And so does the SP&S.
http://www.athearn.com/newsletter/032715/02_Gen_Challenger_032715.pdf
By the way, the MSRP deflates to $84.24 in 1965 and the upcoming model includes sound and DCC. You couldn't have bought that model in 1965 in unpainted brass (DC only) for under $100. Closest available equivalent (in 1966 was the Z-5 2-8-8-4 for $184.50.
http://hoseeker.net/pacificfastmailinformation/pfmcatalog11thed1966pg33.jpg
Street price should run around $525-550 give or take.
Good for you, Athearn. I won't be buying one, but the reason has nothing to do with price.
Andre
I would love to have one of these locos in N.P. livery. However, my curve radius is too tight for any articulateds. I do love that a manufacturer is offering any N.P. equipment! Athearn has stepped up a notch, in my book!
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
Curious to know if these will be N.P/SP&S prototypes or just relettered UP models,
Assuming the former because of the closed cab model shown.....fingers crossed!!
Athearn might check on using generic data for the specific Details since the Z8 class did not have the following modifications that pertain to the UP Challengers.
MODEL SPECIFIC DETAILS
• Closed or open cab
• Coal or oil Tender
• Wood tender deck
• Tender coal rack
• Twin smoke stacks
• Single or double generators
SP&S modeler, 1960's give or take a decade or two for some equipment.
http://www.youtube.com/user/SGTDUPREY?feature=guide
Gary DuPrey
N scale model railroader
If you can budget $50 - $55 per month, you should be able to save enough to have it at full list price when it comes out. Maybe less, depending on where you buy it.
NP2626,
The ad says it'll take 18" curves, so you could most likely run this engine. Essentially it's a pair of high drivered 0-6-0's.
List price is $630, which of course is much too low I know, but I imagine they'll be available for maybe $475 or less. If I were an NP guy (and I have considered becoming one) I think I'd pick one up. As you're in Minnesota you might check with Perry's Hobbies in Morgan, MN and see what their best price will be. They're usually pretty good.
Hmmm, and I said the NP Zs wouldn't ever be done outside the brass market due to the limited market.
It is interesting they chose a Z8 rather than the Z6. That takes the Great Northern road name out of the picture.
Texas Zepher Hmmm, and I said the NP Zs wouldn't ever be done outside the brass market due to the limited market. It is interesting they chose a Z8 rather than the Z6. That takes the Great Northern road name out of the picture.
They're probably doing it because there is some commonality with the UP Challenger (the mechanism can be used with very little modification). I really think manufacturers would be better off if they went for more modest motive power. BLI could use its 4-6-2 and 2-8-2 mechanisms to produce NP Q-6 and W-5 models, which are much more layout friendly models.
andrechapelon Texas Zepher Hmmm, and I said the NP Zs wouldn't ever be done outside the brass market due to the limited market. It is interesting they chose a Z8 rather than the Z6. That takes the Great Northern road name out of the picture. They're probably doing it because there is some commonality with the UP Challenger (the mechanism can be used with very little modification). I really think manufacturers would be better off if they went for more modest motive power. BLI could use its 4-6-2 and 2-8-2 mechanisms to produce NP Q-6 and W-5 models, which are much more layout friendly models. Andre
I have been saying this for years. 80% or more of all the Mikados in North America had 63"/64" drivers on the same wheel base - one drive, two or three trailing trucks, a list of different boilers, three or four tenders, and you would have dozens of reasonably correct models - of the second most prolific wheel arrangement in North America.......
No, instead we have 3 or 4 companies all making a locomotive that only had 25 prototype copies owned by the same railroad? A locomotive that really should not be run on less than about 40" radius curves........
But, it is nice to see Athearn branching out into some other prototypes with steam.
Sheldon
And you can say the same for 73" driver Pacifics.
You're preaching to the choir, brother. The real missionary work consists of converting the heathen (Walthers, BLI, you know - the usual suspects).
