I think they've burned way too many bridges to ever go back to SDS.

The main issue is this - from 2006 to 2010 - nearly ALL of their new tooling models have been designed from scratch to only fit SDS motor housing.
The result is excellent - most of them are well-balanced, very capable design.

When they pulled the plug, post-2010 new tooling models were designed for bell-shaped or el-cheapo motor...
.... but then they ran into a third problem from the issue above ---
How the f*** are they going to fit the (now more various) *larger* and *cheaper* motor(s) into those models that were originally designed to fit the smaller (& more superior) SDS motor?

We can have a look at BR218 as one particular example -- they solved the problem by changing the frame .
Not a particularly good value in investment for an ongoing model... but all in the name of replacing the original SDS with another one that is.... gradually cheaper.

Arguably it would have been cheaper for them just to fit a Maxxon DC motor that can fit the exact same size as SDS' original housing.
Yes, the motor would have been more expensive, but someone in Marklin's Design team probably didn't think that changing the frame of the model is too expensive...

Hello, eBay.... and can I have a look at the Brawa BR216...?

Hi, John!
It seems they are trying to get away from that type of motor. BRs 152, 182, and 189 have been modified for new motors instead of using the existing trucks for 5-pole DCM.
I agree the motor should be improved if they continue to use it. Not sure about their strategy.

I would suggest to save this topic for a potential second letter.
And maybe some other topics, too. Couplers, passenger coaches, C track and other points could also be left out of the first latter.

@Roland:
I don't know why they got away from SDS (brushless motor) - lots of speculations, but no known facts. I think no other MRR maker tried them and I think we should leave this topic out of the first letter, too.

a good company will involve customers to get an effective feedback instead of the boss telling the employees what and how to do it and it is used by many supermarket giants who invite you to be part of a bonus card, every time you shop they know exactly what time you've shopped, what item you've purchased and with all this information they than can form a strategy to suit customers and have a data base on hand. one can also notice when they change suppliers the results are sometimes devastating for the company either by teething problems or quality control what used to be an inhouse quality control is now an external decision.

by not signing any kind of customer awareness don't hold your breath that things will stay as they are and the manufacturer got away with it, once again.

Do we seriously think there isn't someone at Marklin reading all this already?

I'm not so sure. I'm sure they know of the existence of this site (They apparently spoke to Juhan about the use of Marklin's trade protected name in the URL), but does someone actually read the posts? I only look at those posts who's title interests me and those alone take a lot of my time. This is marketing's responsibility. Does someone spend their whole day looking at this on Marklin's nickel? If they do read these threads, do they report their findings to a superior? Do they act on this knowledge? I think some, perhaps many, would say they do not act on this knowledge.

Perhaps if the young Mr. Sieber had his email published on the main site? A CEO has

to be involved. I don't mean he should micromanage but he needs to know what

is going on with his company and his customers wants and needs. Peter

@Anders - There was some problems with certain batches with early SDS + ESU-made decoders , but it was the decoder unit that was bad - not the SDS motor itself...

@H0 - My C-tracks are all 2003 or older, and do not have the "ASA" marking.
All are rather brittle and break off parts when assembled. Too bad to have to throw them away one by one...



I thought the "letter" was to be about the new 3-pole motors, but as Martin also noted - it's now about "everything" from little details to apparently bad initial construction engineering.


Since this is not an official letter from the forum, and data has been collected also from other forums - I think "Märklin related Internet forums" would be better than "m-users.net forum" in the letter. But the initial preamble states that only a few members have these concerns, so it might be ok anyway.

Before Märklin came up with the new name SDS the motor was known as "compact C Sine". There was a problem, but not with the motor and not with the ESU decoders, the problem was the driver PCB that is needed to drive a brushless DC motor with a standard decoder.
SDS is the name for roughly the same motor with improved driver PCB.
That's the big problem I know about. There may have been an ESU-related problem with early SDS - but no problem I'm aware of.

@Anders: do we have any official information from Märklin why they gave up SDS? What you write sounds like the usual speculation ...

The letter is meant to tell Märklin what they can improve. Initially it was focused on the motor/decoder problem.
At the next stage we'll discuss which items will be included in the first letter (with so many items we could send another letter a few months later). So maybe there will be only two or four (or whatever) items in the letter going to M*.


No other fora involved here.

