I know lots of people would rather see the money spent producing new models, but honestly, how many more locomotives are there left to do? Okay, an SD70MAC. Then what? More steam? Good for the steam era guys, but what about the transitional to modern era people? Freight cars are great, but there's more than enough prototypes to choose from where if they wanted, they could produce a new car each month for a couple years! I'm talking motive power! So far, we've seen F-units, SD70/75M/Is. We are expecting to see Spartan-cab SD70s very shortly, with a small hope of eventually seeing SD70MACs. They probably won't make E-units(LL P2K), F40PHs (Walthers, Bachmann), SD40/45s (Kato), GP60s (announced by LL P2K, plus included in the standard line. Although, GP60Ms and Bs would be good for the Genesis Series!) A Genesis MP15 would be nice. As would an SD50. HO scale could use a B23-7, B30-7, B36-7, C36-7, C40-8 and C40-8W (all of which are most likely to be made by Atlas). There's still room for an AC6000CW and an SD60MAC (even though only 4 were made. These predecessors to the 70/80/90MACs could be in a collector's set! I know all the diehard BN fans would want them!) Now, as far as the standard line they could do an SD45-2 and an SD45T-2 utilizing the SD40-2 and SD40T-2 chassis respectively. They could also do a GP39-2 based on the GP38-2/40-2/50/60 chassis or an SD38-2 based also on the SD40-2 chassis. But, for Genesis there's really only a few more locomotives they could do before having to start upgrading existing models. I, along with many others would like to see Athearn re-tool their current series of wider-than-scale hood bodies. Athearn sales are still going strong with the wide bodies, just think of how much stronger they woule be using a scale-wifth hood. We're talking GP7/9s, GP35s, SD9s, SDP40s, SD45s, DD40s(really should be a DD35A), various GE U-Boats (also fixing the excessive cuvature of the nose.) Athearn's standard line drive is proven, especilly now with the upgraded motor and drive train. The cost is affordable and the availablity is superb! Yeah, Proto 2000 alredy makes a good GP7/9 and SD7/9. And Kato makes a great GP35 and SD45. But, so what! We need SD45s. I need SD45s on my roster than cost a little less than an arm and a leg, WHEN, might I add, you can find one! Sure Kato may re-run thier SD45, but when? Surely, it will be well after the SD80/90MAC release. Yes, there is lots of money involed in creating new molds, but Athearn has been in business for a very long time and I'm sure they have more than enough money to cover the costs of the new molds. -sd80mac- "You will never reach perfection, but you can ALWAYS strive for excellence."
First they have to make the correct chassis for the SD40T-2. Also the SD45-2 is longer than the SD40-2. <blockquote> Now, as far as the standard line they could do an SD45-2 and an SD45T-2 utilizing the SD40-2 and SD40T-2 chassis respectively. </blockquote>
Hang on, Jim. SD80MAC is correct. The SD45-2 is the same length as the SD40-2, so Athearn could re-use the existing SD40-2 chassis under an SD45-2, with a few minor mods to clear the relocated cab location on the SD45-2. The SD40T-2 chassis that Athearn has under their SD40T-2 would be the correct length for an SD45T-2; remember, the T-2 tunnelmotors are longer than their "straight" SD40-2 and SD45-2 cousins. As for what I'd like to see (or would expect to see) from Athearn Genesis, an SD70MAC sounds about right. And a nice SD40, along with an SD45 (and maybe even an SD39, with some clever die making), would be cool. [ 31 March 2002, 05:37: Message edited by: SP 8299 ]
I retract the statement on the SD40 & 45-2's. Looking at the wrong thing. Back on the Athearn T-2's. The frame does not have the correct bolster center lines. They had to get the trucks away from the steps so they would go around toy track radius.
Welllll......um......not exactly. Unfortunately, that never-ending project of mine is still incomplete and sitting on my computer desk. Construction-wise, it's pretty much done; I finished bending and installing handrails, and all I really need to do now is scribe some lines into the area behind the cab to represent the Dash-2 electrical cabinets these units got, install the Cannon ECAFB, then off to the paint shop. It had been sidelined by other projects of late; I've been bitten by the Geep bug, and have been working off-and-on on various P2k GP20's and GP9's for Espee. Maybe you asking about the SD45R will motivate me to finish the thing.<g> BTW, welcome to Trainboard.
