I have to disagree here. If the HO is 12% smaller then they can make a
functioning fully scale 'S scale' coupler. If they can make N and Z scale
working couplers then S shouldn't be a problem, design wise. The rub here
is Kadee has stated that they have the S/On3 coupler and it sells so no
redesign is contemplated. If they did redesign the S coupler, then they
could retire the current crop of close enough couplers they sell. IMHO a
redesign would mate with the current coupler offered since the size wouldn't
be all that much different.
Maybe a new direction needs to be taken here. Form a group willing to help
fund new tool work much like the gang of 100 did a few years ago in S for
brass steam engines. Getting a consensus on this list will be like herding
cats. The majority so far seems to like Kadee. How about approaching
McHenry coupler people with an idea of "here's the money," make us an
improved HO coupler 12% bigger than the current one that doesn't have the
outside spring. Would it be possible to dictate the price from McHenry
since they don't have the outlay of tooling to set the price at the current
price Kadee sells their S coupler to compete. Will anyone be willing to
throw money into a fund for a long term return or no return at all?
Greg Elems
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> 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/
