*&^(*&^)&^)(&^)&^
The current one IS CORRECT!!!! It is not "close enough"
Why do you folks continue to get stuck on labeling. The same coupler
is also correct for 3/4 size in O. That's cause S is 3/4 the size of
O. Your right it wouldn't be all that much different, it would be the
same size.
If your problem is the shank???
Get over it. They aint gona redo it. Use a short dowel.
O, BTW; They still sell the #4 in H0 with the same shank
TCC:}
On Sep 7, 2008, at 4:21 PM, G. Elems wrote:
> 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.
Talmadge C 'TC' Carr
Sn42 and Hn42 somewhere in the wilds of the Pacific Northwest
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------
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/
