Sheldon,You're making a classic mistake in thinking just because something has more examples in real life will equal greater sales. People don't want the common item, they want the "best", "biggest", "fastest", etc. Look at other hobbies. In military vehicles, there were far, far more 2 1/2 ton trucks than probably anything else (562,000+ built), yet if you go to any plastic hobby shop, you're going to find far more models for sale of tanks that only were produced in the hundreds (or even rare one-of-a-kinds like railroad cannons).
Or look at airplanes. By far, the Cessna 172 is the most produced airplane of all time (43,000+ and counting), yet I can probably find a Concorde model easier than a Cessna 172 at a hobby shop...and they made only 20 of the Concordes.
Getting back to our hobby, I know from talking to BLI that their Hybrid 4-12-2 sales are doing extremely well and they are quite happy with it. Meanwhile, their Hybrid NH 4-6-2 I-4 is disappointing, barely getting enough sales orders for them to make it. Please note that both are $699 MSRP. If there is that much demand for smaller steamers, then why aren't those numbers reversed? Sure, I get it that UP is a bigger RR and more popular than the NH (and that 4-12-2 is a freight engine while the I-4 is a passenger engine), but is the difference that much? Oh, and please note that their I-5 4-6-4 did very well for BLI, so much so that they did another run.Another issue is the idea that just because a RR had more of one type of steam engine that they would be more common to see. Not true. RR's had a lot of engines because they had a lot of small branchlines where a few trains a day was more common. If one wants to model the mainline of their favorite road, they they are going to want to buy more mainline engines.
Take the NH, for example. They only had 10 I-5's, 8 of which were available on any given day. Each one in service was used twice a day, meaning that spending a day trackside on the "Shore Line Route", you would see 16 I-5 Hudson-powered passenger trains going by. The NH had roughly 34 mainline Shore Line passenger trains every day, meaning that almost half of them were powered by I-5's. Compare that to the 50 I-4's they had, of which around 40 were in use every day. Would you see 5 times as many I-4's as I-5's on any given day in Westerly, RI from 1937 to 1948? No, you wouldn't, because I-4's were on other lines (to Springfield, MA, for example) and on commuter and local trains all over the rest of the steam-equipped system.Or, if you want to talk freight, the NH had 70 Mountains of all types vs. 246 Moguls (of the 20th Century). If you spent the day trackside on the Shore Line in the 1940's, would you see 3.5 times the number of 2-6-0's than 4-8-2's? Um, no, you wouldn't. The Mountains would hold down just about every mainline freight train job on the Shore Line while the Moguls would be used on the locals...but the locals didn't overlap. So you might see one local go by a couple times with a Mogul in between the march of the Mountains rushing by every hour or so.If one wants to model their RR's mainline, then they are going to want to buy more of the bigger engines vs. the more common (in number) types.
Paul A. Cutler III
dstarr BMMECNYC I would like to see a B&M accurate 2-6-0 (B-15), and a MEC accurate 4-6-0 (the O class version with inside valve gear). Actually, the old IHC 2-6-0 isn't a bad stand in for the B15. Here is the IHC model, A .And here is the old brass PFM model B15. The IHC (now out of business, but still reasonably available) is pretty close. It lacks the distinctive swelled boiler of the B15, the bell is in the wrong place (an easy fix), but it's not a bad standin.
BMMECNYC I would like to see a B&M accurate 2-6-0 (B-15), and a MEC accurate 4-6-0 (the O class version with inside valve gear).
I would like to see a B&M accurate 2-6-0 (B-15), and a MEC accurate 4-6-0 (the O class version with inside valve gear).
Actually, the old IHC 2-6-0 isn't a bad stand in for the B15. Here is the IHC model,
A
.And here is the old brass PFM model B15.
The IHC (now out of business, but still reasonably available) is pretty close. It lacks the distinctive swelled boiler of the B15, the bell is in the wrong place (an easy fix), but it's not a bad standin.
