BLI N-Scale Announcements

[garethashenden]

I spoke with Ken Silvestri at the NSE convention yesterday.  I asked about the PRR H10.  There was a 2-8-0 model on display with a 3D printed shell.  It looked pretty good, but I didn't look at it too closely or take a pic    I commented about the solid driver wheels and wish it had spoked wheels.  Ken replied with a comment like you could make super detailed accurate model, but it would cost a lot of money, blah, blah, blah...  In my opinion, he didn't seem to be too interested in being there.  I asked him about BLI ever doing Pennsy passenger shark diesels and his response ended up referencing the freight sharks.  Based on his responses, I'm not overly optimistic about BLI doing additional PRR steam locos like I1sa or J1...

On a different note, I had a very pleasant chat with Lowell Smith and did purchase an ACL baggage car from him.

This argument is nonsensical to me. It’s going to cost a lot of money anyway, N scale steam does. But the cost difference to make spoked wheels verses half spoked wheels can’t be that much. It’s already $420, at that point make the nicer model for $450, or even $500.

[peteski]

This argument is nonsensical to me. It’s going to cost a lot of money anyway, N scale steam does. But the cost difference to make spoked wheels verses half spoked wheels can’t be that much. It’s already $420, at that point make the nicer model for $450, or even $500.

Exactly! Plus pretty much everybody and their brother (including BLI) has at some point produced see-through steam loco drivers in N scale. It is not like some new technology.  See through spokes in N scale have been around for over 50 years. Usually the spokes are done as plastic moldings with a metal tire, but I have also seen companies like Bachmann and Dapol make the entire driver (with see-through spokes) made out of metal.

[draskouasshat]

Im more concerned that the new BLI ATSF 3751 class 4-8-4 has 73" boxpok drivers instead of 80". Ive already canceled my order for 4. Why would i give them $1200 for a product that doesnt even ******** look right because they cut corners. Im guessing they tried to reuse the mech from the Reading T-1 instead of doing the right thing instead of designing a new mech that could be used for future models that actually have 80" drivers.

Drasko

[squirrelhunter]

Im more concerned that the new BLI ATSF 3751 class 4-8-4 has 73" boxpok drivers instead of 80". Ive already canceled my order for 4. Why would i give them $1200 for a product that doesnt even ******** look right because they cut corners. Im guessing they tried to reuse the mech from the Reading T-1 instead of doing the right thing instead of designing a new mech that could be used for future models that actually have 80" drivers.

Drasko

I don't think they are using the same mechanism, but they mentioned at some point in the past since the flanges on N scale steam are oversized, they could keep the correct driver size/wheelbase and the locomotive would be too long overall, or reduce the driver size and make the locomotive the correct length. I bet that if you include the flanges, the 3751 drivers will scale out to around 76-77 inches.

Bachmann and Con Cor have also dealt with this problem. Bachmann made the driver centers for their USRA 4-8-2's and J-1 4-8-4's undersized (around 63" or 66" I think) instead of the proper 69" for the 4-8-2's and 70" for.the 4-8-4's
 Con Cor kept the proto drivers/wheelbase for their USRA Heavy 2-10-2 and the overall loco was like two 1:1 inches too long.

It is just a fact of life with N scale steam.

[draskouasshat]

I don't think they are using the same mechanism, but they mentioned at some point in the past since the flanges on N scale steam are oversized, they could keep the correct driver size/wheelbase and the locomotive would be too long overall, or reduce the driver size and make the locomotive the correct length. I bet that if you include the flanges, the 3751 drivers will scale out to around 76-77 inches.

Bachmann and Con Cor have also dealt with this problem. Bachmann made the driver centers for their USRA 4-8-2's and J-1 4-8-4's undersized (around 63" or 66" I think) instead of the proper 69" for the 4-8-2's and 70" for.the 4-8-4's
 Con Cor kept the proto drivers/wheelbase for their USRA Heavy 2-10-2 and the overall loco was like two 1:1 inches too long.

It is just a fact of life with N scale steam.

You dont include the flanges when measuring driver diameter. Kato managed to give us a properly proportioned model without half-assing the drivers. Maybe BLI should buy a couple of their models to look at while they design their next model. The CC 2-10-2 driver, not the flange, measures out to almost a 69" driver. Thats why the mech was too long. I guess ill continue to build my own ATSF 4-8-4. I might consider dropping the BLI body onto Kato FEF mech.

