Me too, especially since I was the guy who said that there were only two camps.
Rich
It is like cars, and simple.
People WILL buy what they make…IF they want something.
It matters little what the public demands…for instance the minivan with the actually easily useable 3rd row seat, is amongst the most popular models sold, yet manufacturers are losing it. People WILL buy SUVs or CSVs they make when the supplies of minivans have ben exhausted, IF they want a car/vehicle of some sort {we aren’t all going back to horse and buggy, now, are we?}. Manufacturers KNOW that. SO they will make what they want, or what makes the most money, or whatever…
…and like the movie said “if you build it, they will come”…
If you want something, you will buy the next closest thing, the Manufacturers know that.
…even if not exactly prototypical.
[:-^]
[8-|]
Which Bachmann locos? The N&W J had a bad run with lead trucks assembled backwards - easy fix.
I have over thirty Bachmann steamers, all the lead and trailing trucks work just fine. In fact I remove the springs from the lead trucks of my Bachmann 2-8-0’s and they run better that way.
And since this change would be strictly cosmetic on the sideframe, it would require no additional “operational” engineering on the part of BLI.
Fact is, I have two BLI USRA Heavy Mikados, and one BLI Heavy Pacific which I have already installed Delta trailing trucks on. I used surplus trailing trucks from Athearn Genesis 4-6-2’s that I purchased direct from Athearn and with a few simple mods installed them on the BLI locos.
But again, parts like that are getting harder to find and fewer modelers seem able or interested.
Lead and trailing truck performance has more to do with good trackwork and reasonable radius curves than anything else.
Sheldon
Sheldon, regarding the orginal point; I think it may just be a broadway thing. Applies to diesels too.
For instance my 2 C30-7s. One has the correct trucks (like the older U30C’s trucks, snubbers on the two outside, axles and inside low-mounted brake cylinders). One has incorrect trucks (more like the Dash-8’s, snubber on the middle axle, high outside-mounted) brake cylinders.
Here’s an example:
Wrong sideframe: http://www.broadway-limited.com/images/view.aspx?productId=621
Correct sideframe: http://www.broadway-limited.com/images/view.aspx?productId=623
Why the change I’ll never know, but I don’t think they do all the research they should. If they did, they would have realized 0 of the BN C30-7s had the newer sideframes. And this is something realitively easy for them to do, since they have the correct parts.
On a side note, I will likely call BLI when I’m not busy during the few hours they are open (I never understood why they are only open for a few hours a day) to see about getting the right sideframes. If that fails, I buy some from Atlas and modify them to work. I’ve already found out I can glue to the back of an Atlas sideframe, and I can make my own tab and glue it to the Atlas sideframe. Axle spacing is the same for the Atlas U30C and BLI C30-7.
Are you HO or N? I’m pretty sure they did do the research when they originally sold the HO scale C30-7’s. Prior to buying mine I asked them which type side frame came on the Conrail model because the catalog pictures only showed a black blob. I was told that it came with the proper sideframe (single snubber) which happens to be the one that you are calling incorrect for your model. When it arrived it had the two-snubber sideframe. So I called to complain and they connected me with the individual who had done the research. He must have had some sort of spread sheet because he said the model should have come with the single-snubber design. After that, Broadway did send me the proper sideframes.
So what I think happened is that there was a disconnect between the research and the implementation.
By the way, the way I remember which type sideframe the Conrail GE’s have during the era I model is that the U has two, but you only C one. Seems to work for everything except a U23C which has none.
I’m in HO. Your theory does make sense though. On the BN U30C, U33C, and C30-7 all had the same 2-snubber sideframes. U23Cs had none, with 3 high outside brake cylinders, looks almost like an old SD7/9 sideframe.
If you changed your 2-snubber sideframes for 1-snubbers, what did you do with the 2-snubber sideframes?
I had a feeling you’d ask me that[:D] I know I didn’t throw them away. Finding them, well, that’s another issue. I’ll take a look around. If I do find them then they’re your’s for the cost of postage. I’ll send you a PM if I find them.
Did anyone notice that even in the “Official” BLI promo photo the wrong engine number is below the headlight?
http://www.broadway-limited.com/images/view.aspx?productId=2859&index=0
I bought one of the P7 Pacifics. Yes, I knew there were inaccuracies but I thought I would deal with them by modifying the details later. At a street price just above $200 I thought it was a deal.
Interesting thing is, my cab IS lettered President Adams but my engine number is 5300! I need that numberboard off the engine in BLI’s photo!
Happy modeling… Ed
Ed, that is real interesting. A friend of mine bought one of each road number and they are both lettered President Washington. Sounds like a real quality control issue, so maybe they did “try” to get that part right.
If you can find an Athearn light Pacific trailing truck, it is a pretty simple retro fit.
And $200 is a deal, the more common street price seems to be between $230 and $250.
Sheldon
For me the Big thing is the Drive Unit. Is it smooth, quiet, good puller - a good runner in other words? Reasonably accurate sound is nice as well when available. (HO: Kato & Atlas; N: Kato only).[tup]
For track I like Kato (HO & N)[Y]. The RR ties are spaced farther apart than NA Train lines BUT it is really easy to use and works well. When painted and ballasted it looks great IMHO.
