0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
For purists maybe.Modelling is modelling no matter the extent. Some of us just use old stuff and refurb it, so the 'purism' of exact ride heights may not be an issue where one has never experienced the symptom in real life.I'd like my 'oldie' gons to stay on the rails (without a weighted fake load in them) so do try to add weight in an appropriate manner. FWIW, davew
I am a big fan of the Marketplace driving excellence over regulation where there can be unintended consequences.However, there has to be a means of the consumer to make informed decisions.To this end I support Spookshow-ish side by side comparisons. N-Bahn and other foreign publications used to do and may yet still direct side-by-side reviews. In the E7 example under discussion they would have the Rico/Con-Cor. Life-Like, and BLI units in three or four identical views along with nearly as possible same perspective and size prototype views. A table of dimensions of the models and prototype along with the technical specs of operation completes the review.The consumer can look at the pictures and specs and decide which model works best for them.Beyond models, a similar catalogue of track, wheel, and coupler with uniformly measured technical specs would be an invaluable resource. Charlie Vlk
I agree. There are probably 1 or 2 percent of N scale modelers who care how high the car rides, how the couplers are installed, and how wide are the gaps between boards of a reefer car. Great majority of N scale modelers do not worry about these things - they just buy their models and run them (unmodified) on their average-quality layouts without worrying too much about prototypical accuracy. As long as these models reliably stay on tracks and stay coupled, they are perfectly happy.
Joe,Any word yet on when MTL will have the first underslung truck samples out?I would love to see centered kingpin and offset kingpin as options.