NYC L-2.
Just because there are so many %#@$! Hudson Niagara and Mohawk models where the L-2 was the real deal running in large numbers for a longer periods than the others.
An N scale C&O 3-6-6-6 Alleghenney, the most powerful steam locomotive built.
I would love to see some accurate Santa Fe prototype models (not brass) that aren't 4-8-4s, 2-10-2s, or 2-10-4s. Locals and branch lines were served by 2-6-2s, 2-8-0s, and 2-8-2s....
Burlington Steam Think your all missing the point here......small while much more practical is boring to us manly man types .........big as Tim Allen said is MORE POWER!!!!!ARRRRRGH!!!
Think your all missing the point here......small while much more practical is boring to us manly man types .........big as Tim Allen said is MORE POWER!!!!!ARRRRRGH!!!
You're not familiar with the work of Andre Chapelon, are you? His primary contribution was rebuilding relatively small French steam locomotives for higher power and efficiency. One of his more remarkable achievements was rebuilding a series of 4-6-2's into 4-8-0's and upping their horsepower from around 2500 to 4000.
Google Chapelon sometime and when you're done, Google Livio Dante Porta and David Wardale.
Andre
More 19th century steam! 4-4-0 Americans, 4-6-0 Ten Wheelers, 2-6-0 Moguls, 4-8-0 Twelve Wheelers with DCC, sound, smoke, headlight and cab light. Road specific of course! Also open platform RPOs, baggages, combines, coaches, diners, sleepers and observations with interiors. There is so much that hasn´t been done yet.
CAZEPHYR ATLANTIC CENTRAL ACY And let's not forget the other Van Sweringen Berkshires. Those of L&N, W&LE, and Erie used very similar boilers and running gear to the many NKP and C&O based models currently available. Reruns with appropriate detail changes might be a cost-effective way to get more mileage out of established basic model designs. And the Virginian Berks - identical to the NKP and C&O locos except for a third steam/sand dome configuration - why has no one done that loco? Sheldon The tenders were different also. RR
ATLANTIC CENTRAL ACY And let's not forget the other Van Sweringen Berkshires. Those of L&N, W&LE, and Erie used very similar boilers and running gear to the many NKP and C&O based models currently available. Reruns with appropriate detail changes might be a cost-effective way to get more mileage out of established basic model designs. And the Virginian Berks - identical to the NKP and C&O locos except for a third steam/sand dome configuration - why has no one done that loco? Sheldon
ACY And let's not forget the other Van Sweringen Berkshires. Those of L&N, W&LE, and Erie used very similar boilers and running gear to the many NKP and C&O based models currently available. Reruns with appropriate detail changes might be a cost-effective way to get more mileage out of established basic model designs.
And the Virginian Berks - identical to the NKP and C&O locos except for a third steam/sand dome configuration - why has no one done that loco?
Sheldon
The tenders were different also.
RR
Yes the tenders were different as well. But Proto and Bachmann made both the NKP/PM tender, and the larger C&O tender to make their models correct.
You would really only need a new floor and shell to make the third version of the tender.
andrechapelon Burlington Steam Think your all missing the point here......small while much more practical is boring to us manly man types .........big as Tim Allen said is MORE POWER!!!!!ARRRRRGH!!! You're not familiar with the work of Andre Chapelon, are you? His primary contribution was rebuilding relatively small French steam locomotives for higher power and efficiency. One of his more remarkable achievements was rebuilding a series of 4-6-2's into 4-8-0's and upping their horsepower from around 2500 to 4000. Google Chapelon sometime and when you're done, Google Livio Dante Porta and David Wardale. Andre
Burlington Steam
And then consider that, on any layout smaller than a supermarket, those big, powerful centipedes on rails resemble a caged circus cat, and a typical model train powered by a humongipede resembles a five year old in Mama's high heels...
Big power on the JNR portion of my layout is a 2-8-2. There are also 2-8-0, 2-6-2 and 2-6-0 locos (as well as tank versions of both 2-6-0 classes) When 20 cars will fill a passing siding sixteen drivers are only necessary (on a few unusually heavy trains) when the 2.5% starts just beyond the siding turnout points. Those trains doublehead.