Burlington Northern #24If they are coming in N, I'll be getting one and one only for the SP&S. While I could stretch realism and say more than one survived the scrappers torch, one will do.
http://www.athearn.com/newsletter/032715/16_N_Challenger_032715.pdf?utm_source=bronto&utm_medium=email&utm_term=View+PDF&utm_content=Athearn+News+-+March+New+Announcements&utm_campaign=033015_ATH_News&_bta_tid=3.cUw.B1qHqg.Fxx0.ATeEfQ..Af5LJQ.b..s.AfhA.a.VRnkUw.VRnkUw._Fg77g&_bta_c=3zmulmxh9v5xh7j56dqgyecah3lst
andrechapelonThey're probably doing it because there is some commonality with the UP Challenger (the mechanism can be used with very little modification). I really think manufacturers would be better off if they went for more modest motive power. BLI could use its 4-6-2 and 2-8-2 mechanisms to produce NP Q-6 and W-5 models, which are much more layout friendly models.
Sure they chose the Z8 because they could use the centipede tender from the U.P Challenger.
Pretty good rebuttal mate for everyone who talks about how expensive model trains are now.
Modelling HO Scale with a focus on the West and Midwest USA
Texas Zepher andrechapelon They're probably doing it because there is some commonality with the UP Challenger (the mechanism can be used with very little modification). I really think manufacturers would be better off if they went for more modest motive power. BLI could use its 4-6-2 and 2-8-2 mechanisms to produce NP Q-6 and W-5 models, which are much more layout friendly models. Ditto for their NYC Hudson. We could use a lot more Hudsons out here in the model world. SF, CB&Q, CP, .... And why not more 4-8-4s allmost all the road had them yet we only have the Santa Fe 37xx and UP 8xx series!
andrechapelon They're probably doing it because there is some commonality with the UP Challenger (the mechanism can be used with very little modification). I really think manufacturers would be better off if they went for more modest motive power. BLI could use its 4-6-2 and 2-8-2 mechanisms to produce NP Q-6 and W-5 models, which are much more layout friendly models.
Ditto for their NYC Hudson. We could use a lot more Hudsons out here in the model world. SF, CB&Q, CP, .... And why not more 4-8-4s allmost all the road had them yet we only have the Santa Fe 37xx and UP 8xx series!
Not sure what you are saying here? 4-8-4's? All the well known ones have been recently made by someone - SP/WP GS4, Reading T1, N&W J, UP and ASTF, NYC Niagara.
And truth be told, not many roads had them, and there were not very many in total in North america, only about 1,000 total. Compared to 14,000 Mikados, 33,000 Consolidations, 17,000 Ten wheelers and 6,800 Pacifics.
I'm not against seeing a model of any prototype that has not been done, but as a percentage of prototypes, 4-8-4's are pretty well represented in model form.
Out of the several hundred class I railroads in the steam era, only 34 had 4-8-4's.
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/northern/
The PRR, B&O, NKP, L&N, Southern, and the IC are just a few of the major roads that did not have 4-8-4's.
Seven or more 4-8-4's on the market, how many Pacifics? Three? Two of them generic.
Now a truly under represented loco these days is the 4-6-0.
ATLANTIC CENTRALNot sure what you are saying here? 4-8-4's? All the well known ones have been recently made by someone - SP/WP GS4, Reading T1, N&W J, UP and ASTF, NYC Niagara.
But I was posting in agreement with your major premise. BUT I forgot to whom I was posting to - the person who absolutely HAS TO TURN EVERYTING INTO AN ARGUMENT instead of having a civil disscussion. And one of the main reasons I quit frequenting this forum as much as I used to. So don't bother replying to this as I am gone again and will never see the response.
Well, it will be nice to see another "affordable" Challenger besides the UP on the market, at least IMO. And when it comes to tractive effort, the UP was a baby next to the Z series of the NP. In fact, except for the Rio Grande Baldwin-built L-105's, the NP Z series were the most powerful Challengers ever built. And for my money, next to the L-105's, the most handsome. Glad to see Athearn is going for them. I've got the Sunset Z-6, which is a sweet-running loco (if a little light on its feet), but unless you've got a layout with wide radius, you've got a Shelf Queen. Luckily, I have a wide radius, so my Sunset chugs happily along as long as I don't overload it on the grades. I'm sure the Athearn will be more powerful and with the lower radius available, will appeal to those steam fans that want a powerful, gutsy-looking handsome articulated, one that will haul the paint off the walls, and don't mind it probably looking a little weird going around 24" or less curves.
Now, if Athearn wants to plan out a Rio Grande L-105, I'm sure some Very Happy Campers can be found to purchase those, also.
