In an earlier post under the subject of Key PAs, RHEIL posted:

"The pricing for GGD's E-7 diesels is not yet established but it will
probably be in the range of $400 for powered and $200 for non-powered units.
They are going to be sold separately for all roads as well as in sets where
sets make sense for packaging purposes ie A-B-A for NYC and PRR, etc.

As of now the body will be plastic, the trucks die cast, and the frames
brass - all subject to change. The drive will be made in China, hence a
"China drive" but most likely NOT the usual twin motor vertical with poor
starting."


I for one have serious questions as to whether $400 will cover the costs associated with an adequately detailed loco with a good drive.

For me, the 2-rail drive should have:
1. Equalized trucks to handle super elevated curves with grade changes from up
to down in the middle of the curve as well as normal undulations
2. Enclosed gear boxes to keep dirt and debris out of the gears
3. A single, high torque, high powered motor so all wheels start turning at the
same time and at the same speed
4. Gearing such that the loco starts and stops smoothly with no lurches. Lurch
is fine on TV reruns, but not as an engineer on my locos
5. NMRA RP25 wheelsets

The body should have:
1. No motor intruding into the cab
2. All the appurtenances and protuberances on the real loco
3. A body thin enough that it appears real in the window areas
4. Correctly shaped nose and cab windows

Regards,
ChipR

Thats a tall orger for 400.00.

My guess is probably not. Look at the web advertising that they are showing the drawing is not your standard E7 with double windows. It is a Phase 2 car body single window with side louvers.

So its only specific to PRR NYC and very few other roads. I would not jump
to preorder as yet. Unless this fits your needs.

William

quote:

Originally posted by ChipR:
In an earlier post under the subject of Key PAs, RHEIL posted:

"The pricing for GGD's E-7 diesels is not yet established but it will
probably be in the range of $400 for powered and $200 for non-powered units.
They are going to be sold separately for all roads as well as in sets where
sets make sense for packaging purposes ie A-B-A for NYC and PRR, etc.

As of now the body will be plastic, the trucks die cast, and the frames
brass - all subject to change. The drive will be made in China, hence a
"China drive" but most likely NOT the usual twin motor vertical with poor
starting."


I for one have serious questions as to whether $400 will cover the costs associated with an adequately detailed loco with a good drive.

For me, the 2-rail drive should have:
1. Equalized trucks to handle super elevated curves with grade changes from up
to down in the middle of the curve as well as normal undulations
2. Enclosed gear boxes to keep dirt and debris out of the gears
3. A single, high torque, high powered motor so all wheels start turning at the
same time and at the same speed
4. Gearing such that the loco starts and stops smoothly with no lurches. Lurch
is fine on TV reruns, but not as an engineer on my locos
5. NMRA RP25 wheelsets

The body should have:
1. No motor intruding into the cab
2. All the appurtenances and protuberances on the real loco
3. A body thin enough that it appears real in the window areas
4. Correctly shaped nose and cab windows

Regards,
ChipR

If you recall an earlier comment by Scott Mann in another thread, he indicated they are seriously looking at a redesign of the china drive. What that entails I can guess would be a higher gear ration, 20:1 vs. 10:1 (easily accomplished) and perhaps an enclosure for exposed spur gears.
GGD has an established record of producing decent models for a reasonable price. I imagine they can negotiate a lower build price from the manufacturer.
So to me it is not wildly optimistic to set an early target price of $400.

I'll wait to see the production version before casting an opinion.

As the saying goes it costs the same amount to produce it correct as it does to produce it incorrect.

I agree with Chris that it won't cost anything extra to change the gear ratio in the drive system.

quote:

My guess is probably not. Look at the web advertising that they are showing the drawing is not your standard E7 with double windows. It is a Phase 2 car body single window with side louvers.

So its only specific to PRR NYC and very few other roads. I would not jump
to preorder as yet. Unless this fits your needs.

William

William, I think Scott said these diesels (like Atlas) would have different road specific details. I could be wrong be remembering wrong but I think he said that.

I hope these diesels have an excellent drive system in them where the cab is free for details and slow speed performance is greatly improved. I'm hoping for something similar to the Atlas SW drive.

I wonder if it really does cost the same to do it right? Somebody ask Henry Bultmann or Roger Lewis.

An equalized truck is nice, but I operate rigid trucks on my superelevated curves all the time, and can tell no difference. I also operate equalized truck diesels, and sprung journal diesels.

CLW did a very nice truck and power unit - while I bet Sunset would not be able to reproduce that drive and still stay under the price point, one could conceivably find a CLW mechanism kit and install it. They have sprung journals, and run well.

