Mike

I take your point

John

I think I heard that before.

And I wrote this before: Some people who ordered that set based on the pictures in the new items brochure are now disappointed.

I do believe that the Swiss dining car will reappear in the future, especially as Maerklin wants to be able to amortize the production costs by using the molds more than once. It may be that Maerklin plans to bring out the SBB Am, Bm and maybe Bcm in 282mm models. The dining car in red would be the perfect match for those coaches.
I, personally, believe that the most logical first step is going to be the release of the Eurofima coaches in 1:93. Those coaches offer possibilities of DB, OBB, SBB, SNCF, SNCB and FS models and are a logical extension to this year's DB Bpmz model. I feel that there is a strong possibility that the dining car will reappear in a set with SBB Eurofima coaches, reproducing the trains on the Zurich-Munich route in the 1980s and early 1990s.
The dining car in red could be used with SBB and SNCB Eurofima coaches to reproduce the EC "Iris" in it's early years or with SBB, DB and FS Eurofima in original colours as they appeared on the Gotthard route in the 1980s and early 1990s.
LS Models has already announced a similar set in 1:87, containing the WRm dining car in Eurofima C1 colours with two of the SBB Bpmz (1979) coaches in their original Eurofima colours.

Other than the previously mentioned DB TEE ARDmz (42991), there are AFAIR no other coaches with reduced height windows similar to the new WRm.
The recent 1:100 SBB Eurofima (4266, 4267, 4268) and EC90 (4365-4369) coaches all have windows with the correct aspect (height).

I have already mentioned that aside from the fact that the Maerklin dining car is 1:93, the closest match would be the 1970s 1:87 Liliput SBB UIC passenger coaches, which suffered from the same window height issue.

Regards

Mike C

Richard,

Some of these guys got a life: Model trains.

Who would like to see a forum, whereas the same thing is talked & written about: nice, very nice, nice again.
What car do you drive
What engines would you like in 2011
What have you bought in 2010
What carriages have you bought
and the endless Questions we answer day after day to help some beginner with his or her model train.

Some members, especially with this topic, has enlighten this forum with his observations and knowledge beyond anybodies dreams of ever finding out for ourselves, the ins and outs of certain models.

I agree with you some of these guys need to get a life, instead of number crunching their own posts.
On the other hand it is not for me and never has been my intention to stipulate who has the democratic right to do what he or she wants to do, write or say.

Whether we are obsessed, fanatic or otherwise stuck with this hobby, this forum gives us or me the chance to express my own spare time creation.
There is a saying if you can't beat them with words, jealousy and criticism, join them.

John

Here is some additional information about the TEE Bavaria that may be of interest to some. On page 88 of the book TEE Zuege der Schweiz by Goette & Willen (EK Verlag), there is a photo of the train in Winterthur. The photo shows Re 4/4I 10033 followed by an Avmz111, SBB WRm (TEE), Apmz121 and two additional coaches (also either Avmz or Apmz). The photo is dated May 27, 1976. It does not specify whether this extended consist was for a holiday or for the start of the vacation season.
Thus, you can realistically expand the 26557 consist with the two coaches (not the bar coach) from the 43859 or Trix 23427 Sets.

Regards,

Mike C

I can now see how the window size would bother some customers.

Märklin seemed to have adopted different solutions to the same problem;

With the newer 1/93.5 scale length models; they emphasized on getting the correct number of windows per coaches, and have they could choose to sacrifice (shrink) the dimensions of the windows to the scale length.. 1/93.5 dimensions all around..

Or they can choose to fit windows with 1/93.5 scale width with 1/87 scale height; but IMO this would create even more disapportionate sized windows..

With the Märklin 1/100 or 1/110 solution, the dimension of the windows looks closer to the appropriate 1/87 scaling, but compromize on the number of windows that they could fit on each coach.

