TheRailwire
General Discussion => N and Z Scales => Topic started by: victor miranda on February 06, 2015, 06:18:38 PM
-
I found I was consoling another forumer very recently over his
stating what I do consider "TRUTH."
I got me to thinking about why I think
"it should be done this way"
and what it means when
a model loco is made with axles wipers for pick-up under a tender
or the pickups b-mann is using in their recent diesels.
I suppose the two newer diesels will be in this discussion
I think the KAto FEF motor along with the Atlas mp15 motor should be here.
but as finger brushes are some what new to n-scale, they may not be old school.
is the use of side rods to power steam drivers old school?
it is new to n-scale... I guess it started with the Kato Mike here in the US.
I have heard the gs-4 blew out axles and not worn out side rods,
all that kinda implies 'old school' is an insult...
I think some new ideas are mighty lame before they try to walk
I happen to think three pole motors are old school and time and tide have overrun that idea.
we have them in rather expensive models.
I know the steam engine side has a lot of kits if you like good performance.
'scuse the implied giggle...
the diesel guys look like they are headed for the same roller coaster ride.
If any one knows a good reason for 'old school' methods being put into brand new locos,
believe me, I want to hear it.
victor
-
The Kato's use of siderods in GS4 is strictly cosmetic. The only powered axle is the one with traction tire and the one which supports majority of the locos mass. The blown axles were mostly due to rough handling (pushing it on the track by hand, etc.).
Same with Kato Mike - there three axles were gear driven - the last driver which had the traction tire was not even connected to the siderods. The front driver (driven by siderods was also pretty much cosmetic).
Are those old-schoolk designs? I don't see it that way.
My strong opinion is that the Kato-style of axle-point cone-bearing-cup pickups/bearing should be adopted on all new models which have outside bearing trucks. There is no reason not to use that type of design - it is proven to work better than all the other designs (and quite a few model companies have adopted that design). It ought to be used, even if that type of a truck has to be connected to the motor with wires.
If I seem gushing over Kato's engineering and desigin - I am: I really think that Kato is the main technological innovator of N scale models. They have their duds too - but overall they still come up on the top.
Also minimizing manually soldered wire rat's nest inside the loco makes the design more reliable. Nowadays there are flexible circuit boards used in every portable electronic device to interconnect multiple sub-assemblies. Similar method shoudkl be adopted for wiring sub-assembiles within model locomotives.
-
I dunno peteski....
my thinking is that not many seem to pay much attention.
how it is made
costs associated
how long the mechanism will last
well,
next time you mention something is old school
no one is going to have a leg to stand on.
cause they are allowing you (and me) to define the term.
victor
-
One thought that comes to mind is when you say old school is it synonymous with outdated?
I can see how people would make that connection and see a negative context in the term...
as far as design goes needle point axles and vertical split frames are pushing 30 years old, at what
point do they become old school? :trollface:
-
as far as design goes needle point axles and vertical split frames are pushing 30 years old, at what
point do they become old school? :trollface:
When someone comes up with a newer (and better) design. :) So far, some "new" designs hark back to the humble beginnings of N scale. :trollface:
Even Kato does not always use the split-frame design, but the needle-point trucks are still IMO the best design for free-rolling and excellent pickup trucks. Also Kato non-split frame designs still manage to remain wire-free.
-
at what point do they become old school?
when some one makes something that is clearly better....
axle wipers work, no doubt...
axle point pickups are clearly better.
the axle wiper went home from the bar alone.
he couldn't pick-up anything!
victor
-
well, peteski,
you mention that kato has loco mechanisms that are wire free.
wire as in the drawbar of the Mike
or wire as in a DCC decoder install
or wire to the motor of the kato FEF?
I think insulated wires soldered to a part that will flex
is a horrible idea is you want reliability.
Auto makers have spent a lot of research on getting reliable wiring
they use mechanical means to hold the wire steady at any crimp or solder point.
I can't think of any n-scale loco with a soldered wire with any kind of mechanical wire hold.
victor
-
Wires is definitely something that gives me pause...
