TheRailwire
General Discussion => N and Z Scales => Topic started by: JoeD on April 03, 2014, 04:35:27 PM
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rYWbv49Gn0g/Uz3DUtKgvhI/AAAAAAAAAUk/KIgY8sz4VdY/s1600/20140403_125215.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bYbLRDuYjgA/Uz3DOZnk2HI/AAAAAAAAAUE/mQ8yV3Nm0GA/s1600/20140403_125235.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EwFpavSKiWQ/Uz3DURY6VAI/AAAAAAAAAUg/xryqFMHQE44/s1600/20140403_125259.jpg)
Here are three shots of the shell with all the parts stuck on. Clearly we have to address shrink and fit, but I thought you all might like another look. Now that we have all the pieces I can start working on my New Haven de Mexico layout with New Haven equipment that operated out of Guadalajara during the 1950's. :D
Joe
-
*****. I'm happy with that!
Is that a full-cab weight?
Is that guy removable like the LL ones (for vanity photos)?
-
It comes out just like the SW 1200 does. I am looking at making a short weight to include with the engine so you can switch them out and still get good traction. So far with testing, I am able to pull 22 40' cars with a little slipping on curves...without the weight I'm down to about 18....un scientific test at this point...just messing around on the layout. More later.
Joe
-
Hey why not a photo of the chassis that will be used in production. ;)
-
Looks good. And the cab is in my IHB colors, so maybe that tells us something? :D
One thing I notice is that I find the details don't look very crisp on nearly any unpainted model, but when they get painted, the details seem to get crisper. Anyone else notice that, or am I just different....don't answer that!
Looking forward to a much needed model, and yes, based on my experience with NW2, SW9 and MP15AC, please stack as much weight in wherever you can!
-
Four-step stepwells, good. I still say remove the molded on dropstep from the anticlimber and make ot part of the end handrails in the up position, at least for this sill version. Allows for all the roads that didn't have dropsteps by just doing another end handrail.
-
Are we still looking at the LL frame? Will the trucks have roller bearings? I had the same feeling about the drop steps until I looked at photos.. and most photos showed drop steps down whether or not it was coupled to another unit.
~Ian
-
Hubba hubba. That's gonna look nice in white.
-
Ooo this is going to be a looker for sure!
-
Will it fit an Atlas MP15?
If it is a LLSW12 mech then will it fit on a Kato NW2 mech?
-
Very nice sir, definitely going on the short list
-
Looking very sweet! I'll be looking to add a CR unit for Lewistown, PA.
There's quite a bit on that workbench behind the '1500 too!
-
Yes, it's still the Life Like frame but we made changes at the factory to allow for isolating the motor from the frame, including wires with pins that fit into a socket on a modified board. To go DCC you unplug, remove light board and drop in a decoder (Digitrax is working on one) We are working on the alternative truck and then will follow with a new shell with the hand rail on the side of the shell plus SP light package.
I'll post shots tomorrow, but there's not much to see.
Joe
Are we still looking at the LL frame? Will the trucks have roller bearings? I had the same feeling about the drop steps until I looked at photos.. and most photos showed drop steps down whether or not it was coupled to another unit.
~Ian
-
It comes out just like the SW 1200 does. I am looking at making a short weight to include with the engine so you can switch them out and still get good traction. So far with testing, I am able to pull 22 40' cars with a little slipping on curves...without the weight I'm down to about 18....un scientific test at this point...just messing around on the layout. More later.
Joe
Sweet. That's exactly what I was hoping. I really like the way that works out on the LL unit. There are options.
I can't wait now. Hurry up! I want my holy grails!
-
Now that we have all the pieces I can start working on my New Haven de Mexico layout with New Haven equipment that operated out of Guadalajara during the 1950's. :D
Joe
Allright, but when are we going to see photographs of the version with the Rapido couplers?
-
Ok, I'm in now. For 2nd run, unders or steel mill colors please,
Phil
-
Looks great Joe. Can you comment on whether it will have a working light on the cab?
Best wishes, Dave
-
We are working on the alternative truck and then will follow with a new shell with the hand rail on the side of the shell plus SP light package.
Joe
(http://www.comicsbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/stimpy-glee.jpg)
-
;)as soon as you post a picture of your conversion...please let me know how it works out. It'll save me time on the bench :D
Joe
Allright, but when are we going to see photographs of the version with the Rapido couplers?
-
Sorry, no it doesn't. I tried to figure out a way to get power back across the chassis from the light/dcc board and it required modification to the lifelike tooling...and that wasn't going to happen. I'm still looking at options, but we had to weigh doing some extreme work or keeping the cost down and getting the chassis in a timely manner. I also requested that we release undecorated shells, un-assembled at the begining of the release. Given all the chassis floating around out there, it would give folks the option to do a few of their own SW1500's in a road they don't want to wait for. If you guys are like me, I'll paint my own and when the company comes out with a factory job, I'll buy it too even if I have to replace the number on one of my own cabs. Keep your fingers crossed.
