How about a D&SL 2-6-6-0? It is the perfect small articulated engine for freelancers. And please, if anyone makes it, make it with a rigid rear engine the way God and Anitole Mallet intended.
The most obvious gaping hole in the lineup of readily-available HO scale steam locomotives is the lack of a good-looking, good-running late-19th century 4-4-0.
The Bachmann Spectrum 4-4-0 and the recent sound-equipped Roundhouse/Athearn 4-4-0 are nice products, but they’re really models of 1900- and 1890-era locomotives, and cannot easily be backdated through kitbashing due to chassis design, shape/size of boiler, etc. The old metal Mantua/Tyco “General” can be a basis for Civil War-era kitbashes, but lacks modern detailing and electronic options. The Bachmann “old west” 4-4-0s are not up to modern modelers’ standards in terms of operation or appearance. The Rivarossi/IHC 4-4-0s, although not bad for their time and reasonably accurate for a generic 1870-1880 period locomotive, are not up to the standards of modern production as exemplified by Spectrum, Proto2000, Broadway Limited, et al.
As several people have noted, small steam like this is far more versatile and easily accomodated on compact layouts than the monstrous Big Boys and Triplexes of which we currently have a (fortunate) abundance. 4-4-0s of very similar pattern were ubiquitous on railroads throughout the country from the 1870s until the 1920s, and lingered on in shortline and branchline service up until the very end of steam in some locations. The same basic model could reasonably accurately portray literally thousands of prototypes, especially if the manufacturer made allowance for easy application of different domes, stacks, cabs, headlights, etc., to a common basic chassis and boiler.
Bradley A. Scott
The Southern Pacific AC-9 “backwards” cab-forward. There have been a couple of brass models, the most recent being a limited edition of only about 125. I would think with so many manufacturers putting out cab forwards that someone would do the AC-9 in an affordable price range.
What about the Santa Fe 1950 class 2-8-0? They probably sold more of these in brass than any other and I would love to see one come out RTR with sound.
Ray, I have tried to find plans for a NYC/NKP 2-8-0 for several years and to date have come up with zip, nada, nil! There has never been an accurate NKP Consolidated done in HO, even in brass, let alone plastic. One would think that would be a great choice, especially for those modelers who do not have expansive (& expensive) layouts. If the former Clover Leaf (NYC & then NKP) were done it could be lettered for more than one road and for several points in time. One can only hope and keep searching for plans. Bill Quick, NKPHTS |
|---|
I am totally miffed by the (seemingly) lack of interst by the manufacturers in any Harriman steam locomotives. I have written virtually every manufacturer multiple times in the last several years. Still no results. Just the SP and UP modelers would make for a sizable market. Throw some IC, Georgia, and Alton fans, not counting free lance types, and there is a great market for them. SP (and the TNO) had scads of 2-8-0’s, as well as a lot of Mikes, ten wheelers, Pacifics, and Moguls. I do know for a fact that one large company has a complete package of great drawings and everything else to produce a great Harriman. I can’t explain it.
I agree! As a Pennsy modeler, I would love to see a good model of a series H 2-8-0. Sometimes, I think the smaller steamers are overlooked.
Also, I ordered a PCM I-1s 2-10-0 about a year and a half ago and am still waiting for it to be produced.
Cincy Kid
Odd you should mention the Pennsy Trubine. At my last big trainshow I found a 1960 vintage example in HO made by Olympia of Japan and imported by Gem. It was in rough shape, tarnished and hadn’t been out of the box for a long time but once I’d overhauled it and given it a two-tone brunswick and black paint job and decaled it, It was mighty handsome to look at and quite a good runner to boot. The Lionel version was considerably shortened but the scale version is quite well proportioned. I’m betting that a mass produced version would net a lot of sales from both Pennsy freaks and nostalgia types.
I’d trade my eye teeth for a BLI quality Greenbriar. What a classic. Remember, DaVinci only painted 1 Mona Lisa, so having 12 prototype C&O 4-8-4 examples shouldn’t be an issue!
N&W class M 4-8-0 because number 475 is still operational on the Strasburg RR, and it is small enough to go around 18" radius curves in HO without looking ridiculous.
C&NW R-1 4-6-0 a la #1385. Hallmark made a few in the mid '80’s and they bring nearly $1000 used. Perfect for almost any use system wide. Little C&NW as of late.
