Kato N scale steam

[thomasjmdavis]

I'm not so sure.  Have you seen some of the complaints around this place ? 

I am about to show my ignorance here, but I have a very dumb (or elementary, if you are being polite) question....

When the steam experts here measure the diameter of an N scale driver, what exactly are you measuring?  Given that (a) the tread is often not "flat" but has a slight angle to it- that is, slightly conical rather than cylindrical- and (b) there are few, if any, that have a scale flange (had to get rid of my old Rivarossis that were cutting into the spike heads of my code 55), I am wondering whether one measures the widest measurement (over the flange) or the diameter at the rail, or something else?  Or another way to put it, if a manufacturer says they have a 73" driver, where are they measuring 73"?

I suppose this also applies to 33" or 36" rolling stock wheels, but frankly, those don't jump out like "the drivers are too small" does.

[up1950s]

Kato could sell a blind center driver .

Or do what MTH did to the 4-12-2 .

Or better yet , if your curves and turnouts are not designed for large ridged steam maybe it wouldn't look right , so why bother .

As a quasi fix , maybe you could do what real railroads do , ease the mainline curves , Leave the old track in place but cut at both ends . Make it look like a deal that was just opened with construction equipment and workers still there .  Add at least 1 high number turnout in both directions as an escape off the mainline . This way you could use it as a helper , or engine change setup .

[JMaurer1]

IMHO, it would be more than nice for Kato to just come out with the mech and using 3D printing, you could select the boiler that you wanted. Pennsy...no problem, SP skyline casing...sure, streamline hudson...here you go.

Anyway, I went Pacific (nice to have handrails that aren't part of the metal boiler), Mountain, and Decapod (Concor is the only MFR to ever make this I believe). I wish they would have had a 'request' or 'comment' section. I would rather have had some small steam: modern 4-4-0, 2-6-0, 2-8-0, but it was not to be...

[Mark5]

I wish they would have had a 'request' or 'comment' section. I would rather have had some small steam: modern 4-4-0, 2-6-0, 2-8-0, but it was not to be...

Not a part of the poll, but there is this:

https://www.katousa.com/suggest.html

Over the years, I don't think they've acted on any of my suggestions. 

Mark

[RBrodzinsky]

When 3-D printed shells are mentioned, are folks assuming they come painted or unpainted? I would still want to receive a completed R-T-R loco with whatever level of detailed parts would also be preinstalled on molded shells.

[peteski]

Kato doesn't seem to me like a company which will make a chassis and have 3D printed shells available. Not only the 3D printing technology is not mature enough (quality-wise), the price of printing is too high.  This also makes it not ready-to-run, which is again not something I imagine Kato would do.  Yes, they sell "critters" but that quite a bit different.

But maybe someday they will sell the complete chassis of some of their steam locos already in production (like they sell critters which are in reality also a chassis of complete models they produce). Then some enterprising modelers could design and sell shells for that chassis.  Even that way, to me even FXD does not produce the quality of surface finish I would call acceptable (call me lazy but I don't want to keep futzing with a rough 3D print I spend good chunk of money on, just to make it up to my standards).

[Kisatchie]

...Even that way, to me even FXD does not produce the quality of surface finish I would call acceptable (call me lazy but I don't want to keep futzing with a rough 3D print I spend good chunk of money on, just to make it up to my standards).

I agree with you 100%.


Hmm... me too. I AM
lazy...

[up1950s]

I agree with you 100%.


Hmm... me too. I AM
lazy...

I have 30+ Shapeways models and haven't built one yet . Too rough and needs tedious sanding to finish , or to light and fragile . If Kato does a chassis and Shapeways moo moo it's a no no to me . However if Kato and C855 does a chassis and a resin shell I just might bite .

[mmagliaro]

Generic steam chassis so we can fit our own shells to them?  YES
Use 3D printing to generate those shells?  NO

As other have already remarked, 3D printing is just not good enough yet.   It can't match injection molding, which has gotten so good that it is finer, smoother, and better than the much-sought-after brass locomotives of yesteryear.  But I'd still be happy to buy mechanisms that had the correct driver sizes, spacing, valve gear, and cylinders, and then make or kitbash my own shells.

On that driver diameter thing.  Personally, my "measuring" method is to measure the tread and the flange and pick a number about halfway between the two, because visually, I think that's what it looks like on the track.  The flanges make the drivers appear a little bigger than they really are, because the flanges, no matter how fine-scale, are always oversized. I think this is a good compromise unless the flanges are so big and ugly that they draw attention to themselves.

So, does 1/32" matter?  1/32 = about .031".   

On a 51" (small freight) driver, which is about 0.319" in N Scale,  .031" would make it 0.350", or about a 56" driver.
Over a 4-coupled engine, the wheelbase would have to spread by 3 x .031 = .093", or 3/32", or 15 scale inches.

I can't say people would always notice these things, but they are on the hairy edge of tolerable.

There are 7 very common steam loco driver sizes.  If there were chassis available with
51, 56, 63, 68, 72, 76 and 80"  wheels, that would cover almost everything, and if I were making an engine that had drivers that were 1 or 2 inches off from one of these, I'd be fine with that.  Or, they can just make 1 or 2 very popular sizes and be done with it.

--------------------------------
I really think all this is moot.  There is little incentive for a company like Kato to offer such a thing.  They can completely tool a single finished model and sell tens of thousands of them.  The way it is now, they can make what they want and we will buy it.   Why make chassis and wheels to satisfy 100, or 500 fanatics like us who want to kitbash engines? 

[delamaize]

...that a 4-8-4 is a "Mountain."...

Nope, 4-8-4 is NOT a Mountain, It's a NORTHERN, as in Northern Pacific. NP was the first to order, run them.

[Bobster]

Good evening folks,

I'm voting for the Pacific.  More specifically if Kato is listening a Rock Island Pacific like the one at the Wheels O Time museum in Peoria, Illinois.  887 preserved as 886 would make an excellent choice.   

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Less than 2.5 hours drive from Chicagoland.

Thank you for letting me add my 2 cents,
Bobster

[thomasjmdavis]

Nope, 4-8-4 is NOT a Mountain, It's a NORTHERN, as in Northern Pacific. NP was the first to order, run them.

I do that (Mountain instead of Northern) all the time, don't know why- must have a short circuit in my brain- .  Sorry all. 

[peteski]

I do that (Mountain instead of Northern) all the time, don't know why- must have a short circuit in my brain- .  Sorry all.

Just use the Whyte notation and skip using the names.  Much easier (to remember and visualize) and clearer.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Just use the Whyte notation and skip using the names.  Much easier (to remember and visualize) and clearer.

So, a Consol should be a 2-8-o, right?

[peteski]

So, a Consol should be a 2-8-o, right?

Yes.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whyte_notation