But a plastic locomotive will not compete with the brass models coming from Key. It will compete with MTH and Lionel.

That's all opinion.

Bob2,

Our layout has a grade change from +2.75% to -2.75% in the middle of the super-elevated curve. Short wheelbase locos are OK, long wheelbases may climb over the outside rail.

ChipR

RHeil,

Information about the Burlington E7s may be found in Burlington Route Bulletin No. 10, available from the BRHS by following this link:

http://www.burlingtonroute.com/costore/bb.htm

It covers paint schemes, differing pilots, addition of stainless steel side panels, removal of shuttered doors, addition of grab irons, etc.

ChipR

The B&O had 18 E7A units and no E7Bs.
Questions for RHEIL at Sunset/GGD
Which numbers are you going to use, two digit or four digit?
The original numbers were 64,64A to 80,80A, even # only. In 1957 they were renumbered 1415 to 1432.
Which stile of number board are they going to have?
The B&O units had all three variations of number boards.
The original small, to the side, boards, the large 45 degree boards and the flush E8 and E9 stile boards were all used.

Dana Metcalf

In my opinion. The market for these is for the masses of folks (2/3 rail) who want the best value for their hard earned dollars. Obviously brass units fit a need and fill the void few folks are looking for and thus low volume. These are marketed by GGD so the market is different as are the features they will come with to fit the cost structure of producing this model at a certain price point. Expecting much more from say $400 is like squeezing blood from stone. Publicly announcing and attempting to improve upon the vertical drives should be applauded and encouraged not shot down. This is a new step for GGD and certainly beats status quo and the stuff produced by the other big manufacturers. 2 rail and 3 railers should stand to benefit from this attempt.

Michael,

I think the price point of $400 is too low to produce an E7 at a good quality level. The photo on Sunset's website is, I believe, of the Walthers Proto 2000 HO E7 (someone please correct me on this if I am wrong and it is the GGD loco). That is the quality of appearance and operation I am looking for.

ChipR

The photo on the website cannot be the GGD model. It was just announced. All the manufacturers use photos of other models in their announcemnt until they get the preproduction versions in house and sometimes even then.

I don't think $400 is too low to accomplish a good model. Atlas does very nicely detailed models that are in that same ballpark. Not sure but I think MTH does too. so depending on additional costs for alternate drives, it might be a fairly good estimate of the price.

One more detail relative to B&O E-7's built in 1945:
During the 1950's they were fitted with stainless steel grilles along the carbody eaves, and looked much like the E-8's and E-9's which B&O also owned.

Side windows could change as well. Squared windows of earlier units could be changed to the later porthole type, or be eliminated altogehter. It all depends upon the railroad and time frame in question.

I recall seeing somewhere that the side EMD paneling was made of 3/4" or 1" marine plywood with automotive sheet metal bonded to both sides. The trade name was 'Plymetal' or something like that. It was also used for inside walls and dividers in passenger car contruction.

Ed Bommer

Whoops my bad I thought they were GGD because the models will be made out of "plastic." ChipR I take it back. I don't recall Sunset doing a plastic piece in the past. I do hope they use powered wheels with gearboxes riding on the sprung journals on the side frames instead of the usual worm and axle blocks. The latter hasn't caused me problems but the former would be an improvement over status quo.

It took me a while to find this car. It is shown on the 3rd Rail site, when the thread shows it as Golden Gate Depot.

Guys,
Thank you for your comments and info. Chip - the picture is of an HO engine as you stated.

Let me say that at this time a builder has not even been finalized so it is way too premature to speculate on a lot of issues but I believe I can say the following with a measure of certainty:

- the drive issue is understood. Having said that I will say that the real issue
is slow speed operation, very smooth starting, and no motors in the cab
interior. How all of that will be accomplished is to be determined.

- road specific details will be incorporated as much as pricing permits. Keep
in mind,guys,that the intended market is in the projected price range I stated
earlier. Scott originally wanted to do them less expensively but has been
convinced to charge more for a "better" product (whatever that means).

- when Scott was at my house before the York TCA meet we looked at my Atlas
GP-9's (China drive), Atlas SW (horizontal China drive) and Key E-8's to
compare drives.

I believe the next month or so will bring much more information on what the final product will be.

quote:

Originally posted by rheil:
Guys,
...

- the drive issue is understood. Having said that I will say that the real issue
is slow speed operation, very smooth starting, and no motors in the cab
interior. How all of that will be accomplished is to be determined.

Absolutely agreed.

quote:

- road specific details will be incorporated as much as pricing permits. Keep
in mind,guys,that the intended market is in the projected price range I stated
earlier. Scott originally wanted to do them less expensively but has been
convinced to charge more for a "better" product (whatever that means).
...

