If you were a model train manufactuer........

Follow the Lionel experiment , with T rail (but solid Rail) with a 36" minimum Radius  curve and the move to a 2 rail track system

@Dave Koehler posted:

Follow the Lionel experiment , with T rail (but solid Rail) with a 36" minimum Radius  curve and the move to a 2 rail track system

Great idea! I would have also found some way of going to a 2 rail track system. And whether 3 rail or 2 rail I would have added more ties to the track. three ties per straight never cut it for me.

The Lionel UCS operating/uncoupling track was designed to be backward compatible with the electric couplers of the late 1940's. If I were to do it differently, I never would have gone to the magnetic couplers we have today. All couplers would still be electric and more expensive. Lionel would probably have gone bankrupt earlier and never recovered. I think it is obvious why I was not consulted!

By the way, the UCS track section was first introduced in the 1949 catalog. In 1945 the RCS track section was introduced and it was included in each catalog until 1948. The RCS would not uncouple the modern magnetic couplers, but it is exactly what you said you wanted as an operating track for the milk car platform. It can be found for $3 to $11.

I would of used a bushing in the American Flyer diesel truck frame to keep the axle true. Would of done the same to the American Flyer hand car.

I would of had two motors in all American Flyer diesels.

I would of had a weight in the front truck of Lionel's General engines or i would installed a weight on the engines frame.

I probably would have spent my paycheck in the employee store every month!

Actually, I came close to doing that when I worked for Electric Railroad years ago.

I’d reintroduce tinplate. Again. Just saying. 😊😎

I'd encourage Lionel and MTH to make their command controls open source so I could sell more trains.

John

If in the 50s i would reintroduce standard gauge but make it super realistic

if today i would switch everything to rechargable battery power especially if i was to make an EMD Joule engine

Gilbert should have gone with DC power and done away with the trouble some r5everse units.

Gunnny

@paigetrain posted:

If in the 50s i would reintroduce standard gauge but make it super realistic

Oddly enough, I love realism when it comes to o-scale trains, but love the simplistic toyishness of Standard Gauge.

I thought the question was ""if you were a model train manufacturer" and not "If I ran the model train industry with an iron fist free of market realities"

---PCJ

Being on the manufacturing side today, the one item I would have changed back in the 40's or 50's had I around then would be to standardize O scale at the correct 17/64" to the foot scale so that the track would scale out to 4'-8 1/2" as opposed to the US standard 1/4" to the foot.  Yes, quarter inch to the foot is nice and easy using my architect's scale, but the heft of the slightly larger trains on O gauge track is definitely noticeable. 

Either that or reduce the width of O scale track to what is referred to as Proto-48 today. 

I would include a spool of real stranded hook up wire with all accessories instead of that brittle green covered stuff that kinks when you look at it. I hated that stuff as a kid on my floor layouts!

I'd only make trains that the OGR Forum says they'd buy. No more complaints "Nothing in this catalog fo me"

If talking the 40's and 50's then I would say the biggest thing would have been realistic track, introducing it much earlier than Super O was (it was introduced too late). I have heard the argument that they should have switched to 2 rail and scale, but the problem is that would have wiped out a large part of their market. There was a reason trains back then weren't mostly scale, it is because it allowed people to have their trains in small spaces, it was compressed so that it could operate on sharp curves. In theory they could have gone to 2 rail, but then that would have wiped out their existing base of 3 rail users, which was large. There is a reason 2 rail O in the hobby lagged 3 rail, it is very much that 'toy trains' were more compatible with what people had, the kind of space they had and so forth.

Another thing might have been offering more detailed trains and buildings, even if not scale it could make it look better. I don't think given 1950's technology any kind of remote control would have been possible, certainly not command control (yes, I am aware of the attempts they did do with this,they both failed because it was clunky and unreliable), maybe by the 60's they could have worked out some limited RC control of engines (would require a way to vary the voltage to the engine using a small rheostat controlled by a servo if the engine used DC rectified from the AC track voltage, doubt a variac could be made small enough to be in an engine or tender). 

As an adult hobbyist 70 years later, it's easy for me to say that Lionel should have adopted lower gear ratios across the board for more realistic slow-speed operation.  But... considering that their primary target market at the time was kids, I would say that Lionel and American Flyer got most things right.  Some were astonishingly good: a well-maintained 773 Hudson or dual-motored F3s run about as well as ANY loco did before the advent of speed control.  Quality, materials, durability were all great compared to today.  Service and parts standardization that modern-era folks can only dream about.  There's evidence of innovation and improvement until about 1951-53, after which it seems that cost cutting became more of a priority.  After Mr. Cowen retired, things really went downhill fast.  But by that time, trains were rapidly fading from the fabric of American life.