Joe
Looks great Joe. Can you comment on whether it will have a working light on the cab?
Best wishes, Dave
-
Joe,could you heat stake some phosphour bronze contacts onto the inside back wall of the cab that would make contact with each frame half? the wires cold run up the corners to an led for the lens.
-
Can we get overhead and end shots? Please!
-
I think I can work with that, please give us some undecs to start with.
-
Yes, it's still the Life Like frame but we made changes at the factory to allow for isolating the motor from the frame, including wires with pins that fit into a socket on a modified board. To go DCC you unplug, remove light board and drop in a decoder (Digitrax is working on one) We are working on the alternative truck and then will follow with a new shell with the hand rail on the side of the shell plus SP light package.
I'll post shots tomorrow, but there's not much to see.
Joe
Now I'm even more curious if it is wide or not... Russ seemed to confirm that there was no way the Life Like chassis would work for an SW1500.
-
it works...I have one running on my layout right now.
Now I'm even more curious if it is wide or not... Russ seemed to confirm that there was no way the Life Like chassis would work for an SW1500.
-
We went as thin as we could go with the plastic and ended up 8" scale wider and .040" thinner than the Lifelike shell....I can see where that would be a deal breaker :facepalm:
Joe
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aT3FUh8-Ye0/Uz7LFlmAmQI/AAAAAAAAAU4/c_P8uiQboWg/s1600/photo.JPG)
-
We went as thin as we could go with the plastic and ended up 8" scale wider and .040" thinner than the Lifelike shell....I can see where that would be a deal breaker :facepalm:
Joe
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aT3FUh8-Ye0/Uz7LFlmAmQI/AAAAAAAAAU4/c_P8uiQboWg/s1600/photo.JPG)
That does look wider than it should be.. (were talking about tie spacing right?)
-ian
-
That hood looks really wide to me.
-
Hmmmm... I dunno. SW1500s always hit me as having wider hoods than their earlier brethren. Judge for yourself in this similar overhead view:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=902179
-
So the hood is 8" prototype inches wider than the prototype? That's 0.05" in N. Please correct me if I'm not reading that correctly.
-
Hmmmm... I dunno. SW1500s always hit me as having wider hoods than their earlier brethren. Judge for yourself in this similar overhead view:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=902179
For some reason, that looks a lot narrower.
-
We went as thin as we could go with the plastic and ended up 8" scale wider and .040" thinner than the Lifelike shell....I can see where that would be a deal breaker :facepalm:
Joe
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aT3FUh8-Ye0/Uz7LFlmAmQI/AAAAAAAAAU4/c_P8uiQboWg/s1600/photo.JPG)
The hood is too damn wide!
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bvblackspin.com/media/2010/10/rent-is-too-damn-high.jpg)
-
Interesting...well, we are about .040" narrower than the SW 1200 and are about as thin as we can go with the plastic shell. Again, it may look too wide, but in scale it's only 8" so it's not that much.
Joe
-
Joe, that is more than Kato engines and we poke fun at them for it. It is very noticeable on an engine this small. I'll still get one, but I think MTL should have gone through and made their own frames. How much more would it be? You could even recycle the LL motor, gears, trucks and attachment points.
A few thousand more and you could have a real game changer.
-
It's much more instructional to refer to discrepancies in terms of percentages, not absolute measurements. Add 8" to a 60' boxcar, and you'll be hard-pressed to notice it; add 8" to a 6' loco hood (an arbitrary number chosen for the sake of illustration) and it could be an issue for some people. In the case of the boxcar, it's about 1%, which would be a challenge to perceive. But in the case of the hood, it's over 10%, and there will almost certainly be some push-back on that.
I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'm not trying to bash anyone or anything; I'm merely attempting to encourage people to use more useful terms. 8 scale inches may not seem like much until it's placed in reference to the size of the object to which it's being added.
-
Interesting...well, we are about .040" narrower than the SW 1200 and are about as thin as we can go with the plastic shell. Again, it may look too wide, but in scale it's only 8" so it's not that much.
Joe
The reality is this...that 8" is probably the same distance in your top down photo, of the left edge of the front radiator grille to the edge of the shell. Taken in that context, if that space is removed, running the entire length of the carbody it would be significant.
It won't dissuade me from ultimately purchasing one when the flexicoil truck sideframe option becomes available.
-
That distance is .065" (edge of the intake and the edge of the side) for reference and we are talking .025" additional on each side, less than half that distance. New chassis wasn't going to happen given the cost and time.
-
People will buy it Joe, including myself. It would be nice though for the first time out with this Loco, it could have been closer to scale width, that's all.
