New ideas for O guage trains wanted

[Anonymous]

Ditto on the Chicago "L" cars!! I'd buy a couple sets of those, especially if they were the older green cars. That would totally remind me of my childhood!!

Bob Blomberg

[Anonymous]

Ditto on the Chicago "L" cars!! I'd buy a couple sets of those, especially if they were the older green cars. That would totally remind me of my childhood!!

Bob Blomberg

[Anonymous]

Ditto on the Chicago "L" cars!! I'd buy a couple sets of those, especially if they were the older green cars. That would totally remind me of my childhood!!

Bob Blomberg

[Anonymous]

There is a grade crossing signal that has to be produced very soon.

It is the Griswold Signal Company's Rotating Stop Sign Signal with Flashing Lights.

The Rotating Stop Sign Signal was actually called the Rotating Banner Signal, but the "Banner" was really a Stop Sign.

The Griswold Signal was common in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Anyone modeling those states in the 1950's to 1980's needs two pairs of those signals.

Andrew F.

[Anonymous]

When a railroad or leasing company has built a freight car or locomotive in a number series of 500 or greater, that item must be produced with all the roadnumbers ever used.

When that first run of the item is sold in stores then the manufacturer should start a second run.

This way is will be highly unlikely that duplicate roadnumbers will be purchased by the operator or collector.

Examples:

The Soo Line Aluminum Covered Hoppers built by Magor Car Co. and Transco in the 1960's.

Chicago & North Western's Trinity 3-Bay, Open-Top Hoppers in the 870 000 series.

Chicago & North Western Thrall Car 5250 Cu. Ft. 4-Bay Covered Hoppers in the 490 000 series.

Union Pacific SD70Ms

Andrew F.

[brianel027]

Reading over many of these ideas reminds me of the "wish" lists on some of the "other" train forums. Ideas tend to be very specific, prototypical "high-end" sorts of ideas that limit sales while involving all new tooling costs.

With the demise of the independent K-Line, some of the competitive edge has now gone. K-Line certainly did their part to raise the detail level bar, while doing it at a more competitive price point that say Lionel has. But it's also obvious that K-Line tried to do too much while maintaining their competitive price point.

I would seriously imagine that whatever new ideas are now being considered from the train companies are going to have to be more practical, with more potential for "across the board" success like the Lionel Docksider. Or they are going to have a price point like the Acela that puts the product out of reach of many buyers.

Unpainted cars are a neat idea. Industrial Rail did this, as well as changing prototypical numbers on rolling stock with successive runs of product. I can't imagine them including decals. HO guys have been buying decals for decades and still Champ and Herald King have both gone under. Microscale makes the best quality decals in my opinion, but even Microscale has to consider sales figures when producing decals. For guys who want oddball road names, the best route is to have them custom made by someone or make them yourself utilizing a computer and good quality color printer.

The idea of a dummy loco with opening doors and loco detail inside is a neat one, but I truly suspect cost prohibitive. The companies use the same shell dies to produce the cabs on dummy units. Pull the shell of one of the powered units with all the electronic extras and you see there isn't much room. So doing a dummy with this kind of detail would involve a totally separate set of tools and dies. Not practical unless it had an extended production run in many roads. And then would come the complaints, "Why just a GP-9? When can we expect the same for every other powered A unit ever made?"

In the case of Lionel and MTH, both have some serious financial strains on them right now. I'm really wondering what Lionel is going to do with the K-Line product line. From Lionel's history, I cannot imagine they will maintain the same competitive price point of previous K-Line product. Yet by NOT doing this, they risk losing the sales... and Lionel still has to pay the annual royalty to Sandra Kan (should the agreement actually come through). The reason many of us chose K-Line products over Lionel was PRICE. That was the number one reason. I don't know if Lionel will realize that, but they will find out.

