2014 N Scale Locomotive of the Year

[victor miranda]

Shades of the old Atlas forum...

Now,now,before this thread turns into a Bachmann bashing party,let's not forget they have released some very fine models....(though I do get what you mean.)

Mark in Oregon

I have an aluminum bat named 'basher'...

I wish b-man would make the fine locos they advertise?
I wish b-man would make locos with parts that were
worth the price they ask to buy said locos.

requiring us to buy a decoder is a small problem
that it is a second rate decoder is painful

and my personal favorite
what is the going price for locos with non-concentric gears?
b-man has worked hard to get the rep they have.

the Kato FEF may well be an expensive loco
both to buy and operate, and
at least it is easy to state,
it is worth the price I paid.

a vote for the FEF by Kato.
 
victor

[Nato]

            I vote for the SW 1500, the SP version is coming with light package and the other type of truck although as an Union Pacific Junkie the FEF 3 certainly comes in a close second. The photo of the early production run Santa Fe F-3 from Kato is incorrect for Santa Fe. Santa Fe F-3's came with the Phase I three portholes on the side panels, but large angled number boards and no Santa Fe F Units either F-7 or F3 featured A units with steam generators, only B units had them. Santa Fe fairly quickly changed the A Unit side panels to two portholes with chicken wire between. Then later up graded the locomotives to look like F-7's with F-7 style side panels , low roof top fans, and stainless side grilling taken if I recall from an order of F-7 Freight locomotives which then operated with wire grills. Kato has run a model of the upgraded locos recently.                                                            Nate Goodman (Nato).

[peteski]

            I vote for the SW 1500, the SP version is coming with light package and the other type of truck although as an Union Pacific Junkie the FEF 3 certainly comes in a close second.

Um the voting is for a 2014 N Scale Locomotive of the Year. 

[rrjim1]

As the story goes, it all started with those low-friction wiper-less and axle-point bearing trucks on U30C over couple of decades ago.  The rest is history...

Maybe you haven't owned any Kato locos in the last couple of decades, including the truly ground-breaking steam loco they just released few weeks ago. You know, the one with coreless motor. 

Coreless motors have been around for almost as long as I have and I'm 64 years old. Nothing new there except Kato looking for a better motor, but it sure doesn't work very well with DCC.
Yes, the trucks Kato made before the low-friction one were terrible, and the low friction design was nothing new, model railroad freight car trucks had been using them for years.
As far as Atlas coping, I wonder how Atlas was able to just take that design to another manufacture? Kind of looks like, IMO, Atlas had a hand in the design.
The newest item that I would place as revolutionary is the Scale Speed motor from Atlas, you can run a Atlas loco right out of the box with DCC and you don't need to mask the loco by setting the CVs so it will run slow and have a decent top speed. You know how I got my Kato U30Cs to run great, I swapped the motor for a Scale Speed Atlas.
I would be willing to bet that the new U25C's trucks come real close to rolling just as free.
It's kind of funny that, (as you put it old school design), runs better than a Kato loco, way better scale speeds. I guess they didn't use a slot car motor in there locos like Kato does. 

[peteski]

Coreless motors have been around for almost as long as I have and I'm 64 years old. Nothing new there except Kato looking for a better motor, but it sure doesn't work very well with DCC.
Yes, the trucks Kato made before the low-friction one were terrible, and the low friction design was nothing new, model railroad freight car trucks had been using them for years.
As far as Atlas coping, I wonder how Atlas was able to just take that design to another manufacture? Kind of looks like, IMO, Atlas had a hand in the design.
The newest item that I would place as revolutionary is the Scale Speed motor from Atlas, you can run a Atlas loco right out of the box with DCC and you don't need to mask the loco by setting the CVs so it will run slow and have a decent top speed. You know how I got my Kato U30Cs to run great, I swapped the motor for a Scale Speed Atlas.
I would be willing to bet that the new U25C's trucks come real close to rolling just as free.
It's kind of funny that, (as you put it old school design), runs better than a Kato loco, way better scale speeds. I guess they didn't use a slot car motor in there locos like Kato does.

Judging by your comments, you have an interesting view on the subject.

I think most of us realize that coreless motors have been around for many years. I haven't been born yesterday.  But using them in commercially made (Not hand-made brass) models is a fairly recent development (especially in U.S. prototype models).  I have a Minitrix model of a European steam loco which is several years old and it has a coreless motor.

You are incorrect about coreless motors being a problem with DCC decoders - it is the design of the decoder which causes the problem.  There are several decoders which can handle those motors just fine.  Some have special configuration settings to perfectly match them to a coreless motor.

