"Standard" wheels for Micro-Trains?

[bicknell]

I'm not sure Joe is in a position to tell us this, but something I've always wondered is......

Does a manufacturer make more money selling 100 coal hoppers to an NTrak guy for a single train over 2-3 years, or selling 1-2 hoppers to 50-100 table top layout guys?

[JoeD]

I think the two balance out the way it's stated here.  The 2-3 year plan is a longer route to get an ROI.  I think the number of folks who will invest in that many cars of one type are part of an exclusive group...the vast majority are the folks who don't have a particular car or industry they model.  Most go for the road or the paint.  Those of us who spend time on boards and the like tend to be more targeted in our wants and needs.  There is money to be made in offering lots of cars in larger numbers, but I don't know where the bottom drops off...ie how many is too many and to costly.  Our 4 packs do very well and I suspect a few buy multipules...as a matter of fact one customer just bought several packs of the Interstate Hopper we did a few months ago.  That's encouraging.  I know PWRS and IM do large numbers but not sure what the unit count is and how profitable that can be.  Right now I'm on an SP drop Bottom Gon splurge and would love to have a string of 50 or so mixed up with some composite sides as well.  Don't have enough track to pull that many and live in an area with only a handfull of N scalers...none interested as far as I can tell in doing modular work.  So right now I'd need a long shelf to show them all off!  Could I afford a set of say 24 numbered Gons?...not now, but it would be at the top of my christmas list.

Joe

[Chris333]

Maybe not body mounts, but close coupled truck mounts will go around 9.75" curves. I think a lot of stuff would if it is designed right. My N scale Berkshire has a relocated drawbar that couples to the trailing truck mount then weaves up and down through that trailing truck. Not over it because I wanted to mount a "view block" under the ashpan to keep light from showing under there. Even had to bend around the blow downs coming from the cab. The whole time I was cutting pieces I kept testing it on a 9.75" curve (on a 2.5% grade!)

I'd guess that any layout I'll ever have will be around a 12" min curve, but hey I have leeway 

[bbussey]

... I've even gotten a few emails requesting converting Bryan's gon to our truck mounted coupers so they make it around smaller radius.  Haven't quite figured that one out yet! ...

It's not possible, not without making the car ride so high over the rail as to look silly.  The coupler pocket is deeply integrated into the floor and end yokes.  Any modification of either to make the car traverse the smallest radius will heavily compromise the appearance of the car, not to mention being time-consuming to do.  Also, raising the center of gravity that high will make what already is a light car not perform well.  Those people would be better off saving their dollars and buying the lesser-priced Athearn mill gons instead, as they already are truck-mounted cars with non-functioning compromised ends.

Why would anyone want to convert a car back to truck-mounted couplers?  The G26 actually runs on 11" radius (I was playing it safe with the 12½") - it would be cheaper to re-lay the track than to modify the car and be satisfied with the modifications.

I understand that there are modelers out there with space limitations and the need (in their minds) to employ 9¾" radius curves.  But I refuse to compromise the design of a model simply so it can run on that radius.  People used to say the same thing about long wheelbase diesel power, and now Atlas sells Alco Century units, Kato sells SD40-2s and Life-Like sells DL-109s and no one has complained about them yanking cars off the track when they traverse the tight curvature.  

If HO can enjoy rolling stock that sits at the proper height and employs integrated body-mounted couplers (with even less relative layout space on average to utilize), then the same principles can be employed in N.  Most N scale freight equipment if modified to stand at the proper height and have body-mounted couplers will still traverse 9¾, so those modelers are not being excluded from the overwhelming majority of what is available in the scale if old tooling is upgraded to current design standards.

[Robbman]

I'm all for pushing the envelope and thinking outside the box, it's what I do best.    
Joe

Like putting pipes in a boxcar 

[bicknell]

I think the two balance out the way it's stated here.  The 2-3 year plan is a longer route to get an ROI.

I think I asked the question poorly, as you took it in a totally different direction than I was thinking; however that also means you provided me with thoughts I had not had!

My thought was sort of more with the 9 3/4" thing....if you're using 9 3/4" curves your layout is probably small, a 3x5 or maybe 4x8, max.  Given that size of the layout you probably can't use more than 100 cars total.  Of course you could have more, and keep a bunch on the shelf, but I don't know the distribution.  This to me makes them simply less likely to buy any particular car, the "no where to run it" problem.  So I'm actually wondering if the 9 3/4" market while perhaps vocal when things doesn't work is also quite small.

