NEW TRAIN COMPANY!!

[Bergie]

Let's move on... this horse has been beaten enough.

[Anonymous]

Actually, Don makes a fair point. There's something to be said for a "new kid on the block" starting out with an affordable product that draws a whole lot of attention and, hopefully, praise. It's a lot easier to then build on that reputation than it is to offer a $1,000 product out the gate, which is likely only going to enjoy a limited audience--both for the price and for the era.

As I noted before: I collect Lionel's 4-4-0s and have long been a student of Civil War era railroading. If a guy like me, with that high level of interest, isn't able to buy the new 4-4-0, that probably doesn't bode too well for future offerings in that price range across the spectrum of hobbyists. I understand that high price often comes with high quality and I'm really not sure what the solution might be (aside from a non-brass model, perhaps, which may have been a better way to inaugurate the line). I do wi***hese guys well, though, and hope they can make this venture a success.

[eZAK]

"$1000 introductory engines are like what Tucker did with his automobile"

C'mon!
I doubt that the 'Big 3', Lionel, MTH, & K-line, are going to force SMR into financial ruins because they feel threaten. [swg]

[Anonymous]

RMT did the right thing by introducting the $50 Beep. It got a lot of buzz and then sales. $1000 introductory engines are like what Tucker did with his automobile.

[selector]

What an interesting discussion form the point of view of a neophyte who is witnessing his first product intro.

It appears to me that product loyalty is huge in this hobby. Witness the rancour between those loyal to Lionel and those who admire and support MTH? Here, we have a new off-shoot in O guage, with some enthusiastic, and others decrying either the method or the product, even both.

For what it is worth, I think SMR's first few lines of intro were ham-fisted at best, and otherwise unartful. There was too much hubris and emotion (and pride) that amounted to boasting. As SMR is sure to see by now, it has cost them. Too bad, but everyone learns by doing. Apologize, is my suggestion, and acknowledge the mistake. Then, more importantly, modify your approach. You get more bees with honey than you do with vinegar.

Secondly, I am fairly certain that SMR are correct about the train and have indeed done their homework. They may be a bit unsteady on their feet this early, but they are not stupid, nor is the insitution that has bankrolled them. The detractors seem to have mistaken recent renditions of the loco for historical fact. They quibble when they could offer helpful pointers to a tproduct line that they may eventually themselves be happy to own because they helped to improve it...and not merely grind it down.

That is what a neophyte sees in the foregoing.

SMR, I wish you good fortune....and a willingness to graciously acknowledge the detractors. In their own way, they are trying to help.

[Anonymous]

Don't go all testy on me, Dave. I liked it better in the short interlude when you were signing your posts. Although I suppose you are justified with all and everybody attacking your baby.

"Russia Iron" intrigues me. Even on the Kennesaw pictures you can see a blue sheen in the reflected light. I have already learned a bunch from our discussion, for instance I never knew that Kennesaw and "Big Shanty" were the same place. I looked long and hard for Big Shanty, and when I couldn't find it I supposed it fell in Etowah River. Now I know they just changed the name. You also taught me the connection of "The Texas" to all of this. I never saw "The Great Locomotive Chase." You don't by chance know the technical reason behind the "pinking shears" addition on the aft part of the smokestack bell, do you? And I'm willing to bet that it was a late addition in one of the rebuilds.

Look on the bright side. This discussion is keeping your thread right out there before the public. Sell trains!

[Anonymous]

Hey Guys,

Don't mean to be rude, but I hate O scale models. They are too big, no play value, take up too much space, and most of all are to expensive.

But, I must admit I do like your General. And the painting. I'm thinking of orderingf one of the prints.

Sorry, but to me, O gauge should be Toy Trains, but then again, Scale Models in O scale are all fine and Dandy.

Keep up the good work, hope you have good business

[Anonymous]

The locomotive displayed at Kennesaw is the General. After multiple total rebuilds. The most recent around 1960, when it was converted to oil-burning. This is the configuration it is in today. Just about the only original parts remaining are the drivers and cylinders. The colors are completely incorrect for 1862, without question.

