# We will control your picture



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandr...Report.pdf

I see the enema-ray is at it again.
Whoever (or whomever) wrote this garbage didn't seem to have the courage to sign it.

Obviously written by someone enamored of Kadees.

Left out some couplers, and the simple fact the non-Kadee couplers can be upgraded with cut levers (lift bars) to make them function prototypically (as we did with ScaleModel and Monarchs in 2-rail "0"), while the only "lift" function for uncoupling Kadees involves the entire piece of rolling stock.

Too many folks I have talked to over the years (almost decades) came to LS to escape the machinations of the enema-ray in the smaller scales.

They start pushing this stuff in certain magazines, I may have to re-evaluate my involvement with said magazines.

Bottom line (Public Forum):

nmra go away.
Take your socialized approach to one-size-fits-all and stick it.
Elsewhere.


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

I quit reading in the front when it was said there would be TWO standard couplers, 1 and G..... 

Then WHY NOT have a 1:29 standard, 1:32 standard, 1:22.5 standard, Fn3 standard....instead of all under the "large scale" moniker? 

HO and HOn3 do not have the same standards afterall....


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Well that article sure raised my blood pressure. I think you need to read it as a tongue in cheek article, though, then it's actually pretty funny. I especially like the DKO standard option, or "Declare Kadee Official". I also liked the "informal contact" they made to Kadee in which Kadee probably told them to go pound salt when they suggested they give up all their patent rights. When did patents ever stop anyone from blatantly ripping off other's products in Largescale anyway, especially by our recent birthday boy? 

The complete lack of respect to LGB and lack of interest in non-knuckle couplers also tells quite a story: 

However, its use is declining and it is a 
completely different approach to coupling and is not compatible with any style of 
knuckle coupler.Really?? So...just ignore them and pretend they'll go away or that the thousands of people who model trains that don't use knuckles prototypically will see the light and change to knuckles? I don't think so! 

Are these guys on the IOC too? I see a lot of similarities. 

Keith


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

I have blood presure problems too....That is why I didn't read the artical









Good to see you posted TOC Thought maybe you fell into the ocean.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Whoever (or whomever) wrote this garbage didn't seem to have the courage to sign it. 

Read to the bottom of the last page. The person behind this has been very public about his involvement in this process, inviting anyone in large scale to join the conversation. (And it is "whoever." "Whomever" would be used as an object of a preposition, i.e., "by whomever this was written.") 

Then WHY NOT have a 1:29 standard, 1:32 standard, 1:22.5 standard, Fn3 standard....instead of all under the "large scale" moniker? 

Because that's very much what we have now--a very fractured, manufacturer-specific coupler system in which trains even of the same scale cannot operate together in the same train. The reality is that "large scale" is a generic term, and that for many practitioners in the hobby, scale is very much an afterthought to aesthetics. As such compatibility between the various scales--for better or for worse--has to be maintained. A coupler (or two) makes the most sense to that end. 

This isn't a "one-size-fits-all" proposal. _*The goal of this is to produce a range of measurements to which couplers can be built and be compatible. It is not to establish any one coupler as standard.*_ For example, Bachmann, Accucraft, and Kadee all make couplers that are nominally the same size but very different in terms of shape and operation. In most circumstances, those three couplers are compatible with each other. (i.e, they couple when pushed together, are mounted at the same height, etc.) The proposal seeks to essentially quantify the physical properties which allow that to happen, so that manufacturers can know that if they build their couplers within that range, they'll work with other couplers built within that range. All three manufacturers' couplers would then meet the "recommended practices" (not "standards"). IN NO WAY is there any expectation that Kadee, Bachmann, or Accucraft would be forced to change their couplers. (We know with a high degree of certainty that they would not, regardless.) Let's be realistic. Accucraft's coupler is nearly about as scale as you can get in terms of operations and appearance. No one's proposing anything which would make that not fit the playing field. 

As for having two "standards," the answer is simple. You have one for the 1:32/1:29 end of the spectrum (Kadee #1, Accucraft 1:32 would be examples) and a second one for the "narrow gauge" scales (1:24, 1:22, 1:20). The manufacturer would be free to choose either (or both) to accommodate on their models. This is especially important because there are a large number of 1:29 and 1:32 modelers who prefer to use the larger G-scale couplers because they're more tolerant of poor trackwork, etc. At the same time, you cannot alienate those who prefer a scale coupler for their standard-gauge trains, so you'd better have something for them as well.

I'm not the one leading this charge, but I think it's "about time" we took a good, hard, unbiased look at this. Can any of us truly admit that we _like_ having to swap out couplers every time they buy a piece of equipment? Is there _any_ way that can be construed as being beneficial to the growth of the hobby? We're the _only_ scale in the hobby where you almost have to buy a spare set of couplers every time you buy a piece of rolling stock. I have no trouble if each of us wants to settle on our own individual favorite brand for our railroads, but we shouldn't _have_ to just to run two manufacturers' cars together in the same train. There's already a bit of momentum on the part of the manufacturers in terms of them putting generic coupler pads or "borrowing heavily" from other manufacturers' coupler boxes to facilitate swapping out couplers and fostering better compatibility. Why not build on that, instead of lamenting the group under whose auspices this is being put forth. (There are many non-NMRA folks like myself involved in this.) We want your feedback, but it needs to be constructive--not just "NMRA GO AWAY." If we lay out _our_ terms--and that's why there's such a call for input--then the result will be what _we_ want. The NMRA is very malleable in this regard. They don't really know what to do with large scale, and there's a good groundswell of support right now for them listening to the large scale community. If we capitalize on that, we come out ahead.