I think a lot of O gaugers are going to have to start doing what the HO guys have been doing for ages... make, modify, and kit ba***he stuff yourself. The Model Railroader and Railroad Model Craftsman have been full of these kinds of articles for ages. Part of the problem for the Lionel guys is that many view our trains as priceless collectibles... the HO guys have never had this problem, so getting out the tool box, the styrene and making the headlights correct or making that GP-20 into a GP-38 is common.


I've had a lot of 3-rail train guys say to me, "well your rebuilds and repaints are nice, but my train collection is original and worth more." To me, nonsense. My collection is PRICELESS and not for sale... my trains are my babies.... my artwork. So many of them have been changed, rebuilt, repainted.

I realized if I was going to have the trains I wanted, I was going to have to do it myself. And I'm not picky!. I'd would have been super happy to see the totally non-prototypical 027 K-Line Alco FA done in Norfolk Southern, Conrail and CSX. Well, if I had waited... I'd STILL be waiting 15 years later. Well, I refused to wait. And I'm not talking new engineering and design, new expensive tooling and dies... I'm talking a paint mask - which still involves costs - but far less than new product costs. I also want smaller, less scale locos and realized I would have to also build these myself and I have.

So many have complained they were tired of Lionel re-running the same exact locomotive models over and over again. Yet this is exactly how the companies pay for the new product development. All the blowout prices on products with brand new tooling have spoiled the 3-rail buyers. I think the train companies have gotten wise to this. Again, it helped put K-Line out of business. Newly tooled products SHOULD be more expensive and should be priced so that the return is made from those products and NOT the entire product line.

There are still unusual products being made by smaller companies. But these products are priced accordingly. Or there are brass models. Again, folks cannot have every single new model at prices where the companies cannot sell enough to n0ot only make money on the product run, but also on the development and tooling. Again, the Lionel Docksider is the perfect answer... better detail level appealing to 027 operators as well as others and at a price point that nearly all can consider.

I think we are reaching a time in the 3-rail market where guys are going to have to start thinking like me: do it yourself. Or be fully prepared to pay premium prices for the unusual products they desire that cannot possibly recoup all their financial investment. Read Jerry Calabrese's 2/17/06 statement on the Lionel website and you'll read this exact line of thinking.

[Anonymous]

What I was saying is why did the common 4600 ACF Center Flow Hopper never appear in an O Gauge/S Scale Size Format like so many other cars. It could have been durable and reasonably priced. Sure MTH RailKing has a Canadian Cylindrical Hopper, but that was not a typical U.S.A. freight car until CN and CP merged GTW and SOO into their operating plans after 1992.

I am going to scratchbuild my own Coal Silo and Scale Size Conveyor Belt, because Lionel is never going to build that to accompany the Rotary Coal Tipple.

The Lionel O Gauge Open-Frame Auto Carriers are very fragile. Handle with care, or make new ones out of steel.

Andrew F.

[Anonymous]

There is an idea that somehow never materialized despite the connection between Lionel and General Mills in the 1970's. The Pullman-Standard 4750 Cu. Ft. Hopper in the typical O gauge/S Scale proportions and detail of the post-war Lionel Boxcars. That is still a new idea, because it was never done.

General Mills had grain transported in PS-2-CD 4750 3-Bay Covered Hoppers to their Cereal Plants. Lionel made models of freight cars in O Gauge. The connection was extremely easy to make. Instead they produced some weird stuff in the 1970's that never was made again.

Andrew F.

[Anonymous]

What would be neat is a software that comes with a usb or someting to connect your pc. The software would let you control your whole layout right on a screen. or at least to make things so much easier to program your trains and routes. That would be neat. But it would must likely only apply to people with large layouts.

But think about how much easeir it would be to control bassically the whole layout!

Just my 2 cents

[Anonymous]

More roads for RDC'S.

[Anonymous]

Take a look at the extremely inexpensive Lionel Cars made between 1970-1990 for starter sets.

Should we have a return of the Lionel and General Mills Mini-Max Boxcar?

Is that what people want now as a backla***o the High-End fully equipped models?

