I got a better response than I imagined! I firmly believe that this will work...probably not in this current economy, however. I DO NOT MEAN DISRESPECT TO ANYONE IN MY NEXT COMMENTS:
This idea isn't meant for the "daisy picker" or people who like red,blue or green trains. It is geared towards the modeler who is looking for something more out of there hobby. It does not have to be so difficult that someone with average or even limited skills could enjoy.
This is just an idea for us to progress to our next 'cool' or 'awesome' thing in our hobby. I can remember when some folks said that our steam locomotives would not get better than Rivarossi in detail and running ability......look at us now. It all happened because we demanded more from producers. Remember when we thought that DCC was WAY too expensive and that it would go away as fast as it came? Wow!
Like the Good Book says: We have not cause we ask not. Ask, and ye shall receive.
Thanks for all the responses...positive and negative. Now, if you will excuse me, I have to get the Crescent out on the main behind a highly detailed, 30 year old,DCC equipped, Rivarossi made, Southern Railway heavy pacific. Did I mention that its powered by a Digitrax Super Chief set? : )
seppburgh2 I've been away from the hobby for 25 + years and started back last Christmas when my wife presented me with a Broadway limited 4-4-4-4. Wow, but on my DC power pack, the low speed performance left me asking, how's come? Even more so when the 6 wheel Walter's heavy weight passenger cars refused to roll over 22 inch curves! Well, in the last few months I've learned that all the wealth of kits, parts, reasonably price motive power and cars are gone! What was a reasonable hobby growing up in the 60's/70's doesn't exist. And knowing now a once great company Athearn charges several hundred dollars for a F-7 and don't care to support their products, I don't have a warm feeling for the hobby any more. Maybe its time to take up flying model airplanes. The last I look, balsa wood is still available.
I've been away from the hobby for 25 + years and started back last Christmas when my wife presented me with a Broadway limited 4-4-4-4. Wow, but on my DC power pack, the low speed performance left me asking, how's come? Even more so when the 6 wheel Walter's heavy weight passenger cars refused to roll over 22 inch curves!
Well, in the last few months I've learned that all the wealth of kits, parts, reasonably price motive power and cars are gone! What was a reasonable hobby growing up in the 60's/70's doesn't exist. And knowing now a once great company Athearn charges several hundred dollars for a F-7 and don't care to support their products, I don't have a warm feeling for the hobby any more. Maybe its time to take up flying model airplanes. The last I look, balsa wood is still available.
Since when are full length (80-85 ft) passenger cars supposed to roll around a 22" radius (especially since Walthers recommends a minimum of 24" http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/932-9341 )? Certainly, the old Walthers wood and metal heavyweights of yore wouldn't do so without some major compromises and without the fantastic detail available today.
As for Athearn F7's, you can get them for considerably less than several hundred dollars. http://www.athearn.com/Search/Default.aspx?SearchTerm=F7+A%2fB+RTR&CatID=THLD They just won't be Genesis models, but essentially the same engines available 40 years ago with some internal improvements, better truck sideframes and better paint jobs.
I don't know what you expected, but if you expected things to the same as 25-30 years ago, you had unrealistic expectations. 30 years ago, I could buy a new car for under $5,000. Try that today. IIRC, 30 years ago, I could fly from SFO to LAX for around $30 and that was without restrictions. Ain't gonna happen today even with non-refundable tickets (and especially not with all the crap add-on charges the airlines demand).
Things change. Even so, there's more available now than at any time in the hobby.
Andre
There is always building your own locomotive from scratch. I am working on a 4-2-4 based on the C.P. Huntington in TT scale. The only commerical parts are the wheels, gears, and motor. The rest is sheet brass, wood, and plastic.
If you want a specific locomotive, or car for that matter, scratchbuilding is always an option.
So many scales, so many trains, so little time.....
I actually think that it is doable to at least place the drivers about equal and still have the thing look like an E10 the differences were small enough that you could get into a discussion as to which exactly you just saw there----I've seen some photos taken that had both E10's and B15's being used up here and there was little difference really obvious---
That photograph btw was taken from the former Palmerston yard in Palmerston ON.
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/
The B-15 is very close in size to the CN loco, with the same over-all wheelbase, although the driver wheelbase of the B&M loco is slightly longer. The extra length is located between the first and second drivers, with the space equal between all three driver sets. The CN loco has a similar spacing between the second and third drivers as on the B&M loco, with the lead drivers closer to the second set.
