For goodness sake, Andre, read your own post! It was your response to the poster who noted that the Docksider, Mantua switchers and General were by far the most common engines seen on early layouts. The exact statement you make: "That's hardly surprising considering that the above constituted the bulk of the non-brass (and non Pennsy) steam power available after 1960." This, of course, utterly untrue.
As to availability compared to what, if you'd simply check the facts you'd find that more steam locomotives were in actual production at the time (1959) than you have today (2009).
With regard to how one looks at prices/expenses, whether from the position of a juvenile or as an adult when it came to model railroading by in the 50's, I saw it from both perspectives. Back then my dad was also a model railroading enthusiast, one with a pretty average blue collar job, while I worked part time. Neither of us considered spending $29.95 on a Mantua and a bit less on Gilbert (HO) locomotives any really big deal and we each purchased several (still have 'em too!). You simply put aside a little cash each week and in a month or so you had enough to make the purchase. The 1950's weren't the Depression, most people I grew up around had hobbies and at least some disposable income to spend on them.
CNJ831
orsonroy A GN, Wooten-fireboxed 4-6-0 might be a bit of a stretch. A Pennsy 4-6-0 wouldn't, nor would the R-1.
A GN, Wooten-fireboxed 4-6-0 might be a bit of a stretch. A Pennsy 4-6-0 wouldn't, nor would the R-1.
It would definitely be a stretch since the Pennsy and the GN used Belpaire fireboxes (with the square "corners"), not Wooten.fireboxes (with the wide grates).
But since I model the RDG, if you want to make an HO model 4-6-0 with a Wooten firebox, bring it on! 8-)
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Andre, even by the latter half of the 1950's the field of available HO die cast locomotives was already growing quite large and diverse. It could hardly be considered limited, nor the Docksider, Shifter/Big Six and General considered the "bulk" of the engines then available. In addition, both small and large steam, in inexpensive brass from International Models, et al (many examples selling at just a few dollars more than the die cast Mantua engines were), were also available. By "After about 1960", the field was really broad and in some respects as good as (maybe better) than today, so the widespread use of small locomotives that the poster you quoted suggests would have been as a matter of choice, certainly not one of availability. The period of truly limited availability/high cost locomotives were the years prior to, or immediately following, WWII.
Large and diverse? As compared to what? Most (not all, but most) die cast steam locomotives ever made by the likes of Varney, Mantua, Penn-Line, Roundhouse and English were in production by the early 50's. Except for Penn-Line and Roundhouse, they were also largely generic. And who limited the discussion to the Docksider, the Shifter/Big Six and the General? Certainly not I. I certainly said nothing about limited availability locomotives, although I do consider the Varney "Super" series expensive for their time. So what are you arguing about?
I would also point out with regard to the all too often cited CPI bumbo jumbo, that having grown up in the 1940's-50's myself, the preceived value of sums like that $29.95 for a Mantua Pacific were not regarded as anything like the equivalent of $295.00 today. It was a different time and I can tell you that expendable cash was regarded in quite a different fashion than today.
What you're overlooking is the fact that we were both kids back then and had a kid's view of pricing. I didn't think $30 was that much when I was a kid even though my parents might complain about paying that much for this thing or that. It wasn't until I was on my own that I really understood. Even when I was making $30 a month when my paper route, it was essentially all discretionary since food, clothing, shelter, etc., were paid for, so it didn't look like that much.
Sometime in the late 50's ('57 or '58, IIRC), some insurance company had a series of magazine ads based upon some supposedly average Joe making $82.50/week. I don't remember if that were gross or net, although I suspect the former. It works out to about $625/week in today's dollars. $29.95 is more than 1/3 of a week's income in 50+ year old dollars. You better believe people thought about it before they spent it. My dad made about twice that at the time and he certainly thought long and hard before committing that much money to anything that could be considered discretionary. So did his friends and acquaintances. And this was back when you could get a house for $15K. Not a McMansion certainly, but an adequate dwelling with a quarter acre lot.
If I could magically be transported back to, say, 1957, with a wife, 2 or 3 kids (, an income of of around $750/month (about what my dad made at the time and he had 5 of us kids), a mortgage, car payments, etc., you can rest assured I'd be looking at $29.95 in pretty much the same manner a 40 year old head of household in similar circumstances would look at $295 today.
Andre
orsonroy There's "generic", and then there's "generic". Both of the Bachmann engines you mentioned ARE prototype engines. The 2-8-0 is a Harriman-Standard heavy 2-8-0 built only for the IC. With minimal redetailing it can be turned into three different series of IC engines covering almost 300 road numbers. It's also turned out to be almost the perfect redetailing platform for engines from the ATSF, B&O, NYC and many other roads. The 4-6-0 out of the box is almost exact for a M&PA engine, and can be modified into many other post-1920 engines. This sort of generic steam model is perfectly acceptable, since they CAN be simply reworked into lots of near-prototype models. Virtually all of the newer IHC steam on the other hand is pure fantasy: they're not generic, they're freelanced, and not convertable into any real engine. I'd avoid this form of model producing like the plague.