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Texas Zepher ATLANTIC CENTRAL Not sure what you are saying here? 4-8-4's? All the well known ones have been recently made by someone - SP/WP GS4, Reading T1, N&W J, UP and ASTF, NYC Niagara. Yes many of which are the most unusual things (esp the T1 is a 4-4-4-4 not a 4-8-4). Not a run of the mill Rock Island. Out of the several hundred class I railroads in the steam era, only 34 had 4-8-4's. 34 is a lot more than 1 (big boy), or 2 (Z8 the topic of this thread). But I was posting in agreement with your major premise. BUT I forgot to whom I was posting to - the person who absolutely HAS TO TURN EVERYTING INTO AN ARGUMENT instead of having a civil disscussion. And one of the main reasons I quit frequenting this forum as much as I used to. So don't bother replying to this as I am gone again and will never see the response. Now a truly under represented loco these days is the 4-6-0. True, I still puzzle why Bachmann stopped making theirs.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Not sure what you are saying here? 4-8-4's? All the well known ones have been recently made by someone - SP/WP GS4, Reading T1, N&W J, UP and ASTF, NYC Niagara.
Yes many of which are the most unusual things (esp the T1 is a 4-4-4-4 not a 4-8-4). Not a run of the mill Rock Island.
34 is a lot more than 1 (big boy), or 2 (Z8 the topic of this thread).
True, I still puzzle why Bachmann stopped making theirs.
Well you might not be reading, but I will do a little typing anyway.
My point was simply that, as a group, 4-8-4's are reasonably well represented.
Pacifics, Consolidations, Mikados, and Ten Wheelers are not - yet they represent the backbone of Steam and a good many of them lasted as long or longer than the relative handfull of "flashy", modern, giant steam - big boys, challengers, northerns, berkshires and such.
But again, I'm up for nearly anything that has not been done. That said, I'm only a potential customer if it ran on the B&O, C&O, WM or has an east coast look for the ATLANTIC CENTRAL.
It is obvious from your comments you are oppositly focused on west coast roads.
Athearn can easily do this loco because it is "related" to the UP locos, saving them at least some tooling costs.
No different than what Andre and I were talking about.
I'm not a collector, there are no big boys, K4's, UP or SP anythings, NYC hudsons, N&W J's, at my house - I only buy trains that fit my layout theme - as described above.
The Bachmann 4-6-0 is a nice loco, I have several. But east cost roads in particular had quite a few larger, more modern Ten Wheelers. A B&O B18 would be a great model that would prompt me to buy a 6 pack:
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/bo/bo-s2022o.jpg
Texas Zepher 34 is a lot more than 1 (big boy), or 2 (Z8 the topic of this thread).
My data on the Northern Pacific shows they owned 20 Z-8 Challengers, not 2. Possibly you meant something different?
B60NP, just because this loco could operate on my 22 inch radius doesn't mean it should. I think it would look bad on that tight of a radius. However, I am glad that Athearn is making some N.P. Steam locomotives! I agree with Atlantic Central, why offer this, when a Mike, Pacific, Prairie; or, 10 wheeler would attract more attention/sales. I wonder why the manufacturer's marketing departments can't figure this simple idea out!
Believe he meant 34 class 1 railroads
gn.2-6-8-0 Believe he meant 34 class 1 railroads
Huh?
keep in mind that the Reading T1 made by Broadway Limited is a 4-8-4!
twhite Well, it will be nice to see another "affordable" Challenger besides the UP on the market, at least IMO. And when it comes to tractive effort, the UP was a baby next to the Z series of the NP. In fact, except for the Rio Grande Baldwin-built L-105's, the NP Z series were the most powerful Challengers ever built. And for my money, next to the L-105's, the most handsome. Glad to see Athearn is going for them. I've got the Sunset Z-6, which is a sweet-running loco (if a little light on its feet), but unless you've got a layout with wide radius, you've got a Shelf Queen. Luckily, I have a wide radius, so my Sunset chugs happily along as long as I don't overload it on the grades. I'm sure the Athearn will be more powerful and with the lower radius available, will appeal to those steam fans that want a powerful, gutsy-looking handsome articulated, one that will haul the paint off the walls, and don't mind it probably looking a little weird going around 24" or less curves. Now, if Athearn wants to plan out a Rio Grande L-105, I'm sure some Very Happy Campers can be found to purchase those, also. Tom
wouldnt it be something that instead of the Z8 Athearn had built the L 105!!
