Gauge & Scale
NMRA Standards: A Reply to a Response
Mar 31, 2004
By Harvey Heyser |
Author
Bio
I want Large Scale to have the best set of standards possible. It appears that Mr. Ames shares that goal. Where we differ is in the process of achieving that goal.
|
I want Large Scale to have the best set of standards possible. It appears that Mr. Ames shares that goal. Where we differ is in the process of achieving that goal. I strongly advocate a process of open sharing of information and wide discussion/debate of the issues. The NMRA process which Mr. Ames urges us to become involved with has to date been anything but open, and the fact that Mr. Ames felt the need to resort to personal attacks suggests that he and the rest of the NMRA do not welcome disagreement and debate. Mr. Ames makes it seem that the NMRA process is the only possible process and that the standards decided on by that process are the only legitimate ones for Large Scale. In conversations with scale modelers (including members of the standards committee) I have frequently felt that one unspoken goal of the standards setting process is to "improve" Large Scale by injecting into it some of the scale-oriented principles which have worked well for other parts of the hobby. At one time I was tempted to share that goal, but after investigating how Large Scale developed, I changed my mind. The more I learned about the efforts and decisions made by pioneer large scalers, the more I came to realize that Large Scale was shaped by very different forces from other parts of the hobby. In their efforts to rejuvenate a part of the hobby which had been in decline for a half century, these pioneers often had to make do with totally inadequate resources. The resources they most frequently depended on were gauge and gauge related products (usually developed for other activities or scales). Consequently gauge rather than scale played the dominant role in shaping Large Scale. I came to respect these pioneers for their resourcefulness and creativity. They made some very sophisticated choices. They were certainly not waiting for the light of scale modeling to shine on their efforts. As time went on I came to disagree more strongly with efforts to make Large Scale more like scale modeling. I feel that the different approach Large Scale brings to the hobby is something to be celebrated, something that deserves to be a part of Large Scale standards. This approach is very much needed by the hobby if we wish to broaden the appeal of miniature trains. However, having said that, I do have to acknowledge the validity of Mr. Ames's criticism that my writing appears biased against scale modelers. I have allowed my disagreement with the notion that scale modeling should set the agenda for Large Scale to unfairly affect my writing, and for that I do apologize. There has been and always will be an important place for scale modeling in Large Scale. I just do not want it to obliterate the gauge-oriented principles which have shaped our unique approach to the hobby. Another area where Mr. Ames is correct is his observation that my comments do not address the technical issues, which form the vast majority of the proposed standards. Readers, please accept my apologies for not making my intentions clearer, especially in my second article. It has never been my intention to address those issues because I believe that setting standards is not simply an exercise in resolving technical issues. One of the main purposes of standards is to serve as a guide for human activity. In order for them to do so, the standards must balance the technical with the human. The NMRA, on the other hand, appears to believe that attention to human factors, such as explanation of the standards and communication with the Large Scaler audience, is not essential. (The letter of instruction published with the ballot promises the Technical Department will work on explanatory material at some later date -- after the standards are adopted.)
There has been too much focus on the technical and not enough on human factors. (It certainly seems the NMRA has focused almost exclusively on technical issues.) I would like a standard setting process that balances the technical and the human, that involves a wide spectrum of large scalers, and that respects Large Scale tradition and history. I would like standards that reflect non-technical aspects of Large Scale while presenting the technical details. I would like standards that give an understanding of Large Scale. This is my main reason for suggesting a Large Scale Supplement to the S-1 Standard.
In and of themselves all the technical details in the world cannot make sense of Large Scale. (In fact as the 2003 standards demonstrate, more technical details only add to the confusion.) The process of developing standards has been a long and difficult one for the members of the standards committee. They have had to deal with conflicting ideas and personal attacks (some of which, I understand, have verged on the vicious). While I have no desire to perpetuate that sort of animosity, I do feel a need to respond to one thing Mr. Ames accused me of: not trying to be a constructive part of the process. For the record, I have tried repeatedly to be involved. I am a life member of the NMRA. When I heard that standards were being considered in the 1990's, I badgered NMRA officials to be on the committee. While I was on the committee, I contacted many of the other members by phone to discuss the issues. Their response was that the standards are a technical matter and that human factors, such as history and custom, are not relevant. About that time the committee went dormant, and the membership rolls were purged. When it started up again, I was not notified. Throughout the late 1990's whenever I heard of new versions of the standards, I contacted the committee chair by telephone and was informed that the standards were all but complete (despite the fact that there have been two or three revisions since that time) and that there was no need for my involvement.
