Re: Couplers, Coupler Pockets, The NMRA, and Scale Size


Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Jared Harper writes:

Sergent probably can be considered a cottage industry at
this point in time, but Kadee probably was when they started.
Sergent certainly won't get beyond the cottage industry stage if
modelers don't by them and try them. The concept seems good as does
the engineering so I am going to take the plunge.
It seems to me that this issue is somewhat analogous to the issue of Proto 87. Proto 87 standards really invove nothing more than wheel size...thread width, flange depth and flange width plus flangeway sizes. Wheels built to Proto 87 will not operate effectively through trackwork built to match Code 110 standards. Nor will wheels built to code 110 standards operate effectively [ read that...derail ] through trackwork designed to match Proto 87 standards. The problem is, of course, that 99.99% of owned equipment was built to Code 110 standards. When it has been suggested that those like me should change to Proto 87 I have always offered to do so as soon as someone will offer to change out all the drivers on my steam locos to Proto 87 sizes...in one week....for free. So far...no offers. A similar issue with regard to the Sergent coupler seems evident. My understanding is that it won't couple to Kadee couplers. If someone will change out all my Kadees and Accumates in one week free of charge, I might change. If the modeler has no fleet of cars and locos...at least not an overwhelming amount, I could see consideration for changing. Given the huge numbers of stuff owned by greedy collector/modelers like me and others in the group, I just don't see it to be practical. Note that Kadee made sure that their 58/78 will couple with their #5. Now...OTOH, had the NMRA decided that deveopling a scale, reasonably accurate coupler was a worthy project back in 2000...perhaps this issue might not now be discussed.

Mike Brock

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