Is it time?

Or us guys with large hands.

Maybe they can change to scale couplers when they remove that center rail.... Oh wait, they did that.

The expense of migrating all of our trains to scale couplers would be a huge waste of funds that could be better spent on other things for our layout.

Ron

I don't understand the whole "scale coupler" thing. I like the big claws couplers--a lot. Don't fix something that isn't broken.

OK. That works for you, but why do we continually read over on the 3-Rail 027 Trains Forum about "broken" or "opening" or "non-latching" couplers? Sounds to me like something IS "broken", depending on manufacturer.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

The idea behind patents is to encourage invention, and at the same time let society reap the benefits.  So if you invent something, the patent office will give you an exclusive for 17 years; then it becomes public domain.  You do not get a patent unless you describe it well enough to enable somebody else to build it after your 17 years are up.

Renewing a patent is done during the 17 years, and is just a way for the patent office to make money.

I am not an expert, but I am a registered patent attorney.  I have never actually worked in the field.  So, Opinion.

I do work in aviation, and in aviation you can get a patent of sorts that lasts forever.  It encumbers aviation, and makes things expensive and complicated.  The aviation patent is called an STC, and is granted because one jumps through very expensive hoops.  It is protected from infringement - forever - only because it would be just as expensive for the next guy to do it.

At very least, how hard would it be to put a pad and holes in all new freight cars allowing for easy change over? 

quote:

At very least, how hard would it be to put a pad and holes in all new freight cars allowing for easy change over? 

I thought I had read that Lionel was doing just that. I guess its not happening?

Not very, as MTH has been doing just that for quite some years now, and Lionel has even begun doing it on their scale size new freight cars. Also, Weaver and Atlas have done it since day one, since they were/are essentially "2-Rail scale" manufacturers.

I am pretty sure Lionel is making all new, scale rolling stock from now on with Kadee compatible mounts. I also thought MTH was doing the same on the Premier cars? 

And Lionel was also going to move the 'Lionel Car Info' that everyone was complaining about on the sides of the cars to the bottom of the cars so it will be unseen for the most part.

Yeah, what's the point of this thread? Most people like the lobster claw just fine, and those that don't are being provided a way to change to scale couplers if they so desire. A ton of people still use the claw, so they aren't just going to drop it, and the market for scale couplers probably isn't large enough to justify production runs of both it and the claw, given we always hear on this forum how O is a dying scale, anyway.

Converting cars is not that hard... just like any job, you need the right tools & parts, and it goes much quicker/easier.....

The problem is...

The Locomotives! There is just no easy way to do those, and once you do... NO more toy train curves.  

I feel like if you're worried about scale couplers, then you're not too worried about using O-31 or O-27 at that point. Good call on the engines being tough to convert, though.

They "positively ruin the looks of a scale or Premier engine...".

Hardly.

And, so far as the importers being willing to "drop" the O-coupler, even on "scale" offerings, goes: remember that one of the easiest targets at which to shoot and hit is your foot.

I have found most O-gauge couplers to be reliable; I have seldom had to use glue or

wire temporarily. (Weaver plastic O-gauge couplers were de-facto dummies: wouldn't couple, wouldn't uncouple; they were horrid.)

And, again and again, as to the appearance of the O-gauge unit, so long as you have big flanges and a center rail and...well, you know the drill.

 I don't feel nearly as strong about changing at least the more true to scale locos over in production as long as it doesn't effect the ability to run tighter than prototype curves "right away"...or, ever really. Track needs to stay tight to fit on smaller layouts. Which means more gap, or multiple length couplers vs proto-length being included. So again its only one "evil" for another, still two couplers. 

  Adding 1 conversion car behind an engine not as big a deal. I already do that, all lobster claw, but custom swing, to run a GG-1 on the O-27 layout.

 It isn't as big a deal as ruining my 50 years of "collectable" rolling stock, just to keep it versatile. 

 But rolling stock too?

A "fair" idea?

A design that holds both, and we buy our own and all put them on ourselves.

We are model railroaders right?

How about a KD Seafood Crate?

A "box" that can hold a lobster.

Same locomotive, (although American Flyer) the couplers were changed to protect the innocent.

Before, w/Flyerclaw:

After w/Kadee's:

Rusty

Well, that is honestly nice to hear.

Though no proof is shown here, I am willing to consider it a truthful statement

 I just remembered those were real build dates a few years ago.

Its like a cross between being prototypical, and dated Christmas ornaments.

But on scales cars, I wont whine a bit if they have a build date of the car represented.

Is keeping "built by lionel" on non-proto paint jobs OK?

There sure is a lot of passion about using Scale couplers.  So I have to wonder, why in the world did you passionate folks go 3 rail vice 2 rail scale?

Ron

Because there are sooooo many more engines to choose from in 3R than 2R.... ever seen a VL BB? Nope, but mine will get a Kadee coupler

Well there really does seem to be a divide in MRR. Why I would be surprised I don't know. I have another hobby where two, seemingly opposing factions are forever butting heads.

I had Lionel trains as a boy. Big surprise! I'm sure that makes me unique here, eh?

Even as a boy though, I wanted these toys to look as real as possible. I had the Lionel CP2373. Little did I know at the time it would become very pricey precisely because it was not so popular at the time and few were made. But, I digress . . .

That blasted CP 2373 drove me nuts! They didn't even have "glass" in the portholes!!!

I wanted to drill them out myself. Today I wouldn't hesitate to do that, although I'd never buy a locomotive so toy-like in appearance that the portholes would not be transparent in the first place.

