Why aren’t there ways to better measure engines against each other? Strength-to-weight ratio would give us a good relative performance tool. Also why not do a test for endurance so we might get an idea of how long an engine might last? Any other ideas? Also, they have truck pulls, lawn mower races,etc. why not do stuff like this with trains at train shows?
ONE ANSWER:
By the time they get the ‘edurance’ documented, the engine is long out of production.
bogeys- I agree the tests they do leave alot to be discovered by the modeler, but i can’t think of better tests.
Check out the “MSI-Chicago Intense Model RRing” post by dharrison as far as the endurance tests. It’s pretty impressive.
I agree that more information earlier on would be very helpful. One thing MR has started to do here recently is to publi***he weight of the locomotives being reviewed. I find that to be extremely helpful. Another thing that would help a lot would be to know where the balance point of the locomotive is.
Have Fun,
Tom Watkins
I always liked the part of their review when they tell you how many cars the engine will pull on straight level track. The amount of cars and the actual weight of an engine should be a sufficient indication of its power.
I generally ignore engine reviews, unless they’re REALLY condemning of the engine (runs badly, out of scale, badly painted, etc). I check performance by buying one and running the snot out of it on my own layout, under my own specific road conditions. If the engine performs as required, it joins the stable, and I’ll consider buying more. If it’s a POS, I return it.