Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway and Chicago & North Western PS-2 2-Bay Covered Hoppers were around from 1956-2006.
There have been special runs of the Weaver Models PS-2 2-Bay Covered Hopper in some of the M&St.L and C&NW schemes.
What I would like to get are the LIONEL 3-Packs of the PS-2 2-Bay Hoppers in their Original Schemes and/or the 1980's CNW Safety Yellow Repaint Scheme.
The Lionel PS-2 2-Bay Hoppers have great details.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Other Industrial Rail products possible:
UP/MP Boxcar with the UNION PACIFIC BUILDING AMERICA Scheme.
Bessemer & Lake Erie Gondola
Conrail fading Patch-Over Plug-Door Boxcar
4-Bay Covered Hoppers for CP, CN, CSX, UP, BNSF, NS, KCS.
Industrial Rail O Gauge line must include these in the coming year:
Norfolk Southern Plug-Door Box Car
CSX-NYC (Post-2000 Scheme) Gondola with Load
Chicago & North Western Gondola with Load. 1980's Scheme with correct faded green color.
Norfolk Southern Flat Car with Bulkheads
Pan-Am Railways Plug-Door Box Cars. Both White Scheme and Blue & Black Scheme.
Norfolk Southern Open-Top Hopper. Aluminum Body and Black Lettering.
phillyreading wrote: I would like to see more cars with FEC(Florida East Coast) as the roadname, FEC has gondolas, boxcars, hoppers-three and four bay styles, TTAX cars, plywood center beam cars. Far as new motive power FEC has SD70-2's by EMD. Another that I would like to see produced is the presidential car The Ferdinan Megalin, I have seen this car at a railroad museum in south Miami. Lee F.
I would like to see more cars with FEC(Florida East Coast) as the roadname, FEC has gondolas, boxcars, hoppers-three and four bay styles, TTAX cars, plywood center beam cars. Far as new motive power FEC has SD70-2's by EMD.
Another that I would like to see produced is the presidential car The Ferdinan Megalin, I have seen this car at a railroad museum in south Miami.
Lee F.
Lee,
Atlas O is a company where more FEC equipment can be produced.
MTH has produced the most modern FEC freight cars and Locos so far. MTH Premier and RailKing in the MTH 2007 Volume 1 catalog could very well have more FEC. What about the FEC Husky-Stack Intermodal Cars in Yellow and Freight Car Red (Brown)? You forgot to mention those new cars. The IMPACK type of Articulated Intermodal Cars are finally being produced by MTH in schemes other than TTX . So e-mail MTH with all your requests. The link below will get you directly to all Florida items ever made by MTH. You can see what has been made in the past 10 years.
http://www.mth-railking.com/list3.asp?qwest=0&cat=any&cla=any&lin=any&rn=Florida&naam=&cab=
Lionel has made older FEC freight cars and Locos. It would be hard to sell Lionel on FEC. You would have to make an excellent case with the people at LIONEL to finally produce a recent FEC Boxcar.
Jim , I don't know if I am so much enamored with the BEEP, but I do think RMT is making products that are serving a vast number of modelers. I was out of work for 26 months and so I don't even own a BEEP yet, though I've seen them run and am impressed with them given their list price point. They certainly run better and pull better than any current single motored plastic framed Lionel RS-3 or single motored GEEP/U-36B - and for much less money.
I think if Walter continues offering the BEEPs in differing roads, they will continue to sell - especially if Lionel and MTH continue to turn a blind eye towards this type of product and pricing. I don't think the BEEP is a temporary sensation at all. And we'll soon have the BEEF with the shorty passenger cars.
I didn't care for the K-Line small diesel and steam switcher, but they also serve a segment of the market that has been largely overlooked in recent years. The Lionel Dockside is another nice loco in the right direction.
With the loss of K-Line the dynamic has changed a little. But one must recognize the intense competition between K-Line, Lionel and MTH. Many of the high end offerings are more the result of the bad blood between these companies than any real substantial market demand. That's not to say that the more expensive scale products are good for the hobby, or that there isn't any market for them. When you look at all the recent offerings from these 3 companies over the past years, you can't help but notice the lopsided nature of these offerings. Which have been made mostly at the expense of more basic affordable products. Not only are there the development and tooling costs related to the new products, but there's also the legal wrangling that has unquestionably hurt the financial health of the train companies involved.... even with the dirt cheap overseas labor costs.
RMT products may not be for everyone, nor are they the be all or end all. But Walter does have the right idea. Lionel, MTH and K-Line have been so afraid of the perception of being seen as toy train makers, that they have over-looked this substantial part of the market pie. RMT is a toy train maker, but they are decent looking well priced models that seem to have a reasonable middle ground appeal. Many higher end operators are adding digital control to their BEEPs and now there's a company offering the electronic components to do this. What a smart idea all the way around: an affordable basic product that can easily be upgraded.
