I’m getting a little annoyed with spending top dollar for models that need to be fiddled with in order to meet nmra standards, or just plain commcn sense.
Example:Engines that are’DCC’ ready, but the headlight & back-up bulbs are not,…Non operating front couplers…Engines that are not heavy enough…Not enough electrical pick-up…Established companys that still produce models whose couplers don’t match a KD height guage.On and On and On.
Part of the problem stems from the fact that there is no true standard set by the NMRA or MRIA for any of these items, so the manufacturers will just continue to turn out whatever people will buy, and do it as cheaply as possible . As long as the modeling public is content to purchase these items, nothing will change.
Cacole;
Except for the height standard on couplers what you say is true. The NMRA has had a coupler height standard since the 1950’s at least. Coupler type supplied with the model has played a major role in setting height. There are no standards as to what rating bulbs are used in what model, weight of locomotives, couplers on front of locomotives or electrical pickup. I believe that DCC will set a defacto standard on the bulbs eventually , and there is some progress in the weight and pickup problems, i.e. Spectrum, Proto, Atlas, Kato, all of these advocate max weight and max pickup. More manufacturers are also providing provisions for operating couplers on the front of the locomotives if not couplers themselves. There is progress in these areas, but sometimes not as fast as we would like.
No.1 reason why things go wrong is lack of proper communications. If we buy an article we tell them that we’re happy. If we don’t buy I’m sure they will get the idea loud and clear and quick!
Most of us Take things in stride and complain only when it’s too late. With the advent of e-mail I think if more of us took pen to paper and wrote enmasse. the manufacturers would get the idea.
Remember their shortcomings could be as a result of the fact that they aren’t MR’rs and need guidance.
Regards
Stuff advertised as RTR…and isn’t.
I’m thinking holes you have to drill, grabs installed, and the rest of it.
This is NOT RTR, IMO. And for the prices they’re asking, it darn well out to be truly RTR right out of the box!
The perfect engine has yet to be made…
-
Kadee or Seargent metal couplers, operating couplers on the pilots of all steamers.
-
A reliable low current draw 5 or 7 pole motor with good pickup, plus a provision for easily installing DCC boards, and lights that can stand 14 volts.
-
All fragile parts metal/wire, and desinging the shell so that it can be taken off easily.
-
Having a cab interior if it can be seen, and including a crew.
-
Keeping within all major dimensions of the prototype, and making sure that the model is correct for the prototype road being offered, plus accurate paint schemes.
-
Putting enough weight in the locomotive so it can actually pull close to what the prototype did.
Some manufactuers have been able to do most of what was on this list, but I’ve yet to see an engine with all of those checked off.
I couldn’t agree more. The two biggest bones of contention as far as I’m concerned are insufficient weight / poor balance and lack of a working front coupler. If they advertise it as DCC ready then the bulbs should be capable of handling the voltage.
Have Fun,
Tom Watkins
I spare myself the hassle of buying RTR products that aren’t RTR–I buy kits! That way, I expect that I’ll have to build a few things.
The NMRA standards are there to ensure compatibility not quality. A model which has the NMRA seal of conformance meets the standards. Read the standards to see what that is. It may still look lousy and run poorly. What we really need is a Consumer Reports for model railroads. Until then we have have to vote with our dollars and pass on our experiences on the forums.
Enjoy
Paul
The reason they “can’t get it right” relates to the cost of doing business. Model railroad manufacturers and businesses compete on price, as well as the features they offer in their products. As long as we modelers keep trying to buy stuff for less (and believe me, I’m a cheapskate), we will have to bear the costs of incomplete models and less than perfect materials. Thus, I change out plastic couplers with Kadees, plastic wheels with Intermountains, and 1.5 volt bulbs with 14 volters. That’s what I want. Sure it costs me, but I can’t expect the manufacturers to cater to my every whim. Yes it is irritating (non DCC ready being my pet peeve), but it’s a hobby and we have a wealth of stuff available now that looks better than ever.
I can live with a few flaws, and I pick the improvements I will make.
Cheers
Peter
CJM 89,
Too add to what you listed: Doors that open and close. On this one Proto does deserve a salute!
Although I believe I got a fix, I am still ticked at Walthers Budd Cars. The couplers are way too high. WHY? I am still waiting on an answer to my email from Walthers. Its a great running car other than that.
During a thread on the forum, I got steered to a web site with the answers. REPLACE with KD #22/32/42. (Mo Money) Now why should I have to do that on a car with an MSRP of $35.00??? [:(!]
