Why does N have ride height issues

[Baronjutter]

My main problem is so much of my fleet is always ridin' dirty.  But you'll never ever catch me.

[robert3985]

  OOO/N was originally designed as Toys by Euro Toy Designers.
  Euro Flanges were reduced down to N Scale as the size eventually
  became known.until Kadee jumped in,most Models and Locos originated
  in Europe,then when Bachman entered about 1968,Hong Kong/China.
  Japan entered about 1966 with Kato,but they were more scale oriented.
  not familiar with Tomix,but they are still mainly a Toy company.
   compare this to American invented TT scale which tried to be Scale Models
  from the begining,but didnt always reach that goal.
   N still has alot of Toy Baggage to overcome.
       Spikre
         

Yup.  +1

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Joe, I wonder if MTL might have success with fine n scale track? I mean, Atlas has created a huge demand that is not being met with their C55. If there was fine scale track, say C45-55 and was made by you guys, I would adopt that in a heart beat. We need flex and large switches. Stuff that would work with lo pros and body mounts.

[jdcolombo]

The ride height issue, like the body-mounted coupler issue, is simply one more aspect of making N-scale stuff more prototypical that will take some time, but eventually will be adopted.  Along with a more-prototypical-sized coupler already in the works.   I converted my rolling stock to lo-profile MT wheelsets and body mounts using the old 1023 coupler back in the mid-1990's.  I also had to get MT conversion kits to fill the pilots in my engines to body mount the couplers after cutting off the horrid Rapido's that were truck mounted.   Today, every engine has body mounts; the Rapido coupler has gone the way of the dodo bird, and about 60% of the new rolling stock I buy has body-mounts.  Nearly everything comes with lo-profile wheelsets (or close to lo-profile) standard, and there are top-quality replacement metal wheelsets for those that don't.  Newest tooling addresses the ride-height issue (e.g., the Atlas PS2 boxcar) to at least some degree.

We've come a long way, folks.  As long as we keep demanding progress on these fronts and are willing to pay reasonable prices for it, it will come over time.

John C.

[Smike]

You all are funny, Lionel has been working on this for almost 100 years and look how far they come with ride height:

[bbussey]

Joe, I wonder if MTL might have success with fine n scale track? I mean, Atlas has created a huge demand that is not being met with their C55. If there was fine scale track, say C45-55 and was made by you guys, I would adopt that in a heart beat. We need flex and large switches. Stuff that would work with lo pros and body mounts.

That huge demand will be filled sooner rather than later.  Beginning in a couple of months or so, c55 flex will be back on the shelves.  And c55 turnouts will be appearing imminently.

Atlas still is the largest manufacturer of track in the world and that's not going to change ... or be challenged.

[peteski]

...the Rapido coupler has gone the way of the dodo bird...

LOL!  Maybe in US - the rest of the world is still happily using Rapido couplers.

[FrankCampagna]

Micro-trains under-frames have been body mount friendly for decades. 

[bbussey]

Most N scale equipment has been body-mount friendly.  The vintage Atlas, Minitrix and AHM cars were body-mount friendly.  That doesn't translate into proper ride height.

The only brand that was not body-mount friendly was Con-Cor.  Ironically, their equipment rode at the proper height, or rode too low.  I don't remember any Con-Cor model released that rode high.

[MichaelWinicki]

One thing I found out when lowering a number of my freight cars... Going to a body-mount coupler isn't always necessary. 

Filing down the bolster and decreasing the gap between the coupler box and the bottom of the freight car gives a truck-mounted coupler the look of a body-mount.  Obviously going around a curve you'll see that it's still a truck-mounted coupler, but by decreasing that space between the coupler box on the truck and the bottom of the freight car, the look is improved a great deal. 

I figured I would file the bolsters down first and then at a later date do the body mount thing, if I was so inclined.

[nkalanaga]

Smike:  I've always contended that early N scale WAS "tinplate", even though it was plastic, not plated steel.  In the modeling and operational senses, it was closer to O gauge toy trains than to "scale".  And, just like O, we still have that divide between those who want to run trains, and don't particularly care how accurate they are, and those who want their trains to look "real", whether they run them or not.

Most modelers are in between those extremes, but the divide is there.

[ednadolski]

I've always contended that early N scale WAS "tinplate", even though it was plastic, not plated steel.  In the modeling and operational senses, it was closer to O gauge toy trains than to "scale".

Well, at least N doesn't have a 3rd rail: (see 1:58)

I think you could almost fit an N scale loco under the fuel tank of that FP45.  But that M&Ms boxcar might be hard to make in N   

Ed

[nkalanaga]

Ed:  I ran my Arnold FA-whatever from a third rail once, just to prove it could be done.  Attach a piece of spring wire to the contact PC board under the chassis, spike an outside third rail, and wire it up.

Those things were noisy, smelled of ozone when running, were oversized, and didn't match any known Alco product, but they were almost indestructible and very easy to modify electrically.  That same one was also run from overhead wire, using a homemade "bow" collector made from wire and a rubber band, with a piece of balsa to insulate it from the roof, and a wire run down the side of the body to the chassis.  Again, just a test, but it worked.