quote:

Originally posted by Rule292:
"full scale couplers and wheelsets."

Haha, So "full" means fat? ..dave

I've been following this posting since the beginning, and first I will admit I'm a 3-railer with a 2-rail mindset. So please excuse me for asking a question if it appears to be on the silly side. FYI- I have seen the 3-rail version of this engine and have seen it run. But I'm not familiar with the 2-rail version.

1. Regarding the wide tred drivers that folks here have discussed being "too wide". Could this have been done purposly for better electrical contact to the rail? With only 6 small wheels touching the track it seems to me that "wider is better" in this aspect. But like I said, I'm a 3-railer so this is unfamiliar territory for me.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Mishawaka Rail Yard:
1. Regarding the wide tred drivers that folks here have discussed being "too wide". Could this have been done purposly for better electrical contact to the rail? With only 6 small wheels touching the track it seems to me that "wider is better" in this aspect. But like I said, I'm a 3-railer so this is unfamiliar territory for me.

Jeff

Jeff,
I think they overshot the point of diminishing returns by a considerable amount with the width of those wheels.

Jeff:

A reasonable question.

Actually, the contact area would be the same. The width of the railhead is the limiting factor, since it stays the same in either case, without getting into material stiffness and tread taper discussions.

If I was to second guess (which I have a tendency to do and get in trouble for) from a manufacturing engineering background, the reason for this anomaly would probably be this. The wheel width (not the tire yet, but the wheel casting itself) is dictated by three-rail considerations, so it's thick to accommodate the three rail tire. This width dictates the rod-work distance from the frame on each side. This also dictates the cylinder saddle width, so the pistons go in the holes in the cylinders in a straight line.

To use as many parts as possible for both versions (cylinder saddle, valve gear hangers, wheels, &c), the two-rail tires are made wider to accommodate the already established three-rail geometry of the running gear. The alternative is a second set of all these parts (and tooling) made narrower for the scale version.

Brian,

You got it. I believe I have also indicated this in an earlier post. The Atlas 0-6-0 2 rail driver width matches up with a normal 3 rail driver. Pressing a wide tire with a scale flange right over a three rail driver casting will result in the tight gage that exists on these models. The gage point of a three rail flange at the root where it meets the tread is considerably different from the distance between the tips of the flanges because of the extra height and thickness of the hi rail flange. In my opinion, the 0-6-0 driver profile was not a design decision based on some new tire profile concept but an error caused by using the wide driver centers as a base and bringing the scale flange all the way to the back of these castings.

It really doesn't matter now. It is a done deal. Buy it and run it or pass it by. The facts are in. Each modeler must decide for himself. I'll keep my modified Weaver USRA 0-6-0 thank you.

Joe FOehrkolb

I'll start off on a positive note and follow up with what I hope will be taken as constructive criticism from a good customer of the Atlas product line.

Atlas O management should get a pat on the back for caring enough about the 2 rail market to monitor the internet forums for customer feedback on their product, and for sending out reps to the Cherry Valley club to review potential issues with their 0-6-0. Though I didn't order a USRA 0-6-0/Pennsy B28 (2 B6sb's are more than my layout needs), I'm glad to hear it is a very smooth runner. In that vein, the Atlas O SW7 is still the best running diesel on my roster. However I haven't bought any of the follow on Atlas twin vertical motor China drive locomotives as they don’t have the low end performance I'm looking for. The Atlas horizontal single motor drive raised the O scale performance bar (above high end brass and old standbys like CLW and All Nation. But then Atlas took 3 steps backward by using the China drives as in their their competitors' diesels, whose perpromance was encumbered by high gear ratios, heavy current draw, and visible motor obstructions in the locomotive cabs.

I also hope Atlas is listening to the feedback on appearance issues with the trucks and running gear of their 2 rail products. They do a nice job on the bodies and the lettering is superb, but the running gear just doesn't have the scale look to meet the quality of the superstructures. Whether it be freight car trucks, diesel locomotive trucks, or the wheel profile on the USRA 0-6-0, by using common components with the 3 rail product, we end up with running gear that stands wider than desirable for best appearance on our already wide track.

The Atlas O scale couplers just don't couple and uncouple as well as the 40 year old Kaydee design.

Several recommendations I'd like Atlas O management to consider for improving their product line.

