 and S-4.3 were written. Please note that the use of "we" above represents only one facet of the Large Scale community. Being inclusive is something I feel is important. Just because I do not model in proto scale on my railroad does not mean they should not have standards as well.

Large Scale is not unique in this. The live steam crowd has always had different scales on the same track gauge. In part because track layouts are relatively rare and the need to share is greater. Also On30 is very popular and shares HO gauge track. We are modelers and accept the great diversity in the model railroad community.

The revised standards ignore the main strength of Large Scale in North America: our willingness to welcome anyone who runs on 45mm track regardless of scale, prototype interest, or kind of modeling. Sharing our track is the way we large scalers share the hobby. The NMRA should be able to recognize that.

We do which is why we created S-1.3, S 3.3 and S-4.3 and why we tried to keep the wheel and track geometry the same wherever possible. But you in turn need to recognize that the large scale community has grown and changed. Some do not care about scale while others scale is very important. The community needs to include both interests.

11. Proposing three standards is preposterous for a part of the hobby which has yet to agree on a single set of standards. This only adds to the confusion. It also lends credence to the paranoia felt by many large scalers who feel the NMRA is trying to break up Large Scale. 12. Undoubtedly, one of the main goals of the revised standards is to reduce confusion about Large Scale, but much of what they accomplish actually increases it.

Which specific portion of the Large Scale community would you like us to ignore? Be glad to entertain eliminating one or more of the standards. But which? There are strong supporters and modelers in each. I hope non fidelity to scale does not become a litmus test for identifying a "true" Large Scaler.

The standards are no more and no less then a set of key numbers that the manufacturers need to follow if they want locomotives and rolling stock to work on track. Standards are not a vehicle to describe to new users what this hobby is all about.

Labeling scale and gauge is not a new idea. It is in fact very common in plastic models of all types. If scale is important to you then you pay attention to it, if not then ignore it.

We agree that much more is needed than simply a set of standards. Working together in the community to construct such documents benefits all.

14. Finally, the revised standards seem intent on pushing Large Scale away from where it is now. Exactly where is not certain because the standards do not include much in the way of explanation. However, there are some fairly clear indications that the standards are pushing Large Scale toward a greater awareness of scale, of prototype, and of style of modeling and away from the simple pleasures of building our railways, running our trains, and sharing our enjoyment. A willingness to welcome anyone who runs on 45mm track is what got North American Large Scale where it is today. The revised standards seem intent on completely reversing that direction. Any decision this momentous should be considered and debated by all large scalers. The way the NMRA's process has worked so far, most of us will not have any say in the decision.

Your definition of Large Scale is a fine one for you. Other definitions work for others. To grow Large Scale we need to be inclusive. And please remember that the NMRA process is inclusive for anyone wishing to spend the time and energy. If you want to effect the outcome then you need to work on its development.

The NMRA's 2003 version of standards for Large Scale gives a strong impression that Large Scale is not a cohesive part of the hobby, that sharing a single track gauge is not important to large scalers, and that modeling accurately is more important than sharing the hobby. All of those impressions are false. If the revised standards are adopted, many of large scalers' fears are closer to being realized. We will have lost much of the simple fun in our hobby and replaced it with complicated nit-picking.

Why is it such a threat to you and others that some people enjoy Large Scale differently then others. I am not threatened by, Accucraft models or Eggliners. (both run on my railroad). When I visit a different Large Scale railroad I enjoy the style of railroading they have chosen. We are all members of the same community.

Most of the key manufacturers have contributed, some significantly. We could not have achieved consensus on these numbers without a great deal of support from the community. As chair of the effort I would never claim that I or anyone else that has contributed understands the total wide diversity of Large Scale. But then I doubt that anyone truly does.

That observation, however, poses a big challenge for us. As mentioned before our manufacturers have been unable to step in and resolve this issue. We large scalers must do so. We have to encourage our media to give more attention to standards so we can become better informed. We have to be constructive, make compromises when necessary, and work together to achieve standards that we can live with.

What specific dimensions in the standards needs to be improved? Specifics please. It is easy to sit and throw stones but harder to try to work up a set of track and wheel standards that allows the interchange you desire. The manufacturers keenly desire to conform to common standards because interchange means more sales. Us Large Scalers worked with the industry and with other modelers to construct these standards for the Large Scale community. If there is a change needed lets make it. But frankly the time has come for us as a community to stop nitpicking and to get behind a common set of standards so that our models will operate on our track and treads like the ones going on in the public forum are a thing of the past.

...standards that let prospective large scalers know there are many ways to become involved and that they are welcome to participate in whatever way they like. ...standards more true to the nature of Large Scale, and ...standards that show our hobby in an accurate and positive light. This is our hobby. We should be proud of it. If we are going to have standards that reflect Large Scale as we love it and that help us to share our enjoyment with others, then we will have to develop them ourselves.

Since the NMRA Large Scale standards were developed by Large Scale users and manufacturers, I guess we did just exactly what you are proposing! This is indeed our hobby and I want to publicly thank the Large Scale manufacturers for recognizing that our community needed some key interchange standards.

But there is so much more that needs to be done. The documentation and explanation documents you mention are all important items that need to be written. Anyone wish to volunteer? This is after all our community and all are welcome to contribute and be part of its evolution.

The standards completed to date only reflect a small portion of the work needed. Coupler standards are clearly needed if we wish to be able to purchase equipment from a variety of manufacturers and simply just run it.

What we need is for the community to work together to achieve what is in the best interest of us all. And all here must be inclusive. We all have different needs and interests and are unified by our love of Large Scale trains.

What do you say we work together to achieve this. In the meantime new track has arrived and its time to begin the completing the new track extension so I can run some more trains.

Top of Page