The 10/15 issue of Model Railroader has an ad for a Bachmann N scale PRR K4

[inkaneer]

First of all, a very big 'thank you very much' for the K4 locomotive.  You made a lot of people happy. 

I saw the K4 ad in the October Model Railroader magazine and noticed that it did not mention this release was part of Bachmann's 'Spectrum' series.  Is there a reason for that?  What is the difference between this and a 'Spectrum' model? 

Thanks again for a long sought after locomotive.

[Mike C]

  I think that everything new is a Spectrum now . They just aren't labeled so anymore .

[spookshow]

  I think that everything new is a Spectrum now . They just aren't labeled so anymore .

Yardmaster will hopefully chime in here, but my guess is that Bachmann has retired the Spectrum label and instead started dividing things up between non-DCC, DCC, and DCC-Sound. For example, I've purchased two Bachmann locomotives recently (a Berk and a Prairie). And although they both have the same gold-colored box insert, the Berk is labeled "N DCC Sound Value-Equipped",whereas the Prairie label simply says "Bachmann N Scale".

Cheers,
-Mark

[eric220]

I've taken a lot of flak around the Internet for pointing out the incorrect whistle. I'd just like to say here one more time, thank you Bachmann for delivering an N scale K4. Based on the video that was posted, I have nothing but excitement for this model. The whistle is an easily correctable point. I look forward to running these on my layout.

Thank you!

[dtpowell]

Eric, I agree the whistle doesn't sound correct for the K4s. Hearing in on my layout will be the test. If it isn't it can be changed.
Don't feel to bad about getting ribbed on the whistle. I've got another question on  the loco that may not be as easy to change. First, the loco looks good and I am grateful to Bachmann for producing it. I'm am ready to pull out my wallet as soon as they hit the shelves. My question is about the sand dome. Is it correct, or is just a tad too tall? I think I'll go find a hole to crawl in to now.

[bnoem1]

Please, please, please answer yes to the following question:

Will Bachmann be releasing a USRA version of the Pacific?  While I model the B & O, a pacific with free standing detail and the quality Bachmann mechanism would be a great offering.  I won't purchase steam with molded on details anymore - you've spoiled me.

PS: I thank you for the amazing EM1; my bank account doesn't, but I do!

[gatrhumpy]

I would imagine that down the road, that yes, they would release a USRA Pacific. They would just have to design the boiler and cab.

[brokemoto]

I  would have to wonder if a USRA light would fit onto the K-4 power chassis.  The K-4 was a heavy Pacific.  The K-4 had seventy-four inch drivers, the USRA light had seventy-three.  The driver size would not be that big a deal.  My experience with B-mann drivers is that they scale out a bit small, as it is.  I suspect that B-mann casues this to be done so that the things will go around sharper curves.  Thus, I would not be surprised if the drivers on this scaled out to seventy-two, or, even seventy inches.   Thie latter would allow a closer-to-accurate chassis for several roads that had lower drivered Pacifics, such as Western Maryland.

B&O did have a class of Pacifics that essentially were USRA heavy copies.   It even rebuilt several Pacifics into what essentially were USRA heavy copies.

Three roads ran USRA light originals:  B&O, L&N and ACL.  All three had copies, as well.  ACL used them for freight as well as passenger.  The B&O copies had Venderbilt tenders.  GTW and M&O had copies, as well but no originals.

It is disappointing that MRC did not make some upgrades to the old MP line.  My largest gripe is failure to make the tender all wheels live.  Yes, it did make the pilots (and the trailers?) live, but, an all wheels live tender has a proved value.  I, at least, am not so sure about the live idler trucks.  I have a few of the Micro Ace and Kato tank locomotives, some of which have live idler trucks.  The live idler trucks do not seem to help much in the contact department.

I suspect that retaining the cast-on handrails was a move to keep down the cost.

[James in FL]

I'm happy with all those who wanted a K-4.
I model a bit further south, and I too, wished for a Pacific.
I was not heavy or light in my request, I, like many, wanted something to work with.
This mechanism will be that starting point.
Boiler and cab is just modeling (like I need to start another scratch project).
I don't do DCC and/or sound.
So far, I haven't been able to justify the cost.
I really don't want to pay $399 for a chassis, half that is still way too much.
Did these even live long enough to be sucked into the CoG?
Southern's last one may have lived until about early '50's, maybe late 40's.
Surely an inheritance from an acquisition earlier.
Maybe I could wait for Bachmann to do the light.
USRA standard tender?

[inkaneer]

I  would have to wonder if a USRA light would fit onto the K-4 power chassis.  The K-4 was a heavy Pacific.  The K-4 had seventy-four inch drivers, the USRA light had seventy-three.  The driver size would not be that big a deal.  My experience with B-mann drivers is that they scale out a bit small, as it is.  I suspect that B-mann casues this to be done so that the things will go around sharper curves.  Thus, I would not be surprised if the drivers on this scaled out to seventy-two, or, even seventy inches.   Thie latter would allow a closer-to-accurate chassis for several roads that had lower drivered Pacifics, such as Western Maryland.

The K4 had 80 inch drivers.  Bachmann's model will either have undersized drivers or a longer driver wheel base.  The reason is that on the prototype K4 the drivers had 1 inch flanges and there was only one inch spacing between drivers flanges.  Reproducing that flange in N scale would equal .00625 inches.  That is less than 1/3 the NMRA standard.  With a flange that small keeping the locomotive on the track would be impossible.