Hi,

I'm sure we can write the letter in positive way and tell Märklin what could be improved and our wishes for them. This is all possible.

Cheers,
Janne

Paul, that is how I felt when first reading a lot of additional items compared to what the initial post of this topic was about...

<off-topic>
Just like the famous "Letter to the Boss" you tuck away after you have written it and get on with your work as usual...
</off-topic>


However, there are many valid issues mentioned - but it has become kind of out of focus regarding the initial intent - it's more like a general complaint letter about everything now...

By "decoder unit" I mean the electronics, including the motor driver.

My old Henschel-Wegmann train still runs very well, even if it was an example of the lousy electronics & motor combination that affected this model specifically...

I think I wrote it before: the members of the HAG forum compiled a list of flaws of the new Märklin crocodile. One user sent it to Märklin and received a reply signed by Stefan Löbich with a comment on every reported flaw.

So I think there is nothing wrong about sending a list with a few items.


I still suggest the following phases:
I: Collect wishes and suggestions for the letter.
II: Filter and sort wishes and suggestions (i.e. discuss what will be included and what should be dropped).
III: Proof-reading by native English speaker.
IV: Send letter to Märklin via snail mail (who will get it? how many copies should be sent?)

So let's go for phase II.
Personally I think that up to 8 items should be OK.

The items (see port #42 for complete list):
**A. Wish: No more yellow LEDs for models of prototype locomotives that have white lights.
B. Wish: Models of older prototype locomotives with rather dim light bulbs should use more appropriate LEDs (e.g. golden sunset, not warm white).
***C. Recommendation: Premium models shall have motors with bell-shaped armatures or five-pole motors with skewed armatures.
***D. Recommendation: All Märklin 37xxx and 39xxx models should have running behaviour that does honour to the brand Märklin.
*E. Wish: Märklin should reconsider their decoder policy and include DCC also in Märklin H0 models.
F. Wish: Märklin should explain their plans for long DB coaches in the foreseeable future.
**G. Recommendation: Märklin to review product descriptions in new items brochures, catalogues, and product database
H. Recommendation: Märklin should try and improve the turnout mechanism 74491.
*I. Recommendation: Light functions should use decoder outputs (if available) instead of SUSI boards.
J. Recommendation: Instruction manuals should explain use of decoder function outputs and SUSI functions (at least for analogue models).
K. Recommendation: Märklin should try to develop an improved close coupler that, if possible, is still compatible with the current ones.

For a list with 6 items I would suggest these in this order (all loco related, three motor related):
G, E, D, C, A, I

For a list with 4 items I would suggest these in this order (all loco related, three motor related):
G, D, C, A

For a list with 2 items I would suggest these in this order (both motor related):
C, D

The questions: which of the 11 items above should be in the letter and in which order?
Will any of the suggested lists do for you?

Will 22 hours be sufficient for sorting and filtering?

About the C track issue, I agree in not sending it. My track sections are mostly prior to year 2000.

Ashley, I fully agree with seeing the bigger picture of it all...

One (or max 3) specific items with proper documentation background as proof will be listened to... A general complaint list will not be treated as well...

Better to wait a month or 2 and then send "new" issues of concern...

I guess I should have clarified my comment. I was referring to more recent post year 2000 C track. I have some older pieces which have gone brittle and break, but nothing since Marklin fixed the problem first time around.

Well, the motors are brand new, not antiquated (the antiquated motors are noisier, but perform good).

This is not a simple case of "three-pole bad, five-pole good" (reminds me of a novel by Eric Arthur Blair where it was "two legs bad, four legs good" but turned out to be more complicated over time).

Some people complain because certain combinations of motors and decoders behave bad.

Other people complain because they don't want cheapish looking motors in high-price locomotives.

We cannot limit the letter to motors only, the problem is the "propulsion" consisting of motor and decoder - and not all models suffer from this problem.
We need a compromise that both groups can support.

We want them to take the letter serious, so the letter has to be substantial. We need more than "three-pole bad, five-pole good".

I think LEDs are the way to go in the future - but LEDs with a "golden sunset" hue (where appropriate) and dimmable LEDs are on the wishlist (SUSI prevents dimming of LEDs). Improved couplers also are.
That Brawa loco of yours is an exception. I find that the brightness of most locos with LEDs can be adjusted using decoder settings (if decoder outputs are used - and are used without buffering capacitors).

