Future AF Suggestions

laming posted:

Rusty Traque posted:

 

Whew... to me that thing is hideous.

AF diesels have never been very appealing to me. The F unit is the worst... then a tie with the GP7 and the Baldwin.  The proportions are just not appealing at all. (Huge trucks on the GP, bubble head cab on the Baldwin, etc.) The PA does look nice, though, but the gaping hole at the pilot detracts for me.

 

It's all eye of the beholder stuff.  It took me a long time to come to terms with Gilbert's "extended range" Blomberg truck and pilot gap on the GP.  Frankly, the incorrect shape and extra clutter on the roof on the Flyer PA's still occasionally bothers me.

Lionel's six axle sideframe is pretty well proportioned for what it is and they're weren't trying to pass it off to the scale guys as a "proper" SD9.  It was an inexpensive way to add variety.  Lionel did the same thing to their O gauge GP's back in the 80's-90's.

Traditional Flyer and it's offspring is what it is. The whole trick to traditional Flyer and all it's perceived faults is to observe it in it's natural environment and the flaws begin to disappear.

We'll have to wait and see the improvements due on the FlyerChief GP7, but it still won't be a "scale" GP7.

Rusty

David offered:

"Hmm, well Laming, if your willing to upgrade the steamers, the "gaping hole" on the PAs can be upgraded too."

Well... I didn't say I was willing... just that such an approach could result in some pretty neat engines for Hi-Rail use.

Rusty said:

"It's all eye of the beholder stuff."

Absolutely. One man may gag a a particular species of gnat... and swallow a single hump camel... then the other may gag at a different species of gnat... and swallow a double hump camel.

Hey, I was entertained by running Lionel 3 rail traditional stuff for quite some time and as long as I kept them in a suitable environment... looked fine and dandy.

It's all good.

It really is a crying shame that S scale (all persuasions) is in such a state of stagnation. It is truly a nice size.

Still think that had I started my S scale foray many years prior to when I did, and IF I had been more thorough in my research and personal introspection, I still suspect that the Brooks Stover/Carl Tuveson approach is a very viable approach to the scale for one with "scale" inclinations, given the cards the scale as a whole is being dealt.

All fer now!

I do not see S as stagnant. We certainly do not have the variety that exists in full scale O gauge but there is plenty of scale sized and reasonably detailed equipment available. I have 30 TMCC/Legacy engines on my layout. More than I can operate in a week. There are six in the above picture and six more plus an original Gilbert 342AC in the picture above that. Five more in the first picture. Whether the cars are from Gilbert, Lionel, SHS, MTH or AM they are all scale proportioned and intermix perfectly. We always want more but what we have is pretty nice.

Tom:

Nice collection and a nice looking layout!

Perhaps "stagnant" was too harsh, but in my opinion, truly new product (specifically engines and rolling stock) being produced is, shall we say, "sparse" to say the least.

Agree, sparse is a kind word for the release of new product. I am fortunate that I am modeling in the mid 50's. The ERR boards, talented technicians and Lionel plus American Models engines can make an adequate fleet for high rail. I focus on what I can get rather than what is not made. Sure do wish Lionel would make a Legacy Hudson and a Legacy Berkshire but not putting my modeling on hold waiting. 

laming posted:

 

Perhaps "stagnant" was too harsh, but in my opinion, truly new product (specifically engines and rolling stock) being produced is, shall we say, "sparse" to say the least.

 

Unfortunately,  even I would have to agree with your statement, Andre.  Instead of a lively completion between MTH and Lionel we get a race to see who can come out with the least amount of product in the most amount of time. 

It was always hard to encourage folks into S, even during the good ol' days (The "S is a nice size, but I have too much invested in..." syndrome,) it can be darn near impossible nowadays.

No, stagnant is appropriate.  The bright stars are few and far between.  That's pretty much what anyone looking in from the outside will see.

Oddly, I have too much invested in S to change scales at this point in my life...

Rusty

My 2. 2 cents worth..

A new -0-8-0  and Hudson detailed like the Mikados  would provide many road names and a long run of locos.

Not with "Flyer Cheep" remote control please!

I would have to have several.

Carl

Sounds good Carl. I would buy several of each.

Carl Tuveson posted:

My 2. 2 cents worth..

A new -0-8-0  and Hudson detailed like the Mikados  would provide many road names and a long run of locos.

Not with "Flyer Cheep" remote control please!

I would have to have several.

Carl

 

 

 

Put scale wheels on them and I'll take a few of each. I especially like the 0-8-0 idea. My Lionel 3R Legacy 0-8-0 is one of my favorite all time steam engines to operate. Shrink that down to S with a smoke unit and I would honestly purchase 4.  Heck, I'll even pre-order them... Do you hear that Lionel? Just put out the artwork in a flyer and I will personally BTO 4. I will play by your rules, I just want a chance...

That is what is SO frustrating about the narrative that Lionel has given us. They obviously don't think that scale products will sell very well. My point is that they are basing that on skewed and possibly flawed data. Let's review the scale engines and my opinion of each as a scale modeler:

1. The Big Boy shouldn't count. It wasn't scale.

2. U-33 - First run did not run well. Had pivoting pilots and short handrails. No DCC support.

3. Challenger - Good model. The UP is not a super popular RR in S from what I understand. Many people not interested in big Articulated steam. No scale wheel option. No DCC

3. SD70 and ES44 - Much improved. Unfortunately made way too many heritage versions. Still have pivoting pilots and short handrails.