Greg
I am in N-Scale, and the one steam locomotive NOT produced in this scale is the S.P. Cab Forward. There is a huge contingent of SP fans in N-Scale, and no Cab Forward! Way back at the beginning MRC (yes, that MRC, had Rivarossi produce an N&W Y-6b 2-8-8-2. I thought sure that a cab forward would soon follow. All that had to be done (in those days) was turn the mechanism around and cast the shell, lead truck, rear deck, and a shell for the tender platform. It has been almost 40 years, and still no Cab Forward for the SP fan (I’m not one of them, I’m a Santa Fe man, but I still think its a bummer for them).
A couple of notes:
Eric, those Santa Fe 2-10-4s were 5001, and 5011 classes, but No. 5000, the “Madame Queen” would be a winner.
Also, Mark, I’m not sure if the 4-8-4s you listed are those with 77" or 73" drivers, or not, but there a lot of the “smaller” ‘Northerns’ that would fit just fine on a model railroad’s commonly tight curves. My personal choices would be the MP 2200s and the UP FEF-1s.
Come to think of it, if a 2-8-8-4 is known as a “Yellowstone”, then the B&O EM-1 fills the bill. Here is one for the books: When the EM-1s were being phased out, B&O stenciled “SAVE” on the No. 7600, so it would be part of the B&O Museum collection. Some yo-yo ignored the stenciling and shipped it off to scrap with the the rest of the class! What a loss! Speaking of losses, another 4-8-4 lost, and no models made of it, was the Timken Comany’s “Four Aces”, No. 1111, the first all roller bearing locomotive.
That’s enough from me. I sure hope someone picks up the ball for those N-Scale SP guys!
Ardenastationmaster
Amen brother! I can’t believe the Harriman Common Standards have been pretty much ignored. Great for smaller layouts too. One can never have too many SP C9’s!!
Friend, this one was done by PFM in brass in the 1960s and/or 1970s; I believe that there was a second offering but I can’t remember by whom. I saw one of these beasts running in Kansas City during a layout tour at the 1984 convention. These were, admittedly, very impressive locomotives.
And Anatole Mallet would, I am sure, be deeply upset if he knew you were abusing his first name.
ATTN: ardenastationmaster
Intermountain is supposed to have an AC-12 in the works. Observe the use of the word ‘supposed’ in this sentence; I use this word when something appears to be shrouded in vapor - which is where not only the AC-12 appears to be lurking but Kato’s GG1 also.
The CP Royal Hudson was produced more than 30 years ago by Tenshodo (spelling?). I have one and it is a work of art. But there are a number of CN & CP engines that are good looking and have not been made or some produced in brass with high sticker prices.
Douglas Davidson
Getting ready to start my next layout
The NC&StL Dixie 4-8-4, more commonly called Yellow Jackets or Stripes depending upon configuration.
I don’t know how accurate they were, but the MDC/Roundhouse line (still available on eBay) had several Harriman models - IIRC a 2-8-0 and one or two others. MDC also made a line of Harriman passenger cars. This is not the Roundhouse Old-Timer generic line that ended up becoming more popular, but Harriman-specific models. And the common Roundhouse 0-6-0 was patterned after an SP prototype.
Fred W
None of the MDC Harriman offerings, either engines or passenger cars, were done with too much accuracy in mind. Most of the steam is VERY light in detailing (no valve gear, for instance), the motors (especially the “new” cans) were too small for the weight of the engine, and the Harriman passenger cars were crude caricatures at best. I’m talking from experience here: I’ve used or built almost all of them!
Bachmann’s Harriman heavy 2-8-0 blows away everything MDC ever did with their steam in all categories, and is cheaper to boot. I’d rather everyone forgot those steam kits ever existed, so the chances of us seeing the same engines, done correctly, would be offered in modern mixed plastic & metal RTR versions.
Ray
I’m sure you are right. I just didn’t know how accurate or inaccurate they were - after my era of interest. I agree with you - some things are just better forgotten. The only positive I have about any of the MDC locomotives is that they were good starter kits to learn how to build a model locomotive. Typically, you doubled the cost of the locomotive and spent many hours trying to make it a good model of a particular prototype.
Fred
Let’s hear it for the really ugly but distinctive loco, the LV 4-8-4! This brute is so distinctive that many of us would want to see it at the front of our string of hoppers.
drhau