I would like to suggest a possible new locomotive for Bachmann Spectrum line

[VTBob]

What about the little "Condensed Hudson" that Blount ran when Steamtown was still located in Bellows Falls, VT?

There's a video here: http://youtu.be/TqAmm5WaZ-I

It was a 4-6-4T & was pretty sharp looking. Only model of it I saw was a GEM model from years ago, with an open frame motor.

I think it'd be a good addition because you pretty much could slap any road name on it, & with the exception of the purests (no offense meant), there wouldn't be any complaints.

Just a thought for those of us who don't have room for a big hudson other then in a display shelf to gather dust.

VT BOb

[VTBob]

I found a couple more reference photos for those that haven't seen this tank of an engine:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=426494&nseq=0

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=295923&nseq=11

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=292270&nseq=12

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=27715&nseq=19

[WoundedBear]

Very cool unit. Also known as the "Suburban"....not "Condensed Hudson".

CN's class designation was X-10-A.

I have often looked at this thinking it wouldn't be an overly hard loco to model.

Sid

[rogertra]

Very cool unit. Also known as the "Suburban"....not "Condensed Hudson".

CN's class designation was X-10-A.

I have often looked at this thinking it wouldn't be an overly hard loco to model.

Sid

Trouble is, they have at least three strikes against them.

1)  The 4-6-4T is a most unusual wheel arrangement.

2)   This is a rather limited market locomotive as they are a CNR class.

3)  They are Canadian, hence no American manufacturer will touch them.  :-)

[VTBob]

Trouble is, they have at least three strikes against them.

1)  The 4-6-4T is a most unusual wheel arrangement.
Not really. Wouldn't be too hard to use the current 2-6-0's drivetrain & valve gear to make the running part. Just lengthen the pilot & ashpan area to support a 4 wheel trailing truck.

2)   This is a rather limited market locomotive as they are a CNR class.
Like I said, there's a wide range of names you could use. Boston & MAine, NYC, UP, etc, anything would fit unless you are a rivet counter.

3)  They are Canadian, hence no American manufacturer will touch them.  :-)
Wheelbase was used here. If you want to be more specific, there was several 4-6-6T's for Illinios Central, & the Boston & Albany.
CNJ used the 4-6-4T arrangement for their commuter runs.

In fact, several US lines ran them. They were: CNJ, LIRR, NYC, Illinios Central, & even the Burlington.

I've done alot of research on these little units.

VT Bob

[rogertra]

Bob wrote "I've done alot (sic) of research on these little units."

So I can tell.  :-)

Just one thing, I mentioned the 4-6-4T is a rare wheel arrangement. Only five (?) roads other than the CNR ran 4-6-4Ts, I didn't write they would be would be hard to build.  I think you misunderstood or I wasn't clear enough. :-)

[VTBob]

I apologize for my tone, when I first read your posts I kind of felt shot down, like it wasn't worth even a looking into.

In my opinion, it would be one way of having a steam locomotive, minus those fragile wires & annoying tiny plugs that are almost impossible to get out once they are plugged in. Kinda of an all-in-one unit. Plus it doesn't matter which direction they run in, they were designed to run equally well in either direction.

Probably the most popular "Tank" engine was B&O's C-16 class, 0-4-0 better known to modelers as a "Dockside", Awful lot of these already on the market, which is kind of funny, considering that B&O only ever had 4 of these tank engines total (according the the north american guide to Steam locomotives. I made a list of the ones that ran tank engines:

canadian national - 4-6-4T - Qty. 6
Canadian Pacific - 0-6-4T - qty. 2, and 4-6-4T - qty. 3
CNJ - 2-6-2T-(qty. 25), 4-6-4T(qty. 5)
C&O - 0-6-0T(qty. 1)
DL&W - 0-4-0T(qty. 2), 0-6-0T(qty. 1)
NYC - 2-4-4T(qty. 10), 2-6-6T(qty. 36), 2-8-2T(qty. 5), 4-6-6T(qty. 5)
Reading - 2-6-4T(qty. 10)