Absolutely agreed again. From my perspective if 3rd Rail/GGD can meet all the above objectives at price points comparable to the Atlas Master Line that would be a winner. I think that would be higher than MTH but less than Lionel "Vision" line, or...

quote:

I believe the next month or so will bring much more information on what the final product will be.

Oh, now you've done it, this will be worse than the pre york stuff. Thread in 25 days, thread in 30 days, thread in 32 days, thread in 32 days and 12 hours, thread in 32 days 18 hours...

Hello manufactures, importers, the like,

I am not sure where to get in on all of this other than I personally can't believe the dynamic that is at play in "O scale/O gauge"...

Frankly it will amaze me if the scale market will survive at all if these builders/importers/developers and so on don't start making accurate models with excellent quality drives. Let us face the facts when it comes to ready to run plastic mass produced product, HO and N even S has such a better quality product that it makes us look like tinker toys.

Athearn Genesis
Broadway Limited Imports
Life Like Proto series
Kato
Micro Trains HO
Walthers

I could go on for hours. Why in the name of Sam Hill do we have this "China Drive"... Sorry, IT SUCKS! Its outdated, its antiqued, it takes a high tech state of the art computer to make the darn things work right. Why? Because some manufacturer decided 25 years ago that this is best for level 2' high 3 rail track?

enough from me, if these E units are going to be anything I want, let me put it this way.. Take a BLI HO scale E8/9 drop some water on it and watch it grow to approx. 50% larger than its current size.

Sorry, two motors over the trucks, solid non equalized trucks, molded smoothed over grab irons, scale 16" thick walls, chassis's that sit too high, and on and on... I sure as hell will not buy something like this. Yeah, I spent thousands on brass, and that in my opinion is about the only thing I buy in O because the brass importers get it right!!!!!!! TAKE A HINT!

I apologize for being so negative, perhaps rude, but please why does this sort of argument keep coming up? Because the TCA buyers want cheap, poor quality, dollar two ninety eight models? Atlas O has been very good to us, the market responded, we bought... But why on Earth did they put that stupid China Drive in any of the locomotives? I want to mention that the 12-1 Heavy Weight from GGD was wonderful, then these head end cars came out.. what happened?


Again my apologies for ranting.. that is my two cents worth. More likely I will get the boot from the forum!!!

Please forgive my rudeness, but I am very passionate about this stuff... It's time.

Erik,

No need to apologize. HO has it pretty good. We need to get plastic O off of the 3 rail heritage. We get chunky products as a result of the fusion of 3 rail into 2 rail. [in the price point I am shopping for, brass is just way too $$$ for me]

$300 each powered E8A + $48 in wheels + my time on the mill and lathe = the following model with 4 motors aided by electronics. Clearly you can see the high water pants look and thick 16" walls. They flush mounted portal and door windows but couldn't give the windshield the same courtesy.

Michael your Erie E units look really great! A lot of work pays off.. Cool stuff!

Erie E units?????

Surely you are jokeing!!!

Some HO plastic models...

I think some good things are going to come out of the discussions. I'm looking forward to seeing where the next round of products takes us. It looks like Scott and Bob Heil will need to pick themselves off the matt first before they can even get started.

Please don't get me wrong, the Atlas (P&D) F units are wonderful, gorgeous frankly... I have a friend in Minnesota who bought 4 non powered Atlas and installed a custom drive, NO CHINE DRIVE! The factory finish on them is spectacular. But the trucks... P&D imported brass OSC Micro Casting fully detailed working Blomberg trucks.. Perhaps Atlas could have done a die cast version of this? Or at least spring the current good looking Atlas trucks.

Yes I can see, compared to HO, I've got chunky monkeys.

Mr. Heil,

Bless you Sir, your words add much to the discussion. Like my friend Erik, I am getting passionate and hoping for the best. I want a Lexus (read Key E units) but can't afford one so I will take a Honda/Toyota/Huyndai (read Sunset/GGD E unit).

The points you make are those that most of us (IMHO) agree with.

I'll be back is 30 days 16.213 hrs.

ChipR

quote:

Originally posted by pitogo:
Yes I can see, compared to HO, I've got chunky monkeys.

"Chunky Monkey" First time I heard that was on Macross World in reference to the 1/55 Takatoku/Bandai Valkyries, an 80's Transformer thing.. Right on buddy! "You got it!"

A good example of how a discussion forum helped aid in a product is the following from a Japanese toy maker. They listened to the demands of the fans/buyers.. Yamato's 1/48 scale "science fiction" Macross VF series transforming robot/air craft.

look at these images of the previous standard 1/55 scale 1983 Takatoku/Bandai version alongside the conceptual art.

