Large Scale Central

Hypothesis: Perfect Manufacturer?

General Discussion
#41

I think JD may have had his question answered…Seems we have the right crew of knowledgeable folk to make large scale trains the right way and attractive to the new comers in this hobby. I believe the company should be named “BITCH”!

“Building Intricate Trains Correctly Holmes”…

I do have a few questions though?

1…What are the plans on the prototype’s that will be modeled

2…When will the production start and what are the projected release dates

3…What the MSRP will be?

I can assure you that nothing Bitch is planning on modeling CORRECTLY is nothing I’m interested in anyway.

So I’m kinda hoping that BITCH has something that will be indestructible,totally affordable and easy to use for the NEW COMERS into this hobby!

(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/fighting-with-baseball-bat.gif)

HJ/Tim…the container ship arrived

(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/cat-fight.gif)

#42

Kevin,

from memory, the 4-4-0 was a ‘standard’ gauge prototype rather than narrow gauge. An odd choice as they made some Rio Grande rolling stock, as well, which I believe was based on narrow gauge prototypes.

1/24 was definately the ‘craftsman’ scale but the word was on the wind that 1/20.3 was definately coming (although many of us 1/22.5 modellers took no notice of it at the time).

#43

It was narrow gauge. I forget the exact prototype, but it was definitely 1:24 based on a narrow gauge prototype. Here’s a photo of Accucraft’s 1:24 version:

(http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af102/cardinalsleeping/Model%20railroad/LegendDRGSanJuan36.jpg)

The passenger cars were based on Carter Bros. narrow gauge prototypes if memory serves.

Later,

K

#44

You could make the York or the Leviathan outta that production unit with a few mods.

http://www.leviathan63.com/

#45

Del Tapparo said:

Is it just me ? Or have others noticed that TOC has apparently come out of retirement? Always good to have someone that can perpetuate threads for page after page after page. :slight_smile:

Edit: Although Tim ( I don’t really know you) is certainly carrying his weight !

What do you mean … retirement? Dave figures that interjecting a few facts will invariably result in rebuttals which in turn are always good for a laugh.

#46

Kevin,

many thanks, I have never seen (or heard of) the passenger coaches.

#47

Gee, miss a day and I miss all the fun.

Improper back to back wheelset on properly gauged turnout… see anything wrong?

(http://www.elmassian.com/images/stories/track/outback/outback2003.jpg)

Greg

#48

Gee. Can I patent that?

TOC

#49

Isn’t that normal? :slight_smile:

#50

For Aristo-Craft, it sure seems normal.

(http://www.jbrr.com/Pics/Locomotives/EBT/AristoPacific/IMG_6014.JPG)

If only they had thought about using their own gauge to check, like I did. :wink:

For the record, I’m not a big fan of their motor blocks either. I’d rather have the design of the Bachmann Connie that this abomination.

There’s no way to free wheel - so it’s impossible to check for binding on the side rods. With the Connie, I can take off the motor and roll the wheels along to check.

There’s no springing. The Connie has sprung drivers - the motor block has some flex, but perhaps too much so; especially side to side.

The motor block blocks the view - so you can’t see through the wheels like you can the prototype - or the Connie, for that matter.

#51

Caint spel neether.

“Maximim”.

They probably used the Vent’s Babelfish.

Only company, ever, in the history of model railroading, who built track, locomotives, rolling stock…and a track gauge that matched none of the above.

The speculation always was the gauge and the wheelsets (including motor blocks), being manufactured on different lines in different ends of the factory, it was not productive to walk one of the gauges to the other end of the plant and actually check.

Posting that photo on the AC site will probably get you banned, Bruce.

Oh, and the reason you cannot “free wheel” the blocks…I have it on the Highest Authority that there is no need to do so, as no one has ever reported a problem.

TOC

#52

Kevin Strong said: I honestly don’t know if there’s any one major manufacturer who’s gotten all the way to that point yet, though the degree of variation has diminished from its historic highs. K

Aster Hobbies.

G1 standard wheel profiles.

Unless, of course, you don’t count them as a major manufacturer.

tac

#53

R.J. DeBerg said:

Dave I find that it interesting comment about the problem of the axles coming loose due to hitting guard rails . I’ve owned the SD 45 since day one and have never experienced this problem. How was this scenario arrived at? How wide spread of a problem was this? Later RJD

I bought two of the fictitious but great-looking warbonnet SD45 in the original Aristo club special offer after the QM show. And followed that buy up with two more and then, the last buy, in 2006, when Shawmut Car shops found me a blank gray one to colour in to my desire - the only canoe-scheme NP loco at that time in existence.

Not one of them has ever given me a solitary second’s worth of concern. They all run like watches with a delightful low-key growl that can be heard on one of my 140+ Youtube movies.

A fellow older style diesel fan here in yUK also bought his UP version at around the same time as my last one, but that one it a lot quieter than any of mine. Again, many years of flawless performance with bad-ass atttitude [at least, over here in yUK, where the SD45 would tower over most double-decker buses, let alone the teeny trains.

My five Dash 9s run the same way - flawlessly.