There's "generic", and then there's "generic". Both of the Bachmann engines you mentioned ARE prototype engines. The 2-8-0 is a Harriman-Standard heavy 2-8-0 built only for the IC. With minimal redetailing it can be turned into three different series of IC engines covering almost 300 road numbers. It's also turned out to be almost the perfect redetailing platform for engines from the ATSF, B&O, NYC and many other roads. The 4-6-0 out of the box is almost exact for a M&PA engine, and can be modified into many other post-1920 engines. This sort of generic steam model is perfectly acceptable, since they CAN be simply reworked into lots of near-prototype models. Virtually all of the newer IHC steam on the other hand is pure fantasy: they're not generic, they're freelanced, and not convertable into any real engine. I'd avoid this form of model producing like the plague.
Thanks for the clarification. I was under the assumption there were no prototypes for those Bachmann engines.
Barry,There's only been one manufacturer of NH 2-6-0's. New England Rail Service (NERS) did a run of 2-6-0 K-1d's around 15-20 years ago in brass, and they were very expensive at the time compared to other brass. I have one, and I painted and decaled it recently for NH. There is now a DCC decoder in it, and now it needs some tweaking to get it to run perfectly. It's a nice little runner. But that's about it for NH 2-6-0's.
Here's a pic of one on a wire train (note the arched window cab...a NH trademark):http://www.railroad.net/articles/railfanning/worktrains/media/MW_19.jpg
My NH steam roster is as follows:I-4 4-6-2 NJ/Custom BrassI-5 4-6-4 NJ/Custom BrassI-5 4-6-4 Broadway LimitedR-1 4-8-2 Bachmann SpectrumR-3a 4-8-2 NJ/Custom BrassL-1 2-10-2 NJ/Custom BrassK-1d 2-6-0 NERS BrassY-3 0-8-0 W&R BrassY-3 0-8-0 Proto 2000Y-3 0-8-0 Oriental Brass
What I really need for accurate NH steam ops is more mainline power, not too many additional small steam. I know 2-6-0's and 0-6-0's were the most common steam engines on the NH in 1931, but they were used for specific purposes that I don't model. 2-6-0's were used for just about all local freights, and 0-6-0's were used for just about all small yards (of which the NH had many). However, I am modeling the NH's mainline between Boston and Providence. There were only two locals on the mainline that I can model, one from Boston and one from Providence (because I can't model every branch, just the main). Therefore, I only need a couple small steamers to operate them, plus a couple 0-8-0's to switch my Boston and Providence yards. Meanwhile, the NH was running hourly named passenger trains, and a dozen or so mainline symbol freights every day. I should have more Pacifics, Hudsons and Mountains, not Moguls, Ten Wheelers, and Americans.BTW, I should mention that the 2-6-0 and 0-6-0 fleet was reduced drastically from 1931 to 1943 because of the introduction of 1 DEY-1, 10 HH600's, 10 HH660's, 10 Model Y's, 19 44tonners, 65 S-1's, and 22 S-2's during this era. The NH was an early diesel road, and switchers and small local freight engines were some of the first casualties.
Paul A. Cutler III*******************Weather Or No Go New Haven*******************
onequiknovaI'd be intrested to hear specifically what small steam engines you guys think would sell.
OK; I'll take a stab at this!
0-4-0T: B&O Docksider
0-6-0: Harriman (UP/SP) 0-6-0, NYC B-10/B-11
2-6-0: generic Baldwin, small drivers
2-8-0: PRR H-9/H-10, Harriman-standard "small" 2-8-0, generic small Baldwin (57" drivers)
2-8-2: Harriman-Standard, NYC H-5, NYC H-10
4-4-0: generic pre-1875 Rogers, generic pre-1875 Cooke, generic "modernized" (post-1890) 4-4-0
4-4-2: Harriman-Standard 4-4-2
4-6-0: C&NW R-1, NYC F-12
4-6-2: Harriman-Standard light 4-6-2
I'm leaning heavily on Harriman and NYC designs for several reasons. First, they cover a lot of ground for both sides of the Mississippi. Second, both railroad conglomerates have HUGE influences over engine design, and a standard engine platform can cover (with various degrees of modification) hundreds or thousands of engines, covering up to a dozen railroads. None of these engines have been done in "modern" forms. You can find them as either clunky old brass or clunky old MDC/Roundhouse kits: take your pick. Finally, these engines look nothing like USRA designs, so they each have a uniqueness factor to them which should appeal to the collector, freelancer and proto modeler alike.