Hi,
I brought up a related situation a couple of years ago. BLI - to me a respected “high end” loco builder - was offering USRA Mikado’s in Santa Fe livery. Well, the Santa Fe never had USRA locos, and the model did not have the required boiler tube cow catcher or the iconic ATSF number boards.
Yup, I had bought one (not realizing what I was buying), and ended up reselling it on Ebay the following year. Needless to say, I was very disappointed in BLI, for “slapping” unprototypical liveries on locos. This was something one would expect from the “low end” companies, but not one of their “stature”.
So you don’t run any HO steam? Because last time I checked Atlas and Kato have never made any HO steam. That’s OK, I don’t run any Atlas or Kato, because as good as they are, they make very little that fits my modeling era - 1954. I don’t buy trains just because “someone makes them” as suggested earlier, and I don’t settle for what one or two brands offer.
As for Kato track, glad you like it. Personally I prefer to not be locked into unprototypical sectional track.
Brian, no disrespect, but your response to this thread speaks directly to several other posters who suggested that the model train market is more diverse than ever. Obviously you have no interest in the prototypical correctness of the BLI Pacific - OK we understand.
Sheldon
Sheldon;
I do not do Steam - maybe one day. As for me I like to build layouts and watch Trains go around and around. I am but a Simple man.
Brian
No. At least the answer is no for diesel era modelers. For steam, maybe, but that is to be expected because there isn’t the demand for companies to produced prototypically correct steam engines to near the same level as diesels.
Unfortunatelly because you are in the wrong era/time this will probably continue to be a problem for you. We are going forward, not backwards, that is for those of us in the diesel era. From what little I know about steam, you are probably not going to see much proto specific stuff in the future, not like the diesel folks. So to me, this topic and the points you are trying to make apply to a pretty small percentage of the rr modeling community.
No. At least the answer is no for diesel era modelers. For steam, maybe, but that is to be expected because there isn’t the demand for companies to produced prototypically correct steam engines to near the same level as diesels.
And you know this to be fact why? Because you don’t model steam? Which diesel era? There were diesels in the era I model.
Actually, I can point out a number of detail mistakes and/or lack of high quality detail on diesels as well - some of those also from Broadway Limited.
The example that comes to mind quickly is the poor quailty of the diaphragm detail on their E units when compared to Proto2000.
I would give more credit to the argument that diesels were more mass produced and the “variations” were fewer and simler over a larger number of prototypes making it easier for model manufacturers to get it right at a lower cost.
Last survey anybody took, the transition era still was the number one modeled era.
Sheldon
P.S. - In ten years are you going to move your modeling era forward by ten years? I know some do, but most modelers I know don’t, and I’m surely not.
Actually, I want steam locomotives based on prototypes. Being in S scale I don’t expect the same variety as HO. But I do prefer a steam locomotive to be based on an actual prototype locomotive and to be nicely detailed. That it is labeled for other roads is fine with me. And I’ll use it if it fits the spirit of my prototype.
While you diesel guys may be going forward, this steam guy is staying in t
Gidday Sheldon, do we really know what we actually want or do we just go along with what we’re told we want? Are we, (and I can offer no reliable percentage of numbers), as “The Kinks” sang about,just a "Dedicated Follower of Fashion"?
As one of the “Great Unwashed” I’m just happy to be able to purchase, for a reasonable price a reliable running ,(hopefully) highly detailed steam locomotive that I can marvel at as it runs around the layout. So the detail is wrong but as I have never and am highly unlikely to ever see the prototype, I enjoy what I see. As long as it is lettered for my favourite railroad, even if they never had that loco let alone that particular wheel arrangement, do I care? “Ignorance is Bliss”.
Prototype fidelity has long been a problem for “serious” modelers, (now I do feel like I’m trying to teach my Grandmother how to suck eggs [:-^] ) which been addressed by those modelers by kit bashing or scratch building their specific engine/ rolling stock for their specific railroad. I admire them.
Is our general lack of ability, our excuse of" lack of time", the need/ demand for" instant gratification" the actual cause for the hobby to go backwards?
Cheers, the Bear (or in this case. “the Sheep”).[swg]
For some of us, there is no doubt you are correct. And please understand, I am not a rivet counting extremist by any means.
My pri
One other note about this.
There have been several posters who suggested in one way or another that few people really care because few people today model steam, or that they have never seen a steam loco in real life to know or care.
Well maybe, and maybe I’m the exception, but I never saw a steam loco in revenue service when I was child or young adult - I’m too young and lived in the wrong place to see the last few.
But I choose to model a time before my birth, and have since seen lots of steam in “tourist” service and on display. And then there is the Internet, full of pictures of our past. And those old fashioned things called books - it realy is not that hard to know what steam was like - if you have the interest.
Sheldon
I am one of the posters who made the “don’t care” comment about prototypicality on steamers.
I am old enough to have witnessed steam in operaton, living just a few doors away from the GTW main line in Chicago. And, I model some steam engines on my layout.
Still, I don’t care all that much about the correctness of the boiler or other such detail as long as it somewhat resembles, maybe closely resembles, the real thing.
Rich