-
My unsolicited opinion on the matter is that legitimate engineering compromises are more forgivable than mistakes owing to poor research or lack of motivation to get it right.
If the 8" extra gets this to the market at a lower price point it's certainly something I can overlook. Some things bother some people more than others. Hood width has never been a hot button for me.
Then again, compared to some folks here I'm essentially an N scale Lionel guy.
-
I do have to agree it looks wider than the prototype picture (I kept trying to make it look right and just couldn't) but I agree with Dr. Dave that it's forgiveable to make it cheaper and get it to market quicker
-
I have no stake in this, but I have been followig this thread simply becasuse it is interesting to see a model being developed.
I thought all along that the LL mechanism was only a test bed. Now it seems that MT will actually use the LL mechanism in this loco. So, it will be a hybrid of the MT shell with LL mechanical (and possibly MT truck sideframes)? Is that correct?
As far as the rear headlight goes, in their NW2 Kato used a long lightpipe covered with a shroud which was also part of the locos interior. The LED is in the bottom of the mechanism. Wouldn't that be a viable option fo this similarly shaped loco?
As far as the hood width goes, it is white while the other parts of the model are darker color. IMO, that is why it looks so much wider. It is an optical illusion.
-
Being X inches too wide doesn't bother me, but the fact that the hood not being inline with the cab windows is unfortunate.
How many cars are people expecting to pull with these? What about a z scale motor/mechanism? Wouldn't that be small and still powerful enough to pull a 1/2 dozen cars?
-
Don't like it - don't buy it...........
Happy to see a nice model that meets your needs, say "whoopee" and buy one, two.. whatever........
Want a better one - pony up the dough and make it............
MT's told you what they did, showed you what they did, explained what they did and made their decision (BTW - more than 90% of mfg's do.... right ?) - their locomotive, their product.... nuff said.
I'll buy one, happily..... I think it looks great. After all; I hardly ever bring the digital micrometer out and hand it to my operators; a car list and Molson's usually is enough.
-
How many cars are people expecting to pull with these?
So far with testing, I am able to pull 22 40' cars with a little slipping on curves...without the weight I'm down to about 18....un scientific test at this point...just messing around on the layout.
-
I am just a little disappointed it isn't more exact. Bachmann did the same compromise with their GE switchers, and I understand the reasons behind it. I also see MTL producing Z scale mechanisms that would be the correct width for the SW1500 in N.
This is a classic boondoggle engine in N scale: Riv/Atlas calling their contraption an SW1500, then Con-Cor continuing the tradition before renaming it an SW1200. Now we have this... a lot closer to the real thing, but " 'dat nose".
Oddly enough, the hood looks very close to the width of the CC MP15-1. Another boondoggle in its own right.
I guess my kit bashed Conrail SW1500 fleet will soldier on.
-
Going rate for a Maxon 8mm motor is over $40.00 in quanties of thousands...Using those takes you, with up charges to a switcher in the $200 range like our Z GP's and Sd's were. The motor that Bachmann/Dapol uses would be nice, but they don't OEM those to the competition and all the other smaller can motors we tested are not 8mm...generally 10mm and those are costly as well. That 8mm motor, even with a huge flywheel won't have the torque or pull necessary. Last year I weighted a GP chassis to match the SW and the same with z 60' flats...far from being scientific, but the motor got real warm real quick...
Joe
Being X inches too wide doesn't bother me, but the fact that the hood not being inline with the cab windows is unfortunate.
How many cars are people expecting to pull with these? What about a z scale motor/mechanism? Wouldn't that be small and still powerful enough to pull a 1/2 dozen cars?
-
Not something I expect to find in my fleet, but it's an interesting model.
Not discouraged or upset about the hood width... I'm like Vollmer, reasonable engineering compromise gets it out and on the rails at a better price point, seems reasonable.
But.
... Joe mentions that a new "from the ground up" frame might be in the offing.
Would that beget a whole new shell with proto proportions?
Begs the question...
If you don't think you have time to do it right, what makes you think you have time to do it over?
Lee
-
Initially these were intended for sets and special runs...a very big part of our business. We lost the ability to do the FT due to shifting sands in China and found ourselves having to use other's motive power. Plenty of discussion and distain...no plenty of distain on Railwire because of that. So, what's the simple solution?...do something on a chassis that we could get in quantities that make it cost effective and have more flexability with the sets. I took it a step further and made the case to offer it to the broader community knowing the feedback from the protocentrics. Still, with the tens of thousands of chassis already on the market and the cost and time savings, going the route I fully supported, it made Strategic sense. I figure sales of undec's will be brisk... And we were not disapointed by the sales response for the first two units...we under estimated BIG time and are ordering second and soon, third runs of chassis. Those familiar with MOQ in china these days can get a handle on numbers we are talking. My comment about doing our own chassis was subjective and given the engineering comprimise, I don't know what direction we would/may/might go in. Who knows.