- Provide a coupler mounting pad location drilled on centerline to accept Kaydee/Weaver coupler pockets (a de-facto mounting standard for O scale brass cars and locomotives for over 30 years). IMO the pry off Atlas coupler lid design with hidden mounting screws, thick base, and grossly wide opening was a poor design in the 1970's, and not up to today's modeling standards.
- Either include Kaydee couplers or a form/fit/function equivalent with your rolling stock. Weaver does it with their imports, why not Atlas?
- Use freight car truck bolsters specific to 2 rail so that side frames are mounted closer to the wheels.
- Diesel side frames specific to 2 rail so that they mount further inboard and brake shoes align with wheel treads.
- Wheel profiles and gauge that conform to applicable NMRA standards

And the big one that may be too much to ask for

- Single motor drives for the F units based on the fantastic SW7/9 engineering - or baring that a drive similar to that offered by P&D.

Ed Rappe

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Keystoned Ed,

I hope Atlas is listening to people like Ed Rappe. This is the kind of information other industries pay for.

I second Ed's comments on couplers. Nobody makes a coupler that works as well as Kadee's. MR magazine has periodically done comparison tests, and while there are look-alikes, nobody matches Kadee's overall performance notably in the areas of ease of coupling and the strength of the couplers. It seems that using the real thing (Kadees) should not add that much to the price of a model. Why spend any money to provide a second rate alternative? Relative to the price of any locomotive, the premium in price of Kadee couplers over the "in-house" versions should be minuscule. But if that's not in the cards, please at least provide coupler mounting pad that meets the de facto industry standard, as Ed noted above.

One other comment on motor drives. Atlas did have the best in the business in their SW7/9s. Even with all the technical (electronic speed control and so forth) advancements in three-rail motor drives, just about all Lionel and MTH locomotives start with a lurch, even the ones that have a one mph slowest operating speed. Why did Atlas stop using the smoothest starting motor drive in the business? For me, the acid test of slow-speed operation is how a locomotive starts from a dead stop. Does it look like it is pulling tonnage in the thousands or does it look like it is jerking light plastic cars around?

Here's my .002 on the issue of Atlas.

Point-1: the 3 rail market equates "quality" with dual motors. This goes back to the Lionel f-3 of 1947! The single motor drive, proven superior in the smaller scales, in O scale with the Weaver drive of the 1980s, the All-Nation drive (since the days of the Roman Empire it seems) and many other variants will not sell to a nostalgia driven 3 rail market!

Point-2: Atlas is aiming firmly at the 3 rail market segment. Center of mass, exhale, squeeze, fire! The 2 rail market, while important, is secondary to their cash flow. In order to satisfy that version of picky, 2 motor drives are a must. Swinging pilots are a must. Keeping costs down is a must. Hence, the use of wide driver center castings. Bravo for bringing out superior models to the market, BUT, keep in mind, who is the main buyers of these items. 3 railers.

Point-3: Standards. Yes, even the NMRA standards are outdated. Look at Proto-48. There is the standard. We, the majority of the O scalers are modeling 5 foot gauge, 50-sized tires (Phil and the gearheads will get this reference) and oversized couplers (Yes sports fans Kadees are oversized) are standard.

That said, I'm all in favor of standards. That way, my junk will run on Scace's layout, Phil's club layout, or any layout built to NMRA standards. However, since Atlas has pretty much cornered the 2 rail trackage market, well can you expect them (or anyone) to NOT build to run on their trackage flawlessly?

If I were a Steam Era guy, I would snap one of these up in a heartbeat. However, I'm a diesel era guy, and yes I'm not thrilled with lift-kit diesels, wide sideframes, and truck swings that a Shay would envy.

IMO, this is an issue that the 2 rail manufacturers the NMRA, and the consumer needs to sit down and discuss.
(that won't happen, but we can dream, can't we?)

Ed, a good post and I agree with you on everything you said. Much of what you said was brought to the attention of the Atlas reps last Tuseday at Cherry Valley.

One thing I didn't get to mention to Atlas was I seriously considered buying the F units but declined due to the excessive gap caused by the China drives. I've kind of made my peace with the China drives but I will never get used to the gaps. Switching over to the horizontal drive would cure both problems of low end performance and gap between truck and frame. Ed, I was standing right next to you when you asked Jim Weaver for more diesels with the horizontal drive at the O scale Convention in Parssippany, NJ. I told the Atlas reps that story and I said how I heard that the reason Atlas has not done this in their larger diesels is because they would lose sales on the 3 rail side as some folks would perceive that a locomotive with one electric motor is inferior to one with two electric motors. I was very surprised to hear that Atlas is seriously considering going to the horizontal drive in some larger locomotives but Jerry from Atlas said if they do sales will suffer (for the above reason). Well I hope they do. If they did hands down they would have the best diesels in the industry because also on my roster my best running diesel is an Atlas SW.

quote:

Point-1: the 3 rail market equates "quality" with dual motors. This goes back to the Lionel f-3 of 1947! The single motor drive, proven superior in the smaller scales, in O scale with the Weaver drive of the 1980s, the All-Nation drive (since the days of the Roman Empire it seems) and many other variants will not sell to a nostalgia driven 3 rail market!

