Re: (HO) Draft Gear Pockets... In General
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
John Barry writes in part:
"I think we need to set that coupler face height and work out
from there. The mounting face idea is a good one that allows for various
approaches that meet some divergent goals.
John is on to something here as this is
a standard for the prototype. Right now nationally the FRA is inspecting yards
across the nation for coupler height problem. As well is the state of
Oregon's Department of Transportation, ask me how I know. There
is a disadvantage to being in the state capital at times.
So if we ask the manufacturers and the
NMRA start at one common spot and they agree then we should
come up with a true "standard". I have the same concerns as Dennis
has that you have issues within the industry from the coupler center down
which impacts the coupler height issue so this might result in a
"bottoms up" investigation. Once completed it should benefit
the whole. It will take time and companies will have to follow the
progress of others and/or get involved.
We touched on the operations of couplers
and aside from the droop issue, the world has changed to our
benefit. To some modelers the width of the coupler box is a problem, to others
they see a better mouse trap. I have elected to go forward with a newer
coupler, many of you know which I have chosen. I do not intend on
replacing all my existing operational couples with my new standard, unless
warranted by repairs like inoperable springs, broken heads or the like. I have
seen first hand what this creates beside a better looking piece of
equipment. I have enough used KADEE couplers to last my Grandson's a life
time. Choose you poison and let's hope the if new "RP's" are created it is
done with a broad stroke that all the manufacturers follow from the centerline
of the coupler down.
Eventually all things merge into one and
a river runs through it.
Join main@RealSTMFC.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.