Just wondering

[bbussey]

Victor made a good point up-thread - that if he were to invest in the tooling of a model, he would want to retain ownership of said tooling.  While quite valid, that would be a sticking point with an established manufacturer, since they are investing the resources/connections/advertising/goodwill.  The only way to retain full ownership is to pursue the project independently and assume the full risk/burden.

Regarding uniqueness - I have more of a "hole to climb out of" in modeling the New Haven than do Pennsy modelers.  Yes, steam is gone by my chosen era (even though I have some of the commercially-available USRA models that are prototypically close), and I've been fortunate over the last 25 years in the diesel category in that a number of esoteric models that factored heavily with NH have been released (RS-3, DL-109, H-16-44 early and late, 44T, etcetera).  I also got lucky with Atlas releasing the International 1944 caboose (NE6).  But New Haven was heavily invested in the passenger business, and the electrics are a huge void that never will be filled commercially.  It's incredible that a signature passenger model may be forthcoming from Rapido in a few years in the form of the Pullman Bradley Light Weight.  And couple that with at least a third of the passenger equipment being PRR, which had it's own unique equipment. 

I had five roads to choose from that I saw regularly during my childhood when deciding on where the focus should be for my model railroading - PRR, NYC, NH, PC and CR.  I regularly watched NYC and NH passenger consists cross the drawbridge between Manhattan and the Bronx.  I regularly traveled PRR trains on the Northeast Corridor.  I watched NYC, PC and CR tonnage on the West Shore.  I chose NH in the 1950s because of the vast diversity in the equipment and the paint schemes, and the license to model PRR equipment by extension.  So I already knew, in choosing to model the New Haven, that a number of models would have to be kitbashed or scratchbuilt (or tooled).  I've only tackled a small portion of my want-list due to life constantly getting in the way, but I've finished quite a few models over the years utilizing all three methods.  There always is criticism of the manufacturers for not conducting thorough research on particular models or paint schemes.  Why shouldn't the modeler be held accountable for not doing thorough research on what is available commercially before choosing what road to model?

[bbussey]

I do know that they sold enough that GHQ, a few years later, fired up a second run.  What's great about that kit is that the cast pewter adds a bunch of weight on the drivers and aids pulling power.  A Shapeways shell would do no better than a normal plastic boiler in that respect.  Nevertheless, I can wait for the techniques to be refined as necessary.

Dave,

The second run being released "a few years later" doesn't exactly bolster the position that road-specific steam conversion kits are worth pursuing, especially when the production runs are low to begin with.  Northern Pacific is GHQ's desired road, so why haven't there been more kits for that road?  I just don't see locomotive shells, whether PRR, NH, or any other road, being a product that will pay for itself in the end.

[inkaneer]

There always is criticism of the manufacturers for not conducting thorough research on particular models or paint schemes.  Why shouldn't the modeler be held accountable for not doing thorough research on what is available commercially before choosing what road to model?

Because it doesn't work that way.   We model what we like not what is available.  If I had to model UP because it was available I would collect stamps instead.   I own not one UP car or locomotive and never will.  My collection of western road cars is miniscule compared to eastern roads.   Why?  Because that is what I am willing to open my wallet for.  No one likes to be told about how to spend their money.

[Brakie]

I just don't see locomotive shells, whether PRR, NH, or any other road, being a product that will pay for itself in the end.
-----------------
That never worked in HO either.

The Cary SW1500 and FM10-44 metal shells wasn't that popular due to the amount of work involved.Of course Athearn's undecorated BB shells never sold that well either.

IMHO road specific detailed locomotives would be the better choice but,that comes with a price..

[bbussey]

Because I have no interest at my age to re-enter the rat race of business.  Okay?  I am quite satisfied to be a consumer.  What we are being told here is that the PRR and the B&O guys and others  are not wanted in N scale.    So what happens if we all decide to go to HO.  How does that translate economically.   N scale loses customers HO scale gains.   Manufacturers see that and cut back on N scale while increasing HO.   So how does that affect all you others?   Now there is your economics.

Constantly harping on there not being the models you want isn't going to get the models made, not without proving there are thousands of other voices that share the sentiment.  And if you truly believe the lack of one road-specific PRR model broadcasts that PRR modelers are not wanted in N scale, with all of the other PRR-specific N scale models that do exist, then you aren't grounded in reality and the manufacturers are not going to give your request the weight you feel it deserves.

People are not going to migrate en masse from N to HO because certain desired models don't exist, whether Pennsy or any other road.  If available equipment (which is not as lacking as you portray) was the dominant primary issue for an N scale modeler, he/she would have started in HO to begin with.

[bbussey]

Because it doesn't work that way.   We model what we like not what is available.  If I had to model UP because it was available I would collect stamps instead.   I own not one UP car or locomotive and never will.  My collection of western road cars is miniscule compared to eastern roads.   Why?  Because that is what I am willing to open my wallet for.  No one likes to be told about how to spend their money.

I never stated people shouldn't model what they like.  But they should be aware of what they are choosing to model.  That is their responsibility, no one else's.  And it's certainly not the responsibility of the manufacturers.

