MyLocoSound 2020 Survey Results

chris m01

chris m01

Registered
24 Oct 2009
4,447
54
Birmingham, UK
It's a good old spread of control types. There again I have three control types.
I love the mylocosound steam chip and every steam outline loco I have is fitted with one. Sounds great and excellent value for money. I'm yet to be convinced about the diesel chip for large US diesel sound. Mylocosound diesel chips seem fine for small diesels but somehow just don't sound right in a big loco. If it did I would have bought more over the years.
 
JimmyB

JimmyB

Semi-Retired; more time for trains.
23 Feb 2018
2,553
499
Weston-super-Mare
Looks like battery RC is quite popular.
 
Greg Elmassian

Greg Elmassian

Registered
8 Mar 2014
3,759
485
San Diego
www.elmassian.com
Tony only: Why wouldn't I like the result? I don't need you to foment trouble by baiting me here as you have done on MLS and LSC and other forums, I'll thank you to not do this in the future here. Leave me alone.

While on the results of the survey, I did find one comment interesting, and having been in the 1:29 camp for quite a while, deserves some "calibration"

The statement by Peter is:
"Note that 1:29 scale is common in the US and most respondents recorded it as G Scale although it is actually closer to 1:32Gauge 1. "

I'm not sure of the motiviation of this statement, but on the face of it, it seems misguided. It implies that 1:29 should be grouped with 1:32, just because they are close numerically.

In the United States, 1:32 is normally reserved for very accurate (and expensive)scale models, normally brass, and many are display only. In live steam 1:32 dominates 1:29 and always has since it is accurate to the track gauge, and people spending $4,000 for a loco want this, fidelity to scale.

Also in track power 1:32, as I have said, it is a rarefied atmosphere, and MTH makes trains in this scale, but they are more expensive and a limited quantity and breadth of product.

1:29 was the first really affordable large scale that supported North American products, more suited to a wider range of enthusiasts, where a fleet of 10 or so locos was possible for the common man. (or woman!)

USA Trains and Aristo made up most of this market. You could buy a nicely detailed, rugged locomotive for $250. Parts are still available.

As Peter stated, the scope of his survey went beyond just sound (where scale is irrelevant) to manufacturers.

So, Peter, please understand that 1:29 is a big market and yes, we think of ourselves as G scale, with the "wow factor" of size, as opposed to precisely scaled models at 1:32. We are not scale purists.

This is where the majority of mainline trains are in Large Scale - 1:29.
1:20.3 and 1:22 and 1:24 are either narrow gauge or early steam / branchline for the most part.

Greg
 
Last edited:
Rhinochugger

Rhinochugger

Retired Oik
27 Oct 2009
27,066
1,301
North West Norfolk
Those results are interesting:

  1. It surprised me that battery power was such a high percentage.
  2. It didn't surprise me that Fn3 was such a low percentage.

The results from any survey are going to be led by the style of questioning, and therefore only a snapshot - but an interesting one nonetheless.
 
M

Moonraker

Registered
25 Oct 2009
923
56
South Australia
Tony only: Why wouldn't I like the result? I don't need you to foment trouble by baiting me here as you have done on MLS and LSC and other forums, I'll thank you to not do this in the future here. Leave me alone.

While on the results of the survey, I did find one comment interesting, and having been in the 1:29 camp for quite a while, deserves some "calibration"

The statement by Peter is:
"Note that 1:29 scale is common in the US and most respondents recorded it as G Scale although it is actually closer to 1:32Gauge 1. "

I'm not sure of the motiviation of this statement, but on the face of it, it seems misguided. It implies that 1:29 should be grouped with 1:32, just because they are close numerically.

. . . . . . .
Greg,

I completely agree with your comments. My only motivation in mentioning 1:29 was to explain the large disparity in G Scale/Gauge 1 percentages in the US compared with other countries.

One thing I have never understood is why USA Trains and Aristo chose 1:29 which scales standard gauge to 49.5mm whereas 1:32 scales to 44.8mm. Therefore 45mm track is almost exactly correct for standard gauge in 1:32.. Anybody know why they chose 1:29?

Regards
Peter Lucas
MyLocoSound
 
Tony Walsham

Tony Walsham

Manufacturer of RCS Radio Control.
25 Oct 2009
2,146
27
Casino, NSW
........because Lewis Polk thought the proper 1:32 scale models would look too small compared to LGB.

I know because I was involved with Polk as he started 1:29 stuff and that is what he told me.
 
Greg Elmassian

Greg Elmassian

Registered
8 Mar 2014
3,759
485
San Diego
www.elmassian.com
Thanks for putting up with my long-winded explanation Peter!

