Which modern-ish locos have coreless?

[Bigmet]

Yes, it's a very spotty picture. That's why I wrote 'most' locos since 2000 which is undoubtedly true. To give a full description would require a model by model list. In RTR OO it starts with Bachmann's class 24 and the A1 pacific and BR std4 2-6-4T and Heljan's Brush 4 in 2001, but then some later releases - Bach's Midland Jinty for one - had no decoder socket on the early releases. Hornby, I have not a clue before 2004, when they finally began to release good models, such as the all-new A4.

[Mountain]

Think one of the last Hornby locos to recieve a DCC socket was actually only a few years ago and it was those little 0-4-0's and I still am not sure if all the new ones have them. (Easy to isolate and hard wire anyway so not a problem to convert to DCC, even the older ones). Those locos have improved so much in recent years... I do not say no to an older one, as being nice and simple and I am used to knowing how to get them to behave, having had so many! But those new ones that look so identical but are so much improved with only a few subtle changes... They are ace!

For me the issue was when I followed DCC (And there are more now than there was in the past) is there were the 6,8 and 24 pin sockets... (Or was it 21 pin? I know I had to wait nearly a year when I bought two Bachmann locos with these sockets for them, or anyone else to produce decoders when they first came out! It took ages!) But now there are even more. Why didn't they simply extend the 8 pin so one could effectively use an 8 pin decoder in the same socket? Make it more universal, and do the same with 4 and 6 pin plugs and sockets. Make them all wotk together so all one has to do is plug them in the right place in the socket?
(I know 6 pin were restricted due to space, but if they thought about it, it would make life so much easier for DCC users!)

Part of the issue also was that for DC users, (And DCC users) the plugs and sockets did add an additional electrical area that could potentially losten itself and give electrical contact issues, which for DC users need not be there at all.
Same as the issues with nem pockets and coach close coupling which caused me so many frustrations. I was happy as it was before they came in. True that some of the gaps were a bit wide but while close coupling did pull them together with the coaches, with the nem pockets, the big gap between the wagons actually got worse with an extra cm between vehicles if one coupled two together! I thought "What are they doing?" They call these nem pockets " Better? " The older screw on couplings just could not be beat! So rigid and solid with almost no flex.
But what puzzled me is why they still use tension lock as standard anyway when it has long been time to find a much better alternative that can also have some sort of hook that will also engage with tension lock if needed. That will be the real leap forward in the future of 00 modelling! No other fine detail will beat a more realistic looking coupling.
One can super detail everything, but if it has a tension lock coupling it is almost a pointless exercise. Do the couplings first, and then go onto the detail, as the couplings are the greater visual eyesore that screams "Toy" rather than "Model". (And all my 00 had tension lock and the only reason I didn't change them was if one did, the new models one bought would need converting and so on... Is a lot of work to then find if one did go to sell them the price will be lower.
7mm narrow gauge we all do our own thing anyway so buying secondhand one knows one will eventually need to change things, and due to this, if one ever sells anything, the sale price is the same anyway... Also converting for me actually is to make a flat "Bufferbeam" surface if there isn't one, and drill three holes... The hardest part is working out how deep the drop loop needs to be able to lift and clear the buffer, and not drag on the track. Filing the buffers to shape is simple. Is becase it is easy, is why I have so many I have not done, as I tend to make another waggon and think "I willdo that again". The only vehicles that need more thought are either some bogie vehicles or the few vehicles that have metal that does not like to be drilled. (Mazak). For those I grind a flat surface and glue a wooden bufferbeam onto it that I can drill into as I found this the easiest approach. aI have avoided bogie vehicles if I can as my sharp curves mean they have too much visual overhang. Why I tend to convert such vehicles to a shortened form and make them 4 wheel instead.