My preference is for an improved version of the 1/100 solution (third or fourth picture); that is 1/87 scale windows at the cost of reduced number of windows compared to prototype.
When my train passes, I wouldn't count the number of windows. Not that I know how many windows the prototype has anyways...

Potentially 1/93.5 scale windows against 1/87 scale coach height might bother me more.. should I become more critically demanding...
So far I only got a few new length TEE coaches, and those ones haven't bothered me yet.
Most of my other coaches are the 1:100 variety or the 'short enough models' that can be produced at 1:87 scale and still comes under 28.2 cm.

I think it's fine... so what if people are laughing?

In some DC forums, they are discussing about how unrealistically wide the wheel flanges on European models, and how mm off the overall length of the model is from the correct 1/87 scale.

I think discussions in Stummis are generally even more critical to the mm rather than here.

I visited a few aircraft forums where non-pilots are heatedly discussing various merits and weaknesses of jet fighters that they would never ever fly... and also forgets that significant proportion of the aircrafts that they discussed are classified information not revealed to the public.

So who is laughing at whom depends on the perspective of each user.



It indeed is fun!

Stephan,

I am glad that people are laughing about this thread around the world. I want to thank you for bringing up the usual model train vs prototype radii issue, as that is likely to sidetrack this thread even further.
We all recognize that there are some compromises that are required for model trains. Most of us, more than just model trains, operate table layouts, which have limited space. I may enjoy running my exact scale coaches on the floor from time to time, but my current full time layout (test oval) sits on a former twin bed and is R1 based on the 29859 Start Set.

The thread here is about a new item being available and the observation that it seems Maerklin once again has been cutting corners in the design and production of a particular coach. That flaw has nothing to do with whether our tracks are a compromise based on space available. Most home modellers are limited to very reduced radii due to space available. It is only those modellers who are fortunate enough to be members of clubs or associations with larger layouts who can run on radii that are closer to prototypical, as those layouts are built in rented or dedicated spaces.

Does that mean that we don't have the right to discuss aspects of our models, no? When the height of a coach body is approximately 30mm, a feature that is off by 1mm can be evident. As I have already stated, on it's own, it is not as noticeable, but when placed alongside other coaches, the difference in the size of the windows does stand out.

I accept the compromise that means that my trains roll on curves that are too narrow to be prototypical. I also accept the fact that my layout cannot accommodate trains with the prototypical length of 14 coaches or more. I cannot run an ICE, TGV or ICN in multiple unit formation. Even a Re 10/10 or another MU consist means one less coach or car, so I would rather use each lok with it's own train.

Some things we accept. Other things, like details that stick out like a sore thumb, we are allowed to criticize. If the issue was not visible or not overly visible, say the driver was wearing the wrong color uniform or similar, it would not be worth posting beyond in passing.

I have seen posts in Stummi and DSO discussing whether hand rails or fold down seats in the corridor of compartment coaches (LSM) should be there or not. To each his own, some are more nitpicky than others, but I think we have the right to post and discuss issues, even if people laugh at it around the world.

Respectfully

Mike C

Stephen,

One thing and one thing only I've noticed regarding this topic, some members cannot compromise other members views and we have watched the discrepancy is widening each time another compromising view is posted.

To open more floodgates about compromises and the central essence of enjoying your hobby has distracted the original post to such a degree, (a row of smaller than usual windows had been on the agenda) we are now beating this topic by telling everyone, very little is prototypical in a model train world.
Does this mean Mike's wish or observation is different to our view how we interpret, length, height, distance and gauge or are we beating this member's opinion & view as long as the day goes on ?

It remind me of an Austrian Poet, Peter Rosegger, him and his wife are discussing whether or not to take an umbrella with them on their walk. in case it starts raining,
they couldn't compromise and after several hours it was too late to go for a walk.

I personally think this topic had its run, until Mike produces photos, so we can see the difference, I move on.

