# NMRA Coupler Standards Proposal - Here we go again!



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

_Steve Seidensticker posted this on the One20point3 list:_

NMRA Tackles Large Scale Coupler Compatibility 
Currently customers in the smaller scales (Z to O) can buy rolling stock
from any manufacturer and be confident that they will couple easily,
reliably, and securely to other units in the same scale. The large
scale (#1 to Fn3) community is not so fortunate. Each large scale
manufacturer equips its products with its own coupler design, many of
which are not compatible with each other or Kadees.

The NMRA hopes to correct this situation by creating a Recommended
Practice (RP) that specifies mating contours and other parameters needed
to make large scale couplers compatible. The goal is to provide
manufacturers with the information needed to ensure that future large
scale coupler designs are compatible.

The NMRA working committee on coupler compatibility has submitted a
draft of the RP for comment as part of an NMRA Technical Report on large
scale coupler compatibility. The report is posted on the RP page of the
NMRA web site and can be directly accessed at:

http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/LS%20Coupler%20Technical%20Report.pdf

The report and RP are currently posted "for comment" by the model
railroad community. Based on comments it will be revised and presented
to the MMRA directors for approval in July 2010. Please make comments
or directly to Steve Seidensticker ,
moderator of the NMRA working group, or Didrik Voss
, head of NMRA Standards department.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

NMRA Tackles Large Scale Coupler Compatibility 

I _*HATE*_ it when folk who should know better use the generalisation 'large scale' in an important technical document. Her's some comments I sent back: 
_If you are a Model Railroader (the 'MR' in NMRA) then you care about scale, and you understand that trying to couple an F scale boxcar to a 1/29th gondola may be problematic. I don't see any coupler standards that make it possible for On30 equipment to mate with HO-scale std gauge cars !_

_Like this over-generalized statement in the Appendix/Conclusion/Recommendation:_
_ - For narrow gauge rolling stock use the Fn3 scale height (1.125"/28.5 mm)._
_ - For standard gauge rolling stock use the #1 scale height (1.063"/27 mm)._
_This one seems like a technical impossiblilty - not that they defined what 'mate' means in this context:_
_ Couplers intended for narrow gauge models should have contours that mate with_
*  each *_of the current couplers in the following set -- AMS20, AMS29, Aristo-Craft_
_ (truck mount), Aristo-Craft Kuppler (body mount), Kadee 820 series, Kadee 830_
_ series, Kadee 900 series, and MTH couplers._

_Then how about: "*Proclaim Existing Kadee Products as Standard" ?
*_ _As Kadee just introduced a totally new design, that one ain't going to fly._

_To be more constructive, maybe they should say that, for compatibility, 1/29th std gauge, and 1/22.5 and Fn3 narrow gauge couplers could all be the same height? Or maybe not - but at least address it._


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think the thing that is hilarious is near the back where they talk about "cleaning up" erroneous data, and removing the term "G scale" because it is not right. 

But the whole document is about "large scale" as a lump. 

seems the same thing! 

Greg


----------



## up9018 (Jan 4, 2008)

I agree, let's get TRUE SCALE couplers, not a ONE SIZE FITS ALL attitude.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

http://www.mylargescale.com/Community/Forums/tabid/56/aff/4/aft/114598/afv/topic/Default.aspx 

I had the e-mail. 
No matter what they say, comment all you want, but if you don't include your nmra membership number, they don't care.


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

You guys can complain all you want, but standards in gauge one are badly needed. From track to wheels to couplers and anything else. It's the biggest mess in the industry and that is because there are no standards and/or the manufacturers just don't want to hear it. And for this comment: "I don't see any coupler standards that make it possible for On30 equipment to mate with HO-scale std gauge cars !" Kadee couplers will mate with any other of reasonable size. What won't mate is those stupid loop and hook couplers and various other aborted attempts at making a cheap coupler. Accucraft couplers will currently mate with Kadees. I am an NMRA member and whole heartedly support their effort to bring some order to this hobby and particularly gauge one. If you are only interested in little 'toy trains' then don't worry about it as you don't need it anyway. Garden Railway Magazine ran a complete article on couplers showing all the different styles and sizes. It was amazing.


----------



## Johnn (Jan 5, 2010)

This is a very stupid ideal? I hope that these Dummies get a grip.
Johnn


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

JFrank- You also support that the nmra ignored G1MRA for almost 60 years? 
That they ignored large scale (re-introducing #1 gauge by LGB in 1968)for over 30? 
That stuff is now made to G1MRA and works? 
Are you one of those who doesn't want standards as much a NEW standards? 

How about a manufacturer that makes a track and wheel gauge that matches neither his track or wheels? 
That didn't want to "conform" to G1MRA or even nmra, but looked around for some standard he thought he could use to his advantage....until he found it was MORE restictive? 

Once again, the nmra can just butt out like they did for over 30 years.


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Johnn on 26 Feb 2010 06:18 PM 
This is a very stupid ideal? I hope that these Dummies get a grip.
Johnn
NOt having standards is STUPID.


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 26 Feb 2010 06:31 PM 
JFrank- You also support that the nmra ignored G1MRA for almost 60 years? 
That they ignored large scale (re-introducing #1 gauge by LGB in 1968)for over 30? 
That stuff is now made to G1MRA and works? 
Are you one of those who doesn't want standards as much a NEW standards? 

How about a manufacturer that makes a track and wheel gauge that matches neither his track or wheels? 
That didn't want to "conform" to G1MRA or even nmra, but looked around for some standard he thought he could use to his advantage....until he found it was MORE restictive? 

Once again, the nmra can just butt out like they did for over 30 years. 

I have no idea what you are talking about. I for one hope the BUTT IN.


----------



## Ltotis (Jan 3, 2008)

Let's see we have 1/20.3, 1/22.5, 1/24, 1/27, 1/29, 1/32 and some that are a combination. Good luck to them. I agree they should continue ignoring us. 
LAO


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Ltotis on 26 Feb 2010 06:49 PM 
Let's see we have 1/20.3, 1/22.5, 1/24, 1/27, 1/29, 1/32 and some that are a combination. Good luck to them. I agree they should continue ignoring us. 
LAO 

Which one of those scales is "us"? Seems to me they can ignore 1/24, 1/27 and 1/29 as those relate to nothing.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By jfrank on 26 Feb 2010 06:35 PM 
Posted By Johnn on 26 Feb 2010 06:18 PM 
This is a very stupid ideal? I hope that these Dummies get a grip.
Johnn
NOt having standards is STUPID.


Not having standards is dumb. Making up a new standard where one already exists is amazingly pig-headed. Trying to make one standard that applies to wildly varying scales is STUPID. Imagine if they decided to make one standard coupler profile that applied to HO, S, Sn3, Sn3.5, On30, On3, and O. Heck, keep the track gauge the same and only apply it to HO, Sn3.5, On30, and Gn15 - it still sounds like a stupid idea.


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Yea, what he said!!!!!!!!!!!! NMRA sucks, its all about the $ thats it. Go back to HO and leave us alone. Other wise let the beatings begin, try running your HO or your o guage outside with NMRA guide lines. NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT PISS OFF......


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Sorry, having a moment!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooh. 
Couldn't have said it better (but didn't)


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

jfrank "...Seems to me they can ignore1/24, 1/27 and 1/29 as those relate to nothing." 

So, USA Trains, AML, and Aristo-Craft relate to nothing then... I am sure the people dedicated to designing, manufacturing, and the end consumers will love to know that they are nothing now... Hey John, why don't you please email your opinion to the manufactures, I am sure they could use a good laugh...


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

jfrank, "I have no idea what you are talking about. I for one hope the BUTT IN." 

Wow....just simply...wow.... and you are supporting the NMRA without knowing all of the facts? wow....


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Just to clarify; this isn't an "NMRA" effort. It's a large scale effort that's going through the NMRA really for no other reason than they're the de facto holders of standards and practices for model railroading. If there were a large scale organization in the US with a similar purpose, this process would very likely be going through them instead. There are a fair number of non-NMRA folks shaping this effort as well. 

The result will not be "mandates," nor is there any expectation of a single coupler design to come as a result. For example, the Kadee G-scale coupler (both old and new versions), AMS 1:20.3 coupler, and Bachmann couplers all work well together. It's that level of compatibility without mandates which will be the most likely result of this effort. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, you always base future performance on past actions. 

Looking at the complete mess and sneaky results of what happened with the currently APPROVED standard for track and wheels (and if you fight the facts here I will make you look like a Kool Aid salesperson), the NMRA has a ways to go in the credibility department. Also, remember the ill-fated group that I was on where there was no input accepted about the standard electrical interface? 

I cannot blame anyone for being suspicious. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 26 Feb 2010 10:35 PM 
Just to clarify; this isn't an "NMRA" effort. It's a large scale effort that's going through the NMRA really for no other reason than they're the de facto holders of standards and practices for model railroading. If there were a large scale organization in the US with a similar purpose, this process would very likely be going through them instead. There are a fair number of non-NMRA folks shaping this effort as well. 

The result will not be "mandates," nor is there any expectation of a single coupler design to come as a result. For example, the Kadee G-scale coupler (both old and new versions), AMS 1:20.3 coupler, and Bachmann couplers all work well together. It's that level of compatibility without mandates which will be the most likely result of this effort. 

Later, 

K 
Horse Manure, KEBT, Horse Manure.
The result WILL be mandates, because all it's going to take is one manufacturer to fold and produce something to the new nmra standard, and then we'll have ANOTHER piece out there that won't fit anything else.
I can imagine who, especially after the Thomas hook-and-loop scenario.

It goes THROUGH the nmra, gets voted on BY the nmra membership, we're stuck with it.
Therefore, it IS the nmra, no matter what political spin you put on it.

Whichever manufacturers decide to use these new standards, that equipment won't see the light of day here.

And, I imagine a whole lot of other folks will feel the same.

And, this is really just a smoke screen, to remove attention from track and wheel standards which are REALLY going to screw up the hobby.

At least Llagas has seen the light and will NOT conform to any of that particular BS.

Bachmann, Lionel, Delton, Aristo Classics, USA, LGB (with Lionel couplers screwed on) all couple together and are the same height.
They work, and have for decades, some of them.

As far as height compatibility, I have a drawer full of spare trucks (as does the Dunckley Northern), and we swap out one end with the coupler to match the offending vehicle.
How freaking hard is that?

Didn't take nine months of behind-the-doors working group to come up with.

Not an nmra effort.
Man, I thought I'd heard good ones before.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

I take issue with making the Kadee coupler the standard, de facto or otherwise, in any scale. Yes, it works reasonably well and looks better than a hook & loop (if you're trying to model knuckle couplers, anyway), but it is not the BEST coupler in any scale, either for operation or scale fidelity. If there must be a standard, a scale cersion of 1:1 standards seems most desirable. 

Look at HO scale wheels and track. If you model it to scale (Proto:87), you cannot use ANY NMRA spec wheel or track standards, as they are not only different, but incompatible. That seems to me a foolish way of doing business, if you want to encourage SCALE modeling instead of just paying with trains. 

Of course, if you just want to encourage people to buy a bunch of expensive models and display them on their track (moving or otherwise), that's another matter...


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

OOOOOOOOO Its already starting, heres what the King of the Koolaiders in NJ is going to do. QUOTE ( Dear All,

We are going to make the SS wheels and are doing a final testing now. They should arrive by early Summer, but I don't have the final pricing as yet. Im my opinion you only need one axle to be SS, not the entire power block. I need to see if they can be installed by the axle. These will also be our new wheel profile that follows an International standard.)

SO WHAT IS THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD? My guess is the NMRA. All i can say is Aristo has so many issues with there stuff now including there wheels, changing them at this point to a unproven design is in my opionion Dumb ideal. So let the fun begin.


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 26 Feb 2010 10:35 PM 
Just to clarify; this isn't an "NMRA" effort. It's a large scale effort that's going through the NMRA really for no other reason than they're the de facto holders of standards and practices for model railroading. If there were a large scale organization in the US with a similar purpose, this process would very likely be going through them instead. There are a fair number of non-NMRA folks shaping this effort as well. 

The result will not be "mandates," nor is there any expectation of a single coupler design to come as a result. For example, the Kadee G-scale coupler (both old and new versions), AMS 1:20.3 coupler, and Bachmann couplers all work well together. It's that level of compatibility without mandates which will be the most likely result of this effort. 

Later, 

K 
WOW, one voice of reason amid the nattering nabobs of negativism. Anythng they do is better than the chaos that reins in this gauge now. Amazing that most want this mess continued as is rather than try and work with the NMRA effort to improve things.


----------



## Tom Bowdler (Jan 3, 2008)

The only "international standard" I know of is G1MRA. Hasn't it been around a long time and successful? 
Tom


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Tom Bowdler on 27 Feb 2010 07:47 AM 
The only "international standard" I know of is G1MRA. Hasn't it been around a long time and successful? 
Tom 
Yeah, around 100 years or so...


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

I warned you Kevin! I told you that, while I admire your desire to try and get something done by actually contributing to an NMRA working group, you were going to have to have a really thick skin and quick reactions (to dodge all the slings and arrows!) Simply put, judging from past experiences, _we don't trust the NMRA! _From our perspective it's not great ( heck, it's not even good!) but scrapping everything and completely starting over when we have something that works imperfectly but could be tweaked, isn't the way to go! We wonder _why _the NMRA is interfering in "Large Scale"? We find their ignorance of our part of the hobby while trying to dictate "new" standards insulting! If this is an example of "nattering negativism" then this "nabob" is guilty as charged! Since we are "borrowing" phrases from political figures, let me borrow and paraphrase one of our historical figures: "If this be negativism then make the most of it!"


----------



## Tom Bowdler (Jan 3, 2008)

Actually G1MRA celebrated their 60th anniversary in 2007. You can see their standards at www.gaugeone.org on the page titled History and Facts. They have standards for wheels, axles and track but none I see for couplers. 
Tom


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Tom Bowdler on 27 Feb 2010 08:13 AM 
Actually G1MRA celebrated their 60th anniversary in 2007. You can see their standards at www.gaugeone.org on the page titled History and Facts. They have standards for wheels, axles and track but none I see for couplers. 
Tom 
Thanks for the correction. I think the first "standards" for Gauge 1 were set about 100 years back, I had "ass-umed" it was G1MRA. Maybe one of the UK home machinist/live steam societies perhaps?


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By jfrank on 26 Feb 2010 07:04 PM 
Posted By Ltotis on 26 Feb 2010 06:49 PM 
Let's see we have 1/20.3, 1/22.5, 1/24, 1/27, 1/29, 1/32 and some that are a combination. Good luck to them. I agree they should continue ignoring us. 
LAO 

Which one of those scales is "us"? Seems to me they can ignore 1/24, 1/27 and 1/29 *as those relate to nothing. * 

Hmm.. those scales are VERY relevant to alot of us.

1/24 ALL of HLWs products, Aristos "classic" line up, old MDC and ALL Delton and a bunch of older stuff thats still out there

1/27 the rubber scale most of LGBs models of standard gauge rolling stock were made to

1/29 you are kidding us right? how about ALL of AristoCraft and USA trains standard gauge product line, even some Accucraft 

Its not just 1/20.3, 1/22.5 or 1/32


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By Tom Bowdler on 27 Feb 2010 07:47 AM 
The only "international standard" I know of is G1MRA. Hasn't it been around a long time and successful? 
Tom 

Try, MOROP / NEM standards....................


----------



## Tom Parkins (Jan 2, 2008)

What this country needs is a Coupler Reform Package. There are far too many Americans who lack even basic coupling. While some Americans can afford good quality couplers, every American should be provided a basic minimum coupler. Too many Americans have been turned away from Large Scale layouts due to the lack of basic coupling. We have before us a mismash of couplers which means that a Large Scaler may face a lack of service when he attempts to participate out of his area. 

I am proposing that we bring all parties together for a coupler summit. There needs to be a willingness to compromise by all parties. I look for a new spirit of cooperation on the Coupler Reform Package. Those parties who seek to block coupler reform, need to bring their ideas to the table. The use of lengthy discussion to block the reform package is unacceptable. The time to act is NOW!

Americans want and need Coupler Reform. 


Tom P


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Americans want and need Coupler Reform 

Here, Here! I second that proposal.


----------



## Tom Bowdler (Jan 3, 2008)

MOROP/NEM has no wheel or coupler standards that I can see except for electrical resistance.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Tom, don't know where you "looked", but this should help your "vision problem"









*http://www.morop.org/de/normes/nem310_d.pdf* 


They do indeed have wheel and track standards, I have not looked for coupler height. 


Regards, 


Greg


----------



## Tom Bowdler (Jan 3, 2008)

Thanks Greg, 
I googled MOROP/NEM and nosed around the site that came up and didn't see them maybe because it was the English site. 
I'm actually not too concerned with this issue as I normally stay on the fringe, hence the low number of posts I've made, and probably because much of my rolling stock has links and pins. I have heard over the years about the G1MRA standards for wheels so thought I'd contribute that. I'll bow out now and watch the controversy swirl around me. 
Tom


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The English site sucks unfortunately, I had to go to the "real" site, got the spec, and had it translated... it's on my "Track and Wheel Standards" page on my site. 

Just wanted to set the record straight on the MOROP/NEM issue, especially since Aristo has publicly announced they will follow them. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## LogSkidder01 (Jul 30, 2009)

Ist klar. Just look under Kupplungen! MOROP has great and detailed standards. And since most of the Norms are not available in English, as soon as all of you learn German or French, we can all agree to disagree (in multiple languages) on the content, meaning and use of these Norms.


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

Tom, we don't need a coupler reform, we need a "coupler stimulus package"!!

Ed


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Looking at the complete mess and sneaky results of what happened with the currently APPROVED standard for track and wheels (and if you fight the facts here I will make you look like a Kool Aid salesperson), the NMRA has a ways to go in the credibility department. Also, remember the ill-fated group that I was on where there was no input accepted about the standard electrical interface? 

"Complete mess?" Forgive me if I don't share your opinion. I'm quite proud of the work we did on wheel/track standards and the results we got. Within a few thousandths of G1MRA on almost all fronts, with adjustments to cover the realities of the large scale market (i.e., areas where the manufactureres continue to flatly ignore G1MRA). Is it my "ideal?" No. But it's something of a legislative process; there's some give and take. Yes, they were approved last weekend, so the NMRA now has standards which by and large overlap G1MRA standards. Whether anyone pays attention to them, I don't know. I'd like to hope so, but the manufacturers' histories of adhering to G1MRA and other published standards aren't exactly stellar. They're _very_ good about doing their own thing regardless of what anyone else says. (Which speaks volumes to their liklihood of changing couplers, too.) 

"Sneaky results?" Explain what was so sneaky. I posted the proposal here in the Fall for comment--including a _direct invitation specifically extended to you (both publicly on the forum and privately via e-mail)_ for your input as to which values you'd like to see changed, to what, and why you'd like it changed._ You completely blew those appeals off!_ We got constructive input from others. Any changes that were made came about because the large scale community asked for them. Nothing would have pleased me more than to have your input. You knew since our work together on "the socket" two years ago that I was also doing wheel/track standards, and even back that far, had appealed for your input. I'm sorry the results are not exactly what you'd prefer, but since you refused to offer specific values, I really don't know _what_ you do prefer. Obviously it's not what we came up with, but until you enlighten us, we'll never know. 

I don't remotely dispute that the NMRA has a long way to go in the credibility department. I remain perfectly skeptical myself. I remember very well the situation surrounding "the socket," and there was some behind-the-scenes stuff with the wheel and track stuff that re-enforced my skepticism. (Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed.) But I look at it this way. Whether you trust the NMRA or not, they're there, and--as has been rightly pointed out--standards are "their thing." Sitting on the porch yelling "rain rain go away" isn't going to change the weather. If you want to affect policy, you gotta roll up your sleeves, plug your nose, and get involved. That's what I'm doing. If that makes me a "Kool-Aid drinker," then I prefer cherry, please. Personally, I think you, Dave, and I have very similar goals and desires for the hobby. I'd really love for you to see past the letters "NMRA" and roll up your sleeves with me to help shape the future the way _we_ want it to be shaped, as opposed to trusting the future to someone else. All three of us know very well the dangers of letting others drive. 

Think the NMRA doesn't listen to anyone who isn't an NMRA member? I'm not a member, never have been, and until they have something concrete to offer large scale in terms of information, support, etc., probably won't be. I wrote the NMRA a letter telling them exactly what you, Dave, and many others believe--that the NMRA shouldn't worry about large scale, that we're perfectly capable of minding our own store. Funny thing happened as a result of that--they opened their arms and said "well, how would _you_ do it, then?" They _listened_ to a non-NMRA member, even trusting me to lead the effort. They could have easily said "go away," in fact I was fully expecting the royal brush-off. 

As I said earlier, it doesn't matter what your opinion of the NMRA is. The issue is the movement that's afoot. If you'd like your opinions to be heard, your views to be expressed, grab your umbrella and quit complaining about the rain. Without it, we'd have no gardens. Work with it--guide it--use it to your advantage. You think the NMRA is taking advantage of large scale? That door swings both ways. We can use them to affect the change _we_ want to see happen. They don't have an "agenda" for large scale railroading. Heck, they don't even know what to _do_ with us for the most part. Maybe they're fishing for members. Who cares? They do have the only established mechanism to which manufacturers look (should they so desire) for "how to." Either we take steps to make that book reflect our desires, or they're going to listen to someone else. 

I think you'd have a lot to offer the process. It's your call. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Personally, I will have nothing to do with them. 
I had enough long before the Ames Super Socket, and that sealed their fate as far as I am concerned. 
"Sitting on the porch yelling "rain rain go away" isn't going to change the weather", while true, is just about as effective as getting something useful out of the enema-ray. 

I am glad you have gotten you political licks in, and feel you have accomplished something. 

Just remember, when almost everybody tells you where to stick it, it's not personal.....well, generally....but it IS how most LS'ers feel about the nmra. 

I just installed 3 more sets of Mantua couplers this afternoon, in conjunction with the final restoration of the three cars. 

Plus, I have a box full of Kadees to take to the dump. 

BTW, you DO know what Mantua couplers are, don't you? 
Especially since you didn't seem to think the hook-and-loops on Thomas weren't couplers.....


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

OK, you just HAD to deny the truth. I won't call you a liar. 

But I don't need 6 inches of paragraphs to discredit what you are saying.

1. For one year, there were proposed new standards on the NMRA site that were up for approval, on wheels and track.

2. At the end of that year, they were "approved" and became the new standards, S3.x and S4.x (July 2009)

3. The New standards that were published and are STILL on the NMRA site as APPROVED standards are NOT what was on the site for ONE YEAR.


Deny any one of those and you are not telling the truth, and you KNOW THESE FACTS AND ADMITTED THEM TO ME.


The evidence is there, I have copies of the standard that was to be approved, before it changed on the day it was approved. 


I'm not making this personal, I am standing on simple fact. You have written misleading and untrue statements. I am correcting the untrue information.

Greg 


p.s. When a person does things like this, and speaks for an organization, numerous times, it makes me have the first reaction of distrusting anything from that person and organization.


----------



## Ltotis (Jan 3, 2008)

Work WITH the NMRA. They only listen to themselves and the manufacturers they want to influence. Not non-members.
:AP


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

TOC;

All of my HO trains, currently in my basement, that my late Dad and I built in the late 40s and early 50s, had the Mantua (dare I say hook and loop) couplers. While they may not have looked prototypical, they did work and they automatically coupled when any knuckle(headed) couplers need a five finger assist.


I relish my memories of running my HO in the basement with my father. When we moved to a new house in 1952, there had to be a train room in the basement. THERE WAS ONE!!!


Chuck N 


As an aside, when I buy an Aristo car or engine, the first thing that I do is replace the couplers with something that will mate with all of my other cars. This is usually a Kadee, but occasionally I will add an off set USA knuckle. 


Back to the purpose of this thread, all the couplers that I use on my engines and cars work together with the exception of Aristo. On my trains are USAT, LGB, Delton, Bachmann (old and new), Kadees, Accucraft and probably something that I can't remember.


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 27 Feb 2010 06:41 PM 
Personally, I will have nothing to do with them. 
I had enough long before the Ames Super Socket, and that sealed their fate as far as I am concerned. 
"Sitting on the porch yelling "rain rain go away" isn't going to change the weather", while true, is just about as effective as getting something useful out of the enema-ray. 

I am glad you have gotten you political licks in, and feel you have accomplished something. 

Just remember, when almost everybody tells you where to stick it, it's not personal.....well, generally....but it IS how most LS'ers feel about the nmra. 

I just installed 3 more sets of Mantua couplers this afternoon, in conjunction with the final restoration of the three cars. 

Plus, I have a box full of Kadees to take to the dump. 

BTW, you DO know what Mantua couplers are, don't you? 
Especially since you didn't seem to think the hook-and-loops on Thomas weren't couplers..... 
What a bunch of nincompoops and dinosaurs. Mantua? Those were the crappiest couplers ever made. Don't throw those kadees away, give them to me. Kadees are the best coupler ever made in any scale or gauge. Hook and loops AREN'T couplers. haha. And you can stick it yourself.


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 27 Feb 2010 06:41 PM 


BTW, you DO know what Mantua couplers are, don't you? 


TOC, I am willing to bet I am one of the few people in the world under 40 (not by much







) that knows what a Mantua coupler is.

My father had the remains of some in his H0 collection. I actually used a couple of the loops on some UK 00 project years later.

Ah, wait a minute, I just found a cross-compatible coupler. Yup, 'ook and 'oop.

But so it goes.


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

jfrank, "What a bunch of nincompoops and dinosaurs. Mantua? Those were the crappiest couplers ever made. Don't throw those kadees away, give them to me. Kadees are the best coupler ever made in any scale or gauge. Hook and loops AREN'T couplers. haha. And you can stick it yourself." 

Well...aren't we being mature...Also John, before you shot yourself in the foot, you should get all of the information first: 
Definition of Coupler 
"a mechanical device that serves to connect the ends of adjacent objects." 
"a mechanism for connecting rolling stock in a train." 
"A device at the front and rear of the locomotive for connecting locomotives and rail cars together." 
"A device for joining cars to an engine and to each other to form a train." 

I could go on if you would like John, but I think we get the point. Just in case though...Hook and Loops ARE couplers. So, "haha. And you can stick it yourself." (Only since we are being immature. =P)


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

But I don't need 6 inches of paragraphs to discredit what you are saying. 
1. For one year, there were proposed new standards on the NMRA site that were up for approval, on wheels and track. 
2. At the end of that year, they were "approved" and became the new standards, S3.x and S4.x (July 2009) 
3. The New standards that were published and are STILL on the NMRA site as APPROVED standards are NOT what was on the site for ONE YEAR. 
Deny any one of those and you are not telling the truth, and you KNOW THESE FACTS AND ADMITTED THEM TO ME. 


Greg, you and I have covered that territory before. The large scale "standards" that were voted on iin July, 2009 were somehow included as part of an overall revision of the standards for all scales, _and were in no way reflective of the proposal I was charged with producing two years ago._ The left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing, and I have absolutely no clue where those numbers came from. I was as surprised as anyone when they were approved. "WHAT standards???" I'm rather surprised you couldn't hear me cursing at the top of my lungs when I found out. I _thought_ they knew we were working on a formal proposal for large scale, and that it was _not_ to be part of that package they were voting on in July. Evidently someone, somewhere dredged something up thinking they had a gap to fill. I really don't know. Frustrating? You betcha! I'd have to go back and look at the dates, but I believe our proposal was submitted just prior to the July meeting, but there was no way it was going to make it through the review process in time. Maybe that's where the miscommunication lay. I don't have copies of either of the two documents to which you refer, and I have no reason to doubt your recounting of their presence and last-minute changes. I simply don't know because I had no idea they even were part of the discussion. 

Whatever they were, they were rendered moot. When the NMRA realized there was a "real" large scale standards proposal being assembled (of which I rather vocally reminded them), they immediately tabled the large scale portion of what was approved in July, pending the arrival, review, amendment, and final approlval of "our" proposal. That's what was put on the web site in the Fall for public review and comment (I forget the exact date) and approved last weekend. 

Few--if any--of those changes made their way to the NMRA's web site in an efficient manner, nor were any of the behind-the-scenes tablings, etc. communicated terribly efficiently--to say nothing of the miscommunication that led to there _being_ large scale "standards" for the July vote in the first place. Now, infer from that whatever you will about the efficiencies and reliability of the organization. They've certainly been a source of frustration and confusion for me as well. I don't like it, but it's there and I deal with it. That and behind-the-scenes politics are endemic in the beast. As I said--you plug your nose. You know what they say about laws and sausage--two things you never want to watch being made. 

I do not speak for the NMRA, and I'm quite certain the NMRA is happy about that. I remain appreciative of the overtures they've extened me and the large scale community, and hopefully--eventually--we can come to realize that the two communities are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They're not remotely all-encompassing, either, but there is some middle ground through which both camps can benefit. If you think that association makes me untrustworthy, that's your issue. There's no way I can change that. Only you can. I'm going to keep plowing forward, supporting ideas that I believe have merit, using any and all resources at my disposal, seeking as much input from anyone who will give it to shape policy so that it's as reflective of the desires of the large scale community's desires as possible. If you'd like to help, we'd love to have you on board. Otherwise, you get what you pay for. 

Later, 

K


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 27 Feb 2010 11:07 PM 
The large scale "standards" that were voted on iin July, 2009 were somehow included as part of an overall revision of the standards for all scales, _and were in no way reflective of the proposal I was charged with producing two years ago._ The left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing, and I have absolutely no clue where those numbers came from. 

That doesn't argue in favor of the NMRA, I think. You can say all you like about how they ask for input, encourage people to voice their opinions, and generally try to be inclusive and helpful, but if they change things in secrecy at the final vote, what's the point of participating?

Now, just for fun, I'll add my $.02 worth, and please pass this on to anybody who wants to listen. This is 2010. We have been to the moon, We have machines so small you need a microscope to see them. We can call or write a letter form almost anywhere in the world to almost anywhere else in the world, instantly. We have AMAZING technology. There should be NO reason whatsoever for a new standard which does not encourage or allow a better quality model to me made, sold, or operated. Making a NON-SCALE (Kadee) coupler the standard (or the basis of a standard) is a huge leap backwards. There are other, better couplers ion the world. They are closer to scale, work more like the prototype, and work better in many cases. If a standard MUST be based on an existing design, there are better choices than the Kadee.


If the NMRA simply MUST make new standards for a segment of the hobby that, by and large, does not want them, let them make two - 1:20.3 and 1:32, and let them be accurate scale representations of AAR type D or E couplers in each scale. That way, there are no copyrights to worry about, and the scale modelers will be happy. Everybody who is already working in a non-prototypical scale/gauge combo has accepted slight inaccuracies for the sake of convenience, so one more should be no major issue.


Of course, in the end, remember that the NMRA does not have to control things. Even the Milwaukee Mafia did not try to enforce use of the NMRA coupler in HO scale - rather they wrote numerous articles on how to replace them with Kadees! Of course, that's because the NMRA standard coupler was the most amazing piece of crap I've ever seen in a model design. I wonder if they'll do better this time?


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By jfrank on 27 Feb 2010 09:09 PM 

Mantua? Those were the crappiest couplers ever made.

What personal experience do you have with Mantua couplers? I have none, so I cannot comment, other than to say that many highly respected modelers, including John Allen, thought them superior to any knuckle couplers available at the time, even when Kadee couplers were available.


Posted By jfrank on 27 Feb 2010 09:09 PM 

Kadees are the best coupler ever made in any scale or gauge.

What personal experience do you have with ANY coupler other than Kadee of X2F (horn hook) "in any scale or gauge"? I've been an HO modeler for 20 years, and have become rather dis-enchanted with Kadee couplers. They do not couple smoothly without enough force to push a free-rolling car, they do not couple on curves, they do not uncouple smoothly by any manual means, and they are not even close to being prototypical in either appearance or operation. Furthermore, the glut of cheap Kadee-like couplers has done nothing but make the situation intolerable - it has become virtually impossible to have an operating session in which couplers do not become a hassle.


As such, in HO scale, I've selected the Sergent Engineering coupler as standard. If I were to need knuckle couplers in Large Scale (I use link & pin instead), I would select the Accucraft or other suitably scale working knuckle coupler. Thus, in my humble opinion, the Kadee is NOT the best coupler made in ANY scale, and gauge has absolutely nothing to do with coupling. 

Posted By jfrank on 27 Feb 2010 09:09 PM 

What a bunch of nincompoops and dinosaurs...And you can stick it yourself.


Oh, how impressively mature. Do you want to rant like a child, or do you want your opinion to be taken seriously? I've chosen to ignore your childish behavior and respond as though you were an adult. Perhaps you could try the same thing some time?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Thank you Kevin for not combating the point about the standards. 

What happened and other instances like the "socket committee" makes people distrust NMRA. 

You can say that the APPROVED STANDARD is "moot" all day, but it IS an APPROVED STANDARD, still PUBLISHED on the NMRA site. 

I can believe that you are trying mightily. I believe you because of the "1.6" document with better ideas. 

But, it's clear that in this case, the NMRA is so screwed up that they cannot UNDO the mess, or that they don't give a rat's patoot. 

Any logical answer is bad, it's either arrogance or "don't care", or just plain incompetence. 

So, this proves my point way back, you can't blame individuals for being suspicious of virtually anything the NMRA does in large scale, the NMRA's track record stinks. 

They have to EARN my trust back, which means doing right for a while. 

Maybe if they pulled the standard they published, AND publicly admitted there was a mistake AND did not do something like this for a while, they could climb out of the "pit" .... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Snoq Pass on 27 Feb 2010 09:35 PM 
jfrank, "What a bunch of nincompoops and dinosaurs. Mantua? Those were the crappiest couplers ever made. Don't throw those kadees away, give them to me. Kadees are the best coupler ever made in any scale or gauge. Hook and loops AREN'T couplers. haha. And you can stick it yourself." 

Well...aren't we being mature...Also John, before you shot yourself in the foot, you should get all of the information first: 
Definition of Coupler 
"a mechanical device that serves to connect the ends of adjacent objects." 
"a mechanism for connecting rolling stock in a train." 
"A device at the front and rear of the locomotive for connecting locomotives and rail cars together." 
"A device for joining cars to an engine and to each other to form a train." 

I could go on if you would like John, but I think we get the point. Just in case though...Hook and Loops ARE couplers. So, "haha. And you can stick it yourself." (Only since we are being immature. =P) Hey, I was just responding to the Curmudgeon. If you think it's immature then complain to him. Just for the record responding to the other 'ostriches' on here, I have been modeling in HO and now Gauge One for many years and I DO know what a mantua coupler is. And regardless of what John Allen thought, they were crappy couplers. All this discussion is moot anyway as is the NMRA study because gauge one already has a STANDARD COUPLER. It is spelled KADEE. HO went through this same process and the result was the so called NMRA coupler. It was a worthless piece of plastic that most everyone discarded when they replace them with Kadee's. We had some modelers that collected them in barrels to send to the NMRA to make a point. When the Kadee patent ran out, all manufacturers started supplying Kadee knock off's with their rolling stock and the NMRA coupler disapeared overnight. So if you want a standard coupler you already have it.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

or just plain incompetence
Greg, 

The majority of Model Railroaders (the MR in NMRA) are incompetent when it comes to fixing websites. (Look how many people can't figure out how to make a link become active in a forum post over here.) 

My guess is the webmaster is a retired postman (no offense) who spends his winters in Florida miles from a computer. Of course he hasn't updated it and removed the silly stuff - he doesn't think anyone cares. He doesn't even know why they have a website, and he doesn't - ever - check the page statistics to see if anyone is looking at them. 

NMRA is just a bunch of guys like us - some of them writing standards ARE us (e.g. Mr EBT.) If you don't like the website, I'll bet they'd be happy to have a competent guy helping. 

Excuse me if I have seriously insulted some extremely competent webmaster who has other issues. . . [/i]


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By jfrank on 28 Feb 2010 08:08 AM 
Posted By Snoq Pass on 27 Feb 2010 09:35 PM 
jfrank, "What a bunch of nincompoops and dinosaurs. Mantua? Those were the crappiest couplers ever made. Don't throw those kadees away, give them to me. Kadees are the best coupler ever made in any scale or gauge. Hook and loops AREN'T couplers. haha. And you can stick it yourself." 

Well...aren't we being mature...Also John, before you shot yourself in the foot, you should get all of the information first: 
Definition of Coupler 
"a mechanical device that serves to connect the ends of adjacent objects." 
"a mechanism for connecting rolling stock in a train." 
"A device at the front and rear of the locomotive for connecting locomotives and rail cars together." 
"A device for joining cars to an engine and to each other to form a train." 

