For the reasons you state, it would seem that medium to small steam, if done well, would sell even better. The only USRA Mikes and Pacifics for sale today are the old-style Model Power versions, which are far behind the current technology, but they are still selling. The Bachmann Connies have sold very well, and, to a large degree, have overcome the old Bachmann reputation of poor performance. So, why isn't Bachmann producing a 2-8-2 or a 4-6-2 in modern mechanical form? As you indicated, those should out-sell the "big steam", which is already selling very well.
This. Fully half of all steam engines in the US were 2-8-2s or 0-8-0s, and 4-6-2s made up another huge chunk of what was left. The big articulateds like the EM1, Big Boy, and so on, while amazing, were just not that important numbers-wise. If Bachmann made a light mikado that was as kitbash friendly as ran as well as their 2-8-0, I'd buy a dozen at least, I am sure. I've owned nearly that many Kato mikes for projects, and just purchased another last week. Steam modelers in N are resourceful, I've noticed; give us good platforms to work on, and we can do the rest.
Here's a sure-thing steam cash-in: Bmann reworking their perennially excellent 2-8-0 as a Pennsy H8 (more built than K4s, M1s, and T1s combined- anybody who wants one is going to want two or more). The wheelbase and driver diameter are close enough you'd need calipers to tell the difference, and the boiler was significantly wider... so the tooling cost is all in the shell and it'd be an amazing puller because of all the extra weight they could add. Yeah, there are already 3D-printed conversions available, but some of us stink at painting and would gladly pay for RTR. And I do not buy for one second that age is the most significant obstacle to steam sales. Even the oldest people active in the hobby have lived far more years in the diesel era than they did with steam, at this point- of course the diesel market is going to be bigger, no matter what you do... but steam will always be desirable, and not just for the handful of preserved locomotives out there. I'm young enough that even my parents could barely remember steam, but more than half of my collection are steam locomotives and the rest are mostly transition-era diesels that I'm just as far removed from. What do I need a model of an SD70 for? I can drive up the road and watch one of those. I'm never going to see an M1b under steam, unless I win the lottery and fund the restoration myself- the only way I can experience many of my favorite locomotives is in miniature. I have no space to run or display a vast collection of HO steam, so I want them in N if possible. It's as simple as that. The number of steam models is still increasing rather than decreasing, even if only a bit at a time... and every time a good steam model comes out, it sells out, even if it's something with a fairly limited niche (heck, even some of the iffy models have had little to no trouble moving product, just because they were the only model of that prototype available RTR). Multiple production runs are the rule, not the exception. There is something inherently fascinating about steam power, and the heights that human industry was able to reach through the clever use of boiled water. I have a suspicion that anyone even remotely interested in history has a soft spot for steam, even if they won't admit to it in public.
There are also the Reading Company 2-8-0s. B-mann issued an I-9 or I-10, I forget what it was, but has long since discontinued it. I did a test fit of the old shell to the SPECTRUM 2-8-0 chassis, and it was not a bad fit. I would assume that B-mann still has the tooling somewhere. The Penn 2-8-0 would require new shell tooling for B-mann, as the cab is more like that on the B-6 than the K-4. TRIX put out both, and, you can fuse the B-6 cab to a cut down K-4 boiler. I did it to build a "Looks-Much-Like-A-N&W-E-3", which was a Penn K-3 to which N&W added their tenders. I sold it because I did not like the four speed K-4 chassis: Very Fast; Still-Too-Fast; Faster-Than-I-Would-Like and Not-At-All. When the B-mann K-4 appeared, I thought of a transplant, but, my changing modelling directions, a realisation that I had been trying to do too much overall for all of these years and finally the price tag on the B-mann compelled me to drop all thoughts of that.
why do we need another usra 2-8-2 or 4-6-2? MP has both kato mikados are everywhere BLI is doing a 2-8-2. n-scale doesn't need more regurgitated models. we need new steam models to spark more modelers to backdate their eras.