There are various theories, one that seems supported by evidence is that given the availability of 45 mm track, the 1:32 looked "small" especially compared to LGB locomotives, so they strove for a scale that could still pass as standard gauge without having the wheels too recessed under the body.

Clearly any scale as large as the 1:26 ish stuff LGB was using was way out of whack. Aristo Craft wanted something that looked more impressive than 1:32 in size but clearly wanted something in a scale.

As Aristo was in other train production, it apparently took HO drawings and tripled them (29 times 3 is 87, 1:87 is HO scale). There are other examples of simple scaling up of other in production models, the first large scale product from Aristo was actually a scaled up O scale caboose, from 1:48 to 1:24, which was produced until the end of the company, but this caboose was too large and a 1:24 standard gauge diesel did not look right on 45mm track.

This is the best I can do on the history, and there are places where Lewis Polk confirmed the caboose history, and did not deny the factor of 3 from HO scale for the 1:29...

The locos were a hit, and Aristo Craft really dominated the market while it was alive outselling it's nearest competitor between 2 to 1 up to 3 to 1 in sales.

When I was starting, coming from "strict" scales of HO and N, it was really hard for me to decide between the accurate 1:32, and the "wow factor" 1:29.... the larger locos and cars combined with much lower cost and broader range of locos and rolling stock convinced me.

20 years later, still happy.

Greg
 
Hutch

Hutch

G Gauge, Raising Peaches, Apricots
1 Feb 2012
437
36
Southwest Oklahoma, USA
Thanks for putting up with my long-winded explanation Peter!

There are various theories, one that seems supported by evidence is that given the availability of 45 mm track, the 1:32 looked "small" especially compared to LGB locomotives, so they strove for a scale that could still pass as standard gauge without having the wheels too recessed under the body.

Clearly any scale as large as the 1:26 ish stuff LGB was using was way out of whack. Aristo Craft wanted something that looked more impressive than 1:32 in size but clearly wanted something in a scale.

As Aristo was in other train production, it apparently took HO drawings and tripled them (29 times 3 is 87, 1:87 is HO scale). There are other examples of simple scaling up of other in production models, the first large scale product from Aristo was actually a scaled up O scale caboose, from 1:48 to 1:24, which was produced until the end of the company, but this caboose was too large and a 1:24 standard gauge diesel did not look right on 45mm track.

This is the best I can do on the history, and there are places where Lewis Polk confirmed the caboose history, and did not deny the factor of 3 from HO scale for the 1:29...

The locos were a hit, and Aristo Craft really dominated the market while it was alive outselling it's nearest competitor between 2 to 1 up to 3 to 1 in sales.

When I was starting, coming from "strict" scales of HO and N, it was really hard for me to decide between the accurate 1:32, and the "wow factor" 1:29.... the larger locos and cars combined with much lower cost and broader range of locos and rolling stock convinced me.

20 years later, still happy.

Greg
At one point I was told that the 1/24 caboose was part of the "AristoCraft Classic" line, which was remanufactured Delton 1/24. The Delton Caboose normally didn't have an interior, Lewis had his folks design and add an appropriate interior.
---Hutch
 
Greg Elmassian

Greg Elmassian

Registered
8 Mar 2014
3,759
485
San Diego
www.elmassian.com
Yeah, there was a good article in one of the trade mags, and also an article by Lewis himself in the "insider"... this caboose actually predated the classic line, and I believe it was produced under the REA line...

Looking for the document, but I have some history of Aristo on this page... you will see that the caboose was produced in 1988 it's in the timeline on the following page:


Greg
 
GAP

GAP

G Scale Trains, HO Trains
14 Jun 2011
2,695
252
Bundaberg Queensland, Australia
Back to the results how will they influence future production of sound cards?
Just different sounds or will control methods influence what is on offer DC/Battery vs DCC control?
 
chris m01

chris m01

Registered
24 Oct 2009
4,447
54
Birmingham, UK
Those results are interesting:

  1. It surprised me that battery power was such a high percentage.
  2. It didn't surprise me that Fn3 was such a low percentage.

The results from any survey are going to be led by the style of questioning, and therefore only a snapshot - but an interesting one nonetheless.
I think Bachmann made a big mistake in going for what I believe is Fn3. I've got a few but they look out of place when running with USAT & Aristo. The Shay is a wondeful loco but it would have been so much more useful (and probably a bigger seller) if it had been a 1:29 model of a standard gauge Shay.

The numbers who took part were very small so there may well be inaccuracies. Regarding battery RC. I, and I think many others, have a "mixed fleet" with some battery power and some track power. All my small locos are battery power while my big ones are track power. This works very well for me. I get extremely good running from my small locos and can quickly get one out for a run in the winter. My big locos can pull fairly heavy trains all day long straight off the shelf and I only bring out long trains of wagons during the kind weather months.
 
