Originally Posted by: H0 
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".
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:
- 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.
- 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...
- 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..
