Hi All,
I've been in these forums for a while and I notice some common topic threads. I'm going to ask a question that ties some of them together. The topics have been discussed before, individually, but I'm trying to see them in a related sense. The topics are quality, availability, price, realism and the types of prototypes that manufacturers seem to think we want.
I'm seeing a lot of unmet demand for what we're calling "smaller" steam locos, say a 4-8-4 or similar size. If a model or models of several of the more popular Whyte classifications like the example above were available what would be your expectations?
Given the tremendous variety that existed between otherwise similar locomotives built by differing manufacturers in steams heyday, (not to mention the railroads that rolled their own) what would be an acceptable compromise for you? Would slight variations in wheelbase, driver diameter prevent you from considering a model? What if a kit were offered that required that you supply (from a well stocked options list) different sand/steam domes, valve gear, headlight location and type and so on? Parts that only required you to ACC or epoxy them in position. How willing would you be to make the required changes to your purchase to optimize it for your road or prototype?
I know companies like Bowser used to make (and may still make, I'm not sure) die cast locos of specific prototypes that were basic but solid and could be detailed with a kit of accessories. With their decline, we're stuck at the moment with some fairly good plastic locos, but I see a lot of griping about grade performance. If we want heavier, more "tonnage" capable locos is it possible we may have to compromise on the RTR concept to regain affordability and useful pulling power. BUT, if we're willing to accept some less than ideal aspects of a model (if it's "customizable" enough) maybe we can have our cake and eat at least some of it. One good thing about an approach like that is it's up to the buyer to determine what level of detail and realism is good enough for the buck. If all you care about is pulling trains, then you don't need to spend money on all the "bells and whistles".
What say you? Are we stuck with our current choices or are we willing to do some of the more specific chores to make our engines more prototypical? What would you call a good compromise, if you're willing to compromise?
Lou
Information.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Everything!
But where would I put it all?
Lots more information.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
To live my life over again knowing the error of my ways.
Don't Ever Give Up
posters who know the difference between to, too and two. after they learn that, they can go on to their, there and they're. bad spellers of the world-untie!!!
grizlump ( bilingual. or doesn't pig latin count? )
grizlump9 posters who know the difference between to, too and two. after they learn that, they can go on to their, there and they're. bad spellers of the world-untie!!! grizlump ( bilingual. or doesn't pig latin count? )
Add to that posters that know the difference between also and all so and what compound words are such together, Thanksgiving instead of Thanks giving etc.
Sorry all, I had to edit and repost, I hit enter and Vista took it all away! Real post is now in place.
MisterBeasleyInformation.
"Whose side are you on?"
"That would be telling. We want information .. information .. information."
"You won't get it."
"By hook or by crook, we will."
I'm not a number! I am a free man!
Javelina Hi All, I've been in these forums for a while and I notice some common topic threads. I'm going to ask a question that ties some of them together. The topics have been discussed before, individually, but I'm trying to see them in a related sense. The topics are quality, availability, price, realism and the types of prototypes that manufacturers seem to think we want. I'm seeing a lot of unmet demand for what we're calling "smaller" steam locos, say a 4-8-4 or similar size. If a model or models of several of the more popular Whyte classifications like the example above were available what would be your expectations? Given the tremendous variety that existed between otherwise similar locomotives built by differing manufacturers in steams heyday, (not to mention the railroads that rolled their own) what would be an acceptable compromise for you? Would slight variations in wheelbase, driver diameter prevent you from considering a model? What if a kit were offered that required that you supply (from a well stocked options list) different sand/steam domes, valve gear, headlight location and type and so on? Parts that only required you to ACC or epoxy them in position. How willing would you be to make the required changes to your purchase to optimize it for your road or prototype? I know companies like Bowser used to make (and may still make, I'm not sure) die cast locos of specific prototypes that were basic but solid and could be detailed with a kit of accessories. With their decline, we're stuck at the moment with some fairly good plastic locos, but I see a lot of griping about grade performance. If we want heavier, more "tonnage" capable locos is it possible we may have to compromise on the RTR concept to regain affordability and useful pulling power. BUT, if we're willing to accept some less than ideal aspects of a model (if it's "customizable" enough) maybe we can have our cake and eat at least some of it. One good thing about an approach like that is it's up to the buyer to determine what level of detail and realism is good enough for the buck. If all you care about is pulling trains, then you don't need to spend money on all the "bells and whistles". What say you? Are we stuck with our current choices or are we willing to do some of the more specific chores to make our engines more prototypical? What would you call a good compromise, if you're willing to compromise? Lou
Good questions. I think for smaller steam, an upgrade in scale size would be in order. With the absence of bowser, there is brass, which is fine for DC in HO scale. But with DCC modelers, and those who prefer plastic locos, they may want to reconsider what scale to work with.