As most of you all know I'm a HUGE steam buff. And not only that but also a big B&O railfan. But I'd love to see Athearn bring out a GE U-50 or the BIG Veranda Turbines for Union Pacific! Both these models are in brass for HO scale. And someone had made the U-50 in N scale I believe ConCor did. But I'd buy one of each in HO scale if they were afordable! I know thats asking for a ton but, the most interesting ones though. The U-50C I believe was the one with the 4 trucks, and the big Veranda turbines with the 4 trucks and tender.... Someone that knows the ones I'm talking about, can feel free to correct me... But the 2 of those loco's with the 4 trucks... I'd run them even tho I am a B&O railfan and modeler....
Steam nut here too John, BTW isnt B&O a personal problem? Well sinse were dreaming here How bout a John Henery in HO thats not brass. ( -yea I know VERY limited appeal ) Or evan a- 4-8-0 like N&W had. Looks like tha A is finally comming so.....Mike
I would not expect Athearn to do anything about re-tooling their old models. Since the majority of Athearn models have been produced in much better quality and accuracy by other manufacturers it would not be profitable to produce a model in direct competition. Besides do not expect a re-tooling into the "Genesis family" to be as affordable as the oversized, inaccurate and poor performance offerings of the past 40 years. The "Genisis" line has raised the price tag of Athearn models and I do not believe affordability is a priority to their marketeers.
Mike C, Yeah yeah yeah, I know its all about the steam to me but, I'd love to see a decently priced U-50, or Veranda and still run then even tho I'm a B&O fanatic.... Just like its going to be with an Allegheny! I have one but its not the new Riv tho. My Allegheny is made by Arbour, which if your not familar with is like Boswer. Its a kit but a better kit then Bowsers. So... But I'm planing on dumping 2 motors in it with 2 flywheels instead of like the Riv with one motor and one flywheel. And being its a cast boiler like Bowsers are its heavy so... The need for 2 motors is alot to ask but will be sweet in pulling power and traction. And the 2 motors will prove effient for the power so... I thought being the Allegheny is the most powerfull with 7500 HP I'd make mine somewhat as powerfull for HO scale. I'd LOVE to see Riv or someone even P2K bring out a B&O EM-1! Then I wouldn't worry about the Allegheny by Riv. The EM-1 then would be my first and formost priority.... Till then, I'll settle with the 4 I have that I custom made from a Rivs Big Boys... [ 01 April 2002, 03:21: Message edited by: 7600EM_1 ]
Well so far I only own 1 steam engine, the Big Boy (Rivarossi), but I like all kinds of steam engines. Especially the U.P. and P.R.R.'s, their locos are impressive, I for one love big time steam too. Maybe one of these days we can convert to steam again, cause some of these diesels just dont cut it. I've seen the diesels run any where from 4 or 6 engines on the head and 1 on the tail end, unlike steam, which could run from 2 or 3 engines on the head and 1 on the tail end. Not to mention when a steamer is coming down the track, you can hear it, which is safer than those quiet diesels. I'm not against diesel, but the thing is they just plain stink. But thats just my opinion!
<font color="336633">I just want a C636... I dont care who makes em I just wish someone would hurry up....how can I model the north west on the BN in the 70's/80's with out some. </font>
Black Cloud I have heard of someone re-doing a Roundhouse 2-8-0 into a N&W 4-8-0 so I know its possible. Just not what I want to do now though. I already have 2 of the Sunset locos. Run real nicely too..Mike
UPBigBoy, On the contrary, I know for a fact that in most cases with steam, you'd have one LARGE steamer on the point and 2 on the rear pushing. I can name the place as well and if I had a scanner back up what I'm about to say with pictures... The B&O for the truth of it. To get over the eastern Contenental Divide they had one Articulated on freight trains on the point and 2 LARGE rigid frame steamers on the rear pushing keeping up the slack! Namingly the EM-1, [2-8-8-4] on the point and 2, S-1's, or S-1a's [2-10-2's] on the rear pushing! And that was the way they got from Hyndman, PA up and over the Divide at Sand Patch... This was one of those moments for the B&O. If theirs any classic picture on the B&O one of the few anyway is the picture of the front of the train comming into the day light of Sand Patch Tunnel with a big EM-1 on tghe point, and on the same train, and 2 "Big Sixes" on the rear pushing. In the days of steam the slack between cars on mountains in the east were a big thing. The front loco was to keep the train to speed on the entire trip.... The loco's on the rear were only used on mountains to keep the slack up between cars to keep up the road speed and once to the crest of the mountain discouple and back down the mountain to do another fight