We are modeling the engine as it appeared in 1862, something no one has ever done before. Accuracy is our primary concern. If we wanted to do the General as it is today, we could just have taken a bunch of pictures and measurements and been done with it. But that isn't our goal.

Engines were not painted black in that era for many reasons. The reason for the blue boiler color is because of the use of "Russia Iron" which was a metal treatment not unrelated to gun bluing. Regular paint in the 1800s simply could not stand up to the heat of the boiler. Russia Iron did not totally disappear until about the turn of the century.

The Kennesaw museum was one of those consulted regarding the original appearance and they provided guidance regarding the correct colors. I invite you to contact them if you have any additional doubts.

Again, I also suggest you check out the site:

www.locomotivegeneral.com

There you can see photos from various rebuilds as well as Kurtz' paintings, which although not completely accurate and "dark" is much closer to original appearance.

[Anonymous]

I suppose I can take credit for reviving your dead post. I was responding to the announcement that the train was finally ready for roll out, and this was the thread I found. I went to the web site you recommended, and after extensive research, I found that it supports what I had to say. That is not to say that it is accurate. But the General as she stands today does not have a robin's egg blue boiler or sand and steam domes. See below:



That is not to say that your model is not pretty, and it may be totally accurate. It just ain't what they are showing in Kennesaw.

[Anonymous]

We will try to think more like businessmen and not like hobbyists.

What really surprises me is that this was orginally a old, dead post that we started back in September and had disappeared shortly thereafter. No one was offended in the first round of comments. I guess nothing ever dies on the web.

I suggest to those would would like more info on the General's orginal configuration and the many, many total rebuilds to check out:

www.locomotivegeneral.com

They have extensive photographic and artwork archives along with other info.

[Anonymous]

Good post and good points made, Dan.

As something of a student of rail transportation during that era, I can attest to the fact that many locomotives were gaily adorned and well cared for. That's something that many of today's modelers don't fully understand or appreciate, and it's something they can't readily identify with.

And I'm sure it's no easy task starting a new business and dealing to a small niche within an already small niche in this hobby. But putting down the trains many of us have collected over a long period (I collect Lionel's 4-4-0s myself) was definitely one way of getting into trouble fro the get-go.

That said, I would deraly love to own one of these locomotives myself, but it simply doesn't meet the needs of my hobby budget, which is divided between interests in several model railroading scales. I have never paid $1,000 for any O gauge model, and never will. Truth is, the only $1,000+ train items I have ever owned were several Large Scale live steamers equipped with radio control, and in those cases it was a matter of feeling that I was getting good value for the investment in a somewhat complex piece of machinery. I'm by no means saying that these new O gauge models are not worth $1,000--it's just that they are too costly for me in my particular situation. I imagine there are others out there with far larger O gauge budgets than I have, and it's likely that some of these folks will jump at the chance to obtain a true-to-scale model of 19tth century motive power. It is, after all, a long-neglected area in O scale modeling.

I wi***he two brothers well in their new venture, and sincerely hope that they take all comments posted here or elsewhere in a constructive way, and with the knowledge that, often enough, the words printed in forum posts come across as far more har***hen they are intended to be.

[Anonymous]

I agree with this last comment. You may be a pair of brothers who are train hobbyists, but as of now, you are also businessmen. You only get one chance to make a first impression. You started this whole thing by referring to the trains sitting on the shelves and running on the layouts of a lot of the readers of this forum as "junk". That was poorly advised. Then, like too many businessmen, you failed to make sure that the web site for your product is top notch. It looks more like a website to sell artwork than a web site to sell a train. You may get 150 people to buy your train, and you may not. But if you want to make a train after this one, and another after that, you need to be warming people up to your business and your products, not telling us that we have bought junk in the past. Your words count. They have an impact and it's up to you to decide if that is going to be a positive or a negative impact.

Another suggestion: Feel free to be annoyed by the posts that you see here, but never forget that you are now a businessman. Posting a long email to refute these posts is running the risk of seeming to be argumentative. Don't lower yourself to that level even if you think that I am already at that low level. It will not serve you well to respond that way. You even went so far as to suggest that people were looking for reasons to be insulted. Maybe I am. And, maybe you are 100% right about that. You are wrong, by the way, but that's a different point. Even if you thought I was just trying to find insult where none existed, you miss the point by replying to that effect. Instead, try to be more contemplative and consider what the annoying poster has written. See if there might even be a shred of wisdom in what the person has written. Don't just miss the point, and even if you do miss the point, don't reveal that to the world. I'm not saying you should leave negative posts unanswered, but you might want to carefully construct your replies to be positive and prmotional. Try to make sure that you don't come off sounding like a wounded animal.