Later, 

K


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

I have no trouble if each of us wants to settle on our own individual favorite brand for our railroads, but we shouldn't have to just to run two manufacturers' cars together in the same train.
See my post in the Rolling Stock forum, http://www.mylargescale.com/Communi...fault.aspx for the solicitation of input. 

I'll repeat the most (IMHO) salient here: 
"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 ![/i]


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

As for having two "standards," the answer is simple. You have one for the 1:32/1:29 end of the spectrum (Kadee #1, Accucraft 1:32 would be examples) and a second one for the "narrow gauge" scales (1:24, 1:22, 1:20). 
Mr EBT/K, 

Maybe I'm dense or maybe your eyes work differently from mine, but that wasn't what I got from the document. E.g. 
_"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."_ 

Half of those couplers are std gauge types, not narrow gauge. It wasn't at all clear to me that they (the authors) understood the difference.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Interesting stuff. 

One funny comment: The document seems to take pride in getting rid of bad or erroneous data, proudly proclaiming it got the term "G scale" removed from one document, but this document itself wants a standard for all of "large scale"... 

"large scale", or "G scale", or "LGB compatible" or whatever, those terms are all really a generality that breaks down pretty quickly when you get to specifics... 

Just thought it was a bit funny... 

On the serious side, while I only model 1:29, a bastardized scale at that, if I was into 1:32, I would want an absolutely SCALE size coupler, with no compromises to 1:29 or anything else. 

Being in 1:29, I have already accepted the fact that I am a "mutant" and can never be to scale (ha ha), so I want something that looks good, reasonable to scale, and overall WORKS. 

If I was in 1:20.3, by gosh I would want an exact scale coupler, and most likely to have it operate just like a prototype, why not? In my mind this scale is often the most prototypically modelled. 

If I was in something else, like 1:22 or 1:24, I believe I would want something that make me interoperable with other scales I might mix in, but I would not get my hopes up. 

My point is that I cannot see one, or even two "standards" satisfying everyone. 

Now, if there CAN be an interoperability "contour" that allows the 1:29 people hook up with the 1:20.3 people, that would be cool, but I sure as heck would not lose sleep over it happening or not. 

In short: I think it's a lofty goal, but unattainable... get the three 1:29 guys to agree on coupler height and contour and follow kadee. 

Maybe publish 1:20.3 dimensions, but why bother, they should use scale couplers. 

Set a coupler height standard? Impossible if people want things to scale. 

I think the goal sounds good on paper, but breaks down due to the diversity of scales and goals of people in each scale. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Tom Leaton (Apr 26, 2008)

Okay. I am an NMRA Member, read the magazines, and so forth. I undertand that when a large group of American HO-scalers start talking about "large scale", it described that way because it isn't HO, not because they are actually trying to be imprecise. Just look at an NMRA Buletin/ScaleRails (a nice publication, BTW). 

As to standards, making up standards is not unexpected. That is what they do. They are always publishing technical standards. Few pay attention, but for those that do, there they are. It never changed the fact that what is manufactured is what people see, and then will buy. 

The HO scalers ( like I was) have been using Kadees for so long that it really is the norm to them, so what do you expect? I will buy what I want, standards or not.


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

This isn't a "one-size-fits-all" proposal 

How can you say that Kevin when the authors are calling for hook and loop genocide? 

Keith


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Yeah, KEBT, read the bottom of the last page. 
It says, if you have comments, contact the group moderator. 
NO where does it say who actually wrote this garbage. 
Read it yourself. 

That's why I said what I said. 

Some of you know, my new "hobby" is restoring old (and I mean old) H0 stuff. 
Die-cast engines of Mantua, Penn Line, John A. English, MDC.....and rolling stock, some pre-war embossed cardstock and wood. 

I am "standardizing" on Mantua couplers, simply because it pi.....errr......upsets nmra types. 

We got a taste of nmra meddling and botchman support with the "new" nmra hook-and-loop coupler height. 
GO AWAY. 

Take your "one size fits all" standards and....well, I can't tell you where to put them on this forum, as Deeeeeeeeeeeee-wight would have a stroke. 

But you get the general idea. 

My stuff works, flawlessly, with EXISTING standards, not standards designed to please the idiots who won't accept existing standards, but have to have "new" standards to "get on board". 

As soon as the nmra starts pushing one aftermarket supplier as the "standard", just because they got away with it in small scales, and uses Lenz and the reason, you got my dander up, bucko, and that is NOT a good thing. 

If this bull....errr.......stuff gets into a Kalmbach publication, and attempts to revitalize the "Milwaukee Mafia" of old, the screaming will be heard a long way off. 

At least I don't have to lift my cars or carry a long screwdriver to uncouple them. 

TTTTTTTTTTTOOOOOOOOOOOOCCCCCCCCCCCCCC


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

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 ! 
On30 uses the same couplers at the same height as HO, so it's actually quite easy to do. It's actually not all that different. The Kadee HO coupler is vastly oversized for that scale, but mounted at a prototypical height. That same coupler on an On30 piece of equipment is much closer to scale, but mounted much lower than scale. The Kadee G-scale coupler is similarly vastly oversized on a piece of 1:32 or 1:29 equipment, but closer to the correct height. It is much more in line with the appropriate size on a 1:22 or 1:20 car, though mounted much lower than prototypically accurate. In terms of HO/On30, it's not codified standard, but de facto practice because "everybody" uses Kadees or Kadee clones now. Not the case in large scale. 

