0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Eh not sure the point of spamming stuff non contructively like that. Their wheelhouse is flex and associated infrastructure. So I would personally keep it to flextrack relevant features.My own would simply be. -DCC compatibility out of the box-Easy Frog connection-A decent variety turnout sizes. With 1 or 2 curve types.
In my opinion, Micro Engineering needs to make their track more prototypical, the opposite of making it more like KATO UNITRACK... I would want my track designed by Kelly Johnson rather than Orville and WilburMicro Engineering is already the YF-22 of N-scale track products. The best, but needs more development/refinement and more of it.The idea of casting integral "ballast" into it to "improve" it is a really bad idea. Sure, let's make the most prototypical looking N-scale track into N-gauge toy track...THAT makes sense!I suggested to them making their spikeheads smaller...like the original Rail Craft flex, squaring up the relief and the edges on their ties, going back to uneven ties and larger tie plates and retaining the stiffness...which is a good thing IMO.I also suggested that they design trackage that has a rail height of 0.046"...Code46...that duplicates the height of scaled-down A.R.E.A. 136 lb mainline rail. Y'know...ACTUAL N-scale rail rather than just small HO scale rail.I also suggested that they design their N-scale rails to have a prototypically rounded railhead rather than the squared-off one they have now on both their Code55 and Code40 rails...which makes the rails look wider than they really are.I didn't get too deep into turnout design much but I recommended using tri-planed point rails, which would mean the stock rails don't need to have their inner sides filed flat...y'know...make 'em like the prototype does, and etch point rail heel hinges rather than use rail joiners. I recommended they produce a #9 and a #11 along with a couple of appropriate crotch-frog turnouts (model railroaders like to call them "wyes") and a couple of large radius curved turnouts.I also suggested that since their frogs are cast, why not include nut & bolt detail on the sides of the frogs??? Makes sense to me.That's about it.Cheerio!Bob Gilmore
Does ME actually roll their own rail, or they purchase it from an outside supplier?
In my opinion, Micro Engineering needs to make their track more prototypical, the opposite of making it more like KATO UNITRACK... I would want my track designed by Kelly Johnson rather than Orville and WilburMicro Engineering is already the YF-22 of N-scale track products. The best, but needs more development/refinement and more of it.I didn't get too deep into turnout design much but I recommended using tri-planed point rails, which would mean the stock rails don't need to have their inner sides filed flat...y'know...make 'em like the prototype does, and etch point rail heel hinges rather than use rail joiners. I recommended they produce a #9 and a #11 along with a couple of appropriate crotch-frog turnouts (model railroaders like to call them "wyes") and a couple of large radius curved turnouts.I also suggested that since their frogs are cast, why not include nut & bolt detail on the sides of the frogs??? Makes sense to me.Cheerio!Bob Gilmore
You obviously replied before reading or comprehending my post, but that's fine. I obviously can't force ME to do anything, and IF I won the lottery and wanted to do something for the N community, without hope of profit, track would probably be it. The idea of track in flexible roadbed has been done in HO, although it didn't sell well. I would be counting on newer tech to be able to make it more realistic than could be made before. I understand it may be a pipe dream for ME or me, but I was always told to never assume that anything that hasn't been invented yet won't be invented because we have already reached perfection. Given a 50 year trend to more reliable, easy to install, and RTR, to me this would be the next logical step. Especially to appeal to the next gen, not guys like you who are old hands and like and understand how to do most of the difficult tasks in MR, mostly through trial and error.As to your points, they seem good, especially the rail profile and more rail and frog detail, assuming as I did that they wouldn't be reusing some of their molds. However, and I ask because I don't know, would code 46 take the current batch of either MT or metal wheels, or would we have to redo all our own wheels once again (if you are old enough to have started with pizza cutters?Lastly, the other existing trend has been to more prototypical detail like you request. I can't be sure but I wonder where the sales would be - to the top 10% of modelers who would be replacing track similar to how we upgrade old rolling stock to new or to an unknown number of potential newbs? I understand that I am expanding the scope of this thread, so I'll back out now.
I don't have a dog it this hunt so to speak, but "tri-planed" rails isn't going to happen with Code 40 or 55 rail (or even larger sizes for that matter). I'm sure some prototypically minded (nutcase) out there has done it, but don't hold your breath on seeing it on a commercial product. Far too complicated of an operation to be cost effective, or at the very least, it would require a lot of manual input, even with CNC machining being utilized.More detailed cast frogs is a good idea... I would also argue for that they're more scale appropriate, rather than just one size fits all. Another request... That they cast them in nickel silver, not the material that they currently use.It can be done... Fast Tracks very expensive HO scale crossing kits utilize 3D printed, lost resin cast crossing frogs in nickel silver. Highly detailed, very well done castings. So it shouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for ME to do it as well.But going back to my first point... Planed point rails. Perhaps something could be done for that with 3D printing, rather than machining actual rail. Something to think about!Jeff
@JeffB Hi Jeff! The reason I'm suggesting to Micro Engineering to go with tri-planed point rails is because I've been using commercially available Code55 and Code40 tri-planed point rails from proto87.com (Proto87 Stores) for at least a decade.So, I guess I'm the "nutcase" that proves you completely wrong.Although proto87.com mills their tri-planed point rails, they could be easily investment cast out of nickel silver, with integral throwbar attachment hardware and point rail heel hinges also. This would greatly simplify assembly because they would essentially drop into that area of the model, with no filing (milling) of the adjacent stock rails needed, or precision placement of short rail joiners at the point rail heels. Additionally, having the attachment points for the throwbar cast into the point rail toes would greatly strengthen this trouble spot that exists for all model turnouts, and additionally could be easily made to appear more prototypical than anything currently being manufactured with integrally cast-on nut & bolt details.Has Micro Engineering stopped casting their frogs in nickel silver?? The two ME #6 turnouts that I have have nickel silver frogs. Could you be referring to Atlas55's "mystery metal" frogs???Cheerio!Bob Gilmore
I just hope they never stop making the bridge flex track in N scale. That stuff is soooo good.
Author
Topic: Micro Engineering is looking for feedback on its products.. (Read 1772 times)