Ok, I can think of two things that I would change:  (1) Lionel should have kept the 1946 design for the Berkshire.  Switching to a single worm wheel on the rear axle in 1947 was a big downgrade, IMO driven by cost cutting or ease-of-assembly considerations.  (2) They should have reissued the 6-wheel steam switchers.  At least the 203, if not the stellar 8976 that didn't reappear until Richard Kughn resurrected it in 1989!  Great topic for discussion!!

I think that three-rail was bypassed beginning in the late 1940s by HO scale due to the realism of HO scale.   While true 1/48 scale trains DID exist, they were expensive and/or required kit assembly.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    "O Gauge" with its short radius curves,  three- rails and non-scale "traditional" sized trains  was necessary to fit the most-common layouts of the day (4 X 8 or 5 X 9).  But hobbyists wanted realism and the O Gauge trains were not realistic enough.  Once kids became enamored with slot cars  (both home sets, and commercial raceways), that really was the beginning of the decline of "toy trains".  Scale and realism might have appealed to the "hobbyist" instead of the child and could have PARTIALLY insulated trains from the slot car craze.  Truthfully, we are lucky our trains exist at all given the market shift of the 1960s.

...and, by the way: I took up O Scale/gauge trains about 7 years ago, BECAUSE they RUN so well,  Not "fiddley" about perfect trackwork, etc.  I (now) think three rail is "normal", and that TWO rail looks weird!!

    If I had my own company (and were rich enough to support it until it could stand on its own,) I would have made the Atlas turntable back in the 50's, made a Mallet that was mechanically-inspired by Lionel's GG-1, kept the AMT aluminum passenger cars in production along with an addition of a horse car ($1M thoroughbreds did NOT travel by stock car) and an operating mail car like the prewar AmFlyer (just a clip to pick-up mail bags - no moving parts needed.)

    Now, if I had run Lionel, the prewar #203 0-6-0 switcher would have stayed in production, along with 072 switches, and expanded the Super 0 line (with a design change of that middle rail.) Plus, after buying-out AmFlyer, their "choo-choo" sound and smoke units would have been in every steamer.

    Yeah, dream on.

Years ago I "invented" "SO" scale (pronounced "so" or "esso"; TBD) - between S and O. It would be 1:56 - this allows your track gauge to be 1", correct for the scale. "Standard" real RR gauge is 56.5 inches.

It would be a 2-rail system with better-looking, smaller-than-3RO-flanges, yet still friendly to good tracking. It would use O scale Kadee couplers (there are no SO Kadees - yet).

To imagine the size and heft, it would approximate many RK or Traditional sized pieces, but they would be 1:56 scale models. Think the smaller, well-modeled K-Line Pacifics, or the K-Line 1:58 Allegheny (NOT the K-Line Itty-Bitty Big Boy, which was S scale/O gauge). Still solid, heavy and large, but more accessible than 1:48 as equipment, and relative to real estate.

Diesels/electrics would be designed with swinging pilots, but designed to be readily removed and frame-mounted for those with larger curves, providing a much better look.

Steamers - 6-coupled and larger - would come with blind middle drivers, but there would be flanged drivers in the box (for better looks and larger curves), and the driver axles would be held in by a removable bottom frame plate (just as in Williams/Weaver 3RO brass steamers) so swapping them out would be simple.

The design for rolling stock trucks would be similar to the diesel swinging/fixed pilot design: they would come as Talgo couplers mounted on a "tongue" - like 3RO - but removable and easily mounted on the rolling stock frame. All places pre-drilled and re-using the same screws.

DCC-equipped (better yet, TMCC-equipped). Could also run on plain DC (which has advantages).

No traction tires. Forego the 10% grades.... This is model railroading, but with toy train seasoning, should you choose to go that way.

@gunny posted:

Gilbert should have gone with DC power and done away with the trouble some r5everse units.

AFAIK the reverse units are still needed unless you do away with the universal motor.

@D500 posted:

Years ago I "invented" "SO" scale (pronounced "so" or "esso"; TBD) - between S and O. It would be 1:56 - this allows your track gauge to be 1", correct for the scale. "Standard" real RR gauge is 56.5 inches.

It would be a 2-rail system with better-looking, smaller-than-3RO-flanges, yet still friendly to good tracking. It would use O scale Kadee couplers (there are no SO Kadees - yet).

To imagine the size and heft, it would approximate many RK or Traditional sized pieces, but they would be 1:56 scale models. Think the smaller, well-modeled K-Line Pacifics, or the K-Line 1:58 Allegheny (NOT the K-Line Itty-Bitty Big Boy, which was S scale/O gauge). Still solid, heavy and large, but more accessible than 1:48 as equipment, and relative to real estate.

