Why can't manufacturers just get it right?

[Missaberoad]

And they offered corrected shells for the first run for 10$...

[wcfn100]

And they offered corrected shells for the first run for 10$...

Didn't know that.  I hope this isn't the reason they won't do the Mini Boxes.

In my search I did find a pre-production picture from the 2008 convention that clearly shows the door track being off.  Just one more reason pre-production models need to critiqued like they were production models even if it annoys the crap out of people.

Jason

[Kisatchie]

And they offered corrected shells for the first run for 10$...

Hmm... what nerve...!

[Missaberoad]

Didn't know that.  I hope this isn't the reason they won't do the Mini Boxes.

It may contribute to it... Hobbycraft/trueline/lifelike canada was always an odd company, I wouldn't be surprised if they turned up out of the blue one day...

Edit: their latest news post paints a little more of the picture : http://www.truelinetrains.ca/home/news

[mmagliaro]

I take the lack of posts about mechanical issues as proof N scale is well over the "running" hump. I just don't seriously question the operational reliability of new product these days, except for a few old reliably unreliable manufacturers who just don't get it.

N Scale got over the running hump far enough to convince me to stay in the scale back in 1986 when I discovered the ConCor/Kato Hudson.    But now, I do not think it is over the running hump.  I speculate that the view on whether N Scale runs well enough depends on whether you run mostly diesel or mostly steam.  The Kato F units I have, for example, I think run splendidly.  They pull like bulls and they have terrific pickup and low-speed performance, all without me doing a thing to them.  Steam?  No. 

Things were getting really good in 1990s when the Kato Mikado came out.   It was such a monster leap ahead for its time that I though that if that trend continued, we would soon have steam locos rolling "outta da box" that would be so good that I would soon be able to take down my "Faulhaber" sign and go home.

But as the years have rolled by, steam locos have just not kept improving to the point where you can mostly roll them out of the box onto the track and expect them to run really great (like those Kato F units I have).

I am probably fussier than most, I admit.  But I have tried out Bachmann EM-1's and Athearn Challengers, two of the most revered recent steam offerings.    I think the run "pretty good".  But they do not run like a $300 or $400 engine should.
No way.

I don't have an FEF.   I hear spectacular things about that one.  So maybe that has achieved a supreme performance mark.

Most of the other stuff that's out there?  Oh my goodness, no. 

Mechanisms are one area where I am afraid manufacturers are still not getting it right, especially with steam locos, and it is frustrating because these are under-the-hood mechanical things, not outside details,
and they bloody well should know how to do this right by now.

[peteski]

Mechanisms are one area where I am afraid manufacturers are still not getting it right, especially with steam locos, and it is frustrating because these are under-the-hood mechanical things, not outside details,
and they bloody well should know how to do this right by now.

Very well put Max!  Thanks for supporting the crusade for better mechanisms (which not many seem to care much about getting it right).

But it is not only steam locos (which are usually lacking by quite a bit when compared to Diesel locos mechanism's design), but some of the recent Diesel designs seem to be stepping backwards.  Things like inside-bearings and electrical pickup wipers rubbing on the wheels (instead of the low-friction axle-point bearing/pickup) or using bunch of wires to interconnect trucks and other electrical parts of the mechanism are to me steps taken in a wrong direction.

[thomasjmdavis]

Speaking of those old Con-Cor Hudsons- will they run on code 55 rail or do they have the big flanges of their Rivarossi predecessors?

One reason that I chose to model the mid 1950s was that I could have an big fleet of Kato Fs and PAs, which many, myself included, have commented "run well right out of the box." If practical steam engines had been available, I might well have opted for 1949 or 1951.  However, the other problem with steam is getting the prototypes you want- in my case ATSF Hudsons, GTW 4-8-4, and many others that no one makes or ever has.  Perhaps, with enough demand, someone would make shells to refit existing mechanisms, but you would still need reliable mechanisms. But if I am going to spend $200++, I want something prototypically accurate, not a NYC or USRA loco with "Santa Fe" painted on the tender.

How good or bad are the various Bachmann steam mechanisms (newer ones)?  I've seen them running at train shows (4-8-2s and 2-10-2s) and they looked pretty good- but no idea what the Bachmann guys went through to make them run like that, and of course could not see the insides of the locos.

[Mike C]

How good or bad are the various Bachmann steam mechanisms (newer ones)?  I've seen them running at train shows (4-8-2s and 2-10-2s) and they looked pretty good- but no idea what the Bachmann guys went through to make them run like that, and of course could not see the insides of the locos.

 I have had quite a few of their steam locos .