Some slide valves would be required for the B-15 , although I may modernise mine one of these days.
Wayne
Actually it would be the CN prototype ---- heeheehee Can't get much simpler than this:
Well, it ain't one of these: http://espee.railfan.net/nonindex/steam-01/1654_sp-steam-m04-gene_deimling.jpg , but it's a neat looking engine. Judging from some of the info I've been able to glean, the E-10 and the M-4's capabilites appear to be very similar.
Will pieces parts (e.g. drivers, cylinder saddles, etc. be available separately)?
Maybe it's just the pics, but the CN engine looks a bit smaller than the SP M-4. However, they did use the same sized drivers and the rigid wheelbase looks similar. The M-4 was good
Incidentally, have you any idea how close the CN engine is to a B&M B-15 Mogul? You might be able to cover several prototypes with a single base engine and different details.
Even if you stick strictly with the E-10, I think you've got a winner.
andrechapelon We got our eyes set on a kit involving a 2-6-0 mogul---frame, predrilled boiler, rods, wheelsets, handrails, et al---we'll see how this goes---- Would I be way off base in assuming it will follow a CN prototype or am I engaging in some kind of profiling since you're one of them there Canadians and it would seem to follow that you would favor your fellow countrymen? Andre
We got our eyes set on a kit involving a 2-6-0 mogul---frame, predrilled boiler, rods, wheelsets, handrails, et al---we'll see how this goes----
Would I be way off base in assuming it will follow a CN prototype or am I engaging in some kind of profiling since you're one of them there Canadians and it would seem to follow that you would favor your fellow countrymen?
Then maybe ----- we can?
Actually we can consider something a little more generic----
doctorwayneYou're right, Andre, the raw material is available, and probably moreso than ever.
Then let's take this back to the OP's point, and moake it more availbe. More tneders that can be purchased seperately would help some people. Bachmann has that market pretty well, but if someone could sell GS or Cab tenders, then the frelancers can have at them. Athearn has the aux. tendes for the UP, but they're being sold for the price of a kidney. And, if more companies could do liek Bowser did, and sell chassis and body separately, then you have your raw materials. It doesn't have to go as far as individual driver parts, the majority would be happy enought to buy an entire chassis of one engien and the shell of another to cut down from Bachmann. They'd even get repair business, as I have a few engines I want/need drives for.
Then again, there's a reason that Bowser quit their kits and selling the parts to them. I don't knwo what it is, but its probably the reaosn no one else will start.
2-6-6-2Bachmann's 4-8-2. Ok, here is where it stops making sense. A loco based on a C&O prototype (hey, fine with me, I model C&O!) that the real railroad owned a whopping NINE examples of. Thats how many 4-8-2s, of all classes, C&O had. Nine. OK, ill concede, its a good pseudogeneric USRA loco, but still has a lot of C&O specific bits.
Here's where it makes sense though: The 4-8-2s roamed int the coal-haulingmountains that are a favorite to model. Sure, C&O had booku other locos, but they also had booku miles of track, that is largely forgotten about. Did you know they had track in Indiana? Most people don't. But if I say C&O, they immeidately think of places like Thurmond.
Or, they think of the George Washignton. Which, Bachmann was able to seel with their Spetrumc passenger cars. And do a decent train out of. And I suspect, beign able to do that boxset, is as large a reaosn as any for producing the Heavies.
Then again, I hve no idea why I'm here. I am one of those uneducated little fools who likes causing himself pain. To date, every project I;ve tried to accomplish screws up somehow. Dr. Wayne was able to set me straight on glues, but I've run the gamut from a bachmann F40PH truck-->chassis screw strippping to paint flaking up despite a washed shell. And yet, I'm still bound and determined to break something else. (This is frustration) I'm about ready to give up on a model of the 47 Freedom train, but I still have a model steamer I want to build, a fantasy experimental loco by my Free-lance. So far on it, I've melted one ditch light shot two into oblivion trying to drill them out, I still need to drill out the lights for the main headlight casing. It's going for all bloddy ever. That said though, once it's done, I don't see me doing anymore locos, other than a GP10, that I might actually go buy the shell for and call it done.
-Morgan
I agree the detail parts are not so expensive to make in and of themselves--but the challenges are in the R&D/engineering/marketing: deciding what should fit where, what should be a separate casting or assembly, how to hide mold lines, etc. along with what will sell and how many units you need to sell to make some money--then finally the assembly or use directions and advertising to "create" your market.