I could go on if you would like John, but I think we get the point. Just in case though...Hook and Loops ARE couplers. So, "haha. And you can stick it yourself." (Only since we are being immature. =P) Hey, I was just responding to the Curmudgeon. If you think it's immature then complain to him. Just for the record responding to the other 'ostriches' on here, I have been modeling in HO and now Gauge One for many years and I DO know what a mantua coupler is. And regardless of what John Allen thought, they were crappy couplers. All this discussion is moot anyway as is the NMRA study because gauge one already has a STANDARD COUPLER. It is spelled KADEE. HO went through this same process and the result was the so called NMRA coupler. It was a worthless piece of plastic that most everyone discarded when they replace them with Kadee's. We had some modelers that collected them in barrels to send to the NMRA to make a point. When the Kadee patent ran out, all manufacturers started supplying Kadee knock off's with their rolling stock and the NMRA coupler disapeared overnight. So if you want a standard coupler you already have it.

So, using Mantuas did exactly what I said it would......cause a meltdown of specific nincompoop nmra types.

Thank you for tripping!

Kadees are the stupidest design since.
Show me a sliding jaw US prototype coupler.
Show me a US protoype coupler with a 1958 Cadillac front coil spring mounted sideways on it.
Show me a US prototype coupler with a magnetic trip pin.
Show me a US prototype coupler that has absolutely no provision for manual uncoupling.

Your lock-step nmra mindset, and acceptance of the nmra mantra, is more than typical of what people have seen of the nmra membership, and what is continuing today.

The original Milwaukee Mafia counted on and depended upon atitudes like yours towards the nmra to get their standards accepted by the minions.

Please accept my heartfelt thanks for exhibiting to the LS community what exatly I have been discussing about the nmra lo, these many years.

Oh, and those Kadees.....they WILL go to landfill.
Just like the LS ones I take off by the bag full.

I would not dream of corrupting newcomers to the hobby by letting those things out.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 27 Feb 2010 11:07 PM 
I do not speak for the NMRA, and I'm quite certain the NMRA is happy about that. I remain appreciative of the overtures they've extened me and the large scale community, and hopefully--eventually--we can come to realize that the two communities are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They're not remotely all-encompassing, either, but there is some middle ground through which both camps can benefit. If you think that association makes me untrustworthy, that's your issue. There's no way I can change that. Only you can. I'm going to keep plowing forward, supporting ideas that I believe have merit, using any and all resources at my disposal, seeking as much input from anyone who will give it to shape policy so that it's as reflective of the desires of the large scale community's desires as possible. If you'd like to help, we'd love to have you on board. Otherwise, you get what you pay for. 

Later, 

K I've been waiting for this.

Knowing how the Milwaukee Mafia worked, and knowing how they have good contacts at Clambake, especially Oblio, (and you'll have to think about that one), I am reasonably certain you have been recruited, most likely without your knowledge.

Looking for "members", and their big break into LS, what better way than to recruit a contributing editor to a clambake pub?

If I was a betting man, I would bet there is already a piece written extolling the virtues of the nmra and their standards.

Probably done very carefully, so you didn't think you were being "led", but they will get the job done.

The last "champion" kinda blew it, especially with so many folks publicly exposing lies and half-truths (you notice no names) so they are most likely more than happy to bend a few rules to get someone in their camp who they can direct.

You ever think those last numbers weren't a mistake?

Congratulations, Kevin!


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

You guy's can fight back and forth all day they are going to get done whatever they want to get done with or without our suggestions, Ever hear the saying "leave well enough alone?" I can't tell you how many times products have changed and I never buy em again after the first time as they don't work as well or taste the same as the old! Just call me set in me ways and old fashioned, Well, if in it gets really really bad i'll resort to what i have, and when they go I'll just use the old easey peasey coupler, paper clips cheap easy to use and they don't break,you design em the way they work for you, and are very cost effective!! Hah LOL Regal


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

That doesn't argue in favor of the NMRA, I think. You can say all you like about how they ask for input, encourage people to voice their opinions, and generally try to be inclusive and helpful, but if they change things in secrecy at the final vote, what's the point of participating? 

"Never ascribe to malice that what can be adequately explained by ignorance." I'm not going to argue the scenario wasn't ideal, but I don't think it was remotely done intentionally, or "in secret" or anything like that. I'm betting that someone's wires simply got crossed--that someone "didn't get the memo" about our proposal. With respect, what "the public" saw was not a reflection of what was going on behind the scenes. Granted the perception isn't the greatest, but I would hope when presented with the facts from someone involved in the process, you might cut them a little slack. I don't blame anyone for being skeptical of the NMRA's track record when it comes to large scale. Recall, it was my skpeticism that got me involved in the first place, and I still maintain a healthy dose of "stay on top of things" as things work through the process. 

Kevin, you always base future performance on past actions. 
If I'm interpreting Greg's tone, this was meant as a criticism of doing so--implying that future performance may not be the same as the past. I would remind you that that's another door that swings both ways. If you're going to argue that the manufacturers will all of a sudden start listening to what the NMRA has to say, you have to allow for the same possibility that the NMRA would get its act together when it comes to large scale. Skeptical is fine. Immutable is another. 

Later, 

K


----------



## tom h (Jan 2, 2008)

I have no dog in this fight, in fact, I could care less about the NMRA or whatever they call themselves, what I would like to know is WHY they have to assume THEY can make WHAT standards for everyone else HAS to follow, WOW, does it REALLY matter for these people to be so arrogant that they are the annointed ones to decide on a coupler? 

My railroad is mine, I created it and will have many years of enjoyment with it, I will go to Martys in the fall and have fun running trains with other guys who like to run trains, if what I do offends people because I dont have a coupler that THEY say I should have who cares?


I would have to say looking at it from the outside it really makes these people look REALLY stupid, a coupler? Who cares!!

I will go back and build my own cars, use couplers that I choose to use, and what ever works for MY railroad.

Other than that, who really cares about people who will shout out from the mountian tops that you are using the wrong coupler?

How did it ever get to this? 


How are you going to spread the real joy it is running trains when you have people argueing about couplers?

In the words of Charlie Brown - Good Grief!

Back to my world.

Tom H


----------



## todd55whit (Jan 2, 2008)

Here, here Tom!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

About 35 years ago, I had to work part-time in a hobby shop (economic downturns are nothing new). 
Guy came in doing "large scale", and scratch-building at that, looking for metal Lionel "0" tab couplers (not electromagnetic type). 

He was flipping them over (using them as left-hand Janneys instead of right-hand) so he could make coupler lift bars. 

I certainly wasn't going to tell him he couldn't, and I guess we could all flip out couplers over (and make a lock for the pin) just to upset the minions of the nmra. 

I am really wondering where they intend to put the horn on these hooks.....LS/nmra couplers and all that. 

I know the nmra never accepted the X2F, but that didn't stop the morons from calling it an nmra coupler for decades....and decades...... 

Oh, well. 

This organization is like some legislators. 
You fight them, and get it fixed for all (like in 2003/2004), think it's all done, but those legislators have their own agenda, and just keep coming back to wear you down.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

I'll agree with Tom. Who needs NMRA just another form of trying to rule our hobbies. Later RJD


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 28 Feb 2010 09:24 AM 

So, using Mantuas did exactly what I said it would......cause a meltdown of specific nincompoop nmra types.

Thank you for tripping!

Kadees are the stupidest design since.
Show me a sliding jaw US prototype coupler.
Show me a US protoype coupler with a 1958 Cadillac front coil spring mounted sideways on it.
Show me a US prototype coupler with a magnetic trip pin.
Show me a US prototype coupler that has absolutely no provision for manual uncoupling.

Your lock-step nmra mindset, and acceptance of the nmra mantra, is more than typical of what people have seen of the nmra membership, and what is continuing today.

The original Milwaukee Mafia counted on and depended upon atitudes like yours towards the nmra to get their standards accepted by the minions.

Please accept my heartfelt thanks for exhibiting to the LS community what exatly I have been discussing about the nmra lo, these many years.

Oh, and those Kadees.....they WILL go to landfill.
Just like the LS ones I take off by the bag full.

I would not dream of corrupting newcomers to the hobby by letting those things out.


HERE IS YOUR SO CALLED 'STANDARD COUPLER'. THE BEST IN THE WORLD: http://www.kadee.com/index.shtml

I KNOW THE SNOW IS DEEP UP THERE AND CABIN FEVER SET IN LONG AGO. SO JUST KEEP UP THE HORSEY REPLYS ALL YOU WANT. IT WAS A WONDERFUL 66 HERE WITH A CLOUDLESS SKY AND I WAS OUT DOORS ALL DAY. HAHA. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WITH THOSE MANTUAS. THEY DON'T MAKE THEM ANYMORE, THANK GOD, AND THEY WERE WORTHLESS WHEN THEY DID. ANYONE THAT IS STILL USING THOSE SILLY THINGS IS MOST CERTAILY A DINOSAUR. LOL.

KADEE, THE WORLDS BEST.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Not sure once again what in the world you are prattling on about. 
Sunny all day, drove to three different places, no snow (in fact, all year), and here at 5PM on a Sunday it is 56 degrees. 

Just goes to show you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about, eh?


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)




----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

jfrank, "HERE IS YOUR SO CALLED 'STANDARD COUPLER'. THE BEST IN THE WORLD: http://www.kadee.com/index.shtml 

I KNOW THE SNOW IS DEEP UP THERE AND CABIN FEVER SET IN LONG AGO. SO JUST KEEP UP THE HORSEY REPLYS ALL YOU WANT. IT WAS A WONDERFUL 66 HERE WITH A CLOUDLESS SKY AND I WAS OUT DOORS ALL DAY. HAHA. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WITH THOSE MANTUAS. THEY DON'T MAKE THEM ANYMORE, THANK GOD, AND THEY WERE WORTHLESS WHEN THEY DID. ANYONE THAT IS STILL USING THOSE SILLY THINGS IS MOST CERTAILY A DINOSAUR. LOL. 

KADEE, THE WORLDS BEST." 

How old are you? Seriously.... 8..na I will give you a little credit...10...Did I guess it correctly? 

On a more serious manner, I went the page from the link you provided. And to be honest, I don't know what to say....or even think for that matter. They look horrendous. If you think Kaydees (=P) are the best in the world, then you have NEVER seen a real 12in:1ft scale coupler. Also, John, after reading through your post, you make the NMRA look rrreeaaallllyy bad and I will NEVER join this horrendous dictatorship. Sorry, I will keep my freedom, you (and the NMRA) and keep the change!!!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)




----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

What he said.


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 28 Feb 2010 06:33 PM 









HE HE HE HE.............


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Heh heh heh.....it's like watching Pro Wrestling when they have this cage match and some scrawny schlep steps in only to find Goldberg ready to turn him into a pretzel before leaving him in the ring as roadkill!! (Somebody get the popcorn! It's been too long since we've seen a massacre like this!!)


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

This has to have been one of the most inane threads in MLS history AND that's saying something.









Bottom line-was anything of any substance solved here???


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yes, the majority of the posters don't think the approach to lump all the scales together into one standard makes sense. 

A large contingent believes the NMRA should just go away. 

I think that it's at least indicative of current sentiment. 


Regards, Greg


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Oh Gary, we get much more inane than this!

I thought the new couplers from Aristo and KayDee were the first to match the new NMRA suggestion.


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 28 Feb 2010 07:02 PM 
Yes, the majority of the posters don't think the approach to lump all the scales together into one standard makes sense. 

A large contingent believes the NMRA should just go away. 

I think that it's at least indicative of current sentiment. 


Regards, Greg 
I think that sums it up well Greg!

BTW, love the avitar, about fell out of the chair when I first saw it.


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Snoq Pass on 28 Feb 2010 06:26 PM 
jfrank, "HERE IS YOUR SO CALLED 'STANDARD COUPLER'. THE BEST IN THE WORLD: http://www.kadee.com/index.shtml 


KADEE, THE WORLDS BEST." 

On a more serious manner, I went the page from the link you provided. And to be honest, I don't know what to say....or even think for that matter. They look horrendous. If you think Kaydees (=P) are the best in the world, then you have NEVER seen a real 12in:1ft scale coupler. Also, John, after reading through your post, you make the NMRA look rrreeaaallllyy bad and I will NEVER join this horrendous dictatorship. Sorry, I will keep my freedom, you (and the NMRA) and keep the change!!! 
I am sure the NMRA is breathing a sigh of relief. Look out the evil beast is out to clap you and curmudgeon in irons. LOL. You guys are the biggest nincompoops on here. This string is a hoot. I have never seen so much ignorance in my life. Here is a link to some of that 'wonderful' mantua crap you guys like so much.

http://cgi.ebay.com/2-packs-HO---OO...3010r37726


KADEE the worlds best coupler by far since 1947. Here are a few comments. None from curmudgeon however. lol.



*KD has been doing it right for over 45 years+. *


* EZamora Posted: 30 Oct 2005, 15:04:06*


* Excellent coupler!!!! Very durable!!! Highly recommend!!! *


*electrolove Posted: 30 Oct 2005, 14:59:36*


* I do not know much, but I do know that Kadee®is the standard, go for it! *


*nbrodar Posted: 30 Oct 2005, 15:18:07*


* Kadee's by far. Everything else I've used pales in comparison. *


And they are made in the USA, not China.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By gary Armitstead on 28 Feb 2010 06:57 PM 
This has to have been one of the most inane threads in MLS history AND that's saying something.









Bottom line-was anything of any substance solved here???








Is anything EVER solved here?


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

No Dave.

Maybe it's time to close the schoolyard for today. All need to get their homework done for tomorrow.


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

jfrank, "KADEE the worlds best coupler by far since 1947. Here are a few comments. None from curmudgeon however. lol. 


KD has been doing it right for over 45 years+. 

EZamora Posted: 30 Oct 2005, 15:04:06 
Excellent coupler!!!! Very durable!!! Highly recommend!!! 

electrolove Posted: 30 Oct 2005, 14:59:36 
I do not know much, but I do know that Kadee®is the standard, go for it! 

nbrodar Posted: 30 Oct 2005, 15:18:07 
Kadee's by far. Everything else I've used pales in comparison. " 

John, can we get any reviews from anyone NOT being paid by Kaydee? Cause those reviews seem to be really...and I am mean really...one sided. Also, can we get any reviews that are not ancient? A lot can change in FIVE years.

Oh, and as a side note, I had one Kaydee coupler (not completely sure where I got cause I have never bought any Kaydees) and the thing is a worthless pieces of cr...errr...well you get the point. The coupler looks like garbage and failed to hold up. I probably got it when I bought some used equipment from the previous owner trying to rid his/her house from the evil. Needless to say, the "thing" has become a gift to the landfill. 

Oh also... 
jfrank, "I have never seen so much ignorance in my life." 

You are one to talk!


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)




----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By jfrank on 28 Feb 2010 07:36 PM 
I am sure the NMRA is breathing a sigh of relief. Look out the evil beast is out to clap you and curmudgeon in irons. LOL. You guys are the biggest nincompoops on here. This string is a hoot. I have never seen so much ignorance in my life. Here is a link to some of that 'wonderful' mantua crap you guys like so much.

http://cgi.ebay.com/2-packs-HO---OO...3010r37726


KADEE the worlds best coupler by far since 1947. Here are a few comments. None from curmudgeon however. lol.



*KD has been doing it right for over 45 years+. *


* EZamora Posted: 30 Oct 2005, 15:04:06*


* Excellent coupler!!!! Very durable!!! Highly recommend!!! *


*electrolove Posted: 30 Oct 2005, 14:59:36*


* I do not know much, but I do know that Kadee®is the standard, go for it! *


*nbrodar Posted: 30 Oct 2005, 15:18:07*


* Kadee's by far. Everything else I've used pales in comparison. *


And they are made in the USA, not China.

So, you put USA couplers on your Chinese engines and that makes it all right?

Bravo!
You found 3 reviews.....looks like the shills on bad software sites.

Of course, you can't control the moron installers who haven't a clue.....and cut the "hose" off as it fouls switches......never have that with knuckles.

Outdoors, had Kadee's break, had the pivot (extension of the "hose") rust in the body so badly the jaw wouldn't move.

You've been had, and you don't even know it.
Thank you for posting so.....much!


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By gary Armitstead on 28 Feb 2010 06:57 PM 
This has to have been one of the most inane threads in MLS history AND that's saying something.









Bottom line-was anything of any substance solved here???









Of course not. But the ignorance displayed is beyond description. lol. Ignorance is bliss as they say.


----------



## armorsmith (Jun 1, 2008)

Jfrank, 

Opinions are like butt holes - everyone has one (or can be one). As for Kadee's being the best thing since sliced white bread and the only coupler worth a hoot - that's your opinion. I personally don't care to have to either keep a screw driver in my pocket or have magnets all over my layout (collecting all nature of magnetic material to foul the operation of couplers and trucks). I personally prefer (as do others), the more proto-typic cut lever operation. 

As for the NMRA and their 'perceived' interference, if you don't like them, don't pay any attention to them. As has been stated in several places, I don't think any of the current manufacturers are going to run right out and change their tooling to meet anything the NMRA, or anybody else puts forth for that matter. Aristo spent over 100k (gotten from the Aristo forum) in their new tooling. As for Kadee being the 'standard', that was broached by the committee and Kadee declined the 'dubious honor'. 

Whether standards/rp's exist or not, it is your choice to adopt them or not. I have nothing against Kadee, just don't make them MY only choice. 

Bob C. 

As for my involvement, early on I made my suggestion to generate a standard/RP for the 'mating surfaces' and 'operational profile' such that coupler compatibility could be attained. When that direction seemed to go by the wayside, I stood by and watched.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By armorsmith on 28 Feb 2010 08:23 PM 

Bob C. 

As for my involvement, early on I made my suggestion to generate a standard/RP for the 'mating surfaces' and 'operational profile' such that coupler compatibility could be attained. When that direction seemed to go by the wayside, I stood by and watched. 
As did I.....after my last "official" involvement, 2003-2004, where we got G1MRA included on track/wheels, only to have some moron change it and KEBT now boasts it's almost back to where it was six freaking years ago.

You ought to hear why they want to "standardize" radio control.

Some moron (and unfortunately I know WHO) told the nmra that radio control is analog, and we have to change it all to digital.

Anybody running analog radio control?

Now I wait to see if some publication prints some nmra-affrimative piece for LS in general.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

100k tooling on a new coupler. WOW!!! 

It isn't April 1st for another month yet.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

That's Lewis' standard answer.. the molds for anything cost $100k... 

That's another funny story... Lewis is copying the Kadee, and wants to be the new standard... (stated by him on the Aristo forum)... 

Greg


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

If he asks.......someone.....he might get close. 
Kinda like the Super Socket. 


Oh, well, whats a hundred grand when it comes to being loved by the fawning customer?


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Working fine since 1968, which is before Kadee existed...coupled everything to everthing relaibly. 

USE WHAT BESTS FITS YOUR NEEDS...nuff said.


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Posted By vsmith on 28 Feb 2010 11:00 PM 








Working fine since 1968, which is before Kadee existed...coupled everything to everthing relaibly. 

USE WHAT BESTS FITS YOUR NEEDS...nuff said. 


Well said!! This is also *the* Large Scale Standard Coupler, there is no need for another one... Best, Zubi


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By zubi on 01 Mar 2010 12:04 AM 
Posted By vsmith on 28 Feb 2010 11:00 PM 








Working fine since 1968, which is before Kadee existed...coupled everything to everthing relaibly. 

USE WHAT BESTS FITS YOUR NEEDS...nuff said. 


Well said!! This is also *the* Large Scale Standard Coupler, there is no need for another one... Best, Zubi


Indeed the universal"standard", worked great for over 20 years till someone got a burr under their saddle about how "euro" they looked and wanted a knuckle style coupler, which is fine and dandy and companies rose to fill the need. The only reason to change it to a knuckle, or link-pin or bubblegum, is if one is looking for something more prototypical, then it should be based on *scale*, and _what_ your modeling. Just because Kadee makes a knuckle doesnt mean it or bachmann or aristo or whatever the NMRA cooks up is or should be "standard" as it inevitably will not work for all the miriad scales that propogate LS. I'd be really interested to see what the NMRA's "supercoupler" will address all the European stuff still being made by Marklin et al. Thats my take on all this, want Kadees, buy 'em, want IP Engineering Choppers, go for it, just please dont force a "one size fits all" standards on me, let me decide what I want to put on my trains.


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Ah-haa! Thank you, thank you Vic. someone finally sees the light. Let me run what I WANT to run. I run 1/20.3 narrow gauge AND I run Accucraft couplers. Many on here have complauned they don't work very well. They do for me and that;s what counts. Many on here have complained that Accucraft couplers are over-size. Guess what?!! They ARE OVER-SIZE because the D&RGW ran full-size (standard gauge) couplers on their rolling stock! Now I don't want the NMRA OR ANYONE else mucking up my railtoad. No more intrusion on MY life. They can go complain about something really important. End of my rant.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

This has to have been one of the most inane threads in MLS history AND that's saying something. 
_The inanity was probably folk typing while watching the hockey - there were a lot of daft posts yesterday! _



If you're going to argue that the manufacturers will all of a sudden start listening to what the NMRA has to say, you have to allow for the same possibility that the NMRA would get its act together when it comes to large scale. Skeptical is fine. Immutable is another. 

I used the think that something as 'simple' as a member-led organisation like the NMRA couldn't possibly have ulterior motives. 

Then, a few years ago I joined the US Power Squadron, a helpful boating organisation that runs classes for members and the public, and does other stuff to back the Coastguard when asked. I discovered that 65% of my dues were sent to 'national headquarters', where they paid for a spanking new building and a full time staff. Maybe it was needed, but I doubt it. It was like a charity that spent more than 50% of its donations on fundraising. 

There are meglomaniacs out there. People who want to control everything in their environment. People who think their electrical socket is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and that imposing it on the world will bring lots and lots of money to them - or at least the intellectual satisfaction of knowing that their concept becomes 'the standard'. The same maniacs get involved in local organisations and try to use them to satisfy their own need for power. You've met them - they take over the PTO, or the local community association. They run things because (a) they want/need to and (b) most folk are willing to let them, rather than do the work themselves. 

I don't know whether NMRA has such people in its heirarchy. But even though I'm a mellow old-timer who normally thinks the best of people until they show their true colors, I really, really wonder about NMRA. This isn't the first time they've blundered into 'large scale' with no apparent good intentions other than imposing something on our community. You would think they would have learned from the last time they tried (wheel standards) but they still (apparently) haven't cleaned up the website and made the more recent standard prominent. 

It's quite possible they don't really care what we think, as (not being members) we can't vote on their standards or proposals. Maybe Steve's initial post on One20point3 was just a calculated "Oh I asked and got their feedback" move. [In fact, why ask the Fn3 guys what they think, when the NMRA guys claim to have been motivated by the problems in 1/29th? Is this same debate raging on the Aristo forums?] Why aren't they here and on LSC and on LSOL entering in to the debate? 
Surely it would make more sense to start by recruiting more 'large scale' folk into NMRA as members so they could vote on any proposed standards? They/We are the ones who would be impacted afterwards.

A very healthy dose of skepticism is called for, IMHO.


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By gary Armitstead on 01 Mar 2010 08:18 AM 
Ah-haa! Thank you, thank you Vic. someone finally sees the light. Let me run what I WANT to run. I run 1/20.3 narrow gauge AND I run Accucraft couplers. . 

Actually Gary, that is what I use also and they work well for me. They also mate with Kadees and Bachman's new coupler for 1:20. But all this 'don't force your standards on me' stuff I just don't understand as no one forces anything on anyone in this hobby. You can use any coupler you want in any scale. Some packaging even comes with multiple couplers. So what I don't understand is why all the ranting? Without some standards couplers would all be a different heights on different manuf stuff. Wheels, track and switches would not be compatible between manufacturers. I just don't get what all the fuss is about. I think someone just doesn't like the NMRA for whatever reason.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Why aren't they here and on LSC and on LSOL entering in to the debate? 
Well, now that I mention it, I checked and Steve did post the question on LSC. I don't go near LSOL and I could find nothing on Aristo's forums except the announcement that Aristo is going to be Kadee compatible. http://www.aristocraft.com/vbulleti...hp?t=13471

from Steve Seidensticker 
"Currently customers in the smaller scales (Z to O) can buy rolling stock from any manufacturer and be confident that they will couple easily, reliably, and securely to other units in the same scale. The large scale (#1 to Fn3) community is not so fortunate. Each large scale manufacturer equips its products with its own coupler design, many of which are not compatible with each other or Kadees. . . " [/i]Why post there and not here ? I guess we're just not important. .


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By vsmith on 28 Feb 2010 11:00 PM 








Working fine since 1968, which is before Kadee existed...coupled everything to everthing relaibly. 

USE WHAT BESTS FITS YOUR NEEDS...nuff said.

I agree with Vic, I think "rivet rivet" counters come into play here they wanted something that was more prototypical to a real train coupler like on actual trains!! Hence all the other types of couplers. I have used the above, and knuckle ones, am currently using bachmann and Aristo but I do have a box of the above with about 50+ in it to fall back on if necessary!! Hee Hee. Regal


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

The point I'm making about "don't force down my throat" is that NMRA HAS the "bully pulpit" and if some new standards go in to effect, in LS, then with today's turbulent economy, like folks at Accucraft COULD possibly be forced to produce a less than prototype coupler ro meet some "off-the-wall" standard. CAL-OSHA comes to mind here in California. Or maybe even the fools in Congress with healthcare.


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Okay, let's see if we can put a visual component to this argument. Here are three largescale cars. For comparison's sake I have lined up three different scales; 1:24, 1:22.5 and 1:20.3 all representing (to one degree or another) the _Pagosa Springs _one-off combine utilizing a cupola that was a 3 ft. narrow gauge car on the D&RGW. The _models_ are made by HLW, LGB and AMS (with a RGMUK kit) respectively. The HLW and the LGB will mate with difficulty due to the differences in the coupler's design but the AMS's coupler, while physically able to mate with the HLW's coupler, is body mounted and therefore at a different height. These are all representations of the same prototype! There has been "selective compression" on the 1:24 HLW and the 1:22.5 LGB models but they are all narrow gauge and they are (obstensibly) supposed to be the same thing! 
_This _is why we roll our eyes when the NMRA tries to lump the various scales together and make them all couple without trouble!! Ironically, all you have to do is change the LGB coupler to a Bachmann/Delton/USA/Lionel type of coupler and the LGB car will connect just fine with the HLW even though 1:24 isn't considered a "real" scale! The coupler isn't the problem with the 1:20.3 AMS car. It's body vs truck mounting height that's causing the problem! Currently, there are only two major manufacturers putting out 1:20.3 rolling stock and they are already mating without difficulty! 
I'm sorry but for me, this is a non-issue as I already have come up with my own solution. One thing I_ will_ say: I'm NOT going to change my couplers out to a completely new design which isn't compatable with anything else I have just because some well-meaning but seriously naive individuals in an NMRA working group say that this is the way it's going to be! (Huh uh! Not gonna happen! Wouldn't be prudent.....)








l


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Thank you Steve. OUTSTANDING object graphic. :crickets:


----------



## Joe Johnson (Jan 2, 2008)

Speaking of standards between the gauges;

This is from the yards at Antonito.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Steve, great illustration. It goes to highlight the problem that's looking to be addressed. You actually state it quite clearly: 
...Ironically, all you have to do is change the LGB coupler to a Bachmann/Delton/USA/Lionel type of coupler and the LGB car will connect just fine... 
It's the _having_ to change the couplers that's the issue. Why do we as a segment of the hobby accept that? Why don't we insist that all couplers be the same height whether body or truck mounted? Kadee's been doing it for decades. Bachmann has sort-of jumped on that bandwagon, though they only allow for "downcoverting" from the higher to the lower height, not the other way--and they don't include the "conversion" couplers in all their equipment. For instance, the just-released "1:20" flat car with skid loader won't couple to the "Spectrum" series 1:20 equipment. (It does come with hook-and-loop!) Why don't we insist that couplers on trains built to the same scale (Aristo, USA) actually mate? Where's the logic? 1:29 was created specifically so that the trains built to that scale would be visually compatible with LGB, Bachmann, and all that other stuff. It's whole premise is built around the idea of mixing in with existing stock from other manufacturers. The coupler department didn't get that memo. 

Perhaps it's because converting to Kadees was so ingrained in the psyche of model railroading for the past 50 years that we've just gotten used to tossing out manufacturers' couplers. I don't know. Add to that the fact that many of us have settled on a single style of coupler for specific reasons that go beyond just keeping trains together. (For instance, I've been replacing my Kadee #1 couplers with Accucraft's new 1:32 coupler because I specifically want the prototype looks and operation.) I think we're just so used to doing it, the thought of not having to seems foreign? 

I wholeheartedly agree with the opinion that we don't want a single, half-baked, compromise coupler profile that "everyone" will have to adopt. But where's the flaw in asking that all couplers be nominally the same height, or that couplers built to a certain proportion (big or small for narrow or standard gauge) have a coupler shape that makes them easily couple to the next brand's coupler? We've got that to some extent between some brands. Why not push to make that level of compatibility the expectation for all? You can do that without saying "you must build this." You're then still free to choose your particular favorite based on your specific needs. That doesn't need to change. But but _having_ to swap out couplers just to run to cars of the same scale together? Can anyone here say that makes sense? 

Later, 

K


----------



## Bruce Chandler (Jan 2, 2008)

Are they really serious about the chart on page 3 "Large Scale Coupler Contour Mating Matrix"? 

Personal experience has shown that my Accucraft 1:20 couplers do NOT couple well with the #1 Kadee. Yet, this chart shows GREEN for that match. 


It doesn't make me trust the chart at all. 

Anyone else have similar experiences with any of those matches?


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

The problem with lgb was every one I saw came with hook-and-loops and no other choice. 
The Little three come generally with knuckle and hook-and-loops. 

I know a guy who uses Kadee height, some Kadee, some Delton, some Lionel, some Bachmann, and you know what? 
They all couple together just fine, and as long as he doesn't put two Kadees together, he can uncouple without tools or lifting of the car anywhere on the railroad. 

The issue is a non-issue, as they all work together, ONCE you set the height, which Bachmann has done of late with two height versions of the knuckles. 

Why are we having this discussion? 
Is Lenz coming out with a new coupler?


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I have to agree with kevin--I'm not a skilled modeler and at 1:29 and code 332, accuracy is already a moot point. But if I buy rolling stock from Aristo, or USAT,or AML, or MTH, Or PIKO, they all have incompatible couplers. There's zero sense in it. It's true I could just use hook and loops, but they bear zero relation to any coupler, not even remotely close. You can get aristo couplers to couple more closely if you cut the tangs back and redrill. That's better than hooks and loops, even with the odd lever underneath.


It's be really less annoying to buy a car from USAT and have it mate with Aristo out of the box. Not really that much to ask.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I don't think there's really any strong arguments WITHIN a scale, I think the major upset is one coupler for all scales... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## SteveS (Dec 27, 2007)

Pete Thornton sent me an email suggesting that I participate in this forum. I was not even aware of this spirited discussion until I got Pete's email. I originally tried to post the message on this forum but for unknown reasons the software would not accept it. Thanks Pete for reposting it from another forum. 

There have been a lot of opinions expressed on the value/drawbacks of standards, the benefits of various makes of couplers, and the NMRA. These are pretty general issues and everyone seems to have their own view of the them. No matter what I say those views are not likely to change. 

One misconception that I see repeated is that the NMRA is designing one coupler for large scale trains. That is not the case at all. What the working group has done is look at all the knuckle couplers currently available to the LS community, determine what characteristics are important to compatibility, what couplers are already compatible, and provide that information in a package (NMRA Recommended Practice) that manufacturers can use when they design a new coupler. That is all we are doing. 

Please read the document. I am happy to answer any questions about the document that has been posted and am open to suggestions for its improvement. I have already taken Pete's suggestion, posted on another forum, to beef up the introduction to better define what is included when we use the term "large scale." 

Steve Seidensticker


----------



## SteveS (Dec 27, 2007)

Posted By Bruce Chandler on 01 Mar 2010 05:40 PM 

Personal experience has shown that my Accucraft 1:20 couplers do NOT couple well with the #1 Kadee. Yet, this chart shows GREEN for that match. 


---------

Hi Bruce,

What are the problems that you encountered when coupling Accucraft 1:20 (aka AMS20) and #1 Kadees? I realize that there is a large size differential but the samples we have seem to function well together. Please give us more information here or send it directly to me.

Steve Seidensticker
[email protected]


----------



## Bruce Chandler (Jan 2, 2008)

Steve, 

I have taken my 1:20 stuff to a friend that has #1 Kadee on mostly Bachmann 1:22 rolling stock. I really cannot run my stuff with his as they do not stay coupled. Typically they come apart in the curves. I haven't investigated enough to determine the exact cause, as I don't have any problems running my stuff on my layout; I just run his stuff when I visit now. The curves are at least 6' diameter.


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

apart from some folks, who want "big trains", because they are easyer to spot between the flowers, most largescalers seem to be individualistic. 
(or should i write, that most individualists change from smaller scales to a large scale, because there it is easyer to adapt their stuff after their own will. not after any standards) 
most rolling stock gets out of the box - to land right on the workbench. 
if things get standardized, they become more similar to each other. 
so in my opinion every step to standardization is as well a step to less diversity of products. 

[ironic]ultimate goal of standardisation: from january to july there may be sold only products with "thomas-faces" stuck on it. from august to december only x-mas decorated. all manufacturers have to use the defined colour-standard[/ironic]


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By SteveS on 01 Mar 2010 06:51 PM 
Please read the document. I am happy to answer any questions about the document that has been posted and am open to suggestions for its improvement. I have already taken Pete's suggestion, posted on another forum, to beef up the introduction to better define what is included when we use the term "large scale." 

Steve Seidensticker 


Steve,

I did read the document. As I've commented before, standards do make sense, and two different standards (1:32 and 1:20.3) would probably satisfy 95% of the modelers out there. I have one issue with the document, and one general comment/suggestion..


My issue is with the assumption that the Kadee coupler should in ANY way be used as the standard, on as the measurement of a standard. While the use of the Kadee design verbatim is thrown out early on in the article, it is continuously referred to as the thing which any future standard coupler must work with. The article finishes with another call for the use of the Kadee coupler as the standard, or as the basis for the standard. There has been some vigorous debate over the relative merits of the Kadee coupler - mostly resolving itself as a "large scale" vs. HO scale argument - but I do not see many folks wanting a Kadee-like design sanctioned at the expense of prototypical function or appearance.

My comment would be that there are only two issues which need standardization, and they are the same two issues which the ARA/AAR chose to standardize so many years ago. Coupler height (and tolerance for variation) and knuckle profile are the ONLY two things which need any attention. You could do a lot worse (arguably, you could do no better) than to simply use scaled versions of those standards. ANY standard which does not encourage, nor even allow, scale modeling (both in appearance and operation) would be a tremendous failure of leadership.


Most of all, LISTEN to the folks for whom the standard is meant. Do they want it? Do they need it? Why are you doing this? If it is truly an attempt to improve the hobby, and has NO ulterior motive to further the agenda of any individual or business, that's one thing. If that's not the case, please take your trains and go home.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

And, like I said, Kadee, Bachmann Lionel, and Delton all couple together just fine if the same height. 

Now, Steve: 

The only "misconception" around here is that the nmra thinks large scale needs them. 

Had the nmra stepped up to the plate in 68 (hey, that's kinda catchy), then and only then would they have any history with large scale to even be addressing standards IN large scale. 

Bottom line: 

Go Away and take the rabid chihuahua with you.


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

The little bit of Fn3 stuff I have (change the have to had soon, it is either being sold or going to dear old dad) I put link and pins on. 

The worked great and look like the bee's knees. Especially the shorty Bachmann Western Wheel scraper cars. Knuckle couplers look daft on them. 

Maybe add a link and pin standard while at it?


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I think the major upset is one coupler for all scales... 
Where I'm looking is two for all scales: one for the 1:32/1:29 standard gauge crowd along the size of the Kadee #1 and Accucraft 1:32, and a second for the 1:20 - 1:24 narrow gauge folks along the size of the Kadee G-scale, Bachmann, and Accu 1:20 couplers. 

You'll still have crossovers--the standard gauge folks like the larger couplers because they handle rough track better, as well as the narrow gauge guys who use the smaller couplers because they like the look of the 3/4-sized coupler used on many narrow gauge lines. Those folks (and I'm in the latter camp) have already resigned themselves to changing out couplers anyway, since we're technically using the "wrong" coupler for our scale. On the other hand, I could probably make a small fortune selling EBT-style cast coupler adapters to go between the two sizes.  (The EBT used cast aluminum "adapters" that fit over the knuckles of the full-sized couplers of the re-trucked standard gauge cars they moved over the railroad.) 

I wonder if the scope of this proposal is (a) either too broad/vague, or (b) being misinterpreted as such. If you limit the discussion solely to the coupling interface of the knuckle-style couplers, (i.e., the knuckle and the space into which it fits on the opposite coupler), you accomplish a number of things. First, you allow manufacturers the freedom to do their own thing; creating their own release mechanisms, mounts, etc. Second, by focusing only on that particular aspect of the coupler, you do not run the risk of seeming to "outlaw" other styles of couplers. Hook-and-loops and Link-and-pins don't have knuckles, so the standards wouldn't apply to them. It's not a "coupler standard" so much as a "standard for a particular style of coupler." It would be along the lines of "_if_ you equip your trains with knuckle couplers, these are guidelines for the coupling interface which will allow your trains to couple to others using these same guidelines. 