Sad but true! And what is even sadder is that, yes back in the hey day of Lionel trains the dual motored diesels were better. But today there is no doubt the single horzontal motor easily wins out in every catagory except top speed. Unless of course one's goal is to go fast. (and I'm not picking on anyone who may like to go fast)

Also to me, one motor is more realistic. To me the electric motor in our model represents the prime mover in a prototype diesel. I know some had two but I believe most most prototype diesels have only one prime mover.

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Scace:
Jeff:

A reasonable question.

Actually, the contact area would be the same. The width of the railhead is the limiting factor, since it stays the same in either case, without getting into material stiffness and tread taper discussions.

If I was to second guess (which I have a tendency to do and get in trouble for) from a manufacturing engineering background, the reason for this anomaly would probably be this. The wheel width (not the tire yet, but the wheel casting itself) is dictated by three-rail considerations, so it's thick to accommodate the three rail tire. This width dictates the rod-work distance from the frame on each side. This also dictates the cylinder saddle width, so the pistons go in the holes in the cylinders in a straight line.

To use as many parts as possible for both versions (cylinder saddle, valve gear hangers, wheels, &c), the two-rail tires are made wider to accommodate the already established three-rail geometry of the running gear. The alternative is a second set of all these parts (and tooling) made narrower for the scale version.

That sums up Atlas's conundrum when making our stuff.

Atlas is off-the-shelf, not custom, so the cost savings is likely significant, and something we will have to live with.

That said, anybody know whether 3rd rail and other modern 2 rail manufacturers do this with their steam?

All of todays comments and suggestions are 100% accurate in my book. And, for these same reasons I don't expect any changes from Atlas. We've beat this drum for years and very few changes (if any) have been made.

I'm sure Atlas feels "If it ain't broke----don't fix it" and I'm talking about their business plan and not their two rail models.

So, we can either buy Atlas 2R products and accept the compromises or spend money and time to modify their products to our liking.

Or, we can choose not to buy them.

Bottom line is that this has been a very educational thread. I've enjoyed it tremendously.

Butch

I agree with up148 that this thread has be very educational. From my perspective as a relatively new 2 rail oscaler it has revealed some aspects of 1/48 trains I was completely unaware of. I had imagined this scale to be the ultimate expression of Model Railroading. The place that serious enthusiasts will eventually migrate to for quality trains. I understood it was somewhat hampered by availability issues which I feel are to be expected of a less populated scale. I saw this scale as a less is more opportunity for one last really nice model RR before my eyes and dexterity fail me once an for all.

After two years of diligent, attentive effort, I've managed to acquire some nice transition era rolling stock via Atlas "O" Master series, Red Caboose Models, EBay Intermountain kits, and the used brass market. That used brass market has yielded a pair of correct Pennsy Cabins. A train show Sunset Pennsy G5s is my only locomotive. I have a Rich Yoder S12 on reservation, and this Atlas Gold Series 0-6-0 was to round out my motive power plans for a transition era Pennsy Branch line. I didn't know a thing about the three rail market forces and how they affect a two rail product. I simply looked at my collection of Atlas Rolling stock and said this is nice stuff and this switcher just has to be the equal of it.

Well fast forward to recent weeks when I happen to take a break from working on my Railroad for a little reading and discover a lot of concern associated with it from people who surely have a lot more large scale experience than I do. I'm 40 years of HO modeling and only occasionally ever looked at an O scale product. So I sit here and read and wonder if I made a mistake frankly. The very reasons for my exodus from HO into O scale was in pursuit of models I could see the details on, and enjoy the operating characteristics which so often had been written about in the modeling press. I want this switcher to be everything O scale seems capable of delivering. I want it to look as real as possible. I want it to sound great, and I want it to creep along with the hulking mass of it's prototype as I pick up and setout those hefty boxcars. Will those ill chosen drivers spoil my O scale dream? It’s more a matter of will I let it. I have always preferred to make my own judgments on matters of trains. If this handsome locomotive manages to delight me in every way but for those oversize wheels, and I suspect it will in fact, then the concession will ultimately be a minor one.