I wish you well with the kits. At least some people will buy them. I hope it is enough that you make some money.
Best Regards--
John
Well, I don't know about you but I can see the day come when there will be no market for the kitbashers or scratchbuilders to get their parts or pieces. That will be because the paranoia around the cost factor will drive many away from this.
Look, I'm just saying that there other ways of doing things that do not need the huge $$$ outlay that many of you shell shocked guys were seeing. The "rules" of economics are such that there are arguments about this type of stuff all over--they are in a state of flux. The detail parts are not so bloody expensive to make as what you were exposed to--maybe the brass pieces are/were but other materials were not so expensive.
blownout cylinder UP 4-12-2Narrow-vision? Inventory costs money--money nobody has or is willing to borrow anymore Sheeesh! Yes Inventory costs money! So does missing opportunities!! I do wonder sometimes about how this hobby ever got started in the first place when all one hears about is how expensive holding inventory is----where are you holding this inventory? In a 50,000 sq. ft. warehouse with 3 phase wiring?!
UP 4-12-2Narrow-vision? Inventory costs money--money nobody has or is willing to borrow anymore
Sheeesh! Yes Inventory costs money! So does missing opportunities!!
I do wonder sometimes about how this hobby ever got started in the first place when all one hears about is how expensive holding inventory is----where are you holding this inventory? In a 50,000 sq. ft. warehouse with 3 phase wiring?!
Yes, Barry, you actually do need a warehouse--maybe not quite 50000 sf, but nevertheless, a decent sized one--just to have room to work, pick orders, hold some for payment, ship them, etc.
Even in the "good old days" every time a run of Atlas, Stewart or Kato engines came in, the distributor had to borrow $30000 to $40000 just to pay for them (they weren't all presold). Now, given the choice between handling all those engines or low turnover, low-profit parts--well, much more of the sales were engines.
As some have already pointed out quite well--there are so many different part numbers; the manufacturers don't have time or mechanical expertise to explain all possible prototypical installations of every given steam loco detail part in their instructions, etc.
Many of the brass detail parts still available today were originally produced for the Japanese or Korean brass manufacturers, and then were subsequently made available to the American public by Cal-Scale and the others. However, those parts just don't sell all that well any more.
You can argue with me all you want on these forums, but if it is really that important to you and you have the expertise, go ahead make the investment and take the leap into production. If you do, I wish you well.
twhite... I'm still kit-bashing and tinkering. It's fun. Tom
Tom
And some pretty-nice "tinkering", too.
Havent been to this forum in a while..."nice" changes theyve made to how it works...
Yeah, people find it way way easier to buy expensive RTR stuff, and no one wants to chop up their expensive toys (i just convinced myself that it wont kill me to try it. Dosent mean I wasnt nervous about it!) but the manufacturers could sure do a lot more for us, especially in N, than they do.
Some recent loco releases that made sense; Bachmann's H-4. C&O had hundreds of 2-6-6-2s, and 175 of this class alone. OK, makes sense to me.
Bachmann's 4-8-2. Ok, here is where it stops making sense. A loco based on a C&O prototype (hey, fine with me, I model C&O!) that the real railroad owned a whopping NINE examples of. Thats how many 4-8-2s, of all classes, C&O had. Nine. OK, ill concede, its a good pseudogeneric USRA loco, but still has a lot of C&O specific bits.
And now for the ten coupled steam in N...o, thats right, there isnt any, ConCors dreadful USRA heavy 2-10-2 from a few years ago being the sole horrid exception.
I dont know what the deal is, to be honest. If they would offer, say a K4 and L1 in N, the company doing so would sell skillions of them. But, no one does. Maybe people are obsessed with RTR, and maybe people are scared to cut up their models, and both are quite true.
Dosent help that a lot of us, however, dont have anything at all to even cut up, and what we do, many times, is very, very strange.
twhiteKinda/sorta reminds me of how much mileage Akane got out of their 2-8-8-4 basic mechanism in the early 1960's. They were a Japanese brass manufacturer, and with the same basic driver mechanism, they were able to put out not only a B&O EM-1 but a Missabe M-3-4, and if you flipped the mechanism back to front and re-wired the motor---VOILA! An SP cab-forward.
Makes me wonder how many other companies did the same thing with their chassis. This is great info to mess with ----
twhiteIt's not hard, folks. You don't have to dive into the DEEP end of the pool all at once, you can start out shallow in the Kiddie end, so to speak. Say a new headlight. How about changing out that Delta trailing truck to an earlier USRA? The castings are out there. How about swapping out a tender? Railroads were ALWAYS swapping tenders. Don't like that boiler-tube pilot? Change it out to a footboard. Add a feed-water heater and the accessory piping. Fit an all-weather cab and a 4-wheel trailing truck to that USRA 4-8-2 of yours, there's room under the firebox. And yes, there are castings for all-weather cabs available. You don't want to burn coal but would rather burn oil? File off the coal casting, use some styrene and wire and you've got an oil tender. Santa Fe and Great Northern did that all the time as they maneuvered locomotives between coal-burning midwest and oil-burning west.
That's just the thing of it. I'm not the world's most co-ordinated guy when it comes to putting engines together but I'm doing it. I did the oil tender thing as well as the 4 wheel truck thing. Not that difficult to do---
Kinda/sorta reminds me of how much mileage Akane got out of their 2-8-8-4 basic mechanism in the early 1960's. They were a Japanese brass manufacturer, and with the same basic driver mechanism, they were able to put out not only a B&O EM-1 but a Missabe M-3-4, and if you flipped the mechanism back to front and re-wired the motor---VOILA! An SP cab-forward.
I'm talking basic mechanism and driver spacing, of course, not the boilers or running-gear details (though the locos all came with the same Baldwin disc drivers), but in their own inimitable way, Akane was doing the same thing with big, hulking articulateds that some of the other American manufacturers (Bowser, Varney, Mantua) was doing with their variations on basic mechanisms. The difference was in the details.
Of course, Bowser, Varney and Mantua were meant to be constructed and detailed at the modeler's whim. Akane was Brass and at that time, kind of Expensive, so whatever you got from them you kept as is, LOL! Until Bill Schopp started his--GASP!--series of articles in RMC about how to kitbash brass locos into prototypes that would probably never see the light of day from ANY manufacturer, Brass was Sacrosanct. Even changing out the headlight casting on a brass loco was looked upon as a Cardinal Sin akin to belching in the Vatican, LOL!
Never stopped me. I didn't like the Worthington FWH castings on my 3 Akane Missabe M-3's, so I changed them out to Elescos. Replaced the boiler-front pumps with more detailed ones from Cal-Scale. Changed out the headlights. Added a few other details here and there. Oh, the HORROR of it, I was told. If you sell them, you'll NEVER realize your investment. Why should I sell them? I'm RUNNING them, for cryin' out loud.
Yah, I tinker. Okay, not to the extent of someone like Dr. Wayne who turns ordinary RTR locos into works of art with his incredible kit-bashing skills, or Sheldon, whose RTR locos look as if they BELONG on the same railroad, but I tinker. And brass or plastic, if it needs 'tinkering' to get an approximation of what I want the loco to be, I'll keep on 'tinkering.'
It's not hard, folks. You don't have to dive into the DEEP end of the pool all at once, you can start out shallow in the Kiddie end, so to speak. Say a new headlight. How about changing out that Delta trailing truck to an earlier USRA? The castings are out there. How about swapping out a tender? Railroads were ALWAYS swapping tenders. Don't like that boiler-tube pilot? Change it out to a footboard. Add a feed-water heater and the accessory piping. Fit an all-weather cab and a 4-wheel trailing truck to that USRA 4-8-2 of yours, there's room under the firebox. And yes, there are castings for all-weather cabs available. You don't want to burn coal but would rather burn oil? File off the coal casting, use some styrene and wire and you've got an oil tender. Santa Fe and Great Northern did that all the time as they maneuvered locomotives between coal-burning midwest and oil-burning west.
There's lots of stuff still out there to get the locomotive you want out of that RTR you just picked up at the LHS that kinda/sorta looks like what you want, but isn't really QUITE right.
Hell, I'm 70 and I'm still kit-bashing and tinkering. It's fun.
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!
You're right, Andre, the raw material is available, and probably moreso than ever. However, those willing to do the work are fewer and farther between than in the past. As I noted earlier, the wide selection of r-t-r has not only thinned the builders' ranks, but it's also created a generation of modellers who, for the most part, are unable to do the modification work to get the model which they really want. Some, of course, are satisfied with what's currently being offered (or maybe not satisfied, but waiting for some particular loco in a r-t-r version), but I daresay there's a faction that would be willing to try some modifications if only they knew where to begin.
megh---give me a boiler and some frames---I'll just build'em up----regardless of how much it costs---more fun that way anyways---
Yeah, but you're not one of those constantly kvetching about the cost of the hobby and acting as if you're the victim of some vast conspiracy to extract money from your wallet while you aren't looking.
