Having read more comments about S-Mod vs Free MoS, I would like to see
the FreeMoS standards in print to compare. Based on recent comments, I
can't see what is the big problem. To change some of the basic standards
from S-Mod seems to me someone's idea of changing standards just for the
sake of changing standards. The basic standards I refer to represents the
'left hand (and/or right hand) corner of the big picture.' As long as the
corners match up in height and displacement back from the front corners,
and the electrical interconnect ability matches, what's the big deal. Even
if the corners don't match, or there is only one through rail, so what?
Obviously, a one rail module isn't going to be placed on a two rail
mainline. I had a roundhouse/turntable module with no through rails at the
Pittsburgh convention and it created no problem. Don DeWitt wanted me to
include it in his fantastic layout scheme and accommodated it by connecting
my module off a spur line connector. Worked out great!
If the narrow gauge guys want their own standards, so be it. But I
don't think there's any real benefit in creating a whole new set of
standards that will conflict with the existing ones and create regional
specific incompatibilities. As I commented several months back, the
biggest conflict I see is rail height. Why change that? The current S-Mod
height is perfect for many reasons. Bottom line, whomever is pushing
FreeMoS so hard, try working the BASICS of S-Mod into your design and write
an addendum to the existing standards. Lets work together!
Gary Chudzinski
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