For inexpensive cars, Lionel was very conservative when it came to cataloged roadnames and paint schemes.

Here is a concept for the least expensive tooling: more road names and more color schemes and more road numbers.

Andrew F.

[Demon09]

QUOTE: What would be neat is a software that comes with a usb or someting to connect your pc. The software would let you control your whole layout right on a screen. or at least to make things so much easier to program your trains and routes.

Monto, that is a great idea! i like the idea about having the computer program to help run your layout even though i have a pretty small layout at 4x8 feet. i actually thought about that a few months back as well. it would be interesting because you could see a switch pannel right on the screen to show you what switches are thrown and in what direction, and you could control the speeds of all trains from your PC, as well as the operating cars and accesories. also, you would likely be able to integrate railcams in the locos to appear on the PC screen, making it as if you were inside the train controlling it yourself. ive done a little bit of computer programming in the past, making basic software, but i think that is a caliber of electrical engineering and software design that is too far beyond my limited abilities.......

not to mention the fact that if you could use your PC to control your layout, you could minimize the screen and be able to come on the forum while using the layout! [:D]

[Anonymous]

It would be worth the time and money for an aluminum casting or stamping company to produce the bodies for the Magor Car Company Aluminum Covered Hoppers. Historical Societies for Southern Railway, Soo Line, Seaboard, Louisville & Nashville, Great Northern, and Pennsylvania will then have the correct markings applied. The Historical Soicieties will sell them to the O Scale Operators at a realistic price. The Trucks would be bought seperately from Weaver, Lionel, or Atlas O.

Andrew F.

[brianel027]

Actually Andrew you are quite wrong in that Lionel MPC became more progressive on the subject of roadnames. Far more so than they ever were during the postwar years of production. Even the cheap low end 9 inch cars had new current road names as well as time proven favorites (C&O, B&O, Chessie, Pennsy, NYC, AT&SF, Penn Central, Conrail, NKP, Wabash, Illinois Central, Soo... just to name a few). When Lionel MPC realized the northeast US railroads were going to be merged into Conrail, not only did they rush out Conrail items, but also a number of items were made in the individual roads that went into Conrail. Look at the 9200, 9400 and 9700 series box cars and you'll clearly see that Lionel truly made a wonderful effort to cover a spectrum of road names that hadn't been covered like that before and haven't been covered in the same kinds of entry products since.

As far as your point of Lionel going back to making lower end cars like the Mini Max, I for one would love ro see that one back. The truth is that the interests of the hobby are more diversified than ever before and the importers themselves have much to do with this. In some sense, they have improved the hobby as well as unintentionally making a monster. And that monster is now the expectation of more and more on a detail level, prototypical level and operational levels.

As my own numbers show, there are far more tradtionally sized tubular track non-command operators than otherwise, though these operators may not be spending the same amounts of dollars. I'm not saying ignore the newer high-end modelers, but just don't forget there are others out there too. And those budget operators don't want to subsidize the high end with higher prices because there is no reasonable way all the new high end products can possibly pay for themselves without extensive long production runs.

Think how many types of track are already being made? We have two distinct electronic operating systems with another on the way, not to mention conventional. MTH admits to having close to $10M into the development og the DCS system... who pays for that? Not just the operators of DCS but every buyer of any MTH product. There's no way that the development costs of DCS can be made back on sales alone of DCS. I'm am sure this applies to all aspects of the hobby today that involve new higher end products that have no hope of recouping their investements costs on sales of those products alone, especially if they are of liimited appeal.

The whole hobby pays for these costs. Prices on Lionel starter cars are at their highest ever, while the actual production costs to make these cars are at their lowest level since probably the very early postwar years, if not before WW2. And their tooling and dies are paid for no less. The only real tooling investments being spent on the lower end (outside of the Lionel Waffle box car) is to cheapen existing products: plastic frames instead of sheet metal for the Alco FA and the RS3; plastic frames for many rolling stock items versus sheet metal, etc.