John

Edited by user 09 November 2010 06:00:36(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

The reason these threads go on and on is because a very few dont like Mike pointing out errors (in his view) by Marklin. Others then join in and support Mike thus giving us a long thread. If the two or three who dont like it just stayed away or made one post disagreeing there would be no problem and the thread would be read and closed after a few posts.
Must be about time to lock another Mike thread but hopefully Mike will continue to give his opinion on Swiss models.

dave

Remember, when you point the finger, there are 3 fingers pointing back at you!

Edited by moderator 11 January 2011 10:48:20(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Let's not forget that grown-ups spending time in model train forums is in itself a laughable act for the "general public".

Well, my wife certainly laughed at me...

Anyway, to continue on with my choice of laughable topic:

From Tom's measurement of the windows of the Aum coaches, it seems that with the new Marklin 1/93.5 coaches, we'd been shortchanged with a 14.5% smaller window area.

For those who are used to looking at the prototype, that is a significant and noticeable reduction.
In constrast, the scale length of 28.2cm is only 6% reduction than a scale length of 30cm.

For me, it's all been a good to know basis.
Thanks to this discussion, it taught me not to use the wrong mix of coaches from certain brand and/or product lines.

I probably won't mind the smaller windows of Marklin 1/93.5; but mixing them with the Roco ones, for example, might make it more noticeable...

If I stick on buying Marklin 1/93.5 - I need the assurance that my "suspension of disbelief" is not sabotaged by poor mix up of coaches.

.... your statement about roco model vs Lilliput model.... are you sure ?

The Trix model is basically a MaK/Vossloh Diesel painted and labelled as a G1206. I don't know whether this is exactly the same for the Piko model, nor can I state whether one of the other model is more prototypically correct for the actual lok type. The actual G1206 is longer (14700mm) than the G1000 (14130mm) and shorter 4220mm vs 4225mm, so depending on which prototype the model was based on, some differences will exist, and some will be prototypical and others will be compromises required to make the model as opposed to waiting for the manufacturer to make a complete new mold for that particular model variant, which may or may not happen in the future.
I have the 37643 AM842 by Maerklin, which is also based on the same Trix model. It also has some deviations from the prototype. The same basic model was also used for the Am 842 001 model that came out earlier, which was a G1204 with a length of only 12500mm. I don't know which prototype was used to model the Maerklin/Trix model, so I cannot comment on it's scale versus the prototype for the original model.
The SBB WRm represents exactly the same model for all manufacturers, as there was only one coach 61 85 88-70 000-6 in TEE colours. That coach was one of 10 that were all built identically, so you could not argue that there were differences between individual coaches that could account for the difference. Later on, some of the coaches had modifications, ie kitchen end door removed, but the basics remained the same. LS Models plans to include those modifications in the model depending on the Epoch and livery.

That's also why, for example, Maerklin's adapted Traxx 1 loks that were released to represent Traxx 2 (RTS, Cisalpino, etc) were irritating, especially when Maerklin came out with a more correct model the next year.

Regards

Mike C

....once again you have changed the subject, the subject is not to find out which one of the 2 model is the "best" (or more detailed, or more prototypical, etc...). Those 2 models are similar in size, this is 2 models of the same Lok : the 46000 "Fret"...there are of course some small differences in details....
I know those 2 models in real they are both 1:87 scale model of one Lok (few mm difference in lenght) with same shape...On the photo the Trix looks much bigger than the Piko, almost 1.5 times bigger...which is not true in real ! In real those models have similar volume. On the photo the Trix even seems to be a 1:64 scale model ( almost ! .....).....unless the Piko is 1:120 scale... ...

look again:
http://www.lrpresse.fr/t...p;t=16288&start=2820


(Above the photo you'll find 2 other photo of each model...)

...only the real models under our eyes & within reach might have said the truth, but not this photo....