The difference between HO/On30 and large scale is that our couplers are large enough to where they can work prototypically, and don't have 50 years of history of an existing de facto--if not codified--standard. Because we've got couplers like USA Trains, Accucraft, etc. that can work prototypically, there's no reason to push for a Kadee clone; it will simply be rejected. (To say nothing of the NMRA's reluctance to declare any one manufacturer "standard" in this particular instance.) That's why there's a push for looking at overall measurements which allow for greater compatibility. 

So...just ignore them and pretend they'll go away or that the thousands of people who model trains that don't use knuckles prototypically will see the light and change to knuckles? I don't think so! 

Again, this is a "recommended practice" for those manufacturers for whom knuckle couplers would be prototypically accurate. It's not a standard "must do" scenario. If you're a manufacturer producing equipment that didn't have knuckle couplers to begin with, there's no expectation that you'd be remotely forced to comply. LGB, Piko, etc could still use their traditional hook-and-loop couplers to their hearts content. Bachmann could continue to offer both a knuckle (which fit the RP) and a hook and loop which most decidedly would not, leaving the user to choose. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By Tom Leaton on 26 Feb 2010 01:34 PM 
Okay. I am an NMRA Member, read the magazines, and so forth. I undertand that when a large group of American HO-scalers start talking about "large scale", it described that way because it isn't HO, not because they are actually trying to be imprecise. Just look at an NMRA Buletin/ScaleRails (a nice publication, BTW). 

As to standards, making up standards is not unexpected. That is what they do. They are always publishing technical standards. Few pay attention, but for those that do, there they are. It never changed the fact that what is manufactured is what people see, and then will buy. 

The HO scalers ( like I was) have been using Kadees for so long that it really is the norm to them, so what do you expect? I will buy what I want, standards or not. 
Precisely.
If you HAVE to have Kadees, buy them from the aftermarket provider and install them.

And, the nmra can quit publishing technical standards for LS anytime now.

I did find the part in the proposal about encouraging Kadee to not make anything new that was not compatible with old was.....naive, at best, and spoke volumes.

Where were they when a certain manufacturer changed frequencies....twice....and made all old stuff not compatible?

Where were they when the Ames Super Socket With Integrated Production Electronics was first afoot?

Trust the nmra, I do not.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 26 Feb 2010 01:50 PM 
Again, this is a "recommended practice" for those manufacturers for whom knuckle couplers would be prototypically accurate. It's not a standard "must do" scenario. If you're a manufacturer producing equipment that didn't have knuckle couplers to begin with, there's no expectation that you'd be remotely forced to comply. LGB, Piko, etc could still use their traditional hook-and-loop couplers to their hearts content. Bachmann could continue to offer both a knuckle (which fit the RP) and a hook and loop which most decidedly would not, leaving the user to choose. 

Later, 

K Gotta be one of the most naive statements yet.
All you gotta do is look at Thomas, and think "nmra lock-step".


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

We also suggest that S-2 drop reference to “loop and hook” couplers. This type of 
coupler was popularized by LGB and copied by competitors. While still being offered its 
use is diminishing in favor of knuckle couplers, which have more prototypic appearance 
and better operating characteristics. 

No expectation eh? Hmmm... 

Keith


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

proudly proclaiming it got the term "G scale" removed from one document, but this document itself wants a standard for all of "large scale" 

Yeah - talk about waving a red rag to a bull. . . or shooting themselves in the foot. Rotten terminology ruined the whole impact as we're not talking about the substance! 

Can any of us truly admit that we like having to swap out couplers every time they buy a piece of equipment? 

Well, I have USATrains couplers on my Fn3 cars, plus a few Accucraft AMS20 (?) couplers on various live steamers. I interoperate with Kadees regularly as several of my pals have them and I like to pull a good long hopper train occasionally, plus those big Bachmann couplers also work if they are body-mounted at the 'high' setting. I didn't notice an iteroiperability problem until someone brought it up! 

The only coupler that didn't work automatically with mine is the new AMS 1/32nd scale, whose jaws were just a smidgeon too tight, but we still managed to drop the coupler into the slot and go our merry way.


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 26 Feb 2010 01:04 PM 


Then WHY NOT have a 1:29 standard, 1:32 standard, 1:22.5 standard, Fn3 standard....instead of all under the "large scale" moniker?

Because that's very much what we have now--a very fractured, manufacturer-specific coupler system in which trains even of the same scale cannot operate together in the same train. The reality is that "large scale" is a generic term, and that for many practitioners in the hobby, scale is very much an afterthought to aesthetics. As such compatibility between the various scales--for better or for worse--has to be maintained. A coupler (or two) makes the most sense to that end. 



Later, 

K 

Ohhh.....kay?

So why bother having standards if the end result is the ability to have the consist of a 1:29 first generation diesel, followed by a 1:22.5 LGB US outline NG reefer, an Fn3 flat car, a 1:32 gondola.......and then a 1:24 D&RGW outline caboose that are only "compatible" in the fact that they are all "G" and are all painted NYC, PRR, ATSF, etc?

Maybe there is a reason that company specific/scale specific stuff will couple, and why the lash up above would be a real PITA....









Fine scale standards for "Rule 8" (the Brit's term, and one that makes me cringe) appears to be the intended direction?

Hmm, on that thought, should I be mad at the NMRA that my Hornby 00, Roco H0, and US HO have different standards for couplers, and flanges, and clearances, and....


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Just a side comment relating to coupler sizes in 1/20.3 narrow gauge-I believe the D&RGW, narrow gauge actually used full-size standard gauge couplers. Am I wrong?