I would bet everybody in this thread comes up with a different answer. As much as I'd like to see more smaller steam in plastic, I just don't see something like a GN ten wheeler selling any where near as much as a UP 4-10-2. I think alot of people buying these big engines are buying them for the allure of these famous big steam engines. I just don't see this happening with an every day steamer only owned by one road.
True, but most of your answers will likely be knee-jerk biased answers based on a modeler's personal preferences. Besides the B-11s and H-5's above, I don't NEED any of the engines I mentioned above, and would only buy the R-1 out of sentimental reasons (chasing C&NW 1385 across IL and WI in the 1980s).
I guess you could build more "generic" steamer like the Bachmann 2-8-0 and 4-6-0's, which aren't correct for anything (although they do look nice), but I personaly wouldn't buy anything like that unless it could be bashed into something accurate.
I would like to see some kind of modular system used to build smaller plastic steam. Besides the USRA engines, most steam engines were RR specific, but many engines from different RR's had common parts.
Never gonna happen. Steam kits are dead, never to return except as VERY limited runs (and likely as VERY expensive models, along the line of DJH's excellent kits). The most we can hope for is for a common chassis with several different boiler and tender options, similar to Bachmann's 4-8-2 or 2-10-2 lines. That sort of project DOES require a fair amount of research to do properly, but if there's a big enough desire, I'm sure someone will step up to the plate. I just hope their research is sound!
Ray Breyer
Modeling the NKP's Peoria Division, circa 1943
blownout cylinder CNJ831I would also point out with regard to the all too often cited CPI bumbo jumbo, that having grown up in the 1950's the preceived value of sums like that $29.95 for a Mantua Pacific were not regarded as anything like the equivalent of $295.00 today. It was a different time and I can tell you that expendable cash was regarded in quite a different fashion than today. Maybe the problem here is that perceptions between --dare I use this phrase--"eras" was different. As some historiographers put it--there were different 'mentalities' involved, differing value systems as such. Discretionary income essentially was not a commonality back than as it is now. The whole notion of discretionary income--or spending money--was something that not too many people thought they had even. It was only a matter of somethiing like 20 years or less from the depression of the 1930's. And a lot of folks were still kind of shell shocked from that.
CNJ831I would also point out with regard to the all too often cited CPI bumbo jumbo, that having grown up in the 1950's the preceived value of sums like that $29.95 for a Mantua Pacific were not regarded as anything like the equivalent of $295.00 today. It was a different time and I can tell you that expendable cash was regarded in quite a different fashion than today.
Maybe the problem here is that perceptions between --dare I use this phrase--"eras" was different. As some historiographers put it--there were different 'mentalities' involved, differing value systems as such. Discretionary income essentially was not a commonality back than as it is now. The whole notion of discretionary income--or spending money--was something that not too many people thought they had even. It was only a matter of somethiing like 20 years or less from the depression of the 1930's. And a lot of folks were still kind of shell shocked from that.
Quite honestly, Barry, just to begin to explore how both the outlook of society and more particularly that of model railroaders has dramatically changed since the 50's would surely occupy hundreds of posts.
I would point out, however, that the whole concept of incurring almost limitless personal debt today was an unfathomable idea fifty years ago and has allowed manufacturers to jack the prices of products far beyond what would have ever been regarded as prudent in the past. There were essentially no widely circulated credit cards in the 50's, folks didn't unthinkingly put themselves into debt and there wasn't the host of mindless "must have" gagets we see today being pushed on the consumer to waste their money on. You bought only what you needed and not all that often. You bet the way society functioned financially back then was different!
CNJ831 dehusman Its also amazing to me how many opportunities the model manufacturers pass up to offer varieties of steam. IHC offered a 4-4-0 and a 2-6-0. A 2-6-0 cameback was also offered. A 2-6-0 camelback is a really rare duck. Very few were made. On the other hand, thousands of 4-4-0 camelbacks were made and operated on dozens of railroads. The standard firebox and camelback boilers on the IHC engines are interchangeable. Did IHC offer a cameback 4-4-0? Noooooo. Opportunity missed. Correct and I did a couple of kitbashes based on just that premise, one of which appears below. CNJ831
dehusman Its also amazing to me how many opportunities the model manufacturers pass up to offer varieties of steam. IHC offered a 4-4-0 and a 2-6-0. A 2-6-0 cameback was also offered. A 2-6-0 camelback is a really rare duck. Very few were made. On the other hand, thousands of 4-4-0 camelbacks were made and operated on dozens of railroads. The standard firebox and camelback boilers on the IHC engines are interchangeable. Did IHC offer a cameback 4-4-0? Noooooo. Opportunity missed.
