Ok; I'm getting back into this one...............
Victor; having read all your posts and having tried to understand what you are trying to say, it appears that the following sums up the entire value of a locomotive for you........
IT HAS TO RUN PERFECTLY WITHOUT (without any, I repeat "any") COGGIN AT 3 SMPH.....
That's it eh ? Doesn't matter about the following:
- Overall road performance; specifically pulling power, dealing with grades, number of cars pulled....
- DC vs DCC performance (because five poles are superior in DC and there is no DCC "magic bullet"......right ?)
- "Cosmetics"...like, does it appear to be a reasonable copy of the prototype.......
- Ability to kitbash to obtain a closer copy of a specific loco............
- Cost vs Performance......because, as you have all but said; you see things we model railway mortals don't......so what I deem acceptable at a given price point (because for 99% of us, cost matters) you discount because of the 3 SMPH requirement.....
Ok; I'm there; you have limited your "evaluation" criteria of a locomotive to slow speed performance; If it will creep at your standard; you are happy. And; for your standard, a five pole motor is the only option because it will creep better....ok; "for your standards, for your very narrow qualifications, then you are right; five pole motors are it............"
On the other hand Victor; you may wish to consider that not everyone has your standards; not everyone cares about "creep" to the extent that you do (and if you want to qualify a modeler's "value" or "seriousness" by your standard then that's another discussion altogether) and your may well wish to consider that someone who has a long, double mainline layout might consider a Geep that pulls the teeth out of your head at road prototypical speed and one he can afford ten of, a very valuable model......
I have to be honest; I have been reading your responses and they smack of a "superiority"... It's as if your appreciation of smooth, slow speed performance is a superior position to the many valid arguments that some have made in support of the three pole offerings. No one has said " 3 is better than 5"; many have said that their 3 pole motor units are fine for them....you seem to discount that due to your very specific requirement for ultra smooth, very low scale speed performance.....so; am I right ?; is your position that, in order for a locomotive to be acceptable on all levels, it has to be able to meet the Victor standard for slow speed performance ?
Speak your mind; answer the question.........back to you................. ???
Hi Puddington,
this is a good post If I ignore the places where you put words in my mouth.
I will take those as your telling me what you read as my meaning.
probably the least on topic and the hardest to discuss is the charge of snobbery.
I have been through this argument many times (it is a subject that is important to me)
All I can say is that it is difficult to answer someone who is being ornery and
not using reasons or examples without sounding condescending or snobby.
In my life I have been on both sides of that fence.
once you have done both, it is an eye opener.
I am going to love writing this.
For an n-scale loco to avoid being accused of 'cogging'...it must not cog.
I have met locos that cog from tight gears
( I am ashamed to admit I built the gearbox in one case.)
so cogging can be from other causes.
please keep in mind this discussion has a lot to do with where
three pole motors cause cogging, at slow speeds.
if three pole motors caused high speed cogging we would not be having this discussion.
I like to shunt cars, at shunting speeds three pole motors cog.
I have to add that 5 pole motors do not seem to cog at those same speeds.
Here is where the other problem is found. I'd like the loco to start
the same way it stopped, slowly.
Again, five pole motors do this far better than three poles.
I play here at slow shunting speeds.
I like the illusion that I am running a loco and can watch what I see
the real locos and cars do.
I can only watch from the outside for I will never be in the cab of a toy train....
so I re-create the shunting I watch, when I can.
I love all the weight in motion. HO locos are far better at this.
n-scale locos can do this.
In fact the Atlas rs1 is good. so are most of my atlas gp7's and 9's.
so what will do for my needs is possible.
(the next line is an opinion don't mistake it)
I now have a standard for price/performance.
there is nothing lower priced that performs better.
to be sure lower priced locos exist.
I'd love to discuss the value of those performance differences.
As of right now I can't get an agreement that
three pole motored locos cog at slow speeds.
so how in the world can we talk about the costs associated with
five poles, magic throttles, gear rations, flywheels and sizes of locos?
At that point, maybe we can talk about the value of
complicated paint jobs with matching road details versus the five pole motor option.
and won't that be fun?
oh you asked me to answer this question.... if you feel I haven't by now...
is your position that, in order for a locomotive to be acceptable on all levels,
it has to be able to meet the Victor standard for slow speed performance ?
Speak your mind; answer the question.........back to you................. ???
hohohohohoho!
yes! Don't you ?
victor
