Originally Posted by: Webmaster 
The main complaint towards these motors in the forum is in the electronic regulation of them, which apparently is not optimal for some models - as proven by test results.
Since I got my first Marklin in-house MFX decoder, I never had too much hope in them.
It's Marklin's problem.
Digital world has matured enough in the past 10 years.
If one manufacturer is not competent enough to make them, we can just switch to another brand
...and basic decoders are now cheap enough, so long as we don't worry too much about full operating sounds.
Marklin was being quite clever about it though,
seemingly packaging more and more of their locos with full operating sound.
Why?
Higher RRP, and to make us more reluctant to replace those
precious sound decoder.
I think they realize that their decoder's load control is worse compared to the other brands too - so in a way, sound package seems to be their way of protecting their market.
Okay, that's also slightly off-track from the topic.
But my point is decoders are merely the necessary additional tool for digital operation.
The rest of the locomotive is, however, should be considered a package in its own way, or a work of art.
Its tooling, detail, and motor -- this whole package is actually what represent the entire brand.It's actually harder to switch brand to buy which loco vs decoder selection and/or problem with load regulation.
Juhan briefly mentioned about Marklin
BR18.1....
It was introduced in 1988 --- close to the dawn of the real digital MRR age --- so naturally, some issue with electronic packaging...
But can you say that Marklin BR18.1 is not a beautiful model?I think it's got all its ingredients, and the whole package is perfect -- although it was quite expensive for Marklin to make at a time...
True, it has no smoke generator, but that besides the point.
This is still a very modern design, highly detailed, and with the right decoder, its Faulhaber motor completes the whole package.
It was just so ahead of its time.......
Which bring us back to the point --- this artwork should be the model that every new tooling Marklin model be compared with.
Hence why the new standardized 3-pole motor is an issue for me.
Can Marklin argue that it is far better than the Faulhaber in BR18.1 - and actually makes their new models a better package compared to their 20-year old design?
They used to be able to argue that with BR01, BR05 (non-streamlined), BR18.3, BR64, BR39, BR23, and to some extent their BR50.40 and BR41...
They made huge fuss about it, and they showed that they were proud with those products.
But recently, Marklin had been trying to keep quiet about their "new" 3-poler.....
Luckily, internet forums shared
everything, and look! Despite the "hush-hush", we know about this recent development.
I can only conclude that
they already know that it is of inferior quality vs their previous motors.
Otherwise, where's the SDS-like campaign on the net.
I'm still trying to keep an open mind here, and see how the 3-polers compared to the previous generation motor.
But given the price, the second hand market is still the better option for Marklin-branded items.
Edited by user 08 February 2014 06:41:43(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified