Is it not time for consistent standards?

[4firstimes]

Over the last few years the main players in the N Gauge market have raised the standards of their products out of all proportions. There is one aspect there seems to be repeated overlooked and each of the main stream manufacturers appear not to have addressed, this is the standardisation of back to back measurements of wheels. With models for sound now passing the £220 mark for sound fitted models and for not sound Dcc fitted hovering around £180 , and standard analogue Dcc convertible around £150 as a guide. A recent purchase of a Farish class 60 sound fitted locomotive proved my point there are serious quality control issues, of the six driving axles on this model not one of the back to back measurement showed any consistency, one of the central wheel was so out it dropped of the axle. When ran on the layout every point the pack to back was so far out the locomotive would not travel through. Out of fustration I was getting g ready to pack the locomotive up and return for a record. In the last six months I ve had out of 15 purchases 8 being sent back for refunds. One 08 shunter been returned to Bachmann no less than three times due to poor fitted pickups. Interesting on the o8 shunter those engineer grey o8 shunter with the words sound fitted on the pick up base, seen to have the same issue , replace with the pickup base with no stamping of sound fitted appear to be of a more flexible and solid construction. On this Class 60 I just could not bear paying a fortune to return for repair or replacement, with a brass back to back gauge managed to adjust all the wheel sets and this is now a perfect running locomotive. Having to take this drastic action, prompted the thought is it not time each of the main stream suppliers start to pay interest in consistent back to backs . The likes of other modelling scales have invested time to provide details to ensure there is standards. With prices of models increasing , please can the likes of Bachmann for there Farish range raise the standards and ensure their Quality control process is not releasing sloppy finished models 

[Mike Harvey]

The problem with back to back standards is that they need to relate to track standards, notably flangeways and check rail positions  at points and crossings. I honestly do not expect there to be a single back to back answer to suit all the various track systems. On the other hand whilst we might expect consistency for all the wheelsets on a particular piece of rolling stock, a variance of 0.2mm can be make or break for smooth running but may be acceptable in a production environment. I have tried to QC this post for spelling but not grammar and that has taken longer than I would have expected because there were correctly spelled words which were not the word I intended. QC has a time cost which translates to financial cost in a production environment.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Mike Harvey
More spelling and grammar

[woodenhead]

I solved the pickup issue on my pre-sound version 08 with a stay alive - transformational.

[davebem]

I think the quality of Bachmann/farish has been consistently good.  I did have pickup issues with my grey 08 and started a thread on stay alive, but in the end I resolved my issues as the wiper contacts were contaminated with grease, cleaned and run it in and its fine now.  Ive experienced pickup issues with farish 37s though, stay alive would be a good feature to have as standard (Id rather have it than a speaker!).  Ive not had wheel back to back issues on any locos, although Ive had it on other manufacturers wagons.  As someone else pointed out not all the track is the same, i recall the Kato unitrack is about 0.XX mm slightly wider than peco for example.

[fezza]

Transit grease seems a particular problem on small steam and diesel locos. It seems to become sticky under certain conditions and damages electrical connectivity. Too much grease/ oil seems more of a problem than too little in N gauge.

 

All my n gauge short wheelbase stock seems to run better on Kato than Peco and Kato  generally needs less cleaning. Kato track is a bit ugly but it's very good if you are a newcomer or not too obsessed with scale fidelity. I don't use Kato controllers though - it has to be Gaugemaster.

[Ravenser]

On 11/09/2023 at 10:10, Mike Harvey said:

The problem with back to back standards is that they need to relate to track standards, notably flangeways and check rail positions  at points and crossings. I honestly do not expect there to be a single back to back answer to suit all the various track systems. On the other hand whilst we might expect consistency for all the wheelsets on a particular piece of rolling stock, a variance of 0.2mm can be make or break for smooth running but may be acceptable in a production environment. I have tried to QC this post for spelling but not grammar and that has taken longer than I would have expected because there were correctly spelled words which were not the word I intended. QC has a time cost which translates to financial cost in a production environment.

 

 

If the manufacturers had a single nominal standard , which they used consistantly through their range - and if all the manufacturers used the same one - then the QC variations would be manageable . They don't. A little measuring of real wheelsets in OO cured me of any belief that hair-sp0litting about a nominal B2B was meaningful: the range of 0.2mm difference between B2Bs on a model which Mike Harvey mentions is about the manufacturing tolerance at Kadar, although some other Chinese factories seem to be a little more consistant

 

Having sorted out a coherent wheel standard, it would then be necessary to tackle Peco and get them to tighten up the flangeways on their track. The gaping void that passes for a crossing flangeway on Code 55 would be my first target. But many years of 4mm experience suggests sticks of dynamite won't shift Peco by even 0.1mm in such matters. They take backward compatibility to dogged levels in Devon

 

And finally it is evident from the back of the NGS Manual that the NGS has totally abdicated in this area, and wants nothing to do with the subject. Standards are supposed to be a matter for a scale society , so we've got to put something in.... So here is a half page table giving two unspecified stanfdards that we didn't invent and we're not going to be so ill-mannered as to tell you who did . And actually nobody in British N RTR uses either of them (or the NEM standards from the Continent). Duty done - can we forget about the whole distasteful subject now?

 

It is a miserable mess. I quite agree something should be done about it, but as someone just passing by in N I don't feel like leading any charge. Although I am very happy to strongly second anyone else who wants the matter addressed

 

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Not having a dog in this fight, I have waited for a few responses before commenting.