As for the colorful toy-like paint job: I was assuming all along that your paint job was 100% accurate. So, I don't care if 3 museum officials or 300 have approved the design because, as I said, I assumed it was accurate anyway. BUT, to the 3 rail steam engine collector and operator, it looks more like a tinplate toy train than anything that actually ran, albeit because most of us have not seen too many accurately painted engines from the 1860's. So, given those facts of life, you may want to spend a little time and writing addressing the nature of train color schemes from that era. Saying it is accurately painted, and leaving it at that, does not help in a market where MTH tinplate traditions toy trains come in a rainbow full of colors and yet, scale designed steam engines are almost universally black. Explain it to the potential buyer. Show more photos of the General. Promote the artwork if you want, but most of us are train hobbyists, not art colectors.

In summary, SELL your product.

Good luck.

[Anonymous]

SMR Trains : First - As a former independent businessman I respect anbody that is willing to take the risk at a new business. You will always get the detractors until you prove yourself & then they will wi***hey had of bought your stock. (Look what they said to Mike Wolfe 25-30 years ago & Look who's crying now). Second: DO NOT put down the competition focus on PROMOTING your own product the marketplace is smart enough to see the difference. Good luck with your new venture Regards Steve

[mersenne6]

The General at Kennesaw is the end result of a number of rebuilds and it and its paint scheme are in no way representative of how the General looked the day it was taken by the Andrews raiders. If you want to see the General as she looked during the chase and as she is being modeled by SMR get over to the library and check out Civil War Railroads by Abdill. Page 166 has a picture of her after sustaining battle damage. You will note the SMR model matches what can be seen in the picture. As for toylike paint schemes - they all looked that way at that time. I suspect SMR got copies of the Abdill picture and ran the images through some kind of processing to identify different shades of gray in the picture which would correspond to different paint colors on the engine. I don't know how they picked the ones they did but perhaps they would be willing to tell us. The basic boiler color - the current interpretation of Russian Iron as done by MTH and Precision - would be easy - the others perhaps not.

As for other trains, there are a number of contemporary water colors of trains of the period but they are not easy to find. John White's book on early steam engines (the first and second editions) have color reproductions of some of them, the De Golyer Library has a rare collection of other water colors commissioned by the railroads and the Smithsonian has some as well. The current paint schemes on the reproduction Jupiter and 119 are as accurate as historical research can make them and both of them would put Thomas to shame. Most of this color was gone by the end of the 19th century. Consequently, the 1903 writer would not have seen anything resembing the engines of the 1850-1875 period.

Just to give you a description of another engine of the period let me describe the picture I have in front of me as I type. It is a copy of a watercolor of the Erie Railway's Peter B. Sweeny - made in 1869 by Brooks - Tender wine with bright red striping and shaded gold lettering accented in black - tender truck frames vermillion. Engine - cab white with gold trim with varnished wood accents, drivers - vermillion centers, boiler - russian iron blue gray, domes wine and red with lots of brass trim, brass boiler bands, brass wrapping on steam cylinders, vermillion cowcatcher, jet black smoke box and stack - headlight trimmed and painted in the same manner as the tender.

There are others even more exotic than the above. For example, I don't think anything could beat the pink tender with black and gold highlights of the Tiger - an early engine that called Cincinnati home.

If you'd like to read a good account of the research involved in the two Promontory engines get a copy of the September-October 1994 issue of Locomotive and Railway Preservation.