----------



## Bruce Chandler (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 26 Feb 2010 01:04 PM 



I'm not the one leading this charge, but I think it's "about time" we took a good, hard, unbiased look at this. Can any of us truly admit that we _like_ having to swap out couplers every time they buy a piece of equipment? Is there _any_ way that can be construed as being beneficial to the growth of the hobby? We're the _only_ scale in the hobby where you almost have to buy a spare set of couplers every time you buy a piece of rolling stock. I have no trouble if each of us wants to settle on our own individual favorite brand for our railroads, but we shouldn't _have_ to just to run two manufacturers' cars together in the same train. 








I'm curious about this need to swap out couplers.

I run 1:20 NG cars. My Bachmann 1:20 cars couple to my AMS 1:20 cars. My Rich Yoder 1:20 hopper connects to my 1:20 cars. I didn't HAVE to swap out couplers, but I did, because I prefer the Accucraft couplers over the Bachmann or the Kadee couplers.


What narrow gauge 1:20 cars will not work?


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

"I run 1:20 NG cars. My Bachmann 1:20 cars couple to my AMS 1:20 cars. My Rich Yoder 1:20 hopper connects to my 1:20 cars. I didn't HAVE to swap out couplers, but I did, because I prefer the Accucraft couplers over the Bachmann or the Kadee couplers. 


What narrow gauge 1:20 cars will not work?" 

Why, the ones equipped with the new nmra standard couplers, what else?


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

On30 uses the same couplers at the same height as HO, so it's actually quite easy to do.That's 'cause it was cheap for Bachmann (the original main drive behind popularizing On30) to do it that way and for no other reason. A better anology would be O standard vs. On3.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

I think the NMRA should encourage a 3X larger version of the NMRA standard HO coupler. Yes, let's see those giant horn-hooks! If that's the very best coupler design for HO, shouldn't it also be the very best for everybody else, by their logic? 

Oh, and for those that say Kadee couplers are the standard in HO because it's too small to have working scale knuckle couplers - you're welcome to come over and see my HO scale railroad with working scale knuckle couplers anytime, and no screwdrivers needed for uncoupling. I don't mind replacing every coupler on every piece of rolling stock I buy. I did it for years before the Kadee patent expired, and before I discovered something better. 

Coupler standards make sense for a given scale, and specifically for a given scale/gauge combo, because they help ensure that equipment which is DESIGNED to operate together will be able to do so. I would not expect a standard gauge 1:20.3 Big Boy to be able to couple to a Gn15 tram, even if they ARE built to the same scale. Nor would I expect a 1:32 Big Boy to be able to couple to a 1:20.3 caboose, even if they ARE built to run on the same track. But then again, separate standards for every scale/gauge combination would be a mess - too many competing standards. Seems the best thing to do would be to leave it alone, since it seems to work to most folks' satisfaction as it is.


----------



## todd55whit (Jan 2, 2008)

I for one would like to see the NMRA stay away from large scale.I like choice, that's what helped to attract me to large scale hobby from HO. To have someone/ group dictate what will be available to me because they feel it is correct for all doesn't sound like fun? That is why we do this right? It seems a little late for a coupler standard? There are now at least 5 different brands now. What makes one better than the other? Personal opinion? I run what I like, you run what you like. Who's going to force a manufacturer to use just one design especially if it wasn't their own! Maybe the NMRA could put away the socialist attitude and focus on bring a younger following (we aren't getting any younger) and showing them the joy a hobby brings.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Gotta be one of the most naive statements yet. 
All you gotta do is look at Thomas, and think "nmra lock-step". 
I'm talking about couplers, Dave. Thomas has hook-and-loop. They could easily have used their knuckle couplers on that at either height. They didn't. Think whoever-owns-LGB is going to drop their hook-and-loops? You don't see Bachmann putting their Kadee clones on their European HO stuff. The product line will still dictate the specific coupler. That's not going to change just because some group gets together and says "hey, wouldn't be great if..." 

So why bother having standards if the end result is the ability to have the consist of a 1:29 first generation diesel, followed by a 1:22.5 LGB US outline NG reefer, an Fn3 flat car, a 1:32 gondola.......and then a 1:24 D&RGW outline caboose that are only "compatible" in the fact that they are all "G" and are all painted NYC, PRR, ATSF, etc? 

Because, whether we care to admit it or not, that's the way the majority of large scalers operate. Nothing would please me more to wake up one morning and have everyone develop calibrated eyeballs. We'd no longer see a string of 1:20 stock cars behind a 1:32 challenger. (Yeah, I saw that the other day. Not a pretty sight, though at least they were all black...) However, that's unlikely to change, so for the benefit of the growth of the hobby, doesn't it make more sense to allow the most interoperability, then let people make their own scale choices as they see fit? Put yourself in the shoes of the beginner who's just bought an Aristo locomotive and mix of USA and Aristo and AML cars only to find out they don't couple very well? 

I run 1:20 NG cars. My Bachmann 1:20 cars couple to my AMS 1:20 cars. 
Which is _exactly_ the model we're looking to extend to the rest of large scale. The inter-compatibility of couplers on the 1:20 equipment demonstrates very well that you can have manufacturer-specific couplers that still play well together _without mandating a single coupler._ The same interoperability exists between Kadee's #1 and Accucraft's 1:32 coupler. If MTH, USA, and Aristo adopted a coupler which played well with the Kadee and Accu couplers, then there'd be no reason to swap out couplers on that endof the spectrum, either. 

Why, the ones equipped with the new nmra standard couplers, what else? 
It's a pity you've got such a negative outlook on what a group of individuals can accomplish, for no other reason than the organization they're choosing to align with to reach their goals. 

