BLI: M1 arriving

[prr7161]

I got curious about what might be next for BLI n scale steam a while back and looked at their old release order in HO.  The next PRR engine out the gate after the HO M1 was indeed the T1, but they also did the NYC J1e Hudson and the N&W A pretty early on.  Personally I am hoping they jump to I1s Decapods pretty soon - I'd buy an unhealthy number of them...

[Dave V]

Guys,

We have a lot of reason to be upset with BLI over the delays.  I recall seeing an ad for the M1 in Model Railroader when I was in Iraq...in 2003!  But BLI has a long track record in HO that seems to be quite favorable.  Their N scale stuff, though slow to market, also seems to get decent reviews.  I've seen these pre-production models in person, and other than obvious signs of rough-handling from doing the show circuit, they look great to me.  We know they've been working with the PRRT&HS--unlike Bachmann--and they'll be using the same sound files as they used in HO which includes a proper Juniata-built 3-chime whistle.

If there's a Penny N scale modeler bracing to bash this thing, he'd be in the tiny minority.  Everyone I know who's running Belpaire-and-keystone steam in his basement is ecstatic and incredulous over the fact that after all these years this thing is actually, finally happening.

@peteski's right...we should generally reserve judgement until we can analyze these things in person.  But from what's already out there...i.e., the decorated pre-production samples...I don't think we need to worry.  My only worry is how well these things will handle my layout's curves.  Sounds like they made the Centipedes work on sharp curves, so I'm pretty confident.

[ChristianJDavis1]

I told you that you should have asked...

Yeah, but I ignored that... I forget why, but there was a reason.

How about the Hudson?  The premier 4-6-4 passenger loco hasn't been available since the old ConCor versions, which are . . . old, even though Kato made the early ones.  Seventeen Class I's (including Canadian roads) rostered the 4-6-4 type, and although there were minor variations in boiler size and driver size, the NYC version could be used for a bunch of these.

I'd love to see Kato do a modern-mechanism US-prototype 4-6-4 . . .

John C.

Kato's newest iteration of the JNR C62 (4-6-4) is an excellent locomotive. Would the driver size be relatively close to any American prototypes? That would probably make new American steam from Kato more likely.

@peteski's right...we should generally reserve judgement until we can analyze these things in person.  But from what's already out there...i.e., the decorated pre-production samples...I don't think we need to worry.  My only worry is how well these things will handle my layout's curves.  Sounds like they made the Centipedes work on sharp curves, so I'm pretty confident.

I hope they are able to take small curves like the centipedes. That would likely help them sell better (if they can be used on small layouts). The Key M1a I have can make it around the smaller Kato unitrak curves, and seeing as brass tends to have more problems with small radius curves, I think the BLI should be able to make decent sized curves. Then again, these are only assumptions based on irrelevant references...

[Cajonpassfan]

Kato's newest iteration of the JNR C62 (4-6-4) is an excellent locomotive. Would the driver size be relatively close to any American prototypes? That would probably make new American steam from Kato more likely.

The C62's had 69" drivers. At 1:160, the Kato 1:150 model drivers would only scale to 73.6", too small for a North American Hudson.
Otto K.

[ChristianJDavis1]

The C62's had 69" drivers. At 1:160, the Kato 1:150 model drivers would only scale to 73.6", too small for a North American Hudson.
Otto K.

Thank you for that. Never really took the time to look into it. That seems to be the problem with a lot of the Japanese steam engines (rather small wheels when compared to North American prototypes). Then again, most of their steam engines are much smaller anyway.

[peteski]

Thank you for that. Never really took the time to look into it. That seems to be the problem with a lot of the Japanese steam engines (rather small wheels when compared to North American prototypes). Then again, most of their steam engines are much smaller anyway.

They represent a narrow gauge prototype (as most railroads in Japan are narrow gauge).  So even at 1:150 scale their proportions are still narrow-gaugey.    At least I think that is the reason why they are so undersized. American steam locos are rather large compared to the rest of the world anyway.

[ChristianJDavis1]

They represent a narrow gauge prototype (as most railroads in Japan are narrow gauge).  So even at 1:150 scale their proportions are still narrow-gaugey.    At least I think that is the reason why they are so undersized. American steam locos are rather large compared to the rest of the world anyway.

That is the excuse I have always heard. They did the same thing with their HO models (1/80 as opposed to 1/87 to make the track look smaller). Neither HO or N scale get the track gauge correct (HO scale cape guage is about TT guage track, while N is somewhere right above Z). This is because the Japanese Governemnt Railways (Later Japanese National Railways) used a standardized "Cape Gauge" (3'6") rather than standard gauge (I believe due to British influence). The Shinkansen trains use Standard gauge, and 30" gauge is also popular for small mining and logging applications.

[eric220]

American steam locos are rather large compared to the rest of the world anyway.

And Pennsy steam locos are rather large compared to the rest of America! 

[peteski]

And Pennsy steam locos are rather large compared to the rest of America! 

Thereyago! 

[Cajonpassfan]

Then again, most of their steam engines are much smaller anyway.

As is their gauge. It's kind of hard to build an 84" drivered Hudson on narrow gauge rails.
It would look funny, anyway..
Otto

[Blackout]

So curious of this machine. Hope they are a hit and perfect.