Whether or not the train hobby is truly more expensive than in the past depends on how you interpret things. BUT many do "feel" that it is and we've seen the threads that state as much. So accurate or not, this is how many do see the train hobby. Flipping through a current 150+ page Lionel or MTH catalog reinforces this perception.... yes there are some affordable items from Lionel and MTH, but they are in the clear minority of offerings. So in these times where $400-$600+ locomotives seem to be the norm, it sure is nice to companies like RMT and Williams offering alternatives.
brianel, Agent 027
"Praise the Lord. I may not have everything I desire, but the Lord has come through for what I need."
I agree with Dr. John about steam locomotives not double heading most of the time but in moutain areas steam locomotives had to double or triple head to get over the grade, I have even seen old video of 4-8-4 steamers double heading. The real reason I feel is that companies want to keep down costs rather than have prototypical engine designs. Not only did Lionel or Williams do this but it seems like standard practice for American Flyer locomotives.
Modeling the Baltimore waterfront in HO scale
Well said Brianel, if you hadn't I would have.
Andrew the silent majority run 0 gauge because of a combination of nostalgia and love of these big heavy trains but also, I suspect, many like me have children and grandchildren who we want to play with and that means have fun, very often on the floor, frequently it involves loading cars with all sorts of non-scale items to be 'delivered.' Everyone oohs and aahs over the latest and greatest, few can afford them or would if it came down to one big high end loco versus two small ones and a rake of coaches or wagons.
Space is at a premium, especially if one has to cater to kids (or wives) whose stuff seems to multiply exponentially to the point where you start to wonder whether really powerful magnetraction wouldnt make the ceiling a usable piece of real estate! No but seriously though, I went back to O from HO because of the heft plus the fact that it DOES negotiate tight curves. All I want from my O gauge train is that it be powerful enough to pull car loads of big Lego and wooden blocks, strong enough to withstand skidding across the floor on its side and last but not least I'd prefer everything be made of metal not plastic. Oh and whatever else you do Lionel, I beg you, do NOT kill off O-27!
Brian,
With all the great buildings and accessories available, it is hard to squeeze them in a layout smaller than 96-100 Square Foot Surface area. I suggest choosing to put your layout in a room about 12' x 16'.
It is not meant to exclude anyone, but this O Gauge is big stuff compared to HO Scale. The trains need to move around the curves and those operating accessories need some room to move.
"This is why everyone should put their O Gauge tracks plans in spaces of 100 Square Feet. The minimum radius of O Gauge track is too restrictive in 32 Square Feet."
Andrew, I don't know if you mean this as a helpful observation, but it sounds somewhat exculsionary to me. With this suggestion of everyone having layouts of 100 sqaure feet, you would easily eliminate 50% of the entire hobby base if not more. You certainly would eliminate me and another 2 dozen people I personally know. I dare say, no train company would want to see this happen.
Every survey, study and finding I have read indicates the vast majority of participants in this hobby are traditional, non-scale, tubular track non-digital control operators. Even in my conversations with the head officers of one major train company, they knew full well that this hobbiest I have described makes up the majority of participants. I are say Lionel probably could not survive on the sales of their scale type items only. In fact, the bulk of Lionel's revenues are generated from starter sets and related items that appeal to traditional table top operators.
The reason for the limitation of FasTrack as far as table top layout designs is not from the actual track radius, but from the additional size of the molded road bed. There are more layout possibilities on a 4'x8' with Super '0' track than there are with FasTrack. One has to realize part of the impetus for FasTrack was for the beginner and the ease of setting up a floor layout. That FasTrack has had converts with those building layouts probably pleases Lionel greatly. But there are still a large number of modelers who prefer tubular track (as witnessed here on this very forum).
The minority of scale modelers may in fact spend more on trains, but they alone can hardly generate enough sales to keep the major train companies going. The heavy blowouts on these items indicates as much. the vast majority of hobbiests cannot run some of the longer scale items, and it is only from the intense competition from the train companies that so many items like this are offered. As I have said before, there is no love between the major train companies and I have personally bore withness to things said of other train companies by one CEO that cannot be repeated here.
As far as tooling modification, it still requires another set of duplicate dies to make modifications. It may not cost as much as starting from scratch in the development process, but it is still an additional cost. Again, the train companies have all said the profit margins on these new scale trains are very minimal. I suspect is is only the intense better competition that keeps these items coming... and somewhat foolishly coming as withnessed by the failure of K-Line. And the other various lawsuits are all based on either high-end technology or high end trains, not from basic traditional trains that most people buy.