Bob...

Here is my 1 cents worth.

If you buy from a manufacture that only makes 2-rail then you will get a more accurate product. But here you have a manufacture that is trying the satisfy two different scales. And the people that are buying them, want them cheap. So you almost have to use common items for both, otherwise the tooling cost will push up the price.

True the body casting, and the detail parts will be the same, but were talking about 2 different types on running gear here. Apparently Atlas new about the wide tread and narrow gauging of the flanges, so this was probably a cost reduction thing here.

Remember, you are getting an engine for [+ or -] $600.00, versus the $1,200 you would have to pay for a Sunset Models version.

I aslo believe that now that Atlas is aware that the consumer is aware of the inacuracy of the wheels, that next engine will not have this problem.

Bruce

This has been an interesting thread. I wish at this point the title could be changed to something like:

AtlasO USRA 0-6-0: a good looking smooth runner - but with minor tooling changes from its 3 rail brother could have been a benchmark 2 rail model.

I'm not as pessimistic as others about Atlas' perspective regarding the 2 rail market - or the 3 Rail Scale market. I doubt buyers of AtlasO's Master Series 3 rail products are members of the “Lionel nostalgia”, or "I don't care about prototype - it’s only a toy" market segments. Modern 3 rail scale buyers care more about appearance and performance than the count of motors (many moved up from HO and N scale). Some 3 railers need swinging pilot due to tight curves, but AtlasO has demonstrated that they can offer both fixed and swinging pilots. With the SW7/9 they've shown horizontal drives do sell to both 2 and 3 railers.

From comments on this forum I see a growing sophistication among recent converts to O scale (2 or 3 rail). Atlas is smart enough to recognize that to grow their AtlasO Master Series market, they have to differentiate their product from improving MTH and Lionel products. Using the same performance limiting China drive system as their competitors takes off the table one option Atlas has to differentiate their high end products.

With a derivative of the SW7 drive in that beautiful AtlasO F unit body, bolt on optional fixed pilot, optional scale couplers, detailed unobstructed cab, I can see an OGR product review headline - "AtlasO sets a new standard for F Unit appearance, performance, and flexibility".

I do not believe the running gear upgrades we've asked Atlas to consider for 2 rail (bolster width, Kaydee style pockets/couplers, and NMRA wheel profiles) would materially increase production costs if done as new models are introduced.

Successful companies don’t continue to thrive by standing pat. Atlas management has tuned in to this thread. It will be interesting to see where the AtlasO Master Series goes with future product offerings.

Ed Rappe

PS: While the 2 rail 0-6-0 may not be all it could have been, with on board DCC sound, prototype specific details, and a smooth drive, IMO it represents a better value to O scale operators when compared with earlier brass USRA 0-6-0 models from King, Sunset, or Weaver.

quote:

Originally posted by tsgtbob:
Here's my .002 on the issue of Atlas.

Point-1: the 3 rail market equates "quality" with dual motors. This goes back to the Lionel f-3 of 1947! The single motor drive, proven superior in the smaller scales, in O scale with the Weaver drive of the 1980s, the All-Nation drive (since the days of the Roman Empire it seems) and many other variants will not sell to a nostalgia driven 3 rail market!

Yes, that is so true. When I was a 3 railer I probably would not have bought a single motor engine. All that Lionel marketing from the 50's still holds a lot of weight. Actually, I still doubted that single motor was better until I got my MP15s. When I was a 3 railer I also wanted engines with swinging pilots because they performed better on my 3 rail layouts. The good news is that times and people change, and with a growing market share of 2 rail and the rise of "3 rail scale" I suspect Atlas will fufill some of our wishes. The optional fixed pilot included in with the 3 rail F3's is one sign that Atlas sees an interest in scale features from its 3 rail crowd; perhaps gapless disels will be next.

At the risk of taking this thread too far from the main topic, I'd like to say that Ed and Glenn make good points. I am a scale three railer, retrofitting my Atlas diesels to fixed pilots, scale couplers and full hand rails. Lionel nostalgia has little hold on folks like myself. Some of us may have a background in the smaller scales and others simply are younger and without nostalgic memories of Lionel in the postwar era. As a group, we are interested not only in as much scale accuracy as we can get (on three rail track of course), but also in product improvements that enhance our enjoyment of the hobby.