[peteski]

Squirrelhinter simply mentioned that maybe a compromise had to be made with the driver size to accomodate the N scale flanges.  That has been done often when dhe driver spacing would not leave enough clearance for model-size flanges.

Drasko, if you look at the drawings for the ATSF 3751 class 4-8-4, would there be enough spacing between the prototype drivers to allow for the model-size flanges?  Today's N scale flanges are around 0.020" (or 3.2" in 1:1)  So the overall diameter of those drivers would be 86.4".  Then allow few inches for the rather loose N scale mechanical tolerances compared with 1:1 loco. Lets say that it would end up 90" spacing between drivers.  What is the driver's spacing on the 1:1 loco? 90 or more?

[garethashenden]

Squirrelhinter simply mentioned that maybe a compromise had to be made with the driver size to accomodate the N scale flanges.  That has been done often when dhe driver spacing would not leave enough clearance for model-size flanges.

Drasko, if you look at the drawings for the ATSF 3751 class 4-8-4, would there be enough spacing between the prototype drivers to allow for the model-size flanges?  Today's N scale flanges are around 0.020" (or 3.2" in 1:1)  So the overall diameter of those drivers would be 86.4".  Then allow few inches for the rather loose N scale mechanical tolerances compared with 1:1 loco. Lets say that it would end up 90" spacing between drivers.  What is the driver's spacing on the 1:1 loco? 90 or more?

89" between axles 1 & 2, 83" for the rest.

The problem is that people expect everything to run on their crappy ancient track. The NMRA standards are too sloppy, and there is no enforcement of them anyway. End Rant.

[nstars]

89" between axles 1 & 2, 83" for the rest.

The problem is that people expect everything to run on their crappy ancient track. The NMRA standards are too sloppy, and there is no enforcement of them anyway. End Rant.

The 83” is already part of the reason. The UP FEF3 has a minimum distance of 86”.

Marc

[peteski]

89" between axles 1 & 2, 83" for the rest.

The problem is that people expect everything to run on their crappy ancient track. The NMRA standards are too sloppy, and there is no enforcement of them anyway. End Rant.

0.020" flanges in N scale are already rather small. If there was actually something like Proto160, I believe you would need pretty much flawless track for it to run reliably on the turnouts, crossings and also out-of-scale-tight curves.  Also as I mentioned, the mechanical tolerances (slop) in N scale mechanisms is so much looser than 1:1 trains.  So we end up with either stretched wheelbase, smaller drivers, or combination of both.

Fleischmann's way to get as close to prototypical driver diameter and axle spacing is to use very low flanges on the inner drivers while keeping typical European large flanges on the first and last driver.  Fairly clever solution. Also check out how accurately they render the driver counterweights to follow the prototype design, and how rather fine the siderods and valve gear are. I wish American manufactures of plastic models would do this.

Yes, this is actual N scale model.  And yes, the drivers and pilot wheels have see-through spokes. 

[Dave V]

This thread just went peak Railwire, LOL.

@peteski That’s a really good looking engine and wheelbase. Makes me all the more frustrated that there’s no North American 2-10-0 (the Minitrix Pennsy one barely counts).

[peteski]

Yes Dave, Fleishchmann has been making good looking N scale steam models for many years. Even the early ones looked quite good. The variety of European steam locos available from Fleischmann and other European scale manufacturer dwarfs what we have in the USA.

Most Fleischmann steam locos with tenders are tender driven (motor in the tender driving tender wheels) which allows for the open look between the boiler and the frame.Tender drive is probably not optimal (and makes for more difficult custom sound installs), but those models sure look good.

[garethashenden]

I spy a gear in the firebox on that one. I don’t think tender drives are required, although tender mounted motors can be an advantage. All that’s required is actually giving a crap about what you make.

[Mark5]

I'm having difficulty seeing through that Fleischmann's spokes (except for the pilot wheels) - is there something underneath the "frame" blocking the view?

[Chris333]

I was just about to buy a Fleischmann 714203, and then I saw it is tender drive. And the tender is something that would get replaced...


...same with 714381.

[peteski]

I'm having difficulty seeing through that Fleischmann's spokes (except for the pilot wheels) - is there something underneath the "frame" blocking the view?

Well, it is the frame itself blocking the through view.  I believe the leaf spring moldings are set below the bottom of the frame. I'll have to look at mine. Also the spokes are not as deep as the metal tire. They are about half the depts of it, so they look nice and lacy.  You can see the effect better on Fleischmann locos with large diameter drivers.