Rhinochugger

Rhinochugger

Retired Oik
27 Oct 2009
27,066
1,301
North West Norfolk
I think Bachmann made a big mistake in going for what I believe is Fn3. I've got a few but they look out of place when running with USAT & Aristo. The Shay is a wondeful loco but it would have been so much more useful (and probably a bigger seller) if it had been a 1:29 model of a standard gauge Shay.

The numbers who took part were very small so there may well be inaccuracies. Regarding battery RC. I, and I think many others, have a "mixed fleet" with some battery power and some track power. All my small locos are battery power while my big ones are track power. This works very well for me. I get extremely good running from my small locos and can quickly get one out for a run in the winter. My big locos can pull fairly heavy trains all day long straight off the shelf and I only bring out long trains of wagons during the kind weather months.
Fn3 was always going to be a bit of a hard road, because for pure size it was not as immediately compatible with 1:22.5, 1:29 and LGB's flexible scale.

Fn3 has its advantages in being a true 3 ft scale on 45mm track and, with that, providing a good narrow gauge 'feel' with a nice overhang :p

My take on Bachmann's issues in Fn3 was their peculiar choice of prototypes (if indeed some of them had actual 3ft prototypes) followed by some poor engineering concepts on the gearbox / drives. I think if you're going to pursue the scale path, modelers are going to expect a reasonably true representation of a recognisable prototype. The biggest irony being the 45 Tonner, which was a scale model, is pretty butt ugly and just looks too big - because that is what it was; but I would have thought there would have been better, more attractive diesels to model.

Alas, it looks as if there will be no more Fn3 from Bachmann, while both Worsley Works and Bowaters are now offering kits of the South African Class 91 in 16mm which is probably the closest we'll ever get to a decent diesel without having to scratch build the whole thing :(:(
 
tac foley

tac foley

Registered
11 Apr 2017
2,612
673
74
Near Huntingdon, UK
Mylocosound diesel chips seem fine for small diesels but somehow just don't sound right in a big loco. If it did I would have bought more over the years.

I agree with your opinion. Like many here, I have a deal of up close and personal experience with many large diesel locos in Canada and the US of A both outside and in the cab. Even given the wonders of modern science, it's hard to get anywhere near replicating the internal tremor you get from standing five feet away from four or five 4500 hp multi-cylinder locos thrumming away. Physics are physics. And don't get me going on H0 and n scale 'sound systems'.

This little video, made some time ago, will give you a taste of what, to me, is quite acceptable sound from a single unit fitted with the drop-in Aristocraft system - it operates via a hand-held or installed control panel and has everything imaginable, from Doppler effect to load simulation, brake squeal, dynamic braking, increased load and coupler clank.


This, is the real thing -


Or this pair of brand-new HXN5's, fresh out of the shops on an inaugural 'revenue-earner' somewhere on the Inner-Mongolian border....turn the sound up if you like engine noise...


On the other talon, small diesel engines are very believable, up to and including the after-market unit usually fitted to the RH 'Harlech Castle' or Accucraft BG. After that, IMO we have to look to other brands, necessarily a lot more expensive, like E*U and others.

YMMV.
 
Last edited:
Ralphmp

Ralphmp

Registered
6 Jan 2010
934
54
Herts
Tac, are the rear locos running under control of the driver at the front of the train or do they have their own driver(s)?
 
tac foley

tac foley

Registered
11 Apr 2017
2,612
673
74
Near Huntingdon, UK
Tac, are the rear locos running under control of the driver at the front of the train or do they have their own driver(s)?
A single train crew is responsible for the entire lash-up of locos, they are connected together via a special hook-up called an MU - see here - http://www.ogaugerr.com/images/RPM/221_MU_Setup.pdf

The computer systems keep the locomotives matched with regard to engine speed and output. You know that they are called diesel engines, but are, in fact, diesel-electric engines. The prime movers only act as generators for the DC [older] or AC [newer[ locomotives. The 'notches' you may have heard of are pre-set levels of engine revolutions and the corresponding output from the generators drives the traction motor on each axle.
 
Greg Elmassian

Greg Elmassian

Registered
8 Mar 2014
3,759
485
San Diego
www.elmassian.com
Those are QSI, and the system has 2 audio outputs and you have faders for all 32 sounds not just volume, but % to each speaker.

The horn and bell are biased towards a top-firing speaker, the fuel tank has a larger enclosure and the prime mover sounds are biased there. Both enclosures are sealed, and in the factory locatios. Visiton speakers.



 
  • Wow
Reactions: tac foley