I think folks like me certainly would be open to the possibility of a single motor diesel with the kind of drive train used in the smaller scales, if as everyone suggests, performance is comparable to current models. I would even sacrifice a little pulling power because I double and triple head most of my consists. Another advantage of the single drive would be getting the darn motor out of the cab. That would allow for detailing cab interiors something many of us would like. As for me I just like to see the daylight shining through the opposite side windows as the locomotive rolls by....

That said, I think there may be practical impediments to a single motor design in three rail, though they may not be insurmountable. I raise these as points to ponder, rather than objections. One is curve radius. I think the Third Rail Dash 9s from about 10 years ago prove that a single motor drive can work on 36 inch radius curves (considered the de facto standard minimum by three rail scalers), but that might cut out folks who use smaller curves. I hate to leave folks with less space than I out in the cold, and in any event their hobby dollars help defray tooling costs, so that has to be a consideration. (Did not Weaver's GP 38s with the chain drive operate on 21 inch radius curves, though?) Another practical impediment is electronics. The current electronics used in three rail models occupy the space in the car body where the single motor presumably would ride. Anyone who has ever disassembled a three rail Atlas road switcher type can tell you how crowded it is in there. I guess the electronics somehow are shoe-horned into Atlas three rail switchers, however, so perhaps it could be done. Finally, there are the performance issues. Can the drive be made to run with the same speed characterisics as current models. The issues I understand two railers have with twin can motor drives I think don't plague three railers because of speed control. While I understand that there are arguments for accomplishing low speeds differently, the point is that those of us with a fleet of speed controlled engines likely will want comparable performance from new models in order to maintain fleet compatibility. For example, if Atlas were to make, say a Dash 8-40CW, I would certainly like to be able to MU that with my current roster of B40-8Ws. In sum, though, I think the point is correct that most Atlas Master series customers would be open to a different drive, with the caveats I've mentioned. It might be interesting to start a thread on this topic in the three rail forum and see what the reaction is (from people who actually care something about scale, of course).

RM

quote:

From comments on this forum I see a growing sophistication among recent converts to O scale (2 or 3 rail). Atlas is smart enough to recognize that to grow their AtlasO Master Series market, they have to differentiate their product from improving MTH and Lionel products. Using the same performance limiting China drive system as their competitors takes off the table one option Atlas has to differentiate their high end products.

Ed, brings up a really good point here. We all know for fact that MTH will not license DCS, Lionel will not license Legacy or RS5.0, and Atlas is not going to develope their own CC system. Switching over to the horizontal drive is one way that Atlas could really differentiate themselves from the other 3 rail manufacturers. And Atlas already has the tooling and parts for their horizontal drive system. They would not have to do the complete R&D from scratch. Personally, I like to run my trains on the slower side. IMHO it makes the layout seem larger because it takes longer for the train to get to end of the layout. One thing I do miss when I was running DCS was the SMPH feature. However, of late I have been thinking that maybe it is too exact for O scale. Meaning that unless one has huge Tony Lash type of layout you can never really get past 40 or 50 MPH. Maybe something like how they use fast clocks would be better than the actual SMPH? I think I would prefer that if the train is going to 10SMPH to pretend it is doing 25 MPH on the layout if you get my drift. Anyway, slower is better for me.

quote:

PS: While the 2 rail 0-6-0 may not be all it could have been, with on board DCC sound, prototype specific details, and a smooth drive, IMO it represents a better value to O scale operators when compared with earlier brass USRA 0-6-0 models from King, Sunset, or Weaver.

Again, I agree with Ed. At $600 the 0-6-0 is definitely a good value for the o scale operator. Let's not forget that the 0-6-0 has a drive train comparable to Atlas' horizontal drive. With it's gear reduction it can really creep. I hope the next Atlas steam locomotive has a similar or the same drive train. I don't know if Sunset would charge $1200 for such a small locomotive but I'd bet these days it would be at least $800-$900. As noted on the Sunset thread the O scale operator would not get DCC or even the holes drilled for the speaker but the drivers would be in NMRA specs.

quote:

That said, anybody know whether 3rd rail and other modern 2 rail manufacturers do this with their steam?

Rob M.

Just by looking at my locomotives I would say that Sunset and MTH have not done this in the past.

quote:

Originally posted by tsgtbob:
Here's my .002 on the issue of Atlas.