I just grabbed an original lifelike BL2 to ponder as I type and the one thing that
jumps out at me is how unfriendly it is to tinkering.
I'm far from a n scale locomotive "guru" and I can take an atlas/kato loco apart with a screwdriver, and put it back together
no worse for wear (probably the important part)
To take the trucks off this thing I would need a soldering iron. :P
Not to mention the way the trucks are attached there is alot of play and alot of friction at the same time.
I wonder how similar modern "old school" designs are and how easy they will be to maintain....
-
well, peteski,
you mention that kato has loco mechanisms that are wire free.
wire as in the drawbar of the Mike
or wire as in a DCC decoder install
or wire to the motor of the kato FEF?
Any wires are undesirable. Flexing and just static chassis wiring. As you well know, Kato minimizes use of wires (well, the new FEF-3 does have 2 short statric wires in it). But as you noted, any flexing wire connections can be problematic in the long run. Of course the static wire harness (like in a decoder installation) is not as critical as not having wires between moving parts.
With decoder boards which simply replace existing light boards (or the light boards equipped with the 6-pin NEM DCC socket), the wire-free design can be maintained (in both DC and DCC). For both reliability and easy of maintenance (which to me is also very important). Like Missaberoad stated: I rather not have to use a soldering iron just to disassemble the loco for cleaning or servicing.
-
Missaberoad
and how do you think I became a self appointed n-scale loco repair guru?
.... mostly from slotcar repair.
the old... late 70's Atlas gp-9 is made much the same.
do not take it apart unless you absolutely must.
I have taken them apart. and I have replaced t
he wires as they get ever shorter from fatigue cuts.
when your bl-2 was first made, it was a tried and ordinary design.
when the upgrade was done the same is true of that design also.
at the time each version was made I would not have accused them of being old school.
I love to tinker... and at some point it is a pain because to keep it going one MUST tinker.
I truly want to avoid that situation, mostly for others sake.
I have found that not many will tinker if they can avoid it.
I tend to howl for our manufacturers to stay with the low tinker-factor designs.
I am nothing short of astonished that b-mann's recent diesel models sell.
it truly is a throwaway design. it is on the low side of needing tinkering.
b-mann may have upgraded the motor since the first reviews I read
but that will not save the pick-up system.
-
Victor, I think that only you and me (maybe Max and maybe precious few others) are the few who trully notice and care how the N scale model locos are designed. :|
-
Hi Peteski,
yes it is clear to me that you and I do pay attention to the details of
'how they are made'
I am pretty sure we are in the company of a few dozen
who care about all those details.
I know a lot do care.
it is just that they tend to eye glaze pretty quick
when the discussion turns to gear ratios
pick-up tabs and motor/torque/speed values
or why using ph-bronze is better than brass for this part...
I gotta go to bed ...
-
I would like to see the revival of the Rivarossi Pacifics and Mikados that date originally from the late '60's, done Old School. They won't really be for us'ns. It would be closer to a mass market kind of thing, something to expose more kids to model RRing who would not have exposure otherwise.
All the old shortcomings were fixable and were pretty much fixed. The last runs were very good and are probably the majority of the survivors some 30 years later. The construction is quite robust. You would only need a minimal knowledge of electrical stuff to troubleshoot, with instructions to be provided with loco and online.
What I'm thinking is to have a basic reliable nearly-no-brainer N scale steam engine (stop laughing, you steam veterans!) as part of an entry level/casual runner/Christmas tree layout. Period. Low frustration factor -- anyone can run trains, though not with the quality and fine control of the more expensive locos of today. It should last for years, an alien concept nowadays because price point has become the buyer's main criterion. So the concept is like basic Lionel but in N scale, at a lower price point than Lionel really ever was. Throw in a line of cheap RR cars -- old dies would work.
