Saw this question on the N scale groups, and while some probably go there, as well, thought it worth a turn here. Question: What features will be in the next generation of N scale locos/diesels? Some answers from there: Better, smoother running - (can’t get a whole lot better, but what do I know? Maybe less friction in the trucks and gears? Better pullers – thought to be a tradeoff of less weight to fit in all the other features, but would be nice. More proto specific features on the shell. (and of course, finer details) DCC with model specific sound to be standard off the shelf. (or an IM like top option) Simplified DCC programming – I saw in the Trainfest report that MRC has some device to aid in this, so maybe it’s coming in some form. Battery powered to avoid wiring (yay)_ DCC controlled uncoupling, eliminating MT ramps Smoke and steam, without the smell. Which features do you think will show up, or show up first and be most popular?
Direct-Bluetooth-Train-Control. Motors with built-in rotation-sensors for accurate speed and distant-traveled. Also opens the door to inexpensive location determination and control. Open-interface-Bob
I'ld like to see... Better pullers...a big 6 axle diesel locomotive that cant pull 10 cars up a 2% grade is pathetic !!! Better, smoother running...Yes...we are close...but it can still be better. In that order...
Excuse me! Yeah, back here in the rear seats. Yes, I have a question? What was the original question? New stuff, what will the future bring? The new stuff is already out of my budgetary allowances. Since manufacturing has moved to China, things haven't gottin less expensive. If anything it's gotten more expensive. I might add the quality has improved substantially. As for me. Any further requisitions will be made at swap meets here or elsewhere. That is as long as E-pay doesn't influence the sellers and twist their arms into selling at higher prices. I have a stack of locomotives sitting on my workbench that need repairs. I don't think I got more then 60 hours running time out of most of them. They aren't strong pullers, motors burn out way to easy and the brass contacts are forever oxidizing and needing serious cleaning. A pain in the neck or lower. Traction tires are a constant source of irritation. As I'm not one of those who enjoys replacing them. Darn fangled (to represent an expletive I can't use here) contraptions. Don't get me wrong I really dig on the offerings of the Challenger, Big Boy, Cab Forwards that Athearn and InterMountain put out. You will only find one of them on my layout. I have a friend to thank for the Cab Forward. Exceptional locomotive. Oh gosh darn, doo-dee I just went and wrote one my infamous Rick's Vent and Lament Post. Darn hobby I got myself into. Ok, back to the wood shed, I mean train shed. I have insulation to put in and every piece is a custom fit. Going to take awhile. See nothing goes easy for me. I said with a sheepish grin.:startled:
Rick, I have no doubt that as new and better cool stuff comes out, the second hand market will thrive for budget modelers as early adopters sell of their old stuff. Hopefully, those old Kato/Atlas locos will look a little better to the eye than, say Con Cor auto racks do now....but if the improvements are big enough, especially with locos, a lot of people will upgrade!
I wonder if any of the larger manufacturers will venture into 3D printing for shells. The idea, mentioned above, of prototype specific shells for a common frame and mechanism could be a boon.
I think owners of ALCO units would be ordered by their local fire department to disable this feature. I think modularizing of the internal electronics rather than the current "one control board to rule them all" method will be something that we'll start to see in the near future. That way, adding/changing/replacing functions would be both easier and cheaper.
Well, if the mfgs really wanted to be prototypical, maybe Alco's would have better pulling power, but break down a bit faster than the EMD units. Maybe even GE units would be programmed to fail faster than the EMD models..... Or maybe they add a smoke packet not for all the time use, but one that will randomly spew smoke indicating we need to take our diesel to the shop NOW. LOL. More seriously, I think more built in light functions such as mars lights when appropriate should probably be a feature before smoke, and even sound.
