Wow!  That's really very nice.  I have seen a number of tenders on eBay- no doubt remainders of  scrapped-out Hallmark engines.  I bought a Hallmark from Peachtree- It had a gearhead motor!  But, it ran maybe a hundred feet before it developed a lope.  Then it just stopped dead.  The spokes on the main drivers had crumbled.  This seems to be very common on these models.  I thought I might be able to put the superstructure on a Bachmann mechanism, but the HMK had been filled with lead an shot.

I sent an almost-exact copy of this  a coupla yrs. ago!  The pattern-maker for Bachmann copied- no, USED- making only a few changes- the Hallmark brass I.C. 2-8-0 in the creation of the Spectrum 2-8-0s.  There are even file marks that are on both engines!!  The primary changes are a.) the tender and, b.) the air pump/s.  The Hallmark engine even came with a dome that was identical to the Bachmann dome. Not all I.C. steam engines had a "square" sand dome.   I have two- one that looks like a Bachmannn, one with the 'square' sand dome.  The I.C. (most of 'em, at least...) had the air pumps on the pilot deck.  The Hallmark "900 class" Consols. were just bad models; the drivers(white metal...)on most crumbled from age or fatigue- theywere NOT sprung and ran fine... in reverse.

I also would be thrilled to see an I.C. 2-8-2; I have three Alco  I.C. Mikes- They are terrible runners- or were- until they got the North West Short Line treatment.  But I would buy at LEAST three or four...  One thing for sure... we don't need another #$@%&## USRA Mike.  But, with the 2-8-2 traditionally being the most-popular steamer, the I.C. might just be a great choice; I.C. modelers would love it, of course- but the freelancers would, I suspect, be in heaven!

The Illinois Central has been largely ignored by everyone for - well, since model railroading began.  Hallmark did a 2-8-0 and a 4-8-2; Alco did a 2-8-2; PFM did two versions of the 2-8-4(pre- and post-war...)and Sunset did an "Illinois Centralized USRA Light 2-10-2.

Unfortunately, almost every loco the I.C. had was different.  There were "1200 class" 2-8-2s that looked almost identical to some "2000 class" 2-8-2s... And there are two of the same class that look nothing like each other- or the others of the same class!  There has never been a 4-6-2 that resembled one of the I.C.'s(...even though many were identical to S.P. P5s...) Modeling Illinois Central steam is a tough nut to crack- somewhat like those guys who built the F.E.C. "Keys" layout; Almost a dozen scratchbuilt engines later, they almost had a decent roster!  If someone would make an "I.C. Kit"- a selection of 'square' domes, a sheet metal "I.C. pilot", and an airpump kit- pilot deck mounts with N.Y. pumps- I'll bet hundreds would sell. 

But the original premise here is valid:  Spectrum 2-8-0 with the smaller Vandy, lettered I.C. #909 would probably be 'good enough' for many of us!

Quote from: epeorus on March 08, 2007, 08:55:17 AM
I agree.  MMI still has my K27 and can't figure out why the sound doesn't work (it ran for two feet on my test track a year ago).  I am a little put off by MMI but will consider the 4-4-0 but will gladly wait another year or two if Bachmann just hints that they will produce one instead.

I have some MMI, well everything they've made- they're pretty amazing locomotives.  But most everyone I know has scrapped the sound on the first (outside valve) run.  Even when it worked, it was awful.  I certainly wouldn't let my engine sit somewhere in hopes that that awful sound system might miraculously become worthwhile.  My advice(for PSC):  Fix the lights, send it back! I think it was a case of wnting to do too much.  Anyway, 6 months later, Tsunami was the gold standard for sound, anyway.

I just swapped one set of spoked  lead truck wheels on my 4-6-0 with a solid seton the 4-4-0, giving one set ea. on either engine.  Mismatched wheels were fairly common when solid wheels were firstbeing used.

Wouldn't a 4-10-2 be more-likely to appear in a BLI ad?  So far Bachmann has, with the exception of the K4s  only opted for fairly generic(nee USRA) locos; the 2-8-0 is half I.C./half free-lance- there simply was no Consol. that covered several railroads.  The 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 are both "catalog" engines.  The upcoming "F" K27 is narrow gauge- and, as we all know- th' rules just don't apply...  The 4-10-2 was used by both the S.P. and the U.P.  The other thing is, my guess is that Bachmann most-likely believes it has performed its due diligence as far as 10-coupled engines are concerned... with the Light 2-10-2...  I once suggested a B&A-NYC/Mich Cent/B&M/SP/ICRR/and more... Early Superpower 2-8-4- it's the original version of the NKP/C&O Pere Marquette(covered by Walthers/Proto 2k)Berk.  And, don't forget:  Ain't a passenger engine in sight- 4-6-2 or 4-6-4.  The Spectrum K4 is both the exception, plus it demonstrates my thesis regarding 'coverage'  Who would decal a K4 in Rio Grande or even B. & O. livery?  A nice USRA would fit a lot of things... All those southern railroads, midwestern railroads, the B. & O.... not to mention all those Just Me and Pacific freelance outfits running out there.

Whatelse...??  Here ya go!  How about a Sierra #38 2-6-6-2?  Yeah... Mantua covered it- sorta- but a full-on, high-quality logging Mallet like the #38... I'd buy three or four!  After these 4-4-0s, I think they're looking for a Big un.  Although, I'd love to see a Mogul- a Wabash, maybe?  Actually, I'd love to see an outfit like Bachmann take  on the Yosemite Valley roster!  Wow! Personally, I think it'd be brilliant!  No One would buy JUST ONE!!!

Food for thought, anyway...

Jim Snyder

Question:  The (prototype) Ma & Pa 4-4-0s, as well as most other 4-4-0s have their side rods OUTSIDE of the main rods.  It looks funny- but I looked at plans and photos of the Ma & Pa engines on the 'net and in a 1965 M.R., as well as other 4-4-0s on my  roster- a PFM V. & T. Modern Reno, an Alco brass model of one of these same engines (#6) and a brass S.P. E23 by Fujiyama... ALL run the side rods OUTSIDE of the main rod.  The Spectrum models have the main rods configured convetionally- Main rod outside... I believe it would be easy to move the rod- hopefully, it wouldn't cause the crankpins to back out. 

...and I was just getting ready to congratulate you guys for breaking something that wasn't even fixed yet...