N Scale..Time For Change?

I offer the following as food for thought and my personal views.


After mulling over these 2 topics:

GEVO's Coming... - TrainBoard.com

Track. Realism. N scale. AARGGH! - TrainBoard.com

I can't help but wonder if its time for change.

We want correct locomotives in the offered road names..We want better looking track.

Sounds good and I agree that's the way it should be.

However and IMHO we should add body mounted couplers to that list since that's the way the real cars are.We should add correct car height as well since the majority of our cars are high riders..We should add a scale coupler as well.



Of course we have seen vast improvements over the years from smooth Unitrack to Atlas's slo-mo equipped locomotives.

Now then..

I wonder if we are our own worst enemy?

Whoa! Old Larry must be off his meds again..

No not really..I took 'em about 2 hours ago..

Why do I think that?

Glad you ask..

In times past we have seen serious topics on needed improvements go South because-well-ahem,we are split.Many are happy with truck mounted couplers because the are force to use 9 3/4 radius curves..I can understand and appreciate their concerns but,9 3/4 radius is not much different the 18" curves in HO and oddly enough body mounted couplers on short wheel base cars and locomotives work quite well on these tight curves...Maybe we need to rethink our purchasing habits while using tight curves?

The down side..

Of course all the needed improvements will mean higher prices because of the required tooling..

With the current prices are we ready for these improvements?

I can only speak for myself..I wouldn't mind a slight price increase for those improvements..
-------------------
I know the above is a touchy subject and I thought this topic over before typing it..

I ask that we stay civil with each other and remember everybody has a right to his/her point of view..

 

I don't have a problem with the way things are, as long as we have a choice and the choices all provide good operation so that newcomers to the hobby aren't turned off by stuff that won't work right. So, for example, I want to body mount couplers. I don't mind getting rolling stock with truck mounts as long as there is a reasonably-priced body mount option, and the manufacturers make it relatively simple to convert. For example, I recently purchased 18 Intermountain PFE reefers, all with truck-mounted couplers. But Intermountain helpfully provides a pad with a pilot hole for switching to MT 1015 couplers. So I did - cut off the truck mounted coupler, added a 1015. Took a few hours to do all 18 cars, but I'm happy and the folks who want truck mounts are happy. And since I can purchase bulk packs of 1015 couplers relatively cheaply, the conversions were reasonably priced.

So what about track? Again, choice is fine. I use Peco Code 55, which doesn't have prototypical US tie spacing, but which is virtually indestructible and on which everything (including older large-flage locos) run. But my next layout probably will use Atlas Code 55 because of its more realistic look, and I've ditched all the pizza cutter wheels in favor of RP25's. But for those who want Code 80, fine - they should have that choice. And I see the competition between Kato's Unitrack and Atlas's TrueTrack to be very healthy for our hobby.

What I really want is MORE choice. I want all locomotives to be DCC-ready, preferably with a plug-in option, and for the manufacturer to tell me which DCC decoders will fit. I want someone to manufacture Tungsten replacement frames for small switchers so they will actually pull something; I want Atlas to do an Alco S-2/S-4 and Walthers to produce the FM H10/H12-44's. I want to be able to purchase detail parts when I want them and not have to wait a year for MV Products to restock their lenses at Walthers or for Detail Associates to do another run of EMD early dual headlights. Etc.

And I want the stuff that IS made to WORK. No more Berkshires that pull 6 cars out of the box; a steam loco should pull at least 30 cars on level track or it simply isn't manufactured correctly. No more 0-8-0's that run poorly out of the box after a $150 investment; and I shouldn't have to send one of every two Bachmann locos back to them for replacement to get a good one.

So, to me choice is good as long as there is, in fact, choice and the choices all perform well. Manufacturers who don't produce rolling stock that can easily be converted to body-mount couplers should do so; it would be nice if the manufacturers would get together and agree on one standard axle length so we could pick and choose trucks and wheels more easily, instead of having to remember that we need one size to fit MT trucks, another to fit Atlas, etc. Give me lots of choices and I can go my route while someone else goes theirs. OK with me.