KISS. The Rivarossi design already exists. Add a robust existing motor. I'm not thinking of an engine that will take an hour to go from tie to tie. I'm talking about one that will run out of the box or storage. Exposed motor bearings, yup -- easy to lube. Big flanges, yup -- staying on the track at 70 scale mph is more important than being convertible to code 40. Noise? Some, probably. These are intended to be more in the toy realm and to be a gateway (drug?) to more serious model RRing.
Would any manufacturer stick their necks out and re-do these things? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But I think we do need newly-built entry-level stuff in N.
Alan
-
at what point do they become old school?
when some one makes something that is clearly better....
axle wipers work, no doubt...
axle point pickups are clearly better.
the axle wiper went home from the bar alone.
he couldn't pick-up anything!
victor
Poetic! 8)
-
I would like to see the revival of the Rivarossi Pacifics and Mikados that date originally from the late '60's, done Old School. They won't really be for us'ns. It would be closer to a mass market kind of thing, something to expose more kids to model RRing who would not have exposure otherwise.
All the old shortcomings were fixable and were pretty much fixed. The last runs were very good and are probably the majority of the survivors some 30 years later. The construction is quite robust. You would only need a minimal knowledge of electrical stuff to troubleshoot, with instructions to be provided with loco and online.
What I'm thinking is to have a basic reliable nearly-no-brainer N scale steam engine (stop laughing, you steam veterans!) as part of an entry level/casual runner/Christmas tree layout. Period. Low frustration factor -- anyone can run trains, though not with the quality and fine control of the more expensive locos of today. It should last for years, an alien concept nowadays because price point has become the buyer's main criterion. So the concept is like basic Lionel but in N scale, at a lower price point than Lionel really ever was. Throw in a line of cheap RR cars -- old dies would work.
KISS. The Rivarossi design already exists. Add a robust existing motor. I'm not thinking of an engine that will take an hour to go from tie to tie. I'm talking about one that will run out of the box or storage. Exposed motor bearings, yup -- easy to lube. Big flanges, yup -- staying on the track at 70 scale mph is more important than being convertible to code 40. Noise? Some, probably. These are intended to be more in the toy realm and to be a gateway (drug?) to more serious model RRing.
Would any manufacturer stick their necks out and re-do these things? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But I think we do need newly-built entry-level stuff in N.
Alan
How can something with tender and the loco each picking up electricity only from one rail be really reliable? That nugget wouldn't be easily modernized due to the model's construction method. Victor (Mr. Reliable Pickup) Will be rolling his eyes! :)
You want a cheap (and sometimes reliable) models for youngsters? Try Bachmann! :trollface: Besides, the lower price might be you remembering the price of those models in the early 70's and comparing them to today's prices. The final runs of all the Rivarossi steamers wasnt't all that low priced.
As far a stem loco for the kids goes, I don't think today's kids are all that interested. Well, maybe sans some Thomas the Tank engine or Polar Express. Other than that steam locos are alien to them'. Instead give them something they have seen 1st hand like an Amtrak train or a double-stack inter-modal.
-
Hi Loyalton,
I have to start with I had not considered "old school"
as a possible path to lower prices.
It is certainly possible.
bachmann has a small steam engine that is close.
in the 0-6-0 and 2-6-2 (I consider them to be the same)
they seem sturdy. is the approx 40-50 dollars low enough?
other than greed, the final retail prices for the Rivarossi steam
that ConCor sold was without reason.
so we have some evidence that old tooling will not become
lower priced beginner/new-bee equipment.
and then there is the thought that the old shells are pretty good,
how much to raise them to recent standards....
more or less can a far improved loco be made with the old tooling.
so far we have been told and I repeat without emphasis... NO!
who knows ? I think old tooling may be a good path.
it is not exciting though.
right now I am still trying to find a way to keep
old school ideas from reappearing in brand new models.
.... I am not sure we all agree about what the criticisim 'old school'
could mean other than opinion about some aspects of the model's manufacture.
and since you bring up prices.... or possibly keeping them down
the fact is that a lot of models use lower price options
and that does not translate to a lower price at the store where I buy it.