 The 2-8-0 runs really well ,even better if you change the decoder.
 My Lt Mtn. runs real well , after I added a thin tape shim over the traction tire axle bearing blocks. And it now pulls well too .
 The 2-6-0 runs great. even with the stock decoder.
 The 4-6-0 runs and pulls well .
 The 2-10-2 is a great runner , but also needs a decoder upgrade to get the most out of it .
 The ( My ) 2-6-6-2 is a good runner . It also benefits from a decoder upgrade . It doesn't pull real well though unless it has  traction tires . I added some double sided tape to the geared axle of the rear engine and it now pulls well .
 I have 2 of the 2-8-4's one runs great , and the other runs well , but not as well as the first . They benefit from a change of CV's for the back EMF settings . They do pull well though.

[peteski]

Problem with Bachmann is their spotty quality record.  The same run of a model can have some decent running units as well as some poor runners. It all depends on who assembled them and when. Kind of like the quality of American cars from the 70s - depended on what day of the week the car was made and by which team of workers. 

[u18b]

I share some of Pud's pain.

On my EP-2 project, I have had a terrible time finding all the photos I want and need.

In 1933, at the World's Fair in Chicago, an EP-2 appeared for the railroad.  It was specially painted.

I have searched and searched the net and only found 2 photos.  That's it.
Here is the best.



I know it was 1933, but only two photos?   Where thousands and thousands of people went and saw this loco?

Again, in 1948-49 (a whole year and a half!), Milw Rd sent a brand new specially painted EP-2 to the Chicago Railroad Fair.
I've done a little better with that one.  I've found about 6 photos.

But think of it.  Something like 1.5 million people went to that Fair.  And only 6 photos?  I know there are more out there.

And how about the experimental scheme?
Once again, almost nothing- except for this commonly seen shot.




So yes, I have complained when a well-respected company repeatedly gets a CSX loco paint scheme wrong (that list is long).  I think, there are TONS of photos.  How could you mess it up again.

But on the other hand, when you go back past the modern era, it can indeed be challenging.

[nkalanaga]

And if one goes back much before WW II, one runs into the problem that, even with cameras relatively common, most pictures were black and white.  That makes it even harder to get schemes right, even if the color patterns are shown, because one doesn't know what the colors were.  Sure, the photographer might say "orange and maroon", but what shades?

[mmagliaro]

Speaking of those old Con-Cor Hudsons- will they run on code 55 rail or do they have the big flanges of their Rivarossi predecessors?

One reason that I chose to model the mid 1950s was that I could have an big fleet of Kato Fs and PAs, which many, myself included, have commented "run well right out of the box." If practical steam engines had been available, I might well have opted for 1949 or 1951.  However, the other problem with steam is getting the prototypes you want- in my case ATSF Hudsons, GTW 4-8-4, and many others that no one makes or ever has.  Perhaps, with enough demand, someone would make shells to refit existing mechanisms, but you would still need reliable mechanisms. But if I am going to spend $200++, I want something prototypically accurate, not a NYC or USRA loco with "Santa Fe" painted on the tender.

How good or bad are the various Bachmann steam mechanisms (newer ones)?  I've seen them running at train shows (4-8-2s and 2-10-2s) and they looked pretty good- but no idea what the Bachmann guys went through to make them run like that, and of course could not see the insides of the locos.

The ConCor/Kato 4-6-4 Hudson runs perfectly well on code 55 (this is the 1980s era one, built by Kato,
with the plastic siderods and the live pickup in the tender).   I just dug one out and tested it on my Atlas code 55 layout.  There is no tie buzzing from any of the wheels and it runs smooth, starts well, pulls great,  and the pickup
is spotless, just as it always has been for the last 29 years.  Indeed, that engine is one where the manufacturer certainly got it right.  It had the best of every mechanical advancement that was available at the time.
The only minor quibble one might have is that it is geared fast and so the starting speed is a bit high.
But it can do a really good 10 mph.

[Iain]

Speaking of missing photos, I can count on one hand the total number of photos I have seen of Norfolk Southern passenger operations (besides the railbuses, which people seemed to like to photograph).  One hand, and I grew up in Norfolk Southern country.

[peteski]

The ConCor/Kato 4-6-4 Hudson runs perfectly well on code 55 (this is the 1980s era one, built by Kato,
with the plastic siderods and the live pickup in the tender).   I just dug one out and tested it on my Atlas code 55 layout.  There is no tie buzzing from any of the wheels and it runs smooth, starts well, pulls great,  and the pickup
is spotless, just as it always has been for the last 29 years.  Indeed, that engine is one where the manufacturer certainly got it right.  It had the best of every mechanical advancement that was available at the time.
The only minor quibble one might have is that it is geared fast and so the starting speed is a bit high.
But it can do a really good 10 mph.

While mechanically it was a very good design, the clunky translucent-silver plastic didn't cut it appearance-wise.  It looked like a cheap toy. Finer metal siderods and valve gear would have been a crowning touch.

[thomasjmdavis]

Thanks all for the reviews on various available N scale steam.  The last steam locos I owned were a Rivarossi Mike and a Pacific. which compared to many of the diesels of the time, were not bad (at least the ones I had ran fairly well).