John C.

 

As far as more realistic track this would be lost on me. When I’m running my trains even during switching operations, I’m not wearing a 10x Optivisor nor am I viewing my layout through a macro focus camera lens, thus I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the C80 Peco I currently use and any of the C55 offerings from Atlas or ME.

The big buzz-kill for me with regards to the C55 track is the lack of positive throw switches like Peco switches. Buy an Atlas C55 track and it is left up to you to cobble together something to actually make it work as Atlas has yet to provide anything except a solenoid motor.

What really yanks my chain about locomotive manufactures is that they listen to the 50% who want DCC ready frames and space to put speakers yet they totally ignore the 100% who want heavier locomotives. What’s up with that?

 

Cause "cute" still sells.. Personally, I'd rather have decoders tell a system *under* my layout where they are and then drive speakers that sound like something. Come on SurroundTraxx! I want the neighbors to wet the bed when I fire up my NG engines!!:tb-tongue::tb-biggrin::tb-cute:

As for body mount couplers, they could make life easier and include dimples for drilling holes for coupler screws. Save some time having to center the pilot holes.

Art

 

Peco Code 55 does have the same positive throw mechanism for its switches as for Peco Code 80.

As for heavier locos, I second that, but I think the problem is that manufacturers just don't have many cost-effective options. Making locos heavier would require heavier frame material or metal shells/boilers. Lead is outlawed everywhere, so that leaves what? Tungsten is really the only option for frame material, and that stuff is expensive and would have to be machined, rather than cast. Would you pay $250 for a heavier diesel?

The funny thing is that I WOULD pay significantly more for heavier steam and heavier switchers. Heck I'm already paying $250 for a Walthers 2-8-8-2; if it were $400 with a tungsten frame that made it pull 60 cars on level track, I'd pay that. And I'd rather pay $150 for a switcher that could pull 25 cars than $80 for one that pulls 10. But I suspect I'm pretty much alone on that front. Which is why I suggested someone make replacement frames in tungsten - then if I want to pay $200 for a replacement frame, fine, but the guy who doesn't won't have to.

John C.

 

I don’t buy this automatic assumption that heavier frames will drive the cost of locomotives up significantly.

It seems to me that a frame could be cast/milled with holes in it that could be filled with plugs of tungsten. Or the frame could be cast around a slug of tungsten.

The manufactures seem to be willing to pony-up the research to include things like DCC and sound yet they miss the boat on what you would think would be a much simpler problem to solve.

Another thing I would like someone to research is a means by which our locomotives could be electrically MUed together allowing them to share each locomotives wheel pickups. This way instead of having two four axle locomotives running electrically independent of each other you get what amounts to a single eight axle locomotive spread across two locos.

 

I don't know why you want a switcher that pulls 25 cars, when the real railroads don't use a switcher to pull 25 cars. Take a look at the real thing, and model that. As for heavier frames, maybe someone could come out with a frame die that you could cast your own lead into. The enviro cops have just about ruined every commercial endeavour on earth, but we as individuals can still make our own stuff and find any thing we want to cast out of. I have many pounds of nasty old lead. Mercury too. I don't give a rip about whats poison or not, cuz I'm smart enough to use it correctly. So are YOU. IN a few short years they will outlaw Floquill, and some of our finer paints. Wait and see. I rue the day when MEK is gone.

 

As long as we have people who ask the question of what is the minimum radius turn I can have in N gauge we will have truck mounted couplers. I would like to have code 45 track [yeah, that's right code 45 not 55*] with body mounted couplers and 60in. min. radius curves. But it ain't going to happen, at least not across the board. The best we can hope for is a split between the trainset items and the finescale items. But with a small market such as Nscale be prepared to pay much higher prices if that should occur. With the latest round of price increases I don't see that happening.

* Code 55 in N scale approximates code 100 in HO. Meanwhile, HO has gone from code 100 to code 83. Code 45 in N is the equivalent to code 83 in HO and would represent rail that is 7.2 inches high.

