Do we need a current day BRMSB?

[newbryford]

Reading a BRMSB thread gave me an idea.

(BRMSB is/was British Railway Modelling Standards Bureau)

 

Is there any mileage in having a modern version of BRMSB so that we can have some commonality from manufacturers?

NMRA for the UK?

(I'm primarily coming from a 00 perspective, but that doesn't exclude other scale/gauge combinations)

 

Including things like standardising on the NEM pocket.

Even though there is a standard, heights and distance back from buffers seems quite variable at the moment.

(UK manufacturers just can't seem - or want - to follow the standards as laid out by NEM!)

Maybe - (blasphemy to some) - have a standard for tension locks?

 

Have set standards for 00 track - maybe working with DOGA to create them?

(That may mean a variation or two though - to include Code 75/100 and set-track)

Or is it too simplistic to get the manufacturers to follow DOGA standards?

 

Clarifying an Era description for the time period usage of models?

 

And other standards as required?

 

Even if it only refers to other well defined systems such as NMRA DCC compliance?

 

Or are we reliant upon individual scale/gauge societies to define track/wheel standards?

 

 

Or is this a pie in the sky idea?

 

 

[The Johnster]

I would certainly approve of better standardisation for couplings, but it is not as easy as all that, because in UK outline modelling, the coupling needs to be capable of a standardised performance using standare hook and bar profiles, and position relative to the buffer heads, on stock where a standard mounting is difficult to achieve.  It is prototypically correct to mount couplings on the drawhook, but in RTR use they must be able to be fixed to bogies, loco ponies, and long wheelbased 4- and 6-wheeled vehicles and still get around first radius. 

 

But a good start would be to standardise bar height above the railhead, material, hook profile, and bar profile, all of which vary considerably at the moment.

 

I'd say track standardisation is fit for purpose, and given that current RTR wheel profiles are good to run on code 75 bullhead it looks as if little needs desparately to be done in that regard either.  We have geometry standards for setrack.

 

A clarified era system is a good idea if you agree that an era system is a good idea, which not everybody does.  In reality, eras overlap so that, for example, when a livery is replaced by a new livery, it was usually possible to see the old livery even after the next new one appeared, and sometimes the next but one, all of which makes a nonsense of any attempt to introduce an era system!

 

I know little of DCC, but would have thought that compatibility issues should be addressed if there are any.

[Wheatley]

Given that no-one appears to have taken much notice of the old BRMSB when there were only two or three major manufacturers, why would a new one be any more successful ? One of the current manufacturers has at least three different versions of the tension lock in use within its range so getting them to standardize their own range seems to be a big enough ask, let alone getting them to agree to a new and possibly different standard. 

 

Most current manufacturers' stuff works reasonably successfully together despite the current muddle. 

Edited April 18, 2022 by Wheatley

[Enterprisingwestern]

5 hours ago, Wheatley said:

Given that no-one appears to have taken much notice of the old BRMSB when there were only two or three major manufacturers, why would a new one be any more successful ? One of the current manufacturers has at least three different versions of the tension lock in use within its range so getting them to standardize their own range seems to be a big enough ask, let alone getting them to agree to a new and possibly different standard. 

 

Most current manufacturers' stuff works reasonably successfully together despite the current muddle. 

 

Regrettably true.

When manufacturers know of, but ride roughshod over, the few "accepted" standards we do have, eg 26mm pinpoint axle, correct diameter wheels, back to backs etc, I can't see an official body being able to cause them to do anything different.

We need a BRMSB law passed in parliament, that might work?

 

Mike.

[kevinlms]

27 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Regrettably true.

When manufacturers know of, but ride roughshod over, the few "accepted" standards we do have, eg 26mm pinpoint axle, correct diameter wheels, back to backs etc, I can't see an official body being able to cause them to do anything different.

We need a BRMSB law passed in parliament, that might work?

 

Mike.

There used to be META, a trading standards association, which closed down because insufficient retailers were prepared to pay the fees.

Look what has happened since, with some manufacturers either going broke and/or failing to supply goods advertised on websites and paid for, but never delivered.

[SM42]

The only way a standard would work is if everyone avoided products that did not comply.

 

However that may not be that easy as the toy market won't care. 

 

A train set is a train set.  No-one will care about a standard when it gets opened on Christmas morning and the end result may actually mean things get worse. 

 

 

 

Andy

[kevinlms]

2 minutes ago, SM42 said:

The only way a standard would work is if everyone avoided products that did not comply.

