Victor, you have a clear pissy streak when it comes to Bachmann and pole count. I would say you havea personal bias against the company.
Here is what I see. Bachmann had some tough choices a few years ago. They wanted better performing engines. They wanted better looking engines.
First priority: Improve pulling power for steam
Answer: Cast metal boilers.
Up Shot: But this costs money.
Second priority: Make their engines DCC compatable
Answer: the PC boards on their DCC ready engines was almost expensive as the DCC decoders themselves. Why not just slap a cheapy in and call it a day.
Up Shot: This too costs more money than no DCC provisions
Third priority: Improve details
Answer: They needed a new motor to make scale width hoods on diesels and boilers on steam. This resulted in a rounded can motor that was a bit thinner than their previous motors. The motor could be scaleable so a smaller version fit inside micro engines such as the 44 Tonner.
Up Shot: New motors cost money and to counteract the cost of the other improvements, they deceded to go to three poles after engineering the motor to have close performance charecturistics to their old 5 pole motor. Yes, it may cog a bit more or spin a bit faster, but new advances in that DCC board and drive train parts would compensate for this.
And my point is: Bachmann needed to do something to keep the cost of the model down. Their newer engines run better than 95% of their older ones. Period. Add the tremendus level of detail, advances in paint and electronics and you can see they made the right decision.
I read the original post twice and I started laughing
this next quote is what I thought:
Jane, you ignorant slut.
you are clearly wrong about so many facts,
that I will limit my magnamous self to speaking about just four
I have no doubt when I simplify this discussion,
I will lift the staggering burden of ignorance you carry.
first: I bring up something no one has mentioned before in this thread.
second: I'll guess at the prices of parts.
third: I'll point out facts that are true on random models with every expectation
that you won't notice that they are false for other b-mann models.
And my final point is that everyone else needs to raise prices
so that b-mann can go back to being the lowest cost models.
I decided you didn't mean all that
and, sadly, quit laughing. a shame really, hilarous post otherwise.
ok. you seem to think I have an anti-b-mann streak.
the only reason that bothers me is that it means
what I wrote was not as clear to you as I hoped when I wrote my posts.
To state that another way, I have specific complaints about b-mann products
and the known prices of those products.
For example; at the 35 dollars they cost me from Kleins,
I think the b-mann 0-6-0 is a good value.
I also feel obliged to point out that the model
does have a three pole motor that can be swapped
for another b-mann 5 pole motor, if one wants better running qualities.
I will stand and accept your critisim that
I have a "clear pissy streak when it comes to Bachmann" (whatever pissy means...)
as long as you realize I have clear evidence that you can't read AND comprehend.
now to deconstruct the rest of your post.
Here is what I see. Bachmann had some tough choices a few years ago.
They wanted better performing engines. They wanted better looking engines.
since I am looking to understand your post, I'll throw you a bone,
yeah, they had to face facts and improve things in their products.
However, I am going to point out that the tough choice they faced
was that no one was buying what they made.
First priority: Improve pulling power for steam
Answer: Cast metal boilers.
Up Shot: But this costs money.
getting the traction tires on the rail was the only
change they needed to make. the plastic boilered 2-8-0 pulls pretty good.
welp, who knows? maybe a metal boiler was the cheaper way?
Second priority: Make their engines DCC compatable
Answer: the PC boards on their DCC ready engines was almost expensive
as the DCC decoders themselves.
Why not just slap a cheapy in and call it a day.
Up Shot: This too costs more money than no DCC provisions
yah know... this is a good point. I happen to agree.
*sigh* And is is one of the issues we are debating.
Thus, I am afraid that b-mann (and you) must live with
the very valid critisim that the decoder they built...
ummmm how to say this? ... sucks.
Just to be a sport I'll even give you an example of what sucks about it.
At the 4 slowest speeds my 44 tonner will do. (ok two speeds are not in motion)
I have 1) buzz, 2) bigger-buzz, 3) cog, and 4)a bit faster than good switching speed.
some times I get 2) bigger cogs. Your definition of a good decoder may vary.
Third priority: Improve details
Answer: They needed a new motor to make scale width hoods on diesels and boilers
on steam. This resulted in a rounded can motor that was a bit thinner
than their previous motors. The motor could be scaleable so a smaller version fit
inside micro engines such as the 44 Tonner.
Up Shot:
New motors cost money and to counteract the cost of the other improvements,
they deceded to go to three poles after engineering the motor to have close
performance charecturistics to their old 5 pole motor. Yes, it may cog a bit more
or spin a bit faster, but new advances in that DCC board
and drive train parts would compensate for this.
Interesting, a smaller motor improves details like scale diesel hood width and
steamer boiler sizes. This I like! Go b-mann!
Then you go to make some statements that are either close to
contradictory or the points I was trying to make as criticisms.
Again to use an example, lets go back to the 44 tonner
can you point out the scale width hood on that diesel?
Oddly enough for that same 44 tonner and I suppose the 70 tonner, too,
most of your points are mostly correct, those models requires a small motor.
yet Atlas has scale width hoods. I was not trying to tell you that b-mann
did the hood of the gp7 wrong in terms of width.
As to the running properties of the new b-mann motor even you state they cog.
I am adding to that concept the 'compensation' does not
compensate. The reason we are having this conversation
is because, even if you like the new b-mann motor,
you are admitting the loco cogs at slow speeds and that the 'compensation'
of DCC does not solve the cog problem in the three pole motor.
And my point is: Bachmann needed to do something to keep the cost
of the model down. Their newer engines run better than 95% of their
older ones. Period. Add the tremendus level of detail, advances in paint
and electronics and you can see they made the right decision.
I have to agree that there is some reason to think b-mann did EVERYTHING
to keep costs down.
If there is a problem here, it is that they didn't keep my costs down.
those prices are jacked up way past the competition.
... who offers better locos...
If, as you imply, b-mann's prices are a reflection of their costs to manufacture,
then I have reason to say they didn't make the right decisions.
If they can make a profit at lower prices than what I see in the 44 tonner,
as an example, then your thinking they made the right decision
has more merit.
The lower the price, the more merit.
victor