[Anonymous]

After smr refuted the comment of mine about the model being toylike, I had to dig out the pictures I had when I visited the General several years ago in Kennesaw. I just didn't think the colors were correct. Unless The General has been repainted, the boiler is dark blue, the cab is red, the leading truck wheels are dark blue and the tender appears to be dark blue with gold striping. I can't see the tender trucks in my photos. Admittedly my pictures were taken in a darkened room, but the colors just arent the same as in the website. Also the top of the stack looks like it was cut with a pinking shears not flat like on the website. I'm not saying it isn't a good model, I just didn't think the website photos (artwork?) was an accurate portrayal. It appears that announcing their new product in a forum like this was inviting criticism from especially people like me who don't have $1200 to spend on every locomotive I buy. For that kind of money I would want T,P&W #13, the loco that crashed at the Chatsworth wreck in 1887. But that's just me. John

[Anonymous]

I suspected that you were protecting the artist, nevertheless, it is irritating to be told that I can buy the graphics.

I am a long way from a rivet counter, if I were, I wouldn't be in three rail. However, the paint job on your prototype model is more reminiscent of "Thomas" than any real train I have ever seen. However, the operative phrase here is "that I have ever seen." It is really regrettable that those of us who live history don't preserve the little things like paint schemes and locomotive types for posterity. The Kennesaw Museum presents the General in basic black as far as I can tell (black and white photo) with polished brass and different colored wheels ,cowcatcher and cabin. Frankly, the color scheme is at least as important as the rivet count. There is a fascinating account of a young lady of sixteen leaving the Mississippi Delta going off to finishing school in 1903, and how everything on the locomotive that is taking her is painted black so it doesn't show soot and ash. Sorry I didn't preserve the URL, didn't think that I was ever going to need it again. And, of course there is always the possibility that railroads got smarter between 1862 and 1903. I guess the bottom line of what I am trying to say is that I am suspicious of your bright blue boiler. It may be 100% authentic, I am just skeptical.

On another aspect of this discussion, my wife gave me Mike Wolf's rendition of "The Texas" a couple of years back. The paint scheme, while bright, even garish, is less toy like than "The General." Her only regret was that it has a plastic cowcatcher. I would like to see real wood on the tender. But it didn't cost anywhere near a thousand dollars either, and it is still alot of fun to play with. Maybe I need a "General" and a covered bridge for a theme scene.

[Anonymous]

Wow! Tough crowd here!

I love 19th century railroading, and have a pretty decent collection of Lionel 4-4-0s. I would buy one of your models for sure, but $1,000 is a bit out of my realm unless I don't buy anything during the year to support my interest in other scales that I model.

As for the criticism posted above relating to toy-like colors: Well, folks, that's how they did things back in that period, and engine crews tooks VERY good care of their iron horses--the same kind of care that some car owners lavish on their automobiles. "Basic black" wasn't always the garb sported by steam locomotives, in this country or elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Inaccurate - Too Tall - Too Wide – Exaggerated Proportions – Poor Detail – Fantasy Designs - Cheap, Inaccurate Paint and Decorations….the list goes on and on, but basically – Junk. by SMR Trains

I think you got off to a very bad start...
BillFromWayne

[TurboOne]

I passed the website to the HO guys, their are many who like the era. Still nice models, that look great. Good Luck on the success of your company.

Tim

[Anonymous]

I removed that comment. I was looking at my site, where there is no mention of similar upsetting but accurate statements regarding my opinion of previous 4-4-0 locomotives built by other makers.

I have to stand by my other comments, however.

[macdannyk1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SMR Trains

Introducing a new name in model railroading!

SMR Trains
By Schneider Model Railroading

At last, ACCURATE 19th Century Scale Model Trains!

For a long time there have been many requests for 19th Century scale model trains. When the big boys bothered to listen, what did we get? Misshapen, distorted and just plain bad models.

Inaccurate - Too Tall - Too Wide – Exaggerated Proportions – Poor Detail – Fantasy Designs - Cheap, Inaccurate Paint and Decorations….the list goes on and on, but basically – Junk.

Since they don’t think the market is worth their interest, we at SMR Trains decided to respond to your requests.

Uh, Dave, it's right there in the first message that started this topic. But then, it doesn't matter to me personally either way. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

In reply to the last few comments, I'm at a bit of a loss to understand the problem here.

1. We are protecting the pictures because of the artwork we are selling. These are the intellectual property of the artist and he is concerned about people downloading them and making pirate copies. The protection is just a code which goes over the entire site, it isn't practical to do this picture-by-picture. We frankly never considered that people would want to download our photos. We were just trying to protect the artist.