Diesels/electrics would be designed with swinging pilots, but designed to be readily removed and frame-mounted for those with larger curves, providing a much better look.

Steamers - 6-coupled and larger - would come with blind middle drivers, but there would be flanged drivers in the box (for better looks and larger curves), and the driver axles would be held in by a removable bottom frame plate (just as in Williams/Weaver 3RO brass steamers) so swapping them out would be simple.

The design for rolling stock trucks would be similar to the diesel swinging/fixed pilot design: they would come as Talgo couplers mounted on a "tongue" - like 3RO - but removable and easily mounted on the rolling stock frame. All places pre-drilled and re-using the same screws.

DCC-equipped (better yet, TMCC-equipped). Could also run on plain DC (which has advantages).

No traction tires. Forego the 10% grades.... This is model railroading, but with toy train seasoning, should you choose to go that way.

BEST IDEA EVER

SO scale needs to be a thing

you need to present this to whoever can make it happen

also offer battery and mini hydrogen fuel cell power

I would have used DC motors thereby ditching the mechanical then electronic e-unit.  DC pulse power was coming in and would have given locomotives smoother starts,  lower top speed. Then it could have been easier to transition to  command control.

I would also have stayed with 3 rail for ease of layout building,  no worries about short circuits.

@Mike Wyatt posted:

...and, by the way: I took up O Scale/gauge trains about 7 years ago, BECAUSE they RUN so well,  Not "fiddley" about perfect trackwork, etc.  I (now) think three rail is "normal", and that TWO rail looks weird!!

Same here. I bought my older daughters an HO set in 2013 and it ran every bit as poorly as my HO trains from 1980. So I promptly gave up and bought an MTH starter set and never looked back.

@D500 posted:

Years ago I "invented" "SO" scale (pronounced "so" or "esso"; TBD) - between S and O. It would be 1:56 - this allows your track gauge to be 1", correct for the scale. "Standard" real RR gauge is 56.5 inches.

It would be a 2-rail system with better-looking, smaller-than-3RO-flanges, yet still friendly to good tracking. It would use O scale Kadee couplers (there are no SO Kadees - yet).

To imagine the size and heft, it would approximate many RK or Traditional sized pieces, but they would be 1:56 scale models. Think the smaller, well-modeled K-Line Pacifics, or the K-Line 1:58 Allegheny (NOT the K-Line Itty-Bitty Big Boy, which was S scale/O gauge). Still solid, heavy and large, but more accessible than 1:48 as equipment, and relative to real estate.

Diesels/electrics would be designed with swinging pilots, but designed to be readily removed and frame-mounted for those with larger curves, providing a much better look.

Steamers - 6-coupled and larger - would come with blind middle drivers, but there would be flanged drivers in the box (for better looks and larger curves), and the driver axles would be held in by a removable bottom frame plate (just as in Williams/Weaver 3RO brass steamers) so swapping them out would be simple.

The design for rolling stock trucks would be similar to the diesel swinging/fixed pilot design: they would come as Talgo couplers mounted on a "tongue" - like 3RO - but removable and easily mounted on the rolling stock frame. All places pre-drilled and re-using the same screws.

DCC-equipped (better yet, TMCC-equipped). Could also run on plain DC (which has advantages).

No traction tires. Forego the 10% grades.... This is model railroading, but with toy train seasoning, should you choose to go that way.

This piques my interest. Good idea. I could have even tighter curves.

@Mark Holmgren 110217 posted:

Same here. I bought my older daughters an HO set in 2013 and it ran every bit as poorly as my HO trains from 1980. So I promptly gave up and bought an MTH starter set and never looked back.

A little hard to make generalizations as my first full layout was a 16x24' layout in HO in the 1980s and it ran wonderfully.  100 car freight trains ran regularly on that layout and didn't feel out of proportion with the broad curves.  Two classification yards and four mainlines worth of fun with it.  That is where I learned how to custom paint, decal, build kits, and kitbash as a teenager. 

The HO from the 60's that I picked up at swap meets were the ones I tended to have challenges with.  Not much different from the quality of O at that time.

If in the postwar era of Lionel, I would have brought back OO with a fully developed line up with more track options, passenger cars and engines along with the O gauge line up. I would have also done more road names on the F units, so many more could have been done, along with giving the F3 dual headlights and single headlights depending on the prototype.     Move up to modern era, instead of Fastrak, I would have brought back Super O with many choices in track radius, better switches and so forth.  AD