The discussions about couplers, bolsters, and various other items associated with frt cars are, of course, entirely within the scope of the STMFC. Discussions about the value, competency, and future

standards/recommended practices we can make a lot of this stuff a lot easier. If you would like to volunteer in developing a new set of S&RPs, I would be happy to review your work. I am still

cj riley wrote: Uh, huh. We hear this with each new head of the "technical" department. If you don't mind, I'll wait and see. If I were the NMRA, I'd say less about the famous DCC standard: it's

Joshua, I presently have a small number of steam era freight cars equipped with Sergent Engineering couplers. Four, in fact, plus the tender end of a small steam loco and one end of an accompanying

Group, I have both Precision Scale and Cal Scale(Bowser) catalogs if anyone needs to find a part number.HTH Mike Farina

Yeah, yeah. Every new standards chairman for the past dozen years has said exactly the same thing, with no significant results. Been there and done that - several times, in fact. If he's looking

Tony et al, While I am sympathetic to the NMRA Tech Dept being less than exciting for a few years, the DCC standards (while not perfect) have allowed that important technology to move ahead. I

We all have to look at this objectively. A standards body is useful mostly for fine tuning details. Typically several vendors introduce something new with differing designs. In some cases the

Paul - The "NMRA coupler" was never adopted as a standard by the NMRA. Designed by Paul Mallery, it functioned well and was cheap to make at a time when there were real problems with interchange

Jim Betz wrote: In your dreams, Jim. The NMRA is either afraid of liability, or unable to finish any jobs in this area. From what I know, there are NO new standards even contemplated, never

Coupler inter-operability is indeed a very good topic- a design and engineering issue completely independent of any issues of basic coupler materials choice, or basic quality of manufacture. It is

True. But please keep in mind that the X2f was NEVER an NMRA standard. It was just the result of a committee design effort, which was NOT adopted. Tony Thompson Editor, Signature

Dennis Storzek wrote: Wrong. They don't carry all the parts (only 1875 different items in HO scale) but they do carry PSC. Bill Dixon

Clark, the USRA hoppers were designed with lever and ratchet hand brakes, and builder's photos of the cars delivered to the NYC show them as being so equipped. However, the NYC also bought thousands

Jim: You have to be careful of what you ask for. You are just liable to get the "X2F" NMRA Coupler back. Paul C. Koehler _____ From: STMFC@...

Jim, Establishing a standard for a body bolster would be problematic at best. The size, style, shape and placement of body bolsters varies widely with the era being modeled. Your idea also assumes

Jim, the only problem with your idea is that the NMRA as an organization is increasingly irrelevant and its standards committee is, in effect, if not in fact, moribund. A number of us tried a decade

a spare. The plastic brake wheels on the wood-sided boxcars with vertical brake shafts are just too fragile to survive. prefer these to cast brass or whitemetal. Both Precision Scale Co. and Cal Scale

Guys, There is one thing that we could do that would really help all of us - both the MS and LS modelers amongst us. If we would all lobby the NMRA to produce two new standards/recommended