Well, let's put another answer.
Exact 1:87 is very nice if you have a spacious home, but if it would be 1:100 and the character of the model is very good, I will also enjoy it.
For the records, I have a layout with mostly R1 curves, and I don't consider it a toy-layout.

Many people do not have the room to accommodate large radius curves in their layout. Are you saying that they should not participate in the hobby? That their efforts in layout construction and modeling is nothing but playing with toys? There are many compromises to reality in model railroading. The 1:100 length to make coaches negotiate R1 curves at all or at least without looking comical is one I can certainly live with.

Thank you all for your comments.

However, I find it very difficult to agree on this matter. As a modeller, I would never like to see a piece to be curtailed or distorted, just because it has to fit into a constraint. My point is that there is plenty of Era I, II and III coaches that, at the right 1:87 scale, are suitable for the tramway radius. ROCO is actually more generous: they offer both alternatives in their fast train coaches, i.e., the correct one at 303 mmm and the distorted at 264 mm. At least one has a choice there.

Maybe Märklin is just not really the brand for me to own.

Regards,
Armando

I'm not a big fan of the 1:100 coaches either, they look wrong to me. I think the 1:93.5 scale adopted by Fleischmann and now Märklin is a better compromise, they look right, they have the correct number of windows and they will still run on 360mm No.1 rad. curves.

Cheers,

Peter.

Well,

I was doing all right with the suter-meggen pictures. I thought: "Here is an attractive set." Then I went to stummi-foren and was puzzled by the plugs and wires that stretch between the coaches on the tight curves???

Confession: I run Industrial curves as my main line radius No! Really, I do! Short loks and short cars - No problem .

Howsomever, are those connectors/wires really as raw as the pictures show? [:0] I can agree with Armando on this, but more from an aesthetic standpoint - could they not cover them or something? I also see the trucks with skirts (did not M* do that on the Henschel-Wegmann also?). Scale or close-to-scale is going to be debated maybe forever (like Ford vs. Chevrolet / Audi vs. Mercedes / _ vs. _ ). An opportunity was missed here, most assuredly.

And Peace, I see that there are certain design considerations and constraints due to the close-coupling issue of the prototype cars - I wonder what model radius could possibly be used to not see the connectors (for interior lights and tail lights, I presume?) and wires.

Just my immediate thoughts and reactions, and maybe, as other threads have touched on, perhaps we and Mother M* are at a point where we need two lines - yes, hang on - Hobby and Top-line (or 'Gold-line', or what have you).

I will be happily buying 'Hobby' for my foreseeable lifetime , and I think Armando should be able to buy the 'Gold Standard' [:p] , and I think M* should provide both. Economics will no doubt have a rather prominent decision factor for M*, so I am a-thinkin' one of us will be disappointed? [:(]

I shall close for now, and let others come into the fray -- these are the discussions that keep us all going and thinking and striving and having fun!

Peace to all,

Jim

Most of you will know that I'm always prepared to advocate Märklins products and defend them whenever someone utters a critical view on their part.

However this time I really can't defend M on their version of the Gottardo.

I'm really deeply disappointed!
I was eagerly awaiting delivery of my copy of the model,however after seeing pictures of the final product I was shocked to see how the model differs from the initial photos on the product flyers.
Luckily I could cancel my order without a problem.

Here's another link with pictures of the model: http://www.forum.hag-info.ch/vi....php?t=741&start=165
If you scroll down a bit you'll see pictures taken of the Gottardo in a not so "flattering" pose.

I'm sorry I can't report in a positive way on this one and I hope I don't spoil other forummembers enthusiasm for the Gottardo.

Kind regards
Guus

That looks awful [:0] ...would expect much better at that price [xx(]

It is very awful.

Lucky I haven't order it.

And i was thinking to buy it...

About the " concertina vestibule" of the RAe ( connexion between cars )
It is possible today to reproduce the exact shape of the real and so particular " external bellows" . I have some plans with new and well known material . Very simple and cheap to do . It can only be fitted on heavy metal cars which is the case with Marklin models of the RAe . Why they didn't make it ?
The ratio of elasticity could be from 1 to 6 , that's enough , I think
I didn't make any tests yet ( I have no RAe yet )But I would like to send the idea of design to Marklin technics department . How could I do, is there an address mail ?
Anyway , I'll try to make my own stuff . It will be just difficult for me to buy a small amount of the exact material

Sorry to hear friends about the disappointment. I did not consider getting this item originally. Now looking at my finances and making the consideration, I will look elsewhere as there are other Marklin/HAG loks that have my interest!

Armando's quote is best.......
"....what a missed opportunity to produce a world class model!"

Well, the pics from Stummis certainly makes the model look awful, but I´d rather see it running through R9 swithes, and R4, R5... curves.
The solution Roco has used for their new RAm looks better; at least it covers up the "insides" of the technical connection.
If jeehring can make his connections work, the model should look quite good... (if it wasnt for the skirts over the bogies...)