Edited by user 10 November 2010 03:13:49(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

How did I change the subject. You put forward 2 different models of the SNCF class 461000 MaK/Vossloh Diesel. I simply pointed out that the Maerklin/Trix model is a general representation of said model. I do not know much about the Piko model. I was able to check the piko.de website and noted that most of the variants of their model are based on the G1206, so it is possible that the Piko model is a more accurate representation of the actual SNCF lok. The Maerklin/Trix model has a length of 165mm, the Piko model is 4mm longer, coming in at 169mm (buffer to buffer).

Of course in real life, the two models have similar volume. Matter of fact, they are identical as they are sister loks. The two should be identical. The Maerklin/Trix model is of MaK Lok 1001124 while the Piko model is of MaK Lok 1001128.

So, once again, Maerklin made a mistake or substituted a similar model for the model that they wished to reproduce. What is your point and what does this have to do with the fact that Maerklin/Trix rendered the windows too small on the SBB WRm in the 26557 Set?

Ton argument c'est comme les SNCF en greve, ca mene nullepart.

Respectfully,

Mike C

The loco doesn't come with the funny station announcement with Swiss dialect, it has the German announcment that is also used in many other locos.

Don't Busch have some kind of station announcement modules?

Hmm, maybe we are deviating too much from th original topic now... Should maybe be a new topic instead regarding station announcements and such? Feel free to start one...

Hi!

I took some pictures of the Bavaria set along with two coaches from the Südwind set.

Here's a picture (sorry for the zig zag, I didn't have the camera straight; I didn't rotate the images in order to make stitching more easy):

Südwind, Bavaria (both compartment coaches), Bavaria (dining coach), Bavaria, Südwind (both open seating coaches)

Note: The Südwind coaches have the "old, not so long length" not the "new, longer length".

A person wrote on Stummi's Forum that the SBB dining coach and the German compartment coach share the same window size (UIC standard size). I dunno if that's true. Edit: This is not true, DB windows are 1400 mm x 900 mm, SBB dining car windows are 1200 mm x 900 mm. Same height, so height can be compared.
However both cars share the same prototype length and same model length. Windows sizes differ quite a bit.

Dining coach has double window frames. Even if it only had the outer frame (painted silver) and large window panes without second frame, it would still be smaller than the windows of the compartment coach.

MRR is full of compromise. But I don't see a reason to choose a different compromise for the windows of the dining coach than they did for the compartment coaches.

I like the trainset. I won't return it to the dealer.
Full review will come dang soon now ...

Edited by user 12 November 2010 15:48:24(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I copied the photos from Tom's review and have posted them here to keep the overall review and the discussion about the dining car separate:



Tom:

Thanks for the review and the photos. It is a little hard to tell, due to the angle of the photo, but it appears that the bottom of the windows in the SBB WRm and the DB Avmz are at a similar height. The Avmz behind the dining car seems to have the red band a little higher than the WRm. In the next photo, the Apmz appears to have the red band at the same height or slightly lower than the WRm. This suggests to me that the photo was not taken on a completely level surface (as if the train was heading downhill).

I would like to see a photo like the one of the dining car, taken side-on, but showing the dining room part of the WRm and half of the Avmz as well, so that the window height and aspect could be clearly seen on a level surface. This would allow us to determine whether the red band is at the right height on all three coaches and whether the windows are simply not high enough or are mounted too high as well.

UPDATE: Here is a link to a photo posted on the Stummi Forum: http://h-2.abload.de/img/dsci004999om.jpg
Original Thread: http://www.stummiforum.d...opic.php?f=2&t=52144

It has been suggested that the red band on the SBB WRm is actually a little too low, which aggravates the appearance of the windows. Upon close examination of the photos, I do not believe this to be the case, or if true, it is not a significant difference. In the photos, by looking at the beige stripe between the black and red bands, it also is a little low. The same offset is noticeable in the rubber gangway connectors. This may be due to unevenness of the surface where the models were placed for the photo, but is the same in the photos on Stummi and in HO's photos for his review. It is possible that the WRm is sitting a little lower on one or both of the bogies, which creates this offset.
Stummi member K-P has doctored a photo to increase the height of the red band, which improves the look. However, if this were to be done on the original coach, it would still be visible, as the red band would no longer correspond to the DB Avmz and Apmz coaches. It also seems to me that the red band may be slightly lower at the door end than at the kitchen end of the coach. The photos also show that the red/beige colour dividing line can be seen through the gold doors of the dining car, another minor flaw that should have been corrected.