There are more that one set of molds for many popular traditional trains with differing mounting holes to accomodate alternate uses. The non-scale models are for more forgiving of these modification than are scale modelers. Take note of the many posts concerning use of the wrong truck sides on locomotives or rolling stock, or the wrong fuel tanks on locomotives. I frankly could care less if a GEEP has an Alco fuel tank or if the truck sides are the same on a GEEP as on a Dash-8. And I suspect many modelers feel this way, especially if it means the difference between affordable and non-affordable. Most Williams buyers feel the same way.
It's worth noting that the most popular locomotives of the past few years is an imaginary one based on a non-prototype... the RMT BEEP. And I would guess the BEEP will follow in the BEEP's tracks of success. Again, another non-prototype, non-scale locomotive - BOTH made fro the masses.
We hear so much of what the scale modelers want to see made. RMT has recognized that the silent majority will buy if something is made for them to buy in roads that they want. Lionel and the others could also easily ride that track of success, if they only chose to follow the majority instead of the minority. And we'll see who is left standing in January when the court ruling comes down.
phillyreading wrote:One thing that I would like to see more of is on the steam locomotives, the front coupler! Seems like most companies ignore the fact that almost all steam locomotives have a front coupler on the actual locomotive, usually the front coupler feature is only avaible on high priced locomotives, around $800.00 & up. One reason that I like diesels is that they have a front & rear coupler, wether it works or not is not the issue just put a front coupler on the lower priced stuff too! Lee F.
One thing that I would like to see more of is on the steam locomotives, the front coupler! Seems like most companies ignore the fact that almost all steam locomotives have a front coupler on the actual locomotive, usually the front coupler feature is only avaible on high priced locomotives, around $800.00 & up.
One reason that I like diesels is that they have a front & rear coupler, wether it works or not is not the issue just put a front coupler on the lower priced stuff too!
Back in 1996 and 1997 Lionel produced the O Gauge 60' Thrall Car Bulkhead Flat Car with Pulpwood Load in the markings for Southern Railway and BCIT British Columbia Railway.
ATHEARN makes HO Scale 60' Bulkhead Flat Cars in various road names with pipe loads and lumber loads.
The road names offered by Athearn for the 60' Bulhead Flat Cars are WC, UP, NS, BN, SOO, BNSF, SP, SSW, WP, British Columbia Railway BCOL, KCS, MILW, TTX, CPR, SF, C&C.
LIONEL is known for low production levels, but they could expand the roadnames and get more use out of this modern O Gauge freight car.
lionelsoni wrote:Not even O48, since they now measure the diameter to the center rail.
So with Lionel FasTrack the O36 track is the limit on the 4'x8' Board.
This is why everyone should put their O Gauge tracks plans in spaces of 100 Square Feet. The minimum radius of O Gauge track is too restrictive in 32 Square Feet.
Bob Nelson
Boyd,
Then you could not be operating on anything larger than O48 FasTrack.
The Lionel and MTH RailKing O Gauge Center Beam Flat Cars are just the right size for O48 FasTrack.
You never mentioned how many roadnumbers of the BNSF FleXibeams you want and can realistically afford.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
What proportions are your track layout and what are the curve sizes?
If they are 4' x 8' then you need an O Gauge version by Lionel or MTH.
Lionel and MTH are able to change the Center I-Beams on their Center Beam Flat Cars.
This FleXibeam design can be yet another injection mold addition.
IT would not be too costly to add new parts to an existing freight car.
If someone wants to make an approximation the Articulated Canadian Covered Hopper the best starting point would be a pair of undecorated K-Line ACF Center Flow 2- Bay Covered Hoppers.
Perhaps Lionel will paint those two Canadian Schemes on the K-Line ACF Center Flow 2-Bay Covered Hoppers.
The Flexibeam's distinct X Center Beam can be reproduced by MTH for insertion into the existing Premier O Scale Center Beam Flat Car. The Center Beam design has been changed in previous runs of these cars from the Oval Openings to the Open Frame. It would not require all new tooling as some people think. Modifications are possible to existing Flat Cars.
Lionel has yet to make the O Gauge Thrall Car 60' CENTERBEAM Flatcar with an accurate version of the UNION PACIFIC paint scheme. The previous two were not based on anything that matched real Union Pacific 60' CENTERBEAM Flatcars.
The Lionel O Scale ACF CENTER FLOW 4650 Cu. Ft. 3-Bay Covered Hopper has to be made in the Great Northern paint schemes of the Original 1965 scheme and the Big Sky Blue Scheme.
