Don't Wiseman Model Services make a RGS flanger kit? I'd copy the link but I'm not sure pf Bachmann's policy on links to other company's products. Anyone care to tell me.

@Kevin
That's very true and near the end of its life one of my favourites, the Eureka and Palisades had a right collection, including a prairie and two Forneys, according to George Hilton. Many logging roads also had hand-me-down rod locos and the IS frame 4-4-0 and the Porters wouldn't look out of place. But, if say your RR is a run-down common carrier 'like' the E&P or NCNG or the WP&Y I think you would be hard pressed to put together a typical roster from the Bachmann range. You could 'justify' your RR owning a 'modern' 4-6-0 and an antique and under-powered 4-4-0 (what were the management thinking!) and at a pinch the mogul or a forney, but that would still leave big gaps in the roster (albeit fillable with a few BLI c16s, but that's not the point!)

And of course, a roster of pick-and-mix motive power is typical only of a RR near the end of its life. Recalling Hilton's book again, the early rosters for many of the RRs west of the Rockies were Baldwin 4-4-0, 2-6-0s and 2-8-0s, as on the E&P.

Leaving aside specific requests, I'd like to see Bachmann developing more of a family relationship with new releases. If you look at the locos they've released, there is a clear and substantial logging family with the shay, climax, heisler and mallet and a mining/quarrying family with the two porters. Then there is a 30" gauge Central America family with the OS frame 4-4-0 and the 2-8-0 and of course a Maine 2' family with the Forneys.
Of these the logging family is the most developed and only needs a bigger wagon-top shay to be as complete as most of us would need. The mining family maybe wants a diesel or an 0-6-0 Baldwin like that on the Ruby Hill Tramroad and the Maine family needs a 2-6-2. No idea what the Central America 30" gauge family needs.

Apart from these 'families' as I've called them, the rest of the locos are a mixed bag. The 2-6-0 doesn't fit well with the 4-6-0 and neither seems 'right' with the toy/tourist train look of the IS frame 4-4-0 with its tiny drivers, and the rail-bus never ran anywhere!

Of course, many modellers are quite happy to buy locos like cupcakes (one of them and two of them and ooh that's nice...) but equally, many buy a loco to do a job, to fit in, because that's the type of loco their railroad would be likely to have.

This may seem a little 'off topic', but since the cars have to look right there needs to be a family relationship between car and loco. Why, in my view, model a D&RGW gondola if none of the locomotives ever ran on the D&RGW?

So whatever Bachmann bring out next. I hope they think about compatability, about family and about having greater coherence within their range.


It'll be an S.P.C reefer, a Uintah flatcar and a WP&Y caboose 

Carter Bros passenger cars and freight cars. Gilpin Tram ore cars. Maine 2 foot cars to go with the forneys.

And a 'proper' 4-4-0 to go with the Carter Bros cars, pretty please

This might have what you want
http://www.hosam.com/grd/dates.html
only goes up to 1996 but looks pretty comprehensive
Colin

If I followed what I saw around me when growing up it would be 'Hastings' DMUs and class 33 diesels, since that's all that worked on the nearest rail line (I'm a Brit) further off were a few preserved steam railways and I guess something of that stuck in my blood because my interest has always been steam. Thein around 1971 I read Tom Rolt's account of saving the Talyllyn Railway and my interest shifted purely to NG. Alongside this were TV westerns, both film and series (Caey Jones, being a prime example) that got me interested in early period US railroads. Add them together and my interest now is mostly US NG circa 1870-1925.

That said, it may be just something about me. I'm 51 but I don't wallow nostalgically in the music or culture I used to be part of and my taste in most things is pretty wide so my interest in RRs is the same. Of course, over where I am, not following the Great Western Railway classes me as unusual

Hmm. Maybe the way the regulations are applied is fundamentally different in the states. In the UK engines and rolling stock from preserved lines can be swapped around but anything that goes on the mainline has to meet higher standards. My point was, if the aim is simply to take the caboose to different heritage railroad sites then avoiding interchange by rail might mean you don't have to meet such stringent requirements and so lessen the restoration costs and reduce excessive alteration to the thing you're trying to preserve.

In the UK most equipment moving between steam/preserved railways goes by road vehicle as the costs are a damn site less and there's more flexibilty. Not all UK preserved railways connect to the network and any delay if travelling by the railway means missing your timetabled path.

I imagine the need to get the caboose to modern standards is based on it needing to traverse the mainline, whereas, if it never travels by the mainline different rules might apply.

It would be like the movement of NG equipment as I seriously doubt a 3' gauge K27 meets modern standards, what with them wheels being so close together.