Joe
-
but the motor got real warm real quick...
Joe
Slap a fan in that sucka! :D
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-gC_BUhPok9k/RoDek7vKqhI/AAAAAAAAAws/j42S61cH6m4/s800/IMG_3958.JPG)
-
wow...turbine...
-
As I've said, I don't have a dog in this fight. But, I must underscore the reality of the issue: manufacturers are in the business to make money, not friends. In spite of my remarks on 8" versus 10%, I think MTL has made sound business choices with this product, and has made an earnest effort to bring it closer to the mark--certainly more so than Life-Like. As Pud said, if you like 'em, buy 'em; if not, don't. I believe this will still sell well, and I seriously doubt MTL will be impacted much--if at all--by the groaning of a few protomodelers. Bachmann didn't appear to suffer much for their too-wide 44- and 70-tonners. FWIW, YMMV, IMO, etc...
-
why didn't I think of that :D
Slap a fan in that sucka! :D
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-gC_BUhPok9k/RoDek7vKqhI/AAAAAAAAAws/j42S61cH6m4/s800/IMG_3958.JPG)
-
Slap a fan in that sucka! :D
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-gC_BUhPok9k/RoDek7vKqhI/AAAAAAAAAws/j42S61cH6m4/s800/IMG_3958.JPG)
I have a feeling that when operational fans are OEM on our locomotives, many will still grovel.
When Reading SW1500s are announced, I will buy them 8).
Best,
:)
Chris
-
I recall reading on TRW that with iconic locomotives, modelers deserve and should demand perfection. We were further informed that if n scalers don't expect scale fidelity in their models, then they will continue to get whatever companies think is good enough, etc, etc. Maybe I should do a search for that thread. It's around here somewhere... :trollface: :lol:
I think the hood looks too wide, but I fully accept that to make a model at a decent price point, some compromises need to be made. If I had a reason to buy one, I would buy one of these. Mind you, I thought we should wait to see the SD40-2 before we bash it, so what do I know. ;)
-
I think the hood looks too wide, but I fully accept that to make a model at a decent price point, some compromises need to be made.
Thank you. My point exactly.
-
The only thing that 'looked' out of scale in that photo was the N scale track..
Yes.. it's a little wide.. but so are handrails, and steps and window gaskets are thick. (We are talking N scale here, and unless you want to spend $800 on a brass model.. theres going to have to be some give and take).
Still looks a heck of alot better than the Atlas version from 60! years ago.. (although that one had hood handrails.. :trollface:)
Plus MT created a DDC Ready Frame for the SW8 & 1200..
Win-Win!
That could be just as hot of a seller as the Undec Shells. ~Ian
-
Joe, any idea on the pricing? If you are going to offer undec shells I assume they would be about the same price as Atlas parts?
-
We went as thin as we could go with the plastic and ended up 8" scale wider and .040" thinner than the Lifelike shell....I can see where that would be a deal breaker :facepalm:
I don't have a dog in this either, since this does not fit my era or prototype.
So just FWIW as a perspective: traditional 2-rail O-scale has had a gauge error of 3 1/2 scale inches too wide for just about forever, yet Proto:48 is still a minority of a minority of a minority. So modeling compromises will always be inevitable in every scale. How many folks would be happy with a model that could only negotiate prototypical curve radii?
Ed
-
I believe they will be under $120.00...but not sure. As for undecs, I want to keep the price low on those to encourage some actual modeling out there :D
Joe, any idea on the pricing? If you are going to offer undec shells I assume they would be about the same price as Atlas parts?
-
Well I have a few SW1200 mechanisms with their name on it. I just want to make it clear that I'm not angry at the wide hood. I totally understand the reason behind it, I just wish the stars were aligned...
-
Will both undec shells and mechanisms be sold separately? Judging by the price differences for different paint schemes, I'm hoping a complete functioning undec will be an economical option too. Atlas shell pricing is ideal. I remember getting full shells for $10 at Caboose Hobbies when I was a teenager. Those days are gone but I'd hate to have to pay Kato prices for undec shells (~$35).
-
I understand the decisions MTL made to bring this to market. But MTL decisions are not indicative of the rest of the manufacturing world.
They were hesitant to jump in with both feet and do a completely new locomotive. Every time they go back to order more Life-Like chassis is another argument that this locomotive could have sustained a ground-up design.
Just because this wide-hood design was the only way to get the project green-lighted through the MTL board, doesn't mean that no other manufacturer could have tooled a new locomotive with scale width hood at the same price point. What it does mean is that no other manufacturer will touch it for awhile now that this one is on the market soaking up market share.
Yes, they will sell. But they won't sell quite as well as they could have.
