Greg, you missed my point. When I write “I don’t think there is a ‘perfect’ manufacturer…” I’m writing to that general scope of the question, not about existing manufacturers. The attributes I would consider “perfect” would likely be quite different from those that you or others might value. Therefore, a universal “gold standard” that has any specificity to it is unattainable.
If you’re going for a pure Utopian, generic answer, I want bulletproof drives, top-drawer customer service, details to the hilt at a reasonable (low) cost. Who wouldn’t? But we’re not living in fantasy-land. If you want a useful, productive dialogue that a manufacturer can read and get some basis of what his customers may value, you’ve got to introduce real-world context, hence my “pick any two” line.
Each of us has our own personal reasons for which of those two we’d choose, and they will very likely change over time. I know mine have. I used to value robustness and low price, figuring I can always add the details I want or beef up the drive if necessary. As time has passed, I find I value a well-detailed, smooth-running model more and more, and don’t mind paying for it. The tediousness of having to add the details just to get a model to level acceptable to my tastes is less and less something I want to bother with. Too many other projects going on. I’d rather have fewer, better models at this stage in my life.
And if you look at probably the one attribute we can agree on–high quality, robust drives–we probably wouldn’t be able to come to any consensus on “how” that is achieved. (Reference Stan’s thread on drives.) LGB’s drives are reputed for quality and durability, but they’re clunky as all get-out. To me, the “perfect” manufacturer has a long catalog of reliable approaches to drives, and picks and chooses which one to use based on the specific needs of the specific locomotive with adherence to prototype appearance being the overarching consideration. Someone else might say that’s too much variation, and they want more consistency between models for simplicity’s sake a la LGB. No doubt that has its merits in terms of engendering a reputation for reliability, but then you have to sacrifice adherence to prototype to one extent or the other, which some modelers may find unacceptable.
But, if you just want my opinion to toss into the cacophony of others, there it is. Take it for what it’s worth–one person’s perspective framed in the context of what that one person’s personal values are at the time the opinion is offered.
As for the Whitcomb and any future Accucraft diesel development, understand I did not make any implication that any future development would use the trucks from that or the 45-tonner, just that they’ve built those models thus at least have a starting point from where to begin the engineering. (I can’t tell from your “sigh” comment whether you understood that or not, so I’m just clarifying just in case.)
Regardless, the components may be completely different, but the engineering principles would likely be the same. The Whitcomb gets high marks in the GR review for slow speed operation. If we’re talking about “perfect” manufacturer attributes, I want a manufacturer to build upon previous successes, not go back to square 1 each and every time.
Later,
K