Odds are that we do not need another USRA heavy 2-8-2 or 4-8-2. The Kato and B-mann, respectively, were good. The B-mann is not currently in production, but, at some point it would not be unreasonable to expect it to return to production. Likely we do not need a USRA light 4-8-2 or 2-10-2. The B-mann 4-8-2 is good. I am not familiar with the 2-10-2, but, I do not read too many complaints about it. The 2-10-2 is not in current production, but, it would not be unreasonable to expect its return, at some point. We have a pretty good USRA 0-6-0 from B-mann. It does require a customer-supplied upgrade; a swap out of the stock tender, but, as B-mann moves more to the onboard factory DCC, I would expect that it will do that upgrade on its own. Atlas' recent purchase of the old LL line would raise hopes that the USRA 0-8-0 might return, at some point. The MP USRA lights are simply not the best. They require customer supplied upgrade, as the tender is only half wheels live. When MRC purchased the MP line, it missed an opportunity to correct some of the MP errors and shortcomings. The details are not the best and are difficult to correct, partly due to the construction methods. Further, MRC failed to correct some non-prototypical errors, such as the Vanderbilt tender on the Baltimore and Ohio versions. While it is correct that the P-6, the copies of the USRA light Pacific, did have Venderbilts, they were not the Vanderbilts that MP used. While some might dismiss this as cavilry, it should be noted that B&O had originals which had the USRA standard tender. Only one or two of the Q-3 (USRA light 2-8-2) had Vanderbults, and, those were fitted late in life. Most of the Q-3s retained their USRA standard tenders until scrapping. This passes over the incorrect road numbers on the B&O and other issues in other road names. The USRA light Pacifics and mikados could be better. If MP will not make the corrections and upgrades, someone else should. What 2-8-2 is BLI planning for N scale?
Drasko, I guess you have no interest in running 2-8-2s or 4-6-2s, or you would already understand the correct answer to your own question. The answer is simple: First, they were the most ubiquitous types of steam locomotives in the U.S.during the transition era. Second, the models you call "available" are not up to current standards, mechanically, electronically, and/or quality of detail, and most of them are not even being produced at this time. Modelers who have no interest in the latest and greatest real locomotives also wonder how people can be yelling for some other variation of diesel locomotive, given how many are already available with good mechanisms, DCC and sound. And, it is much easier to bash a shell to put onto an existing, high quality diesel chassis mechanism than it is to bash a shell for a steam engine chassis, much less make a steam engine chassis because there is no up-to-current-standards chassis in the wheel arrangement, wheel size, valve gear type, etc. of the prototype you want.
It is a heavy Mike; here's the thread with a photo of the pre-production sample. It's still not listed on the BLI site, though. Since Kato's is long out of production now, it's a good addition to the market. I'd love for someone to do a better USRA 0-6-0 than Bmann's current-and-eternal offering. Even though everybody and their dog had a few, everybody also made their own modifications to it, and Bmann's doesn't reflect any of that. For how to update the model to a more modern standard, one need look no farther than the LL/Walthers Heritage model in HO (it's too bad the line was discontinued before they got around to that one in N). It would be nice to have a steam shifter in production that doesn't need either its exterior bashed or its internals rebuilt to get a good-looking model that also runs well. It'd be great to have the 0-8-0 back too, since that ended up going pretty much everywhere the 0-6-0s didn't.
Atlas was not able to get the tooling dor the 0-8-0 and the 2-8-8-2. Doing them again would require all new tooling, which seems unlikely.
maletrain, I fully understand but theres a need to expand n-scale steam. im betting I do more with steam than you could shake a stick at. maybe you could try knocking down the flanges on the old atlas mike or cut down a Bachmann 2-10-2 for a proper 51" drivered mike. you have a heavy AND light pacific available to play with and modify if you like. We need more wheel arrangements, more roads to model(IE I need actual santa fe steam since all we have is the crap bmann 4-8-4 and brass which I own multiples of), we need many many things to entice more modelers to backdate to modeling steam.
I model the santa fe on raton pass in 1947. I only need few 2-8-2s be it light or heavy or 4-6-2s. I own multiple brass models of the 3160 class key mikados and PRB 4-6-2 atsf pacifics. I also model UP but as a side gig. Your eastern steam by far has more models than us westerners thus far if you count things out. Most of my steam involved heavy kitbashing or scratch building unfortunately. Heres my bachmann usra light 2-10-2 that's heavily modified into a proper santa fe model with a turtleback tender made from mdf plywood. Im not your ready to run complainer like most so i dont need a pompous reply from you about what can be done with a locomotive chassis lol. Drasko
The thing that is under represented in Eastern steam is the Pennsy Belpaire firebox versions and you will probably never see them done except for the MiniTrix versions of the Pacific and their half way version of a 2-10-0.