These items probably won't make it into the first letter - we currently discuss how many items will be in it.

My main issue is with motor...

Generally, I don't have an issue with how the letter will be written.

I think the current problem is not merely a simple issue of motor selection....
and/or Decoder - Motor combination.

The way I see it, this problem is actually deep rooted, with its origins back 20-years ago....
Looking at their product development paths,
it is clear that in the late-80s and early -90s, Marklin was looking for a successor to their famed DCM motor.

The first fruit of this effort was their first BR18.1 model (3311/3511)
It can be considered to be the first true modern Marklin model that fit all the (then) required criterias - smooth motor that fit into the boiler (aligned with Marklin design philosophy), and for the first time ever, an empty cab.
I love my 3511 - it can still be considered to be a highly competitive design, even compared to the new ones like BR39 or BR05.

Now, the first problem is that after this model is that Marklin can't make up their mind whether this is the right path to go.

The only logical solution at this stage is that the company should have decide on 1 or 2 standardized motor and start phasing out DCM as they go - re-educating their market at the same time.

Let's look at what their traditional competitors do:

1. Roco chose to standardized its product based on its rather large can motor.
   The main drawback of their solution is that they can't put the motor in the boiler of their steamer models = result: Tender driven steam-loks
   Going this way is against Marklin's original design philosophy - motor in the boiler; and most Marklin loyalists wouldn't take it lightly.
   .... so understandably, Marklin never went down this path.
   
   
2. HAG chose to immortalize their DCM motor... fit ball-bearings, refine their motor design, and problem solved.
   With E-loks or Diesel loks, HAG's solution would work well.
   But unlike Marklin, HAG didn't produce steamers - which is probably the backbone of Marklin's profit.
   With the advent of BR18.1; Marklin seemed to go towards a smaller motor solution....
   .... so understandably, Marklin never went down HAG's solution either.
   Though they experimented with ball-bearings on 37605, never to come back ever again...
   
   
3. The last player, Brawa, chose the expensive path... They wanted to make their models a cut above everyone else....
   So they went Maxxon DC motor all the way. It's a more expensive motor to fit in, but it's small enough to be fitted inside a steamer's boiler.
   

Brawa's ideas seemed to go down quite well with Marklin for a time...

Marklin produced models like BR38, BR55, the Insider's BR45, BR59, BR89.70, etc...
But whereas Brawa was set in Maxxon, Marklin chose different manufacturers (Faulhaber and Maxxon among the few); and their motors are of different sizes too....

I think at this stage, Marklin thought that their own Sinus motor design is the innovative way to go...

Thus they began a Sinus motor adventure that lasted from 2001 to 2010...

Looking at ALL of the original models with large Sinus motor, I think it was clear that at first, Marklin was planning replace DCM motor with only little modifications required...
Re460s, ICE-1, BR01.10, BR103, BR42.90, BR151, BR152, BR182 (Taurus) -- are examples where a large Sinus motor was installed (in models) that were originally designed with only DCM motor in mind.
... and all can still be arguably considered competitive in appearance, even today.

But the main priority in mind had always been to build smaller, second generation Sinus to be fitted into their new generation of steamers,
pioneered by the aforementioned BR18.1.
Eventually, they probably planned that ALL existing models with bell-shaped motors will also be replaced with the smaller Sinus.

They ran into a number of hiccups during the transition from large Sinus to Compact Sinus (later SDS).... as during this time, they are also transtioning from their well-received Marklin-Motorola protocol to the newly developed MFx....

With smaller, more compact Sinus motor, Marklin product development started to roll out a new family of steamers that no longer use bell-shaped motors; starting with BR61, then BR01, BR05, BR23, BR39, and BR64...
At the same time, E-loks and diesels began receiving the same type of motors too.

At this stage, for a while, it looks like that Marklin was on the right way to standardize;
there were only TWO types of Compact Sinus motor --
The first type has 1 shaft --> to power Steamers and 2-axle powered E-loks;
while the second type have shafts on both ends of the motor --> to power the new generation of 4-axle powered E-loks and diesels...

It works well, despite various hiccups, and problem with Sinus reception by DC customers......
.........until bankruptcy in 2008 really shattered everything.......