Hi Guus - knowing me you also know my next words come without any cynicism

Please remember when we saw the new Länderbahn, BR81, HWZ. M's "new breed" of locos ...
Those new (non-serviceable) motors, their odd transmissions, the cheap plastic parts ...

Alberto put it so well when stating they lost their soul. And when I dared to criticize this
transformation from classic heavy-metal Marklins to cheapo-plastic Roco/Bachmann toys -

You were right the first time! [:(!]

I can't see those thin green circuit track materials lasting very long before they snap (perhaps our electronics engineers would like to comment?).. Why on earth could they have not used some discrete thin black wires??? [:0]

I think that these should all be recalled and upgraded to a better design.. [xx(]

This model design does not look good at all from pictures. This is a real disappointment. I had been looking forward to this model.

Roland: i don't argue with the need for coach separation on tight curves as can be seen on virtually any close-coupled Marklin product. I can live with that and would still want the model in that case. My objection is to the exposed wiring and connectors. They should have concealed it somehow or run the electronics through the coupler.

originally posted by Roland:


I agree,especially regarding the tone in which the discussion has been conducted sofar at Stummmi,this may very well be the case.
But at least Märklin could have tried to apply the same soltion like on the VT 11.5,which is so much nicer IMHO.


For me it's the skirts I dislike most.I'm sure your solution with concertina vestibule is a nice one.
Maybe some firms or even Märklin will eventually provide a set of these as an add on.But the skirts on the bogies will always remain visible and maybe only acceptable with the train in a showcase.

Kind regards
Guus

BTW
anybody to give an adress mail or FAX number to join technical department at Marklin Goppingen ? Thank you

Dear all,

please remember that on the VT11.5 it was possible to do the concertina vestibul like it is because of the short cars.

With long cars like on the Gottardo such a solution is not possible.
That's the same reason ehy the VT08 has a similar solution like the Gottardo.
The good point of the VT08 is, that the connector is completely black and on the bottom of the cars, not so evident to see in curves.

kind regards

Stephan

I was running my VT08 over the weekend, and I still can't understand why Marklin chose a different solution for the Gottardo. The coach separation on curves is every bit as exaggerated on the VT08, but it does not show it's innards the way the Gottardo does. I realize that for tight curves close coupled cars MUST separate like that and I can live with that. I cannot accept, however, the need to overemphasize this the way the Gottardo does.

Thanks looking forward to your results. I hope
it works out well

After a first set of trial runs i can conclude the following:

Positive points
1) it runs on any radius. The small R1 as well, no derailments and no issues. (unlike the Ram TEE which occasionally jumped the track because of the lighter cars "marklin 39700")
2) it is really heavy! so no crap plastic bodies.
3) the motor has great running characteristics, exactly like the 8/14.
4) the lighting is ok. Actually i even think they did a good job on it. The hallway lights in the motor car are nice.
5) The length of the cars are 26cm vs. the Ram TEE which is 22cm.
6) the space between the cars is less than the Ram TEE. It's 1.02cm between car bodies and 3mm between the black bits. Don't think you can get any closer...
7) the couplers are also the connectors. so no wires to connect and cars to couple.
8) Detailing is excellent! paintjob is good too! Except for the antennas.

The negatives:
1) Now the pictures you have seen are correct about the connector being visible in a tight corner. The Roco rubber solution would definitely look better i agree. With the Ram TEE i also occasionally had part of the wire sticking out too which i found annoying. You have the same problem with normal marklin 26cm passenger cars except that you don't have the connector in between.
2)Going up the hill can become difficult for the two motors, as the train is really heavy. But it manages without any manual assistance which is ok.
3)The wheels...yep, i'm not a fan of this system but i can see it not being mechanically possible not to do it this way on any normal layout.
4)The antennas

My Verdict:

Although its got some stuff which i don't like, in particular the wheels and the connectors being visible in tight corners, i think it looks fine. It certainly looks good stopped in a station and it runs well.

If you are true to detail and you can't oversee the compromises that were done to make it user friendly on any Marklin layout, then this is not the train for you.

If you enjoy having a TEE running on your layout then this one is actually ok. Is it worth 900+ Swissies? maybe not, but i can see where the money went, its been melted into the car body.
Wink

Its already growing on me, i'm starting to like it slowly especially running it next to my Ram TEE. It reminds me of some CD's i recently bought which had bad press reviews before they were released...They sound great!

I think people should test it before they make decisions based on website pictures. Again just my opinion!

Pic's to follow with the Ram TEE together.

Hi Kurt,

Thank you very much for the detailed report and the photos of the 39540.


