Larry Grubb <larry450sl@...>
If by "very positive" you mean "a can of worms", I agree.
The problem is reverse compatibility. The number of new trucks that come on the market every year is quite small, and if today manufacturers adopted a standard going forward, it would be decades before a majority of trucks on the market met the standard. Retooling existing trucks to meet this standard would be expensive and result in no measurable increase in sales. And if the standard matches manufacurer A's current practice, the rest of the manufacturers will have an unfair financial burden placed on them. Retooling every freight car chassis to conform to the standard - well, I'm not even gonna go there. I understand the desire for these kinds of standards, and how much they would simplify both designing products and the modeler's ability to kit-bash easily. What prevents them from becoming reality is not coming up with a good standard, it is the complexity of implementing the standard. If someone has an idea for how such a standard can be implemented fairly and at a
low cost, then by all means spend the time & effort to set the standards. If not, then even the best of standards won't stand a chance.
Mike Brock <brockm@...> wrote:
Jim Betz lists 6 suggestions regarding various truck/bolster dimensions that
might be very useful toward operational compatibility between models of
different manufacturers. Investigation of the 6 would, I think, be very
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group
Y! Sports for TV
Game Day Companion
Live fantasy league
& game stats on TV.
What's the word on
fashion and style?
Start selling with