What have I done wrong that ten random models work so well?

tac

#54

tac Foley said:

R.J. DeBerg said:

Dave I find that it interesting comment about the problem of the axles coming loose due to hitting guard rails . I’ve owned the SD 45 since day one and have never experienced this problem. How was this scenario arrived at? How wide spread of a problem was this? Later RJD

I bought two of the fictitious but great-looking warbonnet SD45 in the original Aristo club special offer after the QM show. And followed that buy up with two more and then, the last buy, in 2006, when Shawmut Car shops found me a blank gray one to colour in to my desire - the only canoe-scheme NP loco at that time in existence.

Not one of them has ever given me a solitary second’s worth of concern. They all run like watches with a delightful low-key growl that can be heard on one of my 140+ Youtube movies.

A fellow older style diesel fan here in yUK also bought his UP version at around the same time as my last one, but that one it a lot quieter than any of mine. Again, many years of flawless performance with bad-ass atttitude [at least, over here in yUK, where the SD45 would tower over most double-decker buses, let alone the teeny trains.

My five Dash 9s run the same way - flawlessly.

What have I done wrong that ten random models work so well?

tac

Terry,

Have you tried to run them through any Aristo turnouts?

#55

Remember the discussions on QC? Remember the discussions on the worker bee coring the wheel taper and another the axle taper?

Ever check your back-to-back? That used to be the first thing you did in smaller scales, before you ever put it on the track.

Add to that, if you use switches with loosy-goosy wing rail clearances, you won’t bind the wheels.

Wheels can move on the axles on a diseasemal and you may never know it. But you’ll know instantly when a steam engine does.

TOC

#56

The funny part was they had an axle design that worked. A standard axle with a pin through it that mated with a matching groove cut the in the wheel collar. Thats how the #3 driver on the old pacific got its power from the axle. So why can’t the same design be used with the PM gearboxes?

#57

Because it doesn’t fit in with the patented prime mover design.

http://www.aristocraftforum.com/techinfo/pdf/pacific.pdf

I’ve seen old units with the gear wobbled out or the pin works a slot in the gear.

Depends on how hard and how long it’s been used, I would guess.

With the latest reported fix on the dash-9’s, with keyed axles, maybe, someday, we’ll see that filter down.

There is a problem with keying the axles on the steam engines, with more than one axle powered:

If the customer takes it apart. If the worm gets a tooth off from the worm gear, depending on whether odd or even teeth, and/or the connection between gearboxes gets moved…lining the drivers back up can be a time consuming effort.

You’d have to put all the gearboxes together, connect them to each other, fit drivers, and see if they line up…then take it all apart and futz with it until you get it right.

I’ve seen it.

Just after WWII, Walthers came out with their “PolyDrive”, I think in Half 0, I know in 0 (as I have one) that were a nightmare to get back correctly if fully disassembled.

TOC

#58

Quote: "There is a problem with keying the axles on the steam engines, with more than one axle powered:

If the customer takes it apart. If the worm gets a tooth off from the worm gear, depending on whether odd or even teeth, and/or the connection between gearboxes gets moved…lining the drivers back up can be a time consuming effort.

You’d have to put all the gearboxes together, connect them to each other, fit drivers, and see if they line up…then take it all apart and futz with it until you get it right."

Dave,

when simple assembly techniques cannot be taught successfully on a production line, could you imagine any manufacturer taking on a task such as all powered keyed driving wheels on a steam outline locomotive. The variations in assembly are mind boggling. Think how many poorly performing (if at all) locomotives would leave the assembly area for perhaps packaging (most likely) or returning for reassembly/repair (hardly likely).

Edit: the only method I could think of was individual assembly of each gearbox complete with both wheels fitted prior production line assembly. This would involve a separate assembly line just for the prime mover drives and fitment of wheels. Each drive would need to be assembled on a jig to ensure the end result was the same for all drives (wheel quartering correct for the alignment of the input drive).

Then a new connecting shaft would be needed between each drive such that the drives could only be connected in one plane only (no variation allowable between gearboxes when connecting so that wheels do not rotate independently). I do not know the prime mover input drive design but it possibly may involve modifying the design of the connecting shaft between each gearbox input (if there is one).

Then the complete drive assembly would be straight forward, ensuring all wheels were correctly positioned (quartered) on the final drive assembly line. All this would require some precision and skill and reliable assembly could not be 100% guaranteed across the whole batch production run.

#59

And specific instructions published for the consumer. Imagine doing a timing belt witout ever having done one, no marks, and no manual.

Or worse, an old 2.6 Mitsu with the sixteen foot long timing chain.

Really, to have drivers that would go on in any position fixed the need for any of that…and with the axles powered, you don’t even need side rods…I actually told a guy to remove all his siderods when the wheels slipped just before a convention. Left the main rods on and valve gear, nobody noticed.

TOC

#60

Steve Featherkile said:

Terry,

Have you tried to run them through any Aristo turnouts?

Surely have, old floon. main131’s track - the only one where I can seriously run more than two together without the whole world falling on its butt from laffin’ - has many of 'em.

And yes, I know about Aristo switches…

tac etc