Point-1: the 3 rail market equates "quality" with dual motors. This goes back to the Lionel f-3 of 1947! The single motor drive, proven superior in the smaller scales, in O scale with the Weaver drive of the 1980s, the All-Nation drive (since the days of the Roman Empire it seems) and many other variants will not sell to a nostalgia driven 3 rail market!

There is still a legitimate rationale for not liking the chain drives. Sorry, but the Weaver chain drive really should be taken out of the above statement. They were a disaster when the 2 rail FAs, RS3s, and GP38s were modified for 3 rail use. The same holds true for the Red Caboose GP9. They were noisy, had zip for pulling power (even with traction tires...another 2-rail taboo) and the components were prone to breaking. They were really sloooow (I know, thats a feature, not a bug). So if I can point to one reason why those drives will never be popular to the 3 rail crowd, that is it...at least for me. Besides, how can something so prevalent in the smaller scales be good in the "King of Scales"?

The other thing is that I think we will see more 2 rail layouts designed for running trains (slowly) instead of operating trains. That probably will be a carry over for many former 3 railers that have converted to 2-rail. At least initially, more of us may like to watch trains run (through whatever complicated 3 dimensional circles we can think of) instead of layouts designed with operation as its primary purpose. With that type of layout the drive design has less of an impact. Evidently I'm not alone in those thoughts, given the 2 rail production ratio of the Atlas F units.

There are some engines that should have a horizontal motor and drive shaft configuration. Switchers fall into that category. I have a Lionel S2 that Joe converted for me...nice engine. But I will always remain concerned if the horizontal drive starts to get put into all of our road diesels.

I've got tile installers doing marble in our bathroom all day today and I'm bored...

I think Atlas makes fine hybrid products. But with regards to steam and in reference to the statements below I'm at a toss up. I own 5 MTH steam of which I've compared two to their 3 rail brother and I can say that the driver castings and tires are different, which concurs with Phil's findings. The 2 rail models are built to their interpretation of the NMRA standard and the key point here is they did not use the same 3 rail width tires. Atlas took a shortcut? maybe?? However on the gauging issue, I did come across a recent MTH release, the UP 9000 where I briefly had two (a 9000 and 9010, I was shipped a 9010 but wanted/ordered the 9000) both of which came from the factory grossly off on the two in board flanged tires. This seemed to be a factory defect possibly affecting the line because I was also in contact with Joe G. of OST who also had a third of the same model with the defect. Unlike the Atlas case, the MTH did not run at all until properly gauged. I was able to set it to normal NMRA flange width by correcting the tire alignment with the center driver casting.

What did I learn? Models from run to run don't always meet the same consistency due to manufacturing interpretations overseas. Manufacturers run a high risk business especially in the model train world where R&D, new tooling and production can run in the hundreds of thousands. They can be in a position to lose money or barely scrape by making the $649 model for us. Take for example the model purchased discounted at $549, I think we have fewer risks if you take into consideration the vast options. If it doesn't meet your needs 100% I either pay to fix it, fix it myself, sell it at break even or loss or do nothing. On the other hand fixing something on the manufacturing end can cost many thousands if an entire run is affected. I'm sure in the future they'll try to get more things right (look at MTH they've listened) but it takes more time for manufacturers to do it. We're more adept at adopting to change because we deal with 1 model at a time. If we all asked Joe F to have our tire width's corrected and properly gauged his head would probably spin.

In my mind this incident doesn't shatter my image of Atlas, however, I do hope they try to continue to do their best and in the same regard for the all those who make 2 rail scale models, without whom, we'd all have a tough time modeling.

quote:

Originally posted by Hudson J1e:

quote:

That said, anybody know whether 3rd rail and other modern 2 rail manufacturers do this with their steam?

Rob M.

Just by looking at my locomotives I would say that Sunset and MTH have not done this in the past.

quote:

Originally posted by Glenn Fresch:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bandofan:

There is still a legitimate rationale for not liking the chain drives. Sorry, but the Weaver chain drive really should be taken out of the above statement. They were a disaster when the 2 rail FAs, RS3s, and GP38s were modified for 3 rail use.

Quite true! I think my distaste for horizontal drives started with the Weaver 3 rail version of the 2 rail RS3. I had one of these back in the 80's and it couldn't pull much and did not perform well. To make matters worse, it would bind up, and still did not run well even after being sent back to Weaver for repairs. Currently this loco sets in pieces in my basement. As I mentioned before, this distaste for horizontal drives continued until my recent experience with the MP15s.