Is N scale smoke really making a comeback?

[bigdawgks]

I think the problem people have is that it's a feature in seemingly such low demand that it should not be a priority for the manufacturer. The people who want small steam locomotives in N don't care about the smoke feature, and those who do care about smoke will probably be satisfied with buying larger models. It's really another case of BLI not really understanding their market too well.

[JMaurer1]

I think the problem is that even the BEST smoke units (probably referring to O scale here) produces a sad looking puff of smoke. Nothing at all like a real locomotive would. Why go to all of the effort to include something that doesn't even look good to begin with?

We all now know smoking produces cancer and death...isn't that what killed the steam locomotives in the first place?

[John]

Bob.  The nice thing about the hobby is the big tent.  I don’t like the smoke, especially on the larger scale.  It irritates my eyes. 

As far as John’s train.  I wouldn’t do it, but that doesn’t make it right. It did look like it ran well when I saw it Again. Rule 1 applies.  I hope bli makes a mint on these.  Time will telll

[Dave V]

Smoke is awesome when it's Lionel, especially the smoke-as-steam-out-of-the-whistle thing. Love it!

But in N....

- The wisp of smoke doesn't scale well at all. If anything it would ensmallen the N scale locomotive rather than embiggen it (look it up, these are perfectly cromulent words).

- Smoke oil leaves residue. We need all the help we can get in N scale to keep the rails spotless, something Lionel and their 50-pound locomotives doesn't really need to worry about so much. But even on the locomotive itself, an N scale engine's going to look slick and oily in short order. The spatter of oil on an O scale locomotive just looks like weathering.

- Agreed with previous posters about 1) this is a niche within a niche and 2) BLI feels a bit like lately they're trying to drag HO and N scales into the 3-rail toy train world.

Don't get me wrong. I love, love, love well-done 3-rail stuff with smoke and sound. The smoke and sound is a huge strength of O scale. Not so much N.

[Doug G.]

The smell and oil residue "problems" are WAY overstated. The only place the residue collects is on the loco, itself, and eventually evaporates (yes, oil does evaporate). And, the original Cedar scent smells wonderful.

Doug

[Dave V]

The smell is admittedly nostalgic. I had a smoke-equipped HO scale Bachmann 2-6-2. Still looked like a dying cigarette butt, but I was 9 and it was cool as sh!t as far as I was concerned.

[Englewood]

Smoke is not for me, but there are people who like it. I think BLI knows better than some random poster on the internet what sells. After all, they've got a lot of money invested in this.

[wazzou]

Smoke is not for me, but there are people who like it. I think BLI knows better than some random poster on the internet what sells. After all, they've got a lot of money invested in this.

I think the gist of it for most, presumably, is that a nice running 0-6-0 switcher is a pretty big hole, many wish to fill.
To have a vendor say they've considered it, but that the likely inability to include a smoke option is what would prohibit them from doing it is frustrating.

[peteski]

The main issue here is that it seems that because BLI cannot cram a smoke into smaller steam switchers, they are unwilling to look into producing them. Does every N scale steam loco *HAVE* to be a smoker?!  Seems like a piss-poor excuse to me.

For many years BLI produced N scale steam models without smoke - why the sudden need to smoke them all?

At first, there were modellers unhappy with their Paragon sound decoders crammed in their throats. BLI finally realized (was it the survey?) that they were losing a lot of sales because of that, and they recently changed their course and started offering models without decoders.  Brilliant move!  But around the same time they somehow got the notion that smoke is a wonderful thing.  Hmmm, maybe they should take another survey . . .

[Doug G.]

It does seem a bit strange they wouldn't produce a locomotive JUST because they couldn't make it smoke,

Doug

[ATSF_Ron]

Besides the FEF northern, the ATSF 3751 IS mentioned as a future project. No date or other details, but I’m stoked to see this loco in the pipeline!

[mike_lawyer]

Besides the FEF northern, the ATSF 3751 IS mentioned as a future project. No date or other details, but I’m stoked to see this loco in the pipeline!

Even though I don't model the ATSF, I am stoked to see them make the 3751. 

[kiwi_al]

Supposedly the ATSF 3751 comes after the Pennsy I1 and J1a although the information I got was some years ago now so it is just a theory

[robert3985]

I saw that in the newsletter and couldn't believe that was the excuse for not making a small switcher.  If they said the problem is fitting a decoder into a small tender, that at least has some logic behind it, but it is still a weak argument.