Its also amazing to me how many opportunities the model manufacturers pass up to offer varieties of steam. IHC offered a 4-4-0 and a 2-6-0. A 2-6-0 cameback was also offered. A 2-6-0 camelback is a really rare duck. Very few were made. On the other hand, thousands of 4-4-0 camelbacks were made and operated on dozens of railroads. The standard firebox and camelback boilers on the IHC engines are interchangeable. Did IHC offer a cameback 4-4-0? Noooooo.
Opportunity missed.
Correct and I did a couple of kitbashes based on just that premise, one of which appears below.
CNJ:
I think something along that line could be made and sell well---but do we see anyone with the vision to do something along this line? Nooooooo----
I like the look of that little fellow---
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Sheldon, you may be entirely correct. I was trying to account for the apparent insistence of the manufacturers these days of offering so many of the larger steam engines, and then announcing subsequent production runs. I don't see that your perspective does.
-Crandell
If one was going to use CPI then it would then be done with an idea of keeping the eye on the savings as well. The savings rate back in the 1950's was much higher than now---something along 9% as opposed to some percentage I came across in Seeking Alpha for last August 2008 of just under 1.25%. We have, or rather may have, gained that extra discretionary at the cost of savings rate here---
onequiknova I'd be intrested to hear specifically what small steam engines you guys think would sell. I would bet everybody in this thread comes up with a different answer. As much as I'd like to see more smaller steam in plastic, I just don't see something like a GN ten wheeler selling any where near as much as a UP 4-10-2. I think alot of people buying these big engines are buying them for the allure of these famous big steam engines. I just don't see this happening with an every day steamer only owned by one road.
The critical thing is to get some variety in mechanisms. If you look at the 2-8-0, 2-8-2 models being made they are all either 48/50" or 61/63" drivers. If there were some 54/56" driver 2-8-0's made that would open a whole bunch of options.
Same with 4-6-0's. Most of the ones made have fairly small drivers. How about an engine with 68/70" drivers?
If you have the mechanism it is easier to kitbash/scratchbuild the boiler. I could change a boiler from narrow firebox to cameback, I can't kitbash a 63" driver into a 68" driver.
The Bachman Spectrum 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 are nice engines. Beautiful details and run well. The engines are detailed for the 1920-1930 era. By putting a kerosene headlight on the engines and taking off the generator you could backdate the engines to cover another 20-30 years (at least come closer to backdating the engine).
An opportunity missed.
A nice 1870's,1880's era 4-4-0 would go a long way. It would be close to a number of engines and the 4-4-0 was the "SD40-2" of the first 75 years of railroading. Virtually EVERY railroad owned them. The existing models are tooling and designs that are 30-40 years old.
If you asked modelers which deisel they want made, you would get dozens of suggestions. But that doesn't seem to stop manufacturers from producing new diesels.
andrechapelon -- The Varney Docksider and Mantua switchers and General were common on many layouts in the '50s and '60s. But so were the Varney Old Lady, Casey Jones, and Mantua Pacific and Mikado. That's hardly surprising, considering that the above constituted the bulk of the non-brass (and non Pennsy) steam power available after about 1960 or so. They were also cheaper than the more complex Varney engines (Mike, Berk, Pacific, Hudson, Reading Consol) that Varney made into the 50's.
-- The Varney Docksider and Mantua switchers and General were common on many layouts in the '50s and '60s. But so were the Varney Old Lady, Casey Jones, and Mantua Pacific and Mikado.
That's hardly surprising, considering that the above constituted the bulk of the non-brass (and non Pennsy) steam power available after about 1960 or so. They were also cheaper than the more complex Varney engines (Mike, Berk, Pacific, Hudson, Reading Consol) that Varney made into the 50's.
Andre, even by the latter half of the 1950's the field of available HO die cast locomotives was already growing quite large and diverse. It could hardly be considered limited, nor the Docksider, Shifter/Big Six and General considered the "bulk" of the engines then available. In addition, both small and large steam, in inexpensive brass from International Models, et al (many examples selling at just a few dollars more than the die cast Mantua engines were), were also available. By "After about 1960", the field was really broad and in some respects as good as (maybe better) than today, so the widespread use of small locomotives that the poster you quoted suggests would have been as a matter of choice, certainly not one of availability. The period of truly limited availability/high cost locomotives were the years prior to and immediately following WWII.
Paul3 What I think is funny here is that you, who is arguing against more big steam production and can't understand why they keep being made, actually has an Allegheny, a N&W Class A, and 2 Reading T1's. Meanwhile, I don't have a single one of these "name" big steam engines, unless you count the NH's I-5 4-6-4. Kind of ironic, eh?
What I think is funny here is that you, who is arguing against more big steam production and can't understand why they keep being made, actually has an Allegheny, a N&W Class A, and 2 Reading T1's. Meanwhile, I don't have a single one of these "name" big steam engines, unless you count the NH's I-5 4-6-4. Kind of ironic, eh?