I get a kick of these sorts of threads, esp. on the other forum, where folks come up with these lists of very specific particular prototypes of items they'd like made in precision scale detail. My suggestion is to send Lionel or MTH a check for $75,000-$100,000+ (for rolling stock) and up to a quarter million for a loco and they can custom tool one up for you.
There does seem to be a lot of interest for a 44 ton switcher. But even the one tooled up by Lionel in the 1950's bears a little more resemblance to other bigger center cab switchers that have been made for the real railroads. There's a photo one for UP in the new special edition Lomotive issue published by Kalmbach. Granted the Lionel (and Williams) models are not dead ringers for the UPY2005 N-ViroMotive diesel, but bear a little more in common visually with this loco. And as with the Ready Made Toys BEEP and BEEF, close enough is good enough if the list price and operation quality is right.
Maybe another take for threads like this would be: 1) what would like to see made from exisiting tooling 2) what new items would you think would be practical to be tooled up. Unfortunately, practical means is is going to have to be able to negotiate 027 curves and be dumbed down in detail as to look good with traditional types of trains... ie: the Lionel Docksider.
I hope that whatever new stuff is introduced, that some real thought goes into it. With both Lionel and MTH in tight monetary straits, I would garner that whatever ideas are brought forth, hopefully they will have some universal appeal. Good examples of recent hits are the Lionel Docksider and everything made by RMT.
Should Lionel lose on their appeal in December or Janurary, and they manage to survive that staggering $40M loss, I'll bet new product tooling will be drastically curtailed. MTH already cancells anything without adequate solid preorders. And we shall see about these MTH Heritage locos, since they have yet to settle the suit with Union Pacific. Kinda foolish to advertise and offer locos under such circumstances... maybe MTH is counting too much on a financial windfall in a few months. Lionel and K-Line both started to make Kodak items without permission and had to halt production on them.
Unfortunately the market is even more saturated on the scale side and the blowouts are by far heavier on scale products that simply are NOT selling in sufficient quantities. How many modelers can run cars that require more than a 31 inch diameter curve? And how many more price increases can Lionel put in place on the normal stuff from existing tooling, to help pay for all this new scale stuff. $29.95 is already far too high for the basic starter set cars.
Most of these specific prototypical items are already made in HO, because HO stuff sells in sufficient quantities to pay for the tooling. And for what isn't made, the HO guys have a long history of chopping, cutting and kitbashing items to make the specific prototypes they want... something 3-railers have considered a criminal offense until recent years. Let's face it folks, there ain't that much real difference visually (unless you're a rivet counter) between an SW-1 and a SW-8. Certainly not enough difference to justify spending all the money for new tools and dies to make them, at least in my thinking.
I think this explains why when one company has a hit (like with the scale detailed woodside reefers) then everyone quickly makes their own knockoff versions of the same identical items. GP-38's and Hudsons are more examples of this.
Again, nothing against the scale stuff. But it should pay for itself without raising prices on everything else. And if that means scale rolling stock with $100 each price tags, then that's what it is. It's new tooling and detailed new tooling is expensive, and more so when sales of the items don't produce enough revenue to pay for their initial investment, and where the production runs are more likely to be short.
What I would like to see made are these Soo Line 3-Bay Covered Hoppers.
Soo Line's Magor Car Company built 4750 Cu. Ft. Aluminum Bodied 3-Bay Covered Hoppers.
Soo Line's ACF built 4600 Cu. Ft. Capy. CENTER FLOW 3-Bay Covered Hoppers.
Soo Line's Fond Du Lac Car Building Shops assembled Plug-Door Boxcars.
The same Covered Hoppers and Boxcars in accurate Great Northern, Burlington Northern, and BNSF paint schemes.
Boyd and everyone,
Go to BNSF Customer Tools at www.bnsf.com
Reference-81ft. Flexibeam. It is the New 81ft. Flexibeam.
In HO Scale that car would be almost 12" Long. Best on O 36 Curves
In S Scale that Car would be about 16" Long. Best on O 54 Curves.
In O Scale that Car would be about 20" Long. Best on O 72 Curves.
These cars were built by Freight Car America. Formerly was Johnstown America.
Go to www.freightcaramerica.com or www.johnstownamerica.com to see more information about these Hybrid Center Beam flat cars.
Those test versions of the Canadian National Cylindrical Articulated Hoppers were mentioned in an article by RailModel Journal and the CN Annual Report.
The CN Lines website's CN Cyclopedia has information about them.
The first was for Manitoba Grain. CN 398000
The second was for Canpotex. CN 399000
The Articulated Hoppers were extremely rare. No regular production build.
There should be regular Cylindrical Hoppers with the Canpotex paint scheme from Lionel and MTH before producing the unusual model.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month