On the 4% grade of the coal hauler I can justify twelve drivers on uphill coal units too long to fit the passing spots between termini. But the loco is a cosmetically modified Mantua Uintah, not a USRA 2-6-6-2. Other trains get x-6-x tank locos, two or three per train.
As for the Tim Allen remark - Really big, manly, men don't have to prove it with oversize toys...
Chuck [Msgt(ret) USAF modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with locomotives that fit the territory)
dstarr BMMECNYC I would like to see a B&M accurate 2-6-0 (B-15), and a MEC accurate 4-6-0 (the O class version with inside valve gear). Actually, the old IHC 2-6-0 isn't a bad stand in for the B15. Here is the IHC model, A .And here is the old brass PFM model B15. The IHC (now out of business, but still reasonably available) is pretty close. It lacks the distinctive swelled boiler of the B15, the bell is in the wrong place (an easy fix), but it's not a bad standin.
BMMECNYC I would like to see a B&M accurate 2-6-0 (B-15), and a MEC accurate 4-6-0 (the O class version with inside valve gear).
I would like to see a B&M accurate 2-6-0 (B-15), and a MEC accurate 4-6-0 (the O class version with inside valve gear).
Actually, the old IHC 2-6-0 isn't a bad stand in for the B15. Here is the IHC model,
A
.And here is the old brass PFM model B15.
The IHC (now out of business, but still reasonably available) is pretty close. It lacks the distinctive swelled boiler of the B15, the bell is in the wrong place (an easy fix), but it's not a bad standin.
It looks pretty close, except for one glaring deficiency in my eyes. The valve gear. If they would swap the valve gear between their 4-6-0 and 2-6-0 both would look pretty good.
Sheldon,You're making a classic mistake in thinking just because something has more examples in real life will equal greater sales. People don't want the common item, they want the "best", "biggest", "fastest", etc. Look at other hobbies. In military vehicles, there were far, far more 2 1/2 ton trucks than probably anything else (562,000+ built), yet if you go to any plastic hobby shop, you're going to find far more models for sale of tanks that only were produced in the hundreds (or even rare one-of-a-kinds like railroad cannons).
Or look at airplanes. By far, the Cessna 172 is the most produced airplane of all time (43,000+ and counting), yet I can probably find a Concorde model easier than a Cessna 172 at a hobby shop...and they made only 20 of the Concordes.
Getting back to our hobby, I know from talking to BLI that their Hybrid 4-12-2 sales are doing extremely well and they are quite happy with it. Meanwhile, their Hybrid NH 4-6-2 I-4 is disappointing, barely getting enough sales orders for them to make it. Please note that both are $699 MSRP. If there is that much demand for smaller steamers, then why aren't those numbers reversed? Sure, I get it that UP is a bigger RR and more popular than the NH (and that 4-12-2 is a freight engine while the I-4 is a passenger engine), but is the difference that much? Oh, and please note that their I-5 4-6-4 did very well for BLI, so much so that they did another run.Another issue is the idea that just because a RR had more of one type of steam engine that they would be more common to see. Not true. RR's had a lot of engines because they had a lot of small branchlines where a few trains a day was more common. If one wants to model the mainline of their favorite road, they they are going to want to buy more mainline engines.
Take the NH, for example. They only had 10 I-5's, 8 of which were available on any given day. Each one in service was used twice a day, meaning that spending a day trackside on the "Shore Line Route", you would see 16 I-5 Hudson-powered passenger trains going by. The NH had roughly 34 mainline Shore Line passenger trains every day, meaning that almost half of them were powered by I-5's. Compare that to the 50 I-4's they had, of which around 40 were in use every day. Would you see 5 times as many I-4's as I-5's on any given day in Westerly, RI from 1937 to 1948? No, you wouldn't, because I-4's were on other lines (to Springfield, MA, for example) and on commuter and local trains all over the rest of the steam-equipped system.Or, if you want to talk freight, the NH had 70 Mountains of all types vs. 246 Moguls (of the 20th Century). If you spent the day trackside on the Shore Line in the 1940's, would you see 3.5 times the number of 2-6-0's than 4-8-2's? Um, no, you wouldn't. The Mountains would hold down just about every mainline freight train job on the Shore Line while the Moguls would be used on the locals...but the locals didn't overlap. So you might see one local go by a couple times with a Mogul in between the march of the Mountains rushing by every hour or so.If one wants to model their RR's mainline, then they are going to want to buy more of the bigger engines vs. the more common (in number) types.
