@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:You're demanding more than our manufacturers can, or are inclined to, presently deliver. You can try to organize us to generate a more united message back to them demanding change, but history, captured on this forum and in other ways, seems to indicate that this has a low chance for success.
Nevertheless tell us specifically what you want us hobbyists to do about it. Just how do we demand accuracy? You may find that we'd love to help.
Mike
More than our manufactures are inclined to deliver, perhaps. It's certainly not more than they CAN deliver. All products are spec'ed, designed, and approved prior to production. Verifying that things such as weight, coupler height, etc. match long-standing industry (NMRA) standards would take them all of what, 5 minutes?
However, I'm afraid you're probably right about being able to present a united front demanding change. For one, the hobby is fragmented. Does the "collector" care that all their coupler heights match if they're never going to actually run them in a train? Are the desires of those closer to the "toy" segment of the hobby aligned with those closer to the "3 rail scale" end? And since relatively few new toolings actually show up these days, what are the odds of any change becoming widespread?
Perhaps if an organization such as the NMRA came up with some fairly easily met "NMRA certification guidelines" for products to sport an "NMRA certified" badge on the packaging, the relatively few remaining O manufacturers could be goaded into adopting them, at least for certain portions of their product lines.
Then again, we're talking manufacturers which have at times capriciously turned a blind eye to issues with their own products. How many expensive JLC GG1s are out there, unusable because of rotting frames, which could most likely be easily reproduced, but they'd rather just have us purchase new engines instead?