[packers#1]

All except Bachmann, I should think.  That they've introduced GP7s, RS3s, and a number of duplicate freight cars in direct competition with Atlas suggests they may be more open to risk than most companies.  Plus, that they seem to have the upper hand in China gives me some hope.  The K4 is a natural for them given that they make one in HO.  The recent run of MTL PRR heavyweights should only increase demand, if only slightly.

Actually, at the WGH show, my buddy had one of the bachmann guys at our booth and I mentioned a bit tongue-in-cheek that a C424/425 would be great in N scale (yes I know abt LL, not the point).
his response was that most of their n scale stuff is first produced in HO and then redone in N, so I'd say the odds of that happening are decently high, I'd get on the horn and bug the heck out of them until they do

[Dave V]

Dave,

The second run being released "a few years later" doesn't exactly bolster the position that road-specific steam conversion kits are worth pursuing, especially when the production runs are low to begin with.  Northern Pacific is GHQ's desired road, so why haven't there been more kits for that road?  I just don't see locomotive shells, whether PRR, NH, or any other road, being a product that will pay for itself in the end.

If nothing else, it was worth floating the idea.  I'm thinking my next steam project may be another bashed H10sb, but this time I want to do the tender more correctly with those new rivet decals, and then maybe add a Tsunami or something else with sound.  Just a thought.

My brass K4 has been so modified now to make it run well that its collector value is zero (it's hard-coupled so doesn't fit in the original box), and so I plan to re-paint the thing to look less like a museum piece.  I'll add one of Bernie's etched keystone number plates.  Plus, they lettered the damned thing crooked.

[inkaneer]

I never stated people shouldn't model what they like.  But they should be aware of what they are choosing to model.  That is their responsibility, no one else's.  And it's certainly not the responsibility of the manufacturers.

Really?  Seems to me manufacturers should be catering to the market not to their whims.  At least that is what every marketing course I ever took stated.  But it appears like that is not the case in N scale.   Manufacturers make what they want.  That is why FVM made the Hiawatha.   That is why Kato makes western roads.  That is why IM says PRR is a fifth tier RR to them.   That is why I don't buy from any of those manufacturers.   

[wm3798]

If Kato made what you want, you'd quietly order it on line, and ask that it be shipped in a plain brown wrapper...  The manufacturers DO cater to the market by producing models that will have enough mass appeal that they can run sufficient numbers to keep the unit price reasonable.  Ergo, just because there are a few squeaky wheels demanding a Baldwin AS-16, or a PRR K-4, doesn't mean that a manufacturer is going to be willing to front the considerable capital to take such a risk.

Yes, it would be nice to have an AS-16, but it is a rather dull looking engine, and the prototype was not widely popular so there aren't that many paint schemes that would appeal to the collector crowd.

I don't know what the short answer is, but with current economic conditions, I don't see anyone going too far out on any limbs...

Lee

[packers#1]

I tend to side with the manufacturers, because they have to stay afloat somehow, but then with all the big steam out there and everyone who are steam heads ( i know a couple on other forums), why wouldn't a K4 or M1 or a major Pennsy steamer make sense in the long run? Even if they're specialized, a single model might have the same appeal as a Challenger or Big Boy, and be bought just to run. I know that while I try to model 1990's and up (I'll sometimes drop to the eighties, it's a fluid thing), I'd be interesting in picking up a Bachmann 4-6-0 or 2-8-0, just for the heck of it.
So the big question, other than why are we chasing the tail, is why couldn't, say FVM, turn out a K4 or something?
And then another question: since the Pennsy was so standardized to itself, could one, in theory, cannabalize a mass-produced pennsy model and another mass-produced model in the same wheel configuration to make any other pennsy model?

[Ian MacMillan]

[Puddington]

PRR guys.......you think you got problems...? Try modeling the CPR, what with all their in house cars and locomotives, odd ball, CPR only designs and the fact that it's cold up here and on one loves us...sniff...sniff..tear....

[victor miranda]

hi packers#1

there are a lot of variables in this.

there are mechanisms and tops/tenders

there are 6 prr locos on the table

the 6 classes are H-8/9/10 ( one class),
e-6, g-5,k-4, L-1 and (the maybe/realclose eye-1) I-1

two boilers and one tender, though adding a second tender would be a good idea.

all 6 may have small compromises from scale fidelity
to include them all with the I-1 being the most compromised

build an H-9 with reasonable accuracy and then make the e-6 and g-5
without apology.
same with the k-4 and the follow on L-1 and I-1.

I expect the k-4 has the most potential for iconic sales.
for a daily bread kind of loco the h-9 would be loco to make
If you are a PRR modeler, the H-series are the geeps of the PRR
they went everywhere and PRR used them for shunting.

[Scottl]

PRR guys.......you think you got problems...? Try modeling the CPR, what with all their in house cars and locomotives, odd ball, CPR only designs and the fact that it's cold up here and on one loves us...sniff...sniff..tear....   

Applies to pretty much anything in Canada.  Yeah, I know they made a CN SD40W in N, 'cause we don't say nasty things about IM on forums...  We love IM, and buy their stuff all the time.