InterMountain seeking input on another steamer.

[ceiteach1]

I'd like a 10 wheeler. CN and NKP. I've sent my email vote to Intermountain.

Keith.

[wcfn100]

There's probably only three locomotives IM could do to get me to open my wallet

CGW Texas
RI Northern
DM&IR Yellowstone

I came close on the Yellowstone on my last trip to Denver, but of the four on consignment, three had cracked gears with no available replacement parts from the importer.  If it's still there when I go back, I'll have to see if anything has changed.

Jason

[bsoplinger]

Definitely a 10 wheeler, but you'all have the cab in the wrong place :

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/lv1623s.jpg

[SirTainly]

CPR Selkirk, or the Royal Hudson, which has the advantage of being done in original and modern excursion schemes.

[lock4244]

FWIW, my vote... CN steam.

[Puddington]

This topic and the various response is interesting but brings up a more basic question. Sure, as a CPR modeler I would love a Royal Hudson, Selkirk or heaven forbid a 4-4-4 Jubillee, but recognizing that I and perhaps a few hundred other (maybe more but certainly not a flood) CPR fans would gladly mortgage the house for such items, it isn't practical, nor would I think ecconomically feasable for a manufacturer to make such items.

So; should the PRR gang drool and dream of their M1a's; the WM gang start making signs and placards for their Potomacs and the lovable but sadly misguided CN fans (just have to take the cheap shot at my CN pals whenever possible  ;D)  start a hunger strike for their iconic green and black Northerns ? I just can't see it.....

I just have to believe that a good quality, plastic, generic locomotive would be the best course of action. Look at the success of the Bachmann Spectrum 2-8-0 Consolidation - lots of these good runners are running right out of the box all over the place; the RTR crowd being pleased with the details and runability and not too concerned that they have a "vanilla" model. Many "modelers", such as we have here have done excellent work in modifying the model into their specific roadname's version; using the Bachmann offering as a base from which to begin.

I think everyone has come to the conclusion that you either have to make a truly generic model of steamers or you have to get "uber" specific and make a "one road" only version due to the localized and highly unique characteristics of steam engines. If you can accept that this is the truth of the matter then the decision is a clear choice; and I choose generic modeler bases as opposed to the "road specific model" everytime.

A genericly designed Ten Wheeler; Hudson; Northern and other locomotives, maybe with a selection of detail parts either offered or included ( ie driver types, water heaters, cab selection, pilot style, tender type and style, etc....) would go a long way to allowing a "balance" between RTR needs and modeler needs. Sure, the few ultra "detail freaks" might be just as unhappy that the model is 1.2 scale feet too long/short and that the smoke box is .5 ft too wide but it would be a viable and I believe almost universally accepted starting place for most modelers.

Sales is all about finding products with the widest appeal; I believe that this approach is the right one with regard to the needs of the manufacturer to make an acceptable return and the needs of the modeles who want to have their road specific models made available to them.

[Dave V]

Good point, Pudd.

I'd rather kitbash my own PRR steam engine from a well-running generic loco than have a PRR-specific one detailed to the nines that runs like a dead pig.  Something tells me the former would sell way better than the latter.

To that end, I think any 2-10-0 would be a hot seller.  I still don't quite get why Bachmann killed the Russian decapod.  Something about the motor not being small enough.  The 2-8-0 motor should fit just fine.  Sounds like a cop-out.

[Puddington]

Ther can be no doubt Dave that;

a/ A 2-10-0 would sell well; we CPR fans have given up trying to pull the Belpair smoke box off the old and tired Trix model in order to make our Western helper units... wrong sized drivers too...The Russian model would be a newer starting place to say the least.....

b/ Bachmann is full of it on the motor... if it fits a Consolidation, you gotta believe it fits a Decapod.....they just wimped out on the project; period.

BTW - speaking of a Belpair fire box; can you guys see any way that such a thing could be an add on or a "extra part" that could be modeler attached..... I have no idea........?

[Mr. G]

Frankly, I'd like to see more generic small steam as well.  An Atlantic might be in order, or if I'm dreaming, some geared locomotive magic.  The Atlas Shay was a step in the right direction, but it's about time for a heisler or a three truck shay (other than the RLW one).  Seriously, beyond the Atlas shay, we've seen barely any geared engines since the Overland monsters and those laughable Joe Works lumps.

I'm mixed on the giant steam phenomenon.  I understand that manufacturers get away with charging more for them, and that they hold appeal for modelers.  Heck, I'll be picking up an AC-12 even though it won't actually fit the narrow gauge logging theme I'm working on.  Still, I can honestly say that engine will probably not see use for at least the next several years.  These big articulated jobs, IMHO are largely show ponies to place next to your Consolidations, Pacifics and Moguls, so that people look into your display case and gasp.  They're cool to look at, but not too practical. 

Of course I could be wrong.  Everyone may have some Koester-ific coal-hauling empire extending the length of the house and I just didn't get the memo.

