If they do not best fit the real world needs of the folks buying them, they're not going to be as successful as a theoretically inferior design which does meet those needs.

That's why professionally, most of us check our assumptions and study the requirements, BEFORE choosing the technology and proposing "solutions" that "match".

Touche.

The major advantages you point out on a shay are no small potatoes - routine service is the easiest way to extend the life of anything, and if it's easy to do the service, then it's far more likely the service will be done.

Now how you look at this in light of other technology is all a matter of perspective.  The crowd may be using an inferior design, but continue doing so because it has good service.  The new technology may indeed by called the inferior technology by the crowd, whereas it is new and they aren't yet comfortable with adopting its unknown standards.  And again, the most ideal solution may appear to be inferior to an outsider, but once used it becomes obvious that this idea is indeed superior to the others.  

Regardless, in almost every case where an organization has clung to the old way of doing things, that company has often ultimately gone out of business because their products are too inferior to what is otherwise generally available, and further the company is too far behind financially to close the gap by developing and manufacturing a new product.

As I coined the phrase in graduate school, Upgrade or Die.

I note one major difference between Climax, Heisler and Shay; I'll present it this way:

Climax Locomotive Works [1888 and 1928]; Heisler Locomotive Works [1891-1941]; Lima Locomotive Works [1878-1956]

One of these companies is not like the others! 

I usually pick my solutions by selecting the options that provide the most potential beyond my immediate requirements, and then use it for as long as I theoretically can before upgrading to the next generation.  This effectively means by the time I upgrade to the next generation, it has matured beyond the initial price release , and further, most of the bugs have been worked out.  In that time where I'm still using the old solution, I research what is available so when I do upgrade, I get the most bang for my buck.

I usually pick my solutions by selecting the options that provide the most potential beyond my immediate requirements, and then use it for as long as I theoretically can before upgrading to the next generation. This effectively means by the time I upgrade to the next generation, it has matured beyond the initial price release , and further, most of the bugs have been worked out. In that time where I'm still using the old solution, I research what is available so when I do upgrade, I get the most bang for my buck.

This message was brought to you by the guy who wants us to use the next generation tactile screen and experimental/prototype clip on knobs for your cell phone to make it a kinda sorta throttle so you can participate in Benny's techno-savy ops sessions.

And from what I understand, 5 years in, and still doesn't even own the device. Nothing like being on the cutting edge,...our leader to the future.

"Upgrade or die!"

What's inside a Smart Phone  Blog.

For a variety of reasons.... Look at VHS vs. Betamax  or Apple vs. IBM compatiables....

Michael

Regarding the Shay vs Climax vs Heisler:

My take on this is that Ephraim Shay started with a flat car, stuck a boiler on it and devised a very flexible driving mechanism, a set of powered trucks that would undulate and stay on very very rough trackwork. Then kept improving on that idea.  It worked for him in Michigan, and then was proven to work well in other areas.  It worked so well that the company picking up and producing and marketting the idea (Lima) built a large part of its success on that Shay design.

So, it's another case of marketting winning out over, perhaps, better designs.

Besides, it's more fun as a foamer to watch a Shay (at least from the engineer's side) than a Climax or Heisler.

Those of you who model geared locos:  now don't you enjoy that Shay so much that you always run it boiler-front to the right as you are viewing it?

I am not really sure that the Heisler was a better design then the shay.  I don't know if any of you have read the book about the Meadow Creek Lumber Co.  There are quotes from the chief engineer for the firm (not a train engineer) he was not impressed with the Heisler at all. If I remember right he wrote in January of 1942 something to the effect that the Heisler was a joke, it was a joke the day they built it, it was a joke the day they bought it and it will still be a joke the day Hittler's men take over running the railroad.

So you can see that not everyone who actually ran them thought they were a better design then the shay. I suppose in an ideal world the concept was a better concept.  But there where downsides. As noted the shaft was harder to work on in the middle. And I get the idea that build quality of the Heisler was not as high as it could be.

On the plus side I have heard tell that the shay turned better in one direction then the other.  So it did have it's downside. But not many folks alive today really have much (if any) experience in the actual use of these engines for what they were intended for.  So it is truly hard to say which was a better from this distant point in history.  But from the readings I have done of things said about the engines from contemporaries that used them back in the day does not seam to support the idea that the shay was a worse design then the heisler that just happened to have better marketing.  

So personally I will take the fact that they out sold the other engines buy a huge margin as an indicator that those who actually used them and knew what they needed seamed to think that the shay was a better design.

-Doug M

So you can see that not everyone who actually ran them thought they were a better design then the shay. I suppose in an ideal world the concept was a better concept.  But there where downsides. As noted the shaft was harder to work on in the middle. And I get the idea that build quality of the Heisler was not as high as it could be.

That's the point I was trying to make.  The Heisler had advantages over the Shay on paper, but in the real world it did not do the job as well and was less popular.  I can think of a few other examples of things which were superior on paper, but never succeeded in the real world because of some unseen difficulty, poor construction, or marketing issues.

>>>I can think of a few other examples of things which were superior on paper, but never succeeded in the real world because of some unseen difficulty, poor construction, or marketing issues.<<<

Like the Betamax video cassette recorder.  Engineering wise, it was a superior product, that is why my parents bought that instead of the VHS type.  But guess what happened?  It was "outdated" within a few years, and by the early 1990s I believe you couldn't buy blank cassette's anymore. 

Ken L