No Paul the real ironic thing is that I bought both my Allegheny and my N&W Class A REALLY CHEAP on close out because they could not sell them all at retail or normal discount prices. The Class A was on a BLI factory direct clearance - see more on this below. And, all of these locos are lettered for my road name, none bought to "collect" for their "famous" status. I model the eastern mountains, these are eastern mountain railroad locomotives. Again, no Big Boys, Challlengers, GS4's, Cab Forwards, PRR anythings, 4-12-2's, FEF's, etc - no mater what Crandell says.
I am voting more variety of steam, not a shift from one to the other. Instead of three or four companies making the same locos, over and over, and having to dump the last of them cheap to get their money to invest in the next round, I'll bet they could do some stuff that's never been done, sell them all at a higher overall profit, and not be butting heads with the others in the business.
Bachmann gets this. They sell their stuff at pretty low prices wholesale, but from what I understand from dealers I know, they NEVER dump product like BLI does. BLI is on a very distructive business model that under mines the value of their product and hurts the hobby and the industry in the long run. I think this is evident by the number of "announced" products that have never shown up.
As for my roster, again, I am building a functional roster for a eastern coal hauler, just like those roads in real life, medium steam out numbers heavy steam. And, triple headed 2-8-0's pulling 40 hoppers is just as exciting as train I've ever seen, real or model.
Sheldon
- Bowser never made any small steam until they took over Penn Line and Varney. The Bowser Pacific and Challenger were the apparent top sellers from the original Bowser line.
Until they took over Penn Line, Bowser only had 3 locomotives, the ex-Knapp 4-8-2, the Challenger and the NYC K-11 4-6-2, so it's hardly surprising that the top 2 sellers were the Pacific and the Challenger.
BTW, the NYC K-11 Pacific is a small locomotive, relatively speaking.
- The Varney Docksider and Mantua switchers and General were common on many layouts in the '50s and '60s. But so were the Varney Old Lady, Casey Jones, and Mantua Pacific and Mikado.
A Varney Super Pacific sold for $57.50 in 1950, and that was without tender. That's the equivalent of over $500 today. IIRC, the Mantua Pacific sold for $29.95 or only the equivalent of $265. Mantua included a tender.
Yep I'll have to agree that the big 10 coupled locomotives along with the huge articulateds got all the press.While the little guys did all the work.
Here's my smallest Great Northern steamer a class K1 4-4-2 yet to be painted non the less I love watching those 73"drivers churning away lol
ATLANTIC CENTRALI disagree totally. This does not sound like any of the modelers I know personally. No offense Crandell, but I have read a number of your posts see where you are coming from. But after 40 years in this hobby and having known a lot of modelers, I hardly think collectors and "players" are the majority of the hobby. Especially not in HO or N scale.
I'm sort of guessing the collector that is being discussed here may not be the ones IN MRR'ing as such. The people I've come across who buy large lokies do not HAVE the layouts that we have. Better yet. They don't MODEL Railroads(ing) or any of that. They have display cases.
I've seen a few of these people who will buy 2 or even more of one specific engines. Some did buy in the larger scale but there were some who would buy even HO, N or S scale as well. You have a lot of modellers around who I also am acquainted with up here but then these guys that I have seen in the collectors realm comprise a whole 'nother critter---
selector John, I agree with you largely. As most of us would (probably ) agree, very few of us are really "modelling", even any one particular road. We might like one or two or three, and have a bunch of their available (or crafted) engines, but the fact is that most of us are collectors and players. We pick a road or five, take five years to get a stable that is quite a hodge-podge of engines, probably not very representative of the historical ratios, and we mostly play. Some of us actually go the the trouble of adding scenery, but playing with the trains is largely what the hobby means to us. So, we crave a limited form of excitement. For us, getting the gee-whiz factor almost always means the bigger, badder, somewhat rarer engines, and lately the inducements coming off the shelves have been what the manufacturers sensed we had a newfound hankering for. And largely they timed it right. Meanwhile, most of us also have a couple of USRA name-its, an RS-whatever or six, ten ABBA F-sets, and the rest. We have the run-of-the-mill and were looking for something more. The bigger badder engines in 1978 were constrained solely to brass or U-Make-Its. Today,....well, we have one foreign member (who hasn't posted in quite some time BTW) who has every one of the UP PCM Big Boys. I know 'cuz I pointed out to him that the glass shelf he had set them on to image them had a distinct sag in it! Guys, a smart cookie in business follows the money. Where's yours going? I'll tell you where mine seems to go. Add up the numbers and it should be as clear as the view out your back door. -Crandell
John, I agree with you largely. As most of us would (probably ) agree, very few of us are really "modelling", even any one particular road. We might like one or two or three, and have a bunch of their available (or crafted) engines, but the fact is that most of us are collectors and players. We pick a road or five, take five years to get a stable that is quite a hodge-podge of engines, probably not very representative of the historical ratios, and we mostly play. Some of us actually go the the trouble of adding scenery, but playing with the trains is largely what the hobby means to us. So, we crave a limited form of excitement. For us, getting the gee-whiz factor almost always means the bigger, badder, somewhat rarer engines, and lately the inducements coming off the shelves have been what the manufacturers sensed we had a newfound hankering for. And largely they timed it right.
