Would you like to see a Spectrum 2-8-2!

[RAM]

The Santa Fe early 3100's would be a nice locomotive for a small layout.  I think they had 57 inch drivers.  The first group had high headlight. The next group had the center headlight.

[wade]

Well how about properly detailed to the transition era USRA mikes. They often look completely different than the stock 1918 originals. NKP H-5s and H-6s were technically USRAs but the pictures from the 40s and 50s make them look like a different animal .

H-5 Mikes were anything BUT USRA engines! They were built starting in 1914 by the NYC out of NYC-designed large Consolidations. The NKP's 35 examples were some of the later (1917) engines built from the ground up. None of the NYC's Mikes, with the exception of the H-6 and H-9 series, looked anything like USRA engines.

As an example:

H-5 Mike to the left, H-6 to the right.

Unfortunately, we'll never see a road-specific later-period Mike, unless it's something like a Pennsu L-1 or an NYC H-10. USRA engines went through a LOT of changs over the years, changes that were too numerous and varied to make them cost-effective to do in plastic. That's why you have to "roll your own", like I do:

I thought H-5s appeared to have different dimensions than H-6s but I couldn't find It in writing. They would seem to be ideal canidates for the the next mass produced  mikes as they were a NYC design. And I have to disagree with you about not seeing a mass produced late period mike. The Ma & Pa 4-4-0s and 4-6-0 are extremely specific and yet they seem to have sold well. You have done an excellent job of detailing. At some time in the future I would like to get into that but many other things need done first. The 4-4-2 idea Brian mentioned would be cool in W&LE but they were gone before the transition era - I would buy one anyway.
Wade

[Alex V.]

Bump. 

[Paducah Style]

Contrary to the comments about there being too many Mikados out there on the market, I can only conditionally agree.  Without a doubt there are too many USRA designs out there (Trix, Athearn, BLI, old Bachmann, et.al.)!  The Harriman design, as was pointed out nicely by Orsonroy however, has been conveniently ignored.  From a purely UP and SP perspective, that's nearly impossible to fathom.  Obviously those two roads are sentimental favorites to alot of modelers who, I'd venture to guess, would be glad to populate their rosters with that design.

For us Illinois Central guys, that design is critical for an accurate rendering of the ICRR under steam.  That road, alone, rostered several hundred of that style (and no USRA models!).  How manufacturers make the argument to keep cranking out 4-8-8-4s and the like, while ignoring such a prototypically popular design as the Harriman-style 2-8-2, is one I suppose only the Bach Man can shed light on!!  

Brad
Modeling the Illinois Central in Bloomington and Normal, Illinois

P.S. That's not a dig on Bachmann, by the way.  They at least had the foresight to lead/drag the rest of the industry into the world of affordable, quality plastic steam locomotives so those of us that aren't burdened by heavy bank accounts can still enjoy the "glory" days of railroading.

[Jake]

I would, but so long as it's NOT NOT NOT anything USRA (there are PLENTY of those on the market already!)

How about a Harriman Mike? Designed in 1906, they're anything but a USRA lookalike, and would satisfy SP, UP, IC, Alton, GM&O, and other proto modelers, while giving freelancers something new to use in their fleets.

I'd buy that! Along with the SY.

[lanny]

Hey Brad!

Great to see you on board! This is a great forum! Welcome to another 'die-hard' ICRR steam guy!

lanny nicolet

[pvt64]

I'd love a PRR L-1.

[rallygsc]

Hello Everyone 

a 2-8-2 would be nice, there is some alternatives on the market but they are kinda high for some of us operators.

also how about a a nicely priced 2-8-4

I am a Nickel Plate fan, and I would like to see someone other than Walthers or Rivarossi producing a nice 2-8-4

take care
George

[SteamGene]

I don't know about Nickle Plate, but brass C&O 2-8-4s are not very expensive.  Check e-Bay or swap meets.
'Gene

[pdlethbridge]

How about a generic Maine Central mike?

[SteamGene]

That's a nice looking locomotive and doesn't shriek any one particular railroad.  How's this for a plan?
Something like this basic locomotive with some spare parts - pumps to mount on the pilot deck or side, top, center, or low mounted headlight, feedwater heater and pump to add.  All that might add $5 to the price, but look at the possibilities of detailing the locomotive.  I notice it has Delta trailing trucks....
Gene

[r.cprmier]

Gene;
IF I miss my guess-Cal-scale parts?  Add five dollars?  For all of that?   Where?  I wanna shop there, too.
If you are perhaps inferring that they might include the parts, I am of the opinion that it would not behoove them in any way.  Besides, I think brass parts-with their higher resolution-are a bit better than plastic, even though plastic is going to be an easier proposition.

Rich

[Scott S]

Rich -

Regarding -
>If you are perhaps inferring that they might include the parts, I am of the opinion that it >would not behoove them in any way.

Is there not already precedent? I believe the undec 8-40CW comes with 3 cabs. (Diesel I know,  but the same idea). Some of the steamers, such as 4-6-0 come with a set of alternate tender trucks. It is a bigger step I agree to include other detail parts, particularly in the case of a headlight if it is to be operational. In this case the vendor would probably have to design the model to accommodate the option (to meet the expectations of non-expert modellers).

Nitpicking on grammar- *you* are inferring - from what Gene wrote; Gene was *implying*.

[jon grant 4472]

I agree that a non-USRA 2-8-2 would be a good option.

Jon

[Scott S]

I would love to see something that could be a NYC H-5. Also their H-10, larger than the USRA and again, like H-5, with the much less tapered boiler than the USRA design (H-6 on the NYC).

I thought H-5s appeared to have different dimensions than H-6s but I couldn't find It in writing.

Dimensional data on all the variants  on the NYC and subsidiary B&A are in
Steam Locomotives of the New York Central Lines, Volume I, parts 1 & 2, compiled by William D Edson and H.L. Vail, published by The New York Central System Historical Society, 1997. (The Big Four, Michigan Central and others should be covered in Volume II)

As already stated, the H5 were rebuilds of the G5 class consolidations, or new machines built to the same specifications. Diagrams in the book show the difference in the boilers - the H5 had about 85 ¹/₂  inches at widest, the H6 90 inches, while at the smokebox, the H5 boilers were 80 inches, the H6 76 ⁵/₈.  The smokebox front of an H5 was 84 ⁵/₈ and the front of the H6, 79 inches. Weight for the H5 ran from 275000 to almost 300000 lbs - that is, just shy of the H-6 at 300500 pounds (but that range for the H5 may be due to added boosters, which add 20000 lbs to the quoted figure for the H6 as well). Driver size was the same, but overall wheelbase was a little longer for the H6 than any H5 due to pilot and pony moving further out from the drivers and the drivers being 1" further apart for the H6.

The H10 was 40000 pounds heavier than the H6, and looked it. While the wheel base was only  4" longer (all in the pilot wheels being 4" further from the drivers, due I guess to the eight foot depth of the smokebox, compared to a couple inches shy of 7 feet for the H6 and five and a half feet for the H5.) the diameter of smokebox and boiler were larger: 87¹/₂ inch smokebox, boiler from 84 ¹/₂ inches at smokebox to almost 89¹/₂ at firebox. Again noticeably less taper than the USRA's 13¹/₂ inches.

Here is what I believe is an H-5e:
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/nyc-s1222s.jpg
Here's an H-10:
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/nyc-s2127ahv.jpg
and another from the other side:
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/nyc-s2154o.jpg
What plumbing! These might have been a steam fitters' nightmare