Drasko, First, I don't think I am the one being "pompous", nor illogical. You seem to be posting that you already have oodles of steam locos, and want something different, which is fine. But, you then try to argue that it is necessary to have things that you don't yet have in order to have "more wheel arrangements, more roads to model ... to entice more modelers to backdate to modeling steam." You seem to think that people who are not now modeling steam are willing to "try knocking down the flanges on the old atlas mike or cut down a Bachmann 2-10-2 for a proper 51" drivered mike" if they could only get a good quality RTR Santa Fe Northern. That is so illogical that it just sounds crazy. What would get more people to start modelling the steam era is obviously more of the most popular steam loco types being available RTR with reliable mechanisms and good detail. But, it is exactly those models that require more work than most are willing to do in order to get up-to-date quality in looks and operation. Besides, Bachmann has already made a Northern, so why aren't you already taking your own advice and turning that into a state of the art model of a Santa Fe prototype that you desire? You don't seem to be that eager to do what you are suggesting that others do to get the most common models, yet you claim great experience in doing that sort of thing. None of you post makes sense, beyond your personal desire to have somebody make nice RTR models of things that you don't have, yet. I am certainly not begrudging you asking for what you want, but I do resent you arguing that I should not get what I want, especially by using blatantly hypocritical arguments. It is definitely time for better light USRA 2-8-2 and 4-6-2 models than Model Power/MRC is currently producing. The B&O had both (Q-3s and P-5s) and those also can relatively easily be bashed into Q-4s, P1ds and P6s. Then I will have more time to work on turning old, out of production models into the things that the B&O had plenty of, but nobody is going to give me as an RTR model in N scale, (e.g., S-1 2-10-2, T-3 4-8-2 and various ELs 2-8-8-0). Of course, most of those are going to require extensive tender bashing to get the proper versions of B&O's Vandy types. So, let's get back to telling the manufacturers what we want, and stop trying to undermine what others want if it doesn't match what we want.
Thankfully, Pennsy steam has some good representation now. Bmann's K4s has a few little issues (cylinders too wide, postwar models are black instead of DGLE), but the sound is shockingly good and it's leaps and bounds ahead of the old Minitrix for detail and proportions. Performance doesn't even compare; it's amazing. BLI's M1a/b, though we waited eleven years for it, turned out to be an incredible model in all regards. The T1; likewise incredible. That's three of the road's most iconic locomotives- kinda like how UP fans have the Big Boy, the Challenger, and the FEF-3. Bonus points since the K4s and M1a/b are "working stiff" classes that saw system-wide use. Not the worst place to be in. Everybody else is still begging for their Pacifics and Mountains. I could ask for more- goodness knows, I have a wish list as long as my leg for everything from A5s to Q2- but compared to some of the other Eastern roads, us Pennsy fans have it good right now. NYC has... nothing road-specific currently in production, only a few USRA types aside from ludicrously expensive brass offerings (the old Con-Cor Hudsons are nice, but nowhere near modern standards). N&W has the Bmann J, which is pretty darned good in its more recent iterations... but nothing else in production (though the USRA 2-8-8-2/Y3 is a great model, when available). B&O? I'm pretty sure the EM-1 is out of production, right? Other than that, it's USRA or nothing. LV, nothing. C&O, just the Bmann Kanawha. NH, nothing. LNE, CNJ, RDG, B&M, ACL... you get the idea. I think I can live with another road getting the limelight for a little while. Money's been tight recently. I won't cry about it. Much.
You mean like this old buddy maletrain? Superdetailed bachmann shells on kato gs-4 mechs back in 08 when a good they came out.......... Theres a couple hallmark brass santa fe northerners in there for comparison and an early attempt of a 3800 class 2-10-2 from the overly long 67" drivered concor 2-10-2. My point, although it wasn't stated very well, is not that i want my or your models made, i want a mix of everything made to attract more buyers. If we regurgitate the same crap over and over again, people won't get excited. Look at the pennsy modelers. Hoards of them backdated eras with the recent models. Only diehards that want correct engines for what they model are willing to cut apart new engines to adapt them to what we need and there aren't many of us out there doing this so we aren't a good market. Drasko
Heres a key brass santa fe northern boiler on a kato fef mech because the brass mech was a basket case..... Aaaaaaaand a 3460 class big hudson. Fox valley hiawatha drivers in a model power mogul frame with the cylinders and valve gear from the above junked brass mechanism.