NP2626 Texas Zepher 34 is a lot more than 1 (big boy), or 2 (Z8 the topic of this thread). My data on the Northern Pacific shows they owned 20 Z-8 Challengers, not 2. Possibly you meant something different? B60NP, just because this loco could operate on my 22 inch radius doesn't mean it should. I think it would look bad on that tight of a radius. However, I am glad that Athearn is making some N.P. Steam locomotives! I agree with Atlantic Central, why offer this, when a Mike, Pacific, Prairie; or, 10 wheeler would attract more attention/sales. I wonder why the manufacturer's marketing departments can't figure this simple idea out!
The SP&S had two Z8's that were oil fired and 10 Z6's.
That is probably where the number two came up.
CZ
SP&S Z8
NP Z8
Another idea for a modest-size engine is a Consolidation with 57" drivers. Most model 2-8-0's have drivers in the 50-52" or 61-64" range. But there were thousands of 2-8-0's with drivers in the 55-58" range, and they aren't available. A problem is deciding to produce one that can be accurate or close for a lot of different prototypes. Unfortunately, there were a lot of variations in boiler size & shape, cab style, tender style, valve gear, and other details.
The new BLI PRR H10s 2-8-0 is correct for PRR, of course, but second hand H10s engines were owned by Western Allegheny, Long Island, DT&I, Pittsburgh Chartiers & Youghiogheny, Interstate, and (via DT&I) P&WV. Class H9s was very similar, and H9s engines were later operated by Bellefonte Central, Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt, and Lake Erie Franklin & Clarion.
BLI's generic 2-8-0 has an H10s running gear and cab, with a radial boiler, different domes, and a different tender that make it look fairly close to a B&O E-27 or some other non-PRR engines.
MTH has also announced an H10s. Judging by pictures on their web site, the engine appears to be a cross between an H9s and an H10s, with a very desirable PRR tender.
The forthcoming PRR L1s 2-8-2 will also be appropriate for Lehigh & New England, Interstate, Cambria & Indiana, DT&I, and (amazingly) Santa Fe.
These factors make it plausible to use some of these engines in more settings, but they don't solve the original problem: It's not possible for manufacturers to make EVERYTHING to please ALL of us.
As for the number 2, I think the point was that only one railroad (UP) operated Big Boys, whereas 2 railroads (NP and SP&S) operated Z-8's. I'm sure the decision to produce the Z-8 was also affected by the fact that Athearn already has the tooling for the Centipede tender. New tooling would have been required to produce a Z-6 tender. If the Z-8 is a success, i's not unreasonable to think Athearn could consider producing a Z-6, and I think that tender would be correct or close to the tenders used on several other engines, mostly 4-8-4's and 4-6-6-4's. Now I'm projecting too far into the unknown future.
Interesting one-offs: EM-1 2-8-8-4's (Bachmann) were only operated by B&O; Niagaras (BLI and Bachmann) were only operated by NYC; J's, A's, and Y-6b's (several manufacturers) were only operated by N&W. Maybe Bachmann could modify that EM-1 mechanism to produce a Missabe 2-8-8-4 with a new boiler, tender, and valve gear. That's another one-road type, although there were distinct Elesco and Worthington versions.
The Rio Grande 4-6-6-4 idea has merit, as the Western Maryland's 4-6-6-4's were close copies. Another possibility would be similar 2-10-4's in Burlington, Missabe, and Bessemer versions.
For now, Western steam fans should be rejoicing at Athearn's announcement.
(edited to correct a couple errors)
ACY As for the number 2, I think the point was that only one railroad (UP) operated Big Boys, whereas 2 railroads (NP and SP&S) operated Z-8's. I'm sure the decision to produce the Z-8 was also affected by the fact that Athearn already has the tooling for the Centipede tender. New tooling would have been required to produce a Z-6 tender. If the Z-8 is a success, i's not unreasonable to think Athearn could consider producing a Z-6, and I think that tender would be correct or close to the tenders used on several other engines, mostly 4-8-4's and 4-6-6-4's. Now I'm projecting too far into the unknown future. For now, Western steam fans should be rejoicing at Athearn's announcement. Tom
We actually are happy about the new products.
The tooling for the tender shell is all new but the centepede frame could be used with very little changes.
Only a "rivit counter" would notice that there are rivets on a UP 4-6-6-4 tender, while the Z-8's sported welded-side tenders.
Ed
Wow great news! Now if they only would produce a NP Z6 I would get myself one. I´m so tired of Centipede tenders because it reminds me of that overflow of UP articulateds on the market.