As for as the low friction locomotive truck design goes, you totally missed the point. Sure that type of a bearing has been used on freight car wheels for decades. But not for electric pickup. That new dual functionality absolutely makes Kato low-friction design revolutionary!  There is no ifs or buts about that.

As for whether Atlas had a hand in designing the low-friction Kato trucks we will probably never know, but I highly doubt it.  That model was designed after Kato stopped the partnership with Atlas (or with Con-Cor for that matter). Next thing you will say is that Con-Cor had a hand in the low friction truck design. 

Slot-car speed Kato motor.  Funny.  It is what it is and it is not a problem for tens (or hundreds of thousands) of happy Kato loco owners.

If you have a low-friction Kato loco (sounds liek you do) and the new Arnold loco set up couple of parallel tangent tracks and hook them to the same throttle. Run the locos up to a medium speed and then disconnect one of the leads leading to the throttle (to let the locos coast).  See which one will coast farther with no power.  The coasting ability of Kato locos with flywheels and low-friction mechanism is what allows them to coast through intermittent electric contact with the track.

Seems that this thread turned int Kato-bashing, not Bachmann-bashing. 

[rrjim1]

Judging by your comments, you have an interesting view on the subject.

I think most of us realize that coreless motors have been around for many years. I haven't been born yesterday.  But using them in commercially made (Not hand-made brass) models is a fairly recent development (especially in U.S. prototype models).  I have a Minitrix model of a European steam loco which is several years old and it has a coreless motor.

You are incorrect about coreless motors being a problem with DCC decoders - it is the design of the decoder which causes the problem.  There are several decoders which can handle those motors just fine.  Some have special configuration settings to perfectly match them to a coreless motor. Right, decoders that have been used for years now seem to have a problem.

As for as the low friction locomotive truck design goes, you totally missed the point. Sure that type of a bearing has been used on freight car wheels for decades. But not for electric pickup. That new dual functionality absolutely makes Kato low-friction design revolutionary!  There is no ifs or buts about that. Show me were it is a Kato design, I would like to know for sure!

As for whether Atlas had a hand in designing the low-friction Kato trucks we will probably never know, but I highly doubt it.  That model was designed after Kato stopped the partnership with Atlas (or with Con-Cor for that matter). Next thing you will say is that Con-Cor had a hand in the low friction truck design.  :|That's funny I have a Kato built Atlas SD9 that has that design!

Slot-car speed Kato motor.  Funny.  It is what it is and it is not a problem for tens (or hundreds of thousands) of happy Kato loco owners. It is when you are wanting to pull a coal train out of the yard at a smooth 5 smph. If your just running a few cars around in a circle then it's not a big problem.

If you have a low-friction Kato loco (sounds liek you do) and the new Arnold loco set up couple of parallel tangent tracks and hook them to the same throttle. Run the locos up to a medium speed and then disconnect one of the leads leading to the throttle (to let the locos coast).  See which one will coast farther with no power.  The coasting ability of Kato locos with flywheels and low-friction mechanism is what allows them to coast through intermittent electric contact with the track. I have never had that bad of track work/ or dirty track, to need a lot of coasting. My U25C seems to run just fine at 5 SMPH pulling a train, threw several medium yard turnouts without stalling???
Seems that this thread turned int Kato-bashing, not Bachmann-bashing.  You need to go back and see were it all started with the Arnold bashing!

[jdcolombo]

I assume this is just a "love at first sight" selection, and we're not comparing mechanical aspects, pulling power, prototype accuracy, manufacturer reputation, need for that model in N scale, etc? So just go with your heart, guys -- whatever loco looks cool, whether ground-breaking technology or single railroad use only or massive numbers of the prototype produced doesn't matter.
I vote for the FEF because it looks cool with all those details and a million wheels. Don't own one, never will, my layout is set in New England but damn! that's a hot looking loco!

Well, this is really the question, isn't it.  What makes something a "loco of the year"?  In my own view, the criteria for loco of the year rank as follows:

1.  (Most important for me) Did the model push the engineering envelope in some way (e.g., new design; new use of materials, some new way of doing things that hasn't been done before).  It's on this basis that I ranked the Kato FEF significantly ahead of the Arnold U25C, and the MT SW1500 isn't even close.

