I'm not sure what so many people have against Spectrum as I'm very happy with the look and performance of my SD-45; maybe having been away from modern products for so long I'm more easily satisfied than I should be.
Here is a little back ground to help you understand those who have been less than happy with Bachmans "better" diesels over the past 15 years (both Plus and Spectrum):
For those who have been in the middle of the hobby over the past 15 years or so, they have compared Spectrum to a few other offerings and relative to them there have been some unsatisfactory factors. I have followed all of the major brands from the late 1980's forward to the present and like most people, I expressed interest when a brand offered a diesel I needed.
For example, between 1989 and 1993 Bachman Spectrum produced a new "better quality" F40PH. Me being a fan of the Amtrak California Zephyr bought two of them. They had flashy strobe lights and a better looking body than the crummy versions available only by Life Like and Bachman in the past. After buying these loco's I read the review in Model Railroader magazine (keep in mind MR mag is usually very generious in their reviews). The review noted the overall height of the F40PH was nearly a scale foot too low, the crude (by Athearn blue box standards) looking trucks were both a scale foot too close to the ends, making it nearly impossible to mount couplers for scale coupling distance. The pilot was the worst of all with a crummy looking plow and an ugly flat spot like it ran into a wall - not seen on the real thing, incorrect nearly flat profile. They didn't run real great either and the shells was a bid crude by todays standards. FYI, Bachman Spectrum upgraded their F40PH a couple years ago with see thru grills and fans etc, but I still prefer the relatively inexpensive Walthers Trainline F40PH to it because the pilot looks better and overall they did a decent job on the shell etc. I sold my Spectrum F40PH's as soon as the Walthers F40PH came out. We have KATO now too - who still didn't get the pilot quite right either. =(
Following that, Bachman Plus produced in their better line of HO diesels as GP35 which got dinged by MR magazine for badly scaled features like wind shields etc. The Bachman Plus SD45 also had bad windshields and horrible looking side frames and roof fans etc. It was later upgraded to a Spectrum and they corrected some of these errors. The molding of the shells was also crude by the standards of the time (like KATO, Proto 2000 and even Athearn bb had better molded shells with crisp details. So while Spectrum may have been much better than 1970's - early 180's models, they fell short by a great deal to mid-late 1990's standards. I realize it is a matter of what you are used to and if you were used to 20 year old loco's then I can see why Spectrum seemed alot better. But then we had alternatives to Spectrum like KATO GP35's and SD45's, Proto 2000 was really making strides in nice shells with fine applied detail parts for a reasonable price, and Atlas was maintaining a high level of quality too.
I will conclude that after about three trips to the drawing board (Bachman Plus, Bachman Spectrum and improved Bachman Spectrum), the Spectrum SD45 is a decent HO loco. I don't own any because they never painted them for Rio Grande and I'm not a good painter so I have relied on KATO and soon to be Athearn (upgraded Rail Power shell) RTR release for SD45's.
Texas Zepher wrote: While this has been a standard discussion of putting locomotives into quality categories for reasons like "runs smooth", "pulls well", etc. and you get what you pay for. We have had these discussions tens of times, but none of it is answering the original posters quote. The question is why does one run smoother, pull better, be more reliable etc.
While this has been a standard discussion of putting locomotives into quality categories for reasons like "runs smooth", "pulls well", etc. and you get what you pay for. We have had these discussions tens of times, but none of it is answering the original posters quote. The question is why does one run smoother, pull better, be more reliable etc.
Good point. The "you get what you pay for" axiom isn't always true. The $100 MSRP RTR Athearns often still fall short with noisy mechanisms etc. The answer to the original question is inconsistant standards and quality control is still happening and is why we have better and worse issues with the higher cost loco's. Many have complained about the pricey BLI loco's having problems needing corrected right out of the box too.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
While this has been a standard discussion of putting locomotives into quality categories for reasons like "runs smooth", "pulls well", etc. and you get what you pay for. We have had these discussions tens of times, but none of it is answering the original posters question. The question is why does one run smoother, pull better, be more reliable etc.