And inspite of the complaints on the MPC era, they did more new tooling and product development for starrter items than had been done in ages, as well as intoducing the first near scale items with the Standard O line.

I do agree that more variety of road names is a good idea and a cost effective idea. I know the more toyish operators can live with this more so that some of the more prototypical operators who might complain that such and such railroad never owned this kind of car or locomotive.

From my interest in the real Lehigh Valley railroad, I know the Lehigh had to make do with what was avaiable and did many odd ball things. Their "prototypical" method of operation was to save money by recycling old items into "new" rebuilt ones.

This concept is exactly how I approch the hobby. The real Nofolk Southern never owned any Alco S-2 switchers since they have been out of production for decades (the Lehigh retired their S-2's by the early 1960's). But on my layout, I operate within my budget constraints and size limitations, therefore it is totally prototypical to have Alco S-2's painted in Norfolk Southern, Conrail and CSX... I'm just modeling the exact way a real railroad operates: within my budget constraints using what is readily available.

I don't complain about improper marker light placement or wrong headlights. And in a way, the importers have brought all these kinds of complaints on to themselves. As I said before, the 3-rail hobby would be better off if some modelers started imitating the HO guys and started making modification themselves without worrying about collector after-market values (which have taken a nose dive for the most part anyways).

[Anonymous]

O Scale and O Gauge manufacturers have produced very few post-1965 freight cars and Locomotives in Traditional O Gauge, but they have exploded in the production of those modern era Locos and cars in super-detailed O Scale.

Lionel's Thrall Car Center I-Beam and Waffle-Sided Boxcar are fine O Gauge cars. I have several of them. They do seem a bit small when compared to the O Scale sized ACF 2-Bay Covered Hopper, Uni-Body Tank Car, and 50' Double-Door Boxcar, but they are from the same time period and releated railroads.

It appears that the 1940's and 1950's era O Gauge items are just introductions to the hobby of O Gauge Railroading and everyone has to move onto O Scale to get the full roster of post-1965 Equipment.

The GG-1 and Aclea are interesting, but my model railroad interests are the Northern Central States, it is hard to add a cantenary on a line for the Soo Line or BNSF.
I hope all the Northeastern operators enjoy the Acelea Sets and GG-1 Sets that Lionel has produced. They are out of place around the Great Lakes and Great Plains.

If MTH can produce a Centipede Locomotive or a Schnauble Articulated Flat Car,
then the Magor Car Company or Pullman Standard 4750 Cu. Ft. 3-Bay Covered Hoppers in O Scale or O Gauge are not outrageous, extravagant production choices.

Andrew F.

[Nick12DMC]

I do love the American outline equipment that is produced in O gauge but
I would like to see a few British outline items.
I don't think these will ever happen but after seeing the Acela set how about...

1) A Blue Pullman set
2) APT (advanced passenger train)
3) Eurostar

I can dream

Nick

[Anonymous]

EUROSTAR!!!! That is perfect! Pullman, I would also love to see that.

[dwiemer]

For the guys interested in computer control, I saw a episode of "the train show", at least I think it was the Train Show, anyway, a guy has a Marklin layout that he designed a computer program to control all the switching and train assignments. It was really neat, in that it would have a express train passing a station, while a local would stop. He really had it worked out well. It would be nice if the major manufacturers or even a computer company would design something like this.
Dennis

[Demon09]

i wonder if there would be some way to create a simple program that would work with the TMCC hardware and use a software interface on the computer instead of a hand-held remote..... this could be something that lionel or MTH could venture into, or a partnership with a software company.... could maybe take back some of the business lost to video game corporations by allowing users to connect their computer....... the only thing that i wouldnt want to switch to TMCC is because the screen only shows the one option you are using at the time.... id prefer a larger screen like a computer program because it could show a map of the layout and list the trains and switches to be controlled all up top rather than needing to be called up on the TMCC screen...... just my preference though....