Paul A. Cutler III
mlehman -E-C-Mills We need a new D&SL 2-6-6-0, a smaller articulated locomotive thats going to look ok on 24" (HO) curves. But not a logging locomotive. It was used on mountain mainline service for 3 decades. Yeah, good idea. And how about a Rio Grande C-48? I would really like to see Blackstone do that as their first standard gauge engine, which will happen eventually.
-E-C-Mills We need a new D&SL 2-6-6-0, a smaller articulated locomotive thats going to look ok on 24" (HO) curves. But not a logging locomotive. It was used on mountain mainline service for 3 decades.
Yeah, good idea. And how about a Rio Grande C-48? I would really like to see Blackstone do that as their first standard gauge engine, which will happen eventually.
Mike:
I'll take five. For a start. Sweetest little SG 2-8-0's I've ever seen!
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!
Here is a locomotive for 18" R HO track.
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
Burlington Steam But it was funny because it's TRUE. Burlington Steam Think your all missing the point here......small while much more practical is boring to us manly man types .........big as Tim Allen said is MORE POWER!!!!!ARRRRRGH!!! gee guys that was strictly tongue in cheek!!
But it was funny because it's TRUE.
gee guys that was strictly tongue in cheek!!
Paul3 If one wants to model their RR's mainline, then they are going to want to buy more of the bigger engines vs. the more common (in number) types
If one wants to model their RR's mainline, then they are going to want to buy more of the bigger engines vs. the more common (in number) types
Depends on the railroad and the mainline. For the most part, if you're a Southern fan, it's Mikes and Pacifics. If it's SP's Siskiyou line, the largest engines allowed were 2-10-2's and 4-8-2's. IIIRC, the largest engines used on the Santa Fe north of Bakersfield were 3700 class 4-8-2's and a couple of 3450 class 4-6-4's. These were not the large engines on the roster. Prior to the rapid dieselization of SP, it was rare to see a cab-forward in the San Joaquin/Sacramento valley and they didn't call SP's 2-6-0's "Valley" Mallets for nothing.
The biggest bill of goods sold to the hobby is that the only modeling worth doing is mainline modeling (and really heavy duty main lines at that). Very few people have the space, time or money to do justice to that ludicrous ideal (else why so many complaints that Brand x 4-8-8-4 won't round an 18" radius curve). I once calculated that, to model SP's climb from San Luis Obispo to Santa Margarita would require 4-5 cab-forwards, at least 2 GS-4's, a couple of 4-8-2's, a like number of 2-10-2's, with 2 or 3 2-8-0's for good measure and that's just motive power. SP's Monterey Branch would only require a single 4-6-2 (for the Del Monte), 2 or 3 2-8-0's with a 4-6-0 and a 4-8-0 thrown in for variety. The Del Monte loaded up to 8 cars and could be reasonably downsized to 6 (vs 15-20 for the Daylight and Lark). During the 40's, there would have been up to 8 scheduled trains ( #'s 77/78 Del Monte and 3 local freights in each direction). Plenty of action for a 2 1/2 hour op session. Better yet, 12-15 cars behind a 2-8-0 looks better than 15-20 behind a 4-8-8-2.
My hobby is model railroading. It is not model locomotiving.
I believe the locomotive should be a prototypical match for the train it hauls, in the location it operates, and in the era of the layout.
For example, an 8 car freight train being hauled across the prairies in the 1920's would not have a Big Boy. A small steam locomotive such as a 2-6-2 would be mor appropriate.
Great thread.
How about some generic models with Elesco feedwater heaters (i.e. Pacifics, Mikes)
More offerings with Vanderbilt tenders.
A generic Camelback say a 2-8-0.
My $.02
Mark
Heartland Division CB&Q My hobby is model railroading. It is not model locomotiving. I believe the locomotive should be a prototypical match for the train it hauls, in the location it operates, and in the era of the layout. For example, an 8 car freight train being hauled across the prairies in the 1920's would not have a Big Boy. A small steam locomotive such as a 2-6-2 would be mor appropriate.