-
Personally I don't care if the hood is to damn wide to make Joe Nitpicker mad.But I will tell you this if he gets his nose thet close to MY new switcher he will be seeing something besides the loco. :D
-
Joe,
If you are going with a modified life like mechanism.....
(I'm sure you know this but....) don't use a crappy plastic worm like on the early runs.
Brass does not go out of round like those awful plastic worms.
Thanks for sharing with us.
-
Sorry Mike but the fact of the matter is that all this chatter will not have a measurable effect on sales of the unit what so ever. As a matter if fact if MTL picks the right mix if proto schemes and popular foobies as kick off schemes it will sell even better than if they blew a bundle on a new, more svelt chassie.... Meeting the ever increasing demands of the A@@hats doesnt translate into increased profits as much as knowing what price point vs. cost plus what "pretty paint scheme" to sell it in does..... And that's just a fact we all have to live with.
So; don't like the model ? Ok; I repeat; pony up the dough and commision your own model; prove the industry wrong......
-
I think there tends a fundamental lack of understanding of how the MTL market is structured, our resources, and the actual cost to produce something, especially when 50% of it is done here in the states. Understandable when you are on the outside...Pud has gotten a face full of reality :D The cost to produce a new chassis, source motors that don't exist, would have doubled the development costs, making our ROI twice as long to make. Given the state of the N Scale market (small and not getting much bigger by the hour) the level of sales and a crowded field, going the all new route would not happen. I'm happy we could do what we could, I am happy with the product as it sits on my bench and am happy that most of the modelers out there will enjoy having one or two or three added to their fleets...(can't wait to do the NASA engines) I'm also happy with the response and it's nice to be in a situation where we have to scramble to meet orders again. So, there are going to be things that could have been better, I would have wanted "all new", but this is a good compromise all around. And as Pud said, if you don't like it, that's ok...more for me :D
Joe
-
What Joe said.... Plain, simple and to point.
-
It does seem that with every single new locomotive release, irrespective of manufacturer, this forum plays out the same narrative with the same voices playing the same roles.
-
I am disappointed by the hood, but my bigger concern is how are you getting the power from the trucks to the frame halves?
-
Plus MT created a DDC Ready Frame for the SW8 & 1200..
Which is of no use without a decoder. It is easy to install a decoder in the original LL SW mech. The easiest solution to this would be to have TCS make their Z2 on a board that would plug directly in place of the current light board (the front headlight would be on the board). The wires would come with the brush cap contacts already in place and all that would be needed is Kapton tape to isolate the contact going to the lower brush. I have discussed this with a gentleman at TCS, but they are more interested in sound decoders at the moment.
-
Which is of no use without a decoder. It is easy to install a decoder in the original LL SW mech. The easiest solution to this would be to have TCS make their Z2 on a board that would plug directly in place of the current light board (the front headlight would be on the board). The wires would come with the brush cap contacts already in place and all that would be needed is Kapton tape to isolate the contact going to the lower brush. I have discussed this with a gentleman at TCS, but they are more interested in sound decoders at the moment.
If you were to look at the first page of this thread, you would find:
To go DCC you unplug, remove light board and drop in a decoder (Digitrax is working on one)
-
It does seem that with every single new locomotive release, irrespective of manufacturer, this forum plays out the same narrative with the same voices playing the same roles.
Next time, I'll make sure to assign us different roles ahead of time. :trollface:
-
Sorry Mike but the fact of the matter is that all this chatter will not have a measurable effect on sales of the unit what so ever. As a matter if fact if MTL picks the right mix if proto schemes and popular foobies as kick off schemes it will sell even better than if they blew a bundle on a new, more svelt chassie.... Meeting the ever increasing demands of the A@@hats doesnt translate into increased profits as much as knowing what price point vs. cost plus what "pretty paint scheme" to sell it in does..... And that's just a fact we all have to live with.
So; don't like the model ? Ok; I repeat; pony up the dough and commision your own model; prove the industry wrong......
So why does Rapido bother trying to get details right?
-
I think there tends a fundamental lack of understanding of how the MTL market is structured, our resources, and the actual cost to produce something, especially when 50% of it is done here in the states. Understandable when you are on the outside...Pud has gotten a face full of reality :D
Pud works for a company that focuses on prototype fidelity. And I fully agreed that this is probably the only way for MTL to hit the market with the cost of their in-house tooling in the states.
I don't agree that motors are non existent. I don't agree that China couldn't do it at the same price point. Actually, I don't agree that someone in the states couldn't do it either, I think that tide is set to change in the next 5 years too.
So really all I'm saying is it's fine for MTL to say they can't do it. But they shouldn't imply it can't ever be done as part of their reasoning as to why they didn't do it. Every manufacturer has a niche.
-
Without getting into a discussion that may tread on proprietary information I can say that high quality n scale style motors are right now very hard to source.