(Curiously, Walthers Budd Cars were MR’s Reader Choice Award 2001)[:-^]
[soapbox] O.K! I feel a lot better now. Thanks [:)]
REX
Being a modelr of a fairly obscure road (the NKP), I’ve been forced to accept the fact that I’ll have to modify basically ANY NKP model I happen to buy. Even the new P2K Berkshire, which is (so far) the best-detailed and scaled model of a NKP S-1 Berk, has some flaws (drivers, cab hatches and headlight numberboard). Other engines, like their big fleet of USRA-clone 2-8-25s, will cost me hundreds of hours worth of work to bring up to my standards (they gotta look like the photos, and the three still in existance). And most of the freight cars for the NKP are only available as resin or Branchline-quality plastic, meaning lots more hours of assembly time.
Essentially, I don’t let a few little problems bother me, since everything has to go to the backshops anyhow. I’m looking for overall quality and proto fidelity, and a starting point for further work. Having to modify/fix/superdetail/tweak a few dozen models in the pursuit of my goal is no big deal; I’ve taught myself most of the skills I need to fix most problems (and that’s one of the things this hobby is all about!)
And Chris: the upcoming BLI USRA light 2-8-2s WITH the traction tires added should satisfy all your criterion except for the crew. Once I get mine delivered (whenever they’re released) I’ll submit a review and performance test.
Ahh yes, the same guys who brought us that raging success, the X2F coupler.[:(!] They’re great, to toss onto the floor outside your teenagers room, so that when he steps in them in the darkness, in his bare feet, you will immediately know how far past his curfew he is sneaking in. Gimme a break!
The hobbiests themselves have to write letters and gripe loudly to get the manufacturers to change. Just remember one thing, every upgrade they do (working pilot couplers, rewiring for DCC, etc) will cost more money to buy.
Its true either way, you get what you pay for, and you pay for what you get.
CBQGUY: I’m with you. ‘RTR’ and you have to go through six or eight drill bits to add wires and grab-ons? I’m talking about the Walther’s cabooses (cabeese?) and their passenger cars. GORGEOUS models, just GORGEOUS! But those ‘starter’ holes drive me nuts, and the plastic is some kind of weird stuff that just eats up drill bits like a pihrana. If it’s supposed to be RTR, then MAKE it RTR. I’ll pay the extra two bucks!
NMRA Standards and Warrants are a joke. I don’t remember ever seeing a NMRA Warrant on any piece of rolling stock from Athearn, MDC, Bachmann, etc. etc. If they complied with the NMRA standards, why do we have underset, overset, centerset, long shank, medium shank, short shank, and all the other varieties of couplers? Most manufacturers couldn’t care less about the NMRA and any of its standards as long as the stuff can be made on the cheap in China and people continue to purchase it.
Manufacturers seem to skimp on research, and many times don’t bother to ask outside their firms for help. A while ago Life Like Canada (Canadian Hobbycraft) had ads about their upcoming RS-18 diesels (Canadian versions of the ALCo RS-11’s) telling everyone that they would be the most prototypically accurate models ever produced!
That claim was quickly shot down when they finally came out, and some of their goofs were real simple ones that did not take a lot of research, like having the horns on the cab pointed the wrong way on the CP version, including the bell on the short hood for the same road, who placed the bell on the frame, etc., etc. To make it worse these engines were the most expensive ones ever produced for Canadian roads - list price of around $200.00. So now anyone takes any of their claims with a grain of salt.
It’s a shame too, because there are historical groups all around with tons of research material for most major railways, and would no doubt be willing to assist in checking for accuracy. I think the firms are too secretive, and don’t want it generally known when they are planning models so keep their research in house, much to their detriment.
Bob Boudreau
Cacole;
Actually the manufacturers do their best to comply with the NMRA standards. If they didn’t you’d have the situation that you have with G “scale”. There are at least 7 different scales used by G scale manufacturers, but they all run on the same gauge track.
The reason there are so many different shanks, is there are no coupler standards. The only standard on couplers is the height above the rails. There are Recommended Practices regarding coupler pockets and truck bolster height and truck mounting, but these are not standards. The NMRA tried to set coupler standards in the 1950’s but the membership couldn’t settle on a single design for a coupler, and it failed to pass.
The models are compromises between cost and accurate detail. If a the bell location is correct for railroad A but not B do you go to the extra cost of making both variations, forgo the extra sales by not offering B, or make both paint schemes anyway even though one is wrong. Besides if the manufacturers got everything right, there would be no need for companies making after market parts. There are many modelers who actually enjoy correcting the mistakes and adding details.
While proposed as an NMRA standard, the X2F coupler was never adopted. At the time there were a number of complete incompatible couplers in use. The choice by most manufactures to use somewhat compatab
All I have to say if you want perfection be ready to buy plastic locomotives at brass prices.Are you ready to pay the price? You see everything mention is fixable by old fashion modeling…Lack the skills? Learn them.
As far as NMRA standards and RPs some are so out dated they should be removed from the book.
Did you know Bachmann has the NMRA seal of conformance warrents and Kato does not? Look it up.http://www.mainerailroads.org/candi/warrants.html