It looks pretty close, except for one glaring deficiency in my eyes. The valve gear. If they would swap the valve gear between their 4-6-0 and 2-6-0 both would look pretty good.
andrechapelon Burlington Steam Think your all missing the point here......small while much more practical is boring to us manly man types .........big as Tim Allen said is MORE POWER!!!!!ARRRRRGH!!! You're not familiar with the work of Andre Chapelon, are you? His primary contribution was rebuilding relatively small French steam locomotives for higher power and efficiency. One of his more remarkable achievements was rebuilding a series of 4-6-2's into 4-8-0's and upping their horsepower from around 2500 to 4000. Google Chapelon sometime and when you're done, Google Livio Dante Porta and David Wardale. Andre
Burlington Steam
Think your all missing the point here......small while much more practical is boring to us manly man types .........big as Tim Allen said is MORE POWER!!!!!ARRRRRGH!!!
You're not familiar with the work of Andre Chapelon, are you? His primary contribution was rebuilding relatively small French steam locomotives for higher power and efficiency. One of his more remarkable achievements was rebuilding a series of 4-6-2's into 4-8-0's and upping their horsepower from around 2500 to 4000.
Google Chapelon sometime and when you're done, Google Livio Dante Porta and David Wardale.
Andre
And then consider that, on any layout smaller than a supermarket, those big, powerful centipedes on rails resemble a caged circus cat, and a typical model train powered by a humongipede resembles a five year old in Mama's high heels...
Big power on the JNR portion of my layout is a 2-8-2. There are also 2-8-0, 2-6-2 and 2-6-0 locos (as well as tank versions of both 2-6-0 classes) When 20 cars will fill a passing siding sixteen drivers are only necessary (on a few unusually heavy trains) when the 2.5% starts just beyond the siding turnout points. Those trains doublehead.
On the 4% grade of the coal hauler I can justify twelve drivers on uphill coal units too long to fit the passing spots between termini. But the loco is a cosmetically modified Mantua Uintah, not a USRA 2-6-6-2. Other trains get x-6-x tank locos, two or three per train.
As for the Tim Allen remark - Really big, manly, men don't have to prove it with oversize toys...
Chuck [Msgt(ret) USAF modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with locomotives that fit the territory)
CAZEPHYR ATLANTIC CENTRAL ACY And let's not forget the other Van Sweringen Berkshires. Those of L&N, W&LE, and Erie used very similar boilers and running gear to the many NKP and C&O based models currently available. Reruns with appropriate detail changes might be a cost-effective way to get more mileage out of established basic model designs. And the Virginian Berks - identical to the NKP and C&O locos except for a third steam/sand dome configuration - why has no one done that loco? Sheldon The tenders were different also. RR
ATLANTIC CENTRAL ACY And let's not forget the other Van Sweringen Berkshires. Those of L&N, W&LE, and Erie used very similar boilers and running gear to the many NKP and C&O based models currently available. Reruns with appropriate detail changes might be a cost-effective way to get more mileage out of established basic model designs. And the Virginian Berks - identical to the NKP and C&O locos except for a third steam/sand dome configuration - why has no one done that loco? Sheldon
ACY And let's not forget the other Van Sweringen Berkshires. Those of L&N, W&LE, and Erie used very similar boilers and running gear to the many NKP and C&O based models currently available. Reruns with appropriate detail changes might be a cost-effective way to get more mileage out of established basic model designs.
And the Virginian Berks - identical to the NKP and C&O locos except for a third steam/sand dome configuration - why has no one done that loco?
Sheldon
The tenders were different also.
RR
Yes the tenders were different as well. But Proto and Bachmann made both the NKP/PM tender, and the larger C&O tender to make their models correct.
You would really only need a new floor and shell to make the third version of the tender.
More 19th century steam! 4-4-0 Americans, 4-6-0 Ten Wheelers, 2-6-0 Moguls, 4-8-0 Twelve Wheelers with DCC, sound, smoke, headlight and cab light. Road specific of course! Also open platform RPOs, baggages, combines, coaches, diners, sleepers and observations with interiors. There is so much that hasn´t been done yet.
Burlington Steam Think your all missing the point here......small while much more practical is boring to us manly man types .........big as Tim Allen said is MORE POWER!!!!!ARRRRRGH!!!
