What can make Z scale better?

[tom mann]

I've been working on a small shelf layout in Z scale that will feature Milwaukee Road's Libertyville Branch. What's cool is that in Z, I can almost model the line in it's entirety without compression (I won't though - no room for 16.8 feet) and that N scale buildings (used for Z) have almost the same footprint and dimensions as in real life. 

I think we are at the point that Z is a viable scale, but a few things bother me.  This thread will attempt to quantify easy-to-overcome shortcoming in the scale, and perhaps serve as a to-do list if any manufactures are interested.

1. The AZL GP9 and MTL SD40-2 are great runners, but a little finicky electrically.  They run great, but their small size prohibits the flywheels from helping out over certain less than ideal spots. Honestly, I'm not sure if anything can be done?

I'm interesting in testing out one of the new AZL F units to see if a wider body (and bigger flywheels) help running characteristics.

2.  Body mounted couplers.  I'm not sure why truck mounts ever became a "thing", especially since MTL offerings had body mounts a long time ago.  Probably to feed people's desires to run trains around a smaller and smaller radius (suitcase layouts?).

3.  Trucks.  MTL's are too small, AZL's roller bearings are too vertically compressed.  However, Full Throttle's (from Bowser) look good but come only with couplers attached @ $6/pair. It would be great to get some variety and selection here.

4.  Cost - maybe?. AZL's locomotive offerings are trending downwards over the years, and freight cars from MTL and AZL are staying about the same. Honestly, if #2 and #3 were addressed I wouldn't care too much about cost, because I understand that there is such a limited audience for Z scale products that until production can increase, costs won't decrease. But spending $30+ on freight cars with truck mounted couplers or missing stirrups bugs me.

5.  Track. Between MTL and Rokuhan, there is an ok selection of code 55 roadbed-attached track and turnouts.  However, you can't buy turnouts without the roadbed, and nothing is available smaller than code 55. More selection is needed.

[Chris333]

Code 40 or smaller flex track.

[pjm20]

Code 40 or smaller flex track.

This would sell in N Scale! I would buy some for industrial trackage and spurs.



As to #1, wouldn't BEMF in decoders fix this? I know it means DCC, but DCC anymore is the trend.

[Chris333]

btw pretty sure all the z scale track is code 65, .065" tall.

[Catt]

To my way of thinking cost is the main reason Z isn't growing.When a Z scale car cost as much as a HO car or one of the nicer N scale cars why waste your time on Z.I am not antii Z just anti Z prices. I have two Z scale layouts myself,but when I consider what I have invested in them it is totally  "What the hell was I thinking?"

AZL had a poll on their forum where everybody that replied said they wanted all the fancy detail,but not even one of them said they would actually buy the stuff.

[nkalanaga]

Code 40 Z track would also be a boon to Nn3, even if the tie spacing wasn't right.  Enough dirt can hide the ties on most narrow gauge lines.

[Smike]

I almost selected Z scale when starting (re-starting) in the hobby.

The advantage of the smaller size would have allowed for some impressive scenery to model ratios, and as you noted, almost no compression.  When researching I notice a lack of any large z scale layouts. (almost nothing) I was scratching my head thinking with this small size the potential to model vast amounts, why were most of the layouts compact ones?  The answer to me was lack of longer flex track and switches.

Hence why I selected n scale.

[pedro]

Good topic! I want to see Z scale grow, too. My thoughts:


(I see Smike beat me to the punch with mostly the same points while I was typing!)

I will also echo the need for traditional, scale ties, code 40 OR SMALLER, preferably, flex track in lengths of at least 30". And accurate #8 or larger turnouts. I considered switching to Z a number of years ago with the rise of AZL, but the track issue changed my mind.

The second thing I always think that holds back Z is the propensity of Z scale modelers to build micro-layouts. Where are the sweeping, expansive layouts? Waiting for longer flex track, I suppose? All the advantages of scenery-to-track ratio and plausible industry size that N scale enjoys should be employed and magnified that much more in Z. I know there are fans of the small layouts here, so I'm not trying to offend, but somehow all we ever seem to see are the micro, briefcase layouts and "cute" modeling. (I know I'm generalizing, but it's just an impression based on never having seen a "big" Z scale layout.) It's a chicken-and-egg situation with the track.

Finally, the price issue is something to be considered, but understandable based on what must be a tiny market. I strongly feel that the track is a "build it and they will come" item. Get the track, build larger layouts to showcase the advantages, then the scale will grow with new modelers and new manufacturers will produce equipment. I would hope so, anyway!

[C855B]

...The answer to me was lack of longer flex track and switches. ...

+1. A broad selection of track (Peco, Shinohara) came online early in N. Even after 40+ years, Z track variety is poor, and why everybody is still clinging to Code 55 has me scratching my head. And we do have to talk about price: per foot, Z track is two to three times that of N. A large layout gets very expensive quickly.

I think that's the story of Z in general - surprisingly limited selection given the number of years it's been in commercial development. Maybe it's because Märklin set the pricing bar too high, limiting the market. AZL is making a dent in US prototypes, but they can't do it alone. Z needs an Atlas and a Kato driving quality, selection and availability at everyman pricing.