I would not expect a standard gauge 1:20.3 Big Boy to be able to couple to a Gn15 tram, even if they ARE built to the same scale. Nor would I expect a 1:32 Big Boy to be able to couple to a 1:20.3 caboose, even if they ARE built to run on the same track. But then again, separate standards for every scale/gauge combination would be a mess - too many competing standards. 
Hence having two separate standards; a larger one for the narrow gauge, a smaller one for standard gauge. Using the "narrow gauge" sized coupler on the smaller standard gauge stuff is an option for the modeler, if he/she feels the need to. 

Who's going to force a manufacturer to use just one design especially if it wasn't their own! 
There's no _one_ design. As we see with the 1:20.3 couplers, it's possible to have differnet profiles work together, allowing a manufacturer to use _their own_ design. The goal is to create guideline which ensure that these various designs remain compatible. As for "forcing" anyone, there's absolutely no mechanism to do that with anything--let alone couplers. The NMRA, G1MRA, MOROP, or any hobby standards-bearing organization has absolutely ZERO enforcement ability. It's only the common interest of interoperability that drives manufacturers to comply. 

Maybe the NMRA could put away the socialist attitude and focus on bring a younger following (we aren't getting any younger) and showing them the joy a hobby brings. 
I'm not an NMRA member, so I have no idea what programs they have for involving kids. (I believe they're behind the "youth in model railroading" effort, and partner with the Boy Scouts for the model railroading marit badge, but I'm not positive.) I do believe that having the ability to go to the store, purchase a train off the shelf, and know it will run with the locomotive you also just bought is a good thing, and if not encourage participation, will at the very least not discourage it. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

We've ignored the nmra for 40 years or so already.

*+ to the Left! *


----------



## Bruce Chandler (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 26 Feb 2010 09:48 PM 


I run 1:20 NG cars. My Bachmann 1:20 cars couple to my AMS 1:20 cars. 
Which is _exactly_ the model we're looking to extend to the rest of large scale. The inter-compatibility of couplers on the 1:20 equipment demonstrates very well that you can have manufacturer-specific couplers that still play well together _without mandating a single coupler._ The same interoperability exists between Kadee's #1 and Accucraft's 1:32 coupler. If MTH, USA, and Aristo adopted a coupler which played well with the Kadee and Accu couplers, then there'd be no reason to swap out couplers on that endof the spectrum, either. 





So, you're saying there is no problem in the 1:20 world? It's only when people try to mix and match? Maybe it would be easier to label each car with the appropriate scale and tell people not to expect different scales to couple nicely.


Personal experience has shown me that my 1:20 Accucraft couplers do not play nicely at all with the #1 Kadee couplers, but the chart says they do. That makes the chart VERY suspect in my mind.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 26 Feb 2010 09:48 PM 
Gotta be one of the most naive statements yet. 
All you gotta do is look at Thomas, and think "nmra lock-step". 


I'm talking about couplers, Dave. Thomas has hook-and-loop. They could easily have used their knuckle couplers on that at either height. They didn't. 
_That is an amazing statement. So, we're talking couplers, right?_
_So, hook-and-loops are not couplers?_
_Is that part of the new nmra standard?_

_"Hook and loop couplers in Large Scale shall not be referred to as couplers in nmra parlance any longer. Rather, they shall be referred to as alligators".
_


Why, the ones equipped with the new nmra standard couplers, what else? 


It's a pity you've got such a negative outlook on what a group of individuals can accomplish, for no other reason than the organization they're choosing to align with to reach their goals. 

_It was the lead on the working group for the socket that showed me the nmra is not to be trusted, the working groups (can) operate in secrecy, with the lead controlling information in any direction, and the "end" result is just the same as the "end" result of grass through a cow._
_You have to watch where you step._ _If there was a consensus of all LS modelers to form such a group, with weekly reports given on progress, fine._
_But, if some organization who has no business interjecting anything into a segment of the hobby they ignored for decades until it looked like a good revenue source decides the have a group formulate strategies and standards for people who don't want them, yeah, I got a problem with that._





Who's going to force a manufacturer to use just one design especially if it wasn't their own! 


There's no _one_ design. As we see with the 1:20.3 couplers, it's possible to have differnet profiles work together, allowing a manufacturer to use _their own_ design. The goal is to create guideline which ensure that these various designs remain compatible. As for "forcing" anyone, there's absolutely no mechanism to do that with anything--let alone couplers. The NMRA, G1MRA, MOROP, or any hobby standards-bearing organization has absolutely ZERO enforcement ability. It's only the common interest of interoperability that drives manufacturers to comply. 

_Horse Manure, or Cow Poop._
_The nmra formulates standards (their big thing)._
_Klambake writes reviews (this item does/does not adhere to nmra standards), and I won't give you the third part of the triad._
_The mechanism is the minions of the nmra, if the choice is there, will buy nmra adherent items, even if they haven't got a clue as to what that means in a particular case._
_How's that change working for ya?_



Later, 

K


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

We got some interesting details of the NMRA's thinking on One20point3 and my response: 

Yes, the incompatibility between manufacturer's couplers, primarily Aristo-Craft and USA Trains is what started me on this quest. 
I can understand the NMRA wanting to address that, and I personally think the 1/29th and 1/32nd community would welcome interoperability. But maybe not - I'm modelling in Fn3 so what do I know.

I think the problem is the bucket labelled 'large scale'. Why not redefine the RP as Large Scale Standard Gauge or LS29/LS30/LS32 (The designations invented a few years ago and, I think, still carried on the Aristo boxes.) 

