Allrighty, then. For those of us who love steam it is a crazy world for us when it comes to the frame and mechanisms of the models out there , new and old. It keeps us on our toes that's for sure. Granted things are getting better, but I have had a question in some posts for awhile now that's gone unanswered. ( It really bugs me) I want to know why it is, with so many manufacturers copying each other, (especially in the orient(and not just model trains)) that this has not happened with steam mechanisms? Don't get me wrong, I am not fond of stealing ideas. But I do find it odd. All of us like the Kato steam mechanism, from the days of Con/Cor to now. I find it odd that that with all I have seen, that very few are similar or even close to the simplicity of it. Why is that? Not bashing Kato, (except that they don't much care for American consumers wants), but do they hold some form of copyright or patent on this thing? You would think everyone would try to copy something we all love. And all our steam issues would be less complicated. Or maybe there is some model railroader hard headedness. And manufacturers think they can do better and just complicate things worse. For instance the model power setup is very tricky and dang near requires a jewelers hand. Maybe I am just crazy, but why so many different variations?
I think the newer stuff from Bachmann shares the split frame design for steam, also the con-cor USRA 2-10-2 also looks like a kato mike with a extra driver set. The Bachmann 2-6-6-2 & 2-8-8-4 LL 2-8-8-2 use plastic driver frames that fit into a metal split frame chassis ( the driver trucks need to swivel ) I got a European 2-8-2 t that I wanted to bash into a US 0-8-0 but it's design is not split frame and it used wheel wiper for contact had other very different construction, so I ended up selling it.
Just talking about Kato (Japan) and Bachmann (China), you're looking at two rather divergent philosophies and they don't hardly ever acknowledge the other exists. I've always been astounded how Bachmann takes an HO model and just makes it smaller for N, including any built-in design glitches necessary to make the HO model work. The 44-tonner and 70-tonner are great examples, but it carries over to things like pickup wipers on steam in N. They got the Spectrum tenders with end-axles, but they'll still redesign only sparingly after proof something HO -based doesn't work. They'll fix it probably more willingly than anybody else, leading to completely different grades of mechanisms under the same identical body shell. But rather than designing it right to begin with, they'll fix it as they go. If there's an HO and N version of something, check this theory out - the N is almost always a small HO, warts and all. There's things on the original 4-8-4 that were pure carry-downs from the HO Northern that still haunt it. Kato does an exhaustive job of design and research on the front end and sometimes will design themselves over a cliff, like the tiny gear teeth on the replacement six-axle trucks. They'll rarely make a design mistake, but when they do, it's rather epic. And if they do an HO version, it's a scaled-up design of N! They pay little if any attention to equally established truisms in HO. Usually it's just different, not bad. I've always admired Kato, they'll try some really adventureous concepts, and also know when they had a bad idea and walk away. The 1982 GP38 is a wonderful example of some of the most convoluted mechanism and body shell design you've ever seen that's now consigned to the dust bin of history. The 2-8-2 is one of those designs that would work in any scale, any time, and really changed everything since. The one that does a dead-nuts design imitation of Kato is Micro-Ace. If you tear apart an Atlas 2-6-0, you'll swear you're looking at Kato product. What I've always admired most about Kato, even more than design, is material. Metallurgy and plastics are really, really good. Compare the tiny plastic break-off details on the Atlas 4-4-0 (Ajin??) with any Kato product, and you can see the difference between casting in Delrin and plain styrene. And just little miserable stuff, like the quality of the phosphor bronze wire on the tender pickups to the locomotive frame post - yeah, that makes a BIG difference.
I think people tend to forget that when the Kato 2-8-2 was first received it was not acclaimed as the "gold standard". Far from it. The engine was ridiculed for being anemic in tractive effort and the drawbar was prone to breakage. It wasn't until Kato offered traction tired drivers, as an extra, that the tractive effort improved and the cradle that the locomotive and tender rest in helped in keeping the drawbar in one piece.
Bachmann spectrum steam frames ( 2-8-0,4-8-2 4-8-4 N&W J ,2-10-2 ,2-8-4, K4 ) are very similar to the Kato 2-8-2 frame design. They both use a split frames with brass/bronze bearings that fit in axle slots in the frame and do not use wheel wipers to get power from the drivers to the frame. Even there 2-6-2 / 0-6-0 has one brass contact tab on the frame halves , but it is not need with the newest release. ( I removed mine and it runs fine ) It was different with Bachmann in the past prespectrum days. The 4-8-4 and 2-6-2 had many changes over the years You can check for your self the frames Look up Spookshow.net and look in the locomotive encyclopedia he has photos of most engines with the shell removed and some disassembled this includes older designs.
hi randy just let me know if you want a kato gp38-2. according to the wheels it has less than 1 hour of running time if any at all !
No thanks. I have one I keep running because it pulls so well and another for parts. The pickup on those is pretty bad - I designed my own pickup wipers for it before end-axles were ever invented - tiny little pieces of phosphor bronze between the frame and the truck frame core. Improvement but not a real solution, I still have to keep it with another locomotive MUD'd to nudge it if it stalls. Despite some of the odd stuff, I've kind of become a fan of Bachmann with the new stuff and some of the redone stuff. But what a long and painful journey it has become. I'll NEVER understand how they keep those miserable rotating tender tires on the 4-4-0, dumbest design ever that's still there after what, 30 years now? I had one of the very first ones and they still have the same deal. So for every time I want to give them credit, I can still look around and wonder what they are thinking. Nobody EVER copied that mess again. Oh, and I had a first-run 4-8-4 that was a disaster, and the new ones are actually quite good - which is what can be so perplexing. My Kato mike started out without a traction tire, yeah, I remember that, got a replacement driver myself. I never broke a drawbar mostly because I modified it to be shorter. But even if you go back to some of the 'golden oldie' designs out there - the PA1 and the Con-Cor Hudson, those were actually Kato-made. I think the very first steamer in the scale back in 1968 on Gordon Odegard's "Enfield & Ohio" was a Kato Japanese 2-6-0 with tender drive. Here's a trivia question - other than the Kato 2-8-2, did any other manufacturer include a significant portion of the stock detail parts as add-on by the purchaser? I don't think any other landmark locomotive repeated that trick, either.
I agree with you. I do not understand why Kato does to release it,s iconic 4-6-4 mechanism. It has been proven and is bullet proof. No more pcb and sound please.. Let us simplify to the old 2 wire system that rarely failed and was easily repaired. All of this electronic gadgetry is focused at the new wave hobbyist who are not interested in modeling. I am an n scale dinosaur and proud of it. All I want is a loco that runs out of the box, is serviceable, and I can maintain on my bench in the basement where the wife wants it to be.
This, is what I am getting at. It never needed to be made so complicated.. Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Simplicity is elegant sometimes. Even as bad as they ended up, the rivarossi design was a good concept. Just that dang Zamac. All this new technology they keep sticking in these locos is making it harder to disassemble and repair. Granted, things are much more fun with dcc but the dc folks are not liking all the extra work. And who can blame them? It will be interesting to see where this hobby goes next. Hopefully they will discover that simple is better, and cheaper to manufacture in the long run. The kato steam frames have plastic inserts for the pilot and trailing truck which is a novel idea for split frames. As long as the tender has all wheel pick up, it will work flawlessly as far as contact goes. Lets kip our fingers crossed that these advances keep coming..
