Kato N scale steam

[mmagliaro]

Kato has a penchant for big "beauty queen" engines, at least for the US market.   Just look at the Daylight and FEF.  The USRA 2-8-2 they did was really their only meat-and-potatoes engine.  As such, I'm not holding my breath for them to do a lowly steam switcher or a simple freight road engine, even though those dominated the rosters during the steam era.

[peteski]

I remember back after the first run of GS4, I spoke with a Kato rep at a show somewhere about the next steam.  His comment was that the head guys in Japan had just developed the new small coreless motor, so it was likely to be a small steamer to compliment.  A few years later, we have that coreless motor in the FEF.   So, I guess that's their definition of "small steam".   

I believe that the small coreless motor you mention was first used in a small Japanese prototype N scale steam loco and in the H0 P42 loco (in its powered trucks) before ending up in the N scale FEF3.

[thomasjmdavis]

Santa Fe 2-10-2 since there was NO option for a Santa Fe Northern...    
We do need western 2-10-2s anyhow...

Well, I would agree with that (and voted for the 2-10-2 anyway), but it is NOT an ATSF 2-10-2 they are talking about, but a USRA 2-10-2.  The wheel arrangement is a "Santa Fe" the same way that a 4-8-4 is a "Mountain."  I've always assumed that ATSF placed the first big order, and the loco was thus named.  I wish it were a ATSF version, or an ATSF 4-8-4 or an ATSF 4-6-4, but looks like they are going with standard operating procedure of NYC Hudson and USRA everything else.  BLI is wedded to PRR stuff in N, would be nice to have some accurate ATSF steam.

If they really wanted to make me happy, a GTW U4, but I doubt that will EVER happen- maybe a shell someday. Or, if they do a 4-8-4, maybe that will be close enough to a U3.

A question they did NOT ask, but hope they and other manufacturers would consider- "Do you want to be able to rearrange the domes and other details?"  All of the locos they are asking about have been produced in the past and it is getting to the point that N scale steam has as much variation as N scale DPM downtowns.  Be great if we could detail these engines without having to dremel and patch.

[James Costello]

Kato has a penchant for big "beauty queen" engines, at least for the US market.   Just look at the Daylight and FEF.

Surely ATSF #3751 is next then?

[RBrodzinsky]

I remember back after the first run of GS4, I spoke with a Kato rep at a show somewhere about the next steam.  His comment was that the head guys in Japan had just developed the new small coreless motor, so it was likely to be a small steamer to compliment.  A few years later, we have that coreless motor in the FEF.   So, I guess that's their definition of "small steam".   

I remember that day! The Sacramento NMRA convention. You wanted small steam, I was asking for the Hudson and 20th Century Ltd set.

[Mark W]

I remember that day! The Sacramento NMRA convention. You wanted small steam, I was asking for the Hudson and 20th Century Ltd set.

I knew I was with you, but couldn't remember if it was the one in Sacramento or the Cow Palace.  Was that the same show we gave Bob Knight a restroom break and drooled all over his etched kits?   

[jdcolombo]

A question they did NOT ask, but hope they and other manufacturers would consider- "Do you want to be able to rearrange the domes and other details?"  All of the locos they are asking about have been produced in the past and it is getting to the point that N scale steam has as much variation as N scale DPM downtowns.  Be great if we could detail these engines without having to dremel and patch.

I've always believed that the eventual solution for steam in N scale is a "generic" chassis followed by 3D-printed shells with correct details for a given road.  Yes, there are differences in driver size and overall wheelbase but honestly, most of us can live with these (the difference between a 63" USRA 2-10-2 driver and the, say, 58" B&O driver is .031" (1/32)).  No, the complete purist won't be satisfied, but if you can get a shell with all the right details in the right places, really, are you going to quibble over 1/32" on the driver size?  Is anyone really going to pay any attention if the shell is a near-perfect copy of the prototype?

Anyway, I voted for the Hudson, the 2-10-2, and the 2-8-2 (hoping it is a "light" version, and not the heavy version already produced).

John C.

 

[RBrodzinsky]

I knew I was with you, but couldn't remember if it was the one in Sacramento or the Cow Palace.  Was that the same show we gave Bob Knight a restroom break and drooled all over his etched kits?   

Yep, same day.