Garry,
I asked the question to the forum back on the first page but it may have gotten lost in the discussion. Perhaps you know the answer.
Does ANY manufacturer currently produce a decent 2-6-2, even one that's generic?
- Douglas
andrechapelon Paul3 If one wants to model their RR's mainline, then they are going to want to buy more of the bigger engines vs. the more common (in number) types Depends on the railroad and the mainline. For the most part, if you're a Southern fan, it's Mikes and Pacifics. If it's SP's Siskiyou line, the largest engines allowed were 2-10-2's and 4-8-2's. IIIRC, the largest engines used on the Santa Fe north of Bakersfield were 3700 class 4-8-2's and a couple of 3450 class 4-6-4's. These were not the large engines on the roster. Prior to the rapid dieselization of SP, it was rare to see a cab-forward in the San Joaquin/Sacramento valley and they didn't call SP's 2-6-0's "Valley" Mallets for nothing. The biggest bill of goods sold to the hobby is that the only modeling worth doing is mainline modeling (and really heavy duty main lines at that). Very few people have the space, time or money to do justice to that ludicrous ideal (else why so many complaints that Brand x 4-8-8-4 won't round an 18" radius curve). I once calculated that, to model SP's climb from San Luis Obispo to Santa Margarita would require 4-5 cab-forwards, at least 2 GS-4's, a couple of 4-8-2's, a like number of 2-10-2's, with 2 or 3 2-8-0's for good measure and that's just motive power. SP's Monterey Branch would only require a single 4-6-2 (for the Del Monte), 2 or 3 2-8-0's with a 4-6-0 and a 4-8-0 thrown in for variety. The Del Monte loaded up to 8 cars and could be reasonably downsized to 6 (vs 15-20 for the Daylight and Lark). During the 40's, there would have been up to 8 scheduled trains ( #'s 77/78 Del Monte and 3 local freights in each direction). Plenty of action for a 2 1/2 hour op session. Better yet, 12-15 cars behind a 2-8-0 looks better than 15-20 behind a 4-8-8-2. Andre
Andre, great reply.
I don't have time this morning for everything I would like to say in response to Paul, but you covered an important part of it.
I do choose to model the "heavy duty mainline" (and I have a 900 sq ft room to do it in), but in this region even that usually only meant double headed 2-8-2's or 2-8-0's, or 2-8-4's until you got to the mountains. Then the big power pulled the train over the mountain, then the Mikes took over again.
And I like long trains - the layout is designed for 35-45 car freights - typical of the 1950's in this region.
For me, it is all about the "medium sized power" that ruled the mainlines of the Mid Atlantic in the steam era.
The ATLANTIC CENTRAL has two 4-6-0's, nine 4-8-2's, eight 2-8-2's, eight 2-8-0's, three 4-6-2's, three 2-10-2's, and two 4-8-4's.
Big power does exist here, but it does not dominate the roster: two 2-8-8-2', two 2-6-6-4's, one 2-6-6-6 and four 2-6-6-2's.
Most of this is ATLANTIC CENTRAL power, some is B&O, C&O and WM.
As you can see, even the "big power" is mostly on the smaller side. Again, we are mostly about "medium power" here. Notice as the locos get bigger, the quantities get smaller - just like rosters on the prototype.
The one locomotive I would buy a six pack of - a modern east cost 10 wheeler like those on the B&O.
So based on my purchasing habits, 2-8-2's and 2-8-0's, and 4-8-2's outsell everything two/three to one - but what do I know.
Doughless Heartland Division CB&Q My hobby is model railroading. It is not model locomotiving. I believe the locomotive should be a prototypical match for the train it hauls, in the location it operates, and in the era of the layout. For example, an 8 car freight train being hauled across the prairies in the 1920's would not have a Big Boy. A small steam locomotive such as a 2-6-2 would be mor appropriate. Garry, I asked the question to the forum back on the first page but it may have gotten lost in the discussion. Perhaps you know the answer. Does ANY manufacturer currently produce a decent 2-6-2, even one that's generic?
