I am still active on the NASG standards committee; working on module standards for S standard gauge.?
I have received much input from various individuals and clubs regarding FreeMoS.??
I have received little input from individuals or clubs with CURRENT OR PAST participation in SMOD.
I have received no input regarding T-Trak or narrow gauge.??
Some needs are incontrovertible; updating the SMOD electrical standards (Cinch connectors are obsolete, Anderson connectors are the hobby norm; DCC has largely replaced?DC; DeadRail is becoming common).??
There is a question regarding double track center line spacing; 2.75" is specified by SMOD.? Some in FreeMoS prefer 3", I am told that 3" comes from a scale up of the HO centerline dimensions, but HO is 2", which scaled up by 87 / 64 is 2.72".? Therefore my question for long term SMOD users; is there any known problem with 2.75"; for example, when using 0-5-0 switching or re-railing???
Again for SMOD users, are there any other concerns with SMOD, or suggestions for changing or adding to the SMOD standards, topics that you wish were different or more comprehensive???
?
I have been reading old discussions about SMOD and FreeMo.? ?As has been previously discussed, all that is permitted by FreeMo is permitted by SMOD (other than the different rail height above the floor); NASG has historically?ONLY specified functional interface issues,?to provide individual module owners maximum?flexibility.? There is also much FreeMo discussion and preference regarding two other construction categories; appearance, and operations.??
Operations:? ?should there be specifications for: minimum curve radii, minimum frog number, DCC controls,??location(s) of switch point controls, etc???
Can these be RP (Recommended Practices), separate from interface requirements?
Appearance:? ?should there be specifications regarding ballast color, tie length, backdrop, grass color, rail height, depth of sidewalls (for permitting scenery below track level), sidewall color, track centerline location, module width, rail color, etc?? Some would like all of these specified to provide visual continuity from one module to another.? However, others would like to choose their own; ballast to match the ballast of a favored prototype railroad, tie length and rail height to match a preferred era, etc.? This can obviously be done at the local club level.??
Can this instead be done as an SP (Suggested Practice) for those that would like a consistent appearance from club to club,?separate from interface requirements???
Bottom line, some update issues are very obvious and critical, such as electrical connectors.? There is also opportunity for?rewriting or reformatting to simplify and to avoid misunderstandings that?have plagued discussion in the past.? SMOD specifications could be revised into FreeMo format.? Some have suggested that FreeMo could supercede?SMOD.? Since there are so few real functional differences (optional rail height above the floor), FreeMoS can easily include backward compatibility with SMOD (optional height of rail from floor).??
?
I therefore update my past request for input regarding concerns,?preferences, and volunteer participants or reviewers.??
- What all can we update now with strong consensus???
- What issues need attention that NASG might not be aware of???
IF desired, NASG module?specifications can also be done for S Narrow Gauge modelers; "S Gauge" in the NASG name is not intended to exclude S narrow gauge.??
-- Thanks,
Ted Larson?
SuperBowl,
The Daytona 500 of Football?
Ted Larson