As well, the point about the cost may be a toss though. Some of that I can see but here we go with how some people have spent boodles of $$$$ on a RTR 2-10-0's or 2-8-8-2's that all look about the same as someone else's yet have the desire for something different in kind and then bemoan the fact that there are all these people buying the same locomotives-----
Well, if people weren't buying them, they wouldn't be made. Still you wonder what all the fuss is about. If you want somehting different, you're going to have to work for it. A Wabash O-1 4-8-4 http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?//july99/07-11-99/wab2914.jpg has the same size drivers as an N&W J. I don't know how good the Spectrum J is, but assuming it's not bad, the chassis could be the starting point for an O-1. It would be work and it wouldn't be cheap. But the choice is fully scratchbuit, use an available chassis as a starting point, buy brass or do without. I doubt that an O-1 will ever appear in plastic. The same chassis could also probably be used as the starting point for an M-1 4-8-2.
Somewhere I saw an N&W K-2 4-8-2 (streamlined) that someone had cobbled together with the Spectrum 4-8-2 chassis and a cut down boiler casting from the pre-Spectrum J. It looked pretty good. With some work, you could probably make a K-1 http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?//march99/03-21-99/ns750.jpg using the Spectrum heavy 4-8-2 as a starting point.. That tender looks a lot like the tender off a Mantua Mike or Pacific. Alternatively, the tender off a Van Sweringen (NKP, C&O, PM) Berkshire could be used.
There's so much raw material out there.
andrechapelonWhat kind of surprised me when I first became aware of it was the amount of steam loco bashing and sem-scratch building going on in N scale given tha rather slim pickings both in steam locos and detail parts for steam locos compared to HO.
There are a couple of fellows up here who have been doing this in N scale for a few years now and they get asked about how to do these things in HO scale a lot. I've really got to get some pix of their work on this site--it is really good stuff
andrechapelonI'm not so sure the sticking point is the modeling aspect as it is a knowledge of steam locomotives. Despite the visual differences, there were a lot of similarities. A 72- 73" driver Pacific is pretty much guaranteed to have a 13 foot rigid wheelbase regardless of the railroad unless the engine was designed to allow larger drivers to be applied (Santa Fe's 3400 class 4-6-2's come to mind) without re-doing the frame. A Bowser Pennsy M1 frame can be used for a whole potload of 4-8-2's with drivers in the 73-73" range, not to mention some of the later NYC 4-8-2's which had frames designed to take either 69 or 72" drivers. The Bowser "USRA" heavy 4-8-2 frame would be good for locos as diverse as Santa Fe 3700 class 4-8-2's, Frisco 1500, 4300 and 4400 (the latter 2 having 70" drivers) class 4-8-2's, any of the USRA 4-8-2's, CofG's 4-8-2's, IC 2500 and 2600's, Wabash M-1's (even though they and the IC engines had 70" drivers), and so forth
This is where things get interesting. Is it possible that what is the sticking point may be the actual dearth of knowledge about steam locomotives in general? I think it may very be that. We are completely floored by the differences in appearence between them but we overlook the similarities very easily---the main parts are actually quite similar to each other, boilers only came in certain sizes--unless one was looking for fireless engines or some such---maybe we all have ADD as well-----distracted by difference and such
As well, the point about the cost may be a toss though. Some of that I can see but here we go with how some people have spent boodles of $$$$ on a RTR 2-10-0's or 2-8-8-2's that all look about the same as someone else's yet have the desire for something different in kind and then bemoan the fact that there are all these people buying the same locomotives-----I find it interesting that there are those who will spend upwards of $100,000 restoring a 1957 Chevrolet 2 door 210 post---and sell it for $40,000-----who then will kvetch about spending about $60.00 more on a scratchbuilt 2-10-2 in HO scale steamer---which has occured up here just recently----
I have come to a point wherein I think the problem is not just that it costs money to get these parts but it is that we did not encourage the would be modellers to take some risks and build up their own locomotives and such. I know of one LHS here that has weekly workshops on building up a 2-8-0 of the generic sort then how one can custom build it to the exact specific model--and Andre's point about using the photographs to do such is spot on---no need for all kinds of wordiness to it---
What kind of surprised me when I first became aware of it was the amount of steam loco bashing and sem-scratch building going on in N scale given tha rather slim pickings both in steam locos and detail parts for steam locos compared to HO.