Bachmann has a VERY generic one in their basic line. They have improved all their drives down to even their least expensive stuff, but detail is still a little "train set" on that piece.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Garry, I asked the question to the forum back on the first page but it may have gotten lost in the discussion. Perhaps you know the answer. Does ANY manufacturer currently produce a decent 2-6-2, even one that's generic? Bachmann has a VERY generic one in their basic line. They have improved all their drives down to even their least expensive stuff, but detail is still a little "train set" on that piece. Sheldon
I asked the question to the forum back on the first page but it may have gotten lost in the discussion. Perhaps you know the answer. Does ANY manufacturer currently produce a decent 2-6-2, even one that's generic?
Yes. I think that is the only one being produced. I'm no expert, but I think that piece is really an 0-6-0 with pilot and trailing trucks added, and its leftover from Bachmann's cheaper train set "smoke" lineup...although the running gear may have been upgraded.
Speaking of small power. The Pennsylvania railroad had over 3600 2-8-0 H1 thru H10 consoldiations. They were used for everything from yard engines to hauling passenger and freight trains. That was more engines of one type than most railroas had in total motive power.
AS an N scaler we have chance in the last year to receive good steam models on the Nscale offer.
Hope to see a Mercecedes of steam N&W class A in Nscale, a good running Y6b, and may be an C&O alleghenys.
Of course some very early articulated steam locomotives like a Z1....
Andre,Well, yes, of course it depends on the RR and the mainline. Some railroads didn't have any "big steam power" at all, and many "mainlines" weren't "The mainline" because they had mulitple, lesser, routes (see: New Haven to Boston vs. New Haven to Springfield). The route itself could also affect things as steep grades meant bigger power. For example, the NH's freight-only Maybrook Line was home to 50 lumbering 2-10-2's that rarely roamed off the Maybrook because they were too slow to be mixed with too many passenger trains.
I have a NH March 1, 1922 Engine Assignment Book. On the "New Haven And New London Divisions" (covering the NH's "Shore Line" from New Haven, CT to just South of Providence, RI, plus branch lines to Worcester, MA, Northampton, MA, and Willimantic, CT), it lists 240 steam locos. Of these engines, the list includes:58 2-6-049 4-6-240 0-6-034 4-4-028 4-8-217 2-8-04 2-8-24 0-8-03 0-4-02 2-10-21 4-6-0According to some, a railfan watching the trains go by in 24 hours would see more 2-6-0's than anything else, and see 0-6-0's going by at a greater rate than 4-8-2's just because they had more on the roster in that Division. But when you look at the actual assignments:Only 3 of the 58 2-6-0's were assigned to Shore Line local freights (none of which overlapped).Only 3 of the 17 2-8-0's were on a Shore Line assignment (two through frieights, one local freight).Only 2 of the 34 4-4-0's were on Shore Line trains (one the Employee's Train).None of the 0-8-0's, 0-6-0's or 0-4-0's saw mainline service.The two 2-10-2's were on hump duty.The lone 4-6-0 was on a branchline.So of the above list of engines, only 8 "small" engines were on that part of the Shore Line. Compare that to the 36 "large" engines (well, for 1922, that would be anything with a trailing truck) that were all assigned to the same stretch of track during that time (the 47 other large engines were spare or on a branch).The result is that if one wants to accurately model the NH's "Shore Line" Division in 1922 between New Haven and Providence, one would need over 4 times the number of big steam power over little steam power, even tho' little steam power out numbered big steam power 2 to 1 in that entire Division.As for the choice of modeling the mainline, why is that a "bill of goods"? Who's selling it? The reality is that this is what people want. People have interest in the best, busiest, fastest, greatest, etc. Just look at sports: far more people follow MLB over the minor leagues. Why? Because MLB is the "best" league with the best players. Go to a minor league game and you can have just as much fun as going to an MLB park (maybe more so) for a heckuva lot less money, yet MLB teams are nationwide front page news and minor league teams are buried in the paper (if at all).I'm not saying that's the case for everyone, but the majority of people want to model the mainline of their favorite road because they want to, not because someone told them to.Paul A. Cutler III
I would love to see a B&O Q4 mike. B&O fans would love it-heck, I'd want 3 or 4-and it's an attractive enough engine that it would appeal to many non-Bando modeler's as well.