They can't really cancel out Sinus, as it basically undo their 20-year relentless pursuit for the perfect motor,
but its cancellation in the end is just one casualty of the restructuring...

Which bring us to the current problem....
They are really just culmination of not fitting the right motor to models that actually deserve more.

By cancelling out Sinus motor, Marklin now has to face new problems of fitting various different motors in those models that originally only require either one of two similar Compact Sinus motor.

Look at the product diagrams of the latest BR18.3, BR64, BR218, and E10 --
and you shouldn't be surprised to find that each model'll have different motor types.

Which bring it to their next problem;
I don't think Marklin can guarantee the availability of spare motors in the years to come.

There are too many different motors nowadays, and the fact is their reliability is of unknown quantity.
This comes down to a lot of different factors as well;

• Customers might have different usage requirement compared to testing in the lab (if any done by Marklin);
  
  
• Then how reliable is the supplier of ALL of these NEW generation motors?
  
  
• Given the above, can Marklin guarantee that the quality of a replacement motor that a user might need 10 years from now?
  

In trying to cancel out Sinus to reign in the cost,
Marklin is now clearly moving away from standardization -- that ALL of their rivals had achieved 20 years ago....

.... and they keep sending confusing signals by continuing to keep DCM model lineup.... probably as their last reserve??
I'm not sure....
The new BR152 / BR182 / BR189 (39840/39850/39860) combos seemed to indicate that Marklin's still moving away from DCM.

... but then against all odds, old tooling BR151 and BR111 are back this year...
Neither models received a new frame, or motor.....


Apologies for this long rant...... which probably sums up everything that I wrote of late in various threads to full.

Edited by user 15 January 2014 04:40:49(UTC)  | Reason: Corrections, and rephrasing some sentences..

This sums up Märklin's odyssey with respect to motors. And the new motors introduced 2011 and later increase the number of different motor types used.
They don't have a master plan - no miracle with frequently changing CEOs in the past.

Hi Tom,

In my opinion the letter should be sent. Maybe it could be still modified to even more positive and friendly form?

There are so good points for Märklin to do and it can't be harming anyone. It's just to get even better products in the future from Märklin. It would be good to have 2-4 different things in that first letter.

I don't think that I'm the only one who really wants a letter to be sent to Märklin???

I can understand your frustration Tom, when you have done very much work with this letter and your motor/locomotive running tests and then you may feel that this letter to Märklin have a negative effect on "forum users happiness". It may do some members more unhappy, but they should not take it personally. This kind of letter is for me a guide for Märklin how to improve their products. It is not a bad thing to anyone on this greatest MRR forum!

Cheers,
Janne

It is pretty lame we can't hold a discussion about some things we wish Marklin would improve.

Send one letter from collective forum members, and leave it up to individual members as to whether they send their own letters.

I wrote in this thread because I like Märklin more than any other brand and want it to be even better. For me Märklin is the best overall in model railroading, but off course there is space for improvement, and I think without (much, if any) cost increase.

Currently I am not buying from any other manufacturer (although I have 10 Brawa and 1 Roco locos, 20 Brawa wagons plus Roco couplers in Brawa rolling stock), but after understand the results of Tom's tests, Märklin must know we know (probably they already do) their decoder's load regulation needs improvement. Interesting thing is the sentence they have in 2014 new items about "constant speed". I think those words mean they already know the issue and that is the first step to solve it.

This topic is not about other manufacturers....

I'm working long hours right now and haven't been able to follow this thread in the way that I would have liked to. I'm sad to see the letter canceled. I'll for sure use some of the ideas in a letter of my own. I'll send it to both my dealer and to Märklin.

Plenty of companies have a close communication with their customers today. Especially smaller "niched" ones. Criticizing things that you're not happy with isn't by definition to whine.
Photography is a hobby of mine. Fujifilm is a good example of a smaller (comparatively) company that tries to compete with the big dragons by listening closely to feedback from their customers. They take this feedback into account in their new models, but also in firmware upgrades for existing products.

I think that for Märklin the ability to listen to their customers, within limits of course, will be a deciding factor for the company's future survival. The poll for insider-models was a good first step, and they should continue on that track. We get the models we wan't and Märklin can maximize their sales.

Finally I would like to thank Tom (HO) for the hard work he has put into this thread. Even if it was cancelled, it has produced some very interesting posts.

/Torbjörn