On30 is a great choice for those who prefer not going the vintage brass or kit-bashing route. I think if more people bought Bachmann On30 engines, there would slowly be more of a need to produce many other smaller steam engines.
IMHO the 4-4-0 in On30 is far superior to many plastic steam engines in HO, particulary of that era and size. For smaller steam, On30 is the way of the future. Just my opinion of course.
Due to some recent controversies, as a disclaimer, I will say, this picture is NOT mine. I pulled it off google images.
Every scale has its place and purpose. The smaller the scale, the harder it is to make smaller locos ready to run. Thats why I think some people might want to consider leaving HO (or at least putting to the side) for On30.
I want someone to come here and ballast my track! I hate doing it, it is so slow.
First of all a 4-8-4 is not small, and they are well represented in HO, especially considering how few there were in real life.
What is not well represented is 1900 to 1940's small and medeum sized power.
4-4-2's, 4-6-2's, 4-6-0's, 2-8-0's, 2-6-2's, and even 2-8-2's
And I disgree with any notion that one must go to a larger scale to get good running versions of these locos. We had them years ago, surely we can do it again.
Sheldon
A catalog of accurate detailed color photographs of the prototype, which one, all of them of course.
and a credit card with no limit and zero interest.
mozetti "Whose side are you on?" "That would be telling. We want information .. information .. information." "You won't get it." "By hook or by crook, we will." I'm not a number! I am a free man!
You are number 6
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/
ATLANTIC CENTRAL First of all a 4-8-4 is not small, and they are well represented in HO, especially considering how few there were in real life. What is not well represented is 1900 to 1940's small and medeum sized power. 4-4-2's, 4-6-2's, 4-6-0's, 2-8-0's, 2-6-2's, and even 2-8-2's And I disgree with any notion that one must go to a larger scale to get good running versions of these locos. We had them years ago, surely we can do it again. Sheldon
Pretty much said right here.
As said, why does one have to go to a larger scale anyways-----
More variety in city and/or town brick buildings. The stuff that is available now (ie Walther's Cornerstone, DPM, Smalltown Series, Scale Structures etc.) is fine. Only one problem, when you see one downtown area of a layout you have seen them all.
Gotta agree with you Sheldon,
Small in my mind is anything with 4 or 6 drivers and maybe the smaller 8 drive wheels like 2-8-0.
These will fit and look good on my bedroom size layout, anything bigger looks out of place, especially on my 24" curves.
Alan Jones in Sunny Queensland (Oz)
blownout cylinder ATLANTIC CENTRAL First of all a 4-8-4 is not small, and they are well represented in HO, especially considering how few there were in real life. What is not well represented is 1900 to 1940's small and medeum sized power. 4-4-2's, 4-6-2's, 4-6-0's, 2-8-0's, 2-6-2's, and even 2-8-2's And I disgree with any notion that one must go to a larger scale to get good running versions of these locos. We had them years ago, surely we can do it again. Sheldon Pretty much said right here. As said, why does one have to go to a larger scale anyways-----
Sometimes being in the very presence of a larger scale train makes you feel like you're actually there at the railroad even more so than seeing a highly detailed large layout with small trains running, I'm not saying one is better than the other, its all subjective, and I love all scales of trains, but I'm starting to prefer the larger ones when it comes to steam.
An extreme example being at the Strasburg Railroad Museum, they have some #1 scale trains behind the glass made by Fine Art models, awesome, but too expensive and large for my taste, but I could see going for maybe one 2 rail O scale Steam engine as a compromise, even if it ran mostly for display purposes.
Hi,
Allow me to clarify some things about my OP. I should have made it clear I was referring to HO, my error. Also, while I'll have to agree my choice of a 4-8-4 doesn't qualify as small, I originally said "smaller" because I've seen a fair amount of griping about the unavailability of "smaller" locos. So let's revise that size down some.
Here's what I was getting at. My wife and I own and run a small machine shop. Business is good, but I've harbored fantasies about producing a product in one or both of two interests of mine. Model railroading is a big one, hence the post. I'm trying to determine if only a fool would attempt to manufacture a model here in the USA. I'm aware of domestic companies like Accurail that make freight cars but I'm not aware of any new domestic manufacturers of locomotives. I thought that this forum, with it's mix of styles, periods and preferences would be a great place to get ideas.
I've been a machinist my whole adult life (and then some). None of the processes of making a product like a locomotive are foreign to me. While I harbor no delusions of shouldering the giants aside, I do think hobbies in general are good places for the Davids among us to offer our products and services.