At least in HO, it's gotten to the point where there are quite a few commercial mechanisms (most notably the Spectrum 2-8-0) that can be used as a starting point. Using a commercial mechanism is probably cheaper, assuming you can find one close to what you need, than building one yourself.
You're not going to save money scratchbuilding a steam locomotive compared to buying one RTR although the cost can be spread over time when you're doing it yourself. A set of drivers for a 2-8-0 will cost you $72 from Greenway and somewhere around $45-50 if you can still get them from Bowser. Then there's a motor and a gearbox which is probably going to drive the price above $100 before we start talking about detail parts, brass sheet, rod, wire, channel and bar, and various flavors of styrene (assuming that all or some parts of the superstructure and tender are styrene).
I'm not so sure the sticking point is the modeling aspect as it is a knowledge of steam locomotives. Despite the visual differences, there were a lot of similarities. A 72- 73" driver Pacific is pretty much guaranteed to have a 13 foot rigid wheelbase regardless of the railroad unless the engine was designed to allow larger drivers to be applied (Santa Fe's 3400 class 4-6-2's come to mind) without re-doing the frame. A Bowser Pennsy M1 frame can be used for a whole potload of 4-8-2's with drivers in the 73-73" range, not to mention some of the later NYC 4-8-2's which had frames designed to take either 69 or 72" drivers. The Bowser "USRA" heavy 4-8-2 frame would be good for locos as diverse as Santa Fe 3700 class 4-8-2's, Frisco 1500, 4300 and 4400 (the latter 2 having 70" drivers) class 4-8-2's, any of the USRA 4-8-2's, CofG's 4-8-2's, IC 2500 and 2600's, Wabash M-1's (even though they and the IC engines had 70" drivers), and so forth.
andrechapelon In terms of floor space, I would reckon that all the neat detail parts and scratchbuilding supplies carried by The Train Shop in Santa Clara take no more than 5% of it (the detail parts are behind the counter in boxes along the wall). Books take up at least twice that. Wouldn't surprise me to find out that some titles move considerably slower than even some of the more esoteric scratchbuilding parts.
That's an interesting thing too. Dang if i know why you'd keep books around at non-sale prices if'n they don't sell but there we be.
Maybe we should look into the idea of teaching model locomotive (re)building in our LHS's as well----
This whole thing of needing even curiouser and curiouser parts sounds more like a red herring to the question of inventory in a LHS. Most of the spare parts and detail parts fir in 5 drawers in a 3'8" tall cabinet that was 4' X 3' ---then you have the scratchbuilding supplies on a rack--y'know--the styrene sheets? The basswood? The brass pieces? piping and etc?----all that stuff takes up valuable space don't it? Sheeesh
Space ain't the issue, it's keeping track of all that crap. OTOH, it can't be all that bad. All you really need to do is write down what you sell when you sell it (or enter it into a computer) and include it in the next order to Bowser (Cary, Cal Scale) or PSC. A quick pass at the racks for K&S metals, Plastruct and Evergreen styrene is really all that's needed to determine if something needs re-ordering. Even at that, you don't need to re-order until it's worthwhile to do so. Apparently, there are a lot of people who have never worked in a retail establishment.
In terms of floor space, I would reckon that all the neat detail parts and scratchbuilding supplies carried by The Train Shop in Santa Clara take no more than 5% of it (the detail parts are behind the counter in boxes along the wall). Books take up at least twice that. Wouldn't surprise me to find out that some titles move considerably slower than even some of the more esoteric scratchbuilding parts.
IRONROOSTERCal Scale's price list steam parts is about 950 items long. Average price seems to be about $4. I don't know the dealer minimum, but assuming 5 of each at 40% off MSRP this would appear to cost the dealer about $11,000.
You don't, and I didn't need 5 of each. It was easy to see what you need only one of and what you needed 6 of in stock. Most stuff you only needed one or two, cutting you cost estimate by more than half.
You sold somthing, you reordered it, three different distributors called on use on two week cycles and we ordered regularly from Walthers. This was long before Bowser owned it. And long before anyone expected a discount price on that type of item.
I can't speak for how things are now, but we sold a lot of it in the 80's. Along with lots of other small parts items.