 

However that may not be that easy as the toy market won't care. 

 

A train set is a train set.  No-one will care about a standard when it gets opened on Christmas morning and the end result may actually mean things get worse. 

 

 

 

Andy

Correct, 'train sets' are at the bottom of the food chain. While there are plenty of reputable sellers of train sets, such as Hornby, Bachmann, Graham Farish etc, places like supermarket chains and discount shops, will sell anything with a bit of track and a powered 'train'.

The only criteria that counts, is that they must* meet safety standards.

 

* If they sell sub standard equipment on safety grounds, they risk having to refund all the purchases, so in countries with half decent consumer standards, they aren't going to win. It is something some importers fail on a regular basis though. It amounts to getting away with minimum standards.

[goldfish]

10 hours ago, newbryford said:

Or is this a pie in the sky idea?

 

Sadly, yes.

[Enterprisingwestern]

53 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

There used to be META, a trading standards association, which closed down because insufficient retailers were prepared to pay the fees.

Look what has happened since, with some manufacturers either going broke and/or failing to supply goods advertised on websites and paid for, but never delivered.

 

It should be mandatory that all manufacturers, retailers and all involved in the model railway trade should belong to trade association which has clout, the fees paid could always be passed on to the customers/modellers, I'm sure no one would complain!

 

Mike.

[Happy Hippo]

1 minute ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

It should be mandatory that all manufacturers, retailers and all involved in the model railway trade should belong to trade association which has clout, the fees paid could always be passed on to the customers/modellers, I'm sure no one would complain!

 

Mike.

Excellent idea!  

 

Let's head it up with a respectable member of society, perhaps an MP, who will take a huge salary in order to run it on our behalf.

 

The member for Hackney North would be ideally suitable with her sharp analytical and razor like brain when it comes to proof reading a set of standards and having the depth of knowledge where and when to put in the decimal point. 

 

 

[Enterprisingwestern]

7 minutes ago, Happy Hippo said:

Excellent idea!  

 

Let's head it up with a respectable member of society, perhaps an MP, who will take a huge salary in order to run it on our behalf.

 

The member for Hackney North would be ideally suitable with her sharp analytical and razor like brain when it comes to proof reading a set of standards and having the depth of knowledge where and when to put in the decimal point. 

 

 

 

Yes, that could interesting, locomotives would cost either fourpence or £4m!

 

Mike.

[Wheatley]

2 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

It should be mandatory that all manufacturers, retailers and all involved in the model railway trade should belong to trade association which has clout, the fees paid could always be passed on to the customers/modellers, I'm sure no one would complain!

 

Mike.

But what would they enforce ? Provided manufacturer X's product works as advertised out of the box and doesn't set your house on fire then there is no legislation anywhere, in any other field, which requires it to be compatible with any other manufacturer's kit. 

 

I can't use Land-Rover spares in my Honda, my lad's Ipad charger doesn't charge my Samsung, the DVD player remote doesn't turn the Freesat box on and off. My boss did once manage to make a CD-ROM fit a 5" disc drive but that's a whole different skill set not usually found in  the general population. 

 

 

[Phil Parker]

Setting standards is one of those things The Double O Gauge Asscoation has been working on for many years - with some success.

 

I suspect @Ravenser can provide more details.

[SM42]

Getting a manufacturer to sign up to a set of standards set  by the end consumer would be a great leap forward and indeed could be a useful marketing tool perhaps forcing others to follow 

 

It would not matter to the grandparents buying a train set that " conforms to xyz standard" is printed on the box.

 

That first step is the hardest though, with so many variables across any one range of existing products or even  those in the latter stages of pre production.

 

Andy

[Enterprisingwestern]

48 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

But what would they enforce ?

 

Erm, the standards which would perforce be created to allow standardisation and give the regulatory clout requisite to enforce such standards?

 

Mike.

[Grovenor]

45 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

Setting standards is one of those things The Double O Gauge Asscoation has been working on for many years - with some success.

 

I suspect @Ravenser can provide more details.

Only by having a whole set of standards so users can choose which ever one suits their purpose, and even then there are others who want something different.

Just accept that we are mostly non-conformists.

[Enterprisingwestern]

1 minute ago, Grovenor said:

Only by having a whole set of standards so users can choose which ever one suits their purpose, and even then there are others who want something different.

Just accept that we are mostly non-conformists.

 

I'm in the Peoples Front of EM, splitter!