 

You might find this interesting. I got an email from Walthers (YES... WALTHERS) regarding future projects in N scale (YES N SCALE!). They were running a survey about rolling stock and the level of detail desired and how much MORE we'd be willing to pay for added details. In addition to the multiple choice ($0 to $10.00) more than basic price... there was an area for comment which I pretty much filled up. Essentially... I stated that the cost of rolling stock should not exceed $20.00 with full details added.

I'm in favor of extra details and improvements over the status quo. Remember if we 'settle' for the current standard... most manufacturers will not add or improve the products. Can you imagine N scale if modelers didn't nag manufacturers to get rid of Rapido couplers... keep the fat handrails... open pilots with truck mounted couplers on diesels... etc etc...

So ask and ye shall 'possibly' receive. There has to be enough consumer 'outrage' directed at the manufacturers to convince them that a change is necessary for them to continue to make sales.

 

Good Topic.

I do agree that there could ba many improvements, but with the vareous lines some manufactures have to offer I would say they are somewhat in tune with some of this. Mostly in HO, but I would think some of the manufacturers may mirror thier HO line up depending on its success in the larger scale.
As much as I would like body mounted couplers I think it better to just make a easy retrofit situation for those who choose to do so. It may help keep the cost/price down that way entry level people can start off simpler.
I remember when I was a kid and every cent I had went toward my trains but I cringed when there was a major retooling because I new that meant I had to save more money for a particular item.

I wonder how close we in the hobby are to pre-ordering, but with the ability to custom order items with your personal accessory choices This would be at a premium price of coarse. With pre-orders the way they are now the manufacturer could simply offer these alternatives and when there are enough ordered they can do a profitable run.

Problem solved, for the most part.

 

Very good points... the limitations of scale.

Let me add that... as for couplers... the ability of the coupler to handle the weight of the consist is very important too. We could use Z scale couplers in N scale and get a much more prototypical looking coupler and coupling distance. The question is... can those couplers hold-up to the weight of long N scale consists without failing. In fact... even a Z scale coupler is oversized for N scale... it just looks better. As modelers... we still should make the decisions as to HOW close to the prototype we are willing to go. The parts may be available for those who want to super detail and alter the 'stock' model offered by the manufacturers depending upon our own needs. I'd love to see more prototypical N scale couplers... but at what expense... less reliablility (unwanted uncoupling, breakage etc). As Inkineer mentioned... if you've got 9.75 to 12.25" radii... body mounting may not be very reliable due to greater derailment and/or uncoupling potential. Most modelers largest curves are the 19" variety... and even they could present an operational problem with certain rolling stock... with or without truck mounted couplers.

 

Brakie,

Nice topic, and yes we do get mixed results in this kind of thing. My short answer, based on my prefernces AND the study of human history is yes, N scale needs to get more prototypical in all respects. Improvement is the SOP in any industry.

I recall an HO company that had true track kind of components, but with flexible rather than hard plastic ballast. I think SOMEONE will come out with realistic, to scale, sectional track components, pre wired even. (If I win the Mega Millions any time soon, that someone might be me....)

I think we will get pre-mounted body couplers on all rolling stock, or at least premium rolling stock, sooner rather than later and all existing tooling will go into Trainman or equivalent lines. I think premium lines will be weathered and more protypically correct (but never exact, except maybe in some popular locos, like the SD40-2)

Given interoperability will be an issue, I think it will take a while to get there and it will be in fits and starts.

 

I’m already to the point where the newer Atlas locos have reached the cost prohibitive level and I now look forward to more “Trainman” locomotive releases.

There is an over abundance of new rolling stock releases that I’ve passed on purchasing do to their price.

If the 25%ters push for and get, a level of detail and feature that drives the cost and fragility of our hobby products up to a point where the remaining 75% can’t/won’t afford it and/or don’t want to deal with the “breakability”; have we really improved the hobby?

