Re: Coupler height
A couple of further observations, Vance . . . In addition to Kadee becoming the defacto standard for "serious/committed" hobbyist, the NMRA developed and made available royalty-free the "horn hook" coupler. That took the proprietary designs off the table for the set market AND made the initial set train easy to upgrade for the soon-to-be serious hobbyist. In the "O Gauge" -- not 1/4" scale -- market, the expiration of the Lionel patents on its knuckle coupler paved the way for massive competition to emerge. Example: Auburn/Kusan offered a streamlined passenger car made of extruded aluminum before Lionel did, but with full working scale design but Lionel size couplers. Not a market success. They also offered some freight cars, also not a market success, which became part of the Williams and/or K-Line companies, but now with compatible couplers. In the software world, Lionel would have been told to unbundle its couplers, as they were creating an unfair monopoly . . . Charles VR Bass wrote: > > While it would seem to be a no- > brainer to come up with standards for the basic operational specifications > (couplers, track), history shows that the early days of HO were entangled in > the same kind of mess in those areas that we've seen in the naming attempt. > > Ultimately, the manufacturers straightened it all out (someone came up with a > product everyone liked -- the Kadee -- and it became the de facto standard), > but they don't seem to want to do this in large scale.
Re: Coupler height
> We have an interesting problem. 1:32 to 1:20 for scale all on one guage > of track. So, do we set coupler height for each scale or set a fudge > coupler height that allows all scales to couple? It's already been done by Kadee. It's only a problem with body couplers, since the "high-rail" (low-fidelity) equipment tends to use talgo-mounted couplers on the trucks. And if you care enough to use body-mounted couplers, why would you want to run a 1:32 scale car in your 1:20.3 scale train? > Bachmann couplers tend to be lower than Kadee standards. I modify the > Bachmann height to match Kadee (mostly because Kadee has a guage and it > is close enough to LGB to make modifications easy). > > Any particular reason NMRA hasn't addressed this issue? They have, but the large-scale standards committee only got as far as proposing _names_ to tell the difference between all these scales on the same track, and five years later there is still no resolution on them. You can point fingers in all directions (the standards proposal committee, the manufacturers, the drop-and-run crowd, et al.), but there's still not even a start on the simplest level of standardization. While it would seem to be a no- brainer to come up with standards for the basic operational specifications (couplers, track), history shows that the early days of HO were entangled in the same kind of mess in those areas that we've seen in the naming attempt. Ultimately, the manufacturers straightened it all out (someone came up with a product everyone liked -- the Kadee -- and it became the de facto standard), but they don't seem to want to do this in large scale. I have accused them of deliberately trying to cloud the issue in order to sell their products to people who wouldn't buy them if they knew better. This is intentionally inflammatory and not entirely serious, but I am still waiting for someone to prove it wrong. Until that time, they all appear to be trying to sell their wares to everyone they can, regardless of the logic or fidelity to prototype. I don't know if you've been following the 1:20.3 scale group on egroups.com, which tends to be more fine-scale oriented than the Big Trains group, and has been discussing exactly this issue the last couple of days. The consensus there is that most of them use 26" scale coupler height, which was the standard on most "mainline" narrow gauges. This height matched the usual wheel diameter, as you noted. Likewise, standard gauge trains settled on 33" for wheels and coupler height. That comes out to right at the Kadee height, IIRC, and is about 1/8" off the 1:22.5 height (if you can bear to calculate 26" for an American n.g. railroad in 1:22.5 scale). It's about 1/4" too low for 1:20.3. The end of all this is that there should NOT be one standard height, but that each scale should use the height that's correct for their prototype, and the folks who are into running trains as moving toys rather than modeling railroads can stick with truck-mounted couplers. It's a fairly simple system, when you think of it, and it gives everyone what they need/want in terms of interoperation with other equipment in their chosen scale/nonscale. regards, -vance- Vance Bass Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA Small-scale live steam resources: http://www.nmia.com/~vrbass
Coupler height
We have an interesting problem. 1:32 to 1:20 for scale all on one guage of track. So, do we set coupler height for each scale or set a fudge coupler height that allows all scales to couple? If we set a fudge coupler height (ie. an average height that looks best on a scale in the middle of the range of scales) then couplers will look too high on some and too low on others. Then the problem of scale coupler size intrudes...we have about three sizes now. No matter what those who want scale are going to do scale for that particular car and railroad. One can always have a buffer car with two different types of couplers (hook/loop on one end and knuckle on the other) to accomodate coupler type problems. Therefore height problems can be overcome by having a transition car with two different heights of couplers on one car. When prototype RR bought used equipment they had to retrofit or use a transition car to accomodate the new "wrong" equipment. I see nothing wrong with using scale practice of height matching wheel diameter. Makes life interesting. One height is nice for meets when folk want to lash up a record number of cars to see when derailments increase. Bachmann couplers tend to be lower than Kadee standards. I modify the Bachmann height to match Kadee (mostly because Kadee has a guage and it is close enough to LGB to make modifications easy). Any particular reason NMRA hasn't addressed this issue? It is a knotty one with multiple guages on one track system. ~Gary Lane PS - I finished my 70' long x 8' tall trestle (scale about 200' high x 1700' long) and the 90 feet of rail to make a loop in the yard after dark last night. FYI ~ radius is 10' on the trestle and 8-10' on ground. I have plenty of 1/4 minus crushed gravel to tamp down to a better roadbed, but trains ran! Video taken from a flat car is impressive.