1. Decent sound option (note the "option" - people who don't want it shouldn't have to pay for it, at least until such time as it's so cheap that keeping dual inventory doesn't make sense). 2. Further market differentiation, like the Atlas "Trainman" vs. "Master" line. Cheaper (but still good) locos for those that don't care about the last tiny detail or take pleasure in "rolling their own," and full-on prototype specific for those that want that out of the box, at a higher price. The "Master" line might include things like operating Mars/Pyle/ditch/strobe/etc. lights, operating marker lights, your choice of prototypical locomotive numbers, etc. Sort of like buying a custom-order car; you log on to a web site, select road name, road number, additional options, etc. - but you pay for the privilege. Perhaps even a frame alloy option - "standard" zinc or optional Tungsten, for those of us who might want to get prototypical-like pulling power (at a price, of course). All of this for both diesel and steam (steam, of course, costing more because of the complexity). I think 2. may be possible as 3D printing techniques and quality evolve over the next 10 years. Injection molding may stick around for the "Trainman" line of stuff, with custom printing for the "Master" line. Some manufacturer needs to keep pushing the envelope, even if that results in higher prices (again, as long as the lower-price niche is available for folks entering the hobby or who just don't have the resources or don't want to spend the resources). Technological advances really do "trickle down" eventually, and unless someone stakes out the "pushing the envelope" ground, the hobby will stagnate. That's why I think the Atlas S-2, Rapido GMD-1, and Intermountain SD40-2's with factory sound are major milestones. 3. While not locomotive-related, we also need a digital command control system that doesn't require a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering to operate. Come on folks; this is 2014. I understand that companies like Digitrax aren't Microsoft or Apple. But C++ programmers are out there and the tools are available to construct front-ends that would make programming sensible to ordinary folks. John C.
Some of the advances in DCC will be operational programmability. Things like fuel consumption, sand depletion, random breakdowns etc. Also, DCC will evolve to a distributed control system, where your boosters are not dumb pass through power but have the smarts to take over control of the locomotives in their respective power districts and hand off control to the next district when leaving. I also see that the details will increase like road typical horns and horn locations. Add to that the correct light locations per road i.e. no more Kato Dash 9 units with nose headlights on Norfolk Southern locomotives. And lets go for much higher torque motors which will give higher pull strength to the locomotives. As for battery, the power density needed for any length running is far more than even next generation batteries will hold. Consider a locomotive under load of burning 100mA per second. Then running for 1 hour will use 360 amp hours of power. That is an awful lot for a battery small enough to fit inside a locomotive. Plus you will lose a lot of mechanism weight with the space hollowed out for the batteries. The simplest solution will always be the supported solution and that will be power on the rails. Aside from that possibly the modularization of platform parts such that there will be drive units setup for locomotive types that allow the 3D printed shells to drop right on, especially for steam prototypes.
Body mounted knuckle couplers with a closer to scale size and realistic appearance is something to hope for. Maybe frames made from a denser material. For higher end locos, maybe correct scale details, such as lights, for each road name advertised.
Jeff, I couldn't agree more. And I'm counting on it. There are some fine folks out there who know how to care for their locomotives. Should the time come and they want part with them I hope to be the first in line. On the other hand if Athearn or Kato produces a Santa Fe, 4-8-4, Northern ....look out! I will eat porridge...uhh...err...oatmeal every meal to pay for it. Thanks for the come back.
I'd have to vote for this response because it would help to increase the pulling power and leave space for all the other doo-dads; such as, sound boards, smoke generators, rechargeable batteries etc... and so forth.
You do realize the W (tungsten) is actually slightly more dense then DU? No benefit to dealing with the toxicity issues with DU when W will suffice and is actually available. I always thought it'd be nice to have loco frames made out of W so they can be trimmed down to accommodate speakers, proper fuel tanks (Kato and FVM GEVO air reservoir are better but still suck) and more pulling power. Honestly with the advent of Bluetooth and possible 2.4 Ghz radio (Railpro) I think DCC type train control will give way to these new technologies. The Bluetooth approach is genius and hopefully it will emulate Railpro in that it's entirely software driven architecture with two way communication between devices. Updates to firmware and software and downloaded and the software greatly simplifies operation; no more CVs, MU ops are a quick and painless without speed matching etc. Back to the OP question Im hoping FVM is pushing the other manufacturers towards better detail and fidelity. I'd like to see better lighting and running gear but I'm skeptical we'll see significant improvements in these areas since it's expensive from a production standpoint. Electronic improvements will come from the DCC houses.
From Barstow Rick: " the brass contacts are forever oxidizing and needing serious cleaning " Good point. How about changing the contacts to a more oxidation resistant material? They stopped making track out of brass years ago and one reason was less cleaning. Why not make the contacts out of the same material as the track? IN theory it should be more reliable and require less cleaning.