As for diesels, how about an updated box cab such as MDC/Roundhouse used to make? Something that compact wold make a fine industrial engine as well as it's waterfront duties.
Paul, I won't copy your reply as it's too wordy. When I say sold a bill of goods, I meant that that's what's been featured in the model press almost exclusively since the beginning.
Surely not every NH modeler is mesmerized by the Shore Line (David Popp comes to mind), nor every Santa Fe fan held in thrall to Cajon Pass. Not every SP fan faces Tehachapi when paying homage to The Sunset Route and I've even heard rumors of an NYC fan or two blowing off the blandishments of Mohawks and Niagaras for the simpler joys of the Adirondack Branch and its bevy of K-11's.
Oh well, gotta go. We're having dinner with a neighbor.
Paul3 Sheldon,You're making a classic mistake in thinking just because something has more examples in real life will equal greater sales. People don't want the common item, they want the "best", "biggest", "fastest", etc. Paul A. Cutler III
Sheldon,You're making a classic mistake in thinking just because something has more examples in real life will equal greater sales. People don't want the common item, they want the "best", "biggest", "fastest", etc.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
Bayfield Transfer Railway Paul3 Sheldon,You're making a classic mistake in thinking just because something has more examples in real life will equal greater sales. People don't want the common item, they want the "best", "biggest", "fastest", etc. Paul A. Cutler III There ya go. The statistics presented earlier are just as accessible to manufacturers. The fact that there are more manufacturers making Big Boys than there are making Consolidations is no accident.Unlike some, I work under the assumption that the manufacturers actually know what they're doing. When I was getting my MBA way back in 1985-87 I learned a highly esoteric technical term for companies that guess wrong on what will sell."Out of business." PS Look at wargamers too... nobody buys Panzer IIIs, they all want dozens of Jagdtigers.
Real companies create markets, not try to grab market share in relatively static markets by creating copycat products. I see that Rapido will be creating a Stirling Single for the UK OO market. Granted, it's under the auspices of Britain's National Railway Museum, but Rapido is entering unfamiliar territory. OTOH, I don't think Rapido has a single MBA on its payroll, otherwise we'd probably just see another Big Boy, Challenger, or Van Sweringen Berkshire and the NRM would have been turned down.
http://rapidotrains.com/single.html
andrechapelon Bayfield Transfer Railway Paul3 Sheldon,You're making a classic mistake in thinking just because something has more examples in real life will equal greater sales. People don't want the common item, they want the "best", "biggest", "fastest", etc. Paul A. Cutler III There ya go. The statistics presented earlier are just as accessible to manufacturers. The fact that there are more manufacturers making Big Boys than there are making Consolidations is no accident.Unlike some, I work under the assumption that the manufacturers actually know what they're doing. When I was getting my MBA way back in 1985-87 I learned a highly esoteric technical term for companies that guess wrong on what will sell."Out of business." PS Look at wargamers too... nobody buys Panzer IIIs, they all want dozens of Jagdtigers. Real companies create markets, not try to grab market share in relatively static markets by creating copycat products. I see that Rapido will be creating a Stirling Single for the UK OO market. Granted, it's under the auspices of Britain's National Railway Museum, but Rapido is entering unfamiliar territory. OTOH, I don't think Rapido has a single MBA on its payroll, otherwise we'd probably just see another Big Boy, Challenger, or Van Sweringen Berkshire and the NRM would have been turned down. http://rapidotrains.com/single.html Andre
Again, well said Andre,
While Rapido has not made much that fits my modeling needs, I applaud them for consistantly making stuff not already available - and it seems to be working.
MBA - I've been successfully self employed most of my life without one........
With all the angst about the large engines the reason they are being made is that they sell. The smaller prototypes of which I have quite a few are really nice but you have to admit there is something about a big boy, Y6b, etc. running around your layout.
I have almost every type of articulated engine ever made from the triplex to the big boy and Y6b. When the urge its me they come off the shelf and onto the track for a trip around the layout. Visitors love the big engines, they could care less about a 2-8-0.
Big mainline engines are where it is at, climb on board.