2.  Did the model fill a significant gap in the prototypes available.  No question that the SW1500 is the winner in this category.   As folks have pointed out, the FEF is a single-road model, although one can imagine the mechanism being used as the base for other 4-8-4's in the future.  But until that happens, it's just a one-trick pony.  The U25C is second to the SW1500 on this criterion, because it just wasn't widely used - but it was used by more than one railroad!  But the FEF gets a little bit of credit here just because it is such an iconic engine - I know some people have commented that they don't need one/won't buy one, but I know at least a dozen folks who bought one even though (1) they don't model the UP and (2) they don't model the steam era at all.  They just "had to have it."  'Nuff said.

The two criteria assume that the model in question runs and pulls as well as the median for the current market.   A POS mechanism-wise or shell-wise would not make it to consideration even if it were the most popular prototype of all time.

Note that these are just my peculiarities in judging what I think is a "model of the year."   There are no rules; hence everyone can have their own preferences.  This is just an explanation of where my judgment came from.

John C.

[strummer]

John C......

Very thoughtful and well said post...

Mark in Oregon

[victor miranda]

there is a thread about technology around here somewhere.

rrjim1,

you asked a question:
As far as Atlas coping, I wonder how Atlas was able to just take
that design to another manufacture?

I am told that in 1965 Kato( the same company with another name...)
sold a model of a Japanese c50.  it has a motor in the tender.
it also has brass side frames in the tender...
the axle points ride in cups drilled in that brass sideframe...
(ETA  three axles, 6 wheels of pick-up ability)

this next part is un-confirmed in that I can't find a patent
and I will not even begin to state that means anything except I tried.

if we assume that Kato obtained a patent in 1965, and that it lasted
17 years... that gets us to 1982.

I have read people state it was an old idea for electrical pick-up in the '50s
so a patent is a maybe in any case.

what makes it work in n-scale as a pickup is the weight on the pickup.
Even HO boxcars weigh enough to stress metal on metal axle point bearings.

Kato Figured out how to get that pickup system working properly.
and like all truly good ideas, it was promptly snatched without a thank you.

Kato has brought more innovations to n-scale than ANYONE else.
They have done a few turkeys in that mix.
To their credit they seem to learn how to make better
and they strive for better.
they improve what they make and as far as I know no one else
seems to look for ways to improve a model once they start selling it.

the GS4 has some innovations in it.  the pick-up in the tender
and the driver/axles/bearings and the motor and the 4 wire drawbar.
find another steam model that can claim the same.
( the motor was released in the nw2 but I met it in the gs-4)

.... and those same three innovations have flaws that can be irksome.
The tender pickups overheat and ruin the trucks, A dcc issue, I understand.
One of the reasons the loco runs well stems from the small diameter of the bearings.
However, the axle centers crack, if you are lucky the side rods will not get bent.
The motor is quite efficient, good power is available and
despite large size flywheels, it cogs at slow speed.
I like the drawbar and few agree with me.

So Kato is not sainted, they are very very good.
Other companies take the ideas.
Give Kato their Due.

I seriously doubt n-scale would be here in the usa without their efforts.

victor

[Sokramiketes]

I'm not worried about overall appeal... just like I don't think a Toyota Camry should win a Riddler award just because it's more useful to the average family.  The SW1500 is a downright useful model to have, but the execution was hampered by using an existing mechanism and no limits were pushed in the making of the model.  It could be the replacement shell of the year, sure.

FEF is my vote based on design, complexity, and tooling execution. 

[Omatrack]

My vote is for the Kato FEF3.  It is the only new release locomotive that got me motivated to get my layout operational after staring at it for a year.  Plus it is sharp looking, seems to have decent performance out of the box, and was well received.  I'm not sure I saw other new locos turning the heads of die hard diesel fans (in this case) to the point where some added the engine to their roster.  Or had Santa Fe fans buying a UP engine.  That is remarkable to me and warrants Engine of the Year designation.
Just my humble opinion.
John

[spookshow]

I gotta admit, I was expecting an FEF-3 avalanche in the voting here. Nice to see that the love is spread out amongst some of the (admittedly few) other offerings.

Hard to believe that it was only 7-8 years ago when we regularly had 15+ different/new locomotive models to choose from each year.

Cheers,
-Mark

[DeltaBravo]

I will add to the FEF vote tally. Runs like a dream,but a little shinny for my taste. I think it looks a little toy like.

[Nato]

         Some Locomotives come out in 2014 and fill a gap, a need, then variations (road specific) continue to come out for several years afterword so I consider the SP version of the SW 1500 to be a variant of a 2014 release even if is  (will be) a 2015 release. Nate Goodman (Nato).

[peteski]

I will add to the FEF vote tally. Runs like a dream,but a little shinny for my taste. I think it looks a little toy like.

Um, the 1:1 loco looks pretty shiny too.  It is an excursion loco kept in an immaculate condition.