The Fn3 crowd are all over the shop in prototype couplers. It's not clear that Fn3 modellers would welcome a manufacturer's product that had a 'standard' coupler mounted at a non-prototypical height, though they usually find some way to offer alternates in the box - as Bachmann does on their Spectrum models. 

The 1/22.5 and 1/24 products are all old development - I haven't seen a new 1/22.5 item for years?

As I commented elsewhere, I run USATrains couplers representing 3/4 size prototypes in Fn3 - and they work with AMS, Kadee, Bachmann and Aristo couplers, though not perhaps as smoothly as I would like. Interestingly they don't mate well with the new AMS 1/32 scale couplers! If the 1/29 - 1/32 standardisation process works, maybe they will !


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Just to refresh memories: 

Last year, this is the petition we all signed: 

We, the LS On-Line community, do authorize KEBT to form a secret working group with member/members he chooses to include, to formulate unworkable nmra standards, to do so in utter secrecy, not revealing any of the steps as they occur in the process. 
We also authorize any member of this secret working group to apply any and all, even rejected, standards proposals to any and all new products, including hook-and-loop heights on products depicted from the Isle of Sodor. 

We further authorize irrational and unsustainable arguments in support of said proposals to be published by any and all in said working group, with full knowledge on our part, that even though voice is given to wanting our inputs, unless our special and peculiar nmra membership number is attached to said comments, they will be ignored. 

Sign here:_____________________________________


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

The only thing that disturbs me is the seeming rejection of the past. Case in point, the new Thomas stuff from Bachmann. Even with the adapter piece, why not make that the part you take off, rather than the other way around? I have a pretty good collection of LGB trains that I plan to leave with their hook and loops. So if someone is reading this that cares, make the standard for Hook and Loop couplers the LGB standard. 

I must be one of the last people who does not think Kadees are the greatest thing since bottled beer. However, I see some value in making couplers work together. To that end, I have taken it upon myself to convert non-compliant equipment to mate with the rest of my fleet. What works for me clearly isn't for everyone else, but that's OK. So, I guess, what's the underlying motivation for the standards?


----------



## Kovacjr (Jan 2, 2008)

Im just going to convert everything to link and pin. Sorry I had say it. 

I dont think though that you can take a 20.3 colorado car that would have a standard gauge coupler in 20.3 and have the same coupler on a 1/32 car or a 1/24. Still think there are too many differences between all the scales to have a large scale one size fits all coupler.


----------



## todd55whit (Jan 2, 2008)

Sorry wrong post


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Kovacjr on 22 Mar 2010 08:20 PM 
Im just going to convert everything to link and pin. Sorry I had say it. 

I dont think though that you can take a 20.3 colorado car that would have a standard gauge coupler in 20.3 and have the same coupler on a 1/32 car or a 1/24. Still think there are too many differences between all the scales to have a large scale one size fits all coupler. 
Jay that's not what's being imagined. It's basically two couplers, one for 1:20-1:24 and one for 1:29-1:32. And it's not couplers, it's interoperability standards


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

The only reason Kadee is the "standard" in the smaller scales is that Kadee's patent expired and everyone copied them.


----------



## Trains West (Oct 4, 2008)

Posted By vsmith on 22 Mar 2010 08:49 PM 
The only reason Kadee is the "standard" in the smaller scales is that Kadee's patent expired and everyone copied them. 

kadee is not the HO stanard the X2F coupler was and I think still is and kadee won out as the coupler to use over lots of other couplers that have been around for HO becouse they worked the best and had lots of convertion couplers what is not needed in any scale of G is just one coupler what is needed is a stanard mounting so you can put whatever coupler you want on it without having to rebuild the loco or car ...


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

ALL 

The X2f was NEVER made an NMRA standard. There was a set of drawings produced with specified tolerances. During the early 1960s when Athearn, Tyco, and Varney [along with others] were trying to push H0 train sets, they all adopted the X2f as the coupler of choice. 

The X2f was a lousy design and many of the manufacturers "interpretations" did not interoperate "very well". In 1961 Kadee updated their MK series couplers that used mechanical ramps with the Magne-Matic that used a magnetic uncoupler. They looked and functioned much better than the X2f and many left to join the throng. MANY guys continued to use a loop coupler from Mantua [John Allen], and the ancient Baker coupler [Whit Towers]. They did not care if other people could not run their equipment on the layout all that much. I think both might have had a couple of cars with different couplers to use "just in case". 

All this being said, as a LIFE MEMBER of NMRA, I find it idiotic that they are trying to establish interoperability standards for TOY TRAINS. The traditional focus of NMRA has been on NORTH AMERICAN prototypes. It has been on SCALE MODELS. They should STAY there!!! 

If the NMRA wants to have a Recommended Practice [RP] for 1:32 standard gauge and A SEPARATE one for 1:20.32 3 foot narrow gauge, both operating on [nominally] 45mm gauge track [as commercially available], it would be useful. 

All this INTERCHANGE of equipment of RANDOM SCALES based on a common track gauge is just plain HORSE HOCKEY PUCKS!!! 

No defense or rebutal from Kevin is solicited or desired, his defense [or lack thereof] has been articulated ad naseum. 

Just My personal opinion.... NMRA... stay the [email protected]@@ away from TOY TRAINS in EVERY [so called] SCALE. 

Please do not start a rant about the definition of "toy trains" because everyone reading this post knows exactly what I mean from the context of my commments. Yes, technically they are ALL toys if they don't reside in a museum masquerading as "mechanical art". 

