Why are diesel releases EMD

I am new to z scale (2 months into the hobby) and modeling in general. Being new, I realize there is much that I have missed over time, but it seems that all of the diesel releases from AZL and MTL are always EMD and never GE. Is this a true statement, and if so, why? Of course I love my F7, GP7 and SD70, but I think a GE 70 ton switcher would be a fantastic release in z!

Chris


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Chris,

Welcome to Z. I think some of the issues for not seeing more GE switchers is a matter of size. There are some switchers available in Z, but most prototypes are so small they don't scale to Z well and still fit an electric motor in them.

Mark

 

Thanks Mark and John. The switcher scaling issue had not occurred to me, but that makes perfect sense. I am assuming those GE C44s are impossible to get ahold of due to limited production? Any idea why EMD has such a strong presence in Z?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I think the reason for a strong presence is because EMD had a strong presence in the prototype world. For example, the GP models released in Z so far each numbered thousands in production. If you are going to model a loco, model one that was used the most and by the most railroads.

Mark

 

Thank you for the replies. It seemed strange to me when I was comparing different scales, and making a decision on which scale to model, that there was not as much variety in z as in others. All of the above answers have fulfilled my newbie curiosity. Thanks for welcoming a newcomer.

 

Of course if I had been paying attention, I would have seen AZL's announcement about the ES44AC!

 

How many 1:1 engines were made and how how many paint schemes were applied to them plays a big roll in a manufacture choosing to produce a model.


Looking at the production numbers of some common EMD engines:


F3 1111 A & 696 B
F7 2366 A & 1483 B
GP7 2724
GP9 2112
GP30 908
GP35 1334
GP38-2 2222
SD70M 1646
SD75I 207
SD70ACe 842


And examples of the older EMD units are still in use today. Over a half century of service life, and lots of paint jobs. Also with the F and GP engines, they all have the same looking trucks, and its one common part that model makers reuse.


And looking at production numbers for GE diesels that were modeled in N scale.


70 Ton 238
U23B 481
U25B 589
U30C 600
B23-7 536
B30-7 279
U30-7 1087
8-40B 151
8-40BW 83
8-40C 585
8-40CW 875
9-44CW 2494
AC4400 2598
ES44AC 2374


Older GE diesels just weren't as popular with the railroads. It really wasn't until the mid 80s (Dash 8 and newer engines) that the production numbers got into the lets make a Z model of it territory. But by then all the railroads were merging so there wasn't a lot of paint schemes to apply to them. Then along came the heritage schemes, and now Z will have an ES44AC. I know, this is a gross oversimplification of why we don't have any GE engines in Z, but its probably 60 % accurate. Also many Z scalers have 145mm radius layouts, so older EMD short engines probably sell better than the longer modern engines.

Production numbers came from Wikipedia

 

I appreciate all of the responses to my original question. There is a lot of good information in these posts for someone new to Z. I have compiled some of the main points into a list (I hope no one minds, I am certainly not try to take credit) so that others interested in Z can understand, and also as a sanity check of my own understanding:

1. The limited number of switchers is due to scale limitations, as prototypes are smaller and will not fit an electric motor when scaled to 1:220.
2. EMD locomotives were generally produced in higher numbers making them more common across various road names and schemes.
3. Reliability of EMD locomotives allows hobbyists to model across decades.
4. Z scale diesels were not produced until around 2002 making them relatively new to the model railroad scene, contributing to lesser selection when compared to other scales.
5. GE production numbers are lower until more recent models, however the railroad mergers of this time greatly reduce the number of road names and schemes.
6. On 145mm layouts, shorter engines run better and likely look more to scale.

Further, thank you Curn for your informational post. I am a numbers kind of guy and that information really makes it self explanatory.

Also, John thanks for the information on Z-bend. I was unaware that standards like these existed, and am reading some related material to become more knowledgeable.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Chris,
I think you summarized rather well. Z scale had diesels long before 2002, but for the first 20 years its was a matter of "what color will Marklin paint the F7 this year?" There there are a few more business decisions that come into play.