Not a ton of the generic "usra" boilerplate design locomotives. But I'm reminded of a conversation last year where someone else had brought up the topic of a 4-8-0 "Twelve Wheeler", but had the same thing happen for the most part: Users claimed there wasn't enough evidence that other roads used them aside from N&W. The list was compiled a while ago below:

ACL = 1
B&M - 18
CNJ = 51
CNW = 2
CI&L aka Monon = 22
D&H = 1 (L. F. Loree experimental)
DL&W = 20
DM&IR = 6
GN = 60
MP (Missouri Pacific) = 19
NdeM = 8
NYC = 11
N&W = 286
BR&P = 46

I could see the 4-8-0 being made, considering how many there was. I understand about the tank engine being sort of an obscure unit, but it's just an idea I had for a possible & different railway locomotive out there. The last GEM model of the Boston & Albany's 2-6-6T came out in 1977. I cannot afford the asking price they go for, nor do I think (unless you did a full re-gear & wiring) would you be able to install DCC.

Not trying for a flame war here, but I would like an honest discussion about why everyone wants to make the same generic steam locomotive wheelbase designs, when you could corner the market with a few obscure locomotives. No one's made the larger tank units in plastic yet. & aside from the early (& I do mean way early) tyco 'tender powered' 4-8-0, I don't think anyone's made it in plastic with a running configuration. I wouldn't let Broadway be the first to snag this idea & run with it, when you have the chance.

Just explaining myself as to why I first suggested the idea,
VT Bob

[Pacific Northern]

If HO models of the Big Boy (One Railroad) and of Challengers ( A few railroad) are being produced by a number of manufacturers why would the 4-6-4t and the 4-8-0 not be considered viable?

Not that large a leap

[J3a-614]

Technically, a double-ended tanker as suggested here isn't hard to do.  A 4-6-4T or 4-6-6T could even be easier than some other locomotives by virtue of being a little larger than some other engines (some tank engines, exemplified by Flagg Coal 75, are tiny!), which would make mechanism design and providing space for decoders and the like easier.  The problem is the cost of investment and whether it would sell well enough to cover that investment.  I've seen a figure, perhaps it was even here, that a new locomotive model can run about $250,000 in development, tooling, and production costs before you sell the first one.

Could they sell?  That's a question for the marketing and forecasting guys, and, at least for me, that's something of a black art.  Two things would seem to stand out in choosing something.  One, if it's a locomotive that was used by only one road, it would have to be an engine and a road with an outstanding following.  Pennsy's K4s, Union Pacific's Big Boy, and New York Central Hudsons come under this category.  The other option is to pick something used by a variety of roads.  USRA engines, a lot of logging engines, and some "stock" engines would come under this classification.

My own suggestion for a tank engine by Bachmann would be a logging 2-6-2T.  Many of these engines ran on 44 or 48 inch drivers, which happens to be the size of the drivers under the current 0-6-0T.  That model has the drivers and the associated equipment (rods, motor, gearbox) that would cut the investment considerably.  All that would be needed, at least as I see it, would be a new superstructure and new frame (to accommodate the leading and trailing trucks).  If you wanted to get fancy about it, offer versions with piston-valve cylinders or slide valve cylinders, and appropriate valve gear.

What I'm talking about was a stock Baldwin design used by a number of logging outfits--and something used by several roads is a big help in selling models!

http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/clarkkinsey&CISOPTR=968

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1387038

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=68596

http://www.trainweb.org/foothill/images/ht6.jpg

http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/photos/logging/bc_steam.htm

http://www.steamlocomotive.com/nevada/sve2-glueck.jpg

http://www.mendorailhistory.org/images/railroads/locos/2-6-2/262_09.jpg

http://www.mendorailhistory.org/images/railroads/locos/2-6-2/262_14.jpg

The last two photos are from this site; I recommend it for exploration:

http://www.mendorailhistory.org/1_railroads/locos/2-6-2.htm

http://www.mendorailhistory.org/index.htm

Have fun, and let's hope there are no viruses here. . .

[Bob_B]

Trouble is, they have at least three strikes against them.