Those of us who have complained in these forums about the lack of steamers in sizes and types we would prefer don't have much of a chance of influencing large manufacturers to see things our way. They've got to have big numbers to justify their overhead(and if it doesn't work out, the rest of their line can carry the looser). How they arrive at the conclusions they do about which prototypes to offer models of is a question that we've all thought about. Some of us have discussed that here. I not trying to make you all into a "focus group" (God forbid) but I've come to recognize a fair degree of intelligence among my fellow forum denizens. I know that many of you have VERY specific preferences. So I thought I'd just shake the idea tree a little and see what falls out. I don't expect all the fruit to be ripe or even edible.
That covers a lot of territory and considerable variations in size regardless of wheel arrangement. A Cotton Belt 4-4-2 was a real lightweight and only had 70" drivers. An 80" drivered Pennsy E6, on the other hand, was more powerful than a number of Pacifics. Even as far as 4-8-4's go, they were all over the place in size varying from 361,000 lbs (engine only) on the TP&W to 510,000 lbs (engine only) on the AT&SF with drivers ranging in size from 69" on the TP&W to 80" on the drivers of the UP, SP, ATSF, and ACL. GN's O-8 Mikados were bigger than some 4-8-4's, so it's all relative.
I think what you're getting at is more of a concentration on middle-sized engines. For instance, an NC&STL J-3 or Cotton Belt L-1 sized 4-8-4 would be more layout friendly than a GS-4, an NYC S-1 or a Santa Fe 3776/2900 class. While both a USRA Light and Heavy 2-8-2 are moderate size engines, the light's a bit more in keeping with the relatively short trains we can run as is the light Pacific in comparison with the Heavy.
What would be nice (although I ain't holding my breath until it happens) would be some lighter Pacifics than the USRA light (say something along the lines of a Harriman light, a Santa Fe 1226 class or even an NKP K-1). A Harriman Mikado would be a nice contrast to the USRA engines and could be used alongside USRA engines as examples of earlier Mikado purchases.
There is, of course, always the question of what period you want the locos to represent and it gets tougher the older the prototype is. Do you want your Atlantic to look like this SP A-3? http://espee.railfan.net/nonindex/steam-02/3048_sp-steam-a03-byron_bostwick.jpg
Or like this SP A-6 (rebuilt from an A-3)? http://espee.railfan.net/sp_steam_a-06.html
You know, there's one thing that, on reflection, surprises me. Why hasn't anyone done the Santa Fe 1950 class 2-8-0 that was so popular when it was being made in brass by United and imported by PFM? I also think the Southern Ps-4 would be a big seller.
Please pardon the rambling.
Andre
mozettiI'm not a number! I am a free man!
I was hoping someone would get the reference.
First, for those who didn't watch this thread evolve, the original post was blank, thanks to the OP's use of Windows Vista. So, all we had to go on was the title, "What do you want?"
I had a computer issue of my own at work last week. To resolve it, I had to call our outsourced corporate IT support line. They, in turn, wanted the answers to my "security questions" to verify my identity. I had quite forgotten the questions and answers I'd provided, so it was very surreal to actually have this conversation with someone in Texas:
What do you want?
Who is Number 1?
You are Number 6.
I agree on this one as well.
Two sure fire hits that continually come up but get ignored are the PRR H class 2-8-0 and the "standardized" Harriman counterpart.
There are soo many PRR modelers literally aching for consols that they would sell like those proverbial hotcakes. What the Harrinan lines lack in pure road specific followers is partially made up by the fact that multiple controlled roads had the same or very simmilar units.
IMO both winners and both very functional on medium to small layouts.
I'm fotunate to have 15x19, but more than 15 cars is operationally pushing it for that space and any fewer looks silly behind a 2-10-anything.
It has always amazed me that most layouts built (check this forum) are 4x8, but most locos sold are passenger and need to pull 80ft cars at 65 mph. Perhaps a slight exageration, but you see the point.
After those two I think the desires get real granular and difficult to estimate as far as sales potential.
Put me down for six H10s please.
Kerry AKA- the new number 6.
edit- aw that was the new number 2, wasn't it?
Patrick McGoohan (#6) was one of the many celebrity deaths in '09.
...and BTW- thanks to AL Gore's internet (and George Bush's internets), we all now do, in fact have information!
andrechapelon You know, there's one thing that, on reflection, surprises me. Why hasn't anyone done the Santa Fe 1950 class 2-8-0 that was so popular when it was being made in brass by United and imported by PFM? I also think the Southern Ps-4 would be a big seller. Please pardon the rambling. Andre
Andre:
I'm with you on the 1950 2-8-0. For one, it's cuter than a Bug. Heck, I've got two of them and I don't even MODEL Santa Fe, LOL!