Later, 

K


----------



## FH&PB (Jan 2, 2008)

I haven't read this discussion, nor do I intend to, since I've heard it all before. 

I just want to point out that we're all using the Internet here. Before the Internet, there were IBM communications systems, and DEC communications systems, and Unisys communications systems, and CDC communications systems, etc. etc. And they did not work with each other, by design. Each company thought it had the smartest and most brilliant system, and each company jealously guarded their system against the dangers of a competitive system. 

It wasn't until some "pinhead academics" came up with the ARPAnet that all those computers could talk to each other. The secret? Interoperability standards. All the manufacturers hated them, which was a good sign. It meant that they all stood to lose something (monopolistic control over their customers' computer communications). 

Yep, here we go again, repeating the scene from 30 years ago. What do *you* stand to lose if we end up with an interoperability standard? (Or, standards, more likely, to accomodate the different scales.) Why is everyone so quick to condemn the altruistic work of fellow hobbyists who are just trying to get things to work like they should? 

If I have skipped 11 pages of cheerful cooperation and rabid agreement, someone write and let me know that the world has changed. Otherwise, never mind.


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Vance, we have such a standard. It is called hook and loop coupler. It fully satisfies the "secret" of interoperability between brands. Just like the Internet, it is robust and fault tolerant. I guess, we can call it distributed too;-) The first packet switching a la ARPANET was publicly demonstrated in 1968, although the first ARPANET message wasn't sent until 1969. The first LGB hook and loop coupler was publicly demonstrated in 1968. A coincidence;-)? Suggesting a new coupler standard now is just like suggesting a new standard for the Internet. Not an easy thing to do. Those who plan to do this will have to think VERY hard how to show why anyone should listen to them. Unless they have less than altruistic reasons... Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi


----------



## Tom Lapointe (Jan 2, 2008)

Might as well throw my 2 cents in.







While I admit they operate well, *especially on R1-radius curves, *I have *NEVER *liked the appearance of the original LGB "hook-&-loop" couplers.







(Although I will also add they make more sense on European-prototype equipment than US prototypes).









My current railroad got it's start with a Bachmann Climax (still active on the roster, now equipped with DCC & a Phoenix 2K2 sound board); it was quickly accompanied by my first Bachmann Shay (the Pardee & Curtain #11 prototype, on the bench at the moment), & an assortment of Bachmann "Big Hauler" 1:22.5 cars, some Delton / Aristo "Classic" wood hoppers & reefers, & few assorted US-prototype LGB pieces such as thier "drover's caboose". Some of the LGB pieces orignally had some of LGB's own knuckle couplers. Original layout was indoors, with *LOTS of R1 curves *







. Virtually *all *of my original couplers were truck mounted. I *very quickly got disgusted *







with having to virtually *crash *







cars to couple! (And yes, LGB fans, I *will admit *that the hook-&-loops *DO couple easily - *but I still couldn't stomach their appearance!







).

Having previously had *excellent results *







with Kadee's in the smaller scales (N & HO), I started using their large-scale (the G-gauge, rather than #1 size) couplers. I could now *glide *a locomotive up to a car, and as long as the couplers were aligned *(even the prototype has problems coupling on curves at times*







*) *get successful coupling. At this point, I was still using the *truck-mounted *Kadees.

After acquiring my first live-steamer (Accucraft 3-cylinder Shay







), I started construction on my current "Watuppa Railway", planning from the start to use *wide-radius *curves (mainline is 69" min. radius, industrial trackage & sidings 48" radius). The wider curves & longer tangents now permitted me to run *much longer *trains - & the shortcomings (beside appearance) of *truck-mounted *couplers started to become apparent, with the tension of "heavy tonnage"







on a 3% upgrade causing the coupler mounting tongues on the trucks to flex downward, causing occasional unwanted uncoupling.







(A phenomenon Kevin Strong described very well in his "Garden Railways" coupler article a while back). I've since largely phased-out the truck mounted Kadees on the garden line.

However, let me put a few other things in context







- I've also phased out operation of *most *of my older 1:22.5 equipment outdoors, although I still have them. I've also largely phased out operation of *almost all *rolling stock with plastic wheels (or replaced the plastic wheelsets with metal ones). *Virtually everything *I now buy in narrow-gauge prototypes is *1:20.3, either Bachmann or Accucraft. Virtually all my locomotives are Kadee equipped, most with body-mounted couplers. *(I'm making a few exceptions for locos that may still operate on the small indoor layout - where most of the 1:22.5 equipment now runs - & in a few cases where I haven't quite decided







exactly how I want to do Kadee mounting - my new Bachmann Mallet specifically comes to mind). My cars equipped with *body-mounted Kadees *(mostly 830's or 835's) have proven *extremely reliable in operation *







. This doesn't mean that my entire roster is Kadee equipped; currently all of my Accucraft cars have their original couplers. They don't couple as easily as the Kadee's & are fairly prone to inadvertent uncoupling if the pin doesn't fully seat when coupling







*- but they do mate well with the Kadees. *







(Which is why I haven't been in a rush to replace them - I tend to do coupler conversions in batches, they'll get replaced when I *"get a round tuit!"*







). Bachmann has also *vastly improved *







their knuckle couplers, with metal construction & far better operation - & since on most of the newer 1:20.3 equipment they're at proper Kadee height *straight out of the box, *I don't have to "rush" to replace them either. (Although Kadee 830 & 930 couplers are *straight drop-in replacements *to the Bachmann draft gear boxes - *very easy conversion, *if you choose to do so).









Many arguments *against *Kadees center on the fact that the Accucraft cars (& the newer Bachmann 1:20.3 "Spectrum" offerings) can be uncoupled prototypically via the working "cut" levers, a *nice feature *I'll admit.







And I'll also confess







to being one of those operators who'll lift one Kadee over another if an uncoupling ramp isn't handy - but to me, this is *no more unprototypical than a "1:1" scale hand "descending from heaven" *







*to pull a "1:20.3" cut lever!*







(Unless of course, someone can market a "1:20.3" *robotic brakeman!*







).

I suspect I'm far from the only one out here who's been going through constant equipment upgrades; there's a *LOT *of *"legacy" *equipment out there, & will be for years to come. (For what it's worth - I have 2 LGB hopper cars on the roster - each equipped with an LGB knuckle on one end, & *a hook-&-loop *














coupler on the opposite end, to *accomodate visitor's equipment).*

Hmmm...







-think I've said *considerably more than 2 cents worth.*









*(Dons flame-proof suit, ducks into dinosaur-proof *







*M1A1 tank! *







*).*








*Tom*


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 01 Mar 2010 10:43 PM 

Where I'm looking is two for all scales: one for the 1:32/1:29 standard gauge crowd along the size of the Kadee #1 and Accucraft 1:32, and a second for the 1:20 - 1:24 narrow gauge folks along the size of the Kadee G-scale, Bachmann, and Accu 1:20 couplers. 

You'll still have crossovers--the standard gauge folks like the larger couplers because they handle rough track better, as well as the narrow gauge guys who use the smaller couplers because they like the look of the 3/4-sized coupler used on many narrow gauge lines. Those folks (and I'm in the latter camp) have already resigned themselves to changing out couplers anyway, since we're technically using the "wrong" coupler for our scale....

I wonder if the scope of this proposal is (a) either too broad/vague, or (b) being misinterpreted as such. If you limit the discussion solely to the coupling interface of the knuckle-style couplers, (i.e., the knuckle and the space into which it fits on the opposite coupler), you accomplish a number of things. First, you allow manufacturers the freedom to do their own thing; creating their own release mechanisms, mounts, etc. Second, by focusing only on that particular aspect of the coupler, you do not run the risk of seeming to "outlaw" other styles of couplers. Hook-and-loops and Link-and-pins don't have knuckles, so the standards wouldn't apply to them. It's not a "coupler standard" so much as a "standard for a particular style of coupler." It would be along the lines of "_if_ you equip your trains with knuckle couplers, these are guidelines for the coupling interface which will allow your trains to couple to others using these same guidelines. 

Later, 

K 
Makes sense to me. We want more people in the hobby, right? It's a significant deterrent to tell someone "Oh you bought cars from these two brands? Sorry, now you will need to buy couplers too." There's no good reason for it. It's true, they all still come with hook and loops, but even for someone like me, who's not a serious modeler, hook and loops are unacceptable. I mean, I could just use paper clips or wire. It'd be great to see a standardized knuckle in 1:32, one which would mate out of the box between aristo, usat, mth, aml, piko.


The new aristo coupler--was it designed with any such effort in mind? I'm guessing no.


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

It's a significant deterrent to tell someone "Oh you bought cars from these two brands? Sorry, now you will need to buy couplers too." 

if you buy a chevrolet, do you expect, that a spare weel from a BMW will fit? 
allthough the car business is highly standardized, most of the standards are different from one manufacturer to the next. 
there are dozens of standards for weel- felloes, scores of standards for tyres. 
to me the topic at hands sounds a bit orcish: "...and one Kadee to bind them all..."


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

if you buy a chevrolet, do you expect, that a spare weel from a BMW will fit? 
That's not quite the same argument. You'd not expect an Aristo motor block to fit a USA diesel, either. We're talking specifically about the interface that exists between two separate pieces of equipment--an interface that by definition should be compatible with each other. It's closer to putting a ball hitch on your Chevy and towing a trailer. The spare tire from the trailer isn't going to fit the Chevy, but you have every expectation that the hitch would work with whatever trailer because that's specifically what it's designed to do--tow whatever trailer you need to tow. 

Later, 

K


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By kormsen on 02 Mar 2010 08:49 AM 
It's a significant deterrent to tell someone "Oh you bought cars from these two brands? Sorry, now you will need to buy couplers too." 

if you buy a chevrolet, do you expect, that a spare weel from a BMW will fit? 
allthough the car business is highly standardized, most of the standards are different from one manufacturer to the next. 
there are dozens of standards for weel- felloes, scores of standards for tyres. 
to me the topic at hands sounds a bit orcish: "...and one Kadee to bind them all..." 
That's a bad analogy. Spare tires aren't like couplers, which are expressly designed to attach to other cars. I expect, if I buy a chevy, that the trailer hitch will fit my trailer, same as the trailer hitch on my ford. I expect that the gas pump that fit my ford will also work with my Chevy, and that I don't have to buy a third party gas pump adapter. I expect the general functioning of the car--in terms of turn signals, horn headlights, brake lights, and general suitability for the road--to be functionally identical, and lo and behold, it is.


And anyway, is there any reason why spare tire lug pattern should NOT be interoperable? Except that there generally is not much demand for a spare tire from another car. 




Added:Hey! Kevin beat me to it!


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Don't get me wrong, I would have no objection in priciple if somebody wanted to come out with a coupler that mated with everyone elses! The problem, of course, is that it's impossible to do! Aristocraft 1:29 and LGB have radically different knuckle couplers. Bachmann, Lionel, Delton, Accucraft, Aristo Delton Classics, HLW all will mate together with little or no problem. I can't answer for MTH. Is there a Kadee that mates easily with Bach/Lionel/Delt/Accu/HLW/etc...? It would seem that this would be the way to go.....except that the current Aristo crowd would be left completely out! Their couplers won't mate at all! In addition, the LGB crowd wouldn't be happy either! Their couplers will mate...with a lot of elbow grease! Bottom line: they won't go along with it either!
Aristocraft and LGB arguably make up over 50% (and possibly as much as 70%) of large scalers! You can't alienate them so what to do? It would be great if Aristo and LGB were the same scale and had the same style of coupler (or at least one's that were compatable!) but they aren't and don't! USA and Aristo are the same scale and model the same era but only USA has a coupler that works with others (and doesn't work with Aristo!)
No matter what you do, you're going to have to alienate someone! So, the question then becomes whom to offend? What manufacturer will be forced to change what they are doing? The simple answer is_ nobody!_ I don't envy this "working group!" They evidently decided to "equally offend" everyone by coming up with a completely new design that won't mate with anyone's coupler! Now, I freely admit that I have not given this problem the same amount of attention that others have but what makes them think that_ all_ manufacturers will support changing their coupler designs to something completely new when they can't get _one _company to do it! LGB is essentially defunct for the forseeable future and doesn't have near the clout that it used to which leaves Lewis and Aristo. Funny, Aristo has it's Delton Classics line that utilizes couplers that are compatable with the others so it's not like they would have to completely retool...

If you _have_ to use Kadee as the standard then make sure it mates with the majority of the coupler designs that are already out there! That only makes sense! Why pick a fight with everybody??!! At least this way you stand a better chance of getting a significant percentage of large scale manufacturers on board! Oh but then you have a major problem: _Lewis will never go along with the new design if it's not completely new and his company is the only one to have to completely re-tool and retro fit everything! _I do not envy you guys one bit! You haven't given us the "economic sense" reasons _why_ we should go along with you!! I guarantee you that, if retooling to change your coupler completely so that nothing you produced before would work with it made economic sense then everybody would have done it already!!! They haven't because it doesn't!!! Give up. This is not something that will ever succeed the way it is now! If, by some miracle, you convinced the manufacturers to do this change, what makes you think that the largescale modelling public won't rebel just as vehemently?? I have already stated that I don't want it! Not the way it's proposed right now!! In this economy, the manufacturers _will_ listen to their customer base! They will or they won't be in business much longer!! 
Before you can ever hope to convince each manufacturer to cough up $100,000 to change the coupler design you had better have the entire largescale buying public with you 100%!! Otherwise, you will have no chance of succeeding. Judging by the acrimony that has permeated this thread, you people still have a long way to go and this doesn't even begin to address the coupler height issues...


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

"It's closer to putting a ball hitch on your Chevy and towing a trailer." 

But there are different hitches for different trailers. Thus not all trailers can or *should* "couple" to one's Chevy. 


The railroad authorities to which we look up to in our modeling realized the situation as impractical:
The AAR (Janney) couplers comes in at least two sizes, "full size" and "three-quarter", which are not compatible. Lighter weight railways, especially those of narrow gauge or with no need for interrunning sometimes use smaller (three-quarter- or half-size) versions of the AAR coupling. 


I am still not convinced that one standard will allow for the interchange of different scale cars. Even if that was so, why would I share or borrow a 1:20.3 car for 1:32 equipment?

The problem, as I see it, is that unlike real 1:1 applications where SG connected to SG and NG to NG we are trying to merge the two thus creating an unit no better than a the paper it is written on (paper clip could ease the pain of those involved).


Unlike wheel gauge and track tolerances that are fundamental to being able to running a train there are many variations of couplers that can be used to make up a train; it is up to the owner/operator to determine that. Similar to the reality of the 1:1 operations: 

When the Janney coupling was chosen to be the American standard, *there were 8,000 patented alternatives to choose from*. The only significant disadvantage of using the AAR (Janney) design is that sometimes the drawheads need to be manually aligned. 


But one should not leave wheel gauge/track tolerances to individuals otherwise no one would come over to play with us!


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

The effort is not to make one coupler for both NG AND SG, the effort is to make a standard set of coupler parameters for NG, and a standard set of coupler parameters for SG. 

I really should not get into this--I've got no interest in the NMRA and would just like to be able to buy a 1:29 car from two manufacturers and have them mate up well.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

But there are different hitches for different trailers. Thus not all trailers can "couple" to one's Chevy. 
True--there are different sized balls, etc. I thought about that when writing the analogy, but since we're (or at least I'm) discussing two different sized couplers--one for standard, one for narrow--I figured the parallel fits. You're not going to get your Accucraft 1:32 coupler to connect to your Accucraft 1:20 coupler, no more than a full-size prototype coupler would connect to a 3/4-sized one or a 1-1/2" hitch would fit on a 2" ball. 

*** 

On a somewhat related follow up--I mentioned the B'mann flat car/log skidder coming with hook-and-loop couplers. That's all it does. It comes with them. There's no way of actually _mounting_ them. I suppose you could throw them on the flat car for a load? 

Later, 

K


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Lownote
I agree but then comes the questions as to "Standard gauge:" standard set of coupler parameters for SG. 


Parameters relative to what SG scale: 1:32, 1:29, 1:30 all the way to LGB that models standard gauge equipment. Good luck to those involved.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

You really want to bring the automobile standards into this? 

Or, how the enforcement of automotive standards killed off certain automobile brands, some as far as imports, some altogether (but not immediately)? 

Bumper height. 
Ever see what it did to MG's? 

Rubber bumper, and raise the body height, making them squirrelly. 

Then, nobody wanted them. 

Berkeleys. 

Seems we developed a headlight height standard, so the had to take the in-fender lights out and add pods (frog-eyes) that were NOTHING like the early AH/BE. 

What if the Feds decided to standardize tyres? 

"All vehicles shall use 235 series 15" tyres, and all wheels in use shall be taken out of service and replaced (at owner expense) withing six months" 

How about the Carter Metrification Mandate for the US? 

Not me. 

Let's look at standards removal run amok. 

Headlights. 
2 lamp and 4-lamp. 
Everybody used the same sealed beams from 1940. 


Then, the euro-ray folks decided we needed to have specialized headlamps like in Europe. 
So, now just about every year/make and model has these different headlamp housings that leak, fog, yellow, and are freaking expensive. 

Saw an R class Jag Saturday at a body shop with a broken headlamp assembly. 
Sixteen Hundred Dollars for one assembly, uninstalled. 

So, if the enema-ray is looking for a profile, how many times do I have to tell you the profile we have works? 

G1MRA in track and wheels has coarse and fine. 
Why not coarse and fine in couplers? 

Coarse is what it comes with. 
Fine is what the rivet counters use indoors and are willing to change to achieve. 

Which is what he have without the involvement of the nmra and their rabid chihuahua. 

Oh, and you think Kadees have always been the way they are? 

I keep some things in clear plastic boxes just to show the unbelievers. 

Kadees with a straight piece of music wire hanging down that uncoupled like an X2F/Horn Hook/nmra coupler.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 02 Mar 2010 11:09 AM 
You really want to bring the automobile standards into this? 

Or, how the enforcement of automotive standards killed off certain automobile brands, some as far as imports, some altogether (but not immediately)? 

Bumper height. 
Ever see what it did to MG's? 

Rubber bumper, and raise the body height, making them squirrelly. 

Then, nobody wanted them. 







Ever seen the front bumper 'improvements" they imposed on the '87-88 Lambo Countach's? An ugly black mass of plastic that actually raises up in front of the car and looked like they bolted a 6x6 across the front, hideous! Yeah great improvement wrecked not only the line but fouled the airflow over the car...No wonder they killed it off after that.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Sorry about this I put the comment in the wrong thread.

Chuck


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Chuck I know you probably cant show it, but showing an Aaristo 1/29 coach next to a MTH 1/32 coach or the Accu 1/20 coach next to a Bachmann/LGB 1/22.5 would also illustrate the primary problem most are pointing to, namely even in these more closely related scales there are functional differences between the coupler heights between each one of them, I really wonder how they can "standardize" anything beyond the way couplers would be mounted, and theres 0 guarentee any Mfr would follow the standard after 20+ years of going there own way. 


[edit: HEY Chuck, put it back up, that pick was actually helpfull}


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

The pictures showing the Aristo and J&S coaches are in the thread by Mickey "aristo heavyweights behind".

I do not have any MTH cars, but here are some pictures comparing LGB and AMC.

LGB front, AMC back 












LGB top, AMC bottom 










To have everything thing on the same thread, here are the heavyweight and the AMC.




























And for those of you who need to be reminded that in 1:1 the narrow gauge cars were very much smaller than standard gauge cars.









Chuck


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Yes but again the proposal is for a 1:32/1:29 coupler and a 1:20 coupler, or a NG and an SG. As the pictures show, a 1:20 coach and a 1:29 coach don't play together well.

It's true that MTH and USAT and Aristo present at a different height, but it isn't that different 


It's probably also true that manufacturers can't be pressured--look how long USAT has been making axles that split, in the face of years of customer complaint. Or Aristo. I can't really see the harm in discussing it.


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Posted By chuck n on 02 Mar 2010 03:51 PM 
[...] 

LGB front, AMC back 












Chuck 

Chuck, that is a nice photo. I always suspected that LGB coaches are 1:20. The height is about the same on both cars. Just fewer windows. Best wishes, Zubi


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

LGB is 1:20? 

Ohmygawd.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

You have to remember that the USAT streamliners have couplers that are at the height of the standard LGB, Aristo, etc truck mounts. If you want them to be high enough to match body mounted couplers some surgery is required. I have raised the couplers on one end of several of my USAT streamliners so that they will mate with my engines and Aristo heavyweights that have couplers at the proper height for body mounts. I have a mail train that mixes USA and Aristo baggage and RPOs that doesn't look to shabby. I think that there are 2 Aristos and 3 USATs in the consist (pulled by a USAT F3 A&B).


My stone in this discussion would be to standardize the height for each of the various scales that we run and then everything else will take care of itself. I think that the narrow gauge height could be standardized and likewise for the standard gauge height. Two heights would probably work.


Chuck 


I do not think that LGB coaches are anywhere near 1:20.3. I tried them behind my Bachmann Connie when it first came out and they looked terrible. They were way too small (low and short). These cars have been compressed and squeezed so much that other than the trucks there is very little on them to measure to determine the scale. The LGB box cars are a lot closer to 1:24 than 1:22.5. In general scale and LGB are usually mutually exclusive.


----------



## up9018 (Jan 4, 2008)

WOW, what a school yard brawl!!!! 

I would still be considered a newbie (only been in Large Scale for 2 years), so I'm not up 100% on all the things that have happened over the past years. But I have read through this post and have a few things to say: 

1. I was in HO for YEARS, and while I'm not a huge fan of the NMRA (mostly because some of those "in charge" rubbed me wrong), overall the group has done a fine job at making sure ANYTHING I take off the shelf that was HO standard gauge, would couple and run correctly no matter who the manufacturer is. Now if you don't like the NMRA - COME UP WITH SOMETHING BETTER - set standards that EVERYONE agrees on (good luck with that) and then get the manufacturers to adhear to those standards. If G1 is the way to go, then let's get on the manufacturers to ahear to it. 

2. Whatever is going to be done should be SCALE SPECIFIC!!!! It is rediculous to think that you should be able to take your 1:20.3 Narrow Guage Car and couple it to your 1:32 scale standard guage car and get them to run together. If you want to run Fn3 then the couplers and wheelsets should be to the correct height and scale for Fn3; same with all of the other scales. 

3. And finally the MOST IMPORTANT, I think what Kevin is trying to do is a good thing, and instead of beating him up over it, we should try to be constructive and help him in his endevour. After all, it will benefit all of us in the long run. 

Bottom line is I want to run Fn3, and only Fn3....and I shouldn't have to have a coupler the size of a VW hanging on the front of my shay, and I shouldn't have to rely on what I can replace it with was designed for #1 scale and is the BEST THAT I CAN GET. 

Now, I realize I just put the target on my back, but if you take a couple of minutes to stop trying to make this a pi$$ing match....we can all work together on this.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By up9018 on 02 Mar 2010 04:53 PM 
WOW, what a school yard brawl!!!! 

I would still be considered a newbie (only been in Large Scale for 2 years), so I'm not up 100% on all the things that have happened over the past years. But I have read through this post and have a few things to say: 

1. I was in HO for YEARS, and while I'm not a huge fan of the NMRA (mostly because some of those "in charge" rubbed me wrong), overall the group has done a fine job at making sure ANYTHING I take off the shelf that was HO standard gauge, would couple and run correctly no matter who the manufacturer is. Now if you don't like the NMRA - COME UP WITH SOMETHING BETTER - set standards that EVERYONE agrees on (good luck with that) and then get the manufacturers to adhear to those standards. If G1 is the way to go, then let's get on the manufacturers to ahear to it. 

_We did. Presented the 64-year-old G1MRA specs to that beloved bunch of.....in 2003._


2. Whatever is going to be done should be SCALE SPECIFIC!!!! It is rediculous to think that you should be able to take your 1:20.3 Narrow Guage Car and couple it to your 1:32 scale standard guage car and get them to run together. If you want to run Fn3 then the couplers and wheelsets should be to the correct height and scale for Fn3; same with all of the other scales. 

_Not necessarily. When I fought them .......folks in 2003, they at the time wanted 5 different standards for the 5 major scales._
_Including track and wheels._

3. And finally the MOST IMPORTANT, I think what Kevin is trying to do is a good thing, and instead of beating him up over it, we should try to be constructive and help him in his endevour. After all, it will benefit all of us in the long run. 

Bottom line is I want to run Fn3, and only Fn3....and I shouldn't have to have a coupler the size of a VW hanging on the front of my shay, and I shouldn't have to rely on what I can replace it with was designed for #1 scale and is the BEST THAT I CAN GET. 

_Unfortunately, that VW coupler works out-of-doors._
_Track undulation on long cars with body mounted small couplers is inviting problems._

_I've only been outdoors for a couple of months now, but testing showed that to be the case, even with trackwork screwed to battens.
_
Now, I realize I just put the target on my back, but if you take a couple of minutes to stop trying to make this a pi$$ing match....we can all work together on this. 

_This piXXing match is only here because the enema-ray stuck their nose in where the majority don't want it._


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Yes, you can establish SG with 1:29/1:32 and make it work on a good track:











The bigger question is why would you want to do this?










I glad that a decision was made that we would stay with 1:32 which resolved all the hassles and problems being discussed here. There are good couplers that match and keep our trains together without having a committee to figure it out. Seems the main setup with either knuckle or link-chain setup for 1:32 are compatible. As I see it, the problems start with the many different scale sizes and the probability of interactions.


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Posted By chuck n on 02 Mar 2010 04:34 PM 
[...]

I do not think that LGB coaches are anywhere near 1:20.3. 


Chuck, this is what your photo shows! Just try to measure the height of both coaches side walls in your photo. Also the window width and spacing are the same in your photo. If you want to demonstrate that the cars are different scale, you will have to make a different photo;-))) Best, Zubi
PS In general, LGB enhanced 'cuteness' by using smaller scale ratio for height on some models. Not many LGB models are 1:24, some are 1:22.5 but most are larger scales (effective). But I agree that scale is a loose concept in the context of majority of LGB.


----------



## Ltotis (Jan 3, 2008)

If the document I read is the one they are making their decisions on why not test LGB knuckles. Unlike what was said in the article the LGB brand is alive. Someone was wasn't doing their homework onthe NMRA side. 
LAO


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Zubi:

Proper scale should be in all dimensions. The scale height may be close to the AMC car( but it is lower), but the other dimensions should also be correct. I can't photograph my J&S here in Arizona from the end to compare, because all my 1:20.3 inventory is in Virginia. I do not have access to the D&RGW drawings, perhaps another reader could give us the dimensions so we can make the scale(s) calculation.


Chuck


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By Ltotis on 02 Mar 2010 06:46 PM 
If the document I read is the one they are making their decisions on why not test LGB knuckles. Unlike what was said in the article the LGB brand is alive. Someone was wasn't doing their homework onthe NMRA side. 
LAO Probably because they are 1-1/2 times taller than even the Bachmann couplers, and were relegated to the "toy coupler" category?

Maybe somebody actually did their homework?


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 02 Mar 2010 09:29 AM 

That's a bad analogy. Spare tires aren't like couplers, which are expressly designed to attach to other cars. I expect, if I buy a chevy, that the trailer hitch will fit my trailer, same as the trailer hitch on my ford. I expect that the gas pump that fit my ford will also work with my Chevy, and that I don't have to buy a third party gas pump adapter. I expect the general functioning of the car--in terms of turn signals, horn headlights, brake lights, and general suitability for the road--to be functionally identical, and lo and behold, it is.


And anyway, is there any reason why spare tire lug pattern should NOT be interoperable? Except that there generally is not much demand for a spare tire from another car. 




Added:Hey! Kevin beat me to it!











Yes, there was a standard for all of this, on the dash in the US, and on the column in Europe. I loved driving French spec cars where the horn was on the turn signal switch, you had full control of the car during an emergency manover and you could hit the horn. Everyone else wanted you to remove one hand from the wheel and hit the horn of fumble around for a little button on the wheel.

And there are/were different fuel nozzle sizes. Anyone that remembers leaded gas, owned a Grey market/European spec car or has owned a diesel car knows what I am talking about.


Car wheels have an offset, bolt pattern and size. The bolt pattern and size is important. So 4-100mm wheel fits several cars.....but then my Honda has a 44mm offset, while others have 35-38.... But I did buy a Chevrolet Sprint wheel for my Suzuk Swifti, but then they were both really a Suzuki, built in Canada, in a GM plant. We had two Toyotas built in US plants and an AMC built in France.

So much for standards eh?

What does this have to do with couplers? Again many standars, and the car buyer has freedom of choice.


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

every time somebody is out on the warpath to regulate even another aspect of our lives, a song comes to my mind. 






this is our HOBBY! 

why should we let it be Orwellized?


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By kormsen on 02 Mar 2010 07:32 PM 
every time somebody is out on the warpath to regulate even another aspect of our lives, a song comes to my mind. 






this is our HOBBY! 

why should we let it be Orwellized? 

Or, enema-rayed?


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Well if you are really asking why, I'd say again it seems silly that if I have rolling stock from AML, Aristo, and USAT, the wheels all run on the same track but the couplers don't really mate. I can fix it, but why should I have to? I can't see the harm in trying to pressure/cajole them to adopt a common standard of interoperability. It doesn't seem "orwellian" to me in even the slightest degree, not does it "fence me in." I can still take whatever coupler might be used as a standard off and replace it with something I like better. 

If you prefer having to spend extra money to get the cars to play together, you could still do it. Me, I'd rather they all coupled nicely and reliably with a reasonable degree of accuracy to a plausible prototype.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think some standards for 1:29 make sense, but they should not be the same for other scales. 

1:29 may be more tolerant of deviations from scale over performance. 

I think other scales have scale appearance and operation as a higher priority. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

as i'm still listening country videos since my lastpost, i'll take an example from there. 

if i want to hitch a percheron and a shetland pony to my cart - that is my bizz. 
but if i would expect a harness - standard, that fits both animals, somebody should ask me, what i was smoking... 

lownote, 
whatever combination you want to run on your layout is fine. because it is yours. 
but why shall everybody else be influenced by your personal preferences? 

apart from the manufacturer's interests. 
do you expect to use hp ink cartridges in epson printers? 
or do you expect .38 ammo to fit a 44-40? 

thats one of my points against this multi-scale standard. only because these different scales use the same gauge they shall be equalized? thanks, but no thanks. 
like making a single size and shape standard for apples and pears, because they both grow on trees. 

yes, i know (i think) that those, who want to standardize, mean it good. 
and that is the worst part of the whole affair. 
since the "do-gooders" know, that they only want the best for everybody, it is nearly impossible for them to see, that not everybody wants to take part. 

specially in the US, a very young country, where the word "freedom" is one of the most used, one should expect more understanding, what this word means. 
its a mere four generations ago, that your country grew big. by what? by individuals, who didn't give a sh.. about rules and standards. 
individuals made your country (and others) strong. boards, commitees, societies, associations and political parties are bringing it down - just now! 

"we know, what is good for you!" is what we get told all over the world and every day. 

a mere 150 years ago "regulating" meant to fight the worst excesses of something. 
now "regulating" means converting everything and everybody into some indistinguishable, nivelated, insignificiant copy of everybody/everything else. 

yes, my rant may seem anachronistic to many. 
but i live in a country, where there exists still a frontier. i am used to the freedom to succeed or fail. 
and it really hurts my feelings to see, how the "civilized" north goes to ****. 
gentlemen, if you believe it or not, there was a time when men did not have to sit down for pi..ing! 

back on track: it all costs us the same. 
if the manufacturers charge us a little more for their standardizing costs, or if we have to buy or build couplers to connect our percheron-pony trains. 
the only difference with a standard will be, that in the long run there will be no more choice between different couplers.


----------



## zubi (May 14, 2009)

Posted By chuck n on 02 Mar 2010 06:48 PM 
Zubi:

Proper scale should be in all dimensions. The scale height may be close to the AMC car( but it is lower), but the other dimensions should also be correct. I can't photograph my J&S here in Arizona from the end to compare, because all my 1:20.3 inventory is in Virginia. I do not have access to the D&RGW drawings, perhaps another reader could give us the dimensions so we can make the scale(s) calculation.


Chuck

Chuck, no need to worry. I have both, I can measure myself. In fact I also have a 1:20 version of the LGB coach by CMD. Anyway, I was expecting this kind of answer. This brings us back to the coupler matter. One of these cars (Accucraft) is an accurate scale model, and uses an accurate scale coupler. My guess is, the most accurate coupler ever mass produced, from 1:20 down scales to 1:220. The other (LGB) is a generic model, using a generic coupler (hook and loop), which is pretty much a holding standard in large scales. Both these coaches are about the same height, in principle, they could be used together but I doubt that there are people who would actually be willing to do that. Why would anyone ever want to compromise either of the couplers currently sold with these cars, just to facilitate coupling cars which nobody will never operate together? My only explanation is, there must be a manufacturer who contemplates introducing a new coupler, and is a driving force behind the altruistic working group. This would not be a first time the new standard would be 'market' driven. There is only one manufacturer of 1:20 stuff with this kind of potential and who has a pretty much obsolete coupler design;-)... But perhaps I am wrong, and there are people willing to devote their time to something nobody will ever use. Best wishes, Zubi


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

thats one of my points against this multi-scale standard. only because these different scales use the same gauge they shall be equalized? 

Not equalized, but made compatible at a basic level. You have two pools to dip your feet into. Either a larger coupler size that's more apropos for the narrow gauge scales of 1:24 - 1:20, or a smaller coupler size that's a better visual fit for the standard gauge scales of 1:32 and 1:29. _Not couplers,_ but just an overall size (width, height, maximum knuckle thickness)--and in my preference--a set height--that would allow for the couplers to work together. In many cases, we have that right already (except we have multiple heights). There are some mavericks that do not couple, and therein lies the issue. No one's suggesting singling any one coupler out for a "standard." We want to tell the manufacturers that there are two overall sizes of couplers in use for "large scale" knuckle couplers. IF you are equipping your trains with knuckle couplers, pick one size--it doesn't matter which--and design your coupler to your own specifications subject to the size restrictions of that particular group so to maintain interconnectivity with the other brands on the market. _No where does this lay down any specifics for an exact coupler shape or operation._ Choice and flexibility is at the core of this proposal. 

We want modelers to be able to choose their personal preference of knuckle coupler (brand A, B, C, D, whoever). We just want them to be able to make that choice in full confidence that if their neighbor chooses another coupler of that same general size, they can bring their trains over over and run together without issue. 

Later, 

K


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

My only explanation is, there must be a manufacturer who contemplates introducing a new coupler, and is a driving force behind the altruistic working group. This would not be a first time the new standard would be 'market' driven. There is only one manufacturer of 1:20 stuff with this kind of potential and who has a pretty much obsolete coupler design;-)... But perhaps I am wrong, and there are people willing to devote their time to something nobody will ever use. 

Let me put that rumor to rest. Just so there's no confusion, conspiracy theories, or anything like that, there is NO manufacturer spearheading this effort. This is being led by hobbyists wanting to see that consumers can open a box from brand X and couple it to brand Y trains of the same (or near the same) scale. That's not to say some manufacturers aren't interested in the process, but they're certainly not leading the effort. In terms of 1:20 manufacturers, one has--by your description--the "most accurate" coupler produced. The other--trust me--has _no_ designs on departing from what they're using. I'm not going to expand on that, suffice to say that fact was made crystal clear to me a few months ago. But since both of those couplers actually work very well together, what incentive do they have to bother? They're already _doing_ what we're proposing. Our goal is to convince the other manufacturers of the merits of doing the same--either for couplers of that size if they build them or for couplers compatible with the smaller Kadee #1 and AMS 1:32 coupler size. 

Later, 

K


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

This is being led by hobbyists wanting to see that consumers can ... 
as i wrote above, i am sure, that you (as do others) think, the proposed ideas are good. 

i will rest my case. - just because we (the two sides of this issue) do not discuss or debate, we just write statements and missunderstand each other. 
and that is no language-missunderstanding, but a difference in mindsets.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 03 Mar 2010 12:24 AM 

there is NO manufacturer spearheading this effort. This is being led by hobbyists wanting to see that consumers can open a box from brand X and couple it to brand Y trains of the same (or near the same) scale. That's not to say some manufacturers aren't interested in the process, but they're certainly not leading the effort. In terms of 1:20 manufacturers, one has--by your description--the "most accurate" coupler produced. The other--trust me--has _no_ designs on departing from what they're using. I'm not going to expand on that, suffice to say that fact was made crystal clear to me a few months ago. But since both of those couplers actually work very well together, what incentive do they have to bother? They're already _doing_ what we're proposing. Our goal is to convince the other manufacturers of the merits of doing the same--either for couplers of that size if they build them or for couplers compatible with the smaller Kadee #1 and AMS 1:32 coupler size. 

Later, 

K 
This seems perfectly sensible to me. It would nice if it could be done. 

