New Steam Locomotive Requests (2-10-4 Texas/Selkirk Type and 2-8-4 Berk variant)

[plas man]

please Mr Bachmann a request for Canadian Pacific Royal Hudson , and corresponding rolling stock .

[bnoem1]

Still hoping for a 4-6-2 with sound and DCC:  USRA model or Streamlined Cincinnatian. The PRR looks great, but not much for the Belpaire firebox.

[Maletrain]

Still hoping for a 4-6-2 with sound and DCC:  USRA model or Streamlined Cincinnatian. The PRR looks great, but not much for the Belpaire firebox.

The Streamlined Cincinatian or any of the other other B&O Class P-7 locomotives would be nice new shells for the Pennsy K-4 mechanism, because the driver wheel size is identical and their spacing is nearly identical.  Also, the B&O used high headlights for all the P-7s before the P-7d and e versions, like the K-4 model.

The USRA Pacifics (B&O class P-5) had smaller drivers (74" instead of 80") and closer spacing (6'-6" instead of 6'-9" on the K-4 or 7'-0" on the P-7), so they might need a modified mechanism to look right.  But, 5" in N scale is only 1/32", and the flanges are over-scale anyway, so, with smaller drivers, the same mechanism might pass for not just the USRA Pacifics that so many roads had, but also the very plentiful B&O P-1s and most of the other Pacifics that B&O ran.  Probably a lot of other roads had locos that could also use the K-4 mechanism if appropriate shells could be produced, and maybe some smaller drivers provided.

[J3a-614]

The Streamlined Cincinnatian or any of the other other B&O Class P-7 locomotives would be nice new shells for the Pennsy K-4 mechanism, because the driver wheel size is identical and their spacing is nearly identical.  Also, the B&O used high headlights for all the P-7s before the P-7d and e versions, like the K-4 model.

The USRA Pacifics (B&O class P-5) had smaller drivers (74" instead of 80") and closer spacing (6'-6" instead of 6'-9" on the K-4 or 7'-0" on the P-7), so they might need a modified mechanism to look right.  But, 5" in N scale is only 1/32", and the flanges are over-scale anyway, so, with smaller drivers, the same mechanism might pass for not just the USRA Pacifics that so many roads had, but also the very plentiful B&O P-1s and most of the other Pacifics that B&O ran.  Probably a lot of other roads had locos that could also use the K-4 mechanism if appropriate shells could be produced, and maybe some smaller drivers provided.

The P-7 in almost any version would be extremely easy, and accurate.  All you would need would be the superstructure, perhaps a tender shell (a USRA variant would pass), a maybe a cylinder block and a trailing truck (both optional, and easy if one or the other is also used for something else).  The rest is identical with the K4 visually, including the lacy Walschaerts valve gear and its hanger.

I'm an HO man, and I'm surprised nobody who makes a PRR K4 has figured this out. 

[kewatin]

like gator humpy says ,not going to happen, best way to make it happen for your personal needs is to do what SUPERTURBINE does and go to shapeways.
he has been doing this for years now by fitting these shells on bachmann frame and running gear,and wow he has made some impressive locos..Mark from spookshow  knows of his talents as i am sure many other forum members here also. inputting a new product out their it has to have legs  to sell a lot to make profit returns. no legs no model.what i don't understand is why they won't do a rerun of the heavy mtn. which is a marvellous loco and many many people have pleaded for.you can't even find them on evil bay.but there is hope ? they just re released the lovely old connie with sound & the light mtn. to arrive soon. just hope they improved the pulling capacity compared to the heavy mtn.keep the ideas coming in, maybe some will come to fruition. but my 78 ys of age doesn't hold much time for me.
regards&later KEWATIN

[TJ]

Dear Santa,

Please bring me 4 of the above. ^
I've been a good boy all year.

I'll leave cookies and milk on the table.

I would like a UNDECORATED version!

TJ Aka Tom

[Maletrain]

"Going to Shapeways" isn't really an option for most of us at this point.  Why? because it takes some actual design effort to make a shell that is (1) realistic, and (2) fits the mechanism.  And that requires both prototype research and talent with a CAD program, as well as access to the mechanism.  Then, there is the need to sand and paint the 3D print, and add all sort of details that are not printed directly on the model.  And, by the time that is done, Bachmann will have discontinued making that mechanism, so most of us won't get one, anyway, even if we have the drive to do all of the above.

If some company wanted to actually support the hobby (as compared to make money on this hobby or whatever else their factory can do for money), they could make a steady supply of good mechanisms and detail parts for modelers to use in their hobby.  But, the whole marketing process is designed around selling expensive ready-to-use things.  That makes it less than a sure thing for some small entrepreneur to do the shell design and production, and maybe even model finishing, that the big companies don't see as being profitable for niche items that are so important to this hobby.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, Bachmann, Atlas and Kato are each in a position to change that.  Perhaps one of them will eventually do that by making mechanisms and parts available as basic products that are steadily available.  I am sure that would increase their sales, both by adding the parts sales and by enhancing the ready-to-run sales because it makes those products more attractive.  One of the things that hurts Bachmann sales right now is that their locomotives are basically not repairable under the "lifetime guarantee" because they have mostly been discontinued and parts are not available for repairs.  The large company that figures out the benefits (to them) for supporting the hobby will probably go on to dominate the others in this area.