Conceptual Art:

Now enter, Yamato's answer after relentless research and customer/fan input:


It is a surprise how well this toy turned out, the "perfect transformation" was engineered directly from input from us the buyers and collectors. I know the model railroad industry can do the same.

Theres a transformers toy version of that jet plane called Jetfire. Neat little piece.

I don't know much on the subject of drives, but its interesting to play spectator and learn from the guys that thrive at the high-end of 2R and see what they think and why they've stuck with buying such high-end pieces vs. what most of us look at. I pray for the best at a pricepoint comparable to the competition. It's a shame how HO is half the size and outdoes us in detail and operation.

In this discussion, the one item O scale builders have that HO, N or other scale size builders do not have to reckon with, is the dicotomy of 2 rail needs PLUS 3 rail needs. In HO and N scales, it is what is it, an accurate reproduction of the prototype. In O scale, there are significant compromises to be made in a piece that is larger, heavier and more costly to build than it's smaller cousins. So the same dies, molds and production procedures can be utilized for both sets of rails to keep the price point at the level we won't cry about, so the manufacturer can make some sort of profit for his efforts.

We can all tell them: 'hey build for our scale' (2 vs. 3), but the hard truth is these guys have to build for both of us AND create a result that wins for both sides.

That is something I surely am glad someone else does for a living.

Mike, I think your Lackawanna E units look great. They, to my eye, sit at the correct height and simply (at least to me) look like the real thing. I wish I had access to a lathe (and the know how to use one) but I don't. If I did have access to one I definitely would like to learn how to use it but not every one has access to such a tool and therefore some of us like me have to hope that GGD will step up to the plate and put out a diesel that does not have high water pants and has an improved drive system.

quote:

But why on Earth did they put that stupid China Drive in any of the locomotives?

This question has never been answered. I think there are multiple reasons as to why but the No.1 reason is cost. [IMHO]

quote:

chassis's that sit too high,

Amen to that. Nothing screams "toy" to me more than the high water pants.

Hi,
I was taking apart some of my engines to determine what motor they have, the current draw at wheel slip and which decoder I should use.
When I removed the superstucture of my PSC SD-9 of 1990's vintage, I was pleasantly surprised to find two Pittman motors in a horizontal position. Each motor was connected to a substantial gearbox which in turn was connected to one of the 6 wheel trucks. If you must have twin motors, this is the way to do it. Sorry, no picture.
Cheers,
Ed

I have one of those, and it runs beautifully. I would never take it to our museum for extended running.

On the other hand, I have an almost identical plastic MTH that I have let escape to the museum once. It came back none the worse for wear.

The 3-rail crowd is the reason for the China drive - they demand things that actually run for long periods of time. So far, we have not found any transmissions more robust than MTH, and the standard horizontal motor scale diesels, with the possible exception of the CLW gearboxes, do not hold up to continuous operation.

I do not believe one can design a scale diesel transmission and truck assembly that will tolerate the abuse 3-railers routinely dish out. For one thing, the axle ends will wear out even the best solid bearings in sprung journals under heavy full-time operation - the MTH units have two bearings per axle with about a hundred times the bearing area of an axle stub. Even those wear out, but it takes well over a decade of day in, day out operation. Turns out they are identical to Piper Cub control surface hinge bushings.

My very best diesel has twin 9234 Pittman motors mounted horizontally over six CLW transmissions, and twelve wheel electrical pickup. But I doubt that it would survive more than about two months of museum operation - I will never find out.

That's just one opinion on why the China drive is so popular - the other reason is surely cost of manufacture and servicing.

quote:

Originally posted by bob2:
That's just one opinion on why the China drive is so popular - the other reason is surely cost of manufacture and servicing.

If this swill is so durable yet so cheap, I don't quite understand WHY the scale stuff can't be made more durable. Do it the American way.....throw money at it until the problem is fixed.

SW

quote:

Originally posted by Simon Winter:

quote:

Originally posted by bob2:
That's just one opinion on why the China drive is so popular - the other reason is surely cost of manufacture and servicing.

If this swill is so durable yet so cheap, I don't quite understand WHY the scale stuff can't be made more durable. Do it the American way.....throw money at it until the problem is fixed.

SW

Good concept , but please remember that in the long run it will be our money that is thrown at it.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeCiar:
Good concept , but please remember that in the long run it will be our money that is thrown at it.

Mike,

Sarcasm there.......if the cheap stuff can be made to run forever, no reason the good stuff can't.

SW

This whole discussion falls into the "just my luck: category.

