and he notes - 40 or so years ago Leonard Blum imported a group of B&M R1 Mountains. They were so accurate they didn't run (except on level straight track!). It wasn't so much the low bidder but a lack of understanding about a compromise in scale for the conditions under which a locomotive is expected to operate.
Blum learned the hard way. On his initial run of R1s, both the pony and trailing trucks fouled on curves and turnouts and except for fine scale hand laid track, no commercial trackage existed on which the locos could run. They were just too close to scale. The second run had modified running gear and went over well as they could operate on commercially available track. I would hazard a guess that most modelers want to run trains more than having rolling stock that is precise scale. I know of two such who still use Baker couplers (remember them?) simply because they work better than Kadees on curves. Over the years there has been a few attempts at scale couplers - Devore comes to mind. They looked realistic but were bears to operate as they required manual coupling and uncoupling. NMRA's (supposedly that is) horn hook coupler worked well but was an orphan (much like Baker) in that it wasn't compatible with any other coupler. Most S gaugers will admit that Flyer does run and run and run and that may be attributed to Gilbert's manufacturing a system with components that worked together. After the introduction of their knuckle coupler they were smart enough to offer an inexpensive conversion kit for link couplers. The neat part about it was both links and knuckles used the same uncoupling ramps so the system didn't need a redesign. Lionel's 0 Gauge stuff was much the same idea. Locomotives, especially diesels (since steamers were not meant to run double headed) have the whole front end swivel with the truck so they will couple on their 'street car' curves. For the more discriminating Lionel fan there was 'Super 0' but their standard 027 line was the biggest seller. If an operator was happy with three rails, the concession to operation on locomotives was not a problem. H0 Gauge manufacturers have a vast customer base to draw from and have long established track standards, making manufacturing much easier than 'scale' S. Most H0 models from the 50s will run on commercial trackage made yesterday. Wheel contour may be different but the track isn't. Not so with S and that's a problem. A modeler who has a layout built to standards before the more precise gauge was adopted will find operating problems with new equipment just as there are problems running old equipment on new track. Now the dilemma - regauge rolling stock to fit the layout or regauge the layout to fit the rolling stock. IMHO, had the standard had been left alone S manufacturers would have had a wider base of customers to appeal to over a longer period of time. Now it'll take us old geezers to die off and our old standard layouts to disappear and equipment regauged by new owners before everything runs (as well as can be expected) on the new standards. Having a company like Atlas enter the S Gauge track business might be a problem unless they can work with manufacturers to insure that their equipment will run on their rails. They did this in H0 and dominated the market for a half century. They had competition of course, but not from the big equipment suppliers. This allowed Walthers, Roundhouse, Athearn, etc. to concentrate their efforts on products they know best and leave the trackage to those who knew best too. If it runs on Atlas - it sold! In S Gauge, both major suppliers offer track but they don't fit together. If Atlas (or a company like it) entered S it would be a good base to work from but what would AM and SHS do with their existing inventory? SHS has developed a system akin to Flyer. They offer train sets with track and power pack that run together and like Flyer (albeit a tad better), the steam locos smoke and 'choo-choo' and their diesels growl and have every bell and whistle available - and they come in Flyer compatible Hi-Rail. AM has a similar offering without the power pack - no need to - there's plenty of 'em to choose from. Since both are both scale or Hi-Rail oriented the track must fit the system and that's another dilemma. With so much of the business geared for Flyer or Hi-Rail why would a company like Atlas bring out a track line for a minimal scale market. The numbers just aren't there for tooling and production costs. If they go for the Hi-Rail gang that leaves scale operators behind. A dilemma of our own making! Of course there's always China.... On the other subject being discussed - I am not interested in much of the modern stuff, preferring late 40s era but when I started modeling back in the 50s that stuff was modern. Again, IMHO, the modern rolling stock of today should have a following amongst newcomers who never saw wooden cars, heavyweights and steam in action. Railroads have changed since the 50s and model manufacturers should change with them. I guess if they wait long enough though, today's equipment will be period items tomorrow!... Raleigh in Maine where it's foggy (no snow though) At 07:39 PM 10/5/2005, B.T.S. - Bill & Diane Wade wrote: >"Ahhh, Sunset. My 20+ Sunset locos have more operational challenges than >any of the others. May have something to do with the lowest-bidder >syndrome." To REPLY to the list, use REPLY ALL; to reply to the sender, use REPLY. For those of you on DIGEST mode, all REPLY messages go to the list (remember to edit the SUBJECT of your message). Change message settings, use our CALENDAR or LINKS, view shared files or photos, view the list archives, GO TO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