These efforts did not seem to be getting me anywhere. So I decided to share with others what I had learned about the development of Large Scale. I gave clinics on the subject to the South Mountain and Potomac Divisions of the NMRA and at the National Garden Railway Convention in 1997. I wrote the article on how large scalers use gauge and scale and included suggestions for an alternative introductory standard. I spoke with several members of the hobby media, including the NMRA's magazine, about publishing the article. Large Scale On-Line responded enthusiastically and published the article in late summer of 2003 right after the NMRA posted a completely revised set of standards. LSOL also requested that I update my comments on the standards to address the revisions made by the NMRA. They published those updated comments two weeks ago. Since inquiries about the 2003 version of the standards were directed to Mr. Ames, I contacted him by telephone in late summer 2003 to discuss my concerns. We had a lengthy conversation, during which he made many of the points made in his response to my article. I urged him to put those points and any others explaining the standards in writing. He indicated that there was not time to do so before the standards were put to a vote. At that time Mr. Ames also asked me if I would serve on the committee once again. What I felt I was being asked to do was to explain something I had strong disagreements with (kind of like a conservative Republican being asked to write speeches for a liberal Democrat). I did not feel that I could do that comfortably. I also felt that my prior experiences with being on the committee did not bode well for my further involvement. So I declined Mr. Ames's offer. At Mr. Ames's request, I sent him a copy of my article on gauge and scale. Until his response to my second article a week ago, I heard nothing from him. The above lengthy explanation has been given for three reasons: 1) to show that, contrary to Mr. Ames's assertions, I did try repeatedly to be part of the process, 2) to stress that doing so was not easy, and 3) to show that I was given the strong impression that the only way to be "constructive" was to accept unconditionally what the NMRA was doing. I feel that my actions have been constructive. I have tried to participate in the NMRA process. I have spoken with numerous large scalers including standards committee members. I have given clinics about how we large scalers use gauge and scale. I have written at length about the subject. I have proposed an alternative format for the introductory standard including extensive footnoted information on how the various large scale activities developed. And I have put my comments and concerns about the proposed standards in writing. What has the NMRA done? For more than a decade they have been working on the standards. During that time they have not published their rationale for the standards in the Large Scale press (or any other media as far as I can tell -- Mr. Ames's response is the first that I am aware of.) They have not notified large scalers when new versions of the standards were posted on the NMRA website. They have not reported the results of meetings and conferences with large scale manufacturers or of these on-line conversations Mr. Ames refers to. Is the NMRA being open and constructive about their process? While reading Mr. Ames's response was certainly not a pleasant experience for me, I appreciate that he has taken the time to explain some of his reasons for supporting the NMRA standards. Now, large scalers have two distinctly different views of the standards and can make a more informed judgment for themselves. My comments about the standards may have been provocatively worded, but if what they have provoked is more and better informed opinions about this issue, I am satisfied. If the NMRA had done its part in explaining what it has been working on and in communicating with large scalers, we all would have had a better understanding of the proposed standards, and this confrontation might not have been necessary.
| 1:29 Template |
| Just for everyones edification, about 4 years ago I entered into a one year agreement with NMRA to manufacture a plastic template for 1:29 scale. The term expired without success due technical and financial problems. NMRA has a copy write on the shape of their template. I was wanting up-scale their HO Template. I still feel such an item could be salable once you could overcome molding and labeling problems. |
| Arthur Raynolds - 02/11/2009 - 14:34 |
| 1/29 Template |
| Arthur, Why were you not able to produce the template? What were the technical and financial problems? Noel |
| Noel Widdifield - 02/11/2009 - 14:47 |
Top of Page
|