[PiperguyUMD]

I've always believed that the eventual solution for steam in N scale is a "generic" chassis followed by 3D-printed shells with correct details for a given road.  Yes, there are differences in driver size and overall wheelbase but honestly, most of us can live with these (the difference between a 63" USRA 2-10-2 driver and the, say, 58" B&O driver is .031" (1/32)).  No, the complete purist won't be satisfied, but if you can get a shell with all the right details in the right places, really, are you going to quibble over 1/32" on the driver size?  Is anyone really going to pay any attention if the shell is a near-perfect copy of the prototype?
 

I'll drink to that!  That would also mean no pre-orders, and no waiting on the next run. Pick up your chassis, and order you print.  You have it in a matter of days!

[mu26aeh]

are you going to quibble over 1/32" on the driver size?  Is anyone really going to pay any attention if the shell is a near-perfect copy of the prototype?

I'm not so sure.  Have you seen some of the complaints around this place ? 

[johnb]

I'll drink to that!  That would also mean no pre-orders, and no waiting on the next run. Pick up your chassis, and order you print.  You have it in a matter of days!

search for the complaints about the Micro Trains SW1500 hood being 6 inches too wide. I love my SW1500

[brokemoto]

"  I've always assumed that ATSF placed the first big order, and the loco was thus named.

In the late nineteenth century, All Tramps Sent Free was using 2-10-0s a helpers on Raton.  Instead of turning them at either Raton or Trinidad, the railroad simply ran them tender first light back over the pass.  Somebody in the shop noticed that the tyres on the two aft driver pairs were wearing faster than the other three pairs.  Somebody advanced the theory that an idler truck to guide the locomotive would help reduce the tyre wear.  Supposedly, somebody in the shop had a trailing truck jury rigged to the back to the locomotive and it showed some improvement.  Thus, ATSF went to Baldwin and asked it to build this thing.  On the earliest examples, the trailing truck does look like an afterthought.  Once Baldwin delivered the first few examples in the early twentieth century and ATSF put them to work on Raton, it noticed that the driver tyres wore more evenly.  Thus was born the 2-10-2, named after the first road in the U.S. of A. to use the wheel arrangement.

It later evolved into a drag freight locomotive, as it could pull almost anything coupled to it, just not very quickly.  SP and B&O did, however, manage to get some speed out of theirs.  SP equipped many of theirs with steam lines and signalling devices and had them work passenger trains in far Northern California and in Oregon.  B&O used its mostly for fast freight, but did equip a few with steam lines and signalling devices so that they could protect #29, #30, #31, #32 and #33, which were B&O's primary mail and express trains.   Wm. Price took several photographs and made several films that showed Big Sixes' working the mail. 

If you look at the USRA 2-8-8-2, the trailing truck appears to be an afterthought on that one, as well.  I suspect that its only purpose was to guide the locomotive when running tender first.  The 2-8-8-2 was initially designed to work helper service.  There are some who assert that the B&O EL-5s were really USRA 2-8-8-2 copies but without the trailing truck.

[nscaler711]

@brokemoto pretty much summed it up right there... though could have done without the "All Tramps Sent Free" bit :p
All we have is the Bmann 2-10-2 and its quite abit off for an actual ATSF 2-10-2, and it would be an ok stand in for a Texas type as well 2-10-4, that is IF it gets approved by Kato Japan...


As for the Challengers and Big Boy, the only way i would accept those if they mated the rear drivers to the mechanism like the real versions...  but that will never happen...

Though as much as i dislike the NYC(RR) I would like to see the Dryfus Hudson pull the 20th Century Limited...
shame one never survived...

[peteski]

@brokemoto pretty much summed it up right there... though could have done without the "All Tramps Sent Free" bit :p

As for the Challengers and Big Boy, the only way i would accept those if they mated the rear drivers to the mechanism like the real versions...  but that will never happen...

What radius curves do you have on your layout to run them in that configuration?  Some brass Big Boys were made that way and they didn't handle curves well.

[nscaler711]

What radius curves do you have on your layout to run them in that configuration?  Some brass Big Boys were made that way and they didn't handle curves well.

At the moment, nothing!  Yay Apartment living!! ... and subsequent moving due to divorce... life is great!
But it would be nice, thats the only major issue I had with the Athearn Challenger, I didnt care for how it looked going around 19" curves, with both sets of drivers being articulated. One day I hope I will have enough room for 36" curves...
I also know that it wouldnt be practical, it was more of a tounge in cheek comment than anything.
Other than that, I thought Athearns renditions were nice (minus the fact my particular one would never stay quartered)
So I just dont think we need anymore... but thats just me...