The MPs are actually fine, mechanically. They were fine, mechanically when the Tagers were still running MP. Their problem was mostly electrical. The half wheels live tender simply did not do it. The same went for the eight wheelers and moguls. I have several Tager era MP steam locomotives: Paciifcs, mikados, moguls and eight wheelers. All of them have either B-mann or Kato tenders. They operate superbly with those tenders. I have one MRC era 2-8-2 and one 4-6-2. Both were lettered B&O and came with half wheels live Vanerbilts. I swapped out those things for Bachpersonn USRA standards. They are now superb, and, they have traction tyres which helps the pulling power. My main complaint with the USRA lights is the cast-on details. Yes, you could scrape off the cast on details and add your own. I even have the extra Kato stanchion kits with which i could do it. Why do I not do it? The surgery would require disassembling the locomotive. When you look at the construction method of the USRA lights, the disassembly is not difficult. What IS difficult is getting the thing back together again. I had two that I mistakenly took apart. I was able only to get one of them back together. It took some time and some help to do it. On the other hand, never have I had a problem getting apart the Bachmann. The Kato requires some patience, but, once I learned how to get apart the USRA heavy mikado, it was not that big a deal. I wish that it were that simple for the MP. I have no more use for a USRA heavy 2-8-2. My two Kato P&LEs are fine for now, althogh, at some point, I am going to have to get the larger tender, move the pumps to the pilot deck and put shields in front of them. If I can find my Jack Polaritz book on the P&LE mikados, I can find out which of the H-9s had steam lines and signalling devices and make one of those. There were either two or three, and they were P-Mickey locomotives. The only thing that will matter is the correct number, though, as P&LE and P-Mickey did not put the sublettering on the coal boards of the H-9 after the Central Gothic era. If you affix either a slope back or USRA short to the latest version of the B-mann USRA 0-6-0, the version in the plastic box, it is a real winner. (although a guy who would know informed me that no road that had USRA 0-6-0s or copies thereof ever put a slope back behind one). I would expect that B-mann will be putting a decoder into this thing at some point. At that point it will have to upgrade to an all wheels live tender. That 2-6-2 is really just the 0-6-0 with idlers. What is sad about those idlers is that they compromise the pulling power. If B-mann could re-design the chassis...................................in reality, there should be an actual 2-6-2, not a USRA fitted with idlers. The old B-mann "mikado" was the same, though; it was a consolidated to which B-mann added a trailing truck. Reading did actually have fifty seven mikados, but they were all of one class and built during the First World War era.
Like i said though, we need stray away from the usra junk and start bringing popular models out to attract buyers and i don't think another mikado or pacific will do that. We need other work horses like 63" drivered 2-10-2s as many many roads had them and lots of them. A mechanism that can be reused under different boiler/tender configurations so more money can be made off of the same tooling. I couldn't care less if it's eastern steam as long as it has parts i can use to build what i want although i wouldn't complain about a rtr santa fe 3800 class 2-10-2 as that would save me some modeling time in the hotel room to concentrate on other things i need to build. Drasko
Number 3463 still exists, although it is likely that it never will run again. Where did you get the shell for that one? ....or did you go to the real thing and measure it? How did you get those larger drivers to space properly in the mogul frame? The MP mogul has sixty three inch drivers The prototype for that Hudson has eighty or eighty four inch drivers (I forget, now). I am curious, that is all. I like the bashes, even if I do not run All Tramps Sent Free. It had some interesting power, including double boilered articulateds (that were disasters, but, they were interesting). The Jacobs-Schupert firebox was another stand out on smaller ATSF power. Of course, for 1947 Raton, smaller power does not work too well. You have a few Pacifics hanging around to help the faster passenger trains that have A-B-B-A motive power consists, but, other than that, it is mostly the eight and ten coupled stuff working there. Raton is an interesting part of ATSF for someone who ain't all that innerstidd in no Santy-Fay