Also, I was a little disappointed that BLI mentions it will build an FEF in N scale as one of the next steamers.  We have the Kato model already, which is outstanding.  Why make another FEF?

Personally, I would like to find out what new PRR steam will be released.  They have been very quiet about that, and I have asked several times on their Facebook page.

Personally, I think a BLI FEF is a GREAT idea!  I need "another" (actually several FEFs) FEF, like both FEF3's and FEF2's without the Worthington SA feedwater system, and FEF's with a correct steam era oil bunker instead of the modern safety appliance equipped version that the Kato 844/8444 has.  Since no steam-era FEF had the Worthington SA feedwater system while wearing either the white or yellow TTG paint scheme, if BLI decided to do both FEF3's and FEF2's with the TTG paint schemes, they'd have the correctly equipped engines to properly do so with, as opposed to Kato's TTG 8444/844, which prototypically only wore TTG with the Worthington SA feedwater system while in modern excursion service.  Although coal-fired FEF2's and FEF3's are before my era, I am pretty sure there are modelers who would love to integrate them into their layout's era if they were available.  Also, FEF2's/FEF3's without smokelifters (elephant ears) would be nice to choose from.

Although Kato's 844/8444 (FEF3) is a nice model of that particular engine while in modern UP excursion service, to run any FEF engine equipped with the Worthington SA feedwater system painted TTG on a layout whose era is pre 1952, would be incorrect, because the first Worthington SA feedwater system was installed on FEF3 837 in September 1952, when being shopped and re-painted to glossy black.  Other FEF3's and FEF2's had the Worthington SA feedwater system added after the 837, with the 844 receiving hers very late in her non-excursion service career post-1956, and all of them wore the glossy black paint scheme in this time period.

Additionally Kato cut corners on their 844/8444 with their one-piece double headlight and their not-separate over-the-cab side window grab irons on either side of the cab top, and their cast-on smokebox piping. Kato did a good job providing separate grabs on top of the tenders and the horizontal railing/conduits on either side of the boiler...but they didn't put separate cab roof grabs, which are very prominent prototypically.  I guess that was to save a few dollars.  Oh well...bad decision.

Early FEF2's were equipped with large single stacks when they first entered regular service, then later were equipped with obviously welded-up double stacks.  FEF3's were equipped with massive cast double stacks as original equipment, so that's one of the spotting differences between FEF2's and FEF3's.

Some FEF's were equipped with triple stacks, which were a welded design.

If BLI does the detailing on their new FEF the same as they did with their Big Boys, then they would offer both modern and original oil bunker filler details, separate on-the-cab horizontal grab irons, coal and oil versions, removable smoke lifters, Worthington SA feedwater system, and non-Worthington SA feedwater system versions, FEF2's and FEF3's since the two differences between the versions were only the welded vs cast double stack (early coal fired FEF2's had a large single stack) and two different pilots, with the FEF3's having a massive single-casting pilot vs the FEF2's bolted-on version. Everything else was the same between the two versions.  Stacks that snap in place rather than being integrally cast into the smokebox would allow easy changing between welded or cast versions or even the welded triple stack option.  The early single stack would require a different smokebox.  Separate piping overall would get rid of the odd-looking cast-in piping (when viewed from above) that is on the Kato 844 and it would allow the piping differences between engines equipped with the Worthington SA feedwater system, and those not equipped. Coal-fired versions would require ash pans below the firebox and ash-dumping hand-wheels on the engineer's side, as well as a coal bunker for the tender.

Soooo...more UP FEF's is a great idea, especially if BLI chooses to detail theirs with the same adherence to accuracy and versions they've done with their Big Boy.

As far as "smoke" is concerned, I'll remove any smoke unit that gets installed, just like I've done with their Big Boy since it's such an easy job to do and vastly improves the appearance, getting rid of the bright brass "rings" in the stack.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[thomasjmdavis]

Besides the FEF northern, the ATSF 3751 IS mentioned as a future project. No date or other details, but I’m stoked to see this loco in the pipeline!

Just a reminder on the 3751 timeframe...I'm not getting any younger, and my heirs are not into trains and will not be buying one with the money I leave them in my will. I'd rather leave them a few hundred bucks less and one more locomotive to get rid of.