drool....

[daniel_leavitt2000]

If I was rich...
http://cgi.ebay.com/N-BRASS-ORIENTAL-SAMHONGSA-PRR-6-4-4-6-PILOT-SAMPLE_W0QQitemZ380197556307

I really wish someone would start doing PRR steam.

[bbussey]

If the demand existed, it would have been done in plastic long ago.  How well the IRC Cab-Forward sells will go a long way toward establishing the new marker, just as Kato's California Zephyr did for prototypically-accurate passenger consists.

[SquirrelHollow]

That's one helluva tender.

[Bob Bufkin]

As a diehard PRR fan, this is one loco that doesn't do it for me.  Only one built and the only portion of the PRR that it ran on was Chicago to Crestline, OH.  Still wonder how they got that monstrousity to the NY World's Fair in the 30's.  I also would like more PRR steamers but a lot smaller, i.e. H class, a new version of the K4 and perhaps the B6 switcher. 

[71jeep]

I agree 100% Bob I am a diehard PRR fan but there is something about the S1 I just don't care for.And this is one of the only PRR steamers that I will say this about.

And count me in as well for someone that would die to see more PRR steam at affordable prices and good running ability.

And I just can not believe no one has done a K4 it just seems like a no brainer.

[Walkercolt]

Guys, how many years has it been since Pennsey and NYC have been gone? K-4's sell pretty well in HO (but Athearn had a "fire-sale" on thier HO K-4's a few years back), but in N....and there is the question of making them heavy enough to have decent traction too. Weight in N-scale is being addressed by several manufactorers with the use of tungsten slabs or "slugs", but tungsten is extreamly hard to work with. It's extreamly hard and has an almost unbelievably high melting point, but it is being toyed with.

[Freighttrain]

man that thing is UGLY......looks like a B.O.B.(Battery Operated Boyfriend......not my term,Woman down at the plant brought that term up a while back...) on wheels.. ;D

[inkaneer]

If the demand existed, it would have been done in plastic long ago. 

Not necessarily.  If that was the case then everything would have been done long ago and there would be no new models coming out.   

[bbussey]

If the demand existed, it would have been produced in plastic long ago.  Just as if the demand existed for producing undecorated models and parts, they would be more readily available.  I stand by the original statement.

[David Leonard]

I guess I should give up on SW1500's. The demand just isn't there. Of course there may be more demand for certain loco models now than there was "long ago." N scale has grown.

[eric220]

I need new pants...  Well, except for the disgustingly bright shade of green...

I have a hard time believing that there is no demand for an N Scale K4.  The PRR and its subsidiaries may have been the only railroads to use it, but somehow the market can sustain several manufacturers producing the model in HO.  I think that the K4, whatever its challenges, (remember that the prototype was not the best puller in the world, and was often double or triple headed) would sell more than enough to richly reward whoever wants to tackle the project.

[inkaneer]

I need new pants...  Well, except for the disgustingly bright shade of green...

I have a hard time believing that there is no demand for an N Scale K4.  The PRR and its subsidiaries may have been the only railroads to use it, but somehow the market can sustain several manufacturers producing the model in HO.  I think that the K4, whatever its challenges, (remember that the prototype was not the best puller in the world, and was often double or triple headed) would sell more than enough to richly reward whoever wants to tackle the project.

I agree on the K4 demand especially since Kato did the Broadway limited.  GG1's pulled it as far as Harrisburg and in later years E7's and 8's pulled it from Harrisburg to Chicago but before the E units came onboard; the Broadway and other passenger trains west of Harrisburg was pulled primarily by K4's and some M1's.  But the K4 was no slouch in the tractive effort department. It had a higher tractive effort than the USRA design Pacifics both heavy as well as light.  The reason it was double and triple headed was the PRR's plans to electrify the mainline to Pittsburgh were dropped due to the economic depression.  The replacement for the K4 was to be an electric mlocomotive.  Meanwhile, train weights exceeded the K4's ability and with no replacement that necessitated double and triple heading them.

[eric220]

But the K4 was no slouch in the tractive effort department. It had a higher tractive effort than the USRA design Pacifics both heavy as well as light.  The reason it was double and triple headed was the PRR's plans to electrify the mainline to Pittsburgh were dropped due to the economic depression.  The replacement for the K4 was to be an electric mlocomotive.  Meanwhile, train weights exceeded the K4's ability and with no replacement that necessitated double and triple heading them.

The K4 had a starting tractive effort of around 44,460 pounds TE.  I did not mean to say that the design was a slacker compared to other pacifics out there.  I meant more that by the transition era, there were far more powerful designs in use by most other railroads on premium trains.  (Compare, for instance, the SP's GS-4 at 64,800 pounds TE.)  For people modeling transition era, multiple-heading K4's would be a completely prototypically feasible option for pulling long trains like Kato's Broadway.  Just a thought for manufacturers who are put off because they fear that they couldn't build a model with "enough" pulling power.

[inkaneer]

But the K4 was no slouch in the tractive effort department. It had a higher tractive effort than the USRA design Pacifics both heavy as well as light.  The reason it was double and triple headed was the PRR's plans to electrify the mainline to Pittsburgh were dropped due to the economic depression.  The replacement for the K4 was to be an electric mlocomotive.  Meanwhile, train weights exceeded the K4's ability and with no replacement that necessitated double and triple heading them.

The K4 had a starting tractive effort of around 44,460 pounds TE.  I did not mean to say that the design was a slacker compared to other pacifics out there.  I meant more that by the transition era, there were far more powerful designs in use by most other railroads on premium trains.  (Compare, for instance, the SP's GS-4 at 64,800 pounds TE.)  For people modeling transition era, multiple-heading K4's would be a completely prototypically feasible option for pulling long trains like Kato's Broadway.  Just a thought for manufacturers who are put off because they fear that they couldn't build a model with "enough" pulling power.

I agree and what's more doubleheading was not reserved for K4's.  I1's and other locomotives were double and tripleheaded.  Maybe that is the key, or one of them, as to why some manufacturers stay away from steam.  Diesels can be sold in multiple units but most people only envision one steam locomotive on a train.  I would buy an ABBA diesel lashup but probably would not have four steamers coupled together even if it was prototypical..

[Bob Bufkin]

Good point about multiple diesels and steam double headers.  However, with todays DCC, it would be easy to set up steam and run double or triple headers with 1 throttle.  Would also be easy to set up a snapper (that's a readend helper for you non PRR types) using DCC.