Re: Coupler/Bolster 'Standards'/RPs and the NMRA


cj riley <cjriley42@...>
 

Keep in mind, NMRA's work with conformance applies only to interchangabilty
issues, not to conformance with prototypes or other issues. It's obvious from
this group that protype conformance is a big deal to keep up with.

CJ Riley

--- Tony Thompson <thompsonmarytony@...> wrote:

Mike Brock wrote:
Actually, quite a bit of standards and RP's have been produced since
then.
Take a look at:

http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp-4.html

and you'll see just one example.
The page says "revised 1-90" but since I don't know what it
looked before 1-90, I can't tell if this is significant. I can't find
my NMRA Standards book at the moment, but IIRC RP-4 has been around for
some time.
My complaint was not that NO standards work has been done, but
that no SIGNIFICANT standards work has been done. I realize that
"significant" varies with the observer.
There is also the issue of conformance, once indicated by
permission to use the NMRA conformance warrant, which Mike raised
earlier. I realize there may be legal problems with denial of warrants,
in our litigious society, but the plain fact is, for most freight
car-related standards, that there is no meaningful conformance activity
by the NMRA. That is probably true for most other standards. If anyone
can prove me wrong, I'm happy to be enlightened.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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