4. Y3 - Nice engine, but an extremely unpopular prototype in most scales. Scale wheel upgrade was +$500 (which quite a few people did I believe)

So those didn't sell as well as Lionel hoped, but I think there are reasons for that. I believe with a couple different decisions or prototypes it could have been a different story.

SO.... Since Lionel is all about the Build To Order process, why not put out a catalog or flyer with a new scale piece or two and just see what pre-orders they get? If they orders aren't there then don't make them, but why give up before you've actually tried?

What if they offered an 0-8-0, Hudson, SP GS4 Daylight, GP30, GP/SD-40-2, SD90, autoracks, scale passenger cars, etc... would you pre-order if they had both Hi-rail and Scale wheel options? I know I would. How much would it cost to draw a picture with a description and see how many orders they get? That's essentially what everyone else does these days.

Don't give up on scale until you try, Lionel.

Um, not to be nit-picky Jonathan, but your last sentence NEEDS a comma!

Don't give up on scale until you try, Lionel!

I might add, and do it right--no "extra-tall" trucks like "last time." After all, Lionel HAS tried scale, but they cut corners or something!

An 0-8-0 loco was pretty common with all railroads. One could do many varieties with a common boiler even. One other thing, other than the east coast, LOTS of other railroads burned OIL, not coal.

I'd love to see a vanderbuilt tender sometime too. . . .

Now for some blasphemy: I'd want mine in high-rail. I have WAY too much traditional stuff to change to scale at this point in my life & economics.

And I love my Y2, yes it's hard to justify it in my local, but that thing runs like a Swiss Watch.

As for large articulateds, CAB FORWARD!!! Oh, and if they'd just produce extra Challenger Tenders and trailing trucks, I could make my Big Boy really nice--maybe a "retrofit" kit?

I have a couple of first run U33C's that run pretty good.  I see little operational difference between them and my SD70's.

The SD70's have the hardware included to anchor the pilot.  The ES44 takes a little drilling and tapping, but it's pilot can be anchored, also.  You're probably never going to see swinging pilots go away as long as there is R20.

I get the feeling that if the SD70's and ES44's ever return, once the supply of scale wheel conversions is depleted, that's the final blow for scale from Lionel. 

Seems like the Y3 was a pretty good seller, while they didn't fly off the loading dock like the FlyerChief Berkshires, only two roads of the five remained in the 2013 catalog and they were given different numbers. 

I see Charlie Ro still has some of the F/C Northerns, only the Frisco version is sold out.  There's a message there, somewhere...

The Challengers probably suffered from"sticker shock."  Flyer folks weren't used to paying almost a grand for a new locomotive.

Right now, there's only one locomotive I'd be willing to preorder and I can't even talk River Raisin into it...

Rusty

Carl Tuveson posted:

My 2. 2 cents worth..

A new -0-8-0  and Hudson detailed like the Mikados  would provide many road names and a long run of locos.

I would have to have several.

Carl

Count me in for a couple of 0-8-0 switchers, One of the most handsome models ever (IMHO) was the Indiana Harbor Belt 0-8-0 produced by Rivarossi in HO scale in the 1960s:

A detailed version like that in "S" would open my pocketbook. As others have noted, the USRA 0-8-0 was used by many roads, so could be made in several prototype paint schemes. 

Produce any USRA model that hasn't been done before and you have so many road names that will appeal to the masses. How can you go wrong?

Rusty Traque posted:

I have a couple of first run U33C's that run pretty good.  I see little operational difference between them and my SD70's

Rusty

That depends on your perspective and what you consider "good". My U33 had a bad u joint that chewed itself to pieces. I had two more U33s while we were testing DCC for Jon and neither of them ran well either as far as I'm concerned. My criteria is simple- smooth slow speed is what is important to me. The model must maintain a min. of 1 scale mph or less without shuddering. Lionel has yet to make an engine that will do that from the factory. Good current generation DCC decoders can help fix that though. I've taken a Flyonel Mikado that would not run less than 15 scale mph stock under TMCC and got it down to about 1-2 scale mph with a TCS WowSound decoder.

I realize I come at it from a different place than many here. I want everything HO has, but 1/64 scale. Simple really I'm not interested in anything that does equal or outperform an equivalent HO model. Toy trains made to cruise around loops at a constant speed are not what I look for. I need to be able to operate so I need good slow speed capability. If I need to replace the Lionel electronics then I will. I just would like to see them make a model worthy of doing so.

How's this... Give us an 0-8-0 and an SD40-2. That should satisfy a lot of people. Don't wait for next year. Put out a special flyer and see how many pre-orders you get. I'm standing by to order

Craig, I would love to have that engine with Legacy. I would pay in advance, not just pre order. Johnathan, I doubt any of my Legacy Flyer or TMCC conversions will run at a scale 1mph, nor do I care. They definitely run at 3 to 5 mph on the roll activation, it is really, really slow on my layout. DCC has some control advantages over Legacy but in S I will take Legacy. If I put the BigBoy or Y3 on the first speed step it takes longer than I have time to wait to get from the main line to the turntable. Same for the Mikado's and Pacific's Carl rebuilt for me. Maybe I just have an attention span issue!

I have 2 U33C's that run perfectly  The worst low speed runners are the Challengers. Not to mention the brake squeal feature was not included on the Challengers.

unfortunately we will never have the product variety of HO. 

The small diameter of the drive wheels should allow this type of engine to have very good slow speed operation even with the existing level of "quality."