Off topic:I had a quick look on your homepage.Magnificent Ferrari [:p]

Kind regards
Guus

I'm really impatient to see it closely .
A friend of mine told me it is so nicely detailed , specially the roof of the motor car , also the qualiy of paint .
I will not dive into the photographic campaign against this model , I want to see it before . All those pictures uniquely taken as waist shots on connections between cars while the train is on tight curves , look like political campaigns before presidential elections !
Not even one pictures in full size on straight track or into a station , strange isn't it ?
Remember the big boy . What should have been customer's comments if we had dozens & dozens of pictures showing the Big-Boy on R1 or R2 curves at the moment of its availability ?
As days are going by ,the more I see this flood of pictures the more I suspect unfair & childish manipulations .
As an other manufacturer planned to produce the Gottardo in the years 2008 / 2009 , I believe there is something like competition..[}:)] [}:)].[}:)]

The photos were taken by modellers like you or I. The first ones came from the SuisseToy Exhibition in Bern, and once the model was released in Switzerland, more photos were posted by either individuals who bought the trainset, or who observed it on club layouts or on friend's trackage.

I placed my pre-order for this model on January 3, 2007, the day I first heard about the model. I was so excited that Maerklin was finally making this model and that it was to be made of metal (like the 37605 VT 602).

I have previously owned both the Metropolitan (4Assi) 7200 and the Lima models of this train. I would have kept the Metrop train, but I run 3 rail AC and it was 2 rail DC. The Lima model was AC, but it did not see much use on the layout and was sold earlier this year.

The day of the SuisseToy show, I was so eager to see the first photos that would be posted. I was disappointed right away to see the design of the interconnecting baffles between the coaches. Additionally, the design of the coach bodies adjacent to the bogies was a shock.

The photos in the New Items Brochure and in subsequent photos released by Maerklin (www.maerklin.de under screensavers) did not show this feature.

So, are we as modellers bound to accept a model that is significantly different from what was advertised?

It seems to me that Maerklin's technical department set out to develop a model to overcome the problems with the older Lima model. The two best known problems with that model were the interconnecting gangways between the coaches and the removable body part adjacent to the bogies. The Engineers were likely told to make the model work without having to remove sections of the coach body. Their decision process was thereby influenced by that, rather than by designing a model based on diagrams and plans of the actual model and coming up with an original solution to the challenges.

As far as the bogies are concerned, the simplest solution would have been to modify the bogies rather than to modify the coach shells. Seriously, how did anybody at Maerklin think that modellers would rather have prototypical bogies than a prototypical housing?
This could have been easily done, by designing the bogies so that only the parts extending beyond the coach shell would be to scale, and that the hidden parts would be smaller, allowing the bogies to rotate without hitting the housing. The footstep beneath the doors could have been attached to the bogie, similar to the Roco EWII Coaches.

As far as the interconnecting baffles, there may have been some design challenges, due to the relative lack of space between the bogies and the ends of the coaches, but Maerklin clearly could have come up with a better design to avoid the glaring sight of the coupler/connector in curves. This is plain poor design work when compared to the VT 602 and other recent models by Roco and RailTop.

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Take the Liliput EWI Coaches. These coaches were very clearly modelled on the earlier Lima coaches. Hag had licensed and bought coach shells from Lima in the 1990s,so their use was ok.

Liliput's redesigned EWIII (Swiss Express) coaches clearly incorporated features that were developed by HUI for their kitbash models of the earlier Liliput productions.

I still have my 39540 on order. I have not decided whether to proceed or not. I was already going to order the coming RailTop model, especially as it is to be designed as a model that can run on either AC or DC layouts. There is also the re-edition of the old Lima model under the Rivarossi banner. They plan to have interior lighting and improved motorization. I don't know whether the new version will still have the problematic interconnecting baffles and removable parts adjacent to the bogies.

One issue that many will base their purchase on is whether Maerklin's model looks better than the Lima (Rivarossi) model with the pieces removed. I know that when I ran my Lima train, it was without the side panels and the baffle pieces.

I just want to make it clear that this is not a case of a malicious attempt to devalue this item. It is a case of serious modellers who are very disappointed with the model and would rather see it recalled, reworked and rereleased with improvements at a later time. There have been rumors that Trix may have cancelled their model. It currently is listed as scheduled for the first quarter of 2008. It is interesting to note that Trix has declared that it will be developing it's own models for 2008, a process that started this year with the OBB 1012 and SBB RAm, and will continue with the ICE I and Traxx 146.2/185.2/482 and similar models for 2008.

We will see what happens in the next few months.

BTW, so far, the only 39540 listed on either ebay.ch or ricardo.ch remain unsold or without bids (as of 6PM EST today). Not a good sign for this model that is supposedly out of stock at the factory.

Regards

Mike C

@ Bmcrae - Re: Ae 6/6 Cargo

The Ae 6/6 Cargo is available through Swiss dealers. Check zuba-tech.ch, modellbahn-shop.ch, suter-meggen.ch or roundhouse.ch or any of the dealers (Haendler) listed at www.maerklin.ch