On the ROI front, obviously there aren't a lot of cars people need 100 of, but there are a few.  Coal hoppers, intermodal flat cars and well cars, grain cars all come to mind.  It's my feeling (without checking the numbers) that MT releases more variety of cars than many other folks, but generally misses the unit train market completely.  My own quest to make a train of C&O 33' twin bay hoppers bears this out, 4 releases in the last 15 years I think, each time of a single car?  Hard to make a unit train out of that!  Of course, it takes longer to get your money back, so I can see new cars might be an issue but for ones you have good tooling for a new run, if it sells, should be gravy, right?

I think if I were designing, I would aim for 11" curves minimum.  I choose that size only because Atlas makes 11" curves in its popular sectional track.  It's one up from the 9 3/4" bottom, so you're pushing people a long.  I don't know if that makes a big difference or not in terms of body mounts and the like.  I do think the Z scale comments were spot on, I suspect over time those who are seriously space constrained will move to Z.  Not overnight for sure, it will be slow...

[ednadolski]

Every time I design a car I have my own version of Sophie's Choice, someone is going to get mad no matter what I do.

Yep, it always comes down to the tradeoffs.  Hope I didn't come off as too much of a crank about the Evans.  Without knowing the history, I was just seeing two products with similar price tags, but one looking significantly more detailed than the other, so it got me wondering.

Folks don't appreciate the cost difference in having China do production and production here in the states.

Just speaking for myself, cost isn't so much an issue (at least nowadays) as is finding what I am looking for in a model.  I don't mind paying more for "Made in USA" on the label, either.  There is a lot of value in a reliable and responsive manufacturer, and I'm glad to support that with my wallet.

Other issues like ride height, are top of my list, and now with new tooling that's what I beat everyone over the head with.

I for one am very glad to hear that.  I've always said that I like the MT tooling and graphics, but the height issue was becoming more & more of a stopper for me.  (FWIW, since I run long trains, the truck-mounts & pogoing are similar concerns for me.)  With other mfr's doing similar products, I was getting to the point of seriously considering switching scales.  I just don't have the time to put into fixing basic things like that; I'd much rather put my time into learning how to weather and detail models, which I find much more rewarding.


Ed

[ednadolski]

Correctly managers felt pointing out warts never helps Marketing

True to a point, but if warts are never addressed, that creates opportunity for competitors.

I think we will always be bound by the smallest commercially available radius.  Some decisions are made for you I guess.

FWIW, I talked to the Athearn guys at the Denver train show the other day, and saw their proto tooling for the HO scale SD70 AcE.  They said that on the longer locos & rolling stock, they are going for 22" minimum recommended radius, which scales out to just under 12" radius in N scale.  They've done this on other rolling stock as well.  So in some cases at least, the minimum radius is getting away from the smallest commercially available geometries.

Maybe 12" would be a good recommended minimum, at least for longer cars like auto racks & such.

Ed

PS: Don't let Gary H. see that SD70AcE!

[John]

But I refuse to compromise the design of a model simply so it can run on that radius.  

Good on ya Brian .. I for one appreciate that a manufacturer will stick to pushing the scale forward rather than trying to cater to everyone.

[Dave V]

Very interesting conversation!

I was fortunate to receive some of the test "medium-pro" 33" and 36" wheelsets from MTL and am VERY pleased.  Good on you, Joe.  And thanks!  I have no complaints with them and they perform on par with my metal FVM wheels.  They don't quite look as hot, but they're Delrin, and that's to be expected.  Performance-wise, they're top-notch.

I tend to lean with most of the Railwire crew in wishing manufacturers didn't pander to the 9 3/4 inch radius "lowest common denominator" crowd.  HOWEVER, I simply have no idea what percentage of your market that represents, so I can understand MTL not wanting to leave money on the table.

However, I really like Lee's idea of playing the spread...  You already kind of are.  You have the Christmas/Happy Birthday/Periodic Table of the Elements commemorative cars that modelers won't buy...  and the runner packs geared toward modelers.  How about furthering the divide a bit?