After having several discussions with Bob Heil at the Worcester and the Indianapolis O Nationals, He convinced me that 1.) Sunset/GGD would never be making any E Units to go with their passenger cars ( the economics were unfavorable) , and 2.) my best bet was to buy the MTH E8's and have Joe Froehkolb (sorry if I spelled that wrong) convert them to 2 rail.

Well, Joe says he will have them finished before year end, and GGD announces E7's.

I will say the MTH units are pretty good looking, and Joe's conversion will fix the height problem. I removed and sold all the MTH electronics, and will be installing DCC when I get them back.

This is my first MTH units, so I can't speak yet to their running qualities, but I have an Atlas GP35 with a digitrax decoder installed, and it is very smooth, no jerking or quick starts.

Now I just have to think back about what else Bob told me that Sunset/GGD would never build.

Joe Norman
Oklahoma O Scalers

PS: anybody want to buy an E8B cheap? The 'Q never bought any, so I didn't have it converted.

In the "old" days of O Scale (1930s-'40s), Walthers offered power trucks for models of gas-electrics, MU cars, and yes, diesel locos, that were entirely similar to the China drives. The motor was a wound-field, open-frame type (K&D most likely), mounted vertically with a worm on the motor shaft directly driving an axle gear (& chain drive to the other axle).

I think those models were reasonably successful because they were simple, affordable, and reliable in operation. (Opinion.)

The China drives in modern diesels do seem to run more quietly. MTH diesels operated remotely with DCS also operate smoothly at slow speed. As I understand the earlier posts discussing the China drives, objections are that the "main" axle connected to the motor cannot be sprung & people don't like the motor being visible in the cab. Both objections are valid from an "appearance" viewpoint. Whether diesel axles are sprung I think is more of a personal preference, as it does not seem to make much of a difference to operation.

It seems obvious that if one doesn't want to see a motor when looking into the cab, either the front truck must be unpowered, OR the motor must be located elsewhere with a horizontal driveline to the front truck gearboxes. Many models have been made this way, with driveshafts either above the floor (Atwater/GMC/All Nation & others), or below the floor (Overland, Weaver et al.)

Most 2-railers don't need the durability/reliability of the 3R-style China drives because most 2-railers don't operate continuously as do museum layouts or club and modular layouts during train shows. But most commercial manufacturer want to give their customers value for money, and the more affordable their models, the more they can sell, which lowers unit costs to reach more buyers. Therefore, Atlas & MTH (to name two companies which offer models in both 2R and 3R versions) opt for the China drives.

Many 2-railers cannot afford brass diesels with non-China drives from firms such as Key. If detailed cab interiors are not important to them, cab windows can be masked off (perhaps with black film to give a realistic reflection) and the motor over the front truck won't be visible. Modelers with "building" talent can buy unpowered models & develop their own drives using commercial parts, as was mentioned in a post above.

Commercial manufacture of our model locos boils down to a matter of economics--which I think many complainers may not understand. If some firms can make a profit selling handfuls of model diesels at $1,000 or more per unit, good for them. But I think the vast majority of 3-railers won't pay that kind of money for a diesel, so the market has China drive models at under $500. If certain firms are willing to offer 2R versions at that lower price level, and enough 2-railers are willing to buy those to add to the manufacturers' profits (and help them bring out models of other locos--also in 2R versions), I see no grounds for complaint.

I have no quarrel with O scalers who have enough disposable income to keep firms like Key, Kohs, et al in business. But I think those who cannot afford such "high-end" models should not complain about the models they can afford because of the China drives. (That's like complaining about a cheap Chevy because one cannot afford a Cadillac!)

If Atlas were to make a separate type of drive for their 2R versions (perhaps a third of Atlas' total O gauge sales), it seems obvious that the cost of the 2R models would have to be higher. Some people may not understand that the cost of the 3R models would rise also because they would have a smaller number of the China drive mechanisms. (Lower volume of parts means higher unit costs.)Increasing the cost of the 3R models would reduce their potential sales, and I doubt that Atlas would care to hurt their standing in the 3R market for a (perhaps dubious) small possible gain in 2R sales.

Comparisons with HO models I think are invalid. There are thousands more modelers in HO than in O Scale. HO models have 1/8th the volume & weigh much less than O scale models. (But fwiw, Hobbytown HO driveshafts & U-joints are quite sturdy and useful in some O Scale applications.) HO scale doesn't need the China drives because of physical characteristics.

It is one thing to say one doesn't care for China drives. We are all entitled to our opinions. But if one has no constructive suggestions for a "better" drive system that could be made & sold at the same price, I do not see that "bashing" manufacturers of the China drive models is useful in any way. I rather think it probably creates a poor impression of the 2R market.