1)  The 4-6-4T is a most unusual wheel arrangement.

.....

I find that interesting. I like that configuration and was surprised that Bachmann didn't have a 4-6-4 steam loco.
I have two of their diesels but am now buying a BLI-2582 NYC J1e Hudson 4-6-4, #5344 Paragon2 Sound/DCC

[VTBob]

The Quincey Railroad has a perfect example of a tank engine in the 2-6-2T wheel arrangement.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8256/8629615497_2d422ecdae_z.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7066/6974556453_5e8ddee649_o.jpg

These would be a great addition to any logging or mining railroad where a turntable is too much room for a locomotive.

Full valve gear would be a plus, & technically you could use the running gear of the new 2-6-0 as a basis to start from, so the retooling of a new tank engine shell would be what you'd need.

VT Bob

[Doneldon]

If I can throw in my two cents worth: Tank engines are mainly creatures of the eastern third of the US, some places in Canada, and a some industrial sites. That cuts an awful lot of potential customers out of the market. Many tank engines have been made in brass (I'm not a big fan of tank locos but even I have two 2-6-2Ts) and I cannot imagine that there would enough remaining market to cover the tooling costs for a plastic 2-6-2T, even if the Mogul mechanism could be adapted to work. Small switcher locos have been fairly successful in plastic but I don't think we can extrapolate from that to the conclusion that other tank locomotives would be equally successful on the market.

It just seems to me that such highly specialized locomotives, which were used almost exclusively by relatively small railroads and in only limited numbers by just a few major railroads, cannot be a justifiable investment by mass market producers. Someone mentioned BLI. Well, I'm afraid that tankers aren't a good investment for them, either. Broadway's thing is producing highly detailed models with state-of-the-art electronics of mainstream locomotives from big railroads. The enormous cost of their style of tooling for a tank loco of any size would force them to price it so high they would be lucky to sell even one.

In the old days, we either watched Model Railroader to see which importer would offer the special loco we wanted, built something from scratch or kitbashed it from the best substitute we could find. In most cases that meant scratch building or kit bashing because even the brass manufacturers had to listen to the market. Most brass was also comparatively high-volume locos, with just a few unique items thrown in from time to time. Engines from large railroads the the USRA constituted 90% of what they offered.
                                                                                            -- D

[rogertra]

What Donald said.  :-)

Couldn't put it better.

[Jerrys HO]

J3a-614

The last two photos are from this site; I recommend it for exploration:

http://www.mendorailhistory.org/1_railroads/locos/2-6-2.htm

http://www.mendorailhistory.org/index.htm

Wow J3, you brought back a memory I almost completely forgot about. The last link refer's to the Skunk train. I remember as a boy my grandfather who lived in Vallejo used to take me on the Skunk train almost every summer I visited him.
Thanks for a memory I had almost forgotten, now to go dig up the pictures of them times with my grandfather and the Skunk train.

Jerry

[Desertdweller]

Lumber operations all over the US used tank engines.  I have seen a 2-6-2 Saddle Tank engine in use in South Dakota.

Lumber railroads at least used to be a popular model railroad theme in the 1960's and 70's.  Both in standard gauge and narrow gauge.

A 2-6-2 would be a good companion to the nice 2-6-6-2 currently offered.  A logging railroad would be a nice theme as a free-lance model railroad, as much of the equipment was home-made and rather crude.  Typically, it would include a lumber mill and mill pond; log handling equipment (skidders, donkey engines; steam-driven loaders; stationary boilers and winches); sawdust burners; and a loading track where finished lumber would be loaded into boxcars for pickup by a line-haul railroad.  It also would be a likely place to find small industrial Diesel locomotives.

Some lumber locomotives were equipped with suction pipes for drawing boiler water out of trackside ponds and streams.  They would burn slabs trimmed from the tree trunks when squaring up the logs.  That would make an interesting tender fuel load to model.  Don't forget the massive spark arrestors on the smokestacks, and the camp cars needed for remote logging camps.

The track in the woods would generally be unballasted.  This was temporary, as the track would be pulled up and laid back down as logging areas were moved.

Les