The uber-modelers you refer to tend toward the mundane, the everyday.  These are the guys who run unit trains of generally non-descript, but ACCURATE, hoppers and TOFCS, or mixed freights made up of every variety of 40' and 50' brown boxcars.  But they want accuracy.  Let them have a "premiere" line with a slightly higher price.  Let the T-Trakkers, coffee-table, and collector crowds have the truck-mounted Happy Birthday cars.  And you take the difference to the bank!

I know I'm not in the industry and have no creds.  But this is just my observation.  Regardless of what happens, I'm still happy Joe's here to take on our "suggestions," and is offering real responses.

[bicknell]

It took some racking my brain to remember where I saw this, but I finally remembered:

http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/products.php?act=viewProd&productId=331

This locomotive performs best on E-Z Track® curves with a minimum radius of 19 inches.

http://www.athearn.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=ATH11812

Pivoting front and rear engines for negotiating 11" radius curves - 15" radius recommended

I think I've seen both Bachmann and Athearn have been doing this on new locomotives.  I don't think I've seen anyone do it on rolling stock yet, I'd love to be proven wrong though.

I am a fan of informing the consumer.  I would LOVE if every manufacturer would put something like "This model can operate on xx" curves, but for best performance yy" curves are recommended."  Let's face it, 89' auto racks and cars like that need to have compromised ends and such to turn on 9 3/4" curves, and they just don't look right.  Better to tell someone they won't be satisfied with a particular product than have them buy it, be unhappy, and never buy again.  A 40' box will go around tighter curves than a 89' auto parts car, plain and simple.

If we could get that information pushed to retailers in a standardized way we could even see web sites where you could filter based on things that can go around the curves on your layout....that would be a step forward!

[tom mann]

I need to hire a secretary to help me keep up with all the worthwhile threads that I would like to post to.

First, when the Evans car came out, it was welcome to see correct ride height.  At the time, I was a little disillusioned with some of the IM cars I had (that cost more) since the assembly was sub-par.  So, while I would have liked an MT Evans with more detail, the quality of assembly and tooling was enough to make me happy.  Now, 4 years later, if Athearn matches the MT quality with a similar price, good for all of us - but that does not take away from what MT did in the past: deliver a solid car, with correct ride height, at a decent price.

I do not mind products being made in China or anywhere else, but it is nice to see something made in the US every now and then.  If MT employs a lot of people to do this, then great.

I used to get more up-tight than Ed K at a Sight Glass convention when it came to my own personal ideas about n scale models, but over the years I have learned to relax and enjoy whatever product is cool in whatever scale.

[GaryHinshaw]

There are a lot of cars in the MTL line I'd love to see re-tooled for lower ride height:

* Tri-level auto-racks (and remove the lucite insert which makes them top-heavy)
* Ortner hoppers
* Center-beam & bulkhead flats
* Any number of box cars (how about a new 50' waffle-side?)

And it's not like MTL has the ride height market cornered: FVM box cars have ride height issues too.  That doesn't stop me from buying and lowering them though.

PS: Don't let Gary H. see that SD70ACe!

Too late! http://www.flickr.com/photos/39511370@N02/4128969013/.  There is this though.  An M-2 conversion set, strictly speaking, but lots of good ACe details. 

[ednadolski]

There are a lot of cars in the MTL line I'd love to see re-tooled for lower ride height:

* Tri-level auto-racks (and remove the lucite insert which makes them top-heavy)
...
* Center-beam & bulkhead flats

Amen!  I've lowered some of the centerbeams, and the difference is dramatic.

PS: Don't let Gary H. see that SD70ACe!

Too late! http://www.flickr.com/photos/39511370@N02/4128969013/.

You have to see it in person! 

[bbussey]

One thing we're forgetting here:  most N freight equipment will traverse 9¾" radius curves even with body-mounted couplers and correct ride-height.  This discussion concerns well less than 10% of the N scale models available today.  If the people that have 9¾" radius curves can run over 90% of existing models, they are not being deprived.  And as pointed out above, small layouts usually do not contain a large fleet of cars.  If people want to run auto rack consists, they need to build a layout with larger radii.

I think I've seen both Bachmann and Athearn have been doing this on new locomotives.  I don't think I've seen anyone do it on rolling stock yet, I'd love to be proven wrong though.

The ESM gons have a 12½" minimum radius marked on the package in bold print, and it has been stated in all advertisements.