Woody,

I understand the economics, hence my suggestion for a somewhat higher price. My objections to the "China Drive" as implemented are twofold:

1. Appearance, the motor is in the cab of the loco
2. Operations
a. The 2 motors start and stop at different voltages
b. The gearing precludes starting smoothly and running slowly
c. The two motors seem to have less power and torque than a 9000 Pittman
d. The gears are open, picking op dirt and grit
e. The trucks are not equalized
f. 4 powered units with 8 motors visibly buck more than 4 units with 1 motor

If we must have 2 motors then let them be quality motors mounted horizontally.

ChipR

quote:

Many 2-railers cannot afford brass diesels with non-China drives from firms such as Key.

That's me!

Woody, I agreed with everything you said until this:

quote:

But I think those who cannot afford such "high-end" models should not complain about the models they can afford because of the China drives.

I feel if one has spent money on anything in this hobby they have a right to complain if they feel they did not get their money's worth. To me it's like voting. Only the ones who didn't vote do not have a right to complain.

About 6-8 months ago there was an intense thread about drive systems. I believe it was PRRMan and several others who came up with the idea that if the worm gear in the China Drives was changed to 20:1 ratio instead of 10:1 ratio the complaints of poor off the line starts would be gone. I think if this change was made and the bodies lowered to the correct height that everyone except the guys who don't like the motor in the cab would be happy. And if these changes were made I don't believe there would be a significant cost increase to the importers.

quote:

But if one has no constructive suggestions for a "better" drive system that could be made & sold at the same price,

See above, constructive suggestions have been made and no changes have been made yet but I understand these things take time and I can always hope we see some change in the future.

I thank you all for your very helpful comments.

Here are some more ideas for thought.

After all the discussions I have had with 2 Railers and 3 Railers, here is what I see as being the best of both worlds.

Using our belt drive and horizontally mounted motors above each truck, we can have a higher gear ratio for 2 Rail for better starts and a lower gear ratio for 3 Rail, because with full voltage on the track, the cruise control system gives you the smooth starting effects.

The belt drive will drive an in-truck gear axle that will have 3 gearboxes to drive each driver separately. We can also make the trucks equalized, but we usually use hard springs to keep things stable for the gearboxes anyway, so a fixed truck with real springs for good looks probably will do just fine.

The motors will be of coarse mounted horizontally lending a fully detailed cab interior, with figures and lighting, and ample room in between for QSI DC/DCC electronics and Electric RR Cruise Commander and Railsounds Commander.

The plastic body mold will be made such that detail differences between the roads can be incorporated in the finished plastic body.

The trucks will be high quality die-cast, and the wheels will be machined instead of the powder metal kind giving a more prototypical look and feel to the locos.

2 railers have expressed that they need a powered B unit as they don't have the luxury of traction tires.

The front pilot will be fixed, but there will be a large slot for the 3 Rail coupler to move left and right, and a sliding plate behind to hide the hole in the pilot, that is attached to the couper. The 2 rail pilot will house a Kadee and these can be interchangable with the 3 Rail pilot.
This is what I am proposing to our builder next week.

I still think we can keep the price of an A unit under $500 and a unpowered B under $300.

Your thoughts?

Scott Mann - China

I knew I should have patented that idea - I have found that a motor over each truck works quite well, except for narrow hood units like SD-7s. I use a cradle, and aircraft safety wire to hold the motor in it. Beneath the cradle is the bolster, so two screws and the entire unit is in my hand. I only got the timing belt right on one old Alexander electric, but I personally wouldn't assemble a wide body diesel any other way.

Consider a solid block for the gear cage - you get better axle bearings and more support for the pulley. Adams did them that way, as did early CLW. The solid block will give you the same longevity that MTH gets.

For those of you who run Atlas, their truck block is similar to MTH, but we do not get the same longevity. I have still not figured out why.

I routinely run three Train Masters, each with six axle K-Line power blocks, and have no problems with units fighting each other. Of course, I am not doing very slow speed switching operations.

Scott,

Please don't arbitrarly offer a different gear ration for the "3-Railers"!!! Just because SOME of the "3-Railers" like to run their trains at 150+ MPH, doesen't meant that ALL modelers using 3-rail track systems want to go THAT fast. As a 3RS modeler, a top speed of 90MPH scale speed is just fine with me. I definately would sacrifice "top speed" for superior slow speed and start performance!

quote:

I definately would sacrifice "top speed" for superior slow speed and start performance!

I don't know about that, it certainly takes away from that 150 mph - 031 curve experience.