I don't know anything about the regular Bachmann line, but some of the other bottom of the line brands have a transversal mount 3 pole motor (some call these pancakes). These give power to only the wheels of the truck where the motor is. The Atlas type are going to be using precision can motors that utilize a precision gear system to transfer the power to all the wheels of the locomotive.
Falls Valley RR wrote: I built a bunch of Athearn Blue Box Boxcars and equippted with Metal Wheels, KD's; stock piled spares to maintin the fleet into the future. I spent X dollars. Rather inexpensive against RTR cars what with the plastic couplers that need converting to Kadee and slightly light weight.
I built a bunch of Athearn Blue Box Boxcars and equippted with Metal Wheels, KD's; stock piled spares to maintin the fleet into the future. I spent X dollars. Rather inexpensive against RTR cars what with the plastic couplers that need converting to Kadee and slightly light weight.
Those are great things to routinely do for your Athearn and MDC kits and will give you much more reliable operation. When I was in college or money was much tighter, I at least added KD#5 couplers, gauged the plastic wheels (and replace any wobbly wheels), gauged the coupler height and added weight if a car was very light.
At the end of the day should my train of these boxcars roll by, I hope you like them. Now... if I bought these boxcars from Intermountain, My wife would give me a hard time and there will be hell to pay when one realizes the amount at MSRP on the train.I would buy Intermountain if funds are not an issue. Actually I do consistently buy Intermountain, just not as many at once.
I would buy Intermountain if funds are not an issue. Actually I do consistently buy Intermountain, just not as many at once.
If feel your pain. When I was married, my wife was overly strict with my train budget limiting me to $20 or $25 per month - which didn't go very far even in the 90's. Unfortunately (or fortunately for my hobby) that marriage went south and I"ve been living single for the last 7 years. Money has still been an issue but there have been times when I had more or less. Last few years I've been blessed and could afford a good deal of Intermountain and Genesis rolling stock. However, I realize there may come a day when I have a wife #2 and things will change again! (make hay while the sun shines!!!!!)
Regarding engines, certain features must be present. All wheel pickup, can motor with flywheels, good low speed performance, front and rear lights plus couplers as well.
Yes, agree'd! Unfortunately some of the more costly loco's still need some improvement in that category. I've heard alot of grumbling that the newer Athearn RTR stuff which MSRPs around 100 smackers should run quieter and smoother - well, thats a QAQC problem as much as anything.
Once I get that written up, just about all of the tycos, Bachmann Standard engines and most IHC and other types of similar "Inexpensive" engines disappear from consideration. I look at BLI, Proto and a few others of top dollar engines and choose the best suited.
I pretty much do the same thing. Bachman, IHC other similar loco's are off my radar too. I know some modelers accept Bachman Plus and Bachman Spectrum which is their choice, but its a matter of finding certain loco's up to a standard of ones choosing. Some of the Proto 2000 I have steered clear of too and I was happy I had a good alternative (eg SD50's and SD45's). I do own a bunch of GP30's and SD7/9's etc, which I realize will need most of the cracked gears replaced.
Sometimes pricing is a consideraton. One PCM P7 B&O pacific that has been announced two years ago at 400 dollars MSRP and yet to arrive was replaced by a Availible Proto E7 A-A set with QSI out of the factory for a few dollars less.
Absolutely! While I have more available disposable income to spend right now, I have felt reticent to spend the prices that BLI has been asking for much of their engines. My first really expensive plastic diesel I will be faced with buying is the sound equipped Proto 2000 F7AB set coming out in Feb 2008. The MSRP is $369.98 for an AB set with sound! Yikes! Even if I get 30% off that will be about $259 for 2 loco's! I don't think I've ever paid that before ever! Ok they have sound but still! :-O
At the end of the day should my train of these boxcars roll by, I hope you like them. Now... if I bought these boxcars from Intermountain, My wife would give me a hard time and there will be hell to pay when one realizes the amount at MSRP on the train.
Maybe I will get the P7 engine but... probably from Trainworld or some place when they are blowing them out years from now... if such a thing ever gets built and shipped.
So.
Add Time and Availibility to the Product Consideration.
davidmbedard wrote: Not worth my time.....David B
Not worth my time.....
David B
It was worth your time to take issue with my orginal post. Be a good sport please.