I have a really hard time understanding how opening two boxes of rolling stock from different makers and having them both couple together out of the box equals some kind of Orwellian loss of freedom. As it stands now, if I buy rolling stock from Aristo, AML , USAT, MTH etc. I'm compelled to buy new couplers because of the fact that manufacturers don't standardize--why is that worth defending, perpetuating, or celebrating? If it's possible to get manufacturers to agree on a set of parameters, so that they all couple together out of the box, why not?


If you want to have to spend extra money to buy the coupler of your choice, you still could.


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

How about offering the products with or without couplers? Save maybe $5.00 for buying with out. You could put the money towards the aftermarket couplers. AND the manufactures would see what WE as hobbyists think of their particular coupler. They will want to sell with couplers, because it would not cost anywhere near $5.00 to supply them. So they will make LESS on the without coupler product, but if thats what sells the most, they will get the message faster then through other channels. 
Kadee is not a perfect product, they could be a little stronger ( better materials) but they have become the accepted standard by most. They have a close to scale sizing and they work is the basic function of EZ to couple and staying coupled. 
I like the idea of a mounting pad for body mount couplers, like on the MTH products. 
just thought I would throw that idea out there, as I have not seen it suggested before, or maybe I just missed it.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

What if? 
3 couplers, one width, 3 face heights. All inter operable, the knuckles mesh. 
Reasoning; Most times we view our trains from the side, hence coupler width is not an issue ('cept to the purists and they will do what they want anyway). 
Design it and provide free tooling to all the manufacturers, charge $1.00 ea. royalty and in 10 years you may get back your investment... 

John


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

WHAT IF we stop this thread with all this mish/mash, and let the cards fall where they may, and or until there is some actual hard evidence they are going to this standard, and IF the big IF the hobbyist has some say in it THEN vote on it if we are allowed or in the end accept what the powers that BE push at us and we vote with our purchases or non-purchases!! 16 pages of what looks like he said she said postings are speculative or non speculative, and are non-productive at best!! Go run yer trains you'll all get over it eventually!! Regal 

You know the saying "opinions are like a------s, everyone has one!!"" Hah LOL Regal


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

I actually like Jeff's proposal but I don't think it would actually solve the problem as people would still buy what they needed to work with their own stuff and the problem would still be there!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By blueregal on 03 Mar 2010 09:04 AM 
WHAT IF we stop this thread with all this mish/mash, and let the cards fall where they may, and or until there is some actual hard evidence they are going to this standard, and IF the big IF the hobbyist has some say in it THEN vote on it if we are allowed or in the end accept what the powers that BE push at us and we vote with our purchases or non-purchases!! 16 pages of what looks like he said she said postings are speculative or non speculative, and are non-productive at best!! Go run yer trains you'll all get over it eventually!! Regal 

You know the saying "opinions are like a------s, everyone has one!!"" Hah LOL Regal Let me try to lay this out, once again, but this time in a possibly more simplistic format you may comprehend better.

The nmra loves to generate standards.
It's what they live for.

Now, they generate some new standards.
They publish them for review and comment by the faithful minions of the nmra general membership.

You and I, unless we posses that specific and individual nmra membership number, are not generally allowed to comment.

When the comment period is closed, the proposed standards are passed along for finalization and submittal to the nmra membership for voting.

You have to understand the percentage of nmra members that are indoor, H0 modelers.

VERY high.

So, the standards that may affect large scale are being voted on, by and large, by a bunch of small-scale indoor railroaders who have no freaking clue about LS out-of-doors.

But WAIT!
There are those that say we won't pay any attention to what the nmra says!
Bravo!


Except, all it's going to take is ONE manufacturer, who gets convinced by a certain rabid chihuahua to accept the standards or get left behind...........and we will have ANOTHER variation to the mix!
You don't think that will happen?
Already has.
Thomas coupler height.
K drivers.
LS/nmra polarity switch......but, first 4-4-0's had no switch, were wired nmra polarity......and what is the latest offering from Botch wired to with no polarity switch, again?
You do know who pushes this nmra stuff into Botch, right?

"Vote with your wallet", while altruistic, does not affect the nmra, as they don't give a randy rat's hindquarters.

Once they get their standards in (and don't you for a freaking minute think that will be the end of it....this voted on track and wheel will be, what, third set since 2004?
That works out to every two years, doesn't it?).

So, 2012, we get to do this all over again.

Why do you think the term "go away" is applied to anything nmra in LS?

Now, was that simple enough for you, or do I need to re-do it even simpler?

Like:

"LS Good"
"nmra bad"


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Perfectly clear--buying rolling stock from three different manufacturers and then having to throw away the couplers and buy new ones just to get them to mate = freedom

Buying three different brands of rolling stock and having the couplers mate right out of the box = slavery, socialist tyranny, etc. 



I may have to extra couplers, but at least I know I'm free


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

It's not a perfect solution (nothing ever is) but it's better than the alternative! TOC's posed a pretty grimm scenario which I have every reason to believe is depressingly accurate. Do I want a bunch of indoor HO NMRA members voting on standards imposed on us LS'rs? Freedom? If the current arangement is considered freedom then I'm for it! I don't like the proposal and I don't trust the NMRA but I'm not a current member so my opinion doesn't count for much...


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

If you buy all Aristo, you have all Aristo couplers. 
If YOU make the decision to mix brands, YOU have to modify couplings. 
How hard is that? 

Oh, wait...plug-and-pray, right? 

You want to know something absolutely stupid? 

Aristo Classics had Delton Couplers. 
They worked with Bachmann, older Delton, Lionel, and USA without modification of any sort. 

So, what did they do of late? 
Put Aristo 1:29 couplers on them! 

So, to use them (including the new C-16) with older Aristo Classics and Delton, Bachmann, Lionel and USA trains, you have to......... 

Change the couplers! 

Customers who buy new Aristo Classic stuff, I have to keep new (added cost) older Classic couplers in stock. 

So, where does the blame lie? 

Is it the clueless plug-and-pray crowd that was addressed by the Ames Super Socket the way we are headed? 
Nobody has the skills anymore to remove a screw and put a different coupler on? 

Pretty bad. 

What are you going to want next for "standards"? 

Maximum track voltage? 

Let's say we limit it to 18V. 
What happens to your brass stuff that apparently was designed for a specific (at the time) aftermarket power supply capable of 24V and over? 

You had to (horrors!) buy a power supply to run them. 

But you can't fix couplers? 

Who changes strings on your guitar for you?


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Fortunately you can put any brand of strings on just about any guitar. It's not like if you have a gibson and a fender, you need to buy different strings for each. You can if you want to, but there is a high degree of interoperability. 

Same with amps. You can plug the same guitar into any amp--because the connectors--the plugs--are standardized!!! it's like a miracle!

I don't have to buy a new set of 1/4 cables specific to each guitar. And yet I don't feel like I'm being oppressed. Even though all 1/4 inch cables and jacks are interoperable, I can still buy curly cables, or cloth covered cables, or muy expensive boutique oxygen free cables. 


Yes, I know how to change couplers. I also know that it's inconvenient, and it does not have to be--just like with the guitar cables. Thanks for furnishing me with an excellent example.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Ah, but Mackie boards (for sure) on inserts, require you to pull the plug out one notch. 
Or, buy the "special" ends and replace them. 

The question was not about compatibility, rather, if changing couplers is "too hard", who changes you strings for you?


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 03 Mar 2010 09:59 AM 
Posted By blueregal on 03 Mar 2010 09:04 AM 
WHAT IF we stop this thread with all this mish/mash, and let the cards fall where they may, and or until there is some actual hard evidence they are going to this standard, and IF the big IF the hobbyist has some say in it THEN vote on it if we are allowed or in the end accept what the powers that BE push at us and we vote with our purchases or non-purchases!! 16 pages of what looks like he said she said postings are speculative or non speculative, and are non-productive at best!! Go run yer trains you'll all get over it eventually!! Regal 

You know the saying "opinions are like a------s, everyone has one!!"" Hah LOL Regal Let me try to lay this out, once again, but this time in a possibly more simplistic format you may comprehend better.

The nmra loves to generate standards.
It's what they live for.

Now, they generate some new standards.
They publish them for review and comment by the faithful minions of the nmra general membership.

You and I, unless we posses that specific and individual nmra membership number, are not generally allowed to comment.

well um ah I guess you didn't get my point either but I don't like eatin sour grapes either??????????? hah LOL Regal


When the comment period is closed, the proposed standards are passed along for finalization and submittal to the nmra membership for voting.

You have to understand the percentage of nmra members that are indoor, H0 modelers.

VERY high.

So, the standards that may affect large scale are being voted on, by and large, by a bunch of small-scale indoor railroaders who have no freaking clue about LS out-of-doors.

But WAIT!
There are those that say we won't pay any attention to what the nmra says!
Bravo!


Except, all it's going to take is ONE manufacturer, who gets convinced by a certain rabid chihuahua to accept the standards or get left behind...........and we will have ANOTHER variation to the mix!
You don't think that will happen?
Already has.
Thomas coupler height.
K drivers.
LS/nmra polarity switch......but, first 4-4-0's had no switch, were wired nmra polarity......and what is the latest offering from Botch wired to with no polarity switch, again?
You do know who pushes this nmra stuff into Botch, right?

"Vote with your wallet", while altruistic, does not affect the nmra, as they don't give a randy rat's hindquarters.

Once they get their standards in (and don't you for a freaking minute think that will be the end of it....this voted on track and wheel will be, what, third set since 2004?
That works out to every two years, doesn't it?).

So, 2012, we get to do this all over again.

Why do you think the term "go away" is applied to anything nmra in LS?

Now, was that simple enough for you, or do I need to re-do it even simpler?

Like:

"LS Good"
"nmra bad"


Um ha I guess you missed my point too, but I still don't like eatin "sour grapes" hah LOL Regal


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Dont forget the NMRA was also pushing finescale wheel flange standards for all outdoor LS. Now I'm no rocket scientist but I have had a couple cars with those NMRA type wheel standards and they were absolute crap outdoors on my old outdoor layout as unless your trackwork was absolutly billiard table flat and level, the dam cars would derail on the slightest of imperfections. I learned then that there was a reason LS stock had larger than life flanges on everything to accomodate the inevitable not so perfect trackwork and road hazards that accompanies most all outdoor layouts. I think the NMRA didnt care as 90% members are indoor guys used to the more finescale standards. BTW swapped all those wheels to Bmann - no problem ever since.


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Part of my suggestion was to get compensated for having to invest in aftermarket couplers. It's not hard to do, but can get expensive. Many companies now offer metal wheels, why? because it's what we wanted and now it is a selling point for them.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

If YOU make the decision to mix brands, YOU have to modify couplings. 
How hard is that? 

Sorry, Dave. It's not about the skill to do something. It's about the mandatory need to _have_ to do so just to run your trains. I have no trouble switching couplers on my 1:32 Big Boy if I want to pull my 1:20 stock cars (though I would hope someone would slap me silly if I ever wanted to), but if I buy an Aristo 1:29 diesel and a USA 1:29 passenger car to go behind it, they should couple together without swapping out anything. They don't, and it's very off-putting to the newcomer to the hobby. If you put a Bachmann K in front of a string of AMS stock cars, they couple. Different couplers, but compatible. Why the resistance to applying that same model to more manufacturers and different sized couplers? 

Let's take your locomotive wiring example. One manufacturer decides to wire their locomotives opposite from the established convention, and you're all over them for rebuking large scale. But it's okay for a manufacturer to use couplers that don't work with other brands? Your logic isn't consistent. Both parameters affect interoperability, and both need to be consistent with community trends. Does my ability to dissect a locomotive to reverse the motor leads make it okay for a manufacturer to willy-nilly switch out which way their locos are wired? 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 03 Mar 2010 12:33 PM 





Let's take your locomotive wiring example. One manufacturer decides to wire their locomotives opposite from the established convention, and you're all over them for rebuking large scale. But it's okay for a manufacturer to use couplers that don't work with other brands? Your logic isn't consistent. Both parameters affect interoperability, and both need to be consistent with community trends. Does my ability to dissect a locomotive to reverse the motor leads make it okay for a manufacturer to willy-nilly switch out which way their locos are wired? 

Later, 

K 


Once again, reading without comprehension.
Wiring reversal is to nmra standard.
LS was "existing", and we had to re-wire some to get them to run the same direction on track power.

Hence, the long nose of the nmra got stuck into LS.

The "convention" for couplers exists with each manufacturer, albeit some are fully compatible, others are not.

So, here we are discussing the long nose of the nmra sticking into LS again.

What exactly didn't you understand about that again?

We are raising (or have raised) a generation of clueless, skill-less modelers in the hobby, not just LS, who haven't a clue as to how to install a decoder (unless it's plug-and-pray), all they can do is wring their hands if their steam engine goes out of quarter, need "procedures" to re-wire their locos, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

One of the reasons I am putting Mantuas on my restored H0 stuff.
Because I can, because it throws in the face of YOUR nmra, and because the clueless cannot comprehend it.

The question is, and has been, the involvement of the nmra in LS when they ignored it from 1968 until recently.

Had they acknowledged LS at or near 1968, and become involved then, we would not be having this discussion.

Johnny-come-lately, after the barn door is closed, and now an X3F coupler "standard", well, there are words that cannot be used on this forum to describe it, but I think you get the picture.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I just want to make it clear, since Dave is making an issue of it, that I know how to change couplers. I can actually modify the aristo couplers so they get reasonably close while still being truck mounted. Even if the stock couplers were interoperable, I'd probably modify them, because i like to tinker.


But as Kevin said, it's annoying to the newcomer and the casual buyer to have to buy extra couplers. One more layer of expense and inconvenience. It would be better if as with guitars, they all took the same 1/4 inch plugs. (although I have a 1977 guild artist award that took a 18th mini plug. I modified it to 1/4)


I've got no history with the NMRA--I was blissfully unaware that such and organization even existed until two years ago. So I'm not mad at them about what they did or did not do back in the Nixon administration, when I was 9. It just seems like if you could get all the vaguely 1:29 ish rolling stock to mate up out of the box, it'd probably be good for the hobby, because there would be one less barrier to the novice


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

See? 
Here I am trying to give you some "history" so it doesn't repeat itself, and it doesn't concern you. 

Okay, now we all know where you stand. 

Thanks!


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Now, they generate some new standards. 
They publish them for review and comment by the faithful minions of the nmra general membership. 

You and I, unless we posses that specific and individual nmra membership number, are not generally allowed to comment. 

When the comment period is closed, the proposed standards are passed along for finalization and submittal to the nmra membership for voting. 

You have to understand the percentage of nmra members that are indoor, H0 modelers. 

VERY high. 

So, the standards that may affect large scale are being voted on, by and large, by a bunch of small-scale indoor railroaders who have no freaking clue about LS out-of-doors. 

Let's take a look at Dave's painted picture and see how it matches to my personal experience with this last go-round. 

_Now, they generate some new standards._ 
NOT EXACTLY - "They" started the process by looking to revise what was already in place. Why, I don't know. In the process, they gained the attention of members of the large scale community who got onboard the process to make sure what was proposed was consistent with what the large scale community actually uses. 

_They publish them for review and comment by the faithful minions of the nmra general membership._ 
TRUE - That's part of the process. NMRA members, manufacturers, and other hobbyists are invited to add their comments. 

_You and I, unless we posses that specific and individual nmra membership number, are not generally allowed to comment._ 
NOT EXACTLY - "Generally" speaking, it's NMRA members who comment because that's generally who visits the NMRA web site. In this instance, the comment process was made very public to large scalers via this and other forums. Input was sought specifically from the large scale community regardless of whether they had an affiliation with the NMRA or not. Considering the author of said standards (me) isn't an NMRA member, it stands to reason that the committee would listen to other non-NMRA folks. 

_When the comment period is closed, the proposed standards are passed along for finalization and submittal to the nmra membership for voting._ 
NOT EXACTLY - The proposal is sent to the Standards & Conformance committee for final review and adjustments based on the comments received. The S&C committee then presented it to the NMRA's Board of Directors with their recommendation that it be accepted. The BOD voted in favor, and we have "new" standards. 

_You have to understand the percentage of nmra members that are indoor, H0 modelers. 

VERY high._ 
NOT THE WHOLE STORY - Yes, the NMRA is made up of primarily indoor HO modelers. That fact should surprise no one, even those living under rocks. The majority of the model railroading hobby is made up of HO modelers. 

_So, the standards that may affect large scale are being voted on, by and large, by a bunch of small-scale indoor railroaders who have no freaking clue about LS out-of-doors._ 
FALSE - The reference is to the assertion that the general membership approves the standards. Such is not the case. The BOD is made up of hobbyists with interest covering all scales, including large scale. The general membership elects the BOD but they did not directly vote on these standards. It is the S&C committee's recommendation that carries the weight here. Their only influence over the numbers we proposed were to ensure that they were in a format consistent with the NMRA's standards for other scales. 

Now, how long these standards "stick" is anyone's guess. I'm not going to predict the future here. I don't have quite the dark and sinister outlook that Dave does--either to the future or the events surrounding the interim standards proposal that caught my attention and brought me into this mix. 

Later, 

K


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Once again, reading without comprehension. 
Wiring reversal is to nmra standard. 
So what? It's backwards of the norm, which is the point I'm making. Why is it a Cardinal sin for them to reverse their wiring to match no one else's, but okay for Aristo to build a coupler that's equally incompatible? Just because one is built to a "standard" and the other to the manufacturer's specific preference? What if--and this is a big if--that it's merely coincidence that Bachmann's wiring standard is the same as the NMRA and not Large Scale? There's only two ways to go here. 

Later, 

K


----------



## jimtyp (Jan 2, 2008)

Okay, I'll bite and put my foot into the muck. My 2 cents. I don't understand why it's a big deal for someone to propose a standard coupler? Manufacturers don't have to follow it if they feel it is not correct. Likewise, consumers don't have to follow it if they feel it is not correct. At worst it helps the newbie get going easier so why not? 

Many folks who have been doing this a while, when they get some new rolling stock or loco change out their couplers first thing anyway. So why not help out the newbie as others have stated? I remember having uneven couplers from different manufacturer's couplers when I first started out, and it caused me issues because of uncoupling during an uneven part of my layout and next thing I know the engine came full circle and smashed into the caboose. 

If I were a manufacturer and I wanted to make a truly scaled version of a loco for instance, I could provide the loco with the NMRA recommended coupler installed and provide a truly scaled coupler (if it were different) in the packaging. That might add $3 to the price of the loco? When I got my B'mann K-27 it came with a scale coupler installed and an additional coupler (I think a Bachmann coupler) in the packaging.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 03 Mar 2010 01:21 PM 

_Kevin, that's what I said, and you are trying to kill the comment by picking on nits._

Let's take a look at Dave's painted picture and see how it matches to my personal experience with this last go-round. 

_Now, they generate some new standards._ 
NOT EXACTLY - "They" started the process by looking to revise what was already in place. Why, I don't know. In the process, they gained the attention of members of the large scale community who got onboard the process to make sure what was proposed was consistent with what the large scale community actually uses. 

_"Why, I don't know" is PRECISELY the issue!_
_And, gaining the attention of the LS community they did!
_
_They publish them for review and comment by the faithful minions of the nmra general membership._ 
TRUE - That's part of the process. NMRA members, manufacturers, and other hobbyists are invited to add their comments. 

_Of course it's true._

_You and I, unless we posses that specific and individual nmra membership number, are not generally allowed to comment._ 
NOT EXACTLY - "Generally" speaking, it's NMRA members who comment because that's generally who visits the NMRA web site. In this instance, the comment process was made very public to large scalers via this and other forums. Input was sought specifically from the large scale community regardless of whether they had an affiliation with the NMRA or not. Considering the author of said standards (me) isn't an NMRA member, it stands to reason that the committee would listen to other non-NMRA folks. 

_I would imagine, since I was told in the "comment" period on the Ames Super Socket that membership numbers HAD to be attached for the comments to be considered, that the nmra decided what better way to get the publicity they needed, than to bring a Kalmbach Contributing Editor into the process._
_Think about it._
_Mere mortals have to attach their numbers, but you don't._

_When the comment period is closed, the proposed standards are passed along for finalization and submittal to the nmra membership for voting._ 
NOT EXACTLY - The proposal is sent to the Standards & Conformance committee for final review and adjustments based on the comments received. The S&C committee then presented it to the NMRA's Board of Directors with their recommendation that it be accepted. The BOD voted in favor, and we have "new" standards. 

_Yes, exactly. That's what "finalization" means, and you, sir, are picking nits!_

_You have to understand the percentage of nmra members that are indoor, H0 modelers. 

VERY high._ 
NOT THE WHOLE STORY - Yes, the NMRA is made up of primarily indoor HO modelers. That fact should surprise no one, even those living under rocks. The majority of the model railroading hobby is made up of HO modelers. 

_What do you mean "Not the whole story"?_
_Your "explanation" says exactly that!_
_If you're going to try to pick nits, then for crying out loud, give some substance to your argument instead of "NOT THE WHOLE STORY", then proceed to tell us it IS.
_
_So, the standards that may affect large scale are being voted on, by and large, by a bunch of small-scale indoor railroaders who have no freaking clue about LS out-of-doors._ 
FALSE - The reference is to the assertion that the general membership approves the standards. Such is not the case. The BOD is made up of hobbyists with interest covering all scales, including large scale. The general membership elects the BOD but they did not directly vote on these standards. It is the S&C committee's recommendation that carries the weight here. Their only influence over the numbers we proposed were to ensure that they were in a format consistent with the NMRA's standards for other scales. 

_Last batch, after proceeding through committees, was presented to the general membership for voting._
_At least, that's what the Standards Committee told me._
_That has changed?
The membership has no vote?_

_This gets worse all the time, Kevin._

Now, how long these standards "stick" is anyone's guess. I'm not going to predict the future here. I don't have quite the dark and sinister outlook that Dave does--either to the future or the events surrounding the interim standards proposal that caught my attention and brought me into this mix. 

_Two years, and the rabid chihuahua will get the Standards Committee to re-address these._
_Wait.

_Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Ah, Q2.1 (Technical Information Implementation Procedures) modified on 11JUL2008. 
Makes sense they modified it. 

However, are you the Department Manager? 
How are we having media discussions if you are not? 
Section C3.1, paragraphs 4A and 4B. 
Just wondering.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

http://www.nmra.org/standards/DCC/WGpublic/discussion_topics.html 

"Topics Forwarded to NMRA BOD and/or Membership for Approval 
A discussion topic becomes "completed" when a conclusion to the discussion has been reached. This might be the adoption of a revised Standard or Recommended Practice, RP. This list includes those Standards that are currently awaiting approval by the NMRA members and RPs that are currently awaiting approval by the NMRA BOD." 

What does "approval" mean, and why is it the same word for the BoD?


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Sorry i just wanted to make it clear........


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Aaaaaaahhh!!! Nicholas.

Congratulations, another insightful comment from a man renowned for his reasoned and logical debate.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Dave, I'm just outlining my experience as to how the standards I was involved with went through because it was different from what you described. I didn't write the rules, I just played by them. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

And, if you read the book, there are different things that are membership-voting required.


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

I just have to throw this in. 

What is the POINT of model trains? 
Is it the fun of getting to work on a locomotive for weeks on end until it is just the way YOU want it? 
Is it the fun of forking over money for a locomotive that someone else (who has no interest in your opinion) designed and to put it on the tracks and watching it go around? Where the heck is the fun in that? 

Think back to the days before the ARMN (and yes it is NMRA backwards simply because that is what they are...backwards). If you wanted a locomotive you had to buy a KIT....a darn kit...you had to actually BUILD your own locomotive. Now, kits of any kind are virtually non-existent let alone locomotives. Why? Because if you let the modeler make their own locomotive they don't have to follow the power controlling ARMN. 

Now, why did I start in Large Scale? To get away from the power controlling ARMN and their stupid "standards". I started in Large Scale for the FREEDOM to do what I want. If I have to change couplers to get a car to work, then so be it. If you think it is too hard, then LEARN...become a TRUE model railroader. 


Where has our HISTORY....our BLOODLINE....our SKILL....gone to????


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

Oh, here is another point. 

I am currently building a boxcar. Do I have to submit my plan to the NMRA for their approval first, or can I build *MY* car the way I want it? When is this power controlling sh.....errr.....going to stop. 

How about this idea for the NMRA. "Standard Coupler....Whatever the end user decides is right for his/her own railroad" Problem solved...now go way you darn rabid chihuahua...


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Snoq Pass on 03 Mar 2010 08:21 PM 
Oh, here is another point. 

I am currently building a boxcar. Do I have to submit my plan to the NMRA for their approval first, or can I build *MY* car the way I want it? When is this power controlling sh.....errr.....going to stop. 


Ummmm. No. You don't. I can't for the life of me imagine a scenario where you would have to submit a plan to the nmra before you built a toy boxcar in your basement, unless you are stone crazy. But perhaps I have underestimated the sinister, all pervasive power of this organization. It must have its surveillance equipment in every hobby workshop in America! I'm now worried that the NMRA is tapping my phone, and sending radio signals via my fillings. I'm off to make a tinfoil hat



I wish someone would explain to me why buying three different makes of 1:29 rolling stock, and then having to buy additional couplers to make them all work together, equals "freedom." What was it Patrick Henry said? "Give me incompatibility and needless inconvenience and expense, or give me death!!"


Because nothing says freedom like the right to have to buy additional stuff in order to make the stuff you just bought work together.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

But, then, you've just given the definition of the nmra, Mike.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Mike, 
Many believe it is defined as vested interests looking after their own. 

Some leading lights still have unresolved potential conflicts of interest.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

I've got no history with the NMRA--I was blissfully unaware that such and organization even existed until two years ago. So I'm not mad at them about what they did or did not do back in the Nixon administration, when I was 9.As a history professor, I would think you'd know the old saw, "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I didn't live through or personally experience WWI, WWII, the Great Depression, nor the Holocaust, but that doesn't mean I can't learn from them.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

What this proposal does NOT do: 

1) Establish a single coupler design as standard, either existing designs or theoretical form. (The "Kadee as a standard" option is no longer a viable consideration for a number of reasons.)
2) Create a "one-size-fits-all" coupler proportion for all scales running on gauge 1 track. 
3) Force anyone--modeler or manufacturer--to use a specific coupler under any circumstance. 
4) Eliminate or "outlaw" any of the existing coupler styles, regardless of form or function. 
5) Dictate anything relative to how a coupler physically operates. 

What this proposal is designed to do: 

1) Establish a minimum of two sets of general proportions to which the coupling interface (knuckle and coupler face) are to be built so that all couplers built to these general sizes will be compatible. These sets would be in line with being proportional to full-sized couplers for the "standard gauge" scales around 1:29 - 1:32, and the "narrow gauge" scales around 1:24 - 1:20. 
2) Allow manufacturers the freedom to design their own couplers to their own unique specifications, subject to the limitation that the specific coupler face be within the guidelines for inter-compatibility. (I emphasize that many existing couplers on the market already meet this criteria, thus would already be "compliant" under this proposal.) 
3) Allow trains with such compatible couplers to operate together straight out of the box, eliminating the need for the modeler to have to replace couplers with compatible ones just to run the equipment around the railroad. 
4) Allow modelers the freedom to choose any of the myriad compatible designs to suit their own needs based on such features as size, aesthetics, and/or function, confident that others' trains with couplers of compatible design will couple to their own. 
5) Allow modelers and manufacturers alike the freedom to not use knuckle couplers at all, should they not be apropos to the model or product line. 

The simple fact is that with the exception of a small handful of couplers from a few manufacturers, the couplers we're currently using meet 100% of the criteria of this proposal. For the most part, nothing we're doing need change in the slightest (except for those specific couplers that don't work together, such as the USA/Aristo combination.) The coupler working group is looking to put into "recommended practice" that which the large scale community is pretty much already practicing. The NMRA is essentially agreeing with what we're already doing by our own accord. I'm at a loss to understand how that is in any way "imposing its will" on the large scale community or limiting our choices in any way. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Ralph Berg (Jun 2, 2009)

The 19 pages of "paranoia" exhibited here will do more to harm the hobby than a NMRA coupler standard.
NMRA is not a government body. It can not "force" anything, on anybody.
As far as I'm concerned, a big to-do about nothing. I've yet to read anything here to convince me otherwise. 

Ralph


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 03 Mar 2010 11:16 PM 

As a history professor, I would think you'd know the old saw, "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I didn't live through or personally experience WWI, WWII, the Great Depression, nor the Holocaust, but that doesn't mean I can't learn from them. 



It's a nice sounding phrase but the appearance of things repeating is superficial and general--mistakes always have distinctly different particulars, and the more closely you look, the less it appears they are repeating. The more you study, the more differences you see. It's just as easy to argue that imagining that events of 40 years ago are exactly the same as today is a serious fundamental mistake, and makes for rigidity, inflexibility, and an inability to grasp new possibilities.


Just sayin'!


----------



## Ralph Berg (Jun 2, 2009)

Let's talk about history.
The NMRA has a polarity standard. Do the new locomotives we purchase now run in reverse?
No. Aristo Craft, USA and others ignored the standard. Bachmann provided us with a 15 cent polarity switch.
No Chicken Little, the sky is not falling.

Ralph


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Ralph:

Bachmann's latest Thomas series engines do not have a polarity switch and they do run backwards (at least compared to all other LS engines). I had to rewire my 

Thomas so that he wouldn't run away from all of his new friends (LGB, Aristo, Bachmann, Accucraft). 


Chuck


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By chuck n on 04 Mar 2010 06:06 AM 
Ralph:

Bachmann's latest Thomas series engines do not have a polarity switch and they do run backwards (at least compared to all other LS engines). I had to rewire my 

Thomas so that he wouldn't run away from all of his new friends (LGB, Aristo, Bachmann, Accucraft). 



Chuck 



I'm not sure this is a good argument _against _effective standards.

This thread is really hard to make sense of. On the one hand, we have what looks like a common sense effort to get manufacturers to make their couplers work together. Great for the casual user, good for the hobby, less expense and inconvenience. New guy buys an aristo boxcar and a usat boxcar and lo and behold, they couple together and he runs some trains


On the other hand, I see vague hints about the dark and sinister but unexplained events of 1968; the earth shaking catastrophe of something called the mantua coupler, from which we have all not yet fully recovered, apparently; and repeated references to someone whose name, like Lord Voldemort, can't be spoken, but who we must all guard against lest we lose our precious freedoms. Some person or being known as "the yapping chihauhau" is invoked--he or she or it, whoever he or she or it is, must also be guarded against. The idea of making couplers work together is equated to soul crushing socialism, and annoying inconvenience and expense for the novice is equated to freedom. The novice being able to run his USAT and arito cars together equals the tyranny of the NMRA, or "the yapping chihuahua."


----------



## Crosshead (Feb 20, 2008)

Posted By Ralph Berg on 04 Mar 2010 05:07 AM 
Let's talk about history.
The NMRA has a polarity standard. Do the new locomotives we purchase now run in reverse?
No. Aristo Craft, USA and others ignored the standard. Bachmann provided us with a 15 cent polarity switch.
No Chicken Little, the sky is not falling.

Ralph 



Mods: Don't shoot. We didn't ring this bell. Buuuut, now that it's been rung:

I'm sorry, WHAT? Did we miss that the fifteen cent polarity switch is an integral part of the two hundred and fifty dollar nightmare of a socketed circuit board that the last NMRA goon squad rammed down our throats???? Dear God, even Lownote in his continual crusade to take an opposing position to everything Dave says didn't come up with that argument.

Rick M.

PS. The centennial 4-4-0 ran in reverse when Bachmann decided to set the new "Standard" by wiring it backwards from every other large scale engine on the rails at the time claiming that it made it NMRA "compliant." The only person not seen taking up a torch and pitchfork at the time was Grandpa Addams, who thought it was a pretty good arrangement, and reminded him of locomotives he'd run in Transylvania.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

It's just as easy to argue that imagining that events of 40 years ago are exactly the same as today is a serious fundamental mistake, and makes for rigidity, inflexibility, and an inability to grasp new possibilities.Nice spin job Mike.







While true as far as it goes, it's equally true that current events grow directly out of and on top of events proceeding them which laid the groundwork. To ignore related (not identical) history while making current decisions is a fatal blunder.


*"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein*


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

It's good to have all the info you can get, I think we would agree. 

People loved to make Saddam=Hitler arguments. There were definitely some similarities. But there were far more differences than similarities--so history is not "repeating itself." That doesn't mean it's not a valuable source of information. 

If someone wants to explain to me why what happened with the NMRA in 1968 means that what happened now is exactly the same. I'd be happy to listen. I have yet to see a coherent outline of those awful events


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Mike, are you really this...........hard of understanding, or is this an internet act? 

1968, lgb re-introduced #1 gauge as "G". 
nmra wants nothing to do with toys. 
In fact, Mister Polk, when he designed his plug-and-pray socket, was, from my understanding, basically told by the nmra to go away, you're large scale, when he wanted it as the "standard". 

The nmra ignored LS until they say the possibility of dues and power......and suddenly embraced LS, without a clue as to what outdoor LS is all about. 
The nmra, historically, cannot get it's head around more than one scale per gauge (read: 1946, 17/64ths vs 1/4") 

Why do you think there are the two profiles KEBT wants instead of 5 or more? 

So, what coupler height for 1:29 SG? 
What height for 1:32 SG? 
What height for 1:20 NG? 

All different. 

Here's one for you: 

Let's say for argument, Mike has 60% Aristo and 40% USA cars, and he complains because he has to change out 40% of his couplers. 

Now, the nmra gets it's way, and let's say Aristo gets talking into adopting the new standard. 
Suddenly all new Aristo cars have the new height and profile couplers. 

What is poor Mike to do? 
Change 100% of his cars over to the new standard, or back-convert new cars to the old standard? 

No matter how you cut it, it involves changing couplers. 

It matters not if we ignore it, all it will take is one manufacturer to get convinced to fall in line and it's all over with. 


Ralph- 

That fifteen cent switch was left out of the first 4-4-0's, and it took a public outcry to get them to fix it on later units, and there had to be a "procedure" written to fix them in the field.....and, as stated, the Thomas is once again default:fail. 
Why did they leave that fifteen cent switch out? 

Add the $.01 actual cost for the Chinese version of the US fifteen cent switch, the three-strand wire, minimal solder, piXX poor assembly, and one wonders why they even bothered at all.....until you remember who the Technical Advisor is, then it all makes sense. 

Just watch botch and the antics of the Technical Advisor to see where the nmra is heading. 

Ames Super Sockets, "special" (interim) wheel standards (same guy who thought real trains wedged the wheels between the rails and ran on the fillets), polarity, hook-and-loop coupler height, and what else? 

I can't wait to see what's next gonna get screwed up by the nmra. 

And this Technical Advisor, whoever he or she is. 

Good thing I ain't buying anything anymore again.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

What's all over with?

I'm probably going to be modifying whatever coupler is one there anyway. I like to tinker. I'm actualy thinking about people who start out in the hobby, novices, and casual people,who just want the stuff to run together out of the box. Ok, they figure out the scale piece. They buy some cars. Wait, you mean I have to go back and buy new couplers to get the cars to work together? It's an annoyance, it's a disincentive, its a discouragement. Is there any need for it to be that way? No. 


Like I said. I'll probably end up modifying whatever is on there anyway. All jy rolling stock has aristo's overized funky couplers. They all have the tangs cut way down to couple them more closely. I LIKE doing that stuff. Not everybod does, not everybody should--why make it harder than it has to be?


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 04 Mar 2010 12:35 AM 
What this proposal does NOT do: 

1) Establish a single coupler design as standard, either existing designs or theoretical form. (The "Kadee as a standard" option is no longer a viable consideration for a number of reasons.)
2) Create a "one-size-fits-all" coupler proportion for all scales running on gauge 1 track. 
3) Force anyone--modeler or manufacturer--to use a specific coupler under any circumstance. 
4) Eliminate or "outlaw" any of the existing coupler styles, regardless of form or function. 
5) Dictate anything relative to how a coupler physically operates. 

What this proposal is designed to do: 

1) Establish a minimum of two sets of general proportions to which the coupling interface (knuckle and coupler face) are to be built so that all couplers built to these general sizes will be compatible. These sets would be in line with being proportional to full-sized couplers for the "standard gauge" scales around 1:29 - 1:32, and the "narrow gauge" scales around 1:24 - 1:20. 
2) Allow manufacturers the freedom to design their own couplers to their own unique specifications, subject to the limitation that the specific coupler face be within the guidelines for inter-compatibility. (I emphasize that many existing couplers on the market already meet this criteria, thus would already be "compliant" under this proposal.) 
3) Allow trains with such compatible couplers to operate together straight out of the box, eliminating the need for the modeler to have to replace couplers with compatible ones just to run the equipment around the railroad. 
4) Allow modelers the freedom to choose any of the myriad compatible designs to suit their own needs based on such features as size, aesthetics, and/or function, confident that others' trains with couplers of compatible design will couple to their own. 
5) Allow modelers and manufacturers alike the freedom to not use knuckle couplers at all, should they not be apropos to the model or product line. 