Meanwhile, most of us also have a couple of USRA name-its, an RS-whatever or six, ten ABBA F-sets, and the rest. We have the run-of-the-mill and were looking for something more. The bigger badder engines in 1978 were constrained solely to brass or U-Make-Its. Today,....well, we have one foreign member (who hasn't posted in quite some time BTW) who has every one of the UP PCM Big Boys. I know 'cuz I pointed out to him that the glass shelf he had set them on to image them had a distinct sag in it!
Guys, a smart cookie in business follows the money. Where's yours going? I'll tell you where mine seems to go. Add up the numbers and it should be as clear as the view out your back door.
I disagree totally. This does not sound like any of the modelers I know personally. No offense Crandell, but I have read a number of your posts see where you are coming from. But after 40 years in this hobby and having known a lot of modelers, I hardly think collectors and "players" are the majority of the hobby. Especially not in HO or N scale.
And many of the modelers I know, like my own roster, have mostly or only locos that fit the theme of their layout.
You should enjoy this hobby however you like, but to assume that your perspective on it is the majority or that "everyone" is "collecting" locos from dozens of unrelated roads or eras, denies what many many people have posted on boards like this one, and about this topic.
I'd be intrested to hear specifically what small steam engines you guys think would sell. I would bet everybody in this thread comes up with a different answer. As much as I'd like to see more smaller steam in plastic, I just don't see something like a GN ten wheeler selling any where near as much as a UP 4-10-2. I think alot of people buying these big engines are buying them for the allure of these famous big steam engines. I just don't see this happening with an every day steamer only owned by one road.
I would like to see some kind of modular system used to build smaller plastic steam. Besides the USRA engines, most steam engines were RR specific, but many engines from different RR's had common parts. For example, a Baldwin built CB&Q O1 2-8-2 had the same boiler as a B&O mike. The same boiler would also fit a CB&Q O1A and an S3 4-6-2. Of coarse, things like domes, cabs, appliances and tenders would need to be tooled for each engine. I'm sure many more examples of this could be found. The down side would be all the initial research to find these similarities.
I believe this reuseing of common parts could help make these smaller steam engines more economically viable. Of coarse I don't know the first thing about manufacturing models and could be way off base.
John
twhiteFunny thing, I've been showing photos of some of my smaller steam lately (just to prove that I HAVE some, LOL!) and several posters have said, "When do we get to see more of your articulateds?" Which makes me kinda/sorta smile. I run my articulateds, sure. But a lot of times when I'm in a purely 'operational' mode--at least as much as my MR will allow--I'm usually running 2-8-0's, 4-6-0's, 4-6-2's and my neat little fleet of 2-8-2's. None of these, BTW, are USRA's, because USRA types, historically speaking, never made a dent in either of my prototype rosters. HOWEVER, it seems to be the 2-10-2's and larger that get the attention.
That does not seem to surprise me. I'm getting summat here as well except that some people want to come see me running large diesels on what is a shortline? Since when does a --- excuse me for cobbling up something here--SD4000Mac show up on a shortline in my era? Not likely--
But t'is true---the large ones do attract the attention. Our smaller steam/diesels just buckle down and do the work---The Secret Market. It just might work--
Paul3 1/1/1931 Summary 0-4-0 1 0.1% 4-4-2 12 1.5% 2-8-0 15 1.9% 2-8-2 33 4.1% 2-10-2 50 6.2% 0-8-0 54 6.7% 4-6-0 56 6.9% 4-4-0 69 8.5% 4-8-2 70 8.7% 4-6-2 138 17.1% 0-6-0 144 17.8% 2-6-0 167 20.6% Paul A. Cutler III
Paul A. Cutler III
We getting into the Excell spreadsheets again?
I noticed the 2-6-0's were prevelant. But do you actually FIND them now being done for NH?
Barry:
I'll kinda/sorta jump in here on a purely personal basis.
I model two specific railroads--Rio Grande and Southern Pacific, and as everyone knows, I'm 95% steam by choice. Which means that for power, I've got to go at least 95% brass for ANY kind of Rio Grande steam, and about 80% for Southern Pacific (unless I want a currently available mfgr's models, which would make my SP roster nothing but either Cab-Forwards or GS-4's and pretty much ignore everything else.) .