... b-mann charges a lot for a heavy mountain. I am not a believer that the
'precision can motor' in it is worth more than the spectrum motor that preceded it.
there are other examples.
the kind of bargaining you propose seems not to exist except buy or do not buy.
I have no Athearn steamers for that kind of reasoning.
victor
-
GRAMMAR AND SPELLING EDITS...
Well, since I was mentioned by name, I will just say this:
I suspect a lot of people stay out of conversations like this because they are fraught with the potential for argument.
As for my own opinions:
If "Old school" simply means that a better method has surpassed the old one in terms of quality and reliability,
then yes, I would avoid "Old School" methods.
The devil is in the details of judging "reliability"
Mostly, I'm with you guys on things like axle wipers.
But on the soldered wire thing, not so much. They are probably a bad idea in a commercial model, but for me and my
own engines, I love them. Why?
Because a soldered wire between engine and tender is 100% perfect, unlike the pressure drawbar wires which, even in engines
as well-made as the Kato Mikado, sometimes lose contact, stall the engine, and need adjustment or cleaning by me.
In contrast, I can count on one hand the number of times a soldered wire has actually broken off on me in some 20 years.
Granted, I know I have to handle them carefully, I use super flexible wire, and I try to arrange the connections and wire
routing to minimize stress on the wire or solder joints.
So for me, that "old school" method is much preferred because it works perfectly until the odd moment when one of them
breaks, which is rare. I would rather have something that rarely fails, but is 100% perfect when it has not failed,
as opposed to the more modern drawbar connections that may not suffer from broken wires, but fail to perform
more often.
In a commercial model, the reverse might be true, since repairing a drawbar wire is something that anyone can probably
manage (remove truck, clean or bend wire, etc), as opposed to opening the engine or tender and resoldering.
-----------------------
I tend to agree with some of Victor's sentiment about the low-cost engine options. I don't see companies using
simpler, cruder methods to make very reliable, if not super-detailed, engines that are good for entry level into the hobby.
People often bring up the old Athearn HO stuff as an example of this: they were famous for making "maybe not the most beautiful"
models, but darn dependable ones. The old Mantua HO stuff from the 70s was like this too.
But I don't quite see anything like that in our N Scale world. Perhaps the 1990s Life-Like diesels: they were cheap,
pulled like tanks, ran slow and smooth. Maybe they had some soldered wires, and the body detailing wasn't the greatest,
and they didn't run like a Kato, but boy, for $15 - $20, it was hard to beat them. That was a good use of "old school" to make a product with the right balance of cost, dependability, and performance at a lower price point.
-
I think the biggest problem with soldering a mass production N scale model is just that, mass production. Soldering when properly performed is great, but in the production world of N scale lokies manufactured in third world countries it is hit and miss. The move to reduce wiring was a great step forward, but proper material is important to ensure proper function over the long haul. The Life Like SD7/9 wipers on the trucks are a prime example. If the wipers are properly bent to make contact, they perform flawlessly. Perhaps a better material for the wipers that retained it's ability to spring back to place better would have helped.
In looking at the new GMD-1, I ponder the path that was chosen. While I have not held one in my hand, I don't like what I see in terms of the mechanism and will probably take a pass.
-
Excellent point, John (about assembly variability).
One of the reasons I like Kato's engine designs, in general, is that the parts tend to only be able to
fit one way, and they tend to lock solidly into each other without any play or guesswork.
In contrast, Bachmann engines often allow parts to fiddle this way and that, even motor mounts, gears, etc.
When folks "loosen the screws" on a Bachmann cover plate to make the engine run better, that tells
me that the parts tolerances are not good enough, and you are at the mercy of whoever assembled it
to get it right. Since they can't test every one (or even every 100th one), it not becomes a bit of a crap shoot
as to whether an engine will run well off the assembly line.
And yes, point taken: soldered wires could be big trouble in a mass-production environment like this.
-
What are we thinking about when saying "old school"? First generation N scale maybe, or just an older method of doing things? Or?