[Anonymous]

A monthly poll by manufacturers to be sure that there is actual demand for their products.

Andrew F.

[Anonymous]

This idea is strictly for macro production for a 1930's to 1950's era Great Lakes themed traveling exhibit that can be moved and set up in areas much further south of Lake Superior.

Authentic O Scale Ore Cars with operating doors that unload ore at an Ore Dock into a waiting O Scale Ore Freighter Model.

These cars would have be duplicated at least 100 times for the demonstation of a waves of ore cars arriving and departing. It is a sight that even now is typically hard to watch from a great vantage point at the right time of day.

This would prove the historical value of O Scale models.

Andrew F.

[Anonymous]

The leasing company GATX can partner with non-profit organizations to sell O Scale and O Gauge freight cars made by Lionel, MTH, Atlas O, and Weaver that are painted to duplicate actual GATX freight cars. This is a reasonable way for GATX to get involved in fund rasing and generate a positive image, without going into debt.

Andrew F.

[Anonymous]

The Electric Power Utility Companies that have Coal Plants served by Railroads must to set up O Gauge/O Scale model railroads for the general public to view a representation of what they accomplish on a daily basis.

The Lionel Rotary Coal Tipple will be one of the end points of the Coal Hauling Model Railroad.

Scratchbuilt Coal Conveyors and Coal Silos will be at the opposite end.

Freight cars that are most important are the Bathtub Coal Gondolas made by Atlas O and Lionel for the Rotary Coal Tipple. Some MTH Premier CoalPorters can be used to lengthen the train if needed.

The Locomotive sets can be any fitting 6-Axle Unit made by Atlas O, Lionel, or MTH. For a Pittsburg and Lake Erie version MTH Geeps will be fine.

The Layouts can be long term exhibits in a showroom. Another option is to have the layout housed in a pair of trailers with doors on each end. The trailers are lined up together and the two sections of the layout are connected. The visitors then can walk through one trailer to veiw one end, exit, and then enter the other trailer to view the other end of the railroad model.

Because these real sites are always listed as "Private Property" and there is "NO TRESPASSING" the Coal Generating Companies and Railroads can get together to show the General Public what they really do in an O Scale Rendition. The Model Railroad Manufaturers might benefit from these types of exhibits by demonstrating their products.

Andrew F.

[mickey4479]

PRR rubber tired switchers. I ran into this on prr.railfan.net. Not suggesting this is a viable item or that a company should manufacture. It is after all used to move rail cars on streets with rails, but it is an interesting railroad vehicle and reminds me of the Beep somewhat.

[Anonymous]

The Street Switcher is viable as part of the K-Line Super Streets system, if Lionel produces the Super Street System.

Andrew.

[artyoung]

Here's an OLD idea I'd like to see come back : Lionel's 700 K, the kit version of the Hudson. Wouldn't you like to be able to point at one on your layout and say "I built that one" ?

[Anonymous]

The Pennsylvannia Railroad Rubber Tired Switchers would also fit into the product Lines of Athearn 1:50th Scale Trucks or ATLAS TrainMan. It would work best if they picked up power from the O Gauge Tracks.

A Radio Controlled version could be produced by those companies that make the miniature R.C. cars, but that version is long shot.

They will be produced when enough people requested these Coupler Equipped Diesel Tractors from Athearn and ATLAS.

Andrew F.

[Anonymous]

Athearn could branch their truck line with 1:50th Scale Highway-Rail Trucks that will operate on O Gauge Tracks.

It is a safe bet since other trucks for O Gauge operation are very toy like in appearance and many have out of scale proportions.

Andrew F.

[Anonymous]

"i wonder if there would be some way to create a simple program that would work with the TMCC hardware and use a software interface on the computer instead of a hand-held remote....."

http://www.hirailjunction.com/index.html

[Demon09]

Wow, thanks chuckn, i never would have known that someone has already done this!.... I think that its about time i ditch the traditional controls and consider upgrading to TMCC using that program........