I would love to see some accurate Santa Fe prototype models (not brass) that aren't 4-8-4s, 2-10-2s, or 2-10-4s. Locals and branch lines were served by 2-6-2s, 2-8-0s, and 2-8-2s....
An N scale C&O 3-6-6-6 Alleghenney, the most powerful steam locomotive built.
NYC L-2.
Just because there are so many %#@$! Hudson Niagara and Mohawk models where the L-2 was the real deal running in large numbers for a longer periods than the others.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
An early Consolidation. Or any other early steamer with a Belpaire firebox.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
Mike
The first brass loco I ever bought new was United's D&SL 2-6-6-0. A beautiful model and good runner on my older DC layout of the 70's.
Now that I am in HOn3, I liked the long front on the old D&SL so much that I am planning to bash one of my several Blackstone K-27s to a special MOW train engine. I hope to extend the front beam and pilot wheels to mount a large pivoted, movable work light low on the extension which will double as a large running light on my Paradox Uravan and Placerville road.
Richard
If I can't fix it, I can fix it so it can't be fixed
-E-C-MillsWe need a new D&SL 2-6-6-0, a smaller articulated locomotive thats going to look ok on 24" (HO) curves. But not a logging locomotive. It was used on mountain mainline service for 3 decades.
Yeah, good idea. And how about a Rio Grande C-48? I would really like to see Blackstone do that as their first standard gauge engine, which will happen eventually.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
We need a new D&SL 2-6-6-0, a smaller articulated locomotive thats going to look ok on 24" (HO) curves. But not a logging locomotive. It was used on mountain mainline service for 3 decades.
Yeah...I'm just UP'ed out. I live in UP country very near the ex-SP Overland route. And I see them everyday along I80. The real 4014 will definitely be a sight when finished...though.
There are a few locomotives I would like to see as something other than brass. BLI, Bachmann, eh...or maybe MTH. Probably have to take out a second on my house to buy an MTH.
Reading K1 2-10-2
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_rdg3016.jpg
DMIR 2-8-8-4
Western Maryland 4-6-6-4
Delaware and Hudson 4-6-6-4
Western Maryland 4-8-4
There are others...this was just a start.
Mark H
Modeling in HO...Reading and Conrail together in an alternate history.
So many Mikados. So few models.
ACYFor narrow gauge, I suspect there would be a market for an HOn3 ET&WNC 4-6-0 or an EBT 2-8-2. Nobody has ever seriously tried to open that market, AFAIK.
Depends on your definition of serious, Tom. Both have been available in brass and IIRC both were included on the several motive power surveys Blackstone did a few years back. The Tweetsie will likely remain pretty marginal, gone too soon for people to even remember back in the 60s.
The EBT was still running until recently and had a very modelable operation. The big problem was all those hoppers, which Blackstone solved. They've been selling somewhat slower than Colorado stuff, but I think it's been a boon to EBT fans. The brass Mikes usually fetch good prices and the motorcar can be hard to find at a reasonable cost. I lost several auctions trying to acquire one back when I could still afford brass when really needed. Whether this will ever translate into a mass market model loco, the best chance woul be a conversion of a Blackstone, but this will likely be a DIY project.
N&W Class M 4-8-0
If the models were available, I'd be in the early 1900's.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
A camelback 2-8-0, actually a camelback boiler that would fit on the Bachmann or Roundhouse mechanisms. That way we could have a 4-4-0 or 4-6-0 or a 4-4-0, 2-6-0 or 2-8-0. All plausible arrangements.
Yes why would we want a smaller engine that actually worked for 30 or 40 years and were the backbone of the US railroad system when whe could have one of those big prima donna engines that couldn't run on half the layouts and were generally obsolete when built or within a decade of being built.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Even though I'm in N scale I would like to see a really nice mogal 2-6-0 for a small switching layout in HO, kind of like what Brakie has done. I have always been impressed with what he was able to do in such a small space and I think the 2-6-0 would be perfect for that.
Ralph
I would also like to see the UP H7 or how about the SF 2-10-10-2 with the whale back tender, now that would be something.
The only articulates owned by the NYC were 2-6-6-2, how about them.