In order to get small or medium steam for EITHER railroad (everything from an 0-6-0 to a 2-8-2) I still have to go used brass. Frankly, I've gotten so used to doing used brass that I just kind of shrug and say, "Okay, here we go," when I'm looking for a new steam loco for either railroad, either small, medium or large. Now personally, I don't mind, I like 'tinkering', and more often than not, I'm pretty amazed at how well they run right out of the box. And I think that in my case, being railroad specific, it's pretty much how it WILL be.
Funny thing, I've been showing photos of some of my smaller steam lately (just to prove that I HAVE some, LOL!) and several posters have said, "When do we get to see more of your articulateds?" Which makes me kinda/sorta smile. I run my articulateds, sure. But a lot of times when I'm in a purely 'operational' mode--at least as much as my MR will allow--I'm usually running 2-8-0's, 4-6-0's, 4-6-2's and my neat little fleet of 2-8-2's. None of these, BTW, are USRA's, because USRA types, historically speaking, never made a dent in either of my prototype rosters. HOWEVER, it seems to be the 2-10-2's and larger that get the attention.
'Tis a puzzlement. But I'll tell you one thing, if Spectrum or anyone else ever came out with a RTR plastic version of a Rio Grande C-48 2-8-0, or one of those delicious SP series of the same wheel arrangement, I'd have a fleet of them so fast it would make your--and my--head spin!
Maybe it's a market that we steam lovers have to keep secret among us. Heck, I don't know.
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!
Sheldon,C'mon, you can't say, "My position has never been that these companies should not make large steam..." when you also say "What we don't need is another 4-8-4 or 4-12-4, or 2-10-2." If you are telling folks they don't need something, that's the same as saying they shouldn't make something, 'cause if you don't need it, why make it? Right?
BTW, what "record breaking sales numbers" are there for the Bachmann 2-8-0? Considering that sales numbers are probably the most highly kept secret in the hobby today, how can anyone (other than Bachmann) know they had "record breaking sales"?
If the 2-8-0 is the evidence of this supposed high interest in small steam, then where is the interest in the Athearn/Roundhouse 4-6-0 and 2-6-0? Or the Bachmann 4-4-0? Do these have "record breaking sales numbers" too?
Just for fun, I looked up my New Haven RR Summaries of Equipment:
citylimitsI can't see many of those manufactuers being idiotic enough to mearly churn out a plethora of large steamers designed to satisy a market that exists mainly in the minds of their marketing and product developement departments. I guess that experience in the market has shown them that large steamers will sell well, so that is what they produce.Anyway, as I've mentioned before, I prefer the smaller steamer because of the way they fit into my modeling. One thing I have done to give variety to my small fleet of 0-6-0 steamers - other steamers will follow - is to decorate then differently. I've used models by separate manufactuers and detailed them in such a way as if they had been modified while being shopped as was often the way with the prototype roads.
I think CNJ made this point sometime back about these trends. The idea that a company being "idiotic" enough to merely turn out large locos is pointed but the problem is we are seeing it occurring right now. Some other markets have displayed that very behaviour in recent years in other ways. In the rush for the quick buck whole segments of the hobby market get hardly anything at all.
It might be interesting to see just how many hobbyists do buy the large locos for just the collection end of things to see just how deep that money pit potentially is. Because if it is as deep as I think it is, we may be seeing this dog and pony show trending this way for awhile yet. And if this is so, then the ol' used loco market may just be the way to go---if not, then----?
Tjsingle.................... The big boy is popular because people see it as an american locomotive that is famous as well K4's, Daylights and others. Railroads had more then 4-12-2's...
Locomotives such as the big steamers of the Pacific Coast RR's are, to use a hackneyed term, iconic. So are probably the motive power of other roads - Lil' Joe's and the Pen GG1. Anybody with even a smattering of railroad knowledge - like myself - can recognise these locomotives. Cab forward and big-boy steamers fall into the same catagory and would be a must for the model collector whose ambition is collecting rather than modeling - or, a combination of the two.
CNJ831 seems to be suggesting that it is the model collector who is driving the production and sales of these big steamers like the 4-12-2 by manufactuers - kind of like they are becoming to resemble the activities of Franklin Mint who, back in the day, themselves offered named steamers as part of their range of collectables. Perhaps, CNJ831 is correct and this really is the target market - not the prototpe or freelance modeler whose layouts represent roads that included in their roster mainly locomotives of a more modest wheel arrangement.
I can't see many of those manufactuers being idiotic enough to mearly churn out a plethora of large steamers designed to satisy a market that exists mainly in the minds of their marketing and product developement departments. I guess that experience in the market has shown them that large steamers will sell well, so that is what they produce.Anyway, as I've mentioned before, I prefer the smaller steamer because of the way they fit into my modeling. One thing I have done to give variety to my small fleet of 0-6-0 steamers - other steamers will follow - is to decorate then differently. I've used models by separate manufactuers and detailed them in such a way as if they had been modified while being shopped as was often the way with the prototype roads.
