Re: (HO) Draft Gear Pockets... In General


Greg Martin
 

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 Barry
Washington D.C. "
 
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.
 
Greg Martin
 
Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean

Join main@RealSTMFC.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.