So, even as a boy I wanted detail and realism! Scale couplers were around then too, but required money, some tools and some skills, none of which I had as a child.

You wonder why "we" ended up three rail. Well, some of us were not so well informed and made that decision perhaps in error. It's hard to get to 2 rail with thousands of dollars of 3 rail locos and stock.

If I could snap my fingers and have that 3rd rail disappear, I'd sure do so.

That this scale coupler thing was a hot spot issue was not known to me at all. I only returned to MRR a few months ago after decades of being absent.

From my POV, it is the toy coupler folk that seem passionate. I can't for the life of me understand why that is so.

So a great divide exists. Those who will pay thousands for a wretchedly detailed model from days gone by to those who would immediately take it, drill the darned portholes out and, yes, put KDs on it!

BTW, I have found that locomotives equipped with claws will couple to and decouple from KD-equipped cars reasonably well. At least on a good day. Of course the claw has to be shut and you can't do that remotely.

Rusty, that looks like the EMD SD70ACE, not the ES44!

Sorry guys, I'm not getting this help me understand.

The three rail scene, that has been around for generations, has to change because ...You made a mistake?

Now I can say arrogant with a clear conscious.

Are you kidding me..... are you holiday drinking and posting

OK. I give up.

No use even trying to be accommodating, reasonable or polite.

Enjoy your trains.

I'll enjoy mine.

No need to remind me . . . I'll make sure the door doesn't hit me on the way out.

Jerry

Or at least an option for the claw to be put on so we can all be happy.

That would be accommodating.    

Nice thought but many,  if not a large percentage of us have our complete collections with the huge coupler.

Mark

Interesting topic, and interesting opinions.

I have a 4x12 layout with O-36 Atlas curves and switches. I model the early 1900's and have gotten into building wood rolling stock kits. To save money, I tried Kadee 805's. They work fine on my layout. I've now got six cars running all with Kadee's, and my trackwork on the bridge isn't all that great either. The longest car I have is a 36' boxcar. I might try a 40' reefer someday, but think that might be pushing it.

Having written the above, I'm still a claw guy. For me they're just easier. I can't run long trains, don't do much switching, and I'm used to them. I'm all for the importer's giving consumer's the option, though.

Yea, I made a mistake, realized it, selling my three rail slowly over time, committing myself 100% to HO, which I never left. 

Enjoy your lobster claws and wonderfully engineered control systems.  Take a deep breath of ozone.  

It is a shame that those who do want to model with three rails still have to put up with the condescending tone from the likes of you, on their own sub-forum none the less.   

Nice, mocking the place from which this hobby came, and where people still have fond memories. It's crazy that you call others condescending right after making that statement.

I agree with gnnput, Andrew B.  This is the 3RS forum and adriatic is just trollin'.

Attitudes like his and yours will continue to drive young people to HO as they see this hobby as a bunch of grandpas wishing it was 1954 forever.  So much for progress...

As a disclaimer, I am transitioning from 3-rail to 2-rail right now.  Nobody needs to change for ME.

I normally don't post on mine or any other forum that get this deep as they usually descend into the pit of despair. 

But in a effort to get on topic check out this video of mine and the joy of scale couplers.  No way I could do that with over sized claws in the front anyway.  Some in the back.  An older video, layout has changed some since then

The difference is I am not over on the Hi-Rail, Traditional O Gauge, and O-27 forum spewing my disdain (which I do not have, I had Lionel as a kid) for post war Lionel, but folks seem to think it is OK to come over here and do the same thing on the 3 RAIL SCALE forum.

The OP asked a simple question, is it too much to ask for manufacturers to make their product dual capable to either accommodate those who want a large traditional coupler, OR a mounting pad (and the correct shim) to accommodate a Kadee? 

I guess your and Adratic's attitude is we can get stuffed. 

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers. I'll go back to building my HO railroad, and you can get back to your 2343 and ZW. 

Jerry, with all due respect, that is not what the OP asked.  He requested the manufacturers to supply scale rolling stock with scale couplers and to drop the large couplers all together.

Time for Lionel, MTH, AtlasO, Weaver, and 3rdrail to drop the oversized lobster claw knuckle coupler?  At least on there scale offerings.  I don't know what percentage of our hobby is like some of us who convert to scale couplers; but I bet it's growing segment.  Now I know some of you like modifying your engines/rolling stock to scale couplers but I have so many projects on the layout I kind of wish at least the rolling stock came already equipped like the two rail offerings.

The request to eliminate the big coupler is what started this firestorm.

Very good point.  I can most certainly see why those who want to utilize large couplers would be upset if they were no longer available.  I do, however, feel that there is no reason for any manufacturer not to offer both options on scale equipment. 

Regards,

Jerry

there is no reason for any manufacturer not to offer both options on scale equipment

I agree completely with that!  It seems like with the newest releases, Lionel and MTH are on board and Weaver has always been there.  Now if Atlas would provide mounting holes that match Kadees...

Seems to me that if the importers are creating new tooling for a scale item it should have provisions for scale couplers. Maybe get a few more sales, and since it's new tooling anyway, add it. Also seems to me that a lot of importer's are doing just that.  Possibly even modifying old tooling to easily accept scale couplers as well.

One other thought. Just how hard is it to change to Kadee's? Perhaps I'm over-simplifing this, but remove shell, remove truck, cut off coupler arm, add Kadee, check for height, shim or remove material as needed, install 2 screws, re-assemble.