ACYAnd let's not forget the other Van Sweringen Berkshires. Those of L&N, W&LE, and Erie used very similar boilers and running gear to the many NKP and C&O based models currently available. Reruns with appropriate detail changes might be a cost-effective way to get more mileage out of established basic model designs.
Burlington Steam If we are in fact speaking articulateds in plastic with sound and DCC here I think the DRGW L105 4-6-6-4 Challenger would be a popular choice. DRGW standard gauge being a road of choice for many modelers.
If we are in fact speaking articulateds in plastic with sound and DCC here I think the DRGW L105 4-6-6-4 Challenger would be a popular choice.
DRGW standard gauge being a road of choice for many modelers.
For my money, THE most beautiful Challenger ever built. Period! Well, along with the Alco Z-6,7 and 8's of the NP/SP&S. But those Baldwin-built Rio Grande 3700's were big, long, heavy, fast and POWERFUL! 105,000 lbs of tractive effort put the more popular Union Pacific version in the shade. They were versatile. Originally designed for the Utah Lines between Ogden and Grand Junction, Colorado, they were fast enough for expidited freights and powerful enough for Rio Grande's difficult Rocky mountain 2-state profile. There are photos of them hauling freight on the 3% grades of Tennessee Pass looking no more overworked than they do on the flat-lands of the Utah deserts or the long up-and-down profile of the Front Range line between Denver and Pueblo. The Grande loved them. When they tried to get more during WWII, the design was frozen and they ended up with half a dozen UP clones, which were about as successful on Rio Grande's difficult profile as a tricycle pumping up Pikes Peak.
Several importers have made the 105's in brass, but as yet, none in plastic. It wouldn't be just like sticking "Rio Grande" on a UP and calling it "done", it would have to be built from the ground up. But with what I've seen as a growing interest in Rio Grande STANDARD GAUGE steam, it might be worth the try. Athearn, how about it? You're already making plans to do the NP Z-8, why not squeeze out a 105 with a couple of tweaks of the dies, lol? My two Westside brass 105 babies could use some company.
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!
The point about smaller power is very well taken. Back in 1958 and 1959, my dad would take me down to the B&O roundhouse in town. The railroaders were very welcoming, and I was allowed to play on the last steam engine in town: Not a big Mallet, but a Q-4 2-8-2. The world was different then. I'm currently negotiating a purchase/trade to acquire three locos for my own collection: a 2-6-0 and two 2-8-0's. And my most recent purchase was another 2-8-0, so I cetainly have no objection to smaller power. My suggestions were just to get the ball rolling.
I believe a good Harriman 2-8-0 (57" drivers, please) would be popular. Same for a Harriman 2-8-2. I also believe somebody would do well to offer aftermarket mod kits for the Walthers USRA 0-6-0 and 0-8-0. Lots of possibilities there, including a WWII era version of the military 0-6-0, which found favor on a lot of US industrial and short lines.
As for diesels, the F-M H20-44 wore two demonstrator schemes and was used in fairly large numbers by PRR, NYC, IHB, and P&WV (and later, N&W), as well as AC&Y, UP, and SW Portland Cement. Then there's the Lima switcher. Neither of these has been done as a R-T-R model.
For narrow gauge, I suspect there would be a market for an HOn3 ET&WNC 4-6-0 or an EBT 2-8-2. Nobody has ever seriously tried to open that market, AFAIK.
Getting back to big power, the WM and D&RGW L-105 Baldwin 4-6-6-4's were based on the same design, so there is another opportunity to cover two roads with one basic design (with appropriate detail variations). Two geographical market areas, too.
And let's not forget the other Van Sweringen Berkshires. Those of L&N, W&LE, and Erie used very similar boilers and running gear to the many NKP and C&O based models currently available. Reruns with appropriate detail changes might be a cost-effective way to get more mileage out of established basic model designs.
Does any manufacturer currently produce a decent 2-6-2, even a generic one?
- Douglas
I would like to see am EJ&E Baldwin center cab, both as delivered and after the EMD rebuild. The other would be a Mckeen motor car.
-Fritz Milhaupt, Publications Editor, Pere Marquette Historical Society, Inc.http://www.pmhistsoc.org