Cheers.
davidmbedard wrote: I wasnt putting words in your mouth....you used the word "toy" and "Proto 1000" in the same thought.
I wasnt putting words in your mouth....you used the word "toy" and "Proto 1000" in the same thought.
When I was saying you were putting words in my mouth, it was because you said I was taking loco's with or without grab irons and putting them in to such N such a cost group etc. So yes, you were adding the idea of grab irons etc to my discussion when I didn't mentione it.As for putting Toy Train engines in the same broad price range category with Proto 1000 - "less expensive" - maybe they don't seem to go together but.... the original topic was two price categories. "inexpensive and more expensive". I drew the line around 60 dollars discount. Athearn RTR, Genesis, Proto 2000, Atlas, BLI, KATO are all pretty firmly above 60 dollars at discount new sale prices. (yes, I know some people bottom feed a few of these of these at less but we are talking new prices at dealers/online etc). Proto 1000, Bachman Plus, MRC, Life Like Tyco and some I can't think of are below. Thats my own man made dividing line. Just because a "toy" falls into that category shouldn't put anyone off. If anything it speaks highly of the "good deal" you get with a Proto 1000 F3! =)
I consider 4 catagories when it comes to plastic models:
Part of the problem with subcategorizing things is you get away from the idea of cost - the original premise of this thread. Because, as I mentioned above, you have some loco's which are cheaper with very good drives, and some which are more expensive and have medicre details. KATO loco's for example have (save the SD40-2's) excellent smooth quiet drives, but have fallen way behind in the detail department. So it gets mixed up pretty fast and difficult to put cost division lines out and then make generalizations with in each cost category.
My statements that you took issue with were my attempt to discuss the original topic and stay within the two cost categories - which I think I did based one where I drew the line in the sand. Sure, within the inexpensive category there are certainly the "toy trains" and the cheaper "model trains". Athearn blue box kits, Accurail kits and MDC kits fall within the cheaper model train category. There are better and worse examples from those lines. I have dumped most of my Athearn blue box and MDC cars but have kept some of them which are decent and are reasonbly acccurate copies of real freight cars (Athearn 57' mechanical refers, Athearn 86' auto box cars, Athearn CF4427 2-bay covered hopper, MDC 52' gondola, MDC FMC combo coor and single door box cars) etc...
davidmbedard wrote: Examples of those "inexpensive" loco's might include Bachman or Bachman Plus, Proto 1000, MRC, Tyco and so on. Essentially loco's in the toy train category, not Proto 2000 loco's that somone "bottom fed" for dirt cheap.I wouldnt group Proto 1000 with "MRC, Tyco and so on". So, according to your logic, locomotives without grabirons are toy train catagory locomotives. David B
Examples of those "inexpensive" loco's might include Bachman or Bachman Plus, Proto 1000, MRC, Tyco and so on. Essentially loco's in the toy train category, not Proto 2000 loco's that somone "bottom fed" for dirt cheap.
I wouldnt group Proto 1000 with "MRC, Tyco and so on".
So, according to your logic, locomotives without grabirons are toy train catagory locomotives.
David B,
My logic has nothing to do with grab irons - I think you are putting words in my mouth. Please re-read the title of the topic - that is where I'm coming from. Things fall into price categories and the Proto 1000 F3's are rather inexpensive in comparison to the "more expensive" HO diesels. I wasn't making any value judgements by putting them in that cost category. That is just how they are priced. However, Athearn "blue box" loco's still on the shelves would probably classify as "less expenisive" loco's too and they *gasp* don't have grab irons either. My point above is to draw a line between lesser and more expensive based on todays market, budgets and buying power etc.
Obviously the Proto 1000 F3's are the best of the "inexpensive" loco group. The danger of painting any topic with too broad a brush is that you have to lump things together and you can't satisfy everyone when you do that. I also put the Bachman Plus F units in the inexpensive category and from the review I read, they ran pretty smooth and quietly too.
Mechanically they are no different from their 2000 brothers and the difference ONLY being in the application of grab irons.
