Author Topic: John Columbo in Model Railroad Planning 2019 Page 91  (Read 304 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bill H

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 277
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +24
John Columbo in Model Railroad Planning 2019 Page 91
« on: February 11, 2019, 07:47:26 PM »
0
Once again, John raising the bar for our collective standards in N Scale. Kudo's to John for telling it like it is on Page 91.

Good show John!

jdcolombo

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1707
  • Respect: +534
Re: John Columbo in Model Railroad Planning 2019 Page 91
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2019, 07:51:25 PM »
0
Uh, I did?

Honestly, I have no knowledge of this.  What did I say?  Something useful, I hope :facepalm:

John C.

Bill H

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 277
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +24
Re: John Columbo in Model Railroad Planning 2019 Page 91
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2019, 09:24:54 AM »
+1
John:
As far as raising the bar...

"I can't tolerate poor operation - stalls, cars bouncing around etc. Trackwork has to be perfect, wheels kept clean, and weight added where possible. I spend a lot of time adjusting  the decoder's BEMF [back-electromotive-force] control parameters and making sure the mechanisms are as smooth as possible. - John Columbo" Page 91 Model Railroad Planning 2019.

Sure sounds to me like a prescriptive that we all ascribe to.

Kind regards,
Bill

jdcolombo

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1707
  • Respect: +534
Re: John Columbo in Model Railroad Planning 2019 Page 91
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2019, 09:36:16 AM »
0
Ah.  Yes, I did say that to Tony Koester when we were discussing operations in N scale.  It seems that Tony had never actually seen an N scale layout built for operations that could rival a similar HO layout, until he saw the video of my layout that I posted on YouTube (I let him know that mine is only one of many similar high-quality N scale layouts out there, and not in any way close to the best one).  But I told him that it takes more work in N.  You can "get away" with stuff in HO (for example, less than perfect trackwork) that you can't get away with in N if you aspire to "zero derailment, perfectly smooth" operations.  Most HO layouts I operate on do not use live frogs at the turnouts; in N, I think that is a recipe for operational disaster, though I know many N-scalers also do not power their frogs and swear they have no problems.  Maybe - if you run modern six-axle diesels.  But don't try that with finicky steam locos or an Atlas S-2 switcher.

Yeah, on operational issues in N scale, I have strong opinions.  Not everyone would agree, which is fine.  To each his/her own in this hobby.  But I recall the comment of one of my model RR friends while operating on a very nice HO layout where he encountered some track problems: "They should have built this in N scale, like yours - then the cars would stay on the track".  :)

John C.

Bill H

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 277
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +24
Re: John Columbo in Model Railroad Planning 2019 Page 91
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2019, 10:51:06 AM »
0
John:
Have to completely agree. I operate irregularly due to my work travels, on two very fine N scale layouts here in GA. Daryl Kruse's Geneva Sub and David Pitcher's Southern Pennsylvania - both whose finish and performance level exceeds many HO layouts I have experienced. I have never had to worry about track work, clean wheels, or loco performance on either layout.

Perhaps an appropriate analogy might be not unlike something that Max might intone, that a fine tooth gear mesh demands tighter tolerances than an oversized large tooth gear mesh.  ;)

Kind regards,
Bill