Regards 

Jim Stapleton NMRA L#3070


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

CORRECTION 

All this *PROPOSING OF STANDARDS for INTERCHANGE* of equipment of RANDOM SCALES based on a common track gauge is just plain HORSE HOCKEY PUCKS!!!


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dr Rivet on 22 Mar 2010 09:51 PM 
CORRECTION 

All this *PROPOSING OF STANDARDS for INTERCHANGE* of equipment of RANDOM SCALES based on a common track gauge is just plain HORSE HOCKEY PUCKS!!! 


Jim
+1, and now a second thread on the topic, enough all ready. What does take for the forum moderators either merge the threads or lock them. Nothing is going to change by this introduction of a second go around on the topic of couplers.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

What does take for the forum moderators either merge the threads or lock them.Merging topics is beyond our capabilities. If we locked the thread, we'd be the EVIL CENSORS and others would be crying for our heads. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. 

The thread will die on its own once people stop posting in it.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Mark, we all thought this thread was dead until you resurrected it... Here's the other thread, all 35 pages of it: 
http://www.mylargescale.com/Communi...spx#154332


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

All,

Sorry, didn't mean to resurrect this thread last night. For some reason, it showed up as 'active topics' from Yesterday, last night . I didn't notice the dates of the posts until Pete pointed it out. Maybe someone went back and edited their post? not sure.


----------



## Tom Leaton (Apr 26, 2008)

Do not adjust your television: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CtjhWhw2I8


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Which is why I shortened it to "we will control your picture". 

Listen carefully to the sound on that clip. 
Then read the two threads involved. 

Be afraid...be very afraid.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Be afraid...be very afraid. 
_Well, at least I now get the reference in your topic title. Sorry - I was brought up with Dr Who and the Daleks. _ 

Folks, and especially TOC, can we please remember that it's only a garden railway, not a national healthcare proposal. Next thing we'll have garden railway tea parties all over the place . . .


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Can we dress up like engineers and drop a bunch of "supersockets" into a harbor somewhere? (Sounds like fun!)


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Pete- 
In your case, Davros will send his Daleks to ex-ter-mi-nate. 
Just hop aboard your TARDIS, set the randomizer, and de-materialize. 
K-9 will sort it all out. 
Tom Baker was the best.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Naugh! Billie Piper was the BEST! Oh! Wait, she didn't play the Dr. did she... Oh well, who cares, doesn't matter... SHE was the best!


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

The best companion is still Elizabeth Sladen (aka Sarah Jane Smith)!!


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Peri (Periwinkle) wasn't bad. 

But, Tom Baker was the best.


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

'twas an incredible scene when Sarah Jane came through the door and discovered the Tardis.


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Tom Baker will always be the standard by which I measure "The Doctor" but I have to admit that David Tennant is a _very _close second! That clip was a gem! Thanks!


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

Torby - thanks (nice clip - didn't see any Tardis in your reference?) But Dr Who isn't about birds and involvement! It's about time and space, and a bit of eye candy to offset the boring Dr. Who.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

That episode changed my mind about, "Micky". 

I didn't like the character at all until he uttered: "Ho-ho, mate! The Misses and the Ex; welcome to every man's worst nightmare."


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By Cougar Rock Rail on 26 Feb 2010 01:40 PM 
This isn't a "one-size-fits-all" proposal 

How can you say that Kevin when the authors are calling for hook and loop genocide? 

Keith 

Because he can.

Clambake Contributing Editor.
MLS Moderator.
nmra committee chair.

And, someone locked the "other" thread.

Getting too close?
Who knows.

The nmra won't leave well enough alone.
How many times has SOMEone tried to mess with LS track and wheel standards?
How many times do we have to fight them off?

Ames Super Socket.
That one was supposed to end up being nmra approved, and "all manufacturers will adopt".
What did it do?
The few who fell in line for plug and pray had something that works (sometimes), and everybody else is left to cut and throw.

Even those who have a plug-and-pray available find space, complexity, and Chinese electronics are worth the cut-and-throw.

That was proposed by another of the nmra folks.

This is bigger than couplers.


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

This is bigger than couplers. 

You've got that right. I'm choked the other thread got locked. Maybe he didn't like my marriage ceremony? 

Keith


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

And then someone just had to have the last word and posted after the thread was locked? 

And it was to quote Pete's post which was already there? 

Noblesse oblige? 

Greg


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

And then someone just had to have the last word and posted after the thread was locked? 

And it was to quote Pete's post which was already there? 

Noblesse oblige?You're reaching Greg. 

I didn't lock the other topic (don't know who did), but I WILL lock this one if the accusations and innuendos - veiled or not - don't stop. 

This invariably happens sooner or later when we try to give lots of latitude to what starts out as and should remain a meaningful discussion. That leeway is taken as a liberty to escalate. 

You folks want to talk about couplers and standards (or the lack thereof)? Fine. You folks want to talk NMRA proposals? Fine. You want to accuse other members without evidence and impugn character? NOT fine. Keep it on topic and keep personalities out of it.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

And it was to quote Pete's post which was already there?

What is this - a conspiracy theory thread? 

I asked Kevin to post my 'last word' when I found it locked. TOC's vitriol didn't seem like a good termination point. 

This is bigger than couplers 
Oh really? 
This is NMRA trying to do what it does. The fact that we don't want/need them has probably got through to them. The problem is that 'we' aren't the whole universe - just a few argumentative MLS members. 