I think that when Maerklin was designing the model, the designers did not have the other coaches (models) and photos of the train in a consist to compare with their work. As a result, they were unable to ensure that the dining car had the same window aspect as the remaining coaches. This is what I have referred to as continuity in previous messages. A quick comparison with the models or with photos of the consist should have resulted in the windows being rendered in the proper size, which would look better.

All in all, I am looking forward to receiving the set. As I am mostly running 1:87, the lok will spend a lot of time with exact scale coaches. The 1:93 coaches will see limited operation, either in the dark with lighting, or on my test oval. With only three coaches, this will make a nice consist to run on the small oval in my office. I am looking forward to the LSM models of the WRm (TEE) and Avmz and Apmz coaches when they are eventually released. They should look very nice with the Maerklin lok.

Regards

Mike C

Tim,

as this is a limited edition set, I would still recommend it. If the SBB Restaurant coach is a "dealkiller" on it's own, you can always take the lok and replace the DB pantograph with the corresponding SBB one and use the lok to pull assorted SBB trains, or even the TEE Rheingold, as it occasionally did after service on the Bavaria ended in 1977. I think that this model will become a collector's favorite like the earlier 37343 Re 4/4II TEE, even with the small windows on the WRm.

Regards

Mike C

Do I have the correct settings? It looks to me that this topic has been listed first forever with nothing new being posted to the HO section.

Is this forum become stagnant or am I missing something?

Larry. as Nev stated, each time a new post is left, that topic moves to the top of the list. As this has been one of the "hot" topics over the past week and a half, it has spent a lot of time at the top of the list. There have been other posts about LS Models and ACME new releases and other things, if you look at the main HO page, you can see when the last message in each thread was left. This post and the forum have been anything less than stagnant... Trust me.

Regards

Mike C

In previous posts, I compared the mistakes on the SBB WRm Restaurant coach to those on the ARDmz Bar Coach from the 42991 Set. I have taken a couple of photos which show that model and the 1:93 model of the same coach from the 2009 Maerklin 0776 TEEBlauer Enzian/Trix 23477 TEE Roland Sets and also the 43859 TEE Bavaria Set:


DB Avmz 1:100 on Left, DB ARDmz 1:100 new construction 2001 on Right



The two models of the ARDmz together (42991 on Left, 23477 on Right). Note the windows are correctly rendered on the 1:93 model (Right)


Same two models, 23477 (1:93) in Front, 42991 (1:100) in Rear. The windows on the 42991 model are definitely too small, creating a situation that is identical to the mistakes made on this year's SBB WRm from the 26557 Set.

When such a discrepancy is plainly visible, it sticks out like a sore thumb. A few seconds more care during the design and better quality control and continuity during the entire production process can result in such flaws not making it all the way to the final production model. Maerklin definitely missed the ball on this one, and no matter what some people may say, they should be able to do better. There is no excuse for this type of slip up and it is not a compromise required for operation.

The parcel with my 26557 has departed Germany today. It should take about 3-4 weeks to get through Customs, so I should hopefully receive it just before Christmas.

Regards

Mike C

Roland,

I suggest you learn how to use the quote function correctly, even when transferring a quote from one topic to another. In a separate new window, take the post you wish to quote, click on "Reply With Quote", copy the phrase or section you want to quote, complete with quote markers. Close the window where you copied the text from. Paste that section into the still open window of the topic where you want to use that quote and voila, a properly quoted and formatted slight.

I hope that this info helps you.

Respectfully

Mike C