[SirTainly]

Sales is all about finding products with the widest appeal;

That's only one approach. The real goal of sales is to sell as many as you can at the given price point, therefore selling a niche product at a high price can also be a money maker, look at Concor's Aerotrain and M1000. The advantage of this approach is you actually have to create fewer units which can be a plus if either certain component's prices or labour charges are high.

It's the difference between Harrods and Walmart, the former sells high at low volume, the other goes for pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap.

[TiVoPrince]

Logging?
a nice little 2-6-2 prarie or 2-8-0 consolidation would be a keeper.  Got to be a strong puller to handle realistic logging grades and sharp curves.  The MDC/Athearn is a fine loco in size, but the enormous tender is just out of place for a logger...

[DKS]

Sales is all about finding products with the widest appeal; I believe that this approach is the right one with regard to the needs of the manufacturer to make an acceptable return and the needs of the modeles who want to have their road specific models made available to them.

No argument here. But it does strike me as odd that this all comes up on the heels of the release of a cab-forward, which does not seem to me to be a particularly generic locomotive (although it will keep the Big Boys and other monsters company).

To that end, I think any 2-10-0 would be a hot seller.  I still don't quite get why Bachmann killed the Russian decapod.  Something about the motor not being small enough.  The 2-8-0 motor should fit just fine.  Sounds like a cop-out.

While a 2-10-0 is perhaps more generic than a Big Boy or cab forward, I do have to wonder how broad the appeal would really be given that a decapod would probably not run on many layouts because of minimum radius issues (perhaps that was Bachmann's roadblock?). But if a decapod was generic enough to broaden its appeal to modelers willing to customize, it then might not have the mantlepiece appeal like the Big Boy surely does. But who is to say? Ask twenty modelers what new steam loco they'd like, and you'll get eighteen answers. What is a manufacturer going to do with this information, I wonder?

[Ed Kapuscinski]

If they build GWRR/SRC #90, I bet they'd sell a few.

[wm3798]

Having just taken apart a Life Like 2-8-8-2, and owning an Atlas Shay, there's a point worth making about how these engines, seemingly from complete opposite ends of the spectrum, are similar...

They are engineered the same way our fine running N scale diesels are.

Yup.  That's got to be one of the appeals to an articulated design, and one of the reasons that Atlas introduced the Shay as part of its stable of reliable locomotives.  You have a motor in the middle, worm gears fore and aft, and two drive trucks.  Just like a GP-38 or an SD-80MAC.  The rest of it is just window dressing.

It's a design that has proven itself to be virtually bulletproof, and fairly easy to assemble.  Sure, on the steamers you have all those fiddledy-bits (if I may borrow Iain's term) that turn with the drivers, but the fundamentals are the same.

In defense of Bachmann, something I rarely do, the Russian is considerably different from the Consolidation.  The boiler has a smaller diameter, and rides lower on the frame.  The motor itself might not be the issue, but transferring torque from the motor through a worm to the main drive gear might be.  Perhaps the 3/8" in length or whatever it would take to drop the worm down to function with the drive might have been the deal breaker.  A smaller motor would certainly address this, but maybe that forced the model to another price point, which potentially could be as critical to sales as the size of the drivers.

So, what about some generic steam for "base models"...  That's clearly the logical answer, but what's generic?  Obviously USRA designs would be a place to start.  But will the driver diameter of a USRA 2-10-0 be suitable for a WM 2-10-0?  Dave had to struggle with that with his M1 project... The Bachmann wheels are quite small compared to the PRR prototype.  Will the unwashed masses care?  Probably not.  But steam heads will lament this shortcoming as much as we carried on about Bachmann's absent blower duct on their SD45, or Life-Like's missing sight glass on the GP38-2.

Back to the other side of the coin... are there enough similarities between certain roads' steam that the manufacturers could play the "shell game"?  I mean, with Atlas diesels, we get road specific shells, high hoods, headlights moved about and the like.  Could a Santa Fe Northern's frame be put under WM Potomac boiler?  Or could a "generic" boiler be designed wherein the headlight, domes and cabs be interchanged to create the right look, if not a precise replica?  Years ago I modified a Bachmann Northern into a quasi Potomac by moving a few things around and adding a Rivarossi tender.  While it ran like crap on the old Bachmann mechanism, it sure passed the 3' away rule.  The new Heavy Mountain and/or the updated Northern has me thinking about reprising that project, but steam remains a low priority for me at the moment.

The key to economic success is to follow the model of the diesels, which as I pointed out earlier, the articulateds already do.  And that means a certain amount of interchangeability of parts, with only a few add-on details differentiating them.  But with the impossible number of steam variations, this will be a mighty task.

Lee

[Dave V]

Lee, since you used my name in "vain..."

In N scale, steam is often a 90% solution.  The real trouble is the ridiculous number of variations on each wheel arrangement.  And you know what?  I'm OK with 90%.  As long as they're 100% from an operating standpoint.

Diesels, on the other hand, are so, so, so much more standardized.  The differences can often be corrected with aftermarket details (though not always).  The trick there is keeping the aftermarket detail guys in business.

My point:  Incorrect diesels in N are less forgiveable than "standardized" steam, IMHO.