up the mountain and hoping to keep road speed as much as possible without slowing down as much as the mountain usually got anyway. But the only thing forsure.. The fact that they all [all 3 loco's] were "a blowin' the black smoke and pourin' the coal to her" And for another Eastern railroad, the Western Maryland.... They'd have a Challenger on the point, a H-9 [2-8-0] in the middle of the train and possibly a I-2 [2-10-0] keeping up the slack... So its not always a double headed train. In local spots in the area it was done just how I put in this post for the 2 local railroads... And in most cases for the Western Maryland.. They very seldom ran their Challengers through Meyersdale. It was mostly the 2-8-0's and 2-10-0's. and even more J-1's [4-8-4's] then they had Challengers in Meyersdale. Why, I can't really say I don't actually know that reason for not having them, however I do know that the Western Maryland hated the Challengers they had! For one they beat the rail badly which was costly, the Challenger the Western Maryland ordered had 68 inch drivers, they were also light for an articulated, and the train crew had trouble keeping sand in them for it being used so much for traction, and they were very rough riding... Matter of fact a friend of mine that is now retired and worked for the Western Maryland said that they about litterally vibrated themselves apart. So in a way I can see why they never ran them on the mountains alot. The 4-8-4's and the 2-10-0's from Baldwin were said to be the best of the new generation of steamers for the Western Maryland. Then the fact that Western Marylands work horses were named to the 2-8-0's.... Those were some really hevy and powerfull 2-8-0's. Then you had the area of W. V. with the coal mine down their that took as many as 10, 2-8-0's on like 14 cars or so.. very steep grade! They then in 1944 bought the largest and last Shay ever built..... The Western Maryland #6 162 ton 3 truck. It now resides in Cass Scenic Railroad as their work horse....
John, It really depends on the railroad and what their motive power was rated for. Locomotive adhesion plays a part too. On the N&W they ran "doubles" coal drags with doubled tonnage for a coal train. 10,300 ton train averaging 120-130 cars. Tonnage was factored by adhesion of more than 25%. The 2100 series Y6s were that. It all depends. Sometimes you could have an 'A' or a 'Y' on the point and one 'Y' on the rear. Sometimes two 'As' and a 'Y'. They used "retainers" coming down the mountain, and would be turned down for easeing off the mountain. Most coal movements on the N&W were handled by the 'Y' class 2-8-8-2s, low drivered engines not capable of high speed running. Whereas the 'A' class 2-6-6-4 was mainly used on hotshot freight movements. It just all boils down to the road.
Jeff, Although its basically the same thing.. As well.. Given the statement true. But even with one "A" on the point and a "Y" on the rear is basically the same as the "EM" on the point and 2 "Big Sixes" on the rear.. Sad thing is. The B&O's big sixes were the most powerfull 2-10-2's outshoped. They were rated at 84,300 Tractive Power for one Big Six [2-10-2]. The Y6b's were rated at 152,206 Tractive Power. So as a guess the Bix Sixes "2" equalled one Y6b even though I know the 2 of them had a higher TP then one Y6b. Given the information here I will say that its not actually the railroad as much as it would be the terrain that has to be conquered. Its actually the best suited machine for the job. Its said that the B&O's Sand Patch grade was one of the worst mainline grades for a high ball class 1 railroads in the northeast. And to think about it the tunnel itself is the very top of the continental divide in the northeast. Its also said that the B&O had the toughtest route in the northeast, Pennsy had an easier route along with the New York Central, and even C&O They all had mother nature on their side with the terrain to get to Ohio to get the western Grain to the eastern sea ports. But its the fact of dragging 10,300 ton train up a 2.44% grade and that of a 2.00% grade. The railroads used what they had and what was designed for the job that they had to do... On the railroads in the days of steam in most cases on most railroads you had a regular steamer on the point or even a articulated steamer on the point and either another articulated on the rear or 2 rigid frame steamers.... It all depends on what their rating of tractive power was and what they were designed to do... As you've said, the "A" 2-6-6-4 was for fast frieght, and the "Y" was for slow lugging freight. I bet in most cases of a Y running a freight wasn't over 30 MPH. As a matter of fact I doubt that the "Y" reached 30 MPH. I think the top speed on a load was anywhere from 15 to 25 MPH. As for the "A" i'm sure it excceded speeds of I'm going to say at least 50 MPH being I don't know their speed rating... Although on the B&O their EM-1's and Big Sixes were both rated at 40 to 45 MPH. Under a