BTW "Those 3-railers", are not usually the type that go for the kind of equipment that 3rd Rail/GGD manufactures.

quote:

Originally posted by jwmathews:
...But I think the vast majority of 3-railers won't pay that kind of money for a diesel, so the market has China drive models at under $500. If certain firms are willing to offer 2R versions at that lower price level, and enough 2-railers are willing to buy those to add to the manufacturers' profits (and help them bring out models of other locos--also in 2R versions), I see no grounds for complaint.

I have no quarrel with O scalers who have enough disposable income to keep firms like Key, Kohs, et al in business. But I think those who cannot afford such "high-end" models should not complain about the models they can afford because of the China drives. (That's like complaining about a cheap Chevy because one cannot afford a Cadillac!)

It is one thing to say one doesn't care for China drives. We are all entitled to our opinions. But if one has no constructive suggestions for a "better" drive system that could be made & sold at the same price, I do not see that "bashing" manufacturers of the China drive models is useful in any way. I rather think it probably creates a poor impression of the 2R market.

Woody:

I couldn't agree with you less. First, the Atlas SW is a benchmark of excellent drives under plastic, and flies in the face of your China-Drive-required for the price-point thesis. With the SW, Atlas themselves and those who point to this drive have already made your last paragraph a high-handed lecture, at best.

Also, the other scales have a myriad of examples that supports the idea that decent performance is not the purview of the wealthy. The idea that somehow people have no right to complain about these things because of their financial position is, at best, judgmental arrogance. Folks should complain, and have every right to.

Second, there is a wide open and un-populated band between a $2000 Key model and a $400 (overpriced in my estimation) Atlas or MTH China Drive unit. I'm hoping SS moves into that band with the detail level possible with plastics coupled with a drive that complements that detail level, much as they occupy a niche between MTH steam and Kohs with their steam offerings. That's a wide open opportunity, and sounds like where folks are looking. I'm hearing a call for value, not the cheapest thing we can get.

Hearing yet again the same defeatist palavar brings out the worst in me; my apologies. However, it's about time we start pushing for positive new opportunities, not wallow in the same defeatist negative crap we've found so comforting. O Scale does not deserve this, and O Scalers who aren't of the privileged class certainly have the same right to seek improvement and value as those who are. If the continued quest by the modeler for progress and value gives a "poor impression of the 2-rail market", which I doubt, then whomever might take offense has no stake in advancing the scale. I, for one, would thence invite them to get out and make room for someone else who wants to make a positive contribution to the market and the scale.

Another characteristic of the vertical drive system, that has not been mentioned here yet is the 'slop' prevelant in most 2 motor vertical drives.
By this I mean the keyhole opening in the stamped metal deck allows the motor/truck unit to slop fore and aft, side to side. That physical fact in and of itself will generate jerky starts as the trucks moves before the body does due to this slop. A characteristic that is amplified when running multiple engines as the units fight each other. Clunk, clunk, clunk.

Now perhaps someone can tell me the latest offerings of vertical motor 'china' drives have systems that have eliminated this horizontal play (admittedly my most recent china drive engine is a design at least 8 years old) where the motor/truck assembly is SNUG in its deck opening and the slop problem has been addressed.

Scott's description of the revised upcoming drive system sounds interesting to say the least. Sort of a hybrid between single horizontal and dual vertical drives. I am very encouraged that he is at least engineering an alternative.

I have played with designing alternative drives, using existing china truck blocks, a horizontal motor, and a hybrid gearbox that fits into the block to drive the spur gears. Of course, not having a machine shop at my disposal has severly limited my experiments. The right angle drive transition necessary brought me back to my mid-teen slot car days.

Phil is correct that I did a lot of testing a year ago with different gear ratios on stock Weaver china drives, using stock NWSL parts, and found the results quite encouraging. But the limited precision in re-assembling the block after the gear changes was a roadblock. In a production environment that issue is eliminated.

So I'll re-emphasize there may be hope for a new and improved vertical drive that can approach the slow speeds and starts we want, simple engineering changes that at the same time won't dramatically affect sales price.

These changes are few and simple-
single lead worm effectively doubles drive ratio.
simple shields or covers for the edges of the spur gears
snug fitting and free swiveling deck/frame to truck block mount.

Add to this the motor control gains made from command control (DCC, DCS, TMCC) and I think there's a recipe for significant improvement.

Is this still a vertical china drive? Sure, still a sow's ear. But a sow's ear that becomes more resemblant of the elusive silk purse.

I for one am happy for the dialog, and that guys like Scott are paying attention.

This is turning in to an interesting discussion.