Don't get too misty eye'd over big brother Proto 2000 mechanisms - Here is what Joe Fugate had to say in another forum about Proto 2000 mechanisms:
"Proto2000: Great detail, less-than-great performance. Diesel models are known to have drive train issues (cracked gears) and power pickup problems. As the Proto2000 locos age (and I work my locos hard) they are on my workbench as locos needing maintenance work more than any other brand.Many of my modeler friends steer clear of Proto2000 locos any more. They look great, and may run decent to start with, but they become a maintenance sink as they put on the miles. Most of my modeler friends have dumped their P2K stuff in favor of Atlas, Kato, Stewart/PPW, or Athearn Genesis diesel locos."
IF that is your logic, then you need to put Stewart products with the toy train locomotives.
By ANY logic, you can't put Stewart in the same class as Proto 2000 F3's. No way. The mechanism is a silky smooth quiet KATO, not an Athearn clone - a HUGE difference to start with. (Most people believe the Stewart drive beats out every more expensive loco to date including Genesis, Intermountain, BLI etc) The molding of the Stewart F unit shell is much crisper and better as well. The Proto 1000 has molded on grab irons, the Stewart doesn't. I admit, for an "inexpensive" locomotive (cost wise - and that is what this topic is about right?) the Proto 1000 F3 has a very good looking shell, and is clearly better than anything else near its price category. Which is why I will recommend Proto 1000 F units to anyone on a tight budget and try to steer them clear of Bachman Plus, RMC, Athearn RTR (aka blue box) and so on.
And since you raised the issue of grab irons, lets thow your logic in reverse. Athearns newer RTR loco's (I placed in the "more expensive" category) have applied grab irons and RR specific details now but many complaints about the drive. How can a "more expenisve (MSRP $99.95 - discount price $69.95) have a less than stellar drive? Well, prices don't always justify all the features. The "less expensive Proto 1000 F3 is a good deal for its price, but some of the "more expensive" diesels have issues including Proto 2000 and Athearn RTR. Both have less than stellar drives but nicely detailed shells.
You get what you pay for. Period.
What's the difference between a BMW and a Chevy?
You get what you pay for!
Bob Boudreau
CANADA
Visit my model railroad photography website: http://sites.google.com/site/railphotog/
Names omitted to protect the guilty.
Back when I was buying motive power and rolling stock I noticed that a certain 'name' manufacturer charged 15% or so more for products of identical (or even poorer) quality, compared to other manufacturers of similar items. It didn't take long to figure out that the difference was a surcharge for, "The Name!"
Very few of that manufacturer's products ended up on my roster.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Tilden wrote: Along this line, I offer this. I have purchased the Bachmann Thomas stuff, supposedly for the boys. When I got Thomas and converted it to DCC, I called Bachmann and got to talking to the engineer in charge, who just returned from China.During our converation he told me the motors in the Thomas line are spectrum motors because it didn't make sense to set up a seeperate line for lower quality motors.I'm guessing this is often the case. Certain parts can be higher quality and still be used in lower end products. This means everything else, details, shell construction, wheels etc, can and will be the difference in "quality" and run-abliity of a loco.In this case James, the 2-6-0 is the worst runner and it has to do, not with the motor or drive train, but rather with electrical pick-up.Tilden
Along this line, I offer this. I have purchased the Bachmann Thomas stuff, supposedly for the boys. When I got Thomas and converted it to DCC, I called Bachmann and got to talking to the engineer in charge, who just returned from China.
During our converation he told me the motors in the Thomas line are spectrum motors because it didn't make sense to set up a seeperate line for lower quality motors.
I'm guessing this is often the case. Certain parts can be higher quality and still be used in lower end products. This means everything else, details, shell construction, wheels etc, can and will be the difference in "quality" and run-abliity of a loco.
In this case James, the 2-6-0 is the worst runner and it has to do, not with the motor or drive train, but rather with electrical pick-up.
Tilden
This is true about a lot of things. From breakfast serials to trains. Often, changing things at the factory is more expensive then using the same all out. Lets face it, the cost for each motor in a spectrum or any other mass produced engine must be a very small cost for a large manufacturer. Perhaps even lower due to the fact that they are ordering 100000 instead of 10000. Also, repairing ten different ones are harder then repairing one kind and the same goes for spare parts.