The simple fact is that with the exception of a small handful of couplers from a few manufacturers, the couplers we're currently using meet 100% of the criteria of this proposal. For the most part, nothing we're doing need change in the slightest (except for those specific couplers that don't work together, such as the USA/Aristo combination.) The coupler working group is looking to put into "recommended practice" that which the large scale community is pretty much already practicing. The NMRA is essentially agreeing with what we're already doing by our own accord. I'm at a loss to understand how that is in any way "imposing its will" on the large scale community or limiting our choices in any way. 

Later, 

K Un freaking believable!

" Allow manufacturers the freedom to design their own couplers to their own unique specifications, subject to the limitation that the specific coupler face be within the guidelines for inter-compatibility. (I emphasize that many existing couplers on the market already meet this criteria, thus would already be "compliant" under this proposal.) "

All but one glaring exception.

"Allow trains with such compatible couplers to operate together straight out of the box, eliminating the need for the modeler to have to replace couplers with compatible ones just to run the equipment around the railroad. "

All but one glaring exception.

" For the most part, nothing we're doing need change in the slightest (except for those specific couplers that don't work together, such as the USA/Aristo combination.) "

BINGO!


One manufacturer has an "odd ball" shape that doesn't play well with other couplers, and you+the nmra have to get involved?

All the rest work (read your own material), and the "offending" coupler (that has given Mike so much trouble, and will probably end up disappearing...causing another 100% coupler conversion) looks like it will be changed out to the "kuppler" or however they spell it this week anyway.

The industry fixes it's own problems.

nmra, stay away.

Oh, and you want to know why folks see red when the nmra is involved?

People who tend to gnaw at you ankles......
You ever read the stuff Mister Ames puts out?

Remember the Ames Super Socket?
http://www.nmra.org/standards/DCC/W...opics.html

Towards the bottom:

"
Topic 0707092 – Large Scale Plug Pin Layout Stan Ames, Topic Leader, is helping to define a large scale plug which will be adopted by all manufacturers."

How freaking arrogant can the nmra and their minions be?
The working group is formed, and it says right there (and has for almost three years) the standard WILL BE ADOPTED BY ALL MANUFACTURERS.

If that's the goal and purpose of the nmra, which historically it has always seemed to be, please take the nmra and stuff it.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

One manufacturer has an "odd ball" shape that doesn't play well with other couplers, and you+the nmra have to get involved? 

It's not just one manufacturer, Dave. I use the USA/Aristo issue because they're two incompatible couplers on trains built to the the same specific scale, and really highlight the overall issue. There are other incompatibilities. Accucraft and MTH--both 1:32, neither are compatible with each other. There you have four of the six major coupler producers each making a coupler that's incompatible with another in their specific scale. Not just other scales, where we might expect incompatibilities, but within the same scale. 

As for my involvement? I think a push to ensure improved coupler compatibility is a noble cause. I have from the earliest days when the first non-hook-and-loop couplers appeared on the market and I began my search for my own personal "standard." Personally, I don't care under which organization's auspices this process moves forward. It could be G1MRA or even TOCMRA. Heck, it could be the local 4H club for all I care. I think it's a good idea, so it's getting my support. 

The working group is formed, and it says right there (and has for almost three years) the standard WILL BE ADOPTED BY ALL MANUFACTURERS. 
Oh, I'm so glad you haven't lost your sense of humor.  Can you please point to a single standard put forth by the NMRA over its history that has been adopted by all large scale manufacturers? Wheels and track? Sorry. Motor wiring? Nope. DCC conformance? Not happening. The NMRA can say whatever they want. Even they'll tell you they have zero authority to actually enforce their standards (which is a great source of frustration for them on many fronts). Even if one manufacturer uses those standards, there's no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that the rest will follow. It's just not gonna happen. If that were the case, we'd have long since settled a number of debates. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

All that shows is the ATTITUDE of the nmra. 
Read the Handbook, see how they talk about "mandate". 
Why do you think this is "nmra go away"? 

It's their freaking attitude. 

Yours is getting there, if not already. 

Read up on "conflict of interest" in the handbook sometime.


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

This whole schmozola has little to do with couplers--they are just the latest shiny object the supercrew has thrown out there. What it's about is about money, control & the publishing business. There's no money in toy trains or more accurately ads in magazines about toy trains-- that's why they are doing their best to steer everything to 'scale' something or other so the likes of Walthers & Klambake make out like bandits. Just look how they keep trying to steer us garden railroaders towards being more scale, and put down non-scale items such as hook and loops. Look at how GR mag has changed... 
It's all about the $$$ and control, which is exactly why most of us in Large Scale are the anti-HO's. 

Keith


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

Does that mean I am right about the history of model trains since their was no rebuttal???? Or does nobody even know the history????


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

The history goes hand in hand with what I'm saying Snoq--there's no money in articles about how to do things yourself in this day and age, so they have to steer the way the manufacturers (with the ad$$) want them to go. Sure they throw in the token article, but most of the paper weight is ads....


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Dave, 

Just so I understand your objection clearly--it's specifically the NMRA's involvement in this that's gotten you riled up, not the merits of the proposal itself? If this had been put forth by an independent group of modelers who went to the manufacturers with their concerns, and worked out a plan to achieve the same goals outside of any standards organization, you'd be fine with that? 

If not, _outside of the NMRA's "involvement" in this process,_ what--specifically--is your objection? What is it about the proposal as it's been put forth that you'd like to see amended, refined, or removed? If your objection is to the mere existence of the proposal, how would you address the issue of non-compatible couplers in such a way that the consumer have no need to be required to buy alternate couplers just to run various brands of like-scaled trains together? 

You can scream "NMRA GO AWAY" all you want. Maybe they will. Maybe through this process, we'll come to find out the manufacturers are so disinclined to listen to us that we're hitting a brick wall, and the entire exercise will be moot. I haven't a clue. But it doesn't change the basic interoperability problems we have between various brands of couplers. Are we resigning ourselves to just accepting that? Throwing up our hands, giving up, and saying "where are the paper clips?" Are we so set in the status quo that we can't strive for improvement so that newcomers to the hobby don't get frustrated and walk away? There was a reference in an earlier post relative to the Thomas couplers. Nothing was expanded upon beyond the mention of them, but from the context, one is left to infer there's an issue with them that should have been done "right" by the manufacturer. From the photos, I'd be led to believe they're mounted higher than the hook-and-loops on Bachmann's, LGB's, etc. hook-and-loop equipped cars. Clearly this would be an issue in terms of compatibility. Why would there be an objection to correcting that same exact incompatibility as it applies to other styles of couplers? 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

The entire issue is, and always has been, the involvement of the nmra in Large Scale. 

Had you read my commentaries, it would have been perfectly clear. 
The part about had they bothered to be involved in or about 1968, we would not be having this discussion, bears witness. 

They (nmra) ignored this part of the hobby for almost 40 years until it "suited" them to "find" it, and what did they do? 
Track and wheel standards that were originally proposed as 5 different standards for the 5 different scales. 

I know how the Milwaukee Mafia of old worked, and I wasn't impressed then, and I am far less impressed now. 

It's not so much about standards as about making the hobby require no, as in none, grey cells. 

Plug-and-pray, oh, you don't want to actually have to WIRE anything, do you? 
Oh, don't change couplers to match what you've got in use. 
WE will control your horizontal. 
WE will control your vertical. 

If this hobby wants to be clueless, and fall into the wallow of what I see in smaller scales (WAH! My engine doesn't run! WAH!) and not have clue one about how to do it, fine. 

If folks want Kadees, then are so clueless as to proper height they cut the levers off, well, let them. 

The problem is, the dissemination of the truth. 

If the nmra sends the rabid chihuahua out to kill the messenger, through whatever means said rabid chihuahua needs to employ, the nmra can fall into an open septic tank and pull the lid back in on themselves. 

I have folks in here all the freaking time who tell me they came to LS to escape the meddling of the nmra in smaller scales. 

To wit: 

How many times have we addressed wheel and track standards now in LS? 

Why change it? 

Because THEY CAN! 

I've got a big sign coming, to mount over a bucket. 

"NMRA MEMBERSHIP CARDS MUST BE DEPOSITED HERE" 

And, for a non-nmra member to be working so closely with the nmra that they have him as committee chair is beyond belief. 

Have you read the comments of others in this thread saying the same thing to the nmra? 

Or are you even reading it?


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

KEBT, 

Then so be it. 
Why don't we ASK the manufactures their opinion? 
Why don't we ASK the modelers their opinion? 
Why are we listening to a bunch NMRA power controlling politicians who could care less about our (the modelers) opinion let alone the manufacture? 
Why are they trying to make a standard if they are not even going (according to you KEBT) force the manufactures to adhere to it? 
Why is the NMRA going straight over the end user (the modelers) and not caring about their opinion? 

Why do we want the NMRA to go away? Simple, they *DO NOT* care about our opinion, they want to be in control.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Then so be it. 
Why don't we ASK the manufactures their opinion? 
We are. Two are directly involved in the process, and all others are being kept "in the loop" on a regular basis. They are periodically adding their insight as well. 
Why don't we ASK the modelers their opinion? 
Er, why do you think we're posting on these forums? We _value_ your opinions of the proposal; its goals, and what you may get out of it. 
Why are we listening to a bunch NMRA power controlling politicians who could care less about our (the modelers) opinion let alone the manufacture? 
The "power controlling politicians" aren't even part of the process at this point. At the moment, it's a discussion between a handful of manufacturers and large scale modelers, some of whom happen to be NMRA members. If/when we come to something resembling a consensus, we'll go to the NMRA with our findings. 
Why are they trying to make a standard if they are not even going (according to you KEBT) force the manufactures to adhere to it? 
For the same reason we have wheel and track standards (including those from G1MRA and other organizations): so that anyone wishing to model or manufacture a product has a resource upon which to base their product so that it is compatible with other products built to those same standards. Yes, it's voluntary. We can't make the horses drink, but that's no reason not to put water in the trough. 
Why is the NMRA going straight over the end user (the modelers) and not caring about their opinion? 
I think this discussion shows very clearly that the NMRA (rather the working group) cares very deeply about modelers' opinions. As Dave points out, there have been occasions in the past where the process wasn't quite so transparent. What we ask, though, is for constructive opinions as to what you'd like to see done, not "go away!" That doesn't help the process. 
Why do we want the NMRA to go away? Simple, they DO NOT care about our opinion, they want to be in control. 
I'm not NMRA, so I won't speak to their motives. I'm involved in the process because I _do_ care about your opinions. Believe me, I'm not subjecting myself to this for the fun of it. I see a genuine opportunity to find a solution to a problem that's been plaguing large scale from the earliest of days, and I'm going to support it. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

"I'm not NMRA, so I won't speak to their motives. I'm involved in the process because I do care about your opinions. Believe me, I'm not subjecting myself to this for the fun of it. I see a genuine opportunity to find a solution to a problem that's been plaguing large scale from the earliest of days, and I'm going to support it. 

Later, 

K" 

Sure you are. 
By default (CV666). 
You are the committee head, right? 

Good Lord.


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

and all others are being kept "in the loop" on a regular basis 

I'd be curious to know who those "all others" are.... 

LGB/Marklin? 
Piko? 
Kiss? 
KM1? 
Scheba? 

Didn't think so...


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

"Er, why do you think we're posting on these forums? We value your opinions of the proposal; its goals, and what you may get out of it. " 

Who's this "we" if not the nmra? 

"The "power controlling politicians" aren't even part of the process at this point. At the moment, it's a discussion between a handful of manufacturers and large scale modelers, some of whom happen to be NMRA members. If/when we come to something resembling a consensus, we'll go to the NMRA with our findings." 

WHICH handful of manufacturers? 
ONE in particular, maybe? 
You're pulling a Stanley again. 


"I think this discussion shows very clearly that the NMRA (rather the working group) cares very deeply about modelers' opinions. As Dave points out, there have been occasions in the past where the process wasn't quite so transparent. What we ask, though, is for constructive opinions as to what you'd like to see done, not "go away!" That doesn't help the process." 

So which is it? 
The nmra (or rather the working group)? 

Inthe RECENT past there have been, and totalled up, it causes total distrust of the motives and means of the organization proper. 

Constructive opinion: 

nmra go away. 

You need to aim AWAY from your foot when you pull the trigger, lad.


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 04 Mar 2010 02:52 PM 
The entire issue is, and always has been, the involvement of the nmra in Large Scale. 

Had you read my commentaries, it would have been perfectly clear. 
The part about had they bothered to be involved in or about 1968, we would not be having this discussion, bears witness. 

They (nmra) ignored this part of the hobby for almost 40 years until it "suited" them to "find" it, and what did they do? 
Track and wheel standards that were originally proposed as 5 different standards for the 5 different scales. 

I know how the Milwaukee Mafia of old worked, and I wasn't impressed then, and I am far less impressed now. 

It's not so much about standards as about making the hobby require no, as in none, grey cells. 

Plug-and-pray, oh, you don't want to actually have to WIRE anything, do you? 
Oh, don't change couplers to match what you've got in use. 
WE will control your horizontal. 
WE will control your vertical. 

If this hobby wants to be clueless, and fall into the wallow of what I see in smaller scales (WAH! My engine doesn't run! WAH!) and not have clue one about how to do it, fine. 

If folks want Kadees, then are so clueless as to proper height they cut the levers off, well, let them. 

The problem is, the dissemination of the truth. 

If the nmra sends the rabid chihuahua out to kill the messenger, through whatever means said rabid chihuahua needs to employ, the nmra can fall into an open septic tank and pull the lid back in on themselves. 

I have folks in here all the freaking time who tell me they came to LS to escape the meddling of the nmra in smaller scales. 

To wit: 

How many times have we addressed wheel and track standards now in LS? 

Why change it? 

Because THEY CAN! 

I've got a big sign coming, to mount over a bucket. 

"NMRA MEMBERSHIP CARDS MUST BE DEPOSITED HERE" 

And, for a non-nmra member to be working so closely with the nmra that they have him as committee chair is beyond belief. 

Have you read the comments of others in this thread saying the same thing to the nmra? 

Or are you even reading it? 



21 pages and this stupid discussion is still going on. I think this guys is a certified nut case.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think we need to remember the forum rules about no personal attacks. 

The last post was. Not needed. 

If you have opinions, facts, information... put it out. 

Quoting an entire post and putting a one liner and a personal attack is not right. If you don't really have something to say, don't say it. 

I have learned a few interesting things I did not know, like how the NMRA approval rules for standards have changed... good to know, unfortunately disappointing... not even the NMRA membership seems to be able to control this. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Just remember, John, I haven't accused you of modeling the MONON railway and not knowing how to spell. 
Keep it nice.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Dave, thank you. Yours (and others') objection to the NMRA in general is expected. As you well know, I--too--have been a vocal critic of their lack of regard for large scale over the decades, and have watched with the same sense of disbelief as standards are approved, changed for unknown reasons, then changed again, then approved, tabled, and approved again. It does make one's head spin and I can undertand the skepticism. 

I know I'm not going to change your opinion. I have a slightly different view of the NMRA. I see it as an organization that in the past has been ignorant of what goes on in large scale, but can be "taught." From my experience over the past two years, the leadership I have been working with seem willing to listen and learn. I'm not going to turn down that opportunity to spread the gospel. 

The "we" of whom I speak in this particular instance is Steve Seidensticker (who's the committee head), myself (unwitting spokesperson who really intended to take a very small, quiet role in all this after dealing with wheel and track stuff), a handful of other large scalers who have joined the process (I don't know how many--I don't maintain the e-list) and at least two manufacturers I know to be actively involved. You're welcome to ask Steve who they are. I really hate to duck that question because it just fuels your suspicions, but in all honesty, I don't know if they want their involvement publicized at this point. Steve's the one talking to them. I just hear the reports. In other words, "it's above my pay grade." You're welcome to contact the manufacturers directly and ask them and/or voice your opinions directly to them. 

So which is it? 
The nmra (or rather the working group)? 
The working group, hence the parenthetical clarification. I cannot speak for the NMRA in the broad sense. Those of us in the working group definitely want feedback on this. Believe it or not, through all this discussion there have been some very good nuggets taken away. The signal-to-noise ratio is pretty high, but the proposal will definitley better reflect the opinions expressed here. 

I'd be curious to know who those "all others" are.... 

LGB/Marklin? 
Piko? 
Kiss? 
KM1? 
Scheba? 

Of that list, only one even makes a knuckle coupler. Since this proposal is relative _specifically_ to knuckle couplers, it has no bearing on the operations of the others. But you are correct - the use of the word "all" was a bit too inclusive. "Those who have a dog in this fight" would be better. (The likelihood of a European company caring about NMRA standards is pretty slim, anyway.) The point is that this process is quite transparent. The manufacturers who have a dog in this fight know full well what we are up to. Whether they care or will listen to what we have to say depends largely on what we have to say. We're not at that point yet. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 03 Mar 2010 04:33 PM 
Aaaaaaahhh!!! Nicholas.

Congratulations, another insightful comment from a man renowned for his reasoned and logical debate.










WOW were did that come from?







HE HE HE Your my hero too Tony you complete me,














Now that im done enjoying your insightful commentary, back to the topic at hand.

The NMRA is only out to make money thats it, they couldnt set a standard for anything in LS cause they dont have a clue. I dont know why K-fed is pushing his standards over here but it wont work. Now while I agree with most of what Dave has said, I do disagree with him when it comes to Kadees. I have used every type of coupler in LS none have work any were near as well as the kadees for what i do....... sure you can pull short trains with factory couplers, but when you start pulling a large amount of cars Kadees ARE 2nd to none.........I have found Aristos to be the poorest but they still work fine with USA and other couplers for short trains. Final comments would be please take your so called standards and keep them in the other scales cause they wont work in GARDEN RRING. I dont know what it is you think your trying to do but it wont work. And once again NMRA in my opionion can PISS OFF... There nothin but a bunch of trouble makers.....







Maybe you guys that try to set standards should go out and buy and use everything your trying to standardize then maybe you would have a clue.


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

I really don't know what more can be said! The general distrust of the NMRA's motives by large scalers has been known for a long time and well documented! While I applaud your goal of having everything run together, I have to repeat my earlier question: How do you expect a manufacturer to just give up on "their" coupler? I can only conceive of one way this could happen and that would be if it was shown to be financially advantageous to do so! I'm not sure that _any _organization, no matter the clout, could convince a manufacturer to do so! So.......why even try? I'm honestly curious! Is there some plan to try and convince the manufacturers to actually accept these standards or is this whole thing to be relegated to an "academic" exercise?


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Steve, that's the $64,000 question. It could very well be academic, and to a large part, I rather expect it will be (at least in the short term. Long term is really anyone's guess). Why try? Why not? As I said--sometimes its enough just to fill the trough with water on the occasion the horses get thirsty. 

Later, 

K


----------



## armorsmith (Jun 1, 2008)

Steve, 

Suppose I could describe a method which might provide coupler compatibility with little or no increased cost to the manufacturers. Would that pique your interest? 

Bob C.


----------



## Jim Francis (Dec 29, 2007)

*Enough already!*

Play nice and no personal attacks or this thread will be locked and the offending posts deleted.[/b] 


Jim Francis[/b]


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By Nicholas Savatgy on 04 Mar 2010 07:25 PM 


The NMRA is only out to make money thats it, they couldnt set a standard for anything in LS cause they dont have a clue. I dont know why K-fed is pushing his standards over here but it wont work. Now while I agree with most of what Dave has said, I do disagree with him when it comes to Kadees. I have used every type of coupler in LS none have work any were near as well as the kadees for what i do....... sure you can pull short trains with factory couplers, but when you start pulling a large amount of cars Kadees ARE 2nd to none.........I have found Aristos to be the poorest but they still work fine with USA and other couplers for short trains. Final comments would be please take your so called standards and keep them in the other scales cause they wont work in GARDEN RRING. I dont know what it is you think your trying to do but it wont work. And once again NMRA in my opionion can PISS OFF... There nothin but a bunch of trouble makers.....







Maybe you guys that try to set standards should go out and buy and use everything your trying to standardize then maybe you would have a clue.

Nick-
Maybe for what you do they are better.
They also climb over each other if not dead vertical on the faces.

However:
EVERY operating session, lower end clean-up is performed.
28-34 loads up 150' of continuous (and curving) 4% grade, with ONE first-run two truck Shay, unassisted (in dry weather).
Botch, Delton and Lionel couplers.

Sorry.

And, I want the operators to be able to uncouple without a 12" screwdriver, or thousands of magnets, or lift the cars.
Hence, PROTOTYPICALLY operating knuckles.
I even have some operating cut levers.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

I should have added, the point is, you CAN choose your own coupler. 
I chose to use a type that operates prototypically, and comes standard equipment, so anybody who comes to run doesn't have to change. 
Since we are not a SG main, we don't get the 1:32 stuff anyway, and don't have to deal with that nonsense. 

USA has several options. 
One, hook-and-loops. 
Two, stock height knuckles. 
Three, raised stock knuckles (and I have a bunch of them in a drawer, Kadee height). 
Four, the new stuff has pads for mounting Kadee boxes. 

They listened, why not other manufacturers?


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Well as a complete neutral in this most glorious and purifying argument... The *NMRA* is primarily and *AMERICAN* organisation -despite trying to make inroads into the UK area -*has failed miserably in looking after its members* and those who might become members. The NMRA should remember that it is *not a standards agency*, it has *no authority outside of its own membership*, people who have paid for and agreed to abide by, its rulings. 

I am a member of two organisations the 16mmNGM and the Gauge '3' Society.

The former publishers the following information for its members: "There are 47 different types of coupling used by Narrow Gauge Railways -you will find it unlikely that your loco and rolling stock will couple to your hosts. A good host will have a "Convertor Wagon" with a number of couplings on it -or a good supply of paper clips".

The Gauge '3' Society produces a *HIGHLY* technical standard for Track, Buffers and Wheels -*but not one for couplings*...

The National 2.5 inch Gauge Association, (which I consider to be the "Loyal Opposition" to the Gauge '3' Society), are thinking of adopting the standards of the Gauge '3' Society. 

regards

ralph


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Interesting, some would like to see a standard(s), some would like to continue the way it is. I use body mount couplers on 1:32 (mostly Kadee 820's) so I convert almost everything. Thank you MTH for making it easy! 
So we are going to ask the manufactures, MOVING FORWARD to: (forget what is already out there, we don't put catalytic converters on a 1957 Chevy do we?) 
Offer a 1:32 coupler that is truck mounted, that can be relocated to a body mount, supplied with the car. (The 1:29 folks should be fine with this size. otherwise hey wouldn't be running 1:29) 
Offer a 1:20.3 coupler with the same options 
Offer a 1:20.3 coupler in a 3/4 size some have mentioned. Would that also work for the 1:24 folks? 
It IS possible to offer these things, I have some rolling stock that came with scale, body mounted, draft box, working couplers. (Metal wheels and nice detail too.) 
If that is what we as a collective group would be happy with, then we as a group ( MLS posters, readers, friends, I have no idea how many names would be associated with said group?) should tell them ( the manufactures) 
But the question remains is, IF the coupler IS modeled to scale, in both size and height, will they work together ? 
Am I mising something after 217 replies and over 6000 views on this topic? Other than weather the NMRA should be involved or not....


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 04 Mar 2010 10:55 PM 
Posted By Nicholas Savatgy on 04 Mar 2010 07:25 PM 


The NMRA is only out to make money thats it, they couldnt set a standard for anything in LS cause they dont have a clue. I dont know why K-fed is pushing his standards over here but it wont work. Now while I agree with most of what Dave has said, I do disagree with him when it comes to Kadees. I have used every type of coupler in LS none have work any were near as well as the kadees for what i do....... sure you can pull short trains with factory couplers, but when you start pulling a large amount of cars Kadees ARE 2nd to none.........I have found Aristos to be the poorest but they still work fine with USA and other couplers for short trains. Final comments would be please take your so called standards and keep them in the other scales cause they wont work in GARDEN RRING. I dont know what it is you think your trying to do but it wont work. And once again NMRA in my opionion can PISS OFF... There nothin but a bunch of trouble makers.....







Maybe you guys that try to set standards should go out and buy and use everything your trying to standardize then maybe you would have a clue.

Nick-
Maybe for what you do they are better.
They also climb over each other if not dead vertical on the faces.

However:
EVERY operating session, lower end clean-up is performed.
28-34 loads up 150' of continuous (and curving) 4% grade, with ONE first-run two truck Shay, unassisted (in dry weather).
Botch, Delton and Lionel couplers.

Sorry.

And, I want the operators to be able to uncouple without a 12" screwdriver, or thousands of magnets, or lift the cars.
Hence, PROTOTYPICALLY operating knuckles.
I even have some operating cut levers.



Dave,
No need to be sorry, to each ther own. While you have had good luck with factory couplers i never did, always wanted to come apart somewhere in the train thats why i gave up and went to Kadees. I could pull long trains and back them up as well with no issues. in all fairness i do sometimes lift the cars to uncouple but i do have a 3ft long poll tool for uncoupling that works great. I also remove all trip pins from couplers as i never liked the looks of them and i dont do any magnetic uncoupling at all.
I have never had a climb over issue yet with kadees but have heard it could happen, but thats an easy fix. Thats pritty impressive that your shay will pull that many cars up that grade and stay together







Thats what makes this Hobby COOL.......Different strokes for different folks, Its all good. I think one of the biggest plus"s of the Hobby is to tinker to get your own trains to work the best for your own Layout and with not a whole bunch of dumb NMRA HO standards that would just complicate things in LS.
Just my thoughts.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Jeff, excellent points, and I think you may be on to what is probably the easiest short-term solution--manufacturers making it dead-nuts simple to apply already-available 3rd-party couplers. Prior to Kadee's patent running out, that was becoming common practice in HO scale. The manufacturers knew the Kadee was really the "standard," so they made their coupler pockets readily accepting to a Kadee #5. Thanks to that, converting the coupler was simpler than applying the flippin' handrails to an Athearn diesel loco. (Yes, I admit to owning diesel locos in my HO days. I'm recovered now.) We don't quite have Kadees as the de facto standard that exists in HO, but with Bachmann and Accucraft cloning Kadee's draft gear boxes, there's at least a common base from which to build. We're seeing that with various manufacturers including pads, either for their own draft gear boxes or in conjunction with their standard truck-mounted coupler to make it easier for the user to change things out. 

I think if the most action that comes out of this process is to get manufacturers to agree to just add coupler mounting pads to accept the Kadee/Accucraft/Bachmann draft gear boxes to their equipment, I think we're coming out ahead. It may not be the ideal finish line, but it has the advantage of being easily reached while still being an improvement over the status quo. 

(Now, if we could get Accucraft to introduce their 1:20 coupler with a shank that fits the Kadee 830 draft gear box, and their 1:32 coupler with a short shank for locomotive pilots and truck-mounted applications, we'd be golden!) 

But the question remains is, IF the coupler IS modeled to scale, in both size and height, will they work together ? Presumably if they're the same scale, yes. A prototype coupler scaled down should mate without issue with a similar prototype coupler scaled down to the same scale. A 1:20.3 scale coupler will not mate with a 1:32 scale coupler, as we see with Accucraft's two couplers. If you "loosen" the proportions a bit, such as what Kadee does with their thinner knuckle, then you can fudge a bit here and there. Their #1 and G-scale couplers--though different sizes--do mate. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

KEBT, you are just like some Legislators. 
The voters say no, and you just keep coming back and back and back with the same old song and dance. 

I think you learned your trade from the rabid chihuahua, who exhibited the same tendencies. 

Are you, like the inventor of the X2F, going to spend the rest of your like defending the X3F? 

Next Update will be a lead screw on the coupler shank to adjust the height manually....then, next will be a decoder in every car so you can remotely adjust coupler height.......and uncouple.....and a sound system to simulate said activity....and the rolling stock will cost MORE than locomotives currently do. 

Maybe a Hybrid Drive so you never have to worry about dirty track? 

Please communicate with the staff at MR, and have them change the header on the front cover. 

Stuff like this is making Model Railroading NOT fun!


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

This voter is saying yes


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

This debate started out as one about a single coupler design for all Large Scales. Then it morphed into two designs. Now I see Jeff Runge is suggesting three designs. 
The only way this is going to work is.............. Well no, it isn't going to work actually. 

What a load of old cobblers. 

It would be far more productive, and there would be more chance of getting something done, if all the efforts were channeled into getting the manufacturers to agree on a standard draft box design and height. That way the manufacturer could fit whatever they liked. Probably the good old Hook and Loop. 
If the end user wanted something better they could easily fit whatever coupler their heart desires. 
Win Win all round.


----------



## Dave Ottney (Jan 2, 2008)

I agree with Tony's idea but remember this is large scale, sometimes known as goofy scale. Heck the manufacturers can't even agree on a scale and some can't even make items consistently within their own product line!! 
Dave


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

There ya go, Kevin! 
Doesn't one vote count as a "concensus" in the enema-ray?


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Tony, the proposal has always focused around two coupler sizes--one on the order of Kadee #1 scale/Accucraft 1:32 coupler, the other on the order of Kadee G-scale/Accu 1:20. If it were just one universal coupler, it would not have gotten my support at all. There was potential for additional sizes if it was determined to be worth pursuing, but that's unlikely to happen. Jeff's thoughts cover just two couplers as well, because a 1:20.3 scale 3/4-size coupler is conveniently about the same size as a 1:32 full-size coupler (hence why I use #1s on my 1:20 stuff). 

His, yours, and Dave Ottney's thoughts on mounts are really outside the scope of the proposal, since they have no affect on how the knuckles actually connect, but are definitely worth taking a look at and bringing to the table for the manufacturers to think about. As I mentioned, I think a common mount would be a great first step; a kind of alternative approach that--while not specifically addressin the issue of incompatible couplers at the outset--does make it a bit simpler for the modeler to remedy. I think we'd need to push the manufacturers like Aristo and USA to offer their couplers in universal draft gear boxes if they wanted to see their couplers used by more folks. Kadee certainly wins this battle by a wide margin, though Accucraft and Bachmann are beginning to "see the light" in that regard, too. 

Later, 

K


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

Tony, I was more questioning what would work for most. I was thinking about how few options were needed, yet sill look good and work together, in the respective scales all 1:32 with all 1:29 and all narrow gauge offerings with each other. ( No need to mix SG scales with NG) 
I don't see any reason for a one size fits all solution. We use different track codes, 332, 250, 215 etc. why? for the way it looks! 
Don't know how much more rolling stock I'm going to buy, this is really about making it easier for the beginner.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Trying to get any consensus on coupler interoperability and then expect the manufacturers to agree on that, is an exercise in futility. 
Period. 
Forget it. 
Arriving at a universal draft box mount is a much better way of going about it *BEFORE* even thinking about couplers. 
Put the horse before the cart for a change. 

I don't care what a standard draft box would actually look like but I would suggest that whatever design is adopted it is made so high that spacer plates would be needed to make the actual box sit lower to mate up with other couplers. 
The reason for that? 
Given that most LS cars, freight or otherwise, ride too high, it is much simpler to remove spacers to reset the coupler at the correct height, than it is to remove body material, when the car is lowered to the correct height by those that want to. 

I would suggest the Kadee draft box. They work, and the patent has run out.


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

KEBT, "Kadee certainly wins this battle by a wide margin...." 

Soooo, Kaydee is the "standard" then. Everything I have read, still indicates towards a "Kaydee Is Standard". Your wording is getting better at hiding it though.... 


KEBT, "...Accucraft and Bachmann are beginning to "see the light" in that regard, too." 

Soooo, by what torture methods did you use to achieve that? ....Well, maybe for Accucraft, Bachmann.....ehhh...I can see them folding pretty easily...*cough*super socket*cough*


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

KEBT, "...I think we'd need to push the manufacturers like Aristo and USA to offer their couplers in universal draft gear boxes if they wanted to see their couplers used by more folks. ..." 

Soooo, you ARE going to force the manufacturers to change to the "NMRA Standard" then. 

"NMRA Standard"....or is the the "Kevin Coupler"....or the "Super Strong Coupler"


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Trying to get any consensus on coupler interoperability and then expect the manufacturers to agree on that, is an exercise in futility. 
There are two steps there. Getting consensus on interoperability (and coming up with a range of measurements which allow that) is the "easy" part of the two steps. You're absolutely correct, getting the manufacturers on board is the much taller hurdle. Even if they want to, it's a cost thing that they may not be willing to absorb immediately. It makes sense, though, to have the target in place, so--eventually--when they work new products or replace worn tooliing, they have something to which they can look. It makes sense to have something to which the consumer can point and say "hey, why don't you use a coupler that works with these others?" If there's no bull's eye, no one knows (or cares) where to aim. 

Mounts represent an alternative approach to the problem. The end result is different. Instead of improved interoperability between stock couplers regardless of the mount, there's an improved interface to use so that individual, perhaps non-compatible couplers can be mounted. It makes it easier to swap couplers for another, but doesn't guarantee they'll work together with the others. The drawback to the "mount" approach is that there are certain instances in which the mount simply won't work. There's a distinct reason Kadee has a gazillion styles of draft gear boxes for various locomotives and other specific installations. It's not a dealbreaker by any means, but something to keep in mind. 

Later, 

K


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

KEBT, "Kadee certainly wins this battle by a wide margin...." 
Soooo, Kaydee is the "standard" then. Everything I have read, still indicates towards a "Kaydee Is Standard". Your wording is getting better at hiding it though.... 
KEBT, "...Accucraft and Bachmann are beginning to "see the light" in that regard, too." 
Soooo, by what torture methods did you use to achieve that? ....Well, maybe for Accucraft, Bachmann.....ehhh...I can see them folding pretty easily...*cough*super socket*cough*
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I'm saying Kadee has the most experience and diversity when it comes to draft gear. You can buy a Kadee that bolts on to pretty much anything. Accucraft and Bachmann are cloning Kadee's draft gear, but only one or two styles of draft gear. That's all I'm saying there. 

There's no need to propose Kadee's draft gear mounts as a "standard." Some of the manufacturers--like we've seen in the small scales--seem to be gravitating towards accepting them as something of a de facto standard on their own accord. Neither I nor the NMRA, nor anyone but the individual manufacturers on their own have had anything to do with that. 

KEBT, "...I think we'd need to push the manufacturers like Aristo and USA to offer their couplers in universal draft gear boxes if they wanted to see their couplers used by more folks. ..." 
Soooo, you ARE going to force the manufacturers to change to the "NMRA Standard" then.
No. I'm saying that if "all" the manufacturers opted for a universal mount as Tony, Dave Ottney and others suggest, that Aristo and USA aren't currently positioned to take advantage of that to see their couplers used in that capacity. Theirs would be the ones tossed into the scrap box in lieu of the couplers from other manufacturers that do come in compatible draft gear boxes. If they'd prefer to concentrate on selling trains, not couplers, that's their decision. There's no reason to "force" anyone to do anything, even if it were remotely possible to do so--which it's not. If you use Aristo or USA couplers (or any other brand not available in a Kadee-esque draft gear box), then you'd have to lean on the manufacturers to offer them so you easily attach them to the rest of your equipment.

Later, 

K


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

To address the notion of Kadee's coupler becoming "standard," 

1) Kadee said "no thanks." They're not going to give up their coupler, and whose to blame them? Think they wanted the patent on their HO coupler to expire? 

At that point, it's legally DOA. But just to give a full accounting of the nails in the coffin, 

2) The NMRA said "no thanks." They're reluctant to approve a standard based solely on one manufacturer's way of doing things. (They may have in the past, but I'm just relaying what I was told this time 'round.) 
3) Members of the working group said "no thanks." One of the great advantages of large scale is that the couplers are large enough to work as accurate scaled down models of the prototype. It's our position that anything proposed would have to allow for such a coupler to be in compliance. Adopting Kadee as "the standard" coupler would not do so. That's also the reason the proposal does not seek to standardize _how_ a coupler operates, just the knuckle and coupler face. 

Kadee's coupler as "NMRA standard" 
*Myth: BUSTED* 

Later, 

K


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Horse before cart, or cart before horse. 

One works. The other does not.


----------



## Ltotis (Jan 3, 2008)

Whar about backward compatibility for the thousands of dollars worth of rolling stock and engines that many people have. All I hear is the drafting of a new standard and nothing on how these are going to work with previously owned equipment. 
Regards, 
LAO


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

I' ve been trying to stay out of this (despite having started it) as the NMRA 'bashing' is just childish. Vote with your feet and pocketbook. Are we really all so bored we have to spend 24 pages trying to convert others to our rigid point of view? 

How do you expect a manufacturer to just give up on "their" coupler? 
And on that subject, I noticed the debate had not mentioned a couple of important points. 

Bachmann managed to do two things with their new Fn3 Spectrum rolling stock. (a) they included offset shank couplers in the box so that the cars would couple to their old, low, truckmount couplers or to prototype height couplers, and (b) they used a new coupler mounting box that was, I understand, Kadee compatible. (It certainly made it easy for me to mount USAT couplers. If USAT made a coupler designed for a 'standard' coupler mount, I would have had an even easier time.) If their big bulky couplers don't work with the proposed Fn3 standard coupler, then I suspect they will make a coupler that does and also put it in the box. 

You see, it is in the manufacturer's best interest to make sure the widest possible number of folk can buy their equipment without being put off by coupler incompatibility issue. [I'm surprised no-one has beaten this to death already.] 
If Aristocraft puts a 'standard' coupler in the box along with their 'heritage' (i.e. old style) coupler, they win more business. They can sell to their existing customers _*and*_ to the USATrains clients who would otherwise be put off by the problems of changing couplers.