I'm typing this after listening to NPR talking about public 'Rage' and today's incidents where congressmen (Dems and Reps) get their windows smashed and possibly worse. 
What happened to civil discourse?[/b] 

By all means try to persuade folk to your point of view - this is a democracy after all [as long as Shad lets it be!] But if they aren't persuaded, then you lost the argument. What happened to being a good loser and moving on?


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Ah, but it's the personalities that makes for an interesting read, no? 

Ya gotta admit, Deeeeee-wight, the nmra seems to bring out the "best" in folks! 

North West Rubber Chicken Society..... 

http://www.nwrcs.org/


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

I am extremely uncomfortable with this particular locking of the thread. I would like to know exactly _who_ locked it and _why_ it was locked! There was one person who SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS that had only personal attacks but there was still good dialogue happening (if somewhat long winded) and I, for one, didn't see the need to censor this thread! Yes, Dwight, you were right in the fact that MLS gets charged with censorship whenever a thread is locked and I know you guys let it wash over you like water on a duck's back and mostly I would agree......but having a "Moderator" who is the focal point of the discussion post _after _the thread has been locked essentially getting the last word on the subject smells of.... (sniff, sniff)......hypocracy? Not one of MLS's finest hours...


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Vitriol? 
Heck, now I gotta go find my dictionary......


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

if there will be a standard followed by the northamerican large scale brands, that will affect the hobby for everyone in the whole world. 

personally i think it is a pity, that those, who propose a new standard in one of the biggest (the biggest?) large scale forums do not make a poll. 
a poll would show the point of view of the less outspoken forum members too.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

but having a "Moderator" who is the focal point of the discussion post after the thread has been locked essentially getting the last word on the subject smells of.... (sniff, sniff)......hypocracy? Not one of MLS's finest hours... See Pete's post two posts above yours for exactly WHY Kevin's was the last post - i.e. by request of the member who originated the thread. Sorry to rain on your conspiracy theory. 

People worry too much about "who had the last word." I have my MLS set to 20 posts per page and when the thread was locked, I show 19 pages. By coincidence there are exactly 20 posts on my last page, so that's 380 posts total in that thread. I think everyone had a chance to express themselves, and who just happened to post the last post is irrelevant in the real world... in reality, very few people care, and even fewer "applaud the victor" in a manner of speaking. 

As to who locked it, that's also irrelevant. For WHY it was locked, take a look at the last few posts and I'm sure you can figure it out. People know the rules. When they insist on repeatedly breaking them, the thread gets locked. Simple as that.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

For the record, _I_ locked the other thread. I made a point of staying out of any kind of moderation of that thread since I was decidedly involved in the conversation. However, after 37 some-odd pages, the discussion ceased to be about couplers, instead becoming political and personal. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, and I most definitely include myself in the group of people playing with fire. But of all the people involved in the discussion, I probably had the largest vested interest in seeing any morsel of useful input trickle out between the bellowing back and forth. There was none, and the bellowing wasn't getting any more insightful, just louder and more repetitive on both sides. The last few posts really got my attention--not because of where they were at, but where they would lead--another 37 pages of the same crap. It wasn't locked to "win" anything, or to make sure one person or the other got "the last word." The nature of the discussion had fully gotten off track of the original intent, the overall tone of the posts was dubious, and it was time to put an end to it. 

As for the "final word," Pete e-mailed me asking if he--as topic originator--could have it. Out of respect for Pete, I agreed, knowing that it having my sig block would raise some eyebrows. But it was easier to do that than open the thread back up, e-male Pete, hope he sees the e-mail in a timely manner, wait for him to post, and then lock it again. 

Censorship? Hypocracy? That's for you to make your own determination. But if I were out to silence or censor anyone, don't you think I would have done so long before 37 pages? 

Later, 

K


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Just for clarification, it was _never _about who got the last word! I fully agree that civility should always be the mainstay of any posting. My observation was that the thread was locked without explanation and that a post by a Moderator after the thread was locked looked somewhat hypocritical, especially when the Moderator in question was the primary poster of one side of the subject! Quite honestly, I enjoyed the thread and thought that dialogue was still being accomplished. Apparently, I was in error as I now find out that it was Kevin who was the one that locked the thread feeling that nothing was being accomplished. I'm not trying to cause trouble! I'm pointing out that the appearance of a conflict of interest in conjunction with perceived censorship (i.e. the locking of the thread) looks bad and could have been handled better! This is the last I will post about this but I maintain that this wasn't one of MLS's finest hours!


----------



## Tom Leaton (Apr 26, 2008)

Friends, I can't manage to get worked up about what a far away group of HO train lovers say about my little couplers (which were made years ago by a German firm that is out of business)


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

A proper explanation as you have now given would have been appreciated, and I would not have posted what I did. 

Good for Pete! 

Regards, Greg


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

No comment, just a funny surreal picture to share, just for fun...... 


BTW Dalek Rule, the rest drool, Tenant will be missed, thanks for the clip Tom


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By vsmith on 25 Mar 2010 09:36 PM 









No comment, just a funny surreal picture to share, just for fun...... 


BTW Dalek Rule, the rest drool, Tenant will be missed, thanks for the clip Tom 

Hummmm?? The only thing about that poster that doesn't make any sense is the caption!


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Excuse my ignorance but where are the other 18 pages on that other topic? My page count shows only 19!!


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)




----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 31 Mar 2010 06:47 AM 
Excuse my ignorance but where are the other 18 pages on that other topic? My page count shows only 19!! 

i think, the number of pages may vary with the preferences set, how many posts per side are shown.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

I only have 2 pages of replies, of course my preferences are set to 50 replies per page...


----------

