Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>

David North wrote:
Given the above definition of bureaucratic, as a past NMRA board member I thank you for your compliment.
This ain't exactly the list topic, David, but I'm sure you know perfectly well that a widely used ADDITIONAL definition of "bureaucratic" is "government officialism or inflexible routine; see red tape." I leave it to you to figure out which definition I had in mind.

Seriously, what do people expect the NMRA to do when a manufacturer doesn't comply?
That's a different question that the one we've been considering: "what do people expect of manufacturers when the NMRA doesn't revise old standards and create new ones, despite a need for same?"

I personally feel there is a pressing need for a coupler/coupler box standard.
I agree, and for a time tried to work on the NMRA Coupler committee. The reasons aren't important in this forum (I can share them with you off-list if you like), but I have given up on that activity.

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

Join to automatically receive all group messages.