-
So why does Rapido bother trying to get details right?
Totaly different business model - we produce to order and no more. We bring a model out once and if you miss it, you miss it. We might re-run it many years later. We focus on odd, mostly Canadian prototypes not mass produced and well known multi road units and we are usually not the lowest priced product in the market .
MTL business model is very different Both models tend to serve a different base but clearly cross over on some levels. You can't compare the two approaches. Both come with pluese and minuses.
-
It does seem that with every single new locomotive release, irrespective of manufacturer, this forum plays out the same narrative with the same voices playing the same roles.
QFT.
A fundamental truth is that there's a point of diminishing returns, and this can be applied to many aspects of this discussion. MTL could beat their collective heads against the wall in order to satisfy a tiny minority of fussy modelers, and after a point they will start to lose money--those last few sales will come at a price they (and potentially their customers) can ill afford. The same can also be said about this discussion: you can present your personal perspective on the matter just so many times before it starts becoming counterproductive--the harder you pound your fist on the table, the less likely people will listen.
Or, in the words of Ian MacMillan, I like turtles.
-
These last few comments could be distilled and pinned to the top of every new announcement. Otherwise, it is like Groundhog Day.
-
If you were to look at the first page of this thread, you would find:
I saw that, you missed the point. In development does not mean it is available, and no guarantee that it will be. I have seen other releases that were "DCC ready" that no one ever released a decoder for. At $120 a pop, how many will MTL sell and if the decoder is a new one off that only works for that model, then what?
-
Without getting into a discussion that may tread on proprietary information I can say that high quality n scale style motors are right now very hard to source.
Maybe so. But if Bman and Dapol can do it, they must be somewhere.
-
There are a limited number of high quality motor suppliers; some have exclusive relationships with some companies; others have capacity limitations that are causing excessive wait times. There are new factories coming on stream but hitching your wagon to a new start up comes with some inherent risks.
Do you know what modeller hate almost as much as an average running unit? They hate waiting for it to hit the market because you are trying to get a high quality motor.... Its not as simple as it might appear.
-
Plus doesn't Bachmann now control the weather.
-
What's next, asshats asking, "Does this paintscheme make my SW1500 look fatter?"
:o
-
Or, in the words of Ian MacMillan, I like turtles.
I'm pretty sure that I introduced the "I like turtles" video into TRW fold. Ian took serious liking to it. :D
I'm a squid!
-
I saw that, you missed the point. In development does not mean it is available, and no guarantee that it will be. I have seen other releases that were "DCC ready" that no one ever released a decoder for. At $120 a pop, how many will MTL sell and if the decoder is a new one off that only works for that model, then what?
You're right - I missed the point and I still do.
There is a whole slew of plug-n-play decoders manufactured for some specific model. Nobody is complaining that there is a decoder specifically designed for IM FT, or MT FT. Or for a Kato RDC. Where is the problem?
-
I'm pretty sure that I introduced the "I like turtles" video into TRW fold. Ian took serious liking to it.
Sorry to deflate your little balloon, Peteski, but Ian's been using that phrase since before you were a member.
-
You're right - I missed the point and I still do.
There is a whole slew of plug-n-play decoders manufactured for some specific model. Nobody is complaining that there is a decoder specifically designed for IM FT, or MT FT. Or for a Kato RDC. Where is the problem?
Peteski, if I were a decoder manufacturer I would hesitate to make a decoder for an item of such potentially low volume (unless I had one that only required minimal modifications. Again, you missed the point which is the decoder may or may not materialize. The LL SW9 was produced in volume and yet no decoder was ever made. Call me a cynic.
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-g99gnCnvRvs/U0AzVd2oInI/AAAAAAAAAV0/rPiNtDPbssg/s1600/Chassis+1.JPG) To the comment about the decoder...Digitrax is making one...the reason no one made it for the Life Like Chassis in the past is that there was no way to isloate the motor from the chassis without some trick hand work. Given the drive for everything to be RTR and Drop in, the cost to do it was probably prohibitive. Now that we have made the components to make the change, if we offer those seperate, the conversion becomes a bit easier.
Joe
-
To the comment about the decoder...Digitrax is making one...the reason no one made it for the Life Like Chassis in the past is that there was no way to isloate the motor from the chassis without some trick hand work. Given the drive for everything to be RTR and Drop in, the cost to do it was probably prohibitive. Now that we have made the components to make the change, if we offer those seperate, the conversion becomes a bit easier.
Joe
Cool looks like Digitrax is going the same route as the TCS "CN" Decoder series.
This decoder could have HUGE application potential for older Atlas and Kato units.
Do you know if Digitrax plans to include solder pads for installing Cab headlight LED's?
Sounds like this is how Walthers claimed the SW1200 was "DCC Ready".. when (we all thought) they were full of cr*p.