[Bigmet]

...One can super detail everything, but if it has a tension lock coupling it is almost a pointless exercise. Do the couplings first, and then go onto the detail, as the couplings are the greater visual eyesore that screams "Toy" rather than "Model". (And all my 00 had tension lock and the only reason I didn't change them was if one did, the new models one bought would need converting and so on... Is a lot of work to then find if one did go to sell them the price will be lower.

The problem is that most purchasers of RTR OO use this coupler, so there's no easy way out for the brands. Some have made progress, by including an alternative coupler; or even better as Bachmann demonstrated on some modern bogie wagons by fitting body mounted Knuckle couplers correctly positioned, which is a good representation of the real Knuckle coupler. (I rate these the best RTR OO wagons produced for this reason, add your own magnetically coupled air brake pipes if really fussy. There are NEM mounted tension locks on the bogies, so the owner has a choice.)

... the issues with nem pockets and coach close coupling which caused me so many frustrations. I was happy as it was before they came in. True that some of the gaps were a bit wide but while close coupling did pull them together with the coaches, with the nem pockets, the big gap between the wagons actually got worse with an extra cm between vehicles if one coupled two together...

But the upside is that by a little DIY using the installed mountings on both carriage stock and wagons much superior close coupling can be obtained. I have done this on all my stock and the results are very pleasing. To make this work on the wagons requires 24" minimum radius curves if the wagons are to realistically buffer up when pushed.

...For me the issue was when I followed DCC (And there are more now than there was in the past) is there were the 6,8 and 24 pin sockets... (Or was it 21 pin? ... But now there are even more. Why didn't they simply extend the 8 pin so one could effectively use an 8 pin decoder in the same socket? Make it more universal, and do the same with 4 and 6 pin plugs and sockets. Make them all wotk together so all one has to do is plug them in the right place in the socket?...

The problem is that the 4/6/8/9/21 channel plug and socket types were well established before the idea of having a design that could offer a range of channels as the 'new standard' came along, the PluX system. (This was such a good idea that Next18 was then introduced, particularly targetted at N gauge but also found in RTR OO.) The earlier plug and sockets are not superseded, because models still have them, and modellers being conservative types still want decoders to suit. It's a lost cause in short...

[Mountain]

Initially, the concept of DCC plugs I thought a good idea, but there was some confusion about the advice given about either leaving the capacitors that supress TV interfearance innor if they should be removed, as instructions to hard wire always said to remove them as they supress the DCC signal. I looked at the 8 pin plugs as these are the easiest to view what is going on, and they do nothing to isolate the capacitors on the locos which puzzled me becsuse no mention that they needed to be removed was in the instructions! So it is a puzzling one! (I did not even try to look where the wiring went on a 21 pin type! They sort of slot in differently and are not straightforward to see (Years ago I fitted my last one of them!).

Yes. Kadees are excellent representations of modern wagon couplings and also come into their own for 7mm narrow gauge modellers if they decide to use them. I decided not to due to cost. I have seen them negotiate extremely sharp curves on an oval where the layout was just 18 inches wide! I believe my homemade couplings will do that but I haven't tried. I know they work fine turning on 2ft wide boards. If I use sharper curves again I am limiting what stock I can use. I think my curves are sharp enough!
Of course, H0 models are really in their element with Kadees!

[Bigmet]

...H0 models are really in their element with Kadees!

Not just HO, they are fully appropriate for UK modelling. The knuckle coupler has been in regular use in the UK since the late nineteenth century, introduced initially by Pullman, and adopted by the ECJS and GNR for their gangwayed carriages using the associated Pullman gangway system which provides a central buffer. This was adopted as standard for LNER gangwayed carriages, and subsequently taken up by SR. BR saw the benefits of this system, and it was made standard for their gangwayed carriages.

Some modellers, wanting a RTR autocoupler that works as well as the Kadee have simply gone for it universally on their vehicles. As one said to me many years ago, "Since it looks like one of the prototype couplers in use on the railway, it's automatically superior to any other RTR autocoupler.".

[Mountain]

For coaching stock, yes.