General Discussion (Model Railroader)

Hi, CZ.  There is an image of an intial prototype...of the model... on BLI's website.  Maybe the tender shown is clear enough for you to tell if they're gonna cheat?

-Crandell

 Risking to get kicked in my b.. , I´ll add another of mine to this thread.

I don´t mind BLI and MTH releasing locos that are too large for the average layout and that saw only a small number in real life. I do like the looks of these beasts and, providing that I have some surplus cash to spend, I´d even  buy one. although they´d be totally out of place and time on my projected switching layout.

I understand BLI and MTH as "upmarket" brands that supply spectacular, fascinating, "emotionally laden " locos at prices Marklin and Trix are asking as well.

The reason why we have this discussion is, because Bachmann, Atlas and Athearn fail to produce the ubiquiteous workhorses of the past we like to see on our layouts. IMHO, they should  be the makers of those Prairies, Pacifics, Consolidations, Mikados, Ten-Wheelers, Atlantics, Hudsons. Leaving the Big Boys, Challengers, TTT´s , Triplexes, UP 9000´s et al. to BLI and MTH would then be quite ok for most of us, wouldn´t it ?

Sir Madog:

 Risking to get kicked in my b.. , I´ll add another of mine to this thread.

I don´t mind BLI and MTH releasing locos that are too large for the average layout and that saw only a small number in real life. I do like the looks of these beasts and, providing that I have some surplus cash to spend, I´d even  buy one. although they´d be totally out of place and time on my projected switching layout.

I understand BLI and MTH as "upmarket" brands that supply spectacular, fascinating, "emotionally laden " locos at prices Marklin and Trix are asking as well.

The reason why we have this discussion is, because Bachmann, Atlas and Athearn fail to produce the ubiquiteous workhorses of the past we like to see on our layouts. IMHO, they should  be the makers of those Prairies, Pacifics, Consolidations, Mikados, Ten-Wheelers, Atlantics, Hudsons. Leaving the Big Boys, Challengers, TTT´s , Triplexes, UP 9000´s et al. to BLI and MTH would then be quite ok for most of us, wouldn´t ?

 

You state the obvious facts so clearly and concisely, much appreciated.

rjake4454:

Sir Madog:

 Risking to get kicked in my b.. , I´ll add another of mine to this thread.

I don´t mind BLI and MTH releasing locos that are too large for the average layout and that saw only a small number in real life. I do like the looks of these beasts and, providing that I have some surplus cash to spend, I´d even  buy one. although they´d be totally out of place and time on my projected switching layout.

I understand BLI and MTH as "upmarket" brands that supply spectacular, fascinating, "emotionally laden " locos at prices Marklin and Trix are asking as well.

The reason why we have this discussion is, because Bachmann, Atlas and Athearn fail to produce the ubiquiteous workhorses of the past we like to see on our layouts. IMHO, they should  be the makers of those Prairies, Pacifics, Consolidations, Mikados, Ten-Wheelers, Atlantics, Hudsons. Leaving the Big Boys, Challengers, TTT´s , Triplexes, UP 9000´s et al. to BLI and MTH would then be quite ok for most of us, wouldn´t ?

 

You state the obvious facts so clearly and concisely, much appreciated.

It is so obvious yet seems so obscure to others that we get the merry go round happening here---

Maybe what needs done is the email barrage to other mfgrs to pick up the slack-----

blownout cylinder:

Maybe what needs done is the email barrage to other mfgrs to pick up the slack-----

... good idea Barry, but who will make a list of what loco? They´d most likely get a zillion product suggestions because everyone wants to see "his/hers" favourite...

The e-mail could go like this

"Dear Mr. Athearn"

Instead of releasing  the umpteenth new version of SD40-2, GP38-2 or SW1500 into the market, why don´t you produce a loco that is not yet available, but dearly expected by us model railroaders. This would be the type 123  of railroad XYZ in the rebuilt version of 192x..."

 Maybe I am too pessimistic, but I doubt that it would work.

Sir Madog:

blownout cylinder:

Maybe what needs done is the email barrage to other mfgrs to pick up the slack-----

 

... good idea Barry, but who will make a list of what loco? They´d most likely get a zillion product suggestions because everyone wants to see "his/hers" favourite...

The e-mail could go like this

"Dear Mr. Athearn"

Instead of releasing  the umpteenth new version of SD40-2, GP38-2 or SW1500 into the market, why don´t you produce a loco that is not yet available, but dearly expected by us model railroaders. This would be the type 123  of railroad XYZ in the rebuilt verson of 192x..."

 Maybe I am too pessimistic, but I doubt that ´d work.

That could swing just the opposite as well..

Dear Mr. Athearn,

Instead of producing steam locomotives why not produce a line of Lima diesels? After all the market is wide open for these locomotives since they have never been mass produce.

In reality I suspect we will see cows fly before we see Lima diesels.

Sir Madog:

... good idea Barry, but who will make a list of what loco? They´d most likely get a zillion product suggestions because everyone wants to see "his/hers" favourite...

See? That's the problem---when the collector comes along with the monster loco email request people jump. BUT------when the guy/gal who needs a 2-6-0 for the switching wants summat they get the gears---

AACCH-----do the dang thing anyway---

Maybe we need to form a common front----The Society To Release MRR From The Collector.

 ... Barry, Barry - you do have a way of making friends...

Paul3:

John,
I've been in the hobby "seriously" for 20 years.  Earlier still, I grew up with an HO layout in my basement because my father has been in the hobby since just after WWII and switched over to HO scale around 1958-63.  How many decades does one have to be in the hobby before one cannot be dismissed as some kind of newbie?  What I'm saying here is that just because I disagree with you doesn't make me ignorant.  You and I see the same things and come to different conclusions.  That doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about, just that we disagree. 

Paul A. Cutler III
*******************

Paul, check your PMs.

CNJ831

At risk of shifting the thread...since you mentioned the legal isues between MTH and BLI, can anyone explain why the remedy involved BLI surrendering the tooling for Alco FA, Baldwin RF16, and EMD F3 models? These weren't/aren't even being produced by MTH?

The PRR versions had trainphone antennas and were beautiful. I needed all three, Now they're gone.

All I read about it, up to the decision, was associated with regulated throttle control, which BLI was forced to disable, but now ships, and can re-enable.

1948PRR:

At risk of shifting the thread...since you mentioned the legal isues between MTH and BLI, can anyone explain why the remedy involved BLI surrendering the tooling for Alco FA, Baldwin RF16, and EMD F3 models? These weren't/aren't even being produced by MTH?

An issue with market control showed up here. There was some talk, or rather rumours being tossed/kicked around that those were going to be produced but then---here we are.

1948PRR:

All I read about it, up to the decision, was associated with regulated throttle control, which BLI was forced to disable, but now ships, and can re-enable.

And there was virtually nothing done on that level.

However, since that period those two have been doing a coupled tit for tat with each other. Hence my suspicion that these two are also using the collector market as a means of doing one up manship games as well. It seems that everytime one makes a particular model the other makes the same dang thing-----and using the same manufacturer? Still?

Very odd lot this----