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

I agree with Pete on his post!! I know there are alot of guy's out there that are Kadee Crazy!! And it may well be the best coupler out there! But from my perspective, and my pocketbook and the economy and my financial position which I believe I am in the majority of us in our great hobby, who can afford upwards of $8-11.00 per coupler, and or $16-22.00 per boxcar and or other to put these on our rolling stock??????? Have to correct myself if necessary Greg E. says the price is for a pair if so then I stand corrected! Most guy's favorite retailer doesn't specify its for two and I took it as per each, so if its for a pair NOW I am thread writing corrected!! Hah LOL I can't and won't, I don't care how wonderful they are!! Just changing from plastic wheels to some type of metal wheels is expensive enough!! If I only had a dozen or so of these cars to do and that was the only ones I ever had to do maybe, but I know some of us in this hobby have upwards of 80 cars they run or pull!! There is NO way I could/would change over!! I would bet the standard proposal/standard that is adopted would probably be in the above price range as a way to make more money if there ever is one adopted, I will stay with what I have, and If I have to like Korm said last nite on our show, he just bought a big box of paper clips just in case the price goes up, and I'm thinking, or the coupler police come after us!! Regal


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I have a friend that was a stout Aristo coupler advocate, saying why should I change and spend more money. Then after considering how many Aristo couplers were breaking and had to be replaced, even on a brand new GP-40 locomotive, he started using Kadees. One set of 2 830's is under $6.50, and less if you know where to look. 

So it's $6 a boxcar not double or triple that. 

Very little money to get compatibility across all brands of cars. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

So, Greg I checked you guys favorite retailer, and are you saying that price is for two????????? It doesn't specify or say that, and I was just going by what I saw!! If indeed it is for two I stand corrected on my post above it would be $8-11.00 per two, and only that per car!! AND! I still wouldn't buy em!! Still too expensive for us economically challenged people! Hah Regal


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 06 Mar 2010 09:04 AM 
I' ve been trying to stay out of this (despite having started it) as the NMRA 'bashing' is just childish. Vote with your feet and pocketbook. Are we really all so bored we have to spend 24 pages trying to convert others to our rigid point of view? 

I don't know, Pete.
Kinda like playground kid whacking another, the second whacks back, and the first goes crying off to the teacher yelling "He hit me!"

The nmra doesn't listen.
They have their agenda, obtain the best they think they can find to promote their agenda, and all we get to do is yell back.
I thought we did a pretty fair job.

I don't have a rigid point of view.
Run what you want, run what comes with your cars, but don't go messing with the mix and adding ANOTHER height/profile to deal with.
Talk about rigid.
Once you get the nmra standards in, and nmra minions start quoting same, THEN you will see rigid.

Like the.......forum member.........who complained about my using Mantua couplers.

That is done for a reason, and shows a definite lack of rigidity.

Voting with your feet and pocketbook doesn't work.

They still are trying to pass off the Ames Super Socket Version Two (or Three), one manufacturer can't get wheel gauge right, track gauge often has no correlation to their own track/wheel gauge, one had a good coupler in their 1:24 line, bastardized the cars by installing their 1:29 couplers, now coming out with a NEW coupler (marketing...worked before, why not now? Third "frequency" on their control system, none back-compatible......makes all the customers buy everything new......and the customers haven't got a clue how to vote), the nmra technical advisor tries (and sometimes succeeds) is getting one company to use the latest and greatest nmra standard.....except it is often a proposal, and some of those never go anywhere as far as "approved standards".....like the Ames Super Socket, the inverted square fillet wheel profile, the new hook and loop height, and who can forget the "nmra polarity" issue, and no switch on the first locos....and now, here we are again.
A loco that won't run with others, and couplers that won't couple with others.....and you want the nmra to invoke standards on large scale?

Really?


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Jerry Jerry Jerry, We need to get your facts set straight again. Kadees at RLDs are 6.25 a pr. Also i will give you a little tip that will help you out. I have well ove 400 pieces of rolling stock now, all with Kadees and i didnt pay a dime for them. You are an Ebayer No???????? Then do what i did i sold the Aristo and USA and AML couplers on ebay and that more than paid for the kadees. My opionion the Kadees are well worth having and far better than stock couplers. My trains do not uncouple, I can run a 100 car train without issue, Cant do that with factory couplers And i can back up a 100 car train into a siding with out problems, cant do that with factory mounted couplers.
They are worth it to install in my opionion and cost nothing if done rite.








See that little word on the box under 907 ? 1 pair...........


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

AGAIN Nicky you don't read go back and read my first two posts completely k??????????? I addressed your point!! I guess i'm gonna have to get you 1. Dictionary 
2. Interpreter Hah LOL I know you like to jump on anything I say and try to profess yer intelligence, and yer Large Scale inventory prominence, but Please Please Please make sure you know what yer professing K??????????????????? hee hee !! Regal


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Nope just luv to prove you wrong once again Jerry as usual.............And yes i reed everything you said and you still didnt have a clue so i set you rite.....


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

Nicholas Savatgy, "...Cant do that with factory couplers..." 

Actually.....yes you can. Maybe _you_ can't, but you can. 


As stated in an earlier post, "When you pull the trigger, make sure you are aim away from your foot".


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By Snoq Pass on 06 Mar 2010 03:19 PM 
Nicholas Savatgy, "...Cant do that with factory couplers..." 

Actually.....yes you can. Maybe _you_ can't, but you can. 


As stated in an earlier post, "When you pull the trigger, make sure you are aim away from your foot". 

VIDEOS ARE PROOF NOW ARENT THEY.......................Lets see what you have. like you said "When you pull the trigger, make sure you are aim away from your foot".


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Yep for get Kadee beoming a standard. To much hype over this issue and down the road you will see other folks makeing a couple simular as they did in HO. Me I been that route and I do not intend to start again buying all these couplers as I have good results with what I have and I do not operate 40 car trains so it is a waste for me and anyone else that does not operate long trains. Later RJD


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

I may be wrong of course, but don't those Kadee clones work in the Kadee coupler boxes? As well as vice versa? 

If true, surely that tells you to get the mounting pads correct first.


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

Nicholas Savatgy, "VIDEOS ARE PROOF NOW ARENT THEY" 

STOP YELLING, or is it because I have caught in a lie? 

Sorry, but I run trains for the fun of it, not to take photos or videos of it (I don't carry my camera _everywhere_), so, I guess you will have to take my word on it. Did I pull 100 cars, no (I will admit it), but close (do not know actual number, again, I run trains for the fun of it)(also, it never crossed my mind that I would *NEED* to remember such worthless information. Anyway, pulled the cars uphill (150' 4% grade) with one locomotive, no wheel slip, and nothing broke or came loose. The couplers, stock Bachmann, Lionel, Delton. 

Now, why did I not run 100 cars you ask? Well, simple, 100 cars were NOT available, so I ran what was. I think in was in the 60 plus range. Again, it was a few years ago and I never thought I would have to remember such worthless information. 


There is my story. Where is yours Nicky? 


Now, my whole point of my original comment is you CANNOT say that one coupler is the absolute best. Which is exactly what Nicholas is saying/implying. That is why I made my comment.


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

You know Nicky....after reading through your reply comment (VIDEOS ARE PROOF NOW ARENT THEY.......................Lets see what you have. like you said "When you pull the trigger, make sure you are aim away from your foot".) you sound like a two year old that was just told that they could not have ice cream as the ice cream truck drove past.... Anyone else get that sense as well????


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Uhh... we are talking couplers, and you are attacking someone because he does not make his cars himself? 

Most of the people in "G" scale do not, I don't think putting them down is necessary, nor reasonable. 

Is Kadee the best? Everyone is entitled to his opinion. I think Nick speaks from 1:29... not finescale, nor 1:32 nor 1:20.3. 

I run long trains in 1:29 also. The Kadee is the best choice for me, considering I want automatic uncoupling and ease of installation. 

My other choices are Bachmann (junk), USAT (don't function freely and hard to adapt to body mounts), Aristo (wear out and come apart, excessive coupling force often necessary), and LGB (huge, gross, expensive, and not easy to mount) 

So for me in 1:29, Kadee is best. 

If I was in 1:20.3, I'd be doing scale couplers with lift pins... (right name?)... but I run standard gauge and very long trains and steep grades. 

By the way, one loco, 60 cars and a 4% grade? What loco is that? Not doubting you, I want one! (My guess is a geared loco) 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Nick- Play nice, now. 
Why are videos proof? 
Watch that foot.


----------



## Johnn (Jan 5, 2010)

I have to agree with Greg that you shouldnt attack another member when proven wrong. I havent been a member here long but Nick has time and time again posted videos of his long trains and trains from others to prove his points. When Mr Snoq Pass called him a liar than i think it was justified of Nick to ask Snoq to prove his claim which he still hasnt done and then changed his story half way thru his reply. So based on Snoqs reply he got caught in a lie. And also if your going to call someone a liar you really should have proof of your own claims as that is just common sense.
I myself have all sorts of issues with factory couplers running about 30 cars, so im thinking of changing completly over to Kadees to rectify the issues.
Nick your foot is fine, You shot straight where as Snoq didnt. I also would like to see one engine pull 60 cars up a 4% on a regular basis without have coupler problems. Videos are a great way to prove your point,and to show everyone else how it was done. pictures work nicely as well. Train guys enjoy watch videos and looking at pictures, I know i do.
Johnn


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm at 55 cars and a 3.5% grade... and a mix of new and old Kadees... go to youtube, search for "gregeusa".... under my videos there is a video called Kadee torture test. 

I have a 40 foot 3.5% grade followed by a short stretch of slightly less followed by some more 3.5% so about 60 foot of it. The grade ends by the fireplace in the video.. I also have a 5.5% downgrade. 

I have not found other "automatic" couplers that can handle this. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

When are you guys going to stop this childish chest-beating? You guys are going to get this thread locked! I've seen it before. C'mon.


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

Amen 26 pages and counting????!!!!!! Yadda yadda yadda, and mines better than yours, has denigrated to nothing positive!! Time to go! But I said that several pages ago. Hah Regal Ok Nicky you can come in AGAIN!! I posted again. your always right behind!!


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

this long thread with statements furthers futile thoughts. 
well, i was seriously thinking about upgrading to a paperclip-standard. 
but when i looked at my manifold solutions, i found a wide range. here some examples: 
















































so i think if i ever standardize, it might be to the "PC-cooler standard": 
(when i will have a drillstand someday) 













when i asked the population of my little world, the general consent about standards was best represented by the reaction of the guy to the right:


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Automatic? 

From compatible faces to automatic? 

Change is frightening. 

Nobody ever learns from their mistakes, so if they 'wronged' us xx years ago, then they'll do it again, by golly! 

Hang the messenger! 

I can type LOUDER than you! So I'm right! 

I'm set in my ways, so I'll just call names. 

Whew what a long strange trip it's been! Who cares where this thing goes? 
_____________________________ _____________________________________ ____________________________ ________ 

Consider a standard draft gear box and tang. Knuckle heads (yeah named them after youse guys) with multiple attachment heights molded on the back (kinda like a verticle row of link and pin couplers) so you can adjust the height on mounting. Knuckle heads come in 3 (height) sizes; little egos, medium egos and big egos! lol When viewed from the side the scale size should be seen. 
Tough part is fudging the proportions for inter-compatibility; ie; a little wide for 1:32 and a tad narrow for 1:20.3 and perfect for 1:24, the logical scale! lol 
I'm assuming that most railroaders will choose one brand/style and only visiting rolling stock will show a difference (if looked for, instead of over looked), but should mate. 


Manufacturers can decide whether or not they are auto or manual w/ a lift bar or both. You decide which brand you want or can afford. 

I return you to your continuing what not. 


John


----------



## Snoq Pass (Jan 2, 2008)

Why do I keep looking around this site with all of this arrogance.....I don't know.... 

What I don't understand out of this whole thing, if we have a coupler standard, which region/area will this standard be for? desert.... or mountain....or....what? If Kaydees work for you, then great....but they have never worked for me (mainly cause I model operations and require operating cut levers). If something works for you, it is not necessarily going to work for someone else. Since G-Gauge is outdoors, we (the modelers) have to combat the elements, and as I am sure all or you are aware, the elements don't scale down with the model. A pebble to us, is a boulder to our models. This is why you cannot say something is the absolute best product available. 

Now, why have I gone after Nicky this time? Simple, he has repeatedly insisted that Kaydees are the almighty coupler. Yea, for him...but not for the entire 6,692,030,277+ people on this planet. I know people who have tried Kaydees in G-Gauge who absolutely hate them cause they do not work for them on their layout. Also, Nicky's resent posts have been like a car salesman trying to get you to buy the car, and I know a couple people who have quite G-Gauge due to post with that kind of tone. 

Johnn, "I myself have all sorts of issues with factory couplers running about 30 cars, so im thinking of changing completly over to Kadees to rectify the issues." 
Okay, you cannot use stock couplers with 30+ cars, but you can with Kaydees. That is your experience. Should I be the one now to try to preach to you why you are wrong? No, I should not. The same goes for Nicky... 

Johnn, "When Mr Snoq Pass called him a liar than i think it was justified of Nick to ask Snoq to prove his claim which he still hasnt done and then changed his story half way thru his reply. So based on Snoqs reply he got caught in a lie. And also if your going to call someone a liar you really should have proof of your own claims as that is just common sense." 
Okay, and as I stated, I did not have a video camera with me. I never thought I would have to stand trial for making a truthful statement. I am still wondering though, if videos are what have to see to take something as truthful, then where is Nicky's? I have found two videos, one with 73 cars and two locomotives (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WzkXiklKAU) and the other with 43 cars and one locomotive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPsmExhfHc). Statement: These are NOT my videos, they were found on YouTube (unless you wish to call me a liar on that as well). Can anyone confirm what couplers were used on these videos since pulling near 100 cars has become the test for the almighty coupler? 

Greg, "My guess is a geared loco" 
Yes, the locomotive was a 38T Shay. 

So again, if we have a standard, what area is this standard being based on for operation? 


One last thing, as I keep saying and shaking my head, "it is a toy for goodness sake"


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

I wuz waiting for a comeback on the "proof" of videos to post this. 
But, since none seem willing to respond, here it is: 

http://www.georgiajag.com/FormulaDeerHunting.wmv 

You tell me about "proof".


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

by my experience that video must be a fake.
in real life that buck would slide up the hood and settle around the helmet of the driver.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Kormy, 

The point is, according to some, videos are proof.


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

well, videos are short movies. 
then long movies must be bigger proofs. 

so count Dracula and Godzilla exist! and the scenes of Emmerich's 2012 allready have happend somewhere! 

ps: where can i sign up with the startroopers, to become a Avatar-fighter?


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By Snoq Pass on 07 Mar 2010 02:16 PM 
Why do I keep looking around this site with all of this arrogance.....I don't know.... 

What I don't understand out of this whole thing, if we have a coupler standard, which region/area will this standard be for? desert.... or mountain....or....what? If Kaydees work for you, then great....but they have never worked for me (mainly cause I model operations and require operating cut levers). If something works for you, it is not necessarily going to work for someone else. Since G-Gauge is outdoors, we (the modelers) have to combat the elements, and as I am sure all or you are aware, the elements don't scale down with the model. A pebble to us, is a boulder to our models. This is why you cannot say something is the absolute best product available. 

Now, why have I gone after Nicky this time? Simple, he has repeatedly insisted that Kaydees are the almighty coupler. Yea, for him...but not for the entire 6,692,030,277+ people on this planet. I know people who have tried Kaydees in G-Gauge who absolutely hate them cause they do not work for them on their layout. Also, Nicky's resent posts have been like a car salesman trying to get you to buy the car, and I know a couple people who have quite G-Gauge due to post with that kind of tone. 

Johnn, "I myself have all sorts of issues with factory couplers running about 30 cars, so im thinking of changing completly over to Kadees to rectify the issues." 
Okay, you cannot use stock couplers with 30+ cars, but you can with Kaydees. That is your experience. Should I be the one now to try to preach to you why you are wrong? No, I should not. The same goes for Nicky... 

Johnn, "When Mr Snoq Pass called him a liar than i think it was justified of Nick to ask Snoq to prove his claim which he still hasnt done and then changed his story half way thru his reply. So based on Snoqs reply he got caught in a lie. And also if your going to call someone a liar you really should have proof of your own claims as that is just common sense." 
Okay, and as I stated, I did not have a video camera with me. I never thought I would have to stand trial for making a truthful statement. I am still wondering though, if videos are what have to see to take something as truthful, then where is Nicky's? I have found two videos, one with 73 cars and two locomotives (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WzkXiklKAU) and the other with 43 cars and one locomotive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPsmExhfHc). Statement: These are NOT my videos, they were found on YouTube (unless you wish to call me a liar on that as well). Can anyone confirm what couplers were used on these videos since pulling near 100 cars has become the test for the almighty coupler? 

Greg, "My guess is a geared loco" 
Yes, the locomotive was a 38T Shay. 

So again, if we have a standard, what area is this standard being based on for operation? 


One last thing, as I keep saying and shaking my head, "it is a toy for goodness sake" 


1st thing you didnt come after me Dont act like your something that your not,, 2nd you still havent proved that a 100 car train can be pull with truck mounted couples on a regular basis without them coming apart. 3rd you still havent shown any proof that you ran a train of any lenght with out issue like you said you did. you took a video from youtube how creative. next the only arrogance here is you cause you still havent proved your point but you keep flappin your gums about it. next you might want to use your real name cause its allful easy to say things when you not useing your name but no suprise there. People that hide behind there computers tend to be cry babys and still they havent proved a thing. my youtube page has plenty of videos along with Ray, Greg Marty Chuck and plenty of others that fell that kadees work the best for us as i said in many of post on this thread. And to keep this thread from being closed im going to leave it at that but if you wish we can keep it going. And being your so scared to use you real name online i will now start Calling you Skippy because i dont make it a habit of responding to people that hide behind there computers and cant go real name to real name. O and by the way i never got into this hobby to hobbiest i got into to run my trains and enjoy what i have and i dont need to explain that to cry babys that didnt get enough Mommie time......... I was late respondind to this video cause i decided to take a trip to train world today and i picked up 3 more engines a 3 truck Shay and 2 CB and Q E-8s and ordered 24 more 2 bay hopper cars. God i luv to buy the trains when i want,cant have enough........ And finally i never said kadees should be the standard i said they work best for me so get your story correct. i said there should be no standards...


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By blueregal on 07 Mar 2010 09:46 AM 
Amen 26 pages and counting????!!!!!! Yadda yadda yadda, and mines better than yours, has denigrated to nothing positive!! Time to go! But I said that several pages ago. Hah Regal Ok Nicky you can come in AGAIN!! I posted again. your always right behind!! 

Im here big guy, just did a shopping trip to train world, god i luv buying more trains......


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By Johnn on 07 Mar 2010 05:12 AM 
I have to agree with Greg that you shouldnt attack another member when proven wrong. I havent been a member here long but Nick has time and time again posted videos of his long trains and trains from others to prove his points. When Mr Snoq Pass called him a liar than i think it was justified of Nick to ask Snoq to prove his claim which he still hasnt done and then changed his story half way thru his reply. So based on Snoqs reply he got caught in a lie. And also if your going to call someone a liar you really should have proof of your own claims as that is just common sense.
I myself have all sorts of issues with factory couplers running about 30 cars, so im thinking of changing completly over to Kadees to rectify the issues.
Nick your foot is fine, You shot straight where as Snoq didnt. I also would like to see one engine pull 60 cars up a 4% on a regular basis without have coupler problems. Videos are a great way to prove your point,and to show everyone else how it was done. pictures work nicely as well. Train guys enjoy watch videos and looking at pictures, I know i do.
Johnn


You are correct Johnn, just cant get some people that post how they have done so much and still havent shown anything................. I for one would really like to see it too............ But as with most people that use fake names, I have found that most of what they say is untrue as ussual.........


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

I've done the same thing, used Kadee's with Bochmann. 
Had other guys here do the same. 
At Bochmann height, no less. 
Totally do-able, and if you think not, you are being somewhat narrow-minded. 
Seriously.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Oh, and the Rules of the Forums don't mandate real names. 
So, quit bring Polk-Isms into MLS.


----------



## todd55whit (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg 
Checked out your YouTube vids. Thanks for the link.


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By kormsen on 07 Mar 2010 02:51 PM 
well, videos are short movies. 
then long movies must be bigger proofs. 

so count Dracula and Godzilla exist! and the scenes of Emmerich's 2012 allready have happend somewhere! 

ps: where can i sign up with the startroopers, to become a Avatar-fighter? 


I don't know Korm, but we could go here with the horror title/film "The Thread That Wouldn't Die" or "Couplers From Outer Space" Hah LOl Regal




The Names were changed to protect the "innocent" hah 
Whoops Just noticed my real name isn't here and don't want Nicky to jump me JERRY HANSEN BLUE REGAL CRAZYTRAINGUY YUP yep "Godzilla got nothing on me!!"


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 07 Mar 2010 03:55 PM 
Oh, and the Rules of the Forums don't mandate real names. 
So, quit bring Polk-Isms into MLS. 


Oky Doky Mr Bochmann..........







Polk ism Pleeeeeeeeeeease.........


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

You forgot the "T".


----------



## on30gn15 (May 23, 2009)

Standards threads are like fractions math, they resolve to the lowest common denominator.


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 07 Mar 2010 05:16 PM 
You forgot the "T". 

No i didnt..............


----------



## Tom Lapointe (Jan 2, 2008)

I'll second Gary Armistad's comments - the amount of infighting & name calling







this thread's generated has been *incredible! *







I had subscribed to the topic - *until a couple of days ago when I opened my e-mail & found something like 100 new messages (VERY quickly deleted!) *







from all the posts on this!

Some of the *more rational comments *







have been more towards the lines of *common mounting pad and / or draft gear box *designs; as some others have already commented, *at least in the case of 1:20.3 models, *the two largest manufacturers, Bachmann & Accucraft, gravitating towards a *Kadee-style draft gear box *







; which if you *desire to use Kadees (& I do!) *







makes for *quick, convenient "drop-in" installation. *







And there's also a positive trend (again, in most 1:20.3 models), of "stock" couplers (again, both Bachmann & Accucraft) at least *mating properly *with Kadees. 

I'll admit, when it comes to 1:29th scale-standard gauge protoypes, the *"water" is a lot murkier. *







While I do run 1:29th scale prototypes some days (mostly my USA Trains' New Haven "Merchant's Limited" streamliner







, I personally own *relatively little 1:29th scale equipment - *the 5-car New Haven streamliner set pulled by a pair of USA Alco PA's, a USA GP-9 (relatively recent acquistion, not converted for DCC yet), & a lone Aristo RS-3. (I'm also tempted by AMS's upcoming 1:29 *live-steam PRR K4s.*







). I think I have *maybe six *1:29 freight cars at the moment, a mix of AMS & Aristo cars - & so far, the *stock Aristo couplers *haven't impressed me







- the cars will eventually get *body-mounted Kadees. *I found the *stock USA couplers to be absolutely horrid *







in terms of both difficult coupling & unwanted uncoupling; the streamliner set was *quickly *converted to Kadees. 

I think everyone here should at least give Kevin Strong "kudos"







for *trying to get the ball rolling on standards of at least SOME *







*sort, regardless of whether sanctioned by the NMRA or not *(and NO, I *am not a NMRA member, *nor do I have any intention of joining in the near future). Kevin, at least from me personally, *"Thank You!" *for your efforts!







(As you're probably aware by now, *"No good deed goes UNPUNISHED!" *







).








*Tom*


----------



## llynrice (Jan 2, 2008)

I want to second Tom's praise for the thoughtful effort that Kevin is making to help standardize couplers.

I'm really put off by incompatible proprietary designs. Feels as if some manufacturers hope that non-compatible couplers will force some modelers to stick with their brands and not buy from the competition. No model runs on my layout until it has Kadee couplers to ensure total compatibility. There is nothing magic about Kadee, I just happen to prefer them. I could conceivably have settled on something else such as the Accucraft couplers. The main point is to have the same (or completely compatible) couplers on everything I own and operate.

Llyn


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Wow 6 pages of this , Kinda gotten off the original topic of late, personally I find all of this "debate" rather funny, but then I'm rather nutty and_ *BUILD my own couplers*_ and think anyone doing from 1/20.3 to 1/24 ya'all are nuts spending that kind of cash for Kadee's or whatever brand coupler, now I know I'll never sway them who is loyal to their own brands but for the casual reader of all this I'll add my own suggestion, for you undecided fence sitters when you get tired of mucking about with all them couplers and mounts and shims and magnets and decide you want _truely-reliable-never-fail-couplers_ then ya'all can use my FREE handy *DIY guide* to building yer own *Link & Pin couplers* for less than a $buck$ a pop. Like to see the "enema ray" try to standardize these babies: 
http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/vs...andPin.pdf

Yes I am being a bit of a wicked little imp here


----------



## Tom Lapointe (Jan 2, 2008)

"Yes I am being a bit of a wicked little imp here









*Absolutely, Vic! *







Your home-made link & pins look quite nice, go well with your small-rolling stock style modeling.









Even I've got some link-&-pins on the roster (2 strings of LGB disconnect logging trucks); one string of 6 trucks is set up as 3 loaded cars; the other is an "empty" string with the 6 disconnects *"daisy chained". *







*Only the end trucks *on each string have Kadee's mounted, all the trucks in between are either coupled with the LGB-supplied "roosters" (in the loaded set), in the "empty" string the intervening trucks are *entirely link-&-pin. *This also permits me to use them as *"conversion cars" *from link-&-pin to Kadee!







(Which came in handy at a steam-up when I let one of the other guys with a link-&-pin equipped "Ruby" use some of my cars.







). They also permit me to have a train of *both *Bachmann "shorty" skeleton cars & the LGB disconnects...











...by the way, that video dates back to 2006 - LOTS of improvements on the "Watuppa Railway" since then!
















*Tom*


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Careful studying of the latest draft shows me this proposal if fatally flawed. 
Coupler mounting is NOT addressed, in fact, the proposal states mounting is not part of the proposal. 

The ONLY thing that should be addressed IS mounting, to make it easy for hobbyists to A) remove unwanted couplers, and B) install what they want without drilling holes, adding shims, or milling the underside of the car. 

This is typical nmra. 

Standards for the sake of Standards, without addressing the fundamental issues. 

If you want Kadees, the mount should accept them. 
If you want AMS, the mount should accept them. 

Hook and loops, and other truck-mounted couplers, already have the pad on the truck tang, and need no further addressing, as also hook-and-loops do NOT need a "new" non-compatible height. 

Please take this nmra garbage and place it in the circular file.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Dave, if the couplers are compatible, there's no need to address the mounts. Look at the dozens of mounts Kadee offers; so long as they're mounted so that the couplers are at the same height, they work. That's the premise behind what the NMRA is putting forward. So long as the couplers work together, and are mounted to the same height, it makes no difference how they're attached to the train. 

I agree--standardizing the mount so that the consumer can easily swap out one style coupler for the next would solve the compatibility problem just as effectively. Instead of a compatible coupler, you have a universal mount onto which you can attach any style coupler of your choosing. The only issue there is that there's no guarantee the couplers will work together out of the box. Either the manufacturer has to include something of a universal coupler, or the user is required to buy a 3rd-party coupler to match their chosen standard. I don't know that that's inherently a bad thing, certainly it was SOP in HO scale for quite some time, but the goal of the NMRA in this effort is to make trains work together without the user _needing_ to do anything extra. 

BTW, where are you getting a "new" height for hook and loops? It's been 3/4" from the dawn of time (or 1968). That's not changing. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Botchman. 
Thomas. 
Guess who pushes "new" as-yet non-approved standards at Botchman? 

So, why are the hoom and loops too high?


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

This topic is about one RCH away from being locked due to personal attacks (no relationship to the last post). Keep it civil and respectful and don't make us do that please.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Well, I think a standardized mounting pad is a cool idea. Now I am partial to 1:29 and the Kadee draft gearboxes that have the "coupler slack" in them, although it's not completely prototypical (it's not sprung in both directions). 

I have 1:29 rolling stock from USAT, Aristo, and AML. USAT and AML have the "Kadee pad" on virtually everything. Aristo has just recently been improving and one piece of rolling stock has it almost right (height off). 

Now the problem may be that this is a pretty large draft gear box, and putting this on all rolling stock may not make sense. 

Would it be better to compromise the design of the rolling stock a bit to accomodate this, or to try to come up with a more to scale draft gearbox as a "standard" size/shape for picking a "standard mounting pad"? 

My own opinion, in that I am in a scale that is a bit "flexible", would be that the oversize Kadee box is fine, I can live with it, and it probably makes the manufacture of the coupler hardware easier. 

But, if I was in a more "exact" scale, I would not want to compromise with an overly large gear box. 

Just some thoughts. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

So, why are the hoom and loops too high? 
You'll have to ask Lee that one. Bachmann's 1:22.5 line of equipment uses the same 3/4" centerline that's been the de facto standard from LGB's first piece of equipment, and is included in the NMRA standard. Why they departed from their own established practice (to say nothing of standards) is a very good question. One thing I'm certain, it's _not_ because the NMRA told them to. Had they read NMRA standards, the hook and loops would be compatible with all the others. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Oh, we aren't necessarily blaming the nmra elected leadership for that one......but we are suggesting that the same person who seemed to promise nmra approval of some silly socket, and also some interim wheel profile, might have, once again, jumped the gun. 

Mounting pads standards is the answer. 
Just imagine......you want to mount a Kadee instead of a Botch.....and you just unscrew one, and screw in the other....no trimming, drilling......or, you're tired of your chosen brand of 1:29 equipment coming factory-equipped with a couple that won't readily work with any other. 
Just use the nmra mandated coupler mounting pad standard! 

The chances of getting manufacturers to accept THAT, where it would be hidden under the car, over changing couplers completely, are far, far greater. 

But, then, those who are involved with the nmra don't think that far ahead, do they?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I have a suggestion... let's forget the possibilities that SA has somehow influenced some bad decisions. I think we all know where most of us stand on that issue. 

How about we ask Kevin to help champion and take the input from this thread and feed back to the NMRA people he knows and give him the benefit of the doubt, and let him try. 

The results will be obvious. Honestly, I don't hold a lot of hope (for the NMRA), but I do welcome any possibility of rational action from the NMRA. 

There have been changes I have seen, and while the recent abortion on approved wheel standards is a big negative, on the positive side, Kevin did get a revised proposal out and on the NMRA site, I have to appreciate that. 

I think the addition of a standard mounting pad is a possibility, and maybe this could be approved first, who knows. 

Maybe I'm an "irrepairable optimist", but I never said I did not have character flaws!!! 

Regards, Greg


----------



## armorsmith (Jun 1, 2008)

Can someone please explain how a standardized mounting pad on the underside of the car body will solve coupler compatibility? The functionality of coupler vs. coupler is what this proposal is about, not how they mount. 

Second, I have several manufacturers trucks and each and every one of them, the bolster is at a different height. Followed by the bolster on each manufacturer's car is a different height. Unless I failed 3rd grade math, that will mean that the standardized mounting pad you so badly desire will fluctuate up and down, hence negating any coupler compatible functionality. Until all manufacturers make all trucks with the same bolster height, and all body bolster the same depth, a standardized mounting pad will only ease the conversion from one manufacturers coupler to another. It will NOT make couplers any more or less compatible. 
I do however agree that a standardized mounting to be used by all would be a great advantage. 

Greg, TOUCHE! I am glad to see someone with a little reason. Standards are like a smorgasbord, use what you like, ignore what you don't. 

Bob C.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Easy! 

How many folks use Kadees as their choice? 
How many cars come equipped with same? 
Would it be handy and beneficial to have pads, like, oh, USA trains does on the high-end stuff? 

You ever see Bach 20 footers? 
Get the mounting pads closer, have a Bach coupler, box and body mounted, so you can change it if desired. 

Since Kadee is NOT interested in giving up their proprietary rights to the nmra so the nmra can have Kadee and "standard", we work it the back way. 

How hard is this? 

The way it is now, the nmra wants a compatible coupler, which will do those not using Kadee stuff basically no good. 

WE know what works together, and do so, regularly. 

Imagine AMS couplers that didn't require a properly-sized end beam, drilling, and bolting (with up to 4 per coupler box) to mount, but rather a common, standardized pad? 

Geez.


----------



## armorsmith (Jun 1, 2008)

Dave, 

I got it about mounting being your solution. 

You still have not addressed how mounting will make different manufacturers couplers mate together. You also completely ignored my statement about dimensional differences in the vertical locations of both truck and body bolsters which WILL affect where your mounting pad will end up - which also affects how couplers will join, and how reliably the will remain coupled. Do you propose that we establish a fixed standard height for the mounting pad surface regardless of scale? I don't think that will fly any better than what we have now. I don't disagree that a standard mounting pad (holes located in the same place), and draft gear boxes that are interchangeable would be nice. Would I like to be able to remove a couple of screws and replace my Bachmann Big Hauler couplers with say a Kadee, or AMS, or AristoCraft? Yes, I most certainly would. I will not hold my breath for that to happen. 

It has been my understanding from the beginning that, IF both couplers were mounted on the same horizontal center line above the rail head, this proposal was to determine would manufacturer A's coupler work acceptably with manufacturer B's coupler. Would they stay coupled, do they need Godzilla to make them go together, will they uncouple without an 0-5-0 switcher involved? This, in my opinion, is irrelevant of how the coupler is mounted to the rolling stock. 

Bob C.


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Easy there Dave! It's a new concept for some of them here and it'll take a bit of time for it to really sink in. It's not worth it to get your blood pressure up over it! _We_ know it makes sense! Eventually, most people will come around...Considering the multitude of ways to connect in LS and the various heights employed, it's understandable that some people are confused by the concept as to how it would be implemented.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

There is basically one coupler that doesn't work (outside of hook-and-loops) when set to same height. 

Earlier in this thread I delineated such. 

I use Bach, Delton, Lionel, all at stock height. I have folks bring in USA units that couple with those. 
A local fella uses Bach, Delton, Lionel and Kadees at Kadee height, and they all work together. 

Imagine the ease of installation if you had a 1:22.5 Bach oh, boxcar, and wanted to put body mounts on it. 
IF the standard was the pad AND height above the rail (so you didn't have to mill or shim anything), would you be happy? 

There are too many folks using existing couplers, even those that don't work with anything else. 

The FIRST thing the nmra should do is pad and height. 

THEN, once they convince the manufacturers and users it is a "good thing", THEN the nmra can address couplers themselves. 

All we need right now is another coupler out there. 

One of the reasons I am using Mantua couplers in me H0 restorations is because I CAN. 
Another is that it upsets the nmra minions something fierce. 

I would, and probably will, continue to use in LS something that is so against what the nmra proposes that is will cause mental meltdowns amongst the stalwarts. 

Oh, and in the "proposal", I see the committee has dragged up the old smaller scale drawing of talgo mounts and their unacceptability. 
Sorry. 

We had another ops session last night, and backing long (for narrow gauge) trains through reverse curve switches did not create any issues. 
In fact, we backed 12 through lgb 1600 reverse curve switches during cleanup on one track, and more on another, with no derailments. 

Bad form, to take the "gospel" of the old nmra and use it here. 

Oh, and Steve, I know......the minions just cannot get their head around what works. 
You ought to see the arguments for flange-supporting frogs, and the absolute inability to comprehend back-to-back vs check gauge. 

Fun to watch their eyes glaze over. 

The easy part is just telling the nmra to......well, go away.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Just use the nmra mandated coupler mounting pad standard! 
The chances of getting manufacturers to accept THAT, where it would be hidden under the car, over changing couplers completely, are far, far greater. 
But, then, those who are involved with the nmra don't think that far ahead, do they? 
In many respects, Dave, the manufacturers are gravitating there on their own accord. Bachmann and Accucraft both use Kadee clone coupler boxes. USA, MTH, and if I'm reading Greg's post correctly, Aristo may be coming along in molding in Kadee-compatible pads on their cars, even if they don't use the draft boxes themselves. They're not doing that because the NMRA, G1MRA, Stan, me, or anyone said "thou shalt," they're doing that because (a) it makes good business sense, and (b) the draft gear boxes are proven technology. Kadee seems at this point rather disinclined to care about other manufacturers borrowing their draft gear design, so long as it makes it easy for modelers to use their couplers! (Also good business sense.) 

Personally, I don't think the NMRA need get involved in mounts at this point, since the manufacturers seem to be developing a grasp on that. Let's sit back and see where they go on their own before feeling any need to step in. If they can come to consensus on their own, why mess with it? It's only when consensus seems out of reach, and the resulting incompatibilities hindering the smooth operation of our trains that I think an overarching organization might be of influence. 