 

I agree with most posters that most of the above suggestions are worthwhile to include into our N scale. But we really have to temper our expectations. How many people want these changes? How many are willing to pay extra for them? Remember, lots of complaints about Atlas prices! The days of $15 cars and $80 engines are over, prices are going up! I'm willing to pay a little extra for the details i want, are you!!!!

Dave

 

Actually I'm quite pleased with the evolution of our Hobby. It's grown and become much more sophisticated than back in the 90's when I got into N Scale. And as Boxcar stated the price for quality is what it is, and plans change but desires and final outcomes don't. There is a large percentage of us that will always pay for the quality we desire in this hobby we all admire.
I hope progress continues as it has, Yes I would like to see certain things faster, but all in time so history has proven.:tb-cool:

 

Real railroads in the 50's often used switchers on transfer runs that did, in fact, have 20-25 cars. And in a flat switching yard, as many were in the 50's, a switcher could be asked routinely to move a cut of 15-20 cars; some railroads, in fact, ordered switchers with MU capability to account for heavier flat-switching duties.

Try pulling even 10 NMRA-weighted cars (roughly 1 oz. each) with a Kato NW2. Won't happen.

John C.

 

Looking at it from a business point of view, I'm not sure how much further they are going to be willing to make products lean towards the serious modeler. Mainly because the more serious someone is, the more fussy they will be. And the more fussy they are, the more options they will want. At some point, it just because impossible to make everybody happy. You would have to sell 30 versions of everything. So they start with the basics, then offer stuff for people more serious to change it the way they want. I assume there's probably a very large segment of not so serious train people, who probably aren't as interested, therefore don't voice their opinions in places like this as much as the serious modelers do. The manufacturers are probably more in tune with just how many of the less serious people there are out there, simply because they are the ones who know what sells and what doesn't. I think the balance they strike now is pretty fair. There's of course more steps they could take, but they choose not to for business reasons. MT could put low profile wheels on everything, but they don't. That could be because of the less serious modeler or it could be because they like selling extra wheels... Or both. On the track radius... There's always going to be plenty of people who have no intention of running layouts with giant sweeping turns. I don't see manufacturers making cars that are only capable of those turns, with body couplers only. Because that would mean tons of people buying stuff that doesn't work for them, and that's the last thing any company wants to deal with. Doing it the way they do now at least allows them to run anywhere on any turn. But I personally think they could go just a little farther towards prototype... When MT still puts the medium length trucks on 50' cars, I think that's a little too much towards less serious people. Especially when you can put that on a 9" and still have plenty of room between cars. They could easily make that a short truck with brown plastic and low profile wheels, and still make everybody happy. It's a little annoying when you spend what is now starting to go up into the $30 range for a car, then still have to pay to replace the trucks and wheels. In fact, I still don't think you can order bulk packs of trucks with the low profile wheels, which is nuts, because now you're replacing the original trucks, then you're replacing the wheels on the replacement trucks with replacement wheels. That's just wasteful and silly. I don't think serious modelers should be taken advantage of, just because they know those people will pay. But it's really no different than aircraft models or other hobbies... Buy the kit. Cockpit not good enough for you? Then here's a resin cockpit for $25. If they put all that stuff together, then the kit would be $100. Then everybody would say it's too much money, even though they're probably spending that much on extras anyway. People focus on one number, not collective numbers. Bottom line, it's very hard to make everybody happy.

 

Some Things Make No Sense

Hi,

Well as I have read all of the posts, things boil down into two areas:

Materials

Fidelity

The materials problems in the industry are what flabbergast me. Tungsten is not needed to increase weight. There are many others that work as well that are not as pricey. One mistake is to look at the periodic table of elements. That is not where the truth lies. Tungsten is not a very good conductor compared to many other metals. Furthermore, elemental form of metals are not usually stable with moisture, temperature etc and as such are alloyed for stability. Now there are other combinations of metals that can produce a marked improvement in weight. Using a Nickel based alloy would add 40% more weight that the existing frames for the same volume.