[peteski]

I think that the big elephant in the room is running reliability. Most people who build large layouts like to operate them realistically (which means switching and slow running).  Z scale is not really very good when it comes to slow running and smooth switching. Especially with complex trackwork. Unfortunately this is due to the physical limitations (light-weight of the engines due to their small size). Even N scale is barely heavy enough to make it switch reliably).  The trackwork (or lack of) is also a big problem.  There needs to be a larger variety of realistic looking turnouts and crossings.  Z scale double-slip switch anyone?  I know that is an extreme example but we still need good-looking switches and crossings which don't look like something that Thomas the Tank engine would run on

[mmagliaro]

EDIT: Thought about brass
-----------------------------------

The reliable running/electrical pickup issue is the hardest by far of all these because it the only one that is running up against physical laws.  Electrical pickup is not going to be fixed with DCC or back EMF.   Pickup is pickup.  You lose it and you stop.

When I first read this, my thought was to redesign the drivertrains so that the coreless motors all use gearheads and double shafts, putting a flywheel on the backshaft of the motor so it spins 4x faster than the motor output shaft.
That would make the flywheels really do something useful for coasting over temporary losses in track contact.
But that only solves part of the pickup problem.  When you stop an engine, and then go to run it later and it
won't start, the flywheel doesn't help.  And at low creep speeds, it won't help much.

How much does a Z scale GP-38 weigh? (Or one of the other better-running Z scale engines)
I'm curious if it would be possible to mill the frames completely out of tungsten to get the weight
up to that of a comparable N Scale engine.
It may be difficult or impossible to produce tungsten frames in a commercial model.   

EDIT: Come to think of it, unless they milled the Z scale frame out of solid brass,  it might be possible
to increase its weight by doing so, and that would avoid working with tungsten.  If the frames
are made of that typical lightweight whatever-it-is alloy that engine frames seem to be made of,
maybe it could be done in brass to solve the weight problem.   It can be done.  Kato's 4-8-4 S2
had a solid brass frame.

[Denver Road Doug]

What would make Z better...  Hmmmm.

I think your first point is big.   And to address it won't be popular with the "too expensive" crowd.  For starters they need to improve tolerances across the board. (be the Kato, be the Kato)   Use quality components and materials.  And use technology.  Brass or tungsten frames has to happen I think. (I think this even in N)   At least as a replacement add-on.   And figuring out how to cram a capacitor in would be the next agenda item.  Having said all of that, my locos (GP38, F59PHI, and RDC thus far) all run surprisingly well.   Granted, virtually no grades in my case but they pull what I would expect them to pull, and don't seem to have major issues with turnouts, etc.  But while I'm ok with what I have at the moment, I do recognize that to build a basement layout in Z you would want better performance out of the horses.

Trucks aren't super high priority.  I would like them to improve from here moving forward, but it's function over form for me in Z.  If both can be achieve then even better.  Body mounts kind of the same deal.  I'm all for them even though I'm using tight radii currently.  But knowing how much of a battle it was in N, I don't see that change happening soon.  I don't know why that is, but that's just how it played out.

Cost is just "one of those things" we have to deal with.   I will say that I've bargain shopped and done OK in Z and mostly don't have a major issue with price.   The recent AZL Coil Car is one exception to that...something I really wanted but just cannot justify $50 for a single "standard production" freight car.   So I passed and hopefully I'll catch one on sale at some point.   I also would like to see the unit-train cars like the coalporters hit a slightly lower price point. (trying to solve that with Shapeways but we're not there quite yet)  The other issue that is sort of price related is the tendency of EVERYTHING being in 4-packs.  It seems this trend might be changing somewhat but especially with some of the older releases it makes it tough if you only want one.   Oh, then there's the $3,000 C44-9W's which are not an option for me but a loco I would otherwise have at the $190 price point of AZL's other six-axle modern diesels.   Overall, I'm hesitant to complain about price too much because I don't have plans of buying 1000 freight cars and 200 locos so I would rather have quality over quantity and don't mind paying for quality.   

Regarding track, I don't think this would be high on my list, even though I acknowledge that a good system of Code 40 track similar to Atlas' C55 line would probably be what we're shooting for in that arena and I certainly would not argue that something like that would indeed improve Z-scale overall.   The reason it's not high on my list is that part of the reason I am in Z is that I don't have that pressure of trying to make everything *look* perfect.   I just concede that it's Z and focus first and foremost is on function over form with regards to the operating parts.   So in other words, the really nicely performing Rokuhan track wins versus finicky "more-to-scale" options and then having to rig some type of switch machine to it.   I will say that as I get further into Z, I do have thoughts like some of the others of the vast expanses and untouchable track to scenery ratios and if I ever pulled the plug on N then I would definitely want some Number 10's to throw down with.