Later, 

K


----------



## armorsmith (Jun 1, 2008)

Steve and Dave, 

There is no confusion. Dave answered indirectly that he supports a single mounting pad in dimension (how the couplers attach to the pad), and height (regardless of scale). As I said above, I don't disagree with the dimensional aspect of a standard mounting pad, but the vertical location can not possibly be the same for both 1:32 and 1:20.3 scales. 24" in 1:32 is 0.75" (3/4"), and in 1:20.3 it is 1.182" (1 3/16"). for all practical intents that a difference of 0.432" (7/16"). Please explain how that can work with a single standard for body mounted couplers in scale. I can see one standard for 1:32 and 1:29, and another for 1:24 and 1:22.5 (each is close enough to fudge without too much visual impairment). I see 1:20.3 as a stand alone due to the major difference in scale. (I am deliberately ignoring the standard/narrow gauge issue). I fully understand the height issue. I have a Bachmann K27 in 1:20.3 and mostly Bachmann Big Hauler and LGB rolling stock. It took modifying one of my Big Hauler coupler mounts to keep the couplers from passing one COMPLETELY UNDER the other. I have a couple of AMS 1:20.3 cars that couple perfectly with the K27. 


......the minions just cannot get their head around what works. 

Dave, I am NOT in that category. I also believe in what works, however I am not opposed to the possibility that something else MIGHT work better. Due to coupler incompatibility, (Bachamnn/Aristo) I have used zip ties, bread ties and plain small copper wire to keep trains rolling. It works, but I would prefer something better. I have no interest is being someone elses lackey, but I will support what I believe will make this hobby better. I don't care whether pads are standardized first or couplers, so long as it improves our hobby. 

If you wish to be contrary on your personal railroad, that is fine with me. That is your choice. My interest is in the ability to put ANY coupler together with ANY other coupler (all manufacturers inclusive) in a given scale range and have them work. 

All we need right now is another coupler out there. 

So are you indicating with this statement that you don't support the new Kadee coupler that everyone is raving about. Or how about the new AristoCraft 'Kuppler' that is SUPPOSED to be 100% compatible with everything else. Here are two more NEW couplers, both released SINCE this Standard/RP was begun. I am neither a supporter or detractor of either, just pointing out that change will occur whether we support it or not. Decent standards of coupler contour, center line height, and YES mounting would most certainly improve our hobby. 

So far on the subject of coupler compatibility I have read nothing but negativity on the efforts of others from you and several others. If the group that has put forth so much effort on this subject are so far off the mark, why don't you and the others get together and make a better proposal. Don't keep telling us what won't work, show us what will. If you believe the mounting pad is the answer, show me the details of how this will solve the problem. I personally don't care who initiates a standard, only that it is better than what we have. 

Bob C.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Arrrgggghhhhhisto has finally decided to come out with a compatible coupler. 
That sort of eliminates the need for all of this, doesn't it, since EVERYTHING else works together except for the original Polk Hook? 
I never said, did I, one height pad for all scales? 

What you need is a pad that works. 
Unfortunately, Kadee, in the two head size iterations, are the same height face, so go figure. 

The new Kadee is really the same old Kadee with the side cadillac suspension spring hidden inernally, no? 
When I talked to Kadee 10 days ago, that's what they told me. 
It still couples up. 
So, Kadee, Bach, Lionel, Delton, Aristo Classic (old), USA, Kuppler, all couple together, so why are we having a discussion on face size and shape? 

Just rip your old Arrrgghhhhhistos off, circular file them, and since you don't want a universal mounting pad design, make your own of wood, styrene, glue, whatever, and screw it on. 

Since most of the stuff is still talgo mounts, the issue is a body mount pad, make it the height for your sacle, I don't give a rat's hindquarters, but a body mount pad fixes the talgo mounting issue anyway. 

Geez.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Mounting pads first. 
Coupler standard next. 
Horse before cart. *NOT* cart before horse.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I like that idea. 

Greg


----------



## Jim Agnew (Jan 2, 2008)

I'll take a mounting pad for the 830 (as per the new USAT Center Cupola Caboose), but I want KaDee to provide an adapter plate for the 820. Minimal cost for KaDee and I lot less hassle for me.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Mounting pads first. 
Coupler standard next. 
Horse before cart. NOT cart before horse. 
In that the manufacturers are leaning towards standard pads by their own initiative, and the bureaucratic wheels of the NMRA take some time to turn in terms of the coupler, that very well may be what we end up with. I'm inclined to let the manufacturers continue the path they're going relative to including Kadee-compatible pads and/or draft gear boxes on their equipment _without input/interference from the NMRA._ 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

And, the manufacturers are leaning, of their own accord, to compatible couplers (read: the one non-compatible is changing), so why are we even having this discussion? 

So the nmra can claim they invented standards! 

nmra go away.


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 21 Mar 2010 12:26 PM 
And, the manufacturers are leaning, of their own accord, to compatible couplers (read: the one non-compatible is changing), so why are we even having this discussion? 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Please..........don't stop. I have not had this much fun reading a thread in a long time. Its almost as good as when a thread gets political. Just do like I do and run with hook and loop couplers. I love to see the rivet counters cringe when at my track.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Or, like I do, and find Mantua hook-and-loops in H0 scale, and use them! 

Drives the nmra mini-brains crazy!


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

And, the manufacturers are leaning, of their own accord, to compatible couplers (read: the one non-compatible is changing), so why are we even having this discussion? 

So the nmra can claim they invented standards! 

nmra go away. 

Who cares who claims what, so long as the trains couple together? 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

The nmra does. 
As do those who "propose" such standards. 
It's how they get the recognition they feel they deserve. 

Knowing how working groups and committees have worked in the past, bets are none of this gets passed along. 

Why do you think I say "nmra go away"?


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

For the sake of argument, let's accept your premise that with Aristo's new coupler, that we have a fairly universal set of compatible couplers on the market from each manufacturer. (I don't necessarily fully agree with it, but let's just run with it.) The NMRA's working group then takes a look at all those couplers, and puts together a document outlining their features and measurements, essentially saying to the manufacturers "keep doing what you're doing." I'm loathe to quite understand how chaos and disorder will rule the day as a result. 

What do you mean "none of this gets passed along?" To the working group that's been following this discussion since it started? 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

So, since Bach, Lionel, USA, Delton, AC Classic (old), Kadee, AMS, and maybe the new Kuppler do couple together, the only issue being the choice of the modeler on height, how exactly is that chaos again? 

There are some "tricks" some of us have developed to make them work together "beter", but they aren't hard, and I've made sure my 130+ chunks of various rolling stock have those things done to them. 

Never did see you answer on the "how" of the Thomas couplers being to some new "standard". 

Remember the comment about people who push standards and even proposals for same to get their name in print. 

And I didn't say it was you. 

Maybe, since I stay firmly away from Arggggiiiiisssstttttttoooooooeeeeeee and 1:29, my experience has been, eh, no big deal. 

Individual choice.....LS being one of the last bastions on the hobby where the nmra hasn't gotten involved.


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 20 Mar 2010 01:52 PM 
One of the reasons I am using Mantua couplers in me H0 restorations is because I CAN. 
Another is that it upsets the nmra minions something fierce. 
IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT.


I would, and probably will, continue to use in LS something that is so against what the nmra proposes that is will cause mental meltdowns amongst the stalwarts. 

WHO ARE THE STALWARTS THAT ARE GOING TO MELT DOWN?

Fun to watch their eyes glaze over. 

I KNOW YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT.

The easy part is just telling the nmra to......well, go away. 

I AM SURE THEY ARE WISHING THE SAME FOR YOU.

YOU ARE TOTALLY MADD. AND I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS TRIPE HAS GONE ON FOR 31 PAGES. LOL. SOMEONE OUT THERE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR TIME. I HEARD THE NMRA IS NOT ONLY GOING TO COME UP WITH A STANDARD COUPLER, BUT IT IS GOING TO MAKE YOU USE IT. I MEAN COME OUT THERE AND FORCE YOU TO INSTALL IT ON ALL YOUR STUFF. IT'S GOING TO BE A THREE RING CIRCUS. I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE SHOW.
JF


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By jfrank on 21 Mar 2010 08:13 PM 


Posted By Curmudgeon on 20 Mar 2010 01:52 PM 
One of the reasons I am using Mantua couplers in me H0 restorations is because I CAN. 
Another is that it upsets the nmra minions something fierce. 
IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT.


I would, and probably will, continue to use in LS something that is so against what the nmra proposes that is will cause mental meltdowns amongst the stalwarts. 

WHO ARE THE STALWARTS THAT ARE GOING TO MELT DOWN?

Fun to watch their eyes glaze over. 

I KNOW YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT.

The easy part is just telling the nmra to......well, go away. 

I AM SURE THEY ARE WISHING THE SAME FOR YOU.

YOU ARE TOTALLY MADD. AND I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS TRIPE HAS GONE ON FOR 31 PAGES. LOL. SOMEONE OUT THERE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR TIME. I HEARD THE NMRA IS NOT ONLY GOING TO COME UP WITH A STANDARD COUPLER, BUT IT IS GOING TO MAKE YOU USE IT. I MEAN COME OUT THERE AND FORCE YOU TO INSTALL IT ON ALL YOUR STUFF. IT'S GOING TO BE A THREE RING CIRCUS. I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE SHOW.
JF



Any time I can make a comment not addressed to any individual, and when stated it will upset anyone, and then someone comes back IN FULL CAPS to respond, which is internet yelling, said person has proven the point for me.
Thank-you.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Now, let's address the literature I have here. 

KEBT, you state in your "proposal" that S-2 contains "erroneous and misleading information", page 8 of the proposal. 

Good reading for those that think the nmra does no wrong. 

I have more trouble with S-3.1, the proto listings. 
The back-to-back of 1.575" won't even come close to working in a span (S) of 1.587. 
S of 1.530-1.535 is more correct, but I digress. 

Appendix B, the Sept 09 Scale Rails article, really tells all about where the nmra membership is heading. 
"After a fair amount of discussion the group has agreed in principle that because Kadee products already represent a de facto coupler standard, any nmra standardization effort will maintain compatibility with Kadee's large scale products." 

Page 7, under your "mounting", states that traditionally LS manufacturers have used truck mounted couplers. 

Here was your big chance to fix that. 
Let's pick on, oh, H0. 
I cannot recall seeing anyone using Kadees on a talgo truck. I mean, it probably happens in H0, but I've not seen one. 
In fact, of the pieces I pick up from time to time, those originally equipped with talgo mounts have A) new trucks without the mount, and B) body-mounted couplers. 

Hence my "suggestion" earlier on body mount height standard pads. 
Get it right ONCE, not something you need to go back and re-address time after time. 

The development of a new coupler may, depending on specific outcome, make all couplers prior obsolete, and to add more rolling stock, you may need to replace everything (kinda like a "new" frequency, eh?). 

You can guarantee all you want, but what actually comes out as the "standard" may be a surprise to all. 
Remember track and wheel standards, with the last-minute change? 

We have a pretty good idea, now, don't we? 

I think the 50-year endeavour to get H0 coupler standards had more to do with nobody wanting to change than the reasons given. 
Once again, nmra go away.


----------



## ORD23 (Jan 2, 2010)

Ugh, let's see, nmra standards in place of my link & pins................not! My trains, my way. I paid for them, not the nmra. You run your Kadee's, Mantua's, USA's, Bachmanns, Aristo's couplers and just have fun running. Look at all this venom being spewed over what somebody else wants. It's your trains, run what you want!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Absolutely.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

So, since Bach, Lionel, USA, Delton, AC Classic (old), Kadee, AMS, and maybe the new Kuppler do couple together, the only issue being the choice of the modeler on height, how exactly is that chaos again? 
It's not, and the NMRA essentially saying "y'all keep doin' what you're doin," it's not going to all of a sudden become chaos, either. The sky will not fall because the NMRA puts on paper what the manufacturers are already doing. 

Never did see you answer on the "how" of the Thomas couplers being to some new "standard". 
Well, I believe I told you to ask the company responsible, because I have no idea. I have no idea why they would ignore 40 years of established practice and their own existing product line to mount couplers at an incompatible height. I'm sure they have a reason, but personally I don't care. No one's pushing the higher height as any kind of standard for anything. 

Individual choice.....LS being one of the last bastions on the hobby where the nmra hasn't gotten involved. 
Define "involvement." They've had large scale standards on the books for quite some time--20 years or so? I don't remember when they made their first attempt. Did everyone magically "fall in line" then? Did the sky fall? No, things kept plodding along as we've seen--the NMRA being quite marginal, almost absent from the large scale community. Having standards (even ones that now largely mirror G1MRA) does not equate to greater involvement. Why do you have this expectation that this round is going to be any different in terms of getting their influence into large scale? Because I'm involved? Thanks--I wish I had that much pull with manufacturers. I'd have an entire fleet of EBT locomotives by now. Heck, I can't even get the one manufacturer who has my deposit for one they announced three years ago to actually produce it. Methinks you give me too much credit. I don't see the NMRA becoming any more involved in large scale now than they have in years past until their membership steers them that way. Your guess is as good as mine as to when that's going to happen. It's sure not going to happen because they have "standards." 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

And, it may happen a LOT later than sooner if they generate standards the majority doesn't want.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I have more trouble with S-3.1, the proto listings. 
The back-to-back of 1.575" won't even come close to working in a span (S) of 1.587. 
S of 1.530-1.535 is more correct, but I digress. 

Proto standards for the NMRA are derived--surprise--from the prototype, and are not intended to be compatible with the "standard" or "deep flange" standards in any scale. I'm not surprised in the least that wheels built to the S-X.2 and S-X.3 standards wouldn't work on Proto track. They're not supposed to. That's why they're different standards. Technically, compatibility between the "standard" and "deep flange" standards aren't supposed to be all that great, either. Large scale is the exception, where the standards are written specifically so they are. I didn't work on the proto standards. I wasn't asked to, and I didn't venture there. If you see a mathematical incompatibility within the Proto standards (which exist only for 1:32 and 1:20.3 relative to large scale), please let me know. I'll gladly forward them to the S&C committee so they can review their numbers. 

Appendix B, the Sept 09 Scale Rails article, really tells all about where the nmra membership is heading. 
"After a fair amount of discussion the group has agreed in principle that because Kadee products already represent a de facto coupler standard, any nmra standardization effort will maintain compatibility with Kadee's large scale products." 
How is that different from what we're discussing? We've established that Kadee _will not_ be the standard, because both Kadee and the NMRA nixed that idea. I wasn't too fond of that route, either, so I'm glad it was nixed. However, Kadee is a common coupler, so why would we not author standards so that their couplers would be just as compliant"as those from Accucraft, Bachmann, etc., that already have been proven to work well together? 

The development of a new coupler may, depending on specific outcome, make all couplers prior obsolete, and to add more rolling stock, you may need to replace everything (kinda like a "new" frequency, eh?). 
We're not developing a new coupler. Period. It will not render the current compatible large scale couplers obsolete or non-compliant. Period. I can't say that any clearer. If they were trying to, I wouldn't be supporting the effort. Period. I can't say _that_ any clearer. I'm not going to support any standard which says a perfectly scaled-down model of the prototype coupler would not be compliant. I'm also not going to support a standard that says the coupler design that has had the largest commercial success and is really the benchmark in terms of reliable operation would likewise not be compliant. So, any proposal that gets my support has to allow for a wide range of coupler shapes. If the proposal didn't allow for that, I'd be just as vocal in my opposition to it as you are. 

You can guarantee all you want, but what actually comes out as the "standard" may be a surprise to all. 
Remember track and wheel standards, with the last-minute change? 
Yes, I was at the center of that. I know what happened, and as I've explained to you both here and over the phone, it wasn't a deep, dark conspiracy. It was the left hand not knowing what the right was doing. Fortunately the error was caught and common sense prevailed. Would you rather us turn a blind eye to what the NMRA is doing, only to have some manufacturer actually try to build to the "standards," or would you prefer us to remain diligent in our efforts to make sure what the NMRA does relative to large scale actually reflects what we're already doing, leaving us the freedoms to choose what we've all along been able to choose? I'm with you--I don't want mandates any more than you. I don't want anyone telling me my stuff that works well, and is the same as what many others are using isn't "compliant." I've stated time and time again--that's exactly why I got involved--to keep that from happening. I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and hope the problem just goes away. Rather, I'll work to make sure it doesn't become a problem to begin with. 

Later, 

K


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

And, it may happen a LOT later than sooner if they generate standards the majority doesn't want. 
Let me make sure I'm understanding your theory here. You're saying that if the standards the NMRA comes up with are out of the mainstream, they'll simply remain marginalized because no one will want to adopt them? Boy, that's a risky proposition. Why not work to make sure the standards _are_ what the majority wants, so that their involvement in the hobby is a moot point? 

Later, 

K


----------



## TonyLou (Sep 3, 2009)

Good idea from NMRA. Hope they could be help to unified a coupler with all different brands. Different scale with different scale of coupler. As same as N scale and HO scale. All products were no need any dulpicate installation of coupler for unification of standard.


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hmph!......Y'know, this ever expanding thread more and more reminds me of the "Healthcare Legislation" debacle up in Washington! Both sides agree that there is a problem. One side ignores the other and the other side doesn't trust 'em as far as they can throw 'em! Both have salient points but one is in a position of power which, if misused or mishandled, could cause real problems in the future! One side is all about regulations and standards and documentation etc... the other side prefers to let the marketplace decide what should and should not be... I could go on with the comparisons but you get the idea. K would be considered a "moderate" trying to find common ground. 

They say politics is like making sausage in that you really don't want to look too close at the process or it will make you ill! I happen to believe that transparency through open, free and meaningful discussion should be the only way that politics should work. That's why I am so much _in favor of this thread!!_ Those of us in opposition get to express our viewpoints openly and the extremely knowledgeable one's, TOC for instance, who take the time and effort to state their position and their objections in technical terms are then able to be answered (refuted if you will) or just reassured point by point! Yes, it very much is like sausage being made but it's a d*mn sight better than secrect comittees making standards for everyone! I suspect this is the real reason that K continues to answer each and every post. It's a process and if the NMRA is really and truly interested in making inroads to Large Scale, they would look to this thread (and others like them) as a valuable resource! At the very least, it would be a good first step in the right direction!


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Curmudgeon on 21 Mar 2010 08:51 PM 



Any time I can make a comment not addressed to any individual, and when stated it will upset anyone, and then someone comes back IN FULL CAPS to respond, which is internet yelling, said person has proven the point for me.
Thank-you.



YOU MUST SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THE INTERNET. IF THIS IS YELLING THEN SO BE IT. THIS THREAD STARTED OUT AS AN HONEST ATTEMPT TO PUT FORTH THE NMRA'S IDEAS FOR COUPLER STANDARDS. INSTEAD OF MAKING CONSTRUCTIVE CONTRIBUTIONS YOU HAVE MADE A MOCKERY OF IT AND TOTALLY DESTROYED THE INTENT. IF DWIGHT HAD ANY BACKBONE HE WOULD STOP THIS NONSENSE BY LOCKING THIS THREAD OR DELETE ALL YOUR NEGATIVE COMMENTS AND LET THE DISCUSSION PROCEED AS INTENDED AND BAN YOU FROM MAKING ANY MORE COMMENTS. SO FAR THIS 32 PAGES IS JUST A WASTE OF INTERNET SPACE ALL BECAUSE OF YOU. THANK-YOU NOT.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

It is yelling. 

There is no reason to be rude to anyone. 

There is no reason to be "rude back", i.e. one bad action justifying a retaliatory bad action. This is something that is fundamental in many cultures and religions (oops). 

When I hear/see someone yelling, I normally disregard that "noise", so it's really not helping the point. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Unfortunately, there are some that only post personal attacks when they have nothing of substance to contribute and feel "slighted." This is also reminiscent of what happens in politics on Capitol Hill! I suspect that the current animosity of the post is intended more to get the thread "locked" thus denying the opposition a forum for discussion (this is also a favorite political ploy in Washington!)


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

"Unfortunately, there are some that only post personal attacks when they have nothing of substance to contribute and feel "slighted."" 

You noticed, eh?


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 21 Mar 2010 11:01 PM 
How is that different from what we're discussing? We've established that Kadee _will not_ be the standard, because both Kadee and the NMRA nixed that idea. I wasn't too fond of that route, either, so I'm glad it was nixed. However, Kadee is a common coupler, so why would we not author standards so that their couplers would be just as compliant"as those from Accucraft, Bachmann, etc., that already have been proven to work well together? 

Later, 

K Page A-1:

Couplers intended for standard gauge models should have contours that mate with current AMS 32 and Kadee 820 series couplers.

Okay, so, 1:29 is not considered by the nmra to be standard gauge?

Goodie!

Why choose two couplers that you consider "standard", and leave out the others?

Why choose one that works like the prototype, and one that there is no prototype for?


Next paragraph includes truck-mount Aristo couplers as mating with AMS20, AMS29, Kuppler, Kadee 820, 830, 900, and MTH, yet, for narrow gauge, leaves out the Lionel, Delton, Aristo Classic, Bach, USA.......
Gotta be some of the loosest set of standards ever, right?

Or, is it leaving out all the ones that work together an attempt to get the AC folks on-board?

Politic-speak.

You ain't as good at it as your predecessor was.


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

Standards are a necessary fact of life - particularly in many manufactured goods. I refer you to thread form standards etc. Life would be a lot tougher without them. In some instances however the lack of standards can be used by a manufacturer to 'bind' you to their product regardless of scale. In model railway business these have chiefly been track/wheel standards and couplers. In other words a lack of some standards in important areas can be used to restrict your choice.

As manufacturers have a vested interest in NOT having standards it usually falls to a notionally independent body to try and come up with the goods. This is not to say that vested interests would not try to sway such a body's interests in their favour. As far as the NMRA is concerned at least it is an open organisation that you CAN join and have your say. 


Given the way the garden rail hobby has developed it makes sense to have a one size fits all standard regardless of scale for the Mass market as folk will insist on mixing scales. Each scale should have its own standard which should be compatible, as far as track is concerned, with the Mass market. This is unlikely to be finescale because garden environments are not that forgiving, and to run finescale out doors would require either deep pockets or a high level of personal skill. If required there perhaps be a finescale standard for the very skilled, the very rich and the collector, and which would be for 'bespoke' models.


The same applies to the couplers, in an ideal world with a standard draft pocket which would take all but finescale couplers.


SOO if you want to be bonded exclusively to LGB products or Aristo or USA trains forget standards. If you want to be able to run the equipment of your choice from any source on any track etc. then standards are a fact of life. If you think standards are a good idea then someone needs to make decisions. Ideally whatever develops should be an international effort.

Sam E


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

So, since the verbiage in the proposal tends to indicate folks more scale-oriented are interested in such all-encompassing standards, how do you justify running 1:22.5, 1:24, 1:20.3 NG all with the same coupler and height so as to be interchangeable? 
Since the "stanard" for 1:20 and "G: is 1.125", and the "standard" for 1:32 is 1.063", obviously you need to choose one, and all interoperability is lost. 
Granted, it's not much, but with the "spread" listed it could be on body mounts and rough track. 

What about page 3: 
"Correspondence to a prototype scale height is not applicable in this case because there is no universal height standard for anrrow gauge prototypes.". 

So, we either leavi it up to the manufacturer (which we do now), or the consumer to "fix" the height (which we also do now). 
Basically, this "standards proposal) leaves it all alone except for using Kadees, which is, well, ridiculous.


----------



## Doug C (Jan 14, 2008)

"Hook and loops AREN'T couplers. haha. . . . ." 

Weeell they sure couple my rolling stock together and stay coupled for long trains ! 

I don't model couplers but enjoy running trains. 

I don't watch couplers running by (at the station), I watch/admire the various rolling stock and power units 'run-by'. 


And until the 'modellers' who imply they are prototypical (running) modellers, take out the screw that attaches the trucks to the rolling stock, and run their trains like the real ones . . . you also just run 'model' trains ! 

IMHO ... 'nuff said,doug c


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Page A-1: 
Couplers intended for standard gauge models should have contours that mate with current AMS 32 and Kadee 820 series couplers. 

Okay, so, 1:29 is not considered by the nmra to be standard gauge? 

First, that doesn't mention scale, but a reference to prototype. So 1:29 is considered standard gauge, since 1:29 trains are models of standard gauge prototypes. The smaller sized couplers are far more in line with a scale appearance on those models, and there's no practical reason why they cannot be used successfully. 

One thing that's come about as a result pretty much specifically this ongoing discussion is that we've dropped reference to "standard" and "narrow" gauge in terms of categorizing couplers, and instead are focusing on two distinct sizes--one on par with the Kadee #1-scale/AMS 1:32 coupler, and one on par with the Bachmann/Kadee G-scale/AMS 1:20/AMS 1:29/Aristo Kuppler/MTH/etc. size. Why? because manufacturers and modelers have their own reasons for choosing which size coupler they want to use on their models, regardless of whether they're models of standard or narrow gauge prototypes. Many modelers run all scales, and want to use the same coupler for everything. Some modelers use the smaller sized couplers on their narrow gauge equipment to model the smaller couplers used by some narrow gauge lines. Reasons are varied, and exceptions are as prevalent as norms. The 1:29 manufacturers are using couplers that tend towards the larger of the two sizes. Accucraft's a prime example. They use their 1:32 coupler (which really scales to 1:29ish) on their 1:32 equipment, and a much larger "1:29" coupler that's on par with their 1:20 coupler in terms of size on their 1:29 equipment. From that, we can infer that they view those two very similar product lines as completely different. 

Why choose two couplers that you consider "standard", and leave out the others? 
Which two have been "chosen?" Nothing's been chosen. We're looking at all the current compatible couplers, and looking to quantify the range of measurements that allow _all_ of them to work together. If a manufacturer builds a coupler that falls _anywhere_ within that range, there's a very high probability that it, too, will be fully compatible with the rest. Can you please point to anywhere in the proposal that dictates a single coupler profile since the "Kadee as a standard" option is off the table? 

Why choose one that works like the prototype, and one that there is no prototype for? 
Because they're both fully compatible with each other. Picture them on ends of the spectrum. At one end, you've got the Kadee--widely used by many modelers, and among the best in terms of reliability over the years. On the other end, you've got a scale model of the prototype coupler. Since both of them work together, the standard should embrace both of them. Can you imagine the criticism if we wrote a standard that rendered Kadees non-compliant? Why on earth would we do that? 

Next paragraph includes truck-mount Aristo couplers as mating with AMS20, AMS29, Kuppler, Kadee 820, 830, 900, and MTH, yet, for narrow gauge, leaves out the Lionel, Delton, Aristo Classic, Bach, USA....... 
That's precisely the kind of feedback I know you can offer, once you get past the "NMRA go away" rhetoric. I know that sounds flippant, but that's exactly what I've been trying to pull from you since page 1 (or 2). Certainly we'd include Bachmann in that list, and probably a reference to Delton and Lionel, since they're virtually clones, though long out of actual production. The USA coupler, going by the chart in the proposal, has compatibility issues with many of the others, so including it in this group as a benchmark wouldn't make sense. Also, the Kadee #820 (#1-scale size) coupler should not be in that group, since it's the smaller dimensions. 

Politic-speak. 

You ain't as good at it as your predecessor was. 
I don't know who you're referring to, but I'll say "good." I'm not involved with this to be political. I would hope that what I'm putting forth is a fairly easy-to-understand analysis of the process and what the proposal does and does not do, and taking what constructive feedback is being offered back to the group to amend the proposal to make it something more reflective of the large scale community's desires. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

"That's precisely the kind of feedback I know you can offer, once you get past the "NMRA go away" rhetoric. I know that sounds flippant, but that's exactly what I've been trying to pull from you since page 1 (or 2). Certainly we'd include Bachmann in that list, and probably a reference to Delton and Lionel, since they're virtually clones, though long out of actual production. The USA coupler, going by the chart in the proposal, has compatibility issues with many of the others, so including it in this group as a benchmark wouldn't make sense. Also, the Kadee #820 (#1-scale size) coupler should not be in that group, since it's the smaller dimensions. " 

Many? I can use USA with Bach, Delton, Lionel......even Herb Chaudiere used USA exclusively. 

"Why choose two couplers that you consider "standard", and leave out the others? 

Which two have been "chosen?" Nothing's been chosen. We're looking at all the current compatible couplers, and looking to quantify the range of measurements that allow all of them to work together. If a manufacturer builds a coupler that falls anywhere within that range, there's a very high probability that it, too, will be fully compatible with the rest. Can you please point to anywhere in the proposal that dictates a single coupler profile since the "Kadee as a standard" option is off the table? " 

AMS32 and Kadee. I quoted right off the proposal. 

"One thing that's come about as a result pretty much specifically this ongoing discussion is that we've dropped reference to "standard" and "narrow" gauge in terms of categorizing couplers, and instead are focusing on two distinct sizes--one on par with the Kadee #1-scale/AMS 1:32 coupler..." 

Are you and I reading from the same proposal? 

Page 5: Mating Contours: 
"assigned to two sets". 

Page 6 and 7, Table 2: 

"Member standard gauge set" and "Member narrow gauge set", except for Bach and USA, which are "not assigned to a set".


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

So, since the verbiage in the proposal tends to indicate folks more scale-oriented are interested in such all-encompassing standards, how do you justify running 1:22.5, 1:24, 1:20.3 NG all with the same coupler and height so as to be interchangeable? 
Because that's what the majority of large scale railroaders want. That's what's been practiced for decades. Manufacturers and modelers have historically demonstrated a willingness to make certain compromises in terms of coupler height, so why would we think about changing that? This is about listening to the large scale community. 

Since the "stanard" for 1:20 and "G: is 1.125", and the "standard" for 1:32 is 1.063", obviously you need to choose one, and all interoperability is lost. 
Granted, it's not much, but with the "spread" listed it could be on body mounts and rough track. 
You can't couple a prototype 3/4-sized coupler to a full-sized one. Why would you expect to do so in this scale? Absolutely--if you standardize on the smaller coupler, you limit yourself to running with equipment fitted only with compatible couplers. In terms of height, the larger coupler face is mounted 1/16" higher than the smaller coupler face, but assuming that they would mate (which would be purely coincidental), the whole of the smaller coupler face is in contact with the larger one--no less than what it would be coupled to other like-sized couplers. 

What about page 3: 
"Correspondence to a prototype scale height is not applicable in this case because there is no universal height standard for anrrow gauge prototypes." 
Statement of fact. Narrow gauge coupler heights varied greatly (as much as 8 - 10" from one railroad to the next). To ascribe a single height and to call it "prototypic" would be inaccurate. So, we set a height based on past practice and de facto standards and leave it at that. If the modeler wishes to move couplers to the correct height for their particular railroad, they may, but they risk rendering their equipment incompatible with others'. (For instance, I use the #1-sized couplers, but set them 1 3/16" high--a scale 24". That's a full 1/8" higher than "standard" for the #1 sized couplers. But since I don't envision pulling strings of standard gauge equipment on my narrow gauge line, that's not an issue for me. 
l 
So, we either leavi it up to the manufacturer (which we do now), or the consumer to "fix" the height (which we also do now). 
Basically, this "standards proposal) leaves it all alone except for using Kadees, which is, well, ridiculous. 
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Yes, the standards proposal does a lot of "leaving it alone." Isn't that what you want? The ability to continue doing what you're doing? The only thing that's really changed is that there will be a quantifiable range of dimensions to which a manufacturer can look when developing their couplers that would ensure the greatest compatibility with other manufacturers' couplers. The height guidelines would do the same. Kadee set the height standards decades ago without making it "official." Other manufacturers adopted Kadee's standards. So, yes--this proposal on many fronts says "keep doing what you're doing." For the anti-standards crowd, I would think that would be refreshing. 

Later, 

K


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Many? I can use USA with Bach, Delton, Lionel......even Herb Chaudiere used USA exclusively 
I would certainly hope Herb had success using the same brand of coupler exclusively. As for the others, I'm going by what's shown on the chart. My experiments differ somewhat, but I still find the USA coupler to be a bit problematic in terms of operations with many. 

AMS32 and Kadee. I quoted right off the proposal. 
The proposal _does not limit_ things specifically to those two couplers. It says--in sum and substance--compliant couplers will be compatible with both of these, because they represent ends of the spectrum. If a third manufacturer designs a coupler that is compatible, then the proposal would read something like "compatible with Kadee, AMS 32, and XYZ32." It's a _range_ of compatible values to which couplers can be built. Nowhere does it say the coupler must clone one or the other. 

"One thing that's come about as a result pretty much specifically this ongoing discussion is that we've dropped reference to "standard" and "narrow" gauge in terms of categorizing couplers, and instead are focusing on two distinct sizes--one on par with the Kadee #1-scale/AMS 1:32 coupler..." 

Are you and I reading from the same proposal? 

Page 5: Mating Contours: 
"assigned to two sets". 

Page 6 and 7, Table 2: 

"Member standard gauge set" and "Member narrow gauge set", except for Bach and USA, which are "not assigned to a set". 
Let me re-quote what you just excerpted... 
*"One thing that's come about as a result pretty much specifically this ongoing discussion is that we've dropped reference to "standard" and "narrow" gauge in terms of categorizing couplers* 
In other words, we listened to what folks had to say through the course of this discussion, _and are making changes to the proposal._ They're not yet reflected in any published changes. What's published is what started the discussion. The discussion has been fruitful, and we're making changes based on this discussion. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

So, since the verbiage in the proposal tends to indicate folks more scale-oriented are interested in such all-encompassing standards, how do you justify running 1:22.5, 1:24, 1:20.3 NG all with the same coupler and height so as to be interchangeable? 
Because that's what the majority of large scale railroaders want. That's what's been practiced for decades. Manufacturers and modelers have historically demonstrated a willingness to make certain compromises in terms of coupler height, so why would we think about changing that? This is about listening to the large scale community. 


Kevin, I disagree, the majority of large scale railroaders do NOT want the same coupler height because they do not mix scales!

In 1:29, there is enough "scale" product that mixing scales is not that common.

In 1:20.3 , there are very few people that want to mix scales and have the expectation to have everything at the same height.


For the people who mix everything, yeah, they would like a standard height.


I, being in 1:29 have no interest whatsoever with worrying about 1:22 or 1:24, I want my couplers a scale height above the rails, and the AML and USAT coupler pads do so.

If I was in 1:20.3, I would be really po'd if I did not have a prototype coupler height, and it's NOT the same as 1:29.

I cannot believe that the majority wants what you stated. I would believe it if there was a reasonable survey published.

Otherwise, I think I will "believe" this thread with ELEVEN THOUSAND views.

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Kevin, I disagree, the majority of large scale railroaders do NOT want the same coupler height because they do not mix scales! 
Greg, nothing would please me more than to be able to agree with you on this one. But I'm just not seeing it. Not here in Denver, not two years ago in Phoenix, not on the forums. Yes, there are definitely more people trending that way (and that's a good thing in my opinion), but the minute you suggest to someone that they can't run a 1:24 box car with a 1:29 box car, they tell you to go fly a kite (or worse). That's the foundation upon which the freedom of large scale is built, and I just don't see that changing in the slightest. 

In terms of heights, a 1 1/16" coupler centerline in 1:29 is 31". A 1 1/8" height is 33". So, even if you're using a more scale-appropriate sized coupler and its respective height, you're off by 2 or 3" depending on if you use a 33" or 34" centerline. (I've seen both for standard gauge.) Considering the rails are 5" too narrow, I think most practitioners can live with a 2 - 3" difference in coupler height. It's not a topic that's come up when I've chatted with club members. They just want the things to stay coupled. 

Move up to 1:20.3, and 1 1/8" translates to under 23", 3" shy of the D&RGW's 26" standard. Three inches in 1:20 is a larger actual difference than 3" in 1:29. Likewise, I've not heard a bunch of folks bellyaching about low couplers in 1.20.3, either--and if anything, folks in that scale tend to be more of the rivet counters of the hobby. I've been on the 1:20.3 yahoo group for quite a few years (since its inception?) and I've never heard anyone complain about it. Maybe we're just too jazzed to have good-looking prototype couplers to care? Who knows... 

Those of us who are a bit OC about it go ahead and set our own height, accepting the compromises that come with it. 

The 1:29 manufacturers are trending towards the larger of the two standards anyway, so your coupler--at 1 1/8" centerline--is going to be at the prototype height. Remember--the standards don't mandate that "standard gauge" manufacturers use the smaller coupler. They can make their own choice of which of the two standards they wish to follow. 

Later, 

K


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

Posted By jfrank on 22 Mar 2010 08:35 AM 
IF DWIGHT HAD ANY BACKBONE HE WOULD STOP THIS NONSENSE BY LOCKING THIS THREAD OR DELETE ... 


personally i am content, that our moderators have enough backbones not to close threads because of disagreements. 

to the theme at hand:
apart from the reasons in contra allready given (different scales etc) i see no reason for a forced standardization.

many of us are modellers. meaning, they alterate what they buy. why should the couplers be an exception?

most large "scale" customers are x-mas loopers. they buy a set and maybe an additional car or two. normally from the same brand.

but the main reason, why i think the intent on standardization is not good is the wrong point in time that has been chosen.
western economies are going down the drain. manufacturers have to try to survive. some don't (LGB, Maerklin...) any pressure at this moment will only help to worsten the situation.
we go and press the manufacturers to change parts of their producing, means that we put additional costs on their backs.
then they have to charge us more. meaning, that we buy less.

in the end of a vicious circle like that, we well might get perfect standardization. that will be the standard of the last producing toy factory on earth - somewhere in china.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

??? 