One thing that has been around for some time now is split frame guts. There already has been a recent discussion about internal frames, but something like that would allow adding chunks of tungsten for traction plus room for a decoder and speakers in a smaller switcher or smaller profile engines like the RS-1/RS-3.
-
What are we thinking about when saying "old school"? First generation N scale maybe, or just an older method of doing things?
Well ... both. At least to me. Early N scale uses high-friction mechanisms with brass friction fingers for electric pickup and lots of individually-soldered wires inside. Or steam locos where the tender and the loco each picked up power only on one side of the track.
Those were surpassed by the newer designs. In the cases where the newer designs have proven themselves better (more reliable and better performing and maybe even easier to service) then the previous designs are old-school to me. The actual age of the design is irrelevant to me.
For example Kato introduced the best yet low-friction external bearing/pickup design in 1989. Chronologically it could be considered old, but design-wise nobody has come up with a better performing solution yet.
-
I'll second Kato's design from 1989 forward. Also, Kato seems to use better metals for their electrical pick up. Unless gummed up by running on dirty track with fiber (including hair or cat fur), a Kato diesel can sit in a box for years and still run well immediately. Most other brands require warm up with use of wheel cleaning or more in order to run reliably after storage. For old guys like me, "old school" refers to the old rubber band drive like Lone Star 000 or Athearn HO Hi-F drive diesels and RDCs. Also, does anyone remember the vertical single-truck drive Rivarossi N diesels? Also, remember the old days when an N scale locomotive motor would get really hot after running for 30 minutes? The plastic shells would almost melt and sometimes the plastic motor parts would melt around the brush plates. For me, old school also included light bulbs that were fairly dim unless running on more than 6 volts and would get hot enough to melt the plastic body shell area near the bulb. I cannot praise enough the diode lighting that arrived with the 2000s.
-
I'll second Kato's design from 1989 forward. Also, Kato seems to use better metals for their electrical pick up. Unless gummed up by running on dirty track with fiber (including hair or cat fur), a Kato diesel can sit in a box for years and still run well immediately. Most other brands require warm up with use of wheel cleaning or more in order to run reliably after storage. For old guys like me, "old school" refers to the old rubber band drive like Lone Star 000 or Athearn HO Hi-F drive diesels and RDCs. Also, does anyone remember the vertical single-truck drive Rivarossi N diesels? Also, remember the old days when an N scale locomotive motor would get really hot after running for 30 minutes? The plastic shells would almost melt and sometimes the plastic motor parts would melt around the brush plates. For me, old school also included light bulbs that were fairly dim unless running on more than 6 volts and would get hot enough to melt the plastic body shell area near the bulb. I cannot praise enough the diode lighting that arrived with the 2000s.
Right on Albert - you get the picture!
-
When I think of old school I think way back to the 1960's and the infancy of N scale. You had loco's that had electrical pickup in the front truck and powered trucks in the rear. Running short wheel based equipment meant flying through turnouts as going scale speed or slower would cause stalling at the insulated portions of the turnout. And anything made from zamac metal would eventually crumble like a pillar of salt. Many Rivarossi engines have died from this. Plastic frame locos didn't far much better either. Were not user friendly if they ever needed servicing inside. And god forbid if the plastic frame ever got tweaked you could pretty much forget about having a good running loco. But through all that their were glimmers of light that shown n scale had a life. My first decent running loco was a Arnold Rapido UP F unit with a all metal frame. Sure it sounded like a coffee grinder but the weight of it gave it good electrical pickup and traction force. And the big plus it had all electrical pickup and geared on both trucks! Fast forwarding to the 1980's Kato gave us a new kind of frame that would open the world up to a new way of thinking. And it was something that worked so well that other companies copied the design....i.e. Atlas, Lifelike(Walthers), Athearn and such. Metal to metal contact and the elimination of rat nest wiring. And I personally love the friction free axle cup wipers inside the trucks. Getting away from the soft metal wipers that rub up against the back of the wheels is a big plus here. Microtrains developed the pilot conversion and we filled those gaping holes with truck mounted couplers. Later on it became the norm for manufacturers to design those enclosed pilots on their shells. Rapidos gave away to knuckle couplers and soon others copied those to create a coupler of their own. When I look back at "old school" I once dreamed of n scale running trouble free and effortlessly. We did get there along with some hiccups along the way. Their is still some manufacturers that just will not give up those old school ways even though it's been proven it can be done much better. Not knocking Model Power but they did try on that last diesel release of all metal FP-7's. Supposably a whole new design. But on receiving mine it harked back to the older Minitrix metal frame F-7's with the soft metal wipers that rubbed against the back of the wheels, wiring from the trucks to the frame. And this loco was suppose to be MT friendly too...well sort of. The metal frame had a hole designed into the frame for mounting the coupler. Two problems here with one that the frame mount was too high and the hole in the frame was larger that the 00-90 screw used to mount the couplers with. Since I couldn't find the Intermountian F unit I really wanted I had to settle for this. It will have to be old school here until Intermountain can make it new school once again. Today some complain about what they got never living though the old school stuff a lot of us went through to get to where we are today. You just don't know how good you got it! :-)
-
A history lesson.