So even if all we are offered in the near future are behemoth steamers and and smaller steamers are being neglected because of this, there are always alternitives to justify further purchases of small steamers already in the stores if prototype activity is your chosen way.
Bruce
blownout cylinder There are problems with anecdotal evidence. However, I think that they are probably the only thing that seems to be brought forward. If someone comes up with surveys, be they from marketing or even from some sociological research group, or even a publisher they usually are called out as partial, or biased, or somesuch. Maybe we should just allow them to be what they are ---useful tools in an ongoing debate.
There are problems with anecdotal evidence. However, I think that they are probably the only thing that seems to be brought forward. If someone comes up with surveys, be they from marketing or even from some sociological research group, or even a publisher they usually are called out as partial, or biased, or somesuch. Maybe we should just allow them to be what they are ---useful tools in an ongoing debate.
In that regard, let me offer the following as an explanation of why small steam seems to greatly outnumber big steam in the brass re-sale marketplace. It's really no mystery.
If one consults a source such as The Brown Book, they immediately find that back in the hey day of brass sales, a couple of decades ago, small steamers were being produced at the ratio of perhaps 10 to 1 or more when compared to really big steamers. By example, PFM alone imported over 10,000 1950 Santa Fe 2-8-0s! That's a number of units far larger than the runs you see for plastic diesels today! Likewise, many of the brass models of yesteryear were representative of railroads that never owned any really large steam.
I think what may have change in more recent years to promote the sales of big steam is that while brass enthusiasts were generally a rather limited faction in the hobby, today's dabbler/collector segment is much greater in numbers. Likewise, this market is broadened even further by the fact that today's large plastic, or composite, steamers are cheaper relative to brass in the past and thus rather more affordable. So, as others have long since pointed out here, the manufacturers are aiming their products toward these individuals, rather than with an eye toward the practicing model railroader.
citylimitsJust another take on the "fleamarket" and used model experiences. Perhaps the over representation of so called, small, steamers is that these are offered for sale from deseased estates. Those dear departed MRR bretheren are having their collections liquidated by the widow or family and there were no large locomotives in the collection. Or, perhaps the large steamers being arguably more valuable have been listed on eBay, by way of an example.This of course dosen't represent all situations but it is perhaps another factor to consider in what is anecdotal eveidence.
And most of the fleamarket goodies do come from estate sales. I'm not so sure there are large numbers of living MR's who just dump their small steam on the market. It appears that that is the case but are we so sure? Not so much.
The question of why the market is large steam dominated has to take into account the collector and the role s/he plays in keeping the MRR market thriving. And how the small steam market can be addressed in this----maybe by making more----exotic small steam?
blownout cylinder When I was at the Woodstock Trainshow back in April '09 I saw a lot of brass small steam engines--2-6-0's, 2-8-0's, 4-4-0's, 2-4-0's 2-4-0T's --and such but not one big lokie. Even in plastic, or what have you small by the bucket load and no big ones. I would kind of think that therefore the market is pretty much run by what the collector wants. The small steam just did not seem to move. And yes, big steam seems to be the driving force in this market. Even the secondary markets prove this. What ends up on the fleamarket spaces? Small steam. Very rarely will I come across big steam on a fleamarket table--and if I do, it is in millipieces. Hence what seems to be happening is that the companies, yes, are going to where the money is. The question might be raised. Does it have to be ONLY this way? How to answer that would be tricky.
When I was at the Woodstock Trainshow back in April '09 I saw a lot of brass small steam engines--2-6-0's, 2-8-0's, 4-4-0's, 2-4-0's 2-4-0T's --and such but not one big lokie. Even in plastic, or what have you small by the bucket load and no big ones. I would kind of think that therefore the market is pretty much run by what the collector wants. The small steam just did not seem to move. And yes, big steam seems to be the driving force in this market. Even the secondary markets prove this. What ends up on the fleamarket spaces? Small steam. Very rarely will I come across big steam on a fleamarket table--and if I do, it is in millipieces.
Hence what seems to be happening is that the companies, yes, are going to where the money is. The question might be raised. Does it have to be ONLY this way? How to answer that would be tricky.
Just another take on the "fleamarket" and used model experiences. Perhaps the over representation of so called, small, steamers is that these are offered for sale from deseased estates. Those dear departed MRR bretheren are having their collections liquidated by the widow or family and there were no large locomotives in the collection. Or, perhaps the large steamers being arguably more valuable have been listed on eBay, by way of an example.This of course dosen't represent all situations but it is perhaps another factor to consider in what is anecdotal eveidence.