Kevin said: 

" 
Greg, nothing would please me more than to be able to agree with you on this one. But I'm just not seeing it. Not here in Denver, not two years ago in Phoenix, not on the forums. " 

Well, don't know how far you can "see" in Denver, Colorado, but that's a small state and not representative of the nation, and it's mostly 1:20.3.... you have a 1:20.3 friend that does not care about the scale height of his coupler being wrong? Please produce this friend. 

I was in Phoenix, I did not see any poll conducted there. 

"not on the forums?".... Uhh ELEVEN THOUSAND views and you discount this thread? Show me another thread on ANY forum that has more activity, views, and a completely different story. 

Let's deal with facts, I've given you some, you CANNOT discount them by just saying you personally don't see it, without any supporting facts. 

Time to step up to the table with facts, not your personal opinion. 

Really Kevin... come on... I took the "I am stupid" post-it off my forehead a few years ago. 

Greg


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

Now wouldn't the ultimate compromise be to standardize the coupler height on all G scales with the truck mount couplers, but provide a set mounting pad for body mounts to the correct height for the specific scale? 

Then all those who want to body mount their couplers can simply cut off the tang on the truck for attaching a coupler. 

I run mostly 29th motive power, yet I have 1/22, 1/24. 1/29 and 1/32 scale frt cars that I pull behind them. Most everything has truck mounted couplers.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Majority of what the hobbyist want, eh? 

Ya know, there are a bunch of folks around here that DON'T use Kadee or Kadee height. 
Majority? 

Sounds like the "majority" that told Soundtraxx they wanted "decoders", and we lost Sierra. 
More like an extremely vocal minority....and, one that wants all discussion stopped as happened with the lgb threads. 
Any time the supporters come back in all caps and exclamation marks, and DEMAND the thread be locked or deleted, those of us who have seen it all before know we are making headway. 

You see others have thought about a universal mounting pad, so we can do what we want to easier? 

Ever think that might be the FIRST thing you want to address? 

Nah. 
That takes cognizant thought.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg, re: Phoenix, I was referring to the railroads on tour--taking a look at the variety of trains running on any one particular railroad. There were some that were scale specific, but the majority still run what they want. GR does reader surveys from time to time. I haven't seen the latest ones in a year or so, but the last one I saw indicated that the "run what I like" crowd is still the majority. Look at Randy's post right below yours. 

As for the 1:20.3 thing, it's simply not an issue that comes up. Join the Yahoo 1:20.3 group and search the archives yourself. Look on the 1:20.me blog. You're not going to find people complaining that the couplers are too low. Don't believe me if you don't want to--that's your prerogative. Search the archives here. You'd certainly think that in this discussion, you'd have the 1:20.3 modelers here adding their two cents for accurate coupler heights if it was an issue for them. Yes, they're low, but it's a compromise we're willing to accept. Would it be nice not to have to? Sure. But the same can be said for 1:29. You don't see people broadening the gauge on their 1:29 stuff; it's a compromise they're willing to accept. 

"not on the forums?".... Uhh ELEVEN THOUSAND views and you discount this thread? 
No, I don't discount this thread at all. I look at all the people saying "leave my couplers alone!!!" and "NMRA GO AWAY" as a pretty good indication that sticking with the status quo suits most people, so why mess with it? Why confuse things unnecessarily. Those who care about that (as I do) can easily shim and trim. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Part of this is that smaller scales have raised up a clueless generation. 
This who haven't got a clue unless it's plug-and-pray. 
Can't solder, have no idea of how things work, won't build kits, WAH! gotta have Kadees factory-installed (or appropriate clones). 

I guess coming up through the ranks as I did, building a kit or two, often with no instructions available any longer, has allowed me at this advanced age to figure out how things work, and more inportantly, how to fix them if they don't. 

If our "new" hobbyists in LS can't figure out how to swap couplers and adjust height, maybe we'd all better just give up now. 

I think the biggest disservice of all was the socket. 

Nobody has a clue how to do it any other way, it seems. 

I do appreciate the all caps shouting, tho. 
Makes my week, it does.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, I'm really not ready to completely decipher what all you said, but thank you for saying you are not discounting 11,000 views on this thread. 

I would still like to garner some more facts, and I do read the 1:20.3 blog and I was in Phoenix. 

Just because the blog is not full of complaints, does not mean they like the coupler height, and it sure as heck does not mean they like the "somewhat standard" height on 1:29 which CANNOT be prototype height in a completely different scale except by sheer coincidence. 

But good enough. As you find more facts, like polls with good participation, or other forum threads or other public information where many people's views are represented, I would love it if you would post those. 

I haven't met the person yet who (alone) can speak for the entire community on this topic. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I would still like to garner some more facts, and I do read the 1:20.3 blog and I was in Phoenix. 
I know you were in Phoenix, which is why I raised that example. I figured if you had the same recollections of the railroads on tour that I did, you'd see where I was coming from. Evidently you had a different experience, or saw different railroads, or something. There were few railroads that I saw which had anything remotely resembling a consistent theme in terms of scale. That's one thing I love to see in a railroad, so I make a point to seek out those lines. 

Just because the blog is not full of complaints, does not mean they like the coupler height, 
It doesn't mean they don't, either. However given that the Yahoo chat group is quite vocal about things they decidedly do _not_ like, one can infer that the relative silence means they're at least comfortable with the compromise. 

and it sure as heck does not mean they like the "somewhat standard" height on 1:29 which CANNOT be prototype height in a completely different scale except by sheer coincidence. 
But it's that coincidence that makes a single coupler height work across two different scales. That's exactly why a 1 1/8" height works for both groups. That's the same coincidence that makes a 1:32 scale coupler work for a 3/4-sized coupler in 1:20.3. Why not use it to our advantage? 

I haven't met the person yet who (alone) can speak for the entire community on this topic. 
No, and I don't presume to individually speak for the entire community. What I can do is observe what I see, talk to other modelers, and look on forums and in magazines to get a feeling for what modelers are doing, then draw conclusions from those observations, experiences, and feedback. If you disagree with my conclusions, that's fine. But to challenge me to prove my own observations? No amount of proof will satisfy. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Greg- You've met one person who can speak for everybody on every aspect of LS, right? 

Rabid Chihuahua, wasn't he?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

TOC: Yeah, I remember that meeting. 

Kevin, nothing wrong in asking you to "prove" your observations, they should be rooted in fact and examples. 

You did make a statement "Because that's what the majority of large scale railroaders want." Not as an opinion, but as a fact. That's a dang bold statement based on the feedback on this proposal here and in another forum.

I still don't see enough information to accept that statement, from you or anyone else... but I'll watch, and be prepared to be convinced..

You can have all the opinions you want. If you present opinions not substantiated by fact, then I don't give them as much credence as things backed up with nice cold facts, where 99% of the people seeing these facts would agree. Presenting an opinion as fact lights me right up. Only a fool blindly believes things without backup information.

I'm not seeing it. Viewing a few layouts on a tour is not enough of a data sample for me. I saw the same layouts. I did not come to the conclusion that you did. 

I guess I'm just not as good as you at extracting the consensus of the "G scale majority", I think I need a lot more experience to make a similar statement, in fact I may never be able to speak for the entire G scale community. I guess I'm just not slated for greatness. Poor me.


Regards, Greg


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg, I've never been able to prove anything to your satisfaction in the past--despite concrete evidence (i.e, "yes it can be done because I've done it")--so I'm not even going to bother here. Statistically, you need a sample set of 593 people on a population of 50,000 to get a survey result with a 4% margin of error. (source: http://americanresearchgroup.com/sams.html ). That means this forum alone would provide survey results with that narrow a margin of error. (And that's just active users). There are other mitigating factors--people who are active on the forums tend to be this way or that, and all that nonsense, but my point is you can draw very solid conclusions by sampling a surprisingly small set of the population. You don't need to talk to everyone, or even nearly everyone to get an idea of where opinions and preferences fall. From what I've seen, heard, etc., I think my conclusions are a fairly accurate assessme of the whole. Disagree, it won't be the first time. But I stand by my statement that the majority of the large scale population doesn't give a flying fig about how high their couplers are compared to the prototype*; they just want them to stay coupled. 

Later, 

K 

edit - *within the ballpark of the heights of current production couplers. Obviously couplers placed at the roof would be suspect. That should be an obvious given, but given the pedantry on display here, I thought I'd clarify.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg, I've never been able to prove anything to your satisfaction in the past 
And you are undoubtedly not the only one.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

500 more words to say "Greg I'm dismissing your comments because you have never been satisfied with anything I have said in the past", replete with a lecture on elementary statistical theory.

Sounds more like sour grapes than anything factual. Again a gross generalization, "anything", not one dang thing? That must be true, I have NEVER been satisfied by anything you have ever said. That's two now in one thread.

Well, I have been satisfied by many things you have stated Kevin (and there is PROOF right here on the forum), but when you put up opinion as fact, then it's disingenuous, and I will call you on it every time. That's what I am talking about now. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

That's the way it's done, Greg. 
Opinion as fact, then quote the published opinion to prove your fact. 

Remember the Ames Super Socket With Integrated Production Electrinics? 

Slant everyting to get your way. 

If he wants to use this very forum, he's lost. 
So, he won't. 

Bets are the hope was to get some big article out in some print medium pushing the agenda. 

Unfortunately, it's in THIS medium where they can get instant feedback. 

Oh, well.


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

Can someone tally up the points here please? 

After 18 pages, I've lost count. 

Who's ahead in this match? 

Rounds won by Greg ___ 

Rounds won by Kevin ___ 

Where do we place our bets?


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Greg, let's get back on the topic at hand. Otherwise, we're tetering very close to getting personal, which doesn't progress anything. We're not going to agree on semantics, facts vs. opinions or such, and there's no point in wasting bandwidth or time attempting to do so. 

You have an issue with how the proposal is addressing coupler heights. Here's what we're proposing... 

All couplers that match in size/compatibility to the Kadee G-scale, AMS 1:20, AMS 1:29, Delton, Bachmann, MTH couplers would be mounted at 1 1/8". This is the height used by AMS on their 1:20 stuff (I have not measured their 1:29 stuff to say for certain, but given they've cloned Kadee's 830 box, I would presume so), Bachmann's 1:20 rolling stock, and Kadee's G-scale coupler. Depending on the scale of the trains, this corresponds to a height anywhere from 36" (1:32) to 23" (1:20.3). 

All couplers that match in size/compatibility to the Kadee #1-scale and AMS 1:32 couplers would be set to 1 1/16" centerline. That's the centerline height used by both Kadee and AMS on their 1:32 stuff. Depending on the scale of the trains, this corresponds to a height anywhere from 34" (1:32) to 21.5" (1:20.3). 

Like the coupler sizes, the heights would not be segregated by scale. A manufacturer making any scale train can choose either of the two coupler size/height standards to suit their own needs. 

So, what--specifically--would you like to see instead? 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Standardized coupler mounting pads on the underside of the rolling stock AND locomotives so the consumer can make their own choices, WITHOUT the nmra dictating couplers, size, profile, or any other such garbage. 

Remember the "screw terminals", so the hobbyist could use what he or she wanted to use without some committee designed abort.....ooooops. 

The nmra committees have made up their mind. 
All the talk won't get us anywhere. 

I don't think you have any intention of doing anything other than what you are proposing. 
No matter how many folks say "nmra go away".


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

We're not teetering close to personal, you already went there, and made up a lousy excuse to blow me off, and divert attention away from your proclamation that your opinion has turned to fact. 

I can see no progress will be made until you are convinced you have beaten me into submission. 

I cannot see any good doing a complete reset on the topic we were talking about... I'll come back later.... 

Greg


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Hey, Greg, wanna start a pool on his BP?


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Okay, Dave. I'm game. I've stated that the universal coupler mount idea has merit, it's just not the direction this particular proposal is headed... 

So, since I've been thinking about it as well, let's see where this goes. Here are the questions that come up in my mind as I think about a universal mount. If we can come up with a way to move forward on those lines as opposed to a specific coupler interface, perhaps that's an easier model? There are a lot of issues that I can't quite answer, though. I'm definitely up for hearing your (and anyone's) ideas here. 

1) Adopting a universal mounting pad requires agreement on height. What height do you set it to? Can we use the "established" heights of 1 1/8" that's used by Kadee, Bachmann, AMS even though they're not necessarily prototypic for all scales? Do we use 1 1/8" and 1 1/16" as two standards? Can we use multiple heights that are scale specific? If you go that route, how do you establish a prototype height for the narrow gauge scales when the prototype didn't have a standard? 

2) Establishing a pad is one thing. The distance from the pad to the centerline of the coupler has to be consistent so the heights are equal. The easiest way to do that is to establish a standard draft gear height, which goes beyond just establishing a pad. If you specify a draft gear height, do you then specify a draft gear style? If so, what style? 

3) If you go with establishing Kadee's draft gear as a standard, will they go along with it? They've nixed using their coupler itself as a standard. They're not defending their patent relative to other manufacturers cloning their draft gear at the moment, but that could easily change if they felt it would negatively impact their market share. A standard coupler mount would push other manufacturers to produce their couplers in compatible draft gear. Currenlty only Bachmann and AMS do this. What happens if MTH, USA, Aristo, and whoever else wants to get in on the fun jumps in? If I were Kadee, that's something I'd weigh before allowing my draft gear to become an established standard. (And which Kadee style would you choose?) 

4) How do you handle the "R1" rule? Body mounts and tight radii don't really get along. (It's not just tight curves, I can't run my 1:20 passenger cars over an Aristo 5' radius switch onto a passing siding because the couplers don't have sufficient side play.) Can it be a "standard" if only a percentage of the market can use it, or is it only a really nice convenience? How does "the other half" solve their coupler issues? 

5) What do you do about truck-mounted couplers? Do you specify a standard mount for them, too? Do you specify the same heights as for the body-mounts (a la Kadee)? 

6) How do you handle a standard mount on locomotives and cars which physically cannot have such a mount? For instance, modern steam locos sometimes had a retractable (for lack of better term) front coupler. Or, you've got locos with large overhangs where the coupler inherently needs a fair amount of lateral play just to stay coupled to the train. Do you just write them off as being "non-compliant?" Or is there need to worry about that? 

7) How do you convince manufacturers to get on board? If only two or three manufacturers are even making couplers in the "standard" draft gear, does that inherently make them "standard" by default? What do you do about other brands of couplers which don't come in compatible draft gear? Is it "sorry, Charlie?" or just personal choice?

There are a lot of parallels between the two approaches to this in terms of decisions that need to be made. I really do want to hear your take on these issues. How comprehensive can we make this approach? Let's look at it, see what we can do with it. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Ah, #4 first.... 
R-1 doesn't enter into the equation. 
All we are talking about is a PAD, not a COUPLER. 
Set the height yourself. 

Use one for SG (or quasi-SG), one for NG. 

You're the committee chair. 

Ship the cars with whatever couplers you want (like, oh, the USA Ultimate Series), and: 
The Consumer can install what he or she wants! 

The coupler manufacturers will make the boxes to accept their couplers and mount to the pad. 
I don't really care. 

Maybe even Bach will make their 1:20 stuff work with any coupler box then, eh? 
And we can get away from the big extension hanging off the end of the other 1:20 cars? 

We don't need couplers. 
What we need is an unobtrusive pad under each end. 

You ever try putting body mount Kadees on a Bach 1:22.5 car? 

And be able to remove the frame later? 
Whack, cut, fill, drill, tap, paint. 

#6....that's what "exceptions" are for. That's where the "hobbyist" part comes into play. 
Ever try a retractable with a Kadee? 
Ever try a Kadee close on a long cowcatcher without cutting the "hose" off? 

#5...we're only taking body mounts here. 
If you had bothered to read what I've posted, truck-mounts are outside of your purview anyway. Let it come with low-mount, truck-mounted couplers. But, a universal pad. 

You ever actually follow the RP's over the years? 
Pad height, bolster height (so trucks would interchange), and all of that. 
Set the height. 
Set the design. 
If USA can do it, and allegedly Bach (what IS that mount under the end of the tender on the 4-4-0/2-6-0?). 
All you have the right to do is make it easier for folks to use what they want. 

We are not talking draft gear, as that would be part of....THE COUPLER! I cannot imagine Kadee has patented the flat mounting pad and screw hole spacing to mount their draft gear against the floor, but maybe. 

#7....the way the nmra and the Milwaukee Mafia have done it for over 60 years. 
nmra generated and publishes the "standards", a certain magazine group reviews articles, and states whether or not such and such an item meets nmra standards.....or not. Then, the nmra minions ONLY buy that which meets said standards (and in the old days, one biggie seemed to stock those items. 

Boy, maybe you should have been a member to be chairman....they'd have told you the "how-to". 

Pad. 
Mount. 

NOT Draft Gear OR Couplers. 

How did you plan on getting all the manufacturers to accept your coupler, height, and operation? 

Use that model! 

220/175 yet?


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Ah, #4 first.... 
R-1 doesn't enter into the equation. 
All we are talking about is a PAD, not a COUPLER. 
So, you're saying your solution is only of benefit to those modelers whose railroads can physically accommodate body-mounted couplers. 
Set the height yourself. 
The whole point is improved interoperability, though, i.e., "I can bring my trains over to run with your trains." If the individual is going to set the height themselves, that kinda nixes interoperability right out of the gate. What happens if a manufacturer decides to set the pad at 1" above the railhead? You've got to specify at the very least a minimum height, the modeler can shim down from there if necessary. 
Use one for SG (or quasi-SG), one for NG. 
Okay. What heights would you use? 
You're the committee chair. 
I'm contemplating an idea that you put forth, and asking for your specific input on how you would implement your idea. I'm chair of nothing at this point. 
You ever try putting body mount Kadees on a Bach 1:22.5 car? 
Yes I have--numerous times, which is why I support the notion of a universal mounting pad. It's a great idea--one that as we've mentioned, seems to be gaining a fair degree of acceptance within the manufacturing community. 
#6....that's what "exceptions" are for. That's where the "hobbyist" part comes into play. 
Ever try a retractable with a Kadee? 
Ever try a Kadee close on a long cowcatcher without cutting the "hose" off? 
That's precisely why I mentioned those situations. That's a limitation of a universal pad; so long as you're willing to accept that as a compromise, so am I. 
#5...we're only taking body mounts here. 
If you had bothered to read what I've posted, truck-mounts are outside of your purview anyway. Let it come with low-mount, truck-mounted couplers. But, a universal pad. 
If you're only specifically addressing body mounts, then this can't be a comprehensive solution to the compatibility problem. It does allow the user to have a much easier go at attaching the coupler of their choice (provided that coupler comes in a compatible draft gear), but it still doesn't address interoperability with others' trains. (And it's still limited to the physical realities of the railroad.) It's merely a convenience for a select sub-set of the community. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that--I'm definitely all for making installing couplers easier. If you're pushing it as a complete alternative to a standardized range of compatible coupler profiles, though, it falls comparatively short. 
We are not talking draft gear, as that would be part of....THE COUPLER! I cannot imagine Kadee has patented the flat mounting pad and screw hole spacing to mount their draft gear against the floor, but maybe. 
If it's just a pad, why include holes at all? If you do, you're "picking" a single style of draft gear, thus making it something of a standard. Without holes, the modeler is free to use whatever form of draft gear they chose, eliminating any single prejudice. There's still something of the height issue, but if I'm reading your post correctly, that's also up to the modeler. Otherwise, you just make sure you specify a minimum height that it has to be so to work within the manufacturers' specs for the common commercial couplers that would be mounted to them. 
#7....the way the nmra and the Milwaukee Mafia have done it for over 60 years. 
This needn't be an NMRA effort. I'm out to solve a problem. I stated from the outset that I view the NMRA as a means to an end. They came to me with their proposal and asked for my opinion. I agreed to work with them because we share a common goal. I'm just as willing to float a symbiotic solution outside their process if we can assemble one that makes sense, is cohesive, and plays to the manufacturers' interests. I think this has merit. Just based on the manufacturers who are already trending towards including pads of some sort, I think with just a little corralling, we can probably achieve a good deal of success without even bringing the NMRA into the mix. It's not going to solve the overarching compatibility issue, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. 

That's why I'm looking for specific answers to the issues I outlined above--to get a constructive dialog going on how we might achieve your goal of a universal pad. If you think it's that important (and you must, since you've been banging that drum from the start), work with me to make it happen. Roll up your sleeves, gather some data, and let's talk about how we can get something on paper that makes sense. No committees, no chairpersons, no votes. Just modelers with an idea and a common goal. It's not going to stop my involvement with the coupler interface proposal, because the two can coexist--and benefit--quite nicely from each other. But to use Tony's metaphor about putting the cart before the horse, the cart's being built. I'm willing to help get the horse ready, but you gotta bring the harness. And by bringing the harness, you make sure that it will fit both the horse and the cart. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Jim Agnew (Jan 2, 2008)

Ah, #4 first.... 
R-1 doesn't enter into the equation. 
All we are talking about is a PAD, not a COUPLER. 

So, you're saying your solution is only of benefit to those modelers whose railroads can physically accommodate body-mounted couplers. 


Kevin, from my own experience, if you're investing in body mounted couplers, you have moved past the "R-1 Rule" in your layout development.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Jim- 
That's what I was trying to tell him. 

Talgo mounts are of no importance to the nmra, whose domain is scale. 
Provide body mount pads, and throw out R-1. 

If he or the nmra thinks they can "fix" couplers and heights and retain R-1, plus talgos, boy, this coule be........a Train Wreck!


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Jim, that's precisely what I was driving at. A standard mount inherently precludes those who run tighter radii. They see no benefit because they can't use the mount. It's a solution that solves part of the problem--and it is certainly worthy of investigation--but it doesn't address as much of the issue that a compatible interface would. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Boy. 
This is worse than a jacka....errr....donkey and a 2X4. 

Okay. 
Those that run talgo mounts at manufacturer-supplied heights are outside the SCALE purview of the nmra. 
If you want to continue with anything in a talgo-mount, you're on your own. 

The nmra will support body mounts, with the mounting pad height to be the agreed upon nmra couple face height for the gauge in question, plus HALF the thickness of the associated draft gear box. 

That's a start. 

This whole thing is a stupid as the nmra deciding how to apply Kadee stanbdards to three-rail "0". 

If they want to use Kadees on 3-rail "0", the owners CAN. 
Come on, Kevin. 
Remove head from.........socket.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Dave, look at Kadee. They've got a standard height, and dozens of different mounts--body-mount and talgo--for a variety of installations. Their couplers work on R-1 curves. Not all the mounts do, but the couplers do. Why do you think that model can't be expanded to accommodate compatibility with other similar couplers? Inter-brand compatibility already exists. Assuming the height was the same, I could take my truck-mounted Kadee G-scale-equipped, R-1-compatible rolling stock and mix it in with your Bachmann/Delton/Lionel-equipped rolling stock on your railroad without any issues at all. All we're looking to do is set down a range of coupler sizes and heights that provides a guideline for more manufacturers to be able to join in what's already being accomplished by some. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Thick. 
Judas Priest. 

Okay. 
The nmra is a scale organization, with adherence to the prototype a BIGGIE. 

You're the one promoting "standards" for the nmra......as I have said all along, leave the couplers out of it. 
Just make it easier for those who wish to have a better adherence to the prototype, have a mounting pad. 

Now, this pad should be level (as in, parallel to the rails), so them slippery couplers don't climb over one another. 
They should also be amply high, so that shims can be applied as necessary (and one in force as a standard, wanna bet Kadee will have packs of shims?) to bring the height DOWN to where it should be. 

Make the pad too low, and you've screwed the pooc....ooops....can't say that. 

IF someone wants scale and prototype adherence, the pads are there. 
If they want something else, well, we just continue as we always have, it's not the big deal the clueless try to make it out to be. 

Stay out of couplers. 
nmra, go away. 

Geez, how big a sig line do I need to have?


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

What Earth ending event is going to happen if the NMRA writes a document and calls it a "standard". Can someone explain that to the rest of us lay-persons? Can you show what punitive law we violate if we don't follow the "standard"? Is somebody going to cut all our wheels square?

A rational, logical, calm explanation would be nice. Leave out all the sour grapes, axes to grind, meetings in Phoenix, cryptic riddles, useless history and other worthless arguments. I would like to know if we are going to have an unscheduled sunrise or not.


I suspect there is not explanation and everyone just wants to acts like somebody is trying to curl one in Mom's punch bowl.


----------



## audi84 (Jan 13, 2008)

YEA !!!

Well spoken....Bob 36 pages of opinions which everyone is entitled to but!!! enuf is enuf ! Lets go on to greener fields & leave the couplers to rest and/or rust 

audi84 aka Noel Thomas


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Are you kidding Noel? Don't stop them now--you can't buy this kind of entertainment!! 

By the way, I hereby start a new group, similar to the SA designation of Steamaholics Anonymous: 

H&LA#1 (Hook & Loop Anonymous member#1) 

Membership is free, and we accept membership from all radiuses of life. 

Keith


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Annonymous, heck. 
Ya think Kevin gets the picture yet? 
I'm done. 
Removed this from my watched threads. 

Have fun!


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Kevin,

If you are trying to put together a proposal that would offer standard height for truck mounted couplers, that's to be applauded. I don't plan to body mount anything that's not already that way. (Percy, troublesome trucks, and aristo 20' gear have body mounted couplers and work on R1). 

For your future reference, I do run a 1:20.3 American with my lone 1/32 freight car. I am the garden railroader of which you speak. I want my trains to stay coupled. I mix everything, 1/20.3, 1/22.5, 1/24, 1/26, 1/29 and my lone 1/32. I want to do as little to my trains as possible to get them to run. 

I also interchange with at least 2 other large scale garden railroads, so standard heights on truck mounted couplers would help.

If that falls out of the scope of the NMRA, perhaps there is another way we can approach the manufacturers? 

Thanks,

Mark


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Cougar Rock Rail on 24 Mar 2010 06:00 PM 
Are you kidding Noel? Don't stop them now--you can't buy this kind of entertainment!! 

By the way, I hereby start a new group, similar to the SA designation of Steamaholics Anonymous: 

H&LA#1 (Hook & Loop Anonymous member#1) 

Membership is free, and we accept membership from all radiuses of life. 

Keith 



I want #13


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Ah, Johnny boyo! Ya dinna really think that you'll be get'n ridda ol' TOC _that_ easy!


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Methinketh Johnny boyo be the one that disappears. 
Regularly now.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm still waiting on the poll to start.







Later RJD


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

I've been sitting here pondering the fact that we have 37 pages (so far) about the NMRA and their "Coupler Standards" and I have been trying to figure out......."why?" Then it hit me...look at the title: NMRA Coupler Standards Proposal" and I realized what all the fuss was about! I think there is some confusion as to whether the NMRA is trying to mandate particular coupler design or merely height. (I still think we should have been able to settle this in 3-4 pages at most but oh well...) 

Question #1: The proposal is for couplers and mandates their height? Why not adopt TOC's proposal for a "Universal mounting box" set at a sufficient height whereby all manufacturer's couplers can then be shimmed to a consistent height for easy coupling? This would seem to be a "no-brainer" as a necessary first step! By doing that, you would solve over half of your coupling problems. It also would appear to be the easiest to convince the manufacturers to go along with!

Question#2: Standards are like goals: for them to be successful they have to have certain qualities and one of them that both share is that they have to be realistic! Insisting that all scales couple together at the same height answers one problem: ease of coupling together but completely ignores the issue of multiple scales running together! I was under the impression that the NMRA was pushing accuracy. Am I in error? 

Question#3: What is the primamry purpose of this Coupler Standards Proposal? If it is merely to get everything to connect together then I believe that TOC's proposal providers you with the best option. If it is to do that but within prototypical standards then I'm confused. Multiple scales running together aren't prototypical!

I've got more but those are the salient points of contention. Again, thanks for your efforts.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Why so many pages (by the way I agree down the line with what you said Steve) 

Because on one side you have a majority of modelers, or so it seems from this thread 

and on the other side, you have "our" standards body, apparently at odds with reason and the majority of opinion. 

This is perceived as dangerous by many, based on the evidence of what has gone on before by the standards committee in this range of scales. 

If it was just an individual with a hair-brained idea, no problem. 

It's the NMRA who has successfully influenced manufacturers before. 

"Danger Will Robinson" 

That's why 36 pages (and also some people take huge volumes of words to reply to simple concepts) 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Removed this from my watched threads 
Aha! That's the culprit! Be warned - putting Topics on your 'watch' list causes arguments!! 

I've been sitting here pondering 
Steve - you and me both (and I started it!) Why 37 pages of argument is beyond me. It was all said in the first few. 

What is the primamry purpose of this Coupler Standards Proposal 
I can tell you that I got emails from the NMRA guy(s) who started this, and can give you two answers. 

(a) They wanted to couple 1/29th equipment: seems there's a problem between Aristo and USAT (not that I would know.) They didn't make it clear that the Fn3 narrow gauge stuff was a different proposal (that took 9 pages to resolve.) I guess NMRA is standard gauge / mainline centric. 

(b) The proposal has been modified in the light of these (and other) responses. So it wasn't all in vain. 

_The question they asked that I couldn't answer was "what does a rabid chihuahua have to do with this"? As TOC isn't watching any more, I guess we'll never know._


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I've been staying out of this thread because I'm not learning anything new. But there is no possible way that the posters on this thread can represent "the majority of modelers." You might indeed be right that the majority of people who own large scale trains hate and detest the NMRA, but there is no way any social scientist could accept the idea that posters in this thread represent "the majority of modelers."



The term"modelers" is itself vague and problematic--do you mean only those who actively build models, or do you mean those who buy models someone else has made? Two very different communities with some commonality. But even if you meant "a majority of those who build their own models," you could not conclude from this thread about the opinions of those people, unless you knew you had a statistically representative sample in terms of demographics.


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

This is what happens when a bunch of engineers (AND I'm not talking locomotive here) mull over a "problem". Coming from a practical background myself in dealing with die design, I saw this all the time! The people with the "hands-on and get it done" experience, would always be able to solve the problems and the "engineers" would STILL be in their offices arguing "what time of day it was". This has been entertaining, but nothing actually accomplished. It DID occupy quite a bit of cyber-land, tho. The rest of us will have the so-called problem solved and be running trains, without the edict of the NMRA!


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

*Fatal Attraction*


*Pastor Gummi:*

We are all assembled here to witness the union of these two perfect specimens.

Do you, Jane Loop, take John Hook to be your chosen mate,
in tight curves and in wide,
in forward and in reverse,
through tunnels and over bridges,
through mountains and valleys,
in good weather and in bad,
indoors and outdoors,
on rough track and on smooth,
on your layout and on mine,
to grab and to hold,
of brass or of plastic,
for as long as your parts are in stock?

*Jane Loop: * I do.

*Pastor Gummi:* And you John?

*John Hook:* I do.

*Pastor Gummi:* 

If there is anyone gathered here today who knows of a reason why
these two should not be coupled together, speak now, or forever hold your piece….

*Knucklecouplerhead: * But it ain’t natural!! They ain’t prototypical!!

*Congregation:* Oh crawl back in to your draftbox, we’ve heard enough from you!

*Pastor Gummi:* Since there are no significant objections, I now pronounce you the Ideal Couple.
What Wolfgang has joined together let no man take apart.



Keith


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

Posted By lownote on 25 Mar 2010 08:10 AM 
I've been staying out of this thread because I'm not learning anything new. But there is no possible way that the posters on this thread can represent "the majority of modelers." You might indeed be right that the majority of people who own large scale trains hate and detest the NMRA, but there is no way any social scientist could accept the idea that posters in this thread represent "the majority of modelers." 





it would be easy to remedy that.
while neither side can rightfully speak for the majority of the "modellers" or owners of modells, we could at least find out what the majority of the MLS participants think.
after a change was proposed that might affect most of the persons in the hobby, it might be time for a poll.
or do the proposers think, there was not enough room yet for discussion?

a simple four answer poll would do:
"what do you think about this NMRA proposal?"

i agree
i disagree
it should be changed somewhat before i could agree
i don't give a s..t about the question

--------------

edit:
Keith, this was by far the best post on this mammoth thread.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 25 Mar 2010 08:05 AM 



I guess NMRA is standard gauge / mainline centric. 




Yep very very very much so

So much so in fact its been put forward that one of the real reasons LS was virtually ignored for many years was that in the beginning (1970's) it was overwhelmingly European narrow gauge (read LGB) and considered "toys" like tinplate, and as such not "real trains". This attitude toward "non-mainline" had been there in regards to narrow gauge in other smaller scales as well, and it prevailed even when Delton, Kalamazoo, and later Bachmann and REA entered the fray. It was still considered "Plastic in the Petunias" It wasnt until REA, now Aristo, and then USA started offering standard guage US profile trains, and the boom in LS sales started with Bachmann El Cheepo sets, that the "enema ray" perked up and took notice that LS was becoming a serious market share of the hobby, of course by then everyone was already successfully doing their own thing, and werent too interested in stirring the pot to changing everything just to please the "scale purists" in the "enema ray". Remember how some of them were having tizzy fits about that "*******" scale we call 1/29 ??? Some still can't wrap thier heads around its popularity. Oh Well to each there own.

Back to your regularly scheduled arguement


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

NMRA, Healthcare, Guberment ?? ??







Regal







38 pages and counting????? What we're you a talkin about I forgot? Hah


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 25 Mar 2010 08:10 AM 
I've been staying out of this thread because I'm not learning anything new. But there is no possible way that the posters on this thread can represent "the majority of modelers." You might indeed be right that the majority of people who own large scale trains hate and detest the NMRA, but there is no way any social scientist could accept the idea that posters in this thread represent "the majority of modelers."



The term"modelers" is itself vague and problematic--do you mean only those who actively build models, or do you mean those who buy models someone else has made? Two very different communities with some commonality. But even if you meant "a majority of those who build their own models," you could not conclude from this thread about the opinions of those people, unless you knew you had a statistically representative sample in terms of demographics. 





I don't get it either lownote. I guess basically the majority of the posters to LSOL are 'toy train people' who don't care about scale or prototypical practices are anything like that. But there are an increasing number of us in the garden railroad hobby that do. So even if they succeed in shooting down any attempts at 'standards' we still have kadees and accucraft couplers, Llagas Creek track and switches and so on so we can get by without impact from all these naysayers on here. * I am a former HO scale modeler and am a member of the NMRA and many of my friends are also and they are all good people that work hard to better the hobby. So I really take offense at the constant reference to the NMRA as the 'enema ray'. I think that is inappropriate and offensive and adds nothing to the discussion.* I would have hoped that the posters and members on LSOL would have taken the high road and participated in a productive and meaningful discussion, but I guess that is too much to hope for from these people. I have not learned anything new from this and the other NMRA related discussions on here other than most of the LS people on here apparently hate the NMRA. I think that is sad. I prefer scale modeling in live steam so I usually don't even read the rest of the stuff on here. But this one really pixxed me off.


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

LSOL, Mr. Bigletters? 
i thought, this was MLS.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By jfrank on 25 Mar 2010 09:16 AM 






I don't get it either lownote. I guess basically the majority of the posters to LSOL are 'toy train people' who don't care about scale or prototypical practices are anything like that. But there are an increasing number of us in the garden railroad hobby that do. So even if they succeed in shooting down any attempts at 'standards' we still have kadees and accucraft couplers, Llagas Creek track and switches and so on so we can get by without impact from all these naysayers on here. * I am a former HO scale modeler and am a member of the NMRA and many of my friends are also and they are all good people that work hard to better the hobby. So I really take offense at the constant reference to the NMRA as the 'enema ray'. I think that is inappropriate and offensive and adds nothing to the discussion.* I would have hoped that the posters and members on LSOL would have taken the high road and participated in a productive and meaningful discussion, but I guess that is too much to hope for from these people. I have not learned anything new from this and the other NMRA related discussions on here other than most of the LS people on here apparently hate the NMRA. I think that is sad. I prefer scale modeling in live steam so I usually don't even read the rest of the stuff on here. But this one really pixxed me off. 
Hey, then I suppose the thread served it's purpose.
How many people, working independently, have succeeded in pixxing you off, again?
What the pholks on lysol do is of little consequence to what folks on MLS do, or, maybe you hadn't really noticed.
Must be them blinders, again.
Pesky things.

Look at what happens every time the nmra tries to get involved.
The reason for "enema-ray", is, just like you see on these types of threads, they can point it at you from a distance, pull the trigger, and make you crXp.

"Enema-Ray".

Your one sentence actually shows some insight and hope for you.
Maybe you are finally starting to understand:

"I have not learned anything new from this and the other NMRA related discussions on here other than most of the LS people on here apparently hate the NMRA."

BINGO!
I know too many folks who came to LS for eyesight, ease of use, and to ESCAPE the nmra's grasp of smaller scales.

I am quite happy you are coming to a clear understanding on this.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I received the following from Pete Thornton after the topic was locked. As he was the topic originator, I felt it appropriate to allow him the final word: 

"(b) The proposal has been modified in the light of these (and other) responses. So it wasn't all in vain."


----------