In closing, the things that made me think Z has made progress--and that brought me into the fold--are the decent running locos and the variety of rolling stock available for a modern-ish pike.   Before, it was a couple of boxcars and a flat car from MTL.  Now we have legit variety from AZL that can convey a nicely-done mixed manifest train.  And weirdly enough I can also get Bombardier commuter sets and RDC's to model my oddball prototype.   So to me it's pretty good as we sit now.   I will add that Shapeways is another important piece of the puzzle.   Still not a mature market yet...both by virtue of the quality of the process and also of the offerings availabel.  But, it is changing, quite literally, by the minute.  (Oh, and to that....Z needs more *quality* DECALS!!!!!   Even basic dimensional data and cons stencils are tough to come by.)

[Spikre]

 
  recall TT vs HO,why did TT tank when it was supposed to be a
  "Perfect" scale ?
  now compare Z to N,very similar problems that TT had,it is just
  to close to N scale.
  as for prices,one can spend Plenty in HO or N,so that really doesn't
  make Z too out of line.
  but the prices of current model Railroad items really don't accomadate
  the hobby to the Needy any more.
    Spikre
     

[ztrack]

Tom and all, great thread! I am coming at this as a long time Z scaler, and this whole thread is a positive to me. To put this into perspective, I remember having a similar poll when we wished for a different US diesel locomotive other than a F7 and could only dream of track choices besides Marklin. Wow those were the days... and I am glad they are gone!

Don't discount Marklin track. They do offer turnouts without roadbed, but you have to deal with the box attached to the turnout to hide the mechanisms. This can be removed if you want to go under the table. I recommend taking a look at Fast Tracks. They offer turnout jigs for Z scale in a number of turnout configurations. This really can open up the world for folks.

Note Marklin does offer a double slip, and Rokuhan is set to release one at the end of the year. 

Large layouts... there a tons of them out there... and you won't ever see them. I don't know what it is, but many Z scalers are highly private individuals who don't share photos of their layouts. I know of quite a few room sized Z layouts and have been trying to get photos for Ztrack, but to no avail. What is funny is that in Ztrack Magazine, I have been heavily promoting the larger layouts and modules. I now am getting requests for more images of smaller layouts! If you want to see a very impressive large layout, check out the March/April issue of Ztrack from this year. The layout is substantial!

http://www.ztrack.com/issues/issues_15.html

Also, for those going to the NTS in Portland, there will be a very large presence of Z scale modules. It is going to be quite impressive!

Back to Tom's points, power and Z has always been finicky. DCC is definitely helping to change the game. I recommend using Gaugemaster HF1 electronic rail cleaners if you are running analog. These are not needed for DCC. They do help. I also recommend always double-heading locos. This really does the trick.

I am definitely interested in seeing more body mount couplers. Now that larger radius curves are becoming more of the norm, I can see this becoming a true option. I would personally like to see Z scale couplers get scaled down slightly. A smaller coupler would be very visually attractive, but having them be reliable is key.

Cost is an interesting topic. Details versus cost. It really is a two way streak. For instance, the coil cars have over 40 individual parts (yes 40 plus parts per car) and the price reflects that. The detail is amazing. On the other hand, the GP38 is value priced, but does not have the details as other AZL locos... and we hear this all of the time about the lack of details. It is a real balance for a manufacturer to increase the level of details while lowering the cost. The real key is selling more products, which means bigger runs, which ultimately will lower the cost. Z is getting there, just slowly.

I do like AZL's approach (and not just because I am their Distributor). I love the fact AZL challenges itself to add prototype specific details to their products. Often it requires specially tooling to do so, but the results are often stunning. Even the subtle details stand out.

For me, I am continuing to push more variety. The more locomotive and rolling stock options the Z scale manufacturers offer, the better the scale will be. AZL and Full Throttle have both released new body styles in the past year. MTL is planning on releasing a new body style by the end of the year. Plus, AZL will have a number of new product announcements during the NTS in Portland. There are a lot of new and exciting products coming. I hope more model railroaders will take a look at Z and try it out.

Rob

[ednadolski]

What's cool is that in Z, I can almost model the line in it's entirety without compression

I've always been intrigued by Z scale esp. the notion of little to no compression.   A full-scale Tehachapi Loop in Z would be about 31" radius,  just over 5' diameter.  Very achievable in many spaces.

However there are other compromises. Cost has been mentioned, but also significant (for me) are aesthetics such as truck-mounted couplers and oversized wheels & rail. (For example, code 55 rail in Z scales out to over 12" height -- rather like code 80 in N or code 138 in HO.)  A full-scale Loop would need 100+ car trains to look right, and I would have concerns about getting that to run reliably even in N, while Z would be even more of an unknown (at least for me).

In the same footprint, I could (theoretically ) build a Loop in N scale at a 73% compression factor and get a fairly close-to-scale look with fewer concerns about reliability & aesthetic compromises, and better overall equipment availablilty.  Another factor for me is the ability to build (and see!) the smaller details in Z scale, esp. with my aging vision 

This is not at all meant to come across as a dis of Z. I'm just pointing out that zero-compression has its own tradeoffs, and it may be worth considering against a limited-compression approach in a larger scale.  Like everything else, it comes down to a matter of personal preferences.

Ed