I'm not familiar with the Life Like SW8/9/1200 frame history to know how 'backwards compatible' this decoder will be for those who can easily isolate the motor from the frame..
Cool!. ~Ian
-
You know, this photo of the mechanism shows something so obvious, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned. The motor itself is thin enough for a scale-width hood. But it sits in a plastic cradle which probably adds about 0.060" to the overall width of the frame. Lose that cradle and the loco can have scale-width hood! There are plenty of locos out there which utilize this type of a design.
(http://www.spookshow.net/loco/files/atlasgpmech2.jpg)
(http://www.spookshow.net/loco/files/llc424mech.JPG)
(http://www.spookshow.net/loco/files/kators1mech.jpg)
(http://www.spookshow.net/loco/files/atlasrs1mech.jpg)
(http://www.spookshow.net/files/llrs2mech.JPG)
And many more....
-
Sorry to deflate your little balloon, Peteski, but Ian's been using that phrase since before you were a member.
Damn, you're right again! The ballon is tiny (picture a stent), and I'll now go hide in the basement for a bit. :facepalm:
-
What it does mean is that no other manufacturer will touch it for awhile now that this one is on the market soaking up market share.
I'm not so sure. It is my contention that some locomotives can support multiple manufacturers. See GP38-2 and soon SD40-2. As MTL is learning, the SW1500 is an iconic locomotive of the ilk of the aforementioned Dash 2's.
SO, I think this may simply be "much ado about nothing". The MTL will be a nice, semi-proven design that will probably perform well. Releases will trickle out, and like a lot of MTL releases, the schemes everybody really wants will either never materialize or will be done sparingly. (Good news for the IHB modellers, Roscoe, Snyder and Pacific, etc. Heck, I might even get an MKT out of the deal! :) ) They'll show up in the trainsets, and will still be a nice option to have after Atlas or FVM or someone does a "Master Line" version.
I'm just excited that my grain elevator SW1200 will now finally have a DCC mech that will (apparently) pull well. And for that, I say thank you Micro-Trains!
-
You know, this photo of the mechanism shows something so obvious, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned. The motor itself is thin enough for a scale-width hood. But it sits in a plastic cradle which probably adds about 0.060" to the overall width of the frame. Lose that cradle and the loco can have scale-width hood! There are plenty of locos out there which utilize this type of a design.
And many more....
So what you're saying is there is already a source for the unobtainium motors, since MTL is using it?
Gasp. How will this be spun next?
-
What it does mean is that no other manufacturer will touch it for awhile now that this one is on the market soaking up market share.
..... because we all know that they were lining up at the door to release a uber proto model of the SW 1500....
I always bristle when I hear people say "now no one will make a uber proto model of xxx because yyy is offering their version." This isn't necessarily true, there are several duplucation examples in recent years but more importantly; any mfg has the right to mske any model any time they like. if someone out there us planning a uber proto SW 1500 I'm not sure that they will be disuaded by the MTL version; they are targetting the $200.00 plus DC $275.00 DCC/sound version market, not, as Joe said, train set worthy locomotives. (albeit, what looks like a quality "train set" locomotive.
-
If MTL wanted to, they could have made this scale width USING the SW1200 drive train components. They would need new frames and a motor cradle, but it would have been possible. Now, could it be profitable... well that is the question. From my understanding of the order, MTL would need to order the SW1200 mechanisms in bulk, take them apart at their factory and rebuild them with new frames and motor cradles. I can totally see how this project now becomes a huge mess as you are basically producing the same thing on two continents save for a few parts.
Hood width matter quite a bit to me as I often look at my models from the top. Even the Kato wide bodies annoy me. Would I pay an extra $20 for the correct width? Absolutely! Would anyone else? I'm not so sure.
The difference is that MTL knows their market much better than I do. If they can't make it work, then there is a reason.
-
See, minor hood width issues don't bother main the least. Especially for a road switcher this small. Maybe I've gotten too used to compromises from modeling KCS - but most of the equipment I've had to paint up over the years required either a lot of modification or just acceptance anyway.
I'll just be glad to be able to run a 1500 in my MP 15's chasing my SD40-2s . . .
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-g99gnCnvRvs/U0AzVd2oInI/AAAAAAAAAV0/rPiNtDPbssg/s1600/Chassis+1.JPG) To the comment about the decoder...Digitrax is making one...the reason no one made it for the Life Like Chassis in the past is that there was no way to isloate the motor from the chassis without some trick hand work. Given the drive for everything to be RTR and Drop in, the cost to do it was probably prohibitive. Now that we have made the components to make the change, if we offer those seperate, the conversion becomes a bit easier.