Interchangeable parts: A manufacturer can produce more types of locos, faster, cheaper, when they can reuse work from previous designs. MTL and AZL have done this with the GPs and AZL is doing it with their new "nose" units. I believe this was also true for EMD. And of course the railroads liked the idea of keeping their spare parts inventory to a minimum.

The "Wow" factor: some models are produced simply because of their looks. Take for example the AZL Big Boys. The detail is a major effort to do well: expensive and time consuming. The units won't really run well on many layouts due to their size. But they look fantastic running and the production runs have sold out quickly.

Mentioning the Big Boys brings up another issue that you mentioned: track radius. Until recently, the only sectional tracks in Z were 145mm, 195mm and 220mm. These curves are much tighter than on any prototype main line. So many of the big locos required flex track or hand-laid track when scaled down to Z. Today we have the Rokuhan curves at 245mm & 270mm curves that make it more reasonable to produce the larger, newer locos that required 220mm minimum. In fact, in starting a new layout, I wouldn't do mainline curves tighter than 220mm with an eye to the future.

The NMRA also has a modular standard which to me is more appropriate for shelf and donut shaped layouts. I like the Z-bend and I'm using it on my next layout.

Mark

 

Mark, your comment on curve radius and track made me think of another question...

I have never designed or built a layout before. I am mostly into this hobby as a collector of locomotives, as I find them fascinating. However, the more I collect, I find myself wanting to run these things and see them in action. Part of the reason I am into Z is that someone gave me a Marklin locomotive and track. I found the set to not be very large in size and ended up buying MTL track from a local hobby shop.

My question is, on layouts is it normal to mix different manufacturers track? For example mixing MTL with Rokuhan curves. I noticed with Marklin and MTL there is a distinct scale difference with cross-tie spacing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Chris,
It's a bit of a longer answer, but here goes. It's not uncommon to mix track from the various manufacturers to get the effect and reliability desired.

The Z track that's readily available in the US is: Marklin, MTL, Pecos and Rokuhan. The tie pitch (tie width and spacing) varies between manufacturers mainly due to the part of the world they're manufactured in. Marklin uses the common European standard, Rokuhan the Japanese, MTL & Pecos the U.S. The pitch is pretty much cosmetic.

Track comes in 2 form factors: with and without roadbed, and two types: sectional and flex. To use track from the two form factors, you will have to build a roadbed under the track without, about 1/8". Rokuhan makes an adapter plate to connect to their track. The MTL and Rokuhan roadbed track will connect through the rails, but not the roadbed connectors. Those you will have to remove and fill in the space on your own.

There is also a difference in the height of the rail between the manufacturers of about 10 mils. Doesn't sound like much until you realize that would be 2" in the prototype world. Rail height between manufacturers from shortest to highest is: MTL sectional, MTL flex, Pecos, Marklin, Rokuhan. I

f you mix MTL with Rokuhan without some knowledge of all this you'd get a transition some like:



However if you add the thickness of about 5 sheets of printer paper, you get a very acceptable union:



For a first layout, I'd suggest using just the Rokuhan track: the turnouts are very reliable and the track is very forgiving. It's not that the MTL is a "bad" track, it's just that it can need fiddling with more than a first timer would like.

Hope this helps,

Mark

 

I didn't notice that anyone mentioned that a lot of people model the steam to diesel "Transition" period so they can run both steam and diesels. GE pretty much missed the Transition period (for mainline power at least) as the U25B wasn't introduced until 1959. GE did get in on the leading edge of second generation locomotives. Also, when you take into account the ability to use the same frames and trucks for F3s, F7s, GP7s, GP9s, GP30s, and GP35s models (gotta love the EMD trade-in and reuse program), I'm sure it simplifies production and keeps costs down when making models.


Andy
Tetsu Uma

 

Of course you can get Alco and GE power, but not from "mainstream" manufacturer.

 

Sorry, John, bad memory