Locomotive production - where does the industry go from here?

[railnerd]

If a vendor uses an approved "module" with an integrated antenna there are no certification hoops.  If you do your own antenna design, or PCB layout, you are subject to certification, yada, yada, yada.  The cell phone makers all have deep pockets and self certify with more employees than most MRR small businesses can afford.

Bluetooth LE modules from several vendors last year. It is my hunch that this is what enables Bachmann and/or BlueRail.

There are other radios from Digi (http://www.digi.com/products-overview), and others that are available for mesh networking— I believe this is the technology used by the RailPro system, but I am not certain.

Other standards include Zigbee, Z-wave, ANT, 6LowPAN, and a few others.  We're in a maze of twisty little standards all alike, but different.

-Dave

[peteski]

We're in a maze of twisty little standards all alike, but different.

Now that is a reference I have not seen for many years. XYZZY. 

[C855B]

Other standards include Zigbee, Z-wave, ANT, 6LowPAN, and a few others.  We're in a maze of twisty little standards all alike, but different.

And all stepping on each other. Underscores my satisfaction with retirement... that's y'all's problem now.

[reinhardtjh]

Now that is a reference I have not seen for many years. XYZZY. 

A hollow voice says "Plugh"

[peteski]

A hollow voice says "Plugh"

Looks like we have some old salty dog Unix guys here. Nice!  I played it on SunOs version of Unix, back in the 80s.

[djconway]

One of the problems I see with the current manufacturing strategy is that each manufacturer is trying to one up the next. More detail - sound - DCC - where does it end?  This in time produces higher and higher quality locomotives but it also leads to higher and higher costs. 

The question that needs to be asked and answered is --> How much is enough?

I can appreciate the fine details, and on occasion the sounds but as a person more interested in operations these are not the big draw for me. There needs to be a base line model that modelers can add on to, but a novice could take it out of the box and run it. If you want a PRR GP-9 phase II  then modify the base or pay to have some one do it for you, don't make the entry point so high that people can't get started.

[strummer]

I agree totally with this post...

Thank you "djconway"

Mark in Oregon

[mark.hinds]

I agree totally with this post...

Thank you "djconway"

Mark in Oregon

WRT extra detail, DCC, and sound, I agree with "djconway" as well.  Should not be standard. 

WRT smooth, reliable mechanisms, I think that this *should* be standard.  We don't want to go back to the 70s on this one. 

MH

[reinhardtjh]

Looks like we have some old salty dog Unix guys here. Nice!  I played it on SunOs version of Unix, back in the 80s.

Unix!!!    PDP-11's running RSTS/E and VAXen running VAX/VMS in FORTRAN in the late 70's

But I am a bit salty and certainly old...

[peteski]

Unix!!!    PDP-11's running RSTS/E and VAXen running VAX/VMS in FORTRAN in the late 70's

But I am a bit salty and certainly old...

LOL, I forgot that adventure was written quite early on and was ported to many different OS versions. 
Did you actually work for DEC or just used their machines?

I've gone way OT here, but it is all railnerd's fault - he got me started!

[victor miranda]

I am not yet tired enough that I don't find the time to write a post.

I love details. 

I hate them on a loco that I need to nudge or massage to get it to run.

Right now I perceive that n-scale diesels run pretty good
as long as the makers use axle point bearings and split frames

as an industry they may be trying to pull off various games of one-ups-manship
for sound and details, I find I keep thinking they have walked away from the
all important fundamentals.  It would be nice if one can shunt cars with it.

where does the industry go? .... does the industry think they have arrived?

they can't make decent n-scale steam engines.
yet.

Industry seems to be walking backwards from good diesels...

victor

[peteski]

they can't make decent n-scale steam engines.
yet.

Even the Kato FEF-3 doesn't qualify as at least decent? 

[victor miranda]

Even the Kato FEF-3 doesn't qualify as at least decent? 

it does seem nice. 
you want _all_ that to be "The Standard"  ?

what all manufacturers must build?
has any one besides Kato shown any ability to hold any standards?
has the industry shown any inclination to follow kato?

the best loco for over 20 was a Kato designed and built 4-6-4
who came up with better in all that time?
If you decide the FEF is better than the mikado...
has any one been able to make better than the mikado in the past 19 years?

lets try for clarity.  I think the only loco that came close was the equal of the kato mike.
it shamelessly used every good thing in the mike.
it took 6 years to copy?

I want good steam locos..... it has been done
where does industry go?  dunno. 
how can it go anywhere when it isn't anywhere at all?
(with a nod to the fireside theater)

victor

[peteski]

You seem to strongly indicate that Kato has not only made decent steam loco model, they have also set the standard on how to make good steam locos (maybe except for the high gearing).

Even if we start with the Mikado (even though Kato produced several good Japanse prototype steamers), the next U.S. prototype was GS-4. There were few corrections (last one very recently with the driver axles improvement).  But other than the early problems with DCC and the new axle redesign, GS-4 has been revolutionary (as far as its ability to be a great puller thanks to an unconventional design of the mechanism).  I think that GS-4 set the bar higher than Mikado.

The FEF-3 seems to have further improved on the GS-4 design. To me that loco is as good of a stem loco design as we have seen so far in N scale.

What else do we need in your opinion to improve upon the FEF-3?  This is year 2015 - yes I want as you said "all that" in a well designed steam locomotive model!    And you? Maybe you want to simplify the design?  Old-school maybe? Go back to basics? Would a simpler mechanism (no equalizing or floating or sprung drivers) under a well balanced chassis pull as well as the FEF-3?

[Rossford Yard]

Victor,

Yes, with rising standards, todays average to good loco will be tomorrow's shelf queen.

But, hasn't that been the history of N scale?  Kato E8 replaces the earlier, Kato made Con Cor E8, for one.

We have shown a preference for upgrading in the past as a group, and I think we will continue to show that preference.  Besides, history also shows that the running improvements don't really come at increased cost, after adjusting for inflation, with the 2015 diesel costing relatively the same as the 1990 diesel, and running better.  I mean, the Atlas/Kato locos of the 90's weren't that big a price jump over the earlier engines, or at least, they seemed very reasonable to me.  Even IM being the first to crack the $100 with the tunnel motors seemed okay given the limited road names, etc.  Later, Atlas jumped up with their new tooling, but after the initial "it cost too much" it seems they have sold well.

But for basic running, they might charge $5 or $10 increase for new tooling and different motor over the last batch of tooling and reruns, basically spreading the price over a lot of engines.

The possible exception is DCC adding about $25 per loco and I am sure sound and others will be similar.  And, I am sure, optional for a long time.  At some point, the cost for new motors or other technology they might use comes down, as it does for most electronics, and then it might become standard, and those locos will likely get to where more and more have DCC and sound as "standard" but again, I bet the price isn't more than $5-10 more than whatever the then inflation adjusted price of current locos is.

Just MHO