Joe
Hi Joe,
That is exactly what I had approached TCS about on the SW9. It is easier than you think to get the power to the motor. All you have to do (on the LL) is swap the motor contacts that clip onto the brush holder from top to bottom. The one that was originally on top is longer and if placed on the bottom will extend up past the frame sides providing a surface to solder to. Then all you have to do is have a decoder that takes the place of the light board and you are home free.
-
Joe, since the wheel contacts are still exposed and not making contact with the frame halves, what is the method of transferring the power? Is it going to be like the LL wipers?
-
If MTL wanted to, they could have made this scale width USING the SW1200 drive train components. They would need new frames and a motor cradle, but it would have been possible. Now, could it be profitable... well that is the question. From my understanding of the order, MTL would need to order the SW1200 mechanisms in bulk, take them apart at their factory and rebuild them with new frames and motor cradles. I can totally see how this project now becomes a huge mess as you are basically producing the same thing on two continents save for a few parts.
Hood width matter quite a bit to me as I often look at my models from the top. Even the Kato wide bodies annoy me. Would I pay an extra $20 for the correct width? Absolutely! Would anyone else? I'm not so sure.
The difference is that MTL knows their market much better than I do. If they can't make it work, then there is a reason.
+1...it seems not to be a matter of let's make the most money we can by making a compromised product, but as has already been said, a matter of having to make certain compromises in engineering because of logistics and pricing reasons. There's cutting corners to make profit, but then there's compromising to make a locomotive that works and won't break the bank. So thank you MTL for making the SW1500, I'll be waiting to snag one with the right base to make an LTEX SW1500
-
Damn, you're right again! The ballon is tiny (picture a stent), and I'll now go hide in the basement for a bit. :facepalm:
Its circa 2007 TRW. Commonly used in a thread to mark where babble has become inane.
-
..... because we all know that they were lining up at the door to release a uber proto model of the SW 1500....
I always bristle when I hear people say "now no one will make a uber proto model of xxx because yyy is offering their version." This isn't necessarily true, there are several duplucation examples in recent years but more importantly; any mfg has the right to mske any model any time they like. if someone out there us planning a uber proto SW 1500 I'm not sure that they will be disuaded by the MTL version; they are targetting the $200.00 plus DC $275.00 DCC/sound version market, not, as Joe said, train set worthy locomotives. (albeit, what looks like a quality "train set" locomotive.
Which duplication examples are you talking about? BLI's E units? Because most that I'm thinking of were developed around the same time and the competing manufacturers chose not to give up all their research and/or tooling costs and make a go of it. PA's, FT's, Trinity Reefers, SD70ACe's, SP Cabooses, S2/S4's... you don't think each of the manufacturers involved in those wished they weren't competing in the small pool of N scale?
In fact, if a manufacturer works the back channels and finds someone else is moving to tooling on a model, they will almost always stop their project, different market niche or not. The times that models are duplicated by design, are times when a competing model has been on the market (LL E7 & Kato E8 vs Broadway, Intermountain SD40-2 vs Kato) for awhile and the new manufacturer thinks there is market share available still based on paint scheme or model availability. Yes, that can happen with the SW1500 like you say, but I also think it will be some years down the road like I'm saying... and only after MTL lets the model disappear like the FT's or doesn't hit enough paint schemes in a timely matter like Kato and their SD40-2.
Definitely and interesting debate though, if I'm missing some example let me know.
-
MP15's and GP38-2's....which mostly fall into your 1st category. But in the case of the MP15 there were very clearly two classes of locomotives being manufactured. I think that is the closest correlation to what we have with the SW1500 assuming Atlas announced tomorrow. (although, I wouldn't consider the MTL in the same (low) class as the Con-Cor, by any stretch. Well, unless the first release is silver warbonnet. :trollface: )
The GP38-2 race would have probably been a closer race had Walthers included a freaking sight glass.
-
If someone would request a MTL factory printed "custom" number or numbers could it be done for say $5 or a little more per locomotive?
-
Yes, that can happen with the SW1500 like you say, but I also think it will be some years down the road like I'm saying... and only after MTL lets the model disappear like the FT's or doesn't hit enough paint schemes in a timely matter like Kato and their SD40-2.
I would almost bet that Bachmann will release the SW1500 sooner than later. Their recent releases show that they can manufacture a great running switcher with scale hood widths. Now if they would only get the rest of the details right they could hit a home run.
It is a shame that no manufacturer took steps to develop a universal mechanism that could have been used for SW9/SW1500/Alco S series lokies. Since the wheelbases are all the same, it should have been a no-brainer.
-
If someone would request a MTL factory printed "custom" number or numbers could it be done for say $5 or a little more per locomotive?
Doesn't Atlas offer multiple road numbers on their locos? Micro-Trains should do the same.
Hmm... who would want
multiple numbers on a
loco...?
(http://bayouline.com/o2.gif)
-
Did anyone ever clarify whether the SW1500 would use the SW9's sill mounted wipers for power transfer/