That said, there obviously are different motors in different engines but Tildens point is very good.
Magnus
loathar wrote:Selector-I've got A Bach Spectrum Dash and a few of their cheap standard line. Same motors.None of them sound like little lawn mowers. They all actually run real quit and smooth. Better than any of my Athearns. (DOWN Brakie!) Keep in mind I'm NOT comparing these to Atlas,Kato or Proto since I don't own any.
Loathar, that is the thing, isn't it? Bachmann has to replace/repair their cheapos every bit as intently as they must their more expensive Spectrum line, so would it not make sense to get the best deal on a solid drive by volume purchase and simply adopt that as a single reliable standard in all their lines? We're not talking a 282 vs. a 350 here, nor a F-150 over an F-350 Heavy Duty and all the engineering differences that the customer wants and pays for in the macro scale and world.
Now, having said all this, I do know, and fully accept, how in the world of amateur-level telescopes you really do get what you pay for. Usually, the optics are good enough across the various lines and prices to qualify as "diffraction limited" (giving decent image quality and contrast), but it is in the engineered mounts and the drive mechanisms to let the optical tube track the movement of the stars and planets across the sky relative to the observer's positon on the globe where the bucks pay off. Cheap ones are jerky, hard to get fine control, and the image suffers accordingly as one tries to watch through the moving eyepiece. Blaachh!!
The terms are somewhat related to our disposable income of course.
But to generalize, I would put HO engines costing below $60 (average discount price) in the inexpensive category and over $60 in the "more expensive" category. Anyone new to the hobby would probably agree.
Example of the more expensive loco's include Athearn RTR, Genesis, KATO, Proto 2000 and Stewart. BLI at the upper end of that.
Those who have gotten aclimated to the costs of model trains, and have the income, might put the "more expensive" loco's into the above $100-150 price range (for diesels anyway - steam is another beast altogether).
Between similar priced engines we can argue things like chassis and detail etc. Joe Fugate commented that P2K loco's (certainly MRSP at the "more expensive range") has commented that the chassis are overall high maintenence over time vs other loco's in the approximate similar price category. Stewart F units cetainly have very high quality drives but the shell is outdated and still selling for similar prices as other more highly detailed engines with inferior drives like Athearn RTR or Proto 2000 etc.
I would feel happier knowing that this was the case, as stated in the two posts above mine, but I am not so sanguine about it. Can anyone show us definitively that a can motor in Bachmann's regular line is measurably poorer in the appropriate aspects compared to one found in their Spectrum line,...and that the gear towers are substantially different? Is BLI doing this to their Blue Line...I don't think so.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying there is no difference, but how would I know of it one way or another? I can appreciate the difference in details, and perhaps the shell molds have more relief and detail on them on the higher end stuff, but I am unsure that there is much to separate them. Then, so many folks get on here and implore the neophytes to forego the trainsets because they are clearly inferior...I can believe that.
I think it is a good question. We hear that many folks can't run their new XCM 4-8-2 in brass because it needs "tweaking", or even outright remotoring and gearing....what's up with that?!
jacon12 wrote:what is the difference mechanically and electrically in an inexpensive and a more expensive locomotive?
2. Greater precision in the manufacturing leading to finer tolerances. Are the gears & worms molded, cut, or milled. Is the fly wheel & other rotating drive train components perfectly in balance. Are the wheels 100% round with 0.0001" maximum variation. The best design in the world can be ruined with lousy engineering.
3. Better quality control. Even the Bachmann Spectrums suffer from this. One part out-of-spec can ruin an entire drive train.
4. I would also venture a as to say higher quality materials making up higher quality parts. All synthetic materials (plastics, nylons, etc.) are not created equal. The vendors have to ask themselves why use expensive self lubricating neoprene bearings when cheap pot plastic ones will do - or for that mater why use bearings at all? It is just a toy.
Sound features in a locomotive aside, what is the difference mechanically and electrically in an inexpensive and a more expensive locomotive? Take the regular Bachmann line and Atlas' better models for example, what is it about the motor, drive train, electrical pickups/wiring etc. that makes the Atlas the better runner and more expensive, generally speaking?
Jarrell