One thing is for sure, no shop can sell stuff they don't have - and I still believe that is the main reason small shops are dieing - no inventorty.
Sheldon
andrechapelonIf you need a clamshell stack, you're probably modeling a specific prototype at a specific time and place. If you've graduated to that level, the question arises why do you need someone to manufacture the part for you? Wouldn't if be a lot more profitable to find pics of locos so equipped and see if you can figure out how to fabricate the piece yourself?
Gee, maybe the idea of a RTR layout would be tempting now wouldn't it?
Most of the modellers who dealt with those locomotives frequently just scratchbuilt those parts from whatever they had in hand. There are loads of these things showing up in some of our LHS's as well------
WPAllen "are we going to suggest then that CalScale and all these little mfgs should just give up?" I'm not. Far from it. My only thoughts are the myriad of parts that would be needed. CalScale and others don't even begin to cover what would be needed. For example who makes clamshell smokestacks? How many varitations of those are there that were used?
"are we going to suggest then that CalScale and all these little mfgs should just give up?"
I'm not. Far from it. My only thoughts are the myriad of parts that would be needed. CalScale and others don't even begin to cover what would be needed. For example who makes clamshell smokestacks? How many varitations of those are there that were used?
If you need a clamshell stack, you're probably modeling a specific prototype at a specific time and place. If you've graduated to that level, the question arises why do you need someone to manufacture the part for you? Wouldn't if be a lot more profitable to find pics of locos so equipped and see if you can figure out how to fabricate the piece yourself?
http://www.riverraisinmodels.com/photogal/SPproject/3734EarlyLH.jpg
http://www.riverraisinmodels.com/photogal/SPproject/3734EarlyRH.jpg
http://www.riverraisinmodels.com/photogal/SPproject/3727LH.jpg
http://www.riverraisinmodels.com/photogal/SPproject/3727RH.jpg
http://www.riverraisinmodels.com/SPdecapods/F537271.jpg
BTW, if you're into S scale, you can get a clamshell stack from RiverRaisin.
http://www.riverraisinmodels.com/instockp.html
The next problem is sales. How much is really going to sell? Consider that there won't be step by step directions for each of the possibilities, even a parts list for a particular locomotive at a particular time won't be available for most possibilities. Can't pre drill the needed holes or the number of boilers variations required really gets astronomical. So the builder will have to research the parts needed and do any drilling, tapping, soldering, etc. required and figure out to assemble the whole thing.
Why does anyone need a parts list or step-by step directions?. A few good photos is really all you need. A scale drawing or two certainly doesn't hurt, but if you're detailing a locomotive, good photos are all you really need for figuring out where parts go and their relationship to each other.
As for the difficulty of what you describe, you might want to check out the exploded drawing sheet for the Spectrum Russian Decapod. There were 5 variations (Erie/Susquehanna, WM, ACL, Frisco and NC&StL). I see 2 different tenders and 2 different tender trucks, 3 cab variations, and 4 different walkway variations. I won't even try to count up the variations in the smaller parts (stacks, domes, feedwater piping, smokebox fronts, etc).
Shoot, making the C&O J-2 rebuid version of the USRA Heavy must have been a piece of cake for Bachmann in comparison to the Russian Dec. They've even got quite a few variations on the USRA light 2-10-2. It can be done even at the factory level.
As for the the question posed by the OP, the same chassis/boiler combination can be used to make a CofG K as is used for an SP GS-1. The GS-1, modernized with multiple bearing crossheads, Boxpok drivers, and a larger rectangular tender, was used as the mechanical pattern for the GS-2 (and later GS-6). The primary differences between an SP GS-1 and a CofG K are drivers, crossheads and guides, FWH and tender. Come to think of it, the primary differencs between a GS-2 and a GS-6 are that the GS-6 used the same cab and tender as the GS-4 and there was no provision for side skirting. The GS-6 did carrty a 10 PSI higher boler pressure than the GS-2, but that's not something visible.
What with the plethora of USRA engines that are are have been available on the market, I'm surprised that some manufacturer hasn't figured out that they could make some relatively minor changes (the addition of FWH's, disc/boxpok main drivers, a different tender or two - including oil bunkers, Delta trailing truck with or without booster and associated piping) to get some additional sales for relatively cheap. Underneath this: http://psc1.virtualfocus.com/Erie%204-6-2%20K5.html beats the heart of a stock USRA heavy 4-6-2.