I remember when it was terrifically popular back then, and I also remember seeing it decalled (and often kit-bashed) for every little 'short line'--both imaginary and prototypical under the sun. Okay, it's not 'generic' like that little Spectrum Baldwin 2-8-0, but it was (and probably still is) a mainstay on a lot of model railroads. And it was a darned good little runner (mine still are).
Along with the PRR H-series and the "Harriman's", I think the 1950 2-8-0 just might get a lot of people away from Big Boys on 22" radius and into a nice, hefty, MEDIUM-SMALL loco that they'd probably fall in love with pretty quick.
Just my thoughts, you understand. Heck, I'd even do cartwheels for a non-brass Rio Grande C-48. Like the Santa Fe, it was cute and stubby and did the job.
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's another vote for things like a 2-8-0, 2-6-2, etc. I don't know if I'll ever have the basement that will support big steam (or big diesels either for that matter).
I would go for a good quality kit, that was designed from the ground (rails?) up to be "kitbasher" friendly. That is key parts like domes, valve gear, stacks, cabs could be interchangeable among a common set. I don't know if this is making sense, but you could buy the locomotive kit, tender kit, and a detailing kit to create the locomotive you wanted. I'm all for kit building, it's a dying art in our hobby.
A modular system for steam loco construction? This could be taken even further - interchangeable fireboxes (Wootten or Belpaire), cabs, etc.
The Location: Forests of the Pacific Northwest, OregonThe Year: 1948The Scale: On30The Blog: http://bvlcorr.tumblr.com
tbdanny A modular system for steam loco construction? This could be taken even further - interchangeable fireboxes (Wootten or Belpaire), cabs, etc.
It can be accomplished fairly easily as well. Base or foundation could be the frame and boiler---choice of motors, gearing, parts and finishing details to spec. I think this type of kit approach was done in the past and done fairly well.
A friend of mine and I are thinking about doing this as a cottage, or rather, niche business. The market may not be as large as all that right at the start but there is room for growth----
Silver Pilot grizlump9 posters who know the difference between to, too and two. after they learn that, they can go on to their, there and they're. bad spellers of the world-untie!!! grizlump ( bilingual. or doesn't pig latin count? ) Add to that posters that know the difference between also and all so and what compound words are such together, Thanksgiving instead of Thanks giving etc.
I stopped caring whether some of the posters here had ever, ever heard of a period, comma, or question mark after Good ol' Bergie once sent me a nastygram informing me that this is a model railroad forum and not an English 101 class. With that in mind I have avoided grammatical issues with the same fervor as I avoid exposure to the bubonic plague!
And there may(?) be restrictions on the shrinkability of an N-Scale steam engine but if Bachmann can squeeze in a generic(?) Consolidation there is hope for a future Uncle John's 1950 or a Zulu.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
Though it is very disconcerting for Lee English to now be manufacturing paper only in the U.S. (after nearly 40 years of his personally building trains here in America), the cold hard fact is that Bowser will NEVER make another steam engine, kit or otherwise, in the U.S. Parts will also no longer be stocked.
(EDIT - the parts for some of the freight cars are still molded in the U.S., but assembled in China).
To the best of my knowledge the last kits have been packed from the last parts. They are contemplating removing the few remaining sample locomotives from their store wall and only showing items they continue to produce (all of which are from China).
It is utterly foolish for anyone to even consider manufacturing steam locomotives in the U.S.
Real world money example (perhaps a couple years out of date now): Producing a fine can motor here in the U.S. would result in a retail price exceeding $20 for that can motor. You can buy fine can motors in China, in lots of 10,000 minimum, and have them shipped here to your doorstep for about $4 per can motor, delivered. Now, if you are competing against the likes of Atlas, are you going to eat $16 per engine to make the motors here in America, or are you going to buy them somewhere else?
I have all the respect in the world for Kadee, and the high quality standard of their freight cars. I sincerely wish them the best in continuing to produce them in America for as long as possible.
Die-cast engines cannot be made here. Too many environmental regulations on the casting operations, taxes on small business, benefit costs, etc. I personally made the plaster waste from lost wax brass casting (of the model train detail parts) into solid bricks by mixing it with cement so that it could be legally disposed of in Pennsylvania without being "hazardous waste". Many readers may not fully appreciate the effort it takes to produce diecast model trains in America...I'm sorry to say it will not be coming back until all cheap producing countries elsewhere are exhausted.
Some people don't like MTH's prices--if you made it here, you could easily take their price and triple it, and it likely would not be enough.
Who wants to pay $1500 for a diecast MTH-quality 4-8-2 made in America? I'd love to see the Rio Grande M-75 or M-78 4-8-2's--they were awesome beasts. Last time I checked, $1500 would cover the latest brass import of that engine--which offers more detail than what is typically found on an MTH model.
Which has a better chance of selling? The limited production brass import or American-made diecast with some brass details? What would you buy?
John