load. I would say if the location of both roads would be more of the answer to what the railroads decided to use as motive power. It comes down again to the terrain and the choices made by the railroad motive power department. Just like the designers and builders of the Allegheny and Big Boy locomotives. The Big Boy was designed with large drivers and weight to run at 70 plus MPH under a 6000 to 6500 horse power boiler. Where the Allegheny was made to run at 7500 horse power for faster susstained speed, in speeds of 40 to 45 MPH. And being that of the Allegheny the boiler has to be looked at well..... The C&O did not get time to test the Allegheny untill the oncomming dieselization, another given true statement, when it came to horse power rating... The boiler was made to put out 8000 horse power. And to compare the Allegheny to the Big Boy I must say that the Big Boy was big. Long and extremely heavy, but was made to run at an average speed of 70 MPH so it needed that extra weight to run a 70 MPH, and pulling mile long train up Sherman Hill. Which also leads to saying that Sherman Hill wasn't all that sharp. The curves were more gradual. Given the eatern US that was mountainous and very traverse. And again not so much that but also clearances too.... Which the Allegheny would negoiate the curves of the eastern terrain. And with each of the 6 loco's presented here, one has to realize the location, and the terrain of the location which comes down to wheel size and wheel base length of the loco's... Which leads to their ableness of negoiating curves at different radii. Which leads to the loco's each individual TP and rating of Factor of adhesion to curvature of track and thats what their power rating is all comming from, and how they served their railroads effiently... On curves steamers lost tractive power being the wheels had to slip somewhat through a curve where as the more gradual curves didn't effect the steamers nearly as much. Which is why each railroads idea of keeping the draging slack up on long heavy tonage trains... The drag would lug the point loco down to a noticable slower speed. which is why most times their were more power on the rear then in the front. Specially on mountainous terrain. This is why the loco in the front was usually by itself with 2 or more on the rear. Or had a high speed loco on the point and 2 lugging power trended loco's on the rear pushing.... Its easy to think about. What would rather do? would you rather push something up hill or pull it? What takes more effort to do? Thus, the Y6b had a tremendous tractive power. Along with the B&O's 2-10-2's as well. The A class 2-6-6-4's, in my own mind I'd imagine slippery with the large wheel diameter and weight factor. The larger wheels took more to make one revolution. Where as the smaller wheel diameter did not and could use the power wisely and not be so slippery on steel to steel traction advantages. With the given weight of the Y6b and its wheel diameter, even tho the A class was gracefull I have to say that the Y6's were stronger and more effient of their power when compared to the A class. This also goes with the fact of that of the B&O's EM-1's they had a tractive effort of 115,000 pounds, where as the S class was at 84,300 pounds of tractive effort. Then if you really want power on the B&O the EL-5's were in fact the most powerfull of the entire B&O steam loco fleet at 118,000 pounds of tractive effort. But in their beginning years were like that of the Y6b and compound articulateds, true Mallet design. Where as the A class and EM-1 class were simple articulateds. On the Y6b with their compound design were noted for power not speed unlike the A class and the EM-1 class, then to think of the B&O they also had the 2-6-6-4 design like the N&W A class only the B&O's class for the 2-6-6-4 was KB-1 and KB-1a's. These were also in competition to the A classes of the N&W being they were also meant for high speed freight. As for my post on the Western Maryland, they had M-2's which were the Challengers and also the J-1's which were Potomac's, actually better known as "Northerns" 4-8-4's. They were meant for fast freight. But given that the Western Maryland also had M-1's and L-1's and L-2's. The M-1's were 2-6-6-2's which were for slow lugging freight. As well as the L-1's and L-2's, they were 2-8-8-2's for slow lugging freight. I believe I read in a book for the Western Maryland Railway that their best, most efient locomotive was voted to the J-1's, 4-8-4's easy firing and easy riding. Their crews liked them. So it all comes down to the job the had to be done and what terrain it had to be acomplished on...And most of all the size and weight of the train in tow... [ 02 April 2002, 04:06: Message edited by: 7600EM_1 ]
As for what Genesis could come out with, I would like to see some second generation high hood diesels.
Let me say 'Welcome, Jess!' and I hope you enjoy the board. And, another Hoosier to add to the growing list at that.