 

Mike.

[PMP]

13 hours ago, newbryford said:

Reading a BRMSB thread gave me an idea.

(BRMSB is/was British Railway Modelling Standards Bureau)

 

Is there any mileage in having a modern version of BRMSB so that we can have some commonality from manufacturers?

NMRA for the UK?

(I'm primarily coming from a 00 perspective, but that doesn't exclude other scale/gauge combinations)

 

Including things like standardising on the NEM pocket.

Even though there is a standard, heights and distance back from buffers seems quite variable at the moment.

(UK manufacturers just can't seem - or want - to follow the standards as laid out by NEM!)

Maybe - (blasphemy to some) - have a standard for tension locks?

snip)

 

Or are we reliant upon individual scale/gauge societies to define track/wheel standards?

 

 

Or is this a pie in the sky idea?

 

 

I think it would be a valuable addition to the UK hobby, even if adopting many of the NMRA standards, which have proven to be valuable.

The fact there isn’t a defined tension lock standard is a demonstration of perhaps why we need some standardisation, if you can’t even guarantee reliable coupling and uncoupling it’s not a good start.

 

The societies have done valuable works in their respective scales/gauges, but the ‘mainstream’ OO core of the hobby isn’t adequately represented, compared to the other scales/gauges.

 

Pie in the sky?
Don’t know, but it’s going to need a dedicated team to establish ‘standards’, promulgate them and liaise with manufacturers to promote ‘best practice’. And obviously there will be a significant time investment in the projects, and potentially financially too.

[Wheatley]

39 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Erm, the standards which would perforce be created to allow standardisation and give the regulatory clout requisite to enforce such standards?

 

Mike.

The standards to stop it poisoning you, choking you or setting fire to your house are already enforced/enforceable via legislation.

 

Standards for anything else - coupling heights, axle lengths, wheel profiles etc will be voluntary (because any regulator with statutory teeth will regard those as cosmetic and therefore of no interest) and therefore ignorable. 

[Enterprisingwestern]

44 minutes ago, PMP said:

And obviously there will be a significant time investment in the projects, and potentially financially too.

 

For which the customer/modeller won't object to paying for at all, I mean, the cost of things is hardly ever discussed hereabouts!

 

Mike.

[fulton]

If there were standards what would they be, decided by who?  Lots of very passionate arguments on these pages over even OO, wheel and track standards. I model EM gauge and there are still arguments over the EMGS standards.

[MarkSG]

 

https://xkcd.com/927/

[DCMarvel]

Every time a standard is introduced, a cost to comply goes to the manufacturer who passes it all on, and a bit more beside, to the end consumer...do we really want this?

[Pacific231G]

I had the impression, when it comes to wheel standards at  least, that most mainstream manufacturers now use something very close to like NMRA RP25  and the less coarse end of the NEM for wheels. I doubt if they use different profles for different markets - certainly between Europe and the UK

 

Track and wheel standards for 16.5mm gauge should be the same whatever scale they're being applied to so it's things like buffer height, loading gauge and track separation that would be different for 00 (though the 50mm separation in the BRMSB's original "standard OO" standard was actually the same as MOROP's. For O gauge those are slightly complicated by the three scales (1/48, 1/45 and 1/43.5) in common use

NEM coupler box dimensions, height and distance behind buffers are well defined by MOROP (who issue NEMs)  and AFAIK sensibly adopted by DOGA.

 

I believe that a real opportunity was lost in the late 1940s early 1950s when both the European MOROP and the earlier BRMSB chose not to adopt he track and wheel standards already established after much work by the NMRA. There were arguments about it not suiting four-wheel wagons with fixed axles rather than the bogies almost univeral in N. America but I suspect that a certain amount of Not Invented Here entered into it.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Pacific231G
grammar

[PMP]

1 hour ago, DCMarvel said:

Every time a standard is introduced, a cost to comply goes to the manufacturer who passes it all on, and a bit more beside, to the end consumer...do we really want this?

There’s no compulsion to adhere to any standards, they’re not legally binding. The NMRA system works very well, and if you have a product that’s NRMA compliant it can help sales, and the consumer gets a reliable item, compatible with other manufacturers products.

A simple example would be an (imaginary) standard for a tension lock coupling. Adherence to that standard from 01/06/22 by all manufacturers would mean that anything produced after that date can couple to each other across ranges and between manufacturers. 

Edited April 18, 2022 by PMP
Spacing