Quote from: kcsivils1 on September 04, 2010, 11:12:27 AM
From Bachmann's perspective Westside No. 3 might be the locomotive to produce. We might each have our own specific favorite but the No. 3 is sort of like the RGS 20. Everybody knows the locomotive, it has wide appeal and for those of us who have been clamoring for a Heisler, we'll pony up for one just because it is a Heisler.

actually going by Bachmann's track record Westside No.3 is probably the LAST prototype they'd pick, just like RGS 20...Bachmann seems to got out of their way to choose little know prototypes for their On30 locos

that's' not necessarily a bad thing, but it would be nice to see a Bachmann C-16 2-8-0, 8-18-C 4-4-0, Westside Shay or  Hiesler...or even RGS/F&CC 4-6-0s

but I'm not holding my breath...

Quote from: Royce Wilson on July 14, 2010, 07:32:01 PM
      C&S 74
      RGS plow flanger 2
      any of the RGS or D&RG flangers
      turn of century 2-6-0
      a real 4-4-0

                                  Royce

it's over 100 degrees outside right now so you'll never convince me h#ll has frozen over...

I'm sure a standard Baldwin catalog tender would be fine...

I'd just like to see another sort of standard, typical looking loco that would look right at home on a railroad that ran anywhere in the country...you know, something a little less 'extreme' than some of the other locos Bachmann offers, something that would look right parked next to the original Mogul

it's the little 2-6-2 on the Georgetown Loop fresh out of the shop

Quote from: railtwister on February 13, 2010, 08:03:56 AM
There should be no need for argument here, but the point is, if the caboose was closer to the SR&RL prototype, those who complained would have been happy, and those who are currently happy with the model as it is, likely wouldn't be any less so just because it was a more accurate representation of the prototype.
Bill

EXACTLY...(and the same could be said of some of the other Bachmann products)

to me, there doesn't seem any point in not making something more accurate, when it won't make it less acceptable to the guys that don't need to be accurate...know what I mean?

thanks for the excellent instructions!

and don't pay too much attention to the peanut gallery...there are quite a few people running On30 with 'basically' On3 standards. Just check out the On30 Annual ...

and even if one isn't worrying about On3 standards, getting the coupler up to the mechanically correct height* makes all the rolling stock look a bit more believable anyway


*the bottom of the floor, even with the top of the wheels, where the load is applied.

I guess that's the good thing about options...what looks good, or even acceptable to one, looks like doo-doo to another... 

personally, I think HO track looks silly in O scale, with the apprx. 5" x  5" x 54" ties spaced about 6" apart ...but that's just me, if it works for you that's fine

and again, IMO, the Peco doesn't look all the great either, being OO scale industrial track, the ties are too "short and fat", but buried in the dirt it can look reasonable...

so for me, hand laying or maybe Micro Engineering track, is the only reasonable choice for non-industrial On30 track (although with ME track the uneven tie spacing it's a little bit "backwoods-y for me)


it's all about what compromises works for each individual, personally I think a small discrepancy in the track gauge is FAR LESS noticeable that a small (or not so small) discrepancy in tie spacing



but YMMV

I agree...some of those Jackson and Sharp excursion cars might convince me to pick up a Forney to go with them...

I'm still hoping for the P.F.E reefer

(that's Polar Fruitcake Express in case you're wondering  )

but when I asked Mr. Bachmann directly about the domes (see the second post in the 4-6-0 picture thread) there was never an answer...while other questions about what was included, like the about spoked pilot wheels and stacks, were answered pretty directly <shrug>

...maybe the Bachmann just doesn't like me

I just wish they would give a clear, direct answer about what was included with the loco. Specifically about the domes and the window block off plate show on the Greenbier version...that doesn't seem unreasonable does it?

not that I'm trying to pick on you Ken, but where did you get the info on the domes?

All the documentation I've seen mentions multiple stacks, headlights and fuel loads, but says nothing about the domes...it would be nice but I'm a bit I'm counting on it...especially considering Mr. Bachmann's silence on the subject


Travis, I've been distracted by real life stuff for most of the year (not bad stuff, just stuff) and haven't done any modeling to speak of...I am looking forward to getting an MMI 4-4-0 and one or more of the 4-6-0's, depending on how simply they can be modified...I'd like to end up with SPNG #18, #9 and a RGS/F&CC one too.

you might wana look again Ken 

28697 has a wood cab and fluted domes, not smooth domes 
http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/products.php?act=viewProd&productId=3069

exactly Travis...


I mean, it's not like perhaps the most photographed narrow gauge 4-6-0 in North America has round domes and a wood cab or anything 

<coughRGS#20cough>

Quote from: Melinda on July 11, 2009, 02:08:50 PM
I'd rather see On30 versions of the Jackson & Sharp-type excursion cars (already available from Bachmann in HO). They're more old-time-y looking than the newly announced ones.

I agree, I'd love to see those on On30...they'd look great behind a Forney

Quote from: finderskeepers on July 10, 2009, 06:07:41 PM
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but this engine looks to me like someone took an O scale cab and stuck it on an HO locomotive. When I heard that bachmann was doing an 2-6-6-2 in O scale I was hoping for the same nicely proportioned engine that they had announced for 1:20.3 Oh well.

I agree...it looks too much like an HO scale loco converted to O for me ( sorta like the inside frame 4-4-0)

I really "get" that in the On30 world there is a demand for both small locos and large ones (relatively speaking anyway, they are all pretty darned small)...

But I don't see how making models of one-off, teeny tiny larger locos, like the IF 4-4-0 and the new 2-6-6-2 makes either group happy...IMHO the 4-4-0 was too "big" for the industrial modelers, too "rod engine" for the loggers and too small for the  common carrier modelers...sure it was cute and all but it seems (again IMO) that building a more common style narrow gauge, inside frame 4-4-0, along with something like a Heisler would have made more people happy than the IF and OF 4-4-0 that Bachmann made <shrug>

anyway...I think the new 2-6-6-2, while kinda cute and cool, is like a lot of the Bachamnn stuff in the last few years, and falls into the category of neither fish nor fowl...




1234