On 11/09/2023 at 00:53, 4firstimes said:

In the last six months I ve had out of 15 purchases 8 being sent back for refunds.

If this is typical then the retailer(s) should be giving the brand grief for unacceptable product.

On 13/09/2023 at 14:53, davebem said:

I think the quality of Bachmann/farish has been consistently good.  ...I've not had wheel back to back issues on any locos, although I've had it on other manufacturers wagons.

OTOH, if this is typical, there isn't a significant BtB  problem. 

 

Insufficient data to call it, needs more RTR N gauge purchaser input.

[KeithMacdonald]

Here's something I learnt in the software industry, but it seems applicable here.

 

The wonderful thing about "standards" is : there's so many to choose from!

[AndrueC]

On 02/10/2023 at 13:04, KeithMacdonald said:

Here's something I learnt in the software industry, but it seems applicable here.

 

The wonderful thing about "standards" is : there's so many to choose from!

 

And I think this directly pokes fun at the subject whilst being sadly true:

https://xkcd.com/927/

Edited November 8, 2023 by AndrueC

[Darlington_Shed]

On 02/10/2023 at 13:04, KeithMacdonald said:

something I learnt in the software industry

 

When I worked in IT we had this one:

Standards are so important, everyone should have their own.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Darlington_Shed said:

Standards are so important, everyone should have their own.

Works OK for trivial fairy dust stuff like IT.

 

Now think about urban life with no standards for potable water. Or how your IT kit is powered by standardised mains supplies. Or how the liquid fuel you blithely pump into your tank never fails to work. This is where the serious types who understand standards conformance keep the world working - reliably.

[frobisher]

25 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Now think about urban life with no standards for potable water. Or how your IT kit is powered by standardised mains supplies. Or how the liquid fuel you blithely pump into your tank never fails to work. This is where the serious types who understand standards conformance keep the world working - reliably.

 

You're forgetting the most necessary step in that process, an enforcement authority with the necessary teeth.

 

29 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Works OK for trivial fairy dust stuff like IT.

 

And with due respect, that shows a failure to understand the problem being expressed.

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

18 minutes ago, frobisher said:

And with due respect, that shows a failure to understand the problem being expressed.

I used this line while on staff for new grad entries into the software side of the business as a 'kicker' to provoke engagement with the problem. It never failed to raise some useful reaction to work with...

 

As for 'enforcement' it's typically well behind the curve. Conviction on the need for fully documented continuous improvement is the way; and is it ever hard work.

 

Way outside my experience I have just run into a dandy example of 'enforcement behind the curve'. UK Building standards have been updated to push improvement of domestic thermal insulation, all very worthwhile, but overcooked in demanding a fixed target level of improvement: because at some point in the development process the line 'insofar as this is possible within the existing construction' was deleted. As it is, if enforced and I want the isulation improvement I have to pull the house down and rebuild from the DPC up, to have the improved property signed off by the LA's building control. Or I can simply leave it as is, and have no problem. Oh, this is going to be such fun...

[AndrueC]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Works OK for trivial fairy dust stuff like IT.

You mean the trivial fairy stuff that modern civilisation depends on?

 

I was a computer programmer before I retired so I have an obligation to make disparaging remarks about IT but referring to it as 'fairy dust' shows an astonishing lack of knowledge and respect on your part.

 

IT has issues with standards and quality control (as a programmer I'm painfully aware of how particularly poor our industry is at it) but IT is most definitely not 'trivial' and should not be dismissed as such.

Edited November 9, 2023 by AndrueC

[Darlington_Shed]

2 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Works OK for trivial fairy dust stuff like IT

 

The line I mentioned was very much a recognition that most IT "standards" of 20-30 years ago were largely non-standard. I don't think we needed you serious grown-ups to point out the shortcomings.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

2 hours ago, AndrueC said:

referring to it as 'fairy dust' shows an astonishing lack of knowledge and respect on your part.

My lack of respect is born out of one of the common boasts forty years ago, that if the motor industry had matched  the IT industry in technical progress, cars would make hundreds of miles to the gallon and cost a tenth the price: while omitting that the steering would sometimes exchange left for right randomly, and when you went for the brake in an emergency the message 'currently unavailable' would occasionally flash up.

 

I full well know how important IT is, and it is still not good enough, period. The Post Office persecution of its sub-postmasters alone, an example that should make all in this industry cry for shame.

[AndrueC]

2 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

My lack of respect is born out of one of the common boasts forty years ago, that if the motor industry had matched  the IT industry in technical progress, cars would make hundreds of miles to the gallon and cost a tenth the price: while omitting that the steering would sometimes exchange left for right randomly, and when you went for the brake in an emergency the message 'currently unavailable' would occasionally flash up.

 

I full well know how important IT is, and it is still not good enough, period. The Post Office persecution of its sub-postmasters alone, an example that should make all in this industry cry for shame.

I think we're on the same page it's just the term 'trivial fairy dust' I don't like. To me that implies something of no importance that has no affect on the real world but as you correctly point out with the Post Office example that is not the case.

 

During my career I encountered people who thought software at least was trivial and unimportant and that was how projects went astray (the classic - 'bugs can be fixed with a firmware update' but of course once the product is released management lose interest and want to move on to the next new thing). All things IT are important and should be taken more seriously than they perhaps are at the moment.

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by AndrueC