For heavier frames, the manufacturers need to investigate in different alloys. That is really all it would take. I have sent this information to Atlas and others, even offered to give them the alloy for the 40% weight increase and not one of them have responded. So for those looking at frame weight as a reason for performance, a solution is out there. But this is not the only reason why some of the locomotives do not pull well. In many cases, all that is needed is a higher torque motor. Again this is a pretty simple enhancement that the manufacturers ignore.

On the topic of couplers, well that is a materials problem again. Instead of using a simple plastic casting, a fortified resin using graphite or Kevlar micro threads would make the couplers at Z scale easily handle properly weighted cars. Similar materials have been in use in the aerospace industry for decades. This is not any kind of new science.

Materials and material science seems to be missing form the manufacturers just as much as they have seemed to give up on quality control and assurance.

In this day and age, this make no sense to me.......

On the area of fidelity, well that is even more subjective. I like all of the details to look good, but I am not sure that a higher degree of fidelity is needed. The Fox Valley Models ES4400 units are coming sans grab-on and other details to be modeler installed. That is one step to the direction of fidelity, but it is also a step backward in and economic sense. At a projected cost of over $100 MSRP, and you have the choice of either installing grab-ons or not having them at all will have an effect on the volume of the purchases. Personally, I do not have the time or the dexterity to install all of the little parts, so as much as I want to have these units, I will pass because molded on grabs look good enough for me. I have never noticed grab-ons on any of my locomotives while they were running, and I do not sit and stare at stopped locomotives...

I do have many super detailed locomotives that I have purchased that way, but at the end of the day, I have just as much fun with my non super detailed engines.

I will say that all of the manufacturers could do a much better job painting the locomotives correctly. The walkways are not silver (ala Kato C44-9) on Santa Fe War Bonnet locomotives, they are red. Hand rails in the proper colors and step edges should be on every model. The esoteric details may not be that easy to do, but it seems painting correctly should not be that difficult.

Maybe it would be a good thing to include a detail sprue with every model. That way runners and detailers can both be happy.

There are simple things that can be done at little or no costs to either the consumer or the manufacturer and it makes no sense that these simple items have not been improved.

For my part, I am generally happy with most parts of the hobby as they are now. Body mounted couplers are nice in some cases, but they are disastrous in others. I think about the only thing I want to see changed is the Atlas mentality in their locomotives. The spring contacts are very troublesome to align up on a consistent basis without actually soldering them on the either the lightboard or the dcc decoder. If they could only figure out how to do what Matt did at FVM on the ES4400 for the decoder interface, it would make life a lot easier. I stopped buying Atlas locomotives (and the Atlas based IM locomotives) because I was fed up with consistent extra work it took to install decoders than any Kato locomotive or any of the IM F units.

Some thing this simple, makes no sense why Atlas lingers on with a substandard electrical connection.

Well I have rambled on too long, sorry about that, but as a manufacturer with a materials lab and a machine shop, I see that there are very easy ways to implement most of the changes being asked for.

It make no sense to me why the manufacturers don't leave 1970 and move into the 21st century.

 

Now this I agree with. I am sure the manufactures know where the "bottom dollar" line is...and a few have crossed it...hoping for the best. As long as modelers are willing to eat PBJ's for breakfast, lunch, and dinner to feed their train addictions...the manufactures will continue to raise the cost to us for their products.

No Dave...I absolutely am not. I think, and hope the cost to the 'average' modeler has reached its saturation point. The number crunchers at the manufactures are surely sweating bullets. IMHO prices for most N Scale products is just plain outragious.

Once again...I dont think there is a 'large number' who will pay for all those fancy, prototypical details. Only the manufactures know the real numbers. When sales drop can they really blame it on the economy or the hard realization that the high cost of even a fun hobby like N scale trains aint worth that much to most people.


All the above is just my opinion and not a slam on anyone. I like details...to a point. I like knuckle couplers over (C)rapidos. BUT...I also like seeing my kids eating and being able to pay for a roof over my families head...more then I like buying 100.00+ locomotives.


.