2. Those of you who think that the decoration is "children's toys" style just hasn't done any research on the era. Bright colors are correct. This engine was painted as it appeared in 1862 and was reviewed the staff of THREE train museums as being VERY accurate.

3. I don't know where we said anything about buying photographic images. True, we are selling train artwork reproductions. Are you actually looking at our site or just reacting to someone else's comments on this board? If you would like copies of our photos, just email us and we would be more than glad to send you copies as attachments.

4. Please point out where any of us referred to other train models as junk. It almost sounds like you want to find conflict and insult where none is offered.

5. The pricing of our models are in a price range typical for highly-detailed, hand-made, limited-edition brass. These models will never be as inexpensive as mass-produced plastic or die-cast. They can't be.

6. We are just hobby guys trying to make trains. We are not a large nameless firm, its just my brother and myself. The person to be "fired" for your perceived insults is me. I wrote everything. It is not "crass commercialism". We've been working without pay on this project for a year and a half. If you are going to be at York next month, stop by. Orange Hall. I'll be there.

[Anonymous]

I wish you guys luck. Carving out a niche in the already overcrowded O-Gauge market will be difficult to do.

You are offering a high-end product and your web-site's design doesn't reflect that. Nor does it either entice me or explain to me why I should buy your products.

I also think you are going to irritate a lot of visitors to your site and potential buyers because they are unable to download any of your site's pictures to their hard drives. Buy pictures? I don't think so.

BillFromWayne
www.modeltrainjournal.com

[Anonymous]

And I can really do without the insinuation on their part that the collection of nice locomotives that I have spent lots of time and money to accumulate are just "junk". That's not a great way to attract customers to their toy locomotives. Basically, if I were these guys, I'd re-vamp their web page to be less pretentious and I'd edit that original post that started this thread. These guys have to be the very first new train company to go so far out of their way to antagonize their potential client base in the opening rounds of their sales campaign. Whomever's idea it was to refer to our large train collections as "junk" should probably be fired by SMR trains.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by underworld

skyray Several different methods to copy "protected images".......just ask.

Easter Easter Easter Easter Easter!!!!!

underworld

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

You kinda sorta missed the point. They irritated me with their crass commercialism. I could care less if a picture of their boxcar doesn't make it into my "to buy" file. My wife would have a hissy fit over a two hundred and fifty dollar wood boxcar anyway. It was the arrogance of protecting the image of a boxcar that bothered me, not that I don't know a lot of ways to download "protected" images. And the slogan they generated wasn't too suitable either. "You can by our images on our web page." Funny, I looked all over that web page, and I didn't see a picture of that boxcar for sale anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Well, best of luck to you, SMR Trains. You are making a gigantic mistake with the protected images thing on your web site. Turns off potential buyers incredibly quickly. I want to copy a picture of a train that is going to cost me $1000 and then I want to keep loading the file from my hard drive and looking at it, and looking at it, and thinking about it, and then, eventually the idea enters my mind that I actually WANT the engine. That is what happened with the MTH Reading T-1 which is now sitting on my engine yard. That is what happened with K-Line's new 4-6-6T engine that I have on order now. You are making a huge mistake.

As for the train itself: Well, I would love to see some earlier vintage Philadelphia and Reading Railroad engines from the late 1800's, and I was so glad to see K-Line bring out that 4-6-6T. But I will say that you are going to have to warm people up to the idea of engines painted like children's colorful toys. Yes, the detail is nice, but I am sitting here wondering if they really made engines that look like a part from an old amusement park carousel ride. I mean, come on, this thing looks like a toy. A nice toy, but not one for which I am going to be quick to drop $1000. And then there's that nastyness factor regarding the pictures on the web site. A little paranoid, are you? As I said at the top, best of luck to you.

[Anonymous]

Kinda pricey for what I thought looked like a toy. John

[underworld]

skyray Several different methods to copy "protected images".......just ask.

Easter Easter Easter Easter Easter!!!!!

underworld

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[Anonymous]

Will any of them say "Lionel" on the side ---if they don't then o-well--[:)][:)]