I thought that Woody's comments were quite well posed, and I agree with him. I have not had the pleasure of running the Atlas switcher, so perhaps Brian is correct that that one ought to be the standard,

Four hundred dollars does not buy much these days - a week's worth of gasoline? But there are a limited number of individuals with the excess funds and the desires for $2000 diesels. A lot of us could go buy such things, but we simply have other priorities.

There are lots of things wrong with the China drive - ours pick up ballast in the spur gears and cause us great grief. They are loose in the slot, but I am finding that to be to my great advantage, since I can make a bakelite sandwich in the floor and totally insulate the entire truck from the steel floor. I am impressed with those of you who change gear ratios; it is all I can do with very special fixtures and heat to simply replace worn out gears with factory parts.

Scott is willing to look at this - give him some ideas. Remember his price range; you probably will not get sprung locomotive trucks on this one. If he can pop the whole thing out for four hundred, maybe he can sell truck sets for half that, and we can convert all the older stuff?

Finally, gear changes can be as simple as a different pulley pair. Nothing complicated about that; they can stick the extra parts in the box.

quote:

Originally posted by sdmann:

Using our belt drive and horizontally mounted motors above each truck, we can have a higher gear ratio for 2 Rail for better starts and a lower gear ratio for 3 Rail, because with full voltage on the track, the cruise control system gives you the smooth starting effects.

The belt drive will drive an in-truck gear axle that will have 3 gearboxes to drive each driver separately. We can also make the trucks equalized, but we usually use hard springs to keep things stable for the gearboxes anyway, so a fixed truck with real springs for good looks probably will do just fine.

The motors will be of coarse mounted horizontally lending a fully detailed cab interior, with figures and lighting, and ample room in between for QSI DC/DCC electronics and Electric RR Cruise Commander and Railsounds Commander.



The front pilot will be fixed, but there will be a large slot for the 3 Rail coupler to move left and right, and a sliding plate behind to hide the hole in the pilot, that is attached to the couper. The 2 rail pilot will house a Kadee and these can be interchangable with the 3 Rail pilot.
This is what I am proposing to our builder next week.

I still think we can keep the price of an A unit under $500 and a unpowered B under $300.

Your thoughts?

Scott Mann - China

Even though I model in three rail, I want the high gear ratio with ERR Cruise and Railsounds. Anything that runs over 50 smph, even on our large modular railroad, doesn't look very good to my eye anyway.

I'd also recommend adding a third pilot in the box, one with the cover plate over the coupler box. I'd pay an extra $10.00 per locomotive to have that options available, that way my lead A can look proper.


Regards,
GNNPNUT

Bob:
In a J3, perhaps a weeks worth. I "super-commute" interstate and a solid C-note more than covers 3-4 hrs a day on the road. $400 buys one helluva lot more than we O Scalers currently accept. Just look at what half that gets you in #1 gauge. Look at what it gets you in On30. Look what it gets you in HO, same electronics miniaturized, and much better mechanics mainstream. What's the big mystique here, other than the acceptance of a roadblock derived from wallowing in our own stagnancy? I grow weary hearing the same sages repeatedly expounding on "why we can't" instead of "how we can".

The interesting thing is going to be what $500-600 gets us in that wide open space between budget and prime-brass. That's where we should be exploring, and it sounds like where Scott is going. Good for him!

"Every now and then a little revolution is a healthy thing!"

Brian,

I appreciate your thoughts on this. Scott is really doing his best to cater to the scale market in a more affordable price range and sees a great opportunity to fill a void in the 2 rail community and the 3 rail scale oriented community that is there for the taking. I receive the Walthers updates and the HO E7's are looking to be very fine models. If we can get something this nice in plastic O, we can all be proud to own these locos.

If GGD / 3rd Rail / Sunset were looking to do yet another toy E7, there would not be much market as the 3 rail E7 market is pretty well saturated between the Lionel and Williams versions.

I feel they are headed in the right direction and offering fixed pilot only options is a great start. The alternative drive could be ground breaking given a chance. I certainly hope so. Working on the multiple powered units will also be a nice benefit and one worth paying a few extra dollars for.

Personally, I'd love to be able to afford Key, Precision Scale or Kohs, but with a family to care for and a wrecked economy to dig out of, it's just not going to happen. Alternatives in the scale world of O are always most welcome and help the competition step up too.

Scott and Bob,

I'm the fellow who started this post, you will find my reservation for the CB&Q A unit in your in box. Scott, you stepped up to the plate with some very welcome words.

The $500 - $600 range offers, IMHO, the opportunity for 3rd Rail to make $$$ whilst offering a higher quality (detail AND operations) model.

Please, please consider NMRA RP25 wheelsets.

ChipR