After we destroyed Japanese industry during WWII, the U.S. government sent a few experts to Japan to help them rebuild. Among these experts was Prof. W. Edwards Deming, an engineer and statistician. Two of the concepts that he championed were continuous improvement (called kaizen in Japan) and fool-proof design (poka-yoke). The Japanese not only embraced these concepts, they made them a part of their culture.
Another significant part of Japanese culture involves a collaborative, group effort that de-emphasizes the individual.
Meanwhile, in this country, most discussions about design and manufacturing are still dominated by individuals who can most effectively "sell" their ideas. These dominant individuals eventually become "the Boss". That, friends, is our culture. We have all seen this happen thousands of times in our careers. Well documented by Scott Adams' "Dilbert".
So what does this have to do with anything?
Team efforts most often provide better results than a single individual's. Particularly if the team strives to make continuous improvements. Difference between old school and best practice.
-
Team efforts most often provide better results than a single individual's. Particularly if the team strives to make continuous improvements. Difference between old school and best practice.
How about Chinese culture? After all, they are the ones who design most of the N scale models sold in US. Sure, the U.S. companies provide some of the parameters for the new model, but the nuts and bolts design is usually done by the design engineers in China. Yet, unlike the Japanese designs, they seem to design their models to be as cheap as possible. The quality just doesn't seem to be there (in both materials and execution, and even in assembly).
-
Anyone ever notice that Chinese brass products often rust? I had this happen several times on plumbing items and noticed that a magnet stuck to it. Yes, the product package said brass, but it was actually brass plated ferrous metal. Also, some kitchen and decor items (like lamps) of Chinese brass also fail the magnet test. It seems logical that brass strips in some of our China made N scale locos are not totally brass, thus part of the problem.
-
there are a few words for items that do not meet specification.
fraud is often used.
so is that "old school" or are we going to call it something else?
It is strange to me that steel is used in place of brass
the price of brass is enough higher that it is still
cheaper to form steel...
I am not sure how to go from here.
part of the reason for new school is that the designs are hard to do poorly
unless you work at it.
soldering wires is one example
substituting brass or steel springs for ph-bnz springs will fail pretty quick
and there is not much cheaper than zamac.
victor
-
How about Chinese culture?
I think that you answered your own question, Peteski.
There are more differences than similarities between the two cultures. Which helps to explain why there are so many substandard products (not just model railroad stuff) sold here, made in China.
-
I had not thought we'd get a japan/china culture comparo.
when it comes to making n-scale locos
my thinking is that minitrix was very consistant
and Rivarossi was determined to be as low cost as possible and then some.
and whatever outfit is was in Yugoslovia was the worst of all possible
too many parts and none fit and badly assembled.
Old school had a lot of classrooms
right now, I am thinking even the You-go guys would be hard pressed
to make a bad version of the recent Atlas diesels.
(not a challenge, just pointing out how good the design is.)
victor